sexual orientation issue

[Violet]

Long post in response to Aerzia Saerules Arktuos

Let me start by stating that when it comes to laws, that laws aren't there to help and support 100% of humanity.

Laws are an attempt to control that which cannot be controlled. People don't kill others because it isn't worth it to them already... having a law stating that you cannot is redundant and useless. It is a kindness to inform the weak of what you might do should they do something that you do not like... it is an idiocy to believe that because you might do something in response they will not do it.

This may seem odd, but that is because there are always exceptions and you can't define every exception in the law.

Meaning that blanket laws do not work.

For example - killing is bad.

I believe otherwise... but I'll take your example for sake of argument.

However, when a woman kills her husband, who has beaten her every day, in his sleep, she will appear before a judge...but also get a much more lenient sentence.

She should not get a 'sentence' at all. She eliminated an evidently cruel, brutal, sadistic man who performs such actions on a daily basis. Give her a medal instead.

---

Life isn't black and white, but the very nature of law is.

Hence why an 'effective' law is very specific. It remains that nothing is accomplished in any case. It's only not particularly economical in a massive nation to take everything on a case-by-case basis.

It's just something we have to work with. So what law generally does is try to make rules that benefit most of the population while irking the least amount. I will get back to that specific point later.

What law attempts to accomplish is simply to control. Don't mistake a semi-'democratic' legal system for the basis of law.

on corpses: I don't disagree that the nature of a corpse is 'an item'. However, keep in mind that just like your dildo, a corpse has owners. That means that everyone can't just go around fucking any corpse. Now who owns them is a bit more difficult. In my personal view it goes a bit like this:

Ownership is singly that which you not only claim: but can defend. If a man with a knife runs off into the woods with a human corpse: I'd say he owns it. Everyone really can just go around fucking any corpse... so long as they can get past the defenses placed upon that corpse.

1: The corpse before dying - if they say 'this person can fuck me corpse after I die' it should be cleared. One might contest that they don't care after dying anyways, but just like any other property, their body is an item they leave after they die and subject to their will.

The will of the dead is irrelevant. Reason that "wills" exist currently: rich people wanting to get richer when other people die.

2: family. If the person made no statement about what should happen to the corpse, the family gets to decide - them them battle it out.
Of course this is no black and white, as the will of the dead person can also be overridden by family in other cases (like organ donation and wills can be contested).

Why would the family get to decide anything at all? It's a waste of space if it's not going to be butchered or otherwise used. There is no person left in a corpse.

I consider wills to be only silly. I'll take advantage of the nonsense to get richer (ie: my grandmother is right close to death)
.

Now on to my real soapbox: Kids.
Most people feel 'offended' by the very idea of an adult having sex with a (pre-puberty) child. I feel the same, but I do ask myself, why? Aerzia was right when she pointed out that while children might not have the knowledge to consent, adults often don't really have it either. Where is the line? So I want to elaborate on my knowledge to consent some more.

Most people are not human... Silicoid-Meklar controls a majority of this galaxy's space.

Children do not have the same knowledge of sex as most adults do. That comes for two reasons: State of mind and experience/knowledge.

State of mind: Young children are not occupied with sex and sexuality the same was as adults are.

Not necessarily. Depends on the child, really. Some of us (ie: this platforms previous person) start with porn around 8 and stay 'obsessed' with it the rest of their life. Others are bombarded with fear/guilt/whathaveyou about sex due to poor experiences with it, to very negative perception of it, or some variety of other nonsense.

They are occupied with sexuality (though some adults are embarressed even by that idea). Young girls horse-ride on pillows and find it great fun, children play doctor with each other. When parents do their job properly, they explain how sex works and where kids come from at a young age.

Why should some adults be embarrassed by a sexual creature engaging in sexual actions? How is it "proper" parenting to inform of something deemed extraneous?

