On pedophilia

[Serilliant]

Those of you that have read my posts or are familiar with anything I have done will know that I am no stranger to controversial discussions. What follows is an interesting thought I had recently that I am just now drafting into a thesis. The topic may draw some ire, but I want to encourage all participants to be as heated and as free-thinking as they feel comfortable. Please attack and degrade my stance as much as you'd like, as I expect that none of the statements made in this thread, including my own, be made without the forethought of being properly defendable or to able to be willingly conceded. That having been said...

It's clear from an observation of sociological trends that those traits we most despise are those that we typically embody ourselves. I am sure you have all noticed in others that the aspects of someone's personality that they are quickest to point out and criticize tend to be those features that they also possess. I am sure you are also very familiar with the common notion that those most likely to be homosexual are those most feverishly against it (fundamental, hardcore conservative republicans, anyone?)

So allow me to draw a parallel. Few things draw more universal outrage and disgust than the announcement of a child molester. People are forced to keep themselves from hurling objects violently at the television screen whenever the news reports that one has been apprehended. "That sleezeball!", they shout. Further, when it comes to prison pecking order, pedophiles are frequently the first beaten, raped, and often killed. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, most prisons separate child molesters from every other criminal for fear that they would be brutalized by the other prisoners. Upon hearing this fact, people rejoice. "Good," they say, "a big Bubba should rape that pedophile every day until he dies!" I'm willing to bet that many of those reading this are agreeing with that sentiment as well.

So, then, if we follow the 'that which we hate the most, we hate because it is in ourselves' paradigm, might pedophilia be so universally hated because we all have pieces, albeit repressed and controlled pieces, of pedophilia within us? Now before you dismiss this notion as ridiculous, imagine this for a second: consider how many "jokes" we have about rape. Rape is a horrible crime and, as a result, we shy away from telling jokes making light of it. Sure, there is some tasteless rape-related humor, but for the most part, people simply refuse to joke about it. Yet child molestation, an equally terrible offense, carries with it several jokes. Most jokes, in fact, give the idea of wanting to commit acts of pedophilia. Go through this list and think about how frequently and in what a variety of contexts you've heard:

"If there's grass on the field, then play ball!"
"Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"
"A little bit hairy, pop that cherry"
"Old enough to count, old enough to mount"
"What's the best part about making love to twenty eight year olds? There's twenty of 'em!"
"Hit it before puberty does"
"If she's old enough to crawl, she's in the right position."
...and so on...

Now of course, my claim is not that everyone who says any of the above are pedophiles. My point is that we feel a lot more comfortable joking about the topic and in a wider variety of contexts than we do about other items like rape. You'd probably be hard pressed to come up with a list of jokes pertaining to another sensitive subject, but I'm willing to bet that you either thought, "wow, that's a good one" or "I have a few to add to that list" upon reading the above.

My third point ties into my first about us universally criticizing child molesters. Look at the laws that have been passed regarding age of consent and other child sexual behavior laws. It is criminal for an 18-year-old boyfriend to have sex with his consenting 17-year-old girlfriend. If prosecuted and found guilty, he would be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. Our law specifically states that an individual one day shy of their 18th birthday is less capable of making a decision about sex than that same individual the very next day. Think for a moment, too, about how quick we are to criminalize other non-criminal behavior. When I was six, I was afraid of the dark. When at the home of an adult male friend of the family, I requested that I sleep in his bed. In my six-year-old mind, there was absolutely nothing wrong with that. But under current laws, if it were released that he slept in the same bed as a six-year-old boy, he would most certainly be the subject of extreme investigation if not already arrested. Now sure, if a 40-year-old man abducts and rapes a 10-year-old girl, that's a crime and a rather heinous one at that. But in our fervor to "protect the children!", aren't we going a bit overboard?

Further, look at the modern conception of beauty. We as a culture idolize youth. A 39-year-old who looks to be in her 20s is commended for her beauty secrets. We literally mutilate our own bodies in order to erase signs of aging. Models are considered in their prime at age 18 and are considered "too old" at 22. How many times have you seen a billboard featuring a women in a provocative pose and wondered, "is she even 18?" As time goes on, we're demanding that those considered "beautiful" look younger and younger and younger. Now, granted, this does have some biological basis to it. Youth is a representation of virility, and a youthful appearance an extension of health. But how can we push the envelope on demanding that the ideal of beauty be as close to pubescent as possible while, at the same time, condemning even a watchful gaze toward a toddler, calling it a sex crime?

My conclusion is twofold and utilizes all of the above points to arrive at what I believe to be a logical conclusion. Claim 1 is that we all have elements of pedophilia within us, some are just better at controlling it than others. Claim 2 is that it is the contempt of our own internalized pedophilia that causes us to so harshly criticize known molesters and to be so quick to criminalize non-criminal behavior. Do I believe we should lessen the penalties for child molestation? No, I don't. What I do believe, though, is that we need to take a step back and realize that through our biological, cognitive, and social breeding, we are giving rise to a civilization that condones internalized pedophilia, and then punishes its manifestation. The system is backwards and based in internal hatred. There are three solutions. The first is to let our id run free and sexualize teen and preteen children as was done in ancient times. The second is to completely redesign our perception of beauty and start worshipping features of age rather than features of youth. The third and final -- and only realistic -- option is to understand the facts that I have presented and work toward a solution that stops our sensationalized view of pedophilia and focuses on punishing actual sex crimes, not the friends of youthful dark-fearers or Romeo and Juliet lovers.

[Storm Veritas]

I have to disagree with your argument at it's core. I don't think that we berate and attack people who have tendencies that are embedded in us, but rather things that (whether they lie dormant or not) are NOT in our understanding.

Child molesters, serial killers, animal abusers, terrorists who prey on the innocent. We absolutely LOATHE these people because their crimes are incomprehensible to us.

I don't necessarily hate the burglar, or even armed robber. You could precariously perch yourself in a similar spot - ultimate desperation, and the need may seem to justify the misdeed. It's a short-cut to income.

A crime such as pedophilia, however, is altogether different. We operate on a fear (or hate) what you do not know, and this is a perfect example. I couldn't fathom doing something like that, and I don't even understand why it would be done. I don't understand anyone who could be sexually motivated by a pre-pubescent. No, I do not think we are denying some primal urge. I think we ostracize those who are unlike us, and the fact that it helps protect the sound upbringing of children is a convenient co-pilot to this segregation.

As far as your stance on modeling forcing people younger, we seek flawless beauty, but also FERTILE beauty. Women that are young are biologically more attractive to heterosexual men; a young woman is more likely to be fertile and a potential mate to raise a mother. This generation is one of the first to delay average childbirth well into the late 20s and 30s for major segments of the population. Women in their forties still look very beautiful at times, but with age comes wrinkles and flaws - natural degradation yet still a question mark for fertility. Inherent doubt.

[Roscar Palidyne]

What is seen as right and wrong can change along with the times. Want to find something interesting? Take a look at Greek and Roman history. Especially in the Greek and early Roman eras, sexual relations between full grown men and boys was found not as taboo, but commonplace. Catholic priests going old school on those little kids, Roman style, biatch! Ahem, anyway, it's funny how society's taboos have a habit of 360'ing.

Oh and if you people want proof of the sexualization of young people nowadays, all you have to do is work at an amusement park with water rides. Girls, on the average, will appear to be 18, but are more along the lines of 15. I actually thinkg we started a game guessing how young the girls actually were. It's...kinda scary sometimes.

[Storm Veritas]

Especially in the Greek and early Roman eras, sexual relations between full grown men and boys was found not as taboo, but commonplace.

What is your source on this? On the History Channel I saw a special on the Caesars that stated when Tiberius (if memory serves) held the throne he was chastised severely for his affairs with youth.

[Vorin]

Pederasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) is a mostly Greek thing that many Romans looked down upon, just for reference. And while common place most people kind'a kept it on the lowdown, even in ancient Greece.

[Chiroptera]

In a way, your argument holds water, but the motivation for hatred of pedophilia because of similar feelings can't be considered a rule. It comes down basically to the purpose of sex. In some cultures, 12 and 13-year-old girls are married to older men to be their wives. This is more than just getting to have sex with a kid, it's a job as a wife. While I don't approve of arranged marriages at that young age, such sentiments are understandable.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is repulsive. If you were to have sex with a six year old, the purpose of that intercourse would be to make you feel good, regardless of how it affects the child. Not even getting into the medical aspects, think of the psychological damage. No kid who was molested as a child can possibly be unaffected by such an act. I am outraged that anyone could be so selfish merely for their own pleasure.

