"I'm 14, I'm gay, and I want a boyfriend." [Archive I]

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 03:40 PM

{from the cited article}

.....Lee is 14. He's been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem.
Indeed. He has a serious risk at least. Is he practising safe sex at least ?
He wants a steady relationship
Gosh. We all want various things we can't have.

and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee's partner is a paedophile
!4. Bit young, hmmm ?
What next ? "Eight is too late" ?

and Lee is a victim of child abuse. That's not, however, the way Lee sees it:
Lee will just have to find out that modern Western society does not regard 14-year-olds as having the full emotional and intellectual capacity to make informed judgements on such grave matters.
What happens if Lee wants an anti-tank rifle all of his very own ?
It's hard to imagine anyone getting away with taking advantage of him.
Self-serving argumentation.
The age of consent laws don't make it easy for Lee to have a stable gay relationship. "Some men run a mile when they discover how old I am", he moans. "They're worried about getting done by the law".
Sensible blokes. "There's nothing much for young gays like me", says Lee. "Nobody cares about our rights".
What about free anti-tank rifles for 11-year-olds ?
No-one cares about their rights.
:(
For about 18 months, Lee joined Andrew doing sex for money, picking up men in the local gardens and bus station.
For fuck's sakes, let's not pretend this boy doesn't have a problem.
I can only hope he doesn't have hep. C or HIV as well.

"It depends on what kind of paedophiles", says Lee. "Those who have sex with little kids should be strung up by the bollocks. The paedophiles I knew always asked me if I wanted sex. They didn't pressure me. If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it's fine. If you don't, it's not".
Oh chrissakes. Ever heard of emotional manipulation ?
:rolleyes:
How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent? Lee admits: "The really young ones can't. But I was 12 when I first had sex with an adult man. I knew what was happening. The other boys I know who had sex with men were in their early teens. They understood what they were doing". "Understanding" does not equal "informed consent".
Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited. It's a concern that Lee acknowledges: "Yeah, that can happen. ...."Bullseye.Peter Tatchell is the author of the gay sex education manual, "Safer Sexy - The Guide To Gay Sex Safely" (Freedom Editions, 1994).
Man, I really hope Peter Tatchell gave good advice on safe-sex then.
:rolleyes:

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Amen-Moses

It was done to curb sex slavery,
Paedophiliac sex slavery, to be precise.

unfortunately the real cause (abject poverty)
Actually the real cause was exploitation backed up with violence in a climate of poverty.
Of course it made for good media It did more than that. By criminalizing paedophilia, it made it possible to legally act against brothels and pimps.
and the sally army haven't shut up since!
So what ?

yelyos

September 1, 2003, 03:49 PM

In the interests of fairness...

First of all, the article does discuss practicing safe sex. It clearly states that he is using condoms.

Second, generally adults in this society view having sex as their right, while I never heard of any adult claiming free anti-tank rifles as their right. As far as I can tell, he's arguing that he should be legally able to do the same things as adults.

Finally, as a 13-year-old, I find your implication that 14-year-olds cannot make decisions to be highly offensive, and a personal affront.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by yelyos
....
First of all, the article does discuss practicing safe sex. It clearly states that he is using condoms.
In my limited experience of rent boys --- and that is what he was for a period --- they often make claims which are not true.

I would be surprised if he always used condoms while tossing johns off. Rent boys are one of the highest-risk groups for unsafe sex, AFAIK.
Second, generally adults in this society view having sex as their right, while I never heard of any adult claiming free anti-tank rifles as their right. As far as I can tell, he's arguing that he should be legally able to do the same things as adults.
No worries.
Simply change "having an anti-tank rifle" to "joining the army" or "having a driving licence" then.
I'm easy.
:)
Finally, as a 13-year-old, I find your implication that 14-year-olds cannot make decisions to be highly offensive, and a personal affront. Then maybe you should read what I actually wrote again.
I didn't say a 14-y-o can't make decisions, I said a 14-y-o cannot make fully informed decisions.

I am fully prepared to grant there may be exceptions, but society has a duty to protect children, and that includes some kind of arbitrary cut-off point.

Calzaer

September 1, 2003, 04:03 PM

I'm sorry, but you CAN'T make fully informed decisions at 14. Or 16. Or hell, it's even a chore at 21. And I will bet cold hard cash that 90% of the opinions you hold now will flip 180 degrees within the next four years.

Humans in general, on average, simply aren't mentally stable enough to be credited with the ability to make complete rational decisions until they're at LEAST 25. And it's not a linear scale, either, it's an exponential scale with an asymptote.

In other news, the OP and some of the orginator's responses smell a bit like Gengis Pwn.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 04:07 PM

hmmm, hmmm, hmmm, with Calzaer and his asymptotes on my side, I cannot lose.
:)

Yes, the OP does reek a bit, doesn't it ?

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by yelyos

First of all, the article does discuss practicing safe sex. It clearly states that he is using condoms.

Nope. It doesn't. I read it twice again to make sure.
Here is the relevant section of the cited article:
.......

Lee is 14. He's been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. ....
....
"Because of family difficulties, I ended up in a children's home. ....
That was when I first had anal sex and learned about condoms. ......".

For about 18 months, Lee joined Andrew doing sex for money, picking up men in the local gardens and bus station. ".......When I was doing it, I felt sick. I didn't enjoy it. I was only doing it for the money to buy drugs - mostly speed, acid and cannabis. I also had a few bad experiences with punters. Once Andrew and I were tied up and raped".

....Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry? "I know about safer sex", protests Lee. "I didn't get that information from school. It came from TV and boyfriends. Some of them had HIV and died. I'm okay because we did safer sex. People say that older guys will take advantage of teenagers like me, but my partners made sure we took precautions - even the paedophiles. ..."
So he wasn't using condoms till quite late in the day.
If then.
You want to tell me that he was a rent-boy for drugs and he always made sure to use a condom, even if a client preferred it otherwise ?
If you tried telling me this, I would tell you that does not gel with my own experience of either rent-boys or young working girls.
What about the time he and his mate were raped while trying to raise business ?
hmmm ?

And the article as a whole definitely does not answer lots and lots of questions about his practices regarding safe-sex.
If people want to protect kids against AIDS, they should support better sex education lessons, starting in primary school. Education is the best prevention. But it isn't happening in most schools. Why doesn't someone make a fuss about that?"
He's completely right there.

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Calzaer
I'm sorry, but you CAN'T make fully informed decisions at 14. Or 16. Or hell, it's even a chore at 21. And I will bet cold hard cash that 90% of the opinions you hold now will flip 180 degrees within the next four years.

Humans in general, on average, simply aren't mentally stable enough to be credited with the ability to make complete rational decisions until they're at LEAST 25. And it's not a linear scale, either, it's an exponential scale with an asymptote.

You say "you CAN'T make fully informed decisions at 14." Concerning sex, in what must one be informed? About what, exactly, can a 14 year old not be informed? And for what reason? Biology? Experience?

And even if the claim that a 14 year old cannot be informed about sex were true, still, one does not need to be highly informed about sex any more than one needs to be informed about music in order to enjoy it. Like musical pleasure, the pleasure of sex is a quite uncontrollable reaction to certain stimuli. It is most absurd to suggest that you need to be "fully informed" to experience a certain pleasurable sensation.

In other news, the OP and some of the orginator's responses smell a bit like Gengis Pwn

I do not think that I have seen that name before.

yelyos

September 1, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Gurdur
No worries.
Simply change "having an anti-tank rifle" to "joining the army" or "having a driving licence" then.
I'm easy.

Perhaps young people who pass a driving test should be able to have a license. The rights you just mentioned are FAR more controversial.
Originally posted by Gurdur
Then maybe you should read what I actually wrote again.
I didn't say a 14-y-o can't make decisions, I said a 14-y-o cannot make fully informed decisions.

I am fully prepared to grant there may be exceptions, but society has a duty to protect children, and that includes some kind of arbitrary cut-off point.
Of COURSE 13 year olds can make fully informed decisions! I keep myself as informed as possible when making decisions. When making a decision that will impact my life significantly, I research the topic in detail. For example, when I made the decision to take lessons in Japanese, I found all of the locations in my area, then looked at cost, experience, etc., and visited the premises of the language school before making my final decision. All of the above was on my own initiative. Keep in mind that this is standard practice for me when making important decisions. I cannot authoritatively speak for my peers, but from what I've seen, they often keep themselves even more informed than I do.

How does preventing children from having sex "protect" them? What harm comes from sex? I don't believe that there should be a double standard here. If adults can perform an action without it harming them, why must me prevent children from partaking in the EXACT SAME ACTION? The proper action, in my opinion, to take here is allowing sex and coupling that with a strong sex education program. This is the best way to insure that children, no matter what their sexual orientation is, have responsible and safe sex through their lives.

I wish modern Western society would simply grow up already.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by yelyos

Perhaps young people who pass a driving test should be able to have a license. The rights you just mentioned are FAR more controversial. And perhaps they shouldn't. There are good reasons.
BTW, do you see any cut-off age at all ?
hmmm ?
Of COURSE 13 year olds can make fully informed decisions!
Unsubstantiated assertion disproven by the facts.
Look at the way the kid in the article took up rent-boying to pay off a drug habit and got raped.
You wanna try pretending that was a fully informed decision ?

