Not necessarily. It means, at a minimum, you did not fully comprehend long term consequences yet, and would not have been capable of understanding the nature of any potential relationship with an adult. The brain doesn’t develop these cognitive abilities (anticipating/comprehending long term consequences) until an individual is into his or her 20’s. This is hard science, not opinion.
If it’s two kids close in age, the potential for power differential and exploitation is much lower, but 15 year olds are not cognitive peers with 30 year olds. That’s a fact. If you had sex with an adult at that time it was at least exploitation, and possibly legal rape.
Would you fuck a 15 year old girl now? If not, why not?
Age of consent at the time was 14 and there was not yet a “romeo & juliet” provision, so I only had one year of “rape,” but this is beside the point.
Dio asserts that regardless of any legal construct, biology dictates that it is impossible for a fifteen-year-old to have any sort of autonomy. This is beyond ridiculous. We live in a culture where maturity has been artificially deferred to the point that it’s fairly common to meet thirty-year-old children. Most adults today would not be able to correctly complete exercises in formal logic in 18th century text books intended for twelve-year-olds. Have we significantly devolved in a single century?
It’s one thing to infantalize people. It’s quite another to claim that it’s *biologically normal *for fifteen-year-olds to be intellectually and emotionally stunted.
Who said they were “stunted?” They just aren’t done maturing yet. That’s a biological fact, not an insult. Cognitive development is not complete until the mid 20’s, and significant changes are still occuring after 18 years of age.
You didn’t answer my question. Would you fuck a 15 year old now? Yes or no?
Hooey. What young relationship is focussed on the long-term? Day-to-day responsibilities were met, and I was prepared for any consequences. I was 17 when I met a twenty-nine-year-old with whom I had relationship that lasted years and turned into a comfortable friendship. This was legal, and for damned sure I knew my own mind. How is that I could be responsible enough to earn my own way in the world but somehow incapable of making decisions about who I wanted to have sex with?
Hell, no. For one thing, I’m forty and think that the chances of finding a fifteen-year-old that would hold my attention. This is hardly surprising, since I wasn’t interested in fifteen-year-olds when I was fifteen.
In the realm of the absurdly hypothetical, I wouldn’t rule it out strictly on the age differential. If I met someone with whom I had enough in common for their to be a mutual casual interest and if it weren’t a criminal offense, why not? Practically, though - of course not.
That doesn’t mean that I think a lynch mob is the only right and proper response to every relationship between a fifteen-year-old and a twenty-year-old. There ought to be some room for psychological reality, or people will be hurt. Note also that I don’t think declaring open season on anyone who’s reached menarche or has swimmers in their prostate fluid would be to the greater good. Just that shrill hysteria doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.
Does anyone know what Frank Sinatra’s bust for “seduction” was about? That’s what it says on that famous mug shot of his I have on my wall. (DAMN he was cute then…)
Can’t do that they would die instantly.
Just do as I do: acknowledge that Dio has a very strong opinion, you understand what it is, and move on.
We need a ‘godwin’ like word for this. If Dio disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean the thread is over or that it’s the Dio show. If a poster mentions ‘Dio Show’ or ‘Thread over because of Dio’ then he automatically loses the argument.
C’mon… no need to be rude and dismissive. Seriously. We all know, including Dio, that he (generally) has astonishingly fixed and extreme opinions and that he will repeatedly remind everyone exactly what they are periodically. He’s absolutely entitled. And I think he’s entitled to be acknowledged.
Entering into an argument with Dio is a losing situation. There’s no bottom to it, because he can;t debate rationally. The “cites” he presents for his opinions never say what they think he says, and you can’t reason him out of his idee fixee’s.
It’s absurd. “I went to Disneyland when I was eight.” "Impossible, nobody goes to Disneyland. " “No, really, I did.” “Didn’t you read my cite?”
If I were foolish enough to pretend that Dio article about cerebral development was worth considering in an argument about whether or not young people can make rational decisions about personal relationships, I might point out that most of what we know about the brain suggests he has confused cause and effect. But then, I would be arguing with Diogenes, and I’m not going to do that any more. If I find myself with the desire to engage him in a debate again I will just save time and throw myself against a brick wall until I stop moving.
