Dr. Laura/Mary Kay

Great Debates
21

Gadarene: Thanks. Actually, I have heard that term before, now that you mention it, but I couldn’t dredge it up from the dusty records in my head.

Esprix: Yeah, I wouldn’t consider any thoughts to be immoral either, despite what certain religions say. And really, I think any kind of behavior modification counseling that child molesters go through to keep them from assaulting children is both necessary and justified. Still, I am not sanguine about pedophilia’s designation as an illness, when it seems to be nothing more than another variation in the spectrum of sexual attraction. I don’t know… I have the impression that its more societal mores than science that lie behind this attitude.

22

Say a man wants to kill you. He dreams about it, savors the thought, and tells you he’d love to see you dead and love to be the one who does it. He does not actually try to kill you; in fact, he claims he has no intention of ever consumating his desire.

Is he evil? Not necesserally. Does he have a problem? Most certainly. Can you do anything to him legally? No. He’s not doing anything. But you’d try to talk to him, try to understand what makes him tick. You’d do it for your sake, because you can’t be sure whether he’ll ever break; and maybe for his, because having all these repressed desires is probably making him very unhappy.

So you see, for him, it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. And that’s why he need’s treatment.

23

I remember once, in an Cultural Anthropology class, learning about a society in which young girls, upon reaching puberty, were routinely deflowered by their fathers. This was a very solemn rite of passage and supposedly done in a very loving, nurturing manner. And, supposedly, not only did the girls not suffer any psychological damage, but it actually diminished their anxieties about marriage.

I don’t know if the professor made this whole thing up, or if there really was/is such a society. And I wish I had asked him whether there was a parallel rite for boys. And what kind of damage might be caused in a kid who turned out to be gay?

So a lot of this is clearly societal, and I’m always skeptical when certain things are considered categorically “abnormal,” regardless of context.

24

First off, thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread. As can be seen, it’s a complex issue which merits more discussion and serious examination than we’re encouraged to give it. I’ve got a lot to respond to, so sit back and crack a beer (it’s on me, so drink as irresponsibly as you wish. I’m driving).

John Corrado said: In the end, legally, we do not hold those under 18 as being able to make a competent decision; therefore, the basic situation of pedophilia is having a relationship with someone who by very nature is not able to truly consent to the relationship; therefore, the relationship is by very nature exploitational.

This point gets brought up a lot in these discussions–that is, children unable to give consent. The difference here is that we don’t allow them to. The argument I would make is that there are many other things that children are equally unable to comprehend the consequences to, that we allow them to consent to anyway. Riding in cars, for example, which kills thousands of children a year and cripples thousands more. Do they understand the danger they are in? Of course not. Can they give informed consent? Of course not. Do we allow them to ride anyway? Yup. So why don’t we outlaw this, as well? A similar argument could be made about putting kids in show business. Did the Olsen twins give informed consent as toddlers to become Hollywood children (which can have devastating effects down the road…just ask River Phoenix)? Of course they didn’t. They couldn’t. But did anyone squawk about it? No, we just said, “Aw, how cute.” Ka-ching!

robinh said: A pedophile can only be drawn to the child as he is in the moment, as the very youthfulness that he finds attractive is fleeting. Thus, it seems to me that the pedophile is attracted, not to a person, but to a symbol of childishness.

This is an interesting point with much merit, and I think if you were to postulate a “pure” pedophile, that it would be entirely true. In reality, though, I don’t things are very often that cut and dried. True, it’s the youth that originally attracts, but surely other aspects of the child (personality, etc.) can cause the attraction to persist after the youth fades. While in general I think you’re right (Lewis Carroll was generally thought to have lost interest in most of his young friends once puberty set in, yet he maintained lifelong relationships with particular individuals), on a case-by-case basis it may not always be so.

You also said this: When an adult is attracted to another adult, the possibility always exists for a full, loving, permanent relationship.

I would argue that this possibility isn’t restricted to adults; but I understand that from the perspective of your above point, it would appear to be.

panache45: As others have noted, I’m not equating homosexuality and pedophilia. There are, however, a lot of parallels between the two, from the standpoint of how they’ve been perceived by society and the persecutions they have had to endure. I think that’s why the comparisons are made; and it’s why I brought you guys into the discussion. Glad to have your points of view here. I am with you on the response thing to a large extent. I remember seeing Alyssa Milano when she was just a kid on “Who’s the Boss” years ago. I had exactly the same reaction you describe: she’s gonna be smokin’. Same thing with the Olsen twins (ack! I’m evil!) when they got their own show. I’ll be right, too; you watch. Hef better be paying attention. :wink:

cmkeller brought up the “power” argument. My question on this point is, why don’t we make the same argument when a 6’4" football quarterback dates a 5’2" cheerleader? Surely there’s a power imbalance there. Or when someone with millions marries the poor thing from a poverty-stricken home? Why not the same objection? I’m not saying the point is invalid (just as I’m not saying the “consent” issue is invalid), but why aren’t these arguments applied to other situations where they are clearly just as justified? That’s what I don’t get. Why “sex” specifically?

PeeQueue asks: Why the double standard?

My point, exactly.

necros said: I, personally, believe that someone, like in the OP, can reasonably feel sexually-attracted to a member of the opposite (or same) sex if that person is showing characteristics of being able to reproduce. I suspect it’s a genetic thing. When you start to get younger than that, it’s a different situation, and different motivations probably drive that attraction.

This, I think, is a crucial point in this issue. When the secondary sex characteristics are not yet present, I suspect that the attraction phases away from reproductive motivations to being more tactile-aesthetic in origin. Children can still be beautiful sans hooters (:rolleyes: :)), they’re no doubt still soft and cuddly, and since everyone can experience orgasms (babies masturbate), I could see (if I scrunch my eyes up enough) a legitimacy to the desire, even if reproduction isn’t an option. None of the gays on this board are attracted to their partners on the grounds of reproductive success. Still, their attraction is legitimate.

Amen to that head smacking comment. Likewise for pedophiles and child molesters: equally BS.

You also said: The laws come from the way people believe, not the other way around.

I would disagree with this statement. It’s very much a feedback loop in both directions. There’s just as much “It’s illegal, so it must be bad” thinking as there is “It’s bad, so let’s outlaw it.”

And finally, Panache45: I’ve heard of a similar situation, although the one I heard didn’t allow immediate family to ‘initiate’ the youngster. It was usually a brother or sister-in-law, or a close cousin. The idea was that it was better to be introduced to the mysteries of the act by someone who was already close to the child and had their best interests at heart, and whom the child could trust. Far better than losing your virginity to some pimply-faced kid in the back of his older brother’s car who’s just after getting his rocks off and earning bragging rights in the locker room.

Whew! Thanks, everyone (even those I skipped; this thing would have been tooooooo long if I hit everyone), for posting and putting up with this software-length-limit-testing sequel. Another beer for all.

25

Alessan…

Are you sure? Death threats are regarded as a very serious matter.

Anyway…

I think with the subject of pedophilia, most people envision some horny old executive for IBM going out after 8-year-old girls. In this instance, there surely is an issue of physical, mental, and more importantly, emotional dominance. However, when you talk about a 16 or 17 YO girl going out with a 19 or 20 YO guy, I don’t think the same notions (dominance, mostly) would apply.

Of course, there can be examples of people in their 40s with the issues of dominance still being the primary trait between them.

26

I don’t know, SPOOFE. If someone says to you “I really want to kill you, but I’m not gonna” - is that a death threat?

27

I’d feel threatened enough to avoid him. Wouldn’t you? If he was going to babysit my kids and said “I’d really like to have sex with your kids, but I’m not gonna” I wouldn’t let him hang around.

Marc

28

I think the dominance issue is most likely a large part of people’s objection to these kind of relationships, too. But as I pointed out earlier, dominance can come in many forms, not just age (size, income, social connections, etc.). What puzzles me is why age is considered to be so much more objectionable than any of the other forms of dominance. Laws in different states allow relationships within limited age discrepancy where minors are concerned, but there’s no limit on income discrepancy, or weight/strength discrepancy, etc. Those are equally conducive to abusive situations, but we don’t restrict them like we do age. Why is this?

29

I personally think of pedophilia as an attraction for pre-pubescent children - those with no sexual characteristics. Most pedophiles seem to fall into a separate sexual orientation from heterosexuals and homosexuals, they don’t tend to care whether the child is male or female. I think one of the reasons that pedophiles are associated with homosexuals in some people’s minds is that most of them are men, and young boys are a lot more accessible to men than young girls.

This is separate from people who are attracted to young pubescent people. As said above, if a young girl is capable of reproducing, she is going to have characteristics that let males know this, and on some level there is going to be potential for physical reaction. In many cultures it is still acceptable to have sexual relations with 13 year olds. I think if I lived in a culture that found that acceptable I probably would - I know I find the Olsen twins quite attractive these days. But I grew up in a society that believes that is wrong, and though I might recognize them as attractive I would never actually do anything sexual with a girl in that age range, just as I would never do anything sexual with my 24 year old niece (who is a knockout). If I DID, I would be a sociopath, but I don’t think I would be a deviant, as someone who would be attracted to or have sex with kids still in the single digits should be classified.

As for how this ties in to homosexuality - I think true pedophilia IS in a way the same - someone who is only attracted to prepubescent children, people of the same sex, animals, dead people, or very old people have a reproductive instinct that is abnormal to the point that it cannot cause reproduction. But just because something is abnormal does not necessarily make it wrong - that depends on your personal morals. I see nothing wrong with consensual sex between people of the same sex, or with the elderly, or even with animals in some cases - though some zoophiles do rape animals, some are careful to make sure that the animal ‘gives consent’, i.e. being on the receiving end of a human/animal sex act. I do see something wrong with having sex with prepubescent children or a non-consenting animal, and I believe in any case of necrophilia where the corpse did not give explicit permission to be used as a sex object prior to death it is wrong, though not on the same level as the others.

30

Dijon Warlock:

Because in the other situations of power, consent is not compromised. The poverty-stricken woman is capable of making an adult, informed decision as to whether to submit to the rich man’s requests in exchange for money. Children do not have the maturity to make such a well-informed decision. Rather, their immaturity leads them to think only of the most immediate gratification and not of the long-term consequences.

That’s why pedophilia is thought of much more of a sexual perversion than homosexuality. While adult sexual relationships are (assumed to be) informed decisions for the sake of pleasure on the part of both parties, an adult-child sexual relationship does not contain that element of mutual alliance for the sake of pleasure, but rather, the use of one person by the other for the sake of pleasure, with any pleasure received by the other being a mere side benefit.

Chaim Mattis Keller

31

(Sorry for the bump, been gone for a few days)
cmkeller:

I’m not sure I’d agree with this, especially the bold statement. It depends on circumstances, of course; but unfortunately in many relationships where there is a huge power imbalance, sex (or other gratification) can be forced. What if the poverty-stricken woman has no other means of support to turn to (or believes she doesn’t)? What if the quarterback comes home drunk and decides he wants laid NOW? Is there consent when the cheerleader girlfriend is unable to physically resist? I think consent can (and sadly, often is) be compromised in these situations. Plus, I would point out that maturity and age are not a cut-and-dried direct correlation. To say that children aren’t mature enough to make a decision but adults are seems a generalisation fraught with exceptions.

I think it certainly could, if we would allow it. Children and adults are capable of enjoying each other’s company in many other ways. I think the main reason they aren’t able to form that “mutual alliance for the sake of pleasure” is because we don’t let them, not because it can’t happen. It seems to me that the only thing that stands in a child’s way of obtaining a relationship of mutual physical/emotional gratification with an adult is society; not any inherent “perversion” in the relationship itself.

Badtz Maru: I think we’re fairly close on this. One thing that I think confuses the issue is the sex/reproduction conflict. It’s generally considered that true pedophilia is a sexual perversion because reproduction cannot occur. By this same token, however, so is homosexuality, sex with post-menopausal women, sex with post-vasectomy men, and sex with any form of birth control. We don’t consider (most of us, anyway) these to be perversions, however; and this is for one very important reason: sex is more than making babies. In fact, 99.9999% of the time, making babies ISN’T the point of sex at all. It’s about mutual gratification, emotional support, companionship, etc. From this standpoint, IMHO, none of the above would be sexual perversions, since all of the other motivations for sex are still present. This argument, however, would also include pedophilia as a valid sexual relationship, just not a valid reproductive one.
Olsen Twins…whoda thunk it? :wink:

32

Dijon Warlock:

Is that necessarily the rich guy’s fault? She’s making a choice, but he hasn’t forced her into that choice.

