The Age of Consent
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You said: “The average in the West today is around 12-13. What do you think was the typical age of puberty for sixth century Arabian nomads?”
Do you know who is the youngest mother in the world? She is Lina Medina – a Peruvian girl who delivered a baby when she was 5 years and 7 months old. SO yes, while there can be average age for puberty, some girls can be an exception to the norm.
Moreover, why do we have to dispute about the sexual maturity of girls in those times, when Ayesha herself says it is 9?
So it was moral then but not now? Christ on a bike...again I must ask, are you being deliberately obtuse?
I think we have established that Jo and Royism are twin souls. Doppelgangers of the amoral. They will both use any amount of lies, obfuscation and hypocrisy to promote their individual iron age religions.
Both of them are prepared to sacrifice their own children on the altar of their supposed god. It says more about their moral turpitude and their miserably perverted god than it does about modern standards of behaviour.
Jo attemts to excuse racism and genocide, Royism attempts to justify pedophilia and misogyny, not much to choose between them really.
At least the lurkers are getting an eyeful of their true beliefs.
Even if you were to somehow convince us that because it was ~1500 years ago that it is okay for some old man to marry a girl and have sexual intercourse with her before she was even 10 because that was "normal" back then in that area, all you did was further evidence just how horrible it was in that area back then and that we should all shed such thinking of 1500 years ago as barbaric, and that we are all much better and more evolved.
Or put another way, even if you were to "win" this argument, it is further evidence that your religion, and well just about any religion/culture back then were seriously broken/flawed. This is obvious to just about any atheist, why isn't it to you and all the other billions that subscribe to these ancient religion ideas? Would you trust a doctor with 1500 year old tools and medical knowledge over a doctor with all the modern tools of today? -- I would hope not!
You said: “Or put another way, even if you were to "win" this argument, it is further evidence that your religion, and well just about any religion/culture back then were seriously broken/flawed.”
If the situation 1500 years ago was such that early marriage of girls was an optimal solution for the society and the individuals, then the religion is not flawed.
Secondly, if the religion allows you to decide the age depending on the changing circumstances over the centuries, then it only shows the wisdom of its proponent, unlike many in this thread who are insisting on making universal moral judgments through their narrow lenses.
Are you seriously going to try and argue that 52 year olds having intercourse with 9 year olds was "optimal"? for the time? Optimal for 52 year old pedophiles maybe. But as supposed moral standard religious leaders, or for the little girl I would most certainly think not. 9 Year olds have died from intercourse with old men, never an optimal scenario.
Then you build the rest of your argument on the first point that it was optimal. So what's your new argument now that your last argument has collapsed under the weight of the ridiculous notion that it was "optimal" for the time?
You're lying again, the only person here trying to claim morality is objective is you. Though predictably you're unable to offer a single example or any evidence, just a facile chess analogy that is beyond absurd. Unless you think the humans sho evolved the rules of chess were omniscient and omnipotent, not to mention the rules are arbitrary as humans simply made them up.
Everyone would be laughing at your analogy if you weren't so dishonest in ignoring their critiques of this facile fallacy.
@ROYISM: Seriously do you know anything at all about the origins of your supposed faith? You sit on here and babble like you have no idea at all what you are talking about. You ask inane questions and throw out 1000 year old debunked apologetics like you were giving out candy on Halloween night (OOPS - MY BAD - YOU WON'T GET THAT REFERENCE) Offering appologetics like hurling stones at a woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night.
I am going to call it a day with you. Your constant attempts to justify the the sexual molestation of a 9 year old and the sale of a six year old to a demi centenarian is as sickening as it is ( I hope) not truly reflective of your views.
1. Do you think that the marriage of a six year old to a 50 year old man is moral?
Answer: "YES" with equivocation
2. Do you think the sexual penetration of a nine year old by a 50plus year old man is moral? 'Married' or not?
Your answer: YES
3. Do you think a six year old can give informed consent to sexual acts such as "thighing?"?
Your answer; "YES"
4. Do you think a nine year old can give informed, free consent to full penetrative sex with a 50 year old man?
Your answer "YES"
5. Are there any circumstances that you can explain where such acts are ethical and moral?
Your answer? YES
You then asked me several vapid questions which I answered fully and with references to the papers and authors of several works on cognisance and maturity of the child.