However, young children are not occupied with attraction and the thought of intercourse as adults do, even if they know the technical details. Yeah, even the tech details may seem just sort of odd to them, as in 'why would they even do that?'. That is because their brains are not wired for it yet. I guess the specific lust switch hasn't been flipped yet. Think of it - I have never heard of a 6 year proposing a sex act to an adult. They mostly don't go much further then curious exploration of 'how does it look like'.
So to summerize, they do not experience and think about sex the same way as we do.

Only mildly curious people don't ask "what does it taste like", especially at a young age that is somewhat defined by the sense of taste

Some young children actively seek out porn and masturbate. All I see here is a generality after another.

Experience/knowledge: Sex is fun, but it does have hazerdous sides. It can easily lead to bad feelings part of those come from within and part of those come from inner reflections through the lens of society values (and those two are almost impossible to keep apart). Even many adults have problems navigating this field. How many women have ended up in bed with a guy they didn't really like because they didnt know how to say no?

I can't help but laugh at such people. Agreed that many adults have difficulty not feeling 'bad' over some portion of sex. How does that assist the idea that children who have difficulty not feeling 'bad' over some portion of sex are different than adults?

it works beter if a person is confident and secure, and has experiences enough of the world in general to know how people are like. As young people grow up they become better at articulating their own thoughts, feelings and desires. These are very important skills when entering relationships and having sex. It is important to be able to draw up borders and be able to say no.

Not necessarily @ all of that. In general I would agree, but there are many many exceptions and several of those were value judgements.

Children of a young age often have to rely on their parents to tell how to behave, what their own rights are, and what the borders are in the world in general. As they grow older these concepts become more natural for them, and they are able to enforce these rules by themselves. They start to learn that not every adult is to be trusted, not just because they have been told so, but also because they have read about it, heard about it, and seen it happen.

Know that we are first free. Many societal 'rules' are simply an attempt to control something that can only be feigned. The kid is going to take that cookie anyway. Just not while you're present.

Parenting teaches children how to sneak, how to steal, how to cheat. I love it

Now, as law says 'don't touch kids under 16', the 16 is a number that has been drawn in the sand. The people who made the rules figured that people younger then that are likely not to have the state of mind, experience and knowledge for this.

Arbitrary numbers are never anything more than economic. There is no reason to introduce an arbitrary number for what age a person needs to be to have sex.

Now of course, there are a plethora of examples of people under that age who clearly got enough of all three of those factors, and just as many examples of people above that age who lacked all of them. But you gotta draw a line somewhere. As 16 is the age where, in many societies, people already get several 'adult-rights' (like driving), this seems a good mark. They are ready to enter the adult world and interact with adults as other adults.

A line does not need to be drawn anywhere.

16 seems like a good mark? Hardly.

I'd also like to point out that I have heard quite some stories (a number of which first hand) of people who had sexual encounters with adults before they even hit puberty. None of them were positive, and several of these people had major problems in their later life as a result of that. It is a strong indication that disrupting the natural sexual development of a young child leads to bad results.

Oh Ace, where are you hon? Would you kindly post a little story in response to this? Someone needs to hear a positive result

Bad results like sanity and transsexuality?

To be clear - by disrupting I mean having sexual encounters with the young child, like sex or oral sex. many children feel uncomfortable with it, but don't have the knowledge and skilsl yet to articulate why it feels wrong, and don't have the skill to say no and enforce that.

And as so few good things seem to come from adults having sex with young children, the society will react with hostility to such things.

Experience is a great thing. We are made stronger by our experiences.

---

---

Sex and relationships have surprisingly little to do with each other, and yet surpringly much for many.

learning a lot about sex does not teach someone a lot about relationships...it just teaches a lot about sex. Not that sex knowledge is bad knowledge to have It's very useful.

And sex is easier than relationships...

---

He's twenty-three now, and has decided, primarily from that incident, that he will not marry nor sire children, as he feels he cannot protect them from the government. Strictly alone, no relationships.

Wise, though I cannot say it is fun.