Age Of Consent
an2...@anon.penet.fi
initiated into sexual behavior by loving and supportive adults. These
young people are not considered abused or damaged by the experience. Yet
in our culture any young person touched sexually by an adult is considered
permanently crippled.
Of course, in our culture there is no allowance for a child to be lovingly
initiated by a sexually knowledgeable adult. In fact, "sexually
knowledgeable adult" is something of an oxymoron in our culture. The
accepted practice is for each adolescent to be sexually initiated by his
or her equally clumsy, ignorant, terrified teen-age peers.
Are we sure we're doing this right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Brad Shapcott
|> In some societies, youngsters just entering nubility are routinely
|> initiated into sexual behavior by loving and supportive adults. These
|> young people are not considered abused or damaged by the experience. Yet
|> in our culture any young person touched sexually by an adult is considered
|> permanently crippled.
|>
|> Of course, in our culture there is no allowance for a child to be lovingly
|> initiated by a sexually knowledgeable adult. In fact, "sexually
|> knowledgeable adult" is something of an oxymoron in our culture. The
|> accepted practice is for each adolescent to be sexually initiated by his
|> or her equally clumsy, ignorant, terrified teen-age peers.
|>
|> Are we sure we're doing this right?
While I think the whole age of consent thing is pretty muddy and
emotional, and probably as rationally addressed in most instances as
abortion or rape, the harking to the practice of ancient or foreign
cultures is a silly argument in favour of such relationships. Many
ancient tribal societies practiced ritual murder as well. Many
foreign cultures routinely oppress females.
The morality of tribal or foreign societies is not a model for a
modern society. And before any 'buts' are raised about the equation,
valuation of these acts as wrong (such as ritual murder, or oppression
of females) are a modern Western interpretation, and quite meaningless
in terms of the society involved.
You can't map a morality from one culture to the next and expect the
same results.
--
______
Brad Shapcott \ / It's a | Bell-Northern Research and
Mail: ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca \ / big world, | the National Capital Freenet
not bnr.ca (no e-mail access!) \/ share it. | do not share my opinions.
David Dyer-bennet
BF> In <cos.74...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>
BF> c...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>> 1) Yes, I think there should be no age of consent laws.
BF> So you think they should be repealed
BF> entirely? You don't see any difference
BF> between sex with a 14-year-old and sex with an 6-year-old?
BF> A serious question.
Speaking for myself, I don't see any ethical difference between sex
with people whose age differs by, say, 3 months, other things being
equal. Any line you pick will be arbitrary and wrong a lot of the
time.
I find it hard to imagine a way to construct a case where a
6-year-old would not be damaged by having sex. (But I'm not sure
it's impossible. The universe is large and very, very, strange.) On
the other hand, 25-year-olds get trapped in abusive sexual situations
all the time (sadly). Should we raise the age of consent to 30, in
hopes that this will somehow help?
I think, in general, that the concept of "age of consent" misses the
point. I suspect it often does harm rather than good.
* Origin: Disregard previous origin line (RA 1:282/341)
David F. McWade
I think in the Age Of Consent thread we are talking around the issue.
I'd like to see some more blunt discussion. On the net about nine
months ago on alt.sex, there was a thread entitled "adults, children,
and sex." A good number of the posts were made from a Richard
Steven Walz, who unfortunately does not have access to alt.polyamory.
But I will be forwarding some messages that I have saved and hopefully
that will spur some productive discussion on an issue that is a good
deal more radical than polyamory, as evidenced by the squeamishness
of the people posting here.
Dave
sonny hays-eberts
<dm...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I think in the Age Of Consent thread we are talking around the issue.
i think in the age of consent issue we are talking about subjects that
belong outside of al.polyamory. which word in that sentence do you not
understand?
