# Law & Ethics: Adult-Minor Sex **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2009, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426 "2009-09-17T08:27:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/21 "2009-09-17T22:53:39Z")
OK. I am, for now, re-opening the thread. **The rules are:** Given that Cesario has made his psychological profile known in other threads, But that there is absolutely no evidence presented by himself or others that he has acted on his impulses regarding children, his quoted posts, to date, in this thread may be discussed in the context of the Law or ethical behavior, (the actual point of the OP). No poster, including Cesario, is to go back to the issue of whether he is or “reallly is” or is not a pedophile and all efforts to turn the discussion in the direction of discussing his issues will be treated as hijacks. There are already any number of threads\* discussing Cesario and this thread has no business being added to that total. **[/Moderating]** - **Cesario** , A very large number of such threads are dfue to your actions and I would strongly urge you to discover other topics on which to post while on the SDMB, lest the charges of trolling or attention whoiring begin to follow you around. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/22 "2009-09-17T23:16:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re actually comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? How enlightened. No, I’m comparing your attitude to the attitude of the cleric. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/23 "2009-09-18T01:35:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Waah, the poor pedophiles. I do feel sorry for pedophiles AS LONG AS THEY ARE RESISTING THEIR URGES. I feel sorry for anyone who has itches they can’t morally or legally take care of if they are actively fighting those inclinations. I feel sorry for bestialists, but I think if they actually have sex with animals, I think they should at least be forced into psychological treatment (and that’s me being liberal.) Pedophiles who actually have sex with pre-pubescent children, ‘consensual’ or not, should ideally be taken into the town square, surrounded by his victims or their guardians/representatives, each one bearing a big freakin’ rock, and get the Old Testament treatment. For the New Testament treatment, they get dumped in the local body of water with millstones tied around their necks. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/24 "2009-09-18T01:51:49Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > No, I’m comparing your attitude to the attitude of the cleric. > > Enjoy, > Steven My attitude is justified, his is not. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/25 "2009-09-18T02:25:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > My attitude is justified, his is not. Condemnation for something you cannot control is the very essence of judgmentalism. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/26 "2009-09-18T02:27:39Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > I do feel sorry for pedophiles AS LONG AS THEY ARE RESISTING THEIR URGES. I feel sorry for anyone who has itches they can’t morally or legally take care of if they are actively fighting those inclinations. This, amen. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/27 "2009-09-18T02:36:52Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Condemnation for something you cannot control is the very essence of judgmentalism. Homosexuality is not a disorder. Pedophilia is. If a pedophile is able to recognize and appreciate the danger of his own pathology and wants to make an honest attempt to address it and treat it, then I can temper my innate distaste. Those who look for excuses to rationalize acting on it – even if it doesn’t go beyond fantasy – do not. How would you feel if you caught somebody jerking off to a picture of your kid? Would you feel sorry for them? would you want to be his friend? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/28 "2009-09-18T02:51:59Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > 1. Whether the proposed legal scheme is potentially unconstitutional insofar as it essentially empowers the state to license private sexual activity between consenting adults; The RMSC does nothing at all to “empower the state to license the private sexual activities between consenting adults”. What it does is the same thing that the existing age of consent laws do. It provides a mechanism for determining who does and doesn’t qualify for the category of “consenting adults” with regards to sex. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Nothing to say about law or ethics but- > > ATTENTION SDMB: > > **Cesario** is an open and admitted pedophile. > > We all know this now. > > In any discussion of sexuality that has hypotheticals involving children, **Cesario** is going to respond from his position. > > Bringing threads to a screeching halt while everyone goes :eek: isn’t helpful. Yes, it’s nice to get that out of the way. Hopefully people can get all their shock and staring out of their systems here. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The response to the hypothetical is absolutely statutory rape, if the man doesn’t stop her immediately upon figuring out what’s going on. Legally, the crime is the act; he has a defense while he is asleep/unconscious, but that disappears when he wakes up and realizes his situation. > > Speculation about whether there would be incremental psychological harm to the girl is a matter for a psychologist and irrelevant to the man in this situation. I would argue that it is the single most important aspect of the hypothetical. If there is incremental harm that increases with the ammount of time spent felating, there is ample justification for stopping the event as soon as physically possible. If there is no such incremental harm, it is as I noted in the quotes in the OP, any harm that she’s going to suffer from the encounter has already been done by the time I become aware of it, so there isn’t a compelling reason to stop her. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > In any event, I would venture to guess that the notion that there is no added harm from being raped a second time after one has already been raped once does not comport with most everyone’s moral intuition. I would agree to that. Doesn’t really change the situation, however, since that is a second event, rather than a question of how many minutes an already ongoing event took to complete. If the relevent matter is raw timescale, then a person should stop her immediately. If the relevent matter is the number of incidents (which makes more intuitive sense to me, but I’m willing to defer to any literature anyone cares to present) then that’s another matter entirely. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The long series of test questions is basically a recapitulation of the same reasoning that goes on behind the setting of a statutory age of consent. I’m glad you think so, since that was precisely what I was going for when I began working with another individual to draft the initial version. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > It amounts to a determination by the legislature that the vast majority of children below that age would be incapable of passing that test, because their emotional maturity literally has not developed yet. The test envisions a world where some unique children are opted out of that generalized judgment, Also extending the protection of statutory rape laws to chronological “adults” who are less mentally developed than we assume through our current age of consent laws. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > but the use of an age of consent reflects a societal judgment that those children would be so rare and the harm to children from a false positive would be so devastating that it’s not worth attempting that test. Wouldn’t outlawing sex entirely be a better solution, in that case? > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Moreover, this testing regime is unlikely to address pedophilia in a significant way. It isn’t intended to. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The typical pedophile isn’t looking for an emotionally mature child capable of making adult judgments. If they wanted that, they’d be in relationships with adults. The innocence and powerlessness of the victim is a huge part of the disordered attraction. _removed at tomndebb’s request_ May I see the literature you’re using to draw these conclusions about typical pedophiles? Because that sounds a lot more like a child molester than a pedophile. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Finally, if only for p.r. reasons, I suggest rewording any references to a “grandfather clause.” That was a terrible pun. Just terrible. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That makes for a nice try at a legal defense, but I have a hard time believing any judge, jury or prosecutor would buy it. I don’t think that passively accepting a blow job from a child can truly be called “inaction.” Seems like doing nothing is the textbook definition of “inaction”. > [@Bearflag70](#): > > I asked the rape question because my understanding is that statutory rape is a strict liability offense in many states and no mens rea is required. However, IIRC, being unconscious makes the event INVOLUNTARY, which is different than actus reus. So, I would think that as long as the person is awake, then it’s statutory rape. It might be of value to add that the original hypothetical involved a case of mistaken identity more than a state of unconsiousness. In the original hypothetical, you are consious, and aware you’re being felated, but you only realize after the fact that it isn’t who you assumed it was doing it. I’m not sure how much relevence this has to your argument, but it seems like it’ll become important at some point. > [@Bearflag70](#): > > On the ethics issue, I can only assume there are studies showing there is a substantial risk of harm to minors when they engage in sex acts, particularly with adults. I don’t know the nature of that risk or harm. Considering how the situation is treated, I certainly hope there are such studies. Unfortunately, I’ve looked for them, and have been unable to locate any. If anyone here knows of such a study, please present it. > [@Bearflag70](#): > > So, the argument goes that once the sex act begins, as initiated by the minor without the knowledge or consent of the adult, and perhaps continues for some minutes, any harm or risk of harm to either party has already been completed, and no further harm or risk of harm will be had to either party by continuing the sex act once the adult acquires knowledge that he is receiving fellatio from a minor initiated without the adult’s knowledge or consent. The acquisition of knowledge of the situation by the adult is irrelevant. Therefore, go ahead and finish, but be sure to talk to the child afterward about obtaining permission first in the future. I would say that is an accurate characterization. > [@Bearflag70](#): > > At the very least, I would think that teaching a child a lesson that to engage in sex with others without prior mutual consent is wrong. By continuing and completing the sex act upon acquisition of knowledge by the recipient, the recipient is ratifying the child’s act and undermining the lesson. A lesson like that should be paramount and unequivocal. Therefore, I think there ought to be a duty to stop the act immediately