Abuse/Pedophilia: Definitions? Reactions?

[Scott Dickerson]

The subject is: that thing a lot of priests, and various others, are being accused of doing.

It is termed "child sexual abuse" or "pedophilia." And I'm not at all sure what it is.

I'm a rather well-educated grownup with a Masters in Counseling --and I don't know what it is. Because no one says exactly what these people were supposed to have done: not the newspapers, not the TV news, not anyone. Is it like sex in general when you're 12: you're just "supposed to know" without being told?

From what little info leaks out from behind the curtain, I gather the terms cover all sorts of things. Now--being delicate and respecting the SDMB--there are adult males practicing rear insertion on 4-year-olds; female babysitters fellating their 10-yr-old charges; priests fondling the private regions of teenage altar-boys; even pop celebs holding naked sleepovers with adoring pre-pubescent fans. I gather all these are verbotten. So are things like nude mutual washing, kissing the back of a kid's neck, chucking your neice on the bottom in a kidding way, embracing a student in a classroom who has been upset and is in tears; etc.

My point is not to excuse or validate any of these activities, but rather to ask: in precisely what sense are they taken to be sexual or abusive? Some cases are obvious; some are not.

Are priests being turned into registered sex offenders because they kissed a 16-year-old 30 years ago? Was that regarded as improper or dangerous 30 years ago?

In what sense is kissing...or even nudity...a SEXUAL act? I always assumed a sexual act required penetration, or the "stimulative" touching of the genitals, or at least an obvious attempt to do the same. Yes, I know the law says otherwise; I'm not asking for a quote from the law books. I want to know how it has come to be that we no longer believe in such a thing as "innocent" physical contact between an adult and a minor. Does "Hugs Not Drugs" now mean, Hug Yourself?

What emotions, what reasoning, drives people to say that such acts are "worse than murder" and that killing even a suspected "perp" is morally justifiable? Bad touching is worse than MURDER? Or have I misunderstood--are they talking only about violent sexual assault?

And--since when are persons 13-17 deemed "children"?

I'm ready to be not only flamed but burnt at the stake...by those who do not bother to note that I am only asking for clarification and discussion, not advocating a "position." And I ask those flamers: what EXACTLY enrages you?

[Mangetout]

Most children are much more impressionable and easily-led than almost any adult, plus they are not as likely to understand the implications of how something will play out; these are essentially vulnerabilities and paedophiles deliberately (IMHO) exploit them.

To me, attempting to engage in a sexual encounter with any person who does not or cannot properly understand where it is leading is the moral equivalent of, say, drugging someone and having sex with them while they are unconscious - if they were aware of what was going to happen, they might choose to say 'no'.

[doreen]

In what sense is kissing...or even nudity...a SEXUAL act? I always assumed a sexual act required penetration, or the "stimulative" touching of the genitals, or at least an obvious attempt to do the same. Yes, I know the law says otherwise; I'm not asking for a quote from the law books. I want to know how it has come to be that we no longer believe in such a thing as "innocent" physical contact between an adult and a minor. Does "Hugs Not Drugs" now mean, Hug Yourself?

I don't think it's that we no longer believe there's such a thing as innocent physical contact- I haven't heard about scores of parents making complaints about their children's aunts and uncles hugging them and kissing them. I think it's that we're less likely to assume that the contact is innocent. When I was a child, if my teacher hugged me, my mother wouldn't have thought twice about it, even if she didn't know the teacher. Same thing if it was a softball coach or a priest. Not the same with my kids- I might not get upset if a teacher, coach or priest hugged one of my kids, or gave them a pat on the butt, but it would very much depend on me knowing the person well enough to believe it's innocent, not just assuming it must be innocent.

[Scott Dickerson]

I understand what you're saying, Doreen.

But my question is: Just what IS a "non-innocent pat on the butt"?

It's the same experience for the kid either way, isn't it? Or am I wrong...?

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Scott Dickerson

It's the same experience for the kid either way, isn't it? Or am I wrong...?

I think you're wrong, it's not the same experience. As an adolescent I sometimes encountered adults who seemed to have shall we say an unusual interest in adolescent girls. Sometimes these adults never did anything clearly physically inappropriate, but it would still creep me out when Teacher X put his arm around my shoulders even though it might not have bothered me at all when Teacher Y did the same thing.

So no, I don't think all pats on the bottom or whatever are created equal.

[doreen]

But my question is: Just what IS a "non-innocent pat on the butt"?

It's the same experience for the kid either way, isn't it? Or am I wrong...?


Physically, it's the same pat on the butt. But as Lamia said, kids can sometimes get creeped out when certain people do it ( Lamia's example happened to me. In high school, quite a few male teachers did the arm around the shoulder thing. Only one got me nervous. And he got every other girl nervous, too ) Even aside from that, there's a big difference between a pat on the butt, or a hug that will remain a pat on the butt or a hug and one that's a precursor to other things. . Kind of like gifts and outings- there are any number of people who I don't mind my kids receiving gifts from or going out with. They're all people I know well. I would be suspicious of a teacher who invited my child on an individual trip to a museum or gave my child gifts- not because the experience of going to the museum would be markedly different from going with me or on a class trip or getting the gift from the teacher would feel different to my child than getting it from me, but because I would have questions about where it was leading. And it's not an unreasonable position to take, since few pedophiles ( or ephebophiles- those attracted to adolescents) are of the "grab the child off the playground " sort. They more often form a relationship with a child,buying gifts and spending time, making the child feel special, and then gradually intoduce sexual activity of some sort (which may well not involve the child's genitals at all, but only the adult's). I'm not at all saying that the teacher inviting the child on a trip can't be innocent, or that the teacher should be sent to prison, but if I don't personally know the teacher I have no more reason to think it's innocent than a would if a total stranger invited the child on an outing. And I think I've just put my finger on the real difference between now and thirty years ago - my mother didn't think twice because she believed she could trust a teacher,coach, or priest even if she didn't know the teacher,coach or priest. She certainly would have had a problem if a total stranger walked up to me on the street and hugged me or kissed me.

[Scott Dickerson]

I see. Thanks.

Can either of you, or anyone, identify what it is about certain people that make these things "feel creepy"? Maybe that the contact is just a little too prolonged, or a little too forceful...or something like, the person seems to make just a little too much effort to do it, as if looking for an excuse--?

And the thing about being concerned lest an innocent gesture be part of a seduction routine makes sense. After all, that IS how seduction, of an adult by an adult, "happens," especially when the seducer is unable or unwilling to be too open about it.

Still looking for input on some other issues, like... Is this sort of "pat on the butt" familiarity part of what priests and others are getting sued for, as if it were considered abuse/molestation in and of itself? Or does it have to go further? How much further? (That is, where is the line crossed between "This guy isn't right" and "I'm charging him with molestation"?) --asked because of such things as school teachers being afraid to hug a crying child for fear of a lawsuit.

Again: In what sense is it "sexual" without genital involvement? Obviously no parent wants the babysitter climbing in the tub with the 5-year-old-- but is that really "sexual molestation," or something more like, um, indecent exposure or inappropriate attention? Maybe there IS no category for it. (Maybe the news media gets it wrong, reporting "molestation" as shorthand for various other violations...)

I'm thinking also of a film I saw about a gay relationship between a 29-year-old and a 15-year-old. No (overt) sex was shown, but there was some nudity and kissing, and I was told that this would be sufficient for a molestation charge. Is it because the teen could SEE the adult's genitals? If they were naked but always back-to-back, does that make a difference? (I'm being absurd, but with a purpose.) If Mary, 35, is caught in the front seat of her love wagon kissing Umberto, 14, both fully clothed with no sign of genital "play"--what then?

And again: where does the rage come from? And why are teens, adults in so many contexts, lumped with pre-pubescent children when we talk about this stuff?

[erislover]

It often strikes me like we declare adolescent maturity to be a bald-man problem and then from that assert that the arbitrary age of 18 is good enough. From my own experiences growing up and from the sparse material I've read this doesn't really seem to be the case.

I really think the information is sort of out there, in some respects, that would allow us to be more comprehensive in both our assertions regarding maturity and the declaration of sexual misconduct in these cases.

It is almost like we don't want to look there, and so we paint the scene with the widest brush possible. I think the analysis regarding youths subjected to or engaging in sexual acts needs to be more comprehensive. But then, I also think that some things are self-fulfilling prophecies regarding sexual behavior, so I don't even know what to say on the topic any more.

Whether or not we have had teachers do such things to us (and I have) as make us uncomfortable by simply putting an arm around you, it is the case that otherwise innocent acts can add or create an air of unease. But I feel we paint this picture with too wide of a brush.

[doreen]

Can either of you, or anyone, identify what it is about certain people that make these things "feel creepy"? Maybe that the contact is just a little too prolonged, or a little too forceful...or something like, the person seems to make just a little too much effort to do it, as if looking for an excuse--?

Can't really identify what made him seem "creepy", any more than I can identify what makes me think a man is interested in more than a casual conversation when he talks to me - some men seem to just be having a conversation, and others seem to be interested in more.

Still looking for input on some other issues, like... Is this sort of "pat on the butt" familiarity part of what priests and others are getting sued for, as if it were considered abuse/molestation in and of itself? Or does it have to go further? How much further? (That is, where is the line crossed between "This guy isn't right" and "I'm charging him with molestation"?) --asked because of such things as school teachers being afraid to hug a crying child for fear of a lawsuit.

Again: In what sense is it "sexual" without genital involvement? Obviously no parent wants the babysitter climbing in the tub with the 5-year-old-- but is that really "sexual molestation," or something more like, um, indecent exposure or inappropriate attention? Maybe there IS no category for it. (Maybe the news media gets it wrong, reporting "molestation" as shorthand for various other violations...)

First- In my state at least, there is no such crime as "molestation" There are various degrees of rape,sexual misconduct and sexual abuse and one level of "course of sexual conduct against a child", all of which at a minimum involve the touching of the genitals or "intimate parts" of a person for the purpose of sexual gratification. Clearly, the babysitter bathing nude with the five year old is not covered here if there's no touching. But it might be covered under "endangering the welfare of a child", which includes mental and moral welfare as well as physical.

Molestation is used in a similar way to "child neglect" - it's a very general term.Saying that someone is accused of molesting a child doesn't tell you if the person is accused of a quick touch of the child's clothed genitals or of a violent rape, just as saying that someone is accused of "child neglect" doesn't tell you if they're accused of not getting a child shots or starving a child to death.The stories I've seen that went into detail (although most didn't) all involved genital contact over a period of time.

Regarding what priests are being sued for- I suppose someone could have complained to the bishop over a single, inappropriate pat on the butt, but given the Catholic hierarchy's record of trying to outlast, outspend, and blame the victims and their families, I doubt that any lawyer would take a case where the only allegation was a pat on the butt. It simply didn't have a good enough chance of winning for a lawyer to bother.

I don't think teachers are afraid to hug a child for fear of getting sued. What would the damages be from a single hug? I think they're more afraid of being fired for not following policy (which may have been put in place because of the district's fear of being sued when someone does go on to actual sexual contact ) , a much more realistic fear.

[doreen]

Can either of you, or anyone, identify what it is about certain people that make these things "feel creepy"? Maybe that the contact is just a little too prolonged, or a little too forceful...or something like, the person seems to make just a little too much effort to do it, as if looking for an excuse--?

Can't really identify what made him seem "creepy", any more than I can identify what makes me think a man is interested in more than a casual conversation when he talks to me - some men seem to just be having a conversation, and others seem to be interested in more.

Still looking for input on some other issues, like... Is this sort of "pat on the butt" familiarity part of what priests and others are getting sued for, as if it were considered abuse/molestation in and of itself? Or does it have to go further? How much further? (That is, where is the line crossed between "This guy isn't right" and "I'm charging him with molestation"?) --asked because of such things as school teachers being afraid to hug a crying child for fear of a lawsuit.

Again: In what sense is it "sexual" without genital involvement? Obviously no parent wants the babysitter climbing in the tub with the 5-year-old-- but is that really "sexual molestation," or something more like, um, indecent exposure or inappropriate attention? Maybe there IS no category for it. (Maybe the news media gets it wrong, reporting "molestation" as shorthand for various other violations...)

First- In my state at least, there is no such crime as "molestation" There are various degrees of rape,sexual misconduct and sexual abuse and one level of "course of sexual conduct against a child", all of which at a minimum involve the touching of the genitals or "intimate parts" of a person for the purpose of sexual gratification. Clearly, the babysitter bathing nude with the five year old is not covered here if there's no touching. But it might be covered under "endangering the welfare of a child", which includes mental and moral welfare as well as physical.

Molestation is used in a similar way to "child neglect" - it's a very general term.Saying that someone is accused of molesting a child doesn't tell you if the person is accused of a quick touch of the child's clothed genitals or of a violent rape, just as saying that someone is accused of "child neglect" doesn't tell you if they're accused of not getting a child shots or starving a child to death.The stories I've seen that went into detail (although most didn't) all involved genital contact over a period of time.

Regarding what priests are being sued for- I suppose someone could have complained to the bishop over a single, inappropriate pat on the butt, but given the Catholic hierarchy's record of trying to outlast, outspend, and blame the victims and their families, I doubt that any lawyer would take a case where the only allegation was a pat on the butt. It simply didn't have a good enough chance of winning for a lawyer to bother.

I don't think teachers are afraid to hug a child for fear of getting sued. What would the damages be from a single hug? I think they're more afraid of being fired for not following policy (which may have been put in place because of the district's fear of being sued when someone does go on to actual sexual contact ) , a much more realistic fear.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by erislover
I really think the information is sort of out there, in some respects, that would allow us to be more comprehensive in both our assertions regarding maturity and the declaration of sexual misconduct in these cases.
I agree entirely. If we can say that [some group] is incapable of consenting to sex, there must be some criteria for determining whether someone is capable. Otherwise the phrase "incapable of consenting to sex" is meaningless, and we may as well say [some group] is zxcvbnm.

My question is, if these criteria can be applied to an entire age group, why can't they be applied to individuals?

Certainly some acts between adults and minors are abusive, as are some acts between adults and adults, or between minors and minors. An arbitrary age lets us categorize acts as "abusive" or "not abusive", but if that categorization doesn't reflect reality, we may as well just throw dice.

[erislover]

Hmm. Imagine there were such a test that was, say, somehow 99.99% accurate. Don't ask me how we would determine that. But, for the hypothetical, let's play. Now, we have here a test which will determine whether a person is able to meaningfully consent (another sort of magically meaningless term when viewed from the context of our current legal system). Could we say that a person could opt to take this test without parental notification, and if they passed they got a "sex card" or something similar (if they were under 18, say, and we still assumed that over 18 was ok no matter what) and no one could be considered to have molested this preson unless they could be considered to have molested any person? That is, in matters of sex, this person is on par with an adult.

Now: would men looking for younger women ask to see these cards before attempting anything? Well, if the answer was affirmative, why don't they simply ask to see licenses now and stick with the law?

But, as interesting as that may or may not be to anyone reading it, I think we should start with the notion that children do have a sexuality, and that sexuality can be exploited. Which, of course, is sort of obvious: anyone with a sense of sexuality can be exploited. So, yeah, we should reasses why this group somehow is always exploited, because it just doesn't seem obvious.

If we say that 18 is somehow arbitrary but good enough, that means that "somehow" a person has learned enough about social interaction by this time to deal with sex. Well, how would we know the opposite? I mean, let us imagine that, since this age is arbitrary, that there are 19 year olds that, even though legal, are not equipped to deal with sex. What would these persons be like? How would we test for incompetence here?

Which isn't to slight cases of molestation. No way I'm trying to blame the victim or anything here. But I think it is that our legal system is damned archaic in its representation of what sexual maturity is. It isn't even pretending to understand the issue wrt young adults. Until we can understand, legally, sexual maturity from an emotional standpoint, we can never quite have a real handle on sexual molestation, since molestation sort of requires a lack of consent, and in the case of young adults it is simply automatically assumed that they cannot consent to sex. Which, again, seems as silly to me now as it did when I was some young age.

For all the questions Scott has asked I do seem to have focused on one particlar one. Apologies, but it is my own little imaginary crusade.

[Scott Dickerson]

Erislover, Old Bean, I forgive you all I've got.

Some thoughts....

1) Does homophobia have a lot more to do with some of the details of our reactions than we are willing to admit? Though statistics say otherwise, the news seems to focus on men going after male minors--as if the main issue were the "perversion" of our youth--a myth still all-too-widely believed.

2) Is part of it that parents have to deal with some powerful emotions when an outsider seems to be competing with them for control of their offspring? Surely a natural reaction. But if that's the reason, the significance of the sexual element is mainly that it functions as a powerful "lever," giving the competitor an unfair advantage.

3) The "when is a child a child" question is not just a bald-man question, but a "when is a pile a heap" question. Tiny age increments (a minute, a day, a month) obviously do not convert a child into an adult; yet somehow, when we look away and then look back, the accumulation of such increments has worked magic. This suggests to me that childhood and adulthood are vague terms with diffuse and interpenetrating boundaries; we know where the centers are, but not the lines of demarcation. In such cases, isn't the answer a three-category system--definitely a child, definitely an adult, and not definitely either?

4) Your mid-teenage son or daughter comes home and says, "I've fallen in love with Mr. Jones and he says he's in love with me, and we spent last Saturday making out in his van by the lake." What course of action seems best to you, in terms of your parental responsibilities? Everyone talks about stopping the criminal violation; but is it valid to consider whether "going nuclear"--and public--is really in the best interests of your kid? Would you turn your kid into the FBI if you found him smoking dope? Would you protect him but turn in his buddies? How about heavier stuff--but a first offense, born of an "experimenting phase" natural to the young? My point: sometimes one's protective duties do not coincide with the letter of the law.

I note that I seem to be coming across as if our standard laws and reactions are "bad." I'm not sure they are. I just find the rationales unclear--and a whole lot of squeamishness.

[erislover]

1) Now that is an interesting thought on which, some might be thankful, I have no immediate comment. However, I do hope someone takes that and runs with it.

2) ...

3) At least a 3-category system. And "when is a pile a heap": :D

4) Seems appropriate to investigate why crimes involving sexuality (which is not to explicitly reference the very real class of existing sex-crimes) are so much more serious... and my own pet theory about self-fulfilling prophecies is here.

And finally, in some cases there is no rationale, in others it seems a rationalization, but overall it is still clear we need some laws here. But, in rereading the OP, I am also surprised that the exact allegations haven't made it to my ears, either (I had just assumed I missed them as I don't often watch the news). Clearly in the current scandal-set the vocal accusers are all adults, and the media usually releases such allegations to the public whether it involves adults or not (only in the case of children, of course, we don't often get names).

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Scott Dickerson

1) Does homophobia have a lot more to do with some of the details of our reactions than we are willing to admit? Though statistics say otherwise, the news seems to focus on men going after male minors--as if the main issue were the "perversion" of our youth--a myth still all-too-widely believed.


I think many people do seem to regard male-on-male child molestation as far more serious and wrong than male-on-female. I didn't follow the NAMBLA thread here in GD for too long, but during the time that I was reading it I didn't see any of the same arguments made in defense of adult attraction to adolescents that has come up in threads about men and girls. Nothing like "Well, if a 13 year old boy LOOKS 18..." or "The way these boys dress today, with their pants hanging off their butts, obviously they want sexual attention!" Yet when the subject is adolescent girls, I've seen everything short of "The little whores are askin' for it!"

It seems to me that society is all to willing to wink at "dirty old men" as long as they stick to girls.

[Dijon Warlock]

People are going to joke about things that make them uncomfortable; and given how society feels and reacts towards this issue, people are uncomfortable with being attracted to who they can't have. I personally haven't noticed nearly the imbalance of attitude that Lamia has noted between male/male and male/female cases, but that might possibly have something to do with the difference in gender between the two of us. I'd be willing to bet there's plenty of that "They're askin' for it" attitude to go around all gender combinations, whether we're tuned into it or not.

To address Scott's question number 1 above (if I'm understanding it correctly): if there is more of a social backlash against male/male incidents (as Lamia perceives), I wouldn't be at all surprised if homophobia played a part in that. Like it or not, to many people homosexuality is just as much a disgusting abomination as pedophila, and when you combine the two, it compounds the outrage.

I think the main motivating factor behind all the furor is protection, and is well-intended. Still, as I've opined before on this board (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41049&highlight=Mary), when we get into this much of a froth over something, we stand in danger of our protectiveness getting out of hand and becoming part of the problem rather than the solution. If our commitment to the well-being of our children is as true and complete as it should be, we cannot affort to let ourselves be overtaken by blind zealotry, however well-intended we might be.Originally posted by Scott Dickerson:

4) Your mid-teenage son or daughter comes home and says, "I've fallen in love with Mr. Jones and he says he's in love with me, and we spent last Saturday making out in his van by the lake." What course of action seems best to you, in terms of your parental responsibilities?Speaking oh-so-sagely from the standpoint of having no children (and fully recognizing the possibility that I might feel very differently if I had them), I think my best course of action would be the same, regardless of whether Mr. Jones is my child's contemporary or my father's: make damned sure my child isn't being harmed and is happy and safe. Respect their (my child's) feelings, and resist the temptation to convince them that they don't know what love is at their age. I've no doubt that they know what love at their age is, if you see the difference, and that is what counts for them right now. They can have a more mature understanding of love when they are more mature, just like the rest of us. If I was convinced that she was happy and safe and wasn't being harmed by Mr. Jones, then it wouldn't matter to me what age he was. If they are being harmed by him, then it STILL wouldn't matter what age he was.

I was browsing through the bookstore last week, and picked up a book which relates directly to this topic: Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0816640068/qid=1029831480/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-2813358-4128049?s=books&n=507846) by Judith Levine. I'm only about a third of the way through it, but it's remarkably free of the blind, spittle-spraying hatred that so often seems part and parcel of so many people's point of view in these discussions.

[erislover]

But Lamia, I have mistaken young girls for older girls, but not young boys for older boys. Is this a function of how they reach physical maturity?

Rest assured my shyness prevents me from even talking to women my own age, nevermind one that I perceive as younger (though, given misinterpretations of visual signals, still legal).

[Scott Dickerson]

Thanks, Lamia and Dijon.

But spittle-sprayers, I KNOW you're out there. I'm not inviting you to come in and be flamed. I'd like to hear FROM you as to where the anger and/or fear is coming from. What are you thinking of when you hear references to "pedophilia"? What leads some of you to say, "I'd murder the SOB, law or no law!"?

Inasmuch as one's reaction to a 50-year-old man tying up and rectally abusing a 6-year-old boy evokes reactions the probably need to explanation, let's use as an example the one from the film I mentioned--29-year-old man with 15-year-old boy, every appearance of "consent" (not legal consent, obviously). What in this situation arouses fury or seems especially disturbing?

[Dijon Warlock]

That's one of the same questions that has always baffled me about this, as well. People seem hellbent on treating every instance of such a relationship as a beyond-worst-case scenario, regardless of the circumstances of said relationship. I've yet to get to the bottom of what motivates this. Then again, I've yet to get to the bottom of what causes Fred Phelps & Co. to so virulently abhor gays, or what causes the Klan, et al. to despise blacks so thoroughly. It all sounds very similar to me.

The tenet seems to be that it is the very age in and of itself which causes the situation to be universally abusive and harmful, which doesn't make very much sense to me. In other words, you can have two people in a loving relationship which is a positive and fulfilling experience for both of them, and no harm is done. Make one member of that relationship a child (and make no other changes than that), and instantly that same relationship becomes too evil for words. For some reason.

Can such relationships be abusive and harmful to the child? Of course they can, and I've not seen anyone claim otherwiwse. Are they universally and unavoidably harmful by definition? That seems to be the widely held belief, but I've yet to find a reason why it would be (harmful, that is; not widely held). Aside from social prejudice, I've found no factor common to all such relationships that would be responsible for such devastation (and believe me, I've tried).

