Pederasty in ancient Greece, did they get it wrong, or do many nations have it wrong today?

There isn’t a right or wrong when comparing cultural norms, and it is disingenuous at best, and downright arrogant at worst, to view and ancient practice only through a 21st Century First World lens.

Like I told my philosophy professor I’m not getting an A in his class.

^^ I guess that is code for “I can’t prove they were wrong”, or afraid to say in case someone here is Greek and you are slamming their ancestors.

We live in a different age with more advanced standards of morality… I hope.

That’s two different worlds apart…all I can think of, in ancient Greece and Rome, sex and sexual orientations were a lot more carefree than today. People would fuck each other while watching gladiator shows, it was common to have sex with kids, among other things. At the very least, if it is true that such things were the norm, at least children didn’t feel like they had to question it, since it happened to most everyone. Does that make it right?
To me, no. Even without a moral standpoint, sexually transmitted diseases and the like must have happened too often, and that’s something one would wish to avoid, especially in times and cultures where hygiene might not have always been a big priority. Plus I really don’t see the relation between kid fucking and becoming a man. But yeah, worlds apart. :/

@DWW25921 We live in a different age with more advanced standards of morality… I hope.
When you say we of today live in a more advance morality, someone had to sanction it as more moral, and if so, under what authority do they have the power to do so? The fall back reasoning is always, ”—Blank—% of the populace supports or condemns –blank—“ To reduce something as wrong or right based off de facto poll numbers is a very slippery slope. Because those numbers can cut both ways and it would be hard to say something was wrong even if you were able to qualify it by getting most known people to agree, that doesn’t necessarily make it correct. To say today’s morality is more advanced was there a morality summit attended by nearly all nations to determine what the benchmarks for morality was?

@Symbeline That’s two different worlds apart…all I can think of,…]
If one cannot be stood up and measured against the other because of different time and culture, why do so many people try to do that behind so many things, if it is really apples and peas; not even close?

To me, no. Even without a moral standpoint, sexually transmitted diseases and the like must have happened too often, and that’s something one would wish to avoid, especially in times and cultures where hygiene might not have always been a big priority.
I mean do disrespect because you did take a stab at the question, but that answer, to me only, came off like a political answer on the party stump. What you said makes it appear you are against only because they had no way to stem STDs that eventually would kill them, and more than likely spread like wildfire for quite a while until it got contained. One could say if they had rubbers or medicine for STDs then you would be in agreement of it or at least acquiesce and say nothing. Seeing that today we do have rubbers and STD medicine, if some rich old guys wanted to set up a community modeled after that time in Greece and bribe enough politicians in some small impoverished to look the other way while they set up their Nuevo Greek haven, that is them over there, let them do as they please, at least they can practice safe sex. If poush came to shove, that is your only reason to be in the ”con” column and not the ”pro” or neutral?

I’ve always stood by the stance that if an adult can rape a child, if an adult can use the child – because that’s exactly what they’re doing – then those children should have the right to drink, smoke, vote, own guns and other weapons, and anything and everything else under the sun that adults have rights to.

Then there’s the fact that we know through science that kids that young aren’t even capable of analytical thought processes, so they literally aren’t capable of digestng what’s happening and that they’re being taken advantage of and used as sacks of meat for whatever purposes the adult sees fit.

It’s wrong because it isn’t a level playing field, because it scientifically can’t be.

@Symbeline Are you aware that America is probably the most conservative nation that isn’t either Muslim (Sharia law) or some form of dictatorship like North Korea? I think you might want to at least recognize your own bias before you try anything resembling objectivity. We are worlds apart from even other “Western” nations.

@Hypocrisy_Central I would think ingrained in most people is a basic set of moral understanding… Stealing is bad… That sort of thing. Although weed is illegal and I have no problem with it.

@Hypocrisy_Central I did start that with even without a moral standpoint, meaning that I have one, but that I felt it was unnecessary to mention it. With or without STD’s, I do not believe that practice is right. I am most certainly not saying that because protection exists today, that it should be okay. I decided to go on the technical side of it rather than moral, as I didn’t think we’d have to debate on whether it’s right or wrong to do stuff like that to kids and teens.

@jerv Not sure I understand what you’re getting at. I’m aware that there exist other places with completely different cultures, traditions and practices. But he asked about ancient Greece and what I assume to be modern America.
But whatever place he might be asking about in relation to old Greek practices, my answer isn’t changing. Whether it happened then, and where it happens now, I don’t like it.

@Symbeline “But whatever place he might be asking about in relation to old Greek practices, my answer isn’t changing. Whether it happened then, and where it happens now, I don’t like it.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you do measure everything against modern America, and somehow think you would have the same opinion no matter where or when you lived despite the fact that your current opinion is in large part shaped by the culture you grew up in. If so, I find it hard to believe that not one thing that has happened to you since birth has affected how you view the world.

@DrasticDreamer “It’s wrong because it isn’t a level playing field, because it scientifically can’t be.”

By that logic, anyone under the age of 45 is off-limits. I mean, it’s scientifially proven that the human brain isn’t fully mature until then. Seriously, the decision-making part of our brain keeps growing until the late-40s, se even those old enough to become the leader of the free world (35) are immature if you want to go scientific.
As you can guess, it’s probably better to find another justification than the “underdeveloped brain” theory. Even without that study, just looking around me shows that many full-grown adults are incapable of analytical thought, literally unable to digest what’s happening, and being taken advantage of…. but it’s perfectly fine because they have enough candles on their birthday cake to be considered fair game for that sort of abuse.

I’m not trying to be difficult, merely illustrate that it’s all relative as the last two sentences of the original question state.

@jerv Oh, if that’s what you mean, then yeah I guess I am biased. But what else am I supposed to go on, other than what I know and live in? I mean, can you tell me you do any different? Sure, if I was an ancient Greek, I probably wouldn’t think how I do. Not just about this, but plenty of other stuff. It’s not that I want to be a sheep, and ancient Greece was a long time ago, but to me this practice is wrong because I don’t think friendship or teachings between man and boy require sexual favors. Even just thinking on a practical stand, that’s what I come up with, not sure what else to tell you.

