jump to navigation

Dr. Phil Strikes Again Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Posted by Dick in Anti-Idiot.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
trackback

I am a long-time hater of Dr. Phil. Let me re-phrase that: I am an opponent of the stupidity that comes out of that moron’s mouth.

Now, before I say anything, let me state that I am in no way, shape, or form condoning pedophilia, the subject of Dr. Phil’s show today. In fact, “pedophilia” isn’t even the appropriate term for the subject material today.

Dr. Phil had on his show a man who had sex with a 15-year-old girl. Dr. Phil, of course, had his usual moronic spew to counter any of the man’s defnenses. What really pissed me off was Dr. Phil’s repeated statements that “a child cannot consent to sex”.

First off, what makes a human being a “child”? At what age does is the human brain suddenly capable of making important decisions, predicting the consequences of said decisions, and knowing right from wrong? Why is the age of consent 16 in some states, but 18 in others? Why is a 17-year-old a “child” in one state, but a full-fledged adult in another?

By Dr. Phil’s moronic reasoning, would it be morally wrong to have consensual sex (which is possible at a certain, indeterminable, subjective age) with a “child” in Idaho, but perfectly okay in Arkansas?

Now, I know fully that the age of the girl they were talking about is 15, not 16 or 17, and that none of the United States has an age of consent below 16. But what difference does a year make in terms of maturity? Is a 16-year-old a child, while a 17-year-old an adult? Does a girl’s 17th (or 16th or 18th) birthday hold some magic powers that suddenly transforms them into an adult?

My point is, don’t call 15-year-olds children. A 5-year-old, fine. Five-year-olds are children and in no way can they consent to anything sexual. But anything past the age of 14 is a gray area. Some countries even have an age of consent of 12. (I know, I know… they are less advanced and sophisticated than us, and we are therefore better than every other country in the world.)

While it may seem clear-cut to some people (“the law is the law”), Dr. Phil brought up his opinion that, all law aside, it was still “wrong” (a term he throws around a lot despite his lack of knowing what the fuck it really means) and that a “child cannot consent to sex”. What if the “child” had been a 16-year-old, which is only a year’s difference? Would it still be wrong?

Sure, in a few states it would be wrong. But in other states it would be right. This is where we must separate legality from morality. If it’s perfectly legal to bonk a 16-year-old in Tennessee, does that make it morally “right”? Since when does location determine morality? It’s ridiculous to think that sex with a 16-year-old is repulsively wrong in one location, but perfectly acceptable and ignored in another a few hundred miles away.

If we start looking at statutory rape in terms of morality, we have a huge gray area, for which there is no clear-cut solution, despite what Dr. Phil so desperately wants to believe. Never mind the fact that there are 15-year-olds who are more mature than some 21-year-olds I’ve known. But that’s a subjective observation that some would vehemently disagree with.

I know most of the people that read this will be offended, but that’s just some tough shit you’ll have to chew. Morality is a tough issue that is subjective in most cases. What’s perfectly OK for one person may be horribly wrong for another.

That’s all I’ve got for now.

Advertisements

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: