Sexual Orientation

[ShaMan]

Can sexual orientation be changed?

Waterboarding would do it.

[vorlon13]

Unless one found it arousing.

[ShaMan]

Unless one found it arousing.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO!

[StealthySkeptic]

---

So which parts are you talking about changing here? If you mean Orientation, Alice's response is pretty much on the button; you've gotta smash something. If you're talking about Behaviour, there's a large aspect which is self-policed although, once again, Alice's suggestions would work. On the subject of labelling, that's mainly down to social convention: change the conventions and you change the labels.

I thought we were talking about actively modifying someone's sexuality

Oh well XD That one guy had a pretty good idea that I'd spaced with 'pills', which don't require surgery, but are intended for the same general effect

---

Way I see it is that you could change just about anything you want about a person if you are determined enough.

And advanced enough.

"Depends on the torture... depends on the man."

---

The problem is that young people ~<16 have mostly not developed intellectually enough or gained enough experience to be able to make well-informed choices in sexual matters. That's why Statutory Rape exists, to protect those who might give their consent when they're unknowingly vulnerable.

I find that this applies to adults just as readily. Humankind is a learning being, and their lives shape that learning.

If you wish for them to make "well informed" choices in sexual matters, then it is your duty to inform them as early as possible in their lives.

I think you'll find that by 10, kids are starting to get pretty damn smart.

Personally, I was 'ready' quite early or at least, I thought I was. Actually, I was just horny and acting on it. I now appreciate that I wouldn't have been ready to care for a child or provide for & raise him/her properly. In fact, I would have been woefully inadequate. I still lost my virginity at a young age. I knew better, you see. In reality, I (or the children that never were) was just lucky.

That's what your parents, their grandparents, are for, silly. It's dangerous for humans to go babymaking young... but luckily: medical science is here to catch them now.

---

Sexual orientation and behavior is fine until it harms someone. That's basically where the line is drawn.

All about hurt, here. If they're happy, then I'm happy with them... if one person is lording over the other in a nonconsensual and in particular: not enjoyed manner...

Then I have problem. Hedonism, man.

---

Well, I guess I can't really imagine a scenario in which an adult who takes advantage of a child for the purposes of exploiting them sexually is going to have any positive effects on the well-being of said child.

And how about an adult who wishes to love that person, to hold them close and teach them all of what they know of the world...

I find that some of my best learning is through practice and exploration. There are advantages to these things.

As Ben pointed out, a child at the age of nine can think they're ready for a lot of things... but they actually don't know what they want because they're nine years old.

A human at age of fifty can believe themselves the manifest of their own destiny... but only are they manifest a fool.

Because... they're human.

I guess I must ask: are you okay with a nine-year-old having sex with an adult if the child pleads and pleads to do it? Say, your daughter?

Yes. Absolutely... though if my daughter were so inclined, I'd prefer it be with me or at least someone I know and trust, who will be as gentle and loving with her as she deserves.

A stranger isn't as trusted, and I would be very hard to convince that I not be around for her safety.

---

You at 8 or 9and another 8 or 9 year-old and I wouldn't say boo provided it was consensual--though I think that that's rare, and shouldn't be encouraged.

Consensual sex with people of your own age... not encouraged? Odd.

But an adult and a 8 or 9 year? No way. I don't think given the power difference, that a 8 or 9 year old could really consent. And I don't really think a child is in a position to really understand the possible consequences of sex. You may have been ready, but in order to protect other children, I'd say no.

So... given the 'power difference'... should my relationship with a physically disabled adult be thrown out... shall they not find an outreach for the love they crave? Can they 'really consent', or can they just 'sort of consent', or can they 'not consent' even if the only thing they are speaking is their consent?

The consequences of every action... cause reactions so far-reaching that no man might know their heading. I don't think that an 8 or 9 year old (though perhaps the person is just blissfully stupid, who knows) is incapable of understanding the immediate potential consequences of one subject that, should an adult be on hand at the happenstance, they are dutybound to explain.

