Child Sexuality Laws

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Anders Hoveland, Sep 20, 2011.

  1. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Attraction to young girls is normal and part of evolution. Girls become capable of having children at around 12-13 years of age.

    Females had children at much earlier ages in the past. Only 100 years ago it was extremely common for girls to get married at the age of 16 years. According to family records, the grandmother of my grandmother gave birth to her daughter (whom I descended from) at the age of only twelve. Her husband was 22 years old. Apparently this was not particularly uncommon at the time. My grandmother, when she learned about this, commented that it was not very surprising, most of her friends married when they where 16. On trip to see relatives to a rural part of Jylland, my mother as a child became friends with another girl. On her next trip there my mother asked to go visit the other girl, but was told the girl was not available to play, as she had been married off at the age of only 13 to some 24 year old guy. While they did live in a very isolated traditional village, consider that this happened around 1960. I also have read that such marriages were common in the american Appalachian region until only a few decades ago. Now society has forgotten that their ancestors only a few generations ago did things differently. Somehow today such a marriage would be seen as morally wrong and perverse, the older spouse would no doubt get a severe punishment.

    However, we must respect society's laws, and avoid putting ourselves into situations where we may be tempted to get into trouble. Relationships between adults and those under 18 are almost always a bad idea and can never go anywhere. The exception would be is she is 16 and you are 20, and even then many such young men have been labled "sex-offenders" for the rest of their life, even though the relationship was completely consentual.

    All I am trying to say is that most of these "forbidden" sexual acts are, fundamentally, completely culturally relative. You are so "brain-washed" by your cultural upbringing that you just automatically assume it is plain wrong. One sign of cultural (or religious) programming is trying to make excuses that justify your certain beliefs. For example, there is no shortage of excuses in the muslim world for why female circumcision is not only acceptable, but even necessary.
    Sex, and even rape in most cases, is not physically a severe form of abuse, as it does not really result in any injury. Parents abuse their children all the time, but the forms of abuse are so minor that no one gives it any thought. Sexual acts, however, are commonly associated with culturally-induced shame.

    Do you think, perhaps, that there is nothing inherently wrong with "kiddie pics", and that this is just an illogical moral value that society has instilled into you? Likely you feel it is so obviously wrong, that you never felt there was even the slightest chance that you belief might have been a relative one, based not on universal human goodness, but rather on cultural norms that are now widelt prevelent throughout the world because of the domination of Western culture.

    I suggest that, while there are certainly undesirable effects associated with pictures involving a defecit of clothing, whether a particular society should ban this is not an absolutely clear and obvious choice.

    There are many stone age tribes of humans that do, in fact, go about their daily lives without clothes, even to this day. They are likely no less amused by Western taboos concerning nudity then Westerners are by seeing muslim women wear the full black veil/shroud on a hot summer day.

    The sexual meaning and context of nudity is highly relative with the culture. Futhermore, sex acts themselves are often of little consequence in aboriginal culture. There was one case where an 11 year old girl was raped by several older boys.
    The white female judge in Australia dismissed the case, emphasizing sensitivity to the cultural context, and adding that the girl "probably enjoyed it". Indeed, the aboriginal mother of the girl, when questioned, explained that the boys had engaged in the activity with her daughter before, which was not a problem, but this time the girl had been unwillingly cooerced into it. The judges decision caused an outcry, of course, and one commentator claimed, "had the girl been caucasion, the offenders would have received hefty prison sentences". Had the decision gone the other way, the aboriginal community likely would have protested and the Austalian government would be seen internationally as indifferent to indigenous customs.

    Why is no one thinking about the children? They want to have romantic/sexual relationships too. There must be a way to protect them from potential abusers without making it completely illegal for them to have relationships. I find it absolutely ridiculous that a 14 year old boy is not allowed to sleep with an attractive 26 year old girl (of the same race of course!).

    Think of it this way. White communities are not allowed to keep black people out of their neighborhood, even though the white families are trying to protect themselves from the statistically higher rate of crime commited by blacks. Because our society does not want to "racially discriminate". But at the same time, the government discriminates based on age, supposedly to protect the young. A 15 year old boy might not have wisdom and experience, but does he not still deserve the right to engage his body in whatever sexual acts he feels compelled to perform? At one time also, blacks were denied the right of choice because it was believed they could not make good decisions for themselves (and indeed they often do not make good decisions now that they are free).

    If a child (over the age of 13 years) wants to have sex with someone, and the parents agree, what is the problem? Or if a 12 year old and a 14 year old want to sleep together. Why is our society so restrictive about underage sex? It was only a few decades ago that the western governments where regulating appropriate sexual relations between consenting adults. I think it is only a matter of time until older children become sexually liberated also. It is very common for 14-17 year olds to have sex. Why does the government have severe punishments for this?

    I think it should be legal, but that the children should have to seek permission from their parents, and if the parents are unreasonable, there should be a government-appointed three-membered panel of ombudsmen the child could appeal to. Such factors as age difference, criminal history, possible diseases, and hopefully racial differences, would be considered. Lets be honest, most whites in society would have far less of a problem if a white 20 year old was having sex with a 16 year old girl than if it was a black 20 year old was having sex with the white girl.
     
  2. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual predator detentions decrease...
    :confusion:
    Feds lock up fewer predators after prison sentences end
    April 1, 2013 - Attempts to keep accused predators locked up have failed.
     
  3. gabriel1

    gabriel1 New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you better hope this forum isn't being monitored for buzz words
     
  4. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    150 arrested in child prostitution sweep...
    :thumbsup:
    Child prostitution: Raids rescue 105 young people
    Jul 29,`13 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Declaring child prostitution a "persistent threat" in America, the FBI said Monday that authorities had rescued 105 young people and arrested 150 alleged pimps in a three-day sweep in 76 cities.
     
  5. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Colombia child sex trafficking ring cracked...
    :omg:
    Police crackdown on Bogota crack den exposes children used as sex slaves
    Thursday 2nd June, 2016 - When around 2,500 heavily armed police and soldiers recently raided a warren of crack dens in a notorious Bogota neighbourhood to tackle drug trafficking, they also found two hundred children being used as sex slaves.
     
  6. FaerieGodfather

    FaerieGodfather New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In general, I think age of consent needs to be lowered and statutory rape laws need to be liberalized-- but the protection of children from sexual offenses is vital. I have seen the damage of child sexual abuse firsthand, and the perverts who commit such offenses need to be kept away from lawful society.
     
  7. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you know why in the old days fathers were so protective of their little girls? It was because they could get PREGNANT !

    But nowadays women can just waltz down to the local abortion clinic, it seems. :confusion:
     
  8. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Better yet, they can get birth control.
     
  9. PreteenCommunist

    PreteenCommunist Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    I almost completely agree; the puritanical and downright blind attitudes our social mores espouse and our governments uphold towards children and sexuality are not only a recent and utterly inorganic invention conjured up purely to reinforce reactionary views of children and of sexuality, but a harmful and indeed oppressive one. I'm 14 myself, and I've been having clearly sexual desires - and even acting upon them, though not through actual intercourse - for years now, since before I knew what sex even was. And this isn't even just a case of me being weird. Call me Freudian or whatever, but humans are sexual beings, for the most part.

    I think this idea of socially-instilled moral values can be extended to pretty much everything, though. Sexual puritanism has extremely noticeable societal roots, given that some of us still remember a time when these values were different and that the change in values can easily be linked back to the advent of a more paternalistic attitude in both society and in the household (beginning around the latter half of the 20th century, in the post-war period, but only really emerging recently with the distinct "concerted cultivation" style of parenting - see Lareau's Unequal Childhoods - and "tiger parenting"). But even moral claims which we might think of as rational have their roots in society. Take the claim "murder is wrong." This seems to be a near-objective moral standard which has persisted throughout history, at first glance. But historically, people have often justified it in certain contexts, most obviously during wartime. And even if we take a more relativistic claim - "murder is wrong in contexts X and Y" - which contexts exactly are totally socially determined. So much so that the word "wrong" doesn't really mean anything. It's just a veil with which to hide unadulterated class interests.

    To get back on topic a bit, I don't think your idea of leaving it up to parents and government appointed bodies would make children any more sexually free. They would still be at the mercy of other people's vague and subjective ideas of what is "right" for their bodies, rather than being able to make their own decisions.
     
  10. Imnotreallyhere

    Imnotreallyhere Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If those young men broke the law, then they are indeed sex offenders. The relationship cannot have been consensual; minors cannot give consent.

    Here you are, making a (very long) excuse for why your beliefs are acceptable. It seems we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Ever been around a rape victim? I assure you you are wrong.



    You do understand that morals are what allow people to live together without killing each other? They have a purpose. Logically that means a moral condemnation of kiddie porn serves a purpose.

    Your point here is unclear. Do you think it's okay for boys to gang rape little girls because she put out before?

    Here's a counter example for the Aussie judge:
    In India, there was a custom known as suttee. When a man died, his wife burned on the pyre with him. If she were unwilling, she was thrown on it. A British magistrate erected a gallows next to one such pyre and said "You have a custom in India of burning your widows. We British also have a custom. We hang men who burn women.
     
  11. Imnotreallyhere

    Imnotreallyhere Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,881
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  12. dequ1

    dequ1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And this is so TRUE. Even America is redefining underage sexuality...

    In the new dsm5 used by Psychiatrists, pedophilia is undergoing a little rewording.

    As a result of this distinction, pedophilia is no longer listed among mental disorders in DSM‑5. Instead, a diagnosis of pedophilic disorder was introduced. The criteria for the pedophilic disorder in DSM‑5 are basically the same as the criteria for pedophilia in DSM-IV-TR. There are three criteria for pedophilic disorder in DSM-5:

    A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

    B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

    C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

    Criterion A pertains to the signs of pedophilia. Criterion B is the one that makes a distinction between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder, as can be seen from the accompanying text to the criteria:

    However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.

    Another relevant part is:

    Pedophilia per se appears to be a lifelong condition. Pedophilic disorder, however, necessarily includes other elements that may change over time with or without treatment: subjective distress (e.g., guilt, shame, intense sexual frustration, or feelings of isolation) or psychosocial impairment, or the propensity to act out sexually with children, or both.

    Criterion C limits the criteria to apply only to people who are old enough to ensure a reasonable validity of the criteria and to prevent diagnosing people based on activities that are quite common among their peers
    https://medium.com/pedophiles-about...ilic-disorder-in-dsm-5-fcd17659889#.kzltiiwt8

    So from my limited understanding, if a person DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE SELF RESPONSES for underage desire, they are not diagnosable. And if they DO NOT ACT OUT ON CHILDREN, then it is okay.

    What if the children agree with the adults for sexual contact? Would the adult be classified as 'pedophile'?
     
  13. dequ1

    dequ1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The phrase, "are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses" used in the DSM5, to me, means that the sexual fantasies and/or urges and relationships (if there is any), if they DO NOT hinder the person from 'functioning' in daily life, that they would be seen as non-exhibiting pedophile disorders.
     
  14. dequ1

    dequ1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so just like the original post to this thread mentioned, the underage sexuality between adults and pre-pubescent children, if the adult is not hindered in daily living skills and if the child is not hindered in daily living skills, would make that relationship a consensual and non-impairing one.

    - - - Updated - - -

    if underage sexuality wants to be curbed, I guess there would have to be a Federal Law saying children under the age of a certain age, cannot have sexual relations.. Otherwise, it's all consensual.

    - - - Updated - - -

    if a child is given free rights to have sex amongst their peers, they will probably use that freedom for all ages as well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    you read it in the original post to this thread. She/he doesn't find anything wrong with 2 persons agreeing, regardless of age. And she/he has said that it is cultural and religious standards that cause the restrictions and the look downs...
     
  15. dequ1

    dequ1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And so now, grown adults whether female or male, who engage in sexual activities with a minor, can be Psychiatrically, be diagnosed as 'normal' but exhibiting desires and urges for under age persons. They would have no disorder to them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    which would go right back into the ball court of 'personal preferences.'

    - - - Updated - - -

    There was a time when being gay was diagnosed in the DSM. And now, the diagnosis has been taken out.

    - - - Updated - - -

    in the previous DSM's, pedophilia was a disorder. Today's DSM has modified it. And maybe the following DSM's would justify it as 'being born that way.'

    - - - Updated - - -

    is psychiatry and the DSM an explanation of current 'normally accepted' behaviors and deviations?
     
  16. dequ1

    dequ1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. Abandon

    Abandon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The age of adulthood is an arbitrary number that exists for the sake of convinience. It is practical to use most of the time, but declaring all sex before this age has been reached to be rape is pure lunacy. What is the fundamental difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old? What if you live in a country where the age of majority is 21? Or 15?

    How about teenagers in countries with a lower age of consent? Are you asserting that the fully legal and consensual intercouse they are enganging in is, in fact, rape?

    Not to mention that if you look at age at first sexual contract, the average number in most countries is bellow 18. Even in the US, it's 17. Are you wildly trivializing the concept of rape by suggesting that the vast majority of the population are victims, we just don't know it yet?
     
  18. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because kids having kids is not a good idea. They are not working, have no means to support the child, and are mentally not ready to raise children. 150 years ago, kids were not required to go to school until they are 18, many young girls quit school because of the ridicule and jeers from their peers. So now they've dropped out of school, have a kid, very little prospects for good jobs. Then when they finally get the kids in school themselves, they tend to start partying and doing crap that they would have gotten out of their system in high school. My wife works for the school district and sees it almost every day.
     
  19. PreteenCommunist

    PreteenCommunist Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    Contraceptives are a thing. And abortions.
     
  20. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, both are available...But if the contraceptives were used, there wouldn't be almost 1 million abortions in the US. So most people are too lazy or too stupid to plan ahead...In the case of teens, it is probably both. I've read your other offline stuff and you are the exception to the rule, most kids aren't emotionally or intellectually ready for that type of relationship.
     
  21. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Just because you're hormonal doesn't mean you are prepared for sex. Sex is something special that you should share with someone you care about and who cares about you and someone in your own age group whom you have things in common with. You are a child, even if you are intelligent and well spoken. Your brain is still not fully developed. You tend to be impulsive and take unnecessary risks. You have plenty of time. Enjoy being a kid.
     
  22. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Sometimes contraception can fail due to a variety of reasons. Are you ready to accept the consequences? Would you abort your own baby? Look, I don't mean to lecture you, but as a woman who was a teen mother, I think other young people could perhaps learn from my mistakes. There are a lot of different consequences that can result from an intimate or sexual relationship. ALL kinds of things that you may not be prepared to deal with.
     
  23. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,422
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fortunately morality is not defined by what the law du jure is, or else you might actually have a point. Why can't minors give consent? "Because the law says," is not a valid reason. Consent is dependent upon understanding of consequences and making a free choice. There is no reason that this magically changes the day you turn 18 or 16. So perhaps a better approach would be to assume somebody can give consent at 18, and take it on a case-by-case basis for those who are younger when a complaint is issued.

    You may be correct, but not based upon the reasoning you put forth here. The problem with kiddie porn assuming we're talking about sexual acts is that somebody is being exploited against their will for somebody else's gain, in most cases. Almost all young children (roughly under 12) either do not understand or do not want sex, and so are unlikely to be giving consent regardless of age of consent laws. What about softer porn? Removing cultural norms, is there really anything inherently damaging about being naked and somebody else getting off on viewing you naked? It seems that much of the damage in that is based upon society telling you that something horrible happened to you and you should feel bad about it. The way we view sex is clearly dysfunctional, so dysfunctional that I can barely imagine what a sane system would look like. But I do know that when it comes to punishing people, it should be based upon harm to the victim, not crazy rules that send teenagers to the sex offender list for sexting with friends.

    I'd agree with the point that morality is not actually culturally relative, but you should consider that your concept of morality is clouded by your culture just as it was for the Indians who burned widows, albeit in a milder sense. Is it really moral to punish young adults who form relationships with teenagers? Is it really moral to punish teens for sexting with each other? People mature at different rates, and morality in law is a matter of protecting people from each other, not forcing our lifestyles upon them.

    Is the average 18 year old, or even 21-year-old, ready to accept the responsibilities and demands of fatherhood? I'll bet they aren't. Since training for employment in our society often extends well beyond those years. It's easy for me to dismiss your point because I'm pro-choice. It would be harder if I was pro-life. My grandma always told me it'll wreck my life if I get a girl pregnant before I have a career. Turns out that's totally false. Several people in medical school had kids before even starting medical school. They required some family support, but now that I have a kid I see that it's hard to do without the family support no matter what your age is.

    I'd propose a much simpler solution. Leave it up to the teen. If the parents assert that the teen didn't or couldn't give consent, then it can be hashed out in court just like we would if it were a mentally challenged person's consent at issue. The issue shouldn't be the age difference, but rather whether consent was established. If the teen claims it was consensual but it was revealed they were manipulated or not sophisticated enough to give consent, then it's sexual abuse. So the mature party does have extra responsibility to establish consent, but their guilt isn't determined by something so arbitrary as age alone.

    That's how you view sex, but who is to say it is the best or only way to view it? I remember being a teenager and ready for sex. I understood it and wanted it and had it. There were risks, precautions, rewards, and I have no regrets. Not every teenager gets to grow up. Every life is too short. Why deprive oneself of the one of the greatest joys in life just because there are risks? Whether it is worth it or should be put off is a very personal and individual decision. I don't think she should take it lightly, but I don't think she should just say no because you assume she can't assess risks based upon her age. Studies show that teenagers in America are actually more responsible with sex than adults.
     
  24. BillRM

    BillRM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    6,792
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Odd as I never had feel any sexual desire for a 12 to 13 years old girl.
     
  25. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    Lol. I couldn't disagree with you more. Yikes!

    - - - Updated - - -


    I'm pro choice too, but I'm not pro child sex. You leave those kids alone!
     

Share This Page