Paedophilia and society ...

[Broken Pope]

Well, first of all a disclaimer (naturally). I am not advocating under-age sex, I am just broaching the subject because I think that culturally we may have got into a bit of a muddle about it. I have no interest in boys or in women under the age of (around) 22 myself and I hope I don't have to say that I disagree with causing another person any suffering or injury.

Now with that out in the open, the point.

Much as we may disapprove of it, (and however uncomfortable it may make us), boys and girls of around 12 upwards - and it varies from individual to individual - feel sexual impulses.

It is perfectly normal and natural for them to have these feelings. Anybody who remembers their childhood knows that sexual desire does not come in the post on your 16th (or 18th or 21st) birthday.

As if our own experiences were not proof enough, there remains the unavoidable fact that many girls begin their periods at around this age. Menstruation makes demands of an individual's energy and resources, the human body does not do things like that just for fun or to get some practice in (or at least not 4,5 or 6 years' worth!).

So why the veto on indulging in these natural, innate, (almost) universal and commonplace feelings?

Is it a desire to protect them? If so, what are we shielding them from? Coercion and rape are wrong in any setting and those actions can be prohibited by the state without the need for a total sexual embargo.

The sex-act itself is nothing other than a natural and harmless expression of lust and affection. There need be no protection from that. Disease is always a risk - (even between adults) - but (as with adults), protection does not have to mean abstinance.

Are we 'protecting' them from pregnancy? They are physically mature and naturally capable of childbirth. Some few may even be economically self-sufficient if they were born to wealth. Certainly, they will be no worse-off (financially) than huge swathes of the adult population whom we allow to breed with impunity.

Are we protecting them from their own unformed emotional selves? If so, why draw the line across such an arbitrary boundary as age? I know women in their 30s with less emotional stability than my first love had at 14. Nobody prevents manipulative men (or women) from preying upon the feelings of insecure 25-year-olds.

In the final analysis, what protection does a sex-ban actually afford? Sadly enough, it certainly will not inure you to broken-heartedness. Nor will it shield you from the predations of the vicious and cruel.

Why do we prohibit sex with and between young sexually mature individuals?

Isn't it that society projects its own warped and outdated view of sex onto our young. They are told that it is dirty, wrong, and morally corrupting. In reality it is at worst messy, tiring and unsatisfying. As has been well documented, it can on occasion be fun and rewarding.

Why should it only be adults that get to see for themselves?

[Chaigidel]

I think you should ask yourself why you think this topic is worth discussion then perhaps speak to a psychologist.

[Pfundner]

I think you should ask yourself why you think this topic is worth discussion then perhaps speak to a psychologist.

lets be civil, i think its an interesting question. our bodies are obviously ready to have sex at a younger age than we deem "acceptable", perhaps we need to adress it

[Gary88]

the law is there to protect vulnerable children from emotional/physical experiences they may not be able to deal with, its not to dictate when people are biologically able to have/want sex. As with all laws you can't legislate for either exceptions or for 'common sense' which is why for instance in the UK the law is that it is illegal to have sex under 16 and not "it's illegal unless you are really ready for it and it isn't peer pressure because you're a pretty mature kid and i trust you wouldn't do anything stupid'

[Broken Pope]

the law is there to protect vulnerable children from emotional/physical experiences they may not be able to deal with,

Explain what you mean by 'deal with'. As I ask in the post, what is it about rubbing genitals together that is intrinsically complicated or unsettling?

(@ Chaigidel. I know it was a long post, but you could have at least read the first few lines of it. You have to question things alright? not just go along with them because everyone else does. (Ratna).)

[Trey]

Explain what you mean by 'deal with'. As I ask in the post, what is it about rubbing genitals together that is intrinsically complicated or unsettling?

If you have had sex, I don't know what kind it is.

[Gary88]

humans are a lot more complicated than ' lets and go back to picking bugs out of our hair' there is a great deal of emotion that goes along with having sex especially when you don't have a huge deal of life experience that could be hard to deal with. that and the fact that we don't want uneducated kids getting pregnant and then of course the issue of kids who are ready for sex having sex with those that may not be ready.

[KingOfTheIsles]

I think the real issue for debate here is the arbitrary nature of age of consent. If it's 16 (as it is in my country) why not 15? Or 17? That's where morality concerning paedophilia becomes really blurred, especially with regards to the age of the other partner. The question is, is there a better, more sensible alternative to a fixed (and necessarily somewhat arbitrary) age of consent? This goes for smoking and alcohol too, but they don't evoke the same levels of disgust and social unacceptability.

[Broken Pope]

humans are a lot more complicated than ' lets and go back to picking bugs out of our hair' there is a great deal of emotion that goes along with having sex

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

The point I am precisely making is that the legislature has decided (in its very finite wisdom) that sex is a complicated, emotionally frought, shameful and morally dubious activity. That may be true for the majority of politicians.

It is not true for most people. Sometimes its just about having a . Sometimes its about longing and need. As I say in my post, you can be screwed over in a relationship and left broken-hearted without ever going near a bed. Other times, you can like bunnies for months and feel no glimmer of affection.

Why should we tell children it is wrong naughty and forbidden when it is only we as a society who decide it is so?

So, I say again, what is there to 'deal with' that is not a product of our own guilty imaginings? And why should we saddle kids with that guilt?

I think the real issue for debate here is the arbitrary nature of age of consent. [...] This goes for smoking and alcohol too, but they don't evoke the same levels of disgust and social unacceptability.

Underage sex does evoke feelings of disgust and is socially unacceptable. Fifty years ago we would have been saying the same thing about homosexuality. (It was still a crime then in the UK and most western countries.)

Yes, (we'd have said) of course its disgusting and bad ... but why is it so?

Just because something is socially unacceptable, you should still question why this is.

My suspicion is that in 100 years time, we'll wonder why our ancestors got their knickers in such a twist about kids having sex - in much the same way we now marvel at the weird animosity our forefathers had for gays.

Because, whichever way you slice it, it comes down to a presumption that sex is destructive and dirty. That is a flawed presumption. There is no magic in the sexual act. It is neither right nor wrong, helpful or harmful. You can get your stumbling emotional fingers burned in a hundred ways without losing your virginity. The extent to which a person causes you hurt and anguish is determined by a myriad of factors. The extent to which you have had physical contact with that person is not one of them.

Part of the reason sex is surrounded by the aura of naughtyness and guilt is that children are warned away from it.

Why should sex be the exclusive preserve of adults any more than it should be the exclusive preserve of heterosexuals?

[Chaigidel]

you dont see the difference between pedophiles and homosexuals ??

seriously talk to a doctor; they can tell you the difference and why one is acceptable and one is not.

[Broken Pope]

you dont see the difference between pedophiles and homosexuals ??

One is a person who likes children sexually. The other prefers people of their own sex. Is that it? Or am I missing something?

seriously talk to a doctor; they can tell you the difference and why one is acceptable and one is not.

Why don't you have a try?

[Amorphos]

nature says when girls are ready to have sex or begin to learn about it, so 12 onwards should be ok. the reason why it is not is because of the outcome; pregnency. young girls may be ready for sex but not children of their own, this is why the law has to be set higher than the natural time of awakening - so to say. the main thing is to induce a high degree of caution knowing that people will break that law.

the problem now is that there is too much paranoia about it.

[Eugenios]

Two people succumbing to their desires, both of whom stand a good chance of being outcasts depending on where they are. How about you try using arguments to refute him rather than dismissing things off the bat?

[Chaigidel]

the problem is that there is an absolute difference in the mental competence of a 12 year old and a adult

hence why homosexuality is legally much different than pedophilia--- basically you justify the use and abuse of children for your own sexual fulfillment, because the child has no desire for sexual fulfillment.


this topic is repulsive and should be closed.

[Amorphos]

i think it is important, paedophilia and terrorism are the two main evils of our society, so we must understand how it works in order to constrain it correctly.

the term paedophilia should only represent children below their natural fertile age. this is variable so we have to make the age high e.g. 14-16 according to country.

sex with children is indeed repulsive which is why teenagers who have underage sex should not be put in the same class!!!!

[Eugenios]

I don't think you should go around censoring things just because you disagree with them. Anyway, Broken Pope already discussed your response. Age is an arbitrary marker. Anything that is arbitrary cannot by definition be the best way of doing things, can it?

[Chaigidel]

AGE IS NOT AN ARBITRARY MARKER

this is not the dark ages this is not ancient greece we have NO NEED TO DIDDLE OUR CHILDREN

teenagers having sex with teenagers will happen and this is more equal but when adults manipulate young adults for sexual satisfaction be assured it is a manipulation on the part of one and something the other will live to regret-- I agree with most modern age limits on sex plain and simple.

[Eugenios]

What about ephebophilia then?

[Amorphos]

when i was 15 i knew a girl who was going out with a man of 33, she just thought it made her cool in some way, it wasnt even considered in the same way back then. as i said there is far too much paranoia about it these days, i think that just exasperates the problem. can you imagine the stigma young men get for doing what has always been done, the ‘p’ word could destroy someone and its just 'muslim morality' as i see it i.e. way over the top.

[Chaigidel]

again wrong if you are outside that age range; a willful manipulation of a soft mind so that you can exploit them sexually.= evil no matter what the age