Why is it illegal to be happy?

[CapnAwesome]

I've met a 15 year old guy who was charged with rape because his girlfriend was 13. I've heard stories of guys being charged with statutory rape because her parents found out they were having sex in a window period between when he turned 18 and when she did. Yes, there are girls out there who will walk up to a guy in a bar, claim to be 21 (or else they couldn't be in a bar in the first place) and they're really only 17 or so.

I think these are extreme examples that are easy to avoid, and very poor reasons to modify statutory rape laws. If you have a 13 year old girlfriend, I don't think it's very hard avoid having sex with her.

Also I find it highly unlikely that a sexual encounter between a 17 year old bar tramp and whatever random guy she picked up is really going to press statutory rape charges against a guy. It's just an example of using extreme examples to try to change otherwise good laws.

[Ciel_Rouge]

Hi CapnAwesome, I am perfectly aware that pedophiles are trying to use the issue of age of consent and its volatility and complexity as a means to "justify" pedophilia. But what I am interested here are the TIES between RELIGION and AGE OF CONSENT, why does RELIGION say that something is "WRONG". I also referred to the fact of Catholic priests harming minors and strongly disapproved that which you seem to be unaware of.

This thread can go in two paths: a good path - "why does religion deny sex from people based on the age criteria?" or a "hate thread" - a useless path.

So please try to read my posts carefully and do not fuel hate. In Post #10 I wrote:

I am AGAINST forced sex involving CHILDREN, and in particular I am strongly AGAINST Christian priests doing that.

Is this not clear enough for you?

Well, in your limited perspective sex seems to mean penetration. This could obviously cause bodily and mental harm. I am NOT advocating that. In fact, there have been a few scandals involving Christian priests doing just that ;-) I am NOT attracted to 12 year olds I was 12 MYSELF when I was attracted to a 25 year old teacher.

I never suggested I was underage myself, I suppose anyone can easily infer that I am not 12 from the style of my writing just like you did.

[CapnAwesome]

Hi CapnAwesome, I am perfectly aware that pedophiles are trying to use the issue of age of consent and its volatility and complexity as a means to "justify" pedophilia. But please try to read my posts carefully. In Post #10 I wrote:

I am AGAINST forced sex involving CHILDREN, and in particular I am strongly AGAINST Christian priests doing that.

Is this not clear enough for you?

Well, in your limited perspective sex seems to mean penetration. This could obviously cause bodily and mental harm. I am NOT advocating that. In fact, there have been a few scandals involving Christian priests doing just that ;-) I am NOT attracted to 12 year olds I was 12 MYSELF when I was attracted to a 25 year old teacher.

I used the present tense in my question as means of expressing a general idea and never suggested I was underage myself, I suppose anyone can easily infer from the way I express my thoughts that I am not a "minor"

First off, I think I made clear that I consider ALL sex with children to be forced sex, because children aren't capable of consenting to sex with adults. Although you might very well have wanted to get your bone on with your teacher as a 12 year old, that is not the same as being capable of consent. Desire and consent are not the same. The same as if I have sex with a someone very drunk when I am completely sober.

All you are saying in being against 'forced' sex with children is that you are against child rape. That's hardly independant of what I was saying, that your fourth premise is in favor of pedophilia. Which of course, it is.

[Cinjin]

Hey Drich,
You know how christians really dislike having atheists make absurd generalizations about them whether by statement, implication or question?? ......

but, Wow. 20 people looked at this thread, and no one could be bothered to say anything against this? It this what it means to be atheist? To remain silent when someone openly wants to have sex with little kids?

bam! Hypocrite. guilty as charged sir --- again.

[Ciel_Rouge]

You have clearly missed the diagram I have already quoted a couple of times which shows that at the age of 16 the very same person can be an"incapable child" in California but a "consenting adult" in North Carolina:



My question for you is this: How can a person magically be "mentally retarded" in one state and fully capable in another, all at the SAME time?

First off, I think I made clear that I consider ALL sex with children to be forced sex, because children aren't capable of consenting to sex with adults.

OK then, let as go back to the religious aspect: in the Bible, girls at the age of 12, 13 or 14 were married and sexually active. Interestingly, the CONSENT was given by their FATHER. My question is: do you consider THIS right?

To me it is not only rape. It is a human rights violation. But you do not seem to oppose - or do you?

