Topic: Am I truly alone in the belief that sex should be permissable once a child has hit puberty?
Anonymous A started this topic 9 months (2009-07-04 05:46:?? UTC) ago (#28,868):
I almost got thrown out of my house for discussing this with my parents. All animals capable of breeding start once they reach puberty. That is not to compare us with animals, however puberty is the natural mark "from God" that sex is now allowed. I started puberty around 11 I believe and society deems 11 too young to have sex. My parents saw it as myself moralizing the rational of a pedophile. What do you all think?
Poll: Is this a ridiculous amount of versions of the same album?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 05:50:?? UTC) ago, 4 minutes later (#172,737):
We are animals.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 06:02:?? UTC) ago, 12 minutes later, 16 minutes past creation (#172,748):
I pretty much agree with you, although of course it still has to be consensual and all that. Thing is, your parents' generation (same as mine I'm assuming) still view humanity as something beyond animal. I remember telling my mom in 5th grade that I had never really thought about humans being primates and thus part of the animal kingdom, one of my first revelations about society. She, being a conservative Christian—although she has become liberalized quite a bit since then—told me that we weren't animals. Straight out. No hesitation or thought about that.
This is how a lot of people view us, exempt from the laws of nature and the gods (using some Ishmael terminology there). So, wouldn't it be only rational to see puberty as just another temptation to resist until marriage and not a biological starter's pistol?
Pedophilia is demonized nowadays and there is good reason: 1) Sex with someone who isn't ready will probably fuck them up for life psychologically 2) Your judgment isn't at its full capacity until a while after puberty sets in, so sex at that time could very well lead to bad, if not even dangerous, decisions. Me, I could maybe see that as Social Darwinism being held back, then again I'm not even sure how I view that anymore.
*shrug* I'm a bit sleep deprived. Hopefully this makes sense.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 06:11:?? UTC) ago, 9 minutes later, 25 minutes past creation (#172,755):
It does provide rationalization for pedophilia but that's a slippery slope argument. That is akin to accusing those against capital punishment as supporters of murderers, serial killers and child rapist/murderers.
You are not alone since this is not the first time I have heard of that argument - The first time I heard it was in academic circles and sexual maturity was oft referred to as Menarche (the stage where first period occurs)
Refusing to hear arguments because it could be considered justification for unsupported actions is simply willful ignorance. Remember, Galileo was under house arrest until he died simply from the fact that his arguments was unheard since it could justify that the dominant church was wrong at the time or that Martin Luther King was hated by the KKK and possibly assassinated since his arguments could justify interracial marriage.
What your parents should have done was provide counterarguments to prove that sexual maturity was not the only factor in the age of consent laws. Emotional maturity, Underdeveloped cognitive reasoning, Sex education, Society's acceptance of the behavior and such - In some cases, the parents feel that they should have a choice in who the sexual partners are because of economic standings or position within the community.
It's a question that still remains unresolved and the solutions constantly changes.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 09:05:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours past creation (#172,867):
This isn't a physical argument so much as a moral one. Prior to religion and legislature gaining a grasp on our psyche sex was acceptable at all ages. There are still arranged child brides in eastern countries.
But the fact than we can do it, does not mean that we should.
Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 09:08:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours past creation (#172,868):
The moral argument is not a good foundation to use…
Especially since that same method could be used for animal treatment and the vegan lifestyle.
It ends up being an holier-than-thou contest.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 09:21:?? UTC) ago, 13 minutes later, 4 hours past creation (#172,874):
@previousThat is certainly true but morality must have a part to play in the debate as should physical and emotional maturity and environment. You can't just take things in isolation as each has an effect on the other.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 14:52:?? UTC) ago, 6 hours later, 9 hours past creation (#172,964):
I'm a conservative Christian (Independent Fundamental Baptist if you need to know) and I believe that sex should only be within marriage. However, due to the fact that I believe the Bible is true, I also believe that anybody of any age should be allowed to get married and have all the sex they want. I also believe that puberty marks the beginning of adulthood. I don't think the government has any business controlling what age a person can marry, I think it should be between each person and their parents. I also think that children should be taught all about sex, just like they are taught everything else about life. Childhood is not an end in itself, it is a time for children to learn how to be good adults.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 15:36:?? UTC) ago, 45 minutes later, 10 hours past creation (#172,985):
@previousI just hope you don't have kids. "It's OK honey, because the Bible says so!"
Are you sure you aren't a priest?
Anonymous F replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 15:49:?? UTC) ago, 12 minutes later, 10 hours past creation (#172,989):
@previousBaptists don't have priests.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 15:59:?? UTC) ago, 11 minutes later, 10 hours past creation (#172,992):
@previousThey also appear not to have a notion of sarcasm.
Anonymous F replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 16:03:?? UTC) ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours past creation (#172,994):
@previousI know what you were getting at. But I could never be a priest. Being a man myself, I just can't get into little boys that way… I like little girls too much, as God intended it.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 16:19:?? UTC) ago, 16 minutes later, 11 hours past creation (#173,005):
@previousI am intrigued. How does your biblical concept of sin as related through the Ten Commandments apply to the abuse of children?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 17:58:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours past creation (#173,053):
I think one thing a lot of people have missed when they're discussing whether it gives support to paedophiles is that, as I understand it, paedophilia is wanting pre-pubescent sexual relations. People seem to now think that it is anyone who would consider sex with someone under the legal age. If they've hit puberty, they're probably not what a paedophile would go for anyway.
Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 18:04:?? UTC) ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours past creation (#173,057):
@173,005"How does your biblical concept of sin as related through the Ten Commandments apply to the abuse of children?"
I'll betcha that he will use a quote about jesus saying this:
"It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
The last word is in dispute… It's stumble, sin, lost faith or similar wording…
My interpretation: It's a indirect way of saying child abuse is bad and if it does happen, kill him.
Luke 17:2.
Anonymous D double-posted this 9 months (2009-07-04 18:08:?? UTC) ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours past creation (#173,060):
@173,053"If they've hit puberty, they're probably not what a paedophile would go for anyway."
I agree. However, Ephebiphiles would go for it faster than anyone else. That's a classification as attraction to teenagers.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 18:09:?? UTC) ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours past creation (#173,061):
@173,053People tend to bracket paedophiles and ephebophiles together. It's just so they pull everyone under a, what they consider to be appropriate, heading.
If I fancy Miley Cyrus that makes me an ephebophile, if I fancy her little sister Noah that makes me a paedophile.
I don't happen to be hot for either of them.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 19:21:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours past creation (#173,126):
Simply because you are physically able to have intercourse and have children does not meant it is a good idea, in my opinion at least sexual exploration can begin around puberty, but actual intercourse involves the risk/chance of pregnancy, and no 11 year-old, no matter how capable, is fit to be a parent.
In addendum no one below the age of consent (15) here should have intercourse with a legal adult, for the same reason as people below 18 should not vote, making rational decisions when under the influence of hormones is nearly impossible, especially coupled with the fact that money and things can easily influence someone that age into things they might otherwise be reluctant too, and it's even harder when the popular people have boyfriends and get iPod's and cell-phones left and right.
Reading this through I guess I sound like someone advocating abstinence, that's wrong though, I just believe sexual discoveries should be made with people of your own age.
© AnonTalk.com 2008–2010