Where do I draw the line? Instead of selecting an arbitrary number chosen on the basis of subjective, ambiguous, or culturally relative criteria, I let biology draw the line for me. The stage of biological development that physically separates the state of being an adult from the state of being a child -- this is the only line that exists in the real world as a definite, concrete, objective, observable state of affairs. Anything else is either figment of our imagination or exists only as an arbitrary number defined into law -- a kind of legal fiction, like the notion that a corporation can be a 'person'. Legal fictions are sometimes necessary but they have nothing to do with morality -- true morality is never arbitrary, never anything that can be just invented on the spot. When a man fucks a toddler, he's not breaking some arbitrary rule but he is committing a real evil.
In other words: old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. That is how I determine if sexual intercourse is morally permissible or not -- provided that it also be consensual on both sides, and not exploitative or manipulative in character. If a girl hasn't bled yet, and is still physically prepubescent, then it is wrong to have sex with her.
When premarital sex wasn't the norm, and the average woman would be married out at a young age to a suitable man CHOSEN BY HER FATHER, age of consent laws were not even necessary, or if they did exist they would be as low as 12. There was a time when it would be perfectly normal for a father to let his 14 year-old daughter marry a well-chosen 27 year old man of good standing, a man normal in every way, whose character was first carefully scrutinised not only by the girl but also by the father, mother, grandparents, and everyone else in the family.
This was the norm for our ancestors, and still is the norm in most countries; now idiot Americans call it 'pedophilia'.
view the rest of the comments →
zagreos ago
Where do I draw the line? Instead of selecting an arbitrary number chosen on the basis of subjective, ambiguous, or culturally relative criteria, I let biology draw the line for me. The stage of biological development that physically separates the state of being an adult from the state of being a child -- this is the only line that exists in the real world as a definite, concrete, objective, observable state of affairs. Anything else is either figment of our imagination or exists only as an arbitrary number defined into law -- a kind of legal fiction, like the notion that a corporation can be a 'person'. Legal fictions are sometimes necessary but they have nothing to do with morality -- true morality is never arbitrary, never anything that can be just invented on the spot. When a man fucks a toddler, he's not breaking some arbitrary rule but he is committing a real evil.
In other words: old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. That is how I determine if sexual intercourse is morally permissible or not -- provided that it also be consensual on both sides, and not exploitative or manipulative in character. If a girl hasn't bled yet, and is still physically prepubescent, then it is wrong to have sex with her.
When premarital sex wasn't the norm, and the average woman would be married out at a young age to a suitable man CHOSEN BY HER FATHER, age of consent laws were not even necessary, or if they did exist they would be as low as 12. There was a time when it would be perfectly normal for a father to let his 14 year-old daughter marry a well-chosen 27 year old man of good standing, a man normal in every way, whose character was first carefully scrutinised not only by the girl but also by the father, mother, grandparents, and everyone else in the family.
This was the norm for our ancestors, and still is the norm in most countries; now idiot Americans call it 'pedophilia'.
Whattheheck321 ago
ugh. I cannot stand your point of view on this. Makes me sick to my stomach. 14 year olds are still children.