|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I don't base my morality upon science, though. I base them upon personal values.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What about 12 year olds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, at what age, according to you, is "too young" to consent to having sex?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: He, he, he. You said "drop the ball." He, he, he.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It certainly worked with me!
quote: 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: Yepers.
quote: ...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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024