Read this

Post #37,487 by Mike 5/4/02 11:46:02 AM 5/4/02 11:59:29 AM Reply	Read this [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/17/adult-child-sex.htm\| Article] Extract: How about if an older woman provides a sexual initiation for a teenage boy? It's a fantasy dear to the hearts of many young men and a frequent theme of TV shows and movies, including the classic Summer of '42. Experts debate whether sex with an adult is more damaging for an adolescent girl than for a boy, as some research indicates. Also being discussed is whether it's really possible for a minor to initiate sex with an adult. However, if the older lover is an authority figure, such as a teacher, coach or priest, most respected social scientists say the power imbalance is clear. The controversy is engaging some researchers at top universities. "I think the evidence has been clear for some time that child and adolescent sexual abuse does not always do harm in the long term," [this seems like an odd thing to say on reflection. Does he mean sexual activity? That was how I read it when I first clipped the quote. But now I'm not sure I like what he is saying in that quote. It would be easy to rip out the quote I suppose...think I'll leave it just the same] says David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, one of the nation's foremost researchers on the sexual abuse of children. "That is the good news." One question now, he says, is determining if some youngsters are more mature and "able to consent to sexual relationships with older partners." Above I made the point that the woman may have been prosecuted without harm necessarily occurring. I think this at least lends some legitimacy to the suggestion. In threads below....I have tried to make the point that ignorance and suppression leads to a lot of problems. Here's a current link which supports that..... [link\|http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/02232946.htm\|Review] Extract: "That\ufffds because the choked agitation triggered by Levine\ufffds book is both a reaction to our excessive cultural obsession with kids and sexuality and a symptom of how unable we are, as a culture, even to begin discussing such issues." "The book addresses such varied topics as federally funded abstinence-only programs (which ban even mentioning contraception or condoms) in public schools; the myth that predators and child rapists are lurking all over the Internet; the appalling lack of access teens \ufffd especially young women \ufffd have to sexual-health and reproductive information; and how it is nearly verboten to discuss masturbation in sexual-education classes. Levine argues strongly, thoughtfully, and persuasively that children are far more harmed by these misguided attempts at "protection" than they would be by having full access to honest information about sexuality, as well as (in some cases) the ability to discover and explore their own sexual desires and feelings." In the threads below it seems people want a slam dunk no brainer debate about whether its okay for adults to prey on children. I think its just too delicious for some to resist putting the word fuck and child in the same sentence. So be it....if you must.....enjoy. In the meantime.....the links above do a decent job of raising interesting questions in an objective manner. -Mike (now bored with it) -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 4, 2002, 11:58:12 AM EDT Edited by Mike May 4, 2002, 11:59:29 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,495 by Brandioch 5/4/02 2:09:15 PM Reply	So a 16 year old boy and 30 year old guy is "okay"? It won't be traumatic for they boy? Again, I'm going to bet that you will NOT answer that. I'll explain why later. In the threads below it seems people want a slam dunk no brainer debate about whether its okay for adults to prey on children. You mean "prey" as in kill them and eat them? You mean "prey" as in take their lunch money? I think its just too delicious for some to resist putting the word fuck and child in the same sentence. I'll get back to this AFTER I have established that you will NOT answer the man/boy question. :)
Post #37,498 by Mike 5/4/02 3:08:11 PM 5/4/02 3:09:34 PM Reply	Wrong again - but I still love you >>I'll get back to this AFTER I have established that you will NOT answer the >>man/boy question. This is completely legal in England (where I happen to come from). You want to make the point that legal relationships might still be traumatic? Have at it....... Just to prove you truly wrong (on at the least the issue of whether I will answer the question)......;-) 1) Man/boy traumatic?.........quite possibly.....largely due to the homophobic nature of western societies. Put your scenario in a culture where homosexuality is a norm......and all you've got left is disparate ages. 2) Its very easy to see the potential for minipulation between 16 and 30 year old men, women and donkeys. Should there be a presumption of it? No. Is it more likely than a relationship between a 16 and 18 year old? Not sure. 3) Is this the ideal scenario? Absolutely not. The ideal scenario is me at 16 and Pamela Andersen with her gums around my plums. 