4001. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:10 PM PT
I bet that no two people here have the same definition of pedophilia. And I bet most definitions that people here would present are so subjective as to be unusable.
4002. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 10:11 PM PT
JJ,
"You may have trouble believing this, but sexual abuse is far more serious than comparable physical abuse. Sexual abuse includes an aspect of emotional abuse that remains long after the physical scars have healed. Sexual abuse attacks a part of the child's psyche that physical abuse cannot touch."
I know people think this, but I disagree--and this isn't a particularly radical claim I'm making, either. This is not to dismiss the damage of sexual abuse, but rather to point out that physical abuse damages a part of the child's psyche just as thoroughly.
Just as a good percentage of sexual offenders were violated as children, a good percentage of violent criminals were abused as children. I don't know why some make it out of childhood with their psyches intact and others don't.
The only reason I can see that we consider physical abuse less damaging than sexual abuse is the same sex/violence dichotomy that runs through our entire culture.
4003. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:12 PM PT
""You may have trouble believing this, but sexual abuse is far
more serious than comparable physical abuse"
If it is comparable then by definition it is no different in seriousness.
4004. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 10:14 PM PT
Dictionary definition is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object".
I'm not sure what the umbrella term is for all sexual abuse of children, since I don't *think* that incest and pedophilia are considered synonymous.
4005. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:14 PM PT
Yup, Au, it's a very complex issue.
Who can tell when an adult is having sex with a kid?
Very hard to define indeed.
If you're talking about age, let's use the common ages for statutaory rape: Say 15 or below is presumptively molestation, 17 or above isn't. Between 15 and 17, it may or may not be a gray area, depending on the circumstances. In the family: Definitely. Outside the family: Depends on the emotional and sexual maturity of the child.
End of story.
We may quibble about pieces of that, but I'd say that's a pretty uncontroversial definition. In fact, I'm being quite liberal in setting the lower bound at 15. Many states call it statutory rape at 16 or younger.
4006. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:14 PM PT
We think physical abuse is less damaging because our Calvinist background proclaims that to spare the rod is to spoil the child while sex for pleasure is evil and nonreproductive sex is most evil of all.
4007. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:16 PM PT
Au:
Sure. And maybe also because a 13 year old shouldn't be getting screwed by a thirty year old man.
That, and our Calvinist repression, of course.
4008. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 10:17 PM PT
Add that to the growing list of Cal/Au crossposts.
4009. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:19 PM PT
"I'm not sure what the umbrella term is for all sexual abuse of
children, since I don't *think* that incest and pedophilia are
considered synonymous."
Certainly not brother-sister incest. And incest is not restricted to adult-child relationships.
Boba:
My question was regarding pedophilia, not the legal concept of statutory rape. In France the legal age of consent is 13. I have seen girls who were 13 and very well developed, certainly fertile. Can anybody rationally say that male lust for a fertile female is pedophilia?
4010. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 10:19 PM PT
Boba,
"And maybe also because a 13 year old shouldn't be getting screwed by a thirty year old man."
No, actually, JJ has changed the focus. He is saying that a 13 year old being sexually abused--say, the victim of four years of parental incest--is far worse than the same four years of sustained physical abuse by a parent.
My response is that no, I don't think it is. And that the primary reason many people think so is because we have a far wider tolerance for violence than we do for sex. I thought Au was making the same point, but I may have misunderstood.
4011. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:21 PM PT
Cal:
"sexual perversion in which children are
the preferred sexual object"
Define child. There are many who consider you a "child" until 18+.
4012. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
AU:
The law defines child for these purposes, and I have provided a similar definition above.
4013. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
Au,
"Can anybody rationally say that male lust for a fertile female is pedophilia?"
If he knew she was 13 and that was part of the attraction? Pretty close to being so.
4014. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:23 PM PT
Cal:
You understood aright. There is also a feminist thread that holds that somehow sexual offenses are somehow more reprehensable than assaults even if the assault caused far more physical damage.
4015. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 10:25 PM PT
I believe the law also provides for age difference as a factor. So a 19-year-old having sex with a 16-year old isn't statutory rape, but a 25 year old having sex with a 13-year-old is not only statutory rape, but possibly pedophilia, depending on the circumstances.
But Au, the problem of sexual abuse in this country is *not* comprised primarily of guys boffing well-developed 13-year-olds in the unfounded belief they were of age. And that is *certainly* not what is being discussed in this article.
4016. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:26 PM PT
Boba:
"Who can tell when an adult is having sex with a kid?"
Hmmm... 19 year old male (a senior) has sex with 16 year old female (a sophmore). And maybe the fact she was only 16 added to his desire for her. Pedophilia?
4017. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:28 PM PT
"My question was regarding pedophilia, not the legal concept of statutory rape."
The latter is to protect against the former.
"In France the legal age of consent is 13."
That's too young. But very well. You can play this game by continually saying, "But what about a very mature 12 year old?" And then, "But what about a very mature 11 year old? 10 year old? 9 year old?" Etc etc, until you "prove" that there's nothing wrong with fucking a five year old. A lower bound must be set.
