Lutheran pedophiles

[surreptitious57]

It is psychological rather than biological maturity which is the issue here for that is far harder for a child to determine. And also convincing itself that
it is ready for consensual sex is creating a conflict of interest. And the fact is that those children can be exploited by paedophiles and not actually be
aware of it because they think that they are mature enough to have sex with adults. Were children under eighteen to have sex with each other there
would be no convictions even though technically they would have both had committed an offence. This is because in such a scenario there is no adult
and so there can be no charges relating to sexual exploitation by a paedophile. Children who have sex before the legal age will do so with their peers
who are the same age as them rather than an adult exploiting them for their own sexual gratification. There is therefore no danger of exploitation by
paedophiles and they still get to be sexually active. This is actually the real world model that actually exists. So any talk of impinging sexual maturity
is completely superfluous in such scenarios for that very reason

That society needs to protect children from any exploitation is a no brainer. If it impinges on the freedom of other apparently more mature children
then so be it. Now no child is going to take any jurisdiction to court if it refuses to sanction its sexual activity with an adult since that is a criminal
offence in itself. The only real issue is what the age of consent should actually be and not whether or not there should be one. Since in absolutely
every country in the world there is one. And just that one simple fact alone is proof of its necessity. Now it would actually be rather remarkable
if the age was universal so variation is only therefore to be expected. Some countries may over time change theirs but none however are going
to repeal them in their entirety as that would be completely nonsensical

[pErvinalia]

Seth, why not allow sex with 8 year olds?

You do realise there needs to be a cut off line, right? You place it at biologically sexually mature enough (i.e. puberty or whatever the correct term is). Why do you place it there? And don't give me no naturalistic fallacy bollocks. Why shouldn't consenting humans be able to have sex at any age? Why can't a 10 yr old consent to sex with an adult?

Basically, you're only argument is based on a naturalistic fallacy. The rest of us realise like surr has said above that "it is psychological rather than biological maturity with is the issue here". 16 has been commonly chosen as that cutoff point. It can probably be argued a year or so either way depending on evidence and point of view, but to think that a person is necessarily psychologically mature enough to deal with the issues of sexual power relations at the same age they are biologically mature enough, is ridiculous.

[Seth]

Seth, why not allow sex with 8 year olds?

Is the 8 year old sexually mature and capable of making a rational, reasoned decision regarding his/her sexuality?

You do realise there needs to be a cut off line, right?

Of course.

You place it at biologically sexually mature enough (i.e. puberty or whatever the correct term is). Why do you place it there?

Because it's all scientificky and junk.

And don't give me no naturalistic fallacy bollocks.

What's fallacious about the proposition that a sexually mature person is ready to make decisions about having sex? You have yet to produce an argument as to why this is not the case and why society is required to intervene in that decision making other than an "ick factor" argument that's so vague as to be incomprehensible.

Why shouldn't consenting humans be able to have sex at any age? Why can't a 10 yr old consent to sex with an adult?

Can 10 year olds consent to having sex with each other? Do 10 year olds have sexual drives? Are their organs mature enough to produce children? Are they capable of making reasoned decisions about their sexuality?

Basically, you're only argument is based on a naturalistic fallacy. The rest of us realise like surr has said above that "it is psychological rather than biological maturity with is the issue here". 16 has been commonly chosen as that cutoff point. It can probably be argued a year or so either way depending on evidence and point of view, but to think that a person is necessarily psychologically mature enough to deal with the issues of sexual power relations at the same age they are biologically mature enough, is ridiculous.

Er, I believe I said that it's a matter of psychological AND physical maturity, which is why each person is different and each circumstance needs to be judged on its individual merits and demerits in an objective and rational manner after careful examination of the evidence, as opposed to the entirely irrational practice of declaring old dick to be prohibited to young persons.

You seem to have no such objection to young dick, which is more than a little inconsistent. So what is it, exactly, about old dick that you find so alarming?

[Seth]

It is psychological rather than biological maturity which is the issue here for that is far harder for a child to determine.

I believe it's a combination of both that is unique to each individual and each relationship.

And also convincing itself that
it is ready for consensual sex is creating a conflict of interest.

What conflict is that specifically?

And the fact is that those children can be exploited by paedophiles and not actually be
aware of it because they think that they are mature enough to have sex with adults.

If they think they are mature enough and they suffer no harm that causes them to complain that force or fraud was employed to coerce them into the act, who are you to dispute that decision?

Were children under eighteen to have sex with each other there
would be no convictions even though technically they would have both had committed an offence.

Indeed. Why? If sex before psychological maturity is harmful, then it's harmful regardless of the difference in the ages of the participants. If it's not harmful between age peers, then how does it become harmful between age-disparate partners?

