Those sexually predatory 12 year old girls!

[colubridae]

Not sure if this helps but Stephen Fry made this telling comment in a debate against the catholics:-

(I’m paraphrasing, I can’t remember the exact quote)

“sex is great fun and it’s terribly jolly. But it utilises our basic, and often sinister, primeval urges and care should be taken with all aspects of it”

[Seth]

I agree, Lak. And, when the drinking age was 18, that kind of age-fraud was easier, I think. Now that bars in the US are generally limited to 21 and over, a 13 year old would be much harder pressed to look of age, and they are far more strict on identification than they were 25-30 years ago. When I was in college, there were still folks who had drivers licenses with no photo on it. I remember using one to buy a keg of beer.

I really don't get too outraged over the idea of a guy who is 41 not getting to fuck a 17 or 16 or 15 year old, whatever the age cutoff is. I think there is something wrong with a man that age looking to go after a highschool girl or younger. I mean, what do they have in common? To me, the likelihood of any common interests, thoughts, dreams, wishes, etc. is slim to none. It's really about the sex and sex alone. That's fine, and having raucous orgy swinger sex without attachment is just fine and dandy. However, when it comes to a high school girl and a middle schooler, I think that they ought to grow up first before they engage in it. That's my opinion. I have a daughter, and when she gets older, my first concern is not whether someone who fancies her gets to have sex with her, and I don't feel any sort of outrage or sadness over the fact that some 40 year old doesn't get to play with her that way.

I realize that girls will have sexual thoughts and urges at pubescence and onward, and they will likely want to feel grown up and interact with older people and feel popular and feel good and even might think they honestly want to do all sorts of things with an older person. I just think the older person should refrain, and that there is nothing to lose from the child's standpoint that the adult does refrain. There is a lot to lose for a child if the adult does not refrain -- the girl can be led on, get seriously emotionally hurt, feel used, regret her actions, get pregnant, all sorts of things short of "rape" but which are nevertheless things I wouldn't mind a 12 year old waiting a few years to endure.

I agree with everything you just wrote. What I don't agree with is making it a crime, with penalties more severe than shooting someone in a holdup (25 to life mandatory in some states), if it happens.

And the most common purveyor of trauma to a young girl's emotional health, self-esteem and physical health isn't the 41 year old, not by half...it's her horny and inexperienced male peers who just want to stick it in as a conquest and then dump her.

Like the French, if I had a daughter who was determined to have sex, I'd prefer it be with a stable, mature, sensitive and caring adult who has been properly vetted and interviewed to ensure that the experience is pleasurable, enjoyable and not traumatic.

And this is because I can remember my fumbling, inept and entirely selfish sexual needs when I was a horny teenager. Like most teenage boys, I only feigned interest in a girl if I was sexually attracted to her and wanted to get into her pants, and I knew absolutely nothing whatever about how to make it a mutually pleasurable and fulfilling intimate experience.

My first time was a desperate and ultimately unsuccessful attempt with a perfectly willing girl in a secluded teacher's lockable bathroom in my junior high school. Trust me, it was all about hard cock and wet pussy and nothing else...for both of us. We both went away extremely frustrated.

I bet she'd rather have had a lovely romantic evening with a sophisticated and gentle older man culminating in a candle-lit deflowering on a comfortable bed after substantial foreplay. And if I had a daughter, I'd want exactly that for her. I loathe the culture that makes teenage sex so stigmatic that it becomes a furtive, secret, stressful and usually unsatisfactory event full of shame and guilt. What an awful way to introduce young people to the most beautiful act two humans can engage in.

[colubridae]

Nobody yet has identified any actual harm that takes places in a consensual sex act with a 12 year old to begin with. The law generally acknowledges that no such harm occurs between peers, so where's the objective harm that occurs merely because one partner is more than 4 years older than the other?

Just because it's legal in some jurisdictions does not mean that no harm comes from it.

I'm quite concerned about the emotional and physical damage that 12 year old girls can sustain from having sex and getting pregnant. I just don't think it makes any difference how old the guy is. And since I think adult men are in fact more likely to be responsible about the whole thing, I'd rather my daughter be socializing with adults than with peers once the time comes - but mostly because I think it's less likely to result in premature sex, not because I think sex with them would be okay.

See Margaret Beaufort. 1443-1509

[Seth]

Nobody yet has identified any actual harm that takes places in a consensual sex act with a 12 year old to begin with. The law generally acknowledges that no such harm occurs between peers, so where's the objective harm that occurs merely because one partner is more than 4 years older than the other?

Just because it's legal in some jurisdictions does not mean that no harm comes from it.

I never said or implied that.

I'm quite concerned about the emotional and physical damage that 12 year old girls can sustain from having sex and getting pregnant.

So am I. That's a valid and rational reason to supervise any sexual relationship at all. But it's not, in my opinion, a "compelling government need" nor the "least intrusive method" of supervising such risks to emplace a blanket ban on 12 year olds having sex. We don't do that in many places anyway, so long as the partner is a peer. If pregnancy and physical damage are a concern, then it needs to be addressed on an individual basis so as to respect the rights of both individuals to their pursuit of happiness. Otherwise it's just "ick factor" regulation with no rational basis.

