Dustdevil Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 I only chase 14 year olds in Canadia, where it's legal. Does that make me a paedo? :dontknow:
Eydawn Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 If your sexual psychology is such that you feel primary attraction to juveniles (male or female) then you have issues. Nuff said. Wendy CO EMT-B
brentoli Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 If your sexual psychology is such that you feel primary attraction to juveniles (male or female) then you have issues. Nuff said. Wendy CO EMT-B Define juvenile... If State "A" says 14 is ok, and State "B" says under 18 is bad.... where does the moral obligation come in? Split the diffrence and go with 16?
Dustdevil Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Wow, a topic where Wendy's personal beliefs are against those of God! This is a landmark moment!
Eydawn Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Those of immature physical and mental development. Legal restrictions aside, one can argue that the immaturity associated with under-17ish mentality can be construed as being still a "child." Someone can be physically attractive due to having had a growth spurt... but who in here is *really* attracted to the inanity of teenage female thinking? Since it's mostly guys responding here... be honest. Physical sexual attraction to 14 year olds is not abnormal or evil... but mentally engaging with that attraction and pursuing it is. Many people pursue sexual relationships with children because children are easier to manipulate and control. You don't have to share the power... just keep the kid from telling. Wendy CO EMT-B
Lone Star Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Those of immature physical and mental development. Hell, that sounds like a lot of adults we all know!
Dustdevil Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 So man gets to make his own laws, irrespective of God's law? I never thought I would hear this ever coming from you!
Eydawn Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Excuse me? Find me three posts where I tried to imply that following the Bible (God's word as I'm thinking you're inferring) is the only regulation that we should adhere to, and that historical or Biblical situations in which marriage occurred at 14 years of age or younger should exemplify our current moral code. Hell, find me even one where I implied or explicitly stated that one should live by God's code alone... I'm not sure where you come off with this angle, but if it makes you feel better about ogling 14 year old children and pretending that they are psychologically capable of having a mature sexual relationship, go for it... In one's personal life, I am for adhering to Biblical tenets or similar spiritual guidance. However, as rich a spiritual resource as the Bible provides, it doesn't provide the sort of complexity that allows adequate governance of our modern era (unless you are a wicked cool theological scholar who can derive subtleties from the text that many of us miss). But back to the actual concept that started this banter... at what age you do feel individuals (regardless of state or country law) are capable of engaging in mature sexual relationships (read- non exploitative) with individuals who are decades older than themselves? Why don't we leave the Bible out of it (unless that's your sole basis for establishing your criteria) so as not to muck up the argument with pointless theological asides? Wendy CO EMT-B
Dustdevil Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 I'm not sure where you come off with this angle, but if it makes you feel better about ogling 14 year old children and pretending that they are psychologically capable of having a mature sexual relationship, go for it... It can't be any worse than an immature sexual relationship with a 25 year old. But if you are implying that man is responsible for establishing an age of sexual maturity (which he is obviously incapable of doing competently, since it changes wildly everytime you cross a state line or national border), then you are implying that God is incompetent of doing so. And to admit the incompetence of God is not something I ever would have expected of you.
Eydawn Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 What then, is what you claim to be "God's age of competence" for sexual consent? And in stating that society needs to establish rules about sexual conduct with children, I did not imply that God had failed to do so. As a matter of fact, I think the real failure we see so often is the failure to use the brains that He gave us for logical thought. To say that any of the statements I have thus made are such an implication is a non-sequitir and a failure to communicate. Wendy CO EMT-B
Recommended Posts