Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by phlogistician, Feb 26, 2009.
I disagree, but feel free to actually post some arguments as to why you believe this is so...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I think it's a very good example of how society has wronged some lovers and continues to wrong them by requiring them to be 'registered sex offenders', when their 'crime' was that they couldn't wait the amount of time that society requires to begin their relationship...
If I felt the woman was a good person and it wasn't against the law and my neighbours wouldn't run me out of town for it and they used contraception and/or had a plan for taking care of the kids, sure, why not. I also think it's fair to say that adults are generally better at taking care of kids then kids, so if atleast -one- of the parents is an adult, I think it could have a better chance of child rearing working out relatively well...
practically every post you've made on this subject is evidence to your stance, and to what type of person you are.
And what type of person might that be?
Fine. Ok. The question of whether pedophiles are insane or not is arguable.
I have commented on this in my Formal Debate with ancientregime. Have you read my posts in that debate?
So, you don't agree that a minor cannot give informed consent to sex with an adult?
Well, let's start with sticking a penis into a child's vagina, just to be definite. Ok?
Now, tell me how your 3 factors apply to that.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Try again?
Do you think it is conceivable that a 4-year old could ever be "sexually mature"? How about an 8-year old? Could an infant be sexually mature, in your opinion?
Would you advocate testing 4 year olds for sexual maturity, then? And if they are mature, sex with them by 25 year olds would be just fine, then, would it?
So, you envisage a situation in which a 25 year old could be "licensed" to "teach" a 4 year old about sexuality, do you?
What exactly would be involved in that? Would it involve the 25 year old sticking his penis in the 4 year old?
This post is in response to the 21st part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.
How, precisely, are you defining 'socialization' here?
First of all, you are oversimplifying with concepts like 'we who don't bang children'. As a general rule, children is a term that can define anyone from ages 1 to 17. Furthermore, I have never advocated that banging, that is, having sex with, children of any age would be a good idea in any society. There are far more sexual interactions then sexual intercourse, however. In summation: both children and sexuality are concepts that are rather wide; I imagine you were trying to simplify my arguments, perhaps in an attempt to better understand them, but at times simplification falls far short of the reality.
Secondly, I would argue that at times better ideas must become dormant. Just because the Romans were dominant for so long, does that mean that they couldn't all there ideas were better then their neighbours or that better ideas wouldn't eventually replace many of their ideas?
Various tests have been done in order to measure psychological maturity. In terms of measuring -sexual- maturity, this one has been done. It was presented by a minor who was involved in the process of writing it:
Proposed Relational Maturity and Sexual Competency (RMSC) testing schema:
In order to be declared mentally competent to engage in consensual sexual activities (rather than having had a certain number of birthdays) under the proposed system, the test-taker proves his/her mental competence by passing a test.
The testing requirements include:
1.) Factual knowledge about sex, sexuality, reproduction and STDs.
1.a.) Subject must understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse. Sexual anatomy, some common intercourse activities (at least the big three oral, anal and vaginal), masturbation, and outercourse activities (mutual masturbation in its various forms) should all be understood at a mechanical level.
1.b.) Subject must understand the mechanics of human reproduction. Ejaculation, sperm fertilizing egg cells, warning signs of pregnancy including missed periods, a basic understanding of the nine month gestation period, childbirth, and the intrinsic physical risks of pregnancy. (Including factors that can increase those risks, ie low body mass and lack of physical development.)
1.c.) Subject must understand his or her options in terms of preventing pregnancy. Subject must be aware of the existence and useage of barrier methods like condoms, hormone options like birth control pills, sterilization procedures like vasectomies, spermacide options, and demonstrate an understanding of the relative failure rates of these products. While it is not neccissary to be able to prattle off statistical failure rates, an understanding of which are most and least effective must be demonstrated, as well as the understanding that they can be more effective when used together.
1.d.) Subject must be aware of abortion, what it is, the legal status of the procedure locally, and, if legal, the risks inherent in this procedure.
1.e.) Subject must know about STDs. Subject must be aware that exchanging bodily fluids, particularly sexual fluids runs the risk of transmitting diseases. Subject must be aware that some such diseases are uncurable. HIV in particular should be understood in terms of its transmission methods, and its effects.
1.f.) Subject must know where to go for testing and medical advice regarding STDs.
1.g.) Subject must be aware of methods besides abstinence for preventing STDs, in particular the efficacy of barrier methods and the risks of multiple partners and anonymous sex.
2.) the capacity to use critical thought to judge situations (consequence acknowledgment, goal setting, etc)
2.a.) Subject must understand that actions have consequences.
2.b.) Subject must be able to use prior experience and provide factual information to select the course of action leading to the best outcome in a hypothetical situation.
2.c.) Subject must be able to recognize when there is not enough information provided in a question to provide a meaningful answer.
3.) Ability to identify the fact that people lie to and use each other, and be able to judge (to a certain extent) when that's occurring in certain examples.
4.) Understanding of the concepts of rejection (both non-personal caused and personal caused rejection, as well as being able to reject people themselves).
4.a.) Subject must understand that not everyone wants to have sex with them.
4.b.) Subject must understand sexual orientation, and that some people just don't want sex with certain categories of people.
4.c.) Subject must recognise that some people do not want to have sex with them personally.
4.d.) Subject must be able to reject others.
5.) Understanding sexual ethics (like how rape is wrong, using sex to hurt people is wrong, and that using the withholding of sex as a weapon is wrong too. All because these hurt people for no justifiable reason.)
5.a.) Subject must be able to diferentiate between rape and consentual sex in examples.
5.b.) Subject must understand that rape is illegal.
5.c.) Subject must be able to recognise sexual abuse other than rape in examples.
5.d.) Subject must understand that sexual abuse is illegal.
5.e.) Subject must recognise the problems with using sex as a comodity.
5.f.) Subject must be aware of how to report the crimes they were required to be able to identify.
5.g.) Subject must understand that they have the right to request any potential sexual partners be tested for STDs before consenting to sex.
The proposed testing format is as follows:
Use a review board, and allow researchers to propose alternative testing methods, approved by the review board, and allow anyone applying to take the test to use whichever approved test they wish. (I should point out the need for an oral test, under the assumption that even iliterate adults or children could potentially have the neccessary skills and knowledge even if they lack the skills and knowledge of reading and writing.)
At the testing facilities, social workers will be present to evaluate and ensure that test takers are here by their own free will. Abuse intervention programs and counciling services will be avalible at testing centers.
On site sex education classes will be availible in order to help prepare test takers for aquiring the factual knowledge required for requirement two. This should help aleviate the imballances in educational backgrounds of test takers.
Upon having passed the test, a picture ID is issued indicating you are compotent to have sex. Having sex with an unlicensed idividual is treated as statutory rape. Test status will be hidden from third parties (First is Child, second is Government) unless the first party decides to tell someone (Ostensibly to prove sexual legality).
If there is reason to suspect that an individual is trying to "play the system" (by deliberately remaining untested dispite being actually compotent in order to maintain access to partners unable to offer meaningful consent), the court could order that the parties involved be tested, and dealt with accordingly in terms of the results. If one party is found be capable and the other not, it should serve as compelling evidence that this was a case that should be treated as statutory rape, and the now compotent party would have to prove in some way that they only gained this compotence in the intervening time between the act and the sexual encounter. If neither party proves compotent, there's nothing to be done, regardless of ages involved. If both parties prove compotent, they should both be held criminally responsible, but not to the same level as if they were the only one involved who was compotent. Likely a fine of some sort would be the best choice for such an infraction.
A grandfather clause is included in this proposal, such that anyone who is over the local age of consent at the time this proposal goes into effect will not need to be tested so long as they wish to be sexually active only with other individuals who were also grandfathered out of the program. If they wish to be sexual with someone operating under the new system, they must submit for testing, and thereafter abide by the new system as though they had not been grandfathered out of it.
The primary difference is that actual compotency as determined by the test, rather than assumed compotency based on age is the primary determiner.
Thoughts? Additional testing requirements you feel are important?
Oh come on, out with the driving instructor joke Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
So measure emotional and psychological maturity, as I think the above test is attempting to do. Perhaps it won't be perfect, but I think it'd be far better then the current AoC laws.
True enough. However, the alternative to not issuing driver's licenses is to go the AoC route (I think most people would agree that this would be a very -bad- idea; I firmly believe that one day we will look back and realize what a bad idea the AoC laws were as well) or to not allow anyone to drive, which I think definitely wins hands down as the worst idea.
I think a written test would be fine and could probably be done at school.
When one is allowed to have sex is -already- a bureaucratic function. At present, the bureaucracy states that you must be x age if your partner is y age type deal. I believe it's badly in need of a replacement that pays more attention to knowledge instead of simply how many times the earth has revolved around the sun for oneself and one's partner. In many ways, the current system actually -encourages- irresponsible behaviour; as a general rule, I think we can all agree that minors are -less- responsible and yet, surprise surprise, many minors are -only- allowed to be sexual with other minors. Absurd, yes, but that's the way it is.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa quoted this MacArthur Foundation’s Research Network on Adolescent Development I believe.
