https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/the-age-of-consent/I’m far from being a Muslim, but upon hearing critics’ claim that that the “prophet” of Islam, Moe, was a pedophile no longer has any weight to it for me. It’s quite subjective and worthless.
Why?
I’m gonna be tackling a dangerous issue, dangerous in the way that I may draw condemnation upon myself for not only expressing it, but even thinking about it. It’s similar to my early days of marriage. My wife, being a certain type of christian, knowing I believed divorce was permissible, would hurl the accusation that if I thought it was allowed, that I would want to do it myself. The same with polygamy or the use of certain drugs prohibited by the territorial tyrants called “government.” It’s the superficial logic that if a person thinks something is permissible, that they either do that thing or want to. Of course, it’s a non-sequitur, the logic doesn’t necessarily follow, that to think something is permissible means that it is desired for oneself. But to bring up taboo subjects, to challenge the common point of view, brings an irrational, emotional response, as if a body’s automatic defense to a virus that that attacks its person.
And yet, I care less and less about what people think, about herd-think. It has helped cause such destruction and pain in the world, to actually treat it as a moral scale with which to measure the veracity of my ponderings on morality is futile, like throwing pearls to swine.
Anyway, I’m gonna proceed. If you wanna hop off now, feel free. If you wanna stick around and then launch a diatribe against me later, or attempt to get me fired or ostracised, then I’ll just have to deal with the typical immaturity of the world. Oh, wait! That’s just the same old thing then.
So … let’s go.
As far as I can see, the age of consent is mainly political whim, not objective truth. What is “the age of consent?” It is the age at and after which government won’t punish people for having sexual relations. Before that age, the government, if its agents choose to for whatever reason, will prosecute and pursue the people who are said to be involved in such intercourse and charge them for a certain form of rape, sometimes called “statutory rape.” Even if the accused claims consent was verbally or otherwise given, because the government can dictate when you really have consent, its agents say “one or both of the parties were below the age to have any informed consent, therefore they had no real consent; and since rape is sexual relations without consent, someone involved is guilty of rape.”
I chuckled to myself whilst typing that last scenario. Understand, the government can impose itself on you without your explicit consent, even if you explicitly and verbally withdraw your consent. In fact, its acolytes amongst the populace construct arguments of fiction, such as the social contract or implied consent, to claim that an individual actually consents even though no consent is properly given. And then, through its coercive threats called “laws and legislation,” even when you give your consent to do something, it again says “no, you don’t have consent because we chose this arbitrary age right here and applies to every individual.”
And I know, I know, I can hear the fearful and “righteous” shout, “but the laws are there to protect us, to protect the five-year-olds and the eight-year-olds from predators and mistakes.” Again, it’s funny that so many of these fearful and “righteous” talk of protecting children and then offer their children as living sacrifices to government schools, to the media, to the internet and Youtube, to the drug companies and state “health” services. They offer their children to so many dangerous, unknown or untrustworthy systems, and then talk about “protecting the children.”
I’m being cynical again, aren’t I? Don’t worry. I won’t say “forgive me!” I’m unapologetic. I’m not an idolator, a politician-worshipper or a state-devotee who is naive to believe that the threats of the Baal, the Lord, the Government are just for our good, for our protection.
Anyway, I appreciate there is genuine concern for the sexual welfare of children, especially before puberty. But, as the comedian, Dave Chappelle, opined, “just how old is 15?” (Just to let you know, there’s language sensitive people view as obscene in the following video.)
I look at the age of consent internationally. It ranges from 12 years old and puberty to 18 years, or when someone is married. That means that some rulers think that sex outside of marriage is a punishable crime. And I would not be surprised westerner would think it wrong and immoral for premarital sex to be illegal. But those same westerners would call a man who was charged with statutory rape, a sex offence, a pedophile and a nonce, even if the girl was 13-17 and had vocalised consent.
But that’s just me thinking about the age of consent internationally today, in modern times. What about in the past? How many British kings in the earlier centuries had wives and concubines younger than 18 or 16? There was no minimum age for marriage in those days. I see evidence that girls could be married to the king by 13 years old, like a wife of Henry III. Yet the modern arrogant person, with their beliefs that their government threats are qualitatively better than any other, that state legislation are objective moral standards with which to condemn anyone from a different time or culture, may likely hurl accusation of being primitive and backwards.
It’s kinda crazy, don’t you think? People who have, for the most, rejected God, and therefore have no objective standards for right and wrong, find out a guy from a different time and culture broke their government’s laws … but that guy isn’t under their government or its law … a law which actually has no innate authority or morality … How does that make any sense?
So, yeah, when a modern, especially a God-rejector, condemns Moe, the “prophet” of Islam, a guy who lived over a thousand years ago in a different land and culture, for pedophilia, as if he’s the modern child sexual predator, like those who may infest or hide within modern day government, media, celebrity, the so-called scientific community, religion, and so on and so on, when that person condemns Moe as a pedo, I see an argument based on ignorance and idiocy, possibly arrogance, but not morality.
To focus squarely on the “age of consent,” it is only a legal construct, not a moral one. It’s only the differing opinion of politicians of different countries, not objective truth. In some states in America, a man who had consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old girl would get a sexual crime on his record and be condemned, whilst in England, Mexico or other places, it would not be viewed in the same way. The English man would call a guy who had consensual sex with a fourteen-year-old girl a nonce, one who preys on the young, but go to South America and do the same thing, and no sexual crime would have taken place. Again, don’t you dare start looking in the history books or the moral baselessness of the ire of moderns may slap you across the face.
“So, David, you’re ok with a guy having sex with a four-year-old?”
See, I knew you were gonna go there.
No. I can understand the qualms against the more obviously immature and prepubescent. The nature of the choices of a five-year-old seems very different from a thirteen-year-old or a seventeen-year-old. And the development of the body is very different as well. But who decides on who has consent of the individual? Those who know the individual best? Or strangers who happen to wield the manpower to force themselves, without consent, on others, who try to create a McDonald’s type one-size-fits-all threat upon strangers?
Do the seven laws fit into this subject at all? Well, the core laws? No, not really. The laws that bring the death penalty? No, I don’t think so. They only come into play if it was actual rape. When it comes to the morality expected of humans made in God’s image, or extensions to the seven, then there is a very good case for punishment of people who damage a child. The laws regarding damages and injury, linked to theft and murder(?) seem to fit here. But, after puberty … when the person gives their consent … I personally am not so sure.
No, I don’t want sexual immorality to be rife amongst people. I think sex should be as cheap and transactional as it is today, especially amongst the young. But personally, I have severe doubts about an arbitrary age of consent. As you can probably surmise, I have no trust in an institution such as government that is not known for, and may well be bereft of, wisdom or righteousness, an institution for people craving power, a character trait that doesn’t give one a sense of confidence. So to imagine such an institution has our best interest at heart when it picks an “age of consent” is delusional at best.
Ok, start flinging the mud now if you feel I have flung some myself.
Topic: The age of consent (Read 2192 times)