Let me give you my definition of rape: Rape is penetration that is UNWANTED or HARMFUL to the person being penetrated. Period. And I am against all rape. This inludes not only freaks raping little children, it includes guys raping other guys in prisons, Catholic priests raping altar boys and even wives who were forced into their marriage by their parents. I am against all that.

Although you might very well have wanted to get your bone on with your teacher as a 12 year old, that is not the same as being capable of consent.

But my teacher did not initiate anything and back then I was under the "legal age" - I guess this makes matters even more complicated

Desire and consent are not the same. The same as if I have sex with a someone very drunk when I am completely sober.

This sort of comparison is not valid, a child is more mentally capable and self-aware than a drunk adult.

All you are saying in being against 'forced' sex with children is that you are against child rape. That's hardly independant of what I was saying, that your fourth premise is in favor of pedophilia. Which of course, it is.

Of course You aim to prove your point at all cost and against all odds and even the facts themselves ;-) But it was ME who was underage back then. So how do you call it? REVERSE pedophilia?

[Dumac Dwarfking]

Everyone reaches an age of sexual maturity at different times, it would be impossible to create a law that is fair for any and all people. There are kids at the age of 13 who are already mature enough, and emotionally stable enough to have sex, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of them are not. Therefore it is in the interest of that majority that the legal age is one high enough for at least most to have reached that sexual maturity. Whilst I know it isn't the case, I believe that the age in which you can enjoy adult entertainment should be the same. I realise that kids will inevitably watch it anyway, but certainly to a lesser degree, and they won't be able to enjoy it as much as the sound will have to be all the down and they'll be riddled with guilt

Well that's my two cents...

[Ciel_Rouge]

Well that's my two cents...

Hi Dumac Dwarfking, I suppose it is not humanly possible to summarize the whole discussion more clearly and spot-on!



As for the guilt component, the Xtians always aim to incorporate that and spoil one's sexuality REGARDLESS of age.

As for cultural aspects and the arbitrariness of the whole thing, let me quote this:

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

"Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.

In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.

In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.[5] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the age of consent to 16–18 by 1920.[6][7]

Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulting in raising the ages of consent to ages generally ranging from 16 to 18.[3]"

So basically the age of consent was raised because in the late 1800s and early 1900s most women were forced by their PARENTS to marry men they did not even like. And this goes back to the biblical and religious aspect - in the Bible at certain age the ability to consent is not only denied to a person but TRANSFERRED to another. And from my atheist point of view THIS is HUGE human rights violation and a BIG no-no.

[TaraJo]

I've met a 15 year old guy who was charged with rape because his girlfriend was 13. I've heard stories of guys being charged with statutory rape because her parents found out they were having sex in a window period between when he turned 18 and when she did. Yes, there are girls out there who will walk up to a guy in a bar, claim to be 21 (or else they couldn't be in a bar in the first place) and they're really only 17 or so.

I think these are extreme examples that are easy to avoid, and very poor reasons to modify statutory rape laws. If you have a 13 year old girlfriend, I don't think it's very hard avoid having sex with her.

Also I find it highly unlikely that a sexual encounter between a 17 year old bar tramp and whatever random guy she picked up is really going to press statutory rape charges against a guy. It's just an example of using extreme examples to try to change otherwise good laws.

True, those are probably going to be the exception, not the rule, but the law needs to have enough wiggle room for the unexpected. I don't want the laws changed because of what I see happening; I want them changed so that they can adapt to the unexpected situations.

[Ryantology]

I know plenty of people above the age of 18 who are nowhere near the level of maturity to engage in something as potentially life-altering as sex.

It's one of those things where it'd be a horrible idea to be regulated by license, and yet you still kinda wish it was anyway. For certain people, at least. Never yourself, of course!

[Darkstar]

True, those are probably going to be the exception, not the rule, but the law needs to have enough wiggle room for the unexpected. I don't want the laws changed because of what I see happening; I want them changed so that they can adapt to the unexpected situations.

You have a good idea in theory, but I can't think of any law that could be created that would allow for people to have sex only once they are mature enough. It's almost impossible to define 'mature' objectively, and some people will think they are mature only to discover that they are not. There isn't really any way the law could tell if someone was 'mature' without an objective, albiet imperfect, gauge, like age.