Monday, January 16, 2006

This is Ridiculous:

This woman may be guilty of abuse of authority and indeed should be removed from her position as a counselor, but "sexually abusing a 17-year-old male"? Come on.

I've pointed out before, contrary to the notion of "pedophilia chic," the modern trend in this post-60s sexually liberated era is not to lower the age of consent, but to raise it. And to some extent this was a good move. Many jurisdictions traditionally allowed for post-pubescent 12 or 13 year-olds to have sex with adults, and that's too young in my opinion (even if that's around the time when nature makes us biologically fertile and hence biological adults).

There are some forces in the blogsphere who are hysterical about the notion that society might allow the underaged to have sex with legal adults. But what about the reverse -- that society will be hysterical about the possibility and start to engage in witch hunts -- and lose its ability to rationally draw lines as seems to have been done in the above case?

I've noted that in the criminal justice system, if a defendant is charged and gets to the trial stage, they are almost certainly guilty. Yet, I also noted there are "pockets of deviation" where incompetent government and overzealous prosecutors do railroad innocent folks. And unfortunately our underaged "children" (I put that in quotes because the above case involves a 17-year-old "child") and sex -- especially if relying upon repressed memories or the testimony of children coached by adults -- is one of those areas that has been prone to such hysteria.

No comments: