Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Violet]

I suppose you could teach a child what sex entailed before they reached puberty, and I mean more than just the motions of sex and sex ed.

It's such an impressively complicated subject that dogs are fucking each other before two years have passed in their life.

I contend, though, that since they do not have a sexual nature, this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in, like drinking fine wine and beer and knocking each others brains out, preferably in a large bed.

Puberty, though it adds value to a person's 'sexual nature' is not the root of a person's 'sexual nature'. If I were to suck all of the testosterone and estrogen out of your body, your 'sex drive' would severely diminish... but you'd still have a 'sexual nature'. What is that root?

Because pre-pubescent people cannot enjoy alcohol as much as post-pubescent people, right?

[Sal]

I suppose you could teach a child what sex entailed before they reached puberty, and I mean more than just the motions of sex and sex ed.

It's such an impressively complicated subject that dogs are fucking each other before two years have passed in their life.

That's moving the goal-post; a 2-year old dog is technically an adult, but nice try.

Would a puppy want to fuck an adult dog?

I contend, though, that since they do not have a sexual nature, this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in, like drinking fine wine and beer and knocking each others brains out, preferably in a large bed.

Puberty, though it adds value to a person's 'sexual nature' is not the root of a person's 'sexual nature'. If I were to suck all of the testosterone and estrogen out of your body, your 'sex drive' would severely diminish... but you'd still have a 'sexual nature'. What is that root?

More goal-post motions. The difference is that I'm already an adult, meaning I would've learned because I would have the gone through puberty in your scenario, no sex-drive notwithstanding. A child hasn't gone through puberty, hence the difference.

Because pre-pubescent people cannot enjoy alcohol as much as post-pubescent people, right?

That was sarcasm. Sorry I didn't use an emoticon to elicit that. :|

[Violet]

It's such an impressively complicated subject that dogs are fucking each other before two years have passed in their life.

That's moving the goal-post; a 2-year old dog is technically an adult, but nice try.

Would a puppy want to fuck an adult dog?

It's not moving the goal-posts, you misunderstood the comparison. Evidently you didn't read the sarcasm around the terms 'impressively complicated subject'.

A median adult dog has the intelligence of a median 6-year old human. It was a question of sex's complexity, which is to say: if a dog of two can understand sex enough to have and enjoy it, why cannot a human of 6?

As for the last... you tell me. I know of a brother and sister kitten (1 year each, same litter) that fucked each other and made some four-five incest kitties.

More goal-post motions.

You're a real big fan of these 'goal-post moving' claims... I wonder if you know what that means.

I asked you what the fundamentals of having a 'sexual nature' (a term which I don't yet know what you mean by) are... what is the root of a sexual nature? Please also observe... you had said this: "I contend, though, that since they do not have a sexual nature, this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in, like drinking fine wine and beer and knocking each others brains out, preferably in a large bed."

To which I asked myself, 'why do you believe that children do not have a 'sexual nature' and adults do?', to which I recognized that the only physiological difference between the two beings is: hormones. Then I explained why this is NOT the root of sexual desire, fulfillment, enjoyment, but of initial desire, the former being what I had assumed you meant by 'sexual nature'.

If you mean the latter, then by all means: children don't have as much of a sexual nature (they do, however, still have hormones) as adults... but this means nothing as to how well they would enjoy sex ("this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in"). Now that we're done observing that you're a disingenuous twit, let's take a look at your new argument

The difference is that I'm already an adult, meaning I would've learned because I would have the gone through puberty in your scenario, no sex-drive notwithstanding. A child hasn't gone through puberty, hence the difference.

So learning is the only difference between children and adults? This means, if a child of three learns about sex as they might about the ABCs: they are completely and utterly ready for fucking. A 'sexual nature' can be boiled down to... learning? I guess you can't have much of a sexual nature without some hands on experience: let's start them on their practical exams immediately after weening them off milk. Preferably with cocks.

That was sarcasm. Sorry I didn't use an emoticon to elicit that. :|

Oh? Then you'll agree, yes?

[Sal]

That's moving the goal-post; a 2-year old dog is technically an adult, but nice try.

Would a puppy want to fuck an adult dog?

It's not moving the goal-posts, you misunderstood the comparison. Evidently you didn't read the sarcasm around the terms 'impressively complicated subject'.

I wasn't addressing the goal post movements about the sarcasm bit, nice try (again). Instead of talking about how they're obviously already adults you shift the focus onto its 'complexity', when I'm talking about ability (not gone through puberty and all that) to understand.

A median adult dog has the intelligence of a median 6-year old human. It was a question of sex's complexity, which is to say: if a dog of two can understand sex enough to have and enjoy it, why cannot a human of 6?

Slow down there Lassie, who says they enjoy it? Is it because they've gone through puberty, or because it's easy to do (not 'complex')?

My only contention was they hadn't gone through puberty, hence not being developed sexually and being able to further the human species and whatnot alongside it.

As for the last... you tell me. I know of a brother and sister kitten (1 year each, same litter) that fucked each other and made some four-five incest kitties.

That's anecdotal, but I'll take your word for it (although how it could be indeterminate between 4 or 5 makes me a tad suspicious). And I don't know - I only have puberty and how puberty raises interest, of a 'sexual nature' between the sexes, or your own sex, if you're gay. I Don't know how to categorize bisexual.

More goal-post motions.

You're a real big fan of these 'goal-post moving' claims... I wonder if you know what that means.

I asked you what the fundamentals of having a 'sexual nature' (a term which I don't yet know what you mean by) are... what is the root of a sexual nature? Please also observe... you had said this: "I contend, though, that since they do not have a sexual nature, this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in, like drinking fine wine and beer and knocking each others brains out, preferably in a large bed."

To which I asked myself, 'why do you believe that children do not have a 'sexual nature' and adults do?', to which I recognized that the only physiological difference between the two beings is: hormones. Then I explained why this is NOT the root of sexual desire, fulfillment, enjoyment, but of initial desire, the former being what I had assumed you meant by 'sexual nature'.

You forgot the physiological differences before puberty and after puberty; it's not just hormones. Case-in-point for females is menstruation, and for men the production of sperm cells.

If you mean the latter, then by all means: children don't have as much of a sexual nature (they do, however, still have hormones) as adults... but this means nothing as to how well they would enjoy sex ("this would be nothing more than a curiosity that adults partake in"). Now that we're done observing that you're a disingenuous twit, let's take a look at your new argument

You too, dear.

The difference is that I'm already an adult, meaning I would've learned because I would have the gone through puberty in your scenario, no sex-drive notwithstanding. A child hasn't gone through puberty, hence the difference.

So learning is the only difference between children and adults? This means, if a child of three learns about sex as they might about the ABCs: they are completely and utterly ready for fucking. A 'sexual nature' can be boiled down to... learning? I guess you can't have much of a sexual nature without some hands on experience: let's start them on their practical exams immediately after weening them off milk. Preferably with cocks.

And ability, don't forget that, but I digress, you're fond of moving goal-posts and putting words into peoples mouths.

That was sarcasm. Sorry I didn't use an emoticon to elicit that. :|

Oh? Then you'll agree, yes?

On what?

[Tonus]

Would a puppy want to fuck an adult dog?

Anything that gets it away from my shins. Goddamn puppies...

[Violet]

I wasn't addressing the goal post movements about the sarcasm bit, nice try (again). Instead of talking about how they're obviously already adults you shift the focus onto its 'complexity', when I'm talking about ability (not gone through puberty and all that) to understand.

Okay... what abilities does one gain by going through puberty? Are they as impressive as those gained by falling into a vat of radioactive waste?

What makes a being an adult? How does an adult form of a being differ form a nonadult form of a being?

You're really a sour old kraut, aren't you?

Slow down there Lassie, who says they enjoy it? Is it because they've gone through puberty, or because it's easy to do (not 'complex')?

One might observe their eroticized panting, bodies quivering in excitement, and orgasmic behavior that mimes that seen in other mammals (including apes)... for starters. Mammals tend to enjoy sex when it isn't forced upon them despite willing against it, which we can provide data for if you really need it, but you're not seriously about to argue that only humans (of all the animals) enjoy sex, right?

They don't do it because it's easy to do, but because it is easy to do: they seem to have a hard time screwing it up. They don't do it because they've gone through puberty either, though their having gone through puberty may be a factor in catalysting that which they do have sex for

My only contention was they hadn't gone through puberty, hence not being developed sexually and being able to further the human species and whatnot alongside it.

Not being as sexually developed, I think you mean. Clearly, they are sexually developed enough even from birth to exhibit organs for which the implicit 'purpose' is to engage in sex; organs complete with a nervous system that facilitates enjoyment of sexual activity (whether that be the practice of having sex or masturbation).

But then, how does sexual development impact whether a being can, or cannot, enjoy sex?

As for the last... you tell me. I know of a brother and sister kitten (1 year each, same litter) that fucked each other and made some four-five incest kitties.

That's anecdotal, but I'll take your word for it (although how it could be indeterminate between 4 or 5 makes me a tad suspicious). And I don't know - I only have puberty and how puberty raises interest, of a 'sexual nature' between the sexes, or your own sex, if you're gay. I Don't know how to categorize bisexual.

Not my cats (but my niece's), don't know if the litter was 4 or 5. I don't know how many cousins I have off of the top of my head either, should you feel suspicious if I say that I have 18-26 cousins? I could ask her if you wanted me to, I'm sure she'd love to sell you one of the incest kitties.

But anyway, you're parroting what I said in the first place: puberty adds value to a person's 'sexual nature', but is NOT the ROOT of that. I ask you again: what is the root of 'sexual nature'? How, if not by puberty, does it apply only to adults, and not to children, or even newborn babies?

Sexual interest as a qualifier is an observation of how much you value sex with any particular <arbitration>... a high positive value, is to say you have much interest in having sex with <arbitration>, a nonexistent value, is to say you have zero interest in having sex with <arbitration>, a high negative value, is to say you have much interest in not having sex with <arbitration>......... but it is not an observation of whether <given being> is capable of enjoying sex or not. No matter how much you want to be fucked in your vagina, if you've no vagina: you're kind of out of luck, at least for now.

You forgot the physiological differences before puberty and after puberty; it's not just hormones. Case-in-point for females is menstruation, and for men the production of sperm cells.

And does menstruation or producing sperm cells increase one's sexual pleasure? Is a non-menstruating female incapable of enjoying sex? Is a male without sperm-producing testicles incapable of enjoying sex?

And ability, don't forget that, but I digress, you're fond of moving goal-posts and putting words into peoples mouths/

Learning and ability both? Well then, you DEFINITELY can't have any 'sexual nature' at all without first being fucked. But I guess that makes sense: you can't much enjoy sex if you're not having it.

Cocks, not words, Sal.

On what?

With what, rather... what being: everything I've said. Including the fucking newborn babies part, wouldn't want to leave the poor sods without a 'sexual nature', would we?

[Colanth]

I tried to look it up but I couldn't find any information which says that the Bible prohibits underage sex. It was common for 13 year old girls to wed and bed back then

The Bible, a book written by men to condone their actions, tells them to take not 13 year olds, but prepubescent girls, as concubines (Numbers 31:18).

[Violet]

The Bible, a book written by men to condone their actions, tells them to take not 13 year olds, but prepubescent girls, as concubines (Numbers 31:18).

Is there a difference?

[Aractus]

Kind of a contradiction here, so any age means; only between 1 and 30 ?

Obviously it doesn't mean between 1 and 30.

You say 'he was probably'. So where did you get the information from ? The Bible ? What passage/page..

And yet I explained all of it to you as I went along! It was usual for girls 14-15 to be betrothed to men 16-17 in Jewish society.

The Bible, was manifested in their society, no ? You follow the Bible and believe in it I presume, so why couldn't they do what we do today ? Oh that's right ! It's because we, in today's society, have come a tad more to our senses.

They didn't have schools for boys either, in fact education was very expensive if at all. Why do you somehow think you can judge the past by "our" standards?

Does this make under age sex oke ? Does it make it alright for a man in his 30's or 40's to marry a girl under the age of 15 ?

You know, in Africa they have such a problem with promiscuity that in some places the rate of HIV infection is well above 30%. And that's despite the fact that WHO tells us you have to have penetrative vaginal sex (ie "straight sex") an average of 700 times with an HIV infected partner to contract HIV.

Oh wait, did you just try and tell me that "under age sex" was a problem in the first century? What about DENMARK and their CHILD PORN? Hmm? That's the 70's for you, is that too far in the past now to count as "recent" or "contemporary"?

See the movie ''Desert Flower'' made in 2009 - Where the young [not even a teenager] Waris Dirie ran away from the Nomad deserts because she was a bout to be married to a much older man, creepy lookin' motherfucker. This happened in the 20th century, it is common in religion.

Common in ISLAM. In, ISLAM. Yes, correct, I agree.

I mostly am referring to all religions where under age sex occurs.

I think you're just taking what you know about Islam and applying it to other cultures. 15 year olds marrying 17 year olds is not the same as 6 year olds marrying 50 year olds....

You listen to your superiors preach teachings to be a saint but leave out such important, sometimes horrifying, details. When you are raised to listen and believe that what is being told to you is good, of course you will even take the garbage being said into consideration. So if you heard that Joseph was that young from your local priest (or superior of your religion) you are inclined to believe it. And if you question it ? You will be taught to believe that the person who is giving you the info got it from God. They most likely speak to each other daily through text.

Are you actually trying to school me on my faith????

[Terr]

You know, I had sex very young. That was the norm where I grew up. As an adult, I know I was ready for that, the boys were mostly around my age and it was all fun and that. However, there were also times when I had sex with older men. At the time I liked that, it made me feel special. But now, I feel physically sick at the thought of those older men. They took advantage of me and I didn't even realise it till they were long gone. I sometimes consider reporting them to the Police, but what evidence do I have now? It would be a complete waste of my time.

Well said and sorry to hear that, not an easy thing to state openly.

---

Actually somtimes if it comes up in conversation that I was an alter boy, people go all serious and apologise. Nothing happened, worst thing that happened when I was an alter boy was that fire incident, let's not discuss that.

Also, I remember when there was a legal avenue for members of the irish traveller community to marry at lower ages that the national age of consent, I think it was 14, been googlin for a reference but that may be changed now.