Log in

View Full Version : Sexual Maturity and the Age of consent



The Feral Underclass
12th August 2005, 10:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:41 AM
Having a video of a fifteen year-old masturbating isnt [fine].
Why?

synthesis
12th August 2005, 19:52
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 12 2005, 02:13 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 12 2005, 02:13 AM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 05:41 AM
Having a video of a fifteen year-old masturbating isnt [fine].
Why? [/b]
It's bait for sexual predators, especially when this kid is so down to put his name and address out there. I don't know why this question was even asked.

Invader Zim
12th August 2005, 22:14
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 12 2005, 10:13 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 12 2005, 10:13 AM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 05:41 AM
Having a video of a fifteen year-old masturbating isnt [fine].
Why? [/b]
It's immoral (edited, from what I gather did not give premission for it to be broadcast like this), its illegal and in general this kind of material is highly exploitative.

bed_of_nails
13th August 2005, 06:31
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 12 2005, 02:13 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 12 2005, 02:13 AM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 05:41 AM
Having a video of a fifteen year-old masturbating isnt [fine].
Why? [/b]
Maybe in happy-land where everything is already perfect with you Child Pornography is legal, but for the rest of us that spells out deep shit.

The Feral Underclass
13th August 2005, 12:11
Originally posted by DyerMaker+Aug 12 2005, 07:52 PM--> (DyerMaker @ Aug 12 2005, 07:52 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 02:13 AM

[email protected] 12 2005, 05:41 AM
Having a video of a fifteen year-old masturbating isnt [fine].
Why?
It's bait for sexual predators, especially when this kid is so down to put his name and address out there. I don't know why this question was even asked. [/b]
That doesn't answer my question. Sexual predators exist, period. If we were to take into consideration that factor none of us would be able to have a sex life.

Why isn't it "fine" to have a video of a 15 year old masturbating?

The Feral Underclass
13th August 2005, 12:15
Originally posted by Enigma+Aug 12 2005, 10:14 PM--> (Enigma @ Aug 12 2005, 10:14 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 10:13 AM

[email protected] 12 2005, 05:41 AM
Having a video of a fifteen year-old masturbating isnt [fine].
Why?
It's immoral [/b]

Why is it immoral to have a video of a 15 year old boy masturbating?


(person, from what I gather did not give premission for it to be broadcast like this),

Granted, but I never questioned whether or not it was fair to spread a video against someones permission.


its illegal

Why is that important?


this kind of material is highly exploitative.

I'm sure there are people out there that would exploit the sexuality of a 15 year old for their own benefit, as they would with any person of most ages; unless the person has consented, then I agree it's not justified.

However, this is not always the case and I am interested to know that in those cases where it is consented, would you still consider it to be "immoral" or "exploitative"?

The Feral Underclass
13th August 2005, 12:17
Originally posted by bed_of_nails+Aug 13 2005, 06:31 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ Aug 13 2005, 06:31 AM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 02:13 AM

[email protected] 12 2005, 05:41 AM
Having a video of a fifteen year-old masturbating isnt [fine].
Why?
Maybe in happy-land where everything is already perfect with you Child Pornography is legal, but for the rest of us that spells out deep shit. [/b]
You haven't answered my question? I want to know why it isn't fine for someone to own a video of a 15 year old masturbating?

YKTMX
13th August 2005, 12:21
Why is it immoral to have a video of a 15 year old boy masturbating?

Because he's not an adult, so it's morally wrong for adults to use him, or videos or pictures of him, for sexual gratification. You're on a slippery slope here, TAT.

If you want to go down the "well, he consented, so it's fine" crypto-NAMBLA road, then that's your prerogative. The boy in this case is 15, which is nearly legal. But, so is 14, and if 14 year olds can be shown masturbating, why not 13? And why not 12?

The Feral Underclass
13th August 2005, 12:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:21 PM

Why is it immoral to have a video of a 15 year old boy masturbating?

Because he's not an adult, so it's morally wrong for adults to use him, or videos or pictures of him, for sexual gratification.
In the eyes of bourgeois law he isn't an adult but that does not mean he isn't. I agree that there are allot of 15 year olds who might be unintelligent, emotionally and physically immature but there are 30 year olds like that also.

I reject the sexual age of consent and think that we can be rational enough to use our common sense in determining what is and what isn't appropriate. The law exists and I understand why it exists, but as communists surely it is our responsibility to take into account objective factors instead of latching onto a predefined societal construct.

How do you judge an adult? The law judges an adult based on how many years someone has been alive, but that isn't what determines an adult. What determines an adult is their ability to perceive and respond to their environment in a rational and confident way.

The law justifies itself by saying that 16 year olds are capable enough of making rational decisions about sex, but 15 year olds aren't? That makes no logical sense. In many cases people as young as 14 are capable of making rational choices about sex, in which case it is fundamentally wrong to restrict someone based on the fact they haven't been alive for two extra years.


[b]You're on a slippery slope here, TAT.

Only to the narrow minded and neurotic.


If you want to go down the "well, he consented, so it's fine" crypto-NAMBLA road, then that's your prerogative.

I don't know enough about NAMBLA to comment, but your implication here is quote ignorant. It isn't about "well, he consented, so it's fine." Sleeping with someone just because they say "I consent" is not taking responsibility, which is what we want people to do, is it not?


But, so is 14, and if 14 year olds can be shown masturbating, why not 13? And why not 12?

We don't know whether or not people as young as 12 can emotionally or physically consent to sex. I would argue that they can't at the present time, but I would also argue that if it were possible then we have no rational basis to restrict it.

YKTMX
13th August 2005, 13:02
I agree that there are allot of 15 year olds who might be unintelligent, emotionally and physically immature but there are 30 year olds like that also.

That's fatuous. The teenage brain and body is just beginning to develop at 15, for some this may move quicker, but that doesn't mean that they are adults yet. In any case, for the law to work, it must be deal in the "general" - in this case it's "generally" true that teenagers are emotionally and physically underdeveloped, and as such, unable to actually consent to sexual interaction - particuarly with an adult.


I reject the sexual age of consent and think that we can be rational enough to use our common sense in determining what is and what isn't appropriate.

Who's "we"? If a 40 year old man and a 9 year old together "determine" that sexual interaction between them is "appropriate", that is alright is it?


The law judges an adult based on how many years someone has been alive, but that isn't what determines an adult.

No, I'm afraid it is, Joe. The distinction between childhood and adulthood is a physiological one. We call children children and adults adult not because we think they can not "properly perceive", but because their brains are diffirent. That is why mentally retarded "grown ups" are not adults.


The law justifies itself by saying that 16 year olds are capable enough of making rational decisions about sex, but 15 year olds aren't?

Yes. In this case you have to draw the line somewhere.


Just having someone saying "I consent" is not taking responsibility, which is what we, want people to do, is it not?


Sure, fine, but the problem is not everyone does - that's where laws or rules come in. To protect those who cannot protect, or consent, for themselves.


We don't know whether or not people as young as 12 can emotionally or physically consent to sex.

Mystical bullshit. Of course we know, and the answer is no.

The Feral Underclass
13th August 2005, 16:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:20 PM
I agree that there are allot of 15 year olds who might be unintelligent, emotionally and physically immature but there are 30 year olds like that also.

That's fatuous.
But it's true, regardless of how fatuous you think it is.


The teenage brain and body is just beginning to develop at 15

The teenage brain is starting to develop much younger than that and the social conditions and environment they find themselves in determines massively how they are and what they become.

What and importantly how you teach your child to respond to the world around them will have different effects on a child. Your argument assumes that all 15 year olds are the same and that their rate of growth and abilities to understand the world around them are absolute in every instance.

To unequivocally assert that people as young as 15 or younger have absolutely no chance, ever, to become sexually mature is absurd. And if you do think that, prove it!


for some this may move quicker, but that doesn't mean that they are adults yet.

Why?


In any case, for the law to work, it must be deal in the "general" - in this case it's "generally" true that teenagers are emotionally and physically underdeveloped,

And I think that the major cause of this is because adults physically, emotionally and intellectually suppress independent growth; not because they are necessarily incapable.


as such, unable to actually consent to sexual interaction - particularly with an adult.

I agree, in the present society that is true, but I don't believe it is absolute.



I reject the sexual age of consent and think that we can be rational enough to use our common sense in determining what is and what isn't appropriate.

Who's "we"? If a 40 year old man and a 9 year old together "determine" that sexual interaction between them is "appropriate", that is alright is it?

The difference between a 9 year old and a 15 year old being able to consent or determine what is and what isn't appropriate is wholly disproportionate.

A 9 year old doesn't even have the ability to conceptualise what sex is and I doubt that they ever will be. That does not mean that someone who is 15 or 14 cannot.



The law judges an adult based on how many years someone has been alive, but that isn't what determines an adult.

No, I'm afraid it is, Joe.

Then how do you explain the countless amount of unintelligent, emotionally immature adults?


The distinction between childhood and adulthood is a physiological one.

But there are many young people who are physically more mature than adults? I was 6ft at the age of 14.


We call children children and adults adult not because we think they can not "properly perceive", but because their brains are diffirent. That is why mentally retarded "grown ups" are not adults.

You are effectively saying that because someone's brain has not been "alive" for longer than someone else's that constitutes them as inferior? Which is patently not true. There are scores of 15 year olds and younger who are infinitely more intelligent that 40 year olds.

Mentally "retarded" people have actual physical problems so you can't compare a 15 year old to someone who is mentally ill.



The law justifies itself by saying that 16 year olds are capable enough of making rational decisions about sex, but 15 year olds aren't?

Yes. In this case you have to draw the line somewhere.

So why does that line have to be something so arbitrary as the amount of years you've existed?



Just having someone saying "I consent" is not taking responsibility, which is what we, want people to do, is it not?


Sure, fine, but the problem is not everyone does - that's where laws or rules come in

We don't need "laws" to determine what is and what isn't appropriate.



We don't know whether or not people as young as 12 can emotionally or physically consent to sex.

Mystical bullshit. Of course we know, and the answer is no.

Can you provide me with some evidence please, because I have never seen any? You cannot make an absolute rule for every single human being that is ever going to be created.

You simply cannot say with confidence, and support it with fact, that every 12 year old is or will be the same and that they can never be mature enough to make rational decisions.

bed_of_nails
13th August 2005, 17:09
NAMBLA- North American Man-Boy Love Association.

I must admit that I do think this is slightly odd to have TAT advocating child pornography under the current laws.

You cant fight a revolution from a jail cell. Why get thrown in for hosting a video of a boy masturbating?

It isnt fine because not only did he not consent to have it re-recorded by the other kid, but because the current laws can put people who host or view those things away for several years.

ML-Why the fuck would you want to move to Iran?

The Feral Underclass
13th August 2005, 17:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:27 PM
I must admit that I do think this is slightly odd to have TAT advocating child pornography under the current laws.

You cant fight a revolution from a jail cell. Why get thrown in for hosting a video of a boy masturbating?
Please read what I've written.

Invader Zim
13th August 2005, 17:50
I didn't ask whether or not it was immoral that ML gave away someone masturbating on video to other people without their permission.

Then everything you have to say on this thread should be in theory.


I asked why having a video of a 15 year old masturbating is immoral?

Which takes my statement out of context, and as such I am not going to argue this subject. You have said your piece on this subject before, and I have had enough of arguing about subjects like this since the MDP thing. It gets way to heated, especially after comments like this: -



Put your dummy back in Enigma.

Politics sure, but not this subject. It gets way too angry and the subject matter becomes inane very quickly.

The Feral Underclass
13th August 2005, 18:00
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:08 PM

I didn't ask whether or not it was immoral that ML gave away someone masturbating on video to other people without their permission.

Then everything you have to say on this thread should be in theory.
CC is also designed for theoretical debate.



I asked why having a video of a 15 year old masturbating is immoral?

Which takes my statement out of context,

No, you took it out of context. I asked a question, not directed at you, which you responded to. I only responded to what you said Enigma. I'm sorry you didn't/can't understand what I'm saying.


and as such I am not going to argue this with you.

Why?


Put your dummy back in Enigma.

Politics sure, but not this subject. It gets way too heated.

Only because people are too narrow minded to discuss this subject with any kind of objectivity or maturity.

Invader Zim
13th August 2005, 18:12
As you have split this thread, I would be obliged you can delete my comments, my post had nothing to do with social theory, just that specific case. My post is off topic in regards to this new thread.

My point on immorality is related only to the publishing of the film without the kids permission.

Thanks.

Eastside Revolt
13th August 2005, 19:08
I frankly don't see a problem as long there is the 15 year old's permission. I'd say fifteen is a fine age of consent. When I was fifteen I remember trying to mack on some of the teachers at my school. If one of them had ever taken me home or something, it wouldn't have been rape I garantee you of that.

However when your dealing with ages like 12, or 13 it starts to get a little sketchy. But I think most kids at fifteen can understand the implications of sexual contact.

coda
13th August 2005, 19:41
You're dragging this poor kids name through the mud. His intenet name is in Enigma's post which he asked for deletion, and then repeated in TAT's quote. If you're going to split threads and drag them down here shouldn't you edit them first for discretion of privacy.

London Communist
13th August 2005, 22:28
What the hell is this thread about???

Who is the 15 year old in question and why is everyone getting so worked up about not being allowed to go on the internet and show yourself in a degrading position at 15 years of age?

Why is this thread in theory of all places, can't say I have ever read a book by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Guevara, Gramsci, Trotsky or any other communist, in which they spend pages of their books on the topic of underage sex.

Some people on this board seem a bit pervy in that sex seems to come up all the time on this forum, please lets give it all a rest.

wet blanket
14th August 2005, 00:42
Why is this thread in theory of all places, can't say I have ever read a book by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Guevara, Gramsci, Trotsky or any other communist, in which they spend pages of their books on the topic of underage sex.
You've been reading all the wrong books my friend. :lol:

redstar2000
14th August 2005, 03:18
People Are Not Property -- Part 2 (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082855384&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Hiero
14th August 2005, 05:46
TAT mentions that we are thinking petty bourgeois if we oppose teenage pornography.

But I find a few things petty bourgeois with TAT's ideas.

1) Photos and paintings of naked people, and people having sex originated in class societies. Mostly before class, and in allot of non industrial societies whose class structure is different, nudity was not a taboo thing.

But in class societies, we see nudity and sex as taboo in paintings, and causing much of a stir. In the 1800's in England many higher class males had their own stash of pornography.

So pornography is a class culture, which has roots in class and gender hierarchy. Watching anybody masturbate on a film is a western capitalist culture.

2) In western culture it is a taboo and fantasy of men to have sex with young people.

3) If we use the believe that consent is all you need for things to be right, then the worker gives consent to work, so therefore he is not exploited. Although this is petty bourgeois thinking and does not analyse all relationships and objective factors.

So TAT is using a bourgeois idea of consent that means the drug addict is addict because he wants to, the poor are poor because they choose to be poor, the hooker is a hooker because she consents to paid sex etc.

So i find that you are the petty bourgeois thinker.

On other notes.

At the age of 15 as stated the brain is only developing, though apart from the physical reason why a 15 year old consenting is not the same as an 18 year old consenting there are psychology aspects.

At 15 a male is usually finding out about the culture of sex. This includes the formal culture of love, one partner, protection, pleasure with limits. But also the informal culture, sex for money, multiple partners, machoism (guys must be laid before are certian age, and have sex with as many chicks as you can), cheating on partners, sexual taboos etc.

With all these factors can we really say that consent is consent at a young age? If we say it is, then you throw our materialist thinking which aims to show all the outside factors that contribute to the individual.

The Feral Underclass
14th August 2005, 10:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:04 AM
So pornography is a class culture, which has roots in class and gender hierarchy. Watching anybody masturbate on a film is a western capitalist culture.
So is typing messages on an Internet discussion board, what's your point?


2) In western culture it is a taboo and fantasy of men to have sex with young people.

Maybe so, but is practice in many third world countries primitive tribes around the world.


3) If we use the believe that consent is all you need for things to be right, then the worker gives consent to work, so therefore he is not exploited. Although this is petty bourgeois thinking and does not analyse all relationships and objective factors.

But it has nothing to do with consent in the abstract and I never claimed that it did


So TAT is using a bourgeois idea of consent that means the drug addict is addict because he wants to, the poor are poor because they choose to be poor, the hooker is a hooker because she consents to paid sex etc.

No. I don't know how you have deduced this from what I said, maybe you can enlighten me?

My point is that young people may have the ability to make rational choices about sex, in which case you cannot logically restrict the person from having sex based on age.


So i find that you are the petty bourgeois thinker.

Not really.


At the age of 15 as stated the brain is only developing,

But that is true of brains right up until the age of 25 at which point they start to degenerate.


though apart from the physical reason why a 15 year old consenting is not the same as an 18 year old consenting there are psychology aspects.

So you're claiming that all 15 year olds are physically the same all over the world and that any 15 year old that is ever born will always be at that same maturity at the age of 15? You are saying that this rule is an absolute?

In terms of psychology, I think any psychologist will agree that your emotion, intellect and understanding comes from your environment and from how you are nurtured and supported in your development.

There is nothing to say that with the right attitude to education among young people they cannot have the maturity, emotions, intellect and understanding to make rational decisions.


At 15 a male is usually finding out about the culture of sex

That maybe true now but I would argue it is very rare that this the case. Most 15 year olds in society now are sexually active or at least desperately wanting to be.


With all these factors can we really say that consent is consent at a young age? If we say it is, then you throw our materialist thinking which aims to show all the outside factors that contribute to the individual.

Saying that as long as someone consents, no matter how young, is of course absurd, but I never claimed that.

JC1
14th August 2005, 20:43
So is typing messages on an Internet discussion board, what's your point?

He is pointing out pornography and the spectale of sex are negative by-products of Clss Society.


My point is that young people may have the ability to make rational choices about sex, in which case you cannot logically restrict the person from having sex based on age.


Pedophalia is a extreme form of gender oppression. How can you condone such a act ?

Leme say I think 16 is a great age of consent, becuase at this point most youths are pubescent or post pubesent. Pre-pubusent children cant choose to have sex becuase the lack the desire for sex. How can they choose something they dont desire.


So you're claiming that all 15 year olds are physically the same all over the world and that any 15 year old that is ever born will always be at that same maturity at the age of 15? You are saying that this rule is an absolute?

In terms of psychology, I think any psychologist will agree that your emotion, intellect and understanding comes from your environment and from how you are nurtured and supported in your development.

There is nothing to say that with the right attitude to education among young people they cannot have the maturity, emotions, intellect and understanding to make rational decisions.


This is totaly true. But becuase of the uneven development of children at this point
It would be unsafe to allow sexual frantinization between adults and fifteen year olds becuase if the 15 year old in question is Under-developed, then the pedophile is off the hook.

The Feral Underclass
15th August 2005, 14:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:01 PM

So is typing messages on an Internet discussion board, what's your point?

He is pointing out pornography and the spectale of sex are negative by-products of Clss Society.
I would argue that the commodification of sex is a negative aspect of society, but the actual concept of pornography isn't at all a negative thing and in fact existed long before modern class society.



My point is that young people may have the ability to make rational choices about sex, in which case you cannot logically restrict the person from having sex based on age.


Pedophalia is a extreme form of gender oppression. How can you condone such a act ?

How are these two sentences connected?


Leme say I think 16 is a great age of consent, becuase at this point most youths are pubescent or post pubesent.

The age of consent now maybe "great" at 16, but that's beside the point.


Pre-pubusent children cant choose to have sex becuase the lack the desire for sex. How can they choose something they dont desire.

That is not invariable though is it?

John Train
19th August 2005, 18:27
I hate for this to be my first post but The Anarchist Tension is right 15 is a much more reasonable age than 16 but it is relative to the individual, I don't believe even 15 should be set in stone. I think it is unfortunate that teenagers are having sex at such a young age but it is useless to cling to ideals that simply don't apply to modern society.

I'm curious as to how everyone would feel about a 16 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old. It is illegal after all, regardless of how illogical it may be. 15 year olds can also be tried as adults in some states, which I disagree with but it seems irrational to consider a person incapable of consenting to sex conscious and self aware enough to be convicted of theft or murder.

I would like emphasize how vehemently I disagree with NAMBLA or child porn. I also don't think an adult watching a 15 year old jerking off is healthy behavior.

Nothing Human Is Alien
19th August 2005, 23:10
The age of consent law doesn't exist in Ecuador.. what they do is judge it on a case by case basis taking in the many variable factors.

www.ageofconsent.com

apathy maybe
22nd August 2005, 03:52
I agree with TAT here. Saying that, simply because a person is 15 that they should not have sex or have a video of a person masturbating is just crazy. The only difference between a sexually mature 15 year old and a sexually immature 18 year old is 3 years. Why is one wrong and the other OK?

Having an arbitrary age is just stupid. Is it wrong for a 19 year old man to touch the breasts of a 15 year old women (at her urging)? Even if that 15 you old were one month shy of 16? According to the law, it is so.

Why should there be a line drawn somewhere? Why can't cases be judged on the merits of the individual cases?

guerillablack
22nd August 2005, 14:55
Here i am fighting for freedom of my people and this guy is fighting for the freedom to watch 15 year old boys masterbate.

Apathy, what exactly is a sexually mature 15 year old?

Black Dagger
23rd August 2005, 13:36
Apathy, what exactly is a sexually mature 15 year old?

A 15 year old that is sexually mature? :blink:

Hiero
23rd August 2005, 14:49
Maybe so, but is practice in many third world countries primitive tribes around the world.

Not in the sense you are talking about. In places they get pleasure out of it, but it is primarily practiced to bring boys in the male adult society.

In the Papua some peoples, when the male reaches a certian age stop homosexual activity and if they continue on homosexuality they are critcised.

What you are proposing is that there is nothing wrong with get kicks off films of young boys masturbating.

guerillablack
23rd August 2005, 14:52
I hate when my girlfriend does that, and i hate it when you do it :(

I asked her what a college prep school was and she said a school that prepares you for college. :(

What i meant was mature as in, her body is developed or mature as in her mind is mature.

The age of consent usually parallels the age in society when a child usually begins to work. We don't see 15 year olds getting married and starting a family on their own and being successful at it because it's just now that possible. There is no way a 15 year old can make the income to support a family. I just grazed this theory, some book i was reading went into better detail. I think it might've been Mao.

The Feral Underclass
23rd August 2005, 15:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:07 PM
What you are proposing is that there is nothing wrong with get kicks off films of young boys masturbating.
It depends on the person you're watching; how developed they are and how exploitative the film is.

But in essense you're right, that is exactly what I'm proposing.

guerillablack
23rd August 2005, 16:30
Does it really matter how physically developed the child is? They are still a child.

The Feral Underclass
23rd August 2005, 16:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:48 PM
Does it really matter how physically developed the child is? They are still a child.
That's the point. What is the definition of a child? You can't restrict someone for being a child unless you know what a child actually is.

RandomRival
24th August 2005, 20:31
I think that not even at the age of 18 are you ready for sex.

I would make the law 19, give the person a year of adult and then elt them do as they so please as long as its not too fucked up or kinky.




The creator of this thread and all who support him can go line up with the fascist when the revolution starts, because you are no comrade of mine! :ph34r:

Ownthink
24th August 2005, 20:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:49 PM
I think that not even at the age of 18 are you ready for sex.

I would make the law 19, give the person a year of adult and then elt them do as they so please as long as its not too fucked up or kinky.




The creator of this thread and all who support him can go line up with the fascist when the revolution starts, because you are no comrade of mine! :ph34r:
You're a fucking idiot.

Just because he has a VERY good point of how the 'age of consent" is fucking stupid because a few hundred days does NOT make you "more judgement worthy" at fucking all, not to mention that some kids (including me) are RAVING for sex at an "early age". Look at it this way. Did a 15 year old kid in 19xx know the same amount of shit that a 15 year old kid does in 2005? Kids today are 20 years beyond where their parents were when they were 15. Who the fuck are you to say when someone can "legally" have sex? Jesus fucking christ, I can't believe we have laws regulating something as natural as sex.

YOU'RE being the fascist one by enacting laws that say when a person can choose to do something legal with their own body. I hope your dumb religious ass is the one shot, because you are no comrade of mine, and certainly no comrade of real Communists who don't take any religious bullshit.

Lord Testicles
24th August 2005, 21:28
He (RandomRival) has been tainted by the coruption of the church. I think you have to take the different veriables into mind, I mean two 13 yr. old having sex is fine or anyone around that age but a 13 and a 30 yr. old is just sick.

RandomRival
24th August 2005, 22:35
Tainted by church? I had sex at the age of 16 buddy and do not regret it.

But as Karl Marx once said "People are stupid and cannot govern themselves"


I am taking into factor that you, yourself have never been laid and with these perverted laws to allow people have sex freely at consent, you could finally have a piece of the pie.


BTW Religion has nothing to do with intelligence, so do not even go there with me.

I now have 3 people who are no comrades of mine.

BTW Just remember...I put my people and fellow countrymen before any god I believe in and if my god could not understand that....then he to is no comrade of mine! :angry:

Led Zeppelin
24th August 2005, 22:40
But as Karl Marx once said "People are stupid and cannot govern themselves"

:lol: Where did he say this?

RandomRival
24th August 2005, 22:58
It was from a speech of his in 1849 in Berlin in which he read an Economic Manuscript he wrote to a mass group of people.

Eastside Revolt
24th August 2005, 23:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:49 PM
I think that not even at the age of 18 are you ready for sex.

I would make the law 19, give the person a year of adult and then elt them do as they so please as long as its not too fucked up or kinky.




The creator of this thread and all who support him can go line up with the fascist when the revolution starts, because you are no comrade of mine! :ph34r:
Okay a few questions.

1) Why 19? elaborate.

2) What is your definition of too fucked up or kinky?

3) Why would you care about the sexual interactions of consenting adults?

4) What is your position on homosexuality? is that "too fucked up and kinky"?

5) What makes an opinion of liberation so threatening to you that you would act as a fascist?

RandomRival
25th August 2005, 02:32
Gays do not bother me at all and I am mad that the conservatives are homophobic assholes.


19 because I feel it would be better for a person to be an adult for at least 1 year and get to know the adult world better.

Led Zeppelin
25th August 2005, 02:47
It was from a speech of his in 1849 in Berlin in which he read an Economic Manuscript he wrote to a mass group of people.

I don't believe you.

Ownthink
25th August 2005, 03:34
Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 24 2005, 10:05 PM

It was from a speech of his in 1849 in Berlin in which he read an Economic Manuscript he wrote to a mass group of people.

I don't believe you.
I second this post.


Also, you keep digging your hole bigger, RandomRival. Your last post was extremely stupid, as were your others today.

Religio-Fascist! No, but really, 18 not okay but 19 okay? Fuck you.

guerillablack
25th August 2005, 04:34
Originally posted by Ownthink+Aug 24 2005, 07:58 PM--> (Ownthink @ Aug 24 2005, 07:58 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 03:49 PM
I think that not even at the age of 18 are you ready for sex.

I would make the law 19, give the person a year of adult and then elt them do as they so please as long as its not too fucked up or kinky.




