An Attraction To Underage Girls/boys

Ethics
1

Is it bad to be attracted to teenagers who are 12-15 years old when you are over 20 years old? To clarify, I mean the attraction alone, not acting on the desire.

I dont think the attraction is bad when looking at the issue from a biological point of view. This is the timeframe that most humans reach puberty and start developing into adults. In effect, at this age most girls become able to reproduce. Therefore, I would assume it is naturally attractive from this perspective because it creates more opportunities to spread your own seed, which is usually an animal’s top priority.

A hypothesis I thought of just now which may not have much substance is some adults may have a stronger desire to have sex with underagers as part of evolution. If their ancestors were around more underagers, it would make sense that they would evolve a stronger desire to have sex with them, as opposed to ancestors who didnt have many underagers in their clan or group, or less encounters with them.

To go to the opposing side of the issue, I will ask this as well. Instead of the attraction being a biological desire, could it possibly be a pyschological problem? If an adult cant get a partner who is of the age of consent(above 17 yrs old usually), could this possibly be a subconscious(or conscious) effect that will increase his chances of attracting a partner?

Studies have shown(listed at bottom) that aprx. 30 percent of all adult men may have sexual arousal towards children. So, if this desire is contributed from a pyschological problem, then there must be a serious issue forming this controversy that needs to be discovered and eventually fixed. However, if the attraction is biological then a different approach must be taken.

What I do know though is people shouldnt act on this desire in most cases. As most people know, most teenagers can be munipulated easily as their minds are still very immature. And even though the desire can be overwhelming at times, I dont think it would be in ones rational self-interest to act on it.

Heres some websites:

Studies of sexual arousal towards children(Extent of Occurrence chapter): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia

Explains teenage puberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

Explains this attraction in various cultures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

2

How can you even discuss a topic like this without making a stronger moral condemnation? If there’s such a thing as “damning with faint praise,” then your post was surely “endorsing with faint criticism.”

3

How can you even discuss a topic like this without making a stronger moral condemnation? If there’s such a thing as “damning with faint praise,” then your post was surely “endorsing with faint criticism.”

I explained why it was bad to act on the desire in most cases. But the purpose of the thread is not so much the action, but figuring out where the desire originates. I knew some people would still get confused even after I said, “To clarify, I mean the attraction alone, not the desire to act on it.”

4

How can you even discuss a topic like this without making a stronger moral condemnation? If there’s such a thing as “damning with faint praise,” then your post was surely “endorsing with faint criticism.”

Because the only actions which deserve ‘moral condemnation’ are those which are chosen, and I havent seen any evidence to suggest that being attracted to children is a choice. People who are attracted to young children yet manage to control their urges throughout their life deserve a huge level of respect, not condemnation.

konerko - I’m curious why you chose the 12-15 age range? 16 as the minimum age for sexual intercourse is a fairly arbitrary convention and theres no real objective reason why its wrong to have sex with 14-15 year olds. Obviously when you start talking about actual paedophilia involving pre-pubsexcent children, under the age 13 or whatever, then it can properly be called abuse.

edit: I suppose you can say that 20 year olds sleeping with 15 year olds is wrong due to the age difference alone, but then I’d expect you to also believe that 30 year olds sleeping with 18 year olds is wrong for similar reasons.

5

konerko - I’m curious why you chose the 12-15 age range? 16 as the minimum age for sexual intercourse is a fairly arbitrary convention and theres no real objective reason why its wrong to have sex with 14-15 year olds. Obviously when you start talking about actual paedophilia involving pre-pubsexcent children, under the age 13 or whatever, then it can properly be called abuse.

edit: I suppose you can say that 20 year olds sleeping with 15 year olds is wrong due to the age difference alone, but then I’d expect you to also believe that 30 year olds sleeping with 18 year olds is wrong for similar reasons.

I chose the 12-15 range because thats when puberty starts in most people and it also supports my biological hypothesis best. I figured if you are attracted to that age range then you will probably be attracted to anything reasonably older than 15 as well. So I wanted to pick out the lowest acceptable age range to be attracted to.

I like the second part of your question- I was going to bring that up eventually. The conclusion people seemingly automatically make when hearing about a 20 yr old with a 15 yr old is that it is disgusting and wrong. Most of the time it probably is, but what if they both share the same values, interests, and are honestly mutually fond of each other? Although I’m guessing it is rare that a 15 yr old will think rationally, some actually do know how to think independently and rationally, and can figure out if a 20 yr old is right for them. I like to think its the same thing as an 18 yr old with a 40 yr old. If they share the same values, interests, etc then they rightfully could love each other.

6

edit: I suppose you can say that 20 year olds sleeping with 15 year olds is wrong due to the age difference alone, but then I’d expect you to also believe that 30 year olds sleeping with 18 year olds is wrong for similar reasons.

The problem with this is that the cognitive development which occurs between 15 and 20 is (in the vast majority of cases) far more substantial than the development which occurs between 18 and 30. Not even to mention the lack of life experience of a typical 15 year old.

Because the only actions which deserve ‘moral condemnation’ are those which are chosen, and I havent seen any evidence to suggest that being attracted to children is a choice. People who are attracted to young children yet manage to control their urges throughout their life deserve a huge level of respect, not condemnation.

I agree, especially considering that, increasingly, it seems that children are becoming more physically mature at younger ages (just from personal observation, though I haven’t read any real studies exploring this alleged phenomenon). At any rate, sometimes I have a hard time telling a 13 year old girl from one who is 22, judging by her appearance alone. And I’d say it’s uncontroversial to say that merely seeing someone for the first time is enough to stimulate a physical attraction.

On the other hand, there are certain types of psychosis (and I don’t think they know at this point whether or not these are sometimes biological in origin) which compels adults to seek out children, or young adolesents specifically. Psychologically, it is likely in most cases that they are looking for someone whom they can manipulate and control, adolescents being an easy target. But, as a psychological disposition, this has proven extremely difficult to “cure.” Maybe it is something biological which is driving people into this type of moral dementia.

konerko - I’m curious why you chose the 12-15 age range? 16 as the minimum age for sexual intercourse is a fairly arbitrary convention and theres no real objective reason why its wrong to have sex with 14-15 year olds. Obviously when you start talking about actual paedophilia involving pre-pubsexcent children, under the age 13 or whatever, then it can properly be called abuse.

I agree there is absolutely nothing innate in turning 16 (or 18, I think, is the legal age of consent in Texas) which makes a person suddenly capable of rational consent. Also, I would think that there is no real guarentee that just because someone is 20, that they are emotionally mature enough to date people their own age. What if they have the mind of a 15 year old? I don’t know. I can see, from a legal standpoint, why it is necessary to have some criterea by which to establish that a person is just too young to give consent. But, morally speaking, I couldn’t imagine it actually working out to be so simple, in real life, as saying, “You’re eighteen. Now you’re an adult.” Or, “You’re thirteen, therefore you are incapable of making decisions for yourself.”

7

And it’s worth pointing out the phenomenon that, before child labor laws, it sometimes worked out that an unusually advanced young man or woman of 13 would have already left school, been working, and well on their way to a successfull career, with more life experience than today’s average 20 year old. Would such a person as that have been incapable of choosing whoever they wanted as a romantic partner?]

8

And it’s worth pointing out the phenomenon that, before child labor laws, it sometimes worked out that an unusually advanced young man or woman of 13 would have already left school, been working, and well on their way to a successfull career, with more life experience than today’s average 20 year old. Would such a person as that have been incapable of choosing whoever they wanted as a romantic partner?]

I think if they are able to make those types of decisions such as career choices and being successful at it, then they can probably choose the right partner for themselves, even if the partner may be over 18.

So does this mean there should be no law against 18+ year olds being with underage teenagers? I’m not sure that law doesnt much of anything anyways. 20 year olds will date 15 year olds right now if they both choose to be with each other, and they will ignore the law. And I dont think this law so much persuades older adults not to be a pedophile either- I think a persons conscience or morals are what keep them from acting on these desires. So what I’m saying is I dont think there would be more pedophiles if there was no such law, and the same people would abuse underagers either way.

9

So does this mean there should be no law against 18+ year olds being with underage teenagers? I’m not sure that law doesnt much of anything anyways. 20 year olds will date 15 year olds right now if they both choose to be with each other, and they will ignore the law. And I dont think this law so much persuades older adults not to be a pedophile either- I think a persons conscience or morals are what keep them from acting on these desires. So what I’m saying is I dont think there would be more pedophiles if there was no such law, and the same people would abuse underagers either way.

This type of law is necessary, though, in order to punish (even if it doesn’t disuade) real child predators. Perhaps the laws require some fine tuning, so that the rare (assuming it is possible) case of an apropriate relationship between a legal adult and someone below the age of consent is not unjustly misconstrued.

But there has to be some type of law in place to protect those who are too young to consent from those who are trying to exploit them. And I think statuatory rape is a valid concept, which is an initiation of force and should be retaliated against by the law.

10

This type of law is necessary, though, in order to punish (even if it doesn’t disuade) real child predators. Perhaps the laws require some fine tuning, so that the rare (assuming it is possible) case of an apropriate relationship between a legal adult and someone below the age of consent is not unjustly misconstrued.

But there has to be some type of law in place to protect those who are too young to consent from those who are trying to exploit them. And I think statuatory rape is a valid concept, which is an initiation of force and should be retaliated against by the law.

But child predators usually rape, abuse, or violate the childs rights in some way, and that would be punishable under a regular abuse law.

EDIT: nevermind. I forgot to take into account the ones who get munipulated and it probably wouldnt qualify as rape or abuse.

11

But child predators usually rape, abuse, or violate the childs rights in some way, and that would be punishable under a regular abuse law.

The argument is that 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.

12

I may hold a contrarian stand point on this, but I am inclined to think that consent is consent is consent.

Is it within’ the scope of law to “protect” people under some arbitrary number that is held as a universal turning point in a person’s ability to make rational decisions?

I sympathise with the thought of a manipulated youth and the threat of pedophiles and there should be objective standards by which to judge these situations. What I am offering here however, is that age alone is not the standard and that it seems hard not to consider the circumstances that allow a youth to be manipulated.

I am more for punishing parents for allowing a youth to be subjected to compromising situations. There again however, I wouldn’t know what kind of standard by which to judge that.

This subject is very unclear to me and I thought I’d offer a few points of discussion because I would like to explore this further.

All I am certain of at this point is that disallowing a rational and competent 15 year-old the freedom to date whom they desire is not right. Now what to do with an immature and misguided 15 year-old? That seems to be a more complicated issue, however I still don’t think that there is a clear standard to judge whether or not a youth is “rational and competent.”

13

I may hold a contrarian stand point on this, but I am inclined to think that consent is consent is consent.

Consent isn’t a magic “ipse dixit”. Saying “yes” (or “ja”, “da” or “oui”) doesn’t create an agreement. The legal and moral value of concent lies in the presumption that each party understands what is being agreed to, is capable of evaluating the agreement, of their own free will agrees to the decision and, of course, has the right to do what they agree to. The lack of understanding is the primary reason why children aren’t allowed to enter into contracts. By “children”, I don’t mean “legal minors” because many humans under 18 are capable of understanding the central concepts of an agreement, though I think no 8 year old does.

The moral issue is perfectly clear: if you are dealing with a rational person who does grasp the nature of an agreement, and has consciously and freely choses to entering into the agreement, then it is a moral agreement, age be damned. Distinguishing the mature adult 15 year old from an immature 15 year old child is very difficult, but let’s suppose that the distinction can be made some of the time by a person who exercises good judgment. However, the law works differently: necessarily, it must be lenient in accusations of misconduct. The law has to be deferrential to reasonable judgments, even of you might disagree with a person’s decision. And remember that the law must squarely face the fact that people will lie in order to avoid losing their rights. Since there is no objective test for maturity, age has to substitute. It’s rotten, but there is no better alternative in terms of the law.

However, I submit that dumping the problem on “society” via under-age laws is a sure road to hell. The Gus van Horn blog entry from last week points out that society is failing to transmit the cultural values needed to maintain a rational society. Instead, we turn to the government and demand a law to take care of our problems, hence the rather complex under-age computations that exist in many states (where the severity of the penalty is proportional to the square of the difference in ages minus some constant or some such nonsense). Parents should take responsibility for their children, and society needs to stop depending on legislation as the only means of transmitting cultural values. As a radical first step, I therefore propose that parents should be responsible for educating their children about proper sexual conduct. That is it: no legislation mandating the timing or content of the sex talk, or setting penalties for not teaching your children well, and no wierd second-hand responsibility rules which say that a parent is guilty of third-degree rape if their child doesn’t learn not to have underage sex. Parents should take responsibility for their children, period.

14

I think the major issue isn’t the idea of an age limit, but rather where that limit should be set. For example, who can seriouly think that a 5 year old can consent to any sort of sexual activity? The idea is absurd.

But once you start moving past puberty, at 12, 13, 14, 15, that is where the problem area lies. You have girls and boys with a biological maturity and with biological drives towards sex, but the law says they cannot engage in sexual activity.

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.

15

One can look toward social evolution for an answer on the topic, and I believe I can throw my $.02 in.

I read a study of bridewealth payments in Kenya when I was in undergrad and - lo and behold - parents of younger girls received higher bridewealth payments for their daughters. At a girls first menses she is available for marriage since she can have children. The younger you can have children, the greater chances of reproductive success you should have. A girl who has her first menses at 11 has a higher probability of having greater children than a woman at 15 for obvious reasons.

But in today’s civilized society (in general, what is called “The West”) there are no longer these reproductive pressures… in fact, some Western countries (Japan, Russia) will experience population contractions over the next 20-50 years. While we could use the Kenyan bridewealth study as an examination of biological or evolutionary interest, the moral argument does not stand any longer (Naturalistic Fallacy: Explanation does not equal justification).

Politically and ethically, libertarians say “so long as both parties ‘consent’ than anything goes”, including sex with minors, public executions, duels to the death and other things that are morally abhorrent. But also, one cannot be prosecuted because of thoughts particularly sexually crude thoughts of children due to free speech and free thought “rights” (individual rights).

There is also the subject of neoteny as defined as “Retention of juvenile characteristics in the adults of a species” (dictionary.com). As humans we are attracted to other humans with more youthful appearances and also strive to be more youthful ourselves (everything from cosmetics and face creams to plastic surgery and lifting weights). It’s no surprise that teens aged 12-17 who attempt to look older gain attraction from those adults who would find pedophilia morally repugnant. .

16

I’ll simply refer to Francisco’s monologue on sex in “Atlas Shrugged” as a philosophical basis.

Personally, on introspection, I’ve found that I’ve always been attracted to women in the 23-26 year old age range, but that it is based on factors other than youth, physical attractiveness, and the like. It was more a matter of having reached mental maturity while not having been “weighed down” or “jaded” with the concerns of family, child-raising, career advancement, and the like.

It would appear that the argument that is being advanced is that, since some people are attracted to 13 year old CHILDREN, that perhaps a sexual attraction to underage persons is not unnatural.

In accordance with the rules of debate that are posted on this site, I’ll avoid mention of how personally repugnant I feel this is. Just because a large number of people agree with a particular viewpoint makes it neither right, true, or rational. Lets not forget that 44% of Germany voted for the NSDAP in 1932.

Just looking at it from a purely philosophical view, how can one be attracted to a person in their young teens? Granted, there are girls who have all the requisite curves and such and are physically attractive and if you look at sex as a purely physical transaction, who cares? If merely “getting off” is the only criteria, why restrict oneselves to teens, or even human beings?

If one accepts sex as merely a matter of achieving an orgasm that will be forgotten the next day, it scarcely matters what the age, sex, or even species of the provider is. If one agrees with Ayn Rand’s view on sex and the philosophical underpinnings of the sexual act, it matters a great deal.

17

In accordance with the rules of debate that are posted on this site, I’ll avoid mention of how personally repugnant I feel this is. Just because a large number of people agree with a particular viewpoint makes it neither right, true, or rational. Lets not forget that 44% of Germany voted for the NSDAP in 1932.

Who has been advocating that a viewpoint is right based on its popularity? And which viewpoint were they refering to? I don’t see this discussed in the thread anywhere.

Just looking at it from a purely philosophical view, how can one be attracted to a person in their young teens? Granted, there are girls who have all the requisite curves and such and are physically attractive…

Aren’t you answering your own question here? As to “who cares,” wouldn’t it be you, since you’re the one who asked it?

If one accepts sex as merely a matter of achieving an orgasm that will be forgotten the next day, it scarcely matters what the age, sex, or even species of the provider is. If one agrees with Ayn Rand’s view on sex and the philosophical underpinnings of the sexual act, it matters a great deal.

No one is advocating bestiality here. Are you reading the same thread I am?

18

Just looking at it from a purely philosophical view, how can one be attracted to a person in their young teens? Granted, there are girls who have all the requisite curves and such and are physically attractive and if you look at sex as a purely physical transaction, who cares? If merely “getting off” is the only criteria, why restrict oneselves to teens, or even human beings?

Well, for one thing sex to a large degree a physical act. And the mental component of sex has a lot to do with the physical component. I think you are lumping together “love” and “sex.” Love requires a mental connection to the other person. Sex does not.

You don’t need any mental connection to a person to be sexually attracted to them. There may be a “sense-of-life” about the person which may add to the attractiveness but it is usually just incidental. The physical body of the person is what is most important at first.

Also, consider how many adults are immature and frankly, idiots. Are you saying that you can’t be a attracted to a 30-year-old woman until you have found out that she is, indeed, mentally mature as a 30-year-old?

19

To answer your question as to why some people are attracted to minors specifically I think for a lot of them it’s the idea of doing something they “shouldn’t do”. I personally think that, that is where a lot of the attraction comes from coupled with the idea of having sexual relations with someone who is not knowing what sex really is, etc.

It’s my opinion that the majority of the time the attraction is not simply a physical one. Though the reasons are more than likely subconcious they are usually derived from thier system of values. (ie. doing something you morally shouldn’t. I don’t mean “morally” in the objectivist sense but rather the sense that is normally assumed).

20

I wonder if anybody here knows of any research done on the effects of childhood sexual experience. I once got into an argument with a person flatly endorsing sex with children who demanded factual evidence. I found a few tidbits, but so much of these studies concentrate not on the adolescent aspect but on the consent. There is nearly no information that I could find on cases where the under-aged person allowed or wanted sex.

I agree that, at a certain age, even saying “Yes,” doesn’t count as consent, but I also couldn’t find information about psychological development concerning sex (i.e., any study that would indicate when a child has reached a point when (s)he understands sex and can reasonably consent or refuse). Moreover, since most of the basis for condemning childhood sexual experience is on the negative effects that it has on the child, if it is the case that children who consent to sex are not damaged by it, then what is left of the argument regardless of whether they fully understand what they’re doing?

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.