vze57564

dsayers, After viewing some additional viewpoints on age of consent, I think I might be able to meet with you on the premise that it is an arbitrary number overall. While sexuality, at least in my opinion, should be taken when both parties are understanding of the consequences of that action, the concept of age of consent is arbitrary. I also find issue with this concept as that it is not universally applied in all areas; some states allowing for lower or higher ages than others and so forth. That being said, it does trip a few indicators for me that it may have been something cobbled together without forethought as to its actual effect on people.

America is primed to be fascist. For now we have socialism, but when that drops hey will turn it fascist.

I also can recommend buying notes on Lendingclub.com. They are very good ways to park away any idle cash.

Very true. A test like that could be a viable alternative to an age of consent. In some way, it should show the child is ready to make decisions in the adult world.

I appreciate the empathy here. I'm not sure how he raises his child, but when he talks about the parent-child relationship, he does make mention of the power divide. I am sure that whichever way he is raising the child, he is training her to eventually be able to evaluate and make decisions on her own. In the meantime, he has to make some decisions for her, while she is in a state where she does not know something or why she is supposed to do something. Full agency will get ceded to her over time, but only after she has a core set of principles she can follow that will keep her out of trouble, as I understand it.

There are some things in there I am not sure that would work. For one, I don't think teaching a child the moral component is as easy as what is good and bad to eat. Adults have gone back and forth about morality for much time and still have not figured out all the answers, we cannot expect children logically to do the same or better, with the limited knowledge they possess. I do agree consideration and peaceful coexistence with others is a lesson that is generally learned before physical maturation. The disagreement I had with the statement by June was that there are cases when a person isn't necessarily voluntarily deciding on a sexual act, but still capable of doing so, and one case is called rape. Physical maturation would also mean that persons mind being mature as well. I am not seeing the link as to how my words are in support of unilateral control over someone else's life, my argument was that young children have to have decisions made for them at times since they are as yet incapable of deciding for themselves. In a sense, unilateral power is being exercised over them, but I think we can agree that outside of initiating aggression, this is something that has to be done in raising ones child, at least until they can make decisions for themselves. Fair enough. I was giving you a chance to reconsider that statement. I find this response a bit interesting as well. At four years, children don't necessarily know about sex to the point they would be engaging in sexual activity. I would find the parents that had their kids doing that kind of thing at that age a bit suspect. When put in the context of not using force, I would agree that would make the situation voluntary, however there has to be some standards here. For one, in the case that the four year old was having sexual relations, would they even understand what any of that even means at that age? The age was put in as a barometer that people could understand amongst themselves that the person is mature enough, mentally and physically to understand the consequences of a sexual relationship. Four year olds engaging in a sexual relationship, no matter how voluntary, would be a bit absurd, no?

This seems to fall flat somehow. The time at which someone can engage in a sexual act is not always the time they voluntarily chose to do so. Consider the times that might not be the case (I know of some but will pass that responsibility on to you). Moreover, the age of consent was put forth insofar as it is a socially acceptable age at which the person is mentally capable of understanding the consequences of their decisions, namely those of a sexual nature, in this case. There was another solution for a rite of passage ceremony that could also be valid, as if people can generally understand that success in that ceremony would serve to show to the community that a significant level of maturity was reached and the person could then be empowered to decide on serious matters.

If it doesn't cause blindness, why wear shades, lol? The "power over" statement involves the obligation the parent has over the care of the child. Especially at younger ages, the parent is generally exercising power over the child (making decisions for them) until such time it is ready to decide for itself. It may not fit into the whole voluntarist bit that everyone argues here, but young children sometimes have to have an adult decide for them until they get older. That is what is meant by my statements. I thank you for that solution. A rite of passage ceremony could be a good proxy for an age of consent. I could see it serving as a test of sorts to demonstrate one's maturity in such a way as to show others you are empowered to decide things on your own with minimal or no unilateral parental intervention. I would imagine that the child should be developed physically and mentally enough to enter that rite and be ready for the consequences after.

I'm in DC/Northern VA. Where you at?

I will quote the following: Why Izzy was a bad example: "I hate to talk about Stef's child since all I know of it is bits and pieces and he's not here to clarify." Purport of my statement here is that you are not knowledgeable of the child. Whether or not I am providing answer: "I keep seeing conclusions with no explanation other than "everybody else says so." ​Purport of this statement is that I am recognized to be providing an answer, albeit deemed inadequate by the counter party. As for education, I certainly do not denounce it. She may very well be light years ahead of others in mental development even at 3. Still there is a reasonable age that will be decided for someone to be empowered to act on their own as they develop from child to adult. Sorry we could not work it out.

DSayers, As I understand it, projection is where I am unconsciously rejecting negative attributes about myself and ascribing it to others. Is it truly denial that people are not affected by the media in some way? In a perfect world, we could all think rationally about what is said in the TV and media, however, kids especially are very impressionable by what they see. It takes time to inoculate them against that, barring some self contained sensory deprivation module or something. The human being is a product partly of its biology and partly of its tribe. The parents are there hopefully to guide the child until its maturity. Stef's child is a poor example to use as there is not much to ascribe here. Even so, at 3, Stef is still empowered and expected to make decisions on her behalf. That is part of what is expected as a parent. Sometimes it involves having to unilaterally exercise power over another person in that manner. Pressure is not necessarily all bad or irrational. Take for example the pressure from a deadline. I would argue that provided it was s reasonable one, it sets someone up to achieve a goal by a certain time. As you approach it, the pressure increases until such time you finish or it passes. The psychologizing is getting a bit off topic, as is the baffle them with BS strategy. Barring any solution you have yet to provide I am not seeing really anything we can apply to this other that ascribing some kind of age of consent to which it can be reasonably assumed that a person is mentally mature enough for a sexual relationship.

Now I think you're taking my quotes out of context. There certainly is a possibility society is wrong. It certainly does hold that society was and is wrong about a lot of things and there is certainly a possibility it could be wrong about this. So let me put this question on you; what is a better objective solution to resolve whether or not a child is mentally ready that would be universally applicable and not involve the so called violence in the conclusions I have tendered? This is bearing in mind that neither an objective age of consent nor the subjective society decides it conclusion clearly is not valid according to what I understand. Even with peaceful parenting, there is still to account the pressures coming from media and peers that could still have an effect on the child. Besides, learning win-win negotiation and so forth takes time, its not an overnight process. Until that is done and the child can function independently there is some measure of protection incumbent upon the parent to provide, which may entail prohibition of sexual relationships until a suitable age. There is still an obligation for the parent to protect the child, hence the boundaries. I dont see how making a compendium of tangential arguments takes credence away from my case.

The restriction is necessary in the case of children due to them not knowing what the dangers are. It would be negligent of the parent if they did not step in and intervene and teach the child that there is an appropriate time for sexual relationships. I do accept and know about self-ownership and universalization. I also realize that parents have a positive moral obligation to raise and shape their child. Some of that entails setting boundaries, boundaries also include in whether or not that child should enter into sexual relationships. I certainly agree education is part of this, but you also need to be able to restrict the child if such an action was deemed deleterious to their development. That is part of being a good parent; until such time the child can do this for themselves, it is then parent's job to do this. This is necessary in spite of what was explained to the child, as they may still go out and pursue a sexual relationship, before they are fully matured enough mentally to make that kind of choice. As for the law, it is important here to realize the purport behind the law. It is recognized by society, the same premise I am arguing here, that there is a certain time in a person's life where it is generally accepted that they are capable of doing things that were restricted to them as children. Understandably, you may not like law, as I also do tend to see that most of the time it is a tool applied unequally. I am certainly against the violent aspect that the law has to it, however, the spirit of the law itself follows along the line that society values the protection of children from certain decisions since it recognizes that a certain level of maturity must be reached before letting that person off the leash, so to speak. And yes, from time to time, society will change its values, however, there is still a general belief that there is an age that is too young to enter into sexual relationships.

First, I am not seeing how your second point needs explaining. Why should I point out that? What value does it add to the discussion if I explain how I know if someone capable of logic, reason and accepting evidence would not arrive at a valid conclusion? Second, I have elucidated my reasons why the premise as to underage sex has been covered by both myself and the greater society around us. There is already established by law an age of consent and an age of majority, where it can be reasonably assumed that a person knows their actions and can accept the consequences. Barring extraordinary circumstances, we cannot expect children to understand what a sexual relationship is, or what that even entails. Society is replete with examples whereas older people have been punished or at least shamed for engaging in sexual acts with younger people, thus making a demarcation line where such acts are tolerated or shunned.

Even with that, I doubt even Stef would let her on her own until she was at least 18 or so. Ultimately, it is that person's choice whether they have a relationship and to take it to that level, but still, there has to be said something for taking that plunge when you're older and have more life experience under your belt. Look at the problem teenage pregnancy has become. It is looked down upon if a woman enters into a sexual relationship before a certain age, and especially if it results in a child. There is an age and a time when people are best suited to have kids and get into sexual relationships, and I think it is better to err on the side of one being older than younger. There are certain classes of people, like young children, that need guidance. While you can give them the tools to do so, it is not without enough time being trained and guided that they can actually make something with them and be ready for the consequences of what that entails.

While she may be more mentally mature based on Stef's parenting style, what do you think is the likely consequence if one were to motion for a sexual relationship? While age may not be synonymous with maturity, I think its the best barometer we have for making these kinds of decisions, barring some other measure of someone's mental maturity. I agree there are cases where the demarcation is not as clear cut, but that's what we got to work with.

Fair enough, while not necessarily always leading to lifetime partnering, it can certainly become that way through a pregnancy, and then you will have to factor that in. Could you define when you say I am approaching the subject as if it needs to be inflicted? How would a case by case basis be superior? While I accept there may be certain cases where someone may be capable of understanding their actions at younger ages, and sometimes older than the age of maturity, that's not the case in a majority of issues. While someone older may find someone in their mid or early teens attractive, by social standards it is frowned upon, since the assumption is that the younger person still has to grow up and learn more about the world before shacking up with another person in a relationship. As for the parent's responsibility, I agree, the parents play a role in developing the child, and making sure that it is not codependent or seeking a relationship, sexual or otherwise, that is deleterious to it.

Yeah, on a recent podcast I heard, I concluded the way I would be able to reach others is through the Socratic method. I will do this, much like I do with religious people, such that I will assume they have lost or have a diminished capacity for how to think and that questions are less direct than statements or assertions.

DSayers: The deal with age of consent is very tough. I have heard it argued that some girls do know the consequences of their actions at a younger age than the age of consent, defined as between 16-18 depending on which states you go to. It has been a very contentious issue in the manosphere over some cases where for example a man who was legally retarded was still hit with a statutory charge, after being seduced by a teenager, despite him being 20 years old. Who's is to say she did not know what she is doing? Still we can look to common law and community standards and realize that there is an age that is too young to go and have sexual relationships with. There also has to be an accounting for the age gap, regarding life experience and maturity. What kind of life can one build together if the man is 30 and the woman is still in high school? I can't necessarily think of any conclusive test I can apply that says at a certain age, one is mature enough to realize what their actions are. Another thing I can think of though is that brain development does not stop until 25 and you cannot legally enter into contracts until you're 18 or so. Perhaps age of consent is outdated or may need some changing, still, there has to be some kind of boundary else you will have folks trolling day cares or something like that. As for objectifying women, that is part of feminist vocabulary, whereas the criticism is leveled that because men ogle women in a sexual manner that they are an object. Women are not objects, they are partners. We look to them to make love or to have companionship with, but feminists have poisoned male sexuality such that they make it appear shameful or lesser than female sexuality. Look at any romance novel and see the different fantastical depictions of men as one can see in pop culture and media fantastical depictions of women. It is meant to be enticing and a natural part of life to be attracted to the opposite sex (or the same if you go that way). When they use objectifying that is merely to play into the victim mentality that Feminists like to pander to because they have not moved past a state of infantilization and like to be able to eschew adult responsibility when it suits their needs, while saying they are strong and independent women. Long story short, you are not objectifying women when you look at porn, you are merely engaging your male sexuality in a healthy outlet. Short of wanting to have absolute control over a woman's life, as one would if she were an actual object, you are not in any way objectifying a woman.

He must be into that hardcore shit.

You might get blind or lose an eye too.

I think he was ok with it so long as you dont use it as a crutch for a deeper emotional issue or as a proxy for a real relationship with another person. There is a tradeoff between working yourself and being in a relationship and being too much into one weakens your abilities with the other. The Victorian thing was a joke when the guy cursed. As for the age gap, that is necessarily the determinant for understanding consequences and the meaning of your actions. Such that Paul Walker was with underage (16) year olds, it was determined she does not understand fully what she is doing in that relationship. As her mind still needs to mature, while she has all the hardware to do it, the software in terms of maturity is not there and thus making Paul to be the bad guy, since he is using his status to manipulate the child. She was responding to a biological urge without reference to what any of it meant outside of thst context, which is a problem.

I just finished it. Youre right, it was a sign of weakness on his part. Distilling the argument he is putting on me is that he wants me to respect other people's ideas and beliefs otherwise I will upset them. Perhaps he does not like that I show certainty, especially where he disagrees. Thank you for the podcast. I will be sure to hold on tightly to the mantra it is people to be respected, not ideas. The feelings one has to their beliefs are moot, only whether the belief is logical, verifiable and so forth should matter.

Thanks. I will put it on now.

Good point. I will ask him about it. Thank you for your perspective on this. I will ask him about that with the possibility that it could be a cognitive issue or defensive posturing. I am sorry to hear that you had to go about learning about your relativism in that manner and wish you well in your efforts for self knowledge. I get the sense I should approach him socratically as to best elicit what the real issue is.