Sexually abusing a child while Female

[Darat]

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.

I'm sorry but I'm not that bloody old, that was a “modern“ age of consent! It only became 16 in 2000. And the reason it was set at 21 very much was to protect the young, the children from "predatory" homosexuals.

This is why I keep coming back to you that there is no magic that happens when a person becomes a day older and is suddenly 14,16, 21 or whatever the age of consent is in a particular place, it's a legal line drawn as the only good way we can try and protect young people and children. But I just cant accept that someone the night before they hit the age of consent is being abused if someone has sex with them, but the next night they are no longer being abused.

Having a legal age of consent is the only pragmatic tool we have to try and protect our youngsters from sexual abuse and worse so no one is arguing we shouldn't have one, just that it doesn't reflect reality very well.

And I have to say that according to your arguments and claims in this thread you would have been one of those that would have seen the people older than me that I had sex with (when I was under the age of consent) sent to prison for their abuse of me since the law and society at the time determined that 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds couldn't legally have sex as a means to keep those "children" safe.

 

[p0lka]

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.

re: the highlighted

That's kind of a special pleading sort of thing, unless you also have the opinion that a heterosexual male when undressing their female date and finding a penis, would just go with it anyway even though they are not attracted to it.

 

[Checkmite]

This is why I keep coming back to you that there is no magic that happens when a person becomes a day older and is suddenly 14,16, 21 or whatever the age of consent is in a particular place, it's a legal line drawn as the only good way we can try and protect young people and children. But I just cant accept that someone the night before they hit the age of consent is being abused if someone has sex with them, but the next night they are no longer being abused.

But do you really, truly think I believe in that "magic"? Or that anyone else does? Does anyone really argue that's true? I don't think they do. As a general matter of fact, adults having sex with children is illegal because it's abusive. The answer to that is an age of consent; and I realize that the way the system works it can look as if society's saying that one day you go to sleep "needing to be protected" and the next day you wake up "legal" and no longer in need of any protection; but that's an unfortunate and really unavoidable visual side-effect of the fact that an age of consent needs to be enforced consistently and fairly.

We're not talking about "edge" cases here, or at least we weren't. We were not talking about a 17-year-old going to prison for having sex with his 16-years-and-354-days-old girlfriend. 12, 13, and 14 are substantially under the age of consent, and we're talking about adults in their mid to late 20's or older. We started out discussing cases where there's a tremendous and undeniable age difference, a position of authority, and children that are well younger than the age of consent besides. How does this discussion turn to the concept of an "age of consent" itself, and the "magic day" criticism of that concept?

And I have to say that according to your arguments and claims in this thread you would have been one of those that would have seen the people older than me that I had sex with (when I was under the age of consent) sent to prison for their abuse of me since the law and society at the time determined that 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds couldn't legally have sex as a means to keep those "children" safe.

This is vastly unfair. It sounds as if you're saying you think I believe that the notion of age of consent and the illegality of adults having sex with children is "right" simply because the government has decreed that's the way it should be. Again - do you genuinely believe that's the limit of my thinking on this matter? I can only insist that it's not; but I guess if what I've said so far really leads you to believe so, there's not much hope of convincing you otherwise.

 

[Delvo]

We started out discussing cases where there's a tremendous and undeniable age difference, a position of authority, and children that are well younger than the age of consent besides. How does this discussion turn to the concept of an "age of consent" itself, and the "magic day" criticism of that concept?

Because age of consent in most jurisdictions is well after the age at which most people would start consenting (depending on who's offering).

 

[Checkmite]

re: the highlighted

That's kind of a special pleading sort of thing, unless you also have the opinion that a heterosexual male when undressing their female date and finding a penis, would just go with it anyway even though they are not attracted to it.

I'd argue that different genitalia is a far sight more substantial of a difference than "no pubic hair" versus "a few pubic hairs".

If that still sounds like a personal incredulity thing to you, then consider that your heterosexual male who finds out his date has a penis will never be attracted to that person again, whereas the non-pedophile could check the same 12-year-old two months later when he's still 12 but hasn't visibly changed in any way with the exception of having started sprouting some pubic hair and by definition should be down with it at that point. Some historical instances of that kind of thing actually happening are kind of needed to counterbalance ones that tend to show the opposite - like pedophiles who begin molesting a child significantly prior to puberty, like around 7 or 8, and have no problem continuing to molest them well into their teenage years, when they shouldn't be attracted anymore.

Or more directly: I think the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual person is a practical one, with a real difference, whereas the difference between a pedophile who is lusting after a 12-year-old and a non-pedophile who's lusting after a 12-year-old is largely a difference mostly of post-hoc classification, and "has he started puberty or not?" isn't a question that's actually on the mind of someone who's interested in a kid of that age in the moment.

 

[Venom]

Because age of consent in most jurisdictions is well after the age at which most people would start consenting (depending on who's offering).

This.

I mean we can see the adult-child hard divide being thrown around in this discussion about sexual abuse, but fact is a lot of the violators of consent laws, I'll even take the risk of saying most, are two consenting adolescents/young adults, often partners and it's a rather broad range stretching from mid teens to perhaps 30s. I don't know what a "tremendous and undeniable age gap" is supposed to be though. If you ask some Americans they might say someone in their twenties with a teen girlfriend, like Elvis.

In this regard, I wonder why schools even give 14 year-olds sex education.

Maybe they should save themselves the trouble.

 

[Arcade22]

The intent is the same: to punish teh gay, because "icky".

No not really. In many cases it was more or less the opposite: the legalization of gay sex between adults. When they repelled the absolute prohibition on gay sex they added new offences to, as i said before, "protect" youths from the supposed risk of becoming "homosexual" and the resultant harm that "disease" would cause them.

"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.

In the case of the UK the age of majority was 21 at the time, so legally speaking the "fully adult gay men" you are speaking of were actually minors.

In many cases, such as in Sweden, the age of consent was set at 18 for gay sex instead of being equal to the age of consent for opposite-sex partners, which was and remains 15. There was at this time no legal age of consent for lesbians.

Bigotry and homophobic attitudes, even if described in the pseudo-scientific terms of the day, were behind the assumption that homosexuality (and primarily if not exclusively male homosexuality) was a disease or mental defect of sorts. However the desire to "protect" youth in this case was mostly genuine and not motivated out of spite or hatred of homosexuals as you seem to suggest.

Stop trying to play these pedantic "gotcha" games.

It's not my fault your arguments don't stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

 

[Checkmite]

In the case of the UK the age of majority was 21 at the time, so legally speaking the "fully adult gay men" you are speaking of were actually minors.

No, they weren't. While the law setting the legal homosexual sex act was made in 1967, in 1970 - only 3 years later - the age of majority in the UK was officially lowered from 21 to 18. However, the 21-for-gays rule remained in effect until 2000 when it was finally changed. So yes, for three decades, gay sex was was unlawful for people who were recognized as fully legal adults.

 

[Information Analyst]

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

A standard that is variable and arbitrary, depending on jurisdiction, given that AoCs and AoMs vary. It's entirely possible for someone just under the AoM to be in a sexual relationship with someone just over the AoC; does that relationship become "abusive" the day the older party becomes an adult? In Europe AoCs range between 14 and 18, so the potential gap between partners can also vary greatly.

 

[Information Analyst]

No, they weren't. While the law setting the legal homosexual sex act was made in 1967, in 1970 - only 3 years later - the age of majority in the UK was officially lowered from 21 to 18. However, the 21-for-gays rule remained in effect until 2000 when it was finally changed. So yes, for three decades, gay sex was was unlawful for people who were recognized as fully legal adults.

Meanwhile, the AoC for straight sex had been 16 since 1885, while there was no age restriction on lesbian sex. That means that for 85 years the country was OK with a five year gap between the AoC and the AoM for straight sex, and only in the last three of those years grudgingly accepted the same AoC as the AoM for gay sex, but then didn't revise that AoC when the AoM was lowered.

 

[Arcade22]

No, they weren't. While the law setting the legal homosexual sex act was made in 1967, in 1970 - only 3 years later - the age of majority in the UK was officially lowered from 21 to 18.

I wouldn't blame them for not being prescient, although they can be blamed for not reviewing said legislation earlier.

However, the 21-for-gays rule remained in effect until 2000 when it was finally changed. So yes, for three decades, gay sex was was unlawful for people who were recognized as fully legal adults.

Is that the sole reason you find that law disagreeable? It was perfectly okay and reasonable to punish people for having gay sex with 17 and 16 year old's while heterosexuals were doing it with complete impunity? Even if the motivation behind enacting such laws were based on the same kind of flawed assumptions and reasoning?

Again, in case of Sweden, the law never "protected" legal adults at all and only afforded "protection" towards minors. The laws were flawed not because of who they "protected" but because of the motivation behind them.

Besides it's not as if legislators ever have stopped themselves from treating young adults as a special case. Young adults can have sex with (almost) anyone but are, bizarrely, sometimes not allowed to view pornographic films. In fact they are allowed to be porn actors while at the same time being prohibited from watching their own porn, no matter utterly insane that is.

 

[3point14]

I wouldn't blame them for not being prescient, although they can be blamed for not reviewing said legislation earlier.



Is that the sole reason you find that law disagreeable? It was perfectly okay and reasonable to punish people for having gay sex with 17 and 16 year old's while heterosexuals were doing it with complete impunity? Even if the motivation behind enacting such laws were based on the same kind of flawed assumptions and reasoning?

Again, in case of Sweden, the law never "protected" legal adults at all and only afforded "protection" towards minors. The laws were flawed not because of who they "protected" but because of the motivation behind them.

Besides it's not as if legislators ever have stopped themselves from treating young adults as a special case. Young adults can have sex with (almost) anyone but are, bizarrely, sometimes not allowed to view pornographic films. In fact they are allowed to be porn actors while at the same time being prohibited from watching their own porn, no matter utterly insane that is.

I suspect the legality gets even more messy when a 16 year old takes naked pictures of their 16 year old lover.

 

[Arcade22]

I suspect the legality gets even more messy when a 16 year old takes naked pictures of their 16 year old lover.

According to many laws prohibiting the production of "child pornography", a 16 year old taking pornographic pictures of themselves would be guilty of a criminal offence, even if they never shared said pictures with anyone else. No doubt that all of this is for their own sake and well-being, mind you, hence why no exception was made for them.

Even suggesting that such laws are potentially detrimental to the people they aim to protect is an outrageous and indefensible allegation because child pornography is inherently abusive and exploitative by definition. We can't treat a 16 year old any different from a baby in that regard. (Note: in case it wasn't obvious, this is a parody of Checkmite)

 

[luchog]

According to many laws prohibiting the production of "child pornography", a 16 year old taking pornographic pictures of themselves would be guilty of a criminal offence, even if they never shared said pictures with anyone else. No doubt that all of this is for their own sake and well-being, mind you, hence why no exception was made for them.

This was not given an exception, because it was believed that allowing such a loophole would allow adults to manipulate or coerce them into creating sexually explicit material without any consequences. And there is certainly a valid argument to be made for some sort of protection of teens from exploitation by adults.

However, this wrong-headed approach has resulted in a law that is both bizarre and draconian in its results. There are multiple instances of the victims of such manipulation being punished for their victimization; or of horny teens being punished for simply being horny teens, even when sharing their pictures only with their peers and not with adults.

Even suggesting that such laws are potentially detrimental to the people they aim to protect is an outrageous and indefensible allegation because child pornography is inherently abusive and exploitative by definition. We can't treat a 16 year old any different from a baby in that regard. (Note: in case it wasn't obvious, this is a parody of Checkmite)

And that's the problem. There is little to no nuance to this issue in the public mind, it's all starkly black and white; with one side infantilizing teens, and the other trying to cast adolescents as equal to adults and fully capable of understanding the consequences of their sexuality. Those of us who are interested in a more nuanced, rational view balancing protection for minors from manipulative and abusive adults, with recognization of the realities of human sexual and emotional development (not to mention discard the puritanical religious taboos on nudity), tend to get drowned out by the hard-liners on both sides.

 

[ahhell]

Because age of consent in most jurisdictions is well after the age at which most people would start consenting (depending on who's offering).

I guess that really depends on how much time constitutes "Well after". Mostly commonly AOC in the developed world is around 16, 2 or 3 years perhaps after most people would start consenting. I don't think that's well after but I suppose it could be considered so. Regardless, just because some one wants to consent to something doesn't mean its a good idea to let them. We generally don't let folks under 18 sign contracts either. Strangely, I don't see a lot of folks working to change that because some kids are really mature enough to consider the long term effects of contracts.

A standard that is variable and arbitrary, depending on jurisdiction, given that AoCs and AoMs vary. It's entirely possible for someone just under the AoM to be in a sexual relationship with someone just over the AoC; does that relationship become "abusive" the day the older party becomes an adult? In Europe AoCs range between 14 and 18, so the potential gap between partners can also vary greatly.

