Mr Dibble
All children are sexual to some extent, but as I stated earlier, they tend naturally to explore this sexuality, such as it is, with their peers–a level playing field for the most part (slight age differences and strength of personality no doubt play a part). Children have no choice but to trust adults–all adults, and indeed must be taught to NOT trust adults by the very adults they trust most. The pleasure they may or may not receive at the hands of an adult is no defense for the abuse of that trust. Rape victims have been known to orgasm–that does not make the rape any less a violation.
All adults aren’t in a coercive position over all children? You honestly believe that? Go ask a kid what she is supposed to do if an adult tells her to do something. All societies have adults as the authority figures over children–and authority brings with it coercion, even of the most loving kind.
Please share the anecdotes about how you stood up to Mr Johnson down the street or how your friend Susie refused to get into that stranger’s car, or how your son would never, ever mind another adult–not his teachers, neighbors, aunts, store clerks, coaches etc. I’d like to hear them.
I hope you do. It is emotional. It should be emotional. Children are not an exercise in logic or “intellectual” circle jerking. They are people who need guidance, teaching, support and love. You as an adult, whether you have kids or not, have a duty to all children to ensure their safety and future–which is why societies as a whole support families, schools, laws.
You hope to be as derisive and dismissive as you can be in the hopes that your snark can undermine my argument. But there is no argument,** Mr Dibble**-you are defending the indefensible. Unlike supergoose, you seem to be advocating for Cesario’s position. Is it for the pleasure of attempting to knock me down or is there something else in play here? No snark, just asking.
“Unles it’s mommy or daddy, grannie or granpa, [teacher’s name] or [doctor’s name], or a pleesmin, I mustn’t do anything they say” was the response.
I kicked a flasher in the knees once, does that count?
There are no children on this boards, you’re not debating with a child, and no children are actually under threat here. That’s kind of what makes it a fallacy.
What exactly am I defending that is indefensible?
I’m not advocating anything. I’m willing to debate the merits of a testing system., and I don’t believe all underage sexual contact is inherently harmful, no, and I do question the current average Age of Consent. But I’m certainly not advocating adults having sex with 2-year olds. The idea is personally abhorrent. I’m just able to put that aside for the sake of debate without feeling dirty or like it “legitimizes” anything, any more than debating the abolition of the death penalty legitimizes murder .
To me, it’s pretty much the way I can debate demonology with kanicbird without feeling like a crazy person myself.
Yes, you outed me, I’m a closet beastialist. I’m hoping if kiddie diddling is legalised, then I can work on getting *my *paraphilia recognised. Soon, Fido, soon, our love will no longer hide its face…:rolleyes:
If we take Cesario at his word, it would only have to go on hiatus until the lover is an adult.
Plus, really, as we all know, everyone else in the world leaves their lover when they no longer look as they did when they were first attracted to them…
I am done here. I had no intent of “outing you” as anything-- I asked a question. Your reply to that and to Guin shows me that you are not interested in treating this as a serious topic. By all means, discuss child molestation with Cesario to your satisfaction. Don’t expect approval or accolades for being broad minded. HE is advocating sex with 2 year olds, no matter how you want to change that in order for it to be more acceptable.
I will say it is good to know who wants to lower the AoC.
Well, I failed. :smack: I wanted to address a couple of the questions you asked. Thank you for responding to mine.
The problem with an anonymous message board is that our written words are the only bits of provable truth we have about one another, which is why I think we pretty much have to take them at face value. Certainly one can feel a poster is being dishonest and sense things that they aren’t saying and comment on it, but you can’t really use it as a point in an argument. If we could, others could throw in wild accusations and lies and they’re be just as provable/unprovable. It’d be a train wreck.
I don’t know he isn’t a threat, I don’t know anything except what he’s written, and I feel I can’t really argue outside those limitations, since like I said, there’s no proof.
Not puzzled, just remarking on the irony of it, if that makes sense. After all, you employ those visuals in an argument against a pedophile, who you’d think would be the one writing the disturbing posts and dealing in graphic descriptions of sex with children.
(As it happens, I’m a very visual person and can’t really help but picture what I read, so whitewashing isn’t an issue with me, though of course there’s no way to know that by reading my posts and it’s a good reminder to throw in to such a debate anyway. Reading about it *is *as disturbing as knowing it can happen/is happening - unless it happened to a child I personally knew in which case it would be much more so - which is one of the reasons I’m quitting this thread as well.)
Well, then the first, I’m thinking, is more proof that this whole fight for “youth sexual freedom” is merely about his own selfish desires, rather than caring about the feelings of his so-called “lover.”
It’s all about HIS wants. It has nothing to do with sticking it to the man, and this whole, “homophobic, narrow-minded, bigoted society.” If the above is the case, then it’s simply him wanting his cake and eating it too. Period.
Don’t we know that kids aren’t ready for sex by the fact that they aren’t having it?
If 5 year olds wanted sex, they’d find a way to have it with each other. No one ever had a playdate with a member of the opposite sex at that age?
Who here has ever been hit on by a child? no one? Didn’t think so.
I had sex at that age. Not penetration sex, but I touched other children, sucked, got sucked, etc… I had a girlfriend when I was 5, we were the power couple of my pre-school, the Alpha Male and Alpha Female on the playground. I had other girls who wanted me because she wanted me, and I even understood what their game was about.
Christina is not here today, and Halcyon wants me, but I am loyal to Christina so even though I’d like to be with Halcyon today when Christina isn’t here, I shouldn’t be because it might hurt her feelings. I was madly in love with Christina at the time. That ended because we went to different elementary schools, we remained friends but drifted apart. When we were like 9 or 10, it ended when I wouldn’t fuck her. Originally I wanted to, and then she called me and said yes, and I said I didn’t want to because I was confused about it, and that’s pretty much the moment that ended.
Another friend of mine and I used to suck each other’s dicks at like 6 or 7.
So if my friends and I are any indication, then yes kids are sexual pretty much right from the start.
I spent the rest of my awkward childhood lamenting my inability to be the mack daddy I was in pre-school. Luckily it came back to me in adulthood.
No, you asked a loaded question, in a sensitive topic. Feigned innocence after the fact doesn’t quite change that. If you want to shut debate down, do it by convincing argument, not pathetic (I mean that literally) argument
Sarcastic replies to loaded questions by you and attempted mindreading by Guin have no bearing on how serious I take this topic
I think you’ll find I haven’t actually exchanged any discussion with Cesario in this thread at all. He’s not the one I’ve been arguing with at all
Yeah, everyone who knows my Board history knows I live for Board approval.:rolleyes:
I have no intention of changing that. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who’s read these threads what Cesario’s predilections are. I’m not going to convince anyone that they’re different, nor have I tried.
What I have tried to do is correct the lies and baseless assumptions people have been substituting for his actual words.
Well of course it’s good to know what your debate opponents are proposing. FTR, I favour an AoC of 14-16 rather than the current common 16-18 range. I would also like there to be an opt-out option, similar to the kind of legal emancipation by court order that currently exists, where teenagers can elect to not have the AoC apply to them. This differs from Cesario’s position in that it acts as a supplement to AoC laws, not a replacement, is something the recipient has to pro-actively request, and also doesn’t involve standardised testing, but rather court-supervised psych evaluation.
Are you reffering to the Powerpuff Girls? Without the “d”? Or something else?
No, I’ve just refused to bow to your irrationality. There’s a difference.
If people could be bothered to come up with arguments when they’re “challenging my belief system” instead of thought-terminating cliches…
So, did you actually have a rational argument to put forward, or was this just a misguided attempt at flaming?
I didn’t say the troll was smart or sane… Head over to Gaiaonline and ask Gunsmith Kitten about it.
So you feel that a perfectly rational, internally consistent position ought to be abandoned for an irrational, inconsistent one because you think that the position discusses an unlikely scenario?
Nice to see that acknolwedged.
What has puberty to do with anything?
Which is relevent only when the individuals in question are authority figures…
What is “all that”? Is there something more to your argument you’ve failed to list?
Because what I’m proposing is a system that ignores both of our guesses about the probabilities and determines the reality of the situation, and thereafter treats everyone accordingly.
Just because a law is well-meaning doesn’t mean it is actually good or useful.
This:
I don’t see how the reasons behind it do anything to diminish the paralells.
Adults who do not posess the mental facilities to fully understand their actions are found not guilty by reason of diminished capacity. If this were the presumption, there would be no juvinile punishment at all. Clearly this is not the case.
I see no reason for a crime to have a different punishment just because of who comitted the crime, or who the victim was.
Treat the people who are not mentally up to par differently from the people who are mentally up to par. You don’t need an age line for that.
Yes, see the suffrage thread in Great Debates.
Unfortunately, the real definition (human beings 12 and under) does not tie in with the legal defintion of “minor”, neither of which have anything to do with intelectual capacity or understanding.
Differnetiate between intrinsic harm in a fully consensual sexual encounter, and social harm created after the fact by a sex-negative reaction to the sexual encounter.
No, the burdon of proof is on the person making the assertion, and I’ve seen a lot of people asserting that children can’t consent, and that they are always, intrinsically harmed by sexual encounters.
I have no objection to it. As the only reason to avoid reproducing with close family members is the risk of recessive genes expressing themselves as birth defects, opposing incest is no more defensible than opposing the right of people who are carriers of faulty genes from reproducing. And I have no interest in serving as a eugenicist.
As to the implicit question about parent-child incest when the child is currently a dependent, I view it in the same light as a sexual relationship between anyone who is a dependent on another, and the standard for consent ought to be the same, regardless of age or blood relationship.
