What is the Biblical age of sexual consent?

reply to post by Shane

The age of accountability still seems ill-defined here, which really begs the question. Not surprisingly, by law the age of accountability and consent often coincides.
"The family" seems a similarly dogged concept. Both God and/or Jesus are bachelors in Christianity, and only human males form the focus of their faith.
Considering hybrid populations in post-colonialism it seems that "white", or colonial families were held as sacrosanct, while the women of slaves and colonized peoples could be raped at will.
The family was really an upper class, aristocratic ideal that existed due to the theft of communal, tribal land, and massive exploitation and splitting up of poor, working class communities.



[edit on 4-7-2010 by halfoldman]

I must say I'm shocked and quite flabbergasted.

Can it really be that we have all this Christian finger-waving about sexuality in Christian dominated society, and they cannot give one verse about THE most sensitive topic in Western sexual law?

Originally posted by crash override
It doesnt matter what the bible or any other religion says for age consent.
It only matters what the Law of today says and that is 18.

I think you will find that The Age Of Consent varies throughout the world.

But 16 - 18 seems the norm.

www.avert.org...

reply to post by halfoldman


As far as I am aware there is no passage in The Bible that states a specific age of consent.

The Age Of Consent seems to vary from country to country and societies.

Until recently the overriding factor in most societies was reaching puberty.

In Eastern societies it was, and still is in some places, common for arranged pre-teen marriages to take place.

Mohammed did indeed marry the 6 year old daughter of his friend and ally Abu Bakr.
He kindly resisted consumating his marriage until Aisha was 9 year old satisfying himself by 'thighing' her until then.

As I understand things, and I could easily be wrong, there is no mention of Mary's age at the time of her Immaculate Conception anywhere within The Bilble and any suggestion of her age is Oral tradition or suggestions due to society practices of the time.


And can I just point out Roman Catholics believe in the sanctity of Christ and as such are Christians.

Some people.

There is no age of consent given in the bible. This kind of thing is detailed in the rabbinical writings- Talmud/Mishanah etc. It's been ages since I did my degree and had to read all this stuff, but that's where you'll find it.

You won't much like the answers, though. I didn't.

reply to post by Freeborn

Interesting link.
Strangely, the US seems to have quite a patchwork of ages between 16-18.
Then it also appears as if marriage for girls has parental powers that can undermine the legal ages. Under the old "Christian National" system, a magistrate and a parent could marry off (a usually pregnant) 14 year old.
I remember though that the legal age for girls in SA was 16, 18 for men, and 19 for male homosexuals.
The standard age of 16 for all is quite recent, and Christian groups attempted to oppose it on all kinds of grounds.
But ultimately they didn't have a clear argument.

reply to post by Freeborn

Another great informative post!
However faith, or various faith-based traditions (including those from animism, tribalism) are hard to police by secular society. Even in the US there are sects parctising "child-bride" marriages based on religion.
In fact when it comes to the abuse of heterosexuality, religion often thinks it can do what it wants.

One more thing, you say:

As I understand things, and I could easily be wrong, there is no mention of Mary's age at the time of her Immaculate Conception anywhere within The Bilble and any suggestion of her age is Oral tradition or suggestions due to society practices of the time.

From what I've read, the Immaculate Conception is not Mary's conception of Jesus, but refers to the conception of Mary herself.
The Vatican decided that since Jesus was without sin, Mary was without sin, and was thus also conceived miraculously. By proxy, it means the whole lineage was perhaps without sin.
Could somebody provide more info on the Immaculate Conception?

Just thinking back to the 1990s, when we still had differing ages of consent for men and women.
It always perplexed me, because biologically we were told girls are ahead in puberty compared to males.
Before this move to equality, it appears the law was designed to make young women available to older men.

I've seen a lot about these US scandals where adult female teachers start relationships with adolescent boys - and most guys think it is a huge joke.
However, invert the genders, or make it same gender, and then it's a huge scandal.

In the West it seems, the secular law does not represent wider sentiments. Adolescant "boys" are not molested by older females, they are "gaining experience".
It's a strange, downright bizarre, cultural double standard.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by halfoldman]

I feel that we are confusing Biblical principles with cultural/society norms.
For example, in America, nudity is synonomous with sex. However in Europe there is nothing thought of public nudity at beaches, spas and swimming pools, not to mention many countries/areas, or tribes where clothes are not worn at all.
In the Bible there is not a marriage ceremony written in the scriptures. You will see marriage celebrations but not a vow. The marriage was made at the time of consummation, that was the vow. Marriages probably took place fairly young. Lets face it, boys and girls reach puberty between 11 and 13. I don't believe God made us that way for the fun of it but by design. We we were also designed for one mate and to remain pure until that mate was found. (Now I know that someone is going to bring up the fact that men had multiple wives in the Old Testament but this was not by design but by God's toleration of sinful man.)
So, the Biblical age of sexual consent was the same as the age of marriage and the two were never meant to be separated. Otherwise we need to go by the laws of the land and what is accepted by society. It's two different discussions.
Seeashrink

reply to post by halfoldman


You are quite correct.
I had always assumed, (and I hate assumptions), that the Immaculate Conception was the conception of Jesus in Mary, but no, it is Mary's own conception.