Or, perhaps your distrust of the human race has chained the freedoms of man in your mind.

---

First of all, a lot of this post left me with my mouth agape, and not in a good way at all.



It seems like you could change someone's sexual orientation with surgery, chemical castration, or the like...the question is, when should you? That is a question best answered by law and psychology.

In the case of, say, homosexuality, when applied to two adults of the same sex, we all know that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that consensual homosexuality per se can cause harm. That's why the APA threw it out of the DSM in 1973. On the other hand, pedophilia is a very well known paraphilia (sexual mental illness) that causes a great deal of harm in ALL cases.

Besides, parsing the motives or behavior of the adult and child involved in the act is not necessary, since for very good reasons the law has made statutory rape (the crime that people are really talking about when sex happens where at least one party is under the age of consent) a strict liability crime- meaning an offense where the mens rea (state of mind) of the defendant is not taken into account, only the actus reus (criminal act) itself.

Basically, it DOES NOT matter the supposed "loving" motives of an adult who has sex with a minor under the age of consent in the United States, or indeed most civilized countries (with rare exceptions such as Romeo and Juliet laws where both participants are only a few years apart, so that for instance the 8 and 9 year old in your scenario are not sent to jail, or even a 15 and 16 year old). They are a mentally ill criminal, period, and I personally would never allow my children around sex offenders. Otherwise they could claim love and get out of responsibility for their sick, sick actions.

It DOES NOT matter how "smart" a little kid is for their age. In the eyes of American law and psychology they are NOT responsible enough to make their own decisions in sexual or other matters, otherwise a ten year old could be pressed into signing a contract and then held liable, among other possible ridiculous and harmful situations. In the Middle East, girls can be married as young as 9 but the majority of the time they are forced into it while the adult claims "love" and Islam as far back as Muhammad and Aisha is disgusting for encouraging this for obvious reasons, no matter the "cultural context."

When it comes to adults making stupid decisions, yeah, it happens. However, again, the law doesn't care for a very good reason- ignorance of the law is no excuse. A particular age is the dividing line between responsibility and non-responsibility, period. If you commit an offense as an adult (or a very heinous felony as a young person) you are tried as an adult, stupidity aside. Otherwise people who get drunk and go over the speed limit could blame the alcohol for impairing them.

As for the disabled adult example: no, a physically disabled adult is capable of consenting IF they are intellectually able enough to do so. An intellectually disabled person can consent depending on what they can understand.

When it comes to THIS...

I guess I must ask: are you okay with a nine-year-old having sex with an adult if the child pleads and pleads to do it? Say, your daughter?

Yes. Absolutely... though if my daughter were so inclined, I'd prefer it be with me or at least someone I know and trust, who will be as gentle and loving with her as she deserves.

A stranger isn't as trusted, and I would be very hard to convince that I not be around for her safety.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...



I will repeat my previous statements from the highest mountain and at the top of my lungs. When it comes to incest (at any age) and pedophilia, motive does not matter. It is wrong in all situations legally, psychologically, and morally, because in the great majority of situations (I'd say >90% but that's out of thin air) it leads to harm for the CHILD.

[Jenny A]

The problem is that young people ~<16 have mostly not developed intellectually enough or gained enough experience to be able to make well-informed choices in sexual matters. That's why Statutory Rape exists, to protect those who might give their consent when they're unknowingly vulnerable.

I find that this applies to adults just as readily. Humankind is a learning being, and their lives shape that learning.

If you wish for them to make "well informed" choices in sexual matters, then it is your duty to inform them as early as possible in their lives.

I think you'll find that by 10, kids are starting to get pretty damn smart.

I'm all for giving children information. If they do choose to have sex, I want it to be informed sex. And yes some of them are "pretty damn smart." What the vast majority of 10 year old lack is a sense of consequences or an ability to take care of those consequences. I've had my own 10-year-olds way to recently to have any illusions about that.