I just don't think it makes any difference how old the guy is. And since I think adult men are in fact more likely to be responsible about the whole thing, I'd rather my daughter be socializing with adults than with peers once the time comes - but mostly because I think it's less likely to result in premature sex, not because I think sex with them would be okay.

We agree. If a hot-pants daughter of mine is going to have sex with our without my permission, I'd rather it be a) with a mature and experienced lover who will take great care of her emotionally and physically; and b) in a bed in her own home where she will be safe and comfortable and won't have to contort around gearshifts and steering wheels, and where, when it's over, if it's not all she thought it would be she can send the guy home and come to her parents for solace, comfort and advice.

I've always admired the attitudes of the character played by Kris Kristofferson in the movie "A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries" with Leelee Sobieski, towards her first sexual encounters. I consider how his character reacted to be highly rational, very adult, and entirely correct. And that's why I say that France has one of the best cultural practices in this regard of any nation I'm aware of. The French aren't good for much, but when it comes to love and sex, they are the experts in my opinion.

[fishie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/3 ... 87205.html

Theres a bit at the bottom about how women feel when they are a little older and are looking back. I have been reading this thread over and over. I have even had a few posts ready to go. But that wont happen. I will not be part of this enabling behavior. And whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not. touting the line that 12 year olds having sex with older men is for their own good, constitutes enabling behavior. The ick factor is legitimate, because some things are repugnant. Ick factor is a visceral response. Its there for a reason, just like fear.

http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10 ... pedophile/

[FBM]

...If a hot-pants daughter of mine is going to have sex with our without my permission, I'd rather it be a) with a mature and experienced lover who will take great care of her emotionally and physically; and b) in a bed in her own home where she will be safe and comfortable and won't have to contort around gearshifts and steering wheels, and where, when it's over, if it's not all she thought it would be she can send the guy home and come to her parents for solace, comfort and advice.
...

Go too far in that line of argumentation and the next thing you know, it's the father's duty to "instruct" his own daughter(s).

[Seth]

...If a hot-pants daughter of mine is going to have sex with our without my permission, I'd rather it be a) with a mature and experienced lover who will take great care of her emotionally and physically; and b) in a bed in her own home where she will be safe and comfortable and won't have to contort around gearshifts and steering wheels, and where, when it's over, if it's not all she thought it would be she can send the guy home and come to her parents for solace, comfort and advice.
...

Go too far in that line of argumentation and the next thing you know, it's the father's duty to "instruct" his own daughter(s).

Nonsense.

Although it must be noted that the proscriptions on incest generally fall into three categories:

Parental abuse of power and authority to coerce

Genetic consanguinity

Social "ick factor"

The first category is a valid concern

The second can be avoided by using contraception, abortion or genetic testing, and in some cases may actually be beneficial to the child where such combinations reinforce desirable traits...just like in horses and dogs.

The third is irrational.

[Seth]

Theres a bit at the bottom about how women feel when they are a little older and are looking back. I have been reading this thread over and over. I have even had a few posts ready to go. But that wont happen. I will not be part of this enabling behavior. And whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not. touting the line that 12 year olds having sex with older men is for their own good, constitutes enabling behavior. The ick factor is legitimate, because some things are repugnant. Ick factor is a visceral response. Its there for a reason, just like fear.

Complete puritanical nonsense. Rational discussion is not "enabling" anything. What "enables" such things are an unwillingness to rationally discuss and address such issues.

The "ick factor" exists, but it's entirely based on emotion, social structure and irrationality.

[FBM]

...If a hot-pants daughter of mine is going to have sex with our without my permission, I'd rather it be a) with a mature and experienced lover who will take great care of her emotionally and physically; and b) in a bed in her own home where she will be safe and comfortable and won't have to contort around gearshifts and steering wheels, and where, when it's over, if it's not all she thought it would be she can send the guy home and come to her parents for solace, comfort and advice.
...

Go too far in that line of argumentation and the next thing you know, it's the father's duty to "instruct" his own daughter(s).

Nonsense.

Why?

Although it must be noted that the proscriptions on incest generally fall into three categories:

Parental abuse of power and authority to coerce

Genetic consanguinity

Social "ick factor"

The first category is a valid concern

The second can be avoided by using contraception, abortion or genetic testing, and in some cases may actually be beneficial to the child where such combinations reinforce desirable traits...just like in horses and dogs.

The third is irrational.

None of this has anything to do with my statement.

[Seth]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/3 ... 87205.html

Theres a bit at the bottom about how women feel when they are a little older and are looking back. I have been reading this thread over and over. I have even had a few posts ready to go. But that wont happen. I will not be part of this enabling behavior. And whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not. touting the line that 12 year olds having sex with older men is for their own good, constitutes enabling behavior. The ick factor is legitimate, because some things are repugnant. Ick factor is a visceral response. Its there for a reason, just like fear.

http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10 ... pedophile/

From your cite above:

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) defines pedophilia as recurrent sexually arousing fantasies, impulsive desires, or behaviors involving sexual acts with a child and that occur over a period of at least six months. In most cases, the pedophile is at least sixteen years of age and at least five years older than the child. Those who suffer from pedophilia have a compulsion to abuse young children.

What's missing from this quote is the DSM-IV definition of "child."

Here's it is from the DSM-IV:

Symptoms

This disorder is characterized by either intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (typically age 13 or younger). To be considered for this diagnosis, the individual must be at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child.
Emphasis added

The emphasized language is very important because sexual attraction (though not necessarily obsessive behavior) to post-pubescent sexually-mature young people is not classified as a mental disorder. Nor should it be.

So, as we have been discussing, sexual attraction to a 12 year old sexually-mature (has passed puberty) person is not in and of itself defined as "pedophilia."

It may be "icky" and acting on such urges may be classified as a crime, but the attraction is genetically driven and entirely natural.

Certainly there can be other mental pathologies involved, but OCD and other issues with self-control and appropriate social behavior are far different from the classic accusation that a person who has sex with a teenager is a "pedophile."

One of the reasons it's important to distinguish here is that some people become confused and suffer unnecessary stress because they find themselves sexually attracted to post-pubescent adolescents. Feelings of guilt and shame can lead to depression and other mental ills because of the stigma attached to the "May/December" sexual attraction, when in fact it's a perfectly normal function of the individual's genetically-directed libido. Where the pathology occurs is when, and indeed IF the patient allows those urges to be acted upon inappropriately or unlawfully.

As I said, Hollywood trades on youthful sexiness as its stock in trade and there's no mistake. It does so because sex sells, and sex sells because it's programmed into us by evolution.

It's not what you think that's important, it's what you do about what you think that can be good or bad.

[Seth]

Why?

Because you state the fallacy of Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief.

Includes: Wishful Thinking
Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say "If sixteen-headed purple unicorns don't exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist" it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief. It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.

The nature of the fallacy is especially clear in the case of Wishful thinking. Obviously, merely wishing that something is true does not make it true. This fallacy differs from the Appeal to Belief fallacy in that the Appeal to Belief involves taking a claim that most people believe that X is true to be evidence for X being true.
Examples of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

"God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"

"It can never happen to me. If I believed it could, I could never sleep soundly at night."

"I don't think that there will be a nuclear war. If I believed that, I wouldn't be able to get up in the morning. I mean, how depressing."

"I acknowledge that I have no argument for the existence of God. However, I have a great desire for God to exist and for there to be an afterlife. Therefore I accept that God exists."

[/quote]

[FBM]

Why?

Because you state the fallacy of Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief...

(I'm a Philosophy major, so you can save yourself the trouble of quoting definitions of fallacies, if you like.)

You're close, but not quite on-target. The fallacy I engaged was the Slippery Slope argument. Nevertheless, it's fallacious to conclude that an argument's conclusion is wrong simply because its premises contain a fallacy (Fallacy Fallacy, Argument from Fallacy). You'll need to find better reasons to demonstrate that my conclusion is wrong.

An argument that a perv could take to justify his/her actions includes, "It's better for a child to be introduced to sex by someone who's experienced" and if the perv's target is his own son/daughter, the next step would be, "It's better for him/her to learn about sex from me than from a stranger who might have diseases, etc."

[Seth]

Why?

Because you state the fallacy of Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief...

(I'm a Philosophy major, so you can save yourself the trouble of quoting definitions of fallacies, if you like.)

Thanks for the tip, but I posted it for the benefit of other readers, so they wouldn't have to go searching for it.

You're close, but not quite on-target. The fallacy I engaged was the Slippery Slope argument.

Yes, I would agree, if we disregard the implicit negative connotation of your statement implying that sexual instruction by a girl's father (or a boy's mother) is inherently wrong.

But it's a close call.

Nevertheless, it's fallacious to conclude that an argument's conclusion is wrong simply because its premises contain a fallacy (Fallacy Fallacy, Argument from Fallacy). You'll need to find better reasons to demonstrate that my conclusion is wrong.

How about a lack of foundation for the implicit argument that sex instructions from a parent is a bad thing?

An argument that a perv could take to justify his/her actions includes, "It's better for a child to be introduced to sex by someone who's experienced" and if the perv's target is his own son/daughter, the next step would be, "It's better for him/her to learn about sex from me than from a stranger who might have diseases, etc."

And is this not true? Again, the implicit argument you fail to support is your judgment that an older person who "introduces" a younger person to sex makes that person a "perv."

You are relying on an unstated but highly implicit argument that such interactions are inherently "pervy," which is an unfounded conclusion at this point.

That is why it's a fallacy and why the correct fallacy is "appeal to the consequences of a belief."

[FBM]

How about focusing on the explicit content, rather than presuming implicit assumptions and then basing your response on them? That's how strawmen get made.

As long as society defines pedophiles as pervs, I feel justified in using the term, since society is the ultimate arbiter of definitions.

[Warren Dew]

How about focusing on the explicit content, rather than presuming implicit assumptions and then basing your response on them? That's how strawmen get made.

I'd say you using an argument you know to be fallacious is the problem here.