Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Torvaun » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:07 pm UTC

I didn't read what lordogreus said as being about training children for sex. You've read it as 'Could someone prepare children for sex?' which is a dangerous question, as noted. I read it as 'Could certain children be ready for sex?' which is a legitimate psychological question regarding development, not conditioning.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:55 pm UTC

And according to all the studies I have read, the answer is still no. We have age of consent for a reason.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Torvaun » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:13 pm UTC

And other countries have other ages of consent. And the law must apply equally to everyone, while individuals are not controlled statistically. I haven't read your studies, but claiming that age of consent is necessarily based on solid scientific principles that have absolutely no exceptions is way out there.

Biologically, the hard line would be puberty. Psychologically, that line will have a lot of give, most going towards being older, but in rare cases it could go younger. Given the chances of causing tremendous harm, we do of course need to be very cautious indeed. I think the Canadian approach is a good one, though I'd shave the age difference down to three years instead of five, but that's a gut decision, not one based on any evidence or science.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Azrael » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:18 pm UTC

Torvaun wrote:... but claiming that age of consent is necessarily based on solid scientific principles that have absolutely no exceptions is way out there.
It's important to note that she said no such thing. So yeah.

Societal laws aren't based around the exception, they are based around the majority. It doesn't matter if *one kid* could handle it, what matters is that *most* or even that *a significant enough portion* can't.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby ManaUser » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:The human brain does not fully develop until around 25. During puberty it has a large burst of growth. Before puberty the human mind is literally not physically developed enough to truly understand and consent. They do not have all the brain structures an adult does.
Also, sexuality at a young age (or any type of abuse) alters the development of a child. The reason crimes against children are so much more horrible than crimes against adults is because they do more damage to someone who is more vulnerable in multiple ways (physically, psychologically, and legally).
The idea that a child could be 'trained' for sex early is as accurate as saying someone could be 'trained' for slavery. They would think it was normal, but submitting is not consent.
/biological stand point

Psychologically speaking: Sexualizing children damages them. Bodily autonomy becomes something they have difficulty with. Safety becomes something they have difficulty with. Interpersonal relationships came suffer for the rest of their lives. The reason this was not an 'issue' when child marriages were more common was because the children being married off (normally female) were thought of as property.

I knew that Psychobiology degree would come in handy. My point, having sexual relations with children is damaging to them.

I've heard this before. Please don't take this as an attack on you personally, I know what you say is totally mainstream and widely excepted. Never the less, to me it looks like it pre-assumes that the nature of the contact, and the result is always negative. When you talk about "sexuality (or any type of abuse)" I feel like I must have missed a step where you established that sexuality is abuse. Then you say sexualized children have difficulty with "safety" (I assume you mean with feeling safe). Why would that be the case if they felt safe at the time? Maybe this is all intuitively obvious to some people but it never made sense to me.

I guess what I'm asking is this: By what mechanism does sexuality damage children?
Last edited by ManaUser on Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Torvaun » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:28 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Torvaun wrote:... but claiming that age of consent is necessarily based on solid scientific principles that have absolutely no exceptions is way out there.
It's important to note that she said no such thing. So yeah.

Societal laws aren't based around the exception, they are based around the majority. It doesn't matter if *one kid* could handle it, what matters is that *most* or even that *a significant enough portion* can't.
Well yeah, except that wasn't the question that lordogreus had been asking. Yes, I agree with age of consent. I think the way that the US is doing it right now can result, and in fact -has- resulted in ludicrous scenarios. I prefer the Canadian way, where there's a hard line, and a fog of exceptions for people who are vaguely close to each other. I understand and agree with pure psychology having basically nothing to do with current laws because of the delicacy of the subject matter. Better safe than sorry, and all that.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

The Mad Scientist
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:09 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby The Mad Scientist » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:30 am UTC

Azrael wrote:Societal laws aren't based around the exception, they are based around the majority. It doesn't matter if *one kid* could handle it, what matters is that *most* or even that *a significant enough portion* can't.


