MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The article refers to the decision to strike homosexuality from the list of mental disorders back in the 70s. At the same meeting, it was discussed whether or not pedophilia should be left on the list or struck off for similar reasons. They left it on. The reference to the Matthew Shephard law is the hate crime law. The US has had a hate crime law on the books since 1969. That one focused on race, religion and ethnicity. The hate crimes in question refer to kidnapping, murder or sexual assault specifically based on the fact that the person belongs to a particular group. The FBI has been tracking statistics on hate crimes at least since 1991, and the 2009 law added sexual orientation and gender identity to the hate crimes law. Does this mean that pedophilia would be 'acceptable' if it were classed as a sexual orientation? No. It would mean that if you were to beat your neighbor to death with a crowbar because he's a pedophile, then you would be facing not only murder charges but also could be charged under the hate crimes law. Free speech is still free speech; kidnapping someone is not acceptable anyway, regardless of what type of dirtbag you might think the person is. Other non-discrimination laws that mention sexual orientation could then be translated to apply to pedophiles, BUT... sexual assault of a child is still a felony. So, if an institution says that their hiring practices are not to discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation, they would not be 'forced' to consider hiring a known pedophile to work with children, because the background check and 'have you ever been convicted of a felony?' question would still apply. Sexual crimes are still sexual crimes, regardless of a person's orientation (or perceived orientation). While some people are discussing whether or not pedophilia should be classed as a sexual orientation, that is <i>not</i> the same discussion as whether or not it is legal to have sexual contact with a child. It's illegal, and there aren't any efforts being made to change the age of consent (which as has already been pointed out on this thread, is the main 'obstacle'). Age of consent varies by country and by state (in the US), and there are a variety of cultural issues surrounding it. In many places, young child brides are the issue, not victims of pedophilia per se. But in the US, yes, an attempt to lower the age of consent below 18 would be seen as a way of weakening protection of children against sexual predation by adults. I really don't think there would be much support for any attempt to change that. I could be wrong, and it's fine for people to stay vigilant and prevent any changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Ugh this is so stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 But in the US, yes, an attempt to lower the age of consent below 18 would be seen as a way of weakening protection of children against sexual predation by adults. I really don't think there would be much support for any attempt to change that. I could be wrong, and it's fine for people to stay vigilant and prevent any changes. Lower it to what, 16? I don't think a pedophile would be going after that age group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Ah, sorry, here's the FBI report for 2011. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/december/annual-hate-crimes-report-released/annual-hate-crimes-report-released The hate crimes in the US we're talking about are mostly racial/ethnic, but a significant number are related to either religion or sexual orientation. About equally, actually. The FBI started tracking this with the KKK a century ago, because while burning a cross on a guy's lawn is only minorly illegal from the standpoint of setting illegal fires, the message is clearly perceived as a threat. Honestly, I'm not opposed if the FBI wants to keep track of crimes committed against pedophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Normile Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 In many states the age of consent is already 16, thats probably still more than twice the age those predators seek. ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Right, age of consent laws vary by state/country, and none of them are anywhere near 8 or 9. As long as that is true, sexual contact with a child remains illegal, and that includes the child porn industry (or the 'business' side of things mentioned earlier). It is true that if someone wanted to legalize pedophilia, they would have to first take the step of recognizing it as a sexual orientation and having it taken off the list of mental disorders. But even should both those things be accomplished, it would still be illegal unless someone put a major loophole in age of consent laws. And honestly, I don't see *any* support in society for allowing these things to happen. People are much more interested in protecting the children and outraged when people fail to do so. 'Consenting adults' is the one rule of sexuality our society has held onto as far as moral standards go. Not saying that can't change, but...I don't see that changing. Constant vigilance and all of that, but this article was not exactly... convincingly put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 For the US, the age of consent varies between 14-18 by state. Thus, a 13 year old is always deemed a victim incapable of granting consent, and any sexual activity with such a person would be seen as statutory rape (well, assuming the other person meets the criteria and is an adult and such). The only exception is Mississippi, where there seems to be some question of whether or not the girl was a virgin prior to the statuatory rape. Which...doesn't entirely make any sense to me, since if you're below the age of consent, what else is it but statuatory rape? I guess it applies to cases of prostitution. Anyway, so while the age of consent is 16 in Mississippi, there may be some exception to that that would extend the age down to 12. But no, no state has an age of consent that would include pre-pubescent children, which is the interest of the pedophile. The age of consent laws would have to be changed, and I can't very well see that happening. Not all countries have an age of consent law. For instance, in most Muslim countries, it is illegal to have sex with any person you are not married to. So, there is an age requirement for marriage, but not for 'consent'. [Hint: Don't get caught in adultery in Pakistan.] I have not seen that any countries have an age of consent or marriage under 12, but... that doesn't mean that there aren't places in the world offering child prostitution or practicing child marriage. It's just technically illegal there. And there is a US law that basically says that if you travel for sex tourism and pay an 'underage' prostitute who would be illegal back in the US but is legal in his/her country, you can be prosecuted. Obviously such laws are things those interested in children in a sexual way pay attention to, but they are hardly all caught. But I point all of this out merely to remind people that even if the age of consent is lower in a particular place, the laws against prostitution can apply if someone is paying for these...services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Not all countries have an age of consent law. For instance, in most Muslim countries, it is illegal to have sex with any person you are not married to. So, there is an age requirement for marriage, but not for 'consent'. [Hint: Don't get caught in adultery in Pakistan.] Interesting! Does Pakistan go by the books with the evidence needed for fornication cases? It seems like you would technically need to be putting on a show to get penalized if that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I'm not all that familiar with Pakistani (or any) law, to be honest. I know that there are exceptions if a person is crazy or somehow tricked into thinking that the person is, in fact, their spouse. Penalties include stoning, lashes, or imprisonment, depending upon the crime. Facilitating the meeting of the illicit couple is also a crime. I imagine there has to be some form of evidence, but I don't know what that consists of. I imagine they prosecute adultery more often than fornication, but even so...it's not legal there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 (edited) I'm not all that familiar with Pakistani (or any) law, to be honest. I know that there are exceptions if a person is crazy or somehow tricked into thinking that the person is, in fact, their spouse. Penalties include stoning, lashes, or imprisonment, depending upon the crime. Facilitating the meeting of the illicit couple is also a crime. I imagine there has to be some form of evidence, but I don't know what that consists of. I imagine they prosecute adultery more often than fornication, but even so...it's not legal there. If i'm not mistaken, the religious law requires that, for fornication to be punished, there must be four witnesses of the act. I was wondering if this was the case in Pakistan. Like I said earlier, it seems like you'd need to be really bad at concealing things or purposely putting on a show. Edited July 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 That's why I mentioned the culpability of the person who set up the meeting. I don't think they are so strict as to say that the witnesses had to observe the act, but would have to be able to vouch that the people were, well...together. After all, if the woman is unmarried and found to be no longer a virgin, she'd automatically be considered guilty of fornication, most likely. Anyway, long story short, unmarried men and women who try to share a hotel room in a Muslim country tend to face some level of harassment. What the specific laws are or how they are enforced isn't something I'm familiar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 If i'm not mistaken, the religious law requires that, for fornication to be punished, there must be four witnesses of the act. yay vouyerism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now