Pathological? Holy shit, hansel. That’s a lot to swallow, IMO.
I’m sorry, but I have not found this to be the case. I think about having sex with attractive females that I see. I recognize that having sex with young girls is not going to be a positive experience for her or myself in the long run. I have no disposition that I can see other than being disposed to feel shock that such behavior is considered pathological.
The problem with this topic is that it’s usually a fairly minor thing in the normal run of life. You’re right, pathological is an extreme characterization of it, and I wouldn’t think that someone who idly imagines bouncing on their knee one of Sua’s fellow travellers on the subway is a pervert who needs to be locked up. I certainly wouldn’t claim that fantasizing about sex with minors is criminal, or normally pathological to the degree that one should be committed to a psych ward.
Perhaps a good analogy would be alcoholism: lots and lots of people drink, but only some develop a problem with it. Likewise, Sua’s test of character in the subway doesn’t indicate any problem on his part, but if a friend of mine confessed to me that he is constantly thinking about sex with 14 year olds, I would suggest to him that he has a problem he needs to deal with, possibly with professional help. At the extreme end of the continuum, you have a sex offender who is a positive danger to underage girls; just before that, you have a boss or teacher who tells his teenage charges what they need to do to get a raise or an “A”.
When you’re interacting with a woman about whom you had a vivid fantasy last night, do you think that doesn’t affect your disposition towards her?
[sub]psst… Sofa King, not Sua[/sub]
Not really, I don’t think so. I could probably say that (IMO) fantasizing has nothing to do with disposition. I mean, consider the way you treat your mother or father or boss, yet it isn’t the case that you specifically have fantasies (in the general sense of “daydream”) about them. I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here, and saying that there must be both a cart and horse on top of that.
If I have a disposition to, say, obsess over girls to the point where action is a real concern or harm is a real possibility, I wouldn’t say that I got that way from excessive fantasies. You see what I’m saying? I could see that repeated fantasies might be an indication of such a disposition, though… no problem there. But I fantasize all the time about all manner of things: being wealthy, being famous, and so on, though I’m not certain that these sorts of things really affect the way I view or act toward people in the fantasy.
And, even though it is MHO, I have the common character flaw of assuming that I am not really unique, and thus aren’t unique in these respects. In the Pit thread I asked acicadasings to describe to me what made these fantasies more special than other fantasies, because when we come down to it that is the assertion, that these “types” of fantasies are somehow more [something] or indicative of [something]… that they are special. I do not feel they are. After me saying the above, can you describe to me how they are special? Or in fact, are they not special, and do all fantasies involev a shift in disposition?
Disregarding my typo, I just mean this least question to be: is my conception of fantasy in general wrong?–do they all affect dispositions in subtle or not-so-subtle ways?
LAST question… gosh. :smack:
Sounds good to me. There are perfectly good roadside tests that can be given to judge a driver’s impairment.
I’m sorry you didn’t like it. How about this one:
A man with no legs is accused of stealing his neighbor’s TV set and running down the street to load it into a van. The defense attorney says, “Your Honor, this case is ludicrous. My client could not run down the street with anything since he has no legs.”
The judge responds, “My statistics show that over 95% of males over age 21 are capable of running while carrying a television set. Your objection is overruled and the case will continue.”
Sure, that’s a way to go. I’d say test the applicants on their knowledge of basic facts (what is rape? where do babies come from?), contraception, STD prevention, and options available to pregnant women (adoption, financial aid, proper nutrition, etc.).
If there is no individual test, what’s the basis for the generalization? How can you just assume that people under 18 are less capable of giving consent if there’s no evidence?
Age generalizations in other fields typically have at least some evidence. For example, we can administer driving tests to a thousand 12-year-olds and a thousand 16-year-olds, and see that the 16-year-olds perform better overall. If the two groups perform equally well, we can determine that the age limit is nothing more than a WAG with no basis in reality.
