Lutheran pedophiles

[Seth]

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons.

Why? Why is it not appropriate for each case to be judged on it's individual merits, regardless of the ages of the participants (assuming sexual maturity)? If a particular young woman is physically and emotionally mature or a particular young man is the same and no harm comes from a sexual relationship with an older man or woman, why should the law not look for actual harm of some kind rather than setting arbitrary "ick factor" boundaries?

Because it could cause too much uncertainty for the older person, and the younger person is too easily able to be taken advantage of for them to judge if it is a good thing.

The second point is the vital one...

But we let them do it with their peers. How is it any more likely to be misjudged with an older partner? I'd say it's LESS likely to be emotionally harmful with an adult. Perhaps we should mandate that all girls be deflowered by older men...perhaps a professional class of de-virginizers who have all the proper training and health certifications to ensure a safe and pleasurable experience...

I'll work that job for minimum wage...

[Tero]

People who are less than 1 year apart in age and physically mature should never be punished for sex.

Why not? Sauce, goose, gander. Is an age-peer's dick less harmful than an older man's dick? Is a mature woman's pussy more harmful than a teenage girl's?

And why should consenting parties who are sexually mature be punished for consensual acts regardless of their relative ages?

It's difficult to determine the consent if one is 15 and one 45.

[pErvinalia]

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons.

Why? Why is it not appropriate for each case to be judged on it's individual merits, regardless of the ages of the participants (assuming sexual maturity)? If a particular young woman is physically and emotionally mature or a particular young man is the same and no harm comes from a sexual relationship with an older man or woman, why should the law not look for actual harm of some kind rather than setting arbitrary "ick factor" boundaries?

Because it could cause too much uncertainty for the older person, and the younger person is too easily able to be taken advantage of for them to judge if it is a good thing.

Why does it have to be a "good thing?" Isn't it not being actually physically harmful sufficient? We allow kids to ride bikes and they skin their knees and elbows all the time. How is sex any different? Sometimes it's good, sometimes not so much, although I will say I've never regretted any skin time I've spent with any woman. I've regretted other things about the relationship, but not the sex itself.

It's about being taken advantage of, Seth! When you ride your bike and fall off and skin your knee, no one caused that to happen but yourself. When you get potentially raped by a person who has coerced you into it via a position of dominant power, then that's clearly a bad thing.

If it's socially acceptable for two horny teenagers to screw in the back seat of Dad's borrowed car why is it socially unacceptable for a May-December couple to do the same thing...back pain and creaky joints notwithstanding? How is a young dick different from an old dick in the actual use and placement thereof?

As we've repeatedly said, the potential that someone is being taken advantage off (i.e. raped).

As for uncertainty in the older person, that's an appropriate check on irresponsible behavior don't you think? Who is likely to be more responsible in a situation of mutual sexual attraction, an older, experienced partner or a raging-hormone peer? I know I'm way more responsible and careful in my sexual behavior now than I was 40 years ago.

Why have speed limits?? Why not just let a judge judge each situation on it's merits? Seriously, you haven't thought this through at all.

I'm far LESS likely to agree to screw a horny sixteen year old girl with a crush on me than her horny sixteen year old boyfriend is. And if I do agree, I'll undertake the event with due regard for her physical and emotional safety and satisfaction, whereas her boyfriend will likely get it in, unload, and then move on to the next one without a second thought.

But a lot (or perhaps only "some", which is enough) of older men won't. They'll see an easy screw with a youthful beautiful female. You haven't been to a pub for a while and seen how alpha males go about their business, obviously.

[pErvinalia]

The point at which informed consent becomes a reality is variable, but societies need to form arbitrary cut-off points, if only for legal reasons.

Why? Why is it not appropriate for each case to be judged on it's individual merits, regardless of the ages of the participants (assuming sexual maturity)? If a particular young woman is physically and emotionally mature or a particular young man is the same and no harm comes from a sexual relationship with an older man or woman, why should the law not look for actual harm of some kind rather than setting arbitrary "ick factor" boundaries?

Because it could cause too much uncertainty for the older person, and the younger person is too easily able to be taken advantage of for them to judge if it is a good thing.

The second point is the vital one...

But we let them do it with their peers. How is it any more likely to be misjudged with an older partner? I'd say it's LESS likely to be emotionally harmful with an adult. Perhaps we should mandate that all girls be deflowered by older men...perhaps a professional class of de-virginizers who have all the proper training and health certifications to ensure a safe and pleasurable experience...

I'll work that job for minimum wage...

TWO non-libertarian sentiments in one post!!1!

[Seth]

People who are less than 1 year apart in age and physically mature should never be punished for sex.

Why not? Sauce, goose, gander. Is an age-peer's dick less harmful than an older man's dick? Is a mature woman's pussy more harmful than a teenage girl's?

And why should consenting parties who are sexually mature be punished for consensual acts regardless of their relative ages?

It's difficult to determine the consent if one is 15 and one 45.

Why is it difficult? What you seem to be saying is that a 15 year old, sexually mature person cannot consent to having sex, and yet we know that 15 year olds consent to have sex all the time. By some measures, 50% of children 12 and over are sexually active. If a 15 year old can consent to having sex with another 15 year old, why can't the same 15 year old consent to having sex with a 45 year old?

Is it that the 45 year old may be more persuasive or attractive?

You seem to be implying that it's automatically questionable whether an older person has "taken advantage" of a teenager just because the two have sex. Knowing plenty of 15 year olds, and having been one, I can say with some authority that sex is on their minds at least as much as it is for a 45 year old, if not more so.

So what makes it difficult? "Miss, did you consent to having sex with this old fart?" "Yeah, he's nice and has a great big cock and he licks my pussy SO good..."

Sounds like consent to me.

Now, I do grant you that it's more convenient to just set an arbitrary hard limit and rigidly enforce it using the specious argument that no teenager is capable of making a rational decision about having sex with an older adult, but that's not a very rational thing to do, it's a manifestation of the "ick factor" squeamishness that we see so often in prudish, sexually-repressed countries.

All other things being equal, having sex is far less harmful and far better for everybody concerned than smoking meth or getting drunk.

It's a bit interesting to see how prudish the rational minds here can be when it comes to "icky" subjects.

[Seth]

But we let them do it with their peers. How is it any more likely to be misjudged with an older partner? I'd say it's LESS likely to be emotionally harmful with an adult. Perhaps we should mandate that all girls be deflowered by older men...perhaps a professional class of de-virginizers who have all the proper training and health certifications to ensure a safe and pleasurable experience...

I'll work that job for minimum wage...

TWO non-libertarian sentiments in one post!!1!

Sarcasm excuses dogmatic inconsistency.

[pErvinalia]

People who are less than 1 year apart in age and physically mature should never be punished for sex.

Why not? Sauce, goose, gander. Is an age-peer's dick less harmful than an older man's dick? Is a mature woman's pussy more harmful than a teenage girl's?

And why should consenting parties who are sexually mature be punished for consensual acts regardless of their relative ages?

It's difficult to determine the consent if one is 15 and one 45.

Why is it difficult? What you seem to be saying is that a 15 year old, sexually mature person cannot consent to having sex, and yet we know that 15 year olds consent to have sex all the time. By some measures, 50% of children 12 and over are sexually active. If a 15 year old can consent to having sex with another 15 year old, why can't the same 15 year old consent to having sex with a 45 year old?

Is it that the 45 year old may be more persuasive or attractive?

You seem to be implying that it's automatically questionable whether an older person has "taken advantage" of a teenager just because the two have sex. Knowing plenty of 15 year olds, and having been one, I can say with some authority that sex is on their minds at least as much as it is for a 45 year old, if not more so.

So what makes it difficult? "Miss, did you consent to having sex with this old fart?" "Yeah, he's nice and has a great big cock and he licks my pussy SO good..."

Sounds like consent to me.

Now, I do grant you that it's more convenient to just set an arbitrary hard limit and rigidly enforce it using the specious argument that no teenager is capable of making a rational decision about having sex with an older adult, but that's not a very rational thing to do, it's a manifestation of the "ick factor" squeamishness that we see so often in prudish, sexually-repressed countries.

All other things being equal, having sex is far less harmful and far better for everybody concerned than smoking meth or getting drunk.

It's a bit interesting to see how prudish the rational minds here can be when it comes to "icky" subjects.

You make some reasonable points. For me it's not about ability to give consent (well, legally, it is; but I'm talking more morally/ethically here), it's about the power imbalance. I agree that sex shouldn't be considered dirty business and I pretty much view sex as being really fun kissing. Which is just really fun holding hands. Which is just really fun flirting. It's not something special. It's just something that's a bloody lot more fun than other activities that couples can do. IF society viewed sex this way, then the laws could probably be different. But society views sex and virginity as some sort of special thing that must be fretted over and protected and honoured and all the other bollocks (which ironically you libbo's love in relation to other aspects of society). So you've got to remember that young girls are brought up in this society. And no matter how rational you may view sex, they are surrounded by an environment that says that have less than 100% perfect sexual experience is something awful and worth getting depressed over and even potentially killing yourself over. I think that view is sick and is far more harmful than anything someone sleeping with a biologically mature female does. But that's the reality of society. Until we change this view, you can't expect young girls to have the same rational views on this subject as some of us older more wiser people do. To them sex is almost mystical and anything that disrupts that mysticism is so bad it could be life ending.

[pErvinalia]

Having said that, I'd reckon a lot of 15 year old girls have had more sex than me. They are probably hornier than me. They could probably take advantage of me! Not that that's going to happen, but if it did, thankfully I wouldn't be scarred by the experience given I view sex as a bloody fun activity, not a religious experience.

[Tero]

>>You seem to be implying that it's automatically questionable whether an older person has "taken advantage" of a teenager just because the two have sex.<<

Let's just say it probably happens. Since a 15 year old is not independent in the Western world, we give the caretakers of these teens some controls. I don't want to be raising some old fart's babies in my house.

[JimC]

Seth, I think what you are missing is the imbalance in power and authority. Adults, particularly adult males, can exert authority which reduces the effective ability of a younger person to make a decision about sex which is in their own interest. In addition, adolescents can be sexually mature, but easily confused, and are notoriously prone to make rash decisions. A 15 year old girl may have the outer persona of a worldly -wise siren, but has not got the maturity or experience to allow her to detect opportunistic adults who may well cause her emotional and/or physical pain.

I'm not saying that this would always be the case, but it is common enough that prohibiting sex between adults and those below the age of consent (the exact age being arguable) is seen by most societies as a necessary legal position.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, not to go all "won't someone think of the childrens!!1", but society has to draw a line at some age under which it is decided that those people need protecting. As Jim said, some might not need protecting, but it's the one's that do that REALLY need protecting. And that's what the law is about. In fact, it's what most laws are about. Very few laws logically apply to everyone. But you can't have a different set of laws for different people (within the same group). I don't see how the law could work that way.

[JimC]

Of course, the debate brings into question an issue that has been raised more than once here in the past. Is there any intrinsic ethical or psychological difference between, let's say, a 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl, and a 40 year old woman having sex with a 15 year old boy?

Certainly, in legal terms in Oz (and I assume many other western countries) there is no difference in law. And, in terms of the adult being in a position of power such as a teacher, both case would (and should) lead to instant dismissal. We actually had a similar case at our school, although the lad was 16, and the female teacher was 26. She was not only sacked, but the authority that registers teachers permanently removed her teacher registration. As far as I'm aware, she escaped criminal penalties, although I'm not sure why...

However, I have a strong intuition that the relative harm done to the younger party is different; I would bet (without much evidence, admittedly) that, at least statistically, the majority of 15 year old boys in that situation would not be particularly traumatised, but a considerably higher percentage of the girls would suffer lasting psychological damage.

I'm fully prepared to admit that this is an intuition without evidence, and perhaps the reality reflects the legal position.

But I doubt it...

[pErvinalia]

Of course, the debate brings into question an issue that has been raised more than once here in the past. Is there any intrinsic ethical or psychological difference between, let's say, a 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl, and a 40 year old woman having sex with a 15 year old boy?

Of course there is a difference. The 15 year old boy would be fanging for it!!

However, I have a strong intuition that the relative harm done to the younger party is different; I would bet (without much evidence, admittedly) that, at least statistically, the majority of 15 year old boys in that situation would not be particularly traumatised, but a considerably higher percentage of the girls would suffer lasting psychological damage.

Yeah, I get that feeling as well. Nothing to back that up other than the fact that 15yr old boys are horny as fuck and we all had crushes on older teachers at that age. And by crush, I mean up for it!

[mistermack]

Yeah, I get that feeling as well. Nothing to back that up other than the fact that 15yr old boys are horny as fuck and we all had crushes on older teachers at that age. And by crush, I mean up for it!

And girls are different how?
Plenty of fifteen year old girls are horny as fuck, and fancy older men.

In a situation where the girl can't be persuaded or bullied by the parents or police to complain, and maintains that she wanted to have sex, it's wrong to treat it as rape.

The only reason it IS, is that it makes the prosecution easier. When you have a cut-off of 16, you should have a lesser offence from 14 to 16, of consenting sex with a minor. It would be up to the police, the prosecutor's office, and the jury, or whatever, to decide whether the consent was genuine and allowable. But of course, it's much simpler to have a blunt cut-off age, for the prosecutors.

In some countries, they do have a better more flexible system. And getting sex by deception is taken into account. Spain, I think. That would be a good thing.

It's not really right that they are framing the laws for the benefit of prosecutors, rather than the people who are actually involved.

[Seth]

You make some reasonable points. For me it's not about ability to give consent (well, legally, it is; but I'm talking more morally/ethically here), it's about the power imbalance.

What power imbalance? All a girl has to do is keep her knees together and her knickers on. If the old fart forces himself on her, it's rape. If he seduces her, it's consensual. She may regret it after the fact, but that's her problem, and enduring the consequences of bad decision making is what teaches us to make better decisions.

But society views sex and virginity as some sort of special thing that must be fretted over and protected and honoured and all the other bollocks (which ironically you libbo's love in relation to other aspects of society).

We love it in relation to sex too. Libertarianism doesn't get into people's bedrooms at all. So long as no force or fraud is initiated, a consensual sexual encounter between sexually mature persons is entirely up to them and it's nobody else's business but theirs.

So you've got to remember that young girls are brought up in this society. And no matter how rational you may view sex, they are surrounded by an environment that says that have less than 100% perfect sexual experience is something awful and worth getting depressed over and even potentially killing yourself over.

True enough, which is yet another reason for young women to take advantage of the expertise and experience of older men, who are more likely to give them that.

I think that view is sick and is far more harmful than anything someone sleeping with a biologically mature female does. But that's the reality of society. Until we change this view, you can't expect young girls to have the same rational views on this subject as some of us older more wiser people do. To them sex is almost mystical and anything that disrupts that mysticism is so bad it could be life ending.

I don't disagree with you, but what you're saying merely reinforces my thesis. Better to give the horny young lady a superior sex experience than allow her to be damaged at the hands of a fumbling, ham-handed, ignorant premature ejaculator of her own age don't you think?

Do it for the children!