Well over a year ago, in January 2013, Heretic TOC ran a blog called No wonder women turn against ‘teasing’. A few days ago a carefully argued, information-rich, 1,300-word comment in response, complete with links to numerous scholarly and other references, was sent in for moderation. It seemed a shame to let such a magnificent contribution languish in a place where – because the blog was so long ago – not that many people would notice it. So here it is, below, presented as a guest blog. It is from “A”, which is not the most user-friendly of pennames, being about as uninformative as possible, especially as regards gender; but the person behind it is decidedly a good friend of this blog and she – yes, she – has guest blogged here before: see ‘Protecting’ your property, then and now.
You [Heretic TOC] wrote: “If ordinary men can behave so badly, why cannot ordinary paedophiles?” That set me thinking. First, I found this article: in which Dara Kay Cohen points out that female fighters also perpetrate and assist in wartime rape. Second, I had another look at the book Attraction to Children, in which Rüdiger Lautmann writes that most of the MAPs he and his team interviewed were careful and conscientious about ascertaining their child partners’ feelings about sex and did not have sex with children who expressed nonconsent verbally or nonverbally. Lautmann says: “It is my impression that the exceptions to the rule here are no more frequent than in other sexual scenes, for example between adults or married couples.” Is he right?
For the book, Lautmann and his team interviewed sixty men about their paedohebephilic feelings and activities. One man, a university graduate in his forties, said that over the years he had had coital sex with many girls. He told the researchers that he now believed that girls of ten and eleven get no sexual enjoyment out of vaginal intercourse and that it’s painful for them in the beginning, and that the girls knew it was going to be unpleasant the first time. However, he wanted intercourse so much that for a long time he had not debated with himself whether or not to do it. He now felt “like a real scumbag” and that his desires and actions were “dirty”. All of this led the researchers to advise he go into therapy. In addition to this one clear-cut case, there were a few other men whose behaviour Lautmann considered “borderline”. With some it was debatable, and sometimes hard to ascertain, how fully consensual their contacts with children had been. The actions of three of them, however, Lautmann saw as more clearly exploitative.
So we’ve got those four “definitely” guys, which is six and two-thirds percent. Adding in, for safety’s sake, a couple of the “debatable” guys brings us up to six out of sixty, or ten percent: we should probably consider that the maximum estimate. David Lisak and Paul Miller questioned a college sample of men in a wide age-range and found that 6% would admit to acts that met the legal definition of attempted or completed rape of an adult, provided the r-word was not actually used. Using a similar technique with a sample of men in the Navy, Stephanie McWhorter got admissions of attempted or completed rape of an adult from 13% of them. Of each sample of men, 4% and 8.4% respectively admitted to repeated rape. These repeat rapists had committed a median of three rapes each and a mean of six (maximum fifty), plus, on average, eight acts of domestic battery, child abuse etc. Lisak’s Rape Fact Sheet contains a list of the percentage-of-rapists estimates arrived at by other studies: the range is 4.8% – 14.9%.
So, it looks like exceptions to the rule are indeed about as frequent in these two different populations. The similarity is yet another indication that MAPs are no worse and no better than anybody else. It’s also yet another indication that sexual assaults and rapes happen because people commit them: nobody is seriously going to argue that a child could have been “asking for it”, and yet, when children grow up, when they get old enough to start “asking for it”, we don’t see an uptick in the numbers. Funny that.
Lisak also found that the undetected rapists (most rapists go undetected) whom he’s been studying for years tend to hold and rigidly adhere to stereotyped sex-role beliefs. Lautmann came to much the same conclusion about those of his participants whose behaviour was clearly exploitative: “There’s too much traditional male thinking going on here.” It may be significant that while GLs made up only about one-third of Lautmann’s sample, all four of his “definitely exploitive” cases were GLs. Horst Vogt in his 2006 study found that while GLs and BLs both liked much the same kinds of personalities – most wanted a confident, lively, curious and cheerful child, with a minority preferring quiet, thoughtful children – BLs often said they wanted boys who were a bit cheeky or mischievous, but GLs did not say they were looking for the same characteristics in girls. Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen’s 1992 book The Trade in Child Pornography turned up some interesting differences between little-girl mags and little-boy mags: see Appendix C. Boys were more likely to be photographed either clothed or playing naked, while girls were more likely to be photographed posing naked. Schuijer and Rossen’s general impression was that photos of girls tended to be more what they called “pornographic”, meaning that the focus was on arousing the viewer, while photos of boys tended to be more what they called “sexual”, meaning that the focus was on the child’s own arousal. As Lautmann says, CLs can hardly be singled out for blame if they absorb the sex-role ideas of their own culture: everybody else does too, to varying degrees. That doesn’t mean, however, that those ideas are entirely harmless.
“Everything that I do with the child must be not merely tolerated, but wanted,” said one principled girl-lover in Lautmann’s study, demonstrating that it is possible to arrive at that kind of simple, humane, considerate, common-sense, genuinely sex-positive sexual ethic all by oneself. Some people are just that nice. Others need a bit of a nudge. One of Lautmann’s “borderline” cases was a young man who said he was at his happiest when with little girls aged eight through twelve or so, and yet also described having, at age eighteen, well-nigh bullied an eleven-year-old into giving him a handjob. Intercourse took place for the first time not long after, on her twelfth birthday. Lautmann comments, “This mixture of persuasion, pestering, and resolute action would seem repulsive, if not for the fact that this is often precisely what still goes on with teenagers generally.”
Well, indeed. Some teenagers, and not only boys, do that kind of thing because though they are basically decent, they’re young, they really want sex and they haven’t yet figured out how to treat other people well, especially in sexual situations. They’ll grow out of it, with a bit of luck. In the meantime, talking openly about consent may help some of them be more considerate. It may also mean that the future repeat rapists among them — McWhorter found that they most typically start raping in their late teens — don’t have such a dense thicket of misconceptions with which to cover up their rapes. There really are a lot of misconceptions still floating around: for instance, Lautmann says that some of the GLs he studied took silence, accompanied by no approving reaction from the child, for consent. They seemed genuinely to believe in this supposed consent, but they were almost certainly mistaken: all kinds of people freeze up from shock and panic and fear in all kinds of frightening situations, and that includes being sexually assaulted or raped. The 1986 book Crime Without Victims by the Danish ‘Trobriand’ collective includes this personal account of such an occurrence.
We should be making it clearer to kids as they grow up that if during sex someone is totally still and mute and not smiling you should always stop and make sure they’re OK. Of course the emphasis in an initial discussion about consent, particularly with adolescents, should be informative and respectful, humorous even, rather than accusatory and punitive. I think this article really gets it right. It was crossposted at the wonderful scarleteen.com sex ed website. Incidentally, one of the things I like about this blogger is that she has the honesty and good grace to admit when she herself has behaved badly.
one question i have is will sex ever loose its religious status,we all know sex sells and probably will forever,would feminism have to be essentially crushed
for this to happen?this is why people can never agree on consent issues compared to circumcision etc.I know consent is a moral issue but it looses its momentum from 9 to 10 when more and more understand masturbation etc.
I think the issue of paedophilia and incest goes right to the heart of feminism
if that social taboo is broken even in part,then they have no cards left to play
at the end of the day its about who can force change,these fems seem to have a glass ceiling
here is a good vid about elliot rodger and the religion of sex
http://www.youtube.com
[TOC: I am breaking the URL in two parts as an unwanted photo is appearing.]
/watch?v=kyKN7FUPFUY
just a quick response to the last post.yeah i agree I/we should be free to approach a pubescent kid,I was thinking that today carrying my shopping back,A nice looking kid sat waiting on the wall about 13ish,as long as if he told me to f off i would leave and not harass him then whats the problem?
its like illegal drugs why are they banned coz they re bad why are they bad coz they re banned,at some point commonsense must surely begin to intrude.
Yes, there are some similarities with the drugs debate, as with many other debates actually. I was just thinking I could stand to do some reading up on the bathhouse controversy in the gay community, which started during the AIDS crisis in San Francisco in 1984, I believe, and is still ongoing. To oversimplify quite a lot, it looks like this: one side argued that bathhouses promote unsafe sex and thus the spread of HIV infection, while the other side argues that closing bathhouses is an infringement of civil liberties, and that if they’re closed people will just go off and have sex in a park, where they’re even more likely not to take precautions. From my cursory reading, it seems that the evidence on whether or not bathhouse sex is extra likely to be unsafe is still inconclusive. Many bathhouses, however, have done a fine job of providing their customers with free condoms and with HIV testing on the premises.
I’ll combine replies here to Edmund Marlow (c/o tomocarroll), sugarboy, and “A”.
Sugarboy, I think it is reasonable to suggest to SOME people who are over the age of consent that they should wait a while longer, depending on their circumstances. The law draws an arbitrary line, and there are surely people above the line who would do better to postpone activity.
For everyone: It is not my goal to allow sexual relationships between adults and young teens. I would like a man debating such a relationship to say, “This is wrong and illegal.” and hope by that to prevent many such relationships from happening. Humans being the imperfect creatures we are, I am prepared to show mercy and forgiveness where girls say, “Really, it was fine!”. I don’t want injunctions, which require people concerned about a situation to take a difficult legal step. And I don’t want to allow the man to have a chance to prove there was consent, because of course his lawyer will try vigorously to do that, whether it has merit or not. If a girl says she consented but feels it was under false pretenses, that’s a lesser crime — maybe a few months in prison? And no sex offender registry for anybody. But still a crime.
I think in practice this would be quite similar to the idea that no such prosecutions should happen unless the girl or parents wanted them to. In some ways it would offer more protection, as a confident girl could veto a prosecution even if her parents were rabidly in favor. But I like prosecutorial discretion in cases where a family is intimidated by a man, or parents and girl are all not very high functioning.