I keep myself as informed as possible when making decisions.
How about answering my question:
BTW, do you see any cut-off age at all ?
How does preventing children from having sex "protect" them? What harm comes from sex?
*sigh*
HIV
other STD's
rape (read the article again)
emotional manipulation by adults

Just to name a few.

I don't believe that there should be a double standard here. If adults can perform an action without it harming them, why must me prevent children from partaking in the EXACT SAME ACTION?
Wanna join the army, marry, or drive a farm tractor at 10 ?
:)
I wish modern Western society would simply grow up already.
All you need to do is wait 3 years and you can have as many sexual relationships as you like. Or less in Canada.
Now what's so wrong with waiting ?

And how about answering the other points and refutations I made ?

Calzaer

September 1, 2003, 05:09 PM

That hideously stupid "I don't wanna wait 30 seconds, I want it RIGHT NOW!" attitude is another reason why kids don't have the same rights as adults.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

You say "you CAN'T make fully informed decisions at 14." Concerning sex, in what must one be informed? About what, exactly, can a 14 year old not be informed? And for what reason? Biology? Experience?
Emotion, experience, self-limitation on risk-taking, mainly.

And even if the claim that a 14 year old cannot be informed about sex were true, still, one does not need to be highly informed about sex any more than one needs to be informed about music in order to enjoy it. Like musical pleasure, the pleasure of sex is a quite uncontrollable reaction to certain stimuli. It is most absurd to suggest that you need to be "fully informed" to experience a certain pleasurable sensation.
Strawman !
And BTW I couldn't give a fuck if you want to try trolling with the statements that some 14-y-o boy can enjoy sex too.
That simply is not the point.
The duty of society is to protect children; that is the point.
I do not think that I have seen that name before.
That's what Genghis Pwn used to say with each new sockpuppet too.
;)

Not that I care.

But let me ask you this question, and you answer it.

What are your motivations in this ? I find it difficult to believe you are impelled by altruistic concern for 14-y-o's, though I am open to correction.
When will you answer my other points ?

Calzaer

September 1, 2003, 05:22 PM

You say "you CAN'T make fully informed decisions at 14." Concerning sex, in what must one be informed? About what, exactly, can a 14 year old not be informed? And for what reason? Biology? Experience?

How about emotional consequences and manipulation? Kids that age don't even understand their OWN emotions, much less the emotions of other people. It's not even a matter of experience, it's a matter of physiology. You stick that many different hormones into a system and the side-effects will produce highly volitile, mallable thinking patterns. Old fogeys participating in hormone replacement therapy have roughly the same symptoms (but they have the benefit of long years of experience to help prevent them from making stupid choices, and hopefully they've developed empathy by that point as well). It's not about "arbitrary numbers" it's about developing systems and their effect on mental chemistry.

You can "fully inform", by your definition, a three-year-old about the dangers and benefits of sexual contact, and you can even attempt to explain the emotional component, but it's simply not going to have the desired effect. The child does not possess the frame of reference required to retain the information, much less make use of it.

Further, any adult with sufficiently underdeveloped ethics can use these raging hormonal side effects (and the resulting emotional instability) for his own ends. Just about any random 30 year old could convince just about any random 13 year old that sleeping with him is a good thing. That same adult could also easily wrap the kid around his little finger, and convince her to "stay" with him while he sleeps with everyone else in the world and lies about it. It's not hard. Combine an emotional state with the structural stability of play-doh and an extreme lack of life experience (and the resulting gulibility and blind trust in people they like) and you get a situation that can easily turn dangerous for the child.

Our job, as a society, is to PROTECT children from the bad decisions they'd inevitably make if we weren't around. Adolescent sex is one of those bad decisions. Of course, I've left out the physiological problems, the information retention problems, the other hormonal problems, and even the ethical problems. I've focused purely on emotional difficulties. If the kid doesn't end up seriously hurting someone in his/her own peer group, he/she is going to BE seriously hurt by someone above their peer group with no qualms about putting a kid in therapy for the next 30 years.

~Cal
Elementary Education Major
Recovering emotional abuse/manipulation victim

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Calzaer
That hideously stupid "I don't wanna wait 30 seconds, I want it RIGHT NOW!" attitude is another reason why kids don't have the same rights as adults.

What does impatience have to do with the rights of man? The child should not be allowed to participate in a sexual relationship because, according to you, he is impatient. But this is only one type of pleasure. Why not disallow him to enjoy the pleasure of music because of his impatience?

yelyos

September 1, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Gurdur
BTW, do you see any cut-off age at all ?
hmmm ?
Please elaborate. What are you referring to with this question?
Originally posted by Gurdur
Unsubstantiated assertion disproven by the facts.
Look at the way the kid in the article took up rent-boying to pay off a drug habit and got raped.
You wanna try pretending that was a fully informed decision ?

READ WHAT I SAID!! I said clearly that 13 year olds can make informed decisions, not that every single decision is informed, or even most decisions! I then provided an example of an informed decision. Thus, 13 year olds can make informed decisions! My point is made!
Originally posted by Gurdur
[b]*sigh*
HIV
other STD's
rape (read the article again)
emotional manipulation by adults
These things can, and often do happen to adults. They are also preventable. Double standard.

Originally posted by Gurdur
All you need to do is wait 3 years and you can have as many sexual relationships as you like. Or less in Canada.
Now what's so wrong with waiting ?

And how about answering the other points and refutations I made ?
I have been legally able here to have sex for nearly 2 years. That being said, I have not done so. Please do not assume that if I wish children to have the right to do something, it is because I want to do that thing. I am not consumed by self-interest in that way.

Also, I opened the reply box before your second reply, so I did not see those points.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by yelyos

Please elaborate. What are you referring to with this question?
A cut-off age at what age a child may legally have sex with an adult.
Do you see a cut-off age ? Name it, if so.
READ WHAT I SAID!! I said clearly that 13 year olds can make informed decisions, not that every single decision is informed, or even most decisions! I then provided an example of an informed decision. Thus, 13 year olds can make informed decisions! My point is made!
Go back and read what I said.
You have not answered my point.
These things can, and often do happen to adults. They are also preventable.
But children are more at risk.
Double standard.
So the fuck what ?
It's a sensible double-standard.
I love the way you keep on ignoring what actually happened to the boy in the article.
I have been legally able here to have sex for nearly 2 years. That being said, I have not done so. Please do not assume that if I wish children to have the right to do something, it is because I want to do that thing. I am not consumed by self-interest in that way.
Also, I opened the reply box before your second reply, so I did not see those points.
I assume nothing much.
:)
I await your answers to all my points and refutations.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

...... Why not disallow him to enjoy the pleasure of music because of his impatience?
*yawn*
Children should be protected from predatory adults.
If this necessitates a cut-off age on legal sex with an adult, so be it.

Gonna answer to the point ?
:D

Calzaer

September 1, 2003, 05:33 PM

These things can, and often do happen to adults.

One generally expects an adult to have a greater range of life experiences, as well as a greater amount of time operating Formally. An adult in an emotionally manipulative situation has avenues of escape that don't necessarily require someone bigger than them to run to. Children do not have any of the above. It's much easier to lie to a child than to lie to an adult. Look at Santa Claus, for crying out loud.

They are also preventable.

And the best way to prevent them is to restrict children from making the ill-informed decisions that lead to them.

yelyos

September 1, 2003, 05:37 PM

Very few of the generalizations made about children in this thread have applied to me. Since I am a child, this therefore means that such generalizations are false. This is what I see as the general problem with the posts you have made.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by yelyos

Very few of the generalizations made about children in this thread have applied to me. Since I am a child, this therefore means that such generalizations are false.
No, it doesn't mean that.
:)
It only means if you are correct then that generalization does not apply to you. But it still may well apply to most children.
:)
This is what I see as the general problem with the posts you have made.
I hope this does not mean that you are simply not going to answer my points and refutations.

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 05:47 PM

How about emotional consequences and manipulation?
What are these emotional consequences which are induced by pleasurable, sexual sensations?

How about manipulation? Just as children can be manipulated, so women can be manipulated. In fact, everyone can be manipulated.

Kids that age don't even understand their OWN emotions, much less the emotions of other people.

Which emotions? In what way must they understand these emotions?

You can "fully inform", by your definition, a three-year-old about the dangers and benefits of sexual contact, and you can even attempt to explain the emotional component, but it's simply not going to have the desired effect.

The child can easily be informed about such a simple matter.

Even so, the child only needs to be fully informed if there are such grave dangers involved in sexual contact. And there does not appear to be any.

The rest of your post is meaningless without the above questions answered. You have not said clearly what are the negative emotional consqeuences resulting from sexual pleasure. You have not said which emotions the child must needs have fully comprehended. You have not stated why he cannot fully comprehend them. And you have not stated clearly why he must needs have them fully comprehended.

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Gurdur
*yawn*
Children should be protected from predatory adults.
If this necessitates a cut-off age on legal sex with an adult, so be it.

Gonna answer to the point ?
:D

Women should be protected from predatory men. Must heterosexual sex be therefore got rid of?

In response you might say that paedophilic or ephebophilic relationships are sufficiently frequently of a predatory nature to justify the age limit.

But it is false that they are usually of a predatory nature.

mecca777

September 1, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Huzington
In response you might say that paedophilic or ephebophilic relationships are sufficiently frequently of a predatory nature to justify the age limit.

But it is false that they are usually of a predatory nature. I'd certainly love to know whence that little factoid comes. Are you really saying that most occurences of adult/child sexual contact take place with a fully equal level of informed consent, no coercion from the adult and no emotional damage to the child? Because that's frankly a load of codswallop, and you know it.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Huzington
....
In response you might say that paedophilic or ephebophilic relationships are sufficiently frequently of a predatory nature to justify the age limit.
But it is false that they are usually of a predatory nature.
oooooo. I begin to see the light .....
You just want to justify using children for sex, uh huh ?

Too bad for you most societies see it differently than you do, then.
:)

I love the way you have ignored all practical points, inclduing what actually happened to the boy cited in your article.

And since you want no age of consent at all, I assume you would OK an adult having sex with a six-month old infant ?
Or do I see it wrong ?

Out of sheer interest, do you ever answer direct questions ?

Calzaer

September 1, 2003, 06:14 PM

"Which emotions?"???

No danger involved in sexual contact??

So wait, let me see if I've got this. You're saying that emotional considerations are completely irrelevant to sexual contact.

DNFTT. I'm gone.

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by mecca777
I'd certainly love to know whence that little factoid comes. Are you really saying that most occurences of adult/child sexual contact take place with a fully equal level of informed consent, no coercion from the adult and no emotional damage to the child? Because that's frankly a load of codswallop, and you know it.

Have you read anything I have been saying? I believe that children can easily be informed about sex. And even if it is true that they cannot be informed -- as I have said before -- "still, one does not need to be highly informed about sex any more than one needs to be informed about music in order to enjoy it. Like musical pleasure, the pleasure of sex is a quite uncontrollable reaction to certain stimuli. It is most absurd to suggest that you need to be 'fully informed' to experience a certain pleasurable sensation."

As for the factoid, you can start with reading this: http://home.wanadoo.nl/host/martinson/chapter6.html

Just as sexual coercion among heterosexual adults is not sufficiently frequent to justify outlawing heterosexual sex, so sexual coercion between adult and child is not sufficiently frequent to justify the age limit.

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Calzaer
"Which emotions?"???

No danger involved in sexual contact??

So wait, let me see if I've got this. You're saying that emotional considerations are completely irrelevant to sexual contact.

DNFTT. I'm gone.

If you had read what I said, you would know that I never said that there are no dangers involved in sexual contact! I said that there are no dangers involved in experiencing pleasurable, sexual sensations -- for anyone -- so long, I add, as it is mutual.

Evidently you do not know which emotions a child must needs have fully comprehended in order to participate in sex. The same ignorance is apparent in your refusal to answer the other questions.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

If you had read what I said, you would know that I never said that there are no dangers involved in sexual contact! I said that there are no dangers involved in experiencing pleasurable, sexual sensations -- for anyone -- so long, I add, as it is mutual.
Hey,
how about
STD's including HIV
pregnancy
emotional manipulation
Evidently you do not know
Evidently you will not answer direct questions.
I am unsurprised.
Originally posted by Huzington
....
so sexual coercion between adult and child is not sufficiently frequent to justify the age limit.

Bullshit.

You didn't answer my point about why the age of consent was raised from 12 in the UK ---- history disproves your propaganda.

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Gurdur
oooooo. I begin to see the light .....
You just want to justify using children for sex, uh huh ?

Too bad for you most societies see it differently than you do, then.
:)

Actually, I am only sexually attracted by persons my own age and older.

I love the way you have ignored all practical points, inclduing what actually happened to the boy cited in your article.

Likewise, I love the way you have refused to actually argue, and have constantly resorted to these silly comments. And the rather the ones in this last message of yours.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

Actually, I am only sexually attracted by persons my own age and older.
Since you refused to answer my question before as to your personal motivations, and you've relied on rhetoric rather than answering the questions and points, how about I simply don't believe you ?
:)

Likewise, I love the way you have refused to actually argue,
Now that statement is simply a lie.
:)
I have tackled the article thoroughly, I have explored the actions of the boy and his rent-boy/raped/drug history, and I've raised the history of the age of consent.
I've raised risk-taking behaviour in children, STD's, rape, pregnancy etc..
Ooooooo, and I rebutted your claims rationally.
And you wish to try pretending I haven't made an argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.
:)

and have constantly resorted to these silly comments. And the rather the ones in this last message of yours.
Calling my arguments names won't help you unless you can make a good argument. Something you've noticeably failed at.
:D

ju'iblex

September 1, 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by yelyos
Finally, as a 13-year-old, I find your implication that 14-year-olds cannot make decisions to be highly offensive, and a personal affront.

Yelyos, I'm going to have to completely agree with Gurdur, there does need to be an arbitrary cut-off point.

Of COURSE 13 year olds can make fully informed decisions! I keep myself as informed as possible when making decisions. When making a decision that will impact my life significantly, I research the topic in detail. For example, when I made the decision to take lessons in Japanese, I found all of the locations in my area, then looked at cost, experience, etc., and visited the premises of the language school before making my final decision. All of the above was on my own initiative. Keep in mind that this is standard practice for me when making important decisions. I cannot authoritatively speak for my peers, but from what I've seen, they often keep themselves even more informed than I do.

i don't believe you can actually. Considering a few months ago you didn't know what menstruation was, I'd say you are highly unknowledgable about these things.

And, just to call you out, you told me, and a few others were there at the time, that your grandmother was teaching you japanese in return for computer lessons. Which is it? Because if you were telling me the truth at the time, then not only do i believe you are incapable of making completely informed decisions, but it would also make you a liar. Your argument is not looking good, my friend.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 07:05 PM

Goddamn !
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Not only do I have Calzaer and asymptotes on my side, I now have Ju'iblex !
:eek:

First we take Manhatten,
Then we take Berlin !

:)

melinie007

September 1, 2003, 07:24 PM

Sex has been compared with driving licenses and joining the army. I would like to suggest, for discussion, a more relevant decision that directly impacts on personal autonomy the way the right to have sex does. Consent to Medical treatment. In Australia, the law recogonises that 'children' like yelyos can consent to there own medical treatment, regardless of what there parents wish. They can opt for surgery with a 10% risk of death, even though their parents refuse thinking the risk is too high etc. Or they can refuse treatment. The legal standard is just that the 'child sufficiently understands the nature of the act to be performed'. Interestingly, a survey of those dealing with children and medical decisions showed the parents (whose decisions could be overriden!) but the age at 13.5 mean, and the doctors put it at 10.4. A control group of the general society put it at 14.6!
NB: I have read some interesting articles comparing consent to medical treatment to sexual consent (generally) - I can dig up some citations if anybody is actually interested.

Obviously this standard is impossible to implement for private sexual relations. I personally think, that there are good POLICY reasons for regulating the sexual conduct of minors to prevent the risk of manipulation and absuse. So although the 'right' to sexual relations is regulated, this is for the benefit of reducing abuse.

I think we confuse the issue by saying 13 year olds (or 25 year olds!!!!!) can't give informed consent. They clearly can. But kids like yelyos sacrifice this so other 13 year olds, who can't consent, aren't abused.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by melinie007
...
Consent to Medical treatment.
Interesting argument.
NB: I have read some interesting articles comparing consent to medical treatment to sexual consent (generally) - I can dig up some citations if anybody is actually interested.
I would be interested. Thanks.
Obviously this standard is impossible to implement for private sexual relations.
Agreed. Especially for adult-child sex.
Child-child sex is pragmatically a different matter.
I personally think, that there are good POLICY reasons for regulating the sexual conduct of minors to prevent the risk of manipulation and absuse. So although the 'right' to sexual relations is regulated, this is for the benefit of reducing abuse.

I think we confuse the issue by saying 13 year olds (or 25 year olds!!!!!) can't give informed consent. They clearly can. But kids like yelyos sacrifice this so other 13 year olds, who can't consent, aren't abused.
All completely correct and agreed.
:)

yelyos

September 1, 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by ju'iblex
i don't believe you can actually. Considering a few months ago you didn't know what menstruation was, I'd say you are highly unknowledgable about these things.

Actually, I've known what menstruation is for several years now. I simply ask many people for opinions and descriptions and such, in order to inform myself better.

Originally posted by ju'iblex
And, just to call you out, you told me, and a few others were there at the time, that your grandmother was teaching you japanese in return for computer lessons. Which is it? Because if you were telling me the truth at the time, then not only do i believe you are incapable of making completely informed decisions, but it would also make you a liar. Your argument is not looking good, my friend.
Yes, I've come to a general consensus in my family that both professional lessons (in a class) and private lessons (with her) would be the best way for me to learn Japanese. She has taught me quite a bit so far.

xorbie

September 1, 2003, 07:50 PM

Right. I think what we need to see is just a little formula here. Let D(x) be the damage done by not allowing people of age x to have sex. Let A(x) be the damage done by allowing them to have sex.

