sexual orientation issue

[Anymouse]

The first time I got laid, it was by an adult. Granted, she was 18 and I was 14, so not a massive difference, but it wasn't too bad at all, and I would have loved to shack up with my Shakespeare teacher. I have a sincere belief that it would have been educational in the best ways.

Wow, and the first time I got laid I was twenty-five.

Had nothing to do with religion, had everything to do with being undesirable.

And that woman later divorced me because of my epilepsy and married another who turned out to be a bigamist. So her long experience with sex (she claimed age 12) didn't give her much education about relationships.

[Girlysprite]

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.

[Anymouse]

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.

Knowledge can be a bad thing in the wrong hands, though. My (first) wife and I were always careful that our son knew such things as the correct terms for parts of the anatomy. One would think this was good, but not in the Bible Belt.

At age six, his baby sitter turned my (ex-)wife in to Child Protective Services in Florida on charges of child abuse because in proper context, he used the term for the male appendage (he had injured it zipping his pants in the bathroom). She was one horrified So. Baptist.

It took nine months and a lawyer to pry our son loose from CPS, only then because our lawyer unearthed a nine-hour interrogation video of our son by the state of Florida, in which he was refused food, water, and the bathroom until he would make a statement against his mother. He would not. (Not bad for a six-year-old.) After the state conceded its interrogation was "excessive," they then refused to release him because I am a Wiccan.

The state finally released him from "protective care" when our lawyer turned up hospital records indicating one of the foster families he'd stayed with physically beat him. They'd hoped we would not sue over the physical assault by the foster family, incompetent interrogation, and first amendment violation. We didn't, primarily because we had exhausted our resources trying to pry our son out of the state's grip. We were more interested in trying to straighten out our son's upset world.

[Epimethean]

Ah well, there's fucking, and there's fucked, and there's fucked up.

Sorry you had to go through all that, man.

[Anymouse]

Ah well, there's fucking, and there's fucked, and there's fucked up.

Sorry you had to go through all that, man.

I was more sorry for my son; at least we were adults and could comprehend what the government was doing. He was just a six year old taken from his parents and beaten by strangers.

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.

(signature pic not approved for Wiccans/pagans/other heathens.)

[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.

[Zenith]

7. What do you think about prostitution and paid sex?
Should we consider it "good", "normal", etc.? How do you regard (i.e. what do you feel about that person, what attitudes you have towards him/her):
a) a man that is a male prostitute in a club or on the streets, that is being fucked by everybody (consider both situations: a. by men b. by women) for money?
b) a woman that is a prostitute in a club or on the streets, that is being fucked by everybody for money.
CONSIDERING that they are not being forced by financial problems, for whom prostitution is the only way of surviving.

Legal, normal, should be taxed like everything else. Hookers should have health plans, etc., etc. Now, I do think it should be taken off the streets. For example, don't have sex in an alley. I think legalizing it would help that problem. I would open a whorehouse as soon as the law passed.

There's something that sounds... not nice with prostitution:
Consider that prostitution on streets would become illegal, and instead, brothels would be opened. And we get a brothel built in a poor town. Which girls would want to be hired there? My answer is, the poor girls would be the first. The poor girls might have lived even without selling themselves as prostitutes if the brothel had not been built, but having the brothel built there would be a greater influence to get hired there (namely, "you will live a better life, with much more money", etc). So building a brothel may be the same as legally selling the poor girls as sex slaves (because you manipulate/convince/influence them to do that).

Also, the fact that the brothel is built would sound as if people - especially girls that think about hiring there - should not be biased when thinking about such an opportunity, because it's a "normal" job, just like any other job. This means that girls who used to say "no, I would never be a prostitute, I want to have only one man to love at once, I want to have in the future a family, kids, etc." would come to say "what the hell? what's the problem with working there after all? It's just a job like any other job".

So Shell B, how do you think about this? Do you believe that the society can influence the girls to be in a certain way? (e.g. by calling the job "a job like any other else", etc.)

[Epimethean]

So, are you at odds with freedom of choice in a free market economy there?

I love sex, and it is always a zillion times better with someone you love, mainly because for it to get to the love part, you have taken the time, and you understand each other a bit more, which leads to much better communication in (or out of) bed.

But sex qua sex is not the province of love alone. It feels good, lessens stress, promotes health (so long as you play safe) and has been a commodity since before Moses washed his loincloth.

What is wrong with providing a new economic opportunity? If those poor girls don't like it, they certainly don't have to go in for it, and if they do, won't they be better off in the long run? Maybe able to fund their education in order to do something more fulfilling in an inner level?

[Darth]

People shouldn't have to sell their bodies to fund an education (They should be allowed to if they want to, but it should be to buy all the fancy things they want, not get an education, that should already be provided)

[Epimethean]

That is not the point. By similar reasoning, people should not have to work at all to fund an education. I would say that prostitution is better for a person in the long run than working in a mine.