Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

No, no I didn't say that.I suppose I could have phrased it better, but your read was way off. Look again...1) You can't stop rape by making sex illegal.Thus I am suggesting that the action is making sex illegal, and that it will not have the purported desired effect of stopping rape.2) All it does is repress one group in order to pretend to provide protection for another.If the action is making sex illegal, then the people being repressed would be those that want sex but can't because it is illegal. That would not be rapists, especially given what I said in 1. The "pretend to provide protection for" should underline this as I am shifting to talk about the purported desired effect which I indicate is not possible.

---

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

I'm sorry but when does the law mean anything about what people should or should not do? There are unjust laws and morals and bigotry, correct? I notice you didn't answer my points to this affect. Since you reinforced a rather bizarre notion, I will ask it again.So it is your opinion that gays are wrong, and up until two years ago should not have been having sex at all? Indeed in nations where it still exists as a crime they should not do so? In years past interracial couples should not have fought for their rights and done what they wanted?So much for rosa parks. My friend that was a pretty big hole and it refutes your position. To say they do these things but we try to educate them differently (to not do it), does not suggest that it is not in our nature to do those things, or that it is in our nature to educate them differently.The whole point I was making was that we, like all other animals, naturally do engage in such activity. SOME cultures have arisen, and now the majority culture, which finds this natural activity odious and puts a damper on it. Thus you will see less then is our natural inclination.By the way I love the gloss on what kids do. I was a kid and so was everyone else. Snuggle games and fascination with genitals? It was sexual exploration.And "way before they have functional equipment"? What function? They all work perfectly to provide pleasure. Is that their function or is their only or proper function sexual reproduction?Once again your bias is showing. No valid studies properly connect the damage ("set the bar") at age. People can be damaged in coercive acts at any age. And contrary to public opinion (and the line of indoctrinated clinical psychs) children have been found to recover as well as adults.I was imply removing the possibility of something that in fact is not there. This has already been done and your prediction is correct (I have a thread on it). That is why both APAs have now gone one record that science regarding sexual behavior must correspond to sexual mores and common laws, supporting them at all times. Thus ending legitimate science on these things within their domain, and for most of the scientific community.I am sorry for emphasizing science, but I thought you were suggesting some legitimacy to what we "think". Most people dislike gays and hope their kids do not become gay and indeed do not want progay education in school as they believe it will lead to their kids becoming gay.Should we run with what people "think" in this regard, or do we base it on knowledge? It depends on what you mean. Left alone to be an organization fighting for their rights? Hell yeah. That every member should be allowed free access to kids at all times? Hell no.I believe it is the rights of parents to have control over sexual issues regarding their children. Blanket laws based on age do not do this at all. I also believe children should have some tools of protection and control for their own sexuality. Blanket laws based on age do not do this.There are options beyond blanket aoc laws. Yeah I would but the govt should be above petty revenge feelings. I am for the death penalty, but it is not for punishment.If physical violence can be shown to deter an act from recurring then okay. But I have yet to see any evidence that it helps anyone rehabilitate for really violent criminals.But this is another topic altogether. I was simply pointing out I'd have an issue with punishment as a goal of govt action. Uhhh, but they do more than give off pheromones to attract sexual partners. What goes into sexual attraction? That was the point I was driving at. No I would not agree. Sociologically it all depends on the culture, and it certainly can be and in some cases still is permissable.It is true that a sexual hysteria is sweeping the globe, much as witch and communist hysteria swept over it in the past. Does that somehow justify something?Technically homosexuality used to be a much greater taboo than child sexuality and still is in many nations. In some states which primarily support antigay legislation there are marriage laws which allow sex for those as low as 13.Obviously I can acknowledge what is a popular trend, but what am I supposed to get out of that, other than what it has meant at other times?Rand's thread asks if sexual prohibitions mix religion (or morals) with the law. You are doing a good job supporting that theory, and indeed it would appear to be building a position that supports antigay legislation as much as anything else. First of all, as I have pointed out, it happens in nature so as you suggest with homosexuality it cannot be called unnatural.Second, the rest of your argument is a nonsequitor. Who is "we" and why does what you do or say hold any weight on anything. "We" believe homosexuality is wrong despite its naturalness. Is "we" right.You say it is out of the ball park. What does that even mean? Why is sex different from any other behavior and adult might engage in with a child? Okay maybe I misread your post to some degree. It appeared that while you were suggesting social sources for things like morals and laws, you were moving on to suggest that in some instances there were objective reasons behind some of them.Indeed I do not understand your mentioning the pheromone issue in relation to underage people, separating pre and post pubescent focuses of sexuality, outside of such a context.Your attempt to suggest a difference here between homosexuality and child sex (out of the ball park, wrong?) tends to underline this impression I am getting.By the way, what is misplaced desire? You say you were not trying to get at an objective definition, but what is it? You used the term.And I'd like to end on a point of irony. You say that adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescents is taboo. Yet ritual mutilation of prepubescent genitalia for the pleasure of parents or society is not, It is quite common. Intriguingly the society where this is most common is the one where sexual activity is most taboo, yet where mutilation is more taboo such sexual activity is less taboo. Hmmmm.As a bonus irony point, circumcision used to involve an individual sucking on the child's penis... no joke.... to help soothe and disinfect (with a mouthful of wine). While the US is still just fine with the mutilation, my guess would be that other portion would result in prison time.Morals against sex are generally about antipleasure, specifically someone getting a pleasure you do not like, than about other effects like harm and pain.

---

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

How did you get to that conclusion at all? Age of consent laws won't stop a person who is intent on coercing someone having sex into having it, and laws based on coercing someone to have sex will cover such instances already.All you do with consent laws based on age is penalize those under age people who actually have a will and choose to have sex, victimizing both them and their partner for life.Meanwhile the rapists still rape.

---

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

That would be up to the army, not me. If you are asking do I personally think 15 yos should be able to work as a soldier I would say no.This does not change the fact that age of consent laws are not involved with this issue.Might I note the irony that kids are able to fight and die before they are legally able to have sex, and watch sexual imagery, in some states?But we know the "risks" they face with that sex stuff right? I'm not sure where you are going with this... the "if we save just one its worth it" argument?All I can say is that existing rape laws, or some modified ones for better coverage, are enough to handle cases of sex which causes harm to minors or that the minor does not want.AOC laws are thus unnecessary to handle such cases. So no they did not protect anyone in a way in which they were not already protected. Whether someone ended up using them in addition, I would have no idea.On the flipside, it is known that these aoc laws repress actual people (kids and adults), creating categories of sexual predators who do not have violent intentions at all and plaguing them for life.Not needed, and do harm. They never succeeded in being a benefit for children or society.

---

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

I think you missed what rand and I were talking about. I was not suggesting that all cases you bring up are slippery slopes. I was suggesting that you avail yourself of them in order ro race into irrelevant scenarios, to avail yourself of graphic visual commentary.We could really discuss the topic without the graphics, and indeed it would be more useful to the discussion. 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. 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.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. What else can children be made a part of and forced to do by parents, before they have the capacity to choose? 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?3) I like how it is a she. You do know that boys are also targets of prearranged marriages, right? That was not extreme or irrelevant in the way I was discussing with rand, however it is irrelevant in the way I mentioned.Can I point out that your AOCs essentially force kids to marry "god" before they have a capacity to choose, and force them to wait until they are of an age to separate and go with someone else. The whole time this "god" refuses to have sex with them, and restricts them on pain of legal penalty to have sex with anyone else.You really just don't see that restricting sex is the same as forcing sex, do you? Its all coercion.

---

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

Yeah, and that means absolutely nothing as I went on to explain and you decided to not answer.Now I could pull the same exact stunt you just did and not address what you place as an argument, but I am going to set an example... try to follow it. I don't like it when people think its fair to skip over my arguments and then throw new ones at me. Great, so then it seems we would need laws to account for that difference, rather than forcing one group to act like everybody which is not like them. Ya think?By the way I am offended by your desire to limit discussion of sex to full on penetrative intercourse. It defies the rather obvious point that women have sex with children too, and that you have not provided any evidence that full penetrative intercourse is the most representative form of sexual contact among consensual (nonovertly coerced) sex acts with minors. You are creating a rather spurious argument. There is no connection between allowing a child to have sex when they want to have sex, and allowing a child to enter a PROFESSION in which they are made to kill other people or be killed.You will note that I was NOT suggesting that child prostitution or paid child porn actresses be allowed. Employment is yet a whole other subject. I was discussing freedom of personal behavior.That is to ignore the drastically different conditions between modern warfare and sex. The fact that you could try to equate the two situations is absurd. 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.And of course there are more than just physical requirements to any occupation. The modern army really does (although they have discussed dropping some of this) have educational requirements. Perhaps you can find a kid who is mentally and physically capable of passing all these requirements. I your question is do I think the kid should be able to serve, if he and his parents wish it, then I wouldn't see why not though personally I wouldn't want my kid in it (and we have to talk about employment issues). Then again, I'd also ask what is the rush? Why not go to a military academy and get drilled so that in a couple extra years we will have an even better soldier.Granted there have been some very successful child soldiers/warriors. As a nation I think we can field a better army with greater reqs and training. I guess I never saw the military as a place where we should be sticking bodies as soon as they can pass bare minimum reqs. And it just keeps on rolling. What 8yo can physically touch the pedals, steer, and see over the dash? What 8yo has the possibility of purchasing a car and insurance, much less dealing with the legal/financial issues if something goes wrong? I mean you may note that when something goes wrong while driving it is not comparable to what goes wrong in sex.Now clearly there are kids below 16 (age for driving in my state) who can drive as well as those above 16. Maybe they'd even be self-sufficient enough to handle all the stuff that comes with it when something goes wrong. But that would still not allow for an equation of a child being able to have sex as they naturally desire and not face punishment by the state, with the state LICENSING a person to OPERATE a several ton VEHICLE travelling at high speeds down busy streets.I can agree that the lines are still arbitrarily imposed, but the difference in situation is quite obvious. Oh yes unless all you see is choice and harm, harm and choice.By the way, you do not get arrested for simply allowing a kid to help drive or park a car (many do), or take pictures of a kid in a car. You can even by them bikes, and scooters, and little motorized cars for 8yo. Heck, they can even get into go carts and atcs and bumper cars. Find the analogy to sex... they can't do it. Ah yes, sex=disease. Children should then not be allowed to kiss (mono?), go to school or play in any close contact way (lice? flu? pneumonia? chicken pox? mumps? meningitis?). Oh wait that's right but that isn't from SEX. And we all know that SEXUAL diseases are so much badder than other communicable health issues.Might I ask why a higher standard is set for sex than for other activities engaged in by children? I love the idea that kids playing house and tickling each other are cute and cuddly, despite the fact that they could be spreading some of the worst conditions, until their hands reach genital areas of their body and then they need to know how to read and understand a drug test, and require it of their partner... sweet.There is no one more interested in good sexual health than me. But I don't see where AOC laws, specifically with vague appeals to being able to read drug tests, will mean anything.Teaching kids about safe sexual practices should work to a pretty good degree like for any other safety issue. If you think that is not true, why not?If parents are also part of the sexual/moral decisions of their child's sex life, why would that not cover questions about sexual health of potential partners?And most importantly the god damn stigma of underage sex, and potential legal problems faced by those involved because of AOC laws make both kids and anyone else they are having sex with (if not just themselves) AVOID getting help for sexual problems, making it all that much worse! They sure as hell may not know exactly what a disease will do, or what the signs are, but they sure might know what willl happen if they get caught! Bully for you.How many kids die from flus, pneumonias, meningitis, and other conditions (not to mention just getting ill) because they do not know the status of their partner or were afraid to ask? Heck I guess we should ban them from making food too, since they are unlikely to be familiar with the problems of e coli, and salmonella.

---

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

No. I'm sure my other post explained that point enough.Indeed all you go on to say about why they are not allowed into the military is pretty much bogus. Although I would have no doubt that some might agree that SHOULD be a reason, it is about as arbitrary as not allowing women and gays in the military. And of course appealing to a law that I would not like is not going to help you convince me that another law I dislike has merit. Two things. First, kids CAN get into legal contracts as long as they have the consent of their parents. That would mirror my suggestion for proper sexual law structures. Second child labor (which is financially profiting from a minor) is a different situation than a child choosing to do something that child naturally enjoys, whether parents consent or not.If you are suggesting that some portions of how work is allowed under federal laws is allowed once consent is given are arbitrary in nature, then I would agree. But as shown above that does not make the situations close.When did sex become about contracts and OSHA working conditions? The fact that you do not apply this to equally risk oriented behavior in kids speaks volumes.Indeed as I have pointed out, kids are allowed to play at and even engage in lightly some of all of this stuff you have mentioned. Under sexual AOCs they are banned from any of it.

---

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

Mammuthus has already done a good job straightening out some points, but here is some further clarification... Yeah, I didn't say otherwise. Laws and morals are separate issues. It is true that some base their morals on laws, and that some laws are based on morals. I didn't make any point about what was okay or not, including if it was based on consent. Science can show that drinking water can be harmful (result in damage) to you. Oh yes and both science and religion indicate that the other can be harmful. Everything requires responsibility. They don't have to wash them by law at home. I guess I am missing your point. I never used anal sex to make a sandwich, so this doesn't mean much to me.BTW, food handlers can't lick food being served to customers either. Kissing should be outlawed? Apparently, no. Nothing should determine our morals. There are many workable systems. I think consistency is necessary otherwise it is not a system. From what I have seen, those that attempt to direct action in a similar way for all using "right" and "wrong" labels are flawed. Artificial. I find descriptive systems more natural and allow for individuals to find who they are.

---

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

How is pointing out that science cannot tell us whether to make a law or not being defensive? It doesn't seem to me that science is harmed or benefitted one way or the other. I am simply trying to point out the fact that it doesn't. You just reasserted the point being challenged and then state I should accept it. Why? You are wrong. The example you provided could not determine if there NEEDS to be a law. That would all depend on some subjective desire of the lawmakers. How many times are you going to repeat this before it sticks that I agree? So you are saying you do not know the difference between illegible and illiterate? Well you'd be wrong yet again. I did not argue that morals are completely separate from knowledge. I am arguing that knowledge is insufficient for morals. You know somewhere else at EvC I just recently argued with a Xian who was trying to suggest Song of Solomon wasn't sex positive. You guys are crazy!

---

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

Note: Sorry I answered your post a line at a time, and so some of what I deal with in the beginning is made moot by what is said later. You keep acting like I'm trying to hide something. Science is not undercut if it could do what you said so its not important to me whether it does or not. It simply doesn't and so I am pointing out that it doesn't. I have already said science CAN be used to help define a law in the way described in the quote above. I stated this a long time ago.It simply cannot tell anyone that a law is needed. The criteria of whether one is needed or not is set by nonscientists, though science may be used to check what in the world fits that criteria.Let's put it this way as soon as you can show me that:1+1=we need a lawThen you will have made your point.If you point was that the law sometimes uses science to investigate what fits criteria, or could be used as secondary criteria for law, then I agreed to that a long time ago. And yes scientists can be wrong. Sometimes legal regulations have been too tight and sometimes they have been too wide for what the goals of the regulations were meant to deal with. No. I said this a long time ago. It was your arguing against what I said which drove me to believe you were arguing for something more. Heheheh, I was just joking. I'm glad you agree that lumping a group together is a prejudiced statement of sorts. I won't, and from now on I'll quote you to him.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-04-2005 06:22 AM

---

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