[NB_ide]

Of the following two situations, which do you think is more "natural", more common in nature (in other animals, or humans outside of social restraint), more understandable?

Why do you think that one is accepted by a clear majority, legally-protected and openly celebrated, while the other is sternly forbidden, rejected by the majority, and will lead to very serious punishments?

1) A thirty year old man is sexually attracted to another thirty year old man. They both wish to engage in sexual activity with each other, and do so.

2) A thirty year old man is sexually attracted to a fertile fourteen year old girl. They both wish to engage in sexual activity with each other, and do so.

[james22]

The second one is closer to nature, although the first is much more acceptable.

[almasy]

As far as nature goes, if it bleeds it breeds.

[Chwirkytheappleboy]

(Original post by NB_ide)
animals, or humans outside of social restraint

I think this assumption is what underlies the problem in your argument. Rape is common in the animal kingdom but it's outlawed in civilised society. Being "natural" among other species doesn't make it morally right. Same goes for paedophilia

[navarre]

As they say on the street, if there's grass on the pitch then let's play.

If there's fluff on the muff she's old enough.

I love Ali G.

[anarchism101]

The problem with 2) is that the girl is under the age of consent and therefore legally cannot consent to having sex. You can disagree with the method or the age (16) of the age of consent law, but we do need to have a defining point, and that's what it is currently.

[POWCATTY]

(Original post by almasy)
As far as nature goes, if it bleeds it breeds.

crude...but it made me lol

[wtfCharlie]

Both, is everyone's consenting. Although the second would creep me out a little!

[POWCATTY]

[FrogInABog]

The second one is more 'normal'. In nature, human/animal instinct is generally to reproduce, so that would make sense.

However, in theory, there are some girls who are fertile at 9, but it would be immoral to try to have sex with them, as they are far to young to fully understand the consequences of such an action. There has to be a cut-off age at which we say consent is reasonable, hence why 16 is the youngest age at which the second situation would be acceptable, as the girl should be mature enough to understand her actions.

[ROYP]

You've numbered them both number 1, but I'm going with what was probably meant to be number 2 - the man and the girl. Legality doesn't = natural so we can throw the age of consent out of the window and it just comes back down to heterosexuality versus homosexuality. I sound disgustingly homophobic but hetero is surely more natural

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Chwirkytheappleboy)
I think this assumption is what underlies the problem in your argument.

I didn't make an argument, I just asked a question.

Rape is common in the animal kingdom but it's outlawed in civilised society.

According to most people, all sex between animals is "rape" because they can not consent to sex (or anything else) in terms that we understand. It's the main argument for why bestiality should be punishable - because any sex with animals is rape unto them, since they can't possibly "understand" what is going on.

Being "natural" among other species doesn't make it morally right. Same goes for paedophilia

We're not talking about paedophilia here.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by FrogInABog)
However, in theory, there are some girls who are fertile at 9, but it would be immoral to try to have sex with them, as they are far to young to fully understand the consequences of such an action.

What sort of consequences?

[moritzplatz]

definitely the second if it's about nature.
definitely the first if it's about law.

[TheCaledonian]

The second scenario is more natural as men are attracted to young women who can give them many healthy children and women are attracted to older men that offer security and increase their status in our society though this is unacceptable and women rely less on men for security now anyway. The first scenario is more acceptable and more importantly is actually legal however it is less natural as there is no way that these men could reproduce without a third party and no chance of reproduction isn't natures way

[The Socktor]

They're both equally natural. But I don't see why that matters anyway.

[Historophilia]

(Original post by NB_ide)
What sort of consequences?

STI's, pregnancy, the realities of sex and sexual relationships, hell any kind of adult relationship at all.

A nine year old is a child, and even if a 9 year old starts menstruating their bodies are not ready to deal with pregnancy or childbirth. Their minds wouldn't be either.

I work in a primary school and a 9 year old girl there suffers from early onset puberty, she takes regular hormone treatments to suppress it or she would have started her periods and grown breasts at the age of 8. Yet she is completely a child, she cries when she falls over, she likes playing with skipping ropes, she was pretending to be a monkey in the playground last week. Her hormones do sometimes have an effect on her behaviour though, she has outbreaks of teenager like behaviour (getting into strops, sulking, refusing to speak to teachers, answering back to them on occasion, being nasty to her classmates) which she doesn't understand and leave her very upset at times.

Also, a child is easily manipulated and controlled into doing things that they don't understand or want.

[Chwirkytheappleboy]

(Original post by NB_ide)
I didn't make an argument, I just asked a question.

You appeared to be implying one...

According to most people, all sex between animals is "rape" because they can not consent to sex (or anything else) in terms that we understand. It's the main argument for why bestiality should be punishable - because any sex with animals is rape unto them, since they can't possibly "understand" what is going on.

While animals might not give legally valid consent to each other, it is fairly obvious when one of them doesn't want to participate. With regards to bestiality I would think that an animal wouldn't expect a human to have sex with them, so if they were to understand, they would likely be unwilling

We're not talking about paedophilia here.

What is option 2 of your original post then?

[Jevon177]

Well, I'd say 1 is more acceptable in current society, but if it was 400 years or so ago it would definitely be 2.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Chwirkytheappleboy)
While animals might not give legally valid consent to each other, it is fairly obvious when one of them doesn't want to participate. With regards to bestiality I would think that an animal wouldn't expect a human to have sex with them, so if they were to understand, they would likely be unwilling

So they're only willing/pleasured by it because they "don't understand", according to we superior beings, and if they were as intelligent as us then they wouldn't want to have sex with humans? Seems a bit convoluted tbh. It's like saying that if a dildo was sentient and was aware of its job then it wouldn't like it.

What is option 2 of your original post then?

She's a sexually-mature teenage girl, nothing to do with paedophilia.