Those sexually predatory 12 year old girls!

[Seth]

i can't imagine why a 41 year old would want to do anything with a 12 year old except help her with her homework or something like that.

The fact that you can't imagine it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Very obviously it does. Remember, half the population lies below the peak of the bell curve. The question here is not whether a 41 year old can be sexually attracted to a 12 year old, it's whether a 12 year old can be sexually predatory towards a 41 year old and whether a consensual relationship between the two is in fact harmful to either or simply an "ick factor" issue.

i mean, a 12 year old? At 12 there is no life experience.

There's 12 years of life experience, which, sadly, for some kids is twice the lifetime that you or I have experienced. But what does that have to do with sexual libido? Half of all 12 year olds in the US are engaging in sex acts of one kind or another. Mostly with peers, but it's hardly unusual for horny girls to seek out "older men" for their first, or subsequent sexual experiences. "Older" meaning anything from 13 to 90. I see stories all the time about 18 and 19 year old "men" having sex with, and "marrying" and having babies with 13, 14, and 15 year old girls all the time. Some states have such a problem with underage pregnancy that they are instituting mandatory cord-blood storage from underage mothers so that DNA can be used to identify the father...which quite often the girl is unwilling to identify because she loves him.

You simply cannot generalize about sexual activity in young persons of either sex.

Imagine yourself at 12. At 12, my perspective on things that occurred only 10 years before was that it was ancient history, and had no real relevance. i was ignorant of most events and i had no relationship experience. i had thoughts and desires, but little or no understanding of them. My friends and I went out riding bikes, playing football and soccer, swimming, all sorts of kid stuff. Most everyone I knew had not had sex, and the most amazing bit of luck was to get access to a playboy magazine and ogle at the amazing women inside. That's not being ready to deal with adults on an even keel.

Well, that's you. I refer you to the movie "Summer of '42" for an earlier take on the sexual adventures of pubescent boys.

And that's the point, every person is different and social mores change over time and interculturally, which means that "ick factor" arguments produced as supposedly rational argumentation are particularly weak.

There's way more going on than most people even want to acknowledge.

[Seth]

Well to address your point about 'relative' sexual maturity, that surely is why we have the laws we do concerning the age of consent. They aren't perfect but they sure as hell are better than doing some weird physical sexual maturity test for each case. You have raised yourself the precociousness of the girl in question. It is surely up to any adult male to make sure as far as possible that he isn't in illegal territory. If he was, but had been 'fooled' (hard to be in my view if one takes into account emotional and intellectual development as well as purely physical) then it would count as mitigation.

However we are discussing exceptions. And as we all know exceptions make for bad law. The majority of cases of sexual abuse take place within families and by someone well known to the victim. Opportunism perhaps. No excuses - absolutely.

I don't disagree, I'm merely asking someone to explain WHY, exactly, such a consensual relationship is believed to be axiomatically (and therefore legally) harmful?

As I said, the French have a long and rather revered history of encouraging girls as young as 14 to seek out an older, experienced man as their first lover. French girls do not seem to be damaged by this. One might even say that French girls are far more mature about (and responsible with) their sexuality than American or even UK girls as a result.

So is there any objective evidence that a consensual relationship between a 12 year old and a 41 year old is, in all cases, harmful either mentally or physically to the girl (or boy for that matter...we should consider the recent seeming explosion in female teachers being caught with THEIR hands in the cookie jar of late) to the extent that "statutory rape" laws are rational, reasonable and appropriate?

[Rum]

No, there isn't any objective evidence. We are talking cultural rather than absolute norms here, and perhaps our current norm has hiked the acceptable age as childhood (well dependence on parents/adults) has lengthened.

There are still cultures where males marrying young girls is acceptable if not exactly the norm. Islam for example.

[Seth]

Well that's where the word paedophilia arises. Most of us are not sexually remotely interested but they are and some compulsively so.

Remotely interested in what?

Biology and genetics drives men to be sexually interested in younger women. The distinction, I think, between pedophilia and natural sexual attraction is pedophiles are generally attracted to a) children long before they reach physical sexual maturity, and indeed are all but asexual; b) are often attracted to children of the same gender or EITHER gender; and c) have a compulsive need to ACT on those sexual feelings.

