Do consider I raised the questions because most males, nearly all cultures, and virtually all of recorded history indicates no “damage” from a young male having willing, not forced sex with a female.
A 12 year old is a child. A child cannot willingly have sex as all sex with a child is non-consentual by nature. That makes it rape. Rape is illegal. Raping children is pedophilia. You are defending pedophilia. In the immortal words of a freeper that I can't recall at the moment "this isn't rocket surgery". The idea that a 38 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old isn't going to damage the 12 year old is preposterous...and completely beside the point.
No I'm employed in the private sector in scientific field. What do you do?
“If we were to have had a discussion without you defending pedophiles I’m sure I would be much more sociable.”
Claiming I am doesn’t make it so; repeating the false claim won’t correct the error.
Through most of history, a twelve year old male was just about ready to assume responsibility for his own acts. Note that under Jewish law, a male of 13, on his 13th birthday (12 years old plus one day) was considered responsible for his sins.
However, he usually married only somewhat over twice that age. In this society, we have educational requirements for earning a living and those are best met by postponing marriage until after al least high school.
Alas, we have allowed sex to become a casual recreational sport. And we have sexualized even pre-teens.
Not surprisingly, lots of early sex occurs. My posts tried to point out the contradictions inherent in this situation.
One can hardly make sex a casual act, bring sex into the lives of the rather young, have largely absentee parents, children with lots of time and no adult supervision - and then expect sex not to occur.
Time to “get real” as one student said.
Oh, claiming what history has observed since time immemorial as “preposterous” may not be your strongest argument.
I agree with you that casual sex is bad, and I even noted why AND gave reasons based on behavior and evolutionary advantage. Where we disagree is the assumption that “damage” has occurred.
When “damage” is hard to prove, as the frustrated posts indicate, would it not be better to concentrate on strengthening cultural acceptance of traditional marriage instead of supporting a swarm of intervenors? ‘Specially since the grandparents and the clergy do the gooberment intervenors work better and vastly cheaper as well.
I have a small research facility and an an ecologist, writer and educator.