Is D(x) < A(x)? For children of age 13, I would argue that is is a lot lower. Sure, it might be troubling for those really horny, mature 13 year olds (is that an oxymoron?). But imagine all the people not in a position to make this sort of judgement call. The years of abuse far outweigh the slight character building that goes in to a couple years of abstinence.

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 09:07 PM

Ooooooo, and I rebutted your claims rationally.

You have not.

Rather, I have rebutted your claims splendidly and you have essentially ignored the rubuttals. You have not made a single satisfactory response to any of my claims. You have merely commented on them without argumentation and have resorted to some personal invective against me. And when confronted with any criticism, you are forced to state your position or parts thereof in different words, which you like to call a rebuttal.

Until you can rationally criticise my arguments, or answer some of the following questions, I am done with you.

It is said that a child must fully understand his emotions which are involved in sex before participating in sexual intercourse; else the child will suffer from certain emotional consequences. The child cannot understand the relevant emotions; therefore the child cannot have sex without being (emotionally) hurt.

What must be known is this:

What, precisely, are the negative emotional consqeuences resulting from sexual pleasure?

What are the emotions which the child must needs have fully comprehended?

Why cannot the child comprehend these emotions?

Why must he comprehend them?

Other pertaining questions, which in some respects come to the same thing, are: Why must a child be "fully informed" to feel that sensation which he is biologically made to feel, i.e. sexual pleasure? Why does he not have to be "fully informed" to experience other forms of pleasure, such as listening to music? And also, why cannot the child be "fully informed"?

Regarding STDs -- why cannot the child protect himself sexually?

Any answers to these questions stated simply and precisely could put this discussion back on its feet. And these are so relevant questions that I am baffled as to why they have not been answered already.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

Rather, I have rebutted your claims splendidly
ooooooo. Keep on praising yourself. What a pity no-one else seems to share your POV, eh ?
:)
and you have essentially ignored the rubuttals.
Codswallop. I have ignored none of your so-called rebuttals.
Should you feel differently. bring up the point again. I like demolishment work.

You have not made a single satisfactory response to any of my claims.
You mean I didn't agree with you. Poor you !
You have merely commented on them without argumentation
Wrong yet again. Go back and read the thread, including all the questions I put to you which you failed to answer.
:)
and have resorted to some personal invective against me.
oooooo. pot, kettle, black.
Difference is, I'm more effective.
:)
And when confronted with any criticism, you are forced to state your position or parts thereof in different words, which you like to call a rebuttal.
What you mean is that I simply add further evidence and explanations. Such a pity I should drown your miserable assertions in the cold light of scrutiny, eh ?

What must be known is this:

What, precisely, are the negative emotional consqeuences resulting from sexual pleasure? ....
Bollocks, bilgewater, codswallop.
:)
What must be known is this:
Many disagree with allowing adults to use children for sex, since a child is not capable of fully informed judgment, and there is great risk of harm to the child.

Too bad.
:)
And also, why cannot the child be "fully informed"?
Youth, lack of maturity, and lack of experience with consequent lack of judgmental competence.

But you're not listening, are you ?
Since that was all stated before.
Regarding STDs -- why cannot the child protect himself sexually?
The best protection is criminalization of paedophilia.
Like it or lump it.
:D
Any answers to these questions stated simply and precisely could put this discussion back on its feet. And these are so relevant questions that I am baffled as to why they have not been answered already. Pat Kelly, is that you ?
hmmmm ?
Same self-serving arguments, same evasions. Not Genghis Pwn but Pat Kelly, I'm taking bets, people.
Either that or cloning has succeeded beyond what I thought it had.
;)

99Percent

September 1, 2003, 09:42 PM

I am going to give it a different take on this.

What about the parents? I mean a 13 year old or even a 14 year old most likely is still under parental supervision unless he is self reliant and is economically independent which in this case I doubt anyone can deny he is already in the age of consent. Some kids still rely on their parents all the way to 21 or even older.

I think what is really violated is the right of parents here and in any age where the parents are still responsible for the well being of the kids they are currently bringing up. At 14 there is still a lot of maturity pending (or maybe not, if already independent as I already said). So if a man of older age wants to have sex with a younger of questionable age, he should first check if its ok with the parents (most likely not, though) because its ultimately them that know when their young ones are free to make their own choices and let them go, usually when they show that they are responsible self reliant adults.

Calzaer

September 1, 2003, 09:44 PM

Rather, I have rebutted your claims splendidly and you have essentially ignored the rubuttals.

I didn't realize "Pat Kelly" was an alias for Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by 99Percent
....
So if a man of older age wants to have sex with a younger of questionable age, he should first check if its ok with the parents (most likely not, though) because its ultimately them that know when their young ones are free to make their own choices and let them go, usually when they show that they are responsible self reliant adults.

Muchly correct, and an addition. This already happens in quite a few countries, i.e. in the UK where parental consent is necessary for marriage between 16 and 18 years of age.
It's still not violation of parental rights, otherwise --- it's still violation of child "rights" --- but the parents are in a responsible position, so it's definitely potentially a blow at them too.
___________

Originally posted by Calzaer

I didn't realize "Pat Kelly" was an alias for Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
LOL !

Huzington

September 1, 2003, 09:56 PM

What must be known is this:
. . . since a child is not capable of fully informed judgment, and there is great risk of harm to the child.

Once again your argumentative incompetency forces you to avoid many key questions.

Why does he not have to be "fully informed" to experience other forms of pleasure, such as listening to music? That the child must needs be a certain age to feel a pleasurable sensation of which he is biologically capable of experiencing -- absurd!

True or false: For the child, provided protective sex, there is a great risk of harm -- greater than for the adult -- inherent in experiencing sexual pleasure?

Youth, lack of maturity, and lack of experience with consequent lack of judgmental competence.

Why must he have maturity to experience the pleasurable sensation? Risk of STDs, yes? If it has anything to do with that, what of sexual education? If you are talking about emotional harm, then why not therefore keep him from listening to music, or experiencing any other pleasurable sensation? And what of forms of sexual contact in which there is no risk of STDs? Well, answer.

The best protection is criminalization of paedophilia.
Like it or lump it.

Criminalisation of a sexual orientation -- in practise nothing less than genocide. And it protects no one from anything harmful.

Same self-serving arguments, same evasions. Not Genghis Pwn but Pat Kelly, I'm taking bets, people.
Either that or cloning has succeeded beyond what I thought it had.

What has this to do with the discussion? I am not either of those people.

Gurdur

September 1, 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

Once again your
Once again you evade.

Answer the question already put:

Do you believe it OK for an adult to have sex with a six-months-old baby ? Should it be legalized ?
Then:
a 6-year-old ?
an 8-year-old ?
Why does he not have to be "fully informed" to experience other forms of pleasure,
Man, you can dance with that evasion all the time. It's still an evasion.
It's now been explained to you at least 4 times why paedophilia is criminalized.
And all you do is go on about "pleasure". Tsk !
True or false: For the child, provided protective sex, there is a great risk of harm -- greater than for the adult -- inherent in experiencing sexual pleasure?
For the last time, pleasure has nothing to do with the legalities. Too bad.
:D
Why must he have those to experience a particular pleasurable sensation? STDs, yes? If it has anything to do with those, what of sexual education?
Certainly. If you'ld actually bothered to honestly read the whole thread, you'ld know I am all in favour of sex education. At youngish ages, too.
Oh, and I'm also all in favour of criminalization of paedophilia.
:D
Nothing like stopping adults who might want to exploit children, eh ?
If you re talking about emotional harm, then why not therefore keep him from listening to music, or experiencing any other pleasurable sensation?
The only rational response to that marvellously surrealistic bit of garbage is:
blooopity blubbity blub blub bloop

Makes just as much sense as your rhetorical question.
:)

Criminalisation of a sexual orientation -- in practise nothing less than genocide.

Oooooooo ! I love this ! When you run out of arguments you resort to completely ridiculous agitprop !
Man, I am just so enjoying this all. :D

And it protects no one from anything harmful.
It protects children against sexual exploitation by adults.
'Course, I understand you don't like or agree with that. But life sucks, eh ?
:)
What has this to do with the discussion? I am not either of those people. What do your weird evasions about pleasure have to do with the discussion ?
Hey, anything goes, anything goes.
:)

Tenek

September 1, 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Huzington
Once again your argumentative incompetency forces you to avoid many key questions.

Why does he not have to be "fully informed" to experience other forms of pleasure, such as listening to music? That the child must needs be a certain age to feel a pleasurable sensation of which he is biologically capable of experiencing -- absurd!

Music? Red Herring. Anybody can enjoy music with no inherent or even likely negative consequences.

True or false: For the child, provided protective sex, there is a great risk of harm -- greater than for the adult -- inherent in experiencing sexual pleasure?

