Gay men, pedophilia and age of consent

[J842P]

Yes, but then you are expecting people to think reasonably, which isn't a reasonable expectation.

That's not true. I never said or suggested people in general think reasonably. Some people think always or nearly always reasonably. Most people think unreasonably a good number of times. But that doesn't have anything to do with my point. My guess was based on previous interactions with Dekusta. It's a reasonably good hypothesis.

I wasn't deny that it was a reasonable hypothesis, I was saying that this is irrelevant. Tom Sawyer was pointing out that that people will generally assume that an interest in these matters is indication of pedophilic inclinations. Therefore, it is best to not display an interest in these matters. It is irrelevant what one can reasonably conclude because so many people are inclined to be unreasonable, and taking for granted that even having a few people think that one has such interests is to be avoided, Tom's advice still stands.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not true. I never said or suggested people in general think reasonably. Some people think always or nearly always reasonably. Most people think unreasonably a good number of times. But that doesn't have anything to do with my point. My guess was based on previous interactions with Dekusta. It's a reasonably good hypothesis.

I wasn't deny that it was a reasonable hypothesis, I was saying that this is irrelevant. Tom Sawyer was pointing out that that people will generally assume that an interest in these matters is indication of pedophilic inclinations. Therefore, it is best to not display an interest in these matters. It is irrelevant what one can reasonably conclude because so many people are inclined to be unreasonable, and taking for granted that even having a few people think that one has such interests is to be avoided, Tom's advice still stands.

OK, my comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. There are, of course, a vast number of perfectly legitimate and reasonable reasons to have an interest in this subject and gaining knowledge on any topic solely for the sake of the knowledge itself is never a bad thing. However, when adult males seem too interested in knowing exactly which teenagers they're allowed to have sex with, it comes across as kind of creepy regardless of the non-creepy rationales which may have led to the interest.

It's like if someone asks "So, those child sex tours in Thailand ... how does a guy sign up for them?". It may be that he's simply interested in how clearly illegal enterprises can operate and thrive amongst international customers despite significant law enforcement efforts dedicated to cracking down on them. It doesn't ever really come across that way when the question is asked, however.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That's not true. I never said or suggested people in general think reasonably. Some people think always or nearly always reasonably. Most people think unreasonably a good number of times. But that doesn't have anything to do with my point. My guess was based on previous interactions with Dekusta. It's a reasonably good hypothesis.

I wasn't deny that it was a reasonable hypothesis, I was saying that this is irrelevant. Tom Sawyer was pointing out that that people will generally assume that an interest in these matters is indication of pedophilic inclinations. Therefore, it is best to not display an interest in these matters. It is irrelevant what one can reasonably conclude because so many people are inclined to be unreasonable, and taking for granted that even having a few people think that one has such interests is to be avoided, Tom's advice still stands.

You were saying I had an unreasonable expectation, which I did not.
But I guess I may have misunderstood what the alleged unreasonable expectation was. So, given that you claimed I had an unreasonable expectation for expecting people to think reasonably, let me ask you: Who are the people you claim I was unreasonably expecting that they would think reasonably?

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, this whole subject matter is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, the OP is completely bullshit because of between/within group variability problems as pointed out by other posters. Even the laws we have now are problematic because of our culture and the arbitrary bullshit people have built up around sex along with the biological bullshit that is also built into having sex WRT oxytocin.

As drugs go, sex is one of the most addicting, most easily acquired, and most problematic WRT side effects. Humans didn't and still don't know much of what goes on in the brain as a result of sex, but kids of a young age know even less, and just aren't prepared to make a rational, informed decision. It doesn't matter how much the brain has physically developed if it doesn't have the information to process the subject, and that's information that parents are hesitant to give to children who might not understand it, all cultural embarrassment about the subject aside.

Second, there are many pedophiles in the world who don't hurt kids, and there is an unfortunate question of how our society can reduce the temptation without coercive methods, but as Tom has pointed out, any such discourse is impossible because of the stigma that child molesters and rapists place on those who know and act better in the face of their problems.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Honestly, this whole subject matter is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, the OP is completely bullshit because of between/within group variability problems as pointed out by other posters. Even the laws we have now are problematic because of our culture and the arbitrary bullshit people have built up around sex along with the biological bullshit that is also built into having sex WRT oxytocin.

As drugs go, sex is one of the most addicting, most easily acquired, and most problematic WRT side effects. Humans didn't and still don't know much of what goes on in the brain as a result of sex, but kids of a young age know even less, and just aren't prepared to make a rational, informed decision. It doesn't matter how much the brain has physically developed if it doesn't have the information to process the subject, and that's information that parents are hesitant to give to children who might not understand it, all cultural embarrassment about the subject aside.

Second, there are many pedophiles in the world who don't hurt kids, and there is an unfortunate question of how our society can reduce the temptation without coercive methods, but as Tom has pointed out, any such discourse is impossible because of the stigma that child molesters and rapists place on those who know and act better in the face of their problems.

That doesn't seem relevant to my question.
That's not how I interpreted Tom's post, but in any case, I'm asking you who are the people you claim I was unreasonably expecting that they would think reasonably, because frankly I can't think of anyone. Are you talking about the posters in this thread?

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, this whole subject matter is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, the OP is completely bullshit because of between/within group variability problems as pointed out by other posters. Even the laws we have now are problematic because of our culture and the arbitrary bullshit people have built up around sex along with the biological bullshit that is also built into having sex WRT oxytocin.

As drugs go, sex is one of the most addicting, most easily acquired, and most problematic WRT side effects. Humans didn't and still don't know much of what goes on in the brain as a result of sex, but kids of a young age know even less, and just aren't prepared to make a rational, informed decision. It doesn't matter how much the brain has physically developed if it doesn't have the information to process the subject, and that's information that parents are hesitant to give to children who might not understand it, all cultural embarrassment about the subject aside.

Second, there are many pedophiles in the world who don't hurt kids, and there is an unfortunate question of how our society can reduce the temptation without coercive methods, but as Tom has pointed out, any such discourse is impossible because of the stigma that child molesters and rapists place on those who know and act better in the face of their problems.

That doesn't seem relevant to my question.
That's not how I interpreted Tom's post, but in any case, I'm asking you who are the people you claim I was unreasonably expecting that they would think reasonably, because frankly I can't think of anyone. Are you talking about the posters in this thread?

What now? Was the post addressed to you? I was addressing the OP and problems I see with the subject matter of the OP. Namely, humans are crazy about and for sex, because such craziness is conducive to the Darwinian imperative, and the closer you get to the reproductive act in any discussion of ethics and philosophy, the crazier things get, especially when you mix questions pertaining to breaking a status quo as it relates to child development and abnormal sexuality. It isn't just that people are irrational about sex, but that sex is such a fucked up element of our existence that I severely doubt that it is possible to be rational about it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What now? Was the post addressed to you?

Yes, the post you made in which you said "Yes, but then you are expecting people to think reasonably, which isn't a reasonable expectation."
I'm challenging your claim that I had an unreasonably expectation. Who are the people I was unreasonably expecting to think reasonably, according to you?

I was addressing the OP and problems I see with the subject matter of the OP. Namely, humans are crazy about and for sex, because such craziness is conducive to the Darwinian imperative, and the closer you get to the reproductive act in any discussion of ethics and philosophy, the crazier things get, especially when you mix questions pertaining to breaking a status quo as it relates to child development and abnormal sexuality. It isn't just that people are irrational about sex, but that sex is such a fucked up element of our existence that I severely doubt that it is possible to be rational about it.

I wasn't talking about any of that. I was only defending my position against the claim that I had an unreasonable expectation.

 

[JonA]

Are people here eating fucking paint chips?

What sane person genuinely advocates ignorance of the law?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Jarhyn,

In case you misunderstood, in my first post in this thread I wasn't suggesting, implying, expecting or assuming that most people would be reasonable when discussing sex. Rather, my point was to defend Dekusta against what appeared to be a clearly negative suggestion about his motivation for posting here, by letting Tom Sawyer know that I had a more likely explanation for Dekusta's behavior.

In particular, I wasn't giving anyone any advice. I was saying that the suggested charge was unwarranted (and implicitly, that it should be dropped).

 

[Jarhyn]

Are people here eating fucking paint chips?

What sane person genuinely advocates ignorance of the law?

Maybe you are the one eating the paint chips? The law itself is all kinds of fucked up, but nobody cares because humans commit appeals to bias against anyone even APPROACHING empathy for pedophiles all the time, and it will only ever get more mucked for the next 50 years or do, because that's how long it will take for issues of transhumanism, and its resultant changes to society, to start forcing the issue. I would predict that there will be ZERO forward movement in the discussion until we have the ability to put an adult brain in a childlike body. It may even continue past the point where the human race no longer spawns non-copy children, and when there are no real children for people to even TRY to hurt anymore. We're just that incapable of discussing it on any large scale. It's one of the things that I find most disappointing about the human race.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Until last year I didn't know I could have sexual relations with 16 year old (provided I am not in a position of authority)... and I think of a girl I knew when I was 18. She's got to be 48 now.

Not if she got in a rocket and moved away from the earth at near the speed of light and then returned recently.

So there is a chance!

- - - Updated - - -

Are people here eating fucking paint chips?

Not at this exact moment. Ksen is out getting some rubber cement for dip.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

/mod

 

[JonA]

Are people here eating fucking paint chips?

What sane person genuinely advocates ignorance of the law?