This is because in such a scenario there is no adult
and so there can be no charges relating to sexual exploitation by a paedophile.

I've already cited the DSM definition of paedophilia and it does not apply to any of the relationships we are discussing here, which ONLY involve post-pubescent young persons.

Children who have sex before the legal age will do so with their peers
who are the same age as them rather than an adult exploiting them for their own sexual gratification.

Um, who is exploiting whom? Every hard dick in junior high I ever heard of had the express intent of exploiting whatever virgin pussy it could find its way into. Who is therefore more harmful to the girl, the callow youth following his dick around without any thought to the girl's health, safety or pleasure, or the older man who takes his time to seduce the girl and make sure she thoroughly enjoys her first sexual experience, thus beginning her sexual life on a high note rather than a note of shame and pain?

Your complaint is an "ick factor" reaction to an older person seeking and obtaining sexual gratification that completely ignores the fact that in any consensual sexual relationship the girl is doing exactly the same thing. There's nothing at all wrong or unnatural about seeking personal sexual gratification from having sex. That's why sexual attraction exists. That's why orgasms exist. You just don't like the notion that some old fart is getting a piece of tail that you can't have.

There is therefore no danger of exploitation by
paedophiles and they still get to be sexually active.

Again, please define "exploitation" with some accuracy so I can understand what you mean by the word.

This is actually the real world model that actually exists. So any talk of impinging sexual maturity
is completely superfluous in such scenarios for that very reason

That's not even a rational sentence.

That society needs to protect children from any exploitation is a no brainer.

Define exploitation.

If it impinges on the freedom of other apparently more mature children
then so be it.

That's not a rational argument, it's an ick-factor proclamation of your own biases.

Now no child is going to take any jurisdiction to court if it refuses to sanction its sexual activity with an adult since that is a criminal
offence in itself.

Er, the point is that it shouldn't necessarily be a criminal offense unless there is force or fraud involved and a complaint by the victim of that force or fraud.

The only real issue is what the age of consent should actually be and not whether or not there should be one.

What makes you think that your declaration on the matter holds any intellectual weight?

Since in absolutely
every country in the world there is one. And just that one simple fact alone is proof of its necessity.

Sorry, but it's proof of nothing of the sort, given the fact that the age of consent varies from 8 years or less old to "not until married."

How are child marriage in India and statutory rape laws in the US any sort of evidence or fact supporting your thesis?

Now it would actually be rather remarkable
if the age was universal so variation is only therefore to be expected. Some countries may over time change theirs but none however are going
to repeal them in their entirety as that would be completely nonsensical

Why? What is the practical and actual effect of repealing statutory rape laws and replacing them with a metric of sexual and psychological maturity as determined on a case by case basis after complaint?

[pErvinalia]

Seth, why not allow sex with 8 year olds?

Is the 8 year old sexually mature and capable of making a rational, reasoned decision regarding his/her sexuality?

Is a 15 year old? Welcome to the debate, finally.

You do realise there needs to be a cut off line, right?

Of course.

You place it at biologically sexually mature enough (i.e. puberty or whatever the correct term is). Why do you place it there?

Because it's all scientificky and junk.

What science would that be?

And don't give me no naturalistic fallacy bollocks.

What's fallacious about the proposition that a sexually mature person is ready to make decisions about having sex?

Because physical maturity doesn't = psychological maturity.

And I could ask you a similar question. What's fallacious about the proposition that a 10 year old isn't ready to make decision about having sex?

You have yet to produce an argument as to why this is not the case and why society is required to intervene in that decision making other than an "ick factor" argument that's so vague as to be incomprehensible.

We've all answered this repeatedly. The fact that someone who can't construct cogent arguments thinks our arguments are not up to standard is pretty laughable. It's been explained to you in a number of different ways by a number of different people. If you don't get it, that's your problem.

Why shouldn't consenting humans be able to have sex at any age? Why can't a 10 yr old consent to sex with an adult?

Can 10 year olds consent to having sex with each other?

What does that have to do with anything? Do you mean legally? If so, can a 14 yr old consent to having sex with a 40 yr old? Oops, there goes your "argument". Unless you meant something else.

Do 10 year olds have sexual drives?

What does that have to do with anything? Do they have 'holding hand' drives?

Are their organs mature enough to produce children?

What does that have to do with anything? Someone doesn't have to be capable to produce children for them to be allowed to have sex.

Are they capable of making reasoned decisions about their sexuality?

Oh hello... Welcome to the debate. That's the same fucking question we've been trying to get you to answer. Your answer is that "it varies" in young adults who've reached puberty. But that doesn't address the proposition your reasoning opens up - that is, why can't it vary in people younger than puberty? As I expected, all you've apparently got as an answer to this is a naturalistic fallacy. That is, they can biologically produce children (in most cases), therefore sex is ok after that, but bad before that.

Basically, you're only argument is based on a naturalistic fallacy. The rest of us realise like surr has said above that "it is psychological rather than biological maturity with is the issue here". 16 has been commonly chosen as that cutoff point. It can probably be argued a year or so either way depending on evidence and point of view, but to think that a person is necessarily psychologically mature enough to deal with the issues of sexual power relations at the same age they are biologically mature enough, is ridiculous.

Er, I believe I said that it's a matter of psychological AND physical maturity, which is why each person is different and each circumstance needs to be judged on its individual merits and demerits in an objective and rational manner after careful examination of the evidence, as opposed to the entirely irrational practice of declaring old dick to be prohibited to young persons.

You seem to have no such objection to young dick, which is more than a little inconsistent. So what is it, exactly, about old dick that you find so alarming?

We've all answered this a million times. Yawn.

[Seth]

Seth, why not allow sex with 8 year olds?

Is the 8 year old sexually mature and capable of making a rational, reasoned decision regarding his/her sexuality?

Is a 15 year old? Welcome to the debate, finally.

It depends on the particular 15 year old, and therein lies the point.

You do realise there needs to be a cut off line, right?

Of course.

You place it at biologically sexually mature enough (i.e. puberty or whatever the correct term is). Why do you place it there?

Because it's all scientificky and junk.

What science would that be?

The science of biology.

And don't give me no naturalistic fallacy bollocks.

What's fallacious about the proposition that a sexually mature person is ready to make decisions about having sex?

Because physical maturity doesn't = psychological maturity.

That's a personal value judgment on your part and has to do with your perceptions and biases about what a proper decision is. That is inherently arbitrary in nature and subjective in application. I posit biological sexual maturity as the primary, but not the sole indicator because that's what evolution has created as the metric. You do believe in evolution and science, right?

And I could ask you a similar question. What's fallacious about the proposition that a 10 year old isn't ready to make decision about having sex?

It depends on the 10 year old.

You have yet to produce an argument as to why this is not the case and why society is required to intervene in that decision making other than an "ick factor" argument that's so vague as to be incomprehensible.

We've all answered this repeatedly. The fact that someone who can't construct cogent arguments thinks our arguments are not up to standard is pretty laughable. It's been explained to you in a number of different ways by a number of different people. If you don't get it, that's your problem.

No, what has been stated are subjective and individual criteria based on personal "ick factor" feelings that may or may not have a scientific or psychological basis as applied to any particular young person. No one has produced a compelling argument as to why a blanket law is appropriate or necessary, they have merely stated it as if it were an undeniable truism. Well, I'm denying it and I'm demanding a rational and logical reason for such a policy, not "ick factor" knee-jerkism.

Why shouldn't consenting humans be able to have sex at any age? Why can't a 10 yr old consent to sex with an adult?

Can 10 year olds consent to having sex with each other?

What does that have to do with anything? Do you mean legally? If so, can a 14 yr old consent to having sex with a 40 yr old? Oops, there goes your "argument". Unless you meant something else.

Of course I mean legally. If a 14 year old can legally have consensual sex with another 14 year old, why is it illegal for that person to have sex with a 40 year old if the relationship is likewise consensual and non-coerced? Your only argument in opposition seems to be a generalized fear of "exploitation" or psychological harm. There are risks of both, but the question is what should the law do when NEITHER occur in a particular relationship. Why should an older man (or woman) be prosecuted for having fully consensual and non-coercive sex, at the young person's behest and initiation (don't try to tell me it doesn't happen, because it does), when there is no complaint made by the young person?

Do 10 year olds have sexual drives?

What does that have to do with anything? Do they have 'holding hand' drives?

It has to do with biological sexual maturity.

Are their organs mature enough to produce children?

What does that have to do with anything? Someone doesn't have to be capable to produce children for them to be allowed to have sex.

Biological sexual maturity is the first milestone in the sexual life of any higher organism.

Are they capable of making reasoned decisions about their sexuality?

Oh hello... Welcome to the debate. That's the same fucking question we've been trying to get you to answer. Your answer is that "it varies" in young adults who've reached puberty. But that doesn't address the proposition your reasoning opens up - that is, why can't it vary in people younger than puberty? As I expected, all you've apparently got as an answer to this is a naturalistic fallacy. That is, they can biologically produce children (in most cases), therefore sex is ok after that, but bad before that.

It's not a fallacy, it's a policy. In determining as a matter of social policy when the law should butt out of personal consensual sexual activity, it is my claim that the first metric to be considered is physical sexual maturity. I suggest this as one such metric because physically speaking, for girls, having sex prior to physical sexual maturity may cause physical damage to the reproductive organs, which as a matter of social policy we should avoid and deter.

