Log in

View Full Version : NBC Dateline Expose on Men Meeting Young Girls



Pages : 1 [2]

LilSweetVixen
02-04-2006, 03:15 PM
Ok why was there one guy who had ALREADY SEEN another episode, had already been registered as a predator, then saw the police outside the house and STILL went inside! He said "just bored I guess". WTF?? Then he asked "are the cops outside?" Hello? You had already seen them on the way in how are you asking that? Ok see that's why I think some of these guys are addicted or something and don't care if they die trying this stuff. Damn, go to a brothel.

Deogol
02-04-2006, 06:19 PM
Ok why was there one guy who had ALREADY SEEN another episode, had already been registered as a predator, then saw the police outside the house and STILL went inside! He said "just bored I guess". WTF?? Then he asked "are the cops outside?" Hello? You had already seen them on the way in how are you asking that? Ok see that's why I think some of these guys are addicted or something and don't care if they die trying this stuff. Damn, go to a brothel.

You got that right. Except for the brothel thing.

But it certainly is a sign of being like an addiction.

threlayer
02-04-2006, 09:40 PM
Still it is amazing what a lot of marketing publicity will do to reduce this nonsense. I think a lot of these TV shows are sleazy, audience-participation shows up for ratings, rather than factual info. But in this case I hope this sort of thing becomes as popular as the Law/Order, CIS etc shows. All to reduce this idiocy in 'adult' behavior.

Still I think there is something larger in scope about this social behavior, rather than, CRASSLY STATED (SORRY), some overly-horny guys looking for some young pussy. (Note that I said looking FOR not AT,which would be child porn which I am not discussing here.)
2) There are so many of these pervs in so many different circumstances that we must consider the causes as not just too much testosterone and ignorance. For one thing, just to spark conversation, this is the age when girls are still very naive, but are exploring, venturing out and becoming curious about guys, and simultaneously feeling their independence, 'sassing' their parents, and acting out. Sound familiar?
I really wanted to bring up a discussion of the underlying causes of this unacceptable behavior.

threlayer
02-04-2006, 09:48 PM
threlayer, do you really think that it would work in reverse? Do you really think you could get 35- or 45-year old women to come to a house thinking that they were going to have sex with a random 14-year-old boy they'd been chatting up on the internet?

I just don't think it would happen.

Sure, you get that rare case of a female teacher having an affair with a teenaged student. But in those cases, I'm pretty sure that it happens because an emotional relationship develops before any kind of sex occurs: the kid has a crush on the teacher....In all the cases of this that I can think of, the two participants claimed to be deeply "in love." .

Well, you see I just don't know. I don't understand the motivations of either sex as the aggresive agent. I agree that the motivations, and methods of contact, are very likely to be different, with men normally the most aggressive and maybe the frequency of men vs women are very differernt. But I could be wrong. But I think there is some important underlying cause considering the frequency, notwithstanding the superficiality of NBC Dateline, or local papers....

threlayer
02-04-2006, 09:53 PM
OK I'm going to say something here that I will get a LOT of flak about...so let me qualify this first...

50 year old men should not be seeking out 14 year old girls for sex because as a society, we've decided that 14 year old girls are too young to be doing that. I agree with that.

However...men are genetically hardwired to be attracted to just that type of female. Evolutionarily, that's the age that females become fertile. 50k years ago, that's the age all the male cavemen would be fighting over. I can't say it's pedophilic to be attracted to a 14 year old girl. Now...acting on that attraction is not something one should do.

My point? The word pedophile gets thrown about really easily. Being sexually attracted to a 14 year old girl who is developed and looks like a young woman is NOT the same as being sexually attracted to a 9 year old who looks like a little girl.

So...perverts? I don't know. VERY bad judgment and should be punished for going after 14 year olds? Definitely.

Yes, and back in the pre-civilized world, the 50-yr old man would be beaten to a pulpy mess by the stronger, faster, younger male suitors.

I suspect that only the more advanced societies have tried to control the inter-generation gap with regulations and social mores.

Deogol
02-04-2006, 09:55 PM
Still I think there is something larger in scope about this social behavior, rather than, CRASSLY STATED (SORRY), some overly-horny guys looking for some young pussy. I really wanted to bring up a discussion of the underlying causes of this unacceptable behavior.

The bad thing is that it is such a taboo subject that few people will even study it.

I mean, simply being in possession of the basic research material required is simply against the law (I mean child porn.) So in effect, it is illegal to study this.

Other porn, has been studied to try and relate why it appeals to people. I mean you can bet the pornographers know it. Sometimes the studies are quite pathetic but at least they are throwing ideas out.

I mean, the crap on is less taboo than what these people are into! (See the latest terrorist video clamoring to have the cartoonists shot )

I mean there are the obvious control issues, the weak victim, etc. With the so called "grooming" I think it is head fucking as well as physical fucking. I just don't know.

threlayer
02-04-2006, 10:05 PM
I can see with some people that my point about pedophilia didn't stick. Being attracted to a 14 year old girl is not pedophilia.

Partially agreed. It would be easy to delude oneself about that if you consider appearance alone..

However, these young teens are not nornally mature enough to handle the situation and are likely to be highly exploitable and subject to considerable future unhappiness. Almost the whole of western society tries to accelerate the sexual development of young females, with parents quite willing to go along, but largely not understanding the full consequences. It was interesting a few years ago reading the book, "Reviving Ophelia" http://personal.denison.edu/~trager/reviveophelia.html, back when I was wondering how it would be to raise some kids. I believe I see some hidden agendas there.

threlayer
02-04-2006, 10:19 PM
The bad thing is that it is such a taboo subject that few people will even study it.

I mean, simply being in possession of the basic research material required is simply against the law (I mean child porn.) So in effect, it is illegal to study this.

And yet the frequent violation of that taboo-ness is precisely why it should be studied.

I'm talking about actual seductions, rather than legal attempts to reduce the production of porn, the effect of which on previously innocent adults is likely multiplied by mass exposure to it. That is a bit like whacking the cocaine factories as wel,as the puishers and druggies, which is a multifaceted approach to reducing the problem. An analogy here is whacking the harvesters of coca leaves before it goes to the facory, even if it does.

