…was a pedophile? Technically, twelve years old isn’t necessarily pedophilia, if she’s reached menarche. Pedophilia is attraction to children who are pre-pubescent. This is more like a Roy Moore thing.

[Update a few minutes later]

This seems related. Epstein wasn’t wrong when he said “that criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable.” It was acceptable for almost all of human history. Young women generally married as teenagers. But I don’t think that actual pedophilia has ever been acceptable in most cultures.

22 thoughts on “Schrödinger”

  1. Right now, considering emotional maturity levels, under 26 seems too young. That’s really the issue with the teenager sex. The body is ready. The mind thinks it is ready. But the ability to understand isn’t, and I think that has a lot more to do with the perception of time. Alas, to your point Rand, a generation is generally a 20 year gap, because women were already raising children by year 20. That wasn’t because they were just getting busy at 18.

    As for Epstein, besides not killing himself; his crime was more the trafficking than the sex. Taking a young girl to an island, even if that is what she wanted to do, and then limiting communication to the outside world and handing her over to men for sex isn’t acceptable unless he could show she was for every part of that contract. As much as I’m sure some girls would take that deal over and over; I don’t think Epstein only found those particular girls. I doubt his clients would really want to have sex with the girls that would naturally be into it, because they usually don’t care about hygiene either.

  2. For the last several generations, back to the Boomer days, we’ve had the luxury of a prolonged adolescence. My parents were born in 1928 in rural Alabama. My father’s father was a carpenter and my mother’s father was a sharecropper. My parents’ childhood was the Great Depression and their high school years were World War II. They got married in 1946 after graduating high school. I believe people who grew up facing adversity mature faster than those who had easier lives. That goes for farm kids even today. They grow up working to help the family. This was the norm throughout most of history along with shorter lifespans, so teenage marriage was very common. Today, the average age of getting married (if they marry at all) is approaching 30.

  3. That Epstein quote: so what? Pedophilia and slavery both consider classes of humans to be objects to be exploited and owned. Slavery “was acceptable for almost all of human history.” Now it ain’t, and good riddance. Pedophiles should be considered no better than slaveowners, and their enablers, slavetraders.

    1. Again, actual pedophilia is not the issue here. It is the desire for young women, which has been universal throughout human history, for good evolutionary reasons. There is no utility to society from raping actual children, but young women is a different story.

      1. I bet a clever rationalizer could come up with the exact opoosite. Frex: raping actual children msy benefit society by removing the seual frustrations of men and women who might otherwise commit crimes, whereas rape of young women might get them pregnant, create lesbians, despoil those women of a natural right, or despoil their hubands of some other natural right. I’m sure if I thought about it, I could come up with hundreds of equally nonsensical scenarios.

      2. And they can be had once they turn 18.

        I think part of the revulsion lies in the fact that we are supposed to be advancing as a society and a culture, and it is generally recognized that those under 18 lack sufficient experience to make good decisions, and so are not supposed to execute contracts, imbibe alcohol, serve in the military, and many other things that are generally considered Adult.

        I kind of prefer the French method of looking at things, whereby one is considered to be in la jeunesse until the age of 25. It’s generally expected that those under 25 are going to be making bad decisions and doing stupid things. ‘Cause they do, myself included. But by the time you get to 25 you should be getting your act together and having a degree or trade, finding a stable job, getting married, getting a house – the traditional Adult things.

        Are grown-ups going to get turned on by hot young things? Duh. So fine, you just don’t get to do anything about it if they’re under 18. NB: I do recognize that age of consent can vary widely depending on location and culture around the Earth. Just go friggin’ masturbate or something. Children are children and the innocence and naïveté of childhood is far too brief to not be respected or to be violated by the “grown-ups”.

        P.S. I am pragmatic enough to recognize that human sexuality is seamy, well, depraved really. I’ve actually read the Marquis de Sade (in French), and so recognize the kind of evil that can exist in the name of sex. I’m not so deluded as to think that I could ever expect my fellow humans to match what I might hope for. Please. But like I said, we should at least be trying to become better as a society and a culture. And the act of pedophilia should not be a part of that.

        1. If 18 year olds are children, their families and teachers have failed them. I would postulate this is often the case.

          If 25 year olds, nearly one-third through their natural lives, are children or ‘youths’, then I am at a loss for words.

          A question does occur to me. If one were to condemn Schroedinger as depraved, what should one think of Madame Macron?

          1. I don’t think the French are a good model for such things. Do we really want the subjective feelings of murders taken into account? Because that’s what “crime of passion” means in a French court.

  4. Interesting how some people (including many feminists) are will to revoke women’s autonomous agency. Let’s say all Lelands are not allowed to have sex until age 60. Keep the silly buggers from infecting the gene pool? There are still people who insist Monica Lewinsky was “a child” (she was 22 at the time).

    I’d say if a person is able to masturbate to orgasm, then they have the autonomous agency necessary to decide on sex. That’s a testable signifier. “Maturity” is in the biased, probably autocratic eye of the beholder.

  5. Anyone so immature they can’t be trusted to carry and use a personal firearm is too immature and incompetent to choose a sexual partner.

    Anyone with a sexual partner not of their own competent choosing is a victim of rape.

    1. That’s exactly the same as saying anyone mature enough to like broccoli is mature enough to own and operate a self-propelled howitzer. Ruductio ad absurdem for those who remember GHWB’s hatred of broccoli.

      There’s no such thing as “rape,” it’s a special crime invented by a legal system whose main object was a) removing women’s autonomous agency, and b) to punish men for exercising a bodily function in defiance of their social betters. As well have the death penalty for “unsanctioned pooping.” In fact, you can’t commit any form of rape without committing kidnaping, which is crime enough.

      And besides, “autonomous agency” is a red herring.

      1. Um, no it’s not exactly the same at all. Pouncer’s comment actually reflects some pretty basic good parenting. Every living creature on the planet reserves the right to defend itself against those who attack it. A thousand years ago that firearm would have been a dagger. Ten thousand years ago it would have been a spear. Humans should be taught by their parents how to defend themselves against those who would force themselves on them. Free people make their own choices, and should not have choices forced on them. However, we also live in a society with other people, and have to do so communally. So you can’t just help yourself to other people’s stuff, you can’t terminate someone’s civil rights (i.e. life), you have to follow traffic laws, etc., etc. You may not recognize “rape”, but by the same token, men are are not allowed to just help themselves to a lady’s private parts. The offering of them must be of her choice. If not, then she has been violated. And quite frankly should have training and the means to defend herself from such violation. A violation that most would call…rape.

        1. I’m with Ken and Pouncer on this.

          I don’t think any of us question that it is possible a person under the age of 18 all the way down into single digits could, in some manner, consent to sex with someone significantly older and enjoy the situation and never have an emotional or psychological harm from the event. But to proclaim there is no such thing as “rape” marks a level of ignorance not worthy debating. It assumes that because it can be acceptable in one case, then there can never be a case in which it is wrong. I don’t buy it.

  6. Actually, yes, pedophilia has been mainstream and accepted in some cultures of the past, and the present as well.

    A rather notable example was a six year old girl forced to marry a man in his mid 50’s. It was claimed he waited until she was 9 to consummate the marriage, but even if so, that’s still pedophilia. Her name was Aisha. Her rapist ‘husband’ was Muhammad, prophet of Islam. This is part of Islam’s holy writings, the Hadiths.

    As for Schrodinger, if what’s claimed is true, I consider his behavior and actions beyond reprehensible.

  7. It always amazes me how ready people are to control the behavior of others, asserting some moral authority to transgress their rights, and most especially to apply false definitions to words, and engage in what would be hate speech outside the US. Let’s not forget in Christian doctrine, the Lord God Almighty raped a virgin. My guess is, that’s a result of progressive education at its finest.

    All silliness aside (if possible), when I was young the “age of consent” (as it was called then) was set at 16 in most US jurisdictions. The reason for this had nothing to do with “maturity” (indefinable and untestable) but with the statistical certainty, at the time decision was made, that the overhwelming majority of young women had reached menarche by their 16th birthday. It was changed later due to some extraordinarily idiotic politics (which is also why these idiots had to create “Romeo and Juliet laws”).

    So as a “meer yoot” I found me a girl with a wonderfully orgasmic vulvovaginal apparatus and was a Dad by the time I was 23 (late bloomer: my Dad was 22 when I was born). No one here or anywhere has some imaginary right to judge my maturity, nor anyone elses. If you think you do, you’re and enemy of civilzation and should go wait patiently under the nearest lampost until the peasants come for you.

    The autonomous agency of “children is a thorny issue, with people across the spectrum on both sides of the issue. The TV show “House” had an interesting take wherein a dying 12 year old girl (ublikely to see another birstday) reveals she elected to have sex. The female characters go apeshit, screaming about “a felon” by the little girl says, “I knew what I was doing?” It was a bold take for 2005, when the tide was already turning toward the full revocation of women’s automony, taking control of their reproductive lives from husbands and fathers, and giving it to the alighty State. But never to the women themselves. A woman’s “right to choose” is about the decision to have sex, and nothing to do with abortion. Who among us has the right to decide when she can exercise said right. You lot blabbering about all of the above? I think not.

  8. The TV show “House” had an interesting take wherein a dying 12 year old girl (ublikely to see another birstday) reveals she elected to have sex.

    And if she had sex not of her choosing; you want to continue with the notion that it was kidnapping and not rape? Do you think the writers or the character House would playoff her admittance to sex against her will as no big deal because she was dying anyway and so the psychological impact wouldn’t be long lasting? You do realize the show has an answer to this, and House had a better sense of ethics and legality on the matter than you are showing.

    1. In the show, House is portrayed as a criminal who, in the real world, would be behind bars. A cogent argument can also be made that “rape” is a property crime, comparable to grand theft auto, as well as kidnapping. Look, all this name calling simply shows you to be a simpleton. You like being called a simpleton? Keep it up. I can do better.

      1. The guy calling me a simpleton is blaming me for name calling. That’s your entire argument. Just like you call rape, which you put in quotes, a “property crime” (in quotes because it your words) or earlier a “special crime invented”. You make up names for things that already have a name, and then give them the meaning you want them to have that doesn’t fit their meaning. No one is persuaded by your arguments because they are silly.

        “House is portrayed as a criminal who, in the real world, would be behind bars.” Interesting that you make that claim while using it as part of your argument that rape isn’t a crime.

Comments are closed.