IYO is there a moral distinction...

between those who act sexually towards a child of, say, under-14 and a child from 14-17?

Would your moral judgement vary on the age of the older party? i.e. Would you judge a 30-year-old who 'had sex with' a 12-year-old more harshly than a 14-year-old who did the same (if neither party used force - obviously, both cases are categorically rape due to the fact that a 12-year-old cannot consent - though the label for the crime might differ depending on the country / state).

Is a man who seeks a relationship with a 17-year-old just as morally reprehensible as the man who sexually exploits an 8-year-old? If the man pursuing the 17-year-old is 20 himself, is he still a pervert?

I guess these thoughts are somewhat linked into reading the following thread and other countless threads online in which posters stated that *all* sex offenders should receive the death penalty / be tortured to death etc. etc.

http://www.psychforums.com/post1169134.html#p1169134

I'm never sure if when people voice this opinion, they are thinking of certain kinds of sex offenders, or more specific kinds. Do they / you think that an 18-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old in California should be tortured to death due to the fact that there is no close-in-age exemption in California, where 18 is the age of consent? Should a one-time flasher be tortured? How about those cases in which the perpetrator is a young child themselves? Should a 12-year-old who inquisitively touches the genitals of his 8-year-old sister be executed?

The final example is related to a story I read about a guy who, as a kid, did precisely that. He was arrested and served a few years in a juvenile detention centre. Now, at 25, he is still on the sex offenders register. He has received numerous threats from neighbours and co-workers who want to kill him. I can understand the disgust at his crime (even though he was young himself) but I personally would judge him far, far less harshly than a person who had done the same as an adult.

http://www.texasobserver.org/life-on-the-list/

Basically, are all sex offenders the same? Are they (or indeed, we) all worthy of the same punishment?

I've read that the average age for Americans to lose their virginity is 17. That means that in states where the age of consent is 18, there are going to be a lot of sex offenders walking about. Thousands upon thousands of them. Indeed, anyone who has possessed a sexual image of someone under 18 is technically a sex offender, even if that person was their partner and they were under 18 themselves. Here in Britain, drawn images even count after the passing of the Dangerous Cartoons Act. Sometimes I feel like there must be thousands and thousands, many millions, of people walking about who don't for a second consider themselves sex offenders despite having witlessly committed sexual offences back in high school or when younger.

To me, harm is the most important factor in determining the seriousness of any crime. But age does complicate matters.

Taking an extreme example, I have no issue with a 90 year old having sex with a 16 year old, as long as both are of sound mind. I believe 16 is old enough to consent to sex.

Naturally, there'll be some stigma, but deep down people know that, if it's right to consider a 16 year old fully able to consent, then the age of the other party should not have any bearing whatsoever on that. There should be no age discrimination with consenting parties.

When talking about under 16's, I've often thought the smaller the age gap, the less of a big deal it is. So take a 16 year old having sex with a 14 year old - I don't see a huge moral issue with that. Same with 17 on 15, although technically illegal.

But there's something more serious about a 20, 30, 40, 50 year old having sex with a 14 or 15 year old. I can't quite put my finger on why, but it's there.

And when the child is under 14, it gets even more serious. There's more risk of both long term mental and physical damage.

I certainly don't think the adult should be tortured, executed or threatened with violence. That's a petty minded and short sighted response not worth any consideration in 21st century civilisation.

The offender could still be a productive and willing member of society. As far as possible, we should give them any help they need to overcome any potentially harmful impulses they may have. They are useless behind bars/in the ground for the sake of petty vengeance.

If the person shows a willingness to better themselves, to go through therapy, even to help victims, then we ought to support that, because we will all benefit from that in the long run.

Many people on this very forum have shown they are perfectly capable of "self rehabilitation". All the better. That saves the tax payer a lot of money and the system from being unnecessarily clogged up.

We are the product of our conditioning, genetic and environmental. The sooner we recognise this, the sooner we will develop more productive and compassionate ways to deal with criminal behaviour, including even the most heinous of crimes.

If there is no remorse, no willingness to seek help and the offender is uncooperative, then, and only then, should we consider incarceration.

You really stay stuck on this issue. There are some stories about people becoming registered sex offenders for public urination charges in some jurisdictions. If you can't see the cognitive difference between that and some other crimes, you're deluded.

The age determines the legal statutes. That's all the law is concerned with. That's all the investigators (should) be concerned with. Stop getting caught up on the law. It's not a moral or ethical tool. In theory, we don't even want to legislate morality. We want to legislate for practical pragmatic reasons.

The morality of it is not directly related to age. It has to do with the actual specifics of the individuals involved. Manipulative, coercive, unbalanced, unfair, abusive, and otherwise harmful relationships are the ones that are morally objectionable. It doesn't matter if both parties are legally adults and can consent, they still could be doing something absolutely immoral.

The two are often on the same side of things. But they are not supposed to be informed by each other. Justice should be blind. Sometimes the system catches people that haven't done any harm, and other times it lets harmful people get away. It doesn't change what's morally right or wrong about the circumstances.

I think there are two distinctions here - obviously the legal one but of course also the moral one. A brief example is as follows

When i was 16 I briefly was seeing a 24 year old. This was legally OK as I was the age of consent but in this case I think it was morally dodgy as I was not ready to be seeing someone who was an established adult and I think he should have thought more carefully about this. He was also pretty pervy which I did not know how to say no to and he was pretty full on sexually - something that I found very difficult due to my past.

I would say that morally cases need to be judged on a case by case basis but I personally dont see an 18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old as so morally wrong as and 18 year old sleeping with a 3 year old. If however the 17 year old processes this in a harmful way then there could be more of an arguement that it was morally wrong - but I do not think it is morally the same as doing things with a young child.

Just as an FYI we do not tolerate abuse here from anyone and would want to address the posters of threads like that as they are being totally inappropriate and breaking forum rules. If you come across posts like this please let a mod know

Cracked

I am sorry to hear about what you went through, Cracked Girl. You seem pretty damn hardcore so it is clear you're a survivor, but all the same, I truly hope you have achieved some degree of closure. Also, thanks for reminding me that threads like the above are inappropriate and breaking the rules here.

And thanks for the nuanced replies, all of you. I'm glad both of you, epiphany and Ashlar, keep on posting here as you're both such intelligent writers and always give a lot to think about. Personally, I get panic-stricken when I read threads like the above and it sets my mind into over-thinking. I tend to assume that this opinion (there isn't any distinction and all abusers and sex offenders should be killed) is the general consensus and I find it hard to keep on going when I read stuff that confirms my fears that it would be the morally good and just thing to kill myself or that it would, at least, make people happy. I know realistically though that if it made anyone happy it would probably be strangers, fleetingly, online, while though who know me IRL (likely including my ex) would be hurt, troubled and saddened.

To be fair, I do understand why someone would say that anyone who has committed abuse should kill themselves as it is a horrible thing to suffer. I've been groped in the street a few times, which is about the limits of my own victimhood in this area, and that was anxiety-provoking and upsetting enough. That said, it's also hard to know if a thread like the above is started 'in good faith', so to speak i.e. does the poster really think that *all* abusers should kill themselves, even if their transgression / crime might be viewed as relatively minor by the courts or, indeed, the victim? Do they include those people who have technically committed a crime that most people wouldn't take very seriously? i.e. the 18-year-old sleeping with an enthusiastic and comfortable 17-year-old in California.

I tend to assume people write and talk in good faith, however, which is possibly a little naive. I work on the assumption that people genuinely mean what they say or type. However, sometimes people troll or say or write things just to upset others. Also, sometimes people say things in theory that they wouldn't actually want to see followed through in practice. It's very confusing!

sprock wrote:I am sorry to hear about what you went through, Cracked Girl. You seem pretty damn hardcore so it is clear you're a survivor, but all the same, I truly hope you have achieved some degree of closure. Also, thanks for reminding me that threads like the above are inappropriate and breaking the rules here.

Thank you- that is really kind of you to say. I have done well with closure and my childhood and past no longer have the same hold over me which is really good And def remember that about the threads as it is important that all are safe to post here without being abused.

Cracked

I get your situation. I have a lot of remorse over some things I've done that... very few people seem to have a problem with. At the end of the day, I think the actual root issue is something about yourself. You have to have the confidence not to let every single opinion people have uproot you. You sound like you are empathetic enough to them that you understand why they feel the way they do or why they might express opinions that way, but you have to also trust your own intellect. I don't know how to prove it to anyone, but life's complicated. Big broad sweeping statements make great sound bites, but they rarely if ever communicate the truth of a situation. The best part about your story is that you grok what you did in the past that had wrongness to it and you understand and regret that. But you also need to just accept that and deal with it and move on. You've got to look at your future.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure I can relate in detail. I almost "like" my remorse. For me, it's better to feel something than nothing at all. It preoccupies my mind all the time. But I can kind of afford to, and it doesn't make me want to kill myself. I also don't ever fret over some random opinions on the internet or otherwise. The person you slightly harmed forgives you. Accept what you've done wrong and work towards a better future.

There was a recent US story about a guy that was sentenced to 13 years in prison for armed robbery, but nobody ever showed up to tell him to surrender and go to jail. Thirteen years later he was married, ran a business, had children, and was living a meaningful productive life. Then the clerical error got caught and he was sent to jail. The general consensus (and eventually a judge order) was that the guy should be set free. We have these punishments and laws and all this business to met out punishments and hopefully rehabilitate people. This guy got on the straight and narrow. He made good on his life. Do the same.

I personally don't being in law but this is because I find them to be guide lines that change from time to time. yes I think this matter is a moral problem, I say this because I don't think even if a person is 16 and the other person is 25 and it is legal in there country that it should be done. I say this because of the metal capacity and needs of both people I don't see them to being met. I remember when I was in high school, every grade generally had a great volume of knowledge and common-sense/know how over the preceding year(of course this is circumstantial because common sense ins't all that common).

But personally I don't really look down at the people that bad as some people do, I disagree with it but at the end of the day everyone is going to like who they like and it is their choice.

*Trigger warning for discussion of rape*

I guess the crux of the issue for me is whether all 'sex offenders' are equally as irredeemable? If 'rape is rape' and all rapes are equally heinous, then doesn't it stand to follow that an 18-year-old who statutorily rapes their 17-year-old girlfriend in California is, by definition, 'as bad as' the man who rapes several very small children? Obviously, the sentencing would differ enormously, but the word / crime 'rape' remains the same and so the moral weight is equal.

The argument comes down to two conflicting view-points I saw in the comments section about an episode of the sitcom Girls. In that show, an otherwise quite likeable character called Adam failed to get clear consent from his girlfriend Hannah and continued being sexual with her when she was clearly uncomfortable; furthermore, he directly contravened a direct instruction from her *not* to cum over her dress.

Here's the clip being discussed although irritatingly the clip itself isn't shown uninterrupted in full...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gyyVmRQNMQ

The article I was reading about the episode is this one:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/03/20/did-girls-romanticize-a-rapist/comment-page-1/#comment-251120

The split is between two opinions in the comments section:

I have read about this show, tried to watch it, but simply cannot stomach it. The sex scenes are gross and sadistic. And I am so disgusted with so-called feminists claiming that “most rapists” are “not simply villains with no appealing character traits. They are guys we know and like and sometimes love.” Yeah, well the same could be said of serial killers and pedophiles. Let’s not muddy the issue with the fact that decent people are easily fooled. Rape is a serious crime and rapists are REAL CRIMINALS. It really doesn’t matter how “nice” they can seem when they aren’t raping someone. Ted Bundy was a sweetheart most of the time. He even volunteered on a rape crisis line. But he absolutely was a “villain.” All rapists are.

/

Rape is an evil crime, but what Adam did does not at all comparable with Ted Bundy’s crimes. Evil does not completely reside in one person (even Bundy), and the way Adam treated Natalia, while unacceptable, is not his defining characteristic.

Feminism fall over when it loses perspective. Women should not be kissed without consent, for example, but some feminists insist – as a matter of principle – on conflating a non-consensual kiss with rape.

The article, while understandably critical of the way the other characters accept Adam’s behaviour, acknowledges that he’s NOT a Ted Bundy, he’s just a person with a bad streak, like most people. Many women have found themselves torn between not allowing their principles to be trampled, and using up their credibility capital by responding disproportionately.

I cannot decide which commentator is correct.

Is Adam as bad as Ted Bundy? Moreover, am I as bad as Ted Bundy?
Am I necessarily 'a villain' for life?
If so, does that mean it is pointless for me to endeavor to do voluntary and charity work - or, even worse - deceptive?

erg - so constant

No. They are not the same. What you are stuck on can be talked about in philosophy as universalism and particularism. You can argue it to death, but at the end of the day any universalist system can be represented in particularism and any particularist system can be represented by a sufficiently comprehensive universalist system. But we use universalist principles as heuristic tools because they take less work, and on individual cases we use particularist strategies to give as much accuracy as we can.