This ia a durned good discussion of a very important social topic which is ruining a lot of innocent lives.

threlayer
02-04-2006, 10:21 PM
Ok why was there one guy who had ALREADY SEEN another episode, had already been registered as a predator, then saw the police outside the house and STILL went inside! He said "just bored I guess".

NO CLUE he was doing anything WRONG

Genevive
02-05-2006, 01:01 AM
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the view points of a few of the people that weighed in so far...
I think the reason this particular topic does not fit in with the "sensationalism journalism" theory is because it deals with children being preyed upon (and yes, a 14 year old is still a child no matter how big the breasts and how long he/she had been going through puberty). I don't want to make the assumption that someone could not understand the magnitude of damage sexual exploitation and abuse does to a child and how that even "dirty talk" over the internet changes them as a person and in essence alters their view of self and society. Regardless of how other countries make their laws, if you are in the United States, you must obey the laws or GET OUT.
The arguement that "it was done differently X amount of years ago," is careless and irresponsible. Should we also then re-instate slavery and kidnapping of humans for the purpose of involuntary servitude as legal?

C'mon! how can we as a society claim to fight so hard for freedom and support the right for people to make their own decisions and live their lives free from outside influence, when we can't respect life in the first place? A child has the same right NOT to be vicitmized as an adult. Why should we then say, well she was being rebellious, so I don't care if some predetor takes advantage of her naivete. There is no biological explanation that can convince me or any other sane individual that it's okay to turn a blind eye to the victimization of a child. We are not talking about two people past the age of consent here, we are talking about one person past the age of consent and one person who is NOT, and that equals manipulation, no matter what formula you use.

That being said, I'm glad that this topic is now being discussed, as I feel it provides an opportunity for people to be educated and aware. Wether it happens 14 times or 4 times, it is still important and needs to be addressed because it should not happen at all. If anything, it give those who may need to know about the possible danger the opportunity to avoid it in the first place.

Peace.

Nicolina
02-05-2006, 02:40 AM
Okay, I am about to seriously bore the pants off anyone who doesn't give a shit about the evolutionary bases for human behavior.

I apologize for the threadjack, but I figure those who aren't interested can just ignore...


Okay, I am not in a biology program, so you can assume that all of the following is like, a question. Just imagine a question mark at the end of all the sentences.

Jenny, I'm not saying that being in a biology program makes me an expert on these issues. I was only arguing that I'm being exposed to the current thinking of evolutionary biologists these days...I'm not basing my opinion on something I learned 20 years ago, but on my interactions with scientists who are currently working and teaching in the field.

That being said, it's true that ethology (i.e. the study of the evolutionary bases of animal behavior) is one of my very favorite topics in biology. If I were into microbiology instead of behavior genetics and behavioral ecology, I probably wouldn't get so worked up about these things...


Yes, but isn't it what exactly that behaviour is that is under contention? Like for example the idea presented here - that men are hardwired to be attracted to 14 year old girl because that is when they become fertile. How true is this? Most animals are not at their most fertile during their first "heat" for example, and many mammals are very bad mothers when they are impregnated during their first heat. Dogs, cats, foxes and mink are all very likely to eat their young if they are bred during their first heat. Their genetic line is better served if they wait until they are 18 months to 2 years - or even older. We accept fairly implicitly in our culture that very young women are not good mothers .....Women are certainly not at their most fertile at 14. Wouldn't it be more sensible to be biologically wired with an attraction to a woman of around 25?...

You bring up really excellent points here. Some thoughts in response:

First, I wasn't arguing that men are attracted to pubescent females because they are "more fertile" than older women. To be honest, I couldn't tell you the average age at which a human female reaches peak fertility. Is it 25? That seems a little old...especially considering that the human life span, for much of our evolutionary history, was so much shorter than it is now....(But this is probably highly subject to all kinds of environmental influences.)

I was arguing that for males, there may be some biological impetus to have sex with (i.e. impregnate) pubescent females, because they more likely to be virgins.

If you're a guy who has sex with a virgin, you know that your sperm is the first sperm on the scene...and that as long as you keep an eye on the female post-coitally to make sure she doesn't mess around with anyone else, you can be darn sure that you're raising your own offspring when you provide parental care to her spawn.

(Of course, none of this happens on a conscious level. But I believe that many of our behavioral traits and tendencies have some adaptive value...otherwise, they would have been selected against and eliminated from the population. This doesn't mean that all behaviors are adaptive, but I do think it's worthwhile to ponder alternative hypotheses about possible adaptive value...)

I was too flippant when I suggested that avoidance of sperm competition was the reason for older males' attraction to females who are just reaching sexual maturity. It's really just one possible contributing factor.

Conversely, fucking a virgin is just one possible way for males to avoid sperm competition and attempt to assure paternity--and it's probably not the most effective way. As suggested above, the common practice of "mate-guarding" is also required. (This is often cited as the evolutionary basis for the institution of marriage, which makes a lot of sense.)

Here's a cool fact about human biology and sperm competition:

"A study done at the University of Manchester has provided suggestive evidence that human males also vary the quantity of sperm ejaculated in relation to the risk of sperm competition. The higher the proportion of time a couple spent together between copulations, the lower the number of sperm contained in the ejaculate (which in the study was captured in a condom for later measurement of sperm content.)" [--John Alcock, [i]Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, 5th edition, 1993]

In other words, if your SO hardly ever leaves your sight, you'll have far fewer little swimmers in each load of cum.....Weird, huh?

Another thing about youth and fertility: I'm not sure what the average age of onset of puberty is these days...but I don't think that my experience is abnormal (i.e. menarche at the age of 11). In other words, many 14, 15, and 16 year-old-girls are already several years past the human equivalent of "first heat." Right?

You are correct, also, in stating that experience matters: A male might be better off choosing a female who is more experienced, and has proven her mettle as a successful parent. (Though I do think that we question the abilities of teenage mothers in North America primarily due to societal and cultural norms....)

