Good point teejay. I still have not heard anyone be able to define rape and/or unwanted sexual advances, either currently or historical, as moral, i.e. certain situations in which it could be considered okay. However, I do feel I need to say something about this:
The taboo about sex with minors is also a cultural construct. In Greece and Rome for example the practice was normal and without apparent harm to the child. It was deemed recreation for both parties and an honor to the boy. It is apparently only when this practice runs counter to the cultural norms that the child perceives itself as different,unclean, a victim and abused. This then is the source of the emotional damage.
I will not debate the semantics of whether sex with children is a cultural construct. However to say that there is no emotional damage runs counter to what we know today. Children who have sex with adults, whether "consenual" or not, are harmed and badly by the experience. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Multiple Personality Disorder, major depression, suicide, acting out (abusing other children), anger problems are among the many issues that these children deal with when they are adults. And this is only what we know today. There easily could be other behaviors and issues that stem from child abuse that are not fully understood in 2003. Obviously PTSD, MPD, etc. were unknown 2,000 years ago, but that does not change basic human behavior. If people feel, behave and react this way today, they would have done so similarly 2,000 years ago. I'm not talking about individuals. I am referring to the vast majority. I am certain there are individual children who want or enjoy sex with an adult, but that is not the case for most and it is not reasonable to believe that would be different 2,000 years ago.
I am most troubled by the sentence: " It is apparently only when this practice runs counter to the cultural norms that the child perceives itself as different,unclean, a victim and abused.
This sounds exactly like some of the stuff coming from NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). They, and others like them, believe that sex with children is not harmful to the child and it is only others' reactions to it that causes the child harm. Lady Lee recently posted something from someone of this ilk who said he would like to see a 20 year study on 12 year old boys in "loving" relationships with pedophiles.
Again let me repeat, it is clear, from everything known about the human mind, both adult and child, that an active sexual relationship with a child causes the child innumerable problems.
In the context of ancient Greece and Rome, let point out a couple of issues. History is inevitably written by the victors. Adult survivors of child abuse are often not accepted or taken seriously today, in what is arguably the most enlightened and advanced period in human history. By that I am referring to the multiple symptoms adult surivors deal with. I cannot help but feel that in ancient Rome a woman suffering from MPD, or a man with PTSD resulting from this "loving relationship" would not have been understood nor would the condition have been treated.
As far as the relationship being consensual, let me point out that in those societies slavery was also commonplace and often considered "beneficial" for the slave. Does anyone want to make the argument that slavery, under the right conditions, is beneficial to the slave? When in history was slavery good?
And what were the childrens' options at that point? If they were even allowed to refuse, what life were many of them leading? Emperor Tiberius referred to the boys he raped as "minnows". They were required to swim naked with him and play with his genitals until he selected one of them to rape. Do we know the background of the "minnows"? Do we know whether the families they came from were rich or poor? Were they living hand to mouth before they were selected? Is it reasonable to believe that most (but not all) of their backgrounds were probably poor, where everyday was a struggle just to stay alive? In this context, the choice (if they had the option) was clear: they could be sex slaves and live in wealth and splendor or face an early death from disease, starvation, etc. Good lord, prostitutes walking the streets today face that dilemma. Is anyone going to make the argument that being a teenage prostitue walking the streets is beneficial to the girl or boy?
teejay is correct however. This thread started out questioning whether there are moral absolutes. I will not argue that in ancient Rome and Greece sex with children was always considered immoral. There were many, if not most, situations were it was indeed considered okay, at least by what we know from their records. My problem comes from when someone tries to say that such a relationship is NOT harmful. And so I've felt the need to hijack this thread to answer this statement.
Now then, maybe the question (at least on this part of the topic) should be whether sex with children should be considered a moral absolute, as in it is always wrong. I'm not going to argue about Rome and Greece, it was part of their society and it is clear they did not care about the impact such relationships had on the children. Is that attitude morally wrong? Is that, sex with children, to be considered as always wrong, under any circumstances?
