Alex Blaze

"Most men are sexually attracted to young women"

Filed By Alex Blaze | April 05, 2007 5:26 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Media
Tags: child exploitation, NAMBLA

This is from a straight male judge sentencing a guy who was found with a bunch of porn involving kids under the age of ten:

"These kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control," said Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox prior to sentencing. "When I say that, it's my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don't just mean women that ... you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they're 1 all the way up until they're 100."

Maddox noted the legal terms malum in se, a Latin phrase meaning an act that is "inherently evil," and malum prohibitum, which means acts that are not necessarily inherently immoral or hurtful, only wrong by statute.

He said child pornography could be considered malum prohibitum because in some countries and cultures it is acceptable to engage in sexual conduct with young girls.

"As an example, having sex with a girl between 12 and 16 is prohibited because we say it's prohibited. It's because we decided as a civilized society you do not want adults engaging in sexual conduct with children below 16 years of age, which flies in the face of our, I guess for lack of a better description, our normal impulses," he said.

"I guess we could just ignore them, say it's just like a traffic ticket, it's malum prohibitum, it's only against the law because it's prohibited. Or we could say that because we're trying to control what's an otherwise natural impulse there has to be consequences.

"The bottom line on it all is the way we're going to control it in my opinion is to ensure that everybody understands what the consequences are if you engage in ... a lack of impulse control. It's likely that most people would find young girls sexually attractive. But we're civilized to the point that we're taught to control our impulses. When you don't, there has to be consequences."

Remember, he's not even talking about a guy who finds a 17-year-old pop star on TV hot, he's talking about a guy who possessed porn involving kids under the age of ten.

Imagine if this guy had pics of little boys and the judge were gay and made the above speech. Seriously, the news media would go haywire, the Focus on the Family sorts would be calling for Lawrence to be overturned, and it would be permanently embedded in all those anti-gay pamphlets forever. But is anyone asking all heterosexuals to defend this guy? Not at all. We realize that there are just some people, straight or gay or queer or bi or asexual, who are just kinda weird or nutty or say inappropriate things.

Just pointing out how the anti-gays can go in front of Congress or the Supreme Court and call all queer people child molesters, and a straight guy puts out a NAMBLA-esque spiel in court and the most anyone says about it is "This guy's kinda creepy."

(h/t Feministing)

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

He sounds like a closet pedophile.

Mike Kole | April 5, 2007 8:59 PM

I shivered when I read the judge's comments- I have a two-year-old daughter. I'm surprised the social conservatives haven't attacked this judge for these comments.

It seems as if this judge is sympathizing, perhaps even empathizing with this sicko.

It amazes me how as a society we can come as far as we have technologically and medically, and yet still someone as educated as a judge ought to be, is relying on a very twisted take on evolutionary psychology to explain this pedophile's actions.

just a dude | May 1, 2007 10:56 PM

Um. I'll admit that I'm attracted to girls who are very under-aged. It kind of pisses me off that society forces me steer clear of my natural impulses, but if those are the rules which serve the greater good, then I'm all for it. Call it what you want, but the bottom line is that I'm just being human. I couldn't agree more with the judge's comments. He knows who we are as both humans and citizens, and he's abiding by the rules with blatant, honest words.

BOB Barker | August 5, 2007 7:40 AM

Frankly the judge is right.

Having sex with a underage (Under 16 or below) Was quite common before 1960's1970's. And still is in many countries.

It was only MADE illegal in so called civilized countries in the 1970's ..

The practice has been going on for thousands of years.. To expect mankind to suddenly in just 37 years to stop a activity that has been going on for THOUSANDS of years is ignorant.

While i agree with most people here that the practice is gross and wrong. I can understand the reasons behind it.

Look at human nature.. What our our base instincts? 1. housing 2. Food 3. Procreation. And not in that order.

There is also another issue you people are not considering. There is different types of pedo's . The kind that never does anything (99% of the population) and the kind that actively seeks out and takes by force.

This second group of men and WOMAN.. are called predators for a reason. They prey on children.

The first group of people are the so called NORMAL people. People like you and me etc.. It is part of us and part of everyone.

Grow up people.. This judge is correct.

I was a very young cute blonde who developed a litle too quickly and all I can say is 'Men who try anything on a young girl will fuck up their life forever!!' I do not trust men even though I'm married now with a 1 year old baby. We might look hot but mentally we are still babies.