Reddit Bans ‘Incel’ Group for Inciting Violence Against Women

[Derec]

Thank you for reinforcing my point that "We have posters in these fora who routinely offer up apologia for rape, claim that statutory rape is "trivial", and generally depict woman in demeaning terms."

That is the opposite of apologia for rape. Calling non-rape things rape cheapens the term.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you for reinforcing my point that "We have posters in these fora who routinely offer up apologia for rape, claim that statutory rape is "trivial", and generally depict woman in demeaning terms."

That is the opposite of apologia for rape. Calling non-rape things rape cheapens the term.

You are babbling. My observation clearly does not mean require that a poster necessarily makes all three demeaning and stupid claims.

 

[Derec]

You are babbling. My observation clearly does not mean require that a poster necessarily makes all three demeaning and stupid claims.

You are babbling. I have clearly showed I have solid and rational reasons about my opinions on so-called "statutory rape" hysteria.

 

[sharon45]

You are babbling. My observation clearly does not mean require that a poster necessarily makes all three demeaning and stupid claims.

You are babbling. I have clearly showed I have solid and rational reasons about my opinions on so-called "statutory rape" hysteria.

Based largely on consent, yet that is still up for debate, since there are people who think even 18 years of age can be too young, especially considering that everyone matures at different rates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thank you for reinforcing my point that "We have posters in these fora who routinely offer up apologia for rape, claim that statutory rape is "trivial", and generally depict woman in demeaning terms."

That is the opposite of apologia for rape. Calling non-rape things rape cheapens the term.

Statutory rape is the notion that sex requires informed consent--and that those who are too young aren't capable of that, thus they are deemed non-consenting even if they said yes.

I have no problem with the basic idea, just with some of the manifestations. Romeo & Juliet laws deal with most of the problem cases but sometimes have flaws in them. (In some places 16 & 17, no problem, but as time passes it becomes 17 & 18 and is illegal.) I would also like to see a grandfather clause--if a relationship is legal when it starts it remains legal.

 

[RavenSky]

I have clearly showed I have solid and rational reasons about my opinions on so-called "statutory rape" hysteria.

Based largely on consent, yet that is still up for debate, since there are people who think even 18 years of age can be too young, especially considering that everyone matures at different rates.

I am fully willing to stipulate that the legal age barrier between statutory rape and consent is entirely arbitrary. Unfortunately for Derec, however, that does not mean that his arguments for the elimination of the age barriers are "solid and rational". They are, quite frankly, all too similar to the self-serving arguments of pedophiles.

As Sharon notes, "there are people who think even 18 years of age can be too young, especially considering that everyone matures at different rates". She is correct on both points.

According to the study, commissioned by Nickelodeon UK, the average man doesn't reach full emotional maturity until age 43, while women mature by age 32.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/men-mat...s-after-be-exact-british-study-reveals-246716

Under most laws, young people are recognized as adults at age 18. But emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don't reach full maturity until the age 25

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708

These days, a consensus of neuroscientists agree that brain development likely persists until at least the mid-20s – possibly until the 30s.

http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

You may think you're grown up at 18, but our brains don't fully mature until after we hit 30

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rown-18-brains-don-t-fully-mature-hit-30.html

Yes, expert opinions of the age of emotional/mental maturity varies quite a bit right now. That's why I stipulate that any specific age for legal purposes is arbitrary... but it is arbitrary on the low/young side. NOT, as Derec and Roy Moore wishes, for the consent age to be lowered even further or eliminated altogether.

 

[Arctish]

the average man doesn't reach full emotional maturity until age 43, while women mature by age 32.

Well that explains a lot.

 

[laughing dog]

You are babbling. My observation clearly does not mean require that a poster necessarily makes all three demeaning and stupid claims.

You are babbling. I have clearly showed I have solid and rational reasons about my opinions on so-called "statutory rape" hysteria.

Your reasoning is based on he absurd notion that since a cutoff is arbitrary, therefore it is wrong. All cutoffs are arbitrary. So either you are against any specific cutoff or your entire position is "Cuz I say so". In either case, it is not solid or rational reasoning under the normal sense of the terms. Your response could lead someone to conclude you confound "babble" with "rational".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As Sharon notes, "there are people who think even 18 years of age can be too young, especially considering that everyone matures at different rates". She is correct on both points.

