Lowering the age of consent

Post by **Avatar** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:05 am

Plissken wrote:If men and women tried working together, instead of against each other, maybe we could stop it in the middle instead of letting it go all the way back to the 50's before we get another shot at it.

Very true.

Interesting this, perhaps mainly because perhaps we don't realise what an issue it might still be. I suppose that in South Africa, where we have so many areas where we're trying to ensure equality, this is one that sort of gets left out of the equation, perhaps because of bigger worries, and perhaps because, to me at least, it seems to be an area where there isn't that much to worry about. We don't really have much of that militant radical feminism here that I've noticed. And women seem fairly equally placed.

As ChoChiyo said earlier, if we just treat everybody fairly and equally, regardless of all other considerations, we'll be much better off.

--Avatar

Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:43 pm

Finally, let's face it: We elected a stuttering, insecure, war-mongering cowboy-wannabe to the highest office in the land, despite the demonstrated corruption and incompetence of his administration. After decades of being told that men are all stuttering, insecure, war-mongering, corrupt, incompetent cowboy-wannabe's, I think there might be some tranferrence at work.

I think you might have something here, I think this is definately a possibility. It follows a lot of what bush supporters say, about how he can 'handle' national security issues, or threats on national security, better than the opposition party. Is there any evidence of this? I doubt it....

The characterization of progressive values as 'feminine' (and I really think they are characterized as such, perhaps if not openly, then subconsciously) as opposed to the more 'cowboy' oriented masculine values might account for the 'real man' and 'hunting' vote for Bush. Men of the old order, traditionalist, seem to think that Bush is their kind of buy.
Which is ridiculous, he's been lazy and rich as all get out every day of his life. The idea of him being like the everyman is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow, the topic jumping here is getting pretty wild :)

Post by **Plissken** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:08 pm

I don't think that there can be any doubt that most Progressive ideas are Feminine in nature. They generally promote compassion, community, and collective opportunity, which are feminine ideals. They are the ideals that our society should be striving for, and they are indicative of the societal acceptance of the validity of the feminine.

My worry is that we are beginning to see the price of denying the validity of the masculine - by it's very nature, masculine energy lashes out as strongly as possible when backed into a corner. When that energy is directed outside of the societal unit, it's a good thing - tigers would rule the world, if it weren't so.

But what we've seen in the last few decades is an imprisoning of the masculine virtues - Honor systems are considered archaic, Testosterone Poisoning is practically a medical diagnosis, what was once considered romantic and chivalrous is now considered harassment, etc. - and it isn't too hard to see where it will all lead.

Think about it this way: The "Radical" Feminist movement was started by a generation of young women who saw how unhappy and marginalized their mothers were, and took dramatic action.

Now, think about your third-grade year. Then go read the symptom list for ADD. Realize what's actually in the drugs we give 8 year-old boys across the country - just to keep them from behaving like 8 year-old boys.

Couple that with what these boys are seeing at home - if a mother is willing to drug masculine behaviour out of her child, exactly how in touch with his feelings do you think his father is allowed to be? Think maybe Dad's feeling a little "marginalized"?

I hate to take up Zeph's "One day, a rain will come" stance, but when these misogynistic little speed-freaks we're creating grow up, there's going to be hell to pay.

Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:53 pm

Hey, I got put on ritilin when I was 10

Hehehe... no big deal though, I'll respond to this after a bit. Gotta think about its implications.

Post by **Edge** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:56 pm

Plissken, I agree with you completely on this issue.

Post by **Cail** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:58 pm

I made this point somewhere else in the Think-Tank. We are looking for a quick, easy, medical solution to all of life's inconveniences.

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:06 am

I pretty much agree with Plissken's and Cail's posts as well. We're becoming a culture of quick fixes. The problem with quick fixes is that, while quick, they usually have unforeseen long-term effects.

--Avatar

Post by **dennisrwood** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:15 am

thalidomide, vioxx, thorazine, phen-phen. but the doctors swear that ritalin will have no long term ill effects. just like electro shock and cold immersion therapy. maybe the psychiatric community has not one clue as to what they are doing? because honestly, lobotomies seemed like such a good idea. i've got to go, time for my blood letting. the doctors say
it's better than the sulfates for my headaches.

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:36 am

Part of the problem is that as medical technology improves, our expectations increase. It could almost be said that we demand that they come up with something, anything, to cure our ailments, both physical and psychological.

--Avatar

Post by **dennisrwood** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:41 am

and we never question the costs of these cures. we trust them, no matter how many times the doctors muck things up. thank god Listerine fought that sort of thinking. or we'd still be biting strips of leather as they hacked of our limbs after infection.

Post by **duchess of malfi** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:58 am

This thread is sure bouncing around all over the place. Not even sure where to start.

Hmm. Rape? As far as I know where I live rape, in alegal sense, can be committed by either a man or a woman. Its a forced sexual penetration of one's body. That could mean if someone is forced to perform oral sex at knife point it would be a form of rape. It could mean sodomy with an object, and that would be rape. It is certainly not limited to men alone. Men can rape women, men can rape men, women can rape women, women can rape men. I think men are usually the ones charged with it, but I do not know if that's because women are less likely to do it, or if men are less likely to report it?

Gender equlity. I am all for it. But by that I mean true equality, with equal opportunities (both for success or for failure) for all.

And I have to say that I love men.

Through most of my life, most of my best friends have been men. It might be from lingering damage from being abused by a woman thoughout my childhood, but I actually find it easier to relate to and trust men than I do other women!

Post by **Rivenrock** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:42 am

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:41 am

RivenRock, Wow, good to see you back.

You're absolutely right, I certainly never intended to suggest that the victims are in any way to blame, although I can see how that statement could be percieved that way.

As is your habit, you make excellent points. And to be honest, I'm not even sure what my position was on this originally.

As I'm sure you noticed though, the point of the question of lowering of the age of consent was not to allow adults to have sex with much younger partners, but to protect other children from charges of statutory rape when any sex was evidently consensual.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said in your post though. However, the point of the bit you quoted lies more in the final line, than in anything else, and in the realisation/understanding that despite our opinions as to the suitableness thereof, children are going to continue experimenting with sex, and that they are doing so consciously.

I certainly agree that nothing that is done in terms of an "age of consent" is going to affect whether or not the children as individuals are mature enough to even understand, let alone deal with, the consequences of such a relationship.

Even the best efforts of parents are probably not going to be completely effective. The thing with maturity is that it is something that you develop. It cannot be instilled.

Truly a pleasure to see you posting again.
Take it easy.
--Avatar

Post by **Rivenrock** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:16 am

Post by **Avatar** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:44 am

As you say, a difficult problem. I agree that the solution that you mention regarding graduated age groups seems the only effective workable one, but even there, I would have some problems.

Perhaps narrowing the acceptable age difference is one way, because I don't particularly like the thought of a 14yr old and a 12yr old, while I wouldn't have a problem with say, a 14yr old and a 15yr old, under most circumstances.

And that is why I believe it is so important to judge every case on its own particular merits, rather than on precedent. There are always circumstances that relate to each case, which make it different from every case before it.

Nothing should be an automatic judgement. Even the law should be flexible in the face of situational elements, becuase no law can hope to address every possible permutation of every case, all at once.

--Avatar

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:50 am

the law isnt a slave to precedent .. precedent has a purpose and that is to assist in the interpretation and application of the law and legal principles.

litigous matters are not dealt with per an assembly line .. matters are weighed on their individual merits .. they are weighted against precedent where the facts are similar and can be applied.

Where facts are different courts do distinguish matters where precedent can not be applied and future cases are at liberty to apply new precedent.

This very fact asserts that matters are dealt with on case by case basis. Thats how precedent was developed in the first place.

We are fortunate to belong to a system of law that does focus on the facts of a case .. and possesses a presumption of innocence!

And addtionally is adversarial .. not that i am suggesting there is no merit under an inquisitorial system .. (per the Napoleonic code)

Our legal system takes into account each individual case and analyses its merits .. the individual facts of that specific case ..

but rest assured .. the legal system isnt all up sh** creek!

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:28 pm

Hold on, so you're saying that you agree?

Of course, I'm not directing my argument at any one legal system in particular.

If you live under a system which is "circumstantial" as it were, that's great. All legal systems should work that way. Precedent should never be the automatic answer.

--Avatar

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:29 am

i'm .. having a scary moment right now ..

lol .. umm .. yes i guess i do agree with av .. if you are saying what i think you just said

Post by **dennisrwood** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:40 am

but as you know precedent can open the floodgates.
here in Texas the legislature has put a cap on damages that one can get in medical malpractice. the insanity defense. the defense attorney not being bound by truth. the state appointed attorney system. off the top of my head, seems the legal system does need an overhaul.

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:00 am

well i dont get that .. what do you mean the defence attorney isnt bound by the truth??

things must operate somewhat askew in that neck of the woods.

a defence attorney here can still go to jail for purgery - lying under oath ..

this sounds like a problem with lack of integrity .. and i think this is a socially and culturally systemic problem.

I also dont like this "state appointment system" opens the flood gates to corruption and abuse ..

scary stuff

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Lowering the age of consent