Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a lot of us are in the same range. I have no compunction about telling my age. Per the "801" at the end of my sn, my birthday was August 1, and I turned 60 this year. Still getting used to thinking of myself as being that age, as if I should feel more old and decrepit than I actually do. And to stay on topic, um no, you don't have to quit THAT just because age has changed things a bit.
I love Paul McCartney's new song, "Come on to me". The dude is 76 years old.
I am a lustful, sexual being. When I am in a relationship (mine are monogamous), frequent and lascivious sexual acts occur. It' is no one's business what I and my partner may be involved in.
Similarly, it is no one's business what anyone else does sexually, as long as the people involved are 1] adults and 2] consenting.
Who cares if it is Bobby and Susie, or Bobby, Susie and Grace or Bobby and David, or David and Bobby and Glen, or Susie and Joanne and Debby?
Or any combination of the above or any other combination. If all are adult, all are consenting, then it truly doesn't matter. It doesn't affect you does it? It doesn't affect me, either. And it doesn't affect society in any way that matters.
So, please, be lustful, often and live in harmony.
Peace.
For the purposes of age of consent, let's use Canada's for these examples.
The age of consent for nonexploitative sexual activity is now 16 years. ... For example, a 15-year-old can consent to having sexual intercourse with a 20-year-old, but not with a 21-year-old.
I'd like someone to show me the logic that demonstrates how a 15 year old has the presence of self and maturity to have sex with a 20 year & 364 day old...but in the days following their presence of self and maturity is no longer sufficient to have sex with that same person.
This is demonstrative of how arbitrary, subjective, capricious, and outright idiotic "Age of Consent" laws are.
I'd like someone to show me the logic that demonstrates how a 15 year old has the presence of self and maturity to have sex with a 20 year & 364 day old...but in the days following their presence of self and maturity is no longer sufficient to have sex with that same person.
This is demonstrative of how arbitrary, subjective, capricious, and outright idiotic "Age of Consent" laws are.
I'll agree with that thought process of yours...but can you think of a better way of doing things? Or, are you merely remarking that certain things are stupid, without having a better way of doing things? I'm not trying to be insulting. Even if you're just complaining...that might add a perspective someone hasn't thought of yet, and might be useful in a way.
The way I see it, age of consent laws fulfill certain useful purposes I described earlier. Despite their flaws, I think some kind of age of consent law is needed for those purposes I talked about earlier, here: //www.city-data.com/forum/53163781-post55.html
You could look at things like, "We need to maximize personal freedom, even at the cost of safety," but at minimum, there's nothing definitely better about that route than our current system. It's just that each system would have it's pros an cons...and currently, I believe every nation in the world has some kind of age of consent law, so we're used to that. We've already trained people to expect that.
I don't know a large amount about teenage psychology...but if there's something we've been doing for a long time, that seems to more or less work, I don't know why we'd remove it when the alternative isn't necessarily any better...and removing age of consent laws or lowering them to 13 everywhere or something (not that you've advocated that, but I'm just not sure what you're advocating) would have no clear and overwhelming advantages I'm aware of over our current system.
Although, when I say "our current system" I'm talking about the existence of age of consent laws in general. There are some age of consent laws I dislike. If certain specific age of consent laws are what you're complaining about, and you're just saying that they're often, but not always, stupid, I might very well agree.
I'd like someone to show me the logic that demonstrates how a 15 year old has the presence of self and maturity to have sex with a 20 year & 364 day old...but in the days following their presence of self and maturity is no longer sufficient to have sex with that same person.
This is demonstrative of how arbitrary, subjective, capricious, and outright idiotic "Age of Consent" laws are.
And you know what I think of "The Law" as a moral arbiter!
PPPFFFTTT!!
I agree with that. In my eyes, the job of the law is not to be a moral arbiter. The job of the law is to act as a big, blind, dumb, giant, who stomps on stuff to preserve whatever the greater good is.
I'll agree with that thought process of yours...but can you think of a better way of doing things? Or, are you merely remarking that certain things are stupid, without having a better way of doing things? I'm not trying to be insulting. Even if you're just complaining...that might add a perspective someone hasn't thought of yet, and might be useful in a way.
The way I see it, age of consent laws fulfill certain useful purposes I described earlier. Despite their flaws, I think some kind of age of consent law is needed for those purposes I talked about earlier, here: //www.city-data.com/forum/53163781-post55.html
You could look at things like, "We need to maximize personal freedom, even at the cost of safety," but at minimum, there's nothing definitely better about that route than our current system. It's just that each system would have it's pros an cons...and currently, I believe every nation in the world has some kind of age of consent law, so we're used to that. We've already trained people to expect that.
I don't know a large amount about teenage psychology...but if there's something we've been doing for a long time, that seems to more or less work, I don't know why we'd remove it when the alternative isn't necessarily any better...and removing age of consent laws or lowering them to 13 everywhere or something (not that you've advocated that, but I'm just not sure what you're advocating) would have no clear and overwhelming advantages I'm aware of over our current system.
Although, when I say "our current system" I'm talking about the existence of age of consent laws in general. There are some age of consent laws I dislike. If certain specific age of consent laws are what you're complaining about, and you're just saying that they're often, but not always, stupid, I might very well agree.
I could state my preference...but how could it be deemed "better"?
"Better" or "Worse" is not objective. "Better" according to who, compared to what? "Rapist" is a very serious accusation.
It will never be anything but a arbitrary, subjective, matter of opinion.
I say that my preference is objectively "Better", "Right", and "Good"...to ME! Others feel the same about their opinion. Some will concur, some will differ.
I agree with that. In my eyes, the job of the law is not to be a moral arbiter. The job of the law is to act as a big, blind, dumb, giant, who stomps on stuff to preserve whatever the greater good is.
There is no objective "Good"...and thus, no "greater" to be preserved, or "lesser/bad" to be stomped on.
That is the problem from the get-go.
The best you could ever do is Ad Populum support for an opinion of what is "Good"...but that cannot objectively prove a contrary view is "Bad".
I could state my preference...but how could it be deemed "better"?
"Better" or "Worse" is not objective. "Better" according to who, compared to what? "Rapist" is a very serious accusation.
It will never be anything but a arbitrary, subjective, matter of opinion.
I say that my preference is objectively "Better", "Right", and "Good"...to ME! Others feel the same about their opinion. Some will concur, some will differ.
I've stopped using the world "subjective morality" or "objective morality" because there's a good chance I don't know what either of them actually mean. I've looked at multiple definitions of both, and their meanings still aren't clear to me.
I know what arbitrary means though. Perceiving rape as negative is not caused by arbitrary decision making though. People from all sorts of diverse environments will independently conclude that rape is a bad thing. Why will they conclude this? because it feels unpleasant and it breaks the social bonds holding society together. Now, it probably feels pleasant to the rapist sometimes...but it's not perceived as tolerable due to the breaking of social bonds holding society together...the bonds of trust...the bonds of security.
Describing the perspective that a "rapist" being bad as arbitrary is nothing more than intellectual laziness.
That includes if you're talking about statutory rape. Statutory rape laws were designed based not on arbitrary decision making, but on reasonable thought process that, at least in theory, serve to prevent more harm than they cause.
Now...some laws might have been arbitrarily designed. But even the stupid ones, like anti-sodomy laws, often had some kind of thought behind them. For a long time people thought homosexuality was a mental disease that should be discouraged to stop its spread. Anti-sodomy laws, and anti-homosexuality laws, therefore, might not be so much arbitrary as foolish and flawed theories about how to stop the spread of mental disease.
_________________________
Now, moving on to your implication that someone being a rapist a is merely someone's opinion. That doesn't matter at all. It's an entirely useless statement. So you perceive someone perceiving rape as wrong as merely someone's opinion...and? What's your point?
It merely being someone's opinion that rape is wrong answers no questions about why it should or should not be done. Saying "morality is arbitrary" is an explanation for absolutely no kind of behavior whatsoever. It could be used to excuse any behavior, despite that behavior having real, damaging or assistful affects, and is therefore a useless statement.
It doesn't matter what my opinions about what is right and wrong are, in terms of what is actually right and wrong. Certain behaviors will nonetheless cause damage. Other behaviors will heal. Right and wrong therefore exists independently of my opinions, and are real, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. To deny that is to deny that people can feel pain and pleasure.
There is no objective "Good"...and thus, no "greater" to be preserved, or "lesser/bad" to be stomped on.
That is the problem from the get-go.
The best you could ever do is Ad Populum support for an opinion of what is "Good"...but that cannot objectively prove a contrary view is "Bad".
Then why not blow yourself up? It's because that would result in an unpleasant sensation and cause various types of harm...which means you have motivations, and reasons for your behaviors, which render "morality is subjective" as totally useless insofar as explaining why anything should or should not be done.
Nobody does things because "morality is subjective" They do things because of certain types of feedback and real world affects. Talk about those real world effects to explain why things should or shouldn't be done. That's the only thing it makes sense to do...or there's no reason to even explain reasoning behind your motivations. Saying "morality is subjective" justifies absolutely squat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I aged myself! 
