Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

This is my position exactly regarding consent laws.

quote:

---

To be honest with you, I'm not sure that any human is ready for the responsibilities of intercourse until after they've had it. I wasn't, and I was 20.

---

I was ready.I am one of the (apparently) few people (especially for a woman) who really did wait until I was ready to take on the responsibilities of having intercourse before I engaged in it.

quote:

---

I am not really saying science per se leads to a culture of non-judgementality about sexual acts. I am saying that it seems that, at present, it should if you assume that moral judgements should not be based on religion or personal values, but on scientific ones, and my point is most that bash the religious right are doing the exact same thing as the religious right is doing, but they don't admit that.

---

I don't base my morality upon science, though.I base them upon personal values.

quote:

---

Can I pretend that I'm different from the religious right if I honestly don't care if 13 year olds have sex with adults?

---

What about 12 year olds?

So, at what age, according to you, is "too young" to consent to having sex?

quote:

---

I have already shown this factually to you. If you cannot admit that this is true when data shows that our definition of consent does not align with who is doing what and who is choosing to do what and who is being harmed by what, then you are being intellectually dishonest.

---

So, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse?Furthermore, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse with an adult?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 10:11 AM

quote:

---

I thought I was ready at the time, too. It was only the next day when I realized there was a whole world of stuff that I had to worry about now.

​

All those public service posters about diseases and stuff? Didn't even register on my consciousness, until afterwards.

---

Really? Wow.You know how everybody thinks teenagers and young adults have these reckless attitudes like nothing bad is ever going to happen to them, and that's why they do irresponsible shit? I agree that it is, indeed, a very common mindset among teens, but I was never that kind of kid. I always figured, "well, why not me?" I never felt that I had any special protection against bad things happening to me if I took needless risks.Maybe it's because, at a very early age, I had always had to mentally fend for (and defend) myself. I wasn't what I would call a self-confident kid, but at the same time I was also not a kid who others could coerce or get to do things I didn't want to do.

quote:

---

There was nothing more I could have done to be really ready, but I still wasn't. That's what leads me to believe that folks generally aren't quite ready. I mean, I didn't drop the ball or anything, or do anything dangerous or put myself or her at risk. It was a positive experience. But there were aspects that I simply couldn't have prepared for.

---

He, he, he. You said "drop the ball." He, he, he.

quote:

---

But I'm glad it was different for you. Maybe it's a gender-based thing, or something.

---

Maybe it is a gender-based thing. Young women, by way of the reality of our anatomy, have to be much more pragmatic regarding sex if we do not want to get pregnant. Hits home much more powerfully to us, I would think, compared to males.I have got to say that I thoroughly enjoyed pretty much all aspects of losing my virginity. The only part I didn't like was the contraceptive gel. Ick.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 10:25 AM

quote:

---

I think culture reenforces that message for young women, as well. It seems like pregnancy is used to scare girls from an early age,

---

It certainly worked with me!

quote:

---

and many cultural stereotypes still imply that the purpose of women is to be an object for sex,

---

Well, we can see them right here in this thread.Several men here have referenced "cheating men" but not "cheating women", "wife-swapping", not "husband-swapping", and "multiple wives", not "multiple husbands".

quote:

---

so it's not unexpected that young women are going to be much more anticipatory in regards to their first sexual encounter.

---

Yepers.

quote:

---

A good friend of mine informs me that, in the US, the only avaliable spermacide is essentially a detergent, and it's very irritating to the skin, if you know what I mean. Canada and Europe, according to her, have much more advanced spermacides that are not so irritating, but for some reason, they aren't approved for use in the US. I blame the religionists, of course.

---

...and the american pharmaceutical companies and the lawmakers who allow their lobbyists to dictate protectionist policies for their industry . We need to blame them, too.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 11:19 AM

quote:

---

Well, I mean, I'd been seeing the warnings for years, but I had just been in the mental habit of thinking that they only applied to people who were actually having sex, and not having any until you're 20 (and being a big nerd besides) puts you in a mindset where you don't immediately think of yourself as one of those people.

---

When you are a young woman in America, you also realize early on that you could be having sex against your will, so it's good to know about things.

quote:

---

The first thing I would ask you is what you are using to define consent? If you mean willing to go along with/desiring such contact then there is no real age where it is impossible to give consent.

---

So, you believe a newborn infant can consent to sexual contact with another person?If so, how do you know?

quote:

---

If you mean full on penetrative intercourse then that'll have physical limits set by the individuals.

---

Is a newborn infant physically capable of being penetrated?I'd like to restrict this discussion to full on penetrative intercourse, to make things clearer.

quote:

---

The second thing I might ask, to start another important track in this argument you'd be making, is what does nonconsent have to do with being a problem such that it needs to be controlled in some way? For example at which age would you say that it is impossible for a person to consent to eating jello, and if there is such a boundary, what would make it problematic to feed the person jello?

---

First of all, how is "eating jello" a comparable activity, wrt the potential consequences and risks, to engaging in full on penetrative intercourse?

quote:

---

Kids are better than adults in letting people know exactly what they want and don't want. Whether they can be beat down is something else entirely.

---

Well, then let me rephrase.Is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a person be expected to fully understand the risks and consequences of giving consent to having sexual intercourse with anyone?Furhtermore, is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a child to be able to defy or resist the cultural authority and power asigned adults over children, the use of coercive or pressuring methods, or the ability to detect dishonesty in an adult?IOW, at what age would you consider it too much to ask for a child to have to deal with all of that?

quote:

---

There are plenty of lonely men who are willing to give consent, but there are plenty of lonely men who can be taken advantage of. The law has to draw a single line for everybody, some fall on one sideof the law, some on the other.

​

This is an equal position for sexual laws nixing gay sex. My guess is you would not agree with them.

​

The idea that repression of one group can be justified by the protection of some within that group who suffer something that has no connection to that first group is pretty ridiculous. You can't stop rape by making sex illegal.

---

There are plenty of 10 year old boys who want to be in the Army.Are consent laws regarding the legal age of conscription ridiculous?

If you are involved in an activity that is outside of the boundries of the Bible's precepts, then you might find it satisfying for a time and even experience the illusion of liberation.But if Sin wasn't fun and satisfying, at least at the onset, who would do it?

quote:

---

If you are involved in an activity that is within the boundries of the Bible's precepts, then you might find it satisfying for a time and even experience the illusion that you are doing what you are supposed to do to get a reward after you die.

​

But if following a religion's rules wasn't comforting and rewarded by the religious and greater community, at least at the onset, who would do it?

---

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 02:03 PM

quote:

---

I think you meant that they'd have that ability. That they can let it be known, there is no age they cannot let their will be known. That they can try to defy, any. That they can ultimately succeed, depends on the child and family, but probably won't have total success until 12-13.

---

Great. This can be where out age of consent law can be from. Age 12.

quote:

---

We don't allow 10yos in the army because they wouldn't meet the physical criteria for the army. Consent has absolutely zip to do with it.

---

Some 10 year olds might, but we can forget about 10 year olds.Many, many 15 year olds would meet the physical requirements.Would it be OK if 15 year olds joined the Army?

quote:

---

By the way none of this addresses my point. Your argument can be used equally against gays. You can't stop rape by making sex illegal. All it does is repress one group in order to pretend to provide protection for another.

---

So, age of consent laws, for sure, don't ever succeed in protecting anyone, ever?

quote:

---

Yeah, schraf likes to play the slippery slope game, moving rapidly to the most extremely not relevant situation, as well as the most graphic visuals.

---

It's not a "slippery slope game".If a situation can be thought of, and if a situation has happened, it is most certainly relevant.If we were to follow your scenario, with parents being the sole arbiter of when a child can have sex, I can certainly envision some parents consenting to allow an adult man to marry an infant female child, for example. Essentially, this is selling a child into sexual slavery long before she has any capacity to choose.How is this "extreme" or "not relevant"?