The Obedient Wives Club

[Galien]

Deva and all,

 

Here is a link to some law enforcement information in Australia. Sex crimes against children are pretty serious there just as much so as the USA...

 

http://www.mako.org.au/factsstats.html

 

Did anyone say they weren't?

[Galien]

If my next door neighbour who is 35 is banging a 17 year old, what business is it of mine. Who the fuck do I think I am to go about the place judging him and running him down and saying he is sick? If they are happy, more power to them.

 

Galien, I know you don't live in the US, but I have to step in and say this is disturbing. Where I live this is clearly against the law (the state of Florida) :

 

794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.—(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

If I know about it and don't report it:

 

794.027 Duty to report sexual battery; penalties.—A person who observes the commission of the crime of sexual battery and who:(1) Has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has observed the commission of a sexual battery;(2) Has the present ability to seek assistance for the victim or victims by immediately reporting such offense to a law enforcement officer;(3) Fails to seek such assistance;(4) Would not be exposed to any threat of physical violence for seeking such assistance;(5) Is not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, or sister of the offender or victim, by consanguinity or affinity; and(6) Is not the victim of such sexual batteryis guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

 

 

 

A misdemeanor could mean a very hefty fine or prison time. Not saying the law is right all of the time, but it IS the law.

Granted, I am not going to interest myself ordinarily in what goes on at the neighbor's house. I can't really envision how I would be certain enough that something is going on (unless one of the parties told me) so that I would involve myself. But if I know FOR A FACT it was happening, I would consider it a very serious situation.

 

Beyond that, on a personal level, I would be quite disturbed, because the older party plainly has power over the younger party.

 

Galien, I think sometimes one needs to be concerned with what other people are doing. Not often, but sometimes.

I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but it has taken a very different turn.

 

 

 

So why the assumption that the older party always has power over the younger? How bloody ridiculous.

[Galien]

 

 

If there is something going on that is illegal, what are YOU doing to prevent it? What are YOU doing to put a stop to it? The fact you had a minister abusing you was bad, how long ago was that? Did you attempt to contact law enforcement to do SOMETHING ABOUT IT? If not, it is YOUR fault then. If the statue of limitations prevents it, you CAN warn others about him if you know where he is. Don't just piss and moan about it, DAMN IT DO SOMETHING!

 

Better yet, are you being abused NOW? If not, why dwell on it? All you are going to do is make yourself miserable to the day you die. Life will not be fun. Are YOU going to allow that piece of shit to win by dwelling on it and taking it out on other people? Get some help because you have been attacking others for no reason.

 

[edit] Deva...bless you...you posted just before I did.... +1

 

Illegal things I would always report. Things judged immoral by social mores are none of my damn business. Yeah I was so at fauilt as a nine year old in a children's home because of the breakup of my family, terrorised into not telling because he threatened to do the same thing to my six year old sister. He is dead now, and in the scheme of things the sexual abuse was nothing compared to other abuses. Blame the victim much?

 

I am not being abused, and you can bet your entire kingdom on the fact I never will be again. I don't attack people for no reason, this cow Noumena and her husband are some fucked up units who dispense thier judgement the same way as fundamentalist christians and I don't fucking like it. Sue me.

[DeGaul]

I wonder, can you answer me a simple question Galien: What compels you to care so much about what I find sick? If I say that something is sick, or that all 17 year olds are idiots, those statements are my considered opinions. And at the end of the day, all people have are their opinions. This very thread is founded on an opinion, the opinion that women and men should be equal. And before anyone starts spouting off about "human rights" and "basic dignities" and such, just look at the world around us....really look at it: There are no human rights, factually.....except perhaps the right to die, and that only because death is a certainty. Nowhere in nature do you find "rights". Instead, what you find are murder, rape, disease, old age, and death. And the mindless process repeats itself again and again, generation after generation.

 

Yes, we are talking about opinions here. Even your constant babbling on about open mindedness is itself just an opinion, and one that I don't share. So, why do you seem so threatened by (and *gasp* perhaps intolerant of) my opinion? It is just an opinion, and not one that I'm forcing on anyone at gun point. I'm hardly conspiring in my basement (if I had one) to start a horrible totalitarian regime in which 17 year olds are oppressed and no one has sex without my permission. I'm simply writing, on a public forum, what I think.

 

Having established that we fundamentally disagree, what more is there to say? Repeating again and again the fact that you have a different opinion than me, in ever more creative ways, will not change the fact that we disagree. You won't win me over to your cause. I find the concept of thoughtless acceptance abhorrent, and no amount of pointing out all the ways in which a person might have a different opinion than me will cause me to give up my own. My confidence in my own perception is just not that easily swayed by the fact that someone might disagree with me.

[Deva]

So why the assumption that the older party always has power over the younger? How bloody ridiculous.

 

How is it ridiculous??

[Darklady]

Just a couple of points - One reason why we use the term 'equality of opportunity' because it does NOT mean taking on people who cannot do the work - the best person for the job should always be the maxim -

it means everyone should have the same opportunity in life (from the beginning of life) to be able to get the best education, health care, etc etc

I know this is a ideal, but the point it just because it is an ideal, why should we not make it happen?

 

IN NZ we have paternity leave = both partners have equal opportunity to take one years leave(unpaid) and still have their job at the end of that, paid leave is for three months and paid through the Tax system, and both parents can take that (ie the three months can be used up in the fist 6 weeks by both parents staying home, or one or the other for three months etc)

 

'Positive discrimination' is another subject, closely related to levelling the playing field -

The unlevel playing field starts at conception, babies of better off parents have better care, better chance to be born alive, (not especially talking abortion here) so from day one some children are on a very different playing field altogether,

 

now if you are a minority, you have just added a layer of difficulty to life - not that many people do not over come that - to be sure, many do, black, Or for NZ maori, women, the disabled, etc.

For example, if you are born into poverty, you have far greater chance of being disabled, to have poor education or to die young

 

The thread was specificity about the role of women in society ( middle east society)

Ask youself why no women has ever been head of the United nations, or president of the USA? Is it because there are no capable women?

Of course not, there are plenty, but there has been little opportunity for women to move into those roles. There will be many reasons why this is the case (and just as many excuses), but it does not change the fact that minorities are not represented as well as they should be in 'higher' offices, or in public life.

 

The head of my nation, and in the past yours and Britain has been a woman. Even in (somewhat) recent history, Hilary Clinton was taken as a serious political candidate. The fact of the matter is it's not that there's discrimination against women but the ratio of women interested in these roles is different. Maybe it's to do with gender roles ingrained in our minds or maybe its a personality thing or whatever but I think for the most part its a lack of interest that is responsible for today's disparity rather than discrimination. I'm all for equal opportunity and leveling the playing field if there's signs of discrimination but as of late I've seen enough times someone hired to meet a "quota", despite their inability to perform the role (funnily enough it's with getting more men in a role predominately filled with women).

 

I understand minorities have it hard because simply, I've had it hard. I know what it's like to not have a bed to sleep in, not to have a fridge to keep your food in, to not even have a chair to sit in or a table to eat your food on. These were/are luxuries for me. I lived almost the first half of my life without them. To this day I feel unco trying to use cutlery. Yet, because I live in Australia, I still had access to public schools, I still had a roof over my head and if I applied myself, I still could have finished school and gone to uni (which I'm currently doing). I guess where I'm coming from is that I'm the kind of person who takes ownership of my actions, I don't try to blame others or shift the blame. I take the responsibility. Now, if I can come from 'poverty' to where I am at now, and I'm not even that ambitious and motivated, anyone can do it and I won't accept excuses.

 

As for women in the middle east, I agree vast improvement is yet to be made and I'm all for people fighting for women's rights in those places.

 

In many aspects we agree, but ultimatly I think that if all things were equal, ie circumstances of education, the expectation of what a person will do, the way we bring children up, we would see a more balanced number of men and women in government, or in any other role. Australia still has gender laws in the armed forces. The Sex Discrimination Act of 1984:

 

Section 43. Combat duties, etc.

(1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against a woman on the ground of her sex in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in the Defence Force:

(a) in a position involving the performance of combat duties; or

in prescribed circumstances in relation to combat duties.

 

In addition only 29 countries have ever had a female leader.

[Galien]

So why the assumption that the older party always has power over the younger? How bloody ridiculous.

 

How is it ridiculous??

 

How is it set in stone that an older adult always has power over a younger one? I know of a case where a 17 year old girl actively pursued a school bus driver on a school trip and actually put her hand down his trousers trying to get him to have sex with her. This is not an isolated incident either.

 

Circumstances are not set in stone, younger people do sexually approach older ones and I find it ludicrous that people think this doesnt happen.

[Deva]

Illegal things I would always report.

 

So you would report the illegal relationship? On the other hand, you are not personally disturbed by the imbalance of power with a man who could technically be the father of the other party, or woman the mother, whatever?

 

Yet...

 

Things judged immoral by social mores are none of my damn business.

 

So, if you lived where I do, what would you do??

 

Doing personal attacks on those who disagree with you doesn't prove your point, either.

[Deva]

How is it set in stone that an older adult always has power over a younger one? I know of a case where a 17 year old girl actively pursued a school bus driver on a school trip and actually put her hand down his trousers trying to get him to have sex with her. This is not an isolated incident either.

 

Circumstances are not set in stone, younger people do sexually approach older ones and I find it ludicrous that people think this doesnt happen.

 

Yes, with an age gap as you describe it 30s to a teenager, yes, I am saying it is set in stone. It may not start out that way (the actual seduction), but it is ALWAYS that way eventually. The older party has every advantage, economically, socially, and mentally. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

 

I must add that I find it absolutely amazing you would be thinking this way considering what you have described as the abuse you personally suffered.

 

Really, you have got to be kidding me... Something else is going on here that I don't understand.

[Galien]

Illegal things I would always report.

 

So you would report the illegal relationship? On the other hand, you are not personally disturbed by the imbalance of power with a man who could technically be the father of the other party, or woman the mother, whatever?

 

Yet...

 

Things judged immoral by social mores are none of my damn business.

 

So, if you lived where I do, what would you do??

 

Doing personal attacks on those who disagree with you doesn't prove your point, either.

 

If someone is sexually abusing a child I would always report it. If the guy is having sex with a fifteen year old who seems quite happy to be doing so in a country where the age of consent is 16, I would probably leave it to the persons parents to deal with. I don't believe there is always an imbalance of power with disparity of age. I believe that is conventional wisdom, but not always the case in actuality.

[Deva]

If someone is sexually abusing a child I would always report it. If the guy is having sex with a fifteen year old who seems quite happy to be doing so in a country where the age of consent is 16, I would probably leave it to the persons parents to deal with. I don't believe there is always an imbalance of power with disparity of age. I believe that is conventional wisdom, but not always the case in actuality.

 

Well I am glad to hear you say that first sentence. You really don't think such a huge age gap as a man in his 30s or even late 20s with a fifteen, sixteen year old is a problem?? I just don't even know how to respond to such an idea. To me, its incredible that you don't see a disparity in power. I am going to have to think it out some more to even know how to explain something so obvious. Sorry. Words are definately failing me at this point.

[Onyx]

Sexual relationships are stranger than you think, anybody can seduce anybody. It's when somebody starts to mistreat somebody, then indeed it's serious no matter if it's the younger or the older person. Perhaps, it's time to lose the conventional wisdom that older people will alway be the bad one. Sometimes, there are horrid younger people who will seduce older people and then reports it to the law for the sheer fun of it. It happens, unfortunately. And villainy can occur in any sexual partner, same if it is virtue in the sexual partner. I think the ideal age is 16 to 18, but of course age of consent varies in each country. In my country which has an age of consent of sixteen, I wouldn't be worrying if a 15 and 16 years old decides to make love, much the same if a 16 years decides to love a 25 years old and vice versa. But I would be worried if a 25 years old decides to seduce a 14 years old and vice versa.

And I would truly worry for a person if they are 13 going on 60 or vice versa. I'd have to report them to the police. Oh well, if they are like Humbert Humbert, there's alway a chance of thwarting them. One hopes so, better an incompetent criminal than a successful criminal, if there has to be crime.

[LivingLife]

Australia still has gender laws in the armed forces. The Sex Discrimination Act of 1984:

 

Section 43. Combat duties, etc.

(1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against a woman on the ground of her sex in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in the Defence Force:

(a) in a position involving the performance of combat duties; or

in prescribed circumstances in relation to combat duties.

The reason why women are not desired in combat roles is obvious. Men are hardwired to protect women and the military know this. A fallen male comrade will not garner the same empathy as a female one. A captured female will likely be raped and sexually abused whereas a male not.

 

Bringing in the physical aspects here again, men are able to do better in hand to hand combat if required. This is why women are assigned non combatant roles in the military or roles where they do not face the enemy face to face. There are probably a host of other physiological reasons too.

 

In WWII when the allies started carpet bombing cities, it broke the moral of the troops. When loved ones are getting attacked back home, front line defense no longer is a priority.

 

Look how the Afg play out the fact of innocent women and kids being killed in drone attacks. Appeals to emotion are high when it comes too women and children in war. Likewise, when the enemy use them as human shields or combatants, soldiers killing them are traumatized more so than when it is an adult male. There is no place for chivalry in war and that is why women are preferred not in the front lines.

[JadedAtheist]

In many aspects we agree, but ultimatly I think that if all things were equal, ie circumstances of education, the expectation of what a person will do, the way we bring children up, we would see a more balanced number of men and women in government, or in any other role. Australia still has gender laws in the armed forces. The Sex Discrimination Act of 1984:

 

Section 43. Combat duties, etc.

(1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against a woman on the ground of her sex in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in the Defence Force:

(a) in a position involving the performance of combat duties; or

in prescribed circumstances in relation to combat duties.

 

In addition only 29 countries have ever had a female leader.

 

You will never see equality in (or even near equality) in some roles no matter how level the field is. Men are always going to be more likely performing the hard manual labor kind of jobs, men are going to be more interested than women in many different fields, and the vice versa is true too. I could never be a nurse or a secretary. Not because I'd be discriminated against, but simply because I'd never apply for those roles and most men wouldn't. It simply comes down to desires. Men and women do not share the same desires in general, when they do they shouldn't be discriminated against and when they don't we shouldn't think that there must be a problem.

 

While that Australian law is discriminatory, it's pretty much lost effect as of late. Even at it's conception it wasn't too bad (from my understanding it limited women to contributing no more than 40% of the ADF) but I'd rather it not be there at all.

[Vigile]

If someone is sexually abusing a child I would always report it. If the guy is having sex with a fifteen year old who seems quite happy to be doing so in a country where the age of consent is 16, I would probably leave it to the persons parents to deal with. I don't believe there is always an imbalance of power with disparity of age. I believe that is conventional wisdom, but not always the case in actuality.

 

Well I am glad to hear you say that first sentence. You really don't think such a huge age gap as a man in his 30s or even late 20s with a fifteen, sixteen year old is a problem?? I just don't even know how to respond to such an idea. To me, its incredible that you don't see a disparity in power. I am going to have to think it out some more to even know how to explain something so obvious. Sorry. Words are definately failing me at this point.

 

FWIW, I completely agree with Galien on this point. A young lady could absolutely be in a position of power in the example provided. She likely doesn't have the same mental faculties as the older person, but she could easily call all the shots in the relationship. IMO, every one of these statutory cases involving teens that have clearly reached the age of sexual maturity should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Just applying the law like a bludgeon without considering the circumstances can lead to all kinds of injustice, which I find more immoral than crossing a simple arbitrary line.

[DeGaul]

Another aspect of this conversation that is being ignored is the unreasonableness of "seduction" as an excuse. A 14 year old cannot seduce an adult, because anyone classified as an adult is supposed to have reached the "age of decision", or in other words, the age at which a person is more or less capable of fully rational thought and is responsible for his or her own actions. Allowing for the possibility of seduction on the part of a teenager is suggesting that a teenager could prove to be so titillating that he or she could drive all reasonableness out of the mind of an adult and cause that adult to forget that a teenager is not a fully rational being yet and so cannot honestly make a decision about entering into a sexual relationship. It isn't until a person is in their mid-20s that the frontal lobes of the brain are physiologically "finished" developing, and it often isn't until many years later that the full weight of life experience allows for truly clear judgment to set in.

