The right to have sex - at what age?

scineram:

Len Budney:

You're begging the question when you suggest that I'm "redefining" anything: sexual relationships between adults and children has been regarded as molestation for milennia.

14 years and olders have been regarded as adults for milennia.

Roderick's blogpost, which I linked to above, addresses the issue of adolescents. I recommend reading it for a nuanced view of age-of-consent issues.

Juan's specific example involved a 2 year old.

 

Attackdonkey:

Just a thought.  because individuals develop at different stages, and this is so unique, would it be out of line for some sort of court to determine whether or not the act is criminal in each case regarding a child between the ages of say 9 and 13, with anything under 8 being clearly wrong and anything over 14 being legal, consent provided of course.  perhaps a panal that would be established....

I recommend reading Roderick Long's blogpost, which I linked to above, for a nuanced view addressing these issues. What you propose is reasonable although I'm not sure about all the particulars.

 

gplauche:

women are not always generally lesser than men. If this isn't your view, my apologies, but this seems to be what it is being hinted at.

Not at all.  Women are not lesser than men.  I do think they have different strengths and weaknesses than men, and that in general men have more attributes that lend themselves to effective leadership than do women (e.g. emotional stability (lack of menstruation), logical thinking, aggressiveness, risk-taking, personal strength allowing for forceful representation).  I also believe most women are more comfortable in the subordinate role and that "manliness" is an attribute they seek in a mate (i.e. experience tells me they aren't looking for an "equal partner").

Obviously history has produced exceptional female leaders.  I'm speaking in generalities, not apodictically.

gplauche:

I've argued that children have individual rights and it is also clear that we see child molestation as a violation of their rights.

Of course, that's a question begging answer. Although children give their consent, you just claim they don't. So you define the problem away. According to you, by definition, children are not capable of consent. Of course, from your definition, your conclusion follows - so the problem is your definition.

Len Budney:

He made up the expression "hot chicks" himself did he? You don't have a TV in your house? He'd be doing the same if he were home-schooled, say?

Yes, because I like girls and have been known to use the phrase "hot chicks" myself, especially this time of year . 

Juan:

Len, it seems that you need to learn the facts of life

http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/child_behavior/sexdev.html

Don't forget Kinsey. No reference library is complete without him.

Baloney aside, though, kids don't know what parts go where until they're told. Today they're told by age four, perhaps, but they don't know until they're told. And they realize that certain bits of skin are sensitive, but that doesn't translate into wanting to sneak off with an adult and get sweaty in the back seat of a car.

They're usually keenly interested after they're introduced to the subject, through some combination of delinquent older kids, criminal adults and negligent parents with big-screen TVs.

What worries me is your laser-like focus on how much these kids supposedly like being initiated by adults. Please be aware that I'm not the only one in Pittsburgh who shares my views on the matter, and a high percentage of us consistently carry concealed weapons.

--Len.

 

glauche:

Juan's specific example involved a 2 year old.

Excuse me. That was not my example. I suggest you bother to read what I write before replying.

Juan:

gplauche:

I've argued that children have individual rights and it is also clear that we see child molestation as a violation of their rights.

Of course, that's a question begging answer. Although children give their consent, you just claim they don't. So you define the problem away. According to you, by definition, children are not capable of consent. Of course, from your definition, your conclusion follows - so the problem is your definition.

But we've actually provided some arguments. You've only asserted your opinion. And we've also pointed out that the burden of proof is on you.

Incidentally, that website you linked to about sexual development in children seems to support our position rather than yours. Did you read it thoroughly?

 

maxpot46:

Len Budney:

He made up the expression "hot chicks" himself did he? You don't have a TV in your house? He'd be doing the same if he were home-schooled, say?

Yes, because I like girls and have been known to use the phrase "hot chicks" myself, especially this time of year .

