PA woman bought used tablet, found man molesting an 8-yr old girl video
Posted by UncommonSense 11 years, 10 months ago to News
This is disgusting, insult was added (at the little girls' expense) when the woman who reported it to the police was told they would get on it, after their Christmas vacation.
F'n perve should get a bat upside the head...
People get pedophiles and child molesters mixed up all the time. Most pedophiles can go through life without ever hurting anyone.
To think that all pedophiles are child molesters is like thinking all men that are attracted to women are rapists.
Those who abuse kids deserve no mercy. Pedos, however, are good people in general. The more we ostracize them, and make it harder for them to get treatment, the more likely they are to abuse kids. =/
Is this line of reasoning correct? It kinda makes sense to me.
I'm sorry for the abuse here. I ended up writing way more than I was expecting... (I really needed to practice my English though, so there's that!)
Yes, the key word here is consent, and I'm not sure if this issue is actually black and white. I mean, murdering innocent people clearly is evil, no matter when and where the action took place. In the same way, sex with prepubescent children is also evil, as they have absolutely no idea about what sex is. But what about children who are past prepubescent age?
I believe there are many 14-15 year-old kids who are way more mature about sex than many 18 year-old teens out there. Being 18 doesn't magically make someone sexually responsible. Those arbitrary numbers really don't make much sense to me... I mean, you guys can only drink when you're 21? Oh my. US guys in the military can kill people, but can't have a beer? xD
Every situation should be judged accordingly, I suppose. When I was 15 I knew quite well what sex was, for example, and I'd have loved to consent to having sex with a 22 year old stud! I mean, young boys drool over older women on playboy all the time, it's not that absurd haha.
If I did have sex with an older guy though, what would happen to him? Well, my parents would probably ruin the poor guy's life... He would possibly be jailed and labeled as a child molester/pedophile, for what was a consensual sex with a 15 year-old sexually mature boy! No matter how much I protested, no matter how much I told my parents that he didn't want it at first because of the age difference but I insisted on us going ahead anyway... My words would have no acceptance, and I really don't think that's just. =/
Pedophilia has a very broad meaning today though. I like this classification down here more:
"Pedophiles: prepubescent children;
Hebephile: children at the cusp of puberty, 11 to 14 years of age;
Ephebophiles (from ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek), who are mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds;
Teleiophiles (from teleios, meaning, “full grown” in Greek), who prefer those 17 years of age or older."
The ones who go for prepubescent children deserve no sympathy at all. The last two ones though, should never be a problem, I suppose. And I'm not sure where I stand on the second one... 11, 12 and 13 seems way too low.
Now, about fantasizing, I'm not sure. Isn't it better to have people watching porn with consenting 15 year-olds instead of repressing those urges and unleashing them on a younger sibling? Also, making some stuff illegal only makes it worse for everyone, right? By making drugs illegal people will eventually buy them on the streets, increasing violence for everyone... When people were buying drugs on the Silk Road website, that's a lot of people buying safer drugs with high level of purity from the safety of their homes. Everybody wins!
By making consenting teenage porn illegal, that's only going to send more money to the underworld. Like, lets be honest here, if a 15 year-old wants to make a porn in order to make some money, he or she is going to anyway. I'd rather have these people doing it safely and legally, instead of networking with dangerous people.
Still, life's a bitch. No situation can be judged easily, apparently... I mean, there are many really REALLY young girls in Malaysia doing 'cam-shows' with striptease to paying American men. Is that sad? Of course! If a kid is doing that, that's because she's in a very tough situation! No food to eat, she has to make money somewhere... But the adults now won't let kids work for a living, no matter how much they need it. So, what can they do in order to Survive? Porn. They can make strip-shows, safely, through the internet. Oh, but now even that's illegal! So, what else... Well, now they're going to sell their bodies on the streets, in order to make money dangerously around potential molesters.
The Free Market Solution would be letting these kids work, of course. However, if that's not a possibility, I'd rather have these kids doing these webcam shows online. That's really sad, but that's better than dying, I suppose. In the mind of the kid she's doing the rational and moral thing in order to survive, and the pedophiles paying for that are in a way helping her out... Even though they're doing something immoral? That's quite confusing.
If the porn has non-consenting children though, or prepubescent children, or children who are a bit older but haven't clearly expressed their desire to be part of it, then the ones filming it should be jailed for life. Nothing less. And the ones watching it are doing something CLEARLY immoral and irrational! (But I'm not sure if they should be punished for downloading something off the internet. I don't know what to think of that. I mean, if I watch the video of a real murder, a very 'goreish' one, does that make me a criminal...? Hell no! Even if someone watches it while pleasuring himself, that just means the person is a sick fuck... But the law has nothing to do about it. Child porn are also videos of crimes taking place, right? By watching the scene, and enjoying it, should the person be jailed? Not to mention that I'd rather have these people watching to old material, even if that's immoral, than making it illegal and having them film new ones with their own siblings. However, THEY DO fuel this disgusting industry! But, in the same way, those who like to watch movies of real crimes are also fueling this industry... But common sense tells me they shouldn't be jailed. Oh well. I really don't know what to think.)
Uh, statistics? I don't really have any, sorry! I just used my own reasoning to conclude that, and of course that could be terribly flawed. xD
A man is attracted to women. Does it mean he's going to rape a woman? No.
I'm attracted to men. Does it make me a potential rapist of other men? No. (Some straight men still think we want to abuse them. That's because many of them still don't understand us well. Ignorance = fear.)
Someone is attracted to kids. Does it make them a potential molester? No. (Everyone thinks they are the scum of the earth, and that they rape little kids whenever they can. That's because ignorance is still rampant.)
Take a look at the Virtuous Pedophiles website. o/
"We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away. But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever. Yet we are despised for having a sexual attraction that we did not choose, cannot change, and successfully resist. This hatred has its consequences; many of us suffer from depression and sometimes even commit suicide. Paradoxically, the hatred actually increases the risk of child sexual abuse by making us afraid to admit our condition to others, thus discouraging us from seeking treatment. More of us could lead productive, happy, law-abiding lives if we could open up to people who would treat us not as monsters but as human beings with an unfortunate burden to bear."
However, by repressing any one of these three, things get ugly. When homosexuality was morally reprehensible, the result was thousand of fake marriages taking place... In the same way, when pedophiles are ostracized, this only increases the number of kids being molested. =(
People tend to solve things through brute force instead of finding a better solution. That's really sad! Like, "Let's kill all those with leprosy before they infect our children!".
Someone didn't like that solution, and found a cure for the disease! Everyone wins. = )
-X-
Thank you for reading! And please, tell me if you find any flaw in my reasoning. My OCD couldn't find any, but I'm sure I must have overlooked some.
Take care!
A life sentence, or death penalty, should be the only options for cases like this one.
Also, you mentioned Cyrus, but I think we changed for the better. I'd rather have her being a whore on TV than watching priests condemning sex/ homosexuality/masturbation. Come on... Sex is an important part of a person's life, and the kids now know that. If we want them them to be more more sexually responsible, let's just spend more time parenting.
Miley Cyrus is free to perform as she wants to. If parents don't want her to influence their kids, they should turn off the TV. She's just doing her job, and the Market seems to approve of her. People should be free to enjoy bad music, if they want to. xD
And what's the problem with 'exacerbating' some things? If no one is being hurt, people are free to do whatever they want to. You're allowed to dislike what they're doing, but it's immoral for you to want to pass a law in order to stop them. Do you think Colorado was wrong when they legalized marijuana? Was that exacerbating? Should we keep it illegal to protect the young?
Freedom comes first.
However, I don't think anyone would complain if people started debating about racism, on a page about economy, in case a user types some derogatory racial slur in the comments.
The crime also brings out an unusual amount of indignation. Even people who've done horrible things can say "at least I've never abused a child." Little gold stars to those people.
I agree with you. I have two kids. I understand the urge to flip out at child sexual abuse. We should resist that urge and try to be ration about as we are with crimes like armed robbery.
If a kid starts behaving erratically, or is strangely silent, there's always something going on. If we're open enough, they might talk to us about their situation so we can help them.
Well, I think too much emotion ends up clouding our own sense of reason sometimes. We're more than right by being angry at brutal crimes like the one on this page, but I think we should differentiate between these real criminals and those pedophiles who are good people, and that don't act on their desires. They may have been born with this condition, but what's going to determine if they're going to rape a kid or not is their moral code. For example, an Objectivist pedophile would never hurt a kid, as his reason goes against it. He would keep it to himself. A sincere and devote Christian pedophile wouldn't do anything bad as well. ;-)
I'm sure Ayn Rand would agree with me here if my premises are indeed correct:
1- Pedophiles didn't choose their condition. It was not a result of their moral code, or actions.
2- The effects of this condition, pedophilia, are only related to what a person finds sexually attractive. It doesn't mean they have a tendency towards lack of moral judgment or psychopathy.
Therefore, it is not their moral fault for having these desires. They should not take the blame for having them (again: having). If a pedophile is good towards children or not, this depends solely on their personal moral code. Rational or well-meaning pedophiles wouldn't hurt kids.
"An ideal man would not act blindly and would not act on because he 'felt like it'. It's quite alright to feel, but feelings are not tools of permission, they're not guides to reality, and you keep your feelings to yourself. Feelings are the consequences of thought and action, not the guides."
It's quite alright for pedophiles to feel these things, even more if it's not their fault for feeling them. If they never act on these irrational desires, if they keep these feelings to themselves, then they're being absolutely moral and should not be criticized.
It's perfectly possible for the majority of pedophiles to be well-meaning people. We should not put all of them under the label of child molesters.
If you disagree with me, please tell me why. I'm just trying to have a polite conversation here, and as I'm an Objectivist, I'm just going to change my point of view in case I find that my premises or conclusions are incorrect.
Take care, Abaco.
If your own kid turned out a pedophile, thanks to his brain being wired differently, do you think he would come to you asking for help? I don't think he would. Why would he risk his love for you for something that's not even his fault? Something out of his control? Something he was born with?
That's even more hard than coming out of the closet. If parent's still kick their kids out of their homes for them being gay, what do you think they would do if their truly benevolent and kind 16 year-old son told them he could only get sexually aroused by thinking about young girls? They would kill him, not help him. It wouldn't matter to them if he sincerely told them he would never act on his desire, or that he would rather kill himself than having sex with a kid.
Yes, it's not OK to have sex with kids, and I can assure you most pedophiles know that and would never harm a kid. All they want is a little bit of compassion, as they were born this way, and they need help.
When people like you don't give them some acceptance, when you hate them, you are only increasing the number of teenage pedophiles killing themselves and, also, the number of kids suffering from sexual abuse when you make them afraid to admit their condition to others, thus discouraging them from seeking treatment.
P.S. A 22 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old shouldn't be a crime if it's consensual. Calling that pedophilia is wrong, also, as these children are not prepubescent anymore. Call it Ephebophilia, as it's more accurate and honest.
here's my deal-yes on getting help. but I still maintain they are not misunderstood. it's a true sickness of the monster kind. fantasizing bout sex with children is really fantasizing about violence since children are to be protected not exploited. While I agree you can't put someone in prison for their thoughts you can institutionalize those who represent a possible danger to others an to themselves. Luckily, I don't know that much about it, but I am skeptical that treatment works for this disease.
-X-
On it being a sickness, I can't really disagree, rationally, with this particular quote on 'The Last Psychiatrist'. This person seems to be really spot on:
"The basic issue is that sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters is not the slightest bit abnormal or unusual. Until recently, the age of consent was age 13 years in most parts of the world (including the United States) and it remains 14 in many places. Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters--our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction. For hundreds of thousands of years, sex followed closely behind puberty. Only recently has society chosen to protect the moratorium of adolescence and to declare as inappropriate and illegal a sexual interest in the pubescent."
However, he still thinks it is a crime though, of course!
"It is natural and no sign of mental illness to feel sexual attraction to pubescent youngsters. But to act on such impulses is, in our society, a reprehensible crime that deserves severe punishment."
On fantasizing, I really don't think that's a problem. I suppose that's the only moral choice available for those who suffer from this problem, right? They were biologically inclined by evolution to have coitus with young females, so they could have healthier offspring, so, they must relieve this tension somehow, without hurting any real children. As long as you know the distinction between fantasy and reality, I don't think there's an issue here, and I believe most of them do know that. I suppose it's more likely that pedophiles in general are very disgusted at themselves, and suffer from a lot of self-hatred, in the same way gay people kill themselves over not being born 'right'. The great majority of them would never hurt a kid. In the same way, when I was younger, I used to tell myself I'd rather die than have sex with men, as I was so damn ashamed of myself.
Repressing it really isn't an option. Wouldn't that be worse? If you tell a straight guy he's not even allowed to ever masturbate to women, the object of his desire, I think he's going to want sex with women even more. (o_o)'
So, it's not, biologically, fantasizing about violence. But it IS violence in our society. I think the most elegant option here is letting them at least fantasize to this natural urge of theirs. The great majority of them knows, I believe, that children are to be protected, not exploited. That's why they hate themselves so much, and as I said, they're more likely to kill themselves over hurting children. Yes, I also don't think putting people in prison for their thoughts is the right solution. Institutionalize? Well, if one has raped or had non-consensual sex with a kid already, I'm all for some kind of registry with their names on it. However, I believe many people today end up in such lists, when they would never have had non-consensual sex with children. And I think that's so absurd!
You know that famous To Catch a Predator Program? Some of the cases were so awful! I mean, in all of the programs, the 14 year-old decoy was so into having sex with the older guy. This decoy always said things like "Yes, I want you. Can you bring condoms? Electric razors? I'm looking forward to it!!". Some of the guys who got caught would never go forward if this girl had said 'Leave me alone!". Isn't that dishonest? I really do sympathize with guys like that. Come on! The 23 year-old guy thought we had found a younger girl who was absolutely OK with them having sex. He only went forward with it because he was sure the child wouldn't be hurt, and that she wanted it as much as he did.
If guys like this one, guys who may not even be pedophiles themselves, end up in some kind of government list that's going to ruin his life, then I'm absolutely against it. This probably was a regular guy, like the ones who say "Whoa! This girl is only 14? She looks way older!"... I felt so terrible for him when he was jailed with real rapists. =(
If the list doesn't include people like him, I'm all for it. We should be aware of the existence of really dangerous people in our neighborhoods!
Haha, I suppose I do know a lot about it. That's because I can't stand injustice! Thanks to being born gay, I can't stand still when I see someone being unjustly criticized or bullied. I always try to fight against the bad guys! xD At first I was like everyone else, I thought pedophiles were scum and should all be chemically castrated, but then I ended up learning more about it on YouTube. I can't really be against them like I was before without being logically inconsistent, and I concluded that on some cases the younger kid is perfectly able to consent to sex. I was, at fourteen. Why should we prioritize an arbitrary number for age as our means of judging someone's sexual maturity instead of sensibly analyzing each case accordingly? I would be so damn disgusted/angry/hateful of my parents and even more of this rotten statist society if they had jailed my possible 23 year old boyfriend for having sex with me when I was 14 and sexually mature enough. /rant
Yes, I also don't think there's a treatment for something that evolution designed for us as a mean of having healthier offspring. If I had a friend, and he told me he thought he was pedophile, I would tell him: "Man, that must suck! I can't really imagine how hard it would be for me if I had been born with that. It must be awful to have an non-tangible object of sexual desire. Hey, but at least you get to watch some japanese lolicon art, right? :D"
I don't think I'm wrong. And if I am, by all means please tell me why. I hate being wrong about my premises, and I like to get them right as soon as possible. =/
See ya!
am confused. And that is the definition I use for pedophile and unlike homosexuality, I do not buy that they are born with it. I think it is a psychological problem and I 'm sure it can be cured. It is a preditorial pathology and violent in nature since a child has no control. Think Michael Jackson. The pathology is all about luring and control. What would be the cure? The other stuff you 're talking about is illegal but also entrapment. However, if a perp initiates contact that 's another story. another story.
See ya!
Where we probably disagree is when I say that, sometimes, I think the kid is actually able to give consent. I used to know a very mature 15 year-old girl, who looked like she was 18, and she was dating this 23 year-old guy. Their relationship was actually very healthy, I believe. Her parents were glad she was at least dating someone who was responsible, had a job, and actually treated her quite well. I don't think age should be a problem here, and it would be damn unjust to lock the guy up for that. I mean, the girl's fine. She's actually really happy. xD
If a more rational and scientific explanation comes along, I would accept it. Up until now, the evidence suggests it's more likely to be a variation of human sexuality that was more common in the past, but that now our genes have been adapting since we don't consider sex with kids moral anymore. Society changes way faster than our genes can. Like, if we decided that eating meat is immoral, we would new a few thousand years until our genes could catch up and everyone became a vegan! (Oh my)
Yes, it's violent in nature according the current society's values. However, It wasn't violent when nature designed it for us at first, so we can't call it abnormal.
We can say that it's immoral according to our values,
We can say that it's illegal according the Law,
But I don't think we should ever say that, according to science, it is a disorder.
What prevails in science is reason and cold facts, not morals. If eating meat becomes immoral and illegal in the future, and we end up with carnivore genes being present in only 0.4% of the population, should people start saying that it's a pathology or a disorder? The situation is quite similar to that of the genes in pedophilia. Just an old DNA pattern that we don't need to use anymore, but that some people still have inherited it.
Michael Jackson was a hebephile.
"If Jackson did fall outside the norm in his “erotic age orientation”—and we may never know if he did—he was almost certainly what’s called a hebephile, a newly proposed diagnostic classification in which people display a sexual preference for children at the cusp of puberty, between the ages of, roughly, 11 to 14 years of age."
Yes, it can't be cured. It's okay to have it as long as you don't act on it.
The remaining meat-eaters on Earth will have to keep their urges to themselves and not act on it as well. That's consistent, if that's the moral code of the future society, even if I don't agree with it.
Luring and control? Only if the person is bad in nature, and character. I'm attracted to men, am I luring and predating them? People thought homosexuals were some sort of perverts when they were ignorant. Now, they still think most pedophiles are perverts. That's because they're still ignorant.
Their sexual attraction for kids doesn't come with the prone-to-raping-people gene. That's a separate matter which depends solely on their personal moral code, their reason. Some pedophiles are bad people, and they will molest kids, that's true. Most of them are good people, and they will never harm kids, also true, I conclude.
If the person is evil in nature, they will commit evil actions. If they're good, they won't. I can GUARANTEE you that there are tons of loving pedophiles out there who don't harm kids, while there are many rotten straight men molesting their daughters or nieces because his wife isn't giving him enough sex.
If you want your kids safe from molesters, you should be more careful of your own husband, or brother, than of pedophiles. Statistically speaking, I suppose. These men don't have an exclusive attraction to kids, as they can have sex with adult women as well, but they predate on kids if sex availability is scarce.
Yes. Everyone agrees that, if the perp initiates contact, that's another story. Those should be punished! = )
We indiscriminately kill cancers, virus and bacterium in the daily battle for survival. The only thing a human animal understands as a restriction is that of fear...mortal fear.
And, like you, I'll not say more.
Poor girls.
Pedophiles aren't any more evil than a regular person is, also. They aren't psychopaths by nature. They're just unfortunately attracted to something that they know isn't tangible. So, Bad Luck. Any of us could've been born a pedophile, right? But since we're rational people, we wouldn't pursue that.
Really. I don't get why people don't understand that being attracted to something means just that: you're attracted to this something.
By being gay, you can conclude that I get aroused when I see handsome men. It ends there.
Am I more sensitive? Do I hate sports? Do I love Pop Music? Argh! No, no, and no! I may listen to a few Lady Gaga songs but that's it!
lol
So, same with pedos, I suppose. Yes, they're attracted to kids, but that's all you can conclude rationally. Being a pedo doesn't automatically qualify you as potential rapist.
This is quite silly, actually. It's like those feminazis saying that all men are evil by nature just because some of us do rape women. What? No! Not all men are like that!
