Monday, November 19, 2012

Biology trumps all- except denial

I hesitate to post this one, because I know people will make assumptions and jump to conclusions and use this opinion as justification to dislike me.  Oh well.  Truth sometimes hurts.

There is a woman I have known since I was a teenager.  She has been a friend of one of my sisters since they were pretty young.  Her husband was a youth director at a church.  He apparently got caught "hitting on" (sexting? flirting with?) "young people" and lost his job.  And lost his wife.  He admitted doing it, and said he "has had this problem for a long time".  (I neither know nor care whether he actually did anything physical.)

There are plenty of legitimate reasons his wife could be angry at him or dislike him over this.  His violation of their marriage contract, for example.  Or the loss of his job.  Maybe even the fact that he used his position of "authority" as a way to find extramarital adventure.

But not because of who he is attracted to.  That isn't a "problem", it is basic biological programming.  Yet this is her apparent justification for ending the marriage in disgust.

Once a young person develops secondary sexual characteristics they become attractive to any normal sexually aware human (of whichever sex is attracted to their sex).  And, no person who is attracted to these sexually-developed young people can be honestly called a "pedophile"- these are not "children" in any meaningful sense of the word.  The artificial extension of "childhood" is a tragedy that is having disastrous social consequences, of which this subject is just one example.

Throughout most of human history, people of this age were sexually active, married, and reproducing.  It is not "wrong"; it just is what it is.  Youth is also attractive since that is a marker of "good breeding potential".  Sounds crass, but it is true, biologically and psychologically.  People can lie to others, or even to themselves, about this attraction, but it doesn't change the reality of the biological programming.

This biological truth trumps religion.  It trumps "law".  It trumps a wife's wishes.  It even trumps social programming and the risk of self-loathing.

I suspect a lot of people who find a job working with young people seek that kind of job specifically because of this stimulation.  Most of them probably never act on it due to social taboos, and they may not even recognize this attraction in themselves because of how they have been trained.  But it is there.  And sometimes, in some people, it will come to the surface.

As long as it is mutually consensual, no "law" can make it wrong.  If it isn't mutually consensual, no "law" can make it right.  And that includes sex.



  1. I agree that men (probably more than women) are "hardwired" to notice sexually developed young women. And I fail to see how a girl of 17 years, 364 days can be "jailbait", but one day later she can consent to have sex--like a magic switch was turned on in her brain. However, the age of the development of the secondary sexual characteristics has been dropping since the 1800's.

    In 1840 the average age of menarche was: Norway-17, France-15.3, England-16.5. In 2006 a study in Denmark showed that the onset of puberty for girls (breast development) was 9 years 10 months on average.

    As to marriage in older times records show the following for England:

    1566-1619 = 27 years
    1647-1719 = 29.6 years
    1719-1779 = 26.8 years
    1770-1837 = 25.1 years;jsessionid=226CA2DBFBA4FC4F739E3F071352B0BE

    Just because a 12-year-old girl, today, has developed secondary sexual characteristics doesn't mean she is mentally capable to make a wise decision about having sex. I'm not saying she couldn't, but it is highly unlikely. Maybe, at 15 she could. Still, any mature male should behave around young girls as he would want other men to behave with his daughters. And if he has a problem with that, and realizes it, he needs to get professional help.

  2. Many 30 year olds are not "mentally capable to make a wise decision about having sex". So we should punish their partners?

    I realize that is not what you are saying, but that is what a large majority of the statists are saying.

    I have no authority to judge any other persons decisions except as they relate to my own actions, and neither does any one else.

  3. I'm 76 and I'm not "mentally capable to make wise decisions" regarding sex.

    Sex -- sexuality -- is the overarching sacred cow. It baffles "anarchists" and "libertarians" in particular, as well as "evolutionists" (How the hell did "sex" evolve???? Ya wanta try to prove that "theory" without government funding??? "Science" is almost as funny as "religion" when you boil it down).

    And religionists from time immemorial have had a heyday with "sex" ("G-d's Gonna Gitcha).

    So I think I'll pass commenting on this one, Hawk. (Yuk Yuk Yuk)<-:]


  4. The evolution of sex is actually pretty fascinating- and makes a lot of genetic sense. But, yeah, I just wait for the attack anytime I write about anything sexual.

  5. But not because of who he is attracted to. That isn't a "problem", it is basic biological programming. Yet this is her apparent justification for ending the marriage in disgust.

    I'm not clear what basis you have for thinking that the wife terminated her marriage just because her husband is attracted to other women. I'd guess, unless I knew otherwise, that it was his ACTIONS, not his THOUGHTS, that pissed her off.

    I agree with the rest of the column. It's horrifying to me that even many self-proclaimed "men's rights activists" have a prudish attitude toward sex. For example, many insist that when a female teacher seduces a sexually mature, but under 18, boy, it's "rape". I don't think so!

  6. Thank you very, very much for writing this column Kent. For years (many years ago) I was in a very similar position to that church youth director (that is, regularly around teens in a wholesome, group activity capacity), until I was forced to pay a huge price (basically run out of town on a rail by all of the a parents) when I made the mistake of mentioning how I felt to the one young woman (just after her 18th birthday) that I had grown very fond of over the years.

    I've been a broken man ever since, and probably always will be. But your essay gives me some solace.

    And I still cherish every hug I ever got from that young woman and hope, despite the horrible state of the economy, that wherever she is she is doing well... and happy.

  7. "Natural Law" is coded in nature. It is what it is.
    "Laws of Man" always fail to match reality, and the distortions manufacture dissonance where none exists.

    TJ said something about 'govern least, govern best'. History consistently is that laws are a bad habit: Like heroin- Once a society starts making laws, they just keep doing it, and the worse they make things. But they cannot stop themselves. If only their actions did not aggress/destroy the lives of others.

  8. the analogy works better as 'government is like crack'.

    They start doing it and they cannot help themselves. Using government is a bad habit that destroys the lives it touches.