You’re More Interest In Judging People Than Focusing On The Real Dysfunction
I hope you won’t think I’m oversharing if I tell you that I’m the most sexually open-minded person I know.
I think moralistic arguments about non-monogamy and sexual promiscuity are silly. I’m against kink-shaming, no matter how weird I might personally find those kinks to be. I think sexual expression between two consenting adults, in all of its weirdness and awkwardness and occasional downright bizarreness, is a beautiful thing.
I also draw a clear and unashamedly absolutist line around sexualising children.
In my article, How Many Red Flags Is Enough?, I wrote about our failure to defend this line as a society. I wrote about the abusers who operate in plain sight because we’re too slow to call our inappropriate behaviour. I wrote about the tendency to label any concern about sketchy behaviour as a “moral panic.” Especially in this era where “dismantling” boundaries is held up as an unquestionable moral good.
I’m only sharing part of my conversation with Rogue here as it dragged on for a while (and Rogue’s responses were fairly long), but…well, you’ll get the idea.
Rogue:
Abuse is bad.
I'm the one who is so frustrated with the current cultural definition of a child is 18 or under. Where did the magical number of 18 come from?
I'm also frustrated with the culture quoting science saying "kids" brains don't "mature" until 25. Science never said the brain doesn't mature, what science has said is that brains become more risk adverse as they get older. Culture defined the magically value of 25 years as some transitionary age for a mature brain.
So many are so culturally ingrained in the emotional reaction to the term paedophile that they miss two major points.
1. When does a person get old enough to make their own decisions on sex? Its not even universally agreed that 18 is the magical age.
2. Where the hell are the parents? This should be something parents are watching out for. Along with the rest of the community they live in. Why were the parents of the "girls" and "boys" that R Kelly "befriended" allowing it? The same with Epstien. Why were the "girls" that Epstein recruited running away from their parents?
With that said, what should government do?
I have three kids and 2 grandkids. I'm very leery of the government getting involved in parenting.
In the end, your outrage should be directed at parents who let their kids get into the situation.
a. Parents who "trusted" the "Church because of course the "church" is God - The Catholic Priest scandal.
b. Parents who have kids and are not taking care of of their kids. The kids need to find other means of supporting themselves - Epstein and sex trafficing.
c. Parents who are too timid about sex to create a comfortable environment for the kids to open up about whats going on with them.
d. Edited to add this one. Parents who trusted their "boy scout leader" to not approach their kids.
I could go on about the dysfunction of parents and families in the divided states especially. Much of it is because "parents" align with some existing "social norm".
Are you a parent? If so tell me the discussion you have with your kids about sex?
You were clearly a "kid" at some point. Tell me about how your parents talked to you about sex and those out there that would exploit you?
Bottom line: the "we" in your "Why are we so unwilling to confront child abuse?" is the most telling. Who is the "we" you are referring to?
BTW: one more point about the term "kid". As a parent my "kids" will always be kids". My kids are in their 30s, they are still my "kids" and I still watch out for them.
There are so many red flags in this reply that it feels remiss to highlight only one. But notice how Rogue uses scare quotes around the word “kids”? It’s not an accident.
Steve QJ:
“I'm the one who is so frustrated with the current cultural definition of a child is 18 or under.”
Why are you frustrated? What, exactly, is frustrating to you about this?
Rogue:
Very simply. I don’t give a fuck what the government defines when it comes to my kids. Those arbitrarily defining are targeting a very small fraction of the divided states population under some ridiculous view that it helps protect those under 18. There is zero proof that it does.
It’s like the scanners on airports. It’s a placebo. The Israelis who know how to detect terrorist don’t even care if a passenger is scanned. They are doing what is necessary. They interview all the passengers.
Arbitrary ages are a placebo created by politicians and a mindwashed American citizenry. The divided states has the most dysfunction justice system in the world, it’s focus on punitive punishment under the view that will deter an act. It hasn’t. Gacy still killed many!
Countries like Denmark focus on identifying people who need help and getting them that. In the divided states a person who says they have thoughts about having sex with young people and acknowledge them are required by law to be reported. That’s just makes them not say anything and try to manage their thoughts themselves. My daughter is psychologist, she says she agrees it’s dysfunctional.
You are the problem. You have “demonized” anyone who would have thoughts like that so much they have no choice to hide. YOU have made them in evil incarnate without considering that they too are humans in need of some assistance.
The ridiculous cultural views around an arbitrary age like 18 is nothing but a political placebo that plays easily with the politicians. It’s an example of the absolute dysfunction of not only the divided states legal system but also it’s culture of letting people believe they are better because they are not pedophiles, drug dealers, etc.
When I was trying to sort out my sexuality, I got into a group focused on helping guys who are attracted to guys not act on it. I was married to a woman and wanted to stay faithful. The mandatory reporting issue for counselors was a big issue. If I guy wanted to work through any issues, they had to get the people who could best help out of the room because they may be required to report! This group had its own dysfunctional rules. If a guy had sex with any other guy after the weekend, they were not allowed to be involved in any other group activities. I was not judgmental about this. People we’re comfortable telling me what they were doing. I estimated at least 50% of the group was hooking up. The leaders never knew.