---

That's what your parents, their grandparents, are for, silly. It's dangerous for humans to go babymaking young... but luckily: medical science is here to catch them now.

10-year-olds are not necessarily ready to tell their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles,or family friends early enough about oncoming little consequences. Nor is dealing with those consequences ultimately their own responsibility. It becomes the responsibility of the parents. Therefore, parents should have some say in it. Just as parents get to decide if 10 or 12 is a good age to get to own a gun, or ride a dirt bike. And in the case of sex there are more than one set of parents involved.

---

Well, I guess I can't really imagine a scenario in which an adult who takes advantage of a child for the purposes of exploiting them sexually is going to have any positive effects on the well-being of said child.

And how about an adult who wishes to love that person, to hold them close and teach them all of what they know of the world...

I find that some of my best learning is through practice and exploration. There are advantages to these things.

Sorry, not buying it. Learning about sex is best learned through practice and exploration. It is not best learned through exploitation. An adult who thinks they have sex with a child out of pure motives of love is deluding themselves.

---

You at 8 or 9and another 8 or 9 year-old and I wouldn't say boo provided it was consensual--though I think that that's rare, and shouldn't be encouraged.

Consensual sex with people of your own age... not encouraged? Odd.

Yes, because of the consequences children are not yet ready to take responsibility for.

]But an adult and a 8 or 9 year? No way. I don't think given the power difference, that a 8 or 9 year old could really consent. And I don't really think a child is in a position to really understand the possible consequences of sex. You may have been ready, but in order to protect other children, I'd say no.

So... given the 'power difference'... should my relationship with a physically disabled adult be thrown out... shall they not find an outreach for the love they crave? Can they 'really consent', or can they just 'sort of consent', or can they 'not consent' even if the only thing they are speaking is their consent?

Mentally or physically disabled? If mentally they may not be able to give consent. If you are talking physically, why yes they can.

The consequences of every action... cause reactions so far-reaching that no man might know their heading. I don't think that an 8 or 9 year old (though perhaps the person is just blissfully stupid, who knows) is incapable of understanding the immediate potential consequences of one subject that, should an adult be on hand at the happenstance, they are dutybound to explain.

Or, perhaps your distrust of the human race has chained the freedoms of man in your mind.

The part of the brain that can not only describe but actually act upon potential consequences is a late bloomer in the human brain. It doesn't really mature until between 18 and 25 or so depending on the gender of the individual.

No human is perfect at this, but 18 year-olds are much better at it than 8 year olds.

[Violet]

First of all, a lot of this post left me with my mouth agape, and not in a good way at all.

This tends to be the general popular response to my posts. Somehow, I still feel I'll never win that Controversy award... I'm jsut too agreeable.

It seems like you could change someone's sexual orientation with surgery, chemical castration, or the like...the question is, when should you? That is a question best answered by law and psychology.

I wouldn't. That isn't to say whether it should or shouldn't.

In the case of, say, homosexuality, when applied to two adults of the same sex, we all know that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that consensual homosexuality per se can cause harm. That's why the APA threw it out of the DSM in 1973. On the other hand, pedophilia is a very well known paraphilia (sexual mental illness) that causes a great deal of harm in ALL cases.

It can cause harm, it is a relationship. All it takes is for one person to not hold up their end... and harm enters into it.

... Paraphilia...?
* Violet snorts in derisive laughter.

That's pretty funny. I think that you'll find that "all cases" is not actually the case in "all cases".

Besides, parsing the motives or behavior of the adult and child involved in the act is not necessary, since for very good reasons the law has made statutory rape (the crime that people are really talking about when sex happens where at least one party is under the age of consent) a strict liability crime- meaning an offense where the mens rea (state of mind) of the defendant is not taken into account, only the actus reus (criminal act) itself.

Right... right, and they also built age lines, educated their children in batches, and started an utterly hilarious 'war on drugs'.

