Those who stand for nothing fall for anything

Honestly, I might be biased, but I think it's pretty black or white in this scenario

Because of how you were raised.

I'll use a...less controversial (maybe?) example.

My father hit me as part of discipline growing up.
I don't have a problem with that, it's how I was raised, I see it as a valid form of discipline from a father to his son.*

I don't think that extends to say, school teachers - they don't love as a father loves, their "discipline" doesn't come from the same place.

to some, it is "black and white" that striking a minor is evil in almost any context.
I think that teaching children there are consequences for action (or more often in my case, inaction) is part of a parent's duty.


*I guess it varies as to how it is applied - My father is not an immoral man, he is not a drunkard, he never struck anyone else out of anger or irritation - it is simply that a clip 'round the ears could be expected if one didn't meet a standard required within the household.

Manu wrote: @TheDude: you are correct, I mis-spoke (or would it be mistyped) when I classified pedophilia as evil, I was referring specifically to the act of molesting a child, not the attraction that may or may not turn into action. And the example I posted was to get out of the way statuatory rape. I was not defining pedophilia or child molestation as exclusive to men.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the tradition of older men marrying young girls (anywhere from 5 to 9 years old) in some middle eastern countries. I understand that in the context of the culture it is moral, but is it really? Honestly, I might be biased, but I think it's pretty black or white in this scenario, and to me that specific thing about the culture is absolutely wrong.

The age of consent differs with culture. In the US, it's 18 (in most states). But is it really child molestation if an 18 year old and a 17 year old have sex? Or two 16 year olds? In some countries I've heard the age of consent is around 14. And then there are ones like you pointed out, where an older man can marry a very young girl. At what point is this immoral? Is the country with the highest age of consent the most moral? And does that mean that countries where the age of consent is 16 or 14 are terribly immoral places?

Ultimately I think that sexual maturity is determined by the individual. There are some 13 year olds out there who are mature and able to be healthily sexually active -- that's been the case throughout history for a lot of people in many nations. And some people certainly mature at 16 or 18 or even later. With that being said, I don't think that there are any young children out there who are capable of that. There certainly should be a limit. I don't think it's a morally correct action for a 40-year-old to wed a 6-year-old. The child, immature and without full understanding, couldn't possibly give informed consent.

But then is it okay for the same 40-year-old to wed a 20-something? Or someone who's 18? 16? 14? There are plenty of old men with young wives in US culture, for example. If it's not immoral for a 40 year old to be sexually active with a 20 year old, and it is immoral for them to be sexually active with a 14-year-old, then is it okay with a 34 year old person to be sexually active with the 14-year-old? Or is that only okay if there's a smaller age difference?

In some cases like an old man marrying a 6-year-old girl, it seems black and white. But what exactly is the cutoff point, and what age range is acceptable? Is it supposed to be fixed, or is it different for each person -- and how could that work within the legal system? If you have a problem with a 30-year-old wedding a 10-year-old, do you have a problem with a 50-year-old wedding a 30-year-old?

At what point does it become immoral? And why?

I always considered underage sex a type of physical assault (size difference) and mental assault (maturity difference). The physical one is obvious and goes without saying AFAIK. By maturity I mean the whole raft of issues of the difference between a dependent 'child' and an independent adult.

But societies vary soooo much, I look for something more concrete to assess maturity.

Biologically the brain is undergoing a major reconfiguration during puberty which ends in the early 20's, so there could be an argument for that as a delineation between a child and adult brain. Sure it's in children's best interests to 'think' they are mature relatively early as part of learning, we all probably did think we were grown up by the time we were about 12 haha!

And of course as a function of the complexity in any particular society a persons capacity to survive as an individual independently could be a measure of fitting into that societies model of adulthood... but if looking for a more universal standard I tend towards the biological side, where the body tends to finish its rapid growth phase. But 20 years is a long time, and that aforementioned belief in teenagers that they are adults tends to find them jumping headfirst, and of course the many cases of being pushed out of the nest (or not having a nest to begin with). Probably why we have around that 16-18 as a common age of consent in developed countries, because it tries to hold it off for the above reasons (maybe) but the realities push it down.

I'm just conducting a task at the moment, but quickly -

The rule "Half your age plus seven" has always worked well for me...

There's always outliers, but it seems a handy system


(so a 30 year old can have a relationship with a 22+ year old, and a 20 year old with a 17+ year old, and a 90 year old with a 52+ year old)

It's not really about "morals" but it helps identify people who might be a "similar place" to you in terms of experience, expectations and the like - plus it is handy as it gives a larger window the older (more mature?) you become.


This has nothing to do with the OP, or morals in general - just an aside on the age of consent.

Adder wrote: By maturity I mean the whole raft of issues of the difference between a dependent 'child' and an independent adult.

I know you ended up taking this in a much more biological direction, but I think dependence and independence are interesting qualifiers. A lot of what makes pedophilia so abhorrent to so many people is the idea that a child cannot choose to have sex in the same way an adult can. The child does not understand it in the same way the adult does. And the child is conditioned to see adults as an authority figure to be obeyed. They don't have the same latitude to say no as another adult would.

But then, what about two biological adults, one of which is dependent on the other?

Is it immoral for a man who entirely supports his spouse to have sex with her? Whether he wants there to be or not, there's an implicit message of "Do what I want you to do, or else I will withdraw my support." Is this difference in agency enough to transform their interaction from "consenting sex between adults" to "an immoral violation of the dependent person?"

Sure, the wife can, in the abstract, independently support herself. She has many of the same faculties as her husband. But if she's uneducated, has no work experience, no access to the necessary transportation, and has for the entirety of her life depended on another person to provide for her needs, is her status in relationship to her husband really greater than that of a child?

And, most importantly, if applying ideas consistently means that we do decide that this woman is being violated by apparently coercive sex, what are we going to do about it? For me, my moral relativism is an acknowledgment that I can't have my hands in every pie. I cannot actively interfere with many things I may consider immoral. To the extent that I can't, those things are just artifacts of different cultures that I have to accept as a part of life. I can't stop a six-year-old being sold off to marriage halfway around the world and my verbally condemning it isn't going to change anything. But I can take a hard line on six-year-olds in my life being sold off to marriage.

I can even take a hard line on six-year-olds in my country being sold off to marriage, to the extent that political involvement allows me to do that. And when I do, I don't consider it to be unjustly foisting my morals onto others who think differently than I. Because my moral relativism stops where my ability to interfere begins.

Because my moral relativism stops where my ability to interfere begins.

Interesting application of NIMBY.

I don't mean that in a derogotary way, in fact I believe it adds to the conversation - Morals varying depending on how much influence you have on the outcome of any given decision.

On another note

Is it immoral for a man who entirely supports his spouse to have sex with her? Whether he wants there to be or not, there's an implicit message of "Do what I want you to do, or else I will withdraw my support."

All (human?) relationships are essentially a transaction.

If I do not sleep with/cuddle/talk to my partner, they will seek those needs elsewhere. (We both make a similar income, with similar hours of work commitment so our "transaction" is in meeting each other's emotional needs and in preparing meals/maintaining our home)

I have to be polite to shopkeepers, or they will withdraw their support in doing business with me.
I have to obey the laws of my government, or they will withdraw their support in letting me live with certain rights on the land they govern.

Every time you deal with any other human, you conduct a transaction of some sort.
(Also with other animals, but it's a bit more plain "Don't make me feel threatened, and I won't fight you")


This doesn't make any of our day to day acts immoral.


(Now if a relationship with your partner erodes to a state where it is literally "Do what I say, or you're out on your own" then, that's a problem. I'm not sure where the "moral" line is - If you don't have a contract, and one or both of you is unsatisfied with the "transactions", is it immoral to end it or change the parameters of the arrangement? )

Emotional, Financial, and various other "non violent" forms of abuse are a real thing - and if done with the intent to harm, I suppose they can be immoral.

Parnerium wrote: Is it immoral for a man who entirely supports his spouse to have sex with her? Whether he wants there to be or not, there's an implicit message of "Do what I want you to do, or else I will withdraw my support." Is this difference in agency enough to transform their interaction from "consenting sex between adults" to "an immoral violation of the dependent person?"

Sure, the wife can, in the abstract, independently support herself. She has many of the same faculties as her husband. But if she's uneducated, has no work experience, no access to the necessary transportation, and has for the entirety of her life depended on another person to provide for her needs, is her status in relationship to her husband really greater than that of a child?

I think the answer lies in the intent. Is the husband purposefully taking advantage of the woman by constantly keeping her powerless? Is the husband being verbally abusive and intentionally manipulating his wife into submission? Then yes, it would be immoral.

As a personal opinion, if one of my (hypotetical) 14 year old daughters were to date an older man, it might worry me and even anger me, but I do not think it would warrant prison solely on the age difference. Other factors would have to be considered in the equation.

I realize most cases are a "point of view" kind of deal, but I do believe that there are some things that fit the "black or white" view. In the case of child molesting and age gap in marriage, I agree with Adder in that there are clear physiological differences in children and adults that give us a more clear vision of why it would be harmful for the child to be induced into sexual relationships.