# Have you ever... (sexual attraction to family members/underage) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 22, 2009, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297 "2009-08-22T08:11:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![supergoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@supergoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supergoose)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/101 "2009-08-31T21:35:10Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > That’s how I read it, but if that wasn’t what you mean, what was it that you were referring to? I agree, if you aren’t inclined to (serial rapist or something), it’s easy not to rape someone. There’s obvious harm done there. But what I imagine would take a great deal of strength would be to not do small things that are easily rationalized and overlooked. You’re right, a look in and of itself isn’t harmful. I’m referring to interacting with children in a flirty or sexual way. Even a look or casual touch can qualify. If you’re interacting with the child _solely because you find them sexually attractive_, that’s going too far. I imagine it’s so easy, given your age preferences, to think to yourself that they can’t pick up on it or they’re too young to understand what’s going on or that they won’t remember or some such. But **any interaction that stems from your sexual attraction is going too far** , even if you and the other people present don’t think it is recognizably so. The more you do something, the easier it becomes and the more likely you (not you specifically, I mean you in the general sense) are to push it a little further and then a little further because you’re likely to get away with it. I don’t care that the parents and children you’ve interacted with/in front of thus far didn’t pick up on the sexual undertones, as far as you know. Your judgment is not perfect, your ability to conceal your attraction is not perfect. Some day you’ll slip up. And it may be a small small relatively harmless thing, but it’s still crossing a line. Maybe you can keep from letting things slowly progress or maybe you really are that good at concealing it. I don’t know. But if you are genuinely concerned about the well being of the children you encounter, I don’t think you can afford to take the risk. No, my every interaction with the gender (genders, in my case) of my choice is not exclusively about sexual attraction. But there often is a tinge of it, even if just casually checking someone out. The difference is, with me, the objects of my interest are adults and emotionally capable of recognizing and dealing with subtle sexual interest on my part. Kids aren’t. So I’m sorry, but you should probably stay away from kids altogether, just in case. Do you really think you’re so infallible that you can keep your every interaction with children from being even slightly tainted in some way by your sexual interest in them? Given that you’re human, to me, the only answer to that is no. And before you mention it, yeah kids can deal with limited exposure to sex. But I contend that the difference is that _they are not the target or one of the participants_. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/102 "2009-08-31T22:46:22Z")
**supergoose,** I’m just wondering what you think **Cesario** ought to do to prevent this calamity. I mean, he certainly can’t change the way he’s wired. He seems to clearly understand the devastation wrought by child abuse. Short of shutting him up in a box so that he can never look at or talk to another child ever, I’m not really seeing a solution here. In my experience the people who do actually abuse children rationalize the hell out it. He’s rationalized nothing. I’m not saying I would blame a parent for keeping a close eye on him, but come on. I don’t think we could ask for a more ideal pedophile than **Cesario.** Maybe, just maybe, possibly, if more people opened up about this sort of thing, pedophiles could learn how to cope with their own attractions to children without actually abusing children. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/103 "2009-08-31T22:58:46Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > There was one of those years ago IIRC and the poster in question got banned partially because of it. It am certainly not a moderator but I would guess it is probably not in someone’s best interest to express a sexual preference for small children in any context assuming that it is true. That isn’t a value judgement as long as it is never, ever acted on in any way because people generally can’t control their sexual thoughts. However, anyone that ever expressed that opinion to me in real life sure is hell isn’t going to be hanging around my young daughters. Well, **Shagnasty** did say this and then **Cesario** pointed out that he would never act on any desire for kids and that pedophiles statistically don’t rape children as often. I think what **supergoose** is saying is that even though a pedophile may claim that they are in control and can be around kids, they really shouldn’t because it’s not just about not raping them. Pretty much any interaction is likely to be suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/104 "2009-08-31T23:04:50Z")
I’m with **olives** and the whole innocent until proven guilty schtick. Otherwise, folks won’t be able to drive due to the possibility of speeding, people won’t be able to go into stores with alcohol because they my fall off the wagon, people won’t be able to hold hands cuz, heck, that’s the path to unintended pregnancy! (yeah, yeah, _for the children_.) Bad things have happened to people. That doesn’t mean you lock someone else up because they’re _capable_ of doing bad things. My kinks have changed over the years. I’m sure yours have too. And I’m glad I didn’t have you looking over my shoulder, ‘keeping my best interests in mind.’ I am not, nor ever have been attracted to the underage, but I’m taking exception to the statement that folks can’t hide from their ‘baser tendencies’. Sure doesn’t give people a whole lotta credit. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/105 "2009-08-31T23:20:13Z")
> [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > I am not, nor ever have been attracted to the underage, but I’m taking exception to the statement that folks can’t hide from their ‘baser tendencies’. Sure doesn’t give people a whole lotta credit. Yeah, but if you know you’re a pedophile, isn’t it tempting fate a bit to spend a lot of time around children? It’s very easy to say “Don’t rape anyone,” but I know that when I’m around someone I’m attracted to, I behave differently–flirtatious, etc.–without often realizing it until later. All well and good when we’re talking about adults, but that kind of behavior is probably going to skeeve out a kid. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/106 "2009-08-31T23:30:12Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Maybe not every glance is necessarily sexual. So why do you assume it’s somehow different for me and my kind? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But I was talking about this with a friend of mine recently–like could a pedophile in theory ever be around kids? And it just seemed like maybe they would give themselves away. Like I said, if the concern is that I’ll blow my cover, I appreciate the concern, but I can look after myself. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Like hug a kid a little too long or something. What’s the maximum platnoic time? I’ve spent some fifteen minutes to a half an hour at a stretch carrying around my one-year-old nephew in my arms. Would this interaction be magically different if he’d been a she and thus the gender I’m attracted to? If so, how? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > There are definitely innocuous things that adults can do to kids that can seem creepy when a certain adult does them, you know? No. I don’t. Either some behavior is problematic or it is not. If it’s problematic, it’s problematic no matter who’s doing it, not just of a certain class of thought-criminal does it. > [@supergoose](#): > > I agree, if you aren’t inclined to (serial rapist or something), it’s easy not to rape someone. That’s a relief. Every time someone brings up that line of conversation, I worry a great deal for the people they interact with. > [@supergoose](#): > > There’s obvious harm done there. But what I imagine would take a great deal of strength would be to not do small things that are easily rationalized and overlooked. Not to mention things that are impossible to define, apparently. > [@supergoose](#): > > You’re right, a look in and of itself isn’t harmful. I’m referring to interacting with children in a flirty or sexual way. I’ve had instances where a child smiled at me described as flirty. Do I need to start hitting any given child I run across so that they won’t be inclined to smile in my direction? > [@supergoose](#): > > Even a look or casual touch can qualify. Again, do we have anything that would qualify as a definition? > [@supergoose](#): > > If you’re interacting with the child _solely because you find them sexually attractive_, that’s going too far. So it has nothing to do with what I do, and everything to do with what I’m thinking while I do it? > [@supergoose](#): > > I imagine it’s so easy, given your age preferences, to think to yourself that they can’t pick up on it or they’re too young to understand what’s going on or that they won’t remember or some such. Not really. I tend to think of them as intelligent, thoughtful human beings. Believing children to be inherently nonpersons incapable of understanding the world seems more common in my opponents in my experience. Something I find something of a pet peeve, actually. > [@supergoose](#): > > But **any interaction that stems from your sexual attraction is going too far** , even if you and the other people present don’t think it is recognizably so. Back to thought-crime, eh? > [@supergoose](#): > > The more you do something, the easier it becomes and the more likely you (not you specifically, I mean you in the general sense) are to push it a little further and then a little further because you’re likely to get away with it. Ah, so a slippery slope fallacy, then. Fact of the matter is, I’m arrogant enough as is. I already believe I could get away with just about anything I chose to do. I don’t restrict my behavior because I’m afraid of getting caught. I restrict my behavior because I believe it is rationally and morally the correct thing to do. > [@supergoose](#): > > I don’t care that the parents and children you’ve interacted with/in front of thus far didn’t pick up on the sexual undertones, as far as you know. Any particular reason to think they’d be teasing me about having a new girlfriend if they did pick up on it? > [@supergoose](#): > > Your judgment is not perfect, your ability to conceal your attraction is not perfect. Like I said, I can manage my own risks of exposure, though I do appreciate the concern. > [@supergoose](#): > > Some day you’ll slip up. And it may be a small small relatively harmless thing, but it’s still crossing a line. So, someday I’ll do something harmless, and that will make me a monster. Interesting. > [@supergoose](#): > > Maybe you can keep from letting things slowly progress or maybe you really are that good at concealing it. I don’t know. But if you are genuinely concerned about the well being of the children you encounter, I don’t think you can afford to take the risk.No, my every interaction with the gender (genders, in my case) of my choice is not exclusively about sexual attraction. So why do you assume we’re different in this regard? > [@supergoose](#): > > But there often is a tinge of it, even if just casually checking someone out. The difference is, with me, the objects of my interest are adults and emotionally capable of recognizing and dealing with subtle sexual interest on my part. Kids aren’t. Please explain what is required to deal with the awesome responsibility of…people looking at you? > [@supergoose](#): > > So I’m sorry, but you should probably stay away from kids altogether, just in case. So again, you declare that I should suffer death by starvation, since I can’t so much as go to the grocery store without seeing a dozen kids or more. > [@supergoose](#): > > Do you really think you’re so infallible that you can keep your every interaction with children from being even slightly tainted in some way by your sexual interest in them? Given that you’re human, to me, the only answer to that is no. Prove you will never inadvertently do something that someone could misinterpret as demonstrating sexual interest toward a child. That way I can find out what the standard of evidence I apparently need to meet is… > [@supergoose](#): > > And before you mention it, yeah kids can deal with limited exposure to sex. But I contend that the difference is that _they are not the target or one of the participants_. HA! I’m sorry, but you’re really quite naive about that one. [http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/cspn/vol7\_no2/normal.htm](http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/cspn/vol7_no2/normal.htm) [http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm](http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm) Normal child sexuality is not “no sexuality”. And now I prepare to suffer the consequences of correcting a misconception. I’m sure the response will have something to do with me “rationalizing” (something) through the use of these links. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Well, **Shagnasty** did say this and then **Cesario** pointed out that he would never act on any desire for kids and that pedophiles statistically don’t rape children as often. I think what **supergoose** is saying is that even though a pedophile may claim that they are in control and can be around kids, they really shouldn’t because it’s not just about not raping them. Pretty much any interaction is likely to be suspect. Considering that nonpedophiles are more likely to molest children than pedophiles are, it seems like it’s the ones who aren’t into little kids that you ought to be nervous about hanging around them. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/107 "2009-08-31T23:31:04Z")
Pedophilia is the great bogeyman of this age. It’s rather difficult to hold a conversation on it with the implications and things left unsaid. Kinda like homosexuality…and race issues, and religious preferences…and, well, you know where I’m going with this. It’s not an easy issue, it doesn’t have an easy solution, but demonizing part of the population out of hand isn’t the solution. Nor is isolation, or chemical castration, or…well, you know where I’m going with this. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/108 "2009-08-31T23:37:19Z")
> [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > Pedophilia is the great bogeyman of this age. It’s rather difficult to hold a conversation on it with the implications and things left unsaid. Kinda like homosexuality…and race issues, and religious preferences…and, well, you know where I’m going with this. > > It’s not an easy issue, it doesn’t have an easy solution, but demonizing part of the population out of hand isn’t the solution. Nor is isolation, or chemical castration, or…well, you know where I’m going with this. I think we might have more luck with a completely open discussion about the subject. You’re right that leaving implications unsaid is going to cause trouble, so let’s say them. Let’s bring all the assumptions out in the open and deal with them there. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/109 "2009-08-31T23:52:15Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Yeah, but if you know you’re a pedophile There’s no such thing as a pedophile. Everyone has different kinds, amounts, and times of attraction to children, in varying degrees of each, and with different respsonses, reactions, and behaviors. Where you draw the line at labeling someone is arbitrary. There’s no separate species of human homo pedophlian. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/110 "2009-09-01T00:01:45Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > There’s no such thing as a pedophile. Everyone has different kinds, amounts, and times of attraction to children, in varying degrees of each, and with different respsonses, reactions, and behaviors. Where you draw the line at labeling someone is arbitrary. There’s no separate species of human homo pedophlian. We don’t have to be separate species to exist. People who are more sexually interested in children than they are in adults are pedophiles. Simple as that. This is coming from one. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/111 "2009-09-01T00:17:14Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > … So yeah, of course I catch myself getting aroused at the sight of young teenage girls, 14 or 15 years old; I mean, there’s always a new wave of them every year. I wouldn’t ever act on it, of course, because first of all, I have a girlfriend who I would never cheat on, and secondly I don’t really feel like being charged with statutory rape and going to jail. National Lampoon put it best in their Teenagers issue. They showed a map of the United States with the age of consent for each state. There was also a note about how probable it would be that you would end up in prison, where you would find yourself not giving consent – to big, hairy, muscular ruffians – probably ones with… teenage daughters! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/112 "2009-09-01T00:33:40Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Not only are pedophiles unlikely to rape children (in the same way heterosexual males are unlikely to rape women), but statistical evidence has shown that nonpedophiles are more than twice as likely to molest children than pedophiles are. You know what, though… straight men attracted to legal age women do all sorts of other things like woo, court, seduce, cajole, wheedle, negotiate, and manipulate in order to succeed in sexual relationships with the object of their affection. So if you’re going to draw that direct analogy and pretend like you exercise just as much restraint as any red-blooded male, do you feel it’s moral for an adult to engage in courting behavior to win sex with girls in the 0-10 age? Is bribery with candy OK? What sort of sexual contact with someone in that age range would **not** constitute rape, in your view? I am really hoping you’re going to say that you’ve resigned yourself to a life of of looking but not touching. Please say that and mean it. Zero, for chrissakes. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/113 "2009-09-01T01:03:50Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > You know what, though… straight men attracted to legal age women do all sorts of other things like woo, court, seduce, cajole, wheedle, negotiate, and manipulate in order to succeed in sexual relationships with the object of their affection. So if you’re going to draw that direct analogy and pretend like you exercise just as much restraint as any red-blooded male, do you feel it’s moral for an adult to engage in courting behavior to win sex with girls in the 0-10 age? I don’t think some of the behavior you’re describing is moral to engage in when you’re interested in _adults_. Why is this tolerated in the so called adult “dating game”? > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > Is bribery with candy OK? What’s your general stance on prostitution? > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > What sort of sexual contact with someone in that age range would **not** constitute rape, in your view? Well, if you’re really interested: > [@](#): > > Proposed Relational Maturity and Sexual Competency (RMSC) testing schema: > > In order to be declared mentally competent to engage in consensual sexual activities (rather than having had a certain number of birthdays) under the proposed system, the test-taker proves his/her mental competence by passing a test. > > The testing requirements include: > 1.) Factual knowledge about sex, sexuality, reproduction and STDs. > 1.a.) Subject must understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse. Sexual anatomy, some common intercourse activities (at least the big three oral, anal and vaginal), masturbation, and outercourse activities (mutual masturbation in its various forms) should all be understood at a mechanical level. > 1.b.) Subject must understand the mechanics of human reproduction. Ejaculation, sperm fertilizing egg cells, warning signs of pregnancy including missed periods, a basic understanding of the nine month gestation period, childbirth, and the intrinsic physical risks of pregnancy. (Including factors that can increase those risks, ie low body mass and lack of physical development.) > 1.c.) Subject must understand his or her options in terms of preventing pregnancy. Subject must be aware of the existence and useage of barrier methods like condoms, hormone options like birth control pills, sterilization procedures like vasectomies, spermacide options, and demonstrate an understanding of the relative failure rates of these products. While it is not neccissary to be able to prattle off statistical failure rates, an understanding of which are most and least effective must be demonstrated, as well as the understanding that they can be more effective when used together. > 1.d.) Subject must be aware of abortion, what it is, the legal status of the procedure locally, and, if legal, the risks inherent in this procedure. > 1.e.) Subject must know about STDs. Subject must be aware that exchanging bodily fluids, particularly sexual fluids runs the risk of transmitting diseases. Subject must be aware that some such diseases are uncurable. HIV in particular should be understood in terms of its transmission methods, and its effects. > 1.f.) Subject must know where to go for testing and medical advice regarding STDs. > 1.g.) Subject must be aware of methods besides abstinence for preventing STDs, in particular the efficacy of barrier methods and the risks of multiple partners and anonymous sex. > 2.) the capacity to use critical thought to judge situations (consequence acknowledgment, goal setting, etc) > 2.a.) Subject must understand that actions have consequences. > 2.b.) Subject must be able to use prior experience and provided factual information to select the course of action leading to the best outcome in a hypothetical situation. > 2.c.) Subject must be able to recognize when there is not enough information provided in a question to provide a meaningful answer. > 3.) Ability to identify the fact that people lie to and use each other, and be able to judge (to a certain extent) when that’s occurring in certain examples. > 4.) Understanding of the concepts of rejection (both non-personal caused and personal caused rejection, as well as being able to reject people themselves). > 4.a.) Subject must understand that not everyone wants to have sex with them. > 4.b.) Subject must understand sexual orientation, and that some people just don’t want sex with certain categories of people. > 4.c.) Subject must recognise that some people do not want to have sex with them personally. > 4.d.) Subject must be able to reject others. > 5.) Understanding sexual ethics (like how rape is wrong, using sex to hurt people is wrong, etc. All because these hurt people for no justifiable reason.) > 5.a.) Subject must be able to diferentiate between rape and consentual sex in examples. > 5.b.) Subject must understand that rape is illegal. > 5.c.) Subject must be able to recognise sexual abuse other than rape in examples. > 5.d.) Subject must understand that sexual abuse is illegal. > 5.e.) Subject must recognise the problems with using sex as a comodity. > 5.f.) Subject must be aware of how to report the crimes they were required to be able to identify. > 5.g.) Subject must understand that they have the right to request any potential sexual partners be tested for STDs before consenting to sex. > > The proposed testing format is as follows: > Use a review board, and allow researchers to propose alternative testing methods, approved by the review board, and allow anyone applying to take the test to use whichever approved test they wish. (I should point out the need for an oral test, under the assumption that even iliterate adults or children could potentially have the neccessary skills and knowledge even if they lack the skills and knowledge of reading and writing. And, of course, the need for a version of the test to be avalible in multiple languages so as not to discriminate against non-native english speakers.) > > At the testing facilities, social workers will be present to evaluate and ensure that test takers are here by their own free will. Abuse intervention programs and counciling services will be avalible at testing centers. > > On site sex education classes will be availible in order to help prepare test takers for aquiring the factual knowledge required for requirement two. This should help aleviate the imballances in educational backgrounds of test takers. > > Upon having passed the test, a picture ID is issued indicating you are compotent to have sex. Having sex with an unlicensed idividual is treated as statutory rape. Test status will be hidden from third parties (First is Child, second is Government) unless the first party decides to tell someone (Ostensibly to prove sexual legality). > > If there is reason to suspect that an individual is trying to “play the system” (by deliberately remaining untested dispite being actually compotent in order to maintain access to partners unable to offer meaningful consent), the court could order that the parties involved be tested, and dealt with accordingly in terms of the results. If one party is found be capable and the other not, it should serve as compelling evidence that this was a case that should be treated as statutory rape, and the now compotent party would have to prove in some way that they only gained this compotence in the intervening time between the act and the sexual encounter. If neither party proves compotent, there’s nothing to be done, regardless of ages involved. If both parties prove compotent, they should both be held criminally responsible, but not to the same level as if they were the only one involved who was compotent. Likely a fine of some sort would be the best choice for such an infraction. > > A grandfather clause is included in this proposal, such that anyone who is over the local age of consent at the time this proposal goes into effect will not need to be tested so long as they wish to be sexually active only with other individuals who were also grandfathered out of the program. If they wish to be sexual with someone operating under the new system, they must submit for testing, and thereafter abide by the new system as though they had not been grandfathered out of it. > > Conclusion: > The primary difference is that actual compotency as determined by the test, rather than assumed compotency based on age is the primary determiner. > > Thoughts? Additional testing requirements you feel are important? > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > I am really hoping you’re going to say that you’ve resigned yourself to a life of of looking but not touching. Please say that and mean it. Zero, for chrissakes. :smack: Something I’ve provided on other boards before that should answer your question: > [@](#): > > I’m going to be honest. I’m a pedophile. If I could be assured that it could be done safely, I’d be interested in having sex with children. > > As the world is set up now, any such activity carries the risk of severe psychological trauma. This trauma is social in nature, stemming from the illegality of the practice, and the overall attitude of sex as something negative that hurts people rather than something positive people who care about one another share. > > Because of this, I feel it is irresponsible to potentially expose a child to the lifetime of social torture that would result from even a positive, mutually desired encounter. Yet, I feel that better still would be an end to this social stigma that treats children as subhuman and punishes them for exercising their rights to free self-determination. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/114 "2009-09-01T01:16:19Z")
I have not found myself ever attracted to anyone in my family, to answer the OP’s question. That out of the way, I do have something to contribute. As a teenager I surrendered a child to adoption, a daughter. Fast forward 28 yrs, she finds me, and we come into reunion. (Oh the joy!) The reunion was facilitated by a social services agency of the province I reside in. It involved being a go between until everyone was comfortable, and providing access to counseling, etc. It also included some literature that was sent to my house. Some of it was silly, (a list of questions to ask each other?) and some of it was quite eye opening. There was two articles about sexual attraction. Apparently not unheard of in these circumstances. More an opposite sex thing, Mother/Son + Father/Daughter, it seems. At the time, I discounted it as ‘it could never happen’, pffft. I was quite weirded out by the possibility that this could occur, mentioned it to several people who all felt the same as me. Then the reunion progressed. My daughter and I fell in love. An awesome and deep and abiding, fulfilling kind of love that’s difficult to describe. No, I was not sexually attracted to her. But the power, depth and beauty of the love we shared gave me pause and insight into how it could easily be possible for sexual attraction to arise in the opposite sex combos. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/115 "2009-09-01T01:23:53Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > I don’t think some of the behavior you’re describing is moral to engage in when you’re interested in _adults_. Then let’s limit the analogy to strictly moral courting behavior between adults. Do you feel that’s analogous to behavior with children? > [@](#): > > What’s your general stance on prostitution? I’m perfectly fine with it, provided all parties have reached the age of majority. At some point we expect people to have the maturity, knowledge, and experience to make their own choices. Zero to ten is not even in the ballpark of this age. [quote] Yet, I feel that better still would be an end to this social stigma that treats children as subhuman and punishes them for exercising their rights to free self-determination.[/quote The social stigma is not on children. It is on people who pretend that children have the right to free self-determination for anything. We don’t let them fill containers with gasoline or mind the home alone for very good reasons… because they have not yet acquired the knowledge, maturity, and judgement to keep themselves safe. As far as the battery of questions on sexual knowledge, that’s just pedophile wishful thinking. As if any child is going to agree to take this test, let alone pass it, without being thoroughly coached and groomed by the pedophile who stands to benefit from it. I will grant that there is some gray area with some teens who are unusually mature for their ages and who maybe might be able to take such a test under their own motive and ability. But the age range of zero to ten isn’t even remotely close to this, not even in your wildest dreams. If you really love children then you ought to help the cause of child starvation, or clean drinking water, or literacy… not concoct some quiz that will make it easier for creeps to have sex with them. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/116 "2009-09-01T01:44:25Z")
