In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 20 2017 17:35 pmh wrote: The mainstream media (90% of them),my day is not complete without a rant about the media so here we go. More then 40% of the voters did vote for trump,that is a large group of people in the country. This group of people still supports trump today,despite all the negative media coverage. The media is loosing this large group of people with their one sided reporting. This group of people will never ever trust mainstream media again. If I had any mainstream media stocks I would sell them right now,they lost almost halve of their influence and they will not regain it because they are completely dug into their partisan agendas. A lot of people are sick of their propaganda. Cnn these days makes me sick,i can barely stand watching it. 10-15 years ago it was my favorit channel,had it on at the back ground all day. Now I mostly watch bbc for international news coverage,one of the few good channels left.
There is no single, unified "the media" entity. There are thousand of newspapers, tv channels, radio stations.
Their job is to report on what's going on. If they do their job well, they report on Trump lies, and of his train wreck of a presidency. I know that from inside his and his supporters fact free bubble, it sounds like unbearable propaganda, but you might start asking yourself why a gigantic majority of foreigners, of scientists, of artists and intellectuals are also against him.
It's not because they are a lying "establishment". It's because the guy and his goons are fucking horrendous for whoever gives a hell and have anything looking like intellectual integrity.
It's very sad that 40% if the country doesn't object to a guy who lies every sentence. Don't get pissed at "the media", whose job is supposedly to report on reality, not to share those fantasy views.
Oh and some of "the media", such as Fox News, share his taste for bullshit and alternate reality and report on him positively, so there is nothing to complain about.
Not all mainstream media are bad,thats why I mentioned that 90%. I don't know,it is a lost battle for me to fight. Lots of people think the media is doing a terrific job,and a significant amount of people think they don.t. The reporting is extremely partisan. They think they are still the voice of mainstream America but they lost that a while ago. I don't really mind if people agree with me on this,in the end it is not my loss of influence that is at stake. I think the mainstream media will loose an even more significant part of their influence in the future,giving more influence to alternative media and alternative facts. The media is pushing it to far,butchering the chicken with the golden eggs so to say. Well that is how I see it.
On February 20 2017 19:36 pmh wrote: Not all mainstream media are bad,thats why I mentioned that 90%. I don't know,it is a lost battle for me to fight. Lots of people think the media is doing a terrific job,and a significant amount of people think they don.t. The reporting is extremely partisan. They think they are still the voice of mainstream America but they lost that a while ago. I don't really mind if people agree with me on this,in the end it is not my loss of influence that is at stake. I think the mainstream media will loose an even more significant part of their influence in the future,giving more influence to alternative media and alternative facts. The media is pushing it to far,butchering the chicken with the golden eggs so to say. Well that is how I see it.
The end for north korea seems near,i doubt the current regime will survive. Maybe an internal coup staged by china?
Media has always been partisan and it's not a problem. Partisan doesn't mean dishonest. You read The Guardian, you'll have solid facts with a left wing analysis. It's their job.
The problem is not partisanship. It's that Trump lies, the media reports it, and it pisses him and his supporters off. That's it. The problem is that saying the bare, simple truth about Trump is in itself extremely negative reporting.
And if half of America lives in fantasyland, it's natural "the media" loses it. Newspapers are not supposed to accomodate with alternate realities in which a terrorist attack happened in Sweden when it didn't. That's not their job. That's what Breitbart is there for.
On February 20 2017 19:36 pmh wrote: Not all mainstream media are bad,thats why I mentioned that 90%. I don't know,it is a lost battle for me to fight. Lots of people think the media is doing a terrific job,and a significant amount of people think they don.t. The reporting is extremely partisan. They think they are still the voice of mainstream America but they lost that a while ago. I don't really mind if people agree with me on this,in the end it is not my loss of influence that is at stake. I think the mainstream media will loose an even more significant part of their influence in the future,giving more influence to alternative media and alternative facts. The media is pushing it to far,butchering the chicken with the golden eggs so to say. Well that is how I see it.
The end for north korea seems near,i doubt the current regime will survive. Maybe an internal coup staged by china?
Media has always been partisan and it's not a problem. Partisan doesn't mean dishonest. You read The Guardian, you'll have solid facts with a left wing analysis. It's their job.
The problem is not partisanship. It's that Trump lies, the media reports it, and it pisses him and his supporters off. That's it. The problem is that saying the bare, simple truth about Trump is in itself extremely negative reporting.
And if half of America lives in fantasyland, it's natural "the media" loses it. Newspapers are not supposed to accomodate with alternate realities in which a terrorist attack happened in Sweden when it didn't. That's not their job. That's what Breitbart is there for.
Well, when you report facts very selectively and then give them your own spin, then you are surely being dishonest. The Guardian is a good example of that. They will blow any misstep of PiS out of proportion now, but they would refuse to report on any of the transgressions of PO-PSL a few years ago, such as the police raiding the office of "Wprost" in order to confiscate the leaked tapes showing PO in a very bad light or making the police use torture to extort confessions when cracking down on football hooligans.
It's literally impossible for a news outlet to not report facts selectively, and yes, the Guardian has a clear liberal bias, but its facts and reporting tend to hold up pretty well to scrutiny. What you're getting is bias in perspective, and to be clear, literally every single news outlet in the world is going to shape its reporting to match a particular outlook. Just how much bias there is relative to a given outlet and how that influences the value of its reporting is more complicated than "they treated the politicians I like unfairly!". Without admitting that, we'd be stuck pointing out that literally every single outlet that packages news information in some way can be criticized much the same.
On February 20 2017 14:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just in time for CPAC:
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
On February 20 2017 14:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Ouchy, I looked that up on YouTube just now...
Milo: Says gay people choose to be gay so that they can be naughty. Brags about being raped at age 14 by a child molesting priest and that the priest did a "fantastic" job sexually.
I think he might be legitimately fucked in the head.
I don't find this video that bad...? What I mean is, given that he's talking about himself, maybe this is just a mental defence or a reality he has construed to protect himself.
Not outing names seems fine too.
Still disturbing but mostly making me feel sorry for him.
I agree that it's probably a defense mechanism or some sort of stockholm syndrome on his part, but not outing the name of his statutory rapist is interesting to me because Milo has no problem outing people for merely being transgendered or illegal immigrants in the hopes that they'll be mocked and attacked. It seems hypocritical that he'd want to protect actual child molesters while trying to throw transgendered people under the bus, considering his justification for outing transgendered people is that he equates them with child molestation (as per many of his conversations, including the recent one with Larry Wilmore and Bill Maher). Seems inconsistent to me, and I'm not sure why he's such a screwed up individual, but I definitely do empathize with any child who's been raped.
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
Outside of personal anecdotes and your own hypothetical enjoyment of the experience, what evidence do you have relative to the harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds? The biggest problem I see here is the law of large numbers relative to how encounters between 13 year olds and 30 year olds would play out if sexual contact were legalized; while there'd be some mature enough or free of a power dynamic enough to make the reasoned choice to have sex with an adult, 1) the vast majority of 13 year olds are simply not equipped to consent and 2) the vast majority of encounters would implicate a power dynamic whereby the minors consent is further coerced (i.e. teacher, family friend).
While age is a pretty broad brush, that much is for sure, it still stands a pretty reliable guideline relative to agency and reasoned decision-making. Personally, I think consent laws should be moving up in age, not down, particularly given what we know about the maturation of the brain well into the 20s, but I realize that's not exactly popular
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
Outside of personal anecdotes and your own hypothetical enjoyment of the experience, what evidence do you have relative to the harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds? The biggest problem I see here is the law of large numbers relative to how encounters between 13 year olds and 30 year olds would play out if sexual contact were legalized; while there'd be some mature enough or free of a power dynamic enough to make the reasoned choice to have sex with an adult, 1) the vast majority of 13 year olds are simply not equipped to consent and 2) the vast majority of encounters would implicate a power dynamic whereby the minors consent is further coerced (i.e. teacher, family friend).
While age is a pretty broad brush, that much is for sure, it still stands a pretty reliable guideline relative to agency and reasoned decision-making. Personally, I think consent laws should be moving up in age, not down, particularly given what we know about the maturation of the brain well into the 20s, but I realize that's not exactly popular
The major problem with some age of consent laws is that they should be split into two (which most do). People with power over the minor and peers. It is often forgotten that a lot of people start having sex in those ages and it isn't something strange, the problem we want to combat is people taking advantage of them. Letting them explore in their age groups isn't something that should be limited and the classical case of a person with one years difference on the wrong side of the law is also an issue.
