Research concerning adult/minor sexual interactions

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by scott3x, Mar 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to phlogistician's post 95 in the Forums with varying levels of insults allowed thread.

    Moving this here as the subject is clearly off topic in the thread it was in.

    I can't remember, but Paul Okami chronicled it. Heather Corinna is an author, activist and internet publisher with a focus on progressive, affirming sexuality. She runs the Scarleteen web site, a sex education website where a volunteer staff provides young adults with the answers and information they need to make informed, responsible and sensible decisions about sex..

    In an article of hers titled Rage of Consent, she has this to say concerning Paul Okami's work in the aforementioned book:
    Paul Okami, Ph.D, is Consulting Editor of The Journal of Sex Research, and author and co-author of numerous sexuality studies such as Childhood exposure to parental nudity, parent-child co-sleeping, and "primal scenes": A review of clinical opinion and empirical evidence (The Journal of Sex Research), Sexual experiences in early childhood: 18-year longitudinal data from the UCLA Family Lifestyles Project (The Journal of Sex Research), Self-reports of "positive" childhood and adolescent sexual contacts with older persons: An exploratory study (Archives of Sexual Behavior), and Sociopolitical biases in the contemporary scientific literature on adult human sexual behavior with children and adolescents (in Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, ed. J. Fiereman).

    He states that "Any time you deal with a group of relationships that are illegal and compare them to a group of relationships that are legal, it would be surprising to find that there weren't negative effects associated with the illegal relationships that you don't normally see in the legal ones. This is true if only because there may be added stress in the illegal relationships related to fear of discovery, and all sorts of painful consequences of actual discovery.​

    She quotes more of what he has to say concerning the subject in the aforementioned article.


    Well, that last part I can understand; I myself was leery of pulling it out of the library about 7 years ago or so and things haven't exactly gotten more relaxed on the subject. Our society has engaged in something of a witch hunt in regards to this issue, but caving in to said witch hunt isn't going to make things any better. I believe it will take the work of many more brave souls, such as Judith Levine's good work in her book Harmful to Minors, before people begin to realize how protection can morph into oppression and even leave lasting psychological damage.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Don't you think it's just a little soon to restart the pedophilia threads?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Not for me, laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . The question is if it's too soon for you admins. Anyway, technically I haven't been bringing it up; it's been others. Anyway, phlog, who started this dialogue with me, has now said he put me on his ignore list, so perhaps this thread will just go dormant for a while.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    I don't want to discuss this with you Scott. So feel free to delete the thread. You make me sick, actually. And no, that isn't a personal attack, it's an observation about myself.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I thought you were ignoring me? Anyway, that's fine with me.

    After I put all that hard work into coming up with a good OP? Thanks, but no thanks.


    Alright. You know -why- I spend the time responding to people who are clearly uncomfortable with their views on what I believe (or atleast what they think I believe)? Precisely because I don't like this schism between me and others. I would -like- to reach consensus. We generally have the same foundation; that is, I believe that harming others is generally a bad thing; I don't even like insulting others much. However, consensus breaks down when we get into what constitutes harm in regards to sexual activities.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You may like to think that, but I'd wager that there's a 99%+ societal consensus on whether pedophilia is harmful to child victims of sexual abuse.
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The way -I- define sexual abuse, ofcourse it's bad. The key word there, I believe, is abuse. Wikipedia opens its article on abuse thusly:
    Abuse refers to the use or treatment of something (a person, item, substance, concept, or vocabulary) that is harmful. ​

    I certainly wouldn't want someone to be harmed, especially if they have done nothing to merit such harm (self defense is another matter).

    Likewise, I would never want a child or anyone else to be a victim; that is, "an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance", as wordnet defines it.

    ancientregime frequently stated that he didn't advocate harming children and since suffering is caused by harm, I think it makes his stance clear on victimizing as well.

    The main issue remains; what is sexually harmful, exactly, and why. Until we answer this question, instead of beating around the bush, prejudging x, y or z sexual activities to be harmful by default, I don't think we'll get anywhere.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2009
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    scott3x:

    Please see the follow thread in the Formal Debates forum:

    [thread=90901]Debate: Pedophilia is pseudoscience[/thread]

    There, I clearly pointed out the many harms caused by child sexual abuse.
     
  12. Gypsi Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    As James R said, it's a breakdown of concensus between 99.99% of people and 0.01%, at best.

    The vast majority of people are naturally and instinctively repulsed and revolted by paedophilia, and naturally and instinctively and intuitively certain of the harm it does. That's what counts, and counts more than any amount of "research" by people keen to make a name for themselves by bucking the trend.

    The only reason for anyone not to feel the same way is that their own instincts are not the same, and they have something to gain by attempting to give them credibility.
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    James, you argue in such a way that tends to preclude debate. Harm and abuse are synonymous terms, so you'll get no argument from me when you say that one by necessity means the other. The issue, for me, is whether actual abuse takes place by its common definition, instead of a hollow legal definition of the term.

    I browsed through the thread, which was replete with the 'abuse' term. At the very end, I found a statement that I have seen many times. This one, atleast, is something I can actually argue with:
    1. The child consented

    A prepubescent child cannot give informed consent, because he or she does not have the emotional and psychological maturity, nor the intellectual knowledge required to make such a decision.

    Pedophiles, legally speaking are defined as generally seen as adults who engage in a sexual activity with someone below the age of consent. The age of consent for adult/minor relations varies, but, certainly in North America, it goes well above pre pubescence. For adults past a certain age, it varies from 16 to 18.

    I have heard the line about not having emotional and psychological maturity and intellectual knowledge before. What I have found is that few have bothered to even attempt to define emotional and psychological maturity and intellectual knowledge; if we were to use -that- yardstick, then we'd have to admit that we're not sure whether anyone above the age of consent in their respective jurisdiction has those qualities either.

    Finally, there is yet another factor: the idea that both partners must have these qualities isn't substantiated. So long as -one- of the partners has these qualities, I believe it can be argued the relationship should be positive, atleast in a society wherein such relationships could be accepted. I have specified before that sexual activities must be based upon the age of the participants. Things such as physical size must certainly be taken into account and arguments such as the one that Tiassa brought up concerning cervical cancer can't be ignored. But there are many sexual activities; sexual intercourse is only one of them.
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?


    -I- am naturally and instinctually revolted by some definitions of pedophilic acts, such as -actually- sexually harming a child. The term pedophilia is far too broad to used in a serious debate, unless the definition of the term is hammered out by the parties involved.


    You are free to believe whatever you like. It doesn't make it true, though.


    I could also argue that the only reason you argue the way you do is because you have 'something to gain by attempting to give [your feelings/instincts] credibility'. The main point, I believe, is who is right.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I agree with this. I am too, when considering it emotionally.

    But rationally speaking, the question is, Why?
    Is it for the same reasons that we were at one point naturally and instinctively repulsed by homosexuals? By atheists? By people with black sin?

    So anyone who is not instinctively repulsed by homosexuals must be gay or at the very least, bisexual?


    Academic viewpoints:


    "The diversity of sexual behavior in a cross-cultural perspective is amazing to those who assume that their own society’s moral standards are somehow laws of nature. Yet it is a fact that almost every sort of sexual activity : : : has been considered normal and acceptable in some society at some time: : : . Man-boy relationships are no exception to this rule of diversity: : : . Although they are roundly condemned by many segments of Western society as inherently abusive and exploitive, there have been (and still are) many societies that do not share this viewpoint."
    (Bauserman, 1997, p. 120)


    More
    http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    scott3x:

    There's nothing to debate when it comes to adults having sex with young children.

    I find your conflation of children aged 4 or 8 with adolescents aged 17 quite disturbing. This seems to me to be an attempted wedge strategy that pedophiles would find very attractive. First, you try to convince people that sex between a 50 year old and a 17 year old is acceptable and normal. Then, you work at pushing the age of the child downwards. If 17 is ok, then sex between a 50 year old and a 15 year old should be ok too, as long as the 15 year old is sexually mature blah de blah de blah. But if that's ok, what's wrong with the 50 year old "teaching" the 13 year old, who has just reached puberty, about the world of adult sex? And if 13 is ok, then why not an 8 year old, because 8-year olds would enjoy and benefit from sex with a 50 year old, for sure! 4 year olds, you say? Gee, well they hardly know what's going on, so anything a 50 year old does to them sexually could hardly be harmful, could it? Newborn babies? No worries.

    Please refer to my formal debate, linked for your reading pleasure above. There, I clearly and unambiguously set out some of the evidence for the very real and "actual" abuse that sex between adults and young kids causes. Why you choose to overlook this evidence worries me immensely. It sounds like the rationalisations of a pedophile.

    Note the word "prepubescent". Now let me ask you straight out:

    Do you beleive that a prepubescent child can give informed consent to sex with an adult? Yes or no? And if your answer is "yes", what do you base your opinion on?

    But you yourself at one stage here suggested a comprehensive "test" you wanted to be administered to people to gauge their intellectual understanding of sex. What was that all about, then?

    In other words, you want to eliminate the number one most important barrier to pedophiles - the fact that children cannot properly consent to their abuse. Oh, it doesn't matter, you say. As long as the pedophile thinks the abuse is ok, that's all that matters. The pedophile should be allowed to decide just how far he wants sexual activity with a child to go, because then the relationship will be "positive". Positive for who, scott3x? Only positive for the pedophile. The child, of course, will potentially suffer immense harm, but that doesn't matter to you, as long as the pedophiles get to get their rocks off.

    Another slippery slope. Hugging and kissing between the 50 year old and the 4 year old is ok. So, why not a bit of nudity too? Nudity, you say? Well, might as well have some touching and fondling too. What can it hurt? Touching with which parts of the body? Penis, you suggest? etc. etc.

    pedophile: an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
    pedophilia: sexual activity between an adult and a child.

    These terms seem pretty straight forward to me.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Hey James. I'm going to break up the response to you; I don't think it'd be that long if I did it all at once; the main issue is that it's emotionally draining, but a side issue is that I don't want to bring up too many points at once either.

    Thank you for not using the term 'abuse' right from the get go; to your point, I disagree; factors involved in debating such a topic, however are:
    1- The definition you're using for sex (sexual intercourse is certainly different then other forms of sexual activity).
    2- gender of the child.


    James, -I'm- not the one who conflates them; blame the people who created the legal definition of pedophile; pedophiles are legally defined as people who engage in sexual activities with people below the age of consent; the age of consent ranging from 13 to 17 in most countries for adult-minor sexual relations. It goes down further in some islamic countries, but marriage and consent of the parent must be involved, making the issue more complicated.


    I didn't try to convince anyone of this. I believe that such a relationship -could- be beneficial to both parties, but I certainly wouldn't see it as normal by today's standards of normalcy.


    Blad de blah de blah? No, I -definitely- don't think that's the way I would put it, laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Do I think a 15 year old could be defined as sexually mature? Sure. But we would need to have a way of testing sexual maturity in order to ascertain this.


    The issue of teaching gets into another thread of mine, namely the idea that only one party needs to be sexually mature, if one of the parties is sexually mature and fairly trustable to do what's right.


    How on earth could you think I'm saying that? -Ofcourse- a 50 year old -could- be harmful to a minor, or even to an adult, for that matter. The issue is not whether harm any 50 year old could be harmful to a minor, but whether they -would- be. For this reason, it is imperative to separate those who are deemed as trustworthy from those who are not.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    scott3x:

    You don't seem to get it. I present you with the slippery-slope argument that pedophiles use to attempt to justify a lowering of the "age of consent", and your response is, in effect, to support the pedophiles.

    It worries me immensely that you apparently can't comprehend how a pedophile sexually interfering with a child could possibly harm the child. Like ancientregime (who was banned, I remind you), you seem only to be able to grasp the possibility of physical harm involving actual physical force inflicted on the child. You seem to have no real comprehension of emotional or psychological states of children, and the short and long-terms psychological harms that can result from sexual abuse by adults.

    Do you think children are emotionally and/or psychologically different from adults in any important ways when it comes to sexual activities? Or do you think that children are essentially the same as adults when it comes to sex, only smaller?

    I am interested in how you think gender alters the impact of child sexual abuse. Please explain.

    No? You appear to be arguing that even 4 year olds can enjoy or benefit from sex with adults.

    There's little point in discussing borderline cases such as children near to the legal age of consent, at least until we resolve the issue of sex between adults and much younger children. If you think sex with a 4 year old is ok, then chances are you will also think sex with a 17 year old is ok (even if you're not personally attracted to 17 year olds).

    Again, let me ask you a direct question:

    At what age (if any) do you believe that a child is too young to engage in sexual activity with an adult?

    If you believe there is no age limit, then what criteria (if any) would you use to rule out sex between adults and children?

    In other words, you'd be quite happy to trust at least some pedophiles to have sex with 4 year olds without harming them. They'd just have to be the right pedophiles. I suppose you'd want a selection test for nice pedophiles, to make sure the children weren't harmed. Although, most pedophiles would be nice enough for most kids - do you think? They only want to "love" them, not hurt them. Eh?
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    As am I, when considering -some- definitions of paedophilia/pedophilia.


    I believe you are referring to people who are attracted to minors but don't wish to harm them. Using that definition, I certainly do think that they are disliked for many of the same reasons that the other groups you mention are disliked; because they don't conform to the norm.


    A very good point.


    Thanks for the excerpt, I've heard the same before and agree. From what I've read from the formal debate James had with ancientregime, Even James has acknowledged that other cultures don't see it the way western ones do, but he believes that the other cultures are wrong in this regard.
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I disagree, namely because the definition of pedophile is far too broad, for starters. In terms of people who are attracted -and- love minors, instead of those who simply engage in an illegal sexual activity with them (and may care little if at all for them), not all of them wish to lower the age of consent. Some want to eventually get rid of the age metric altogether, and instead replace it with tests for sexual maturity and trustworthiness of one or both of the people involved in a sexual interaction.


    What worries -me- intensely is that you apparently can't comprehend that I -do- comprehend that someone who's attracted to a minor can harm a child. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether someone who is attracted to minors -can- harm them (minors aren't the only people who can be sexually harmed either), but whether they always do. I don't think they do, and I think there are a fair amount of examples that demonstrate this. The one I've mentioned time and again is the case of Vili Fualaau and his older lover, Mary Kay Letourneau.


    Believe me, I haven't forgotten.


    I have mentioned in the past that is not the only harm I consider. I admit that at times I forget to mention other possibilities, but the most obvious possibility tends to come to mind first.


    What draws you to that conclusion?

    Ah, the 'abuse' term surfaces. Since I define abuse as harm, you kill the debate when you use that term ,as by my definition, actual abuse always equals harm.


    I think that sexual interactions, when taking size considerations into account, when in a supportive, consensual environment with the likely consequences properly weighed out, are beneficial. By supportive environment, I generally mean a -social- environment, not just the invididuals engaging in such an act. For this reason, I believe that many adult/minor sexual interactions can lead to painful consequences even if the sexual act was initially beneficial.


    Again with the abuse term. I will assume for a second that you said 'impact of the adult/child sexual interaction' as you know that I don't condone abuse by my definition of the term. In response to -that- statement, the gender matters because a vagina must be a certain size to comfortably fit a penis, but a child's penis is generally small enough to not fit uncomfortably in an adult woman's vagina. I believe that Tiassa also brought up the issue of a higher likelihood of cervical cancer in young females who engage in sexual intercourse as opposed to females of other ages, a point which should definitely be looked into.


    If the child is male, perhaps, in the type of environment I mentioned above. I doubt that's the case if the child is female. But my point stands; the legal definition of pedophile conflates -all- adult-minor sexual interactions below the age of consent in x jurisdiction into the same basket.