An adult male of any age is biologically programmed to respond sexually to specific morphological and physical cues from a woman. This includes menses, breast development, development of the hips and other subtle and not so subtle sexual features of women that evolution has programmed into them.

It's hardly unexpected for a male of any age to respond sexually to, by way of example, Alicia Silverstone in "The Crush." The whole movie is about this exact subject, although she plays a 14 year old psychotic genius child. The point remains. Alicia Silverstone was chosen for the part specifically because her morphological characteristics met the requirements for stimulating a sexual response in men.

One can argue that there are reasons for men not to act on those impulses, but to say that the impulses are deviant or improper is to deny millions of years of evolutionary biology which has finely honed the characteristics of young women to do precisely that.

So the question becomes not "is it appropriate that males are aroused by physically sexually mature girls, whatever their age?" but rather "Why is it inappropriate for an older man to act on those urges, particularly if the culture accepts as normal a male of a close age doing exactly the same thing?"

In other words, why is it socially (and in most cases legally) acceptable for a 16 year old boy to screw a 13 or 14 year old girl but it is not if he's 41?

That's one of the things I'm trying to explore here. Not the propriety or impropriety of having sex with young girls, but rather WHY it is considered "icky" for an older man to do so. I'm not attempting to justify it, just explore it.

[Seth]

No, there isn't any objective evidence. We are talking cultural rather than absolute norms here, and perhaps our current norm has hiked the acceptable age as childhood (well dependence on parents/adults) has lengthened.

There are still cultures where males marrying young girls is acceptable if not exactly the norm. Islam for example.

And India/Pakistan and several other Indonesian countries like Thailand, where arranged marriages between pre-pubescent children are actually fairly common. Interestingly there is a body of evidence indicating that arranged marriages tend to last longer than "love matches" in some countries...which is one reason the practice persists.

[Rum]

No, there isn't any objective evidence. We are talking cultural rather than absolute norms here, and perhaps our current norm has hiked the acceptable age as childhood (well dependence on parents/adults) has lengthened.

There are still cultures where males marrying young girls is acceptable if not exactly the norm. Islam for example.

And India/Pakistan and several other Indonesian countries like Thailand, where arranged marriages between pre-pubescent children are actually fairly common. Interestingly there is a body of evidence indicating that arranged marriages tend to last longer than "love matches" in some countries...which is one reason the practice persists.

Yeah, like the lady's gonna split.

[Warren Dew]

A sixteen year olf boy having sex with a fourteen year old, for example, is not in the same category of exploitation as a 41 year old having sex with a 13 year old.

How do we know that? It seems to me that it's case specific - if the 16 year old got his partner drunk first to get permission, and the 41 year old was the one who was plied with alcohol by his partner, I'd say the exploitation was worse in the case of the 16 year old.

Without any evidence of some extreme and unusual conduct on the part of the 12 year old to coerce or compel the 41 year old to do her bidding, which i find to be highly unlikely, it's really up to 41 year olds to keep their dicks out of 12 year olds. it's not particularly difficult.

Except, we do have evidence of extreme and unusual conduct in this case - the prosecutor's statement. It's not proof, but it's about the only evidence we actually have about the case. Given the prosecutor had just won his case, it seems likely that he knew the details of it fairly well.

A 12 year old? That wouldn't happen. i would feel horrible, and if she pursued me i'd feel creepy, and sort of like "there there little girl" - pat her on the head - you'll need to go back to your barbies and your sleepovers with friends.

Back when you and I were 12, the average 12 year old was prepubertal. Now, the average age of puberty is 10, so 12 year olds are typically sexually mature. It's not the same world any more.

[FBM]

Zilla, in light of this and this posts and due to the fact that you were recently reminded to avoid personal attacks and to Play Nice, this is a warning that repeating such attacks on another member will result in a temporary suspension. Please, let's try to avoid letting this escalate any further. Thankee.

[Seth]

No, there isn't any objective evidence. We are talking cultural rather than absolute norms here, and perhaps our current norm has hiked the acceptable age as childhood (well dependence on parents/adults) has lengthened.

There are still cultures where males marrying young girls is acceptable if not exactly the norm. Islam for example.

And India/Pakistan and several other Indonesian countries like Thailand, where arranged marriages between pre-pubescent children are actually fairly common. Interestingly there is a body of evidence indicating that arranged marriages tend to last longer than "love matches" in some countries...which is one reason the practice persists.

Yeah, like the lady's gonna split.

Well, arranged marriages have been quite common throughout history and at least some of them had satisfactory lives I suspect.

A lot of it depends on what the cultural demands are in marriage. In most cultures marriage is about building a family and raising children, which implies at least a 20 year or so commitment to the relationship. Generally speaking I'd say that this goal causes married couples to endure and adapt to a much greater degree than those who have no overriding commitment to staying together do. I think this is clearly reflected in American culture, where "love matches" are putatively the rule rather than the exception, and where 50 percent or more of marriages fail in the first five to seven years. Learning to live with someone else is not easy, as I discovered recently, even when that rush of lust and attraction overrides one's common sense. Without the necessary commitment to, and constant reminder of through the presence of children, it's unsurprising that childless couples often have difficulty adapting to live together. Parents will sacrifice many of their own dreams and aspirations to give their children good lives and a bright future. Non-parents tend to see the relationship in terms of what's in it for them, which naturally leads to a lesser degree of commitment to adaptation.

This is of course not universally true, but generally speaking I believe that children are the glue that holds entire societies, much less couples, together.

I don't see why an arranged marriage is any less appropriate or durable than a love match if the cultural objective is procreation and family. People learn to live with other people in spite of their faults and conflicts, and their preferences, dreams and ideals all the time and manage long, happy lives. Sexual fulfillment is really such a small part of a relationship that it seems crazy to me to make the success or failure of the relationship dependent upon it.

It's nice, but I for one value the little gestures of affection like a smile, or a kiss, or a hug, or a brush of the hand on my arm that symbolizes the notion that my partner actually likes me and desires to be in physical contact with me much more fulfilling than a simple orgasm. That I can get by wanking whenever I please. But I cannot replace the interplay of emotion that comes from intimate physical contact. There's only one way to get that, and that is to build and preserve a good relationship with someone who feels the same...and isn't clinically mentally ill.

[Seth]

Zilla, in light of this and this posts and due to the fact that you were recently reminded to avoid personal attacks and to Play Nice, this is a warning that repeating such attacks on another member will result in a temporary suspension. Please, let's try to avoid letting this escalate any further. Thankee.

Thankyouverymuch....

[Warren Dew]

Learning to live with someone else is not easy, as I discovered recently, even when that rush of lust and attraction overrides one's common sense. Without the necessary commitment to, and constant reminder of through the presence of children, it's unsurprising that childless couples often have difficulty adapting to live together. Parents will sacrifice many of their own dreams and aspirations to give their children good lives and a bright future. Non-parents tend to see the relationship in terms of what's in it for them, which naturally leads to a lesser degree of commitment to adaptation.

While I agree with your sentiments, the actual evidence is that children put extra stress on a couple and increase the chance of divorce. Better to learn to live together first, then have the children.

[Seth]

Learning to live with someone else is not easy, as I discovered recently, even when that rush of lust and attraction overrides one's common sense. Without the necessary commitment to, and constant reminder of through the presence of children, it's unsurprising that childless couples often have difficulty adapting to live together. Parents will sacrifice many of their own dreams and aspirations to give their children good lives and a bright future. Non-parents tend to see the relationship in terms of what's in it for them, which naturally leads to a lesser degree of commitment to adaptation.

While I agree with your sentiments, the actual evidence is that children put extra stress on a couple and increase the chance of divorce. Better to learn to live together first, then have the children.

I think that might be an artifact of social convention and expectation. Yes, learning to live together is important and compatibility should be achieved before making babies, but the important point to me is what the motivation for the marriage is. If it's to find a "partner" in life and children are just an afterthought, I rate the probability of success as low. If the purpose of the marriage starts out being primarily about procreation, then that's the expectation and that expectation I believe enhances the willingness to compromise and adapt to whatever might be annoying or frustrating about one's spouse, because that's what's necessary for the health and proper upbringing of the children. Staying together "for the children" is a valid reason not to bail on a marriage. If the focus can be maintained on doing what is best for the children rather than the pleasure or goals of the parents, people can get along with all sorts of things that might drive them apart without the kids.

[Coito ergo sum]

i can't imagine why a 41 year old would want to do anything with a 12 year old except help her with her homework or something like that.

