|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2001 : 07:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I imagine that men are physically attracted to girls that look fertile (sexy) regardless of whether they happen to be 13 or 19 years old. If a girl looks like she is a woman, men tend to think of her as such.
It's funny, but I just read a short article that claims that men are much more attracted to a woman when she is ovulating. (Sorry, I can't remember where I saw it.  )
Something about having men smell t-shirts that women had worn, and there were indications that the shirts of women that were ovulating at the time were subconsciously recognized by the men.
So if this is true, the earlier that girls start ovulating, the more sexually attractive they become. Interesting idea.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
 |
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 07:25:52 [Permalink]
|
Well I suppose that we are all here to reproduce and keep our lineage going. People are always so shocked at the way humans can be so cruel to each other i.e war, genocide etc, however if you look in the natural world, how many species will kill to protect or claim new territory. We do the same (albeit with our religous beliefs as well), we are just better at it with the invention of tools such as guns and missiles....I think I heve left this discussion on a complete tangent here, where was I.....oh, yes. If a dog can smell when a bitch is on heat, why can't human males detect (maybe subconciously) when a woman is ovulating. It seems to make sense to me. I am far from being an expert on the matter though.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin
Edited by - gezzam on 11/06/2001 07:27:29 |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:53:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Frankly, I don't see a problem with leaving the statutory rape laws as they are. While the rate that teenagers matures differs a lot(I'm referring to psychological maturity), it would be impractical to try to judge every incidence on a case by case basis. 18 as the age of consent may be arbitrary, but trying to use other standards would probably be just as arbitrary and prone to personal bias.
Before we start fixing the age of consent, perhaps we should ask if it is actually broken?
Well, regardless of whether you think it's broken, you can't avoid the conclusion that the AOC is horribly inconsistent. In the US, the legal age of consent (along with other laws governing sexual behavior such as homosexual conduct) is set by each state individually. The AOC ranges from 14 to 18 in various states. Some states have laws that take into account the age difference as well as the absolute age of the participants. Some states take into account the relationship between the participants (e.g. teacher/student, legal guardian/ward). Some states forbid gay sex, or have different AOC for gay sex than for straight sex. Some states forbid sodomy, even between married heterosexual partners in the privacy of their own homes. It's a mess.
Outside the USA, the same situation occurs: each country sets its own AOC and sexual behavior statutes, and they vary widely. Furthermore, the US has a law that governs the sexual behavior of US citizens while they are in other countries.
Some of the American laws currently in force border on the Draconian. There is a Federal statute that is presently being challenged before the Supreme Court that makes it illegal not only to depict a minor in a sexual way (which presumably could include art photography that shows the genitals), but depictions that suggest that the subject might be a minor (like an 18-year-old in a schoolgirl outfit and pigtails), or even (almost unbelievably) depictions of minors in sexual situations, even if no actual persons were used to create the depictions (such as line art or computer-generated images).
The theory behind that law is that such depictions might encourage pedophiles to act on their urges with real victims. I know of no research that was cited to back up this assertion, and I also know that some studies suggest that pornography (of the adult variety) may actually reduce the incidence of sex crimes by acting as a safe outlet for potential offenders. IMHO, this case is a very clear example of the failure of our esteemed Congress to contain their baser impulses and act rationally.
Hmmm... does it show that I have fairly strong opinions on this subject? 
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 13:33:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
If a sexually experienced 15 y.o. named Lolita comes on to an older man (like in that book by Nabokov), say, her English teacher (like in that song by Sting) then why should he be convicted of rape?
I suspect it is because the older man in this situation is expected to be the adult and take responsibility for his actions.
Absolutely he should take responsibility, e.g. pay child support if the girl gets pregnant. But since he hasn't done anything wrong, he should not be convicted of any crime.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 14:57:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Unfortunately Slater - age has to be a consideration, because the only other option (how mature are they) is too subjective by far for the courts to deal with...
Pubescence isn't subjective, though. Perhaps in the case of clearly post-pubescent, mentally competant individuals, what should matter is whether they consented to the sexual relationship. If a sexually experienced 15 y.o. named Lolita comes on to an older man (like in that book by Nabokov), say, her English teacher (like in that song by Sting) then why should he be convicted of rape? Seems a bit harsh all things considered. But then glaring exceptions make for poor rules...
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Um, mentally, once they are past pubescence. Which the criteria of mental readiness to consent to sexual interaction with another is too subjective, it would in part be based upon another's inquiry into their mental age.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2001 : 15:39:25 [Permalink]
|
I voted against changing the age of consent. I strongly believe that few young people at the age of consent are capable of controlling their emotions. Often young people are unaware of the multiple dangers of unprotected sex.
What is the rush?
ljbrs 
"The only real way to reconcile science and religion is to set up something that is not science and something that is not religion." (H.L. Mencken) |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2001 : 21:14:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I voted against changing the age of consent. I strongly believe that few young people at the age of consent are capable of controlling their emotions. Often young people are unaware of the multiple dangers of unprotected sex.
What is the rush?
It seems to me the emotional component of sex is a social (religious) construct in the first place. Evolution sure didn't see the need to synchronize fertility with 'emotional readiness.'
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2001 : 04:58:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems to me the emotional component of sex is a social (religious) construct in the first place. Evolution sure didn't see the need to synchronize fertility with 'emotional readiness.'
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob
Seems to me that it's not necessarily a religious construct so much as it is an artifact of our own minds. Your statement, IMO, requires religion for emotion in general. The ability to deal with certain things emotionally is something that is built up over time. It would seem that our desire to emotionally protect our children has caused our children to become emotionally younger while their bodies are at the right point for the physical sexual act - or that emotional age is perceived by us oh so ready to deal with life adults - yeah right.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2001 : 22:28:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It seems to me the emotional component of sex is a social (religious) construct in the first place. Evolution sure didn't see the need to synchronize fertility with 'emotional readiness.'
Seems to me that it's not necessarily a religious construct so much as it is an artifact of our own minds. Your statement, IMO, requires religion for emotion in general. The ability to deal with certain things emotionally is something that is built up over time. It would seem that our desire to emotionally protect our children has caused our children to become emotionally younger while their bodies are at the right point for the physical sexual act - or that emotional age is perceived by us oh so ready to deal with life adults - yeah right.
Perhaps but I'm not convinced. The idea that the emotional component of sex is an "artifact of our own minds" is too basic. All thoughts are properly artifacts of our brains. I maintain (albeit without quotable evidence) that the set of neural activities that manifest as an emotion commonly known as 'love' is a socio-religious construct. There is no such set of activities. The concept of 'love' seems to me to have all the earmarks of purely human-created spiritual hokum. Notice:
- It is chemically undefined
- It is emotionally undefined, that is, the most common answer to the question, "how will I know..." is "you will just know"
- It is not associated with any particular stimuli
Now, keep in mind, it may very well be useful to say, "I love this person" rather than "I enjoy sex with this person, conversations with this person, debate with this person, the way this person smells, etc etc." If 'love' = a bunch of parts that may or may not include the aforementioned, then I see no reason to consider sex a greater part of that collection than any other. From all this (I hope) it follows that, except for what we as a society bestow, there is no particular emotional state that need be necessarily present before sex. It occurs to me that this may be way beyond the scope of your reply, Trish, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts nevertheless.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2001 : 23:59:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Perhaps but I'm not convinced. The idea that the emotional component of sex is an "artifact of our own minds" is too basic. All thoughts are properly artifacts of our brains. I maintain (albeit without quotable evidence) that the set of neural activities that manifest as an emotion commonly known as 'love' is a socio-religious construct. There is no such set of activities. The concept of 'love' seems to me to have all the earmarks of purely human-created spiritual hokum. Notice:
- It is chemically undefined
- It is emotionally undefined, that is, the most common answer to the question, "how will I know..." is "you will just know"
- It is not associated with any particular stimuli
Now, keep in mind, it may very well be useful to say, "I love this person" rather than "I enjoy sex with this person, conversations with this person, debate with this person, the way this person smells, etc etc." If 'love' = a bunch of parts that may or may not include the aforementioned, then I see no reason to consider sex a greater part of that collection than any other. From all this (I hope) it follows that, except for what we as a society bestow, there is no particular emotional state that need be necessarily present before sex. It occurs to me that this may be way beyond the scope of your reply, Trish, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts nevertheless.
