Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Charles_Wong, Dec 11, 2006.
Is that your excuse, too?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If the entire western world has embraced this ethos, it can no longer be called radical now, can it?
Sex is different for boys than it is for girls. I don't know why, it just is.
Please define "radical feminism".
If giving in to a lot of screaming and whining is the same thing as incorporating and ethos...
No I think it's a case that most people prefer to keep their private and personal sexual lives with their partners, private.
Actually, I would not be surprised if she was not sexually attracted to high school males. Basically, European and Oriental females are innately driven towards older men because an older male would have had more time to achieve higher social status and acquire more wealth and career stability, thus being a better provider for offspring than a younger male: natural selection selected for this trait in females because it was more advantageous.
Regarding equitorial females (africans, native indians, etc.), they have a evolutionary tendancy to choose older males as well because older men will have more muscle and strengh and can protect the female better from tribal raids and wild animals.
But in both above cases, the male will have a tendency to choose younger females because younger ones will be more healthy to grow babies.
So, the above description, whether right or wrong, is currently supported by Evolutionary Psychologists.
So then, age of consent laws are more or less exclusively created to impede the sexual interests of males, not females, and as such, females won't have much sympathy for males regarding this law. Of course, if we are discussing abortion or alimony or child support, then females will be greatly fighting for that right because it deals more or less exclusively with female interests. Interestingly, today's Western males have developed a "doormatt" mentality and will just fight along with females for their rights to abortion, alimony, and child support. I say, use it as a bargaining chip with the female voting block: if they want abortion rights, then give males more sexual freedom.
In my view, it should all come down to whether under 18 human organisms would be harmed in an empirically proven way. And no such evidence exists, and I speculate that none will ever be found, just like no evidence was ever found to vindicate our grandparents beliefs that masturbation will make us blind.
And regarding the "balance of power" argument: regardless of ages, both parties involved in the sexual act are receiving emotional pleasure, thus both benefit. A 15 year old female that dresses very sexually provacatively and approaches a 22 year old male and starts flirting and is already undressing the male in her mind and then invites him to "make out": in this case, the female is enjoying herself, she is getting sexual pleasure, as is the male. If both parties receive pleasure, and no party feels "victimized," then where is the harm? It would be at worst a "victimless" crime: no party is harmed but rather both party gains sexual pleasure: and society at large is not harmed in any empirically proven way.
Given the above arguments, supporting age of consent laws is a purely religious act, not a reason-based one.
My apologies if I unintentionally broke my own rule of using objective language.
"Radical" requires one to define a norm so that a picture of extreme deviations can be observed and described as radical.
Instead of the term Radical, I should have used the phrase "Contemporary feminism paradigm."
2 years too late
Looks like its been about two years since anyone posted here but I still want to put in my two cents:
"I think opinions should be judged by their influences and effects; and if a man holds none that tend to make him less virtuous or more vicious, it may be concluded that he holds none that are dangerous, which I hope is the case with me." Benjamin Franklin
The bottom line is this; no government should have the right to dictate what any human being can or cannot do so long as it is not a act of force or fraud. Those are the ONLY responsibilities of the government of a "free" nation. If such laws must be made, however, it would be much more logical to base them on whether or not the "child" has reached puberty and, thus, has begun to experience sexual desire. I am not saying that these children do not need to be protected. It is the responsibility of the parent/gaurdian to govern their children. They know (or should) their charges better than any prosecutor, judge, or congress-person ever could. I'll save the rest of what I have to say for a future post (maybe).
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Separate names with a comma.