The fact that you can't imagine it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Very obviously it does. Remember, half the population lies below the peak of the bell curve. The question here is not whether a 41 year old can be sexually attracted to a 12 year old, it's whether a 12 year old can be sexually predatory towards a 41 year old and whether a consensual relationship between the two is in fact harmful to either or simply an "ick factor" issue.

Of course it happens. the question was raised, however, as to where we draw our lines and why. That was part of my explanation of where my line is drawn and why. i can't imagine why anyone would murder someone either, but i do know that happens.

i think a 12 year old can be sexually predatory, but i think those instances are so miniscule as to not justify eliminating a bright line rule with an age of consent, and i don't see a case-by-case analysis of each instance to be feasible or practicable. i also see a 41 year old as generally capable of withstanding a 12 year old girl's advances and even threats. if, as i said, there were factors that entered into it that amount to credible threats of violence or extortion, etc., then in those cases, where such evidence exists, i would certainly have a different view of it.

the issue is not, however, whether a consensual relationship between the two is harmful. the issue is the difficulty in determining whether meaningful consent was given and whether the mental capacity of the child is sufficient to give meaningful consent. A rule that 16 is the age of consent is not a statement that "always" those under 16 are incapable of giving consent. it's a rule to set the line somewhere fairly reasonable, so that the law does not have to evaluate the capacity of every child when the instances come up. i'm willing to be persuaded that the age should be lower or higher than 16. i am, however, comfortable with 16 as the legal cutoff, based on my life experience, and i hold myself to a much higher standard than the law.

i mean, a 12 year old? At 12 there is no life experience.

There's 12 years of life experience, which, sadly, for some kids is twice the lifetime that you or I have experienced. But what does that have to do with sexual libido? Half of all 12 year olds in the US are engaging in sex acts of one kind or another. Mostly with peers, but it's hardly unusual for horny girls to seek out "older men" for their first, or subsequent sexual experiences. "Older" meaning anything from 13 to 90. I see stories all the time about 18 and 19 year old "men" having sex with, and "marrying" and having babies with 13, 14, and 15 year old girls all the time. Some states have such a problem with underage pregnancy that they are instituting mandatory cord-blood storage from underage mothers so that DNA can be used to identify the father...which quite often the girl is unwilling to identify because she loves him.

Sexuality and capacity to consent and emotional maturity have everything to do with why we as a society generally view children below a certain age as being legally incapable of consenting to sex. having a libido, in other words, is not the only factor relevant to the analysis.

of course it's not "unusual for horny girls to seek out older men." Is is not ought. And, the idea is that the older men ought to refrain, whether pursued or not, because the young girls are not making proper decisions or are not capable of fully understanding the nature of their decision-making.

Because 18 and 19 year old men are fucking middle schoolers and impregnating them doesn't mean it has to be legal. i realize culture changed, and in the one Elvis pressley was raised in, an adult marrying a 13 year old was not too far out of the norm and in Shakespearean times, Romeo and juliet, the early teens was when it all happened. I'm referring to what I think ought to be the rule in today's culture. others may have different views of it, including you. That's fine. i don't share it, and I've explained why. May the best lobbying effort win, and may the legislature enact what it enacts.

You simply cannot generalize about sexual activity in young persons of either sex.

making generalizations does not mean there are no exceptions. of course you can generalize about sexual activity -- the numbers are the numbers. That doesn't mean that a given particular individual adheres to the general rule -- that's why there are exceptions. my view of it is that it's better if 41 year old men keep their dicks out of 12 year old girls. it's not an "ick" factor at all. It's because I don't think 12 year olds are generally intellectually and emotionally suited to making those kinds of decisions, and i think it's better for them generally to remain non-sexually active for a while and engage in typical kids' stuff for a little longer. Yes, of course, there may be savvy and suave, sexually mature 12 year olds. But I believe them to be the vast minority and that doesn't justify changing a general rule. A law which keeps a 41 year old from boning a sexually savvy and suave 12 year old, while at the same time seeking to protect the greater mass of non-savvy and suave 12 year olds, is fine. i don't really care that the 41 year old and the 12 year old lost out on some fucking.