Perhaps what we need is to scrap the notion of an age of consent in the first place--instead, look to cars. Specifically, driver's licenses. You have to pass a test on your knowledge of sex and common deceptions, as well as some simple practical stuff--put a condom on a mannequin, perhaps males put a condom on themselves also. The condom is recovered and tested for leaks--it leaks, you fail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are babbling. I have clearly showed I have solid and rational reasons about my opinions on so-called "statutory rape" hysteria.

Your reasoning is based on he absurd notion that since a cutoff is arbitrary, therefore it is wrong. All cutoffs are arbitrary. So either you are against any specific cutoff or your entire position is "Cuz I say so". In either case, it is not solid or rational reasoning under the normal sense of the terms. Your response could lead someone to conclude you confound "babble" with "rational".

The truth is somewhere between.

Reality is somewhere between the two of you. Any age-based cutoff you specify will be too young for some, too old for others. If you want a simple system, however, there's not much else to do about it.

 

[RavenSky]

As Sharon notes, "there are people who think even 18 years of age can be too young, especially considering that everyone matures at different rates". She is correct on both points.

Perhaps what we need is to scrap the notion of an age of consent in the first place--instead, look to cars. Specifically, driver's licenses. You have to pass a test on your knowledge of sex and common deceptions, as well as some simple practical stuff--put a condom on a mannequin, perhaps males put a condom on themselves also. The condom is recovered and tested for leaks--it leaks, you fail.

Sure...

We can't even get people to agree to the concept of affirmative consent. Do you really think people are going to go take a test and get a license to have sex?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps what we need is to scrap the notion of an age of consent in the first place--instead, look to cars. Specifically, driver's licenses. You have to pass a test on your knowledge of sex and common deceptions, as well as some simple practical stuff--put a condom on a mannequin, perhaps males put a condom on themselves also. The condom is recovered and tested for leaks--it leaks, you fail.

Sure...

We can't even get people to agree to the concept of affirmative consent. Do you really think people are going to go take a test and get a license to have sex?

I don't think society is ready for it. It would solve a lot of problems, though.

 

[sharon45]

Sure...

We can't even get people to agree to the concept of affirmative consent. Do you really think people are going to go take a test and get a license to have sex?

I don't think society is ready for it. It would solve a lot of problems, though.

It's the religious that are mostly responsible for these problems. My mother definitely kept her children in the dark with the subject of sex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think society is ready for it. It would solve a lot of problems, though.

It's the religious that are mostly responsible for these problems. My mother definitely kept her children in the dark with the subject of sex.

Yeah, if we could get rid of religion it would go a long way toward fixing the sex problems.

However, a license-based approach solves the issue of the developmentally disabled and whether they can consent and it goes a long way towards solving the issue of some people being ready earlier than others. It would also make decent sex education universal.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think society is ready for it. It would solve a lot of problems, though.

It's the religious that are mostly responsible for these problems. My mother definitely kept her children in the dark with the subject of sex.

Yeah, if we could get rid of religion it would go a long way toward fixing the sex problems.

However, a license-based approach solves the issue of the developmentally disabled and whether they can consent and it goes a long way towards solving the issue of some people being ready earlier than others. It would also make decent sex education universal.

The idea of mandating a license to have sex is an example of pie in the sky thinking, especially in the US. Think about it - we cannot mandate a license to own a firearm but somehow we can mandate and enforce a license to have sex? Sex is a basic human activity. It would be the equivalent of requiring a license to eat food.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps what we need is to scrap the notion of an age of consent in the first place--instead, look to cars. Specifically, driver's licenses. You have to pass a test on your knowledge of sex and common deceptions, as well as some simple practical stuff--put a condom on a mannequin, perhaps males put a condom on themselves also. The condom is recovered and tested for leaks--it leaks, you fail.

Sure...

We can't even get people to agree to the concept of affirmative consent. Do you really think people are going to go take a test and get a license to have sex?

I don't think society is ready for it. It would solve a lot of problems, though.

I agree, I don't think society is ready for a whole bunch of your ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the religious that are mostly responsible for these problems. My mother definitely kept her children in the dark with the subject of sex.

