Pornography(18+)

[vze57564]

If you consider yourself a voluntarist then there is no sweeping "age of consent"; The time at which a person may engage in sexual activity is the time at which they voluntary choose to do so. I don't see any room for debate here.

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.

[dsayers]

The time at which someone can engage in a sexual act is not always the time they voluntarily chose to do so.

 

The time a person could rationally weigh the risks, the counters to those risks, etc comes before physical maturation. It's no different than teaching a 3 year old how to choose food that's good for them over food that tastes better but isn't as good for them. The only real difference is that sexual interaction requires another person, so there's a moral component. Considerations and peaceful coexistence with others is also a lesson that is learned well before physical maturation.

 

When I invited you to sit down and make a timeline to see for yourself, I was trying to be helpful.

 

So all you end up with is abused people's repression leading to a desire to repress others out of artificial righteousness. It's the same reason why psychopaths get off making legislation to tell you how to live your life.

[june]

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).

 Please do not bestow your argument unto me, state it yourself. I have argued my position, that is: In the context of voluntarism age is a non-issue, irrelevant. All that matters is that no party uses force unto another. Two 4 year olds, for example, could voluntary choose to engage in sexual activity (whatever kind is possible at that age) and nobody could morally argue against it. To do so would be to argue against voluntarism itself.

[vze57564]

The time a person could rationally weigh the risks, the counters to those risks, etc comes before physical maturation. It's no different than teaching a 3 year old how to choose food that's good for them over food that tastes better but isn't as good for them. The only real difference is that sexual interaction requires another person, so there's a moral component. Considerations and peaceful coexistence with others is also a lesson that is learned well before physical maturation.

 

When I invited you to sit down and make a timeline to see for yourself, I was trying to be helpful.

 

So all you end up with is abused people's repression leading to a desire to repress others out of artificial righteousness. It's the same reason why psychopaths get off making legislation to tell you how to live your life.

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.

 Please do not bestow your argument unto me, state it yourself. I have argued my position, that is: In the context of voluntarism age is a non-issue, irrelevant. All that matters is that no party uses force unto another. Two 4 year olds, for example, could voluntary choose to engage in sexual activity (whatever kind is possible at that age) and nobody could morally argue against it. To do so would be to argue against voluntarism itself.

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?

[june]

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?

"I would find the parents that had their kids doing that kind of thing at that age a bit suspect.  "Just for clarification: you would find it suspect for someone to not initiate force upon someone elses voluntary choice?"... however there has to be some standards here.  "there is -- voluntarism."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 stage?"What if they don't? You seem to be implying that if a person cannot wholly "understand" a topic then another person has the right to supercede their voluntarism and make a decision for them. This logic not only applies to the parent-child relationship but to all situations involving 2 or more parties (i would like to know your parameters for "understanding" by the way; is their one, or can any person with a better "understanding" of a topic supercede everyone elses voluntarism?). In the end i think what lies at the center of your objections is simple: do children have full rights of self-ownership and voluntarism, or not? You seem to be arguing 'no' (PLEASE correct me if i a mistaken; you havent outright stated this, but i sense it is has been implied), which basically means you are arguing against the concepts of self-ownership and voluntarism themselves.

[dsayers]

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

 

Is it your argument that because adults cannot figure out morality, they should inflict their work in progress on others? This seems like you're trying to argue against me while arguing for my position. Oh and adults have gone back on forth in terms of nutrition as well. Also, I don't feel you've addressed the moral component you referenced. The morality related to sexual interaction is to not assault, which even bad parents teach their 3 year olds, at least with their words. I'm not even sure what you mean by adults have gone back and forth on morality. This too is arguing for my position of teaching people to rationally think.

 

Physical maturation would also mean that persons mind being mature as well.

 

What is the qualifier of "physical" doing there if it has no bearing on what it's qualifying? Are you suggesting that people need to wait twice as long as reality tells them? Are you aware that people used to reproduce and have families at the age of even 13? As our life expectancy and irrational social norm of age of consent has increased, has the age of human physical maturation changed at all? As I understand it, the anti-progress crowd has been arguing that the age of human physical maturation has actually been decreasing.

 

So I ask again, for the third time, why is it that in philosophy, when our perception conflict with reality, our perceptions must give way, but this doesn't apply to physical maturation?

 

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.

 

 

The disagreement is in regards to when that is. You say child, but we're talking about adolescents.

[TDB]

[...]The "power over" statement involves the obligation the parent has over the care of the child.  [...] young children sometimes have to have an adult decide for them until they get older.  [...] .

  I think I understand what you're saying. I just am not sure Stef would agree. I seem to remember him saying he never makes decisions for Izzy.

How is "a person who is never exposed to French cannot speak French" at all assailable?

I think it is assailable on the basis that it is an analogy, and we are not discussing language acquisition. Your analogy depends on their vulnerability being a learned aspect of their personality, but an alternative hypothesis is that some vulnerability is inevitable, and it is the defenses that must be learned. By surrounding children with truth tellers, they may become *more* vulnerable to liars, they might fail to develop skepticism and be too trusting. Stef may be right in his hypothesis, and I hope he is, but I think that needs to be tested. You are claiming to understand something that is new and not well understood yet, if at all. I want to be more cautious.

On what basis? To accept this approach, almost everybody would have to accept the evil and sadism of their caregivers or other childhood "authority figures," up to and including the very people that claim to own and protect us as adults. So many people reject the possibility on the basis of this (dis)comfort alone. Look at this thread, where it is, and how laden with presupposition it is. This is where such a topic should receive the most rational treatment.

I think you misunderstood me, or I am misunderstanding you. I don't understand your reply. My idea was that someone could teach parents to be better teachers of rationality for their kids and/or help kids learn to be rational and resist social pressure. I was crappy at it, could have used some help. But I am fairly devoid of self-knowledge.I had also intended to point out that not all social pressure is negative, but I forgot. When you're trying to do something brilliant and your friends encourage you, doesn't that count as social pressure?

[dsayers]

  By surrounding children with truth tellers, they may become *more* vulnerable to liars, they might fail to develop skepticism and be too trusting.

 

This would mean that they were not surrounded by truth tellers. Part of the truth is that people are fallible and therefor things that they say need to be scrutinized. Besides, how does trusting somebody to tell you the truth translate into being okay with somebody trying to touch you between the legs when nobody has ever done that before? Or telling you to take your clothes off when nobody has ever done that before? This is where the language analogy holds.

 

 

I think you misunderstood me, or I am misunderstanding you. I don't understand your reply. My idea was that someone could teach parents to be better teachers of rationality for their kids and/or help kids learn to be rational and resist social pressure.

 

Your use of the phrase social pressure here reveals that we're talking about two different things. A responsible parent would not leave their child with people who wished to prey upon them when they're young. Through modeling and rational thought, the child would not accept friends that did not value them as a person and an equal when they're older. You're talking about two paradigms concurrently despite their incompatibility.

 

To clarify my reply, I understood your point, particularly your use of the phrase "entrepreneurial opportunity." In order for what you're describing to be profitable in the existing paradigm (your context), it would have to be a service people want. Which, when you sell it under the label of making your children immune to predators, of course there would be a huge push for it... Until the parents realized that they would be categorized as predators. Or that they'd have to come face to face for the first time that so many of their own childhood caregivers/authority figures were predators. Suddenly, it's not so desirable. I remember this from my own childhood. My mother just adored having a real live doll to play with... Until it was old enough to start scrutinizing her irrational commands. Abusers aren't comfortable with lights being shined on them.

[vze57564]

  I think I understand what you're saying. I just am not sure Stef would agree. I seem to remember him saying he never makes decisions for Izzy.

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.

[ribuck]

An alternative to "age of consent" would be some sort of "rite of passage," where a young person could demonstrate her/his eligibility and maturity, with age not factoring into it

 

That's a great idea!

 

Of course, not as a basis for violent retribution (as June says, if it's consensual then it's allowed), but as a social mechanism for non-violently encouraging age-appropriate behavior.

 

In the western world, there have been such rites of passage in the past. It's not so long ago that many western subcultures frowned upon sex before marriage, and the rite of passage consisted of courtship followed by engagement followed by marriage. In high society, there was another rite of passage before that: the debutante's ball was a signal to prospective suitors that the girl was now old enough and mature enough to be courted.

 

For the male, starting work and gaining economic self-sufficiency was a very meaningful rite of passage. A hundred years ago this might happen at age 14. Even amongst my schoolfriends, some left school into employment at 14 (the minimum allowable age at the time). In UK memoirs about World War I, it is frequently mentioned that boys queued to enlist at age 14 (by mis-stating their age, because the official minimum age was 16).

 

But I have no idea how a modern "age of consent" rite of passage would look. I imagine it would involve the parents and peers of the teenager, and would show that the child's family and peers endorsed the idea that the child had sufficient maturity to make their own decisions in life.

