Not when you conveniently ignore the argument against pedophilia and ephebophilia, which is that minors can’t, by definition, maturely consent to sex. It doesn’t matter if that 14 year old tart is grabbing at your crotch–you can’t honestly say that she fully appreciates her actions and their consequences the way a 35 year old does.
Woah, let’s not go off the deep end! We’re talking about sexually mature minors here. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Get your terms straight before you toss them about so frivolously!
That was the most awsomely misplaced post I have seen on the board yet! Bravo!:eek:
As I just posted the other day in this thread, a lot of people seem be misusing the word “puberty”. A girl in her early or mid teens is not postpubescent. She is pubescent. She will not be post-pubescent until at least her late teens, and more likely her early twenties. While a well-developed pubescent girl of 15, or even 12, might be mistaken for a pubescent girl who is several years older, there is little chance of mistaking one for a fully developed postpubescent woman.
It is also incorrect to claim that a pubescent girl is prime childbearing material. While a sufficiently developed girl may be capable of conceiving and giving birth, it is much safer for both mother and child if the mother is her full adult size. This includes having hips that have finished widening, something that does not generally occur until the final stages of puberty.
That said, the question here is whether there is any harm in noticing the attractiveness of pubescent girls. Some are indeed very pretty. But no matter how pretty they may be, and no matter how they may be dressed (some posters have come disturbingly close to saying that young girls are “asking for it” with their choice of clothing), it is inappropriate for adults to treat pubescent children as sex objects. People may think whatever they like, but when they begin acting on those thoughts then they may hurt or frighten a child. Such action may include merely looking at a child in a way that makes him or her feel uncomfortable. While such action is perfectly legal, it is not perfectly moral. Someone who engages in such behavior should expect to be treated as a “dirty old man”, or “dirty old woman” as the case may be.
I am under the impression that typically, a minor is anyone below the age of 18. That is, unless my memory is failing me. This being the case, what is the key difference between an eighteen year old and a seventeen year old? What magic switch is turned on that allows an eighteen-year-old to make decisions that a seventeen-year-old can not? True, children below a certain age can not consent to sex, but what of 16 and 17 year olds? Once again, where is the magic switch? Would a forty-year-old man going after a seventeen-year-old be wrong but going after an eighteen year old be perfectly acceptable? Oh, and no matter what the age, attraction is never wrong, unless thoughts are wrong. Yet, thoughts can hurt no one, unless they bring about actions. So, the real question here involves acting on thoughts. Would you argue with the basic rule for a sexual relationship, in terms of consent and desire, I provided? How can one prove that a minor can not fit my rule?
Wrong. Read again the post of Mandos’ to which I was referring.
He was speaking of adults and children.
I figured that the argument of the beard would be your response. Let’s pull the pin on it: there is no magical point at which a minor is a mewling infant one moment and a sexually mature, cognizant individual the next. There is a continuum of sexual awareness and the ability to make mature decisions about it; a five year old is obviously not mature enough to consent to sex, and just as obviously people in their twenties are generally capable of making reasonable, justifiable decisions about their sexual conduct. You will always be able to find 14 year olds who not only grasp the physical side but the consequences as well, just as you’ll always be able to find 40 year olds who probably need a chaperone.
That there is no definable moment at which someone is transformed into an adult, is no reason not to establish general landmark ages at which your average person is considered to be responsible for their own actions. Just because there are twelve year olds who drive the pickup on the farm quite well is no reason to lower the age at which one can get a driver’s licence to 12. We establish various ages of consent to match your average person, and the advanced learners who figure out the mechanics before they can get a job to support a baby, can simply wait a couple years.
As this regards fantasizing about minors (say, 12-16 year olds), one is fantasizing about a person in that grey zone when they might be a mature partner, but probably aren’t. Noticing them is one thing; fetishing them another. Generally, you’ll be fetishizing an immature sexual partner over whom you’ll have a tremendous power advantage. Perhaps immoral is the wrong word, but creepy sure comes to mind, and it’s legitimate to question the mental health of such a person.
Can thoughts be wrong? Sure, they can be wrong. Consider the case of the man who wrote to Dear Abby to confess that he was attracted to the 10 year old and the 4 year old girls he was babysitting. He wrote to Abby because he was afraid he might act on those thoughts. While thoughts don’t always lead in a straight line to actions, there is strong cause for concern for everyone, including the thinker.
So are you arguing that the age of consent should be raised to the early twenties? Why is a twenty year old still pubescent?
Terrific! It sure is easier to set an age limit than to decide, on an individual basis, whether an alleged victim is capable of giving informed consent. Let’s apply that logic to other fields:
Some men are raped by women, but it’s a very small fraction of all rape cases. While we could investigate each accusation, why not just save time and money in our court system by dismissing all the charges of a woman raping a man, since it hardly ever happens?
Most drunk drivers are between the ages of 21 and 34. We could test each driver who’s pulled over to see whether he’s drunk, but why not just assume all 21- to 34-year-old drivers who are pulled over are drunk? It’d save a lot of time, and if you’re one of the 21- to 34-year-old drivers who isn’t drunk, you can just take the bus or wait until you’re 35.
–
If there is a way to determine whether an individual is capable of giving informed consent, then we must apply it on an individual basis, in the interest of justice.
If not, we can’t do studies to make any generalizations about age groups, so we can’t justify age limits.
There can be no reasonable debate on this issue. The stance that is beaten into the majority of the populace is that the idea of sex is minors is wrong. It’s wrong because it’s illegal. It’s illegal because it’s wrong, and it’s wrong because it’s illegal.
