If only because the law varies from state-to-state. It runs that gammit from 14 (in South Carolina) to 16, 17 and 18 in other states. In many states, the ages are different for men and women (in S. Carolina women at 14 can consent, but men must be 16, in Utah it's 16 for women and 18 for men). There are also seperate laws in many states that dictate the age of consent for gay people, which is often 18 even when straight people can consent at 16.

So, is a person a pedophile for having sex with a 15 year old in California but not a pedophile when they have sex with a 14 year old in S. Carolina?

How is this hard? It's not gray, because she was drugged and she said "no".

Looks like two different topics here; What defines a pedophile is based on specific state law and that is the 'gray area' the top poster mentions. What you mention is clearly rape so in that case there is no gray area.

They were talking about the age of consent as a gray area, not this specific case. Or at least that's how I read it.

"If only because the law varies from state-to-state"

There is no gray area. The law varying from state-to-state has nothing to do with this case. He had forcible sodomy with a 13 yo in ONE state. It is that state's laws which Polanski violated. Had he traipsed around the country with her committing the same crime over and over throughout the USA you still wouldn't have an argument, because she was 13!!! I have looked it up and I don't see a single state with the age of consent below 14.

Not to mention that she was drugged, which is considered to be forcible rape in many states, regardless of the age of the victim or the age of consent.

A pedophile is technically defined as someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Once a child reaches puberty, which occurs at various ages, generally between 11 and 13, being attracted to them will not make you a "pedophile." With the possible exception of the very rare 14 year old who has not yet reached puberty, the individuals that you are talking about aren't pedophiles at all, much less pedophiles in Utah, but not South Carolina.

I am correcting you because this misapprehension (of which you are not alone, and which is encouraged by media misinformation) is actually one of my pet peeves. Conflating sexual activity with a seven year old and a seventeen year old trivializes the former and makes the latter sound far more deviant than it is.

The other one that drives me totally crazy is the gross overuse of the phrase "sexual predator." There are precious few true sexual predators in the world, and yet the media feels that it is incumbent upon them to refer to everyone individual charged with a sex crime as a "predator."

But if you read the article, they didn't say that there wa a gray area in whether what he did with this particular girl, in the way that he did it, was legal. They questioned whether having sex with person under 18 is a gray area of morality or law. At least that's how I read it. I don't know anything at all about this particular case, whether he was ever convicted, or anything else.

You're not correcting me at all. The legal definition of a pedophile is a person who has sex with a minor. What your talking about is the phsychological definition of a pedophile, which is one who is sexually attracted to a prepubescent child.

An adult with an attraction to post-pubescent children has ephebophilia, which has no legal defintion, and is only a term used is phsychology.

Of course, you're right. I was using the psychological definition, which I find far more useful (and reliable) in discussing sexually deviant behavior.

Not exactly. Per Black's Law Dictionary, "pedophilia" is "an adult's sexual disorder consisting of the desire for sexual gratification by molesting children, esp. prepubescent children." The secondary definition is an adult's act of child molestation, and the dictionary notes that pedophilia can but does not necessarily involve intercourse. So the legal definition is based on the psychological one, and neither one refers strictly to an adult who has sex with a minor.

I don't think you're reading that exactly right. Either that, or I'm real dense.

"an adult's sexual disorder consisting of the desire for sexual gratification by molesting children..." I don't have access to Black's, but I'm going to assume that it defines "child" as a minor for legal purposes. So, Black's is stating that any adult (which I assume it defines as someone of voting age, or something to that affect), that has sex with any child (a minor), is a pedophile.

That contradicts the DSM defintion of a pedophile, which specifically says that the child should be prepubescent in order to identify their pursuer as a pedophile. Black's gives a nod to the DSM definition (esp. prepubescent), but uses a wider definition to include people who may be attracted to a 17-year-old.

"the dictionary notes that pedophilia can but does not necessarily involve intercourse..." this may be true as Black's is commenting on pedophilia from the psychological definition, but has no bearing on the legal definition. One can't be prosecuted for being attracted to a 7 year old, nor to a 17 year old.

But, doesn't the legal definition simply incorporate the psychological definition into the law? Pedophilia is a psychological term, not a legal one, and so when the law uses it, they are using it within the psychological framework.

In addition, as far as I know, there are no statutes that contain, or that need to contain, the work pedophila. The laws governing sexual contact with children do not make it illegal to be a pedophile -- they make it illegal to engage in specified sexual conduct with individuals of, or under, a specific age.

I'm not sure it matters to your original premise. It is true that certain conduct that is proscribed in Oregon (age of consent = 18) would be legal in Washington (age of consent = 16). While the individual who engaged in sexual intercourse with a 16 year old in Oregon would be guilty of statutory rape, he/she would not be legally labelled a "pedophile" because that label has no legal significance. Rather, the appropriate label would be "registered sex offender" which does not distinguish between offenders who offend children and forcible offenders of adults. That same individual could drive that same 16 year old across the Columbia River into the State of Washington & he/she would have committed no [state] crime (I am leaving out the possibly of a violation of the Mann Act, because I don't have any idea how that would work, so I'm not even going to there.).

Correct, it really doesn't have bearing on my original point. I've only continued with the discussion on the definition of a pedophile because it came up. My point was about the gray area that you referred to, but I was thinking about an adult driving from one state that had an older age of consent to one with a lower age of consent (as opposed to bringing a minor across state lines for the purposes of sexual intercourse, which I'm sure is not legal). It seems somewhat silly that the adult would be considered a sex offender for having sex with a 14 year old in one State, but not one inch over the state line.

I suppose that one would have a really interesting situation if he stood in a state where the minor was not legal, but "extended himself" into a state where she was (I suppose this only works for men). Stupid premise, to be sure, but that's the sort of premise that laws like this beg. How wide are state lines, exactly? They should make them 13" wide to avoid this sort of abuse of the law.

Then you'd have 13" "no-man's" lands in between every state where anything would go. Those would probably turn in to havens for skinny pedophiles. Perhaps Federal Laws would have to be drafted to regulate the penis buffer zones.

The definition says that pedophilia means the desire for sexual gratification with a child, which could or could not lead to actual sex with a child. (At common law, a child was a person under the age of 14; it also refers to any minor.) Presumably, one could have sex with a child without being a pedophile--as in cases where soldiers may rape children as part of a process of demoralizing a civilian population. I agree with emmajane--the law is simply incorporating the psychological definition; there is no independent legal definition of the disorder. *Being* a pedophile has no legal consequences; having sex with children or trafficking in child pornography does, regardless of one's motives. No one is convicted of pedophilia; person are only convicted of sex crimes.

As to your original point: legally, there is no gray area. Although the age of consent differs from state to state, all states have created a bright-line rule defining the age of consent.