Well, there you go. Not that that in itself is so harmful to kids, but they're learning machines. It doesn't take much to sexualize them. If Daddy didn't have an eye for the ladies, he'd learn just as quickly to focus on baseball or cool cars. I'm happily married and don't go around leering at women, so my boy likes baseball, guns and pickup trucks. He'll get around to noticing girls in good time, but meanwhile all he knows is that sooner or later he'll probably have to marry one, and then she'll be in charge of the house, and he'll need her permission to get out and enjoy baseball, guns and pickup trucks.

--Len.

 

I provide the link as a source of facts. I think that the opinions of the authors are wholly irrelevant.

Fact ;

"In fact, sexual development and sexual play are natural and healthy processes in children, from toddlers through childhood and into adolescence. For infants and toddlers, this usually involves body sensations, cuddling and touch, and playing with toys. Even in the earliest of days, babies and toddlers touch and rub their own genitals, and even as infants boys experience erections."

So let me repeat the facts :

1) Children are interested in sex.

2) Children have indvidual rights.

Now what really is an opinion is your claim that children can't decide for themselves.

Juan:

glauche:

Juan's specific example involved a 2 year old.

Excuse me. That was not my example. I suggest you bother to read what I write before replying.

My mistake, and my apologies. I brought up two year olds as an example, of being too young. But you and banned objected. So I got the origin of the example mixed up, but the effect is the same. You and banned think it is perfectly all right to allow two year olds to have sex, presumably anyone of any age they "choose."

 

Len Budney:

He'll get around to noticing girls in good time, but meanwhile all he knows is that sooner or later he'll probably have to marry one, and then she'll be in charge of the house, and he'll need her permission to get out and enjoy baseball, guns and pickup trucks.

Not very manly of you.

 

;o)

 

Only kidding.

If a child gives his "consent" to sex play with an adult, it shows a despicable adult but IMO the parent is not in a position to extract "justice" because such could only occur as a failure of parenting.  For example, I have zero fear of my son being molested by an adult.  Why?  Because of two reasons.  One, I am 100% aware of his location and surroundings at all times -- most of the time he's with me or my wife, and at all other times is with trusted adults in a safe environment.  Two, even though he's six, I've trained my kid not to be a dumb@$$ -- he's not going to tolerate a stranger even talking to him, let alone playing with his pee-pee.  I talk to him, and know his moods, and would be instantly aware if any disturbing influences appeared in his life.

As a parent, I understand the emotional response of wanting to blow the head off a guy caught in sexual play with a child.  But Juan has the facts of the matter.  If a child gives his consent then there is no crime, just a failure of parenting.  This is not to say that the sexual "predator" should not suffer the humiliation of exposure as a pedophile, which would allow society to "punish" him by individual acts of shunning.  I would also say a sound beating is in order, but an individually-administered as opposed to a state-sanctioned one.

 

gplauche:

You and banned think it is perfectly all right to allow two year olds to have sex

Sorry, you are wrong again. I explcitly said that I thought banned's case was too extreme.

(A previous reply of mine got moderated, I'm waiting for it to show up)

Len Budney:

they're learning machines. It doesn't take much to sexualize them.

So you're saying that sexuality is learned, not innate?  I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

Obviously the empirical approach won't sway you.  How about introspection?  Were you interested in girls before puberty?  What age?  I remember Polly Hansen, the hottest chick in my kindergarden, and Barbara Sillness, my 3rd grade crush.

Hopefully my previous post comes through soon (held up in moderation), as it makes more clear who I think is at fault in child-molestation situations.

Juan:

gplauche:

You and banned think it is perfectly all right to allow two year olds to have sex

Sorry, you are wrong again. I explcitly said that I thought banned's case was too extreme.

(A previous reply of mine got moderated, I'm waiting for it to show up)

I'll go back and see, or was the post in which you said his case was too extreme the one that is stuck in moderation?

If his case is two extreme, and children of age two are too young to be consenting to sex with adults, how is that consistent with your views about self-ownership and consent and with your criticisms of our position? And at what age do you draw the line?

 

maxpot46:

If a child gives his "consent" to sex play with an adult, it shows a despicable adult but IMO the parent is not in a position to extract &