The author says: "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."

Well, excuse fuckin' me, but yes it does. The studies and stats his cites do little but guise this erroneous and vile acceptance of something that is so clearly and dastardly wrong. To suggest that 20 year olds are somehow not cognitively developed is insulting and apologetic. What the hell does a twenty (or even a 17) year old have in common with a 12 year old that would make such a thing seem like child's play? Jack shit is the correct response.

This argument is the same that says taxpayers ought to fund and provide resources for rehabilitating pedophiles. And I'm not talking about Genarlow...I'm talking about the twenty year old who has intercourse with a 12 year old. What incentive does the public have in rehabilitating someone who likes getting-off on children? How do you explain this to the next victim? The money would be better spent on getting these victims treatment. This is one of the sickest crimes known to man...to steal the dignity and respect of a child for a lifetime. And we should pity the predator??? How obnoxious.

Yes! You have a good head on your shoulders. I agree that a 20 year old having sex with a 12 year old is the act of a predator, who should be thrown in a cage for the rest of his life.

And absolutely, any money we would spend on "rehabilitating" some child molesting animal should instead be spent on helping the victim. It's insane what our legal system has become, due to our society's warped sense of empathy.

Saletan's other concepts, however, about a sliding scale so to speak, seem reasonable. It does not seem reasonable, for instance, to automatically treat all 20 year olds who have sex with a 17 or even 16 year old, as child predators, but right now, if an outraged parent wants to file charges, that's automatically what happens.

I think you have both missed the point, the first of you rather emphatically (really, is vulgarity necessary? It only cheapens anything you have to say.)

Surely you would both agree that the most vile example is the 50-something seeking sex with a toddler. This is a deep pathological problem in that this person is attracted to something they should not be attracted to.

A 20 year-old who is attracted to a post-pubescent 12 year- old is less alarming because the existence of the attraction is natural, if socially unacceptable. This is not a person who is wired wrong, simply someone who was unable to fight his natural urges as society has deemed appropriate. The difference is similar to two violent offenders, one who has anger management issues (the 20 year old) and the other who is sociopathic (the 50 year old). Both are criminal, but need to be dealt with in entirely different ways.

I disagree in some cases. If these girls having sex at 12 and 13 are so sexually immature so as to not be able to consent, then why do these same girls wear sexually attractive clothing? If you've ever visted Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, you'd see 12 and 13 year olds roam the strips with thongs poking out of their daisy duke shorts and shirts that barely cover their breasts. These girls are dressing this way solely to recieve sexual attention.

I can see why an older teenage male would be attracted to girls dressed in this manner, and seeing as how these girls are not only consenting to sexual intercourse, but are also begging to be solicited by their dress, I do not see why anyone should be locked up for the rest of their lives for engaging in sex with them.

Ok we know how you feel about 12 but that really doesn't say anything. The point of the story was that there has to be a better system for determining what is a crime and what isn't.

I agree with you 12 years old with even 17 is a crime but what about 12 with 14, or 14 with 18, etc????

Society needs to be mature enough to discuss this. You appear not to be mature enough.

Um, remember JonBenet Ramsey? She dressed mighty provocatively for a 6 year old...and lots of make-up too.

Girls are conditioned to certain modes of dress as is allowable by social and parental standards. Several hundred years ago, showing an ankle from underneath a long skirt would have been considered provocative. Shoot, in some places now, showing anything from underneath a burkha is considered provocative.

But there is a difference between dressing to incite attention (not necessarily sexual attention) and dressing in order to keep up with allowable societal norms. Fashion trends have nothing to do with whether or not a person is seeking sexual attention.

And, regardless of dress, no person is "asking for sex" unless and until they actually ask for sex. (This was one of the most commonly used excuses for rapists - she looked like she wanted it, so I took it.)

To presume that a person is actively soliciting sex solely based on their attire is about as reasonable as presuming a naked toddler is actively soliciting sex, or that the loud-mouthed drunken idiot at the bar is actively soliciting a punch in the face.

The question is whether or not persons of specific ages are actually capable of offering something approaching consent by virtue of their mental/emotional capacity, not whether or not someone else thinks they might look like they are offering to provide sex to them.

Are 12-17 year olds allowed to enter into legally binding contracts? Are 12-15 year olds allowed to drive cars? Are people under age 18 (legally) allowed to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes?

