Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Kevin_Lowe]

But that was not what I was asking Kevin. Kevin insists, as do you, that adult-child sex is potentially all right.

But since Kevin de-flounced, maybe I'm not on ignore and he can answer...

You're not on ignore, for the record, and I can't tell whether you are accurately stating my position unless you define adult, child and "potentially all right".

If those terms can mean "adult in whatever jurisdiction", "minor in whatever jurisdiction" and "there's no evidence-based reason to believe criminalising it prevents harm" then yes, I do insist that some instances of adult-child sex are potentially all right.

If those terms mean something else to you then I don't know whether or not you're stating my position accurately.

Your studies about brain development do not show what you want them to show, by the way. Your full argument needs to be something like "Sex with people of age X is bad because it harms them, and we know it harms them because brain studies Y and Z show significant developmental differences between people of age X and adults." What you have currently done is to skip the bolded part and take it for granted without showing any work.

 

[LostAngeles]

You're not on ignore, for the record, and I can't tell whether you are accurately stating my position unless you define adult, child and "potentially all right".

If those terms can mean "adult in whatever jurisdiction", "minor in whatever jurisdiction" and "there's no evidence-based reason to believe criminalising it prevents harm" then yes, I do insist that some instances of adult-child sex are potentially all right.

If those terms mean something else to you then I don't know whether or not you're stating my position accurately.

Your studies about brain development do not show what you want them to show, by the way. Your full argument needs to be something like "Sex with people of age X is bad because it harms them, and we know it harms them because brain studies Y and Z show significant developmental differences between people of age X and adults." What you have currently done is to skip the bolded part and take it for granted without showing any work.

Would you like the definition of, "is," as well?

If the difference in brain development isn't relevant, then at what bar would you like to set the age limit for children to engage in sexual activity with adults?

You want to keep ignoring the issues of power too?

You want to keep ignoring the issues of cultural views on women?

 

[LostAngeles]

Oh and show me where varwoche is lying, please?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Would you like the definition of, "is," as well?

Sorry, but there is simply no basis for intelligent discussion if you refuse to define your terms. I cannot read your mind and determine what you mean by those terms unless you define them for me.

I already provided one set of possible definitions which you snipped and ignored. I think I've done more than I'm obliged to already.

If the difference in brain development isn't relevant, then at what bar would you like to set the age limit for children to engage in sexual activity with adults?

Ideally at whatever age the best available evidence shows that participation in consensual (usual caveats) sex with legal adults has no statistically significant link to adverse life outcomes.

If we're going to lock people up I want it to be on the basis of evidence. Not possibly arbitrary cultural values or theoretical handwaving.

You want to keep ignoring the issues of power too?

You want to keep ignoring the issues of cultural views on women?

These would be examples of possibly arbitrary cultural values and/or theoretical handwaving.

I also note that you are ignoring the already-stated fact that some of the countries with the most liberal age of consent laws are amongst those with the most progressive cultural views on women.

Oh and show me where varwoche is lying, please?

Varwoche has firstly accused me in post #391 of "having a history defending sexual abuse of children by adults" and "continuously failing to grasp that consensual sex between an adult and a minor is statutory rape".

Both of these are lies and Varwoche knows it. I've never defended the sexual abuse of anyone, unless you stretch the definition of sexual abuse to cover behaviour which there is no evidence-based reason to believe causes any harm. You won't catch Varwoche putting it that way though because his objective is to defame me, not to present an accurate picture of me. I've also never contested the trivially true fact that such sex is illegal everywhere in the world (although it's usually not referred to in law as "statutory rape") so that too is a straightforward lie.

He also took it upon himself to lie to the AIFS and state that I tried to "make the case that less severe forms of adult+child sex are not harmful to the child, with "less severe" defined as consensual and non-penetrative." This again is a lie.

I did state that as far as I could tell the available evidence failed to show that consensual, non-distressing and non-penetrative sexual contact with sexually mature minors caused long-term harm to a statistically significant level. (Don't blame me for the "non-distressing" or "non-penetrative" clauses either, I just go on what data other people collected). That was true at the time and nobody (including Varwoche) had any evidence saying otherwise that stood up to scrutiny.

I also stated that as far as I could tell the available evidence failed to show that distressing and unwanted non-penetrative child abuse caused long-term harm to a statistically significant level. If you're the kind of person whose English comprehension skills are lacking make sure you read that sentence a few times carefully. Note that it does not say that sexual abuse is morally tolerable. Beating someone up, for example, also does not cause long-term psychological harm to a statistically significant level. It's just a refutation of the popular neo-Freudian idea that sexual abuse automatically turns people into basket cases, which it doesn't. In both cases the short-term harm is substantial and in both cases people get over it and get on with their lives.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

 

[LostAngeles]

Sorry, but there is simply no basis for intelligent discussion if you refuse to define your terms. I cannot read your mind and determine what you mean by those terms unless you define them for me.

I already provided one set of possible definitions which you snipped and ignored. I think I've done more than I'm obliged to already.

I did not snip them. Your post was whole so don't lie.

You're trying to reduce the argument absurdly here by demanding definitions. The commonly understood meanings are acceptable here.

Ideally at whatever age the best available evidence shows that participation in consensual (usual caveats) sex with legal adults has no statistically significant link to adverse life outcomes.

If we're going to lock people up I want it to be on the basis of evidence. Not possibly arbitrary cultural values or theoretical handwaving.

None exists and all studies indicate it is not ok.

These would be examples of possibly arbitrary cultural values and/or theoretical handwaving.

The issue of power? No, it's not. An adult has power over a child. Are you aware of the McMartin fiasco? Fells Acre? Do you know how they got that, "testimony?"

And as to children being married early, you were among those who brought it up, why are you refusing to address why it is no longer the case?

I also note that you are ignoring the already-stated fact that some of the countries with the most liberal age of consent laws are amongst those with the most progressive cultural views on women.

Christ, do I start with a request for evidence or laugh at the attempt to make this into a feminism issue?

Varwoche has firstly accused me in post #391 of "having a history defending sexual abuse of children by adults" and "continuously failing to grasp that consensual sex between an adult and a minor is statutory rape".

Nothing you've done so far contradicts that.

Both of these are lies and Varwoche knows it. I've never defended the sexual abuse of anyone, unless you stretch the definition of sexual abuse to cover behaviour which there is no evidence-based reason to believe causes any harm. You won't catch Varwoche putting it that way though because his objective is to defame me, not to present an accurate picture of me. I've also never contested the trivially true fact that such sex is illegal everywhere in the world (although it's usually not referred to in law as "statutory rape") so that too is a straightforward lie.

You've been defending the sexual abuse of Samantha Gailey here

He also took it upon himself to lie to the AIFS and state that I tried to "make the case that less severe forms of adult+child sex are not harmful to the child, with "less severe" defined as consensual and non-penetrative." This again is a lie.

So what are you trying to say in this thread then?

I did state that as far as I could tell the available evidence failed to show that consensual, non-distressing and non-penetrative sexual contact with sexually mature minors caused long-term harm to a statistically significant level. (Don't blame me for the "non-distressing" or "non-penetrative" clauses either, I just go on what data other people collected). That was true at the time and nobody (including Varwoche) had any evidence saying otherwise that stood up to scrutiny.

I also stated that as far as I could tell the available evidence failed to show that distressing and unwanted non-penetrative child abuse caused long-term harm to a statistically significant level. If you're the kind of person whose English comprehension skills are lacking make sure you read that sentence a few times carefully. Note that it does not say that sexual abuse is morally tolerable. Beating someone up, for example, also does not cause long-term psychological harm to a statistically significant level. It's just a refutation of the popular neo-Freudian idea that sexual abuse automatically turns people into basket cases, which it doesn't. In both cases the short-term harm is substantial and in both cases people get over it and get on with their lives.

You want to know how to make a statement instantly false? Make it broad.

Edited by Darat: 

Removed quoted section of a post edited for a breach of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I did not snip them. Your post was whole so don't lie.

You're trying to reduce the argument absurdly here by demanding definitions. The commonly understood meanings are acceptable here.