Sorry, I don't have sexual fantasies involving little kids, but I hate pedophilia. I can't say I hate pedophiles because I don't know any. But when I look at some of the kids I babysit for, and I think that somebody might try to hurt them . . . it makes me very angry.

All that to say, I disagree with your first claim. I would never and could never sexually molest a child. The thought of it makes me nauseous. But I still hate pedophilia.

[Roscar Palidyne]

Well I wasn't so sure about the Roman part, but I know the Greek part was right. Crazy liberal Western Civilization teacher. That's ok, the Romans have plenty of other downfalls, like Coliguela and Nero.

You're right about younger females looking more fertile to males. The problem is, women aren't fully physically ready to be pregnant until they hit about 21, 22 (somewhere around there, if someone has a source check me on that). And yet it's amazing how many girls I saw in high school with pregnant bellies.

And yes, I think we all agree with you when you say that pedophilia is a horrible thing. But here's a question: Do you guys think that it is a medical disease involving mental imbalance, or a premeditated crime?

[Storm Veritas]

Do you guys think that it is a medical disease involving mental imbalance, or a premeditated crime?

Both.

Heterosexuality is a mental imbalance, wired differently than homosexuality. Perhaps it is a combination of nature and nurture, but I am not qualified to lead that discussion (not that I'm qualified here, but someone else asked for my juvenile opinion). I think that just like heterosexuality, the attraction to children is something that is inborn / founded in pedophiles. I don't think they CHOOSE to be inclined to be attracted to children, they just are.

At the same time, pedophilia is DAMAGING to children. Sex with children isn't consenting, regardless of what anyone can tell you. It is manipulation - predatory work, and will hinder the sociological development of children. Because of this, pedophiles HAVE to suppress their urge. It is a mandate, not an option, and if they cannot force themselves to abstain from their biological inclination, they are a danger to society and must be quarantined from those they may bring harm to.

[LordLeopold]

Serilliant, you're trying pretty hard to justify something...

[Molotov]

I'm not really going to get into your conclusions because I feel that individual laws on pedophilia vary from state to state and country to country, and some are much more reasonable than others. However, there is one thing I find to be slightly problematic with your general thesis.

If we as people hate things that are "part of all of us," it seems odd that we only hate pedophilia. In the US, most people do not hate Christianity, though the majority of the population is Christian. Similarly, most people do not hate two arms or two legs or anything like that. Sidestepping the empirical problem of the fact that most clashes are between an in and out group, this could be a purely heuristic trouble. It seems to me if we're all latent pedophiles, we would have not created institutions prohibiting it unless there were other goals humans had that they sought to maximize (perhaps its merely a case where people only want to have sex with other people's children, so they want there to be laws to protect the kids of their own).

Thats just my initial reaction to your theory. If you have a response, I'd like to hear it.

[Serilliant]

I like the responses I've received. I'll go ahead and respond to some of the rebuttals I've seen arise piece by piece.

Storm: You make a good point about fearing what it is we don't understand. I don't think pedophilia is something beyond understanding, though. You mentioned that you can identify with burglars and robbers on the basis of having the empathy to imagine what it's like to have an ultimate need. I imagine that you have a generalized attraction to females. And, even if you're not gay and can't fully grasp how a man could find another man attractive, I imagine you can also at least identify with the notion that there are some men that do. After all, attraction to females feels the same way as attraction to males. Taking that one step further, it's should be within grasp to understand that a person might feel that same feeling that we have for potential mates for children. You may not feel the same way and you may not fully understand it, but I think you'd be able to identify with it. I'll make some more comments to this topic in my response to Molotov.

Regarding a biological basis for attraction to youth, yes you're right and I did address that. However, the major thing we must consider is that by living in a 'civilized society', we hold ourselves to a degree that we can overlook primal urges. If we know, consciously, that attraction to young girls is bad, why do we continue to salivate over barely-18s on the billboards? Youth may equal virility, but in such a civilized society, shouldn't we also be looking for wisdom in a mate? In that sense, an older partner has just as much to offer as a younger one.