Imagine yourself at 12. At 12, my perspective on things that occurred only 10 years before was that it was ancient history, and had no real relevance. i was ignorant of most events and i had no relationship experience. i had thoughts and desires, but little or no understanding of them. My friends and I went out riding bikes, playing football and soccer, swimming, all sorts of kid stuff. Most everyone I knew had not had sex, and the most amazing bit of luck was to get access to a playboy magazine and ogle at the amazing women inside. That's not being ready to deal with adults on an even keel.

Well, that's you. I refer you to the movie "Summer of '42" for an earlier take on the sexual adventures of pubescent boys.

We can only base our own views on our experience and our understanding of reality (in this case our culture and society in general), and based on that, i think that my experience is closer to the norm than sexually and emotionally mature 12 year olds engaging in predatory sexual behavior and manipulation of adults.

i also think it's better for 12 year olds to be engaging in the kids' stuff that i described above, rather than jumping into the swinging sex world, whether the 12 year old thinks they're ready for it or not.

And that's the point, every person is different and social mores change over time and interculturally, which means that "ick factor" arguments produced as supposedly rational argumentation are particularly weak.

There's way more going on than most people even want to acknowledge.

Every person is different, but there are generalities and curves. At 6 months of age, I think the percentage of children that age that are ready for sexual relationships with adults is 0. As children get older, there comes a point in time when a small percentage of children have developed sexually, physically and emotionally to deal with sex on the level of a young adult. However, even if there are some 10 or 11 or 12 year olds that could be described that way, i would still want adults to wait a few years before fucking them. That's because (a) it's impractical and unfeasible to determine which ones of those children are mature in that way, and (b) at a certain age, in my view 16, a teenager has developed sufficient maturity or wits about them that consent can be determined more readily on a case by case basis, and therefore a blanket prohibition is not as warranted.

To be clear - that doesn't mean that 16 is, to me, a magic age or magic number. it isn't. It's a practical compromise. And, i hold myself and I think others should hold themselves to higher standards than that. To me, that's about the minimum. Would i go nuts if the law in my State changed to 15? No. it's not, again, a magic number. It's a compromise.

[Coito ergo sum]

How do we know it was moral strength and not physical strength that was the issue?

I'm not talking about this case in particular, but in general. Anybody who can't say "no" to a 12 yo needs to eat a gun barrel.

You realize that in other cultures, it is very common for a 30 year old man to marry and have sex with females as young as 12 and 13, right?

That still doesn't make it right. Most if America believes in God. Doesn't mean they're all right.

"Right?"

"Right" according to who or what?

"Right" according to each of us. Moral choices are made by ourselves, and a culture is defined by an overall consensus of moral choices. There is no "objective" right or wrong in the sense of a dictate from a moral authority outside of the human mind. All moral choices and views are constructs of the human brain. You may have one view. i may have another. Both of us consider ourselves right.

When it comes to the law, though, morality and law are not coextensive. in this case, a person need not view something as morally wrong to agree that it should be illegal, and not all things that person views as morally wrong must also be made illegal.

We have a legislature in our states, and in the UK they have a parliament, and these legislatures and parliaments pass laws based on the political consensus. Making it illegal for 40 year olds to fuck 12 year olds doesn't make it "immoral." Whether it is immoral or right or wrong is up to each individual. Whether it is illegal is up to the legislature, which is supposed to be responsive to the popular will.

The fact that there is room for reasonable differences of opinion on whether middle aged adults fucking middle school children is "right" or "wrong" doesn't mean we can't make laws which are needful and beneficial, preserve order, protect children as determined by the citizenry, and are in accordance with the general police powers of the State.

[colubridae]

Would i go nuts if the law in my State changed to 15? No. it's not, again, a magic number. It's a compromise.

But that's exactly the problem. There is a magic number for you.

Would you go nuts if the state changed to 14?
13?
12 years 6 months?
12 years 3 months?
12?
11?
At some pin-point age your mind will switch from ‘not going nuts’ to ‘going nuts’.
All you've done is duck the issue using the word 'compromise'. You can do that and say it's valid by all means. All it does is show is that legal rules, however wordy, cannot possibly match reality.
They have to, perforce, be a 'compromise'. Something better ought to be in place, I have no idea what however. At the very least juries should have it rammed home to them that whilst they are considering evidence against written legal rules, those rules will often fail spectacularly to match the reality being under trial.

edit
What if there was a mistake in the registering of an infants birth?
Someone gets a severe prison sentence because a 12 hour mistake was made by a registrar?