Ever Notice

[sun rise]

I hope people will read scriptures fully and see how the teachings about one-ness and love sublate the war situations completely.
...
And then there is another level. This world is a mere stage where dream plays get enacted. Getting stuck in a painful dream character and forgetting that it is play is very very painful. So, how does one get out?

The inner core of all religion focused on the various spiritual groups are all about that whether they be yogis, sufis, mystic Christians and so forth.

But, the religion of Islam is responsible for a large quantity of terrorist attacks. It's a simple statistical fact that Islamists are the most violent of all religious groups.

That's true today but has not been true in the past. And it's only true in some nations whereas in others such as the USA there's a different set of circumstances.

A fair question is what has been the cause of the rise of such fanatical groups as ISIS and al Qaeda and what is the best way of combating that evil.

 

[nPeace]

Depends on why they can't sign contracts. If it's because they have the mental capacity of a 9-13 year old, many would argue that they cannot.

So if their mental capacity is above 13 they can?
When will the goal post stop moving.
Like I said before, there is no morality based on this reasoning.

It is expected though, that morality determined by humans will always have these problems, since it can only be based on human wisdom, which vary from person to person.

Morality however, is not based on human reasoning. It is fixed by the maker of mankind, who has the right to determine for them what is morally right from wrong, but from early in human history, mankind rejected God's right to set guidelines for them. It has led up to this point.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So if their mental capacity is above 13 they can?
When will the goal post stop moving.
Like I said before, there is no morality based on this reasoning.

It is expected though, that morality determined by humans will always have these problems, since it can only be based on human wisdom, which vary from person to person.

Morality however, is not based on human reasoning. It is fixed by the maker of mankind, who has the right to determine for them what is morally right from wrong, but from early in human history, mankind rejected God's right to set guidelines for them. It has led up to this point.

I haven't shifted anything. Sorry I didn't enable your sanctimonious point.

 

[nPeace]

I haven't shifted anything. Sorry I didn't enable your sanctimonious point.

Sorry. I need to remember that people around here can get quite touchy, especially when they are not throwing darts.

I'll remember to leave out the little things that can set one off next time.
If it makes any difference, I take back the second line in my post.

Peace to you.

 

[SomeRandom]

Can you give me some evidence that would establish what you say as fact? Thanks.

Fair enough. I should have included that the first time. My bad.
The impact of child sexual abuse on mental health
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED341908.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-98633-000 (I can't seem to access the research on this link. Is this because I'm not American or a psychologist?)
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
The Lifetime Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse and Sexual Assault Assessed in Late Adolescence - ScienceDirect
Sexual and physical abuse in childhood is associated with depression and anxiety over the life course: systematic review and meta-analysis

The link to journals.sagepub seem to have a plethora of different studies pertaining to child abuse just in general.

We live in a changing world - a fast changing world. What was normal in the past, is no longer normal.

Yes, like a more sophisticated definition of informed consent and allowing minors to drink and smoke have changed over the years. Even within my short lifetime.

When I was a boy about 5, 6, we - boys and girls, were doing things we ought not. We were experimenting I suppose. Till this day I cannot tell you where I got the inclination to do these things. I know it had nothing to do with abuse, and I feel sure that was not the case with the girls either.

Children experimenting is as old as the human species. But that's mere child's play. It even makes an appearance in literature (Brave New World.) Like meh.

Abuse is not always involved.
I personally know of someone who was exposed to things of a sexual nature from an early age, and sought out companionship with an adult. Of course, I believe this would not have happened if the parents were more involved in the child's life, and I think this is one of the main reasons why so many young ones find themselves in these situations.

I don't know if I can agree that abuse is not always involved. An adult having an inappropriate relationship with a minor is quite literally said adult taking advantage of the child's lack of experience and naivety. And again, any adult who can stomach having sex with a child is a pedophile or ephebophile or hebophile, depending on the age of the child. Any other adult will be thoroughly disgusted.

And neglect is actually a known factor in allowing abuse. I think that was included in one of my links!

If you are calling this abuse, or if you are saying that a child being exposed to sexual images early in life - especially when it has little parental guidance, i can understand that, but I don't recall being exposed to pornography. I don't recall being abused, and I have very loving parents, so I cannot blame it on abuse.
The truth is the world is a perverted mess, and this is what young people have to grow up in.

Please, I grew up watching random arthouse/grindhouse movies. Being exposed to sexual images deliberately by an adult is abuse, sure. But sometimes it's just a lack of parental control. I mean I grew up before parental blocks on TV was a thing. Meh

If a child has a parent that is a prostitute, she may not be abused by the parent, she may just be an observant child, and she may even be a "smart" child (they are a lot of those. some even know more about the computer than their parents, and know the ins, and outs, of how to hide their activity, how to bypass security etc. Some are fast learners. some are tricky, and some are bored stiff, and want excitement). Children experiment and learn from experience.

Again experimenting among one's peers is one thing. An adult actually choosing to have sex with a child is another thing entirely. A "normal" adult is not going to be "seduced" by a child, no matter how developed. Like get real.
A child is generally not held accountable by law (although America seems to try minors as adults for more extreme crimes, depending on their age. Which is rather controversial.)

So when we say it is okay, for example, for two men to be married to each other, or two women, and have children, expect that the children will be taught by their <choke> "parents".
Do not be fooled into thinking that men and women were sitting down waiting for the state to legalize this abomination. Men and women have been raising their children in these kinds of environments for years. Children imitate what the see. Do you consider that abuse?

Not really. The so called "Nuclear Family" is not even 100 years old and is a purely Western phenomenon. In the East family units include aunts, uncles, grandparents and other family. So this whole, oh noes two men or two women are raising kids thing, is technically already thousands of years old anyway. And homophobia is not family values, it's the new racism. Ew.

Can a child make an informed decision?
Imo, Yes.
Any child with intelligence that is taught, can make an informed decision. It depends on how well the child is taught, and the child IQ.
So can any child give informed consent?

Okay, let's get down to brass tacks. A minor is someone under the age of 18, yeah? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Maryland does have statutory rape of minors as a general law, right? Meaning whilst there are certain exceptions, like examples pertaining specifically to their own physical and mental health, minors still are unable to give consent to a sexual relationship according to the law (unless they are emancipated.) Also pretty sure a 9 year old wouldn't have that much control over their health,regardless, due to basic ignorance. A teenager, who is also considered a minor until the ages of 16-18, probably has a better chance of handling that. So I think the usage of the word minor in such circumstances is probably closer to referring to a teenager than a 9 year old child. Just saying.

Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements
Now disclaimer, I'm not American, so please forgive me if I got that wrong about the state of Maryland.

And you know there are different types of intelligence, right? And just because someone is book smart or has a high IQ does not necessarily mean they are able to comprehend the social and/or emotional consequences of say a sexual relationship. Which a child who has never had an adult one simply is too naive to truly understand. Thus I question the implication that just because they're smart means they can sign contracts or drive cars or drink or have fully informed consent.
Difference Between Smart and Intelligent | Difference Between
EQ vs IQ - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Social Intelligence vs. Emotional Intelligence and how making the distinction can help you lead - IE Exponential Learning Blog

Can all adults make an informed decision?
Imo, No.
All adults do not have the same Intellectual ability. Some don't work as they should. Some are illiterate. There are many factors that can affect ones ability to make an informed decision.
So can all adults give informed consent?

Excepting an intellectual disability, yes. Illiteracy doesn't really count. It is not actually a factor in deciding informed consent. At least where I live. I don't know about your specific laws where you live.

So this bring me to the point I am making.
If morality is based on age, then there is no morality, since age is not the only factor in determining that one can give informed consent.

It's not so much about age. I mean there are grey areas obviously. Two teenagers of very similar ages is usually given a pass. An adult, who automatically has more knowledge, more power and far less naive, having a relationship with a child is usually against the law. Because it's a child, far too easy to manipulate, far too easy to screw up mentally or even physically.
An adult with a minor, usually more dependent on whether or not they are an authority figure (teacher for example.) An adult with an 18 year old gets weird glances, but generally given a reluctant pass.
It's sort of less about age than it is a balance of power. An adult automatically has far more than a child, more than a minor and usually more than a barely legal 18 (or 16) year old. It's unethical because it's taking advantage, which allows abuse to flourish, so to speak. And again, a child is just not on the same level of an adult, even if they're a damned prodigy with hair all over their bodies (or have breasts, whatever.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you think that it could possibly be that religion has often been the tool of the political and at least a great deal of the violence attributed to religion has actually been political in nature?

Possibly?!?!?! Well . . . all through history violence and wars may be attributed to nationalism, tribalism, racism and ethnic prejudice, but yo cannot discount the roll of religion, particularly Judaism, Christianity and Islam in all this very human frailty.

