• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

NP Monday, Apr 15, 2019

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
On 5/4/2019 at 6:19 AM, hkmaly said:

No, because in such cases the outcome could be death or serious injury of both the drunk driver and basically anyone else.

So the only difference is that in rape, the victim is the only one whose life is put in danger?  Pregnancy and its complications, sexually transmitted disease, violence used to subdue, psychological trauma , societal isolation....not to mention the rapist's lawyers dragging her name through the mud trying to convince a jury that she was too slutty to believe it could possibly be rape....so you can add suicide to the list....  Gosh, I guess if the one committing the crime isn't also in danger, you're saying that makes it *less* serious?

... the idea was that the risk is usually sex, not rape, especially not violent one. You are talking about worst cases which rarely happen. On the other hand, we did decided that acceptable number of deaths by drunk driving is zero, so it's hard to argue why it shouldn't be zero in case of drunk sex ... I guess you win this argument.

Note however, that I don't believe societal isolation is necessary result of sex. Seriously, WHY our society works so hard on traumatizing girls who had sex? Especially in case of rape, where the trauma from rape itself should be enough. Maybe, when you are proposing big changes like outlawing drunk sex, you could work on this as well.

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

(Also, still, while driving drunk is crime basically everywhere, there are still discussions about allowing small amount of alcohol.)

There are debates about what level of alcohol consumption equals impairment.  The more studies are done, the more effect is found from even small amounts of alcohol.  The criteria has gone from being able to walk straight, to lower and lower levels of alcohol in the blood, as we learn more about what is and isn't safe.  So, can we at least agree that if you're too drunk to drive a car safely, you're too impaired to consent to sex?

Actually, I don't and I think you have pretty skewed ideas about how much concentration is required on safe driving. For start, while driving, you often have less than second to react, I don't think you need to be this fast for rejecting sex.

I'm less sure about walking straight.

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Don't lock up the ones who engage in risky behavior and become victims, lock up the ones who commit the crimes against them.  It's no different from a man walking home drunk from a bar who gets mugged.  The fact that he was drunk doesn't make it okay to mug him.  The fact that a woman is drunk doesn't make it okay to rape her.  The mugger and rapist should both go to jail, whether they were themselves intoxicated when they committed the crimes or not.

The problem is that you automatically assume that sex is something which man takes from woman. That's not true. It's easy to see someone was mugged, because the victim has less money and the one who committed crime has more. It's not so simple with sex. There usually isn't any physical evidence for anything else than that the sex happened. Yet you specifically said that a WOMAN being drunk doesn't make ok to rape her ... as if man being drunk would make ok to rape him.

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Likewise, being young and rebellious is not an excuse to commit rape.

I never said that.

I would really like if the young and rebellious had something else to rebel against than actual laws. Way to rebel which would not include committing crime.

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

(Although it would be serious problem with my idea if the age teenagers are most rebellious might be BEFORE the ideal age for pregnancy, which seems quite likely ...)

Yes, teen pregnancy starts as young as ten years old, and peaks at 18-19, ages at which they are still prone to medical complications, as well as social and emotional ones.  (I say peaks because it drops off at 20-24, not technically a teen anymore but still in the college age group we were discussing.)

The teen pregnancy peaking at 18-19 is good. Should be the same as the age with minimal amount of medical complication. In worst case, the age with lowest amount of medical complications for teen pregnancy is 19 (because at 20 she's not teen anymore).

Now, we should move the left of that peak to higher ages. Ten is definitely not good age for pregnancy, no matter if we consider the amount of medical complication or anything else.

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

The direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects starts definitely before age 30. Women who successfully remained virgins during education usually postpone the pregnancy well past that.

Not necessarily.  Waiting until college graduation is usually age 22, assuming four years of undergrad and no skipped grades.  I graduated vet school at 25.  (And one of my classmates went into labor with one baby during finals our first year, and was due any minute with her second at our graduation ceremony, not exactly relevant but not exactly not, either. ;-)

During education, you have relatively lot of free time and lot of people your age around. Ideal opportunity to start relationships. After education, you are supposed to start working. You will have much less free time, the stress of new environment, and there will be less people around you and even less in your age.

So, it would be ideal for girls to start relationship during their last education step and after graduation be far enough in pregnancy noone would consider weird she won't start working. Of course, not everyone goes to college/university ... and it's hard to time relationship so perfectly ...

The moment the girl ... well I guess she would be already woman at such point ... starts working, the pressure on her to postpone pregnancy more would rise. For her employer, the ideal time when she should get pregnant is never.

11 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

Also, especially in US, I think the major cause for high amount of STI is low sexual education, namely that teenagers are not being told enough about condoms. On the other hand, in context of alcohol use, I have some doubts that two drunk people are able to 1) remember to put condom on 2) actually do it correctly.

I agree that we need a lot more education, preferably about all different forms of birth control and disease prevention.  Discussing issues like emotional commitment and risks, variations of attraction and expression, safe sex and safewords, etc. would be great, too, while we're at it.

I think there is already enough about commitment and too much of sex education is "don't", which makes no sense. I agree with the rest, though. The most important thing to say about BDSM is not "that's perverse" - that's not even true. The most important thing is "establish a safeword".

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

And, being too drunk to operate a condom is another sign of being too drunk to give consent.

Actually that sounds like quite solid criterion. Better than walking straight. Anyone arguing that it's good idea to have drunk sex without condom is obviously soo drunk they shouldn't have sex at all. At least not penetrative sex, I guess we could allow them some caressing and kissing.

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

And regarding lower education levels and poverty, I think that's not caused by pregnancy but by how the society (and her parents) reacts to teenage mother.

There are practical reasons.  Any new parent will tell you having a baby is exhausting, physically and emotionally.  Unless they go to a high school with a nursery, child care often forces kids to drop out.  Except, of course, the rich ones, who would traditionally be sent on a Grand Tour of Europe until the embarrassing situation was resolved and the baby safely adopted out, at which point they'd return to school and try to pretend they'd had a grand adventure.

Which I don't think to make sense. If they are so rich, they should be rich enough for nanny. Also, having child shouldn't be embarrassing.

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Meanwhile, the poor girl's family either kicks her out or drains their meager college fund paying for diapers and onesies instead of tuition, and the girl ends up having to get a job to support herself and her offspring instead of going back to school once that might be possible.  Lower education level plus extra expenses equals lower income and less savings, equals worse poverty.

I hope you are not arguing being poor is valid excuse for kicking your child out when she needs you most. Also, this might be case where little more socialism - I mean support from state - wouldn't hurt. It's in no one's interest for someone clever enough to college not finishing it.

In other words, exactly the "how the society and her parents reacts to teenage mother". She needs help, not punishment. And the baby shouldn't be punished either.

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

That suggests the parties teenagers are visiting are not major part of the problem, no matter how drunk they get there.

It is if that's where the young girls meet the older guys.  Inexperienced high schoolers being invited to a college party where there's handsome older college boys and booze, and possibly some guys who are out of college, the young girls feel flattered, like they're being seen as grown-ups and desirable, even if they are naive and only pictured kissing those older men, not going any farther.  And, again, one drink leads to lowered judgement leads to more drinks, until they're too drunk to consent but prime targets for those who don't care about such things.

Oh. Ok, that's not what I imagined those teenage parties. For start, those out-of-college boys will hardly still be teenagers. Also, sounds less like lottery and more like "every year I get more experience and bigger advantage over fresh girls".

It's one thing to not ask about age on party. It's another to deliberately invite guests in way which makes average age for girls lower than average age for boys.

Waaait ... while in many countries teenager aged 18 or 19 can legally buy alcohol, in US the limit is 21. Isn't it also illegal to sell them alcohol? Shouldn't be?

On the other hand, if it would help reduce situations like this, maybe the limit should be lowered.

Like, it shouldn't be easier for 23 years old non-relative to get drunk with teenager than for two teenagers to get drunk together.

12 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

... damn ... we are getting not just offtopic but dangerously so, don't we?

Eh, it's kind of nice to see an intelligent, ernest discussion of an important topic, especially as the boards seemed a bit slow lately.  :-)

I just hope moderators wouldn't see any problem with that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... the idea was that the risk is usually sex, not rape, especially not violent one. You are talking about worst cases which rarely happen.

Cases which happen all too often, and are, sadly, far from the worst case.  (Incestuous abuse, for example....)  And if the sex is without valid consent, then that *is* rape.  

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note however, that I don't believe societal isolation is necessary result of sex. Seriously, WHY our society works so hard on traumatizing girls who had sex? Especially in case of rape, where the trauma from rape itself should be enough. Maybe, when you are proposing big changes like outlawing drunk sex, you could work on this as well.

Humanity has been working on it.  There's a lot more awareness of the problem, which is the first step in fixing it.  Considering that we're coming from women-as-chattle, to laws which said a woman couldn't be raped by her husband because she was not allowed to withhold consent (which were still the law until surprisingly recently), I'm hoping that we'll continue to improve, despite the setback of the hundreds of ultraconservative judges put on the bench for life in the last couple of years....

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Actually, I don't and I think you have pretty skewed ideas about how much concentration is required on safe driving. For start, while driving, you often have less than second to react, I don't think you need to be this fast for rejecting sex.

I'm less sure about walking straight.

If you're not ever sure that someone who can't walk straight is too impaired to give valid consent, I'm not sure we're ever going to agree.  And the biggest sign of poor judgement in a drunk driving case is the very fact that the person got into a car and started driving when impaired!  If you're drunk enough to think that's a good idea,  that *proves* you're not making safe choices.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The problem is that you automatically assume that sex is something which man takes from woman. That's not true. It's easy to see someone was mugged, because the victim has less money and the one who committed crime has more. It's not so simple with sex. There usually isn't any physical evidence for anything else than that the sex happened.

That's because I'm talking there about the real world.  In the real world, the power imbalance is almost always an older man pressuring a younger woman/girl into having sex with him.  And we're not talking about whether there's *proof* a crime was committed, we're talking about whether a crime *was* committed.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yet you specifically said that a WOMAN being drunk doesn't make ok to rape her ... as if man being drunk would make ok to rape him.

Now you're just deliberately trying to twist what I said, and it doesn't speak well for your position that you're resorting to rhetorical manipulations like that.  Again, real world here, men rape women vastly more often than any of the other possible combinations, so that's the example it's most useful to talk about, but I would have thought *all* rape being evil would go without saying.  Apparently I actually need to say it here or you'll try to imply I'm saying otherwise: what I'm saying applies to anyone raping anyone.  No loopholes, it's evil.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I never said that.

That being young and rebellious is an excuse to commit rape?  Well, your argument seems to be that having sex with someone who's drunk is somehow a normal teenage rebellion and thus okay.  I'm saying that committing this crime is still a crime, and youthful rebellion is not an excuse as the vast majority of teens manage to rebel *without* taking advantage of someone else's impairment to have sex with them without their consent, ie rape them.  "Kids are gonna do it anyway" is not a valid reason to say it's okay fir them to commit a crime, because *not* all kids do it, just like not all kids sell drugs or mug people.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I would really like if the young and rebellious had something else to rebel against than actual laws. Way to rebel which would not include committing crime.

I'd really like for them to rebel without committing crimes, too.  The difference here is, you seem to be saying that the answer is to just say that what they're doing isn't a crime, instead of working on keeping the crime from happening.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The teen pregnancy peaking at 18-19 is good. Should be the same as the age with minimal amount of medical complication. In worst case, the age with lowest amount of medical complications for teen pregnancy is 19 (because at 20 she's not teen anymore).

But it *isn't* the age with the least medical complications.  Saying "after that, they're not teens anymore" doesn't mean "hey, they'd better hurry up and get pregnant now before they aren't teenagers anymore."  That's ridiculous.  They should look at their own situation, level of maturity, financial status, etc. and the fact that, medically, their own bodies aren't done maturing until about age 24, and pregnancy before that is higher risk than waiting until they're done growing up themselves before they take on the obligation and commitment of spending the next ninteen years minimum being 100% responsible for the health, well-being, safety, and safe maturation of another human being.

(And if you're talking about having children you're usually talking about having more than one, so add several more years on to that.)

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Now, we should move the left of that peak to higher ages. Ten is definitely not good age for pregnancy, no matter if we consider the amount of medical complication or anything else.

Do we even have to address whether it's wrong for children to be having sex, let alone becoming pregnant and taking on responsibility for the life of another human being?

