(April 23, 2013 at 1:31 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: In a perfect world every single person would be judged according to his or hers abilities, not age. But we don't live in a perfect world and the line has to be drawn somewhere, to protect those who can't protect themselves from e.g. the preying vulture of a pedophile. Though it might be unfair towards the wholesome individuals who are cleverer and more sensible than some adults, it's the majority, the childish ones, who benefit from this.

In the current world, every single person is judged according to his or her abilities... or rather: peoples interpretations OF those. Unfortunately, they supplement this with ageism, racism, sexism, religionism... none of which are based on the person, but upon a group they believe to exist as a single archetype. I'm not asking for a perfect world... but for the people who make ageist arguments to understand that it is precisely the same kind of arguments you can make about race, sex, religion, etc.

There doesn't have to be a moralist line drawn *anywhere*. The reality is this: it's economical in our current system to have people join the workforce in predictable batches. Pedophiles exist, and pedophilia in and of itself harms nobody. A pedophile who cares that the younger person also cares about them, the younger person themselves desiring to fuck an older person... no problems for anyone. Thing I'm trying to drive home here is this: abusive relationships are not so because of -who- belongs to that relationship... but of the actions undertaken by the parties within that relationship. I don't care if it's a relationship between a black man and a white lady, between a woman another woman and a mexican man, between a child and the elderly, between a retard and a genius... I care if everyone involved wants the relationship, and isn't being abused by the other parties.

It's unfair towards everyone, since some of your population is restricted from the rights of the other population... whether or not it's benefiting anyone, it remains an unfair system... and certainly an unequal system. Just like that which peeps of colour had, women had... all of them people, some of them restricted from the rights granted to others. If we're going to be speciesist enough to eat very clear persons (pigs, for instance), we might as well not be segregatory within our own populace for non-actional attributes of humans

Quote:Yeah, I get your point. And that could be a whole another thread, 'Why so picky?'.

Got me... I know I'm not

Quote:Education dearest, education. First in the class room, then in bed. E.g. (because this is totally legit anecdotal proof!) due to me getting really good sex ed, I waited until I was almost 18 and had a blast my first time

Education is your answer? You mean... the thing which humans were largely without until the age of enlightenment, and even then... only for the richer children?

Also.. you think they give *good* sexual education, even now? In america, you're more likely to be fed abstinence than to learn much useful about the *enjoyment* side of sex. Education, I find, is best found in experience

Quote:But it seems to be unfair that some that would have survived as 20-year-olds giving birth had to die at the age of 9. And though it might be considered an evolutionary process, it's actually more imposed on them by culture than evolution.

Hey now... I am not advocating that they get pregnant. We're a lovely modern society (meaning we have condoms). But I am saying that the reason they *can* still get pregnant at that age... is because enough of them have, and survived it. In the past, and this is cultural, a lot of girls started to be considered able to bear children as soon as they experienced menstruation. Our current understanding of how long people live (~80 years) is not that of times long ago, where you were very lucky indeed to survive into your 40s.

Evolution isn't a kind, or fair process. It is what occurs through the hellhole mass of death and birth that is nature, in a chaotic scenario where the strong tend to survive, and only the lucky will make it.

(April 23, 2013 at 4:26 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: abusive relationships are not so because of -who- belongs to that relationship... but of the actions undertaken by the parties within that relationship.

Sure, on this I can agree with you. But I still hold on to my opinion that rather be a little bit too overprotective than let any child come to harm.

Quote:Education is your answer? You mean... the thing which humans were largely without until the age of enlightenment, and even then... only for the richer children?

Education is the answer to everything!
As for the saying that we have been fine without it before, I say that look at the mortality rate, longevity and living standards from those times.

Quote:Also.. you think they give *good* sexual education, even now? In america, you're more likely to be fed abstinence than to learn much useful about the *enjoyment* side of sex. Education, I find, is best found in experience

Unfortunately 'Murica has proven over and over again what shitty "education" they offer, but that doesn't mean that sex ed sucks all over the world.

