MrRight>"Sure. Let's change the law and all the traditions to suit the 'bad' guys"

The 'bad' guys used to be homosexuals and black people, not too long ago.

The only point I want to make is... MIUAUG :)

By what ..... do we determine 'age of consent' for sex?

What about 'group sex for kids'? or..adult child sex?

Why not ask "Should sex be before and/or outside of marraige"?

It seems that the MIUAUG crowd always want to 'make it up' in terms of the line of least resistance.

Ok..fine..lets go to the next step.. lower the age of consent to 'physically possible'....now where would that take us? Pre-pubescent children cannot bear children, but an adult can still have physical pleasure with them?

One un-named culture/religion practiced 'thighing' of betrothed female children.. so we could end up with 53 yr old men shoving their penis between the thighs of little girls who cannot yet physically accomodate them, for fun.

Another un-named culture/religion has documented opinions that claim betrothal is based on actual intercourse with a girl who is aged 3 yrs and 1 day but not less....

I mean.. miuaug can take us ANYwhere.....

The "age of consent" seems at best to be a compromise which seeks to both limit the real world age where humans can indulge in sex, in the best interests of society as a whole, and accomodate the practical reality that some people do actually become sexually active sometime after puberty. (although as kids did we not play mummies and daddies and doctor with some peers and 'I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?)

I shudder at where miuaug will take us. This thread is an example of the process.

-Raise the question.
-Realize that the status quo is arbitrary
-Loud voices rule the roost.

There is no 'legal' basis for declaring 'Thus and so' only spiritual and common sense. God forbid that we ever arrive at the point where people claim its 'common sense' for adult child sex or child group sex simply because 'we are sexual beings'.....

Hmm...I'm hearing 'voices'..and I don't much like what they are saying.

Boazy: << Hmm...I'm hearing 'voices'.. >>

No kidding?

Col,

'I can see you being burnt in effigy by the feminist zealots if you were to suggest boys were “mature’ at 14 and girls not “mature” until 18.'

I've always heard that girls mature a couple of years in advance than boys, making the sentences in the cases in my introduction even more out of wack.

'That being said, should we extend that level of maturity to other aspects of life, such as voting and drinking?'
Well I've always thought it unfair that teenage tax payers aren't allowed to vote.

BOAZ,

What the hell is MIUAUG?

All,

I think there are many reasons for the discrepancy in gaol terms. It seems the general consensis here is that the age of consent should remain the same. But you are never going to have a woman doing serious gaol time for sleeping with a 15yo guy.

So what are the causes? Is it women in this situation are only seen as nurturing, not dirty as men are? Is it a young girls sexuality is precious and a young boys not? Is a 15yo guy seen as in an equal power position as a 35yo woman? Can we imagine a 15yo guy being sexually assertive and not a 15yo girl? Are we as a society incapable of processing in our brains a scenario of female as powerful abuser and male as powerless victim, whatever the ages?

See these are the equalities I don't see feminism fighting for. Fighting for women to be seen as equaly capable of commiting crimes, and being equally able to handle the gaol time. Of being equally able to drink responsibly and be responsible for their actions when drunk. Of being capable of instigating domestic violence. We're all very interested in seeing women equally represented and doing anything positive a man can, but pretty reluctant on the negative things.

Maybe while ever women cant be accepted as being in a position of power for the purposes of abusing it, they will never be properly accepted in any positions of power.

Usual Suspect, why oh why did you ask David about MIUAUG?
It's a pet theme of his in which he pretends that he beliefs are none of his own creation or interpretation (and ignores that the older people in his own church have different beliefs about head coverings to the younger ones, ducks for cover when Jesus words about what to do if your eyes are causing you to sin etc) whilst he loudly criticises the fact that others of us are trying to use the best knowledge and to determine how to conduct our lives.

While David insists that a somewhat transient interpretaion of one ancient book is the only basis for working out how to live (and therefore not MIUAUG) whilst those that draw from a much wider range of learnings are missing out.

It's a convenient lie used by David which ignores how much of his own beliefs are based on interpretion, tradition and extension rather than clear and unambigious and irrefutable instruction from his god.

R0bert

*Hmm...I'm hearing 'voices'..and I don't much like what they are saying.*

Sounds like a bit of schyzophrenia has been thrown in there as
well.