Should prostitution and incestuous/polygamous/etc. marriages be legalized?

[-Cynthia-]

Wouldn't it just be better for the government to give them welfare so that they could get a less...risky job? Maybe I just don't totally understand this, but that sounds like a much more solid solution to me. That's an interesting thought about it potentially lessening human trafficking though.

Economically speaking, it would be better to have these women(and men) performing a service where there is a demand rather than taking more taxpayer dollars. I don't see why prostitution is necessarily risky, as long as protection is used and the prostitutes are treated as normal employees there should be no significant issues- sex is not inherently dangerous.

Edited July 6, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Anacybele]

Pedophilia is an adult being sexually attracted to a child, nothing more, nothing less. I don't see the problems with this.

Uh, because children shouldn't be having sex regardless of who it is that's attracted to them? They should be going to school and having fun, not having fucking sex. They shouldn't really be looking for boyfriends/girlfriends either because obviously, that can lead to sex.

polygamy and incest are their own kettle of fish which will probably not be taboo at some point

but pedophilia?

i'm hopeful that never becomes a norm, because there's a lot more problems with that than the small things that get brought up for incest, or the smaller things for polyamory.

Except the opposite has happened with incest. Incest was actually not uncommon in medieval royal and noble families, as it was done to keep the bloodline "pure" or whatever. Nowadays, it's banned pretty much everywhere.

[Balcerzak]

Uh, because children shouldn't be having sex regardless of who it is that's attracted to them? They should be going to school and having fun, not having fucking sex. They shouldn't really be looking for boyfriends/girlfriends either because obviously, that can lead to sex.

You seem to completely miss the point that having sex with children is not a necessary condition for pedophilia. If they're attracted to children but not having sex with children, then what is the problem? I'm not sure how to ask this any more straightforwardly. The post you quoted was pretty plain-spoken about the matter as well.

[blah the Prussian]

Uh, because children shouldn't be having sex regardless of who it is that's attracted to them? They should be going to school and having fun, not having fucking sex. They shouldn't really be looking for boyfriends/girlfriends either because obviously, that can lead to sex.

Except the opposite has happened with incest. Incest was actually not uncommon in medieval royal and noble families, as it was done to keep the bloodline "pure" or whatever. Nowadays, it's banned pretty much everywhere.

Not true at all. The majority of marriages in the Middle Ages were to faraway families in the interest of alliances. Purity had nothing to do with it. Incest only became prominent during the era of the House of Hapsburg, and the Hapsburgs made it pretty hard not to because their family extended to fucking everyone. It was also prominent during the Victorian era, because Victoria married her children to the other royal families. Incest became taboo because it's effects were clearly shown primarily in the Tsarevitch Alexei, who had Haemophilia because his mother and father were both carriers for incest. History lesson over. *crawls back into secret lair*

[Rapier]

You seem to completely miss the point that having sex with children is not a necessary condition for pedophilia. If they're attracted to children but not having sex with children, then what is the problem? I'm not sure how to ask this any more straightforwardly. The post you quoted was pretty plain-spoken about the matter as well.

Pedophilia is still bad because it is unhealthy. Since a pedophile who doesn't want to harm children will not satisfy his sexual needs, one can imagine how it harms his sanity. This is why there are pedophiles who need to take their medicines.

And since pedophilia is the desire to have sexual intercourse with children, that is, an action that harms someone else, it's no wonder that it's still a taboo. No one's guilty for their desires, but this desire itself is bad.

[-Cynthia-]

You seem to completely miss the point that having sex with children is not a necessary condition for pedophilia. If they're attracted to children but not having sex with children, then what is the problem? I'm not sure how to ask this any more straightforwardly. The post you quoted was pretty plain-spoken about the matter as well.

Pedophilia doesn't so much fall under the category of legal vs. illegal(since it's thoughts, not a behavior), so much as healthy vs. unhealthy. If somebody fantasized about killing everyone they know, I think most of us would agree that these thoughts are not healthy and they should seek psychological help of some kind. Pedophilia would be similar one would think.

[Anacybele]

You seem to completely miss the point that having sex with children is not a necessary condition for pedophilia. If they're attracted to children but not having sex with children, then what is the problem? I'm not sure how to ask this any more straightforwardly. The post you quoted was pretty plain-spoken about the matter as well.

Except it is necessary, because a pedophile is SEXUALLY attracted to kids, meaning they wish to have sex with them. So pedophiles have to be controlled and on medication, thus it's illegal to have a relationship like that with a kid.

Not true at all. The majority of marriages in the Middle Ages were to faraway families in the interest of alliances. Purity had nothing to do with it. Incest only became prominent during the era of the House of Hapsburg, and the Hapsburgs made it pretty hard not to because their family extended to fucking everyone. It was also prominent during the Victorian era, because Victoria married her children to the other royal families. Incest became taboo because it's effects were clearly shown primarily in the Tsarevitch Alexei, who had Haemophilia because his mother and father were both carriers for incest. History lesson over. *crawls back into secret lair*

Well yeah, this happened too. If a royal/noble wasn't married to someone in their family, they were married to someone far away to secure an alliance. But the point is that incest happened more in the past than it does now, regardless of how prominent it actually was in the past.

[Blaze The Great]

Economically speaking, it would be better to have these women(and men) performing a service where there is a demand rather than taking more taxpayer dollars. I don't see why prostitution is necessarily risky, as long as protection is used and the prostitutes are treated as normal employees there should be no significant issues- sex is not inherently dangerous.

Ok, I see. As long as we don't bring up the morality of prostitution in this thread, that seems like a solid point.

[Rapier]

"Change" isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if it's just for the sake of "changing" and "shaking up" the allegedly "stale" and "monotonous" world. "Change" and "progress" aren't necessarily synonyms.

Indeed, the meaning of evolution is not necessarily related to becoming better. It usually is, but not always. What evolution always denotes by necessity is a change. Whether that change is good or not is another question.

So changing one's mind for the sake of proggress and evolution isn't necessarily good. I don't need to change my mind if these changes are harmful, imoral or ilogical. Rather, I'd say people who change their mind merely because of conformism to "proggress" are being illogical.

Uh, regarding prostitutes, I am not sure if they want their job to be legalized. Don't workers pay an extra tax based on their salaries in the US? If the answer is yes, then it is plausible.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Rapier

[Balcerzak]

Pedophilia is still bad because it is unhealthy. Since a pedophile who doesn't want to harm children will not satisfy his sexual needs, one can imagine how it harms his sanity.

I imagine it harms the pedophile's sanity just as much as it would a straight dude who can't ever get laid (for reasons of awkwardness, shyness, or catholic vows of abstinence) has his sanity harmed by his inability to satisfy his sexual desires.

Except it is necessary, because a pedophile is SEXUALLY attracted to kids, meaning they wish to have sex with them.

Desiring sex is not the same as obtaining sex. How can I make this clearer for you? Edited July 6, 2015 by Balcerzak

[Florete]

Pedophilia is still bad because it is unhealthy. Since a pedophile who doesn't want to harm children will not satisfy his sexual needs, one can imagine how it harms his sanity. This is why there are pedophiles who need to take their medicines.

And since pedophilia is the desire to have sexual intercourse with children, that is, an action that harms someone else, it's no wonder that it's still a taboo. No one's guilty for their desires, but this desire itself is bad.

So you're basically saying that people must have sex or they will lose their sanity. Seriously? I somehow doubt all pedophiles, who are also people, lack such self-control.

[Rapier]

I imagine it harms the pedophile's sanity just as much as it would a straight dude who can't ever get laid (for reasons of awkwardness, shyness, or catholic vows of abstinence) has his sanity harmed by his inability to satisfy his sexual desires.

The problem is, while someone who's frustrated by one of these factors is also harmed, their desire, if put in practice, will not harm anyone (I'm excluding rape as an option). A pedophile's desire is always harmful when put in practice, however.

And it's only normal for us to be against desires that harm others in practice. Hence why pedophilia is essencially morally wrong.

So you're basically saying that people must have sex or they will lose their sanity. Seriously? I somehow doubt all pedophiles, who are also people, lack such self-control.