As I've said before, I think a good portion of it is protective in motivation. Children are vulnerable, and need to be kept safe; no one is arguing that. But the virulence and blind hatred directed towards this topic (and people thusly configured) goes way beyond rational protection, IMO. It smacks of something deeper and darker, partly because in our zealotry to shield kids from such monstrosities, their very well-being (which we are supposed to be watching out for) often gets sacrificed in the process. That's a big red flag to me that there's something wrong with our perspective on this issue. Our attitude towards this subject frequently carries a very similar stench to homophobia or racism, neither of which have ever yielded good public policy.

[erislover]

Scott: your example of the 50 year old and 6 year old disturbs me whether the recipient was 6 or 56.

A crime, to me, doesn't become worse or less worse (ain't saying "better"!) by virtue of who it was done to. and in the second case you mention, of course the only reason it was a crime was because of who it was done to.

It is the impossibility of youth to make meaningful choices which I don't understand, or why they can make some choices but not this one. To my mind, a person can have sex and enjoy it sooner than they can drive a car or have a credit card. And I don't base this issue on responsibility or I wouldn't have brought up the credit cards (which adults seem to have a hard time with all on their own).

I am willing to accept an argument that children can't consent. That argument cannot include the assertion that children cannot consent. If we say it is because they can't understand, I would question how we could test their understanding (and if you can't, then who says they can't understand?!). If we say it is becasue they would be irresponsible, then I question why we don't impose restrictions on parenting in general.

And so on.
What leads some of you to say, "I'd murder the SOB, law or no law!"?Most people here reference their own children and hypothesize based on the level of devotion and willingness to act on this devotion. Of course, like Dijon, I find this sort of talk reprehensible. It is impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions (7 ;)) but that doesn't strike me as a highly motivating reason to allow this sort of emotion to be a basis for legality.

Now, of course, there are posters here who have in the past attempted to demonstrate through psychological studies (well, through references to these studies, not that the posters conducted these studies themselves) that deep emoitnal harm or irrevocable emotional harm was done to children that adults seem to generally be able to work through instead of being scarred. That is cause for concern, but not a declaration of murder. IMO.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Scott Dickerson

But spittle-sprayers, I KNOW you're out there.


I've been called that, or very similar, in past threads on the subject. I may be the best (worst?) you get here.


let's use as an example the one from the film I mentioned--29-year-old man with 15-year-old boy, every appearance of "consent" (not legal consent, obviously). What in this situation arouses fury or seems especially disturbing?

First, I think it is important to be clear on the actual laws involved. In these threads people often toss around the "magic number" 18, as if that were the national American age of consent. It isn't! In most states the age of consent is 16, and in some it is as low as 14. Some states also have loopholes people who are underaged but married, have parental consent, or are not virgins.

Things are trickier when it comes to homosexual sex, though. Many states have a higher age of consent for this, and some do not have any age of consent for homosexual sex at all. Either there are no laws addressing the subject, or there are laws that make it always illegal regardless of the age of the participants. So the 15 year old boy in the movie may or may not have been able to give legal consent, depending on what state he was living in.

I personally do not see any need for a different age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex, and would like to see it made the same in all states. In fact, I find the situation you describe slightly less troublesome than I would a case involving a 29 year old man and a 15 year old girl, because at least the boy runs no risk of becoming pregnant! But regardles of the sex of the people involved, I am disturbed by the idea of a 29 year old being romantically involved with a young adolescent.

I have known any number of adolescents who become involved with much older adults, and no matter how nice and normal the younger person might seem the adult was inevitably a sad, pathetic loser. Most seemed incapable of attracting or maintaining a relationship with a partner of their own age. They went after adolescents not because they had any particular preference for people who were not yet completely physically mature, but because they had a preference for people who were not yet completely mentally and emotionally mature. This is not a sign of a healthy mind. I wouldn't wish a relationship with such a person upon anyone, but especially not upon an adolescent. Adolescents are by their nature impressionable, easily pressured and manipulated, and generally lack the experience and emotional resources needed to deal with unhealthy relationships. This is why they need to be protected from people who wish to take advantage of them.

[Justhink]

I have talked extensively about my opinions of this on other threads. I believe it is simply based on cognitive age. I truly believe that some people have cognitive ages so high, that to engage in _any_ 'consentual' act with 99.999999999.....% of the population is rape, abuse and pedophelia. I have stated on numerous occasions that these entire systems need to be revamped and logical consistancy taught more formally on that basis. Basically, 'sex' or any act of consent is a luxury of low cognitive ages and logical inconsistancy; as it is expressed in the vast population. When someone can talk you into a catatonic stupor without 'effecting you will' through drugs or other force; clearly, they have reverse engineered your logical structure and there is no sense of free-will on the part of the other human being. These types of mechanisms are _always_ used in our society; the only reason it isn't rape is because of the aggragate 'stupidity' of humans as a whole and individually.

-Justhink

[Scott Dickerson]

"...Inasmuch as one's reaction to a 50-year-old man tying up and rectally abusing a 6-year-old boy evokes reactions the probably need to explanation..." Jeez, Scott, maybe you should either proofread your stuff or not compose it late at night. Of course what I intended was: Inasmuch as THE REACTION EVOKED BY THE CASE OF a 50-year-old man tying up and rectally abusing a 6-year-old boy probably needs NO explanation...

And what I meant was, not that murder would be "justified" as a reaction, but simply that outraged anger--at the sight of a gradeschool child being physically assaulted--would be such a natural expression of our human protective instincts that nothing needs to be explained. (I assume the phrase "tying up and rectally abusing" is sufficient to remove any shadow of doubt concerning actual consent--?)

ERL, you said: "...your example of the 50 year old and 6 year old disturbs me whether the recipient was 6 or 56... A crime, to me, doesn't become worse or less worse (ain't saying "better"!) by virtue of who it was done to. and in the second case you mention, of course the only reason it was a crime was because of who it was done to..." I had to reread your words a few times... I gather your point is that the badness lies in the action (assaultive rape) and not the ages of perp and vic. Correct?

