Posted on 04/19/2002 7:02:28 AM PDT by FormerLib
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:38:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A new book that says child molesters are not a major peril to children is part of a larger movement within academia to promote "free sexual expression of children."
The movement to legitimize sex between adults and children is "gathering steam," warns Stephanie Dallam, researcher for the Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice and the Media in Philadelphia, an organization that deals with prevention and treatment of child abuse.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
My guess at the not-too-distant future: a comedy-drama on HBO or some such where 45-year old Joe Schmoe is drawn reluctantly but irresistably into a relationship with Britney Bright, a smart, mature 13-year old girl. After a few furtive meetings the two decide to make their love public. After a period of ostracism, their obvious love is clear to all, and in a touching scene, Joe Schmoe is embraced by Britney's parents, Bob and Bonnie (who are younger than Joe). The happy couple is welcomed into normal society, where their age and culture differences generate madcap hilarity.
That will be the spin-off, no doubt. But people probably aren't ready for it right away -- pedophiles are still creepy.
However, people are already aware that (a) girls used to get married very young; and (b) there are 13-year old girls who could easily pass as older. It's still heterosexual, though, and thus "understandable." The only stumbling block is age difference, but as you see in the article, they're already undermining that taboo. Besides, the young girl/old guy angle would drive the whole plot line.
There's undoubtedly some of-age and stacked young thing who can pull off the role of precocious young teen girl. HBO could probably make it work, and the Supreme Court has made clear that there's nothing to stop them from trying.
I predict you'll see it within 5 years.
2. The liberals, far from having any real concern about harm to children, are in bad faith using the priestly pedophilia scandal as a pretext to attack the Church for the unchanging Christian moral teaching that sex is only properly engaged in in a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman. Why do we not see any liberal denunciations of this book that promotes pedophilia.
And the youngER girl/oldER guy plot line goes back to biblical times. Not exactly new.
While I find the idea of "child sex" abhorent, there's an effort on the part of many to paint the "child" label on sexually-sentient biologically-adult adolescents, and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't fly. According to the CDC, today's 13 year-old girl in this country is almost two years PAST menarche and as biologically functional as an adult. She has probably reached 95% of her adult height and has reached about 90% of her adult figure development. By the age of 16, those figures are closer to 100%. Yet, the American society wants to call these gals "children." Sorry, but that is counter to nature. Yes, these girls may lack the mental and psychological maturity to make what we oldsters would like to think are responsible decisions about their bodies, but that, too, is a fact of nature.
I'm not sure exactly when the artificial and arbitrary age of 18 was decided upon as the demarcation point between "childhood" and "adulthood," but I can tell you that "childhood" ends with the onset of puberty. Modern society enforces a sort of adolescent purgatory on those who emerge from childhood into self-awareness, asking them to function, in some ways at least, as children until they reach the chronological age of 18.0000000 years. Then, somehow, magically, they're no longer "churldrin."
Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me. You want to talk adult-child sex - i.e., with real "children"? Yes, it's abhorent and against nature and God. But once the flowers of biological adulthood bloom, adult-like behavior is instinctively driven to follow, and all the social strictures you wish to put in place won't stop it. It's happened forever, and will continue to do so.
As for your HBO movie idea - the real oddity these days is a 13-year old who is NOT sexually self-aware and developed. If you don't realize this, then you must lead a sheltered life, because it ain't th' same as when YOU went to Jr. High.
And your protagonist need not be "well-stacked," despite the contention by some here on FR that ALL adult women (by definition) have huge breasts, and if some gal does NOT, then she must be underage. No, the sexual organ that's most important in making the plot work is her MIND. You can see desire in the EYES, in the tone of voice and cadence of breathing. Big tits would spoil the illusion.
Michael
True, but for it to fly in Hollywood, breasts are a must. Besides that, a 13-year old character without breasts would be regarded as a little girl -- which is obviously not the goal.
I'm not sure exactly when the artificial and arbitrary age of 18 was decided upon as the demarcation point between "childhood" and "adulthood," but I can tell you that "childhood" ends with the onset of puberty. Modern society enforces a sort of adolescent purgatory on those who emerge from childhood into self-awareness, asking them to function, in some ways at least, as children until they reach the chronological age of 18.0000000 years. Then, somehow, magically, they're no longer "churldrin."
I think you're much mistaken to separate the physical and psychological aspects of sexual maturity. I think you're also seriously wrong when you call age limits "artificial and arbitrary."
You might consider that those age limits were arrived at for sound reasons, and that you just don't know what those reasons are.
It might work for a society where survival techniques are (a) extremely low-tech, (b) there are requirements for the girl to be provided for by either father or husband, and (c) the society is set up to support the young wife(!!).
In our society, however, the physically mature teenage girl almost never has the psycological maturity to survive on her own. The emphasis is on sex, not marriage; and the girls are educationally and mentally unequipped to make their own living in a society designed for mature adults.
That "artificial" age of 18 isn't at all arbitrary, nor artificial. It happens to be the age at which people have the rudiments of maturity, and enough education, to earn a reasonable living in our society.
But those are one-shot deals which tend not to work themselves into the fabric of the culture, because they're not followed-up by anything.
For it to be part of the culture, it has to show up always and everywhere -- for example, on TV and in the media hype cycle. These days, that generally happens only for TV shows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.