I really hate making snap judgment about people's character. I am actually feeling awful for judging the writer for his belief. But when I read quotes such the one listed below, I can't help but wonder if the author has pedophiliac fantasies he would like to justify. Quotes such as:

"Getting your period doesn't mean having sex right away. But earlier puberty does, on average, mean earlier sex."

"Conversely, having sex with a 12-year-old, when you're 20, is scummy. But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up."

"First comes the age at which your brain wants sex and your body signals to others that you're ready for it."

"The lowest standard is whether the partner you're targeting is sexually developed as an object. If her body is childlike, you're seriously twisted. But if it's womanly, and you're too young to think straight, maybe we'll cut you some slack"

"It's possible that you'll think about these things but fail to restrain yourself. If you're emotionally immature, we'll take that into consideration."

(Does that mean retards can have sex with children and not pay consequences?)

"What I wouldn't do is slap a mandatory sentence on a 17-year-old, even if his nominal girlfriend were 12. I know the idea of sex at that age is hard to stomach. I wish our sexual, cognitive, and emotional maturation converged in a magic moment we could call the age of consent. But they don't."

(Yes there is such an age and it is 20. At 20 it all falls into place. Unless you're retarded.)

After reading this article all I could hear in my head was "he's rationalizing. He's rationalizing."

I am sure Mr. Saletan is an outstanding citizen and he's not a pedophile. But if I was his wife and we had kids, I would strongly be wondering whether to leave him alone with the kids.

There are so many things wrong with his logic and how he tried to justify them I don't even know where to begin.

Personally I think 16 is a perfect age to consent to sex ( I am a bit prejudice about that age because when I was 16 I was madly in love with an older men, but we both had the common sense to know better than to act on it until I turned 18.) 15 is questionable but doable. 14 and under don't even go there. I don't care what their bodies look like. They could have double D, the longest legs known to mankind and eyes that scream sex - don't even think about it. If you are tempted, close your eyes and think of maggots. Lots of them.

If we start using menstruation as a possible yard stick for consent, in 10 years could be legally allowed to have sex with 7 year olds.

I have to give it to Mr. Saletan for trying to redeem himself with this quote:

Whatever the particulars, the measures taken should be developmentally appropriate. "Age-span" provisions, which currently allow for sex with somebody near your own age, are a good start, but they're not objectively grounded. That's why they differ wildly from state to state. I'd draw the object line at 12, the cognitive line at 16, and the self-regulatory line at 25. I'd lock up anyone who went after a 5-year-old. I'd come down hard on a 38-year-old who married a 15-year-old. And if I ran a college, I'd discipline professors for sleeping with freshmen. When you're 35, "she's legal" isn't good enough.

Good try! I hope it's enough for his wife, because he lost me half way through and never managed to get my trust back.

Again, sorry for judging and now I'll be on my way to go get obsolescence.

www.youtubethis.blogspot.com

He's making some commonly-understood yet often unspoken points about sexuality. One, that it is not unnatural for a man to look on a young teenager with a pang of lust. It is not too much to ask of the man to control himself--it is mandatory and morally necessary--but it isn't the result of some demented psychosis.

Lusting after children, on the other hand, is truly sick.

This is the point commonly made when folks insist that an older female adult cannot "rape" a teenage boy. No guy would ever call that rape. It is certainly illegal, but is it rape? Yet it's somewhat more sinister if we admit that teenage girls shouldn't be held to a higher standard of purity. I'm not entirely sure why that is.

My great-grandmother had her first child at 15 to a husband that was 21 years old. It was not considered unusual at the time. I can't understand how a more sexually-liberated society like ours would change their attitude about something like that, but we have.

Well, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess about his motivation (although I think his last paragraph was meant more to inflame than anything else), but I'd suggest he isn't the brightest bulb on the christmas tree.

His own research turned up the fact that only 11% of 12 year olds score at an average adult level on tests of intellectual ability while 42% of 17 year olds score at an average adult level on tests of intellectual ability.

Since Genarlow Wilson was a "good" honour student (the real reason why this particular case has garnered so much attention - if he was just another idiot boy, he would be in jail and no-one would really care too much), I think we must consider whether or not he fits into the 42% in his age group who are cognitively able on an average adult level. If he does, then he needs to be punished accordingly. Claiming stupidity as a defense, when you ain't stupid, is just lying. If the 15 year old in question is of a similar cognitve and emotional level as Wilson, he could make a reasonable case for his actions, but, if he knew or even assumed, she was significantly cognitively below him he is accountable for his actions. (Sex with a 12 year old, unless it was a particularly gifted and well adjusted 12 year old would, according to Mr. Saletan's own data, be out of the question as a reasonable and equitable sexual match. Even the majority of 16-17 year olds aren't "competent" enough to supply consent.)

A mandatory adult sentence, however, is too much, since, whatever his intellectual abilities, his body and his brain aren't fully matured and so he can't be judged on the same criteria as an adult with a fully functioning, mature brain. But a mandatory sentence appropriate to his age, cognitive and emotional capabilities is certainly warranted.

"This is the point commonly made when folks insist that an older female adult cannot "rape" a teenage boy."

Some guys would call that rape. And most of their mothers would too. And if the boy in question is not on a par with the physical, intellectual and emotional abilities of the woman - e.g. not able to supply consent - then it is rape, regardless of what all the other envious guys want to believe.

"I can't understand how a more sexually-liberated society like ours would change their attitude about something like that, but we have."

The same way we have changed our attitudes about child labour - understand the differences between adults and children resulting in a realization that they have different abilities and different requirements.

In years gone by, female children were largely veiwed as an expensive burden that had to be taken care of until they were married off, thusly marrying them off when they "appeared" to be adults (or close enough to it). Not to mention that, since the average age of death for adults previous to modern times, hovered somewhere around 35-ish, it was fairly well imperative to start breeding as soon as a person was physically able in order to provide heirs and workers for the family and sustain and grow the population.

"it is not unnatural for a man to look on a blah blah blah"

Its not unnatural for a man to kill another. Does it make it right?

...and it means you haven't got a rational argument, so you're going to resort to name-calling instead.

I didn't agree with everything he wrote, but I have to tell you, what I find far more offensive is that rather than engage in reasonable discourse, you lot want to come out here and tar and feather anyone who even discusses what it means to consent.

This shit is why politicians can get elected on the basis of promising to punish sex offenders more severely (despite sex offenders actually having recidivism rates of about a tenth those of most criminals), regardless of the merits of their proposals or validity of their platforms.

In short, you remind me of that woman on The Simpsons--"Oh, won't somebody please think of the children?!"

A child molester was sentenced to 30 years.

Because of liberal laws in Maryland, he got out after 18. A few weeks later, he was found drugging a boy in his bed room about to molest him.

Child molesters can never be cured. The only way to deal with them is to give them a quick and cheap funeral.

"But if I was his wife and we had kids, I would strongly be wondering whether to leave him alone with the kids."

And why does what you think matter? Your judgement and ability to reason could be awful, for all we know. Be objective.

"There are so many things wrong with his logic and how he tried to justify them I don't even know where to begin.

Personally I think 16 is a perfect age to consent to sex ( I am a bit prejudice about that age because when I was 16 I was madly in love with an older men, but we both had the common sense to know better than to act on it until I turned 18.) 15 is questionable but doable. 14 and under don't even go there. I don't care what their bodies look like. They could have double D, the longest legs known to mankind and eyes that scream sex - don't even think about it."

So, basically, his logic is awful but you think 15 is okay and 14 not so because you don't like the idea. How is that not an appeal to emotion--a logical fallacy?

"Good try! I hope it's enough for his wife, because he lost me half way through and never managed to get my trust back."

Because surely your trust is a precious commodity available only to the most worthy elites. Give me a break.

You come off as a quintessential middle-class, drowned in pop forms of psychology (false analysis of a person's mental state), sociology (reinforcement of norms you conform to), and psychiatry (making claims to possible mental disorders), insisting on political correctness. It wouldn't be surprising if your vulnerability to "pedophiles" extended to "racists", "terrorists", "communists" in 1950, and "witches" in 1692.

San:

Child molesters can never be cured. The only way to deal with them is to give them a quick and cheap funeral.

...Are you serious?

Murder is worse than child molestation. I have a feeling that you are disgusted with child molestation to the point where your emotions overcome your mind and you can't think rationally about the issue. If you were more desensitized, you might be able to be more logically about this issue. And, even in the case of murderers, you don't excuse death by causing death.

So, if we let people have sex before they graduate from highschool, aren't we underminding the whole idea that people should be focused on improving their mind instead of dwelling solely in physical pleasure?

Because, after all, if you aren't having sex to procreate, you are doing it for pleasure.

"Murder is worse than child molestation."

Tell that to the victim.

Oh, thats right. One is dead, the other just has to spend the rest of their life as a victim.

Jackass.

You're saying that a person should feel reciprocal death because a person has felt emotional devastation, are you not?

I have a feeling that if a person felt that emotional devastation and supported my decision you wouldn't know how to respond. Your argument is entirely an invalid appeal to emotion unless there is something about your argument I am not understanding.

" You're saying that a person should feel reciprocal death because a person has felt emotional devastation, are you not?"

Ernt.

They should die because they commited a heinous act and have disqualified themselves from having a right to life under the social contract.

They broke one of societies two sacred rules, and they deserve to be destroyed.

And we all know that pleasure is bad,,, very bad indeed!

Ha ha ha!

Ah, the old Willie Horton argument.

Again, this is a logical fallacy. The point I made was not that recidivism is not a bad thing, it was that sex offenders appear to have far lower recidivism rates than other criminals (the DOJ rearrest statistics I linked to above show about 10% the recidivist rate of convicts as a whole). Thus we might reasonably divert our attention to preventing recidivism from other serious criminals.