Roscar: Terrific point. Interesting how what was acceptable many years ago is very highly criminalized now.

Chiroptera: Keep in mind that sex with a 12 or 13-year-old would still be considered pedophilia in our culture. It does not necessarily have to be a small child at the age of 8 for it to count. In fact, you must register as a sex offender for having consensual sex for someone as old as 17. Also, don't read so far into my claims. I'm not saying that we all have a desire to sexually molest small children. I'm saying that we all have some inclination toward pedophilia (for many of us, not enough of an inclination to ever act on it) in much the same way that Professor Kinsey theorized that we all have inclinations toward homo and heterosexuality regardless of our personal identification. Also like you, I don't find 7-year-olds sexually attractive in the least bit. But I'd be lying if I said that I don't sometimes see 17-year-olds that I think are quite attractive. Knowing their age, of course I'd never act on it for fear of our overzealous laws, but I doubt there's a person alive who can tell apart 17 and 18-year-olds with 100% accuracy and know who is legal and illegal to be attracted to.

Roscar: In terms of pedophilia being a biological trait, I think it's completely true that it is. The only reason it's a premeditated crime is because we have made it such. But I believe pedophilia to be something hardwired in much the same way that hetero-, homo-, bi-, pan-, and a- sexuality are. Not saying it's right, I'm just saying I believe that it is a condition determined by cognitive factors.

Storm: Damaging indeed, yes. This is why many forms of pedophilia should be and are illegal. I'm focusing mainly on grayer areas of interpretation.

Leopold: You're right. If there's grass on the field...

Molotov: You're oversimplifying my claim of hating things that are a part of us. I don't mean that we universally hate things that we are. That would imply some level of innate masochism. I'm talking more unconscious, internal things. I would be surprised if you were to tell me that you've never been in a discussion with someone who is the personality type that must always be right who is complaining about another person because of their desire to always be right. We tend to be most aware of our own personal flaws and thus find them easily in others. The fact that we have passed so many overly restrictive laws on sex reinforces the fact that we're afraid of our own sexual desires. This does not only pertain to children, but to all acts of sex. We seem to be overly frightened of the thought of ourselves, our parents, our friends, and especially our children as sexual beings. In our fear, we set ridiculous restrictions that will not only protect those who we seek to protect (our children), but also set forth a clearly defined set of laws that can determine for us what is right and wrong. "I like children, but some people say that it's wrong? Is it? Oh, the law says it is. It is wrong. I should suppress it". Without the laws, it's safe to say that we wouldn't know what to do with our displaced sexual desires toward youthful individuals. And, just to reinforce, I'm not claiming that we're all latent pedophiles, just that we all have internalized pedophiliac tendencies. The line is fine, but it makes all the difference here.

[Mark Twain]

Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity--these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. When Adam ate the apple in the Garden and learned how to multiply and replenish, the other animals learned the Art, too, by watching Adam. It was cunning of them, it was neat; for they got all that was worth having out of the apple without tasting it and afflicting themselves with the disastrous Moral Sense, the parent of all the immoralities.

From the time a woman is seven years old till she dies of old age, she is ready for action, and competent. As competent as the candlestick to receive the candle. But man is only briefly competent:...After fifty his performance is of poor quality; the intervals between are wide, and its satisfactions of no great quality to either party; whereas his great-grandmother is as good as new.

[Storm Veritas]

See, I guess I just don't see how it's possible for one to so clearly overlook the morality of the issue at hand. Your analogy is largely extended, but due to the difficulty of your position I'll entertain it. I would agree that there are some that DO feel what they consider a normal biological attraction to children, but I would argue that it is science, and not society, that has proven the dangers of pedophilia. That corrupting the innocence of youth is a major destructive force in the development of children, and that it is very likely to skew their social development.

In a similar vein, the attraction to the nubile barely 18s operates under a bit of a hypocracy based on that argument, but nonetheless has a bit of footing. An 18 year old is still considered an adult, and at least capable of understanding when they are being manipulated and has a working functional knowledge of thier sexuality. While they can be easily duped, the bulk of their core, fundamental knowledge of the universe has been settled by that age.

As for the overly restrictive laws on sex, I could also argue that it shows a fear of the sexuality not of ourselves, but of those like us that we do not understand. Those same hard core fundamentalist right-wingers that you argue are most likely to be homosexual as they chastise it so forcefully are not necessarily any more likely to be gay. This reverts back to the argument that was addressed earlier - we fear what we do not know / understand, and in this case not necessarily that which we repress.

And I think that's where we will continue to disagree. I feel that we attack, legislate, and chastise the things in life that we fear, since we do not know (such as the case with Racism). You seem to feel (and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth) that these attacks come as a result of us suppressing a feeling and being afraid to let that taboo out of the closet, lest we open Pandora's Box.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Personally, I think there's a difference between attraction to TEENS and attraction to CHILDREN.

[Chiroptera]

I still can't say that I agree with you. Judging only by personal experience, I have never been in any way partial to pedophilia. Unless pedophilia includes looking at little kids and saying "Oh, he's cute" or "wow, she's going to be gorgeous when she grows up."

But not all attraction is purely sexual. Look at the Greeks. I may be wrong, but I've always been lead to believe that the reason the Olympics were held in the nude was so that the audience could appreciate the finely-toned bodies of the athletes. Was the Olympics a porn festival or a hyper-active orgy? I don't think so. In the same way, we look at children and admire their tiny bodies, remembering how we were once as small and similarly proportioned, admiring the anatomy of their bodies without lusting after them.

And on the issue of teens . . . I'm sure that you went to high school. Think of two different girls who were in your class. Without a doubt, you can remember females in there who were women, and others who were girls. There's no magical line, but there is a difference, and it's not necessarily about age, or even physical development, but about mental maturity and self-awareness. I think that most guys who have sex with teens KNOW whether or not the girl they're with is a woman, mature enough to make that kind of decision.

[Ithermoss]

I always hear "but age is just a number," in regards to people doing that kind of predatory shit. If ever you do, please feel free to inform them that the years spent in jail, among the charges one can face in court, are numbers too. :p

[Serilliant]

Personally, I think there's a difference between attraction to TEENS and attraction to CHILDREN.


I think that most guys who have sex with teens KNOW whether or not the girl they're with is a woman, mature enough to make that kind of decision.
Precisely. I quoted both of these things as the same response can be used to address both. There is a difference between attraction to teens and attraction to children, and there is a difference between a womanish 16-year-old and a girlish 16-year-old, but in the eyes of the law, there is no difference between the two categories. That, I say, is where the injustice lies. Supposedly 18 is the universal magic number, but I'm sure we all agree that there are some 17-year-olds more mature in their sexual decisions than some 19-year-olds. Unfortunately, though, regardless of the stage of psychosexual development, one is always legal, and the other is always illegal.

[Daggertail]

The legal age isn’t so much about maturity; it’s to help prevent Teen Pregnancy. When a Teenager becomes pregnant there can be major problems. Much of America is Christian with the belief that sex before marriage is a horrible sin and if a girl become pregnant then it alienates her from her parents and that can cause problems and if the parents accept the pregnancy then there still is the extra burden of having a child while trying to figure out what to do in life. It’s unrealistic to expect that people won’t have sex before becoming 18, especially since masturbation is frowned upon so greatly and the human body has instincts for sex, if it didn’t it wouldn’t feel so good and we wouldn’t want it. But when a girl is in her teens it’s really not a good time to become pregnant and that’s why the law is there to protect them though it’s not very effective but it’s the only thing the country has come up with and I don’t know any other ideas.

[Sighter Tnailog]

I don't think the legal age has anything to do with the prevention of teenage pregnancy. I very seriously doubt that preventing pregnancy was anywhere near the criteria used in crafting age-of-consent laws.

[Dissinger]

Actually it does but for a different reason. An eighteen year old is far more likely to survive the process of giving birth than say a 12 year old. Because of this the Legal age is 18.

[Sighter Tnailog]

I'm really not sure we're right here. I think it's to prevent older people from having sex with younger people, and has very little to do with preventing pregnancy. If the prevention of pregnancy was a real concern in American society, and not just something people like to talk about, then we'd see far more aggressive policies concerning the distribution of birth control methods and sexual education geared towards safe sex, not merely abstinence.

If the prevention of pregnancy was the big concern, you'd see much harsher penalties for, say, a 14-year-old having sex with another 14-year-old. A 14-year-old boy can impregnate as well as a 25-year-old man, yet the punishments for the 25-year-old are much harsher. Preventing pregnancy, for reasons of health or public morality, plays a very small part in this particular debate. Preventing predatory behavior, however, plays a big part in it.

If you doubt this, just spend a while searching for public remarks on the issue. Policymakers consistently talk about preventing exploitation and abuse of children -- early pregnancy is way down the list of reasons for these laws.

[Ashiakin]

I haven't thought about this enough yet to make a full post, but I think that Serilliant is making some points that shouldn't be dismissed offhand. Something I read the other day made me consider how strange it is that two different stories are running parallel in recent news cycles--the claim by John Mark Karr, a purported child molestor, that he was obsessed with and killed JonBenet Ramsey ten years ago and recent stories involving the US government's crackdown on child pornography. Isn't it just a little strange that people are obsessed with reading about this JonBenet thing (a ten year old story) but are eagerly voting for politicians who crack down on child porn?

[Sighter Tnailog]

It wasn't just John Mark Karr who was obsessed with JonBenet. It was the entire American media.

[Ashiakin]

Haha, this is my point! Unless you were just clarifying.

[Mark Twain]

Yes.

Some people who can skirt precipices without a tremor have a strong dread of the dentist's chair, whereas I was born without any prejudices against the dentist's chair; when in it I am interested, and not in a hurry, and do not greatly mind the pain. Taken by and large, my style of make has advantages over the other, I think. Few of us are obliged to circumnavigate precipices, but we all have to take a chance at the dental chair.

People who early learn the right way to choose a dentist have their reward. Professional superiority is not everything; it is only part. All dentists talk while they work. They have inherited this from their professional ancestors, the barbers. The dentist who talks well--other things being equal--is the one to choose. He tells anecdotes all the while and keeps his man so interested and entertained that he hardly notices the flight of time. For he not only tells anecdotes that are good in themselves, but he adds nice shadings to them with his instruments as he goes along, and now and then brings out effects which could not be produced with any other kind of tools at all. All the time that such a dentist as this is plowing down into a cavity with that spinning gouge which he works with a treadle, it is observable that he has found out where he has uncovered a nerve down in there, and that he only visits it at intervals, according to the needs of his anecdote, touching it lightly, very lightly and swiftly, now and then, to brighten up some happy conceit in his tale and call a delicate attention to it; and all the while he is working gradually and steadily up toward his climax with veiled and consummate art--then at last the spindle stops whirling and thundering in the cavity, and you know that the grand surprise is imminent, now--is hanging in the very air. You can hear your heart beat as the dentist bends over you with his grip on the spindle and his voice diminished to murmur. The suspense grows bigger--bigger--bigger--your breath stops--then your heart. Then with lightning suddenness the "nub" is sprung and the spindle drives into the raw nerve! The most brilliant surprises of the stage are pale and artificial compared with this.

It is believed by people generally--or at least by many--that the exquisitely sharp sensation which results from plunging the steel point into the raw nerve is pain, but I think that this is doubtful. It is so vivid and sudden that one has no time to examine properly into its character. It is probably impossible, with our human limitations, to determine with certainty whether a sensation of so high and perfect an order as that is pain or whether it is pleasure. Its location brings it under the disadvantage of a common prejudice; and so men mistake it for pain when they might perceive that it is the opposite of that if it were anywhere but in a tooth. I may be in error, but I have experimented with it a great deal and I am satisfied in my own mind that it is not pain. It is true that it always feels like pain, but that proves nothing--ice against a naked back always passes for fire. I have every confidence that I can eventually prove to everyone's satisfaction that a nerve-stab produces pleasure; and not only that, but the most exquisite pleasure, the most perfect felicity which we are capable of feeling. I would not ask more than to be remembered hereafter as the man who conferred this priceless benefaction upon his race.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Although some might see this as only vaguely relevant to the topic at hand, I can see pretty clearly the connections you draw, Mr. Twain.

In a sense, what you are saying is that for one person, the dentist's chair becomes a source of pleasure, a secret happiness that only that singular individual understands. For anyone else, it is a pain, something that cannot be conceived as exciting by anyone else in that same chair.

So pedophilia bears a resemblance to that -- a form of undecipherable cruelty to some, an act which would cause them physical pain were they to commit it. But to a few poor souls it is a temptation beyond belief, because the pain of the act -- for even many pedophiles know that they have a sickness that hurts people, and it pains them greatly to be unable to control it -- becomes a pleasure too great to bear.

And, in a sense, the pedophile knows that everyone in his predicament would feel the same pain, and maybe somewhere inside them a spark of pleasure, but resists it because, naturally, they're supposed to. A dentist chair produces pain...it's supposed to do so.

In a sense, Mr. Twain, you have produced a marvelous thing. Despite the age of your writing, you have managed to relate it to our present conundrum using a most interesting technique -- bricollage. You have juxtaposed something that appears out of date in a way that may teach us something about a topic you yourself knew nothing about. For all the time that has passed, your ability to cut through our thoughts and agree with Serilliant's point -- in your own way, in your own tongue -- is refreshingly postmodern.

So refreshingly postmodern, in fact, that I feel the need to explain it to those who see this as merely a long quotation with vague relevance. Either it's laziness or lack of intellectual curiosity. Go figure. Althanas is pretty conservative.

[Lavinian Pride]

I'm really not sure we're right here. I think it's to prevent older people from having sex with younger people, and has very little to do with preventing pregnancy. If the prevention of pregnancy was a real concern in American society, and not just something people like to talk about, then we'd see far more aggressive policies concerning the distribution of birth control methods and sexual education geared towards safe sex, not merely abstinence.


Thats more related to the fact we like to sweep sex under the rug. Catholicism actually only endorses one method of birth control and are you ready for this here it comes;

The Rythm Method.

Thats right, time sex for when she aint going to get pregnant.

Since we are a god fearing country that means that following in the vein of catholicism we would, rather than smartly give out birth control, try to make laws against it. Also to complete the relevance of the statement, also concerning christianity and its place at the table is the fact that, you guessed it, they want to discourage what they concieve as an intolerable act (24 with 14 year old) rather than stop the act completely. If you want to knwo why the legal age for Sex is 18 its because of the survival rate. But we aren't talking legal sex age, we're talking pedophilia laws, which is a horse of an entirely different color.

EDIT: And I would like to point out someone did the math and there is a number of extenuating circumstances in which sex between an underage partner and a adult partner is actually legal. Most of the time it doesn't matter, and never gets brought up but here's a few.

1) If the two in question are within a certian time frame of age it can be legal, but the window is down to mere months. Maybe even one.

2) If the parents consent to it. It isn't a crime if the parent's say A-OK.

there are others I would have to ask said friend as she's weird like that...

[Serilliant]

1) If the two in question are within a certian time frame of age it can be legal, but the window is down to mere months. Maybe even one.

2) If the parents consent to it. It isn't a crime if the parent's say A-OK.

there are others I would have to ask said friend as she's weird like that...
What you're referring to here are state-specific laws. Not all states have a clause allowing similarly aged partners.

I'd also like to contribute to the discussion about age of consent laws being based on pregnancy. If this is the case, then why is it still a crime for a 24-year-old woman to have sex with a 15-year-old boy? Certainly she's capable of surviving pregnancy at that point. Further, why is the minimum sentence for a man who molests a boy 10-15 years (depending on state), but for a man who molests a girl only 2 years? If we're so concerned about pregnancy, shouldn't it be the other way around?

Age of consent laws may have started to curb pregnancy in minors, but exist now as a product of our hypersensitivity to sex.

[Sighter Tnailog]

The Rythm Method

Or, as the Catholics call it, coitus interruptus.

I think it's a bit strange, though, to use Catholicism as a reason why America has underage sex laws. Catholicism, really up until 1960, was a minority religion in America that was largely shunned by most of the Protestants within the country. And while there are a growing number of Protestant groups in the country who agree with the Catholics on birth control, the mainline churches, even in the 1800s, were nowhere near as uniform on their birth control positions. I just don't see the "Catholic culture" argument as playing very well for countries that aren't, you know, Poland.

Also, parental consent has nothing to do with it, at least where I'm from. Statutory rape is prosecuted by the state, and the parents don't have a say in whether or not charges are pressed.

[Empyrean]

Age of consent laws may have started to curb pregnancy in minors, but exist now as a product of our hypersensitivity to sex.


That, and the fact that the victim of rape or molestation would have gone through a fair bit of trauma and/or physical damage. I think that is one of the main reasons we have such laws - not just because of pregnancy problems.

[Dissinger]

Or, as the Catholics call it, coitus interruptus.

I think it's a bit strange, though, to use Catholicism as a reason why America has underage sex laws. Catholicism, really up until 1960, was a minority religion in America that was largely shunned by most of the Protestants within the country. And while there are a growing number of Protestant groups in the country who agree with the Catholics on birth control, the mainline churches, even in the 1800s, were nowhere near as uniform on their birth control positions. I just don't see the "Catholic culture" argument as playing very well for countries that aren't, you know, Poland.

It was more the whole moral fabric thing. Alot of laws are in place because of the morals instilled by Religion. now most of them make sense, don't kill people, don't rob them, but a few can be a bit more spiteful, such as the gay mairrage problems. My point is that Religion (and Catholicism is a valid religion last I checked) has put alot of what people believe into the laws. SOmepeople would prefer we sweep sex under the rug.

[Serilliant]

That, and the fact that the victim of rape or molestation would have gone through a fair bit of trauma and/or physical damage. I think that is one of the main reasons we have such laws - not just because of pregnancy problems.
Who said anything about rape or molestation? You'll notice I was talking about the age of consent. Unless my dictionary is very out-of-date, I'm fairly sure rape and consent aren't common bedfellows.

[Damion Shargath]

Pedophiliacs are sick, and should be shot. Period. That's my opinion and I don't really feel like contributing much more thought to this thread simply as there isn't, in my opinion, much more to be contributed. To me, such people are sick, perverted, disturbed criminals.

[LordLeopold]

It was more the whole moral fabric thing. Alot of laws are in place because of the morals instilled by Religion. now most of them make sense, don't kill people, don't rob them, but a few can be a bit more spiteful, such as the gay mairrage problems. My point is that Religion (and Catholicism is a valid religion last I checked) has put alot of what people believe into the laws. SOmepeople would prefer we sweep sex under the rug.

Suggesting that Catholicism has ever had a major part in the formulation of American laws ignores the entire course of American history and current political reality. The official stance of the Catholic church is an opposition to birth control, abortion and the death penalty. In the US, all forms of birth control that are safe for the mother are legal, abortion is legal, and the death penalty is legal in most states, if not necessarily implemented. I won't deny the influence of external moral forces in American politics, but turning religion into some sort of bugbear by lumping together all denominations of Christianity and then equating all moral influences on the formation of laws with their pernicious influence is illogical, counter-factual and just plain laughable. The fact that Catholicism and fundamentalism have come to general accord on pre-martial sex or gay marriage does not indicate any general consensus on spiritual matters, or even the general question of contraception. (Ask a Baptist to expound on the virtues of salvation by works or the Communion of Saints and see what they say. Then pat their jeans down and see how many condoms they're carrying.) And the fact that the best either group has managed is to limit the number of Wal-Marts that sell birth control indicates the ultimate shallowness of their influence on the legal regulation of sexual activity. In any event, American Catholicism has been notorious for eschewing the moral dictates of Rome when it comes to birth control.

The idea of a legal "coming of age" during the period years 16-21 in which adolescents are given legal rights, including the rights to drive, vote, enter contracts, consent to sex and consume legal drugs, doesn't have its basis in Christianity. The idea that people slowly develop into adults with effective decision making skills is actually entirely counter to the traditional Christian concept of man as an invariably sinful creature who is tainted from birth by the Original Sin of Adam. It springs more from John Locke than Jesus, just like most of our laws.

Also, Serilliant in thirty years. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5296196.stm)

[Serilliant]

Yes, because if there's one things I'm going to have a lot of, it's wives.