And I didn't realise just how relatively recently it became accepted Catholic belief.
en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

I think the difference in attitudes between juvenile males being taught the art of lovemaking by an elder woman and juvenile females beying preyed upon and manipulated by older men is down to the the physical nature of sex which suggests that a male must be consenting.

And we have this inherent belief that a male will not be as emotionally affected by it as a female may be.

And of course a female may have to pay the physical effect of pregnancy and all that ensues with that at such an early age.

Historically that may not have been as much an issue with life expectancy being much shorter and the role of a woman being seen as child bearing and domesticity.

Society has changed dramatically since those days with womans roles in society changing dramatically and life expectancy rising sharply.

Originally posted by seeashrink
I feel that we are confusing Biblical principles with cultural/society norms.
For example, in America, nudity is synonomous with sex. However in Europe there is nothing thought of public nudity at beaches, spas and swimming pools, not to mention many countries/areas, or tribes where clothes are not worn at all.
In the Bible there is not a marriage ceremony written in the scriptures. You will see marriage celebrations but not a vow. The marriage was made at the time of consummation, that was the vow. Marriages probably took place fairly young. Lets face it, boys and girls reach puberty between 11 and 13. I don't believe God made us that way for the fun of it but by design. We we were also designed for one mate and to remain pure until that mate was found. (Now I know that someone is going to bring up the fact that men had multiple wives in the Old Testament but this was not by design but by God's toleration of sinful man.)
So, the Biblical age of sexual consent was the same as the age of marriage and the two were never meant to be separated. Otherwise we need to go by the laws of the land and what is accepted by society. It's two different discussions.
Seeashrink

Well, we have the reality of secular law, and then all kinds of religious sects who collectively portray themselves as a "majority" on certain issues. One of those issues is sexuality. This is where fundamentalist Christians claim that the Bible is the "owner's manual" to the human body. They claim that homosexuality is wrong, and set up endless organizations with "family" in the acronym to safegaurd everyone from what they consider nudity, smut and porn.
One word they love throwing about is "pedophilia", but according to their "owner's manual", or the Bible:
- A single man of 80 can marry a girl of 9-13. There is no verse or law against it. And yet, they lash out at other faiths for following the same pretext.
- Technically a male-youngster can also marry a woman of any age, but in patriarchy that is unlikely, so it's a none issue. It merely reflects biology (men can remain fertile until old age, women generally have time constraints), and also the rights of male lust are indulged by a male God to his male priests and followers.
Now, to define pedophilia one needs an age of consent. They claim to base everything else on the Bible, maintaining that God and His laws are the same yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Most historians and anthropologists would agree that 12-13 years was the average age of marriage during the NT times.
In our culture that is pedophilia.
So, it follows that to be consistant, Bible-believing Christians should marry off their daughters at 13, or they should just politely not mention pedophilia, and hope that nobody notices what is implied by their beliefs.
In fact, they shouldn't talk about sexuality at all.

The fact that marriage defines consent (ie. consent begins at marriage) is neither here nor there. I've noticed this argument several times in the thread, and it worries me! So if you get married off at 10, that's fine, and defines your consent! I thought an age of consent should define marriage!!!

When I was a student there were Christian organizations on campus encouraging people to stay chaste until marriage. True to form, the one spokes-woman was in her late twenties. For economic reasons, people are getting married later. What she is expecting is that highly educatad young people remain chaste throughout their teens, into their twenties, and possibly even later. The guy must say, "I marry her", or he must leave her alone! I mean really, as if any of our parents did that.
I've read about such US religious right inspired "moral movements", which were funded generously as "abstinance based" solutions to HIV, above proven, public health, condom campaigns. Since the Bush-era they seem to have piped down somewhat.
One global "ministry" had the "silver ring thing", by which gala dances for adolescent girls were held with their dads. In a ceremony that ranges in description between "touching" to "disturbing", pre-teen girls would promise their fathers their chastity, until he gave them away in marriage. Their dads even gave them a silver ring, in a vow bordering on incest. That ring symbolized their chastity, until a parentally chosen husband replaced it with a wedding ring.
Studies on this movement suggest that while rates of oral sex were up for such girls, the loss of virginity was generally reduced by one year.
Too bad they exported it to Africa, where oral sex (or any non-procreative sex) can get you three years of hard labour in some countries.
Whatever the case, while pedophilia is sick, whenever Christians invoke that term, and words like "family" (the site of most molestation), the lacuna in exact Christian meaning comes across as a projection.
A projection from "power" and patriarchy that those who are not complicit are rebelious, and that without the anxiety over young women, masculine power is lost.

reply to post by halfoldman


Have we all gone NUT'S over age ? let's not forget most of are grandparent's married at a very young age! 95 years ago , it was very common place to see some one under the age of 16 married with children. my grandparent were do different. married at the age of 15 and 13 in 1914. my parents married young as well at the ages of 18 and 17.
I don't think it is relegion that set's a age , it is set by a groupe of people who did not marry or have sex until they were in there 20's or later and has made every one think that is just how it should be. Kids today are having sex at a very young age today on their own , it is like a life cycle just going around and around. if you think you can change it forget it you just are not that big or powerful . just except it and move on and try to teach your kids to be safe and stop judging and they will start listening to you! I am a grandparent , I made so many mistakes with my kids for so long it took years to repair. but they understand now what I did was out of love for them. so love your children and protect them and show them you love them and trust them in the choices they make. yes they will make mistakes too ! it is just life. learn to stop judging people and start doing thing to help them change for the better for them and every one else. Sex is just some thing that happens in life no matter the age young and old . just know the law for where you live when it comes to age for sex if it applies to you. know your limits !

reply to post by halfoldman

There was no 'age of consent' as such...
...because sexual union was a family and community concern...
...not just the decision of an individual.

reply to post by troubleshooter

Yeah, reminds me even of the 19th century and Jane Austen novels:
"If that silly, sensible goose doesn't marry the old General promptly she'll be 24 and too old for a suitor with an inheritence. Let the whole family, the servants and social echelon make her most vexed until she obliges!"
Coff, coff ...

There is no "age of sexual consent" in the Bible because such a concept was unknown to the ancients. Females were given to men (particularly after battles) and were never asked whether or not they wanted to be taken as concubines.

Originally posted by halfoldman
When religion is asked why it focuses guilt on a pretty average chunk of people for
individual drives that come naturally, the argument is that pedophilia and murder may also be "excused" by the "natural drive" argument.
However, there is nothing specifically in religious texts on what constitutes pedophilia.

While true, there are several cases where all the "females who had known men" (i.e., were of age to menstruate) were killed along with the men and boys and babies and the remaining females (little girls) were distributed to the victors. Jabeshgilead, mentioned in Judges 21, is one such instance. There are several more.

If one took 16 as a general age of consent most religious myth and theory falls into the realm of sinful illegality. Some would argue that religion has been a cover for legalized child-abuse, and it's not just the Catholics who have monthly scandals in that respect.

That "age of 16" is really a more modern concept. If you look at areas of the world that are living under 14th century standards and so forth, you will find that 9 years is a fairly common age for young girls to be given away in marriage. They are not valued highly (except for their ability to produce boy children). Girls around the world are speaking out against this (their mothers won't, having been cowed by the system.)

but where does any religion get the historical background to pronounce themselves as "moral" based on modern concepts like "pedophilia"?

It's not religion; it's society.

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.

As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

www.pflagsanjose.org...

In royal families, betrothal could take place at birth, and the husband could claim his child bride when he liked.
womenofhistory.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Byrd


And for fear of repeating myself, I think the reason for this is the increase in life expectancy.
Until relatively recently living into one's 30's was considered long lived in many societies so women were expected to breed as soon as possible.
As life expectancies increased then the need for this lessened.

In Western societies the average life expextancy has increased dramatically thus reducing the urgency for women to start breeding.

That has been a contributory factor to increased world population levels.

We are now in the postion there is no such urgency for girls to get pregnant so now girls can develop both mentally and physically.
Girls can also have careers and plan and control their own lives a bit better without being considered purely as breeding machines.

reply to post by Freeborn

The longer life expectancy argument seems rational enough.
Nevertheless, it is far from convincing.
Biblically the claim is that patriarchs lived up to 300 years, or more, and yet the "elderly" Abrahm impregnated a young maid.
Even where older people are statistically scarce, older men can help themselves to child-brides. And it happens, even today that a man in his 60s-70s takes a very young bride in societies that allow this.
There is no age-restriction either way.

Its a trick question, there is no age of consent....Virtue was a commodity and a prerequisite for a honorable marriage. Mary of "virgin birth" fame had to settle for a widower with children. Go figure.

Ages of consent change throughout time and vary among different cultures. My grandfather was 21 when he met my grandmother who was 14 and got married in the U.S. It was not frowned upon at that time. That was only 65 to 70 years ago.