On Pederasty & Pedophilia

[Storm]

Excerpted from another thread:

Didn't the Greeks and Romans have "unions" between children and adults as well?

No. At least, no moreso than any other culture.

I believe you're thinking of the tradition of pederasty, but that is not the same thing. As repugnant as it may be to modern sensibilities, it was not pedophilia.

We're talking about grown men having sex with boys. Let's not play games with semantics

I'm not.

I view pederasty much like slavery - an alien practice repugnant to modern sensibilities, but the way of the world at the time. It was, however, DEFINITIVELY not pedophilia.

Remember, life was shorter, and people matured more quickly by necessity. A 17 year old was an adult by every measure, just a young one. They did not have the luxury of sheltered, extended childhood. Hit puberty? Time to take on adulthood!

Pedophilia, however, is another matter entirely. It involves the sexual abuse of PREPUBESCENT children who are not biologically ready.

The difference may seem irrelevant to modern sensibilities, but I'll be the voice of dissent.

Pedophilia is not, and never has been accepted or anything but evil at its purest. Pederasty otoh, is only an issue because of modern beliefs that childhood should be extended well into the 20s.

Personally, while I disapprove of pederasty as an institution, I have just as many issues with the naive belief that biological adults should be 'protected' from sex completely.

The blanket assumption that no one under the age of 18 (in the US) is capable of informed consent is - to be blunt - rather foolish. Extending this naivete to judging ancient cultures in which it was abjectly impracticable crosses the line to outright stupidity.

Further, I'll go so far as to confess that I oppose laws on statutory 'rape' of teens. They are not children, biologically or psychologically, and should not be treated as such. If there's abuse to be found, by all means prosecute. But age difference does not prove abuse in and of itself.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

In other words, if they have pubes they're fair game. Does that work both ways in your book? What about the 40 years old man that wants to sleep with an 11 year old girl who's a little more physically mature than her classmates?

 

[Storm]

In other words, if they have pubes they're fair game. Does that work both ways in your book? What about the 40 years old man that wants to sleep with an 11 year old girl who's a little more physically mature than her classmates?

Nice misrepresentation. All I said was that there shouldn't be blanket laws which essentially expect an instantaneous transition from "innocent, ignorant child" to "fully capable adult.

But to answer the relevant question, yes. My opinions is that the gender of the YOUTH - NOT CHILD - irrelevant.

 

[HerDotness]

The difference may seem irrelevant to modern sensibilities, but I'll be the voice of dissent.

Pedophilia is not, and never has been accepted or anything but evil at its purest. Pederasty otoh, is only an issue because of modern beliefs that childhood should be extended well into the 20s.

Personally, while I disapprove of pederasty as an institution, I have just as many issues with the naive belief that biological adults should be 'protected' from sex completely.

The blanket assumption that no one under the age of 18 (in the US) is capable of informed consent is - to be blunt - rather foolish. Extending this naivete to judging ancient cultures in which it was abjectly impracticable crosses the line to outright stupidity.

Further, I'll go so far as to confess that I oppose laws on statutory 'rape' of teens. They are not children, biologically or psychologically, and should not be treated as such. If there's abuse to be found, by all means prosecute. But age difference does not prove abuse in and of itself.

I'll rubberstamp the above.

Pederasty among the Ancient Greeks in particular was regarded as a relationship more hallowed than heterosexual ones. To be chosen as the lover of a military hero was a high honor and unlikely to be refused since it often resulted in elevation from one social stratum to another via the advantages that came from the relationship.

If I'm not mistaken, such a relationship was regarded as honoring the family of the young male chosen as well.

These were consensual relationships, although there probably were some where pressure was brought to bear upon a heterosexual teenager who wasn't that enthusiastic about the idea, humans being the not-always-honorable characters we can be. That's only speculation, and probably quite unjust speculation. We can't ever know, obviously, how the participants felt about the relationship.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Nice misrepresentation. All I said was that there shouldn't be blanket laws which essentially expect an instantaneous transition from "innocent, ignorant child" to "fully capable adult.

But to answer the relevant question, yes. My opinions is that the gender of the YOUTH - NOT CHILD - irrelevant.

I can't begin to fathom what the process of judging whether or not a physically developed 11 year old girl is mature enough to consent to sex looks like

 

[Storm]

I can't begin to fathom what the process of judging whether or not a physically developed 11 year old girl is mature enough to consent to sex looks like

How about a 17 year old?

If you can't begin to fathom how to judge, why do you support laws simply denying it?

Further, the insistence on an 11 year old is a red herring, as even if they've hit puberty, they're not done with their physical development. Have I been unclear in my condemnation of actual pedophilia?

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with Storm that abuse should be more of an issue that age. However, I think the laws against statutory rape are nowadays intended to prevent abuse, however clumsy they may be. An age difference does not necessarily lead to abuse, but it can contribute to the severity of it once abuse is present.

Originally, of course, the laws against statutory rape were not designed to prevent abuse, but rather designed to insure that girls would get something of an education before becoming mothers, thus allowing them to enter the industrial workforce.

 

[HerDotness]

Physical immaturity where pregnancy is concerned may still be why 18 is regarded as adult-consent age for sex.

There are a whole lot of variations in what is or is not considered statutory rape or unlawful sexual conduct by minors with minors from state to state. Makes interesting reading to look at a summary on age of consent.

 

[Gharib]

Don't know how helpful this will be but in Islamic teachings when a person (male or female) reaches the age of puberty they are considered an adult.

 

[Sunstone]

Judith Levine once wrote a book, "Harmful to Minors", in which she argued against, among other things, statutory rape laws. Apparently, Levine had once had a relationship with a much older person when she was still a legal minor. It turned out quite positive for her, so she became skeptical of statutory rape laws. However, I read her book and found some of her statistics questionable. I would not recommend her chapter on child porn to anyone, for instance.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Nice misrepresentation. All I said was that there shouldn't be blanket laws which essentially expect an instantaneous transition from "innocent, ignorant child" to "fully capable adult.

But to answer the relevant question, yes. My opinions is that the gender of the YOUTH - NOT CHILD - irrelevant.

I apologize if I left out a key component in your equation for determining appropriate circumstances for practicing pedastry. From what I see, you support a two part evaluation process. One, the child must have pubes, and two, the child must pass a psychological evalution to determine whether or not they're fit to consent to sex. Assuming they "qualify", theoretically 12 year old boys can have sex with men three and four times their age.

 

[Storm]

I apologize if I left out a key component in your equation for determining appropriate circumstances for practicing pedastry. From what I see, you support a two part evaluation process. One, the child must have pubes, and two, the child must pass a psychological evalution to determine whether or not they're fit to consent to sex. Assuming they "qualify", theoretically 12 year old boys can have sex with men three and four times their age.

Let me know when you're capable of arguing my actual points.

Until then, I'll just roast marshmallows on your merrily burning strawmen.
:camp:

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Let me know when you're capable of arguing my actual points.

Until then, I'll just roast marshmallows on your merrily burning strawmen.
:camp:

If I have the wrong idea then please enlighten me. Please tell me what qualifications must be satisfied before pedastry can be deemed appropriate in your book. List them out clearly please

 

[HerDotness]

I'm not sure what Storm means by "blanket laws" since there's a LOT of variation, I found, from state to state in the U.S. regarding what the age of consent for marriage is, how old a minor must be to have sex legally with an adult, and in some states that the adult cannot be older than the minor by more than a few years whereas in others the adult cannot be older than 30. There are even a good many variations on what is legal, consensual sex between older minors and what is not. Some states designate that it must be between minors above a certain age. Others regard consensual sex between minors as legal if there is no more than two years' difference in their ages and the younger person is at least 13.

I begin to think that Jungle has a point. I suppose if an adult wants sex with a very willing minor, s/he ought to examine carefully the laws for the state they are planning to do the deed in and make sure that lake where they want to spread a blanket on the shore isn't in the next state where its laws may make it rape.

 

[dust1n]

Just to make sure I understand, since the OP sort of comes for another conversation, is the argument here whether or not there is an actual distinction between pederasty & pedophilia? I'm not seeing an exact disagreement for me to chime in about!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

For me the issue always comes down to informed consent - in this respect, it is possible that paedophilia and pederasty have many similarities:

Are the individuals involved informed? Well back in the day, people were probably more aware of such matters at an earlier age, as mentioned in a previous post, people back then did not live as long, they were also probably more likely to see animals copulating as a result of being closer to nature so to speak - certainly more so than modern people in the cities. The result was that they are more likely to be aware of the more immediate issues involved (for example in terms of the potential for babies if it was between a male and female) however probably less informed about some of the less obvious issues involved (such as diseases), while they probably had a similar level of informedness about the potential ramifications on a general level (such as for example the potential overall social impacts).

In terms of consent, both practices commonly involve the use of a power (usually 'legitimate power' aka authority) relationship, with potentially strong overtones of coercion and reward (reward I ignore as I personally believe that this is fine). The primary difference between the two in this matter is, believe it or not, actually biased against pederasty in that external relationships (e.g. people outside of the union) within that society are probably more accepting of pederasty and would be more likely to consider failure to consent a fault of the youth, that it was a normal course of events. This differs from paedophilia in that those external to the relationship are more likely to support the youth's right to dissent, therefore, there is more capacity to not consent within society.


In either case however, where they involve individuals who are not giving informed consent, they are immoral as far as i am concerned, since I ascribe to the legitimate stakeholder model of morality based upon potential directly attributable objectively negative outcomes and outcome mitigation.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Just to make sure I understand, since the OP sort of comes for another conversation, is the argument here whether or not there is an actual distinction between pederasty & pedophilia? I'm not seeing an exact disagreement for me to chime in about!

The OP is basically a defense of pedastry (sex with pubescent children). My argument is that the difference between pedastry and pedophilia is marginal at best

 

[Me Myself]

My couhntry has 14 and older to be the legal age to have sex. I know some are not psychologically adept at 14, but I also know that some are never psychologically adept.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere when it comes to law, and it should be somwhere of an objective measure, so an age seems a good idea.

So while age seems like a good way to measure and control it from a legal point of view, I would say themoral one has more to do with psychological maturity.

 

[apophenia]

Does anyone here know anything about Shinto ? I read many years ago that it was common practice in Japan for lovers to have a child present during sex. This was part of the child's sexual education, I don't know if it was considered erotic for the adults, but I got the impression from what I read that it was. I also don't know the degree to which the child was sexually involved, or the age at which this was considered appropriate.

Can anyone educate us about this ?

 

[Me Myself]

Sounds very effed up :S