Underage sex, a Who Has It Worse competition
Society
asks the question "Is sex more likely to be emotionally
traumatizing for 17-year old boys or girls?"
The comments left behind by readers (many of whom but
not all are lawyers of one kind or another) include a
discussion of statutory rape laws. Regrettably, most of
those seemingly bright, informed people appear to have
the sort of womanfirster prejudices commonly portrayed
in romance novels set in the antebellum South.
However, Commenter "Joe" bravely took up the very
un-Politically Correct question of "cases... when the
younger person is already sexually active."
We have a local case where the 17-year-old "victim"
was about as slutty as you can find. Of course, she's now
portraying herself as an angel who was taken advantage of.
"Joe" (November 16, 2009, 8:59 pm)
http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/is-sex-more-likely-to-be-emotionally-traumatizing-for-17-year-old-boys-or-girls
Commenters who responded to Joe make silly mistakes
such as supposing that because a 17-year old hottie can
pick up _a_ 35-year old man for sex, she can pick up
_any_ 35-year old man, or that because some goof claims
that at 15 he'd have taken _any_ opportunity offered him
to have sex with a female, that _all_ 15-year old boys would.
Sheesh!
--
Thanks to the feminazis, it's politically incorrect
to suggest, as a matter of policy, that anybody
other than straight white men should change
their sexual behavior.
Rod van Mechelen, "Sex slaves?"
_The Backlash!_, Headline News, August 1998
http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1998/8-aug98/news08.html
Andrew Usher
On Nov 17, 5:47 pm, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> On the group-blog he edits, law professor Eugene Volokh
> asks the question "Is sex more likely to be emotionally
> traumatizing for 17-year old boys or girls?"
Honestly we just need to grow up and admit it's not the end of the
world for wither a boy or girl.
> However, Commenter "Joe" bravely took up the very
> un-Politically Correct question of "cases... when the
> younger person is already sexually active."
>
> We have a local case where the 17-year-old "victim"
> was about as slutty as you can find. Of course, she's now
> portraying herself as an angel who was taken advantage of.
>
> "Joe" (November 16, 2009, 8:59 pm)
> http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/is-sex-more-likely-to-be-emotionally-tra...
>
> Commenters who responded to Joe make silly mistakes
> such as supposing that because a 17-year old hottie can
> pick up _a_ 35-year old man for sex, she can pick up
> _any_ 35-year old man, or that because some goof claims
> that at 15 he'd have taken _any_ opportunity offered him
> to have sex with a female, that _all_ 15-year old boys would.
> Sheesh!
While the absolutes are wrong, the generalisations are perfectly
valid. That's how we can argue about social issues at all. But we know
you're just an ideologue and don't care for the truth, don't we?
Andrew Usher
Bat Leaper
Soc...@feminism.is.invalid (Society) says...
> On the group-blog he edits, law professor Eugene Volokh
> asks the question "Is sex more likely to be emotionally
> traumatizing for 17-year old boys or girls?"
Sex is a natural function that shouldn't be sexually traumatizing for
either boys or girls. When I was young, I had sex with several under
age girls. Over the years I have encountered most of them again. The
later meeting was always cordial, and in a couple of cases the women
couldn't wait to get me into bed with them again. None of them seemed
traumatized in any way.
The "sex is harmful" mythology seems rooted in Freud. As much as the
therapeutic community likes to claim they have moved past Freud, they
still love to find a sexual basis for any emotional distress. They need
to realize that a woman's sexual disfunction is a symptom of their
underlying emotional illness, not the cause.
Andre Lieven
> In article <ADGMm.35396$de6.31...@newsfe21.iad>,
> Soci...@feminism.is.invalid (Society) says...
Nonetheless, a sexual encounter can be harmful to one party, when the
other has used some serious advantage to get the other to do what they
would have preferred to not do, such as when one party is underage,
and
the other is an adult, possibly with a position of authority over the
younger
person.
Just because sex is fun, in of itself, does not mean that any person
wants
to have that kind of fun with anyone and everyone else. This applies
more
or less equally to both boys and girls.
Suppose that you are a 16 year old boy. A 25 year old hottie female
teacher
solicits you. Now, suppose that a 45 year old 100 pound overweight
harridan does. And, have the latter suggest that the boy's chances to
pass
her course, which he needs to stay on the football team, were
dependent
on his agreeing to have sex with the 45 year old fattie...
That doesn't even touch on the later effects of the sex that underage
children can have. Just as the law and society, quite rightly, say
that it
is not possible to form a contract with an underage person, because
the
underage person doesn't have the adult judgement to decide what is
actually good for them, the same applies to sex.
Surely, any adult can find a sexual partner among other adults. Those
who
need to look among cohorts of underage people lacking the powers of
experienced adult judgement are most likely doing to because their
offers of sex are unwanted among those with said adult judgement
abilities.
That's just wrong. The old saying "pick on someone your own size"
works
just as well if we replace "size" with "adult status".
Andre
Mark Borgerson
80c2b0...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
first? Perhaps the first sentence should read "Surely, any normal
adult..."
> That's just wrong. The old saying "pick on someone your own size"
> works
> just as well if we replace "size" with "adult status".
I agree with that---and the rest of the earlier paragraphs.
Mark Borgerson
retardsman
> In article <459addcf-e6b2-4b69-90ca-
> 80c2b0f38...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
hey didnt i see you two at baptist john's funeral? they say a free
lunch was provided by herodias..... quite a spread
Andrew Usher
> > Sex is a natural function that shouldn't be sexually traumatizing for
> > either boys or girls. When I was young, I had sex with several under
> > age girls. Over the years I have encountered most of them again. The
> > later meeting was always cordial, and in a couple of cases the women
> > couldn't wait to get me into bed with them again. None of them seemed
> > traumatized in any way.
> >
> > The "sex is harmful" mythology seems rooted in Freud. As much as the
> > therapeutic community likes to claim they have moved past Freud, they
> > still love to find a sexual basis for any emotional distress. They need
> > to realize that a woman's sexual disfunction is a symptom of their
> > underlying emotional illness, not the cause.
>
> Nonetheless, a sexual encounter can be harmful to one party, when the
> other has used some serious advantage to get the other to do what they
> would have preferred to not do, such as when one party is underage,
> and the other is an adult, possibly with a position of authority over the
> younger person.
As if that doesn't happen among adults.
> Just because sex is fun, in of itself, does not mean that any person
> wants
> to have that kind of fun with anyone and everyone else. This applies
> more or less equally to both boys and girls.
Well, yeah, but we're assuming that everything's consensual here.
> Suppose that you are a 16 year old boy. A 25 year old hottie female
> teacher
> solicits you. Now, suppose that a 45 year old 100 pound overweight
> harridan does. And, have the latter suggest that the boy's chances to
> pass
> her course, which he needs to stay on the football team, were
> dependent
> on his agreeing to have sex with the 45 year old fattie...
And how often does that happen? And what's the silly obsession about
'fat' women? Hoenstly, do you think a young man's going to refuse sex
just because a woman is overweight? Don't be a fag!
> That doesn't even touch on the later effects of the sex that underage
> children can have. Just as the law and society, quite rightly, say
> that it
> is not possible to form a contract with an underage person, because
> the
> underage person doesn't have the adult judgement to decide what is
> actually good for them, the same applies to sex.
Except that our society today practically encourage them to have sex
with partners the same age!
> Surely, any adult can find a sexual partner among other adults. Those
> who need to look among cohorts of underage people lacking the powers of
> experienced adult judgement are most likely doing to because their
> offers of sex are unwanted among those with said adult judgement
> abilities.
Except this is quite irrelevant to the moral status of such sexual
relationships. It's exactly equivalent to saying (for example) that it
should be a crime for an adult to play video games, since 'surely any
adult can find something better to do with his time'.
> That's just wrong. The old saying "pick on someone your own size"
> works just as well if we replace "size" with "adult status".
Nothing more than a glib saying.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
> In article <459addcf-e6b2-4b69-90ca-
Well, I am of the view that every human adult has the moral obligation
to behave as a person whose behavior to those weaker (Not just in
physical powers, but in terms of such as adult V/ child/adolescent
powers of judgement.) than themselves is no worse than benign.
So, if an adult has urges towards, say, sexual encounters with
children,
in my view they bear an obligation to get help to prevent them from
acting
out on such predatory urges.
> > That's just wrong. The old saying "pick on someone your own size"
> > works just as well if we replace "size" with "adult status".
>
> I agree with that---and the rest of the earlier paragraphs.
See ? My views are fairly reasonable.
Andre
Andrew Usher
> > > Surely, any adult can find a sexual partner among other adults. Those
> > > who
> > > need to look among cohorts of underage people lacking the powers of
> > > experienced adult judgement are most likely doing to because their
> > > offers of sex are unwanted among those with said adult judgement
> > > abilities.
>
> > Hmmm, doesn't the second sentence of that paragraph contradict the
> > first? Perhaps the first sentence should read "Surely, any normal
> > adult..."
>
> Well, I am of the view that every human adult has the moral obligation
> to behave as a person whose behavior to those weaker (Not just in
> physical powers, but in terms of such as adult V/ child/adolescent
> powers of judgement.) than themselves is no worse than benign.
But, since any decent person agrees that we have a moral obligation to
others, this is just begging the question. (It's also backing out of
your previous statement).
> So, if an adult has urges towards, say, sexual encounters with
> children,
> in my view they bear an obligation to get help to prevent them from
> acting
> out on such predatory urges.
For example, using the biased word 'predatory'.
> > > That's just wrong. The old saying "pick on someone your own size"
> > > works just as well if we replace "size" with "adult status".
>
> > I agree with that---and the rest of the earlier paragraphs.
>
> See ? My views are fairly reasonable.
In your own mind.
Andrew Usher