Sexual Orientation

[Mudhammam]

First of all, a lot of this post left me with my mouth agape, and not in a good way at all.

I second that...

[BrokenQuill92]

So as the only disabled person on forum:

1 I'm perfectly capable of giving consent

2 thought I don't have a developmental disability I know people who do. Trust me they are perfectly capable of giving consent. Grocery shopping is another story...

3 every individual deals with their disability differently.

[Violet]

What you're doing here, Alice, is attempting to refute my citation of scientific and legal sources based on the presumption that I am committing an appeal to authority. Well, if that's the case, then because scientists say the world goes round the Sun after much investigation, we should just throw that all out because they're just an authority.

Hardly. However, I am making sure you are aware that appeals to authority are laughable, and that's how your writing reads.

Consider restructuring.

Unless the evidence provided (assuming some even is) works for you: you should absolutely not believe anything you read... at least, not if you fear being the fool, love

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."

Notably... I do have such depth of knowledge, and often a superior level of understanding other's empirical evidence...

But I still find that writing "the general consensus" before every third paragraph to be poor form in a debate. I find it rather amusing that you had to quote someone else on this, rather than just explain it yourself... which is a problem again: I'm not conversing with them, as they cannot answer to me.

You, on the other hand... can.

In other words, the experts in the APA are not automatically wrong, nor is it wrong to cite them, because they have evidence for their position that pedophilia is a paraphilia and that children are not mentally developed enough to actually consent to sex.

...



My gods, keep them coming!

A few minutes of Googling revealed that pedophiles are more likely to have a comorbid psychiatric disorder other than pedophilia for instance: http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/art...eid=173441

That's fascinating, not what you wrote, but what you meant.

Of course, you'll find that what they are 'more likely to have' is not the same as 'what they do have', and so surely you'll kindly refrain from branding all pedophiles as mentally ill? Not likely? What a shame.

YOU have to have evidence that they are wrong, and so far, other than bald assertions that children are smarter than we think and that adults can love children, you have come up with none.

Would you like me to conduct a study with so many conflicting factors that all I can come up with is an observation that 'while all of these other factors are happening, this region of the brain is also finishing its growth'?

After all... that's what you're using to make these claims. All I have to do is refute your claims, which I have done, friend, and I can do extensively should you provide me with the exact data you wish to hold such fascinating faith in Bonus points if you can show me what they've done to alleviate the worst problem with the studies that I'm aware of having been constructed: the external factors.

They're killers.

...

As for children being smarter than you seem to give them credit... kindly compare the mean intelligent functioning of a five year old child to what is likely the next closest animal in intelligence: the adult chimpanzee.

I know you won't 'get' this philosophically... but most mammals start to have a lot of sex around the time they hit puberty, and it seems to have worked both for us (historically) and them (currently). At the very least, I cannot see why a creature exhibiting a positive desire for sex should be denied it with certain persons for no clear health reason (ie: syphilis).

Surely you understand that children are lovable, and I don't have to defend this by presenting you with the full circle of what love is, what factors contribute to love, and etc etc etc, because I'm assuming you've already grasped these concepts... but if I must, I will illustrate for you

Yes, being 18 doesn't automatically make you mature. But the law has to presume at SOME point that people will be responsible and then hold them to that. Some states set it at 16, others 17, others even 15, and I don't begrudge them that, but at some point it would have to be set, and preferably in the upper teens at the very least since obviously TEN YEAR OLDS don't know what they're doing sexually.

Sure, at some point. So... why does that mean "some arbitrary number of years of age"?

I contend that ten year olds know plenty about what they're doing sexually. Would you like for me to find a few ten-thousands of ten year olds and have them fill out a long anonymous questionnaire detailing what they would do during sex?

Of course, they would have to write these answers in, because bubbles are just too inconclusive. I don't want to pressure them into answering something that they only kind of mean, or otherwise providing suggestions as that would defy the creative portion of this exercise.

Anyway, I knew what I was doing sexually at ten... which is probably why I was having sex by then Obviously, I must have known something about it.

Being 18 in this country allows you other rights as well such as voting and possibly driving so that seems to be the norm that works well for everything, and that's why 18 has been settled on in most places in this country. If we instead raised say the voting age to 25 there would rightfully be a protest in this country. But if you want to do the opposite, how low would you set it? 14? 13? 12? 11? 10? 9? 8? Why then allow 8 year olds to have sex in your fictional country but not the right to vote? Do you see how ridiculous it would get?

I would never set an age line (as they are utterly absurd, we are not wine). I would apply some serious game theory to education and permissions. I'd explain it, but I have a feeling you wouldn't give it the time of day and that I'd be wasting the kilobytes.

But, I'd be thrilled to try it out. My kids first, and then... the world!

---

First of all, a lot of this post left me with my mouth agape, and not in a good way at all.

I second that...

Don't swallow a bug, now.

---

So as the only disabled person on forum:

You're not alone, actually. Just... disabled uniquely, perhaps. We did have another blind person at one point, though.

1 I'm perfectly capable of giving consent

2 thought I don't have a developmental disability I know people who do. Trust me they are perfectly capable of giving consent. Grocery shopping is another story...

3 every individual deals with their disability differently.

As for 2... some of them cannot speak, cannot move, cannot even think... I believe they might be an exception, but then, hey.... I could be wrong.

[BrokenQuill92]

What you're doing here, Alice, is attempting to refute my citation of scientific and legal sources based on the presumption that I am committing an appeal to authority. Well, if that's the case, then because scientists say the world goes round the Sun after much investigation, we should just throw that all out because they're just an authority.

Hardly. However, I am making sure you are aware that appeals to authority are laughable, and that's how your writing reads.

Consider restructuring.

Unless the evidence provided (assuming some even is) works for you: you should absolutely not believe anything you read... at least, not if you fear being the fool, love

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."

Notably... I do have such depth of knowledge, and often a superior level of understanding other's empirical evidence...

But I still find that writing "the general consensus" before every third paragraph to be poor form in a debate. I find it rather amusing that you had to quote someone else on this, rather than just explain it yourself... which is a problem again: I'm not conversing with them, as they cannot answer to me.

You, on the other hand... can.

In other words, the experts in the APA are not automatically wrong, nor is it wrong to cite them, because they have evidence for their position that pedophilia is a paraphilia and that children are not mentally developed enough to actually consent to sex.

...



My gods, keep them coming!

A few minutes of Googling revealed that pedophiles are more likely to have a comorbid psychiatric disorder other than pedophilia for instance: http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/art...eid=173441

That's fascinating, not what you wrote, but what you meant.

Of course, you'll find that what they are 'more likely to have' is not the same as 'what they do have', and so surely you'll kindly refrain from branding all pedophiles as mentally ill? Not likely? What a shame.

YOU have to have evidence that they are wrong, and so far, other than bald assertions that children are smarter than we think and that adults can love children, you have come up with none.

Would you like me to conduct a study with so many conflicting factors that all I can come up with is an observation that 'while all of these other factors are happening, this region of the brain is also finishing its growth'?

After all... that's what you're using to make these claims. All I have to do is refute your claims, which I have done, friend, and I can do extensively should you provide me with the exact data you wish to hold such fascinating faith in Bonus points if you can show me what they've done to alleviate the worst problem with the studies that I'm aware of having been constructed: the external factors.

They're killers.

...

As for children being smarter than you seem to give them credit... kindly compare the mean intelligent functioning of a five year old child to what is likely the next closest animal in intelligence: the adult chimpanzee.

I know you won't 'get' this philosophically... but most mammals start to have a lot of sex around the time they hit puberty, and it seems to have worked both for us (historically) and them (currently). At the very least, I cannot see why a creature exhibiting a positive desire for sex should be denied it with certain persons for no clear health reason (ie: syphilis).

Surely you understand that children are lovable, and I don't have to defend this by presenting you with the full circle of what love is, what factors contribute to love, and etc etc etc, because I'm assuming you've already grasped these concepts... but if I must, I will illustrate for you

Yes, being 18 doesn't automatically make you mature. But the law has to presume at SOME point that people will be responsible and then hold them to that. Some states set it at 16, others 17, others even 15, and I don't begrudge them that, but at some point it would have to be set, and preferably in the upper teens at the very least since obviously TEN YEAR OLDS don't know what they're doing sexually.

Sure, at some point. So... why does that mean "some arbitrary number of years of age"?

I contend that ten year olds know plenty about what they're doing sexually. Would you like for me to find a few ten-thousands of ten year olds and have them fill out a long anonymous questionnaire detailing what they would do during sex?

Of course, they would have to write these answers in, because bubbles are just too inconclusive. I don't want to pressure them into answering something that they only kind of mean, or otherwise providing suggestions as that would defy the creative portion of this exercise.

Anyway, I knew what I was doing sexually at ten... which is probably why I was having sex by then Obviously, I must have known something about it.

Being 18 in this country allows you other rights as well such as voting and possibly driving so that seems to be the norm that works well for everything, and that's why 18 has been settled on in most places in this country. If we instead raised say the voting age to 25 there would rightfully be a protest in this country. But if you want to do the opposite, how low would you set it? 14? 13? 12? 11? 10? 9? 8? Why then allow 8 year olds to have sex in your fictional country but not the right to vote? Do you see how ridiculous it would get?

I would never set an age line (as they are utterly absurd, we are not wine). I would apply some serious game theory to education and permissions. I'd explain it, but I have a feeling you wouldn't give it the time of day and that I'd be wasting the kilobytes.

But, I'd be thrilled to try it out. My kids first, and then... the world!

---

I second that...

Don't swallow a bug, now.

---

So as the only disabled person on forum:

You're not alone, actually. Just... disabled uniquely, perhaps. We did have another blind person at one point, though.

1 I'm perfectly capable of giving consent

2 thought I don't have a developmental disability I know people who do. Trust me they are perfectly capable of giving consent. Grocery shopping is another story...

3 every individual deals with their disability differently.

As for 2... some of them cannot speak, cannot move, cannot even think... I believe they might be an exception, but then, hey.... I could be wrong.

Being non-verbal or being incapable of movement aren't indicators of not comprehending. And unless you're anencephalic thinking is assumed, it's understanding I am thinking about. Some people might need to be educated earlier. And of course be careful not to toss them into the heteronormative box.

[Little lunch]

Alice, I've read 'Lolita' and wasn't that impressed. Apparently it is a classic because of it's literary genius and for how the words flow like cadences.
'Naked Lunch' is also a classic.
I prefer sci-fi. It's got everything.
I won't tell you all about 'Time enough for Love', but give enough of a scent to give people a hunger to find out for themselves.

Lazarus Long is the main character, the oldest human in the universe who, amongst many adventures, travels back in time and is seduced by his own mother just after his own birth.
:-)

[StealthySkeptic]

Again, if an authoritative source has evidence for its positions, then it's a citation, not an appeal to authority. I personally am not an expert in psychology. If you want to know why pedophilia is listed in the DSM-5 as a paraphilia if it is suppressed and as a disorder if it is acted upon, then ask any psychologist.

Also, what are these mystical and in your previous posts undefined "external factors" exactly? You can't just go around dismissing scientific studies conducted by a respected psychological organization or people affiliated with it because of "external factors." ESPECIALLY when we know that pedophiles such as many Catholic priests have raped and sexually abused children before while claiming "love" so you better have a damn high amount of evidence for changing the legal and psychological definitions.

When you had sex at the age of 10 (with another 10 year old, I would hope!), did you know what a sexually transmitted disease was? Or how exactly you could get pregnant? Or was it just about knowing what body parts were private? You can explain all these things to a kid without them putting themselves at risk when their brain is far from being finished developing, and when they could be affected by traumatic memories for the rest of their lives if they're touched inappropriately by a teacher or other adult they trust and are afraid to tell on lest they be punished. If it was legal for adults to have sex with little kids, then they could also make them say that they consented and nobody would be able to punish molesters.

Heck, I'm fine with sex education as young as 5 like they do in Sweden, but it should stay as information in the classroom and not field experience so to speak. Parents should not be letting their kids run around and get down with other adults because they do get hurt because of it and they can get into this without understanding. That you don't understand this basic concept is gobsmacking to me. I also hope when you said you would "teach" your daughter about sex if she begged for it, that you were not talking about a kid that you actually have. And as someone said before, 18, 19, 20 year olds in general have far more ability to understand consequences with regard to sex than we give them credit for, and the highest rates of teen pregnancy are in those areas where teens DO NOT have comprehensive sex education.

Tell me, if you have evidence for your position- what is this "game theory" that you'd try to implement with regards to the age of legal consent? And how could you possibly make a case to any civilized government to be all for it?!

[Nine]

[StealthySkeptic]

Hey, no spectators allowed.

/sarc

[ShaMan]

[StealthySkeptic]