James Dobson always seemed a little too obsessed with spanking and checking out penises to be entirely healthy, and now one of his employees has been outed as a pedophile.
Juan Alberto Ovalle, 42, thought he was corresponding with a girl under the age of 15, but instead it was undercover officers with the Jefferson County district attorney’s office, according to court documents.
Ovalle works for a Spanish-speaking arm of the Colorado Springs Christian group Focus on the Family and narrates Biblical text for CDs, according to Internet websites that sell the products.“We’re shocked,” said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman with Focus.
Schneeberger said the group “is beginning its own process of looking into the allegations” and that it “will work with authorities” if asked.
…Ovalle asked the teen specific sexual questions and told her about sex acts he would perform with her, according to an arrest affidavit. According to the affidavit, during one exchange, Ovalle asked: “Would you like to meet?”
What is it with these repressed, abstinence-only organizations that promote unrealistic views of sex? They seem to attract people with warped views of sexual behavior that violate reasonable patterns of respect for a partner.
I’ve always been a tad bit leery of arresting someone for soliciting a middle aged man just because he thought that man was a 15 year old girl.
But that aside….aren’t we, as men, supposed to be attracted to 15 year old girls, biologically?
But that aside … hypocrisy wins the day and this guy should be hung up by his toenails until dead.
BUT WHAT REALLY HORKS ME OFF IS THIS GUY NEXT TO ME MAKING A GOD AWFUL RACKET EATING HIS BREAKFAST!
They seem to, yes, but I don’t know that they actually do. I suspect this may be because when clergy or members of a religiously focused group gets caught doing something like this, it automatically makes the news.
“Police Catch Pedophile” is an okay hedline, but “Cops Nab Pedophile with Religious Affiliation” is much better, despite being too long for a proper hed.
Oh, I don’t know. Satan seems to be everywhere. He must be able to get into Focus on the Family.
“We’re shocked.” So now they’re quoting Casablanca to enhance their (non-)credibility?
I always felt that these sorts were attracted to the “repressed, abstinence-only organizations that promote unrealistic views of sex” because they knew their behavior was wrong and they thought these institutions could “cure” them. Then it turns out mythical beings can’t do that, who would’a thunk it?
You decry a study claiming atheists are smarter than Christians but you hold this incident up as evidence of something? Religious figures found guilty of this behaviour certainly makes the news, but that’s just a sign of how titillating people find it (as evidently you do). Are there any actual studies showing that these holy rollers are more likely to commit these sorts of acts?
pgpwnit @ #1 makes a good point. Soliciting a 15-year-old girl is not the hallmark of a true pedophile. Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescents, not to teenagers.
Please note that I’m not suggesting that adults having sex with teens is a good idea. It isn’t, for a whole host of reasons. But it’s not pedophilia.
I realize that the word “paedophile” has a much greater impact, but if she was developed to the point where she could bear children, that’s not paedophilia. I think it’s called “ephebophilia” or perhaps “paraphilia” (I’m not entirely sure which, I’ve heard both).
C’mon, dude, you’re a biology professor, you should know that. ;-)
I’m not saying there’s nothing wrong with what he did (at the very least he’s a freaking hypocrite and at the very most a predator), but to me, paedophilia is a much, much worse crime.
“But that aside….aren’t we, as men, supposed to be attracted to 15 year old girls, biologically?”
that’s a joke, right? Because ewwwwwwww.
Eh, the expression ‘Christian hypocrisy’ is a redundant one. Colour me unsurprised.
I find this bit pretty disturbing, though:
Sorry Endor, but a lot of men are attracted to teenage girls. For the record, I know a few women who find 14-year-old males delicious to look at and fantasize about.
Paging Chris Hansen. You’re wanted in Colorado Springs. Bring your film crew. STAT.
It’s not pedophilia, but it’s definitely disgusting from every viewpoint imaginable. The power differential involved is staggering, as is the age difference.
Actually, it might be pedophilia – the quote just says he believed she was “under the age of 15”. Doesn’t say how far under. They might have stuck the 15 in there to soften up the report that he thought she was 10. We don’t know.
“but a lot of men are attracted to teenage girls.”
Though this is gross, that’s not what I was asking about. I was asking about the “supposed to be” part. Is that the case? Are adult males biologically “supposed to be” attracted to females who aren’t emotionally or physically ready for sex or children? (this is a serious question, as I’m no biologist. Though given my background in rape and abuse counseling, I’ve heard from adult males this “biology made me do it” excuse a million times).
Or course, I’m sure that purely biological and nothing else. Nope. Nothing at all. *snicker*
@Wowbagger: Wikipedia is your friend here. I picked out Argentina since IIRC it’s the largest Spanish Speaking country. It’s 9% Protestant (mostly Pentacostalists) I clicked on to Bolivia, Chile and Colombis and the where higher still. So no, not “almost all”.
Whatever the presumed age of the intended victim and the appropriate terminology, can we at least agree that attempting to act on such attraction is a) illegal, b) icky, and c) unChristian?
“For the record, I know a few women who find 14-year-old males delicious to look at and fantasize about. ”
Okay, ew again, but this is quite a bit different than actually doing it (or, in this case, trying to). Who cares what people fantasize about doing – this guy was trying to do it and could possible have already done it to other children.
Matt Heath,
Thanks for that. But Pentecostal? That’s even scarier than Catholicism.
I think the use of such language gives the appearance of presupposing purpose in mindless biology. I would put it more as “It’s normal for men to be attracted to 15 year-old girls in the same way it’s normal for the parents of a colicky newborn to want to pick it up and shake it.”
“Ovalle asked the teen specific sexual questions and told her about sex acts he would perform with her, according to an arrest affidavit.”
Actually he didn’t. He asked the under cover detectives pretending to be a teen. I remember back in the wild days of the internet that people would have all kinds of pretend sexual fantasies on the internet. I even remember guys pretending to be women on AOL just so everyone in the fraternity could get a good laugh (not that I ever did anything like that). I have to admit that I would be a lot more worried if he tried to arrange a meeting with the pretend teenager.
I take it back… I see that he did try to arrange a meeting. Send him to hell… or prison anyway.
Seems that religion can mess you up physically too.. nice folks at the Church of England, this time
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6050039.ece
Wowbagger, @18 yep! Pentecostal denominations imported by Brazilians are the largest protestant groups here in Portugal too. They do the whole prosperity gospel thing, targeting those who can least afford it for donations.
I really just hate those Focus on the Family bastards. They mess up so many people’s minds and so many (other wise good people) fall for their bull.
Birds of a feather. People who want to repress sexuality usually have a personal reason for doing so; whether they’re in the closet about their sexual orientation or some bizarre fetish. In the case of pedophiles, they know their paraphilia is immoral and illegal, but the illusion of anonymity and impunity surrounding the internet draws out their darker side. Because I mentioned sexual orientation: In the case of these bigoted homophobic closet cases, they just believe it’s immoral, often because of their goofy fucking religion. Not trying to equivocate the two.
“I would put it more as “It’s normal for men to be attracted to 15 year-old girls in the same way it’s normal for the parents of a colicky newborn to want to pick it up and shake it.”
*lol* I would certainly hope that’s the truth.
Its annoying to me when it’s claimed to be a biological truth, as that conveniently ignores obvious, pervasive and omnipresent societal influences and pressures.
Which is why i asked – is this a proven biological “truth”?
Silly minion; I’m sure he’s been told numerous times that only the privileged few (usually only the founder) is allowed to have sex with anyone and anything. Since he’s broken the rules, his masters will undoubtedly throw him to the pigs.
#6:
Quoted from “Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches” by Carolyn Holderread Heggen:
Hmm, sounds like “Focus on the Family”, doesn’t it?
Cognitive dissonance strikes again…
Whatever the legal technical term…whether paedophilia or other…
And according to court documents ‘was asking specific sexual questions and told her about sex acts he would perform with her’…
It appears that he thought he was luring a girl under 15 years old…call that what ya will…to me that is inappropriate and lewd behaviour with intentions to commit a sexual act with an under-age female….so much for Christian ethos.
The point is this good xian was indulging in a personal jolly that is frowned upon… if not condemned… by an organisation that claims moral superiority and preaches that superiority to others for cash.
Apart from Christian professing gun men killers and politicians…it just adds to the point that jeebus and a whole legion of super daddies holy spooks and a host of gobbly gooked saints and cherubs cannot garantee acceptable behaviour in any one…to claim such a position of morality is thus claiming a falsehood…in other words these bozos are lying their runt like asses off when they make that claim…all of them from Rabbi to Pope…They are fucking lying….shock horror!
As a woman who actually works at a rape crisis, I am glad that people have pointed out that this does not make the man a pedophile. Pedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. This girl was most likely post pubescent.
Pedophilia is a descriptor of sexual attraction. Child molester is the term for someone who actually molests children. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles. There are other reasons than sexual attraction for assaulting a child, namely power and control.
I will also agree with the poster who pointed out that many men are attracted to teen girls. I believe that this is true, and that the media and advertisers take advantage of this fact at every opportunity to sell things.
However, I think that non-creepy responsible men do what sex columnist Dan Savage calls “tag and release”. If you are attracted to a teen girl, note the attraction and move on to someone your own age. If you are still interested when she is of legal age, go for it.
Ok, sexual assault lesson from rabid feminist is over for now. Class dismissed.
Hey, what happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
Of course, these are serious allegations, and they probably wouldn’t publicize them if they didn’t have a pretty solid case.
And…there’s 15 and there’s 15. I know an 11 yr old girl in our neighborhood who looks easily 16 (eeek!), and I’m sure there are some 15 yr olds who look 20. Do we know if they sent this guy any sample pics? I’d like to know what age he thought she was. Maybe he could sense that she was mature for her age, a la Roman Polanski.
Endor: I would say that (assuming the female in question is of child-bearing age) then, yes, it is a proven biological truth that men of child-fathering age will be attracted to her. It’s still a terrible idea to do anything about it.
28# Moggie…
Game…set…and match…and how the hell is it that I am not in the least bit surprised?
As for people saying “biology made me do it,” they probably deserve a smack. Biology and instincts tell each and every one of us to do stupid things every day. That doesn’t mean we should do it.
My instincts tell me to deal out a punitive beating to people who won’t do things my way. I don’t, even though I’m highly capable at this form of self-expression, because hurting people who disagree with you is wrong.
My instincts also tell me to impregnate every female I can, but that’s not a good idea either.
Our biology tells all of us to do horrible things. It’s up to each individual to resist as best they can.
Heidi
Bloody KooTies.
Chimp!!!
This is the one thing I can’t seem to make my father understand — my belief that a fundamentalist Christian upbringing and social environment leads to serious repression, unhealthy sexual views, and can finally lead to horrible acts like rape, molestation, and child abuse, among other things. And I’m only covering the sexually-motivated horrors.
I know he knows damn well it’s true, but wants to convince himself that the odds are the same no matter what religion you are. I know it’s just not so.
Endor, you are aware that in the not too distant past women were married, with full church approval, at age 15 and in some cases younger. The idea was as soon as a girl started having her period (thus biologically able to be impregnated) she should be married to fulfill her role as housewife and mother.
Just to distance myself, as a man, from comments made above: I’ll raise my hand as a man who is NOT attracted to teenage girls. Mere physical attractiveness (should it even exist) is never enough. Sorry to disappoint the undoubted hoardes of women ready to leap on any man speaking up! ;-) (This would be a joke, if unsure of it’s nature, look “joke” up)
Don’t get me wrong, there are always outliers, i.e. the very mature looking random 16 year old that you spy as you drive down the road, or something similar (bear in mind the age of consent here in the UK is 16 years old, for heterosexuals at least*).
Anyway, irrelevant…or only tangentially relevant. This chappie in the USA is not (necessarily) a paedophile in the strict sense, see comments above, he’s (at least) an ephebephile, i.e. someone attracted to young, under age of consent teens, post development of secondary sexual characteristics. Or at least that’s what the news report would have us believe.
Anyway, it doesn’t excuse his actions one tiny shred. He’s clearly sexually predatory, I don’t agree that he could be merely a hypocrite, for a conviction/arrest to stick he must have pursued the “girl” AFTER he knew “she” was 15 (obviously in this case it was a police sting).
Like the other thread about that female scientist who was hit on by the senior scientist and asked to be his next mistress (sorry, but eww eww eww eww eww eww eww eww EWW! Creepy motherfucker) and who was constantly coming under the category of “hot woman” first and “scientist” second in her professional life (just-fucking-wrong) this is a case of inappropriate acting on one’s sexual desires. Okay, in this case we also have at least very dubious sexual desires too, but desires are less easy to control than one’s actions upon them. I might desire to smack every creationist I meet in the mouth, I don’t….very often! ;-)
And I see above we have the apologists warming up for their usual “but this doesn’t mean that all christians are bad” etc. No of course it doesn’t. Nor did, or would, PZ (or any of us) say such a thing. What it does mean is that it is yet another data point against the claim that “christians have greater moral abilities than/are more moral than/are uniquely moral unlike X” or even substituting “people of faith” or another religious group for “christians”. The claim that is almost tacit in society is that personal faith equates to, or bolsters, some moral stance. This example, and the myriad others, are part of a data set that show this is not the case. The claim being made by PZ with these posts is not “Group X = bad” but “Group X = no more good/bad than the rest of us despite their claims”.
Obviously there are also the subsidiary claims re: sexual oppression etc, but It always amuses me how staggeringly wrong people can parse simple examples. Anyway, this is yet another example in the eternal mulberry bush circling that is Pharyngula!
Louis
*An inequality that needs correction IMO.
Alverant, I have heard that expressed so eloquently as “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed”.
Read, “We really hope they DON’T ask, because Lord knows what else they’ll find.”
So someone who narrated for religious education (i use the term loosely) CD’s has got into trouble…it’s a slow news day clearly.
#39:
It was, about eight years ago, though it took several attempts and those idiots in the House of Lords finally had to be overruled.
I remember checking out the perverted justice arrests/convictions for colorado, and man, there is a freakishly high number of pedos in colorado springs. I mean when you are outpacing the denver metro area and you arent anywhere near the population…wtf
Actually Louis, I’m not attracted to teenage girls either. They’re often gawky, zitty, and unlikely to be sexually experienced enough to be any good in bed. I’m used to a pretty high standard, though.
Ahhh I also see we have some lovers of the “Is/Ought” fallacy too. Wonderful.
Just because (some) men are attracted to teenage girls it does not follow that acting on that attraction is excused morally by its mere existence.
Also, the converse is true. Just because it isn’t (in most moral systems, certainly the one’s I hold/want to be subjected to) morally justifiable to act on one’s sexual attraction to people under the age of consent (should it exist), it doesn’t follow that such desires/attractions don’t exist, or their existence is morally or factually questionable. The fact of desire is itself morally neutral, the actions based on that desire are not.
Louis
A grown man who’s sexually attracted to a five-year-old is called a pedophile.
Unfortunately, a grown man who’s sexually attracted to a seventeen-year-old boy is also called, in popular parlance, a “pedophile”. (My own suspicion is that this is connected to the right’s effort to conflate pedophilia and homosexuality.)
A grown man who’s sexually attracted to a fifteen-year-old, boy or girl, is correctly called an ephebophile.
A grown man who’s sexually attracted to a sixteen-year-old girl has historically been called Rhett Butler.
Perhaps Ted H who is back in the area could give him some pointers on making money out of this. You know – sort of a fall/redemption with the help of the ever faithful spouse.
@ Moggie #43,
Did they finally manage it? Well bugger me! Erm, not literally you understand, but I am pleasantly surprised that the UK is managing to pull its finger from its collective arse and correct the many lingering inequalities in our society.
Louis
I see nothing wrong with
There is a level of prudery about nudity in the US which is frankly rather disturbing. I don’t have any problem with women breast feeding in public either which still seems to be treated with horror in many parts of the US.
Until very recently in our history, 15 year old girls would be married. They are post pubescent. We have made it illegal now for several good reasons, but to suggest that it is abnormal for adult men to find them attractive or that it would be pedophiliac to do so is silly. As a species we are neotonous and men in general find women who look young (not prepubescent) attractive.
That doesn’t mean we should act on it though.
I think you hit a good point here, True Bob. The development of the girl is what makes the distinction. Age isn’t necessarily the issue.
I always thought pedophiles were attracted to girls who are not developed, regardless of age, so it just makes it that 15 year olds and younger end up the targets. Maybe I’m wrong here and someone can correct me.
But, from a purely biological standpoint, it seems to me that it is normal to be attracted to well developed girls… Just look at our culture (at least in the USA, maybe someone in Europe or Canada could comment on how it is where they are): Linsey Lohan, Britney Spears, etc. The Olsen twins had a countdown on the Maxim website for more than a year for when they turned 18… All young, pretty celebrities are treated as sex symbols even before they turn 18.
I think some people are lying to themselves if they say they couldn’t be attracted to a 15 year old. It’s not like magically they’re attractive when they turn 18, and they weren’t before midnight on that day. Obviously though, it should an easy choice to not act on that attraction in any situation, and especially not to actively seek it like Ovalle did.
@Endor:
As a non-biologist, I’ll answer your question as best I understand it. Dr. Myers, feel free to back me (or correct me) on this one…
Emotionally, 15 year olds may or may not be ready for sex and children, but physically? 15 year old girls are most definitely ready for biological reproduction. (Remember the unfortunate Brazilian 9-year-old?) And they’re of the age where they display the traits to which males are programmed to respond. In simple terms, since they’re young, they are capable of bearing the maximum number of children for a mate, giving him the best chance of propagating his DNA through surviving generations.
Of course, modern humans have societal constraints that go far beyond simple species survival. But the biological programming is still there, and there’s no sense denying it.
I’ve always been a tad bit leery of arresting someone for soliciting a middle aged man just because he thought that man was a 15 year old girl.