I don't really follow the 'young boys who think they are gay' phrase. Are you saying that some boys aren't gay, but then someone tells them that they are...? That doesn't make much sense to me haha. If one is gay, he just knows. If one is straight, he just knows. xD
I knew I was gay since I was 10, I guess. My first ever sexual inclination was towards men, and it has been like that ever since. Women never had an effect on me.
See ya!
Yes, there is a natural and biological tendency to desire a 15 year old over a 22 year old.
"Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters--our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction. For hundreds of thousands of years, sex followed closely behind puberty. Only recently has society chosen to protect the moratorium of adolescence and to declare as inappropriate and illegal a sexual interest in the pubescent."
Changes in our DNA take thousands of years in order to take place. That's why some people still have attraction towards children or child-like traits, like lack of pubic hairs.
No, there's no crime if someone is watching child porn. Child porn is a real crime, the evidence of a real crime. Does watching the video of a crime make you a criminal as well? There are people who lust over real snuff movies, so, are they criminals themselves for supporting this market of gore and real assassinations by downloading videos? No. They can't be arrested for that.
Pedophiles who mean well also deserve our sympathy, and they should not be ostracized. If someone doesn't agree with that, then I can't consider them a moral human being.
The more hatred they get, the more children get abused anyway. So, that's quite stupid if we're trying to make a better world for the kids, right?
DNA is irrelevant? Okay, we have a brain. But it isn't able to modify most of our inner workings, though. Try stopping your own heart at will, try feeling sexually attracted for a gender different of your original orientation. Doesn't work.
Their fault? Is it your fault that you've got black hair? That makes no sense. If a particular trait of yours wasn't acquired as a result of your own choices, then you're not morally responsible for it. If someone is a pedophile, but hasn't chosen that for his life, if he was locked in this biological position since birth, then no, that's not his fault.
The only thing that could be his fault is if he acts on his desire. That's evident. He's got a choice in the matter after all: to do it or not.
He's just not guilty of feeling these urges in the same way that a straight male can't help it feeling aroused by big breasts. That's as absurd as saying that gay people are to take the blame for being gay. Is it their fault that the god-who-doesn't-exist didn't ask for their opinion before making them attracted to the same gender?
Yes, it's a natural response. Since they have no choice in the matter, that's natural, not to mention that it was the norm for thousands of years.
Yes, you're free to support whatever you conclude is the rational thing. Still, why don't you think I would make a good parent? I'm an Objectivist, not a Democrat. Is it just because I'd rather be rationally compassionate of people who deserve such consideration, instead of joining the present lynch-mob mentality that tells us that all pedophiles are bad people and should be burned at the stake?
People who dismiss pedophiles right away are the same parents who wanted people with leprosy dead before they could infect their children. Brute people always try to solve problems through force and violence. The intelligent ones though, they found a cure for leprosy so that everyone could win.
Since there's no cure for pedophilia, all they ask for is a bit of understanding. Less ignorance, less hatred. They were born like this, and they are good people in general.
Peace, Madam.
P.S. I suppose that good people who have pedophilia are probably way less likely to abuse of their kids, physically or emotionally, than regular people are. They hate their condition so much, that they'd rather kill themselves before doing kids any harm. If you think it's OK to ostracize them, as you said, you're just making it easier for them to kill themselves over depression.
However. Maybe that's what you'd like, right? It doesn't matter to you that these pedophiles are good people who would never harm kids. You just want them dead.
I have nothing else to say to you, if that's your moral code.
This reminds me of the young d'Anconia, in a way. People didn't want him to work at Taggart Transcontinental because he was still a kid, and wasn't mature enough to make a decision like that (in their eyes).
He worked there for as long as he could before being caught. The boy was damn mature for his age, and should not be prevented of advancing at his own pace.
"Why work now? What if they give you abusive tasks? What if they don't pay you enough? You're not mature enough to make such an important decison!"
Screw that. d'Anconia doesn't care. Francisco d'Anconia does whatever he wants! :D
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." -- Ayn Rand
If we want to decide if kids are mature enough, age is not the best of the indicators. It's actually the laziest one, if anything.
When you say that 60 year-olds have at least had a chance to mature, I don't see your point. People evolve at various paces, and those who evolve faster should not be punished or slowed down because others aren't as capable.