Largely nonsense, most reasonable jurisdictions have exemptions for partners of similar ages. I'm curious what the solution to the arbitrary standard is. Any age based standard is going to be arbitrary. I hope we can agree that infants shouldn't be sexually, toddlers, and, 10 year olds shouldn't be having sex and that adults who do have sex with them should be sanctioned in some way. If we do, then were to we draw the lines? This is an easily handled red herring. Almost nobody thinks a 17 year old should be jailed for sexing up a 16 year old, except for the occasional parent of a 16 year old.

I suspect the legality gets even more messy when a 16 year old takes naked pictures of their 16 year old lover.

I'm kind of ok with prosecuting the 16 year old photographer if said photographer starts circulating the photos, that is quite abusive.

According to many laws prohibiting the production of "child pornography", a 16 year old taking pornographic pictures of themselves would be guilty of a criminal offence, even if they never shared said pictures with anyone else. No doubt that all of this is for their own sake and well-being, mind you, hence why no exception was made for them.

Even suggesting that such laws are potentially detrimental to the people they aim to protect is an outrageous and indefensible allegation because child pornography is inherently abusive and exploitative by definition. We can't treat a 16 year old any different from a baby in that regard. (Note: in case it wasn't obvious, this is a parody of Checkmite)

Thanks for the clarification, I almost took this seriously. Some of the issues in regards to minors being held accountable for "sexting" is mostly because the laws haven't caught up to the technology and culture.

 

[Craig4]

I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.

Since the age of consent varies from place to place, can this really be true? In one place the AOC is 13, in another it's 18, and that's a huge gap.

Also, isn't it more accurate to say that sex with an underage person could be abusive or exploitative in nature than to declare that it's always abusive and exploitative?

So we throw up our hands and not have an AOC? It's imperfect but we can't have a law that says "when emotionally ready".

 

[Belz...]

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

What's that look like? (I ask you rather than look it up because you seem knowledgeable on the topic and it's always more interesting to have a discussion)

 

[3point14]

I'm kind of ok with prosecuting the 16 year old photographer if said photographer starts circulating the photos, that is quite abusive.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the legislation.

I'm talking about being technically a criminal, and a sex offender at that, the moment he shutter goes click. No distribution required.

 

[ahhell]

I'm afraid you misunderstand the legislation.

I'm talking about being technically a criminal, and a sex offender at that, the moment he shutter goes click. No distribution required.

Depending on the specific legislation, I'd bet that is because the law assumes the photographer is an adult as a result of not actually having caught up with current technology. As I remember there were a few cases a few years ago where 16 year olds were threatened with prosecution, I am unaware of any such cases being prosecuted. As far as I know its merely a hypothetical fear.

So we throw up our hands and not have an AOC? It's imperfect but we can't have a law that says "when emotionally ready".

We could, they'd just be ridiculously impractical but there does seem to some folks who sort of support the notion. It seems to me mostly because they are arguing against a straw man of AOC laws that regularly punish 16.1 year olds for sleeping with 15.9 year olds.

 

[Butter!]

It's really hard for me to look at the age of consent thing rationally. I swear, I was more rational about it when I was younger. The older I get, the more the idea of teens having sex (especially with older people) freaks me out. I always thought that if I ever had kids, I'd be the reasonable mom who gave them the talk frankly, awkwardly offered access to birth control if need be, and situated myself as 100% approachable no matter what bizarre sex trouble my kids found themselves up against. I think that's probably the thing to do.

But oh my god, I'm so glad I don't have kids. If I did, I think I'd want the age of consent to be 30. I was so ******* stupid in high school, it's mind-blowing to think about now. If I hadn't been permanently scared of getting in trouble with my parents, I probably could have been talked into anything. I remember thinking creepy older guys were "being nice" and that my mom was a total harpy for saying I couldn't hang out with them. God, I was a mook.

I fooled around a little bit in high school (never had full-on sex), and I have to say, I honestly wish I hadn't when I look back. It feels really gross now, and I dislike all those memories and wish I didn't have them. I don't even know why. Nothing that bad happened. I guess I just wasn't ready at the time, and it took me fifteen years to realize it.

Logically, I know we shouldn't infantilize teens or their sexuality, but urrrrggghhh. It's a tricky issue. I bet a lot of the people who freak out about it are in a similar boat as me - they're thinking about their own adolescent experiences with an adult mindset, and they're really not enjoying the results. So they fly into "protect the children!" mode. It's definitely gotten out of hand when kids are going to court for having pics of their own bodies. Talk about defeating the purpose. The worst punishment a teen should get for something like that is a stern lecture on responsibility and maybe a grounding.