scott3x said:
In terms of people who are attracted -and- love minors, instead of those who simply engage in an illegal sexual activity with them (and may care little if at all for them), not all of them wish to lower the age of consent. Some want to eventually get rid of the age metric altogether, and instead replace it with tests for sexual maturity and trustworthiness of one or both of the people involved in a sexual interaction.
Of course pedophiles want to abolish age-of-consent laws. That goes without saying.
I have a strong feeling I know far more people online who claim to be attracted to minors than you do. I've spoken to them concerning this very issue. A sizeable amount don't actually want to abolish the age of consent laws, especially if they're the hebephile type of MAA; that is, a Minor Attracted Adult whose primary attraction is to adolescents/teens. Some MAAs don't want the laws changed at all; I wonder if any of them are exclusively attracted to minors? I would imagine that would be a painful way of seeing things indeed; the idea that they themselves believe that the laws should never change so that they could be sexual with the only people who they consider to be sexually attractive.
James R said:
I doubt most of them are too concerned about your proposed testing for sexual maturity.
A fair amount of them would certainly go for this over the present system, but there certainly has been a lot of resistance to -only- allowing people who could be defined as sexually mature to engage in sexual activities. The missing piece was in also allowing licensed and trusted teachers to teach young individuals.
James R said:
How do you propose to test the sexual maturity of a 4 year old?
And how many 4 year olds do you think would pass your proposed test, so that sexual activity with adults would be allowed?
Perhaps none; perhaps, as I said, people below a certain age wouldn't pass any written tests but could (in some far distant future) be allowed to engage in sexual activities with a licensed teacher or at the very least under the supervision of such. Only when they reached an age where they could pass the maturity test themselves could they be free to choose their sexual partner and/or engage in unsupervised sexual activities.
scott3x said:
The question, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether someone who is attracted to minors -can- harm them (minors aren't the only people who can be sexually harmed either), but whether they always do. I don't think they do, and I think there are a fair amount of examples that demonstrate this.
The fact that some children may not suffer long-term harm from sexual abuse in no way makes sexual abuse acceptable or desirable.[/quote]
James, I would -never- think that abuse is acceptable or desirable. The issue is whether some sexual -interactions- should be allowed that have demonstrated themselves to not be harmful, not sexual abuse.
James R said:
Take a parallel argument: car crashes in which the occupants are not wearing seat belts can result in in serious injury to the occupants of the cars. But the question is not whether they can result in serious injury, but whether they always do result in serious injury. Since some seatbeltless car crashes do not in fact result in serious injury, as proved by numerous examples, therefore, by the scott3x argument, we ought not to mandate the wearing of seatbelts in cars. We ought to abolish all laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts.
This is -precisely- what I'm arguing against, by ensuring that atleast one sexual partner is always sexually licensed. If your argument is that adult-minor sexual interactions can be harmful even so, I would argue that there are many sexual interactions between adults that are also harmful. The key, I believe, is to try to ensure that atleast one of the sexual partipants has been licensed to engage in proper sexual interactions to help ensure that this is kept to a minimum, just as it's only legal to drive if you're licensed.
James R said:
scott3x said:
James R said:
You seem to have no real comprehension of emotional or psychological states of children...
What draws you to that conclusion?
Your fantasy that a 4 year old child can benefit from sex with a nice friendly pedophile, to take one obvious example.
I would prefer the term 'MAA sexual teacher', thanks. I hope that by now I am making clear that not all people who are attracted to minors are alike.
James R said:
scott3x said:
I think that sexual interactions, when taking size considerations into account, when in a supportive, consensual environment with the likely consequences properly weighed out, are beneficial.
Please explain for me the ways in which a 4 year old could benefit from sex with a friendly 30 year old pedophile, in your opinion.
If the 4 year old is a -male- (you know my objections towards an adult male/4 year old female now, I hope), then the male may find it to be fairly enjoyable. I remember reading that in a certain area of Africa, mothers would perform fellatio on infant males to get them to go to sleep. What sexual interactions are taboo is heavily cultural dependent.
James R said:
scott3x said:
In response to -that- statement, the gender matters because a vagina must be a certain size to comfortably fit a penis, but a child's penis is generally small enough to not fit uncomfortably in an adult woman's vagina.
So, gender is only relevant to the mechanics of the sex acts, and the possible physical harms that might result. I see.
No, that's only the first thing that comes to mind. There are also other factors, such as societal pressures and its extension, the law.
James R said:
scott3x said:
James R said:
There's little point in discussing borderline cases such as children near to the legal age of consent
I would argue precisely the reverse; I would argue that that's where we should -start-, as it's something that is more of a grey area in today's society then other adult/minor sexual interactions.
Ok then. You said you wanted to completely abolish age-of-consent laws. Suppose that isn't possible in the first instance. Then, I assume you would like to at least lower the age of consent from 18 to - what? - 13, let's say? Or some other age? (Please feel free to specify the age you think appropriate as a first step)?
Perhaps the key is that, as a first step, the age of consent not be lowered at all; instead, that sex ed be ramped up and a sexual maturity test gets instituted in schools. The test could be taken when one is 16; at some point in time, the test could be substituted for the age of consent laws. Eventually, ofcourse, I think the flip side of the coin, licensed teachers (as opposed to simply a sexual license) could train minors regarding sexuality, as I have specified in my last post in response to Bells.
James R said:
What arguments would you make to legislators to justify lowering the age of consent? Presumably you would want your sex test to be administered to people in a certain age range, and if they passed they'd then be fair game for pedophilic adults.
Not the 'fair game' terminology again >.<. I don't consider this some type of 'sport' where the idea is to poach minors. And I think you're forgetting that many minors chaff at the rules concerning sexuality imposed on them, as the recent sexting scandals have made clear:
"Sexting" Shockingly Common Among Teens
Anyway, I'm not the type of person who enjoys lobbying and such pursuits. My personal way of doing things is through discussions, such as the ones we're having here. I figure that if they get enough momentum, someone else will do what you envision. Perhaps some fairly well respected psychologist, like the one who co-created the Esptein-Dumas maturity test.
James R said:
At which minimum age do you think that a child could pass your sex test to qualify as ready and appropriate for sex with adults?
Why should I try to figure that out when the test hasn't even been hammered out yet? Why not work on tests such as Epstein-Dumas' test and, once an acceptable version concerning sexuality in particular is worked out, see who can pass it? One thing is passing it, the other is it meaning something legally. I believe that at first, the Age of Consent will stand the way it is. However, as people begin to realize that it makes much more sense to test for maturity then directly then to simply know how many times the earth has revolved around the sun since a person was born, I believe that licensing will begin to replace the age of consent laws.
James R said:
scott3x said:
I hope that I've now made it clear that I believe there are some significant differences between 17 year olds and 4 year olds.
Could you briefly list what you think are the most important ones?
Vulnerability, size, psychological differences, sociological status differences.
James R said:
scott3x said:
James R said:
At what age (if any) do you believe that a child is too young to engage in sexual activity with an adult?
It depends on the participants, the sexual activity in question and the laws of the land.
So, in theory, no age is too young.
That's not what I said.
James R said:
A 4 year old wouldn't necessarily be too young, given the "right" sexual activity, in your opinion. Right?
That's more along the lines of what I said. Ofcourse, this is in a society where such activities were supported, not condemned.
James R said:
Let's assume a very caring and "loving" pedophile, and an average 4 year old. What kinds of sexual activities would be appropriate for this age group, in general? Intercourse? Oral sex? Mutual masturbation? Fondling of the child's genitals by the adult?
If the 4 year old were a male, all of the above might be acceptable, again in a socio-legal environment where this type of thing was supported. In the case of the female, I'm almost sure that sexual intercourse would be ruled out but I think the others could still work out in the aforementioned environment.
James R said:
scott3x said:
I certainly believe that some adults who are attracted to minors are nice people, ... As to who should qualify, I think that it would have to be people who have spent time demonstrating that they are capable of being entrusted with such a sacred task.
How would they demonstrate that they are appropriate people to have sex with kids?
By spending time with the kids in other ways. Parents are obvious candidates, as they have to deal with just about everything a kid can come up with. I believe that teachers also fit the bill in a lot of ways.
James R said:
scott3x said:
At present, the people who are most entrusted with children are the children's parents.
Are you advocating incest as well, now?
I'm not advocating it per se, although there have certainly been some who have, and written books concerning the subject to boot; I linked to such a book a while back (didn't read it, just read a bit about it online). I'm simply stating that in a culture that supported such things, it could work out. Yes, I'm aware of the genetic problems in reproduction between close family members, but not all sexual interactions need be of the reproducing kind. Parents could also teach other people's kids as well.
James R said:
scott3x said:
After this, I would say teachers. Ironically, I wouldn't always consider parents to fit the bill; unlike teachers, parents require no training before being entrusted with kids; and they're generally entrusted -more- with kids then teachers are. In fairness, I would contend that most parents -do- love their children very much, but there is a difference between caring for someone and knowing how to treat them properly, especially when it comes to sexual interactions.
How about a professional pedophile training course, after which the pedophile would be considered properly qualified? There could be separate qualification courses for primary school pedophiles, pre-school pedophiles and secondary-school pedophiles. What do you think?
I think you're yanking my chain
. But in a way, I think it could make sense, just as there are teachers for different school grades as well; since I think that teachers are one of the best candidates for such a role already, it could certainly fit.