I’m just sick of hearing about all about how horrible and detrimental teen mothers are without a word about the other party involved. I have, in my life, only met one woman who prefers casual sex without a condom- and even she wouldn’t refuse a guy or pressure him if he wanted to use one. It is men who are pressing for unprotected sex with non committed partners. A woman may not be on birth control for any number of reasons, from ignorance to medical incompatibility to lack of cash. But when the dick is about to go in, either it’s wrapped up or it’s not. And that is mostly in the guy’s hand. Especially among teens, the difference between knocked up and not knocked up is a condom.
I am not going to be force fed drugs or have metal shoved up my cooter to protect the rights for boys to bareback with casual partners without consequence. Stop blaming us, and take responsibility for your own dick.
That’s another point of frustration that has very little to do with non-hunters and probably didn’t belong in a response to you. Conservation is one of my deeply held beliefs and the last bit of my initial response to you and Rigamarole was overly bitchy and hyperbolic.
Hunters on t.v. use the term “harvested” instead of saying that they shot/killed an animal. It’s valid conservation terminology but it’s also patronizing and utterly pointless.
It’s not as though you, Blackberry, are going to change your opinion about hunting if I mince words - it’s the act, not the name that bothers you.
Granted my sexual experience is probably more limited than yours, but I have never encountered a man that when told, “Wear a condom or we are not having sex,” has responded. “Forget about if I have to wear a condom, I would just as soon masturbate.” A guy can pressure you to have sex with a condom, he can also pressure you to jump off the Empire State building, but you know what you’re an idiot that made a stupid choice on both occasions, if you do.
You are adding an entire U-Haul’s worth of baggage to that opinion that is simply not there.
I am not going to be force fed drugs or have metal shoved up my cooter to protect the rights for boys to bareback with casual partners without consequence. Stop blaming us, and take responsibility for your own dick.
[/QUOTE]
When medical science provides me with a once-a-day pill or five-year injection that prevents me from getting someone pregnant in 99+% of cases, I will frankly rejoice for myself and for my nephews–and along with the guy you’re arguing with, insist it should be mandatory for unemancipated minors in high school.
Until that point, perhaps, you could reflect on the fact that easy reversible semi-permanent birth control is ONLY available to women, and maybe even rejoice a little bit in that knowledge.
We have pills that make us sick, can give us cancer, and can shorten our lives in exchange for their protection of our uterus. You, on the other hand, can put a lil piece of latex on your johnson-- with literally no negative side effects. AND it’s significantly cheaper than $80 a month pills or a $600 piece of hormone infused wire jammed in my uterus.
Perhaps you could reflect on the fact that easy, painless, non invasive, and non damaging birth control is available to men for a fraction of the cost of contraceptive pills, and maybe even rejoice a little bit in that knowledge.
Everybody should be responsible for condoms- both sexes. But do not sit here and act like poor poor men just have no options- isn’t it unfair how women can just take one lil pill and be safe?!? C’mon now.
I have absolutely no disagreement with this point.
You have your opinions, I have mine–having seen the side effects my wife occasionally endures for her BC (periods every two weeks for a year, for example), I’d’ve killed to have a Mirena or Depo when I was in college.
For all the unfortunate side effects, the one big advantage those methods have over condoms/the pill, especially in the context of preventing stupid teenagers from having babies, is that you cannot leave Mirena/Depo in your bedside table at home, and you cannot forget to take it, and you cannot argue someone into not using it.
It’s not an issue of “making women responsible”. It’s an issue of “the only fire-and-forget/long-term/reversible BC methods unfortunately only apply to women at the present time”. And if your extreme belief is “teenage pregnancy to unemancipated minor parents is so bad it should be prevented at any reasonable cost”, then you don’t have a lot of choices for that implementation. Although I remember reading some articles about long-term/reversible/fire-and-forget BC for men being researched, and that absolutely should be applied too as soon as it’s known to be safe and effective.
There’s no nice way to say this, but you clearly don’t realise just how unable you are to be objective about this issue if you continue to write posts like this. I believe you think you’re stating the obvious and saying the rights of children not to be affected negatively by the sexual desires of adults should be paramount (which no-one here has even argued with), but all I can hear is a high pitched shrieking of “won’t someone PLEASE think of the children!”, and I also can’t see very much because of all the flaming torches being waved around.
You’re denying the simple reality that children are capable of being sexual beings and will experiment with their own bodies, by themselves or with other people. If one takes the view that there is nothing inherently wrong with sex, it can be logically extended that the experience of sex is no different to anything else and should be taught to children directly and practically (like anything else that parents are expected to do). The only way you can decide whether this view is a valid one or not is by giving it objective consideration with the contrary viewpoints, rather than simply saying “nope, it’s evil, end of discussion” because this is a complete dead end.
No, I’m not advocating parents having sex with their own children, or letting anyone else do it, nor is this entire line of thinking any kind of get out of jail free card for people who molest children (and the whole issue of a child’s ability to consent at all in this matter is why it doesn’t come up). I’m not even saying it’s a good or a bad thing for children to have experience of sex before they fully mature - I’m simply trying to acknowledge that for some children they want to and they try to, and pretending that they don’t is simply asinine.
The bottom line is that taking a rational, considered and objective approach to the issue is far better for EVERYONE involved than the hysterical and shrieking approach you and others who take your view. One allows a nuanced and practical approach to a complex issue, and one doesn’t - guess which one I’m in support of?
I’m so tired of the “pedophiles need to be shipped off to an island/put to death” rhetoric that comes almost entirely from “urgh, icky!” and base emotion, and I hate how even having an objective discussion about this means sticking your neck out lest other accuse you of secretly being a paedophile yourself. If that’s the risk I have to take because I want to treat this topic like any other and discuss it objectively, rather than bandying around words like “abhorent” and “predatory”, then fine, have at it.
Hey, this eight year old *wanted *to make Nikes for 18 cents per day. No reason not to give her a chance! I mean, sure, *most *eight year olds aren’t ready for full time employment, but I’m pretty sure *this *one is special, and I’m happy to mentor her.
Illuminatiprimus, if you think that post is the “high pitched shrieking of ‘won’t someone PLEASE think of the children!’”, and “hysterical” you have issues. The only person freaking out here is you, frankly.
Actually read what I said again, rather than skimming it and deciding for yourself what I said.
I’ll say this very simply - I’m not for child/adult sexual activity, but treating any issue (this one included) as if it’s beyond discussion and that it’s right to allow emotion to decide how we approach it frustrates the hell out of me. I want our approach to this issue to be based on reason, not moral panic.
If a paedophile walks into a therapist’s office and says “I have sexual desires for children, I don’t ever want to act on them, please help me to make sure I never do”, do you think the situation is made better or worse by the legislation that frequently requires the therapist to turn the individual, who has done nothing, to the police rather than actually helping them? Because that’s the situation we’re in now in most states in the US.
Yes I know if feels good to bask in our own moral indignation on issues, but some of us are actually more interested in a practical approach to reducing harm for everyone as much as possible rather than seeing everything in black and white terms and just going straight for punishing whoever we can get our hands on. I don’t perceive that as me “freaking out”.
I’m worried I’ve taken this thread quite a way from it’s original course so if we want to talk about this more it should probably be in GD (or if you want to make this about my own failings as a person in the pit).
This is a victimization fantasy you are concocting in your own head. I don’t recall the last time any public pronouncement with respect to controlling teen births was made that demonized teen mothers without referencing the fact that making babies required two people.
On an individual level the REALITY vs your PSA about condoms and girls being pressured to go bareback against their will is that many, possibly most, teen girls who are making babies are often desperate for the affections of the specific males they are having sex with, and are aggressively and competitively offering themselves to these males for sex.
There aren’t herds of teenage Lotharios reeking of Axe, seducing naive females into going bareback. These girls want to be fucked by and “be with” specific boys/men, and will do what it takes to get the results they want. If condoms are not readily available they will (and do) take their chances to get what they want, which is generally the penis of the boy they desire in their vagina.
The teenage female vagina is the nexus about which a huge number of future demographic events will coalesce. You stand in the way of that vortex at your peril.
Relevant at part minute 5 onwards if you want to get to the meat of it. It discusses the mandatory reporting requirements in the US. I’m trying (and failing) to find actual regulations that set out what the requirements are so if this isn’t the case then I will gladly stand corrected (I’d rather be wrong and live in a saner one than I thought I did).
2 years of government service required upon turning 18 / finishing high school. This can be in a variety of roles including the military.
Campaign donations are uncapped, but can only come from registered voters.
Voting rights are restored with 5 years of clean record after time served.
UN HQ is now Jerusalem, and the city is run by the UN (already posted, but one I have proposed before).
US Military is reduced to the most highly trained, technologically advanced homeland protection force. No more nation building, but we will bomb the living shit out of you if you mess with us. We will then leave and let your nation rot.
Flat tax per Hall and Rabushka plan. The Flat Tax | Hoover Institution The Flat Tax
I can understand that. Where I’m coming from is not to condone the position that Lumpy has stated, nor is it to decry it. My point is that it isn’t helpful to treat children and sexuality as a simple black and white area, but that isn’t saying that having sex with children needs to be put on the table as a normal option, nor in any way saying it’s a good thing.
I’m saying that any approach to the issue of sexual contact with children (whether it be with themselves, with other children, or with adults) should be governed with the same rational objectivity that we approach anything and a desire to get the best outcome for everyone involved. To give an actual example from the link I posted above Cantor describes a treatment programme for people experiencing feelings of sexual desire towards children where they can anonymously access online, phone or face to face counselling because having that option is better than the alternative of it not existing at all. I know there are people (because I’ve read them say it on this very board, although not in this thread) who would say that the appropriate response to finding someone felt like this would be to kill them. That’s not objective, and it’s not seeking to get the best outcome for everyone. Some would argue that the need of a hypothetical child to be protected counts more than the right of a paedophile (one that has committed an offence or not) to have their identity protected, or be given access to therapy. I don’t see how that can be helpful for everyone involved (it certainly isn’t for the paedophile), but that’s the position some take.
I guess ultimately where I differ from (it would seem) the majority of people is that I can think about a child having sex and not become emotional about it or feel so icky that it overrides my sense of reason (it’s not something I choose to think about or particularly want to think about either though). Maybe if it did ick me out I’d be agreeing with the rest of you, but it doesn’t, so I’m able to be more dispassionate about it. I don’t think this is right or wrong, it just is, and it allows me to potentially be more objective about the issue than someone who doesn’t feel dispassionate.
Does that make sense? Hey, we are talking about extreme views here.
The problem with being “rational and reasonable” about the desire for, or attempts by adults to have sex with kids is that below a certain age or level of maturity it’s pretty much a one way wholly exploitative and harmful relationship, and there is no good or reliable way to determine what that age/maturity set point is, so artificial set points are created.
Out of curiosity what ethical duty do you feel I, as the hypothetical parent of an under aged (ie age of majority) child. owe the person who has an ardent desire to have sex with my child?
What are my moral and ethical responsibilities toward him or her?