But most of these laws (in the U.S.) have their basis in Christian mores, not logic. In many states historically, the AOC was significantly lower for females who were married. So it was ok for you to have sex with her as long as you married her first, such as when Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen year old cousin. And as you can see, only two states in the union have laws making the age of consent to marriage older than 18.
Delete the paedophilia threads
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
- Status
But most of these laws (in the U.S.) have their basis in Christian mores, not logic. In many states historically, the AOC was significantly lower for females who were married. So it was ok for you to have sex with her as long as you married her first, such as when Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen year old cousin. And as you can see, only two states in the union have laws making the age of consent to marriage older than 18.
Christian mores? Schizophrenic mores. Dissociative mores.
Marrying aged under 18 is almost never appropriate.
Marrying aged under 18 is almost never appropriate.
It certainly doesn't seem to end well very often. The changes you go through between your late teens to your early twenties are massive. And it has only recently been discovered that the human brain isn't fully formed until you are in your mid twenties.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html
Italics emphasis mine.
VI, you may be right, but how do we separate the two? I know of at least one marriage to a 15 year old (mine - I was 17 at the time) that did not result in long term psychological harm... (I think
) As has been mentioned, historically, 18 is way old. So how do we deal with this issue as a society? Ignore the wishes of those who are capable of "informed consent" to marry?Italics emphasis mine.
VI, you may be right, but how do we separate the two? I know of at least one marriage to a 15 year old (mine - I was 17 at the time) that did not result in long term psychological harm... (I think
I believe Randwolf is bringing up what I'm bringing up in a different way- people shouldn't be relegated to statistical probabilities of what works. I believe that individual cases deserve a fair hearing, whether the partners are 15 and 17 or 13 and 34.
ok now you are talking about a compleatly different thing, your talking about the age of concent POST pubity. Lets say for example that a 17 year old and a 20 year old decide in good faith to have sex, the older person cheats, or they have a fight or the younger persons parents complain or whatever and they make a complaint to the police.
Now in places where the age of concent is 18 the older person would go to jail, in places where its 16 they wouldnt. This is known in advance
If legislation to the effect YOU suggest was to get put into place then nither party would be able to have any confidence in the outcome of the investigation\trial at all. It would be left to a group of 12 people to decide if they belived the younger could concent. How could ANYONE have any confidence going into a sexual relationship that they were doing the right thing when acting in good faith?
Say for instance it was two males having sex and the jury was stacked with homophobes because it was some small country town. How could the judge determine if the jury was making a valid decision or if they were pandering to there own preduces?
Further more even if the jury WAS acting in good faith everyone of them would need a psych degree to actually work out if the relationship WAS in good faith or not.
Not to mention that they would also have to determine if the older person was acting in good faith or if they were being exploitive. Say the relationship WAS exploitive and that was the aim of the older person, how could a procutor actually PROVE that in court?
What your suggesting would be impossable
Now in places where the age of concent is 18 the older person would go to jail, in places where its 16 they wouldnt. This is known in advance
If legislation to the effect YOU suggest was to get put into place then nither party would be able to have any confidence in the outcome of the investigation\trial at all. It would be left to a group of 12 people to decide if they belived the younger could concent. How could ANYONE have any confidence going into a sexual relationship that they were doing the right thing when acting in good faith?
Say for instance it was two males having sex and the jury was stacked with homophobes because it was some small country town. How could the judge determine if the jury was making a valid decision or if they were pandering to there own preduces?
Further more even if the jury WAS acting in good faith everyone of them would need a psych degree to actually work out if the relationship WAS in good faith or not.
Not to mention that they would also have to determine if the older person was acting in good faith or if they were being exploitive. Say the relationship WAS exploitive and that was the aim of the older person, how could a procutor actually PROVE that in court?
What your suggesting would be impossable
Who are you talking to here?
The law is not in place to punish the precocious, but to protect the less developed. We need a line drawn somewhere, and then rely on sanity in the legal system to decide each case based upon it's merits.
But lets get a few things straight, some things that seem to be flying over the heads of the moderators here, Ancient is not discussing the age of consent, he's talking about abusing children. I don't know why the mods can't make this distinction, but they can't. I'm quite sickened by their attitude to be honest.
not to mention exploiting the innocent, something that scott refused to address.
Fundamental differences
It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't. If it's 60% of a large enough body of information, it's enough. But it still doesn't speak to—
I think it was Paula Poundstone who delivered the punch line. You need a license to have a dog; anyone can have a kid.
But I would ask you to think about the prospect for a moment: Devising tests for emotional and psychological development in order to license sexual intercourse between adults and children.
Okay:
Statistics and averages represent symptoms or manifestations of fundamental differences; they suggest or indicate the practical outcomes resulting from those differences. The American Psychological Associaton filed an amicus brief with the court in Roper. Their own summary of the position they asserted:
The brief itself is, of course, a bit more detailed, but suggests fundamental differences in the decision-making processes of adults and juveniles, including actual physical brain function. That is, they're not running the same electricity through the same gates and simply reaching diverse conclusions; what we're looking at is a fundamentally different system.
Again, you are looking at fundamental differences in decision making processes—and, as such, capabilities—between children and adolescents on the one hand, and adults to the other.
If you can show a neuropsychological basis for it, the thesis would at least be arguable.
If we go by the data, we push those age barriers back. Maybe driving at 18, voting, jury duty, and war service at 21. Marriage at 21, probably.
Attempting to measure maturity directly in order to determine social status? I must admit, there's some economic stimulus to be found in compulsory testing of millions—billions, over time—of Americans to make sure they're ready to have sex.
And I beg your pardon if I find that highly amusing.
