Full Version: Childhood Sexuality II: Moral
This thread follows on from CHILDHOOD SEXUALITY I: LEGAL. While reading the first thread is not prerequisite to participating in this one, there is some background material there which might impact on discussion here.
CAUTION: I intend this to be a NAMBLA-free thread. If you wish to discuss this group or their agenda, go here. If you wish to discuss the Curley case (in which they were being defended by the ACLU), go here.
In discussing childhood sexuality, age of consent, and "child sexual abuse", there are three areas to be addressed: the legal, the moral, and the psychological. In this thread, I'd like to examine the moral or ethical background which has given rise to our legislation.
The rules governing our sexual politics are grounded in the notion of "sin" - a concept (especially in relation to sex) which, itself, has undergone considerable evolution over the ages. In Graeco-Roman times and in the Renaissance, youth (and erotic images of youth) were revered. In Athens and under the Borgia popes, adolescents were prized sexual objects. Throughout history - and even today in some rural areas - non-aristocratic families often lived in small dwellings with one bedroom. Entire families often shared a singel bed. Children in such circumstances were clearly not unaware of sex.
From the seventeenth century, though, the moral claim became absolute - regarding all sex acts. This arose, in large part, due to Renaissance and, worse, Enlightenment concepts of the individual - and the humanist notion of individual freedom and responsibility. (Hence, even the etymology of "Romeo and Juliet laws".) Such freedom was a necessarily secular notion which threatened the hegemony of the Church as the Age of Reason collided with the Age of Faith. Seeing "self-knowledge" as a potential threat to her authority, the Church, for the first time, began focussing on the most intimate sins in earnest. It is no coincidence that Pope Gregory would soon decry the "depravity" of "the shameless lovers of liberty".
Sexual sins were against God's law and were to be punished not only by the Creator, but by the church, the state and the community. No proof of evil consequence was needed - it was enough that any form of non-procreative sex was sinful.
In the nineteenth century, the perspective changed somewhat. Violations of the sexual norm were now believed to cause severe medical problems. Masturbation and even nocturnal emission were deemed deleterious to mental and physical health - they could lead to pimples, impotence, insanity. Sexual indulgence outside marriage was not only "evil", it could sap one's energy and lead to memory loss, consumption (tuberculosis), and death.
In the twentieth century, the notion of psychological harm entered the discussion. No sooner did Freud demonstrate that childhood sexuality existed at all, than it was used to assume the potential for mental damage. None of the medical arguments since the end of the Renaissance were actually the reason for sex acts to be condemned (and, clearly, there was never any evidence that extramarital sex lead to death any more than masturbation lead to blindness) - such damage was simply seen as the secularized retribution for sinful acts. "Harm" was seen as a result of "sin" and such claims were based on faith rather than scientific investigation. In terms of psychological harm, this is still the case in some instances.
Assumptions about sexuality lead to many other prejudices. In the nineteenth century, women were considered pure and angelic as a rule. Initially, it was argued that innately evil women seduced men and destroyed their moral purity. With the rise of feminism in the late nineteenth century, women themselves, it ws argued, became the victims of the patriarchy: if women were immoral, it was not a sign of desire, but evidence that they had been corrupted. This gave rise to the white slavery panic - and age of consent legislation. Consent laws rested on the belief that men initiated unwitting (and unwilling) women into sexual activity which lead to prostituion. These laws were to prevent men from recruiting their youngest victims. Even then, the age of consent 150 years ago was twelve in New York - and many were still marrying at that age. By the turn of the century, the age had risen to sixteen.
(The argument, by the way, that the marriage of twelve-year-olds was once acceptable because of shorter life expectancies assumes that increased longevity has somehow also produced a stunted growth rate - that twelve-year-olds now are less "mature" than they were then. This social devolution, like much else relating to childhood sexuality, has no empirical evidence to back it up. It even contradicts the "common sense" arguments so favored by child advocates - if approached without prejudice.)
Similarly, white women, by definition, could not be attracted to black men. Any relationship between white women and black men (who innately lusted after the corruptibly pale skin) was evidence of force. This assumption was one of the major justifications for the Jim Crow laws and the lynchings which frequently accompanied them.
Such moral assumptions die hard. There are still many who believe the racist mythology of predatory black bucks, many who find birth control evil on the grounds that it bypasses the mandate for procreative sex. In the 1950s, Sen. McCarthy presented the then apparently convincing argument that homosexuals in the State Department lead to an "effeminate" foreign policy. Sexual politics have tended to be over-determined, used to control sectors of the population: women, racial minorities, homosexuals - and children.
The tradition of such politics is that anyone who questions the received wisdom is met with moral outrage: "nigger lovers" who questioned the proclivities of black men, "wanton" feminists who questioned gender-defined roles (many are still characterized as "man-hating dykes"), "depraved pornographers" who questioned the moral code of the Comstock laws, "promiscuous, disease-spreading, youth-corrupting faggots" who argued for gay liberation - and "defenders of pedophilia" who argue that children are sexual beings.
