[Vision2020] TYPO CORRECTION Re: The age of consent

[Chasuk]

Taro's reasoning is very interesting.  According to her, marriage and
sex are part of the same  package.  "If you want to get laid, get
hitched," she writes.  I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt
and assume that she would be opposed to rape if either member of the
newly married couple subsequently decided that, while they had
consented to marriage, they weren't ready for sex.  Or maybe that
would be grounds for instant annulment.  We'll let Taro tell us.  At
any rate, the marriage/sex package is okay if the bride, groom,
parents, and pastor all agree to the arrangement.  According to Taro's
logic, then, a 7 year old girl marrying a 32 year old man would
theoretically be fine.  If she agreed to be deflowered on her wedding
night, that would be okay, too.  We will assume that she is old enough
to consent to sex, as she was old enough to consent to marriage.  But
consensual pederasty in Grecian times wasn't okay because it involved
icky homosexual acts and because it hadn't been officiated by a pastor
(who couldn't have existed because of the small matter of Christ's
birth not having yet occurred).

Taro, you hypocrite.

Such arrangements did occur, and that is why we have laws stipulating
the age of consent, for both sex and marriage.  The age of consent for
marriage is usually set high enough that we are not enabling
institutionalized rape.  Marital rape can and does occur, largely
because our society has not entirely abandoned the concept of
conjugal rights.  However, under Taro's logic, it might be okay for a
7 year old to consent to sex but verboten for an adult to refuse it;
what do you say, Taro?


-- 

http://emmagoldman.wordpress.com/