Quote:

Kickle said:If my high school class is any indication, quite a few girls get pregnant without wanting it. And while some of them may have wanted it, age and experience still play a large part in understanding the consequences of such a desire.

I understand the argument for sex ed, but I think it is overly idealistic to believe that at a young age children can be taught complex consequences without having to experience them for themselves.

---

I am not going to deny your personal experience and your own observations regarding some of the girls in your highschool, but I am also not going to generalize it.
I think that there's some things that absolutely need to be taken to consideration in the example you mentioned, such as:
- what percentage of the girls did get pregnant, of all the girls that were sexually active in your highschool?
- what region of the world was this taking place, as the number of teen girls getting pregnant without them wanting to varies in different continents, countries, states, cultures, etc.
- what was the level of instruction of those girls that got pregnant AND the level of instruction of their families, as opposed to the rest of the girls.
- why is it that they didn't use a contraceptive method (if they didn't, because in case you didn't know, a pregnancy can occur even if contraceptives are being used). This issue is very important IMO, and I hope you will agree with me, after you listen to my point. One could refuse to use contraceptives because of lack of sexual education (and this is mainly the fault of the family and the school, because if someone doesn't want their 16 year old daughter to have a baby, they will make sure they talk to her about the importance of condoms, birth control pills, sponges, diaphragms, etc., instead of prohibiting them to have sex ), because of their religion (which is also the fault of the family instead of the fault of underage sex), because they hoped they will be lucky and not get pregnant even without using protection, because of poverty, or because of other diverse sets of reasons. I think it is important to keep in mind that even a mature woman can get pregnant for ALL these reasons stated above, not only an underage chick. Why isn't the state trying to protect them too, by prohibiting them to have sex, since the purpose is to avoid all that pressure put on the mother and her family for whose help she WILL be asking, even if she is legal of age, but with little or no income? Should the law be in such a way that it should make sex illegal for all the people that can't afford raising a child?

You are saying that there's some complex consequences that an underage can't understand without having to experience for themselves, and yet I don't understand what these consequences might be. Isn't it a very similar way of reasoning to the one where parents lie to their kids that the stork has brought them into the world, instead of telling them that their mom and dad had sex and the mother got pregnant, and this is how they turned out to exist? It's not like a 3 year old posing that question will be able to get pregnant or get someone pregnant, so how could they understand the mechanics of pregnancy? Do you think that it is a good idea to lie to kids in this manner, in order to protect them from the "crude" reality?
Then why aren't parents lying to their kids about any other biological function of the body? For example, when a kid asks how is it that they poop, instead of being explained how digestion works, they could be told that the poop fairy puts poop in their buts while they sleep.

Quote:

How exactly do you explain, and assure comprehension of, the stress a pregnancy will place on a family?

---

Quote:

I see current laws working by placing responsibility on the shoulders of those who have  had the opportunity to acquire the experience and maturity to carry it.

---

Quote:

If we simply believe the only responsibility we have is to teach children and then let them have their way, we're placing a great deal of responsibility onto the children themselves.

---

Quote:

I mean, do you really want to place the responsibility of contraception onto underage girls and boys? Guys don't like condoms, and I'm pretty confident in saying that age will not matter in this regard. So the girls are either going to have to be uncharacteristically hard assed and make the guy wear one, or they're going to have to take on the responsibility of remembering to take the pill every day.

---

Taking a pill every day (or 21 days each month) is such a hassle!
Seriously, how is it any different that every task that anyone has to remember to do, on a regular basis? Even if the girl is forgetful, she can just make her cell phone ring every day at the same hour, to remind her about the pill.
I don't know, I didn't have any problem remembering to take my birth control pills, even when I was underage.

ScavengerType said:

Kickle said:

And how do you express what it's like to lose part of your paycheck, to someone who does not earn a paycheck

---

Children are not that naive, you can inventively explain basic economic concepts to them quite easily by substituting the articles in reality with their represented finite means. Everyone has a limited means of some sort no mater how rich their family is.

---

Exactly!

C.M. Mann said:

If you want to have sexual contact with a child, do whatever you want. It's well known that those molested as a child, end up as molesters. You may argue the points I have made here, but someday you may understand.

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Oh stop it! You know perfectly well why NOT to touch a body whose mind is lagging behind developmentally. Are you just trying to smoke out pedophiles and ephebophiles? Even those joking about it in their responses - closet pedophiles - are gonna be smoked out but their 'humorous' responses (Freud's Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, 1905). What's up with this, or is your question a veiled inquiry into a personal childhood violation? Surely, questions like this don't arise from mild curiosity, given the scope of curiosity. PM response maybe?

---

xFrockx said:

Why not make it legal to  have sex with babies.  By your logic, age being no valid indicator, any baby who wishes to fuck a grown man ought to be able to do so legally as long as the baby is old enough to say "yes"

What's the difference between a 2 year old that doesn't know what it's doing and a 13 year old that doesn't know what its doing?

Maybe they ought to have a grown-up-fucking aptitude test...

---

I think we should make the age 33 considering the emotional maturity of most people. Then we would be sure. Yeah that would be much better and safer for all.

C.M. Mann said:

A legal determination is difficult because some mature faster, but I think eighteen is a good choice as the barrier. Children deserve all the protection that anyone else gets.

---

Quote:

And if you don't understand the immense psychological damage from being molested ,raped,enslaved,beaten, or having to abort a child, then nothing I say will help your empathy towards others. An existential Bohemian lifestyle may be chic, but it comes with hidden danger.

---

Molestation, rape, enslavement, and any kind of abuse are all already against the law.
So most people who are having sex should be punished because a judge wouldn't be able to discern the difference between rape and consent?

Quote:

If an adult has sexual contact with a child, that is rape!