4) Should the 30 year old be criminalised? See point above. 5) If I was a parent of the sixteen year old homosexual would I be disturbed? Absolutely. But even more so if he hadn't come and talked to me about it. 6) Would I wonder just how far a relationship might go when one is twice the age of the other? Absolutely. Now.......I've made a reasonably good attempt to address your scenario for you. Haven't I? So final question is.........were you wrong? -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 4, 2002, 03:09:34 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,502 by Brandioch 5/4/02 4:22:29 PM Reply	Very interesting. 1) Man/boy traumatic?.........quite possibly.....largely due to the homophobic nature of western societies. Put your scenario in a culture where homosexuality is a norm......and all you've got left is disparate ages. So you don't have a problem with the age difference? Just the current culture that views homosexuality as "wrong"? But you don't have a problem with the age difference? How about the following: 16 & 30 is "okay" with you. 15 & 29? 14 & 28? 13 & 27? 12 & 26? 5) If I was a parent of the sixteen year old homosexual would I be disturbed? Absolutely. But even more so if he hadn't come and talked to me about it. Why would you be disturbed if it was "okay"? "Okay" is NOT "disturbing". Most people get "disturbed" when things are NOT "okay". You're crossing your messages. So final question is.........were you wrong? No. You didn't say if it was "okay". Just "legal" in England. Then you lapsed into your fantasy. You finished with you being "disturbed" by it. So, to summarize (without your fantasy). #1. It's "legal" if it is in England. #2. It MAY be "traumatic". (Does that mean it PROBABLY will NOT be "traumatic"?) #3. As the parent, you would be "disturbed" by the relationship. Allow me to quote the ORIGINAL question for you: So a 16 year old boy and 30 year old guy is "okay"? Note the following: #1. I didn't ask if it were "legal" or where it would be "legal". #2. I didn't ask if you, as the parent, would be "disturbed" by it. Is it "okay" for a 30 year old guy to fuck a 16 year old boy?
Post #37,513 by Mike 5/4/02 6:03:04 PM Reply	Define "okay" >>16 & 30 is "okay" with you. In the same post: >>No. You didn't say if it was "okay". Just "legal" in England. What is it.......have I or have I not said that it was okay? I thin kyou arre losing track. So I didn't use the word okay. Hmmm didn't realise that THAT specific word was going to become the fulcrum. Hey...I have an idea.......why don't you offer a definition of "okay" that way I can better decide if think it is "okay" according to the Brandioch meaning of the word. Is it "great" or is it "tolerable" or is it "acceptable". Something else perhaps? >>Why would you be disturbed if it was "okay"? "Okay" is NOT "disturbing". >>Most people get "disturbed" when things are NOT "okay". What semantic bollocks. It goes like this........I'm disturbed because he's homosexual...I would prefer to see him have heterosexual partners. But if he's absolutely convinced that he is gay, if he is absolutely convinced that he wants to sleep with his 30 year old male partner (I define "sleep with" to include fucking him........hate to see you miss out on getting hard nipples). I think I would respect his choices. h and before you open up a crack of obscurity this includes the 16 year old fucking the 30 year old and the 30 year old fucking the 16 year old. I'm not happy with it .......but it doesn't mean I think the 30 year old should be criminalised for his actions. Is it "okay".......? (God you're dull sometimes) if "okay" means "great" then it is not okay if "okay" means "fine" then it is not okay if "okay" means "acceptable" then its okay (with the proviso that no laws are broken) #1. It's "legal" if it is in England. Yeah ...that's what I said. Its legal in a whole bunch of places. That particular place shapes ones "norms" don't you know. You want more........? PLACE AGE OF CONSENT (FOR HOMOSEXUAL AFFAIRS) Andorra 16 Argentina 16 Aruba 16 Australia 16 Belarus 16 Belgium 16 Bosnia\t\t 16 Bulgaria \t14/18 Chile 12 FOR GIRLS 18 FOR BOYS China no laws Colombia 14 Cuba\t\t16 Czech Republic 15 Denmark 15 Dutch Antilles 16 Estonia 16 France 15 French Guiana 15 French Polynesia Tahiti 15 Gabon 15 Germany 16 Guadeloupe 15 Honduras 14 Iceland 14 Israel 16 Italy 14 Japan 13 Korea 13 Luxembourg 16 Malta 12/18 Martinique 15 Moldova 16 Monaco 15 Montenegro 14 Netherlands 12/16 Netherland Antilles 16 New Caledonia 15 New Zealand 16 Norway 16 Peru 14 Poland 15 Russia 14/16 San Marino 14/16 Slovakia 15 Slovenia 14 South Korea 13 Spain 13 Sweden 15 Switzerland 16 Taiwan 16 Thailand legal at all ages? Ukraine 16 Venezuela 16 United Kingdom 16 Don't like the pesky foreigners....... lets try the U.S.A. shall we? USA Alaska 16 USA Arkansas 16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA Colorado 17 USA Connecticut 16 USA D.C. 16 USA Delaware 16/18 USA Georgia 16 USA Hawaii 16 USA Illinois 17 USA Indiana 16 USA Iowa 14/16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA Kentucky 16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA Maine 16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA Maryland 16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA Massachusetts 16/18 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA Montana 16/18 USA New Jersey 16 USA New Mexico 13 (!!!!!!!!!!!!) USA Pennsylvania 16 USA Rhode Island 16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA South Dakota 16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) USA Vermont 16 (Law Barring Homesexuality Invalidated) Now let me ask you this...... in your scenario ... is the law relevant or not? You may mind it distasteful, not okay, objectionable or repulsive etc etc. But basically .....these are the laws. Taken from: [link\|http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm\|Consent] -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,516 by Brandioch 5/4/02 6:37:48 PM Reply	"okay" == "do you see any problems with it". What is it.......have I or have I not said that it was okay? No, you have not. And, despite a rather lengthy post, you STILL have not said if it was "okay". You seem obsessed with the "legal" aspect. So I didn't use the word okay. Hmmm didn't realise that THAT specific word was going to become the fulcrum. I could make a comment about "reading with comprehension" here. It isn't like this is the ONLY time I've asked you to specify if it was "okay" rather than "legal" in some other country. Hey...I have an idea.......why don't you offer a definition of "okay" that way I can better decide if think it is "okay" according to the Brandioch meaning of the word. And, again, you are attempting to avoid saying it is "okay" or "not okay". If you don't see any difference between "legal" and "okay", then the solution is simple. Just post "I think that sex between a 16 year old boy and a 30 year old man is okay." There. Do that. :) ...if "okay" means "acceptable" then its okay (with the proviso that no laws are broken) Well, that's a start. But I do notice that you decided to skip over my related question. How about the following: 16 & 30 is "okay" with you. 15 & 29? 14 & 28? 13 & 27? 12 & 26? Now let me ask you this...... in your scenario ... is the law relevant or not? Hmmm, since you seem to have already found www.ageofconsent.com, then you should be aware that the LAW varies SIGNIFICANTLY betwen countries/states. So, if I were concerned with what was LEGAL, I would visit that site. If I were concerned with what was LEGAL, I, probably, would NOT have made the distinction between "okay" and "legal" so many times in my previous posts. But, since some people are somewhat slow....... No, I am NOT concerned with what is LEGAL.
Post #37,521 by Mike 5/4/02 8:06:47 PM Reply	Yes I see problems with it. See earlier posts. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,524 by Brandioch 5/4/02 8:44:07 PM Reply	Allow me to quote you. You >DO< understand what hypetext means, right? It means that I can pull up your exact words to toss into your face. if "okay" means "acceptable" then its okay (with the proviso that no laws are broken) [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37513\|You SAID it was "okay"] Why am I NOT surprised that you change your tune? So, it's "okay" but not "okay"? And wasn't it >YOU< who was complaining about attitudes towards sex? Seems you have an attitude problem of your own. Not to mention the fact that you can't even clearly state your own opinion. Again, you say 16 & 30 is "okay". What about 15 & 29? 14 & 28? 13 & 27? 12 & 26? Complain all you want about other people's attitude and repression towards sex. You have A LOT of your own problems. Deal with those before you even start talking about other's.
Post #37,532 by Mike 5/4/02 10:14:02 PM Reply	Are they gonna get harder? >> "okay=do you see any problems with it" I say yes I see problems. For example in earlier posts I highlighted how abuses of power within relationships could occur. I think I commended you for pointing out that behaviour which takes a person out of their norm could be damaging. And if okay means its acceptable......yes I think its acceptable. There are a bunch of concerns but I don't seem them overriding the right of the 16 year old to make his own informed choices. And I don't see the concerns as justification to stigmatise the relationship into something the 16 year old should be ashamed of which will do more gamage. I don't see the concerns as justifying criminalisation of the 30 year old. And a bunch of laws in a whole fucking slew of places support my position. Try again...... >>You have A LOT of your own problems. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh ad hominem gets me all wet. Give it to me big boy. Break it off in me. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,547 by Brandioch 5/5/02 1:49:14 AM Reply	How much EASIER can it be? Just answer "okay" or "not okay". 16 - 30, you've said "okay". 15 - 29 14 - 28 13 - 27 12 - 26 Just "okay" or "not okay". It REALLY doesn't get any easier than that.