@Symbeline That’s perfect, actually. All I was really looking for was an admission that objectivity is difficult as it’s human nature to be biased.

And no, I am not above bias myself; my political stances easily betray the fact that I was raised in the bluer parts of New England.

@jerv No, because even though brains constantly change, by a certain adult age, people are at least capable of analytical thought – children of a certain age aren’t at all and that’s the major difference.

@Hypocrisy_Central Would you consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation in traditional sense? And if so, how do you think society should view/handle it? Not being facetious; genuinely curious of your thoughts.

@jerv As @DrasticDreamer stated, due to the elasticity of brains, they can continue to change well into late life. That is not the equivalent of being “underdeveloped,” as a child’s mind is. Apples to oranges, really.
Plus, the study you provided is a bit of garbage.
Firstly, “mature” in the scientific sense means no longer developing new traits or changing significantly. The growth between the ages of 25–80 (eg) aren’t even comparable to ages 8–17. That’s a given.
Second, they’re discussing things that are highly affected by outside sources, further than physical development. Social behavior? Personality traits? Heavily influenced by environment. There again lies the difference that children physically haven’t the capabilities, while “just looking around me shows that many full-grown adults are incapable of analytical thought” indicates emotional/mental deficiencies (environmental), or disorders (in which case, these people fall into the same protected category as children) in those individuals you’re addressing. We don’t encourage domestic abuse victims to go back to their abusers because we know that it’s wrong, but the victim tends to return because psychologically (not physically) something is off. That doesn’t make it okay. We shouldn’t just turn the other cheek on any kind of abuse.
And lastly, there aren’t any scholarly articles attached, such as the quantitative research findings. I even tried to find her study, to no avail. I wouldn’t necessarily discredit Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, just whoever interpreted her findings and wrote the article.
If you want to go scientific.

@DrasticDreamer Then there’s the fact that we know through science that kids that young aren’t even capable of analytical thought processes, so they literally aren’t capable of digestng what’s happening and that they’re being taken advantage of and used as sacks of meat for whatever purposes the adult sees fit.
So now as we try to use the science to bolster certain moralities, since the average age where a pederasty union started and you state the younger male too immature to truly enter it willingly. What choices can a preteen truly make where they fully understand and need no intervention, or decision making by adults? Are there things now that teens are allowed to do that they have not fully grasped mentally or psychologically that can have far reaching effects on their lives, but are basically left to their own to decide to venture there or not? Is that more correct simply because there is no legal statutes preventing it? Is there a time between when the union starts (around 12) and when it ends (somewhere after the 16th birthday) where the younger male will come to figure out if he is getting shortchanged in the union?

@Symbeline I decided to go on the technical side of it rather than moral, as I didn’t think we’d have to debate on whether it’s right or wrong to do stuff like that to kids and teens.
The only debate would be how we arrived at the same villa because to get there, we surely are taking different paths.

@jerv literally unable to digest what’s happening, and being taken advantage of…. but it’s perfectly fine because they have enough candles on their birthday cake to be considered fair game for that sort of abuse.
A rare instance of agreement, some good points, from what I can deduct is that Analytical is more akin to the ability to figure out and solve problems both complex and simple. I see a lot what you speak of, so long as you have enough candles or lived through a set number of winters here on Earth, you are good to go. What I believe some people want to use is wisdom, the ability to discern if the other person is taking advantage of them. They can’t really use that though, because that would literally be everyone no matter how long they lived. Look at the people who were rooked by Bernie Madoff, many of them were highly educated and I am sure capable of a high level of analytical thinking. I think the questions you introduced need to be here, it truly forces one to examine and re-examine what props them up, and sees if they can withstand the wind.

@PriceisRightx26 Would you consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation in traditional sense? And if so, how do you think society should view/handle it? Not being facetious; genuinely curious of your thoughts.
(I could give the standard Fluther type non-answer, deflect and dodge, but I am not) I am glad you asked. My carnal self would say it is something innate, like a sexual orientation, but not necessarily and active one, but in most cased activated by something that happens in the person’s life. My spiritual mine says it is not so much as an orientation, as other so-called orientations, but a spiritual anomaly. Now, handling it in the natural is different than in the spiritual. How I would handle it in the natural, I would view it as an innate sexual proclivity. Now, even with that, what to do is the conundrum, there is no easy or good way to handle it as it cannot be done solo. There, to me, logically speaking, very few ways to eve n breech the walls of a solution. In the spiritual there is no resolution for it (well, only one) because there is no way to satisfy it and not be in sin. Hopefully you can follow some of that, I did the best I could think at the moment, in the morning I might have a different revelation

@DrasticDreamer In that case, that “science” has enough exceptions to the rule to be invalid. See, science only is valid when there are no repeatable/consistent disproofs. If that were correct, then either those you consider kids are capable of it (I know I was), or there are tens of millions of developmentally disabled “adults” here in the US alone. In neither event can you match a level of analytical ability to a particular age unless you want to be arbitrary.
If you wish to move me on this, then you will have to start by undoing decades of observation of people who just don’t get it… or confirm that anti-intellectualism is so rampant that many “adults” are intentionally using only a fraction of their brain. Otherwise, I am going to continue believing what I have seen; that the only way your argument holds water is if you move the age to at least 25, and probably considerably higher.

@PriceisRightx26 I suppose papers like this, or this are also invalid. (Pay for them yourself if you want them.). If you are feeling frugal, the APA says that reasoning ability stops growing at 16 but emotional maturity doesn’t come until much later (Source) though that contradicts what @DrasticDreamer says science has proven.
But I don’t feel like doing the sort of research normally associated with a college thesis just for an answer here. Fluther has no power to make law, nor is it an accredited educational institution, so I generally don’t treat it as such, nor give it the effort I would if the opinions of strangers on the internet held the same weight as that of Senators or post-doctorate scholars.

