Abuse/Pedophilia: Definitions? Reactions?

Great Debates
21

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

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.

22

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

23

“…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; © 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!

24

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

25

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.

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.

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”.

26

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.

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. :wink:

27

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!

28

This struck me as important here:

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. :slight_smile:

29

Strange… didn’t update that I posted that.

30

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

31

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.

32

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

33

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.

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

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.

34

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.

35

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.

36

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?

37

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.