Federation's dirty secret?

[Timo]

Ah, but laws are a feature of society, and society is not about guaranteeing the rights of the individual. Society is about limiting the rights of the individual in order to create a coherent unit that supposedly is greater than the sum of its parts.

If the intent was to guarantee maximum freedom, then certainly law wouldn't be the way to go - anarchy would be a superior approach. Society is a construct held together by deprivation of rights (beginning with taking away the right for self-defense and other such purely selfish acts), and the rights taken away need not be rights for committing direct harm to victim. Indeed, to hold society together by law, such rights are usually of secondary import, as direct-harm crimes would be controlled by the community even if there were no formal law.

Thus, bans on being a nonproductive member of the society, and/or encouraging others to be nonproductive or disruptive, will probably stay in the books for a long time. Taboo bans will come and go like slow-moving fashion but will probably always exist in a finite amount, just to give general legitimacy to the concept of victimless crime, to "buffer" the books with arbitrary feel-good rules (no religion X or sexual practice Y or political view Z) so that the bans that hold the society together do not unduly stand out.

Say, the Trek 24th century would have little practical reason to limit incest or pedophilia, as 24th century medicine would surely be able to guarantee the physical and mental health of all parties involved. Bans on the practices would still probably exist, though, for the sake of tradition. The society at that time would be at great risk of splintering anyway, what with the massively increasing options available for the citizens; arbitrary conservatism would probably be seen as positive.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Indeed, to hold society together by law, such rights are usually of secondary import, as direct-harm crimes would be controlled by the community even if there were no formal law.

I don't agree. Control by the "community" sounds like mob rule to me.

Ever seen The Warriors? You want to live like that? I thought not.

Prevention of harm to others is a worthwhile goal (some might say the only goal) of governments and laws. Because not everyone is capable enough of defending themselves at all times.

 

[WillsBabe]

I'd love to see a BOSTON LEGAL kind of show dealing with these issues in TREK's universe.

I can remember talking to friends, a long time ago, about this, saying what a great show a Federation Law-type episode would be. Star Trek for me is often about ethical and moral connundrums. How interesting a law show would be!

 

[Deks]

Well let's see ... this type of issue almost always comes out heated ... still, in regards to the Federation and humans in the 24th century ...
It's possible that there are no restrictions or taboos that society created today.
In the 24th century, kids are learning calculus at a very young age.
Sex education is probably covered at a very young age as well and/or stays as one of the class subjects throughout their schooling until or during puberty.
Generally speaking I'd say that their kids and teenagers are much more mature and responsible in comparison to your average kids today.
Education at a young age about specific aspects (which is looked upon as conservative for questionable reasons by a lot of people today) can solve a lot of issues.

Older people who are sexually attracted to younger ones to my knowledge are born like that.
Tests were performed, experiments done, and it was concluded that pedophilia is not something you can 'treat' anymore than homosexuality (and no, I'm not trying to compare the two) ... furthermore, they don't even know what's 'causing' people to experience sexual attraction (which pedophilia actually is ... unlike some people who immediately associate it with rape) towards children.
If anything I would surmise that 24th century humans don't condone rape and abuse (if it's done against someones will of curse), but incest and pedophilia wouldn't fall in those categories if the act was done with consent.
Like I said, education at a young age can do wonders regardless of how wild or implausible it may seem to some.
Kids are far from stupid, and mental maturity (of which kids are capable of btw) varies from person to person. If you want someone to understand something, educate them first and foremost, then help them understand.
Now if that is problematic to grasp, it's not my problem.

And as for Federations dirty secret ... apart from 'section 31'
and having several captains who broke the Prime Directive on several occasions due to extraordinary circumstances, I can't think of anything.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

If anything I would surmise that 24th century humans don't condone rape and abuse (if it's done against someones will of curse), but incest and pedophilia wouldn't fall in those categories if the act was done with consent.
Like I said, education at a young age can do wonders regardless of how wild or implausible it may seem to some.
Kids are far from stupid, and mental maturity (of which kids are capable of btw) varies from person to person. If you want someone to understand something, educate them first and foremost, then help them understand.
Now if that is problematic to grasp, it's not my problem

No, I think it very much is your problem.