No, I'm not. You magnified what I said to a more absurd proportion, I'm afraid. I'm saying that this strong desire to get into a sexual intercourse with children (and let's be honest, sex is one of the basic desires of humans in the pyramid of needs, so it's not a simple deal) is harmful to one's sanity, not that it takes their sanity away. I'm sure there must be pedophiles who control themselves, but not all people can bear this. Some pedophiles take medicines in order to not succumb to their desires. I inductively think it must be pretty strong, in basis of this. Their self-control might help them avoid practicing it, but the psychological influence is still there.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Rapier

[Espinosa]

So you're basically saying that people must have sex or they will lose their sanity. Seriously? I somehow doubt all pedophiles, who are also people, lack such self-control.

The big difference is that a paedophile "losing control" will result in a heinous crime and a child's loss of sanity and innocence. If a Catholic goes out and has sex (shy/awkward people have less restraints and should achieve so more easily in spite of poor luck and complexes, I would guess), nobody really suffers out of it, and you can never tell if it's really a worse scenario for the Catholic himself.

[Rapier]

Not to mention a monk can simply drop their vows and do whatever they want, even if it is unlikely for one to do so. They're not imprisoned to their vows, they made their choice by their own volition, contrary to the shy/awkward/pedophile who is heavily influenced psychologically.

And I'm sure the person who is abstained from sex for religious purposes is also happy for serving some religious commandment and following their faith, contrary to the shy/awkward/pedophile who is stuck in their condition without having a say in it.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Rapier

[Espinosa]

The number of paedophile monks is apparently a good bit higher than one would hope to discover, or the number of monks who are sexually active.

I like how you list "shy/awkward/pedophile" together as if it were a homogeneous lol; the shy and the awkward are sure to get laid by just being more visible socially (since finding a partner is in a way like finding a job; gotta try a lot), and in the worst case could hire a prostitute. I suppose a paedophile can also satiate own urges without involving any children? Well, I doubt anyone here would know that.

[Rapier]

I didn't... It was Balcerzack who linked shy, awkward, devotes who make abstinence vows and pedophiles in the first place. My reply was to him.

I imagine it harms the pedophile's sanity just as much as it would a straight dude who can't ever get laid (for reasons of awkwardness, shyness, or catholic vows of abstinence) has his sanity harmed by his inability to satisfy his sexual desires.

There's plenty of difference between a pedophile and the other cases.

[blah the Prussian]

The point is that incest was never taboo for moral reasons, but the practical flaws became apparent with science of course!

[Rapier]

The point is that incest was never taboo for moral reasons, but the practical flaws became apparent with science of course!

You don't need science to notice that having children with people inside your family makes it more likely for them to bear deficient children, you just need an observative mind and cases to work with. It doesn't require such deep analysis.

I even think that is why incest became morally wrong in the first place, but that's just baseless conjecture.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Rapier

[Skynstein]

I'm against legalizing polygamy because it would be a horrible legal mess, especially if kids are involved. It would basically turn marriage into corporate law, which IMO isn't in the spirit of constituting a family nowadays.

I'm not against legalizing incest but there are "consequences", genetically speaking.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Cerberus87

[blah the Prussian]

You don't need science to notice that having children with people inside your family makes it more likely for them to bear deficient children, you just need an observative mind and cases to work with. It doesn't require such deep analysis.

I even think that is why incest became morally wrong in the first place, but that's just baseless conjecture.

Yeah, fair enough.

[Chiki]

I've changed the title of this thread since I think the argument for the legalization of prostitution is very similar to that if legalizing incestuous marriages, etc.

So what do you guys think?

[Skynstein]

I've changed the title of this thread since I think the argument for the legalization of prostitution is very similar to that if legalizing incestuous marriages, etc.

So what do you guys think?

Apples and oranges.

[Draco]

I guess if they really want to sell their bodies for money, then... I dunno.

But sometimes it's a poor college or high school student who just needs to do it to get the money to get by and it could scar them for life or something. Yeah I guess only if they're absolutely sure they want to do it, not need to.

[Topazd]

Legalization could actually bring some sanitary standards into the business, as well as reinforce the rights of the prostitutes themselves. I'd say yes, under the condition of strict regulations.

Apples and oranges.

Also this.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Topazd

[dondon151]

You don't need science to notice that having children with people inside your family makes it more likely for them to bear deficient children, you just need an observative mind and cases to work with. It doesn't require such deep analysis.

somewhat related: anyone who has read gabriel garcia marquez's one hundred years of solitude will remember that ursula had fears of her children being born with a pig's tail even though the setting of the novel at that point in time is like rural 1860s colombia.