The ethics of shagging.

[Seth]

Ok, first of all... 50% of 12 year olds are having sex? I have a hard time believing that.

Actually, a survey quoted by Guttmacher says that in the USA fewer than 2% of adolescents have had sex by the time they reach their 12th birthday.

I tried to find the article I was referring to but could not, and in doing so I found the same Guttmacher data you cite, which I agree are much more accurate. So I retract the statement, but note that by 14-15 the numbers reach 30 to 40 percent or more, which you can see by visiting the site.

[Seth]

I am just very surprised since I don't think 50% of 12 year old girls have even started their periods.

Does it even matter if it is true? Is it even remotely sane to assert that menses is the measuring stick (No pun intended. Seriously, no.) to determine that in principle it's OK to stick a penis into that girl's vagina? Could we reasonably expect a five year old to give informed consent? Or a twelve year old?

Well, that's rather the point of the discussion, to discuss the issues.

This crap comes from a bloke who approves of menses as being the point in time from which sex with a girl is OK,

Did I "approve" of it or simply point out that biology decides when a person is sexually mature and ask why that is not an appropriate metric for sexual activity?

yet does not rail against dumb age restrictions on matters less important than the chance of becoming a parent, such as driving a car, voting for a political party or drinking alcohol. His opinions are seriously garbled.

Nobody's started a conversation about such "really dumb age restrictions" as of yet, and they have nothing to do with the "ethics of shagging."

No matter. We've had that discussion before, and I can pretty much predict the drift of Seth's reply. Essentially, it will amount to no more than posting the same shit on a different day.

And it's up to you to provide an argument that rationally requires a different response. If you serve up the same old shit every day, it shouldn't surprise you if I use the same old shovel to move it to the shit-bin.

Think of something original to say sometime...if you can.

[Seth]

Seth is justifying the sexual abuse of children.

Fuck off, Rum, I'm doing so such thing.

The law concludes that for the safety of all children the element of consent is irrelevant and the act is the sole responsibility of the adult. This is the case in my experience as a social worker too. One of the many reasons I got out of that job was that kids often felt it was all 'their fault', and the bastard that was getting his jollies made them think that.

And "the law" is always and irrevocably right and can never be questioned or even discussed in a rational fashion, isn't it Rum? Therefore you are justifying the genocide of the Jews by Hitler because, well, it was "the law" that Jews could be gassed and burned at the time.

How much more fucking stupid can your arguments possibly get?

You sir are the worst kind of fool. An intelligent person who uses his wits to justify his twisted views. I always regret engaging in discussions with you and will refrain from doing so in future. Justifying genocide? Fuck off.

It's your logic I'm analyzing. Don't blame me if you can't formulate a rational response. "It's the law" isn't a rational response to anything, it's just mindlessness. Why is it the law, is the question. "It's the law" is not a response to that question at all, it's simply recursive evasion. The way rational people debate subjects is that one person asks a question and another replies and the first person analyzes that response and rebuts and the discussion goes on in that manner, working through the process and the issues in hopes that everyone will learn something worth knowing beyond blind acceptance of "it's the law." That's why I took your moronic "it's the law" non-response and pointed out that "it's the law" doesn't always mean that the law is either reasonable, rational or just. That's where your argument took the discussion and I make no apologies for pointing out the failure in your reasoning. If you don't like having those failures in reasoning pointed out, then provide better arguments.

I'm not "justifying" anything at all, certainly not child sex abuse, I'm merely asking questions and stimulating debate. It's you who refuses to do anything other than engage in knee-jerk insult and deliberately mendacious personal attacks.

I defy you to provide a quote from me saying that sex with young children is acceptable. On the other hand, I have repeatedly asked participants to rationally justify their positions on the matter. That is indicated by the question marks at the end of various sentences, which you seem to mistake for statements of policy rather than inquiries and solicitations of rational thought and response, something you do not appear capable of.

[Seth]

When Seth stated that he thought 50% of kids of 12 are sexually active, he didn't give any link for such a fact.
But anyway, what the fuck does sexually active mean? It's typical Seth Bollocks. A meaningless phrase wrapped up as factual.

I was sexually active at 12, but I certainly didn't fuck anyone, or anything, in the full sense of the word, till years after that.

Of course, being an American farm boy, sexually active might have a totally different meaning for Seth.

Well, that's an excellent question. What does "sexually active" actually mean in the context of "the ethics of shagging?"

[Seth]

Of course, being an American farm boy, sexually active might have a totally different meaning for Seth.

I can't remember him ever saying if he had a younger sister, but perhaps he has fond memories of those special times with his father?

What "special times?"

[Seth]

I am just very surprised since I don't think 50% of 12 year old girls have even started their periods.

Does it even matter if it is true? Is it even remotely sane to assert that menses is the measuring stick (No pun intended. Seriously, no.) to determine that in principle it's OK to stick a penis into that girl's vagina? Could we reasonably expect a five year old to give informed consent? Or a twelve year old?

This crap comes from a bloke who approves of menses as being the point in time from which sex with a girl is OK, yet does not rail against dumb age restrictions on matters less important than the chance of becoming a parent, such as driving a car, voting for a political party or drinking alcohol. His opinions are seriously garbled.

No matter. We've had that discussion before, and I can pretty much predict the drift of Seth's reply. Essentially, it will amount to no more than posting the same shit on a different day.

No, of course it doesn't matter. But according to his reasoning they are "ok to screw" when they start their periods so I find it strange that 50% of them have started having sex when less than 50% have started their periods.

Please excuse me for the delay in correcting that assertion, my computer ran out of battery before I could complete my response. I was not able to find the article I cited, but I did find the Guttmacher numbers cited by others and agree that 12 years old is not a good number. However, 14 to 15 seems to be the point where sexual activity jumps up to 30 to 40 percent.

Also, I never, ever said it was "ok to screw," I merely pointed out that biology determines when a person is sexually mature, not the law. What the import of that biological fact is is part of the discussion, not a proclamation by me of anything at all. You just misconstrue it that way because, I suspect, your "ick factor" knee-jerk response is to want to shoot the messenger for even bringing the subject up because it's too uncomfortable for you to even contemplate. I see this sort of prudish, almost psychopathic aversion to even discussing the issue of adolescent sex all the time, and frankly the aversion to rational discussion causes a lot of social problems and may in fact exacerbate the amount of both sexual abuse and adolescent pregnancy.

Knowledge is power, and you don't gain knowledge by being prudish about discussing sex. That's WHY too many teenage girls get pregnant and that's WHY young children are susceptible to sexual abuse by authority figures. Talking about it isn't justifying it, even when I choose to take the Socratic side of the argument by eliciting answers to difficult and perhaps unpleasant questions.

But prudes who can't seem to understand the distinction between discussing something and approving of that thing, which is frustrating and annoying, but not unexpected, should probably just shut the fuck up and let their betters discuss the matter without them. Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Sadly, the number of educated minds in this forum is dwindling towards one very quickly. Soon I'll be the only educated mind here if this thread is any indication.

[Seth]

...according to his reasoning they are "ok to screw" when they start their periods so I find it strange that 50% of them have started having sex when less than 50% have started their periods.

Yes, well, let me remind you that you are interacting with a poster who has extraordinary ways of reasoning.

He is also someone who is of the opinion that

biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche, for boys it's ejaculation

What's "extraordinary" about that? It's a simple biological fact. It's in every textbook on human biology and sexuality. Who are you to defy science or biology, and why?

and wistfully remarked

I vote for the good old days when you were a man at 15, or whenever you could toss a bale on the wagon by yourself, and you were a woman when you became capable of having babies.

Beats the hell out of the perpetual infantilization of adults we experience today that defines 24 year-olds as "children."

One of our greatest social problems is that we don't allow, much less demand that our children become adults and become responsible for themselves. It's created a society of dependents who are incapable of caring for or supporting themselves who expect someone else, either their parents or the taxpayers, to perpetually support them in their desire to remain forever in that pleasant place where they have no obligations, burdens or responsibilities.

None of that means that I advocate for or approve of child sexual abuse. But then again, to me a sexually mature person is not a "child" by biological definition. The dispute seems to lie in where the line between "child" and "adult" lies, and I'm the only one stating a valid scientific and biological demarcation point for that distinction. You may disagree, but it would be interesting to find out if your disagreement is based in reason, science and biology or in "ick factor" mindlessness because you've never bothered to actually think long and hard about the issues.

[Seth]

I'm curious to know what Seth meant by "sexually active." Others appear to assume it refers to sexual intercourse but I'm guessing it refers to any sexual activity, including with one's self (masturbation). If that's the case then the 50% figure seems fairly accurate.

That is an important question, isn't it? What does biology, reason and logic tell us the meaning of "sexually active" is?

[Seth]

I used to have a gay roommate, Brian. Brian liked to tell me about the man who lived next door when Brian was a boy of twelve. Brian loved to watch him do yardwork, shirtless. He'd sit at his window and spy on the man and he'd masturbate while doing so, fantasizing about having sex with him. I think it's pretty safe to say that, given the opportunity, Brian would have jumped at the chance to shag this fella. There would have been no question that the sex was consensual. He wanted that guy's cock really, really bad.
In another unrelated conversation, however, Brian told me that any adult who has sex with a kid is a sick bastard. Which seemed like a contradiction to me, given that 12-year-old Brian would have done anything to have sex with his man crush. In Brian's mind it was perfectly okay to want this guy sexually. So how did he expect the man to participate in this sex, if such a thing was inexcusable in Brian's mind. If it was okay for boy-Brian to want sex with the man, why would it not be okay for the man to reciprocate those feelings?
I never asked Brian what he thought about this. Wasn't worth getting into. Too touchy a subject. But I think this anecdote illustrates the thorny nature of...I dunno...thorny-natured things, or whatever.

Thorny indeed. Thanks for the anecdote, it's an important piece of the debate in that it demonstrates just how much the "ick factor" can irrationally affect what should be a rational and intellectual inquiry into the subject that does not include personal insults.

[Sælir]

I am just very surprised since I don't think 50% of 12 year old girls have even started their periods.

Does it even matter if it is true? Is it even remotely sane to assert that menses is the measuring stick (No pun intended. Seriously, no.) to determine that in principle it's OK to stick a penis into that girl's vagina? Could we reasonably expect a five year old to give informed consent? Or a twelve year old?

This crap comes from a bloke who approves of menses as being the point in time from which sex with a girl is OK, yet does not rail against dumb age restrictions on matters less important than the chance of becoming a parent, such as driving a car, voting for a political party or drinking alcohol. His opinions are seriously garbled.

No matter. We've had that discussion before, and I can pretty much predict the drift of Seth's reply. Essentially, it will amount to no more than posting the same shit on a different day.

No, of course it doesn't matter. But according to his reasoning they are "ok to screw" when they start their periods so I find it strange that 50% of them have started having sex when less than 50% have started their periods.

Please excuse me for the delay in correcting that assertion, my computer ran out of battery before I could complete my response. I was not able to find the article I cited, but I did find the Guttmacher numbers cited by others and agree that 12 years old is not a good number. However, 14 to 15 seems to be the point where sexual activity jumps up to 30 to 40 percent.

Also, I never, ever said it was "ok to screw," I merely pointed out that biology determines when a person is sexually mature, not the law. What the import of that biological fact is is part of the discussion, not a proclamation by me of anything at all. You just misconstrue it that way because, I suspect, your "ick factor" knee-jerk response is to want to shoot the messenger for even bringing the subject up because it's too uncomfortable for you to even contemplate. I see this sort of prudish, almost psychopathic aversion to even discussing the issue of adolescent sex all the time, and frankly the aversion to rational discussion causes a lot of social problems and may in fact exacerbate the amount of both sexual abuse and adolescent pregnancy.

Knowledge is power, and you don't gain knowledge by being prudish about discussing sex. That's WHY too many teenage girls get pregnant and that's WHY young children are susceptible to sexual abuse by authority figures. Talking about it isn't justifying it, even when I choose to take the Socratic side of the argument by eliciting answers to difficult and perhaps unpleasant questions.

But prudes who can't seem to understand the distinction between discussing something and approving of that thing, which is frustrating and annoying, but not unexpected, should probably just shut the fuck up and let their betters discuss the matter without them. Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Sadly, the number of educated minds in this forum is dwindling towards one very quickly. Soon I'll be the only educated mind here if this thread is any indication.

Yes, you are absolutely right. You never said it was ok and I apologize for saying so. My bad.

You seem to think that I am prudish when it comes to talking about sex. That is not the case. If I was I really would not be discussing this with you, would I?
I don't think it´s prudish of me wanting to protect children from being sexually molested even though that is not always the case when they are having sex this young.
Like I already said I was one of those that started having sex quite early and it was my decision and nobody was taking advantage of me.

If you think I should just shut up because of my uneducated mind

I have not been rude to you and I see no reason for you to be this rude to me.

[Seth]

Yes, you are absolutely right. You never said it was ok and I apologize for saying so. My bad.

Apology accepted and appreciated.

You seem to think that I am prudish when it comes to talking about sex. That is not the case. If I was I really would not be discussing this with you, would I?

I'm not referring to you with those comments. Not at all. In fact you're one of two people who aren't being prudish about it, which I appreciate.

I don't think it´s prudish of me wanting to protect children from being sexually molested even though that is not always the case when they are having sex this young.

It's not. I've never advocated or approved of "sexual molestation" insofar as it might be a sexual assault. I'm merely questioning the a priori assumption that any adult sexual contact with an adolescent is ipso facto a sexual assault. This does NOT mean that I approve of such activity without reservation, merely that I want to see some rational discussion of why such an a priori assumption is rational.

Like I already said I was one of those that started having sex quite early and it was my decision and nobody was taking advantage of me.

My point exactly. Lord Pasternack (whom I miss) has said the same sort of thing.

If you think I should just shut up because of my uneducated mind

Obviously I'm not referring to you at all.

I have not been rude to you and I see no reason for you to be this rude to me.

I did not intend to be rude to you, I was venting about the rudeness and bad behavior, and lack of intellectual integrity on the part of OTHERS in this conversation. Please forgive me for not making that clear.

I deeply appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter civilly.

[Sælir]

Ok, I am sorry, I thought you were referring to me

[Seth]

Ok, I am sorry, I thought you were referring to me

Not at all.

[Forty Two]

16 is the age of consent here in the UK - and you are probably right about two 15 year olds - at least in many cases.

Well, someone would have to explain to me the cases where a boy of 15 would get a criminal penalty for having consensual sex with another 15 year old. If 15 year olds cannot consent even to other 15 year olds, then surely the girl and the boy would be both as culpable. And, if 15 year olds can consent to other 15 year olds, and there was consent, why would the criminal law be involved at all?

[Forty Two]

It isn't a case of subtle shades of consent. Quite rightly the law draws a line with a nod to the context and to the degree of coercion and/or exploitation. Thus a 35 year old guy having sex with a 15 year old girl will land him quite rightly in the poo, whereas a 15 year old male doing the same will either be ignored or at worst have his wrist slapped (metaphorically). The degree or otherwise of compliance of the girl is quite rightly irrelevant, even if she was an enthusiastic participant. That puts the responsibility and the guilt in the lap of the adult male.

Why is it "rightly irrelevant?" Because those who make such claims are prudes?

I think that the conduct of a 15 year old girl would be relevant to sentencing of a 35 year old male (or female). For example, if the 15 year old girl was coaxed and tricked, and didn't do anything to advance the situation, that's one thing, but if she got a fake ID and claimed to be 18, and went out for drinks with the guy and they had consensual sex and filmed it, showing that she was an aggressive participant in wild sex of all sorts... those two situations are different. The 35 year old would be guilty of sex with a minor, but the latter would be deserving of a less harsh punishment (and maybe just probation or a warning), whereas the former would be deserving of a harsher sentence.