Girl, 13, and her boyfriend, 12, both labelled sex offenders

[cadbrowser]

An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

That is your medical diagnosis use, whereas mine is common use. So, in a sense we are both equally valid, right? Anyone wiser than me care to weigh in on that?

Here is the kicker. If we take that 19 & 15 y/o as an example as you have, regardless of the medical diagnosis definition, they both could be (depending on jurisdiciton) still be branded as sex offenders. Also, the 19 y/o is still in danger of being charged with statutory rape, if that 15 y/o is under the legal age of consent.

Now, I did not say that in US Society that the older individual (usually male but not exclusively) did nothing wrong. What I am arguing is that it should not be considered pedophilia. I would find it acceptable to punish the older indivdiaul athough I think being labeled as a sex offender for life is extreme.

I know you weren't saying that, I guess I should've italicised that sentence, it was a more of a thought that ran through my head that I found a bit humorous to apply to the seriousness of the subject matter. Here is where I disagree with you on this; you are arguing based on the medical diagnosis use of the word, and I am utilizing the common use of the word. While neither of us may be technically right or wrong, there is, I guess, some things that will remain up to the "beholder"?

Oh goodness, time has gotten away from me. Sorry, I'll have to finish my replies to you tomorrow as I need to go leave and pick up my woman.

More to come.

[AniThyng]

Question: When we talk about 13 y/o's with an inability to consent, do we mean hypothetical 13 y/o's who we expect not to be sexually active at all, or 13 y/o's that have already sexual experience with peers, because it seems to be that there ought to be a difference - especially if we're going to talk about things like "loss of innocence" and so on.

The interesting double standard here seems that it's okay for fathers to polish the shotgun if an older guy "messes around" with his "little girl", but if it's a same age peer doing the same thing he's a neolithic monster with outdated morals.

[Vendetta]

Question: When we talk about 13 y/o's with an inability to consent, do we mean hypothetical 13 y/o's who we expect not to be sexually active at all, or 13 y/o's that have already sexual experience with peers, because it seems to be that there ought to be a difference - especially if we're going to talk about things like "loss of innocence" and so on.

The interesting double standard here seems that it's okay for fathers to polish the shotgun if an older guy "messes around" with his "little girl", but if it's a same age peer doing the same thing he's a neolithic monster with outdated morals.

Not really a double standard at all. An older person is generally held to be in a position of responsibility with regard to a child, because children are brought up to, at least to a reasonable degree, obey the adults they know. Which means that there really is a difference in the concept of consent when applied to close age peers and when applied to an adult and a child.

[AniThyng]

Question: When we talk about 13 y/o's with an inability to consent, do we mean hypothetical 13 y/o's who we expect not to be sexually active at all, or 13 y/o's that have already sexual experience with peers, because it seems to be that there ought to be a difference - especially if we're going to talk about things like "loss of innocence" and so on.

The interesting double standard here seems that it's okay for fathers to polish the shotgun if an older guy "messes around" with his "little girl", but if it's a same age peer doing the same thing he's a neolithic monster with outdated morals.

Not really a double standard at all. An older person is generally held to be in a position of responsibility with regard to a child, because children are brought up to, at least to a reasonable degree, obey the adults they know. Which means that there really is a difference in the concept of consent when applied to close age peers and when applied to an adult and a child.

If said child is 8 and said adult is 25, yeah, sure, but now we're talking about 13-15 year olds who are themselves already sexually active, where now the 19 year old is an "adult"? Where when he was 17 he was a "child"?

We choose arbitrary dates and language to suit the argument. (I like the way it's "messing around with" when it's illegal, and merely "exploring sexuality" when it's not)

[Grumman]

An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

That is your medical diagnosis use, whereas mine is common use. So, in a sense we are both equally valid, right? Anyone wiser than me care to weigh in on that?

No, you're not equally correct. You're referring to the common, incorrect usage - like the use of "literally" to mean "figuratively". Your definition might call a sixteen year old a pedophile for dating someone a week younger than herself, if the local laws call that statutory rape, and that's just ridiculous.

My two cents are this: if both participants are members of the same peer group - whether that's a twelve and a thirteen year old or two students of the same high school - it's unreasonable to jump straight to accusations of statutory rape. It's just more obviously stupid here, where both participants are being accused of raping the other.

[Kitsune]

If said child is 8 and said adult is 25, yeah, sure, but now we're talking about 13-15 year olds who are themselves already sexually active, where now the 19 year old is an "adult"? Where when he was 17 he was a "child"?

We choose arbitrary dates and language to suit the argument. (I like the way it's "messing around with" when it's illegal, and merely "exploring sexuality" when it's not)

No system we will create will be perfect. Our terms are artificial creations meant to try to come to terms.
Still, we can be reasonable in a standard where 5 years of more would have to separate them.
For example, a 19 year old and a 15 year old would be four years.
Now if I was the parent, I would likely have a problem but it is still within a reasonable age between them.
We don't blink at 18 and 22 even though the 22 year old could be about to graduate college with a bachelors or finished a stint in the military while the 18 year could still be in high school.

[cadbrowser]

No, you're not equally correct. You're referring to the common, incorrect usage - like the use of "literally" to mean "figuratively". Your definition might call a sixteen year old a pedophile for dating someone a week younger than herself, if the local laws call that statutory rape, and that's just ridiculous.

The dictionary disagrees with you. It isn't anymore incorrect than what has happened in the past here on SDN, where common usage of a word (even if it is different than a medical one) is still valid and others arguing context. It is splitting hairs (as I was told).

And no, the definition I have used here does not. It specifically states a pedophile is an ADULT who is sexually attracted to a CHILD. You don't even have to have sex with the child, just the attraction for sexual interaction is enough to be labeled as such. Now if you really want to be pedantic and split hairs some more on this, then we can break down the biological and legal definitions of both terms. I really don't want to go there because one will leave me sick and the other could be argued indefinately by breaking down each country, then state/jurisdiction ad nauseam.

You can't have it both ways as there are multiple definitions and usages for any given word in the English language. It's like a Christian who picks and chooses which warm and fuzzy scriptures they want to use out of the Bible.

I consider (and was considered) a 15 y/o a child. So again, I am and have been refuting the notion that labeling a 19 y/o (ADULT) who had sex with a 15 y/o not a pedophile. Based on the criteria I've laid out in earlier posts (and again in this one), the 19 y/o is a pedophile.

-snip linky- Partnerships with same-age or younger males were less common among females aged 13 or younger than among older females (16% vs. 28-37%—Table 2).

If you base it on those numbers, 768 females in the New York City area are in sexual relationships with a male of their age or younger or 138 in Utah. It would be something like this every couple of years because you pass through that cycle.

Hmmm, well; alright then. I'll conceed this point. I guess I didn't realize that there was that many 13 y/o girls having sex with their peers.

We don't blink at 18 and 22...

...because they are both ADULTS with each able to give INFORMED CONSENT. It really isn't that hard.

[Replicant]

In our rush to condemn pedophiles and sexual predators, we kind of left some loop holes. Poor kids.

No, this was not a loophole in a law solely intended to protect children from adults. According to the article:

[emphasis added]
...
Children aged 14 or 15 can be charged with unlawful conduct with a minor if they have sex with a peer, but mitigation renders the offense a misdemeanor.

But for juveniles under 14, there is no mitigation as the law deems them incapable of consenting to sex.

A juvenile court judge denied the motion brought by the girl and the Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allegation, saying the law had to protect minors from each other as well as from older teens and adults.

...

During Tuesday's hearing, assistant Utah attorney general Matthew Bates argued that the law was designed to prevent sex with children who are 13 and younger, even if the other person is in the same age group.

He said legislators were sending a message with the law that sex ... among children is unacceptable.

Evidently the goal was to forbid kids under the age of sixteen from being sexually active. This is the result of the conservatives' desire to outlaw all sexual acts they think are sinful and their unwillingness to use anything other than punishment and fear to change undesirable behavior.

Cannot blame either side on this one. Illinois a state as liberal as they come has some of the harshest laws and punishments out there for sex offenders.

This is what gets me the most. I had to do some research for a paper a couple years back. When you are convicted as a sex offender you are required to go to treatment. So Joe who is 28 has sex with a 16 or 17 yo and gets convicted as a sex offender. Now he must go to a year or more of treatment when he is on parole and that treatment is group therapy where he is taught how to deal with and handle his "mental illness".

Really? Mental illness? For doing something that is 100% legal if he was just two states to the west or south or happened to live in Canada? That is what I think is the most stupid about the whole concept of sex offenders. We have different laws and standards all over this country with different legal ages for consent and yet if someone breaks those laws they are convicted and then given mental health treatment for their "illness".

Makes no sense at all. Crazy is crazy for lack of a better term. You cannot call someone mentally sick for an action that is legal potentially just 10 miles away on the other side of a border.

[cadbrowser]

So Joe who is 28 has sex with a 16 or 17 yo and gets convicted as a sex offender. For doing something that is 100% legal if he was just two states to the west or south or happened to live in Canada?

Up until now, I would've never believed that if I hadn't just read it myself with regards to age of consent broken down by state on wiki.



I really don't know what to think now. I would've never thought it would be legal to have sex with someone (at 28) with anyone under 18.

[Replicant]

So Joe who is 28 has sex with a 16 or 17 yo and gets convicted as a sex offender. For doing something that is 100% legal if he was just two states to the west or south or happened to live in Canada?

Up until now, I would've never believed that if I hadn't just read it myself with regards to age of consent broken down by state on wiki.



I really don't know what to think now. I would've never thought it would be legal to have sex with someone (at 28) with anyone under 18.

Yeah the age ranges vary quite a bit with some states even having different age limits for if the couple is same sex as opposed to opposite sex.

Which makes it so laughable that we then treat people convicted of this crime uniformly as having a mental disorder.

[cadbrowser]

Why the fuck is it considered a mental disorder? I really don't understand that. Seems preposterous to me. So, now it is a disease of the mind when your body reacts in an evolutionary biological way?

[AniThyng]

You declared it to be sick and are surprised it's considered a mental illness and crime? What else could it be? Did you think this through? Is it now clearer why sone people may also on top of this disapprove of children( teenagers, not literal children) having sex with each other? Or are they still Neanderthal monsters?

[Dominus Atheos]

You think that's crazy, let me propose the following scenario:

Girl, say... 15, gets naked on a webcam and the person on the other end records, saves, and later uploads it to Limewire. 28 year old Joe anomalously downloads and watches it. He doesn't pay for it, doesn't chat with the person who uploaded it, or in any way encourage the production of any other underage pornography. Since he's still using Limewire, which is a P2P program, other people can download it from him, although Joe doesn't encourage it and barely even knows it happens.

What should Joe's punishment be, and why?

[Terralthra]

Why the fuck is it considered a mental disorder? I really don't understand that. Seems preposterous to me. So, now it is a disease of the mind when your body reacts in an evolutionary biological way?

It's considered a mental disorder to react sexually to a child in the biological sense, ie someone who is neither fecund nor has secondary sexual characteristics. In other words, someone who it is not evolutionarily favorable to engage with sexually.

[Kitsune]

You think that's crazy, let me propose the following scenario:

Girl, say... 15, gets naked on a webcam and the person on the other end records, saves, and later uploads it to Limewire. 28 year old Joe anomalously downloads and watches it. He doesn't pay for it, doesn't chat with the person who uploaded it, or in any way encourage the production of any other underage pornography. Since he's still using Limewire, which is a P2P program, other people can download it from him, although Joe doesn't encourage it and barely even knows it happens.

What should Joe's punishment be, and why?

Need to add the possibility that he does not even know she is 15
Yes, knowledge is not considered part of the law usually but relly should be considered.

[Replicant]

Why the fuck is it considered a mental disorder? I really don't understand that. Seems preposterous to me. So, now it is a disease of the mind when your body reacts in an evolutionary biological way?

It's considered a mental disorder to react sexually to a child in the biological sense, ie someone who is neither fecund nor has secondary sexual characteristics. In other words, someone who it is not evolutionarily favorable to engage with sexually.

Which would apply with a child that has not entered puberty. But take that same person, have them get caught in bed with a fully mature looking 16yo with all the curves to generate interest and that person will still be told during therapy that they must learn how to properly live with their mental illness the rest of their life.

[cadbrowser]

You declared it to be sick and are surprised it's considered a mental illness and crime? What else could it be? Did you think this through? Is it now clearer why sone people may also on top of this disapprove of children( teenagers, not literal children) having sex with each other? Or are they still Neanderthal monsters?

Actually, at the time I made that statement I hadn't thought it through. I actually didn't get much sleep last night because I kept running this over and over again in my head. Before I go through my thought process and offer it up for critique I do want to ask you to clarify something and then address your latter questions to make it perfectly clear as to what my position is.

What is this "it" that you are claiming I said to be "sick"? Pedophilia? Or A 28 y.o. having sex with a 16 y.o.? I cannot find where I've said anything was "sick". I've been calling a spade a spade for several posts now.


Clarifications:

I've been consistent with regards to the OP that these two adolescents (girl was a teenager the boy was not) were NOT wrong (morally or legally) for having sex with each other. I adhere to the notion that they should've been better taught as to the reprocussions of these actions as well as taught safety and responsibility. So no, I do not criminalize them; nor do I consider them Neatherthal monsters for it.

I have consistantly maintained that a 19 y.o. having sex with a 15 y.o is pedophelia (by definition and with regards to the legal considerations for age of majority and age of consent). I have not seen this refuted.

I have also maintained that I disagree with bringing criminal charges to minors having sex with their peers.

