Debate Guide: Child sexualisation and objectification: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
:''"If kids are constantly having sex, what is to stop them interpreting every relationship as sexual, and most dangerously, believing that they must act sexually to please adults, or that they are only valued as sex objects?"''
__NOTOC__
[[File:Pexels-anastasia-shuraeva-7204128.jpg|thumb|Multiple generations have been bombarded with both sexual marketing, and reactionary messaging claiming that "sexualisation" is epidemic]]
<blockquote><font color="green">
'''''If minors are permitted to engage in sexual activity, what is to stop our <u>descent to outright [[degeneracy]]</u> by way of the "sexual marketplace" working its way to a logical conclusion?'''''  


So what if adults are "constantly having sex" (however you define that)? The assumption in your argument is that sexual arousal and gratification is going to be the status-quo, even if younger people are simply allowed to take part within the law. You assume that of all emotions, sexuality will be the ultimate "force" that "poisons" or "takes over" all of a child's relationships. This is nonsensical. If it is not the case for adults, what reason can you provide to suggest that it would be the case for younger people? And what could your argument be tacitly admitting about the normal, sexual drives of those who are currently prohibited from sexual activity?
'''''We will be left with a generation of minors and young adults who believe they <u>must act</u> sexually to please older people; that their <u>only value is as sex objects</u>!'''''</font>
</blockquote>


This argument is also nonsensical because it is built upon the assumption that the success of a sexually bonded adult - minor coupling is only to be judged against a sexual standard. [[Debate Guide: Respond to rhetoric|This article]] goes into detail about how this is a rather basic flaw in thinking about alien concepts. Another assumption is that the freedom to pursue these contacts brings about the "risk" of nearly every relationship of that minor turning "sexual". At the same time, we know that children learn the relevance of various forms of care, responsibility, etc. Moreover, we know that even babies can soundly rely on different adults for different life purposes - mother, nanny, doctor, affectionate sibling, for example. Young people know what their elders value and when allowed to, act rationally to satisfy these preferences in "normal" relationships. So why should basic sexual pleasure be any different in a sexually emancipated, taboo-free society?
The argument that ''adults'' "constantly having sex" with one another (if they aren't already) may result from an initial moderate reform, is a type of slippery slope fallacy (see below). The argument as stated above, also fails to explain why that outcome would be (or is already) a bad thing, relying on reactionary historical assumptions concerning "[[degeneracy]]" and societal collapse.


There are also problems with your seeing sexual relationships as especially 'objectifying'. All this demonstrates is that your views regarding these, if not, all sexual relationships and behaviours are fundamentally negative! We have to be careful before casting externally derived self-worth in a negative light. On many issues (including sex but also economics, religion, and platonic relationships) there are many popular sentiments for which people are obligated to others first and themselves second. Nevertheless, one could say that children in particular, need to be taught to operate by their own judgement and in their own interests first and foremost. They must be taught that all adults are fallible, and that they have an obligation (to themselves) to question the motives and judgement of others if the need arises. If each partner respects the other's self-worth, rational self-interest will lead them to work together with an enthusiasm not otherwise possible.
Rights and agency for young people are what pro-reform individuals are seeking, with respect to say, minors participating in online fiction spaces and having incrementally more control over their bodies as they enter their teens. If fully emancipated adults (who vary widely in power) have not reached this state of frenzied hyper-sexuality today, what reason can your opponent provide to suggest that it would be the case for younger people tomorrow? What do these suspicions say about how society really perceives young peoples' sexuality ''vs'' the fantasy of keeping them in a state of [[Childhood Innocence|perpetual innocence]]? Assuming [[Research: Cognitive ability|(falsely)]] young minds are so malleable and fallible, would young people really have [[Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic|evolved]] to become not only so highly sexed, but capable of procreation? Who, or what is seeking to use this to their advantage, and how are they using culture to manipulate young minds?


Finally, if sex objectifies, just how many other things else can? If sex objectifies because of its seductive power, then why are we problematising it as something negative and not only forbidding certain people access to sexual outlet with partners of their choice, but hiding from sight the sexual meanings that will allow them to deal with this power?
==Paranoia==
 
When addressing this argument in most contexts, you want to use nit-picking and sophistry to force the person using it to deploy increasingly paranoid, reactionary and conspiratorial tropes. Once they have run out of problematic arguments, they will either back down, repeat themselves or say something even more absurd. After all, most of these arguments rely on extant religious fears centering on original sin and temptation, the idea ''sexuality'' is some insidious force that "poisons" or "takes over" a person's entire life.
 
