The age of consent question, although it is a line you should not cross,
Ahhhhh, this is what I am talking about. It is arbitrary, but you should not cross it. Why? The line between races was arbitrary, so no one should have crossed it? The line between same sex couplings is arbitrary, so no one should cross it? The line between unmarried persons having sex is arbitrary, so no one should cross it?
And when you say it should not be crossed, which line? Within the US that line varies from 13 up to 18. Across the world it varies from 9-21.
Why does an arbitrary line, with no distinct value anyway, contain any validity such that you would recommend not crossing 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.
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.
The history of AOCs is interesting. It began as a way to wipe out child prostitution, and eventually became some urban myth type belief system that kids are intrinsically harmed by sex below such ages, and then that kids don't even desire or pursue such activities under that age unless they are unhealthy in some way.
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.
History, and not just recent history, is filled with cultures where it has occured to routinely to claim some difference to why they could handle it but others cannot.
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.
Either way this is a problem and needs to be dealt with education, treatment and in the latter case punishment.
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?
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 tabbo 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?
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.
mis-placed desire.
You will perhaps entertain me with an explanation of what science defines as correctly placed desire?
Heheheh... okay this was a veritable spanking machine. Your smart and I like your writing so its nothig personal. 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.
There are legitimate reasons for some laws regarding sex with those who have legal guardians (sex with mature but retarded individuals is the same as sex with those under age). Appeals to naturalness or "wrongness" or "readiness" from science is not one of them.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2