So, now A:
You and I both qualify for the “man bites dog” news cycle, as you are (I believe) a non-pedophile arguing for adult-child sex in some cases, and I am a pedophile arguing against it.
You agree women hate the idea of mandatory reporting for themselves, but do they also hate the idea of mandatory reporting for their underage sisters (and brothers)?
Yes, everyone should understand that silence is not consent. But presumably that isn’t even an issue for young teens unless you believe such relationships should sometimes be acceptable, right?
You cite studies about girls having bad outcomes when involved with older men, which I think should give serious pause to the pro-contact folks. But all that is under discussion here are proposals to weaken existing prohibitions (slightly for me, and more for others of you). None of those measures is going to solve the problems you allude to — that would require changes in the opposite direction. But such changes by way of the legal system seem very difficult if we want to honor liberty.
Eliminating mandated reporting might help in some cases, where a parent could enlist professional help for a girl without it “going nuclear” with public notification, interrogations and arrests.
Actually, I am one of the rare female paedophiles, though preferential rather than exclusive, and obviously totally celibate with kids because of the legal prohibitions. That’s still Man Bites Dog.
I cite those studies because I think they are important to look at squarely. In a way, this is not even an MAP problem, because most of these age-gap relationships involve very young men, early twenties at the oldest, and girls who are more or less physically mature. For instance, Patricia Donovan points out here http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2903097.html that “[i]n California … fewer than 3% of all teenage births are to women younger than 15 (median age for this group is approximately 14.5); of these, nearly two-thirds are fathered by men 19 or younger.” But nonetheless, it’s important to take these data into account if we want our attitudes to be realistic — e.g., it’s in large part because of these studies that I would not support the removal of *all* protections, legal *and* civil, for under-sixteens.
However. These studies deal, most of them, with a population that’s at high risk anyway. They are also all from the US, where abstinence-only education is rife and some health insurance plans don’t cover contraception and, in Texas at least, some 49% of that population don’t even think they should ever masturbate. A study from almost anywhere else in the first world might, for all I know, show somewhat better outcomes, but there is a frustrating lack of data on man-girl relationships as compared to the fairly plentiful data on man-boy relationships, and I can’t bet on what I only hope may be the case..
I’m taking, if you like, a ‘harm reduction’ stance. Sex and relationships between kids and adults are going to happen anyway, and they can be a wonderful thing for both parties, but whether or not you believe the ‘wonderful’ part, they’re going to happen. We can imprison people for them, or we can respond with more humanity and flexibility by improving sex education and access to safer sex materials, offering civil protection to those in need of it, *and* taking on board a few sound feminist ideas, such as that silence is not consent, intercourse is not the only kind of sex, and young girls as well as young boys should feel in charge of their bodies and sexuality. In a way, sex between kids and adults is a bit like BDSM sex (stick with me here). It’s the main sexual interest of a substantial minority and it carries more risks than most other kinds of sex. BDSMers, however, don’t swear celibacy: the more responsible among them adhere to a harm reduction policy of ‘safe, sane and consensual’ behaviour.
So, a female pedophile. We have journalists writing to us at Virtuous Pedophiles (virped.org) asking if we can put them in touch with female pedophiles, so if you write to virpeds@gmail.com we could discuss whether that interests you or not. From the mail we occasionally get from female pedophiles, I sometimes think they/you tend to feel even more isolated and anguished than male pedophiles.
We’re on the same wavelength in terms of having interest in harm reduction and statistics. (Some people on GirlChat make it a matter of principle to the point of insisting on the rights of 4-year-old girls to engage in sexual activity with adults, even if recognizing that the actual number of such girls may be incredibly small.) I think statistics are interesting, but when we’re talking on the order of 60% vs 40% of something, human liberty has to play a big role even if the odds appear to be against favorable outcomes. I’m sure you agree.
So I’m all in favor of educating about consent. I could think of the consent education as akin to favoring needle exchange programs for addicts even if I didn’t favor legalizing drug use. But I think you’re ignoring the fact that if you weakened age of consent laws, you might see a lot more of those relationships with bad outcomes. Yes, they happen now with laws as they are, but with reduced fear of legal consequences, they might become a lot more frequent. It seems a big price you’re willing to pay for those relatively rare happy adult-adolescent relationships.
Yes, I certainly do agree with you that human liberty has to play a big role.
The incidence of bad outcomes might go up, but we don’t know that it would. Nobody’s ever, to my knowledge, compared the statistics in a country where the age of consent is 13 and one where the age of consent is 18. As far as I know, when the Dutch law which set the age of consent at 12 unless parents objected was in force, nobody became alarmed that rates of rape or pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection among under-16s were going up…maybe because they weren’t? The Dutch are pretty good with contraception. This Europe-wide study http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/documents/pregnancyinternationalpt1.pdf found no significant correlation between legal age of consent for heterosexual activity and pregnancies among girls 15-19.
I don’t know that happy adult-adolescent relationships are as unusual as all that: the data on man-boy relationships, at least, suggests that it is more the rule than the exception for them to work out well. For men and girls, the picture is less clear. The study I’ve found most useful in trying to establish, in Frank Ree’s words, “criteria for a positive experience” is Terry Leahy’s book Negotiating Stigma: New Approaches to Intergenerational Sex (https://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/NegotiatingStigma.pdf). Leahy interviewed, if I recall correctly, seven women who in early adolescence had had positive experiences of sex and/or relationships with men. Three were capable, self-reliant, socially-skilled kids from socioeconomic milieux in which young man-teen girl relationships were accepted, even expected. These girls had a lot of casual sex from early on, including PIV sex with older partners, and they seem to have dealt well with safer sex. One had, at 15, an abortion she wanted and felt good about, then started taking combined oral contraceptives; another was confidently using condoms with spermicide at 14. The other four girls’ relationships were more long-term and emotionally close. They enjoyed sex with their older partners – one had her first orgasm, at 12-almost-13, from clitoral stimulation by her friend, who was in his late 20s – but did not want PIV with them. Part of what made these kids’ relationships positive for them was that their older partners respected their wishes on the matter and did not try to cajole them into anything they were reluctant to do, even as they got older.
In any case, happiness is perhaps not quite the problem. Bruce Rind’s recent reanalysis of the Kinsey data suggests that young teen girls’ enjoyment of first coitus with adult men — pretty low, which is unsurprising given that the clitoris is our main sexual organ, not the vaginal canal — and likelihood of negative reactions thereto — also pretty low — did not differ significantly from that of young adult women having first coitus with agemates. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-013-0186-x) So, the intercourse in itself may well be fine. It’s the lack of protection that is the problem: you can be on cloud nine about your relationship at 14 and still regret it years down the line when you get pelvic inflammatory disease and realise that you were very naïve at the time and shouldn’t have believed him when he said come on, don’t worry, I know I’m clean. And if anything’s well-documented, it’s that education about and access to safer sex methods causes teenagers to use them more. If, like many of the kids in the Guttmacher studies, you are being told at school that condoms are full of microscopic holes, having an older partner is indeed likely to raise your risk of contracting an STI, but good sex education may protect against this. I cannot argue strongly that this protective effect exists, because the data just aren’t there, but I think it may well do, and the evidence from Western Europe provides some preliminary support for this.
A side-note about sex with 4-year-old girls: interestingly enough, the Lautmann study contains quotations from interviews with a few men who had sexual contact with 4- and 5-year-old girls. Really it depends what kind of sexual contact: these men describe tickling, stroking, the little girl getting hold of the man’s penis and writing all over it with a felt-tip pen, and I see this as a totally harmless form of playful sensuality. But that perhaps isn’t what you meant by sex.
As a Utilitarian, I’m completely in favor of harm reduction – the less (net) harm the better. Do you have any information on interventions that reduce the likelihood of harm in cases of adult-child sex? Probably not an intervention designed specifically for that but more neutral actions like teaching fact-based sex-ed. It’d be great if there were a charity that took an informed, effective-altruist approach to reducing child sexual abuse – including by ameliorating the ‘abuse’ part.
“the presumption of innocence must be maintained and because most rape cases come down to one person’s word against another, a large majority of rapists will continue to walk free”
This is correct, and it is fundamentally why I am in favor of age of consent laws, as a protection for underage girls against rape. If intercourse happened and the girl said it was rape, then the law properly regards it as rape, and this protects her in advance. If she says it wasn’t then the police shouldn’t pursue the case. Yes, a few young teens may lose out on good relationships with men who are older, but a lot more will be protected.
I was also wondering if adult women could be nudged into questioning mandated reporter laws. I imagine a lot of women would hate the idea that mentioning a rape required a therapist to notify police — she should be able both to get help and also retain control of her privacy. Why are underage girls denied that same control and power?
So what, precisely, is the argument against raising the age of consent to 30?
Many people view their sex lives as part of a longer narrative. It’s bearable to not have sex now if I know I’ll be able to have it later. So the value of sex increases as people enter their 20s. It’s the prospect of never having it that is most distressing (and indeed, deepest sympathies extended to my pedophile brethren who are exclusive). On the other hand, self-confidence, the ability to navigate complex social situations, and emotional resilience when things go wrong all increase significantly between (say) 13 and 18.
The cost of abstaining goes up, and the cost of partaking goes down. Society picks an imperfect number for a cutoff. I don’t think anything above 16 is reasonable.
THIS REPLY IS FROM EDMUND MARLOWE, POSTED BY TOC. EDMUND IS EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
Ethan, though I agree with A. that a system of civil injunctions would be better, what you say here is much fairer than anything I have heard you say before. But if this understandable concern is really the basis of your objection to lowering the age of consent to puberty, then why would you contest two alternatives which would offer the same protection and yet cause many fewer young teens to “lose out on good relationships with men who are older”:
1.Rather than automatically regarding sex with a young teen as rape, why not regard it as legally presumed rape, and at least give the adult the chance to prove his innocence?
2. Better still, why not avoid all possibility of definitely unwanted interference by the authorities by adopting the Dutch law of the 1990s, whereby if a child was over 12 but under 16, a prosecution could only be initiated by the child or his or her parents?
The second is not nearly perfect in my view, but it would avoid the worst cases of cruel oppression by the law and take most of the wind out of my sails.
Edmund, author of Alexander’s Choice, a 14-year-old’s love story.
If the value of sex increases as people enter their 20s, then why is anything above 16 not reasonable? When a 16 or 17 years old is horny, we could just say to him or her: “Listen, the value of sex will increase as you enter your 20s, so please be virtuous and take it easy, because you know that you’ll be able to have sex later…”
You know, this study from Mississippi http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21088266 and this study from North Carolina http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20057320 found that young men *in their early 20s* with male partners somewhat older than them had increased odds of HIV infection. Yet very few people would support an age of consent of 25 or 30, or legislation decreeing that nobody, ever, could have sex with someone more than 5 years younger. So where do we draw the line?
Well, to start with I think it really depends what you mean by sex. A 14-year-old girl is physically more vulnerable to STIs than a 24-year-old woman because even if the girl’s already finished with the rest of puberty, as she may well be, she’ll still have a lot of cervical cell development going on. But she’s not going to catch a thing from mutual masturbation. In Paedophilia: The Radical Case, Tom proposed a ban on penetrative sex between adults and under-12s. Personally, I’d probably be OK with that but not with a higher age limit: Lautmann’s study, for instance, found in a sample of only about twenty GL men four cases of consensual penis-in-vagina sex with 12-year-old girls. I wouldn’t want to legislate against those encounters.
This study http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/27/peds.2012-3495.full.pdf+html found that firstly, PIV intercourse is rare among girls aged 10-12 and likely to be nonconsensual and secondly, “Contraceptive uptake among girls as young as 15 is similar to that of their older counterparts, whereas girls who start having sex [by sex they mean PIV] at 14 or younger are less likely to have used a method at first sex and take longer to begin using contraception.” The study’s authors hypothesise that lower contraceptive uptake among younger teenagers is due to a lack of information about and access to contraceptive methods. But that may not be the whole story: I do tend to agree with you that, for instance, 13- and 14-year-olds are often developmentally ready for intercourse in itself but not yet developmentally ready to handle safer sex well, to deal well with accidents or to withstand pressure from partners a few years older.
I feel, however, that a system of civil injunctions would ideally have the built-in flexibility to respond to all the possible permutations of development and circumstance: a 13-year-old who was already able to handle safer sex and had a responsible adult partner; a 15-year-old who clearly wasn’t and didn’t; a 14-year-old who wanted to continue with the sex and the relationship but needed someone to back her up in asking her older partner if he would please just go get tested. But even such a system would be far from a cure-all, since the commonest way things go wrong is kids being silly together, and laws against sexual activity between age-peers have truly disastrous consequences. We need better education for both sexes about all kinds of contraception, including perfectly good methods like diaphragms and cervical caps that for some reason nobody talks about any more; medical privacy for US children who are on their parents’ health insurance; and better healthcare coverage full stop. I’d also love to see some weakening of the pervasive notion that PIV is obligatory, or the ‘best’ kind of sex, or the only ‘real’ kind of sex.
The task, however, is truly Herculean. This study https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3417802.html surveyed 14- to 26-year-old, low-income girls and women who were patients at two Texas contraception clinics. 15-16% said they never had the right to insist upon safer sex and contraception, while fully 49% (! ! ! ! !) said they never had the right to masturbate to orgasm, 8% said they never had the right to tell their partner they did not want to make love, 9% said they never had the right to tell their partner they *did* want to make love, and 16% said they never had the right to tell their partner they wanted to make love differently. I just don’t know how to fix that.
Better (and more) Sex-Ed. From the time I was 14 I was teaching my classmates about safer-sex – because the actual teachers refused to do it. I managed to counter some idiotic ideas (you would not believe how many girls thought they would bleed to death from masturbation or catch HIV from a condom) and I believe they’ve been better off for it. A little info goes a long way.
The other problem is how many parents don’t ever have The Talk or wait too late (I had a simplified version when I was 4 and got the details at 8). However, this is a Systemic Cultural Issue and I’ve no idea how to address those.
>My apologies for all the pseudo-math. Just finished my algebra homework
Apologies? Not required. Pretty cool use of new knowledge, I’d say!
Thank you but I think you replied to the wrong comment (I did post quite a few…).
Do you have any opinions on the premise, though? Besides, of course, the fact that you object to any AoC. This is the first time I’ve fully articulated my view because (somehow) the people I’ve tried speaking with seem to believe that non-hysteric support of an AoC must make me a pedo-sympathiser. I can’t even begin to talk about how backward that logic is.
Not that being a “pedo-sympathiser” is necessarily bad! All people deserve some form sympathy.
Yes, my reply has gone in the wrong place, unfortunately – partly the fault of WordPress blog admin “dashboard” software which doesn’t show what you are replying to! Had no time to check, alas, and sadly must also report not enough time for extensive debate with particular commentators here, including readers of obvious intelligence, such as yourself, who clearly have interesting points to discuss.
I’m on the move at the moment, working on TV documentary. Will try to respond later on particular question you have put.
Documentary? About what? Will it be online?
Can’t say much while it’s under production, unfortunately. There is a right time to go public, and this is not it.
I assume that when this ‘right time’ comes you’ll announce it on this blog. Can you at least tell us when to expect it?
Should be broadcast October or November in UK. It’s something I definitely want this blog to know about but will coordinate with director regarding announcements. Glad you’re interested!
Is the documentary on schedule? Does it have a release date?
It is on schedule for November but I still don’t know whether my contribution will make the final cut. That will depend more on the channel than the production company.
My (Utilitarian) view is more like this:
In the event that a child is raped by an adult, it is very likely that they would be unable to successfully initiate legal action without the help of an Age of Consent (AoC) or similar rule. Let’s refer to the number of such children as ‘X’. We can also represent their total harm/pain as ‘H(X)’.
On the other hand, a child may have sex that is consensual and enjoyable. Let’s call this set of kids ‘Y’. We can now represent their total pleasure/enjoyment as ‘P(Y)’.
As age increases, the likelihood that an individual will want and enjoy sex increases. At the same time, the likelihood that they can stop (or press charges against) assault increases. Thus, as a cohort becomes older, the ratio of P(Y) : H(X) goes up.
I believe the perfect place the to put the AoC is the age for which P(Y) >= H(X). Since pleasure is good and pain is bad, any intervention that boosts P(Y) or reduces H(X) is good. However, barring some highly unethical randomised trials, we’re unlikely to ever have a good idea of what works.
My apologies for all the pseudo-math. Just finished my algebra homework and I had functions and ratios swirling around in my head. However, I do believe this is the best explanation (I could give) of a Rule-Utilitarian AoC. Advice and critiques are welcome.
I am sure a lot of women do hate the idea of mandatory reporting. The stories that I have heard and read frequently involve a friend or boyfriend the woman in question cared about and didn’t want to get into trouble even if she hated what he did; sometimes, too, a person will find they can cope better if they avoid the rape label with all the baggage it carries; sometimes a person knows that going through a rape prosecution would be too awful for them to be able to cope with it.
I’m chewing on your proposal of rebuttable presumption of rape in cases of sex between am underage girl (or boy, I assume) and an adult. The problem I see is that the presumption of innocence must hold for everybody, including those who happen to be attracted to children. But what about the grave harm children sometimes suffer — how heavily are we to weight that?
There is, certainly, a heap of evidence — see many of the Guttmacher Institute’s studies, for instance — that relationships between young adolescent girls and somewhat older young men often, though by no means always, don’t turn out so well for the girls. Teenage girls paired with older partners rather than agemates are more likely to have penis-in-vagina intercourse rather than sticking to other, less risky kinds of sex, less likely to use contraception, more likely to contract an STI. While it’s difficult to sort out the personality and social factors that cause girls to get involved with older males from the older partners’ influence in itself, studies like this one https://guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3001298.html suggest that older male partners do indeed sometimes put pressure on younger female partners. But this study, we should remember, asked about *voluntary* experiences: the girls were simply asked to rate how wanted those voluntary experiences had been. They would doubtless have maintained, if asked in an uncoercive manner, that they had not been raped. As Lynn Phillips has pointed out (https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=182876) the girls in these relationships are usually willingly involved, even though in adulthood they often come to regret that involvement. The girls arguably most in need of protection, the ones most likely to end up with a bad outcome such as an unwanted pregnancy, an STI, friendships they ended and opportunities they missed because their older boyfriend with his fancy car was monopolising their time — most of those girls would defend their boyfriends under questioning if they knew that the men, whom they may well love, could go to prison. Thus, rebuttable presumption of rape wouldn’t be much good in such cases.
I think a system of civil injunctions such as PIE originally proposed would work much better. The criminal courts would continue to be reserved for actual cases of rape where there was sufficient evidence to prosecute. If a thirteen-year-old girl was talking to a sympathetic teacher (of course we’d have to relax the ‘safeguarding’ measures in schools before such a conversation could take place) and revealed that her twenty-year-old boyfriend kept talking her out of using condoms and she wasn’t happy about it, the teacher could make a complaint to the local authority children’s division, which would be empowered to issue an injunction against the continuation of the relationship, deeming it not in the child’s best interests to be talked out of safer sex practices. Maybe they could even allow the relationship to continue but tell the young man he had to use condoms in future or else they’d get heavier-handed. The child in question would surely be more likely to be honest if she knew that nothing bad would happen to her boyfriend either way. The same procedure could be used if a child complained of sexual maltreatment but there was not enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecution. It would provide an extra layer of protection for kids, who are indeed extra vulnerable in some ways, without violating the presumption of innocence for the adults involved with them.
We mustn’t, either, forget socioeconomic problems in all this. Having an older partner ups kids’ risk of contracting an STI, but, as the Guttmacher Institute has also pointed out, so do being black or Latin@ and being poor. Many young men involved in relationships with adolescent girls are not strictly speaking MAPs; instead, these relationships often grow out of a particular set of circumstances. Teenage girls in the inner city have especially compelling reasons to get involved with young adult men with jobs and money. The men, meanwhile, are likely to be just as attracted to young women as to teenagers, but they may find it easier to date younger because the women their own age aren’t freewheeling middle-class undergrads, they’re already tired from looking after their kids or have jobs that they can’t skip to hang out with a boyfriend as they might have skipped school. We should ultimately aim at dealing with those socioeconomic root causes. In the meantime, I think, as I said above, that a civil system such as PIE proposed would be our best bet.
Thank you for the compliment, Tom! (I didn’t think too hard about my nickname, I’m afraid, and once you’ve picked the thing you’ve got to stick with it…) I keep banging on about subjects like this is because I worry that justified anger at some damaging strands of feminism is causing MAPs to throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting all feminist arguments about consent. I also worry about some of the arguments put forward in their place: for instance, I’ve often enough read MAPs arguing that if a child is genuinely sexually abused they will make a complaint, and if not, leave well enough alone. In theory I agree with this, but in practice, our culture is going to have to change a lot before it’ll actually work. The Québécois researcher Pierre Tremblay is by no means hostile to MAPs, as show by this fascinating study http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/restes/CSEC_Files/Tremblay_R2_020523.pdf and by the extensive ‘Intergenerational’ section of his encyclopaedic website. Yet he has spoken up about the problem of rape within the gay male community. On his website, he tells the story of a boy in Calgary who decided that for his fourteenth birthday he wanted to treat himself to something special: first-time sex with a man. He headed down to the local cruising grounds that night and succeeded in picking up a man, but their encounter went badly wrong: according to Tremblay, “what happened next was equivalent to rape”. Telling the story to Tremblay at age thirty, the man said that he had wanted to go to the police but hadn’t dared, because if he had, everyone would know he’d been looking for sex with males. Homophobia may be less of a problem now but only if you’re lucky, and sex-negativity and slut-shaming are still major problems. Attempts to return to the old arguments along the lines of ‘well, he was at a cruising spot/she was in a bar, he/she must have wanted it, so just lay off’ really don’t help construct a culture in which people who have been sexually assaulted will feel able to report it.
Most rapists of adults, at least, are never punished. Some time ago I read an article by a woman — alas, I can now neither find the article nor remember her name — arguing that we’ve gone as far as we can go with rape prosecutions: because the presumption of innocence must be maintained and because most rape cases come down to one person’s word against another, a large majority of rapists will continue to walk free. I don’t know if she’s right but she may well be, and if she is, then the only thing left to do is to try and change the culture, rather than the laws. In the leaked video which shows an eighteen-year-old laughing about the Steubenville rape video, saying how much “they raped that girl” and how “dead”, i.e. unconscious, she was, another boy speaks up: “What if it was your daughter?” I appreciate his effort, but I’d like to see the default question become “What if it was you?” I’d also like to see more conversations about consent, and I think, perhaps idealistically, that those conversations need not be difficult. In Boys on their Contacts with Men, Bart, fourteen, talked at some length about how he used words and body language to communicate with Albert, forty-six, when they were having sex, and how Albert noticed and responded right away. It’s not rocket science, it’s just good sex. Extracts from that interview would perhaps be good material for discussion in a lower-secondary PSHE class. That’ll be the day! and yet, not dissimilar things did happen in the Netherlands only thirty to forty years ago.
I do agree with you. That the culture has to change. While I ultimately advocate abolishing the age of consent, doing so in current society (especially in countries like the US, UK, or Australia) would likely be more harmful than helpful. Too many people view a sexually precocious women as deserving to be raped if she was raped. Even when talking about young girls. Since she dared express her sexuality. Young girls will also be more open to flirting and being sexual, since sex negative socialization would not have affected them as much. I can see an eight year old girl enjoying her sexuality and flaunting it, only to be raped by a twisted man and then the little girl being attacked and people saying “this is why kids shouldn’t be sexual”. Instead of laying all blame on the mom for not respecting the young girl.
Regardless laws do need to change. A minor attracted person who gives consensual oral sex to a little boy or girl should not be punished as if they raped the child forcefully and the child should not be sent to therapy as if something terrible was done to them. The justice system needs to take this more as a case by case basis. There is literally no damage or harm done to little girl who consensually has her vagina licked. None. It is ridiculous to say otherwise. It is something she will enjoy thoroughly and it is healthy for her. Sexual pleasure is good when it is consented and this really isn’t debatable barring iatrogenic harm of course.
As for the original post posted by Tom. Yes, silence is NOT consent. Minor attracted adults have an even higher responsibility to make sure the child feels safe, is consenting, and feels in control. Their body, their life, their sexuality, their choice. Even if a young boy is loving the mutual masturbation, the second he says “stop” you stop. Hell this goes for adults with adults as well. Consent given can just as quickly be withdrawn and that must be accepted. Silence is not golden in cases of sexual consent as well.
Thanks for your very heartening response! I agree with every word!
One of the subjects in Lautmann’s study said: “From the moment when a girl says she doesn’t want to anymore, I also do not try to persuade or compel her, because I accept that. When I like a girl, it’s okay to me if she says no. And what’s fun for both is, I think, okay, whatever the girl’s age.” The interviews in Lautmann’s study also testify to the enthusiastic sexual forwardness of many little girls around 6-12 years old and to their enjoyment of receptive oral sex, which also has the considerable advantage of being safe sex. Girls often lose a lot of that sexual enthusiasm and forwardness as they grow older. The woman who gave this interview http://www.just-well.dk/CrimeWithoutVictims/lotte.html initiated sex with two of her teachers, a man and a woman, at age 10, and interestingly enough she says that she grew up living very much in her own world and didn’t realise until 14 or 15 that she wasn’t supposed to be making the first move. This struck a chord with me, as I was something of a loner in childhood myself, and I think that’s part of why I didn’t absorb many of the sex-role beliefs that my peers did.
Evolutionary psychology offers sound biological reasons for the ‘man pursues, woman is pursued’ state of affairs, but I don’t think that those reasons make up the whole of the story: for one thing, there are records of other cultures where it was considered normal and fine for women to take the sexual initiative. I recently found this study http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/10/1290.abstract in which the typical sex-role script was experimentally flipped, so that in a speed-dating setup the men sat and waited to be approached and the women did the approaching. Suddenly the men got choosier and the women less choosy. Alice Eagly, whom I admire for being a feminist who doesn’t let ideology obscure facts, has done a lot of work on this kind of thing too. She has demonstrated, for instance, that in cultures where women are more financially independent, gender differences in things like mate selection remain in place, as evolutionary psychology would predict, but shrink considerably.
Have you heard of the case of R. v. Ewanchuk, in Canada? Ewanchuk was acquitted of sexual assault and his conviction upheld on appeal, even though the 17-year-old he had sexually assaulted said no three times and he acknowledged at the time that she was scared. The 17-year-old had apparently managed to imply consent by the way she was dressed and by having a boyfriend and a baby, which made it clear that she had had sex before. As you say, previous sexual experience is sometimes held against women and girls. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the acquittal, with Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé writing a passionate refutation of rape myths, which you can read at the bottom here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii711/1999canlii711.pdf And this was only fifteen years ago.
It’s easy to sit round saying that the culture has to change, and harder to figure out how to change it. But a few small initiatives give me hope. There’s a novel called Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson, about a girl who is raped at age 13 by a 17-year-old boy, doesn’t tell anyone, and sinks into a depression. It’s less grim than it sounds though, as the protagonist is smart and sarcastic and sees right through adult bullshit. It’s also an extremely accurate portrayal of US high school life. The book is greatly beloved by many young readers: at the beginning of the tenth-anniversary edition, Anderson includes a very moving poem made up of bits and pieces of the letters and emails kids sent her about it. Some were raped themselves, and for most, Anderson was the first person they told. Here http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1667&context=etd is Victor Malo-Juvera’s doctoral dissertation on the effect reading, writing about and discussing Speak had on schoolkids in a poor area of Florida. The kids in the study were aged 13-17, modal age 14-15. Malo-Juvera found that the book reduced their acceptance of some rape myths. He points out that having them talk about the book with their regular teachers, rather than with a guest lecturer, probably helped, because kids often see guest lectures at school as an opportunity to relax!
But alas. Along comes Wesley Scroggin, associate professor of management at Missouri State University. Mr Scroggin does not care for Ms Halse-Anderson’s novel. In fact, he has opined in the Springfield, Missouri News Leader that Speak is soft pornography and should be banned from schools, also that eighth-grade (ages 13-14) children should not be taught how to use condoms, also…well have a read: http://archive.news-leader.com/article/20100918/OPINIONS02/9180307/Scroggins-Filthy-books-demeaning-Republic-education
But all is not lost, as Scroggin’s book ban sparked an anti-censorship campaign on social media across the US, led by beloved US children’s author Judy Blume, some of whose books deal frankly with puberty, masturbation and partnered sex. Blogger Karen Ballum mentioned two US Christian writers, Myra McEntire and Jessie Anderson, who saw the value of the novel and wanted it kept on the curriculum. She also described checking Speak out of the library and finding the last page covered with anonymous handwritten personal testimony from women and girls who had been raped.