Post by: Manedwolf on September 07, 2007, 09:11:31 AM
Quote
Avoiding Kids: How Men Cope
With Being Cast as Predators
September 6, 2007
The Wall Street Journal
These days, if Rian Romoli accidentally bumps into a child, he quickly raises his hands above his shoulders. "I don't want to give even the slightest indication that any inadvertent touching occurred," says Mr. Romoli, an economist in La Cañada Flintridge, Calif.
Ted Wallis, a doctor in Austin, Texas, recently came upon a lost child in tears in a mall. His first instinct was to help, but he feared people might consider him a predator. He walked away. "Being male," he explains, "I am guilty until proven innocent."
In San Diego, retiree Ralph Castro says he won't allow himself to be alone with a child -- even in an elevator.
Last month, I wrote about how our culture teaches children to fear men. Hundreds of men responded, many lamenting that they've now become fearful of children. They said they avert their eyes when kids are around, or think twice before holding even their own children's hands in public.
Men, do you find yourself limiting contact with kids for fear that you'll be accused of being a predator? Is there anything that can be done about this societal problem? Share your thoughts3.
Frank McEnulty, a builder in Long Beach, Calif., was once a Boy Scout scoutmaster. "Today, I wouldn't do that job for anything," he says. "All it takes is for one kid to get ticked off at you for something and tell his parents you were acting weird on the campout."
It's true that men are far more likely than women to be sexual predators. But our society, while declining to profile by race or nationality when it comes to crime and terrorism, has become nonchalant about profiling men. Child advocates are advising parents never to hire male babysitters. Airlines are placing unaccompanied minors with female passengers.
Child-welfare groups say these precautions minimize risks. But men's rights activists argue that our societal focus on "bad guys" has led to an overconfidence in women. (Children who die of physical abuse are more often victims of female perpetrators, usually mothers, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)
Though groups that cater to the young are working harder to identify predators, they also ask that risks be kept in perspective. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America does criminal background checks on each of its 250,000 volunteers, and has social workers assess them. Since 1990, the group says, it has had fewer than 10 abuse allegations per year. More than 98% of the alleged abusers were male.
"If we wanted to make sure we never had a problem, one approach would be to just become Big Sisters -- to say we won't serve boys," says Mack Koonce, the group's chief operating officer. But, of course, that would deny hundreds of thousands of boys contact with male mentors.
The Boy Scouts of America now has elaborate rules to prevent both abuse and false accusations. There are 1.2 million Scout leaders, and the organization kicks out about 175 of them a year over abuse allegations or for violating policies.
These policies can be intricate. For instance, four adult leaders are needed for each outing. If a sick child must go home, two adults drive him and two stay with the others, so no adult is ever alone with a Scout. "It's protection for the adults, as well as the children," says a Scouts spokesman.
The result of all this hyper-carefulness, however, is that men often feel like untouchables. In Cochranville, Pa., Ray Simpson, a bus driver, says that he used to have 30 kids stop at his house on Halloween. But after his divorce, with people knowing he was a man living alone, he had zero visitors. "I felt like crying at the end of the evening," he says.
At Houston Intercontinental Airport, businessman Mitch Reifel was having a meal with his 5-year-old daughter when a policeman showed up to question him. A passerby had reported his interactions with the child seemed "suspicious."
In Skokie, Ill., Steve Frederick says the director of his son's day-care center called him in to reprimand him for "inappropriately touching the children." "I was shocked," he says. "Whatever did she mean?" She was referring to him reading stories with his son and other kids on his lap. A parent had panicked when her child mentioned sitting on a man's lap.
"Good parenting and good education demand that we let children take risks," says Mr. Frederick, a career coach. "We install playground equipment, putting them at risk of falls and broken bones. Why? We want them to challenge themselves and develop muscles and confidence.
"Likewise, while we don't want sexual predators to harm our kids, we do want our kids to develop healthy relationships with adults, both men and women. Instilling a fear of men is a profound disservice to everyone."
With Being Cast as Predators
September 6, 2007
The Wall Street Journal
These days, if Rian Romoli accidentally bumps into a child, he quickly raises his hands above his shoulders. "I don't want to give even the slightest indication that any inadvertent touching occurred," says Mr. Romoli, an economist in La Cañada Flintridge, Calif.
Ted Wallis, a doctor in Austin, Texas, recently came upon a lost child in tears in a mall. His first instinct was to help, but he feared people might consider him a predator. He walked away. "Being male," he explains, "I am guilty until proven innocent."
In San Diego, retiree Ralph Castro says he won't allow himself to be alone with a child -- even in an elevator.
Last month, I wrote about how our culture teaches children to fear men. Hundreds of men responded, many lamenting that they've now become fearful of children. They said they avert their eyes when kids are around, or think twice before holding even their own children's hands in public.
Men, do you find yourself limiting contact with kids for fear that you'll be accused of being a predator? Is there anything that can be done about this societal problem? Share your thoughts3.
Frank McEnulty, a builder in Long Beach, Calif., was once a Boy Scout scoutmaster. "Today, I wouldn't do that job for anything," he says. "All it takes is for one kid to get ticked off at you for something and tell his parents you were acting weird on the campout."
It's true that men are far more likely than women to be sexual predators. But our society, while declining to profile by race or nationality when it comes to crime and terrorism, has become nonchalant about profiling men. Child advocates are advising parents never to hire male babysitters. Airlines are placing unaccompanied minors with female passengers.
Child-welfare groups say these precautions minimize risks. But men's rights activists argue that our societal focus on "bad guys" has led to an overconfidence in women. (Children who die of physical abuse are more often victims of female perpetrators, usually mothers, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)
Though groups that cater to the young are working harder to identify predators, they also ask that risks be kept in perspective. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America does criminal background checks on each of its 250,000 volunteers, and has social workers assess them. Since 1990, the group says, it has had fewer than 10 abuse allegations per year. More than 98% of the alleged abusers were male.
"If we wanted to make sure we never had a problem, one approach would be to just become Big Sisters -- to say we won't serve boys," says Mack Koonce, the group's chief operating officer. But, of course, that would deny hundreds of thousands of boys contact with male mentors.
The Boy Scouts of America now has elaborate rules to prevent both abuse and false accusations. There are 1.2 million Scout leaders, and the organization kicks out about 175 of them a year over abuse allegations or for violating policies.
These policies can be intricate. For instance, four adult leaders are needed for each outing. If a sick child must go home, two adults drive him and two stay with the others, so no adult is ever alone with a Scout. "It's protection for the adults, as well as the children," says a Scouts spokesman.
The result of all this hyper-carefulness, however, is that men often feel like untouchables. In Cochranville, Pa., Ray Simpson, a bus driver, says that he used to have 30 kids stop at his house on Halloween. But after his divorce, with people knowing he was a man living alone, he had zero visitors. "I felt like crying at the end of the evening," he says.
At Houston Intercontinental Airport, businessman Mitch Reifel was having a meal with his 5-year-old daughter when a policeman showed up to question him. A passerby had reported his interactions with the child seemed "suspicious."
In Skokie, Ill., Steve Frederick says the director of his son's day-care center called him in to reprimand him for "inappropriately touching the children." "I was shocked," he says. "Whatever did she mean?" She was referring to him reading stories with his son and other kids on his lap. A parent had panicked when her child mentioned sitting on a man's lap.
"Good parenting and good education demand that we let children take risks," says Mr. Frederick, a career coach. "We install playground equipment, putting them at risk of falls and broken bones. Why? We want them to challenge themselves and develop muscles and confidence.
"Likewise, while we don't want sexual predators to harm our kids, we do want our kids to develop healthy relationships with adults, both men and women. Instilling a fear of men is a profound disservice to everyone."
Post by: K Frame on September 07, 2007, 09:35:09 AM
White = guilty
Man = guilty
You know, at one time we ruled the world.
What the hell happened?
Post by: Paddy on September 07, 2007, 09:40:43 AM
Quote
What the hell happened?
'Zero tolerance', handwringing, bedwetting liberal feminization.
I've gotten icy glares from mothers for smiling back or speaking to a child. Like I'm about to snatch the little snotblower or something.
Post by: HankB on September 07, 2007, 09:56:42 AM
Oh hell yeah.
White = guilty
Man = guilty
You know, at one time we ruled the world.
What the hell happened?
The 19th Amendment.
White = guilty
Man = guilty
You know, at one time we ruled the world.
What the hell happened?
Post by: grislyatoms on September 07, 2007, 11:15:20 AM
Last year, towards the end of the year, some of the kids began giving me hugs. I didn't respond at all, I just stood there and tried to get them interested in something else. Sucks to have to be like that.
This year, they are requiring volunteers to submit to background checks. I may not volunteer this year, if it turns out to be too much hassle. I just had to do another background check for the Dept. of Health, I'm a bit fed up with all the checks.
Post by: Standing Wolf on September 07, 2007, 11:17:40 AM
Post by: tyme on September 07, 2007, 11:20:22 AM
Quote
In Cochranville, Pa., Ray Simpson, a bus driver, says that he used to have 30 kids stop at his house on Halloween. But after his divorce, with people knowing he was a man living alone, he had zero visitors. "I felt like crying at the end of the evening," he says.
Is this true? Hanging up a sign that says, "single old lecherous hump" on your door discourages Halloween visitors? If only I'd known this sooner! Peace and quiet on All Hallows' Eve!
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 07, 2007, 11:44:16 AM
Quote
In Cochranville, Pa., Ray Simpson, a bus driver, says that he used to have 30 kids stop at his house on Halloween. But after his divorce, with people knowing he was a man living alone, he had zero visitors. "I felt like crying at the end of the evening," he says.
Is this true? Hanging up a sign that says, "single old lecherous hump" on your door discourages Halloween visitors? If only I'd known this sooner! Peace and quiet on All Hallows' Eve!
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 02:07:48 PM
This year, they are requiring volunteers to submit to background checks. I may not volunteer this year, if it turns out to be too much hassle. I just had to do another background check for the Dept. of Health, I'm a bit fed up with all the checks.
Yup, he must be a pedophile. I mean, if you have nothing to hide...
Post by: Thor on September 07, 2007, 03:07:40 PM
Quote
Frank McEnulty, a builder in Long Beach, Calif., was once a Boy Scout scoutmaster. "Today, I wouldn't do that job for anything," he says. "All it takes is for one kid to get ticked off at you for something and tell his parents you were acting weird on the campout."
Post by: Telperion on September 07, 2007, 03:09:37 PM
Quote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6709313.stm
Men helpers 'fear paedophile tag'
More than one in eight men do not volunteer to work with children because they are worried people will think they are a paedophile, a survey suggests.
Childrens' charities NCH and Chance UK also say almost one in five men do not come forward because they would have to undertake a criminal records check.
More volunteers will have to be checked because of a new child protection law being introduced next year.
The survey found 69% of men do not give up their time to help youngsters.
The charities organised the Volunteer Survey 2007, which interviewed 1,019 adults.
Work commitments were given as a reason by 59% of those who did not volunteer, and 68% said they did not have enough time.
In all, 13% of the men questioned said they would not choose to volunteer to work with children due to fear of being perceived as a paedophile.
Mentoring plea
Both the NCH and Chance UK are calling for men to come forward and mentor boys aged five to 11.
The NCH's chief executive, Clare Tickell, said: "Many children, especially boys, are desperately in need of a male mentor, which is why we urgently need men to come forward despite any fears they may have about public perception.
"We work hard to ensure volunteers are checked by the police, trained and monitored, which we hope encourages men to come forward and helps assuage the public's concern."
Jo Hobbs, development manager at Chance UK, said: "Male volunteers are more difficult to recruit, yet positive male role models can make a huge difference to the lives of challenging children and young people.
"We urge anyone out there interested to get in touch to find out more."
Men helpers 'fear paedophile tag'
More than one in eight men do not volunteer to work with children because they are worried people will think they are a paedophile, a survey suggests.
Childrens' charities NCH and Chance UK also say almost one in five men do not come forward because they would have to undertake a criminal records check.
More volunteers will have to be checked because of a new child protection law being introduced next year.
The survey found 69% of men do not give up their time to help youngsters.
The charities organised the Volunteer Survey 2007, which interviewed 1,019 adults.
Work commitments were given as a reason by 59% of those who did not volunteer, and 68% said they did not have enough time.
In all, 13% of the men questioned said they would not choose to volunteer to work with children due to fear of being perceived as a paedophile.
Mentoring plea
Both the NCH and Chance UK are calling for men to come forward and mentor boys aged five to 11.
The NCH's chief executive, Clare Tickell, said: "Many children, especially boys, are desperately in need of a male mentor, which is why we urgently need men to come forward despite any fears they may have about public perception.
"We work hard to ensure volunteers are checked by the police, trained and monitored, which we hope encourages men to come forward and helps assuage the public's concern."
Jo Hobbs, development manager at Chance UK, said: "Male volunteers are more difficult to recruit, yet positive male role models can make a huge difference to the lives of challenging children and young people.
"We urge anyone out there interested to get in touch to find out more."
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 07:52:28 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 07, 2007, 09:26:58 PM
WTF is WITH that? I saw some in a store window, midriff-baring tops and blatantly "belongs on a streetwalker" short shorts that say "brat" or other things meant for near-toddlers. What the hell? Who would buy that and put it on a kid?
Quote
Gannett News Service
From spaghetti straps for preschoolers to ultra-miniskirts on tweens, girls clothing is getting noticeably skimpier.
Kid-magnet chains, including Limited Too and Abercrombie Kids, as well as discount stores such as Target are focusing their marketing efforts on a much younger demographic, luring young girls into ensembles that in years past had been reserved for their teenage sisters.
Bikinis for babies?
GapKids recently featured a white, crocheted string bikini you'd likely see Anna Kournikova wearing on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
The bikini was for a 12-month-old.
Racks at Target held several bathing suits perfect for a Hawaiian Tropic bikini competition. The crocheted and camouflage-designed suits started at size 4 in the little girls' section.
Inseams on "classic" shorts at stores such as Abercrombie Kids and Hollister Co. are microscopic. And halter tops, shirts often lauded by fashion consultants for their ability to enhance a less-than-voluptuous chest, are everywhere for every age.
Moms hoping to find anything even mildly modest have to be happy Bermuda shorts are trendy again.
"It's a very scary phenomenon," says Patricia Leavy, a sociology professor at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass. "I don't think it's going to go away. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better."
Leavy says the clothing trend is only piggybacking off pop culture and the toy industry, where Bratz dolls have spun off Baby Bratz, and celebrities such as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan have grown up much faster than the fans who follow them.
"The reason it's really happening is money," Leavy says.
From spaghetti straps for preschoolers to ultra-miniskirts on tweens, girls clothing is getting noticeably skimpier.
Kid-magnet chains, including Limited Too and Abercrombie Kids, as well as discount stores such as Target are focusing their marketing efforts on a much younger demographic, luring young girls into ensembles that in years past had been reserved for their teenage sisters.
Bikinis for babies?
GapKids recently featured a white, crocheted string bikini you'd likely see Anna Kournikova wearing on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
The bikini was for a 12-month-old.
Racks at Target held several bathing suits perfect for a Hawaiian Tropic bikini competition. The crocheted and camouflage-designed suits started at size 4 in the little girls' section.
Inseams on "classic" shorts at stores such as Abercrombie Kids and Hollister Co. are microscopic. And halter tops, shirts often lauded by fashion consultants for their ability to enhance a less-than-voluptuous chest, are everywhere for every age.
Moms hoping to find anything even mildly modest have to be happy Bermuda shorts are trendy again.
"It's a very scary phenomenon," says Patricia Leavy, a sociology professor at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass. "I don't think it's going to go away. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better."
Leavy says the clothing trend is only piggybacking off pop culture and the toy industry, where Bratz dolls have spun off Baby Bratz, and celebrities such as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan have grown up much faster than the fans who follow them.
"The reason it's really happening is money," Leavy says.
Post by: Balog on September 07, 2007, 09:30:04 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 10:01:03 PM
I find this ironic in the face of the fact that parents somewhere, though I don't know who, are buying those disgusting "mini britney" sort of looks for their eight year olds.
WTF is WITH that? I saw some in a store window, midriff-baring tops and blatantly "belongs on a streetwalker" short shorts that say "brat" or other things meant for near-toddlers. What the hell? Who would buy that and put it on a kid?
WTF is WITH that? I saw some in a store window, midriff-baring tops and blatantly "belongs on a streetwalker" short shorts that say "brat" or other things meant for near-toddlers. What the hell? Who would buy that and put it on a kid?
The Britney look is also popular for fourteen and sixteen-year-olds. And in the summertime, it's hard to drive around town without seeing a bunch of cheerleaders washing cars to raise money. High school girls in halter tops and short shorts, holding signs on street corners and sudsing down your car, even if you're a forty-five-year-old man. I would say there's a big difference between an eight-year-old child and a young woman of sixteen. There is. But at the same time as this trend has developed, there seems to be a fairly recent attitude* that adult men should be ashamed of themselves if they notice the curves on a girl of high school age, as if they were potential child predators. But the way many girls are dressed seems to announce their sexuality rather stridently, as if begging us all to notice. Something seems out of place, there.
*It seems recent to me, because the Oldies stations play songs about "teen-age queens" and "sweet sixteen" and "young girl get out of my life," etc. And of course prior to those days, women were routinely getting married at seventeen.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 08, 2007, 12:30:05 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 08, 2007, 06:20:21 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 08, 2007, 06:40:38 AM
I would say there's a big difference between an eight-year-old child and a young woman of sixteen. There is. But at the same time as this trend has developed, there seems to be a fairly recent attitude* that adult men should be ashamed of themselves if they notice the curves on a girl of high school age, as if they were potential child predators.
Biology and every bit of culture up to the 20th century says that you are supposed to notice them once they reach puberty. That's basic biology. And up till this century, and still in a lot of regions of the world, girls were married at 14 or so. American west? Pioneers? They were already married and having kids.
I don't think there's anything wrong with someone noticing a 16-year-old girl is attractive as long as they only look politely and do nothing further. It's just when someone has any reaction to a prebubescent child other than "protect", (like that sicko in Oregon now) that they need to be locked up away from the public, because that's just an incurable mental illness and they are, indeed, a danger to children.
Noticing teen girls that are well past puberty is normal as long as one just notices. But if someone looks at any young child that way, they need to either get serious mental help or off themselves as soon as possible, for everyone's benefit. There's no excuse for that, ever.
It just makes me wonder what is going on with some of the clothing designers in that regard, because my reaction to seeing that sort of outfit for a little kid is nausea and revulsion...and wanting to smack the parent.
There's something seriously wrong with society if the sexualization of children is okay...and if there's no possible innocent context seen to hugging a child anymore.
Did you know that they cut the song "If you sit on my lap today" from one of the classic Rankin-Bass Christmas specials in new broadcasts because it "made people uncomfortable"? Seriously, what wrongness is going through their heads that they assume something that no sane person would ever assume?
Post by: Sindawe on September 08, 2007, 06:54:11 AM
Quote
It's just when someone has any reaction to a prebubescent child other than "protect"...
Does "ICKY!!! Get it away!!!" get a pass?
Quote
It just makes me wonder what is going on with some of the clothing designers in that regard, because my reaction to seeing that sort of outfit for a little kid is nausea and revulsion...and wanting to smack the parent.
Maybe the childs fashion industry is rife with pedophiles? Brings to mind this bit of fictional discourse from a few years back...
===================
The video shows Chiana in a black dress, dancing around on a deck.
Chiana: "You wanta dance?"
Bobby: "I'm not very good."
Chiana: "Oh, come on." She bounces to the music: "... and drivin... and drivin... and reverse... reverse." She laughs. She dances some more, breathing heavily. "Bobby, what do you think of sex?"
Bobby: "Uh... what?"
Chiana tosses her hair with her hands: "Sex."
Bobby: "Why are you asking me?"
Chiana: "Oh, just curious."
Bobby: "I... haven't had it yet."
Chiana: "What!? You haven't had it?" She stops dancing and leans towards the camera. "Are you serious? How old are you?"
Bobby: "Thirteen."
Chiana: "Thirteen. Well, what are you waiting for?"
Bobby: "It's against the law."
Chiana: "To have sex?"
Bobby: "At thirteen."
Chiana: "Wow! Well, that's frelled. Who cares when you have it?"
Bobby: "My mom.."
Chiana: "Okay. So... why are all the little girls wearing all those clothes?"
Bobby: "Because they see it on the tv and in the magazines."
Chiana: "But somebody... sold them the clothes, so somebody... wants them to have sex."
Bobby: "I never thought of it like that."
Chiana laughs and starts dancing again.
Post by: longeyes on September 08, 2007, 06:59:52 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 08, 2007, 07:12:32 AM
I guess what I'm getting at with the car wash thing is that it just seems really stupid to let your teenage daughter stand around half-dressed in public, soaping up strangers' cars. Doesn't it? Or am I just being weird again?
Post by: SteveS on September 08, 2007, 07:17:16 AM
Quote
It's true that men are far more likely than women to be sexual predators.
Sure is! There are some DOJ stats from the late 90's that says 99% of of the people that commit sex crimes are men (granted, this includes crimes against adults). When you combine this with most parents tending to be protective of their children and the publicity that sex crimes against children get in the media ('To Catch a Predator', Church sex abuse stories, and other high profile incidents), it is not surprising that things are the way they are. In my previous career, I worked as a family therapist. I probably saw hundreds of child victims and only one was abused by a woman and they were actually fairly close in age.
Quote
WTF is WITH that? I saw some in a store window, midriff-baring tops and blatantly "belongs on a streetwalker" short shorts that say "brat" or other things meant for near-toddlers. What the hell? Who would buy that and put it on a kid? Huh?
I have seen thong underwear for toddlers, so nothing would surprise me. I was with my daughter in toy aisle the other day and they had a ton of those Bratz dolls. I don't say no to a lot, but those will never be in my house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 08, 2007, 07:23:26 AM
Post by: jeepmor on September 08, 2007, 11:36:50 AM
Quote
I saw some in a store window, midriff-baring tops and blatantly "belongs on a streetwalker" short shorts that say "brat" or other things meant for near-toddlers. What the hell? Who would buy that and put it on a kid?
Britney Spears is doing for white trash what prisoners without belts did for the gangbanger crowds and wanna be punks of today. Both groups are too young to know better, but if one of their music stars is wearing it, they just have to have it. And unfortunately, it works.
That said, my wife is 7 months pregnant with a boy and all of these things have quickly come to the forefront of my mind. I have repeatedly whispered in her ear on many occasions of late while we are out in public and I see how some parents don't mind if their pre-teen dresses like a pornstar. "I'm so glad we are having a boy." "How can parents let their kids dress like that?"
As for the pedophile angle, yeah, I agree that society has made it difficult for any man without children to go to the park and revisit their youth by participating in activities with the youth. I love playing ball and wrestling with my nephews, some of the best memories I have with them. But doing that in the park with a stangers kids, in todays times, would simply get me labelled instead of seen as a caring man that just wants to play harmlessly with the kids. It used to be okay, but now, it's not, simple as that. My wife's cousin, single at 38, joined the church so he could get close to the kids and work with them in a positive light so that he did not get seen as the "oddly alone guy" out playing with the children and get labelled as a pedophile.
He has been a great influence on these kids, but sadly enough, I don't think he could accomplish this positive influence on them any other way in today's society.
Post by: LadySmith on September 10, 2007, 02:08:29 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 10, 2007, 02:21:52 AM
Why are women under-represented among pedophiles? We must do something about this inequality. For too long, women have been told that they can't abuse children, just because they aren't male. That is just wrong. Sisters, empower yourselves! Equality now!
Its the double standard. A female teacher is seduced by a strapping teenage boy-man....but a male teacher is a dirty old lech for having sex with a poor, defenseless teen girl....
Our society doesn't generally accept that a woman can be a phedophile, nor that there is something wrong with the sexual interaction of older women and young boys.
Post by: Strings on September 10, 2007, 02:37:42 AM
Problem I have with some of the views is some of the things I've seen. A 4 year old girl, out in the bars with a fake ID, can get a guy busted as a pedophile. Or, overheard a couple girls at a local coffee shop around 2300 hrs, talking about hanging around outside a bar "to get some guy in trouble"...
Personally, I blame parents for, gee, not being parents...
Post by: Phyphor on September 10, 2007, 07:49:14 AM
Who knew testosterone would become a hazardous material?
Dear god, no kidding.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 10, 2007, 07:52:15 AM
Actually Jamis, that IS changing...
Problem I have with some of the views is some of the things I've seen. A 4 year old girl, out in the bars with a fake ID, can get a guy busted as a pedophile. Or, overheard a couple girls at a local coffee shop around 2300 hrs, talking about hanging around outside a bar "to get some guy in trouble"...
Personally, I blame parents for, gee, not being parents...
Problem I have with some of the views is some of the things I've seen. A 4 year old girl, out in the bars with a fake ID, can get a guy busted as a pedophile. Or, overheard a couple girls at a local coffee shop around 2300 hrs, talking about hanging around outside a bar "to get some guy in trouble"...
Personally, I blame parents for, gee, not being parents...
I think you meant "14"?
I'm sure kids have picked up on the fact they can mess with adults by accusing phedophilia. A reason I will not be volunteering in any activities that require me to be alone with other people's children.
Post by: Antibubba on September 10, 2007, 07:53:33 AM
Quote
Noticing teen girls that are well past puberty is normal as long as one just notices. But if someone looks at any young child that way, they need to either get serious mental help or off themselves as soon as possible, for everyone's benefit. There's no excuse for that, ever.
It just makes me wonder what is going on with some of the clothing designers in that regard, because my reaction to seeing that sort of outfit for a little kid is nausea and revulsion...and wanting to smack the parent.
There's something seriously wrong with society if the sexualization of children is okay...and if there's no possible innocent context seen to hugging a child anymore.
It just makes me wonder what is going on with some of the clothing designers in that regard, because my reaction to seeing that sort of outfit for a little kid is nausea and revulsion...and wanting to smack the parent.
There's something seriously wrong with society if the sexualization of children is okay...and if there's no possible innocent context seen to hugging a child anymore.
Pedophiles aren't born, they're made. That's the prevailing theory, anyway. But have you ever considered the idea that, simply by the sheer number of teenyboppers who are dressing to thrill that we're creating a subtext that says "This is is good"?
After the John Benet Ransey pageant stuff came out I thought there'd be more of a reaction--but I didn't think it'd be embraced.
Post by: longeyes on September 10, 2007, 08:07:13 AM
But I have a nagging question: Didn't all these beasts have mothers? Women have been the hands that rocked the cradle from time immemorial. What happens in a culture doesn't emanate from only one quarter. I think we just don't want to see what's happening on a microcosmic level. There's plenty of "abuse" to go around.
Post by: Angel Eyes on September 10, 2007, 11:12:21 AM
I guess what I'm getting at with the car wash thing is that it just seems really stupid to let your teenage daughter stand around half-dressed in public, soaping up strangers' cars.
Time to watch Cool Hand Luke again.
-Jack
Post by: longeyes on September 10, 2007, 12:04:03 PM
Okay, it's a deal.
Now when do women start curbing theirs?
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 10, 2007, 12:09:08 PM
Now when do women start curbing theirs?
Just before you start dating them.
Brad
Post by: MillCreek on September 10, 2007, 12:19:06 PM
Female sex offenders reveal cultural double standard
By Rebecca Morris
Special to The Seattle Times
It all seems so terribly familiar.
A trusted, even respected or beloved teacher is accused of having a sexual relationship with a student.
What used to shock us, but is now much too commonplace, is that the teacher is a woman.
Their names become tabloid headlines: Mary K. Letourneau, Debra Lafave, Pamela Diehl-Moore and others.
And now two more cases, both local.
Jennifer Leigh Rice, a 31-year-old former Tacoma teacher, was charged with having sex with a 10-year-old boy who had been in her fourth-grade class. The boy's father says she lavished the boy with attention until she was told not to come to their house anymore.
So she abducted the boy, police say, drove him to a highway rest stop outside Ellensburg and had sex with him. After her arrest in early August, Rice said she'd had sex with the boy four or five times, including once when she sneaked into his house as his parents slept.
Earlier this year, former Tenino math teacher Dawn Welter, 38, was charged with second-degree sexual misconduct after spending the night at a motel with a 16-year-old female student. Her lawyer explained her relationship with the student as "horseplay that became sexual."
The decadelong wave of sexual offenses committed by women teachers in particular have exposed a cultural double standard: The public is more willing to accept the female abuser's claim that she had a "relationship" with the victim. And in cases in which the male is a teenager, the sexual abuse is more likely to be dismissed as a rite of passage. The questionable, yet overriding assumption, is that women predators are somehow different from men.
"Men are demonized, women are diagnosed. Men are beasts, but women are troubled or mentally ill," said media scholar Matthew Felling in an interview with Fox News. In fact, accounts of women sexual offenders are often more titillating than harsh. Felling calls the news coverage of young, attractive teachers involved with their students "part crime drama, part Penthouse letter."
About 25 percent of women and up to 17 percent of men say they experienced sexual abuse as children, ranging from seeing someone exposing themselves to intercourse. Boys are less likely to report abuse.
Despite the troubling news accounts, the National Education Association says schools are still among the safest places for children to be. The number of cases of sexual abuse by teachers, male and female, is less than 10 percent of all sex crimes against minors.
The current awareness of women predators began with Mary K. Letourneau, a 34-year-old elementary-school teacher and a married mother of four, who in 1996 began a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old former student, Vili Fualaau. Letourneau eventually had two children with him and served more than seven years in prison. She resumed contact with Fualaau, by then an adult, after she was released. While a male offender might have been publicly shunned, Letourneau's 2005 wedding to Fualaau was covered by "Entertainment Tonight."
Female predators' crimes are often attributed to marital problems, depression, loneliness, immaturity or self-esteem issues. Letourneau was reported to have "a loveless marriage" and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
Spiritual "relationships"
Not only do we look at female offenders differently, so do the offenders themselves. Women predators are more likely to see the abuse as a romantic relationship. Letourneau told CNN's Larry King that she and Fualaau had a "deep spiritual oneness" before they were ever sexual, and that she did not consider herself a sexual predator.
Dr. Leigh Baker, a clinical psychologist in Colorado, interviewed hundreds of male and female predators for her book "Protecting Your Children From Sexual Predators." All were incarcerated at the time, and their stories help form her theory that there are four types of predators: inadequate, narcissistic, anti-social and pedophile.
An inadequate adult (and predator) has trouble forming attachments with other adults and is most comfortable with children, she says. A narcissist loves him- or herself to the detriment of others; someone who's anti-social doesn't abide by society's rules; and a pedophile is sexually aroused by children.
While some women are pedophiles and some men do profess their love for the children they sexually abuse, women are more likely to "couch it as a relationship," according to Baker. Men are more likely to be serial pedophiles; women seek that "deep spiritual oneness" that Letourneau says she found.
The traits women predators exhibit seeing themselves as a victim, low self-esteem, a sense of inadequacy, needing to be the center of attention, putting their own need for a connection before common sense probably place most women predators into two of Baker's four categories.
"My suspicion is if you took a large enough number of female predators, they would fall into all four types. But, we know women are less anti-social than men, and there are fewer female pedophiles, so I think most women are narcissistic or inadequate types of predators."
There are signs of the inadequate, the narcissist and the anti-social predator in Letourneau. She formed an inappropriate bond with a 12-year old, ignoring society's mores and the well-being of her own four children.
While a mental illness may produce hypersexuality, impulsiveness and poor decision-making, such a diagnosis for a sexual predator is rare, according to Baker. They are more likely to have a personality disorder (such as a anti-social, or narcissistic) or to have been sexually abused themselves.
The "Mrs. Robinson Syndrome"
To watch NBC's "To Catch A Predator" you'd think all predators are men. The series uses decoys on the Internet to lure men hoping to hook up with underage teens. Robert Weiss, executive director and founder of the Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles, who provided his expertise in one of the episodes, says sexual compulsions on the Internet are male-dominated.
But female predators are beginning to use the Internet not in an anonymous way to find children but to stay in close touch with those they are involved with. Rice, the former Tacoma teacher, communicated online often with the 10-year-old she had sex with, according to court records.
Then there is the ultimate double standard: The wink wink, nudge nudge, of boys getting their sexual initiation from grown women.
"Society sees it as they got 'lucky' " to receive a sexual initiation from a woman, according to Dr. Keith Kaufman, chairman of the department of psychology at Portland State University. "But their brain maturation isn't complete. Boys aren't in a position to give consent to a sexual relationship. Girls see it as abusive much more quickly. Boys won't want to see themselves as a victim."
There is a prevailing sense that boys are not harmed by sexual liaisons with older women. It's called the "Mrs. Robinson Syndrome," after the character in the 1967 film "The Graduate." But Benjamin, Mrs. Robinson's target, wasn't a child; he was in his 20s, had just graduated from college and was contemplating that career in plastics.
"We tend to see the female teacher-male student relationship as less abusive and less harmful psychologically," according to Dr. Susan G. Kornstein, a psychiatrist and director of the Institute for Women's Health and the Mood Disorders Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University. "But in fact, a sexual relationship between a female teacher and a male student can be just as harmful and can have both short- and long-term consequences on the child's emotional stability and psychological and sexual development."
Boys who have sex with grown women are anything but "lucky." "It is always abuse," says Dr. Kaufman.
Rebecca Morris has been a broadcast and print journalist for 33 years. She teaches journalism at Bellevue Community College.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
Post by: MechAg94 on September 10, 2007, 01:39:59 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 10, 2007, 01:48:30 PM
Post by: TF_FH on September 10, 2007, 02:54:45 PM
Post by: Balog on September 10, 2007, 05:23:09 PM
Shouldn't there be two different standards, when we're talking about two very different sexes?
Uhhh, no?
Post by: roo_ster on September 10, 2007, 05:41:59 PM
Shouldn't there be two different standards, when we're talking about two very different sexes?
Now, that's crazy talk, taking into consideration folks' differing biologies.Next you'll write that we ought to have mens' & womens' restrooms, rather than one common restroom or even bar women from some MOSes in the military.
Freak.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 10, 2007, 05:51:24 PM
Shouldn't there be two different standards, when we're talking about two very different sexes?
Uhhh, no?
So, you'd like to pretend that gender differences don't exist? You're telling me that a man having sex with a teenaged girl is the same as a woman having sex with a teenaged boy?
Post by: Thor on September 10, 2007, 06:03:23 PM
Shouldn't there be two different standards, when we're talking about two very different sexes?
Uhhh, no?
So, you'd like to pretend that gender differences don't exist? You're telling me that a man having sex with a teenaged girl is the same as a woman having sex with a teenaged boy?
Morally, there is NO difference
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 10, 2007, 06:48:10 PM
Post by: BryanP on September 10, 2007, 07:11:04 PM
I disagree.
Please, enlighten us.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 10, 2007, 07:17:08 PM
Post by: Strings on September 10, 2007, 07:59:11 PM
Having two different sets of "rules" just won't work there. The only difference between a female teacher seducing a male student, and a male teacher seducing a female student, is the male student is taught by society to think that what happened was "cool", or "lucky". A male student, in this situation, is looked down on by society if they complain about their abuse, thereby keeping them from receiving help they might need (as from a coucilor)...
You're promoting moral equivalency there, fistful... and that dog won't hunt.
Post by: tyme on September 10, 2007, 09:28:47 PM
Quote
Enlighten you? I can't straighten out a lifetime of anti-sexist brainwashing. Sorry. You'll have to figure it out for yourself. Hint: Boys and girls is diff-ernt.
Quote
Shouldn't there be two different standards, when we're talking about two very different sexes?
Great idea. Historically, relationships, including those sanctioned by religion, have paired older guys with younger (sometimes just-past-menarche) girls. Women "raping" boys, however, should be an offense because that's sociologically rare and thus abnormal. Men "raping" girls has been more common, so why should we bother with legislation?Not to mention that some states make explicit exceptions for statutory rape, or even child abuse laws, as long as the girl is married with her parents' consent. So much for the state being neutral toward religion. I think those statutes are all written in a gender-neutral manner, but does anyone doubt that there's a statistical gender-dependent age skew in underage marriages?
If the institution of marriage is perpetuating this horrific older-guy-marries-younger-gal phenomenon, it must be stopped!
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 11, 2007, 01:47:32 AM
Strings, please explain how I'm promoting moral equivalence.
Post by: jeepmor on September 11, 2007, 01:51:50 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 11, 2007, 03:50:37 AM
I agree with fistful, none get a pass. But as the saying goes, you can't rape the willing. A boy that is taken advantage by a woman has to have an erection for the deed to be done. This is not the case the other way around.
So, you're saying that its OK for a 40 year old woman to diddle a 10 year old boy because he gets an erection? Do you believe this would cause a 10 year old boy no harm?
At the least it would be really weird going to the prom.
Post by: BryanP on September 11, 2007, 03:55:29 AM
Enlighten you? I can't straighten out a lifetime of anti-sexist brainwashing. Sorry. You'll have to figure it out for yourself. Hint: Boys and girls is diff-ernt.
If you can't explain it then what's the point of bringing it up?
Post by: SteveS on September 11, 2007, 04:03:35 AM
tyme, if I'm reading your sarcasm correctly, you've got my point of view backwards. I was saying that the man-girl abuse is worse than the woman-boy abuse. I don't favor giving either type a pass, just saying there's a difference.
How is it different? I'll have to look, but I recall some research that tended to show that woman boy abuse is quite damaging to boys and that men that have been abused report problems decades after the abuse happened.
In my previous career, I only saw one boy where this happened, but he was pretty messed up, in terms of how he viewed women and sex.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 11, 2007, 05:30:25 AM
Quote
Kiddie Porn Movie Rocks Toronto as 'Feel-Awful' Film of the Year
Tuesday , September 11, 2007
By Roger Friedman
FOX NEWS
The worst and most offensive movie Ive seen in a while has just had three screenings at the kooky Toronto Film Festival.
"Nothing Is Private" is written and directed by Alan Ball, the man behind "Six Feet Under" and "American Beauty." But its caused outrage here for its graphic depiction of sexual, mental and physical child abuse that verges quite literally on kiddie porn.
The movie so odious that many people have simply walked out during the screenings shows actor Aaron Eckhart having sex with a 13-year-old girl played by a now 19-year-old actress, Summer Bishil. The actress only turned 19 recently, however, which means that she was just on the cusp of 18 when she made the movie last year.
"Nothing Is Private" is based on a novel called "Towelhead" by Alicia Erian, and it very well may adhere to the books parameters. But books and films are very different.
