“There is no need of “scientific method” to determine moral absolutes.”
I agree, completely, as you are correct, by definition. Science is a method of determining the validity of a hypothesis, morality a method of assigning values to human behavior, usually with a reference to Divine authority or scripture.
What was the original question was a request for hard data regarding the hypothesis that sex at age 12 damaged a male, and if so, in what way.
So far, all I have read are answers not responsive to the question, with the exception of a private mail about an ex who had been in such a relationship and he felt bad about it. It was noted, upon discussion, that the male was from a Liberal Jewish urban family.
Coming from a somewhat similar background, I can see why the anecdotal report was as it was. Guilt is, after all, something of a profession amongst some of my co-religionists.
As someone who occasionally plays the Devil’s Advocate role, or takes a contrarian position, what somewhat disturbs me is the general acceptance of the counter-intuitive., particularly in this subject area.
One last thought. In a culture that allows just about any form of sex, where even the perversions of members of “queer nation” now are a legally protected class), why are some FReepers so disturbed at a request for corroboration of a premise?
GG, I am a simple person. I do not understand your point; either you are being too obtuse for an uneducated person such as myself, or you are using word jugglery on purpose. I have no wish to get into strife or argument, nor am I trying to evade or avoid the issue.
My simple point is that illicit sex is harmful to all involved. And not all equally across the board - some is more harmful, some less. But without any doubt at all, a 38 year old teacher whether male or female, having sex with a 12 year old student, is vile, disgusting, and harmful to the child.
This is not a theory, a hypothesis and needs no statistics or studies to prove that it is truth.
Moral absolutes are true whether one decides to believe they are true or not. Reason and wisdom will show the open mind that they are true, as well. It’s not a matter of blind belief. True belief is not blind, as God in the heart reveals truth from within, in Sanskrit this is called vijnana, or realized truth.
A person can have “faith” in something which is not true. A person can have “faith” that the world is flat. A blind person can believe or have “faith” that there is no daylight.
But humans can know for certain truths that God can reveal to them from within, this is realized wisdom; enlightenment, if you will. In things large and small, truth can indeed be known. This is faith grown up into experienced wisdom. A person can have faith that if he eats, he will feel satisfaction. But only upon actually eating the feast, will he experience satiety.
So, my longwinded point is that there is not only no need for scientific verification of the fact that it is harmful to a 12 year old boy (or girl) to have sex with a 38 year old woman (or man), but the truth can be known by a superior method of verification. The truth can be understood by experience given from within.
And this truth is small and temporal, compared to other, greater truths that can be similarly known experientially.
So far, all I have read are answers not responsive to the question, with the exception of a private mail about an ex who had been in such a relationship and he felt bad about it. It was noted, upon discussion, that the male was from a Liberal Jewish urban family.Coming from a somewhat similar background, I can see why the anecdotal report was as it was. Guilt is, after all, something of a profession amongst some of my co-religionists.
So the child wasn't actually harmed by being sexually molested? The only real harm was caused by Jews inflicting guilt, which they would have inflicted with or without the sexual abuse anyway?
You've exposed a lot of ugliness within yourself on this thread. You should read through your comments, and attend to some much needed house cleaning.