****

My point here is that you can argue all sides, and this is one of those things where you are likely to “reason” by taking your stance first and then picking the proofs you want later. And it’s an emotionally charged issue for many as our culture is so strongly protective of children that the type of childhood many my age or older had (riding a bike without a helmet, climbing trees, not using hand sanitizer every time I touched something…) would be unthinkable due to our “evolving sense of enlightenment”.

With that being the case, my opinion is a pretty emphatic, “I don’t know, but I know that you don’t know either.”, and with the scientific community being less-than-unanimous on the issue and a bit imprecise at measuring intangibles, I’m not sure how any rational being could come to a different answer unless they decide to use some arbitrary “standard” based on their own morality rather than anything truly objective. Such is the nature of “wrong” within the context of the original question.

We know that the men who do this in our modern society are predators.

This isn’t the first time you’ve questioned modern moralities regarding sex with under-age kids and incest. I’m wondering if you need help.

I know of people who were ‘taken under an Uncles’ wing and I can’t even begin to tell you the psychological damage it did. It has no place now. None. And if someone tries to twist their logic and use some misunderstood ancient history to justifiy themselves for this sick and predatory behaviour they deserve their ballsacks cut off. And I don’t need a bible to tell me it is wrong, but I’m sure your god had some strong things to say about buggery in that first, older book.

In past societies, they threw sick babies and children off cliffs. Shall we try to somehow defend that as well? How about cannibalism? How about child sacrifice to gods?

@cazzie We know that the men who do this in our modern society are predators.
Because they are outside the law because there is no legal or social vehicle as it was in ancient Greece. Aside from that, it is just personal preference of the populace.

This isn’t the first time you’ve questioned modern moralities regarding sex with under-age kids and incest.
Not knowing if you are directing that to me (as the OP) or @jerv because of the points he made, however, I will say this about that, I question all morality, past, present and future. I also put the challenge to such morality to see if it is unbiased and genuine or reeking of hypocrisy.

I know of people who were ‘taken under an Uncles’ wing and I can’t even begin to tell you the psychological damage it did
Where did that damage really come from, the act itself or how people reacted to it? Maybe you did not read the part where @jerv said ”My point here is that you can argue all sides, and this is one of those things where you are likely to “reason” by taking your stance first and then picking the proofs you want later. And it’s an emotionally charged issue for many as our culture is so strongly protective of children that the type of childhood many my age or older had (riding a bike without a helmet, climbing trees, not using hand sanitizer every time I touched something…) would be unthinkable due to our “evolving sense of enlightenment”.. Back when it was OK to drink from the garden hose no one made a stink of it and kids did not either, nor thought doing so was a detriment to health. He also said, ”Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you do measure everything against modern America, and somehow think you would have the same opinion no matter where or when you lived despite the fact that your current opinion is in large part shaped by the culture you grew up in.” I do not agree with him much, or he with I, but he is not a dumb guy making implausible points, he has made very logical points on this matter if one is really open to see apart from their own bias.

None. And if someone tries to twist their logic and use some misunderstood ancient history to justifiy themselves for this sick and predatory behaviour they deserve their ballsacks cut off.
What is misunderstood about it? How is it misunderstood? If it is an acceptable part of growing up, and no one feels they are being disrespected by it, where is the predatory aspect of it? There might have been those with a predatory disposition to make use of it, same as you have some slacking duggies who would make use of the medical marijuana to get high under the auspice of being treated for a condition and that the weed is their medicine. You coin the word ”sick” then you must have some sanctioning body that has the authority to deem that the Greeks had it wrong and today we have it right, so who are these people, and are there anything immoral anyone can link them too? That is the basis of the whole question, I am inviting you to come up with something concrete that says these people, etc. have the authority to deem the Greeks wrong and whatever modern society correct, and how did they gain that authority?

In past societies, they threw sick babies and children off cliffs. Shall we try to somehow defend that as well? How about cannibalism? How about child sacrifice to gods?
Yes, those are all good points to look at. If one is to use pure logic and get their emotions out of the way, depending on how sickly the baby was, and the dynamics of the community, being nomadic etc. jettisoning dead unproductive responsibilities would make sense, it doesn’t to us today, but to a society back then it might. Same with cannibalism, once you slew your enemies, why take the effort to bury them or dispose of the carcass when it was usable, they are dead, so it is not like they are around to care what you did with there remains. It is not about defending anything, especially if there is no all-inclusive authoritative body backed by science or pure logic that can show by the preponderance of the evidence their stance is right and the Greeks were wrong.

“I question all morality, past, present and future. I also put the challenge to such morality to see if it is unbiased and genuine or reeking of hypocrisy.”

As do I, but apparently doing so earns one the title of “pedophile”. Is it any small wonder that I am of the opinion that we are a society based almost solely on emotion rather than reason, even to the point of anti-intellectualism? But it’s easier to do the name-calling thing than to have a philosophical discussion. Why use your brain to assess anything when it’s so much easier to just go from the heart and start demonizing anything you disagree with?

@jerv NOW YOU STOP THAT! ~~ It is down right scary when you are saying what I would say in agreement, “Is it any small wonder that I am of the opinion that we are a society based almost solely on emotion rather than reason, even to the point of anti-intellectualism?” there is now way I cannot lurve that profound nugget, surely one that will still escape some.

Why use your brain to assess anything when it’s so much easier to just go from the heart and start demonizing anything you disagree with?
Here, here, I agree!

Now stop that are one of us will collapse like the Soviet Union the minute they came to agreement with capitalism over communism.

@jerv I wasn’t calling you a pedophile. I just question highly where the OP’s really motivated from. He spouts on about a god he believes in and is critical of a woman’s right to chose, but somehow, sex with a 12 year old boy is perfectly ok, and to say it isn’t is a social construct that should be questioned and even removed.

@cazzie He spouts on about a god he believes in and is critical of a woman’s right to chose, but somehow, sex with a 12 year old boy is perfectly ok, …]
So now you are going to misquote me and put false words in my mouth? You know what they say of people who assume? I have stated more than once (and I will once more) what my views on what a proper union is and why; which is, in case you missed it last time, is one man, with one woman married, where do you see my approval of the old Greek system in that? Please tell it in open forum so we all can see the error of that.