 

[Earthling]

Possibly?!?!?! Well . . . all through history violence and wars may be attributed to nationalism, tribalism, racism and ethnic prejudice, but yo cannot discount the roll of religion, particularly Judaism, Christianity and Islam in all this very human frailty.

Yes, I know, but the very subtle point I was getting at was that often a war is attributed to something, like "freedom," when in fact it is about something altogether different. Or like "Hey, lets make it look to our idiot citizens like these Muslims attacked us so we can go get their oil!"

 

[siti]

Well, no, and I agree with you, but we are talking about morality and once again you are confusing it with law. Morality is subjective. It is a specific society's general consensus regarding what is right and what is wrong in a specific epoch. Here and now this is moral, but there and then that was moral.

You are really only saying that anything outside consensual sexual activity between adults is moral here and now. That doesn't really mean anything other than the obvious. The fact that you don't see pederasty as moral here and now also really doesn't mean anything, because 4,000 years ago and possibly 50 years in the future in might not have been or will be.

You are going to withhold sexual activity from persons who haven't reached a specific age rather than their ability to have sex? How do you justify homosexuality as acceptable, that they can't help it? It wasn't their choice? Can the same not be said for the pederast?

It's just a cultural adherence. To you and I pederasty is repugnant, but in the past it wasn't and homosexuality was. To you and I pedophilia is repugnant, but that's cultural. To Mary, who was 14 or 15 when she married Joseph who was about 32 years old, her marriage was normal.

No - pederasty was never moral because it is exploitative - sexual exploitation was never moral - it was legal - its not me who is mixing them up, it is you who is confusing legalistic religious approval of immoral exploitation for morality. The difference in the past was they never asked the child - the boy that was kept as a catamite, the virgin bride or the pubescent temple prostitute - whether s/he was happy with that. But we know better than that now so our laws should be closer to what is genuinely moral. And when our laws respect the rights of adults to make their own choices about sex and the rights of children not to have to do so until they are sufficiently mature - and educated (which we are still working on) - to do so in an informed and conscientious manner, then our laws will represent morality more closely - which is what they are supposed to do.

 

[siti]

What about a consenting 9-13 year old? What makes that morally wrong?

Lack of maturity and lack of education - there is no way, in my opinion that a 9 year old can give informed consent - 13 is a bit more tricky and by 15 most kids know what they're dealing with - but still - a much older person taking advantage of their lack of experience is immoral. Society has to err on the side of caution in its laws so age of consent is typically somewhere around 14 to 16 (as far as I know) - but no sensible modern society is going to punish two kids about 13 or 14 for experimenting with their sexuality. But sexual exploitation of children is and always has been immoral whether or not it has been considered religiously or secularly legal. Sexual exploitation is immoral even if it is involving adults - but that's more a question of empowerment - for children, their power is the protection of the law.

 

[nPeace]

Fair enough. I should have included that the first time. My bad.
The impact of child sexual abuse on mental health
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED341908.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-98633-000 (I can't seem to access the research on this link. Is this because I'm not American or a psychologist?)
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
The Lifetime Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse and Sexual Assault Assessed in Late Adolescence - ScienceDirect
Sexual and physical abuse in childhood is associated with depression and anxiety over the life course: systematic review and meta-analysis

The link to journals.sagepub seem to have a plethora of different studies pertaining to child abuse just in general.

Thank you for your time and effort.
It wasn't what I was really asking for though.
These deals with child sexual assault, not the issue of morality.
I think all sexual assault is sick regardless of age.

If I am not following you, please correct me.
I'm just trying to find out how persons determine morality.

Yes, like a more sophisticated definition of informed consent and allowing minors to drink and smoke have changed over the years. Even within my short lifetime.


Children experimenting is as old as the human species. But that's mere child's play. It even makes an appearance in literature (Brave New World.) Like meh.


I don't know if I can agree that abuse is not always involved. An adult having an inappropriate relationship with a minor is quite literally said adult taking advantage of the child's lack of experience and naivety. And again, any adult who can stomach having sex with a child is a pedophile or ephebophile or hebophile, depending on the age of the child. Any other adult will be thoroughly disgusted.

I don't know anything about your life's experience.
I once spoke to a young woman around age 23, who was shocked to hear the things that people deliberately do to other people. I figured she grew up sheltered. So I imagine it would hit her hard if she was thrust into ghetto life.

I'm telling you though, some girls are not the sweet innocent angels, one would expect.
While you may expect these girls to be playing with dolls, and reading Nancy Drew, these girls are reading other books, and playing with live "doll", if you know what I mean.
Because they start at an early age, they know more than you think. They are like seductive women, and they play the game like a boss. They understand what they are doing, and you would be shocked to know what they know.
I not asking. I am speaking from experience.
I think it depends a lot on where one grows up.
Some children grow up really fast - even though they age register one thing.

And neglect is actually a known factor in allowing abuse. I think that was included in one of my links!


Please, I grew up watching random arthouse/grindhouse movies. Being exposed to sexual images deliberately by an adult is abuse, sure. But sometimes it's just a lack of parental control. I mean I grew up before parental blocks on TV was a thing. Meh


Again experimenting among one's peers is one thing. An adult actually choosing to have sex with a child is another thing entirely. A "normal" adult is not going to be "seduced" by a child, no matter how developed. Like get real.
A child is generally not held accountable by law (although America seems to try minors as adults for more extreme crimes, depending on their age. Which is rather controversial.)

A "normal" adult is not going to be "seduced" by a child, no matter how developed.
Really? Can you prove that?
Maybe we live in two different dimensions.
But no. it's just that the world has changed. Maybe it's the chemicals in our foods.
New Faces - Style Academy
Sexualising a girl just two years out of primary school is plain wrong - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

...while young teenagers back in the day were fans of extreme photo editing, crimped hair, and layered polo shirts, today’s 13 year olds look SO much more mature than they actually are it seriously messes with some people.
How old is this one.

If you want me to pull up more, I can do that for you. I can get the reverse ones also.

Not really. The so called "Nuclear Family" is not even 100 years old and is a purely Western phenomenon. In the East family units include aunts, uncles, grandparents and other family. So this whole, oh noes two men or two women are raising kids thing, is technically already thousands of years old anyway. And homophobia is not family values, it's the new racism. Ew.


Okay, let's get down to brass tacks. A minor is someone under the age of 18, yeah? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Maryland does have statutory rape of minors as a general law, right? Meaning whilst there are certain exceptions, like examples pertaining specifically to their own physical and mental health, minors still are unable to give consent to a sexual relationship according to the law (unless they are emancipated.) Also pretty sure a 9 year old wouldn't have that much control over their health,regardless, due to basic ignorance. A teenager, who is also considered a minor until the ages of 16-18, probably has a better chance of handling that. So I think the usage of the word minor in such circumstances is probably closer to referring to a teenager than a 9 year old child. Just saying.

Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements
Now disclaimer, I'm not American, so please forgive me if I got that wrong about the state of Maryland.

And you know there are different types of intelligence, right? And just because someone is book smart or has a high IQ does not necessarily mean they are able to comprehend the social and/or emotional consequences of say a sexual relationship. Which a child who has never had an adult one simply is too naive to truly understand. Thus I question the implication that just because they're smart means they can sign contracts or drive cars or drink or have fully informed consent.
Difference Between Smart and Intelligent | Difference Between
EQ vs IQ - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Social Intelligence vs. Emotional Intelligence and how making the distinction can help you lead - IE Exponential Learning Blog


Excepting an intellectual disability, yes. Illiteracy doesn't really count. It is not actually a factor in deciding informed consent. At least where I live. I don't know about your specific laws where you live.


It's not so much about age. I mean there are grey areas obviously. Two teenagers of very similar ages is usually given a pass. An adult, who automatically has more knowledge, more power and far less naive, having a relationship with a child is usually against the law. Because it's a child, far too easy to manipulate, far too easy to screw up mentally or even physically.
An adult with a minor, usually more dependent on whether or not they are an authority figure (teacher for example.) An adult with an 18 year old gets weird glances, but generally given a reluctant pass.
It's sort of less about age than it is a balance of power. An adult automatically has far more than a child, more than a minor and usually more than a barely legal 18 (or 16) year old. It's unethical because it's taking advantage, which allows abuse to flourish, so to speak. And again, a child is just not on the same level of an adult, even if they're a damned prodigy with hair all over their bodies (or have breasts, whatever.)

Right. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I think we went off track a bit, but that's not your fault.
You may not have known where I was going when I started this.
My point isn't related to what's legal, but what's moral.
So, I don't know if you have anything you want to input on that.
What I was really saying is, does something become morally right 1) because the person is above a certain age, 2) because the person is not being harmed physically, emotionally, or mentally?