 

Adults who are seduced by teenagers are not "overwhelmed" by desire, they make a conscious choice to take advantage of an underdeveloped human being.

 

Sexualizing teenagers is a gross imposition of our own adult perspective upon a being who is not capable of taking an adult perspective on things. I mean, really; it kind of outrages me, the idea that anyone would be willing to impose the term "seductive" upon an incompletely developed human being. Think of the awkwardness of a teenager, the simple physical disproportion as they are unfinished growing......to apply the term "seductive" to that makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

[Vigile]

Degaul, I agree with you as far as generalizations go, but the lines we draw using age are always going to be somewhat arbitrary and I would hope the courts could sort things out based on individual circumstances rather than just allow people to be judged by a line in the sand.

 

E.g., a 19 yo goes to prison because he slept with his girlfriend a week before her 18th bd is not the same thing as a 40 yo fucking a 15 yo. I would consider the 19 yo a victim of a vicious law in this case. The line in the sand and standardized sentencing requirements can create a huge moral conundrum in many cases.

 

Another example, what if the 40 yo had an IQ of 80 and the 15 yo an IQ of 140 and she did the seducing?

 

And a question, is it different if a 16 yo boy fucks a 25 yo girl than it is if a 25 yo man fucks a 16 yo girl? I'm willing to bet most 16 yo boys would be thrilled with the opportunity. Yet the courts call them victims. How can this be? I would also submit there is a difference between a 25 yo teacher fucking her 16 yo student than a 25 yo college student fucking a 16 yo boy. Power structure is an important factor to consider.

[LivingLife]

These age of consent laws vary as society sees or protects females differently.

 

In SA 16 is the age but is not really a hard line in the sand anymore as the black culture it is not uncommon that they start early and they also mature earlier physically. The only time it may become relevant is in the case of rape and proving rape here is a massive undertaking. One has to have scars of physical abuse submitted as evidence. Date rape rarely gets prosecuted.

 

In the case of "consensual" underage sex that leads to pregnancy, it is usually dealt with by the parents. The stigma of teen pregnancy also is gone as pregnant girls are allowed to attend school whereas in the past they had to leave.

 

Three years ago, the HS my daughter attended, a girl went into labor in her final exams - that is how tolerant we have become. She was black.

 

Girls usually develop all the bits and pieces earlier than boys do and pretty common that girls date age up and boys age down.

 

In line with BO's comments, my daughter started dating her boyfriend when she was 15 but at that age he simply visited and only got to take her out in the daylight hours. When she turned 16, curfew was 10 then 11 and then 12 as she aged, being 15 minutes late, curfew went back to the previous age unless she called to say they were late and on their way. Her BF is 6 years older and they are still together after 4-1/2 years but he is a decent lad.

 

We have no illusions that she is still a virgin but there have been no oopsies. This month they went on vacation together but she is now 19 and out of school.

 

Girls tend to mature mentally faster too, showing responsibility at a younger age than boys. Of course there are exceptions where girls develop very late and boys too. As a parent you compete with peer pressure. For me it was a no brainer as I knew how horny I was as a teen and did not pretend my kids would be any different so I taught them son use a condom and my daughter the tricks men use to get into their knickers, it seems to have worked.

 

The type of thing that happens here is uncles screwing/abusing their nieces, grandfathers on grand daughters - that is sick. Yes we have rednecks here too. This is plain abuse and these folk tend to be the religious types.

 

I guess if parents are going to allow daughters out at 16 w/o restrictions with boys much older etc. they should not be surprised if she gets pregnant if they omitted to give proper sex ed.

 

Sex ed here already starts at junior school Gr 7 as our kids start school the year they turn 6. I started school at age year 5 and as such sex ed happened in the 1st year of high school.

 

Teen pregnancies were much higher when the approach to sex ed was more conservative, now kids can get condoms at school and can get them free at the local post office.

