Yes, nothing is perfect and cannot be. But one option can be better than others. And in my opinion, religious injunctions are not the answer, solely because they don’t leave an option for debate, modification or annulment if need be.

I understand the evolutionary ‘purpose’ (I use this term again with reservations for a lack of a better one in my mind) of sex and yes, psychological needs are also a derivative of it. But that doesn’t change how we feel and that health is to be maintained.

Yes, things are not black and white, there are grey areas where we have to draw the line and that area can be debated. Again, debate based on merit, not some coercive dictums that are said to be of divine origin.

I like the way you are debating here rather than throwing Quranic injunctions at me. I appreciate it and welcome it. I do have my opinions regarding the questions you pose and can be debated.

Regarding the ‘girl of 14 having sex with man of 45′, I don’t think a girl of 14 is mature enough to take that decision. So it doesn’t become consensual in my opinion. As to second question, how young? A 65 years old man has have consensual sex with a girl of 19, I won’t object (I may frown a bit though, but that’s me). I think both are mature enough to take such decision and it is their choice. But having sex with kids is utterly wrong and heinous. I acknowledge that we may differ in defining the age group to be denoted as kids. But I am not taking a definition from any religious scripture, just because it says so. I’d only take it if it has merit.

‘Unwanted children’ can also happen within marriage, by the way.

There is no such a thing as “total freedom” – never has been and never will be. Although this can be a long debate but even you realise that.

Do you know how hard it actually is to deal issues like ‘teen pregnancies’, ‘unwanted children’. Just because you educate teenagers upon sex does not equate to decrease in teen pregnancies. What else are you going to do. Make a law against and inform it. But even that doesn’t really work.

I speak as an educator working with teens – thats is hardly the time of “human rationality”
or maturity. “Freedom” that you so articulate is

You lack understanding of sexual need. Psychological need is only to guarantee success of species.

One whole aspect of sexual crimes are committed because of lack of control. All perpetrator of sexual crime know it is fundamentally wrong. “Freedom” that you uphold …I have never come across a single purveyor of your belief ever to adequately deal with such crime or the whole morality of it.

Plus you failed to answer the main paedophilia question? If a teen girl of 14 by choice has sex with man 45 – should that be allowed? And is a man’s desire to have sex with young girls wrong?

“Unwanted Children” by product of free sex is a western phenomena …. I wonder why?

What we are talking about is ‘freedom’ of sex which doesn’t necessarily translate into ‘free’ sex the way you’ve put it. It is an individual choice. Issues like ‘teen pregnancies’, ‘unwanted children’ can be dealt with proper safe sex practices. There’s something called ‘education’ that needs to be put into place not a tethering fiat.

Thinking rationally is again an individual choice, which ‘we the atheists’ are at least inclined to practice. Unlike the religious lot, at least we don’t derive all of our lives’ answers and essentially whole of our lives out of a single book ordained to have a ‘divine origin’, which in my opinion is the most irrational thing one can do.

So why do you think proper control is so wrong? Its not that no “holy ones” ever have problems but what “free sex” what kind of answer is that. I get puzzled when western-politician start to talk about the need to “control teen pregnancies” or when I see the some of the social problems in west. Un-wanted children. Porn. Or the rise of Far-Left making ever greater gains under “indigenous only”

Atheist like your self are not very good at really thinking things through.

Then again such “rationality” has had a million billion years to evolve at least.