Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 206 (261861)
11-21-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
11-20-2005 6:11 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
quote:
I am not really saying science per se leads to a culture of non-judgementality about sexual acts. I am saying that it seems that, at present, it should if you assume that moral judgements should not be based on religion or personal values, but on scientific ones, and my point is most that bash the religious right are doing the exact same thing as the religious right is doing, but they don't admit that.
I don't base my morality upon science, though.
I base them upon personal values.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:11 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 206 (261863)
11-21-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chiroptera
11-20-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
quote:
Can I pretend that I'm different from the religious right if I honestly don't care if 13 year olds have sex with adults?
What about 12 year olds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 6:04 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2005 11:53 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 206 (261867)
11-21-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
11-21-2005 5:33 AM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
So, at what age, according to you, is "too young" to consent to having sex?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:33 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 206 (261869)
11-21-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
11-21-2005 5:41 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
quote:
I have already shown this factually to you. If you cannot admit that this is true when data shows that our definition of consent does not align with who is doing what and who is choosing to do what and who is being harmed by what, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
So, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse?
Furthermore, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse with an adult?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 10:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 11:22 AM nator has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 50 of 206 (261872)
11-21-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-19-2005 6:25 PM


Not sure how to express this, but I believe sexual taboos, such as multiple wives, homosexuality, multiple partners, even sex with minors, etc,...(but not rape), are more the result of moral judgments, and that a large part of morality is founded in religious beliefs though that's not the only source.
I think you've got the cart before the horse - a large part of religious belief is founded in morality, although that's not the only source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 6:25 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 206 (261873)
11-21-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 9:55 AM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
quote:
I thought I was ready at the time, too. It was only the next day when I realized there was a whole world of stuff that I had to worry about now.
All those public service posters about diseases and stuff? Didn't even register on my consciousness, until afterwards.
Really? Wow.
You know how everybody thinks teenagers and young adults have these reckless attitudes like nothing bad is ever going to happen to them, and that's why they do irresponsible shit? I agree that it is, indeed, a very common mindset among teens, but I was never that kind of kid. I always figured, "well, why not me?" I never felt that I had any special protection against bad things happening to me if I took needless risks.
Maybe it's because, at a very early age, I had always had to mentally fend for (and defend) myself. I wasn't what I would call a self-confident kid, but at the same time I was also not a kid who others could coerce or get to do things I didn't want to do.
quote:
There was nothing more I could have done to be really ready, but I still wasn't. That's what leads me to believe that folks generally aren't quite ready. I mean, I didn't drop the ball or anything, or do anything dangerous or put myself or her at risk. It was a positive experience. But there were aspects that I simply couldn't have prepared for.
He, he, he. You said "drop the ball." He, he, he.
quote:
But I'm glad it was different for you. Maybe it's a gender-based thing, or something.
Maybe it is a gender-based thing. Young women, by way of the reality of our anatomy, have to be much more pragmatic regarding sex if we do not want to get pregnant. Hits home much more powerfully to us, I would think, compared to males.
I have got to say that I thoroughly enjoyed pretty much all aspects of losing my virginity.
The only part I didn't like was the contraceptive gel. Ick.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 10:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 9:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:10 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 206 (261903)
11-21-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 9:47 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
I'm sorry, where did you do that? How, exactly, do you think you can establish morality as a factual issue?
In past threads I have pointed you to my thread on the rand study. No matter what your criticisms of that study, the one thing which it certainly pulled apart was the notion that "consent" is a valid scientific criterion of anything.
It is moral based, and similar if not identical to the moral terms used in the past against homosexuality and masturbation.
I don't understand what would be hard to establish anything as a moral issue? Could you explain what would be hard with this?
Some people can consent; some cannot. It has nothing to do with their age, and nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with an objective assessment of their mental competence, and is thus not a moral issue for me, but a measuring issue.
Fine... show it. I have a thread on a study of the most up to date science on this issue and it says different, it is backed up with other research which says different.
Indeed these scientists even connected such assessments to the gay and masturbation issue (though I believe that is more developed within the other articles cited), but you just danced over.
Start with what consent is, then how you measure it, and why nonconsent itself is an issue which should allow moral and legal repercussions.
your breathless screed doesn't seem to indicate that you fully understood my point.
