So an older man married an 11 year old girl and the parents let it happen because they saw that their daughter loved the man.
Now the government wants to arrest the man and "save" the girl.
In my opinion, since the parents sense that the girl loves him and if it's real love, then why the fuck is this bad???? Even the guy said, "the only way I divorce is if she tells me that she doesn't love me anymore".
I don't care at all what the parents say, parents should have no role in deciding what or who their kids do.
However I think if she really does love the guy she should be able to have a relationship with him. It *should* be considered socially inappropriate given necessary lack of common experience, but it shouldn't be *prohibited* provided theres no coercion involved.
I hate when people start trying to "protect the children" because it usually means that they want to hide facts of the world to children who should learn many basic thing OF LIFE as early as they can understand it.
I agree.
Originally posted by Spartan+--> (Spartan)I understand that it is the childs choice and the parents of the child have accepted it without problem but this is still a 37 year old man and an 11 year old GIRL![/b]
Is it somehow more shocking that its a girl?
Personally, I'd have a *huge* problem with any one older than say, 15, being with an 11 year old. However I don't think that people should be put in jail just because they're doing something thats probably inadvisable and that makes people uncomfortable.
Originally posted by Spartan+--> (Spartan)Nor has she probably hit puberty yet as well![/b]
err, I hate to break it to you Spartan but a lot of girls have hit puberty by 11, a lot can even get pregnant. In fact significant development before age 10 is not uncommon. There is quite a big range and more so with some demographic groups. People, especially girls, enter puberty a lot earlier today than they used to (mostly because of dietary changes).
Originally posted by Freigemachten
Laws protecting children from such predatory individuals are put into place because CHILDREN are not as capable of making rational, well thought out decisions as ADULTS are. An eleven year old girl lacks a serious amount of life experience that would allow her to recognize what true romantic love is and is still cognitively very malleable, this man is taking advantage of a child plain and simple.
If being able to make "rational well thought out decisions" about sex were a precondition for being able to consent than most adults would need to be "protected" from their own desires as well.
Everyone lacks serious amounts of life experience required for "recognizing" "true romantic love" to begin with, if your position were valid than everyone's first relationship would necessarily be one where they were taken advantage of.
You don't have a real argument here you just don't like the idea of it, in a very Victorian way.
Originally posted by Freigemachten
If this were a society that married their young daughters off to established men as a matter of tradition, then it is somewhat more understandable as a cultural difference, but it doesn't seem that this is the case.
Here I totally disagree. "Marrying a daughter off" is *always* oppressive and intolerable, whereas allowing young people to pursue their personal desires as autonomous human beings is always a matter of their civil and human rights. The cultural context is totally irrelevant, sexual slavery is just as wrong when its widespread and open as when its illegal and secretive.
It seems to me that your position has no respect for the personal autonomy and rights of teenage women.
Originally posted by Cencus
Add to that the main point of marriage is procreation and at 11 years old a child is not fully grown and as such risks her own health and that of any child by getting pregnent.
The main point of marriage is the social recognition of an exclusive an presumably but not necessarily lifelong relationship, procreation is something that often doesn't happen in a marriage and often happens outside of marriage; only conservatives equate the two.
And, *everyone* who gets pregnant risks there health if they decide to carry it to term; childbirth is an inherently dangerous activity at any age.
Originally posted by Cencus
ffs when I was 11 I was running round playgrounds playing tag.
When I was 11 I had no interest in sex at all...different 11 year olds develop at different rates though; you can't extrapolate your own experience to everyone else.
Originally posted by Spartan
We should remember that in the middle ages children as young as 12 were getting married!
Sure but thats irrelevant because in the middle ages the institution of marriage was a way of transfering women-as-property from their fathers to their husbands, and in any case 12 year olds in the middle ages were a lot less developed than 12 year olds now.
Originally posted by Freigemachten
The idea of statutory rape is that an adult is taking advantage of a child.
The idea of statutory "rape" is the idea that people under an arbitrary age do not own their own bodies and do not have a will of their own, it is an utterly reactionary idea.
developed such concepts and understand that it can be seriously damaging for a young child to engage in sexual activity,
We're not talking about a "young child" we're talking about a pubescent child, and plenty of things can be seriously damaging and yet people have the right to participate in them.
Originally posted by Freigemacheten
I'm guessing you didn't actually read the quote above that says that no child is emotionally prepared for repeated sexual stimulation.
Yah, but thats something thats beyond the scope of what could be proven scientifically and in fact beyond the expertise of pediatric associations so it doesn't help your position.
It essentially amounts to a subjective, basically moralistic judgement.
I mean, is *anyone* really "prepared" for sex? How would you define that? How would you evaluate that? You wouldn't because its an empty judgment.
[email protected]
My entire argument has been focused on the idea that children are not emotionally capable of making such an intense decision and to suggest that they are is insane.
Then your entire argument has totally illogical foundations because "emotional capability" is a a buzz phrase with no real content.
LSD
Pre-pubescent children are clearly capable of consenting, they do so regularly. But in those instances, like all of us, they must rely on the information available to them and their understanding of said information in formulating their decisions.
And when it comes to sex and sexuality, their understanding is highly limited.
Sure, and that would be a valid criticism if we were talking about a 5 year old boy and not an 11 year old girl. The simple if icky fact is that a lot of 11 year old girls are well into puberty.