Maybe you are the one eating the paint chips? The law itself is all kinds of fucked up, but nobody cares because humans commit appeals to bias against anyone even APPROACHING empathy for pedophiles all the time, and it will only ever get more mucked for the next 50 years or do, because that's how long it will take for issues of transhumanism, and its resultant changes to society, to start forcing the issue. I would predict that there will be ZERO forward movement in the discussion until we have the ability to put an adult brain in a childlike body. It may even continue past the point where the human race no longer spawns non-copy children, and when there are no real children for people to even TRY to hurt anymore. We're just that incapable of discussing it on any large scale. It's one of the things that I find most disappointing about the human race.

What the hell does that have to do with Tom advocating ignorance of the law?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Dude, that was a joke, not a serious position. I already said that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you are the one eating the paint chips? The law itself is all kinds of fucked up, but nobody cares because humans commit appeals to bias against anyone even APPROACHING empathy for pedophiles all the time, and it will only ever get more mucked for the next 50 years or do, because that's how long it will take for issues of transhumanism, and its resultant changes to society, to start forcing the issue. I would predict that there will be ZERO forward movement in the discussion until we have the ability to put an adult brain in a childlike body. It may even continue past the point where the human race no longer spawns non-copy children, and when there are no real children for people to even TRY to hurt anymore. We're just that incapable of discussing it on any large scale. It's one of the things that I find most disappointing about the human race.

What the hell does that have to do with Tom advocating ignorance of the law?

My point is that the law is *plainly* bad to anyone with the perspective to look at it with an open mind, yet it is also plain that we know of nothing that can replace it, because too few humans are equipped to look at the subject without visceral fear and revulsion, and even among those who are so equipped, there is little doubt that the majority of such persons are as questionably motivated as the people of the larger majority.

The point of my posts is to say "this whole subject is one that is pointless for ANYONE to discuss right now. It will only hurt all involved from the perspectives of everyone on any side. Unethical acts will be perpetrated by everyone on every side and we can do nothing to stop it. It is like a festering boil in a day and age without antibiotics. It cannot be removed, and any treatment can only aggravate the wound further. Don't touch it, and maybe it can find treatment in the medicine of a later age. For now, maintain the status quo."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a very different approach:

Scrap the idea of age of consent, replace it with a sex license. You have to demonstrate a knowledge of sex and the risks and there is a practical of placing a condom on a dummy which must then pass an inflation test. (Those physically incapable of doing this are exempt from the practical.) The license has a picture, no name--you're free to be anonymous if you want.

Presto, no more disputes about who is mature enough to consent to sex. Treat people as individuals rather than groups. You also have a simple means of resolving lying about one's age--make the normal standard of behavior to show each other your licenses. (And this also resolves a lot of he-said/she-said cases. Not showing a license for the first time a couple has sex is treated as not consenting, showing it is treated as a rebuttable presumption of consent.)

 

[Bronzeage]

How about a very different approach:

Scrap the idea of age of consent, replace it with a sex license. You have to demonstrate a knowledge of sex and the risks and there is a practical of placing a condom on a dummy which must then pass an inflation test. (Those physically incapable of doing this are exempt from the practical.) The license has a picture, no name--you're free to be anonymous if you want.

Presto, no more disputes about who is mature enough to consent to sex. Treat people as individuals rather than groups. You also have a simple means of resolving lying about one's age--make the normal standard of behavior to show each other your licenses. (And this also resolves a lot of he-said/she-said cases. Not showing a license for the first time a couple has sex is treated as not consenting, showing it is treated as a rebuttable presumption of consent.)

If you thought the line at the DMV was long....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What really annoys me is the way that the Republican governors then went and closed all the licensing offices in minority districts so all the black men got arrested as rapists when they had sex with their wives and girlfriends and then couldn't vote because of their felony convictions.

 

[J842P]

I wasn't deny that it was a reasonable hypothesis, I was saying that this is irrelevant. Tom Sawyer was pointing out that that people will generally assume that an interest in these matters is indication of pedophilic inclinations. Therefore, it is best to not display an interest in these matters. It is irrelevant what one can reasonably conclude because so many people are inclined to be unreasonable, and taking for granted that even having a few people think that one has such interests is to be avoided, Tom's advice still stands.

You were saying I had an unreasonable expectation, which I did not.
But I guess I may have misunderstood what the alleged unreasonable expectation was. So, given that you claimed I had an unreasonable expectation for expecting people to think reasonably, let me ask you: Who are the people you claim I was unreasonably expecting that they would think reasonably?

I was sloppy with my phrasing. I meant to express that your response to Tom's tounge-in-cheek comment, as I understood it, requires an unreasonable expectation for expecting people to think reasonably, not that you actually had such an unreasonable expectation.

 

[Derec]

If you thought the line at the DMV was long....

And the theory will only get you the learner's permit. You still have to do the ahem practical exam with the instructor.