(April 24, 2013 at 5:36 am)Kayenneh Wrote: Sure, on this I can agree with you. But I still hold on to my opinion that rather be a little bit too overprotective than let any child come to harm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c

I don't see 'harm' as something that absolutely must be avoided at all cost. Consider: if a person never has a negative experience in their life, how can they respect anything? They'll probably be a brat.

Quote:Education is the answer to everything!
As for the saying that we have been fine without it before, I say that look at the mortality rate, longevity and living standards from those times.

Take a look? Did not I specifically note such? Again: we be modern, so use conderms and aborterns if you give a shit.

Education is gleaned best from experience. It's the difference between reading about a mountain climber, and climbing a mountain.

Quote:Unfortunately 'Murica has proven over and over again what shitty "education" they offer, but that doesn't mean that sex ed sucks all over the world.

Well, america's education is my experience with education... I say: fast and loose on internet will be better for them.

(April 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I think that it's independent of age entirely. Every case is different.

---

(April 23, 2013 at 10:55 am)Dragonetti Wrote: An arranged marriage is a force marriage by an external force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage

That is why young women/children are flow out of the country for this type of marriage.

No... an arranged marriage is a marriage set up by the parents or guardians of two young people. Some would call them children, but it can happen with adults too.

The arranged marriage is sometimes coerced... but very rarely forced. And it's not illegal (though forcing it might be), which is the key behind my response.

---

(April 23, 2013 at 11:10 am)Tonus Wrote: And find a suitably rough surface!

Sandpaper, I find, is among the better masturbation tools

Again, the arrangement is not performed by groom and bride. The arrangement is performed by the parent, and most times do not have the child's needs or desires at the forefront. Most of the time, it is for each families best interest. Also, many arrange marriages are a young female child to an Adult Male. I call those men pedophiles.

At the end of it, the child has no say in the relationship or marriage.
If that is force, I am not sure what is then.

(April 24, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Dragonetti Wrote: Again, the arrangement is not performed by groom and bride. The arrangement is performed by the parent, and most times do not have the child's needs or desires at the forefront. Most of the time, it is for each families best interest. Also, many arrange marriages are a young female child to an Adult Male. I call those men pedophiles.

That's the point of an arranged marriage. It's arranged by parents/guardians, and those in said arrangement may choose to go along with it, or deny it, with associated consequences for either action.

I don't call people pedophiles unless they have pedophilia... simply marrying a child does not state precisely what that entails. Given that most arranged marriages are for sociopolitical or economic[ reasons: fucking each other in an arranged marriage is often quite irrelevant to the intentions of modern-day arranged marriages. In the past, just about every marriage a prince and a princess underwent was one arranged by their parents, and the peasant class did not even posses the ability to marry one another.

One does not have to fuck someone in marriage At least... not anymore

Quote:At the end of it, the child has no say in the relationship or marriage.
If that is force, I am not sure what is then.

The child can refuse, but there are consequences for doing so (parents angry with them, etc), just as if the child did something the parents did not want them to do.

It's not forced unless it is, and once it is forced it's an abuse case. Simple distinction.

(April 25, 2013 at 10:28 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(April 24, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Dragonetti Wrote: Again, the arrangement is not performed by groom and bride. The arrangement is performed by the parent, and most times do not have the child's needs or desires at the forefront. Most of the time, it is for each families best interest. Also, many arrange marriages are a young female child to an Adult Male. I call those men pedophiles.

That's the point of an arranged marriage. It's arranged by parents/guardians, and those in said arrangement may choose to go along with it, or deny it, with associated consequences for either action.

