Legal age of sexual consent
- Thread starter Lykan
- Start date
well, i chose 16. a person can drive, or even get an abortion at age 16 without parental consent. but if they chose to have sex with some one over hte age of 18 its statutory rape. where it the logic in this? and on the issue that age matters, the for some reason a 16 yr old shouldnt have sex with a 50 yr old...well htats their choice. I believe that you should be completely capable of giving lega consent at age 16, it happens anyway. oh and one last thing: i believe that contraceptives need to be made more available to the 16-18 yr old age group. and better education about the use of such contraceptives...there is no reason for a perscription for birth control to cost as much as it does. there are 6 billion people on this planet, and i believe that every additional one born should be well thought out and planned. with the advances in science and medicine there is no need for the number of 'surprises' that seem to occur.
I'd say that the age of consent should be about 12 w/o parental approval, and less if parental approval exists. Parents should probably be able to hike up the age of consent somewhat if they want to. The degree to which young females have been given sexual responsibility by their parents and society should be visible and public, e.g., through merit badges, school jewelry, jackets, etc. Teenage girls who drink alcohol or take drugs should have higher ages of consent. If a girl is so young that parents need to approve beforehand of her prospective sexual partner, then their approving of their daughter having sex should automatically entail their giving a substantial dowry.
My theory is that young females are such that they can get more physical pleasure from moral goodness in males than older females do, and that girls having natural sexuality are quite the opposite of the natural sluts they are made out to be.
True, young females are much more easily duped than older females about the fitness of a prospective mate. But moral goodness is more easily judged than fitness. Even adolescent girls typically can judge fairly accurately, IMO, the moral worth of a male. And morally good males just don't often deceive well or often, from their not having much occasion to do so. If a young female mates with a bad male, he is quite likely deceptive (there's no way she can tell), and girls hate being deceived. However, if she mates with a good male, he is not likely deceptive, and so he likely must be very special for her to sacrifice some of her judgment by mating him early. If you assume that moral character is more easily judged than fitness, then even using simplistic arguments, it could be argued that girls would more tend to mate with good males than older females would.
True, more frequently than older females, girls get duped into making moral mistakes (most commonly, I believe, by society or the bad seducer making the girl think her own moral nature is not as innocent as it in fact is), even though such mistakes are doubtless less common than mistakes as to judging fitness. So the arguments of the preceding paragraph perhaps do not in themselves imply that sexually turned-on young females are more turned on by moral goodness than sexually turned-on older females are. But there is I am inclined to think another quite important consideration that does in fact imply that girls are especially turned on by moral goodness in males--sperm selection.
Bad males who tend to mate especially with young females tend to be the sort who have the ability to especially deceive the easily deceivable and who don't have the ability to attract older females (presumably because they lack ability). Thus bad males who tend to mate especially with young females tend to have very worthless undesirable (to females) characteristics. But good males who mate especially with young females presumably do so because they are quite skilled and special. Assuming, as seems reasonable, that young females select for different sorts of spermatozoa than older females do, it follows that sex with a young girl selects for sperm possessing very undesirable unfit characteristics if the male is bad, but very desirable fit characteristics if the male is good. Accordingly, girls indeed tend to be especially turned-on physically by moral goodness in a male, a phenomenon I call nymphetal philokalia.
I think it is important for the evolution of goodness that because of nymphetal philokalia good people have less space between their generations than bad people do, since complicated considerations make me think that selfishly people's interest is to mate later than ideal, and unlike many other ideals, I don't think there are any other forces in evolution that could cause people to possess the ideal. To simplify, the advantage of having little space between generations is too diffuse a benefit for it to be selected for as other unselfish traits might be. Nymphetal philokalia makes evolution occur faster in good people than in bad people, which helps moral people prosper and morality evolve.
Much of the reason people think sex with girls should be outlawed is their failure to realize that it is sodomy rather than sex that corrupts girls. People know intuitively that there is something to be paranoid about, and since they don't realize that it is sodomy, they think it is adolescent female sexuality. Also, since deceivers tend to zero-in on young females, much of the error in today's society comes from deceivers deceiving young females and society about adolescent female sexuality. And the very good males who (along with disgusting bad males) tend to be most attracted to young females have quite anti-abuse natures that make them fear for their sanity should they mistakenly encourage the abuse of innocent females--so good males tend not to be as bold as ideal in admitting their sexual desires for girls. But girls can be sexy and holy. Yep, so far as I am concerned, girls are not only sexy, they are very holy-looking also--more holy and eliciting of unselfish (if one can call any male sexual desire unselfish) sexual desire than older females are--not so unlike wife-holy in many respects. (Not that adolescent girls in love with good males aren't likely chock full of [clean] unholy lust, but that's another matter.)
The reasons for females being allowed to have sex at a young age are much more complicated and logically subtle than appreciated, whereas the main reason (susceptibility to addictive abuse) they should not be so allowed is more simple even than commonly believed (semen contains addictive chemicals that should not be introduced into the digestive system). That too explains why adolescent sex is viewed too much in a bad light. Here is a link that explains my ideas about nymphetal philokalia more intricately than is possible in a not very long post: http://members.aol.com/exactmorality/morality2.htm . Alternatively, download my (free) whole book on morality at http://members.aol.com/step314/EMFT.html (the alternate download site seems to be working better of late).
If you accept my contention that girls are especially susceptible to physical abuse and chemical abuse (e.g., sodomy), then the contention made in previous posts in this thread that sex between adults and girls is more reprehensible than sex between teen boys and girls is absolutely backwards (just one of the many erroneous stereotypes surrounding the ethics of adolescent female sexuality). Males peak physically early, and the addictive qualities of their semen presumably does not increase with age. But understanding (the main power of the good) increases markedly with age. So girls having to mate with young males causes good males whose understanding and power is very underdeveloped to have to compete for their affection with bad males whose power is near its peak.
Admittedly, my argument being so complex logically, there are all sorts of considerations my argument turns upon. E.g., it is a point of contention among scientists whether haploid traits are selected at all in sperm. But my theory fits my intuition and artistic sense to a t, so I am fairly confident that I am basically right.
My theory is that young females are such that they can get more physical pleasure from moral goodness in males than older females do, and that girls having natural sexuality are quite the opposite of the natural sluts they are made out to be.
True, young females are much more easily duped than older females about the fitness of a prospective mate. But moral goodness is more easily judged than fitness. Even adolescent girls typically can judge fairly accurately, IMO, the moral worth of a male. And morally good males just don't often deceive well or often, from their not having much occasion to do so. If a young female mates with a bad male, he is quite likely deceptive (there's no way she can tell), and girls hate being deceived. However, if she mates with a good male, he is not likely deceptive, and so he likely must be very special for her to sacrifice some of her judgment by mating him early. If you assume that moral character is more easily judged than fitness, then even using simplistic arguments, it could be argued that girls would more tend to mate with good males than older females would.
True, more frequently than older females, girls get duped into making moral mistakes (most commonly, I believe, by society or the bad seducer making the girl think her own moral nature is not as innocent as it in fact is), even though such mistakes are doubtless less common than mistakes as to judging fitness. So the arguments of the preceding paragraph perhaps do not in themselves imply that sexually turned-on young females are more turned on by moral goodness than sexually turned-on older females are. But there is I am inclined to think another quite important consideration that does in fact imply that girls are especially turned on by moral goodness in males--sperm selection.
