Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

Yes I totally understand that premise. I also agree with it, but not fully, because lately I have been thinking differently. Science and the scientific method are set up to be blame free, or so we are taught to believe that way. But really science is only as good as the people doing it. (I am not saying it is bad) So we use that very same science, that was done by humans, to then make another human decsion based on our human findings, and then make laws, which help determine our morals.So if you think for one second that in the real world that science doesn't affect our laws, and now our morals, then you are living in a state of denial. To further that is to say that science is sometimes wrong, and then we base our morals and laws on something that is sometimes wrong, and also allowed to be wrong. Not to much better than religion. This train of thought is not an absolute, but just a different way of looking at it, a realistic way I think.Life is not a calculator, and there are many things that science has not explained yet. But there are many things we can learn from our past, religion included. No its not either. All sex is dangerous, just like guns. Behind door #1 we have no chance of getting aids, behind door #2 you have a slight chance of getting aids, and behind door #3 you will most likely get aids. Which door do you pick? Science just laid out the odds in front of you, and so you had to consider the odds. You might still make a dumb choice, but most people would base it on the odds. Science just help you dictate what is wrong and right. Science is an accesory to the crime. And if we make everything ok to do, based on our scientific findings, I don't feel that is wise.

rhain!!!! how ya been, you haven't bothered with me in a long time. I wondered if you still exsisted, or maybe you finally got banned or something.Well anyway, in typical rhain fashion, you already have a preconcieved notion about what I believe in and why, so your response was so typical of, well, rhain. When did I say it wasn't?And explain just how it is a heterosexual desease? Where did it come from?If it is, it really doesn't matter. It's truely amazing, but your the one who went right to the gay thing, I wasn't even thinking about gay people when I wrote that. I was only pointing out that crap on your dicky is unhealthy. We have science to thank for knowing that.Self check.My point was, which you always seem to miss, is that science helps us determine what is good and bad for us, keeping in theme with the OP.It would seem that some people would make anything legal, or morally acceptable just as long as the partys involved will consent to it. That is the excuse I keep hearing over and over. They want to live in a moral free society, where everything is ok if it really doesn't involve you. But that thought in itself is a moral. I also believe that everything we do, affects the next person, because I believe we are a human race, and it is my desire for us to live like one, in peace.

Well then in reality, laws and morals are really not separate issues.
You can't in one sentence say they are separate, then in the very next sentence provide proof that they are, that doesn't make sense. *edit* That it is why there are laws on how your well in your house is to be set up, and how your municipal water system purifies its water. Science helps determine our laws. *end edit*
So please explain this responsibilty process you speak of. Some people do. If that causes more desease, should it be ok? To make a comparison why I think it shouldn't, is to say that legally we can quaranteen people for certain deseases. I understand about airborne, and blood born, I worked in a hospital for years, I am pointing out the governments ability to get involved, and determine what is good for us, or bad for us. Since we are the people, it involves us too. Actually it is my desire to accept everyone exactly the way the are. I am getting this from how I read the bible. Jesus came to save the world, not judge it.But where do we draw the line?
Drugs are illegal, why?
Suicide is illegal, why?
Many other laws are in place to protect us from ourselves, why?Is there really anything that we do, that does not affect someone else?You can pretend to live in a box, where anything that anyone does, does not affect you, but the world around keeps changing, and sooner or later it will catch up to you.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 11-23-2005 09:43 PM

quote:

---

Science and the scientific method are set up to be blame free, or so we are taught to believe that way

---

Then you have been very poorly taught. Science is a means to describing natural phenomena and characterizing the way they work. It is set up to discover. I challenge you to point out where in the history of the development of the scientific method, scientists proposed developing a system that was blame free as opposed to a system of discovery.

quote:

---

and then make laws, which help determine our morals.

---

Laws determine your morals? That is a strange view of things.

quote:

---

So if you think for one second that in the real world that science doesn't affect our laws, and now our morals, then you are living in a state of denial.

---

Now you have changed your stance from "determines" to affects. Heavy snowstorms affect our laws when people stay home from voting rather than face the weather. Should we now blame the weather for our laws and morals? There is still a difference between a religious/political mechanism TELLING you what you can or cannot do and using physical or psychological coercion to enforce it and science which can determine cause and effect or the chances of a negative outcome but which cannot force you to do anything. I can tell you that sticking your hand in the fire will cause you to get burned. I cannot prevent you from being stupid enough to stick you hand in the fire.

quote:

---

But there are many things we can learn from our past, religion included.

---

A strange pair of juxtaposed sentences...there is actually nothing scientific that I can learn from religion.

quote:

---

No its not either. All sex is dangerous, just like guns.

---

Eating is also dangerous. Walking is very dangerous. In fact taking a shower is quite dangerous, as you can slip and fall, scald yourself with water, etc. Life is dangerous. But it beats the alternative.

quote:

---

Behind door #1 we have no chance of getting aids, behind door #2 you have a slight chance of getting aids, and behind door #3 you will most likely get aids. Which door do you pick? Science just laid out the odds in front of you, and so you had to consider the odds. You might still make a dumb choice, but most people would base it on the odds. Science just help you dictate what is wrong and right. Science is an accesory to the crime. And if we make everything ok to do, based on our scientific findings, I don't feel that is wise.

---

You completely contradicted yourself here. First you show three possible outcomes. Then you say that people may still choose one of the riskiest behaviors even knowing the risks associated, yet you claim that because they know these odds science has dictated their behavior. Nonesense. Science gives people what is required to make an informed decision. However, they have to decide which behavior is right for them. And you freely admit this. Science cannot dictate that. Religion and politics can dictate the "right" choice to make either via law, physical threat, or psychological threat. Science lacks this power.

quote:

---

And if we make everything ok to do, based on our scientific findings, I don't feel that is wise.

---

Beats relying on dogmatic religion telling you what is right or wrong (which is totally changeable depending on which religion you decide to follow) based on no authority, no information, and an implied threat/reward system. I rather know based on fact what is behind door 1, 2, and 3 than just fly blind.

Your assertion was that morals are based on laws. I was showing that though some might be based on the other, they can be made independently. That makes them separate issues, even if they go one to effect each other in some peoples' practices.I think you'd agree that peanut butter, bread, and jelly are three seperate substances with different origins despite being used sometimes to make a PBJ sandwich. I think you have missed what we are saying. Science can be used to deliver criteria for laws. I don't think anyone denies that. In that way it does "help determine" laws.What it does not do is tell us that ther should be a law regarding something. Lets take the water contaminants issue. All it can do is deliver, if people are interested, levels of chemicals in water and what effects they may have. It is up to people to decide whether that is something they want to regulate, and if so how.Indeed despite regs against contaminating a water supply, a city may end up intentionally contaminating a water supply, or allowing it to become contaminated, in order to achieve some other end... usually construction work. In this case they do not say it is wrong or bad or illegal. Instead they simply get the message out to affected areas to boil their water before use. Okay, who uses anal sex to make a sandwich? Is this on some porn tape you have or something? Then again the ass to mouth videos are becoming more popular. I suppose that might cut close. First of all sex does not and cannot CAUSE disease. It is a vector for transfering some diseases.Second science cannot say whether it should or should not be considered ok. It is neutral. Individuals will then press upon its findings whether it is ok.If you are asking me my personal opinion, my moral system does not have things like "ok" or "right" in it, especially in some universal sense. That would be unhealthy to not know the status of onesself, unwise if one wants to stay healthy and does not take precautions, unjust if one is sick and has such sex (or makes such sandwiches?) with others, etc.As far as regulations and laws are concerned, it would be prudent to put in measures which will restrict life threatening diseases from spreading throughout the community. Since anal sex does not cause anything I am unsure what laws against that would stop. For years and you can't spell quarantine? In any case quarantine measures are excellent ways to isolate communicable diseases so that they cannot spread further. This is not the gov't deciding what is good for us. In the US that would be us deciding which method would be most efficient to protect ourselves from a spreading contagion.We don't want to suffer disease and so put in practical measures to prevent its spread. Some may find that good. I find it wise for people that do not enjoy being sick. Science does not help determine which is the right way to make this decision. There are such laws because some people are not comfortable enough living their own lives and feel they should be in charge of others. Sometimes... as is the case with drugs and gambling and sex... use the excuse that they are not trying to stop the behavior itself, but negative outcomes which will occur naturally with their existence.That is in spite of the long history of such prohibitions ever having a positive outcome, including ending the "negative outcomes" the moralists claim were associated with the original behavior they really wanted to remove. Not all effects are bad or wrong or unhealthy. Likewise not all effects are significant.I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that anything that effects someone else to any degree should be ruled against morally or legally? That's intriguing. I do believe a good analogy is that we live in a box, with each other, and so our actions can effect ourselves, others, and the box itself.That does not mean any moral or legal rule you create is useful, fair, or desireable.By the way, alcohol is a poison. Science will tell you that its effects are detrimental to human health. In addition, some will claim it has many social effects. Was Prohibition worthwhile and a good idea? Should communion be ended as an immoral act for drunkards that will hurt themselves and others?

---

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

quote:

---

1) I did not say parents would be the sole arbiters of when a child could have sex. The child would also have the ability to turn down sex.

---

But is it reasonable to expect a child to refuse sex in marriage if they never got to choose anything at all regarding that marriage?Do you really think that the power dynamics between an adult and a 5 year old favor the child?Let's say they have been given to an adult as a spouse when in infancy and have been trained by this spouse since infancy that they must submit to any and all sexual advances, and this child, since infancy, has been dependent upon this adult spouse for everything.Is it reasonable to expect that this child will believe they even have the option to refuse?

quote:

---

My suggestion was that parents would be able to say no, even if a child said yes, to some sexual partner. It shifts power away from the state, to the family.

---

Parents can say no to any sexual partner now. The people we need to protect are the children who's parents would say "yes" to the above scenario.

quote:

---

2) Your idea that marriage from an early age (lets say infancy) is sexual slavery because it is before a child can choose is arbitrary and linked to your obsession with sex.

---

Sexual slavery = being owned and used and controled by another person for the purpose of their sexual gratification.

quote:

---

What else can children be made a part of and forced to do by parents, before they have the capacity to choose?

---

Lots of things. They are "forced" to not stick their fingers into light sockets, "forced" to learn to read, "forced" to not run into a busy street.

quote:

---

Unless you are going to have rules saying the child cannot refuse sex (which is allowed in any marriage), or that the child cannot divorce (which is allowed in any marriage), I am uncertain how this could count as slavery. Inded how would you know that within whatever theoretical culture you are referring to the child does not end up liking the arrangement?

---

They might. I'm sure that some people ended up liking lots of things that affected the rest of their lives in major ways, like arranged marriages, that they did not have a choice in. But that's not the point.The point is, at what age is it reasonable to expect a child to understand the risks and consequences of engaging in full on penetrative intercourse?Just because some might be ready at 8 doesn't mean most will be, just as some, but not most, 8 year olds might be fully capbable of operating a motor vehicle. Just because some are capable doesn't mean that should let all of them do it.

quote:

---

3) I like how it is a she. You do know that boys are also targets of prearranged marriages, right?

---

Yes, but in those cultures where this is common, little boys are usually married to little girls, not adult women, because the reason for most arranged marriages is to remove the financial burden of a female child, or to cement political ties between families.

quote:

---

That is to ignore the drastically different conditions between modern warfare and sex.

---

Sure, and voting and purchasing alcohol are two drastically different activities, yet we have minimum age requirements for those, too.

quote:

---

The fact that you could try to equate the two situations is absurd.

---

The fact is you are making a strawman out of my argument.Never have I equated modern warfare and sex. I was using the minimum age of conscription as an example of why we have "arbitrary" AOC laws for anything at all. What I said was:

quote:

---

This does not change the fact that age of consent laws are not involved with this issue.

---

...and exactly why we set an AOC law regarding sexual activity.At least, that's why I think it is reasonable to have one.Do you disagree that the descision to have sex, as in full on, penetrative intercourse, requires some minimum level of perspective, experience, and maturity (and perhaps education)?

quote:

---

Indeed unlike sex, there does appear to be causal connection between violence and psychological problems. Of course I imagine you are more likely to allow your kids to play with guns than a vibrator.

---

Yeah, and I imagine that you would invite all your friends to enjoy your 12 year old son's nice, tight anus.See, I can imagine all sorts of insulting things about you, too.Perhaps you could stop with the ad hominems?And by the way, why do you constantly shift away from my examples of adults having sex with children and shifting to children having sexual contact or play with other children?I actually have no problem with children of similar ages fooling around or experimenting. And I do think that a 18 year old having sex with their 15 year old partner is not a problem. It's the 40 year old teacher having sex with the 12 year old student that is the problem. It is the 26 year old having sex with the 7 year old that is the problem.

Yeah, why not? What does marriage have to do with telling a person they have to have sex? That is irrelevant. If a person uses their power to coerce then it would be rape no matter the age, and whether they are married.I might point out that you are arguing to use the power dynamics of an adult over a child to force them NOT to do what they might want to do. If they had been "trained" the way you suggest, then my guess is they wouldn't want to refuse, rather than not seeing the option of refusing. And if they don't want to refuse why should you care?If you were trying to suggest that they were brainwashed into accepting any activity out of fear of reprisals, that is something else entirely.Note, you want children trained not to accept any activity from anyone, no matter how much they desire it. How is that any better? That's why the child would have a say as well. Again, what does that have to do with marriage? Is marriage the state of owning another person for the purpose of sexual gratification? Wow you really don't want to address my points do you? I was pointing out that if you think marriage is an extreme relationship that parents can force kids into before they have the ability to choose, why is that not true for other relations they can put kids in?But let me address the above. Parents can force kids to learn to read. Why can they not force kids to learn about sexual techniques? What is the difference between the two? Objectively speaking. Actually it is the point. Children's lives are ALWAYS effected by what parents choose for them. Sometimes in very major ways. For all of these it is true that they did not have a choice in them.You want it to seem odious if such a decision might allow for sexual activity to occur, or at least that it is more odious (or ominous) if that occurs, rather than other life shaping events. No that is NOT the point. That is NOT the point AT ALL. We have moved away from that point. A child may not understand the risks and consequences of many many many things, and yet parents are allowed to decide for them. And indeed children are allowed to choose many things that they have no conception of the risks involved.Risk assessment as a measure for whether a child should or should not be forced to do something, or be allowed to do something has ALREADY been shown to be a false reason. It is not applied consistently whatsoever.That said, I will entertain this obsession of yours for a little longer. If penetration is the issue, and certainly that activity would pose the most risks, then we could simply ban sexual penetration based on age.This might make sense based on general physical capabilities of vaginas and anuses. Then again doctors can and do probe (penetrate) both with foreign objects (as do parents sometimes) and so perhaps penile penetration, or penetration with objects over a certain size would make more sense.Then again we could simply make it that damage to such areas would be punishable, as well as spreading STDS to a child (or anyone for that matter). That would decrease the risks just the same as barring any contact, right? If not, why not?I might point out another problem with your whole setup. You claim these laws must be used because children cannot assess risk. Yet while these laws sometimes do end up targeting children for punishment, they are usually not brought to bear on children and instead are used against adults. Now if adults CAN assess risk, then it is actually backwards to apply such laws to adults and thus shuffle kids towards partners who are equally oblivious of risks. In fact it would seem that a better law (consistent with your reasoning) would be to ban all sex between minors, but allow sex between minors and adults. In that way children will always be paired with someone who can assess risk.Really though if risk is the issue, this moves back to what I have already mentioned regarding punishment for harming another's health. After all sex does not cause disease. It may cause pregnancy in pubescent girls, but that would leave a lot of sexual activity still open for pursuit, and frankly pregnancy as a "risk" is sort of biased. Some girls want to have kids, and it does not have to be a bad thing.Thus, we could punish people that actually put kids at risk, rather than simply having sex and assuming it MUST put kids at risk. Wait a second, I specifically refuted this argument of yours. And here you are reasserting it almost word for word? Uh, you go back and address my refutation and then we can talk. Otherwise you are not just wrong, you are also violating EvC policy. That is not necessarily true at all. But lets say for a second that it is. What difference would that make? Are you now asserting that kids do not try and have sex with each other? If so you are quite naive.And if you think little girls do not try to make boys do things, and indeed will try to force boys to do things when they have the power... oh boy you are naive.If its just that older guys can physically damage girls by sticking their mature organs into the rather undersized organs of the girl, that would be true. But then I have already addressed the only necessary rules to deal with that.

