Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[max-greece]

Because the law is not so extreme and can be changed if it were.

The laws are the exact same. Only the age is different. There is no extreme. I just want you to acknowledge that saying something is so because it is so in a legal context is circular reasoning and fallacious. My argument, if accepted as true, would have the legalities change to fit the new truth. Do I get to then say this new truth is true because it is legally so? No, because that's retarded.

Neither circular nor fallacious. There is no "truth" merely reflections of public morality, which is the point you don't want to understand. If the majority of the population want the law on the age of consent changed then that is what will happen. If the majority don't want it changed than your "truth" or moral position doesn't reflect that of the majority

As it happens we are still working on right and wrong between us here. I was merely explaining to you why some of your statements were not safe. We do not live in an ideal Utopian society where laws are not required. We do, however, live in democracies where unfair or improper laws that do not reflect a population's morality get changed. An example of this is the gay marriage legislation that is making its way across Europe as I type.

Relevance. Where is it?

Its an example of laws changing to reflect public morality. How can you not see the relevance in that?

Now we seem to have established puberty as a measure of sexual readiness with apparently some reservation on your part:

Beginning, during or after puberty? How do we measure it? You have stated it would be a better indicator for the law. Is it by pubic hair, breast development, first period or other? What did you have in mind?

After they feel the urge to have sex. Other peoples urges are not tangible, of course, but sure we can go by first period and descended testicles. They're pretty good bets.

In the meantime I would like to investigate the flip-side if you don't mind.

Now we have established that a pubescent (if not earlier) girl (in this case) should be allowed to have a sexual relationship if she wants one. My question is, is she, or someone like her, now fair game? In other words is it OK for men to hit on her on the basis she might think she is ready for sex. If she is not ready how do we advise her to deal with these unwanted sexual advances?

Anyone is already aloud to hit on anyone and there needs to be no basis to allow for that. If someone doesn't want to have sex with someone; they say no. Nobody needs to even tell them that.

How is a man supposed to know if, when she says no, she means it?

I dunno'. I'm just a stupid man and I couldn't possibly know.

But how about if someone says 'no', it is to be taken that they do, in fact, mean 'no.' If someone (man or otherwise) doesn't agree with that, then throw them in jail after they rape.
[/quote]

So you've never been with a woman who is screaming no and it means yes?

I have to say what we are now discussing is a tiny part of what paedophilia really is. Usually men - often hanging around places children are playing, looking to lure them away with the promise of sweets or puppies where they can rape them. Or, as seems to be the most commonly reported case, priests raping choir boys. That doesn't have to be violent rape. These are cases where an adult is using their power or authority to force a child to have sex against their will.

This is preying on the most vulnerable in society - children. That neither you nor Violet see children as being more vulnerable is, frankly astonishing but I, obviously, can't persuade you.

---

Anyone is not allowed to hit on anyone by the way. Try it for yourself. Go hang around a kindergarten attempting to lure children into your car and see what happens.

---

Violet,

Saying we are never going to agree is not a cop out - its simply a statement of fact.

Society did indeed used to regard homosexuality as wrong but I don't live in that society. The one where I do regards almost all adult sexuality as fine but it recognizes children are a special case. I agree with society - you don't.

Foolish consent is only consent if it is reasonable to accept that the person giving their consent understood what that meant. In the case of a smaller child they probably have little to no idea of what they are consenting to. They might simply be agreeing to "Now you do want to make Daddy happy don't you?"

Surely you see the scope for abuse here. Children, despite all your claims to the contrary, are more trusting. Children up to the age of about 6 are not even capable of lying.

Again we are at cross purposes. You are focusing on what I would maintain is a very rare child indeed that wants sex and actually understands what that means. You are ignoring issues such as the physical damage that might do to them and indeed the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives. I am focusing on the child that gives its consent but doesn't actually know what that means.
At 6 years old I wouldn't even let my daughter choose her own clothes. "I want to wear this dress." "That's a summer dress and its snowing - you can't."

We do not hold children as responsible for their actions as a society until they reach a certain age. I agree that this is an imperfect rule but its about the best we have. There are very good reasons for this. I suggest you take a look at how the human brain develops as they are growing up. Decision centres in the brain are different between children and adults. That you think it's fine for a seven year old to drive really says a lot. How do you handle responsibility in this case? The child loses control of the vehicle and ploughs into a bus-stop full of people. Is the child responsible? Do you have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter? Do you not hold the parents responsible for allowing their child to drive in the first place?