In the movie version, the abuse heaped on 13-year-old Jazeera by her adult neighbor, her older teen boyfriend and her own father is shocking, ceaseless and disgusting. "Nothing Is Private" is the feel-awful movie of 2007.
Eckhart, best known for roles in "Erin Brockovich" and "Thank You for Smoking" inexplicably agreed to this part. His character initially takes the girls virginity by fondling her, in a very graphic scene that leaves nothing to the imagination.
Later, he sodomizes her. In between, his pedophilia is played in such a way that the first and only thought is that were watching kiddie porn.
If Ball who regularly toyed with conventions in his TV show and in "American Beauty" thought all this would somehow illuminate the tragedy of child abuse, he was wrong. Too much is shown and too many lines are crossed for "Nothing Is Private" ever to be released by a major studio or distribution company to theatres. If nothing else, the endless "ick" factor involving nearly every character is a permanent obstacle.
Its not like "Nothing Is Private" doesnt have other problems as well. Jazeera has an Iraqi father (Peter Macdissi) whos supposed to be a ladies' man but comes off swishier than Liberace. The father regularly hits Jazeera and threatens to beat her to death.
Her mother is a self-absorbed American (Maria Bello) who cares nothing for her child and loads her with more baggage than a porter at JFK.
And thats not all. Jazeera, abandoned and then seduced by next-door neighbor Eckhart, has already been abused by Bellos second husband.
She also falls into a kinky sexual relationship with a boy from school. That relationship is treated like all her others, blithely and almost without regard, as if this is the norm for any 13-year-old girl.
Remember when we thought the movie "Thirteen" with Evan Rachel Wood was scandalous? It seems like childs play by comparison now.
Luckily, someone speaks up for Jazeera. That would be a pregnant neighbor played by Toni Collette and that characters husband (Matt Letscher).
But by the time they realize something is wrong with Jazeera, the damage has been done and shown to us repeatedly and creepily. The couple provide a temporary safe haven for Jazeera, but its really too little, too late, at least for the audience.
"Nothing Is Private" comes within a year of "Hounddog," the film in which a 12-year-old girl (Dakota Fanning) is raped on screen. Of course, in that case it was really a 12-year-old. But something has definitely happened -- a change has occurred in the mindset of filmmakers who no longer see anything wrong with these depictions. How wrong they are.
Independent filmmaking is not supposed to be marked by a complete abandonment of taste, sensibility and propriety.
I dont know if "Towelhead" is a good novel or not. But the way its been translated to film is certain to gross out even the most cutting-edge audiences. Its simply unacceptable.
Tuesday , September 11, 2007
By Roger Friedman
FOX NEWS
The worst and most offensive movie Ive seen in a while has just had three screenings at the kooky Toronto Film Festival.
"Nothing Is Private" is written and directed by Alan Ball, the man behind "Six Feet Under" and "American Beauty." But its caused outrage here for its graphic depiction of sexual, mental and physical child abuse that verges quite literally on kiddie porn.
The movie so odious that many people have simply walked out during the screenings shows actor Aaron Eckhart having sex with a 13-year-old girl played by a now 19-year-old actress, Summer Bishil. The actress only turned 19 recently, however, which means that she was just on the cusp of 18 when she made the movie last year.
"Nothing Is Private" is based on a novel called "Towelhead" by Alicia Erian, and it very well may adhere to the books parameters. But books and films are very different.
In the movie version, the abuse heaped on 13-year-old Jazeera by her adult neighbor, her older teen boyfriend and her own father is shocking, ceaseless and disgusting. "Nothing Is Private" is the feel-awful movie of 2007.
Eckhart, best known for roles in "Erin Brockovich" and "Thank You for Smoking" inexplicably agreed to this part. His character initially takes the girls virginity by fondling her, in a very graphic scene that leaves nothing to the imagination.
Later, he sodomizes her. In between, his pedophilia is played in such a way that the first and only thought is that were watching kiddie porn.
If Ball who regularly toyed with conventions in his TV show and in "American Beauty" thought all this would somehow illuminate the tragedy of child abuse, he was wrong. Too much is shown and too many lines are crossed for "Nothing Is Private" ever to be released by a major studio or distribution company to theatres. If nothing else, the endless "ick" factor involving nearly every character is a permanent obstacle.
Its not like "Nothing Is Private" doesnt have other problems as well. Jazeera has an Iraqi father (Peter Macdissi) whos supposed to be a ladies' man but comes off swishier than Liberace. The father regularly hits Jazeera and threatens to beat her to death.
Her mother is a self-absorbed American (Maria Bello) who cares nothing for her child and loads her with more baggage than a porter at JFK.
And thats not all. Jazeera, abandoned and then seduced by next-door neighbor Eckhart, has already been abused by Bellos second husband.
She also falls into a kinky sexual relationship with a boy from school. That relationship is treated like all her others, blithely and almost without regard, as if this is the norm for any 13-year-old girl.
Remember when we thought the movie "Thirteen" with Evan Rachel Wood was scandalous? It seems like childs play by comparison now.
Luckily, someone speaks up for Jazeera. That would be a pregnant neighbor played by Toni Collette and that characters husband (Matt Letscher).
But by the time they realize something is wrong with Jazeera, the damage has been done and shown to us repeatedly and creepily. The couple provide a temporary safe haven for Jazeera, but its really too little, too late, at least for the audience.
"Nothing Is Private" comes within a year of "Hounddog," the film in which a 12-year-old girl (Dakota Fanning) is raped on screen. Of course, in that case it was really a 12-year-old. But something has definitely happened -- a change has occurred in the mindset of filmmakers who no longer see anything wrong with these depictions. How wrong they are.
Independent filmmaking is not supposed to be marked by a complete abandonment of taste, sensibility and propriety.
I dont know if "Towelhead" is a good novel or not. But the way its been translated to film is certain to gross out even the most cutting-edge audiences. Its simply unacceptable.
Post by: roo_ster on September 11, 2007, 07:12:27 AM
1. In almost every society a female virginity was considered of higher value than the male.
2. The consequences of pregnancy are greater for the HS age girl than for the HS age boy, especially in the cases at issue (high-school age males & 20-30YO females).
Men & women, boys & girls are different. The sorts of activity being bandied about most certainly ought to be discouraged, but the insistence that men & women are the same is a relatively new social phenomenon unsupported by the biology.
Post by: longeyes on September 11, 2007, 07:39:14 AM
Post by: zahc on September 11, 2007, 09:01:17 AM
Quote
But as the saying goes, you can't rape the willing. A boy that is taken advantage by a woman has to have an erection for the deed to be done. This is not the case the other way around.
Can't rape the willing? Tell that to all the guys the go to jail for having consensual sex wit their underage girlfriends. The powers that be have declared that people under a certain age are incapable of consenting. Therefore it's rape, boner or otherwise.
Besides, when I was 12 it seemed like I had an erection more often than not anyway.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 11, 2007, 09:44:42 AM
Enlighten you? I can't straighten out a lifetime of anti-sexist brainwashing. Sorry. You'll have to figure it out for yourself. Hint: Boys and girls is diff-ernt.
Yes Austin fistful Powers, International Man of Mystery, we all know that boys and girls are different. I don't think anyone here really thinks boys and girls are exactly alike, just that one should not be treated differently as to whether they have been victimized solely on the basis of whether they have a penis or not.
So, when is it OK for a 40 year old predatory woman to prey on a man child, of what age, and what should be the consequences? Why or why not is that child then a victim when a girl of the same age would be? Where do you draw the line?
Post by: AJ Dual on September 11, 2007, 10:36:12 AM
I'm sure almost every hetero boy from puberty onward spent copious amounts of time wishing some older woman would "molest" him. I know I did. Then as others have posted, there's the perception of the "rite of passage" aspect to it as well.
However, that does not mean the consequences for the boy aren't going to be severely damaging in real life. If you want to focus purely on pragmatism and leave all cultural and moral arguments aside, there's no evidence that making children wait until the age of majority/consent to persue sexual activity harms them, but there's plenty of evidence that sexual activity before can, and does.
Post by: Paddy on September 11, 2007, 10:50:23 AM
Quote
So, when is it OK for a 40 year old predatory woman to prey on a man child, of what age, and what should be the consequences? Why or why not is that child then a victim when a girl of the same age would be? Where do you draw the line?
I don't think fistful is condoning either one, only that boys and girls are different. And they are. One is the penetrator, and the other is penetrated. Right there is a difference, with different effects, physically and emotionally/psychologically. Not to overgeneralize, but the decision to engage in sex is more complex for a woman than for a man. If a woman was molested by an older man when she was a child, that is much more likely to create conflicts for her later than it would for a man who as a child was molested by an older woman . Not that a man couldn't have problems, but sex is not all that complicated for us if ya know what I mean.
{Edited to add: I do not know if this is what fistful meant or not; his posts can be vague and cryptic sometimes. In any event, it is not my intention to speak for him. He can do that for himself, more or less}
Post by: tyme on September 11, 2007, 11:56:55 AM
Sex isn't simple, but it's not simple for anyone. Males don't have the physical burden of pregnancy to worry about, but we all know that the risks and consequences of pregnancy can be mitigated. And the female has complete control over mitigating the consequences; males can't force an abortion, nor can they put the child up for adoption. While a guy isn't on the hook physically during pregnancy, he's on the hook financially if his partner decides to have the baby. Then there are STDs and social repercussions which exist for both sexes.
The "OMG I wasn't ready to have sex and now I'm psychologically damaged" reaction has no possible source other than external social pressures telling younger teens that they aren't ready to have sex, and that they'll be damaged if they do. That damage has no basis in biology.
In cases of pregnancy, there is the potential for biologically-mediated psychological damage, but to avoid another rant about religion I'll merely say that with responsible birth control use, risk of pregnancy is extremely low. Of course, responsible birth control use is made nearly impossible by the pervasive cultural message that young teens shouldn't have sex. Any discussions about sex, and thus birth control, are awkward, and the standard psychological response to awkward situations is to avoid them. Voila! Most young teens don't get the information or psychological support they need from adults, making the psychological consequences of sex worse, and increasing the chances of STDs or pregnancy, either of which make the consequences still more severe.
I'm extremely liberal, but even I can see that our culture's mortal fear of minors having sex, combined with the media's increasing sexualization of minors, can't possibly lead to anything good. A lot of you would rather eliminate oversexualization of minors in the media. I'd rather that society focus on more important issues than teens having sex. Reserve the community outrage for cases of real child molestation, or even instances where teens aren't being responsible. If there's a large age differential and the older person isn't being responsible, then heap outrage on the older person. If there's a small age differential, heap outrage on both sets of parents.
There are plenty of different potential consequences for both sexes, enough that I can't support any difference in legal treatment based on sex/gender/etc.
Post by: Paddy on September 11, 2007, 12:33:12 PM
Quote
Riley, dominant/submissive roles are independent of sex/gender. It's quite a leap from physical mechanics to psychological and emotional consequences.
At least one prominent sociology professor and author would disagree with that. Steven Goldberg has written several books on the subject including The Inevitability of Patriarchy and Why Men Rule
He posits all known societies have in fact been patriarchal. "Authority and leadership are... associated with the male in every society." He goes on to say "Men, more than women, are driven to run things: Males are . . . more willing to endure pain, frustration, and the like, to learn what they must and do what they must for . . . dominance, while females... are more willing to endure such pain, frustration, and the like for familial reasons, for children, for love . . . but not so much for dominance."
Some say that male dominance is simply a matter of social conditioning. Goldberg says "it begins before birth, when the developing fetal nervous system is flooded with tesrosterone, a process that promotes extensive maturation of the brain structures that mediate between male hormones and dominance behavior. The same link between male hormones and the need to dominate has been found in rats and other mammals, as well as in humans."
Males have been dominant in societies since the beginning of time. Maybe Goldberg explains why.
Post by: AJ Dual on September 11, 2007, 12:36:25 PM
There are plenty of different potential consequences for both sexes, enough that I can't support any difference in legal treatment based on sex/gender/etc.
However one comes to that conclusion, I can't agree more.
Differing legal standards for gender molestation opens up not a can of worms, but a vat. Are there going to be panels of judges, psychologists, social workers and sex therapists to make case by case determinations based on age, acts comitted, and the psychological makeup of the "perpetrator" and "victim"? If it's same gender molestation, determining subversion, if any, of pre-existing sexual orientations, or in the case of heterosexual molestation of a gay victim the opposite?
That's insanity.
It also occurs to me, at least in a theoretical sense, that if there are any cases of (negative) consequence-free sex between adults and minors, no disease, no pregnancy, and no rumors/gossip, we nor the law, by definition will likely never hear of them.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 11, 2007, 01:04:05 PM
I've been clear enough, but here goes.
Clarification 1: I was speaking of adults having sexual relations with adolescents, not with younger children.
Clarification 2: I never said it was OK for adult teachers to have sex with adolescent students. I said that one situation was different from the other, because males and females are different. I'm not speaking of the physical differences, Riley, so much as the intangibles.
Clarification 3: I never said that the law should be different, or that punishments should be different. Nor did I say they should be the same. The article to which I responded focused on how we perceive such abuse, not on the legal penalties.
Clarification 4: I think most of you know by now that I am a terrible, intolerant prude, and that I do not approve of any sexual activity outside of marriage.
Post by: longeyes on September 11, 2007, 02:02:24 PM
Post by: tyme on September 11, 2007, 03:02:50 PM
Quote from: RileyMc
He posits all known societies have in fact been patriarchal. "Authority and leadership are... associated with the male in every society."
You suggested that the mechanics of sex dictate the social dynamics of sexual relationships. I don't see how. I recognize that biology drives a lot of differences in social hierarchies. However, the leadership structure of societies or families has no obvious bearing on the psychology of sex.Quote from: longeyes
He who is best a socially conditioning the others wins. Beware.
There is nothing but social conditioning. The question in most cases is whether you want to remain conditioned by some particular bit of malarkey preached by parents, teachers, society, or religion, or whether you want to take a rational approach and change your social conditioning to be more productive in the face of modern society.
Post by: longeyes on September 11, 2007, 03:07:44 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 11, 2007, 03:56:05 PM
Quote
Of course, responsible birth control use is made nearly impossible by the pervasive cultural message that young teens shouldn't have sex.
What country do you live in, where that is a "pervasive cultural message"? We don't have that here, in America. Might be nice.
Also, are you suggesting that any form of sex between unmarried people could be responsible?
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 11, 2007, 06:46:09 PM
Quote
Clarification 4: I think most of you know by now that I am a terrible, intolerant prude, and that I do not approve of any sexual activity outside of marriage.
And we all know that the wives don't approve inside of marriage.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 11, 2007, 07:33:28 PM
Quote
Clarification 4: I think most of you know by now that I am a terrible, intolerant prude, and that I do not approve of any sexual activity outside of marriage.
And we all know that the wives don't approve inside of marriage.
How to be discreet? Hmm. I'll just say that is not my experience.
Post by: SteveS on September 12, 2007, 04:22:06 AM
Quote
Clarification 4: I think most of you know by now that I am a terrible, intolerant prude, and that I do not approve of any sexual activity outside of marriage.
And we all know that the wives don't approve inside of marriage.
How to be discreet? Hmm. I'll just say that is not my experience.
Me either.
Quote
If a woman was molested by an older man when she was a child, that is much more likely to create conflicts for her later than it would for a man who as a child was molested by an older woman .
Can you clarify this? As I said before, many men that are molested by women as boys experience a great deal of problems later in life due to this experience. I don't know if one could objectively quantify the harm and compare it to the harm experienced by women, but I wouldn't say that men have it significantly easier.
Post by: Balog on September 13, 2007, 06:16:57 PM
A teacher is in a position of power over someone who (according to the law) is not sufficiently mentally developed to be able to make that decision. The gender of the people involved is irrelevant.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 13, 2007, 06:51:28 PM
Post by: LadySmith on September 14, 2007, 04:19:29 AM
According to what I've read, males commit the majority of child sexual abuse. However, the majority of males arent out there doing it. Kind of like how minorities are overrepresented in prison, yet most arent criminals.
My question is, are innocent guys going to do anything about it other than retreat from doing what they want to do, working with kids, or will they continue to act guilty as charged? Im referring to the examples given in the OP. One guy raises his hands when he bumps into a child when a simple Excuse me should suffice. Others avert their eyes around kids, probably making them appear shifty. That would probably trigger many a mommy meter. Whats with the thinking twice about holding their own childs hand?
Goodness gracious, wheres the righteous outrage at being accused of something you never did nor ever had intentions of doing? Will it come to guys having to get permission to CCW their own body parts?
Post by: SteveS on September 14, 2007, 05:04:09 AM
My question is, are innocent guys going to do anything about it other than retreat from doing what they want to do, working with kids, or will they continue to act guilty as charged? Im referring to the examples given in the OP. One guy raises his hands when he bumps into a child when a simple Excuse me should suffice. Others avert their eyes around kids, probably making them appear shifty. That would probably trigger many a mommy meter. Whats with the thinking twice about holding their own childs hand?
Goodness gracious, wheres the righteous outrage at being accused of something you never did nor ever had intentions of doing? Will it come to guys having to get permission to CCW their own body parts?
Goodness gracious, wheres the righteous outrage at being accused of something you never did nor ever had intentions of doing? Will it come to guys having to get permission to CCW their own body parts?
The changes I have made have been pretty minor. I have worked with kids in several capacities. Occasionally, kids will want to give me a hug and I have no problem with this. I just make sure there are other people around or my office door is open. Other than that, I would still work with kids or volunteer in some way. You can bet I would be outraged if I were accused of something, but people are accused of things all the time. As for now, I'll take reasonable precautions and not live my life in fear.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 14, 2007, 05:05:32 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 14, 2007, 06:55:04 AM
Frankly, I have watched Feminism morph from a legitimate movement to ensure political and social equality for women to a quasi-religious jihad against men. I find it very, very sad.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2007, 10:32:33 PM
Quote
What the hell happened?
Suffrage.
Post by: Barbara on September 22, 2007, 02:48:00 AM
We'll probably let you keep voting, though. As long as you're worthy, anyway, and don't try to make life difficult for us.
Post by: Strings on September 22, 2007, 05:31:45 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2007, 07:05:59 AM
Face it guys..like the dodo, you had your turn, but its all about survival of the fittest and you ain't it anymore. Modern society requires a whole different set of traits.
"Modern" society is a house of cards. The more complex, the more unstable. Moreover, it undermines itself. While the dodo has no biological chance of resurrection, social organization is subject to ambient conditions and can easily change overnight under the right circumstances.
Quote
We'll probably let you keep voting, though. As long as you're worthy, anyway, and don't try to make life difficult for us.
Hehehehe. We'll see
Post by: longeyes on September 22, 2007, 09:07:42 AM
Quote
Face it guys..like the dodo, you had your turn, but its all about survival of the fittest and you ain't it anymore. Modern society requires a whole different set of traits.
I give "modern society" twenty years. The people with the different set of traits are also people who aren't reproducing, and a lot of assumptions about "progressive society" will be proven to be short-lived. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun and the penis, and the rest is an imaginary bubble.
The middle-class woman of today is the product of men's kindness and men's technology. Too bad so many women take this for granted when they side against the things that got them to where they are today in the West.
