Am I a pedophile?

sorry you've completly lost me
S

 

Ok. It's how pedophilia is defined psychologically. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder whose criteria are the recurrence of the aforementioned ones. There are, of course, age of consent laws around the world, but no one has ever claimed that a violation of one of them implies some sort of pedophilic contact as defined scientifically.

 

I am not putting any lables on the author of this thread, simply saying that if she breaks the age of consent laws of hers state she may be answerable to that if found out, I also asked her to consider the moral implications of what she was doing, which BTW I don't think its sounds like this has been thought through that deeply because she has just moved onto someone else and drawn a line under it all
S

 

Many states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, whose purpose is to allow for certain sexual acts while criminalizing the ones they wish to. In some states (like my state, New Jersey, for example) the age of consent is 16. Some have it 17 and some 18. So, while 14 may be under the limit, 17 is not yet legal age, so the actual statue is inapplicable. Myself, I think 13 or 14 at most is a good age for an age of consent (the latter of which is law in Canada). At most, a consensual relationship that does not happen to fall within the boundaries of legality is very analogous to a homosexual relationship in maybe about 20 US states before 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). I can't possibly offer further commentary because I don't know about the nature of the relationship. However, if all participants are consenting parties, then nothing's immoral. Legal, well, it depends.

 

it is arguably immoral if one of the parties is in a postion of authority because then that person is abusing their authority
S

 

Yeah, I've heard some awfully convoluted stuff on this subject, but the gist of it seems to be that an older person automatically carries a degree of authority. But it's not like an 18 year old couldn't be just as na•ve around a 40 year old. Shit happens.

 

Non sequitur. The authority of which I gather that you speak might show up because one partner is at a strength advantage. This doesn't mean that the authority is, by its essence, abusive. There's a potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean it's abused by its nature.

 

If authority is being used at all in a relationship it's being abused. Unless we're talking S&M or whatever.

 

"Authority" as in one partner is mentally or physically stronger is what's I'm talking about. Nothing further than that. There is authority because of that fact, but it may not be actually exercised on any meaningful level. A man will typically have this over a woman, but it needn't be abusive. It's only has the capacity for abuse.

 

Well no, authority is more than just the capacity to take authority, isn't it. Just because someone is stronger or smarter, that doesn't mean they have authority. You're misusing the word.

What's your actual point, anyway?

 

It was in reply to Samhain's post.

 

I wrote a bit more, in the EDIT. I just don't see what it has to do with anything, really.

 

No, it isn't. Authority is the fact and governance is its exercise. Authority, in this sense, limits itself. Say I'm physically stronger than, say, a few other kids but have not been belligerent with it yet. If I just start exercising authority or belligerence, do I gain authority? Or am I just exercising existing authority? Only the latter makes sense. Authority is conceived through power.

It actually doesn't. Something else could dictate the balance of authority. And "authority" could well be used correctly in quite a few contexts.

 

guys I'm talking about the fact she's tutoring someone that puts her in an authority position, one that she can abuse or not
S

 

It would be the same thing. She has authority by the very nature of the relationship (she has it without sexuality involved.) There's always that potential for abuse. It doesn't, however, need to be that way.

 

I guess you're saying that we shouldn't assume authority is being exercised in a relationship. All I meant was that, where it is being exercised in a relationship, it is an abuse. I think it's safe enough to assume that. I can't think of a situation where someone exercising authority in a relationship wouldn't be abusive.

However, the matter of strength seems moot. If we're talking about age difference then we're talking about experience and naivete, and I don't think it's really a case of whether a more experienced person chooses to exercise that authority. They either have more experience or they don't. If someone is naive they're vulnerable.

 

I agree.

Astuteness will play a role in the balance of authority. So will many other things, strength being one of them.

 

What I'm saying is that sometimes it's not a question of whether someone is choosing to use their authority; that it's implicit to their situation/dynamic with someone of lower authority regardless. In the case of the teacher/pupil relationship, a child is by definition subordinate, whether the teacher wishes it or not.

 

Sure Megan is under the age of consent, but moonlight never said anything about sexual relationships (unless I've missed something?) It's just a crush. Surely the original issue was one of age difference, not just age, and three years doesn't seem all that long to me... Anyway this is all null and void or whatever now, so... *trails off*

 

EDIT: Ignore post, my memory is shot to shit.