    I would argue precisely the reverse; I would argue that that's where we should -start-, as it's something that is more of a grey area in today's society then other adult/minor sexual interactions.


    I hope that I've now made it clear that I believe there are some significant differences between 17 year olds and 4 year olds.


    It depends on the participants, the sexual activity in question and the laws of the land.


    In a world where the laws were different, I believe that he criteria is rather simple; if it's beneficial, it should be permited. If it isn't, it shouldn't be.


    In other words, you'd be quite happy to trust at least some pedophiles to have sex with 4 year olds without harming them. They'd just have to be the right pedophiles. I suppose you'd want a selection test for nice pedophiles, to make sure the children weren't harmed. Although, most pedophiles would be nice enough for most kids - do you think? They only want to "love" them, not hurt them. Eh?[/QUOTE]

    Intention and action are at times different. I think the term MAA or Minor Attracted Adult, is better than pedophile, as some people defined as pedophiles care little if at all for minors. I certainly believe that some adults who are attracted to minors are nice people, and I would count Mary Kay Letourneau amoung them. As to who should qualify, I think that it would have to be people who have spent time demonstrating that they are capable of being entrusted with such a sacred task. At present, the people who are most entrusted with children are the children's parents. After this, I would say teachers. Ironically, I wouldn't always consider parents to fit the bill; unlike teachers, parents require no training before being entrusted with kids; and they're generally entrusted -more- with kids then teachers are. In fairness, I would contend that most parents -do- love their children very much, but there is a difference between caring for someone and knowing how to treat them properly, especially when it comes to sexual interactions.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Who wants to abolish the "age metric" and replace it "tests for sexual maturity and trustworthiness"?

    I don't think you quite understood what James meant by "smaller". I think he meant it more along the lines of children being viewed as adults sexually, but only smaller.. in stature.

    So an adult woman having sex with a 5 year old male child, as one example, wouldn't be harming the child because his penis would be small and would thus fit comfortable in her adult sized vagina? But a girl the same age having sex with an adult male would obviously suffer physical harm as well as the increased risk of cervical cancer.. so that's a no-no?

    I'm sorry, but I am sitting here trying to think of why you'd even be considering something like this and going into that much detail about where it would be harmful to have sex with a 4 year old and apparently where you think it might not be harmful?

    I won't even go into details of why it is fundamentally wrong for an adult woman to be having sex with a child. Because I think previous threads on this subject matter have drummed that point and frankly, I really can't be stuffed going back over all of that horror and reminding you of it. I would hope that you would know why it is fundamentally wrong. I say hope because at the moment, I am not so sure that you do know.

    But carrying on..

    Perhaps?

    Perhaps?

    Do you honestly think that a 4 year old boy can benefit from having sex with an adult woman?

    Okay. I need to ask this because I don't think anyone else has thus far.

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    Aside from size of genitals, no, no you haven't when it comes to having sex with adults.

    :bugeye:

    It depends on the participants? What? You can't think of a point where a child might be too young?

    How exactly would it be beneficial to the child to be having sex with an adult?

    Ah here we go. The politically correct term for paedophile.

    Do you think paedophiles care for children?

    Would a "nice" person cheat on her husband with a child she was legally responsible for as his teacher, destroying the lives of her children and her husband in the process? Not to mention his family and his future?

    Do you know many people who are attracted to minors? I have met a few and "nice" is not how I would describe them.

    So how would you test to see who was "nice" enough to test if a child were sexually mature? At what age should the tests begin? Newborns? Baby? Toddlers?

    I just threw up a bit in my mouth after reading that.

    So pray tell, how exactly would a parent or teacher (or trusted individual) conduct these tests? What do you think those tests should involve?
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    scott3x:

    Of course pedophiles want to abolish age-of-consent laws. That goes without saying. I doubt most of them are too concerned about your proposed testing for sexual maturity.

    How do you propose to test the sexual maturity of a 4 year old?

    And how many 4 year olds do you think would pass your proposed test, so that sexual activity with adults would be allowed?

    The fact that some children may not suffer long-term harm from sexual abuse in no way makes sexual abuse acceptable or desirable.

    Take a parallel argument: car crashes in which the occupants are not wearing seat belts can result in in serious injury to the occupants of the cars. But the question is not whether they can result in serious injury, but whether they always do result in serious injury. Since some seatbeltless car crashes do not in fact result in serious injury, as proved by numerous examples, therefore, by the scott3x argument, we ought not to mandate the wearing of seatbelts in cars. We ought to abolish all laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts.

    Your fantasy that a 4 year old child can benefit from from sex with a nice friendly pedophile, to take one obvious example.

    Please explain for me the ways in which a 4 year old could benefit from sex with a friendly 30 year old pedophile, in your opinion.

    So, gender is only relevant to the mechanics of the sex acts, and the possible physical harms that might result. I see.

    Ok then. You said you wanted to completely abolish age-of-consent laws. Suppose that isn't possible in the first instance. Then, I assume you would like to at least lower the age of consent from 18 to - what? - 13, let's say? Or some other age? (Please feel free to specify the age you think appropriate as a first step)? What arguments would you make to legislators to justify lowering the age of consent? Presumably you would want your sex test to be administered to people in a certain age range, and if they passed they'd then be fair game for pedophilic adults. At which minimum age do you thinkthat a child could pass your sex test to qualify as ready and appropriate for sex with adults?

    Could you briefly list what you think are the most important ones?

    So, in theory, no age is too young. A 4 year old wouldn't necessarily be too young, given the "right" sexual activity, in your opinion. Right? Let's assume a very caring and "loving" pedophile, and an average 4 year old. What kinds of sexual activities would be appropriate for this age group, in general? Intercourse? Oral sex? Mutual masturbation? Fondling of the child's genitals by the adult?

    How would they demonstrate that they are appropriate people to have sex with kids?

    Are you advocating incest as well, now?

    How about a professional pedophile training course, after which the pedophile would be considered properly qualified? There could be separate qualification courses for primary school pedophiles, pre-school pedophiles and secondary-school pedophiles. What do you think?
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I do, for one. I believe there are others as well; I'm no the only person who has come up with ideas on how to test sexual maturity, that's for sure. Here's the most well known test of adultness:
    Working with colleague Diane Dumas, Dr. Robert Epstein, a longtime researcher and professor and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, has developed a unique and comprehensive test—the Epstein-Dumas Test of Adultness (EDTA)—that measures 14 different competencies that appear to define adult functioning in modern society. I don't see him say anywhere that he'd like to do away with the AoC laws, but I certainly believe that in comparison to testing for maturity directly, age is a poor metric in comparison.


    It's certainly not my viewpoint. There is no doubt that there are physiological differences between pre pubescents and pubescents, for instance. I also believe that a (legal) child's psychology tends to change as they grow older. The fundamental issue, though, is this: because younger people are different in some ways to older people, does this mean that their sexual rights should be as repressed as they currently are? The question isn't completely simple; when it comes to certain risk taking behaviour, such as engaging in sex without the use of contraceptives, I think the people involved should be able to raise the child without anyone involuntarily getting roped in (such as parents of one or both of the people involved).


    Yes and no. Yes, things such as comfort are certainly important. As to harm, we must analyze this situation with a view to the laws of the land; regardless of whether or not a 5 year old (or a 13 year old, as the case of Vili Fualaau) may find having sex enjoyable with a woman may be, we must take into consideration the laws of the land. I have a feeling that if Vili Fualaau and Mary Kay Letourneau could do it all over again, they may well have chosen to wait until -after- he was of age and spared themselves a lot of grief.


    Because I was asked to consider it, by James. I'm not the person supplying the numbers here; I have already said that I would prefer to deal with the teen range, as that's generally a far more palateable subject for most people and there are already countries, even western countries, that have the age of consent as low as 13.


    You may think whatever you wish. I will keep on drumming up the example of Vili Fualaau and Mary Kay Letourneau as well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page