On juvenile rights and the specific case of juvenile sexuality

[kiahzero]

The discussion about juvenile sexuality last night touched off a line of thought that had been in the back of mind for quite some time: When is it justified for the rights of minors to be compromised by virtue of their being minors?

Let's start with some basic premises. I hold equality to be of significant value when it comes to discussions of rights. Therefore, I find the following rule to be fundamental for such discussions: only cases with relevant differences should be treated differently. One should start from a position of treating all cases identically, and differentiate between cases only where there are relevant differences that justify such a distinction. This perspective meshes well with established legal analysis on discrimination on the basis of race or sex. In most cases, there is not a relevant difference for treating someone differently based on race. Thus, there is strict scrutiny for cases dealing with discrimination based on race. There are more relevant differences between the sexes, hence the intermediate scrutiny such questions are subjected to.

Therefore, the question we should be asking in all cases where one class is treated differently from another class is, "Is there a relevant difference between the two classes?" In the case of rights for people under the age of 18, the question becomes, "Is there a relevant difference between those over the age of 18 and those under that age in this situation?"

After the display last night, it strikes me that the question of sexuality is far too incendiary to serve as a useful starting point. Let's start with something far easier: do people under the age of 18 have a right to express themselves (in the context of speech)? We should then turn to the question above: is there a relevant difference between those over the age of 18 and those under that age in having a right to express themselves? The answer here should be an unequivocal no. There does not exist a single relevant difference between the two classes which would justify compelling the silence of minors.

Moving to a harder question: do people under the age of 18 have a right to expose themselves to other people’s expression? In other words, the question here is whether or not minors have a right to view or listen to the expression of others. Is there any relevant difference here? The question is one that social science has endeavored to answer. There's some research that indicates that people exposed to violent media are more likely to act violently, but the only research I am aware of in this field focuses specifically on minors. The question is not whether or not minors are more likely to act violently when exposed to violent media, but whether or not minors react more negatively to being exposed to violent media, to the extent that would validate squelching their freedom of expression. I’m aware of no similar research regarding exposure to media with sexual content. Therefore, government intervention to block those under the age of 18 from “indecent” content – the type of content that might make a movie rated “R” rather than “PG-13” or “NC-17” – is invalid under this analysis, for lack of relevant difference.

Finally, let’s look at the topic that brought all of this up: do people under the age of 18 have a right to engage in consensual sexual activity? It is clear that there are relevant differences between an adult and a pre-pubescent child in regards to sexual activity. Significantly less clear, however, is whether or not there is a relevant difference between those over the age of 18 and those who are only a few years below 18 that justifies preventing those below 18 from engaging in consensual sexual activity.

Forgive the length of this post, but I wanted to spark a discussion both on this general framework of rights as applied to minors, as well as the specific issue of juvenile sexuality.

So… comments?

[dsc]

1. The line has to be drawn somewhere

We all agree that say 10 is too young for example. One thing which has to be taken into account is the realitive benefits and costs of a regulation. What is the cost to a 17 year old who has to wait a few months vs a 17 year old who ends up pregnant by a 45 year old teacher? We make these distinctions all the time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Adults protect children from the ramifications of immaturity.

Sexuality is in the same category as entering into a contract.

Can a car dealer sell a car to an 11 year-old? No, and for good reason, the adult should not be allowed to exploit the kid.

The ramifications of precocious sexuality require emotional and intellectual maturity that the majority of minors lack.

Minors should be allowed the decisionmaking autonomy that won't to irreparable harm.

[kiahzero]

4. There's a concept that I agree with

Minors should be allowed the decisionmaking autonomy that won't to irreparable harm.

I'm assuming that should read "won't lead to." I agree... the problem is determining where that line is. I feel like there's been far too little scholarship in this arena, because most people have an attitude that it doesn't matter, even if minors are denied substantive rights, because they'll eventually "grow out of it."

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Childhood is a transient state that everyone experiences.

I don't see incremental rights as discriminatory. We each obtain our autonomy at the rate at which we (generally speaking) can handle it.

btw "to" was supposed to be "do". Fat fingers, sorry. :blush:

[kiahzero]

9. I'm trying to understand your objection

Is it "Everyone's going to go through it, so it's OK to discriminate?"

I agree that relevant differences during development should result in different treatment, but I don't think that the fact that everyone goes through childhood should affect that judgment at all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Yes.

If every single person in this country is prohibited from voting (for instance) prior to age 18, it's not "discriminatory". Isolating kids from the riskier parts of the grown up world is advisable.

Arguing whether 18 is the age by which children mature sufficiently is a different discussion.

[kiahzero]

35. I have a problem with that argument

If every single person in this country is prohibited from voting (for instance) prior to age 18, it's not "discriminatory".

I can see the appeal of such an argument, but I think it's invalid because it leads to absurd conclusions. For instance, it's the justification for hazing - everyone goes through it, so it's fair. It also strikes me as extremely similar to arguments against things like same-sex marriage or inter-racial marriage: "Everyone can only marry people of the opposite sex (or the same race), so it's not discriminatory." I would argue that if you're going to restrict freedom, it should be on sounder ground than "everyone's is restricted, so it's OK."

Based on the replies of some posters, I feel like there are some people reading this and saying "Your argument leads to even more absurd conclusions, so how can it not be invalid?" so I'll address that. It's really quite simple. There is by definition a relevant difference between someone who is not mentally, emotionally, or physically ready for sexual activity and someone who is - the difference of being ready. The reason child molestation is so horrible is because it causes significant harm to the victim (a relevant difference). Therefore, it would be fundamentally impossible to use this framework to justify child molestation. I assumed that was so fundamental that it would go without saying, but I was clearly mistaken. I apologize for not being clear enough with my initial language to not dispell that concern, and I fear that it might have completely derailed the thread from where I was hoping it would go (a discussion of youth rights in general, on topics ranging from voting to curfews to practicing religion).

Isolating kids from the riskier parts of the grown up world is advisable.
I'll agree that sheltering children from risk they aren't ready for is advisable. Why? Because they aren't ready for it - a relevant difference. The problem comes when minors, especially in the 16-21 range, are "sheltered" from things they are ready for, ranging to freedom of speech, religion and movement, to freedom to contract, to the topic that has garnered so much outrage. Rather than actually examine what "being ready" means, we as a society seem satisfied to pick an arbitrary age, and not examining what that means for those who either are ready long before that age or are not ready until after that age.

Arguing whether 18 is the age by which children mature sufficiently is a different discussion.

It was exactly the one I was hoping to have. I fail at making posts that go where I want them to go, though.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. You appear to be taking three parallel logical tracks

a) restricting the activities in which minors can engage infringes on "their rights" and
b) it's unfair to assign arbitrary ages to the law which deal with responsibilities that have variable developmental rates in each individual child and,
c) the ages that are expressed in the law are inappropriate

I disagree with both a) and b).

a) The law must protect kids from activity they aren't ready for - their rights are a secondary consideration to the potential for harm in those activities. Children have only the rights that adults choose to provide them - and I'm okay with that.
b) I also oppose subjective law. Other factors being equal teachers having sex with grown-up looking, precocious 14 year old boys is no less wrong than teachers having sex with immature-looking, timid 14 year old girls.

If what you really wanted to talk about was c), then why the side-trip about kids freedoms and rights? If what you really want to discuss is at what age kids, generally, are ready for various activities, why the discussion about variable development and arbitrary ages?

I don't really think people reacted badly to a misperception of your point. I think they reacted badly to your initially-intended point.

Your hazing example is proof of exactly the opposite of the point you're trying to make. Because "kids all do it" is a bad rationale to endorse harmful actions. Society witholding endorsement of activity that has significant risk of harm is not akin to hazing. :eyes:

[Withywindle]

6. IS it in fact illegal to sell a car to an 11-year-old?

The 11-year-old can't sign a contract. But if, theoretically now, he or she had the cash and didn't require credit or financing, I don't think it is actually illegal, is it?

Now, the 11-year-old can't legally *drive* the car, of course...

Of course a line must be drawn somewhere, and all nations and cultures do -- and they all do it differently. I believe in the UK the age of consent for sex is 16, and the age of driving is 17. (In most of Europe the driving age is 18, and many European countries set their sexual consent laws lower even than 16). Why would they define this differently - are British teens that much different from American ones? Or are British attitudes about sex and driving (and which of the two is more dangerous) just different?

[kiahzero]

7. I don't think it would be illegal for an 11 year old to buy a car (n/t)

[mcscajun]

8. A Bill of Sale is a contract, and minors cannot (generally) enter into

contracts. Even when they can (and there are exceptions to the general rule), the courts do not have to enforce them.

So, the purchase of a car, in most cases, would not be possible to a minor.

[kiahzero]

10. My understanding of contracts and minors

As I understand it, a minor can enter into a contract, but they can also breach with relative impunity, which is why most parties are extremely hesitant to enter into a contract with a minor.

I could be completely wrong about that, since I'm only a month through my Contracts class.

[mcscajun]

13. Should make for an interesting classroom discussion, then.

:)

[kiahzero]

14. Sadly, I just looked at the syllabus

It doesn't look like that topic is going to come up at all.

[mcscajun]

16. Rats!

Ah, well...can't have it all, I guess.

[kiahzero]

18. But I can be bored enough to look it up on Westlaw

From the Restatement (Second) of Contracts:
Unless a statute provides otherwise, a natural person has the capacity to incur only voidable contractual duties until the beginning of the day before the person's eighteenth birthday.

c. Restoration of consideration. An infant need not take any action to disaffirm his contracts until he comes of age. If sued upon the contract, he may defend on the ground of infancy without returning the consideration received. His disaffirmance revests in the other party the title to any property received by the infant under the contract. If the consideration received by the infant has been dissipated by him, the other party is without remedy unless the infant ratifies the contract after coming of age or is under some non-contractual obligation. But some states, by statute or decision, have restricted the power of disaffirmance, either generally or under particular circumstances, by requiring restoration of the consideration received. Where the infant seeks to enforce the contract, the conditions of the other party's promise must be fulfilled. The problems arising when an infant seeks to disaffirm a conveyance or executed contract are beyond the scope of the Restatement of this Subject, whether the disaffirmance is attempted before or after he comes of age. As to what constitutes ratification

So, at first glance, it seems like my understanding was roughly correct, in that a minor (or "infant," in the legal parlance) can choose to void a contract at will. This would be particularly problematic for car dealerships, since a used car has lost significant value. So, while it's not illegal to sell a minor a car, it would be remarkably unlikely to find a dealership that would do so without an adult co-signer on the loan.

Standard disclaimer: IANALY, so don't take this as legal advice. :P

[mcscajun]

28. Exactly. while not illegal, in most cases not possible.

:)

But if I were a car dealer, and a famous and Emancipated Minor came in with a fistful of cash, I'd sell him the car. :) The rest would be shown the door in W.C. Fields fashion: "Go away, little boy, you bother me."

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Okay, an "enforceable contract"...

A contract isn't really very meaningful if it's not enforceable by a court.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Setting a uniform age of consent provides equal protection for everyone.

The alternative would be letting a jury of other people - with it's attendant biases and what-not - determine if statutory rape occurred on a case-by-case basis, which may turn out to be unfair and not provide equal protection for some victims.

[MoseyWalker]

11. yes

your words:
"is there a relevant difference between those over the age of 18 and those under that age in having a right to express themselves"

Minds are formed, and grow hopefully with others who are around who share honest love.

I am unsure what the point of your post is. Maybe I just don't want to know.

[kiahzero]

12. The point was having a less flamey discussion about what came up yesterday

The discussion of juvenile sexuality is actually a subset of my larger point, and perhaps I should have done a better job of demonstrating that. The post ended on that note because that was what was under discussion last night (in a rather heated matter), so I felt that it would be a good way to get a discussion started. I had been contemplating ending it on the topic of restricting minors from exposure to the speech of others, but was concerned that no one would read it. Of course, it turns out that everyone's focusing on the element of sexuality specifically... >.<

As I said yesterday, I feel that there are still far too many elements of the "children-as-chattel" mindset in our society. For the first 18 years of your life, you live in an authoritarian society, and then it's expected that you'll be capable of complete personal autonomy. I agree with Dewey that you should not educate children in an authoritarian model and then expect them to internalize the principles of democracy. For instance, you would never expect an adult to do something "because I said so," so why would you train a child that such a "reason" is an acceptable reason for action?

I don't really appreciate the connotation of your closing statement, nor do I think it merits a response.

[MoseyWalker]

15. thanks for clarifying

I appreciate it.

[kiahzero]

20. Happy to do so

I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to respond, rather than just out-and-out assuming ill intentions like at least one other poster.

[CoffeeCat]

17. I think every raging pedophile....

...reading this post is whooping and a hollerin and waving their "children should be allowed to have sex cuz it's their right!" banners around with extreme joy!

I don't know if the initial poster is a pedophile. The post does contain clear-cut pedophile dogma that could have been pulled from any pedophile chat board. I do think the post is worth discussing. I'm glad to see thoughts like this expressed in the light of day. So many pedophiles operate solely inside their own heads--or only with those who share their destructive thinking. It's healthy that pedophile dogma is exposed for its weakness, for its depravity and for its true intent---to make child molesting easier and more "guilt free" for the child molesters.

My therapist has treated convicted pedophiles for many decades. This initial post is saturated with many of the perverse, distorted, selfish, twisted rationalizations that slowly metastasize and engulf the pedophile mind--as he molests more and more children.

Most pedophiles will *actually* argue that denying a ten-year old girl or a 13-year old boy, sex with an adult---is an injustice to the child. A denial of their rights, by God! Pedophiles argue tirelessly that children should be able to "express themselves sexually." ...That's right people...According to pedophile thinking, a girl who is in grammar school--is being harmed when the law protects her from a 28-year old man who seeks oral sex from her.

Most pedophiles---when they finally quit lying to themselves and others about what they've done to children---will actually claim that the child wanted to have sex. Never mind the elaborate psychological distortions and manipulations that perpetrators undertake. Never mind that the perp had to cajole, terrorize, lie, traumatize or threaten the child into going along. Never mind that the child disassociates into a stupor or goes along under a cloud of confusion, fear and bribes. After all of that, the perp rationalizes that the child really wanted the abuse. Never mind, that the abuse leaves the child emotionally stunted, in therapy for years as an adult and unable to function or have normal relationships. It's all about "children's rights" and "children expressing themselves"...right?

The truth is---pedophiles don't care about children. They aren't concerned about the "rights" of minors or children "expressing themselves"--misnomers outlined in the initial post. Pedophiles--and those who adopt the distorted thinking that is outlined in the initial post---COVET CHILDREN. They hate children because children are innocent, lighthearted, carefree and sweet. These traits enrage the pedophile, because children spark the stark realization that they were denied those things in childhood. Pedophiles are full of rage and jealousy for children--not concern for their "rights" nor are they attracted to them out of love. PEDOPHILES COVET CHILDREN.

Pedophiles take from children who cannot possibly consent, until the children are psychologically squashed into shells of their former selves. The pedophile is a parasite, operating under an elaborate denial system that makes it ok to rape little girls and sodomize little boys--while he blames the child for being "sexual" and takes no responsibility for his actions NOR the damage he inflicts.

I've met hundreds of survivors of sexual abuse. These survivors are fighting for their lives---battling drug addictions, eating disorders, panic attacks, PTSD, alcoholism, depression---whatever helps them battle through the scars and the trauma that these selfish, sick, cowards inflict. They pay thousands to therapists--attempting to mop up the mess created by someone who victimizes for sport.

"Juvenile sexuality". Oh please. Spare us the pedophile jargon. Juveniles---children who are 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17 deserve to LIVE FREE FROM ADULTS WHO WANT TO USE THEM SEXUALLY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE TEMPORARY POWER BECAUSE THAT ADULT FEELS SO **WEAK** *DAMAGED* AND **HORRENDOUSLY POWERLESS**. Pedophiles don't function in the real world very well. They're very weak, insecure people who find it too much of a challenge to interact with people their own age. Because the adult world is too challenging and self defeating, they gain ego strength from preying on second graders who believe in the tooth fairy and minors who don't even have their driver's licenses. This illegal, immoral activity makes them feel powerful and in control--because they truly are powerless and not in control as adults in an adult world.

This initial post promotes the craven, cowardly, twisted view of the pedophile---and it should be met with outrage, exposed for its evil and called out as destructive and grossly perverse--whenever it is presented.

Advocating for children's "rights" and "self expression" when it comes to sex with adults--has nothing to do with caring about children's rights or concern for their well being or emotional expression. It's solely about the agenda of the pedophile--his desire to destroy through molestation.

Children have the RIGHT to grow up free from sexual predators who destroy their lives in untold, catastrophic ways. Adults needs to call out rhetoric that attempts to rationalize pedophile thinking and enable molesters to remain in denial about the trauma they inflict on the children for whom they claim to be so concerned.

[kiahzero]

19. Thanks for that

There's really not much point in talking to you, is there? I guess beneath my liberal, human-rights-focused shell lies a child-abuser just waiting to come out and harm children.

[CoffeeCat]

22. People who are....

..."liberal" and "human-rights-focused" are not obsessed with furthering the platitudes that advance the agendas of child molesters.

Your arguments are the very same arguments that they use.

You seem to have an incessant need to discuss--as you term it--"juvenile sexuality". I see red flags.

If you are "human-rights-focused" and "liberal" you will not play the victim--you will fully understand that pedophiles also subscribe to these views. You will also understand that pedophiles use that same thinking to remain in denial about and to rationalize their crimes.

Surely, you can see how that would be possible.

Surely, you can see how someone who has witnessed pedophile damage--might take offense to your line of thinking.

[kiahzero]

24. Whatever

I was using it as a tie-in to a discussion that was *rampant* in GD last night in order to spur conversation on the larger framework. However, you seem bound and determined to see me as evil, so do as you will.

I'd ask if everyone involved in the Youth Rights movement is also a closet pedophile, since apparently arguing against the "children-as-chattel" mindset is a key sign. I'd also ask how making one thread for the purpose of discussion could possibly be defined as "without ceasing."

If you're willing to actually move away from your snap judgment and maybe learn something, you could start by reading Peacefire.org, which is what started this line of thought back when I was in high school... I guess everyone who is against censorware is a pedophile too. Then you might look into the "Youth rights" movement (as opposed to the "children's rights" movement) - while I don't agree with all of their conclusions, I do agree with the general framework. Youthrights.org or the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_rights_movement) are both good places to go.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

27. Comparing a 5-year-old and a 17-year-old is absurd.

Pedophiles do not go after the 17-year-old. At 17, one is pretty much an adult. They may not be completely matured emotionally, but neither are many legal adults. To compare a legal adult having a relationship with someone who is 17, with a pedophile having sexual relations with a 5-year-old is absurd and reactionary.

Most 17-year-olds could handle having a sexual relationship with someone in their 20s. A five year old can't handle that at all.

[smirkymonkey]

31. I thought I was the only person here shaking my head in disbelief

and thinking I had somehow wandered over to a NAMBLA chat room.

I can't even really get my mind around "intellectual" rationalizations when it comes to molesting children. :wtf:

Of course, I guess that means that we just aren't liberal and/or open-minded enough to engage in "rational discourse" on this topic.

[Nikia]

32. I agree

Children have a right to be protected from adult sexual predators.

[sufrommich]

37. That is really all there is to say eom.

[The Straight Story]

21. The problem lies in a variety of areas here

The term 'rights' is one which needs examined, teens have sex all the time, so they have that right. The right to have sex with someone underage is restrictive to those over 18, not those under it.

If a kid has sex with someone over the age, it is not the kid that gets punished.

While one can always find one offs (like saying the person was more mature for their age, some are, etc and so on) generally speaking younger folks are more susecptible to things than those who are older. Smoking advertising for one example.

Those teen years are ones of trial and error, where kids are experimenting. Even the amish get that. Society puts limits on that for the good of said teens - because we have learned over time that adults can more easily manipulate teens than they can other adults.

Sex is extremely personal and very potent, much like alcohol :) Until kids reach 18 they are the responsibility of others to care for and raise, and such laws as we have make that job a little easier for parents to do. We have to have some framework, and some time lines, and stick to them.

[kiahzero]

23. I agree that it's a delicate issue

Those teen years are ones of trial and error, where kids are experimenting. Even the amish get that. Society puts limits on that for the good of said teens - because we have learned over time that adults can more easily manipulate teens than they can other adults.

That's definitely a concern, and I could have done a better job of handling that in my original post as well. In case it wasn't becoming more and more apparent with each post, this wasn't a polished work in any sense of the word - pretty much just putting my own thoughts to paper in an effort to clarify my thinking on the issue. That's also why I wanted to discuss it, so that I might find flaws in my thinking and gain a better understanding. DU as Socratic method, as it were.

As I understand the law, there are a significant number of jurisdictions in which it is illegal for minors to have sex, it's just that the laws are not generally enforced unless an adult is involved. I could be wrong on that count, but I'm not familiar enough with the tools of legal research to do a through examination of the issue, and I'm not sure that anyone else already has done the legwork for me. I know for a fact that there are jurisdictions where a small difference in age, where there is no power-imbalance, can lead to statutory rape charges. This doesn't even get into jurisdictions where there are "Romeo and Juliet" laws (I didn't coin the term, I'm just using it) to handle small age differences, but they are written in such a way as to treat same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples. There's also a "grains and heaps of sand" problem... there's obviously a difference between a 12 year old and a 22 year old - a 12 year old can almost certainly not be ready to give consent to sexual activity, but a 22 year old almost certainly can be. However, there's a range, probably between 16 - 18, where there's a question of when those grains of sand amount to be a heap.

I tend to favor rules which can be tailored to circumstances, rather than hard-and-fast line drawing, in just about all situations. Line drawing has the principle advantage of expediency and clarity, and little else. It seems rare to me that such a system would achieve justice more than a system which actually looks into the facts of a given case to determine the outcome. This predilection likely stems from my own chafing at general rules when an individual look at the situation in question would indicate that the rule is flawed. We'll see if that tendancy persists through law school... :D

[The Straight Story]

25. I can see the whole 16-18, but there is a problem as well

The moving line issue, and then the redefining age issue thusly:

the 16-17(a month away from 18, so I will 18 for ease and completeness) if moved into the 18yr old category then might well be ripe for many other things (being drafted for one, R rated movies, etc) - in essence we could redraw the line of adult by two years and not be too awful concerned as 16+ can drive, etc.

But then we get into the next issue, 16yr olds will have 14 and 15 yr old girlfriends/boyfriends. Now that 16 yr olds can be tried as adults, etc, they will be out saying things like 'hey, she was 14 and I was 16, only two years age diff but I get the same penalty a 40 yr old would for having sex with her' and a new crop of people seeing it as an injustice will be born.

To me it becomes real simple - we draw the line somewhere, all sides know it, respect the law and wait.

OR - one other solution one could make up, from 16-18 you can have sext with an adult providing they are no more than 3 years older than you. That would fix the oddities like a guy turns 18 and his GF just turned 17, or is getting ready to, and he is jailed type of thing.

Just a thought :)

[kiahzero]

26. That's a really good point

I hadn't thought of that. It's a rather fair point, and one I'll have to ponder.

Your latter solution of an age range is the one in the aforementioned "Romeo and Juliet" statutes, and the one that I support. I'm fortunate, in that my love happens to only be three days older than I... however, I know we went out on a date in that three day span while she was 18 and I was 17. Many joking references to me being jailbait were made at the time. :P

[etherealtruth]

33. This discussion also brings up the question (in my mind at least) ...

...whether children should be criminally tried, in courts of law, as adults. I am appalled that there has been a real move, by some, in this country to charge and treat children that commit criminal acts as adults.