[vze57564]

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.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

There is no such thing as good or bad food, it is a matter of amount, occasion, frequency.

 

Of course, not as a basis for violent retribution (as June says, if it's consensual then it's allowed), but as a social mechanism for non-violently encouraging age-appropriate behavior.

 

 Age-appropriate behaviour? There is the capability of reasoning, consent and making informed decissions. That's measureable to some extent. What you think is age-appropriate behaviour doesn't matter. 

 

A teenager has to be able to consent to sex, otherwise it was rape or molestery. That's the age of sexual intercourse with anyone for the particular person. That means you cannot have two standards for people based on their age. E. g. sex with your classmates is perfectly okay, but sex with 20 year old neighbour is rape. If someone claims, that she was tricked into sex, the proof is on him. Seduction is not exploitation.

[dsayers]

How does "rite of passage" differ from "explain pregnancy and disease, the ramifications, the long-term impact" or "taught what sex is, the benefits of it, the consequences of it, etc"? My "rite of passage" for multiplication was when I was taught to memorize single digit multiplication tables. This was not at an age (I happened to be 3), was not a formality, and did not require social approval.

 

May I be so bold as to suggest it's a lacking of self-knowledge to accept self-ownership, approach any subject as if it requires external control, but not realize the incompatibility of these ideas?

[TDB]

This would mean that they were not surrounded by truth tellers. Part of the truth is that people are fallible and therefor things that they say need to be scrutinized. Besides, how does trusting somebody to tell you the truth translate into being okay with somebody trying to touch you between the legs when nobody has ever done that before? Or telling you to take your clothes off when nobody has ever done that before? This is where the language analogy holds. Your use of the phrase social pressure here reveals that we're talking about two different things. A responsible parent would not leave their child with people who wished to prey upon them when they're young. Through modeling and rational thought, the child would not accept friends that did not value them as a person and an equal when they're older. You're talking about two paradigms concurrently despite their incompatibility. To clarify my reply, I understood your point, particularly your use of the phrase "entrepreneurial opportunity." In order for what you're describing to be profitable in the existing paradigm (your context), it would have to be a service people want. Which, when you sell it under the label of making your children immune to predators, of course there would be a huge push for it... Until the parents realized that they would be categorized as predators. Or that they'd have to come face to face for the first time that so many of their own childhood caregivers/authority figures were predators. Suddenly, it's not so desirable. I remember this from my own childhood. My mother just adored having a real live doll to play with... Until it was old enough to start scrutinizing her irrational commands. Abusers aren't comfortable with lights being shined on them.

I was making a long reply, but my browser just ate it. I am puzzled by your response, which seems to have nothing to do with my idea. I hope I did not suggest that you hire someone to grope your child. You seem very certain about some ideas Stef has mentioned, which if they are correct at all are recent scientific discoveries and in no way as certain, well understood, or widely known as you seem to think. I am not as familiar with them, please have some patience with me. I group parents into 3 groups, those who need no help, those who want no help, those who need and want help. I include myself in the last group. And I mean actual help, which would benefit both parents and children, which is at least conceptually possible, though perhaps practically impossible. I certainly don't feel like I am ready to go into that business. I think your answer borders on a personal attack, except of course it is so off the wall I have to think its just one of those Internet things where people start yelling at each other without understanding each other. I hope I haven't given you reason to think I am a troll who came here to endorse child abuse. Please think twice before making accusations like that. Am I overreacting?

[...] May I be so bold as to suggest it's a lacking of self-knowledge to accept self-ownership, approach any subject as if it requires external control, but not realize the incompatibility of these ideas?

. Where did I suggest external control?

[dsayers]

Please think twice before making accusations like that. Am I overreacting?

 

Overreacting means a reaction that went to far. As I made no accusation, it would be more accurate to classify it as bringing past trauma to the table. Allow me to demonstrate:

 

You seem very certain about some ideas Stef has mentioned

 

2+2=4 regardless of whether Stef says so or not, regardless of how certain I am or am not about it. This is the second time you've mentioned this despite it having no bearing on the truth value of what's being discussed. The implication being that if I don't meet some standard (in this case, skepticism), you can discard my input based on that rather than on the words themselves being false. Because you are willing to shift focus off of the topic and onto the individual, perhaps this might explain why you'd expect others to similarly make things personal.

 

I hope I did not suggest that you hire someone to grope your child.

 

Of course not. "My idea was that someone could teach parents to be better teachers of rationality for their kids and/or help kids learn to be rational," which you described as "a hell of an entrepreneurial opportunity if someone could figure out how to teach these skills effectively." This is precisely what Stef does. How does that go for him? He releases a video about spanking and it is met with tons of resistance. Why? Because we live in a world full of people who were spanked and who believe that spanking is necessary and good. Which means that the moment you teach a parent that you need to rationalize and negotiate with your child, they are going to go on the defensive. Either because they've already begun to parent from an authoritarian position, or they were parented from an authoritarian position, or they live in a world where it's viewed as normal, necessary, and good to parent from an authoritarian position.

 

A product/service that instantly sent almost all of its customer base on the defensive against that product/service could not be classified as a hell of an entrepreneurial opportunity. This was all I was saying. I was disagreeing with you, which is not the same as attacking you.

[TDB]

Overreacting means a reaction that went to far. As I made no accusation,

Apparently I misunderstood everything you said.

it would be more accurate to classify it as bringing past trauma to the table. Allow me to demonstrate:2+2=4 regardless of whether Stef says so or not, regardless of how certain I am or am not about it.

Stef was not the issue, this issue was that we're not discussing 2+2=4, we're discussing recent hypotheses from psychological research.

This is the second time you've mentioned this

What is "this"?

despite it having no bearing on the truth value of what's being discussed. The implication being that if I don't meet some standard (in this case, skepticism), you can discard my input based on that rather than on the words themselves being false.

I thought the implication was we needed to think and study and pay attention to evidence before drawing a final conclusion, if we are even discussing the same thing.I said "Stef may be right in his hypothesis, and I hope he is, but I think that needs to be tested." I did not and do not want to discard your input, but I am not yet willing to accept it as gospel. It seems possible that some of the research may turn out to be just wrong, or mean something less wonderful than we are hoping for, so I don't want to bet the farm on it. Too many cliches in that paragraph, sorry.

Because you are willing to shift focus off of the topic and onto the individual, perhaps this might explain why you'd expect others to similarly make things personal.Of course not.

Apparently I misunderstood.

"My idea was that someone could teach parents to be better teachers of rationality for their kids and/or help kids learn to be rational," which you described as "a hell of an entrepreneurial opportunity if someone could figure out how to teach these skills effectively." This is precisely what Stef does.

Not what I had in mind. I was thinking more "consulting tutor" hired by someone in my position, comes and discusses issues and possible approaches. wRT Stef, more like the call-in show than the YouTube videos, but maybe in person. That is, a preselected audience, who have already bought in to the basic idea. True, not such a big market.

How does that go for him? He releases a video about spanking and it is met with tons of resistance. Why? Because we live in a world full of people who were spanked and who believe that spanking is necessary and good. Which means that the moment you teach a parent that you need to rationalize and negotiate with your child, they are going to go on the defensive.

You are over-generalizing. I already accept I need to be peaceful, negotiate, etc. I just might need some help knowing how to do that, since it is not what I am accustomed to. If your flat statement is true, FDR should have no members who are parents. I disprove that, and I know I am not alone.

Either because they've already begun to parent from an authoritarian position, or they were parented from an authoritarian position, or they live in a world where it's viewed as normal, necessary, and good to parent from an authoritarian position.A product/service that instantly sent almost all of its customer base on the defensive against that product/service could not be classified as a hell of an entrepreneurial opportunity. This was all I was saying. I was disagreeing with you, which is not the same as attacking you.

FDR members might not be such an enormous market now, but let's hope that changes. You are right that I overestimated the immediate potential of the opportunity.

On what basis? To accept this approach, almost everybody would have to accept the evil and sadism of their caregivers or other childhood "authority figures," up to and including the very people that claim to own and protect us as adults. So many people reject the possibility on the basis of this (dis)comfort alone. Look at this thread, where it is, and how laden with presupposition it is. This is where such a topic should receive the most rational treatment.

This is the bit that threw me off. I interpreted "accept" in a different way. You mean, only parents who at least acknowledge their childhood trauma would want this service, and I agree. I read it as, if they used the service, they would be enabling sadis or something like that. I lacked context, I guess.

[dsayers]

I'm not sure why you said you accept that YOU need to be peaceful, negotiate, etc. I was not (at any point) talking about you specifically.

 

If a parent does not abuse their child then their child will not seek abusive people.

 

If a parent negotiates with their child, treats them as an equal, and models rational thought then their child will be put off by abusive and/or predatory people.

