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.

Fractelle, philips and CJ Morgan,

I'm sorry I fed the jackal. I thought he stunk worse than normally.

I think that Spikey has hit the nail
right on the head.

It does appear that Polycarp is setting us up
on this thread - under the guise
of his hypothetical scenario.

The following summary that I came across from the site:

http://poligazette.com/2008/04/14/filing-for-divorce-at-eight/

sums it up:

"I'm almost speechless...there's no other way
to put this; if your culture sees even the
slightest bit of legitimacy in forced marriage of
little girls to older men (whether you are a Yemeni
tribesman or a Texas sect leader, or an Australian
paedophile), then your culture is...quite frankly
evil. I refuse to even entertain the idea that this
particular issue must be looked at from a
"culturally sensitive" point of view. If you treat
women like chattel, you're a neanderthal, and if
you treat little girls like sex toys, you're a
monster. Period."

I've now opened the door for a predictable
reaction...

Spikey perhaps some background reading will help you understand the reaction to PolyBoaz when he starts talking about young girls. The age has decreased by one but the same old themes are there. That opening post sounds a lot like the fellow who sees a shrink to talk about his "friend" who has a problem.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109&page=0#2085 (in particular the paragraph on dogs balls)

or the second paragraph of http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2036

There have been numerous other posts which mention 9 year old girls in a manner which suggests Boazy thinks of them differently to the way most of us do. Truth be told I suspect that most of the posts have been part of an ongoing attack on Islam but I for one would never have considered that a 9 year old girl was sexually interesting let alone more son than an experienced woman.

For a general understanding of Boazy's approach to dealing with young girls see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=50#750

R0bert

R0bert

Thanks for the tip-off.

I begin to see the pattern.

Hi people....

well.. having let the 'drooling sharks' enjoy their frenzy for a while.. hopefully the dust has settled now and we can begin a discussion of this issue.

Foxy.. you were the closest to the point.. by showing an example of how a culture victimizes little vulnerable girls in the name of the example of its founder.

Any revulsion for that incident should be directed towards the person who initiated the practice and thus confirmed it to be 'valid' for all time by that example.

What I'm digging for.. is whether such acts are inherrently 'harmful' and evil.. or wrong.. whichever philosphical term one is comfortable with.

There are those who argue for the non harmful aspects of adult child sexual relations which are consentual..and of course the prime culprits here are Nambla.

Then there is the child sex political party in Holland (if it still exists)

But what disturbs me..is that a speaker invited to a major conference in Melbourne for one religious groups benefit.. says with a straight face..based on the example of their founder...that if a man of that faith today.. in his 50s.. wishes to marry a child of 8 or 9.. who has reached puberty..then it is valid and quite ok.
You may view this at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdc0sCvAfDo
He says this at the 7m 58s point.

Hence.. the subject of this thread.

If it is not always 'abuse' for an old bloke of 50+ to have sexual relations with a child... who has just reached puberty....then we can expect a certain group... to LOBBY for this in the same way they are currently lobbying for polygamy.
This..it is in the public interest for us to be informed on this, and to take responsible political measures to protect our culture and law.

It is not enough to say such a thing is NOW illegal.. democracy provides for changes to the law. We must pre-empt.

SPIKEY.. I'll avoid worrying about your rather colorful adjectives..and return to you a blessing instead.. "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" I'm sure you know who said that.

for your personal attention.. We know the practice is 'illegal' but is it "IMMORAL".. and would you go as far as to say 'evil'.. 'wrong'.. even 'sinful'? or perhaps it is just culturally relative?

Rather than me provide answers... I've thus far simply provided facts and asked for your responses.. what I personally think is colored by my faith.. so to some of you that would be inadmissable as you don't share that faith framework for life or morals.

So..the opinions I seek, for for political purposes rather than faith or religious purposes.

Those who live by a spiritual code and value system know where they stand..and they know when a person infringes that code.. even when the offender belongs to the Church concerned.. as we have all been witness to over recent years. Sadly.. some larger churches have sought to sweep such things under the carpet rather than face them squarely.
Such abominable behavior does not alter a syllable of the Lords condemnation for such behavior, which is absolute.