@cazzie I know, but I’ve seen a different pattern to his questions; one that is pretty much inline with his choice of username.

@jerv Like I said before: Even setting the science aside if it isn’t definitive, if children are used for the purposes of sex, they should be given the exact same rights as adults. Because if it’s argued that it’s not damaging to the children, or argued that children and adults are not actually that different in terms of brain function, then there would be absolutely no reason not to give them all of the same rights and freedoms that adults have. But I doubt most people would be okay with that, either.

@jerv I know, but I’ve seen a different pattern to his questions; one that is pretty much inline with his choice of username.
The pattern is simple to follow, with there being so many trails in so-called morality, my questions seek to find how the morality a person believes came from, or by whom and with authoritative sanction they have to determine it for everyone. I will use illustrations that contradict themselves within that moral system or pitted against another system that is different but opposing view of the 1st. There are no contradictions if people would do as you suggest and way the facts over their personal bias which may have been ingrained throughout their lives.

@DrasticDreamer Even setting the science aside if it isn’t definitive, if children are used for the purposes of sex, they should be given the exact same rights as adults.
Even if you remove the sex, how often are kids waffled between ”paper adults” and kids when there is a buck to be made off of them? Now because that is how it has been done so long and so widely accepted, no one questions it. Why should a child who the adults in charge say cannot enter a contract or conduct legal business until they are 18 have to pay as an adult to get into the movies, right certain modes of transportation, or enter an amusement park? Because of the money, you don’t want it to appear that a 17 year old who shaves twice a week to be getting over on the business by paying what a kid would pay because in actuality, the older teen enjoys more privilege than the preteen.

If the Greeks were able to have these types of relationships without repercussions to the children then for their society it was okay. It is not for us to judge. Based on the damage that is done in our society by similar relationships, it is a little hard for me to imagine that the children were not harmed, but this is from a 21st century perspective. One thing to point out is that with the large number of unmarried mothers in our society, many boys grow up without a good male role model. We tend to assume that the Greek relationships were exploitative, but maybe there was some mutual benefit.

@LostInParadise A well-thought out answer, imagine that? ~ I appreciate that answer. There is one part I would like to ask you, and as said before, not to be difficult or anything but lout of curiosity, Based on the damage that is done in our society by similar relationships, it is a little hard for me to imagine that the children were not harmed, but this is from a 21st century perspective. Do you believe the ”damage” is solely because of the act, or the reaction to it? If you can follow where I am going if one is in a society that makes no issue of something, for illustrative purposes let’s say dwarfism, if 85% if the community is 4ft 5in or shorter, and those who are taller make no issue of height, would the dwarfs feel lessened? But what if the dwarfs were in a society that valued height and statue and took effort every day to point out to the dwarfs the height they did not have. Would the mere fact they were not tall and knew there were taller people in the world make them subconscious, or would they (the dwarfs) make their shortness an mental or psychological issue because people make them feel it is a negative? In the Old Greek system if it was socially acceptable and something to expect, if a teen was pursued and courted by an older man of importance and prominence, he (the young man) might actually feel important himself. It is not like he would be made out to be some toy of the older guy. If in cases where men have made merchandise of boys by threat, bribe, or deception, if society did not tell them they were used or in some way reduced to a tool, would they get through the experience with more self-esteem intact?

You ask a good question, but I just don’t know enough to answer it. My gut reaction to the Greek practice is one of revulsion, but I am trying hard to see this in the widest possible context. So much of how we view the world is culturally dependent without us being aware of it. Just a few hundred years ago slavery was acceptable. It is now so hard to imagine how that could be.

@LostInParadise You ask a good question, but I just don’t know enough to answer it.
Thanks for at least giving it an honest attempt that is all I ever ask for.

@DrasticDreamer You are now seeing the downside to black/white, either/or thinking. Is it not possible that we’ve been wrong all this time and adolescents/teens are neither adults nor children but rather a third category altogether? One that our historically binary minds are unable to deal with as everything must be one of only two things?

I don’t necessarily disagree that maybe there should be another option of age categorization if that’s what science ends up definitively pointing toward, but I would still never advocate that adults should sleep with children or adolescents. I think it would still be likely that the differences in brain capabilities between someone that’s 12 (or younger or even in their teens) and 25, 35, 45, etc. (in adults that have normally functioning brains), would be great enough that it would still be taking complete advantage of the younger group of people. And even if there are some kids who mature much faster and their brains do develop more quickly (which I don’t argue), it’s still necessary to keep the laws as they are, because I think those kids are few and far between and it protects everyone else from being taken advantage of.

After helping to foster a little girl for five years now who was severely sexually abused, I can say that it has caused extreme behavior problems in ways that most people probably can’t even imagine. Do I know for sure if her issues stem directly from the abuse, or whether or not it’s because of how society reacted to the abuse? No, I can’t make that claim – but what I can say is this: before she was even removed from the situation, the extreme mental and behavioral issues started, so they were clearly not based on how other people reacted to her abuse. After seeing all of the problems the abuse caused her, there is nothing in the world that will ever convince me that “sex” with kids is okay.

I’ve been thinking about this question for a while.

Perhaps what I write will create even more questions than it answers, but, here goes.

What was it that first tipped off societies that sexualizong children at an earlier age than is natural was deleterious to them?

Put it this way: if the Greeks had it right and it was so beneficial to these children, then why any impetus to change it? Why prohibit something if it’s not problematic but rather helpful?

It’s obvious that at some point in time either the Greeks or another society began to get inklings that sexualizing these children was doing more harm than good.

What prompted this realization or was it a series of realizations that finally brought the hammer down and sex with children became prohibited? Things like this don’t usually change for absolutely no reason at all.

I don’t know the answers to that and perhaps they’re lost in the mists of time. But speaking logically, if the Greek system we’re that wonderful, it would doubtless be emulated far and wide rather than prohibited, right?