There's a reason for that.

Hey Jazz, did you read my "Consent is a contract" post? Do you agree or disagree?

(Cripes, I put a fairly well thought out post out there and I get practically nothing!)

yes, but we're not talking about rape victims here. we're talking about girls that both dress in a manner to solicit sexual comments, if not the act itself, and then CONSENT to sex.

clearly, a child in a bathing suit at the pool, or a naked toddler in its own home is completely different than a girl purposefully pulling her underwear up over her hips to show off her brand new thong.

and yes, i do believe pubescent girls that do such things know that dressing this way attracts attention from males.

perhaps more blame can rest on the shoulder of the parent that allows them to dress this way, and yes, i do think an older adult or teenaged male that has sex with a female of that age should be punished. but jail for the rest of his life? absolutely not.

Does anyone get a life sentence for having "consensual" sex with a minor? I thought the max was like 10 years except for proven pedophiles going after under 12's?

Again, though, my point was that just because a person has the ability to vocalize "yes", doesn't mean they have the mental capacity to understand the ramifications of actually doing so. (Consent has to be given by someone intellectually capable of doing so before it is considered valid.)

And just because young children - it's not just girls doing those things - are seeking attention, doesn't mean that they are necessarily seeking sex. That's one of those fine lines that people don't seem to get. If the underage person does not actually initiate the sexual solicitation, but only "consents" to a proferred solitcitation, are they responsible for the action and the consequences?

We all know how easy it is to cause children to do things they may not otherwise have thought of themselves. But, even if they do come up with it themselves, shouldn't the more mature participant recuse themselves? Shouldn't they be expected to? And shouldn't they be punished appropriately for not doing so?

DaveS, I agree that an adult having an attraction to a post-pubescent 12 year old is far less horrific than one having an attraction to a toddler.

But we're talking laws here. Laws are by nature very imperfect, ham-fisted beasts, which can not accomodate every variable.

So, if we're writing laws about having sex with legal minors, I can live with denying a 20 year old sex with a 12 year old, regardless of the physical maturity level of the minor.

As Saletan mentions so well, there is intellectual and emotional maturity to consider as well. I'm sorry, but explain to me how say, a 20 year old man is not taking advantage of a 12 year old girl, whether or not she is physically ready for sex.

No, I draw the line on that one. Now, do we lock him up forever like the toddler molester? Maybe not, but I'm not going to lose sleep if the guy gets the book thrown at him.

Well put EarlyBird.

Honestly at 20, any remaining neurological development that you still have left is pretty minimal. Not being able to control yourself around a 12 year old at this age seems like it would be a serious pathology.

Even a 20 year old with a 15 or 16 year old would make me a bit nauseas.

I think what people are trying to do is seperate Pedophilia from Ephebophilia , pedophiles are attracted to children and ephebophiles are attracted to adolecents.

The ubiquitous catholic school girl uniform as a common Halloween costume shows societies obvious acceptance and indeed promotion of Ephebophilia. I think what the author of the article was trying to convey was that an adult having sex with underaged person is a different sort of crime. When we make laws regarding sex ofenders we have in mind the type of person who lurks around play grounds or gets a job working with kids and systematically ‘preys’ on children what makes pediphiles so dangerous is that they are wired to be attracted to children meaning they don’t have any other safe sexual outlet other than to abuse children and society can be sure that they will eventually harm children again. The dirt bag who sleeps with an underaged ‘woman’ should be punished but I would liken it to the difference between a murder that takes place during a robbery vs a serial killer. One person had a choice but made the wrong one the other person was just a ticking time bomb. I don't think the age of consent should be changed but I think we should seperate criminals who can be

Rehabilitated back into society verse the ones we will always have to be wary of.

happyatheist:

Does anyone get a life sentence for having "consensual" sex with a minor? I thought the max was like 10 years except for proven pedophiles going after under 12's?

Laws are becoming very draconian, people have to register as sex offenders and can’t live within 100 yards of a school or a playground, these laws were meant to protect us from pedophiles but now they affect peoples whose offenses have nothing to do with children. You may not get 'life' but your life will be ruined

So you think that a rapist deserves to live near schools? Maybe you should be thrown in an insane asylum for being insane.

Read his post again. That is not what he said.