Age of Consent - get rid of it [Archive]

View Full Version : Age of Consent - get rid of it

Anti-Fascist

22nd November 2003, 05:59

My Views on Age of Consent

First of all, I should like to say that there is no topic too controversial about which to talk, because the controversial topics are always the most important ones. Second, there is no argument, no person, no idea, no law, no moral, no theory, no anything, which is above criticism, including this very post. And I choose to talk about a subject which is viewed by many to be "too controversial" to talk about. And I shall criticise a law and a moral position which many of its proponents seem to view as "above criticism". Just bear in mind that nothing is "too controversial" or "above criticism".

The difficulty about writing this was that throughout I had to argue against myself. Sometimes it is hard to think about all the good arguments against my own argument, and then refute those counter-arguments. The counter-arguments get progressively harder for me to refute. But I refute them nonetheless.

To proceed.

As always, I must firstly define the key term. The key term here is "Age of Consent". "Age of Consent" is that age at which an individual may legally experience sexual sensations with an adult, i.e., consent to sexual contact with an adult. Whatever age is decided as the "age of consent" is that age at which a person is said to be able to make an "informed decision".

There are several problems with "Age of Consent". To wit:

1. The problem of the "individual".

An individual is a person. Children are persons. An anatomically correct person can experience sexual sensations. Hence a child can experience sexual sensations. Sexual sensations are considered as pleasurable by the person experiencing them in the majority of instances. (There are some rare cases in which a person feels emotional pain seemingly as a result of sexual sensations. But this is more likely the result of aversive associations with sex - caused by perhaps a traumatic sexual experience, and not by the sexual sensations themselves.) Hence a child can derive pleasure from sexual sensations. If they do not appear as pleasurable, it is in fact other sensations which are confounded with the sexual sensation, such as the aversive feeling which is induced by unwanted force. Force is the undesirable sensation, and not sex itself. There is no sensible reason why the individual, which includes the child, must not experience pleasurable sensations that he is biologically capable of experiencing.

"It is harmful," the reader might respond. "Surely you agree that sex between a young person and an adult is harmful."

"Harm" includes emotional and physical harm. What type of harm is caused by sexual sensations? Obviously it is not physical harm, because people have sex all the time without experiencing physical harm. Physical harm may exist alongside sex, but it is not sex itself. Is it emotional harm, then? But in fact, it is contradictory that a sensation which is emotionally pleasurable can be emotionally harmful. And as I have shown above, sexual sensations are pleasurable sensations.

"But it causes delayed emotional harm," the reader will suggest. "It may not have caused harm when it happened, but in the future it is very likely to cause emotional harm."

This means that, after a person indulges in the sexual act, he might experience emotional harm in the future, perhaps as a fully developed adult, because he was "too young" when he engaged in that activity. There is no delayed emotional harm resulting from sex. There is simply no evidence that sex induces deferred emotional harm. It is always the use of force which is made use of alongside the sexual act which causes the delayed emotional harm - it is never sex itself. Force and sexual sensations are being confused. Sexual sensations, which are pleasurable, are, by the very definition of "pleasurable", not harmful. What might be harmful are acts which occur concombitantly with the sexual act, such as force, coercion, inter alia. The experience of sexual sensations, being a sensation of pleasure, is not itself harmful.

"But sex between one of non-consenting age and an adult is necessarily coercive," replies the reader. "Therefore, it is harmful - whether the harm be delayed or no."

This leads us to the second problem.

2. The problem of "consent".

Our reader seems to believe that children cannot consent. But children can consent. Consent consists merely of "I do", or "Yes." It is irrational to believe that children cannot "consent". It is clear that, in this sense, the child can consent to sex just as easily as anybody else can.

"Technically, yes, children can consent. But they can also consent to things which are harmful to them. Thus, they must informedly consent. The age of consent is the age at which one can make an informed decision. This is what we mean by age of consent."

Of course. But can an adult not consent to something which can harm him? Is he not capable of making an uninformed decision? Must the adult, therefore, be refused all sex, because it is possible he will make an uninformed decision?

"Of course adults can make uninformed decisions, but surely you cannot deny that there is a correlation between informedness and age. And the correlation is such that the adult is far more informed about decisions concerning sex than the child."

It has not been denied that there is a correlation between informedness and age. But what is the child not informed about - about which he needs to be informed - to be able properly to have sex? Why can he not be informed about this? Are his mental faculties really that defective?

"What is there in sex that he is not informed about that he needs to be informed about? Protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Rapists. Etc. Can a child be informed about these? No."

First: The sexually transmitted disease is not such a difficult concept to get one's mind round. In the Netherlands, for example, children as young as eleven are fully informed about this. It is purely an educational matter. What is more, the type of relationship about which we are speaking is not a one-sided one: the adult ought to use "protection" as well. Everyone on Earth can, and must, be informed about "protection". If the adult did not use "protection", would you say that he would not be informed, and therefore cannot consent to sex? By your own logic you must admit this. And what about before there was a significant problem with sexually transmitted diseases, hundreds of years ago? Or in some isolated culture, in which there is no history of sexually trasmitted diseases? The child would not need to be informed about STDs in such examples (even though, given education, he certainly can).

Third: As regards rape, is my informedness about it going to change anything? If someone is going to prey upon me in an alley, it makes no difference how "informed" I am about the concept of rape. The key is not how informed one is about the existence of rape (though that certainly is desirable!), but how to avoid dangerous situations. The child must therefore be carefully guarded by his parents. And he must be educated about, and thereby protected from, the dangers of the world, including rape, by his parents.

Second: I suspect that you are once again thinking about the "correlation between informedness and age". Sexually transmitted diseases aside, a child no more needs to be informed about sex to enjoy sex than he needs to be informed about poetry to enjoy poetry. For indulging in both is a pleasurable experience. It is not as if he will suddenly be harmed by poetry if he is not "informed" about rhythm, meter, the anapest, etc. And the same is true (perhaps truer) with music. Sex, like enjoying music, is a pleasurable sensation. There is no inherent harm with it, irrespective of the person's age who partakes in it. There is harm involved in force - and this must be stressed - but not sex itself.

Third: If there is not a particular age at which a person develops the informedness at which he can consent to sexual contact, then age of consent, whatever it may be, is arbitrary.

"And I have no problem with admitting that. But still, though I can admit that the age of consent is arbitrary, it is used to protect children who cannot defend themselves, who generally have not the informedness to consent, and is therefore laudable."

But what about "sex play" between two children? Do you disapprove of that as well? Is it harmful, too? The children are not "informed", even in such cases (what would they have to be informed about?); and by your reasoning it must be harmful, and punished severely.

"It is not harmful because an adult is not involved in it."

And thus we arrive at problem number three.

3. The problem of the "adult".

The adult is falsely defined as a lustful being with an obsession with sex, and will only get it by means of coercion and force. It is for this reason that all sex between adults and young persons is perceived as harmful, because the adult is coercive, etc. However, if this were the case, all sex between any adult would involve at the very least coercion. But this is not the case. In the majority of instances, sex does not involve coercion, but on the contrary involves "mutual consent".

"I cannot agree with that. But even if you are right, by engaging in the sexual act, the child loses thereby his innocence. That is wrong in itself, regardless of whether he 'feels' harm or not."

Thus do we get to the fourth problem.

4. The problem with "childhood innocence".

The principal defect of this concept is that it implies that sexuality is a "sin", and that children are "innocent" because they have not as yet indulged in this "sin". The singularly Christian notion of "childhood innocence" is a vestige of our anti-sexual heritage which reached a high point, in many aspects, in the Victorian era. Its origin can be traced to the 1700s. It is a highly irrational notion, and I need not attempt to refute it. For the burden of proof is not on the Author, that sexuality is a sin. I have yet to see an argument that sexuality is a sin, and hence have nothing to refute. I have only come across dogmatic assertions, mainly in the form of religion, of the sinfulness of sexuality and "childhood innocence" (which is implicit in the notion of the sinfulness of sexuality).

Such are my reasons for advocating the abolition of "Age of Consent".

Every instance of perceived emotional harm by sex, is not in fact emotional harm by sex, or the result of being "too young"; it is caused by force, by coercion, coupled with the sexual act. If there were no force, no coercion, I guarantee that there would not have been any harm whatsoever.

I therefore advocate strengthening rape laws, abolishing Age of Consent laws.

Loknar

22nd November 2003, 16:40

www.nambla.de

good luck, i hope you find your friends.

Invader Zim

22nd November 2003, 17:01

I remember this discussion before when RS2K said that children should be able to have sex if they had "reached" puberty, the obvious point was raised, as some people reach puberty very young, (I personally know a person who was growing a beard at the age of 13) then an adult could then abuse them without any law being broken... in short the legalisation of paedophilia. It appears that there was a "misunderstanding" and in fact Redstar meant post pubesant, or adult.

What you have openly advocated is a 50 year old sleeping with a 12 year old... way to go huzz.

BuyOurEverything

22nd November 2003, 18:11

Anti-Fascist: I agree completely. It is simply a leftover part of christian morality that for some reason people can't seem to get over. If a 50 year old and a 12 year old consent to having sex, it is no buisness of anybody but the two of them. I think calling any consentual sex rape (as is the case with statutory 'rape' laws) is demeaning to victims of actual rape.

Rastafari

22nd November 2003, 18:15

reminds me not to raise my children next to you, AF

SonofRage

22nd November 2003, 18:58

I am constantly amazed at AF's ability to consistantly post nonsense. :wacko:

Hampton

22nd November 2003, 21:06

Looks like someone has their eyes on the neighbor boy.

ComradeRobertRiley

22nd November 2003, 22:21

Age of consent law is totally bullshit.

It needs to be scraped, its no business of the state if consenting people are having sex. This law is discrimination.

Iepilei

22nd November 2003, 22:38

*shudder*

I try not to enact any form of moralism upon anybody - as I feel it's none of my buisness. But, gah! There is a limit to everything. The days of 40 year old males having intercourse with their 14 year old brides should have died out in the feudal days.

dopediana

22nd November 2003, 23:24

this is a stupid issue. it all depends on the person. i'm seeing a 20 y/o. i successfully concealed the fact that i was 17 from him (i just never told him how old i was) till my friend opened her gob and he caught on.

obviously, there are huge differences in mentalities concerning different age groups. what would a 20 y/o want with a 15 y/o? sex. however, if he's 25 and she's 20, it's different. they're more on the same level, have acheived a more similar status in terms of life experience.

BuyOurEverything

22nd November 2003, 23:48

good luck, i hope you find your friends.

reminds me not to raise my children next to you, AF

I am constantly amazed at AF's ability to consistantly post nonsense.

Looks like someone has their eyes on the neighbor boy.

How about you guys actually argue the issue, not just make irrelevant comments.

*shudder*

I try not to enact any form of moralism upon anybody - as I feel it's none of my buisness. But, gah! There is a limit to everything. The days of 40 year old males having intercourse with their 14 year old brides should have died out in the feudal days.

Why? You fail to give any arguments as to why it is a bad thing. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant. If you don't like it, don't do it. If two people want to do it, let them.

swapna

23rd November 2003, 00:23

1. The problem of the "individual".

Obviously it is not physical harm, because people have sex all the time without experiencing physical harm.

Adults can have sex without experiencing physical harm but kids cannot. The genetal organs of the children are not well developed enough to have sex or kids.

1) if the kid gets pregnant ( the contraceptives do not guarantee 100% protection). In that case both abortion and having a kid are dangerous to the life of the child involving in sex.
In my country, many 14-15 yr old girls die giving birth to children.
2) Sex itself is physically painful because of underdeveloped organs.

2. The problem of "consent".

Yes, Children can definitely consent can you claim that in all the cases that consent is genuinely due to sexual pleasure .

Kids are financially dependent on parents . Kids are ignorant and can be easily misled.

For a kid in a poor country you can offer an icecream and have the child's consent to involve in sex.
For a kid in a western country you could bribe her with more pocket money( which her parents cannot give her) and get her consent.
You can bully the kid easily and get consent.
A teacher can get consent from a student.

Of course. But can an adult not consent to something which can harm him? Is he not capable of making an uninformed decision? Must the adult, therefore, be refused all sex, because it is possible he will make an uninformed decision?

An adult is completely responsible for his own future but parents are responsible to some extent for the child's future.

3. The problem of the "adult".

The adult is falsely defined as a lustful being with an obsession with sex

Only lustful beings go for sex with kids. How can that definition be false. One who is not man enough to get an adult goes for a kid.
If the age of consent law is removed, everyone will start watching the kids with a "sexual" attitude rather than seeing them as children. This will lead to an increased rapes on children.

4.The problem with "childhood innocence".

You are dealing with the childhood innocence only in "sexual" point of view. Children are innocent in all aspects of life. Until they grow up to a certain age, they need to be protected from the evils of the society .Children do not know how croocked adults can be.

In a society which is full of perverts and sex deprived desperates who want to indulge in sex with children,
it would be too risky and harmful to the children to remove the age of consent laws since children are an easy target for such kind of people.

The abolition of the Age of consent law is encouraging child molestation.

I am just curious , If a 50 yr old guy gives candy to a 4 yr old kid and gets his/her consent and get sexual pleasure in touching the organs of the kid, do you consider it child molestation or not? You can still say 4 yr old is a person .

Iepilei

23rd November 2003, 02:00

It's not just my opinion, but it's an accepted cultural norm for modern society.

Certainly you know, just as well as I do, how easily misled or manipulated younger individuals can be. I'm not saying ban marriage between people who aren't the same age, but I am saying atleast let people reach an age where they can make rational decisions.

I grew up around a military base. I've seen society should an age of consent law not be inacted. Middle-school girls talking about their "husbands" in the military who they've engaged in sexual intercourse with numerous times ending up dropping out of school because they get pregnant and you end up seeing many years down the line working in a position less than they were really capable of because some GI told her he "loved her."

What a crock of shit.

But again, it's just my opinion.

SonofRage

23rd November 2003, 04:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 06:48 PM

How about you guys actually argue the issue, not just make irrelevant comments.

My comment was relevant in that AF's threads are largely nonsense not worth arguing over. The reason for age of consent laws are clear: young children are not sufficiently mentally developed to rationally make such decisions. While some people do mature earlier than others and the age set may seem arbitrary, a line has to be drawn somewhere (just as is the case with things like driving, voting, and drinking alcoholic beverages).

ComradeRobertRiley

23rd November 2003, 17:14

sonofrage if a child or anyone doesnt want to have sex then they are not forced to, if they are not ready then they wont do it!!!!

SonofRage

23rd November 2003, 17:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 12:14 PM
sonofrage if a child or anyone doesnt want to have sex then they are not forced to, if they are not ready then they wont do it!!!!
Children are more easily coerced into doing things they do not want to do. I would have thought this fact to be pretty obvious.

Dr. Rosenpenis

23rd November 2003, 17:54

What's the difference if a 15-year old is coerced into having sex with a 15 or if he's coerced into having sex with a 50-year old?

SonofRage

23rd November 2003, 18:50

if you guys really feel this way, I feel bad for your future children.

ComradeRobertRiley

23rd November 2003, 20:01

I just feel that it is the right of the individual to engage in sexual relations and whatever age the individual wants, I had sex with a 15 year old when I was 18, I was with her for 1 1/2 years we were happy with the sex, whats the big deal?

Iepilei

23rd November 2003, 21:08

There is a difference between a 15 year old and a 50 year old in the fact that a younger child would be more prone to trust someone who is older than them on the basic fact that children have a natural connection of trust (be it justified or not) to older people.

Parents are older, and you trust them... so why not trust other older people? This is why they teach kids not to converse with strangers.

Marxist in Nebraska

23rd November 2003, 21:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 01:11 PM
If a 50 year old and a 12 year old consent to having sex, it is no buisness of anybody but the two of them.
The problem with this logic is in establishing whether the 12-year old can actually consent to such a thing. Many adolescents, particularly young adolescents, can be manipulated by older partners. Can all 12-year olds resist sexual pressures from adults? I would say no. Does that mean that the 12-year old always wants/consents to that situation? No. Thus an adolescent can be psychologically coerced into having sex with an adult--that coercion part makes it rape.

The absolution of age of consent laws bothers me--some young people may be mature enough to consent, but many do not. I support the continuation of them simply because I do not have a better alternative.

truthaddict11

23rd November 2003, 21:36

how many 12 year olds do you know want to fuck a 50 year old? a 12 year old girl may think of fucking the 15 year old boy in her school but may be grossed out at the thought of fucking a 50 year old man.

Iepilei

23rd November 2003, 22:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 10:36 PM
how many 12 year olds do you know want to fuck a 50 year old? a 12 year old girl may think of fucking the 15 year old boy in her school but may be grossed out at the thought of fucking a 50 year old man.
It was an example, but I've known several 13 year olds who've done the deed with their 29 year old GI 'husbands'.

As 'innocent' as removing the age of consent law may sound, you're only going to be asking for more trouble than it's worth. Besides, it's not as if people actually AdHERE to it. It's a safety crutch for the parents of the dumbass kids who end up giving it up to these pricks only to find themselves toting a baby around in their bodies which have yet to fully develop to actually be able sustain a healthy child.

All because they bought into his fork-tongued words of "love and admiration." He's an older guy, though, so he has to be sincere. I mean, hell, why else would he be interested in you?

BuyOurEverything

23rd November 2003, 22:41

I disagree that children cannot consent. True, older people could possibly manipulate children but that happens all the time with people of any age. Stupid people are generally easily manipulated, why not make it illegal to have sex with a stupid person? Comparing it to a legal age for driving and voting is somewhat different because driving and voting affect other people, sex does not. I also support the abolition of the drinking age. The age of consent laws are applied completely unfairly as well. Parents often use them to punish their daughter's older boyfriend, even if he is only a few years older. I think that educating young girls about how they can be manipulated is a far better solution than just making a law against it, which generally doesn't help anyways and harm relationships that are genuinly based on mutual consent.

Marxist in Nebraska

23rd November 2003, 22:56

BuyOurEverything

23rd November 2003, 23:05

BOE,

I agree that more education is a good thing. I do not think that comparing the immaturity of a young adolescent to a "stupid" person (what exactly do you mean? gullible? foolish?) is necessarily a fair comparison. I agree that age of consent laws are abused, but the alternative would make it harder to prosecute pedophilia.

I don't see why it isn't a fair comparison. I wasn't saying that all adolecants are stupid by any means. You said that teenage girls can often be manipulated by older men. I say that there are people of any age that are easily manipulated and make bad decisions. What is your definition of pedophilia? If you mean rape, then I agree that it may be slightly harder to get a conviction because you would have to prove that the sex wasn't consentual but by the same logic, you could argue that sex should be outlawed because it would be alot easier to get convictions on rapists.

Iepilei

23rd November 2003, 23:08

I think it's just one of those instances of a "happy-medium"

dopediana

24th November 2003, 00:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 11:41 PM
I disagree that children cannot consent. True, older people could possibly manipulate children but that happens all the time with people of any age. Stupid people are generally easily manipulated, why not make it illegal to have sex with a stupid person? Comparing it to a legal age for driving and voting is somewhat different because driving and voting affect other people, sex does not. I also support the abolition of the drinking age. The age of consent laws are applied completely unfairly as well. Parents often use them to punish their daughter's older boyfriend, even if he is only a few years older. I think that educating young girls about how they can be manipulated is a far better solution than just making a law against it, which generally doesn't help anyways and harm relationships that are genuinly based on mutual consent.
stripping age of consent means that older people could take more liberties with people not quite at adulthood, therefore providing less protection for younger people, more opportunity for physical exploitation, and there are so many people scarred by sexual abuse or simply bad sexual decisions. in cases of nonconsenting sex, many of these occurences of rape go unreported. making there no limit on the age of consent means that more shit could go on.

and if there are two consenting people with mature bodies capable of safe sexual intercourse, there are always ways to get around the laws, particularly with acts conducted in privacy and with discretion.

ÑóẊîöŉ

24th November 2003, 07:58

Do ages of consent actually stop abuse? not really.
I think the solution is better sex ed. around the ages of 10-12 maybe earlier, and to define someone as sexually mature by these characteristics:

MALE:
Pubic Hair
Voice Broken
Increased interest in the sexual act.

FEMALE:
Pubic Hair
Monthly Periods
Noticable breasts (This one's a bit sketchy beacuse there some rather flat-chested girls out there)

They should also be taught that it's perfectly OK to resist the 'authority' of an adult when it comes to sexual matters.

apathy maybe

24th November 2003, 09:58

I don't know if I missed this but is this advocating that anyone can have sex with anyone so long as consent has been given? So an adult can fuck a three year old?
I think that there are laws in place for reasons. Many of the laws are in place for good reasons. The age of consent law is one such law. Even if you disagree with the age (say it should be 14 or something).

ÑóẊîöŉ

24th November 2003, 10:44

More 13 I think if it comes to making some arbritary age.

But if 13, why not 12? if 13, why not 14?

You see the problem of social constructs.

I think the social construct should be more like this:

Only if both participants are sexually im/mature may they have sex. No sexually mature person is to have sex with a sexually immature person and vice versa.

Nobody in a position of authority is to have sex with anyone under their authority and vice versa.

ComradeRobertRiley

24th November 2003, 10:58

A.M. - dont be completely fucking stupid, a 3 year old wouldnt even be able to say the word consent let alone know what sex was to do it.

General A.A.Vlasov

24th November 2003, 11:03

In order - 18! In reality - 16

ComradeRobertRiley

24th November 2003, 11:05

18 is rediculous, the age is 16 in england

General A.A.Vlasov

24th November 2003, 11:09

Hmm...this is the ORDER!

ComradeRobertRiley

24th November 2003, 11:12

its an obserd law and should be abolished

General A.A.Vlasov

24th November 2003, 11:38

...I'm not sure... :unsure:

Xuix

24th November 2003, 14:22

i say the age of consent should be around 16, but with or without consent doesn't really matter much for teens, since there gonna fuck whoever they want to fuck.

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics

24th November 2003, 15:22

I definatley dont think the laws should be removed, or changed, I believe that 16 is about right for the age of consent. I think at this age people are (hopefully) mature, or at least getting there, and they understand such issues as STD's, pregnancy and abortions.
It is not 'stupid' people that shouldnt have sex, but naive ones -like children.
Also i think removing this barrier can make sex appear a very minor thing, and promote promiscuity. As a direct result of this action I'm sure we would see many more cases of diseases and infections which are transmitted sexually.

BuyOurEverything

24th November 2003, 20:47

but with or without consent doesn't really matter much for teens, since there gonna fuck whoever they want to fuck.

I really hope I misunderstood that...

i say the age of consent should be around 16

So you think that a 16 year old should be thrown in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?

I definatley dont think the laws should be removed, or changed, I believe that 16 is about right for the age of consent. I think at this age people are (hopefully) mature, or at least getting there, and they understand such issues as STD's, pregnancy and abortions.

16 may well be a good age of consent for some people but for many others, they can consent to and enjoy sex at a younger age.

It is not 'stupid' people that shouldnt have sex, but naive ones -like children.

You give children as just an example. Does this mean you support banning all naive people from having sex? If not, why not? What's the difference?

Also i think removing this barrier can make sex appear a very minor thing, and promote promiscuity.

I disagree, but even it it could be interpereted by some people as such, it is irrelevant. Stopping the practice of stoning adulteresses probably was considered to 'promote promiscuity' too.

As a direct result of this action I'm sure we would see many more cases of diseases and infections which are transmitted sexually.

I disagree that it would increase sex, but even if it did, the increase in STDs would be incredibly minor compared to the drastic decrease there would be if everyone was educated about STDs and condoms were given out in schools.

Iepilei

24th November 2003, 20:51

There's a two year break period. If the person is 18 he can technically be with a 16 year old.

Atleast that's how it is here in this state.

BuyOurEverything

24th November 2003, 20:56

Fine, but do you think an 18 year old should be put in jail for having consentual sex with a 15 year old? Because if you actually want to enforce it, you're going to need to build a fuck load more prisons.

Invader Zim

24th November 2003, 21:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 09:56 PM
Fine, but do you think an 18 year old should be put in jail for having consentual sex with a 15 year old? Because if you actually want to enforce it, you're going to need to build a fuck load more prisons.
In the UK the age is over 24, which seems fair enough, if your 30 or so and sleep with a 13 year old, then you are a paedophile, no two ways about it, I dont think that in any socioty paedophilia is acceptable.

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics

24th November 2003, 22:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:40 PM

In the UK the age is over 24
huh? surely u meen 16?!

BuyOurEverything

25th November 2003, 00:28

In the UK the age is over 24, which seems fair enough, if your 30 or so and sleep with a 13 year old, then you are a paedophile, no two ways about it, I dont think that in any socioty paedophilia is acceptable.

Well paedophilia is acceptable in some societies, assuming paedophilia is consentual sex between to people of different ages. You haven't said why it's a bad thing.

synthesis

25th November 2003, 02:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 09:47 PM

i say the age of consent should be around 16

So you think that a 16 year old should be thrown in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Actually, I think 'Age of Consent' laws do allow for a one-year variation in ages between the partners. So a more appropriate question would be: "Do you think it is all right for a 16-year-old to be having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend?"

And my answer would be: "No, I don't think it is all right."

What if the girl gets impregnated? No contraception is by any means completely fool-proof, as I'm sure you know, and do you think that a 16-year-old boy is going to be able to provide for his new 14-year-old wife and child while staying in school? Of course not - he'll have to drop out. What happens then? He won't achieve a higher education, and will probably wind up bitter and abusive.

In fact, in the two-income economy of today, the female will probably have to find employment herself to support the three of them - assuming the male doesn't run out on the relationship, as often happens - and the child winds up effectively free of any guidance or supervision whatsoever. This is probably even worse than the male finding employment - the female has lost two more years of her life than him and often finds herself practicing the world's oldest profession, which is probably the biggest travesty of all.

These teen-age pregnancies are yet another way for the ruling class to keep the poor in chains. I think they should be legally discouraged.

But maybe those are reactionary worries. I'm not sure - I've seen situations unfold like they have above. It's not pretty and very depressing.

It's also all very likely, statistically.

BuyOurEverything

25th November 2003, 03:09

Actually, I think 'Age of Consent' laws do allow for a one-year variation in ages between the partners.

Some do. But I already addressed this anyways.

And my answer would be: "No, I don't think it is all right."

What if the girl gets impregnated? No contraception is by any means completely fool-proof, as I'm sure you know, and do you think that a 16-year-old boy is going to be able to provide for his new 14-year-old wife and child while staying in school? Of course not - he'll have to drop out. What happens then? He won't achieve a higher education, and will probably wind up bitter and abusive.

In fact, in the two-income economy of today, the female will probably have to find employment herself to support the three of them - assuming the male doesn't run out on the relationship, as often happens - and the child winds up effectively free of any guidance or supervision whatsoever. This is probably even worse than the male finding employment - the female has lost two more years of her life than him and often finds herself practicing the world's oldest profession, which is probably the biggest travesty of all.

First of all, do you think this would be any different if the girl was 15 or 16? Second, do you think an appropriate way of dealing with this is throwing the guy or girl, whichever is older, into jail? Not only that but the situation you described does not happen all the time. I have known teenage girls who have given birth and had their parents helped raise the child and everything turned out fine. Obviously, this is not always the case. The solution for the rest of these cases is obvious: adoption or abortion. The church has hammered it into the collective mindset of society that abortion is 'bad.' Even a lot of pro-choice people think so, as demonstrated in our thread on abortion. We need to work to combat this. Also, education about contraception is sorely lacking in many areas. This would greatly reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies.

synthesis

25th November 2003, 03:26

First of all, do you think this would be any different if the girl was 15 or 16?

I had a different line of debate in mind when I started to write that post, but I forgot it in the process of writing it so I wound up with what you see. Trust me, it would have knocked you on your ass.

I think it had something to do with 14-year-olds in particular. God damn it!

FabFabian

25th November 2003, 04:38

Jeez, abolishing the Age of Consent are u nuts??? You can't even get a half decent, comprehensive sex education in the school system. Rape is the most under reported crime in the world. A woman can't walk the streets without some asshole making sexist comments. If you are 16 there are some better things that you could be doing with your time, ie homework, rather than having sex. Christ, you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground when you're 21 let alone 16. Lowering or abolishing age of consent plays right into the hands of sex exploitation criminals that use this to justify teen prostitution.

Let me guess, this comment is coming from a male.

Scottish_Militant

25th November 2003, 06:07

Huzington may be Michael Jackson in disguise :lol:

Invader Zim

25th November 2003, 08:16

Originally posted by El Marko+Nov 24 2003, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Marko @ Nov 24 2003, 11:34 PM)
[email protected] 24 2003, 10:40 PM

In the UK the age is over 24
huh? surely u meen 16?! [/b]
No the age of consentual sex is 16, but to be classed as a paedophile you must be over 24... I believe.

Well paedophilia is acceptable in some societies, assuming paedophilia is consentual sex between to people of different ages. You haven't said why it's a bad thing.

The fact that you are asking why paedophilia is a problem, is disturbing. Try the fact that children are neither equipt to deal emotionally or physically with sexual intercourse befroe the completion of puberty.

try the fact that sick adults will be able to get into the pants of a 12 year old far more easily than another adult, because children are not used to that kind of independance, and are used to being told what to do by an adult.

If youi argree with paedophilia, however consentual, you are one screwed up guy.

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics

25th November 2003, 10:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 09:16 AM

Well paedophilia is acceptable in some societies, assuming paedophilia is consentual sex between to people of different ages. You haven't said why it's a bad thing.

The fact that you are asking why paedophilia is a problem, is disturbing. Try the fact that children are neither equipt to deal emotionally or physically with sexual intercourse befroe the completion of puberty.

try the fact that sick adults will be able to get into the pants of a 12 year old far more easily than another adult, because children are not used to that kind of independance, and are used to being told what to do by an adult.

If youi argree with paedophilia, however consentual, you are one screwed up guy.
I totally agree. These are excellent points, though one has still gone unaddressed- Peer pressure. Peer pressure can result in many people performing sexual acts which they wouldnt do otherwise. This pressure is still low/none-existant until the age of 16 when it seems like 'everyone' is having sex. I dont think this is something that children should have to worry about. Isnt it just an encouragment for bullies-both to 'sluts' and to 'fridgid' people?

Monarch

25th November 2003, 15:55

First of all, do you think this would be any different if the girl was 15 or 16? Second, do you think an appropriate way of dealing with this is throwing the guy or girl, whichever is older, into jail?

What would you suggest when the guy is 19 and the girl is 12? or when the girl is 16 and the boy is 12? either scenario is completely disguisting, reguardless if the youngster looks old for their age
(Ive heard this defense but not on this board)

I have known teenage girls who have given birth and had their parents helped raise the child and everything turned out fine. Obviously, this is not always the case.

In what alternate reality has everything turned out fine? The child is still fatherless, The mother is still not capable of taking care of HER CHILD on her own, whats fine about that?

The solution for the rest of these cases is obvious: adoption or abortion.

What a great solution lets put even more kids in the system, its hard for children to get adopted by a decent family.

The church has hammered it into the collective mindset of society that abortion is 'bad.' Even a lot of pro-choice people think so, as demonstrated in our thread on abortion. We need to work to combat this. Also, education about contraception is sorely lacking in many areas. This would greatly reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies

I know a girl who at 17 had 3 abortions, I guess she still didnt figure out that unsafe sex= pregnancy.I know another girl who has had 3 children and gave up her 2nd for adoption.. she still has 2 children she cant take care of.I think the problem is this generation doesnt value human life, I live in area where TONS of young girls have gotten pregnant too many to count, many of them by older men, the Age of Consent laws are doing nothing for them, it only works if you enforce it yourself but I dont think it should be abolished.

I think more sex education is the best solution, but kids who go to poor school are the ones at the highest risk and it seems nobody cares about them.Many that do have sex education have poor programs like my school. more sex ed isnt the only problem, parents arent stepping in and doing their job.

Buyoureverything- If you think throwing the older person into jail isnt right then do you have an alternative punishment? Its not OK for a 35 yearold man to date a 15 yearold, you think he should get away with it?

BuyOurEverything

25th November 2003, 21:22

Jeez, abolishing the Age of Consent are u nuts??? You can't even get a half decent, comprehensive sex education in the school system.

I completely agree and I think it's a huge problem. What the fuck that has to do with the age of consent law, I have no idea.

Rape is the most under reported crime in the world. A woman can't walk the streets without some asshole making sexist comments.

Another huge problem, sexism. Again though, this has nothing to do with age of consent.

If you are 16 there are some better things that you could be doing with your time, ie homework, rather than having sex. Christ, you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground when you're 21 let alone 16.

Yes, 16 year olds should completely focus on their homework. Anything fun should be outlawed. Let's throw video games in jail too. That second statement is ridiculous. First you say all 21 year old are stupid, yet you don't propose making sex illegal between 21 year olds. Then you say that all 16 year olds are stupid and should not be allowed to have sex. You can find stupid and gullible people at any age but one's decisions are their own to make.

Lowering or abolishing age of consent plays right into the hands of sex exploitation criminals that use this to justify teen prostitution.

Would you care to explain how?

Let me guess, this comment is coming from a male.

Yes, I don't see how that is relevant.

Huzington may be Michael Jackson in disguise

Wow, that is a a great argument, I may have to reconsider my points.

The fact that you are asking why paedophilia is a problem, is disturbing. Try the fact that children are neither equipt to deal emotionally or physically with sexual intercourse befroe the completion of puberty.

I'm asking because I haven't been given any satisfactory answers. People just accept it and don't question it for fear of being labelled a pedophile or sick. But your second statement seems to contradict what you've been saying. You are saying that once someone has completed puberty (often as early as 12,) they can have sex with anyone of any age. I agree, I just didn't think that you did.

try the fact that sick adults will be able to get into the pants of a 12 year old far more easily than another adult

Perhaps that is sometimes the case, but often people try and go for ugly people because they can't get it with hot people. Should we make it illegal to have sex with an ugly person?

If youi argree with paedophilia, however consentual, you are one screwed up guy.

I love how incredibly insightful all the arguments are here.

I totally agree. These are excellent points, though one has still gone unaddressed- Peer pressure. Peer pressure can result in many people performing sexual acts which they wouldnt do otherwise. This pressure is still low/none-existant until the age of 16 when it seems like 'everyone' is having sex. I dont think this is something that children should have to worry about. Isnt it just an encouragment for bullies-both to 'sluts' and to 'fridgid' people?

I don't really see where you are going with this. Yes, kids under 16 have sex but usually with other kids under 16, so this would not be covered by the age of consent laws.

What would you suggest when the guy is 19 and the girl is 12? or when the girl is 16 and the boy is 12? either scenario is completely disguisting

Interracial marraige and homosexuality is completely disgusting. I'm not going to say why, it just is and if you argue with that, you're a sicko. And I believe there is nothing wrong with any of those situations you mentioned.

In what alternate reality has everything turned out fine? The child is still fatherless, The mother is still not capable of taking care of HER CHILD on her own, whats fine about that?

And while we're telling mothers how they can and can't raise their children, let's make single mothers against the law.

What a great solution lets put even more kids in the system, its hard for children to get adopted by a decent family.

OK, if there is nobody willing to adopt, then refer to my second solution: abortion.

I know a girl who at 17 had 3 abortions, I guess she still didnt figure out that unsafe sex= pregnancy.I know another girl who has had 3 children and gave up her 2nd for adoption.. she still has 2 children she cant take care of.I think the problem is this generation doesnt value human life, I live in area where TONS of young girls have gotten pregnant too many to count, many of them by older men, the Age of Consent laws are doing nothing for them, it only works if you enforce it yourself but I dont think it should be abolished.

OK, so people have had a lot of abortions. If this was because of unsafe sex, I already stated that we should have far more education. If it was just an accident, then it is unfortunate but nobody is to blame. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that 'this generation' doesn't value human life. You haven't given any arguments against abortion either. Finally, you admit that the age of consent laws do nothing and yet you are still in favour of keeping them.

I think more sex education is the best solution, but kids who go to poor school are the ones at the highest risk and it seems nobody cares about them.Many that do have sex education have poor programs like my school. more sex ed isnt the only problem, parents arent stepping in and doing their job.

I agree. This should be remedied by more funding to public schools. Parents should educate their children but the fact is, they won't always so the schools need to do it.

Buyoureverything- If you think throwing the older person into jail isnt right then do you have an alternative punishment? Its not OK for a 35 yearold man to date a 15 yearold, you think he should get away with it?

I don't believe there is anything wrong with it, no. Please explain why there is. Do you think that it is OK to throw a 19 year old girl in jail for having sex with a 17 year old boy?

ComradeRobertRiley

25th November 2003, 22:12

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Nov 25 2003, 05:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Nov 25 2003, 05:50 AM)
[email protected] 24 2003, 09:47 PM

i say the age of consent should be around 16

So you think that a 16 year old should be thrown in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Actually, I think 'Age of Consent' laws do allow for a one-year variation in ages between the partners. So a more appropriate question would be: "Do you think it is all right for a 16-year-old to be having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend?"

And my answer would be: "No, I don't think it is all right." [/b]
I do think it is alright.

If the girl gets pregnant? if she gets pregnant then its her own fault for consenting to sex (bareing in mind that the girl didnt intend to get pregnant)

Rastafari

26th November 2003, 02:11

Originally posted by ComradeRobertRiley+Nov 25 2003, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRobertRiley @ Nov 25 2003, 07:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 05:50 AM

[email protected] 24 2003, 09:47 PM

i say the age of consent should be around 16

So you think that a 16 year old should be thrown in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Actually, I think 'Age of Consent' laws do allow for a one-year variation in ages between the partners. So a more appropriate question would be: "Do you think it is all right for a 16-year-old to be having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend?"

And my answer would be: "No, I don't think it is all right."
I do think it is alright.

If the girl gets pregnant? if she gets pregnant then its her own fault for consenting to sex (bareing in mind that the girl didnt intend to get pregnant) [/b]
and the guy, who is usually older, walks away stone free.

that's justice for ya'

Xuix

26th November 2003, 02:20

BuyOurEverything

26th November 2003, 02:26

I myself am 16 years of age, and i do believe the age to consent in canada is 16, and i think that mature 16+ can have sex responsibly with other mature 16+ i see nothing wrong with that (except a 16 year old going out with say, a 79 year old) as long as the ages don't vary TOO much its okay, but having sex with under 16 is...wrong.

I'm also 16, but I thought that the age of consent in Canada was 14. I could be wrong though. Why do you think it is 'wrong' to have sex when you're under 16? And please don't insult my intelligence by saying 'it just is' or the moderately better 'they're not ready' without explaining why. Also, why do you think it is wrong for two people to have sex if there is a large variation in age?