"I have seen girls who were 13 and very well developed, certainly fertile. Can anybody rationally say that male lust for a fertile female is pedophilia?"
Yes, they can. Certainly girls reach a sort of gray area at some age, and a man might find them physically attractive. I would still define lust for such a well-developed young girl as verging on pedophilia. The kick with kids is, after all, that you're so much more experienced than they are and you can "teach" them.
People have impusles. People also have responsibilities and an impulse NOT to act on every impulse. We can play your game all night and determine there's nothing wrong with screwing an eight year old. I choose to set a limit, myself.
4018. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:30 PM PT
Au:
See CalGal's post. I was going to add this, but I figured you wouldn't be so childish to bring this up. Many state codes provide that it isn't statutory rape for someone to have sex with someone within four years of their age, as long as they're not below an absolute minimum age (like 13).
As for pedophilia: Of course not. It's not pedophilia for a 14 year old to lust after a 13 year old, or even a 15 year old.
This is too tedious. I think I'm signing off.
4019. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:30 PM PT
I would say that any rational definition of pedophilia has to be based on the physical maturity of the object of desire. If that person is fertile with prominent primary and secondary sexual chracteristics, labeling it pedophilia destroys any usefulness the word has. You turn it into a synonym for statutory rape.
4020. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:34 PM PT
Yah. How about a guy who exclusively is into well-developed 13 year olds? Pedophilia?
4021. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:36 PM PT
Boba:
The latter is to protect against the former.
Wrong. There is hardly a man alive who is unaffected by the sexual appeal of a well formed 16 year old. Stautory rape laws were enacted to protect teen age girls from the advances of craftier and more sophiscated adults. Virginity was considered an asset for a mariagable female at the time. You'll note that Stautory does not apply to legally married minors even though it continues to apply to emancipated minors of the same age.
4022. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:37 PM PT
Au:
Please allow me to retract the nasty tone of my last several posts. I was dumb not to acknowledge that there is a difference in fact between stat rape and pedophilia.
You are looking at this from a therapeutic/diagnostic point of view; I am simply looking to define stat rape.
I was dumb not to see this earlier, and to obstinately conflate the two.
I was arguing vehemently because, by taking your fuzzy picture of "pedophilia," we couldn't do anything in the law to stop it. But this is not right. The law can take an arbitrary view of stat rape, but pedophilia should be a tad more nuanced.
A TAD more.
But you were right, and my nastiness was uncalled for.
4023. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:39 PM PT
Nevertheless, your last post is wrong. Statutory rape laws protect both against pedophilia (in the case of young teens) and, as you say, in the case of 16-year-olds, predatation by older men.
Look, Au, at some point, it IS pedophilia. 13 is pretty goddamned young.
4024. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 10:43 PM PT
As I said--if the age is part of the appeal, then it is pedophilia if the person is 13.
But this is far afield from the original topic.
4025. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:44 PM PT
"The kick with kids is, after all, that you're so much
more experienced than they are and you can "teach" them."
The attractiveness of youth in a mate probably evolved many millions of years ago, long before even rudimentary hominids evolved. Fast forward to cave man society. Inadequate diet probably delayed puberty in most females until a later age, yet the life expectancy wasn't much past the thirties. So there would have been strong pressure for males to find females attractive almost the instant they became fertile. Wanting young females, particularly virgins to be certain of your paternity, is an inevitable male behavior characteristic.
4026. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:48 PM PT
Yes, Au, I've met a drop dead gorgeous 15 year old. Gorgeous, a stunner. And yes, I was attracted to her.
But you're trying to say that because I might have an urge, it's perfectly natural for me to ACT on that urge, despite the fact that I know damn well I shouldn't be screwing a girl so young.
You're justifying ugly behavior on the basis of an urge.
Thinking a well-developed 15 year old is attractive is not pedophilia. Being so overcome with lust for such a child -- knowing full well the moral and social codes against it -- that you actually try to take a fifteen year old to bed is suggestive of a psychological disorder, yes.
4027. JJBiener - April 15, 1999 - 10:52 PM PT
Cal - On what do you base your belief that physical abuse is as damaging as sexual abuse? I base my belief on my experience with abused children and on the training I received that qualified me to be a foster parent for these children. I have also researched the subject in order to better help the children in my care. You seem to be adamant in you belief, so I was curious how you came to your conclusion.
4028. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 10:55 PM PT
JJ:
I find Cal's proposition and your rebuttal meaningless for this reason: ENOUGH physical abuse will at some point be worse than a one-time molesting.
There is no meaningful way to quantify these things such that they can be compared. A child starved and beaten every day of his life to age fourteen will probably be worse off than a girl who gets fondled once or twice by her much-older cousin, for example.
4029. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:55 PM PT
Cal:
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to a child. I am merely trying to point out the subconscious triggers that cause men to find young teenaged partners particulary attractive need not be at all "unatural". Not saying what is or isn't OK. In a purely evolutionary sense it is to be expected.
There are times I have a perfectly natural desire to strangle a particular person. I don't act on these desires and it doesn't mean I am a violent person for having them.
Pedophilia then either describes most of the male population if you want to define it strictly by age or people who are attracted sexually to other people who are not yet physically developed. The latter definition alows one to see it as a genetic aberration since it would tend to be selected aginst.
4030. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
Boba:
I am agreed with you on the which is worse argument. Which is "worse" is entirely dependent on the specific incident, the makeup of the individual and how their family/peers react to it.
4031. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:01 PM PT
Au:
Please respond to 4026.
There is a difference between a physical attraction and a lust so overwhelming it causes you to risk going to jail to have sex with a child, who will more than likely be hurt by the experience.
Acting under such circumstances would probably show a degree of pedophilia. There are many of-age attractive women. There simply is no good reason to seduce a fourteen year old because you find her attractive -- UNLESS it is the very thought that she's fourteen that impels you.
4032. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 11:02 PM PT
"Being so overcome with lust for such a child --
knowing full well the moral and social codes against it -- that you
actually try to take a fifteen year old to bed is suggestive of a
psychological disorder, yes."
Only true if you share the society's moral codes. Change the subject from bedding a 15 year old to selling pot. To actually try to sell pot is indicative of a mental disorder?
4033. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:05 PM PT
Wrong, Au.
Even if you don't share society's moral codes, you know the horrible sanctions you'll face if caught. Seducing a well-developed fourteen year old in such a situation -- where there are plenty of well-developed twenty and thirty year olds to be had without facing such a sanction -- is a sign not of attraction to a shapely form, but of an overpowering attraction to a fourteen year old in particular.
4034. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:08 PM PT
Example:
Here are two nice chocloates. They both taste the same, but the chocolate with a red stripe contains a poison which will make you vomit for ten days straight.
Knowing this, if you chose the chocolate with the red stripe, you're not really attracted to the form of the chocolate (a sexually developed female body), you're attracted to the red stripe itself (the fact that she's fourteen).
Otherwise, of course, you'd just choose the safe chocolate.
4035. JJBiener - April 15, 1999 - 11:09 PM PT
Boba - CalGal and I were talking about comparable levels of physical and sexual abuse, ie single occurance, occaisional, weekly, daily, etc.
4036. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 11:09 PM PT
"There is a difference between a physical attraction and a lust so
overwhelming it causes you to risk going to jail"
Only in quantity. Not in quality. Pedophilia in your book is then merely a lack of will power.
"There
simply is no good reason to seduce a fourteen year old"
Except that in other times and other places it would not be at all considered aberrant behavior. Pedophillia and seducing well formed 14 year olds both wrong but are still are a world apart. I prefer to give pedophilia a definition that genuinely makes it an *aberration* to distinguish it from garden variety lust for forbidden fruit.
4037. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 11:12 PM PT
"Otherwise, of course, you'd just choose the safe chocolate."
Unless you were attracted to forbidden fruit of any age.
Unless the red stripe only offered a tiny possibility of poisoning.
And then if you are hungry (or stupid) enough you eat them both.
4038. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 11:14 PM PT
JJ:
How do you calibrate the severity of an instance of sexual abuse relative to an instance of physical abuse? What sexual activity does a black eye compare to? How about cigarette burns and a broken nose?
4039. JJBiener - April 15, 1999 - 11:15 PM PT
Boba - You fail to take into account that we don't really know what causes one individual to be attracted to another. If a man is attracted to a 14 year old just because she is 14, then you have a case for pedophilia. If the man is attracted because she is mature, well-developed, intelligent, witty, attractive, etc., then you probably don't have a case.
Peophilia is generally considered the attraction to sexually immature children.
4040. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 11:18 PM PT
JJ said it better than me.
4041. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:20 PM PT
"Unless you were attracted to forbidden fruit of any age." Silly.
"Except that in other times and other places it would not be at all considered aberrant behavior."
It doesn't matter. If society imposes great santions for a behavior, and you behave that way anyway, despite the fact that non-sanctioned substitute behaviors are available, you're obviously obsessed with that particular sanctioned behavior.
"Pedophillia and seducing well formed 14 year olds both wrong but are still are a world apart."
No, they're not. You wouldn't be going after the 14 year old when there are legal 18 year olds available unless you were so passionate for a 14 year old you'd risk jail time.
"I prefer to give pedophilia a definition that genuinely makes it an *aberration* to distinguish it from garden variety lust for forbidden fruit."
Men and women both have rape fantasies. possibly stemming from the fact that it's forbidden fruit. But people who act on such fantasies are either evil or sick or both.
"Unless the red stripe only offered a tiny possibility of poisoning." I can't imagine the risks of getting caught with a young girl are low. It's going to happen.
"And then if you are hungry (or stupid) enough you eat them both." In other words, if you have no checks over your urges. Which would more than likely be classified as a mental defect.
4042. JJBiener - April 15, 1999 - 11:22 PM PT
AuNaturel - I don't know that any such correlation is necessary or possible. Obviously acts of both sexual and physical abuse fall into a spectrum of severity. Exact correlation is not necessary to observe how children react and recover from various types of abuse.