Polycarp/Boaz

While many issues have shades of grey, there are few which are clearly beyond justification.

Sex with minors is wrong, immoral and abusive of a child's sovereignty.

End of Discussion.

Agree Fractelle.

This is another in a long line of Boazy religion by stealth threads.

For someone to only know where they stand on this issue ie. that this behaviour is wrong because religion says so makes me feel a bit sick.

We all have values systems Boazy just not all of them are based on religion. The irony is that it is mainly religius groups that are advocating polygamy and only religious groups that have married off old sleazes to very young girls.

Polybabble,

Thanks for your gratuitous blessing. But I can live a decent life without that from you of all people.

Today you give us a downright lie: "Rather than me provide answers... I've thus far simply provided facts and asked for your responses.." What!

You provided no facts whatsoever. Instead you provided a spurious and totally manufactured link between a notorious pedophile (although he soon disappeared from your scenario) and his hypothetical marriage with a hypothetical 8 year-old. You asked us to assume that such a marriage was legal (knowing that it is impossible and unimaginable).

To titillate yourself further you hypothesised that the 8 year-old could marry a man of any age and then speculated that groups in Australia could lobby for your fantasy of old men having lawful sex with young girls to become reality through a change in the law.

Now, in how in your wildest imagination can you call that "simply providing facts"?

Your deviousness and dishonesty is further revealed in contrasting your first post where you fraudulently suggest that your posting "...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."

You wanted nothing of the sort because, as you say now, "... what I personally think is colored by my faith..." No medical or psychological works needed after all?

You then set out to lambaste "some larger churches" and you do so "for political purposes rather than faith or religious purposes".

I'll let you have the last word (nearly): "Such abominable behavior does not alter a syllable of the Lords condemnation for such behavior, which is absolute." Would your Lord condemn lying and manipulating people's fears and prejudices?

"Please don't feed the troll".

As soon as anyone provides a "serious" counter to polycrap/Boaz they provide "justification" (in his mind) for his troll topic.

Either ignore him totally, or ridicule him, but please don't "seriously" reply to his interest in underage children . He's "pulling your chain". Please don't feed the TROLL!

I'm afraid that I've got to agree.

This discussion is getting a bit
too strange for my taste.

Polycarp,
If I knew what you were talking about, I might be able to provided a sensible reply.

It's becoming an all too familiar pattern, Boaz.

Even a change of name hasn't had an impact on your fundamental mendacity.

You persist in starting threads with a thinly - very thinly - disguised question, seeking "genuine feedback".

You know, and we know, that you require no such thing.

This one was a particularly nasty example of the genre, but underneath, it is just another tiresomely familiar whack-a-mozzie diatribe.

Others have begun to notice your themes, and have raised questions on their subtext that had previously escaped my notice.

Why are you so fascinated by underage sex? You can't pretend that it is unknown in christian society either, so it is obviously not only the religious angle that attracts you.

And what, pray, is this fixation on NAMBLA? I have been in this world for a good few years, and I've been to many different countries, but I had never, ever heard of NAMBLA until you mentioned them on this forum. And, moreover, you keep coming back to them.

Here is another familiar trait:

>>Then there is the child sex political party in Holland (if it still exists)<<

Boaz, if you don't know that it exists, why on earth do you mention it? Is there some kind of voice in your head that tells you to write all this stuff, that is so urgent that you fail to do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

And you do it all the time. Remember the "founder of Harvard"? Remember the Swedish pastor? It is totally shoddy work.

A few more aspects about you puzzle me, Boaz, when I read your output.

Does your daughter read your stuff? You know, the one you physically abused when she was young. What does she think of your obsession with young girls? Do you talk about it with her?

If she reads this, it would be great if she could let us all know what she thinks.

I'm sure she is smart enough to camouflage her identity, and simply post an opinion for us.

to Fractelle and Pelican...

at least you made a decisive opinion on the matter.

Fractelle alluded to the sovereignty of the child.. and with this I see at least the beginnings of a rational argument.

But Pelican.. this (believe it or not) is not a 'religion by stealth' thread.

When I am arguing with those who support the idea of an old man of 53+ marrying a young barely pubescent child of 8 or 9... I need more than just 'because' as a reason for it to be 'wrong'....

"Child's sovereignty" is a beginning..but I was hoping that some of you might have access to psychological data which would help.

To me.. here is the obvious.

'AGE DIFFERENCE'.... . it just seems ludicrous to think that a fully mature and older male can in any way relate or connect with a child of 9 in any way which is fair to the child who's primary interest is playmates and dolls.

'UNJUST'.. it also seems vastly unjust for a man to give the butt end of his life to a child for a few years..when she has all her life ahead of her.

RELIGION.. while there are those who will passionately defend such a relationship on the basis of their faith and the example of their founder, there is no such example or teaching in the Bible about such things... in fact there is teaching specifically against harming children.

PSYCHOLOGY.. the fact that some of you have a strong eeeuuwww factor in your responses..should embolden you to actually condemn this practice, and speak out AGAINST anyone who promotes it.

Predictably.. the most speaking out is against 'myself', rather than those who promote this.

Spikey.. your coloful and lengthy post did nothing to add to the discussion.. please do better next time.

Polly/Boaz

I see your name change has in no way lessoned your patronising attitude towards the intelligence of other posters, nor has is decreased your arrogance.

As for your claim: "..should embolden you to actually condemn this practice, and speak out AGAINST anyone who promotes it."

Many of us do, but not to trolls.

Polybabble <<Spikey.. your coloful [sic] and lengthy post did nothing to add to the discussion.. please do better next time...

OK how's this then?

You are a liar who has no cred. (Not one adjective and not one word longer than four letters.)

Spikey.....

you still added nothing.. and your hysterical outburst actually proves your accusation.. but on you..not me.

I hope I never need medical attention from one so apparently unstable.

"Liar"? that's a pretty serious allegation.. Evidence?

Fractelle.. I really don't mind how you speak up.. only that you do so.

You made a good start.. pity the end is so lame.

I found some interesting material in further searches about this.

One analayst said that abused children tended not to highlight the sexual aspect, but rather the complete absense of help in knowing how to categorize what happened to them.... the result was alienation, confusion, guilt.. fear.. etc.

If this is true..(and I've not verified it further) it suggests that sexual relations between adults and children could be acceptable if the adult community told them it was.

This is a cult where the adults do in fact teach that.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5575131&page=1

It seems to me that the core issue in this is the most obvious.. that of age difference and fairness.
If young people marry at say 15 (Male) and she 12.. the adults can support them all the way through to maturity.

I cannot imagine a grandfather in marrying a child.. It just does not seem right on any level.

Pollybabble: <<"Liar"? that's a pretty serious allegation.. Evidence?>>

Here are six of the best.

Lie 1: <<I'm floating this thread as a result of the Dennis Fergason affair.. and am seeking genuine feedback regarding the issue of child abuse.>>

Your thread had nothing to do with Denis Ferguson and you are not seeking genuine feedback on child abuse.

Lie 2: <<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.>>

Australian marriage law makes it illegal to marry at that age; and immigration law will not allow ‘married’ coupls of that age into Australia.

Lie 3 <<This question and discussion forms part of some research and serious responses only would be welcome.>>

This discussion was not part of some research. You made that up.

Lie 4: << Rather than me provide answers... I've thus far simply provided facts and asked for your responses.>>

You provided no facts; and your contributions are full of your own ‘answers’.

Lie 5: << this (believe it or not) is not a 'religion by stealth' thread>>

You take every opportunity to proselyise and this is no exception. I rejected your insincere blessing.

Lie 6: << you still added nothing>>

Yes I did. I exposed you for a liar and a fraud – yet again.

Spikey: << I exposed you for a liar and a fraud – yet again >>

Indeed. That's the "all too familiar pattern" of mendacity to which Pericles alluded. Same old Boazy, same old porkies.

All that's changed is the pseudonym.