Sexual Orientation

[Whateverist]

Sexual orientation: Up

[StealthySkeptic]

Sexual orientation: Up

Hopefully you're not anti-down.

[ShaMan]

Sexual orientation: Up

If it's been longer than 4 hours or 3 feet, you should go to the ER!

[Mudhammam]

She's waaay too young for him.

[Violet]

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.

Hence my use of 'and', instead of 'or'.

The comatose and the unconscious, etc should probably not be included in the bubble of consent.

Unless they said specifically beforehand that they it was okay... but then, it's not like they can say 'no' after the fact, here...

---

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.

Yes, therefore making it somewhat of a good read.

'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.
:-)

Sounds interesting... but how did that happen, as a curiosity? Did he travel back and repossess the old body with his new mind... or was it just a concurrent existence?

[Little lunch]

He was seduced by his much younger mother, who had know idea he was her son, whilst the baby crying in the room next door was also himself. Incest and time paradox. Brilliant. :-)

What interesting food he would have made had Robert Heinlein been a chef.

[Violet]

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.

I love studies... just take the bite from the study (which it would be kind if you linked a *specific* study that you're using instead of saying 'so and so says' or 'the general scientific' or 'the established opinion', and I'd love to hear their screening process for <whatever>, but I guess I can do the work for you and read it myself once you link it... bit of a pain since it's *hopefully* quite long).

From there, quote the bite sized bit that you're using (preferably a conclusion, and please include the primary data within such)

Code:

[quote]I am primary data, and a conclusion drawn from it.[/quote]

Then post it here, with your own understanding in comments around it, which you could use to say something profound, or perhaps interesting.

After all... if you understand the source you are citing, then you *should* be able to tell me with your own words what it means to you. Again, and this is important: I'm not communing with them... but I am speaking with you. They are not here to be accountable to me, but you are.

Also, what are these mystical and in your previous posts undefined "external factors" exactly?

I defined a number of them quite rapidly off the bat for 'general difficulties faced by these studies':

The caveat that we do not have the ability to see the risk-taking behavior of youth in either
*A: a significant number of adults released in a batch after the point where this thing finishes growing, or
*B: a realistic ability to clone fully functioning "25+ year old" adults released at an 'age' of five-ten years to see how they behave compared to the youth released at 18 in america.

'Shortly' after their moment of freedom, many beings behave extremely recklessly and/or take risks they otherwise wouldn't have taken (ex. 9 to 5 x5 cubicle workers from job, prisoners from prison, young adults from parents, etc). Simply, this is the factor that a person coming out of alcohol probation is often inclined to have a drink, or to otherwise 'celebrate' their freedom. This could be a significant factor in the general perception of young adults and teenagers as 'risk takers', in particular due to this portion of the brain (assuming the study you're thinking of is primarily neurologically backed) completing its growth around this tumultuous time in the lives of american young adults.

This is further exasperated by (A) releasing all of these individuals in 'batches' into the world, which affects the risk-taking of persons (being part of a group increases willingness to participate in risky activities (see: peer pressure, group mentality in general, showing off... etc)). Ultimately, releasing adults together in batches could be a contributing factor to the recklessness of young adults.

There are many more... but what I need to hear is *a specific study, or studies*, instead of listing off every potential factor what might apply to a study like this. Heck, an awful study would have considerably more problems than these, and the one I'm thinking of would be very difficult to pull off even *with* these flaws about... finding a way to get them out of it would likely take a homeschooling experiment of sorts, and then you could have controls set too...

But of course, there's the problem that it wouldn't apply to those in public schools

You can't just go around dismissing scientific studies conducted by a respected psychological organization or people affiliated with it because of "external factors."

Actually... external factors trash *many* a study. That's why control over the factors of a scientific experiment is so important.

Whether respected or not matters not to me... whether their theory holds up, or their evidence shines true? That matters to me.

So... does it?

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.

No, friend... what you would have to do for me is to prove that having sex with a child is necessarily child abuse, after all, it is you who are conflating the two here, not I.

Further, whether or not they claim love does not change whether or not they do love... and whether they do love does not change whether or not they are hurting the other.

See... I abhor rape and sexual abuse *in any form*... but I love love, however the form.

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?

Not during the first half of my 10th year (4th grade for me), but the girls who were 10 generally knew what a STD was, given that 4th grade girls are generally 10-11. Sexual education for boys was one year after that.

Which was really too bad, because by the latter half of that year I'd learned about them because internet.

Or how exactly you could get pregnant? Or was it just about knowing what body parts were private?

Well, for me... I couldn't get pregnant (so unfair...), but yes, I was interested in where babies came from very early on.

I certainly knew which 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.

You're correct, you could certainly explain all of these things to a child.

The abuses that this world visits upon the innocent are depressing. I'd prefer a safe outreach for their interest, than the decidedly less than safe 'grab bag' available to them away from those I trust.

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.

So... if I lock a middle-aged woman up for 20 years and make her my bitch, and make her say that she consented and still consents when asked... I cannot be punished for it?

Wow, what a flawed system!

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.

Sure. Unless they're looking for field experience for a while, and aren't letting up... because they'll be going out into the field if so.

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.

Hey... I'm with you: running around is probably the least safe way to approach sex. They'll likely get hurt regardless who it is with.

I understand many concepts, friend.

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.

Would it matter if I did? I would, real or not, if my daughter begged me to.

If I had a son, it'd take him slightly more work to convince me to do so... but that's only because I'm sexist.

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.

Why would we *not* comprehensively sexually educate children?

I said 8, 9, and 10, but okay It's true, human is a smart animal... and it would benefit from this knowledge earlier in tis development, rather than later.

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?

Children earn 'experience points' as they perform household chores, homework, community service, etc... which culminate in "levels". Every level they advance in the relevant category grants them 'talent points' to spend upon unlocking a tiered set of content, from being able to eat without the family, to owning a pet, to having an unchaperoned date (to tiers of entertainment, etc)

All of which they have to earn by various prerequisites and common experience in the category applicable.

If my daughter wanted sex with me, you'd better bet she'll have to work very hard for the privilege.

And how could you possibly make a case to any civilized government to be all for it?!

It doesn't fit the bottom line where corporatism is concerned... sooo, that would be a challenge.

---

She's waaay too young for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0ZJHVH17I

---

He was seduced by his much younger mother, who had know idea he was her son, whilst the baby crying in the room next door was also himself. Incest and time paradox. Brilliant. :-)

Ehh, I've heard some very interesting stuff. Hopefully he wrote it better than 'Back to the future''s plot, which was kind of like that.

[StealthySkeptic]

Doing in depth research of this nature would take quite some time. Again, I would suggest that you do it before asking me to speak for all of psychology on this issue.

[Violet]

Doing in depth research of this nature would take quite some time. Again, I would suggest that you do it before asking me to speak for all of psychology on this issue.

I've done myself plenty of forays into the nature of man. And into the nature of woman. And even into the nature of spaghetti. What I've found is that nature is multifaceted, and that looking at it under a microscope will reveal a different face than 'eyeballing it'.

I'm asking you to speak for yourself. It's for myself that I speak, and it's by myself that I will review any study in particular which you find to be a reasonable source for whatever you wish to say. See: I can't give you a specific rundown on the limitations of a specific study, if I don't know which study in particular you are using to make your claims. I am unable to provide for you a list of the factors which may or may not put any given study right on into the dumpster for all it teaches us (say... small sample size, questions formed in a manipulative manner (watch fox news for examples), or perhaps a concurrent issue to be considered amongst the majority of the sample (40% of the women interviewed over their average menstrual flow were transwomen).

As an example of the jar of dirt we could dig into: 'Paraphilia' alone is right on up there with 'gender identity disorder' and 'ADHD/ADD' for being unbelievably inaccurate in what they're trying to accomplish through saying it. Simply: one can no more cure a disease that doesn't exist than they can return order to that which is not out of order. One might call these terms, 'misnomers'. I like to think of them more as 'marketable buzzwords' (like... 'organic', or 'natural').

History is a great place to draw upon in the above consideration... as there was once a time when homosexuality ranked right up there next to paedophilia, chocolate-chasing, and S/M all as 'paraphilia'. Now, one might be inclined to talk about the changeability of this category in tune with cultural shifts (sociology, anyone?)... but instead, I'm going to look directly at the subject matter, and say this:

Being sexually stimulated by something (anything) is not necessarily indicative of a diseased mind, nor does it constitute an illness in and of itself... therefore so-called "paraphilias" do not exist in a form relevant to medical science.

There, I've made a claim. Now... I can defend this claim, should you wish to contest it for no reason that I can fathom that is 'relevant to medical science' (ie you find someone being turned on by murder to be icky, or "immoral" on some grounds that I'm not aware of but I'm sure to discover momentarily). It's not a perfect logical circle yet, because i'm ill writing it at 0415 after working hard all day and I haven't established the definitions of anything within (hell, last time I tried to see if we could define what an 'illness' was, I got shit slung at me, and made someone cry when I'd had enough of it)... but somehow, I think it'll do for now.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The reason why I think pedophillia is wrong is because the adult typically pursues it for reasons of narcissistic gratification and has little if any concern over the effects on the pliant -- or unwilling -- child. The child, on the other hand , is less likely to be able see the pedophile's real motives, and is therefore more vulnerable and less able to give informed consent. Pedophilia is an act that almost always results in psychological harm to the child, it seems to me. And I think "better safe than sorry" is a fair approach when it comes to something as vague as "when is a child able to give informed consent?"