Holmes & Tal: Harm

Explanation of topic proposal:This thread is a spin of, from the Moral Judgements thread, where pedophilia was raised as a topic during debate. Subsequently comments were made, that sexual activity was not harmful to anyone regardless of age. This incited heated debate, which was somewhat of topic to moral judgement, and more to do with generalisations and harm. ShazNOTE: Original post edited, to remove bias from the current start from scratch arena.This message has been edited by Shaz, 15 January 2005 12:44 AM

Thank you for choosing to reopen this Jar, it shows that this is a site which does not shirk from sensitive issues. I assure you that I am not the type to treat people with disrespect anyway. Thanks again.Shaz

Holmes indeed I may have your position a bit wrong. I have certainly been following the posts and I agree with much of what you propose. My beef is though (apologies admin if this is considered personal), you made a generalised statement. I gave you opportunity to rephrase it, yet you refused and said that you still stood by it.
Again your comment: Now Holmes that is a generalisation, and one that is wrong, which I evidenced on the other thread this afternoon. Forgive me but I am slightly disturbed and even emotive about this, particularly as I requested for you to rephrase the original comment.Subsequently I now hold a personal bias toward discussion with you, and until this matter is addressed I don't believe we can move forward. That would be a shame, because I see in many many of your posts, that you make valid and reasonable points. Therefore my position is that this is not something that can just be discarded, not when children die in situations directly applicable to that comment.My stand may be considered to be unrealistic, or illogical, but for even one life, I will continue to make it. For the record I take this view with all things, and you will find me equally defensive of abuse toward perpetrators if you had made a similar generalisation.Shaz

Holmes:I must apologise for my emotive reasoning in my last post, I was tired and I allowed that to affect my response. I'm sorry for that. Attempting to recognise what someone means with this medium, can only come from the interpretation of words and context, and in that lies many variables. Therefore I consider it reasonable that the interpretation of something may indeed be different to what the writer intended. I personally hold the view, if in doubt, seek clarification. If that is not forthcoming, then I can only interpret the comment on content, in accordance with the words and my understanding of them. By generalisations in your comment, yes I did interpret it as such. Blanket statements (generalisations) are indicative of an ‘all component’. You did this by your use of the words, ‘to anyone’, ‘no harm’, ‘no evidence’, and ‘any age’. I only illustrate this, because I would like to state for the record, that emotive positions are usually irrelevant to me when challenging an issue. I try to argue points on a technical basis, I should have been a lawyer. I will usually state though if I am emotive, use ‘lol’ or , anything else is normally clinical. I do not know of any medical condition that could not be construed to be injurious in a physiological sense; albeit I may be wrong. Sorry Holmes I cannot agree, on your basis of using ‘simply cannot’. If you had said ‘there are some sexual activities which usually do not cause sexual harm’, then I would have agreed. However this is again a separate argument, because one then gets into the measurement of harm on a cultural, physical and psychological basis. Agreed they do not cause infection, but they can still be a cause of infection. As you said yourself, it is a potentially harmful act, when one knowingly takes part in sexual activities whilst infected. Simple cause and affect basis applies, cause ~ the act, effect ~ contact with infection source. Therefore, the act can be the source and subsequently 'the cause' of infection, but I would not say that, ‘the act is the cause’. Again we argue semantics Holmes, but we do it so well don’t you think. Agreed, but if you had made that statement I would likely have challenged it too. Unfortunately Holmes I am still unable to agree, because your statement implies that there is an absolute of ‘no evidence’, and by saying ‘to anyone’, you apply a standard measurement of harm to all. What is hearsay to one, is fact to another, what is evidence to one, is chopped liverwurst to another, your own signature says as much.I would say, ‘Generally sexual activity does not cause harm, unless inappropriately applied’. Now the measurement of inappropriate is again another argument. However I believe that allows individual measurement to be applied with respect to cultures and the actual individuals, interpretation of ‘harm’, i.e. a culture that allows sexual relations with minors, may only consider it inappropriate if there was harm contrary to that custom, or the rights of the individuals concerned. It is entirely likely, that there will never be a complete agreement reached between us on this issue. For the record: I am also quite aware that I am being pedantic. I don't mean anything personal toward you by that, it is simply my response to generalisations used with sensitive topics. We may very well be at an impasse. Therefore we could choose to drop this whole thing, or simply agree to disagree with what has passed, choose a topic and start again.
Do you have a preference?Shaz

