Is underage sexual activity ever NOT traumatic, or even enjoyable, for the kids?

Great Debates
1

This was inspired by the “kiddie porn in the closet” thread, in which the OP finds a pornographic printout involving kids and adults (no details) belonging to a family member. The family member was 14 at the time; the age difference between between the participants in the printout is unknown.

Is this kinda thing necessarily harmful (physically or psychologically/emotionally) for the underage participants?

I’m going to take it for granted that a 16-year-old teenage couple doing it, though technically statutory rape, is not going to be any cause for alarm ('cept in religious circles) – hence the “Romeo and Juliet” laws – and that the two of them will most likely grow up just fine.

I’m also going to take it for granted that a 7-year-old girl repeatedly raped by Daddy is going to be fucked up real bad.

Ok, but is there a gray area somewhere between the two?

Take a 15-yo girl and a 19-yo guy, for example – is that ok? Or more extreme, are there any real life examples (researched, anecdotal, anything) of, say, a 14-yo girl and a 24-yo guy falling in love, entering into a mutually-caring relationship, turning it physical, and ending up a happily married, well-adjusted couple years later?

Personally, I remember being a boy of 12-14 and even back then I remember hearing about child porn and thinking “I don’t get it. What’s the big deal?” I was terrified that the cops were going to come after me if they caught me stealing a glance at little ol’ Teresa, my crush-of-the-week. Eventually I realized that was different and it only got creepy if somebody much older was attracted to those same girls. But on second thought, I realized I was also quite attracted to older women. Whether it’s “hot for teach!”, Hollywood, or plain and simple porn, I was hardly alone: People would bring shit into school, leer/drool at certain teachers, browse porn on school computers, etc., and the objects of our desire were often 20-30 or older. Had any of those teenage fantasies actually come true, I sincerely doubt I would’ve been scarred in the least (imagining a Harold and Maude-like afterglow here)… or would I’ve? Do participants ever enjoy it at the time and become traumatized later in life?

Is it worse for female victims? You know the drill: Young girl, older guy = CHILD RAPE! PITCHFORKS! Young guy, older girl = Lucky son of a bitch! Any physiological truth to that or is it more of a societal “girls are weak and need to protected!” thing?

What about culture? Take, for example, schoolgirls in Japanese erotic animation and comics – is kiddie porn even a crime there? I’ve also heard stories about older cultures in history taking brides at 12 (and presuming having sex as soon as was physically possible, which wouldn’t be much later) – if such cultures did exist (I’m not sure), did those girls turn out ok?

2

Until recently, the age of consent in Canada was 14. I’m not aware of any negative effects, and I’m unclear what problems raising it to 16 is supposed to have solved.

3

The only risk for psychological damage is if one of the participants holds a position of power or authority, and that applies to people of the same age as well. Age difference does not automatically imply trauma.

4

If it isn’t, it likely has very little to do with their age.

All individuals are different, blah blah blah blah, every case yadda yadda, but in general I think it should be very, very obvious that people under 18 can have fun and fulfilling sexual relationships. I did.

5

I’d say it depends very much on the four things:
(1) the individual person – their level of emotional and physical maturity, their willingness, their attitudes, their level of understanding of what’s going on and possible consequences, etc.
(2) the circumstances/environment – whether any coercion (physical or mental, overt or subtle) was used, the location, comfort level, time of day, etc.;
(3) the act itself – genital, oral, or anal, and how comfortable the person was with it; timing, how much foreplay, whether the person was aroused, whether the person enjoyed it physically and emotionally, what happened before and after, etc.
(3) the other person – whether they were caring, gentle, loving, and concerned for the youngster emotionally and physically. Heck, the attitudes of the other person can make a helluva difference, even for sex between 30-year-olds, let alone teens.

So, I think that situations could be imagined where it is NOT traumatic… but I suspect that’s seldom the situation, since I suspect there’s almost always an element of coercion (even if not at an overt level) that the younger person must sense.

And, actually, now that I’ve quantified this, aren’t those conditions pretty much required for ANYONE of any age to have enjoyable sex?

6

Exactly. But society has decided that underage people will be traumatized if they have sex. And has made such a big deal of it that this ensures they will be traumatized. And if they are not traumatized then they will be traumatized about not being traumatized. Because, God forbid anyone suggest that maybe, just maybe, teenagers might enjoy sex just like adults.

This is like women having sex before marriage in some backwards society. It is society who makes sure the trauma part happens.

7

[quote=“Reply, post:1, topic:492787”]

Ok, but is there a gray area somewhere between the two?

Take a 15-yo girl and a 19-yo guy, for example – is that ok? Or more extreme, are there any real life examples (researched, anecdotal, anything) of, say, a 14-yo girl and a 24-yo guy falling in love, entering into a mutually-caring relationship, turning it physical, and ending up a happily married, well-adjusted couple years later?

Will and Ariel Durant. She was 15 when married. He was 28.

Edit: Screwed up quoting. Sorry to Reply.

8

It’s kind of strange- the modern concern with sexual abuse and trauma seems almost to be a back-door form of old fashioned prudery, repackaged in a liberal wrapper. We started with a traditional society that had very straightlaced sexual mores. Then progressives started promoting free love, sexual liberation, etc. culminating in the Sexual Revolution of the ‘60s. And then a strange thing happened: Having created the sexual utopia they’d always clamored for, progressives then became more and more obsessed with the idea of childrens’ vulnerability to sexual abuse and trauma. To the point where in some ways we’re more repressed now than we were in the bad old pre-'60s days. Maybe this is just a tacit concession that limitless sexual liberation has it’s flaws, or maybe it’s hypocrisy.