Breathless screed? Actually this all shows I understood what you said, but you still have no clue what I have presented to you regarding science and consent.
I have so far been agreeing with what you've been posting (you may even note that you have a mention in a POTM by me for this specific thread). My criticisms here are very specific and targeted and at most show my frustration that you still discuss "consent" as some nonmoral based issue.
That you have read anything more into my statements, shows your defensiveness and not my offensiveness. Cool down and reassess.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 9:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 206 (261906)
11-21-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
11-21-2005 10:24 AM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
I agree that it is, indeed, a very common mindset among teens, but I was never that kind of kid. I always figured, "well, why not me?"
Well, I mean, I'd been seeing the warnings for years, but I had just been in the mental habit of thinking that they only applied to people who were actually having sex, and not having any until you're 20 (and being a big nerd besides) puts you in a mindset where you don't immediately think of yourself as one of those people.
It was just the realignment of a mental habit, but it was a realignment I couldn't have made until afterwards.
He, he, he. You said "drop the ball." He, he, he.
"Ha ha! Dangly bits."
Young women, by way of the reality of our anatomy, have to be much more pragmatic regarding sex if we do not want to get pregnant. Hits home much more powerfully to us, I would think, compared to males.
I think culture reenforces that message for young women, as well. It seems like pregnancy is used to scare girls from an early age, and many cultural stereotypes still imply that the purpose of women is to be an object for sex, so it's not unexpected that young women are going to be much more anticipatory in regards to their first sexual encounter.
The only part I didn't like was the contraceptive gel. Ick.
A good friend of mine informs me that, in the US, the only avaliable spermacide is essentially a detergent, and it's very irritating to the skin, if you know what I mean. Canada and Europe, according to her, have much more advanced spermacides that are not so irritating, but for some reason, they aren't approved for use in the US. I blame the religionists, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:24 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:16 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 206 (261913)
11-21-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 11:10 AM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
quote:
I think culture reenforces that message for young women, as well. It seems like pregnancy is used to scare girls from an early age,
It certainly worked with me!
quote:
and many cultural stereotypes still imply that the purpose of women is to be an object for sex,
Well, we can see them right here in this thread.
Several men here have referenced "cheating men" but not "cheating women", "wife-swapping", not "husband-swapping", and "multiple wives", not "multiple husbands".
quote:
so it's not unexpected that young women are going to be much more anticipatory in regards to their first sexual encounter.
Yepers.
quote:
A good friend of mine informs me that, in the US, the only avaliable spermacide is essentially a detergent, and it's very irritating to the skin, if you know what I mean. Canada and Europe, according to her, have much more advanced spermacides that are not so irritating, but for some reason, they aren't approved for use in the US. I blame the religionists, of course.
...and the american pharmaceutical companies and the lawmakers who allow their lobbyists to dictate protectionist policies for their industry . We need to blame them, too.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-21-2005 11:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:22 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 206 (261917)
11-21-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 11:10 AM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
quote:
Well, I mean, I'd been seeing the warnings for years, but I had just been in the mental habit of thinking that they only applied to people who were actually having sex, and not having any until you're 20 (and being a big nerd besides) puts you in a mindset where you don't immediately think of yourself as one of those people.
When you are a young woman in America, you also realize early on that you could be having sex against your will, so it's good to know about things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 206 (261919)
11-21-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
11-21-2005 11:16 AM


More embarassing admissions down at the end
Several men here have referenced "cheating men" but not "cheating women", "wife-swapping", not "husband-swapping", and "multiple wives", not "multiple husbands".
Yeah, exactly; as though extra-pair copulation is somehow the exclusive balliwick of men. As if! (Crashfrog has pretty much been cheated on by all his girlfriends.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:16 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 57 of 206 (261920)
11-21-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
11-21-2005 10:10 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
You have two posts asking essentially the same question, so I'll answer both with this one.
So, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse?
The first thing I would ask you is what you are using to define consent? If you mean willing to go along with/desiring such contact then there is no real age where it is impossible to give consent.
If you mean full on penetrative intercourse then that'll have physical limits set by the individuals.
The second thing I might ask, to start another important track in this argument you'd be making, is what does nonconsent have to do with being a problem such that it needs to be controlled in some way? For example at which age would you say that it is impossible for a person to consent to eating jello, and if there is such a boundary, what would make it problematic to feed the person jello?
Furthermore, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse with an adult?
I am uncertain why such a line would be affected by an adult being involved.
Why do I have this feeling you are conflating ability to consent with inability to back up nonconsent? Kids are better than adults in letting people know exactly what they want and don't want. Whether they can be beat down is something else entirely.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:10 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:52 AM Silent H has replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 58 of 206 (261926)
11-21-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
11-19-2005 7:04 PM


Stranglehold
Religion tries to put a stranglehold on human sexuality, but it doesn't much matter. Humans have been having the sex that they were told not to have for the scope of human history. Science not only explains why they do, but why we told them not to, as well.
The precepts that are in the Bible are given by the Creator to allow sexual activity to be a liberating and satisfying activity between a husband and wife. They are also in place to act as a protection of the human population from the destructiveness of unrestrained sexual activity. From what I have witnessed in society, the stranglehold on people isn't religious constriction as much as the hold that free lance sex can grip them. That said, I have also witnessed where man has over stepped the boundries set by God and made up very constraining rules on what a husband and wife can do in the realm of sex. That is a good example of religion.
Science does a very good job of of explaining the why of sexual behavior. It effectivly illuminates what the Bible calls the "Sin Nature" of man as it explains the basic sex drive mechanics as the sole determiner to behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2005 7:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:39 AM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2005 1:50 PM Lizard Breath has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 206 (261927)
11-21-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
11-21-2005 9:40 AM


This is my position exactly regarding consent laws.
There are plenty of lonely men who are willing to give consent, but there are plenty of lonely men who can be taken advantage of. The law has to draw a single line for everybody, some fall on one sideof the law, some on the other.
This is an equal position for sexual laws nixing gay sex. My guess is you would not agree with them.
The idea that repression of one group can be justified by the protection of some within that group who suffer something that has no connection to that first group is pretty ridiculous. You can't stop rape by making sex illegal.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 9:40 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:57 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 206 (261933)
11-21-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
11-21-2005 11:03 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
No matter what your criticisms of that study, the one thing which it certainly pulled apart was the notion that "consent" is a valid scientific criterion of anything.
Well, that's certainly not how I read it. Certainly it destroys the notion of "age of consent", but I didn't see how it eliminated the idea that some people don't have the wherewithall to effectively consent to risky acts, because they simply can't comprehend the risks.
I mean, surely you believe that coercion exists? Or that an extremely young or developmentally retarded person could consent to a risk they simply can't understand?
I don't understand what would be hard to establish anything as a moral issue?
I draw a personal distinction between morality and ethics, where the first are the precepts we draw on the basis of something being "right" or "wrong", and the second are the precepts we draw on the basis of their objective, testable merit to society.
The idea of consent is an ethical issue to me; I don't really recognize moral issues, because discussions about morals never go anywhere. Too subjective and individual. But we can objectively discuss ethical issues through empiricism and the like.
I see consent as an ethical issue because the issue itself is ameinable to objective study. Objectively, there are some people who cannot understand the risks of what they agree to do; thus, their consent is meaningless. And persons who place them in those risks knowing that they cannot understand them are culpable, just as they would be if they exposed someone to a risk directly against their will.
I have a thread on a study of the most up to date science on this issue and it says different, it is backed up with other research which says different.
If you're referring to that one thread where you presented the study, again, that's not how I remember it. Certainly it destroyed the link between consent and age, but the idea of consent in general? I don't see how you think it did that. Do you honestly believe that a two-year-old, for instance, could meaningfully appreciate the risks of operating a power tool? Or a firearm? I mean, isn't that why we lock up our guns? Because our young children aren't able to understand the risks of their use?
Breathless screed? Actually this all shows I understood what you said
No, it doesn't. You've still missed my point.
Cool down and reassess.
I am cool. You're the one that, once again, couldn't possibly address a post to me without peppering it with ad hominem accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" and the like. Prove to me that you can address me with sufficient detatchment, and I'll continue the discussion with you. But I'm not going to drag down another thread defending myself against your scurrilous acccusations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 11:03 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024