John Grisham: Prison penalties too harsh on guys who watch child porn

The point is it's perfectly possible for something to be consensual without the law recognizing the legal validity of that consent. In which case, I think it's perfectly valid to say it was consensual, with the understanding that one isn't claiming it was legal consent.

I think it's fine to debate whether it's possible to consent at so-and-so age or not, but if we can't even get past the semantics, there's no way to continue the conversation.

Just as you may think that smoking pot is perfectly okay -- but if you do it in a place where it isn't legal, you can go to jail.

I had a friend whose mother married her off at 16 to a 35 year old man --she went along with it because she didn't want to be a burden to her mother (who was a single parent and had 6 other kids). She said the right words and went though the right motions, but it wasn't really something she wanted to do.

kuwisdelu said:

The point is it's perfectly possible for something to be consensual without the law recognizing the legal validity of that consent. In which case, I think it's perfectly valid to say it was consensual, with the understanding that one isn't claiming it was legal consent.

Click to expand...

Well... we're talking about penalties for violating said law. I think the legal context is the only context in *this* conversation.

kuwisdelu said:

The point is it's perfectly possible for something to be consensual without the law recognizing the legal validity of that consent. In which case, I think it's perfectly valid to say it was consensual, with the understanding that one isn't claiming it was legal consent.

I think it's fine to debate whether it's possible to consent at so-and-so age or not, but if we can't even get past the semantics, there's no way to continue the conversation.

Click to expand...

I get that statutory rape is different than forcible rape by dint of the rapist/predator's prey "consenting" in some non-legally binding fashion. That doesn't mean I'm ok with aging sexual predators taking advantage of and exploiting youth for sexual gratification. And it doesn't mean I'm going to shed crocodile tears with those who think their prison sentences are unfair just because the naive young prey said "yes."

robjvargas said:

Well... we're talking about penalties for violating said law. I think the legal context is the only context in *this* conversation.

Click to expand...

No, because whether the penalties are too harsh depends on the purpose of said law. If we believe there is a difference between the law and morality, that is. If we assume the law is always correct, there's no point in debate.

The legal context is the only context if and only if we are only making legal arguments, as in a court of law. That is not the case.

Devil Ledbetter said:

I get that statutory rape is different than forcible rape by dint of the rapist/predator's prey "consenting" in some non-legally binding fashion. That doesn't mean I'm ok with aging sexual predators taking advantage of and exploiting youth for sexual gratification. And it doesn't mean I'm going to shed crocodile tears with those who think their prison sentences are unfair just because the naive young prey said "yes."

Click to expand...

I think saying someone is too young to consent because they are not intellectually and emotionally prepared to do so is a valid argument.

I think saying someone is too young to consent because the law says so is begging the question.

Amadan said:

I think everyone understands that age of consent varies by jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Not only age of consent, but levels of consent. In MA at least, 16 is the age of consent if said 16-year-old is in a sexual relationship with someone else who is either 16 or 17. Once one of them is a legal adult, the younger partie's legal ability to consent is revoked by default. The younger party can't consent to sex with their 18-year-old lover, even if they're a 17-year-old. This is the law in my state as I understand it, and there are certainly other states with similar laws in effect.

Consent laws of this nature are designed so people at a common age to start having sex (16 and 17), aren't getting in trouble for consenual sex with EACH OTHER. Not with adults, but people their own age.

kuwisdelu said:

I think saying someone is too young to consent because they are not intellectually and emotionally prepared to do so is a valid argument.

I think saying someone is too young to consent because the law says so is begging the question.

Click to expand...

This is the "why" of what I said before. How young is too young? Does the law have to define it as certainly as by age? 16 vs 17 vs 18 might be arbitrary, but what other choice do we have?

There's no right answer, because under the exact same circumstances, one person may be capable of reasoned consent, and the other might not.


What age of consent laws do is try to catch the largest number of likely cases where a person may not be capable of reasoned consent. There are going to be times two people fall on the wrong sides of those guesstimates. It's not only impossible to write laws that would cover every case, it's incredibly difficult to even tell in many cases whether reasoned consent was freely given and whether on party was taking advantage of the other.


The closer the age difference, the more murky it gets. I don't think 99% of 50-year-olds have any business chasing 16-year-olds. Maybe 40% of 22-25-year-olds do. Maybe 80% of under-22s do. But no model is perfect.