I’m with you right up til you said this: > [@Cesario](#): > > Because of this, I feel it is irresponsible to potentially expose a child to the lifetime of social torture that would result from even a positive, mutually desired encounter. Yet, I feel that better still would be an end to this social stigma that treats children as subhuman and punishes them for exercising their rights to free self-determination. I didn’t have sex til I was _21_…and it still threw me for an emotional loop. The power imbalance isn’t because kids aren’t empowered, the power imbalance is because the child hasn’t **developed** to the point of having sexual relations. What age is that? It may be 18, or 16 or 14, but it’s probably not 10. For the exact same reason why they can’t vote, drink, or go to war before a certain maturity. So on one hand, I’ll validate your feelings, your emotions and desires are at least as genuine and stirring as they are for anyone else on this forum. But you can’t expect a child to make these decisions, they just aren’t equipped to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/117 "2009-09-01T02:29:10Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > Then let’s limit the analogy to strictly moral courting behavior between adults. Do you feel that’s analogous to behavior with children? Analogous? > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > I’m perfectly fine with it, provided all parties have reached the age of majority. Which age of majority? That age changes when you walk a few feet and cross a border, after all. Or do people become less competent after taking a short stroll? (One of many reasons I despise arbitrary age lines.) > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > At some point we expect people to have the maturity, knowledge, and experience to make their own choices. Zero to ten is not even in the ballpark of this age. Why should either of our expectations matter? Seems to me that our expectations are both just going to be filtered through our own wishful thinking, and won’t really say anything objective either way. > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > The social stigma is not on children. It is on people who pretend that children have the right to free self-determination for anything. If only that were true. If only. The fact of the matter is that kids who are sexually active are stigmatized. Never catch those court cases involving kids being arrested as child pornographers for taking pictures of themselves? Ever consider how it must feel to have someone you cared about and enjoyed spending time with dragged away to prison against your vocal protests and being told it was happening in your name? The virgin/whore, blame the victim mentality is quite alive and well and children are not immune to it. Even if the event is never found out about, the messages the kids recieve in school, through the media, and all throughout society teach them to feel victimized and diminished regardless of how they felt about it beforehand. If they weren’t traumatized victims before all that, society makes damn sure that’s how they end up. If they were immune, the only thing that society could threaten me with to avoid mutually desired sexual encounters with kids would be my own safety, and as I said before, I’m quite arrogant enough to believe I could avoid any consequences to myself. I’m not so cavileer with other people, however, particularly not people I care about (a prerequisite for someone I’d want to have sex with). > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > We don’t let them fill containers with gasoline or mind the home alone for very good reasons… because they have not yet acquired the knowledge, maturity, and judgement to keep themselves safe. And it is those very justification which suggest the RMSC standard I’ve proposed. If the reason we don’t trust them with certain rights is that they lack knowledge, or critical thinking skills, then it stands to reason that by demonstrating that knowledge and those skills, they prove themselves trustworthy to make these decisions. > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > As far as the battery of questions on sexual knowledge, that’s just pedophile wishful thinking. I don’t think you understood the proposal. This wasn’t written as some fancy new loophole for existing age of consent laws. This was written as a complete replacement. No matter what your age, if you can’t meet this standard, you are not treated as though you were able to consent. > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > As if any child is going to agree to take this test, let alone pass it, without being thoroughly coached and groomed by the pedophile who stands to benefit from it. Please explain to me how you can demonstrate the critical thinking skills of requirement 2, or really any of the requirements save requirement 1, without actually posessing the needed cognative development. These requirements aren’t rote memorization of facts. As to facilitating the rote memorization of facts, isn’t that sort of “coaching” what we refer to as “teaching” and “studying” in any other subject? Also, did you miss the section put in the proposal specifically addressing ensuring that people were there of their own free will? It was put in there specifically to address this objection (spurious as it is, since rape is still rape even if you’re allowed to consent). > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > I will grant that there is some gray area with some teens who are unusually mature for their ages and who maybe might be able to take such a test under their own motive and ability. But the age range of zero to ten isn’t even remotely close to this, not even in your wildest dreams. Where in that proposal did it put any age category at all? Where did you get the insane idea that this was about my preferences instead of about (as you specifically asked) my moral view of the situation? If no one under the age of thirty can ever pass this, it’s still a major victory, since it’s a standard that means something, is internally justified unlike existing arbitrary age lines based on nothing, and it means a lot of people who shouldn’t be consenting to sex are protected by statutory rape laws that wouldn’t have under the old system. I’m really not sure what your objection is in the context of actually reading the proposal. > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > If you really love children then you ought to help the cause of child starvation, or clean drinking water, or literacy… not concoct some quiz that will make it easier for creeps to have sex with them. I’m a youth rights advocate. I believe in amending the laws so that young people are treated as human beings, not chattel as they are currently regarded by existing law. Entitlements like you are describing are nice and maybe worthwhile, but they aren’t rights, which are imminently more important. As to your insinuations about my priorities, I’ll remind you that you specifically asked me for this information. I’d love to spend some time debating the voting age, emancipation laws, property rights laws, and the like, but you asked for my view on this subject. If you don’t like what you got, there’s really nothing I can do to help you with that. > [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > I’m with you right up til you said this: > > I didn’t have sex til I was _21_…and it still threw me for an emotional loop. And are you arguing that people who aren’t ready like you weren’t ought to still be treated as though they are fair game because they crossed an arbitrary line in the sand? > [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > The power imbalance isn’t because kids aren’t empowered, How do you define “power imballance” if not one side not having as much power as the other? > [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > the power imbalance is because the child hasn’t **developed** to the point of having sexual relations. Hense the RMSC proposal to determine if someone has reached that level of development. > [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > What age is that? It may be 18, or 16 or 14, but it’s probably not 10. There is no one age. What people continue to not grasp is that human beings are individuals, not automatons running a preprogrammed course. People mature at different rates, and become ready to take charge of their own decisions at radically different times from one another. Some are ready very young. Some people never reach that point. Any age we ever put it at will invariably put people on both sides of the arbitrary line in the sand on the wrong side, depriving some of their legitimately deserved rights, and exposing others to predations they aren’t ready to handle. Age lines just don’t work for this sort of thing. > [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > For the exact same reason why they can’t vote, drink, or go to war before a certain maturity. The result of a whimsical dart toss? Seriously, have you read the history of these age lines? There is no internally consistent reasoning behind the placement of any of these ages. > [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > So on one hand, I’ll validate your feelings, your emotions and desires are at least as genuine and stirring as they are for anyone else on this forum. While that’s nice of you to say so, I already knew this. I’ve long since gotten past the need for validation. I post here to dispel ignorance, not to make myself feel better (except in that warm fuzzy feeling you get when someone walks away knowing something they hadn’t before because you taught it to them). > [@Unintentionally\_Blank](#): > > But you can’t expect a child to make these decisions, they just aren’t equipped to do so. What psychological equipment do they lack that adults have? Can you define these differences in a meaningful way? Once when I asked that question, the woman I was debating with provided a series of answers about what we consider necessary for meaningful consent. Her answers, edited and refined over some years, are the entire basis of the RMSC. If you think she and I have missed something, please, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/118 "2009-09-01T02:54:39Z")
I don’t know if it could ever be reasonably appropriate to deem 10 year old people to have the authority to consent. IF such is possible, it should start with authorization to consent to sex with other 10 year olds, and let’s see how that works out before expanding that responsibility/priv/right to older people. If you had asked me as a 10 year old I would have said • Eww that’s gross; and yet still just for the record • I should not be barred from anything allowed to adults just because of my age In light of the second, an attitude that I would also have extended to being spoken to by teachers and other adults ONLY as they’d dare to speak to each other, and the right to vote, and basically to steer my own course to whatever extend I had a notion of where to steer it, I do share **Cesario** ’s hope for a world where the artificial curtailment of children’s self-determination has been eliminated. I say that as a children’s libber from way back when. (i.e., back when I was a child) Sex and children, sex and children… I think there is an opposite force, so to speak, that sexual attraction has to work against, quite aside from culturally-induced stuff: the urge to privacy and a sense of boundaries. I’ve said earlier in this thread that when I was a kid (as young as 8, maybe 7 or 6) I had the hots for girls my own age. What did NOT happen was me acting on it, even so far as to explore the possibility that there was any trace of reciprocal interest. Uh uh. WAY too personal. Let’s be blunt: that’s where you pee from. I didn’t even want anyone to ever see me in my underwear. It was weird, kinky, and yet somehow OK for me to have such feelings but NO WAY was I under any circumstances EVER going to TELL anyone about them. Do we as adults _forget_ the rather intense urge towards privacy and how very important it was to us? Or do we chalk it up to inexperience and naivetë and innocence and, having done so, forget about it? What _happened_ was that our hormonal balance changed and our craving for sex got stronger than our urge to privacy and personal bodily secrecy, but really those other feelings didn’t just go away. They still make us self-conscious, don’t they? You know they do. Seriously, I don’t think most kids are ready for sex, not because they are not interested in sex or do not have sexual appetites but because they have, at that age, much stronger desires for privacy, separateness, and the sanctity of bodily boundaries. I think for most people there are a handful of years in which there is a lot of ambivalence. I remember my neighbor when we were both in Junior High School telling me about being picked up by a 20s-ish woman who quickly winked at him and told him “I’ve got all day”. He said he stammered & uhh’ed and umm’ed and said he had to go to band practice or football practice or whatever it was… as he was telling me this, he was kicking himself for missing the opportunity, but it was the other side, that “shy” inclination to avoid invasive personal contact, that overrode other considerations. And that was 15 or 16ish. The problem with sex with younger kids (even for the moment bracketing off social inequality which is a HUGE issue to bracket off) is that this interruption, this violation of personal private space, can be traumatic. People shoudl not be made ashamed of sex or sexual appetites but they should also not have to be ashamed of wanting apart-ness and inviolate personal space until they are ready to trade that off for sex, for the sake of sex and not for approval, not to make someone else happy, not because it is what someone else wants of them, and not to fit in and be popular, either. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/119 "2009-09-01T03:10:47Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I don’t know if it could ever be reasonably appropriate to deem 10 year old people to have the authority to consent. IF such is possible, it should start with authorization to consent to sex with other 10 year olds, and let’s see how that works out before expanding that responsibility/priv/right to older people. I’ve run across this argument a good deal before too, and my response is generally this: > [@](#): > > A lot of people have made the point that it’s appropriate for children to explore their sexuality with similarly aged peers, and that adult sexuality somehow taints any encounter which crosses generational lines. I would like to ask those individuals how it is, that a person can not be ready for sex with “mature, responsible adults” but can be perfectly ready for sex with “immature, irresponsible teenagers”. > > Have the stereotypes reversed recently? Are teenagers now renown for their compassion, ability to delay gratification, and their tendency not to pressure for sex when their partners aren’t interested? > [@AHunter3](#): > > If you had asked me as a 10 year old I would have said > > • Eww that’s gross; and yet still just for the record > • I should not be barred from anything allowed to adults just because of my age > > In light of the second, an attitude that I would also have extended to being spoken to by teachers and other adults ONLY as they’d dare to speak to each other, and the right to vote, and basically to steer my own course to whatever extend I had a notion of where to steer it, I do share **Cesario** ’s hope for a world where the artificial curtailment of children’s self-determination has been eliminated. I say that as a children’s libber from way back when. (i.e., back when I was a child) Same here. High five! > [@AHunter3](#): > > Sex and children, sex and children… I think there is an opposite force, so to speak, that sexual attraction has to work against, quite aside from culturally-induced stuff: the urge to privacy and a sense of boundaries. I’ve said earlier in this thread that when I was a kid (as young as 8, maybe 7 or 6) I had the hots for girls my own age. What did NOT happen was me acting on it, even so far as to explore the possibility that there was any trace of reciprocal interest. Uh uh. WAY too personal. Let’s be blunt: that’s where you pee from. I didn’t even want anyone to ever see me in my underwear. It was weird, kinky, and yet somehow OK for me to have such feelings but NO WAY was I under any circumstances EVER going to TELL anyone about them. Do we as adults _forget_ the rather intense urge towards privacy and how very important it was to us? Or do we chalk it up to inexperience and naivetë and innocence and, having done so, forget about it? What _happened_ was that our hormonal balance changed and our craving for sex got stronger than our urge to privacy and personal bodily secrecy, but really those other feelings didn’t just go away. They still make us self-conscious, don’t they? You know they do. Seriously, I don’t think most kids are ready for sex, not because they are not interested in sex or do not have sexual appetites but because they have, at that age, much stronger desires for privacy, separateness, and the sanctity of bodily boundaries. Actually, body shame is learned, not inate. That’s why you have to keep following kids around redressing them repeatedly the moment they gain the manual dexterity to take off their own clothes. > [@AHunter3](#): > > I think for most people there are a handful of years in which there is a lot of ambivalence. I remember my neighbor when we were both in Junior High School telling me about being picked up by a 20s-ish woman who quickly winked at him and told him “I’ve got all day”. He said he stammered & uhh’ed and umm’ed and said he had to go to band practice or football practice or whatever it was… as he was telling me this, he was kicking himself for missing the opportunity, but it was the other side, that “shy” inclination to avoid invasive personal contact, that overrode other considerations. And that was 15 or 16ish. Maybe this article will help sort out what’s culturally dictated and what’s inate. I know it’s helped me. [http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm](http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm) Keeping in mind, always, that human beings are individuals, and their experiences necessarily varry considerably from person to person, and that you can’t go from generalizations and apply them to any given individual. > [@AHunter3](#): > > The problem with sex with younger kids (even for the moment bracketing off social inequality which is a HUGE issue to bracket off) is that this interruption, this violation of personal private space, can be traumatic. People shoudl not be made ashamed of sex or sexual appetites but they should also not have to be ashamed of wanting apart-ness and inviolate personal space until they are ready to trade that off for sex, for the sake of sex and not for approval, not to make someone else happy, not because it is what someone else wants of them, and not to fit in and be popular, either. I agree with you completely. Doesn’t seem to me that goes against anything I’ve said here. Just because someone is legally empowered to consent does not mean that they must consent. Gaining the right to say “yes” does not mean losing the right to say “no”. Those individuals who don’t want sex for whatever reason they don’t want it, should have their desires respected just as much as we respect the desires of those who do want sex. ---
**Author:** ![dukette71](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8edcca/32.png) [@dukette71](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dukette71)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297/120 "2009-09-01T03:28:01Z")
Cesario, do you seriously believe that a person between the ages of 0-10 could pass the RMSC testing schema? I could see this being relevant for a 16-18 year old, but in someone under 15? BTW, how old are you? I understand that you are involuntarily attracted to children, but are you sure that the level of consent that you claim they are capable of isn’t just a fantasy of yours? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-you-ever-sexual-attraction-to-family-members-underage/507297.md?page=7)