Post #37,556 by Mike 5/5/02 10:01:37 AM Reply	Here's the curious thing...... when it comes to a 15 year old having sex with Pamela Andersen my opinion means nothing and is unsubstantiated and therefore valueless. If you are to be believed...this is also true if we petition 1000 men about this.....their opinions will be unsubstantiated and mean nothing. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37546\|Link] And yet..... when it comes to pursuing your own agenda its okay to ask these questions and make judgements based on the answers. Is that a sweet system of debate or what? Anyhow.....you're not going to understand the subtleties of this... and you can no doubt can justify it to yourself. Lets press on with your lame attempt to garnish something you can object to shall we? >>16 - 30, you've said "okay" with reservations about was meant by okay. If its legal behavior, I have no right to take away that persons rights. Doesn't mean I like it. Doesn't mean I would foist it upon the boy. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 15 - 29 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 14 - 28 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 13 - 27 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 12 - 26 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. Okay.......I've indulged you......haven't I? Now your turn........15 year old boy, Pamela Andersen. 15 - 24 15 - 23 15 - 22 15 - 21 15 - 20 15 - 19 15 - 18 15 - 17 15 - 16 15 - 15 I would like answers for the U.S.A and for France. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,565 by Brandioch 5/5/02 12:18:49 PM Reply	Well, it's time to wrap this up. Here's the curious thing...... when it comes to a 15 year old having sex with Pamela Andersen my opinion means nothing and is unsubstantiated and therefore valueless. Well, you may FINALLY have learned SOMETHING. If you are to be believed...this is also true if we petition 1000 men about this.....their opinions will be unsubstantiated and mean nothing. You don't believe me? Okay. I can find 10,000 people who's opinion is that UFO's landed on Earth in the past. Does this make it a fact that UFO's landed on Earth in the past? I can find 1,000 people who will claim to have been abducted by said UFO's. Does that support the "fact" that UFO's landed on Earth in the past? And yet..... when it comes to pursuing your own agenda its okay to ask these questions and make judgements based on the answers. Ah, I see the limitation of your experience here. #1. You are proposing that your OPINION be taken as FACT. #2. I am saying that your OPINION is nothing more than your OPINION and is NOT a FACT. #3. I ask for your OPINION on various questions (which you STILL seem unable to answer, such as if 16 - 30 is okay, is 15 - 29, 14 - 28, 13 - 27, 12 - 26) to ESTABLISH the CRITERIA you are OPERATING UNDER. In other words, you've made statements about how we are too uptight regarding teen sexuality. Then you've spent JUST ABOUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD (60+ messages) trying to evade simple questions. (like, if it is okay for 16-30, what about 15-29, 14-28, 13-27, 12-26) I think that is sufficient proof to show where the ACTUAL problem exists. It is between your ears. You make claims about everyone else being uptight. You say that YOU are okay with it. But you can't give any criteria and you spend DAYS and VOLUMES avoiding the simple questions. Then you try to blame ME for your avoidance? Allow me to provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of your avoidance: In EVERY ONE of these referenced posts, I have SPECIFICALLY asked you what the age criteria was. I even made it simple and supplied a chart based off of the ONE instance I could (finally) get you to comment on. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37502\|Very interesting.] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37516\|"okay" == "do you see any problems with it".] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37524\|Allow me to quote you.] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37547\|How much EASIER can it be?] So, Mike, Mr. Everyone-else-is-uptight-but-me, cannot even answer simple questions about his opinion. In fact, he will avoid answering them, over and over and over. And then you blame >ME< for telling you that your OPINION is NOT A FACT? OPINIONS are WORTHLESS as FACTS. Drop into any Aryan Nations meeting and you SHOULD be able to understand that. Even when the same OPINION is held by 1,000 (or more) people. As for me, I've established that you are NOT going to provide the CRITERIA you use in forming your OPINION. Which means that this "debate" will NEVER progress beyond you endlessly repeating your adolescent sexual fantasy.
Post #37,577 by Mike 5/5/02 4:38:14 PM Reply	You are too precious One piece of information you are missing..... the schoolteacher was acquitted of all wrongdoing by a jury of her peers as they found no evidence of indecent assault. Things that make you hmmmmmm. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,590 by Brandioch 5/5/02 8:05:49 PM Reply	The state of education today...... One piece of information you are missing..... the schoolteacher was acquitted of all wrongdoing by a jury of her peers as they found no evidence of indecent assault. Things that make you hmmmmmm. Why, oh why does it ALWAYS fall to >ME< to correct the errors of idiots? And OJ didn't do anything "wrong". He was acquitted by a jury, also. You are the one who can't tell OPINION from FACT. You are the one who can't tell "okay" from "legal". You are the one who can't answer a simple question even after it has been asked FIVE times. Yet you STILL seem to believe that the problem is on my end? So, if a jury acquits, then you didn't do anything wrong? And >THAT< is the highest level you've managed to achieve in the years of your life?
Post #37,664 by Mike 5/6/02 4:44:31 PM Reply	Jane you ignorant slut So far you have proved ignorance of..... norms in other countries sociology international law ..... and now criminal and civil law. OJ was found not guilty because the jury felt that the defense had raised sufficient reasonable doubt. Whether it was sufficient...is their call and not yours. Don't like the system.......campaign for something else. If you do some research you will be able to figure out why he was found liable in civil court (hint: burden of proof is not the same its "on a balance of probabilities"). The questions of the facts of the case in England are not in doubt by ANYONE. The schoolmistress admitted that the events occurred. What was needed was for someone to judge whether the actions constitued indecent assault. They felt that it didn't. Ba da bing. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,672 by CRConrad 5/6/02 5:04:06 PM Reply	You, OTOH, are not an "ignorant slut"... ...but a total fucking idiot. You don't understand logic, rules of debate, or just about fucking anything. If everything were so fucking cut and dried as you try to make out ("OJ was found not guilty because the jury felt that the defense had raised sufficient reasonable doubt ... The schoolmistress admitted that the events occurred. What was needed was for someone to judge whether the actions constitued indecent assault. They felt that it didn't" -- i.e, in essence, "some random collection of fuckwits didn't THINK it was ILLEGAL, so that means it WAS actually RIGHT"), then why the fuck would anybody ever discuss anything, here or anywhere else, in the first place? Oh, couldn't be because there's a DIFFERENCE between what some people think is illegal and what is actually right, could it? And that the latter can be discussed, on its own merits, regardless of the former? Naah... "Ba da bing", in-fucking-deed. You're the biggest fucking nitwit I've seen here since Le Moron left for good, I think. Are you sure you aren't Danny Ross? Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #37,681 by boxley 5/6/02 5:46:54 PM Reply	He aint doc On this subject the temp would be a LOT higher, remember the last time this topic came up? thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,692 by Mike 5/6/02 9:14:12 PM 5/6/02 11:19:46 PM Reply	LOL.....hey snot brain..... Show me some Empty "a" tag; no attributes <a>knowledge OR Empty "a" tag; no attributes <a>learning ...or fuck off and die. Who the fuck are you to preach ME about what is right. Find me a place where I have said its right. In fact.... read the places where I said that it "doesn't mean I like" the idea. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37690\| Response] >>Are you sure you aren't Danny Ross? Pretty damned sure.......... -ARNOLD xoxox -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 6, 2002, 11:19:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,709 by Silverlock 5/6/02 11:33:42 PM Reply	That, sir, is inexcusable Using a poignant, cherished and above all, Classic line of near-genuis comedy as the title of your post..... Well, sir, have you (k)no(w) shame? K-mart. The company that beat Microsft in customer satisfation.
Post #37,538 by Mike 5/4/02 11:07:09 PM Reply	My turn to ask a question. An interesting fact. The U.S. still leads the fully industrialized world in teen pregnancy and birth rates - by a wide margin. In fact, the U.S. rates are nearly double Great Britain's, at least four times those of France and Germany, ten times that of Japan, and finally 12 times that of the Netherlands. Age of consent: Great Britain 16 France 15 Germany 14/16 Japan 13 Netherlands 12/16 Interesting no? Can you explain this? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,548 by Brandioch 5/5/02 1:55:23 AM Reply	That's simple. Can you explain this? Yes, it means that girls in the US have children more often than girls in those other countries. Now, why are you asking >ME< that question?
Post #37,554 by Mike 5/5/02 9:12:27 AM Reply	I think..... the level of quality of the debate just took a nose dive into the ground (implausible as that may have seemed at one point). Think I'll open this up to the group. -- William Shatner's Trousers --

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Empty "a" tag; no attributes

Empty "a" tag; no attributes