posted
There's a big difference between molesting prepubescent kids and having sex with 16 or 17 year olds. I'm not saying that the latter isn't wrong, but it's really not the same thing at all. In most cases where we're talking about pedophiles, it's really not justifiable to lump the the two together.
posted
A couple of things. The Boy Scouts thread and the whole Foley thing. There's even a justification for some of the Catholic Church stuff from a while back, although only some.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the same thing from a legal point of view or from a moral point of view? If both things are wrong (are they?) what difference, exactly, are you trying to identify?
*How* are they different?
Are they similar?
*Why* is it not justifiable to lump the two together?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are different from a psychological point of view. And, I imagine, both a moral and legal one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think sex with 17-year-olds is perfectly reasonable from a moral point of view, and there are many places where it's also legal.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, threads that I have, for the most part, stayed out. Explains that. Thanks for the clarification, Squick. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to know where the line is drawn, morally and socially. "Prepubescent" covers quite the range of ages. When does it cease to be pedophilia?
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting to me that it's perfectly legal for an older adult to have sex with a 17 year old in one state, but not in another, or it's legal with the parent's ok, but not without.
Seems like age is pretty arbitrary within a good sized spectrum.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I would say the difference has everything to do with wanting to have sex with someone who is willing to.
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sex with someonee below the age of consent for the community in which you live is rape. Whether it arises from your innate desire to have sex with children, or you convinced yourself that they were "ready" despite what the law says, it's still rape.
Pedophilia (strictly speaking) is the conversion of children into objects of sexual desire. It is, closest analogy a mental disease along the lines of an obsessive compulsive disorder.
Acting on that impulse is a crime.
What Foley did was act an inappropriate sexual manner toward an under-age person who was also the weaker partner in a power-relationship with him. It was illegal, and unethical.
Whether or not he is also a pedophile is not addressed by the current information we have on him. It could be he gets off on the power relationship. It could be he likes the danger of being exposed... What trips his trigger hasn't really been explained in the media accounts to date. I therefore leave open the possibility that he's a pedophile, but think maybe there are other explanations for his behavior that might make more immediate sense.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, most pedophiles convince themselves that they have a "relationship" with the child they are molesting. As I understand it, they people who do this to children see it as "Having sex with someone who is willing to."
So we clearly can't leave it up to them to make that judgement. which is why we have laws, which may or may not reflect an accurate age or "readiness" for all young people, but are still a heck of a lot better than letting pedophiles decide whether or not a child is ready. I'd say younger than 18 is a decent age to be "off-limits", because, sure, maybe a given child will be mature and ready for that experience, but I say err on the side of caution. If they aren't ready they could be really screwed up by having sex too early, and the person hoping to have sex with them may or may not be concerned with how ready they are.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its case by case in my opinion. To me there is a huge difference between a 21 year old dating/sleeping with a 17 year old and a middle aged adult trying to seduce a 17 year old.
There is also the problem I have with authority figures trying to be with those they have authority over. A teacher in my brother-in-law's county was fired for sleeping with a student. The teacher was 22, the student was 18. In my opinion the teacher got what the teacher deserved. They could have at least waited until graduation that May.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Statutory rape should include not just an age cutoff, but an age differential. For example, let's say that anyone under 15 is jailbait, and anyone between 15 and 18, where the other person is more than 2 years older, is as well. That would make a helluva lot more sense than what they have now. Consensual sex between a 19 year old and a 17 year old is not rape by any bizarre stretch of the imagination.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are different psychological terms for the different types of inappropriate sexual attractions.
Pedophile: Attracted to pre-pubescent kids. Pederasty: Erotic practices between adult males and adolescent boys. Ephebophilia: sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to post pubescent adolescents.
The Catholic priests were primarily pederasts. Many of the teachers you see on news for having sex with minors are probably closer to Ephebophiles. However ephebophilia is if someone is primarily attracted to adolescents. There really is no official word I can think of to describe someone who is attracted to adolescents as well as adults.
Pedophile is word that is used sweepingly. It works because society is mostly concerned with age of consent, and in adult/child (however you decide to define child) relationships, the child cannot consent. It is the adults’ responsibility to not get involved in those types of relationships.
You are right, there are better words to identify all these behaviors besides pedophile.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hanne Blank wrote an excellent blog entry about this a while back. I have to say I agree with pretty much all of it.
quote: My considered opinion, after having spent most of the last four years of my life working on issues pertaining to the sexuality of minors, is that when it comes to sex, Americans define “child” for the convenience and comfort of adults who are terrified of adolescent sexuality.
This is not to say that adolescent sexuality is something we should not be afraid of. We should. It should scare and worry us for the same reasons that it has always—and I mean that in a historical sense—scared and worry us. It is a powerful and new presence that is ultimately controlled by people who have no experience, no credentials, and little sense of what it means in any sort of larger picture. Teenagers are often, notoriously, far more fascinated by how much power sex can have and how good it can feel than they are wary of what risks that power and pleasure can sugarcoat or blind one to.
That’s scary. That’s legitimate. But that’s what we’ve got to work with: a very powerful, difficult-to-regulate, inherently anarchic part of human existence that has its own steep learning curve.
Part of that learning curve is learning how to cope not only with your own sexuality and your own desires but learning how to cope with how other people around you express theirs. This includes learning what to do when someone expresses his or her sexual interests to you inappropriately, or without your consent.
quote: By this measure, to say nothing of that of biology, we cannot be so disingenuous as to think of these fifteen and sixteen-year-olds as “children.” They’re not. And the ways they reacted to Foley show it.
quote: These teenagers were not stupid, nor were they poor victimized helpless little lambs who had no idea what to do to protect themselves. Quite the contrary. They did exactly what most of us do: they were pragmatic, they were outwardly calm, and they didn’t cause a ruckus. They employed simple social engineering and disengagement to neutralize, as much as possible, a sexual pest. When that didn’t work, one of them finally took it to a higher authority. You know. Like you do.
These are not helpless little kids who are truly not capable to protect themselves from sexual annoyances. These are competent intelligent adolescents who are well on their way to being competent intelligent adults, and they are demonstrably capable of fending for themselves–including taking their problems to higher authorities when the problem proves to be more than they can solve with the means they have at their own individual disposal.
quote: Does the fact that the teenagers who were the objects of Mark Foley’s inappropriate and nonconsensual verbal intimacies dealt admirably well with his ooky imposition—and with wholly adult strategies— make what Foley did less bad? No. What Foley did was, as I have said repeatedly, ill-considered, inappropriate, dishonorable, and wrong.
It just wasn’t molestation. Just like someone catcalling “hey baby, nice ass” at you when you’re walking down the street isn’t the same thing as if that person walked up and actually grabbed your ass while saying so. The first is harassment. The second is sexual assault.
It’s also not pedophilia. These teenagers aren’t children. They’re adolescents. There’s a difference. They have passed the point in their sexual development where they can be considered non-combatants in the ongoing struggles of sexuality. This is not to say that having entered the fray they are somehow deserving of being forced into skirmishes they have no interest in. No one of any age should be forced into any sexual or even romantic situation in which they are not personally a willing participant.
It is to say that to call these teenagers children, in the same way as you would call a five-year-old or a ten-year-old, is disingenuous. Furthermore it is to say that to call sexual interest in a sexually, biologically adult body “pedophilia” is worse than disingenuous, it undermines the integrity of the concept of pedophilia and makes it both less meaningful and more dangerous. If you must attach a Latinate label to desires like those Mr. Foley has exhibited, use the right word: ephebephilia, the desire for adolescents. Go ahead and improve your vocabulary, you wild thing, you. I’ve got your back.
There's more I'd like to quote, but I think the post has gotten overlong as it is.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you must attach a Latinate label to desires like those Mr. Foley has exhibited, use the right word: ephebephilia, the desire for adolescents.
posted
Lisa: that's the case in some states. You name a possible age of consent permutation, and some state probably has that permutation in place. There's a huge variety of laws on the topic.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don’t forget that rape or sexual crimes differ from state to state and between countries. There is usually more than just one type of violation for sexual abuse of a child. But I believe that most states grade the penalty depending on the age of the abuser and the age of the child, the abuser’s relation to the child, e.g. family member or law enforcement officer, and other factors, such as the mental of physical condition of the victim, whether a weapon is used, and whether there is any injury, etc. In Florida abuse by adults with under 12 years olds is treated more seriously than with over 12 year olds. All are felonies, but not all felonies are treated equal. For example, and adult having sex with an under 12, faces the death penalty, while he only faces a life penalty if the child was 12 or older.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Statutory rape should include not just an age cutoff, but an age differential. For example, let's say that anyone under 15 is jailbait, and anyone between 15 and 18, where the other person is more than 2 years older, is as well. That would make a helluva lot more sense than what they have now. Consensual sex between a 19 year old and a 17 year old is not rape by any bizarre stretch of the imagination.
I think that Florida has something like that, with a 3-year cutoff on age difference.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