You assume too much. A twelve-year-old curious about sexual pleasure should do just fine with fingers. Having sex at that age is a decision not to be taken lightly, and having seen the maturity levels of fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds, there is no way in hell John Q. Preteen is capable of giving meaningful consent, and *that* is who age-of-consent laws protect. Laws are designed to apply as well as is possible but *cannot* account for every situation. I pay taxes and I can't vote. But that's not changing anytime soon.

Criminalisation of a sexual orientation -- in practise nothing less than genocide. And it protects no one from anything harmful.

Somebody with an innate, indestructible desire to torture people to death for sexual pleasure should not be permitted to do so. The consequences of allowing them to act on it are pretty lousy. I don't envy anyone sexually attracted to children, namely because of the extreme, if not complete, lack of acceptable partners (i.e. those capable of giving meaningful consent). However, if somebody cannot act upon their desires without effectively committing rape, then they should not be allowed to do so.

It would appear that our no-age-of-consent advocates are taking a much brighter view of pedophiles than would appear reasonable. If one notes that the potentially active set of pedophiles is basically the complete set minus those who believe that having sex with children is wrong and have sufficient self-discipline to not do so, and that children are prone to making stupid decisions (raise your hand if you have ever heard or uttered the phrase "You can't tell me what to do" or "I'm old enough to do what I want" from/as a child) with questionable reasoning and malleable minds (peer pressure, inherent trust of adults / early adolescent rebellion against parents, depending on the individual)... it becomes apparent that a significant and unacceptable number of children are going to get hurt, badly. Privileges carry responsibilities and the idea that thirteen-year-olds are *in general* responsible enough to handle safe sex when a fair number of *adults* cannot is ludicrous.

Donnmathan

September 2, 2003, 08:22 AM

I would like to argue with one assertion I see being made here - that children are incapable of making informed decisions. As someone else is so fond of saying, codswallop! Any child is FULLY capable of making informed decisions, as this entails nothing more than determining choices, the consiquences of those choices, and seeing which matches most closely (edited typo) with desired outcome. I did it constantly when I was younger, and observed the same in both of my younger sisters as they grew up. Some children come into it a bit later than others, but I think the skills are all there by 12-14.

This does bring up two related points: First, that making an informed decision does not imply that the outcome will be the best. Adults make 'informed decisions' all the time and still manage to make bad choices; one should not be surprised that children would be any different. Second, plenty of adults make choices that could not be called anything like "informed" - should they be considered legally "underage" because of it? Yet you expect more from children, then consider them incapable of making an informed decision when they run into the same pitfalls adults do!

The error - we educate children to the uniformly highest level in recorded history, and then act surprised when they try to assert that education. You have schools teaching them decision-making and problem-solving skills, then act like they are still ignorant little babies. I think that we, as a society, need to stop sheltering these 14+ year old babies we have created and let them start venturing into the relms of resposibility. Maybe the best thing we could do would be to stop letting people say of 16 year-olds, "they are just kids".

That being said, I do NOT think that sex is one of the options they should be given as early as the age of 10 that someone else asserted. 16? Reasonable - a 16 year old is starting to plan for college in many cases, I think sexual self-determination shouldn't be beyond their grasp. Emotional coersion is no more likely with a 16 year old than with a 30 year old, and we see plenty of that - just ask someone who works at a battered womens' shelter. Too much younger, however, and you start paving the way for child-molesters - who are, Huzington, practicing something which society has agreed is a detrimental behavior. You going to try to assert that it should be ok for someone to have their way with a 6 year old?

senor boogie woogie

September 2, 2003, 08:54 AM

Hola!

I have been reading the story of the 14 year old homosexual, who wants nothing more than an older boyfriend. In the story, you really see the depravity of homosexuality, the anonymous encounters, prostitution, the abuse, drug use and multiple partners. Lee is heading towards death with his lifestyle.

What kills me is that Lee, the 14 year old, has a relationship with "John", and they are "dating", and Lee DECIDES to have sex with his boyfriends twin sister. "Did you like it?" "yes, but sex with John is better."

This is a CLASSIC case of someone CHOOSING their sexual identity. Lee chooses to be gay, if he was born homosexual, then he would of never fucked his boyfriend's sister, now would he?

SENOR

winstonjen

September 2, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by senor boogie woogie
Hola!

I have been reading the story of the 14 year old homosexual, who wants nothing more than an older boyfriend. In the story, you really see the depravity of homosexuality, the anonymous encounters, prostitution, the abuse, drug use and multiple partners. Lee is heading towards death with his lifestyle.

Just so you know, we are ALL heading towards death with our lifestyles.

Gurdur

September 2, 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Donnmathan

I would like to argue with one assertion I see being made here - that children are incapable of making informed decisions. As someone else is so fond of saying, codswallop!
Hey, call me Mr. Somebody.
:D
Any child is FULLY capable of making informed decisions, as this entails nothing more than determining choices,
Wrong --- as you imply yourself later on in your post.
"Fully informed" implies both reasonably complete range of relevant knowledge, and the intellectual capacity to put that knowledge into action.
This does bring up two related points: First, that making an informed decision does not imply that the outcome will be the best. Correct, but that's the price we pay for adult autonomy. The alternatives are worse.
Second, plenty of adults make choices that could not be called anything like "informed" - should they be considered legally "underage" because of it?
Arbitrary age cut-offs, arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary.
Together with tests for basic mental competence where indicated, it's the best system for society as a whole.
I think that we, as a society, need to stop sheltering these 14+ year old babies we have created and let them start venturing into the relms of resposibility.
Off to the salt mines with them !
Let them earn a wage-slave's wages !
You may wish to make your argument more precise.
:)
Emotional coersion is no more likely with a 16 year old than with a 30 year old,
You know something ? That's flat-out wrong.
If you are asserting that the average 16-y-o is no more susceptible to manipulation, owing to lack of experience, maturity and self-confidence, than the average 30-y-o, then I would simply accuse you of making an unrealistic ideological statement.
and we see plenty of that - just ask someone who works at a battered womens' shelter.
I wondered when someone would finally bring up experience of posters here.
:)
I've known quite a few rent-boys, working girls, and battered women seeking shelter myself in my previous line of work.
And just to add; in my experience, the average 16-y-o is a hell of a lot more vulnerable than the average 30-y-o.

Too much younger, however,
And you'll need to make an argument for this. Now that you've asserted 16-y-o's are much the same as 30-y-o's for risk, the obvious question is then what about 14-y-o's, 10-y-o's, etc.
And why.
:)
And you start paving the way for child-molesters - who are, Huzington, practicing something which society has agreed is a detrimental behavior. You going to try to assert that it should be ok for someone to have their way with a 6 year old?

Huzington has already stated that in as many words.
He has stated that he thinks the age of consent should be completely abolished, so therefore an adult having sex with a 1-y-o baby should be completely OK to him.

All I want is that he states that flat-out. Or squeals in retreat.
;)
______

Originally posted by senor boogie woogie

I have been reading
I am surprised. :)

This is a CLASSIC case of someone CHOOSING their sexual identity.
Complete nonsense.
Many people perform different gender experimenting in their early sexual explorations.
That doesn't change their basic sexual orientation.

And for you to try basing a whole generalizational argument on one case is also rubbish.

ComestibleVenom

September 2, 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Calzaer

Humans in general, on average, simply aren't mentally stable enough to be credited with the ability to make complete rational decisions until they're at LEAST 25. And it's not a linear scale, either, it's an exponential scale with an asymptote.

Does this excapulate me from responsibility for my actions on an exponential sentencing scale?

Huzington

September 2, 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Gurdur
Once again you evade.

Once again you evade every question!

Do you believe it OK for an adult to have sex with a six-months-old baby ? Should it be legalized ?
Then:
a 6-year-old ?
an 8-year-old ?[/b]

As regards a baby of six months of age: what sort of sexual contact have you in mind? Six and eight: I see little problem with a six or eight year old boy experiencing pleasurable sensations.

Man, you can dance with that evasion all the time. It's still an evasion.
It's now been explained to you at least 4 times why paedophilia is criminalized.
And all you do is go on about "pleasure". Tsk !

You, man, have danced around every question asked you. Now you refuse to answer a question I did not ask!

Nothing like stopping adults who might want to exploit children, eh ?

Yeah, which has nothing to do with a loving and caring paedophilic relationship.

blooopity blubbity blub blub bloop

Okay Gurdur, I am done with you.

Mullibok

September 2, 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Huzington
Yeah, which has nothing to do with a loving and caring paedophilic relationship.

Now I'm scared.

Calzaer

September 2, 2003, 12:21 PM

[/quote] Does this excapulate me from responsibility for my actions on an exponential sentencing scale? [/quote]

Notice the existence of a juvenile court system for people under 18. You DO get "excapulate"d from responsibility until you hit our allegedly arbitrary cut-off age, unless you do something so outrageous that we decide you simply need to be removed from society completely and immediately.