Anyway, I have a problem with interpretations that lean to adolescents being incompetent mentally. From a Darwinian perspective, if the studies interpretations are correct, the human reproductive system maturity is far too fast and is a human defect. I think there interpretations are very much shaped by their cultural perceptions of children. Perhaps the brain is behaving this way around the launch of reproductive years because serve a greater purpose in ensuring survival. I don't have an immediate explanation, because it just occurred to me.
nice one scott.
ive said it at least three times already.
it doesn't matter what you or i think about this, the only thing that matters is what the collective will of the people thinks.
your phrasing with terms like "loving and sweet" in regards to adults/ minors catagory is nothing more than:
1. trolling behavior.
2. attempt to lower the moral standards of the united states.
which is it scott?
and in the interest of fair play i would also direct this post to ancient regime.
Well phlog, it seems the thread you opened has actually backfired on you.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have commented on this in my Formal Debate with ancientregime. Have you read my posts in that debate?[/quote]
Um, I've skimmed over it. I don't suppose you could provide an excerpt Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!?
It depends on the minor in question.
Tiassa brought up a study which suggested that female minors who were 15 or below had 3 times the risk of cervical cancer if they engaged in sexual activities. While he expressed that the study may not have been fully accurate, I'm fine to go with the assumption that it was. If so, it may well suggest that female minors actually engaging in sexual intercourse before 16 may well not be a good idea for health reasons alone.
I explain it better further below, where I think you did understand what I was trying to convey Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
If they're going to have to do a written test, especially of the complexity of the test I mentioned in my last post, I think that eliminates the infant, the 4 year old and probably a fair amount of 8 year olds.
In a future society where it would be legal to do so, yes.
I think it might well be impossible to comfortably do such a thing in the case of a 4 year old female so I seriously doubt it. There is also the cervical cancer study that Tiassa has mentioned to consider.
Hey ancientregime, glad you could join us Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I personally brought up the point that it was mentioned 'as a group'. What that generally masks is that they're using statistics; as in minors -in general- are not yet mature in ways that affect their decision making. I think it would be hard to argue that minors in general are not as good at making good decisions as adults, but I don't think we should restrict people's love lives based on statistical probabilities.
I think you, especially, really need to read the whole thing.
Only physical health counts, eh?
Can you conceive of any psychological or emotional reasons that sex between a minor and an adult might be a problem?
But an 8-year old who was able to complete a written test would be fair game for sex with a 25 year old, would she?
So, there's no reason apart from physical comfort that a 25 year old ought not to fuck a 4 year old, in your opinion?
Do you think a 4 year old has a love life?
I'd like to think that phlog has now seen the error of his ways and is avidly watching the discussion. Well, I can dream anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow, I've heard some doozies. Some white men have claimed the cause of our first world circumstance was the fact we weren't black. It seems Tiassa implies we are first world because we don't bang our children. Actually, Jared Diamond has hit the nail on the head why white men ended up with the Guns, the Best Germs, and Steel.  I don't remember any child banging comments being part of the intellectual package he describes. Perhaps I should reread...
Ok, but um.. you don't suppose you could provide that excerpt anyway? Or atleast the post number and whether it's in the top section or the bottom Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!? I'm not made out of time you know; between your posts, those of ancientregime and Tiassa's posts, not to mention others, can literally eat my day away...
I never said that. As a matter of fact the 'alone' ending purposely suggested there were other factors.
I don't like the term 'fair game'. To me, it makes it sound like it's some type of sport. These issues are complex and I doubt that we'll make much headway if we stick to the single digits. I think we can both agree that the age of consent isn't going to hit the single digits anytime soon. For this reason, I think that we should instead focus on teens.
I do. The love life in question doesn't have to have all that much of a sexual component to it ofcourse, although I think it's fair to say that genitals aren't the only parts of a body that frequently feel good when touched gently and I, atleast, would argue that sexuality doesn't end with genital contact. However, I think we should focus on the teen years as I doubt we'll come to any sort of agreement in terms of the years before that...
I read a good chunk of that. Very interesting...
Laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
This post is in response to the 22nd and final part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.
I don't understand what you're saying there. What do you mean by 'returning to knowledge'?
What, exactly, do you find immature about minors wanting adult sexual partners? If anything, I think it could be a sign of maturity, not the reverse.
I don't understand what you're saying here...
I think I'm simply trying to create a fairer world.
Well I don't. So there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Are you sure there cannot be just one general rule: a check for harm?
If they are old enough to say the words, "I like that, let's do that." Then so be it. If no harm comes from it, it doesn't fit the criteria for a crime.
If they are not old enough to say anything, i.e., child under a year, then the act itself would be judged for harm or not. No matter what it is, if it doesn't cause harm, it doesn't fit the criteria for a crime.
A test for harm I think is the best general approach.
He is discussing myths.
I think it was in regard to your comment here...
Start with post #8.
You ought to be able to fit in into your busy schedule of 9/11 conspiracy readings.
You can't agree that sex between an adult and a 4 year old is always a bad thing for the 4 year old?
Separate names with a comma.