Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2006, 01:27 PM   #91
snap crafter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
Quote:
Stern wrote
This blanket law would automatically prohibit sex with someone severely retarded or too young or under chemical influence.
So what's 'too young'?
Too young to be able to handle the emotional components of sex, too young to understand the risks and ramifications of sex, too young to have the resources to responsibly deal with possible outcomes such as caring for a child, too young to desire sex, too young to engage in sex without physical injury (includes being too young to carry a baby). If you found a 6 YO who had the physical capability, the emotional maturity, the understanding and the ability to be responsible for the outcomes and the personal desire for it, I would have little trouble if they consented to have sex.
But in an age where having children is almost a non-issue (abortion, birthcontrol, foreplay) is that really a guiding post? And as for maturity, there is no real way to measure that. I know many an adult who obviously has no idea what she's doing on any emotional/physical level, while I also know of a 13 yr old that is very capable of understanding the world around him (and no I'm not attracted to the little boy moe, nor have I tried anything on him) making him fairly mature in my book. In a world where everything is connected, information is readily available, and no one's physiology is the same, can you really make an age cut off for maturity?

Oh, and as for a 6 yr'old what not:

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 01:45 PM   #92
EvelKnievel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Snap is right. Sex has nothing to do with reproduction. Nothing.

And those "scientists" that claim it does are liars.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 01:59 PM   #93
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
snap crafter wrote
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
So what's 'too young'?
Too young to be able to handle the emotional components of sex, too young to understand the risks and ramifications of sex, too young to have the resources to responsibly deal with possible outcomes such as caring for a child, too young to desire sex, too young to engage in sex without physical injury (includes being too young to carry a baby). If you found a 6 YO who had the physical capability, the emotional maturity, the understanding and the ability to be responsible for the outcomes and the personal desire for it, I would have little trouble if they consented to have sex.
But in an age where having children is almost a non-issue (abortion, birthcontrol, foreplay) is that really a guiding post? And as for maturity, there is no real way to measure that. I know many an adult who obviously has no idea what she's doing on any emotional/physical level, while I also know of a 13 yr old that is very capable of understanding the world around him (and no I'm not attracted to the little boy moe, nor have I tried anything on him) making him fairly mature in my book. In a world where everything is connected, information is readily available, and no one's physiology is the same, can you really make an age cut off for maturity?

Oh, and as for a 6 yr'old what not:

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp
You nailed it. Adults who can't or won't handle the responsibility should not have sex and youngsters, however young who do have the necessary capabilities should be permitted. I especially am trying NOT to set any specific age. This law would act on merit instead of seniority. For similar reasons (though I don't want to redirect the topic) I feel that there should be no age limit on driver's licences, but that the various capabilities, eyesight, physical ability, understanding the laws etc. should be the criteria. I have no trouble being on the highway with a driver of 102 YO if he can see fine, has reasonable reflexes, has his wits about him and so-on. I do have concerns on the road with a 25 YO impared by chemicals.
Basically, setting years of age thresholds would only be valid in a society of identically raised clones.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 02:38 PM   #94
EvelKnievel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
You nailed it. Adults who can't or won't handle the responsibility should not have sex and youngsters, however young who do have the necessary capabilities should be permitted. I especially am trying NOT to set any specific age. This law would act on merit instead of seniority. For similar reasons (though I don't want to redirect the topic) I feel that there should be no age limit on driver's licences, but that the various capabilities, eyesight, physical ability, understanding the laws etc. should be the criteria. I have no trouble being on the highway with a driver of 102 YO if he can see fine, has reasonable reflexes, has his wits about him and so-on. I do have concerns on the road with a 25 YO impared by chemicals.
Basically, setting years of age thresholds would only be valid in a society of identically raised clones.
With driving, simple tests can be used to see if a person is capable of handling the task. A driving test, eye test, and a written test to see if they understand traffic laws.

When testing for 'sex readiness' who performs the test? Do we force applicants to screw some a Department of Orgasms and Genitals employee? Ask them questions like "How do you achieve an orgasm?" or "What is a baby?" What will the sex-license look like?

Age thresholds are used to lessen the likelihood that the system will fail. That doesn't mean it never happens. When it comes to driving, a person's eyesight may have diminished since their last DMV vision test, or they may have recieved an injury that causes them to lose muscle control. There isn't much a legal system can do to prevent these things from occuring, save daily testing.

When it comes to sex, laws based on merit would be impossible to enforce; imagine telling two people they can't hump until one of them renews their license. Try and envision a society where jackasses in nightclubs have to flash their permit before hitting on an equally jackass potential mate. Do we fine adults who screw unlicensed children, or lock them up? How about adults who screw unlicensed adults? There would still need to be a line drawn.

Statutory laws exist to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Sure, people like Snap may break these laws, and no law is perfect-but really try to look down the road these merit-based-sex-laws lead. Do you really want to beg Big Brother for the right to fuck?

BTW, there are laws against driving under the influence of (some) chemicals.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 02:40 PM   #95
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
psyadam wrote
A pedophile by definition just means you are sexually attracted to younger people, which is everyone.
I don't think the people who go here fit into your generalization

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 03:01 PM   #96
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Thanks, Choob... don't forget the NSFW notification next time. ;)

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 03:02 PM   #97
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Thanks, Choob... don't forget the NSFW notification next time. ;)
I thought "sexgrannies" was a dead giveaway.......

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 03:04 PM   #98
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Thanks, Choob... don't forget the NSFW notification next time. ;)
I thought "sexgrannies" was a dead giveaway.......
Oh. I thought it was, "exgrannies.com" a website for those who, through natural selection, no longer have grandchildren.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 03:05 PM   #99
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Quote:
Choobus wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Thanks, Choob... don't forget the NSFW notification next time. ;)
I thought "sexgrannies" was a dead giveaway.......
Oh. I thought it was, "exgrannies.com" a website for those who, through natural selection, no longer have grandchildren.
not through natural selection, but because they have angered the Lord.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 08:25 PM   #100
snap crafter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
EvelKnievel wrote
Snap is right. Sex has nothing to do with reproduction. Nothing.

And those "scientists" that claim it does are liars.
I don't remember saying that, I just said it was a non-issue with our current technological advances.

But thanks for the strawman ;)
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2006, 10:00 PM   #101
EvelKnievel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I was being a bit sarcastic and eluding to earlier posts people have used to accuse you of things, as I did at the end of #94. Sorry if it didn't come across as tounge-in-cheek.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2006, 11:35 AM   #102
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
everyone knows that scientists "innvent" stuff (that is, make things up) for a living. This proves conclusively that they cannot be trusted. QED

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational