happily for saletan, there are places in the world where secondary sex characteristics are taken as markers for consent. What happens? Women and girls take it upon themselves to destroy them.

<link>

<link>

Quote from one of the mothers: "Breast ironing is not a new thing. I am happy I protected my daughter. I could not stand the thought of boys spoiling her with sex before she completed school."

The truth is, CHILDREN, have absolutely no control over when their bodies sexually develop. THOUSANDS are actually angry at the time of their first period, thousands more think of their bodies as betraying them when breasts develop. But, yet, Saletan still believes that sexual maturity alone, should be one of the many factors that can be legitimately taken into account in a statutory rape case. Nonsense. 13 year old girls are NOT responsible for the size of their breasts, or for whether or not they menstruate. They are NOT responsible for those attributes because they have absolutely no control over them, and therefore they are totally irrelevant to whether or not a crime or victimization has occured. In fact, the kind of slut shaming engaged here (based entirely on physical characeristics a girl CANNOT CONTROL) is likely to cause much MORE emotional damage than molestation at 4. No one blames four year olds for what they look like.

I agree that the physical nature of ones body shouldn't be a factor but as we were discussing below the mental and emotional maturity of young teens does vary.

I believe Saletan only mentioned the physical maturity as it relates to the prep being a pedophile or not (but his article was confusing and thus maybe he was making the point you raise which would be insane!). Anyhow should the mental and emotional maturity of the girl be relevant in determining the nature of the crime?

The last few days it appear most people believe no when the girl is 13 years old. In other words by definition a 13 year old cannot grant consent therefore the crime is rape and NOT statutory rape, regardless of her maturity level or anything she said or has done. Therefore a man that has sex with a 13 year old that says she willingly had sex with him and where the sex was not physically forced is guilty of the same crime as a man that garbs a 13 year old girl in a park and sexually assults her. The way I read Saletan is that he was saying this wasn't logical. I would say the crime of statutory rape is a lot more sever when the victim is 13 \ 14 than say 15 \ 16 but it still isn't the same crime as the 'in the park sexual assult'.

see, I guess here's my problem.

Saletan says:

Why aren't the physical maturity and willingness of the girl—or boy—significant?

In fact, they are. As I've pointed out before, over the past 150 years in the United States and Europe, the average age of menarche—a girl's first period—has fallen two to four months per decade, depending on the country. In 1840, the age was 15.3 years. By the early 1980s, it was 12.8. It's quite plausible that the 13-year-old girl Polanski had sex with in the late 1970s was, to some degree, sexually mature.

Having sex at 13 is a bad idea. But if you're pubescent, it might be, in part, your bad idea. Having sex with a 13-year-old, when you're 40, is scummy. ... But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up. A guy who goes after 5-year-old girls is deeply pathological. A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn't excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently.

My response is that one does not control one's physical development, and thus that first half of the first sentence is a totally irrelevant issue. Whether or not one has breasts, really doesn't mean having sex is more of your bad idea than another 13 year old who doesn't yet have breasts. And yet it's the one Saletan is fixating on. The willingness of the teen, however, is totally relevant to whether the perp gets 3 years or 30, BUT, is NEVER the focus of Saletan's column. He segues immidiately from "physical maturity and willingness" to just talking about physical maturity.

Saletan spends a tiny fraction of the space he delegates to dealing with menarche and sexual development to non-physical "markers" of willingness-- she took off her underwear. So what? She was doing a photo shoot. She saw and took the quaalude. Sorry, both those things are COMPLETELY irrelevant to her consenting to sex, as well as her happening to have a "womanly body." So Saletan's argument: she could have been having consensual sex because 1) she'd happened to physically enter menarche before the encounter, 2) she consented to nude photography, 3) she knew what a qualuude was. None of that is remotely relevant to whether or not she was a willing partner to a sexual encounter, and bringing it up as if it is strikes me as quite disingenuous. And writing those things into your column don't make you more trusted as able to make fine philosophical and moral distinctions, in fact, they pretty much indicate you're just spectacularly capable of completely missing the point of sexual assault and justice.

And then Saletan comes up with a sentence like "it doesn't mean you need to be locked up" and going after a "womanly body" in a 13 year old girl justifies being treated differently-- presumably, not locked up. It's VERY disturbing to me that a statement such as "physical maturity and willingness are significant aspects to take into acount while sentancing" and then continue as if physical maturity is a proxy for both, and is the most important thing to be discussing. He chose the WRONG HALF of the sentence, and even in his subsequent articles he continues on this course. And that's why everyone's on his case.

