Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Should the Age Of Consent Be Lowered?

Age of consent sex Different States Law

  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#121 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 11 November 2004 - 11:28 PM

Lover of Purple, on Nov 11 2004, 04:04 PM, said:

And to suggest that females be put on some kind of mandatory birth control is asinine AND sexists. Talk about looking down on women. Sheesh. I respect women way too much to ever do something like that.

Yeah, well throwing labels into the mix doesn't answer the question.  I thought I explained that reasoning some posts above, but here it is again: it is the female that carries the child...last time I checked...and therefore in the female that the pregnancy will occur. Follow me so far?  Good.  Therefore it is more effective for the female to be under some form of BC.  Tell me...which is easier to control: one ovum or millions of sperm cells?  It only takes one sperm cell to get through.

But nahhh....that makes too much sense, and doesn't follow the standard feminist line, which is: never, ever dare suggest that women be singled out for anything.  It's automatically sexist.
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#122 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 07:28 AM

and i find the very idea that the female is entirely responsible for the acts of two people to be reprehensible, aside from sexist.
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#123 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 11:32 AM

Rockhound, on Nov 11 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

Lover of Purple, on Nov 11 2004, 04:04 PM, said:

And to suggest that females be put on some kind of mandatory birth control is asinine AND sexists. Talk about looking down on women. Sheesh. I respect women way too much to ever do something like that.

Yeah, well throwing labels into the mix doesn't answer the question.  I thought I explained that reasoning some posts above, but here it is again: it is the female that carries the child...last time I checked...and therefore in the female that the pregnancy will occur. Follow me so far?  Good.  Therefore it is more effective for the female to be under some form of BC.  Tell me...which is easier to control: one ovum or millions of sperm cells?  It only takes one sperm cell to get through.

But nahhh....that makes too much sense, and doesn't follow the standard feminist line, which is: never, ever dare suggest that women be singled out for anything.  It's automatically sexist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


First off, both parties are responsible. Second to want to push a potentially dangerous solution on one side is wrong. Third, the term sexist is no longer just a "feminist" term. Your idea is truly sexist. It lets the male "off the hook" as far as being responsible goes by letting the woman have a dangerous solution forced on her.

It sounds like a solution my high school buddies would have suggested so they wouldn't have to be responsible. As a matter of fact one of them said exactly what you did. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Plus, it would encourage men to NOT take precautions thus helping to spread STDs. So, it isn't only sexist it's irresponsible at the least and potentially dangerous.



So, it doesn't really make that much sense to force women (or girls) into that situation.

Edited by Lover of Purple, 12 November 2004 - 02:31 PM.


#124 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 02:07 PM

Chaddee said:

Rockhound
You thought that was 'quite a respons'?
I edited that four times before I felt it was civil enough to post.

I know that feeling. That's why I started to post previously and gave up in the middle.

Quote

I do not like men telling me i should be taking toxic crap to compensate for the fact they are not willing to take equal responsibility. It takes two to tango, so two are repsonsible for any slips or falls.

Yes, the woman carries the babies, but it's the man who causes pregnancy to happen -- or does Rockhound figure that there's just some spontaneous combustion that the woman exercises in order to get pregnant? I wish that males who like to call females "receptacles" would become pregnant themselves, but probably, men who figure that *only* the woman's responsible for preventing pregnancy aren't fit to be fathers. Yes, you can screw; yes, you can impregnate someone -- that's easy -- but maybe you're not fit to stay and *raise* the kid (which, in my opinion, is what a real father does).

I'm saying *nothing* about the woman not taking responsibility. (Just so you know, I'm disgusted by women who decide that they'll "entrap" men by getting pregnant, but that's another segment of the discussion.) Since "it takes two to tango", the man needs to take responsibility, too. If he's just screwing and is so afraid of sex having consequences, then he needs to learn how to prevent that if the woman "forgets" -- and I don't mean killing his pregnant partner, which seems to be increasingly happening. (I'd prefer not to mention the name Scott Peterson, on trial for allegedly murdering his pregnant wife, because I've heard his name and his case far more than I can tolerate, but that case is an example of what I mean.)

Hey, is Rockhound trolling? That's the impression I've had from the beginning.

Chaddee said:

I would also like to second Rhea's commend about finding the title offensive. That kind of comment does not help and that is exactly the kind of comment why i stated it treats women like cattle. - as usually humans procreate, not breed. That is what cattle does.

Agreed that it's offensive. The body may be starting to get ready when menstruation starts, but do you seriously think that little girls are mentally ready to be mommies as soon as their bodies declare puberty? Hardly.