 

[nPeace]

Lack of maturity and lack of education - there is no way, in my opinion that a 9 year old can give informed consent - 13 is a bit more tricky and by 15 most kids know what they're dealing with - but still - a much older person taking advantage of their lack of experience is immoral. Society has to err on the side of caution in its laws so age of consent is typically somewhere around 14 to 16 (as far as I know) - but no sensible modern society is going to punish two kids about 13 or 14 for experimenting with their sexuality. But sexual exploitation of children is and always has been immoral whether or not it has been considered religiously or secularly legal. Sexual exploitation is immoral even if it is involving adults - but that's more a question of empowerment - for children, their power is the protection of the law.

Thanks for that input.
So say a child isn't being exploited, say a 12 or 13 year old. Why is it morally wrong for them to experiment with sex with say, a 19 year old?
How would a person know if a child is being exploited?
Is it morally right for a 15 year old to be sexually active?

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for your time and effort.
It wasn't what I was really asking for though.
These deals with child sexual assault, not the issue of morality.
I think all sexual assault is sick regardless of age.

If I am not following you, please correct me.
I'm just trying to find out how persons determine morality.

By the evidence and definition individuals do not determine morality. historically through the history of humanity evolved to insure the survival of humanity by survival of the family and community. Social cooperation is necessary for survival and morals such as those against wrongful death, standards of consent to sexual relations, and theft. When discussing morality recognize the definition: From: https://www.google.com/search?q=mor...0j35i39j0l4.5225j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
   • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
     plural noun: moralities
     "a bourgeois morality"
   • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
     "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

Please note there is nothing in the definition that defines morality in and of itself either objective nor subjective. The fact that all cultures develop and evolve morals over the millennia are observable objective attributes of morality regardless of religion. The variation between cultures, and over time represent subjective attributes of morality.

I do believe in God, and God's Laws and Principles progressively revealed over time, and the positive evolution of morality is a reflection of God's Laws and Principles, but morals in and of themselves are attributes of human cultures.

The problem with the Bible and other ancient religions that claim some sort 'objective' morality is from the human perspective and that of scriptures morality is not consistent over time, which makes it impossible to specifically define 'What is objective morality?'

 

[siti]

So say a child isn't being exploited, say a 12 or 13 year old. Why is it morally wrong for them to experiment with sex with say, a 19 year old?

Most 12 or 13 year olds are not completely sexually (biologically) mature, so although I'm guessing most do experiment with people around their own age and that is quite natural, I would be extremely uncomfortable if my 19 year old son/daughter were in a relationship with a 13 year old - wouldn't you? Its hard for me to imagine how such a relationship between an adult and a pubescent child would not be exploitative on some level. It would be much more difficult to judge if one were 13 and the other 16.

How would a person know if a child is being exploited?

If a child is not capable of informed consent then any sexual approach is exploitative. I think it is highly unlikely that most 12 or 13 year olds would be genuinely capable of informed consent in regard to sex. By 13 we are probably getting into a grey area (just) but certainly any younger than that, informed consent would be out of the question - so any sex with a child under that age would certainly be exploitative. Like I said earlier - in the mid-teen years it is much mire difficult to judge so that's where the law comes in and the law has to err on the side of caution to some degree - so many countries have 15 or 16 as the age of consent. Some countries have laws about permissible age gaps too - but in general, it is IMO immoral for anyone to exploit anyone else for sex. So if a much older person takes advantage of a younger person's inexperience, that is exploitative - and therefore immoral - even if it is legal.

Is it morally right for a 15 year old to be sexually active?

Sure. It is quite natural for 15 year olds to experiment with sex. As long as they are not exploiting others or being exploited. And as long as they are genuinely capable of giving informed consent. If the 15 year old were my child though, I would want to know that they were sure about what they were getting into - and I would probably be advising them to take it slowly. But I don't think you either can or should enforce abstinence at that age if a child is at the stage of beginning to express their sexuality.

 

[nPeace]

Most 12 or 13 year olds are not completely sexually (biologically) mature, so although I'm guessing most do experiment with people around their own age and that is quite natural, I would be extremely uncomfortable if my 19 year old son/daughter were in a relationship with a 13 year old - wouldn't you? Its hard for me to imagine how such a relationship between an adult and a pubescent child would not be exploitative on some level. It would be much more difficult to judge if one were 13 and the other 16.

If a child is not capable of informed consent then any sexual approach is exploitative. I think it is highly unlikely that most 12 or 13 year olds would be genuinely capable of informed consent in regard to sex. By 13 we are probably getting into a grey area (just) but certainly any younger than that, informed consent would be out of the question - so any sex with a child under that age would certainly be exploitative. Like I said earlier - in the mid-teen years it is much mire difficult to judge so that's where the law comes in and the law has to err on the side of caution to some degree - so many countries have 15 or 16 as the age of consent. Some countries have laws about permissible age gaps too - but in general, it is IMO immoral for anyone to exploit anyone else for sex. So if a much older person takes advantage of a younger person's inexperience, that is exploitative - and therefore immoral - even if it is legal.

Sure. It is quite natural for 15 year olds to experiment with sex. As long as they are not exploiting others or being exploited. And as long as they are genuinely capable of giving informed consent. If the 15 year old were my child though, I would want to know that they were sure about what they were getting into - and I would probably be advising them to take it slowly. But I don't think you either can or should enforce abstinence at that age if a child is at the stage of beginning to express their sexuality.

Man, this is hard.
I think looking at a number, or age for determination, is what is making this so difficult for me.
Okay. So, just give me a yes or no on these.
You say, Most 12 or 13 year olds are not completely sexually (biologically) mature, so although I'm guessing most do experiment with people around their own age and that is quite natural,

Would you agree that some 12 or 13 year olds are completely sexually (biologically) mature?
Would you agree that some 12 or 13 year olds, while not exploited consent to sex knowing full well that what they are doing is not lawful (Example - 12 year old got the hots for the 18 year old hunk on the football team. Since she is experienced sexually, and her body and features have matured somewhat beyond her age, she believes she can deceive the guy into believing that she is 5 years older)?

This one is not a yes or no. Could you explain this:

Its hard for me to imagine how such a relationship between an adult and a pubescent child would not be exploitative on some level. It would be much more difficult to judge if one were 13 and the other 16.

In some lands, the age of 17 is considered adult. Any age below is statutory rape, or child abuse.
So this tells me, you are basing morality on what the law dictates, even though laws differ from land to land.
Am I correct?

 

[siti]

Man, this is hard.

No it isn't - its not hard in principle (morality) - its only hard in practice (law).

I think looking at a number, or age for determination, is what is making this so difficult for me.

It is.

In some lands, the age of 17 is considered adult. Any age below is statutory rape, or child abuse.
So this tells me, you are basing morality on what the law dictates, even though laws differ from land to land.
Am I correct?

No. But you seem to be doing so. I am saying if someone cannot (for any reason including age) give informed consent it is immoral to have sex with that person. In principle that's it - not complicated at all.

Laws of consent are based on that principle - but there obviously is not an exact age at which every person in a society reaches sexual maturity so the laws (for the most part) err on the side of caution and set the "age of consent" towards the higher range at which humans reach sexual maturity.

 

[SomeRandom]

Thank you for your time and effort.
It wasn't what I was really asking for though.
These deals with child sexual assault, not the issue of morality.
I think all sexual assault is sick regardless of age.

If I am not following you, please correct me.
I'm just trying to find out how persons determine morality.

Oh, I'm talking ethics. I mean I don't know about you, but I tend to choose potential mates who are at least old enough to be allowed to have a drink unsupervised. An adult could talk a kid into anything, no matter how smart they are. Because physical maturity is simply not the same thing as emotional or intellectual maturity. (We know this to be true, the entirety of our education system is literally built around it.) That's the very definition of manipulation and such techniques are not a sign of a healthy relationship. Just saying, even taking out the ew factor, that's not particularly moral or ethical.
Also none of those stats I think even differentiate between so called "consent" and sexual abuse, since not all abuse occurs with violence in tandem. Maybe someone can point me towards one that does.

Really? Can you prove that?
Maybe we live in two different dimensions.
But no. it's just that the world has changed. Maybe it's the chemicals in our foods.