But that did not happen, did it?at some point, sex with children was forbidden and punished. There had to be some pretty persuasive manifestations of harm to halt something supposedly so exalted and beneficial.

I mean, let’s face it. On the surface of things it had a lot of high-falutin ideals to reccomend it. Boys gain a mentor to befriend them, love thrm and initiate them into manhood. What could possibly go wrong there?

So, what changed it? Afaik, there wasn’t really any major emphasis in the Bible on eschewing sex with children, specifically, so you can’t really blame religion in this particular instance. It isn’t a bunch of uptight people with Puritannical morality standards ruling the day because it doubtless occured quite a long while before the Puritans even enter the picture.

I have my own theories on this but I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of others on why this about-face change in attitudes and prohibitions regarding adult sex with 12 yr. olds ?

Anybody know any historical facts surrounding this issue? Obviously it changed but why?

What say you?

@DrasticDreamer Do I know for sure if her issues stem directly from the abuse, or whether or not it’s because of how society reacted to the abuse? No, I can’t make that claim – but what I can say is this: before she was even removed from the situation, the extreme mental and behavioral issues started, so they were clearly notbased on how other people reacted to her abuse.
Because you are first hand witness to the suffering and trouble this girl with through where it is a fact sexual activity was going on, even if there is no direct linkage, it is enough evidence for you to knot the two together, as what @jerv stated in My point here is that you can argue all sides, and this is one of those things where you are likely to “reason” by taking your stance first and then picking the proofs you want later. I don’t know what situation that child was under but certainly not the situation those Greek boys were under so one can expect the outcome not to be the same, and certainly unable to say their (the Greek boys) experience was going to be as traumatic as this girl’s. Just to show how our emotions can direct in which way we think of something.

@Buttonstc What was it that first tipped off societies that sexualizong children at an earlier age than is natural was deleterious to them?
To me, sexualizing children is pretty much a US thing. I suspect it goes on to some extent in other nations, most of them so-called industrial nations, and maybe only following Uncle Sam’s lead, because he controlled most of the media for so long. Many indigenous nations kids ran around nude o0r practically nude and you did not have men dragging them off to the coconut grove to jump their bones. Even with all the talk about sexualizing kids here in the States it seems more tongue in cheek as you have clothes, dolls, song lyrics, etc. that scream out to girls, be sexy and get your freak on.

Put it this way: if the Greeks had it right and it was so beneficial to these children, then why any impetus to change it? Why prohibit something if it’s not problematic but rather helpful?
What prompted this realization or was it a series of realizations that finally brought the hammer down and sex with children became prohibited? Things like this don’t usually change for absolutely no reason at all
Anybody know any historical facts surrounding this issue? Obviously it changed but why?
As close as I can tell, and that may not be the last word, the Roman Empire put a stop to it, not the Greeks themselves, One can look at it like the North putting a stop to Southern slavery. It worked the South for near 250–300 years, if it worked so well why quit? They were made to quit because they were defeated by those who had more men and better guns.

@Hypocrisy_Central No, I don’t base my beliefs in this question off of what happened to the child I’ve been helping to foster. However, yes, I did let it reinforce the beliefs I already held. I’ve always believed that “sex” with children is wrong, but her case, especially after having access to her therapists, psychiatrists and psychologists on a one on one basis, only helped to clarify even more. I feel that I’m even more knowledgeable about the entire topic than I was in the past.

Before I left Fluther, I would have answered this question entirely differently than I attempted to now. I would have flown off the handle about how wrong and disgusting it is without even attempting to have a logical discussion about it. Part of it is down to maturity and calming down, and part of it is literally because of what I’ve learned from all of the professionals who handle sexual abuse in children.

It’s something that I still get passionate about, but I feel that I’ve been presented with sufficient evidence from multiple professionals enough to solidify my beliefs on the matter. I also think that it’s something in life – there are many things – that deserve passionate opinions. I don’t advocate ignoring science at all, but in this case, there is, at the very least, insufficient evidence to make the claim that “sex” with children is acceptable.

@Hypocrisy_Central , I have to question your slavery analogy. Slavery was accepted and prevalent throughout the world up until about 300 years ago. The U.S. was behind Europe in getting rid of it. For a really good explanation of the change in thinking, I recommend Steven Pinker’s book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, which talks about the decline in violence starting around 1600 as a manifestation of the Enlightenment. Slavery went the way of burning witches and drawing and quartering.

Reading a bit more about this, this practice wasn’t for common folk. It was a political partnership of sorts. The younger took on the older to (if you’ll pardon the pun), get ahead socially and politically. It was a social/political pairing.

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/175/examining-greek-pederastic-relationships

As far as giving reasons why I think this is wrong, I tried to leave the emotional stuff aside and did give reasons why I think it’s wrong, useless or unnecessary; std’s which benefit no one, as well as no relation between sex and friendship/teacher student relationship. Although I could be wrong on that last one, depending on the culture back then and what was being taught, my reasons went all but ignored haha.
And apparently Greeks weren’t stupid. They were great with science, medicine and philosophy, I have a hard time believing they didn’t know what an STD was.

@LostInParadise The U.S. was behind Europe in getting rid of it.
By default, being a new young nation they were late to the ball to start, eventually the industrial revolution would have made owning slaves less profitable and productive when you can have machinery do the jobs of 500 slaves with less sick time, injuries, maternity issues, escape worries, feeding, and fatigue. You can get more work with less overhead. However, they were still doing slavery up to the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression if you are for the Confederacy), it was losing the war that made them stop. To them then, it was all good, but for us today we say it wasn’t, and since the North won, they can sanction the act good or bad, if they had lost and the South had ceded the Union, could they be proven wrong?

