If a mature adult finds the appearance of a beautiful young woman, age 15 or 16 attractive and doesn't act on it, it's not pedophilia.

It's not even pedophilia if he finds her sexually attractive because a 15 or 16 year old is a biological adult.

Except such actions are LEGAL in those countries because of Islamic Law, which is based upon Mohammed's example WITH Aisha. You can pretend it isn't the case, but it clearly is. Muslim scholars are quite clear on the fact. Child molestation is EMPOWERED by the example of Mohammed in these countries.

You're kidding aren't you? I've counseled many adults who continue to be traumatized by sexual abuse that occured in their childhood.

Child molestation is empowered by ignorance. Bigotry is empowered by ignorance. Muslim scholars diagree about what Aisha was when she consumated her marriage to Mohammed.

You're stoking the flames of anti-Islamic intolerance by this thread topic. JMO. The title of the thread topic and the substance of your post are two separate topics.

Child abuse--and the story of Aisha.

Agna is correct here. Girls who are 15-16 years old have sexually mature bodies, it is not abnormal for men to be ATTRACTED to them. It IS abnormal for them to ACT ON those feelings of attraction (not to mention criminal). We know, for instance, that a high percentage of teenage pregnancies result from interactions between teenage girls and significantly older men (think ten years or more). Should this remain criminal for these adult males? I believe it should. There are good reasons to protect 15-year-old girls from adult males.

However, it IS indeed pedophilia to feel attraction to pre-pubescent bodies and/or act on that attraction. Most psychiatrists draw the line at 12 or 13 because of when girls' bodies begin to sexually mature.

There is a huge difference between children and adults in the realm of emotional development and sexual expression. Children are completely reliant on adults for food, clothing, housing, and other necessary items for their life, particularly in the west. As a result, there is a power differential between children and adults that should not be crossed.

Beyond that, in the west, laws establishing childhood as a protected time period came about through trial and error. Children USED to labor in factories without any limitations on age or time schedule, and laws were eventually passed to PROTECT children from this and other types of misuse. Furthermore, the juvenile court system was created to deal with children under the age of 18 because scientists and others recognized that due to brain development and other factors, children should be separated, in terms of punitive action, from adults. They need to be protected from victimization from older criminals, AND, different types of interventions are required with them. Children are currently a protected class in most western societies.

Agno is advocating that those protections be removed, totally. In the anarchistic world that he would create, children would not be protected from predators, AT ALL.

So be it. I have similar feelings about fundamentalist Mormon polygamy. It doesn't really bother me if people become intolerant of their criminal actions as a result of being familiarized with them. Tolerance does not hold as high a level of value in my world when we are talking about violent, dehumanizing, and victimizing behaviors, as it does in yours. You are willing to tolerate such things because you are not directly impacted by them. I consider your position amoral and unethical, for the record. Just so we can be clear, mind you.

I think there are some behaviors that simply SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. islam's ongoing willingness to allow little girls to be victimized in the guise of "marriage" should be something that anyone with a conscience should respond to with intolerance.

Your unwillingness to address negative behaviors in the guise of Islam is well-documented.

My unwillingness to address negative behaviors in the guise of Islam is 'well-documented'.

I'm not the topic here.

There is a vast difference between condemning child abuse and condemning an entire religious tradition held by billions of human beings.

We have two tasks here. One is to stop abuse of young children. The other is to promote peace and tolerance between nations and religious traditions.

I agree that tolerance is not the strongest value I've seen in your posts about Muslims.

I am not willing to tolerate child abuse anywhere in the world. How do you think we Americans can influence the Islamic world?

Consider that. What's your solution? Start a new war against the entire Islamic world?

I don't agree with condemning all of Islam--especially when Muslim scholars disagree with how old Aisha was. Not all Muslims are child abusers--you seem to forget that.

You may consider my position anything you like. I don't fit your assessment. My position is neither immoral nor unethical.

Could you elaborate on your opposition to teenage pregnancy. I'm just curious as to whether you'd object to black of Hispanic pregnancy in the same way, on account of the poor social conditions frequently encountered by children of black and Hispanic parents.

Perhaps you believe that it would be better for women who bear children in their teenage years should have waited until reaching legal adulthood? According to the federal white paper, Kids Having Kids, your position is logically unsound.

http://youthfacts.org/teenmoth.html

"Agno" does not believe in any sort of "anarchy" in the manner that you have described it, and believes that children and adults alike should be protected by the benefits of laws against rape and sexual assault.

Not to state the obvious, but how is it possible for a "feminist" to NOT condemn Islam, which is a faith that treats women like chattel? There must be a crap load of cognitive dissonance going on. In order to keep one's PC Card one cannot disparage a minority faith (despite it being a majoity faith in many places). Yet said minority faith at its very core is the antithesis of empowering women, which makes it highly anti-feminist. And we know that cannot be supported. Quite a pickle. Not for me, of course, but for a feminist with a PC Card it could cause quite a headache.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.