Quote: Pariah said: Oi....Can't turn away. I'm just gonna try and clarify something here and then RUN AWAY!
Quote: Animalman said: I don't see what the sphincter has to do with consenting. Even if you arrive at the position that participating in anal sex is a health-hazard(which, if performed correctly, it isn't), that isn't a basis for calling the act unconsentual. For starters, hetero couples do it as well, and secondly, how many potentially hazardous activities are legal in this country? A lot.
What I meant by bringing up sodomy in concordance with the concept of "consent" is that the term implies mental maturity, but as such, walks hand in hand with physical maturity as well. Meaning that if our knowledge came to us a lot faster than our sexual abilities, we'd have two different types of consent: You'd be considered mentally mature at age...10 (for sake of argument) whilst you're body is best prepped for sexual intercourse at ages 18-19. But that physical maturity is always based on straight couple statistics; a man with a woman would be best suited for sex if they were of the mutual age of 18-19, but there's no real way of saying when someone would be best suited to participate in sodomy. With the fact being that at any age it's physically abrasive, there can be no consentual age for that. Technically, with its current legalization and forseeable generation of much smarter children, kids could get away with sodomy without legal reparation. And eventually, using the same logic I did with pre-pubescence and sodomy, I could further reason that even the orthodox form of sexual intercourse would be valid for use by young girls because sodomy is of the same fashion as pre-mature sexual intercourse--With the female being the pre-mature one.
This is just my attempt at clarification mind you, I'm not trying to start another line of argument. Respond to it as you will, and I'll just do my best not to reply.
