What is Reddit's opinion of
Harmful To Minors: The Perils Of Protecting Children From Sex?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
11 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
The University of MN is extremely liberal and there's been a growing anti-Christian bias. They're the same people who printed <em>Harmful To Minors</em>, a book where the author argues for parents to step aside with sex education and promote childhood sexuality.
Harmful to Minors Jusith Levine
https://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068
http://www.alternet.org/story/12960/what_judith_levine_is_really_saying
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html
http://anglicanmainstream.org/the-harmful-effect-of-lowering-the-age-of-consent-for-homosexuality/
Like the Purity Act, the basis is "religious morals".
Your problem is that you can't even say "it may not cause harm or being damaging in all circumstances, but it should still be illegal because it allows some harm and manipulation to occur".
If someone over 18 can manipulate and emotionally harm someone underage, so can someone else who is also underage emotionally manipulate and harm them.
When we're worried about the deleterious effects of sexuality:
>Sexually Active Teenagers Are More Likely to Be Depressed and to Attempt Suicide
That seems like harm, and yet its the same kinds of harms, the emotional instability, that is the claimed reason for age of consent laws to stop these vile "sex predators molesting children". And yet it seems clear that even among teens there is proof of harm. We should be consistent in arresting and destroying the future of teens as we would adults for visiting 'child sex abuse' on others, because we can prove it also causes harm, and we can claim without any need for evidence that yes, teens can manipulate each other into sex. That in itself is de-facto harm by your claim that sex of someone over 18 with under 18 is manipulation/abuse/harm. So even in places where both teens "appear to consent", we have only to prove that one of the teens lied about being "in love (the 1910 Purity Act Feminist basis for the age of consent going up to 16-18 btw), and we could and should put them away just like we do with "adults".
Because they lied and manipulated, and there will be emotional harm from it, just like as with adults.
The alternative is to suggest that, despite the harm, teens should be free to sexually engage with each other, and then what difference if its 1 underage with another, or 1 underage with someone 19? 25? 35? 40? When does the line get drawn from being just as risky or harmless, to being purely harmful?
In all the more relevant information I've read (not that pizzagate nonsense that's actually directly responsible for an insane man with an assault rifle shooting up a bunch of innocents), not one place has been willing to say "well, these specific ages are probably okay, but these specific ages are not". Not one is drawing an upper line limit (unlike in Germany where there's a limit of around 24-25 that can have sex with 14 year olds, for instance, provided the 14 year old does not make a complaint to the police).
Why don't people want to be clear on when the risk of harm passes from acceptable to unacceptable regarding sexuality between two underage of differing ages or an underage and overage? In R&J places, sure there's a legal clarity, but we can still make the same arguments with those places as well (as well as R&J being rather hypocritical since, if harm is caused by "child sexuality" regardless, it seems wrong to allow such abuse to take place if both actors are underage).
But we can't let them have their free agency into sex, because that would harm them... of course, not any more than sex with their "age peers", but at least then it would be less immoral (even if not less potentially damaging).
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/52jmcz/saugus_mom_pleads_guilty_to_rape_of_two_teenage/
Here's another issue. Consider this. If its two people on opposite sides of this bright line, sexual coercion is illegal. If one is 18 and the other is 40, its legal. If both are 16, its legal. So in essence, sexual coercion as a law is only applied very narrowly, and everyone else falls outside this law. Therefore, the act and the harm that can occur from it are all legally done to victims of it, and most of the damage is social in making. From people telling individuals caught in it that they should feel abused and degraded, like the myth of purity and virginity vs tainting for sexuality, to peers insulting and bullying for being "slut" or having sex with the wrong type of person, most damage comes not from the act itself, but the socially enacted fallout. On an island where it is just two of them, there is no such fallout.
And yet the consequences and pain that comes of it is perfectly legal as long as the actors are on the same side of the bright red line.
Furthermore, people have claimed that the line is regarding experience and innocence. Some teens are less innocent than some 20 year olds. Is that reason to create an exemption? What kind of experience are we talking about? A homeschooled woman who goes to public college after 18 has immensely less experience than one who has been publicly schooled, and therefore socialized with all kinds of knowledge of individuals, all her life.
The law is not and has never been about experience, although it might have been about innocence. Reading up on the law and its history, the feminist movement did it under "purity movement", the idea that a woman that has sex is tainted, especially if she gets pregnant. The motivation for the law was to prevent men, young men, as in teenage men, since teenagers were called young men and women in those days, as well as older men, from lying to "young women" for sex, promising marriage or love to get laid. That's all the law was about.
The reasoning back then was simple; feminist of that era still considered unwed sexuality debase and immoral. It was never about relative experience. This is a new claim. In those days, it was about marriageability, as having a kid with another guy and being a single mother takes you out of the dating/marriage pool of "respectable men", which is code for social influence and decent money making.
That has been broken by state supported socialist programs aimed at giving money to unwed mothers, indeed, even encouraging women to have as many children as possible while staying single, as government will stipend them in this situation in addition to fathers having to pay child support.
The social view of considering a woman's sexuality defiled if she had sex before marriage has also been broken. In fact, if you look at the laws of sexuality, they still use the term "defile a child", for breaking age of consent laws, even though this "defilement" is thought not to occur if its two 15 year olds fucking each others' brains out. Then we've decided that it's okay to give an exemption, even if one is coercing the other or lying and manipulating them, like girls falling for jocks and being pumped and dumped.
I actually recall recently a bunch of girls that got on the cock carousel and then were pissed he was a "player" and all colluded to lie about him raping them. The guy is now 19 and spent the last 2 years in jail over these allegations. That case proves that girls can feel used for sex and can know they were used for sex even at a young age. It also proves that they can be, and therefore there's a large risk to them not from older people but from their own age-peers. Yet we have specifically created legal exemptions.
The law was built on beliefs of sexual purity and preventing "young women" from being unsuitable for marriage. The US supreme court even upheld unilateral rulings (being that the law is aimed at protecting teen females and NOT teen males) as recently as the 1950s to 1970s, because of the "risk of pregnancy". It has always been a law designed to protect women from the evil of men. That's why its not taken seriously when an older woman fucks a teen male. Interestingly, many teen males were taken to court in the last 70 years over this law for having sex with their girlfriend. Few were prosecuted, as the jury considered it not a crime (jury nullification), but the law and the wish to try to convict these teen males should tell us that it was designed to hit males of all ages for having sex with females under that limit, which was raised as a by-product of the "purity movement".
Seen in this new-old light, it's hard to believe that the new narrative, which now discusses notions of relative experience, is anything approaching intellectually honest. It is an attempt to shore up the notion that the law is necessary, as within the 1970-1980 range people were starting to question whether it was needed. Then in 1990's sex predator hysteria and rape hysteria took off, silencing nearly all discussion about it.
People like Judith Levine who've studied age of consent and the possibility of sexuality of teens have had their work condemned by the US supreme court (basically a de-platforming), in order to protect their interests; getting re-elected by feminism/women, who have been pushing the sex hysteria wars, through which age of consent was merely one means.
Anyone repeating/parroting the "moral" memes of relative experience or abuse are neglecting that teens can abuse each other very legally, that adults can do the same, and that the band of who can go to prison for it is very narrow, that the law was never intended to be about experience but about woman's pristine untainted-by-a-penis sexuality while young in order to get married to a "good man", which was code for wealthy and socially affluent (hypergamy, self-serving), and that this was due to woman's reliance on men for quality of life through his paycheck, that a 14-16 year old can have as much or more experience sexually than a 20 year old these days, and that such physical attraction has never once been considered a psychiatric disorder, even while masturbation and being homosexual have been considered such.
http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-To-Minors-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068#reader_B004LB499M
http://www.alternet.org/story/12960/what_judith_levine_is_really_saying
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html
Earlier this month, legislators in Missouri voted to cut $100,000 from the University of Missouri's budget because of a 1999 journal article by a university political scientist, Harris Mirkin, that questioned whether all sexual contacts between adults and children constituted abuse. Dr. Mirkin, a father and grandfather who says he has no sympathy for child abusers, says he has received threats as well.
There's a distinctive cultural bent towards creating a narrative, a not-altogether-true one, causing people to become victims of that very narrative. People are called pedophiles now in our culture when they're dating someone that looks a little young, such as anyone dating someone who looks 18 while they look 25+ themselves.
The hysteria has to stop. If someone abuses or damages someone else, fine.
However, in light of sexting scandals between teens and suicide/other mental problems arising from sex between teens, lets make the law equal
Punish all who coerce them into sex, even other teens, because the consequences, the fallout, are the same, as Allie Kilpatrick and Judith Levine have noted. Age falls out as being a significant factor in the negative effects of sex, which means that the perpetrator's action, regardless of the perpetrator's age, is what can cause the harm. Therefore, teens should also be subject to 5 years in prison, as should a man or a woman.