Even in horrific cases I believe there is a big difference between an 11 year old (or a 13 year old ...)that commits a crime and a 30 year old. Children do not have the maturity, the knowledge, the experience to fully understand the consequences of their actions ... they have difficulty resisting certain peer and societal pressures and they may have difficulty with impulse control. There are a host of things that differentiate children from adults in these matters.

Tying this into the question of child sexuality I believe the same things I noted above hold true.

* I do strongly believe in "Romeo and Juliet" laws and I believe that there should be a little grey area in criminal cases when an offender is within a year (or 2) of the age 18.

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Convince my 13 year old

that she's mature enough to make decisions about her own sexuality, and that it's alright for her to have sex with an "adult"...

and I'll fucking KILL you.

In fact, I'll kill you for TRYING.

Google Nellie Orr. Can you say HERO?

"Is there a relevent difference between the two classes"

Yeah. 'Nuff said?

[MoseyWalker]

36. good answer

from the heart.

I would also add that those 15 or 16 or 17 are in high school, and are making decisions many times based upon peer pressure. That's what parents are there for. To provide supervision and guidance.

I may have somehow missed an essential point of this post, but don't believe I did.

I am responding, as I usually do, with a to the point, basic grouping of words and thoughts.

[kiahzero]

38. My point was to use a controversial topic to foster discussion

I wanted to discuss the issue of juvenile rights generally. I was using the posts the other night about minors having sex to draw interest into the thread, where I hoped that people would then discuss other issues. You'll notice that I jumped on the question of how contract law handles minors right now.

However, given the high number of extremely negative responses, it's clear that I failed to write the post in such a way as to foster the type of discussion I was aiming for. As I said above, I believe there are relevant differences between people under the age of 16 and people over the age of 18 when it comes to sexuality. This isn't an argument for legalizing pedophilia. I don't know what else I can say to convince people of that, but there it is.

[MoseyWalker]

39. hey, thanks for clarifying

I think you have achieved some good discussion here.

[kiahzero]

40. I wish I shared your optimism

I feel like all I accomplished was pissing a bunch of people off.

You actually caught me in the midst of adding to my previous post, so I'll put what I was adding there here instead:

If you have any suggestions on how I could discuss this framework, which I maintain is logically valid, and address the concerns that have been raised here, I would be happy to hear them.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

41. Yeah, because you're *so* a pedophile.

I don't know what the hell is wrong with the other posters on this board, assuming that you are a pedophile for opening up discussion. Reactionary, much?

As a teen, I can say that I certainly want protection from seuxal predators, both fellow teens and people over 18. That said, I want to be sure that if I have the desire to have sex with another teen, at least, I have the legal rights to do so. I think AOC laws do that pretty well, for 16 and up in most places. (Obviously there is variation depending on the state.)

As for sex with an adult, it certainly does strike me as creepy and a little strange. If the issue is "love," I don't think any teenager, no matter how precocious, is able to sexually love a much older man/woman in the way that another adult could love that man/woman; there is a disparity in the emotional/mental maturity. Perhaps both parties could be deluded into believing there was an actual sexual connection, but I do not think sexual love could exist with such a wide disparity. Love in the platonic sense, certainly, although ANY type of close or fairly-close relationship between two people of vastly different ages is probably under suspicion of being pedophilia.

I do not think that every older man or woman who engages in sexual relationships with a minor or a very young adult (18-19-20) is a pedophile. There is a huge difference between sex with a 16- or 17-year-old and sex with a 12-year-old. Also, I think pedophilia is a habitual drive; one act of copulation with a minor cannot automatically make the offender a sick, perverted pedophile.

And then there is the issue of at what age a minor can be trusted to exercise good judgment, and consent to sex with anybody, an age peer or no. Obviously not all acts of pedophilia are acts of rape or near-rape, but I do think that there is a difference between pedophilia with a non-consenting minor, and pedophilia with a consenting minor. Or is all sex with a minor automatically nonconsenting?

Just some things to think about...

;)