Sex with children

[Solamnus]

A most disturbing thought.

I bring this topic to the forefront as I wish to know if anyone in anyway can morally justify having sex with children.

I am carrying on a discussion with several Muslims (who are actually quite rude and insolent but that is beside the point) who say by Islamic Law it is ok to have sex with a 9 year old girl as long as she has "entered puberty."

It is widely taught and accepted that Abu Bakr gave Muhammad his daughter Aisha when she was six years old for marriage, although the actual marriage was not consummated until she was nine. At the time of their marriage Muhammad was 54 making the age difference of 45 years.

So here are the facts:

1)Aisha was 6 ears old when she was given to Muhammad
2)Muhammad was 54 years old
3)He consumated their marriage when Aisha was nine
4)Islamic Law says this is since Aisha was "developed"

Comments?

[JoS]

Different times, different culture. BAck then the age of innocence did not exist for children. You were an adult or atleast doing adult roles like working or stuff by early as 7.

[mrpopenfresh]

You start out by denouncing pedophilia as disgusting, but end up muslim hating. Why? Anyways, this is comparable to the views some catholics have on homosexual, people like the man who wanted to erect that statue of Mathew Shepard (see thread).

[Malachy]

not for politics thread..but hey, you guys could use a little humor in such a topic..either that or somebody is going to beat my ass..oh well

"whats the best part about fucking a 2 year old?, hearing her hip break when you go in!"

anywho, i see absolutly no reason for having sex with children, i mean, wtf would posses you to do so? and secondly, if you do fuck a young child...why? i mean, young girls look just like little boys without dicks. so yeah, thats just sick. i mean, i cannot even concieve what goes through those people's heads. its sick, its wrong, and its unnecisarry, grant it back in the middle ages you would fuck a 12 yr old simply to have an heir. now, people live longer, and theres no real reason to have an heir, because in modern america at least, you dont have to keep the power withint he family, your offspring can find their own

[dudeitsallama]

I think the real question is how do you define the word "children"? Some people are not mature mentally, and sometimes even physically, by age 18. Others become mature in every respect much earlier. I remember hearing a few years ago about an eleven year old girl that gave birth. Can children have children?

[dudeitsallama]

At 10/24/03 10:25 PM, MALforPresident wrote: not for politics thread..but hey, you guys could use a little humor in such a topic..either that or somebody is going to beat my ass..oh well

"whats the best part about fucking a 2 year old?, hearing her hip break when you go in!"

That's a joke? What the fuck is wrong with you!?! Never tell that joke again! I feel dirty just from reading that.

[Solamnus]

At 10/24/03 10:19 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: You start out by denouncing pedophilia as disgusting, but end up muslim hating. Why? :

Hate is such a strong word. Keep in mind, Muhammad is a Prophet from God that sets the precedent that sex with children is A-OK in the Islamic world. Which basically says that God OK's child sex in Islam.

"Different time, different culture." Maybe some will by that. However, what I find most amusing is how my Islamic friends dance around the issue.

I asked whether or not if it ok to have sex with a little girl if she has entered puberty. Nevermind the age (although 9 years old is rather young). If Muhammad did it, does that make it moral even by today's standards. Many of them went off on tangents about beastiality being legal in the United States and Catholic priests molesting kids.

[Solamnus]

If you want to take a peak for yourself go to www.forums.clearguidance.com.

Be warned, it is heavily Anti-American, and Anti-Western all around. They are being watched by the FBI.

[gerbilfromhellll]

who cares if it's anti-american? the FBI can't do shit to them if they're simply anti-american.

but back on topic:

let's take this issue from a different angle: legally, a 17 year old is a 'child' while an 18 year old is an 'adult'. and what exactly is so horrible about them having sex? or an 18 year old and a 16 year old? where EXACTLY (give me some exact numbers) do you draw the line?

[Barry-Fanilow]

I think that having sex with children is wrong. But I think that being a child ends when you turn 17. Its also important on who the "child" is having sex with. If an 18 year old guy and a 17 year old girl have sex the guy can be charged with rape. I think that is wrong but if a 50 year old guy has sex with a 17 year old girl, he should be charged with rape. Child sex below 17 is just fucked up though. (unless both participants are under 17)

[gerbilfromhellll]

so what exactly makes a 16 year old so different from a 17 year old?

[Slizor]

The difference between a 16 year old and a 17 year old is that the 17 year old can wank with both hands.

[clichealias]

No, I dont think there is any justification for pedophilia. I am for the United States' laws on statitory rape. For one, having sex with a little girl or boy, willing or unwilling, is by all means discgusting. The child is not ready for the expierience, and is most likely uninformed about sexual education. It's propostrous to even suggest that it is okay to commit such a crime.

[dudeitsallama]

At 10/25/03 09:36 AM, Foolishfool666 wrote: If an 18 year old guy and a 17 year old girl have sex the guy can be charged with rape. I think that is wrong but if a 50 year old guy has sex with a 17 year old girl, he should be charged with rape.

And why is that? Does the guy being old make the sex any less voluntary? Or is it just that the idea of 50 year old guys having sex makes you sick so you want to make it illegal to ease your mind? The statutory rape law was set at 18 not because anyone having sex before 18 isn't ready to do it but because the law had to protect even the most naive and guillible people that might be talked into sex when they really don't want it. 18 years was the extreme they came up with to cover everyone and so politicians wouldn't have to worry about people bangin' their daughters.

Child sex below 17 is just fucked up though. (unless both participants are under 17)

Why? Sex is sex. What difference does it make if they're the same age or not? I know that it's a disturbing thought for most of us to think of a 40 year old with a teenager but there's nothing criminal about it. Laws are meant to protect us, not to force the governments (or even our own) morality on us. The statutory rape law as it is now is bullshit. Don't get me wrong. If I had a daughter (yes, I know this is topic is getting sexist) I wouldn't want her to have sex before she was at least 18, and I definitely wouldn't want it to be with someone older than she was even then, but it's not the governments job to enforce this. It should obviously be illegal to have sex with really little kids, but once they've reached a certain level of development it should be legal regardless of age. Everyone matures at a different rate. Once secondary sex characteristics have developed, it should be the parents' job to protect their kids, not the government's. I have no sympathy for a 16 that was talked into having sex and then decided she wasn't ready afterwards. You can't rape the willing, as the saying goes.

For anyone who got lost in my rambling, here's a brief summary.
Sex between a 16-year-old and a 50-year-old:
Wrong: yes
Disgusting: very
Should it be illegal: no

[TheWakingDeath]

so i'm a victim of statutory rape? awesome! i'm 17 and i had sex with a 19 yr old. it was fun. if a teenager is talked into having sex with someone older that;s their problem, they're old enough to think logically, if not always abstractly. right now there's this dude who had sex with his teacher when he was 16 and now he's sueing her for rape. what a piece of shit.

[bumcheekcity]

I think we have to use common sense. If a 16 year old and a 15 year old do it consentually, then we shuld just look the other way and accept it. They're shagging. it's what they do, theyre teenagers. Live with it.

If a 54 year olf man has sex with a 9-year old girl. That is paedophilia, that is wrong and that shuld get you a long time enjoying a prison shower room.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 10/24/03 10:25 PM, MALforPresident wrote: not for politics thread..but hey, you guys could use a little humor in such a topic..either that or somebody is going to beat my ass..oh well

"whats the best part about fucking a 2 year old?, hearing her hip break when you go in!"

Dude, thats not even a joke. If I heard it anywere, the guy saying it would get a bloody face in less than 2 seconds. Even if I was high I wouldn't have found it funny.

Worst joke ever.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/25/03 04:53 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Dude, thats not even a joke. If I heard it anywere, the guy saying it would get a bloody face in less than 2 seconds. Even if I was high I wouldn't have found it funny.

Worst joke ever.

No, these are the worst jokes ever:

Sesame Street: Just another porn show in this sick sick world.

Don't think of me as a pedaphile. Think of me as someone who loves teaching autistic children.

Fuck oysters. When it comes to children, candy is the best aphrodesiac out there.

And finally:

If there's grass on the field, lets play ball. (which actually isn't as sick as the other ones, but I've actually seen people abide by this one, so it's much more disturbing.)

However, I honestly feel that people as young as 14 should be allowed to have sex..... as long as they're married. Unmarried sex is only OK for people over the age of 18, because they are capable of being a single parent. Don't wanna be a single parent? Don't have sex till your married. Oh, and fella's, the ball swings both ways. Don't think for a minute you might not get stuck with the kid. If the girl you knock up turns out to be a crackwhore, you're fUCKed, with a capital UCK.