In the years between 18 and 25, there's no more sliding scale (you're assumed to be Formally Operative) but all it takes is a perusal of the death statistics from DUI, reckless driving, and binge drinking to see they're not making stable, informed decisions at the same rate as higher age groups.

winstonjen

September 2, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Huzington
a loving and caring paedophilic relationship.

Oxymoron.

Huzington

September 2, 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by winstonjen
Oxymoron.

No, it is not. Studies involving many cultures, involving personal experiences, and my own personal experiences as a child -- these completely agree with me. I shall start a post about this subject, which should also shatter some of the claims made by Tenek.

Gurdur

September 2, 2003, 01:04 PM

YES ! We have full disclosure !
:D
Originally posted by Huzington

As regards a baby of six months of age: what sort of sexual contact have you in mind? Six and eight: I see little problem with a six or eight year old boy experiencing pleasurable sensations.
There you go, folks.
Huzington sees nothing wrong in sexual use of young children by adults.
Yeah, which has nothing to do with a loving and caring paedophilic relationship.
Translated, this means:
Huzington sees nothing wrong in sexual use of young children by adults.

Huzington doesn't give a fuck about the children; remember that Huzington gave no indication of empathy whatsoever towards the raped kid in the article he cited; moreover, when Calzaer said he had been an abuse victim, Huzington didn't give a stuff.

But Huzington wants to try justifying adult paedophiles using children for sex !
Okay Gurdur, I am done with you.
Fallacy of cowardice.
Fallacy of lack of stamina.
:D

winstonjen

September 2, 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Huzington
No, it is not. Studies involving many cultures, involving personal experiences, and my own personal experiences as a child -- these completely agree with me. I shall start a post about this subject, which should also shatter some of the claims made by Tenek.

Yes it is. Pedophiles, by nature, are predatory. Some enjoy the child resisting them.

Just because your experiences support your viewpoint does not mean that all similar experiences do so.

winstonjen

September 2, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Gurdur

Fallacy of lack of stamina.
:D

Disappointing, especially since Huzington seemed to enjoy sex so much, so he should have the endurance to carry on a debate. Oh well.

Donnmathan

September 2, 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Gurdur
Hey, call me Mr. Somebody.
:D

Wrong --- as you imply yourself later on in your post.
"Fully informed" implies both reasonably complete range of relevant knowledge, and the intellectual capacity to put that knowledge into action.
:)

OK, Mr. somebody! Sorry, was in too much of a hurry to go back and figure out who kept saying that...had to run for work. :D

My response - what prevents a younger person from gaining a "reasonably complete range of relevant knowledge", and however did you come to the conclusion that no one under 18 has "the intellectual capacity to put that knowledge into action?" Please, I knew my way around a public library by the end of fourth grade, and all thanks to the public education system. A large number of children today also have access to the internet, one of the greatest repositories of information ever created. No lack of knowledge seems likely, and with the schools teaching good decision-making, at least some children must catch on. As far as intellectual capacity is concerned, I'd have to say that if they can find and understand the 'relevant knowledge', then there is no basis for claiming a lack of intellect.

Arbitrary age cut-offs, arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary.
Together with tests for basic mental competence where indicated, it's the best system for society as a whole.

Arbitrary is right! So, who determines where that arbitrary age cut-off should be? These quack psuedo-scientists who parade around calling themselves 'child psychologists'? (I apologize to any who read this, but it is my opinion that psychology is too iffy to be called a true science as of yet, and those that represent it otherwise are deluding people.) Certainly not the pedophiles! How about expanding the second part of your statement, and making up a test for mental understanding? If you can pass the test, you can make up your own mind; if not, your parents and the state still have the authority.

Off to the salt mines with them !
Let them earn a wage-slave's wages !
You may wish to make your argument more precise.

Ummm...isn't that taking my statement a bit far? I ment nothing so extreme, and I think you may have known that. How about dropping the age limits on some activities for 15+ year olds? I don't see why, for example, if 15 or 16 y.o. wants a summer job, they should have a load of government restrictions on what they can do. These restrictions do exist, however, and force fellow employees to do such things as use sharp knives for them. What, you don't think a 15 y.o. can handle a cooking knife? Likewise, why are 'R' rated movies 17+ when most of what's in them can be found on prime-time or cable TV? Let's stop treating these young people like they are stupid!

You know something ? That's flat-out wrong.
If you are asserting that the average 16-y-o is no more susceptible to manipulation, owing to lack of experience, maturity and self-confidence, than the average 30-y-o, then I would simply accuse you of making an unrealistic ideological statement.

Alright, here I may have stepped a bit too far, you are right. The point that I didn't make very well is this: people who are 30 years old are making the same kind of mistakes that you say you want to protect the younger set from making. Doesn't that tell you something? Like, that some of those mistakes just aren't something you can shield someone from, and then just turn them loose and expect them not to make later? Protecting them from the possibility and idea that these situations can exist, while preserving their youthful innocence, doesn't do a good job of preparing them to deal with it later. And if you give them the tools to deal with these things in high school, then protecting them further from it is silly - they should be able to avoid it.

And you'll need to make an argument for this. Now that you've asserted 16-y-o's are much the same as 30-y-o's for risk, the obvious question is then what about 14-y-o's, 10-y-o's, etc.
And why.

Depends on when and how the educators prepare them to deal with certain situations. If you teach them sex ed in high school, no matter what you teach, some will experiment, illegal or no. So teach them as completely as possible and then stop fretting. Not this 'abstinence only' and 'non-offensive' crap that is being pushed; even now, the 17 y.o. can see sex (all but the actual body parts) on the silver screen. You trust them to handle watching it in a movie, but not in the classroom??? If you want to claim a lack of relevent knowledge, then give them the knowledge; they'll experiment anyway. THAT is why I'm advocating 15 or 16 and up; they can see sex in movies and TV, and are able to hold a job - why not? Younger than that, and you are 100% right - they lack the grounding to understand the ramifications of what they are doing.

Huzington has already stated that in as many words.
He has stated that he thinks the age of consent should be completely abolished, so therefore an adult having sex with a 1-y-o baby should be completely OK to him.

That was aimed at him - I find his position more-or-less repulsive; I agree with your ideas up to a point, but I think you are not giving kids, especially older teens, enough credit. Our education system is making them smarter and more capable at younger ages; let them use it! And I'm NOT just referring to sex, as I said before; heck, if a 16 y.o. can hold a job, why not a non-combat position in the military (cook, messanger, supply clerk, etc)? So long as our schools and leaders continue to impress upon them that it is their future they are creating (as most already do), why not?

Huzington

September 2, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by winstonjen
Yes it is. Pedophiles, by nature, are predatory. Some enjoy the child resisting them.

Yes, some do. Some heterosexuals enjoy their victims resisting them. This is not at all peculiar to paedophilia.

It must be remembered that, even if we are including only the offender population, the paedophilic sadist is exceedingly rare. It must be remembered that most homosexual paedophilic relationships do not involve penetration; and studies show that when there is penetration, it is the boy penetrating the man! We cannot affect to believe that the child is an antisexual being who cannot experience and enjoy sexual sensations. It must always be borne in mind that studies across cultures -- involving the Moari of New Zealand, involving the Trobrianders of Melanesia, involving the Chewa of Africa -- these studies do not indicate that paedophilic relationships are "by nature" predatory. I am not even sure that paedophilia is abnormal, never mind predatory. For instance, it is a well known fact that the ancient Greek who was not sexually attracted by "beautiful boys" was considered as highly abnormal.

And, moreover, we must not forgot that an adult kissing a child on the neck or on the lips, or hugging him "too much" -- that is considered as "predatory" by the law, regardless of the child's protests to the contrary, regardless of the motivations. This further distorts our view of childhood sexuality, and of paedophilic relationships. Any sexual contact between man and boy is by definition an offence, regardless of the frequent, mutual enjoyment of it. It is therefore not infrequent that it is falsely considered as predatory.

Just because your experiences support your viewpoint does not mean that all similar experiences do so.

More than my mere experiences.

Now it is a quite disgusting society when I am conditioned to be disgusted by seeing a man and a boy holding hands, or kissing each other (and I have seen these things). Kincaid said it splendidly:

"Take the following two scenes enacted in a shopping mall, say, or on the street or in the park: in the first an adult is striking a screaming child repeatedly on the buttocks; in the second an adult is sitting with a child on a bench and they are hugging. Which scene is more common? Which makes us uneasy? Which do we judge to be normal? Which is more likely to run afoul of the law? A society, I believe, which honors hitting and suspects hugging is immoral; one which sees hitting as health and hugging as illness is mad; one which is aroused by hitting alone is psychotic and should be locked up (p. 362)."

Huzington

September 2, 2003, 02:09 PM

Sexual use? Utterly absurd! When you have sex with a woman your age, you are using her sexually. And she you. For sex is being employed.

Obviously this is the pessimism of a person who has been persuaded by the "genitalisation" of all human sexual activity. Yet paedophilic relationships are hardly sexual. When they do get sexual, they scarcely ever involve penetration -- and as I have said before, usually when there is penetration, it is the boy penetrating the man.

Gurdur

September 2, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Donnmathan

My response - what prevents a younger person from gaining a "reasonably complete range of relevant knowledge", and however did you come to the conclusion that no one under 18 has "the intellectual capacity to put that knowledge into action?"
My response:
Wherever did you come up with the idea that I "come to the conclusion that no one under 18 has "the intellectual capacity to put that knowledge into action?"
If you're not going to bother reading what I wrote, and inventing things, what is the point of me responding to you ?
Go back and find where I supposedly wrote "no-one under 18", just for a start.
Not only is it more polite to keep track of who says what, it will also prevent you from making such absurd mistakes.
Please, I knew my way around a public library by the end of fourth grade, and all thanks to the public education system.
Please, I can tell a erroneous strawman from 100 miles away.
You're wasting space here. I am impervious to bad rhetoric.
Stick to the point, which you've already shown that you can do.
Arbitrary is right! So, who determines where that arbitrary age cut-off should be?
Society, as a collection of interacting individuals.
These quack psuedo-scientists who parade around calling themselves 'child psychologists'?
Tell me your professional or experiential qualifications for making that statement.

I have worked professionally with child psychologists called in to treat victims of abuse, and who do good jobs to the best of their ability and human concern.
Your statement is, IMHO, nothing more than blind prejudice.
Prove me wrong.

(I apologize to any who read this, but it is my opinion that psychology is too iffy to be called a true science as of yet, and those that represent it otherwise are deluding people.)
Your prejudices bore me. Can you come up with a good scientific argument ? hmmmm ?

How about expanding the second part of your statement, and making up a test for mental understanding?
D'oh, those psychologists you so deride so blindly already have done so. Such tests play quite a role in legal matters. They're quite important.

Ummm...isn't that taking my statement a bit far?
You noticed !
As I said, I was pointing out the complete lack of precision and qualification in your statement.
What you meant only matters when courtesy comes into it; and since you've managed to confuse me with someone else, as well as damning a whole profession without displaying any understanding, then courtesy is a bit on the iffy side at the mo.

Furthermore, I am not telepathic. A grevious lack, I know. But it means I must depend on what you actually write.

How about dropping the age limits on some activities for 15+ year olds?
How about starting a new thread on this ?
Alright, here I may have stepped a bit too far, you are right.
Self-appraisal is the beginning to all knowledge.
The point that I didn't make very well is this: people who are 30 years old are making the same kind of mistakes that you say you want to protect the younger set from making.
So what ?
As I pointed out to you, a 16-y-o is more vulnerable. That goes even more for 14-y-o's, which is what this thread started off with,
Doesn't that tell you something?
What it tells me is that I'ld like you to actually respond to what I write.

Mind you, as shown with yelyos, I'm possibly hoping in vain.
But hey, that's life.
If you teach them sex ed in high school, no matter what you teach, some will experiment, illegal or no.
This is to make me laugh.
If you teach them, they will experiment ?
Unwarranted assertion. Some will experiment no matter what.
So teach them as completely as possible and then stop fretting. Not this 'abstinence only' and 'non-offensive' crap that is being pushed;
If you keep dragging irrelevancies that no-one at all is promoting here into this, you're wasting both our time.
but I think you are not giving kids, especially older teens, enough credit. .... I think you're simply mistaken in your perceptions.
:D
If you bothered to tackle what I actually wrote, you'ld see I'm far more concerned about what happens to 14-y-o's, not 16-y-o's.

yelyos

September 2, 2003, 04:13 PM

Should the state be regulating things like this at all? As far as I see it, it's a morality issue.

Gurdur

September 2, 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by yelyos

Should the state be regulating things like this at all? As far as I see it, it's a morality issue.
Yelyos, since you can't be bothered following an argument anything near point-by-point, does it really matter what you see at all ?

Plus you even get this wrong as well.
Law is merely the jurisdictional and social implementation of morality.
D'oh. You can't just toss off morality is not subject to regulation --- since very obviously it is.
Why do you think rape is illegal ?
hmmmm ?

Donnmathan

September 2, 2003, 05:31 PM

OK, I see we need to back up a second here. First, I don't think the snide remarks are called for; I will refrain from posting examples, but will PM or email them if you require proof. Second, I think you miss an important point; I do NOT agree with the opening post, but stand somewhere in between. No, the AoC should NOT be gotten rid of, and for the exact reasons you state. However, there were some statements made on this thread that made it seem that some of you had a VERY low opinion of children's mental abilities, and I disagreed with that fact as some presented it. You responded to that post, so I entered an exchange with you based on that response. If we are fighting over an imagined disagreement, please say so and it will stop; from your post, though, I don't think this is the case.

Go back and find where I supposedly wrote "no-one under 18", just for a start.

You are right, I added the "no-one under 18", based on the assumption that you were defending the AoC in the US (or, I think, the UK), a conclusion I may have come to in error. The rest of the statement, however, can be found in your response to my first post: "Fully informed" implies both reasonably complete range of relevant knowledge, and the intellectual capacity to put that knowledge into action. You seemed to be applying this to children in general, so I made an attempt to counter, which is where this whole bit comes from. Yes, I actually read what you posted, just made a (admittedly) hasty assumtion and acted on it.

My response was not, however, all 'bad rhetoric'; the statement was made that children are not capable of informed decisions, I responded, then you corrected my definition of 'informed decision'. I still must assert that, thanks in part to the modern educational standards and the internet, most children over the age of 11 are fully capable of attaining a 'reasonably complete range of relevant knowledge' and that if they understand that knowledge, 'intellectual capacity' is pre-supposed. Your answer, sir?

Your statement is, IMHO, nothing more than blind prejudice.
Prove me wrong.

I have no professional qualifications, no more so than many of those on this board who argue the finer points of evolution. I am, however, a rational human being, and I must question the credentials of anything that calls itself a science and yet can't make any authoritative statements regarding it's own field. I have yet to hear a psychologist make a behavioral prediction that wasn't laced with a whole host of "mostly", "marked tendancy", and "sometimes".

It is missing such things as measurable objective data (how do you scientifically quantify an emotional response?) and testable predictions (unless you count "most" statements). If a fossil failed to match one of the predictions of evolution, the theory would have to be modified or discard - this holds true even in anthropology. A case that doesn't match up with a psychological theory is regarded as a negative result, and actually expected - it isn't until you have more than a certain number of negative results that you might be forced to modify your theory. As dear Sigmund said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!"

D'oh, those psychologists {insult removed} already have done so. Such tests play quite a role in legal matters. They're quite important.

Then why not bring them out into society in general, so we can determine which kids can make decisions for themselves? If they are so effective, it should be no trouble, should it? Unless those tests aren't terribly exact or accurate...

since you've managed to confuse me with someone else

Unless this refers to the assumption I made above, which I already stated was wrong of me, where did I confuse you with someone else, and how does that justify your over-reaction to my statement?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point that I didn't make very well is this: people who are 30 years old are making the same kind of mistakes that you say you want to protect the younger set from making.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what ?
As I pointed out to you, a 16-y-o is more vulnerable. That goes even more for 14-y-o's, which is what this thread started off with,

Read the rest of the statement you quoted part of, then respond to the whole thing next time. I am making a case for something halfway between your standpoint and that of Huzington; I never tried to state that the AoC should be as low as 14. I believe that 15 or 16 was the case I was pushing for, based on employment, among other things.

What it tells me is that I'ld like you to actually respond to what I write.

I did, and I even quoted it; this statement you quoted, however, was only one little section of a larger paragraph. If you don't want to respond to that section, fine, but please do not pick things out of context to attack.

I am going to let the rest of it go. My point is: What is being advocated by Huzington is, in my opinion, dead wrong, but so is the way some have been dismissing teens as 'unable to make an informed decision'. I think a middle ground, somewhere in the area of 16, is appropriate for AoC, no matter where you go.

Gurdur

September 2, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Donnmathan

First, I don't think the snide remarks are called for;
I don't think your snide and unimformed prejudices concerning child psychologists were called for, whatsoever.
Since I happen to know quite a few personally, and I've worked with them, and moreover I have quite enough hard-science training to assess your statements, then maybe you'll walk with me through just why the reasons you express for your prejudices are wrong.
Second, I think you miss an important point;
Nope. However, it seems you miss mine.
However, there were some statements made on this thread that made it seem that some of you had a VERY low opinion of children's mental abilities
THEN KEEP YOUR COMMENTS APT TO THE PERSON.
That is only common sense.
If we are fighting over an imagined disagreement,
No, you gave every impression of attributing statements and attitudes to me I had in fact not made at all.
You are right, I added the "no-one under 18", based on the assumption that you were defending the AoC in the US (or, I think, the UK),
I see. The less such assumptions you make, the better.
I still must assert that, thanks in part to the modern educational standards and the internet, most children over the age of 11 are fully capable of attaining a 'reasonably complete range of relevant knowledge' and that if they understand that knowledge, 'intellectual capacity' is pre-supposed. Your answer, sir?
My answer is that you're wrong.
An average 11-y-o is not capable of making fully-informed decisions regarding sex with adults.
See my previous posts for definitions of "fully informed".
I have no professional qualifications, no more so than many of those on this board who argue the finer points of evolution. I am, however, a rational human being, and I must question the credentials of anything that calls itself a science and yet can't make any authoritative statements regarding it's own field.
You mean you think psychology is not a science because it canot make 100% predictions.
That betrays a woeful ignorance of what science itself is, and what psychology does.