I don't call people pedophiles unless they have pedophilia... simply marrying a child does not state precisely what that entails. Given that most arranged marriages are for sociopolitical or economic[ reasons: fucking each other in an arranged marriage is often quite irrelevant to the intentions of modern-day arranged marriages. In the past, just about every marriage a prince and a princess underwent was one arranged by their parents, and the peasant class did not even posses the ability to marry one another.

One does not have to fuck someone in marriage At least... not anymore

Quote:At the end of it, the child has no say in the relationship or marriage.
If that is force, I am not sure what is then.

The child can refuse, but there are consequences for doing so (parents angry with them, etc), just as if the child did something the parents did not want them to do.

It's not forced unless it is, and once it is forced it's an abuse case. Simple distinction.

So would it not be simpler just to outlaw sex with 9 year olds? There are a lot more adults who want to sexually abuse 9 year olds out there than there are 9 year olds wanting to have sex, I'm guessing.

The options are basically put in place a law which allows men to marry 9 year olds which has been proven to also give men much more of an opportunity to abuse 9 year olds, this is for the benefit of who? Those horny 9 year olds that people on this forum seem to believe exist who are mature and adult enough to have sex and give birth perfectly fine.
Or do you think just maybe it might be that sex offenders who want to have sex with 9 year olds whether they are willing or not would benefit more from this law?

Is the argument actually that I'm being unfair in supporting a law because it forces 9 year olds to not have sex even if they want it?

Remember this isn't about whether or not some 9 year olds should have sex it's about whether an adult man should legally be able to marry a 9 year old girl.

(April 26, 2013 at 3:02 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 25, 2013 at 10:28 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: That's the point of an arranged marriage. It's arranged by parents/guardians, and those in said arrangement may choose to go along with it, or deny it, with associated consequences for either action.

I don't call people pedophiles unless they have pedophilia... simply marrying a child does not state precisely what that entails. Given that most arranged marriages are for sociopolitical or economic[ reasons: fucking each other in an arranged marriage is often quite irrelevant to the intentions of modern-day arranged marriages. In the past, just about every marriage a prince and a princess underwent was one arranged by their parents, and the peasant class did not even posses the ability to marry one another.

One does not have to fuck someone in marriage At least... not anymore


The child can refuse, but there are consequences for doing so (parents angry with them, etc), just as if the child did something the parents did not want them to do.

It's not forced unless it is, and once it is forced it's an abuse case. Simple distinction.

So would it not be simpler just to outlaw sex with 9 year olds? There are a lot more adults who want to sexually abuse 9 year olds out there than there are 9 year olds wanting to have sex, I'm guessing.

The options are basically put in place a law which allows men to marry 9 year olds which has been proven to also give men much more of an opportunity to abuse 9 year olds, this is for the benefit of who? Those horny 9 year olds that people on this forum seem to believe exist who are mature and adult enough to have sex and give birth perfectly fine.
Or do you think just maybe it might be that sex offenders who want to have sex with 9 year olds whether they are willing or not would benefit more from this law?

Is the argument actually that I'm being unfair in supporting a law because it forces 9 year olds to not have sex even if they want it?

Remember this isn't about whether or not some 9 year olds should have sex it's about whether an adult man should legally be able to marry a 9 year old girl.

Also, if the child refuse. This is usually disgraces the family's name. The child is then ostracized from their family or even killed. And, most children at this age barely understand the concept of sex. I also do not see the child not being rape in some societies for denying sex.

The child is treated as property, as the groom usually has to pay the bride's father. No one should be treated as property, female or male.

All said and done. This is fucked up!

(April 26, 2013 at 3:22 am)Dragonetti Wrote: Also, if the child refuse. This is usually disgraces the family's name. The child is then ostracized from their family or even killed. And, most children at this age barely understand the concept of sex. I also do not see the child not being rape in some societies for denying sex.

The child is treated as property, as the groom usually has to pay the bride's father. No one should be treated as property, female or male.

All said and done. This is fucked up!

What a brained washed stereotype you are

---

(April 26, 2013 at 3:02 am)paulpablo Wrote: So would it not be simpler just to outlaw sex with 9 year olds? There are a lot more adults who want to sexually abuse 9 year olds out there than there are 9 year olds wanting to have sex, I'm guessing.

How can we do that?
Are you going to punish children for having sex (so they are not children anymore)
Sexually abuse a child can be punished by death
Islam allows marriage not abuse, what is the exact harm done on a girl if a judge, doctor, herself & her parents accepted the marriage!!!

Quote:Remember this isn't about whether or not some 9 year olds should have sex it's about whether an adult man should legally be able to marry a 9 year old girl.

You are contradicting yourself here, you want to punish her as an adult but prevent her from having sex because she is a child!

(April 27, 2013 at 3:26 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(April 26, 2013 at 3:22 am)Dragonetti Wrote: Also, if the child refuse. This is usually disgraces the family's name. The child is then ostracized from their family or even killed. And, most children at this age barely understand the concept of sex. I also do not see the child not being rape in some societies for denying sex.

The child is treated as property, as the groom usually has to pay the bride's father. No one should be treated as property, female or male.

All said and done. This is fucked up!

What a brained washed stereotype you are

---

(April 26, 2013 at 3:02 am)paulpablo Wrote: So would it not be simpler just to outlaw sex with 9 year olds? There are a lot more adults who want to sexually abuse 9 year olds out there than there are 9 year olds wanting to have sex, I'm guessing.

How can we do that?
Are you going to punish children for having sex (so they are not children anymore)
Sexually abuse a child can be punished by death
Islam allows marriage not abuse, what is the exact harm done on a girl if a judge, doctor, herself & her parents accepted the marriage!!!

Quote:Remember this isn't about whether or not some 9 year olds should have sex it's about whether an adult man should legally be able to marry a 9 year old girl.

You are contradicting yourself here, you want to punish her as an adult but prevent her from having sex because she is a child!

Of course! This is a man of Science!

(April 27, 2013 at 3:26 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(April 26, 2013 at 3:22 am)Dragonetti Wrote: Also, if the child refuse. This is usually disgraces the family's name. The child is then ostracized from their family or even killed. And, most children at this age barely understand the concept of sex. I also do not see the child not being rape in some societies for denying sex.

The child is treated as property, as the groom usually has to pay the bride's father. No one should be treated as property, female or male.

All said and done. This is fucked up!

What a brained washed stereotype you are

---

(April 26, 2013 at 3:02 am)paulpablo Wrote: So would it not be simpler just to outlaw sex with 9 year olds? There are a lot more adults who want to sexually abuse 9 year olds out there than there are 9 year olds wanting to have sex, I'm guessing.

How can we do that?
Are you going to punish children for having sex (so they are not children anymore)
Sexually abuse a child can be punished by death
Islam allows marriage not abuse, what is the exact harm done on a girl if a judge, doctor, herself & her parents accepted the marriage!!!

Quote:Remember this isn't about whether or not some 9 year olds should have sex it's about whether an adult man should legally be able to marry a 9 year old girl.

You are contradicting yourself here, you want to punish her as an adult but prevent her from having sex because she is a child!

I think there's some language barrier here, when did I state I wanted to punish a 9 year old as an adult?

As I said before it doesn't matter whether Islam allows abuse, were talking about a marriage system based on the laws of Islam which makes it legal for an adult to marry a 9 year old this HAS resulted in wide spread child abuse in countries where these laws are in place, not theoretically, there's no saying this might happen, it IS happening.

I showed you the videos of what happens in Islamic countries, of girls dying getting pregnant when they are too young, girls pulled out of education, girls being beaten and so on. These videos were very very easy to come by, why don't you show me videos in the UK of these horny 9 year olds you speak of, protesting that they want to be able to marry a grown man, where are all these 9 year olds insisting that they want the age of consent lowering? Why haven't they banded together and contacted parliament and got a petition going themselves?