I don’t know a single 16 year old who hasn’t hit puberty, and many of them have engaged in sexual activities with no ill effects. How can I decide whether they are “sexually immature”?
Don’t mistake me: I’m not arguing that dispositions are caused by fantasies (or daydreaming, or whatever). I said that thoughts can affect dispositions. I’m experiencing this right now at work: there’s a beautiful, sexy 19 year old girl at work who delivers the mail and wears clothes that are not lewd, but certainly show her off to good effect. I know that I’m extra careful around her–more polite, perhaps, certainly more careful about where my eyes land. I certainly have thoughts about her, and I’m aware that those thoughts could lead me to act in ways that I don’t want to, on reflection. I’m careful to avoid flirting, and the kind of banter I have with other women in the office. And when I speak to her, I’m careful to not think about the kind of thoughts I have at other times.
I don’t think that your conception of fantasy is wrong, but I think you’re ignoring how your immediate thoughts colour your actions, subtly or not-so-subtly. Try this experiment tomorrow: for some woman you speak to several times during the day, with whom you have a good rapport, precede and follow every sentence that comes out of your mouth with the thought (and for God’s sake, don’t say this out loud) “ballbreaking bitch!”. Then check your gut for how her response feels to you. (Really, do this: I’m curious to see if you’ll have the same experience I did).
[I work with several people with whom I’ve had to consciously develop a good relationship, because otherwise I’d hate them, and I’ve done so by consciously reminding myself, not to act a certain way, but to interpret what they’re saying or doing in a positive light. It works. I don’t like them any better, but I find it much easier to get along with them at work.]
Your analogy is ludicrous: having no legs means that his inability to run is an easily determined physical impossibility. Determining one’s ability to give informed consent is far less obvious.
This is a reasonable test, and if it were even remotely plausible that it might happen, I would probably support it. It would require the kind of extensive sex education that I favour.
The same variety of statistical evidence you posited for 12 year old vs. 16 year old drivers is available. In this case, financial ability to handle a child (what’s the median income of a 14 year old single mom?); effective use of birth control; surveys on how to handle sexual situations; surveys on knowledge of the mechanics and issues surrounding sex, like date rape and STDs. There’s also sociological evidence on how teens handle things like peer pressure and dating and relationships. There’s lots of evidence that isn’t criterial by itself, but overall adds up to “14 year olds probably shouldn’t be sexually active in the same way adults are”.
And many of them have been single mothers or contracted STDs.
As someone else observed in this thread, the ability to have sex during puberty doesn’t mean one is even physiologically in the best position to have sex or babies (which is postpubescence, occuring in the late teens or early twenties).
OK, hmm. I suppose that how we treat others is part how we actively think about them, part how we generally feel about them, and part what we want to get from them. In my mind, that sums up the entire ball of “disposition”. Now, I’m thinking dipsosition in the sense of a general attitidue, not context specific (did she just call me a cute name, are he and I at a ballgame, did I just stub my toe, and so on).
But I’ve been thinking about this while waiting for operating systems to install over here (plenty of time for thinking there) and I have to say that this whole effect, upon introspection, doesn’t seem to be so one-way. A female coworker, for example: stunning member of the species. Truly a genuine and natural beauty in figure, form, speech, and personality. And of course thoughts cross my mind. But on the other hand, those thoughts aren’t what make me nice to her, because sometimes I’m pretty short with her (or with anyone, for that matter), and I can still catch her form in my eye and think how great it is.
I’m trying to pin down what causes me to act like I do to people… I think it is true that given a stranger, the more attractive they are the more I am inclined to be nice to begin with, to perhaps make an effort. But I’m not sure that the existence of my thoughts about her physical nature (or other ways I am attracted to her) are what actually guide my behavior.
We are inclined to say things like, “I think highly of her.” But that isn’t to say “I am currently very pleased with her.” Such thoughts don’t really express themselves; instead we are simply happy. similarly, I don’t find myself thinking, “I am attracted to her.” I simply have an attracted feeling. Does this feeling, at least in part, dictate my behavior at that time? On one hand, of course! All feelings are part of “mood” and guide behavior for all people.
But let’s not be hasty. The example you gave was borderline flirting, or let us say obvious niceness. Yet certainly obvious niceness is, well, nice. It is a good thing. If your feeling of attraction manifests itself in such a way (implicit assumption: socially acceptable behavior at a minimum) then how do ew start talking about things like “bad”, “pathological”, and so on?
And there are times when you seek to control your attraction and ignore (or attempt to ignore) the feeling. This, too, probably affects behavior. I’d hate to say otherwise in either case (acknowledging or ignoring attraction). But I guess the question is: is there a specific way that feeling attracted to young girls (women? I supose we should like to ask them what they call themselves… in some or most cases I can imagine both answers would apply to the same person) manifests in behavior?
Again, is this special? Consider: feeling attracted to a 30-year old. Is this all that is required for making sexual advances? For manifesting behaviorn that, were she 14 instead, would be inappropriate?
I guess I’m trying to say, it is a narrow view of feeling attracted and thinking about sexuality or sexual attraction that would say that thinking about having sex with someone you wouldn’t have sex with is bad. Because I wouldn’t have sex with a 14 year old… does it matter that I also shouldn’t? In some ways, recognition that she is 14 already defines some of my behavior; at this point, the feeling of attraction isn’t muted, but it is, at least, impotent (let’s not mix our metaphors, eh?). “Feelings about” seem to help or hinder action, I agree, but I think I am trying to say that they do so after other things have already acted upon disposition. You see?
Now, we say “Good, those feelings should be impotent.” But the vitrol here still exists. There is something here I am missing.
…
And, heh, on Monday I think I will try the “ballbreaking bitch”. It will be an interesting experiment indeed… but, to tell the truth, I am attracted to females with power, and that word seems to ring “powerful woman” in my inner ear, so I think it would only liven the thoughts! 
And it’s a good thing it was Sofa King on the subway, and not SuaSponte, because not one of those girls would have gone unsoiled, otherwise.
I think that you’re overstating the effect I’m pointing out (actually, I think you’ve taken flight from something that is not so grandiose as “what causes me to act like I do to people” :)); it’s just one of the many influences on our behaviour. But I think you’ll be surprised on Monday at the immediate effect it has on your perceptions and your basic attitude.
Really, what I have in mind is the behaviour of someone who constantly thinks about sex with 14 year olds, and how that would affect their behaviour. Rather, I don’t see how it couldn’t affect their behaviour in fairly obvious ways. Think of Mary Kay LeTourneau as an extreme case.
I’m also thinking of an acquaintance of a friend, who taught English to 14 year old french high school girls in Quebec: they seemed to delight in flirting with him, and restraining himself made him so crazy with stress that he left his job and his fiancee in Quebec to get away. My friend experienced the same thing, but seemed much more immune to their antics.
Then perhaps it’s not your gut you should check for changes in your ahem attitude.
Less obvious, but surely it must be possible. You say below that my proposed sex-ed quiz is a reasonable test; I don’t see how such a test could take more than a couple hours to complete and grade.
Financial ability to handle a child is irrelevant to the ability to give informed consent; millions of adults would also be financially unable to provide for a child.
The solution to the other issues is better education, not age limits. The material really isn’t that hard to grasp; it’s not the kind of information that can only be gained through life experience, it’s the kind that can be photocopied and handed out en masse.
Not the ones I know.
You implied that most 16-year-olds are “sexually immature”; I took that as an admission that some of them are not. My question is, how can I tell whether the 16-year-olds I know are “sexually mature”? And if it’s something I can find out, why can’t it be found out in a courtroom?
[tangent]
I’m terribly intrigued by our notion of “informed consent”. Legally, a minor is not capable of giving informed consent. I must assume this is due to the lack of emotional maturity of the minor in question rather than availability of information on sex. We certainly make information available. Emotional maturity, however, is something we can not teach.