Ah Holmes, the waters are always muddy, aren't they? Partially agree, it appears you are saying that sexual activity with an 'infected' person is a cause of infection. Based on contact alone is not relevant, because I can share a home with a HIV person and not contract the condition. Therefore there needs to be a particular type of contact, hence why I said, 'sexual activity can be a cause of infection'.The cold scenario is a little weighted, as the means of contraction is different, it merely requires me to inhale the airborne virus, whereas an STD requires a sexual act. This is irrelevant to another person, I can equally have infected myself (as ludicrous as it sounds, it is possible albeit extremely unlikely, if one was to borrow someone's vibrator). Now this in no way implies that sex in general causes infection, it merely states that a sexual activity has to occur for there to be infection. Semantics, Pedantics, I know. lol I will equally have to stand by my statement, because you are applying one measuring stick of harm in relation to all. Now of course I am from a Western culture, where psychological trauma is becoming almost a norm. Regardless of where they stem from though, they do exist, and for that reason I can not endorse anything which applies the standard of harm as merely being relevant to a generalised interpretation of harm. To do so, would imply that what I see and experience in my culture in relation to individuals, and their perspectives of harm is not real. That then brings into question psychosomatic tendencies, and culural bias, again another argument. Indeed you are right, and specific conditions, includes environmental and information. We are not talking morality here though Holmes, we are talking the intricate relativity of harm.

Environmental ~ one could not apply the same measuring stick to a sexual act with a child in the western culture, to a child in some other culture that practices open sexual interaction with minors or vice versa. Now indeed it may not be the activity per se which may necessarily be harmful, but to use the term harm in context of an activity encompassing 'all', is ascribing a value system, that harm is of equal value across all environments. For example, to have 'consensual' sex with a child of 14 may not appear to be directly harmful, but if you did that in front of his school mates it could result in harm of a psychological nature. Which is why I believe it is a misinterpretation to apply a standardised rule of harm, to sexual activity. In doing so one almost gives carte blanche to the interpretation of both. This is also interwoven with information.

​

Information ~ the cognitive condition is equally applicable, because a person may consent to something based on the extent of their knowledge, or immediate social and environmental condition. Once one views a different system it can change all manner of things, i.e. someone may tell me that the hot plate can never burn me, I do not know this as fact but I take it as such, until one day I turn the hot plate on and I burn myself. Equally I grow up in a home and an environment that practices racism, and I act accordingly toward others. Until one day I come to realise that I am not of supreme value to anyone else, is therefore the knowledge and/or subsequent guilt of prior actions not real to me?

​

Now the idea of supreme value is what I personally believe is responsible for most all manner of actions regardless of cultural environment. In this I see actions as stemming from a belief that what one knows (believes to be truth) is more than what the next person knows, and indeed this could never be judged. Therefore to apply my standards as being equal to another would be an act of supremacy. It is for this reason that I attempt to apply a, 'minimise harm' standard to all that I do. In my interaction with people, I consider who they are, location, cognitive function, physiological condition, psychological condition and urgency of relevance. That is my personal opinion, and why I choose not to endorse generalised perspectives.

​

I think your argument is really that my general sounding statement must be altered to include the possibility of specific conditions, such that people cannot take it to mean there is no possibility of causing harm while having sex.

​

Indeed my argument is about your generalised statement, but specific conditions would be impossible to achieve. You could spend years working up a list of specific conditions apply them across the board, and then possibly learn that you had still missed one. In doing this you would not be acknowledging one minority group or one person, and that in my opinion removes equal value from them.

​

I was trying to get at a more scientific/objective point which is irrespective of socio-cultural influence. That is must sexual activity inherently cause harm, regardless of culture?

​

Holmes honestly nobody must do anything, and nothing must be applied to anything, my personal opinion is if we removed the word must from the dictionary we might be a happier world. What we do though, is according to our own agenda, and for every action there is a reaction; that is fact.

​

This objective assessment is important as it does affect how people assign blame or wrong.

​

I agree, if we do not use an objective assessment then 'blame' or 'wrong' is assigned subjectively. However using an objective assessment, becomes a contradiction if we apply it in a subjective manner, which is what we do when we generalise. At times I too am guilty of doing this, and when noted address it accordingly, but to ask me to endorse someone else doing it is not feasible given my view.

​

This is arguably a more accurate approach, which science is increasingly accepting, which can and should be applied to all sexual acts, including those involving minors.

​

Such as is arguably done in courts of law, however not everything can come to a court of law. In an 'ideal world', we would be able to be our own law onto ourself, and our interactions with others would respect all. In this there would be no harm intentionally done, there would be no disregard for the rights of others, and there would be most definitely no supremacy of value above another. That is my idealist view, and I realise that, which is why I do not hold it up to anyone else as a measuring stick against them.

​

"There is no evidence that sexual activity inherently causes harm, regardless of age of participants, except through negligent or irresponsible behavior."

​

No affirmation from me on your sentence, as it stands alone, it is regarded as a full view and one that I cannot endorse.