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

During education, you have relatively lot of free time and lot of people your age around. Ideal opportunity to start relationships. After education, you are supposed to start working. You will have much less free time, the stress of new environment, and there will be less people around you and even less in your age.

So, it would be ideal for girls to start relationship during their last education step and after graduation be far enough in pregnancy noone would consider weird she won't start working.

You seem to think we're talking about a couple of years here.  Becoming a parent means raising the child, not just having them, and that takes eighteen years plus ten months pregnant.  It's the biggest responsibility a person can take on.  A person with a career and some experience with shouldering lesser responsibilities is far more capable of doing a good job at it than someone who hasn't even finished growing up themselves.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The moment the girl ... well I guess she would be already woman at such point ... starts working, the pressure on her to postpone pregnancy more would rise. For her employer, the ideal time when she should get pregnant is never.

As if that should be the sole consideration.  How about at the other end of it, when a woman is now thirty-seven, and ninteen years out of date in what she learned way back when she was in school, and now she's trying to get a job now that she's finished raising those kids you were so eager for her to have at eighteen.  What employer is going to find her a more ideal hire than someone who's up to date and full of energy and enthusiasm?  Might as well not bother with her going to school before having those kids, then she could start making babies at fourteen, there's always time for high school later....oh, no, you want women to go to college so they can find a husband, that's right....

Or do you mean for her to enter the workforce when her kids enter school?  Pregnant at eighteen, two or three kids so another seven or eight years, now you've got a woman who is both several years out of date and has school-age kids who will demand her time and attention, who is an unknown quantity who, like any new hire, may or may not work out, may or may not stick to this career.  If you're strictly talking about what's best for an employer, wouldn't it be to hire someone just out of school, who can devote themselves to learning the ropes, figure out if this is the career for them and have some self-confidence and commitment, and who doesn't start having children until they've got some experience at the job and has the hang of it, and can thus divide their time more effectively without their job suffering as much? 

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I think there is already enough about commitment and too much of sex education is "don't", which makes no sense. I agree with the rest, though.

Pushing abstinance is not the same as talking about the emotional impact sex and relationships can will have, and how to make sure a relationship is a healthy one.  Telling kids "don't do this fun thing" is a lot less effective than giving them the tools to make good choices on their own.  The most important tool is believing in themselves, in their own self-worth and abilities, that there's so much more they can do than just finding a guy willing to have them and start making babies.  Then you teach them how to protect themselves if/when they do make that decision, with real, accurate information, not a bunch of scare tactics.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The most important thing to say about BDSM is not "that's perverse" - that's not even true. The most important thing is "establish a safeword".

Of course!  Again, I would hope this would go without saying.  "Kinky" hasn't been a diagnosis for a long time now, they got it out of the DSM shortly after getting "homosexuality" out of there, too.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Which I don't think to make sense. If they are so rich, they should be rich enough for nanny. Also, having child shouldn't be embarrassing.

Again, real world vs ideal world.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I hope you are not arguing being poor is valid excuse for kicking your child out when she needs you most. Also, this might be case where little more socialism - I mean support from state - wouldn't hurt. It's in no one's interest for someone clever enough to college not finishing it.

Here you go, trying to twist what I say again.  Of course kicking your kid out is wrong.  We were talking about financial realities there -- either the girl (or couple) are kicked out in their own, which is horrible but might save the parents' tenuous grasp on solvency, or her paernts support her and the baby financially, which is a huge burden and likely destroys any chance they had of getting out of poverty.  And it would take a lot more socialism to give everyone aproper safety net, to allow the young mom, or young mom and dad, to stay in school and keep everyone well fed and healthy.  Which I am wholeheartedly in favor of, but we're not there yet.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

In other words, exactly the "how the society and her parents reacts to teenage mother". She needs help, not punishment. And the baby shouldn't be punished either.

Wholehearted agreement here.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Oh. Ok, that's not what I imagined those teenage parties. For start, those out-of-college boys will hardly still be teenagers. Also, sounds less like lottery and more like "every year I get more experience and bigger advantage over fresh girls".

It's one thing to not ask about age on party. It's another to deliberately invite guests in way which makes average age for girls lower than average age for boys.