I have no shame if I am attracted to a teenage girl who is indistinguishable from an adult, but at the same time I respect the law and wouldn’t sleep with her even if I didn’t have a nearly non-existant sex drive. If the law were different, and a minor became an adult, how many people, after ten or twenty years, would still be working by the old rule that a child becomes an adult at 18 or 16?
My suggestion… Every male and female at every birthday from year 10 to 60 should done physical, social and psychological tests for beenig considered officialy adult (untill they pass them). That would REALLY help to solve this problem.
My case: I’m 28 and I might find female physicaly attractrive if it looks a decent female. That’s approx. from 13 to 63. 18 yr’s are at it’s tops physically, but psyhologicaly, off course I try to pick girls of my age…
Can I ask people one question… when did we get to fetishizing them?
I love the way people blow this stuff all out of proportion.
If that were my argument, then I would have said so. I am perfectly capable of typing the words “The age of consent should be raised to the early twenties”.
A twenty year old is still pubescent if she or he has not completed the physical changes that occur during puberty.
Ok so what’s your point? Are you just trying to make sure people say “pubescent”? Or do you feel that there is some importance to pubescence, it’s completion and people’s ability to choose a sex partner?
What are these changes? A person might still grow another centimeter at 22 but that wouldn’t make them pubescent in my mind.
I just know this: If a female is developed and attractive and showing off her body, I have this very strong urge to look at her. At the same time, thanks to my strong need not to be creepy (I’m 31, btw), I usually employ quick glances.
If there’s a God, I blame him for my lack of age discrimination in this area. He should have programmed me to change at some point by now.
First of all, I would like to explain my interest in this argument. I am primarily interested in this discussion because it is a discussion of ethics. I am fascinated by ethical systems and find some joy in applying ethical logic to explore ethical systems and their limits. Now, onto my response. It would seem that sex with a minor can be consented. This being the case, drawing a line in terms of age in the ethical realm does not take into account certain situations. Thus, the key test is the following, and can, I believe, be applied to all sexual situations: do all people involved truly consent to the situation? If they do, it is morally acceptable. If they don’t, it is not. Of course, even this draws a line a tad too black and white for certain situations. For example, say one person gives in to pressure from peers, so does not consent to the situation. However, the person involved in the sexual activity is not aware of such pressure. Such a person does not intend to break the ethical law, and is, though aware of the law, not aware that it is being broken. So, the field of acceptance must be widened even more. The above law should be applied, with the following also put into the equation: if someone breaking this law truly believes that the one that does not truly consent does consent, they have broken no ethical law. I shall allow others to tackle the problem of how Congress should approach the situation.
Yes, Let’s. The level of intoxication for the purposes of DUI charges is (depending on the state) usually 0.08. But this obviously arbitrary, since someone at 0.081 might be able to drive drunk better than someone at 0.079. Instead, let’s judge on a case by case basis whether or not the drunk driver is really capable of controlling his vehicle. This is the correct analogy. Your analogy, that we should ban all drivers under a certain age who are high risk, is flawed since it’s the testing, not the judgement of being legally drunk, that is case-by-case, and is based on evidence. To extend that back to sex with minors, one would have to evaluate whether or not a minor was mature enough after-the-fact: possibly after he or she got pregnant, or an STD.
Your rape analogy is nonsensical.
What are you imagining, anyway? Some sort of licencing bureau akin to the DMV who would evaluate teenagers and licence them for sex if they pass certain tests? And can I get a job as an instructor there? Or an after-the-fact evaluation? I’m sorry, Mr. Smith, but in retrospect, that 13 year old has proven insufficiently mature for sex, so you’re going to jail for statutory rape; yes, she knew all the latin words, but that’s because her big sister coached her phonetically.
Again, what sort of test are you imagining here? I can’t guess at a plausible determination of an individual’s ability to give informed consent. Age-of-consent laws must then be based on demographic generalizations, and tweaked for maximum utility. For example, Wisconsin has graduated laws: limited sexual contact is permissible before the age of 18. (In point of fact, I favour lowering age of consent laws to 14 universally, as long as it’s accompanied by thorough public sex education–I suspect that abstinence campaigns are more responsible for teen pregnancy than handing out free condoms in schools).
You haven’t responded to my main point, which is that anything beyond simple, even appreciative, acknowledgement of a minor’s sexual attractiveness is basically creepy because the minor in question is probably sexually immature, so one’s indulgence in it is a mental version of statutory rape. If someone fantasized all the time about killing me, I wouldn’t say they’re not disturbed as long as they never tried to kill me.
Hansel, it seems that you are suggesting that fantasizing about an attractive teenager is wrong. Fantasies are thoughts, and thoughts are harmless unless they produce actions. Fantasies, if anything, might serve as a way to satisfy the urges that might otherwise result in a harmful action.
Suppose a female that actually looked 30 walked by me and I was attracted to her, and then she turned out to be 16… Was it wrong for me to be attracted to her because she looked 30? This is basically what this whole thread is about: When you can’t tell the difference, how wrong is it really?
If you thought she was 30, there’s nothing ephebophilic about it; you’re not fantasizing about a teenager, you’re fantasizing about an adult.
This thread was started in response to Sua’s thread about being trapped in a subway car full of 16 year old Brittany Spears fans, and he was fully aware that they were all underage. It’s not about mistaken fantasizing, it’s about fantasing sex with a minor who appears extremely sexualized.
Wrong as a moral term, no, it’s not really wrong. I think it’s pathological, and leads to harm in the long run or the extreme case.
I could quibble with “thoughts are harmless unless they produce actions”. At the very least, they produce dispositions. They can certainly be harmful to the thinker. And repeatedly working over a fantasy in one’s head seems like a good way to work yourself to the action you’re trying to avoid.