Let's start with the obvious:
Even in the so-called hard sciences, like astronomy and physics, predictions are often statistically based.
That is, they are not 100 %.
So according to your criterion, they are not sciences.
Too bad for you, I guess.

Next:
Psychology is on the interface between medicine --- itself very much a non-100% science, statistics, and philosophy.
Free-will is an entity that plays a role in psychological considerations, which renders 100% predictions completely useless, unless you want to pretend humans are only completely robotic.
I have yet to hear a psychologist make a behavioral prediction that wasn't laced with a whole host of "mostly", "marked tendancy", and "sometimes".
I am a scientist by training.
I have yet to hear an astronomer not admit there are different competing models, nor a physicist not admit there are different competing theories.
IOW, a psychologist qualifying his/her statements with "maybe/tendency" is merely being scientifically honest.

That is the difference between religion and science.
Religion aspires to the completely authoritative; science seeks merely the best description.

And I strongly suggest you get at least some experience about the field, and some background knowledge, before you try demeaning it.
It is missing such things as measurable objective data (how do you scientifically quantify an emotional response?)
ROFLMAO !
:D
What is missing is your knowledge.
Measuring emotional responses is done in a variety of ways.
I used to work as an electrical engineer for one psych institute, so I'll stick with just the one example I know best:
electrodermal activity (EDA)
The scientific literature on EDA is huge, and you're speaking with someone who translated 2/3 of one of the standard tomes on the subject into English.
EDA provides a large range of coherent and consistant measurement of emotional reactions, and there has been a great amount of research using EDA.

and testable predictions
heh. You really should learn something about the subject before making such statements blithely.
Your own legal system depends on psychologists a lot (determining who is competent to stand trial). Predictions of emotional responses to set stimuli is quite covered in the psych literature.
If a fossil failed to match one of the predictions of evolution, the theory would have to be modified or discard - this holds true even in anthropology.
Then you can tell me why in neurophysiology (not psych but physio) there are two currently existing and used models of colour-perception.
Or why there are quite a few different and competing models in astronomy.
Then why not bring them out into society in general, so we can determine which kids can make decisions for themselves?
You going to pay for that, Mr.Taxpayer ? :D
These things cost in application; and there's no need.
Protecting 11-y-o's from paedophiles hardly needs testing each and every 11-y-o for sexual psychomaturity levels.

Moreover, you ignore a little thing called "democracy".
Believe it or not, people like to have the same social standards and laws passed across the board. Not to mention it being cheaper, not a negligiable factor.
Read the rest of the statement you quoted part of, then respond to the whole thing next time.
Don't falsely attribute statements or attitudes to me next time.
I am making a case for something halfway between your standpoint and that of Huzington;
So make a new thread.
You are off-topic.
My point is: What is being advocated by Huzington is, in my opinion, dead wrong, And that is all I am really concerned with on this thread.
Start a new thread iif you have different concerns.

Lonely_Road_Of_Faith

September 2, 2003, 07:13 PM

All I can say is, I think the kid has issues...wow...I don't even know where to get started.

Donnmathan

September 3, 2003, 08:54 AM

Gurdur -

A sequence of events for you:

1) I read posts indicating that many of those arguing against the opening post seemed to have a low opinion of the intellect of children. I posted on that subject, and borrowed one of the words I saw repeated frequently in some posts - it happened to be your word. That post was addressed to no one in particular.

2) You responded to that post, apparently refuting several of my points. I took this to mean that you disagreed with them, and returned with a post that made one, count it, one, assumption I shouldn't have made.

3) You responded with remarks regarding me reading your posts before I respond, and accusing me of ignorance and prejudice, as well as taking several remarks I made out of context.

4) I responded to this. (edited by poster to head off more wrangling)

So, to take care of something:You mean you think psychology is not a science because it canot make 100% predictions.
That betrays a woeful ignorance of what science itself is, and what psychology does.

Let's start with the obvious:[quote]
Even in the so-called hard sciences, like astronomy and physics, predictions are often statistically based.
That is, they are not 100 %.
So according to your criterion, they are not sciences.
Too bad for you, I guess.

First - I retract my statement calling psychology, in particular child psychology, a pseudo-science. I formally apologize to any I may have offended with that term, and for allowing my emotions and a few bad experiences get the better of me. That said...

If you have scientific training, then you know that a 100% prediction is a fallacy. However, you often see predictions like this: "If evolutionary theory is correct, then we will not find fossils mixed randomly accross strata," or, "The appendix has no required function in the human body." These are simple, true/false statements, made authoritatively; if they are incorrect, the theory MUST be modified or discarded, and if correct we can move on knowing that our theory was supported. Such statements are made freaquently in all of the hard sciences, and even in medicine.

Child psychology, on the other hand, gives little room for such statements; it is almost COMPLETELY statistical, something I would challenge you to state about any of the hard sciences. The whole point of my objections to the statements made by child psycologists is that they contain a lot of, "well, most children will behave this way given a set of circumstances, but perhaps not exactly, and not all..." Behavioral predictions are prone to inaccuracy by their very nature - they attempt to predict a chaotic system. Yet some represent them as being very reliable, and dependable enough to use in courts and legislation. My contention is - behavioral psychology, child or otherwise, is no more or less accurate a science than meteorology. Perhaps a good guideline, but nothing that can be depended on utterly. I would know - I wound up in an Emotional-Behavioral Disorders group in high school because a child psychologist insisted that my migranes were just an attention-seeking ploy, and would go away if treated like any other behavioral problem. Contrary to the findings and expectations of my neurologist and GP.

My answer is that you're wrong.
An average 11-y-o is not capable of making fully-informed decisions regarding sex with adults.
See my previous posts for definitions of "fully informed".

I did, and I asked how you felt that they couldn't be applied to any 12 y.o. (sorry, I was off by one year) with access to the internet and library and the will to use them. The intellect portion of your definition is circular - if the relevent knowledge is aquired and understood, the intellect is implied. However, you may be interested in this site (http://www.bhc.edu/EastCampus/leeb/adpsy/chapt04/sld007.htm), discussing the stages of development. Apparently, your child psychologists think a 12 y.o. IS capable of rational, reasoned thought, and therefore, with access to relevent knowledge, most certainly CAN make an informed decision. Will they? Seeing as most adults don't, that's a question still open for debate, but it seems they have the ability to, if one accepts the findings of child psychologists.

What is missing is your knowledge.
Measuring emotional responses is done in a variety of ways.
I used to work as an electrical engineer for one psych institute, so I'll stick with just the one example I know best:
electrodermal activity (EDA)
The scientific literature on EDA is huge, and you're speaking with someone who translated 2/3 of one of the standard tomes on the subject into English.
EDA provides a large range of coherent and consistant measurement of emotional reactions, and there has been a great amount of research using EDA.

EDA? Is that the same EDA that polygraphs (ie, lie-detectors) use, with such a perfect record for accuracy? Sorry, but the information I found indicates that EDA only measures based on how much you sweat, which I think you must admit can be influenced by factors other than base emotion.EDA is linked to changes in hydration in the sweat glands. For example when the sweat glands fill with salt-water the skin then shows less resistance to electricity or conversely greater conductance. Adding to this is the simple fact that more than one emotion can trigger that same response; there is no way to tell if the emotion of anger or fear or something else, without subjective observation.

Oh, and incidently? I am a computer programmer, and it seems you are an electrical engineer (correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what your statement implied) - seems like we both are a bit out of place in this argument, so please stop claiming that your training gives you superior knowledge.

Then you can tell me why in neurophysiology (not psych but physio) there are two currently existing and used models of colour-perception.
Or why there are quite a few different and competing models in astronomy

Because more than one theory makes predictions that fit the facts, and no fact has been discovered to absolutely refute one of them? Either that, or one theory has been refuted, and it's supporters refuse to face that fact. Simple science, or basic human nature; neither has any bearing on my point.

You going to pay for that, Mr.Taxpayer ?
These things cost in application; and there's no need.
Protecting 11-y-o's from paedophiles hardly needs testing each and every 11-y-o for sexual psychomaturity levels.

Some people seem to see a need - the need to determine if said 11 y.o. are, in fact, capable of thinking for themselves and protecting themselves from paedophiles. However, I am only advocating such a test be given at age 15 at the earliest, 16 more likely. The cost issue is a concern, but adding the test as a voluntary part of the public school system would help some.

So make a new thread.
You are off-topic.

I fail to see how making a case for something between the two sides already represented is off-topic. If you prefer to think of it this way, I am creating a thrid viewpoint in this discussion. If you really think that is off-topic, then I will ask a moderator. However, the wrangling between us on a personal level IS off-topic, and I have apologized for the statement that so offended you and explained my positions and reasons.