No. I think the damage they appeared to have was a result of being raped. Rape is rape, regardless of the age it happens at, and it is a damaging experience.
One where both parties are able to fully consent, where neither of us would be subject to legal penalties as a result, and where neither of us would be subject to psychiatric [strike]torture[/strike] counciling as a result of it becoming known we had engaged in a sexual relationship.
No, because the relationship I would like to have is largely impossible in the current society.
You are aware that asserting something doesn’t make it so, and that your belief about how aware every individual in a certain age group doesn’t actually impact the actual facts one way or the other, correct?
And are you suggesting such an adult would be more capable of informed consent than a child?
I’ve provided a copy of the RMSC in this post for your review. Please let me know what your thoughts are on it, after you’ve had a chance to read through it.
“Any” is not “every”. While I believe there might well be some children in that age range capable of fully informed consent, I am not so deluded as to assume that every newborn infant is fully informed. Why anyone would assume I was is beyond me.
Regardless, as I said, my beliefs on the matter are just as irrelevent as yours. The point of my proposal is to get rid of all that guesswork and operate off a meaningful standard.
Seems to me those hormones make rational thought more difficult, not less so.
Puberty has nothing to do with sexual education. You can have that well before puberty, or not at all.
Sex ed classes. Pretty basic stuff. There’s a backup sex-ed included in the proposal.
It seems that early and well designed sex-ed is a good thing regardless of any changes in age of consent laws, considering the many advantages of it. Again, there’s no point attempting to explain these concepts to preverbal infants, but as soon as someone can understand the information, it should be provided.
Yep. Well, only drive cars if they can pass the drivers test, but either way, there ought to be no age limits on any of these things.
I don’t know. I also don’t know if I’ve ever met any adult who can meaningfully consent.
The words “yes” and “no” seem to be fairly standard…
My age of attraction is relevent here because this thread is so people can say how much they dislike me. It isn’t relevent to the subject of who can and can’t consent, however, which is what we’d been discussing in this conversation thread.
You’re defining “the chance” differently for you and me. I trust you are aware of this and just being a dishonest debator instead of actually failing to recognize the fact that you’re doing this.
Agreed. I’ve had to deal with some of the same sorts of distorted thinking on the male circumcision debate.
A birthday is not a valid means of determining the difference between a consensual relationship and a nonconsensual one. I’m proposing a more meaningful means of differentiation that takes some of the guesswork out of it.
You see no benefit to knowing that your sexual partners are fully aware of sex and fully capable of meaningfully consenting to it on a level beyond just being legally authorized to do so on account of their birthday?
So slavery would’ve been just fine if we’d just let them niggers go after they turned sixty?
So, this is your excuse for your complete and utter failure to come up with a rational argument against my position?
Which of those requirements do you feel is unecessary and why?
Ah, so because you got fucked over by a teacher thirty years ago, you want to spread the pain around. How pathetic.
Some of us don’t think that it’s morally justifiable to oppress a minority because it’d be more convenient for the government if we did so.
You are aware that your description has nothing to do with the actual proposal, right?
We’re raising the age of consent to sixty. If you’re emotionally mature enough to have sex, you can suck it up and wait another fourty years.
If you acknowledge that “even [with adults sexual consent is] fraught with difficulties,” and you’ve stated that anyone’s welfare trumps anyone’s need to get off, it seems to me the only internally consistent position to take is to ban sex entirely.
sigh It is a bit wearying some days, but I’ll persevere regardless.
Wow, again with the over-generous backhanded complements about my penis. :rolleyes:
Anyway, the entire point of having an age of consent is to criminalize having sex with children who want to have sex. The ones who’re fucking kids who don’t want to have sex can be prosecuted under regular rape laws.
Well, there are the ones who care more about whether their kids are ready than they care about irrationally attempting to prevent sex from occurring until some arbitrary age.
Music?
That seems reasonable to me.
You are aware that each of these items has been tested in psychiatraic research, right? Consequence acknolwedgement is a fairly fundamental one that developmental psychologists test all the time.
You can’t coach someone to pass developmental milestones they haven’t passed yet.
Got any particular nation in mind? Keep in mind that the world is a much smaller place than it once was.
There’s nothing rational about adhering to a knee-jerk reaction while proudly refusing to consider the subject matter. It’s the popular point of view, but it is completely irrational.
Care to define “life experience”?
And yet, you seem to have a problem with a system like I’m proposing which would classify those developmentally delayed adults in the same category as children, thus affording them the protection of statutory rape legislation. Why?
Just like the attractions of all heterosexual males are 100% superficial because they are fixated on females and are thus incapable of actually caring about any female as a person? :rolleyes:
Do your relationships end the instant your partner starts to get wrinkles, grey hair, and sagging breasts?
Your ignorance does not constitute an argument.
While far from ideal, I would support this as a better system than we have now, and a baby step in the right direction.
Luckily it came back to me in adulthood. 