4 ms·

> "all evidence that I'm aware of says that sexual orientations exist, have poorly understood causes, and are permanent" Evidence suggests that sexual attracti

> "all evidence that I'm aware of says that sexual orientations exist, have poorly understood causes, and are permanent" Evidence suggests that sexual attractions undergo changes throughout life. Different specific urges can strengthen or weaken or shift in focus, based on various inputs. People only rarely go from "attracted to men" to "not attracted to men", but it's pretty common to go from "primarily attracted to 12 year olds" (when you're 12) to "primarily attracted to adults" (when you're an adult). There is some truth to the claim that "outlets" correlate to reduction in violent crime; there is also truth to the claim that "outlets" can increase desire for specific types of stimulus. As far as I know, there aren't any studies that explore the net effects of "outlets" on pedo/hebe/ephebo-philia or sexual abuse. So we don't really have evidence one way or another as to whether legalizing CP or other "outlets" would increase or decrease abuse. (Virtual CP could be considered a harmless outlet, but it's illegal in both the US and EU, and appears to be unstudied as a treatment option.) One of the most unfortunate things is that possession of CP, even if it's virtual or fake, can result in larger penalties than actual abuse. While I understand nailing Capone for tax evasion, it would be inappropriate for tax evasion to be a more severe crime than multiple execution-style murders.

btilly 14y ago
I agree with all of this. I also note that sometimes people only belatedly come to accept their attractions. For instance I know multiple lesbians who were able to live heterosexual lives well into adulthood before first experimenting. In the cases that I know, afterwards they claimed to have always had the attraction, but never followed up on it. To me also there is a world of difference between "attraction to people with adult bodies" (even though young) and "attraction to sexually immature people". A grownup who strays with a 15 year old girl has committed a crime, and it likely should be a crime, but that's likely not a person who will commit crime after crime. But a person who has sex with a 10 year old boy, probably is going to be a serial criminal, and should be treated very differently in my opinion. However in US law the two are treated the same.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  A 15 year old girl usually doesn't have a fully adult body, though some are close. I agree with the larger point about there being a world of difference between near-adults and true children, though IMO the level of physical development is less relevant than the relative ability to consent. Having sex with a 17 year old who was just starting puberty would IMO be a less severe crime than having sex with a 12 year old who'd been developing for three years. I would add that there's a world of difference between "attracted to" and "has sexual contact with", regardless of the level of development. This ties back to the question of whether there are ways to create safe outlets for those with strong attractions to young people -- can the attraction be indulged in a way that reduces abuse? Can the attraction be treated by harmlessly redirecting it away from real children?
  - btilly 14y ago
    A 15 year old girl usually doesn't have a fully adult body, though some are close. I agree with the larger point about there being a world of difference between near-adults and true children, though IMO the level of physical development is less relevant than the relative ability to consent. Having sex with a 17 year old who was just starting puberty would IMO be a less severe crime than having sex with a 12 year old who'd been developing for three years. In terms of whether it is a crime, I am inclined to agree. But then we get into thorny issues such as whether people who are mentally retarded can ever consent. In terms of biology and mental wiring, the level of physical development matters a lot. I personally cannot be attracted to a woman without breasts. I separately could not stomach the idea of a relationship with a 15 year old, but I can notice that one is attractive. My mental block for, "Never have any hint of a sexual response," is missing. Complicating everything is that youthfulness is strongly associated with attractiveness, particularly in women. Most men would prefer a 25 year old woman who looked 18 to a 25 year old woman who looked 32. This may be biological and might have important consequences on our history. For example read http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.html http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.html (go on to parts 2 and 3 as well) for some reasonable speculation on this. I should also note that there is a huge disconnect between what I'd cite as facts, and emotional reactions. And emotional reactions vary a lot by person. For instance I personally am disturbed that so many men want women to not have pubic hair - a characteristic that only naturally occurs in prepubescent females. To me that is uncomfortably close to pedophilia. However I believe that most of the American public does not see this desire as particularly grotesque. I would add that there's a world of difference between "attracted to" and "has sexual contact with", regardless of the level of development. This ties back to the question of whether there are ways to create safe outlets for those with strong attractions to young people -- can the attraction be indulged in a way that reduces abuse? Can the attraction be treated by harmlessly redirecting it away from real children? I have heard of no efforts into redirection. (Not that I would have.) But we definitely do try to reduce opportunity. This is the point of the existence of laws forcing convicted sex offenders to be in a public register, not work with children, and to live away from schools. Unfortunately "convicted sex offender" and "pedophile" are two different things. Also we wind up with problems like the only legal place for sex offenders to live being under a bridge. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offen... for confirmation of that.) There is a well-known saying among lawyers that difficult cases make for bad law. Unfortunately everything about this topic is rife with difficult cases, and the law that has sprung up reflects this. :-(

btilly 14y ago

I agree with all of this. I also note that sometimes people only belatedly come to accept their attractions. For instance I know multiple lesbians who were able to live heterosexual lives well into adulthood before first experimenting. In the cases that I know, afterwards they claimed to have always had the attraction, but never followed up on it. To me also there is a world of difference between "attraction to people with adult bodies" (even though young) and "attraction to sexually immature people". A grownup who strays with a 15 year old girl has committed a crime, and it likely should be a crime, but that's likely not a person who will commit crime after crime. But a person who has sex with a 10 year old boy, probably is going to be a serial criminal, and should be treated very differently in my opinion. However in US law the two are treated the same.

lotharbot 14y ago
A 15 year old girl usually doesn't have a fully adult body, though some are close. I agree with the larger point about there being a world of difference between near-adults and true children, though IMO the level of physical development is less relevant than the relative ability to consent. Having sex with a 17 year old who was just starting puberty would IMO be a less severe crime than having sex with a 12 year old who'd been developing for three years. I would add that there's a world of difference between "attracted to" and "has sexual contact with", regardless of the level of development. This ties back to the question of whether there are ways to create safe outlets for those with strong attractions to young people -- can the attraction be indulged in a way that reduces abuse? Can the attraction be treated by harmlessly redirecting it away from real children?
- btilly 14y ago
  A 15 year old girl usually doesn't have a fully adult body, though some are close. I agree with the larger point about there being a world of difference between near-adults and true children, though IMO the level of physical development is less relevant than the relative ability to consent. Having sex with a 17 year old who was just starting puberty would IMO be a less severe crime than having sex with a 12 year old who'd been developing for three years. In terms of whether it is a crime, I am inclined to agree. But then we get into thorny issues such as whether people who are mentally retarded can ever consent. In terms of biology and mental wiring, the level of physical development matters a lot. I personally cannot be attracted to a woman without breasts. I separately could not stomach the idea of a relationship with a 15 year old, but I can notice that one is attractive. My mental block for, "Never have any hint of a sexual response," is missing. Complicating everything is that youthfulness is strongly associated with attractiveness, particularly in women. Most men would prefer a 25 year old woman who looked 18 to a 25 year old woman who looked 32. This may be biological and might have important consequences on our history. For example read http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.html http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.html (go on to parts 2 and 3 as well) for some reasonable speculation on this. I should also note that there is a huge disconnect between what I'd cite as facts, and emotional reactions. And emotional reactions vary a lot by person. For instance I personally am disturbed that so many men want women to not have pubic hair - a characteristic that only naturally occurs in prepubescent females. To me that is uncomfortably close to pedophilia. However I believe that most of the American public does not see this desire as particularly grotesque. I would add that there's a world of difference between "attracted to" and "has sexual contact with", regardless of the level of development. This ties back to the question of whether there are ways to create safe outlets for those with strong attractions to young people -- can the attraction be indulged in a way that reduces abuse? Can the attraction be treated by harmlessly redirecting it away from real children? I have heard of no efforts into redirection. (Not that I would have.) But we definitely do try to reduce opportunity. This is the point of the existence of laws forcing convicted sex offenders to be in a public register, not work with children, and to live away from schools. Unfortunately "convicted sex offender" and "pedophile" are two different things. Also we wind up with problems like the only legal place for sex offenders to live being under a bridge. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offen... for confirmation of that.) There is a well-known saying among lawyers that difficult cases make for bad law. Unfortunately everything about this topic is rife with difficult cases, and the law that has sprung up reflects this. :-(