Sexually abusing a child while Female

[ahhell]

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...

Only ironic if we also teach that suicide is an appropriate expression of love.
Also, Romeo is also depicted as s teenager. Also, do they have sex in the play? Apparently Shakespeare made here younger than she had been depicted in earlier versions of the story for poetry or something. Anyrate, the whole play is about angsty, immature, and stupid love so really doesn't have much bearing on what constitutes a healthy relationship, except as a counter example.

Is here age mentioned? I only know she was a teenager as a bit of trivia learned later in life when someone said, "Hey, did you know romeo and juliet were suppose to be teenagers" At which point I said, "oh, that make sense, no adults would act that way, well, except really immature ********.

Darat's whole premise is nonsense, almost nobody thinks(certainly nobody in this thread) that someone should be labeled a sex offender for 70 years because they had sex with someone minutes younger than they were. This is why, at least in the US, most AOC laws typically have a Romeo and Juliet clause. IE, a sliding scale, typically something along the lines of its not a crime if the partners are within 2 years of each other. As I've said elsewhere, the AOC is arbitrary and will like exclude some folks who are perfectly capable of rendering consent and include some who probably aren't, still we can't practically have some kind of maturity test we give people then give them a badge or something that says, "Get your game on MFers!". So, AOC is a pretty reasonable compromise, especially with the above mentioned Romeo and Juliet clauses. Ironically, if anything, we ought to be more hard on adult women sexing up underage boys, as experience and I believe the science backs up the notion that boys reach intellectual and emotional maturity later than girls.

 

[Belz...]

I personally think that if you can treat pedophiles and somehow cure them?

then then you can treat hebrophiles, homosexuals, heterosexuals, sadomashocists, fetoshists etc, to cure them too.

which would indicate that a heterosexual could be 'cured' in the same way to be something else as the rest of them.

Bollocks.

pedos urges are their own, not acting on them is the good thing to do.

Let's change a gay person to be not gay.... seriously?

Except that this isn't what we were originally discussing. Treatment doesn't need to "cure" the attraction; only bring it under control through medication, support, or other methods.

 

[Arcade22]

No; this isn't goal-post moving. This is you having to take refuge in a semantic quibble that is tangential to my disagreement with the point you initially made, which you repeat here:

Oh I'm sorry for thinking words actually meant something to you. My bad.

Since you are clearly hung up on arguing the semantics of the word "child" in this context, allow me to specify: adult relationships with children under the age of consent are inherently abusive or exploitative in nature, which is why they are illegal

No that's not why legislators made it illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of 15 where i live. It wasn't because any such sexual acts or relationships were inherently abusive or exploitative. It was because, historically, that was the age limit at which one could get married for much of Swedish history. Sex outside of marriage was penalized or otherwise subject to general social stigma. It was and continues to be merely a continuation of a arbitrary historical age limit.

I shall note here that although having sex with someone under the age of 15 generally falls under the criminal offence of "rape of a child" it has not prevented judges from concluding that the sexual acts and/or relationship was consensual even if they were illegal.

and it is reprehensible to be aware of such a relationship and yet consider that covering it up rather than informing the police is a valid course of action, and the excuse the child might be damaged more somehow by the adult getting arrested than by the relationship being allowed to continue, or being stopped but covered up, as justification for that attitude is comical.

The only comedy here is your refusal to justify this in the slightest. Your entire argument hinges on your dogmatic and quite ridiculous insistence that it's inherently abusive to have sex or be in a sexual relationship with someone that's underage. That's an unreasonable assumption.

 

[Checkmite]

Is here age mentioned? I only know she was a teenager as a bit of trivia learned later in life when someone said, "Hey, did you know romeo and juliet were suppose to be teenagers" At which point I said, "oh, that make sense, no adults would act that way, well, except really immature ********.

In the play, Juliet is named as 13. Romeo's age isn't actually given; however in the original story from which Shakespeare adapted his play, both Romeo and Juliet are explicitly said to be 16.

 

[p0lka]

No; only the ones who were adults at the time.

I believe you are from the UK (if I'm wrong just ignore everything after this), where the consent age is 16. That means you were 12, so any adults who were willing to engage in sex with you at that point were almost certainly genuine pedophiles, even for those who insist upon the narrow clinical definition rather than the colloquial one. So there's really no excuse at that point; I would say yes those people deserve prison and being labeled a sex offender for the next 70 years of their life.

re the highlighted..No.
Darat literally explained that Darat was sexually active, so I would presume that was post puberty.
So Checkmite, go have a look at the terms you are using and see how you are misapplying them.

 

[Arcade22]

If that's true, and Darat is specifically referring to that, then that's an unfair question since exorbitantly high AOCs for gay sex specifically are imposed in order to punish gay people for being gay, not protect children. Especially considering that particular AOC is itself three years past the acknowledged age of majority, it's not fair to call that law analogous to modern AOCs that actually apply to kids and ignore orientation.

No it was meant to protect children and youth from becoming gay.

These laws were enacted to deter homo/bisexual men from "seducing" youths and risking their "healthy normal development" and potentially turning them into homosexuals themselves. Generally such laws didn't apply to females (notably the UK didn't have an age of consent for lesbians).

 

[Checkmite]

Darat literally explained that Darat was sexually active, so I would presume that was post puberty.

Being sexually active is not dependent on puberty.

 

[Checkmite]

No it was meant to protect children and youth from becoming gay.

These laws were enacted to deter homo/bisexual men from "seducing" youths and risking their "healthy normal development" and potentially turning them into homosexuals themselves.

There isn't really a disagreement between what you say here and what I said.

 

[luchog]

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.

It does seem like legality of simulated material of that nature would encroach into thoughtcrime territory; which I would largely agree with, with some caveats.

My experience with medical professionals involved in treating sexual offenders and sexual abuse survivors (there's a huge overlap between the two) is that consuming material related to their deviancy will serve to reinforce the deviancy. The idea of porn as a catharsis is still controversial, although less so with "loli" simulated child porn, which is still seen to be a contributing factor to paedophiles graduating from fantasizing to acting on their fantasies. Not a "cause", as I'm sure the usual straw-man-loving crowd will misinterpret, but a contributing factor.

IME, which is admittedly limited, nearly everyone I've encountered who supports simulated child porn as "harmless" also seems to support lower age of consent policies, and adults engaging in sexual activities with at least late-adolescents who are "mature for their age".

Another interesting data point is that the nation with the most permissive simulated child porn legislation was also the last to criminalize real child porn, and has the highest rate of child trafficking and child sex tourism in the developed world.

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.

Yes, it does. At least when the therapy is scientifically based (eg. Mindful Cognitive Behavioural Therapy).

Look at states which have replaced long prison times with mandatory treatment and monitored community presence, vs. those which have retained long prison times with no treatment, and you'll see recidivism rates rates drop precipitously. My state saw an 80% drop in sex offender recidivism when it began emphasizing treatment over incarceration.

It's an emotional hot-button issue, and a political hot-potato, and few politicians are willing to champion treatment over incarceration, particularly in conservative, religious, "law and order" communities; but it is proven to be the superior path.

 

[p0lka]

Being sexually active is not dependent on puberty.

But being a pedophile is dependent on puberty, it's the definition.

Prepubescent attraction = pedo.

post pubescent attraction = not pedo.

sorry to quibble about it

That means you were 12, so any adults who were willing to engage in sex with you at that point were almost certainly genuine pedophiles, even for those who insist upon the narrow clinical definition rather than the colloquial one..

No, It just bugs me when the term pedophile is thrown around willy nilly as a general term when it has a specific description.

 

[luchog]

I personally think that if you can treat pedophiles and somehow cure them?

False equivalence. A treatment is not a cure. There's no indication that any mental illness can be cured, it can only be managed; and that is what treatment of sexual deviancy does, it helps the paedophile manage their deviancy and not act on it, while providing the tools to form and reinforce more appropriate sexual behaviours. And it is effective.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, it does. At least when the therapy is scientifically based (eg. Mindful Cognitive Behavioural Therapy).

Look at states which have replaced long prison times with mandatory treatment and monitored community presence, vs. those which have retained long prison times with no treatment, and you'll see recidivism rates rates drop precipitously. My state saw an 80% drop in sex offender recidivism when it began emphasizing treatment over incarceration.

It's an emotional hot-button issue, and a political hot-potato, and few politicians are willing to champion treatment over incarceration, particularly in conservative, religious, "law and order" communities; but it is proven to be the superior path.

Pedophiles are a subset of sex offenders. Do those statistics apply specifically to pedophiles, or is that only sex offenders in general?

 

[luchog]

I believe you are from the UK (if I'm wrong just ignore everything after this), where the consent age is 16. That means you were 12, so any adults who were willing to engage in sex with you at that point were almost certainly genuine pedophiles, even for those who insist upon the narrow clinical definition rather than the colloquial one.

You're wrong. 12 years is mid-adolescent, not pre-pubescent; those who are sexually attracted to adolescents are hebephiles, not paedophiles.

 

[Arcade22]

There isn't really a disagreement between what you say here and what I said.

Only if you for some reason ignore the intent behind the law, then yes it's perfectly equivalent.

Which would be strange because of the fact that the motivation behind the law is actually relevant, since you chose to dismiss Darat's comparison as faulty because of it.

In reality it's a great example of how misguided law that was ostensibly aimed at "protecting" someone could, and in that specific case usually did, end up causing more harm than good. Not just to the "victims" of homosexual men mind you, but also the rest of society. Judicial punishment is a blunt and inaccurate tool that should be used sparingly only after other means to prevent or reduce the existence of a social problem have proven ineffective.

 

[p0lka]

Except that this isn't what we were originally discussing. Treatment doesn't need to "cure" the attraction; only bring it under control through medication, support, or other methods.

False equivalence. A treatment is not a cure. There's no indication that any mental illness can be cured, it can only be managed; and that is what treatment of sexual deviancy does, it helps the paedophile manage their deviancy and not act on it, while providing the tools to form and reinforce more appropriate sexual behaviours. And it is effective.

Yes, you are both correct, sorry.

I added 'cure' to the end result, I take it back, sorry.

 

[luchog]

Pedophiles are a subset of sex offenders. Do those statistics apply specifically to pedophiles, or is that only sex offenders in general?

Quick correction, paedophiles are not a subset of sex offenders, as many, possibly most, paedophiles do not act on their sexual attraction to post-pubescents.

Therapy works for the majority of sex offenders, including paedophiles, hebephiles, and other deviant sexual proclivities. In fact, those with deviant sexuality seem to be the easiest to treat from what I've read.

There are two types of child sex offender (leaving out those who target adults for the purposes of this discussion), preferential offenders (true paedophiles and hebephiles), and opportunistic offenders (who target children because they're easy targets, not out of preference); the latter typically having some form of antisocial personality disorder, what are popularly known as sociopaths.

Antisocial/Sociopathic offenders are the hardest to treat, and the most likely to reoffend, because they essentially have no conscience, they don't view other people as anything other than objects. That's not to say that they can't be treated, just that it's very difficult to convince the sociopath that they need to change.

True paedophiles/hebephiles do have a conscience, and have to build up an elaborate web of self-delusion and justification in order to enable themselves to actually act on their proclivities. They will invent detailed fantasy worlds in their heads which cast children as sexually equal to adults, and some will even manage to convince themselves that the child is initiating the sexual contact; and that there is a real, mutual relationship based on "love", rare than just using the child to indulge their own fantasies. They often use justifications like the child being "mature for their age", and will euphemise the grooming process in an number of different ways. Pornography is a very common part of the construction of those fantasy worlds and justifications; and most "loli" porn does cast the victims as sexually precocious or even aggressive, and fully complicit in their own victimization.

Treatment is typically a matter of tearing down their justifications and fantasies, and getting them to understand the reality of their actions and the traumatic effects they have on their victims; while providing them the psychological tools to form more healthy behaviours and relationships. Therapists disallow the consumption of even simulated child porn, because of it's role in creating and maintaining their fantasies, and require that any contact with children be minimized and supervised.

 

[Checkmite]

But being a pedophile is dependent on puberty, it's the definition.

Prepubescent attraction = pedo.

post pubescent attraction = not pedo.

sorry to quibble about it

At 12, a clothed individual is not particularly likely to be displaying physical attributes that would allow a bystander to discern pre- from post- with any certainty. It's possible, for the same reason that it's also possible for someone as old as 15 to not be displaying any such characteristics, but it's not exceptionally likely. Really, we're talking about pubic hair here, since that seems to be the first obvious visible sign of puberty according to all the articles. Honestly even an unclothed kid of 12 might be pushing it in terms of having any such secondary characteristics yet - but even if so, the point is, Schrodinger's pedophile is going to have to get them naked first to be able to tell for sure. And between the two of us, if the hypothetical predator is already interested enough in the 12-year-old to try to get him naked and find out whether he's got pubic hair or not, it seems to me the practical, useful distinction between "pedophile" and whatever else he would be called if the he happens to discover pubic hair, is really non-existent.

Also, call me cynical, but I don't see such a person getting far enough along in the process that they've gotten the kid naked, suddenly turning up their nose and bailing out because they discover he doesn't have pubic hair.

But all of this is moot really, if it's true that Darat was actually 17 during the time he's talking.

 

[Checkmite]

Only if you for some reason ignore the intent behind the law, then yes it's perfectly equivalent.

The intent is the same: to punish teh gay, because "icky". "Protecting kids" is the pretext - and quite obviously so, since otherwise the AOC would've been 18. But that wasn't enough; gay men also had to be punished for sex with other, fully-adult gay men.

Stop trying to play these pedantic "gotcha" games.

 

[luchog]

In the play, Juliet is named as 13. Romeo's age isn't actually given; however in the original story from which Shakespeare adapted his play, both Romeo and Juliet are explicitly said to be 16.

Actually, if you look deeper, in some pre-Shakespearian variants of the story Romeo is typically older than 16, most often at least 18, and a few have him as a mature adult around late-20s/early-30s. Juliet ranges anywhere from 12 to 16, although generally around 13-14.

There is also some hinting in Shakespeare's version that Romeo is significantly older than 16 as well; although there is a good deal of interpretation available.

 

[Darat]

No; only the ones who were adults at the time.



I believe you are from the UK (if I'm wrong just ignore everything after this), where the consent age is 16. That means you were 12, so any adults who were willing to engage in sex with you at that point were almost certainly genuine pedophiles, even for those who insist upon the narrow clinical definition rather than the colloquial one. So there's really no excuse at that point; I would say yes those people deserve prison and being labeled a sex offender for the next 70 years of their life.

No, the age of consent when I started having sex was 21, I was 17 when I started having sex.