But that's not the only applicable metric, as I have said many times, it's just the first milestone and I choose it because it's scientifically and biologically appropriate to do so because sexual maturity is an identifiable time in a person's life that can be objectively determined.

Basically, you're only argument is based on a naturalistic fallacy. The rest of us realise like surr has said above that "it is psychological rather than biological maturity with is the issue here". 16 has been commonly chosen as that cutoff point. It can probably be argued a year or so either way depending on evidence and point of view, but to think that a person is necessarily psychologically mature enough to deal with the issues of sexual power relations at the same age they are biologically mature enough, is ridiculous.

Er, I believe I said that it's a matter of psychological AND physical maturity, which is why each person is different and each circumstance needs to be judged on its individual merits and demerits in an objective and rational manner after careful examination of the evidence, as opposed to the entirely irrational practice of declaring old dick to be prohibited to young persons.

You seem to have no such objection to young dick, which is more than a little inconsistent. So what is it, exactly, about old dick that you find so alarming?

We've all answered this a million times. Yawn.

And every single time your answer amounts to "because it's icky."

You say "but the child could be exploited!" So I ask what you mean by "exploited" and you cannot answer. You say "psychological damage!" I say "what psychological damage to which particular person in which particular circumstance?" Your assumption seems to be that no young person can ever consent to having sex with someone of an arbitrary difference in age without suffering psychological damage of the sort that requires 25 year to life prison sentences for the older person. I claim that any sort of harm, psychological, physical or social, is entirely dependent upon the individuals involved and that it is not appropriate for society to set an arbitrary barrier based on the "ick factor" that infringes on the sexual liberties of young persons, and that personalized and individualized examination of any relationship where harm is claimed by either partner is a better way to handle situations where some harm has or might have occurred. I do not subscribe to the obviously false presumption that absolutely every instance of sex between a younger person and an older person is either the product of force or fraud or inevitably results in physical, social or psychological harm, which is what arbitrary statutory rape laws are based upon.

I demand reason, logic and clear-headed thinking based on facts, not the "ick factor."

[pErvinalia]

Yawn. You just keep repeating the same bollocks over and over. Great case in point is your inability to see that you are arguing from a "naturalistic fallacy". I've got better things to do with my precious time.

[Seth]

Yawn. You just keep repeating the same bollocks over and over. Great case in point is your inability to see that you are arguing from a "naturalistic fallacy". I've got better things to do with my precious time.

Do you even know what the naturalistic fallacy is? I don't think so.

I am not claiming that any moral (good/bad) component attaches to sexual maturity, I am simply pointing out that sexual maturity is sexual maturity and that biologically speaking this means that the person is capable of having procreative sex, which seems a rational metric upon which to base decisions about having procreative sex.

That's not a fallacy, naturalistic or otherwise. It's a proposition.

[Seth]

Yawn. You just keep repeating the same bollocks over and over. Great case in point is your inability to see that you are arguing from a "naturalistic fallacy". I've got better things to do with my precious time.

Like what? Whine about not being able to get a date?

[pErvinalia]

Yawn. You just keep repeating the same bollocks over and over. Great case in point is your inability to see that you are arguing from a "naturalistic fallacy". I've got better things to do with my precious time.

Do you even know what the naturalistic fallacy is? I don't think so.

I am not claiming that any moral (good/bad) component attaches to sexual maturity, I am simply pointing out that sexual maturity is sexual maturity and that biologically speaking this means that the person is capable of having procreative sex, which seems a rational metric upon which to base decisions about having procreative sex.

That's not a fallacy, naturalistic or otherwise. It's a proposition.

what does procreative sex have to do with anything??

[SpeedOfSound]

It is well established that pedophilia is caused by damn sexy kids

And the first sign of a pedophile is someone who rationalizes it.

The second sign is someone who infers it in others. Anyone know the third sign?

[SpeedOfSound]

The power of the topics of sex is curious. No amount of objective rational reasoning seems to be able to escape it. We should be very concerned about this.

[Seth]

Yawn. You just keep repeating the same bollocks over and over. Great case in point is your inability to see that you are arguing from a "naturalistic fallacy". I've got better things to do with my precious time.

Do you even know what the naturalistic fallacy is? I don't think so.

I am not claiming that any moral (good/bad) component attaches to sexual maturity, I am simply pointing out that sexual maturity is sexual maturity and that biologically speaking this means that the person is capable of having procreative sex, which seems a rational metric upon which to base decisions about having procreative sex.

That's not a fallacy, naturalistic or otherwise. It's a proposition.

what does procreative sex have to do with anything??

Er, it's the biological purpose of the entire system of course.

[pErvinalia]

So people who can't have procreative sex shouldn't have sex?

[Seth]

So people who can't have procreative sex shouldn't have sex?

Why would you say that?