Ephebophilia

[töm]

That's your word of the day.

It seems that the word "p&aelig;dophile" has been thrown around a lot here--and in common culture--to label anyone who harbors an attraction to a person who is either, a minor, or very much looks like one. Well, that's just <i>offensive</i>.

What they're probably trying to say is "ephebophile": one who is attracted to post-pubescent adolescents. And from an anthropological point of view, it makes sense. One is at their peak of sexual maturation. Full of vigor and various juices.

Well, that's nature. But it ain't culture. Except in France. And Brazil. And. Uh. Japan.

While I don't think that p&aelig;dophilia is a particularly <i>good</i> thing, I don't think that ephebopilia is a particularly <i>bad</i> thing. At least it makes sense.

So call them ephebopiliacs. Even though you're just joking.

[CSMatt]

I, for one, never really understood why all of these statuary rape and similar sex laws are in effect. As long as it is consensual on both sides (and does not involve harming a third party against their will), it should be acceptable.

[Rory Storm]

Those are in effect so that a screwy middle aged man doesn't ask a 7 year old to suck his lolli-pop.

[MST3Kakalina]

yes. precisely.


does that make JMecha an ephebophile? :(

[töm]

Probably. I know I am.


The reasoning behind the laws is that adolescents are seen as unable to understand the physical, emotional, and social consequences of sexual activity. We're not talking about 7 year olds, we're talking about teens.

Which is actually probably pretty accurate, especially amongst themselves.

[CSMatt]

The problem is that these laws don't work very well. From every example I've heard, no matter what the situation, the minor always gets off scott free.

[töm]

The minor isn't supposed to be charged. They're the <i>victim.</i>

[Rory Storm]

What if the minor lures the adult in with promises of candy and sweets?

It is still wrong.

Judge, she was coming onto me. She was flaunting that teddy bear like nobodys buisness.

[CSMatt]

The minor isn't supposed to be charged. They're the <i>victim.</i>
But they are not always the victim. In some cases, the minor is the one that willingly caused the situation. I recall in the news some time ago about a minor who had an affair with his high school teacher*. Although both testified that the relationship was consensual, the minor was let go and the teacher was given 5 years in prison. That is certainly not an example of justice; especially sense no crime would have been committed at all if the affair occurred 10 years later.

Also, the minor can lie in court and "play the victim" even easier than in adult rape trials, simply because if his or her underage status.

*I apologize for not having any source to cite from for this example. I merely overheard this story while my mom was watching TV before I went to school one day. Also, this story was only being brought up in the news because the teacher was recently released from prison and it was announced that she and the minor (now an adult) were getting married.

[töm]

nonono. the minor is always seen as the victim in the eyes of the law, because they are not believed to understand what they are doing. it doesn't matter if it's their "fault" or not.

the minor would never be charged. one is not persecuted by a law that is designed to protect oneself.

even if the relationship is supposedly "consensual" in the eyes of the participants, the child is not seen as capable of giving consent vis-&agrave;-vis their lack of life-experience or maturity.

i'm not saying i agree (and i'm not saying i don't), i'm just saying what the laws dicatate.

[CSMatt]

But if the function of the law is to enforce how people should behave, and make examples out of those that don't, then the law has failed on the part of the minor. What kind of lesson is taught to the underage public when the minor is released every time? The only lesson I see is "Do whatever you want in the field of sex; you'll completely get away with it until you're 18."

Also, there are plenty of laws that persecute in order to protect the persecuted. Drug laws, for example. Those laws appeal on a somewhat similar level of severity with both minors (teenagers, at least) and adults. With this logic, why not enforce a similar policy regarding sex? The law is basically contradicting itself in this area.

[Linzoy]

People of any age don't seem to understand the consequences of their actions. The majority of criminals aren't teenagers. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about since I'm 17, but to me the average 21 year old doesn't seem much more mature than the average high school student. There are a lot of people who actually start smoking in college, that doesn't make sense to me. Smoking seems like something you would start because you're a kid and you don't have good priorities, not because you're at the age where it's legal. I don't believe there's a magical age where people gain the ability to make choices that won't hurt them in the future. They should stop making laws that go against nature. 100 years ago I think the age of consent was 13, that's more realistic, it's based on physical maturity, not the vague idea of mental maturity. Besides a lot of kids only have sex because it's the wrong thing to do. If it was legal for kids to have sex with adults most teenagers would probably just be grossed out by the idea. They naturally find other teenagers more attractive.

[töm]

But you're giving credence to the idea that the child knows what they are doing, and the ramifications thereof. The law states that they do not. Even in my opinion, it would be ridiculous for the child to recieve punitive action. Perhaps therapy and some good time with social workers, as well as a reevaluation of their lives and some sex ed classes. The child should not be punished. Being a Catholic, you know the whole "You can't sin on accident," thing. Not to compare that directly to our legal system, but the child is not seen as able to know that they are doing something that "isn't good." So they can't be charged. They committed no crime, and furthermore, they couldn't understand what they were doing anyway.

I didn't mean it in THAT way. It's just that the law says something to the extent that it exists in order to protect the child from the lecherous, swarthy adult who is taking advantage of him or her. so you can't take that and twist it in a way to persecute some one else. it's just not written that way.

i'm going to stop saying minor, and start saying "child," since this deals more with the age of consent than it does being an adult... but those are erratic and weird anyway.

Linzoy raises a good thought too. 21 year olds and 17 year olds probably aren't that much different. our country doesn't really strive to raise mature people. people remain kids for... well. i don't even want to say, because it kind of disturbs me. i see a person as a kid until their late twenties.

then again, it's all about individual maturity. there are some people that are amazingly mature at age 12, moreso than someone at age 25. all the more power to them.

[CSMatt]

But you're giving credence to the idea that the child knows what they are doing, and the ramifications thereof. The law states that they do not. Even in my opinion, it would be ridiculous for the child to recieve punitive action. Perhaps therapy and some good time with social workers, as well as a reevaluation of their lives and some sex ed classes. The child should not be punished. Being a Catholic, you know the whole "You can't sin on accident," thing. Not to compare that directly to our legal system, but the child is not seen as able to know that they are doing something that "isn't good." So they can't be charged. They committed no crime, and furthermore, they couldn't understand what they were doing anyway.
If the idea is that the child is not aware of his or her actions regarding sex, then wouldn't the same idea argue that the child is unaware of, say, the negative consequences of drug* abuse? In this "War on drugs" era that we live in, children are severely punished for even possessing drugs, let alone using them. The biggest problem that I have regarding statutory rape laws is not that they suggest teenagers are inferior to adults, but that other conduct laws regarding juveniles seem to suggest that the child is very much aware of what he or she is doing.

*The term "drug" in this post refers to tobacco and alcohol as well as illegal drugs, sense both tobacco and alcohol would be illegal in any state in the United States for anyone under the age of consent anyway (with the sole exception of the age of consent for homosexual relations in Nevada being 21, assuming that Nevada doesn't let anyone under 18 use tobacco).

[töm]

well, as a rule, sexual crimes are put at a much much much higher level than other ones. they're like the pinnacle of tabboo, and the pinnacle of severity in our criminal justice system.

are children so harshly punished for drug use? over half the people that i know enough to be able to write a short novel about use drugs, have been caught with drugs, and more often than not were given a "warning" of sorts. unless if you're some big time dealer, i don't really believe in jail sentences for drug-related crimes. (wouldn't a decent fine and community service make everyone a lot happier?)

i definitely don't agree with a lot of drug laws on the books. i don't agree with a lot of this stuff. the system is just built in puritan ideals, while the people are epicureans. clashes are what keep it up.

[robot]

all men are attracted to teenage girls

look at a porn site. most of them nowadays try and make the girlslook as cute and innocent as possible

[TheTallestBlue]

As a previous victim of sexual abuse, I feel I must say the laws are rightful and just. A female is COMEPLETELY sexualy mature around late teens to early twenties. That means hormones level off, hips are widened, fat is in place, and everything is calm inside her body. Of course I don't know what the fuck goes on with guys, they don't seem to ever mature. =P haha. But I still think its appauling in general, when talking about such an age gap. Its unnatural. Maybe a kid may come on to an adult, but they don't know any better. It is up to the adult to make a responcible decision, and upon choosing to respond to the adolecent's invitation, the adult has become an abuser. Relationships with noteable age gaps are never healthy, for mind or body.

And on the other note about drugs, let me put it this way. Marijuana laws are FUCKING BULLSHIT. Leagalize it. The government is fucked up, they have restricted any unbiast drug information from our hands, and to me, that seems unfair to us as a nation. The only drawback to weed is you can't predict how it will effect the individual. Although there could be a trend. Besides, its safer than both drinking and smoking. I say legalize it, and spend more police power trying to solve more important things like murder etc.