Sexually abusing a child while Female

[luchog]

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)

What does what look like? Cognitive Behavioural Therapy? There are plenty of resources on the web for CBT that explain it better than I could.

 

[Belz...]

What does what look like? Cognitive Behavioural Therapy? There are plenty of resources on the web for CBT that explain it better than I could.

Ok sorry for the bother then (honestly). I wanted to know in your own words what the thing was. I did look it up but couldn't find what I wanted relating to the topic at hand, so I came back to you.

 

[Venom]

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.

It's funny because during my junior and senior years of high school (and perhaps this is true at most other high schools elsewhere in the U.S.) you were allowed to bring an up to 21 year old date to prom. Now obviously that means a 16 year old can bring someone, likely an actual boyfriend or girlfriend, who is a legal adult, of drinking age to boot, and of course nobody thinks much of it, but Americans in particular seem to get queasy about this outside of this context. And some schools seem to have no such limit!

I think it helps to recognize that "minor" includes young people 0-17, a huge range for convenience sake. When I was 21 I had a gf who was a minor sounds so much WRonger than when I was 21 my gf was 17.

 

[Butter!]

It's funny because during my junior and senior years of high school (and perhaps this is true at most other high schools elsewhere in the U.S.) you were allowed to bring an up to 21 year old date to prom. Now obviously that means a 16 year old can bring someone, likely an actual boyfriend or girlfriend, who is a legal adult, of drinking age to boot, and of course nobody thinks much of it, but Americans in particular seem to get queasy about this outside of this context. And some schools seem to have no such limit!

I think it helps to recognize that "minor" includes young people 0-17, a huge range for convenience sake. When I was 21 I had a gf who was a minor sounds so much WRonger than when I was 21 my gf was 17.

I also like to remind myself that plenty of teenagers are more mature than I was! I was actually pretty weird and naive. I don't think I was typical. Still seems like heavy stuff sometimes.

As for my school's prom, it had really strict restrictions on whom could attend. 'Twas Catholic school, and a small-town one at that. I don't believe any non-high school students were allowed. I do remember some of my classmates with older partners bitching about it though, and I believe they were saying the public schools in the area all allowed at least up to 20.

 

[TomB]

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.

The fact that they weren't prosecuted doesn't mean there were not legal ramifications. The kid in this article ( https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolina-teen-prosecuted-for-taking-naked-selfie-8b8db96caafc/ ) and his girlfriend both made pleas deals to lesser charges to avoid jail time and sex-offender registry. The plea still got them a year of probation and subject to warrant-less police searches.

Kids sexting to their girlfriends/boyfriends are best handles by parental discipline. (Just as if they had been caught having sex, for which there is no legal penalty.) Now, passing the photos onto a third party is another matter.

There was a case in Minnesota where a 14 year old girl sent a picture to her boyfriend. He then, without her consent, passed it on to others. The girl herself was charged with producing child pornography. I'm not sure what happened. (I'm guessing she wasn't actually prosecuted.) But the legal actions probably caused more harm than the actual situation she was the victim of. https://www.aclu.org/blog/juvenile-justice/minnesota-prosecutor-charges-sexting-teenage-girl-child-pornography

I recall one of my daughter's friends in high school had sent a picture to her boyfriend who then circulated it. The police here dealt with both parties discretely. She was never threatened with prosecution, and as far as I know he was not prosecuted. But she had a detective who she could contact and bring charges should he give her any more problems. I only know about this from conversations they had in the back seat when I was driving them around. I'm aware of other cases where one set of parents called the other set of parents and handled it that way.

There are times when discretion should be used in charging people. Just because you can prosecute doen't mean it's the best solution to the situation

 

[Arcade22]

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.

I can't help but feel that it's highly unjust. The proper thing would be to make it illegal to coerce or force someone to take or share intimate photos of themselves (irrespective if their age), rather than making it a crime to take said photos at all.

Similarly i find it more just to make it illegal to abuse ones position of authority to pressure someone (such as ones students, but also ones employees or subordinates) into sex or being in a sexual relationship, rather than simply dictating that any and all such relationships are inherently abusive "by definition". Note here that not making something a crime doesn't mean that we are required to tolerate it. It's possible to discipline people who have acted inappropriately without throwing them in prison or giving them a fine.

Apparently even considering this, and voicing skepticism about this dogmatic "definition", is enough for me to be branded a child abuser and pedophile. And yet this the way the law works in Sweden, for both of the cases i mentioned above. You could legitimately argue that the law isn't strict enough and that an absolute legal prohibition on sexual relationships between students and teachers is warranted, but to treat this as some kind of obvious and completely undeniable god given truth comes off as extremely ignorant and presumptuous.

 

[bluesjnr]

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.

This is a really interesting and honest post and what comes through to me is that you probably didn't see yourself as "stupid" back then and I suspect you felt that you were able to arrive at the stage of consent as an informed young lady. I'm glad to read that nothing bad happened.

