tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20078757.post5082376032261707817..comments2023-11-02T08:39:17.310-07:00Comments on Sentiments of Rationality: A Different Take on Marriage and the StateDom Ehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04446684066512811439noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20078757.post-88725993798378891662009-01-25T11:17:00.000-08:002009-01-25T11:17:00.000-08:00I concur. However, there's nothing in principle w...I concur. However, there's nothing in principle wrong with people getting together with robots that look like children, no? In fact, they could even be programmed to act like children, and I think that would be okay.<BR/><BR/>But here's a question that no one is really allowed to ask: are sexual relationships actually damaging to children? Especially, are they damaging if they give their equivalent of consent? The Greeks didn't seem to think so. I think the attitude that we have today might be right, but it is without doubt one that is never questioned in polite company. I think it's an empirical question (and I believe there was a controversial study condemned by the American Psychological Association because it suggested that sexual abuse was not as damaging as people want to believe it is).<BR/><BR/>I think that we have a cultural attitude towards sex, even those of us who are enlightened about it, that views it as something degrading. And even after Freud, we refuse to acknowledge the proto-sexuality of children. If sex were not that big of a deal, then I think our culture would have less of a fixation on freaking out about pedophilia and so forth.<BR/><BR/>That said, since sex is culturally a big deal, I have to agree with your conclusions. Everything I say should apply only to people who have reached what we deem the age of consent, even if it's only a social construct.Dom Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04446684066512811439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20078757.post-46457234671955631182009-01-25T09:42:00.000-08:002009-01-25T09:42:00.000-08:00I think I agree with everything you say, but it's ...I think I agree with everything you say, but it's unclear to me what it means to be "capable of consenting." For example, when I see interviews with underage FLDS girls, they typically claim to have consented to marriage (or pre-marriage "placement"). And yet, there's a slippery slope between having been programmed to stick by certain social or cultural rules (as, for the sake of argument, the FLDS girls), and what we typically think of as being capable of consent. If there's no such thing as free will or, alternatively, no possible knowledge of (in this social/political respect) the good, then there seems to be no substantial difference between true consent and belief coercion. <BR/><BR/>I suppose it simply occurred to me that if robots would be considered capable of consent, how could children NOT be? Homo-, hetero-, polygamous, and human/robot marriages seem okay, but underage marriage strikes me as a bad idea. At least under a democratic regime.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199054776589187532noreply@blogger.com