Sounds to me like rape. Ain’t no one considers that to be a morally ambiguous issue.

Of course it’s a generalization fruaught with exceptions, but when making laws, you have to make generalizations (…did I just make a generalization in that statement? ;)). There’s no cut-and-dried test for maturity, but since maturity (almost) invariably increases with age, albeit at different rates for different folks, age is the most logical benchmark to use.

See above. You seem to be saying this simply based on the existence of certain children who are mature enough to understand and properly consent to such an alliance. Such more-mature-than-average individuals exist, but society’s laws to protect the immature can’t be expected to make exceptions to take them into account.

Chaim Mattis Keller

33

cmkeller:

Why not? We assume that someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, making exceptions for those who are wrongly accused. This sets some criminals free who should be in jail, but we would rather do that than put innocent men in prison. Surely a killer wandering the streets is worse than a child engaged in a relationship that she believes to be consensual?

Pragmatically, I’d support lowering the age of consent to maybe 13, because I don’t see a way to test whether someone is able to give informed consent.

34

cmkeller: Re: Rich man/Poor woman–I’m not faulting the rich guy. But if she feels financially dependant/trapped, then her ability to give consent to his demands is reduced or even eliminated. This situation lends itself to abuse of power, yet we have no laws against this type of relationship.
Re: Quarterback/Cheerleader–Yes, it would be rape. The point here is that under the circumstances, she cannot give consent (or refuse it). Still, while we have outlawed the rape itself, we make no laws against the relationship which enables it.
My point with these examples is that giving ‘inability to consent’ as justification to outlawing adult/child relationships but not these other types seems rather arbitrary and inconsistent. If the consent issue justifies laws against pedophilia, why doesn’t it justify laws against the other scenarios?

I don’t really disagree with this, but my question on the requirement for maturity is why do we place the restriction on sex, but not on other actions which can carry equally harmful consequences? I mentioned riding in cars and show business, which are two widely disparate things. However, children are just as unable to understand the potential consequences of these actions (which can be equally harmful, even deadly), yet we don’t pass laws against allowing children to participate. Why sex specifically, and not the others? (Another slightly flippant, but still valid example: Ever take a look at the age requirements on getting a hunting license? “You’re not old enough to understand the consequences of sex yet, son; but you’re plenty old enough to go around shootin’ stuff. Now let’s go kill us a deer!”)
**Mr2001:**Good post, not much I can add to that.

Indeed. If we can’t test for it, how are we going to enforce laws which require its absence as a criterion for violation?

35

Mr 2001:

So? What do killers wandering the streets have to do with pedophilia? Two different crimes. Both should be punished.

The fact is that the immature (let’s speak of someone who we agree is immature, rather than the issue of what the age of consent should be) who “believe they are consenting” aren’t…and they require protection from those who would exploit them.

Dijon Warlock:

As before, I disagree. The fact that she is trapped in such a situation does not mean that the relationship is one that inherently involves impaired consent which therefore requires legal protection, as immaturity does.

No relationship “enables rape.” Heck, people are raped by total strangers! Rape is a crime. A relationship is not a crime, and does not “enable” crime.

That’s not true. Children cannot execute a valid legal contract…those who engage in show business, to use your example, do so only with the informed consent of their parents, who supply the necessary maturity for said decisions. Children are not allowed to vote or hold public office, to serve in the army or to drive…they are not allowed to hold any paying job without signed consent from their parents. And in most states, children can get married (and presumably, engage in sex) at younger ages with their parents’ consent than without…again, this supplies the maturity element necessary to imply consent. In this, society’s attitude toward sex is very much in line with it’s attitude toward children’s activities in general.

Chaim Mattis Keller

36

cmkeller:

But by presuming innocence, we take the risk of setting an actual criminal free, in order to preserve the liberty of someone who might be falsely accused of a crime.

I believe it’s also best, in the absence of a scientific way to determine whether an individual is ‘mature’, to take the risk of letting an actual immature child enter into a relationship she doesn’t understand, in order to preserve the liberty of others the same age who do understand.

I have a hard time agreeing with the premise that sex involves deep underlying issues that must be considered before consent can be given that aren’t there with, say, skiing or football.

37

**cmkeller:

I guess we’re going to disagree on this one; because to me, that’s exactly what it does mean. Her options are too limited for her to have free choice (at least in her mind). If that’s not “impaired consent”, then what is it?

Relationships don’t justify rape, but the access granted through a relationship can certainly make it easier to inflict. I never said a relationship was required for rape, so of course total strangers can do it. Yes, rape is a crime. A relationship is not a crime? What about a pedophilic one? :wink: Maybe a better word than “enable” would be “facilitate.” Would you hold that relationships don’t facilitate crime? I think they most certainly can and do.

I was puzzled by the first statement, and finally decided that I was a bit unclear in the quote you referenced. I wasn’t saying that we don’t put age limits on any other actions (as you point out, we do), simply that there are some that we don’t which would seem to call for them as much or more so than sex does. I hope that helps to clarify. As to the second statement, it directly pertains to my question: if we consider parental consent a sufficient substitute for the child’s, why are there age limits on sex at all? If they’ve got a note from Mom or Dad, why is there still a law against it? To use your example of my example, with parental consent young children can go into show business. Why can’t they have sex? Wouldn’t have to worry about getting pregnant…:slight_smile:

**Mr2001:

**So do I. If it does, what are they? It seems to have many more issues for adults than children, too. To kids, it would probably just be fun tickling if it wasn’t for all the adults going ballistic and traumatising the fertilizer out of them. I think a major source of the emotional damage children suffer from “molestation” doesn’t come from the contact, but rather from society’s response to it. If we didn’t teach kids to be so terrified of this, it probably wouldn’t be that big of a deal to them. We’re not afraid of it, why should they have to be?

This brings to mind something else to ponder (and a good reason why this issue is important): Given that we as humans are a very tactilely oriented species, is depriving children of physical gratification even a good idea? The statistics on how much preemies thrive in pediatric ICUs if they are regularly massaged and stroked (no, I’m not saying they are masturbated, but it would probably be very effective) indicates that pleasurable physical stimulation is very good for us. Should we be pathologising it to the extent that we do? Is depriving children of sex any less abusive than forcing it on them? Things that have made me go “hmmm…”

38

When I read this, my first thought was that you were making an assumption as to who would have the power in these relationships. Surely the football player would have more physical strenght than the petite cheerleader, but does that mean more power in a relationship? Does money mean power in a relationship? No. We have all heard stories of rich people being ‘led’ by an attractive and emotionally dominant poorer person. And as for the football player, I think we all know what ‘whipped’ means.
The thing is we cannot assume who has more power in these relationships by these characteristics. In a relationship between an adult and a child, we can.

39

spooje:

I think the assumption that a huge football player has more power in the relationship than his tiny cheerleader girlfriend is equally justified. Certainly it isn’t true in all cases, of course, but neither is it true that a child would be intimidated in a relationship.

And this depends on how you define ‘child’. I don’t advocate legalizing a sexual relationship between a 10-year-old and a 50-year-old, but I see no problem with changing the age of consent to 13, adding maybe a 1-year swing factor, and looking at the circumstances in each case.

40

We’re talking Pedophilia here. 13, though really pushing the envelope IMHO, is marrying age in certain backwoods, hick areas that I have spent some time in. At 13, a girl can have well developed secondary sex characteristics and look much older than she is. And the letch’s would then consider her way too old.

The following sentence is a personal opinion and I have no cites whatsoever to back it up. (yet)

Being sexually attracted to a child (read: pre-pubescent) is a sign of illness that should be immediatly addressed.

I have heard that pedophiles (again, I have no cites) are really acting out some abuse that was inflicted on them. Could be bullshit, but there could be some truth in it also.