They bloody aren't, and I suspect you know this because you tried to provide definitions, realised you couldn't, erased what you'd written and posted that copout instead.

"Child" is too fuzzy a term to be useful. "Child" can mean a seventeen year old or it can mean a one year old. "Adult" is too fuzzy a term to be useful. "Adult" can mean a fourteen year old or a fifty year old. "Potentially all right" is too fuzzy to be useful. It could mean "it should be legal" or "it shouldn't be legal but it might not do any harm" or "it will almost certainly screw someone up for life but it might just conceivably not do any harm in very unusual cases".

String those fuzzy terms together as you have, and you could be attributing to me the claim that "it should definitely be legal for a fifty year old man to screw a one year old boy" or you could be attributing the claim to me that "it just might conceivably be okay for an eighteen year old and a seventeen year old to manually stimulate each other".

Now which is it? You're attributing the claim to me, you must have some definition in mind. At the very least specify what age ranges you mean by "adult" and "child", and what you mean by "potentially all right".

None exists and all studies indicate it is not ok.

I'm glad you have read "all studies", I was beginning to think I was the only one in this thread who looked at the research at all. It's nice to have someone who's read "all studies". Are you writing a PhD thesis on this topic or is this your area of academic speciality?

Now you're an expert, a couple of questions: it looks on the face of it like you just said that all studies indicate "it" is not okay, which would constitute evidence, and in the same sentence denied any evidence exists. Which is it?

Also what do you mean by "it", exactly? Seventeen year olds with eighteen year olds in Winsconsin, or fifty year olds doing one year olds, or what?

The issue of power? No, it's not. An adult has power over a child. Are you aware of the McMartin fiasco? Fells Acre? Do you know how they got that, "testimony?"

And as to children being married early, you were among those who brought it up, why are you refusing to address why it is no longer the case?

You're doing the same trick you did with the brain scan studies. Your argument written out in full would have to be something like "legal adults and minors should not have sexual relations because we know this is harmful because an adult has power over a child". You present the beginning and the end of the argument but you skate over the lack of evidence of harm in the middle and hope we don't notice.

If there's real harm it should show up in epidemiological studies.

ETA: Wasn't McMartin a preschool? I must have missed the post where someone said it might be okay to have sex with four year olds.

Christ, do I start with a request for evidence or laugh at the attempt to make this into a feminism issue?

I suspect you have not been paying attention. Canada, for example, has its age of consent as 14 for heterosexuals and lesbians. I mentioned this earlier. Are you going to argue that Canada is a place where women are exploited or kept in virtual slavery? The fact is that a low age of consent is not solely a characteristic of places where women are oppressed, and a high age of consent is not solely a characteristic of places where women are liberated. Rwanda, Haiti and Swaziland have the age of consent at 18, along with Arizona, California and a handful of other US states.

The argument that a low age of consent has something to do with the oppression or exploitation of women, or with a society being less socially advanced or something like that, fails to meet the most cursory reality check.

Nothing you've done so far contradicts that.

Okay, You and Varwoche are going to get along fine then.

You've been defending the sexual abuse of Samantha Gailey here

That's a damned lie. I've been saying that the hard evidence contradicts some of the most lurid elements of her story, and that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent. That doesn't mean that it's okay to screw thirteen year olds, but maybe that nuance is beyond you.

So what are you trying to say in this thread then?

Since you quote my explanation immediately after this comment I can only conclude that you didn't read it, didn't understand it or are in denial about it because you don't like reality.

Yeah, that's the worst attempt to refute accusations ever. Up there with Polanski's refuting of the accusations against him in this case.

Again, I conclude that you didn't read it, didn't understand it or are in denial about it because you don't like reality.

 

[Information Analyst]

Kevin insists, as do you, that adult-child sex is potentially all right.

Sorry, but where have I ever said that? Again, you seem to prefer arguing about what you think people think, not what they have actually said.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think what we're seeing here is classic mobbing behaviour. Once someone gets identified as a target for a group of like-minded individuals, they egg each other on in their attacks and develop a mentality where they see increasingly egregious behaviour as justified because the target "deserves it".

It's not atypical for mobbers to make up an entire malicious mythology about their target, and that's certainly what seems to be going on here. At this stage it scarcely matters to them what I've actually said, and I think I've demonstrated that over and over by correcting their "errors" about my views. In their minds they are perfectly entitled to make up my position for me and then attack me for holding that position, because as far as they're concerned their mythologised version of me is the real me, and my actual position is just a false facade I put up to hide the truth.

It's not very pretty but it's a documented type of human behaviour and we shouldn't be surprised to see it every now and then. I think we saw it in the previous harassment of Danish Dynamite and more or less the same people are trying to start it up again.

 

[zooterkin]

Although any Polanksi defender should be answering this.

I don't see many of those in this thread. I do see people trying to look at the facts, rather than simply reacting emotionally (understandable though that is).

From the point of view of the law, Polanski is guilty solely of sex with a girl who was underage, and fleeing while awaiting sentence. That is what should determine whether he should be extradited and what his punishment is, not allegations, however believable, that were not admitted by the defendant or tested in court.

The offence to which he has pleaded guilty does not necessarily involve violence, coercion or trauma, even if it is technically called "rape" (a word which normally has those connotations). That does mean that I, for one, believe it was in any way acceptable behaviour. On the other hand, if the girl's testimony is true, then the act was at the least coercive, involved drugs and possibly violence; in that case, the prosecution should have bloody well thrown the book at him, and not accepted a plea bargain.

 

[Checkmite]

He also took it upon himself to lie to the AIFS and state that I tried to "make the case that less severe forms of adult+child sex are not harmful to the child, with "less severe" defined as consensual and non-penetrative." This again is a lie.

I did state that as far as I could tell the available evidence failed to show that consensual, non-distressing and non-penetrative sexual contact with sexually mature minors caused long-term harm to a statistically significant level.

Sounds pretty much the same to most, except that Kevin's view is that children shouldn't be called children anymore as soon as they become sexually mature, as if that makes a difference for some reason. "Sexual maturity" is the point at which an individual can become pregnant or cause pregnancy. Unless the case is that the point of the adult/child sex was to procreate, I don't even see how this marker is relevant.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sounds pretty much the same to most, except that Kevin's view is that children shouldn't be called children anymore as soon as they become sexually mature, as if that makes a difference for some reason. "Sexual maturity" is the point at which an individual can become pregnant or cause pregnancy. Unless the case is that the point of the adult/child sex was to procreate, I don't even see how this marker is relevant.

Case in point: Checkmite is perfectly happy to lie about my position. Why do they feel that this is legitimate behaviour? I have no idea. It's blatantly dishonest. I never said that children shouldn't be called children any more as soon as they reach puberty. Checkmite just made that up.

However I think that transition does make a difference. When you go through puberty you start wanting sex. That's just basic biology. Sex might not be good for you, and there might be lots of senses in which you aren't ready for sex, but that's when your body starts gearing up for it.

Before that point paedophiles might be able to groom children into cooperating in sex acts, but it's not natural behaviour and the available evidence as far as I'm aware is that such activities correlate strongly with bad life outcomes in the future for the child victim. My position's always been that this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated.

I've never stated or implied anything to say that sex with prepubescents might be okay, and that's why I can construct no honourable interpretation of the motives of those people who have been misrepresenting that aspect of my position.

My position has always been "sex with postpubescents might be okay, what's the evidence?". It's natural for sexually mature humans to want sex. The only questions are whether it's a good idea for them to get it or not at any given age, and who they should legally be allowed to get it with.

Now Checkmite's position, as just stated, is that there's no difference between those two positions. I think that's a pretty daft opinion which ignores very basic biological facts, therefore I personally think there is an enormous difference between the two positions, and therefore I take great exception to Varwoche's misrepresentation.

There are indeed some people out there like NAMBLA who do argue for legalising sex with prepubescents, and it's an act of outright deceit to lump me in with them.

ETA: Since my previous post was edited for incivility, I wish to include the following statement which can be read as an appendix to my edited post. Hopefully it will not be considered a breach of the MA.

