Reply #43: the act is about power, not about readiness

[dusmcj]

Sorry if this seems like trotting out trite cant, but I believe without much further thought that it is correct, particularly in light of the presence of abuse as a clearly proven initiating factor in pedophilia - the transaction the abuser experienced as abusee was one in which their undegraded youthful self was besmirched by having coercive power applied to it. The abusee become abuser has a psychological Schwerpunkt revolving around that transaction, and the apparently lost undegraded self, and seeks to recapitulate that transaction in order to make contact with that lost self. In the process taking on the role of the abuser, while the target of the abuse stands in for the abuser's lost youth. The victim must of course oblige with the weakness the abuser once felt.

So that some things would appear to be required:
- the power transaction needs to be present in order for the crime to have happened
- the law clearly should define that below a statutory age of the victim, the presumption is
unchallengeable that such a power transaction was involved
- this is related to the notion of consent, so package it up as, below a certain age, the
child participant in the relationship is incapable of giving consent, and so a statutory
crime has occurred, the claims of any party to the contrary notwithstanding.
- let's please divorce sexuality from biological reproductive maturity. There's a lot more to
sexual attraction whatever form it takes than whether the proposed partner is a bearer of
the classical signs of fertility and receptiveness. Those who choose to aspire to nothing
more than domestic animal status, go off and take care of yourselves, but leave the rest
of us out of it, thank you. All of which boils down to here that "biological reproductive
maturity" is totally meaningless for this discussion, as well as legally, and in fact is
used as an excuse for abuse no different than "she said no but I knew she really wanted it".
I am not an animal, thank you, I am a higher creation, as are all the other readers of this
board, whether they want to be or not, and people who think that we are capable of nothing
more than lowing, eating, farting, fucking and sleeping and should moreover aspire to nothing
more are among the sources of our current troubles.
- very correctly someone also noted that conservatives are mis-handling issues of consent to
repress normal sexual psychological development while doing nothing about or facilitating
abusive sexuality. While this is the norm in conservative societies, that does not mean
it is acceptable - again, we can aspire to being more than simple farm animals with basic
programming. Thus above the minimum age of consent, age difference maximums should come
into play as long as one party is under 18. So that as a caller on a satellite radio
broadcast noted, 17 year olds do not have to worry about having to break off their
relationship with their 15 year old partner on the day they turn 18. This can be made
fairly "scientific" based on well-known data on developmental differences between each
year, so that for example, high school seniors taking advantage of 13-year olds becomes
legally problematic.

BTW, I am neither a trained psychologist or lawyer. I do have experience with psychologists, good, bad, amateur and otherwise, and with abusive personalities. Further, the problematic dynamics of our defective orthodox societal norms are on plain display for all to see, and have further been addressed by the hard work of people who do practice sound science - the information is there for us to acquire and synthesize into sound policy.