I came across this page today, and I thought it might spur some discussion.

Share your thoughts...

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2002

Answers

Good Lord, Fred, but your are picking controversial topics.

I really have nothing to say about the article itself, but it did remind me of a recent controversy dealing with the same basic concept of child sexuality.

A book has recently been published that, among other things, explored the concept of consensual sexual relationships between minors and adults. The basic issue explored was whether if makes sense to make every relationship between an adult and a legal minor illegal.

Is it reasonable to argue that there is no way for a 20 year old man and a 17 year old girl to have a sexual relationship where the girl wasn't coerced or manipulated into having sex?

The reaction was intense. The author was accused of advocating pedophilia!

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2002

Is it reasonable to argue that there is no way for a 20 year old man and a 17 year old girl to have a sexual relationship where the girl wasn't coerced or manipulated into having sex?

Well, I'd give a resounding, "No" to that one. Certainly it's unreasonable. Fortunately, it's also not illegal in most states. Statuatory rape laws are profoundly misunderstood, and I feel like a creep saying that I looked them up, but I did.

I got sick of party arguments with people claiming that "A 17-year old legally consent to sex" and "A 16-year old can legally consent" and blah blah blah, so I looked at the law.

I was actually quite surprised. Assuming this link works, here's a list of criminal sexual conduct criteria. Take a peak at 1st-4th degree charges. Ignoring the criteria related to coersion, and realizing that these laws will differ state to state, the summary is: A 16- year old can consent to sex with anybody, provided that there is no blood relation; A 13-15 year old can have sex with anybody within 5 years of age.

Thus, a 18 year old, in this great state of mine, can legally have sex with an 13 year old. This pushes the limit in my mind, and surprised me, but shows how much the "under-18 = jailbait" rule is wrong.

Don't you feel wiser for knowing that? I really hope that my posting of that information tells y'all that I do my research, and does not suggest that I'm some sort of creep looking for a loophole to sleep with 13 year old girls.

With regards to the original article, I think the author did a wonderful job of arguing the case against criminal possession. However, I believe that if there was not demand for such material, such material would not be circulated (That's not to say it wouldn't be made, btw). I believe it is a sign of a maladjusted individual to want or keep pictures of younger teen girls. It is not, however, as major a crime as creating that material.

And there's the added issue of the 17-year-old who can't pose nude for the husband she can legally marry and sleep with. That's clearly inconsistent.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2002

This is probably a better link to the same information about Michigan's laws.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2002

A pedophile is attracted to pre-pubescent children. Yeeeaaauch. By the way, back in Jesus's day girls had babies at 13 on up, and it was culturally accepted.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

By the way, back in Jesus's day girls had babies at 13 on up, and it was culturally accepted

Your point being?

The life expectancy at the time was less than 40 years.

Back in my Grandmother's day, it was culturally accepted that blacks shouldn't drink from the same water fountain as whites.

Back in my day, it was culturally accepted that homosexuals were mentally deranged.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

In regards to Brian's post that's still consistent with the definition of a pedophile, because in "Jesus' time" 13 was pubescent, not pre.

I think the author does argue a good case and I think where it gets really scary is when it becomes it illegal to even think about it. I think possessing child pornography where *actual* children were photographed, sketched, videotaped etc. should be illegal 20 times over. Because in order for Bob Smith to possess that material Creepy McJag had to create it, which in turn harmed real living breathing children.

But when we start legislating what people can write fiction about or hell, DREAM about, it starts to get Big Brother-y, in my mind.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

My point is - the 18 thing was created by a society (ours). I'm not after any young ones, I'm just tired of people misusing the word pedophile when they really mean "You sicko, pervert, ... guy who likes younger women, etc."

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

Brian has a point -- the idea of childhood as something that should be protected by law has only been evolving for the last 200 years or so. The "girls married off at 13" persisted well after Jesus -- Catherine de Medici, for example, was married off well before she reached menarche. Usually in those cases the man didn't have sex with his pre-mature bride right away, but waited until she reached menarche.

But menarche, as I understand it, was also later, and considering general life expectancy at the time and the risk of women dying before or in childbirth, in order to have enough babies to carry on the line you generally had to start as soon as possible.

Also, at a time when proof of a girl's virginity was demanded at the time of the wedding night, it was generally a better idea for the family for the girl to be married sooner rather than later. (This was for the upper classes -- my general impression of sexual mores in middle- and lower-class Europe was that extramarital and premarital sex was generally much more acceptable. See Montaillou.)

Now it's generally more accepted that even if a girl is physically ready for sex at age 10, she's not mentally or emotionally ready, and is generally not in a position of equality vis-à-vis the potential partner. (Having sex with a 10-year-old is dicey whether you're 13 or 63.) But we also don't believe that 10-year-olds are ready to work a trade, either. The idea that a person must move gradually from the home to the adult world via school only came about once industrialization created a different approach to the work force -- and meant that child laborers depressed wages and created a direct threat to adults wanting the same jobs.

Unfortunately, my labor history knowledge is miserable. MOC? Anyone? Am I on the right track?

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

You are kind of on the right track. The only people how really cared about child labor were reformers, who were usually middle class, well educated women who didn't work and saw charity work as their careers. The owners liked the labor and the kids weren't really keeping labor prices down becuase, a) like migrant farm workers today they were doing the jobs no one else wanted b) industrialization took away the need for skilled labor so wages dropped anyway and c) the lack of collective bargaining gave management the ability to hire at whatever wage they wanted.

That being said, childhood was still recognized throughout most of history. What has changed is the the concept of adolescence has developed in the 20th Century. Generally, social workers, educators and pyschologists have created and fostered the concept that the transition from childhood and adulthood is a long one and consists of a great amount of emotional, pyschological and sexual development.

So the idea that children, especially post-pubescent girls, are incapable of adult sexual relationships is a fairly new concept. That being said, the attitude toward girls and sexuality before was basically along the lines of 'can she reproduce yet or not'. If the answer was yes, she was eligible for marriage and damn her emotional needs.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

I was watching EWTN last night (no, I don't know why). And they kept referring to the molesting priests as "homosexuals." They contended that men who abused adolescent boys were not pedophiles, but gay men with opportunity. I wanted to throw up.

I think pedophilia isn't about age. It's about motive. If adults are having sex with adolescents for the power, then I don't see how that isn't pedophilia. It's so fluid. There are sexual abusers who abuse from 4 to, ya know, 18 or whatever. Do they stop being pedophiles once the kid hits puberty?

What about a girl who hits puberty at 8? If she is molested at 8 1/2, does that mean the abuser isn't a pedophile?

I'm NOT sick of labeling these people pedophiles. People who have sex with children (of any age) are evil, horrible people. I don't care what they did in 1850. I found out last night that an ex- student of mine (13) is pregnant. All guesses point to a 30+ year old family friend. I don't care if she "consented." She didn't have enough power to consent. And it makes me sick.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2002

FWIW, the laws that Fred posted are particular to Michigan. You can see Texas' her e.

We do not have a so-called statutory rape law, and the age variance is that if the child is 14 or older, and the age difference is three years or less between the other (presumably older) party, it is considered "an affirmative defense to prosecution."

In other words, if a 14-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy have sex, and she "consents" as we know it (quotation marks becase according to the State of Texas, she can't really consent, being under the age of 17), he probably isn't going to get in much trouble, though he committed sexual assault by the letter of the law.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2002

LOL! R. Kelly is that you!!!

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2002