Ask any parent. Once they stop puking, I'm sure they would be able to make their stance of having sex with a child quite clear to you. Or they'd punch you in disgust, I don't know.
Also the links are all in outrage that people would try to get children to wear revealing clothing out of sheer disgust at the mere thought of sexuality being linked with children. I mean that's what I got from them at least.
Hell I remember when there was outcry at a young girl's picture on a new edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because people were aghast at her supposed sexualisation. I thought it looked more creepy and was chosen to illustrate how one of the parents in the story treats their kid like a literal toy. But people lose their minds about even an imagined link of children and sex.
People do react rather viscerally to the mere mention of pedophilia, and you're trying to convince me this same society would bonk a 10 year old just because of a little more hair or larger than average (for a 10 year old) breasts?
Sorry, I have a hard time believing that.

Also I'm going to guess that the young lady in said video is probably between 11 and 13. A little on the photo shopped side it looks like, though. Which also makes people look older and usually done to enhance sexual allure.

Right. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I think we went off track a bit, but that's not your fault.
You may not have known where I was going when I started this.
My point isn't related to what's legal, but what's moral.
So, I don't know if you have anything you want to input on that.
What I was really saying is, does something become morally right 1) because the person is above a certain age, 2) because the person is not being harmed physically, emotionally, or mentally?

At the risk of going even further off track I'll say that I think it's more complicated than that.
What is legal is simply an agreed upon rule that civilized society is supposed to abide by. However that is extremely fluid and subject to change, due to changing societal taboos.
And legality is not the same as ethical or indeed moral values, though it may be subject to them.
For example I highly doubt many people would argue that slavery (outside of some consensual kink) is ethically sound. And yet it was legal for a very long time.
Morality meanwhile, at least to me, is more closely linked with religious or spiritual belief. And does differ drastically between religions and even adherents. For example many Dharmic religions are at most ambivalent about the morality of homosexuality. (Generally speaking.) Whilst many denominations of Christians are quite adamant that it is a sin.
To conflate these concepts is rather an oversimplification, imo.

 

[nPeace]

By the evidence and definition individuals do not determine morality. historically through the history of humanity evolved to insure the survival of humanity by survival of the family and community. Social cooperation is necessary for survival and morals such as those against wrongful death, standards of consent to sexual relations, and theft. When discussing morality recognize the definition: From: https://www.google.com/search?q=mor...0j35i39j0l4.5225j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
   • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
     plural noun: moralities
     "a bourgeois morality"
   • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
     "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

Please note there is nothing in the definition that defines morality in and of itself either objective nor subjective. The fact that all cultures develop and evolve morals over the millennia are observable objective attributes of morality regardless of religion. The variation between cultures, and over time represent subjective attributes of morality.

I do believe in God, and God's Laws and Principles progressively revealed over time, and the positive evolution of morality is a reflection of God's Laws and Principles, but morals in and of themselves are attributes of human cultures.

The problem with the Bible and other ancient religions that claim some sort 'objective' morality is from the human perspective and that of scriptures morality is not consistent over time, which makes it impossible to specifically define 'What is objective morality?'

Sorry, I didn't see your post before now.
Thanks.

I think I understand.
So basically, morality evolves as policies evolve, but vary from place to place.
Hence, universal morality exists only outside this realm, and therefore in order for global morality to exist, this system, with its governments must go.

If morality exists outside this realm though - that is, with God's universal family, then it must also exist within this realm, but only with those who abide with, or are one with God's family.
Makes sense.

That's why Jesus prayed to his father, that his followers be one with him and his father.
John 17:15-23
15 “I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. 19 And I am sanctifying myself in their behalf, so that they also may be sanctified by means of truth. 20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.

...and why there is good reason to remove man-made rule - human government - and have one government - God's kingdom - rule the entire earth. Daniel 2:44, 45

I think I am already seeing how well that works.
That's why I don't find these statements to be true at all.

The problem with the Bible and other ancient religions that claim some sort 'objective' morality is from the human perspective and that of scriptures morality is not consistent over time, which makes it impossible to specifically define 'What is objective morality?'

On the contrary, I find the problem is not the Bible, but those who falsely claim to follow it.
I find people who live by the Bible, do display high moral standards that are consistent, and do not evolve with changing time or seasons.
For example, they live by values that set them apart from the world's ever changing "morals".

Why do you say it

is from the human perspective and that of scriptures morality is not consistent over time

Can you provide evidence of that?


Okay @siti, I think I understand what you are saying.
So wheter someone knows the age of a person, or not, it is morally wrong for them to engage in sexual intercourse with that person - knowingly or unknowingly, whether anyone else knows or not... simply because the person is too young, according to the law, to give consent.
So basically, the world is full of immoral people - those underage that give consent, and those adult in age, who sex with underage, but once you are not underage, you are not immoral... unless you hurt someone, or kill them.


@SomeRandom
I know of 20 year olds that have been manipulated, coerced, etc. but that's okay.
I was reading somewhere, where some are unclear about statutory rape between consenting minors. I don't think this behavior is viewed as criminal, since most usually view it as "not such a big thing".

I too believe morality is of a spiritual nature, and I think loose morals are a result of spiritual abandonment. In other words, many are more interested in material things, than spiritual things, I find.
However, this was prophecied in scripture.
Thanks for the chat.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think I understand.
So basically, morality evolves as policies evolve, but vary from place to place.
Hence, universal morality exists only outside this realm, and therefore in order for global morality to exist, this
system, with its governments must go.

No government policies and Laws are not morality, though the evolution of government policies and laws may reflect aspects of the morality of cultures. Yes, morals vary from culture to culture and over time.

If morality exists outside this realm though - that is, with God's universal family, then it must also exist within this realm, but only with those who abide with, or are one with God's family.
Makes sense.

Actually no, you are equating morality with your own '. . . who abide with, or are one with God's family.' This your view of God's spiritual Laws and spiritual teachings. What exists outside this realm is God's Will, and not some sort of morality by definition,

That's why Jesus prayed to his father, that his followers be one with him and his father.
John 17:15-23
15 “I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. 19 And I am sanctifying myself in their behalf, so that they also may be sanctified by means of truth. 20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.

...and why there is good reason to remove man-made rule - human government - and have one government - God's kingdom - rule the entire earth. Daniel 2:44, 45

I think I am already seeing how well that works.
That's why I don't find these statements to be true at all.

This would be nice but there are too many different churches and religions that interpret this differently.

On the contrary, I find the problem is not the Bible, but those who falsely claim to follow it.
I find people who live by the Bible, do display high moral standards that are consistent, and do not evolve with changing time or seasons.

For example, they live by values that set them apart from the world's ever changing "morals".

Why do you say it
Can you provide evidence of that?

Again, The problem again is there are too many different interpretations of what is 'to follow the Bible.

Even in the Bible the morality of for example slavery changes over time and in is not consistent.

Okay @siti, I think I understand what you are saying.

Apparently not.

So whether someone knows the age of a person, or not, it is morally wrong for them to engage in sexual intercourse with that person - knowingly or unknowingly, whether anyone else knows or not... simply because the person is too young, according to the law, to give consent. So basically, the world is full of immoral people - those underage that give consent, and those adult in age, who sex with underage, but once you are not underage, you are not immoral... unless you hurt someone, or kill them.

Very, very confusing, and the above is full of subjective judgments about how the law is interpreted and responsibility for sexual relations. The morality of the culture over time would determine what the age of consent is and the allowed nature of sexual relationships.

@SomeRandom
I know of 20 year olds that have been manipulated, coerced, etc. but that's okay.
I was reading somewhere, where some are unclear about statutory rape between consenting minors. I don't think this behavior is viewed as criminal, since most usually view it as "not such a big thing".

More confusing interpretations of how laws are enforced. You are confusing policies and government laws with the morals of cultures.

I too believe morality is of a spiritual nature, and I think loose morals are a result of spiritual abandonment. In other words, many are more interested in material things, than spiritual things, I find.
However, this was prophecied in scripture.
Thanks for the chat.

I do not consider morality as spiritual. The morals of a culture may or may not be grounded in Spiritual laws and teachings.

The Bible itself shows the evolution of morality over time and changes in spiritual law from the Old Testament to the New Testament. .

 

[nPeace]

No government policies and Laws are not morality, though the evolution of government policies and laws may reflect aspects of the morality of cultures. Yes, morals vary from culture to culture and over time.



Actually no, you are equating morality with your own '. . . who abide with, or are one with God's family.' This your view of God's spiritual Laws and spiritual teachings. What exists outside this realm is God's Will, and not some sort of morality by definition,








Apparently not.



Very, very confusing, and the above is full of subjective judgments about how the law is interpreted and responsibility for sexual relations. The morality of the culture over time would determine what the age of consent is and the allowed nature of sexual relationships.

Well I guess I will have to be content with being one lost confused soul on the subject of morality.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I guess I will have to be content with being one lost confused soul on the subject of morality.

Simple look it up in the dictionary.