Sexually abusing a child while Female

[Arcade22]

This thread started with a story from the US about an adult having sex with a 13-year-old. Trying to muddy the issue by invoking edge cases when called out on your generalities is intellectually dishonest.

Don't try to weasel yourself out of this one. Someone else stated that they thought they would've found it very enjoyable to have a teacher such as like in the OP if they were 14 or 15 years old.

Obviously having sex with someone who is over the age of consent is not illegal, so why would such a case be relevant at all to the question of whether or not you should be informing the police about the relationship, or how informing the police could be "more harmful" than not doing so?

Now you are just moving the goal post. You said it was illegal to have sex with a child (that is, everyone under the age of 18) and that was the case because it was "obviously" abusive. I proved you wrong. Your entire line of argumentation fell apart like a house of cards because of that.

The fact that you seem to be unable to accept, even in principle, that there's a difference between an illicit relationship with someone that's underage and an abusive one is outrageous. Likewise there's nothing preventing a sexual relationship between a teacher and their student from being illegal and yet not abusive.

The fact that it's not abusive doesn't mean that we need to tolerate it or do nothing about it, but demanding that it be seen as abusive no matter what comes off as extremely dogmatic and inconsiderate.

 

[applecorped]

The responses of people who don't view this sexual assault as not particularly important or minimally harmful is a perfect example of toxic masculinity as well.

In a thread about a woman sexually assaulting a young male you see toxic masculinity.


Yes I think that phrase is being overused.

 

[applecorped]

broke that for you.

Fixed that for you

 

[Belz...]

You also seem to be arguing against your own straw man. No one has argued that because some young people under the age of consent will have fantasies about their teachers that teachers should be allowed to have sex with those pupils.

Exactly. There is a clear distinction between the two but for some reason, even smart people seem to ignore it.

 

[applecorped]

Roman Polanski would thoroughly enjoy this thread and support many of the posters here

 

[TragicMonkey]

What people feel is appropriate age for sexual relationships has varied by culture and era. It's historical irony that the play 'Romeo and Juliet' is so widely considered an iconic depiction of love, even in cultures like ours where a man having sex with a thirteen year old is problematic, to put it mildly. And the ick factor magnifies when our schools have thirteen year olds read that play...

 

[qayak]

Why such condemnation for those who may be concerned about inappropriate sexual behaviour towards minors?

Can you clarify your position for me, please?. If I'm reading you correctly you seem to be of the opinion that there is no merit to anybody who may find the illegal act of having a sexual relationship with a minor..... well.... wrong!

You accused somebody earlier of wanting a "one size fits all outrage" but aren't you looking for a "one size fits all" the other way?

I must be misunderstanding you.

My position is this: A few years ago it was legal to for a 14 year old to have sex with whomever they chose. Then the law changed. What didn't change was the ability of those 14 year olds to decide for themselves. It's like saying that you will suddenly lose your ability to drive a car safely down the road if you forget to renew your licence on your birthday.

I am also sick of the people who throw the word paedophile around willy nilly. First, it robs that word of it's meaning and makes actual paedophiles out to be all right people. Second, they use it in an attempt to vilify people whose actions aren't nearly as bad as a paedophile. There is a huge difference between having sex with an 18 month old toddler and having sex with a 14 year old with raging hormones and a desire to have sex. I grant that for a lot of black and white thinkers that distinction is a little too subtle.

I also have the experience of this 14 year old although I was two months into being 15. Even though the age of consent at the time was 14, there is no way I would view myself as a victim then, or now. Based on that, I understand why it was the friend who had to turn the 14 year old in. If my friend had done that it would have been the end of our friendship. They weren;t doing me any favours. These relationships can, and do, happen without abuse.

There is merit to sex with minors being illegal. No doubt about it but not in all cases, especially where the supposed victim doesn't feel they are a victim. It isn't a defense but it is a mitigating factor.

 

[Belz...]

I am also sick of the people who throw the word paedophile around willy nilly. First, it robs that word of it's meaning and makes actual paedophiles out to be all right people. Second, they use it in an attempt to vilify people whose actions aren't nearly as bad as a paedophile.

It's worse than that. Pedophiles have an attraction to prepubescent children. Although there's an obvious overlap, that's not the same thing as a child molester (someone who actually has sex with one). One can be one and not the other, both, or neither.

Using the word "pedophile" in a way that conflates both categories not only confuses the issue but adds to the already heavy stigma of being a pedophile and, in my view, makes it less likely that a pedophile would come out for treatment, and thus makes it more likely that they will, absent support and said treatment, engage in their deviance, putting children at risk. In other words, it's my opinion that the reckless use of the word puts children at higher risk.

 

[Ziggurat]

Using the word "pedophile" in a way that conflates both categories not only confuses the issue but adds to the already heavy stigma of being a pedophile and, in my view, makes it less likely that a pedophile would come out for treatment, and thus makes it more likely that they will, absent support and said treatment, engage in their deviance, putting children at risk. In other words, it's my opinion that the reckless use of the word puts children at higher risk.

I can follow the logic of this line of reasoning, but is that what actually happens, though? What actually makes pedophiles seek treatment, and how effective is that treatment? Does anyone even know?

 

[Belz...]

I can follow the logic of this line of reasoning, but is that what actually happens, though? What actually makes pedophiles seek treatment, and how effective is that treatment? Does anyone even know?

It's my opinion. I have no data to back it up, it's just reasoning. If coming out as one of the worst, if not the worst, kind of monster imaginable gets you not help and support but scorn and possibly physical violence, why bother?

 

[Ziggurat]

It's my opinion. I have no data to back it up, it's just reasoning. If coming out as one of the worst, if not the worst, kind of monster imaginable gets you not help and support but scorn and possibly physical violence, why bother?

Why would a pedophile seeking help need to come out to anyone other than their therapist? The therapist is legally prohibited from disclosing your condition.

 

[Thermal]

Can we stipulate that just because kids may fantasize about sex with a teacher it doesn't make it a god idea? Fantasy doesn't carry all the baggage of real life.

Of course it would be an extremely bad idea for multiple reasons. And illegal. And unethical. The argument is being conflated to even the idea of it being sexy as supporting abuse. The idea of banging your hot teacher can be a perfectly harmless fantasy. The actual act of getting busy with your underage student should never be on the table, so to speak, even if that student seems mature enough.

 

[Belz...]

Why would a pedophile seeking help need to come out to anyone other than their therapist?

They might want help and support from friends and family, for instance. I'm aware of what you refer to, but sometimes people need more than just the bare minimum. If the stigma is magnified, in my opinion they are less likely to be open about their condition.

 

[Ziggurat]

They might want help and support from friends and family, for instance. I'm aware of what you refer to, but sometimes people need more than just the bare minimum. If the stigma is magnified, in my opinion they are less likely to be open about their condition.

I'm not in favor of undermining strong and long-standing social taboos against something which really is bad on the basis of speculative theories about how pedophiles might deal with their problem. This seems like a Chesterton fence.

 

[Butter!]

I'm not in favor of undermining strong and long-standing social taboos against something which really is bad on the basis of speculative theories about how pedophiles might deal with their problem. This seems like a Chesterton fence.

I wish there were some way we could adjust (I guess) the social taboo. What I mean by that is, I wish the taboo against acting on urges remained strong, but that the notion of seeking help for existent urges was more pushed and talked about. Currently, I can understand why a non-offending pedophile might be afraid of seeking mental help. Yes, medical and therapy records are private, but the punishment for violating that privacy comes after the fact. All it would take is some nosy employee at the clinic to recognize the name, read the file improperly, and start spreading rumors. If I were afflicted with a condition that made most of society want to murder me, I wouldn't want that information put down in writing ANYWHERE.

I don't know how exactly such a shift in attitudes would be accomplished, though. And since I would be loathe to err on the side of "pedophile acceptance" or whatever, I tend not to discuss the notion much.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not in favor of undermining strong and long-standing social taboos against something which really is bad on the basis of speculative theories about how pedophiles might deal with their problem. This seems like a Chesterton fence.

I'm not saying that we should view pedophilia as normal or innocuous, but rather that we treat pedophiles as patients with conditions to be treated -- unless we're talking about pedophiles who are also child molesters, in which case they are both this and criminals.

I think that'd be better for everyone, and mangling the definition of the word does no one a favour.

 

[3point14]

I'm not saying that we should view pedophilia as normal or innocuous, but rather that we treat pedophiles as patients with conditions to be treated -- unless we're talking about pedophiles who are also child molesters, in which case they are both this and criminals.

I think that'd be better for everyone, and mangling the definition of the word does no one a favour.

Often in cases - like the one here - it's just not pedophilia, it's criminally bad judgement.

If the younger party has a full compliment of adult primary and secondary sexual characteristics then the act itself is just sex as a result of regular, normal sexual attraction to the young. (Post puberty, younger is more attractive as a general rule - the cosmetic companies say as much in their adverts). It isn't the act of pedophilia, it's an act of criminal stupidity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In general without getting too deep in the exact phrasing and the caveat that exceptions exist:

- A sexual desire toward children that is recognized by the person but not acted should be treated as a psychological condition and responded to as such.

- Actual sexual acts directed at children are crimes and should be treated as such.

- The grey area of simulated child porn, stuff like that is a lot harder to unravel.

 

[Butter!]

In general without getting too deep in the exact phrasing and the caveat that exceptions exist:

- A sexual desire toward children that is recognized by the person but not acted should be treated as a psychological condition and responded to as such.

- Actual sexual acts directed at children are crimes and should be treated as such.

- The grey area of simulated child porn, stuff like that is a lot harder to unravel.

Yeah, this!

I don't know about the grey area stuff. I used to be firmly on the side of "no actual children harmed, so it's a-okay!" I'm a little less sure now, because the argument can certainly be made that such materials exist only for the purpose of stimulating dangerous, illegal urges, and having them around means the urges will be fed. However, the counter-argument can be made that those urges will be stimulated regardless, and better it happens with anime lolis or robots or whatever than real, living children. I have no idea. I tie myself up in mental knots whenever I try to sort it out.

For now, my working position is, "I dunno what the legality should be, but I wouldn't be comfortable dating or hanging around people if I found out they looked at simulated porn like that." Call me prejudiced if you want, but that stuff just skeeves the hell out of me, and it would be a super-dealbreaker.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not saying that we should view pedophilia as normal or innocuous, but rather that we treat pedophiles as patients with conditions to be treated

Can they be treated? Does treatment actually work? It seems like there's no point in encouraging treatment unless it's effective, and I'm not convinced it is.