Excellent post Holmes, full of moral dilemmas and the conflict between social laws and behaviors.
I find the facts of the case on the persecution of the results to be quite disturbing, as you can inject any scientific finding into the mix and get the same results. This is not unlike legislating that pi = 3.000, completely undeterred by facts.
That is one aspect of this matter.
The other involves the specific issue addressed in the study.
One of the points that I think is vital in any discussion on this topic is to distinguish between {willing}, {seduction} and {rape} as well as to distinguish between {child} and {adolescent}:
Rape is forced sex with no deference given to {will\won't} of the victim.
Seduction is more inclusive than just consent, as it includes consent being coerced from the intended victim.
Willing (here) would imply knowledge of the behavior and happy participation.
At least one person in any sexual encounter is willing ... but the best situation is when all (one or more) people are willing.
I have no problem with having laws on the books that make
- having sex with any child who is sexually immature illegal regardless of the {willingness\unwillingness} of the child.
- having sex with any individual who is mentally {immature\unfit} -- unable to meet legal "informed consent" standards -- regardless of the {willingness\unwillingness} of the individual.
- rape of any individual illegal, regardless of the age or mental ability of the victim.
I do have problems with laws that make it okay for two adolescent children under the age of consent to have mutually willing sex, but not okay if one of them crosses that age barrier: that is an artificial construct.
The issue becomes morally muddy for me when we get to the issue of seduction, particularly with an older individual able to {flash} the younger with gifts and (at least the appearance of) personal interest. In these cases (and as long as the younger individual is sexually mature and mentally able to make "informed consent" decisions) the seduced partner may be deceived into participating rather than be overtly willing.
In these cases the victim is {negatively impacted\harmed\hurt} by the
deception rather than the sex or forced participation (in the case of rape).
And in these cases if the perpetuator could be shown to have a pattern of behavior of seducing other people, then I have no problem with having a law on the books that makes that illegal.
Morally speaking I have no objection to a 60+ year old marrying a {sexually mature person able to make "informed consent" decisions} regardless of their age.
In many countries it is perfectly acceptable for adolescents to get married (if not in fact encouraged for young women ... it is one way to eliminate unwed teen pregnancy ... and there is usually no limit on the age of the husband).
Note that not that long ago all rapes were considered the fault of the woman, that they must have "asked" to be raped in some way by their behavior or perceived behavior (dressing like a "tart"). As far as child sex goes it seems that the opposite is always assumed.
And of course
ALL absolutes are false.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}