Even on a Star Trek board, approving or explaining away paedophilia as acceptable, if only we had the "right sort" of kids, is a bit much.

Wisdom and knowledge being two distinct things, I don't think you can expect to allow lecherous old men prey on kids, just because you've taught the kids what body part fits where.

 

[Timo]

Sex education is probably covered at a very young age as well and/or stays as one of the class subjects throughout their schooling until or during puberty.

This is not particularly evident in the well-explored characters of Wesley Crusher and Jake Sisko, though.

Generally speaking I'd say that their kids and teenagers are much more mature and responsible in comparison to your average kids today.

Certainly the parental attitudes towards them are based on this assumption: the kids spend a lot of time alone, and there is little evidence of "quality time" or longterm interaction between a kid and his or her (typically single) Starfleet parent(s).

Older people who are sexually attracted to younger ones to my knowledge are born like that.

Well, it's sort of built into our biology that women are ideal sex partners at age 10-15. If they get pregnant older than that, they may be too old to take care of the children, let alone the grandchildren (an even more important female function), as 30 is geriatric and 35 is two feet and an arm in the grave in the original stone age terms.

What one makes of this personally must depend a lot on upbringing. Biologically, every male has pedophilia built in, and humans have something of a supercharged sex drive overall anyway.

If anything I would surmise that 24th century humans don't condone rape and abuse (if it's done against someones will of curse), but incest and pedophilia wouldn't fall in those categories if the act was done with consent.

The issue of consent as regards the underaged (or, say, the mentally invalid) depends on whether the deed itself has a positive or negative connotation. We hesitate from exposing kids to sex because we feel sex is inherently negative (at least to the child), and justify this by the issue of consent - but we don't hesitate from exposing the kids to nutritional or scheduling regimens as we think porridge and sleep are inherently good for them, and consent be damned.

Even if a child said "that hurts, Dad!", this would and should not necessarily stop the Dad from (practicing incestual sex / injecting an anti-flu vaccine / pulling out the milk tooth), as the child indeed would be incapable of truly informed consent or refusal. When we speak of consent, then, we speak of the consent of the adult rather than of the child. In that sense, it wouldn't necessarily help if 24th century 9-year-olds were mentally on par with today's brightest 30-year-olds, as the 30-year-olds would still decide whether the 9-year-olds were capable of informed consent or not.

Even on a Star Trek board, approving or explaining away paedophilia as acceptable, if only we had the "right sort" of kids, is a bit much.

Admittedly so, but only from the viewpoint of our 21st century western society. This particular taboo tends to come and go, and its "factual basis" is just as debatable as are most allusions of sociology. Humans are a bit too complex to have been deciphered by mere millennia of study...

Personally, I wouldn't have minded sex as a preteen, and I know of people who are quite happy with their own experiences in that respect, but I'm willing to accept that the wide bell curve of young psyches out there is mostly biased towards the end that truly gets damaged by pedophilic advances, or by incest or the other taboos discussed.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

We hesitate from exposing kids to sex because we feel sex is inherently negative (at least to the child), and justify this by the issue of consent - but we don't hesitate from exposing the kids to nutritional or scheduling regimens as we think porridge and sleep are inherently good for them, and consent be damned

I'd reckon there's a difference between measuring the effect of something on the human mind and the human body. The latter being a chemical soup more easily replicated and studied than the complex electric interaction of nerves.

 

[RobertScorpio]

As I suspected, this thread has shown us that there are some among us that actually see a Trek future where pretty much all sexual taboos are gone. Incest, sex with kids, just go down the list, are seen as limitations, by some on this board, that our 21st century concepts apply, but a more matured society (i.e the Federation) would not.

Where do I stand? It is clear that in Trek's future, some people are clueless about sex just as much as we are. Jake, Nog, Wesley, Barckley, Geordi, and I suspect even Alexander, are proof that sex-ed in the future is failing them as it does our own time...