You'll note that only one of the above is still in the present tense. Children are the last vestige of the old sexual morality. The assertion that children (like Victorian women) are asexual angels - and that, in the sexual arena, they are passive and incapable of consent - is considered true by definition. It is the only area of human sexuality in which assumptions are still widely maintained without any scientific evidence to back them up (indeed, with much evidence to the contrary).
In all other arenas, we try to prepare children for adulthood from an early age. We give them allowances and even savings accounts to socialize them into our economic system; we train them for sports and self-defense; we send them to Sunday School to indoctrinate them into our religions; we teach them hunting and fishing, encourage participation in domestic chores; we encourage play with dolls for future parenting skills; many of us here probably work to acquaint them with our political system - yet we completely exclude them from our sexual system. Worse, when we address sex at all, it is almost entirely in the negative: we discourage masturbation, punish sex play if discovered - even our so-called sex education as late as high school focuses on the dangers of sex and preaches abstinence.
The exclusion of sex from our children's lives - they should not see it, they should not hear of it, they should not speaek of it - God knows they should not do it - is based on the current moral argument of the majority. And such moral positions tend to be absolutist and not very open to challenge - especially when supported by the law.
The questions here are: Why do we see our moral notions regarding childhood sexuality as more valid than many of our discarded notions about the women and desire, racial proclivities, birth control, and homosexuality? Should such moral notions be the unquestioned basis for legislation? Do you see a time when, as a society, we might become more realistic about the evidence surrounding childhood sexualtiy? And, if so, do you see that as having any impact on, for example, age of consent laws?
[Thread III to follow]
CAUTION: I intend this to be a NAMBLA-free thread. If you wish to discuss this group or their agenda, go here. If you wish to discuss the Curley case (in which they were being defended by the ACLU), go here.
In discussing childhood sexuality, age of consent, and "child sexual abuse", there are three areas to be addressed: the legal, the moral, and the psychological. In this thread, I'd like to examine the moral or ethical background which has given rise to our legislation.
The rules governing our sexual politics are grounded in the notion of "sin" - a concept (especially in relation to sex) which, itself, has undergone considerable evolution over the ages. In Graeco-Roman times and in the Renaissance, youth (and erotic images of youth) were revered. In Athens and under the Borgia popes, adolescents were prized sexual objects. Throughout history - and even today in some rural areas - non-aristocratic families often lived in small dwellings with one bedroom. Entire families often shared a singel bed. Children in such circumstances were clearly not unaware of sex.
From the seventeenth century, though, the moral claim became absolute - regarding all sex acts. This arose, in large part, due to Renaissance and, worse, Enlightenment concepts of the individual - and the humanist notion of individual freedom and responsibility. (Hence, even the etymology of "Romeo and Juliet laws".) Such freedom was a necessarily secular notion which threatened the hegemony of the Church as the Age of Reason collided with the Age of Faith. Seeing "self-knowledge" as a potential threat to her authority, the Church, for the first time, began focussing on the most intimate sins in earnest. It is no coincidence that Pope Gregory would soon decry the "depravity" of "the shameless lovers of liberty".
Sexual sins were against God's law and were to be punished not only by the Creator, but by the church, the state and the community. No proof of evil consequence was needed - it was enough that any form of non-procreative sex was sinful.
In the nineteenth century, the perspective changed somewhat. Violations of the sexual norm were now believed to cause severe medical problems. Masturbation and even nocturnal emission were deemed deleterious to mental and physical health - they could lead to pimples, impotence, insanity. Sexual indulgence outside marriage was not only "evil", it could sap one's energy and lead to memory loss, consumption (tuberculosis), and death.
In the twentieth century, the notion of psychological harm entered the discussion. No sooner did Freud demonstrate that childhood sexuality existed at all, than it was used to assume the potential for mental damage. None of the medical arguments since the end of the Renaissance were actually the reason for sex acts to be condemned (and, clearly, there was never any evidence that extramarital sex lead to death any more than masturbation lead to blindness) - such damage was simply seen as the secularized retribution for sinful acts. "Harm" was seen as a result of "sin" and such claims were based on faith rather than scientific investigation. In terms of psychological harm, this is still the case in some instances.
Assumptions about sexuality lead to many other prejudices. In the nineteenth century, women were considered pure and angelic as a rule. Initially, it was argued that innately evil women seduced men and destroyed their moral purity. With the rise of feminism in the late nineteenth century, women themselves, it ws argued, became the victims of the patriarchy: if women were immoral, it was not a sign of desire, but evidence that they had been corrupted. This gave rise to the white slavery panic - and age of consent legislation. Consent laws rested on the belief that men initiated unwitting (and unwilling) women into sexual activity which lead to prostituion. These laws were to prevent men from recruiting their youngest victims. Even then, the age of consent 150 years ago was twelve in New York - and many were still marrying at that age. By the turn of the century, the age had risen to sixteen.
(The argument, by the way, that the marriage of twelve-year-olds was once acceptable because of shorter life expectancies assumes that increased longevity has somehow also produced a stunted growth rate - that twelve-year-olds now are less "mature" than they were then. This social devolution, like much else relating to childhood sexuality, has no empirical evidence to back it up. It even contradicts the "common sense" arguments so favored by child advocates - if approached without prejudice.)
Similarly, white women, by definition, could not be attracted to black men. Any relationship between white women and black men (who innately lusted after the corruptibly pale skin) was evidence of force. This assumption was one of the major justifications for the Jim Crow laws and the lynchings which frequently accompanied them.
Such moral assumptions die hard. There are still many who believe the racist mythology of predatory black bucks, many who find birth control evil on the grounds that it bypasses the mandate for procreative sex. In the 1950s, Sen. McCarthy presented the then apparently convincing argument that homosexuals in the State Department lead to an "effeminate" foreign policy. Sexual politics have tended to be over-determined, used to control sectors of the population: women, racial minorities, homosexuals - and children.
The tradition of such politics is that anyone who questions the received wisdom is met with moral outrage: "nigger lovers" who questioned the proclivities of black men, "wanton" feminists who questioned gender-defined roles (many are still characterized as "man-hating dykes"), "depraved pornographers" who questioned the moral code of the Comstock laws, "promiscuous, disease-spreading, youth-corrupting faggots" who argued for gay liberation - and "defenders of pedophilia" who argue that children are sexual beings.
You'll note that only one of the above is still in the present tense. Children are the last vestige of the old sexual morality. The assertion that children (like Victorian women) are asexual angels - and that, in the sexual arena, they are passive and incapable of consent - is considered true by definition. It is the only area of human sexuality in which assumptions are still widely maintained without any scientific evidence to back them up (indeed, with much evidence to the contrary).
In all other arenas, we try to prepare children for adulthood from an early age. We give them allowances and even savings accounts to socialize them into our economic system; we train them for sports and self-defense; we send them to Sunday School to indoctrinate them into our religions; we teach them hunting and fishing, encourage participation in domestic chores; we encourage play with dolls for future parenting skills; many of us here probably work to acquaint them with our political system - yet we completely exclude them from our sexual system. Worse, when we address sex at all, it is almost entirely in the negative: we discourage masturbation, punish sex play if discovered - even our so-called sex education as late as high school focuses on the dangers of sex and preaches abstinence.
The exclusion of sex from our children's lives - they should not see it, they should not hear of it, they should not speaek of it - God knows they should not do it - is based on the current moral argument of the majority. And such moral positions tend to be absolutist and not very open to challenge - especially when supported by the law.
The questions here are: Why do we see our moral notions regarding childhood sexuality as more valid than many of our discarded notions about the women and desire, racial proclivities, birth control, and homosexuality? Should such moral notions be the unquestioned basis for legislation? Do you see a time when, as a society, we might become more realistic about the evidence surrounding childhood sexualtiy? And, if so, do you see that as having any impact on, for example, age of consent laws?
[Thread III to follow]
Interesting read Wertz. I would think you would have made the argument differently. You seem to focus on "prejudice and religion" as reasons for the consent laws. I would counter that the age of consent laws are there to allow children and young adults to finish school and learn enough about sexuality before subjecting them into adult sexual themes or lifestyles. Even though we know that they already get approached by those who don't care about laws, and generally don't care for what effect they have upon a childs life. What do you think about seperation of sexualty and state? If children are under the protection (reponsible for childs actions) of parents what would you do to this shelter or tools the parents have now? Just like today we don't even give a drivers license without the parents consent at age 16.
Darcaine
Darcaine
Wertz:
As a mother of a grown son, I do remember seeing to it that he was given information about sex at home, that he was enrolled in sex education classes at school (at the time it was not mandatory) and we talked openly about it. But I gave him more than facts about plumbing, I gave him information about the responsibilities and consequences (positive as well as negative). I told him my view of things, but told him he had to come to his own conclusions. Which he did.
It seems to me this is one of those areas in which each family/parent embarks upon this road as that family sees fit.
As for lowering the legal age when an adult can approach a child for sexual interaction - sorry I cannot agree.
If that labels me as a simplistic repressed retentive Victorian Neanderthal nerd - so be it.
QUOTE
Masturbation and even nocturnal emission were deemed deleterious to mental and physical health - they could lead to pimples, impotence, insanity.
You forgot blindness.As a mother of a grown son, I do remember seeing to it that he was given information about sex at home, that he was enrolled in sex education classes at school (at the time it was not mandatory) and we talked openly about it. But I gave him more than facts about plumbing, I gave him information about the responsibilities and consequences (positive as well as negative). I told him my view of things, but told him he had to come to his own conclusions. Which he did.
It seems to me this is one of those areas in which each family/parent embarks upon this road as that family sees fit.
As for lowering the legal age when an adult can approach a child for sexual interaction - sorry I cannot agree.
If that labels me as a simplistic repressed retentive Victorian Neanderthal nerd - so be it.
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Jan 27 2003, 08:06 AM)
You seem to focus on "prejudice and religion" as reasons for the consent laws.
Because I believe that's where they originate.
QUOTE
I would counter that the age of consent laws are there to allow children and young adults to finish school and learn enough about sexuality before subjecting them into adult sexual themes or lifestyles.
Okay: you seem to be arguing two things here: that sex interferes with schooling and that people should learn about sex before being subject to it. I'd have to disagree with the first part. Kids who can juggle homework, sports training, band and chorus practice, sporting events, work on the yearbook and school paper, academic clubs, school play rehearsals, self-defense classes, and myriad other extracurricular activities with their classes can obviously make a window in their schedule for a bit of sex. As you mention "schooling" in general, do you feel sexual activity interferes with a college education as well? If so, we're all in trouble...
I personally agree with the second part - though I feel that sex education should begin very early. A colleague of mine mentioned to me last Friday, coincidentally, that her son had recently approached her and told her that another guy in his class had been hitting on him and he wondered what he should do. These kids are fourth-graders. We might want to put our kids' sex education off for as long as possible, but, if we do, their education will happen without us.
Another point should be made here. I do not believe that children should be treated "as adults". But we must recognize what children really are. They are gendered creatures with curiosity, needs, and desires - and they are sexually mature well before they hit eighteen. We train our kids to handle money years before they'll be financially independent; we train them to handle sex, if at all, years after they are fully functioning sexual beings. By the time a kid hits puberty, he or she should already know what's going on with their body. In what other area do we prepare kids for an experience after they've already had it? Knowledge is power. The more our children know - about pregnancy, homosexuality, STDs, sexual predators - and the earlier, the safer they'll be. I believe it is possible to protect children without infantilizing them. Those who wish to shield children from sex, from their own bodies, from the world, are doing them no favors - and may be leaving them open to great - and very real - harm.
QUOTE
Even though we know that they already get approached by those who don't care about laws, and generally don't care for what effect they have upon a childs life. What do you think about seperation of sexualty and state?
I agree that age of consent laws have little or, more likely, no impact on pedophilia. But I feel that there should be a separation of sexuality and state - unless there is clearly a sex crime involved. To me, for a sex act to be considered criminal, there must be a victim - and in consensual sex, there is no victim. Forced - or even coercive - sex is a different matter. I certainly agree that pre-pubescent children should be protected by law (though I would make an exception for sex play among peers). As children are not sexually mature and may not understand the workings of their bodies, I believe that any attempt by an adult - as most adults are seen by pre-pubescent children as authority figures - to engage in sex with them is coercive by definition.
QUOTE
If children are under the protection (reponsible for childs actions) of parents what would you do to this shelter or tools the parents have now? Just like today we don't even give a drivers license without the parents consent at age 16.
Once a child sexually matures into adolescence, however, I do not believe that their decisions are any business of the law. Parenting is a different story. If parents wish to forbid their children to have sex - as they might forbid them participation in violent competitive sports or staying up past ten or watching horror movies - that is their right. But if a child violates such proscriptions, it should be between the parents and the child, not the state and the child.
QUOTE(Basheva @ Jan 27 2003, 10:18 AM)
QUOTE
Masturbation and even nocturnal emission were deemed deleterious to mental and physical health - they could lead to pimples, impotence, insanity.
You forgot blindness.I think that may have been mentioned in book I was referencing - but my eyesight is failing.
QUOTE
As a mother of a grown son, I do remember seeing to it that he was given information about sex at home, that he was enrolled in sex education classes at school (at the time it was not mandatory) and we talked openly about it. But I gave him more than facts about plumbing, I gave him information about the responsibilities and consequences (positive as well as negative). I told him my view of things, but told him he had to come to his own conclusions. Which he did.
Excellent. You sound like an ideal parent. Sadly, I suspect that few parents are as conscientious.
QUOTE
It seems to me this is one of those areas in which each family/parent embarks upon this road as that family sees fit.
I would agree up to a point - but I know for a fact that there are a lot of bad parents out there. Desperately, destructively bad. Terrible. People who should never have had children in the first place. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. I think you get what I'm saying. And what of the poor children of such parents? Are they to left to fend for themselves? I suppose it might be better than letting legislation stand in place of education - which is what a lot of "child advocates" seem to advocate. But it doesn't make sense to me.
QUOTE
As for lowering the legal age when an adult can approach a child for sexual interaction - sorry I cannot agree.
If that labels me as a simplistic repressed retentive Victorian Neanderthal nerd - so be it.
If that labels me as a simplistic repressed retentive Victorian Neanderthal nerd - so be it.
I wouldn't say that. "Victorian" and "Neanderthal" strike me as being somewhat contradictory (or at least anachronistic) - I'd leave one of them out.
(For the record, I wouldn't say any of that.)
[QUOTE] Once a child sexually matures into adolescence, however, I do not believe that their decisions are any business of the law. Parenting is a different story. If parents wish to forbid their children to have sex - as they might forbid them participation in violent competitive sports or staying up past ten or watching horror movies - that is their right. But if a child violates such proscriptions, it should be between the parents and the child, not the state and the child.[QUOTE]
To a fine point. The state already makes the "parents" responsible for every action someone under the age 18 makes or emancipated minor. By your reasoning children should allowed to vote as well. The state realizes that parents sometime need the legal tools to fights their own battles like lets say against the ACLU. The fact that laws for minors can and can't do is more for the people who are responsible for raising these children and righly so.
Darcaine
To a fine point. The state already makes the "parents" responsible for every action someone under the age 18 makes or emancipated minor. By your reasoning children should allowed to vote as well. The state realizes that parents sometime need the legal tools to fights their own battles like lets say against the ACLU. The fact that laws for minors can and can't do is more for the people who are responsible for raising these children and righly so.
Darcaine
I'm not sure how you make the leap to voting rights from my reasoning, Darcaine. The state should only interfere with parenting if a child commits a crime - an anti-social act. If an adolescent were to rape another person, there are laws on the books to address that crime. If an adolescent wishes to have consensual sex with another person, that is none of the state's business - or shouldn't be. How do you equate any of this with voting rights?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Feb 11 2003, 09:21 PM)
I'm not sure how you make the leap to voting rights from my reasoning, Darcaine. The state should only interfere with parenting if a child commits a crime - an anti-social act. If an adolescent were to rape another person, there are laws on the books to address that crime. If an adolescent wishes to have consensual sex with another person, that is none of the state's business - or shouldn't be. How do you equate any of this with voting rights?
By your reasoning age has no meaning. This ties directly to voting. To vote one must be 18, the state has a responsibility to help parents by not allowing the older "more mature" (sometimes) to prey upon the young. The state has established statutory rape laws just for this.
Darcaine
PS I DID notice the lack of reference to child in the second part of your argument. Was that intentional?
I'm not arguing that age has no meaning, just that it doesn't necessarily have the meaning we have been lead to believe it might - especially regarding sexuality. And sexual interest, desire, and maturity have nothing to do, as far as I can tell, with one's ability or inability to cast a vote. They have a lot to do with one's ability to have sex.
I left children out of the second half of the argument because it didn't really occur to me that the pre-pubescent would be capable of or interested in rape. I happpily expand my argument to include them, just in case. In terms of consensual sex, I have been arguing that sexual maturity should be prerequisite for sexual activity in any case - though there are those who would disagree - and would, myself, exclude the pre-pubescent from the moral (if not necessarily the legal or psychological) argument.
I left children out of the second half of the argument because it didn't really occur to me that the pre-pubescent would be capable of or interested in rape. I happpily expand my argument to include them, just in case. In terms of consensual sex, I have been arguing that sexual maturity should be prerequisite for sexual activity in any case - though there are those who would disagree - and would, myself, exclude the pre-pubescent from the moral (if not necessarily the legal or psychological) argument.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 27 2003, 10:06 AM)
The questions here are: Why do we see our moral notions regarding childhood sexuality as more valid than many of our discarded notions about the women and desire, racial proclivities, birth control, and homosexuality? Should such moral notions be the unquestioned basis for legislation? Do you see a time when, as a society, we might become more realistic about the evidence surrounding childhood sexualtiy? And, if so, do you see that as having any impact on, for example, age of consent laws?
Wow. Interesting read, Wertz.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to adequately respond to all of the points you addressed. Kiddos are too demanding. Just these two thoughts:
1) Sexual morality, including homosexuality and masturbation, was addressed in the old testiment of the Bible. That school of thought didn't just start in the 17th century, as your post proclaims. I think it had a lot to do with procreation when times were difficult, life expectancies short, and it was necessary to villify the 'wasting of seed'.
2) Although the miniumum age of marriage was 12 in NY 'just 150 years ago', this doesn't argue on behalf of the sexual maturity of 12 year old in 19th century America. In this case, if a woman had a projected life expectancy of thirtysomething years, in order to properly raise her children, and have the opportunity to see them reach adulthood, she would have to marry extremely early. Propagation had to begin as soon as possible.
To answer you question, finally...I don't believe that the age of consent laws will change. Ever. Not exposing a child to acts which we have determined they are not ready to be exposed to is considered progress. If you can conceive of a time when we will scrap all of our child labor laws, and allow the youngest child to work (leaving their education behind) as they once did, that will be the time we scrap age of consent. If a 10 year old demonstrates that he likes money, and could easily go into the coal mine and do the work, should we allow it?
I think what is difficult is that we want to protect children. In order to do that (basically so we can punish those who hurt children) we need laws.
You are making the case that current rape laws should be enough to cover "statutory" rape situations. But wouldn't the adult in those cases ALWAYS say that the sex was consentual? Wouldn't his (or her) lawyer ALWAYS make the case that the child is confused. COULDN'T a parent, who finds out that their 13 year old daughter had sex with a 40 year old guy, convince her daughter that she was raped, that the act was non-consensual (even if it was consensual)?
Teens are not viewed as being able to make their own decisions. They can't vote, they can't drive, they can't drink, they can't smoke. Although some (many?) teens would be physically or mentally ready to do these things, we can't be sure. We want to protect them all. So we set up an arbitrary age under which they are protected. For sex, in some states that age is 18, in some it's 16, in others it is 14 (Utah, at least; the Elizabeth Smart case brought this to light for me).
I guess the question is, what age would you recommend? Would you advocate the old expression "If there is grass in the field, play ball"? As you pointed out, children think of adults as authority figures. They tend to follow orders from adults more or less willingly. Does that make a child who reluctantly says "yes" fair game? Where do you draw the line?
Some children enter puberty at age 8 or 9, are they fair game?
Of course, the age limits are arbitrary. Of course, some children are ready earlier than others. But these laws are there to protect them, not to "inhibit" them or repress them. They have plenty of time to be adults (over 50 years for most people) but only a limited time to be children.
You are making the case that current rape laws should be enough to cover "statutory" rape situations. But wouldn't the adult in those cases ALWAYS say that the sex was consentual? Wouldn't his (or her) lawyer ALWAYS make the case that the child is confused. COULDN'T a parent, who finds out that their 13 year old daughter had sex with a 40 year old guy, convince her daughter that she was raped, that the act was non-consensual (even if it was consensual)?
Teens are not viewed as being able to make their own decisions. They can't vote, they can't drive, they can't drink, they can't smoke. Although some (many?) teens would be physically or mentally ready to do these things, we can't be sure. We want to protect them all. So we set up an arbitrary age under which they are protected. For sex, in some states that age is 18, in some it's 16, in others it is 14 (Utah, at least; the Elizabeth Smart case brought this to light for me).
I guess the question is, what age would you recommend? Would you advocate the old expression "If there is grass in the field, play ball"? As you pointed out, children think of adults as authority figures. They tend to follow orders from adults more or less willingly. Does that make a child who reluctantly says "yes" fair game? Where do you draw the line?
Some children enter puberty at age 8 or 9, are they fair game?
Of course, the age limits are arbitrary. Of course, some children are ready earlier than others. But these laws are there to protect them, not to "inhibit" them or repress them. They have plenty of time to be adults (over 50 years for most people) but only a limited time to be children.
QUOTE(mrspigpen @ Apr 7 2003, 10:20 AM)
1) Sexual morality, including homosexuality and masturbation, was addressed in the old testiment of the Bible. That school of thought didn't just start in the 17th century, as your post proclaims. I think it had a lot to do with procreation when times were difficult, life expectancies short, and it was necessary to villify the 'wasting of seed'.
Granted, the Bible does address sexuality issues - almost entirely, as you mention, to do with procreation and ensuring the survival of the tribe (though it does not, in fact, directly address homosexuality and only addresses masturbation in the context of contraception) - but is curiously silent when it comes to childhood sexuality. Perhaps this is because childhood sexuality, in keeping with the procreative imperative, was condoned and encouraged. At the time, it was customary for girls to be betrothed as soon as they reached puberty, about twelve years old. It has even been suggested that the Blessed Virgin Mary herself was divinely impregnated at around this age. This is probably why the Bible is seldom used as a reference for age of consent laws - God himself may have had sex with a "minor"!
What did change in the 17th century was the focus on individual sexuality and the active condemnation of certain types of sex acts. Throughout the early years of the Christian Church, sexual sins were considered fairly minor and were peripheral to mainstream Church dogma - and childhood sexuality was hardly a consideration at all.
QUOTE(mrspigpen @ Apr 7 2003, 10:20 AM)
2) Although the miniumum age of marriage was 12 in NY 'just 150 years ago', this doesn't argue on behalf of the sexual maturity of 12 year old in 19th century America. In this case, if a woman had a projected life expectancy of thirtysomething years, in order to properly raise her children, and have the opportunity to see them reach adulthood, she would have to marry extremely early. Propagation had to begin as soon as possible.
I'm not quite clear on what you mean here. Are you suggesting that twelve-year-olds who were marrying and propagating at the time were not sexually mature? That strikes me as somewhat illogical: I would have thought that the ability to bear children was about the best sign of sexual maturity possible.
By the start of the nineteenth century, though, the life expectancy in America was thirty-seven - and got progressively higher throughout the century (until about the 1880s, when it levelled off a bit). This means that a woman could easily have waited until she was sixteen or eighteen and still have expected to raise her children to a similar age. The fact is that puberty was considered a marriageable age for centuries - until Victorian mores began to take hold. Had this morality not been liked to medical and psychological misconceptions, it's possible that puberty would still be considered a reasonable marriageable age.
QUOTE
To answer you question, finally... I don't believe that the age of consent laws will change. Ever. Not exposing a child to acts which we have determined they are not ready to be exposed to is considered progress. If you can conceive of a time when we will scrap all of our child labor laws, and allow the youngest child to work (leaving their education behind) as they once did, that will be the time we scrap age of consent. If a 10 year old demonstrates that he likes money, and could easily go into the coal mine and do the work, should we allow it?
I don't believe that the age of consent laws will change any time soon, either, but I would hesitate to use an absolute "never" when it comes to anything] in politics.
I certainly agree that our current societal attitudes toward childhood sexuality a fairly entrenched and not likely to be radically altered for some time to come.On the other hand, I fail to see the correlation between child labor laws and childhood sexuality. It strikes me as a somewhat arbitrary, apples and oranges sort of argument: "If you can conceive of a time when children will be toilet trained before they're eighteen, then you can conceive of a time when age of consent laws will be scrapped" strikes me as being a similar argument.
amlord: I agree with much of what you're saying: this is a difficult topic and much of the rationale behind the legislation may well be to protect the interests of children (though I would still argue that there is also an element of repression and control).
I believe, though, that the arguments you put forward regarding existing rape laws could apply either way. Doesn't the accused in any rape case, regardless of the age of the victim, tend to argue consent? And wouldn't those same parents try to encourage their children to deny consent whether it was a case of "rape" or of "child sexual abuse"?
I'm not entirely sure what I would personally recommend, though I definitely think that sixteen makes a lot more sense than eighteen - and imagine that a pretty good case could be made for fourteen as well. If an eighteen-year-old has consensual sex with a sixteen-year-old, I think it is ridiculous for the older partner to be subject to prosecution and be stigmatized for life as a child molestor for the rest of his/her life. I also know of a seventeen-year-old hustler who has routinely sought out sex with older men for the past few years (often passing himself off as an eighteen- or nineteen-year-old) in order to blackmail them under threat of exposing their "crime". That is obviously disgraceful - but it is equally disgraceful that the law would be on his side, would in fact enable his crimes.
I would argue that all acts between sexually mature adults and pre-pubescent children should be illegal and subject to prosecution. Beyond that, I'm not really sure - though I think that in all cases the "child" should be questioned and their level of consent should be taken into account in any prosecution of such crimes. I'd never heard the "grass in the field" expression before - it clearly has its basis in some folk notion of sexual maturity - though definitely not one condoned by our legislatures.
I agree that we should "let children be children" - but I think we have to acknowledge that children are sexual beings. Part of my childhood - and that of several of my peers - was experimenting rather liberally with our sexuality - and I would not trade those experiences for all the sanctioned "childhood activities" that anyone has to offer.
[QUOTE=Wertz,Apr 11 2003, 07:55 PM]
I'm not quite clear on what you mean here. Are you suggesting that twelve-year-olds who were marrying and propagating at the time were not sexually mature? That strikes me as somewhat illogical: I would have thought that the ability to bear children was about the best sign of sexual maturity possible.
[Reply]
For a fruit fly, yes. There is a vast difference between physical and mental maturity of a human being, especially when referring to the sex act. A twelve year old is not emotionally sexually mature.
[Quote]
On the other hand, I fail to see the correlation between child labor laws and childhood sexuality. It strikes me as a somewhat arbitrary, apples and oranges sort of argument: "If you can conceive of a time when children will be toilet trained before they're eighteen, then you can conceive of a time when age of consent laws will be scrapped" strikes me as being a similar argument.
[Reply]
The parallel I made was a fairly direct one. The foundation for most of your argument is based on sexual views of maturity for children in the past. How can you argue on behalf of one aspect of life and completely disregard all others? For example, children throughout history were starting families at a young age, but they were also brandishing swords and working in coalmines. Clearly our views of childhood, age of responsibility, and maturity have changed.
There are potentially drastic and irreparable consequences from engaging in the sex act. Therefore, there must be an age where we draw the line in the sand. On the surface it sounds too arbitrary, but we don’t have any true way to measure mental maturity for determining age of consent. In a recent magazine (I don’t remember which one) interview with Tracy Lords, she stated that the age (of consent) should be raised to 21. I think we can consider her’s expert testimony.
PS...I'm still trying to figure out the quote thing. I'm not sure how to place one quote and answer it, and then another. Sorry it's confusing
I'm not quite clear on what you mean here. Are you suggesting that twelve-year-olds who were marrying and propagating at the time were not sexually mature? That strikes me as somewhat illogical: I would have thought that the ability to bear children was about the best sign of sexual maturity possible.
[Reply]
For a fruit fly, yes. There is a vast difference between physical and mental maturity of a human being, especially when referring to the sex act. A twelve year old is not emotionally sexually mature.
[Quote]
On the other hand, I fail to see the correlation between child labor laws and childhood sexuality. It strikes me as a somewhat arbitrary, apples and oranges sort of argument: "If you can conceive of a time when children will be toilet trained before they're eighteen, then you can conceive of a time when age of consent laws will be scrapped" strikes me as being a similar argument.
[Reply]
The parallel I made was a fairly direct one. The foundation for most of your argument is based on sexual views of maturity for children in the past. How can you argue on behalf of one aspect of life and completely disregard all others? For example, children throughout history were starting families at a young age, but they were also brandishing swords and working in coalmines. Clearly our views of childhood, age of responsibility, and maturity have changed.
There are potentially drastic and irreparable consequences from engaging in the sex act. Therefore, there must be an age where we draw the line in the sand. On the surface it sounds too arbitrary, but we don’t have any true way to measure mental maturity for determining age of consent. In a recent magazine (I don’t remember which one) interview with Tracy Lords, she stated that the age (of consent) should be raised to 21. I think we can consider her’s expert testimony.
PS...I'm still trying to figure out the quote thing. I'm not sure how to place one quote and answer it, and then another. Sorry it's confusing
QUOTE(mrspigpen @ Apr 11 2003, 08:42 PM)
The foundation for most of your argument is based on sexual views of maturity for children in the past. How can you argue on behalf of one aspect of life and completely disregard all others? For example, children throughout history were starting families at a young age, but they were also brandishing swords and working in coalmines. Clearly our views of childhood, age of responsibility, and maturity have changed.
Ah - okay, I think we're talking at cross-purposes to an extent. Most of my argument in this thread relates to the evolution of our moral views regarding child sexuality - not to sexual maturity itself. (A more direct discussion of childhood sexuality rather than our attitudes toward it can be found in Childhood Sexuality IV: Psychological.) I don't mean this as an admonishment or anything, it's just that the topic does involve quite a variety of considerations and I was trying to make some distinctions clear in relation to the various factors which impact on age of consent laws.
I will, therefore, reply only briefly here and suggest that we take the discussion of the psychological maturity of children in relation to sex to the thread linked above. I agree, of course, that our views of childhood have changed radically over the years, but I would argue that it is only our views which have changed. I do not believe that children were any more or less sexually mature at the age of twelve in the seventeenth century, the nineteenth century or the fifth century, BCE, than they are today. It is our attitude which has changed, not the physiology of the human body - and that attitude has, to a large degree, been colored by the ruling morality of the day (as well as equally mutable medical opinions).
I am not, btw, disregarding all other aspects of life. On the contrary, I think they are all worth considering. But I would not agree that all aspects of our being age and mature at the same rate - and neither do our laws. We have one age at which we feel a child is old enough for certain types of education, another age at which we feel a child may drive a car, another age at which they may smoke cigarettes or consume alcoholic beverages or vote in national elections or be eligible for military service or be responsible for criminal behavior or, for that matter, work in a coal mine or wield a sword. As I obliquely mentioned in my previous post, there's even an age at which we feel it is appropriate for a child to take care of their own toilet responsibilities. One size doesn't fit all. Because a child is too young to drive a car (not having developed certain motor skills - and reached a certain height), does not mean that a child is too young to masturbate or learn their multiplication table. If our moral views regarding childhood sexuality change significantly (as our moral views regarding criminal behavior seem to have been shifting somewhat of late), we could well see changes in age of consent laws.
Regarding the moral authority of Traci Lords, I don't think the lowest (or highest) common denominator argument is appropriate to age of consent. I know people in their forties whom I don't feel are mature enough to have sex responsibly. Should we, therefore, make the age of consent fifty? It would at least solve some of our population problems.
I'd again like to refer you to the other parts of this discussion - I'd be interested in your views on both the legal angle and the psychological. No rush. I realize there's a lot covered in each section - and I realize that you have a lot of other responsibilities.
I'm sending you a PM, btw, with a few "quote" tips...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.