Their was a guy who was attracted to me. He was a leader of my group. One night he was pushing me on the front steps of my church to be sexual. Eventually he admitted that he was hooking up. He didn’t want to say anything because he would be prohibited from being part of weekends. When these type of rules are created, they create much more dysfunction than the help.
Ever wonder why we have so many shootings in the divided states, it’s because the societal structure force people to keep things society judges as evil to themselves.
It’s no wonder this country is getting more divided every day. We have an innate culture of trying to call people evil.
The radical left and radical right excel at this.
Does that help. I’m sure you believe I’m evil just for suggesting the the arbitrary age of 18 is ridiculous. I should be reported so I can be locked up to keep society “safe”.
Your need to have rules like 18 as somehow when “kids” become “adults” is only helping your need to judge others. That’s all!
Steve QJ:
“Those arbitrarily defining are targeting a very small fraction of the divided states population under some ridiculous view that it helps protect those under 18. There is zero proof that it does.”
What a thoroughly moronic thing to say.
Yes, I, who believes in the importance of age of consent laws to legally protect children from sexual abuse (not "young people", children), am absolutely "the problem." But luckily, I'm only a problem for people who want to sexually abuse children.
If people are to get help for their urges (something I'm obviously completely in favour of), they need to be clear that their urges are wrong, no? That's why people like you, who don't understand the difference between helping people with their pathology and normalising that pathology, are the problem.
People like you, who, for reasons I'm not going to think about too deeply, are "frustrated" by the illegality of adults having sex with children are the problem.
People like you, who conflate pedophilia with homosexuality or any other sexual orientation, are the problem.
Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is always abuse. Because it is sexual contact between an adult and a child who, by definition, cannot consent to sex. It has nothing to do with gay conversion therapy, which I am and always have been totally against. Because gay sexual relationships occur between two consenting adults. (The difference is thoroughly laid out here.)
Yes, there are edge cases, which are already covered by legal exceptions in most places and should be in all places. I'm not talking about a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old. But if the only way you can get behind age of consent laws is if they're absolutely perfect, have the courage to admit that you want to do away with them completely. There is no such thing as a perfect law, anywhere, for anything. Murder, rape, theft, you name it.
So if you can't recognise that there is an age, somewhere, where a child is too young to consent to sex (and don't accept that choosing this age will always be necessarily arbitrary), if you haven't thought about this deeply enough to understand that parents cannot protect their children every second, or, indeed, that some parents are themselves abusers, I don't think there's much chance of us having a productive conversation. And honestly, I don't want to have a conversation with somebody who would rather quibble semantics over this.
Rogue:
Medium has already removed one comment from another person implying I’m a pedophile because of my position.
You can either update your comment or I’ll report it.
You proved my point 100%. You’re more interest in judging people than focusing on what’s the real dysfunction in the country.
Your focus is on when can a person consent. That’s an after the fact way to lock someone up. The damage has already been done.
My focus is why my kids would ever even want to “consent” to that. Also, why are the kids even being exposed to situations where they are coerced into it. That’s a way to empower my kids to understand what sexuality is and how they want to engage in their sexuality.
My kids very much were comfortable talking with me about their sexuality early. I started talking with my kids about their sexuality when they were in first grade. The Danes expose their kids to sexuality in books and on TV from the time they start to read to them and watch TV with them. The Danes have demonized sexuality and made it into something that is black and white based on age.
Whatever “age” you want to establish, it won’t stop anyone from coercing a person into having sex if the person doesn’t already have an awareness about how they want to be sexual with other people. The current trans debates gets into this issue. When is a person “old enough” to chose when they are trans? If they are old enough at 10, aren’t they old enough then to consent to sex?
Boiling the concept of pedophilia down to an age is dysfunctional. My view is that the problem is how sexually repressed the divided states is. Especially the str8 community. The str8 community has all types of “moral standards” on sex. Especially the conservative south. Its interesting to note that Ashley Madison is the most popular in the conservative south. There was one study that look at porn view at a hotel. It was at its all time highest when there was a church leadership event there.
I use to lead a group call the Samson Society in my church. It was a group that let men speak honestly about their sexual desires and activities without fear of being “cancelled”. I was in an Evangelical church. We had priests coming to the group.
Your focus on age as someone a solution for your emotional definition of what is pedophilia is nothing but a mean to judge people you view as “evil”. It doesn’t help the person with desires to have sex with “kids”. It doesn’t stop people from have sex with “kids”. It just politically creates moral outrage.
The real work happens in groups that I lead like the Samson Society and ManKind Project. The work of those group is impeded by the need for people like you to call others out as evil. Including me.
You never answered the question of how was sexuality handled by your parents.
One more question. Have you ever done anything to help both what you called “kids” or who you identify as a pedophile besides lashing in out moral outrage?
“Medium has already removed one comment from another person implying I’m a pedophile because of my position.”
Wait, you’re telling me this isn’t the first time that a man who spends his time passionately arguing against age of consent laws has been accused of pedophilia?! Imagine my surprise.
Sadly, even less surprising is that a large online platform would defend the pedophilia apologist in case pointing out the reality of what he is, hurts his feelings.
Steve QJ:
“My focus is why my kids would ever even want to “consent” to that.”
What on Earth is wrong with you? First, as I already said, children cannot consent to sex. There is no question of whether they want to. They cannot. But even if they could, are you imagining that children want to be sexually abused?! Do you know what child sexual abuse is otherwise known as? Statutory rape. The "rape" part should hopefully answer any uncertainty you have about their consent.
No, a legal age of consent doesn't stop people from coercing children into sex. Just as a law against murder doesn't stop people from committing murder. What it does is deter people from committing these crimes and provides a framework from holding them legally accountable if they do. This has nothing to do with a parent talking to their kids about sexuality.
I didn't answer your question about how my parents handled sexuality because it's absolutely none of your business. But if you're hoping I'm some kind of prude, you're laughably wrong. I think consenting adults should be free to do whatever kinky things they can imagine. I think people should be able to speak honestly about their sexual desires. I think people should be able to speak honestly about their sexual activities. But if those sexual activities are crimes, they shouldn't be "cancelled," they should be jailed. Just as they should be if they confess to any other crimes.
If you have knowledge of a child abuser and haven't reported it, you are complicit in any further abuse they commit.
Lastly, my focus on age in discussions of pedophilia is motivated by the fact that "pedo" literally means child. Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? The moral outrage comes from the fact that child abuse is wrong in the mind of any morally intact human being. This goes beyond religion or politics or nationality. Again, my question is why you aren't outraged.
I stand behind every word I've written and didn't imply you're a pedophile. I simply said I don't want to think about why you're so invested in dismissing the need for age of consent laws. Which I don't. But you should.
There’s a lot to be worried about in society today. Heck, not just society, but the world in general. Climate change, nuclear war, economic collapse, so I can understand the argument that we’re too busy dealing with existential threats to worry about a few perverts.
The problem with that argument is, there still seems to be enough bandwidth to talk endlessly about Madonna’s face and Pete Davidson’s penis and Leonardo DiCaprio’s dating habits.
We’re sleepwalking towards a society where more and more people like Rogue are unable (or unwilling) to recognise predatory behaviour. Where the boundary between adults and children is erased in the name of progressiveness. And, worst of all, where talking about it is seen as bigotry or hysteria or prudishness (as I said earlier, it’s no longer surpassing when platforms side with the people defending pedophilia).
Open-mindedness is important. The ability to live and let live is arguably the most essential in any functioning society. We just need to be clear about where we draw the lines.
Speaking as an abuse survivor, I can spell out very clearly what is magical about the age 18.
It is the age at which, in this society, a person can vote, own property, sign a contract and work a full-time job (okay technically one can work full time at 17). Prior to age 17 or 18, then - unless legally emancipated - one is dependent upon one's family (or the state, if in the foster system) for survival. A person under 18 years of age is not free to choose where they live, whom they live with or even what activities they participate in, without permission from their legal guardian. And if that person is in a situation - at home, at school, at church - where they are expected to have sex with someone, unless their legal guardian intervenes on their behalf, they are essentially a slave to that situation. Tragically, more often than not, where abusive situations exist, the legal guardian either has failed to intervene in the way they should, or is the perpetrator. And even if a child runs away, choosing homelessness over an abusive situation, they may be brought BACK to the abusive situation by police if they are found. So the child is stuck with it, until they can get a job and sign a contract to get their own place to live.
And THAT is what is magical about the age of 18.
Now, if we were to grant individuals full rights of adulthood at 16 or 17 years of age, then it would also make sense for 16 or 17 to be the age of consent for sex.
Until then, no.
I think it’s pretty obvious that this guy wants access to children, sexual access. There is simply no reason to be so wrapped up with the “arbitrary” age of 18.
The alternative to setting a “one age fits all” standard would be regular and routine psychological testing of adolescents for decision-making ability and not only would this be impractical, it would simply shift your opponent’s outrage from the “arbitrary age” to "the tyranny of the government-administered tests." Again, government is keeping him from the underaged bodies he craves.
And since the test score would replace the "arbitrary age of consent," there would be those who would never pass, who in their 30s or 40s or 60s would still not be allowed to do things that everyone is "arbitrarily" granted on the 18th birthday.
And frankly this guy is dumb. “Divided states” wasn’t even funny once but he kept repeating it. His threat to report responses was indicative. His use of “proof” instead of “evidence” shows a weak education if not a weak mind. And resentment of government is increasingly tiresome. So he had to wait his turn at the DMV. This shouldn’t be the basis of an ideology.
Edit: about your introduction here. It's easy to see promiscuity in a relationship as a moral issue. But when a relationship began with a pledge of monogamy and one partner breaks that pledge, the issue isn't morality, it's betrayal. My first two relationships each lasted four years because my partners wanted to pursue sexual fantasies. If the original agreement had been that the relationship was sexually open that would be a different thing, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the longevity of such pairings.