Of course I do. What does that have to do with you making sweeping generalizations, though?
The difference here is that I’d rather have my child have a casual relationship with someone intelligently, rather than under cover of night and ignorantly, guiltily. You, of course, have the right to raise your kids however you see fit.
P.S.- nice ad hominem there. Really does your argument justice. :dubious:
Thanks for the compliment.
Actually, it wasn’t an argument. I simply levied my opinion.
I don’t know, why don’t you tell me? By your rationale, telling kids that it’s not a mortal sin to have sex casually will encourage them to fuck anything with a hole in it. Conversely, with your parenting skills, telling them that casual sex is not allright will lead them on into adulthood with a healthy view on sex.
Since you seem to think that all teens will act as they see fit anyways, what is the point in even broaching the subject? How will either position help or hinder their development?
Please impart upon me your parenting wisdom, oh master.
Larry Mudd “but we grisly old Sykos who have
done our unsmiling bit on 'alices, when they were yung and
easily freudened”
Okay, let me give you an actual.
I was in highschool.
I had girls who wanted me.
My father gave me the same advice I suggested.
I didn’t fuck anybody until I got to college and found a woman who interested me intelletually. (yes, I started college at age 16, but the point stands)
Where does “casual sex is okay.” imply “completely give in to all your desires.”
Why is not making sex something dirty somehow telling kids to go out and fuck like bunnies?
And, simply for the record, emotinally charged ‘serious’ relationships are as likely to go the route of psycho-gal/guy as friends-with-benefits.
Hopefully the boy’s parents explained the real consequences that sex has and the importance of using protection while not demonzing sex-for-pleasure.
My mom actually made sure I always had a fresh box of condoms.
And I never used them before I was in college.
Damn… where’s the point where they eat the baby all because man went where God did not mean him to go!!!
~sighs~
Maybe, just maybe, sex can be approached in a healthy and sex-positive fashion so that children are both informed and emotionally prepared? Maybe teens can think that casual sex is okay but unprotected sex is bad? Maybe teens can even walk and chew bubblegum?
A ‘serious’ relationship would prevent this?
Hearts get broken.
It sucks, but it’s part of the learning process.
You can only shield children so long from reality.
Instead, why not explain to your kids that casual sex is okay but it often carries a high emotional price and they should be careful?
999/1000? Really?
You have a cite to back this up?
No, I think we can all agree those those who prey on teens are bad. Predatory = not good.
We just won’t agree that all such relationships are, by definition and in defiance of facts, predatory.
As has already been pointed out, this is circular.
And while you may find it sleezy, there’s no “sleeze” meter, and it’s not an objective definition.
This has been dealt with too.
Moral lines should both be based on general principles and individual cases.
Why would that matter?
Like my father told me when I was learning to swim: “It doesn’t matter how deep the water is, you swim on top.”
Likewise, it doesn’t matter how old the partner is, if a girl is mature and a good judge of character, she’ll make a good choice.
~blown away~
The maturity level of a fourty year old makes it rather likely that it would be an unequal level. The maturity level of a young 20-something would likely mean that it would be an equal level.
And what does it matter if a guy wants to have anal or vaginal sex with your daughter? The sign of morality is now which hole you prefer to put your apendages in?
Oh come on!
What’s the difference between a 40 year old and a senile 90 year old? I mean, they’re both adults, right? ~sighs~
You are obviously attempting to blur out all facts and individual distinctions.
It is a less than cool debating tactic.
She is.
If a 14 year old is old enough to choose, she’s old enough to choose.
That’s what being old enough to choose means.
Children, adult, blah, blah, blah.
Let’s stop playing with words now.
Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 20 year olds.
Does that mean the 20 year olds are not adults anymore?
Diogenes… I kinda like reading your posts in general, but I’m not sure what to say here other than
Fuck. You.
Minors are sometimes above the age of consent!. Yep. That’s right. When I was in New York and made love to a 17 year old, it was legal. So fuck you if you think I needed to go get counseling for having a perfectly legal, perfectly loving relationship.
Community service for fucking?
Can we follow this through?
Honestly, legal punishments for 8 year olds who play doctor?
It is not about a number!
It should be judged on a case by case by case basis.
Law =/= morality!
You can’t avoid the responsibility to look at cases individually by throwing down puritanical dogma.
In many cases ‘adult’ ‘child’ relationships may be wrong, but not in all. That’s the damn point.
I’m sure I haven’t made my point clear, but this is exactly what I am trying to say. Damn near word for word. I find hiding sex and shaming sex(married or unmarried), horribly harmful to children and our society as a whole. I think it carries with it the exact opposite consequences that they hoped to avoid by approaching sex in that way.
I’m not disagreeing with a lot of the points being made here, but what I want to ask (and what I asked earlier in this thread) was, is the 14-year-old mature enough to deal with the consequences of an unplanned child?
Left Hand of Dorkness offered a solution (teach kids to engage in sexual activity that did not risk pregancy) but I believe that you specifically shot his reasoning down.
So I’m still asking—if she’s “old enough” to choose sex, is she “old enough” to take care of a baby? Sure, we know that she’ll use condoms, but condoms fail. And yes, we know that she can give the child up for adoption, or have an abortion, but what if she decides that she doesn’t want to do that?
