StatCrux Wrote:You think that sex between two consenting 16 year old children is acceptable.

You're misusing language to create a straw man. 16-year-olds are not children; they are adolescents. You keep throwing in that word to illicit a reactionary response, and that's intellectually indefensible.

With that in mind, yes, 16-year-old adolescents are perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex.

Quote:And I answered with what I thought to be acceptable

Annik

Interesting response..

---

(June 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm)Annik Wrote: What does his ideas have to do with mine?

Who are we to limit their personal freedoms, provided they are not hurting themselves or others?

OK, so promiscuous sexual behavior amongst 16 year old persons is perfectly fine providing they use contraception?

(June 6, 2012 at 7:42 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm)Annik Wrote: What does his ideas have to do with mine?

Who are we to limit their personal freedoms, provided they are not hurting themselves or others?

OK, so promiscuous sexual behavior amongst 16 year old persons is perfectly fine providing they use contraception?

How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?

(June 6, 2012 at 7:41 pm)Hovik Wrote:

StatCrux Wrote:You think that sex between two consenting 16 year old children is acceptable.

You're misusing language to create a straw man. 16-year-olds are not children; they are adolescents. You keep throwing in that word to illicit a reactionary response, and that's intellectually indefensible.

With that in mind, yes, 16-year-old adolescents are perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex.

Are any persons perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex? As in the original proposition by brian37?

(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 7:41 pm)Hovik Wrote: You're misusing language to create a straw man. 16-year-olds are not children; they are adolescents. You keep throwing in that word to illicit a reactionary response, and that's intellectually indefensible.

With that in mind, yes, 16-year-old adolescents are perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex.

Are any persons perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex? As in the original proposition by brian37?

Er, yes? What does someone else's original proposition matter? Anybody at an age at which they are mentally competent enough to have sex should be able to do so, just so long as the sex is consensual and practiced safely.

StatCrux Wrote:[...] promiscuous sexual behavior [...]

Yet again, setting up a straw man.

(June 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm)Annik Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 7:42 pm)StatCrux Wrote: OK, so promiscuous sexual behavior amongst 16 year old persons is perfectly fine providing they use contraception?

How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?

You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

---

(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Are any persons perfectly capable of engaging in consensual protected sex? As in the original proposition by brian37?

Er, yes? What does someone else's original proposition matter? Anybody at an age at which they are mentally competent enough to have sex should be able to do so, just so long as the sex is consensual and practiced safely.

StatCrux Wrote:[...] promiscuous sexual behavior [...]

Yet again, setting up a straw man.

No, setting up societal norms, do you want to challenge them regarding age of consent?

(June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm)Annik Wrote: How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?

You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

I want you to tell me exactly how many people you need to sleep with to become promiscuous. 1? 4? 10? 56? How many?

(June 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Well, this link doesn't state the change over the years, but here's a break down by country. Noticed the U.S., on of the greatest advocators of abstinence only education, is responsible for nearly 60% of all teenage births worldwide.

The irony of your last statement is delicious. The vast majority of those advocating abstinence only sex education are the same people that hold up a case where abstinence didn't work as an indicator of their savior's divinity.

(June 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm)Annik Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote: You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

I want you to tell me exactly how many people you need to sleep with to become promiscuous. 1? 4? 10? 56? How many?

It's not a matter of notches on a bedpost, it's more to do with attitude to bedpost notches.

(June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm)Annik Wrote: How many people does one have to sleep with to become promiscuous?

You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

---

(June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)Hovik Wrote: Er, yes? What does someone else's original proposition matter? Anybody at an age at which they are mentally competent enough to have sex should be able to do so, just so long as the sex is consensual and practiced safely.


Yet again, setting up a straw man.

No, setting up societal norms, do you want to challenge them regarding age of consent?

Yes, you are setting up a straw man. By injecting an arbitrary term like 'promiscuous' into the phrasing, you're setting up a false precedent for the argument. You're essentially rewording the argument so that it will illicit an emotional reaction to discredit the argument itself.

Societal norms are passively determined by society. Societal norms don't reflect how things should be done based on rational thinking.

So yes, I do challenge the "societal norms" regarding age of consent because they're based on a flawed understanding of the psychology of adolescents and sexual development.