Post by: Barbara on September 22, 2007, 12:54:53 PM
Wait till we chicks get 75% of the House and Senate. That'll be cool, huh?
Then you guys will be whining about equality.
Post by: Phyphor on September 22, 2007, 02:41:46 PM
<running like hell>
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2007, 03:10:42 PM
In anything, the problem with a 75% female congress would be NOT declaring enough war, and NOT taking harsh but necessary steps, rather than the other way around.
I am with longeyes on this one. I would be crazy-happy if western civilization makes it through the next 30 years.
As far as feminism goes, it seems to me the personal aspirations of the few outweighed the benefit to the many. A society that has manly women and girly men denies nature. Nothing that denies nature survives for very long in the big scheme of things. Technology and social organization can insulate only that far.
From my observations, there is a large identity crisis both for men and women as a result of the breach of traditional gender roles. All the spinsters and divorcees that I have seen are inherently neurotic, unhappy, overstressed, hormonal, and often very lonely. They try to compete with men, often successfully, but at what price to themselves and others?
Freedom can be horribly oppressive to those that cannot shoulder it.
Post by: Phyphor on September 22, 2007, 05:14:16 PM
That was a mean blow, Phyphor. Let's keep the discussion clean.
Meant as a joke, actually.
Quote
In anything, the problem with a 75% female congress would be NOT declaring enough war, and NOT taking harsh but necessary steps, rather than the other way around.
I wouldn't say that! Women who can survive in politics can be pretty damned mean when they have to be.
Quote
I am with longeyes on this one. I would be crazy-happy if western civilization makes it through the next 30 years.
I'm sure we'll muddle through.
<rest snipped>
Post by: MechAg94 on September 22, 2007, 06:20:50 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on September 22, 2007, 07:07:11 PM
But at the same time as this trend has developed, there seems to be a fairly recent attitude* that adult men should be ashamed of themselves if they notice the curves on a girl of high school age, as if they were potential child predators. But the way many girls are dressed seems to announce their sexuality rather stridently, as if begging us all to notice.
Reminds me of an old joke.
A businessman walks into the employee lounge and sees the secretary wearing a derriere-hugging knit skirt. He walks up behind her, gives her a pat on the derriere, and politely asks, "Is this for sale?"
Horrified, she snaps back, "Of course not!"
Unperturbed, the boss responds, "Then perhaps you shouldn't be advertising."
Post by: Hawkmoon on September 22, 2007, 07:25:57 PM
This:
Quote
Then there is the ultimate double standard: The wink wink, nudge nudge, of boys getting their sexual initiation from grown women.
"Society sees it as they got 'lucky' " to receive a sexual initiation from a woman, according to Dr. Keith Kaufman, chairman of the department of psychology at Portland State University. "But their brain maturation isn't complete. Boys aren't in a position to give consent to a sexual relationship. Girls see it as abusive much more quickly. Boys won't want to see themselves as a victim."
There is a prevailing sense that boys are not harmed by sexual liaisons with older women. It's called the "Mrs. Robinson Syndrome," after the character in the 1967 film "The Graduate." But Benjamin, Mrs. Robinson's target, wasn't a child; he was in his 20s, had just graduated from college and was contemplating that career in plastics.
"We tend to see the female teacher-male student relationship as less abusive and less harmful psychologically," according to Dr. Susan G. Kornstein, a psychiatrist and director of the Institute for Women's Health and the Mood Disorders Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University. "But in fact, a sexual relationship between a female teacher and a male student can be just as harmful and can have both short- and long-term consequences on the child's emotional stability and psychological and sexual development."
Boys who have sex with grown women are anything but "lucky." "It is always abuse," says Dr. Kaufman.
"Society sees it as they got 'lucky' " to receive a sexual initiation from a woman, according to Dr. Keith Kaufman, chairman of the department of psychology at Portland State University. "But their brain maturation isn't complete. Boys aren't in a position to give consent to a sexual relationship. Girls see it as abusive much more quickly. Boys won't want to see themselves as a victim."
There is a prevailing sense that boys are not harmed by sexual liaisons with older women. It's called the "Mrs. Robinson Syndrome," after the character in the 1967 film "The Graduate." But Benjamin, Mrs. Robinson's target, wasn't a child; he was in his 20s, had just graduated from college and was contemplating that career in plastics.
"We tend to see the female teacher-male student relationship as less abusive and less harmful psychologically," according to Dr. Susan G. Kornstein, a psychiatrist and director of the Institute for Women's Health and the Mood Disorders Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University. "But in fact, a sexual relationship between a female teacher and a male student can be just as harmful and can have both short- and long-term consequences on the child's emotional stability and psychological and sexual development."
Boys who have sex with grown women are anything but "lucky." "It is always abuse," says Dr. Kaufman.
Experts like "Dr." Kaufman came along, that's what the hell happened. Remember, he's a psychologist, not even a psychiatrist (not that they're any better. In fact, they may be worse, because they can back up their idiotic notions by drugging you into submission). What does he know? When I was in high school, every guy in my class would have died willingly for the chance to be "abused" by our HOT French teacher. Alac and alas, she wasn't interested in being a facilitator of any "rites of passage" and we were left to figure it out on our own.
Post by: Strings on September 22, 2007, 08:42:24 PM
One trend I've noticed, is that the earlier a boy becomes sexually active, the less emotional attachment the act has later. One kid, who I KNOW was boffin' away at around 14, made the statement "hey... a f*** is a f***. Don't mean nuthin'!". To him, the act of sexual intercourse was absolutely meaningless outside of his immediate physical gratification. Which is part of the reason he ended up in prison, for murder (of a woman that wouldn't "put out" for him anymore)...
And you'll please pardon the starred out profanity: that was a direct quote from said "misunderstood youth"...
point being, boys are NOT usually emotionally mature enough to deal with the (as you say), "rite of passage" while in high school (especially early). To make matters worse, even if they ARE coerced by a female authority figure against their will, society has taught them that they've "gotten lucky", and should keep their mouths shut. That ain't right...
Post by: Barbara on September 23, 2007, 01:10:00 AM
Quote
As far as goes, it seems to me the personal aspirations of the few outweighed the benefit to the many. A society that has manly women and girly men denies nature. Nothing that denies nature survives for very long in the big scheme of things. Technology and social organization can insulate only that far.
From my observations, there is a large identity crisis both for men and women as a result of the breach of traditional gender roles. All the spinsters and divorcees that I have seen are inherently neurotic, unhappy, overstressed, hormonal, and often very lonely. They try to compete with men, often successfully, but at what price to themselves and others?
Freedom can be horribly oppressive to those that cannot shoulder it.
From my observations, there is a large identity crisis both for men and women as a result of the breach of traditional gender roles. All the spinsters and divorcees that I have seen are inherently neurotic, unhappy, overstressed, hormonal, and often very lonely. They try to compete with men, often successfully, but at what price to themselves and others?
Freedom can be horribly oppressive to those that cannot shoulder it.
Really working at justifying why I'm not entitled to freedom there, aren't you? I'll take the ugly with the good, thanks, but anyone who tries to deny me the right to live my life as I see fit is going to have a problem.
The 28 days thing was actually kind of funny.
Post by: 280plus on September 23, 2007, 04:33:52 AM
Quote
they can back up their idiotic notions by drugging you into submission
Ain't THAT the truth... Quote
The 28 days thing was actually kind of funny
I thought so too, in a HOLY CRAP!! DUCK!! kind of way... 
Somehow, reading some (but not all) of this, I'm reminded of the circa 1630 grave here in the nearby town of Tolland where the 30-something YO husband is buried next to his 16 YO wife. He did not survive her by very long. I always wanted to research that story but never have. Times have apparently changed... Of course I imagine back then being married was a matter of survival for both of them .
Post by: tyme on September 23, 2007, 12:18:15 PM
My theory is that culture's insistence that young teens aren't ready for sex creates doubt and ambivalence in the teen's mind, which then screws up the teen psychologically. There's the whole Mrs. Robinson thing, but ultimately culture strongly implies that both young males and young females aren't ready for sex, and teens would have to live under a rock not to pick up on that general cultural view.
I also noticed that in your example you didn't specify the age of the kid's partners. Are you suggesting all sex should be banned below the age of consent? ...below the age of majority?
You also completely ignore a plausible explanation for the kid's later homicide... that he was screwed up independent of his sexual history. I'll even allow that being screwed up might make someone somewhat more likely to be promiscuous at a young age.
Your assertion that he was obviously psychologically/emotionally damaged because he didn't attach much emotion to sex is invalid, as far as I can tell. First, I doubt you were actually present during any of his boffings, so you don't know how he behaved or reacted. Everyone, and kids in particular, often misrepresent their sexual encounters (it's irrelevant for the sake of discussion whether this is purposeful or whether hormones cloud the brain and cause misremembering). Second, a lot of people with a progressive/liberal general outlook don't attach much emotional meaning to sex if their partners don't seem like relationship material. Maybe the kid just didn't find the right partner.
There's a huge jump from "a f* is just a f*" to "a girl is just a f*", which I think might be your implication with your observation that he later killed someone. It simply doesn't follow that lack of emotional connection with a partner during sex leads to devaluing the partner as a human being. Then there's the minor problem that a lot of people who have sex at a young age don't turn into killers, or even antisocial misogynists, reinforcing my theory that the kid in your example was seriously screwed up in other ways.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2007, 12:51:39 PM
Strings, can you offer a mechanism by which sex will seriously disturb young teens?
My theory is that culture's insistence that young teens aren't ready for sex creates doubt and ambivalence in the teen's mind, which then screws up the teen psychologically. There's the whole Mrs. Robinson thing, but ultimately culture strongly implies that both young males and young females aren't ready for sex, and teens would have to live under a rock not to pick up on that general cultural view.
My theory is that culture's insistence that young teens aren't ready for sex creates doubt and ambivalence in the teen's mind, which then screws up the teen psychologically. There's the whole Mrs. Robinson thing, but ultimately culture strongly implies that both young males and young females aren't ready for sex, and teens would have to live under a rock not to pick up on that general cultural view.
Can you offer a mechanism by which doubt and ambivalence "screw people up psychologically"? Why do you think the taboo is damaging, rather than the sexual activity? Is there evidence to demonstrate that people have been psychologically damaged by a lack of sex in their teen years? I find that people have urges to do many things that are considered wrong. Should such taboos be dropped, to avoid psychological damage? Might there be consequences to under-age sex that would outweigh psychological damage?
This is not to say that I agree with Strings. In my own estimation, age is not so much a factor as is the context of the sexual activity. Age and moral judgments aside, amarital sex presents many physical dangers that could be easily avoided by abstinence. Whatever psychological harm that may result would seem to be outweighed by the chances of STDs or pregnancy. Not to mention that brushing aside taboos against amarital sex would only encourage the male tendency to use girls as sex toys.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 23, 2007, 12:53:01 PM
Really working at justifying why I'm not entitled to freedom there, aren't you? I'll take the ugly with the good, thanks, but anyone who tries to deny me the right to live my life as I see fit is going to have a problem.
We are talking about very wide averages. You may very well be one of the aspirant exceptions, but that does not nullify or undermine the general argument in any way.
In any case, the offered explanation is not inevitably tied to gender anyway, just highly correlated. There are many girly men that a sensible society would keep away from the political process as well. If there is a quick way to describe my own views on the subject, it would be something close to the Heinlein political model from Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie).
Post by: tyme on September 23, 2007, 02:46:26 PM
Quote
Can you offer a mechanism by which doubt and ambivalence "screw people up psychologically"?
Can we at least agree that the physical act of sticking Y into X doesn't somehow change neuron connections, resulting in the claimed psychological damage from sex at a young age?So then we're left with the question of where the psychological damage comes from. Strings' argument seems to boil down to some inherent psychological damage caused by sex at early post-pubescent stages in development, caused by genetics and mediated by chemical signaling (expressed as emotions). Unless you or he are suggesting that there's some rational mechanism for self-caused psychological damage based on rational processing of the experience of sex, which I find equally bizarre.
People regularly go insane all the time based on ideas. It's been demonstrated fairly conclusively that psychologists can convince people, particularly young people, of things that aren't true. They then (re)act to those recollections as if they were true. Is it such a stretch to conclude that societal taboos that seem harmless enough can convince people that something they did was wrong, maybe leading them to the subconscious conclusion that they're social misfits, inducing all sorts of other unhealthy behavior?
I can envision that even consensual sex between an older relative and a young teen (or child) could be developmentally damaging due to complex changes in family interactions. However, I can't see how sex with peers or random other people would inherently cause problems in social or psychological development.
Quote
I find that people have urges to do many things that are considered wrong. Should such taboos be dropped, to avoid psychological damage?
There aren't very many other taboos that involve consenting individuals and involve activities conducted in private. And although I'm sure you'll pull some tangential taboo out of your hat, I'm pretty sure it won't involve an activity that is a biological/evolutionary necessity at the species level.Quote
Why do you think the taboo is damaging, rather than the sexual activity?
Because it's a common pattern among higher mammals, and our closest genetic relatives, that they have sex starting at (or even slightly before) puberty. Any "harm" this causes is pretty obviously due to some higher (psychological) phenomenon that is not primarily genetic/chemical.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 23, 2007, 03:01:04 PM
I purposefully do not define what the set of conditions is, because I am making a very general argument.
Most of ethics is not innate. It is trained and conditioned by society. Then an argument can be made that certain damage is done by the interaction of the individual with societal norms, rather than by the consensual act itself.
Post by: roo_ster on September 23, 2007, 04:39:16 PM
Quote
Can you offer a mechanism by which doubt and ambivalence "screw people up psychologically"?
Can we at least agree that the physical act of sticking Y into X doesn't somehow change neuron connections, resulting in the claimed psychological damage from sex at a young age?Post by: Jamisjockey on September 23, 2007, 04:41:04 PM
That was a mean blow, Phyphor. Let's keep the discussion clean.
I thought it was pretty damn funny!
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 23, 2007, 05:11:32 PM
I thought it was pretty damn funny!
I didn't say it wasn't funny. I said it was mean.
Post by: Strings on September 23, 2007, 05:39:55 PM
And it's not just that one: EVERY male I've run into, who became sexually active before the age of 16, seems to be messed up (emotionally). Could it be caused by the societal taboo? Sure... but how do we delete the taboo? And, without running a study (which would take at least 16-20 years), we have no way of knowing what the actual cause of the problem is.
I'm not suggesting we get draconian, trying to enforce some sort of "age of consent" on peers: if two 14 year-olds decide they're gonna do it, they WILL find a way. However, saying that there's no problem with Ms French seducing lil' Johnny, as it does him no harm, is patent BS. Regardless of wether the resulting emotional problem is because of societal influences or something internal, the damage is still there.
We're discussing someone dying of a sucking chest wound, and you want to argue what make gun was used. Regardless, the damage IS there, and needs to be addressed...
Post by: Barbara on September 23, 2007, 06:03:08 PM
Post by: Strings on September 23, 2007, 06:38:18 PM
Wise words!
Post by: Tallpine on September 24, 2007, 06:52:58 AM
Quote
Adults should not be having sex with children, regardless of their gender and regardless of how willing the person is.
Agreed, but how do you define "children" ?
There are societies where marraige of girls at 14 is not only accepted, but expected. (maybe we should just go bomb those societies?)
Sort of like when a 16 yo commits armed robbery or other violent crime - is he(she) a "child" or an "adult"
Post by: Strings on September 24, 2007, 07:51:59 AM
Post by: Tallpine on September 24, 2007, 09:06:40 AM
Quote
we're only responsible for what goes on in this country: not our job to police the world to follow our standards
Really
(someone better tell our elected leaders about that
)
Post by: tyme on September 24, 2007, 10:22:03 AM
Canada, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, even Puerto Rico... age of consent - 14
France - 15
Spain, South Korea - 13
(U.S. states' age of consent ranges from 16-18)
Yet the U.S. is much worse than countries such as Canada, France, UK, Spain, etc. when you look at teen pregnancy rates, teen abortion rates, STD rates, percentage of teens age 14-16 having sex... the only area where the U.S. is "better" in a pro-life sense is that the abortion _ratio_ (teen pregnancies aborted per capita) is less. But that's a Pyrrhic victory, since the teen abortion rate is higher; it's just that a lot of pregnant teens in the U.S. tend to keep their babies, while those in other countries don't keep them nearly as often.
I also haven't heard about hordes of antisocial misogynists in the above countries, which Strings' theory would suggest there should be, assuming laws control teen sexual behavior.
I think you'd be much better off trying to negate the media's hyper-sexualization by downplaying sex qua sex. I doubt anything else will help.
Strings, jfr, and just about every other social conservative here are not making an argument just about adults having sex with minors, but about minors having sex at all. Of course everyone agrees that sex between adults and "children" carries more risk of serious consequences in many cases, but the core issue is that social conservatives think that the law needs to protect children from the consequences of sex.
I hate to break the bad news, but minors having sex with their peers (within a certain age differential) is legal just about everywhere down to a certain age (usually somewhere between 12-14). Even in cases where kids younger than that have sex, it's almost never prosecuted, even though it's technically illegal, unless there's a substantial age differential. How exactly could you justify prosecuting a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old fooling around, no matter how much you might disapprove? Before puberty, the harm of punishment doesn't make sense given the typical innocence of those involved. And after puberty, anything you do or say is going to have to compete with a) hormones and b) the media. I doubt that laws can compete with those forces. Only upbringing and choice of socialization groups can.
Kidding aside, doesn't the notion of adults taking advantage of sweet young 13-year-olds seem like terror to some of you? Why are we not invading Spain? Or South Korea? Oh wait, we HAVE troops in Spain and South Korea, and we haven't done anything about THAT.
Barbara, as Tallpine implied, your comment suggests that you need to research age of consent laws. There is no general prohibition against adults having sex with minors, if that's in fact what you meant by "children." Basically, minors cannot enter into contracts, but sex (with peers) is not deemed serious enough to require a contract.
Nevertheless, I realize that most people, including parents, think that turning 18 makes sex with a 17-year-old magically illegal... even though that's almost never true (maybe in some 3rd world hellholes). I know that when I was in high school, a classmate's parents (who weren't exactly dumb... the father was a general counsel for a major company iirc) were telling other parents that they'd cautioned their own son on precisely those (imaginary) grounds.
Post by: Strings on September 24, 2007, 10:28:14 AM
Yes... I think we should do what we can to curb sexual relations by minors. If THAT is enough to make me a social conservative, then I've been mistaken in the other aspects of my personal life...
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 24, 2007, 10:39:07 AM
Independence? There are people sucking on their parents' teat well in their 20s, 30s, or even 40s.
Emotional maturity? Most people in their 20s, especially among the "college" crowd, sound like pubescent teenagers to me.
Sense of Responsibility? Same wild variations as above.
Besides, somehow they are mature enough to have kids, but not mature enough to have sex??
Methinks something is fishy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2007, 12:42:14 PM
Methinks something is fishy.
That was a mean blow,
Wait a second: when did *I* become a "social conservative"?
Hey, Strings, I'll PM you with the details for that pro-life rally. 
Post by: roo_ster on September 24, 2007, 01:30:37 PM
Sex has many potential consequences, including diseases and pregnancy, and can be used to manipulate. Adults should not be having sex with children, regardless of their gender and regardless of how willing the person is.
We have a winner...
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 24, 2007, 03:24:22 PM
Methinks something is fishy.
That was a mean blow,
See an earlier post on perception/construal