Posted: May 21, 2016 10:50 pm
Less flippantly:
The problem with hypotheticals like this is that they require suspending so many assumptions about the real world, that any conclusions drawn from them lose their force and sense when trying to apply them to that world.
In terms of this one, I'd want to know what is actually meant by the lack of social stigma. The social stigma around having sex with underage girls is ultimately based on awareness that doing so can be directly or indirectly harmful to them. So is the claim that "most men would have sex with a 12 year old if there were no social stigma because sex with girls of that age wasn't in any way harmful"? Or that "most men would have sex with a 12 year old girl if there were no social stigma because the act still caused pain and suffering, but society didn't care about the pain and suffering of 12 year old girls?
If it's the first, then I'd reckon the answer's probably yes (12 isn't that young; there are European countries even today where the age of consent is 14, and we know that sexual attraction is hugely adaptable to situation. If a tough guy gang leader can have sex with men just because he happens to find himself in prison, who knows?). But the obvious question arising from it is: why shouldn't he?
If it's the second, then you're talking about a society in which the whole foundation of morality and ethics is so different from ours that it's impossible to make sense of the question.
The problem with hypotheticals like this is that they require suspending so many assumptions about the real world, that any conclusions drawn from them lose their force and sense when trying to apply them to that world.
In terms of this one, I'd want to know what is actually meant by the lack of social stigma. The social stigma around having sex with underage girls is ultimately based on awareness that doing so can be directly or indirectly harmful to them. So is the claim that "most men would have sex with a 12 year old if there were no social stigma because sex with girls of that age wasn't in any way harmful"? Or that "most men would have sex with a 12 year old girl if there were no social stigma because the act still caused pain and suffering, but society didn't care about the pain and suffering of 12 year old girls?
If it's the first, then I'd reckon the answer's probably yes (12 isn't that young; there are European countries even today where the age of consent is 14, and we know that sexual attraction is hugely adaptable to situation. If a tough guy gang leader can have sex with men just because he happens to find himself in prison, who knows?). But the obvious question arising from it is: why shouldn't he?
If it's the second, then you're talking about a society in which the whole foundation of morality and ethics is so different from ours that it's impossible to make sense of the question.