"Varwoche has repeatedly posted this cherry-picked list of snippets as evidence that the above claims are factually false. Of course for his own reasons he never mentions how "sexual abuse" is defined in those snippets, and if you dug down you'd find that the statistics backing up those claims include, among other things, the long-term rape of prepubsecents. He's trying to lump statistics about the effect on a prepubescent child of being raped by a family member for years together with statistics about the effect on a sexually mature teenager of a one-off consensual hand job. Then he tries to present me as being a defender of the former because I pointed out that at the time there was no evidence that the latter was harmful.

None of this is news to Varwoche: I've explained this to him in threads and I've explained it to him by PM. He is well aware of what he is doing."

 

[marksman]

On the other hand, if the girl's testimony is true, then the act was at the least coercive, involved drugs and possibly violence

Point of correction: Although Polanski has never admitted to physical coercion, he admitted to the investigating officers (before any plea arrangement had been reached) that he supplied the girl both alcohol and Qualudes and that they had sex. So the "involved drugs" part does not depend on the girl's testimony being true. That part can be accurate, even if Polanski's own statements are true.

 

[LostAngeles]

They bloody aren't, and I suspect you know this because you tried to provide definitions, realised you couldn't, erased what you'd written and posted that copout instead.

No, I didn't.

"Child" is too fuzzy a term to be useful. "Child" can mean a seventeen year old or it can mean a one year old. "Adult" is too fuzzy a term to be useful. "Adult" can mean a fourteen year old or a fifty year old. "Potentially all right" is too fuzzy to be useful. It could mean "it should be legal" or "it shouldn't be legal but it might not do any harm" or "it will almost certainly screw someone up for life but it might just conceivably not do any harm in very unusual cases".

String those fuzzy terms together as you have, and you could be attributing to me the claim that "it should definitely be legal for a fifty year old man to screw a one year old boy" or you could be attributing the claim to me that "it just might conceivably be okay for an eighteen year old and a seventeen year old to manually stimulate each other".

Now which is it? You're attributing the claim to me, you must have some definition in mind. At the very least specify what age ranges you mean by "adult" and "child", and what you mean by "potentially all right".

Legal definitions in the U.S.

I can't believe you want me to define, "potentially all right." Get a dictionary.

This part of the argument is over.

I'm glad you have read "all studies", I was beginning to think I was the only one in this thread who looked at the research at all. It's nice to have someone who's read "all studies". Are you writing a PhD thesis on this topic or is this your area of academic speciality?

I ran a search through the research databases and read abstracts. If you have something that says otherwise, produce it with the same set of standards for citations as before.

Now you're an expert, a couple of questions: it looks on the face of it like you just said that all studies indicate "it" is not okay, which would constitute evidence, and in the same sentence denied any evidence exists. Which is it?

No studies exist to support your statement. Every study I have seen argues against it.

Also what do you mean by "it", exactly? Seventeen year olds with eighteen year olds in Winsconsin, or fifty year olds doing one year olds, or what?

You're doing the same trick you did with the brain scan studies. Your argument written out in full would have to be something like "legal adults and minors should not have sexual relations because we know this is harmful because an adult has power over a child". You present the beginning and the end of the argument but you skate over the lack of evidence of harm in the middle and hope we don't notice.

If there's real harm it should show up in epidemiological studies.

Answer the questions.

ETA: Wasn't McMartin a preschool? I must have missed the post where someone said it might be okay to have sex with four year olds.

Oh right, no wonder you've been failing to do so. You lack reading comprehension. Do you know what actually happened at McMartin? Read that and then think about why I brought it up with respect to adults having power over children.

I suspect you have not been paying attention. Canada, for example, has its age of consent as 14 for heterosexuals and lesbians. I mentioned this earlier. Are you going to argue that Canada is a place where women are exploited or kept in virtual slavery? The fact is that a low age of consent is not solely a characteristic of places where women are oppressed, and a high age of consent is not solely a characteristic of places where women are liberated. Rwanda, Haiti and Swaziland have the age of consent at 18, along with Arizona, California and a handful of other US states.