But, without the actual experience of sex, how does one reach that level of emotional maturity? Is anyone who has not previously had sex able (according to these guidlines) to give informed consent? Is the 16-year-old who has had sex more able to give informed consent that the 26-year-old virgin? Could the 26-year-old claim rape, stating she was not able to give informed consent as she didn’t realize what sex would entail on an emotional level?
Or am I misunderstanding the “informed consent” idea?
[/tangent]
Then we have a dual experiment. You think “…and your little dog too” or “abracadabra” after every sentence.
Which is to say, of course it is going to change one’s mood or disposition. But what I’m saying is: will these specific thoughts change it in a bad way only for young girls? I can’t pin down what is special about this case.
I think that in such a case of obsession, there is something underlying which is causing the thoughts/obsession. In such a case I would be inclined to say that the thoughts are the manifestation (or first manifestation) of a problem.
Argh. Let’s not talk high school girls flirting with adults. I chaperone tenth graders once a year, and it is a great time. I know when I am being flirted with, and in that situation it makes me uncomfortable. It is all I can do to go talk to another student or a teacher or something.
But when I used to work at McDonalds, flirting was the norm. It was expected, encouraged, and so on. So much so that people flirted with people who, in other situations, they would scowl at (they would consider them unattractive). It was a fun atmosphere. And to tell the truth, the people I would normally consider unattractive… yes, my attitude did change toward them. I was much more friendly. And they to me. But it was never an issue of, “Oh, god, you’re 23 and I’m 16 blah blah that’s gross.” And for me it was never “Dearest Eris, deliver me from tempation!”
I guess my point is: my behavior in these two circumstances had nothing to do with how I perceived their attractiveness; or, at least, in both cases I was attracted and neither behavior was really similar. So what general conclusion can I draw here?
Indeed. I’ve always taken “informed consent” to mean you know the potential consequences of your actions, and after taking them into consideration, you decide to go ahead with the actions. Obviously you can’t know how something will affect you emotionally unless you’ve already done it, so I don’t include emotional consequences.
Take skydiving, for example. There are potential physical risks: maybe your parachute won’t open and you’ll become a greasy spot on the countryside. There are also emotional risks: maybe you’ll be so thrilled you want to do it again, or maybe you’ll be so scared by the experience that you’re traumatized and can’t go back to work all week.
But everyone will have a different emotional experience, and you can’t know how skydiving will affect you personally until you do it; I think it would be ridiculous to have an “emotional maturity” requirement on skydiving, especially if it were disguised with something as shaky as an age restriction.
Hell, anything can have emotional consequences. You could watch a documentary and become depressed about the state of the world; you could go to the animal shelter and break down in tears as you think about the abused pets. Dealing with your emotions is part of being human, and the only way to learn how to deal with them is to do it.
It is common for people to hide their feelings. People are rarely completely honest about their emotions and often apply deception, know as the “white lie,” to hide their feelings. This being the case, people are capable of taking actions that go against their desires and hiding their feelings. Thus, the danger of thoughts is based on how strong one’s control over oneself is. If it is strong, thoughts and feelings will not necessarily have that great an effect. One with weak control however…
Deal, though “…and your little dog, too” already occurs to me with one coworker.
We seem to agree that obsessively fantasizing about sex with someone will probably change your disposition towards them. How is this bad when it’s a teenager (and why is it okay when it’s an adult)? Many here have said that the thought isn’t bad if it doesn’t lead to action, but a disposition is a kind of action–if you are disposed to treat an adult woman as an object of your fantasies, it’s rude and politically incorrect and disrespectful; if it’s a teenage girl, I’d say it’s worse because she’s more impressionable, she’s probably less mature about sex than she will be when she’s 30, and she has less experience to put your treatment of her in its proper perspective (i.e., this is one guy, not all men, and he’s just being an ass).
The exact reason we make it illegal for teachers to sleep with their teenage students is that the power relationship is almost certainly damaging to the teenager. Acting because of a disposition to sleep with that teenager is damaging (though much less so) in the same way. In other threads, we’ve discussed the negative effects of the media and the clothing industry over-sexualizing teenagers; how is it different when individuals do it to them?
Okay, I think we’re getting at a genuine difference in opinions now. While you see that obsession as symptomatic of an underlying problem, I see it as a behavioural habit that is formed (or not formed) depending upon one’s inclinations, and how one handles them. I don’t see an underlying cause (though perhaps there are underlying influences); I see a habit one forms by indulging in something (or, conversely, the lack of such a habit by wilfully denying oneself the indulgence).
In both cases, you were responding sexually to them; the difference in your overt actions was what your prudence demanded. I’d imagine that has some effect on them that wouldn’t be there if you didn’t respond sexually.
Overall, I suspect the damage is more directly done to oneself than to others, though in most cases the damage is very small. Still, how can that damage not be bad?
Administering the test isn’t the implausible part. Can you really imagine a federal “Department of Teen Sexuality”? Granted, “I’ve got a licence to fuck” is a great pickup line, especially if you’ve got the paperwork to prove it, but I just can’t see it.
Nonsense. One’s ability to deal with the possible consequences of one’s actions is very relevant; less the actual money than the full conception of what’s involved in raising a child.
I agree that better education is the solution, but I disagree that photocopied handouts are sufficient. There’s a huge difference in perspective, maturity, and those ever-nebulous “life skills” between someone in high school and someone who’s worked for a living for a few years. Someone who pays rent every month has a much better grasp of the concept “children cost a lot of money”; someone with an HMO has a better idea of what’s involved in treating an STD; someone who’s been dating for a decade has a better idea of what sex does to a relationship.
And I live in the one place in the U.S. (south Wisconsin) where the teen pregnancy rate has risen for the last four years, while the national rate has dropped.
Do you really want to find out in court that the 16 year old you slept with isn’t sexually mature?
Consider the drunk driving analogy, then: you suggested that roadside sobriety tests were sufficient to determine drunkenness. You get pulled over and fail the test, you go to jail for DUI. You sleep with a sexually immature teenager, you get arrested for statutory rape.
Personally, I’d rather know beforehand whether or not I’m committing statutory rape. Remember, statutory rape is committed regardless of whether you know she’s under 18. “I didn’t check her birth certificate” isn’t a defense.
I’d expect it to be handled on the state level, like driver’s licenses and statutory rape laws. And why assume it’s only a Department of Teen Sexuality? Adult drivers have to be licensed too.
But whether you have the money to raise a child doesn’t affect your knowledge of the consequences of sex. A 30-year-old woman who just got laid off might not be able to support a child; does that mean a man who has sex with her is committing statutory rape?
I’d rather find it out in court than have it assumed from her age. That way I don’t have to worry if I know the girl is mature, and her parents won’t be able to pull the old “Oh, our little princess is too good for him, let’s file statutory rape charges to get him away from her.”
Then under the current law, you don’t know beforehand whether you’re committing statutory rape. Maybe she shows you a fake ID; what are you going to do, call the DMV?
Fine. Can you seriously imagine a “Department of Human Sexuality” ever occurring in the U.S. in your lifetime?
You’re being silly: the difference between the teenager and the 30 year old woman is that the woman probably has a much better idea that she can’t support a child.
You’re also mixing my points quite freely. I’d like to think that you’re not trying to confuse the issue.
Here’s another way to handle it: don’t sleep with her if she’s not obviously an adult. Whether statutory rape is determined by a judicial evaluation or age-of-consent laws, you’re safe.
Whenever I see a beautiful 16 (or so) year old girl I’m reminded of a George Burns joke. “Too bad I’m not 30 years younger. I’d ask her grandmother for a date.”