That places your experience, according to others, as perfectly harmless - you consented and weren't hurt.

Except that is now, not the case. You, by your own admission, have some regrets over your choices and dare I say, some, perhaps minor, issues with that part of your past.

The exact opposite of Darat, I admit, but very telling also and something that should be borne in mind by those with a more... shall we say... "liberal" approach here.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't help but feel that it's highly unjust. The proper thing would be to make it illegal to coerce or force someone to take or share intimate photos of themselves (irrespective if their age), rather than making it a crime to take said photos at all.

I don't think that suffices. The problem is that when you're dealing with relationships between children and adults, there's no good way to ensure proper consent has been given for something like this. Children can be manipulated. Just as with actual sex between adults and children, there's damn good reason to assume that informed consent isn't possible. There may be exceptions, but it isn't worth trying to encode them in the law. And that concept isn't just used with children, BTW. Sex between a prison guard and a prisoner is automatically considered rape for the same reason.

That said, it is a farce to charge a minor with child pornography for taking naked selfies, that clearly is different.

 

[luchog]

Logically, I know we shouldn't infantilize teens or their sexuality, but urrrrggghhh. It's a tricky issue.

To me, the most rational approach would be realizing that teens, as you described, have **** judgement, they simply don't have the experience necessary to form good judgement, and are subject to raging hormones at that age, which doesn't help their judgement skills.

To me it seems that, rationally, there should be fairly tight restrictions on Adults engaging in sexual activity with teens, linked to the age of the teen, and the age differential between the teen and adult. Regulations regarding consensual sexual activity between peers should be more liberal, and not subject to criminal penalties. AoC at 16 with a limit of 4-6 years age difference, and hard AoC of 18 seems to me to be the best compromise between recognizing the validity of teen sexuality, and protecting them from manipulation by adults.

My state has laws fairly close to that. For younger teens (13-15 IIRC), there's a 2 year age difference limit for sexual activity, which seems reasonable. There is a hard AoC of 16, with a qualification of a 6 year age difference limit if the older person is in a position of authority (teacher, guardian, etc.). I'd update that to flatly prohibit sexual activity if there is a person in a position of authority, and make the 6 year age difference ubiquitous. 18+, of course, would be age of majority, so no limits there, except, again, for an abuseable position of authority.

Regarding images/video, that's a little tricker, and in my mind ultimately comes down to "society should get over these stupidly puritanical attitudes toward nudity". Again, 16 seems reasonable for "selfies", with 18 a hard limit for photo/video of others. And, in all cases, consent of the subject is critical. Taking or distributing photographs or videos of anyone without their explicit consent should be subject to penalties, with aggregating factors if the images involve anyone under 18, and obviously child-porn penalties for pre-pubescents and adolescents.

 

[luchog]

I also like to remind myself that plenty of teenagers are more mature than I was! I was actually pretty weird and naive. I don't think I was typical. Still seems like heavy stuff sometimes.

My experience is that "naive" if not "stupid" is pretty much the default state of teenagers in general. I've certainly known very few who weren't, and a lot who got themselves into bad situations, sexually and otherwise, because they didn't think through the consequences adequately, or were manipulated by older people taking advantage of their naivete.

 

[Darat]

This is a really interesting and honest post and what comes through to me is that you probably didn't see yourself as "stupid" back then and I suspect you felt that you were able to arrive at the stage of consent as an informed young lady. I'm glad to read that nothing bad happened.



That places your experience, according to others, as perfectly harmless - you consented and weren't hurt.



Except that is now, not the case. You, by your own admission, have some regrets over your choices and dare I say, some, perhaps minor, issues with that part of your past.



The exact opposite of Darat, I admit, but very telling also and something that should be borne in mind by those with a more... shall we say... "liberal" approach here.



Thank you for sharing.

Of course I have some regrets over things I did when I was teenager, as I have over things I've done at pretty much every age.

 

[Checkmite]

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 believe this has been NAMBLA's argument since the beginning.

 

[jimbob]

Once again, people just cannot help themselves and stray off-topic before the ink is dry on the OP.

I'm not talking about off-topic in an ISF rules-sense but the FACTS of the case here are that
1) this teacher -- a position of authority
who is
2) an adult -- a position of authority
when referring to
a) a student -- a position of submission
who is
b) a 13 year-old child -- a position of submission

IS ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL for these reasons.

It has nothing to do with some imagined fantasy. It has nothing to do with peers and normal sexuality amongst the 16 - 18 year old crowd, nor does it have anything to do with 19 - twentysomethings who just so happen to have a sexual relationship with someone a few years younger who might be mature enough to be able to handle the relationship.

If people wish to condemn THESE FACTS then great. If people wish to defend THESE FACTS then even better. Maybe someone is willing to play devil's advocate to try and defend THIS SITUATION but I frankly do not.