Wrong.

The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, making the current age of consent 16.[1]

There exist two close in age exemptions, depending on the age of the younger partner. A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual no more than two years older than them. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is no more than five years older than them

You're further wrong about it being 18 in the U.S. In the U.S. it varies by state and a number have exemptions when the two are close in age. Which is what I was saying.

The argument that a low age of consent has something to do with the oppression or exploitation of women, or with a society being less socially advanced or something like that, fails to meet the most cursory reality check.

Nice try. You brought up the history, I and Flo addressed it and you move the goal posts to modern times.

That's a damned lie. I've been saying that the hard evidence contradicts some of the most lurid elements of her story, and that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent. That doesn't mean that it's okay to screw thirteen year olds, but maybe that nuance is beyond you.

So aside from you having a history of cropping up in these threads defending the adult, you speculated that she framed Polanski.

And then you boast about how you're sticking to the evidence

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I've never stated or implied anything to say that sex with prepubescents might be okay, and that's why I can construct no honourable interpretation of the motives of those people who have been misrepresenting that aspect of my position.

My position has always been "sex with postpubescents might be okay, what's the evidence?". It's natural for sexually mature humans to want sex. The only questions are whether it's a good idea for them to get it or not at any given age, and who they should legally be allowed to get it with.

Do you have studies showing long term harm from consensual sex with pre-pubescents?

Since you do not object to a prohibition of sex with pre-pubescents, do you have studies actually showing long term harm from "consensual" sex with adults?

ETA: I am assuming that, since you require that form of evidence when dealing with a 13 year-old, you'd require the same type of evidence regarding an 11 year old.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Legal definitions in the U.S.

I can't believe you want me to define, "potentially all right." Get a dictionary.

This part of the argument is over.

Oh, then why didn't you just say so? In that case yes, absolutely, some cases of adult/child sexual contact are definitely potentially all right as far as I'm concerned. An eighteen year old and a seventeen year old who are not married getting it on in Winsconsin is potentially all right as far as I'm concerned. The law there disagrees, but since ages of consent of seventeen or lower seem to work in lots of other places I don't think there is solid grounds to believe that Winsconsin has it right and everywhere else doesn't.

I'd just prefer you put it in less ambiguous terms if you're going to state my position for me. The way you put it, it almost seemed like "Kevin insists, as do you, that adult-child sex is potentially all right" was supposed to be a controversial claim instead of a trivially true one.

Please in future say something like "Kevin insists that it might not always be harmful for them if sexually mature people below the local age of consent have safe sex, depending on the age of the participants and depending on the local age of consent". That way there will be no way your statements could possibly be misconstrued as dishonest attempt to spin my position so it looks bad.

I ran a search through the research databases and read abstracts. If you have something that says otherwise, produce it with the same set of standards for citations as before.

No studies exist to support your statement. Every study I have seen argues against it.

Since I've already explained the methodological issues involved, and the studies we looked at in previous threads won't have gone away, and you won't define your terms, I have nothing more to add. I suspect you didn't read those bits of my posts in detail or remember them.

Answer the questions.

Sorry, you have to make a joined-up argument before you get to insist that people falsify it. You can't just wave your hands in the general direction of an argument and hope everyone else fills in the blanks for you.

Oh right, no wonder you've been failing to do so. You lack reading comprehension. Do you know what actually happened at McMartin? Read that and then think about why I brought it up with respect to adults having power over children.

You are equivocating about the meaning of "children". Either use it consistently to refer to four year olds or use it consistently to refer to seventeen year olds, or better yet be specific and specify age ranges instead whenever necessary instead of using ambiguous terms.

If your claim is "adults have power over four year olds", you're stating the obvious but it's irrelevant because nobody is advocating for four year olds to be having sex. If you claim is that false memories as created in the McMartin case could be created in seventeen year olds by the same methods I want to see your evidence.

Wrong.

Fair enough, my information was a year or two out of date. Remove Canada from the list I gave earlier of modern, First World nations with the age of consent at 14.

