Discussion
Hysteria1983 said:
No matter how much you want to defend this behaviour, she still broke the law. It is not socially acceptable in HER society. If we were to make associations with all socially accepted behavour the world over, most situations such as this could be dismissed and deemed acceptable.
Just so we are getting the facts straight, in countries and cultural/social environments where sex is legal at let's say 13 years of age it is still very frowned upon for older people to be engaging in sexual relationships with people this age. Sexual relationships with their peers is acceptable.
The situation you were trying to use as an example would still be frowned upon as is is elsewhere.
Nice username.Just so we are getting the facts straight, in countries and cultural/social environments where sex is legal at let's say 13 years of age it is still very frowned upon for older people to be engaging in sexual relationships with people this age. Sexual relationships with their peers is acceptable.
The situation you were trying to use as an example would still be frowned upon as is is elsewhere.
I would be up to my nuts in guts given half the chance at my age let alone his.
Zwoelf said:
Paedophilia by contrast refers to a sexual preference for pre-pubescent individuals, for which no valid biological case can be made, therefore it does presently exist as a psychiatrically diagnosable disorder.
That's a mighty contentious claim of cause and effect there - in relation to homosexuality, contraception, post-menopausal intercourse...Hysteria1983 said:
No matter how much you want to defend this behaviour, she still broke the law. It is not socially acceptable in HER society.
Not defending it, just making the point that it's not universally abhorrent behaviour, whereas having sex with actual children is and why she isn't a paedohile or sick in any medical sense as you hysterically (amusingly appropriately) asserted. You may also note that she is not being prossecuted, just disciplinary action from her employer. Hysteria1983 said:
If we were to make associations with all socially accepted behavour the world over, most situations such as this could be dismissed and deemed acceptable.
Now that IS the point of moral relativity I was making. Which just means maybe we could critically look at our own current laws and the reasoning behind them and review where necessary. As we do now and then. BTW this society's age of consent hasn't always been 16 either, it has been non-existent, lower and higher than presently so we don't even need to look abroad. 
Lovely turn of phrase!
otolith said:
Zwoelf said:
Paedophilia by contrast refers to a sexual preference for pre-pubescent individuals, for which no valid biological case can be made, therefore it does presently exist as a psychiatrically diagnosable disorder.
That's a mighty contentious claim of cause and effect there - in relation to homosexuality, contraception, post-menopausal intercourse...However, psychiatrists also recognise that recreational sex as well as procreational sex has a role in maintaining positive mental health and emotional wellbeing in adults, whereas social persecution on grounds of sexuality leads to psychological harm for the individual concerned.
They recognise that human sexuality is a more complex aspect of our behaviour than purely serving the biological imperative. However, paedophilia has severe implications for the subsequent emotional development and psychological well-being of the children concerned, but yes it is a very contentious area of academic discussion.
Hysteria1983 said:
No matter how much you want to defend this behaviour, she still broke the law. It is not socially acceptable in HER society. If we were to make associations with all socially accepted behavour the world over, most situations such as this could be dismissed and deemed acceptable.
Just so we are getting the facts straight, in countries and cultural/social environments where sex is legal at let's say 13 years of age it is still very frowned upon for older people to be engaging in sexual relationships with people this age. Sexual relationships with their peers is acceptable.
The situation you were trying to use as an example would still be frowned upon as is is elsewhere.
Come and work in the real world for a few days. I made a rather tongue in cheek post earlier that also highlights some of the moral issues regarding age of consent and how appropriate it is. While an arbitrary age of consent for sexual intercourse exists the truth is that a very large number of people at the ages of 16, 17 and even 18 or more are not ready emotionally and sometimes physically to engage in it, be contrast some children from the age of 12 may be physically developed enough for them to appear much older, have desires to experiment and in some cases actually actively seek sexual experiences. Just so we are getting the facts straight, in countries and cultural/social environments where sex is legal at let's say 13 years of age it is still very frowned upon for older people to be engaging in sexual relationships with people this age. Sexual relationships with their peers is acceptable.
The situation you were trying to use as an example would still be frowned upon as is is elsewhere.
What is unacceptable to society may seem wholly normal for the people involved, is a 18 year old man sleeping with a 15 year old girl illegal? - Yes, but it is perfectly feasible that the relationship is consensual and that the girl is at least as mature at the man.
The law accepts that this may be the case and applies common sense in most cases where these things occur and more cases of angry parents who won't accept that their little princess is sleeping with someone that they don't like will be brushed aside than are taken to court.
You can't become morally outraged at young people having sex with people who are older than them when we live in a society that sexualises children from an early age. We also have a society where the very young share a number of common interests and the same new communication platforms with people certainly into their mid 30's and sometimes beyond. While lots of things are written about grooming of 'children' by internet predators it is equally feasible that due to the common interests and anonymity afforded by many online services people can form genuine connections with others where age and other factors are a secondary concern and if that connection is transferred to a real relationship the bond between two people who traditionally would never have spoken may be so strong that they really wouldn't even consider age.
Or in short just because there is an age gap in a relationship you can't immediately assume that there is a sexual preference driving that relationship.
Zwoelf said:
They recognise that human sexuality is a more complex aspect of our behaviour than purely serving the biological imperative. However, paedophilia has severe implications for the subsequent emotional development and psychological well-being of the children concerned, but yes it is a very contentious area of academic discussion.
Indeed, and that (rather than the reproductive utility of it) is surely why it is considered aberrant. On the evolutionary significance of human sexuality, I think you need to distinguish between general traits which may be adaptive and individual outcomes which may not be - there may be no fitness mileage in being homosexual (for example), but we don't know what effect the genes contributing to that orientation have in other people in conjunction with other genes or other environments.
otolith said:
Indeed, and that (rather than the reproductive utility of it) is surely why it is considered aberrant.
That and as much as nobody wants to ever think about it, the problems that such a tendency has for the person whose preference it is as it is no more a conscious choice than most people's preference for adults of the opposite sex (I'm not ignoring homosexuals or the subtleties of intergenerational attraction, just simplifying) or even their particular fetishes within that broad preference.That's precisely why hebephilia is contentious, because many consider it indistinguishable from paedophilia, yet there is the fact that physiological maturity seems to arrive before psychological maturity and is therefore often at odds with socially agreed concepts of propriety as identified by a society's age of sexual consent - it's rarely solely related to reproductive ability in the modern developed world.
i.e. there are people who suffer psychological harm because they are attracted to children, but don't want to be for all the reasons it is bad. I can't explain why I'm attracted to the particular types of woman that I am and not simply all sexually mature females, I just know that I am. Thankfully that generally doesn't come into conflict with what is legal.
otolith said:
On the evolutionary significance of human sexuality, I think you need to distinguish between general traits which may be adaptive and individual outcomes which may not be - there may be no fitness mileage in being homosexual (for example), but we don't know what effect the genes contributing to that orientation have in other people in conjunction with other genes or other environments.
Absolutely, there is far more we don't yet know about the complexities and vagaries of the whole range of human sexual preferences and practices that it's basically hypothesising at best. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff