Are minors who have sex with adults 'victims'?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Spoonfed

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Throughout history psychologists have made some controversial claims. Until the early 20th century is was generally agreed that masturbation was harmful, resulting in male circumcision (still practised today) and even clitoridectomy. Black people were 'proven' to be mentally inferior to whites, justifying segregation and their mistreatment. Homosexuals were considered mentally ill and subjected to hormone therapy. How can we be certain that today's 'experts' are not simply justifying societies prejudices?

Despite great variation in age of consent laws (ranging from 18 in USA to 14 in Germany) most experts consider consensual sex to be inherently harmful to persons under the age of consent, even teenagers a few years below these arbitrary age based laws are considered 'victims' when they have consensual sex with adults. What evidence leads psychologists to conclude that sex is harmful to pubescent and prepubescent minors? What studies support the criminalisation of consensual sex with persons under the age of consent?

In the same way that African children labelled 'witches' start to believe they are genuinely evil, children labelled 'victims' start to believe they have been harmed i.e. a 14 year old having sex in the USA may see themselves as a 'victim' after the arrest of their adult partner and subsequent therapy sessions, while Germans of the same age might not (as 14 is legal). Clearly therapists can influence how minors view their sexual experiences.

Obviously young people need to be protected from exploitation and harm. Small children are not physically capable of having penetrative sex with adults, however not all sex acts involve penetration. In many cases sex is criminalised despite the consent of partners, use of contraception and lack of physical/mental harm. Can anyone provide me with relevant information explaining why consensual sex with minors is harmful and why? Are there only moral reasons justifying the criminalization of sex with pubescent and prepubescent minors, or does tangible evidence of harm exist?

Members don't see this ad.
 
From a guy's point of view, after puberty, there's no such thing as being a "victim" with regard to sex. Every guy I know would love if a MILF ****ed them.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
First time I've seen a NAMBLA supporter on these boards.
 
From a guy's point of view, after puberty, there's no such thing as being a "victim" with regard to sex. Every guy I know would love if a MILF ****ed them.

I really *really* hope that was a joke.
 
From a guy's point of view, after puberty, there's no such thing as being a "victim" with regard to sex. Every guy I know would love if a MILF ****ed them.

It's attitudes like that make it extra hard for male victims of sexual abuse. They think there must be something wrong with them because they didn't like it.

Anyway, the OP raises a lot of interesting questions. I generally think that sex with minors is inherently harmful even when consensual, but when is the magic point where someone stops being a minor? I think it probably relates more to the inherent power differential than anything, as mentioned above.
 
From a guy's point of view, after puberty, there's no such thing as being a "victim" with regard to sex.

Speak for yourself. If a guy made a move on me or a woman that could've given me an STD or was otherwise physically unattractive and looking like Shirley Hemple from What's Happening, I don't think I'd agree with you.

Now if the woman was a supermodel, yeah, I'm sure my super sex drive I had at 13 years would've loved it.

But that IMHO could've caused problems. It wouldn't have been a traumatic experience, but it depending on the way it happened, I could see potential problems. E.g. I could see me having a warped sense of sex if an adult woman had sex with me if I were 13 years old.
 
How can we be certain that today's 'experts' are not simply justifying societies prejudices?

Because we see far, far too many kids that come into the child and adolescent clinic who present with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, personality issues, substance abuse etc. as their main complaint, only to find that they have a history of sexual abuse. I believe you can trace many of their problems back to the abuse as a contributing or main factor. Those kids did not develop a psychiatric illness because we found out they'd been abused and then somehow create a problem based on "societies prejudices." It is hard for me to understand someone who tries to justify sexual contact with children. I see so many kids who have been sexual abused and have psychology scars that it really pisses me off to hear those kinds of justifications.

Obviously young people need to be protected from exploitation and harm. Small children are not physically capable of having penetrative sex with adults, however not all sex acts involve penetration.
Yes, it is obvious that they need to be protected from exploitation and harm. That includes not being sexually abused in all of its forms. The sexualization of children whether it involves penetration or other means is still abuse. It causes serious harm to normal attachment and can derail healthy development, leading to psychiatric and physical illness.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I can see a sexually abused child having some major problems. However, is this seen with consensual sex? To me it seems the sexual abuse would be the result of non-consensual rather than consensual, even though consensual can turn abusive and violent regardless of age.
 
I can see a sexually abused child having some major problems. However, is this seen with consensual sex? To me it seems the sexual abuse would be the result of non-consensual rather than consensual, even though consensual can turn abusive and violent regardless of age.

