The definition of a child is precisely who has not reached puberty. Who has not developed the secondary (adult) characters of sexuality. In general, girls enter puberty around the age of 9, with the breastspring, becoming a puberty, and leave puberty around age 13, becoming post-pubescent. Menarche occurs on average at 12 years. The first menstruation is a late phenomenon within the pubertal process.
25 comments
You fail biology. Puberty may (keyword 'may') start at 9 but it sure as hell doesn't finish at 13. Yes, I started puberty at about 9 but I didn't get my period until 14 and I didn't get any breasts until 17. You just want to fuck teenagers because you can abuse them more easily due to them lacking life experience.
No, the definition of a child is a person who's not of age (i.e. can't vote, drive, buy alcohol, enter into contracts, etc).
* You're probably not. You're a molester of girls, or future molester.
@breakerslion
Nobody under 18 got it.
becoming a puberty
An erty in a pub? What is an Erty? And what would it be doing in my local boozer?
Pubic Tea?
A man called Bertie who smells?
...and what is the occurrence of men arching?
Enquiring minds need to know, Mig Oo 'Ell.
Dude. Duuude. I didn't even start til I was 14 and I was in my 20's before everything became "regular".
Scare quotes because the length of the the time between and the actual period still varies.
I resembled a stretched out giraffe during that time so no, not all girls are ready to go *pukes* at 13.
Breasts at age 17? lol This is a lie or you had some disability.
Putting aside the attempt to trivialize sexual encounters for people when you wouldn't consider them competent to make a rational and informed decision about having their own credit card...
9 year olds can procreate in the same sense that a 9 year old who learned how to fight by watching pro wrestling can compete in a Kumite challenge meant for black belts.
Technically not mathematically impossible but if they come out alive it will not be unscarred. The broken bones and pulverized organs will affect them for the rest of their lives and that's just the physical damage. There's rarely any way to fully account for psychological trauma. They're not just clueless about what they're doing but the information they're working with is tainted by fiction. Their much more physically developed and experienced partner could kill them entirely by accident even trying to restrict themselves or else the inexperienced showoff could inflict dire injury upon themselves trying to engage them. And their experience would damn well let them know this ahead of time giving them a moral obligation to protect the fool by stopping the fight altogether (further enforced by a code of ethics practiced by legitimate martial artists, just as informed consent is taught and clarified) making any refusal to stop this from happening a deliberate act of harm for their own gratification. Ultimately nobody without malicious intent and a sociopathic disregard for the well-being of others would ever have suggested to the poor kid that they were in any way ready for this and if the kid refused to listen to those who cautioned them against this absurd and potentially suicidal course of action they're clearly not fit to make such decisions for themselves. Now while it's still obviously better to stop kids from rushing headlong into this kind of recklessness at the very least until they get the basics of life down if you just replace those 100 adult black belts with other 9 year old couch potatoes who have the wrong idea about television what results has much less potential to become a tragedy. There's the possibility of getting hurt as before but the degree of that danger and the absence of those exploiting the vast difference in their knowledge, physical stature, and experience changes the entire dynamics of this misadventure into the folly of youth and a learning experience instead of lambs being deliberately and maliciously led to a slaughter by those who knew better and were trusted to be the adults in the room in every sense of that phrase. See how that works?
The people who like to argue that teenagers have sex all the time tend to gloss over that their partners will be other teens. They're at a similar stage of physical and mental development meaning one won't literally crush the other or tear their organs in the act nor is there likely to be such a difference in their understanding that one is knowingly subjecting their partner to risks they may not have the ability to comprehend and aren't in such a position that what they say is an outright command the other is afraid to disobey. That component of willful manipulation and endangerment is not present between teenagers naturally exploring their sexuality. With adults all of that is an issue. And furthermore it's doubtful teenagers would be actively trying to get pregnant which is good because it's generally only past the ages of 17 and 18 that the chances of a healthy birth get any more favourable than a coin flip. From the first birth onward reproductive organs begin to suffer permanent damage making a strong start important for those who truly plan their parenthood. The ideal age as far as fetal development and likelihood of birth defects are concerned is surprisingly a lot higher than most people would guess at 26.
But of course pregnancy and the development of families aren't the real goal of people who try to justify tearing down age barriers no matter how they try to weave yarns about reproductive viability or strategy and especially not "evolutionary psychology" which is an affront to both of the terms that comprise it and the tortured bastardization of the sciences it tries to wear as masks are a crime against logic. Absolutely none of it syncs with medical fact. It's either selfish social control they intend to force on a child halting their individual growth and mental progression into adulthood to prop up their own lives or else pure sexual predation to which all consequence and responsibilities are not concerns. If humanity attempted to propagate itself following their advice the mortality rate would be apocalyptic, to say nothing of the resulting impairment to our social complexity and ability to maintain our current levels of scientific knowledge and technological reliance.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