Really? I’m not leery at all. It’s not that much different from setting up a fake drug sale, or someone asking an undercover cop to commit a murder for hire. Law enforcement does not possess time machines or omniscience, so this is all we really have to catch a criminal *before* they actually do the crimes.
Although the UK, with their 50 thousand cameras on every block, seems to be trying something new. Personally I’m more comfortable with the whole undercover thing.
But that aside….aren’t we, as men, supposed to be attracted to 15 year old girls, biologically?
Maybe, but, oh, look! Biology also gave sentience/self awareness and that led to morality, civilization and the self control not no longer act like semi-evolved simians rutting in the jungles! Fancy that!
PZ: What is it with these repressed, abstinence-only organizations that promote unrealistic views of sex? They seem to attract people with warped views of sexual behavior that violate reasonable patterns of respect for a partner.
*shrug* Creatures of Juan Ovalle’s type are attracted to jobs that bring them into contact with children. If there weren’t all the religious organizations, they’d find something else. The warp is in the minds of the pedos. Blaming the organization for that seems disingenuous. If you find a fly in your honey, do you blame the honey?
@ Endor> yes, it’s biologically true. This isn’t a conscious level thing…
Since there are a number of other urges that are socially repressed (for good reasons), that doesn’t make it an excuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
I can’t find the original Marlowe article right now, and I don’t have the time to look for it. It basically explains that men are hard-wired to look for younger women/girls because they’re more fertile. The emotional thing doesn’t enter into that part…
This incident simply serves as more evidence that Dobson’s organization should have been called Focus on Certain Members of Someone Else’s Family from its inception. Truth in advertising, after all.
These organizations provide cover to ‘pedos’ by giving them a sense of moral superiority just for being an associate or member. They get it in their heads that they can do whatever they want as long as they say “Jesus!” after doing it.
@ Cpt. Mike #45 – Heh, that’s motivation for many teenage girls seeking to loose their virginity. When my conservative high school friends would lecture me about how the best gift to our future husbands was our virginity, I would counter that experience was better. Just sayin’.
What’s this I see? Some religiot warbling about “family values” while making plans to diddle a girl who’s too young for a learner’s permit? I am shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked.
Wow, no idea what happened with my name up there.. damn cold meds -_-
Dobson’s statement isn’t creepy because of the implied nudity, the mutual showering, or even the idea that a boy might see his father’s penis. None of those things are remarkable in and of themselves.
It’s creepy because he made the statement in the larger context of “things you can and should do to ensure that your son grows up to be heterosexual.” He honestly believes that gay men are gay because they don’t entirely understand that they’re male, or that they don’t entirely understand what being male means. So, in the world according to Dobson, you can ensure that a boy grows up to be heterosexual by exposing him to “proper” adult male (hetero)sexuality, e.g. by demonstrating that Daddy has a penis, too.
I might look askance at the claim that honey protects against flies, or that a lack of honey causes one to be immediately swarmed, though.
There are certainly studies. Try the US FBI one. The highest correlation between child sexual abuse is found to be membership in a “conservative right wing religious group.” This is based on criminal justice system statistics not lies and god babble.
Which really doesn’t make sense at all on any level. If they don’t know what being male means, how do they choose male partners without fail? If their child is innately gay (which the scientific community agrees is how it works), showing them a penis isn’t going to change that. And their father’s penis? Creepy.
The stoopid… IT BURNS!
@63: Or, in the case of lesbians, female partners. I should be less specific when it’s unneeded.
@ Martin #61,
LOL yeah I’ve always loved that little illusion of Dobson’s.
I can see the scene now, a religious father, devout Dobsonite, desperate for his boy to grow up without Teh Gay waggling his knob in the poor lad’s face, shouting “LOOK, LOOK AT THE PENIS! UNDERSTAND? YOU ARE MALE< YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE!! LOOK AT IT BOY!!!" I'm guessing it may not have the desire results! Louis
We need to start a betting pool. Everyone will have to pick a date. The question put forth in the pools is as follows:
How long it will be until someone finds one of these individuls stuck on a sheep (or some other ungulate)?
I pick July 15, 2010. Damn freaks.
Not to be nit picky but shouldn’t:
PZ: What is it with these repressed, abstinence-only organizations that promote unrealistic views of sex? They seem to attract people with warped views of sexual behavior that violate reasonable patterns of respect for a partner.
Actually be: They seem to attract *Men* with warped views of sexual behavior that violate reasonable patterns of respect for *Women*.
Could that be related to their messages promoting traditional gender roles and lack of female reproductive autonomy?
If there are examples of female sexual predators from similar organizations I am happy to retract this comment. It just bothers me that when things are really about men we say people, but when they are about women we say women. Sometimes it is actually more appropriate to be specific.
“It’s not pedophilia, but it’s definitely disgusting from every viewpoint imaginable. The power differential involved is staggering, as is the age difference.”
Only in our days. As for the second sentence, also only in our days. Not true in the world of Jane Austen, in such novels like Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre. I would suspect that this difference is that back then, there was no such thing as a “teenager.” The idea of “teen-ager” came about (and it was hyphenated that way, too) only in the 1950’s. People also married much younger back then.
This just in, from Mass Equality:
________________________________________________
Moments ago, the Vermont Legislature voted to overturn Governor Douglas’s veto and recognize marriage equality for all.
This is a monumental victory for Vermont and LGBT equality. Vermont is the first state to recognize marriage equality through direct legislative initiative.
Vermont joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa as the fourth state to recognize equal marriage rights.
http://www.google.com/search?q=“man+suspected+of+rape”&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=“woman+suspected+of+rape”&btnG=Search
Also,
http://www.google.com/search?q=“molested+by+a+man”&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=“molested+by+a+woman”&btnG=Search
And finally…
http://www.google.com/search?q=“molested+by+*+father”&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=“molested+by+*+mother”&btnG=Search
I think you would find that there are far fewer sexual assaults, rapes, etc. by females than males.
There are certainly studies. Try the US FBI one.
I haven’t had any luck finding this study. Anyone have a link?
http://www.google.com/search?q=“man+suspected+of+rape”&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=“woman+suspected+of+rape”&btnG=Search
‘Nuff said.
Once again the minions of Satan at this website who fashion themselves as intellectual scientistic fuzzy thinking one worlders are trashing the Godfearing citizens the Centennial state because it has 4 right angles, is full of more important religious hypocrites, is located in the forgotten flyover mountain time zone, has better weather and ski conditions, has fewer mosquitoes which carry deadlier diseases than the states where the preppy eastern elitists live who have failed to even acknowledge the fact that as we speak a full frontal assault on traditional American family values is happening in Girardville Pennsylvania.
@72: Congratulations, you’ve won the Run-On Sentence of the Week award! Your prize is one free lemon party!
Or is that “the poe from dover”?
There’s a big difference between being attracted to someone less than half your age, and actually acting on it. People are attracted to others every day that they do not try to have sex with.
This is no different than an undercover cop posing as a prostitute. This guy brought up sex first, then he asked for the girl’s address, then he drove to the house where he thought she was. I’m really surprised how many people are defending this guy by basically saying that the hypothetical girl can physically bear children, so the man just loses all self-control because he has a biological urge to impregnate her. This is a pretty dim view of males, as it essentially implies that men have no control over their hormones and emotions.
PZ Barnum- purveyor of fine ecological fallacies.
How about one closer to home….
Indiana University is a college
Alfred Kinsey was a college professor-pervert whose report “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” reported “observations of orgasms in over three hundred children.” Kinsey’s sources included nine pedophiles that he chose not to report the authorities, thereby further victimizing the children.
ergo, professors are pedophiles and colleges defend their actions as legitimate research
PZ is also a professor. Hmmmmm
It is not more appropriate to be specific, Shinobi. The reason being that one example will spoil your case completely. I don’t have any to hand, but I don’t doubt that there is one floating around out there.
There are certainly plenty of female sexual predators outside religious organizations, so it seems likely that there are some inside them as well.
Also, who is the “we” in your statement? When things are about people, I say people. When things are gender-specific, I use gender-specific terms. For example:
Boys have penises. Girls have vaginas. People sometimes have both.
I’m going back to reading the book of Revelations because it makes far more sense than post 72!
_____________<;,><_____________
Here is the Burlington Free Press on the breaking news in Vermont. More wailing and gnashing of teeth by fundies soon to follow.
I prefer to call it Michelle Duggar Award for Punctuation.
Attraction to mid-late teen agers is one thing. Acting on it is another, especially when the stat rape laws are enforced.
A friend works in CPS. A common situation. An older male seeks out high school girls. They are easy prey because of naviety and inexperience. They are persuaded, steamrolled, and almost always fed large quantities of drugs and alcohol. Contraception is frequently absent
The result is a girl who barely remembers an unpleasant sexual experience and ends up pregnant by some predatory irresponsible slime mold. Some of the guys are repeat offenders who leave a trail of stat rape victims and fatherless babies behind them. In this state, after 2 or 3, the judges and cops crack down hard and send them to prison.
Catgirl, I don’t recall seeing anyone defending the fellow’s actions. Many people have noted that there is a difference between attraction to children and attraction to teenagers, and also that it’s “normal” for a male to be attracted to females of child-bearing age. I don’t think anyone said that it’s therefore okay to screw ’em.
Incidentally, until fairly recently in Canada the age of consent was 14.
catgirl> was that an intentional strawman, or a failure in reading comprehension?
.
Funny, I don’t see anything of the sort… what I do see is a few people who responded to one of the early comments and Endor’s legitimate question about it. Not one of the posters you’re chastising would disagree with your initial statement.
catgirl @ 75,
I put that in because we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and the tone of commentary was “guilty! guilty! guilty!”. It sure sounds like he is some form of sexual predator – he just hasn’t been proven guilty in a court of law. A mere technicality, I just don’t care much for the Nancy Grace School of Sensational Criminal Reporting.
I do agree with you about this form of sting – it’s like a cop playing undercover dope dealer, prostitute, whatever. As long as the cops kept it away from potential entrtapment accusations, it should be solid enough to get this fucker off the streets. (side note, it can be a crime to sell counterfeit illegal drugs).
As for men controlling emotions, I think that’s been pretty well addressed here – noting the attraction can be there, but the action (or not) is what’s important.
“Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust.”
jesusandmo.net
Regarding the pedophilia / ephebophilia discussion, there actually is a medical defintions for these terms:
Source:
http://www.uua.org/leaders/leaderslibrary/balancingacts/backgroundinformation/23462.shtml
The Unitarian Universalist Association has created an excellent resource for community organizations to reduce the risk of minors being abused sexually:
http://www.uua.org/leaders/leaderslibrary/balancingacts/index.shtml
The author of this resource is a public health researcher, past President of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Unitarian Universalist minister.
Unlike many sexual health resources prepared by religious communities, this resource is a reality-based resource.
And how long will it be before one is found dead of autoerotic asphyxiation while hogtied and wearing two rubber wetsuits? Oh, wait…
I think I’m learning to stay away from the comments on any topic that involves females. I hate the world some times. I really do.
The Kos article PZ linked to revealled more about Dobson’s twisted life than I ever imagined. For instance,
There’s another story about where he beat his 12 lb dog with a belt. He relates this story as a lesson on handling misbehaved children. Apparently, Dobson’s mother beat him numerous times as documented in the link.
The man is one sick piece of work.
Also, it makes them feel better, and probably more likely to offend. Self/other dualistic thinking. If you can find a way to spend your days spouting smug invective and obsessing about other people’s imaginary offences against decency, then your own genuine sexual deviance is bound to seem less serious by comparison.
And another thought-if people are taught that *all* sex outside the defined box makes you hell-fodder, how are they supposed to differentiate between consensual sex between unmarried adults (of whatever gender) and child abuse? Why would they bother when their faith tells them they’re morally equivalent?
(Btw, I have a daughter of the maximum age one can be whilst still being less than 15. Her reaction to older men chasing teenagers is…like…ugh…paedo. She’s not a biologist or any sort of expert, but she’s of the group being discussed and I thought she deserved a voice ;) )
Dobson’s views on child rearing echo those of John Welsey.
break their wills betimes; begin this great work before they can run alone, before they can speak plain, or perhaps speak at all. Whatever pains it cost, conquer their stubbornness: break the will, if you would not damn the child. I conjure you not to neglect, not to delay this! Therefore, (1.) Let a child, from a year old, be taught to fear the rod and to cry softly. In order to this, (2.) Let him have nothing he cries for; absolutely nothing, great or small; else you undo your own work. (3.) At all events, from that age, make him do as he is bid, if you whip him ten times running to effect it. Let none persuade you it is cruelty to do this; it is cruelty not to do it. Break his will now, and his soul will live, and he will probably bless you to all eternity.
Sermon 96.
And BTW, anyone care to guess what the age of consent is in Vatican City? Without googling it?
Pergo, professors are pedophiles and colleges defend their actions as legitimate research
PZ is also a professor. Hmmmmm
The problem, of course, you mendacious redneck trailer trash bimbo is that PZ isn’t proclaiming that only Professors have morality, unlike hypocritical Christians. You know, the kind who say that atheists have (and can’t have) morals of any kind. Couldn’t possibly understand them even. You’d understand that if you didn’t have more Aqua Net than neurons inside your skull.
So fuck you and the Ford Pinto you rode in on.
As for the second sentence, also only in our days. Not true in the world of Jane Austen, in such novels like Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre. I would suspect that this difference is that back then, there was no such thing as a “teenager.” The idea of “teen-ager” came about (and it was hyphenated that way, too) only in the 1950’s. People also married much younger back then.
I’m sorry.. have you actually read Pride and Prejudice? Jane is 22 and marries a man who’s the same age. Elizabeth is 20 and marries a man who’s 28. The family causes something of a scandal by bringing their two younger than 18 daughters to social events, and the idea of the 15 year old getting married is treated with horror and revulsion.
Seriously. I realize that our collective sense of history is seriously pie-eyed, but if you’re going to point to a contemporary source, please try not to point to one that proves exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to claim.
Which is what we are living in right now, which are the days in which this man was raised and given his moral compass, so what’s your point???
I think this technically makes him only a hebephile…
I think the fact that people can say “well it’s natural” is disgusting and a sign of complete comfort with a level of abuse toward females. People get upset when a male seeks a teen male because it’s unusual. Being usual doesn’t make it ok. When some one commits violence against women it isn’t ok because it’s common, and when some one preys upon young girls it isn’t ok. It also isn’t natural. Wanting to take advantage of someone who is vulnerable is sick. If that’s what you want to do to people you are sick.
Stop hiding behind people’s comfort with rape, molestation, and violence against female humans.
“(side note, it can be a crime to sell counterfeit illegal drugs).”
It may or may not be a crime but depending on who you sell them to, it can lead to a death sentence!
I have no love for Dobson – as a matter of fact, I despise him and everything he stands for – but I’d like a little more context before passing judgment on the dogfight story. Remember, there’s a favorite creationist quote-mine from Darwin in which he admits to having beaten a dog when he was a child. The point of the story was the remorse he felt over having done something so cruel in exchange for a temporary sense of power over a virtually helpless fellow creature, but of course the quote-miners never include that part, because their goal is not to educate, but to assassinate.
Typing this through teary eyes after a good 5 minute laugh that I really needed today!
JC
I always find these kinds of assumptions about biology’s implication for mental functioning (Males are “supposed” to find 15 year olds attractive) more reflective of current culture than of biological reality.
Let’s look at this evolutionarily: human societies have a slight tendency towards polygyny. That means that humans are primarily at least serially monogamous, with some cheating and some multiple marriages or differential fertile lifespan between males and females.
In a traditional human society, before the last 10K, you usually mated with a cousin from a band related to your own. The male made a fairly hefty investment in convincing the female to mate with him, and a hefty investment in the family/band to raise the children. This is also suggested by the fact that human females don’t have estrus, but continue to be sexually active all year round — there is a continued relationship between females and males outside of the act of fertilization.
So, what would one expect? That human males will tend to look for females that are fertile, healthy, strong, capable of raising multiple rounds of children, and capable of being a partner in economic activity, just like females look for in males. This is known from horticultural societies, where males pick brides often because “they’re hard-workers”, not just because they may be young and pretty. Adolescents are only first pick for other adolescents; a 24 year old female is a much better investment for a male as a partner.
That’s not to say that there wouldn’t be pressure also for males to fertilize young&pretty things to which they have no commitment; but it would be strange for that to be a primary evolutionary selective force given the social organization for human being for a million years and the high cost of raising human children.
Humans are not peacocks but more like dogs (they also pick sturdy females, and young&pretty things are often not mated with; the alpha male and female are the primary producers of puppies in the pack); we’re not cats or crustaceans.
Is it safe to assume, given their life-cycle, that cephalopod males look for older and large females?
@ Blueelm #95
AFAICT No one is saying that, no one at all. If that’s what you’ve garnered from people’s comments then you’ve either misread what they’ve written or gone looking for it, i.e. you are accidentally or deliberately claiming something that isn’t true about other people’s comments/opinions.
No one here has advocated anything that could be construed as “comfort with rape, molestation, and violence against female humans”.
Louis
Or a nasty letter from the BBB!
@95 blueelm
I’m not sure if you’re replying to some certain claims made here, but why are you only limiting yourself to violence against females?
It’s well known that there are hebe-/ephebo-/pedophiles also among women.
No, it’s called Ha Ha Only Serious.
You want to insult the women here but you don’t want to be criticized for it. So if you call it a joke, you can deflect criticism and blame the people who called you out. “What’s the matter, can’t take a joke?”
Those Y-deficient types, they are so sensitive! Amirite, Louis, amirite? Loooooool
JC,
How would they explain their non-hetero life partner? “Um, hi. This is Baaaaaabraaa?”
Sorry, too far.
For that matter, attraction to anything is one thing, acting on it is another. When we start wanting to jail people for just thinking something, as nasty as it may be, we tread on scary ground.
IceFarmer@104
Don’t know, Don’t care. I just enjoyed the mental imagery greatly.
“stuck on a sheep” … HA!
JC
@ Strange gods before me #103,
No, I rather think you missed the point. I don’t want to insult women at all, it was, as I said, a joke. I’ll explain it to you:
The joke I was making was not at the “undoubted hoardes of women ready to leap on any man who speaks up” (I don’t think they exist to be honest) but at my own disclaimer about regarding my lack of desire for teenage girls. My own sensitivity is the joke, not anyone else’s. Isn’t it funny that I would need to put in such a disclaimer? If not to you, it is to me. I find laughing at myself quite therapeutic, I get a lot of chances to do it!
The really funny point is that if I were laughing at the expense of women, and I’m not, you would have proved the point of the (misinterpreted) joke with your stupid response. How about you try to treat people as not having some unpleasant ulterior motive, we do exist you know.
You seem very keen to take offence at innocent humour and tell people what they think when they don’t think anything like what you claim, or are you merely trolling? Either way, you’re not funny.
Louis
The “scandal” (such that it is — no one seems to care much in their village) is that the younger daughters were “out” in society prior to the older being married, and not necessarily that they are out at such a young age.
The idea of a 15-year-old being “ruined” by a blackguard who did not intend to marry her is what causes the horror and revulsion — it was the thought of her loss of virginity outside the bounds of marriage, and thus the complete devastation of her future material well-being, since no respectable man would marry a woman known not to be a virgin. A woman thus “ruined” literally had no way of support herself (especially in Lydia’s case, as her family had no money of its own once her father dies), and would likely end up out on the streets. Her age was not the issue — a woman who was an adult would have faced the same issue.
If Wickham had been a respectable man, and courted Lydia properly, there wouldn’t have been any real fuss. As it was, the marriage was the proper and respectable way to solve the problem of her running away with Wickham, and far from being horrified, society seemed quite happy to accept it. As long as the 15-year-old is actually married, everything is fine.
(Does having evinced such familiarity with the works of Ms. Austen mean that I’ve irreparably lost guy cred? Do I need to go drink beer and beat up a biker?)
I don’t think there is any such thing as “older” females in cephalopods.
This guy wasn’t just thinking about statutory rape, he started to act on it and was caught before he could actually do it. He initiated the sexual talk, he asked for the girl’s address, and he drove to her house.
“I would say that (assuming the female in question is of child-bearing age) then, yes, it is a proven biological truth that men of child-fathering age will be attracted to her.”
“I would say” is not evidence. Merely because a girl has her period doesn’t make her ready (physically or otherwise) for sex and babies.
++
“you are aware that in the not too distant past women were married, with full church approval, at age 15 and in some cases younger. The idea was as soon as a girl started having her period (thus biologically able to be impregnated) she should be married to fulfill her role as housewife and mother.”
Of course I’m aware of it. The same still happens in many parts of the world. This is merely proof that society influences sexual exploitation of children, not biology.
++
“15 year old girls are most definitely ready for biological reproduction.”
Not necessarily true. Having your period doesn’t make you “most definitely ready” for pregnancy and labor. Google “fistula repair surgery”. Having children too young, despite being capable of it, can do serious lasting damage to the girl.
+++
“This isn’t a conscious level thing…
Since there are a number of other urges that are socially repressed (for good reasons), that doesn’t make it an excuse.”
What I meant by “excuse” is that “biology made me do it” is the favorite excuse of rapists. Mr. Mom’s boyfriend HAD to rape her 13 year old daughter because she was leading him on and he couldn’t help himself. That kind of thing. An excuse is exactly what *that* is. (Meaning, he broke the law to please himself, but blames either the girl, or phantom biology).
Thank you for the link.
++
“I always find these kinds of assumptions about biology’s implication for mental functioning (Males are “supposed” to find 15 year olds attractive) more reflective of current culture than of biological reality.”
Given our society’s obvious unhealthy obsession with youth and rigid beauty standards, it no mystery at all that there are men who think their attraction to underaged girls is normal (i.e. biologically determined as opposed to societal conditioning).
The statement “under 15” has no lower limit other than ability to type. I suspect it’s a legal boundary beneath which Internet luring is illegal, which gives the police leave to act. The man may have thought his correspondent was 14–or 8.
Louis: I’m still slightly irritated from other threads, and with the general tone of discourse, not specifically with any one person on this thread which is why I didn’t specifically call out any one person on this thread.
Chris: Yes. I’m quite aware that women can also be predators. They can be abusive. They can do any horrible thing that a man can do. That is completely beside the point though because I am talking about complacency with one form of human abuse against human. It is not ok to prey on young women because men find young girls attractive. I would like very much to own a flat screen TV like my neighbor’s, but that doesn’t make it ok for me to break into his house and take it.
It is also not ok for adult women to prey on teen males, or teen females for that matter. I hope you do realize that your argument is like saying “Well, Jewish people have killed other people of other ethnicities too” when some one brings up anti-Semetism. Sure. Of course they have. So your argument is what?
Let me quote the sentence of mine before the one you quoted.
WRT ungulates, I’m not sure, but I expect it will go down (so to speak) like this in flagrante delicto scenario:
Tulse, a question:
If it isn’t the age of the girl that is the issue, then what about Darcy’s recounting the story of Wickham’s treatment of his younger sister? The main point seems to be that Wickham was trying to scam a girl too young for marriage.
Or am I mistaken?
Endor> no problem… the “excuse” part of my comment was more of a disclaimer for what some people who posted above are determined to do in any case…
You place a significant amount of credence on socio-cultural influences over biological… Have you read The Blank Slate? You might find it interesting, although it runs counter to your suppositions.
“It is also not ok for adult women to prey on teen males, or teen females for that matter. I hope you do realize that your argument is like saying “Well, Jewish people have killed other people of other ethnicities too” when some one brings up anti-Semetism. Sure. Of course they have. So your argument is what?”
His was the old evasion tactic of suggesting that talking about male predators (a far more common reality) is somehow claiming that there are *no* female predators. Diversion, basically.
Again I must say,
“Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust.”
jesusandmo.net
@ Blueelm> are you a friend (or sockpuppet) of catgirl @ 75? You’re posting a nearly identical misrepresentation. Not a person above states that the actions described in the article are ok, nor is anything indicating complacency with the actions themselves. Your analogy is complete crap, for that reason alone. I’m assuming you didn’t read the thread past what you thought you saw, so I’ll suggest you re-read… perhaps without the assumptions about the underlying attitudes of the posters?
Oh for fuck’s sake, I see this thread disappearing up its own arse again.
Look everybody, what this guy did is wrong, period, everyone agrees on that. Whether or not his desires are biologically evolved, socially conditioned, or (more likely) both, is neither here nor there. The IS does not lead to some sought of OUGHT. His private desires however developed do not, and cannot logically or ethically, justify his actions.
This would be identically the same if it were a man stalking a supposed 15 year old boy, or a woman stalking a supposed 15 year old boy, or a woman stalking a supposed 15 year old girl. The sex of the stalker and the stalkee are irrelevant. The abuse of power, the criminal act of sexually predatory behaviour towards a (supposedly post pubescent) person who is unable to legally give their informed consent, is just wrong. I can demonstrate it legally (trivial) or ethically (less trivial but eminently possible given many of the shared values here) if needs be.
If this were a case of homosexual stalking the results would be the same, i.e. the man (or woman) in question’s desires for a youthful member of their own sex would be just as natural as that of a heterosexual person’s. And again, it wouldn’t excuse a thing. Explanation and understanding are not the same things as excusing.
Those of you not with it, get with the fucking programme.
Louis
“You place a significant amount of credence on socio-cultural influences over biological… Have you read The Blank Slate? You might find it interesting, although it runs counter to your suppositions.”
I have not read it, and will look into it.
Just to be clear, I’m not *denying* the role of biology; I’m simply saying that it is too quickly relied on as a method (not always deliberately) of justifying something. This is the same objection to much of what is reported to be “evo psych”. It’s not that biology/evolution/etc isn’t a major factor, it’s that it’s not the ONLY one and therefore can’t be used to explain away everything -though it often is.
As I was trying to say upthread, my experience has taught me that people will blame “biology” and claim to be helpless to do otherwise, just to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions. Or to avoid examining an issue from a prospective that doesn’t excuse it or run against their preconceived notions (or whathaveyou). This is the reason I asked if it was proven, at least to some degree.
I get why there are some expressing their disappointment with threads like these. As a woman, some of the things said in threads like these are a chilling reminder that men and women live in two different worlds. (Not you, or anyone specifically).
IST: Bite me. I’ve explained what I am responding to. I have also explained that I am not accusing anyone of holding making the specific argument, but am speaking about the level of discourse in general based on this and other threads. I’m thinking of the thread about the study with women watching bonobo sex, or the one about the looks of female scientists. I am posting my genuine responses to the culture of comments here, and no I don’t have a good specific thing to point to because it’s bigger than that.
I am not a sockpuppet. I have been visiting and posting for quite some time and today I have lost patience.
“Explanation and understanding are not the same things as excusing.
Those of you not with it, get with the fucking programme.”
I can’t believe this has to be explained AGAIN, but apparently it does. Explanation and understanding are not the same thing as excusing TO YOU, and on this thread. This is not always the case IRL.
Women learn early that explanation and understanding ARE the same thing as excusing it to way too many people. It’s the exact meaning of “boys will be boys”.
blueelm> the sockpuppet comment was an actual question, not an attempt to offend. The rest stands as is. Sorry you’ve lost patience, I have as well, with gross generalizations and mischaracterizations. We all have our irritants.. so it goes.
Endor> Take your argument, insert the word “culture” or “society” for “biology”, and you have my side of it. There needs to be a balance of the two, which, to your credit, you seem to completely understand.
I think the issue was more that Wickham, who had been a trusted member of the family’s inner circle, took advantage of Georgiana purely in order to gain her money and get back at Darcy. It was a cruel and calculating act that used a naive girl purely as his pawn, and an elopement was a further sign of disrespect to the family, since it avoided the requirement of parental consent for the marriage. Yes, Georgiana was young, but the primary problem with that was that it made her susceptible to Wickham’s charms, and not her age in itself.
As Darcy writes to Elizabeth: “Mr. Wickham’s chief object was unquestionably my sister’s fortune, which is thirty thousand pounds; but I cannot help supposing that the hope of revenging himself on me was a strong inducement.” And Elizabeth’s cogitation on the matter, and on Wickham, reveals that her disgust with him is primarily because of his mercenary ways: “His attentions to Miss King (another rich young heiress) were now the consequence of views solely and hatefully mercenary […] His behaviour to herself could now have had no tolerable motive”.
I’m not saying that an adult man marrying a 15-year-old wouldn’t have caused the raise of an eyebrow, but if the match were plausibly one of actual affection (however likely such might be between and adult and a young teen), and if her family accepted the match (which they would legally have to do if she were under 21), society would certainly not have overtly disapproved.
That’s only my take on it, of course.
SM: I don’t think there is any such thing as “older” females in cephalopods.
Do cephalapods primarily court 4 year olds, or do they waste time on 1 year olds? Older is relative.
IST:
“We all have our irritants.. so it goes.” Well fine then. I can imagine seeing me only in this thread would not give a good impression of who I am as a commenter, let alone as a person. That’s life on the internet and I hope that you don’t killfile me or carry a grudge. I don’t have anything against you, but today is just not a day where I could sit an read the typical train of comments after the bilogical justifications had been broached.
I don’t believe that I have said anything against the character of anyone in this thread, nor attacked anyone personally as you have me. Asking some one if they are a sockpuppet is asking them if they are a troll.
I made my initial irritated statement, full well knowing that I might be flamed for it. I thought it was still worth it.
If you’re talking about my response to Chris, I thought it was justified as his argument is a non-argument.
So what exactly are my mischaracterizations? I’m not opposed to having myself talked out of irritation, unless you’re goal was just to call me a troll.
@ Endor #118,
I can’t speak for the commenter you are referring to/quoting, but one thing that really REALLY annoys me is that, despite the admitted and well documented fact that more men are sexually predatory than women, a statistical fact is being extended beyond it’s proper context.
People seem keen, and correct me if I am wrong, to damn men, all men, on the basis of the behaviour of a minority. Yes it is statistically more likely for a sex offender to be male than female, but this doesn’t have any meaning for any individual man, and yet such data is trotted out as if it can silence valid criticism. It’s often done quite subtly and it’s as dishonest as when a racist uses spurious IQ tests to “prove” black people aren’t as intelligent as white people, or some other such piece of specious bullshit. It’s the same misuse of statistics. It’s the same move from generality to specifics without other, much needed, data to support it. IT IS WRONG!
When religious people here make the point that bad behaviour by one member of their religion doesn’t automatically reflect on all members of that religion, then they are correct, it doesn’t. The point they miss is that this doesn’t relate to the claim being made at all. When examples of religious people behaving badly are held up, the claim being made is not “this demonstrates all religious people are bad” but “this demonstrates that the claim ‘religion makes you good’ is false”. Two very different claims.
This applies here too. No one is claiming that “A man’s desire for sex with young girls makes him having sex with young girls (ethically) justifiable”. NO ONE. No one is claiming that “there are women sex offenders too so this guy is excused” or anything like it either. NO ONE. All people are taking issue with is the, implicit in many cases, condemnation of all men (and attempts to silence discussion) on the basis of the actions of a minority of men. A minority that rightly deserve condemnation btw.
And male sex offenders are more common than female ones, so what? Is there some magical sex offender limit where you are magically exonerated from the implications of your own illogical claims? Isn’t one sex offender one too many? If you get to damn men because male sex offenders exist then the same yardstick must apply when you judge women. Unless 100% of men are sex offenders, and let’s be blunt they aren’t! It’s an error of reasoning no matter who makes it, about whatever topic. If you’re dealing with populations then the statistics work, when you come down to dealing with individuals they don’t. No one don’t gets to treat any man, any individual man who you don’t know and have no evidence regarding, as a “potential sex offender” or “supporter of sex offenders” simply on the basis of the stats or because they honestly deal with the facts of sexual desire, that’s bigotry pure and simple. The same applies if you substitute the word “woman” into that sentence btw.
Louis
IST: You place a significant amount of credence on socio-cultural influences over biological…
What does that even mean, operationally? Obviously culture is constrained to the possibilities produced by biology. There is no nature/nurture distinction, since they are two different levels of analysis.
It’s like saying “you put biological influences over chemical ones”! Obviously the former can not contradict the latter; but the latter does not determine the former, or even greatly constrain it (otherwise, it would be possible to predict biological systems from the chemical constituents)
“All people are taking issue with is the, implicit in many cases, condemnation of all men (and attempts to silence discussion) on the basis of the actions of a minority of men. ”
Actually I think that our problems with gender contribute to this as well. It is as damning to men as a whole to consider perverse men who rape as normal, and it leaves the majority of non-violent men with a stigma. For instance, many men are afraid to express any affection for children because they don’t want to be seen as pedophiles, even though they may simply be people who like kids in a healthy and supportive way.
The guy was also not too bright, a common property of fundieville.
The FBI did a study once of who was really in a teen age internet chat room.
Of seven “girls”, 3 were men posing as teen age females, 3 were undercover cops, and …..1 was a teen age girl.
This story might be apocryphal and the numbers are approximate from memory. But the point is obvious. Internet domains where predators seek out children are monitored. And while on the internet, no one knows if you are a dog, but they do know when you show up to meet your new high school acquaintance with a bag of sex toys and plenty of booze and marijuana.
Louis: I can’t speak for the commenter you are referring to/quoting, but one thing that really REALLY annoys me is that, despite the admitted and well documented fact that more men are sexually predatory than women, a statistical fact is being extended beyond it’s proper context.
And how much is it maleness, per se? An obvious secondary influence that would have to be looked at is size and strength — you’re much more likely to successfully bully someone if you are physically intimidating, which makes it much more likely that you will take bullying and abusing others as your social method. Adult males are obviously much more likely to be successful and serial abusers solely due to their physical composition, regardless of their maleness per se.
Reality is always much messier than simple statistical distributions. Leave those for simple physical systems.
These two things are not mutually exclusive. It was your sad attempt at a joke. It was also your attempt to insult the women here and imply that they are all looking to take offense at anything a man says. And you give yourself away again right here:
No, in fact I’m not offended. And your “joke” was so stupid and predictable that anyone else here could be bothered to be offended.
But that doesn’t change your intent. And your response demonstrates that your were already gearing up to accuse anyone challenging you of “deliberately taking offense at an innocent joke! Get a sense of humor!”
Oh Louis, you’re not exactly one to talk.
@ Endor #124,
You miss the point, as usual. I don’t need those things explained to me again because it isn’t me who doesn’t understand. Those people who claim “boys will be boys” are guess what….WRONG. It’s not “wrong to me”, or “optionally wrong” it is a demonstrable, logical fallacy, always has been, always will be. It doesn’t change just because someone wants it to.
And well done on pulling the “woman privilege card”. Sorry but because you are a woman your arguments and claims don’t have special status (neither btw do mine as a man). They stand or fall on their own. Anyone stupid enough to claim that “boys will be boys” justifies anything, especially something as abhorrent as sexual predation, should get the (metaphorical and occasionally physical) kicking they richly deserve. The fact that inequalities have existed, and do exist still, doesn’t somehow magically alter logic.
Because you are a woman you don’t have some special privileged position on inequality, I could list a plethora of equally pernicious and evil inequalities I have suffered from (probably more I’d hasten to add, but I won’t go into detail because it is vastly too personal and nothing I wish to share), but I don’t. Why? Because to do so is nothing more than a rhetorical trick. It is an attempt to silence discussion, dissent and argument pure and simple. For example, you don’t know if I’m black, white, Asian, European, disabled etc, you don’t know if I was or was not sexually abused as a child, discriminated against because of race, sex, sexuality, disability. You know fuck all. And guess what? It would not be relevant if you did. Your sex is not relevant. Regardless of what heuristics you have developed to cope with the vicissitudes of pernicious inequality in society (inequality I agree exists and agree should be stamped out) your claims are not made true and your arguments rendered valid because you happen to be female.
The fact that you have developed a heuristic for dealing with inequalities in real life does not make that heuristic suddenly a logical argument or a valid argument. That people are often idiots and use valid data illogically to shore up a very suspicious claim does not somehow mean that data is suspect or anyone discussing that data is suspect.
Louis
blueelm> Not killfiling, nor am I going to carry a grudge unless that’s the general tone of all your comments. I’m content to wait to see if that’s the case before deciding you’ve earned that.
My response was solely to the one you assumed would be flamed, because it is certainly mischaracterization to assume that
You appear not to accept the biology as valid, or (by your statement) surmise that accepting the biology as true is tantamount to condoning the actions themselves. I have the biological urge, brought on by numerous hormones, to knock the hell out of someone who walks into me in the bar… I don’t act on it because that isn’t a situation that merits violence. Follow the difference? Yours is a statement about the character of anyone who agreed with that point of view, without bothering to use names. For what it’s worth, most of the commenters here are a bit more enlightened than that, and weren’t offering “biological justification” for the actions of the FoTF employee… we (this we includes me, who happened to cite a source and all) were answering the questions posed by pgpwnit in #1 and Endor in #9.
I freely admit that I lumped you, from the comment, in with some of the other posters here who state things like “if you say or think X, you automatically must hate/oppress/etc Group Y” without any regard for the fact that they have no basis in reality. Airing your own prejudices in a smear of others is pretty vile, IMO. Since you didn’t intend that, the reaction on my part was unwarranted.
The sockpuppetry question was explicitly due to the similarity of your arguments to the ones posted in #75… I accept that you aren’t one, I simply hadn’t seen you post here before. My apologies if that offended you.
Endor, a girl is ready for sex when she decides she is. She might be wrong about this, but I can’t figure out any other criteria, other than medical examinations that most people probably won’t submit to.
I’m well aware that simply menstruating doesn’t mean a female can stand up to the strain of either intercourse or childbirth. However, that doesn’t mean that males won’t be attracted to her or try to mate with her. They’re stupid for doing so, but there you are.
Here’s a question. What about two 15-year-olds having sex? That’s how old I was when I lost my virginity with a girl of the same age. We were both ready for sex then. Please note that this anecdote doesn’t mean I think it’s okay for adult men to prey on teenaged girls. I don’t.
Strange gods before me #134:
I said it was a joke at MY OWN expense, no one else’s. You choose not to believe that, fine. Your ignorant opinion of me is worthless. Continue projecting your meaning onto my words, it doesn’t make your projection accurate. I notice, btw, you snip my actual explanation to quote mine things you think make your case. Sorry, but FAIL.
Louis
@ Frog #133;
All true, however, some of the most effective bullies I’ve met (if we’ve moved now to bullying and not sexual predation) have been women (and yes I know that is an anecdote). Emotional bullying is just (I’d argue more in some instances) as effective as physical.
Anyway I think you’re agreeing with me. Treating individuals as representations of some statistic or another is a flawed heuristic and one commonly exploited by bigots. Even stats are mere models of complex systems, I agree. Hence why I get so frustrated with the extended* idiocy in these debates.
Louis
*This is a pun. Sorry.
@frog> I’m discussing that using the distinctions made by my intended audience. From a reductionist perspective, you’re absolutely correct, all the causes are, eventually, genetic.
Nature/nurture distinctions refer to the impact of genetics (in a very personal sense) as opposed to environmental influences (which are caused by someone else’s genetics, not yours) on personality. This is indeed a distinction, which you’re ignoring because they’re both caused by genes. The question isn’t whether it’s genetic, but rather whose genetics are the root cause. Operationally, the fact that I can’t successfully use biological methods to make all the societal predictions I want, especially because people have the bothersome sentience to contend with, means that I have to make a distinction between the two.
IST: “You appear not to accept the biology as valid, or (by your statement) surmise that accepting the biology as true is tantamount to condoning the actions themselves.”
Ok, well I can see how that would be offensive. I absolutely DO consider biology valid. However I think that our biological inclinations are much more complex than it being “hardwired” to a specific action such as soliciting sex from a young girl. I apologize, because I did become irritated by that one comment, and have seen biological apologetics for rape and other socially disfunctional actions. In my mind we are biological organisms that have evolved to live in social communities and sorting out what parts belong to what is very difficult. It isn’t something I will pretend to know too much about, but I try where I can to understand what I can. I didn’t mean to lump everyone who believes that there is any biological underpinning to soliciting teen sex into a group of people that approve of the action because that would have to include me as well. It is difficult some times for me to tell the difference between the two arguments because I have often encountered them fused to such a degree that they lose distinction. I don’t think that I am as prejudiced as you seem to believe, but I have apparently become jaded enough to jump the trigger some times.
@ Blueelm #131,
I agree on the “it can be difficult for some men to express affection towards kids because they might be seen as paedophiles” type thing. It’s something I’ve encountered and it’s horrible.
The first part though I think falls foul of this naturalistic fallacy. Because men have “natural” desires which some men then act upon by raping etc does not somehow validate those actions. Personally I think, in addition to all the gender bollocks, that the problem comes from the definition of the word “natural”. So often people see the word “natural” as equating to “good” or “desirable”. IT AIN’T!!!!! Uranium, perfectly natural, don’t eat a lump of it! Death, perfectly natural, personally I’m not a fan. Ectopic pregancies, perfectly natural, complete deadly bummer IMO. Etc. Is a man’s or woman’s desire to copulate with a post pubescent female or male “natural”? Yes. Is it always good or appropriate? Those are very different questions determined by far more complicated things than the mere fact of their existence.
Louis
blueelm> You most likely aren’t as prejudiced as that originally came off; your responses afterward are redeeming in and of themselves. I was explaining my reaction to that initial comment as I’ve encountered a few who are, or at least are determined to project it, that begin discussions in the manner you did. No grudges here, we’re cool.
Now you’re going to whine that I’m taking you out of context, because I didn’t feel like hanging on your every single word? Poor Louis. Anyone here can scroll up and read you.
You can say whatever you want about it in retrospect, but that doesn’t change the plain meaning of your words. Like I said, everyone can read what you said and come to the same conclusion that you were having a joke at the expense of women. (Who are a bunch of bullies, apparently…)
To strange gods before me,
I would like to humbly suggest that you reread Louis’ comment about bullying. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Also, his joke wasn’t at the expense of women. Please provide an example of how his joke harmed women in general or any woman in particular.
@ Strange gods before me #144
I didn’t say “women are bullies” nor would I say anything so stupid. I said “some of the most effective bullies I’ve met (if we’ve moved now to bullying and not sexual predation) have been women (and yes I know that is an anecdote).” See the difference? Is it too complicated for you to grasp that difference?
And yes people are free to go and read my words, in context, and come to whatever understanding they like. What they are not free to do is what you are doing: claim that THEIR interpretation of MY words is correct when it statedly isn’t. Do you understand that that joke could easily be read as being at MY OWN expense rather than at the expense of women? Or are so so pathetic as to persist in your delusions when you’ve been corrected?
Anything of substance to offer? Thought not.
Louis
IST: Nature/nurture distinctions refer to the impact of genetics (in a very personal sense) as opposed to environmental influences (which are caused by someone else’s genetics, not yours) on personality. This is indeed a distinction, which you’re ignoring because they’re both caused by genes. The question isn’t whether it’s genetic, but rather whose genetics are the root cause. Operationally, the fact that I can’t successfully use biological methods to make all the societal predictions I want, especially because people have the bothersome sentience to contend with, means that I have to make a distinction between the two.
No, no, no! You can make distinctions of levels, without opposing them. “Genes” cause mRNA and other RNA derivatives — that’s all they directly do. There are no “genes” for phenomena at other scales; it’s a complete fallacy of levels of explanations.
The nature/nurture distinction is just completely logically incorrect. Those mRNAs and other RNA derivatives contrain what happens at other levels, just as chemistry constrains DNA, but does not determine DNA. In order to understand genes, you have to have explanations at the level of DNA history, where chemistry acts as a limit on the possible DNA histories that are possible — but there still are an infinite number of possibilities within the possible ranges.
There is no nature/nurture distinction. You have to first distinguishes deterministic “causes” that function purely on one level of explanation, and “constraints” that occur between levels. There are no genes for rape, height, eye-color or gayness — there are genes that lead to the production of specific proteins that may alter the probability distributions of certain phenotypes; and even that is an oversimplification, since these are systems with memory, which means that no probability distribution is sensible without the historical record of other systems at other scales.
For example, we know that it is mathematically impossible to go from the motion of atoms to the motion of an organism; that the description of every momentum and position requires infinite information (over some small period of time, growing at least exponentially) to describe the full system. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that the physics of atomic motion “causes” the motion of the organism. Likewise, it would be senseless to say that some motion contradicts the underlying physics of atom motions.
One scale builds upon the other — it’s not 50% “organismic motion” and 50% “atomic motion”, it’s 100% both, depending on the question you’re asking. Different levels of explanation, for different levels of problems.
Louis: if we’ve moved now to bullying and not sexual predation
I see it on a continuum: people who are power-mongers and wish to force a sado-masochistic relationship on others. Obviously, predation is one extreme of the continuum, but we already know that, for example, serial killers often start with torturing animals. It’s not a difference in kind but in quantity.
Yes, we basically agree, I was just trying to extend your argument about the problem with statistical arguments. You pointed out the inappropriateness regarding levels of explanation (as I’ve been trying to do with nature/nurture); I was trying to point out that even when you stay on the same level, statistical distributions require an implied theory that itself may be faulty.
I’m very wary of any statistical explanations that aren’t based on a well-founded and explicit theory of mechanism of its constituents. It’s a mistake that is so common in many sciences as to be breath-taking. What you can do with a compressed fluids today is simply not possible yet for larger systems.
SGBM: While I think you do have a point about the nature of some jokes, I don’t think Lous’s fits it so well. I think Louis was genuinely being sarcastic, and making a slight joke about the capacity for topics like this to turn into a “battle of the sexes.”
strange gods before me:
I’ve read this entire thread, I have female parts, and I find NOTHING wrong with that Louis has been saying. Actually, I find myself agreeing with him quite a lot. Stop searching for problems where none exist- stuff like that drives me absolutely insane.
@frog> obviously I’ve failed to explain my point properly, since you launched into a nuanced description of it… nature/nurture distinctions is a useful tool for discussion, all overgeneralizations aside (that, and the person with whom I was actually having that discussion was using the same overgeneralization. I accept (and even understand) the biochem behind your statement, but as the discussion you’ve jumped into dealt with my initial point on the genetic predispositions for what men find sexually attractive, you’ve missed it entirely. Your quotemine was part of a statement that was intended to avoid a foray into reductionism, complete with a reference that would explain them better than I, since I’m not Pinker. If I were an ecologist, would you demand that every explanation of interactions between organisms be reduced to phenotypic probabilities? Or would doing that once correctly and using it to move to a broader level be acceptable?
Endor:
I’ve skimmed this thread, and I don’t intend to jump into the argument over what our feelings are “supposed to be” based on biology… but I’m bemused by your reactions of “ewww” and “gross”: Have you actually seen any 15 year old girls?
My daughter is an 18 year old college freshman, so for the last several years my house has been periodically filled with high-school aged girls (i.e., 13 to 18 y.o., mostly on the high end of that range). In my experience, girls 15 and older are usually visually indistinguishable from grown women (except, perhaps, for their choices in clothing, hair, and makeup). My daughter’s teenage friends were generally as tall as their mothers, and had fully developed figures (this particular crowd of girls was pretty mature intellectually, as well, but they were admittedly not represntative of the average).
Nothing I’m pointing out here justifies predatory behavior, of course (as many in this thread have already affirmed)… but physically speaking, these are young women we’re talking about; if you’re attracted to women at all, you’re likely to be attracted to them at some level, no matter how conscious you are of the limits of law and social custom and how proper your behavior. Your “ewww” and “gross” style of discourse on this issue makes you seem like the child.
As an aside, I think our society is in serious denial about the sexuality of teens and young adults… but then, what aspect of human sexuality are we not in denial about, eh?
IST: If I were an ecologist, would you demand that every explanation of interactions between organisms be reduced to phenotypic probabilities? Or would doing that once correctly and using it to move to a broader level be acceptable?
No, my suggestion would be to avoid any discussion of specific genetics unless I knew the actual mechanism that lead between a gene and a phenotype. I would take neither road suggested, even though I do recognize that it is extremely common to take that incorrect shortcut and say that a gene is for a crested bill, or whatever. I’d just stay at the broader level, and avoid the delving that is intractable.
you’ve jumped into dealt with my initial point on the genetic predispositions for what men find sexually attractive
And my point is, what do we mean by “genetic predispositions for what men find genetically attractive, as opposed to social ’causes'”. I don’t think it’s a meaningful statement — and I know that this disagrees with about 99% of people who speak about genetics. But I’m right, and they’re wrong!
We can talk about selective forces that shape the genome underlying sexually attraction. But to go much further than to talk about “attractors” at the phenotypic level is just saying too much. Yes, those attractors are constrained by genes — but they’re constrained by all the genes, which means talking about “genetic” predisposition is misleading; it would be better to talk about evolutionary constraints, and completely avoid the lower levels until we actually know what we’re talking about. Remember, Darwin was wrong about genetics, yeah he still got evolutionary theory in the right ballpark — that tells you a bit about how these levels are coupled.
Sorry for butting in to a different thread of discussion — this just happens to be a pet peeve of mine, one that I find interesting: how much we incorrectly imply that is either unknown or unknowable, and thereby subtly mislead ourselves.
@frog> you’re entitled to butt in… it’s a blog, and not mine at that. My annoyance was due to the quotemine, but since you’ve made your broader point that’s a non-issue.
Do you happen to have journal references that back up your assertion as to why you’re right and 99% of people speaking about genetics are wrong?
BTW, what are evolutionary constraints, if not genes? I can’t say the gene QX3 on the 4th chromosome causes trait Y, but to state that I can’t say something has a genetic cause when discussing an evolved trait goes beyond pedantic and out the other side…
I skipped through the comments here when they became quote-mining arguments, but the references to Jane Austen piqued my interest. Tulse, you’re a guy who likes Jane Austen? I think I’m in looooove.
Well, if I’ve learned anything on this thread, it’s that I need to call up my 93-year-old grandfather and explain to him that he’s a sexual predator for having sex, in his twenties, with a fifteen-year-old girl. Sure, he’d married her–and is still married to her, but obviously, the power relationships and ickiness clearly indicates that he’s sick.
Oh, yeah, and my father, too. Just disgusting.
To be fair, all of my tutelage in the topic comes from the beloved Mrs. Tulse, whose vast knowledge of all things Austen (and far more obscure female authors of the period) puts me to shame. But yeah, I adore Austen, and have even, in the privacy of my own home, been known to watch romantic comedies. Does scotch-drinking make up for that?
IST: Do you happen to have journal references that back up your assertion as to why you’re right and 99% of people speaking about genetics are wrong?
Principia Mathematica, Whitehead and Russell, 1910-1912. It’s not a journal article, but I think it’ll do!
BTW, what are evolutionary constraints, if not genes? I can’t say the gene QX3 on the 4th chromosome causes trait Y, but to state that I can’t say something has a genetic cause when discussing an evolved trait goes beyond pedantic and out the other side…
I’m saying that, in general, if you’re talking about the “cause” of the opposable thumb, you’ve got to talk about evolutionary selection of the organism, unless you can actually construct a pathway between the genome and the organism. It might even be interesting to know which genes changed simultaneously with the anatomical change — but you’d be silly to talk about a causative link unless you can construct the full mechanism, which I doubt is possible. We can know the evolutionary constraints (aka, the phenotypic selective pressures) — knowing the genetic constraints specifically is a much, much harder problem.
It may seem pedantic — but it is actually quite relevant. In molecular biology, people constantly talk about “kinetics” and “binding sites” creating illusionary images of the physics. They have some crystallography and think they can link that crystal to function without working out the full-detailed physics that link it, and instead use a short-hand like binding, even going so far as to talk about hydrogen binding sites (which makes as much sense as talking about electron binding sites).
They actually get it wrong, which then slows down further research because it’s a concensus that calcium “binds” to EGTA, for example. It does no such thing (it’s actually a calcium-EGTA fluid!), and their “theories” are just hand-waving because of it.
Don’t look for the gay gene. It doesn’t exist. Nothing short of working your way down from society to psychology to neural functioning … down … to genes will ever be anything more than chimera. You can’t explain systemic functions by reducing it to its constituents without fully calculating all the interactions of its constituents.
Say what you can and do know. Don’t say what you can’t and don’t know.
from post #72: I was hoping that someone with more computer skills than I have would provide the link to the feared pirate woman from Girardville Pa. that’s got the local monsignor’s albs in a twist. And by the way here in Colorado James Dobson is an embarrassment on a par with Marilyn Musgrave, Ted Haggarty and The Fray.
Why do people constantly misstate the age in which people where married in the past. In the 1900’s the average age for a man when married was 25.9 the average age for a woman was 21.9. Girls where not married off by 15. Here is a chart of age breakdowns going back to 1890 . Let’s please stop pushing that false fact. It was not the reality back in the 1900’s and it is not reality now. Some women did marry young, and of course average ages vary by country, but marrying your teenage daughter off by puberty is not the reality for most people past and present.
Sorry! Posting at work when I shouldn’t be and messed up the tag as a result.
@160
So you’re calling my grandfather’s marriage license a liar?
Well, if I’ve learned anything on this thread, it’s that I need to call up my 93-year-old grandfather and explain to him that he’s a sexual predator for having sex, in his twenties, with a fifteen-year-old girl. Sure, he’d married her–and is still married to her, but obviously, the power relationships and ickiness clearly indicates that he’s sick.
Oh, yeah, and my father, too. Just disgusting.
Yes, but try not to be too hard on them. They were products of their time. People back then did things that seem monstrous today. There was an absolutely vile level of racism, and sexism, and homophobia, and, yes, child abuse. It wasn’t that the individual people involved were evil. It was more that they lived in a society with evil values, and they didn’t think to question those values.
But we also need to remember that, as a society, they did gradually come to realize the harm they were doing, and they did start working to make things better. I don’t know your grandfather, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he understands that it was just sheer dumb luck that your grandmother’s life wasn’t ruined, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that he prefers living in a society where other women don’t have to rely on that sort of pure dumb luck.
That’s what makes this Orville character so loathsome. He had the good fortune to live in a society that understood why child abuse is wrong, and that was able to explain to him why child abuse was wrong, and that had passed anti-child abuse laws as an additional disincentive for people who couldn’t understand the explanation. And then, after all, that, he went ahead and tried to do it anyway! Grrrr!
Anyway, getting back to your grandfather. Before you get too mad at him, remember that future generations will probably think that we’re just as bad. I mean, as a society, we treat computers like property, and some of us even use them to troll message boards. It’s inexcusable and barbaric, but I hope our grandchildren will understand that we didn’t know any better, and that they won’t judge us too harshly.
Even if the girl was of a legal age, this action is a gross violation of the Biblical values that Focus supposedly believes. It’s hypocrisy to say “sex only in a santified marriage” then hit on a fifteen year old. The young age just makes it worse.
I knew Dobson was a homophobe, but I didn’t realize his child rearing methodology was so into corporal punishment. And that quote about showing your son your penis – WTF?
A (@160):
Interesting data, but a couple things spring to mind:
* Are those numbers limited to women who actually married, or do they somehow account for the unmarried? Probably the former, I suppose, but if these numbers included the current age (at the time of the census) or some arbitrarily chosen cutoff age for unmarried adult women, that would skew the median age higher than the median age at first marriage of married women.
* This data, which encompasses only a little more than a century and only the U.S., doesn’t really answer whether or not the received idea that girls used to marry much younger “in olden days” is true. I’d be interested in seeing data spanning multiple societies, and with a much longer historical timeline. In particular, I’d be curious to know if the picture was notably different in pre-industrial agrarian societies.
* Finally, what we’re really after is the age at which society considered it acceptable for a girl to marry… which may or may not correlate to the median age at which they actually did marry.
Longstreet63 (@162):
JOOC, what part of median do you not understand?
Bill Dauphin, I’d highly recommend The History of the Wife, which covers some of your questions. I don’t have the book anymore and thus cannot give you specific page #s or sources, but the author is of the opinion that “women long ago married at incredibly young ages” is largely a fallacy. Among Western nations, women have married in their late teens/early twenties since at least the Middle Ages. I believe she quotes some advice books, sermons, etc. from the time that actually advise against marrying too young.
Another important thing to remember is that the age of menarche has been dropping steadily since the turn of the century. Even if it were true that is was once the cultural norm to marry your daughter immediately after she started bleeding, this would probably happen sometime between 15 and 18, rather than sometime between 11 and 14. It’s unlikely that it was every the norm to marry women before they started menstruating, considering their inability to bear children.
From what I understand, one of our common stereotypes of marriages from the past – a very young woman married to a much older man – was something that happened almost exclusively among royalty and nobility. We tend to know more about these classes because, of course, more was written about them, so perhaps that’s where the stereotype comes from. Incidentally, this is the only group I know of that occasionally married before sexual maturity – the marriages were for politically purposes only and were not consumated until the two partners were actually physically mature.
Bill Dauphine: Do you find 15 year old males indistiguisable from adult males too, or only females? I see teenaged girls all the time and I find them quite different looking from adult women.
Longstreet63: For an anecdotal record, my grandfather wanted to marry my great aunt who was 14. Her father said no because she was too young and made a trade to sweeten the deal of marrying my then 18yo grandmother. I don’t think anything from the past is a good argument for the present.
yargh: average age of menarch has been dropping. Duchess of typos?
I understand median pretty well, I think, despite being a non-mathematician. (IANAM)
For instance, above the median are women married from ages 21-death, while below the median will include much, much smaller population. Ergo, those women married below age 20 equalled the number of women marrying above 20, despite being a much smaller sample.
And, for the concerned, I’m joking about my grandfather. He, and my father, represent examples of couples who married when the woman was under age and the man was 5+ years older. They weren’t perverts or pedos, weren’t considered so by society, weren’t abusers or rapists, didn’t have premarital sex (probably), didn’t have kids eight months later, etc.
This is to point out that, despite what our existing cultural mores happen to say, such relationships are not universally destructive, sick, or abusive, and people don’t magically emerge from a cocoon at 18 to become adults. This is a modern concept.
Late marriage is a perogative of the wealthy. Hell, marriage is a perogative of the wealthy that became universalized when standards of living rose in the 19th century.
No, I’m not in possession of a cite for that at the moment. Research it if you want.
This is a great argument for using monitoring software on work (and children’s) PCs. As an employee you have no right to the expectation of privacy. Employers need to protect their reputation and bottom line from guys like this. Not only was he breaking the law exposing the organization of horrible publicity but he was doing it “on the clock”. As a small business owner I put a monitoring package (Spectorsoft) on my employee PCs and found out that all but two (out of 12) were seriously wasting my paid time (personal web and email, downloading music, playing games, etc). I didn’t do anything except create an Acceptable Use Policy from that info and then let my workers know what I could see. Most got the point and got back to work. Those who didn’t – now have other jobs. I have to tell ya – we are more productive and more profitable now. The funny part is the extra profits I am able to give back to employees at bonus time. I’ve learned who my best people are and given them promotions to help others. I would have so found this creep on day one or two and ended his immoral behavior and the stealing of work time. I’d certainly prefer to find this out with Spector than have cops busting into the office.
Natalie (@166):
Thanks for the explainer. I’ll put the book on my list (though the list is long enough to keep me reading ’til the heat death of the universe, I fear). My interest in the question was, I admit, largely academic: I don’t have any emotional investment in any particular answer; I just think it’s an interesting question.
blueelm (@167):
Ever see a high-school football player?
But seriously, plenty of high-school-aged boys are every bit as tall and broad-shouldered as their fathers, just as girls that age are often as tall and curvy as their mothers.
That said, I think young men (even beyond high-school age) often still look boyish at an age when their female contemporaries already look full-grown. I’m no expert, but I suspect that this is because one of our most notable visual cues for adulthood in males is facial hair, and my entirely unscientific, layman’s survey suggests that, in general, girls develop breasts earlier than boys grow beards (though boys my daughter’s age have a hell of a lot more facial hair than I recall my friends having had at that age, 30 years ago; maybe it’s something in the water).
I’ve always heard that “girls mature earlier than boys,” but maybe that’s just another (you should pardon the expression) old wives’ tale, eh? But more broadly, what’s your point? Are you suggesting that I’m sexist because I commented that girls in their latter teens look very much like grown women? I’m only reporting the evidence of my eyes. Admittedly, it’s only anecdotal evidence, but it’s reported honestly, and, I believe, without any particular bias.
Certainly most teenaged women are not so obviously childlike that the mere idea of finding one attractive ought to elicit an ewwww! grossss! reaction of the sort usually more appropriate to an elementary school playground. Which is really all I meant to say.
I am sure if you asked James Dobson, which I am sure you wont, he is horrified and embarassed regarding this incident. Dr. Myers, have you or will you have the guts to interview Dr. Dobson or just throw insults from the cheap seats? I would suggest that you research the effects of having casual sex and what it is doing to our society. I would also research how life came from non-life? That seems to be a bigger mystery. If we all came from a common ancestor, why are we shocked by any behavior, because all morality is realtive, right?
Bill, I understand the pain of a long book list. It is quite well written, IMO, which can be unusual for a history book.
Longstreet, I don’t think that your statement that “Hell, marriage is a perogative of the wealthy that became universalized when standards of living rose in the 19th century.” is remotely true. People of all classes have been getting married for ages and ages. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you?
Longstreet, my understanding is that church and state sanctioned marriage was a prerogative of the wealthy — but marriage still existed in Europe by everyone before the modern age.
The cobblers just jumped the broomstick rather than asking the church for official papers. Enforcement was by community norms, not by external bureaucracy.
I know that in Polynesia, kids move in together, but when they’re ready to be “legitimate” member of society — ie, they’re too tired to go chasing other people around at 30 or 40, they get “officially” married.
The age of consent in Colorado is 17, so Ovalle’s behaviour was wrong. However, don’t forget that the age of consent varies from 12 in Mexico, to 20 in Tunisia.
From Wikipedia:
Max @6:
Moggie @26:
Ow, that had to hurt! I think you hit him into the next county, Moggie. I love this place.
At 15, “she’d” not be pedophile material, strictu sensu.
More like ephebiphile, drawn to pubescent youths and adolescents…
Endor at #111 – You said it all for me. It is soo difficult to tease out the social aspects of our behavior that it is next to impossible to determine what is “natural”. Yes, we do have biological drives, but they are expressed through the medium of the culture in which we are bathed from the moment we are born.
Matt Heath @15,
I think that Argentina has the largest area, but a relatively low population. I’m pretty sure the most populous Spanish-speaking country is Mexico.
“I am sure if you asked James Dobson, which I am sure you wont, he is horrified and embarassed regarding this incident. ”
I’m sure he is. His organization is hurting, and this bad publicity won’t help with the money flow.
That is what you meant, isn’t it?
To the obnoxious troll at #174:
Congratulations on spelling Dr. Myers’ name correctly! I think you may be the first ever to do so.
I think it unlikely that PZ will interview James Dobson, for the simple reason that he’s not a journalist. I am however, and would relish the chance to interview an irrelevant blowhard.
“I would suggest that you research the effects of having casual sex and what it is doing to our society. I would also research how life came from non-life? That seems to be a bigger mystery.”
I understand that authoritarians despise what’s happening to our society. It’s becoming gentler and more compassionate with every decade and it’s driving them nuts. Please read at least some history before you open your enormous yap. Where is this research on casual sex that you mention?
As for researching how life came from non-life, that isn’t really Dr. Myers’ area of expertise. Try finding someone who’s working on abiogenesis. It is a really interesting topic though.
“If we all came from a common ancestor, why are we shocked by any behavior, because all morality is realtive, right?”
WTF? Even correcting for typos, I can’t make head or tails of this sentence. How does thinking we all came from a common ancestory make you a moral relativist? You seem to be combining a couple of different slurs about atheists into one incredibly stupid mega-slur.
On a side note, I personally don’t find any behaviour shocking. Worrying? Yes. Distasteful? Yes? Evil? Yes. Shocking? Fuck no. With a global population nearing 7 billion people, it’s a dead certainty that we’re going to get some outright crazy people who will literally do anything. I can virtually guarantee that there’s at least one fella out there who has long fantasized about being eaten alive by a shark and will one day put this into practice.
Or possibly the obnoxious troll at #172. Sorry Frog. I knew I should have double checked that one.
You haven’t corrected anything. Just lied.
There’s nothing here that’s at your expense:
There is only the insinuation that women here are looking for something to be offended by.
There’s no insinuation at all. He comes right out and says it. He does make it pretty clear that he’s joking. I’m not even sure why you’re offended by this.
StrangeGods: There is only the insinuation that women here are looking for something to be offended by.
No, you idiot. The insinuation is that the “women here” are NOT looking for something to be offended by — that such behavior is purely in the imagination of overly sensitive males who are looking to find women who are easily offended, as exemplified by trolls who think that any criticism against them is a feminist plot.
Louis is making fun of MEN there, not women. Really, when a self-proclaimed male on these threads says something sexist, there’s always 20 individual immediately jumping on them. Doesn’t the fact that on this thread no one else has found Louis’s comment even mildly offensive lead you to possibly consider that you’re just an idiosyncratic imbecile with nothing interesting to say, so you’re pounding this into the ground in order to aggrandize yourself by disrupting the conversation?
You know, these religious idiots are really starting to piss me off. How long is it going to take before people wake up and realize how bad religion really is?
This is another example of religitards doing bad things: I wasn’t beating my 3-year old, I was beating the demons out of him. WTF?! Seriously, I’m ready to start a drug discovery program that eliminates religiosity.
Bill Dauphin: “Are you suggesting that I’m sexist because I commented that girls in their latter teens look very much like grown women?” No, no I didn’t really mean it that way. I was just curious because I really don’t see it. At 11 years old I was 5’5″ and had breasts. I was still 11 though. I grew several more inches over the next years. It’s hard for me to deal with the idea that guys looked at me and thought “woman” even though I know it’s true, just as it’s hard for me to look at teenage girls and think that now.
Not so much sexist, but just very different enough that I have trouble even understanding. As far as eeew, I don’t think it’s a matter of eeew, but that a kid that age is a kid. Their personality, their youth, can’t be separated from their body. I don’t understand the sudden importance of the visual over everything else in your anecdote, but I may have missed something you were responding to.
Yes, okay, he comes right out and says it.
Louis thinks women present a great opportunity for insult as the butt of a joke.
You don’t see a problem with it. Fine. I do.
Captain Mike interprets it exactly the same way I do, see? He just doesn’t have a problem with it.
Hey, if Louis didn’t want to disrupt the conversation, he could have started out by not insulting women.
I do not interpret it the same way you do. I interpreted it as a flippant comment intended as a joke, not an insult. How did he insult women specifically?
@ Strange Gods etc #189,
I didn’t insult women, you think I did. You are wrong, as I’ve explained.
Again, the joke was at my own expense. You can keep ignoring that all you like. Your claims about my intentions are irrelevant being based only on projection from you.
I lied? About my own intentions? A subject you can, almost by definition, know nothing about? Fuck me deftly you are an arrogant moron aren’t you?
Do fuck off, there’s a good troll.
Louis
Again, there’s nothing in here that’s at your expense:
So you’re lying.
You do interpret it as him “com[ing] right out and saying” “that women here are looking for something to be offended by.”
The insult there is that he’s saying women are oversensitive.
I’m aware he intended it as a joke. That’s not mutually exclusive with it being an insult. Louis thinks it’s clever to paint his insults as jokes, so that he can deflect criticism.
Strange: Captain Mike interprets it exactly the same way I do, see? He just doesn’t have a problem with it.
No you moron. Mike is interpreting it as a joke, which means that Louis says X when he actually means not X. Louis makes a statement that assumes one understanding of a phrase, but is then flipped around to mean the exact opposite.
That’s what a joke is, you cretin. Mike clearly understand that “Louis said X, but did not mean X”.
Are you lobotomized?
You bore me — you are about at the level of the most dull and repetitive of religiobots. This is both irrelevant and a waste of electrons. I nominate you for the next TrollDeathRace(tm).
Strange gods,
Nope, I’m not lying, you’re just fucking stupid.
Try this:
That would be an incidence of insulting women. I would be (wrongly) saying that there are hoardes of women ready to leap on any man who speaks up. But I didn’t say that. What I said was this:
I’ve bolded the relevant bit. Now you claim that I am being disingenuous in claiming this as a joke. This is because you have the brains of a dead whelk and are trolling for kicks, but I’ll humour you because knocking fucking morons like you about is occasionally amusing.
The point I was making by gratuitously over emphasising the “joke disclaimer” was, as noted by others above, that the humour lies in the fact that a) I have just distanced myself from the “teen-loving male” crowd (why would I need to do that? My love of teens, or lack of love for teens, is at best only tangentially relevant. It is a humorous “heading off at the pass” of the sort of silly accusations people chuck about in these threads), and b) that because these threads get cluttered by “wars of the sexes” and very little actual thought gets dealt with (hence my comment at the bottom of that very post about mulberry bushes) posts, mine included, very often get laced with disclaimers and are typified by a lack of humour. I was referring to this by making so obvious a disclaimer.
You have no evidence for claiming I am lying about my intentions, you have no basis to make this claim other than your desire to act the fuckwit and refusal to back down from your nonsensical fantasies. Despite the fact that you’ve been told this several times, in several ways, by several people now.
So, in summation, you are a clueless muppet, please don’t hesitate to, in the words of Frank Zappa, fuck yourself with a rubber hose. Now run along or I will be forced to expend actual cerebral effort in coming up with suitable derision for you. Thus far I haven’t bothered, you’re not worth it. Toodles!
Louis
I think you’re being oversensitive.
I’m not even sure that counts as an insult. It’s definitely not a diplomatic thing to say, but an actual insult? Really?
What was the point of this? Guilt by association?
Pedophiles can be found in any population sample of sufficient size. I have no love for Focus On The Family, but I don’t see anything that indicates they condoned or aided the employee’s actions.
Gee, I wonder if there are scientists or atheists that are pedophiles…
Honestly, I expect better, PZ.
“What was the point of this? Guilt by association?”
I think the point is that if you are in the business of telling people how they should be raising their families, to the point of interfering with their ability to raise their families the way they see fit, then you damned sure better make sure your employees are not engaging in completely hypocritical actions. The idea, I believe, is that they shouldn’t be so critical of everyone else’s morality when they employ people who engage in truly immoral acts.
Mike,
It wouldn’t be diplomatic if I meant it!
Wait,I have an idea….
Here you go Strange Fuckknuckle, hopefully this will help ease your fevered “mind”:
I, Louis, in making the humorous opening to post #39, did in no way intend to imply, insinuate, state or claim that there are hoardes of women ready to leap on any man who dares to speak up. Iam sure that SOME women of this nature exist, being as “women” as a group are a subset of “humans”. Hyper-sensitive morons exist within that group “humans”. The Venn diagram of the subset of “humans” that is “hypersensitive morons” intersects to some non-zero degree with the subset of “humans” that is “women”. Incidentally it also intersects with another subset, “men”, and various other subsets too numerous to mention.
If anyone has misconstrued the intent behind my comments, based on the fact that they thus demonstrably have the intellectual capacity of a house plant, then I am truly sorry. I am deeply sorry that, presumably, I have to share a species with someone so dull. I am desperately, arse quakingly sorry that, reminiscent of the “‘NOT!’ joke” scene from the Borat movie (with the humour taken out, such as there was) I have had to explain to some terminally benighted whistling dildo* the humorous principle underlying negation. Apparently the concept of self mocking negation via the medium of an overblown disclaimer is vastly too complex for some pig shit thick individuals to comprehend. For that I am heartily sorry.
Louis
*Reference to “I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue”, Rushton, you are missed. Thrill to the whistling dildo!
“A joke” doesn’t mean it’s not what the person actually thinks or means. Louis is doing the “ha ha only serious” thing. People make “jokes” at the expense of people they want to insult all the time. Unless you think Jon Stewart actually loved George W. Bush.
Then don’t talk to me. I just made one comment on Louis’s insult against women. Then I responded to people who responded to me.
“A joke” doesn’t mean it’s not what the person actually thinks or means.”
Strange Gods: the problem here is that even if you are correct, then what Louis is really guilty of saying is that he’s nervous that women will yell at him. It’s really not a terribly insulting thing. I am some times nervous that men will yell at me. Please consider that the opening of his post was basically a “not me”, so a portion of the humor lies in his compulsion to say that to what he then refers to as “hoards of women” in the next line. If nothing else though, consider it in light of his later comments and try to remember he’s just some guy out there in the world.
The internet: it’s serious!
It’s a very common insult that sexists use against women.
And people can be oversensitive. But when you preempt any discussion of your comment by accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being oversensitive, that’s trolling. And it’s an insult, because it presupposes that your audience is unreasonable.
No Strange Fuckwit,
I am NOT doing the “ha ha only serious” thing.
I am doing the “ha ha I’m making an in-joke at my own expense about foolishly overblown disclaimers on threads which have topics that usually cause large amounts of noise but very little signal by making a deliberately daft hyperbolic comment so obvious a five year old could see it and immediately negating it and couching it with an overblown disclaimer” thing.
Just FYI, no matter how insistent you are, you don’t fucking speak for me, you don’t get to claim my words mean what you insist they mean when I disagree.
Louis
Sure, it’s “a joke.” That doesn’t change the intent. My very first comment:
So you’ve successfully pulled off the “you’re oversensitive” game. Good job. It’s never certain whether you can convince people that your critics are the ones who are really the jerks. You appear to have succeeded.
Right here I do:
You see this as men against women and you expect women to be “oversensitive” so you tried an end run by throwing out your insult in your first salvo.
Okay, then go ahead and explain to Captain Mike what would be wrong with preemptively calling women oversensitive. Because he thinks that’s exactly what you did — having read you plainly — and he doesn’t see what would be wrong with that. So if you really didn’t mean it the way it sounded, you can clean up the collateral damage by explaining it to Mike.
Define “Sexist”.
@ 197,
As has been pointed out above,the anecdote PZ mentions,is just that,an anecdote.
But its just another example that religion does not give anyone superior morals or humanity.
Not that any more anecdotal evidence was needed,but the religious keep pointing out how amoral atheists are,and that there are no true morals without belief in god lalala,and it is always worth pointing out that this is not true.
As you said,pedophiles are everywhere,in any slice of society,but we are not the ones saying that religion results in better human beings,the religionists are.
And Louis,
how the hell do you always manage to get yourself into these conundrums? LOL
But Strange Fuckwit, I DIDN’T precede my comment with “anyone who disagrees with me is over sensitive” or anything like it. I concluded a comment about my lack of interest in teenage girls with a humorous jab at my own need (and the in thread necessity for these things) for such a disclaimer. In fact right AFTER it I made explicit, clear, serious mention of just how irrelevant the foregoing paragraph was. This is a key indicator of the humorous intent behind the first paragraph, and just one of the reasons I (rightly) accuse you of failing to read/quote IN CONTEXT.
Also, because sexists sometimes use the “over sensitive” rhetorical gambit to deflect valid criticism (and I agree they do)it doesn’t follow that anyone who mentions “over sensitivity” is doing so as part of a similar rhetorical gambit or as a cover for sexism. Sorry but you FAIL again. Sometimes, and whether or not you are an exemplar of this I leave to your imagination, “over sensitive” can be valid criticism. However it is not a criticism I would ever EVER make before I had the evidence to do so. Considering I don’t have that evidence, I cannot, do not, and will not be making that criticism. Do you understand the principle of non-commutation, you simple fuck?
Louis
I’m actually considering it in light of his earlier comments legitimizing the use of the word “cunt.”
But you’re right, it’s not worth this many comments. I’ll drop this for now and let the thread get back to the original topic. Thanks, blueelm!
Clinteas,
Maybe it’s because I’m gorgeous.
Louis
Oh FFS,
I was not, expressedly, legitimising the use of the word “cunt” I was disagreeing with an explicit (and illogical) linguistic claim. The difference is so vast that even a stoat could grasp it. Think outside your parochial little fucking box. Anyway, I have no desire to resurrect that can of worms and if it does resurrect, I’m not going to be nice about it this time.
Are you Bridge Troll, Strange Fuckwit? You demonstrate the same level of lack of comprehension.
Oh and if Mike can’t understand what I meant from the umpteen detailed logorrhoeal explanations of it, then he is as fucking stupid as you. Stupidity is sex independent.
Louis
ROTFLMAO
Moggie @ 28- Thanks. I’ll have to look those up sometime. They look interesting
Raven @ 62- See Moggie’s post for an idea of how to cite sources. As I understand it the FBI have done many studies of many criminal types. You’ll have to be more specific. Oh and I’m an atheist, not a fundie, so bite me.
Tulse @ 86- Thanks for the laugh. Glad I had put the milk down.
melior @ 17- Actually I enjoyed the info I got from Moggie. Being corrected by someone with facts at their disposal stings a bit, but is more than made up for by the knew knowledge it gains me. If PZ should claim he had this info or any other at his disposal when making his post I will take him at his word and apologize. Otherwise I stand by my ‘hysteria’.
blueelm (@189):
That’s a relief: I didn’t really want to have to fight for my feminist honor tonight!
I don’t imagine you looked like a grown woman at 11… but if you were 5’5″ with breasts at 11, I do imagine that you looked like a grown woman, or at least a near approximation of one, by the time you were 15. As you implicitly seem to realize:
As for…
…I wonder: An 11 year old is certainly a kid, and (barring any developmental delay or disorder) an 18 year old is almost certainly not a kid… but when, during the intervening years, the transition from child to adult occurs is some what fuzzy and variable. Society draws a bright line — and necessarily so, because laws can’t be ad hoc and casually mutable if they’re to work at all — but I’m thinking that line is pretty arbitrary. (And, I might add, probably conservative: I think teens/young adults are naturally much more sexual, much earlier, than we as a society are quite comfortable admitting.)
I’m not sure you missed anything, but I focused on the visual because we were talking about attraction, and I suspect that for most of us, in most cases, the initial attraction is mostly about the visual. Note that I didn’t claim a 15 year old girl is a grown woman, only that many of them are visually indistinguishable from grown women. So while if you got to know them, their personalities or manner of speech or general naivete might mark them as children, what you see from across the room may not. And so, IMHO, it’s no more “gross” to say “wow, she’s hot!” about a 5’7″, 125 lb, 34C woman with a great smile who happens to be 15 than it would be to react the same way to the woman who has essentially the same body and face, but 10 more years.
As many have noted, of course, doing something about it is a whole ‘nother kettle of horses of another color.
Next time I see a woman and think she’s hot, I’ll make sure to ask her how old she is, and if she’s under the age of consent in the country I happen to be in, I will apply electrodes to my head and wipe the thought with a pulse of cleansing electricity.
Does that satisfy the pearl-clutches adequately?
I understand exactly why saying that all women (or even hordes of women) are over sensitive would be wrong. For one thing, it’s fucking stupid.
I don’t think Louis is saying that as a reflection of his true feelings. Why do I think this? Because he said so. Note that Jon Stewart doesn’t bother to put disclaimers on his jokes.
I tend to take things people write at face value. I have little choice, as unlike strange gods before me, I am not a telepath.
Excelletn strawman, MH. Extra points for completely missing the point.
++
“but I’m bemused by your reactions of “ewww” and “gross”: Have you actually seen any 15 year old girls?”
Wrong question, Bill. The correct question is “have you seen the guys hitting on 15-year-old girls?” Yes, I have. A lot of them. Gross is exactly what it is.
“Your “ewww” and “gross” style of discourse on this issue makes you seem like the child.”
*lol Oh, c’mon Bill. Just declare me a fundamentalist prude and get it over it. As I have explained several times now – I have done years and years of work with victims of sexual and physical abuse, mainly children and teenagers. My “gross” and “ew” comes directly from that experience. If that’s childish, so be it. Better childish than complicit.
++
#157 – My grandfather as well. What was normal decades ago we’ve come to recognize is not proper. Come join the 21st century.
++
“You miss the point, as usual. I don’t need those things explained to me again because it isn’t me who doesn’t understand. Those people who claim “boys will be boys” are guess what….WRONG.”
*lol* So you iterate my point back at me like you thought of it and tell me *I* missed the point. I assume that it was the argument with Strange gods that made you feel the need to start insulting every women to whom you were speaking, so you’re forgiven. When you’ve calmed down, come back and try to discuss this rationally.
Endor: Although this started out being a discussion about sexual predation, it quickly turned into a discussion about the nature of attraction. By the way, thanks for doing the work you do. Somebody has to, and I don’t think I would be strong enough to handle it.
For me to hit on a 14-year-old girl would in fact be gross. Being visually attracted to a well-developed young woman of the same would not. I don’t think any of us can really help who or what we’re attracted to (see my post above re: shark fetish). It’s only our actions that we control.
By the way, I have a question I’ve been meaning to ask. Did you take your name from the Bible or from Star Wars? Just curious.
Endor,
I’m insulting you now am I? Really? Where?
I don’t need to be told AGAIN that people exist who misuse the facts to (erroneously) support prejudice/poor behaviour/vile actions etc. I don’t need to be told it ever because a) I already know, agree (and lament) that this happens, and b) it doesn’t address anything I’ve been saying. So sorry, but you HAVE missed my point. I’ll make it more explicitly for you. Try to bother to read it for comprehension this time.
Your heuristics are not somehow magically turned into rational, logical arguments or evidence because they are your heuristics. Nor is anyone who points this out defending or advocating the people who erroneously try to go from an “is” to an “ought”. Of course rapists/stalkers/etc and their apologists use “boys will be boys” and (fallacious) “arguments” of that form, and again, they do so wrongly. Find me one instance where I deny any of that and I’ll eat my hat. Find me one instance where it contradicts anything I’ve said and my chapeau gets the ketchup.,
My point is not that this is merely wrong, an example of the naturalistic fallacy, but that YOU are committing the self same fallacy just in the opposite direction. By attempting to claim that facts don’t exist (for example the fact of male sexual desire for culturally/ethically inappropriate partners) because idiots use those facts to justify their actions (fallaciously, remember?) you are in fact doing the same thing. You are elevating was IS to what OUGHT to be, or rather you are claiming that because something OUGHT not to be it ISN’T (or you’re trying to). This is the naturalistic fallacy in essence: that nature should be somehow pleasing in all facets to whomsoever perceives it. Granted, as others have pointed out, this is coupled to a lot of other fallacious guff that would make an essentialist quiver, but that’s different.
What amuses me most about all of this is that I condemn these sexual predators for their actions, as indeed does everyone on this thread. But it’s not enough to condemn them for BAD reasons, and with bad reason. The parallels with the “atheist/theist” debate are stark. If we make spurious arguments against theism that are as flawed as the theists’ arguments for theism then we are doing nothing more than reflecting their mistakes. I happen to think that we’re better than that, you might disagree. More than that, if, in condemning these people for their abhorrent actions anyone doesn’t do so in a manner that parrots yours entirely, they are decried as sexists or what have you.
Frankly I find such drivel more than mildly pathetic, and have lost any compunction about saying so. I think women, women’s rights and the just struggle for equality, deserve, and luckily have, better defenders than those people who seek to advance the cause of women by the self same means that women were (and are) oppressed. By which I mean, before this is misconstrued, that there are perfectly rational feminists and forms of feminism that don’t rely on trotting out the same fallacies and techniques as the sexists, nor on yowling that any disagreement about method is somehow an exemplar of sexism or apologetics for sexism.
Louis
Christians are the immoral majority.
“For me to hit on a 14-year-old girl would in fact be gross. Being visually attracted to a well-developed young woman of the same would not. ”
This is the point, and that is why I think the issue of visual attraction is kind of off the point. The issue isn’t whether or not girls are so gosh darned sexy, or whether men are evil for findint them so. The problem is with people who purposfully seek out young girls because they have a fetish for taking advantage of teens. They are attracted to the idea of sex with a very young person, and that is a very different thing.
Louis,
It sounds like you are denying that you have male privilege.
It sounds like you are saying that women in general do not have more experience of oppression than men in general.
It also sounds like you are denying that a man can be the beneficiary of male privilege while simultaneously being the victim of (for instance) racial oppression.
Sorry, but as usual the thread veered far off the original topic. The issue of whether or not men “should” be attracted to human females of child-bearing age was almost immediately brought up.
I simply take issue with Endor’s view of such attraction as “ewww…gross.” It is largely physical maturity that determines whether or not our genitalia feel someone is a child or not. As Bill Dauphin pointed out, there is a large grey area, where someone is still not fully mature, but definitely “mature enough” for the desire to mate with them to kick in.
Humans seem to be hardwired to find youth attractive. In many cases this is flat out dumb, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Although more of a premium is placed on youth in females, it’s interesting to note that males in many societies practice shaving, emulating the beardlessness of youth.
It sounds like Louis is saying that his views and opinions SHOULDN’T be given more weight because he’s a guy. That’s not quite the same thing as saying that male privilege doesn’t exist.
Okay, you think that guys hitting on 15 year old girls is gross. At what age does it not become gross? Does the age of the guy matter, and if so, why? Does the mental ages of the people in question make any difference?
Endor, you’re a a fundamentalist prude.
:P
And also, if the people in question are physically and mentally mature, what does age have to do with anything? I can’t understand the obsession with age differences. Isn’t it just a case of judging books by their covers? Aren’t we meant to look beneath the surface?
On second reading, I think Louis might be pointing out that gender has nothing to do with the logical or supportability of an argument. He’s right. It doesn’t.
Women have to learn to recognize sexism, as a survival skill.
Men have the option of not learning that skill, with no disadvantage to themselves.
It sounds like Louis is saying that Endor is not allowed to use her life experience to recognize sexism.
Men do suffer disadvantages from not recognizing sexism. They’re just not the same disadvantages.
You also seem to be saying that men do not suffer from sexism directed against their gender. This is simply untrue.
Endor is allowed to use her life experience to recognize anything and everything. It just doesn’t give her arguments extra weight. The idea that it would is sometimes called “Argument from Authority” and it’s considered a logical fallacy. Arguments are supposed to be able to stand on their own (i.e., supported by evidence) rather than on the character of the person making them.
“Women have to learn to recognize sexism, as a survival skill”
I’m sorry strange but I really disagree with the way you interpret this. Men and women have to learn to recognize sexism, and all its variants. This means we both have to recognize direct sex discrimination going on from male to female or female to male, as well as the passive sex discrimination that occurs through the adherence to gender stereotypes, restrictions on activities and even on free speech for certain members of a sex. There is a problem with locating the destructive desire to take advantage of another human being in the “nature” of male heterosexuality. Louis has a valid point. In doing so you are making the same argument that accepts a degree of destructive behavior from men as “inherent” to the male. I do not agree with this at all. We would not have lasted long if half of our population was made of people who prey upon the vulnerable and the other half was vulnerable for a significant period of their development.
“…as well as the passive sex discrimination that occurs through the adherence to gender stereotypes, restrictions on activities and even on free speech for certain members of a sex.” – blueelm
In some ways, I think this is a much worse form of sexism, as it is insidious. I (and anyone I count a friend) reject overt and active sexism. But the passive stuff can sneak up on you and it’s really hard to root out.
Oh for double fuck’s sake!
Strange Fuckwit Trolls Everywhere:
No I am absolutely not saying that Endor (or anyone) is not allowed to use their life experience to recognise sexism. I’m saying that the heuristics people validly develop do not (necessarily) magically become logical arguments or facts because someone says so (or says not if I’m being fair). In fact I’ll go further, Endor, you, me, anyone can develop any heuristic they like, they just don’t have the right to be automatically correct. Especially just on the basis of their sex/oppression status etc. Failure to read on your part + standard straw man from you.
No I am not saying that women, on average and in general, do not have more experience of oppression than men, on average and in general. In fact, I think it’s quite obvious that they do have vastly more experience. Standard straw man from you.
No I am not denying that men can be a beneficiary of male privilege whilst simultaneously being on the receiving end of some other form of prejudice. Again, standard straw man from you.
The point is that in all these cases none of these statistical, general or heuristic things necessarily have any bearing on the validity of an argument or claim, nor is relying on them useful as anything other than a rhetorical trick in such a discussion.
As for sexism, let’s get something out of the way here. You are a sexist. In fact you have been acting like the most egregious sexist on this thread. Why? Because you haven’t judged people on what they’ve actually said, you’ve misrepresented them simply because of their sex. You’re a fucking bigot, as well as a troll. Demonstrably and in your own words. Something that, despite lots of flannelling and handwaving on your part, you’ve failed to demonstrate on the part of anyone else.
Louis
I’m not saying that. However, in the world in which we live, there is no systemic equivalent of patriarchy.
Likewise individual white Americans sometimes experience racial hatred. But they do not experience an equivalent of the white supremacy system. And white Americans in general are the beneficiaries of white privilege.
Louis appears to be saying otherwise. He is saying that heuristics are not logical. (He should talk to a computer scientist sometime.)
Sometimes things that look similar to fallacies aren’t. “This physics hypothesis is true because Einstein said so” is a fallacy.