El Brujo

26th November 2003, 02:39

I do think the age of consent, in some cases, is too severe but it most-definitely should not be abolished. First off, because many young people are not responsible enough and it could give way to a rise in un-planned births, illegitimate children and population (and eventually, in crime and pollution as most children from orpheneges and from single parents hardly live a "productive" life), and secondly because a line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of when somebody is responsible enough to do so. If sexual education were more efficient and this were a more culturally progressive society not based on pop-culture, we could afford to liberalize such a thing but unfortunately that's not the case.

FYI: Im 19 and Im seeing a 16 year old.

synthesis

26th November 2003, 02:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 11:12 PM
If the girl gets pregnant? if she gets pregnant then its her own fault for consenting to sex (bareing in mind that the girl didnt intend to get pregnant)
It takes two people to create a child. (Well, outside of a lab.)

Few men are going to want to have the responsibility of raising a child when they're 16, let alone actually be committed to a person for the rest of their life.

Again, you seem to think that because a woman is the one actually delivering the child, that men should be completely free of any consequences of sex the instant they pull their pecker out a pudenda.

(View my alliterative genius. I had to sacrifice an article in there, but now I can feel poetic.)

Xuix

26th November 2003, 03:51

i was referring to a older man having sex with someone who is under 16,

BuyOurEverything

26th November 2003, 05:10

i was referring to a older man having sex with someone who is under 16,

Well that's not what you said:

i think that mature 16+ can have sex responsibly with other mature 16+ i see nothing wrong with that (except a 16 year old going out with say, a 79 year old)

But even if it was what you meant, what's the problem? You still haven't said.

commie pig

26th November 2003, 05:21

It's downright foolish to talk about abolishing the age of consent. You rotten kids have to be stopped. You're like the Children of the Corn. Christ. Downright fucking scary with your Columbines and all your goddamn rights. In my book, you only have two rights. You have the right to sit down, and you have the right to shut the fuck up. Everything else is totally out of the question. Now get in the fucking kitchen and make me a sandwich. Then you can sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

Monarch

26th November 2003, 18:29

Interracial marraige and homosexuality is completely disgusting. I'm not going to say why, it just is and if you argue with that, you're a sicko. And I believe there is nothing wrong with any of those situations you mentioned.

I dont think there is anything wrong with Interracial marraige or homosexuality. You really should have kept that comment to yourself.obviously you think there is nothing wrong with a 35 y/o dating a 15 y/o ,or a 79 y/o with a 16 y/o. if the reason why its wrong has to be explained to you then you really are the sicko.you are a future pedophile.

BuyOurEverything

26th November 2003, 19:35

I dont think there is anything wrong with Interracial marraige or homosexuality

I was comparing your opinion to other forms of archaic sexual "morality."

You really should have kept that comment to yourself.

Why?

obviously you think there is nothing wrong with a 35 y/o dating a 15 y/o ,or a 79 y/o with a 16 y/o.

That is correct.

if the reason why its wrong has to be explained to you then you really are the sicko.you are a future pedophile.

See this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You don't give any evidence or tangible arguements, you just call anyone who disagrees with you a sicko. Not too long ago (and even today, still) people used the exact same type of argument to attack interracial maraige and homosexuality.

apathy maybe

26th November 2003, 23:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 09:58 PM
A.M. - dont be completely fucking stupid, a 3 year old wouldnt even be able to say the word consent let alone know what sex was to do it.
OK then a fucking 6 year old! The age doesn't really matter. Besides, have you talked to a three year old lately? They can talk and understand a lot of conversation. And they can say yes. So its not stupid, if we got rid of the age of consent, this would be a problem. Adults having sex with kids under the age of 10.

redstar2000

27th November 2003, 02:51

I think what this thread really shows is that there are people who "believe" in walls.

And people who don't.

To a servant of the "wall", anyone who doesn't believe in walls is "perverse", "sinful", "sick", "disgusting", and "evil".

The "Wall People" believe in prisons; the "anti-Wall" people think prison is worse than death itself.

The "Wall People" think everyone needs a boss or else they won't do "what they are supposed to do" nor refrain from doing "what they're not supposed to do".

The "anti-Wall" people think that bosses are "disgusting", "evil", etc.

Regardless of their nominal political views, the "Wall People" are conservatives at heart...they think that human behavior is not to be trusted.

And, likewise, the "anti-Wall People" are revolutionaries at heart...they are encouraged by the potential of humans to "do the right thing" in the long run.

Do you really want to see the liberation of our species?

Or do you want to be "just another brick in the wall"?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics

30th November 2003, 15:12

The "Wall People" believe in prisons; the "anti-Wall" people think prison is worse than death itself.
so anti-wall ppl support ALL capital punishment?

Regardless of their nominal political views, the "Wall People" are conservatives at heart...they think that human behavior is not to be trusted.

Or alternativley you could say "anti wall people are naive, and think everyone is their best buddy"

And, likewise, the "anti-Wall People" are revolutionaries at heart...they are encouraged by the potential of humans to "do the right thing" in the long run.

exactly, in the long run, not after 5 seconds of revolution.

Or do you want to be "just another brick in the wall"?
Nice song.

redstar2000

1st December 2003, 02:29

Nice song.

Nice reply.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

FabFabian

1st December 2003, 06:35

Note to Buyoureverything:

My statements illustrate that there are more pressing issues to deal with, making the abolition of age of consent laws look ridiculous. If you can't connect the dots, that's not my problem.

Sexual exploitation- an example of how the age of consent laws are manipulated is seen in Canada where the age is 14. Girls who get involved with older men and used in the sex trade are difficult to defend or save from such fate, because the law says 14 they are allegedly choosing this "lifestyle".

My male comment was in regards to the fact that we live in a patriarchial society that perpetuates sexual exploitation, harassment and abuse of women and children. It is a blatant power imbalance.

How the hell can you justify a teentard having sex, when the twits can't even look at themselves naked in a mirror or have the maturity to buy a condom. Back to the playpen kids. :rolleyes:

hazard

1st December 2003, 06:42

if anything the age should be raised

the problem is that there is a trillion dollar sex market in capitalism

sex is used to sell everything, and if consent is modified to a higher age category, less people can be sold by large breasted bimbos shaking their tits while holding up bottles of cheap american puke badly marketed and even more badly manufactured

in addition, one must consider sex as it relates to controlling the population

besides watching TV and drinking cheap american beer, all the sorry fucks have to do is, well, fuck

sex is the most vastly marketed component of capitalism for it not only generates capital, it similarly sedates a sorry and sickened population into cess pools of sex and depravity instead of riots and revolution

under a communist regime sex should be reserved for true love in truly loving relationships as people stop acting like sick animals and more like evolved humans

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics

1st December 2003, 15:26

the problem is that there is a trillion dollar sex market in capitalism sex is used to sell everything, and if consent is modified to a higher age category, less people can be sold by large breasted bimbos shaking their tits while holding up bottles of cheap american puke badly marketed and even more badly manufactured
I dont think less people would be interested in buying 'sex-sells' products.

in addition, one must consider sex as it relates to controlling the population
I HOPE you meen controlling population numbers? Something that can be done with widely available condoms and other forms of contraception, education, and maybe even legal abortions?

besides watching TV and drinking cheap american beer, all the sorry fucks have to do is, well, fuck

The act of sex deosnt contribute to capitalism, if anything its anti-cappie cos its free (unless ur desperate).

under a communist regime sex should be reserved for true love in truly loving relationships as people stop acting like sick animals and more like evolved humans

Comrade, i belive you need to think about your views, I belive you are anti-promiscous, however you seem to be going over board?

BuyOurEverything

1st December 2003, 20:53

My statements illustrate that there are more pressing issues to deal with, making the abolition of age of consent laws look ridiculous. If you can't connect the dots, that's not my problem.

I agree there are more important things but I don't see how that is an argument. I could say nothing is more important than crushing capitalism, therefore by your logic, I should do nothing in my life except crush capitalism.

Sexual exploitation- an example of how the age of consent laws are manipulated is seen in Canada where the age is 14. Girls who get involved with older men and used in the sex trade are difficult to defend or save from such fate, because the law says 14 they are allegedly choosing this "lifestyle".

Maintaining or raising the current age of consent laws is just a band-aid solution to this problem, and a poor one at that. If you raised the age of consent to 35, it would be alot easier to get prostitutes off the street or prosecute rapists. A much better solution would be to offer assistance programs and safe houses etc. to help these women. There also is the possibility that they are in fact choosing this lifestyle.

My male comment was in regards to the fact that we live in a patriarchial society that perpetuates sexual exploitation, harassment and abuse of women and children. It is a blatant power imbalance.

OK, I agree for the most part.

How the hell can you justify a teentard having sex, when the twits can't even look at themselves naked in a mirror or have the maturity to buy a condom. Back to the playpen kids.

Great, treat everyone under 20 as sub-humans, that really helps gives you a lot of credibility. I don't know why you think that teenagers aren't mature enough to buy condoms but I can tell you right now that that is not true. Even if it was though, wouldn't this be a sign that more sex ed is needed? Your "abstinence only" aproach has and is being tried all the time and it has and is failing. Teenagers have hormones too, usually more than older people.

the problem is that there is a trillion dollar sex market in capitalism

Exactly. You've just identified the real problem: capitalism.

sex is used to sell everything, and if consent is modified to a higher age category, less people can be sold by large breasted bimbos shaking their tits while holding up bottles of cheap american puke badly marketed and even more badly manufactured

Yes, sex is sold. I really don't see your logic as to how raising the age of consent would affect this in any way. Food is also marketed under capitalism. Does this mean a "true" communist should not eat?

under a communist regime sex should be reserved for true love in truly loving relationships as people stop acting like sick animals and more like evolved humans

Great, another puritan. People like sex. You need to ask yourself, what is wrong with this?

redstar2000

2nd December 2003, 04:08

if anything the age should be raised

How about 40? :lol:

large breasted bimbos shaking their tits

Is there a hither-to undiscovered negative correlation between female breast-size and intelligence?