Strangely, though, the women of that time seem to be quite comfortable with sex. You don't see any confused teenager girls or women walking around. And if you open your eyes and see why that is (who the TV show(s) is made for, and by whom) you'll see why. TREK is a mirror of the values and maturity of it's audience. More bluntly; YOU!

But, be that as it may, I would hope the Federaton would have some laws that transend acceptence. I hope it doesn't just let planets in becaues they have large amounts of Dylithium Crystals, or that would be not far removed from USA support of vile dictators simply because they side with us in the cold war, or, have lots of oil for us.

And if a planet wants to join that allows sex with kids, and I mean young kids, then the Federation should just pass them over.

Eventually state laws in the USA are going to go by the way side. You can't have states that allow abortion/death penalty, and others that don't. It goes against the simple notion of equal protection under the law. The CIVIL WAR wasn't about slavery so much as it was states rights; and those who were for states rights lost. And for good reason. We are still fighting the Civil War today over reasons I listed above, and other ones as well.

And once, someday, our country is really under one set of laws, then we will engage in an even greater uphill contest; a world governed by one set of laws. And that struggle will be contested, I dare say, far past the 24th century.

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Kubwulf]

Sex, in our time, in a Western culture is taboo. The question is why? Having visited Europe it was a bit of a culture shock to see bare breasted women in shampoo ads at the bus stop. The question arises then of attitudes towards these acts and sexual imagery. Children in Europe see these images on a regular basis, yet a side by side comparision of sex crimes between the USA and the European cultures that freely show sex shows that the USA has a much higher crime rate. MUCH higher.

The topic at hand is based in a Western Biased point of view. As someone stated earlier, states have different laws than the federal government. However, murder is a federal crime. No state can allow murder. State's laws must have a provision for the punishment of convicted murders. Yes, it is up to the state to provide the protection of the masses and the punishments of the convicted. However, no state can say that murder is legal and still remain a member of the Union.

Pedophillia is the same way. Our Western thinking tells us that a 12 year old is not emotionally mature enough to handle sexual acts. Therefore, we have laws that state that sex with someone under the age of X (in the USA 18) is illegal. This is a law to protect the child because we as adults believe that the acts of sex would be harmful for the group of people we categorize as children.

Look at ancient Greek and Roman history. Women were for breeding, boys were for fun. While we may or may not agree with this attitude today, at one time it was acceptable behavior. And some of the boys, truly were boys. 8, 9, 10 years old. But it was a society norm and so it wasn't frowned upon. Then again, sex was performed at much earlier ages based on the life span at the time. In a time frame where 50 years old is considered ancient, having sex at age 12 isn't so far fetched.

To get back to the issue at hand, that of pedophillia in the Federation... One must look at the "advanced" attitudes of society. While it is biologically acceptable for a girl to have sex as early as 12 or 13 years old and bring a healthy child into the world at that age, a boy isn't capable of inseminating a girl until 13 or 14. So in the Federation that the OP describes it should be illegal to have sex with these "children" because of the mental effects. Yet keep in mind that the mental effects are something that our current society has planted in young minds. We send our children to shrinks and medicate them for every little thing. ADD, ADHD, etc. If a child in today's society exhibits a modicum of hyper-activity so many parents rush to have the child tested and get them medicated at the doctor's advice. Is this the right attitude? Our society says yes. Does everyone agree? No.

All these topics that I bring up point to the fact that what was stated earlier. Biologically, a species must decide for itself what is harmful to the class of citizens we, as present day humans, classify as children. Is it right for the Federation to tell the Deltans, "You can't have sex with children between the ages of X and Y" when such a law would kill off the species based on their biology.

According to human physiology, a child of 12 is capable of birthing a healthy off-spring. Why is it wrong to have sex with such a child? Because our attitudes as adults say so. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating this kind of activity. I am morally opposed to it. But the question is WHY? Why am I, and so many others, morally opposed to such activities? Because it is what society has conditioned us to be.

50 years ago, being gay was taboo and cause for social segragation. Now, the vocal minorty that holds to that attitude is just that. The minorty. Because society has changed.

In the time of the Federation, 24th century, our society may have evolved to the point were no one even thinks of pedophillia. Either that or it is accepted and practiced. Either way, it is not the Federation's place to impose it's laws on all member worlds since such an activity is counter to what the Federation stands for.

See, the idea of pedophillia is a human concept. Please go back and read the first page and the very well thought out post of Sci. He sums it up nicely.

 

[Sci]

And if a planet wants to join that allows sex with kids, and I mean young kids, then the Federation should just pass them over.

And again, I ask you, how is that logical or justifiable if that species' biology is fundamentally different from Humans? Obviously there are some posters who have some pretty frickin' stupid ideas about the capacity of Human children to give consent -- frankly those arguments scare me, because it suggests someone who is not connected with reality. But if you're building an inter-species state, one of the things you'll have to acknowledge is that taboos that are applicable and logical for your species may have no application in another.

I point, again, to the Deltans. What if Deltan biology is partially dependent upon sexual activity from a young age until death? What if this alien species' children need to have sex in order to stay mentally and physically healthy? Obviously, their biology is fundamentally different from Humans if that is the case, because sex is something that is inherently harmful for Human children. But if it is health-stabilizing rather than health-damaging for Deltan children, why should Delta be denied Membership? What if you have a species like the Ocampa, who reach physical maturity very, very quickly -- would you charge Neelix with pedophilia for dating Kes at the age of one?

A taboo is not a bad thing, but a taboo needs to have a reason for existing. Something has to be taboo because it harms someone or has the potential to harm someone, creating a victim. In real life, sex with children is harmful, so it is rational for it to be taboo; if you're dealing with alien species, it may well be that not having sex with that species' children is harmful! Why would you apply a Human taboo to an alien species if its justification is inapplicable?

Eventually state laws in the USA are going to go by the way side. You can't have states that allow abortion/death penalty, and others that don't. It goes against the simple notion of equal protection under the law.

Federalism has survived for over two hundred years, and it will continue to survive, thankyouverymuch. It's a fundamental principle of United States law, and a basic ingrediant in our nation's liberty; power needs to be concentrated, as much as possible, in the bodies that are as close to the people as possible (with, of course, the larger governments stepping in periodically to balance things out when the lower governments violate peoples rights a la Jim Crow). You can have states with very differing sets of laws, and it does not violate the principle of equal protection under the law, because that principle speaks to the question of people being treated differently before the federal and state governments. As long as the states treat every person within their jurisdiction equally, they have equal protection. Further, the Tenth Amendment preserves the rights of states to retain authority over different issues; the only catch is that they have to adhere to the Full Faith and Credit clause.

The CIVIL WAR wasn't about slavery so much as it was states rights;

Which is bullshit, because A) Bleeding Kansas sure as hell wasn't fought over states rights, and B) the Confederate States Constitution actually restricted states rights compared to the US Constitution, though it went out of its way numerous times to preserve slavery. Don't believe me? Check it out.

And once, someday, our country is really under one set of laws, then we will engage in an even greater uphill contest; a world governed by one set of laws. And that struggle will be contested, I dare say, far past the 24th century.

The concept of trying to govern a planet with hundreds of different cultures as a unitary state is so out of whack with reality that I can do nothing but laugh. If Earth is ever united under a planetary government, it will have to be federal -- hundreds of different cultures with hundreds of different legal traditions will never stand for being part of a unitary state whose laws are determined by one particular culture that just happens to be more powerful than others.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Time will tell..but for the past 60 years Federalism has been under an unrelenting attack. The second, first, and tenth admendments are slowly being disolved. And for the USA to actually join a world body? The have to be. And...they will be. Is that good or bad? Depends on what side of the "ONE WORLD" arguement you are on.

Rob

 

[Sci]

Time will tell..but for the past 60 years Federalism has been under an unrelenting attack.

Nonsense. The Federal government has been losing the battle for greater powers for the last 25 years now. Part of Federalism has always been that power has see-sawed -- for a few decades, the states will tend to be more powerful, and then for a few decades, the Feds have tended to be more powerful, then back again. The seesaw was leaning in the Feds' direction throughout the mid-to-late 20th Century, but it's been leaning in general in the states' direction since Reagan was elected. Just look at the debate over gay marriage -- every attempt to federalize the issue has been stymied.

The second, first, and tenth admendments are slowly being disolved.

No, they're not, and, besides the point, the civil liberties and rights of the citizen (which is what the First and Second Amendments deal with) are not pertinent to the discussion over the relative balance of power between state and federal governments.

And for the USA to actually join a world body? The have to be.

I didn't argue one way or the other whether or not the United States or other countries should join a planetary state. I simply argued that a planetary state cannot function as a unitary state -- it will have to be a federal state that shares powers with its constitutent polities, because otherwise it will fail because the constitutent countries will not submit.

 

[Timo]

Jake, Nog, Wesley, Barckley, Geordi, and I suspect even Alexander, are proof that sex-ed in the future is failing them as it does our own time...

How so? None of them were "uncomfortable with sex", to posit the opposite of your description of Trek women. There's no indication they would have lacked knowledge that their female counterparts possessed. They all seemed to know what they wanted, by and large. It's just that Barclay and LaForge weren't getting it.

In contrast, Jake, Nog and Wesley all seemed to score at least average there, having perhaps a bit short but still amicably concluded relations with several stunningly good-looking females and no doubt enjoying lots of physical sex as long as it lasted. But I don't really know what sex education would have to do with that.

Sex, in our time, in a Western culture is taboo. The question is why? Having visited Europe it was a bit of a culture shock to see bare breasted women in shampoo ads at the bus stop.

Isn't that a bit contradictory? Surely the Europe of ad campaigns is every bit as "western" as the United States of ad campaigns...

As for bare breasts, exposure to them defines childhood! It's the adults that may suffer psychological scarring as the result of continued exposure, although I cannot really fathom the mechanism and cannot refer to known cases in my social circle.

...FWIW, a couple of decades ago it would have been difficult to find a young Finnish boy (girl) who hadn't seen at least a couple of dozen naked women (men) of all ages who weren't directly related to him. Today, the concept of common saunas (still gender-separated, but the separation wouldn't apply to young children, for practical reasons) at apartment buildings is dying out, with every family having their own (mixed-gender) shift, but the common sauna still survives in swimming halls and the like. Goes a long way to dispelling nudity taboos. But it certainly doesn't mean Finland would be particularly nonviolent - far from it, we're rather aggressive wife-beating drunkards and rapists, statistically speaking.

A taboo is not a bad thing, but a taboo needs to have a reason for existing.

...Although the reason may be as abstract as "having an excuse to boss around the populance". Such a function is important in holding together the society, in asserting the powers of the leadership, and has proven its worth many times over. Also, one might argue that taboos that exist only as excuses are the most harmless ones, as they do not truly shut out / make mandatory a relevant part of our lives.

If Earth is ever united under a planetary government, it will have to be federal -- hundreds of different cultures with hundreds of different legal traditions will never stand for being part of a unitary state whose laws are determined by one particular culture that just happens to be more powerful than others.

Yet the number of separate "cultures", "legal traditions" etc. has indeed gone down in the history of mankind. Oftentimes, this sort of development has been well received: unifying religions, political beliefs and fashions are welcomed and quickly spread, replacing their former localized counterparts.

There is no particularly pressing argument for not reducing the diversity further, possibly one day to an ultimate conclusion where legislation can indeed be universal (even if a degree of personal uniqueness remains in the populance). Such development is certainly plausible and not necessarily undesirable.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kubwulf]

Sex, in our time, in a Western culture is taboo. The question is why? Having visited Europe it was a bit of a culture shock to see bare breasted women in shampoo ads at the bus stop. Isn't that a bit contradictory? Surely the Europe of ad campaigns is every bit as "western" as the United States of ad campaigns...

As for bare breasts, exposure to them defines childhood! It's the adults that may suffer psychological scarring as the result of continued exposure, although I cannot really fathom the mechanism and cannot refer to known cases in my social circle.

Not really. While walking around Paris and Amsterdam, I saw ads that didn't hide the breasts of a woman. The populace was proud of their sexuality. In America, that isn't the case. Ads cannot legally depict the genitalia. If the ad does depict such, it is labeled as pornographic and has to be displayed in an "Adult Store".

While I admit that my time in Europe was short and is by no means an expert opinion, what I did see lends credence to the opinion that sex is taboo in America because our society has made it so.

Hundreds of years of conservitive ideas has influenced so many ascpets of our culture. The common sauna idea you brought up is a good point. Here in America, even in a gym environment, there are either male and female seperate saunas or the universal one. However, in the universal sauna, bathing suits are required to enter. Its a culture of continued seperation where depictions of sex are shunned openly and the attitude of those that "sell sex" such as a skin bar and adult stores, are things better left to the "bad seeds of society." Such attitudes are what lead to the taboos, and thusly, the laws that surround such topics.

On the subject of crime... I apologize for not being clear. I was intending to draw the parallel between sex crimes. USA vs Europe based on the taboos of the former and the openness of the latter. In a side by side comparision Europe has less sex crime.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Even ruling out simple coercion as such, the psychological danger to (human) children from Pedophile interaction, is Empirically corroborated. But why so? Just imagine trying to explain to an alien! Is it intrinsic to the experience, a matter of context coloring experience, or as some even dare advance, trauma entirely from taboo driven societal response thereafter? To complicate matters, not only have attitudes and practices differed so greatly between cultures throughout (Terrestrial) history, but there are those physical and emotional drives and needs of children that Freud called infant sexuality. Indeed, over protection of children from even the very specter of molestation, has been known to leave children insecure, repressed and starved of affection. So, where must one draw the line? The advantage for the Deltans, here, would not come from any greater accuracy in howsoever arbitrary compartmentalization, but in case based reasoning rather than rules based reasoning and also, as ever from how well in tune they all are. And with all that is at stake, one can understand their pity for the likes of us!

Now I'll have to revise my resource on Deltans appendices to Star Trek: The Ship of Fools pilot at:<<link removed>>

 

[barnaclelapse]

I'm just trying to figure out why you're trying so hard to see child molesting in a straightforward abduction story.

That's kind of what I was wondering, too, but I get inexplicably sleepy every time I try to make some headway with the question.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Perhaps simply seeking a creative Science Fiction vehicle for dramatic exploration of an edgy topical subject. You know, like they used to do on that quaint old TV show, what was it called? Star Trek or something like that...

 

[Misfit Toy]

Even ruling out simple coercion as such, the psychological danger to (human) children from Pedophile interaction, is Empirically corroborated. But why so? Just imagine trying to explain to an alien! Is it intrinsic to the experience, a matter of context coloring experience, or as some even dare advance, trauma entirely from taboo driven societal response thereafter? To complicate matters, not only have attitudes and practices differed so greatly between cultures throughout (Terrestrial) history, but there are those physical and emotional drives and needs of children that Freud called infant sexuality. Indeed, over protection of children from even the very specter of molestation, has been known to leave children insecure, repressed and starved of affection. So, where must one draw the line? The advantage for the Deltans, here, would not come from any greater accuracy in howsoever arbitrary compartmentalization, but in case based reasoning rather than rules based reasoning and also, as ever from how well in tune they all are. And with all that is at stake, one can understand their pity for the likes of us!

Now I'll have to revise my resource on Deltans appendices to Star Trek: The Ship of Fools pilot at: <<link removed>>

On topic or not, resurrecting this thread that's more than a year old looks suspiciously like an attempt to promote your website.

Don't do it again, please. Thread closed.