Real-world consent depends on tons of factors, such as financial independence, mental and emotional development, the intent of both parties, the goals of both parties, any possible power one party might have over another, etc. The states plus DC plus feds can't even agree over a good age boundary. Good luck trying to enforce consent over all the various relevant continuums.

robjvargas said:

This is the "why" of what I said before. How young is too young? Does the law have to define it as certainly as by age? 16 vs 17 vs 18 might be arbitrary, but what other choice do we have?

Click to expand...

Exactly. We have no choice. The actual age may be arbitrary, but the line must be drawn somewhere.

Devil Ledbetter said:

When the stakes are prison, legal consent is the only type of consent the adult should be concerning himself with.

Click to expand...

But the exact nature of crimes, and the amount of harm done to the victim, often influences cases.

I also disagree that legal consent, or the possibility of going to prison, should be a person's sole concern. I think violating age of consent laws can show a lack of judgment, but I think the primary concern should always be the well-being of your partner and their ability to consent in general. "Can I go to prison for this?" is actually a pretty low standard for morality. I think a lot more highly of an 18-year-old who exercises some iffy judgment by having sex with their consenting 16-year-old partner in a state with an age of consent of 18 than I do someone who has sex with a 16-year-old who's legally over the age of consent, but who shows signs of not being ready for sex and has to be "coaxed" into it.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

There's no right answer, because under the exact same circumstances, one person may be capable of reasoned consent, and the other might not.

Click to expand...

Also, behavior can be harmful or creepy even if consent is present. I think it's very questionable and problematic when an older adult consistently shows an interest in teenagers.

I think too often with things like this, people look at it as all or nothing. Something doesn't have to be a crime, or blatantly non-consensual, in order to make people uncomfortable. And it should be possible to acknowledge that without taking away of the agency of the people on the other end.

When I was 17, I had a much older man express interest in me and try to engage me in some sexual behavior. I found it creepy because I questioned his judgment in approaching me like that, and because this guy had a history of showing an interest in teenagers. But I was absolutely consenting. I flirted back for a bit and, when I became too wigged out, told him to back off. It took a while for me to come to terms with my discomfort because I didn't feel like a victim at all and I didn't know how to express that I found something creepy and discomforting without claiming that I'd been exploited. Maybe he'd intended to exploit me, but I felt like an active participant, and I still feel that way. I still think he was a creep who showed poor judgment.

Celia Cyanide said:

Exactly. We have no choice. The actual age may be arbitrary, but the line must be drawn somewhere.

Click to expand...

To quote a quote in an old sig of mine, ""All lines are arbitrary; otherwise, we wouldn't have to draw them.""


The very fact that it's not obvious to every reasonable person where the line is suggests that there is no absolutely correct line, but that we do have to impose some sort of restriction to avoid the worst of the infractions.

If someone turns seventeen three months before their SO, well, there's more to a relationship than sex.

Of course we need to draw a line somewhere. And I agree that a 40-something man sleeping with a 16-year-old, even if it's legal, is very likely a predatory and exploitative relationship.

At issue was whether "consent" is impossible because the law says so, and whether it's wrong to refer to a consensual relationship between a teenager and her older boyfriend as being qualitatively different from child molestation.

DancingMaenid said:

I also disagree that legal consent, or the possibility of going to prison, should be a person's sole concern. I think violating age of consent laws can show a lack of judgment, but I think the primary concern should always be the well-being of your partner and their ability to consent in general. "Can I go to prison for this?" is actually a pretty low standard for morality. I think a lot more highly of an 18-year-old who exercises some iffy judgment by having sex with their consenting 16-year-old partner in a state with an age of consent of 18 than I do someone who has sex with a 16-year-old who's legally over the age of consent, but who shows signs of not being ready for sex and has to be "coaxed" into it.

Click to expand...

The "consent" I was talking about (and I made it pretty clear) was between a 16 year old and a much older person, not just another ever so slightly older teen. I think the legal age of consent spreads for teens are much more appropriate and based on how things really are, and are not at all the problem.

DancingMaenid said:

Also, behavior can be harmful or creepy even if consent is present. I think it's very questionable and problematic when an older adult consistently shows an interest in teenagers.

Click to expand...

Me too. Which is why I separate the discussion of age of consent between teens a few years apart from teens and people well out of their teens. They're just not the same thing, IMO. One is teens having sex with other teens, and the other is adults preying on teens.

Is it too creepy of me to say that I think it's more normal for an adult to think a (fantasy) 16-yr-old is sexually attractive than actual pedophilia is? I don't think adults ever need to be sexual with a 16-yr-old, don't get me wrong! And it's clearly illegal (in most states). But as far as disordered attractions go, it's not the same as a 10-yr-old, imho.

The illegality of the 16-yr-old porn is because of how it's made and the issue of full consent, I think. Being attracted to older teens aesthetically doesn't strike me as the same disorder as pedophilia. Not that it matters, because they are both taboo. But I'd hate for folks to feel like complete freaks because they thought a 16-yr-old looked hot, you know? That may be psychologically understandable, because they can often look like adults, I think, especially made up for a club or at the beach or whatever.

Any straight man who says he's never, ever looked at a 16-year-old girl and found her attractive is lying. (I assume the same is true of gay men and 16-year-old boys.)

I don't think there's anything creepy or unnatural about thinking pretty girls are pretty. Being unable to control your reaction is creepy.

Amadan said:

Any straight man who says he's never, ever looked at a 16-year-old girl and found her attractive is lying. (I assume the same is true of gay men and 16-year-old boys.)

I don't think there's anything creepy or unnatural about thinking pretty girls are pretty. Being unable to control your reaction is creepy.

Click to expand...

Even being able to control it, and not doing so, that treads well into creepyland.

Amadan said:

Of course we need to draw a line somewhere. And I agree that a 40-something man sleeping with a 16-year-old, even if it's legal, is very likely a predatory and exploitative relationship.

At issue was whether "consent" is impossible because the law says so, and whether it's wrong to refer to a consensual relationship between a teenager and her older boyfriend as being qualitatively different from child molestation.

Click to expand...

I think it is possible to have reasoned and enthusiastic consent even if the law says it is not legal consent. In an ideal world, we would always know whether consent reasoned and enthusiastic. But in the real world, it's much more complicated, and letting a jury of your average person decide whether consent was reasoned and enthusiastic makes me a little uncomfortable.

backslashbaby said:

Is it too creepy of me to say that I think it's more normal for an adult to think a (fantasy) 16-yr-old is sexually attractive than actual pedophilia is? I don't think adults ever need to be sexual with a 16-yr-old, don't get me wrong! And it's clearly illegal (in most states). But as far as disordered attractions go, it's not the same as a 10-yr-old, imho.

The illegality of the 16-yr-old porn is because of how it's made and the issue of full consent, I think. Being attracted to older teens aesthetically doesn't strike me as the same disorder as pedophilia. Not that it matters, because they are both taboo. But I'd hate for folks to feel like complete freaks because they thought a 16-yr-old looked hot, you know? That may be psychologically understandable, because they can often look like adults, I think, especially made up for a club or at the beach or whatever.

Click to expand...

In fact, sexual attraction by an adult towards teenagers between 15 and 19 is not pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia. Pedophilia is for prepubescent children, and hebephilia is for pubescent children.

It's important to remember that "pedophilia" as its often used in the common language is both too broad age-wise and interest-wise. The true definitions of all these terms require to strong preference or even exclusive attraction to children in the specific age category in question. There's nothing necessarily abnormal about the occasional physical attraction to teenagers. I think it's absolutely possible for an adult to have an attraction in a 17-year-old, say, and not be a perv because of it. However, if someone commonly or exclusively attempted to form romantic or sexual relationships with teenagers, I would consider that a strong suggestion that they have one of the above mentioned paraphilias, and therefore an unhealthy interest.

Amadan said:

Any straight man who says he's never, ever looked at a 16-year-old girl and found her attractive is lying. (I assume the same is true of gay men and 16-year-old boys.)

I don't think there's anything creepy or unnatural about thinking pretty girls are pretty. Being unable to control your reaction is creepy.

Click to expand...

I personally do not feel the need to dispute this.

Age of consent laws to me are not intended to suggest that attraction to those below that age is always wrong, but rather to keep in mind that there is a high chance of inherent inequality between someone below the age of consent and someone above it, and also that those below that age may not have reached the developmental level to truly understand the consequences of entering a relationship that may contain a power imbalance. Not that adults are necessarily any better at understanding those consequences.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

In fact, sexual attraction by an adult towards teenagers between 15 and 19 is not pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia. Pedophilia is for prepubescent children, and hebephilia is for pubescent children.

It's important to remember that "pedophilia" as its often used in the common language is both too broad age-wise and interest-wise. The true definitions of all these terms require to strong preference or even exclusive attraction to children in the specific age category in question.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it has to be exclusive attraction or a strong preference for it to be a paraphilia.

Otherwise, physical attraction to anyone in puberty or later is perfectly natural.

It's what we do about it that matters.

(Generally speaking) You can't control your feelings, but you can and should be able to control your actions.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I think it is possible to have reasoned and enthusiastic consent even if the law says it is not legal consent. In an ideal world, we would always know whether consent reasoned and enthusiastic. But in the real world, it's much more complicated, and letting a jury of your average person decide whether consent was reasoned and enthusiastic makes me a little uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

I agree. And while this can cause problems in some statutory rape cases, in general, I think trying to judge the amount of enthusiasm in a rape case can be very unfair. It's very common for lawyers in rape cases to try to argue that a victim was consenting because they flirted with their rapist or was an active participant up until the point they said no.

I think in cases of statutory rape, extenuating circumstances (like the legal victim saying it was fully consensual, or a very small age difference between the participants) should, in some cases, influence sentencing or what plea deals are offered. But if it's legally a crime, it's legally a crime. The law needs to be consistent for everyone.

In fact, sexual attraction by an adult towards teenagers between 15 and 19 is not pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia. Pedophilia is for prepubescent children, and hebephilia is for pubescent children.

It's important to remember that "pedophilia" as its often used in the common language is both too broad age-wise and interest-wise. The true definitions of all these terms require to strong preference or even exclusive attraction to children in the specific age category in question. There's nothing necessarily abnormal about the occasional physical attraction to teenagers. I think it's absolutely possible for an adult to have an attraction in a 17-year-old, say, and not be a perv because of it. However, if someone commonly or exclusively attempted to form romantic or sexual relationships with teenagers, I would consider that a strong suggestion that they have one of the above mentioned paraphilias, and therefore an unhealthy interest.

Click to expand...

Yep, all of this. Being exclusively or obsessively attracted to teenagers is ephebophilia, which is a paraphilia. Not everyone who takes advantage of teens is an ephebophile, and not everyone who abuses younger children is a pedophile.

Teens over a certain are generally well into puberty and have bodies that look fairly adult. I don't think there's anything abnormal about finding a teenager attractive occasionally as long as you don't fixate on them and you don't pursue them.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

It's important to remember that "pedophilia" as its often used in the common language is both too broad age-wise and interest-wise. The true definitions of all these terms require to strong preference or even exclusive attraction to children in the specific age category in question. There's nothing necessarily abnormal about the occasional physical attraction to teenagers. I think it's absolutely possible for an adult to have an attraction in a 17-year-old, say, and not be a perv because of it. However, if someone commonly or exclusively attempted to form romantic or sexual relationships with teenagers, I would consider that a strong suggestion that they have one of the above mentioned paraphilias, and therefore an unhealthy interest.

Click to expand...

Yes. There is even a sub-category for people who are attracted to adolescents between the ages of 11 and 14, called hebephilia. It really irks me when people are so quick to shout "pedophile" at an adult who finds an older teen attractive. This kind of slippery, blurry language obscures what it really means to be a pedophile, and that is being attracted to pre-pubescent children. And that is an entirely different animal, in need of much different treatment, than a guy who gets his rocks off being able to see up cheerleader's skirts.

Meanwhile, a case shows that the penalties for viewing child porn, as Grisham's friend did, are actually nowhere near as severe as the penalties for making it - while simultaneously giving us a view into how child porn is created.

http://www.kltv.com/story/26854375/1500-years-for-couple-who-produced-child-pornography

A federal judge sentenced a Lauderdale County couple to hundreds of years in prison for sexually abusing a minor child in their custody to produce images of child pornography.
[...]
The couple will return to custody in Lauderdale County where they face state child pornography, rape and sexual abuse charges.

Click to expand...

(bolding mine, for clarity.)

StephanieZie said:

It really irks me when people are so quick to shout "pedophile" at an adult who finds an older teen attractive. This kind of slippery, blurry language obscures what it really means to be a pedophile, and that is being attracted to pre-pubescent children. And that is an entirely different animal, in need of much different treatment, than a guy who gets his rocks off being able to see up cheerleader's skirts.

Click to expand...

I don't really think it matters. Anyone who says "pedophile" when they really mean "hebephile" is not going to be responsible for deciding what type of treatment that person gets. They're still predators, whether they are hebephiles or pedophiles. The fact that people who don't know any better might use the wrong word doesn't really make much difference.