Law and reality are neither one and the same, nor are law and the morals of those by force of law bound follow though in spite of their deviance.

Basically, it DOES NOT matter the supposed "loving" motives of an adult who has sex with a minor under the age of consent in the United States, or indeed most civilized countries (with rare exceptions such as Romeo and Juliet laws where both participants are only a few years apart, so that for instance the 8 and 9 year old in your scenario are not sent to jail, or even a 15 and 16 year old). They are a mentally ill criminal, period, and I personally would never allow my children around sex offenders. Otherwise they could claim love and get out of responsibility for their sick, sick actions.

Mentally ill... criminal... sex offenders...... ironic.

A very short glance into the history of legal homosexuality could be very educational. I would suggest that you look into it

So sickening... punishing people forever for their failures, their mistakes... pushing them away from society can only create the well-intentioned prey, and the predators who no longer give a shit about living within the rules a people who refuse to trust them.

It DOES NOT matter how "smart" a little kid is for their age. In the eyes of American law and psychology they are NOT responsible enough to make their own decisions in sexual or other matters, otherwise a ten year old could be pressed into signing a contract and then held liable, among other possible ridiculous and harmful situations. In the Middle East, girls can be married as young as 9 but the majority of the time they are forced into it while the adult claims "love" and Islam as far back as Muhammad and Aisha is disgusting for encouraging this for obvious reasons, no matter the "cultural context."

What matters their vision to mine? Contracts are absurd in any nonbusiness sense... and workman's contracts are appalling.

Oddly, I don't find it nearly so disgusting as do you. I mourn for those caught up in any life that they do not choose... but that is not to say that such systems cannot bring happiness or stability.

When it comes to adults making stupid decisions, yeah, it happens. However, again, the law doesn't care for a very good reason- ignorance of the law is no excuse. A particular age is the dividing line between responsibility and non-responsibility, period. If you commit an offense as an adult (or a very heinous felony as a young person) you are tried as an adult, stupidity aside. Otherwise people who get drunk and go over the speed limit could blame the alcohol for impairing them.

Its occurrence is so regular as to be considered standard.

Seeing people try to defend age lines on any noneconomical basis is just downright funny

... I suppose you might not be mature enough to understand that blame is not entirely owned by the one, in almost any real world case.

As for the disabled adult example: no, a physically disabled adult is capable of consenting IF they are intellectually able enough to do so. An intellectually disabled person can consent depending on what they can understand.

Oh? I suppose that I cannot consent then, given that I cannot understand your hilarious system.

When it comes to THIS...

Yes. Absolutely... though if my daughter were so inclined, I'd prefer it be with me or at least someone I know and trust, who will be as gentle and loving with her as she deserves.

A stranger isn't as trusted, and I would be very hard to convince that I not be around for her safety.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

You're against protecting your children? Interesting.

I will repeat my previous statements from the highest mountain and at the top of my lungs. When it comes to incest (at any age) and pedophilia, motive does not matter. It is wrong in all situations legally, psychologically, and morally, because in the great majority of situations (I'd say >90% but that's out of thin air) it leads to harm for the CHILD.

Cute. I'll reiterate my amusement with a quiet chuckle.

Wait, you're having a go at *incest*?! Oh wow. Wow. WOW!

Legally? Depends on where you live.
Psychologically? Not even close.
Morally? Obviously, my moral scheme differs from yours, so... let's just throw that one right out.

You'd be right: out of thin air. I can't name names or even tell how I know what I know, because those involved would be... fiercely punished by a society of people like you... for "crimes" committed long ago that are remembered with fondness today

But then, I'll also let you in on a secret. Come closer...

---

Mankind is cruel to its fellows in as many ways as it is kind to them... the only way to end child abuse is through acceptance, and close interconnectedness of people... No law stands between what a man can do and what he wants out of life... the law can only punish after the fact.

Law is not the end-all answer to all of life's problems... if it were, then people would not break it so willy nilly.

---

---

I'm all for giving children information. If they do choose to have sex, I want it to be informed sex. And yes some of them are "pretty damn smart." What the vast majority of 10 year old lack is a sense of consequences or an ability to take care of those consequences. I've had my own 10-year-olds way to recently to have any illusions about that.

Me too. Absolutely. Totes.

That mirrors my data, which suggests that very few of you fleshbags have the slightest inkling about what you're accomplishing down the road from your actions.

I've seen too much foolishness to have any illusions about that

10-year-olds are not necessarily ready to tell their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles,or family friends early enough about oncoming little consequences.

That's fine, though... after all: few people are.

I can't make this phone call I've been needing to make... and that has consequences that I'll be reaping for probably years... but I just can't make that call.

It's the fear. Establish a household that is there for them, and they need not live in fear.

Nor is dealing with those consequences ultimately their own responsibility. It becomes the responsibility of the parents. Therefore, parents should have some say in it. Just as parents get to decide if 10 or 12 is a good age to get to own a gun, or ride a dirt bike. And in the case of sex there are more than one set of parents involved.

We're all responsible for each other. That's more or less kind of the point of society.

Sorry, not buying it. Learning about sex is best learned through practice and exploration. It is not best learned through exploitation. An adult who thinks they have sex with a child out of pure motives of love is deluding themselves.

Curiosity... how is the adult exploiting a child that wishes to know what's so good about this sex thing that they keep hearing about? I mean, if we back up and look at the whole philosophy of life... then what would a mutually beneficial exploitation matter in the scheme of things? Nah, you don't want to think from that far removed... so yeah...

What is the harm in demonstrating (consensually) and/or providing an avenue where they can glean sexual understanding in an entirely safe and protected way? I do not see delusion here.

Yes, because of the consequences children are not yet ready to take responsibility for.

You mean... the primary method by which youth learn?

Or did you mean the consequences they'll experience when they're young adults and now beyond your protection?

Mentally or physically disabled? If mentally they may not be able to give consent. If you are talking physically, why yes they can.

Does it particularly matter? Physically disabled persons are as easily overpowered and hurt as are children... if they can give consent: why can a reasonably well-functioning child not give consent?

They seem pretty good at the whole 'no' bit as early as toddlerhood, to be pretty fiercely honest.

The part of the brain that can not only describe but actually act upon potential consequences is a late bloomer in the human brain. It doesn't really mature until between 18 and 25 or so depending on the gender of the individual.

Uh huh. Part of why schizophrenics get worse as they hit that point.

But, it doesn't really matter... they're let out into the world at 18 regardless of whether they will go on to make catastrophic errors in judgement from that point. If it mattered enough to do something about, then we wouldn't let them out until they were 30...

Assuming we used an arbitrary line, of course... Yeah, that'd be pretty funny.

No human is perfect at this, but 18 year-olds are much better at it than 8 year olds.

It couldn't possibly have been the 10 years of making wrong choices that has cautioned them from repeating them.

You realize that until cloning is mastered, we're not going to get to see 5 year old adult human brains as they repeat the hilarity of childhood at a later point in their life?

[StealthySkeptic]

The kind of harm that can be caused by a broken homosexual relationship is different than criminal harm, where an injury is recognized that can be and should be punished. Emotional hurt because your gay boyfriend dumped you is not a crime, whereas abuse is simply because that kind of hurt can cause devastating consequences.

"Law and reality are neither one and the same, nor are law and the morals of those bound by law..."

Law in general is concerned with creating two things: the broadest possible protections for everyone within the boundaries of a country over which the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, and a minimum standard for living in a society that applies to everyone so that everyone can get along. If we were to try and create law based solely on the moral inclinations of mere individuals, that would be a nightmare.