How can a child actually provide consent? They do not have the capacity to fully understand all of the implications of having a sexual relationship with an adult, so it is impossible for them to consent. Many scientists would argue that at 18 a person is still developing (neurologically), and they are not capable of making the same decisions as an older adult. As a constitutional libertarian, I am against almost all gov't interference into the private lives of citizens, but I'm having a hard time finding a problem with an age of consent law that goes below 18.
 
Last edited:
From a guy's point of view, after puberty, there's no such thing as being a "victim" with regard to sex. Every guy I know would love if a MILF ****ed them.

What's a MILF?
 
How can a child actually provide consent? They do not have the capacity to fully understand all of the implications of having a sexual relationship with an adult, so it is impossible for them to consent. Many scientists would argue that at 18 a person is still developing (neurologically), and they are not capable of making the same decisions as an older adult. As a constitutional libertarian, I am against almost all gov't interference into the private lives of citizens, but I'm having a hard time finding a problem with an age of consent law that goes below 18.

In a sense that argument can be use for many "Adults" too, but I understand where your coming from.
 
It's originally (as far as I know) from the movie American Pie and stands for "Mom I'd Like to F-".

Actually, it pre-dates American Pie. The first documented usage shows up in 1995 on the old internet newsgroups, but I'd wager that it was around long before that...

Here's the Wiki article with the citation link for the newsgroup archive if anyone wants to actually see the first posting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILF_(slang)
 
I can see a sexually abused child having some major problems. However, is this seen with consensual sex? To me it seems the sexual abuse would be the result of non-consensual rather than consensual, even though consensual can turn abusive and violent regardless of age.

You're joking, right?

Ok, if you're talking about a 17 yo having consensual sex with an 18-20 yo, I can understand the gray zone (not saying I agree, just understand the questioning). But...Please tell me that is all you folks are talking about and you're not questioning consensual sex with a "child" (i.e. 12 and under) as the OP said in their post.
 
You're joking, right?

Ok, if you're talking about a 17 yo having consensual sex with an 18-20 yo, I can understand the gray zone (not saying I agree, just understand the questioning). But...Please tell me that is all you folks are talking about and you're not questioning consensual sex with a "child" (i.e. 12 and under) as the OP said in their post.

My response was based on the child being at least 17, maybe 16, definitely not 15 or younger. The age of the adult however I didn't think about.
 
My response was based on the child being at least 17, maybe 16, definitely not 15 or younger. The age of the adult however I didn't think about.

Ok. We're using different definitions, then. I'm using "child" as a term that we use in child psychiatry, which is a kid who is preadolescent vs. an adolescent. The OP was questioning consensual sex with "small children". I find that very disturbing.
 
Key variables:
Age. I haven't fact checked, but if Germany is 14, japan is 12(?), etc, then the us restriction of 16 or 17 can be seen as late, especially since half of teens that age have already had intercourse by 17 and many of the girls have been in puberty since 11 or 12. further, the English age of marriage had been 12, I think, in the 19th century, when the girls were generally far from puberty.

btw, the laws are, I think, about sex between a teen and someone >21.


gender. by and large, you're asking whether it's ok for a man >21 to have sex with girls <15. it's not trivial since, without sanctions and peer pressure, lots of grown men would be happy to have sex with peri-pubertal girls. don't believe it? just check out porn sites and see who's pictured. the same just isn't true about grown women. some of that relates to maturity (I could be biased, but girls/women tend to be more mature for the 70 years until men start dying off--and I'll give people bonus maturity points for going through the dying process). so there are plenty of 15/16 year old girls whose match is not to be found in their 9th grade class. some of it is also evolutionary/cultural, since women tend to value providers (generally not found among 14 year olds), while men could often care less about success as long as the girl's cute. and, if the guy's insecure but wants to be a big shot--a common though unpleasant comorbid situation--what better than to hook up with someone younger and vulnerable.


orientation. some would say many 14 year old boys would love it if the head cheerleader did him in the bathroom, but what about the male history teacher? what if the boy is gay or uncertain or compliant or eager? does that matter?

generally speaking, the adage of half your age plus 7 seems to make basic sense. so a 30 year old guy could bring a date who's 22 without being deeply ashamed, while a 50 year old should aim for >32. the math isn't quite so charitable for young guys (24? max at 19). another is the yucky factor. a 23 yr old college senior dating a mature 17 yo freshman seems ok. a 33 yo guy hanging at the mall looking for high school girls? yucky. if I dated my 50ish medicine attending? yucky. if I dated my 50ish psych attending? not yucky at all, but that's a different story.

anyway, this is too long a response for a query that doesn't even belong here. but its an interesting question. and one that organized psychiatry doesn't address as far as I know.
 
Hello everyone, thank you for your replies. You have provided me with much food for thought!

Because we see far, far too many kids that come into the child and adolescent clinic who present with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, personality issues, substance abuse etc. as their main complaint, only to find that they have a history of sexual abuse.

Your logic is fallacious. I imagine many people are admitted to psychiatric hospitals who have a history of watching TV, does this mean TV is the cause of their problem?

You also haven't mentioned if the children at your clinic are victims of rape as opposed to consensual sex.

For every child admitted to your clinic due to having sex there could be five more children who had sex with no mental problems whatsoever, they would be undetected by you.

I stand corrected though I can't imagine it is as low as 12 or 13 anywhere!

It's 13 in Spain and Japan. It's 14 in Italy, Germany, Austria and Portugal.

How can a child actually provide consent? They do not have the capacity to fully understand all of the implications of having a sexual relationship with an adult, so it is impossible for them to consent.

Do children consent for their parents to feed them junk food, making them obese? Do children consent to being raised Jewish and circumcised? Your argument is irrelevant.

Many scientists would argue that at 18 a person is still developing (neurologically), and they are not capable of making the same decisions as an older adult. As a constitutional libertarian, I am against almost all gov't interference into the private lives of citizens, but I'm having a hard time finding a problem with an age of consent law that goes below 18.

The USA permits 18 year olds to die in Afghanistan or be exploited in the porn industry, but wont let them drink alcohol. What scientific evidence justifies these age based laws? Why shouldn't 18 year olds be protected from sexual harm - perhaps the age of consent should be 21?
 
Do children consent for their parents to feed them junk food, making them obese? Do children consent to being raised Jewish and circumcised? Your argument is irrelevant.

Woah, the fact that you don't agree with the fundamental legal, moral, and philosophical reasons why those examples are entirely different ball games than issues of consent around sexuality does not mean the argument is irrelevant. There are entire classes taught at law school about sexuality and issues of consent. These are complex subjects, and neither you or really any of us is all that qualified to have an incredibly rich discussion about it. People that are much smarter than both of us argue about these things. We can only give you our opinions as folks who work in a related field.

It also doesn't mean that it is our job to show you evidence of anything. I'm not a lawyer (my wife is), but unlike me she has a life and doesn't waste time on some psychiatry message board like I do. You have access to pub med. Associations between early sexual behaviors (abuse and consensual) are legion. If you can't find them, it's because you don't want to.

And yeah, correlation doesn't mean causation, but usually when people say that, I realize they learned one trump card in psych 101 and haven't learned to argue in a more sophisticated manner since. So please, for the love of god, don't say that. I am pretty sick and taking lots of prednisone and antibiotics. If you say that, you might put me in the ICU. Yes, I'm kidding.

Listen, I get it, you have an axe to grind (and it's not a stupid one). Laws are blunt instruments and it's easy to poke holes along the fringes, sometimes really big holes. They're based partially on science but a whole lot on value judgments of a society. And I'm sure there are plenty of instances when a consenting 16 year old and consenting 19 year old have sex and nothing bad comes of it. But all value judgments by societies aren't so bad. Most of us give up on post-modernism somewhere in medical school. It was fun while it lasted, but now we just read Murakami novels and walk our dogs. It's a better life.

You didn't come to a psychology forum, you came to a psychiatry forum. When you reply to sunlioness about how she would never see kids for who early sex wasn't a problem, you hit on a good point. Psychiatry doesn't really care about folks that are doing well (except to figure out how we can help our kids who aren't copy the kids that are). We are not in the business of describing behavior (at least not primarily). We're in the busy of diagnosing and treating maladaptive patterns and discrete illnesses that have a myriad of biological, psychological, and social roots. So if 100 12 year old boys have sex with their hot middle school social studies teacher and are cool with it, I don't care. I care a lot more about the kid who comes in and has nightmares, questions of self-worth, cutting, and suicidal thoughts. And I care a lot more that I find him a good TF-CBT therapist ASAP and formulate a good safety plan. And while I can't "prove" that the fact that he banged he middle school teacher is why he is feeling that way, I can ask him about it, and I can apply what I know about psychopathology, and I can make as an educated guess as anyone could. And it took me 14 years of higher education and training just to get the privilege of doing that. It doesn't make me right, but it does make my opinion as valuable as anything else. And it's one you can summarily reject. That's okay.

And if I seem grumpier than usual, I'm totally blaming the prednisone. I have a feeling I'm not going to sleep for the next four days and my mouth and eyes are so dry that I'm my bladder is going to explode and I will probably be blind by Saturday. And when you're trying to chase the prednisone with robitussin because the taste of the robitussin is somehow so much better than the prednisone, well, that's just kinda sad.
 
Billypilgrim37, that was a great reply, witty and wise. I hope whatever is ailing you is nothing serious and you recover in a speedy manner. My best.
 
I'm not fond of the idea of defending the argument that sex between youngsters and adults is "ok."
But I think there are a few important points here.
Others have already pointed out that there is some arbitrariness in these age-based laws, and that decisions about where to set such points is not always consistent between different laws, e.g. 18 to die in combat, 21 to drink.

But there's another point made by the OP that I don't think we've really explored. Telling people they are victims may be harmful in cases where the person did not previously think so. If you tell someone often enough that he/she is a victim, it will begin to take hold.

A police detective in rural Texas told me this parable:
Two sisters were being sexually abused from about the age of 8-14, by their older brother.
When the truth was discovered, the parents were horrified that this had happened under their noses and did not object to vigorous prosecution of their son. They took the girls to a therapist who said the girls are blocking their grief and will not really heal until they can express their anger. A few more therapists said essentially the same thing. The detective telling the story interviewed the girls in regards to the prosecution, and related to the girls that folks were worried about why the girls don't seem to be showing any emotion about what their brother did to them.
They told him, "We knew he was an a- - - ole before it started, but he always had everyone fooled. He's still an a - - - ole, but now everyone else knows it, too. But that doesn't really have anything to do with us. We're glad it's over, but please stop asking us to cry on demand."

Sometimes it's of no help to try to force someone to take on the role of victim. Sometimes it's better to just be supportive, offer help, and let people know that the issue might come up in months or years, but that doesn't mean they have to live their life centered on victimhood.
 
I think its a case by case basis. Everyone's maturity level varies. You can take two 16 year olds and they will both react to sex in a different way.
 
Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.
 
Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

What about those for whom it does create harm?

If it creates a serious harm for 80% of the minors involved, most of us would agree that prohibition should be considered.
If it creates a serious harm for 50% of the minors involved, many of us would agree to consider prohibition.
If it creates a serious harm for 20% of the minors involved, how many would want it prohibited?
If it creates a serious harm for 2% of the minors, perhaps we should only consider prohibition if the perpetrator knew (or should have known) that it would create harm.
 
Ok, if you're talking about a 17 yo having consensual sex with an 18-20 yo, I can understand the gray zone

In most areas, statutory rape is only considered such if one party is below 18 (or 16, or even less depending on the area), the other person is an adult, but there's also a significant age difference. E.g. a 17 year old with a 19 year old is usually not statutory rape.
 
Most of us give up on post-modernism somewhere in medical school. It was fun while it lasted, but now we just read Murakami novels and walk our dogs. It's a better life.

LOL Great reply Billypilgrim. LOVE it.

This is actually an excellent counter to the OP. The role of childhood sexual abuse (or any trauma) in the pathogenesis of psychiatric illnesses is complex. The reality is that it is causes significant harm in some, but only of marginal consequence in a relatively large number. You can't predict as yet the longitudinal course. Two other points to add to that main point as a summary. First, a trauma is a trauma. Doesn't matter if it's you getting mugged or fondled, if your sense that you personal integrity and safety was violated, it's trauma. Nevertheless, most people who experience trauma don't have PTSD or borderline. It's called resilience. Read up on it. But it doesn't mean that murder or rape are right and justified just because most people who go through with it may not manifest overt psychological damage. Secondly and equally importantly, in clinical practice, what you see aren't people who recover and are resilient, but rather people who ARE in some way psychologically damaged. In that sense, the HISTORY of trauma is VERY relevant for DIAGNOSIS, because psychpathologies are often subtle, and PTSD or Borderline (i.e. entities that are putatively related to trauma) can masquerade as psychosis or bipolar diorder, and get inappropriately treated--and this is all backed by evidence. In that sense, a review of the history of trauma is imminently important in getting the right treatment. It doesn't mean that this implies that patients with a traumatic history are automatically victims. That statement per se isn't scientific.

Speaking of science and DSM, sexual abuse is NOT a DSM diagnosis (though it is a "focus of clinical attention"). And nowhere in the DSM did anybody call anybody a victim. This is one of those things where if people read the DSM, we wouldn't even have this debate. In my book (i.e. the DSM), NOBODY with a psychiatric illness is a "victim." People have illnesses and they need treatment. End of the story. We are doctors. We don't make calls of who's a victim and who's a perpetrator.

Whether or not society makes childhood sexual relationships automatically traumatic is a different question all together and one that's not relevant at all to psychiatry. If you want to change social attitude about sex, psychiatry isn't the right field for you. Psychiatric treatment is informed and evolves with social mores, and occasionally affects it, but it's certainly not the main goal for psychiatry to ipso facto remedy some real or imagined social ill.
 
Last edited:
Psychiatric treatment is informed and evolves with social mores, and occasionally affects it, but it's certainly not the main goal for psychiatry to ipso facto remedy some real or imagined social ill.

I think my ipso has gotten too facto to fit into my genes.
 
Top