---

No, it is only rape if there isn't consent.

Sure, you could try to play the "children are so easy to manipulate" card, but it would only be that way because of the aforementioned lack of realistic and rational understanding being instilled within them regarding sex.

Quote:

Do you think that a child always consents, many adults are violent and take what they want.

---

Quote:

We are not sexual beings, we are cerebral beings who can reproduce.

---

Jesus Christ, you don't actually think you somehow negated the essence of sexuality that pervades humanity with that semantical garbage, do you?

, humans are sexual beings. They have sex, experience sex, and it is a central facet of their existence and nature.
Trying to belittle it as saying we are "cerebral" beings who can merely reproduce is nothing but denial.

Quote:

A society that is sexually over stimulated, always degenerates into chaos.

---

Why would you even bother to post something like this without citing any kind of source or basis? I'd love to know where this line of thinking came from.

You could start by naming the names of these societies. We can take it from there.

MarkostheGnostic said:

Teenage girls can't be convinced that they're dealing with a criminal mind, because to them, it's all about love and sex and romance and beauty, etc. It's not about right v. wrong, consequences, or the implications of his character.

---

Maybe they realize that they shouldn't care in the slightest about "a criminal mind" because they realize fully well that its interdicted and, furthermore, that it is complete bullshit when they are enjoying the time they are having exploring their sexuality. Beyond the moronic judgment of others, it really is about love, sex, romance, beauty, and the fun of discovering their sexuality when their body is urging them to do so.

I think it is troubling to have a perspective that it is somehow wrong for girls to be interested in exploring their sexuality and to do it with older people, or for older people to do it if they are treating the girls well and it is based in mutual pleasure. I definitely think that most "development issues" are arising from nothing more than the piss-poor and adequate understanding of human sexuality and how that is passed along to children.
I guess that is what we get for having had such a soon-to-be artifact as religion around for so long.

Icelander said:

, but you will consequently become much more conservative (ossified) about other teenage girls 'dating' 30+ year old men.

---

C.M. Mann said:

Your argument lacks any kind of logic, and your proof that I am wrong is non existent.  Your logic is that if a CHILD consents to sexual contact,It's OK . You can call me names and rant and rave, but nothing justifies an adult that molests a child.  I think that it is a good thing, that your views on this are a minority.

---

I thought if I broke up my response in segments, corresponding to each of your points, that it would be easy enough for you to have a rational discussion about it.

Let's make it even more simple. First, you can tell us the names of the societies you referred to that reached a chaotic end because of an overindulgence in sex.

After that, then maybe you can tell us what pertinence molestation, rape, enslavement, and abuse have regarding statutory rape laws when they are already criminalized by their own merit. 

We don't even need to go over your weak attempt to portray humans as not being sexual beings.

MarkostheGnostic said:

Moral development in terms of a selfishness-selflessness continuum is not merely a social construct, and it is not concommitant to religion.

---

Instead of alluding to "moral development" and asserting to MT that she "already knows why it is wrong", maybe you would care to make it a little more clear and explain exactly why it is immoral for an adult to have sex with another human being ages 8-16? There's no reason to refer to "selfish-selflessness continuums" when all we need for the purpose of the discussion is a demonstration how precisely it is actually immoral.

Quote:

That means that they emerge from deeper in the psyche than the social sphere of "piss-poor" parenting. The social mores are a secondary interpretation of those psychological issues. Not being allowed to look at one's mother's face after puberty may belong to certain tribal societies as their unique way of handling the incest taboo. In the USA, pubescent heterosexual boys just squirm away from mom's embrace ("Oh Mom, leave me alone!") because of their discomfort with the same psychosexual issue.

---

It can be asserted that they emerge deeper from within the psyche, yet this goes no farther than to suggest that humans are carrying around a lot of unresolved, emotional baggage when it comes to sexuality, not to mention a debate on how much of the psyche is resultant from environment and not instinctual tendencies.

Your example of boys squirming from being touched by their mother is an interesting one, and I think it definitely highlights, as you said, discomfort with a psychosexual matter. At the same time, this definitely couldn't be said to be the case with individuals who are raised in environments in which they are not given any reason to feel uncomfortable about the simple fact that they are a mammal that is easily stimulated in a sexual way from simply being touched or otherwise feeling a physical presence, regardless of who that presence is coming from. I could posit fully well that the discomfort is only their opportunity to become more aware of their sexual feelings and to begin to make decisions as to how they will form associations between these feelings and their behavior. For example, by realizing that even though it can sexually stimulate them, that there was no sexual intent, and that they do not need to feel conflicted by this.
Of course, that actually assumes that the squirming even has anything to do with sexuality at all, and not independence urges or avoiding ridicule from companions for being babied. Its important to really not try to over-analyze things that were only gross generalizations in the first place.
Furthermore, the fact that there are often examples in which people and societies have psychological issues arise regarding sex doesn't in any way suggest which is actually moral or immoral.

Quote:

Religion - and clearly you have your own deeply emotional issues pertaining to this sphere

---

Your analytical skills are not too sharp if you've managed to deduce that from my observation that religion has been a handy mechanism for creating huge psychological issues regarding sex and that its presence on this planet is waning as people become more cognitive. The fact that you continued to insist on this with the reference to the nun-whoopings really makes me wonder why you're projecting this meaning, especially considering that I had only a passing involvement with any religion and that not one single aspect of it had any relevance to sexuality.
Is it too much to propose one's opinion on a matter without being accused of deeply emotional issues for it? I mean, unless you want to start citing my emotions as examples....

Quote:

There is patriarchal oppression of women that predates Judaism and goes back to the point where humankind emerged from its Matriarchal, agrarian roots and entered its Patriarchal phase as hunters and aggressive war-makers.

---