Human sexuality and age of consent
Offline I post a good argument, but this type of subject has the distinction of being beset with heavy emotion even by those who profess to work dispassionately. So let me calm the predictable response "are you a child molester?" by answering truthfully: "no." I only chose this ultra-forbidden topic because it is, after all, ultra forbidden.
Since this topic rouses so much emotion, it will be a good way to test our ability to analyze something objectively, and set ourselves apart from the rest of society that is largely led more by emotion than critical thinking.
Without an absolute standard of morality, what criteria do you use to determine the proper "age of consent"?
And can you admit that, in the absence of an absolute morality, you are never going to prove that any age is too young? All you are going to do is find a whole bunch of people who agree with you, which accomplishes nothing more than what the world has already given us; a bunch of people who disagree on the minimum age-of-consent.
My own position on the matter is that our current laws don't reflect reality. The popular Mary K. Letourneau matter is a case in point: The boy that got her pregnant does not give any sign of having been more negatively impacted psychologically or physically because of his having sex with an older woman while he was a young teen, anymore than your average 18 year old guy would have been in the same, eh, "position" 
They are now happily married with kids, even though they were separated by her 7 year prison sentence.
If we really wish to say that a 34 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old boy is "wrong", aren't we morally obligated to show why?
Most acts called crimes in criminal law are so designated because they "harm" other people, agreed?
Yes, there is a difference between Fualaau's case, and the case of an older man with a younger girl, but what if the girl consented, and there was no physical rape or other use of force? The only evidence I'm able to marshal to show that the girl is being traumatized, even though she consented, is the subjective opinion of the outraged emotional community, who, like most people, are sure that 13 is just too young, and have zero proof for it.
Here are some questions to consider:
Suppose a girl aged 17 years and 364 days, gives consent to an adult male to have sex. They begin around midnight. She changes her mind, and has him prosecuted. The state is able to prove that the sex began actually at 11:59 p.m. when the girl was yet 17 years and 364 days old. The man is convicted of statutory rape and must now carry this stigma around for life. One minute is the difference between rape and legal sex, right? A single minute is the difference between the girl not being able to give informed consent and being able to give it, amen? Hopefully you see the relativity.
For the adult men here:
Suppose you have a picture of a 25 year old woman whom you are sexually attracted to. Suppose you are now married to her, and she had 9125 pictures of herself (roughly one picture of her for every day of her life since birth). What is the earliest picture of her that you could honestly say she started to become sexually attractive to you? Would you say that she had no sexuality about her whatsoever when she was 17 years and 364 days old, and then the very next day, suddenly, she was sexually attractive?
Suppose you like boobs and butts, and you are shown 10 photos of different women with boobs and butts that you like....but their faces are blurred. Would you be unable to be aroused at this sight because you are not able to decide whether you are looking at early-developing junior high school girls or full grown women?
For the adult women here:
Suppose you are a schoolteacher, and you fulfill the fantasy of one of the 12-year old boys in your class. In your best estimation, he had a real good time and is hoping for more. How would you argue that this act of yours caused him any kind of physical or psychological damage whatsoever?
For all adults:
Lots of adults do role-playing games during sex. Lots of adult women like to pretend they are underage girls and have their male partner play the role of the "older man", pretending to coerce them gently into sex. Some women have rape fantasies.
Similarly, there is no shortage of guys (usually submissives) that want to play the part of the young schoolboy while the wife or girlfriend or prostitute plays the part of the older female schoolteacher, during sex.
Why? Were all such people raised the wrong way and so cannot find fulfillment with "normal" sex"? Could you prove that people who have "wild" sex all come from broken dysfunctional homes? What's normal sex? If you often want your husband to hold your hands down to the mattress with force while in missionary position, are you thus in need of psychotherapy?
The point I wish to make is that it is impossible for atheists who deny absolute morality, to yet speak in public as if the age-of-consent was an absolute moral. Christians will quickly pounce on this as an inconsistency, and they would be right.
What the atheist should do is affirm that the world does not agree on the age of consent, proving that the laws we now deem to be normal and acceptable in America are nothing more than social conditioning. The "age of consent" controversy provides a good opportunity for the atheists to demonstrate the power of social conditioning, and that the particular age of consent in the fundamentalist Christian's county or state of residence are clearly not "gospel".
I am honest enough to admit that I think having sex with a 13 year old girl, even with her consent, is immoral, but only because I've been conditioned by my environment to believe that way, not because there is any evidence that such an act is necessarily harmful or psychologically traumatizing to the girl. If I had been born and raised in certain tribes in Africa, I might feel that having a 9 year old girl for a wife is par for the course of life, and that her protests to having sex are just because she is rebellious to the gods.
By the way, I've done extensive debating on the issue of sex in the bible; God's word condemns many petty crimes like lying, stealing, loaning money at interest to fellow Israelites, swearing, cussing, etc....but it both advocates sex between adult men married to female children, and never condemns this practice. I'll debate any Christian here who thinks otherwise.
What does it mean if an "underage" child consents to sex with an adult, the act is never forced, and thereafter, shows no signs of psychological trauma consistent with typical rape? Is there a reason criminal law distinguishes regular rape from statuatory rape? Is it because sex with an "underage" person cannot always be proven to result in harmful effects on the child, and so the state feels compelled to step in and arbitrarily assert this act must have harmful effects even when it doesn't?
British society regards the statutory presumption in American Law, that teen kids cannot meaningfully consent to sex with an adult, as a legal fiction.
If Fualaau endured no harm, does that mean the "statuatory rape" laws need serious revision?
A related debate is just how much the state should feel itself compelled to legislate morality.
See Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, by Judith Levine
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
- Login to post comments
Offline The age of consent in SA is the same as Zim - 16. Interestingly, that only became law in South Africa this year. The significant difference between the 2 statutes is that the Zimbabwean law specifies that it applies to heterosexual and lesbian contacts. Homosexual contact is punishable by a year's imprisonment (where the offence is highly likely to repeat, albeit without consent.) Mugabe; what a dick.
I compare the 2 because there are cultural similarities and I know one better than the other. In rural Zimbabwe marriages can be arranged, imposed or a couple may marry for love. Women marry as young as 12 or 13, the consent question being neatly taken care of by their parents. A younger bride is preferred, as she is less likely to be HIV positive.
Lobola (where the groom "buys" the bride from her parents) is also payable, often in the form of cattle, corn and/or cash. It varies with the status of the bride, her age and her perceived beauty. Village chiefs are often the matchmakers or have to approve as well as carry out the marriages. Polygamy is permitted.
Swaziland, at one stage in the last 10 years and maybe to this day, required all virgin women to wear tassles and made it illegal for any man to have sex with a virgin. The stated reason was to combat HIV, but it was probably more likely that Swazi King's wanted to ensure he had an ample supply of virgins at his next wife selection. (I'm not making this up - he and his advisors put together an entire stadium filled with virgin women ranging from about 13 to 30 from which they choose his next bride. Happens every few years and is a national event.)
The moral zeitgeist accepts young marriages in these communities, but it is shifting and has been since Western (Christian) "values" entered it. The raising of the age of consent in South Africa evidences that - the urban populations, largely educated to a curriculum that must be compatible with the Western one in order for the West to consider it part of an education and so continue to fund it, are changing the zeitgeist to fit their moral view. Helped in no small part by the cultural influence of Western-style television & film and by the colonial past of each of these societies.
I point these things out to provide perspective in support of one of the OP's points. The view that a child of 13 is too young to engage in sexual activity with another person is one that has evolved (for want of a better word) within Westernized society. At a guess, I would say it is probably born of the puritan societies that took hold after Martin Luther, where sex was itself taboo to the point of deviant fetish. Or perhaps it comes from the Catholic obsession with Mary and her virginity, inspiring a desire to prolong virginity for as long as possible whilst enduring the survival of the species. I wonder if the Catholic Church would have been so anti-cloning had the technology to reproduce without sexual contact been available at the dawn of the Rennaissance.
In order to avoid pariah status I'd better point out that my personal preferences mean that, to me, a woman is only physically attractive from post-pubescence onward. Before or during puberty does not do it for me at all. Also important (I'd go so far as to growl provocativley if I could get the sound right) is several degrees of self-knowledge and emotional maturity that whilst rare amongst the "barely legal" crowd does show itself from time to time. I guess I agree, then, that assigning an age to sexual consent is dumb and that instances now considered statuatory rape should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not on that of a generalised age bracket.
(edited for too many hads)
Stop that... It's silly.
- Login to post comments
Offline And can you admit that, in the absence of an absolute morality, you are never going to prove that any age is too young?
I think we can legitimately say that pre-pubescent children are too young. There's biology behind it. There's also psychology, since before puberty, many children have not felt any kind of sexual urges, and have no idea how to consent to what's happening.
If we really wish to say that a 34 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old boy is "wrong", aren't we morally obligated to show why?
Yes, and no.
Morality isn't a function of rationality in many cases. In fact, there's a pretty good case for the evolution of emotions as an easy way for genes to get their reproductive attachments (humans) to do illogical things for the good of the genes, and to the detriment of the humans.
To go back to something you mentioned earlier, I believe (and I think I can demonstrate) that morality is NOT arbitrary, even for the staunchest atheist. If you're familiar with the Trolley experiments, you know that there are some things which give every appearance of being innate moral guidelines, particularly with regard to the taking of human life, and to the sense of responsibility for another person's actions.
So, I suggest that human morality is SUBJECTIVE, and anything but ARBITRARY. That being said, when we question certain moral drives in humans, we must admit that one possible answer is this: This morality exists because people are instinctively programmed for it to exist. No other rational reason is necessary.
As an example, if we were perfectly rational creatures, we would realize quickly that it's a terrible idea for only one or two people to raise a child. If something happens to one or both parents, the child is likely to suffer greatly. If, on the other hand, all the adults in a particular neighborhood were to take equal responsibility for all the children, each adult contributing a small part of his or her own time and resources, there would never be a need for adoption, and all children would be raised efficiently and without poverty.
This will never happen because parents have an intensely strong desire to protect their own children from anyone outside the immediate family. This isn't a product of American society, although it might be exacerbated by it. This is a product of genes that tell us (accurately, I might add) that non-family males are likely to cause harm to our children.
So, the ethic of being completely responsible for your own child, while not 100% rational in a vacuum, is the way our genes have programmed us, and that is the way we will raise our children, regardless of any well reasoned arguments for any other way.
I cannot give evidence for an innate moral programming against sex with 13 year olds, primarily because there have been lots of times in history when it was common practice. What I will suggest, though, is that all societies have some sort of "rite of passage" by which children become adults. I suspect that sexual standards are linked to these rites of passage. So, in any society, our genes tell us to make a cultural divide between adults and children. That divide is somewhat flexible, depending on the demands of the society -- pre-industrial feudal type societies would have shorter life spans, and a bigger need for children to "grow up fast," so we would expect that the age at which people initiate "adult" sexual behaviors would be lower. Without doing an in depth review of history, I think anecdotally that this is true.
In America, we grow up very slowly. Think of how many 35 year olds you've met in your life who said that they didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives. Think of how many 25 year olds are still in school, and have never worked a day in their life other than to buy cigarettes and beer. I think this parallels our attitudes about sex. Not only do we think it's immoral for a 21 year old to have sex with a 16 year old (only 5 years difference) we think it's wrong for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 25 year old (25 years difference, but both over the age of consent.) Is this possibly because very few 25 year olds are perceived as being "really adults"? I don't know, but I think it's probable.
In the Phillipines, it's been customary for centuries for old men to have very young wives. The wives think it's a pretty good deal because the old men are the ones with all the money. The young men just have to wait their turn, and work hard to accumulate enough wealth to afford a wife. With the general poverty and the need for everyone to chip in, as predicted, has come a general acceptance of women joining the "adults" at a young age.
Suppose you have a picture of a 25 year old woman whom you are sexually attracted to. Suppose you are now married to her, and she had 9125 pictures of herself (roughly one picture of her for every day of her life since birth). What is the earliest picture of her that you could honestly say she started to become sexually attractive to you? Would you say that she had no sexuality about her whatsoever when she was 17 years and 364 days old, and then the very next day, suddenly, she was sexually attractive?
I dated a girl who was 25 when I was 30, and she had a picture of herself when she was 16. I have no problem admitting that I thought it was really hot.
This is a very good mental exercise, and illustrates very well that there isn't a REAL divide between sexual maturity and immaturity, and that even puberty is not a clear line, since it doesn't happen instantly.
I suggest that an arbitrary line, like 18 as an age of consent, is nothing more than an agreed upon approximation. Certainly some people are ready for sex before, and some are not ready after. I think the philosophy behind it is to get the age at which we are most likely to be accurate in assessing large numbers of cases.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Firstly, there are about 1 million questions here, and I would say next time it might be better to ask one or a few very clear questions rather than a ton, but let me get to the heart of the matter. I think I would take the idea of mutually satisfactory activities makes sense here. I mean if you could prove that a 35 year old woman having sex with a 14 year old male had no negative impacts on the male's life and he enjoyed it, then I wouldn't say it is necessarily wrong, and vice versa with the genders reversed. I don't think there really can be an absolute age where its like, 18 is the point you become an adult, a light goes on in your head, and all of the decisions you make are perfectly rational and made in an absolutely beneficial way for yourself. This is a subconscious meme, where we as a culture recognize that person's consent to be of more importance than their legal guardians. In other words, they are solely responsible for their actions and what happens to their body.
Good point. How much say to legal guardians have in the choices kids make for themselves?
I would say a much better way to view the age of consent is to take into account each situation with the parties involved, the maturity level of the younger participant, the harm or lack of harm done to the younger participant, the intent of the older participant, and the consequences of the activities of the younger participant. If the younger participant genuinely enjoyed the activity, was not used in an abusive or deceptive manner, and the intent and actions of the older participant were without malice, then the activities would not be immoral in my opinion.
a good description of utilitarian ethics. The less hurt an act causes, the less criminal it is.
While I am sure this situation has happened countless times in history, the laws in place to protect "minors" are in place(aside from the obvious religious, morally prescribed reasons) because time and time again, younger participants have been duped, coerced, or actively participated in very destructive sexual relationships that leave the younger participant emotionally scarred as a result.
I would add that another reason those laws are in place is due to the uncritical belief of the populace and the lawmakers that all sex between grownups and minors is always harmful, when in fact that's not the case.
The prescribed laws have been put in place to create a blanket set of rules, erring on the side of caution, to prevent the odious consequences of what has been described above. The legal system takes the position that it is better to disallow legal adults from engaging in sexual acts with those younger than the age of consent prescribed by law, so as to protect the minor from possible negative consequences related to sexual activities.
Erring on the side of caution is probably what the current law must do. I'd rather wish America would put the fate of criminals into the hands of their victims. That would deter crime, because the criminal would easily figure out his victims maybe pissed enough to take his life. I used to steal when I was younger because I knew I didn't have much to worry about if caught. But if the law would have been "upon conviction, you will be turned over to the victim and/or family, to be dealt with as they please," I wouldn't have done it. Somebody may say "that would motivate criminals to steal only from Christians." My answer is, Jesus told Christians not to resist evil, period. So if letting the victims decide the fate of the criminal only makes criminals target forgiving Christians more, maybe the new law will wake them up to the fact that forgiveness is not always the answer.
The law creates the frame that any number(lets say the vast majority,even though this is probably not true) of positive sexual activities between persons under that age of consent are not worth the risk of even one harmful sexual activity of a person under the age of consent.
Your first statement, to the effect that the circumstances surrounding the act should be taken into consideration, would solve this problem. This solution is better than the current one in which perfectly normal rational people are sent to jail and must live carrying a sexual slur around with them the rest of their lives, when in fact they didn't do something immoral. The state has simply enforced it's morality on citizens without realizing that the consequences for conviction hurt the convict forever, and thus the law needs very careful thorough review.
At the same time, I think that the will of the democratic majority is best for instituting law. If they are all stupid and think an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old is immoral, that's the price to pay for the higher good of living in a democracy. Those who wish to change the rules need to start by educating the people of the democracy of how their laws hurt or help the society.
The problem in legal systems, is that every case is different, and it is almost impossible to say sex with anyone of any age is permissible as long as the older participant demonstrates no harm is done to the younger participant. The minor involved is an able, willing, consenting, and demonstrably enjoys the activities. This would also neglect any rights that the legal guardian of the minor was afforded under the law to be responsible for the welfare of said child. It creates a situation where it would pit lover against parent for legal deference over how exactly "welfare of the child" can be administered and whether that means parents have the right to decide whether their children can or cannot engage in sexual activities.
Good point. The matter of when a child should be deemed by the lawmakers as mature enough to make informed decisions, needs careful review. Most teens engage in sex at 17 or before, and they don't necessarily end up traumatized because of it, so the age of the older partner appears irrelevent.
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
- Login to post comments
Offline In terms of absolutes, pre-puberty children are, of course, biologically not prepared for sex, as Hamby has allready pointed out. So that, at least, is a clearcut MORAL age-of-consent bottom line. Anyone who does not agree with that will be deemed blatantly immoral by me, with no need for further consideration on my part. Any such person is loathsome to me, and I feel perfectly entitled to think so (as I'm sure you all will agree). Of course the onset of puberty varies from person to person, but it it at least a biologically identifiable point in time.
Now, in terms of a LEGAL age of consent, I think it is reasonable for any society to agree on what is, in actual fact, an arbitrary number (Your 17 years and 364 days example shows just how arbitrary it is). But for the purposes of law, it's okay to have some clear cut lines.
However the 18 years age of consent is ridiculously high, and serves only to criminalize the most sexually active group of people in most societies: older teens. (well, actually the "most" active, is probably wrong, that is more likely 20-somethings, but still, I hope you get my point).
In Denmark the age of consent is 15, and that is a perfectly reasonable number, as far as I'm concerned. For legal purposes, this serves Denmark as a society quite well.
Now, let me just share with you, two stories, to show how the MORAL problem is a lot more muddy than "15 years is just fine".
First, a couple of friends I had back when I was myself a teenager. She was 14 when she met him, and he was 16. When I knew them they where 15 and 17 respectively, and very happy together. They were at it like rabbits, and had been from the start (so for a couple of months there, they were, in fact, breaking the law, a fact that they relayed to me one time, giggling profusely ). Their parents knew of their relationship, and approved, and had had, I'm sure, the "Sex talk" with them and everything. By the way, he might have been two years older, but in terms of emotional maturity, it was no contest, he was an overgrown (and might I add, very lucky!) kid, and she was a strong, selfassured, and very mature young woman. Nothing I can come up with is moraly objectionable in this story.
Now, My ex-girlfriend's first boyfriend was 22, and she was 15. Her farther had left her mother when she was 13 and she had a serious issue with trying to regain his love byproxy, by a strong attraction to older men. He was a muslim, who, just to make this a giant Freudian nightmare, had never known his farther, and had grown up with only his mother, aunts and sisters. and he was incredibly violent and domineering: He desperately tried to act out the male stereotype in all its worst incarnations, I'm sure in some warped attempt to be the "perfect" man that his farther probably was in his mind.
For a year he beat her, and repeatedly had sex with her in ways that she described to me, years later, as rape. She didn't tell him not to, and did manage to set some boundries for things she would not consent to, but she often, if not always, did not actually want to have sex with him. But she had her own emotional issues, and had convinced herself that she was madly in love with him.
Only when she was 18, when I met her, had she had time to process the whole thing, and could now see that first, fateful year of her legal status, and her first sexual experiences, for what they were. And legally, she could never have made a case for rape (though certainly for violence, but that's another story), since she was never really objecting, and would have defended him at the time, because of her own issues, and since she was legally old enough, there was no case there.
But, as she and I talked about it, we agreed that, had she not gone through that, and two later relationships with considerably older men (who were thankfully, not violent, but who still used her), she would have never processed her own issues, and would have been just as vulnerable if she had been a virgin when she was 19, and only then met the guy.
My point is, even if I think 15 is a good age for legal age of consent, there are cases, like the first, where breaking the law is not at all immoral, and cases like the second, where you can still do terrible things, without breaking the law.
Personally, I only really worry about girls. I will be the first to say that men invest themselves as much emotionally in sex, as women do, since sex, for me, is the single most emotional experience in life. But I do recognize that to victimize a man sexually is alot harder, unless you actually forcefully rape him, and that is illegal, regardless of age or gender. I have had my heart broken, and I have felt betrayed by a lover, but I have never felt that a girl took emotional advantage of me for sex... I simply cannot imagine such a situation. If a girl wants me, I cannot feel that I have been used. And I certainly can't imagine feeling like that if I had been lucky enough for that to happen to me when I was 13 either.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline As far as age of consent. I think prepubescent children is always wrong and adults who have sex with these children need to go to jail.
For picking the age, there should come an point in time when children are no longer the responsibility of the parents or the government, the age when you can decide to stop going to school, get a job, join the military, drink liquor, etc... When people reach this age the should go to a government office and get a new ID card to this effect. So this could vary from 15 to 21.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline I think we can legitimately say that pre-pubescent children are too young. There's biology behind it. There's also psychology, since before puberty, many children have not felt any kind of sexual urges, and have no idea how to consent to what's happening.
I was masturbating furiously two years before the onset of my puberty. Even as a very young child I had primitive sexual urges though I didn't really realize what was going on.
Also from experiences with raising children. It seems like kids even at a very young age have some kind of sexual desire. Of course it would be abhorrent to do anything to them. But if I had gotten laid by an older woman at the age of 12 I would have been thrilled.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
- Login to post comments
Offline I was masturbating furiously two years before the onset of my puberty. Even as a very young child I had primitive sexual urges though I didn't really realize what was going on.
On reflection, I guess I was probably speaking from my personal experience rather than an objective viewpoint. There was nothing in my house that would have sparked any sexual thoughts in me, and I was well past puberty before I had a um... grasp... on what sex was really about.
As you have clearly illustrated, even puberty is not a concrete boundary, but I think it's fair to say that there is a real biological divide before and after puberty, and that it makes sense to have social prohibitions against sex with prepubescents.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline On reflection, I guess I was probably speaking from my personal experience rather than an objective viewpoint. There was nothing in my house that would have sparked any sexual thoughts in me, and I was well past puberty before I had a um... grasp... on what sex was really about.
As you have clearly illustrated, even puberty is not a concrete boundary, but I think it's fair to say that there is a real biological divide before and after puberty, and that it makes sense to have social prohibitions against sex with prepubescents.
Agreed.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
- Login to post comments
Offline I've been sexual all my life. I've been fascinated by sex for, literally, as long as I can remember. At the age of six I would fantasize, innocently perhaps, and naively certainly, about various situations with women, but I would always picture myself as an adult, if indeed "I" was even present in the fantasy. More usually I would imagine characters, like in a story, and "I" was not there as anything but the narrator/creator of said story. And the thought of sharing this with anyone never crossed my mind.
I don't like the thought of someone sexually mature, man or woman, trying to somehow talk to me about my own sexuality, and certainly not "experiment" with me at this time, and nor do I feel it at all appropriate that anyone should do that to a pre-pubesant child. But to be open about sex with children, tell them what it is about, and make no secret of the fact that it is a vital part of ADULT life, is not only acceptable, but I think, should be encouraged. The fact that I was treated this way as a child; I got to have my OWN sexuality to myself, but was never "sheltered" from the sexuality of the adults around me, is the reason, I think that I have had such a healthy and happy sexlife.