---

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

I am not saying that the main purpose of science is to be blame free. I am saying because of the method we use, it IS blame free. I am not putting down, just pointing out the facts.Can we just establish that science is in fact blame free, per say? No its not, its reality. Just read some of the responses to my post. again, its not an absolute, but a contributing factor. To completely disconnect the 2 would be wrong, and mis-leading. I don't think I said "determines", I think I said helps determine, I have to go back and check. If I made a mistake, I am correcting it now. Sure there is. Just read the OT, an account of how people behaved. Then start a scientific study on why we used to behave that way. So religion becomes part of a scientific study. Yes, I agree with that, but just where do we draw the line. If your going to use words like consent, and scientific study, in your reasoning to make one thing right or another, then it must be applied to all things, so that your not hypocritical. I did not say dictated, I said: Help you dictate, and dictated are two different concepts. Sp basically your admitting to what I am trying to say here. And that is your choice. But your choice isn't any more right than a choice I might make. Science is not the "right way" and religion the "wrong way". I like the middle ground, and want to learn from both experiences. Especially when science and religious ideas both sort of say the same thing. An example is "sexual immortality" in the bible, and sex being bad for you in science.You want to make it ok because we can consent to it, and it isn't hurting others. But is it? If it is not hurting others, then why is there so many people with STD's? Becuase they all consented to it, or most all. Seems like our own judgment is killing us.I am not making a stance here, just pointing out the facts.

Yes it does. Sometimes they even hire scientists to find out what the law should be, based on their findings. 3 men?
2 black guys and a white girl? Like an oreo?
Ok I worded it incorrectly. Would their decsion be any different if there were no scientific studys? If you say yes, then science is an accessory to the "crime".Science does not stand alone by itself. It is not its on entity. Without humans, there is no science. So it is biased. Until the day when we know everything, then it can be an end all to what is wrong and right. I know your going to take this statement wrong. I was a Sheet Metal mechanic, not a doctor. But I had to take orientation about all the deseases, and learn how to transport patients and such. We are the back-ups in case of disaster. Infection control, etc.
My spelling sucks, I am better with numbers, and science. Sometimes I just don't have the time to spell check. As long as your getting what I am trying to say. I apologize for the poor spelling. But be careful, if your going to start correcting my spelling, then be prepared to be a perfect speller. So far everyone that has coreccted me, has made many spelling errors of their own. What????
Science absolutly tells use the best ppossible way to help stop these things. It's the best we can do with what we got.What kind of practical measures should we take to stop AIDS? Should we enforce these? Or just tell people about it? No, I am just discussing with you guys, where should we draw the line. It's just an open discussion, and I am not imposing my personal views or morals, just stating facts. Thats not true. Getting drunk maybe. Another example of science and the bible agreeing with each other. I was under the impression that a glass of wine a day, can be good for you.

quote:

---

Can we just establish that science is in fact blame free, per say?

---

Then I don't understand the point you are arguing. If science is blame free (which I think it is) and you agree with that then we don't have a debate. But I don't think you mean this since you say the opposite below.

quote:

---

No its not, its reality. Just read some of the responses to my post. again, its not an absolute, but a contributing factor. To completely disconnect the 2 would be wrong, and mis-leading.

---

It is illegal to buy alcohol when you are under 21 in the US. Does that law make drinking immoral? If a 20 year old drinks a beer is he immoral and the 21 year old not? The law prescribes certain behaviors that will be punished (if caught)..not directly morality..or do you think zoning laws are a moral issue rather than a legal one? Which moral stance do zoning laws determine for you?

quote:

---

Sure there is. Just read the OT, an account of how people behaved. Then start a scientific study on why we used to behave that way. So religion becomes part of a scientific study.

---

About the only scientific information I could imagine that would pertain to religion would be some of the studies that examine brain activity during religious experience..the same way they measure brain activity for other experiences. Or the fitness advantages religion may have conferred on groups by providing group identity historically. Otherwise, religion is irrelevant to science...certainly the OT.

quote:

---

If your going to use words like consent, and scientific study, in your reasoning to make one thing right or another, then it must be applied to all things, so that your not hypocritical.

---

Where am I being hypocritical? I did not use the word consent....and how does scientific study making one thing right over another? I have been consistently arguing exactly the opposite of what you just said.

quote:

---

Sp basically your admitting to what I am trying to say here. And that is your choice. But your choice isn't any more right than a choice I might make. Science is not the "right way" and religion the "wrong way". I like the middle ground, and want to learn from both experiences. Especially when science and religious ideas both sort of say the same thing. An example is "sexual immortality" in the bible, and sex being bad for you in science.

---

No, I am not admitting any such thing. You are claiming that I am saying exactly the opposite of what I said..the second time in this post. Science can demonstrate the effects certain chemicals, biological agents, behaviors etc. may have on your biology i.e. bacteria and viruses causing specific diseases. Statistical probabilities of contracting disease given a specific sexual practice. It does not tell you what is right or wrong...it is freely up to you to do what you want with that info including ignore it. The weather man is not telling you what to do when he predicts that there will be snow. He is providing information.Furthermore, religion just tells you what is right or wrong based on opinion. It provides no information. Just assertions. Science does not tell you that sex is bad, immoral or any such thing. It does not tell you all unprotected sex is dangerous (if that were true there would be no children). Xianity for its part demonizes sex based on its own bizarre prudish dogma and is not based on anything scientific. You are free to follow that and ignore the science. Science won't tell you what you should or should not do.

quote:

---

You want to make it ok because we can consent to it, and it isn't hurting others. But is it? If it is not hurting others, then why is there so many people with STD's? Becuase they all consented to it, or most all. Seems like our own judgment is killing us.

---

People get STD's because they engage in risky behaviors and ignore the scientific studies that demonstrate the biological consequences. They have made their choice to ignore it. Before the biological basis of STD's were known, you know what? People still got STD's. Is that sciences fault to? Science did not tell them that having sex or getting STDs was right or wrong. Science established what STDs are, how you get them..and in some cases, has provided treatments against them. Religion has done none of this. People will ignore scientific data...heck, the general American public ignores science completely. The fact that religious people get STDs indicate that they ignore their religious rules of right and wrong to.

quote:

---

just pointing out the facts

---

The facts are that science can inform you, can establish cause and effect, may even provide a means to preventing harmful effects..but it does not tell you what is right or wrong.

1) I have already stated that using similar laws, does not create support for the law under discussion. That is circular logic. It is also ridiculous when you should realize I am not likely to agree with the other ones, and have said this before.2) Voting laws are completely different as that is about community action by the govt, and not about what you can do with your own body. It is completely true that the line IS arbitrary, but it is not about consent of the individual. It is a community agreement of what criteria they want for a person able to take part in govt decisionmaking. I do not see why age would be an inappropriate criteria for that at all. Even education and smarts do not make up for real world experience. It is true that people will have had differing levels of experience by a certain age. If we could measure experiences I would be willing to change that as the criteria rather than age. But enlistment ages are not comparable to AOC laws at all. They are not for the reason you suggest and are not about whether the kid consents or not.And I was specifically criticizing (as an addition) that you would connect the two as similar examples of serious decisions kids cannot understand. They are not on the same scale at all. Yes I do disagree. Its just sex schraf. I would prefer my kids have some education, but it is not required. Experience and maturity. That's rich. What experience and maturity allows one to handle something they are barred from having experience and so gaining maturity about.Only in the field of sex do humans believe long periods of forced inexperience will make them more able to understand and handle any complexities involved with that activity, and indeed believe it will somehow be better.And that is in spite of the fact that we did it just fine for eons up until these last few centuries without such laws, and all stats regarding such laws show no help in combatting the ill effects you say are risked by people doing it without them. Hahaha. That's your comeback when I point out that you are more likely to allow your kids experience with violence than sexuality? I wasn't trying to insult you, I was trying to make a point about raising children in modern western society.Is it true or not? Will you allow your kids to play with sexual toys and see sexual things and explore such activities, or are you more likely to give them toy guns or video games which involve killing people graphically first?Honestly, how was your question even analogous to my question? I do not see myself doing that at all. And I do not mean to be. I am willing to discuss all situations. Prohibitive laws cross all ages and so you have to deal with how it effects kids as much as adults. I realize you want to view them as protecting kids, but they don't. Or at least that is not all they do. They also repress kids. First about the teacher-student thing. I don't care what age the people are, there are legitimate reasons for restricting such activity. Not that I think the restrictions have to go overboard, but its not useful for anyone involved, and can result in some awkward and negative situations (including the rest of the school).On top of that, there are very solid reasons for restricting such activity when the schools are for minors. Parents have a right to expect that teachers are not going to become sexually engaged with their kids. After all, they are sending their kids for an education, and the educators are supposed to be professionals hired to do just that. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to help a guy hit on my kids all day.Then again I think we do go overboard when it happens. Sometimes I think parents have to be realistic that it can happen and not end up trying to destroy their own kids' life in the process of getting at the teacher.Okay but aside from that, or other issues of putting someone in care of someone else, you are bringing up age difference. I see no problem with this. Indeed cultures used to see wisdom in having adults paired with younger people because (it was believed) they would be more caring and be able to protect them better from any risks.Once again we walk into an irony. People are happy to see kids learn about anything, and indeed form lifelong bonds, with someone who is older as long as it did not involve sex. Just as with the bizzaro world logic that less experience with sex results in better ability with sex, it is viewed that the more mature person is likely to be less mature and interested in harming or disregarding the health of the child, as well as not being able to teach them anything of value.Sweet.Look, as long as you say the "problem" is that you simply don't like it, because of whatever has made you you, then I have no argument. You can dislike it all you want and you are not wrong.It is the rationalizations to try and justify this taste, and argue as if there is some objective "problem", which is where I will argue with you.I'm even willing to help you protect your kids according to your tastes using the power of the law. I am simply not interested in having all parents' children raised according to your view, and am quite interested in removing one person's interests from other parents' children.There is no inherent problem with a person of any age getting sexual satisfaction from someone else of any age, as long as they are not damaging them physically.Any other harms, or problems, are from your moral viewpoint.

---

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

Again, look at what you just said, this does not show science telling us there should be a law. In the example you provided the people would have hired the scientists to investigate appropriate criteria within a law, not decide that one should be made. How many times do I have to say that I agree that science can effect laws? There is a difference between that and saying they make the law, or suggest (that is tell people) that a law should be made.A scientist does not say, this is what is found therefore there should be a law. The scientist says this is what I found. Then other people look at the ramifications of those findings and assess whether that means there should be a law. Oh, I'm not a perfect speller. Its just that that was so far off it suggested a nonfamiliarity with its use, which would seem strange from someone involved with hospital work. Now that I understand it was sheet metal work in a hospital, things are much clearer. You misunderstood my point. I was saying science would not be able to say that labelling something "good" (or bad) is the correct reason to make a law, versus a recognition that I don't like to be sick and so want to do whatever I can not to get that way.I agree that science is the best tool we have available to diagnose illnesses, and determine underlying strategies to deal with them. We should have used a quarantine system of some kind. It is just like any other communicable illness which is deadly.This just goes to show that while science can find something it can't tell us what to do about it. It can only suggest a variety of options, based on what we want from the phenomena being investigated.At this time a full quarantine system is impossible. I think a rigorous testing program, especially the allowance of hometests (I can't believe that is being debated), combined with pseudo-quarantine measures are our best defenses against its spread. No, really. Alcohol is a poison. It does physical damage whether you get drunk or not. You are correct that a glass of wine a day has been found to have some good effects. It also has some bad effects. It all depends on the balance you want to find.Just to let you know it has been found that sex is a great way to retain physical health. It not only makes people happier through internal processes, it chemically can improve people's lives (girls that get cum within them react to it physically). Men stay healthier and live longer through masturbation. And for girls, pregnancy at early ages can help against breast cancer.Yep, its all on how you want to look at it.