My thoughts with regards to the "mental illness" aspect:

From a strict biological aspect

Biologically speaking, an animal or organism (thus a human also) is considered an adult when it reaches puberty (sexual maturity or reproductive stage). Since we are, as a species, decedents from a common ancestor with chimpanzees (and share a ~94% DNA match) then I can only think to look at their mating behaviour as a basis for comparison with regards to human mating. Remember too that I hinted at this in an earlier post wherein the ages for sexual contact was justified based on this principle. I may personally find this distastefull (due to my upbringing - more on that a little later) but, taking an outside scientific observation of nature may shed light on this.

Here is where I began questioning the mental illness aspect of an older male being sexually attracted to a younger female, or vice versa, all things being considered equal here. IIRC, it has been noted that ages ago the human life expectancy was substantially lower (20 during Neolithic times); so in order to perpetuate and guarantee our (homo) survival, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to assume that females and males had sexual relationships soon after puberty.

In looking to our most common biologically linked cousin (is that the right term here?), the Chimpanzee, I found this:

Females reached menarche at about 11 years of age but this was followed by a period of adolescent sterility of median length 26 months.

Source

If I'm reading this correctly, the first signs of menstration at 11 years, reproductive viability at ~13-14. According to this, human females in the US reach menarche at an average of 12.5 y.o.

So, from a strict biological aspect, it isn't a mental deficiency for someone to be sexually attracted to a male or female of reproductive age.

I DO see how it could be a mental defect for someone to be sexually attracted to a male or female NOT of reproductive age.


From a legal/moral aspect

I am conflicted now, in light of the varying age of consent laws in the US as to the "rightness" of having sex with someone under the age of 18. I have always been taught that it is inappropriate to be sexually attracted to anyone that is considered a minor (not age of majority). So, it's been beat in my head pretty hard.

I may get flamed for this, but I will admit that there were times I was initially attracted to a minor (17 & under) female. But, when I found out their age, I immediately made a mental check to note that it was inappropriate to feel that way and modified my thoughts about them accordingly. Or at least supress them, If I want to be completely honest about it.

I also realize that I must look at things more equally. I have found that I do have a double standard when it comes to adult males having sex with minor females vs the other way around. Again, I believe this to be from upbringing and the fact that I find myself mostly attracted to older females. So I admit to bias here.

You think that's crazy, let me propose the following scenario:

Girl, say... 15, gets naked on a webcam and the person on the other end records, saves, and later uploads it to Limewire. 28 year old Joe anomalously downloads and watches it. He doesn't pay for it, doesn't chat with the person who uploaded it, or in any way encourage the production of any other underage pornography. Since he's still using Limewire, which is a P2P program, other people can download it from him, although Joe doesn't encourage it and barely even knows it happens.

What should Joe's punishment be, and why?

If Joe knowingly downloads pornographic material of a child nature then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If Joe is using Limewire and enables his hard drive or "share folder" for access across the users then I can hardly see agreeing with "he didn't encourage or barely know about it". That to me would be a bullshit excuse. You full know what Limewire is for, unless you are really that ignorant.

If Joe doesn't know it is a 15 y.o. and he gets caught with child pornography, then I'm sorry but he is still under the laws and rammifications for his actions. Do I agree with this, no I don't. If there was no way of knowing that this girl was 15 the current laws should take this into consideration. At worst, I think he should be court ordered to remove illegal videos and Limewire, and he should be instructed to only surf for legal porn (i.e. those that post age verification for their actors).

If Limewire is a conduit for passing child porn, they should be shut down.

[cadbrowser]

Which would apply with a child that has not entered puberty. But take that same person, have them get caught in bed with a fully mature looking 16yo with all the curves to generate interest and that person will still be told during therapy that they must learn how to properly live with their mental illness the rest of their life.

Unless the age of consent is 16 and any close-in-age exemptions or maximum age of adult criterion withstanding...right? At least that is what I am understanding. Also, my understanding that there is the issue with "position of authority/trust" that is weighed in for legal actions.

So really, it boils down to the justification for criminal action with regards to minors and actions with minors; can it be justified? Considering that it is our social duty to protect innocents from malicious intent I understand that we (as a society) needs to have laws in place.

Even though we may not agree with all of the laws, it is also our duty to follow them (assuming they are reasonable).

It isn't reasonable to criminalize adolescents having sex. So, would it be equally unreasonable to continue to demonize those adult (18+) members of society who have sex with a minor? I don't know...a line has to be drawn somewhere.

[cadbrowser]

Ghetto edit:

I retract my "didn't say sick" line from the previous post. My apologies. I found it.

To clarify: That was in reference to going back a century+ ago where a 54 y.o. man could legally marry and have sex with a 11 - 13 y.o. based on the biological definition of "adult".

That is what would sicken me.