4043. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:25 PM PT
"If a man is attracted to a 14 year old just because she is 14, then you have a case for pedophilia. If the man is attracted because she is mature, well-developed, intelligent, witty, attractive, etc., then you probably don't have a case."
There is no man who can talk to a fourteen year old and not realize she's fourteen or thereabouts. The "mature girl" hypothetical is bunkum. So if this man seduces this girl, then yes, he's a pedophiliac. Why risk so much for sex? The only reason is if you are aberrantly attracted to underage girls.
"Peophilia is generally considered the attraction to sexually immature children."
Perhaps it is; you'd know better than I. But in the fourteen-year-old hypothetical, you acknowledged that it would be pedophilia if you were attracted to a sexually mature fourteen year old because she's fourteen. So apparently this isn't really a hard and fast rule.
4044. JJBiener - April 15, 1999 - 11:32 PM PT
Boba - This is psychology no physics. Hard and fast rules are out of place. What is important is motivation.
I'll give you a hypothetical. A man meets a woman who is 25. She is extremely small breasted, thin, and child-like in appearance. If the man develops an attraction to her, is he a pedophile?
4045. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:33 PM PT
"Pedophilia in your book is then merely a lack of will power."
Not quite. Being attracted to infants and such is an aberration in itself. Being attracted to sexually immature girls would be too, I guess. (ALthough why you apparently put so much reliance on breast size is beyond me, since this is the only secondary sex characteristic discernable through clothing.)
Being attracted to very young girls who are, however, objectively attractive in an "adult" way is not of itself pedophilia. But now we do come down to relative attraction and relative willpower: To seduce a such a girl either shows an unnaturally powerful attraction to a young girl, or else shows a willpower so weak as incapable of restraining the person from dangerous behavior when nondangerous substitutes are available.
4046. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:36 PM PT
No, JJ. It's you and Au who insist on putting so much reliance on breast size and "apparent" fertility.
To me, it comes down to age, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if a fourteen year old is small breasted or big breasted. Between 14 and 16 we're in a gray area; obviously such girls may be objectively attractive.
But to be SO attracted to such a girl, despite the powerful sanctions society imposes, as to seduce her shows that you have an unusually powerful lust for young girls.
And that's pedophilia.
4047. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 11:37 PM PT
"Unless you were attracted to forbidden fruit of any age." Silly.
You don't think that forbidding something makes it more attractive to very many people? Tell that to Eve.
"You wouldn't be going after the 14 year old when
there are legal 18 year olds available"
But the 14 year old is right there. Your 18 year old girl friend just dumped you....
Again you are trying to define pedophilia in a way that includes most males, well adjusted or not. If you want to say lack of will power or failure to consider consequences are mental diseases then do so.
The 14 year old boy/girl who is seduced (as opposed to coerced) by a man old enough to be a father figure is likely to suffer far less harm than the 7 year old forced to perform felatio on his/her father. Not even in the same ballpark.
4048. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:39 PM PT
Well, I think we're now officially going "round and round" on this.
4049. AuNaturel - April 15, 1999 - 11:41 PM PT
Make that:
The 14 year old boy/girl who is seduced (as opposed to coerced) by a *person* old enough to ba a parental figure...
4050. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:44 PM PT
"Again you are trying to define pedophilia in a way that includes most males, well adjusted or not."
No, I'm not. I don't know what you know about "most males," but most males I know might be physically attracted to a too-young girl, but they sure the hell wouldn't be so attracted they'd act on it.
"If you want to say lack of will power or failure to consider consequences are mental diseases then do so."
No, I'm saying that a lust for a fourteen year old IN PARTICULAR which is so overwhelming that you give in to it is a sign of pedophilia.
"The 14 year old boy/girl who is seduced (as opposed to coerced) by a man old enough to be a father figure is likely to suffer far less harm than the 7 year old forced to perform felatio on his/her father. Not even in the same ballpark."
No doubt. But not relevant to defining what pedophilia is. That's like saying that one kind of rape might be less damaging than another, but the first man is a rapist while the second isn't, simply because he causes less harm.
4051. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:46 PM PT
Addendum to the above:
I don't doubt that a man who truly wasn't a pedophiliac could, if horny, stupid, drunk, or just uncaring have sex with a fourteen year old. I'm sure it's happened.
But, as Goldfinger said to Bond: "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, the Third Time is Enemy Action."
Someone who takes a shot at his second fourteen year old should probably get some therapy.
4052. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 11:48 PM PT
Boba,
"But to be SO attracted to such a girl, despite the powerful sanctions society imposes, as to seduce her shows that you have an unusually powerful lust for young girls.
And that's pedophilia."
No. JJ, Au, and I have all explained what it is. It is being attracted to someone who *is* young, who *looks* young, etc.
4053. CalGal - April 15, 1999 - 11:49 PM PT
And, again, if the only sexual abuse we had in this country was guys boffing 13 year olds who appeared to be 20....