Regarding pre-pubescent children I can only speak as a former one: before puberty I was extremely prudish, and would have been repulsed at any exposure to sexuality. I won’t say that it’s impossible that underage children could enjoy sexual activity with adults, but the bar is set very, very high there. Almost as high as claiming heroin could be used recreationally without abusing it.

9

What about the activity known as “playing Doctor”, which (in my understanding) typically involves grade-school aged children seeing each other naked and satisfying children’s curiosity about other children who are built a little differently?

I think you could argue that this is a sexual activity, and it certainly has several hallmarks of sexual activity. But you could also argue that it isn’t at all sexual, per se. Clothes hide our gender differences, for some societal reasons that probably came out of regulating sexual activity. But given that these differences are hidden, children should be curious even without any sexual motivation.

This “playing Doctor” seems to me a perfectly useful developmental event, and more likely to be a problem if missed than if experienced.

10

Yea, pretty much. It’s just that the risk of sex ending up being traumatic increases when there is a young person involved. This is mostly due to the lack of maturity and increase vulnerability.

Most children don’'t know how to think for themselves. And if they do not have decent parents or role models, they won’t know how to make proper decisions until they learn for themselves through experience. They might not learn how to make proper decisions about sex until well into their adulthood.

Where to draw the line obviously depends on how smart the individual is and how much he or she understands about sex. Since a sexual choice can lead to extremely traumatic consequences, we obviously restrict young people from making them. However, bad choices are risky for any age, it’s just more likely that underage kids will make them. What is enjoyable for two mature adults will probably be enjoyable for two kids under similar circumstances.

If a 14 year old gets into a relationship with someone over 30, I think it can work if the 14 year old displays the same maturity in decision making as someone who is 20. This is of course highly unlikely at that age. The 14 year old, because of her limited experience, probably still relies on adults to make decisions for her. If her 30 year old boyfriend suggests something, she is more likely to go along with him only to realize her devastating mistake later.

So young people can have non-traumatic sex in the same way they can probably drive a truck without getting into an accident. It can happen, it’s just more unlikely.

11

I’d be more worried about a teenager’s ability to see beyond today in terms of real life consequences of having sex that may seriously alter their futures, and not necessarily for the better, like pregnancy and STD’s.

I’m not certain as to a teenaged boy’s proclivity in using protection.

12

That’s a very interesting way to think about it! If that is true, I wonder if there’s any way (or reason) to make current laws more granular.

Hmm. I think you misspelled “Is she hot?!”

13

This isn’t directly a response to the OP and it’s a bit of a minirant for me, but here goes.

People love to rant and rave about how vulnerable the children are. And while rational people might agree that in some cases contact between people on opposite sides of the age of consent will be traumatic, they cannot abide the concept that some might not be. I understand the delicacy of the situation and the difficulty in defining things to not be legally vague, but the current climate is far worse than what it was in the “puritanical” 50’s. No one seems to accept that making sex overly litigious is a bad thing. No one asks how this massive over-reaction to teen sex by the politicians, media and law enforcement effects society. Don’t you think that making kids fear for imprisonment and public spectacle is far, far worse than the shaming that the church and prudish conservative parents would do in generations past?

More practically, it seems insane to me that we as a society are so willing to press charges and socially mark people for engaging in acts that have uncertain consequences. Were we talking about anything other than sex between teens the ACLU and media would be having a conniption if a situation like this were happening where the politicians and law enforcement officers were establishing arbitrary limits and litmus tests for acts that would be perfectly legal outside of those boundaries. Why is this questionable legal wrangling OK in regards to sex and not other subjective “bad acts”? What other cases are there were you can be charged with a felony for something that might, just maybe, hurt someone and equally, might, just maybe, make someone very happy.

14

Which part is worse than the 50’s? From what I can see, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, ministers, and men who “marry” girls below the wage of consent are now being prosecuted. Perhaps a small number of slightly over-the-age boyfriends are being prosecuted but it certainly doesn’t seem to be common. I guess people just let that stuff go in the 50’s- or maybe they blamed the younger party (who I’m sure was and is usually a female) for being a slut.

15

Daddy always told me to go big with the dowry. I wish I listened to him before they threw me in jail :frowning:

16

Well, that’s the ages of sin for ya.

17

WTF is the “wage” of consent? Is everyone adding a “w” to “age” or am I missing something here?

18

It’s an innocent Freudian typo, or alternately, commentary on the materialism on modern women.

That is, as far as I know, how you would typically make the word “wage”.

19

A couple of points:

Y’know, most 15 year olds are past puberty and no longer kids. Underage (or at least underage for certain activities) yes, but kids they are not. This whole talk about 14-15 year olds and much older people… Let’s just be clear, they’re not kids, and in many cases they are waaay past puberty. They have (they are) developed (ing) their sexuality.

As to maturity levels along gender lines, I find this amusing… Amongst my classmates, 14 year old females were the ones reading books (sometimes for adults/older audiences/harder than what was assigned in class) and talking about their future careers. Guys… were also playing Magic. :wink: Um… Not to necessarily say that one is more mature than the other ones, but I didn’t perceive a big “Teenage boys are so much mature and better at handling sexual things than females”.

BTW, I come up from a place where the age of consent is 14. Which, as some of my friends said, meant… “If you look old enough, you’re old enough to do it” One of my best friends in HS had a boyfriend 4 -5 years older than her, and they eventually married (no, not because of a pregnancy). To my knowledge, they’re still married.

20

As to your first, I suppose I figured that. Just wanted to make sure there wasn’t some new internet lingo that had passed me by yet again.

As to your second…um, yeah. That’s indeed how you spell “wage”. Hmmm.