One might extend that position this way, that court actions in response should not be based upon "statutory rape"-type approaches, but on something more like civil litigation, wherein some damage or loss must be proven. IMHO, that makes sense with respect to the "middle category" I mentioned above (roughly, puberty to 16-17). But as to category 1, acknowledged prepubescent children...it seems to give way too much benefit of the doubt to the party who is expected to have superior knowledge, judgment, and self-control, and way too little protection (or..."lack of support?") to the party who is, well, NOT. I guess I wouldn't like an "autobahn speed limit" in cases of adults with prepubescents. (And no doubt that is NOT what you have in mind anyway.) We all surely agree that "tie up and rape" would continue to be treated as a serious crime of violence.

Lamia, incredibly important point about the varying ages of consent! But look quickly--I expect that within a few years the federal "lever" will compel all states to adopt 18 as a uniform AoC for any form of sexual contact. (So all those high school seniors in their vans...those nice kids on "70's Show"...perverts and felons??)

As to whether youth-oriented guys are pathetic losers...the small sampling I have encountered sure came across that way (even on paper!), but (a) society does not require, in general, that one prove nonloser status to "qualify" for being romantic/sexual--fortunately for me!; (b) obviously, what is true in most cases need not be true in every single case; (c) there may be a kind of gender-role-expectation issue going on: might there be some guys of this sort who get branded PL's for qualities that are, in the abstract, not so much bad as "unmanly"--naive, sensitive, shy, childlike, uncompetitive, "feminine"? The older character in the film I mentioned (Eban & Charley) was called "creepy" in several reviews, yet a more accurate description would be unmasculine and delicate.

As to who is most easily manipulated...

Hmmm. I'm just not sure. I'm not making light of a serious situation when I say: try to get your own kids to do something they are not inclined to do, as see who is manipulating whom! Perhaps the thing to say is that persons inexperienced in "the ways of the world" may blunder on in where angels fear to tread.

...Perhaps one thing we can all agree on: the news media does an abominable job in its general coverage of this whole issue!

[Triskadecamus]

Suppose a fifty six year old man meets a little girl, about five years old. "Hi, honey. You want a quarter? I have one in my pocket. Why don't you reach in there and see if you can find it."

Now at five, that might seem like a good idea. It is not a sexual act to a five year old. But it is sexual misconduct with a minor, for an adult. The kid never saw his genitals, and was probably unaware that there was contact with them. It is not rape, and it was entirely consensual on the part of the five year old.

However much it might seem that the actual harm was minimal, there are other facts that must be considered. This is a seduction. This is a calculated act to encourage physical contact by the child, in a manner that an adult would consider blatantly sexual. The child's perception is not a reason to view the matter with less concern, but rather with more concern. Pedophiles don't get better. They get more careful, and they get more secretive.

Children are taught to defer to requests by adults, in general. That increases their already significant vulnerability. If the adult is a teacher, priest, or camp counselor, the deference is pretty much mandatory in the frame of reference of the child. How much harm should we be willing to tolerate, and how much physical familiarity shall we teach our children to tolerate?

But to add to that, teachers and priests and authority figures who deal with kids are reasonably subject to far more stringent codes of conduct than are casual associates. Yes, kids need to learn the spectrum of physical intimacy, including casual touch, even caress, from friends. But they can learn that in the presence of others. It is when the adult and child are alone that the adult is responsible to limit any contact to the most innocent of physical touch.

This doesn't mean the teacher can never hug the child. It means the teacher controls the environment, and makes sure that hugs happen in the open, when they can be not a secret, but an open expression of affection, unafraid to be seen by all. The same thing with a pat on the butt. A pat on the butt is not a sexual caress. But taking a child to a private location to do the same thing is unacceptable, even if it is not a sexual caress. You're on the clock, we pay you to be specifically irreproachable on this subject.

You don't pat adult strangers on the butt. Doing so can get you in trouble, and if you do so over their objection, that means you are committing sexual battery. Well, on behalf of our children, under the age of 18, we object, in advance. And we will call it sexual battery of a minor, and we will pretty much ruin your life, if we catch you doing it. Got it? Put your own hands in your own pockets, and don't pat strangers on the butt. How much of your freedom have you lost, here?

I am rather passionate about this. Why? I love children, especially young ones. I am the friendly stranger. I am the guy you actually want your child to come to if they are lost, and in trouble. I could no more harm a child than I could fly. Kids think I am Santa Claus, when they see me, and want to talk with me. But I can't encourage little kids to talk to me. I can't initiate conversations with three year olds, because I am training them to talk with strangers, and I don't want them to do that. And it pisses me off a whole lot.

Tris

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Scott Dickerson

Lamia, incredibly important point about the varying ages of consent! But look quickly--I expect that within a few years the federal "lever" will compel all states to adopt 18 as a uniform AoC for any form of sexual contact. (So all those high school seniors in their vans...those nice kids on "70's Show"...perverts and felons??)


If such a thing were to happen, I'd expect to see the age of consent set at 16 rather than 18. It's already the age of consent in the majority of states.


(c) there may be a kind of gender-role-expectation issue going on: might there be some guys of this sort who get branded PL's for qualities that are, in the abstract, not so much bad as "unmanly"--naive, sensitive, shy, childlike, uncompetitive, "feminine"?


Perhaps, although the most vivid examples I have from my personal experience (well, maybe not my experience. I mean, I wasn't the one dating them!) were bemulleted fellows who supported themselves with smalltime drug dealing in between various dead-end jobs.


As to who is most easily manipulated...

Hmmm. I'm just not sure. I'm not making light of a serious situation when I say: try to get your own kids to do something they are not inclined to do, as see who is manipulating whom!

Or you could look at the same kids when their older friends try to convince them to have a couple of beers or go joyriding. Adolescents may often disobey their parents, but it is chillingly easy to make them do something they think is "cool" or "grown up".

