Actually, this came up earlier:
(I’m sorry mine is so lengthy - I was trying to convince him why it’s a good idea and how he might go about doing it.)
I hope he comes back and addresses it further, as well as your other posts, Meatros. I agree with Guin, you’ve done an excellent job articulating the problems with his proposal which is all the more admirable because of the effort involved in responding to his posts. Thank you for that. I’m very interested to see how he responds.
I missed that response of his actually. To tell you the truth, I was expecting him to say that he would change his orientation because it would be easier and he would have the ability to actually act on his attraction.
He doesn’t appear to be ashamed of his attraction - he feels there is nothing wrong with it - but I was curious to see if he felt it was a burden since he cannot act on it.
Thanks for the words as to the efforts. I think our conversation is wrapping up though as I don’t think there’s much more to say. He’s done a better job at defending his position then I would have thought (because of my preconceived biases towards pedophiles), especially considering the inflammatory nature of the discussion.
My point is, just as there are adults who ought to be on the oposite side of the line they are currently placed on, like the ones you describe, there are children who are also on the wrong side of the line. My proposal is to move those outliers on both sides of the line into their proper categories.
I just love how you’re telling me what I think and how I feel. :rolleyes:
If that were all it were about, why bother with the self-delusion? There seems to be a bit of a logical snag in your mischaracterization.
Seems to be a black mark against the age of consent, actually, that so many people are being authorized to have sex when they aren’t ready for it.
I am familiar with the concept.
The point is, whatever the truth value of “there exists some child who possesses the mental abilities to provide meaningful consent”, the proposal is a useful tool due to the corresponding statement “there exists some adult who does not possess the mental abilities to provide meaningful consent”.
Neither of these statements is particularly revolutionary, and I find them both far more likely than their “there exists no” inverses. Would you agree?
I believe these are the only points in dispute regarding truth values.
They are if they’re treating every adult they run across as an authority figure.
My issue here is your claiming that you have more to present, but failing to do so. What other reason would you have for not presenting it than you being concerned that it won’t be as effective an argument as you are claiming it is?
Once again, which of the premises you codified do you believe has not been adequitely defended? Let’s see if we can’t resolve whatever lingering issues you’ve got here.
Please repeat them here, as I believe I have no way of knowing which of my responses you found to be inadequite.
Both can and do happen. The minor in question usually isn’t 10, but the specific age is hardly relevent.
Are you familiar with the concept of Theory of Mind? It’s examined in requirement 3 of the proposal.
What possible relevance could muscle memory have to the subject of consent? Emotional knowledge is examined in requirement 4.
No one is restricted from taking the test on the basis of age. Period. Why do you keep insisting on something that simply isn’t true?
Yes, there will be some ages at which no individual happens to pass the test, but that isn’t an age line. Are you clear on how I’m using the term “age line”? Maybe that’s where the misunderstanding is coming in.
HA!
Because you say it is.
What “current knowledge”? There is no “current knowledge”. There’s a lot of “conventional wisdom” and “common sense”, but no “current knowledge”.
I’ve gone looking for this evidence of universal harm. Found examples that disprove the universal assumption, but no evidence of universal harm.
I’ve gone looking for evidence of universal incompetence. Found no meaningful definitions for the competence minors supposedly universally lack, so I formulated a definition of my own. So far, we haven’t been able to run a test study, but numerous individuals indicate a wide range of expectations after reading the requirements. You among them.
I’m still waiting for someone to provide me with something I haven’t covered.
There’s no reason to test something because you assert without evidence or reasoning that it is false? And you accuse me of failing to back up my points?
You’re not familiar with the concept of an analogy, are you? I should point you to the Colbert sketch on Jesus, the Witch and the Wardrobe some time. Hilarious piece, I might add.
The point is that if the arguments of the slave-holders weren’t acceptable, then the same arguments applied to children aren’t any more acceptable.
It’s a bad system, and no human being ought to be subjected to it. Of course, just as blacks were considered subhuman, plenty of people now would make the arugment that children are pre-human. Doesn’t really change anything.
There is an age in common law, below which a person is not subject to criminal prosecution due to their presumed inability to understand their actions. That is why, for instance, a toddler who pulled on a towel and cause a knife rack to impail someone and kill them is subject to neither murder, nor manslaughter, nor negligent homocide charges in either adult or juvinile court. No punishment at all.
Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure what you mean here.
Once again, age is irrelevent to their ability to consent. The fact that when you group people by age, some of the groups happen to contain no members who can consent isn’t the same thing as there being an age line.
Once again, you don’t get it. If they can’t pass the test, they won’t pass the test. There’s no valid reason to prevent them from taking the test. I don’t need to prove that they can pass the test, they need to prove they can pass the test, and there is no valid reason for you to arbitrarily deny them the ability to do so.
The fact that no age line is capable of doing its job. I thought I was being clear about this.
If someone doesn’t want to vote, they won’t vote. Simple self-selection does just fine on that one. We can continue this in the thread, thought.
We all age at the same rate, because age is a simple measure of seconds ticking away on a clock. We develop and mature at differing rates, however, which is why age lines aren’t a good solution.
I have no need to prove that most children under any age are anything, since none of my arguments are predicated on that. Is it a difficult concept for you to understand that I don’t need to defend points I’ve never made, and which have no relevence to my arguments?
Looking at a non-sex-negative society would be one way to isolate the variable.
If there is no evidence that there is harm, there is no reason to restrict rights on the basis of the assumption that it is there.
If there is no evidence that there is harm, there is no reason to restrict rights on
Appeal to tradition, much?
Because, of course, you are society… :rolleyes:
I can prove that sex between adults is psychologically damaging too, if I don’t bother to take consent into account when I’m assembling my studies and just throw rape victims in as though they were the same thing…
I am operating under the position that the default position for a society to take is freedom. That to restrict the freedom of any citizen, society must demonstrate the harm that is done by providing that freedom. No one disputes the harm done by murderers, for example, and that is an example of a freedom that is restricted i the name of harm. If we can’t demonstrate that consensual sex is harmful, society has no business outlawing consensual sex.
I think this might be our fundamental disconnect.
That straw man’s putting up quite a fight, isn’t he? Might be a good idea to restrict your demands for proof to things I’ve actually said.
That first sentence doesn’t work. I think you conflated two sentences in the editing process, but I can’t be sure. Can you clarify?
Oh please. If you have an argument, put it forward. If you don’t bother to argue your side of the issue, there’s little I can do but claim victory.
The fact that you aren’t convinced doesn’t actually make my arguments not convincing. This would seem to be an instance of you declaring false victory.
No, not in this thread. I’ve read a good deal more than I’ve saved, after all. If you can explain to me why these studies are relevant to this argument, I’ll track one down for you, but for the life of me, I can’t place the relevance.
The fact that you’re dating her is reason to believe that it might be problematic.
No, just refusing to prove a negative. Try to keep up.
Take a look at this thread for just one example. Sixteen pages of people shouting at me, trying to shut me up, telling me to go curl up and die, and occasionally making threats on my person. Yet not one post spared to present a single study showing this universal harm. None even purporting to show it. Either we have a very unmotivated group of people here, or they tried and couldn’t find one. Which do you think is more likely.
Do you understand the concept of due diligance?
Do you believe that this test is a sufficient definition of meaningful consent? Yes or no. If yes, then the procedure for providing such evidence would be as simple as administering the test, right? So, why bother finding examples when we can just use the test on anyone who thinks they’re ready to prove it one way or the other?
Took me a while, but I did eventually manage to pick up on your obession with the concept after a bit of repetition, yes.
I need to demonstrate no such thing, because I’m not putting them into “competent” and “incompetent” heaps based on age. I’m putting them into those heaps based on their performance on the test.
No. Teenagers are human beings age 13-19. Was this unclear to you?
I do. It’s crystal clear to me what the advantages are for everyone, even those who can’t pass it. Why you seem to assume that only people who pass the test gain any advantage by its existence boggles the mind.
If we’re using a sane system for doling out rights, we have a valid answer to give people when they ask why they aren’t afforded a certain right. That clears up resentment issues and prevents the kind of rigid “because I said so” thinking that this thread is demonstrating so effectively.
No, there are groups of people who can pass, and groups of people who can’t pass. That some age groups will have no individuals who can pass is not the same thing as an age line. Again, I don’t think you understand what I mean by the term “age line”.
That’s actually quite close to the original plan, run a test group, figure out what ages people are generally likely to pass it, and give a subsidized test in the schools at that grade level. The ones who want to take it before that point are allowed to do so, but they have to go to the testing facility rather than having the test come to them.
Again, there are no age lines. There are groups of people of the same age who would be highly unlikely to pass, but that is not justification for denying them access to the test, and just as it is not justification for denying their consent if they do take the test and pass it dispite expectations.
If they can articulate that they want to take the test, there is no valid reason that they shouldn’t. Are you under the mistaken impression I’m suggesting mandatory testing of every human being?
Our knowledge is imperfect. Plenty of reason to let the outliers try to prove our assumptions wrong.
To prove to the individual requesting to take the test that they aren’t actually mentally competent. Half the point of this proposal is to give people something to point to when they do the whole “you aren’t ready for X” thing. Otherwise, the minor will assume (rightly) that they are being denied for arbitrary reasons, and will be less inclined to listen.
That is, of course, besides the basic civil liberties/human rights issue.
Denying the hypothetical. Poor form.
When they are unable to answer any of the questions due to being preverbal, they will fail the test. It’s really quite simple. Ability to communicate was originally requirement 1, but it was determined to be redundant, and dropped because it was confusing people.
And just because you assume they will fail doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to try to prove your assumption wrong if they so chose.
Hormones were a losing argument from the start, and you knew it.
Lying adults prevents people from getting a meaningful sex education when they ask for one. Pretty much puts the lie to the idea that everyone after puberty meets this requirement.
Once again, what the HELL does muscle memory have to do with consent?
I have no intention of elminating mandatory sex-ed classes that already exist. The ones my proposal is discussing are simply avalible.
“Preverbal” is the relevant part of that phrase, not “infant”.
Standard procedure, not standard ability. Was that somehow unclear when I said it before?
If only you’d actually done that instead of requiring me to declare it myself…
NO! Why is this so hard to understand?
There is no reason to deny them the oportunity to try if they so desire.
Because I don’t have one, since I don’t see it as likely a 5 month old will desire to take the test, there’ll be no need to administer it. The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of my position, I think. I’m not demanding eveyone of every age be tested. I’m demanded no one of any age be denied access to the test if they want to take it. There’s a very important difference that I think you’re overlooking.
The hypothetical suggested multiple five year olds, suggesting that they’re going to be fucking eachother rather that an unknown third party. My advice was based on that.
By testing everyone who wants to be tested, you DO recognize both groups.
There is no parental consent requirement in the proposal.
You can’t pass a test on having a theory of mind using this sort of cheating. As to the parts you can memorize the answers for, that would be what we in the educational business call “studying”.
Parental consent was deliberately left out, for much the same reason it’s a bad idea for abortion. If the child can pass, there’s no reason the parent has any business in his/her sex life. If the child can’t pass, there’s no change in the child’s status, so nothing the parent needs to deal with.
Where is this?! Point this one out. Now. If what you say is true, that loophole needs to be closed post-haste.
Considering how much of that I wrote, I’ve 100% certain that it isn’t in there, and you’re just making shit up, but on the off chance that I’m wrong, I want this pointed out to me. Immediately.
Actually, you might be mistaking the part where I close that loophole for something introducing that loophole. Read that section over very carefully.
Recognizing the probabilities is a far cry from what you are proposing: disregarding the rights of anyone who doesn’t fit your preconceived notion of who can consent, regardless of what they do to prove your assumptions wrong.
I recognize the probabilities, but I also recognize that I am a fallible human being, and as such, my assumptions about who can and can’t consent could be wrong. This is especially true when you go from the general case to the specific case.
The point of testing everybody who wants to be tested is, in part, the recognition of that limitation in both myself, and in others (yourself included).
There is no compelling reason not to allow someone to take the test if they so chose. If you’re right and no five year old can pass, then no five year old will pass, and no harm will have been done. If you’re wrong and there is someone who can pass who is then denied the right to prove it, harm has been done in the form of denying someone a legitimately deserved right. My way harms no one. Your way harms people you assume (without any evidence) don’t exist.
You talk a lot about heaps, so let’s try an analogy. You have a bunch of marbles, half red, the other half blue. The marbles are arranged such that the boundry between the two is a sine curve. Someone comes along with a piece of rope, pulls it taunt and wants to know where he should draw his line to most effectively separate the red marbles from the blue ones.
Someone tells him to put it directly between the troughs and peaks of the curve. This method leaves some marbles of either color on the wrong side, but it’s the best straight line for separating them.
You decide that the best way is to put the line at the troughs so there will be no red marbles on the wrong side of the line.
Then I come along and tell him to let up some slack on his rope and weave it along the sine curve that serves as the boundry in order to put every marble on the right side of the line.
The first person is society, who puts the age of consent at or around 18 years. You are the one suggesting that we put a line at the point where everyone under it is sure to be unable to consent (incidentally leaving a lot of people who really can’t consent out in the cold and open prey for the unsrupulous or unobservant). I suggest we use the actual most accurate solution and reject the paradigm that we need a straight line.
I hope this has made things more clear, rather than less clear.
My goal is to convince the general you. The specific you is irrelevant. I think that might be part of the problem to, people assuming that I must convince them personally if I’m to be considered successful. Tom made the same mistake.
I’m not attracted to midgets. That’s a different fetish. (Although, to be fair, the girl I’m dating did manage to miss the mark for that classification by only a few inches.)
What mechansim would you propose to eliminate the social harm while maintaining an age of consent? As attending to the social harm is my primary goal, I’m eager to hear any suggestions you might have towards that end. This is not sarcasm, but genuine interest.
I believe that the eliminating the age of consent is a necessary step, and the single most effective one towards that goal, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have an interest in other steps. Take, for instance, better sex-ed in the schools.
There is nothing legitimate about drawing a line in the sand. It doesn’t matter where you draw that line, it’s still an artificial construct.
Being creepy is not a valid reason to make something forbidden. Also, if it isn’t about consent, then people have been misrepresenting the issue for about a century now…
Seems to me the RMSC would be a significant advantage to those teens, since they would be protected by statutory rape law due to being provably incompetent.
You have noted that I’m celebate, right?
I would not change my orientation. I am happy with who I am, and would not willingly change any part of my personality. Indeed, I would sooner die than accept such a change, even if I were to agree that the change was for the better. This is because my definition of “me” is my personality and experiences. To alter my personality (especially in terms of something so fundamental as sexual orientation) is to destroy “me”, and leave someone else in my place. Maybe someone happier or better suited to society, but fundamentally not “me”.
This is a philosophical viewpoint I hold, pretty much the closest thing I have to a religeon.
By that logic, we should raise the age of consent to 90. That makes absolutely sure that no one who isn’t ready has it, and as you say, there’s no harm in making the people who are ready wait. And if they absolutely must engage in the activity right now then that’s just a sign that they aren’t ready to handle it, now isn’t it?
A) No–you can’t pass the test, maybe,but then, you’re a diseased creep who wants to lure little children into bushes because you can’t deal with grown-ups. Anyway, that assumes your psychobabble is fact. People can be coached to answer at whatever level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, they can certainly be coached to pass the fact based test you proposed.
B) “WE” in the educational business?! Good fuck–you’re claiming to be in the educational field? What, as the poster boy for “Don’t take candy from creepy strangers like this guy” campaign?
Where is this?! Point this one out. Now.
[/quote]
Stuff your demand up your ass, pervert.
Or else what, you goat-felching kiddie rapist?.
I did–and it’s really clear that your so called loophole-closing is nothing more than window dressing–if you lie successfully to this group of people you get a free pass to rape more kiddies. See, “reading carefully” includes figuring the writer’s motives: since your stated motive is to rape toddlers, it’s pretty easy to see where you’re coming from.
Meh, at this point it’s just nitpicking the guy’s fantasy and him nitpicking the nitpicks.
Obviously I don’t agree - which was the whole point of my contention. I do not think it’s possible for a 5 month old to give consent. Logical possibility, btw, is different from real world possibilities/probabilities.
Why is this necessary? It’s not - I would say on average the adults they run into they tend to treat as authority figures, regardless of whether they actually are or not.
What are you talking about? What more do I have to present? This entire time I’ve been arguing against your position, not presenting one of my own. You are seeking for society to change, for opinions to be altered, for your position to be recognized by society as legal.
All I’m arguing is that your argument doesn’t hold up. You seem to be attempting to put other arguments or positions onto me - perhaps to ease the burden of your position?
The idea that realism of a 5 month old giving consent. Also, as I pointed out, laws are meant to protect the masses - a hypothetical logical possibility isn’t constituted as being part of the masses. It’s not even part of a minority.
Specific age is relevant, since I’ve been arguing about categories (ie, heaps). Yes, “cheating” happens and it’s not clear how your system would prevent it. It’s also not clear why it is necessary to enact upon all children.
No, I wasn’t - I’ve read the article and it’s not clear that we have definitive tests for it.
“Whether children younger than 3 or 4 years old may have a theory of mind is a topic of debate among researchers. It is a challenging question, due to the difficulty of assessing what pre-linguistic children understand about others and the world. Tasks used in research into the development of ToM must take into account the umwelt—(the German word Umwelt means “environment” or “surrounding world”)—of the pre-verbal child.”
I’m also unclear between the link between this and self responsibility/consent. Can you please clarify?
It’s not just muscle memory - as the knowledge of how to ride a bike necessarily includes the learning how to do so. I can know the definition of erection, of sex, of all of the above, but if I’ve never had an erection then there is something that is not known that is necessary for the experience. Now, some of that knowledge can only be obtained by going through the activity, but you can’t argue that all of it is.
You misunderstand me - your proposal doesn’t explicitly state there is an age line, but the reality of the situation is that there is one. In other words, it’s implicit to your proposal since in order to pass the test you have to have been on this earth and your body has to have aged a specific amount. You have to have aged more then 5 months, for example, since biomechanics do not allow for a 5 month old to be the mental equivalent of an adult.
No, I’m not. It seems you are attempting to make a difference without a distinction.
Well, you certainly haven’t presented anything that establishes a sound reason for all people to be able to take the test, since it’s clear that some cannot even take the test.
Who is asking about universal harm? The question of laws refers to the safety of the majority.
As I pointed out, not everyone is unsafe to drive with a BA of .09 - but the laws are in place to protect the majority from those people who are unsafe to drive with such a BA.
Again, in order to support your position you need more then negative evidence - pointing out that such relationships don’t harm every member involved simply isn’t enough - you need positive evidence that such relationships are actually good, productive, and do not harm those involved.
So far, you haven’t presented any. Your entire argument seems to be based on an appeal to ‘prove me wrong’ (ie, begging the question).
You haven’t covered any positive evidence for your position. Start there. Show that such relationships with 10 and under are healthy and productive and produce no harm in those involved for the majority of the cases.
I thought I was pretty clear - if they could not take the test (due to lack of cognitive development), how can they logically pass it?
I’m quite clear with the concept of analogy - where I stumble is when someone tries to present a bad analogy and they claim it’s a good one.
The point is that the arguments of the slave holders were unsound - the premises factually wrong (ie, slaves brains are not more cognitively impaired then their owners). The argument that person X should not be able to give consent because of their mental status IS applicable to children because is physiologically true; a 5 month old’s brain is not cognitively developed enough to give informed consent - nor can it be because of the stage of development.
This is not the equivalent to slaves, since a slaves brain is cognitively developed enough AND it is developed enough. In short, you could teach an adult slave about consent, responsibility, and all that and the slave would be able to understand. You could not do the same with a 5 month old.
You are ignoring the fundamental distinction that I outlined above - unless your argument is that blacks are the mental equivalent of children. This cannot be your argument.
I’m saying that you are phrasing it this way for rhetorical reasons.
Age in a vacuum is irrelevant - but when you consider that a child’s age is also relevant to their physical development, it is relevant.
What reason is there for them to take the test? They can’t even take the test, so how could they fail it?
You are proposing that they take this test - simply pointing out that there isn’t a reason not to is appealing to ignorance. How about this: It’s a waste of time to have them take the test?
You do need to provide a compelling reason for them to take the test. So far, you haven’t.
I didn’t say that we all age at the same rate, I said that we age at specific rates - those rates are determined by our physiology (genetics, nurturing, etc). Age lines do not have to be definitive to be useful, they do not have to protect ‘all’, just ‘most’. However, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, even though there are shades of gray, there are definitive lines out there.
Your argument contains the implicit premise that all people can take the test. This is not true.
Again, you need a reason for children who can’t even take the test (cognitively) to take the test.
Has this been extensively studied?
I’m sorry, but the onus is on you here Cesario - you need to demonstrate that there would be no harm. You need to show us studies with ‘fully consensual sexual encounters’ where there was no harm.
You are the one seeking to change society, seeking to change public opinion, and all that. It doesn’t do you any good to appeal to ignorance here.
Again, “If there are no such studies either way, then from where can we get a basis for whether such encounters would do no harm or not?”
In short, your case rests on an appeal to ignorance. You are arguing:
“that fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm because there are no studies to show that they don’t.”
You have no evidence:
Please provide evidence and studies to support these two points.
Maybe so, however please remember that you are supposed to be arguing against the traditional wisdom and appealing to ignorance is not going to cut it in the market place of ideas.
No, I am not. However if you’d like to take a poll of this small cross section of society (the SD) to see how many people align with your idea that 10 year olds should be legally allowed to engage in consensual sex then by all means create the poll and put me in my place.
So are there studies with fully consensual sexual encounters with children that produce no harm or not?
If you’ve got the studies, then present them.
I operate under that position to - the difference would be what constitutes a citizen that can give consent.
So then we both agree that 2 year olds and under cannot give reasoned consent? That they should not take your test?
Possibly true - I don’t remember.
I was saying: You have to present positive evidence that your test is adequate at determining consent and that children can engage in fully consensual sexual encounters that produce no harm.
I clearly wasn’t declaring victory here. If you’d like to set up a poll to see if your arguments are convincing and to see if you can get a majority of SDers to agree that 10 year olds should be legally allowed to engage in sex, then by all means do so. I’ll eat humble pie if that’s the case.
Fair enough - the relevance is questionable.
Me in particular, or ‘me’ as in ‘any person’? If it’s the later, I’m not sure that’s good enough.
Play semantics all you like, at the end of the day, your position has no support outside of (possible) negative support.
Nonsense - that is because of your position, not your evidence. People are not shouting at you and all that because they lack evidence necessarily (some may, some may not), they are acting that way because your position is widely outside of the mainstream.
As to your dichotomy, I think the obvious is the third position - most of the people here aren’t even trying to engage in this issue with you. They aren’t discussing it, they are repulsed by it and do not want to address it on an intellectual level at all.
I’m uncertain why the bar is at ‘universal’ harm, btw, can you clarify?
Yes.
For the sake of argument, yes, the test can provide evidence for consent. No the procedure for providing such evidence is not as simple as administering the test - since it’s clear that not everyone can even take the test, much less pass it!
In short, how do you determine whether or not a 1 year old could even hypothetically give consent?
I fail to see any reason what-so-ever to administer or even consider administering this test to a 1 year old. Why should we?
So you refuse to recognize that a collection of all 5 months old in the ‘inability to give consent’ column constitutes a definitive age line?
That seems to be your issue with reality - not mine.
It was unclear to me that you believed this since you apparently think that my position was that your test is of no use what-so-ever and could not be used with teenagers.
You were attempting to construct a false position for me to hold - I pointed out the false assumption (that children under 10 constitute teenagers), now you are getting snarky with me.
Probably because that’s not what I assume, obviously. I assume that there are clear age-related lines that can be reliably used to determine who should be able to have access to the test and who cannot. It’s not crystal clear to me why a 5 month old should even be considered here.
That’s fine - but it doesn’t justify the system for a 5 month old.
You are just being obstinate here. The ‘groups of people who cannot pass’ because they cannot take the test are all under 10. This is a distinction without a difference.
Was that in the proposal you quoted in this thread? I honestly don’t remember this portion.
Show me the outliers. Further, should we make laws based on the outliers? Should legal BA levels be adjusted so that it takes into the consideration that some outliers who can function with a BA above .08 should be allowed to drive while intoxicated?
How would it prove anything to the individual who not only doesn’t understand the test, but doesn’t understand what mentally competence means? Who would this test actually prove the results to?
How would a 5 month old even consider whether to take the test or not?
? I’m saying that the are a pertinent factor, you are argue as though I’m saying they are the only factor - hence my comment on context. Your response here is completely confusing.
?
I’m not saying that everyone after puberty meets this requirement? I’m saying that puberty is one of the avenues that foster interest in sexual relations. I agree that adults lie and all that, but I don’t see the relevance here. I don’t actually think you are clear in your last sentence.
So you think that the actual physicality of the action, the parts involved and all (how they feel to the person, how the functioning of them feel to the person, etc), bears no part in reasoned consent?
Okay.
According to you, perhaps, but obviously not according to me when I wrote “then isn’t that an age line that could be drawn”. Also, you realize that ‘infant’ actually refers to the latin meaning unable to speak, right?
Obviously, since you referred to the ability to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Remember, you wrote: “The words “yes” and “no” seem to be fairly standard…”, my point was that this was not necessarily true. You seem to agree by pointing to point 4, yet here you are questioning whether or not you were clear.
Because the indication is that it is - you seem to be fighting tooth and nail for a hypothetical that there is no evidence is even physically possible.
So can any take the test?
Possibly so - but I think it’s ridiculous to allow a group of people who cannot even take the test to potentially be able to.
I’m still not sure why there would necessarily be no STDs to worry about. Shoot, the test for consent that you are suggesting does go over safety and such things, at least if i recall correctly - so wouldn’t these consensual 5 year olds be familiar with such things?
But one group is already recognized, the group that consists of those that cannot take the test; ie, 5 and under.
Prove my assumption wrong then - all you have to do is find the hypothetical 5 month old that is the mental equivalent of an adult. You don’t even have to do that, actually, you have to show that it’s remotely physiologically possible for such a child to develop.
You are assuming that I see no value in your test - I’ve repeatedly said that this isn’t the case. I see value in it, to an extent. I see no value in potentially allowing consent for people who fall within certain age line (‘heaps’) - say 5 years old and younger (or 10, or I’d probably even go so far as we could establish such a line with what the psychological mainstream has determined about cognitive abilities).
Yes, I realize that, I’m talking about generally, not specifically. In fairness, I admit I could be totally wrong in my appraisal of what constitutes ‘convincing’ to the public at large.
I don’t know - I think it’s possible because societies mores and norms are constantly in flux. Society, usually, changes well before the laws change, which indicates to me that the specific law (ie, AoC) isn’t the relevant factor. Frankly speaking, I don’t think changing the AoC laws would be all that effective - I think better sex-ed would be a more powerful step and potentially a necessary first step. You’d need public support first, IMO. Then again, I’m not an expert or anything.
If they aren’t based on anything, maybe, but the age lines are based on developmental stages of the general populous - and the specific ones I’m talking about don’t seem to be able to contain any outliers.
Interesting reaction - not what I thought. I assumed that you would change based on the idea that you would then be able to, more easily, find a partner.
No, not by that logic, since my logic was based on the general, not the outlier.
However, I would say that if someone couldn’t control their sexual impulse and they had to engage in the activity ‘right now’ that is a sign that they aren’t ready to handle it. It’s a sign that they are possibly dangerous.
With that (finally) said, I think at this point my contribution is done. It has been interesting Cesario, but very time consuming (not either of our faults, mind you, but this last response took me over two hours - I can’t imagine how much time it’s taken you). I will leave you with the last word.
Dropping in to thank **Meatros **and others who have maintained a level head in argument against Cesario. He has, one hopes, been shown that his arguments are not getting any traction (or any traction of consequence anyway) among sensible people but that it’s because they see defects with his premises and conclusions and not just because it drives them into blind fits.
This is because the visceral *“aaarrrghhh spITsnORt pedophile grrraaahhh kiLLbuRN’im!!!” *reaction many people affect is not useful, and only allows the subject to to reinforce the self-view as victim, or assume that the opposition is merely an unthinking instinctual reflex. (Which is not to say that a hard grabbing by the lapels and calling out is not useful to drive home the point at times. Just not blind rages.)
OF COURSE adults seeking to have actual sex with actual prepubescent children is wrong (mere feelings or fantasies don’t faze me as long as they remain that) and a sensible person should easily understand this is so, and that it is different from doing it with a hot 15y/o, and getting shafted by the legalisms of the AoC. The developmental stages of a human mind are not mere social artifices.
As of the current time and for long into the foreseeable future any theorizing about how to “empower” prepubescent kids to agree to sex with an adult will be seen as a discourse on how to enable the pedophile to feel it may be legitimate to act on his/her urges, rather than seek out therapy/treatment to control, redirect or avoid them. What, you say, if you were to achieve some sort of way to verify consent in a child as well as you do it with an adult (and brain development issues are probably an insurmountable factor there)? As things stand, in regular adult-adult sex between nominal peers who should know better and can call one another out on it, you still have to worry about situations where one of the parties presumes intent and consent and then it turns out wrong and it all ends in tears. We don’t want to make THAT an “assumed risk” in a relation of such inequality and vulnerability as adult-preteen, so the answer is, for long into the foreseeable future, that such pairings should NOT happen, period.
Adults fantasizing about having sex with children *should * concern us as the thought is often father to the deed. At the very least an adult with such thoughts should avoid all contact with prepubescents, for his own sake as well as theirs. If in a moment of weakness he were to give his lust full rein he would be destroying two lives at once.
But I forget. Cesario has a will of iron and is above such precautions.
Bullshit. I have thoughts about all kinds of women all the time, some of whom I am often in close proximity to for some length of time. Thus far, I’ve successfully managed to restrain myself from raping all of them. Why should a paedophile (especially a non-exclusive paedophile with a girlfriend) be any different?
You know what? Cesario’s right. There’s a whole bunch here who can’t seem to tell the difference between paedophile and child molester, or even recognise that the difference exists.
I think it’s different because you can have sex with those women without it being rape. You can’t just go up to them and fuck them but you can buy them drinks, suss out interest, flirt, etc. And if they think you’re hot and are amenable, you can do the wild monkey dance. But if you’re a pedophile, yeah, people are going to assume that your interactions are suspect. Because there is no flirting or lead up for a kid. I think a lot of pedophiles might be very eager to see stuff that isn’t there. Caesario talked about speaking to a woman with a “very attractive 4 year old” and saying stuff like the 4 year old girl seemed to want him all to herself and stuff. And a lot of people told him he was deluded.
I think if a guy were into rape fantasies, that would be fine. But if almost every one of his posts were on rape or some aspect of BDSM, people might be skeeved, or just plain bored, and might ask him to cut down. Which did in fact happen in one case.
So, how long have you been at war with Eastasia?
Fucking amazing. I suggest that it would be wise for someone with pedophile tendencies to avoid kids and suddenly I’m advocating thought crime?
Tell me again why that’s not a sensible thing to do. I’m all ears.
Plus, what about the fact that a pedophile (or even an adult heterosexual) can be creepy without doing anything illegal? Caesario has said repeatedly he doesn’t do this but he seemed to think the attractive four year old was into him. So I’m not really that assured by his…assurances.
We had a thread about a teacher who noticed guys staring at young kids at gym class/recess who would take off when teachers would open up their phones. Yeah, you’re not raping or touching them, but do you really want to be that guy who stares at kids and makes other people think you’re a creep?
Of course you’re not advocating thought crime. You’re just “concerned” about it. How do you feel about mass murder and torture and such, because I know some writers who’ve thought about it at length and, y’know, father of the deed and all.
And, of course, thinking about mass murder and torture and debating them seriously is precisely equivalent to getting a hardon when a three year old climbs into your lap.
I’m still waiting though to hear why you think it so outrageous that a man who feels such desires should take care not to be alone with small children. Perhaps you feel they could have a useful debate on the subject?
Now you’re just moving the goalposts.
And moving them further. I don’t care what Cesario fantasizes about. Heck, his fantasies are not automatically any more dangerous than someone fantasizing that the crying brat would shut the fuck up if only someone shook them hard enough.
You said a stupid thing. Own up to it or not, as you choose.