And if he’s “old enough” to choose sex, at say, age 14, how is he going to support a child if he gets his girlfriend pregnant? (He may know that he wouldn’t want one and would choose abortion or adoption if the choice were his, but obviously it’s not.) So, are these 14-year-olds really old enough to be responsible for the possible outcome of their choices?
I’m wary of making any generalizations.
My best guess is that no, most 14 year olds would not be able to handle having a kid.
However. There was a time in human history when many many 14 year olds handled it. Our ‘breeding age’ is somewhat arbitrary.
Again, I think it would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, although I would agree that, sans data, my best guess is that most people under, hell, 25, are probably not ready to have kids.
" But we’re molting superstituettes out of his fulse thortin guts."
Also, you ever get a chance to read Joyce’s letters to Nora? Makes hustler look like sesame street, good stuff. I’d link to 'em but they’re not worksafe.
(Also provides an interesting window into a relationship which was both loving and sexually-hot)
As for all us Joyce nuts, I dunnae know, but I’ll raise a pint of Guinness to ya.
So, if a kid is “ready” to have sex but probably not “ready” to deal with the consequences, are they still “ready” to have sex?
What do you think should happen when a 14-year-old becomes pregnant, or gets someone pregnant? Should they be expected to be responsible for the baby? Is that part of what “ready for sex” means—to be able to be responsible for the possible consequences?
What do you think the solution should be if, for instance, a 14-year-old gets pregnant (or gets someone else pregnant)? Should they be allowed to keep the baby? Should their parents have a “veto” over them keeping the baby (“We didn’t think you were old enough to have sex or to have a kid, and we don’t want to end up helping you take of your baby”)? Should they be expected to pay for the support of that baby on their own? (The default assumption is that most adults are expected to support their children, after all, so why not for them too? They say that they’re “ready.”)
I’m not saying that a 14-year-old can never be ready or responsible. But I think a 16-year-old or 18-year-old is probably more likely to be able to have a job, is farther along in school, drive a car, and while they might not be really “ready” for parenthood, I’d think that the older they are, the more chances that they have of being able to pull it together and at least take a stab at it. But 14-year-olds? Not so much.
You have to understand that you are coming across as an unrelenting hardass when it comes to this issue. If you’re going with “the law is the law. If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. I feel no sympathy.” you must realize that if you had parents with the same view as you espoused and they walked in on you two and called the cops on her, she theoretically could have been arrested (YMMV, depending on what state you were in)
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “unrelenting dumbass.”
DtC has gotten his head wrapped around the notion that, somehow, a law made by a body which has huge amounts of scorn deservedly heaped upon it for numerous fuck ups, is actually right, in this case. Nevermind that the law varies considerably from place to place and is sometimes guilty of discrimination (since heterosexual acts can be prosecuted under it, but not homosexual acts, or that females sleeping with underage males is celebrated and not condemned), and that the law is only a relatively recent invention as far as human history goes (you know, considering that for most of our existence the average life expectancy was somewhere around 40), or that it traces it’s roots to a particular mindset which was hellbent on preserving a woman’s virginity, but not a man’s. Don’t think about those things at all, because they’re totally beside the point. Nope, it’s a law, therefore it must be obeyed at all costs.
So, by that logic, those folks who practiced civil disobedience during the Civil Rights Era were totally wrong in what they were doing, since they were violating a law. Nevermind that the law was unjust and immoral, it was the law, and it should be obeyed at all times.
To sum up : Older guys having sex with younger girls are actually sleazeball preying on unknowing children.
How do you know they’re sleazeball? Because they prey on unknowing girls. How do you know the girls are unknowing? Because they’re preyed upon by sleazeballs.
The bible is the word of God as proven by the fact it’s written in the bible which is the word of God.
And why people who are truly in love with each other should refrain from having sex, exactly? People who truly love each other aren’t abusing each other, are they?
Ah, yes, because they can’t really be in love. Boys are just sleazeballs and girls innocent naive frail things probably abused when they were younger, as proven above. By definition, there’s an abuse going on. Though many will never realize it, even 30 years later. Evidences, direct experiences and testimonies are irrelevant.
The Earth is 4 500 years old. Carbon-datings are just erroneous and knowledgeable scientists to be ignored. They’re obviously mistaken since the world is 4500 years old.
Also, maybe you should refrain from :
-Calling teenagers “children”. They aren’t.
-Always mentionning older piggish male abusing innocent younger girls. From time to time, reverse the situation, with older piggish girls abusing innocent younger boys, or older innocent girls abusing younger piggish boys (not sure how you would put it). Many of your posts definitely appear condescendant and misogynistic. “appear”?..well, no…“are”, actually.
Nobody answered my question from a few pages back. A couple of Michael Jackson’s victims were 13. If they were consenting should MJ be given a pass? Is it not immoral for a 40 year old man to fuck a 13 year old boy up the ass if the kid really wants it?
Bullshit. Stop trying to change the subject, now that you’ve gotten yourself backed into a corner. Be a fucking man and admit that you were talking out of your ass when you went off about the guy who boinked a potentially underage kid, and we can all be done with this thread.
That would be because a fat and bald 50 yo having anal sex while dressed in leather and chains with a sweet blue-eyed 12 yo innocent girl probably still playing with her barbie dolls makes Diogenes’ point looks better than a 19 yo boy getting a handjob from his beloved 17 yo girlfriend. Both are equally evil in all circumstances, though.
Next thing you know, adult male predators pigs will have anal sex with 15 yo underaged dogs, or something.