“This physics hypothesis is worth taking more seriously than it seems at face value; Einstein found it worthy of further investigation” is not a fallacy, and is rather a useful hint that the hypothesis is worth a closer look. Einstein was a better physicist than you, and it is not necessarily a fallacy to lean on his expertise.
So when Endor says ‘Women learn early that explanation and understanding ARE the same thing as excusing it to way too many people. It’s the exact meaning of “boys will be boys”‘, it’s quite possibly worth taking seriously. Every woman has a lifetime of experience in dealing with and identifying sexism. Women in general are more experienced in this regard than men in general. It just might mean they are worth listening to.
Wrong. Endor saying it does not lend it credence. The statement would be worth listening to no matter who said it.
I agree that we all should. I agree that it should be a societal expectation, and in that sense we should have to. But effectively, men who are oblivious to sexism tend to function just fine in our patriarchal system. They have the option of not learning, if they don’t want to. Women do not have the same option.
Frankly I do not know what you are talking about. I do not believe I have said anything resembling this characterization.
Einstein saying he thought a hypothesis in his area of expertise is worthy of further investigation would be a useful hint that it was indeed worthy of further investigation. However, an endorsement from Einstein is not evidence.
If Endor says “this is a form of sexism” and a random man says “no it’s not”, her statement should be weighted similarly to how if PZ says “this is evidence of evolution” and a random person says “no it’s not.”
Credentials and expertise do count for something. That’s why we have degree programs. Until we know more about the other person’s biology expertise, we may safely guess that PZ is more likely to be right, because he generally knows what he’s talking about in that area.
Unless you are an expert in all things, have infinite time to study, and never have to defer to anyone else’s expertise.
Not to jump in here and not making any judgment on what is sexism and what is not, this is purely about that statement above, There is a big difference unless I missed a post where endor has some educational background in studying sexism. Personal anecdotes and biases from personal experience matter. Sensitivity and over sensitivity to sexism is something that has to be considered.
What you said there isn’t really a great analogy.
carry on
It is evidence that the hypothesis is worth investigation.
Louis is saying that Endor’s heuristics are worthless.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Endor is 30 years old, then she has approximately 25 years of experience in identifying sexism.
We may guess, but it’s not necessarily safe. Experts often turn out to be wrong.
An argument has to stand on its own, or it’s worthless. In the case of, for example, evolution, the arguments for it do stand up on their own. Please note that I happen to agree with the statement of Endor’s that you quoted. For it to be true, however, evidence is necessary.
“There is a problem with locating the destructive desire to take advantage of another human being in the “nature” of male heterosexuality. … In doing so you”
I’m also a bit confused about this one myself. You and I may have had our disagreements, but I’ve got no idea where this is coming from.
“By the way, thanks for doing the work you do. Somebody has to, and I don’t think I would be strong enough to handle it.”
I do it because I’m one of the luck ones – I’ve never been the victim of abuse, sexual or otherwise. I don’t pretend it’s easy. It’s abhorrent and has seriously damaged my “faith” in humanity (not in men, specifically, just so I’m clear. Abusers come from all corners).
“For me to hit on a 14-year-old girl would in fact be gross. Being visually attracted to a well-developed young woman of the same would not. I don’t think any of us can really help who or what we’re attracted to (see my post above re: shark fetish). It’s only our actions that we control.”
Never suggested otherwise. As I said way up there, who cares what people fantasize about. As you say, it’s only our actions we control. Given that I have come in contact with a staggering number of people who claim both that they can’t control it and can’t help it, this is an interesting subject to me.
“By the way, I have a question I’ve been meaning to ask. Did you take your name from the Bible or from Star Wars? Just curious. ”
The bible. I only very recently saw Return of the Jedi and though i knew about ewoks, i didn’t know their home planet was Endor.
++
“I’m insulting you now am I? Really? Where?”
*gasp* You’re so oversensitive Can’t you take a joke! (hehee)
but, now that you asked, how about here: “So sorry, but you HAVE missed my point. I’ll make it more explicitly for you. Try to bother to read it for comprehension this time.”
You might want to take your own advice.
“Find me one instance where I deny any of that and I’ll eat my hat.”
Right after you find where I said you denied it or accused you of anything. You’re a little to invested at playing the victim. This oversensitivity I assume is related to the argument with strange gods, since you’ve yet to actually address anything *I’ve* actually posted.
“By attempting to claim that facts don’t exist (for example the fact of male sexual desire for culturally/ethically inappropriate partners) because idiots use those facts to justify their actions (fallaciously, remember?) you are in fact doing the same thing.”
Holy crap, you’re way more off base that I expected. Where do you get the idea that I’m saying these facts don’t exist? I started off this thread asking for more information about it. When Bill asked me a question, I responded with what was coloring my perspective so as to explain myself, and then went on in my discussion with IST to explain the what it is I find confusing. I’ve not said what you’re accusing me of.
Since you clearly haven’t addressed my actual statements at all, I see no need to bother with the drivel that follows it. Except to say that I hope you can appreciate exactly how little your opinion on what constitutes effective feminism is worth.
In an attempt to cut through your complete misunderstanding:
I never accused you or anyone on this thread of directly or indirectly excusing or supporting predators. I made it abundantly clear that I was not denying natural/biological/etc evidence, nor was I was attempting to make reality conform to what I hope to be true. I simply stated that focusing only on those factors ignores the culture we live in. that’s it. This is all easily ascertained by reading my posts.
In reference to “boys will be boys”: this is a bullshit excuse and one used to ignore problematic behavior ALL THE TIME. If you notice in the post where I initially mentioned this excuse I explicitly said that no one here was doing it.
I brought it up in an attempt to convey that of course it’s a bullshit excuse, but one used ALL THE TIME to ignore problematic behavior. Women learn this early (if my experience with abuse victims and with feminism is any indication) because our objections to problematic behavior will be summarily dismissed with this excuse and the obvious implication that there’s nothing to be done about it. I’ve talked to countless school-age victims of sexually harassing bullies to know that the common response from authorities is “ignore them and they’ll stop”, which is just about the most useful bit of advice ever.
I’m not sure how much more clear I can make myself, but do let me know if I can clarify further.
++
“I simply take issue with Endor’s view of such attraction as “ewww…gross.”
Because you apparently are still not paying attention to why I said “eww gross”. I’ve explained it a few times now – its coming from someone who’s all to well acquainted with those who do act on it. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE ATTRACTION ITSELF.
“Humans seem to be hardwired to find youth attractive. In many cases this is flat out dumb, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
Once again, I never said otherwise.
“Although more of a premium is placed on youth in females, it’s interesting to note that males in many societies practice shaving, emulating the beardlessness of youth.”
It’s interesting to note that the expense for shaving for men is not even a fraction of the expense women incur in trying to keep up with beauty standards.
++
“There is a problem with locating the destructive desire to take advantage of another human being in the “nature” of male heterosexuality. Louis has a valid point. In doing so you are making the same argument that accepts a degree of destructive behavior from men as “inherent” to the male.”
Ah, so perhaps Louis was confusing me with strange gods. *I’m* certainly not saying this destructive desire belongs to men alone. That’s patently absurd.
“Men and women have to learn to recognize sexism, and all its variants.”
this is absolutely spot-on. I like to use the example of VH1’s “Tool Academy” as proof that sexism (in this case rigid gender roles) hurts men as well.
“It’s interesting to note that the expense for shaving for men is not even a fraction of the expense women incur in trying to keep up with beauty standards.”
Not even a little. We seem to have a number of very wealthy industries devoted to making women feel like shit.
I agree. Along with all the personal emotional investment and bias and sensitivity along with it.
I’m not saying that women are not necessarily more able to identify sexism than any given man, I’m just saying that your specific analogy above is not valid.
They are data points, though. Life experience is a set of data points. Not the same as a double blind study, but also not worthless or inadmissible. A heuristic that works is logically valid as a heuristic that works. Heuristics are not the same as formal systems, but they are valid, and they can be measured for correspondence.
No one asserted a “right.” In general a sexism-detection heuristic developed by a woman is more likely to be correct than one developed by a man, because of male privilege the woman has more to lose when she is wrong, and by necessity has had to fine-tine her heuristic more often and more carefully than has the man.
You complained when I inferred your intentions. Now you complain when I merely point out that what you’re saying sounds like X, and give you ample opportunity to reply. I might as well go back to not giving you the benefit of the doubt, because your reactions are the same either way.
Which words, Louis? Show your work. I’ve judged everything here on its merits.
“There is a big difference unless I missed a post where endor has some educational background in studying sexism.”
For the record, aside from the University of Life, no.
“What you said there isn’t really a great analogy.”
And i agree. I’m in no way claiming expertise on anything to the degree PZ could on his field.
However, I will say this: as a white person, I believe that I can’t fully understand racism, or the affects it has on its targets. As an able-bodied person, I can’t fully understand what it would be to be in whatever way disabled. As a straight person, I can’t fully understand what is it to be gay in a country hostile to them. Etc, etc.
So, I also don’t believe that as a woman I can fully understand what its like to be male. And vice versa. I wouldn’t expect my assumptions of what it’s like to be male to be taken seriously. And vice versa.
No disagreement here.
I’m not suggesting this is the case here but can you also see that any given group that has been discriminated against can in some cases have oversensitivity to said discrimination and see it where it is not?
“Not even a little. We seem to have a number of very wealthy industries devoted to making women feel like shit.”
This is becoming less and less true, however, given the recent uptick in beauty products for men (i.e moisturizers, etc), diet programs directed at men, etc. Seems like they’re coming for you guys too, now.
Okay, I agree with that. But it’s relatively safer than taking the less-informed counterargument instead.
That was directed from blueelm to me, I believe. I was asking her where it was coming from. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
“I’m not suggesting this is the case here but can you also see that any given group that has been discriminated against can in some cases have oversensitivity to said discrimination and see it where it is not?”
That’s absolutely correct. And I have tried to make clear upthread that this could very well be the case with me on this particular subject given my background. Hence my requests for evidence.
I think the reason any given target group objects to the suggestion that they could or might be oversensitive to any given form of bigotry is because that’s what such groups are always accused of, even when the objection is valid.
And, someone out side that particular group is hardly the one the make that determination, especially if they belong to a privileged group. I.e., as a thin person, I’m the last person in the world to be telling overweight people not to be offended by x, even if I do think they’re overreacting. This crap accumulates and becomes overwhelming – in ways I don’t experience and can’t fully understand.
Even so, it’s possible that the personal experience minus the bias of personal investment is still greater than the equivalent experience of the average man.
If you just mean that formal education is more concentrated and often more empirical than personal experience, I don’t disagree. The analogy is not perfect. But, say, 25 years of personal experience is worth a great deal.
Scientists of ages past did not have that formal education. Before Popper there was much confusion about the precise nature of the work. Nevertheless they accomplished great things.
yeah I fully understand that.
I would agree most of the time but sometimes that may be the very best person to point it out. Even mistakes in language that may be interpreted as direct sexism or racism may be nothing of the sort because of over sensitivity. Though I would suspect these are few and far between when judging them against actual discrimination.
Anyway it is very complex.
“Seems like they’re coming for you guys too, now.”
How true. Unfortunately for males (and society in general) a lot of the emphasis is on muscle mass achievable only through a lifetime of dedication…or a little bit of dedication and massive quantities of steroids. At least women’s fashions don’t turn you into the Incredible Hulk.
We’re not disagreeing on much I suspect
and i fucked that blockquote tag above. first part should of course be quoted
Endor,
Not over sensitive, I like jokes. You were joking? Good oh. My apologies for not noticing.
The quote of me you make in #242 is very insightful. Note the words “for example”. Upthread who is it that is questioning the biological reality of one facet of male sexual desire on the basis that some people use it (wrongly) to justify something abhorrent? Oh right it was you. Hence why I used it as an “example”. The point is in attempting to cast doubt of demonstrable facts because of their (potentially) unpleasant consequences you are committing the same naturalistic fallacy as the “boys will be boys” merchants, just in the opposite direction. Your handwaving this away and failure to deal with it are noted.
You were precisely questioning this in comments like those in #9, #14, #26, #112 for example. In #123 however, you come out and say you aren’t “denying” biological fact, good oh! You’ve still been trying to cast doubt on it until you were explicitly called on it (By Frog IIRC, so I’m not alone in finding your method of argument fallacious). If you weren’t doing that then I apologise for misunderstanding you. But to be blunt, you seem to be doing exactly that, i.e. attempting to cast doubt on facts because they are misused by people to provide (fallacious) excuses for deplorable actions. If you can’t understand that, I feel very sorry for you.
Oh and check post #46, I mentioned the naturalistic fallacy (the Is/Ought fallacy) way before your “boys will be boys” stuff. It not only was my point, it has continually been my point (or one of them). Sorry to burst your bubble.
I’m not confusing you with Strange Fuckwit. One of you is a moron, the other is merely wrong.
Louis
P.S. Oh and Strange Fuckwit, I am not saying that Endor’s (or anyone’s) heuristics are worthless, far from it in fact. I am saying they are not automatically correct nor do they magically become logical, coherent arguments backed up by data in the absence of further context. Do you always create ridiculous straw men of other people’s arguments? Or is it just with men? Sexist.
“That was directed from blueelm to me, I believe. I was asking her where it was coming from. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.” – strange gods before me
No, it was clear. I’m just agreeing with you that I’ve got no idea where blueelm is coming from on this one.
Endor (@216):
No, I addressed exactly the question I intended to address, and your redirection is a strawman. As far as I can tell, nobody has been suggesting that it’s anything other than “gross” (or roughly the same idea expressed in grownup-talk) for an older man to “hit on” a 15 year old girl1. Instead, I was responding to the suggestion that it is natural to be attracted to a 15 year old girl, and your subsequent pronouncement that that was “gross.”
I wasn’t ignoring the bad behavior you’ve witnessed; I was specifically attempting to distinguish between behavior and feelings.
blueelm (@220):
For me, the issue is our all-too-frequent tendency to conflate feelings with behavior, to the extent that we often fail to distinguish between men who notice that “girls are so gosh darned sexy” on the one hand and those who “have a fetish for taking advantage of teens” on the other hand. It’s all too easy to fall into the false syllogism:
Sexual predators think teen girls are sexy;
Sexual predators are evil;
Therefore, thinking teen girls are sexy is evil.
…but this is the very same sort of fallacious logic that gets gay men accused of being child molestors… or, for that matter, that gets liberals accused of being communists: The notion that sharing an idea or feeling or instinctive reaction with someone else implicates you in that other person’s bad behavior.
This highlights why I focused on the visual: IMHO, being attracted to an older teen girl is primarily visual. That is, you feel attraction and desire because you’re seeing what appears to be a physically mature woman… which is a perfectly reasonable object of attraction for many of us. After learning that she’s not a mature woman (at least in the legal sense, if not also in emotional and intellectual development as well)most of us will moderate our attraction to more appropriate appreciation (i.e., “Wow, she’s hot!” changes into “My, what a lovely daughter you have, Mr. Jones; you must be so proud.”), and will certainly not act on our attraction in any case.
Except, of course, for those who “are attracted to the idea of sex with a very young person,” which, as you point out, is a very different thing. I’m certainly no apologist for those who fetishize underage sex; I’m trying to point out that not everyone — nor even any significant fraction of people — who notices that young women look sexy is one of those fetishists (and BTW, not all of those fetishists act on their feelings, either).
More broadly, I’m concerned with this blurring of the line between feelings and actions, because we have a nasty habit in this country (especially recently) of making public policy based on demonizing ideas instead of focusing appropriately on actions… and I think that has the potential to be very damaging.
1 Though this might depend on specifics: An 18 year old “adult” male hitting on a 15 year old girl might be gross… or it might just be teenagers in love, depending on the people and circumstances (e.g., it’s not impossible for a 15 year old to be a high-school junior — I was a junior at that age — and an 18 year old might be in her same class year).
We’re not disagreeing on much I suspect” – Rev. BDC
Nope! But we’ve managed to keep it going for 24 hours anyway!
@ Strange fuckwit #245,
You’ve judged everything here on its merits? LOL! Un-self aware much?
Fuck off troll. You’ve continually misrepresented my arguments/words etc, and been called on it by several people and refused to take correction.
Louis
“I would agree most of the time but sometimes that may be the very best person to point it out. Even mistakes in language that may be interpreted as direct sexism or racism may be nothing of the sort because of over sensitivity.”
Agreed. I put this down to the no small amount of mistrust of privileged people (not at all unwarranted, collectively speaking). I know personally that when a man tells me that I’m overreacting about x, my initial thought is “in what way does my silence on this subject benefit you?”, or to put it less diplomatically, “how guilty of x are you?”
I don’t pretend that’s fair, of course. It’s not. But a lifetime of dealing with misogyny – overt or subtle – has taught me to be suspicious first.
“Anyway it is very complex.”
Indeed. And because of that, most of these conversations become shouting matches in which no one hears anyone else. Which is a shame. There’s much to be learned by simply listening.
++
“At least women’s fashions don’t turn you into the Incredible Hulk. ”
true. They turn us into walking hangers or plasticized pornified caricatures. Both of which can only be achieved by lucky genes coupled with extensive plastic surgery.
For either sex, regardless of what we do, we’re reminded its not enough. The extensive photoshopping of pictures of already gorgeous people comes to mind. Even the perfect aren’t prefect enough
“For either sex, regardless of what we do, we’re reminded its not enough. The extensive photoshopping of pictures of already gorgeous people comes to mind. Even the perfect aren’t prefect enough” – Endor
I’m in the magazine business and this drives me frigging nuts. Our mags don’t do it, but there are lots that do. We have now reached the point where we holding up as standards of beauty things that are literally impossible, even with major surgery and a lifetime of (silly) devotion.
And yet when Endor offered them merely as evidence, not as conclusive proof, you dismissed them.
So be specific, what exactly are those heuristics worth?
Show your work. You’re the only person who’s accused me of straw-manning them. You are a man, but N=1 doesn’t tell us much. If I am straw-manning you — and I am not conceding this but admitting the possibility — it could be that I just don’t like you, personally.
Again, if I have, you’re still the only one attributing this to sexism. Show your work.
A relevant video, if you haven’t seen it before:
Dove Evolution
“No, I addressed exactly the question I intended to address, and your redirection is a strawman. As far as I can tell, nobody has been suggesting that it’s anything other than “gross” (or roughly the same idea expressed in grownup-talk) for an older man to “hit on” a 15 year old girl1. Instead, I was responding to the suggestion that it is natural to be attracted to a 15 year old girl, and your subsequent pronouncement that that was “gross.”
My redirection is not a strawman; it was an attempt to get you to focus on my actual point. That a 15 year old could possible look older is absolutely irrelevant when we’re talking about people attracted to those they know to be underaged.
Though I still find it odd you consider the word “gross” to be not “grown-up talk”. Would “disgusting” be better?
I don’t apologize for my feeling that is disturbing (is that grown-up talk?) the fact that some people are attracted to those much younger than themselves when they know them to be underaged (and are prepared to act on it). Neither have I ever suggested that anyone on this thread feels differently.
I’m not denying that it’s likely (or whatever), biologically speaking, that older people would be attracted to younger or that such can be completely innocuous. *cue the broken record* my discomfort (is that grown-up talk?) comes directly out of knowing those for whom it was anything but innocuous. However, I’m not accusing the innocuous ones of being “bad” or “gross” or some other such nonsense. I can’t believe I have to keep saying that, but there it is. Again.
“I wasn’t ignoring the bad behavior you’ve witnessed; I was specifically attempting to distinguish between behavior and feelings.”
Which is precisely what I’m aiming to do. I tend to conflate the two, unfortunately, because of personal experience. An interest in understanding and separating the two in my own mind is why I broached the subject.
Hope that’s clearer.
++
“The point is in attempting to cast doubt of demonstrable facts because of their (potentially) unpleasant consequences you are committing the same naturalistic fallacy as the “boys will be boys” merchants, just in the opposite direction. Your handwaving this away and failure to deal with it are noted.”
Your persistent need to misrepresent what I’m saying is noted. You’re refusal to actually read what I’ve written, multiple times now is noted.
Though I do wonder, if I am – as you as desperately and repeatedly claim – just trying to deny facts and their “potentially) unpleasant consequences”, why would I have asked for evidence? Why would I have thanked the (only) one who present any for it? Wouldn’t I have instead just rejected it out of hand and posted “biology smiology”?
You’re trying to hard to create what isn’t there Louis.
“If you weren’t doing that then I apologise for misunderstanding you. But to be blunt, you seem to be doing exactly that, i.e. attempting to cast doubt on facts because they are misused by people to provide (fallacious) excuses for deplorable actions. If you can’t understand that, I feel very sorry for you.”
I’m starting to feel sorry for you Louis. This crusade your on is against phantoms of your own making. For the 73,000th time: i’m not denying biological facts- I ASKED FOR PROOF OF IT. I’m simply denying that they are THE ONLY FACTOR. They’re not. It’s overly simplistic to ignore societal, cultural, etc. factors – esp. given that biology can also influence those.
let me know how many times I’ve got to repeat myself to make this clear. I’ll post them in a row.
For the record, neither did I.
Endor (@264):
There have been many different overlapping, intertwined “actual points” in this thread, as is hardly surprising in a conversation that extends to 265+ comments (some of them, like mine, quite loquacious)… but I don’t consider myself bound to “focus on” all of them. I addressed the point that I was interested in, and the one I felt I had something possibly interesting to say about; that you want to talk about something else doesn’t make my point “the wrong question.”
And I referred to your redirection as a strawman because the point you seemed to be arguing for — to wit, that it’s disgusting for older men to behave in a sexually inappropriate manner toward young girls — doesn’t seem like a point anyone here is actually arguing against. Isn’t that the classical definition of a strawman argument?
No, that is not what we were talking about; not if by “we” you mean to include me. I was responding to the original suggestion (by I-don’t-recall-whom) that it was natural for men to “be attracted to” teenage girls, and your intervening comment that the mere suggestion of that was gross (sorry, I didn’t mean to harp so much on that usage; it just reminded me instinctively of the middle-school kids I used to teach).
My whole point, in contradiction to what you say “we[ were] talking about,” was that people who are attracted to a 15 year old girl often don’t know that the person they’re looking at is underaged, because absent some defining context (bookbag, school uniform, presence on a high school campus, etc.), that 15 year old young woman may look more or less the same as a 25 year old woman, at least at first glance.
Well, if this is the case, I don’t really think you’ve got any argument with what I’ve been saying… and yet you keep arguing with me?
In which case, we are on the same page, since encouraging folks to distinguish between behavior and feelings is my only dog in this particular fight.
Yah, that was my sense from your previous reply to me. In that context, consider that I’m trying to help, rather than fighting with you.
What do you mean by under-aged?
As far as an ‘older man’ ‘hitting on’ a 15 year old girl being ‘gross’, I think that’s ageist. It’s odd when people who would never be sexist or racist have no problem being ageist.
@ Endor #264,
Ok then, I was wrong about what you were saying and can only apologise.
From your early posts it seemed to me (and others) that you were trying to disingenuously cast doubt on biological facts in order to undermine the (already fallacious) defences raised by people using the naturalistic fallacy. A fallacy you should note I mentioned way back @ #46.
Had you been doing this, and I accept that I was wrong to think you were, you would have been committing the self same fallacy, and THAT is what I was criticising (amongst other things like unwarranted privileging of certain heuristics, extension of general to specifics etc).
If you say you’re not doing this, I’m happy to accept you at your word and apologise for misreading you.
Louis
good grief
Delete as appropriate:
“A black/white guy/girl hitting on a white/black girl/guy is gross” = racist.
“A girl/guy hitting on a girl/guy is gross” = homophobic.
“An older/younger guy/girl hitting on a younger/older girl/guy is gross” = ageist.
Ageism: the last refuge of the bigot.
Troll @ #263:
So it’s ok to misrepresent people you don’t like? Wow. Who invented that little piece of intellectual dishonesty?
You don’t like me personally? Boo fucking hoo. I’ll lose sleep over that one, no really, I will. You don’t know me personally, troll. And if you did, I’d be overjoyed not to place so shallow, vapid, and nugatory a thinker as yourself amongst my friends.
As for “showing my work”maybe if you could overcome your enormous personal bias and read what I’ve written, you might find out that you’ve bashed up so much straw I could feed the cattle of Texas with the remains. You never know you might review things, find out you were wrong and admit it. Naaaaaah, that seems like something an intelligent adult might do.
Fuck you.
Louis
PIGS KNACKERS!!!! I meant @ Troll #262, not #263. Humblest apologies Danio.
Louis
Reminder to all: If you’re feeling pissed off, write up a response in a text editor of your choice, go take a break, cool off, come back, re-evaluate your text, modify slightly if needed, then post. Avoid posting when still angry whenever possible.
Being angry doesn’t automatically mean you’re wrong at all, however if you needlessly phrase things too aggressively that induces a lot of distracting noise that detracts from your message.
(Sometimes it is indeed very important to use aggressive language, but over-usage will just make you seem like an immature prick, no matter how right you are. The more your way of communicating is seen as a nuisance to interpret, the less clearly your message will come through and the more prone people will get to misinterpret your words. This does not mean others have a free pass if you’re acting like a jerkwad while presenting accurate information, but nor do you. Communication quality depends on both the receiver and the sender, on top of medium, not just either the receiver or sender.)
I haven’t misrepresented you. What I said quite clearly was that if I did perhaps it is from personal dislike rather than sexism. Interesting that you’re straw-manning my own comments.
Show your work that I’m supposedly sexist. Interesting that you cast out that accusation but won’t be bothered to point out any particular evidence. Sounds like something a troll might do.
Bill, I know you don’t want to hear this, but fifteen year old girls never look 25. They look like fifteen year old girls – with tits and ass and all the secondary sexual characteristics that make females sexually attractive. But they don’t look 25. Eleven year old girls who’ve had early puberty don’t look 25. They look like young adolescent girls who’ve hit puberty. I work with teens. I’ve never mistaken a fifteen year old for a 25 year old.
Faces and bodies look different as people mature.
It’s kind of the reason why you don’t see many forty year old strippers – somehow the customers can tell that they’re not twenty years old! Or why there’s a booming business in teenage trade – somehow johns can tell that the girl he bought is sixteen, and that’s appealing. A brothel owner couldn’t just try to pass off a 25 year old as sixteen. Because women look quite obviously different at sixteen than at 25.
Now, you may be distracted by a girl’s tits and ass, and not look at her face, or notice that her body is actually different than a more mature woman’s body (like, say, that of a twenty year old), but with very little effort, you too can learn to tell people’s ages within a couple of years.
Nothing wrong with being attracted to young people – youth is beauty. I certainly don’t notice men over 25 when I’m mindlessly looking for some visual stimulus on the train or when walking down the street. But much like I don’t confuse a twenty year old for a forty year old, it’s not very difficult to discern the difference between a 15 year old girl and a 25 year old woman. Girls don’t, actually, mature faster than boys on average. At the point where a girl is ripe enough to get your attention, Bill, say, around 12 or 13, a boy can get a hard on and produce sperm. They’re both sexually mature. In a way, the boy’s more sexually mature, if the yardstick is reproduction – girls are not at their most fertile during the first couple of years of menses, and there’s less likelihood of a live birth. Boys, however, are little sperm factories with very frequent erections. If you’re looking to get knocked up, a thirteen year old boy is the perfect sex partner. If you’re looking to pass along your DNA through your sperm, a thirteen year old girl isn’t the best choice.
Now, if we’re defining maturity as “age at which the average adult wants to fuck someone”, sure – most men will fuck a teenager if they can get away with it. Most women won’t. It may be completely biological – I see a twelve year old boy and think things like “protect the young”, while the average male response to a pubescent girl is “must fuck now”.
And yes, I also think it’s kind of gross when men cruise fifteen year old girls. Because they look fifteen. And I have this weird ethical dilemma about fucking people who are mentally children. I think a bit of self-censorship in these situations is a good thing. Like, Bill – you somehow managed to not leer at your daughter when she was fourteen, right? Even though she was a ripe young piece? I’m sure a lot of middle-aged guys looked at her and thought, hey, she’s old enough? But I presume, and I may be naive here, that you didn’t have to talk yourself out of wanting to fuck her. Why’s that? Incest is merely a cultural construct, after all.
Ksms (@276):
An amusingly presumptuous and condescending turn of phrase, that, and one that quite effectively establishes the condescending tone of your entire comment (i.e., the repeated direct address combined with unsupported presuppositions about my attitudes lends your discourse a nutty hint of lecture, while the repeated use of my first name only adds a woody undertone of parental familiarity). But I’ll try to put aside my bemusement and respond to the substance.
That sounds very much like an opinion presented as if it were objective fact. What people look like is an unavoidably subjective question. I won’t try to persuade you that my opinion on this matter has any more weight than yours… but I won’t concede it has any less, either. I said all along it was anecdotal, but I stand by my assertion that I have met 15 year olds who could easily pass for 25, and lots of 15 year olds who could easily pass for 18+. If you prefer, change 25 in all my previous comments to 18: It’s even harder, generally speaking, to distinguish between 15 and 18 (by which age a young woman is “legal” for sexual consent everywhere in the U.S., and in most of the rest of the world as well), and the substitution doesn’t materially alter the point I was making. 25 was just a casual guess at an upper bound.
Sure. After the point of physical/sexual maturity, most of the visible changes are signs of aging: wrinkles and other changes to the skin, along with sagging and other changes to the body that are the primary drivers of fitness club membership. But from late teens to early twenties, not much of that stuff is happening yet. The body and face have pretty much reached their adult size and shape, and neither has started showing signs of aging yet. I often find it easier to guess the ages of 20-somethings versus 30-somethings than of mid/late teens versus 20-somethings… and this is because people in their 30s, no matter how beautiful they are, are already showing subtle signs of age, such as laugh lines, crows feet, etc. (Note that this is all true about young men, as well, though the precise timing of that physically-adult-but-not-yet-aging window seems to be a little later. Culturally we attach different values to signs of youth or aging for men than for women, but that’s outside the scope of this conversation… or, at least, the portion of this conversation I intend to be participating in.)
I have all of my daughter’s high school yearbook pictures (note that these are head-and-shoulders shots, so none of those horribly distracting secondary sex characteristics), and from age 15 through 18, the only way I can put those pictures in chronological order is by which glasses she’s wearing in them.
Most young girls look like young girls because they dress like young girls, and wear their hair and makeup like young girls; put many 15 year olds in a good interview suit, with grownup hair and makeup, and they could pass for eager MBA graduates with no trouble. (Note that I’ve chosen my example from something other than the world of whores and strippers. Not that I have anything against whores and strippers of course, but I do occasionally think of other things. Jus’sayin’)
Well, gee, thanks for the just-another-stupid-male-who-never-looks-above-a-woman’s-nipples back of your hand. Stereotype much?
Ah, but…
…apparently in addition to being testosterone-addled, I’m also lazy and clueless. Any attempt on my part to claim otherwise couldn’t fail to seem self-serving, so I’ll just leave it with you don’t know that about me.
If anything, I’m probably a little clueless in the other direction: I recall once commenting to my wife that I was surprised at how grownup some of my daughter’s friends looked. She looked at me as if I were daft, and said that of course they looked grown up, because for all practical purposes they were adults. My wife, BTW, is not some leering horndog… in case you were wondering.
Evidence? You may be correct — I certainly can’t prove otherwise — but absent some supporting facts, this bald assertion has the stench of bias about it.
In any case, most people would do lots of things if they thought they could get away with them; that’s why we have laws… and regulations… and social customs. Most people will generally conform their behavior to law and custom, irrespective of what their private desires may be. It’s important that we distinguish those people from the few who won’t… and it’s important that we remember the distinction is based on the behavior and not on the private desires.
Funny that you should call it a dilemma; nobody else in the thread seems to have any confusion on that point. Certainly I do not.
Personally, I question what percentage of 15 year olds really are “mentally children” — at that age I would’ve trusted my daughter’s judgment about most things above that of many folks twice or three times her age — but even so, I think it’s prudent that the law treats them as children, for the protection of those who truly are.
Now this…
…is truly offensive, the sort of thing I can’t imagine you’d dare say to anyone absent the protection provided by the distance and anonymity of teh intertooobz… but I’ll ignore your transparent attempt to shock and reply anyway, because if we strip away the provocative rhetoric, there’s actually a few points to be made about this.
First, merely a cultural construct? I think you’re selling cultural constructs — which I take to include not just law, but also a complex web of social custom, community standards, and received understandings of moral standards — way too short.
Next, it never crossed my mind, because even before the “cultural constructs” that prohibit not only incest but also underage sex, I had this preexisting father-daughter relationship with her, of which sexuality is simply not part of the template.
But finally, and this gets to the heart of the matter: Every day, most of us are exposed to all sorts of things we might be attracted to, or might desire, or that might trigger some appetite in us, but which we cannot have for some reason. The vast majority of us do not resort to illegal or immoral behavior in pursuit of those things; the vast majority of us are rarely even strongly tempted to do so. Because we’re not “monsters from the id”, in thrall to our every passing desire. Instead, most of us live pretty comfortably within those “cultural constructs” you’re so dismissive, and generally manage to live lives that are often mutually supportive and most often not mutually destructive.
1 Aside from being unnecessarily offensive, this is a dangerous sort of thing to say about someone you don’t know anything about. As it happens, my daughter is normally attractive… but suppose she suffered from some body-image disorder that led her to starve herself or a metabolic disorder that caused her to be dangerously obese, or imagine that she’d been horribly disfigured in a childhood accident, or perhaps her hair hadn’t ever grown back after her (actual, non-hypothetical) chemotherapy? You have no way of guessing that nothing like that is the case, and if it were, casually referring to her as a “ripe young piece” would be heartbreakingly cruel in addition to the shock and offense you intended to evoke. The people you communicate with online are people, not targets.
@ Troll #275
Yes you have misrepresented me, several times, as pointed out by several people. That is undisputable. Sorry.
You made the comment that if you had been misrepresenting me then it was maybe from personal dislike. My question is “so this is ok?” My question is based on the conditional nature of your statement. Is that too hard for you to parse, fuckwit?
As for showing my work that you’re sexist, I don’t need to. I’ve got that information about your intentions from precisely the same place you got yours about mine. Is that also too hard for you to grasp, fuckwit?
Like I said: fuck you.
Louis
Bill,
Your being able to respond clearly and rationally like that is why I repeatedly vote for you when Mollys come up. Geez, what a piece of work this Ksms is (or was — I suspect they’ll be a drive-by here).
Louis – not a problem. I have no talent for brevity and freely admit I routinely fail at making myself clear. y
Bill: “Well, if this is the case, I don’t really think you’ve got any argument with what I’ve been saying… and yet you keep arguing with me?”
I don’t have an argument with what you were saying; so I wasn’t arguing with you.
XD – don’t use words you don’t understand. It’s not ageist to point out that grown men have no business preying on young girls. That you are crying bigotry suggests you’re disagree with this. Is this really the position you want to take?
Endor:
OK. I had the impression from your tone that you were, but I take you at your word. Peace?
Endor,
Very gracious of you. Football in No Man’s Land at christmas?
;-)
Louis
Does this represent your position:
It’s acceptable for two people at the age of consent to date each other. It’s acceptable for two people of retirement age to date each other. It’s not acceptable for someone at the age of consent to date someone of retirement age.
How is that not ageism? I realise that you think it’s gross, but it was only a few decades ago that people thought that miscegenation was gross, and there are many people who still think same-sex-relations are gross.
But in the spirit of armistice, feel free to have the last word.
Peace.