[erislover]

Scott, that's why I don't so much mind the arbitrary age requirement, I just feel it needs to be more in line with what kids think. I'd put the break in as: <13, 13-16, 16-18, 18+. Under 13 I think we are safely in a realm where this person hasn't a clue about much more than what parents and teachers have told them. Some creativity in specific applications, we've historical precidence there, but for a case of being able to know complex behaviors I would demand a very high standard of proof here. From 13 to 16 the case starts becoming less clear. These people tend to philosophize (I use the world loosely!) in a limited context. They are feeling compelled sexually here. Many of them will have a sexual experience in this time with, most likely with another person around this age or somewhat older. Are they complete, competent adults? No. Can they choose to have sex? Of course. Will they know what that all entails? [shakes head] I don't think that a person who asks this question is framing the issue fairly. This is a totally loaded question that I think would be hard for anyone to answer. The important question to me is: can they want to have sex? Can they understand how sex works (what the, er, procedure is)? Can they be trained to take reasonable precautions, even if they are not completely aware of all the possible nuances? This sounds like all we request of people engaging in life-threatening behavior. I can't imagine why we should demand anything more here. I'm saying: they know how to ride a bike, and they are going to wear protective gear on the bike, or can at least be informed of how to do it, and they clearly want to ride the bike, so what the hell is left? Charges of rape should still be given a keen eye here, however. Much less strict burden of proof on the part of the child. 16-18: might as well be an adult to me, as far as sex goes.
I gather your point is that the badness lies in the action (assaultive rape) and not the ages of perp and vic. Correct?Completely. We tend to hold people responsible for what they've done first, then tack on things like intent or specific circumstances later. Some crimes, to me, are so high on the scale that there is nothing more that you can tack onto them. Long-term abuse, molestation and general use of a person as an object, murder, etc. These things... they all feel so wrong to me that I can't imagine saying, "And, on top of that, the victim was only 15!" making it somehow worse. It just doesn't get any worse than this for me.

If a person can want to have sex, I think we need to seriously consider the possibility that they can have sex of their own volition.

Tris, some very good points, I think. But when I read this sort of thing I can only sit back and recall how friends and I shared crushes on certain teachers. If you ask me, I would have had sex with them in a second and would not have felt compelled by them. Well, other than by their good looks, but of course that isn't what we mean by compulsion. ;)

[Scott Dickerson]

As the editor used to say in a comic book letter-column: Tris, meet ERL!

I think the two of you disagree; although it is rather hard to articulate the precise fissure-line. Tris is focusing on the need to teach children how to avoid the beginnings of the slippery slope that MAY LEAD TO something terrible; ERL on whether certain specific acts BECOME terrible if one participant is of this or that minor age. I suspect the two of you would not agree on precisely which acts are terrible under what circumstances; Tris having a broader list, ERL a narrower list.

But Tris, your passion is just what I was hoping for! I do hope to hear more from you. I see I've neglected one whole part of the issue--the "teaching" part. (Or better: the "prudence before liberty where teaching children is involved" part.)

ERL, your sugested age-divisions make sense to me. Approximately, we're distinguishing between grade school, junior high (now it's called Middle School, I guess), high school, and the Great Beyond.

Lamia...if only our politicos were sensible enough to round downward like the Europeans. But I can all but guarantee you that uniform standards will be sold on a "protect the weakest" basis, and NO STATE will ever agree to lowering the AoC. We'll be lucky if it doesn't get raised to drinking age!

[erislover]

This struck me as important here:Now at five, that might seem like a good idea. It is not a sexual act to a five year old. But it is sexual misconduct with a minor, for an adult. The kid never saw his genitals, and was probably unaware that there was contact with them. It is not rape, and it was entirely consensual on the part of the five year old.This is why a crime is a crime. It is no less illegal for you to murder me when I am unaware of it than when I would be. We are compelled to prosecute similarly in just such scenarios.

But for sex, the issue of consent is what seperates illegal behavior from legal behavior. And when the seperation goes from fun to felony [which is to say: this ain't just a parking ticket], I think we should really take the time to pin down what consent is if for no other reason than intellectual honesty over superstition. I don't have problems with the age of consent being 18, should we demonstrate what consent is and that it really does revolve somewhere around that age (of course we will err on the side of caution here). I have a problem with pretending we can hide this "pile is a heap" problem under an arbitrary age law.

That is, we have given a segment of the population the benefit of the doubt for no other reason than to say that is it "obvious" they deserve it. It isn't obvious to me: I was 14 and had sex. And whether it is a comment on my immaturity now or my maturity then, apart from technique and a few military slides of STDs I am really not sure that I "know" anything more about sex now than I did then, because mainly, I'm not sure what that question is supposed to be asking. It is framed poorly.

We are willing to toss things out like learning about consequences, and the nuances [here's a hint that no one took the time to define these things] of growing up and making connections about complex relationships and so on, but if we say something like this, it sounds suspiciously like a justification for making the AoC 18. And now: what are we justifying here? What are we saying? Are we presenting a test? Then why not give licenses for sex? Are we presenting a heuristic that is supposed to intuitively demonstrate to us in a flash why the AoC is 18?

I don't think we've erred on the side of caution, I think we've erred, period.

But, this is really just a pet peeve. Apart from this board I don't take this argument anywhere. Not like I lobby politicians about it or anything. :)

[erislover]

Strange... didn't update that I posted that.

[ElJeffe]

With regards to the age of consent:

I think there's more to an age-of-consent law than simply determining what's child molestation and what's legitimate sex. Yeah, you want to keep the pedophiles from noodling little kids, that's a big part of it. But also, you want kids to grow up and be good, productive, happy citizens. I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that having kids when you're still in school is likely going to make things a whole lot harder for you. Part of this whole age-of-consent thing is psychological. Sex before you're 18 = bad. Virginity during your youth = good. Kids are less likely than adults to be responsible about sex, because they're kids (insert whatever definition of "kids" and "adults" you like there). This means they're fairly likely to get pregnant. Or get nasty diseases, though in general this is less severe a problem. Right now, our society is pretty much tailored to have adulthood start at 18. You graduate from highschool, you're on your own, you're an "adult", go make your own choices. From this standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to have the age of consent - the age at which we say to our kids, "Okay, go have sex now, you're grown-ups" - as 18. It just fits.