My thoughts, well ok. First, in this instance I think we are referring to the concept of 'romantic love' right? Now, that was actually not a recognized valid reason to enter into a relationship until fairly recently. So I'll equate sex in this vein with lust. You can lust after a person without all the emotional baggage attached with the concept of 'romantic love'.
Now, I'll go with marriage as a social construct and definitely the sanctity of marriage as a religious construct. Knowing who fathered a child is definitely better for society than the resultant inbreeding from not knowing. Controlling the populace through this means would have both pros and cons but I think the pros outweigh the cons. Marriages, for the longest time, were prearranged or occurred simply because it was the preferred (?) state for the masses at large and you picked from those among your class, station, whatever, or you attempted to improve your lot by marrying into a higher class, station, whatever. There really was no concept of 'romantic love' involved in forming marriages.
I don't see 'romatic love' and everything it entails as having arisen from a religious perspective based on this background. So into 'romantic love' we throw all the emotions that we think of when we think of love plus lust (which few want to admit) into the mix. I actually think the church would have been against the concept of 'romantic love' because of the base nature of the concept - lust. The church could control your marriage but they couldn't control the aspect of lust. Now remember that the church (Judeo-xian) believes that women should subject themselves to their husbands and find nothing but pain in the bearing of children (Genesis) - her ultimate reason for existence. Lust removes the stigma of the pain and allows a woman to enjoy sexual encounters.
So maybe it's not so much an artifact of our minds, but rather our minds pulling together all the emotional crap that entails love and labeling it - a concept rather than an emotion.
I will differ on the no emotional state needing to exist before sex. I think there is. There has to be desire/lust whatever you want to call it. I would question whether a child is ready for dealing with the emotional package associated with love. Having nothing to back this up - most teens who are looking to have sex with their boyfriends are thinking 'I'm in love with this person and this is the ultimate way for me to show it.' Where I can see boys thinking I need to satisfy these raging hormones. Now a man who is older, going after a young girl (say 15-18) can play with the emotional state of the girl and convince her to have sex. I suppose that is where my concern lies (whether this is the states concern or no). And yes, this applies to an older woman going after a younger boy. This manipulation, that in our desire to protect our children from emotional harm, we have left them woefully unprepared for has unfortunately become the pervue of the state.
I don't exactly agree with the statutory rape concept of always jailing the older person. However, some standard by which to judge has to be drawn, this is where the courts and our society have drawn this standard.
Apologies if this seems a bit disjointed and rambling - however, was thinking it through as I wrote.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2001 : 11:55:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems to me the emotional component of sex is a social (religious) construct in the first place. Evolution sure didn't see the need to synchronize fertility with 'emotional readiness.'
Sexual relationships can sometimes be the most dangerous activity in which people can participate. The diseases which can go with casual sexual relationships (and often enter into marital relationships if one of the members of the marriage has been stupidly "fooling around") should not be foisted upon the young who yet may not have heard about the dangers transmitted by sexual relationships or who may lack the self-control to avoid them.
This has nothing to do with religion. Of course, religions have their prohibitions against sex because of sexually-transmitted diseases.
It is no longer a simple game to participate in a lay in the hay. I think that the young and uninformed should be somewhat protected from such problems.
The list of sexually transmitted diseases is very, very long. A good many of them do not respond to antibiotics and death or debilitating disease (or both) follow such diseases.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. However, I felt that all (or at least, most) of the writers here knew all about such hazards. Some, obviously, need to be reminded.
ljbrs
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2001 : 23:55:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sexual relationships can sometimes be the most dangerous activity in which people can participate. The diseases which can go with casual sexual relationships (and often enter into marital relationships if one of the members of the marriage has been stupidly "fooling around") should not be foisted upon the young who yet may not have heard about the dangers transmitted by sexual relationships or who may lack the self-control to avoid them.
This has nothing to do with religion. Of course, religions have their prohibitions against sex because of sexually-transmitted diseases.
It is no longer a simple game to participate in a lay in the hay. I think that the young and uninformed should be somewhat protected from such problems.
The list of sexually transmitted diseases is very, very long. A good many of them do not respond to antibiotics and death or debilitating disease (or both) follow such diseases.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. However, I felt that all (or at least, most) of the writers here knew all about such hazards. Some, obviously, need to be reminded.
ljbrs
Sounds like you have a hidden agenda. It's nice that you want to warn people, but VD is not so out of control as you make it sound and kids do know about them. (at least here in Calif. they have to study about them in health class)
Yes there are some diseases that are not cureable but others are on the decline. However, there are so many more medical and health problems besides just the ones related to sex, why just consintrate on sex? Seems to me I hear more about smoking and drinking killing more people.
Of course one cannot relax the vigil but over reacting will IMO have the same result, when people find out it's not as bad as hysterical chicken littles make it sound.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2001 : 10:56:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This has nothing to do with religion. Of course, religions have their prohibitions against sex because of sexually-transmitted diseases.
I'm going to disagree here. I don't think the church has prohibitions against sex because of sexually-transmitted deseases. Something of which they would have know little to nothing about at the beginning of the major religious sects. These prohibitions are a form of control. Control the desire and force them to seek the sanctity of the church. Which involves paying the church for use of their facilities and the donation to the preist, etc.
We're really talking about the ability of young men and women to cope with the physical sex act and their ability or inability to separate that from the emotion baggage attached to the concept of love. Additionally, can a child manipulate or be manipulated through the whole ball of garbage that is considered love.
Most STDs can be prevented by using a condom, knowing that your partnet is free of them, knowing that you are free of them and knowledge of how they are transmitted. Also, most STDs are treatable, some aren't and some aren't always transmittable. I don't think children are capable of understanding that honesty regarding STDs is also required in a relationship prior to becoming a physical relationship. But my issue is with the mental ability of the child to cope with the excess of emotional baggage that we insist upon attaching to the physical act.
I just had to add this - most adults I know aren't capable of handling the emotional baggage we attach to the concept of love. Most never get beyond that stage of becoming emotional wrecks when they start thinking in terms of love.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 12/26/2001 11:03:18 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2001 : 13:57:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sounds like you have a hidden agenda.
ljbrs's continual return to this subject in numerous threads here have made me raise an eyebrow also, though it's more mild curiosity at her seemingly above-average focus on the subject rather than suspicion of a hidden agenda.
So I did a casual search to try to find out how dangerous STD's are, and how likely one will catch something.
Couple of interesting facts (one of which deflects the suggestion that religion was motivated by the dangers of STD's in prohibiting sex; lots of religions in fact used sex and orgies in their ceremonies!):
Before the "Sexual Revolution" of the '60s, there were only 2 major STDs (gonorrhea and syphlis). Now the list is at 25.
Very few of these are fatal if left untreated (though most are at least unpleasant!).
I kept running into a statistic that I get the feeling that all the websites displaying it all got from one source: 1 in 5 people will get an STD (1 in 4 for 15-29). 12,000,000 people get one each year.
An important fact that should go along with this, that I can't seem to find anywhere, is how many of these cases are deadly STDs.
Oh well. Take this with a grain of salt. It's what I do when all the bosses are still on vacation, sit here and search the web for (mostly) useless information.
Then again, I usually do that when the bosses are here...
Anyway, I tend to agree with Snake on this. Let's be aware, but let's not be Chicken, um, Littleses?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2001 : 21:48:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anyway, I tend to agree with Snake on this. Let's be aware, but let's not be Chicken, um, Littleses?
Thanks Tokyo, I too checked before posting so I wouldn't be one of those people who wildly 'quotes' so called 'information' because they heard that it's true and believes it.
One of my trusted sources, as I've mentioned before, is
www.healthcentral.com
BTW, I also have another senarieo I like to compare to modren day problems. I call it the 'Sleeping Beauty Syndrom'. Had she been taught what a spinning wheel was instead of hiding them away, she wouldn't have been amazed by it and therefore fulfilled the prediction. Or in other words a little less protection and a lot more openness.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