And actually, my concern about girls being victimised, as I adressed in my previous post, is IMO best handled in this way. To send the signal to a little girl that her sexuality is hers, that she can and shall figure that out for herself, and that nobody needs to "teach" her anything, that she chooses what she wants to do when she feels ready. I mean, it won't be enough, cause you never know what stupidly unfair things the world will throw at her, but at least that way she will be best equipped to deal with it.
Oh, and also, farthers: love your daughters, and be there for them, cause if there is one things I've seen from far too many of my girlfriends and girl friends, it is that a surefire way to screw up a girl's sexuality it is an emotionally distant farther.
Edit: sorry to go all Freudian on you. Reading back my previous posts I can see I'm spouting pop-psychology left and right. Something I find rather pretentious and annoying when I hear other people do it, but clearly I'm doing it all the time myself. Mea Culpa...
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, and also, farthers: love your daughters, and be there for them, cause if there is one things I've seen from far too many of my girlfriends and girl friends, it is that a surefire way to screw up a girl's sexuality it is an emotionally distant farther.
True. I won't make that mistake with my girls.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
- Login to post comments
Offline fantasies
- Login to post comments
Offline Well the age of consent varies massively even in Western Countries. I believe in Europe its generally between 12 and 17.
It's pretty arbitary but in a functioning society even if young people break the law prosecutions are only ever made in the UK if its in the public interest
If a 16 year old boy has consenting sex with a 15 year old girl in the UK its illegal (consent age is 16) but its extremely unlikely any prosecution would ever be made. At worst the 16 year old would get a telling off and that would be it.
The problem occurs when the police who decide who to prosecute become political . They are not elected in the UK (and rightly in my opinion) so they can use their own discretion without fall out. It really doesnt matter to some extent what the exact age is
Some possible guidelines would be when can you pay taxes, when can you vote, when can you go to war. Been quite a few inconsitincies in UK law regarding that but they are generally getting ironed out. The fact we used to be able to have front line soldiers at 16 who couldnt vote or even have a beer was utterly absurd (its been changed now you need to be 18 for all this now but can join the army at 16 but can't fight)
- Login to post comments
Offline Hooooo Boy!Tough, complex subject.
I have a few opinions.
Sex with pre-pubescent children is always wrong. Biologically, mentally and emotionally, no one can convince me that a child can truely consent to have sex.
Yes, pre-pubescent children can and do have sexual feelings. Masturbation (of sorts) is common for both males and females at a time when potty training occurs. That does NOT mean they are ready to be sexualized.
That being said...
I've had a few 'close calls' over the years with some frighteningly aggressive little vixens. 12-14 yo's (No, I didn't succumb... although a couple of the encounters might fuel a masturbatory fantasy or two).
I can agree with the ideal that if there is no harm, there is no foul. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. I think we can agree that some boundery must be set. In a perfect world, where the courts have the time to sort out the complexities of each individual set of personalities, weighing the relative maturity levels and adjudicating on the absence or presence of 'harm' we could do away with arbitrary age limits. And I agree that arbitrary limits do set the stage for some tragic and absurd situations.
However, in the real world, limits must be set, and to be fair, they must take into account the worst case scenerio and work from there. To my mind, the age of consent should be around 15.
Other points;
Age play, that is erotic play between adults in which one partner plays the role of a younger person. Harmless. In fact, I'll go out on the limb to say that ANY erotic play between consenting adults is basically without harm. I've been a part of the D/s lifestyle for the better part of 30 years. Informed consent is like an artical of faith with us...
LC >;-}>
(Did I just 'out' myself?)
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
- Login to post comments
Offline In terms of absolutes, pre-puberty children are, of course, biologically not prepared for sex, as Hamby has allready pointed out. So that, at least, is a clearcut MORAL age-of-consent bottom line. Anyone who does not agree with that will be deemed blatantly immoral by me, with no need for further consideration on my part. Any such person is loathsome to me, and I feel perfectly entitled to think so (as I'm sure you all will agree). Of course the onset of puberty varies from person to person, but it it at least a biologically identifiable point in time.
Your emotion-laden response is the precise reason I brought up this subject. You cite pre-puberty, and then emotionally insist that you regard all who disagree with you as loathsome, which means you aren't objective anymore, you are just mad at people who might disagree with you or challenge your view. Another problem is that "pre-puberty" is itself a highly subjective state of affairs. How do you know when a person has grown past the "pre-puberty" stage? And again, I agree with your basic position, but I am on a mission to get atheists to accept their moral relativity and take the Christian challenges to it head on.
Now, in terms of a LEGAL age of consent, I think it is reasonable for any society to agree on what is, in actual fact, an arbitrary number (Your 17 years and 364 days example shows just how arbitrary it is). But for the purposes of law, it's okay to have some clear cut lines.
I would argue that trying to have clear cut lines regarding a very subjective issue that admits of no clear cut lines can only create problems. The best solution is to have a general law regarding non-consenting sex defined as rape, and let the legal guardians of variously aged people decide whether a sex-act that came to their attention constituted non-consenting sex. The parents would be the best, compared to the state, to decide whether the younger of the two gave informed authentic consent. If they felt her consent was not authentic because of maturity issues, they'd have the right to seek prosecution of the older partner.
By the way, is family nudity too close to underage sex? I am completely disgusted by the idea of my kids, wife and myself all being nude together in the same room, watching tv or whatever, but I'm objective enough to realize that these strong emotions of disgust for this practice were part of my environmental conditioning as a kid. I suppose if such a thing had been allowed by my parents after my toddler years, I would feel differently. I can also realize that the question "why would you want to see your daughter's nude body?" can be trumped with "what exactly is the moral difference between seeing her in clothes and seeing her nude? Is nudity some sort of sin or violation of an absolute moral standard after a certain age? What is the cut-off age after birth, that a parent must start demanding that the child be clothed fully when around other family members?
If we cannot come up with an absolute morality to make the issue clear cut, can we admit that our collective disgust for adults who have sex with kids comes from nothing more significant than our personal conditioning and childhood experiences? Our answer to the Christians who say "what gives you the right to condemn a child molster when your morality is just as trivial as his?" should be "The state and country I live in give me the right to legislate my morality, and collect signatures from as many people who agree with me as possible, and in a democracy, whoever has the most votes when passing law, gets their moral viewpoint legalized."
See? I have to differ with Kelly in her debate with Comfort and Cameron, when she said Atheism doesn't automatically make everything relative. In the area of morals it sure does, beacuse there is no absolute standard in atheism against which to condemn or praise any moral action. But that doesn't mean we cannot give a reasonable rational response to justify our strong feelings of morality that is consistent with our atheism. I hate child-molesters just as much as you do, but I probably wouldn't feel that way had I been raised differently. See?
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
- Login to post comments
Offline As far as age of consent. I think prepubescent children is always wrong and adults who have sex with these children need to go to jail.
Why? Does their action with kids violate some absolute moral standard?
Or do you feel the action is condemnable because of the specific way you were raised?
Would you still feel the same if you had been born with different genes, hormone levels, different parents, different childhood environment?
For picking the age, there should come an point in time when children are no longer the responsibility of the parents or the government, the age when you can decide to stop going to school, get a job, join the military, drink liquor, etc... When people reach this age the should go to a government office and get a new ID card to this effect. So this could vary from 15 to 21.
What made you pick 15? Might it be that in a democracy where laws govern conduct, a definite age must be picked to make the law work, even though the age is largely arbitrary? Can we admit that the arbirariness of the minimum age of consent is a necessary hazard to the prospect of ruling people with law?
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.
- Login to post comments
, what to eat, how often to eat, etc. So the law against their ability to give informed consent concerning the sexual aspect of their bodies needs review. If we don't sense moral violation when little johnny kisses little suzy, how do we argue that more bodily touching or play than this is immoral and illegal?
I agree that the whole age of consent notion is rather poorly thought out. Humans like to attach numbers to things.Let's face it, there are some 15 year olds who are practically adults and some 21 year olds who couldn't function without their parents. Age is a arbitary number, it is always the individual one must consider.
Personally, I don't see much difference between a 16 year old having sex with a 18yo or a 30yo. The biological act is the same right? I'm not sure how far down we can go before the line between consent and the influence of age get blurred, as well as the simple fact of having sex with children,which I'm not condoning.
Like the OP said, in many cultures a 13yo girl would be married and bringing out the babies. It's just that we(ok,maybe theists
) have taken the simple act of reprodution and put such a spin on it nobody knows what to think of it.I know, I still have a lot of hang ups concerning the idea of sex.
I think America's consent laws are pretty insane. Wasn't there a 15yo jailed for oral? I actually don't know what the age of consent is in SA. I've heard the average age for a girl to loose virginity here is 11-13,but I have no idea how true that is.(Keep in mind that's in tribal culture,it would be blasted in suburbia) Not to say we don't have stupid laws, fairly recently the so called 'kissing law' was invented. This prevents people from kissing or any form of intimate contact if one is under 16. The police did say it was to stop older men preying on teens and they wouldn't actually prosecute consenting teens who were kissing.It still led to wide spread protest among the youth and nation wide 'kiss-a-thons.'
Anyway, basically..consent laws should be reviewed in my opinion.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Nice post. These are the kind of discussions we need more of around here. I largely agree with you, and admit to the same kind of cultural conditioning, but the fact remains that we do have something to be upset about here, though it's from a more pragmatic rather than purely ethical stance. This is the first time I've made these arguments myself and I invite you to tell me why I'm wrong.