Complete fairness in the system given the possible negative effects. if you want men and women to be treated equally, and you consider all sexual acts abuse, especially in light of the potential harm, then it must extend to teens as well, if they are perpetrators. We have juvenile halls for a reason. Or are teens magically exempt from sex crimes, but not any other type of crime, in some hilarious inversion of the logic that is used against adults, which is that sex crimes are especially bad for adults to commit compared to other types?
Yes, based on the historical usage, intent, and design, of age of consent laws, her being a man would've made it worse.
Based on reality of events, I doubt it.
It was brought to my attention that music and such was considered to be the devil's sound to children in 80's tv show.
https://youtu.be/ZpUeo6wR7M4?t=85
I gave a timestamp for a reason. They focus solely on the sexually activeness of (lying) teenage females. Why? Why not teenage males? Because if a teenage female is sexually active, that's a problem, but not a teenage male. How can that be? How could we achieve proper rates of no sexually active teenage females and many or all sexually active teenage males, as the belief seems to be?
For any problem in today's world, everyone is looking for the smoking gun in the now, either immediate now or "just last year".
Any reasonable stumbling upon historical evidence, from actually reading 'purity movement' to watching silly Oprah clips like that (he was perfectly willing to say what he said in public, and the audience did not lose their shit over it, meaning it was an understood and acceptable argument), can tell us why we think the way we do today regarding this subject, why women are considered less damaging and responsible and men are considered subhuman monsters if they have heterosexual sex with someone this male's age.
http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-To-Minors-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068#reader_B004LB499M
http://www.alternet.org/story/12960/what_judith_levine_is_really_saying
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html
>Earlier this month, legislators in Missouri voted to cut $100,000 from the University of Missouri's budget because of a 1999 journal article by a university political scientist, Harris Mirkin, that questioned whether all sexual contacts between adults and children constituted abuse. Dr. Mirkin, a father and grandfather who says he has no sympathy for child abusers, says he has received threats as well.
There's a distinctive cultural bent towards creating a narrative, a not-altogether-true one, causing people to become victims of that very narrative. People are called pedophiles now in our culture when they're dating someone that looks a little young, such as anyone dating someone who looks 18 while they look 25+ themselves.
The hysteria has to stop. If someone abuses or damages someone else, fine.
However, in light of sexting scandals between teens and suicide/other mental problems arising from sex between teens, lets make the law equal
Punish all who coerce them into sex, even other teens, because the consequences, the fallout, are the same, as Allie Kilpatrick and Judith Levine have noted. Age falls out as being a significant factor in the negative effects of sex, which means that the perpetrator's action, regardless of the perpetrator's age, is what can cause the harm. Therefore, teens should also be subject to 5 years in prison, as should a man or a woman.
Complete fairness in the system given the possible negative effects. if you want men and women to be treated equally, and you consider all sexual acts abuse, especially in light of the potential harm, then it must extend to teens as well, if they are perpetrators. We have juvenile halls for a reason. Or are teens magically exempt from sex crimes, but not any other type of crime, in some hilarious inversion of the logic that is used against adults, which is that sex crimes are especially bad for adults to commit compared to other types?
http://www.familyeducation.com/life/teen-sex/girl-regrets-having-sex
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/736522.stm
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/182712/15_women_reveal_their_biggest?PageSpeed=noscript
Note that this says very little or nothing about the apparent AGE of their "lover". These symptoms, such as depression and suicide, among other things like feelings of shame, occur whether or not their partner is 15 or 50.
Judith Levine and Allie Kilpatrick, having studied this, have discovered that age as a factor is of negligible importance to whether these teens self-report bad feelings, like shame, or even report the event as positive.
Sexually active girls jump 18% in depression rates. Why is that if its not abusive, hmm, hmm? After all, the declaration that it is abusive if their partner is over 18 is made based on the negative mental effects of them being "sexually abused", or "exploring their sexuality" as you like to call it.
The overarching theme is that "if you're not ready for sex, then having it is mentally detrimental".
If that's true, then it doesn't matter if the other participant is also a teen or much older, if that teen or older person pressures someone "not ready" into sex, then negative consequences result. And if you want R&J exemptions for teens, then a 17 year old pressuring a 15 year old into sex, or being manipulative, can be very legal, just as a 40 year old could legally do these things to an 18 year old. All you have to do is get "consent".
I know the law is deeply flawed, but you're arguing on the premise that it is age which is the factor of "exploration or abuse", when it isn't at all. The law is built on the assumption that it is always abuse. You assume that it isn't when its two teens, but have no justification for that assumption. You're doing the same thing anyone else would be doing by claiming it is abuse.
http://www.alternet.org/story/12960/what_judith_levine_is_really_saying
>Add to this the fact that the sexual liberationists of yesterday are parents today, facing all the typical parental fears. As the joke goes, a conservative is a liberal with a teenage daughter. Many people feel a pervasive sense of dread about children and sex, but as Levine notes, things are not appreciably worse now than they were in the past. Children's exposure to sexual images is hardly new, and research indicates that rates of teen sexual activity are not "galloping upward."
Now, how can something be "worse" if the growth of it isn't "bad"?
>As Levine documents throughout the book with copious studies and reviews of news sources, fears of rampant pedophilia, child abduction, ritual abuse, and Internet sexual predators are at best exaggerated, at worst completely unsupported by evidence.
>For example, studies commissioned by Congress show that between 50 and 150 children are kidnapped and murdered by strangers each year, yet in a Mayo Clinic survey three-quarters of parents said they are afraid their children will be abducted. And a 1994 U.S. government report analyzing over 12,000 accusations of Satanic ritual abuse found "not a single case where there was clear corroborating evidence."
>f a person truly has the good of young people in mind, one would hope he or she would be interested in what research has to reveal. "Harmful to Minors" offers a plethora of findings, from studies showing that exposure to sexually explicit images does not harm children, to evidence that teens' sexual relationships with adults are not uniformly devastating, to research on the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education in delaying sexual activity.
>In the explosive realm of adult-youth sex, many teens say that such relationships can be consensual and positive. And more than a few of us remember having such positive sexual relationships with adults when we ourselves were teens.
>Within the gay community, especially, one often hears fond reminiscences of youthful sexual relationships with adults. For many gay men, a teenage relationship with an older man was their release from a homophobic family and peers and their introduction to a supportive community.
You have condemned the last two paragraphs are purely abuse. You have not provided reasons why.
The evidence of teen on teen sex says that negative effects occur. I have given you links for that.
>"Legally designating a class of people categorically unable to consent to sexual relations is not the best way to protect children, particularly when 'children' include everyone from birth to eighteen," she writes.
https://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068
>Harmful to Minors launches from two negatives: sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmful_to_Minors
This would actually be supporting your claim!... if you weren't also claiming in the same breath it is ipso factor harmful, or "abuse", if the person happens to be over 18.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html?_r=0
>The book does not, in fact, endorse pedophilia. What Ms. Levine does argue is that the fear of pedophilia is overblown and that the age of consent should be lowered in certain circumstances. Ms. Levine tries to separate what she sees as real risks -- H.I.V. infection, unwanted pregnancies and sexual violence -- from risks she calls exaggerated or even invented. She argues forcefully against abstinence-only education and what she sees as a pervasive tendency to view all manifestations of childhood sexuality as dangerous or disturbing.
>Ms. Levine, a New York writer who specializes in questions of sex and and gender, also makes a carefully argued -- if untimely -- case that the danger presented by child molesters has been vastly exaggerated, and that prosecutors put ever greater resources into tracking pedophilia and child pornography that would be better spent elsewhere. For instance, while prosecutors sometimes claim that child molesters have an extremely high rate of recidivism -- one of the justifications for sex-offender registration laws -- Ms. Levine has statistics suggesting that it is in fact relatively low. She cites a 1996 study by the National Center for Institutions and Alternatives that concluded that only 13 percent of former sex offenders were rearrested for sex crimes, compared with a 74 percent rearrest rate for criminal offenders overall.
>Earlier this month, legislators in Missouri voted to cut $100,000 from the University of Missouri's budget because of a 1999 journal article by a university political scientist, Harris Mirkin, that questioned whether all sexual contacts between adults and children constituted abuse. Dr. Mirkin, a father and grandfather who says he has no sympathy for child abusers, says he has received threats as well.
I understand where you're getting your information from. You are parroting what you've heard, or passively internalized, because spreading the message you do is an attempt to save some people will not looking like you support, however misinformed or wrongly, "pedophilia" or "child molesting", because it is assumed to be such by common people, the SJWs and feminists who control the narrative, and so on, when the person happens to be over 18 that is the "criminal". You have chosen not to examine the evidence or do any form of basic research on your own, informing yourself only with the social narrative, because that is the safe path. That is the path that protects you from becoming a pariah, by hazarding to suggest, as Harris Mirkin did, that it might not all be abuse.
If it is de-facto abuse for anyone over 18 to have sex with anyone under 18, as is suggested by SJWs and age of consent legal terminology, I don't see how it can't be de-facto abuse between two teens, because the research says that age isn't a factor between two "consenting" people and the negative or positive outcomes.
This is a difference from actual molestation and rape, where a person is physically forced into a position.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230
>In the 1930s, support for setting the age of consent at 16 years or older began to weaken. Characterized by growing economic, social, and cultural independence, girls in their teens assumed a place in western societies quite distinct from that of younger children. New concepts of adolescence and specifically of girlhood normalized sexual activity during the teenage years, at least within peer groups, as "sex play" necessary to achieve adult heterosexuality. Emboldened and influenced by such ideas, girls more often talked of being "in love" with the men charged with having sex with them, and expressed sexual desire. Prosecutors and juries increasingly refused to treat such cases as rape.
There's an awesome book about this and beyond: Harmful to Minors.
> Kids under the age of 18 are allowed to fuck each other all they want, and most places have laws where you can engage with someone sexually if you are within a certain range of ages (1-2 years I think). So no, some high-school lovers are not rapists or sex offenders in any way, emotionally or legally.
Not by law in many states. So yes, "kids under 18" are in fact rapists for violating the age of consent law as per your definition that having sex with someone underage is rape.
>wholly unaware of statutory rape laws now that I more fully understand your point, not surprised, the condescending cunts are always the stupid ones.
Highly ironic.
http://patch.com/michigan/grossepointe/lie-lands-teen-19-sex-offender-registry-35-years
http://www.freerangekids.com/how-our-autistic-son-ended-up-a-sex-offender-for-life/
http://www.freerangekids.com/how-your-kid-could-end-up-on-the-sex-offender-registry/
https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/09/the_mindbooty_problem.html
https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/california
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-age-of-consent-be-lowered-to-13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/embracing-teenage-sexuali_b_409136.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lower-age-consent-15-argues-2801227
http://egomoral.com/feminism-and-age-of-consent-laws-in-modern-culture/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/normalizing-pedophilia-abolishing-the-age-of-consent
http://www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/why-the-age-of-consent-should-be-lowered-to-14/
https://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068#reader_B004LB499M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/7.htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5ihtvy/another_teenage_boy_going_on_the_sex_offender/
Go educate yourself.
http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-To-Minors-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068#reader_B004LB499M
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/17/adult-child-sex.htm
>One of the authors — researcher Robert Bauserman, who was with the University of Michigan in 1998 — now says, "I have the feeling that if you don't say anybody under 18 is permanently psychologically harmed by any type of sexual experience," then you are called a supporter of pedophiles by critics. He has never, he says, called for lower age-of-consent laws or "changing social norms." Instead, he says, researchers "need to identify the situations and circumstances that produce the most harm."
>In the 1998 article, three authors analyzed 59 studies of college students recalling sexual abuse. The researchers reported that despite what many think, child sexual abuse "does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population," although boys fared better than girls. And they concluded that some children experienced positive reactions in "willing" sexual encounters with adults, according to the March APA analysis of what happened after publication and why.
>The issue should not be blurred by talking about sex with a 17-year-old versus a younger child, Dallam says. "That is just one hill in the battle" pedophiles are waging, she says. "Once they have the 15- to 17-year-olds, then it will be OK with the 12- and 13-year olds."
Slippery slope fallacies incoming by the crazy agenda left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/books/renegade-view-on-child-sex-causes-a-storm.html
http://www.salon.com/2002/04/19/levine_talks/
>What age of consent laws are about is criminalizing consensual relationships. Statutory rape is the prosecution of a consensual sexual relationship; if it were non-consensual, it would be prosecuted under regular rape laws, which, I am here to say, are the greatest thing in the world.
>Long term results of childhood sex crimes (list)
HeForeverBleeds is right; there is no difference. The harm (LACK OF IT) is identical.
The harm is not only not different for either gender, it is not different for when it is either gender with an older person of either gender, either.
That is to say, exactly the same positive and negative effects can come from a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old, as a 15 year old having sex with a 40 year old.
There's lit on this no one here wants you to read.
Read this book. My mom said that if she had read it when I was in high school it would have totally changed her approach to sex ed parenting conversations. It's excellent.
I hate to say it, but he's biologically correct. There is nothing biologically abnormal about either of their urges. The inappropriate nature of the urge is sociological as society over the past two hundred years has moved in the direction of protecting young adults and calling them "children" well beyond the end of puberty.
The criteria for being an adult has shifted from biological (post-puberty) to social (proprietary age of 18, 21, etc. depending on region). Despite all that, studies have shown that psychologically, once you're through puberty, you're capable of handling sexual relationships. Here's a well-researched and honest book about the topic.
Popular alternatives to Harmful To Minors: The Peri...
Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race
Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?: And Other Conversations About Race
