An Attraction To Underage Girls/boys

[JMeganSnow]

I think these are interesting questions and I was rather skeptical at first as well. While evolutionary psychology cannot be applied to individual cases, I do believe it may be helpful in explaining overall trends. Also, some of the founders of the social evolution movement (like Trivers) are well-known Leftist scientists and one has to be aware of this.

So the overall mass of humanity operates under different rules from the individuals that make it up? And what is meant by "explain"? God "explains" the existence of the universe, but that doesn't make it true. It's quite possibly true that most people absorb their sexuality sponge-like, without thinking about it, so there are identifiable general trends. I do not think that women (or men) are genetically determined by evolutionary necessity to like specific traits, however . . . if we were, there wouldn't be so much variation in the population.

[Vladimir Berkov]

If men and women are not genetically determined to like certain traits, aren't they at least genetically determined to like members of the opposite sex (in most cases)?

Of course, it seems strange to think that genetics would determine an individual man to like tall women, with a large bust, blonde hair and blue eyes and tanned skin, for example, doesn't it seem reasonable to think that basic attributes of attractiveness are partially caused by genetics?

For instance, people generally find people's faces most attractive when they are closest to "normal" in terms of symmetry, proportion, etc. Assymetry is less attractive, for instance.

When you look at cases on the individual level, the effect of such genetic programming might be overpowered by individual variations and preferences in sexual partners. But on the macro level the aggregate effect of these preferences can be better seen.

[Toolboxnj]

So the overall mass of humanity operates under different rules from the individuals that make it up? And what is meant by "explain"? God "explains" the existence of the universe, but that doesn't make it true. It's quite possibly true that most people absorb their sexuality sponge-like, without thinking about it, so there are identifiable general trends.

I never claimed that we are determined by our genes to a particular fate as some radical evolutionary psychologists would claim.

But it's clear that natural selection and evolutionary factors lead to what man and other animals are today. It has been evolutionary scientists that have Marxist inclinations (like Robert Trivers, a former Black Panther) that have pionnered discoveries in parental investment and reciprocal altruism that have been found in humans and lower/higher animals. Do we dismiss these findings out of hand because they come into conflict with our philosophical beliefs? No. We challenge them and be critical because the more critical we are the more truth we will find.

Why would questioning fluxuating asymmetry's effect on mating violate the sanctity of the individual? Racehorses that are more symmetrical tend to run faster (it's been empircally proven), but the most symmetrical horse may be the slowest of them all. How is this study an offense to those that pride individualism? It merely provides a possible explanation that more symmetrical horses have had more offspring and throughout hundreds and thousands of generations we have the horse we have today. Yes, that one horse that runs slow has the potential to stud hundreds of horses and that would be something that is interesting to study.

A Canadian study found that step-fathers are 40x more likely to murder a cohabitant newborn (less than one year old living in the same house) than a biological father would. Does this mean that all individual step-fathers are murderers and should be treated as such? No. Does this mean that we may find and develop a theory to why this occurs? Sure. We can and evolutionary psychologists use their theory of parental investment to give their explanation of what is going on in these households.

I do not think that women (or men) are genetically determined by evolutionary necessity to like specific traits, however . . . if we were, there wouldn't be so much variation in the population.

There has been volumes of data and studies dedicated to this topic. Sure there are differences between men and women and anyone who says no has not been observant of human nature.

[Bold Standard]

[Edit- I got so sidetracked on this topic of genetics that I forgot all about the context of the thread. This might actually belong in a different thread.]

I do not think that women (or men) are genetically determined by evolutionary necessity to like specific traits, however . . . if we were, there wouldn't be so much variation in the population.

You might check your premises, here. There is much variation in the population. But there is also much variation in the genetic makeup of the individuals that make up the population.

Of course, we have to be careful in naming what kind of "traits" might be effected by genetics. But one might point to studies of identical twins, separated at birth, and note the drastic similarities in the mates they choose. I've heard of studies that suggest that even the names of spouses in these twins has a high correlation.

I don't see that as a threat to volition though-- there's no reason why a person couldn't choose otherwise. Especially an informed person (hence, identical twins who were not separated at birth don't usually choose mates of the same name, etc). But genes studies in humans, I think, can legitimately explain certain tendencies, or potentialities that are latent in a person; even if only subconsciously. I reject out of hand any suggestions that there are ideological genes, such as an "altruist gene" or an "Objectivist gene." But I'd say the evidence is pretty much conclusive that biology plays a role in sexual orientation, at least, if not more detailed "traits" (physical traits) that a person will come to find attractive.

I think it's reasonable to assume that a person's environment plays a role in this, too. People can be, to an extent, impressionable.

But I'd say, still, volition plays a central role. Volition can override other factors, social or biological. I'd say these "trends" are something a person will "fall back on," if they haven't "focused" or reasoned out their decision, volitionally. But volition has its limits, too. The best evidence seems to suggest that people cannot change their sexual orientation at will, for example. I would say there is enough positive evidence to say that it is at least possible that the power of genetics to influence what a person finds sexually attractive extends beyond gender alone. Again, not, perhaps, to the point of overriding a person's values. But maybe at a certain point it becomes analogous to, for example-- those who naturally like the taste of an alcoholic beverage the first time they drink it, and those for whom it is an acquired taste. They have to motivate themselves to "give it a chance" until their body "learns" to like it. Is it possible that the traits a person finds physically attractive are similar? Might a person have a genetic makeup so that he tends to be attracted to tall, brunette women, lets say, but meet a petite blond that so matches his values that he is able to fall in love ("acquire a taste") and be totally satisfied with her?

This isn't something I've studied in depth. I'm just kind of floating these hypothises out there. Would this type of idea conflict with volition in any way? (And if so, how?)

Edited June 13, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Bold Standard]

A Canadian study found that step-fathers are 40x more likely to murder a cohabitant newborn (less than one year old living in the same house) than a biological father would. Does this mean that all individual step-fathers are murderers and should be treated as such? No. Does this mean that we may find and develop a theory to why this occurs? Sure. We can and evolutionary psychologists use their theory of parental investment to give their explanation of what is going on in these households.

It seems rather obvious to me why this would be so, apart from any genetic influence. Isn't it likely that there is also a high coorelation in mothers who are impregnated, break with the father, get involved in a new relationship, and marry the new guy less than a year after the baby is born-- and in women who rush into lousy relationships with the wrong kinda guy (ie, the type that might murder their newborn)?

If genetics play into this at all, I would say it's more likely that there is a possible biologically derived impulse for pregnant women to find a new guy as quickly as possible, regardless of his qualifications for the job; than that guys have a gene compelling them to murder their stepchildren. I know that it's the woman's seed that's getting killed off and not the man's. But over the course of centuries, it seems that such an impulse in women would be more beneficial than the hypothesized impulse in men. Besides which-- how many women will go on to have more kids with a guy who's murdered her child? Reason's got to take back over at some point, in the equation!

[Inspector]

and in women who rush into lousy relationships with the wrong kinda guy (ie, the type that might murder their newborn)?

Yes, thank you. Correlation does not equal causation and there really hasn't been a strong argument as to why evolutionary psych isn't total horse hockey.

[OwenKellogg]

Being a fifteen year old myself, I think I may have an interesting contribution to this thread. I have experienced both attraction to women that are far younger and far older than I. In fact recently I have been either dating down or up. The reason I see that I have been attracted to these groups are completely opposite. I vastly enjoy the company of a younger women for the reason that they are innocent, and the older ones because they are jaded.

I generally advise my friends that are girls and my age to stay away from significantly older men for the reason that a girl is usually more willing to do what an older man wants regardless of their pre-disposition.

For instance, people generally find people's faces most attractive when they are closest to "normal" in terms of symmetry, proportion, etc. Assymetry is less attractive, for instance.

My theory would be that this is a pred v. prey instinct. When attacking a group (the female gender as a whole) a predator would be most likely to attack the prey that is different and noticeably deformed/inferior. That is, of course, to attack. As for attraction one would be repelled by this.

Of course, it seems strange to think that genetics would determine an individual man to like tall women, with a large bust, blonde hair and blue eyes and tanned skin, for example, doesn't it seem reasonable to think that basic attributes of attractiveness are partially caused by genetics?

As for this it would be the inverse of the previous scenario. A predator would be more inclined to stay away from the prey that seems more physically able to defend him/herself. Height and a large bust would contribute to the instinctive perception of genetic superiority. Tanned skin may imply that they are more adapted to the environment (sun) and would be more fit. So being the inverse of a predator (not in their means but in their ends) a human would be more attracted to this type of person as a mate.

[Toolboxnj]

Yes, thank you. Correlation does not equal causation and there really hasn't been a strong argument as to why evolutionary psych isn't total horse hockey.

We've gotten totally off the subject, but I guess natural selection has no effect on the people we are today according to some on this forum. While evolutionary psychology may not provide all the correct answers (and also comes into conflict with the philosophic underpinnings of this forum and Objectivism), to simply address the science out of hand is not scholarly nor prudent.

I had the same suspicions myself when studying the subject and yes, there are many deficiencies in the study because E.P. scholars try to create correlations where no correlation exists simply for their agenda. Some seemed very silly, like a study where mate quality was linked to dancing ability. However, to claim that any and all research in the area is tripe is not advisable either.

[Ragnar69]

I think the current statutory rape laws are absurd. I agree with whoever said "Consent is consent is consent." You have to take biology into some account. Obviously, when a person reaches puberty they are physically capable of conceiving children, so it is natural to be attracted to adolescents. If some are not "mature" enough for sex, I think that is largely a societal issue, not really a moral or ethical one. I know if an attractive teacher had pursued me when I was 14 or 15, hell, even when I was 12, I would have been ecstatic.

I have a slightly different question. Do you think pre-pubescent children should be allowed to sexually explore each other? On a personal level, I remember becoming interested in my own body and the bodies of girls my age from as early as 5, 6, or 7 years old. On more than one occasion a female friend and I would take each other's clothes off and explore each other. We were both raised Christian, and she became convinced at some point that what we were doing was the work of the devil, told our parents, and our parents scolded us and told us what we were doing was wrong. So that rather enjoyable activity was henceforth denied me until a much later age. I think if there was any psychological trauma to be had, it was from the absurd Christian upbringing and the subsequent scolding. The play itself was pleasurable, and I didn't think it seemed wrong in any way. I guess I was not so easily indoctrinated as my playmate, even at that young age

[OwenKellogg]

Which begs the question, is sexual activity at a young age scarring to that person merely because they have been indoctrinated into the belief that it is supposed to be/is wrong?

[Inspector]

However, to claim that any and all research in the area is tripe is not advisable either.

I'm calling it tripe because that's all I've seen out of that field. If you have any non-tripe to share, then by all means proceed. I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I'm dismissing it because I've yet to see anything of quality.

[Bold Standard]

Oh, you're talking about one of those goddamn MANBLA Libertarians? ::YUCK:: Well, my mom's a psychologist, and she's got tons of literature on that kind of stuff, psychological damage from sexual abuse etc. I'll try and put some legitimate stuff together for you.

Okay, well, Mom's promised me to give me some links to good articles and studies showing proof of the psychological damage done to children who are victims of sexual abuse from adults.

But in the mean time, I'll relay the brief synopsis of why, she claims, it is damaging. At least, to the best of my understanding, being as I'm not a psychologist.

She said it is believed to be connected to the child's developing notion of "self." Cognitively, children under a certain age have not learned to fully differentiate between themselves and the outside world, or other people. An infant is astonished when he realizes that he can control his own fingers and toes, but he can not control his crib, his pillow, a wall, or other objects in the same way-- he can hit them and move them, maybe if they're small enough, but he can't make them move with his mind. The subsequent development of ego, and of personal boundaries, can be seen as a sort of continuation of this process.

When an adult attempts to initiate sexual acts with a child, he is essentially intruding the child's personal space, and therefore the child's fragile, immerging sense of self. What the research demonstrates is that these kids-- whether they are actually raped, or experience much milder forms of molestation-- tend to express in various ways that they have experienced a sense of being violated. Throughout their lives, these kids tend to have problems with identity and personal boundary issues.

On top of that, since sexual acts with children are illegal, and most pedophiles don't want to be caught, and for various other reasons including a lust for control, or outright sadism, etc, in most cases of molestation, the pedophile will add to the sexual abuse other forms of psychological abuse. The adult might tell the child that if anyone finds out, he will kill the child's parents. Or he might encourage the child to lie using other incentives. Threatening the child's security, encouraging the child to adopt a policy of secrecy and dishonesty, sheltering him from other adults who might have the child's interests in mind, isolates the child and breeds all kinds of psychological problems.

It's often noted that at a certain point the child will express to the adult that he feels something is wrong-- that the child is not comfortable with the molestation, for various reasons. At this point it is common for the molester to blame the child. To say that it's the child's fault, and make him feel that he "deserves" it. Of course this causes all kinds of problems.

And finally-- there is the horrible, ugly, physical side of sexual abuse. If we're talking about pre-pubescent children, here.. Their bodies are not large enough to sustain sexual intercourse with an adult. If this is attempted, it can cause permanent physical damage, that will scar the child for the rest of his life. [Edit: In fact, it can kill the child.]

Um, but my mom says she can supply me with factual data supporting all this in just a few "clicks." So when she does that, I'll post some links here. I just have to convince her to get online and actually do it. : )

Edited June 14, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Bold Standard]

At the end of the debate, I still suspect that it's horribly damaging for children to have sex, but I didn't find my own arguments so thoroughly convincing. Especially in light of the ancient Greek custom of young boys (I don't know how young--16?) having sex with older men so that the older men would educate and develop the boys while the men would simply enjoy the young boys' youth. Were all the men of ancient Greece psychologically scared? It doesn't seem that way, though maybe they all just sublimated their pain. But that "out" seems impossible to prove or disprove. If anybody has any information, I'd appreciate it.

Oh, yeah. I mentioned this to my mom, too, because I'd never heard of this "custom." She said that, based on the evidence she's seen, this is a myth. She said Plato has a dialogue or something where he mentions older men educating and developing younger boys while enjoying their youth. But he never says anything to suggest having sex with the boys. She says she thinks modern pedophiles are distorting what was in fact an innocent custom of the Greeks, stretching it to imply a sexual relationship, when in fact the relationship described was entirely "Platonic."

But I haven't read this, in Plato's works, or in any other description of Greek culture. Does anyone know where it can be found?

[edit-- Also, I might add, my mom's not a scholar of Ancient Greece, and I know about as much about the period as she does. Except that she's heard of this claim from pedophiles, whereas for me it's completely new.]

Edited June 14, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Toolboxnj]

I'm calling it tripe because that's all I've seen out of that field. If you have any non-tripe to share, then by all means proceed. I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I'm dismissing it because I've yet to see anything of quality.

The best I can do is direct you to David Buss' website. I've read his book Evolutionary Psychology. He's a leading figure in the E.P. area.

[Inspector]

The best I can do is direct you to David Buss' website. I've read his book Evolutionary Psychology. He's a leading figure in the E.P. area.

He speaks the language of one who studies the brain without acknowledging the mind: of consciousness and volition. I smell a mystic of muscle...

Perhaps someone who cares to look in more detail will see otherwise. I doubt it is worth my time, however.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

on physical attration

If you feel attracted to someone, there is a reason. If that person is extremely youg, what does it mean? You are attracted to bodies that don't show the usual signs of wear? the younger the body, the more healthy it usually is. Compare an 18 year old to a 40 year old. Chances are, the body of the 18 year old is going to be much nicer (skin, tone, etc...)

I must say that I have looked at someone and thought, wow they are hot (thinking they are 20-25) and then upon further glances realizing they are probably only 15. Again - purely physical. Some people find large breasts attractive, others like small ones. So What?

The same argument could be made between a newly matured (just hit pubtery) body and that of an 18 year old. I think that the stage of life which each individual finds attractive varies on an individual basis. Its a personal preference. Some people may find it gross becaue it does not match his/her thoughts. Fine. Its that person's opinion.

Is it morally wrong to be attracted to someone extremely young? NO!

Is it morally wrong to be attracted to somoene extremely old? NO!

Please note. I am only talking about physical attraction.

About attraction in general

Physical attraction is only a part of attraction on a whole. There is also mental attraction. The chances of someone under 18 (random) being mature and attractive on a deeper level is rare. Heck, there are plenty of people that are 30 and are still immature. However, I can think of many objectobabies whose maturity far surpasses many adults.

I may find Paris Hilton to be extremely hot. I may drool over her. However, I would probably have more in common with/and on a whole would be more more attracted to a 15 year old. (Ok, so there is some shock value in that...I hope I got my point across and made you laugh).

My point? Attratction is situation dependent.

*******************

Now where does a "minimum" age come in? The Law.

Bear with me as I am working with the "ideal" situation, not our current laws.

This is NOT AN ISSUE for the government. Nor is it an issue for anyone else except the two who want to be involved and the parents of the "child." If the child is not mature enough to make a rational decision it is up to the parents to determine if the relationship makes sense. If they determine it doesn't, it is their responsibility to explain why to both parties.

I am assuming rational parents. Ones that are not controlling and ones that do not make decisions involving their child without first understanding and talking with their child. There is a point where the decisions a parent would make will differ from their childs. This is natural.

****************

At what age is a child capable of making their own decisions? At what age is it ok for two people to date? There is no set age. It varies per event. For legal purposes, we currently say 18. This is the age at which a child usually graduates from high school and starts out on their own. (Legally not bound to their parents????).

Again, its arbitrary. Just like the drinking age, the driving age, etc...

**************

So what?

So go ahead and be physically attracted to someone regardless of their age. Admire their beauty and drool. You may appear creepy to others, but you may think that liking "grandma" is creepy too.

Just remember:

Soliciting sex from someone who is too young to be capable of making a rational decision on the matter is a form of rape, or abuse, which is a violation of the child's rights.

<-- I like this quote.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I think the current statutory rape laws are absurd. I agree with whoever said "Consent is consent is consent." You have to take biology into some account. Obviously, when a person reaches puberty they are physically capable of conceiving children, so it is natural to be attracted to adolescents. If some are not "mature" enough for sex, I think that is largely a societal issue, not really a moral or ethical one. I know if an attractive teacher had pursued me when I was 14 or 15, hell, even when I was 12, I would have been ecstatic.

I have a slightly different question. Do you think pre-pubescent children should be allowed to sexually explore each other? On a personal level, I remember becoming interested in my own body and the bodies of girls my age from as early as 5, 6, or 7 years old. On more than one occasion a female friend and I would take each other's clothes off and explore each other. We were both raised Christian, and she became convinced at some point that what we were doing was the work of the devil, told our parents, and our parents scolded us and told us what we were doing was wrong. So that rather enjoyable activity was henceforth denied me until a much later age. I think if there was any psychological trauma to be had, it was from the absurd Christian upbringing and the subsequent scolding. The play itself was pleasurable, and I didn't think it seemed wrong in any way. I guess I was not so easily indoctrinated as my playmate, even at that young age

I completely agree with you. (Funny we are both Ragnar's)

I had a similar experience. In KINDERGARTEN one of the girls always wanted to "see what IT looked like" and to touch IT. I obviously was curous about her as well.

I know of other stories like this as well. One of my friends even said she started masterbating when she was in 3rd grade. She didn't know what it was at that time. It just felt good.

I had sex for the first time when I was 15 and was definitely mature enough to handle it. When I was 13, I wanted it, but I was too immature to even know what to do or how to get what I wanted. Heck the first girl I dated broke up with me after 6 months because I didn't know how to move from kissing on the lips to french kissing. She got annoyed and bored. We both wanted more, I was just too innocent to know what to do.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Personally I think we need to rationalize age limits for all sorts of activities in America. There is no good reason why 21 is the limit for alchohol, but 18 the limit for tobacco and voting, and 16 the limit for driving.

I would say that age limits for consentual non-dangerous-to-others activities like sex and tobacco should be lowered, whereas age limits for dangerous activities like driving should probably be raised. Firearms are in the middle. I would say 18 should be the max age limit to be consistant with the voting age and legal contract age, with other activities permitted to younger people.

I completely disagree. There should be NO age limit on any of this.

Smoking: Personal choice --> its your lungs.

Smoking in public --> disrespectful to those around you in my opinion. Not really a legal issue unless it is actually true that second hand smoke causes harm. I am not certain it does.

Drinking: Go ahead, its your body.

However, I think the penalties for causing harm while under the influence should be increased.

Its fine to drink. If you drink and drive, you are stupid. You may be lucky. If you drink and drive and kill somoene. I call it manslaughter. It was your choice to drink and be in an environment where you could not control your actions.

Driving I totally disagree with you here.

At 16 I was a much better driver than I am today. I am sure that I am still a better driver than most. It comes down to awareness, focus, and skill.

You would expect that these would increase with time on the road. Unfortunately, its more parabolic (not exactly a parabola). When you start driving, you are new, nervous, scared. But within a month your knowledge has skyrockeded. The learning curve is steep. For the next 40 years you grow relaxed and gain bad habbits (excessive speed, not using blinkers, failing to look before changing lanes, etc...). By the time your body starts to deteriorate (boy, I just insulted a ton of people), you start becomming a threat to those around you.

Look at how many cases of "old" driver accidents there are. Look at the story a few months ago of the 4 year old that got in the car and drove to the store becaue he was hungry. Who was the better driver?

I would say scratch the age. Give an in-depth/ challenging driving test every year or two. If you are able to pass this, you get a license. If not, you are a danger to everyone else on the road.

I know that I have 1 dangerous flaw in my driving. I drive too fast.

I may like to apply more centripital force to my car than other people. This is just my style. Unfortunatley it sometimes makes passengers feel uncomfortably as they think I am being wreckless. The assumption is that if I move abruptly, I have not looked and I am probably cutting someone else off. In my case its not true, I just like to feel the cars power.

I would pass this exam because I know what is actually safe. Someone who drives 55 in a 65 mph zone would probably not pass.

OK --> that was a bit of a rant - and off topic. I should start a different post on "driving regulations." But I don't really care to.

[Lathanar]

Personally I think we need to rationalize age limits for all sorts of activities in America. There is no good reason why 21 is the limit for alchohol, but 18 the limit for tobacco and voting, and 16 the limit for driving.

You can thank the federal government extortion of the states for this one.

[miseleigh]

The attraction to underage boys in ancient Greece seems to be well-explained on Wikipedia. The inclusion of the painted images with men reaching out to fondle younger boys seems conclusive that this was actually practiced, and it's supposed acceptance shows that it was probably not harmful to the boys. If all of that is true, it suggests that this attraction is not merely genetic but more determined by the social mindset of the times.

An article on the Ayn Rand Institute web page says that "for a love relationship to work men and women should understand that:

* Both partners must possess self-esteem.

* Self-esteem is self-generated and self-earned, not something given to you by your partner.

* Passion in love and a passion for one's work are linked. "

It also says that Ayn Rand believed sex to be a physical demonstration of that love, and sex was only moral if that love was in place.

So the morality of sex with underage children simply becomes a matter of how well the particular child understands and possesses the above qualities. This is not something that could be determined by age alone, but instead should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

As for the whole 'exploring each other' thing- as far as I can tell, it's usually an act of curiosity, not sexual interest or love. Does that change whether it's considered immoral or not?

[Bold Standard]

It also says that Ayn Rand believed sex to be a physical demonstration of that love, and sex was only moral if that love was in place.

Can you please provide a reference for this? I've never seen AR express this view before. (And thanks for the wiki article).

[Vladimir Berkov]

I completely disagree. There should be NO age limit on any of this.

Um, ok. So you seriously think it is OK for a 5-year-old to buy firearms, packs of cigarettes and bottles of booze? Or engage in sexual intercourse with a 40-year-old? Or drive a car? Or vote? Or enter into a binding legal contract? Or serve in the military?

[LaszloWalrus]

There should definitely be age limits to certain behaviors (sex, alchohol, driving, cigarettes, drugs, etc.) because only someone with a fully developed rational faculty (something a child does not have) is able to make decisions on these issues.

[Qwertz]

Consent is consent is consent.

Consent implies the wherewithall to give it. A person without the cognizance to consent can speak the words of consent all they want, yet consent will not exist. The law, for convenience, defines ability to consent by age. Philosophically, the issue is more complicated, but the same basic premise applies: someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand what is happening to them does not have the capacity to give consent.

The 'attraction to underage children' issue boils ultimately down to the same arguments as the 'homosexuality vs. heterosexuality' one. It would be important to distinguish between an attraction to an underage person and an attraction to a person who is underage. To clarify, an attraction to a person based essentially on the fact of their age is morally distinct from an attraction based essentially on some other factor, and only tangentially on age, or regardless of age. I submit that the former is always incompatible with Objectivist philosophy, since Objectivism holds that romantic attraction is based essentially on the recognition of, and derivation of pleasure from, shared values in another. The question of the latter is more complicated.

Rand held sex and romance inseperable for a healthy person:

Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.

Therefore we can set aside any idea of a blind, loveless, purely physical sexual attraction as belonging in the realm of the objectively moral. This leaves only the question of whether a rationally-based romantic and sexual attraction to a person who is incidentally or accidentally underage.

First there is the legal question: Is it moral to desire to break a law? While Rand developed no explicit philosophy of law, I suggest that it would be consistent with Objectivist principles to say that the answer to this question always depends on whether or not the law is just. This question belongs to a discussion of the philosophy of law, and is basically an end-run around the issue.

Next we arrive at the question of whether or not the morality of a desire to commit an action is separate from the morality of the action itself. An honest desire is one which a) would act given the opportunity and works consistently to provide that opportunity. Hence one who harbors a desire, yet fends it off by saying to himself 'I will never act on it,' or 'I will never be able to act on it,' is either evading the responsibility of pursuing his values, or hasn't properly formed them. This unavoidable relationship between desire and object leads to the conclusion that the morality of the desire can be, and must be, evaluated by the morality of the action or object.

Finally, we reach the question of whether or not it is moral to desire a sexual romantic relationship with someone who is unable to give their consent (the spirit of the law), or with someone whi is unable to form a healthy romantic relationship (perhaps due to an unevaluated or premature value system?). Both of these relationships violate the essence of romance, which is supposed to be at least potentially mutual. In this sense it would be immoral - because it would be self-destructive - to harbor a long-standing romantic attraction to someone who could not (or would not) return the sentiment: would it be moral for Eddie Willers to pine after Dagny for the rest of his life, knowing she would never return his romantic sentiments? I think not.

To summarize, the only way I can find a moral route to an attraction to an underage person is to determine if said person is in fact capable of rationally participating in a romantic relationship. If this condition is met, the question becomes one of whether or not to violate the law.

-Q

[Dismuke]

Next we arrive at the question of whether or not the morality of a desire to commit an action is separate from the morality of the action itself. An honest desire is one which a) would act given the opportunity and works consistently to provide that opportunity. Hence one who harbors a desire, yet fends it off by saying to himself 'I will never act on it,' or 'I will never be able to act on it,' is either evading the responsibility of pursuing his values, or hasn't properly formed them. This unavoidable relationship between desire and object leads to the conclusion that the morality of the desire can be, and must be, evaluated by the morality of the action or object.

I disagree - and my understanding is that Objectivism does so as well.

A "desire" in this context, is basically a particular type of emotion. According to Objectivism, an emotion is an automatic response based on one's subconscious value premises. Two things about this are key to keep in mind: the fact that it is subconscious means that it is not in one's immediate conscious, volitional control and, two, the fact that one's value premises are the product of one's previous thinking and integrations which may or may not clash with the explicit philosophical views the person currently accepts.

The fact that you happen to experience a particular emotion is not within your immediate conscious control - and Objectivism does not regard that which is not open to one's conscious, volitional control as being subject to moral judgment.

Therefore, on this basis, the proper way to evaluate the fact that one is experiencing any given emotion is in terms of "appropriate verses inappropriate" and NOT "moral verses immoral."

The fact that one has an emotional desire to do something which one knows to be immoral does NOT mean that one is immoral. It merely means that there is a clash between one's present values and thinking and one's previously integrated premises - premises that one may very well have swallowed whole unchallenged at a much younger age and may not fully realize that he even holds. In some cases, it doesn't even mean that. It could be nothing more than one's subconscious taking a given circumstance completely out of context resulting in an emotion based nothing more than that (for example: you feel an inexplicable hatred towards somebody you know to be a hero - and, after some introspection, you might perhaps later realize that the person's mannerisms and appearance are very similar to those of an evil person from your past who was extremely cruel and unjust towards you)

What Objectivism evaluates morally is not the particular emotions or desires a person experiences but rather how he reacts and responds to them. Objectivism holds it as immoral to regard one's emotions as tools of cognition and to act based on emotion as opposed to one's deliberate rational judgment. Objectivism regards it as immoral to allow emotions one knows to be inappropriate to go unchallenged and to not make an effort to understand where they are coming from. But the simple fact is that most people's value premises are formed at a very early age, long before they discover and accept explicit philosophical views such as Objectivism. So it is entirely common and totally normal for people to experience emotions which are in conflict with their explicit philosophical views. This is a good thing, actually. If one has subscribed to an irrational philosophy, such emotions can be a warning sign to examine one's premises. If one has subscribed to a rational philosophy such as Objectivism, such emotions also are a warning sign that one needs to check one's premises. It can take decades for a person to fully integrate one's consciously chosen philosophical views with one's subconscious value premises - and, for the duration of that time, a person most likely will experience the occasional clash between their emotions/desires and their consciously accepted philosophy and values.

To regard inappropriate emotions in a negative moral light is profoundly dangerous because it will lead one to repress one's emotions which not only reduces the quality of one's life by making it difficult to enjoy the many wonderful emotional experiences which are appropriate but also makes it much more difficult to understand and correct the source of one's inappropriate emotions. Unfortunately, I have occasionally run into students of Objectivism over the years who have done just that.

It would be important to distinguish between an attraction to an underage person and an attraction to a person who is underage. To clarify, an attraction to a person based essentially on the fact of their age is morally distinct from an attraction based essentially on some other factor, and only tangentially on age, or regardless of age.

I agree that there is such a distinction - but I don't know that I agree with you about its moral nature.

If you are a 50 year old and, suddenly, out of the blue, feel a strong romantic attraction to some particular 12 year old, that does not in and itself make you a pervert. With enough introspection, one might be able to discover what it is about that particular 12 year old that produces such an emotional desire. Acting on that desire, of course, would be profoundly immoral.

If you are a 50 year old and are only attracted to people - heck, forget about minors and just say attracted only to people in their early 20s, that does not mean that you are immoral. But it does mean that there is HUGE clash between your subconscious value premises and the objective requirements for living a happy life. The mere existence of this clash should not be judged morally. The only thing that should be judged morally is whether or not the person makes some sort of effort to deal with the clash - which, unfortunately, may be a very difficult task to undertake given the limits of modern psychological counseling and whether the person has the means to even afford it in the first place. But to the degree that the person makes whatever effort he can, he is perfectly moral and his situation is merely tragic.

I actually knew such a person once at large company I used to work for. She was an overweight lady in her 40s - and she was attracted to young effeminate gay men under the age of 25 or so. She had no interest whatsoever in men who were closer to her own age. She was divorced - her husband had left her to be with another man. Whenever a young effeminate man started to work for the company, she would glom all over him - and it was actually quite entertaining to watch the lengths these men would eventually go through to avoid her at all costs. Occasionally one of these men would mistake her attention for friendship and get her hopes up - and in every case the poor lady would end up profoundly heartbroken. The lady was very open about her attraction to younger men and nobody could convince her that, even apart from the fact that few men in their early 20s are going to want to have sex with a fat aging 40 something year old woman, she didn't stand a chance with them because they didn't go for women period. She believed that the "right woman" was all that it would take to "cure" someone of being gay. The lady was even invited to tell her story on a daytime TV talk show - which, for the sake of her dignity, someone was fortunately able to talk her out of.

Unless this woman was able to get some significant help, she is clearly and tragically doomed to a life of loneliness and frustration. There is nothing immoral about the fact that she was attracted to such men per se - I am sure that there are probably plenty of 40 something year old women who have occasionally felt an attraction to similar young men. But her situation was clearly at odds with a major objective requirement for personal happiness - i.e. being able to be romantically attracted to someone who is capable of reciprocating. As to the moral status of this particular person - well, I did not know her well enough to know to what degree she made an effort to work on her problems, which I suspect were part of a larger package of psychological issues that troubled her. But I did not regard her as being necessarily immoral based strictly on the fact that she had such a problem in the first place.

There are no "evil thoughts." Your random private thoughts are merely appropriate or inappropriate. What is evil is to act on inappropriate thoughts and a refusal to examine and understand the nature of those thoughts which which clash with one's conscious convictions one knows to be correct.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Dismuke