"Let's make the drinking age 21 because some people younger than that wont know how to be responsible!"
Uh, excuse me? The legal drinking age here is 18, and we're not doing worse than you. When people get to drink moderately at younger ages, they're less likely to abuse of it than college students who drink furtively.
Are you a conservative?
That may be why we're disagreeing, I guess. o/
No. I just thought you were a Conservative because of the way you talked about Cyrus, but that's actually irrelevant since you're a rational person. It's just that, I'd rather talk to other Objectivists if possible. They are the only people I know who use reason consistently in all areas of their lives. Even if I do disagree with one, we just let reason decide who's right. If one is found wrong, both learn from the experience.
We both value logic, of course, but as I'm apparently not able to provide you with enough information for this matter, then we can conclude that this conversation won't have a proper closure. Maybe we should drop this? ; )
In our society today, the three; intellectual, emotional, and sexual maturity are essential to the total well-being of an individual. Taking advantage of the sexual drives of a teenager lacking either or both intellectual and emotional maturity is criminal since it harms that individual's present and future. Doing so for simple satisfaction of sexual urges and drives makes it worse and the typical arguments are based on sexual maturity and supposed consent, but relegates the harm to the individual in today's society to non-essential and neglects fully informed consent requirements. A 14 year old mother is not capable of raising a baby. The baby's not going to develop well, the mother's not going to achieve intellectual and emotional growth needed to participate in our society, and the father - well, that type of man isn't going to be there. He's moved on to another victim. If caught, he needs to be punished.
But, taking advantage of a pre-pubescent child can only be seen as destructive to the basic psych of a child, without even the thin excuse of sexual maturity. A defiler of this type needs to be removed from society, even after actual or chemical castration, he'll still offend because it's not about sex or attraction. It's sadistic.
I suppose we can agree that Francisco d'Anconia was mature enough as a teen. Adults didn't want him to work at TT because he was too young, and that decision was a very important one. Adults could exploit him somehow, give him abusive tasks or something.
He did as he wanted, and advanced at his own pace. Why should he wait before making a decision? Just because most people of his age wouldn't be able to have the same level of maturity?
In the same way, if a 15 year-old d'Anconia wanted to have sex with an older 20 year-old woman whom he admired, do you think he would've waited until he was old enough? Why? He knew he was mature enough. If this age gap problem is one of emotional maturity, he was ready. I don't think he would've said:
"My dear, we can't really be together now. I'm not old enough, and that's against the law. Let's wait until I'm three years more older, okay? I probably won't be even more mature in a considerable way after that time, so I feel I'm already prepared to make such decision, but, you know, my age... This arbitrary number changes everything."
Hell no! That doesn't sound like him at all. =/
I still need to think more about this, but your response was actually good enough for me to consider a reevaluation of my premises. I still think that, on many occasions, the age gap doesn't have to necessarily be a problem for some teenagers. I don't think it's fair to prohibit those who are younger and actually emotionally mature enough to consent to sex just because the great majority of the teens aren't well developed emotionally enough.
I suppose the Law has to draw a line somewhere in order to make it easier for them to judge these cases. But I don't think that's a very elegant solution.
Is is intelligent to only make alcohol available for those who are 21 or older? No, that's stupid. Of course people below that age can be perfectly fine drinking alcohol. Not to mention that people will always ignore these laws and fight for their freedoms anyway, through the black market if they must.
Younger-than-21 people who drink alcohol moderately are less likely to end up abusing of alcohol than a college student who drinks furtively. Isn't the law having the opposite effect of what was intended? If a 14 year-old girl wants to date an older guy, she will. If anything, with it being illegal, she will only want it even more, and away from the eyes of her parents. Isn't it better to have her in this relationship, under her parent's guidance? Does that make sense at all or am I making an invalid comparison?
*sigh*
And when did I mention 8 year-old girls? I said very clearly: fourteen year-olds who are able to consent to sex, rationally.
Of course any sane person will be against molesting prepubescent children who haven't matured sexually yet.
Enough of this subject. This probably won't go anywhere.
Moving on.
So, have a nice day, rlewellen! Sorry If I were rude in any way or form. I was probably emotional as well.
Take care!