@Iztiak asked you to define consent. Now I'm asking. Please define, and explain your definition of, consent.

Thanks in advance.

 

Open any dictionary. My definition would be pretty much the same as the first definition (as in, most common usage of the word).

Yes, I'm aware that people like to change the definition of simple terms to suit their political stands. No, I don't care that you think teenagers are mindless puppets. If someone understands what he is doing and its consequences, and isn't coerced, he can consent. That's my opinion, not a legal proclamation.

 

I've seen priests with better defenses....

Harry/Tonks is a pairing you read when you're a dumb, horny 16 year old who loves the idea of a woman who can change what she looks like.

The morality of it doesn't factor in.

As an adult, you hopefully recognize it's firmly in the rape camp and not acceptable under any circumstances for a minor to sleep with a legal adult.

Spoiler

Unless you're Taure.

 

You're going to have to actually provide the definition instead of just accusing people of changing it. The dictionaries differ. After you've provided a definition, you can elaborate on it. Unless "If someone understands what he is doing and its consequences, and isn't coerced, he can consent" is your definition. In which case, please elaborate on "understands what he is doing and its consequences" and specifically how it might relate to a relationship between a police officer and a child.

Cause right now it looks like all of your posts can be summarized as Argument Type 3.4.

 

That is my definition, and there's nothing to elaborate about, unless you have a problem understanding the definition of the word "understanding" and "consequences". Words aren't that hard, when you don't try to constantly change their meaning.

Now, since I answered your very important question, I hope you’d graciously answer a question of my own. When I was 14, I had sex with my girlfriend, who was also 14. None of us forced the other into this. We both agreed to do it, in clear mind, to the point of researching birth control means beforehand. However, 14 is below the age of consent in my country. So, does that mean... what? That we raped each other? That we raped ourselves? That we are both child rapists? After all, we couldn’t consent to have sex, since we were such stupid brainless teenagers that don’t know what having sex means, and who would totally regret it once we got a brain transplant at the moment we reached the legal age of consent in our country.

Another question, let’s say a teenage boy rapes an adult woman. As in, forces her to have sex with him against her will. But, this poor boy is below the age of consent. Does that mean that the woman actually raped him, because she technically had sex with him? Or does it mean that he didn’t rape the poor woman, because he’s too dumb and innocent to understand the consequences of such an action? Who’s supposed to go to prison here?

 

You absolute dill.

 

This is starting to seem like an attempt to get psychiatric help without paying for it, but hell, I'll bite. Let's go one step at a time.

Per question one - Let's reach some common ground, shall we? I posit that animals cannot consent. Now, if you start talking about all the sheep in your area that *definitely* consented then I really can't help you. But assuming that you agree, I'll have you note that animals have been running around fucking each other since the beginning of time sexual reproduction. How can this be? They cannot consent, but they still have sex?

That's because the ability to consent is not synonymous with having sex organs and the animal drive to reproduce. That's why all the goats in your country are off limits to you, but not each other.

With me so far?

For question two... Christ. In short, your question mostly just shows that you are missing the point. This is nearly the same as the example that @Silirt used on the previous page to try to explain this to you.

But fine. Self evident as it is: No, the adult victim is not at fault. Yes, it's still a crime that the teenager committed. The culpability of underage offenders is often decided by courts on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific situation and individual psychiatric evaluations.

 

Your example is bad because animals are not judged by the same laws as humans, either legally or ethically, therefore no, we are not on common ground. And it still doesn't answer my question. I had sex with a girl who, supposedly, couldn't consent to sex. She is too stupid and young to understand what sex is, or so previous posters claimed. Does that make me a rapist? Why can teens totally consent to have sex with each other, experiencing no trouble with the law, yet when they consent to sex with an adult, suddenly it's rape? it seems like the whole statutory-rape thing is based on the idea that teens can't consent, and yet it's not rape when they sleep with each other?

But, wait a second! Just a few posts ago you informed me that teens cannot possibly consent! that means the rapist hasn't done anything wrong, since he isn't aware of his actions!

You know, that sounds a lot like... nuance to me. Like the topic is actually complicated, and the world isn't divided into mindless teens and child rapists, and in some cases the teens are, in fact, the predators, and can have responsibility for their actions. Kind of the point I was trying to make.

 

Mate. Are you willfully missing the point?

 

No, in fact, I feel like I'm talking to the wall with some of you guys. If you can't answer a question simply (and without misused animal analogies), stfu.

 

Adults having sexual relations with children is bad. This is known as statutory rape. It is bad, because one party (the adult) is taking advantage of the other (the l i t e r a l child). In civilised societies, we look down on this kind of behaviour because children are not mature enough to give informed consent in light of such a power imbalance. Adult + child + sexual relations = bad.

Does this make things clearer?

 

Reasonable People: Realistically, a relationship between Harry and Tonks in a canon scenario would not be okay. Tonks would be way in the wrong. 23 year old cops shouldn’t be dating teenaged schoolkids.

Atram Noctem: Oh yeah, well what if Harry sexually assaulted Tonks? Checkmate atheists!

 

I totally understand. Teens can't give consent. Sex minus consent = rape. Teen rapes adult = still rape. I'm just asking, does that mean that teenagers who have sex with each other are child rapists?

 

You know, for someone on a site that formed around a joy of reading, you're displaying a shocking lack of reading comprehension.

 

I can say the same thing to you. At least we're on common ground, huh?

 

*sigh*

@Atram Noctem Look, you can get into the logical pretzel all you want, but ultimately it all boils down to power dynamics and society has determined that an adult having sex with a minor, except in the cases of violent rape by a minor on an adult, is rape. Might there be really odd situations where the teen was super mature and the adult immature and power dynamics don't play a factor? Possibly, but parsing that out is screwy and so rare that society has decided just to say screw that and apply rule across the board.

 

no u

 

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say, that it's a complex topic and you can't just boil everything down to "child rape!" vs "perfectly okay". Also;

We've finally found a conclusion to OP's query. Since Harry is such an uber powerful wizard, the power dynamics between him and Tonks are even, therefore, it's ethical!

 

Man, you are really going out of your way to defend adults who have sex with children. It's not a good look. If you need to result to I(14m) had sex with my girlfriend (14f) and what if a teen rapes an adult, you've already lost what ground you have had under you.

All you had to do was not post anything, and keep your perverted opinions to yourself, and none of us would have been the wiser. Instead, you've been twisting yourself into Ben Shapiro-esque levels of logical contortion to defend a 22 year old raping a 14 year old, and the hypothetical situation of a a 23 year old having sex with a 15 year old.

Since you lack common sense to somehow fail see how we dealt with Grenn, let me spell it out for you: Normal people are disgusted with the idea of an adult having sex with a child. Those who aren't disgusted are perverts. Those who defend adults who have sex with children are also perverts, because why the hell else would you defend an adult having sex with a child if you weren't a pervert yourself?\

You sure you aren't posting from Crypto Island? Hell, you sure you aren't posting from Epstein Island? Jesus Christ...

Side note: If a 22 year old is 'seduced' by someone they know is 14, they weren't seduced. They were trolling for underage sex. Literal pedophiles use that exact same excuse 'That 7 year old seduced me!'.

 

That...misses the point. It is complex in -extremely- rare situations, but the harm done and evilness of it in 99% of cases means those complex situations are meaningless. Attempting to appeal to the outlier cases in a situation rather than just saying "Sex with minors is bad" is really concerning.

Is the motivation more from trying to justify Harry/Tonks? because even more so in a canon starting point that's rape.