Sexual Orientation

[Violet]

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

This tends to be the general popular response to my posts. Somehow, I still feel I'll never win that Controversy award... I'm jsut too agreeable.

It seems like you could change someone's sexual orientation with surgery, chemical castration, or the like...the question is, when should you? That is a question best answered by law and psychology.

I wouldn't. That isn't to say whether it should or shouldn't.

In the case of, say, homosexuality, when applied to two adults of the same sex, we all know that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that consensual homosexuality per se can cause harm. That's why the APA threw it out of the DSM in 1973. On the other hand, pedophilia is a very well known paraphilia (sexual mental illness) that causes a great deal of harm in ALL cases.

It can cause harm, it is a relationship. All it takes is for one person to not hold up their end... and harm enters into it.

... Paraphilia...?
* Violet snorts in derisive laughter.

That's pretty funny. I think that you'll find that "all cases" is not actually the case in "all cases".

Besides, parsing the motives or behavior of the adult and child involved in the act is not necessary, since for very good reasons the law has made statutory rape (the crime that people are really talking about when sex happens where at least one party is under the age of consent) a strict liability crime- meaning an offense where the mens rea (state of mind) of the defendant is not taken into account, only the actus reus (criminal act) itself.

Right... right, and they also built age lines, educated their children in batches, and started an utterly hilarious 'war on drugs'.

Law and reality are neither one and the same, nor are law and the morals of those by force of law bound follow though in spite of their deviance.

Basically, it DOES NOT matter the supposed "loving" motives of an adult who has sex with a minor under the age of consent in the United States, or indeed most civilized countries (with rare exceptions such as Romeo and Juliet laws where both participants are only a few years apart, so that for instance the 8 and 9 year old in your scenario are not sent to jail, or even a 15 and 16 year old). They are a mentally ill criminal, period, and I personally would never allow my children around sex offenders. Otherwise they could claim love and get out of responsibility for their sick, sick actions.

Mentally ill... criminal... sex offenders...... ironic.

A very short glance into the history of legal homosexuality could be very educational. I would suggest that you look into it

So sickening... punishing people forever for their failures, their mistakes... pushing them away from society can only create the well-intentioned prey, and the predators who no longer give a shit about living within the rules a people who refuse to trust them.

It DOES NOT matter how "smart" a little kid is for their age. In the eyes of American law and psychology they are NOT responsible enough to make their own decisions in sexual or other matters, otherwise a ten year old could be pressed into signing a contract and then held liable, among other possible ridiculous and harmful situations. In the Middle East, girls can be married as young as 9 but the majority of the time they are forced into it while the adult claims "love" and Islam as far back as Muhammad and Aisha is disgusting for encouraging this for obvious reasons, no matter the "cultural context."

What matters their vision to mine? Contracts are absurd in any nonbusiness sense... and workman's contracts are appalling.

Oddly, I don't find it nearly so disgusting as do you. I mourn for those caught up in any life that they do not choose... but that is not to say that such systems cannot bring happiness or stability.

When it comes to adults making stupid decisions, yeah, it happens. However, again, the law doesn't care for a very good reason- ignorance of the law is no excuse. A particular age is the dividing line between responsibility and non-responsibility, period. If you commit an offense as an adult (or a very heinous felony as a young person) you are tried as an adult, stupidity aside. Otherwise people who get drunk and go over the speed limit could blame the alcohol for impairing them.

Its occurrence is so regular as to be considered standard.

Seeing people try to defend age lines on any noneconomical basis is just downright funny

... I suppose you might not be mature enough to understand that blame is not entirely owned by the one, in almost any real world case.

As for the disabled adult example: no, a physically disabled adult is capable of consenting IF they are intellectually able enough to do so. An intellectually disabled person can consent depending on what they can understand.

Oh? I suppose that I cannot consent then, given that I cannot understand your hilarious system.

When it comes to THIS...

Yes. Absolutely... though if my daughter were so inclined, I'd prefer it be with me or at least someone I know and trust, who will be as gentle and loving with her as she deserves.

A stranger isn't as trusted, and I would be very hard to convince that I not be around for her safety.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

You're against protecting your children? Interesting.