Yeah, if we could get rid of religion it would go a long way toward fixing the sex problems.

However, a license-based approach solves the issue of the developmentally disabled and whether they can consent and it goes a long way towards solving the issue of some people being ready earlier than others. It would also make decent sex education universal.

The idea of mandating a license to have sex is an example of pie in the sky thinking, especially in the US. Think about it - we cannot mandate a license to own a firearm but somehow we can mandate and enforce a license to have sex? Sex is a basic human activity. It would be the equivalent of requiring a license to eat food.

LP's "idea" seems to ignore the whole statutory thing. A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

That is a good observation, and one that undercuts the whole "old enough to consent" argument. If she is old enough to consent to sex with somebody her own age, then why isn't she old enough to consent to sex with somebody much older? This is more the taboo of age disparity at work than anything to do with ability to consent. People are disgusted, so they search for an excuse to outlaw other than just saying they are disgusted.

Similar weird arguments are created about "Consent" when people argue for laws against beastiality. Apparently them humping you isn't consent, and apparently you need consent to have sex with them, but not to kill and eat them. It is the yuck factor at play here, and not anything to do with consent. I am surprised the anti-gay people haven't come up with an argument against homosexuality based on "consent".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

That is a good observation, and one that undercuts the whole "old enough to consent" argument. If she is old enough to consent to sex with somebody her own age, then why isn't she old enough to consent to sex with somebody much older?

Corporations have rules against fucking employees, especially lower rung employees with higher rung employees. The military has rules about fucking subordinates. It has nothing to do with "taboo". It has to do with power. People with power, authority, age can manipulate situations. In Jolly Penuin's world, I bet there would be a lot more male teachers in High School.

 

[KeepTalking]

A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

That is a good observation, and one that undercuts the whole "old enough to consent" argument. If she is old enough to consent to sex with somebody her own age, then why isn't she old enough to consent to sex with somebody much older? This is more the taboo of age disparity at work than anything to do with ability to consent. People are disgusted, so they search for an excuse to outlaw other than just saying they are disgusted.

Similar weird arguments are created about "Consent" when people argue for laws against beastiality. Apparently them humping you isn't consent, and apparently you need consent to have sex with them, but not to kill and eat them. It is the yuck factor at play here, and not anything to do with consent. I am surprised the anti-gay people haven't come up with an argument against homosexuality based on "consent".

They don't need to, because the same consent laws that cover heterosexual sex also cover homosexual sex.

I am quite surprised I had to point this out, did this really not occur to you?

 

[Toni]

A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

That is a good observation, and one that undercuts the whole "old enough to consent" argument. If she is old enough to consent to sex with somebody her own age, then why isn't she old enough to consent to sex with somebody much older? This is more the taboo of age disparity at work than anything to do with ability to consent. People are disgusted, so they search for an excuse to outlaw other than just saying they are disgusted.

Similar weird arguments are created about "Consent" when people argue for laws against beastiality. Apparently them humping you isn't consent, and apparently you need consent to have sex with them, but not to kill and eat them. It is the yuck factor at play here, and not anything to do with consent. I am surprised the anti-gay people haven't come up with an argument against homosexuality based on "consent".

What nonsense. In the US, the age of consent varies between 16 and 18, depending on the state. Many states have 'Romeo and Juliet' exceptions for teens close in age. The exceptions recognize reality and also the imbalance of power and influence between individuals whose age is greater than 3 years or so.

These sorts of threads always make me shake my head. The same people who have no end of criticism for other cultures where young girls are often married off to much older men see no problem if it is a situation they might find themselves in: wanting to fiddle a 13 year old. Of course without even the sparse protections and rights of marriage. And of course ignoring that men often pursue much younger, minor boys. As do women, sometimes.

This is not about recognizing the 'maturity' of a barely pubescent girl so much as it is about trying to find ways to excuse and maintain access to too young sex partners who lack the agency or power to stick up for themselves. Or even to be able to drive a car, hold most kinds of jobs, sign contracts, or join the armed forces. But apparently they are just right for sex with someone old enough to be their father.

Explain to me how this differs from the position of conservative LDS, taliban, traditional Muslims, and some very conservative Christian sects?

Wow.