Split Who is an adult From: The failure of American public schools to teach children the truth regarding our history

[Jarhyn]

Meanwhile, we have never been given a single reason to suppose that such a condition even exists in the first place!

You may not understand this. But believe me when I say, I have damn good reason to believe that the condition exists.

Whoever this "we" you belong to might be, I am not part of it. Your ostentatious pretensions and self indulgent personality had already made me dislike you. This assertion that my "condition" hasn't been demonstrated to your satisfaction makes me quite angry.

I'll stop there as I'm considering posting something that will very much upset the staff.

Tom

You know, they were an adult when they were 13!

They are definitely an adult, if 13 year olds are adults, right?

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Meanwhile, we have never been given a single reason to suppose that such a condition even exists in the first place!​

You may not understand this. But believe me when I say, I have damn good reason to believe that the condition exists. Whoever this "we" you belong to might be, I am not part of it. Your ostentatious pretensions and self indulgent personality had already made me dislike you. This assertion that my "condition" hasn't been demonstrated to your satisfaction makes me quite angry. I'll stop there as I'm considering posting something that will very much upset the staff.​

You know, they were an adult when they were 13! They are definitely an adult, if 13 year olds are adults, right?​

Except in the cases of individuals who are unusually immature for 13 year olds, it is indeed the case that the age of 12 or 13 represents the threshold betw. childhood & the beginning of adulthood.

Yet, as with many things in life, such markers are but rough estimates; the true measure of maturity must be sought in the individual, not the mere number of years he may have lived. For one may live many years & yet remain psychologically in a state of childhood.

Such arrested development I have freq. encountered in my interactions with the lower classes, particularly the women, who have lived well beyond their youth, indeed well into their 40s & 50s, yet they possess the psychological maturity of toddlers, despite exhibiting avg. to above-avg. intelligence.

I do not usu. employ the term ‘adult’, by the way; the terms I pref. to use are manhood & womanhood, in contradistinction with prepubescence. ‘Adult’ is a misleading misnomer related to ‘adulturation,’ & ought generally to be avoided.​

 

[Jarhyn]

LOL. There are tens of millions of people all over the world, perhaps hundreds of millions, who are adults but whom have never experienced puberty.

Adult is in modern parlance a term of relative experience that happens in a sort of wave structure through time: when you are a baby, you are not adult enough to be trusted with a metal fork, especially not near an outlet. You have not learned through good faith or average stupidity yet at that age that some things are shockingly stupid to do.

If you wish to see adulthood as adulteration, yes, you are adulterated of your pure and wanton ignorance of youth by knowledge and learning, and you clearly have failed to understand that every time someone, ANYONE online claims 13 year olds are adults, the more it seems to adults that they are a 13 year old, or that they want to fuck 13 year olds. Or both. It's less disgusting when it's both but 13 year olds are children, and nobody should be fucking them.

If that's anyone's thing, they would be better served by an ACTUAL adult who knows about kinks and safe words and roleplay, and who only pretends to be a 13 year old. Maybe if they still have trouble after that, find a website with fictional pornographic images of people or characters that do not exist, or an artist to commission such a work of visual aid from.

Of course, a 13 year old who knows about kinks, safe words, and roleplay is the victim of grooming, and any such understanding of that knowledge would come at deep and tragic cost to their education and their mental health, making them liable to perpetuate cycles of grooming and child abuse.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Jarhyn:

Articulate your argument in a manner that may assist one in comprehending the essence of your discourse. May I suggest the use of syllogism, a tool that has proven most effective in making complex ideas clear and simple?

Indeed, nonreproductive extramatrimonial exploitative fornication is an act to be discouraged and prohibited. All of the scenerios you have described fall within this proscription, and as such, ought not be to be engaged in, neither with a 31 year old adult woman, nor with a 13 year old adult woman.

I assure you, my opposition to such practices far surpasses your own, since I am opposed to the deeds in themselves, whilst your primary concern appears to be what arbirary number at which it should be permissible to prey upon them.​

 

[Arctish]

Indeed, nonreproductive extramatrimonial exploitative fornication is an act to be discouraged and prohibited. ​

That's quite a stack of terms.

I think nonreproductive fornication is no one's business except for the persons who engage in it. IMO it's great. It can be really fun, fulfilling, comforting, and affirming. It deserves just as much social respect as fornication that results in pregnancy.

I think extramatrimonial fornication is no one's business except for the fornicators and their matrimonial partners. If they're cool with it, then there's no problem.

I think exploitative fornication is an act that should be discouraged and prohibited because exploitation is harmful to the exploited.

An ye do no harm, do as ye will.

Now, if you want to teach students about the history of discrimination against people who could become pregnant and were therefore treated as chattel, people who had no interest in reproductive sex, people who sought to be divorced or to have sex with people they weren't married to, then that's a discussion worth having and on-topic for this thread.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

I must correct you, for your understanding appears to be flawed. I never mentioned the word "or". The epithets I specified must be applied in their entirety, without exception. The words "nonreproductive", "extramatrimonial", "exploitative", and "fornicative" are all integral to my meaning, and together they comprise a singular, unified concept. To speak of them as though they are separate and unrelated is to miss the point entirely.​

 

[Jarhyn]

Indeed, nonreproductive extramatrimonial exploitative fornication is an act to be discouraged and prohibited. ​

That's quite a stack of terms.

I think nonreproductive fornication is no one's business except for the persons who engage in it. IMO it's great. It can be really fun, fulfilling, comforting, and affirming. It deserves just as much social respect as fornication that results in pregnancy.

I think extramatrimonial fornication is no one's business except for the fornicators and their matrimonial partners. If they're cool with it, then there's no problem.

I think exploitative fornication is an act that should be discouraged and prohibited because exploitation is harmful to the exploited.

An ye do no harm, do as ye will.

Now, if you want to teach students about the history of discrimination against people who could become pregnant and were therefore treated as chattel, people who had no interest in reproductive sex, people who sought to be divorced or to have sex with people they weren't married to, then that's a discussion worth having and on-topic for this thread.

The biggest joke is that this very fine person doesn't realize that they keep educating us in the apparent reality of folks who have a boner for 13 year olds.

Of course exploitative sex is bad, but that's all exploitative sex. That's like saying "I think unethical things are unethical!"

It doesn't actually address an understanding of what makes it unethical!

Principally, it has a lot to do with the quality of the symmetry of information between parties.

Indeed by stacking terms it seems more they wish to disparage those who are not married, those who are not reproducing, etc while having a fig leaf of conjunct to hide behind if someone points out that only one of those terms does any work of creating something unethical.

Indeed their claims that the conjunction must be whole, it means there is practically no sex act they do find unethical!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both factions, be they of the left or the right, are guilty of making the same baseless assumption, namely, that such a condition as “homosexuality” exists.

It matters not whether they are speaking “for” it or “against” the gays; both factions act in collusion to legitimise & reinforce the validity of this socially constructed fictitious identity, an identity that did not exist till it was conjured into being by the Victorians as a psycho-sexual perversion.

A total fabrication, given life through the machinations of those who seek to control & manipulate the masses.

The ancient Greeks, the Japanese, and countless other civilisations throughout history, never entertained such a fanciful notion. They had no need of it. It was a concept that had never crossed the minds of our ancestors till the 19th century.

Meanwhile, we have never been given a single reason to suppose that such a condition even exists in the first place!​

Huh?

The lack of putting a label on it doesn't mean it didn't exist. If the ancients didn't know of it then why does the bible condemn those who lie with a man as one lies with a woman? (Although I will admit to saying this is just common sense, it's really saying the person being penetrated should turn over.)

(Now, whether it exists at the biological level is another matter. I am of the camp that believes that fundamentally, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality exists. You get a much simpler model if you figure that there is an attracted-to-males trigger and an attracted-to-females trigger with less-than-perfect coupling to our anatomy.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I have a better reason to believe that it does not exist, since I know exactly what it is you are referring to, both in its subjective and in its objective aspects.
 Nonetheless I don’t believe that the condition exists. For I don’t regard love between two men as a sexuality. They can love each other as intimately as they wish, and I still wouldn’t regard it as anything other than a form of friendship.
 Their behaviour I would consider a form of mutual masturbation, for that’s what it is. It is not a sex act, nor is their attraction to the same sex a ’sexuality’; it is just the ordinary human perception of æsthetic beauty in the human form, and perhaps they are more perspicacious than the average man or woman. As an artist I can relate to that.
 I think everyone has just been hypersexualised. They think things are sexual that I would call merely erotic, æsthetic, or fraternal in nature.
 As regards your last remark: you can say whatever you want to me. I am unoffendable. I am missing that part of the brain that is capable of feeling the supposed “offence,” I suppose. Go ahead; say what you wish, and I shall not complain, nor shall I respond with personal invective.
​

Why do you think it's not the same romantic love that heterosexual couples experience? Sexual attraction is not remotely the same thing as friendship--many people can be attracted to people they do not like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Indeed, nonreproductive extramatrimonial exploitative fornication is an act to be discouraged and prohibited. All of the scenerios you have described fall within this proscription, and as such, ought not be to be engaged in, neither with a 31 year old adult woman, nor with a 13 year old adult woman.

While technically true this is needlessly overqualified.

Exploitative fornication should not be engaged in, period. The keyword is exploitative.

There is no reason against nonreproductive fornication. My wife is past menopause--does that mean we should abandon sex?? We have never desired conception, does that mean we should never have had sex?

Extramatrimonial has two meanings. It can refer to situations where neither is married--and marrying someone that you don't know if you are sexually compatible with is a bad idea. It can also refer to doing it with someone other than the person you are married to. This is much shakier ground but I will not condemn swingers nor other forms of open relationship. And I think caregiver affairs are actually a good for society.

And nobody is mentally adult at 13. The brain still has a lot of developing to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An ye do no harm, do as ye will.

I'll go a little farther than this--do not do unwanted harm. Harm desired by the recipient isn't automatically wrong.

Or the inverse of the golden rule:

Don't do onto others as you don't want others to do onto you.

(I'd like to see this one partially codified into law. If a politician votes for a law they are automatically subject to it even if the law does not pass or is struck down by the courts. This would be in addition to the actual law, not replacing it.)

 

[Jarhyn]

Indeed, nonreproductive extramatrimonial exploitative fornication is an act to be discouraged and prohibited. All of the scenerios you have described fall within this proscription, and as such, ought not be to be engaged in, neither with a 31 year old adult woman, nor with a 13 year old adult woman.

While technically true this is needlessly overqualified.

Exploitative fornication should not be engaged in, period. The keyword is exploitative.

There is no reason against nonreproductive fornication. My wife is past menopause--does that mean we should abandon sex?? We have never desired conception, does that mean we should never have had sex?

Extramatrimonial has two meanings. It can refer to situations where neither is married--and marrying someone that you don't know if you are sexually compatible with is a bad idea. It can also refer to doing it with someone other than the person you are married to. This is much shakier ground but I will not condemn swingers nor other forms of open relationship. And I think caregiver affairs are actually a good for society.

And nobody is mentally adult at 13. The brain still has a lot of developing to do.

God... They just keep edging towards discussing and apologizing for fucking 13 year olds.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

LOL. There are tens of millions of people all over the world, perhaps hundreds of millions, who are adults but whom have never experienced puberty.​

I shan’t bend to your will. I stand resolutely against all that you espouse
 In certain instances, allowances may be made for those who suffer from a late onset of pubescence, much as exceptions are already made in current legislation for those women between ages 13‒16 who exhibit a level of psychological maturity befitting their union with a man between the ages of five-&-twenty & thirty. Such exceptions are routinely made.
 Indeed, it is a curious thing to observe ; for I have found from personal experience that those who, theoretically, take the greatest stance against such practices, invariably find themselves softening their stance once they have personal knowledge of the individuals involved. I have seen, with my own eyes, instances in which the police have ignored the complaints of parents, & allowed relationships between 14-year-old women & five-&-twenty year old men to flourish, despite the fact that such relationships are technically illegal. Indeed, the parents themselves softened their stance once they actually knew the individuals involved, even though they were the most strongly opposed to it in the beginning.
 Surely, then, exceptions can also be made in the opposite direction, when one has reached the age of five-&-twenty but has yet to mature beyond pubescence.
 However, the law should not be built around exceptions & abnormalities ; for if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, we would be forced to abolish age of consent laws altogether. I am not willing to endorse that.
 Therefore, making the age of consent consonant with biological reality is the only senseible approach ; & exceptions can be made in cases in which the individual has already been through puberty but is still several years below the age of 13,—in such cases, it would be obviously forbidden. It would also have to be within the confines of marriage. Now, so long as the law clearly & accurately reflects the desired qualifications & conditions, there is nothing that would prevent one from including specific language to address specific cases. The key is to ensure that the language used is precise & unambiguous, so that the intent of the law is clear & enforceable.​

Adult is in modern parlance a term of relative experience ​

 Your rather arbitrary & ahistorical definition of adulthood is but a fleeting notion, a mere figment of the imagination, bereft of any solid foundation in truth or science. In contrast, my own understanding of adulthood, is not only in agreement with that of virtually all traditional cultures & societies,even our own society until relatively recently, is rooted firmly in the biological realities of life, & it is my belief that laws & regulations should be built upon the solid ground of such objective truths, rather than upon the shifting sands of subjective opinion. “Old enought to bleed, old enough to breed,” as the saying goes
 As a defender of morality & justice, I firmly advocate the prohibition of nonreproductive exploitative extramatrimonial sexual conduct. Such behaviour is contrary to the fabric of a civilised society & should be strictly prohibited to ensure the preservation of the social order. By basing our laws on biological realities, we can ensure that they are rooted in a foundation of truth & impartiality.
 (In the cases of my parents, grandparents, great-grantparents, & great-great grandparents, the women were all 13‒17 years old, whilst the men were betw. the ages of 20 & 32. These unions were invariably within the confines of marriage & they enjoyed both the sanction of the law & the full approbation of society at large.)​

 

[IIDB Staff]

Beware that threads such as this sometimes attract those with pedophlic tendencies. Do not let this thread go in that direction!