Sexually abusing a child while Female

[Belz...]

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.

Granted. But regardless I'd still prefer them to seek support with their condition than to stay in the shadows. Would you agree?

 

[Ziggurat]

Granted. But regardless I'd still prefer them to seek support with their condition than to stay in the shadows. Would you agree?

In principle. But in addition to the question of efficacy for treatment, I'm not sure that society's response to a sexual attraction to children can actually be disentangled from society's response to sexual acts with children. I think there is considerable risk of undermining the taboo on the latter if you become more accepting (even conditionally) of the former. You may be able to separate those issues logically, but society doesn't work on a purely logical level.

 

[3point14]

Granted. But regardless I'd still prefer them to seek support with their condition than to stay in the shadows. Would you agree?

My understanding was that some treatment regimes in the UK have been quite effective.

Right up to the point they were cut.

 

[Belz...]

In principle. But in addition to the question of efficacy for treatment, I'm not sure that society's response to a sexual attraction to children can actually be disentangled from society's response to sexual acts with children.

Oh, you're probably right. It's a thin line to walk. And if the choice is between protecting children or pedophiles, I'll go with the former. But, I think the former can be achieved by a smarter treatment of the latter.

 

[Belz...]

My understanding was that some treatment regimes in the UK have been quite effective.

Right up to the point they were cut.

Why were they cut?

 

[3point14]

Why were they cut?

This is a vague recollection of a television program at least a decade ago. There may have been bias, but I remember thinking at the time that it seemed effective. Also that it was not a nice experience for those being treated.

My recollection is that cutting money being spent on pedophiles has the idiot voters cheering while failing to realise the net results of the cuts.


My apologies for the extremely vague referencing - all of the above, without citation, can be taken with a very large pinch of salt. I will try to find specifics.

 

[Checkmite]

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.

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:

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.

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, 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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why were they cut?

I hate to say it but any program that can be even vaguely seen by your political opponents as "Pro-kiddie-diddler" is always going to be on shaky ground and the first thing to get jettisoned if you start losing altitude.

Your budget gets cut by 20% and you have to choose between... the school lunch program and the "Therapy for Child Porn Addicts." Do you want to be the politician who argues for the later?

 

[Checkmite]

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.

It is a difficult maze to get through, and I'm not through it myself. Specifically, the argument is that if pedophiles are given access to child-sex-dolls or simulated child porn, they'll use those things instead of seeking real children out to abuse. If it's true, that's great - but my problem with it is, people often give those arguments as if those things can be presumed to be true, and I'm not convinced they actually are - nobody should be, because there's no real data. The child sex dolls are too new for any data to exist, and my impression is that what phony CG child porn exists currently floats on the same "market" as real child porn and is interspersed with it, and it's already fairly determined that real child porn doesn't stop pedophiles who have it from molesting real children.

 

[Mycroft]

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, 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;

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?

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

No. It's more accurate to say that sex with an underage person is usually abusive or exploitative. The age of consent is also itself a variable, because the legal status of a relationship affects a person's willingness to engage in it. People who are willing to be abusive or exploitative are also more willing to violate the law (and vice versa). So the likelihood that a sexual relationship with a 16 year old is abusive or exploitative is higher if that's below the age of consent than if it's above the age of consent.

Given these realities, it is not appropriate for the legal system to try to determine if an illegal relationship is abusive or exploitative. The automatic presumption should be that it is. While exceptions may exist, society should not allow for them in its laws, because that will open up loopholes which will be exploited.

 

[Checkmite]

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.

It's true that different countries tend to draw the line in different places. It could be the case that some places are simply wrong about where they put it; or it could be true that there are local cultural or societal factors that objectively pull the line this way or that. But I think in all cases everywhere, the consensus will be that a line needs to be drawn because on the lower side of it the relationship is bound to be exploitative at best.

Someone has already invoked the "magical line" argument earlier in the thread. To dispose of this: yes, it's possible for a given individual beneath the age of consent to mature enough or savvy enough to avoid exploitation, just as it's possible for someone over the age of consent to be mentally helpless and easily exploitable. But for the sake of fairness in application of the law a bright and objective line has to be drawn somewhere, and made known to and equally enforced for all. Over a long time, in this particular country (the US), that line has gravitated toward 16 and pretty much stayed there for a while - whether again that's because it's objectively "the right" choice in a psycho-physiological sense, or because that's the best reflection of how American children mature.

 

[Darat]

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.

The evidence is very strong that sexual orientations are not treatable I. E. changeable. However what someone can be helped with dealing with is not being able to have sex. Unfortunately I've seen, heard and read interviews with paedophiles that have them considering having sex with their chosen victims is OK because it is "love" and it isn't harmful (these have been paedophiles that target victims as young as toddlers) that type of self deception seems to me to be probably untreatable.

 

[Belz...]

The evidence is very strong that sexual orientations are not treatable I. E. changeable. However what someone can be helped with dealing with is not being able to have sex. Unfortunately I've seen, heard and read interviews with paedophiles that have them considering having sex with their chosen victims is OK because it is "love" and it isn't harmful (these have been paedophiles that target victims as young as toddlers) that type of self deception seems to me to be probably untreatable.

Well, deception is more treatable than attraction.

 

[Darat]

It's true that different countries tend to draw the line in different places. It could be the case that some places are simply wrong about where they put it; or it could be true that there are local cultural or societal factors that objectively pull the line this way or that. But I think in all cases everywhere, the consensus will be that a line needs to be drawn because on the lower side of it the relationship is bound to be exploitative at best.



Someone has already invoked the "magical line" argument earlier in the thread. To dispose of this: yes, it's possible for a given individual beneath the age of consent to mature enough or savvy enough to avoid exploitation, just as it's possible for someone over the age of consent to be mentally helpless and easily exploitable. But for the sake of fairness in application of the law a bright and objective line has to be drawn somewhere, and made known to and equally enforced for all. Over a long time, in this particular country (the US), that line has gravitated toward 16 and pretty much stayed there for a while - whether again that's because it's objectively "the right" choice in a psycho-physiological sense, or because that's the best reflection of how American children mature.

Serious question. I've already admitted I became sexually active 4 years under the age of consent, I actively persued people to have sex with, people came onto me. Was every one of those people a minute and more older than me deserving of prison, of being labeled a sex offender for the next 70 years of their life? Because that is what the law at the time said should happen. I would be the most rank hypocrite to now claim decades later that those older than me people should have gone to prison for many years.

 

[BStrong]

Why are they always hot though?

Seriously.

The cases featured by the media conform to that standard, but when you have knowledge of the cases not reported, it's clear that female predators tend to look more like Broderick Crawford than Cindy Crawford.

The same rules seem to apply to media reports on crime victims as well - telegenic victim, lead story. Less attractive victim, page 20.

 

[p0lka]

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.

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?

 

[Checkmite]

Serious question. I've already admitted I became sexually active 4 years under the age of consent, I actively persued people to have sex with, people came onto me. Was every one of those people a minute and more older than me deserving of prison, of being labeled a sex offender for the next 70 years of their life?

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.

 

[Matthew Best]

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 in the period Darat is talking about was 21 (for gay sex).

 

[Checkmite]

No, the age of consent in the period Darat is talking about was 21 (for gay sex).

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.