That reasoning aside, I see very little logic towards lowering the age of consent below 18. I don't think the average <18 yr old is responsible enough. You want a conclusive litmus test for this? Sorry, you're not going to get one. I'm operating on empirical evidence, here. Yeah, you can drive a car, and this presents you with life-or-death choices, and blah blah blah, but I'm going to make a WAG that a lot more lives are screwed up every year by teens getting knocked up than by teens getting in car accidents. Or at very least, (# >18 yr olds getting pregnant - # <18 yr olds getting pregnant) > (# >18 yr olds dying in car accidents - # <18 yr olds dying in car accidents).

And for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with Tris.

Jeff

[erislover]

Well, they are getting knocked up with or without age of consent laws, so I don't see how that is supposed to mean anything.

[ElJeffe]

And people are getting murdered with or without murder laws. That's not the point. The point is to create a stigma associated with underage sex to discourage teens from having sex and becoming pregnant at a stage that will likely screw up a significant portion of their lives. A lot of this is dependent on society to enforce the stigma, though, so the discouragement factor of an age of consent law is pointless if society says, "Hey, have sex as early as you want! It's fun!"


Jeff

[erislover]

Well, I don't see what being able to consent to sexual behavior has to do with pregnancy. Understanding the risks of unwanted pregnancy is a matter of responsibility, not consent. People know about that, and can still act irresponibly.
The point is to create a stigma associated with underage sex to discourage teens from having sex and becoming pregnant at a stage that will likely screw up a significant portion of their lives.You do not attach a stigma to underage sex, you attach a stigma to sex, and underage people are screwed up about it. If they are not able to meaningfully consent to sex (by hypothesis, though I disagree) because they cannot understand the issues, how would you expect them to understand that this stigma of sex only applies to them? Really now.

But, back to reality. They are having sex. Your stigma hasn't helped that either. I am not concerned about getting kids to not have sex: I can accept that they do. I am concerned about abuse. And abuse in sex comes from not consenting, it doesn't come from unwanted pregnancy.

At any age:
Irresponsibility + sex -> unwanted pregnancy, STDs
lack of consent + sex -> rape, abuse, molestation
A lot of this is dependent on society to enforce the stigma, though, so the discouragement factor of an age of consent law is pointless if society says, "Hey, have sex as early as you want! It's fun!"Ha! Where is this society? Can I live there? I would love to raise a child in an environment that thought sex was fun, normal, healthy behavior that didn't have a stigma attached to it at all.

[doreen]

Scott, that's why I don't so much mind the arbitrary age requirement, I just feel it needs to be more in line with what kids think. I'd put the break in as: <13, 13-16, 16-18, 18+.


There almost has to be an arbitrary age requirement. Otherwise, you end up in one of two situations- you have a "sex license" where an individual is pre-determined to be capable of consent or you have a situation where it's unknown until after the fact whether a given person was capable of consent. What there doesn't have to be is a single arbitrary age requirement. For example, under NY law the age of consent is 17. However, a twenty year old having sex with a 16 year old commits no crime, nor does an eighteen year old having sex with a 15 year old. And even in the acts that are crimes, ages can make a difference in the level of the charge. This sort of system is a lot closer to reality than a single arbitrary age limit.

The age of consent laws are not really about responsibility, or discouraging sex, at least not any more. Assuming the laws are gender neutral (and I think most are) neither one of two fourteen year olds having sex are likely to be prosecuted ( because both would have to be). They're really much more about a power imbalance. Children, even teenagers, are much less likely to be able to make a free choice when it comes to having sex with adults than adults are. Certainly, in some cases, the adult may not be taking advantage, just like in some cases, prison guards may not be taking advantage of the inmates they're having sex with. It doesn't matter whether a particular guard is taking advantage, it's simply not allowed (and is a crime in NY) because of the power imbalance.

[Mr2001]

The way to combat STDs and unwanted pregnancy is education, not legislation (especially arbitrary age restrictions).

Young people are already much better off in that regard today than 30 years ago. You can't turn on the TV or radio, or look at magazines and billboards, without seeing a message about safe sex. Competent school districts have sex education every year, for several years in a row.

And the knowledge you need to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy isn't some kind of wisdom you can only gain through 18 years of life experience; it's factual information you can read in a leaflet and absorb immediately. If minors are less knowledgeable about preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancy than they should be, the only reason can be that we haven't done a good job of teaching them.

[Scott Dickerson]

Now we're gettin' some place, folks!

I hadn't given a lot of thought to concerns about pregnancy and STD-transmission, particularly as they affect the futures of persons who don't yet have much of a past.

Doreen, I do understand the power-imbalance argument. Thinking now of ANY such situation, I understand that it isn't good enough to just "ask" whether the presumptive power-deprived person felt OK about what happened. Part of the insidious nature of power imbalance is that it can throw a psychological pall over an entire personality and lead to serious reality-denials.

But I ask you this. Is there any method that you would recognize whereby a 15-year-old would be able to prove to YOUR satisfaction that he/she knowledgeably consented, in a completely real sense, to a sexual/romantic relationship with a 30-year-old? In other words: let the law continue to presume the invalidity of apparent consent, BUT allow at least the possibility of an escape clause when all human reason affirms that actual, mutual consent was a fact. How does that strike you?

[doreen]

But I ask you this. Is there any method that you would recognize whereby a 15-year-old would be able to prove to YOUR satisfaction that he/she knowledgeably consented, in a completely real sense, to a sexual/romantic relationship with a 30-year-old? In other words: let the law continue to presume the invalidity of apparent consent, BUT allow at least the possibility of an escape clause when all human reason affirms that actual, mutual consent was a fact. How does that strike you?

Do you mean do I personally think that it's possible that a 15 year old could knowledgeably consent to sex with a 30 year old? Yes, just as I believe it's possible that a 15 year old could knowledgeably sign a contract. In terms of law, though, having an escape clause in both cases gets you into the position of not knowing whether it's legal until after the fact. Suppose the 30 year old believes that the 15 year old was able to consent, and later the judge or jury disagrees? The exceptions would have to be very clearly defined, (such as the existing exception for those under the age of consent who are married) so that the 30 year old could know ahead of time whether it would be legal. The only exception I can think of that doesn't rely on someone's judgement is an exception for a minor who is living as an adult- self-supporting and not living with or financially reliant on parents.