Although it's about a week-old, forever in blog time, I was reading Volokh, as I always do, and came upon an entry about Mary Kay Letourneau. Volokh, in relevant part posts:
A thoughtful acquaintance of mine sent around an e-mail expressing skepticism that what Mary Kay Letourneau did was all that bad. Many 12-year-old boys, he pointed out, would be quite happy to have sex with a 35-year-old woman. Perhaps this is even so for most 12-year-old boys, at least most of those who actually end up doing it. Nor would this be likely, he opined, to leave lasting psychological scars....
...I don't care that much whether Letourneau took the boy's innocence, a metaphysical, metaphorical, and possibly (in this situation) overrated attribute. But she did take his freedom -- the freedom to be a relatively carefree yet decent 18-year-old, and the freedom to have a family that he in some meaningful sense chose to have. And that is indeed something to feel outraged, and full of pity, about.
Reading this, I became greatly disturbed. Has our society really moved so far that a 12-year-old should jump at the opportunity to have sex with a 35-year-old woman. 12!...12!!...12!!!. Let's think a moment at how young 12 is...12 is 6th to 8th grade range. And we should care not about the loss of the boy's innocence. I guess I didn't get the memo that says that boys should jump at the opportunity to be sexually abused. Now my impression is that the boy wanted to have the encounter, but is that any different that the girl who goes to an older man or woman to be loved or the boy who goes to the older man or woman to be loved? Seriously, America is criticized about having Materialism as its god, but really is there any doubt that sex is quickly replacing materialism. Call me when the adults in this country grow up...Adults respect children and boundries; they don't exploit them.
For much of modern history, it was common for men to get married at 12-13. The fact that we consider people of that age to be 'children' is historically anomalous.
Posted by: aphrael at August 12, 2004 12:04 PM (Permalink)FWIW, as far as human history goes, men, so far back as the Roman Empire were not married off so young, now the women often were, but not the men. In any event, 12 year olds from 800 years ago were probably much more mature than the 12 years old of today. After all, at 12 you were 33% of your life expectency, today at 12 you are about 15% there. Additionally 12 year olds today are asked to play Warcraft III and attend class, not till the fields nor defend their country. The two aren't comparable.
Posted by: Joel B. at August 12, 2004 12:38 PM (Permalink)A hundred years ago in the Wild West I'm sure there were plenty of 14-year-olds with one or more kids.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at August 12, 2004 12:46 PM (Permalink)Joel B - while the social context of being that age has changed, the *biological nature* of the human being has not; a human of age 13 is just as capable of reproduction today as it was four hundred years ago.
In Jewish tradition, at least, a boy of age 13 is considered to be a man.
Posted by: aphrael at August 12, 2004 12:49 PM (Permalink)Aphrael, I agree on the biological capability, but it's important that you concede the social nature of that age has changed. If the social nature has changed then it follows that we must look at what that social context means. And the query remains as to whether 12 is too young.
Posted by: Joel B. at August 12, 2004 12:57 PM (Permalink)The sexual organs of 8-day old males are routinely mutilated in a strange societal ritual called "circumcision".
It's hard for me to see the problem of a 12 year old having sex with a 35 year old in light of the common acceptance of routine mutilation of infants sexual organs.
Posted by: Kate Matthews at August 13, 2004 12:49 AM (Permalink)Aphrael,
I don't know what kind of effect it's had on boys, but from what I understand, dietary changes over the last hundred years or so have caused women to be biologically ready to have kids much sooner.
That said, biology is only one part of being an adult, and not the most important one at that.
Justene,
Regardless of the revulsion most people would have to such a liaison, I've been a boy in junior high school, and do remember thinking about women who were older than I was. That wouldn't have made having a woman fulfill those fantasies right, but I suspect that is more what Volokh is getting at.
Posted by: John A. Kalb at August 13, 2004 06:14 AM (Permalink)Mary Kay is bipolar which I think has a lot to do with her lack of judgment. Honestly boy's hormones kick in high gear in the late teens after that they are stuck with so much stress from the expectations of the world around them that they wind up taking viagra just to get it up. I think tenns should be able to enjoy their sexuality but I still think 12 is way to young about 15 is right.
Posted by: josie at April 18, 2005 09:45 PM (Permalink)