God grants one ability to consent on the 6575th day. Well, in the US at least. It is settled. What are we even discussing??
"Alternative Facts": Trump's War on the Media
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
God grants one ability to consent on the 6575th day. Well, in the US at least. It is settled. What are we even discussing??
Information and openness is often the best remedy. As far as the issue at hand, I don't think it's black and white. At least not from the same angle you're approaching it. But I wouldn't want to waste your time.
As far as the man himself, ya, he's a troll. But a troll with millions of admirers. So he is successful at getting the attention of both friend and foe. I pay a little bit of attention to him because he's one of the few people whose opinions don't bore the **** out of me. Although I do think he's wrong on most things.
His opinions bore the **** out of me. I would never hear about them if it wasnt blasted all over the place when he says something "shocking" that he doesnt believe in or even care about.
I meant debating with someone who thinks having sex with kids is okay and we should allow it for adults or that kids should be able to consent. Its not worth a debate with those people. I am not changing my mind on that. I understand there is some grey area with an 18 year old and someone relatively close in age that is younger. My wife worked for a long time at the Provo Children Justice Center I have got to go to a lot of conferences and read a lot of material and have heard many many different arguments on this subject.
But nobody said anything about children. Not prepubescent ones that is. He said that anyone who's undergone puberty should be able to have sex with whoever they want. He also described a sexual experience he had as a teenager as "positive and loving".
It is an interesting discussion, and it is unfortunate that it can't be had without people losing their ****.
I didn't read his actual comments. I just read the headline and didn't care to read more, so my bad. I still feel the same though. Based on everything I have seen and read there are detrimental effects of teenagers having sex with adults. I know 18 is arbitrary but you have to have a cut off date. Is also not like there isn't a much bigger gap. 16 year olds can have sex in Utah with up to 26 year olds and 17 up to 27. They are hard cut off dates but I think they are fairly liberal. I think sex in general is too taboo but is a discussion for consenting adults. Americans need to be more sexually free or at the very least be able to talk about it openly and not in silly childish ways.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
World-wide across time or just in western culture?
Western culture, but I would guess the negative effects apply to any developed countries.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Let me ask you this, the professor who was head of the Anthropology department when I was in college did her major work in age of puberty averages in girls (I think the mark given was first menstruation) I believe across just Utah and how and why they had dropped over the years (I think the work was done in the 90s. Basically, girls now, or at least during the course of her research, are hitting puberty much, much faster then, say, 20 years prior. Should consent, then, be determined based on that and lowered?
Would a developed matrilineal society have a need for age of consent? What if a culture favored a Hugh Hefner type relationship, like India for example, that wasn't based on caste and dowry? What about a theoretical culture that doesn't shun and taboo sexuality like western society has? These are the questioned that could be researched, or at least opined upon by experts in such matters. Kind of bringing it back on topic, these aren't really questions that those in the alt-right would be considered experts on.
I do agree that with western culture the way it is, it absolutely detrimental for people in teenage range to be sexually active, culturally, socially, and psychologically. Doesn't mean it's universal, though.
I don't understand. So teenagers are harmed by sex with adults if they're under 18 and the difference is 10 years or more, but they're enriched by it otherwise? What's the basis of this weird mathematical function?
I understand the social conservatives perspective on sex. It is bad (even if they pretend that they don't feel that way), so they have a million rules about it. But I never understood the mainstream liberal perspective. We either accept that consensual sex is fine, and that anyone interested should have full access to relevant knowledge to enjoy it on their own terms, or it isn't, and it should be controlled. I don't understand this "it's only good if these rules are met, but it is disastrous otherwise", specially when all the rules are utterly arbitrary.
I thought we were going to have a conversation about the nature of consent and the effect the burden society places on sexuality vs the effect of actually having sex. I've had this conversation with a lot of people. It is an interesting one. I'm glad Milo (I call him by his first name cause I can't spell his last without looking it up), brought it up. It is a very neglected subject.
Tell me what you think, that's a better place for a conversation. I don't really like having hypothetical conversations/ what about this or let me see what ways I can poke holes in something. It's just silly.
I don't think the needs to be any rules except consent. I don't think it's consensual sex for a teenager to have sex with an adult. If sex is consensual, go for it. I don't think kids have an ability to consent. Yes that age might arbitrary but limits have to be set somewhere. Also if less are in place and everyone knows them then there is no excuse. It's not some magical math equation it's simply getting its protecting people who need protection and a line has to be drawn.
[/URL]
Last edited:
I think hitting puberty has very little to do with consent. Brain development and maturity to make good decisions is a much larger factor. Brains are not fully developed in teenagers and in our society (really any developed countries society) teenagers are not mature enough to make good decisions especially with an adult manipulating them. Depsite what they think is a good choice. Hitting puberty earlier is more of a reason to help set up laws to protect those that cannot consent but have urges and are easily manipulated.
I am less concerned about other societies and cultures. Those are fine things to look into and see. I have no problem with any kind of sexual situation or relationship among consenting adults. I have many friends in unique situations relationship wise. I go to burning man every year, I am pretty comfortable with sex and different things within it. I think the way we handle sex in our society is silly and damaging. I think we protect kids from learning about sex. We for some reason have a need to hide peoples bodies especially from kids. I think there is nothing wrong with kids seeing naked people, assuming their parents have prepared and taught them. Being more open about sex and less conservative would lead to less rape, less molesting, less statutory rape and help with a lot of problems in our society. The puritanical ideas this country were founded on have a lot of bad effects on society. I dont think setting an age of consent is one of those bad things. Frankly I think it should be higher.
DutchJazzer
Banned
it looked like it for a second, but then the distrust for media setled in.
just like they called pewdiepie a nazi, and now milo a pedo. for a moment the doubt set in. sure some rinos started ragging on him, but they never supported him in the first place.
people are back on the milo bandwagon from what i see!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...press-briefing-hours-after-trump-slams-media/
W.H blocked CNN, Politico, Buzzfeed, LA Times and the New York Times from a press briefing.
AP and Times boycotted in response. WSJ claims that they were not aware at the time or they would have joined the boycott.
That's to far IMO. I don't support it.
Edit: When this was tried with Fox News under Obama other networks pushed back. Openly challenging why it was appropriate for the W.H. to determine who is or is not news. Other networks stopped doing interviews where Fox was prohibited.
The is terrible and a direct challenge to freedom of speech IMO. One of 3 main areas that had me worried over this new administration.
W.H blocked CNN, Politico, Buzzfeed, LA Times and the New York Times from a press briefing.
AP and Times boycotted in response. WSJ claims that they were not aware at the time or they would have joined the boycott.
That's to far IMO. I don't support it.
Edit: When this was tried with Fox News under Obama other networks pushed back. Openly challenging why it was appropriate for the W.H. to determine who is or is not news. Other networks stopped doing interviews where Fox was prohibited.
The is terrible and a direct challenge to freedom of speech IMO. One of 3 main areas that had me worried over this new administration.