That is, nevertheless, the most typical situation for teen pregnancies.  Underaged girl, older guy.  Average is something like early twenties.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Waaait ... while in many countries teenager aged 18 or 19 can legally buy alcohol, in US the limit is 21. Isn't it also illegal to sell them alcohol? Shouldn't be?

It's illegal to give them alcohol except if you're their parent, let alone sell it to them.  And it's illegal for a teen to give it to another teen after their parent gave it to them, no loophole there.  Doesn't mean teens don't get ahold if it anyway, usually either by going to parties where someone is providung alcohol, or getting into their parents' booze.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

On the other hand, if it would help reduce situations like this, maybe the limit should be lowered.

Like, it shouldn't be easier for 23 years old non-relative to get drunk with teenager than for two teenagers to get drunk together.

Again, you seem to be saying, this bad thing is against the law, let's change the law so that it's not illegal instead of trying to keep the bad thing from happening in the first place.  Children shouldn't be getting drunk and having sex.  Wherever you think the cut-off should be, I'm pretty sure you don't think ten-year-olds should be getting drunk and having sex, and wherever the line is, someone is going to cross it.  The question is, what do we do with the situation when someone does?  Do we say, oh well, kids will be kids, and let it happen, or do we do what we can to protect children, from themselves and from predators? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Humanity has been working on it.  There's a lot more awareness of the problem, which is the first step in fixing it.  Considering that we're coming from women-as-chattle, to laws which said a woman couldn't be raped by her husband because she was not allowed to withhold consent (which were still the law until surprisingly recently), I'm hoping that we'll continue to improve, despite the setback of the hundreds of ultraconservative judges put on the bench for life in the last couple of years....

Again, real world here, men rape women vastly more often than any of the other possible combinations, so that's the example it's most useful to talk about, but I would have thought *all* rape being evil would go without saying.  Apparently I actually need to say it here or you'll try to imply I'm saying otherwise: what I'm saying applies to anyone raping anyone.  No loopholes, it's evil.

It seems also that our society has an attitude that a man can not be raped by a woman because no heterosexual male would ever wish to withhold consent for a sex act with a "non-ugly" woman, or alternatively that no man worthy of respect is wimpy enough to submit to a woman's coercion. Yes, well over eighty percent of rape incidents are perpetrated by males, but that does not mean that we should say that "woman rapes man" is nonexistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ijuin said:

It seems also that our society has an attitude that a man can not be raped by a woman because no heterosexual male would ever wish to withhold consent for a sex act with a "non-ugly" woman, or alternatively that no man worthy of respect is wimpy enough to submit to a woman's coercion. Yes, well over eighty percent of rape incidents are perpetrated by males, but that does not mean that we should say that "woman rapes man" is nonexistent.

I remember this one movie "40 days and 40 nights" where the main character gives up sex (any forms, including mastubation) for lent after a really bad break up with his girlfriend. During the course of the movie, not only does he fall in love with another girl and have to find other ways to romance her, but the vow gets a lot of attention from his friends and other people who apparent make it their life goal of sabotaging him. At one point, the main character asks one of his friends to tie his hands to the bed to ensure he doesn't give in and masturbate, and then while sleeping, a girl (I can't remember if it was the ex, or if it was someone else that had their eyes on the main character) gets into his room and has sex with him which causes him to freak out when he wakes up to see her on top of him. The big problem with that scene was that was a case of a woman raping a man, but it's not followed up as such, there was no consent from the man, she took advantage of the position he was in, and yet no charges were laid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
On 5/5/2019 at 9:18 AM, hkmaly said:

... the idea was that the risk is usually sex, not rape, especially not violent one. You are talking about worst cases which rarely happen.

Cases which happen all too often, and are, sadly, far from the worst case.  (Incestuous abuse, for example....)  And if the sex is without valid consent, then that *is* rape.  

I still think that rape requires intent and is not completely synonymous to sex without consent. To use another disgusting example, I don't believe necrophilia involves rape, while it definitely is sex without consent. Unless, like, the consent would be obtained with seance, of course.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Humanity has been working on it.  There's a lot more awareness of the problem, which is the first step in fixing it.  Considering that we're coming from women-as-chattle, to laws which said a woman couldn't be raped by her husband because she was not allowed to withhold consent (which were still the law until surprisingly recently), I'm hoping that we'll continue to improve, despite the setback of the hundreds of ultraconservative judges put on the bench for life in the last couple of years....

I actually suspect that it got derailed into shaming BOTH genders for sex instead of stop shaming girls. Which is NOT good. Although there are still steps made in mostly right direction, so hopefully ...

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

I'm less sure about walking straight.

If you're not ever sure that someone who can't walk straight is too impaired to give valid consent, I'm not sure we're ever going to agree.  And the biggest sign of poor judgement in a drunk driving case is the very fact that the person got into a car and started driving when impaired!  If you're drunk enough to think that's a good idea,  that *proves* you're not making safe choices.

Note that my uncertainty is related to the fact I'm not sure how hard is to walk straight. Walking mostly involves balance and quick reaction, which is not directly related to making safe choices, and while alcohol obviously affects both, I'm not sure about the ratio.

Now, the classical example of person who considers good idea to drive BECAUSE he's too drunk to walk, that is DEFINITELY too drunk to consent.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

The problem is that you automatically assume that sex is something which man takes from woman. That's not true. It's easy to see someone was mugged, because the victim has less money and the one who committed crime has more. It's not so simple with sex. There usually isn't any physical evidence for anything else than that the sex happened.

That's because I'm talking there about the real world.  In the real world, the power imbalance is almost always an older man pressuring a younger woman/girl into having sex with him.  And we're not talking about whether there's *proof* a crime was committed, we're talking about whether a crime *was* committed.

Almost always is not enough for law. Almost all numbers are irrational. Also, your almost always is probably less than 99%, while you can get as many irrational numbers for single rational one as you want.

And there may be another problem: I believe that crime requires intent, or mens rea in law latin. Now, it's not necessary to read mind of the criminal, and there is the criminal negligence, however we need to think about intent when talking about whether a crime was committed.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

Yet you specifically said that a WOMAN being drunk doesn't make ok to rape her ... as if man being drunk would make ok to rape him.

Now you're just deliberately trying to twist what I said, and it doesn't speak well for your position that you're resorting to rhetorical manipulations like that.  Again, real world here, men rape women vastly more often than any of the other possible combinations, so that's the example it's most useful to talk about, but I would have thought *all* rape being evil would go without saying.  Apparently I actually need to say it here or you'll try to imply I'm saying otherwise: what I'm saying applies to anyone raping anyone.  No loopholes, it's evil.

No, I'm just trying really hard to explain to you that you can't propose a law which would BY DESIGN punish innocents just because it would punish guilty more often. Now, when APPLYING the law we must accept that sometimes innocent is punished, but it should be result of imperfect application, not the design.

BTW, I don't think all those accusation you throw on me are speaks well for your position either. But I assure you I'm trying to debate the issue, not you, and if I fail in attempt to illustrate a point it's not deliberate.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Well, your argument seems to be that having sex with someone who's drunk is somehow a normal teenage rebellion and thus okay.

I'm saying that it's a normal teenage rebellion to get so drunk your decision making is impaired. Now, if someone who can still think clearly takes advantage of person this drunk, it's rape. If, however, both are teenagers and both are this drunk, and despite how drunk they are the sex still happens (although them just falling unconscious is more likely at such point) then it's not.

There is sort of gray zone if you may be drunk enough to not consent and yet "sober" enough to have criminal intent to commit rape, however I think that it takes experience to stop drinking inside this zone.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:

and the fact that, medically, their own bodies aren't done maturing until about age 24

Really? I'm serious here, I don't have the medical data but, like, wikipedia talks about puberty ending around 16-17.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

Now, we should move the left of that peak to higher ages. Ten is definitely not good age for pregnancy, no matter if we consider the amount of medical complication or anything else.

Do we even have to address whether it's wrong for children to be having sex, let alone becoming pregnant and taking on responsibility for the life of another human being?

Depends on your definition of children. With normal definition of children, it's not necessary, however I find hard to consider someone who's 18 to be child, and the same is true for most laws in most countries.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

So, it would be ideal for girls to start relationship during their last education step and after graduation be far enough in pregnancy noone would consider weird she won't start working.

You seem to think we're talking about a couple of years here.  Becoming a parent means raising the child, not just having them, and that takes eighteen years plus ten months pregnant.  It's the biggest responsibility a person can take on.  A person with a career and some experience with shouldering lesser responsibilities is far more capable of doing a good job at it than someone who hasn't even finished growing up themselves.

Is that really necessary? I mean, sure, it how it usually works in western society, but it may be one of many cases where we go against the "nature". Maybe the parents of those fresh parents should be more involved.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

The moment the girl ... well I guess she would be already woman at such point ... starts working, the pressure on her to postpone pregnancy more would rise. For her employer, the ideal time when she should get pregnant is never.

As if that should be the sole consideration.  How about at the other end of it, when a woman is now thirty-seven, and ninteen years out of date in what she learned way back when she was in school, and now she's trying to get a job now that she's finished raising those kids you were so eager for her to have at eighteen.  What employer is going to find her a more ideal hire than someone who's up to date and full of energy and enthusiasm?  Might as well not bother with her going to school before having those kids, then she could start making babies at fourteen, there's always time for high school later....oh, no, you want women to go to college so they can find a husband, that's right....

Or do you mean for her to enter the workforce when her kids enter school?  Pregnant at eighteen, two or three kids so another seven or eight years, now you've got a woman who is both several years out of date and has school-age kids who will demand her time and attention, who is an unknown quantity who, like any new hire, may or may not work out, may or may not stick to this career.  If you're strictly talking about what's best for an employer, wouldn't it be to hire someone just out of school, who can devote themselves to learning the ropes, figure out if this is the career for them and have some self-confidence and commitment, and who doesn't start having children until they've got some experience at the job and has the hang of it, and can thus divide their time more effectively without their job suffering as much? 

I'm saying that what the employer wants seem to be in direct conflict with what the child needs. And that our society might be doing mistake when it considers the employer interest to be so important.

Now, "learning the ropes" sounds as something which should be done before children, but in highly technical fields this may take longer than you expect. And in many cases, women goes directly from "learning the ropes" to "building the career", which will DEFINITELY take dangerously long and will result in higher risk for the child if she waits with having it for afterwards.

Of course, this all seem to assume that it's the mother which will does most of the child raising. Which seem to be usually the case in our society ... but if we want it to be the case, we need to recognize that the mothers are doing hard work of raising new people, give them credit for that and allow them to combine job and the child raising more easily.

Because there is also the other extreme, where the woman postpones the CHILD to thirty-seven (and it's the FIRST child and she may want two or three), resulting in significantly higher risk of birth defects, and means that she will be doing the hard work of raising the child until she's sixty, when she no longer had the energy and enthusiasm for it.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

I think there is already enough about commitment and too much of sex education is "don't", which makes no sense. I agree with the rest, though.

Pushing abstinance is not the same as talking about the emotional impact sex and relationships can will have, and how to make sure a relationship is a healthy one.  Telling kids "don't do this fun thing" is a lot less effective than giving them the tools to make good choices on their own.

Telling kids "don't do this fun thing" is about as effective as trying to demolish the wall by throwing peas on it. Wait, worse, because the peas will not reinforce the wall.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:

The most important tool is believing in themselves, in their own self-worth and abilities, that there's so much more they can do than just finding a guy willing to have them and start making babies.  Then you teach them how to protect themselves if/when they do make that decision, with real, accurate information, not a bunch of scare tactics.

Do you? I mean, it sounds good, but is it really what is taught to children in US?

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

Waaait ... while in many countries teenager aged 18 or 19 can legally buy alcohol, in US the limit is 21. Isn't it also illegal to sell them alcohol? Shouldn't be?

It's illegal to give them alcohol except if you're their parent, let alone sell it to them.  And it's illegal for a teen to give it to another teen after their parent gave it to them, no loophole there.  Doesn't mean teens don't get ahold if it anyway, usually either by going to parties where someone is providung alcohol, or getting into their parents' booze.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Again, you seem to be saying, this bad thing is against the law, let's change the law so that it's not illegal instead of trying to keep the bad thing from happening in the first place.

Well, it's illegal, but seems it's not working in stopping it happening. Could it be because people are considering it bad law and are not really trying to abide by it? Remember prohibition? It didn't worked, because too many people considered it bad law.

That's why I think it's important to synchronize the laws with what people consider correct. Now, in this case, everything points to it being better idea to keep the law and convince people it's important. However if, for example, moving the age limit from 21 to 20 would make easier to convince people it's good idea, it might be worth considering it.

On 5/5/2019 at 4:06 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Children shouldn't be getting drunk and having sex.  Wherever you think the cut-off should be, I'm pretty sure you don't think ten-year-olds should be getting drunk and having sex, and wherever the line is, someone is going to cross it.  The question is, what do we do with the situation when someone does?  Do we say, oh well, kids will be kids, and let it happen, or do we do what we can to protect children, from themselves and from predators? 

We should be sure people are really on board on where the cut-off is. Because there seem to be quite agreement about the ten-year-olds, but seems it's harder in 19, maybe because I'm not only one who finds hard to consider 19 year old a child. Not speaking about how the 19 year old would react if you consider her child. (Getting drunk and pregnant on first opportunity seem to be quite  common reaction to that, actually ; for men meanwhile, it's getting drunk and punch someone, which might be at least little less dangerous.)

On 5/6/2019 at 5:14 AM, ijuin said:

It seems also that our society has an attitude that a man can not be raped by a woman because no heterosexual male would ever wish to withhold consent for a sex act with a "non-ugly" woman, or alternatively that no man worthy of respect is wimpy enough to submit to a woman's coercion. Yes, well over eighty percent of rape incidents are perpetrated by males, but that does not mean that we should say that "woman rapes man" is nonexistent.

Yes.

13 hours ago, Scotty said:

I remember this one movie "40 days and 40 nights" where the main character gives up sex (any forms, including mastubation) for lent after a really bad break up with his girlfriend. During the course of the movie, not only does he fall in love with another girl and have to find other ways to romance her, but the vow gets a lot of attention from his friends and other people who apparent make it their life goal of sabotaging him. At one point, the main character asks one of his friends to tie his hands to the bed to ensure he doesn't give in and masturbate, and then while sleeping, a girl (I can't remember if it was the ex, or if it was someone else that had their eyes on the main character) gets into his room and has sex with him which causes him to freak out when he wakes up to see her on top of him. The big problem with that scene was that was a case of a woman raping a man, but it's not followed up as such, there was no consent from the man, she took advantage of the position he was in, and yet no charges were laid.

Yes. Now, while that idea of giving up sex seems both very stupid and very unrealistic, the course of movie seem to be loaded with sexism and unfair double standards for genders, and after seeing the movie people should be horrified by it ... and stop making assumptions like that men can't be raped.

... actually, on second though, it's not THAT unbelievable that teenager would do something stupid like that, especially as result of dare from his friends, who will then work hard on forcing him break that completely ignoring they are actually trying to rape him.

... and while the girl in movie was (I'm assuming) sober, I now see an interesting mental experiment:

Imagine teenager, who makes a bet with his friends that he won't have sex for some time. Then, on party, those friends will find a girl, get her drunk and in the just correct state of drunkenness throw her on him. And he will be tied up like in the movie or just drunk as well. And they will have sex.

Now, the girl can claim she has been raped. What's more, the BOY can claim he has been raped. But IT WAS NOT THE BOY WHO RAPED HER, because there was zero intent on his side. Meanwhile, the friends (well, "friends") didn't have sex with any of them. I still think THEY should be punished and neither the girl nor the boy should be found guilty.

(Less extreme cases of this may be happening more often that it seems. Helping two drunk people to have sex sounds like something teenagers could consider fun idea.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also says something that the movie treats the very notion of a young man willingly forgoing sex for six weeks as being crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ijuin said:

It also says something that the movie treats the very notion of a young man willingly forgoing sex for six weeks as being crazy.

Well, forgoing even masturbation IS crazy, as proved by the fact he needs to be tied up. However, it's the similar level of crazy as several kinds of actually practised diets (and less crazy than anorexia, which also happens), and I suspect the movie treats it as much more crazy.

... actually, crazy might not be correct word, as I would consider being vegan to be on similar level, and vegans would likely object to being called crazy ... is there a less extreme word for crazy? Maybe ridiculous? Silly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this