@cazzie Reading a bit more about this, this practice wasn’t for common folk. It was a political partnership of sorts. The younger took on the older to (if you’ll pardon the pun), get ahead socially and politically. It was a social/political pairing.
Regardless of why the mere fact that one half was of an age today is considered a minor or too stupid to realize the act it is wrong. To focus on it was political, even if it opened doors for the young lad, some people would say it was worse because of the perceived height of power the man in the union had; that the exploitation was greater no matter the fact the young man wanted to be in it. It still doesn’t nullify or enhances it being better than today or worse, unless there is some sanctioning body or personal proclivity aside of any sanctioning body that one hangs their choice on.

@Symbeline Although I could be wrong on that last one, depending on the culture back then and what was being taught, my reasons went all but ignored haha.
I heard it, I am trying not to see it as you have a choice you designated just because you personally do not like it and seek to bolster said choice up with the science of STD transmission. To say because it is a teacher/student, coach/[player, etc. configuration leaning to the imbalance of power or authority issue, then by default you are saying without saying it, we have it right and the Greeks were just wrong, even if they had less sex crimes against children doing it their way (though some would argue the facts on that as well)

I agree. The fact that it was used for social and political climbing, someone could moralise and say that made the act worse. But I thought we were trying to shy away from that. What was written about it, seems to make note that it was still a bit predatory on the side of the older man. He seemed to use his standing and political position to entice a young man of his choosing. It wasn’t sex based on a equality of the partners. It was one, the older, using his power over the younger. But, what seems to be stessed is that the sex is secondary to the pupil/teacher side which adds to the unbalanced power dynamic.

@cazzie What was written about it, seems to make note that it was still a bit predatory on the side of the older man.
One could not say it was in any way predatory of the young men and boys? If they are too stupid to know or fathom they are being used for the pleasure of the man, but then, you pointed out the sex was secondary, but they were savvy enough to know that engaging in such activity would advance their social or political standing, thus make entering into the union a benefit for them, would seem rather predatory. If the sex was secondary I am sure any ambition of the boys to get ahead off the coattails of the connected older man was 100% and primary.

It wasn’t sex based on a equality of the partners. It was one, the older, using his power over the younger.
In what way and manner power is equal in sex between man, women, or whatever, is open to deliberation actually.

Eh, if you’ve already decided for yourself how I chose things or what I mean, then there’s not really a point debating I guess. :/

@Symbeline Eh, if you’ve already decided for yourself how I chose things or what I mean, then there’s not really a point debating I guess. :/
I am not trying to take your position or say what it is, but there are four choices I see:

A. Both systems are wrong, ancient Greece and modern day industrial nation.
B. Modern day industrial nation has it right, the Greeks had it wrong.
C. Ancient Greece had it correct and modern day industrial nations have it wrong.
D. Both systems are correct if that is the system chosen for their given societies.

Less I believe you picked an option you did not mean, which one between A & D is closest to how you personally think, and would it be that STDs notwithstanding?

Without std’s or any other technical stuff I mentioned, I’d say A. Because of the morality I didn’t feel like talking of. Now in regards to ancient Greece I’m not sure where that relation comes in for the modern nation. Other than sexual abuse. Now we know the Greeks did this willingly, but today sexual abuse isn’t always ’‘forced’’, especially with kids. Abused kids might be told it’s right and whatnot, like the Greek society did then, or so I assume. Today it’s not part of the culture, so it’s different from then because kids then knew it as normal. (so far as I know with what has been explained)
Now if it affected them or less I can’t say, but I still see it as abuse, therein lies why I think it’s wrong. Abuse hurts. Your body is your own, and society telling you otherwise doesn’t make that right. Whether these actions come through teachings, deception or force. I’m willing to bet many boys didn’t appreciate it, and the older men too, even if it was normal.
Again, yes I am biased, (no sarcasm towards Jerv) but I have naught else to go on. If you can offer more details on the practice, I’m all ears. (again, no sarcasm)
If that’s not what you meant with the relation between the two, then let me know, but that’s what I got out of it, and the little info given about the Greek practice. I am not, therefore, saying, by default that shit is right today. I don’t mind being accused of stuff, but I would appreciate it better explained next time.

@Symbeline Again, yes I am biased, (no sarcasm towards Jerv) but I have naught else to go on
You could have not put it any clearer, anything presented would have to get by your personal proclivity to see it as wrong. Every thought coming off it will be filtered through that bias, but you know it, it is what it is. ;-D

In what way and manner power is equal in sex between man, women, or whatever, is open to deliberation actually. of course it is.

I think we also have to consider that a 12 year old in recent times is much younger mentally and emotionally than the ancient 12 year olds. Longer lifespans and how our modern society treats ‘childhood’ is much much different. A 12 year old in medieval times was almost a grown man and was farmed out as an apprentice and expected to start his working life. That’s an entirely different mindset to how we treat kids today. Living to 50 years was a huge accomplishment and you were a very old man indeed.

@cazzie I think we also have to consider that a 12 year old in recent times is much younger mentally and emotionally than the ancient 12 year olds
Where that is owed, biology or ideology? If modern society doesn’t know when it wants a boy to be a man and thus confuses the lad, leave him with no instruction, or don’t require him to start taking responsibility for his life because he is still ”a kid”, if he is emotionally handicapped, society might have to own up that they created a 20 year old boy instead of a man.

@cazzie I would argue that a 21 year old in recent times is younger mentally and emotionally than a 12 year old in ancient times for pretty much the reasons you state.

Humanity has generally considered “reaching adulthood” to be the point where one is ready to join the workforce. In ancient times, it was often when you were physically big and strong enough to work the fields or whatever was involved in your trade. Hell, by the time you were 12, odds are that your parents were old enough to be in decline as they didn’t have even the nutrition we did, let alone the medicine. Of course, in those times, Europe had the least advanced medicine anyways. Medical science in Western Europe actually regressed as the medical teachings of the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians were largely lost between the 4th and 15th centuries while the Muslims were advancing in things like surgery, pharmacology, and ethics. (It probably didn’t help that many were of the opinion that disease was both caused and cured by God rather than by anything we would regard as “medical science” today, but I digress.)

As society became more industrialized, more education was required to enter the workforce, so “adulthood” was considered to happen at the end of your education, and other laws based on being “adult” had their ages revised upward. About fifty years ago, a high school diploma was all that the majority of people needed, so most people entered adulthood at 18. In many places, that also was the drinking age for many years.

Flash forward to modern times and 25 is the new 18 as many non-menial jobs require a degree, and most people don’t finish college until their early/mid-20s. We rarely have 15-year-olds who have to work in order to keep their multiple younger siblings fed because mommy died in childbirth delivering her fourth kid and daddy keeled over from old age at 38.

The world has changed a lot, and so have our standards. Of course, there are still parts of the word that aren’t like 2015 America or Western Europe. About twelve seconds in Mombasa taught me that. Of course, you can have new and old co-exist; Hong Kong is like that.

^ As society became more industrialized, more education was required to enter the workforce, so “adulthood” was considered to happen at the end of your education, and other laws based on being “adult” had their ages revised upward
Which still comes back to biology, or ideology, there are places today where when you get to be around 11–13 you laid the books aside and went out to the coca, tobacco, or opium fields with your uncle, father, or older brothers, they never get the education we get in the States. Because they never do, they never ”grow up”? Maybe because for so long childhood was so short with people (especially boys) having to give up playing to put bread on the table, when some of these boys became legislators they enacted laws to push back childhood, or to keep adulthood at bay so kids coming behind them, would have more of what they felt life robbed from them. Just because one says this age is not adult, nature isn’t listening, biology is biology.

The world has changed a lot, and so have our standards
That is the rub; it always comes down to whose standard. In nations that are still very much agricultural are their standards less valuable because they do not have as much gross per capita? Is the system if the west better because of more education and money? If so, which system, the Brits, Canucks, the Yanks, who?

So, you think a boy of 12 has the same biology as a boy of 18?

@Hypocrisy_Central , On the question of whether the standards of industrialized nations are superior, the answer is yes. Look at how much they have changed in the last 400 years. Slavery is no longer acceptable; women are no longer assumed to be of secondary status; mental illness is no longer considered a form of demonic possession; corporal punishment of children has declined considerably; homosexuals are no longer thrown in prison. 400 years ago words like human rights and racial discrimination would have been incomprehensible. You could be punished by hanging for petty theft. The idea of the noble savage is a myth. Homicide rates among hunter-gatherers are an order of magnitude higher than in industrialized nations.

There are lots of reasons that have been offered for the changes, but one candidate that I like is that there has been a rise in rational thinking accompanying the age of science. You may or may not think this is an improvement, but I would say that making more use of logic and reasoning in guiding our decisions is definitely superior.

James Flynn gave a really great TED talk. He talks about how our increasing use of technology has driven the improvement in abstract reasoning that has caused the recent universal rise in IQ scores (the Flynn effect). He suggests that greater use of abstract reasoning also makes it easier to see things from someone else’s point of view, and this increase in empathy is responsible in part for recent advances in civil rights.

@LostInParadise It depends on how far back you look.
In ancient times, mental illness was seen as an ailment rather than demonic possession, and the mentally ill were treated with compassion; demonization came later.
In many ancient cultures, women were equal to men; patriarchy came later.
In many ancient cultures, homosexuality was seen as a mere preference…. you get the idea.

Also, you are claiming that the US is not really an industrialized nation, especially not the part that tried to secede about 150 years ago.

Causation and correlation errors in @LostInParadise ‘s argument.

@jerv , You can pick and choose but the overall recent trend has been in one direction. Consider that the supposedly civilized Romans entertained themselves by pitting slaves against each other in gladiatorial contests. Neither the Roman Republic nor the Greek city-states permitted women to vote. The demotion of women started in agricultural societies and the preceding hunter-gatherers were very homicidal.

@cazzie, Care to elaborate? Here is a talk given by Pinker summarizing the points he made in Better Angels of Our Mercy. He presents data to support a consistent long term trend in the decline of violence and the extension of rights.

@LostInParadise On the question of whether the standards of industrialized nations are superior, the answer is yes. Look at how much they have changed in the last 400 years. Slavery is no longer acceptable; women are no longer assumed to be of secondary status; mental illness is no longer considered a form of demonic possession; corporal punishment of children has declined considerably; homosexuals are no longer thrown in prison.
Yeah…..but playing that game the sword cuts both ways. There is a ying for every yang. Sure, in those areas there has been great change (I would not say for the good in all of them), but also many other things increased too:

• More greed.
• More domestic violence.
• More pedophiles.
• More mass murders without cause.
• More substance abuse.
• More children being murderers

And that is just a short list while sitting here. Not everything is better, for all the ”improvements” a lot of negative came with it.

You can pick and choose but the overall recent trend has been in one direction. Consider that the supposedly civilized Romans entertained themselves by pitting slaves against each other in gladiatorial contests.
I guess that direction depends on where one wants to look. For the Romans it was normal, accepted, and entertaining to take your malefactors and put them in the arena, not only did you keep the prison population down you got rid of your offenders and enemies, to them it was good logic. It stood until they were overthrown, just as they overthrew the Greeks. Whose sytem is right is who has the most power at the time.

@Hypocrisy_Central, Where is the evidence for the items in your list?

• More greed. – How do you measure greed?
• More domestic violence. – Not likely. Wife beating used to be acceptable
• More pedophiles.- Also highly unlikely. Child abuse in general was more accepted
• More mass murders without cause. – Homicides of all types are down. Check Pinker’s stats.
• More substance abuse. Maybe, but only because drugs are more potent
• More children being murderers – Most doubtful. Show me your stats

@LostInParadise Where is the evidence for the items in your list?
I could throw that right back and say ”show me the money”.