...sedates a sorry and sickened population into cess pools of sex and depravity...

Sounds positively...televangical, doesn't it?

...under a communist regime sex should be reserved for true love in truly loving relationships as people stop acting like sick animals and more like evolved humans

Sick animals don't engage in sex; only healthy animals do that.

Presumably communist society will develop an accurate "true love" meter...something you geeks better get to work on...instead of having sex.

How the hell can you justify a teentard having sex...

"Teentard" as in retard, presumably.

Whenever someone wants to deprive people of some fundamental human right, it's always a good tactic to make the targets appear "unworthy" of having that right in the first place.

It's been done before and often successfully...at least for a while.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

redstar2000

4th December 2003, 00:24

Real life "age of consent"...

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A former teacher who pleaded guilty in 1999 to having sex with one of her students was denied permission to practice law in Louisiana by the state Supreme Court.

The teacher pleaded guilty in February 1999, when she was 24, to one count of indecent behavior with a juvenile (14) and two counts of carnal knowledge of a juvenile. She was sentenced to a four-year suspended prison term and put on three years of probation.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/in...95347215641.xml (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1070495347215641.xml)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

hazard

6th December 2003, 05:42

el:

control in relation to stopping a COMMUNIST REVOLUTION, such as all of us should be hoping to achieve ASAP. if we keep buying porno and watching miss america pagaents and having cheap, meaningless sex we can never hope to revolt. and even worse, all the beer drinking slobs watching football will never have a reason to revolt. nope. they'll just sit there with a beer in one hand and a TV remote in the other watching he Jets playing the Falcons until the day they die. and to fill in the gaps between football games and cases of beer they look at porno then fuck their overweight wives. sex is used to control these idiots in that it takes their mind off of the harshness of reality. like a bunch of fucking apes in cages. got nothing to do? might as well fuck. feels good, no? fucking idiots.

redstar:

I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between a tirade and a well reasoned and articulated argument. I ussually begin on a sound and reasonable point, then use colourful language and analogy to make sure the point is not lost. I know you are a fan of the cut and paste methodology of deconstructing an argument, but it removes the apparent artistry of my writing style. just thought I'd pat myself on the back since there's noone else around here to do it for me.

dopediana

6th December 2003, 06:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 07:42 AM
in addition, one must consider sex as it relates to controlling the population
under a communist regime sex should be reserved for true love in truly loving relationships as people stop acting like sick animals and more like evolved humans
make condoms more available. that will control the population.
unless on a quest for drugs or something that could induce that much desire that one would compromise their virtue for it, it is very rare that people have sex "just because." anyway, if it feels good, do it. i know plenty of people who like sex and change partners often but love all of them each time they've had intercourse.

hazard

6th December 2003, 06:59

yeah, I get that. but what I'm talking about is the MASS MARKETING of sex solely for the purpose of controlling the population. that way when cheap, lousy, piss like american beer shows off cheap, lousy, pissy bimbos in their beer ads they sell their beer and they provide their idioitic population with titliation to think of when they fuck whatever it is they plan on fucking that night. anything to stop the revolution.

redstar2000

6th December 2003, 14:34

Very well, Hazard, I won't "deconstruct" what you've written but instead go straight to the core of your "argument"...as I understand what you're saying.

Indulgence in sexual pleasure inhibits the revolutionary impulse.

Is that a fair summary?

I don't believe that you have so much as a scrap of evidence to support that assertion...and, indeed, I have no idea how one would gather such evidence in the first place. You would have to survey a group of revolutionaries (defined how?) and a "control group" of apathetic non-political people and ask them to report on their sex lives.

As many have noted, such "survey techniques" suffer from a most serious drawback: no one need tell the truth because there's no way to verify their responses.

Historically speaking, there has always been both a puritanical and an anti-puritanical current of opinion in the "left". Which of those currents is "really left" is, of course, the "sub-text" of this and similar threads on sexuality, marijuana, alcohol, etc.

Likewise, there is and has always been a competition between two "models" of how to live a revolutionary life. One emphasizes the "monkish" life of self-sacrifice, "total dedication", voluntary hardship, etc. Call it the "Mother Theresa" model.

The alternative model tries "to have it all", embracing life to the fullest now as a living example of how life should be lived. Yes, we should fight our oppressors with all the strength we can muster...but we should also enjoy the pleasures that come our way now. We can't just live "in the future"...postponing all the good things that life offers until "after the revolution". Call it the "Emma Goldman" model.

Perhaps it is a matter of temperament and personality...though I find it hard to accept the idea that there's a gene complex for puritanism. I know for a fact that some people react to pleasure negatively from childhood exposure to parental fuckups and neighborhood wreckage. If your parents are drunks and your neighborhood filled with the human debris of capitalism in the form of wasted junkies, it's "easy" to conclude that pleasure is the "villain".

Humans can easily mistake the symptoms for the causes of a phenomenon. If you see people drunk or strung out or suffering from AIDS, it's easy to conclude that if they would just abstain from drinking, drugs, and sex, then "everything would be different".

Well, no, it would still be the same. It is class society that creates, in its normal operation, the production of human wreckage in one form or another. In 19th century England, it was seriously suggested that "cheap gin is the curse of the working class".

As long as class society exists, there will be substantial numbers of people who, having found one or more pleasures in an otherwise intolerable life, will engage in them to the point of self-destruction...a slow form of suicide. Perhaps that response is genetic; I don't know.

But the vast majority of people do not respond in that fashion; one way or another, they balance their pleasures and responsibilities. The "Mother Theresa" model of revolutionary life holds little appeal to most people...it "sounds crazy".

On the other hand, the "Emma Goldman" model has, I think, great potential...it summons people to revolutionary struggle without demanding that they renounce all pleasure until "after the revolution". It's a "common sense" approach that intuitively "makes sense" to people (provided, of course, that they are convinced of the desirability of revolution in the first place).

The two models also have implications for the quality of post-capitalist society. Some people want to live in a rigid, neo-puritanical society in which every act is tightly controlled; "what is not prohibited is compulsory".

Others, like myself, view such a society as a nightmare...what Marx once quite properly condemned as "barracks communism". To us, the whole point of revolutionary struggle is a freer society...which means one of greater pleasure as well as less pain and suffering.

We want to enlarge human possibilities beyond the boundaries of class society...not shrink them into some wretched parody of Victorian or even medieval "morality".

If that be "depravity", then make the most of it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

hazard

7th December 2003, 05:46

well articulated, redstar, especially your summary of my position

I fail to see why you decided to take this central quotation in the direction you did, though. I never really meant that a revolutionary individual, such as Che, for instance, should be pious and "monastic", as you put it. I am referring more specifically to the social conditions necessary for revolution.

sex, and its mASS MARKETING as an indulgence, debilitates the ability of a population to seek reason to revolt. I mean, if they're supersaturated with sex being used to sell products, sex being used to sell sexual related items and sex as a form of escapism, they are less likely to revolt simply because they are too busy having sex. ask any male up to his armpits in strip clubs and pornos and cheap hookers whether or not he has a reason to participate in a revolution and he'll probably say no.

similarly, the mass marketing of fashion and styling products and accessories and other things uses sex to sell them all so the users of these products can either make themselves sexier and thus have access to more sex or increase the sexual pleasure of those they have sex with. revolution? why? with all the hot broads in spiked heels and eyeshadow and perms? there's no need to revolt.

from the female perspective, they are most abused by this overuse of sex as a revolutionary control mechanism. for they are objectified not just as sexual objects, but revolutionary control tools. all against their will, of course. they are forced to play with dolls that represent scaled down versions of the rest of their lives. oversexed, plastic surgery products with more cheap and useless accessories than the mind can imagine. only the enlightened few are able to realize and combat not just against the sexual oppresion of the female sex, but their use as revolutionary controls as well.

just like the multitude of brands of cola available on the market, sex comes in as many flavours as the mind can imagine. threesomes. with a blonde. with a brunette. in costume. at work. at a hotel. on the internet. on the phone. and so on and on and on and on. once more, with sex being infused into the public as a source of constant pleasure, nobody will ever even have a revolutionary thought cross their minds. all these sorry fucks think about is fucking.

that leaves us revolutionaries high and dry. sex, for us, serves only the purpose of taking our mind off of the fact that everybody else is having sex so they won't revolt. I'll call it depraved and excessive and over sold, but I still need to entertain the idea of it just as I need to entertain the idea of sleeping every now and again and eating when I'm hungry.

BuyOurEverything

7th December 2003, 06:00

hazard

7th December 2003, 06:34

thats absolutely hysterical. I'm not joking, either.

on a less joival note, though, I understand what you are trying to say.

to me it seems that the population is just too supersaturated in all of the appetites to consider revolution. food, I mean, come on. fast food coming out the ass, a million kind of chips and chicken wings on sale for ninety nie cents a pound. well fed is one thing but so well fed on fat and fast food cooked in fat is something else. the only revolution this fat slobs will consider, between over inflated breast implants and whoppers with cheese would be fought with french fries and vibraters.

che guevara himself said that a revolution can become realiy if a small band of guerrilla's induce the conditions necessary to force the population into revolution. that means, as far as we are capable, we should either reject this supersaturation of our appetite or reject it AND educate others into rejecting it as well. I know it may seem tough having to toss out that stack of penthouse magazines, but we all gotta start somewhere.

redstar2000

7th December 2003, 13:05

Perhaps we who want a revolution should attack capitalism on its false promises.

Yes, the media is "full" of "sex"...is that an acceptable substitute for the real thing?

Is "fast food" an acceptable substitute for food?

It seems to me that what capitalism offers is not sex but rather the appearance of sex, "virtual sex" if you will. It is as if you went into an upscale restaurant and, in place of a meal, you were invited to look at the menu for as long as you wished and "imagine" how good the meals would taste if you could afford them.

And the "meals" are expensive. My guess is that a sexual encounter with a Playboy "playmate" would probably cost around $50,000. An attractive topless dancer in your neighborhood club costs a lot less...perhaps $2,000 or so.

Or you can rent a DVD for $4.00!

What's an ordinary guy gonna do?

In capitalist society, his "desirability" as a potential sexual partner is essentially reduced to his net worth. His other qualities, whatever they might be, are, at best, little bonuses, perks, add-ons. He can always be out-bid.

The lesson for women, of course, is that your sexual appeal is a commodity to be exploited "for all it's worth" in the marketplace. You compete with other women for the most desirable men...the ones with the most money. The "better" you look, the more you are "worth". Pleasure is a secondary consideration...the main thing is to get the money.

If you want romance, rent a DVD.

Of course, most ordinary people don't accept this paradigm...at least not in the blunt way I have stated it. But it permeates our society; it's "in the air we breathe". It influences us.

Very well, why not then attack it as fake?

It is, after all, just as fake as patriotism or religion or anything else the capitalists do to obscure an accurate perception of reality.

Why not offer the alternative of a new society in which the possibility of real sexual encounters based upon mutual attraction is increased?

Without the pernicious influence of wealth, people would evaluate potential partners on their human qualities. Yes, "looks" would still count for a lot...there's no getting away from that. But I think there would be far less "pressure" to achieve a "fashionable look" in order to be thought attractive. People would be less likely, I think, to be constrained by a "mental picture" of "perfect looks"...and thus be somewhat more open to the varieties of human appearance.

I have no idea if such an approach is feasible at this point...perhaps there would already have to be a sizable revolutionary movement in existence to make it look plausible.

But I think there is little future in exhorting people to suppress their appetites "in the name of the revolution".

Why would anyone want to do that?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

John_Wayne

8th December 2003, 01:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 06:59 AM
My Views on Age of Consent

First of all, I should like to say that there is no topic too controversial about which to talk, because the controversial topics are always the most important ones. Second, there is no argument, no person, no idea, no law, no moral, no theory, no anything, which is above criticism, including this very post. And I choose to talk about a subject which is viewed by many to be "too controversial" to talk about. And I shall criticise a law and a moral position which many of its proponents seem to view as "above criticism". Just bear in mind that nothing is "too controversial" or "above criticism".

The difficulty about writing this was that throughout I had to argue against myself. Sometimes it is hard to think about all the good arguments against my own argument, and then refute those counter-arguments. The counter-arguments get progressively harder for me to refute. But I refute them nonetheless.

To proceed.

As always, I must firstly define the key term. The key term here is "Age of Consent". "Age of Consent" is that age at which an individual may legally experience sexual sensations with an adult, i.e., consent to sexual contact with an adult. Whatever age is decided as the "age of consent" is that age at which a person is said to be able to make an "informed decision".

There are several problems with "Age of Consent". To wit:

1. The problem of the "individual".

An individual is a person. Children are persons. An anatomically correct person can experience sexual sensations. Hence a child can experience sexual sensations. Sexual sensations are considered as pleasurable by the person experiencing them in the majority of instances. (There are some rare cases in which a person feels emotional pain seemingly as a result of sexual sensations. But this is more likely the result of aversive associations with sex - caused by perhaps a traumatic sexual experience, and not by the sexual sensations themselves.) Hence a child can derive pleasure from sexual sensations. If they do not appear as pleasurable, it is in fact other sensations which are confounded with the sexual sensation, such as the aversive feeling which is induced by unwanted force. Force is the undesirable sensation, and not sex itself. There is no sensible reason why the individual, which includes the child, must not experience pleasurable sensations that he is biologically capable of experiencing.

"It is harmful," the reader might respond. "Surely you agree that sex between a young person and an adult is harmful."

"Harm" includes emotional and physical harm. What type of harm is caused by sexual sensations? Obviously it is not physical harm, because people have sex all the time without experiencing physical harm. Physical harm may exist alongside sex, but it is not sex itself. Is it emotional harm, then? But in fact, it is contradictory that a sensation which is emotionally pleasurable can be emotionally harmful. And as I have shown above, sexual sensations are pleasurable sensations.

"But it causes delayed emotional harm," the reader will suggest. "It may not have caused harm when it happened, but in the future it is very likely to cause emotional harm."

This means that, after a person indulges in the sexual act, he might experience emotional harm in the future, perhaps as a fully developed adult, because he was "too young" when he engaged in that activity. There is no delayed emotional harm resulting from sex. There is simply no evidence that sex induces deferred emotional harm. It is always the use of force which is made use of alongside the sexual act which causes the delayed emotional harm - it is never sex itself. Force and sexual sensations are being confused. Sexual sensations, which are pleasurable, are, by the very definition of "pleasurable", not harmful. What might be harmful are acts which occur concombitantly with the sexual act, such as force, coercion, inter alia. The experience of sexual sensations, being a sensation of pleasure, is not itself harmful.

"But sex between one of non-consenting age and an adult is necessarily coercive," replies the reader. "Therefore, it is harmful - whether the harm be delayed or no."

This leads us to the second problem.

2. The problem of "consent".

Our reader seems to believe that children cannot consent. But children can consent. Consent consists merely of "I do", or "Yes." It is irrational to believe that children cannot "consent". It is clear that, in this sense, the child can consent to sex just as easily as anybody else can.

"Technically, yes, children can consent. But they can also consent to things which are harmful to them. Thus, they must informedly consent. The age of consent is the age at which one can make an informed decision. This is what we mean by age of consent."

Of course. But can an adult not consent to something which can harm him? Is he not capable of making an uninformed decision? Must the adult, therefore, be refused all sex, because it is possible he will make an uninformed decision?

"Of course adults can make uninformed decisions, but surely you cannot deny that there is a correlation between informedness and age. And the correlation is such that the adult is far more informed about decisions concerning sex than the child."

It has not been denied that there is a correlation between informedness and age. But what is the child not informed about - about which he needs to be informed - to be able properly to have sex? Why can he not be informed about this? Are his mental faculties really that defective?

"What is there in sex that he is not informed about that he needs to be informed about? Protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Rapists. Etc. Can a child be informed about these? No."

First: The sexually transmitted disease is not such a difficult concept to get one's mind round. In the Netherlands, for example, children as young as eleven are fully informed about this. It is purely an educational matter. What is more, the type of relationship about which we are speaking is not a one-sided one: the adult ought to use "protection" as well. Everyone on Earth can, and must, be informed about "protection". If the adult did not use "protection", would you say that he would not be informed, and therefore cannot consent to sex? By your own logic you must admit this. And what about before there was a significant problem with sexually transmitted diseases, hundreds of years ago? Or in some isolated culture, in which there is no history of sexually trasmitted diseases? The child would not need to be informed about STDs in such examples (even though, given education, he certainly can).

Third: As regards rape, is my informedness about it going to change anything? If someone is going to prey upon me in an alley, it makes no difference how "informed" I am about the concept of rape. The key is not how informed one is about the existence of rape (though that certainly is desirable!), but how to avoid dangerous situations. The child must therefore be carefully guarded by his parents. And he must be educated about, and thereby protected from, the dangers of the world, including rape, by his parents.

Second: I suspect that you are once again thinking about the "correlation between informedness and age". Sexually transmitted diseases aside, a child no more needs to be informed about sex to enjoy sex than he needs to be informed about poetry to enjoy poetry. For indulging in both is a pleasurable experience. It is not as if he will suddenly be harmed by poetry if he is not "informed" about rhythm, meter, the anapest, etc. And the same is true (perhaps truer) with music. Sex, like enjoying music, is a pleasurable sensation. There is no inherent harm with it, irrespective of the person's age who partakes in it. There is harm involved in force - and this must be stressed - but not sex itself.

Third: If there is not a particular age at which a person develops the informedness at which he can consent to sexual contact, then age of consent, whatever it may be, is arbitrary.

"And I have no problem with admitting that. But still, though I can admit that the age of consent is arbitrary, it is used to protect children who cannot defend themselves, who generally have not the informedness to consent, and is therefore laudable."

But what about "sex play" between two children? Do you disapprove of that as well? Is it harmful, too? The children are not "informed", even in such cases (what would they have to be informed about?); and by your reasoning it must be harmful, and punished severely.

"It is not harmful because an adult is not involved in it."

And thus we arrive at problem number three.

3. The problem of the "adult".

The adult is falsely defined as a lustful being with an obsession with sex, and will only get it by means of coercion and force. It is for this reason that all sex between adults and young persons is perceived as harmful, because the adult is coercive, etc. However, if this were the case, all sex between any adult would involve at the very least coercion. But this is not the case. In the majority of instances, sex does not involve coercion, but on the contrary involves "mutual consent".

"I cannot agree with that. But even if you are right, by engaging in the sexual act, the child loses thereby his innocence. That is wrong in itself, regardless of whether he 'feels' harm or not."

Thus do we get to the fourth problem.

4. The problem with "childhood innocence".

The principal defect of this concept is that it implies that sexuality is a "sin", and that children are "innocent" because they have not as yet indulged in this "sin". The singularly Christian notion of "childhood innocence" is a vestige of our anti-sexual heritage which reached a high point, in many aspects, in the Victorian era. Its origin can be traced to the 1700s. It is a highly irrational notion, and I need not attempt to refute it. For the burden of proof is not on the Author, that sexuality is a sin. I have yet to see an argument that sexuality is a sin, and hence have nothing to refute. I have only come across dogmatic assertions, mainly in the form of religion, of the sinfulness of sexuality and "childhood innocence" (which is implicit in the notion of the sinfulness of sexuality).

Such are my reasons for advocating the abolition of "Age of Consent".