My intent is not to derail the thread, so please do not respond to the specifics of the following analogy. My intent is only to draw to your attention the fallacious reasoning of your statement. Consider the following statement:

"Societal laws aren't based around the exception, they are based around the majority. It doesn't matter if *one alleged rapist* is innocent, what matters is that *most* or even that a *significant enough portion* are guilty."

Such a statement would logically lead to the conclusion that we should jail all alleged rapists, because most--or even a significant portion--of alleged rapists actually committed rape. (That is, assuming that a significant portion of alleged rapists actually committed rape--the alternative being that an insignificant portion of alleged rapists committed rape, which I don't think anyone believes.)

The point is that just as we assume that people are innocent until proven guilty, we ought to assume that people are rational until they prove otherwise. This, of course, would not necessarily lead to the age of consent being dramatically lowered, because, for instance, 11 year olds constantly demonstrate that they are totally irrational.

In fact, a better system might abolish the age of consent altogether and look instead at whether or not someone who engaged in sex was "grossly irrational" at the time, e.g., a child, a retarded person, a senile person, etc. Imagine a 14 year old girl who becomes emancipated, starts a small business, and lives totally independently, paying rent, taking care of her basic needs, interacting on an adult level with other people. Now imagine that this 14 year old girl has sex with a 32 year old man. I would have a very hard time sending the man to prison for "statutory rape" on the grounds that the 14 year old was "incapable of consenting to sex". Of course, the proportion of 14 year olds who are this mature and rational is probably something like .001%, but what about 15 year olds? 16 year olds? Surely a significant portion of 17 year olds are perfectly mature, rational people.
Last edited by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:25 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby clintonius » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:59 am UTC

Not to the specifics of your analogy, but to the entire premise: you're conflating victim and aggressor. "The child who can or can't handle rape" can't be replaced with "the person who did or didn't commit rape." It's not a valid analogical refutation.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Azrael » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:14 am UTC

The Mad Scientist wrote:Such a statement would logically lead to the conclusion that we should jail all alleged rapists, because most--or even a significant portion--of alleged rapists actually committed rape.

Clinton has hit the nail on the head already, but ... no, that is most certainly *not* the logical extension. If you'd prefer another example of what is (I thought)a very, very basic and well-understood foundation of our legal system:

Just because one person can drive 150 mph down a twisting mountain road in the snow safely, does not mean that *everyone* can do so. Thus, in order to protect the greater good, laws are passed regarding the capabilities of the majority. Whether "greater good" laws [can/will/should/blue] be passed is a topic for another thread.

So sure, you've imagined a hypothetical child who is maltreated by age of consent laws. That one (incredibly hypothetical) exception is not what the law should be tailored to.

The Mad Scientist
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:09 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby The Mad Scientist » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:03 am UTC

clintonius wrote:Not to the specifics of your analogy, but to the entire premise: you're conflating victim and aggressor. "The child who can or can't handle rape" can't be replaced with "the person who did or didn't commit rape." It's not a valid analogical refutation.


The analogy does not depend on the victim/aggressor distinction. The point is that the law should not treat people as if they are perfectly average members of some class of people. We should not treat children as perfectly average members of the class of children for the same reason that we should not treat alleged rapists as perfectly average members of the class of alleged rapists.

Azrael wrote:Clinton has hit the nail on the head already, but ... no, that is most certainly *not* the logical extension. If you'd prefer another example of what is (I thought)a very, very basic and well-understood foundation of our legal system:

Just because one person can drive 150 mph down a twisting mountain road in the snow safely, does not mean that *everyone* can do so. Thus, in order to protect the greater good, laws are passed regarding the capabilities of the majority. Whether "greater good" laws [can/will/should/blue] be passed is a topic for another thread.


No, it is not, because this thread has become a discussion not of what the age of consent laws are, but of what the ought to be. Therefore arguments about what sorts of laws should and should not be passed are entirely appropriate.

Let me put this in purple: No, discussion about whether "greater good" laws [can/will/should/blue] exist is not appropriate in this thread.