>
> I'd like to see some more blunt discussion. On the net about nine
> months ago on alt.sex, there was a thread entitled "adults, children,
> and sex." A good number of the posts were made from a Richard
> Steven Walz, who unfortunately does not have access to alt.polyamory.
i'd like to see some discussion applicable to polyamory. on the net about
nine months ago on alt.polyamory, there were many threads concerned with
just that. a good number of the posts were made by posters who have access
to alt.polyamory and are interested in that particular subject.
>
> But I will be forwarding some messages that I have saved and hopefully
> that will spur some productive discussion on an issue that is a good
> deal more radical than polyamory, as evidenced by the squeamishness
> of the people posting here.
but i will be enduring messages that have nothing to do with this, that
i've read before and consider a fruitless and pointless discussion. as
someone who has been around the world and seen/engaged in/been appraised of
numerous bizarre practices, sexual and otherwise, please do not confuse the
desire to keep on subject with squeamishness.
the most potent weapon in the hands of an oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed - steven biko become who you are - frederick nietzsche
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Brad Shapcott
|>
|> i'd like to see some discussion applicable to polyamory. on the net about
|> nine months ago on alt.polyamory, there were many threads concerned with
|> just that. a good number of the posts were made by posters who have access
|> to alt.polyamory and are interested in that particular subject.
I used to be a carpenter. Whenever someone came on the job and complained
about how things were being done, I'd give them a hammer.
|> sonny hays-eberts
Discussion results in thread irrelevent to the newsgroup it began in,
film at eleven.
sonny hays-eberts
Shapcott) wrote:
>
> |> i'd like to see some discussion applicable to polyamory. on the net about
> |> nine months ago on alt.polyamory, there were many threads concerned with
> |> just that. a good number of the posts were made by posters who have access
> |> to alt.polyamory and are interested in that particular subject.
>
> I used to be a carpenter. Whenever someone came on the job and complained
> about how things were being done, I'd give them a hammer.
ok, so to take this particular (flawed) analogy to it's implied conclusion,
if someone complains about a topic being off task, they should begin or
contribute to a thread that does so? i'm doing that with the jealosy
thread, so maybe the point you are making is moot? and if i took your
hammer and did a good job, couldn't i still critique your poor workmanship?
now you can have your hammer back, because your complaint has even less to
do with being relevant than my complaint....
> Discussion results in thread irrelevent to the newsgroup it began in,
> film at eleven.
that's gonna be one long film. fellini would be proud.... :)
i think the most telling datum is the fact that the readership of a.p
(except myself and one or two others) are doing a good job of ignoring this
thread in the (probably vain) hope it will just go away and die the death
it so richly deserves.
>
> --
> ______
> Brad Shapcott \ / It's a | Bell-Northern Research and
> Mail: ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca \ / big world, | the National Capital Freenet
> not bnr.ca (no e-mail access!) \/ share it. | do not share my opinions.
the most potent weapon in the hands of an oppressor is the mind of the
Brad Shapcott
|>
|> if someone complains about a topic being off task, they should begin or
|> contribute to a thread that does so? i'm doing that with the jealosy
|> thread, so maybe the point you are making is moot? and if i took your
|> hammer and did a good job, couldn't i still critique your poor workmanship?
|>
|> now you can have your hammer back, because your complaint has even less to
|> do with being relevant than my complaint....
Well, the complaints about the 'Age of Consent' thread seems now to have
a life of its very own. Predictable.
|> > Discussion results in thread irrelevent to the newsgroup it began in,
|> > film at eleven.
|>
|> that's gonna be one long film. fellini would be proud.... :)
No, pretty well, "It's Usenet, get a clue."
If you want order and sweetness, I would suggest a lifetime subscription
to Reader's Digest. They have editors to keep everything neat and
tidy; Usenet does not.
|> i think the most telling datum is the fact that the readership of a.p
|> (except myself and one or two others) are doing a good job of ignoring this
|> thread in the (probably vain) hope it will just go away and die the death
|> it so richly deserves.
How noble, you poor martyrs.
