"There's a difference between pedophilia and taking advantage of somebody who's old enough to be interested in sex but too young to judge the physical and emotional risks of messing around."

Um...if there is a difference, it's one so small that it fails to register in my (granted) tiny little ladybrain. I know it's insane to say there is something deeply screwed up about a 40-year-old man giving a 13-year-old girl drugs and alcohol, putting her in a situation where she is not only too emotionally immature to evaluate for herself whether a sexual encounter is wise, but in a position where she might feel her lack of compliance could be harmful to her person or her career--in short, where a 40-year-old man coerces a 13-year-old girl into a sexual situation in which she is in no way, shape or form capable of consenting to (we people with vaginas and tiny ladybrains call this "rape"). BUT... I guess that just makes me insane.

And while her reproductive organs might be sufficiently capable of having a menstrual cycle, as most doctors or psychologists will tell you, by no means has a 13-year-old reached "sexual maturity," and emotionally, she is still very much a child. One need look no further than the list of complications and problems that come with 13-year-old girls getting pregnant than to see that she is not sexually mature, regardless of whether she has to buy tampons once a month, or that her brain is still fundamentally that of a child.

How is a 13-year-old who has already started her period any different than 10-year-olds or 8-year-olds who have already started their period (albeit VERY prematurely)? Because girls DO start their periods at that age, and I don't think ANYONE would ever argue that just because they have their periods, it means they are mature enough to be even somewhat culpable in their RAPE by adult men.

This whole piece was absolutely APPALLING. It essentially excuses rape with children, and I can't believe anyone actually believes this sick, screwed up rape apologism, or that anyone at Slate thought it was a wise idea to publish what is quite possible the most depraved thing I've ever read in an established periodical.

PS: Professors having sex with their students--of ANY age or classification--is banned at pretty much every academic institution in America. Most people view this is as a gross violation of the relationship between faculty and students and fraught with potential for abuse. But I am so glad Saletan is so progressive that he sees that professors having sex with their impressionable 18-year-old students who might be depending on their professors for grades or other evaluations is unethical, if not completely and totally wrong.

Um...if there is a difference, it's one so small that it fails to register in my (granted) tiny little ladybrain.

There is a difference, it's not small, and it shouldn't be that hard to grasp. Pedophilia is attraction to sexually immature individuals. The contemporary report noting the victim's physical maturity would seem to indicate that Polanski is not a pedophile (but still a rapist).

This whole piece was absolutely APPALLING. It essentially excuses rape with (sic) children

No, it doesn't. You just didn't read it very carefully.

I read the whole thing, word by word. So I think I read it plenty carefully. I, however, find the argument that a 13-year-old is "sexually mature" to be absurd. Please see the part where I refer to 8-year-old and 10-year-olds who have their periods, but are by no stretch of the imagination "sexually mature." They are children who just so happen to have gone through puberty, and there is a fairly significant difference between THAT and being an adult.

So there is no difference between sex with a 17 year old and 5 year old in your little ladybrain.

Also where does the piece excuse rape with children???? Can you pull some quotes from the piece to back that point up?

No, "sexually mature" means only that the person in question has gone through puberty. It's a specific term, and is not the same as "emotionally mature" or "mentally mature" or even "sexually experienced". Pedophilia is attraction to those who are not sexually mature and nothing else.

So it is child molestation to have sex with someone 13? How about if the boy is 13 also? How about 15 year old with 14 year old? Or is it only when the perp is over 18? Well how about 18 year old with 15 year old. Are all of these child molestation?

You appear to believe any sex with a minor should be classified as child molestation. THAT is absurd.

There's a difference between statutory rape and pedophilia. Saletan's just saying throw the book at him for what he's guilty of.

jazzguitarman, the problem with your statement is that it ignores that child molestation is something done by an adult to a child. In most states, there are laws that stipulate that people under the age of consent can legally have sex with people who are usually within a couple of years of the same age.

If two children make a bad decision about having sex, then two children make a bad decision about having sex. I'm assuming there's a lack of perversion in that they're both of the same age, and that both should be forgiven because NEITHER is mature enough to make a good decision. A 40-year-old man is old enough to know better, and should have the maturity to be able to say no to a girl.

Spackle, the "book" says a 40-year-old man having sex with a 13-year-old is very, very illegal. And that is something Polanski has admitted to doing. Unless he corroborates her testimony that he raped her, which he has not done and has refused to do for 30 years, he will not be prosecuted just for flat out rape, and he will go free.

jazz, at what point did I say sex with a 17-year-old and sex with a 5-year-old were the same? I said that a 13-year-old is NOT an adult. And neither is a 10-year-old who has hit puberty, and neither is an 8-year-old who has hit puberty. The end.

In terms of law enforcement, pedophilia includes having sex with a minor. 13 years old qualifies one as a minor, and in pretty much every state in America, a 40-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old is illegal. Any questions?

What statement are you taking about???? All I did was provide some examples and ask questions.

Anyhow it appears you believe child molestation is something by an adult to a child. Right? (this is what you posted). So if the person is 18 (an adult) and the other person is 17 (not an adult) that child molestation, based on how you defined it.

I don't agree with your definition. I would instead define it as one person is an adult and the other person is pre-puberty. Any type of sex contact would be child molestation.

Note that rape is NOT aged related at all. Rape is having non consentual sex. Thus Polanski raped that girl but it wasn't child molestation. Rape is a perverse act, again, regardless of age, and the penalty should be very harsh. Child molestation along with rape is one of the worst crimes of all and the perp should be put to death.

You posted this:

'There's a difference between pedophilia and taking advantage of somebody who's old enough to be interested in sex but too young to judge the physical and emotional risks of messing around."

Um...if there is a difference, it's one so small that it fails to register in my (granted) tiny little ladybrain.

A 17 year old is also NOT an adult,, RIGHT? as well as a 13 year old and a 5 year old, and you said that there was no difference (or one so small that it fails to register) and thus you are saying one is a pedophile as long as one is NOT an adult.

The end! Really just admit you over played you hand in your top post AND there IS a difference between a child (say 5 year old), and other NON adults, like a 17 year old, AND that the real question here is WHERE does society draw the line.

Now if you believe it is 13 that is a logical and reasonable answer or even 14 and maybe even 15, but there IS a difference. So try again, at what age does the NON adult have to be for the perp to be a pedophile?

Now you are on an either different topic the acutal Polanski case. The DA's office accepted a plea deal of statutory rape. Now as I said that is BS because as you noted Polanski raped the girl. Flat out raped her!

But the DA's office accepted a plea deal and the state should honor that deal as part of due process under that law. Really I understand peoples anger here but it should be directed at the DA's office for accepting the plea deal 30 years ago.