Age of sexual consent... Is pedophilia real or something we made up?

Pocky-Yoshi said:
snip
Click to expand...
You see, even though I totally agree with you from a moral perspective, a person's morals should have absolutely no effect on the law; that's the whole point of the United States: A country ruled by laws, not people or religion.

Besides, people make shitty decisions anyway. There are already countless teen parents, since age of legal consent only means that an adult can't have intercourse with a minor, but minors can still do it among themselves. That's because age of legal consent laws all over the world are made to prevent pedophilia, nor early pregnancy. Pedophilia, however, is scientifically defined as a fully developed individual feeling sexually attracted or aroused by prepubescent individuals (which usually means anyone younger than 13). This is why teen pregnancy and age of sexual consent are two separate issues.

So, if you want to prevent teens having children, then reform the education system to educate children about sexual topics. This is extremely controversial though, because a) Parents [for some reason] don't think it's appropriate to tell their little babies where they came from, and b) Homosexuality is a very difficult topic to explain in a classroom. But why teach these things in a classroom? Why not leave that to the parents? Well... is that working right now? Hm...
 
Norik said:
Besides, people make shitty decisions anyway. There are already countless teen parents, since age of legal consent only means that an adult can't have intercourse with a minor, but minors can still do it among themselves.
Click to expand...
People are free to make shitty decisions, up to the point that those decisions hurt other people. The point of the law is not to prevent them from doing so. The point of the law is supposed to be to protect people from other people, such as the weak from the strong. For the same reason that usury laws exist to protect you from the savvy of predatory bankers, age of consent laws exist to protect young kids from predation. It's generally thought that it's natural for kids to do it among themselves. For this reason the law is well thought out and accounts for human nature, leaving them free to make "stupid decisions". What the law does accomplish however is to protect them from those they could not physically resist, from those who are not looking to support them but would use their experience to take advantage of them, or those whom they would feel pressured to consent to thanks to an unfair imbalance of power. In any event an arbitrary law avoids a lot of murky hassles. This was obviously creating enough problems back when the law was written that a law was written.

I think your problem is that you're focusing on too late an age. A sixteen year old often looks developed and somewhat understands what they're getting into. Any feelings towards one might just be a vestigial pull towards their fertility. Perhaps laws protecting them are debatably arbitrary, but in many countries like Great Britain that age is legal. A ten year old on the other hand should never be considered fair game by anyone. Much less a five year old. Much less a two year old. At some point the question "does pedophilia exist?" is exposed as inherently obvious and produces an unavoidable answer.

Homosexuality is a very difficult topic to explain in a classroom. But why teach them in a classroom? Why not leave that to the parents? Well... is that working right now? Hm...
Click to expand...
I would think from the progress in rights acquisition it seems to be working alright. Don't ask don't tell is gone, several states have okayed marriage... That ball is rolling along. Isn't it?
 
Ghengis_John said:
I would think from the progress in rights acquisition it seems to be working alright. Don't ask don't tell is gone, several states have okayed marriage... That ball is rolling along. Isn't it?
Click to expand...
I meant sexual education in schools as a whole (given the large amount of teen mothers), but you brought up another important point. If the nonexistent education on sexuality topics is working okay, then why do the majority of states disapprove of gay marriage?
 
Slade said:
I once overheard a girl ask 'Wait, you mean you can still get STDs when you're on the pill?'

Sexual education is fucking terrible in America.[/quote

Y
Click to expand...
ou know? I see these birth control pill commercials every day, and they did say that they don't prevent HIV or STDs.
 
I grew up in another country so I'm gonna have to ask: What do they teach kids in Sex Ed. classes here? Do these classes even exist?
 
It's all abstinence-only or 'abstinence plus' information (despite the fact that we still have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world, which is still increasing).

American sex ed also completely ignores the issue of homosexuality.
 
Norik said:
I grew up in another country so I'm gonna have to ask: What do they teach kids in Sex Ed. classes here? Do these classes even exist?
Click to expand...

Slade said:
It's all abstinence-only or 'abstinence plus' information (despite the fact that we still have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world, which is still increasing).

American sex ed also completely ignores the issue of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Don't listen to him, he's mad a lot.

In California at least, our classes focused on scientific discussion on reproductive organs, what they do, various myths were addressed and dispelled, contraceptive measures were compared and contrasted with their strengths and weaknesses outlined (like spermicidal gel or foam won't stop std's). Other things discussed were std's and their spread, graphic fun photos were shared. Some very odd recommendations were made to us like "you can place pastic wrap over a diseased vagina to safely administer cunnilingus", that sort of thing. We also did talk about sexual identity briefly, the bulk of that though was done in psychology classes. Maybe where slade is from was different. Perhaps they have yet to invent the wheel, but they are probably getting closer every day.

Also I'm pretty sure that teen pregnancy rates are probably higher in places like africa and southeast asia, where teen marriages are the norm.
 
It's creepy. Seems reason enough. I would like to think that my opinion of this is formed due to what society deems abnormal. But I don't feel that way. I kinda feel that subconsciously most human beings have a similar moral code on certain things. Like killing; so I think by majority thought pedophilia is one of them.

And since humanity is a species, we clearly need a woman's prospective on this idea as well. Because right now only cocks are talking. Horny fucks.
 
Ghengis_John said:
Snip
Click to expand...

It really depends on where you are. I've had friends tell me how their sexual education programs went, and TBH they had quite different experiences.

Mine was somewhat similar to yours. They went over reproductive organs/myths, contraception, random tips like your aforementioned one, how to put on a condom, etc.

But sexual identity was nowhere near addressed in sex ed, nor in psychology.

I've also had friends who went through the "ABSTINENCE GUYS" program that Slade mentioned. It's really a case by case basis.
 
Destinizish said:
It really depends on where you are. I've had friends tell me how their sexual education programs went, and TBH they had quite different experiences.

Mine was somewhat similar to yours. They went over reproductive organs/myths, contraception, random tips like your aforementioned one, how to put on a condom, etc.

But sexual identity was nowhere near addressed in sex ed, nor in psychology.

I've also had friends who went through the "ABSTINENCE GUYS" program that Slade mentioned. It's really a case by case basis.
Click to expand...


Here in Texas they do not cover homosexuality at all. Honestly I am glad, because if they did hundreds of ignorant idiots would have a freaking riot in the class. I remember they tried teaching Evolution in biology and everyone just kept shouting "EVOLUTION IS FAKE, JESUS IS REAL".


I hate Texas.

Edit: Also you have to realize that people that still think homosexuality is a choice, are not going to change. Doesnt matter if sex ed tells them, doesnt matter if science tells him, hell Jesus could come back and they would toss him aside because "Jesus would never condone a sin". Ignorant people will forever remain ignorant.
 
Zoidberg747 said:
Edit: Also you have to realize that people that still think homosexuality is a choice, are not going to change. Doesnt matter if sex ed tells them, doesnt matter if science tells him, hell Jesus could come back and they would toss him aside because "Jesus would never condone a sin". Ignorant people will forever remain ignorant.
Click to expand...
The act of homo-sex is a choice. I don't know why you're bringing Jesus into this but, you should know all religions not just Christianity, all of theology condones homosexuality. You can take that however you will, but realize sexuality as whole isn't something overly glorified in religion be it straight or not. Sex is between a husband and his wife, and divorce isn't even supposed to factor into the equation. Monks and nuns are good examples of individuals that choose not to engage in sexuality at all because of their beliefs.

IMO everyone is free to do whatever the hell they want. So even things like incests, I don't see what qualifies one individual to judge another.

However, society dedicates what is the most functional environment that favors the most people.
 
Sett said:
Sex education in UK is how shall I say... gory....
Click to expand...


Only in UK haha

iirc, when I moved to another primary school (catholic) we never had sex education (90's era)

Now, my younger brother is about to move into secondary but a year or so ago they gave his class a DVD about 'sex education', I didn't get the chance to see it...

AZ
 
KingAce said:
The act of homo-sex is a choice. I don't know why you're bringing Jesus into this but, you should know all religions not just Christianity, all of theology condones homosexuality. You can take that however you will, but realize sexuality as whole isn't something overly glorified in religion be it straight or not. Sex is between a husband and his wife, and divorce isn't even supposed to factor into the equation. Monks and nuns are good examples of individuals that choose not to engage in sexuality at all because of their beliefs.

IMO everyone is free to do whatever the hell they want. So even things like incests, I don't see what qualifies one individual to judge another.

However, society dedicates what is the most functional environment that favors the most people.
Click to expand...

Gay sex is a choice. Being attracted to males exclusively, isn't.

Though I'll stop there, as I really don't want to get into "is it a choice?" Because really, it's been done, and there's no reason to go into that. All that will result is an e-argument in which neither of us changes our mind, but we both walk away thinking the other party is stupid.

However, you should also know that not every religion condemns* homosexuality. Hell, there are several places where homosexual acts are part of the culture. In some of these, the men/women don't even consider themselves homosexual.

But to be honest, your representation of sex within religion is entirely too simplified. Especially considering you mentioned monks/nuns. Sex and Catholicism do not mix, and while you're right that they are chaste, I don't think you understand Catholic teaching. Sex wasn't really even a great thing to have for a married couple. Catholicism itself is rather bleak.

Zoidberg747 said:
Edit: Also you have to realize that people that still think homosexuality is a choice, are not going to change. Doesnt matter if sex ed tells them, doesnt matter if science tells him, hell Jesus could come back and they would toss him aside because "Jesus would never condone a sin". Ignorant people will forever remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that people would change. They don't have to, TBH, because once it becomes a societal norm, those who think such will be stamped out as new generations are born into that society.

I was only stating that Sex ed courses vary pretty heavily depending on location.
 
Gay sex is a choice. Being attracted to males exclusively, isn't.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Destinizish said:
However, you should also know that not every religion condemns* homosexuality. Hell, there are several places where homosexual acts are part of the culture. In some of these, the men/women don't even consider themselves homosexual.
Click to expand...
I am specifically talking monotheistic religions. The major ones. You have to be specific. Most major religion are pretty fundamentally similar.
But to be honest, your representation of sex within religion is entirely too simplified. Especially considering you mentioned monks/nuns. Sex and Catholicism do not mix, and while you're right that they are chaste, I don't think you understand Catholic teaching. Sex wasn't really even a great thing to have for a married couple. Catholicism itself is rather bleak.
Click to expand...
Christianity is divided into many sects, but the initial fundamental doctrines are what matter. So I would say as far as I know sex between married couples is for the purpose of birth not for indulgence. But you can modify your religion to whatever you want, for example mass murder(despite the premise "do not kill")
 
KingAce said:
I am specifically talking monotheistic religions. The major ones. You have to be specific. Most major religion are pretty fundamentally similar.
Click to expand...

Monotheistic religions aren't the only "majors." Hinduism is still alive and thriving, for example.

KingAce said:
Christianity is divided into many sects, but the initial fundamental doctrines are what matter. So I would say as far as I know sex between married couples is for the purpose of birth not for indulgence. But you can modify your religion to whatever you want, for example mass murder(despite the premise "do not kill")
Click to expand...

Catholicism and Christianity kind of made a pretty big split. If we want to talk about Catholic roots (which is where we get Monks/Nuns, we're talking about a time when the act of sex itself was unholy. Not only that, the institution of marriage itself denied you from being holy. (A wife was not as holy as a non-wife, for example.) However, someone who was unwed and didn't join the church was deemed even less holy. And once you were a wife, you were expected to give up your body, and have sex. So pretty much, it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with many layers.

This is what I mean by your view is a little simplified. Marriage itself wasn't considered holy. So trying to trace back bigotry as far as homosexuality is concerned to marriage is a little silly. It had nothing to do with marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back