I don't currently have any children, but I have no problem paying taxes for the sake of educating other people's kids. It's a win-win, as far as I'm concerned, even if the school system's going to hell. I'm a scientist and I need educated people to staff my lab when it's time for me to take on executive duties. Therefore, I care about the quality of teachers. When a teacher fucks a kid, he/she is out of the teaching game for good, because even if his/her behavior isn't ruled criminal, the teacher's legitimacy in the eyes of the students, parents, co-workers and the taxpayers is irrevocably tarnished. Furthermore, Mary Kay was on the clock. I'd be upset if my mailman was letting his mail truck sit idle while he was getting a blowjob in the back (well, actually, my female mail carrier is kinda hot and I'd happily stuff some envelopes if she needed a break, but back to the argument), so why should she get a pass for wasting public funds that are already going down the drain?
From the other end, it's still about taxes. Assuming that our statutory rapist isn't a government employee, the kid is still the beneficiary of my taxes. If the kid is female and gets pregnant and drops out as a result, then the statutory rapist is at least partly at fault for wasting my money. Admittedly, if she gets knocked up by a kid her own age the situation is the same, but I don't think I'm wrong in expecting an adult to show a little more restraint.
Once again, these arguments are not about pure morality and they may be stale with age, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm paying for their education, I've got a stake in the protection of my investment from both ends.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Firstly, there are about 1 million questions here, and I would say next time it might be better to ask one or a few very clear questions rather than a ton, but let me get to the heart of the matter. I think I would take the idea of mutually satisfactory activities makes sense here. I mean if you could prove that a 35 year old woman having sex with a 14 year old male had no negative impacts on the male's life and he enjoyed it, then I wouldn't say it is necessarily wrong, and vice versa with the genders reversed. I don't think there really can be an absolute age where its like, 18 is the point you become an adult, a light goes on in your head, and all of the decisions you make are perfectly rational and made in an absolutely beneficial way for yourself. This is a subconscious meme, where we as a culture recognize that person's consent to be of more importance than their legal guardians. In other words, they are solely responsible for their actions and what happens to their body.
I would say a much better way to view the age of consent is to take into account each situation with the parties involved, the maturity level of the younger participant, the harm or lack of harm done to the younger participant, the intent of the older participant, and the consequences of the activities of the younger participant. If the younger participant genuinely enjoyed the activity, was not used in an abusive or deceptive manner, and the intent and actions of the older participant were without malice, then the activities would not be immoral in my opinion. While I am sure this situation has happened countless times in history, the laws in place to protect "minors" are in place(aside from the obvious religious, morally prescribed reasons) because time and time again, younger participants have been duped, coerced, or actively participated in very destructive sexual relationships that leave the younger participant emotionally scarred as a result. The prescribed laws have been put in place to create a blanket set of rules, erring on the side of caution, to prevent the odious consequences of what has been described above. The legal system takes the position that it is better to disallow legal adults from engaging in sexual acts with those younger than the age of consent prescribed by law, so as to protect the minor from possible negative consequences related to sexual activities. The law creates the frame that any number(lets say the vast majority,even though this is probably not true) of positive sexual activities between persons under that age of consent are not worth the risk of even one harmful sexual activity of a person under the age of consent.
The problem in legal systems, is that every case is different, and it is almost impossible to say sex with anyone of any age is permissible as long as the older participant demonstrates no harm is done to the younger participant. The minor involved is an able, willing, consenting, and demonstrably enjoys the activities. This would also neglect any rights that the legal guardian of the minor was afforded under the law to be responsible for the welfare of said child. It creates a situation where it would pit lover against parent for legal deference over how exactly "welfare of the child" can be administered and whether that means parents have the right to decide whether their children can or cannot engage in sexual activities.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
That's pretty bold. When I see my tax money being wasted, I don't want to pay it anymore.
The solution is to educate the community better and prove that the state is overstepping it's boundaries when it tries to decide for parents the age of consent for their kids. There was a day when oral sex between married couples was illegal, thank christ those days are gone.
Ok so you don't mind helping the female mail-carrier use her time in a way that wastes your neighbor's federal tax dollars, got it
She wasn't wasting public funds. She was giving that kid an education he'd never forget.
Dropping out of high school is no guarantee that the person will remain uneducated. If you only knew how utterly immoral taxation really is, and how much surplus money the government has at the end of each year, you'd probably join a militia and plan to eradicate the American government.
If that's true, you are faulting Mary K. for using tax-funded time for personal business, not because she engaged in sex with a 12 year old boy. If Mary K was not a schoolteacher and engaged that boy in sex privately on nobody's time, would you still disapprove of the act?
Your argument is weakened by the fact that your money is being used in a very ineffective way. The state government decides how much money school's get, not you. You have no idea how much of your money actually goes to pay for schooling of kids, but this would be necessary to decide whether the waste of this amount of money is negligible.
If you found out that out of all your taxes, $1 every payday ends up going to the schools, that would give you a stake, but how much? Like stocks, the less your share is, the less say you have in spending company money.
Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.