​

"However there is evidence that harm can be generated by environmental factors in which any particular sex act takes place, such as use of violence and fear as well as the general expectations and moral labels cultures may impose on sex acts."

​

Adding this would indeed change the basis of your first sentence. It would also be a direct contradiction of the first statement. In the first you say there is no evidence of harm, in the second you say there is evidence of harm. I make this point because your first sentence still reads as a generalised statement whereas your second states harm being specific to various factors, when indeed I believe not one of us could list all the factors.

​

This would take care of your concerns for allowing cultures to define their own harm, yet recognize it is generated from the environment they have created.

​

Regardless of how it was created, cultures have individual societal customs and that is their reality. That there are also deviations of these customs within individual members of a society is also real. To globalise and give one a polar position in my estimation would be a form of judgement, or act of supremacy on one being of more value than another. Therefore citing individual examples, i.e. causes of harm, is placing a basis on subjective reasoning and interpretation, making a generalised position of harm also allows for interpretation and one standard of measurement. It is in my personal opinion that each of us has an accountability to ensure we are not misinterpreted. That does not mean that such would still not be the case, but it is my belief that by doing what we can to eliminate possible misinterpretations is far better for the world in general.

​

Holmes I would like to break down your statement to further illustrate why I am unable to agree with it.

​

quote:

---

"There is no evidence ~ {that is a matter of perspective and knowledge, it is also implying that your knowledge base is above that of another's, if you said there is no evidence that you know of, it illustrates a personal perspective}

​

that sexual activity ~ {sexual activity is a subjective view, i.e. oral sex can be regarded as being a customary sexual activity by some and not by others}

​

inherently causes harm~ {harm is again subjective, to apply it in an objective context is incorrect, physiological harm may possibly be reasonably applicable, i.e. herpes}

​

regardless of age of participants ~ {again a subjective perspective denoting cognitive development as being measurable, i.e. a child of 12 or a 30 year old with an intellectual disability may not understand the physiological aspect of herpes or subsequent affect on ones welfare}

​

except through negligent or irresponsible behaviour~ {not necessarily the case, one could argue that if one is unaware that they have herpes and then unknowingly affects another that is not negligent or irresponsible, to say that not knowing ones status of health is irresponsible is again a subjective view, who draws the line on what is irresponsible and negligent?}

---

​

I would also like to add; using the terms 'anyone' or 'any age', in conjunction to sexual activity, limits it to a subjective status. One could argue for sex with animals or even sex with a spirit entity (lucky Tal isn't here, he might be horrified ). Therefore in reference to sexual activity, I find the use of any generalised boundary to be subjective.

​

So here is my overall conclusion:

​

Sexual activity is one playing field, harm is another, age is another, what constitutes as evidence is another. Each of these playing fields has hundreds of different correlations, therefore to generalise with anything, though often done it is subjective.

​

Therefore my statement would be:

​

Sexual activity does not cause harm, unless subjectively viewed to do so.
Or

Dependant upon a person's subjective view, sexual activity generally does not cause harm.

​

Perhaps we are still at an impasse Holmes, and it seems as if everyone is leaving us to haggle it out alone.

​

Shaz

​

Edit to add point and clarify statement ~ Holmes I edited post no 1, in an attempt to remove bias of interpretation, to where this topic is currently at (hope that makes sense). Please could you let me know if that is not to your approval?

​

This message has been edited by Shaz, 15 January 2005 17:04 AM

Not sure what you mean here, but I read it that you are saying I am down, as in mood. If that is the case, then I fail to see how you could have drawn that conclusion unless I expressed that to you. No. I am pushing this toward the GENERALISATION of sexual activity, harm, and the ‘regardless of age’, component in your comments, and I always have been, contrary to how it may appear.Inability to assess risk is a very relevant factor, and it is entirely dependant on ones cognitive understanding. Take the first quote in this post for example; you interpreted something and inaccurately. However this medium leads to confusion; the same can be said for someone who is not cognitively developed. Current evidence shows a correlation, between cognitive development, elements of risk taking and subsequent harm.People with an intellectual disability and children are cognitively immature, and subject to confusion in relation to understanding basic elements of many activities. As a result of this confusion, their actions are inherently subject to risk taking and subsequent harm. Therefore including ‘current evidence’, and ‘regardless of age’, in relation to harm in your comment, is a direct contradiction. This can be supported, by current evidence in relation to cognitive immaturity.

The contradiction between age, and current evidence:

​

~ there is evidence to show a direct correlation to cognitive immaturity and activities resulting in harm, including sexual activities. Therefore a generalised statement is not applicable.

​

I do need to stick in "regardless of age" for the purpose of the discussion at hand. I do agree it could be left out in general statements regarding sex.

