| | It is interesting that, once again, the issue of the 'age of consent' is being raised, or even if there is one. In the over 40 years I've been involved with Objectivism in one way or another, this was one which, in the early years of the 60's at least, was much discussed - and was raised as an issue which needed serious writing on.. Obvoiusly, this has yet to really come to pass, tho I can offer Judith Levine's HARMFUL TO MINORS as an excellent work to peruse in gaining some further insight into this. One of the things which needs to be remembered is that we are, in many ways, in the midst of a transitionary time - that is, the idea of needing to 'protect' teens from their proclivities as being something found in this past century, and that, for the most part, was not particularly thought of in earlier times - tho, too, back then, the notion of children as property was more prevailant. One has to remember, too, that this is an aspect of transforming a societal structuring of some thousands of years, and the fact that there are many treatises yet needed to be written on practicalizing some of these needs to be taken in that context -well, after all, in a mere half century, look at the transformation which HAS taken place. We, as Objectivists, are in the vangard of looking down the road into the future with rational, integrated foresight of how it all might and could become. Remember, too, that Dr. Spock's book was almost the first to discuss the issue of childraising - and for all the flaws, look yet at how far we have come from and because of it.
A side note - an example was raised regarding so-called needs of restricting by laws of sexual consent, by speaking of one having sex with a six year old....... when has it become so obscure that the initial dividing line is the turning to puberty? Properly, a 'child' is defined as one over the age of toddler and until reaching puberty - to speak of a teen as a child is insultive to both adults as well as the individual involved - and much of history has shown of many teens being very 'adultish' in their actions (and no, do not say they lived short lives- since when does lengthening lives mean becoming stupider during the growing stage?).
A last note - remember, the key is 'integrated' view of existance. This is what sets us apart from the whole of history, which has been a hogpog of assortedness which in many cases conflicted - and this allows for further thinking on answers to these and other questions in a manner not considered in earlier ages, certainly not by religionists - and also allows for rebuttals in regards to those ancient views in a manner not able to be considered in earlier times, for lack of understanding the need and viability of the integrated view of existance (another aspect of our 'growing up' so to speak).
|
|