Bad males who tend to mate especially with young females tend to be the sort who have the ability to especially deceive the easily deceivable and who don't have the ability to attract older females (presumably because they lack ability). Thus bad males who tend to mate especially with young females tend to have very worthless undesirable (to females) characteristics. But good males who mate especially with young females presumably do so because they are quite skilled and special. Assuming, as seems reasonable, that young females select for different sorts of spermatozoa than older females do, it follows that sex with a young girl selects for sperm possessing very undesirable unfit characteristics if the male is bad, but very desirable fit characteristics if the male is good. Accordingly, girls indeed tend to be especially turned-on physically by moral goodness in a male, a phenomenon I call nymphetal philokalia.
I think it is important for the evolution of goodness that because of nymphetal philokalia good people have less space between their generations than bad people do, since complicated considerations make me think that selfishly people's interest is to mate later than ideal, and unlike many other ideals, I don't think there are any other forces in evolution that could cause people to possess the ideal. To simplify, the advantage of having little space between generations is too diffuse a benefit for it to be selected for as other unselfish traits might be. Nymphetal philokalia makes evolution occur faster in good people than in bad people, which helps moral people prosper and morality evolve.
Much of the reason people think sex with girls should be outlawed is their failure to realize that it is sodomy rather than sex that corrupts girls. People know intuitively that there is something to be paranoid about, and since they don't realize that it is sodomy, they think it is adolescent female sexuality. Also, since deceivers tend to zero-in on young females, much of the error in today's society comes from deceivers deceiving young females and society about adolescent female sexuality. And the very good males who (along with disgusting bad males) tend to be most attracted to young females have quite anti-abuse natures that make them fear for their sanity should they mistakenly encourage the abuse of innocent females--so good males tend not to be as bold as ideal in admitting their sexual desires for girls. But girls can be sexy and holy. Yep, so far as I am concerned, girls are not only sexy, they are very holy-looking also--more holy and eliciting of unselfish (if one can call any male sexual desire unselfish) sexual desire than older females are--not so unlike wife-holy in many respects. (Not that adolescent girls in love with good males aren't likely chock full of [clean] unholy lust, but that's another matter.)
The reasons for females being allowed to have sex at a young age are much more complicated and logically subtle than appreciated, whereas the main reason (susceptibility to addictive abuse) they should not be so allowed is more simple even than commonly believed (semen contains addictive chemicals that should not be introduced into the digestive system). That too explains why adolescent sex is viewed too much in a bad light. Here is a link that explains my ideas about nymphetal philokalia more intricately than is possible in a not very long post: http://members.aol.com/exactmorality/morality2.htm . Alternatively, download my (free) whole book on morality at http://members.aol.com/step314/EMFT.html (the alternate download site seems to be working better of late).
If you accept my contention that girls are especially susceptible to physical abuse and chemical abuse (e.g., sodomy), then the contention made in previous posts in this thread that sex between adults and girls is more reprehensible than sex between teen boys and girls is absolutely backwards (just one of the many erroneous stereotypes surrounding the ethics of adolescent female sexuality). Males peak physically early, and the addictive qualities of their semen presumably does not increase with age. But understanding (the main power of the good) increases markedly with age. So girls having to mate with young males causes good males whose understanding and power is very underdeveloped to have to compete for their affection with bad males whose power is near its peak.
Admittedly, my argument being so complex logically, there are all sorts of considerations my argument turns upon. E.g., it is a point of contention among scientists whether haploid traits are selected at all in sperm. But my theory fits my intuition and artistic sense to a t, so I am fairly confident that I am basically right.
i understand most of your argument, but i dont believe our society will generally accept 12 as a leagal age of consent. and personally my concern is that should a 12 year old girl have to have a child of her own? a person cannot work as a 12 yr old. and most state laws say a person must be 18 to marry. i understatnd that people used to marry and have children at these ages that today seem rediculously young. but with the way society has changed i dotn believe its going to go back any time soon. if you could find a way to prevent persons of this age from bearing children then im all for it. unless that was your intent with your post htat they bear children of their own at such a young age (and i think thats where you were going with the generation gaps thing). and maybe its just my personal opinioin that i never want children that influences my judgement here. and i also believe htat mose issues of character are not genetically based but environmentally based.
You're right that ideally girls and their offspring should have subsidies that help them take care of themselves and their children. Income disparities are too great--I think every American should be given a subsidy just for being alive. (To discourage females from having excessive hoardes of children on the dole, the subsidy for raising an individual should be reduced for each brother or sister s/he has.) But even though our society is unfortunately not geared for girls having children early, there are often girls capable of it--e.g., girls who have rich and caring parents. Why make a law making it illegal for them to choose their own behaviors? One doesn't like parents having control of their teenage childrens' mating, but wealthy parents could always give their children large allowances, or, e.g., set up trust funds for them with distributions that kick in immediately should these children have children of their own.
As for sex not for procreation, that has little appeal to me. Effective fantasy involves exploration and trying things out. But, look, if I'm having sex with someone, I am not going to try anything out that is not what I feel a real act of sex should involve. If fake sex for play is too real I should think it would be hard emotionally to be explorative and experimental about it. Kissing and fantasy strikes me as funner than fake sex--I could more easily and freely get into playful fantasy world. (I've noticed something similar with computer simulations. If a simulation is too real, it's not fun.)
Admittedly, lots of people think that sex can be mainly not about having children. I guess with males the logic kind of goes that masturbation is more fun than visual fantasy, so the more fantasy is sex-like, the better. With females, I think a fetus when inside the female emits chemicals that encourage the female to feel strong maternal instincts. Accordingly, fertile females have likely evolved to have less maternal sentiment prior to sex than one might think they should have, so that after the fetus affects them chemically, they will have about the right amount of maternal sentiment. It is informative that very young pre-adolescent girls enjoy playing with babies (e.g., baby dolls) very much as mothers tend to do--there is not the danger that such pre-adolescent girls will get pregnant immediately, so they have a more natural level of maternal love of offspring than fertile childless females do. Another reason that females tend to think sex as merely exploratory is that bad males encourage females to view it as such because what goes by the name "exploratory sex" is quite often addicting sodomy--these males by pretending that unnatural sodomy (which they call "sex") is innocuous sex exploration or experimentation hope on an emotional level to addict the female into wanting them sexually to an unnatural, warped degree. In the 19th-century I believe it was standard opinion that sex should be viewed procreatively, which is how at least men should view it.
Of course, one can and should learn much about sex by having real sex (when real sex is appropriate for non-exploratory reasons), and of course real sex is (at least for males) very much fun.
step314:
Forgive me, but to me your post sounds like an apologetic for pedophilia.
I am guessing that you would class yourself as an older "moral" male. (Am I wrong?) Therefore, from your argument it would follow that you would be justified in having sex with a 10 year old, provided you didn't stoop to the "real" evil of sodomy.
I think you are confused as to what the concept of a legal age of consent means. It is the age below which it is presumed that a person (male or female) cannot appreciate the full implications of agreeing to participate in a sexual act. The laws exist to protect these people from abuse by more experienced and knowledgable people who might seek to take advantage of their innocence.
Whilst it is true that different people develop at different rates, it is very difficult to judge a person's ability to consent in an informed manner on a case by case basis. Hence, a somewhat arbitrary legal limit is set, based on an average.
Your reasoning is self-contradictory and flawed in several places. Let's take a look.
<i>If a girl is so young that parents need to approve beforehand of her prospective sexual partner, then their approving of their daughter having sex should automatically entail their giving a substantial dowry.</i>
You seem to be suggesting that parents of girls should pay older men to have sex with their daughters. This sounds like reverse prostitution. How do you justify it?
On another point, why do you concentrate on girls throughout your post, whilst ignoring the issues as they apply to boys? Are you not concerned about boys?
<i>My theory is that young females are such that they can get more physical pleasure from moral goodness in males than older females do, and that girls having natural sexuality are quite the opposite of the natural sluts they are made out to be.</i>
How do you tell if a girl has "natural sexuality", and why should it make any difference? Again, this sounds like a pedophilic apologetic.
<i>But moral goodness is more easily judged than fitness. Even adolescent girls typically can judge fairly accurately, IMO, the moral worth of a male.</i>
Most legal systems disagree with you.
This also conflicts with your later statement:
<i>Bad males who tend to mate especially with young females tend to be the sort who have the ability to especially deceive the easily deceivable and who don't have the ability to attract older females (presumably because they lack ability).</i>
If girls can inherently tell a "good male" from a "bad male", then how can they be deceived by the bad males?
<i>But good males who mate especially with young females presumably do so because they are quite skilled and special.</i>
Again, this would be the first justification offered by a pedophile.
<i>Assuming, as seems reasonable, that young females select for different sorts of spermatozoa than older females do, it follows that sex with a young girl selects for sperm possessing very undesirable unfit characteristics if the male is bad, but very desirable fit characteristics if the male is good. Accordingly, girls indeed tend to be especially turned-on physically by moral goodness in a male, a phenomenon I call </i> nymphetal philokalia.
If this is the crux of your argument, you'll need to explain:
1. Why young girls would select different sperm than older girls.
2. Why good males have better sperm.
3. How young girls can tell whose sperm is better.
4. Why a pre-pubescent girl would be selecting for sperm anyway, when she is physically incapable of breeding.
<i>Much of the reason people think sex with girls should be outlawed is their failure to realize that it is sodomy rather than sex that corrupts girls.</i>
You misunderstand age of consent laws. They are not there to prevent "corruption" of girls. They are there to protect young people from being forced into acts which they may, with greater understanding, later regret.
Moreover, I fail to see any distinction between sodomy and any other sexual act. Why is sodomy the great evil? What distinguishes it from missionary-position sex? Is this a religious view of yours?
In fact, I'm a little worried about where religion fits into all of this from your point of view, especially given statements such as this:
<i>But girls can be sexy and holy. Yep, so far as I am concerned, girls are not only sexy, they are very holy-looking also--more holy and eliciting of unselfish (if one can call any male sexual desire unselfish) sexual desire than older females are--not so unlike wife-holy in many respects.</i>
Are you saying that sex with young girls is more holy, and therefore more right than sex with older girls? To me, once again, this smacks of the attraction of many pedophiles to the presumed innocence of childhood.
<i>Males peak physically early, and the addictive qualities of their semen presumably does not increase with age.</i>
What addictive qualities?
<i>Admittedly, my argument being so complex logically, there are all sorts of considerations my argument turns upon.</i>
Your argument is not complex. To me, it reads like somebody desperately grasping to justify actions which the majority of society considers abborant and unacceptable.
In the same way that you consider sodomy a great evil, the majority of society considers sex with the very young a great evil. Perhaps you should think about this comparison.
I apologise for being so confronting, but I hope you can show me that your statements were not meant in the sense that I have read them.
Forgive me, but to me your post sounds like an apologetic for pedophilia.
I am guessing that you would class yourself as an older "moral" male. (Am I wrong?) Therefore, from your argument it would follow that you would be justified in having sex with a 10 year old, provided you didn't stoop to the "real" evil of sodomy.
I think you are confused as to what the concept of a legal age of consent means. It is the age below which it is presumed that a person (male or female) cannot appreciate the full implications of agreeing to participate in a sexual act. The laws exist to protect these people from abuse by more experienced and knowledgable people who might seek to take advantage of their innocence.
Whilst it is true that different people develop at different rates, it is very difficult to judge a person's ability to consent in an informed manner on a case by case basis. Hence, a somewhat arbitrary legal limit is set, based on an average.
Your reasoning is self-contradictory and flawed in several places. Let's take a look.
<i>If a girl is so young that parents need to approve beforehand of her prospective sexual partner, then their approving of their daughter having sex should automatically entail their giving a substantial dowry.</i>
You seem to be suggesting that parents of girls should pay older men to have sex with their daughters. This sounds like reverse prostitution. How do you justify it?
On another point, why do you concentrate on girls throughout your post, whilst ignoring the issues as they apply to boys? Are you not concerned about boys?
<i>My theory is that young females are such that they can get more physical pleasure from moral goodness in males than older females do, and that girls having natural sexuality are quite the opposite of the natural sluts they are made out to be.</i>
How do you tell if a girl has "natural sexuality", and why should it make any difference? Again, this sounds like a pedophilic apologetic.
<i>But moral goodness is more easily judged than fitness. Even adolescent girls typically can judge fairly accurately, IMO, the moral worth of a male.</i>
Most legal systems disagree with you.
This also conflicts with your later statement:
<i>Bad males who tend to mate especially with young females tend to be the sort who have the ability to especially deceive the easily deceivable and who don't have the ability to attract older females (presumably because they lack ability).</i>
If girls can inherently tell a "good male" from a "bad male", then how can they be deceived by the bad males?
<i>But good males who mate especially with young females presumably do so because they are quite skilled and special.</i>
Again, this would be the first justification offered by a pedophile.
<i>Assuming, as seems reasonable, that young females select for different sorts of spermatozoa than older females do, it follows that sex with a young girl selects for sperm possessing very undesirable unfit characteristics if the male is bad, but very desirable fit characteristics if the male is good. Accordingly, girls indeed tend to be especially turned-on physically by moral goodness in a male, a phenomenon I call </i> nymphetal philokalia.
If this is the crux of your argument, you'll need to explain:
1. Why young girls would select different sperm than older girls.
2. Why good males have better sperm.
3. How young girls can tell whose sperm is better.
4. Why a pre-pubescent girl would be selecting for sperm anyway, when she is physically incapable of breeding.
<i>Much of the reason people think sex with girls should be outlawed is their failure to realize that it is sodomy rather than sex that corrupts girls.</i>
You misunderstand age of consent laws. They are not there to prevent "corruption" of girls. They are there to protect young people from being forced into acts which they may, with greater understanding, later regret.
Moreover, I fail to see any distinction between sodomy and any other sexual act. Why is sodomy the great evil? What distinguishes it from missionary-position sex? Is this a religious view of yours?
In fact, I'm a little worried about where religion fits into all of this from your point of view, especially given statements such as this:
<i>But girls can be sexy and holy. Yep, so far as I am concerned, girls are not only sexy, they are very holy-looking also--more holy and eliciting of unselfish (if one can call any male sexual desire unselfish) sexual desire than older females are--not so unlike wife-holy in many respects.</i>
Are you saying that sex with young girls is more holy, and therefore more right than sex with older girls? To me, once again, this smacks of the attraction of many pedophiles to the presumed innocence of childhood.
<i>Males peak physically early, and the addictive qualities of their semen presumably does not increase with age.</i>
What addictive qualities?
<i>Admittedly, my argument being so complex logically, there are all sorts of considerations my argument turns upon.</i>
Your argument is not complex. To me, it reads like somebody desperately grasping to justify actions which the majority of society considers abborant and unacceptable.
In the same way that you consider sodomy a great evil, the majority of society considers sex with the very young a great evil. Perhaps you should think about this comparison.
I apologise for being so confronting, but I hope you can show me that your statements were not meant in the sense that I have read them.
Last edited:
What I am suggesting is that one shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a very young female unless her parents are willing to commit very well to taking care of any offspring that may arise in the coming years from such sex. A better analogy than "reverse prostitution" would be marriage, where the male commits to taking care of any offspring that may be produced. (The practice of common-law marriage obfuscates the purpose of marriage. Females should have a right to have a child by a male without requiring commitment of him, and it is better that non-commitment be the default state than commitment be the default state, inasmuch as marriage ceremonies and registrations are preferable to "she's my mistress" ceremonies--who's a mistress to whom should not be a matter of public knowledge. I believe in France, there is no default marriage, and marriage is more completely considered there as a commitment ceremony, as it should be.) So by giving a dowry the parents commit to taking care of offspring of their daughter much as a man commits in marriage (especially in France) to take care of offspring from a wife.
Boys are a separate matter. I of course have no physical attraction to boys, and males sodomizing boys is just as disgusting and evil as males sodomizing females. As for boys having sex at a young age with females, it really is a separate issue. My opinion is that boys should be allowed to have sex with women who want such sex, but the situation is different. Good women have a moderate preference for mating with younger males because it is slightly more moral for them to mate with younger males. The offspring of an older woman and a young male will on account of sperm selection tend to be slightly better morally than would be the case if he were her own age. The tendency for older females to prefer young males is driven by the morality of the older female. Nymphetal philokalia, on the other hand, is stronger, and is driven by pleasure in the girl more than by moral sentiment. I.e., a girl mating with a good male while she is young selects via sperm selection for his most fit (i.e., talented) genetic material, which significantly increases her pleasure. "Girls just want to have fun," as the song goes (a simplification, of course). At any rate, I don't want to discuss boy-woman sex here, since really it is a different phenomenon that should be discussed in a separate thread. I discuss it in my book, though, if you're interested.
That is the key point, you won't understand my argument if you don't understand that morality is easier to judge than fitness (by which I mean an ability to succeed in an evolutionary sense--talent essentially). Accordingly, girls are not significantly deceived about the morality of particular men, but about the fitness of particular men. But if a male does have moral character, then it is very unlikely that he will be deceptive about his fitness or anything else. So if a girl considers a male moral, then she knows pretty well she isn't being deceived about his abilities. But if she considers him immoral, then it's anybody's guess whether she is being deceived about his fitness--accordingly, she won't be at all certain whether she is being deceived into thinking him more fit and desirable then he is. Some bad males deceive often and effectively, and some bad males deceive rarely and poorly, so it's not just like a girl could know well how much she is being deceived and compensate accordingly. A tendency toward deception that is recognized as such isn't very deceptive.
The basic reason that (moral) character is comparatively easy to judge is that those who deceive in mating about character can only get extra offspring by people who were sufficiently insensitive as to be easily deceived. There is a strong correlation between good moral character and sensitivity toward the character of others. So character is comparatively easy to judge by judging sensitivity toward one's own character, and of course one's own character is something that is directly observable by oneself.
1. It is known that the histology of the cervix of a young female is markedly different from that of an older female. I forgot where I read this, but I recall reading that scientists believe that these histological differences make younger females more susceptible to certain types of venereal disease. As I mentioned in my last post, it's not really known for sure how important sperm selection of haploid traits (intra-ejaculate sperm selection) really is, but then as the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Personally, I think that females have the ability to control via randomizing how much intra-ejaculate sperm competition occurs.
2. It's not that good males have more fit sperm, it's that those sperm of good males that are likely to succeed in fertilizing a young female are likely to code for diploid characteristics that are more fit than those of a typical sperm of the male. If a female has sex with a good male when young, her youth suggests that she is so certain as to his desirability that she won't gain significantly by waiting. Young females will be more uncertain about a good male's level of fitness than an older female would; however, the uncertainty arises mostly from uncertainties within herself and not from uncertainties as to his level of deceptiveness. On the other hand, if morally bad genetic material is loved to an unusual degree by young females, this genetic material likely codes for deceptive abilities more than for the abilities that would especially attract an older female more capable of recognizing them. In other words, this genetic material codes better for the (comparatively unimpressive) ability to deceive young females than for the ability to impress older females. It is rather tricky logically, for you might say that if bad females are more hesitant to be deceived when young, isn't an ability to deceive young females impressive? The answer is no, because young females can only control their ability to be deceived by being averse to mating bad males, which is what I am trying to assert. In other words, (I'm speaking off the cuff here somewhat) bad females are more hesitant to mate with bad males than would be the case if they were equally indifferent to being deceived as older females, but they are not so hesitant to mate with bad males that the tendency of bad male genetic material to mate with young females is impressive. I suppose to be more precisely exact a good approach would be to quantify things and try to derive relations between various differentials or derivatives, as one does when trying to maximize things in calculus; but my arguments are not quite at that exactness level yet, nor do I anytime soon wish to undertake such a task, if ever. Probability and statistics considerations are also probably relevant.
3. It's quite simple. Girls know that sperm from good males is more likely to code for goodness (in diploid individuals created from the sperm) than sperm in bad males. True, girls like to favor in a man the sperm having the most good genetic material, which is why I think a girl (as opposed to a woman) is especially pleased when a male having sex with her has holy emotion. But that is another matter. Basically, I think holiness is an emotion the male feels to discourage crossover during spermatogenesis, which discouragement tends to reward the female, as good males are more likely to want to do.
4. Mostly nymphetal philokalia involves girls who have reached adolescence. But there is one reason even sex with pre-adolescent girls might be considered appropriate--lesbianism. Indeed, a girl so young as to be infertile might not gain from sperm selection that occurs by having sex with her (she can't get pregnant after all); however a female that gets sperm that moves into her after it has capacitated inside the very young female can be rewarded by the sperm selection that occurs in the very young female. But admittedly, this is a pretty unique case, so this sort of thing should only be considered appropriate if there is strong evidence that the the girl's affection is strong, natural and reasonable (e.g., because the girl's parents are very amenable to her behaving thus, as evidenced by their willingness to give a dowry). Similarly, for other reasons too complex for this post, it is important that any woman involved in such lesbian sex should be well-loved by the male if she is fully adult.
I think that semen contains addictive chemicals that screw-up those who absorb them in the digestive system, as happens during sodomy (by which I mean behavior that puts semen into the digestive system). See my post in Homosexuality, What's the big deal,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16666 , another thread in this forum, for details.
Finally, I don't know where you are going by throwing the word "pedophile" everywhere. I think girls are sexy, that it is important that girls should more be allowed to have sex when they want it , and that such sex is not only innocuous but plays an important role in the evolution of moral goodness. I don't see where I am being unclear, so why slap a label on my beliefs? You say that you don't think it important to distinguish sodomy from sex, but you sure act as though rhetorically it is important for you to identify me with sodomizers by calling me "pedophile" everywhere, being derived as it is from the Latin word for child rather than girl (like I said, I do not in any way find boys sexy). Personally, I think the whole significance of labelling is that sodomy really is a black-and-white phenomenon, a mere question of one hole vs. another hole, and so since people know intuitively on a paranoid level sodomy is to be viewed as black-and-white, and since people are more inclusive than they should be about what constitutes sodomy, people find too comfortable viewing non-sodomy issues with the same black-and-whiteness as is appropriate for the very simple sodomy issue. Age of consent issues really are very complex and not black-and-white. But even if you don't admit my explanation for why labelling is wrong, perhaps you will admit that labelling is inappropriate for other reasons. In America, e.g., if you believe that capitalism is inefficient in pricing items with low marginal cost and high initial cost at marginal cost, i.e., if you hate copyrights, you are called socialist, which is identified with communist, which is identified with Stalinist. Does that seem wrong? Please don't call me pedophile. After all, I am the world's leading anti-sodomy theorist. At least I believe I'm the only person with a reasonable (non-religious based) anti-sodomy web page, which over the years has gotten several thousand hits.
Basically, it seems to me there are two main issues in my argument that could fail. One, is it true that girls usually have the ability to judge the moral worth of a male? Two, can and does the relevant sperm selection occur? I think that girls typically can judge sufficiently well the moral worth of a male at about age 10 or so; I'm not saying that there is no age so young that girls can't judge morality well, just that it is a fairly young age. And of course, if society were more rapacious and girls less well protected from dangers such as drugs, girls would more often make moral judgment mistakes, which would make higher ages of consent more appropriate. It is relevant, I think, that the age of consent I suggest is roughly what nature suggests, inasmuch as it is approximately the age at which girls get fertile.
I am not sure I agree with this. Corruption is a more politically colorful topic. But I fail to see why it is important in deciding whether a law is appropriate to know the motivations of the politicians who wrote it.
Last edited:
pumpkinsaren'torange
Registered Senior Member
i would say 16.
i would almost say younger than 16.. but since it has to be an age for all girls id have to stick witht that, becuase some girls are ready earleir than others..
for example my aunt and i grew up together and were good freinds the first part of your lives. she was two years older than me, but id assume we began having sex somewhere around the same time. ( i was 13).
however, i have never had any sexual deiseases or anything of the sort, never been pregnet ect...
she began having sex at an older age, and is now considering finishing highschool (which she quit while having her first child) now that her second is old enough for a regular babysitter. need i mention the previous miscarriages. ...atleast they have the same father.
so i think that an age is hard to define responsibilty, and readiness. but i still hold that parents dont have a damn clue.
for example my aunt and i grew up together and were good freinds the first part of your lives. she was two years older than me, but id assume we began having sex somewhere around the same time. ( i was 13).
however, i have never had any sexual deiseases or anything of the sort, never been pregnet ect...
she began having sex at an older age, and is now considering finishing highschool (which she quit while having her first child) now that her second is old enough for a regular babysitter. need i mention the previous miscarriages. ...atleast they have the same father.
so i think that an age is hard to define responsibilty, and readiness. but i still hold that parents dont have a damn clue.
step314:
You are dodging around the central moral issue here. The only relevant question is: <b>Can an underage person give informed consent to sexual relations with an adult?</b>
If the answer is no, then the act should be illegal in order to protect the young person. And the current state of the law, based on all available evidence is indeed that the answer is no. The rest is sophistry.
Unfortunately, I think you are being dishonest about several things. The first is that you are attempting to couch your arguments in terms of reproduction, when by far the majority of sexual acts do not result in conception and are not intended as acts meant for conception. Another thing is that I think you are underplaying the importance of whatever religious beliefs you have, which seem strangely tied to the sexual act for some reason. Finally, I am disturbed about that this appears to be a very personal issue for you. It makes me uncomfortable in many ways.
For example:
<i>Boys are a separate matter. I of course have no physical attraction to boys, and males sodomizing boys is just as disgusting and evil as males sodomizing females.</i>
Apart from the fact that you have given no justification for considering sodomy a great evil, I don't see how your personal sexual preferences are at all relevant to what appears on the surface to be an academic discussion. It smacks of self-justification to me, which is worrying.
<i>Nymphetal philokalia, on the other hand, is stronger, and is driven by pleasure in the girl more than by moral sentiment. I.e., a girl mating with a good male while she is young selects via sperm selection for his most fit (i.e., talented) genetic material, which significantly increases her pleasure.</i>
It just keeps getting worse. Now you're saying that sex with young girls is good because they get <b>pleasure</b> from it? I really don't think that a young girl who doesn't understand the sex act is going to enjoy it. And if she does understand the implications, most of the evidence suggests that she certainly will NOT enjoy the experience.
<i> "Girls just want to have fun," as the song goes (a simplification, of course).</i>
No girl, regardless of age, wants to be raped.
<i>That is the key point, you won't understand my argument if you don't understand that morality is easier to judge than fitness (by which I mean an ability to succeed in an evolutionary sense--talent essentially).</i>
You have provided no evidence that morality is easier to judge than fitness, and in any case "fitness" is a very loose term.
The available evidence in fact suggests that young girls are not good judges of male morality - as evidenced by the prevalence of rape by pedophiles who lure young girls in various ways (e.g. on the internet).
<i>The basic reason that (moral) character is comparatively easy to judge is that those who deceive in mating about character can only get extra offspring by people who were sufficiently insensitive as to be easily deceived.</i>
The aim of most rapists is not to produce offspring.
<i>1. Personally, I think that females have the ability to control via randomizing how much intra-ejaculate sperm competition occurs.</i>
Ability to control what? How is this "randomizing" achieved? What is "intra-ejaculate sperm competition"?
<i>Young females will be more uncertain about a good male's level of fitness than an older female would...</i>
Isn't that the opposite of what you've been saying?
<i>True, girls like to favor in a man the sperm having the most good genetic material, which is why I think a girl (as opposed to a woman) is especially pleased when a male having sex with her has holy emotion.</i>
Are you claiming that young girls have some psychic or physical ability to detect "holy emotion" in males now?
<i>Basically, I think holiness is an emotion the male feels to discourage crossover during spermatogenesis...</i>
Please explain how these things are linked.
<i>But there is one reason even sex with pre-adolescent girls might be considered appropriate--lesbianism. Indeed, a girl so young as to be infertile might not gain from sperm selection that occurs by having sex with her (she can't get pregnant after all); however a female that gets sperm that moves into her after it has capacitated inside the very young female can be rewarded by the sperm selection that occurs in the very young female.</i>
How does sperm come into the equation when you're talking about lesbianism? Bizarre.
<i>Finally, I don't know where you are going by throwing the word "pedophile" everywhere. I think girls are sexy, that it is important that girls should more be allowed to have sex when they want it , and that such sex is not only innocuous but plays an important role in the evolution of moral goodness. I don't see where I am being unclear, so why slap a label on my beliefs?</i>
Simple. I slap a label on your beliefs because I feel that many pedophiles would share them. The mistake that those people make is to imagine that young girls want to and are able to consent to sex with them, when in fact the girls do not fully understand the implications of the sex act and almost invariably regret their participation in it later in life.
<i>You say that you don't think it important to distinguish sodomy from sex, but you sure act as though rhetorically it is important for you to identify me with sodomizers by calling me "pedophile" everywhere, being derived as it is from the Latin word for child rather than girl (like I said, I do not in any way find boys sexy).</i>
Please note that I didn't call you anything - pedophile or anything else. On another point, despite the derivation of the word, pedophilia need not involve sodomy. It is a general term referring to sexual predation of young people.
<i>Age of consent issues really are very complex and not black-and-white.</i>
I agree, but the basic question is at the top of this post in bold type. You seem to have missed the basic issue so far.
<i>I am the world's leading anti-sodomy theorist.</i>
Really? Impressive. Where are you published?
<i>Basically, it seems to me there are two main issues in my argument that could fail. ...</i>
I think you should step back from your intricate argument for a minute and go back to basics.
<i>It is relevant, I think, that the age of consent I suggest is roughly what nature suggests, inasmuch as it is approximately the age at which girls get fertile.</i>
This is an example of the <i>naturalistic fallacy</i> - that what is "natural" is morally good. It is false to draw that conclusion without a moral argument.
<i>But I fail to see why it is important in deciding whether a law is appropriate to know the motivations of the politicians who wrote it.</i>
Courts regularly look at the intent behind a law in deciding how to interpret it if a question arises. In that sense, motivations are very important. In a wider sense, the moral worth of a law should be defensible.
You are dodging around the central moral issue here. The only relevant question is: <b>Can an underage person give informed consent to sexual relations with an adult?</b>
If the answer is no, then the act should be illegal in order to protect the young person. And the current state of the law, based on all available evidence is indeed that the answer is no. The rest is sophistry.
Unfortunately, I think you are being dishonest about several things. The first is that you are attempting to couch your arguments in terms of reproduction, when by far the majority of sexual acts do not result in conception and are not intended as acts meant for conception. Another thing is that I think you are underplaying the importance of whatever religious beliefs you have, which seem strangely tied to the sexual act for some reason. Finally, I am disturbed about that this appears to be a very personal issue for you. It makes me uncomfortable in many ways.
For example:
<i>Boys are a separate matter. I of course have no physical attraction to boys, and males sodomizing boys is just as disgusting and evil as males sodomizing females.</i>
Apart from the fact that you have given no justification for considering sodomy a great evil, I don't see how your personal sexual preferences are at all relevant to what appears on the surface to be an academic discussion. It smacks of self-justification to me, which is worrying.
<i>Nymphetal philokalia, on the other hand, is stronger, and is driven by pleasure in the girl more than by moral sentiment. I.e., a girl mating with a good male while she is young selects via sperm selection for his most fit (i.e., talented) genetic material, which significantly increases her pleasure.</i>
It just keeps getting worse. Now you're saying that sex with young girls is good because they get <b>pleasure</b> from it? I really don't think that a young girl who doesn't understand the sex act is going to enjoy it. And if she does understand the implications, most of the evidence suggests that she certainly will NOT enjoy the experience.
<i> "Girls just want to have fun," as the song goes (a simplification, of course).</i>
No girl, regardless of age, wants to be raped.
<i>That is the key point, you won't understand my argument if you don't understand that morality is easier to judge than fitness (by which I mean an ability to succeed in an evolutionary sense--talent essentially).</i>
You have provided no evidence that morality is easier to judge than fitness, and in any case "fitness" is a very loose term.
The available evidence in fact suggests that young girls are not good judges of male morality - as evidenced by the prevalence of rape by pedophiles who lure young girls in various ways (e.g. on the internet).
<i>The basic reason that (moral) character is comparatively easy to judge is that those who deceive in mating about character can only get extra offspring by people who were sufficiently insensitive as to be easily deceived.</i>
The aim of most rapists is not to produce offspring.
<i>1. Personally, I think that females have the ability to control via randomizing how much intra-ejaculate sperm competition occurs.</i>
Ability to control what? How is this "randomizing" achieved? What is "intra-ejaculate sperm competition"?
<i>Young females will be more uncertain about a good male's level of fitness than an older female would...</i>
Isn't that the opposite of what you've been saying?
<i>True, girls like to favor in a man the sperm having the most good genetic material, which is why I think a girl (as opposed to a woman) is especially pleased when a male having sex with her has holy emotion.</i>
Are you claiming that young girls have some psychic or physical ability to detect "holy emotion" in males now?
<i>Basically, I think holiness is an emotion the male feels to discourage crossover during spermatogenesis...</i>
Please explain how these things are linked.
<i>But there is one reason even sex with pre-adolescent girls might be considered appropriate--lesbianism. Indeed, a girl so young as to be infertile might not gain from sperm selection that occurs by having sex with her (she can't get pregnant after all); however a female that gets sperm that moves into her after it has capacitated inside the very young female can be rewarded by the sperm selection that occurs in the very young female.</i>
How does sperm come into the equation when you're talking about lesbianism? Bizarre.
<i>Finally, I don't know where you are going by throwing the word "pedophile" everywhere. I think girls are sexy, that it is important that girls should more be allowed to have sex when they want it , and that such sex is not only innocuous but plays an important role in the evolution of moral goodness. I don't see where I am being unclear, so why slap a label on my beliefs?</i>
Simple. I slap a label on your beliefs because I feel that many pedophiles would share them. The mistake that those people make is to imagine that young girls want to and are able to consent to sex with them, when in fact the girls do not fully understand the implications of the sex act and almost invariably regret their participation in it later in life.
<i>You say that you don't think it important to distinguish sodomy from sex, but you sure act as though rhetorically it is important for you to identify me with sodomizers by calling me "pedophile" everywhere, being derived as it is from the Latin word for child rather than girl (like I said, I do not in any way find boys sexy).</i>
Please note that I didn't call you anything - pedophile or anything else. On another point, despite the derivation of the word, pedophilia need not involve sodomy. It is a general term referring to sexual predation of young people.
<i>Age of consent issues really are very complex and not black-and-white.</i>
I agree, but the basic question is at the top of this post in bold type. You seem to have missed the basic issue so far.
<i>I am the world's leading anti-sodomy theorist.</i>
Really? Impressive. Where are you published?
<i>Basically, it seems to me there are two main issues in my argument that could fail. ...</i>
I think you should step back from your intricate argument for a minute and go back to basics.
<i>It is relevant, I think, that the age of consent I suggest is roughly what nature suggests, inasmuch as it is approximately the age at which girls get fertile.</i>
This is an example of the <i>naturalistic fallacy</i> - that what is "natural" is morally good. It is false to draw that conclusion without a moral argument.
<i>But I fail to see why it is important in deciding whether a law is appropriate to know the motivations of the politicians who wrote it.</i>
Courts regularly look at the intent behind a law in deciding how to interpret it if a question arises. In that sense, motivations are very important. In a wider sense, the moral worth of a law should be defensible.
What does rape have to do with this? Oh, wait, I know. Another obnoxious attempt on your part to paste a catch-all label on me. You try to be oblique about it and will presumably deny it, but it seems pretty obvious what you are up to. I shall not bother with refuting the rest of your (pompous, conformist and boring) post. I will say I think you are lying when you say your are disturbed by my opinions about girl sex. You sound more like you are just pompous or trying to provoke me.
step314:
<i>What does rape have to do with this?</i>
Rape is a crime involving sexual intercourse without consent. If a young person cannot consent to sexual intercourse, any sexual intercourse with that person by an adult is rape. It's very simple, but some people just don't seem to get the message.
<i>Another obnoxious attempt on your part to paste a catch-all label on me.</i>
I don't need to do that - you do it yourself. It's you who says you find young girls sexy, and you who appears to be advocating intercourse involving a single underage girl and multiple adult males.
<i>You try to be oblique about it and will presumably deny it, but it seems pretty obvious what you are up to.</i>
What am I up to? Telling it like it is? Does that make you uncomfortable? Then tell me I am wrong and you do not advocate the things I've mentioned above.
<i>I shall not bother with refuting the rest of your (pompous, conformist and boring) post.</i>
Who's labelling whom now?
<i>I will say I think you are lying when you say your are disturbed by my opinions about girl sex.</i>
You know better than me what I am distrubed by? Give me a break. Funny as it may seem to you, most people in this world find all forms of sex without consent repugnant. But I am not surprised that somebody who has built up the kind of twisted rationalisation you have constructed cannot comprehend this.
<i>... you are just pompous or trying to provoke me.</i>
Provoke you to what? To stopping advocating sex with minors? You bet. I am totally unapologetic about that.
The truth is, I think you have no good answers to my previous post, so you've resorted to personal attacks. I expected it would not take long.
<i>What does rape have to do with this?</i>
Rape is a crime involving sexual intercourse without consent. If a young person cannot consent to sexual intercourse, any sexual intercourse with that person by an adult is rape. It's very simple, but some people just don't seem to get the message.
<i>Another obnoxious attempt on your part to paste a catch-all label on me.</i>
I don't need to do that - you do it yourself. It's you who says you find young girls sexy, and you who appears to be advocating intercourse involving a single underage girl and multiple adult males.
<i>You try to be oblique about it and will presumably deny it, but it seems pretty obvious what you are up to.</i>
What am I up to? Telling it like it is? Does that make you uncomfortable? Then tell me I am wrong and you do not advocate the things I've mentioned above.
<i>I shall not bother with refuting the rest of your (pompous, conformist and boring) post.</i>
Who's labelling whom now?
<i>I will say I think you are lying when you say your are disturbed by my opinions about girl sex.</i>
You know better than me what I am distrubed by? Give me a break. Funny as it may seem to you, most people in this world find all forms of sex without consent repugnant. But I am not surprised that somebody who has built up the kind of twisted rationalisation you have constructed cannot comprehend this.
<i>... you are just pompous or trying to provoke me.</i>
Provoke you to what? To stopping advocating sex with minors? You bet. I am totally unapologetic about that.
The truth is, I think you have no good answers to my previous post, so you've resorted to personal attacks. I expected it would not take long.
Not. Where did you get that from? I don't believe I ever said anything about "multiple" males having sex with a girl. I discussed "intra-ejaculate" sperm competition, not "inter-ejaculate" sperm competition. (It's the same difference as between intramural sports and intermural sports.) In fact, females having sex with multiple males is a sign of their being addicted to sodomy (in a stupidly sophisticated way, which may or may not be worse than being addicted to sodomy in a stupidly unsophisticated way). Not that I deny that females change their mind occasionally, or that there is anything wrong with that, but it is hard enough for a female to find even one male she would want to sleep with. Especially would it be surprising for a girl--who is naturally more hesitant to have sex--to find two males either of whom she would want to have sex with.
doesnt this go agianst your idea of 12 being the age of concent w/o parental aproval? why should the parents be required to take care of the child they didnt consent to the making of? didnt you say that the female will have the level of maturity necissary? so that the 12 year old girl would be capable of caring for a child when most of society views her as a child. i was physically capable of bearing children when i was 11, does that mean i should have, that for some reason i was better able to chose what men would produce good offspring? because i wholly disagree with you. i believe a 5th or 6th grader is much more easilly persuaded by older males because they are older, not morally better or 'good'
so your also saying that men should be allowed to impregnate as many young grils as they can with no obligation to these girls what-so-ever? the idea of age of concent laws is that most children are told to mind those older than them. so it would be reasonably easy for an older male to convince a younger female to have unprotected sex and therefore bear children she doesnt necissarily want, and that her parents do not have to raise for her. i dont know of any state that requires marriage (i could be wrong though) i know that most require the male share the financail responsibility. and i see that as being perfectly right, unless it is made clear at the time of conception that the female is financially capable of raising that child, at which point she could waive those rights. i dont dissagree that marriage should be a complete commitment based on emotion and want, not on need and circumstance. but i do not belive that young girls or boys are mentally capable of fully understanding the ramifications of what thier body tells them.
then i know a hell of a lot of sodomists. and i am one by your definition. what if a person enjoys sex, and as no plans of ever bearing children. for some sex is wholy about the pleasure of both parties involved. and i feel that it is something persons of too young an age cannot aprecitate or understand. a person who cannot work should not have to depend on another source to support their children. a child is another life that is completely dependent on a parent or adult to care for it, and to be quite frank if the parents are going to care for their grandchildren and give consent anyway, then why not just have another child instead of incouraging their children to do it. or hell adopt some one, not like theres a shortage or something.
age of concent laws are designed because most young boys and girls would be easily persuaded into situations they should not or dont want to be in by persons older than them who will derive pleasure out of the act. (aka: pedophilles in many cases) and cannot this warp a persons sense of what sex should be? wouldnt that make a person degrade their self-worth? to be used as a sex toy by someone older and who probably dont want offspring? most of your arguments seems based in a fanstasy world. sex is not always about reproduction, even (heaven forbid) for an older male wanting to be with a extreamly younger female. which is why i believe that your views are common with that of most pedophilles, young girls all want to have sex and bear children from it that the males should have no responsiblity in raising or supporting those children. but please stop me if that doesnt sound like the short, less wordy version of your posts.
I never said that applies to girls. What I said is that a young female gets more pleasure from having sex with a good male than an older female would. I didn't say that a young female is better able to determine whether a male is good than an older female, but I did say that a 12-year old female can judge goodness well enough for it to be appropriate for 12-year old females to decide whether to have sex, because goodness is comparatively easy to judge.
So how is the male to determine whether the female is financially capable of raising the child? If the male has to just trust the female's word for it, that would make good males much more hesitant to have sex (good males don't want to hurt their present or future wives [to me male marriage responsibilities should involve caring more or less exclusively for the wife rather than having sex only with her] by risking being lied to--that would seem wrong. Alternatively, the girl could get some kind of official documentation from the government certifying that the government has declared her sufficiently rich to be allowed to have sex with a male without requiring responsibility of him, which smacks of big brother and something a Social Darwinist eugenicist would dream up.
In a way, provided as I claim that young girls basically just tend to want to have sex with moral males (and they can determine who these male are), they don't really have to understand many ramifications, inasmuch as the male having sex with her will understand and advise her appropriately.
I have discussed that point earlier--I don't think that is as true as people think, and that sodomy is largely responsible for people feeling that way.
Mostly they will. Only when parents are very fond of the male desired by their daughter would they feel different, I should think.
If you are suggesting that this is a correct statement, I do not agree with you at all. The idiocy of young people is vastly overrated (Consider the General Slocum, the steamship that burned up in 1904, killing over a thousand people, partly because the captain ignored a boy who told him a room on the ship was on fire, telling him to shut up). In earlier generations, when there were no age of consent laws, did young teenage girls use little circumspection in deciding to have sex? I don't think so. If age of consent laws disappeared altogether, girls would still be enormously more hesitant to have sex than older females would. Yes, if older males were free to mate with younger females, deceptive older males could more easily deceive younger females, but isn't it also true that non-deceptive, good older males could more easily enlighten young females as to sexual truth and the lies of their competitors? Actually, I think something else is relevant. Girls know intuitively that they are sexual beings. Parents who tell girls it is unnatural for girls to have sex or that it is appropriate for laws to prohibit them from so doing do so at their peril. A good girl will so value her sexuality that she likely will consider sexually prohibitive parents as being idiots about sex and will likely not listen to them at all about even the real dangers associated with sex, notwithstanding it is very important that parents be listened to by their children when the former try to protect them from abuse (sodomy, alcohol, drugs, or physical abuse) and lies. Why do you think young girls like(d) Britney Spears, for example? Do you think it is because parents excessively encourage their daughters sexuality? Because child predators have manipulated girls into being sexual? Because Britney really is about adult sexuality and girls need to start learning about adult sexuality because they will be adults one day? Children love Pepsi so much and are so naive about marketing campaigns, they can't help it? No, no, no, no. It's because girls are naturally somewhat sexual. And people evolve to be as they are for reasons, especially as regards something as age of adolesence and capability to lust, which it would be trivial physiologically for a female to possess differently.
If you understood the evil of sodomy, you would see that it is more dangerous for younger females to be allowed to have sex with just young males. (Which is essentially what the present situation is inasmuch as the justice system is hesitant to prosecute severely young males for violating age of consent laws.) Young male sodomizers are just as potent in their sodomizing as older males sodomizers, and they wouldn't have any strong competition, because males who don't profit via sodomy peak much later in their power, which comes more from understanding.
No that is not at all what I believe. In fact, as I have said, young girls are more hesitant to have sex, the whole reason for my believing that when they do want to have sex and the male is morally good (so not deceptive) it suggests the male is special. A man would have to be quite extraordinarily morally good indeed for it to be typical for a girl to want him more than an older female would.
There actually are other considerations that also suggest the appropriateness of low ages of consent. Bad males more having evolved to be criminals tend to be better at breaking laws and getting away with it than good males, so age of consent laws would be more proscriptive against good males than bad males. (Good males are so naturally law-abiding they likely would not even try to break the law.) Also, there being less space between the generations of your species relative to the species around you encourages your species to live more in harmony with the species around you as opposed to forcing the species around you to live in harmony with you. Early sex would probably strongly encourage selection for people who tend to live in harmony with their environment, which is desparately needed before the world becomes a wasteland.
That would depend on whether the male loves the girl enough to marry her.
step314:
This thread is about legal age of consent, and you're still missing the point.
It doesn't matter if a girl of 9 thinks she wants to have sex, for whatever reason. The law judges that she is incapable of appreciating the full consequences and implications of the act, and therefore acts to protect her against those who would take advantage of her, even if she does not think she needs that protection (which would be a rare case, anyway).
The "justifications" you put forward for your view that young girls are capable of giving informed consent do not seem to be supported by any evidence. Nor do many of your other somewhat strange views, such as the many evils of sodomy.
Can you provide any actual evidence that:
1. "Young girls basically just tend to want to have sex with moral males (and they can determine who these males are)"
2. Sex for pleasure is somehow tied to sodomy.
3. Sodomy is unhealthy or wrong for some other reason.
4. A morally good male would want to have sex with a young girl.
5. Shorter generation gaps in species encourages species to live "more in harmony with the species around [them]".
6. Early sex would "strongly encourage selection for people who tend to live in harmony with their environment".
This thread is about legal age of consent, and you're still missing the point.
It doesn't matter if a girl of 9 thinks she wants to have sex, for whatever reason. The law judges that she is incapable of appreciating the full consequences and implications of the act, and therefore acts to protect her against those who would take advantage of her, even if she does not think she needs that protection (which would be a rare case, anyway).
The "justifications" you put forward for your view that young girls are capable of giving informed consent do not seem to be supported by any evidence. Nor do many of your other somewhat strange views, such as the many evils of sodomy.
Can you provide any actual evidence that:
1. "Young girls basically just tend to want to have sex with moral males (and they can determine who these males are)"
2. Sex for pleasure is somehow tied to sodomy.
3. Sodomy is unhealthy or wrong for some other reason.
4. A morally good male would want to have sex with a young girl.
5. Shorter generation gaps in species encourages species to live "more in harmony with the species around [them]".
6. Early sex would "strongly encourage selection for people who tend to live in harmony with their environment".
Sex and Kids
Children and sex are inextricably linked in the conservative imagination. They are the lure and the fear, the bait and the trap, a measure of how far decent social behavior has gone down the tubes, of how a morally corrupt liberal social agenda has replaced God-fearing purity. Whether the issue is sex education, the banning of pornography, condom distribution in schools, or the specter of day-care centers overrun by ritual satanic abusers, the linkage of kids and sex is sure to make headlines, tempers boil, and, unfortunately, bad social policy. But there are plenty of situations where the linkage of kids and sex raises scarcely an eyebrow on the right or the left.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/jan94bronski.htm
http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/levine_harmful.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA020415Harmful_to_minors_excerpt.html
http://www.logicalreality.com/p2/2UltimateTaboo8.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/may02/46065.asp
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/22/coming_of_age/index.html?x
http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/voicebox/puberty/
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12903
http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/1999/12/04/underage/
http://reason.com/rauch/99_08_07.shtml
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/Giroux/Giroux3.html
http://eserver.org/bs/41/smith.html
http://loper.org/~george/trends/2002/Apr/48.html
Children and sex are inextricably linked in the conservative imagination. They are the lure and the fear, the bait and the trap, a measure of how far decent social behavior has gone down the tubes, of how a morally corrupt liberal social agenda has replaced God-fearing purity. Whether the issue is sex education, the banning of pornography, condom distribution in schools, or the specter of day-care centers overrun by ritual satanic abusers, the linkage of kids and sex is sure to make headlines, tempers boil, and, unfortunately, bad social policy. But there are plenty of situations where the linkage of kids and sex raises scarcely an eyebrow on the right or the left.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/jan94bronski.htm
http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/levine_harmful.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA020415Harmful_to_minors_excerpt.html
http://www.logicalreality.com/p2/2UltimateTaboo8.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/may02/46065.asp
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/22/coming_of_age/index.html?x
http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/voicebox/puberty/
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12903
http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/1999/12/04/underage/
http://reason.com/rauch/99_08_07.shtml
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/Giroux/Giroux3.html
http://eserver.org/bs/41/smith.html
http://loper.org/~george/trends/2002/Apr/48.html