​

That’s your choice, but in doing so in a generalised statement we will not reach agreement. Generalised statements do not imply division of scenario and/or individual incidents. Your comment is a blanket statement and does not address some incidents, therefore it is inaccurate.

​

Example: An intellectually disabled man, of 30, (age) assaults (sexual activity) an 8 year old (age) causing damage (harm) in the process which requires medical intervention (current evidence of physiological differences). Therefore in this instance sexual activity has caused harm.

​

My point being, that in your generalization you are saying that sexual activity does not cause harm. As a generalization that is not applicable, because sexual activity, and harm, are subjective. You may say that this is a separate incident, and different to general sexual activity. Yet you would be contradicting your own statement as it stands; a generalization by its very nature incorporates all, so there is no room for separate incidences.

​

"current evidence is that time travel is impossible given modern technology". A person may always challenge my statement regarding the actual state of current evidence.

​

Equally they might challenge your use of the word impossible, however citing an example such as this is unequally balanced in relation to the topic we are discussing which is children, and pedophilia.

​

Let’s try my example:

​

'There is current evidence, that men who talk about pedophilia molest children.'
Now this statement is utter rubbish, though in some instances it may be the case, it could not ever be applied as a generalisation toward all men who discuss pedophilia. Therefore as a generalised statement it is as inaccurate, as the 'regardless of age', sexual activity and harm correlation in your statement.

​

Here is where the line is:

​

I have shown that ‘regardless of age’, in relation to harm and sexual activity as a generalisation is inaccurate. Attempting to define a line of sexual activity, as being seperate to one of force, is not possible, because sexual activity is subjective. I have supported that with evidence on another thread, and yet we are still debating that generalisation, which is actually your subjective view. If you want to change this position then my recommendation is that you personalise your comment, by adding ‘I believe’. You will then receive no argument from me, that is your opinion and one I have no bearing on, as you are responsible for your 'belief' whatever it may be.

​

So do you agree:

​

Sexual activity is subjective?

Harm is subjective?

Evidence is subjective?

​

Shaz

​

This message has been edited by Shaz, 16 January 2005 09:14 AM

Another point in relation to generalisation:If I said to you, cars are not dangerous, I would be correct, equally if I said sex is not dangerous, or bullets, or guns, or bombs, equally I would be correct.Bullet = Sex
Gun = Person
Pulling the trigger = ActivityA gun in my hand is not a gun in your hand.

If I say that guns kill, I am wrong.

If I say people kill, I generalise and am wrong.

If I say shooting cause’s death or no death, I would again be generalising and be wrong (I can go target shooting and it will not cause death or I can go and shoot rabbits ~ subjective activity).

If on the other hand I say that shooting can cause death, I do not say it will, and do not say it won’t, I am merely stating the possibility.

​

Therefore if I say sexual activity (shooting) causes no harm, I generalise and would be wrong, but if I say sexual activity can cause harm, it doesn’t mean it will, doesn’t mean it wont, it merely means that there is the potential there for it to.

The down note, you observed was a result of inner turmoil, and is relevant to knowing pedophiles, and supporting them, as I also do with victims. You generalised to do it. You may not like my position, or the argument that I put forth, but I have seen the evidence, and for that reason I took you up on your comment. As for the rest of my position on this, or what I know but cant use, it is irrelevant. Personal is not objective. Given that, I feel that I have done a reasonable job, at remaining objective in this discussion. At the time you made your original statement, I challenged it, you posted that it was typical of people to speak of evidence and then run away. Knowing full well my conflictual position, I came back to show you what evidence I could easily gather and use. The implication you are making that I have not supported my case, I feel is unfounded and unfair. If by undercutting my position you mean, trying to meet you in the middle and be non judgemental, then you could say that. That is simply who I am. I also believe we can make as many generalised statements as we wish, so long as we personalise them. Yes indeed you are right here, and at the time it was a matter of weighing up the heaviest, in relation to the minority groups that I advocate for. However I am not an army, I am one person.I will also state that since we started this discussion, I have seen a post to be totally deragatory and full of assumptions towards yourself. I wanted to challenge that, but decided this one took precedence. Two days ago, I also came across a post where someone used the label 'mental retard'. That one was the most difficult to walk away from, but as I stated I am but one person, and I had made a commitment to this discussion with you. People are not statistics, or numbers, death, disease, pain, shame, humiliation, are not all measured scientifically. Playing tug of war games in relation to people, is damaging not just to the victim but also to the perpetrator.If you intended for this to be over, you found the way to do it. Cheers Holmes.ShazEdit to add ~ how do I support both groups? Simple, each is an individual, and I treat them that way.This message has been edited by Shaz, 17 January 2005 00:15 AM