The creator of this thread and all who support him can go line up with the fascist when the revolution starts, because you are no comrade of mine! :ph34r:
You're a fucking idiot.

Just because he has a VERY good point of how the 'age of consent" is fucking stupid because a few hundred days does NOT make you "more judgement worthy" at fucking all, not to mention that some kids (including me) are RAVING for sex at an "early age". Look at it this way. Did a 15 year old kid in 19xx know the same amount of shit that a 15 year old kid does in 2005? Kids today are 20 years beyond where their parents were when they were 15. Who the fuck are you to say when someone can "legally" have sex? Jesus fucking christ, I can't believe we have laws regulating something as natural as sex.

YOU'RE being the fascist one by enacting laws that say when a person can choose to do something legal with their own body. I hope your dumb religious ass is the one shot, because you are no comrade of mine, and certainly no comrade of real Communists who don't take any religious bullshit. [/b]
Are you serious?Just because you and many others wanted to have sex at 15 doesn't mean you are ready for it. Were you prepared for the consequences?Not everything you want is a good thing. Also why you wanted to have sex comes into play. As a virgin you want to have sex more and more as time goes on not because you want to experiment or because your hormones are raging, but because everyone else is doing it and because you don't want to be the only virgin.

Ownthink
25th August 2005, 04:41
Originally posted by guerillablack+Aug 24 2005, 11:52 PM--> (guerillablack @ Aug 24 2005, 11:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:58 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 03:49 PM
I think that not even at the age of 18 are you ready for sex.

I would make the law 19, give the person a year of adult and then elt them do as they so please as long as its not too fucked up or kinky.




The creator of this thread and all who support him can go line up with the fascist when the revolution starts, because you are no comrade of mine! :ph34r:
You're a fucking idiot.

Just because he has a VERY good point of how the 'age of consent" is fucking stupid because a few hundred days does NOT make you "more judgement worthy" at fucking all, not to mention that some kids (including me) are RAVING for sex at an "early age". Look at it this way. Did a 15 year old kid in 19xx know the same amount of shit that a 15 year old kid does in 2005? Kids today are 20 years beyond where their parents were when they were 15. Who the fuck are you to say when someone can "legally" have sex? Jesus fucking christ, I can't believe we have laws regulating something as natural as sex.

YOU'RE being the fascist one by enacting laws that say when a person can choose to do something legal with their own body. I hope your dumb religious ass is the one shot, because you are no comrade of mine, and certainly no comrade of real Communists who don't take any religious bullshit.
Are you serious?Just because you and many others wanted to have sex at 15 doesn't mean you are ready for it. Were you prepared for the consequences?Not everything you want is a good thing. Also why you wanted to have sex comes into play. As a virgin you want to have sex more and more as time goes on not because you want to experiment or because your hormones are raging, but because everyone else is doing it and because you don't want to be the only virgin. [/b]
The same argument can be made about anyone, at any age. Don't restrict my rights. If I fuck it up, then oh well, I pay for it. There should be no age restricting any consenting sex.

Eastside Revolt
26th August 2005, 02:00
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:50 AM
Gays do not bother me at all and I am mad that the conservatives are homophobic assholes.


19 because I feel it would be better for a person to be an adult for at least 1 year and get to know the adult world better.
Could you just answer the questions?

What is your definition of too fucked up or kinky?

Why would you care about the sexual interactions of consenting adults?

What is your position on homosexuality? is that "too fucked up and kinky"?

What makes an opinion of liberation so threatening to you that you would act as a fascist?

John Train
26th August 2005, 18:36
Laws restricting consensual sex of any kind are never obeyed and only stem to make matters worse. Laws of this nature unless brutal and unyielding (which anyone in their right mind would be against) will not be taken seriously. They may ruin some innocent people’s lives, but they won't deter the offence.

Look at the way sodomy laws are enforced in some states. Undercover cops arrest homosexuals for the most frivolous and absurd offences.

I'm not talking about a 13 and a 30 year old either.