Real world Jaime and Cersei Lannister arrested!

[zelticgar]

I still cant get over the fact that the girls name is Christopher. That just gets my freakanomics radar twisted up.

What kind of parents would name a girl Christopher? Parents that would raise a bother and sister to bang in a church parking lot, that's what kind!

[Athias]

@ Ser Scot:

First, you are making this argument within the context of state authority. Secondly, I don't restrict consent to terms of sex. Thirdly, I don't find anything inherently wrong with sex. The scope of what is considered sexual is broad--as any tactile activity can be considered sexual. If you're going to make the argument that a child, or anyone at any age, can't consent to sexual activity, then one can make the argument that a child can't consent to any tactile activity.

If a child can't consent to sexual activity, then by the very same reasoning, that child can't consent to a hug, or kiss, or pat on the head--not unless you can inform a distinctively abusive quality in sex. Unless there's a clear establishment of violence and/or coercion, the only violation is to that of the interests and comfort of the State and its parents. If you can establish that the interaction is violent and/or coercive, then it is rape, no matter how old each party is.

You denounce the authority of the State and reject their solution to the problem both on those grounds and claiming that it doesn't work or isn't better. When asked to provide a useful alternative you have nothing but some platitudes about how consent is a difficult question and we can just...I don't even know what.

We still haven't established what the problem is.

When asked to provide a useful alternative you have nothing but some platitudes about how consent is a difficult question and we can just...I don't even know what.

You did not ask me to provide a useful alternative. You asked me a question about consent.

My argument is that you haven't provided a meaningful alternative for government enforcement of consent and you'll open the door to a ton of bad shit.

And you've yet to establish why the government should enforce consent. It was you who brought the issue up. I'm not going to substantiate your arguments.

Also: your refusal to provide a system may seem like it reflects well on you because you can just claim that the government "isn't better" than any one of a bunch of possible systems, merely more convenient, but it doesn't.

I didn't know that I was asked to provide a system. Don't pontificate -- construct an argument.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Athias,

To be clear you said you "find nothing inherently wrong with sex." That is more broad than what we are discussing. Are you saying there is nothing inherently wrong with an adult having sex with a pre-pubesant child?

[Athias]

Athias,

To be clear you said you "find nothing inherently wrong with sex." That is more broad than what we are discussing. Are you saying there is nothing inherently wrong with an adult having sex with a pre-pubesant child?

It only seems broad because you're attempting to restrict the position to that of adults and prepubescent children. I'm saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with sex. The ages of the parties involved do not qualify said position. I will say though that there is a period where the parents can assert themselves as proxies when their children can't effectively communicate their interests. This, however, is because of the process of human development, not a statutory edict.

[Castel]

We still haven't established what the problem is.

You hint at it yourself:

I won't pretend to have a clear-cut answer for your question. Consent can be a transient concept during sex -- which is why rape is hard to prove, absent of any clear signs of struggle--and even that is subject to interpretation.

But to state it clearly: dealing with consent in a manner that isn't obviously idiotic and counter to the desires of most people out there. You dropkick the government out of that particular responsibility and now we have to wonder how exactly we're going to deal with consent.

You did not ask me to provide a useful alternative. You asked me a question about consent.

You're right. But we'll get to the implication of my questions.

And you've yet to establish why the government should enforce consent. It was you who brought the issue up. I'm not going to substantiate your arguments.

Both my questions and Anti-Targ's comments explain why. I think it's pretty easy to read between the lines.

But of course, this is what I mean. If you don't actually state an alternative or position then it's not possible to establish the position it beyond what has already been argued is it? There will always be some possible better way out there to be called upon.

[Stannisaurus2]

I am generally against government involvement myself but I certainly wouldn't support that the state shouldn't be a safeguard to protect children from sexual abuse

[Galactus]

It only seems broad because you're attempting to restrict the position to that of adults and prepubescent children. I'm saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with sex. The ages of the parties involved do not qualify said position. I will say though that there is a period where the parents can assert themselves as proxies when their children can't effectively communicate their interests. This, however, is because of the process of human development, not a statutory edict.

So if parents are OK with it they can allow someone else to have sexual intercourse with their children?

[mormont]

[mod] All right, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it's a digression from the actual topic of the thread, the discussion on age of consent is over. No further comments on that topic. [/mod]