---

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

quote:

---

There is no inherent problem with a person of any age getting sexual satisfaction from someone else of any age, as long as they are not damaging them physically.

---

I know that this is your opinion, and I expect you believe that you have reached this opinion without any personal bias.I am sorry, but I am just not convinced that this is true, and I believe that you are oversimplifying the issues.We will have to agree to disagree.Now you may commence with the condecention and pity.

It is not just an opinion, it is knowledge. It is based on the same epistemic rules used in modern science. It is possible a wrong conclusion has been reached but the theory explains all evidence so far gathered, and contradicts none. As such it is knowledge. That's fine, but then you are renouncing conclusions reached by a system you otherwise claim is important, and do so in an arbitrary and hypcritical fashion. No, no we won't. I explained this to Canadian Steve and now I will explain it to you. People can only agree to disagree if the facts are agreed upon and they can lead to different conclusions, or are themselves inconclusive. This is not the case here.In this case you are rejecting pretty solid conclusions based on rather large amounts of evidence. You are wrong, and your position is not going to be agreeable without some form of debate.As it stands you do not even bother to invoke mechanisms for the problems you feel are inherent to sexual pleasure. Let me set out some facts and you can explain your theory of inherent harm from sexual pleasure, including mechanisms. And don't worry if you have to explain something complex, I can handle it.Sexual pleasure is derived from stimulation of nerve endings in certain parts of the body, usually (though not always) in conjunction with some form of fantasization.From not to long after birth (not sure of the earliest official record) children exhibit signs of sexual excitement. They will play with themselves naturally until instructed/trained not to do so.Cleaning children involves manipulating sexual organs and will involve stimulation to some degree. Parents can be rough and hurtful of course, but if they are gentle then children will react positively to their bathing routine and may react physically (more obvious in boys).As soon as children begin to get around and interact with each other they often explore each others bodies and engage in sexual play (normally fondling and exhbition). This occurs, much like masturbation. often in spite of admonitions by adults not to engage in such activity.In some cultures fondling and sexual activity of other kinds were not proscribed and indeed encouraged in children, sometimes with adults. There are no known manifestations of problems in those cultures resulting from those practices.Despite numerous studies looking for signs of harm resulting from sexual contact in children, there has been no evidence to support such a conclusion. Conversely, children who have been hampered in sexual play often exhibit emotional dysfunctions later in life (though of course this could be from methods of discouraging such activity).You will now outline your theory which ties these up such that sexual pleasure causes inherent harm in someone under some set age, explain what age or physical/mental criteria must exist to avoid damage, and since you claim age makes a difference why stimulation from an older person will make a difference.Also you might explain how child bathing is not inherently harmful as it is basically fondling. If purpose of the adult (that is the adult enjoying the activity for sexual rather than caregiving reasons) effects how the child receives the same stimulation and so becomes harm, you will explain what mechanism allows this as well.I'll admit I am not totally up on all recent studies so you maybe you can find something to nix the facts, or create a new theory? The above was written neither condescendingly nor with pity. I will say only this with such a tone. I am very sorry that you cling to outmoded theories which amount to nothing more than superstititions regarding sex. I have shown how you can trace their origins back in time to a specific social movement, yet you continue to pretend as if it is something real that society has learned.As always it is startling to me.

---

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