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
Outside of personal anecdotes and your own hypothetical enjoyment of the experience, what evidence do you have relative to the harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds? The biggest problem I see here is the law of large numbers relative to how encounters between 13 year olds and 30 year olds would play out if sexual contact were legalized; while there'd be some mature enough or free of a power dynamic enough to make the reasoned choice to have sex with an adult, 1) the vast majority of 13 year olds are simply not equipped to consent and 2) the vast majority of encounters would implicate a power dynamic whereby the minors consent is further coerced (i.e. teacher, family friend).
While age is a pretty broad brush, that much is for sure, it still stands a pretty reliable guideline relative to agency and reasoned decision-making. Personally, I think consent laws should be moving up in age, not down, particularly given what we know about the maturation of the brain well into the 20s, but I realize that's not exactly popular
The major problem with some age of consent laws is that they should be split into two (which most do). People with power over the minor and peers. It is often forgotten that a lot of people start having sex in those ages and it isn't something strange, the problem we want to combat is people taking advantage of them. Letting them explore in their age groups isn't something that should be limited and the classical case of a person with one years difference on the wrong side of the law is also an issue.
But that just says that the specific law is written badly. It says nothing about the general concept of age of consent laws, which i think most people agree is to protect teenagers from more experienced adults taking advantage of them. Fact is, that no matter how mature, a 13 year old will never be an equal partner to a 30 year old. I do not think anyone disagrees with this. There might be rare cases where a healthy sexual relationship is possible dequite that inequal power dynamic, but there would also be a lot of cases where the teenager gets taken advantage of in a way that makes them suffer later on. As a nearly-30-year old that regularly has to deal with 13 year olds due to my profession, i can tell you that basically all of them are no where near anything you would call mature.
One can talk about the specifics of the laws in question, and how to finetune them to best achieve their goal (Like "If the two people are within two years of age, they do not apply", or anything along those lines), but in my opinion the general idea is quite sound.
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
Outside of personal anecdotes and your own hypothetical enjoyment of the experience, what evidence do you have relative to the harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds? The biggest problem I see here is the law of large numbers relative to how encounters between 13 year olds and 30 year olds would play out if sexual contact were legalized; while there'd be some mature enough or free of a power dynamic enough to make the reasoned choice to have sex with an adult, 1) the vast majority of 13 year olds are simply not equipped to consent and 2) the vast majority of encounters would implicate a power dynamic whereby the minors consent is further coerced (i.e. teacher, family friend).
While age is a pretty broad brush, that much is for sure, it still stands a pretty reliable guideline relative to agency and reasoned decision-making. Personally, I think consent laws should be moving up in age, not down, particularly given what we know about the maturation of the brain well into the 20s, but I realize that's not exactly popular
you are confusing age of consent with age of assuming responsibility within <a culture>. the more you pamper the kids, the higher the age of consent will have to go.
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
Outside of personal anecdotes and your own hypothetical enjoyment of the experience, what evidence do you have relative to the harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds? The biggest problem I see here is the law of large numbers relative to how encounters between 13 year olds and 30 year olds would play out if sexual contact were legalized; while there'd be some mature enough or free of a power dynamic enough to make the reasoned choice to have sex with an adult, 1) the vast majority of 13 year olds are simply not equipped to consent and 2) the vast majority of encounters would implicate a power dynamic whereby the minors consent is further coerced (i.e. teacher, family friend).
While age is a pretty broad brush, that much is for sure, it still stands a pretty reliable guideline relative to agency and reasoned decision-making. Personally, I think consent laws should be moving up in age, not down, particularly given what we know about the maturation of the brain well into the 20s, but I realize that's not exactly popular
I'm not arguing for the relative harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds in general. I think in general such relationships are probably more harmful than they are positive. But I am arguing that a significant subset of the population (say, 5% of 14 year olds?) are sufficiently emotionally mature for them to enjoy and benefit from sexual relations with people who are ~30, and that it most certainly happens that 14 year olds find themselves sexually attracted to people who are 30.
And to reiterate, my argument here isn't really about wanting to alter age of consent laws. Personally, I think 16 is certainly old enough, and I don't see Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal having huge societal problems because they decided to set the limit to 14. My argument is that I hate to see people branded as pedophiles because they present the truthful argument that some people report enjoyment and positive personal development out of sexual relations that are illegal under current-day age of consent laws. Personal anecdotes are all I have - but they are sufficient to back up the argument that age of consent laws are not a one size fits all type of law. (This applies to lots of age-related laws, obviously. I also think 17 year old me would vote in a much more sensible manner than what the average 21 year old does.)
Edit: I also think many of those power-dynamics situations can be sorted out through more specific laws. As a teacher, I'm not allowed to have sex with my 19 year old students either.
On February 20 2017 21:09 farvacola wrote: It's literally impossible for a news outlet to not report facts selectively, and yes, the Guardian has a clear liberal bias, but its facts and reporting tend to hold up pretty well to scrutiny. What you're getting is bias in perspective, and to be clear, literally every single news outlet in the world is going to shape its reporting to match a particular outlook. Just how much bias there is relative to a given outlet and how that influences the value of its reporting is more complicated than "they treated the politicians I like unfairly!". Without admitting that, we'd be stuck pointing out that literally every single outlet that packages news information in some way can be criticized much the same.
Well, there is a difference between reporting facts selectively (because you can't possibly cover everything) but still trying to be reasonably balanced and reporting facts very selectively to create a biased narrative. The latter is based on a multitude of lies by omission. The Guardian is a shoddy example of honest journalism.
Remember the time when some NBA, Bryce Dejean-Jones to be precise, was shot dead after mistakenly breaking into someone's apartment. In Poland we had one news outlet reporting on it, saying that an NBA player was shot dead after mistakenly entering someone's apartment. No mention of his being aggressive, kicking the doors, not responding to the owner. Did the facts that said news outlet reported hold up to scrutiny? They did. Did the readers get a good, honest depiction of what actually transpired? Not by a long shot.
That is what the Guardian is doing with its selective journalism. It allows them to create false narratives like "Poland succumbs to right-wing populism", etc. when their readers are unaware of any wrongdoings of the previous government. After all, how could Poles vote for PiS when PO-PSL was doing such a stellar job?
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
Outside of personal anecdotes and your own hypothetical enjoyment of the experience, what evidence do you have relative to the harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds? The biggest problem I see here is the law of large numbers relative to how encounters between 13 year olds and 30 year olds would play out if sexual contact were legalized; while there'd be some mature enough or free of a power dynamic enough to make the reasoned choice to have sex with an adult, 1) the vast majority of 13 year olds are simply not equipped to consent and 2) the vast majority of encounters would implicate a power dynamic whereby the minors consent is further coerced (i.e. teacher, family friend).
While age is a pretty broad brush, that much is for sure, it still stands a pretty reliable guideline relative to agency and reasoned decision-making. Personally, I think consent laws should be moving up in age, not down, particularly given what we know about the maturation of the brain well into the 20s, but I realize that's not exactly popular
I'm not arguing for the relative harmlessness of sexual contact between 13-16 year olds and 30 year olds in general. I think in general such relationships are probably more harmful than they are positive. But I am arguing that a significant subset of the population (say, 5% of 14 year olds?) are sufficiently emotionally mature for them to enjoy and benefit from sexual relations with people who are ~30, and that it most certainly happens that 14 year olds find themselves sexually attracted to people who are 30.
And to reiterate, my argument here isn't really about wanting to alter age of consent laws. Personally, I think 16 is certainly old enough, and I don't see Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal having huge societal problems because they decided to set the limit to 14. My argument is that I hate to see people branded as pedophiles because they present the truthful argument that some people report enjoyment and positive personal development out of sexual relations that are illegal under current-day age of consent laws. Personal anecdotes are all I have - but they are sufficient to back up the argument that age of consent laws are not a one size fits all type of law. (This applies to lots of age-related laws, obviously. I also think 17 year old me would vote in a much more sensible manner than what the average 21 year old does.)
Edit: I also think many of those power-dynamics situations can be sorted out through more specific laws. As a teacher, I'm not allowed to have sex with my 19 year old students either.
Another problem i see is that probably a large subset of the 30-year olds who would wish to have sex with a 13-year old are exactly the wrong people for even a mature 13-year old that theoretically could positively benefit from such a relationship to have such a sexual relationship with. I know for sure that i wouldn't touch one with a ten feet pole, even if it were completely legal to do so and there were no societal pressures against it.
I agree, especially if you look at older male-younger girl relationships. (I think younger boy - older woman might look a bit differently though, and I also believe Milo might be onto something when he talks about homosexual relations being different altogether. Also makes sense to me that gays mature sexually at an earlier age because they are bound to spend more time questioning and reflecting around their sexuality. )
In general I dislike prescribing different maturity to types of relationships, whether it be gay men, gay women or 30 year old dudes dating 16 year old girls. Especially about their rate of maturity. The age of consent is designed to protect minors from the worst actors, not the best. Of course there are unusual relationships that end up being entirely functional, but those rarely encounter law enforcement too.
Milo’s insights into gay sexuality should be taken for what they are, one viewpoint from a single gay man. A gay man that doesn’t seem to have a very healthily relationship with his sexuality.
On February 20 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote: In general I dislike prescribing different maturity to types of relationships, whether it be gay men, gay women or 30 year old dudes dating 16 year old girls. Especially about their rate of maturity. The age of consent is designed to protect minors from the worst actors, not the best. Of course there are unusual relationships that end up being entirely functional, but those rarely encounter law enforcement too.
Milo’s insights into gay sexuality should be taken for what they are, one viewpoint from a single gay man. A gay man that doesn’t seem to have a very healthily relationship with his sexuality.
While I agree that the age of consent is designed to protect minors from the worst actors, not the best, is it not entirely plausible that the actors most likely to adhere to the rule of law are the best actors, not the worst? Like, 30 year olds who trade alcohol for blowjobs from 15 year old girls are less likely to care that they're breaking the law than a 'more positive actor' would be? (I also understand and agree with the argument that this type of exchange is likely to happen more often if there is no law against it, which is why again, I reiterate, I don't object to age of consent laws. )
And while I also agree that Milo's insights into gay sexuality reflect that of one viewpoint from one single gay man rather than that of all gay men, I think one essential element of sexuality is just this - it is highly individual. That's the foundation for the opposition towards age of consent laws, they take away autonomy from individuals because it is expected that the group those individuals are part of wouldn't be able to use their autonomy responsibly. From a philosophical point of view, I see significant parallels between this and laws against use of drugs and alcohol. And hey, I'm actually somewhat inclined to argue that it does not make sense for the age of criminal responsibility to be lower than the age of consent. Maybe even add voting age to that list.
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
I don't think it's a very complex issue. You mention 13-16 year olds having sexual relationships with 30 year olds and finding it "thoroughly positive", but a lot of victims say things like that. A lot of emotionally unstable children, and let's not fool ourselves, 13-14-15 year olds, even the wisest ones, are children in heart, mind or emotionally. No doubt in my mind, a 13 year old boy or girl who gets taken advantage of by a 30 year old man might for the first time experience having someone "care" for them, never understanding that they were a sex object. And it just might feel good. It just might feel positive, when in reality a platonic relationship with that person might end up being worth more.
You say it yourself, the vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex. I'd argue that a 30 year old who's attracted by a 13 year old cannot be trusted to have the kid's best interest in mind, my stomach churns at the thought.
The laws are meant to protect the weak, that means the oddball 13 year old who might arguably benefit from a sexual relationship with a 30 year old may not have their "needs" entirely covered by the law, but I'd definitely say that if a 13 year old absolutely needs the sexual part of the relationship in order to get the positive benefits of a relationship like that, there's probably some other bullshit happening. Like have a platonic relationship with that 30 year old.
A few years ago, I was 24-25, met this 15-16 year old gay dude on SC2, who had trouble with everything. Felt like he would never meet anyone, and since I was really nice to him he got to thinking I was gay and I was into him. So we just talked a lot, super smart kid for his age, and I just tried to give him direction since he couldn't tell his parents. I think I was the only person he could talk to about adult topics, and I comforted the kid in all his worries and concerns, feeling of inadequacy. I like to think I helped him to be more confident, and now he's seeing someone and he's a much happier person.
It doesn't take much to improve the life of a teenager, sometimes they just need a real friend. Not to get fucking pounded.
I think this is perfectly reasonable on his behalf honestly. I've heard many stories of 13-16 year olds having sexual relations with 30 year olds and finding it a thoroughly positive and life changing experience - in a good way. That doesn't mean age of consent laws have to go - there are also many stories of 30 year olds getting 13-16 year olds drunk and semi-raping them (and age of consent laws are the primary method of punishing this, I think). It's a complex issue and I think it's very problematic that being opposed to age of consent laws brands you as a pedophile.
The thing is just that 13-16 year olds differ immensely in maturity. I agree that a vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex (and some people are incapable of this after turning 17, too), but 'age' is an incredibly broad brush to paint with, and this I see as the primary argument against age of consent laws; it discriminates against individuals who mature faster than the norm- and the age limit itself is extremely arbitrary - which showcases itself through how different age of consent laws are, even within comparable cultures. Germany has theirs at 14, which seems fine, Sweden 15, seems fine, Norway 16, American states vary between 16 and 18.
I also think that myself, even as a 13 year old, would have absolutely loved it if some 30 year old woman wanted to show me everything there is to know about sex. Sure, there's a difference between men and women and power dynamics and whatnot, but there's also a difference in that girls mature at an earlier age than guys do. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for the abolition of age of consent laws. I do think they fill a function. But I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm really opposed to the demonization of people who argue against them.
I don't think it's a very complex issue. You mention 13-16 year olds having sexual relationships with 30 year olds and finding it "thoroughly positive", but a lot of victims say things like that. A lot of emotionally unstable children, and let's not fool ourselves, 13-14-15 year olds, even the wisest ones, are children in heart, mind or emotionally. No doubt in my mind, a 13 year old boy or girl who gets taken advantage of by a 30 year old man might for the first time experience having someone "care" for them, never understanding that they were a sex object. And it just might feel good. It just might feel positive, when in reality a platonic relationship with that person might end up being worth more.
You say it yourself, the vast majority of 13 year olds are too young to have responsible sex. I'd argue that a 30 year old who's attracted by a 13 year old cannot be trusted to have the kid's best interest in mind, my stomach churns at the thought.
The laws are meant to protect the weak, that means the oddball 13 year old who might arguably benefit from a sexual relationship with a 30 year old may not have their "needs" entirely covered by the law, but I'd definitely say that if a 13 year old absolutely needs the sexual part of the relationship in order to get the positive benefits of a relationship like that, there's probably some other bullshit happening. Like have a platonic relationship with that 30 year old.
A few years ago, I was 24-25, met this 15-16 year old gay dude on SC2, who had trouble with everything. Felt like he would never meet anyone, and since I was really nice to him he got to thinking I was gay and I was into him. So we just talked a lot, super smart kid for his age, and I just tried to give him direction since he couldn't tell his parents. I think I was the only person he could talk to about adult topics, and I comforted the kid in all his worries and concerns, feeling of inadequacy. I like to think I helped him to be more confident, and now he's seeing someone and he's a much happier person.
It doesn't take much to improve the life of a teenager, sometimes they just need a real friend. Not to get fucking pounded.
Well when we look at 13 year olds I agree it's mostly a simple issue - although I do know one girl who started dating an 18 year old when she was 13. He was a very smart, functional guy, but she was exceptionally mature (also physically) and I think that relationship was healthy in every way. I totally accept that she was probably in the 'top 1% of maturity for 13 year olds' and that the laws should not be designed around fringe individuals (but I also think that an ideal law does not punish fringe individuals). Pretty much every country has the age of consent above 13 anyway, so that's not an issue.
But comparing Norway, Sweden and Germany, where the age of consent is 16,15 and 14, it's not clear-cut to me that one of these countries got it more right and is more rational regarding the age of consent than the other two. For the US, it varies between 18 and 16 - and well, I definitely think that 18 is too old. Anyway, to reiterate once again;
I'm not saying that the age of consent should be abolished, or even lowered. I don't know what the best arbitrary number is, and I acknowledge that the law is there to protect the weaker part. I'm just saying that it is legitimate to want to have a discussion around age of consent laws, that the numbers chosen are arbitrarily chosen, that people are not (necessarily) pedophiles for wanting to lower age of consent laws, and that we need to be able to discuss issues like this without branding people. This feeling extends to all aspects of debate; people who want pot legalized are not necessarily potheads, people who want tighter immigration laws are not necessarily racists, people who want less taxes are not necessarily indifferent to the plights of poor people. And I think that one of the primary reasons why polarization keeps increasing in most western countries is that people on both sides of the aisle jump at the first chance to attack people personally based on their political leanings. And when it comes to Milo, I don't like this at all - there are so many legitimate reasons to attack him based on his persona - but I really don't approve of him being branded as a pedophile based on what I honestly thought was an unusually somber and reflected point of view expressed from his side. We don't need to make him worse than he is to discredit him.
Also, as a final addendum, I get the same gut-reflex when thinking about a 30 year old (male) having sex with a 13 (this gut reflex is still present when thinking about 30 year old and 16 year old tbh, but less strongly) year old girl (or boy), but I know for sure that 13 year old me could have enjoyed a sexual relationship with a 30 year old woman, and I think it's insulting to assume that all adults who talk about having had positive sexual relationships with adults when they themselves were young teenagers only talk positively about the experience because of the emotional trauma they must have encountered. People are very, very different.
EPT