4054. JJBiener - April 15, 1999 - 11:50 PM PT
Boba - "But to be SO attracted to such a girl, despite the powerful sanctions society imposes, as to seduce her shows that you have an unusually powerful lust for young girls."
I don't agree with this conclusion. Normal sexual attraction is powerful enough to cause men to do things at least as harmful as the sanctions from seducing a 14 year old. Your theory is interesting, but it doesn't hold up.
4055. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:51 PM PT
Nope.
If you're diddling a good-looking fourteen year old, she's still fourteen and you know it. You know it's dangerous and you're doing it anyway. More than likely, you're doing it precisely because she is fourteen and you have some virgin/teacher-pupil fantasy going.
4056. BobaFett - April 15, 1999 - 11:54 PM PT
Quite frankly -- and not to accuse you, so don't take offense -- I don't see why any of you are arguing that it's such a bloody gray area and it's so "complex" to determine if someone is a pedophile or not. To me, this all sounds like a lawyer's closing argument in a statutory rape case. It sounds like you're thinking of reasons NOT to call a spade a spade.
But then, I'm coming at it from a prescriptive point of view. Quite frankly, I could give a shit what drives people. Simple rule: Keep your hands off the Kinder.
4057. spudboy - April 16, 1999 - 12:56 AM PT
Boba: About your Message #3996 ... “e. You and Spudboy have both tried to politicize this and now are feeling awfully stupid you did so.
“f. And now you're taking your balls and going home.”
Actually, I had to get back to work. Now then.
Let me point out that it is Tom DeLay, not I, who has politicized this matter. He chose (as do you) to misrepresent what both the study and the manual said and, by virtue of his position, is making it a political football. I understand that this is standard politics -- and you'll recall that my only commentary regarding his actions (I'm not sure why JJ regarded it as an “attack”) was “Lord, protect us from our protectors,” adding later that he was a “self-serving moralist.”
Now, interestingly, you say that your way of dealing with child sex abuse (and I'd bet yours mirrors Tom DeLay's) is “prescriptive” -- that is, you simply argue for total prohibition. To which I say: No shit, Sherlock. From our high moral perspectives, it's easy for us to simply sit back and say: Don't do that -- and if you do, you're going to jail. And think that'll stop it from happening.
Hate to break this to you, Boba, but that's exactly the case right now. And it hardly addresses reality. We still have pedophiles abusing children at a terrific rate. It's still happening. In a way, yes I do have a personal stake in all this; because typically when I've had to cover stories about such cases, it's not the molesters or their families I get to know; it's the victims'. My perspective comes from being close to people who've suffered at the hands of molesters. It's made a deep impression on me.
4058. spudboy - April 16, 1999 - 12:57 AM PT
A lot of times, it's a family member. Or the well-known, long-trusted old neighbor a few doors down. Only occasionally is it the pathetic weirdo who hangs out in the girls' room at the park or who pick up little girls walking home from school in their cars (those are the ones that make the news, though).
Simply saying you're going to lock them up for doing it isn't cutting it -- they all get out after awhile (though I suppose you could argue for just locking them up and throwing away the key). And after a few years -- or sometimes just a few days -- they're back to their old shit. It's great to say you're going to lock them up -- after they've molested another kid. Tell that to the parents of the victim.
The question is, how do we prevent it from happening in the first place? Obviously, there are societal currents that help create these kinds of people. How do we identify them? How do we handle it on an individual basis? How we can identify potential perps before they reach that point?
For answers, I tend to trust psychologists and social scientists (though not wholly) a great deal more than I do Bible-thumping preachers and self-aggrandizing politicians. I think it's important to be fair to the people studying the subject to give their work a fair hearing -- which means not distorting or misrepresenting it.
Politicians on the right seem particularly prone to this. I am actually much more of a traditionalist than you suspect and happen to think very highly of the very real “family values” I grew up with in farming country. However, I also think that Republican grandstanding on issues they think comprise defending these values is hypocritical drivel of the rankest sort.
4059. spudboy - April 16, 1999 - 12:58 AM PT
We all recall, I think, how Newt Gingrich held little Susan Smith who drive her little boys into the lake so she wouldn't be a bother to her anymore as a fine instance of the spread of “liberal values” -- until, of course, it turned out that her stepfather with whom she had been raised was a state GOP committeeman of some influence (and it also later turned out that he had been convicted of molesting her when she was a girl). And my little tweak about Mary Kay LeTourneau was pointed in this same direction. John Schmitz, you know, made great hay about the nation's moral decline.
So when Tom DeLay comes out and pounces on what seems like a potentially useful approach to treating and identifying molesters with his high-minded moral horsepucky, I am inclined to pull on the reins. It would be OK if DeLay's posturing were simply a distraction; but it is both counterproductive to reaching what I think should be a common goal (preventing molestation) and disturbing, considering that he has shown on more than one occasion that he is not hesitant to throw his considerable political weight around.
Now, I really am going to be swamped in work for the next day or so, and probably can only peek back in. Have away, and I'll check back Saturday or thereabouts.
4060. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:03 AM PT
Spudder:
Yeah, I'm still up.