upon discovery of the facts. Now there’s a compelling argument. > [@Mtgman](#): > > That test has FAR too many subjective criteria to be credible. Which ones? Fortunately, they’re conveniently numbered so we can drill down to your specific objections easily. > [@Mtgman](#): > > In addition to being pretty much flat out unimplementable. We implement driving tests just fine. > [@Mtgman](#): > > I empathize with the idea behind the test, I’ve long said maturity is not a function of mere age and it’s just as unfair to withhold the vote from someone with the obvious maturity and understanding to make an informed decision as it is to victimize a person whose mental development was stunted but whose physical body grew to over the arbitrary limit. IOW it’s unfair that we treat Dakota Fanning as a child, but it’s also not fair to pitch adjustable rate mortgages to people with delayed mental development. Or if you prefer, it’s unfair to not try the murderer of [Karen Ertell](http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8bb51a59-83ba-491c-99c9-cc8f5010b305) as an adult, but to give the vote to [people severely mentally incapacitated](http://www.sptimes.com/State/113098/Debate_surrounds_voti.html). So what are the lines, and how do we draw them? The answer isn’t easy, and a subjective test, like the one quoted by the OP, may be the best we can do, but it certainly isn’t good. The answer seems pretty simple to me. Treat everyone the same regardless of age. If what you’re really concerned about is mental competence, test for mental competence rather than use discriminatory practices like judging people on their birthdays. If you can’t define or describe what you’re really concerned about, that’s evidence you don’t have a valid reason to discriminate in the first place, using age or any other means. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s also criminal and disgusting to tell a child that it’s ok even _with_ “permission.” What kind of garbage is that to tell a child? Why is it acceptable to tell it to adults? > [@Bearflag70](#): > > …continuing… > > Another problem with continuing the act is that, upon discovery of the facts, all **Cesario** knows is that he suddenly discovered the person on the end of his dong happens to be a kid. He doesn’t know anything else, yet, to justify continuing the act, he is willing to assume that (1) all harm or risk of harm has been fully accomplished by the time he acquires knowledge of the facts; and (2) there is no benefit or potential benefit to stopping immediately. > > Given that he has no knowledge of who that child is or how that child came to be there in the first place, I think those are some mighty big assumptions. I think the prudent thing to do, especially in the case of a child, is to err on the side of caution, assume the worst, and take all steps to eliminate, avoid, or mitigate any potential harm by stopping immediately and investigating. The trouble with acting on less than complete information is that you’re acting on less than complete information. For all you know, you will increase harm by stopping her mid-stride, either by instilling sexual hangups, convincing her that her intersts are wrong period (rather than simply pointing out that her approach needs to be modified), or by making a scene that will draw attention, scrutiny, and shame on the child. > [@tomndebb](#): > > - **Cesario** , A very large number of such threads are dfue to your actions and I would strongly urge you to discover other topics on which to post while on the SDMB, lest the charges of trolling or attention whoiring begin to follow you around. Seems to me that’s likely to happen regardless. There wasn’t this sort of thread-splitting/hyjacking when I participated in the routine infant circumcision thread, nor when I weighed in on the treatment of rape victims. If I’m to be blamed for these threads (which came about while I was offline, and of which only this one bothers to reference me directly), there seems little I can do to avoid such charges. I do wonder, was there a reason you felt it necessary to make this part of your post instead of sending this part via PM? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/29 "2009-09-18T03:01:39Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Why is it acceptable to tell it to adults? You really don’t understand the difference? The difference is that it’s ok to GIVE consent to have sex with an adult. It is never anything but deeply wrong and criminal to consent to sex with a child. The child needs to understand that it is never ok for an adult to allow that. She needs to know that its always wrong for the adult to accept, so asking “permission” is irrelevant. The adult is not allowed to GIVE permision (and in what kind of fantasy world does a six year old go around asking permission suck off adults anyway?) ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/30 "2009-09-18T03:06:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Homosexuality is not a disorder. Pedophilia is. > > If a pedophile is able to recognize and appreciate the danger of his own pathology and wants to make an honest attempt to address it and treat it, then I can temper my innate distaste. > > Those who look for excuses to rationalize acting on it – even if it doesn’t go beyond fantasy – do not. How would you feel if you caught somebody jerking off to a picture of your kid? Would you feel sorry for them? would you want to be his friend? You’re backsliding on condemnation now. Gotcha ya. > [@](#): > > How would you feel if you caught somebody jerking off to a picture of your kid? Would you feel sorry for them? would you want to be his friend? I would certainly keep them away from my children because they are obviously a bigger risk than average, even assholish non pedophiles who molest kids because they can or because of sadism. Other than that I can’t say, but my purely hypothetical visceral reaction should not be confused with a valid morality. Nor should yours. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/31 "2009-09-18T03:16:04Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > I do feel sorry for pedophiles AS LONG AS THEY ARE RESISTING THEIR URGES. I feel sorry for anyone who has itches they can’t morally or legally take care of if they are actively fighting those inclinations. I can understand controling one’s actions, but trying to control one’s feelings just smacks of repression and denial, two things practically guarenteed to lead to a lapse in self-control. > [@FriarTed](#): > > I feel sorry for bestialists, but I think if they actually have sex with animals, I think they should at least be forced into psychological treatment (and that’s me being liberal.) I don’t really understand the hate for bestiality, honestly. Not my kink, but as for the moral issue, you are aware that we kill and eat animals on a routine basis, right? Compared to that, giving an animal an orgasm seems positively benevolent. > [@FriarTed](#): > > Pedophiles who actually have sex with pre-pubescent children, ‘consensual’ or not, should ideally be taken into the town square, surrounded by his victims or their guardians/representatives, each one bearing a big freakin’ rock, and get the Old Testament treatment. For the New Testament treatment, they get dumped in the local body of water with millstones tied around their necks. And the non-pedophiles who have sex with prepubescent children? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Homosexuality is not a disorder. Pedophilia is. Someone on another forum produced this by way of explaination: > [@Wishbone](#): > > Pedophilia as a disorder > > Pedophilia is currently listed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as a mental disorder. Keep in mind, disorders are classified by societical feelings; until the seventies, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder also. Here’s the definition for mental disorder, courtesy of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM IV), which is put out by the APA: > > [QUOTE=APA, 2000, p. xxxi] > A disorder is: _“…associated with present distress […] or disability […] or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom”_ Ok, so basically a disorder is a.) something that causes distress, b.) something that impedes normal function, or c.) something that will increase the risk of suffering, death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom. Pedophilia itself does not do that. Negative stigma against it causes said feeling. The DSM goes on to say this: [QUOTE=APA, 2000, p. xxxi] “Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above”. [/QUOTE] Which basically means what I just said. If the thing itself does not cause distress, but rather, society’s behavior towards the thing does, it isn’t a disorder. Pedophilia could be a legitimate disorder- however, it’s listed by the APA primarily because of social feeling, and if it is indeed a mental disorder, definitive evidence has not yet been found. As tererun mentioned, my analysis could easily be twisted to mean that nothing is a disorder, and that’s absolutely true. As it stands, normal function is subjective, distress is subjective, risk is subjective. Some things make sense to label a disorder in our society- for example, the desire to murder stangers with an axe- that wouldn’t make sense in say… Klingon society. There are things that are common to most or all societies, but when you really boil it down to concepts, disorders are disorders because people call them that. I’m sure I’ll get at least one “well, duh,” but this is really the only way I know how to describe it. [/quote] > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If a pedophile is able to recognize and appreciate the danger of his own pathology and wants to make an honest attempt to address it and treat it, then I can temper my innate distaste. The statement on “treatments” another poster prepared is actually rather lengthy, but it essentially boils down to the fact that the so-called treatements are the same ones that have failed so misserably in “curing” homosexuals. They’re just as ineffective on pedophiles. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Those who look for excuses to rationalize acting on it – even if it doesn’t go beyond fantasy – do not. In what sense has someone for whom it doesn’t go beyond fantasy rationalize acting on it? If they’d rationalized acting on it, they would be acting on it, not confining it to fantasy. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How would you feel if you caught somebody jerking off to a picture of your kid? Would you feel sorry for them? would you want to be his friend? Would you murder them in the streets to satisfy your own posessive rage? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You really don’t understand the difference? Not really. Considering the child is going to grow up, anything you say to her at this point is something she’s presumably still going to be carrying around after she grows up. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The difference is that it’s ok to GIVE consent to have sex with an adult. It is never anything but deeply wrong and criminal to consent to sex with a child. I thought the problem was the child’s consent, not the adult’s consent. That the child’s consent is considered to be invalid. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The child needs to understand that it is never ok for an adult to allow that. She needs to know that its always wrong for the adult to accept, so asking “permission” is irrelevant. The adult is not allowed to GIVE permision Of course the adult is allowed to give permission. The adult simply isn’t allowed to accept the child’s permission. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > (and in what kind of fantasy world does a six year old go around asking permission suck off adults anyway?) Presumably the same fantasy world where the six year old decided to suck off adults without their permission in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/32 "2009-09-18T04:07:24Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > The statement on “treatments” another poster prepared is actually rather lengthy, but it essentially boils down to the fact that the so-called treatements are the same ones that have failed so misserably in “curing” homosexuals. They’re just as ineffective on pedophiles. I don’t give a fuck. The important thing is that they truly understand how utterly unacceptable, disorded, delusional and dangerous their fantasies are. I’ve seen chemical castration in action, though, and it worked pretty well. Not perfectly, but it made a difference. > [@](#): > > In what sense has someone for whom it doesn’t go beyond fantasy rationalize acting on it? If they’d rationalized acting on it, they would be acting on it, not confining it to fantasy. You rationalize acting on it in the other thread. The fact that the action was only hypothetical is meaningless. What’s significant is that you don’t recognize yourself as disordered, or recognize your fantasies of reciprocating children as delusional. > [@](#): > > Would you murder them in the streets to satisfy your own posessive rage? “Possessive?” The parents of children you fantasize about raping are “possessive?” No, I wouldn’t kill anyone in the street. What I said was that I wouldn’t feel sorry for them. > [@](#): > > Not really. Considering the child is going to grow up, anything you say to her at this point is something she’s presumably still going to be carrying around after she grows up. This is inane. We aren’t talking about what it would be healthy for her to do as an adult, but about what’s healthy to do NOW. > [@](#): > > I thought the problem was the child’s consent, not the adult’s consent. That the child’s consent is considered to be invalid. There is no such thing as a child’s consent. You’re the one who seems to think that the adult’s consent is relevant, not me. You’re the one who said you would tell the child to ask for it. Why tell her to ask permission to be raped? > [@](#): > > Of course the adult is allowed to give permission. Not to a child. > [@](#): > > The adult simply isn’t allowed to accept the child’s permission. Exactly. So why tell the child to ask for it? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/33 "2009-09-18T04:21:26Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > In other threads, **Cesario** has indicated almost precisely the opposite of what you’ve said here–that is, that he’s a pedophile due to his sexual attraction to younger pre-pubescent bodies, and that he’s convinced that some/many children could pass his proposed test. > > I’m not sure that trying to address what a “typical pedophile” wants without cites in a Great Debate is going to be any more helpful than the vilification going on upthread. I’m not sure your anecdote is any more helpful either. I suspect that a pedophile’s assessment of when a child is psychologically ready for sex with an adult would be sharply at variance with most other people’s. Which leads back to the conclusion that as long as this proposed test is administered by people who are not pedophiles, it’s not going to yield the results a pedophile wants to see. I also think it’s difficult to speculate that what one is really attracted to is just the childlike body and not the childlike mind, when the odds are that one has never actually encountered the one without the other. Moreover, if this were truly one’s object, one could seek out adults who present highly childlike body types but who have adult minds. In my view, if a pedophile hasn’t attempted that, it’s reasonable to conclude, based on their actions, that the adult mind is actually a turn-off. I see that **Cesario** is here and drawing a distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. Someone else can have the last word. I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/34 "2009-09-18T04:26:59Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Seems to me that’s likely to happen regardless. There wasn’t this sort of thread-splitting/hyjacking when I participated in the routine infant circumcision thread, nor when I weighed in on the treatment of rape victims. If I’m to be blamed for these threads (which came about while I was offline, and of which only this one bothers to reference me directly), there seems little I can do to avoid such charges. > > I do wonder, was there a reason you felt it necessary to make this part of your post instead of sending this part via PM? As part of the staff discussion, it was noted that you have an inordinate percentage of your posts devoted to discussions of pedophilia. I do not hold you in any way responsible for this thread or its various twists and turns up to the point where I intervened. However, if you choose to participate in this thread, then basing much of your commentary on your personal feelings or on arguments that appear to be ways to rationalize your feelings in an effort to legitimize them, you will be guilty of hijacking the thread as you will immediately invite rejoinders that basically attack you as a person. I have not been following your career on the SDMB very closely, (although I am aware of its path), but the consensus of the staff was that you have inserted your personal issues into an inordinately large per cent of threads in which you participated. I deemed it an appropriate moment to call your attention to the impression you have made on the staff and members, cautioning you that you are developing a reputation as a one trick pony (with an unhealthy sensation of being an attention whore). The only thing you are required to do in this thread is to stick to the hypotheticals of the OP, but you might consider my comments as a heads up regarding the impression you are giving the staff and membership. As to PMs, I rarely use them and prefer to keep all “official” exchanges visible to the public to avoid later claims regarding what I actually said. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/35 "2009-09-18T04:54:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t give a fuck. The important thing is that they truly understand how utterly unacceptable, disorded, delusional and dangerous their fantasies are. Is understanding that that’s what you believe enough, or must they be themselvs convinced that they’re the scum of the earth for their thought-crime before you’re satisfied? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’ve seen chemical castration in action, though, and it worked pretty well. Not perfectly, but it made a difference. Huh, all the studies I’ve seen suggest that it has no meaningful impact on recitivism. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You rationalize acting on it in the other thread. The fact that the action was only hypothetical is meaningless. What’s significant is that you don’t recognize yourself as disordered, or recognize your fantasies of reciprocating children as delusional. Reciprocating children were the premise of the hypothetical. I’m delusional for entertaining a hypothetical situation I have no reason to believe will ever occur in real life and contemplating the consequences and proper course of action in said unrealistic hypothetical? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Possessive?” The parents of children you fantasize about raping are “possessive?” If they’re going to get that worked up over a picture, yeah, that’s possessive. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, I wouldn’t kill anyone in the street. What I said was that I wouldn’t feel sorry for them. Was anyone really asking you to? I lost track of where that line of conversation got started. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is inane. We aren’t talking about what it would be healthy for her to do as an adult, but about what’s healthy to do NOW. What we teach her now will impact her as an adult. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is no such thing as a child’s consent. You’re the one who seems to think that the adult’s consent is relevant, not me. You’re the one who said you would tell the child to ask for it. Why tell her to ask permission to be raped? > > Not to a child. > > Exactly. So why tell the child to ask for it? Two reasons. One, she might not just be asking adults. Two, she’ll grow up eventually, and when she does, it’s best she isn’t convinced that sex is evil and wrong, leading to horrible hangups later in life. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I’m not sure your anecdote is any more helpful either. I suspect that a pedophile’s assessment of when a child is psychologically ready for sex with an adult would be sharply at variance with most other people’s. Which leads back to the conclusion that as long as this proposed test is administered by people who are not pedophiles, it’s not going to yield the results a pedophile wants to see. This assumes a rather high level of subjectivity and discriminatory power in the administration and interpretation of the test. Which of the criteria do you believe would have different outcomes resulting from the differing prefferences and expectations of the administrators? Do you believe it is impossible for someone to run a fair test on some of the criteria in the test? Again, if so, which criteria need better defintion? > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I also think it’s difficult to speculate that what one is really attracted to is just the childlike body and not the childlike mind, when the odds are that one has never actually encountered the one without the other. Moreover, if this were truly one’s object, one could seek out adults who present highly childlike body types but who have adult minds. In my view, if a pedophile hasn’t attempted that, it’s reasonable to conclude, based on their actions, that the adult mind is actually a turn-off. Do you really want this to turn into a discussion of my romantic interests/relationships among adults? Because, without going too far into your speculation, I can confirm that your assumptions about it are wrong. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I see that **Cesario** is here and drawing a distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. Someone else can have the last word. I’m out. Seems reasonable, unless you feel we shouldn’t draw a distinction between a heterosexual and a rapist. > [@tomndebb](#): > > As part of the staff discussion, it was noted that you have an inordinate percentage of your posts devoted to discussions of pedophilia. Having interests will do that. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I do not hold you in any way responsible for this thread or its various twists and turns up to the point where I intervened. However, if you choose to participate in this thread, then basing much of your commentary on your personal feelings or on arguments that appear to be ways to rationalize your feelings in an effort to legitimize them, you will be guilty of hijacking the thread as you will immediately invite rejoinders that basically attack you as a person. What arguments can I make that won’t appear to someone to be a way to rationalize my feelings in an effort to legitimize them? > [@tomndebb](#): > > I have not been following your career on the SDMB very closely, (although I am aware of its path), but the consensus of the staff was that you have inserted your personal issues into an inordinately large per cent of threads in which you participated. I deemed it an appropriate moment to call your attention to the impression you have made on the staff and members, cautioning you that you are developing a reputation as a one trick pony (with an unhealthy sensation of being an attention whore). A full review of my entire post history on this board does indicate a little over half of my posts have been connected to this topic (with a higher concentration in recent days). I would contend that this is an artifact of those threads being more active, but I can see where this idea could come from. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The only thing you are required to do in this thread is to stick to the hypotheticals of the OP, but you might consider my comments as a heads up regarding the impression you are giving the staff and membership. I think the impression people are getting is quite clear. > [@tomndebb](#): > > As to PMs, I rarely use them and prefer to keep all “official” exchanges visible to the public to avoid later claims regarding what I actually said. I see. Understood. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/36 "2009-09-18T06:03:33Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > And the non-pedophiles who have sex with prepubescent children? Isn’t this a contradiction in terms? > [@Cesario](#): > > I thought the problem was the child’s consent, not the adult’s consent. That the child’s consent is considered to be invalid. > > Of course the adult is allowed to give permission. The adult simply isn’t allowed to accept the child’s permission. Here’s the problem with you types – you totally misunderstand the child’s intent. Yes, many children will go ga-ga over an adult who is paying undue attention to them. All children crave attention. But that’s the key word – ATTENTION. Any reciprocal sexual desire is merely a projection of your own fantasies and inclinations. No argument you make will change the fact that children do not share the same sexual feelings as adults, they are not at the same developmental stage physically or mentally. In addition, children are very easily manipulated, even by non-pedophiles. Out of curiosity, **Cesario** , what’s your AOA? Do you prefer loli or shota? What’s your opinion on child pornography? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/37 "2009-09-18T06:13:41Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Isn’t this a contradiction in terms? Not according to the FBI: > [@](#): > > Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you. Here are the statistics. > > FBI sex offender expert Kenneth Lanning stated in a 2001 interview that “About 90 percent [of child molesters] are so-called “situational child molesters” who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don’t necessarily prefer sex with children … The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide “pedophiles,” those who genuinely favor sex with children.” > > Here’s the link to the interview: > [http://web.archive.org/web/20030621002758/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html](http://web.archive.org/web/20030621002758/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html) > > Lanning’s figure is supported by various sources. Here is another source citing similar figures: > [http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html#Occurrence\_in\_child\_sex\_offenders](http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html#Occurrence_in_child_sex_offenders) > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Here’s the problem with you types – you totally misunderstand the child’s intent. Kind of hard to misinterpret the scenario in the OP. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Yes, many children will go ga-ga over an adult who is paying undue attention to them. All children crave attention. But that’s the key word – ATTENTION. Any reciprocal sexual desire is merely a projection of your own fantasies and inclinations. Especially when they themselves describe their feelings and intentions as sexual, and are the ones to initiate sexual contact as in the OP’s hypothetical. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > No argument you make will change the fact that children do not share the same sexual feelings as adults, they are not at the same developmental stage physically or mentally. Why does different automatically mean invalid or inferior to you? > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > In addition, children are very easily manipulated, even by non-pedophiles. Canned response: > [@](#): > > Now, for those of you who feel that children can be passively manipulated, and always do whatever an adult tells them to do, I’d like to ask how much success they’ve had making children eat unwanted vegetables? I mean if it’s obvious that every time an adult and a child interact, the child will deffer to the adult, then obviously, no one would ever have a problem getting a child to engage in healthy eating habits. > > You see, children can say “no” to adults when they want to. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Out of curiosity, **Cesario** , what’s your AOA? The mods have requested this subject not be breached again. You can search my post history for the answers to this. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Do you prefer loli or shota? What’s your opinion on child pornography? As for child pornography, I prefer materials that aren’t a documentation of someone’s rape. As such, I tend to gravitate towards purely fictional materials. The rest of my feelings on child pornography would take a whole other topic to cover, and the mods are already unhappy with the amount of discussion taking place as it is. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/38 "2009-09-18T06:38:54Z")