I will repeat my previous statements from the highest mountain and at the top of my lungs. When it comes to incest (at any age) and pedophilia, motive does not matter. It is wrong in all situations legally, psychologically, and morally, because in the great majority of situations (I'd say >90% but that's out of thin air) it leads to harm for the CHILD.

Cute. I'll reiterate my amusement with a quiet chuckle.

Wait, you're having a go at *incest*?! Oh wow. Wow. WOW!

Legally? Depends on where you live.
Psychologically? Not even close.
Morally? Obviously, my moral scheme differs from yours, so... let's just throw that one right out.

You'd be right: out of thin air. I can't name names or even tell how I know what I know, because those involved would be... fiercely punished by a society of people like you... for "crimes" committed long ago that are remembered with fondness today

But then, I'll also let you in on a secret. Come closer...

---

Mankind is cruel to its fellows in as many ways as it is kind to them... the only way to end child abuse is through acceptance, and close interconnectedness of people... No law stands between what a man can do and what he wants out of life... the law can only punish after the fact.

Law is not the end-all answer to all of life's problems... if it were, then people would not break it so willy nilly.

---

---

I'm all for giving children information. If they do choose to have sex, I want it to be informed sex. And yes some of them are "pretty damn smart." What the vast majority of 10 year old lack is a sense of consequences or an ability to take care of those consequences. I've had my own 10-year-olds way to recently to have any illusions about that.

Me too. Absolutely. Totes.

That mirrors my data, which suggests that very few of you fleshbags have the slightest inkling about what you're accomplishing down the road from your actions.

I've seen too much foolishness to have any illusions about that

10-year-olds are not necessarily ready to tell their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles,or family friends early enough about oncoming little consequences.

That's fine, though... after all: few people are.

I can't make this phone call I've been needing to make... and that has consequences that I'll be reaping for probably years... but I just can't make that call.

It's the fear. Establish a household that is there for them, and they need not live in fear.

Nor is dealing with those consequences ultimately their own responsibility. It becomes the responsibility of the parents. Therefore, parents should have some say in it. Just as parents get to decide if 10 or 12 is a good age to get to own a gun, or ride a dirt bike. And in the case of sex there are more than one set of parents involved.

We're all responsible for each other. That's more or less kind of the point of society.

Sorry, not buying it. Learning about sex is best learned through practice and exploration. It is not best learned through exploitation. An adult who thinks they have sex with a child out of pure motives of love is deluding themselves.

Curiosity... how is the adult exploiting a child that wishes to know what's so good about this sex thing that they keep hearing about? I mean, if we back up and look at the whole philosophy of life... then what would a mutually beneficial exploitation matter in the scheme of things? Nah, you don't want to think from that far removed... so yeah...

What is the harm in demonstrating (consensually) and/or providing an avenue where they can glean sexual understanding in an entirely safe and protected way? I do not see delusion here.

Yes, because of the consequences children are not yet ready to take responsibility for.

You mean... the primary method by which youth learn?

Or did you mean the consequences they'll experience when they're young adults and now beyond your protection?

Mentally or physically disabled? If mentally they may not be able to give consent. If you are talking physically, why yes they can.

Does it particularly matter? Physically disabled persons are as easily overpowered and hurt as are children... if they can give consent: why can a reasonably well-functioning child not give consent?

They seem pretty good at the whole 'no' bit as early as toddlerhood, to be pretty fiercely honest.

The part of the brain that can not only describe but actually act upon potential consequences is a late bloomer in the human brain. It doesn't really mature until between 18 and 25 or so depending on the gender of the individual.

Uh huh. Part of why schizophrenics get worse as they hit that point.

But, it doesn't really matter... they're let out into the world at 18 regardless of whether they will go on to make catastrophic errors in judgement from that point. If it mattered enough to do something about, then we wouldn't let them out until they were 30...

Assuming we used an arbitrary line, of course... Yeah, that'd be pretty funny.

No human is perfect at this, but 18 year-olds are much better at it than 8 year olds.

It couldn't possibly have been the 10 years of making wrong choices that has cautioned them from repeating them.

You realize that until cloning is mastered, we're not going to get to see 5 year old adult human brains as they repeat the hilarity of childhood at a later point in their life?