You're further wrong about it being 18 in the U.S. In the U.S. it varies by state and a number have exemptions when the two are close in age. Which is what I was saying.

Oh dear... look, search the last page or so of forum posts for "Winsconsin". Did you think I typed those passages in accidentally, in the style of monkeys writing Shakespeare? This reinforces my view that you don't actually read what I post in detail, you just skim for the gist of it and then make stuff up as it suits you. I'm obviously aware that the age of consent varies between states in the USA.

So aside from you having a history of cropping up in these threads defending the adult, you speculated that she framed Polanski.

And then you boast about how you're sticking to the evidence

I asked the thread participants for any other hypotheses that covered the known facts, and you didn't come up with anything satisfactory. Maybe you skimmed over that bit too?

Do you have studies showing long term harm from consensual sex with pre-pubescents?

Since you do not object to a prohibition of sex with pre-pubescents, do you have studies actually showing long term harm from "consensual" sex with adults?

ETA: I am assuming that, since you require that form of evidence when dealing with a 13 year-old, you'd require the same type of evidence regarding an 11 year old.

Such evidence is almost impossible to get, because I don't think I've ever seen a study that differentiated between "distressing or unwanted" versus "not distressing and unwanted" sexual contact with under-thirteens. Even the best studies seem to discard those distinctions when it comes to gathering data on under-thirteens. Since some children do go through puberty well before then I tend to think that's a methodological weakness in the available surveys. I think it's highly likely that any sexual contact is a very bad idea for such young children but I also think it would be better if we knew exactly how bad it is under different circumstances. More knowledge is always better.

My reasoning for thinking that such contact should be illegal a couple of years ago, when there didn't seem to be an evidentiary basis for criminalising safe and consensual sexual contact with postpubescents, was (if I recall my thinking at the time correctly) that the cost/benefit ratio of allowing such contact seemed completely unattractive. The benefit to the children of such contact would be zero since they don't want sex yet, and the cost, while not proven beyond all doubt to be high, certainly looked very likely to be high. It would also obviously make it harder to prosecute child molestation cases and generally be a terrible move.

Given that the current evidence shows harmful consequences developing from consensual sex with early teens, it would be quite paradoxical if even more harmful consequences weren't present for even younger people. So the development of better evidence has strengthened my view that sexual contact with prepubescents should be strictly off limits.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Speaking of disconnected thinking, I just realised I've been a little bit guilty of it myself.

In my previous writings about sexually mature, underage people I was assuming (incorrectly as it seems to turn out) based on my own experiences growing up in an Australian boys' school that people reached puberty in the 13-15 age range. If you were showing signs of puberty at 13 you were unusual, and if you weren't showing signs by 15 you became the target of jokes.

Whereas that wikipedia link I just posted before says that 48% of African-American girls hit puberty at nine. The reference cited for that claim, available here says that "girls who start to develop breasts and pubic hair at age six or seven are not necessarily "abnormal"". I had absolutely no idea. Granted menarche doesn't seem to kick in until age eleven but that's still substantially earlier than I thought.

Since that's the case I'm going to have to agree that puberty is no use as a guideline for when sexual activity should be permitted, except in the negative sense that no puberty should still mean absolutely no go. Please take my previous statements about pubescents to refer to 13+ pubescents because I believed at the time that sexual maturity before that age was very unusual. I was sure wrong about that.

 

[applecorped]

So 13 is okay?

 

[Belz...]

My wife and I go clubbing a lot, and know that a fair few of the "regulars" on the scene - which in the UK is almost always strictly 18-and-over - who are underage, but get away with it because they look older.

Yeah... 15 who looks 18, sure. I've even seen 13 who looks 18. But 13 who looks 25 ?

 

[Tailgater]

Nope. The fact that in some culture & time it is acceptable does not make it absolute.

Fortunately, cultures evolving from the stone age makes it a little more absolute as time goes by.

 

[Tailgater]

Drugged at least as much as he was, of course. His judgement was clearly screwed to begin with, but that can't have helped.

Hah, I could drink three 13 year olds under the table one at a time. I'm lowballing here, obviously.