And that is the difference between us and our morals. I rely on the studies since the 1930's of child psychologists,child development specialists such as Maslow, medical experts and professionals in early childhood development to inform my decision.
No legislation can be perfect but at least I support legislation that puts the welfare of the child first and foremost. It is the MORAL approach.
ROYISM, you,on the other hand rely on a collection of texts that were, in fact, allegedly recited by the very pedophile you seek to defend. You have no other defence except a 1400 year old collection of camel herders stories about the same pedophile.
Your constant equivocations to direct questions merely painted you in your true colors. They should be solid red, for shame, Royism, for shame.
I sincerely hope that one day you will wake up from your amoral slumber and embrace your humanity if it hasn't shrivelled beyond recall.
@Old Man Shouts
You said: I am going to call it a day with you.
COP OUT!!!! You could have at least attempted to answer that last question I posed - but then again, if you had answered it, the forum would have seen the naked hypocrisy of your arguments and tirades against a marriage that happened 1400 years ago. And for those of you who might have missed that question, here it is!
IS YOUR AGE OF CONSENT A UNIVERSAL STANDARD THAT CAN BE APPLIED FOR ALL TIMES, ALL PEOPLES AND ALL REGIONS?
You said: As I have iterated before read the WHO recommendations.
We are talking the rights and protections of the child based on years of research and practical experience. It is the MORAL approach."
Fine. At the end of all that tomes of research... does it say that it's a universal document on the age of consent? That's all I want to know.
You said: This conversation is over.
I can understand why you are eager to do so. You don't have answers to any of the questions i raised.
IF you took your nose out of your camels arse and read the WHO reports, the UN declaration on the rights of the child, and then went and actually read Maslow followed by the links I have already supplied you wouldn't ask such fucking stupid questions.
All your questions have been comprehensively answered , once you read the above.
Just because you wilfully remain ignorant and facilitate pedophilia does not mean the rest of us should pander to your iron age barbarism.
You say everything except a simple answer to a simple question. IS YOUR AGE OF CONSENT STANDARD UNIVERSAL FOR ALL TIMES, PEOPLES, AND PLACES?
If you do not understand the argument don't ask the question.
My moral choice, based on research into the development of the child both physical and psychological, from the beginning of the 19th century is that the penetration of a pre teen female by a 53 year old male is criminal regardless of time and place. I have the luxury of hindsight.
You have made no effort to establish the moral choice, instead relying on iron age oral 'tradition' which just happens to suit pedophiles and misogynists.
The saddest thing is witnessing someone as obviously intelligent as yourself refusing to disavow the mistakes and indecent behaviours of the past and attempting to pass them off as moral behaviour in the present.
Your qu'ranic hermeneutics are of no use to you when confronted with the raw choices which I put to you and which you failed as a parent and a human.
You and Jo should form a hermeneutics club and decide which amoral code you should both follow...
You said: “My moral choice, based on research into the development of the child both physical and psychological, from the beginning of the 19th century is that the penetration of a pre teen female by a 53 year old male is criminal regardless of time and place. I have the luxury of hindsight.”
I want you to answer the question I posed you, not the question you have framed for yourself. IS YOUR STANDARD UNIVERSAL FOR ALL TIMES, PEOPLES and PLACES?
Which means any male adult who has ever entered into a relationship with a girl younger than 16 has committed rape. Is that your position?
Your hysteria does not work.
I can condemn the behaviour of the past and ensure it does not repeat.
You, on the other hand want every one to subscribe to your 7th century ignorance, and pretend, somehow it is moral.
Repeat questions of the same strawman are indicators of your blindfolded desperation.
@Old Man Shouts
Still waiting for the answer!!!!
IS YOUR AGE OF CONSENT A UNIVERSAL STANDARD FOR ALL TIMES, ALL PEOPLES AND ALL PLACES.
how fucking stupid are you? Read my fucking replies.
Unlike you and your ridiculous and misogynist religion I do not attempt to impose unevidenced beliefs on any one else.
I gave you the sources, you have yet to read them. I suspect because you know very well that knowledge will trump your superstition.
IF you want to believe that a six year old can give informed and full consent to marriage, and then sexual activity with a 53 year old man, then it is ypur sickness not mine.
Now go read the links I gave you, inform yourself, and try and behave like a moral human not a religious robot. FFS.
@Old Man Shouts
Every time i see your post, I open it with the hope that finally I will have some answer. But I find expletives and ad hominems aplenty... and nothing by way of even a feeble attempt at answering my question.
So here it is again. IS YOUR AGE OF CONSENT A UNIVERSAL STANDARD FOR ALL TIMES, PEOPLE AND PLACES?
Asked and answered if you read the links.
16 is of course an arbitrary age the law sets for consent in some countries, but lets not forget here that you're advocating raping children as young as 6 as a superior objectively moral alternative. Though of course you don't want to pimp out your own children, hence your desperately moronic chess analogy.
You said: “16 is of course an arbitrary age the law sets for consent in some countries, but lets not forget here that you're advocating raping children as young as 6 as a superior objectively moral alternative.”
If it’s arbitrary, you are conceding that it’s not a universal standard for all times, places and peoples. But then you immediately contradict yourself by judging a marriage that happened 1400 years ago as ‘rape’ using your arbitrary measure as some kind of a universal benchmark.
How can I be conceding something I have always stated as a fact? You keep dishonestly implying atheists don't think morality is arbitrary and subjective, but only you and other theists espouse this lie. What's more each time you're told this you ignore it and rehash the lie. You also ignored the point I made that despite setting the AOC at 16 being an arbitrary legal benchmark, it is by any objective standard a better moral benchmark than you glibly stating raping children of 6 is perfectly moral, not even rape in fact if you marry them.
Rape is sex without consent, how exactly is that arbitrary you clown? It's hardly my fault your grotesque religious beliefs have you making the vile assertion that children as young as six can give informed consent to sex, let alone with a vile paedophile predator in their 50's. Again to reiterate Nyearl's earlier point your views on consent are very worrying. It's telling though that despite your endless circular superstitious bullshit, you can't recognise that causing lifelong emotional and psychological trauma by victimising a child in the worst possible way is a benchmark for immoral behaviour....LEAVE IT TO A THEISTS.
Royism, I posted this question in the middle of this string but am really curious so don’t want you to miss it. I’ve included some additional questions.
Royism, is there a spreadsheet available to show us what actions are ‘objectively’ moral today, tomorrow, and twenty years from now in the U.S.A., in Yemen, in Norway?
How are we supposed to know? If the guidebooks were written centuries ago, do they apply only to behavior then? Like the marriage of a nine year old? The book doesn’t specify that this is a rule that is era-specific. When, for example, did it become ok to eat shrimp? How were we alerted about this rule change?
Where’s the playbook?
You said: “Royism, I posted this question in the middle of this string but am really curious so don’t want you to miss it. I’ve included some additional questions.”
It’s such a relief to hear a tone that’s balanced, civil and non-aggressive. I don’t labor under any illusion that you are agreeing with my viewpoints, but at least your courtesy is extremely heartwarming. Thank you.
You said: “Royism, is there a spreadsheet available to show us what actions are ‘objectively’ moral today, tomorrow, and twenty years from now in the U.S.A., in Yemen, in Norway?”
My morality is derived from my scriptures. So, what is stated in it is the universal moral code for all times and all places (of course that’s my belief).
You said: “How are we supposed to know? If the guidebooks were written centuries ago, do they apply only to behavior then? Like the marriage of a nine year old?”
The book doesn’t just talk about behaviors, but covers a wide range of topics that touches every aspect of human life including marriage, divorce, economy, trade, politics, war, social relations, family ties, dress codes, sexual mores, charity… and you name it.
You said: “The book doesn’t specify that this is a rule that is era-specific. When, for example, did it become ok to eat shrimp? How were we alerted about this rule change?
No, I think you have got me wrong. The book doesn’t say that any rule is era specific. Then the question is, how do we know which rules are applicable to which era? The answer to that is that the rules are not applied based on the era, rather the context at hand. But as contexts change with time, the application of rules appear to change with time. Let me explain with an example.
Does Islam allow you to ride a camel? Yes, the ruling is that it is permissible, and it was the main means of transport in the days of the prophet.
Fine. Fast forward to our times. A man decides to take his extremely sick mother (who has suffered a heart attack) to the hospital on a camelback. This in spite of the fact that a taxi is available for this purpose. From an Islamic perspective, what this man’s doing would be deemed ‘Haram’ or ‘prohibited’. What makes it so is derived in the following way:
In Islam saving a human life is of the utmost priority.
By using a camel (when a taxi is available) puts the life of the old woman at great risk.
This way, the use of camel becomes prohibitive in this context.
Do you see, how a ruling that allowed the use of camel (even if it was for the purpose of transporting the sick) back in the days of the prophet, becomes prohibited in our times?
And in order to derive this ruling, the basic principle need not specify the era.
You said: “Where’s the playbook?”
It’s the quran and hadith. If you can explain what exactly you mean by playbook, perhaps I can shed more light.
Royism, you wrote, “The book doesn’t say that any rule is era specific. Then the question is, how do we know which rules are applicable to which era? The answer to that is that the rules are not applied based on the era, rather the context at hand. But as contexts change with time, the application of rules appear to change with time. Let me explain with an example.”
So, applying the rules based on the context at hand seems an awful lot like an interpretation needs to take place. In that case, subjectivity certainly comes into play.
If two or more folks determine, based on these writings, different actions to be moral/correct, how do you determine which is correct?
Aww CyberLN beat me to it with her response to you.
So to add to CyberLN's excellent point:
An ancient highly edited, highly translated and edited book of which there is zero objective evidence to support that this book is actually nonfiction. Worse still: people are left to interpret this highly edited, translated, etc fictional book to how they think it should be for any given era, seeking guidance not from "god," as depicted in these books, but from "scholars" to interpret how the book best translates to their particular era. ("God" is completely mute these days, but don't feel bad this is true for all of the 1000's of popular religions these days.)
And what are we down to? Arguing over interpretation of a book that makes it "okay" for a 50+ year old man, (central to the story,) marry and have sex with a girl under the age of 10. Wow, the ability for religious folks to rationalize never ceases to astound me. I would actually rather hope you are simply doing a good job of trolling for responses then think you actually believe what you write.
Even game of thrones with all its incest, rape, torture etc etc is not as bad as this story, and Game of Thrones never pretends to be anything other than purely a work of fiction.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
You said: “So, applying the rules based on the context at hand seems an awful lot like an interpretation needs to take place. In that case, subjectivity certainly comes into play.”
The application of an interpretation in and of itself doesn’t make something subjective. There is an interpretive process in every field of knowledge. The question is do we have a systematic interpretive process that can be consistently applied.
That’s why I gave you the example of how the interpretation is applied. Probably, if you give me an example that you find problematic, then I can explain how it can be interpreted in a consistent manner.
You said: “If two or more folks determine, based on these writings, different actions to be moral/correct, how do you determine which is correct?”
Can you give me an example.
Royism, you wrote, “You said: “If two or more folks determine, based on these writings, different actions to be moral/correct, how do you determine which is correct?”
Can you give me an example.”
You don’t need an example to tell me what mechanism folks should use when there is a difference in interpretation resulting in multiple and differing paths of action. Is there a mechanism? If so, what is it? Is it different based on the particulars of the dilemma? If that’s the case, then I return to my question about a spreadsheet of some sort that lets folks know which mechanism to apply where.