OTOH, genetic mutations in female gametes (i.e. eggs) accumulate over time. (This isn't true of sperm because males produce new sperm all the time; human females are born with all the eggs they'll ever have.) That's why the ads for egg donors always appeal to "Healthy women ages 18-29." IOW, the older the female, the greater the probability that she'll bear offspring with genetic abnormalities.

So basically, all evolutionary "decisions" require a kind of cost-benefit analysis: For example, mating with a pubescent girl is beneficial because it reduces sperm competition, and also reduces the chance of having offspring with deleterious genetic mutations, as well as the chance of contracting some disease or parasite that she has contracted through prior sexual contact with another male. OTOH, mating with a pubescent girl is less-than-ideal because she may not be at her peak fertility, and her lack of experience may make her less likely to successfully rear her offspring to reproductive age.

As in many other species, individual human males employ different strategies in solving the cost-benefit equation. Hence the popularity of MILFs as well as schoolgirls.


A lot of the criticism of the whole "biology" train of thought, in these circumstances, is that it is backwards looking and forwards looking at the same time. It is difficult unto impossible to determine behaviour separate from socialization, and a lot of the premises are just a priori assumed from Victorian notions of gender roles. That for example, women needed big strong men to protect them and their children, despite the fact that we all know perfectly well that women and men spent their time largely separate - no matter how you envision the labour divide. It would seem at least plausible that women had to spend at least MOST of their time protecting themselves.....Really regardless of which is ultimately true - which is something that ultimately cannot be known, proved etc., just different more compelling theories put forth, it does kind of take certain social behaviours, endow them with biological fact status and then derive other biological facts from them. Looking backwards and forwards at the same time.

I have to admit, Jenny, that I don't really understand your "simultaneously backward and forward" objection to human sociobiology. This might be because, being a biology student, I live in a little science bubble, and I just accept the stuff I'm taught on faith and have trouble hearing the arguments against it (just like creationists or proponents of "intelligent design"(>:( )have a hard time hearing the logic behind evolution by natural selection.

Here's what my Animal Behavior textbook says on this subject:

"...Biologists use the adaptationist method simply to identify interesting puzzles and make sense of them. The method is central to the conduct of biological science because it can be used to create testable hypotheses on so many difficult-to-explain phenomena...."

And that right there is the crucial point: In science, no idea is worth a damn unless it allows you to generate a testable hypothesis. Scientists don't pull these ideas about sociobiology out of their asses. They propose a hypothesis and then design an experiment that is intended to test that hypothesis. No hypothesis is accepted unless it is supported by ample evidence. Nothing can ever be proven in science! Hypotheses can be supported. If an hypothesis is overwhelmingly supported by a very large body of evidence, then that hypothesis may become a scientific theory

PLEASE NOTE that there is a crucial difference between the word "theory" as it is used by laypeople and the word "theory" as it is used by scientists.


By the way I agree about the issue with male and female pedophiles (hebophiles?). I would think that it has a lot to do with the simple fact that we don't tend to commodify the sexuality of pubescent and pre-pubescent boys?

I agree with that (though I also think there are biology-based reasons that we do commodify the sexuality of pubescent girls). In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that there are more female pedophiles who are attracted to young girls than there are female pedophiles who are attracted to young boys.



Once again, I apologize for the threadjack. Don't hate me because i'm a biogeek. :-\

Nicolina
02-05-2006, 02:14 PM
It is difficult unto impossible to determine behaviour separate from socialization, and a lot of the premises are just a priori assumed from Victorian notions of gender roles. That for example, women needed big strong men to protect them and their children, despite the fact that we all know perfectly well that women and men spent their time largely separate - no matter how you envision the labour divide. It would seem at least plausible that women had to spend at least MOST of their time protecting themselves ......

1) I don't think it's impossible to determine behavior separate from socialization, since humans in different cultures are socialized very differently. If you look at behavioral differences and similarities among disparate human cultures, you can infer a lot of information, formulate hypotheses, and subject those hypotheses to statistical tests. It's also useful to compare human behavior with the behavior of animals that are not subject to the influence of culture.

2) I'm not sure which "premises" you're referring to when you say that many come from Victorian notions of gender roles. I don't know of any biologist who currently argues that the institution of marriage arose because "women needed big strong men to protect them and their children." (Is that what you're talking about?)

Sociobiologists have proposed that marriage arose as a form of "mate-guarding." This behavior is performed by males of many species in which fathers provide parental care, because it offers them some protection against being cuckolded.

Females, in turn, "consent" to be mate-guarded as long as the male who's doing the guarding is providing her with resources that she might not otherwise have access to.

Another proposition is that marriage exists in humans because human children are dependent on their parents for a very long period of time, and therefore children will have a better chance of surviving to reproductive age if both parents are involved in childrearing.

But even in birds and other creatures, mating strategies will vary with habitat quality (i.e. a male blackbird who claims a territory of excellent quality will often be polygynous, while a blackbird in the same general location who claims a low-quality territory will be monogamous--because he only has enough available resources to support one nest.)

Nowhere in there is the idea of "weak women" and "big strong men."

Okay, I know I'm talking to myself here, so I'll shut up now. Sorry.

doc-catfish
02-05-2006, 02:29 PM
I watched the re-broadcast of this on MSNBC last night.

I just can't believe how many of these guys had that shit eating grin on their faces right up to the moment Chris Hansen walked in, and then you see the figurative "cold water" hit them.

Deogol
02-05-2006, 04:05 PM
Ah... dammit. I missed it. And the web site doesn't like FireFox and MS doesn't make IE for Apple anymore. Fuckers. I'm writing a letter.

Jenny
02-05-2006, 09:45 PM
Hey Nic - I am listening and facinated. However I don't have time today to make long replies, and this doesn't lend itself to a cursory one (SW is my 5 minute reward at the end of chapters, you know?) So I shall insert this placeholder and replace with a detailed and nuanced reply next week.

Hef
02-06-2006, 01:32 PM
threlayer, do you really think that it would work in reverse? Do you really think you could get 35- or 45-year old women to come to a house thinking that they were going to have sex with a random 14-year-old boy they'd been chatting up on the internet?

I just don't think it would happen.

Sure, you get that rare case of a female teacher having an affair with a teenaged student. But in those cases, I'm pretty sure that it happens because an emotional relationship develops before any kind of sex occurs: the kid has a crush on the teacher. She's secretly flattered by the attention... That dynamic is pretty common, I'm sure. But in very rare cases, it seems, the emotional connection gets to the point where she begins to return the affection and the sexual attraction. In all the cases of this that I can think of, the two participants claimed to be deeply "in love."

I don't think that's necessarily true of cases where a male teacher sleeps with a female student.

Also, I think it's extremely rare to find a female who could really be considered a "pedophile"--i.e. a person who is fixated on having sex with young children. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an adult woman who regularly fantasizes about sleeping with underage boys.

There are very sound biological reasons for these realities, but I'll spare you the bio lecture...

About the show I saw:

That McDonald's guy who got caught twice obviously had some sort of developmental disability; he definitely wasn't quite right.

The doctor was the one who really scared me; he was so obviously a sociopath--did you see how slick he was when he got caught? It was chilling.


I've met a number of female perverts. Women are just as sexual (and sexually deviant) as men. They're just more subtle about it.

MsTopaz
02-06-2006, 01:51 PM
just like women are just as violent as men right...can beat the breaks off of a man with the 'best' of the men rignt.

i wonder how many women rape babies. probably very few...if any.

TarynJolie
02-06-2006, 02:32 PM
Women are just as sexual (and sexually deviant) as men

As far as the deviant part is concerned that is statistically incorrect. Furthermore men not only commit the vast majority of sex crimes but also the vast majority of violent crimes. This is true not only in the U.S. but worldwide.

Deogol
02-06-2006, 06:03 PM
As far as the deviant part is concerned that is statistically incorrect. Furthermore men not only commit the vast majority of sex crimes but also the vast majority of violent crimes. This is true not only in the U.S. but worldwide.

Well, ya know - it wasn't long ago where it was a small amount of men who raped... according to the reports....

TarynJolie
02-06-2006, 07:00 PM
Well, ya know - it wasn't long ago where it was a small amount of men who raped... according to the reports....
Oh come on ::)

I was not implying that all or most men commit rape. Obviously most men are decent folk.

My earlier post was in response the comment that said that women are equal in sexual deviance which is as I stated statistically incorrect.

doc-catfish
02-06-2006, 07:06 PM
Well, ya know - it wasn't long ago where it was a small amount of men who raped... according to the reports....
Yes, but as minsandric feminists like to state, since we men have penises, Y chromosones in our genes, watch porn, football and pro wrestling, eat red meat, drive big trucks with Hemis in them or what have you we men all could potentially be rapists.
:wife::male:

Our actual individual character based on our upbringings take a back seat to that of course. As does the all but proven fact that an extremely high percentage of people who commit sex crimes, male and female alike, had messed up childhoods riddled with abuse.

TarynJolie
02-06-2006, 07:25 PM
since we men have penises, Y chromosones in our genes, watch porn, football and pro wrestling, eat red meat, drive big trucks with Hemis in them or what have you we men all could potentially be rapists.
:wife::male:

Our actual individual character based on our upbringings take a back seat to that of course.

Geez, I just said most men are decent folk.

No one here is attacking your entire gender. We are just pointing out the fact that men commit these kinds of crimes more often than women. If we were discussing a crime that women commit more often that would be equally pointed out .

This isn't a men against women thing so how about you guys stop trying to turn it into such an argument, please.

TJ is now passing the peace pipe :peace:



an extremely high percentage of people who commit sex crimes, male and female alike, had messed up childhoods riddled with abuse.

Absolutely true !

Jenny
02-06-2006, 07:25 PM
I'm sorry - which "misandric feminists" state that?
I hate to come in here again to do anything than respond to Nic's very long, very intelligent thread, but I would like to know where you are coming up with this (being a radical feminist and all, I tend to take it personal). I also find it weirdly interesting (on an anecdotal social level, not from you personally) that so many guys will label certain "theories" (like a biological impetus to rape, the similarity of sex to rape, the socialization of sexual violence; I add quotes because they are what you might call normatively appealing theories, not scientific ones) as normal, obvious and integral when they are being used to demonstrate the rightness, the inevitability and the "naturalness" of rape, date, acquaintance and otherwise, and will label it as misandric slander if a woman states something remarkably similar to demonstrate the current social relationships are unhealthy and bad for women.

All people have the potential to sexually assault; however nobody, anywhere is estimating that women are responsible for a huge rate, or even a fast growing rate of sex crime. There are simply no indications. Whereas violent sexual relations between women and men have a long history of excuse, naturalization, encouragement, blah, blah, blah.

threlayer
02-06-2006, 08:44 PM
just like women are just as violent as men right...can beat the breaks off of a man with the 'best' of the men rignt.

i wonder how many women rape babies. probably very few...if any.

I think you're right about that last sentence. I don't understand the first one.

Anyhow, we have recently been hearing women who, out of psychosis or depression or abberation, do kill their babies. It of course is pretty rare. But I don't think these cases are as rare as those for women to do deviant acts of control or so to her young, typically not sexual acts.

Fawn
02-06-2006, 10:11 PM
I've heard that one of the last parts of the brain to develope is the one that evaluates risk, and morally right from wrong. And it developes between 18 and 20. My ex was 25 when I was 17. At the time, I had no problem sleeping with him. I didn't even think it weird. Then, when I hit about 19, I was like " why was this guy even talking to me, I was just a kid." An old roomate of his recently told me that before me they had to put an age limit on the girls he brought over, because they thought they might get in trouble for even having them there. He ended up cheating on me with two 15 yr olds at the age of 28.

I recently found out that the new girl he is dating is 15 or just turned 16. He's now 29. I am actually having trouble sleeping at night, because I'm thinking of turning him in. I don't know if I should. But at 15 I myself had experiences with men in their late 20's and it did forever change me in a bad way. Should I call CPS. I really need guidence. I seriously havn't gotten more than 3 or 4 hrs sleep since I found out nearly 3 weeks ago. any advice? I'm really confused and conflicted. For some reason I still care about his wellbeing. Help.

Fawn
02-06-2006, 10:16 PM
Oh, and the girl before me was 16, and another was too when we broke up for a while. I think he's got a seriouse problem, and i don't know if I should report him. I really should stop trying to induce sleep with wine. I confuse myself. I need advice pronto.

Fawn
02-06-2006, 10:29 PM
If you want to check out my ex, you can find him on match.com user name Ncredible1. What was I thinking right?!? He posted that while we were still together, and then admitted to me he met a 19 yr old girl on there that turned out to be a 40 yr old dude. If you can't find him try Austin, tx zip 78745. He didn't always look like that. OK. I'm drunk, I should stop now.

Nicolina
02-06-2006, 10:56 PM
Anyhow, we have recently been hearing women who, out of psychosis or depression or abberation, do kill their babies....

Killing is different than raping. Infanticide--perpetrated by females as well as males (though far less often by females)--is not exceedingly rare among animals. Its incidence generally increases in relation to certain environmental conditions....

I'm not saying that the occurrence of infanticide in the natural world makes infanticide among humans somehow okay. It doesn't. But a careful look at the circumstances under which it is most likely to occur might help us to reduce the probability that it will happen in the future. Greater understanding of--yes--"natural" phenomena is my goal. If the phenomenon in question is morally reprehensible, and rightly considered criminal, then the hope is that greater understanding of causality will lead to more effective prevention of that crime.

Jenny, the same sentiment goes for attempts to understand whether there may be some biological basis for rape. There's actually a pretty detailed discussion of this in my Animal Behavior text, but I don't have time to rehash it here.

Here's one interesting point, though: How do biologists judge "rape" (or something vaguely analogous) in non-humans? Generally, they consider a mating to be coercive if the male of a species in which copulation normally will not occur without the presentation of a "nuptial gift" (generally a favored food item) manages to forcibly copulate with a female to whom he has not presented said gift. (Wow, I hope that sentence is parse-able.) This has been observed on occasion in various creatures; certain species of insect leap to mind.

IOW, prostitution really is the oldest profession, and the acceptance by females of "gifts" in exchange for sex is often considered a form of "consent" in the animal kingdom. Kinda weird, huh?

I realize that it is ludicrously reductive and probably offensive to many to equate human rape with stingy scorpionflies. And really, that isn't my intent. I apologize if I offended anyone. (I'm just endlessly fascinated with variations on mating behavior. Sorry.)

My point to Jenny is that even if I hypothesize that there may be some biological component to the motivations of (the small minority of) male humans who commit rape, this does not preclude my belief that rape is an aberrant and heinous act--a crime that we, as a society, should punish severely. Again, my hope as a researcher would be that looking at rape cross-culturally might provide greater insight into the motivations (whether based in biology or culture) of the perpetrators. This, in turn, would ideally lead to more effective preventive measures, and perhaps more effective ways to reduce recidivism by sex offenders.

Does that make sense? I understand your sensitivity about the issue, I honestly do, but when a sociobiologist claims that a behavior has a biological component, it's not the same thing as saying, "Well, this behavior is natural and therefore perfectly acceptable!"

I mean, I guess we can't do much about the behavior of other species; it's really none of our business. But we humans, for better or worse, have been burdened with these maladaptively large brains, and the language, thought, and culture that accompanied them. We are also a social animal. Our interactions with one another are of far greater import than the interactions that occur between members of a solitary species--you know, the type that only seeks another of its kind once a year for a quick fuck during mating season.

I believe our morality is a direct result of our identity as a social species. Morality, then, is also based in our biology, and is therefore "natural." Exploring the biological or evolutionary bases of our ugliest behaviors is absolutely, positively not equivalent to sanctioning those same ugly behaviors. In a way, I find it comforting to know that even some of the most frightening and disturbing aspects of human behavior can be understood from a reasoned, rational point of view. It makes me less afraid of people, somehow.

In fact, it seems to me that refusing to acknowledge a biological component to our behavior is at least as absurd as excusing bad behavior because it's "natural"--and the refusal itself is possibly just as harmful.

Of course, when I say "biological component," I am not referring solely to genetics or "instinct", but to an extraordinarily complex set of interactions between genes and environment, and the countless associated feedback loops that I don't think we can ever hope to fully understand.

One last thing:
I think it's safe to say that most of us who live in industrialized nations inhabit a world that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the physical or social environment in which humans evolved. We're not really "built" for the way we live now....which is something to consider when it seems that the whole world's gone completely insane.

There's my rant for the evening. I was gonna do a really short post, I swear. Somehow, she got away from me....

Lena
02-06-2006, 11:05 PM
I work with a thirteen year old now who can be unsupervised on the internet for five minutes and she has older men calling her. She's done this in foster homes, her mothers house, and from the library. Literally, five minutes and she's hooking up with a random 50 year old guy! Never underestimate the sex drive of a teenager, I guess.

TarynJolie
02-06-2006, 11:08 PM
Oh, and the girl before me was 16, and another was too when we broke up for a while. I think he's got a seriouse problem, and i don't know if I should report him. I really should stop trying to induce sleep with wine. I confuse myself. I need advice pronto.

Your gut is telling the right thing to do. That s why you can't sleep. Report him. He needs help and so do these underage girls.

Nicolina
02-06-2006, 11:13 PM
Fawn:

Yikes. What is the legal age of consent in your state? If he's currently sleeping with someone underage, I imagine you should call CPS...But I really don't know enough to tell you what would happen after you called...

Does anyone else know? I'm guessing that CPS would send a social worker to the girl's house, since she would be the minor in need of protection. Is that right?

What would happen if you called law enforcement? Nothing, probably...Right? Is there some other option?

Could the guy be arrested for statutory rape on the basis of an anonymous tip? Would they have to catch him in flagrante delicto? Would the girl and/or her parents have to press charges in order for the DA to prosecute?

...Fawn, I'm really sorry you're having such a hard time with this; it's a heavy thing to deal with. Maybe you should post a new thread and see if anyone has advice or helpful information? This might get lost in here....

More importantly, you should talk to someone about this...Is there anyone you know who can listen well and offer advice without judgment? I don't know anything about your personal life...but, if you have access to some kind of crisis counselor or therapist, that might be a good place to start...

Lurker
02-07-2006, 08:26 AM
Interesting thread! I haven't seen the show, but that won't stop me from jumping right in...

First, I'd be shocked if there were as many female paedophiles as male, or as many sexual deviant females of any sort. I'm not saying THERE AREN'T ANY, just that I have to believe there are far fewer, because of genetics, socialization, opportunity and means, etc.

Second, I think that whether it's natural for a man to be attracted to a 14-year old or not (and I think it is), it's still predatory. I know this may be a straw man, but there's a distinction that is being missed I think...

I definitely believe that there's a genetic drive to spread your seed among as many different women as possible. If some schmuck gets stuck raising your child, so much the better!

It's also totally genetically understandable and defensible to enslave others, or for that matter to entice 5 year olds to pleasure you sexually--if it brings you happiness and you can do it, why not (setting aside for the moment that any pleasure that doesn't advance the purpose of genetic survival can be plausibly described as "deviant"--e.g. eating chocolate cake when you are already overweight, or masturbating)?

The answer, of course, is that as a society we don't believe that certain liberties should be taken with other people, and particularly not with those individuals (children, or for that matter the mentally handicapped) who are not equipped to make judgments on their own with full understanding of their options and the consequences thereof.

And that social judgment is what makes EVERY crime against others wrong, or "perverted", or what have you. I don't think you can differentiate between having sex with a 14 year old and a 5 year old by saying one is "natural" and the other is sick. They're both "natural", if by natural you mean understandable in a Hobbesian context where we're all just trying to impose our will on as many others as possible by any means necessary. But in our marginally enlightened society, the rules that are in place to protect the 5 year old are also there to protect the 14 year old, and for largely the same reason--because we have deemed that the 14 year old is insufficiently developed (emotionally if not physically) to be able to make the decision to have sex (or drink/smoke/etc.) with full cognizance of the consequences.

Is there a difference of scale? Sure--having sex with a dumb 20yo who believes you love her when you just want to sleep with her isn't as bad as having sex with a 15yo who has already slept with 10 other men/boys which isn't as bad as giving candy to 4 year olds so they will give you a blow job.

But I don't think you can actually draw a line and say "See? HERE, now that this girl has had her period, it's totally understandable and reasonable that I would want to sleep with her! It's just illegal." It may be understandable and reasonable by some standard, but it's socially unacceptable. In this regard it's no different than theft, rape, etc.

A fine distinction, but one that I think should be made. Otherwise it becomes entirely defensible for men to fly off to Bangladesh (for example) to have sex with 10yo girls.

oulala
02-07-2006, 12:56 PM
I speak from a similar POV as Fawn in that when I was 15 until just before I turned 18 I was in a relationship with an older man (over 10 years older than I). Even so late in adolscence, I can say it had a very negative influence on me and - similar to Fawn - I feel disgusted and confused when I think back on it, like WTF was I thinking? WTF was HE thinking?!

While these girls may be acting sexually rebellious and enticing the men themselves, they don't actually know what they are doing and cannot begin to imagine the long-term effects it will have on them. Mixed with a newfound sexuality and also a need for a "parental figure" (as my parents maintained an opinion of "you make your own mistakes and I will look the other way / I don't care what you do, I just don't want to know about it") I looked for it in an older man... and didn't have a clue what I was bargaining for. And I wish somebody had the mind to step in and do something.

Of course, this is just my personal experience.

TarynJolie
02-07-2006, 01:01 PM
Mixed with a newfound sexuality and also a need for a "parental figure"

yup. I am a strong advocate for not allowing kids to have unsupervised access to the computer.

I feel parents share in the blame in situations such as was covered in the Dateline story.

Fawn
02-07-2006, 01:22 PM
Legal age of consent in Tx is 17. I'm not sure, but I've heard that even if the girl is 17 the guy can't be more than 3 yrs older than her. The ex has moved to Lousiana. Shreveport actually. That is where he met the girl, through his 17 yr old cousin. So I really have no way of knowing who she is. I assume someone would have to get access to his cell records and find whatever # he calls the most.

I actually called him ( he rejected the call) and since I still know his passcode, I listened to his mssges. There were 7 from her, but none leaving a name. One even said " Hey baby, I'm so exited, I'm driving my moms car...." I know it's illegal that I listened to his messeges, but I had to know if it was as bad as our mutual friends said. It is. He would say, every time we would fight about it that " you came on to me.... You grabbed my hand and led me to the bedroom, so how does that make me dirty." Its true that I did that, but I was 17 and I thought I knew everything.

Oh, and when we first met, he told me he was 19, he say's because he didn't think I'd talk to him if I knew he was 25. He's now 29. He even used to tell me " your outta here when your 20" with a laugh. I really thought he was jokeing. My parents knew about him, but "let me make my own descisions, and my own mistakes" as they put it. Some would say that 17 is old enough to make descisions like that..... I can tell you..... It's not at all.

threlayer
02-07-2006, 04:46 PM
I work with a thirteen year old now who can be unsupervised on the internet for five minutes and she has older men calling her...Literally, five minutes and she's hooking up with a random 50 year old guy! Never underestimate the sex drive of a teenager, I guess.

WOW!!! What a Jezebel. That gal is dangerous.

threlayer
02-07-2006, 06:11 PM
...
Second, I think that whether it's natural for a man to be attracted to a 14-year old or not (and I think it is), it's still predatory. I know this may be a straw man, but there's a distinction that is being missed I think...

It's also totally genetically understandable and defensible to enslave others, or for that matter to entice 5 year olds to pleasure you sexually--if it brings you happiness and you can do it, why not (setting aside for the moment that any pleasure that doesn't advance the purpose of genetic survival can be plausibly described as "deviant"--e.g. eating chocolate cake when you are already overweight, or masturbating)?
...
But I don't think you can actually draw a line and say "See? HERE, now that this girl has had her period, it's totally understandable and reasonable that I would want to sleep with her! It's just illegal." It may be understandable and reasonable by some standard, but it's socially unacceptable. In this regard it's no different than theft, rape, etc.

A fine distinction, but one that I think should be made. Otherwise it becomes entirely defensible for men to fly off to Bangladesh (for example) to have sex with 10yo girls.

It is when you consider the effects on the young person that you find significant damage that you find it less than defensible, even though domination over others is 'natural' to some anyway. Many things may be natural to someone but they may be very damaging to another. Hence our laws. Now one may argue that 14 or 16 or 20 is better than 18, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

threlayer
02-07-2006, 06:22 PM
Age of consent for states where it is under 18 is further limitewd by the age difference. In Arkansas where age for marriage (not just sex) is like 14 but, only if the spouse is under like 16 or 17.

Fawn, seems like this guy could enable job security for a whole CPS staff. If you call the police on him, he definitely will be arrested for several charges, not just for statutory rape. This is so whether or not the parents know, and they will be told, even if the guy was seduced by her (sounds like he was doing the seducing, probably using the gal's rebellious nature). A potential problem for you is that your name will be associated with his arrest. But you will be doing a very good thing for those hot-to-trot teenagers who are doing potentially dangerous things with their future lives with him.

The police will have a pretty easy time of tracking down his exploits; they will not have to catch him in bed with the girl. The DA and police will not care if she seduced him. He is presumed mentally capable of knowing it is against the law. That's why these teenage Jezebels are so dangerous to risk-taking pervs

Lurker
02-07-2006, 06:33 PM
It is when you consider the effects on the young person that you find significant damage that you find it less than defensible, even though domination over others is 'natural' to some anyway. Many things be natural to someone but they may be very damaging to another. Hence our laws. Now one may argue that 14 or 16 or 20 is better than 18, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

Your point is well-taken. I was trying (poorly) to say that the line IS the law and vice versa, and that you can't trump society's judgment of an act to be perverse or abusive by calling it "natural" and/or genetically motivated.

Nicolina
02-07-2006, 06:54 PM
I speak from a similar POV as Fawn in that when I was 15 until just before I turned 18 I was in a relationship with an older man (over 10 years older than I). Even so late in adolscence, I can say it had a very negative influence on me and - similar to Fawn - I feel disgusted and confused when I think back on it, like WTF was I thinking? WTF was HE thinking?!

While these girls may be acting sexually rebellious and enticing the men themselves, they don't actually know what they are doing and cannot begin to imagine the long-term effects it will have on them. Mixed with a newfound sexuality and also a need for a "parental figure" (as my parents maintained an opinion of "you make your own mistakes and I will look the other way / I don't care what you do, I just don't want to know about it") I looked for it in an older man... and didn't have a clue what I was bargaining for. And I wish somebody had the mind to step in and do something.

Of course, this is just my personal experience.

It's interesting that when it comes to teenage girls having sex, the age difference between her and her partner seems to be really crucial to her perception of the experience as an adult. I was a virgin at 14...for about two months. Then I started knocking some serious boots. The guy was 5 years older than me, and after a bit of off-and-on stuff, we were together for a few years. I've never felt that the relationship was unhealthy, or that having sex when I was legally underage had any terrible psychological ramifications for me later in life. I mean, sex always comes with complications, but I dealt with them as best I could. Sure, I can see where it might've been a good idea to wait until I was older, but I was a horny little thing and at the time, it kinda seemed like something I had to do. I feel like I did know what I was doing, and I'm not really mad at myself for having done it. ...And, believe it or not, it was actually some pretty damn good sex--even when I look back on it now.... :O

Is my experience different because the age difference was smaller? And if so, is it because there's something inherently bad about sex between a pubescent girl and a man who is 10+ years older? Or do you think maybe girls feel badly about it in retrospect when they realize that culturally, the guy is considered really creepy? Maybe a little of both?

Or does it maybe have more to do with individual upbringing, and how you're taught to feel about sex and sexuality?

Fawn
02-08-2006, 12:09 AM
Nicolina, there is a BIG difference between a 14 and 19 yr old compared to a 17 and 25 yr old. 19 is still young and somewhat naieve. 25 is a grown man. My parents always said that age was just a number. This is simply not true. I have changed sooo much from 17 untill now, and for that matter, I changed sooo much from just 17 to 19, or 19 to 21. He prayed on the fact that I thought I knew everything, and I thought I could handle the situation. I am sure he knew better. He even told me that the reason he lied at first and told me he was 19 was because he didn't think I'd talk to him if I knew how old he actually was. He manipulated me. He was not some kid thinking he was in love, he knew perfectly well what he was doing.

threlayer
02-09-2006, 06:13 PM
It's interesting that when it comes to teenage girls having sex, the age difference between her and her partner seems to be really crucial to her perception of the experience as an adult....

... is it because there's something inherently bad about sex between a pubescent girl and a man who is 10+ years older? Or do you think maybe girls feel badly about it in retrospect when they realize that culturally, the guy is considered really creepy? ...

Or does it maybe have more to do with individual upbringing, and how you're taught to feel about sex and sexuality?

I cannot put myself in the place of a pubescent girl. But partly it is the issue of control that is thought to be at issue here. The girls is not experienced enough to make a 'valid' judgement that holds for the long term. I'd think, on my own, it is because of some repugnant feelings caused by the age difference, or maybe something that reminds her of her father or his behavior. I just pose those here as alternate hypotheses.

Nicolina, this may be a good research topic. But somehow I think you've already studied it. :)

Jenny
02-09-2006, 06:28 PM
It's interesting that when it comes to teenage girls having sex, the age difference between her and her partner seems to be really crucial to her perception of the experience as an adult. I was a virgin at 14...for about two months. Then I started knocking some serious boots. The guy was 5 years older than me, and after a bit of off-and-on stuff, we were together for a few years. I've never felt that the relationship was unhealthy, or that having sex when I was legally underage had any terrible psychological ramifications for me later in life. I mean, sex always comes with complications, but I dealt with them as best I could. Sure, I can see where it might've been a good idea to wait until I was older, but I was a horny little thing and at the time, it kinda seemed like something I had to do. I feel like I did know what I was doing, and I'm not really mad at myself for having done it. ...And, believe it or not, it was actually some pretty damn good sex--even when I look back on it now.... :O

Is my experience different because the age difference was smaller? And if so, is it because there's something inherently bad about sex between a pubescent girl and a man who is 10+ years older? Or do you think maybe girls feel badly about it in retrospect when they realize that culturally, the guy is considered really creepy? Maybe a little of both?

Or does it maybe have more to do with individual upbringing, and how you're taught to feel about sex and sexuality?

I am giving up on answering your other thread. I will never have time ever again. I don't even have time for American Idol. So short posts. I would say it is likely because of a few things. Ultimately the balance of power between someone of 14 and someone of 19 is unlikely to be equal. In fact, I would go so far as to say that except in the event of mental deficiency it would never be equal. (And 19 is not a child - I would say that is a grown person. And seriously Nic - you may feel it wasn't harmful, but wouldn't you think it was weird if you had a 19 year old son dating a 14 year old girl? And if you had a 14 year old girl - you might not want to stultify her sexuality, but wouldn't you think it was weird if an adult man wanted to be her boyfriend? That is not normal). It would be even less equal with an older man. In that sense, it is completely irrelevant - from a social perspective - what they use that power FOR. The fact that they are seeking out and engaging in relationships that are inherently unequal is what is troubling. And I would think that is what these women are looking back on and feeling.

Now we don't legislate against all unequal relationships because, well, we can't. But although you think your relationship was good, you probably wouldn't recommend it as a model for other people - for either side.

dudeski
02-25-2006, 12:24 PM
First off, I'm a male, so I figured I'd get that out of the way because I know that this is pretty much a "ladies only" zone. I stop by when I'm really bored and want something interesting to read.

I got a real kick out of all the women around here pretending that women aren't perverted (only men are, according to them) and aren't attracted to underage sex partners. So I figured I'd register and post this recent news article (and another older one) and a few of my comments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_re_us/brf_teacher_sex

LAURENS, S.C. - A former fifth-grade teacher accused of having sex with her 11-year-old student was ordered held on $100,000 bond Saturday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Prosecutors had wanted Wendie A. Schweikert, 36, jailed without bond, saying she was a danger to the community and a flight risk.

Schweikert was arrested Friday on two counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor after the boy's mother accused the teacher of having sex with him at school at least twice, authorities said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/24/child.groom.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Wife, 37, pleads not guilty to statutory rape, other charges

Friday, February 24, 2006; Posted: 1:45 p.m. EST (18:45 GMT)

GAINESVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- A 37-year-old woman who married her son's 15-year-old friend pleaded not guilty Friday to charges of statutory rape, child molestation and enticing a minor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just the stories you hear about. There are plenty more women being arrested and prosecuted for having sex with underage partners all across the country. One of the suburban counties in the metro area in which I reside has county jail imnate photos and case information online. I did a quick search and found 2 women currently incarcerated for having sex with minors in the 13 - 15 age range. One of the "victims" was male, the other "victim" was female.

I put victim in quotes because at 13 years of age a person, whether male or female, knows what sex is, fantasizes about it, and desires it. More on that later.

From my own experience as a male I can tell you that there are indeed females who are attracted to underage males. When I was around 10 years old my female Confirmation class teacher (church stuff) used to pinch my ass, tell me how cute I was, and tell me she wanted to marry me (even though she was already married, in her mid-30s, and had a daughter in another class).

When I was 14 - 15 me and some friends used to hang around with a woman who was 24 years old. She had her own apartment and used to buy us booze and give us pot. She repeatedly propositioned us for sex knowing full well we were underage.

These are just two examples from my life, and there were a few more. I just wanted to make it clear to you doubters out there that there are more women pursuing underage partners than you'd like to believe.

As for the "victims", sex is sex. It doesn't matter if a 13-year-old boy (or girl) is having sex with a 13-year-old girl (or boy) or a 43-year-old woman (or man). As far as I'm concerned, it's all equally OK or all equally bad. The participants in the sex act are pretty much doing the same thing, regardless of age. Sex is sex.

This whole "grooming" and "balance of power" business is BS. A desire for sex is natural as is a willingness to experiment. When I was 13 there was no shortage of horny girls pursuing sex from males (lucky for us guys). There was also no shortage of girls bragging about their conquests with much older males, either.

And let's face it: underage girls will purposely lie to a guy about their age so he'll have sex with her. And rest assured, the girl will be bragging about it with her friends come Monday morning. I can't tell you how many times I heard the girls around me in school bragging about the 20-something guy they f*cked when I was in 8th and 9th grades.

That being said, I don't think adults should be having sex with adolescents; nor do I believe that adults who do have consentual sex with adolescents should go to prison. It's a bit of a conundrum as far as I'm concerned.

I just get sick of all this "children are victims" shit when I know that those "children" (13 isn't a child any more in my book) are sexually aware and are actively pursuing sex from partners they find attractive.

Every time I read one of these older woman with young boy stories I always ask guys if they had the opportunity at age 13 to have sex with a much older, attractive woman, if they would do it. 100% of guys I talk to say yes.

threlayer
02-25-2006, 01:12 PM
That is not news, but admittedly it is suppressed by media and LE. I'd believe easily that, of the adult-child sex encounters that are not forced or later repudiated by the child, it is the parent who instigates the charge vehemently. I could easily believe that in some cases as you've described where the child wants it (presuming the adult is not too great in age difference), the bragging actually subverts the thing into criminal events.

Problem is that adults are expected to be responsible enough to recognize that loss of innocence occurring too quickly damages the child in a long term. That and parental and church influence are primarily the forces that have established laws. And, as we all know, the law makes little if any allowance for human exceptions and/or rationale. So the law, not wanting to get into complication, has chosen an age as a determinant of these crimes.