Criminal law, and specifically criminal punishment, has five possible objectives: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Punishing people for touching young kids indefinitely accomplishes all of those objectives with the possible exception of rehabilitation because a pedophile will always remain a pedophile no matter what. Registering sex offenders, on the other hand, is a civil law punishment that focuses on victim compensation by ensuring that these people are never anywhere near areas where children are known to congregate, thus making up for the harm that they have done as a pedophile. Lifetime sex offender registration is also not an unconstitutional ex post facto law nor a cruel and unusual punishment for this reason. SEE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut...ety_v._Doe

Again, it is well established in psychology that children in general do not have a developed sense of executive function, which is important in establishing and prioritizing activities, nor do they have a developed sense of consequences. This is mainly because the frontal lobe, which is responsible for those areas of cognition, is not even close to done growing when a person is a child. With the exception (again) of age closeness, the law has the age of consent line right where it is to establish a firm and universally applicable standard.

It is for that reason that I, as a parent, would firmly tell my child who wants to have sex with an adult that under no circumstances would they be permitted to. Certainly not with a relative such as an aunt, uncle, or sibling either, because of the power disparity and because of the irreparable damage that it can do to a child's psyche and to a strictly familial relationship. I exclude cousin marriages in such places as Texas because legally that is NOT the definition of incest. I would still not encourage it and do not approve of it however.

[Little lunch]

Anyone ever read 'Time enough for love.' by Robert A Heinlein?
It's a sci-fi. He explores a lot of this stuff.
Great book.
Sorry for interrupting. :-)

[Violet]

The kind of harm that can be caused by a broken homosexual relationship is different than criminal harm, where an injury is recognized that can be and should be punished. Emotional hurt because your gay boyfriend dumped you is not a crime, whereas abuse is simply because that kind of hurt can cause devastating consequences.

I've seen some pretty fantastic harms in gay relationships. I hope, for your sake, that you do not get to see it.

It's identical to the fantastic harms in straight relationships.

These are identical to the fantastic harms in child-adult relationships.

Law in general is concerned with creating two things: the broadest possible protections for everyone within the boundaries of a country over which the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, and a minimum standard for living in a society that applies to everyone so that everyone can get along. If we were to try and create law based solely on the moral inclinations of mere individuals, that would be a nightmare.

Law seems to vary across countries, I've noticed. 'The broadest possible protections'? As if...

And, it would be no more a nightmare than this world. We are a world of individuals... when comes the time that such is recognized: we'll have a very interesting world.

Everyone get along...? Funny, that would go entirely against many people's desires in this current law-full world.

"As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom." - Pythagoras

Criminal law, and specifically criminal punishment, has five possible objectives: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Punishing people for touching young kids indefinitely accomplishes all of those objectives with the possible exception of rehabilitation because a pedophile will always remain a pedophile no matter what. Registering sex offenders, on the other hand, is a civil law punishment that focuses on victim compensation by ensuring that these people are never anywhere near areas where children are known to congregate, thus making up for the harm that they have done as a pedophile. Lifetime sex offender registration is also not an unconstitutional ex post facto law nor a cruel and unusual punishment for this reason. SEE:

Your head is so full of lawspeak that I feel you must be deeply satisfied with the status of law within your nation.

I am not so easily satisfied, friend.

Again, it is well established in psychology that children in general do not have a developed sense of executive function, which is important in establishing and prioritizing activities, nor do they have a developed sense of consequences. This is mainly because the frontal lobe, which is responsible for those areas of cognition, is not even close to done growing when a person is a child. With the exception (again) of age closeness, the law has the age of consent line right where it is to establish a firm and universally applicable standard.

Establishment fallacy... sigh... it never ends. Listen here: that <insertwhoever> has established that 5 servings of bread should be eaten per day does not mean either of the following: 1, that it is true... 2, that what they've established matters to me.

Stop arguing about what others have established... and tell me what you think, and show me the evidence behind what you think. I'm not speaking to "whoever has established whatever"... but I am speaking to you. Please understand the distinction.

...

I'm not disputing the scie-actually, yes I am. I believe you'll find that experience is the core contributor to developing a need to prioritize, and that children are considerably more gifted at sensing consequences than you seem to believe. I'm not sure if you've ever seen children at play

There are a number of flaws with the noted studies... one in particular being that we've little way to observe a human adult that does not have the experience of making mistakes and living as a major factor in whether or not this area of the brain develops (comatose since 2-5 years after childbirth, cloned, imprisoned in utter silent darkness for all of these years... it's not easy, and that last is not exactly ethically testable), and it is furthermore not clear whether or not the incredible risk-taking of young adulthood is in part affected greatly by freeing these "underdeveloped persons (almost all of them if it takes 18-25 years)" such that they are no longer held in check by parental guidance, and the thrillseeking adventures of such youth in large part caused by our societal practice at releasing our care into the world in batches of their peers.

... That's not all of the considerations that are scarce made when considering these specific studies, but what we're left with at the end of the day is that there's a region of the brain that develops as we mature into adulthood (you know... which is exactly what happens at puberty... which is still used as the arbitrary gating point by a number of cultures around the world and seems to work out okay to them?). I'm just not convinced that *this in particular* is "the line" by which we should gauge whether or not people have 'matured enough' to be considered 'adults' in whatever society...

And if it was? It would be at the minimum at 25... and we would be arguing that persons younger than 25 cannot consent, because their consenting isn't as informed as those of people older than they.

... And philosophically speaking, we could go considerably further with this.... but I somehow do not think you'd be listening by the end of it

It is for that reason that I, as a parent, would firmly tell my child who wants to have sex with an adult that under no circumstances would they be permitted to. Certainly not with a relative such as an aunt, uncle, or sibling either, because of the power disparity and because of the irreparable damage that it can do to a child's psyche and to a strictly familial relationship. I exclude cousin marriages in such places as Texas because legally that is NOT the definition of incest. I would still not encourage it and do not approve of it however.

Cool... and then you'll find that they'll probably do it anyway. Actually, you probably won't find that, because they know how busted they'll be if you do

Careful who you tru-ust~

---

Anyone ever read 'Time enough for love.' by Robert A Heinlein?
It's a sci-fi. He explores a lot of this stuff.
Great book.
Sorry for interrupting. :-)

Nope. I've never read it. Tell me about it

Ooh, have you ever read.... Lolita? It's a classic.

[StealthySkeptic]

What you're doing here, Alice, is attempting to refute my citation of scientific and legal sources based on the presumption that I am committing an appeal to authority. Well, if that's the case, then because scientists say the world goes round the Sun after much investigation, we should just throw that all out because they're just an authority.

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

In other words, the experts in the APA are not automatically wrong, nor is it wrong to cite them, because they have evidence for their position that pedophilia is a paraphilia and that children are not mentally developed enough to actually consent to sex.

A few minutes of Googling revealed that pedophiles are more likely to have a comorbid psychiatric disorder other than pedophilia for instance: http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/art...eid=173441

YOU have to have evidence that they are wrong, and so far, other than bald assertions that children are smarter than we think and that adults can love children, you have come up with none.

Yes, being 18 doesn't automatically make you mature. But the law has to presume at SOME point that people will be responsible and then hold them to that. Some states set it at 16, others 17, others even 15, and I don't begrudge them that, but at some point it would have to be set, and preferably in the upper teens at the very least since obviously TEN YEAR OLDS don't know what they're doing sexually.

Being 18 in this country allows you other rights as well such as voting and possibly driving so that seems to be the norm that works well for everything, and that's why 18 has been settled on in most places in this country. If we instead raised say the voting age to 25 there would rightfully be a protest in this country. But if you want to do the opposite, how low would you set it? 14? 13? 12? 11? 10? 9? 8? Why then allow 8 year olds to have sex in your fictional country but not the right to vote? Do you see how ridiculous it would get?