The ethics of shagging.

[Forty Two]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

I agree with this intellectually.

Where my mind has a difficult time grasping these issues is when I return in my mind to the age 13 and 14.

As a 13 and 14 year old boy I thought about sex with girls every day, multiple times a day, usually multiple times per class period in school. I wanted to get laid so bad in middle school and had I been given the chance with any attractive girl (or unattractive girl my friends might not find out about) i would have jumped at the chance. I would not have been violated. Even if a young female teacher in her 20s had come on to me, I would not have felt as if I were raped. I would have loved it.

When I was 16, I had a nearby neighbor who I worked with at the same little store come on to me. She was 24, and we had sex a few times throughout one high school summer. I loved every minute of it. Awesome fun.

[Seth]

16 is the age of consent here in the UK - and you are probably right about two 15 year olds - at least in many cases.

Well, someone would have to explain to me the cases where a boy of 15 would get a criminal penalty for having consensual sex with another 15 year old. If 15 year olds cannot consent even to other 15 year olds, then surely the girl and the boy would be both as culpable. And, if 15 year olds can consent to other 15 year olds, and there was consent, why would the criminal law be involved at all?

And that sort of thing has happened before, in particularly prudish places. In Ireland, it seems, the boy gets jail while the girl is absolved, even for consensual sex.

[Seth]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

I agree with this intellectually.

Where my mind has a difficult time grasping these issues is when I return in my mind to the age 13 and 14.

As a 13 and 14 year old boy I thought about sex with girls every day, multiple times a day, usually multiple times per class period in school. I wanted to get laid so bad in middle school and had I been given the chance with any attractive girl (or unattractive girl my friends might not find out about) i would have jumped at the chance. I would not have been violated. Even if a young female teacher in her 20s had come on to me, I would not have felt as if I were raped. I would have loved it.

When I was 16, I had a nearby neighbor who I worked with at the same little store come on to me. She was 24, and we had sex a few times throughout one high school summer. I loved every minute of it. Awesome fun.

And today, in the US, she would be in prison. The question is, of course, why?

[JimC]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

I agree with this intellectually.

Where my mind has a difficult time grasping these issues is when I return in my mind to the age 13 and 14.

As a 13 and 14 year old boy I thought about sex with girls every day, multiple times a day, usually multiple times per class period in school. I wanted to get laid so bad in middle school and had I been given the chance with any attractive girl (or unattractive girl my friends might not find out about) i would have jumped at the chance. I would not have been violated. Even if a young female teacher in her 20s had come on to me, I would not have felt as if I were raped. I would have loved it.

When I was 16, I had a nearby neighbor who I worked with at the same little store come on to me. She was 24, and we had sex a few times throughout one high school summer. I loved every minute of it. Awesome fun.

And today, in the US, she would be in prison. The question is, of course, why?

And I also feel uncomfortable with the harsh penalties in such a case (although if she had been 42's teacher there would have been other legal and ethical issues)

I tend to feel that a situation with a 24 year old male and a 16 year old girl would have deserved more censure and penalty, but am not sure I can really justify this feeling...

[Rum]

..which is why the law is as it is. Mitigation is one thing but the harsh penalties that are imposed for 'abuse' are right to my way of thinking. I was in social work when the issue 'exploded' out of the blue more or less. In the late 70s reported abuse was rare. My team got one or two a year. After a couple of high profile cases, including a death or two, the referral rate went up to the point where dedicated teams had to be formed. There were literally a couple a day referred. Pretty much all of them were complicated and not all came to anything, but it is the case that children were suddenly allowed to speak. It is all very well taking about exceptions which make a call tough but that is using exceptions to make a point about the general. The majority of cases that are reported are about kids having a really shitty time of it.

[Seth]

..which is why the law is as it is. Mitigation is one thing but the harsh penalties that are imposed for 'abuse' are right to my way of thinking. I was in social work when the issue 'exploded' out of the blue more or less. In the late 70s reported abuse was rare. My team got one or two a year. After a couple of high profile cases, including a death or two, the referral rate went up to the point where dedicated teams had to be formed. There were literally a couple a day referred. Pretty much all of them were complicated and not all came to anything, but it is the case that children were suddenly allowed to speak. It is all very well taking about exceptions which make a call tough but that is using exceptions to make a point about the general. The majority of cases that are reported are about kids having a really shitty time of it.

I suppose one important question is whether the incidence of sexual activity between young and old jumped or whether it was merely a matter of increased reporting because of changes in social mores reflecting a belief that any such activity is inherently harmful created by a dedicated program of making social perceptions and beliefs congruent with the beliefs and wishes of a very, very vocal minority?

This is hardly unknown in social psychology. One of the main reasons we don't have food irradiation, which can all but eliminate the possibility of dangerous food contamination by exposing foodstuffs to Gamma radiation before shipping is because of the extremist tactics of a very, very small group of zealots known as "Food and Water" who went on a scare-tactic witch-hunt to ensure that even suggesting irradiation as a requirement for food distribution, something that has been in use in Europe for decades, would result in both public hysteria and public vilification of any politician who dared to suggest a method of preventing eight THOUSAND or more deaths per year from contaminated foodstuffs.

As the McMartin Pre School case proved, public perceptions can be fairly easily played if it's done right, which is precisely why "The Crucible" was written and what it means.

I've heard it suggested that the rate of "abuse" hasn't really changed much at all, but the pressure to report has resulted in a much higher rate of reporting, in some cases even where the "victim" doesn't feel like a victim at all, but is bullied into reporting by those who insist he/she is a victim even if he/she doesn't know it.

It's a difficult issue, that is certain.

[Forty Two]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

I agree with this intellectually.

Where my mind has a difficult time grasping these issues is when I return in my mind to the age 13 and 14.

As a 13 and 14 year old boy I thought about sex with girls every day, multiple times a day, usually multiple times per class period in school. I wanted to get laid so bad in middle school and had I been given the chance with any attractive girl (or unattractive girl my friends might not find out about) i would have jumped at the chance. I would not have been violated. Even if a young female teacher in her 20s had come on to me, I would not have felt as if I were raped. I would have loved it.

When I was 16, I had a nearby neighbor who I worked with at the same little store come on to me. She was 24, and we had sex a few times throughout one high school summer. I loved every minute of it. Awesome fun.

And today, in the US, she would be in prison. The question is, of course, why?

If she were a he, she'd be in prison. Since she was a she, she would likely get no jail time.

[Forty Two]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

I agree with this intellectually.

Where my mind has a difficult time grasping these issues is when I return in my mind to the age 13 and 14.

As a 13 and 14 year old boy I thought about sex with girls every day, multiple times a day, usually multiple times per class period in school. I wanted to get laid so bad in middle school and had I been given the chance with any attractive girl (or unattractive girl my friends might not find out about) i would have jumped at the chance. I would not have been violated. Even if a young female teacher in her 20s had come on to me, I would not have felt as if I were raped. I would have loved it.

When I was 16, I had a nearby neighbor who I worked with at the same little store come on to me. She was 24, and we had sex a few times throughout one high school summer. I loved every minute of it. Awesome fun.

And today, in the US, she would be in prison. The question is, of course, why?

And I also feel uncomfortable with the harsh penalties in such a case (although if she had been 42's teacher there would have been other legal and ethical issues)

I tend to feel that a situation with a 24 year old male and a 16 year old girl would have deserved more censure and penalty, but am not sure I can really justify this feeling...

I think it's reasonable to view the matter differently, based on the general physical and emotional strength differential between men and women.

[Seth]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

I agree with this intellectually.

Where my mind has a difficult time grasping these issues is when I return in my mind to the age 13 and 14.

As a 13 and 14 year old boy I thought about sex with girls every day, multiple times a day, usually multiple times per class period in school. I wanted to get laid so bad in middle school and had I been given the chance with any attractive girl (or unattractive girl my friends might not find out about) i would have jumped at the chance. I would not have been violated. Even if a young female teacher in her 20s had come on to me, I would not have felt as if I were raped. I would have loved it.

When I was 16, I had a nearby neighbor who I worked with at the same little store come on to me. She was 24, and we had sex a few times throughout one high school summer. I loved every minute of it. Awesome fun.

And today, in the US, she would be in prison. The question is, of course, why?

If she were a he, she'd be in prison. Since she was a she, she would likely get no jail time.

Actually, most of the sex abusers I hear about these days happen to be female school teachers who do go to jail, though usually for about a tenth as long as a male would. So how is that either fair or ethical?

[Seth]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

I agree with this intellectually.

Where my mind has a difficult time grasping these issues is when I return in my mind to the age 13 and 14.

As a 13 and 14 year old boy I thought about sex with girls every day, multiple times a day, usually multiple times per class period in school. I wanted to get laid so bad in middle school and had I been given the chance with any attractive girl (or unattractive girl my friends might not find out about) i would have jumped at the chance. I would not have been violated. Even if a young female teacher in her 20s had come on to me, I would not have felt as if I were raped. I would have loved it.

When I was 16, I had a nearby neighbor who I worked with at the same little store come on to me. She was 24, and we had sex a few times throughout one high school summer. I loved every minute of it. Awesome fun.

And today, in the US, she would be in prison. The question is, of course, why?

And I also feel uncomfortable with the harsh penalties in such a case (although if she had been 42's teacher there would have been other legal and ethical issues)

I tend to feel that a situation with a 24 year old male and a 16 year old girl would have deserved more censure and penalty, but am not sure I can really justify this feeling...

I think it's reasonable to view the matter differently, based on the general physical and emotional strength differential between men and women.

Wait just a darn minute! That's about as sexist as it gets and it's completely irrelevant. We're talking about putatively consensual relations between adults and adolescents that happen to be malum prohibitum illegal, not forcible rapes. So how does your statement make non-sexist sense?

[JimC]

Seth, the law and current sentiments of political correctness seem to agree with you on this issue of not differentiating between male and female offenders when it comes to sex with juveniles. My head says that this is probably the correct position, but I also suspect that the average harm caused by sex between an older male and a young (lets say below 15) female is greater than the equivalent with genders reversed. Since this is only a guess, I'm not relying on it too much...

[mistermack]

Seth, the law and current sentiments of political correctness seem to agree with you on this issue of not differentiating between male and female offenders when it comes to sex with juveniles. My head says that this is probably the correct position, but I also suspect that the average harm caused by sex between an older male and a young (lets say below 15) female is greater than the equivalent with genders reversed. Since this is only a guess, I'm not relying on it too much...

This is what hijabs and burkas are for.
You have to keep these girls virgins, so that some spotty little git who blows himself up can get a good supply in heaven.

Or maybe Allah supplies inflatable virgins? I've often wondered where they all come from.
There's not that many women die as virgins these days, and those that do probably wouldn't fancy getting to heaven, only to be told that they are to be a sex-toy for some snotty nosed teenager.

[Seth]

Seth, the law and current sentiments of political correctness seem to agree with you on this issue of not differentiating between male and female offenders when it comes to sex with juveniles. My head says that this is probably the correct position, but I also suspect that the average harm caused by sex between an older male and a young (lets say below 15) female is greater than the equivalent with genders reversed. Since this is only a guess, I'm not relying on it too much...

Let's see some critically robust scientific evidence please. This is, after all, a "rational" place where Science reigns supreme. I do appreciate your admitting that it's only your opinion and I respect it and you're fully entitled to it, but I'd have to see some actual evidence that, other than their ability to get pregnant, which is NOT a disease by the way, an old man screwing a younger girl is more harmful than the opposite, much less than an older male buggering a younger male or an older female having sex with a younger one.

After all, sex organs are evolved for just exactly that purpose and provided that the size difference does not cause actual physical tearing (vaginas are amazingly flexible...given the size of a baby's head) I cannot see that there is any scientific reason to think that the age of the penis inserted into the female vagina makes any difference whatsoever insofar as "average harm" is concerned.

I think it's all just "ick factor" indoctrination by the contingent of prudes who simply disapprove of older men having consensual sex with younger women, particularly given the prevalence of teen-age (and sub-teen) internet porn where teen-age girls of all ages webcam their sexual exploits for all the world to see under circumstances where it's really hard to argue that they are being "coerced" into anything at all. After all, 13 year-old girls don't go on line to be predated upon by older men posing as younger men and agree to travel long distances to have sex with them because they aren't sexually active and desirous of having sex, police "sting" operations notwithstanding.

I'm beginning to think that the people who object the most to May/December romances are dried-up old harpies whose husbands left them for a younger, more pliable and more sexually responsive woman who are simply jealous and don't want old men to have any sex at all because the harpies don't get any. Sounds more and more like sour grapes to me. That does explain the creeping-upwards of the age brackets for "age-appropriate sex." "Age-appropriate"... That term in and of itself is a Feminazi construct put forth by Andrea Dworkin types who can't get any cock because they are too damned old, fat and ugly...and to damned unpleasant to be around...to make what's perfectly natural male human behavior into something "dirty."

You see, older men are attracted to younger women for very valid biological and evolutionary reasons: younger women are more sexually attractive because they are still able to have children. Older men are attractive to younger women for purely biological reasons as well: Older men are proven survivors who, by still being alive, have proven their genetic superiority over the younger men who do stupid stuff and get themselves killed (think post-teen skatepukes and videogamers living in Mom's basement...not much of a catch for a young woman) or otherwise prove they are genetically inferior, which today manifests itself in there being more females being admitted to college than males and females doing the right thing by simply rejecting such losers entirely in favor of men who are men and who can partner with and/or support them. Good for them.

The dried-up old post-menopausal hags who bitch and complain about their men taking up with younger women are merely victims of their biology and evolution. It's not men's fault they dry up, become ugly and harpy-like and can no longer have kids, so why do they blame us when it's evolution that's responsible?

We used to send them out on the ice to help preserve the polar bear population, something which I think might be a useful policy, particularly for some particular women whose names begin with Hillary and end with a name starting with the letter "C".

Who are we to mess with evolutionary success or the survival potential of the polar bears?

[Seth]

Seth, the law and current sentiments of political correctness seem to agree with you on this issue of not differentiating between male and female offenders when it comes to sex with juveniles. My head says that this is probably the correct position, but I also suspect that the average harm caused by sex between an older male and a young (lets say below 15) female is greater than the equivalent with genders reversed. Since this is only a guess, I'm not relying on it too much...

This is what hijabs and burkas are for.

The Muslims do actually have a point in that regard...

You have to keep these girls virgins, so that some spotty little git who blows himself up can get a good supply in heaven.

Interestingly, a lot of Muslim women wear such gear because THEY like not being objectified by every horny spotty little git on the street.

Or maybe Allah supplies inflatable virgins? I've often wondered where they all come from.

Andrea Dworkin. They are all clones of Andrea Dworkin.

There's not that many women die as virgins these days, and those that do probably wouldn't fancy getting to heaven, only to be told that they are to be a sex-toy for some snotty nosed teenager.

...one that doesn't even know how to please them. Therefore, it is in the interest of all virgin girls to seek out an older, more experienced first lover who is willing and able to take the time to properly arouse and please her prior to busting her cherry, thereby making it a wonderful and pleasurable experience, as opposed to some sweaty spine-busting five-second premature ejaculation experience in some snotty-nosed teenager's car.

We should establish "Cherry Haven" houses where experienced and caring older men are available at all times for those virgins who want to be deflowered in the ancient ways of pleasure for free. I volunteer!

And people wonder why younger women are attracted to older men...

[Seth]

I apologize to all for the previous posts. They were way over the top and was the product of stress and a sugar binge.