Dear friends.. I'm floating this thread as a result of the Dennis Fergason affair.. and am seeking genuine feedback regarding the issue of child abuse.

The question is very simple. If.. Dennis Ferguson approached some parents, who had an 8 yr old daughter, and asked to marry her, and they agreed.. and he did.... which in Australia would be against the marriage act which has a minimum age of 18 unless a magistrate agrees that 16 can be ok. Below that age it is unlawful. But for the sake of this exercise.. let's assume Australian law does allow it.

Victorian law does provide for it not being a crime of 'child sexual abuse' if the man is married to the child of below 13 yrs.
There is no upper limit on the age of the man concerned.

So..is there some kind of basis on which the idea that an old man having sexual relations with a child in marriage is not abuse or is abuse? Is it the sexual act which is abuse..or the fact that he is not married to her?

This question and discussion forms part of some research and serious responses only would be welcome. They should include references to medical or psychological works in support of the case for or against.

Obviously, if it is not the sexual act which is abuse.. then there is no reason why various groups should not lobby politically for a reduction of the age of marraige to such an age...is there?

PolyBOAZ

What a cheap, salacious and perverse piece you've manufactured today!

First you construct a hypothetical marriage proposal between Dennis Fergason (sic) and a hypothetical 8 year old which is hypothetically consented to by her hypothetical parents.

You know such a marriage is totally illegal in Australia. But you pretend you are "seeking genuine feedback regarding the issue of child abuse".

So your next ploy - "for the sake of this exercise" - knowing it would never be allowed, is to propose that we all " assume Australian law does allow it". A preposterous assumption.

Then you twist the legal facts: "Victorian law does provide for it not being a crime of 'child sexual abuse' if the man is married to the child of below 13 yrs." You know the marriage age is 18 or 16 with legal warrant.

Then you try to plant the fiction in our minds of an old lecher - "no upper limit on the age of the man concerned". Why not a young man? Not part of your real agenda?

Then you put forward a pair of repulsive options:

(a) Is "the idea that an old man having sexual relations with a child in marriage is not abuse or is abuse?" or

(b) "Is it the sexual act which is abuse..or the fact that he is not married to her?"

Next you pose as a serious scholar: "This question and discussion forms part of some research and serious responses only would be welcome. They should include references to medical or psychological works in support of the case for or against."

Finally, you get to your punch-line: "... there is no reason why various groups should not lobby politically for a reduction of the age of marraige to such an age...is there?"

And by now, we all know who you mean, don't we?

The only indecent exposure you've shown today is your own sick mind.

Polycarp,
There is exemption to the age of consent when sex is conducted in a legally recognized marraige. Australian citizens can be charged with child sexual offences (below 16 years)when overseas, however there are a number of exemptions, one of those being marraige. In many countries in the Middle East, the minimum age for marraige is 14, and is socially acceptable in those cultures. Some countries have no legal minimum age, however it is culturally unacceptable before the child has reached puberty.

Please don't feed this troll anymore -

He (Polyboaz) is clearly getting off on his ideas.

I agree. It is not, I repeat **NOT**, a serious attempt at discussion.......he is TROLLING (probably to gain some type of perverse attention).

I ask that people here not give succour to him by responding "seriously" to his trolling.

Yeah - this is just another sick and sad Boazycrap troll.

Let's not feed him.