One problem: The study cited does not deal with rehabilitating/curing pedophiles-- which nobody would be against, in principle, at least.
What the study did was examine the effects of molestation on the victims, and came to the bizarre conclusion that it "ain't even that bad."
Now, saying that children tend to recover better than expected is one thing. If that's what their study showed, so be it; I don't suggest we censor science.
But to come ot the conclusion that we therefore should have a more "nuanced" view of pedophilia and replace the term with the "value neutral" term "adult-child sex" is pretty repulsive.
And you did play political football with this, Spudder. Tom DeLay didn't go after the democrats, did he? No, he did not. He went straight to the people he believed responsible.
It was you who chose to make a partisan squabble out of this, bizarrely taking the position that if a Republican is against a very tough line on pedophilia, well, damnit, you'll just have to disagree with him, won't you?
4061. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:07 AM PT
for a tough line on pedophilia
4062. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:09 AM PT
Spudboy --
I agree with Boba. Your odd first post on this topic seemed to suggest that conservative politicians shouldn't put their noses in this kind of difficult issue because they are not qualified to understand the nuances of it.
Silly stuff, actually.
4063. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:10 AM PT
And, yes, you *should* trust those psychologists. Now there is an objective, nonpolitical field if there ever was one.
4064. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:13 AM PT
"The question is, how do we prevent it from happening in the first place? Obviously, there are societal currents that help create these kinds of people. How do we identify them? How do we handle it on an individual basis? How we can identify potential perps before they reach that point?"
None of this was what the study was about.
"For answers, I tend to trust psychologists and social scientists (though not wholly) a great deal more than I do Bible-thumping preachers and self-aggrandizing politicians."
Yeah? Why? I trust scientists. I trust psychiatrists. I have little faith in psychologists and social scientists. I'd like to know what precisely they've done to earn your great faith.
"I think it's important to be fair to the people studying the subject to give their work a fair hearing -- which means not distorting or misrepresenting it."
No one's distorting or misrepresenting their evidence. What is being challenged is the bizarre conclusion they draw from their rather mundane evidence. As I said earlier, I think it's nice that children tend to recover fairly well from sexual abuse. That's good to know, for the children's sake.
How this therefore means that we should adopt a value neutral term to describe pedophilia is beyond me.
Terrific! Most kids didn't commit suicide or go crazy!
And now let's stop calling pedophiliacs such a dirty name.
Doesn't quite follow, does it, Spudder?
4066. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:19 AM PT
BTW, the age of consent is twelve in Hawaii (it's those damn Samoans), and varies considerably from state to state.
But I disagree with Au's take on this, which seems to be a variation of "it's all so complex and therefore we shouldn't be judgemental." We should be judgemental.
In Asia, I saw quite a few guys running around getting their rocks off with girls that would have represented a jail pass in the states. The penalties here do constrain many people, and I don't think we need to get into the hackneyed argument of if a nineteen year-old seduces a seventeen year-old, do we have a crime, to determine if those crimes should be punished.
My solution to that one is to keep the nineteen year-old guessing.
4068. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:25 AM PT
Boba --
"I have little faith in psychologists and social scientists. I'd like to know what precisely they've done to earn your great faith."
It was the electric shock therapy in the fifties and the definition of homosexuality as a deviant behavior until the seventies that must have clinched it.
4069. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:30 AM PT
"So when Tom DeLay comes out and pounces on what seems like a potentially useful approach to treating and identifying molesters with his high-minded moral horsepucky, I am inclined to pull on the reins. It would be OK if DeLay's posturing were simply a distraction; but it is both counterproductive to reaching what I think should be a common goal (preventing molestation) and disturbing, considering that he has shown on more than one occasion that he is not hesitant to throw his considerable political weight around."
The only "approaches" delay objected to were these:
1) The DSM now requires a finding of anxiety or other mental disorder-- aside from just being hot for children -- in order to classify somebody a pedophile.
Errrr.... how precisely is this useful? And the APA says that DeLay is mistaken, and that the DSM really does still classify all pedophiles as mentally ill. So if that's true, we really don't have a "new and useful approach" at all; we have DeLay simply confused by the change in wording. Either DeLay's response was CORRECT, in which case the APA IS seeking to declassify "pedophilia only" as a mental disorder, or he is WRONG, in which case they are not doing so, but in this case there is NO NEW AND USEFUL APPROACH.
I leave it to you, Spudder, to decide between these two alternatives.
2) Changing the term "pedophile" to the "value neutral" term "adult-child sex." Errrr... and this is useful how, precisely? SO the pedophile won't feel bad about molesting children? Odd, I would think that an appreciation of the gravity of his wrongs would be useful. But perhaps the authors of this study -- which the APA does NOT endorse, by the way -- think differently.
You want to take the sting out of something, give it a euphemism. The Greek-rooted "pedophile" doesn't have quite the punch of "child molester," but we
4070. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:30 AM PT
"I trust psychiatrists"
Why?????
4071. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:31 AM PT
all know what it means so it still has sting. Now come along these authors saying pedophile has too much of a negative conotation; let's use the neutral, descriptive term adult-child sex.