This entire child-banging theme of late keeps bringing me back to a great quote from The Simpsons (#AABF18, "They Saved Lisa's Brain"):
I would contest that assertion and suggest that what you're failing to account for is that such interest exists in the context of the fundamental differences in decision-making processes in adolescent and adult brains.
I once knew a girl who swore—and cited her aunt, who was allegedly a doctor—that you can't contract HIV through oral sex.
And it is observable that young children masturbate. I've actually witnessed this behavior—unquestionably—in a three year-old. Nothing about that fact means that the girl needs some thirty year-old diddling her clit.
Again, "three gets you five". I couldn't tell you at what point I start being comfortable with that gap. I was seventeen, my girlfriend fifteen, so on principle I can't say a whole lot about that. But a fifteen year-old on a twelve year-old? Or eleven, if we want to throw out that gap? That's definitely worrisome.
Maybe you've already forgotten high school. I'm thirty-five and I still remember thinking parents were being way too simplistic about the "just say no" philosophy. I still remember how insanely cruel kids can be to one another. The only difference between then and now, in fact, is that it's a hell of a lot easier now to tell people to fuck off when I need to. Because of the fundamental differences between adolescent and adult decision-making processes, it's a hell of a lot harder to shame me into doing something I don't want to do.
As Leopold noted, you seem to be looking past exploitation.
And Scott, if the situation really was so simple as you describe it, the problem isn't "that lying bitch", but the wife and the boss.
South Park is good for identifying and verifying the existence of certain cultural references. But the episodes intentionally don't make substantial arguments. There's the Lord of the Flies/Children of the Corn episode you mentioned. Also Hate Crimes/Chewbacca Defense, Osama Bin Laden/Farty Pants, Iraq War/A Little Bit Country and A Little Bit Rock and Roll, and several other episodes where the point was to take the most grotesque exaggerations of a problem and stretch them to the point of being ridiculous.
As I alluded to Bells in my prior post, I just last week watched a sexual abuse allegation rightly and essentially die. (More appropriately, I suppose, it is currently comatose.) Even with a suspect the parents knew the name of, the investigation stalled and died for lack of merit without even investigating the suspect. Now, I'm one who really doesn't get along with law enforcement; ask around if you doubt that. I saw a child advocacy group conduct itself properly and a police detective operating honestly. In fact, the only people whose conduct I question in this case were the child's mother and maternal grandparents. The situation should never have gone as far as it did.
Okay, let's revisit a point I made earlier in this post: Statistics and averages represent symptoms or manifestations of fundamental differences; they suggest or indicate the practical outcomes resulting from those differences.
Did this somehow not occur to you when you made the point about statistics?
There comes a point in considering certain concepts and constructions that the removed perspective starts looking like a façade. There are plenty of routes for addressing the conflicted sexual mores of any given society. That you have chosen this particular ingress says nothing in and of itself. However, this pedophilia-related theme, combined with your devoted attachment to the argument of advocacy does make people wonder. And while the idea that statistics represent manifestations of fundamental components is not always immediately apparent, especially in our age of politically-tailored opinion statistics, your leap from something like "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" to a purely statistical consideration is curious. Yes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, but the way to weaken a statistical assertion is to crack its foundation. Instead of criticizing that foundation—e.g., "The underlying logic of the Roper decision was that the juvenile decision-making process was fundamentally different from that of an adult."—you ignored it altogether.
This whole theme orbiting pedophilia seems to mean a lot to you. And people are confused as to why. You're arguing principles in the face of reality, and if it was really that important to you, why have you never considered these things?
So, yes, people wonder what your stake in this is.
What is your stake in this, then? I do not accept, as a valid basis, a fear that some random accusation with no foundation will land you or anyone else in prison. In a culture where an accused molester can be acquitted because a prepubescent child didn't scream loudly enough (while an erect penis was jammed into her mouth), or a jury in Florida will acquit a rapist because a woman "asked for it" by wearing clothes the man found sexy, and, furthermore, having just watched a strange sexual abuse investigation founder for lack of evidence, I just don't buy this masculinist paranoia.
Bullshit. Children must learn differentiation. That is, they must learn to distinguish between one condition and another. It is entirely natural that a developing psyche will wander into what we might consider dangerous territory. It is the duty of adults who ought to know better to protect the children from those dangers.
I reject that. My desire to smoke marijuana is in no applicable way analogous to a child's natural sexual curiosity. Cocaine addiction is in no way analogous to a child's natural sexual curiosity.
And in blaming dealers ... no. One can easily demonize a cocaine dealer for preying on people whose addiction renders them unable to make properly informed decisions, but the same can be said of the really nice family that runs the 7-Eleven up the street who sell me cigarettes. Still, though, my addiction is something I did to myself. And resuming smoking after eighteen months off, or eight, as the last stretch went, was my own decision and I damn well knew better. In fact, I was talking with a friend about this Friday night, talking about how I was doing just fine, and in control of my nicotine addiction until one day, after having spent eight hours on my hands and knees, bruising my knuckles on a marine water filtration system and crawling around in the back of a minivan and on the molded fiberglass floor of a yacht, I wanted nothing more than a beer and a cigarette. It was a bad decision, yes. But it was a decision made in consideration of more years smoking than the adolescents we're discussing here have been alive.
Yeah, and I wanted to see their panties, and reveled in every glimpse of a bra. And I said all sorts of stupid things about the what I could do for them and at no point did I have any real clue what I was saying.
Neither did you when you were eleven.
Yes. You were the smart, wise one. Right.
One of the things about such statements that make people suspicious is that, even accepting that you really are a noble guy and all that, it's exactly what the bad guys say. They're honest, innocent, or protective. And it's always the women who are lying bitches or so naîve as to require the man's protection.
It's exactly what it sounds like. In most states, there is a built-in gap of three years. If the participants are three years apart or less, there's no crime. Beyond that, there's a problem.
Dude ... I went to a Jesuit high school. In theory? Yeah, and in practice.
How many people went to your high school, Scott? How many guys lost their virginity with classmates who were also minors? How many of them went to jail or even simply faced prosecution for getting laid?
Accounting for my circle of friends, well, let's see ... among five thousand students in three high schools where the most part of my friends went to school, exactly zero. The number of alleged actual rapes that went unreported? I lost count.
Be very careful when you appeal to people's parenthood. Especially when you're treading on such thin ice. Advocates of pedophilia, historically, have done a poor job of stating their case.
You might find yourself in an age where parents are no longer so wickedly paranoid as to teach their children to sleep with their hands outside the blankets, or tell them stupid things like masturbation will make them go blind, but no, we're not about to offer up our children to a bunch of socially-dysfunctional predators who depend on emotional immaturity and psychological underdevelopment to find sexual gratification.
Conveniently? Conveniently?
Dude ... it's not a competition. Children are not prizes to be won.
No. An anorexic whose behavior stems from guilt she feels about playing doctor with the neighbor boy when she was five is a testament to the absurdity of the rules. A fifteen year-old girl weeping on her boyfriend's shoulder, apologizing that she wasn't a virgin for their first time together—because her father raped her—is a testament to the absurdity of the rules. Spending forty million dollars investigating a blowjob is a testament to the absurdity of the rules.
Yeah, well, if an adult feels so much exposure that an eleven year-old can blackmail them into a sexual favor, one wonders what's up with the adult.
No, my point is that even among adults, blackmailing for sex is indicative of emotional underdevelopment or imbalance. And adults are the ones who are supposed to be emotionally mature, not children.
It's also symptomatic of repressive sexual mores in a culture. First, why is baring one's breasts shameful? Secondly, if it's so sinful, why would the town gather to watch?
There is an idea called "Puritan pornography". An example can be found in old Anti-Catholic League tracts from the early twentieth century. Some of these were pretty scandalous, including salacious details of what perverted Catholics were up to. Not only did this provide an opportunity to judge and condemn, but it also provided convenient titillation.
Exactly.
Yes. But there is a difference between being honest in the instruction of children and getting on an eleven year-old.
It relies on the exploitation of emotional immaturity to achieve gratification.
Wow. We now have a politically-correct phrase for pedophiles?
What would you call it? Exploring all the options?
I don't know, is it singles night? Other than that, yes. If meeting a woman to sleep with is your purpose, then yes, you're trolling for tail.
Think of it this way: You go out with your friends, hit a couple bars, have a few drinks, and head over to a concert. Along the way, a woman asks you for a light. You strike up a conversation as you smoke, and romance blossoms.
To the other: You want to get laid, so you head out to a bar where you know there is a high female population and start offering to buy women drinks.
Yeah, there's a difference.
An adult who wishes to flirt with a minor?
Nonetheless, this is not a reasonable argument in and of itself.
That's actually for the better, Scott.
If a person communicates to their peers that he or she has failed to comprehend socialization among their own generation, those peers will generally respond negatively. Society, with all its demand for decorum and melodrama, will make that point in diverse ways, and before anyone tries to point me to this or that tribal society, I would remind that if that tribal society was so well-organized, they would be world leaders and we who don't bang children would be the third-world tribe.
Right there. Okay, Scott, I want to take a moment to make a certain point: This is where you're losing people. Trust me on this one. Among the people who have been disagreeing with you on the general principle, I don't know who is giving you what sympathy in terms of this or that facet of your argument. But I can assure you, sir, that whatever else can be acknowledged, this is where you're absolutely, without question, officially losing people.
Variable privileges based on psychological maturity that is ... measured how?
Oh, just as we give driver's licenses to those who demonstrate proficient knowledge. I'm intentionally not making the joke about capability. Because, well, driving instructors .... Never mind. Right.
To the one, I would point out that knowledge does not reflect emotional or psychological maturity. Road rage, hit-and-run. Not everyone with a driver's license is actually ready for the responsibilities of driving.
To the other, what does the bureaucracy look like? You know, to certify that, say, this one is ready to fuck?
So you want to know why people might look at you like you're some kind of pervert? Well, this is an example that I would call the nearest marker beyond the limit of what the logic of the anti-child-banging outlook accepts. As broadly as I might try to define everything in order to try to understand the merit of your point, I cannot believe you can't see how desperate your argument appears when it is so determined to find a reason that it's okay to fuck children that it should become something in any way resembling a bureaucratic consideration.
And yet you keep returning to knowledge, which is in itself insufficient.
Okay, so I see the entire formula marked with emotional immaturity. And this is the context in which some young people think they want adult sexual partners. The idea of certifying which cultural immaturity is mature enough to have sex with is more than simply problematic. You're reaching way too far to justify this change.
And I believe an emotionally mature future will include the continued growth of the body of information that speaks against the advisability of adult-adolescent sexual relationships.
____________________
Notes:
American Psychological Association. "Roper v. Simmons". PsycLaw. Accessed March 1, 2009. http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.html
Gilfoye, Nathalie F. P. et al. "Brief for the American Psychological Association, and the Missouri Psychological Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent". Roper v. Simmons. July 19, 2004. PsycLaw. Accessed March 1, 2009. http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.pdf
Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "They Saved Lisa's Brain". SNPP.com. Accessed March 1, 2009. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF18
Scott3x said:
It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't. If it's 60% of a large enough body of information, it's enough. But it still doesn't speak to—
I think it was Paula Poundstone who delivered the punch line. You need a license to have a dog; anyone can have a kid.
But I would ask you to think about the prospect for a moment: Devising tests for emotional and psychological development in order to license sexual intercourse between adults and children.
Okay:
(A) If e'er there was a case of going to extreme lengths to obtain a questionable prize, this would be it.
(B) The proposition itself suggests psychological dysfunction insofar as I really don't see why it's that important to establish our right as adults to have sex with children.
(B) The proposition itself suggests psychological dysfunction insofar as I really don't see why it's that important to establish our right as adults to have sex with children.
Statistics and averages represent symptoms or manifestations of fundamental differences; they suggest or indicate the practical outcomes resulting from those differences. The American Psychological Associaton filed an amicus brief with the court in Roper. Their own summary of the position they asserted:
The brief presented behavioral research on the developmental characteristics of late adolescents, featuring in particular recent studies from the MacArthur Foundation’s Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, a collection of experts in psychology, sociology, public policy, law and legal practice. The brief also provides the Court with research and expert opinion about the characteristics of adolescents such as less mature decision-making, impulsivity, risk-taking, peer orientation, temporal perspective (the extent to which long term and short term consequences are taken into account) and vulnerability to coercion and false confession. In addition, included was recent relevant MRI research on brain function suggesting that the brain continues to develop through young adulthood in areas that may bear on adolescent decision-making.
The brief itself is, of course, a bit more detailed, but suggests fundamental differences in the decision-making processes of adults and juveniles, including actual physical brain function. That is, they're not running the same electricity through the same gates and simply reaching diverse conclusions; what we're looking at is a fundamentally different system.
At ages 16 and 17, adolescents, as a group, are not yet mature in ways that affect their decision-making. Behavioral studies show that late adolescents are less likely to consider alternative courses of action, understand the perspective of others, and restrain impulses. Delinquent, even criminal, behavior is characteristic of many adolescents, often peaking around age 18. Heightened risk-taking is also common. During the same period, the brain has not reached adult maturity, particularly in the frontal lobes, which control executive functions of the brain related to decision-making.
(Gilfoye, 2)
Adolescence is a unique stage of human development, bearing its own distinctive psychosocial and physiological traits that shape judgment and behavior. Those developmental differences adversely affect the reliability of determinations about the character and long-term behavior of adolescents, including 16- and 17- year-olds ....
(ibid, 4)
Adolescence is a period in which character is forming and often involves heightened risk-taking and even criminal conduct which are moderated or eliminated by the individual in adulthood ....
A steep increase “in antisocial behavior between ages 7 and 17” is mirrored by a steep decrease “in antisocial behavior between ages 17 and 30.” .... With slight variations, the general correlation between age and crime holds between “males and females, for most types of crimes, during recent historical periods, and in numerous Western nations.”
(ibid, 5-6)
... levels of planning and thinking about the future increase as adolescents grow older .... In sum, the same person who engages in risky or even criminal behavior as an adolescent may moderate or desist from these behaviors as an adult. Indeed, most do.
(ibid, 7)
Why do adolescents show differences from adults with respect to risk-taking, planning, inhibiting impulses, and generating alternatives? Recent research suggests a biological dimension to adolescent behavioral immaturity: the human brain does not settle into its mature, adult form until after the adolescent years have passed and a person has entered young adulthood.
Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology have opened a new window into the differences between adolescent and adult brains. MRI technology produces exquisitely accurate pictures of the inner body and brain. Beginning in the 1990s, “functional” MRIs have allowed mapping not only of brain anatomy but observation of brain functioning while an individual performs tasks involving speech, perception, reasoning, and decision-making ....
Of particular interest with regard to decision-making and criminal culpability is the development of the frontal lobes of the brain. The frontal lobes, especially the prefrontal cortex, play a critical role in the executive or “CEO” functions of the brain which are considered the higher functions of the brain .... Frontal lobe impairment has been associated with greater impulsivity, difficulties in concentration, attention, and self-monitoring, and impairments in decision-making .... One “hallmark of frontal lobe dysfunction is difficulty in making decisions that are in the long-term best interests of the individual.” ....
Neurodevelopmental MRI studies indicate this executive area of the brain is one of the last parts of the brain to reach maturity ....
.... In a study of minors ages 5 through 17, white matter within the prefrontal area of the frontal lobes steadily increased with age, likely reflecting the advances of myelination ....
.... A recent longitudinal MRI study captured common patterns of development by rescanning the same children and adolescents ages 4 to 21 every two years over the course of a ten-year period. Researchers found that the maturation of the brain cortex, or outer layer, followed “regionally relevant milestones in cognitive and functional development,” ... with “[p]arts of the brain associated with more basic functions matur[ing] early.” .... Again, the study confirmed that “[l]ater to mature were areas involved in executive function, attention, and motor coordination (frontal lobes).” ....
.... (EEG study revealed that, between age 15 and adulthood, fiber networks focused primarily in the frontal lobes grew, allowing for greater functional associations among the regions of the brain).
Emerging from the neuropsychological research is a striking view of the brain and its gradual maturation, in far greater detail than seen before. Although the precise underlying mechanisms continue to be explored, what is certain is that, in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete, particularly those involving the brain’s executive functions.
(ibid, 9-12)
(Gilfoye, 2)
• • •
Adolescence is a unique stage of human development, bearing its own distinctive psychosocial and physiological traits that shape judgment and behavior. Those developmental differences adversely affect the reliability of determinations about the character and long-term behavior of adolescents, including 16- and 17- year-olds ....
(ibid, 4)
• • •
Adolescence is a period in which character is forming and often involves heightened risk-taking and even criminal conduct which are moderated or eliminated by the individual in adulthood ....
A steep increase “in antisocial behavior between ages 7 and 17” is mirrored by a steep decrease “in antisocial behavior between ages 17 and 30.” .... With slight variations, the general correlation between age and crime holds between “males and females, for most types of crimes, during recent historical periods, and in numerous Western nations.”
(ibid, 5-6)
• • •
... levels of planning and thinking about the future increase as adolescents grow older .... In sum, the same person who engages in risky or even criminal behavior as an adolescent may moderate or desist from these behaviors as an adult. Indeed, most do.
(ibid, 7)
• • •
Why do adolescents show differences from adults with respect to risk-taking, planning, inhibiting impulses, and generating alternatives? Recent research suggests a biological dimension to adolescent behavioral immaturity: the human brain does not settle into its mature, adult form until after the adolescent years have passed and a person has entered young adulthood.
Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology have opened a new window into the differences between adolescent and adult brains. MRI technology produces exquisitely accurate pictures of the inner body and brain. Beginning in the 1990s, “functional” MRIs have allowed mapping not only of brain anatomy but observation of brain functioning while an individual performs tasks involving speech, perception, reasoning, and decision-making ....
Of particular interest with regard to decision-making and criminal culpability is the development of the frontal lobes of the brain. The frontal lobes, especially the prefrontal cortex, play a critical role in the executive or “CEO” functions of the brain which are considered the higher functions of the brain .... Frontal lobe impairment has been associated with greater impulsivity, difficulties in concentration, attention, and self-monitoring, and impairments in decision-making .... One “hallmark of frontal lobe dysfunction is difficulty in making decisions that are in the long-term best interests of the individual.” ....
Neurodevelopmental MRI studies indicate this executive area of the brain is one of the last parts of the brain to reach maturity ....
.... In a study of minors ages 5 through 17, white matter within the prefrontal area of the frontal lobes steadily increased with age, likely reflecting the advances of myelination ....
.... A recent longitudinal MRI study captured common patterns of development by rescanning the same children and adolescents ages 4 to 21 every two years over the course of a ten-year period. Researchers found that the maturation of the brain cortex, or outer layer, followed “regionally relevant milestones in cognitive and functional development,” ... with “[p]arts of the brain associated with more basic functions matur[ing] early.” .... Again, the study confirmed that “[l]ater to mature were areas involved in executive function, attention, and motor coordination (frontal lobes).” ....
.... (EEG study revealed that, between age 15 and adulthood, fiber networks focused primarily in the frontal lobes grew, allowing for greater functional associations among the regions of the brain).
Emerging from the neuropsychological research is a striking view of the brain and its gradual maturation, in far greater detail than seen before. Although the precise underlying mechanisms continue to be explored, what is certain is that, in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete, particularly those involving the brain’s executive functions.
(ibid, 9-12)
Again, you are looking at fundamental differences in decision making processes—and, as such, capabilities—between children and adolescents on the one hand, and adults to the other.
If you can show a neuropsychological basis for it, the thesis would at least be arguable.
I find it highly amusing that you yourself are only buttressing my case. Approximate indeed
If we go by the data, we push those age barriers back. Maybe driving at 18, voting, jury duty, and war service at 21. Marriage at 21, probably.
Attempting to measure maturity directly in order to determine social status? I must admit, there's some economic stimulus to be found in compulsory testing of millions—billions, over time—of Americans to make sure they're ready to have sex.
And I beg your pardon if I find that highly amusing.
This entire child-banging theme of late keeps bringing me back to a great quote from The Simpsons (#AABF18, "They Saved Lisa's Brain"):
Comic Book Guy: Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will be much less breeding. For me, much, much more.
I would contest that assertion and suggest that what you're failing to account for is that such interest exists in the context of the fundamental differences in decision-making processes in adolescent and adult brains.
I once knew a girl who swore—and cited her aunt, who was allegedly a doctor—that you can't contract HIV through oral sex.
And it is observable that young children masturbate. I've actually witnessed this behavior—unquestionably—in a three year-old. Nothing about that fact means that the girl needs some thirty year-old diddling her clit.
Again, "three gets you five". I couldn't tell you at what point I start being comfortable with that gap. I was seventeen, my girlfriend fifteen, so on principle I can't say a whole lot about that. But a fifteen year-old on a twelve year-old? Or eleven, if we want to throw out that gap? That's definitely worrisome.
Maybe you've already forgotten high school. I'm thirty-five and I still remember thinking parents were being way too simplistic about the "just say no" philosophy. I still remember how insanely cruel kids can be to one another. The only difference between then and now, in fact, is that it's a hell of a lot easier now to tell people to fuck off when I need to. Because of the fundamental differences between adolescent and adult decision-making processes, it's a hell of a lot harder to shame me into doing something I don't want to do.
As Leopold noted, you seem to be looking past exploitation.
And Scott, if the situation really was so simple as you describe it, the problem isn't "that lying bitch", but the wife and the boss.
South Park is good for identifying and verifying the existence of certain cultural references. But the episodes intentionally don't make substantial arguments. There's the Lord of the Flies/Children of the Corn episode you mentioned. Also Hate Crimes/Chewbacca Defense, Osama Bin Laden/Farty Pants, Iraq War/A Little Bit Country and A Little Bit Rock and Roll, and several other episodes where the point was to take the most grotesque exaggerations of a problem and stretch them to the point of being ridiculous.
As I alluded to Bells in my prior post, I just last week watched a sexual abuse allegation rightly and essentially die. (More appropriately, I suppose, it is currently comatose.) Even with a suspect the parents knew the name of, the investigation stalled and died for lack of merit without even investigating the suspect. Now, I'm one who really doesn't get along with law enforcement; ask around if you doubt that. I saw a child advocacy group conduct itself properly and a police detective operating honestly. In fact, the only people whose conduct I question in this case were the child's mother and maternal grandparents. The situation should never have gone as far as it did.
Okay, let's revisit a point I made earlier in this post: Statistics and averages represent symptoms or manifestations of fundamental differences; they suggest or indicate the practical outcomes resulting from those differences.
Did this somehow not occur to you when you made the point about statistics?
There comes a point in considering certain concepts and constructions that the removed perspective starts looking like a façade. There are plenty of routes for addressing the conflicted sexual mores of any given society. That you have chosen this particular ingress says nothing in and of itself. However, this pedophilia-related theme, combined with your devoted attachment to the argument of advocacy does make people wonder. And while the idea that statistics represent manifestations of fundamental components is not always immediately apparent, especially in our age of politically-tailored opinion statistics, your leap from something like "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" to a purely statistical consideration is curious. Yes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, but the way to weaken a statistical assertion is to crack its foundation. Instead of criticizing that foundation—e.g., "The underlying logic of the Roper decision was that the juvenile decision-making process was fundamentally different from that of an adult."—you ignored it altogether.
This whole theme orbiting pedophilia seems to mean a lot to you. And people are confused as to why. You're arguing principles in the face of reality, and if it was really that important to you, why have you never considered these things?
So, yes, people wonder what your stake in this is.
What is your stake in this, then? I do not accept, as a valid basis, a fear that some random accusation with no foundation will land you or anyone else in prison. In a culture where an accused molester can be acquitted because a prepubescent child didn't scream loudly enough (while an erect penis was jammed into her mouth), or a jury in Florida will acquit a rapist because a woman "asked for it" by wearing clothes the man found sexy, and, furthermore, having just watched a strange sexual abuse investigation founder for lack of evidence, I just don't buy this masculinist paranoia.
Bullshit. Children must learn differentiation. That is, they must learn to distinguish between one condition and another. It is entirely natural that a developing psyche will wander into what we might consider dangerous territory. It is the duty of adults who ought to know better to protect the children from those dangers.
I reject that. My desire to smoke marijuana is in no applicable way analogous to a child's natural sexual curiosity. Cocaine addiction is in no way analogous to a child's natural sexual curiosity.
And in blaming dealers ... no. One can easily demonize a cocaine dealer for preying on people whose addiction renders them unable to make properly informed decisions, but the same can be said of the really nice family that runs the 7-Eleven up the street who sell me cigarettes. Still, though, my addiction is something I did to myself. And resuming smoking after eighteen months off, or eight, as the last stretch went, was my own decision and I damn well knew better. In fact, I was talking with a friend about this Friday night, talking about how I was doing just fine, and in control of my nicotine addiction until one day, after having spent eight hours on my hands and knees, bruising my knuckles on a marine water filtration system and crawling around in the back of a minivan and on the molded fiberglass floor of a yacht, I wanted nothing more than a beer and a cigarette. It was a bad decision, yes. But it was a decision made in consideration of more years smoking than the adolescents we're discussing here have been alive.
Yeah, and I wanted to see their panties, and reveled in every glimpse of a bra. And I said all sorts of stupid things about the what I could do for them and at no point did I have any real clue what I was saying.
Neither did you when you were eleven.
Yes. You were the smart, wise one. Right.
One of the things about such statements that make people suspicious is that, even accepting that you really are a noble guy and all that, it's exactly what the bad guys say. They're honest, innocent, or protective. And it's always the women who are lying bitches or so naîve as to require the man's protection.
It's exactly what it sounds like. In most states, there is a built-in gap of three years. If the participants are three years apart or less, there's no crime. Beyond that, there's a problem.
Dude ... I went to a Jesuit high school. In theory? Yeah, and in practice.
How many people went to your high school, Scott? How many guys lost their virginity with classmates who were also minors? How many of them went to jail or even simply faced prosecution for getting laid?
Accounting for my circle of friends, well, let's see ... among five thousand students in three high schools where the most part of my friends went to school, exactly zero. The number of alleged actual rapes that went unreported? I lost count.
Be very careful when you appeal to people's parenthood. Especially when you're treading on such thin ice. Advocates of pedophilia, historically, have done a poor job of stating their case.
You might find yourself in an age where parents are no longer so wickedly paranoid as to teach their children to sleep with their hands outside the blankets, or tell them stupid things like masturbation will make them go blind, but no, we're not about to offer up our children to a bunch of socially-dysfunctional predators who depend on emotional immaturity and psychological underdevelopment to find sexual gratification.
Conveniently? Conveniently?
Dude ... it's not a competition. Children are not prizes to be won.
No. An anorexic whose behavior stems from guilt she feels about playing doctor with the neighbor boy when she was five is a testament to the absurdity of the rules. A fifteen year-old girl weeping on her boyfriend's shoulder, apologizing that she wasn't a virgin for their first time together—because her father raped her—is a testament to the absurdity of the rules. Spending forty million dollars investigating a blowjob is a testament to the absurdity of the rules.
Yeah, well, if an adult feels so much exposure that an eleven year-old can blackmail them into a sexual favor, one wonders what's up with the adult.
No, my point is that even among adults, blackmailing for sex is indicative of emotional underdevelopment or imbalance. And adults are the ones who are supposed to be emotionally mature, not children.
It's also symptomatic of repressive sexual mores in a culture. First, why is baring one's breasts shameful? Secondly, if it's so sinful, why would the town gather to watch?
There is an idea called "Puritan pornography". An example can be found in old Anti-Catholic League tracts from the early twentieth century. Some of these were pretty scandalous, including salacious details of what perverted Catholics were up to. Not only did this provide an opportunity to judge and condemn, but it also provided convenient titillation.
Exactly.
Yes. But there is a difference between being honest in the instruction of children and getting on an eleven year-old.
It relies on the exploitation of emotional immaturity to achieve gratification.
Wow. We now have a politically-correct phrase for pedophiles?
What would you call it? Exploring all the options?
I don't know, is it singles night? Other than that, yes. If meeting a woman to sleep with is your purpose, then yes, you're trolling for tail.
Think of it this way: You go out with your friends, hit a couple bars, have a few drinks, and head over to a concert. Along the way, a woman asks you for a light. You strike up a conversation as you smoke, and romance blossoms.
To the other: You want to get laid, so you head out to a bar where you know there is a high female population and start offering to buy women drinks.
Yeah, there's a difference.
An adult who wishes to flirt with a minor?
Nonetheless, this is not a reasonable argument in and of itself.
That's actually for the better, Scott.
If a person communicates to their peers that he or she has failed to comprehend socialization among their own generation, those peers will generally respond negatively. Society, with all its demand for decorum and melodrama, will make that point in diverse ways, and before anyone tries to point me to this or that tribal society, I would remind that if that tribal society was so well-organized, they would be world leaders and we who don't bang children would be the third-world tribe.
Right there. Okay, Scott, I want to take a moment to make a certain point: This is where you're losing people. Trust me on this one. Among the people who have been disagreeing with you on the general principle, I don't know who is giving you what sympathy in terms of this or that facet of your argument. But I can assure you, sir, that whatever else can be acknowledged, this is where you're absolutely, without question, officially losing people.
Variable privileges based on psychological maturity that is ... measured how?
Oh, just as we give driver's licenses to those who demonstrate proficient knowledge. I'm intentionally not making the joke about capability. Because, well, driving instructors .... Never mind. Right.
To the one, I would point out that knowledge does not reflect emotional or psychological maturity. Road rage, hit-and-run. Not everyone with a driver's license is actually ready for the responsibilities of driving.
To the other, what does the bureaucracy look like? You know, to certify that, say, this one is ready to fuck?
So you want to know why people might look at you like you're some kind of pervert? Well, this is an example that I would call the nearest marker beyond the limit of what the logic of the anti-child-banging outlook accepts. As broadly as I might try to define everything in order to try to understand the merit of your point, I cannot believe you can't see how desperate your argument appears when it is so determined to find a reason that it's okay to fuck children that it should become something in any way resembling a bureaucratic consideration.
And yet you keep returning to knowledge, which is in itself insufficient.
Okay, so I see the entire formula marked with emotional immaturity. And this is the context in which some young people think they want adult sexual partners. The idea of certifying which cultural immaturity is mature enough to have sex with is more than simply problematic. You're reaching way too far to justify this change.
Amen
And I believe an emotionally mature future will include the continued growth of the body of information that speaks against the advisability of adult-adolescent sexual relationships.
____________________
Notes:
American Psychological Association. "Roper v. Simmons". PsycLaw. Accessed March 1, 2009. http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.html
Gilfoye, Nathalie F. P. et al. "Brief for the American Psychological Association, and the Missouri Psychological Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent". Roper v. Simmons. July 19, 2004. PsycLaw. Accessed March 1, 2009. http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.pdf
Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "They Saved Lisa's Brain". SNPP.com. Accessed March 1, 2009. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF18
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
So, because it's illegal, we do not discuss it ?.. If I said Jews were illegal, would you then refrain from discussing Jews and Judaism ?,
If we didn't discuss the illegal and the taboo, the incentive for some unsuspecting sod would only be too great.
Like I said; sane people do not question the merits of the current laws we have in place to keep it illegal.
Are you questioning the validity of those specific laws?
I'm not making a general case that laws should never be challenged. I'm just saying that in this case, they need not be.
Don't really want to get into the whole 'good faith' thing. I simply think that if a normally underage minor had a sex license, they could be treated as someone who is of age instead.
This post is in response to the 1st part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.
Not sure about that. However, I don't really think it's worth arguing about at present...
While that's technically true, people who engage in sexual activities with people below the age of consent for their person can land up in jail; even if they're the person having the kid, as was the case of Mary Kay Letourneau.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, the term 'children' is a rather vague term. Many believe that adolescents shouldn't be included, especially when speaking of sexual issues. Seriously, an 'adult' could be 18 and the 'child' 17.
I find it ironic that you are now speaking of it as a prize, especially considering something you say later on (and which this post doesn't address)... In any case, I certainly agree with you in regards to the 'prize' being questionable for many people. I firmly believe as I have stated elsewhere, however, that 'children' and 'adults' will frequently do what they feel is best for themselves, whether or not the law agrees with them. I think the law and society is frequently far too harsh on such people. I personally feel that in regards to sexuality, it's best to follow the law, but I certainly disagree with some of the laws regarding sexuality that are currently in place.
Again with the 'adults' and 'children'. I have never stated that it should be the right of anyone to have sex with anyone else, if one of the parties doesn't want it. When -both- parties want something, however, it becomes another issue entirely.
Not sure about that. However, I don't really think it's worth arguing about at present...
Tiassa said:
While that's technically true, people who engage in sexual activities with people below the age of consent for their person can land up in jail; even if they're the person having the kid, as was the case of Mary Kay Letourneau.
Tiassa said:
As I have mentioned elsewhere, the term 'children' is a rather vague term. Many believe that adolescents shouldn't be included, especially when speaking of sexual issues. Seriously, an 'adult' could be 18 and the 'child' 17.
Tiassa said:
I find it ironic that you are now speaking of it as a prize, especially considering something you say later on (and which this post doesn't address)... In any case, I certainly agree with you in regards to the 'prize' being questionable for many people. I firmly believe as I have stated elsewhere, however, that 'children' and 'adults' will frequently do what they feel is best for themselves, whether or not the law agrees with them. I think the law and society is frequently far too harsh on such people. I personally feel that in regards to sexuality, it's best to follow the law, but I certainly disagree with some of the laws regarding sexuality that are currently in place.
Tiassa said:
Again with the 'adults' and 'children'. I have never stated that it should be the right of anyone to have sex with anyone else, if one of the parties doesn't want it. When -both- parties want something, however, it becomes another issue entirely.
This post is in response to the 2nd part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.
I disagree.
I can certainly agree that younger people are generally more immature. I can certainly agree that as one gets older one tends to get wiser. I also believe, however, that some adolescents are wiser then adults in one or more aspects, including sexual ones.
That's fine. Nowhere in that summary, however, do I see that all adolescents are less mature then all adults. It doesn't even provide percentages. It says things like "MRI research on brain function suggesting that the brain continues to develop through young adulthood"; note the word- young adulthood. So are we now supposed to not allow even young -adults- to engage in sexual activities?
I disagree.
Tiassa said:
I can certainly agree that younger people are generally more immature. I can certainly agree that as one gets older one tends to get wiser. I also believe, however, that some adolescents are wiser then adults in one or more aspects, including sexual ones.
Tiassa said:
That's fine. Nowhere in that summary, however, do I see that all adolescents are less mature then all adults. It doesn't even provide percentages. It says things like "MRI research on brain function suggesting that the brain continues to develop through young adulthood"; note the word- young adulthood. So are we now supposed to not allow even young -adults- to engage in sexual activities?
This post is in response to the 3rd part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.
Tiassa, listen to what's actually being said: as a group. We're still talking statistics.
Yep, less likely. Again, statistics.
That statement doesn't even make it clear if minors are more or less criminal then the general population. One could just as easily say:
"Delinquent, even criminal, behavior is characteristic of many americans".
The peaking around age 18 suggests that minors commit more crimes then your average person. This may be true. But again, we're talking stastistics.
Something that is common is again, a statistic. Also, how common? And how much does it vary (and in what direction) from the population as a whole?
So when has it reached adult maturity? Magically at the age of consent wherever you happen to be at? Also, simply because it hasn't reached adult maturity doesn't mean that all or even most adolescents are incapable of making reasoned sexual decisions, especially if properly educated.
Tiassa, listen to what's actually being said: as a group. We're still talking statistics.
Tiassa said:
Yep, less likely. Again, statistics.
Tiassa said:
That statement doesn't even make it clear if minors are more or less criminal then the general population. One could just as easily say:
"Delinquent, even criminal, behavior is characteristic of many americans".
The peaking around age 18 suggests that minors commit more crimes then your average person. This may be true. But again, we're talking stastistics.
Tiassa said:
Something that is common is again, a statistic. Also, how common? And how much does it vary (and in what direction) from the population as a whole?
Tiassa said:
So when has it reached adult maturity? Magically at the age of consent wherever you happen to be at? Also, simply because it hasn't reached adult maturity doesn't mean that all or even most adolescents are incapable of making reasoned sexual decisions, especially if properly educated.
This post is in response to the 4th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.
While I admit that this particular quote doesn't say anything in regards to statistics, I'd like to see the data that got them to reach this conclusion. Apparently it wasn't related to sexuality at all, but I'd still like to see it. I've seen more then one pseudo scientific study in my time. I recommend reading Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, edited by psychiatrist Jay R. Feierman, to see a few.
Often; aka a statistic.
I believe we're talking statistics again here...
The important thing to remember here is that not all teens are criminals and there are a fair amount of adults who are criminals. Again, we're talking statistics.
Yep, may. Because we are, again, talking of statistics.
While I admit that this particular quote doesn't say anything in regards to statistics, I'd like to see the data that got them to reach this conclusion. Apparently it wasn't related to sexuality at all, but I'd still like to see it. I've seen more then one pseudo scientific study in my time. I recommend reading Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, edited by psychiatrist Jay R. Feierman, to see a few.
Tiassa said:
Often; aka a statistic.
Tiassa said:
I believe we're talking statistics again here...
Tiassa said:
The important thing to remember here is that not all teens are criminals and there are a fair amount of adults who are criminals. Again, we're talking statistics.
Tiassa said:
Yep, may. Because we are, again, talking of statistics.
This post is in response to the 5th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.
Recent research suggests. Apparently even they're not sure. Again, the issue of when, precisely, the brain matures and whether or not the brain has to fully mature in order to be reasonably mature to engage in sexual interactions must be addressed.
Alright, so people who has frontal lobe dysfunction is that they frequently (I assume that's what's meant by hallmark) have difficulty in making decisions that are in their long-term best interests. Most adolescents, however, don't have dysfunctional frontal lobes, however. I'm assuming that their frontal lobes may not be fully developed, but that's another matter entirely.
Recent research suggests. Apparently even they're not sure. Again, the issue of when, precisely, the brain matures and whether or not the brain has to fully mature in order to be reasonably mature to engage in sexual interactions must be addressed.
Tiassa said:
Alright, so people who has frontal lobe dysfunction is that they frequently (I assume that's what's meant by hallmark) have difficulty in making decisions that are in their long-term best interests. Most adolescents, however, don't have dysfunctional frontal lobes, however. I'm assuming that their frontal lobes may not be fully developed, but that's another matter entirely.
- Status