Debate Guide: Child sexualisation and objectification: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
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?"''
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''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?'''''</font></blockquote>
So what if ''adults'' are "constantly having sex" with each other (however that is defined)? One false assumption of this argument is that we will be faced with an orgiastic tidal wave of sexual arousal, gratification and depravity, if younger people are given as much as minimal rights and agency. If this is not the case for fully emanipated adults today, what reason can your opponent provide to suggest that it would be the case for younger people tomorrow? All this argument's airing proves is the paranoid psychology of your opponent, in that they assume, of all emotions and experiences, ''sexuality'' will be the ultimate "force" that "poisons" or "takes over" all of a minor's relationships. This is of course, nonsensical and nothing but tacit admission of so-called "normal/healthy" sexuality among minors.


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?
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: Misdefinitions and Rhetorical Manipulation|This article]] goes into detail about how this rather basic flaw in thinking about concepts that are alien to the beholder.


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: Misdefinitions and Rhetorical Manipulation|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?
==Is "sex" objectifying?==


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.  
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.  
 
On many issues (including sex but also economics, religion, and platonic relationships) people are also obligated to others first and themselves second. Nevertheless, in the modern world, one could say that minors in particular need to be taught to operate by their own judgment 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 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 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?
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?
Line 12: Line 15:


*[[Sexualisation]] - a fundamental flaw in the concept.
*[[Sexualisation]] - 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]]

Revision as of 11:20, 1 August 2022

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?

So what if adults are "constantly having sex" with each other (however that is defined)? One false assumption of this argument is that we will be faced with an orgiastic tidal wave of sexual arousal, gratification and depravity, if younger people are given as much as minimal rights and agency. If this is not the case for fully emanipated adults today, what reason can your opponent provide to suggest that it would be the case for younger people tomorrow? All this argument's airing proves is the paranoid psychology of your opponent, in that they assume, of all emotions and experiences, sexuality will be the ultimate "force" that "poisons" or "takes over" all of a minor's relationships. This is of course, nonsensical and nothing but tacit admission of so-called "normal/healthy" sexuality among minors.

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. This article goes into detail about how this 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.

On many issues (including sex but also economics, religion, and platonic relationships) people are also obligated to others first and themselves second. Nevertheless, in the modern world, one could say that minors in particular need to be taught to operate by their own judgment 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 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 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?

See also

Retrieved from "https://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_Child_sexualisation_and_objectification&oldid=13550"