This argument is also highly sexualizing towards minor-minor and minor-adult relationships, erasing the importance of [[Research: Nonsexual aspects|platonic aspects]]. [[Debate Guide: Misdefinitions and Rhetorical Manipulation|This article]] goes into detail about that rather basic flaw in thinking about concepts that are alien to the beholder.
 
==Is "sex" objectifying?==
 
There are also problems with conceptualizing "sexual" relations as especially 'objectifying'. All this appears to demonstrate is sex-negativity or [[erotophobia]] in your opponent; the will by one political constituency in society to seize upon a positive evaluation of an individual's relationship and reinterpret it as vicious and shameful. With respect to sex (money, religion, platonic relationships, or indeed anything) young people must be taught that all adults are fallible, and they have an obligation (to themselves) to question the motives and judgment of others if the need arises. If each partner respects the other's self-worth, rational self-interest will lead them to work together with an enthusiasm not otherwise possible.
 
Finally, if sex is uncontrollable, present in young people and inherently objectifying, what ''is'' a healthy sexuality? Is repression really an answer?
 
==Slippery slope==
 
When expressed as per the lede of this article, this argument qualifies as a [[Wikipedia:Slippery slope|slippery slope]] fallacy (a type of informal fallacy). This may also be known as a domino, or "thin end of the wedge" fallacy.


==See also==
==See also==


*[[Sexualisation]] - a fundamental flaw in the concept.
*[[Sexualization]] - a fundamental flaw in the concept.
*[[Text of Human Rights and the denial of sexual freedom]] - Anti-erotophobic text.


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]

Latest revision as of 18:43, 14 April 2024

Multiple generations have been bombarded with both sexual marketing, and reactionary messaging claiming that "sexualisation" is epidemic

If minors are permitted to engage in sexual activity, what is to stop our descent to outright degeneracy by way of the "sexual marketplace" working its way to a logical conclusion?

We will be left with a generation of minors and young adults who believe they must act sexually to please older people; that their only value is as sex objects!

The argument that adults "constantly having sex" with one another (if they aren't already) may result from an initial moderate reform, is a type of slippery slope fallacy (see below). The argument as stated above, also fails to explain why that outcome would be (or is already) a bad thing, relying on reactionary historical assumptions concerning "degeneracy" and societal collapse.

Rights and agency for young people are what pro-reform individuals are seeking, with respect to say, minors participating in online fiction spaces and having incrementally more control over their bodies as they enter their teens. If fully emancipated adults (who vary widely in power) have not reached this state of frenzied hyper-sexuality today, what reason can your opponent provide to suggest that it would be the case for younger people tomorrow? What do these suspicions say about how society really perceives young peoples' sexuality vs the fantasy of keeping them in a state of perpetual innocence? Assuming (falsely) young minds are so malleable and fallible, would young people really have evolved to become not only so highly sexed, but capable of procreation? Who, or what is seeking to use this to their advantage, and how are they using culture to manipulate young minds?

Paranoia

When addressing this argument in most contexts, you want to use nit-picking and sophistry to force the person using it to deploy increasingly paranoid, reactionary and conspiratorial tropes. Once they have run out of problematic arguments, they will either back down, repeat themselves or say something even more absurd. After all, most of these arguments rely on extant religious fears centering on original sin and temptation, the idea sexuality is some insidious force that "poisons" or "takes over" a person's entire life.

This argument is also highly sexualizing towards minor-minor and minor-adult relationships, erasing the importance of platonic aspects. This article goes into detail about that rather basic flaw in thinking about concepts that are alien to the beholder.

Is "sex" objectifying?

There are also problems with conceptualizing "sexual" relations as especially 'objectifying'. All this appears to demonstrate is sex-negativity or erotophobia in your opponent; the will by one political constituency in society to seize upon a positive evaluation of an individual's relationship and reinterpret it as vicious and shameful. With respect to sex (money, religion, platonic relationships, or indeed anything) young people must be taught that all adults are fallible, and they have an obligation (to themselves) to question the motives and judgment of others if the need arises. If each partner respects the other's self-worth, rational self-interest will lead them to work together with an enthusiasm not otherwise possible.

Finally, if sex is uncontrollable, present in young people and inherently objectifying, what is a healthy sexuality? Is repression really an answer?

Slippery slope

When expressed as per the lede of this article, this argument qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy (a type of informal fallacy). This may also be known as a domino, or "thin end of the wedge" fallacy.

See also

Retrieved from "https://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_Child_sexualisation_and_objectification&oldid=25454"