Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramihyn
Quite a lot people of child care groups do that. The reasoning is simple - a child (speaking of for example an 8 year old girl*) is not able to consciously consent to having sex because the child is incapable of judging the scope of the engagement. The child isnt yet mentally capable to make this descision. This isnt unreasonable considering that sexual education and self-awareness regarding sexuality didnt yet happen**.
|
Yes, it is unreasonable. Having sex with an 8 year old might be immoral, and certainly is unlawfull, but that doesn't mean we should just take a word with strong negative connotations and slap it on to ensure people will feel enough revulsion. I mean, calling a pedo who has consentual sex with a child a rapist is as inane as calling him a murderer (he's murdering her soul and her innonence!).
Rape is having sex with someone who is not consenting. Hence, if someone is consenting, it's not rape. Even if we're overruling somebody's consent, claiming it's not good enough due to age, intoxication or general mental abilities*, it still doesn't change the fact that consent was given. Some molesters rape children, others have sex with them.
This isn't a question about morality, who's able to give consent etc. It's a question about language, precision and fear-mongering. Please don't buy their inane logic.
* I am quite fond of the idea of taking this whole 'not mentally capable of consenting to sex'-idea to it's logical conclusion though, and start prosecuting everybody who shag nitwit girls... anything which keep them from breeding is a good thing(TM).