Complaints about inappropriateness of posting surpass errant thread,
film at eleven.
Netcop 4 calling Netcop 77, your dress slip is showing. Over.
john e. clark
+In article ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca writes:
+
+>If you want order and sweetness, I would suggest a lifetime subscription
+>to Reader's Digest. They have editors to keep everything neat and
+>tidy; Usenet does not.
+
+You know, that gives me a great idea. How about:
+
+alt.internet.readers.digest (moderated)?
But in keeping with R.D's standard practice the articles must be
posted in only 'acceptable' news.groups, such as
'net.articles.bland', hence may then be digested by only those who
would have problems with 'news.red.hot.chili.pepers'.
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
Elise
DFMW> I think in the Age Of Consent thread we are talking
DFMW> around the issue.
Yes, particularly since the issue is polyamory.
DFMW> I'd like to see some more blunt discussion. On the
[snip]
DFMW> But I will be forwarding some messages that I have
DFMW> saved and hopefully that will spur some productive
DFMW> discussion on an issue that is a good deal more
DFMW> radical than polyamory, as evidenced by the
DFMW> squeamishness of the people posting here.
Oh, thank you, thank you, David, to come along and rescue us from our
benighted conservative ways. Yes, yes, give me something to spur productive
discussions, which seems by your post to be defined as "anything off-topic that
generates lots of flames punctuated by yawns from those tedious enough to be
actually interested in the purported topic of the newsgroup."
As for squeamishness, uh, yeah, *right*. (giggle) Boy, do you have *our*
number. [pay no attention to the chortling behind the curtain...]
Spare us, do.
DFMW> Dave
Elise,
who prefers to get on with the business and pleasure at hand
and wishes you would either talk about polyamory or find another
constructive solution to the interminable [deleted] being foisted upon us
[gawds, I've even gotten to the point of applauding john clark for trying to
make some connection, however tenuous, between this thread and polyamory]
* Origin: Mammals' Melting Point <Stipple City, MN> (1:282/341.19)
Brad Shapcott
|>
|> Elise,
|> who prefers to get on with the business and pleasure at hand
|> and wishes you would either talk about polyamory or find another
|> constructive solution to the interminable [deleted] being foisted upon us
|> [gawds, I've even gotten to the point of applauding john clark for trying to
|> make some connection, however tenuous, between this thread and polyamory]
We could try models of society and the family stemming from the
Industrial Revolution, a contract model of marriage (and by clear
extension, parenting), the dissolution of the nuclear family, new
models and the history of family/tribe/community and so on. With
little effort these can be linked into issues of age of consent, and
polyamory.
My point, of course, is even though I could make a case, why should I?
Does everyone else preface every topic with the reasons why it might
be relevant, or in other cases do people try to make the connection?
Isn't even "What does group X think of topic Y," enough to propel a
discussion? Apparently not; there has obviously formed some consensus
as to what is a 'legitimate' polyamory discussion and attempts to
broaden the topos are disallowed.
Really irrelevant topics usually die of disinterest. All others need
to be put down by the self-elected netcops who seem to define what is
relevant to discuss. I could get farther and get less flack over
salad recipes than NAMBLA and there is a reason why.
So hit me with your definition of 'polyamory' that makes age of
consent irrelevant and I'll give you mine just to give the table a
spin. Most of the threads you people come up with bore the hell out
of me, have been done to death over and again, and are irrelevant or
of little importance to models and issues of polyamory that interest
me. So I just skip over them, rather than netcopping every time I
don't like the content. Any thread with 'jealousy' in the title
doesn't even get a look, but perhaps I should start netcopping about
how that has been done to death here, and I didn't even find it
interesting or relevant to me the first time it was brought up?
Calling all NetCops, calling all NetCops. Mission today; find and
destroy errant threads without prejudice; your egotistical
weltanshauung on polyamory is sufficient to form criteria for
termination. Do not skip over threads, repeat, do not skip over
threads. Over.