To me, in my opinion, I think the double standards of gender in this case is probably the most compelling point of it all and I'm guessing that's why it was posted.

Thank you.

 

[Arcade22]

I don't think that suffices. The problem is that when you're dealing with relationships between children and adults, there's no good way to ensure proper consent has been given for something like this. Children can be manipulated. Just as with actual sex between adults and children, there's damn good reason to assume that informed consent isn't possible.

We assume that most people are mature enough at some age to decide for themselves whether they want to be in a relationship or have sex with someone without doubting the validity of their consent. Based on the arguments I've heard i don't see why it's justified to make an exception to the same assumption in this case. If anything your line of argumentation would suggest that they cannot consent to sexual relations at all, which is demonstrably false.

Swedish law has explicit and implicit provisions in its child pornography laws that generally exempt any pornographic images of youth aged 15-17 years from being deemed child pornography for this reason. Swedish legislators motivation for this was more or less the same as mine. The same reasoning lies behind why there's no absolute prohibition of teacher-student relationships as well.

Edit:I should note here that there are actually some situations where it's absolutely illegal to have sex with someone, including those above the age of consent. Institutionalized minors are an example of individuals that are deemed unable to assert their freedom and autonomy to the extent that their ability to give meaningful consent is compromised.

 

[Darat]

I believe this has been NAMBLA's argument since the beginning.

No their argument or rather belief is that for example a five year old is capable of entering into a loving and meaningful sexual relationship with an adult, that such relationships are beneficial to the child. Sadly since I was active in fringe politics in the 1980s meant I heard such disgusting crap from the mouths of people that seemed to believe that crap when they tried to insinuate themselves into the campaigns for equality for homosexuals.

 

[Checkmite]

Sadly since I was active in fringe politics in the 1980s meant I heard such disgusting crap from the mouths of people that seemed to believe that crap when they tried to insinuate themselves into the campaigns for equality for homosexuals.

Fortunately the gay community seems to have been successful in refusing them harbor. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped anti-LGBT forces from continuing to insinuate a connection; I believe it was last year, alt-righters created and printed out some phony "LGBTP" flyers - the "P" meaning "pedosexual" - and posted them around in an attempt to slander the LGBT community.

 

[sadhatter]

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)

I'm an adult, I then employ a 15 year old to distribute child porn for me. I've now found a loophole as long as I make sure the pictures are of local kids.

You would do better to think of the consequences, versus just attempt to enact changes you would like.

 

[sadhatter]

No their argument or rather belief is that for example a five year old is capable of entering into a loving and meaningful sexual relationship with an adult, that such relationships are beneficial to the child. Sadly since I was active in fringe politics in the 1980s meant I heard such disgusting crap from the mouths of people that seemed to believe that crap when they tried to insinuate themselves into the campaigns for equality for homosexuals.

If children can give consent them how do we decide the line?

If the do all end all is the kid saying " I liked it, I wanted it" and you still feel this is icky. Maybe admit there is something to be said for arbitrary lines?

 

[Craig4]

I'm an adult, I then employ a 15 year old to distribute child porn for me. I've now found a loophole as long as I make sure the pictures are of local kids.

You would do better to think of the consequences, versus just attempt to enact changes you would like.

I don't know the laws everywhere but in the US you can leave it against the law and not prosecute. If the guidelines say don't prosecute unless **** you can go after the organized offenders and let schools and parents deal with other cases.

 

[Ziggurat]

We assume that most people are mature enough at some age to decide for themselves whether they want to be in a relationship or have sex with someone without doubting the validity of their consent. Based on the arguments I've heard i don't see why it's justified to make an exception to the same assumption in this case.

You said, "The proper thing would be to make it illegal to coerce or force someone to take or share intimate photos of themselves (irrespective if their age)". That sounds like you meant that there should be no age at which it's categorically illegal to take pornographic pictures of someone. And it doesn't match up at all with what you're now describing. If your point is simply that the ability to consent to sex should also confer the ability to consent to porn, or that the proper age of consent for porn should be below 18, that didn't come through at all in your previous post.

If anything your line of argumentation would suggest that they cannot consent to sexual relations at all, which is demonstrably false.

A two year old can consent to sexual relations?

No. No, they cannot. There isn't a two year old in the world prepared for that.

I get that different people reach a sufficient maturity level to make that decision at different times, and that it may be younger than some people are comfortable with, but there really are limits. And since society has to draw a line if it's to prevent sexual abuse of children, it shouldn't be at youngest point at which anyone is ready for sex.

Swedish law has explicit and implicit provisions in its child pornography laws that generally exempt any pornographic images of youth aged 15-17 years from being deemed child pornography for this reason.

I'm fine with debating where exactly the line should be. But there's still got to be a line, which your prior post seemed to argue against.