 

Yes, in light of these claims, the child will grow up to be able to manage their time, problem solve, plan for the future... all of the things we need to do to function independently. This means that whether you're talking about cake vs carrot or protected sex vs getting into windowless vans with strangers, that person will make rational decisions.

[ribuck]

May I be so bold as to suggest it's a lacking of self-knowledge to accept self-ownership, approach any subject as if it requires external control, but not realize the incompatibility of these ideas?

 

(Yes you may! Feel free to be bold and suggest things!)

 

The "rite of passage" is not about external control. It is absolutely 100% about non-coercive actions.

 

I may choose to lend my car only to people who have undergone some "rite of passage" that demonstrates their ability to control a car and also their general maturity.

 

In the same way, I might invite guests to sleep over after a party. It would be non-coercive, and entirely consistent with self-ownership, for me to provide separate bedrooms to children who had not undergone some "rite of passage" that demonstrates their understanding of sexuality, while allowing the other children to co-sleep as they wish.

 

How does "rite of passage" differ from "explain pregnancy and disease, the ramifications, the long-term impact" or "taught what sex is, the benefits of it, the consequences of it, etc"?

 

The difference is that "explaining" and "teaching" is done by others. The rite of passage comes after that and demonstrates to the world that the person understands these things and is emotionally capable of dealing with them.

 

In most countries today, the "rite of passage" is arbitrary (reaching the "age of consent"), and is backed by violence.

 

In a free society, "rites of passage" may emerge that are better indicators of a child's readiness for sex. In a free society, violence would never be sanctioned against a participant in a consensual act. However, voluntary actions would be OK. For example, a shopkeeper may choose not to serve adults who engage in consensual sex with un-passaged children.

[dsayers]

Thank you for the clarification. As a result of abuse done to me, I have a bias against inflicted structure and your initial description of rite of passage seemed to be this way. Your correction seems more like criteria, which seems more informal. I apologize if my bias towards structure caused a communication degradation.

 

In a way, we are in accordance in this regard. Earlier in the thread, I invited vze to enact a timeline. The reason being that my understanding of developmental psychology suggests that a human is capable of possessing the intellectual esteem in regards to sex even before their equipment becomes available. I think the reason we've "forgotten this" is because of how government schools are structured. Ironic when you consider that this level of abuse might actually drive unprepared teens into doing SOMETHING that feels good and is within their control.

[Mike Fleming]

I think this has drifted off topic, but I agree with those who say that sexuality is a voluntary thing and age is kind of meaningless in this context as long as it is voluntary.

 

As regards the guy in his 30's dating 16 year-olds I think this has to be taken in the context of the society we are living in.  If people are brought up well and allowed to mature into adults then they won't be chasing 16 year old girls.  We shouldn't have a law or even some other social thing saying this is unacceptable.  In a peaceful society it won't happen.  I think this is the case that Stef is making.  I think some interpret it as being that he thinks there should be a law or some such, but that's not the way I interpreted it.

 

To me, the idea is creepy, and I don't think I would want to be associated with such a person, but it's voluntary, regardless of how mature the girl is.  We should not focus on these individual instances so much but ask the question of why these things are coming about.  I think it is clear that it is another symptom of a society which is abusive towards children and we should do as Stef does, in addressing the disease and not focussing on the symptoms.

[june]

As regards the guy in his 30's dating 16 year-olds I think this has to be taken in the context of the society we are living in.  If people are brought up well and allowed to mature into adults then they won't be chasing 16 year old girls.

why wouldnt they?

[Mike Fleming]

why wouldnt they?

 

Because they would mature into adults.  In today's society people are infantilsed by their traumatised parents and one of the symptoms of this is that they will have more in common with 16 year old girls than mature women.   Not having traumatised parents short circuits this.

[dsayers]

Not having traumatized parents would raise both levels. So while a peacefully raised 30 year old would have less in common with a child, a peacefully raised 16 year old would behave less like a child.

why wouldnt they?

The sexually knowledgeable are more enjoyable. Not claiming this as a universal, but I can only see two reasons to go against this: 1) A person is inexperienced themselves, usually of similar age. 2) A person is traumatized and gets more pleasure over conquering a creature of free will than that free will being given out of understanding, adoration, and experience.

[june]

Because they would mature into adults.  In today's society people are infantilsed by their traumatised parents and one of the symptoms of this is that they will have more in common with 16 year old girls than mature women.   Not having traumatised parents short circuits this.

Im not sure that parenting would rid completely rid this tendency, or even to a large degree. 16 year olds are young, full of life, fresh... in short, they are (can be) very attractive, and that is something i dont think you can just parent away.

The sexually knowledgeable are more enjoyable. Not claiming this as a universal, but I can only see two reasons to go against this: 1) A person is inexperienced themselves, usually of similar age. 2) A person is traumatized and gets more pleasure over conquering a creature of free will than that free will being given out of understanding, adoration, and experience.

Wait, arent you presupposing that one party is then sexually un[i/]knowledgable? Both points fall flat wben this is taken into considereation, because 1) neither party is inexperienced, and 2) both parties have (or can) given out understqnding, adoration and experience. I dont see what your arguments have to do with age at all.

[dsayers]

Somebody who does something more is better at doing it than somebody who's done it less. Yes, I suppose that even in a free society, there will be people who have given handjobs before they reached puberty, but they will be so in the margins that I don't really think it's enough to call something that was given the caveat of not being universal into question.

 

I have to ask: What is your purpose on these forums? Between brithing a child is assault, you don't own yourself but I'm not telling you who does, and the first time somebody picks up a basketball they're Michael Jordan, you really give off that troll vibe. Maybe it's just me.

[june]

Somebody who does something more is better at doing it than somebody who's done it less. Yes, I suppose that even in a free society, there will be people who have given handjobs before they reached puberty, but they will be so in the margins that I don't really think it's enough to call something that was given the caveat of not being universal into question.I have to ask: What is your purpose on these forums? Between brithing a child is assault, you don't own yourself but I'm not telling you who does, and the first time somebody picks up a basketball they're Michael Jordan, you really give off that troll vibe. Maybe it's just me.

Its sad that you consider logical tests "trolling". That is a serious acusation upon my character. I demand you explain the reasoning behind this accusation, specifically -- not just listing arguments i have partaken in, but why the arguments themselves can be considered trolling. 1) Have you actually proved that having a child is NOT a breach of the nap? 2)i already explained this to you two times and yet you continue to choose to misrepresent my position. 3) this wasnt me at all. Youre blatently making stuff up just to discredit me. Ughh

[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.

[MysterionMuffles]

Hm I've changed my stance a little bit since this thread was created. First of all I wanna say I forgot how amusing the reponses were to my initial comment XD

 

more importantly I think it's immoral to watch pornography. If porn star agents and agencies are profiting from the trauma of adults with sexually dysfunctional histories, by extention, clicking on a website or buying the stuff is providing the profit for those exploiters. Contributing to an immoral industry is immoral in itself. The less people view or purchase porn, the less the monolithic industry thrives. The less it thrives, the less people could be interested in it. The more peacefully children are parented, the less likely will they resort to exposing their bodies in lewd or even minimalistic sexual acts for profit, and actually provide more value to the world than a simple hard on.

 

Maybe I'm being Victorian, but that's not argument

 

These are just my thoughts from a strictly puritan standpoint

[dsayers]

@Jamz: What does the word immoral mean to you? To me, it means lack of consent/violation of property rights. People who engage in porn (perform, commission, consume) MAY do so as the result of childhood trauma. This doesn't make their behaviors a violation of the property of others and/or non-consensual.

 

Also, if we could teach the world healthy living, deferred gratification, etc, I don't think it's realistic to think that there will be no more cupcakes. I don't think eradicating child abuse will lead to the disappearance of the trading of ANY goods or services, including sex workers.

[WizWom]

First, on pornography: No problem in any way, shape or form, as long as no one is coerced.Second, on age of consent: A person is at the age of consent when they can to be responsible for their own actions. Most parents hold their children fully responsible LONG before the age of 18 - often as young as grade school. You are a hypocrite if you hold a person responsible for doing their own homework, making their own bed, preparing their own lunch, showering every day - and then tell them they can't manage their own body.Third, on the age gap: Not an issue. Seriously, Steph's ideas notwithstanding, Love is NOT an "involuntary reaction to virtue" - that is adoration. If that was true, then various evil people would never have been loved, and they most clearly were.Love, in general, is used to describe an object of desire; physical desire most often in the young. As we age, we desire different things - comfort, peace, and so on. Once we recognize this, now we can see it is quite possible to love someone who is of a different age; the young woman gets security and safety from an older husband. The older husband gets fertility, and caring attention. The other way around is possible, too... but examples are much more rare and people instinctively sense something wrong, because they are not used to it.Does this mean all pairings with significant age difference are healthy? No. No more than all pairing with a "normal" age gap are healthy.