And how will this help identify pedophiles before they attack? How will this help their therapy?
Face facts: Just as I said, you saw Tom DeLay's name and without even pausing to consider his position, you decided he MUST be wrong and these brave authors MUST be right in suggesting we need to use less judgemental language to describe our child molestors.
PS: This story has been out now for a month. in fact, it's stale news. Except for one thing:
Tom DeLay joined the ranks of the study's critics.
How come you weren't so urgently moved to post about it/comment on it until Tom DeLay threw his Republican hat in the ring? If you were so gangbusters-certain these authors were on to something, why didn't you defend them against Dr. Laura's attacks, or the attacks of their fellow psychologists?
Because, of course, there was no partisan angle in it then, was there?
It wasn't until now that you could take this and turn it into yet another partisan weapon.
4072. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:34 AM PT
Au:
Because psychiatrists are doctors. Dealing with the brain is a tricky business, and I know their batting average is less than spectacular. But, in matters of the mind, I'd certainly take the word of a psychiatrist over a "psychologist" or a "social scientist."
4073. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:35 AM PT
PM:
"My solution to that one is to keep the nineteen year-old
guessing."
Unfortunately for your suggestion, that is not a valid option. Laws that "keep people guessing" get thrown out as unconsttutionally vague. It is established that an individual be able to determine in advance the legality of any action they might take or the law gets voided. The alternative leaves us open to horrific governmental abuse.
4074. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:36 AM PT
And PS:
I don't really have THAT much faith in psychiatrists. I trust them to correctly diagnose what drugs to give a patient. As far as the deeper questions of curing a character flaw or mental disorder, I doubt they know too much more than your average cabbie or bartender.
But if a psychiatrist says "you need prozac," I'd believe him. I guess.
4075. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:40 AM PT
Pincher:
Yes, psychiatrists have had a spotty history. I'm just cutting them a little slack becasue, shit, this is the brain we're talking about. A tough nut to crack.
I was wrong to say I "trust" them. I don't, particularly. More than a psychologist, but less than an economist, and much less than a regular doctor or scientist.
4076. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:42 AM PT
Pincher:
Just so you know, I originally thought that Au was trying to go easy on pedophiles. I'm not sure if this really is her game, at this point.
She is, I think, simply trying to argue about what truly constitutes pedophilia, and she's NOT saying that our statutory rape laws shouldn't be clearly defined and vigorously enforced.
At least, that's what I came to think; maybe she's arguing something different now.
4077. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:44 AM PT
You figgered it out, old man!
4078. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:46 AM PT
Au --
"Unfortunately for your suggestion, that is not a valid option. Laws that "keep people guessing" get thrown out as unconsttutionally vague. It is established that an individual be able to determine in advance the legality of any action they might take or the law gets voided. The alternative leaves us open to horrific governmental abuse."
That is a valid option because the law is quite precise, unlike your definition of pedophilia. Where I would keep the youngsters guessing, and this was said more in jest, is on the enforcement of it. Obviously, no 19 year-old is going to get thrown in jail for boffing his 17 year-old girlfriend. I was once in such a circumstance (I was 19 and she was 16 going on 17), and I didn't worry about the consequences of my action.
What's wrong --
19 and 17: obviously not
20 and 16: no
21 and 15: cutting it close
22 and 14: almost there if not there
23 and 13: few people would protect the guy in such a case.
24 and 12: should be definite jailtime
There are many fine points that a judge can look at including the mental fitness of the person who consented (for example, a mentally handicapped girl of 17 gives her consent to the 35 year-old busdriver who drives her to school -- I would use the law to throw this guy into the can).
4079. BobaFett - April 16, 1999 - 1:48 AM PT
Pincher:
"keep the nineteen year old guessing"
I'm not sure if any state code endorses this, or if I just THOUGHT this would be an innovative idea.
But here goes:
You can be put in jail for acting with "recklessness" as your state of mind. So it might be a good idea, as a stopgap for these situations where a girl really *could* pass for seventeen, to have a lesser crime of "intentionally having sexual relations with a minor, not with actual knowlege that the minor was underage, but with reckless disregard to whether she was underage or not."
Actually, now that I think about it, many codes might treat "recklessness" as "actual knowledge" in this situation.
And I think some codes actually just say: If you screw a 14 year old, you're going to jail, whether your actually believed she was seventeen or not.
I'm so confused now. I'm tired. Good night.
4080. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:50 AM PT
No, I saw that and I agree with that point of her's (which was her main point). But she uses a hackneyed way of arguing, one that can be abused easily. (I still am unclear as to whether she believes that a mature adult having sex with a nubile thirteen year-old goddess is wrong, and knowing she is a libertarian, I suspect the worse.)
4081. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:51 AM PT
Boba --
Look at Message #4078 for an explanation to your last post.
4082. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 1:54 AM PT
And yes, if you are hot and horney for a 30 year old woman *because* she looks ten (had a realtor once that fit the bill perfectly) then you could be a perfectly legal pedophile. You'd have with nothing to be ashamed of as long as you are able to restrain yourself from chasing the real youngsters.
4083. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 1:58 AM PT
Au --
No thirty year-old realtor looks ten, and, besides, the point is that she doesn't act and think like a ten-year old, although I am sure some of her boyfriends probably convinced her to playact in the bedroom.
4084. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:04 AM PT
Boba:
The courts have only recently allowed the defense that "I thought she was 18 because she presented false ID" to be used in child porn cases. Previously it had been held that the fact that a minor may have faked her age was no defense. I think it was prosecution of the people who made Tracy Lords videos that decided it.
4085. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:06 AM PT
BTW, does any state still have a 18 year-old consent law. I once saw a list of states and the ages and don't remember a single state having such a law. I think that most were sixteen.
There are ther laws to protect children and teenagers from teachers, the sex industry, etc. but I don't think that is tied in with the age of consent.
4086. rustlerpike - April 16, 1999 - 2:07 AM PT
Pincher:
I have reviewed your post Message #4078 and believe I can summarize it thus:
7-(B-G)-(16-G) = J
Where B = age of boy.
G = age of girl
J (if positive) = jailtime
4087. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:08 AM PT
RP --
Thank you, everything is clear now.
4088. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:10 AM PT
RP--
How does this "a mentally handicapped girl of 17 gives her consent to the 35 year-old busdriver who drives her to school" work into an equation?
4089. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:10 AM PT
"the point is
that she doesn't act and think like a ten-year old"
The point is that visual cues are central to male arousal. If what arouses you is the *absence* of the cues indicating sexual maturity you are a pedophile. Pedophilia, like sexual alignment, works on a fundamental, instictive level. Definitely not a choice. It is largely immune to psychological techniques and there are few successful "conversions" to the "normal" state.
4090. rustlerpike - April 16, 1999 - 2:11 AM PT
No wait - that's
(B-G) - (16-G) = J
I think.
4091. rustlerpike - April 16, 1999 - 2:16 AM PT
Pincher - you're right.
Mb[(B-G) - (16-G)]/Mg = J
Mb = mental age of boy
Mg = mental age of girl
4092. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:18 AM PT
AuNatural --
"The point is that visual cues are central to male arousal. If what arouses you is the *absence* of the cues indicating sexual maturity you are a pedophile. Pedophilia, like sexual alignment, works on a fundamental, instictive level. Definitely not a choice. It is largely immune to psychological techniques and there are few successful "conversions" to the "normal" state."
There is a far cry between a visual cue that contributes to arousal and the follow-through which will contribute to your time in jail (if pedophilia). I am sure that people don't choose to be attracted to little girls, but I really don't give a fuck. The argument that I am concerned about is what to do about it; this seems to be a point that you are avoiding as you split hairs about what constitutes pedophilia.
4093. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:19 AM PT
RP --
Now we need to get it codified into law.
4094. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:22 AM PT
"(I still am unclear as to whether she
believes that a mature adult having sex with a nubile thirteen
year-old goddess is wrong, and knowing she is a libertarian, I
suspect the worse.)"
In all realistic cases it would be "wrong", but the degree of "wrongness" would obviously vary widely depending on the culture, the people involved and how it came about. In times not so long past, 13 was considered a reasonable age for marriage.
4095. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:25 AM PT
PM:
Pedophilia is not an action. It is a desire. You can be a confirmed heterosexual/homosexual, S&M aficianado or rubber fetishist without ever engaging in those particular sexual activities.
4096. AuNaturel - April 16, 1999 - 2:28 AM PT
PM:
Do about it? Almost nothing can be done about it. Don't have sex with children yourself. Raise eyour children properly and they will not be vulnerable to this sort of thing.
4097. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:32 AM PT
Au -- Message #4094
Agreed, but that is how the law works now. It is a precise law that in implementation is given a lot of flexibility. I don't see that it needs to be changed.
Message #4095
"Pedophilia is not an action. It is a desire. You can be a confirmed heterosexual/homosexual, S&M aficianado or rubber fetishist without ever engaging in those particular sexual activities."
All those fetishes that fall outside of the law are of no concern to me. Although I disagree with some of your definitions. Some guy who dreams of dominatrix beating his butt with a rubber paddle, but never acts out on it except as an aid to masturbation is hardly an S&M aficiando.
4098. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:35 AM PT
Au --
"Do about it? Almost nothing can be done about it. Don't have sex with children yourself. Raise eyour children properly and they will not be vulnerable to this sort of thing."
Bullshit. You can live in a society that decides child pornography is an acceptable form of free speech or you can argue that these things are so hard to define that laws don't need to be on the books in which case you make my life harder to raise my children (as yet unborn) properly as they become more vulnerable outside of my home.
4099. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:37 AM PT
AuNatural --
Are you arguing that the United States should not have these kind of laws on the books? I am pretty sure that you are but I want to hear you say it.
4100. PincherMartin - April 16, 1999 - 2:48 AM PT
AuNatural --
I am going to bed (and I am guessing you already have) but I hope you will answer my question tomorrow: Is your argument that we shouldn't have these laws on the books?