[Barry-Fanilow]

Using your logic you could say what is the difference between a 17 year old and a 16 year old, then, a sixteen year old and a 15 year old, then, a 15 year old and a 14 year old. But whats the real differnce between 14 and 13, 13 and 12, 12 and 11, 11 and 10, 10 and 9, 9 and 8. All the way down.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/25/03 07:09 PM, Foolishfool666 wrote: Using your logic you could say what is the difference between a 17 year old and a 16 year old, then, a sixteen year old and a 15 year old, then, a 15 year old and a 14 year old. But whats the real differnce between 14 and 13, 13 and 12, 12 and 11, 11 and 10, 10 and 9, 9 and 8. All the way down.

I have no idea who you're talking too, so I'll respond and hope it was for me.

Puberty is the line. Married sex after puberty, and unmarried after 18. And just to clarify, under 18 is too young to sign contract, so under 18 sex would have to occur via an arranged marriage.

[Solamnus]

At 10/25/03 07:13 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote:

At 10/25/03 07:09 PM, Foolishfool666 wrote: Using your logic you could say what is the difference between a 17 year old and a 16 year old, then, a sixteen year old and a 15 year old, then, a 15 year old and a 14 year old. But whats the real differnce between 14 and 13, 13 and 12, 12 and 11, 11 and 10, 10 and 9, 9 and 8. All the way down.

I have no idea who you're talking too, so I'll respond and hope it was for me.

Puberty is the line. Married sex after puberty, and unmarried after 18. And just to clarify, under 18 is too young to sign contract, so under 18 sex would have to occur via an arranged marriage. :

Damn this BBS sucks ass. WTF is up with these internal errors?

Anyway, why is puberty the line in of itself? You are saying that as long as a girl has T&A and can get pregnant, then sex is ok. Why? Because it can serve a purpose besides some old man getting his rocks off in a 13, 14 year old girl?

There are many things in this world that are arbitrary. The drinking age, the driving age, the age to vote etc. Sexual activity between adults and younger adults is determined by age because it takes into account biological changes and the emotional stability of the person in question (in theory anyway).

[Solamnus]

At 10/25/03 09:21 AM, gerbilfromhellll wrote: who cares if it's anti-american? the FBI can't do shit to them if they're simply anti-american. :

They are being watched because they are under suspicion for being a communications port to terrorist groups.

And they moved their hate propaganda behind the "Current Affairs" forum. If you are not a registered user, you cannot see all the crap.

The MODS and most of the users that I have come in contact with are simply morons.

[NoMilkToday]

Ok, sex is a consentual act. Usually, a child under 12 or 13, does not have much of even a vague concept of sex, and what can happen from it. Nor do the majority of them know whether it is a personal thing or not. So, muhammed is 54, he is obviously well educated about sex and what it produces, he is also probably aware of rape, and consent. Where as, the 9 year old has little to no knowledge of it, and probably thinks of it as 'gross'. In North America, marriage is different from the middle east, where a lot of marriages are aranged. Now, it seems sick to a lot, if not all of us that the age difference is 54 to 9, in North America, it is morally and legally wrong. I must point out that I do not support this kind of marriage, but it is not my choice to make, nor is it my culture. All bias aside. It is up to that particular country's legal system to give its people the rights, freedoms, and laws it thinks requires. The law does always differ from country to country, and it is a solid fact of living on earth.

[Solamnus]

At 10/25/03 08:03 PM, NoMilkToday wrote: The law does always differ from country to country, and it is a solid fact of living on earth. :

Perhaps, but what you are speaking about is moral relavitism. Are there no universal objective morals that man; regardless of age, color, religion, ethnicity etc, can agree upon?

It is true that certain ideals are different in other cultures, but do you agree that women can be buried up to their head and stoned to death for adultry? Should women have their vagina's sewed up? These are practices and laws of some countries dominated by Islamic Law. And you agree with this by taking a silly politically correct stance, "I don't want to judge other cultures."?

[NoMilkToday]

At 10/25/03 08:17 PM, Solamnus wrote:

At 10/25/03 08:03 PM, NoMilkToday wrote: The law does always differ from country to country, and it is a solid fact of living on earth. :

Perhaps, but what you are speaking about is moral relavitism. Are there no universal objective morals that man; regardless of age, color, religion, ethnicity etc, can agree upon?

It is true that certain ideals are different in other cultures, but do you agree that women can be buried up to their head and stoned to death for adultry? Should women have their vagina's sewed up? These are practices and laws of some countries dominated by Islamic Law. And you agree with this by taking a silly politically correct stance, "I don't want to judge other cultures."?

I do not judge other cultures because I choose not to. Personally, I do not think stoning to death is a good thing at all, it's silly to me. And my opinion on the sewing shut of women's vaginas in these certain countries is also cruel. And a reply to the 1st part of your post, I think that it would be very hard to find a universal objective moral that every human shares. If certain death were a moral, it would be one, but since it is a fact...you get the picture. Again, it is not my culture, so I choose to have no say in it.

[<deleted>]

At 10/25/03 08:03 PM, NoMilkToday wrote: Ok, sex is a consentual act. Usually, a child under 12 or 13, does not have much of even a vague concept of sex

You sir, are gravely mistaken.

[NoMilkToday]

At 10/25/03 08:29 PM, punk_disease wrote:

At 10/25/03 08:03 PM, NoMilkToday wrote: Ok, sex is a consentual act. Usually, a child under 12 or 13, does not have much of even a vague concept of sex

You sir, are gravely mistaken.

Are you the majority of every 12-13 year old on this planet?

And if you meant the consent bit, sex is a consentual act. Rape, however, is a NON-consentual act.

[dudeitsallama]

At 10/25/03 07:39 PM, Solamnus wrote: There are many things in this world that are arbitrary. The drinking age, the driving age, the age to vote etc.

These are perfect examples of imperfect laws that only exist because no one can come up with better ones. The right to drink should be determined by a person's responsibility and their suceptibility to alcoholism. The right to drive should be determined by responsibility, reflexes, and hand-eye coordination. And the right to vote should be determined by intelligence and knowledge of politics. Age really has nothing to do with any of these things. It's only used as the determining factor because the other factors are difficult or impossible to test accurately.

Sexual activity between adults and younger adults is determined by age because it takes into account biological changes and the emotional stability of the person in question (in theory anyway).

Exactly. It's all determined by biological changes and emotional stability. The emotional stability comes doesn't come with age or, in some cases, ever, and it shouldn't be the government's job to prevent people from ever making a bad decision in their lives. The biological changes come with puberty. Some hit puberty at 16 and others hit it at 9. There is no one set age when everyone hits puberty. It all depends on heredity, environment, and nutrition so there shouldn't be a law that states when everyone should be considered mature enough to have sex.

[<deleted>]

At 10/25/03 08:37 PM, NoMilkToday wrote:

Are you the majority of every 12-13 year old on this planet?

Are you the majority of every 12-13 year old on this planet?

Dude, children in America as young as 9 years old are being taught sex ed. I think they might know a thing or two about sex when they reach puberty.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96660,00.html

[Solamnus]

At 10/25/03 08:51 PM, dudeitsallama wrote:

The right to drink should be determined by a person's responsibility and their suceptibility to alcoholism. :

Usually with age, comes wisdom. Of course it is a simple statement that it of itself is not proof. However, older people can handle their alchohol a tad bit better than younger people. They would have the experience or intelligence to know how to handle it. Not to mention biologically. So age does have a factor here.

The right to drive should be determined by responsibility, reflexes, and hand-eye coordination. :

Yes these would be good criteria. But lets face it, growing children are rather awkward in this area. And even 16 year old kids are rather immature to handle an automobile. They are the largest risk to insurers. Again, age comes with experience in the overall grand scheme of things.

And the right to vote should be determined by intelligence and knowledge of politics. :

HA! Good luck with that one. How many adults know what the hell is up with politics? How many political scientists know what is up with politics?
This is a good idea in theory, but I doubt that it can be a practical measure.

Age really has nothing to do with any of these things. :

It is a factor for some of the reasons I mentioned above. Nothing is perfect and usually age is arbitrary.

Some hit puberty at 16 and others hit it at 9. There is no one set age when everyone hits puberty. :

To get back on topic...

Would you take a nine year old girl for your wife and have sex with this child? Why or why not?