Why does an arbitrary line, with no distinct value anyway, contain any validity such that you would recommend not crossing it?
Because it’s the law (what ever age is set in the place where you live it is enforced by law, for most that is a good enough reason. If you want more then it is seen by the vast majority of people in that nation as being a thing you simply don’t do. So we have Law and vicious peer pressure (who wants to be labeled a sex offender? I don’t) Yes it moralistic, yes it may be founded on ideas that possibly can’t be scientifically backed, up but when you live in a society there are things you simply don’t do, even if it is within your capacity to do them. Thus a line you should not cross. Science don’t come into it.
the human race is the only critter, on the whole, that doesn’t start mating the instant after puberty(as far as I know).
This is a bit inaccurate. Human critters are sexual from about the get go. Children will engage in masturbation and then exploration with others, IIRC from just a few weeks on up. They may have... I mean they DO have... sexual activity with others well before puberty. They just don't have kids before puberty for rather obvious biological reasons.
If by "on the whole", you meant "the majority" then that would be correct, though as I say a bit inaccurate. Its not like they naturally wouldn't. Its that they are restricted from such activity.
Yes I meant “the Majority” so you are simply picking holes. Yes children do play snuggling games and have a fascination with their gentile area, but we (try) educate them that this is a no-no and something for adults only. The fact that two prepubescent children may start to explore their sexuality way before having functional equipment is not news to anyone. The fact that many Teenagers also indulge before the AOC is also not news. It happens, yes, but we adults try to educate against it, and for the majority we do hold off till post AOC. Is it a biological restriction? No. Is it social and arbitrary? Yes.
Science may throw in studies in regard to the mental health of young people who have been hunted by older predatory adults and thus help set the bar
There are no valid studies which do this, so the second part of your sentence is underlined. It comes from society and changing mindsets.
Sorry I am obviously confusing clinical psychological studies with science. My bad. Sorry. I’m fairly sure there have been studies in to long term mental health in abused children? But even then I said ”may’ and ”help’, so clearly not placing that much importance on science’s part in all of this.
The point of that comment was that science had little to do with this. After all I said that it was primarily driven by society, so why comment as if I was making a bigger deal for science’s part in all this?
We think, on the whole, that our children are simply not ready for all that at the age of puberty. I agree.
But this is contrary to scientific understanding. That you are not comfortable with this idea, or would not want your own kids involved with this is beyond dispute. That would be legitimate. Assertions of "readiness", beyond some simple mechanical issues, are not.
Again where is my assertion that this is all about science? I said “We Think . ” If I was indicating science was driving this then I would have started the line “Scientific studies have shown . ”. Where do I assert such a strong role for science? I’m fairly sure I don’t.
Sure I am uncomfortable with the idea of underage sex (especially when one of the partners isn’t) most of society feels the same. I’m sure you would have deep qualms over permitting your young hypothetical daughter (hypothetically 11 shall we say) to engage in sexual practice simply because you had no scientific reason to stop her? It’s arbitrary, moralistic and socially driven. That and No parent ever really wants to let go. Science had little or nothing to do with it.
Mind you, what scientist would want to publish a report that said under age sex didn’t harm the child? You can see the headlines now; “Perverted Scientist proves pedophilia is OK!!”.
There is a desire and will by society in recent times to make sure such relations end up disastrously, just as it had with gays for years. The fact that they are successful these days despite the incredible odds and legal forces against them, suggests that kids certainly can be ready and more formidable in pursuing their own desires than many believe possible.
So NAMBLA, which promotes relation ships that many would deem wrong, should be left alone to do as it pleases, as there is no real scientific grounds to object to it?
I agree that rape is harmful... someone's rights are intrinsically violated... and so sort of beyond question as needing full legal restrictions. I am having problems with the "punishment" part. Education, treatment, and restriction makes sense to me. How does punishment do anything for anyone?
Sure, the person who uses rape as a weapon also probably needs treatment, but in this case they knew the damage they would cause, and deliberately performed the act with that damage in mind. This is the same as taking a baseball bat to someone. You know the damage you are going to cause, and that damage is the goal. The choice of rape as a weapon is a mental balance issue that does need looking at for the said individual, but the intent to cause damage, mental and or physical is a criminal act and that needs to be punished as much as any other violent crime of hate. Sure there are issues with the justice system in most nations but if someone caused you physical and/or mental trauma would you not want to see them punished?
While on purely biological grounds you could at least explain underage sex between sexually mature willing partners (ie post puberty), the pheromones, the pheromones . the great taboo however is sex with non sexually active partners ( ie below the age of puberty.) This no matter how you dress, it is clear indication that something has gone badly wrong.
Time to recheck your science. Science cannot say what is right or wrong. If it is happening it is happening and you can only say why it is happening. The idea that it is right/wrong or natural/unnatural is entirely moral posturing.
In fact it is almost laughable in that you seem to be saying that science can come up with an explanation for one kind of sex so maybe it has some legitimacy, but this other kind cannot be so it must not? Could it be that science has no explanation for the other because it is considered taboo and so wholly unresearched?
I’m not saying science tells us underage sex is wrong, I was simply saying biology has shown that sexually mature humans give off pheromones to attract sexual partners. This is simple fact. That the AOC puts an arbitrary barrier on when it is deemed permissible to avail yourself of these signals is where a lot of problems occur. Is it right or wrong? That is a matter for morality, the law and society as a whole.
Again I was not intending to indicate science made a moral judgment on sex with prepubescent children, if that’s how it read I apologize. But sociologically it is a huge taboo, would you not agree? Do you not agree that such acts though physically possible, are truly not permissible?
Earlier, and to some extent even today, there is no scientific "explanation" for homosexuality. Why would two people be attracted to sexual partners whose pheromones would not result in proper mating activity? Obviously something is "wrong"... though we should champion re-education over punishment?
In reality, checking back into scientific knowledge, sex with prepubescents is not outside of normal sexual behavior within the animal kingdom. Indeed our closest relative, the Bonobos, have sex with prepubescents as freely as post. Thus there does not appear to be anything "wrong" with this behavior, unless one wants to believe the myth that man was created separately and so could not naturally engage in behavior seen elsewhere.
Is homosexuality “wrong”? No. Abnormal? Yes. But as homosexuality is also in the rest of the animal kingdom it can’t even be argued to be unnatural. We, generally recognize the right of consenting adult partners to do pretty much what they want (within the law) but adults having or attempting sex with those in pre-puberty is simply out of the ball park wrong.
mis-placed desire.
You will perhaps entertain me with an explanation of what science defines as correctly placed desire?
off the top of my head I can’t, but I’m fairly sure I wasn’t claiming that there was a scientific definition.
Heheheh... okay this was a veritable spanking machine. Your smart and I like your writing so its nothig personal.
Ta for the compliment
However, misuse of science particularly in the name of sexual moralism gets me really hot under the collar.
You have made a big mistake, and it is exactly what rand was suggesting. You have projected your own ethnocentric beliefs into scientific knowledge, and are using it to justify legislation of your morals.
I don’t think I did.
I simply said that biology has shown that sexually mature humans emit pheromones and that can explain the attraction to under-age but sexually mature humans in adults. And did so to highlight that while science has shown that post pubescent individuals are physically ready for reproductive sex before the AOC we artificially set the bar after that physical readiness mainly out of moral and sociological grounds.
I also hinted that I was fairly certain that some studies in to long-term sexual abuse in children have been used to prop up the moralistic stance, not that these were the sole and root pillars of my argument. The validity of any presented study is a topic for elsewhere.
All other comments were highlighting the driving role od society and it’s morals in this topic
™ Version 4.2