-Az

Azrael wrote:So sure, you've imagined a hypothetical child who is maltreated by age of consent laws. That one (incredibly hypothetical) exception is not what the law should be tailored to.


What I propose is that the age of consent law should not separate people into two categories (younger than and older than 18) based on a quality (rationality) which is supposed to be possessed by members of one category but not the other. Instead, it should simply determine whether or not a given person possesses that quality.
Last edited by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:22 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Azrael001 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:23 am UTC

The Mad Scientist wrote:What I propose is that the age of consent law should not separate people into two categories (younger than and older than 18) based on a quality (rationality) which is supposed to be possessed by members of one category but not the other. Instead, it should simply determine whether or not a given person possesses that quality.
Even if it were a good idea, it'd be a logistical nightmare. Imagine the cost of every standardized test. Now multiply it by the complexity required to test for something as incorporeal as maturity. It's madness.
23111

scwizard
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby scwizard » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:43 am UTC

Torvaun wrote:I read it as 'Could certain children be ready for sex?' which is a legitimate psychological question regarding development, not conditioning.

It's not a question of whether they're ready for sex or not. What experimenting little girls and boys choose to do on their own is not business of the police (unless someone gets really hurt).

The question is "are they ready to have sex with you" and the answer is no freaking way.
It's called rape because the power difference makes it impossible to have a legitimate relationship.

The not believing in readiness for sex also means I don't think you should need to be rational to have sex.

<half serious>The alternative I would propose to the current system is to let 18+ year olds do whatever they want except have sex with 17 and under year olds. Bar 17 and under year olds from being in porn, and from having sex with someone more than 3-4 years younger than themselves.

The way I see it people will be breaking up with their SOs anyway when they go to college. Also it stops the creepy highschool graduate x highschool girl relationship.</half serious>

Looks like someone is contemplating the morality of grooming. Children do not need to be "prepared" for sex, especially not in a manner that would require "a distinct set of laws dealing with non-coital sex play." Other animals seem to manage without explicit instruction, I'm sure humans can do the same.

I'm not saying that children shouldn't be educated, just that it's not something that people should try to control. Or at least not something that people other than their parents should try to control.
Last edited by scwizard on Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:24 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
~= scwizard =~

The Mad Scientist
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:09 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby The Mad Scientist » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:32 am UTC

Azrael01 wrote:Even if it were a good idea, it'd be a logistical nightmare. Imagine the cost of every standardized test. Now multiply it by the complexity required to test for something as incorporeal as maturity. It's madness.


It's better to let someone go to jail for doing something that may not have actually been wrong? What I propose is that if someone is accused of statutory rape, then during their trial the defense could make the argument that the minor was rational enough to consent to sexual activity, and the prosecution could argue the opposite. Surely this would align better with the fact that minors between 14 and 17 are a bit of a gray area.

For instance, if a 29 year old woman slept with a 17 year old boy who was going to turn 18 in three months, the prosecution would attempt to show that those three months would have made the difference between a person so immature and irrational as to be incapable of consenting to sex with an adult, while the defense would argue that the three months would not have made a difference; that the boy was, for the purpose of consenting to sex, just as rational at 17 and 9 months as he would have been 3 months later.

I should also mention that the alleged (statutory) rapist must also be shown to have been reasonably capable of deducing that their (alleged) victim was incapable of giving consent. Otherwise there would be cases where an adult with some mental disorder which is not apparent but nevertheless renders them incapable of giving some consent could be said to have been raped by another adult who couldn't have known that the disorder had such an effect (or that it was present at all).

It would be fine to assign the burden of proof to the defense or the prosecution based on the age of the alleged victim. For example, in a case involving sex between an adult and a child under the age of 13, the burden of proof would be on the defense to demonstrate rationality (and they would almost certainly never succeed), and ignorance of the child's inability to consent would not be a legitimate defense, since children are assumed to be incapable of consent by default. In a case involving two adults, the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to demonstrate a lack of rationality, as well as knowledge of said lack on the part of the defendant. In this case, reasonable ignorance of the alleged victim's inability to consent would be a valid defense, since adults are assumed to be capable of consent by default. In a case involving an adult and a minor between the ages of 14 and 17, the minor's rationality (or lack thereof) would be an open question: the prosecution would attempt to demonstrate its lack, and the defense its presence. Here also ignorance of the alleged victim's inability to give consent would not be a valid defense.

This may seem convoluted, but it is actually quite simple and more appropriate than our current laws: it is not wrong to have sex with someone younger than a certain age simply due to their age; it is wrong to have sex with someone who either does not consent or cannot consent when said lack of consent or lack of ability to consent would be obvious to any reasonable person.

One more thing: maybe I'm just strange, but if someone corrected my grammar or usage and they weren't themselves mistaken--and the error wasn't completely trivial or an obvious typo, or an aberration which is shown to be such by subsequent correct grammar or usage--my response would be, "Oh, good point. Thanks." So perhaps we're simply different, or perhaps you thought that the error was trivial. Either way, I didn't mean to insult or offend. If someone made a post that confused "their" with "there", I would correct them as a favor. It's in their best interest to realize that they made a mistake so that they don't repeat it.

Now, I can already predict that numerous posters will go through my posts in this thread with a fine-toothed comb looking for errors to correct, and then present them as "a favor" to me, almost certainly with an air of smugness. Allow me to reply preemptively: if the error is truly egregious and non-trivial, then I thank you for pointing it out and I will not repeat it in the future. But if it's something silly that you had to spend ten minutes searching for and is of little significance, then I can only say that I pity you for wasting your time.
Last edited by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:54 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
TheSkyMovesSideways
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:36 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby TheSkyMovesSideways » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:02 am UTC

That's a very valid concern... We had a case here in Australia a few years ago where a teacher lost his job when it was found that he had committed a child sex offence 12 years prior. His crime? Consensually touching a 15 year old's breasts when he was 20. (The age of consent in Australia is 16.) State law mandates that no-one who has committed a child sex offence may ever work as a teacher, and despite almost universal opposition from both the public and the school, the school was legally unable to keep him employed.

http://www.education.theage.com.au/page ... ectionid=0

And then there was that utterly absurd case in Georgia, where 18 year old Marcus Dixon was sentenced to 10 years in jail for having sex with a 15 year old. (It was overturned after he'd been locked up for a year.) :shock:

However, I do think we're drifting off topic a bit here.
I had all kinds of plans in case of a zombie attack.
I just figured I'd be on the other side.
~ASW

lordogreus
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:01 am UTC

The Mad Scientist wrote:Even if it were a good idea, it'd be a logistical nightmare. Imagine the cost of every standardized test. Now multiply it by the complexity required to test for something as incorporeal as maturity. It's madness.


As I was reading through this peculiar surge of posts, this same thought occurred to me, though phrased otherwise. My conclusion was that laws regarding the age of consent are in place for the sake of simplicity. They weighed the cost of restricting sexual activity of younger individuals against the gain of increased safety via reduced exploitation and abuse, and chose a conservative age at which point the individual is almost always sufficiently prepared to consent to such activity.

scwizard wrote:Looks like someone is contemplating the morality of grooming. Children do not need to be "prepared" for sex, especially not in a manner that would require "a distinct set of laws dealing with non-coital sex play." Other animals seem to manage without explicit instruction, I'm sure humans can do the same.

I'm not saying that children shouldn't be educated, just that it's not something that people should try to control. Or at least not something that people other than their parents should try to control.


I must admit, I am confused as to what you meant by this. The idea that I am getting from you is that sex should not be controlled; that, when it comes to human sexuality, que sera, sera. I am not assuming that this is what you meant, particularly when you stated your position explicitly: "The question is 'are they ready to have sex with you' and the answer is no freaking way. It's called rape because the power difference makes it impossible to have a legitimate relationship."

I want to clarify something at this juncture. I sometimes worry about how people will perceive what I say in discussions such as this, because there will be a tendency to assume that I am biased. For that reason, I will state again that I am not advocating adult-child sexuality, and neither do I condone the production or usage of child pornography. That being said, when I explored the idea of "preparing" children for sexuality, I, too, concluded that it was not viable. The remaining problem, however, is that which was briefly stated above, that it is impossible to pinpoint an age at which point all individuals will be able to consent, such that one day earlier, they lacked said ability which they will have gained at the stroke of midnight.

Perhaps 16 years of age (in many states in the U.S.) does not represent such a point; rather, it may very well be one year to several years after that point, but only for some people, the purpose of which being to protect those individuals to whom this does not apply.

sophyturtle wrote:The human brain does not fully develop until around 25. During puberty it has a large burst of growth. Before puberty the human mind is literally not physically developed enough to truly understand and consent. They do not have all the brain structures an adult does.


My knowledge about child psychological development is severely limited, so I cannot take a firm stand on either side of the issue; instead, I prefer to take a more metaphysical approach. There are two things which I would like to bring up, a question and a thought exercise.

First of all, I am curious to know what exactly is necessary for an individual to be able to consent. Naturally, it cannot be said to depend solely on an individual's age, as there are people who are mentally handicapped well over the age of 18 who have as much of an understanding of sexuality as do young children. So, I am forced to wonder, what does it mean to understand, and what does it mean to consent? Surely, a child could agree to engage in some form of sexual activity without being coerced -- except that now we must further delineate age groups, separating younger children from older children. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that that age is 8 (arbitrarily chosen). At this age, one would assume that they have the basics down, that certain erogenous areas of the body can be stimulated in order to achieve pleasure (evidently, masturbation at an early age is not uncommon). It does not seem to be much of a stretch to say that they could find this same stimulation through interaction with others, perhaps including adults.

At this point, my second thought is again coming to mind. This one deals with looking past all societal norms, all forms of accepted behavior, as distinct from purely human behavior. Think Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape, or works of that ilk. I believe that it is important, when addressing moral issues, to assume such a mindset, because to do otherwise would be to address issues from a distorted perspective. (Some might argue that this "distorted perspective" is the result of centuries of heuristic development on the part of our species, and as such, should not be dismissed so easily. I would argue that we should feel free to question our beliefs periodically, so as to avoid handing down a weltanschauung built upon erroneous beliefs.)

This being said, I now return to the previous topic of children's ability to consent. We are so accustomed, so inured, to the idea that children are, for all intents and purposes, asexual; that they might as well not even possess all the sexual equipment. We do not typically sexualize them (which might be debatable in some cases, but not in general), and we do not typically associate them with the same level of sexuality of adults. Consequently, the perspective from which most people would regard child/adult-child sexuality is already distorted, and normally without their realizing it.

We are content to accept the current laws regarding consent because, as I stated earlier in this response, the cost of stringent laws does not outweigh the gain of increased protection. I have to wonder, at what point in history did laws regarding the age of consent come into being? What was the precipitating factor? Was abuse so common among younger teens and children that such legislation was necessary for their safety? I am wondering, what is the relationship between law and morality, in this chicken-and-the-egg scenario? Do we believe it is wrong because the law says so? Or does the law exist because we believe it is wrong?

What it boils down to, is that the simple act of stimulus and response does not carry with it certain moral baggage. What is important to consider is what kind of psychological effects it might have on a child if this act is performed with an adult. Will the child associate sexual gratification with adults rather than peers? To say that such would be the case strikes me as simplistic. That implies that a child will form this association while losing interest in peers, such that it cannot grow up and develop normal relationships with its peers. At such an early age, its peers are changing constantly, so it does not seem logical to conclude that they will not be able to adapt.

Unfortunately, we can discuss this all we want, but opinions and laws cannot be changed suddenly because empirical data regarding the issue is difficult to obtain, insofar as it is obtained in an ethical manner. I doubt any normal parent would be willing to allow experiments to be performed on their children so as to determine the truth about their ability to consent and the overall psychological effects of "premature" sexuality. The result is, we play it safe, and perhaps it is for the best.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby ManaUser » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:40 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:
The Mad Scientist wrote:What I propose is that the age of consent law should not separate people into two categories (younger than and older than 18) based on a quality (rationality) which is supposed to be possessed by members of one category but not the other. Instead, it should simply determine whether or not a given person possesses that quality.

Even if it were a good idea, it'd be a logistical nightmare. Imagine the cost of every standardized test. Now multiply it by the complexity required to test for something as incorporeal as maturity. It's madness.

I agree, but there are some more workable compromises. The Mad Scientist explained one already, but there could be others. I posted about this before, but it was in another thread, so I'll repeat it briefly:

One idea (similar to The Mad Scientist's) is to have two ages of consent. Below the first one, consent is not valid, above the second one, it is. In between the court would look into it and decide if the relationship was exploitive.

Another idea would be to keep the firm age of consent, but have a sliding scale of severity (from infraction to felony) depending on how much, if any, harm was actually done (either physical or emotional).

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Azrael001 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:51 pm UTC

Yes, but how do you decide? It's too subjective.
23111

luketheduke
Sour Kraut
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Where the Kraut's at

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby luketheduke » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:08 pm UTC

No, it isn't. Those two values are actually 14 and 16 in Germany.

The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14-15 year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. [...] Otherwise the age of consent is 16.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co ... pe#Germany
As long as I know how to love / I know I'll stay alive /
'cause I've got all my life to live / and I've got all my love to give / and I'll survive /
I will survive

scwizard
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby scwizard » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:54 pm UTC

lordogreus wrote:I want to clarify something at this juncture. I sometimes worry about how people will perceive what I say in discussions such as this, because there will be a tendency to assume that I am biased. For that reason, I will state again that I am not advocating adult-child sexuality, and neither do I condone the production or usage of child pornography. That being said, when I explored the idea of "preparing" children for sexuality, I, too, concluded that it was not viable. The remaining problem, however, is that which was briefly stated above, that it is impossible to pinpoint an age at which point all individuals will be able to consent, such that one day earlier, they lacked said ability which they will have gained at the stroke of midnight.

Ahh sorry for getting things wrong. I didn't read as much as I should have probably.

Anyways I support the stroke of midnight thing, not because that's when they become ready for sex (remember I was saying I don't believe in such a thing), but because that's when they have the power of an adult, in terms of freedom and movement and self determination and such.
And I'm saying it's a power abuse if someone with all those freedoms is having a relationship with someone who doesn't have those freedoms.
Of course the conclusion of this, is as I mentioned, that 19 year old x 16 year old is a no no. This actually isn't illegal currently, but based on my way of looking at things it should be.

That's why I'm saying so much of this discussion (the human brain etc) is bunk. Instead of trying to base our laws off of some biological switch being flicked (which is what we're currently doing supposedly with the arbitrary age of 16), we should based them off our existing laws. If we're going to separate people into children and adults based around the arbitrary age of 18, then our laws governing sexuality should reflect that and adults (defined as 18 and over, the age you're allowed to purchase porn among other things) should not be allowed to have sex with children (defined as 17 and younger).

This doesn't stop children from having sex (which seems to be something our current laws are trying to do for some stupid reason), all it does is stops people from abusing their privileged positions, which is what the laws should be about, stopping rape.

EDIT: It would probably be good to make two exceptions in such a law:
1. 17 year olds and 18 year olds are ok.
2. If your relationship began legally, this law won't make it illegal (so 15 year old x 18 year old is ok, as long as their relationship started when the 18 year old was 17).

TheSkyMovesSideways wrote:Consensually touching a 15 year old's breasts when he was 20.

I'm sorry but this is creepy. If he was the kind of guy hitting on highschool students when he was in college (assuming heterosexuality here), then I don't think he should be allowed to be a teacher.
When he was 20 he abused his status as an adult to abuse this 15 year old girl. I would even allow him to teach adults. If he abused his position of authority once for sexual reasons, who's to say he won't do it again?

The Mad Scientist wrote:For instance, if a 29 year old woman slept with a 17 year old boy who was going to turn 18 in three months, the prosecution would attempt to show that those three months would have made the difference between a person so immature and irrational as to be incapable of consenting to sex with an adult, while the defense would argue that the three months would not have made a difference

The problem here has nothing to do with development or maturity. It has to do with the fact that this was still a guy in highschool, who probably need to be home at his parents house before a certain time. He's not allowed to drive, he's not allowed to drink. The 29 year old woman can offer him all of these things. She can use her position to seduce him by offering him a free pass into the forbidden world of adults.

Once the guy turns 18 everything changes. He can enter into the world of adults his own way. The 29 year old is suddenly much less alluring since the stuff she offers is no longer forbidden.
~= scwizard =~

The Mad Scientist
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:09 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby The Mad Scientist » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:56 am UTC

Azrael001 wrote:Yes, but how do you decide? It's too subjective.


I hate to break it to you, but our laws are already completely subjective.

scwizard wrote:The problem here has nothing to do with development or maturity. It has to do with the fact that this was still a guy in highschool, who probably need to be home at his parents house before a certain time. He's not allowed to drive, he's not allowed to drink. The 29 year old woman can offer him all of these things. She can use her position to seduce him by offering him a free pass into the forbidden world of adults.


What in the world?

Whether or not a sexual act is wrong has nothing to do with what one party can offer the other party. By your reasoning, it should be illegal for the rich to sleep with the poor because the rich party can offer the poor party many things that the poor party has no access to. The rich party can use his or her position to seduce the poor party by offering him or her a free pass into the forbidden world of the rich. I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

The only things that should matter when two people have sex are:

- the ability of both parties to consent
- whether or not both parties consent

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:12 am UTC

The Mad Scientist wrote:
scwizard wrote:The problem here has nothing to do with development or maturity. It has to do with the fact that this was still a guy in highschool, who probably need to be home at his parents house before a certain time. He's not allowed to drive, he's not allowed to drink. The 29 year old woman can offer him all of these things. She can use her position to seduce him by offering him a free pass into the forbidden world of adults.


What in the world?

Whether or not a sexual act is wrong has nothing to do with what one party can offer the other party. By your reasoning, it should be illegal for the rich to sleep with the poor because the rich party can offer the poor party many things that the poor party has no access to. The rich party can use his or her position to seduce the poor party by offering him or her a free pass into the forbidden world of the rich. I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

The only things that should matter when two people have sex are:

- the ability of both parties to consent
- whether or not both parties consent


That whooshing sound you just heard was his point flying right over your head. You're right--the only things that should matter when two people have sex are their ability to consent and whether or not they do. But an imbalance of power in a relationship affects their ability to consent. For example, the relationship between a boss and an employee, or a student and a teacher. You can argue that the balance of power between somebody who can buy booze and porn isn't significant enough to affect consent, but that doesn't mean his basic argument is unsound.
Image

scwizard
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby scwizard » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:15 am UTC

To take your example, if a rich person says to a poor person, "I'll take you back to my mansion for the night if you agree to suck me off." I'd say that isn't consensual sex, any more than a CEO offering to hire a secretary if she'll sleep with him is consensual sex.

By this logic prostitution also isn't consensual sex.

Ninjaed. Thank you for the assist Malice.

Malice wrote:You're right--the only things that should matter when two people have sex are their ability to consent and whether or not they do. But an imbalance of power in a relationship affects their ability to consent. You can argue that the balance of power between somebody who can buy booze and porn isn't significant enough to affect consent, but that doesn't mean his basic argument is unsound.

This is basically my entire argument. I don't understand what is an isn't consent well enough to say what the law should be, I'm just providing conjecture here.

/me goes off to make a topic in SB about what is and isn't consent.

And so, the discussion of what constitutes consent stops here.

-Az
~= scwizard =~

lordogreus
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:26 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby lordogreus » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:38 am UTC

Before this thread croaks, I wanted to say that I had noticed a few earlier discussions which depended on suppositions about myself and other pedophiles, so I was wondering if anyone had any remaining issues or questions which would be facilitated by my being here. I got a few questions about a page-and-a-half ago, but maybe one or two people actually responded to my answers.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests