Pedofilia and cultural context

[FBM]

You're all trying to generalize on an issue that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Individuals mature at different chronological ages. Stop trying for the quick-and-easy formula, you lazy bastids! Evaluate each case on its own merits. Shiela/Fred may be ready for it at 18, but Linda/Hank may be ready for it at 15. There is no universal chronological age at which everyone is magically 'ready'. Fuck, I've known some 21-y.o. people that weren't mature enough to handle a sexual relationship. Get off this hypothetical bullshit and look at the reality that actually surrounds you. Jeez, are we still stuck in the same mindset as Kant with his freakin' Categorical Imperative? There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the appropriate age for introduction to sexuality.

Nobody believes in a magical point at the stroke of midnight on their umpteenth birthday that they are suddenly 'ready for it' but a "case-by-case" basis is far too fucking consuming for the legal system. Draw a line and stick to it, it saves you time and effort and money and guarantees protection for those who aren't ready for it for at least a little while.

So the truth, and the effect that it has on individual lives, is of less concern than convenience? Should we decide on moral issues with convenience as a deciding criterion?

[Trolldor]

Diddums. I'd rather they be caused a little inconvenience then waste the taxpayers money, and the time of law enforcement who could spend their time doing something which actually has an effect on someone's life. Such as, for example, spending their time on the Lin Family Murders as opposed to whether fifteen year old Cindy is ready to fuck her forty two year old sugar daddy instead of waiting a single year.

[FBM]

Diddums. I'd rather they be caused a little inconvenience then waste the taxpayers money, and the time of law enforcement who could spend their time doing something which actually has an effect on someone's life. Such as, for example, spending their time on the Lin Family Murders as opposed to whether fifteen year old Cindy is ready to fuck her forty two year old sugar daddy instead of waiting a single year.

"Diddums" in English = ?

"they" = taxpayers.

We're not talking about murdering or the shit that that Austrian Fritz (?) guy pulled. That's incest, kidnapping and a whole 'nother question. We're talking about whether or not it is a crime for a 18-y.o. to boink a 16 or 17-y.o, etc. Are not some 16-y.o.s more mature than some 18-y.o.s? I'm going by my direct experience of the real world around me, not some hypothetical mental model that I've constucted to defend my emotional preferences. My emotions tell me to kill any sick fuck that abuses a kid, and I'm not backing away from that. Howver, I'm being careful not to over-generalize. On a case-by-case basis, not every adult-minor sexual encounter equates with abuse. The whole "adult"/"minor" distinction is a convenient fiction and should be exposed as such.

[Trolldor]

My previous post already answers yours.
Firstly, in NSW the age of consent is 16. A 16 boinking an 18 year old is legal. Now, if you're fifteen and sixteen, nobody gives two shits because you're both young. When you're fifteen and your prospective partner happens to be twice your age then you can wait a year. In the mean time instead applying a bullshittingly subjective test to determine whether individual A and individual B both understand their actions and possible consequences, they can wait one more year and in the mean time we can process something worth the court's time and the tax payer's money.
Without an age of consent both parties in every single fucking relationship would have to be assessed to see if they're "ready".

[tattuchu]

Is it possible that the children in inter-generational intercourse suffer less if raised in a culture that does not recognize the concept of pedophilia as immoral? Ancient Greece, for example.

That would more accurately be described as ephebophilia, I believe. This is a difficult subject to talk about because people have very strong feelings about it and tend to react emotionally. There are also some false assumptions right at the start, coupled with a general atmosphere of hysteria whenever the words "child" and "sex" are mentioned in the same sentence.
Some problems:
1) People tend to group together pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescents) and ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents or teens). "Child" is therefore not properly defined, and no distinction is made between a sexually mature vs immature young person.
2) The arbitrary nature of the age of consent, which also varies from region to region.
3) No distinction is made between coercive and consensual sex.
4) The assumption that young people are asexual, and/or are incapable of consenting to sex.
5) The assumption that young people are inherently weak mentally and physically, and are therefore in every instance powerless victims.
6) The assumption that sex equals intercourse, period.
7) The assumption that sex for a person fortunate to enough to find themselves above the legal age limit is a wonderful magical exciting and positive experience, but a person unfortunate enough to find themselves below that age limit will experience sex as an awful unpleasant negative and traumatic event.
8) Any person who is attracted to a younger person who falls below the age of consent is a sick perverted deviant, and love is therefore never part of the equation.
9) Because abuse of the young is a genuine problem, it is assumed that all such relationships are inherently abusive.
etc, etc.


Here's an example of how irrational the discussion of this sort of touchy hot-button subject can be. One of my roommates years ago was gay. He liked to tell me all about his sex life, even though I never expressed an interest in learning about it Anyway, during the course of one such discourse, he announced that any adult who had sex with a minor was a sick freak who should be drawn and quartered. And yet, several minutes later, he launched into a story about how, at age 12, he would often masturbate whilst spying on his adult neighbor doing yard work shirtless, and how he would have given anything to have had sex with him (get fucked by him). He didn't seem to think there was any contradiction there

[FBM]

My previous post already answers yours.
Firstly, in NSW the age of consent is 16. A 16 boinking an 18 year old is legal.

Right you are. Age of consent varies from country to country, state to state, province to province. That should be indicative in itself.

Now, if you're fifteen and sixteen, nobody gives two shits because you're both young.

But if it's still crossing the local line between "adult" and "minor", it's still prosecutable, and prosecuted when there is a complaint, true?

When you're fifteen and your prospective partner happens to be twice your age then you can wait a year.

Yes, they could, but why should they have to? Legally, there's no distinction between a 17-y.o. and a 16-y.o. pair and a 32-y.o./16-y.o. pair.

In the mean time instead applying a bullshittingly subjective test to determine whether individual A and individual B both understand their actions and possible consequences, they can wait one more year and in the mean time we can process something worth the court's time and the tax payer's money.
Without an age of consent both parties in every single fucking relationship would have to be assessed to see if they're "ready".

Again, you seem to be not only differentiating between the subjects and taxpayers, who are actually the same people, but also reaffirming that morality is an issue of convenience, disregarding de facto aspects of any given situation. Was the law made to serve mankind, or was mankind made to serve the law?

[Trolldor]

The law was made to regulate society. Not serve.
Secondly, a year may make no difference to a sixteen year old and a fifteen year old, but the same can be said for 15 and 14. For 14 and 13. For 13 and 12. But a 12 and a fifteen year old are remarkably different.

[FBM]

The law was made to regulate society. Not serve.
Secondly, a year may make no difference to a sixteen year old and a fifteen year old, but the same can be said for 15 and 14. For 14 and 13. For 13 and 12. But a 12 and a fifteen year old are remarkably different.

Maybe, maybe not. That formula cannot be applied universally, can it? When I look around me at the real people who really inhabit this planet, as opposed to hypothetical constructs that I make of them, the lines blur very quickly. I still say that the distinction should be made on whether or not the relationship was abusive, harmful and the like. If a 12 and 15 year-old are both ready, willing and able, let them give it a go. It's a natural part of life.

[Sisifo]

The problem with the relativism/absolutism of positions towards pedophilia is the indefinition of the word.
Within a 200km radius of where I live, you can find girls preparing to get married and have children at 13, in the mountains. Some are sold to chinese rich men as wives, some are sold -even younger- as prostitutes...
In the streets of Phnom Penh the same tuktuk that carries an anti-children-prostitution slogan, offers it to you. Passing by the street you can see some children offering themselves, and the pimp not even hiding himself/herself...
In the city, like in any other city, some teenager of legal age starts to show sexual techniques to his 13 yo cousin...
Some adult makes an improper sexual joke bathing the genitalia of the child...
Some adult rapes violently a child.
Some is fantasizing and abusing the innocence of another child to get his or her "consent" to have sex...

Those things, are not the same thing. They are all wrong, but they don't create the same kind of victim, and they cannot be addressed in the same way. Putting all those under the same definition, is not permitting to address each issue properly, or helping the current and potential future victims of those issues.

The non-incidental; the recurrent pedophile, is a criminal but the taboo and extreme reaction towards pedophilia condemns and doesn't try to understand the mental sickness, the issues and the triggers of it, which is a way to not really erradicating the problem, just reacting case by case.

Pedophilia seems to be an extreme deviation of the neoteny fascination we have hardwired into us. In Asia is more clear where beauty is associated to such clear infant features: white skin, small breasts, black hair, In western countries, we can see it in 14 year old fashion models that are showed as the beauty goal.

When I see westerns here with girlfriends who look like 13 years old, although they are 20, I don't know what to think...

Indeed these things are linked.

[FBM]

The problem with the relativism/absolutism of positions towards pedophilia is the indefinition of the word.
Within a 200km radius of where I live, you can find girls preparing to get married and have children at 13, in the mountains. Some are sold to chinese rich men as wives, some are sold -even younger- as prostitutes...
In the streets of Phnom Penh the same tuktuk that carries an anti-children-prostitution slogan, offers it to you. Passing by the street you can see some children offering themselves, and the pimp not even hiding himself/herself...
In the city, like in any other city, some teenager of legal age starts to show sexual techniques to his 13 yo cousin...
Some adult makes an improper sexual joke bathing the genitalia of the child...
Some adult rapes violently a child.
Some is fantasizing and abusing the innocence of another child to get his or her "consent" to have sex...

Those things, are not the same thing. They are all wrong, but they don't create the same kind of victim, and they cannot be addressed in the same way. Putting all those under the same definition, is not permitting to address each issue properly, or helping the current and potential future victims of those issues.

The non-incidental; the recurrent pedophile, is a criminal but the taboo and extreme reaction towards pedophilia condemns and doesn't try to understand the mental sickness, the issues and the triggers of it, which is a way to not really erradicating the problem, just reacting case by case.

Pedophilia seems to be an extreme deviation of the neoteny fascination we have hardwired into us. In Asia is more clear where beauty is associated to such clear infant features: white skin, small breasts, black hair, In western countries, we can see it in 14 year old fashion models that are showed as the beauty goal.

When I see westerns here with girlfriends who look like 13 years old, although they are 20, I don't know what to think...

Indeed these things are linked.

Yes. If it's abuse, it's wrong. If it's natural development within the norms of the society, let it alone. It's a relative value, culture-based, culture-determined. To say otherwise is to assert an objective basis for morality, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms that I'd rather not get into.

[Trolldor]

Or, they can wait. It won't hurt them and it actually serves as a protective barrier for those who are vulnerable. Give me a single reason, any reason, where the "convenience" of a few outweighs the protection of the vulnerable.
Also detail, explicitly, a system whereby we can gage an objective measurement of a person's ability to 'provide informed consent'.

At the very least give me the second. I want anyone anywhere in the world to bring me one.

To say otherwise is to assert an objective basis for morality, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms that I'd rather not get into.

Bullshit. I don't know where you pulled this out of your ass from. You honestly think I'm placing any objective value on the morals? What I'm stating is that the whole point of the age of consent is because the entire thing is fucking gray. You pick a line and you stick to it to simplify the issue. Either you're ready or you're not, there's no way of telling so here's a magic marker.

[FBM]

Or, they can wait. It won't hurt them and it actually serves as a protective barrier for those who are vulnerable. Give me a single reason, any reason, where the "convenience" of a few outweighs the protection of the vulnerable.

Again, you're creating a false dichotomy between the "few" and the "vulnerable". When you equate them as equal citizens and taxpayers, which agrees with real-life experience, the dichotomy disappears, and you only have individual circumstances which can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis when complaints arise. Also, the "convenience" is the convenience of the majority over the de facto circumstances of the few. Democracy is supposed to not only enforce the rule of the majority, but also protect the basic rights of the minorities. In the past, they went after gays and lesbians based on archaic moral fabrications, who's to say that our conventional mores about the proper age of consent is any more defensible? We already see a very wide range of national and local opinions on the "proper" age of consent. Is any of them more objectively defensible than the others? I say let biology decide, and biology says that individual organisms mature at different chronological ages.

Also detail, explicitly, a system whereby we can gage an objective measurement of a person's ability to 'provide informed consent'.

At the very least give me the second. I want anyone anywhere in the world to bring me one.

Precisely. There is none. Each case must be evaluated individually.

To say otherwise is to assert an objective basis for morality, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms that I'd rather not get into.

Bullshit. I don't know where you pulled this out of your ass from. You honestly think I'm placing any objective value on the morals? What I'm stating is that the whole point of the age of consent is because the entire thing is fucking gray. You pick a line and you stick to it to simplify the issue. Either you're ready or you're not, there's no way of telling so here's a magic marker.

Again, you're saying that we should make blind judgements on individual people based on public convenience. It is possible to gather facts on each situation; we do it every day. We have a legal infrastructructure already that is capable of dealing with it. There is a "way of telling", and the first line is whether or not there is a formal complaint filed. Subsequently, there are doctors, psychologists and so forth already in the emloy of the legal systems who can make professional evaluations of each particular case. It's not rocket surgery.

[Trolldor]

No, we don't have a legal infrastructure that is capable of dealing with it. Do you have any idea of the kind of backlog it would create if we were to individuall assess every individual on whether they were prepared to have a sexual relationship?

[FBM]

No, we don't have a legal infrastructure that is capable of dealing with it. Do you have any idea of the kind of backlog it would create if we were to individuall assess every individual on whether they were prepared to have a sexual relationship?

Not necessary. It'd only be necessary when a complaint was filed, which would represent the real values of the real people in any locality. No huge burden there, methinks.

[Trolldor]

Precisely. There is none. Each case must be evaluated individually.

That's a goddamn rift in the space time contiuum right there. If we don't have an objective standard by which to measure an individual's readiness how can we assess any case "on an individual basis"? On which frame work or standard do we set it against then? Nobody has yet to come up with one which can be applied to all individuals across all ages and cultures. All you're suggesting is an arbitrarily subjective decision by an individual instead of an arbitrary decision codified in law.

Not necessary. It'd only be necessary when a complaint was filed, which would represent the real values of the real people in any locality. No huge burden there, methinks.

No huge burden? You really think so? So you mean there never would be any false complaints, that there would never be a relationship where a "complaint" should be made but none is?