Nem said:
Can you stop blurping the same shit over and over again and tell us why they had a second child? And stop talking about 5 year olds. If you ask me, you are the one beeing out of line for even bringing that kind of talk in here. We are talking about a boy, not a child. So, you say they had a child, she got sent to jail after a hefty trial and they had another child like... nothing happened? See, i just can't see eye to eye with you. You blurp all this stuff wich you know has exceptions and you are unable to even sugest that the boy might have been fully aware of what he was doing. Wich is why they did it again after she got sent to jail! Why else would that happen?! Or are you going to sugest that 14yo after the struggles of a trial and his case beeing public still isn't aware of the impact of his decisions? Is it so difficult to believe they might actually love each other and want to spend their life together? Have they separated or are still together?! They are freaking living proof that you are wrong and there are exceptions. Was her behaviour innapropriate? Sure, i think it was. But i don't know the particular life situations and while i think they should have waited, i am not so close minded as to think it is disgusting when two consenting people feel that strongly for each other should be separated by law. My concerns would be more on biological terms, but since the younger one was a boy, i don't think that there was any big concerns. |
I'm not out of line for using an analogy. I'm not the one suggesting it's sometimes ok to have sex with children. There's a difference between talking about talking about immoral things and endorsing immoral things. Seriously, Bill Maher suggested (jokingly) that he wanted a video of a twelve year old boy having sex. And you're defending that but my comments are out of line?
Besides, there is really nothing wrong with bringing up pedophilia to illustrate that pedophilia is wrong. It's kind of a subject I've had to talk about quite a bit for my job. I'm sorry if it offended your delicate sensibilities, but that doesn't invalidate the point that you failed to address.
By the way, I just have to point out that you said "we are talking about a boy not a child"... Are there no boy children? Shit, I guess all the ones I was working with today must have been transgender.
I have to keep repeating myself because while I've addressed what you said about ten times by now, you keep ignoring it. If you keep asking the same question, you're going to get a similar response. I've explained ten different ways that whether or not they are in love doesn't matter, and you haven't addressed it at any point. So I've tried to rephrase it in a way you'll understand.
But if you insist on an answer to your irrelevant question, here goes...
The short answer is dopamine. Dopamine is what makes us like the things we like. It's what encourages us to explore our environment, make friends, eat, have sex, and interact. But, it could also make us do things that are not good for us. Dopamine is why someone on a diet eats a bacon cheeseburger, why the alcoholic relapses, why a man cheats on his wife, and why the smoker keeps smoking despite full awareness of the consequences. It's why we constantly fail to make good decisions. Dopamine is mainly controlled by the limbic system. In a non-impaired individual (and probably in impaired individuals as well) the limbic system is fully developed by adolescence.
The opposite of dopamine (to keep things simple) is seratonin. Seratonin is a neurotransmitter that is largely controlled by the frontal parts of the brain. Seratonin is the Jimminy Cricket to your Pinnochio. One of its key functions is to help regulate impulses and override the limbic system. It is what tells you "no I shouldn't eat that donut" or "I should study instead of playing videogames" or "maybe I shouldn't spend 50 dollars on Fire Emblem orbs."
While the limbic system is mostly complete around the age of puberty, the prefrontal continues to develop. As we learn more about the brain, we keep finding that this part grows for longer and longer than we thought. Current concensus is that the frontal lobe is fully developed sometime in the 20s, likely around 25, but some contend that it grows into the 30s. For the most part, the limbic system is finished in childhood.
The limbic system is more active during puberty, because of hormones that influence it. So, a 12 year old boy has an overcharged desire system, but a weak self restraint system. Furthermore, the two parts of the brain aren't fully connected. The connections between the limbic system and the front parts of the brain are the last stage of brain development as far as we know. The connection allows your prefrontal cortex to more effectively limit your limbic system. So this means a child would have to be INSANELY advanced to have reached this stage at 12, over a decade early. Like, we're talking about Stewie from family guy shit here. Because of this, the limbic system is far more active in decision making in a teen than an adult. Emotion often trumps logic even in the best of adults, and much moreso in kids.
Because of this, teens are especially prone to risky behavior and novel experiences. Teens general show an equal ability to identify the "better" choice in a hypothetical situation. However, they show an incredibly diminished ability to make those choices in practice, when emotion comes into play. I never said he didn't understand the consequences. But abstract understanding of the consequences and having the ability to make a good choice are two entirely different things. For this reason, top psychologists and psychiatrists argued that it is cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a 16 year old to death. Because they are not able to make fully rational decisions. The supreme court agreed. And these are 16 year olds we're talking about, not 12.
Now, back to the case. Sex releases dopamine. Lots of it. As does the prospect of approval and especially female attention. Without seratonin to balance it out, the draw of the sex is hard to overcome. Even at 14, he's still far away from being fully developed. So it is really not hard to explain why he would make a bad decision at age 12 and then at age 14. To argue that a decision is not bad because it was made at 12 and 14 is frankly stupid. People often make bad decisions year after year, and doubly so for teenagers who still do not have fully developed brains.
But, it goes further than that. A teacher is an authority figure. In the milgram experiment, fully grown adults were compelled to seriously hurt, or even kill a stranger (simulated but they thought it was real) at the insistence of an experiment director who they met ONCE. In this case, it was a teacher he was trained to listen to daily. Furthermore, this was also his teacher in second grade, so she was an authority figure during his early development. Those memories from early childhood influence how we view things, which is why a childhood trauma often develops into a phobia. So, interactions from second grade likely influence his feelings in some manner. It was also someone with considerably more social status.
Even those on the fringe of psychology who think hebephilia or even pedophilia is ok, almost always insist that it should never be with an authority figure. So, even those who support pedophilia would listen to your views and say "bro, that's kind of fucked up".
And we can keep going. Sex at an early age, especially with an adult, has been shown to lead to sexual attitudes that deviate from the norm. That is what the victims come to believe love should be. This is why we see abuse victims CONSTANTLY going back to their abusers. It's why those who are victimized as children are more likely to become abusers. Those who are abused, especially as children, are more likely to be in another abusive relationship.
So to conclue.. People do stupid shit is a pretty reasonable explanation. The fact that actually got caught Preteens and teenagers are especially prone to poor decision due to their overactive limbic system and underdeveloped forebrain which leads to more emotional and less rational decisions. When an authority figure is involved, that further diminishes the potential for self restraint. Furthermore, a victim of sexual abuse is more likely than a non-victim to gravitate towards abusive or unhealthy relationship.
The fact that the relationship was rekindled at age 14 in no way indicates that it was a healthy or non-abusive relationship. It also in no way validates the initial sexual contact. The fact that the same decision was made again does not mean that the first decision was justified, rational, or could be considered informed consent. It doesn't give us any useful information. Your argument is basically "well they did it a second time, so clearly it was a rationally considered informed decision the first time". I'm sorry, but that's stupid.
One last thing though. She actually got arrested the second time. Because, they were having sex in public, despite the fact that it was a violation of her parole. Let's set aside the morals for a second. They did it somewhere where they could clearly be caught knowing the consequence would be years of jail time. Based on this, I'm going to go ahead and say that this kid wasn't a super genius capable of rationality and impulse control far beyond his years.
Ok. So there's your answer. And that's all I have to say about that. If you agree, great. If you don't agree, then learn more about the subjects, and see if it changes your opinion. But that's about all I could say on the matter.
You insisted on an answer, and I gave you one. So now I'm going to insist that you respond to this syllogism.
Premise 1: If a child is incapable of giving informed consent, an adult having sex with them is immoral, regardless of any other factor.
Premise 2: When a child is below a certain age, for example when they are 5, we can ALWAYS conclude that a child is unable to give informed consent.
Conclusion: When a child is below a certain age, we can conclude it is immoral for an adult to have sex with them based solely on age and regardless of any other factor.
Do you agree with this? If not, which premise do you object to?
