Is it OK to have sex with kids?

[Phi for All]

I still assert that the issue of sex is indeed treated differently and not because it is some how more traumatic than anything else a parent can do to a child.

Thinking about the things you listed that parents can do to harm a child, most were abuses of indoctrination. But isn't our sexuality far more fundamental in nature?

 

Our self-esteem, our confidence, our personalities seem more effected by how we view our sexual selves than any belief system. I think it would be easier to spot the kid in a group who thinks he/she is sexually unattractive than it would be to pick out the Westboro Baptist or the KKK child.

 

Perhaps it's because sex is a proscribed possibility with every person a minor sees, as opposed to just being indoctrinated against minorities. For a minor, sex isn't even OK with someone the parents approve of.

[Moontanman]

Thinking about the things you listed that parents can do to harm a child, most were abuses of indoctrination. But isn't our sexuality far more fundamental in nature?

 

I'm not sure why this would make it more abusive to have non violent shared sexual pleasure with a child than indoctrinate them into behaviors that would result in harm or to brow beat them with this indoctrination and destroy their sense of self worth in some way.

 

Our self-esteem, our confidence, our personalities seem more effected by how we view our sexual selves than any belief system.

 

I doubt this, mental abuse can destroy your life and have no sexual over tones what so ever.

 

I think it would be easier to spot the kid in a group who thinks he/she is sexually unattractive than it would be to pick out the Westboro Baptist or the KKK child.

 

What does having sexual pleasure as a child with an adult have to do with seeing yourself as sexually unattractive?

 

Perhaps it's because sex is a proscribed possibility with every person a minor sees, as opposed to just being indoctrinated against minorities. For a minor, sex isn't even OK with someone the parents approve of.

 

None the less the idea that sex is bad comes from what you have been taught, not some instinctive behavior.

 

In this thread i find myself seeming to defend something that i do not condone but the parallels with other sexual myths is difficult to ignore, Not many generations ago for a unmarried woman to have sex was fate worth than death and was supposed to result in some sort of horrendous sexual dysfunction, lack of self esteem, and other mental or personality problems in the woman who was seduced and it was indeed true but not because unmarried sex was in of it's self horrible but the reaction of society to this fallen woman was the real cause of any problems.

 

He was often portrayed as an evil man, a seducer of women, who would use some outside leverage to force the woman into cooperation and she would feel shame and self loathing due to this seduction. Woman were considered not to be able to have consensual sex because they were innocent and easily corrupted.. I see some real parallels here, the assumption that a child cannot have any sexual urges or even find any pleasure and they the child is victim lured into something they have no way of knowing the consequences of...

 

Back then it was because they are women and therefore cannot give consent or some sort of totally circular logic that makes no sense as we look back from our vantage point but it's important to note that back then the "seduced fallen women" were portrayed as victims and told long horrible stories about how they had been damaged by a night of debauchery... they were forced to admit how damaged they were and if they admitted to actually enjoying it then is was due to the evil influence of the man who seduced them, there was no chance they could have just enjoyed the sex, it just goes round and round like a snake swallowing it's tail.... makes my head hurt trying to unravel it

 

To be sure i do know women who to this day refuse to give in and say they were victims when they had sex as a child, because they enjoyed it and often sought out sexual encounters... their main complaint was the reaction of adults

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure why this would make it more abusive to have non violent shared sexual pleasure with a child than indoctrinate them into behaviors that would result in harm or to brow beat them with this indoctrination and destroy their sense of self worth in some way.

You're using the best intentions of one side with the worst intentions of the other. Not a good argument.

 

I doubt this, mental abuse can destroy your life and have no sexual over tones what so ever.

Again, you're unfairly weighting the indoctrination. My point was that sex is something evolution pressures us towards, a biological imperative. Surely that has more weight than religion or extremist social groups?

 

What does having sexual pleasure as a child with an adult have to do with seeing yourself as sexually unattractive?

As a result of being sexually traumatized, a lack of self-esteem is a common result. And I think the person with low self-esteem is more apparent in our society than the member of a secret society like the KKK.

 

None the less the idea that sex is bad comes from what you have been taught, not some instinctive behavior.

I completely agree.

 

In this thread i find myself seeming to defend something that i do not condone but the parallels with other sexual myths is difficult to ignore, Not many generations ago for a unmarried woman to have sex was fate worth than death and was supposed to result in some sort of horrendous sexual dysfunction, lack of self esteem, and other mental or personality problems in the woman who was seduced and it was indeed true but not because unmarried sex was in of it's self horrible but the reaction of society to this fallen woman was the real cause of any problems.

 

He was often portrayed as an evil man, a seducer of women, who would use some outside leverage to force the woman into cooperation and she would feel shame and self loathing due to this seduction. Woman were considered not to be able to have consensual sex because they were innocent and easily corrupted.. I see some real parallels here, the assumption that a child cannot have any sexual urges or even find any pleasure and they the child is victim lured into something they have no way of knowing the consequences of...

 

Back then it was because they are women and therefore cannot give consent or some sort of totally circular logic that makes no sense as we look back from our vantage point but it's important to note that back then the "seduced fallen women" were portrayed as victims and told long horrible stories about how they had been damaged by a night of debauchery... they were forced to admit how damaged they were and if they admitted to actually enjoying it then is was due to the evil influence of the man who seduced them, there was no chance they could have just enjoyed the sex, it just goes round and round like a snake swallowing it's tail.... makes my head hurt trying to unravel it

 

To be sure i do know women who to this day refuse to give in and say they were victims when they had sex as a child, because they enjoyed it and often sought out sexual encounters... their main complaint was the reaction of adults

There's no question that we have a skewed and negative view of sex. I'm not sure fixing it warrants allowing adults to have sex with children, but certainly a more positive and open treatment would help.

 

I think the fact that men can't know if the children their wives bear are truly theirs without constant control plays a significant role in the problem. Historically, it's caused men to over-compensate in bizarre ways.

[Appolinaria]

@ Phi- Thank you so much! Ideally I would use a more pure source, but I'm a little lazy.

Is it not possible to sexually abuse a child without being a pedophile?

 

I can imagine there are a number of other reasons to commit sexual abuse, such as anger or a desire for power. One must also distinguish between pedophilia (which only applies to desire for prepubescent children) and ephebophilia.

http://www.childmole...s/research.html

this is another source from a biased organization..

In the abel & harlow child molestation prevention study, it says that 88 percent of child sexual abuse victims are molested by people with pedophilia.

I don't know how accurate their study is, but the author seems pretty legit.

"Gene G. Abel, M.D. is a full professor of Psychiatry who has taught at several medical schools, including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Abel is currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine.

 

Dr. Abel, who has been a research scientist in the field of sexual violence for more than 30 years, is at the top of his field, both nationally and internationally.

 

He is past President of the National Society for Behavioral Medicine, a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and a member of the International Academy of Sex Research. As full professor, he has been a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, has been on the faculty, and conducted research at several medical schools, including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and Emory University Medical School. In addition, Dr. Abel has trained criminal justice personnel in Georgia, New York, California, Texas, Florida, Maine, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Alabama. He has also trained U.S. Navy and Air Force personnel to manage the sex offender populations in their brigs.

 

Gene G. Abel, M.D. is the Director of the Behavioral Medicine Institute of Atlanta, the Founder and President of Abel Screening, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Co-Founder of The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute.

 

He has presented his research in the United States, China, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Venezuela, Sweden, Germany, Israel, and England.

 

He has been awarded funding to conduct nine major studies. In addition to his work on cardiac control, sickle cell disease and diabetes, the National Institute of Mental Health has awarded him funding for six long-term studies to investigate sexual violence and to design new ways to stop it."

 

Edited October 16, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Genecks]

It's not ok to have sex with children. It's ok to have sex with adults.

Children are those I am defining as individuals within a state of immaturity, naievety, and mis-understanding of their world.

Adults are those who I am defining as individuals with a sense of maturity, understanding of society, and level of comprehension to adapt to worldly situations on their own.

 

In general, I do think 14 being the minimum age for sex to be considerate, but today's cultures tend to keep children immature, naieve, etc... in order to socio-economically suppress them.

 

As such, the modern 14-year-old is much more immature than the 14-year-old of the 1930s or earlier, who had to deal with unpredictable economic, social, and environmental shifts.

 

Could I see myself having sex with a 14-year-old out of lust? Uh, no.

Personally, I don't find that attractive.

 

Anyway, I don't think people of long ago found it attractive.

 

I think finding the young to be attractive is a perverse behavior that has developed out of the 20th century due to eradication and destruction of various conservative/chivalrous belief systems.

 

IMO, sex is extremely time consuming, and even the process of finding the opposite (for heterosexuals) sex can also be time consuming, despite the information age.

I would suspect finding a younger individual would be even more time consuming, so why even bother?

 

And to even take in that younger individual and attempt marriage and enhancing socio-economic status with that person?

I'd think that'd be doubly time-consuming. Which is why people tend to just date people of similar socio-economic status.

 

I think trying to have sex with younger people in this day and age is just stupid and irrational.

What kind of enjoyment could be found with the sexually inexperienced young? Really?

In my experience with women, differing ages, enjoyment is a mixed bag.

 

Of the younger women I've dated, I've found more annoyances; thus, leading to my preference in older women (who aren't paranoid).

 

So, I think it's kind of irrational and time wasting to pursue younger women.

That's my argument.

 

As such, I claim such individuals mentally insane. Book closed.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Genecks

[Moontanman]

 

 

I think finding the young to be attractive is a perverse behavior that has developed out of the 20th century due to eradication and destruction of various conservative/chivalrous belief systems.

 

 

 

 

Really? Can you support this?

 

AS i say again, i am not supporting having sex with kids, although i think Genecks has it totally backwards, how ever it is a fascinating to look at the parallel between the infantalization of women generations ago and the opinions on sex with children today, it quite bizarre to compare the attitudes of that era with today.

 

Phi for all, I remember in those books you mentioned that the main character was doing some soul searching about telling people her views on how woman become pregnant.

 

I think the moratorium on having sex with kids is a modern concept that has developed along with our views on individual rights, when women (and people in general) were property having sex with kids was ok, if you owned them or if you captured them in battle, basic human rights were not as we see them now, the only people who really had rights were adult males and then only if you were lucky enough to be free. The fact that we restrict sex with kids is a testament to humans going beyond the incomplete morals of the past to more enlightened moral of the present, following the steps is fascinating...

Edited October 16, 2011 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

It's not ok to have sex with children. It's ok to have sex with adults.

 

[snip]

 

As such, I claim such individuals mentally insane. Book closed.

Geez, dude, that's a mostly worthless reply. I'm sorry, but you usually do so much better.

 

Your personal preferences really don't interest anyone.

 

Your setting of the age of consent at 14 is completely arbitrary, apart from another opinion about socio-economic oppression.

 

Your speculation on what "people of long ago" thought is completely irrelevant.

 

The thread has nothing to do with marrying children. Arguing against that is a straw man fallacy.

 

The rest of your arguments are appeals to incredulity. The fact that you can't imagine what other people see in something has no bearing on its validity.

 

I don't mean this as a personal attack. Please, please don't take it that way. You have historically given good reasoning but have fallen short here for some reason. Banjofrog based the thread on much more than his personal convictions, so rebuttals should respect that. Please re-read your post and I think you'll see what I mean.

 

I did find this sentence interesting:

 

I think finding the young to be attractive is a perverse behavior that has developed out of the 20th century due to eradication and destruction of various conservative/chivalrous belief systems.

What are these various belief systems? Doesn't chivalry protect all women from male predation or do you think there was special provision for young women?

 

Up until the 20th century, voluptuousness was considered in general to be more attractive than it is today. Mature women with lots of curves were preferred, something a youth can't match. I've always wondered if modern industrial manufacturing and fashion marketing inspired a slimmer, more youthful model for our desires. It's much easier, and therefore more profitable, to manufacture clothing for women of sleek stature. Children mostly start out sleek and develop as they mature. But advertising tells us that a youthful look is best, so use this cream, wear these clothes, don't let yourself get too fat. Recapturing youth may have led us to appealing to youth, and how better to reaffirm your appeal to youth than by having sex with them?

[Moontanman]

Phi for all, this is a difficult topic to discuss, possibly up there with religion and most of us have been so preprogrammed to follow the idea that anyone under the age of 18 is a child (horsefeathers) and that children cannot be sexual beings (a real lie) and the public scorn allows very little room for real debate...

[Phi for All]

Phi for all, this is a difficult topic to discuss, possibly up there with religion and most of us have been so preprogrammed to follow the idea that anyone under the age of 18 is a child (horsefeathers) and that children cannot be sexual beings (a real lie) and the public scorn allows very little room for real debate...

But arguments can be made that use more than personal feelings and speculations. There are real reasons why unchecked sexual access to children is harmful in our present society. And there are real reasons why our present society has a negative view of sex in general.

 

If I've stifled the discussion with my comments, I apologize. It was not my intent to scorn anyone.

[Psycho]

Phi for all, this is a difficult topic to discuss, possibly up there with religion and most of us have been so preprogrammed to follow the idea that anyone under the age of 18 is a child (horsefeathers) and that children cannot be sexual beings (a real lie) and the public scorn allows very little room for real debate...

I don't think it is really fair to compare it with religion, which everyone knows is just made up really has been proved to be.

 

There is a fundamental answer based in science to this question on an individual basis anyway, the problem is this age differs from person to person and therefore you have to set the bar high to encompass most people as with anything rules are designed to protect, whether they work out achieving that in some cases isn't so.

 

I don't really see an argument for being allowed to have sex with anyone who can't full understand the consequences and effects of the actions but at what age that is, is hard to determine. The real problem is that children don't really understand long term consequences such as getting pregnant, so even if you full understand the practicality of the act should they be allowed to be involved without full education of their actions.

 

The ironic consequence of this argument is that most adults are allow to do many things (smoke, drink) without understanding the biological effects that occur, so really is the idea of understanding consequence even relevant.

 

I would personally say that a note of caution should be taken as people are hardwire to try and protect there own from harm and in most cases it has nothing to do with protecting children from the act itself but its consequences both physiological (pregnancy, infection) and social (peer rejection, legal issues, false emotional attachment).

 

Sex isn't actually the problem, it is societies attitude towards it.

[Appolinaria]

I don't think it is really fair to compare it with religion, which everyone knows is just made up really has been proved to be.

 

There is a fundamental answer based in science to this question on an individual basis anyway, the problem is this age differs from person to person and therefore you have to set the bar high to encompass most people as with anything rules are designed to protect, whether they work out achieving that in some cases isn't so.

 

I don't really see an argument for being allowed to have sex with anyone who can't full understand the consequences and effects of the actions but at what age that is, is hard to determine. The real problem is that children don't really understand long term consequences such as getting pregnant, so even if you full understand the practicality of the act should they be allowed to be involved without full education of their actions.

 

The ironic consequence of this argument is that most adults are allow to do many things (smoke, drink) without understanding the biological effects that occur, so really is the idea of understanding consequence even relevant.

 

I would personally say that a note of caution should be taken as people are hardwire to try and protect there own from harm and in most cases it has nothing to do with protecting children from the act itself but its consequences both physiological (pregnancy, infection) and social (peer rejection, legal issues, false emotional attachment).

 

Sex isn't actually the problem, it is societies attitude towards it.

 

 

The idea of understanding consequence is relevant; children are physically inept at understanding consequence.

The biological affects of smoking & drinking are very accessible to any adult. I can't even watch television without seeing anti-smoking ad's riddled with facts on it's biological effects.

[Psycho]

The idea of understanding consequence is relevant; children are physically inept at understanding consequence.

The biological affects of smoking & drinking are very accessible to any adult. I can't even watch television without seeing anti-smoking ad's riddled with facts on it's biological effects.

A person who actively participate on a science forum is hardly a good example of someone who isn't going to comprehend the meanings of the facts given on an advert, however I could find you many people who, though would claim they understand the effects of smoking or drink couldn't actually describe what those effects mean.

 

There is a difference between knowing facts and comprehending them.

 

In relation to the argument surely that should mean they shouldn't be allowed to partake in the activity, yet society say they can even though they are no less naive than a child.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Psycho

[Phi for All]

Sex isn't actually the problem, it is societies attitude towards it.

Oddly enough, I think it was the acquisition of wealth that caused our society to turn sex into an bad thing. Go back far enough and I'm sure early humans didn't even realize that sex was responsible for children being born. It probably took a little longer for them to realize that children were a mixture of two parents. It's not uncommon for nomadic cultures to ignore monogamy in favor of sharing pleasure among groups. Such cultures would have little use for the ownership aspect of marriage.

 

Then came ownership of land and acquisition of wealth. Birth proved who the mother of a child was, but who was the father? Men didn't want someone else's offspring to inherit their wealth, so they began devising ways that gave them assurance that women weren't being impregnated by anyone else. Marriage, vows, stories about women being created to serve men, horrible punishment for women who strayed, slaps on the wrist for men.

 

Now there are no negative words for men who enjoy sex and no positive ones for women who enjoy it. Sex is a conquest for men and the best that can be said about women who submit is that they're "easy". I guess it's no wonder we consciously and unconsciously want to protect our children from such unfairness.

[Appolinaria]

I'm going to give my own opinion on society's views of sex....

I think the stereotypical parent's view on sex in childhood can lead our youth to suppress their first sexual urges & not be comfortable talking about it... they think sex is taboo. I think this leads to a sex-revolved society fueled by curiosity from innate urges that were suppressed.

 

If sex is treated like any other bodily function, like eating, you separate it from your logical self. You say, "I am in a body that needs this." not, "I need this"

 

People are too focused on sex these days. Instead of judging people for their thoughts, ideas, and characteristics that are separate from gender or any other type of physical attribute, they are blinded by superficial things....

 

I think by bringing a normal amount of attention on sex, you actually prevent an unhealthy focus on it.

[Moontanman]

In my life time I've seen our society go from one extreme to another. At one time it was thought that black people were inherently inferior to white people, so much so that a black persons access to nearly everything was restricted. Many argued that to allow black people equality would give them something they were not equipped to handle. Now we have a black man for president.

 

At one time cigarettes were claimed by doctors to be good for coughs, a curative of sorts, now we know cigarettes are a very bad threat to public health.

 

I think it's important in a society to understand the why behind the things we do and believe to be real, far too often in the past emotional reasons have been used in place of evidence and evidence that disagreed with what we "knew" to be true was ignored.

 

I'm not sure what the OP's motives were for this thread but I think it's important to know the why and why not of the question and not assume...

[Appolinaria]

Moontanman, to respond to you with the whole infant being aroused thing...

I still think society's morals should be greater than anything nature seems to imply. The human body is imperfect. We have vestigial organs. Just because a child CAN have sex, or can show signs of arousal, does NOT mean they should be having sex with anyone.

 

Take a random example of Pica. It's an urge to eat non-food (sometimes hazardous) items. It's often brought on by the physical change of pregnancy. So if a physical change explains the urge, it does not mean that the urge should be followed through with... or plenty of pregnant women would be poisoned and die. Just as the physical change of arousal in a child should not mean they should follow through with the possible urge of sex.

 

 

I like to think we are perfect beings, in imperfect bodies. As we evolve, we err away from our natural urges, and use logic to take the place of primitive tendencies.

 

This is just my opinion.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, to respond to you with the whole infant being aroused thing...

I still think society's morals should be greater than anything nature seems to imply. The human body is imperfect. We have vestigial organs. Just because a child CAN have sex, or can show signs of arousal, does NOT mean they should be having sex with anyone.

 

Take a random example of Pica. It's an urge to eat non-food (sometimes hazardous) items. It's often brought on by the physical change of pregnancy. So if a physical change explains the urge, it does not mean that the urge should be followed through with... or plenty of pregnant women would be poisoned and die. Just as the physical change of arousal in a child should not mean they should follow through with the possible urge of sex.

 

 

I like to think we are perfect beings, in imperfect bodies. As we evolve, we err away from our natural urges, and use logic to take the place of primitive tendencies.

 

This is just my opinion.

 

Appolinaria, i am pretty sure I never said infants or anyone else under age should have sex, I did say we should question the reasons why we think things are true.

[Appolinaria]

You link did not say that they could not experience sexual arousal and other scientific investigations dispute this quite nicely, An extensive study in the 1950's showed exactly the opposite with infant females being able to lubricate and orgasm and infant males being able to get erects and orgasm as well. I know that by age five i could both get an erection and have an orgasm and little girls can indeed have orgasms as well.

 

 

I never said you did either. I was just further supporting my argument that it's not OK to have sex with kids, even if they could.... which is what your disturbing facts above imply.

 

I'm almost positive you wouldn't suggest that. I wasn't trying to say you were

Edited October 17, 2011 by Appolinaria

[questionposter]

While I don't condone it as it has a high probability of causing mental and physical damage, if you are truly asking "Is it good or evil to do so?", the answer is whatever you decide for yourself for your perspective and it's also relative. To a kid they may decide it is good or bad, and you may decide the same. Depending on that it is either to either perspective.

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

I came across this video while looking for something else, I'm not sure if it's real or not but it's quite shocking if it is true...

Edited October 19, 2011 by Moontanman

[imatfaal]

I came across this video while looking for something else, I'm not sure if it's real or not but it's quite shocking if it is true...

 

http://www.youtube.c...n_order&list=UL

 

It's a fake

 

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/mass-muslim-marriage.shtml

 

Tim Marshall, the journalist who presented the SkyNews video, was actually there at the mass wedding ceremony. In a blog post about his attendance, Marshall reiterates that the brides were elsewhere, noting that some of them were among the guests. He also writes:

 

The men and women are sitting, Most ignore the speeches, some even ignore the prayers. Then the fireworks explode, the cheering begins, and in march the Hamas scouts, bashing drums, looking every inch the future Hamas fighters many will be. Then the grooms, aged about 18 to about 28. They are holding hands with their young nieces and cousins, little girls aged from about 3 to 8, made up to the nines, wearing white wedding dresses.

 

Up they all go to the stage, the cheering and music grows ever louder. The girls were having the time of their lives, but, getting a little bored after a while, came down off the stage to dance with each other and play games.

[Moontanman]

It's a fake

 

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/mass-muslim-marriage.shtml

 

Tim Marshall, the journalist who presented the SkyNews video, was actually there at the mass wedding ceremony. In a blog post about his attendance, Marshall reiterates that the brides were elsewhere, noting that some of them were among the guests. He also writes:

 

 

 

I am so very sorry to have posted that, and so very glad it was not true....

[imatfaal]

I am so very sorry to have posted that, and so very glad it was not true....

 

No need for you to be sorry - you posted in good faith. The only people who should apologize are the fakers and hoaxers trying to create strife through doctoring videos. I was lucky enough to know good places to check because I had looked around web before on a different video with a very similar rabidly anti-islam slant (child having hand smashed for robbery - which in fact was a well known street magician). I am very against islam - then again I am against all religions - but I hate to see any decision made on the basis of faked propaganda; people should be able to decide that religion is bad based on rational reasons and real facts.

[Genecks]

After a re-reading of my post, I can see how it's faulty.

 

My main point is that I think it's irrational to pursue sex with younger women, because there more than likely is not going to be a pleasurable experience, the amount of time needed to pursue a receptive young female under the age of 16 would be difficult (at least, I would think you would be reported a couple of times), and that attempting to use this younger individual for future sexual experiences may not be fruitful if leading toward increased socio-economic status (unless a person wants to grow up the individual).

 

Pursuing a younger woman would involve asking many, many younger women for sex and/or relationships. That would definitely lead to being turned down a lot, given that the person is not affiliated with the younger person in some kind of social environment (school/work). Thus, the pursuer can expect to waste a large amount of time (thus, me saying why waste such large amounts of time? that seems like a bad decision).

 

But given complete fruitfulness of the situation, say an individual is lucky in accessing younger women, there still is the fact that the sexual experiences may not be rewarding. I suspect if someone finds sex with a virgin to be entertaining, they'll have that experience one time unless they find another young individual to have sex with. If it's an issue of beauty in youth, then sexual experiences with an individual make more sense, as the person finds pleasure in sexual experiences with an aesthetic being that cannot be found in older individuals.

 

Anyway, I'm claiming situations under which I would find it irrational.

 

I'm mostly done with the thread. Hopefully my re-iteration of what I'm saying has provided clarification.

 

Having sex with a younger individual for reproduction, however, would be a very different story.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Genecks

[imatfaal]

After a re-reading of my post, I can see how it's faulty.

 

My main point is that I think it's irrational to pursue sex with younger women, because there more than likely is not going to be a pleasurable experience, the amount of time needed to pursue a receptive young female under the age of 16 would be difficult (at least, I would think you would be reported a couple of times), and that attempting to use this younger individual for future sexual experiences may not be fruitful if leading toward increased socio-economic status (unless a person wants to grow up the individual).

 

Pursuing a younger woman would involve asking many, many younger women for sex and/or relationships. That would definitely lead to being turned down a lot, given that the person is not affiliated with the younger person in some kind of social environment (school/work). Thus, the pursuer can expect to waste a large amount of time (thus, me saying why waste such large amounts of time? that seems like a bad decision).

 

But given complete fruitfulness of the situation, say an individual is lucky in accessing younger women, there still is the fact that the sexual experiences may not be rewarding. I suspect if someone finds sex with a virgin to be entertaining, they'll have that experience one time unless they find another young individual to have sex with. If it's an issue of beauty in youth, then sexual experiences with an individual make more sense, as the person finds pleasure in sexual experiences with an aesthetic being that cannot be found in older individuals.

 

Anyway, I'm claiming situations under which I would find it irrational.

 

I'm mostly done with the thread. Hopefully my re-iteration of what I'm saying has provided clarification.

 

Having sex with a younger individual for reproduction, however, would be a very different story.

 

It's faulty because you seem to be under the delusion that sex is an act that men need to persuade reluctant women into; the dangerous assumption you make that the the only danger involved in a relationship between an older man and a woman under sixteen is that the man wastes a lot of time; and that rationality is to be judged from a single person's preconceptions rather than the end of a reasoned discussion concerning both involved parties.