Nikcara said:

I've actually heard of lower than that - one of my friends in highschool had her first period in the 1st grade.

This scares me... :eek:

Nikcara said:

Also, girls on average are getting their periods younger and younger as time goes on. I've heard theories that it has to do with the hormones we feed our livestock with and thus ingest when we eat meat, but I haven't done any actualy research onto the topic

I've figured for years that it has a lot to do with the hormones that get fed to the livestock and that we ingest.

Steven Q said:

I meant that parents in ancient Rome probably despaired at their unruly children much as parents today do,

Certainly. I remember reading a quote from an ancient sage, probably Roman, who blasted the youth of the time with accusations of unruliness, etc., etc. . It amused me to see how close the complaints were then to what we hear now.

Oh, BTW, LoP, the term is "sexist", unless speaking in plural. There are many "sexists", but the concept itself (in singular) is "sexist". ;)
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#125 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 02:30 PM

Well....

I don't agree with the idea of "vaccinating" girls against pregnancy, and do consider the idea inherently flawed, and oppressive to women.  But I don't think the suggestion is inherently sexist - the fact that it isn't very well thought out doesn't make the person who is trying to solve the problems of teenaged pregnancy automatically sexist.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#126 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 02:34 PM

Norville, on Nov 12 2004, 11:07 AM, said:

Oh, BTW, LoP, the term is "sexist", unless speaking in plural. There are many "sexists", but the concept itself (in singular) is "sexist". ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



That's it, show how inferior I really am. ;)

I edited the post to correct my screwup. :)

AndHM, the part that is sexist is that it is the woman's responsibility because she isthe one who (whom?) gets pregnant. :)

#127 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 02:54 PM

I don't believe that Rockhound said that.  He said that she gets stuck with the responsibility.  I could be wrong, but that's how I read him.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#128 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 03:54 PM

HM, the way i read it he says it's the woman's responsibility if she gets pregnant...which could imply her responsibility not to get pregnant, or her responsibility after she gets pregnant.

Eitehr way, it lays the entire burden on teh woman...

That hearkens back to the days women's opinions where considered to be worth half the weight of a mans, she had to whisper her evidence in through a window in court, and if she accused a man of raping her and he said contrary, well, she was lying.

it also hearkens back to the double standard of a man being able to 'sow some wild oats' and a woman being a 'slut', but that's a whole different issue.

Either way, it allwos the man to get away with no responsibility, while forcing that on the woman. Which is, imho, inherently sexist as well as absurd.
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#129 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 04:03 PM

Pregnancy isn't the only thing that affects one person because of another's actions. For example, I can be attacked and injured or killed. Yes, the attacker is the one doing it. But self-defense is still up to ME.

#130 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 04:14 PM

Rockhound, on Nov 9 2004, 11:10 PM, said:

In fact, all girls, once they reach puberty, should be put on birth control.  C'mon, we innoculate them for crap they will probably never be exposed to, but it's out of the question to protect them from pregnancy? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Rockhound, on Nov 9 2004, 11:23 PM, said:

(in response to Jadzia's suggestion that something be done to men instead of or in addition to women.)
I would agree, except that in the case of pregnancy, it's the girl that carries the child.  She's the recepticle and must deal with the implications.  Therefore the buck must stop there.

Good thinking though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Rockhound, on Nov 10 2004, 11:22 PM, said:

sierraleone, on Nov 10 2004, 09:11 PM, said:

So we should force BC on children and against their parent's objections? And you think this is going to help? The children and the parents would resent it. I know I would have as a teenager, being a responsible one. And how does forcing it on children teach them responsibility?

Well, we can stick them for things they'll probably never be exposed to.  We can give them a standardized education that can conflict with the beliefs of their parents.  Why can't we protect them from something that can potentially ruin their life: having a baby before being able to deliver it safely? 'Sides, children get raped by the real perverts, and sometimes get preggers...there you go...a little insurance.

...

You know, you're never going to come up with a system that covers everyone...you have to come up with a system that protects and yet gives individual liberties all at once.  In the cases you just mentioned, abortion is also an option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I've quoted the early relevant posts of Rockhound.  I also want to complain about the allegation of trolling in this thread.  

No where does Rockhound say that women are the only ones who should be responsible.  His train of thought seems pretty clear to me - universal, mandatory birth control of teens is an effective way to ensure the cessation of teen pregnancies.  

I take a bit of issue with this, because the same idea was perpetrated on black females on welfare - there was some effort to force black women to all go on Norplant - an implanted birth control delivery method in order to keep benefits.  I thought the idea was offensive then, and I think the mandatory birth control of teens is offensive here.  But not because it is sexist.  I find it offensive because it puts the weight of society's ills on young girls.  I asked Rockhound if he read the thread that talked about how to make adults adult at an earlier age - if young women entering puberty were already adults upon getting there or soon thereafter, we wouldn't be talking about forced birth control.  We'd be talking about adults making decisions.

The argument inherently forces us to question the intent of the idea of lowering the age of consent, and shows why the idea of equating this to the right to vote for blacks is just disgusting.  On the one hand, we are saying - hey, let's make it ok for kids to have sex (an adult activity with adult consequences) even though they aren't adults. How do you know they aren't adults? Because we can impose our will on them and force sterilize them.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#131 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 06:07 PM

Norville I'm disappointed in you.:(  It's a controversial topic to be sure and the subtitle is in questionable taste but if *that's* the new definition of trolling then I'm a blue munchkin.  I was under the impression that this particular part of the forum was designed for topics of this kind.
Posted Image

#132 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 06:24 PM

Handmaiden07, on Nov 12 2004, 01:54 PM, said:

I don't believe that Rockhound said that.  He said that she gets stuck with the responsibility.  I could be wrong, but that's how I read him.

HM07

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Thank you.

Also, Lil, thank you.  You know, however, that those who suggest radical ideas always get branded as trouble makers.  That's just the way it is.

HM, I follow your line of logic.  Consider this: forget the part about lowering the AoC for the moment...that just muddles this issue.  As to forced BC: knowing that many teens have sex and risk pregnancy...a situation that's increasing...isn't it wise to provide for some sort of preventative?  If we can vaccinate our children against diseases, why not "vaccinate" our females against something that can devastate their lives?  As to those who are implying that I'm sexist, that's a laugh and you need to get a life.  If I were a sexist, I wouldn't suggest BC.  Clear you mind and consider the idea.

Now, who says that sex need be an adult activity?  If young adults are BCed and properly educated through sex education then what really stops them from enjoying a great activity?  Pregnancy?  See, you're trying to say since a possibility of pregnancy exists, then it's a bad idea, but experience here and in other countries shows that those who are educated fair better than those who are ignorant.

Let's stop keeping our children in ignorance.  Making a child socially retarded is what should be a crime.
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#133 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 06:31 PM

Rockhound, on Nov 12 2004, 06:24 PM, said:

HM, I follow your line of logic.  Consider this: forget the part about lowering the AoC for the moment...that just muddles this issue.  As to forced BC: knowing that many teens have sex and risk pregnancy...a situation that's increasing...isn't it wise to provide for some sort of preventative?  If we can vaccinate our children against diseases, why not "vaccinate" our females against something that can devastate their lives?  As to those who are implying that I'm sexist, that's a laugh and you need to get a life.  If I were a sexist, I wouldn't suggest BC.  Clear you mind and consider the idea.

It still more than encourages the practice of sex at an age that is inappropriate - and I'm not talking only about for the purposes of age of consent.  My views on this subject are throughout the thread.

Quote

Now, who says that sex need be an adult activity?  If young adults are BCed and properly educated through sex education then what really stops them from enjoying a great activity?  Pregnancy?  See, you're trying to say since a possibility of pregnancy exists, then it's a bad idea, but experience here and in other countries shows that those who are educated fair better than those who are ignorant.

I say so.  If I had a daughter, I'd go to jail on the principle that my daughter is not going to be "vaccinated" against sex when she's not old enough to be having sex.  I have a son.  I am teaching him as best as I can now, before he hits puberty, that some things are more appropriate for adulthood.  Including sex.

And - if you read my opinion closely - I have yet to offer STDs or pregnancy as a reason for kids not to have sex.

Quote

Let's stop keeping our children in ignorance.  Making a child socially retarded is what should be a crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


When the society is ready to deal with this across the board, I'll be willing to discuss it on the subject of sex.  I repeat my earlier opinion that having the discussion of sex being ok at earlier ages before having the discussion of other kinds of adult preparedness happening at earlier ages is morally perverse.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#134 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 06:33 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 12 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

I'm a blue munchkin. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Lil the Smurfette?:eek:

:smurf: :smurf: :smurf: :smurf: :smurf: :smurf:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#135 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 06:34 PM

http://www.heritage....amily/em872.cfm

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#136 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 06:36 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 12 2004, 05:07 PM, said:

Norville I'm disappointed in you.:(  It's a controversial topic to be sure and the subtitle is in questionable taste but if *that's* the new definition of trolling then I'm a blue munchkin.  I was under the impression that this particular part of the forum was designed for topics of this kind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Just so you know...Norville's probably got it for me after MuseZack and I had a pissing contest a couple of weeks back.  Norville PMed me and berated me for it, and I told him what to do with his opinion.  So I guess it's easy to accuse someone you don't like of nasty things...just like it used to be easy to call someone a witch.

I still have that PM, btw.
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#137 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 06:41 PM

Handmaiden07, on Nov 12 2004, 05:31 PM, said:

It still more than encourages the practice of sex at an age that is inappropriate - and I'm not talking only about for the purposes of age of consent.  My views on this subject are throughout the thread.

Yes, and I've read them.  I also respect them, though I don't always agree with them.

Quote

I say so.  If I had a daughter, I'd go to jail on the principle that my daughter is not going to be "vaccinated" against sex when she's not old enough to be having sex.  I have a son.  I am teaching him as best as I can now, before he hits puberty, that some things are more appropriate for adulthood.  Including sex.

And - if you read my opinion closely - I have yet to offer STDs or pregnancy as a reason for kids not to have sex.

That's respectable.  As to the STDs, that's always the stickler, isn't it?  Even someone you go down the aisle with might have one.

Quote

When the society is ready to deal with this across the board, I'll be willing to discuss it on the subject of sex.  I repeat my earlier opinion that having the discussion of sex being ok at earlier ages before having the discussion of other kinds of adult preparedness happening at earlier ages is morally perverse.

What other forms of "adult preparedness" are you talking about?  To me, that's like the argument "why did we invade Iraq when there are other nations with dictators just as bad?"
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#138 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 07:05 PM

The other forms of adult preparedness are the ones that actually allow people to be responsible adult members of society - responsible enough to make decisions about sex, that include thinking about the possibilities of pregnancy, stds, love, morality, etc.  Removing the consequences of sex is NOT the solution - teaching everyone what those consequences are and making available the means of responsibly addressing oneself to those consequences is only part of a solution... making human beings who are fully capable of making those decisions every time they have to make them - that's the majority of what's needed.  I haven't said anything about spirituality yet because I've been trying to be a neutral in this discussion as I can.  That said, I feel strongly that marriage should be something that happens within the confines of a marriage.  BUT - that's a moral choice - one I've had plenty of time to think about, in the context of my adult life, which includes being self-supporting.  Until a child can think about their choices in an adult setting, they are not making adult decisions properly.

Now - why should sex be an adult activity? For the same reason it always was.  It does have consequences.  The decision to make sex as consequence free as possible is not a decision that socially unstunts them - quite the opposite - it perpetuates adolescent attitudes far into adulthood.

HM07

Edited by Handmaiden07, 12 November 2004 - 07:09 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#139 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 07:21 PM

The consequences of sex aren't necessarily adult in nature.  Heck, there's consequences in interacting in public, period.  There are consequences in swimming in a public swimming pool...drinking from a public fountain...using the gym showers...going to a party...etc.
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#140 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 12 November 2004 - 07:32 PM

Rockhound, on Nov 12 2004, 07:21 PM, said:

The consequences of sex aren't necessarily adult in nature.  Heck, there's consequences in interacting in public, period.  There are consequences in swimming in a public swimming pool...drinking from a public fountain...using the gym showers...going to a party...etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Sure.  Now compare the likely consequences.

And again - I mentioned pregnancy & stds in my last post, but I'd much more like to remove those from the table - by the time those are issues, there are issues we've skipped right over without even caring - we haven't paid any attention to the emotional issues inherent in sexual relationships, and we've apparently decided to ignore any moral thought.  

NOW add back in the consequence of pregnancy - which, by the way, for some teenagers is in fact the goal - they aren't trying to avoid pregnancy - they are actively seeking it, or disease.  Let's ask some real questions here.  Why shouldn't a 15 year old girl who wants a baby have one? Why shouldn't a 15 year old boy who wants a son have one?  Why shouldn't a 14 year old who is in love with a 18 year old who has herpes not have willingly have sex with that person in spite of that?  Why shouldn't a 14 year old who wants to marry a 15 year old do that?

We talk about this stuff as if kids only view the world the way we view it for them  - teen pregnancy is a problem.  They don't always see it that way.  WE see it that way because we are adults - we know that they aren't responsible yet, nor can they be sufficiently responsible nor produce sufficient resources to take care of this responsibility that they have taken on.  WE see it that way because WE are the adults responsible for these kids.

HM07

Edited by Handmaiden07, 12 November 2004 - 07:34 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Age of consent, sex, Different States, Law

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users