If Saletan had spent his column space talking about non-physical indications of consent that were actually relevant to sex, i.e., enthusiastically initiating oral sex, begging someone to have sex, happily going at it in the "top" position... etc., than I'd agree he was discussing the differences between "in the park sexual assault" and "age based arbitrary restrictions." That actually IS an interesting question but NEVER one Saletan ACTUALLY engaged in. Rather, based on the criterion he DID focus on, if that active thirteen year old sexual agent I described in the first half of this paragraph hadn't had her first period yet, Saletan thinks that's when the crime is truly deviant and needs hard time, or life. Whereas if the girl WERE past menarche, but just lay there pasively and simply didn't yell no or fight back, than maybe a slap on the wrist and a couple months probation. His articles consistantly and repeatedly focus on COMPLETELY the wrong criteria, to the point that I believe your reading is excessively generous.

Maybe I'm being excessively generous because I find it hard to believe Saletan or anyone would be making the point you believe he is but you make a very convincing agruement that he is doing just that.

One point I also assume is related to 'that justifies being treated differently-- presumably, not locked up'.

I assume by 'treated differently' he meant not a pedophile and not that they shouldn't be lock up or there wasn't a crime (the crime of statutory rape if consent was granted).

With regards to the nude posing, or her prior sexual history (she was having sex with her boyfriend), none of these is relevant to if she actual granted consent or not, but they might be relevant to whether she was mature enough about sexual issues to grant consent or not. Of course that don't believe a 13 year old cannot, by definition, grant consent, will not find these things relevant, but to others these things could be used to support the claim a girl was mature enough to understand these sexual situations and thus mature enough to grant some level of consent (note I say 'some level of consent' because I believe that by definiton a 13 old cannot grant the same level of consent as say a 17 year old based on the basic emotional maturity of a 13 year old verses a 17 year old).

You are doing a really spectacular job of missing the point altogether. The point is that there are certain sorts of adults (almost all men) who respond to pre-pubescent children sexually. They don't get men are supposed to be attracted to females with breasts and wide hips. They find those things repulsive. And it turns out that those men are basically impossible to cure. They have a very serious psychiatric issue that can't be effectively treated, and which almost guarantees a recurrence of the crime. THAT is the reason these men need to be treated differently than a guy who has sex with a teenager.

I guess you're the only one I've seen actually make the argument you just did. Usually, the nude posing and prior sexual experience plus drug usage is presented as if it equals *de facto* consent. Saletan even argues that the nude posing "took off underwear" was evidence of willing sexual compliance. Therefore you get such arguments that don't really deny she said no, but then branch off into blaming the girls mother, or blaming the girl herself for part of the culpability. Rape isn't the kind of thing that the rapist gets to share responsibility for though.

The "not a pedophile" part is strange too because we have no laws against that. Only against child sexual abuse-- no law against the attraction iself. So whether or not Polanski was, also seems irrelevant to the case.

sorry my last reply was for jazzguitarman

Thanks for understanding my non 'de facto' argument even if you don't agree with it. Others here feel I must be a pervert or something even to make such a point. I agree with you 100% that there is NO de facto argument here. NONE. I really wish Saletan would comment here as to whether he was making such an argument or not. But I feel these experiences can be used to help determine the level of emotional maturity of the victim and to determine the level of coercion used by the perp with regards to consent.

It looks like we're having another confusion, this time between necessary and sufficient conditions. Physical maturity is just a threshold. (And 13 would be just an early phase of that maturation process.) It isn't sufficient to prove, much less excuse, anything. It's just a threshold for beginning to make the kinds of arguments a defense attorney might make: that the younger party consented or indicated consent, or that the defendant isn't constitutionally attracted to children. Below that age threshold, such arguments can't even begin.

If I understand your question, the answer is: No, physical maturity by itself proves nothing. Physically mature people are raped all the time, and their rapists are rightly put away.

jazzguitarman:

by definition a 13 year old cannot grant consent therefore the crime is rape and NOT statutory rape, regardless of her maturity level or anything she said or has done. Therefore a man that has sex with a 13 year old that says she willingly had sex with him and where the sex was not physically forced is guilty of the same crime as a man that garbs a 13 year old girl in a park and sexually assults her. The way I read Saletan is that he was saying this wasn't logical. I would say the crime of statutory rape is a lot more sever when the victim is 13 \ 14 than say 15 \ 16 but it still isn't the same crime as the 'in the park sexual assult'.

I'm just trying to understand what they're getting at. In predicate logic P NOT LESS THAN Q implies Q NOT GREATER THAN P.

So, are people saying that 'in the park sexual assault' is no worse than statutory rape because a 13 year-old girl in the park is not emotionally mature enough to withhold her consent from a stranger?

I'm trying to understand your (Saletan's) point. Are you saying that a defense attorney has a better chance of arguing that a thirteen year old girl consented to sex if she was exhibiting secondary sex characteristics, than if that 13 year old was a late bloomer? If the conditions of the crime are identical? For example, do you believe it would be impossible to suggest consent if the 13 year old in Polanski's hot tub had not started to menstruate and had no breasts or pubic hair? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Sure, she's more attractive to men when she's physically developed, but that's not her fault and has nothing to do with her level of consent. As for the level of physical development being related to whether or not the defendent is "constitutionally attracted to children," yes, that would have bearing on his treatment by a therapist, but should have no bearing on the severity of the charge.

Saletan, so, if a really late bloomer, 16, still flat chested, not *quite* to menarche, got to the court podium and started yelling at the judge and jury and all who would listen that yes, she consented, yes, she wanted sex, yes, she started it, and would everyone please just shut up and let her go live her life, that would be an argument that is totally inadmissible because exhibiting secondary sexual characteristics is *necessary* to consent? That no defence could make any argument she indicated consent because that *threshold* hadn't been reached?

And in any case, WHY have you spent the vast majority of ALL your articles talking about physical maturity, age of menarche, etc. etc. ad nauseum and yet never even *entertained* the possibility that a young party to a sexual encounter, might, oh, I dunno, indicate her consent by actually saying so at trial??

If physical maturity by itself proves nothing, why the the heck have you focused on it mainly to the exclusion of anything else (except "she took off her panties when I told her I wanted to take full nude shots" Yeah-- not relevant to sexual consent in the slightest. Probably relevent if he'd been charged with child pornography, but he wasn't.)

Possibly at the most charitable, "we're" not having a confusion. YOU are being confusing. At the least charitable, you're perpetuating rape culture.

I suppose I could repeat what I said about necessary and sufficient conditions, or once again recommend that you read the original article where I discussed sliding scales for the age of consent, in which menarche was just one factor. But that would presume that you're interested in listening seriously and thinking this through, rather than in having a morally satisfying fight with your imaginary misogynist adversary. Some people just want a fight, and there isn't much that can be done to stop them.

No, I don't just want a fight. I've read some of your articles and they are very good. Other times, like here, you go way off the deep end and get stuck in an irrelevancies that you keep defending for no good reason. Note HOW MANY people have written in to either "misinterpret" your articles or just say they're terribly confusing and they don't want to think you're arguing what they think you might be arguing.

Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't me. Maybe, just maybe, when lots of people think you're being confusing, you actually are.

But you mention the original article so we'll go there. 1) you note, correctly, "permissiveness of the mother" is irrelevant. Good for you! This is indicative of other, quite good, articles you've written. 2) the sentence "Why aren't the physical maturity and willingness of the girl—or boy—significant?" ok.... but we segue into "the average age of menarche—a girl's first period—has fallen" whattt??? "Physical maturity" involving height, weight, secondary sexual characteristics, final fusion of wrist and other bones, is a varied and large discussion, in which menarche alone pales into statistical insignificance against all these other factors. You *really* think that 13 year olds today are significantly more interested in sex than they were in 1840? You think that a statutory rape case should have access to the minor's medical records to determine at what age this girl reached menarche? You think a large breasted child is more interested in sex than her flat chested peer? Because if that's what you honestly think (and it's what you're writing supports whether you meant it that way or not) it is nothing more than the projections of heterosexual male fantasy onto the bodies of young girls, girls who *CANNOT* control their breast size.

Age of menarche is *just as irrelevant* as any "permissiveness of the mother." Both are completely outside the control of the girl in question, and thus do not influence her consent or lack thereof.

OK, I appreciate your clarification. Now we have a clear point of disagreement. You think menarche is as irrelevant as maternal permissiveness. I don't. Maternal permissiveness is irrelevant because it's about another person, not about the person involved in the sex. Menarche is about the person involved in the sex. It's relevant to diagnosing a perpetrator because it distinguishes pedophilia from preying on adult-looking bodies whose owners aren't ready to rationally consent to sex. (The use of force is another matter.) But the key point of relevance is that menarche is part of a hormonal transition that relates to the onset of natural interest in sex. That's where the necessary/sufficient distinction comes into play. The hormonal transition isn't sufficient to prove that the younger party was interested, but it's necessary. And then the defense could attach additional evidence of mutual interest, and the prosecution could answer with evidence of disinterest, coercion, resistance, etc.

Control of menarche is irrelevant, just as control of turning 18 is irrelevant in sentencing. It's just a baseline physical threshold to which additional arguments and evidence can be attached.

Take the Genarlow Wilson case. If you were a juror, wouldn't it matter to you that the girl he had sex with was 15 rather than 11?