[Margee]

Another aspect of this conversation that is being ignored is the unreasonableness of "seduction" as an excuse. A 14 year old cannot seduce an adult, because anyone classified as an adult is supposed to have reached the "age of decision", or in other words, the age at which a person is more or less capable of fully rational thought and is responsible for his or her own actions. Allowing for the possibility of seduction on the part of a teenager is suggesting that a teenager could prove to be so titillating that he or she could drive all reasonableness out of the mind of an adult and cause that adult to forget that a teenager is not a fully rational being yet and so cannot honestly make a decision about entering into a sexual relationship. It isn't until a person is in their mid-20s that the frontal lobes of the brain are physiologically "finished" developing, and it often isn't until many years later that the full weight of life experience allows for truly clear judgment to set in.

 

Adults who are seduced by teenagers are not "overwhelmed" by desire, they make a conscious choice to take advantage of an underdeveloped human being.

 

Sexualizing teenagers is a gross imposition of our own adult perspective upon a being who is not capable of taking an adult perspective on things. I mean, really; it kind of outrages me, the idea that anyone would be willing to impose the term "seductive" upon an incompletely developed human being. Think of the awkwardness of a teenager, the simple physical disproportion as they are unfinished growing......to apply the term "seductive" to that makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

 

Degaul, I am not really a huge arguer most of the time, but I would like to jump in here and make a small point. What you are saying makes complete and wonderful sense - with that I agree. I truly wish the world was as 'rational' and developed as you are.........but........ a whole lot of people aren't.

 

When a young, tight, smooth, strong, little sexual body (be it a younger man or woman - or 'older') is 'seducing' a human animal - sometimes 'rational' goes right out the window and the human sexual instinct of 'the beast' arises............

 

Trust me, I've been on the other end of this...............

[Deva]

FWIW, I completely agree with Galien on this point. A young lady could absolutely be in a position of power in the example provided. She likely doesn't have the same mental faculties as the older person, but she could easily call all the shots in the relationship. IMO, every one of these statutory cases involving teens that have clearly reached the age of sexual maturity should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Just applying the law like a bludgeon without considering the circumstances can lead to all kinds of injustice, which I find more immoral than crossing a simple arbitrary line.

 

Absolutely not. I cannot see it as far as the power part of this goes. The young lady calls the shots? In some rare cases at the beginning of the relationship is the only way I can see it. Over time this is bound to change. There is just no way I can envision it. Not with someone who is thirty and a teenager.

 

On the other hand, I do agree that these things should always be decided on a case by case basis and considering all the circumstances.

[Galien]

 

Adults who are seduced by teenagers are not "overwhelmed" by desire, they make a conscious choice to take advantage of an underdeveloped human being.

 

Sexualizing teenagers is a gross imposition of our own adult perspective upon a being who is not capable of taking an adult perspective on things. I mean, really; it kind of outrages me, the idea that anyone would be willing to impose the term "seductive" upon an incompletely developed human being. Think of the awkwardness of a teenager, the simple physical disproportion as they are unfinished growing......to apply the term "seductive" to that makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

 

And you have brought up how many children?

[JadedAtheist]

As for the rest of the discussion thus far: I'm all up for equality but I think it's hard to define what it is exactly. Do we mean being treated equally or leveling the playing field? If we treat women the same way we treat men, things like maternal leave go out the window.

 

I prefer the concept that equality means allowing men to be fathers in the same way we expect women to be mothers, and giving both parents the option of taking generous leave time when there's a baby.

 

The bias (that I think for is deserved for the most part) towards women's favor in issues like custody of children, divorce, and the like go out the window too.

 

I'm not sure how deserved it is. I know of way too many cases where custody is given to women who really shouldn't have it, even when there is a capable and willing father who could raise them much better. The assumption should be 50/50 unless there is evidence either way.

 

If the aim is to "level the playing field" I disagree with that too. I don't like the idea of unqualified people being taken on in universities or workplaces (no matter what race, religion or sex they may be) not because they are the most qualified but despite whatever their qualities are, that place needs to meet their "target".

 

True. The tricky part is when there is an institutionalized bias that prevents qualified candidates from being considered. The concept of quotas only makes sense when there is a sufficient supply of qualified people to fill the positions. But if you say "well then, let's drop the quotas and only hire people based on merit" too many people, having no accountability to actually judge on merit, will only hire white males (or only whites of either gender, or only males of any race, etc) and claim that they were the only qualified people so obviously it's not their fault, it's the fault of <insert minority of choice> who are just too lazy/too stupid/don't like that sort of thing. Affirmative action for blacks did make sense at one point in American history, and at one point it also made sense for women. I think we're getting to a point (though some places are closer to this point than others) where social pressure, discrimination lawsuits, and sexual harassment complaints (for women who do get hired but are then treated poorly) are better (though still imperfect) tools. Oh, and deal with sexual harassment and gender (and race) discrimination at the educational level; sometimes it's not the fault of the people hiring that there aren't qualified women and minorities, but rather it happens earlier in the career path.

 

tl;dr: There is a problem with gender/race imbalance in the workplace, but hiring quotas sometimes place the blame in the wrong location and may do more harm than good.

 

I also think that sometimes what we perceive as inequality isn't necessarily the case. A know a fundy couple who are complementarians. His wife submits to his authority, you know the trash, but, she gets anything her heart desires. He lives to provide for her. I really don't think she's drawn the short straw in being "obedient" to her husband. Anyways..

 

Nothing wrong with people being in a kinky D/s relationship, as long as there is informed consent. It just makes me laugh when (and I'm not saying the couple you know is like this, just that some people I know are like this) some fundies insist all relationships should work this way then condemn kinky people as perverts.

 

Sorry, I just noticed you replied to me. I pretty much agree with what you've said. As for the bias in favor towards women, I would rather no bias at all for the reasons you've mentioned but men have and continue to excel at sucking at being fathers and supporting their family. So, that's why I think it is deserved for the most part but of course it's not in all, or maybe even in most cases true now. So, yeah, case by case basis is best.

[Vigile]

FWIW, I completely agree with Galien on this point. A young lady could absolutely be in a position of power in the example provided. She likely doesn't have the same mental faculties as the older person, but she could easily call all the shots in the relationship. IMO, every one of these statutory cases involving teens that have clearly reached the age of sexual maturity should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Just applying the law like a bludgeon without considering the circumstances can lead to all kinds of injustice, which I find more immoral than crossing a simple arbitrary line.

 

Absolutely not. I cannot see it as far as the power part of this goes. The young lady calls the shots? In some rare cases at the beginning of the relationship is the only way I can see it. Over time this is bound to change. There is just no way I can envision it. Not with someone who is thirty and a teenager.

 

On the other hand, I do agree that these things should always be decided on a case by case basis and considering all the circumstances.

 

I'm in no way justifying anything here, but surely you can see that Lolita had power. But perhaps it is difficult because you are not a man.

 

At the end of the day, we are discussing reigning in powerful evolutionary instincts. I believe rightly so, within reason, but whenever you fight nature (and in this case, one of nature's most powerful forces), things are not always going to be straight forward.

[DeGaul]

First off, just so I can get it off my chest: Galien, WHAT THE F*CK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? How many children have I raised?! None, I have raised no children. (A fact that I would have thought would be obvious given my past posts on this forum about not believing that the human species should continue, but that is a totally different argument.) But what does that have to do with my disgust for the sexualizing of children by adults? I don't need to have raised kids to be able to look at a 14 year old girl and not want to have sex with her. In fact, it kind of seems like you're implying that if I had raised children then that would somehow give me the ability to look with a knowing grin at a pedophile and say, "Oh yes, I totally see the attraction." I hope I won't have to defend how sick that scenario sounds, because if I do I'll just give up on the rest of humanity and will be forced to conclude that I'm really some sort of alien from Krypton and we apparently are born with heightened moral sensibility on my home planet, along with the x-ray vision and super-strength.

 

Yes, to all of you who are pointing out examples where the law seems ridiculous (19 year olds and 17 year olds sleeping together), there will always be what, in analysis, we call "outlying examples". For any rule, there are extremes that fall outside the regular application of the rule, but that doesn't throw the rule into doubt, rather it just points out that, as with any rule, we have to be aware of how we apply it. We can't legislate our brains away, we still have to think. And I agree, that doesn't always happen. But, the example I have been continuously using is one in which a teenager is sexualized by someone in their 30s or 40s. (That is, after all, the example we started with.)

 

And I do not agree with the idea that we are fighting nature when we don't sleep with teenagers. Sexual urges are natural, but so are rational thoughts. There is nothing that is outside nature, and desire is not more powerful that reason. (Or, at least the two are both forces of nature, and so seemingly on par with one another.) I do not believe in the old Platonic division of man into "beast" and "rational soul". That is an Ancient Greek/Christian prejudice which has contributed to the degradation of humanity for thousands of years. I am not at war with myself, animal parts and divine soul. I am a singular, material being and my passions and reason are but aggregate parts of myself, which do not war with each other, but rather seek balance between one another.

 

Of course, I would be a liar if I didn't admit that I am not moved by the so called "beauty" of youth. Teenagers don't look "tight, smooth, [and] strong" to me; they look gangly, uncoordinated, and their skin has a "not quite finished growing" look to it that seems almost corpse-like to me. (No doubt people would find it equally shocking that I tend to perceive babies as being essentially larval humans, especially since wrapped up in blankets they do seem quite like little maggots.) So, I have long come to terms with the fact that I do not appreciate "beauty" in the way that many others do, but I don't think that stands in the way of the essence of my suggestion that: Adults have fully developed reason and should keep their passions in check. Children do not have fully developed reason and so cannot be held as the responsible party in any decisions about sexuality.

[Vigile]

Yes, to all of you who are pointing out examples where the law seems ridiculous (19 year olds and 17 year olds sleeping together), there will always be what, in analysis, we call "outlying examples". For any rule, there are extremes that fall outside the regular application of the rule, but that doesn't throw the rule into doubt,

 

It certainly does as a matter of law and as a matter of human decency. I see the point you are making, but the reality is, these cases are not outliers as far as the legal system is concerned. There are many cases like this that have been prosecuted. I realize you are discussing this more in the philosophical sense, but the reason I am discussing this is because the philosophical debate pours over to the legal debate and it creates huge problems -- ironically, leading to massive levels of morally repugnant outcomes. A 19 yo sent to prison for something like this is as sick as a dirty old man that molests a young person. It is important to discuss the nuances because your average idiot can't see them and the laws become tyrannical as a result. This isn't just a discussion of potential issues, this is a reality that exists every single day. IOW, it would be far more helpful to discuss this issue in entirely different terms than using arbitrary ages. E.g., using positions of power as leverage, deception of those who are clearly too young to protect themselves, etc... This rules out the 19 yos, et al.

 

I would think, from the position of philosophical thought, what I'm discussing here would be entirely necessary. Otherwise, you would have to admit that all you are doing is bolstering societal moors based on tradition, and not discussing true harm.

 

And I do not agree with the idea that we are fighting nature when we don't sleep with teenagers. Sexual urges are natural, but so are rational thoughts.

 

Really? Sorry if I'm coming off abrasive here. It's not my intention. At all. I'm just a little stumped. If you examine rationality in this context, how is it irrational to desire a person who is in their sexual prime? It's human tradition and developing culture (which I agree with btw) that establishes it is wrong, not instinct and certainly not rationality.

 

Teenagers don't look "tight, smooth, [and] strong" to me; they look gangly, uncoordinated,

 

I say this with only a hint of humor, you clearly haven't been to Russia. And no, I don't desire Russian 16 yos. I've been influenced by my culture and the concept entirely creeps me out. But, I acknowledge this is a product of my culture and not a product of nature, because many of them are on par with 20 yo supermodels.

 

This seems to raise another question, what is it that differs between a 16 yo fucking a 16 yo and a 40 yo fucking a 16 yo? One is accepted, both legally and morally (by rational people anyway), while the other is not. I feel it's wrong too (40/16 that is), but it's my gut feeling, I don't have a logical argument why it's wrong.