Every instance of perceived emotional harm by sex, is not in fact emotional harm by sex, or the result of being "too young"; it is caused by force, by coercion, coupled with the sexual act. If there were no force, no coercion, I guarantee that there would not have been any harm whatsoever.

I therefore advocate strengthening rape laws, abolishing Age of Consent laws.
Did you ever play football when you were a kid?

redstar2000

8th December 2003, 02:42

Did you ever play football when you were a kid?

Did you ever play with yourself when you were a kid?

Or are you just now starting with your posts on this board?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

hazard

10th December 2003, 07:33

nice post redstar

you leave little room for debate

I still see a direct effect upon the population as having more sex than they need to because of all of this overmarketing of it. sort of like primeate see, primeate do. the slobs see sex, then they have it. then there's all of the usages for those unable or unwilling to have it. they'll just sit and stare, and, uh, well, amke the most out of it. I guess.

if you undercut the sale of sex, you similarly undercut the control of the population through doing nothing but having sex between work and meals. and once this control is severed, we all know what comes next. REVOLUTION! or a reasonable fax-similie of it.

what do you think about viagra?

redstar2000

10th December 2003, 13:42

What do you think about viagra?

A pretty dangerous drug, from what I've read...more than 100 old guys have died after taking it.

On the other hand, you have the "what a way to go" argument.

I sort of doubt that I will need it myself...I've found that past 40 or so, you really don't get a lot of attention from attractive young women, unless you're rich (which I'm not).

But I think that 50% of the spam I get is from online drug pushers trying to sell me some. :o

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Romulus

11th December 2003, 20:12

This is actualy typical of simpelton sock pupet leftist communist ideology. Isnt the 5th pillar of Marxism to break up the family?

What better way to do that than destroy a childs mind by premature exposure to sexuality?

Why is it that communist founded orginizations like the ACLU, support child molesters and defend the possession of child pornography?

I think the ANSWER's are simple, to destroy the family. This makes state control of individuals easier. It also gives a reason for bedwetting leftists to step in and take "control", which is what everything within the leftist Marxist/Mega-Murdering Communist ideology is about. Control.

Have a nice day.

:D

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th December 2003, 20:26

Ignorant tit.
You know nothing about Communism.

Romulus

11th December 2003, 21:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 09:26 PM
Ignorant tit.
You know nothing about Communism.
Ummm...Yes I do. As I can see many Communists are advocates of pedophilia.

Would you like to test me on my knowledge of Communism?

Invader Zim

11th December 2003, 21:19

Originally posted by Romulus+Dec 11 2003, 10:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Romulus @ Dec 11 2003, 10:05 PM)
[email protected] 11 2003, 09:26 PM
Ignorant tit.
You know nothing about Communism.
Ummm...Yes I do. As I can see many Communists are advocates of pedophilia.

Would you like to test me on my knowledge of Communism? [/b]
Would you like to test me on my knowledge of Communism?

yeah, explain to us the differences between anarchist view point of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Leninist view and explain why they differ.

but then again you did say that Hitler was a leftist, so you obviously have zero political knowledge anyway.

Go away and have a wank over a pick of George Bush like a good capitalist and stop wasting webspace.

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/coolnews/980707/media/mean-dinosaur.jpg

Che's Cypher

12th December 2003, 20:00

You are one misguided soul, comrade. It pains me to fustigate someone as articulate as you, but to actually advocate sexual relations with a child goes against the revolution.

When children are raped, sodomized, fellated, or molested, they are not experiencing pleasure, but an excruciating ordeal that they are not mature enough to cope with, compounded by the fear of retaliation imposed by the attacker.

Yes children can experience sexual pleasure, mostly pre-pubescent boys who have discovered masturbation, but that does not automatically make them eligible for sexual relations with an adult. A child relies on adults to guide them, to protect them, and to teach them, not to take advantage of them.

What you are condoning here comrade, is no better than those fascist Catholic priests who rape young boys. I don't think Che would condone sex with children, comrade. :angry:

cubist

12th December 2003, 21:54

I am from the UK out laws are AOK on this one but great point redstar

BuyOurEverything

12th December 2003, 23:38

You are one misguided soul, comrade. It pains me to fustigate someone as articulate as you, but to actually advocate sexual relations with a child goes against the revolution.

My God, you say it's counter-revolutionary? Well, no need for facts then, ban it!

When children are raped, sodomized, fellated, or molested, they are not experiencing pleasure, but an excruciating ordeal that they are not mature enough to cope with, compounded by the fear of retaliation imposed by the attacker.

I notice you fail to distinguish between consentual sex and rape and molestation. That's interesting.

Yes children can experience sexual pleasure, mostly pre-pubescent boys who have discovered masturbation, but that does not automatically make them eligible for sexual relations with an adult. A child relies on adults to guide them, to protect them, and to teach them, not to take advantage of them.

I see, and what does make the "eligible" to have sex? Your permission?

What you are condoning here comrade, is no better than those fascist Catholic priests who rape young boys. I don't think Che would condone sex with children, comrade.

Well, yes it is better because it is consentual, something you obviously have difficulty understanding. But if you don't think Che would have condoned it, well then who am I to argue?

Romulus

13th December 2003, 08:51

Originally posted by Enigma+Dec 11 2003, 10:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Dec 11 2003, 10:19 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 10:05 PM

[email protected] 11 2003, 09:26 PM
Ignorant tit.
You know nothing about Communism.
Ummm...Yes I do. As I can see many Communists are advocates of pedophilia.

Would you like to test me on my knowledge of Communism?
Would you like to test me on my knowledge of Communism?

yeah, explain to us the differences between anarchist view point of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Leninist view and explain why they differ.

but then again you did say that Hitler was a leftist, so you obviously have zero political knowledge anyway.

Go away and have a wank over a pick of George Bush like a good capitalist and stop wasting webspace.

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/coolnews/980707/media/mean-dinosaur.jpg [/b]
Its realy irrelevent the difference between Anarchists and Commusits dont you think? Since Anarchists are always the first to be purged after the proletariat revolution. At leats that is what history has shown.

Essentaily Marx/Engals in the Communist Manifesto invisioned a classless utopian society however, Marx cliamed there needed to be a temporory dictatorship before you could reach this utopia. Unfortunatly just like every other commie society that has ever exsisted utopia was never reached and the workers paradise turned into a nightmare leading to the death of 120,000,000 people.

Anarchists, Libertarian Socialists, anarcho-Communists or whatever Orwellian term they are using for that week claim this temporary dictatorship can be bi-passed. This would lead right to Utopia or so they claim.

But as I have shown in other forums, Anarchists are simply the same failed collectivist ideology as any other socialist ideolgy who doesnt believe in individual freedom to own property or to participate in free commerce.

Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing what its advocates regard as illegitimate forms of authority and social hierarchy, most famously the institution of government. It has gone by various names: libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism, and, most commonly, anarchism. Libertarian socialists therefore believe in the abolition of private property in the means of production (communism) and abolition of the state as an unnecessary and harmful institution (anarchism/libertarianism).
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

These same tired collectivist ideologies were proven failures long ago. Every shred of empirical objective data has proven this. For this reason I refer to Socialists and their variatios as Leftist Fundamentalists. This is fitting because the ideology requires individuals to have faith rather than objective reasoning.

Also, because those who share this failed ideolgy seem to brush aside the horrors leftist fundamentalists have caused. For this reason I refer to them as post-humanitarian leftist fundamentalists.

This is for another topic, but you can also see the similarities between the NSDAP of the (Nazi party) programme, Marx's Communist Manifesto, and the general ideology of Libertarian Socialists/Anarchists.

A copy of Hitler's NSDAP here...

http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

A copy of Marx's MCP here...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch02.htm

Compare and contrast the programmes for yourself. Have a nice day. :)

Sabocat

13th December 2003, 14:38

Unfortunatly just like every other commie society that has ever exsisted utopia was never reached and the workers paradise turned into a nightmare leading to the death of 120,000,000 people.

Congratulations! You're the first person I've seen break the 100,000,000 barrier. :lol: :lol:

Let me guess....you either got that number out of the Black Book of Communism, or from your ass.....

Which one was it?

Don't forget all the babies that Stalin ate, or is that included in that number?

redstar2000

13th December 2003, 20:03

...who doesn't believe in individual freedom to own property or to participate in free commerce.

And that's what really bothers you, isn't it? Forget all that other crap; what really twists your testicles is that lefties of all kinds are going to deny you your "God-given right" to loot and plunder as much as you possibly can.

If cappies were honest (:lol:), they'd fly the "skull & crossbones"...piracy is your most important product.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

13th December 2003, 22:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 09:03 PM

...who doesn't believe in individual freedom to own property or to participate in free commerce.

And that's what really bothers you, isn't it? Forget all that other crap; what really twists your testicles is that lefties of all kinds are going to deny you your "God-given right" to loot and plunder as much as you possibly can.

If cappies were honest (:lol:), they'd fly the "skull & crossbones"...piracy is your most important product.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Hit the nail on the head redstar.

personally I really think that the Wealth Distrubution Pyramid is kind of outdated, lets try a new shape for a change..like a wealth distribution cube...you know equal on all sides.

But for some reason cappies just want to keep using that damned pyramid.

Also...whats this rubbish about free comerece?

Whats so free about rich fat cats making money off other people's labor, and about the rest of the people entranced by marketing gimicks and consumer culture to buy things they don't need with money they don't have?

They lie and make it seem like you can spend "your" money anyway you please...yeah right, the whole system is designed to make sure that the corporations end up with the money back...other wise they wouldn't be making profit.

Not to mention why do you think there are so many useless consumer goods on the market..do we really need 5 types of George forman grills? God no.

But the marketing geniuses make people they need to collect all five.

Free commerce, bullshit.

oh by the way redstar I recently saw "The weather undeground" a movie about the Weathermen (then after the movie tehre was a panel and discussion. I made a thread about it in Literature and Films) and I was wondering if you could give me more info on the SDS