|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 1, 2011 21:42:26 GMT -5
And what are you agreeing with here? The sexual harrasment of a teenager or his strawman argument?
Ironbite-cause I have a shovel here so....
|
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jul 1, 2011 21:45:39 GMT -5
I agree that teenagers are young adults, not big children.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 1, 2011 21:49:49 GMT -5
Be that as it may, we don't get to pick and choose what laws we follow. Even if the law states she's too young yet we see she's mature enough for certain things....WE STILL DON'T FUCKING SEXUAL HARASS SOMEONE!
Ironbite-Rat...I'm beggin' ya....tone it down ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jul 1, 2011 22:23:28 GMT -5
Can I kind of go and hide in a corner right now because yeah I'm uncomfortable but part of me thinks this isn't such a big deal because I have my own thread and stuff and maybe people are overreacting but maybe I'm just internalizing stuff and it actually is a big deal I don't know but I feel really awkward and stuff so can I sort of step out of this thread until it gets back to abortion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 1, 2011 22:36:37 GMT -5
I agree that teenagers are young adults, not big children. Teenagers are largely, to borrow a line from the Doctor, "Still cooking." The retarded strawman rat resorted to aside, and I would not argue based on legality, there is a relatively large difference between someone of 17 and someone only a few years older. With Chris Hansen, we are not even mincing the difference between an age of 17 and an age of 18, we're talking about a teenager vs a 30 year old. Significant difference in development. "Young adult" as a distinction is rather meaningless and fairly artificial. And yeah, you can argue societal standards of adulthood have changed, but then you get back into the same strawman that Rat was knocking down in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jul 1, 2011 22:48:43 GMT -5
Be that as it may, we don't get to pick and choose what laws we follow. Even if the law states she's too young yet we see she's mature enough for certain things....WE STILL DON'T FUCKING SEXUAL HARASS SOMEONE! Ironbite-Rat...I'm beggin' ya....tone it down ok? I apologize for, as you say, failing to tone it down, Ironbite. It's just that the whole concept of what is or isn't expected of someone (be s/he 8 years old or 80 years old) being based primarily, or even solely, based on how long s/he's been alive, has chafed at me for the past two--possibly even three--decades, back to a time when, even by my standards, I really was a kid. Looking back on it, after I've had these last several hours to cool off, I'm somewhat surprised that I was as calm as I was. Smurfette, I'm especially sorry for disturbing you. I try as much as I can to please people rather than upset them, to have friends instead of enemies, lovers rather than haters. As you just saw in this thread, I don't always succeed. Please don't run away and hide; I didn't mean to scare you. I can has friendly hug, plz? *holds arms open* |
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jul 1, 2011 22:49:35 GMT -5
But it's morally okay if it's an 18-year-old and a 30-year-old?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jul 1, 2011 22:53:11 GMT -5
I agree that teenagers are young adults, not big children. Teenagers are largely, to borrow a line from the Doctor, "Still cooking." That's because we're using crock-pots to do the "cooking", when we could be using microwave ovens or, if the prospect of that is too scary for people's fragile sensibilities, even ordinary stove-pots. |
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jul 1, 2011 22:54:35 GMT -5
Explain that analogy please.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jul 1, 2011 22:56:56 GMT -5
Explain that analogy please. It's merely a question of speed. Put something in a crock-pot, it'll take literally all day to cook. A microwave oven will cook one person's meal in a minute or three, while an ordinary stove-pot can cook food for a few people in the space of a half-hour or less. |
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jul 1, 2011 22:59:05 GMT -5
I'll just stick with "The Case Against Adolescence" by Robert Epstein. Explains why forcing teenagers to be children has more negative affects than positive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jul 1, 2011 23:23:40 GMT -5
Well... my own views on the 40 yr old man and teenager thing...
Mom met dad when she was 17 and he was 42... 25 years difference. They've now been married for almost thirty years and have had no problems. My mom had me and my sister from him.
I think, in all reality, it depends upon the individual situation. I was raised to believe that if you really love one another then age is just a number (though I have my own personal restrictions on it based from some past personal experiences) within reason of course.
I think it depends upon the genuine feelings and mental maturity of the people involved.
JMHO
Edit: Just adding in that if they do truly love and care for one another, then the teenager and the person they love will wait until the teenager is of legal age before doing anything in the romantic sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 2, 2011 0:54:17 GMT -5
16 seems like a reasonable age of consent to me. That's what it is here, anyway. If it were up to me, I might bump it up to 17, but I can live with the law as it is now. Appearing in pornography should require an age limit of 18+, though.
Also, on the TCAP episodes I've seen, all of the decoys claimed to be 15 or younger, with many claiming to be around 13. I don't think any of us will disagree that, at 13, you're too young to consent to sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 2, 2011 1:19:21 GMT -5
16 seems like a reasonable age of consent to me. That's what it is here, anyway. If it were up to me, I might bump it up to 17, but I can live with the law as it is now. Appearing in pornography should require an age limit of 18+, though. How do you square these sentiments? If an individual is competent at 16 (or 17) to consent to sex, surely he or she is competent to consent to having sex (to say nothing of merely being naked) in front of a camera. How does that lens magically change things? |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 2, 2011 1:35:52 GMT -5
Appearing in pornography has farther-reaching consequences than having sex with one person*. Maybe it's just me, but I'd be more inclined to regret appearing in porn than having sex with a particular individual. It's having a bunch of people see your naked body, performing sex acts versus having one person see. As much as it sucks, society does harshly judge people who appear in porn, and the industry isn't always the nicest business to work in (e.g., Max Hardcore). I question whether a 16-year-old is ready to deal with that kind of thing**.
Mind you, I'm mostly talking about pornography that will be available for purchase. Simply making a sex tape or sending a nude pic to your boyfriend is a bit different. I think it's idiotic when 16-year-olds are charged with making and distributing child porn when they send sexual photos to each other.
* I recognize the potential for STDs, but that's more an issue of teens having sex at all, rather than the age of consent.
** Although it's debatable whether or not your average 18-year-old is either -- hell, I'm almost 25, and I don't know if I could deal with it -- but that's opening up a huge can of worms, what with drinking ages (which are 18 where I live), ability to join the military, voting, etc.
|
|
