martybarker wrote:But what really gets me is an old thread that argued the age of sexual maturity. Maybe some of those defending this guy believes that if the mother and child both consented then this act would have been OK.
Your post sounds as if this piece of innuendo was spoken in my direction, and as if you were referring to a rather strong disagreement you and I had in a thread by Walter. (Notice the Freudian typo messing up the number of the noun in your sentence: "Maybe
some of those defending this guy
believes..."). I don't see why you find it necessary to resort to innuendo. I certainly don't. So let's be open: Let me summarize the thread you refer to, post a link to it so the others can compare our arguments and debating styles, and explain to you why it has nothing to do with the topic of
this thread.
In the old thread, one big topic was sex education. On this point, my position was that since humans reach sexual maturity at age 12, that's when they start wanting to have sex. Consequently, I argued, grown-ups must give children a thorough, well-founded sex education before they are 12. You doubted my basis for saying that children reach sexual maturity at 12, so I substantiated it, as did other correspondents in the thread.
I also made a throwaway remark that I don't consider it a problem
per se if 14 olds have sex, including sex with grown-ups. You responded by saying "remind me never to introduce you to my kids" -- a clear insinuation that I am a pedophile. Other correspondents also attacked me for this remark, speculating about my mental health and my criminal record in the process. Everyone who wishes to read up on our disagreement is welcome to do so.
[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=98829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0]Virginity rare, drug use common with US-adults[/url]
Since you, marty, had already labelled me as a pedophile (I'll leave it for others to judge your justification for that), I was not surprised to see you extend your innuendo into this thread. But this thread had nothing to do with the old one.
- If the hypothetical child in this police sting had been real, it wouldn't have consented to having sex. It would have been rented out by its mother to be raped. You may not see the difference between being raped and having sex of ones own free will. Believe me, it exists, and it is crucial.
- The hypothetical child in this sting was five years old. If you can't see the difference between sex with a five year old and sex with a fourteen-year-old, I can only pity you.
The middle part in your paragraph of innuendo also falls flat because, get this:
- Speaking out for due process and against lynching people is emphatically not the same as defending their actions.
Marty, I have given up hope to ever have any rational discussion with you involving sexuality. But our fellow correspondents have a right to know the reality behind your insinuations. I thank those correspondents for reading until the end of this long post.
