Will there someday be a pedophile rights group?
September 26, 2006 7:59 AM Subscribe
I've seen a fairly frequent amount of letters to the editor of our local paper about protecting children from pedophiles and heard in the news with increasing frequency about child sex offenders, so I was wondering..
Is there going to be a new fear-term dubbed pedophobia, in like manner that anti-gays are termed homophobics?
Any prediction that the concept of "hating" pedophiles will move from acceptable (currently) to unacceptable (later), just as homosexuality was illegal and socially detrimental to admit, in the not-so-recent past?
Do you anticipate there will someday be a rights advocacy group for pedophiles, re-educating us that pedophilia is a genetic condition and a legitimate lifestyle?
I am not attempting to imply that homosexuals are or aren't as "legitimate" as pedophiles, I am merely curious about the seeming current state of public perception about the two groups in comparison to current thinking on pedophiles in comparison to then-thinking on homosexuality - no disrespect intended in either direction.
Is there going to be a new fear-term dubbed pedophobia, in like manner that anti-gays are termed homophobics?
Any prediction that the concept of "hating" pedophiles will move from acceptable (currently) to unacceptable (later), just as homosexuality was illegal and socially detrimental to admit, in the not-so-recent past?
Do you anticipate there will someday be a rights advocacy group for pedophiles, re-educating us that pedophilia is a genetic condition and a legitimate lifestyle?
I am not attempting to imply that homosexuals are or aren't as "legitimate" as pedophiles, I am merely curious about the seeming current state of public perception about the two groups in comparison to current thinking on pedophiles in comparison to then-thinking on homosexuality - no disrespect intended in either direction.
This is a bit chatfilter, no?
In any case, no. Pedophilia is not like homosexuality...one takes advantage of those who cannot make logical and rational and legal decisions for themselves, the other (generally) involved logical and rational adults behaving in a legal manner. Not equivalent in any way.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:14 AM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
In any case, no. Pedophilia is not like homosexuality...one takes advantage of those who cannot make logical and rational and legal decisions for themselves, the other (generally) involved logical and rational adults behaving in a legal manner. Not equivalent in any way.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:14 AM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
There is a group of delisional pedophiles on the web that believes it is persecuted, according to this New York Times article. Pretty much everyone else in the universe disagrees, and I don't see that changing in my lifetime.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 8:23 AM on September 26, 2006
posted by croutonsupafreak at 8:23 AM on September 26, 2006
Others have already explained why pedophilia is bad (and I'm sure we'll see more of the same).
What is a problem in my mind is the fear of potential pedophiles everywhere. Since pedophile cases invariably get a lot of attention in the media, this leads people to believe that there is a pedophile hiding around every corner. This makes people suspicious to an unwarranted degree.
posted by grouse at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2006
What is a problem in my mind is the fear of potential pedophiles everywhere. Since pedophile cases invariably get a lot of attention in the media, this leads people to believe that there is a pedophile hiding around every corner. This makes people suspicious to an unwarranted degree.
posted by grouse at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2006
When did you stop beating your wife?
The issue of consent, and the ability to give it, is central to how one should and might think about pedophilia. Not being able to see that before asking your question makes me think that you're going to have a hard time making the kinds of social distinctions necessary to understand society and social justice. In other words, if you didn't already understand the answer to your question I bet you're going to have a hard time understand why, even if a pedophile's rights organization begins to gain publicity, their position will be untenable.
On the other hand, what we may see is a reduction in fear-mongering about pedophilia. That's a different thing, though, and something you may also not understand.
posted by OmieWise at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
The issue of consent, and the ability to give it, is central to how one should and might think about pedophilia. Not being able to see that before asking your question makes me think that you're going to have a hard time making the kinds of social distinctions necessary to understand society and social justice. In other words, if you didn't already understand the answer to your question I bet you're going to have a hard time understand why, even if a pedophile's rights organization begins to gain publicity, their position will be untenable.
On the other hand, what we may see is a reduction in fear-mongering about pedophilia. That's a different thing, though, and something you may also not understand.
posted by OmieWise at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
In order for what you suggest to ever happen, such a group would have to demonstrate to a high degree that pedophilia is akin to other philias -- ie: just another sexual fetish -- and would furthermore have to demonstrate complete willingness to sublimate their desires in socially acceptable/moral ways.
These arguments are sometimes put forward, and to a degree, they are true -- there cannot and should not be a criminalization of any desire -- rather, acts can and in this case should be criminalized (or remain so). In reality, there are still so many people fearful of completely understandable, non-threatening differences (skin colour, sexual orientation, etc), I doubt that people would be able to overcome their fear (or loathing, if you prefer) of this group. Indeed, it's hard to see how parents could come to think of pedophiles as other than potential perpetrators of crimes against their children.
posted by dreamsign at 8:49 AM on September 26, 2006
These arguments are sometimes put forward, and to a degree, they are true -- there cannot and should not be a criminalization of any desire -- rather, acts can and in this case should be criminalized (or remain so). In reality, there are still so many people fearful of completely understandable, non-threatening differences (skin colour, sexual orientation, etc), I doubt that people would be able to overcome their fear (or loathing, if you prefer) of this group. Indeed, it's hard to see how parents could come to think of pedophiles as other than potential perpetrators of crimes against their children.
posted by dreamsign at 8:49 AM on September 26, 2006
Yes. Yes. Yes. It has already started.
Any consensual sex between adults is already completely legal, right? Gay men, gay women, straight couples, three ways, etc., it's all fair game.
Consensual hetero sex between teenagers is completely accepted and tolerated, and we begin to see open gay teen couples in more liberal cities and towns. Yes, there are some backwards places, but by and large the culture has begun to accept all permutations within generations and continues to move in the direction of full acceptance.
The only prohibition and taboo remaining seems to be between teens and adults, and it's usually presented as creepy older guy/priest praying on younger pre-teen boy. But in the eyes of most state laws this distinction is meaningless (some exceptions, but the trend is in place) - 16 is a magic cutoff for sexual consent. Over 16 and you are one thing, and under 16 you are still a kid. Some say 18, others say 14, but you get the general idea.
The culture seems to be revolted at the idea of old guys and young boys (how much of this is residual homophobia) but creepy NAMBLA guys are not the way this is going to become accepted anyway.
Pedophilia will become accepted because of stories like those we've heard in the news recently - attractive women in their 20's (most teachers) with boys 13 and up.
Look at the media coverage these women get - it's soft lighting, they have ample time to tell their story on television, talk about thier feelings, how they fell in love, etc. And the law treats them differently too - they get lighter sentences. In one recent case, the teacher only got 30 days jail time after taking a 15-yr old boy across state lines to a Vegas casino. She was charged not only with sex with a minor but kidnapping as well, and still her 12 year sentence was chopped down to time served and 30 days. These lighter sentences for female offenders are the trend in these kinds of cases.
Furthermore, there really isn't the stigma attached to women doing this as with men, so the culture seems to acknowledge some difference even if it can't or won't articulate it.
So here's how pedophilia of all stripes will become accepted in society - these kinds of crimes involving female predators will emerge in the public consciousness with greater frequency, and then some enterprising lawyer defending a male offender will make the argument that it is unfair for the punishment to differ so greatly when the genders of the offender and victim are reversed.
Then years later another lawyer will make the argument that it is discriminatory to punish the male homosexual offender differently than the male heterosexual offender, because gays get (or should get) equal treatment under the law. In other words, the "softest" (from the culture's persepctive, not mine) form of pedophilia, a 21 yr old woman and a 15 yr old boy, and the "worst" a 51 yr old male and a 13 yr old boy, are indistinguishable in the eys of the law, but the softest case as we see, is setting the standard, because fair treatment means everyone wants the lightest sentence, not the harshest.
Eventually courts will seek the testimony of the victim (basically introducting the consent of the minor without calling it that) to distinguish cases in which the minor was willing to participate of their own free will, and those that involve molestation, rape, coercion, etc., i.e. the adult forces the minor.
This all may happen over the course of a few decades, but that's about how long it took for gays, and for women it took centuries. It's going to happen because something bizarre in our culture is motivating more an more adults to want to have sex with kids, and that motivating force is not being addressed at all, so the law will have to conform as what was once an underground perversion becomes more of a non-trivial minority.
Once this happens, you will start to have the institutions turn a blind eye to consensual intergenerational sex the way they turn a blind eye to sex between teenagers.
Ironically and from a broader historical perspective, this is basically restoring things to the way they were in ancient Greece, Rome, etc. See ephebophilia
For the record, I think it is deplorable and disgusting for adults to seek out and take advantage of children in this way (our socisety treats teens as children up to 18), but I'm not naive enough to think that the culture isn't trending to more permissiveness, openness, freakishness, etc whatever word you want to use.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:13 AM on September 26, 2006
Any consensual sex between adults is already completely legal, right? Gay men, gay women, straight couples, three ways, etc., it's all fair game.
Consensual hetero sex between teenagers is completely accepted and tolerated, and we begin to see open gay teen couples in more liberal cities and towns. Yes, there are some backwards places, but by and large the culture has begun to accept all permutations within generations and continues to move in the direction of full acceptance.
The only prohibition and taboo remaining seems to be between teens and adults, and it's usually presented as creepy older guy/priest praying on younger pre-teen boy. But in the eyes of most state laws this distinction is meaningless (some exceptions, but the trend is in place) - 16 is a magic cutoff for sexual consent. Over 16 and you are one thing, and under 16 you are still a kid. Some say 18, others say 14, but you get the general idea.
The culture seems to be revolted at the idea of old guys and young boys (how much of this is residual homophobia) but creepy NAMBLA guys are not the way this is going to become accepted anyway.
Pedophilia will become accepted because of stories like those we've heard in the news recently - attractive women in their 20's (most teachers) with boys 13 and up.
Look at the media coverage these women get - it's soft lighting, they have ample time to tell their story on television, talk about thier feelings, how they fell in love, etc. And the law treats them differently too - they get lighter sentences. In one recent case, the teacher only got 30 days jail time after taking a 15-yr old boy across state lines to a Vegas casino. She was charged not only with sex with a minor but kidnapping as well, and still her 12 year sentence was chopped down to time served and 30 days. These lighter sentences for female offenders are the trend in these kinds of cases.
Furthermore, there really isn't the stigma attached to women doing this as with men, so the culture seems to acknowledge some difference even if it can't or won't articulate it.
So here's how pedophilia of all stripes will become accepted in society - these kinds of crimes involving female predators will emerge in the public consciousness with greater frequency, and then some enterprising lawyer defending a male offender will make the argument that it is unfair for the punishment to differ so greatly when the genders of the offender and victim are reversed.
Then years later another lawyer will make the argument that it is discriminatory to punish the male homosexual offender differently than the male heterosexual offender, because gays get (or should get) equal treatment under the law. In other words, the "softest" (from the culture's persepctive, not mine) form of pedophilia, a 21 yr old woman and a 15 yr old boy, and the "worst" a 51 yr old male and a 13 yr old boy, are indistinguishable in the eys of the law, but the softest case as we see, is setting the standard, because fair treatment means everyone wants the lightest sentence, not the harshest.
Eventually courts will seek the testimony of the victim (basically introducting the consent of the minor without calling it that) to distinguish cases in which the minor was willing to participate of their own free will, and those that involve molestation, rape, coercion, etc., i.e. the adult forces the minor.
This all may happen over the course of a few decades, but that's about how long it took for gays, and for women it took centuries. It's going to happen because something bizarre in our culture is motivating more an more adults to want to have sex with kids, and that motivating force is not being addressed at all, so the law will have to conform as what was once an underground perversion becomes more of a non-trivial minority.
Once this happens, you will start to have the institutions turn a blind eye to consensual intergenerational sex the way they turn a blind eye to sex between teenagers.
Ironically and from a broader historical perspective, this is basically restoring things to the way they were in ancient Greece, Rome, etc. See ephebophilia
For the record, I think it is deplorable and disgusting for adults to seek out and take advantage of children in this way (our socisety treats teens as children up to 18), but I'm not naive enough to think that the culture isn't trending to more permissiveness, openness, freakishness, etc whatever word you want to use.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:13 AM on September 26, 2006
I want to distinguish what I wrotne from what dreamsign is saying (I think), which is that you will never get everyone to accept some behavior. There are men in their 20's who think women should stay at home.
What I'm talking about is the law you don't legalize pedophilia, you redefine it as something that is already legal, and already protected under the constitution. Gay sex is legal not because there is a law that says "gay sex is legal" but because (a) hetero sex and sodomy between hetero couples was held by the Supreme. Ct to be a matter of privacy, privacy being a constitutional right, and (b) 14th (15th?) amendment requires equal protection under the law. Therefore gay sex (sodomy between consenting men each of whom have a right to privacy) cannot be illegal.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:21 AM on September 26, 2006
What I'm talking about is the law you don't legalize pedophilia, you redefine it as something that is already legal, and already protected under the constitution. Gay sex is legal not because there is a law that says "gay sex is legal" but because (a) hetero sex and sodomy between hetero couples was held by the Supreme. Ct to be a matter of privacy, privacy being a constitutional right, and (b) 14th (15th?) amendment requires equal protection under the law. Therefore gay sex (sodomy between consenting men each of whom have a right to privacy) cannot be illegal.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:21 AM on September 26, 2006
Vanoakenfold, part of your question is predicated on a false conclusion: the rate of sexual crimes against children isn't increasing. My google-fu is failing me at the moment (fellow mefites, hope me!), but I know I read during the whole "Summer of the Missing Child" a few years ago that the actual FBI/Dept of Justice stats show that the rate of crimes against children (as with all violent crime in general) has actually been declining over the past several decades.
What is increasing, however, is the level of news coverage particular (usually sensational) cases receive, leading to a general impression (which is starting to border on hysteria) of a new "epidemic" of pedophilia -- hence all those letters to the editor in your local paper. What's also increasing dramatically is the number of people assigned to the public sex offender registries, not because there's been a correlating increase in sex offenses, but because there's a financial incentive for states to do so -- the more people they put on the registries, the more federal funds they receive.
On preview: oh dear, I'll let someone else take on pastabagel. I'm late fora three-way involving dogs work.
posted by scody at 9:34 AM on September 26, 2006
What is increasing, however, is the level of news coverage particular (usually sensational) cases receive, leading to a general impression (which is starting to border on hysteria) of a new "epidemic" of pedophilia -- hence all those letters to the editor in your local paper. What's also increasing dramatically is the number of people assigned to the public sex offender registries, not because there's been a correlating increase in sex offenses, but because there's a financial incentive for states to do so -- the more people they put on the registries, the more federal funds they receive.
On preview: oh dear, I'll let someone else take on pastabagel. I'm late for
posted by scody at 9:34 AM on September 26, 2006
i don't see pedophilia as ever becoming acceptable to the american public ... the idea that children do not have the experience or the self-confidence to be able to give informed consent to sex is not only well-established in our society, but it's quite defensible, too
the only change that i think is possible is what the age of consent should be ... this map from wikipedia shows that some states have it at 18, some 17, and quite a few at 16, including my state ... canada's is 14
it's my view that 16 is reasonable and workable ... it's also my view that anyone who wanted to take up with someone that young isn't in his right mind ... (no exception for teenagers in that statement - they're not in their right minds by definition)
posted by pyramid termite at 9:54 AM on September 26, 2006
the only change that i think is possible is what the age of consent should be ... this map from wikipedia shows that some states have it at 18, some 17, and quite a few at 16, including my state ... canada's is 14
it's my view that 16 is reasonable and workable ... it's also my view that anyone who wanted to take up with someone that young isn't in his right mind ... (no exception for teenagers in that statement - they're not in their right minds by definition)
posted by pyramid termite at 9:54 AM on September 26, 2006
Canada is currently reviewing the age of consent with a view to raising it to 16.
With regard to defensibility, consider that all majority/minority distinctions are infringements of the guarantee of equality -- yet are so thoroughly written into the common law as to make the question of challenge along those lines ludicrous. We will continue to disregard the will of minors to smoke, drink alcohol, contract, and consent to numerous other behaviours for the foreseeable future.
posted by dreamsign at 9:58 AM on September 26, 2006
With regard to defensibility, consider that all majority/minority distinctions are infringements of the guarantee of equality -- yet are so thoroughly written into the common law as to make the question of challenge along those lines ludicrous. We will continue to disregard the will of minors to smoke, drink alcohol, contract, and consent to numerous other behaviours for the foreseeable future.
posted by dreamsign at 9:58 AM on September 26, 2006
Pastabagel: It's going to happen because something bizarre in our culture is motivating more an more adults to want to have sex with kids
Where are you getting that idea from?
Once this happens, you will start to have the institutions turn a blind eye to consensual intergenerational sex the way they turn a blind eye to sex between teenagers.
How does the law "turn a blind eye" to sex between teenagers? I can't quite make sense of that statement.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:10 AM on September 26, 2006
Where are you getting that idea from?
Once this happens, you will start to have the institutions turn a blind eye to consensual intergenerational sex the way they turn a blind eye to sex between teenagers.
How does the law "turn a blind eye" to sex between teenagers? I can't quite make sense of that statement.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:10 AM on September 26, 2006
With regard to defensibility, consider that all majority/minority distinctions are infringements of the guarantee of equality
neither the universe or the facts of human biology make any such guarantee, no matter what a government may say ... this is why the will of minors is disregarded ... not because of legalities, but because of the reality of the human condition
posted by pyramid termite at 10:36 AM on September 26, 2006
neither the universe or the facts of human biology make any such guarantee, no matter what a government may say ... this is why the will of minors is disregarded ... not because of legalities, but because of the reality of the human condition
posted by pyramid termite at 10:36 AM on September 26, 2006
Okay, I gues I should have written that we are becoming more and more aware that this behavior isn't uncommon, but it doesn't change anything.
How does the law "turn a blind eye" to sex between teenagers? I can't quite make sense of that statement.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:10 PM EST on September 26 [+fave] [!]
The law as it is applied routinely ignores sex between teenagers, which in many states is illegal based on how their statutory rape laws are written. See this. It's just very rarely prosecuted. I don't understand your confusion.
Basically, the way the laws are enforced will change even if the blackletter text doesn't.
And the questioner makes it clear he's referring to increasing frequency of news stories about pedophiles, so there's no false assumption as scody mentioned. I echoed this when I wrote "these kinds of crimes involving female predators will emerge in the public consciousness with greater frequency". Not that the crimes will be more frequent, but that we will hear about them more, and we will become more aware of it.
And you comments about whether or not the actual number of pediphiles is increasing, totally and utterly irrelevant. Did the number of homosexuals as a precentage of the population increase between 1973 and now? Probably not. Would it matter if it did? Does that affect in whether it is legal under the constitution?
I can't believe people think that the law and societal mores will remain fixed and unchanged on this issue, when they have not been fixed for any other behavior or personal rights issue. Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the official psychiatirc diagnostic manual as recently as 1973. Now, thirty years later, after court fights over adoption rights, discrimination, health benefits, etc. we are talking about gay marriage. Things change.
Pyramid termite makes an interesting point -the idea that children do not have the experience or the self-confidence to be able to give informed consent to sex is not only well-established in our society, but it's quite defensible,. But somehow we allow them to consent to each other for sex. Why? Without making any assumptions, what is the inherent difference between two 14 yr olds having sex and a 22yrd old having sex with a 14 yr old? Again, no assumptions about motives, experience, etc, because those can change based on the individuals. So why the taboo?
posted by Pastabagel at 10:54 AM on September 26, 2006
How does the law "turn a blind eye" to sex between teenagers? I can't quite make sense of that statement.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:10 PM EST on September 26 [+fave] [!]
The law as it is applied routinely ignores sex between teenagers, which in many states is illegal based on how their statutory rape laws are written. See this. It's just very rarely prosecuted. I don't understand your confusion.
Basically, the way the laws are enforced will change even if the blackletter text doesn't.
And the questioner makes it clear he's referring to increasing frequency of news stories about pedophiles, so there's no false assumption as scody mentioned. I echoed this when I wrote "these kinds of crimes involving female predators will emerge in the public consciousness with greater frequency". Not that the crimes will be more frequent, but that we will hear about them more, and we will become more aware of it.
And you comments about whether or not the actual number of pediphiles is increasing, totally and utterly irrelevant. Did the number of homosexuals as a precentage of the population increase between 1973 and now? Probably not. Would it matter if it did? Does that affect in whether it is legal under the constitution?
I can't believe people think that the law and societal mores will remain fixed and unchanged on this issue, when they have not been fixed for any other behavior or personal rights issue. Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the official psychiatirc diagnostic manual as recently as 1973. Now, thirty years later, after court fights over adoption rights, discrimination, health benefits, etc. we are talking about gay marriage. Things change.
Pyramid termite makes an interesting point -the idea that children do not have the experience or the self-confidence to be able to give informed consent to sex is not only well-established in our society, but it's quite defensible,. But somehow we allow them to consent to each other for sex. Why? Without making any assumptions, what is the inherent difference between two 14 yr olds having sex and a 22yrd old having sex with a 14 yr old? Again, no assumptions about motives, experience, etc, because those can change based on the individuals. So why the taboo?
posted by Pastabagel at 10:54 AM on September 26, 2006
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating or condoning pedophilia, but I'm amazed that people can't imagine how it could become a legal behavior, when jsut about everything else is.
this is why the will of minors is disregarded ... not because of legalities, but because of the reality of the human condition
posted by pyramid termite at 1:36 PM EST on September 26 [+fave] [!]
I disagree. It is a very arbitrary set of rules and demarcations set forth in the law. Two hundred years ago, 15 year-olds were viewed as more mature than most college students today, based on the responsibilities they had. At some point, somone is going to challenge the constitutionality of those age based restrictions. It's simply inevitable.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:01 AM on September 26, 2006
this is why the will of minors is disregarded ... not because of legalities, but because of the reality of the human condition
posted by pyramid termite at 1:36 PM EST on September 26 [+fave] [!]
I disagree. It is a very arbitrary set of rules and demarcations set forth in the law. Two hundred years ago, 15 year-olds were viewed as more mature than most college students today, based on the responsibilities they had. At some point, somone is going to challenge the constitutionality of those age based restrictions. It's simply inevitable.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:01 AM on September 26, 2006
Pedophilia is not like homosexuality...one takes advantage of those who cannot make logical and rational and legal decisions for themselves, the other (generally) involved logical and rational adults behaving in a legal manner.
Depending on how you define paedophilia, not necessarily. If we’re talking about people who find themselves sexually attracted to children, but do not, as a result, act on that impulse, and indeed acknowledge it would be wrong to do so, it’s conceivable a group defending such people from prejudice could be formed and furthermore have a reasonable point.
posted by ed\26h at 11:02 AM on September 26, 2006
Depending on how you define paedophilia, not necessarily. If we’re talking about people who find themselves sexually attracted to children, but do not, as a result, act on that impulse, and indeed acknowledge it would be wrong to do so, it’s conceivable a group defending such people from prejudice could be formed and furthermore have a reasonable point.
posted by ed\26h at 11:02 AM on September 26, 2006
somone is going to challenge the constitutionality of those age based restrictions.
on what grounds? ... the constitution makes several age restrictions itself and part of the rights "reserved for the states" are those to make laws dealing with marriage, divorce, age of consent, age of majority etc etc
perhaps a case could be made that the age of consent should be lowered to 15 or 14, i don't know ... but it's not going to be changed through the courts as there's no constitutional ground to change it
posted by pyramid termite at 11:55 AM on September 26, 2006
on what grounds? ... the constitution makes several age restrictions itself and part of the rights "reserved for the states" are those to make laws dealing with marriage, divorce, age of consent, age of majority etc etc
perhaps a case could be made that the age of consent should be lowered to 15 or 14, i don't know ... but it's not going to be changed through the courts as there's no constitutional ground to change it
posted by pyramid termite at 11:55 AM on September 26, 2006
Do you anticipate there will someday be a rights advocacy group for pedophiles, re-educating us that pedophilia is a genetic condition and a legitimate lifestyle?
Er, someday? There already are such groups: the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was founded in the late 70s, and in The Netherlands, there's the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD), who campaign to lower the age of consent, to legalise child porn (they plan to have candidates standing in the next Dutch elections). The Wikipedia page on Pedophile activism lists numerous lesser known groups and websites, and here's another list of such groups. (For some reason, it looks like pro-paedophilia campaigners were mostly active in the 1970s...)
posted by jack_mo at 12:01 PM on September 26, 2006
Er, someday? There already are such groups: the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was founded in the late 70s, and in The Netherlands, there's the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD), who campaign to lower the age of consent, to legalise child porn (they plan to have candidates standing in the next Dutch elections). The Wikipedia page on Pedophile activism lists numerous lesser known groups and websites, and here's another list of such groups. (For some reason, it looks like pro-paedophilia campaigners were mostly active in the 1970s...)
posted by jack_mo at 12:01 PM on September 26, 2006
The law as it is applied routinely ignores sex between teenagers, which in many states is illegal based on how their statutory rape laws are written. See this. It's just very rarely prosecuted. I don't understand your confusion.
Yes, it's very rarely prosecuted because teenagers having sex with each other rarely press charges, not because the government is willfully ignoring it. You can't "turn a blind eye" to something you have no means of knowing about.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:25 PM on September 26, 2006
Yes, it's very rarely prosecuted because teenagers having sex with each other rarely press charges, not because the government is willfully ignoring it. You can't "turn a blind eye" to something you have no means of knowing about.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:25 PM on September 26, 2006
And you comments about whether or not the actual number of pediphiles is increasing, totally and utterly irrelevant.
It's certainly relevant as a response to your assertion that "something bizarre in our culture is motivating more an more adults to want to have sex with kids."
posted by ludwig_van at 1:27 PM on September 26, 2006
It's certainly relevant as a response to your assertion that "something bizarre in our culture is motivating more an more adults to want to have sex with kids."
posted by ludwig_van at 1:27 PM on September 26, 2006
I think certain peripheral aspects of pedophilia will eventually become legal -- child pornography, for example. An argument like the one made in R v. Sharpe is obviously tenable, as both lower courts found that a "prohibition of the simple possession of child pornography as defined under s. 163.1 of the [Criminal] Code was not justifiable in a free and democratic society."
Could a U.S. Supreme Court, whose Constitution offers a far more robust defence of individuals rights than does Canada's Charter, not someday arrive at the same finding? I think it could.
posted by ewiar at 1:30 PM on September 26, 2006
Could a U.S. Supreme Court, whose Constitution offers a far more robust defence of individuals rights than does Canada's Charter, not someday arrive at the same finding? I think it could.
posted by ewiar at 1:30 PM on September 26, 2006
A lot of this discussion is equating hebephilia and pedophilia. Personally, when I think pedophilia, there's not even a discussion of teenagers having sex. Pedephilia -- regardless of the legal definition -- is, to me, entirely based on the prepubescence of one participant. Teenagers have the ability to consent in some situations. Prepubescant children do not. When, exactly, a teenager can give informed consent is up for debate, but despite this, discussions about teen sex are entirely irrevelent in this case.
Will we possibly grow to accept teen-adult sex? Perhaps. It depends on whether or not the "18 years old to consent to/sign just about anything" point is upheld (or increased or decreased). While not legally engrained in various places, the 18-to-do-[blank] concept is pretty well mentally engrained, and is pretty clearly affecting this conversation.
Adult-child? No.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 2:21 PM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
Will we possibly grow to accept teen-adult sex? Perhaps. It depends on whether or not the "18 years old to consent to/sign just about anything" point is upheld (or increased or decreased). While not legally engrained in various places, the 18-to-do-[blank] concept is pretty well mentally engrained, and is pretty clearly affecting this conversation.
Adult-child? No.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 2:21 PM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
this is why the will of minors is disregarded ... not because of legalities, but because of the reality of the human condition
The "reality of the human condition" has changed entirely in the last 100 years, at least when it comes to teenagers. In the late 1800s, the people that we call teenagers not only worked for a living, they married and had children. Much of what we call pedophilia today (that is to say, a 20 year old man marrying a 13, 14 or 15 year old woman) was considered normal in this country in 1900. Check out Thomas Hine's The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager if you'd like to learn more about this.
During the last hundred years, we have imposed an artifically extended childhood on people who would otherwise be capable adults; the resulting difference between biology and society has lead to the conflation of normal human sexual activity (a 20 year old with a 14 year old) with pedophilia (a 20 year old with a 5 year old). Pedophilia is adult sexual contact with prepubescent children, not with teens!
The "reality of the human condition" is that children are sexual beings, at every age. Our challenge is to keep them safe and healthy, not to prevent them from enjoying any sexual conduct until the age of eighteen. We really need to stop conflating teens with kids, when it comes to sexuality...
posted by vorfeed at 2:30 PM on September 26, 2006
The "reality of the human condition" has changed entirely in the last 100 years, at least when it comes to teenagers. In the late 1800s, the people that we call teenagers not only worked for a living, they married and had children. Much of what we call pedophilia today (that is to say, a 20 year old man marrying a 13, 14 or 15 year old woman) was considered normal in this country in 1900. Check out Thomas Hine's The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager if you'd like to learn more about this.
During the last hundred years, we have imposed an artifically extended childhood on people who would otherwise be capable adults; the resulting difference between biology and society has lead to the conflation of normal human sexual activity (a 20 year old with a 14 year old) with pedophilia (a 20 year old with a 5 year old). Pedophilia is adult sexual contact with prepubescent children, not with teens!
The "reality of the human condition" is that children are sexual beings, at every age. Our challenge is to keep them safe and healthy, not to prevent them from enjoying any sexual conduct until the age of eighteen. We really need to stop conflating teens with kids, when it comes to sexuality...
posted by vorfeed at 2:30 PM on September 26, 2006
Here is a Channel 4 documentary on this subject. It is one of the greatest things ever broadcast.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:07 PM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:07 PM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
Who knew there were so many sex-crime apologists on the internet... oh wait. Nevermind.
To answer the OP: As above, there are pedophiles who are convinced they are doing something beautiful and good (and that the kids "want it"). But just like other people with severe mental problems, pedophiles aren't the best ones to ask.
Please note that laws in this country (the US) are NOT trending toward permissiveness when it comes to sexual relationships (consensual or otherwise) that involve unequal balances of power: adult-kid, adult-teen, human-dog, conscious man-unconscious female. Laws that criminalize sexual relations and other relationships among two parties of equal power (man/man, woman/woman, married man-married woman, teen boy-teen girl) are the ones that are being allowed to wither via decline-to-prosecute. This is the trend in American jurisprudence, and it (thankfully) reflects the trend in U.S. mass culture as well.
However -- if the popular stigma against, say, teen boys with hot older female teachers were to lessen, the laws would still remain strong -- since they are (thankfully, again) based on more universal concerns, as in the above examples.
posted by turducken at 4:04 PM on September 26, 2006
To answer the OP: As above, there are pedophiles who are convinced they are doing something beautiful and good (and that the kids "want it"). But just like other people with severe mental problems, pedophiles aren't the best ones to ask.
Please note that laws in this country (the US) are NOT trending toward permissiveness when it comes to sexual relationships (consensual or otherwise) that involve unequal balances of power: adult-kid, adult-teen, human-dog, conscious man-unconscious female. Laws that criminalize sexual relations and other relationships among two parties of equal power (man/man, woman/woman, married man-married woman, teen boy-teen girl) are the ones that are being allowed to wither via decline-to-prosecute. This is the trend in American jurisprudence, and it (thankfully) reflects the trend in U.S. mass culture as well.
However -- if the popular stigma against, say, teen boys with hot older female teachers were to lessen, the laws would still remain strong -- since they are (thankfully, again) based on more universal concerns, as in the above examples.
posted by turducken at 4:04 PM on September 26, 2006
There seems to be increasing pressure from the US Dept of Justice to use child pornography and the "epidemic" of pedophilia as a pretext to crack down on various internet freedoms (eg on some kinds of cryptography).
So it's possible that some of these letters to the editor about pedophiles are coming from right-wing astroturf groups. (For some examples and references to other astroturf campaigns, see here.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:24 PM on September 26, 2006
So it's possible that some of these letters to the editor about pedophiles are coming from right-wing astroturf groups. (For some examples and references to other astroturf campaigns, see here.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:24 PM on September 26, 2006
The "reality of the human condition" has changed entirely in the last 100 years, at least when it comes to teenagers.
do you mean to tell me that human brain development has changed in the last 100 years? ... that by some means the brain structures that facilitate decision making are somehow the same in a 14 and an 18 year old?
there's plenty of research indicating otherwise
In the late 1800s, the people that we call teenagers not only worked for a living, they married and had children.
and they made a few cents per hour, lived in tenements or shacks, were in bad health, didn't get much school and died at an early age
sorry, but there are valid reasons why the treatment of teenagers then and teenagers now are different ... it's called progress
During the last hundred years, we have imposed an artifically extended childhood on people
this is because we now live in an artificial civilization and we have had to adapt to it ... there are some people in our country who don't get a real job or leave to be out on their own until they're 20-something ... and this is because the requirements of responsibility and decision making in our society are much greater than they were 100 years ago
you're comparing apples and oranges
The "reality of the human condition" is that children are sexual beings, at every age. Our challenge is to keep them safe and healthy, not to prevent them from enjoying any sexual conduct until the age of eighteen. We really need to stop conflating teens with kids, when it comes to sexuality...
this is all fine by me ... what we should be doing is determining at what age a teenager is able to give intelligent consent to sexual behavior ... i think 16 is reasonable ... 14 or 15 may be, but i have my doubts
i think it's possible that society may evolve to seeing teenaged sex as tolerable at a lower age ... i don't believe that under 14 will ever become acceptable in this country
posted by pyramid termite at 5:42 PM on September 26, 2006
do you mean to tell me that human brain development has changed in the last 100 years? ... that by some means the brain structures that facilitate decision making are somehow the same in a 14 and an 18 year old?
there's plenty of research indicating otherwise
In the late 1800s, the people that we call teenagers not only worked for a living, they married and had children.
and they made a few cents per hour, lived in tenements or shacks, were in bad health, didn't get much school and died at an early age
sorry, but there are valid reasons why the treatment of teenagers then and teenagers now are different ... it's called progress
During the last hundred years, we have imposed an artifically extended childhood on people
this is because we now live in an artificial civilization and we have had to adapt to it ... there are some people in our country who don't get a real job or leave to be out on their own until they're 20-something ... and this is because the requirements of responsibility and decision making in our society are much greater than they were 100 years ago
you're comparing apples and oranges
The "reality of the human condition" is that children are sexual beings, at every age. Our challenge is to keep them safe and healthy, not to prevent them from enjoying any sexual conduct until the age of eighteen. We really need to stop conflating teens with kids, when it comes to sexuality...
this is all fine by me ... what we should be doing is determining at what age a teenager is able to give intelligent consent to sexual behavior ... i think 16 is reasonable ... 14 or 15 may be, but i have my doubts
i think it's possible that society may evolve to seeing teenaged sex as tolerable at a lower age ... i don't believe that under 14 will ever become acceptable in this country
posted by pyramid termite at 5:42 PM on September 26, 2006
neither the universe or the facts of human biology make any such guarantee, no matter what a government may say ... this is why the will of minors is disregarded ... not because of legalities, but because of the reality of the human condition
Read my post again.
Nowhere did I say that the will of minors is disregarded because of the law. It is disregarded in spite of it (and new law is made in accordance with age-based distinctions).
You take your argument too far, however. Not all nations have the age-based restrictions we do with regard to smoking, drinking, etc.. You can argue all you want that "nature" dictates such restrictions, but obviously it isn't so (and those countries tend to do just fine -- it's our teens who, unable to do something "grown-up", don't know how to handle such freedoms). In any case, in our society, such age-based restrictions are easily defensible, which was my original point.
Also, I hope everyone here does realize that most nations have under/over rules regarding their age of consent. So, for example, Canada's current age of 14 applies -- with parterns under the age of 18, not over.
You're conflating two separate issues -- sex between teenagers and sex with teenagers.
posted by dreamsign at 1:07 AM on September 27, 2006
Read my post again.
Nowhere did I say that the will of minors is disregarded because of the law. It is disregarded in spite of it (and new law is made in accordance with age-based distinctions).
You take your argument too far, however. Not all nations have the age-based restrictions we do with regard to smoking, drinking, etc.. You can argue all you want that "nature" dictates such restrictions, but obviously it isn't so (and those countries tend to do just fine -- it's our teens who, unable to do something "grown-up", don't know how to handle such freedoms). In any case, in our society, such age-based restrictions are easily defensible, which was my original point.
Also, I hope everyone here does realize that most nations have under/over rules regarding their age of consent. So, for example, Canada's current age of 14 applies -- with parterns under the age of 18, not over.
You're conflating two separate issues -- sex between teenagers and sex with teenagers.
posted by dreamsign at 1:07 AM on September 27, 2006
Not all nations have the age-based restrictions we do with regard to smoking, drinking, etc..
there are nations where 10 year old kids are taken to fight wars ... the whole "other nations do it", or "we used to do it" argument isn't very good and doesn't justify anything
You're conflating two separate issues -- sex between teenagers and sex with teenagers.
i never said anything about it either way ... but i will observe that teenagers can get just as pregnant with one as the other
posted by pyramid termite at 6:56 AM on September 27, 2006
there are nations where 10 year old kids are taken to fight wars ... the whole "other nations do it", or "we used to do it" argument isn't very good and doesn't justify anything
You're conflating two separate issues -- sex between teenagers and sex with teenagers.
i never said anything about it either way ... but i will observe that teenagers can get just as pregnant with one as the other
posted by pyramid termite at 6:56 AM on September 27, 2006
Response by poster: first two posters: I'm not asking for a comparison, I'm asking whether there will be a change in public perception of the former in the way that the latter has changed.
OmieWise: Not being able to see that before asking your question makes me think that you're .. I'm not certain from which orifice that was pulled, but at no point did I indicate or imply such a misunderstanding. I neither asked whether you think it should be viewed as such, nor did I assert that it should.
dreamsign: Indeed, it's hard to see how parents could come to think of pedophiles as other than potential perpetrators of crimes against their children. In the same way that they refuse to see their own children as potential vase-breakers or potential name-callers or fight-pickers at school. It is a matter of the will, of the present-minded decision (just as it is such a matter to possess temptation to do anything and not act upon it).
scody: part of your question is predicated on a false conclusion: the rate of sexual crimes against children isn't increasing -- Back at ya, your argument against me cites a false condition: at no point did I say that there are more cases or more incidents, but merely more news coverage and more letters.
So far Pastabagel seems to be one of the few actually answering the question asked, and I agree with pretty much everything Pb has said so far -- I suppose this might have been a bit more ChatFilter, but I was curious as to why the dissenting opinion was so. I did anticipate quite a few people answering questions they believed they had read, rather than what was actually asked.
I personally desire the age of consent to be much much higher than 18, because I don't perceive 18-year-olds to be quite capable of wise enough decisions of the future to even consider that as a viable option. I would shoot for more in the 24-26 range. I also suspect that the age of consent determination may, in the future, be "reduced" to a per-incident basis rather than a set age for all people, since different people mature quicker or slower than others. I know 13-y-o's that are vastly more mature than some fellow 28-y-o's partly due to life experiences early on as well as because of overly-pampering parents.
Also, while there may be a technicality of the law at hand, and yes we could technically prosecute you I anticipate a change in whether charges will actually be pressed.
Consider even the case of marriage between siblings: is this not foremostly a religious edict? Would enforcement of this law not, as some might put forth suit (which is not implausible considering the revocation of homosexuality laws on similar grounds) imply that the state would be enforcing the spiritual laws of a specific group while ignoring the consentual privacy of citizens? On the deformed-progeny front, does this also mean that potential mates should have some test performed to ensure the unliklihood of familial cancers? At what point does the healthiness of the children between two adults cease being a legitmiate reason?
I must admit I had equated pedophilia with ephebophilia -- I had never heard of the latter. However, I myself do anticipate (being of the mind that it is a bad idea, not especially for its dispersal) that there will be a greater balancing-out of pedophile-rights and/or equal-treatment court battles. Those (A) who see those (B) with the particular temptation, may (I assert) increasingly be labeled as B-haters and (A) as having more irrational or less sound judgment ability to distinguish their emotion-beset vigilantism of "the very idea (s)he would even want to" from objective discernment, in the same capacity that the perception of homosexual once possessed -- merely as a matter of fact, not particularly of my preference.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:46 AM on September 27, 2006
OmieWise: Not being able to see that before asking your question makes me think that you're .. I'm not certain from which orifice that was pulled, but at no point did I indicate or imply such a misunderstanding. I neither asked whether you think it should be viewed as such, nor did I assert that it should.
dreamsign: Indeed, it's hard to see how parents could come to think of pedophiles as other than potential perpetrators of crimes against their children. In the same way that they refuse to see their own children as potential vase-breakers or potential name-callers or fight-pickers at school. It is a matter of the will, of the present-minded decision (just as it is such a matter to possess temptation to do anything and not act upon it).
scody: part of your question is predicated on a false conclusion: the rate of sexual crimes against children isn't increasing -- Back at ya, your argument against me cites a false condition: at no point did I say that there are more cases or more incidents, but merely more news coverage and more letters.
So far Pastabagel seems to be one of the few actually answering the question asked, and I agree with pretty much everything Pb has said so far -- I suppose this might have been a bit more ChatFilter, but I was curious as to why the dissenting opinion was so. I did anticipate quite a few people answering questions they believed they had read, rather than what was actually asked.
I personally desire the age of consent to be much much higher than 18, because I don't perceive 18-year-olds to be quite capable of wise enough decisions of the future to even consider that as a viable option. I would shoot for more in the 24-26 range. I also suspect that the age of consent determination may, in the future, be "reduced" to a per-incident basis rather than a set age for all people, since different people mature quicker or slower than others. I know 13-y-o's that are vastly more mature than some fellow 28-y-o's partly due to life experiences early on as well as because of overly-pampering parents.
Also, while there may be a technicality of the law at hand, and yes we could technically prosecute you I anticipate a change in whether charges will actually be pressed.
Consider even the case of marriage between siblings: is this not foremostly a religious edict? Would enforcement of this law not, as some might put forth suit (which is not implausible considering the revocation of homosexuality laws on similar grounds) imply that the state would be enforcing the spiritual laws of a specific group while ignoring the consentual privacy of citizens? On the deformed-progeny front, does this also mean that potential mates should have some test performed to ensure the unliklihood of familial cancers? At what point does the healthiness of the children between two adults cease being a legitmiate reason?
I must admit I had equated pedophilia with ephebophilia -- I had never heard of the latter. However, I myself do anticipate (being of the mind that it is a bad idea, not especially for its dispersal) that there will be a greater balancing-out of pedophile-rights and/or equal-treatment court battles. Those (A) who see those (B) with the particular temptation, may (I assert) increasingly be labeled as B-haters and (A) as having more irrational or less sound judgment ability to distinguish their emotion-beset vigilantism of "the very idea (s)he would even want to" from objective discernment, in the same capacity that the perception of homosexual once possessed -- merely as a matter of fact, not particularly of my preference.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:46 AM on September 27, 2006
You might want to check out the Brass Eye 2001 special on P(a)edophilia. It features the militant paedophilia organisation "Milit-Pede".
YouTube video of the clip in question.
Um, look. This is all about predicting the future, right? So nobody is going to have any idea, unfortunately making this a "chat-filter" question (unfortunate since it's a great talking-point). Pastabagel raises some interesting points, mainly that it all boils down to social mores. What we would call paedophilia might not be recognised as such in other countries, or at other times. Personally, I think the defining feature is the predatory nature of the act, taking advantage of people who cannot make decisions for themselves. Generally that would probably legally include children, mentally disabled people, and so on. That's the key issue: taking advantage. And that (presumably) would be the definition with which NAMBLA et al would take issue.
Brass Eye also dealt with the use of the mentally handicapped for sexual relief aboard early moon landings, featuring the delightful phrase "I want Buzz to clean my dirty with his soapy fish". Can't find much on the internets about it... just get the DVD and wriggle in horror.
posted by ajp at 6:51 AM on October 5, 2006
YouTube video of the clip in question.
Um, look. This is all about predicting the future, right? So nobody is going to have any idea, unfortunately making this a "chat-filter" question (unfortunate since it's a great talking-point). Pastabagel raises some interesting points, mainly that it all boils down to social mores. What we would call paedophilia might not be recognised as such in other countries, or at other times. Personally, I think the defining feature is the predatory nature of the act, taking advantage of people who cannot make decisions for themselves. Generally that would probably legally include children, mentally disabled people, and so on. That's the key issue: taking advantage. And that (presumably) would be the definition with which NAMBLA et al would take issue.
Brass Eye also dealt with the use of the mentally handicapped for sexual relief aboard early moon landings, featuring the delightful phrase "I want Buzz to clean my dirty with his soapy fish". Can't find much on the internets about it... just get the DVD and wriggle in horror.
posted by ajp at 6:51 AM on October 5, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that homosexual relationships are still generally between two consenting adults.
And there is already a pedophilia advocacy group- NAMBLA. They're doing swimmingly.
posted by mkultra at 8:03 AM on September 26, 2006 [1 favorite]