> [@](#): > > people severely mentally incapacitated Correction…the people in that article are MILDLY mentally affected. As for the OP…If a six year old was actually giving a man a blowjob…I would seriously think that she’d been sexually abused. Yes…little kids know that touching private places feels good…but little kids do not know instictively about sex. Hell…even young teens don’t really generally know about sex. (they may think they do…but it’s like…it’s a very rare person who can look back at themselves as a young teen and not think " Gee…I was a GIANT dork back then!" ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/39 "2009-09-18T07:01:21Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Especially when they themselves describe their feelings and intentions as sexual, and are the ones to initiate sexual contact as in the OP’s hypothetical. Precocious sexuality is almost exclusively a symptom of past or ongoing sexual abuse. In other words, no child actively solicits sex from an adult unless an adult seeks sex from them first. (And FTR I’m specifying prepubescent children, not adolescents, which is a completely different matter entirely.) > [@Cesario](#): > > Now, for those of you who feel that children can be passively manipulated, and always do whatever an adult tells them to do, I’d like to ask how much success they’ve had making children eat unwanted vegetables? I mean if it’s obvious that every time an adult and a child interact, the child will deffer to the adult, then obviously, no one would ever have a problem getting a child to engage in healthy eating habits. > > You see, children can say “no” to adults when they want to. Ever hear of positive reinforcement? It works wonders, when applied correctly. > [@Cesario](#): > > The mods have requested this subject not be breached again. You can search my post history for the answers to this. Just verifying that you indeed talk the talk, that’s all. For what it’s worth, I hope you stick around for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426/40 "2009-09-18T18:17:04Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Which ones? Fortunately, they’re conveniently numbered so we can drill down to your specific objections easily. Let’s start with these > [@](#): > > 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. The overarching objection to the test is that it requires first person experience. Reading case studies and pointing out various mistakes in judgment and possible instances of manipulation or misleading affection doesn’t cut it. Humans have proven time and time again that what they recognize in others they’re blind to in themselves. Witness the number of women who take self defense classes but submit to domestic abuse. The number of people who know the dangers of smoking, or illegal drug use, but do it anyway. The number of people in abusive/controlling relationships who are rationalizing it to themselves even though they would pass a test on the signs of an abusive relationship in a classroom setting. It’s like the difference between theory and practice. In theory there’s no difference, but in practice there is. Thus my understanding of the only way to implement this test as being one of experiences, not theory, and if we can’t agree on this, there’s really no point in going further. So what does it mean, and how would you test, these factors? Many of the read like truisms, not empirically testable and the “test” for some of them would seem to be monstrous. How do you test if the subject can reject unwanted advances? The only way I can think of is to make unwanted advances and see if they’re rejected. If the subject fails this test, you’ve essentially victimized them during the testing process. 2b is something many adults can’t do reliably, and almost all of us fail at some point, so this is not a reliable indicator. 4 is a non-starter. Understanding the concepts and dealing with an actual rejection are completely different things. Are you going to have someone seduce the subject and then break their heart during the testing process? 2c is another of those whose likely test leaves the subject either as passing, or as a victim of the test. Either we lie to you and you figure out we’re lying, or you are deceived during the test and fail because we lied to you. As for the levels of education, should the subject demonstrate an awareness and understanding of how brain chemistry and hormones play in human relationships? If so it will be a long time before anyone passes because these are only vaguely understood now by the field’s top scientists. Even then, understanding that your judgment is likely to be impaired by a rush of norepinephrine and dopamine is very different from exercising good judgment when the actual neurotransmitters are running rampant. I’m a believer in people being allowed to live up to their potential, even from early ages. Thus the current system which emancipates minors only by age, not by ability, is a source of irritation to me. This test doesn’t seem to be the right path forward though. If we’re going to structure an emancipation program for minors it should not focus on sexuality. If you’re going to form a romantic relationship it should encompass the whole person, not just their awareness and judgment regarding sexual matters. Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-ethics-adult-minor-sex/510426.md?page=3)