• Slavery is no longer acceptable. It changed forms and duck in the shadow, most of the time taking the form of sex slavery.
• Women are no longer assumed to be of secondary status. I am sure if I looked very hard there are past societies where women were as equal as men if not more so. Depending on what measuring stick one uses, women have not gained that in every nation and community….so…..
• Mental illness is no longer considered a form of demonic possession Might be the only point scored, but half a point is lost because as an enlightened society we are horrible in truly caring for those with mental illness unless they are a danger to society or themselves.
• Corporal punishment of children has declined considerably. Again, if you consider the whole planet…..however, one can certainly agree that for it in the US disrespect by minors has gone up.
• Homosexuals are no longer thrown in prison. Have to get beyond the borders; the US is not the center of the world. In some places homosexuals would not be thrown in prison, at least not long, they would be executed shortly thereafter.
Just because certain things here in the states or other industrialized nations have gotten better, it is no utopia and creeping nowhere near so.

@jerv ”In many ancient cultures, women were equal to men; patriarchy came later.” Proof?

and @Hypocrisy_Central ”...if I looked very hard there are past societies where women were as equal as men if not more so.” Um… No. A million times no. The general consensus among anthropologists is that there has never been a discovered matriarchy in all of human history. There are no known societies where women had more rights than men.

@DrasticDreamer Part of me wants to educate you about those like the Celts, but a larger part of me is saying you already have your mind made up and thus will never be convinced that anything other than your own opinion is valid anyways. Until you prove otherwise, this post is the last time I will address you on this topic.

@jerv So let me get this straight. I’m asking you to inform me of societies where women were equal to men, because of a claim that you made, and the burden of proof lies with me?

And for your information, I was genuinely open to being educated on the matter, if in fact the claim you made is accurate. But clearly if people question you about the things you say, a real response is beneath you and you just get irritated instead. If I had my mind made up, there wouldn’t have been a question mark at the end of “proof” and I would have argued more.

As for the claim @Hypocrisy_Central made, yes, that I argued, because he was making bold claims about women having more power than men in certain past societies. And the general consensus among anthropologists is that no, there were never any matriarchal societies. If you want link after link after link, I’ll be glad, unlike you, to provide them.

In Viking society, women were treated much better BEFORE they got brainwashed with Christianity. To see civilisations where women were equal with men, you have to go PRE-christianity and Pre.Islamic.

@DrasticDreamer As for the claim @Hypocrisy_Central made, yes, that I argued, because he was making bold claims about women having more power than men in certain past societies.
In the context I was using, as far as men having more power, that it was plausible. I can’t say definitively either way, I have not studied the subject so there is a margin of error. However, there are many cultures on this planet, to think there are none that reverence women would be a Folie à Deux. As @jerv spoke of, the Celts women enjoyed great latitude, as did the Greeks and the Egyptians. They may not have been 100% equal to men, but even under the best conditions they never will. However, if Egypt would have seen women as chattel the way many feminist want to view women in ancient culture, a woman would have never been Pharaoh. But let’s go with the notion that women were no more than chattel, then it was right for them, and no one can say it was wrong, because as the argument was attempted, that was then, now is now, so there can be no real comparison. So if the powerful connected men were not right buggering a boy several times a week, they could equally be wrong not having their women handled and under control.

@cazzie In Viking society, women were treated much better BEFORE they got brainwashed with Christianity.
Boy, those Mormons and JV must have disrupted your nap times and bubble baths so often you have to get on the hate soapbox daily and try to napalm the saints.

@Hypocrisy_Central It is historical fact. Now, we are an ‘industrialised’ nation and one might say ‘still Christian’ and finally, now, we have a more equal footing again with men. It isn’t Christian bashing… perhaps just early Christian bashing. For heavens sake, they cut heads off of people who wouldn’t join the church. Even you can’t defend that.

@cazzie For heavens sake, they cut heads off of people who wouldn’t join the church. Even you can’t defend that.
There are many things saints in earlier church congregations, (even modern ones) have done that I cannot support. However, that doesn’t erode who and what God is. The operative word to remember is people was at work in them, and people are fallible. No matter what system it is, man will muck it up somehow, maybe a little, perhaps a lot, be it the treatment of women, the poor, the mentally ill, prisoners, minors, other nationalities, etc. I cannot say they are wrong using the world’s standard because there is no all-inclusive sanctioning body for the world. The closest thing to that is who has the bigger guns and most tanks, or the ability to financially cripple their interlopers or bribe them with aid to capitulate to the party line.

Not quite related, but Nordic folk did, apparently treat their women as equals. Skills and talents were not restricted to men only. If a woman could forge swords or hunt, then she was allowed to do so. I’m guessing that one reason this happened is because of where these people lived. Cold ass frozen places, every skill and talent was needed, discrimination was a waste of time. A woman could also break up with her husband if he misstreated her, and if she defended herself against him, there would be no repercussions, if there was proof he did it. (Say if she always had a shiner or something all the time. Plus these villages and clans were small, everyone probably knew what everyone else did.)
Plus there was some news a while back where anthropologists found proof that women embarked on raids and trips, and not just moves when Vikings found a place they were ready to settle in.
Most of that might just be speculations, I wouldn’t know how to prove it besides the stuff I read it on, but historians and anthropologists must know their shit, at least to a degree.

@Berserker Not quite related, but Nordic folk did, apparently treat their women as equals. Skills and talents were not restricted to men only. If a woman could forge swords or hunt, then she was allowed to do so
I am certainly not opposed to that, when it comes to easing the restrictions or dumbing the test down just for the sake of making it possible to have more women in there or doing it, then that is another issue.

Most of that might just be speculations, I wouldn’t know how to prove it besides the stuff I read it on, but historians and anthropologists must know their shit, at least to a degree
I would say anthropologist do know their stuff, at least in as much as they can piece it together, then it is one the receiver of the info how much faith they put into the anthropologist. Anthropology, for the most part, just delivers the facts, they do not say this is wrong or that was right. As in the case of this question, and subjects germane to it. There was a system in place in ancient Grease, it was quite normal and accepted by them. We today looking through somewhat a foggy glass back in history determine if they were correct or not. It cannot be filtered in a clean way because of societal norms of now are different, and history might prove it incorrect to those in the future looking back at us. If anthropology started to try to equate value or correctness to the facts they find, then they would lose much credibility as to if they are presenting the facts as facts, or presenting the facts to bolster a certain idea or line of thinking.