I hope you won’t think I’m oversharing if I tell you that I’m the most sexually open-minded person I know. I think moralistic arguments about non-monogamy and sexual promiscuity are silly. I’m against kink-shaming, no matter how weird I might personally find those kinks to be. I think sexual expression between two consenting adults, in all of its weirdness and awkwardness and occasional downright bizarreness, is a beautiful thing.
Speaking as an abuse survivor, I can spell out very clearly what is magical about the age 18.
It is the age at which, in this society, a person can vote, own property, sign a contract and work a full-time job (okay technically one can work full time at 17). Prior to age 17 or 18, then - unless legally emancipated - one is dependent upon one's family (or the state, if in the foster system) for survival. A person under 18 years of age is not free to choose where they live, whom they live with or even what activities they participate in, without permission from their legal guardian. And if that person is in a situation - at home, at school, at church - where they are expected to have sex with someone, unless their legal guardian intervenes on their behalf, they are essentially a slave to that situation. Tragically, more often than not, where abusive situations exist, the legal guardian either has failed to intervene in the way they should, or is the perpetrator. And even if a child runs away, choosing homelessness over an abusive situation, they may be brought BACK to the abusive situation by police if they are found. So the child is stuck with it, until they can get a job and sign a contract to get their own place to live.
And THAT is what is magical about the age of 18.
Now, if we were to grant individuals full rights of adulthood at 16 or 17 years of age, then it would also make sense for 16 or 17 to be the age of consent for sex.
I think it’s pretty obvious that this guy wants access to children, sexual access. There is simply no reason to be so wrapped up with the “arbitrary” age of 18.
The alternative to setting a “one age fits all” standard would be regular and routine psychological testing of adolescents for decision-making ability and not only would this be impractical, it would simply shift your opponent’s outrage from the “arbitrary age” to "the tyranny of the government-administered tests." Again, government is keeping him from the underaged bodies he craves.
And since the test score would replace the "arbitrary age of consent," there would be those who would never pass, who in their 30s or 40s or 60s would still not be allowed to do things that everyone is "arbitrarily" granted on the 18th birthday.
And frankly this guy is dumb. “Divided states” wasn’t even funny once but he kept repeating it. His threat to report responses was indicative. His use of “proof” instead of “evidence” shows a weak education if not a weak mind. And resentment of government is increasingly tiresome. So he had to wait his turn at the DMV. This shouldn’t be the basis of an ideology.
Edit: about your introduction here. It's easy to see promiscuity in a relationship as a moral issue. But when a relationship began with a pledge of monogamy and one partner breaks that pledge, the issue isn't morality, it's betrayal. My first two relationships each lasted four years because my partners wanted to pursue sexual fantasies. If the original agreement had been that the relationship was sexually open that would be a different thing, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the longevity of such pairings.
I was wondering for a minute there if he was talking about the difference between children and teenagers and adults, because of course there are big differences, as the varying ages of consent can attest to. Honestly I found the points he was trying to make to be really confusing. But then I saw the lines "When is a person “old enough” to chose when they are trans? If they are old enough at 10, aren’t they old enough then to consent to sex?" and suddenly his perspective was... clarified. 😬
This guy is freakin scary. I read a series by Andrew Vachss who is a child advocate in sexual abuse cases. He couldn’t get his non-fiction book traction so created a hard-bitten character named Burke who would have had NO tolerance for talking to Rogue.
There is such a short window for innocence. To be a child, smiling in sheer joy at the sun.
Those who prey on this are simply evil. Takers. Robbers of innocence.
Thank you for challenging this guy. He’s just dead wrong. I don’t know what the age of consent is/should be yet indulging crap like this without pushback makes no sense.
And I, too, care nothing about what consenting adults choose to do with each other - although I will admit the self-mutilating trans stuff gives me pause.
The left lost its moral compass a long time ago, just like the right. Its mania for 'inclusivity' and lightening up on sexual mores (which the world DID and still does need) has led it to becoming *too* inclusive, 'too' being defined as 'to the detriment of others'.
Like the much-discussed-here-already problem of the androcentric trans movement and its misogynist treatment of adult human females (I had one yesterday on Twitter try to argue how TW are 'adult human females' and I set him straight on that tout de suite.)
The other problem is the increasing embrace of *open* sexual fetishism. While whatever goes between consenting adults, it doesn't mean the rest of us should be exposed to it or pressured or coerced to accept it, esp as it relates to children and the increasingly pedophilic tone I'm getting from the 'drag show for kids' crap.
Did anyone else see Twitter trending yesterday with Jon Stewart slapping down an anti-drag conservative by pointing out to him, quite rightly, that guns were a bigger threat to children? Good point, but it sure did sound like a defense of drag shows for kids. Stewart strikes me as having lost his own moral compass, his ability to think logically on some occasions, and now he can't even tell that however this guy feels about gun rights, he's RIGHT to come down on drag queen story or whatever the fuck they call it?
If the left can't see what's going on with these people, they're no more morally correct than the right. I don't know if this guy is part of the trans movement, even if just a supporter, or not but I'd bet me he is. Because I think pedophiles are beginning to latch onto the overly-inclusive movement for their own agenda.
I wonder how long it will be before this guy & others like him start mouthing NAMBLA talking points.
Thanks for sharing! I'm right there with you in being totally ok with however consenting adults desire to express their sexuality amongst themselves. I'm also in agreement that children must, absolutely be protected in as much as possible from sexual interaction that they have no way of understanding or refusing. My mother had huge sexual issues and abused both of my sisters. I can tell you how helpless and terrified you feel as a child. That there are laws defining a child vs an adult are important for many reasons.
As for how the respondent referred to his 'kids' (whom he still considers kids?!?) but also Israelis, Danes and, perhaps most telling, his involvement with the Samson and Mankind projects makes my skin crawl. Thanks for taking on the daunting task of trying to communicate with people of his ilk.
The conversation brought an awkward thought. I frequently opine, "no victim, no crime" for other issues. I doubt that I am unique in saying that I had sex before the age of 18. I dated girls older than myself, in some cases they were older than 18 when I was younger and I'm not talking about a one or two year difference. Was I a victim? How does one justify that opinion? If the sexes had been reversed and I had been a girl would that change anything? Why? I'm not giving an opinion with this and even if you are in favor of victimless crime laws I ask, where is the victim in this? https://youtu.be/G2NhmnI0dpc
I think you stumbled upon the connection between pedophilia and the trans movement. I didn't pick up on it this morning as Rogue's words were confusing. But the bit about "if you can make a decision about being trans at a young age," now makes it clearer how pedos can take advantage of this movement, like adult sexual predators already have. It's kind of a backhanded good point: If we can trust them with this, why not that? Instead of questioning how fucked up it is to medically "treat" children and young people for a non-problem, he asks why we can't shag the little kiddies if they agree.
I am not well informed on these programs but am aware of controversy around the ManKind project, despite its criteria that appears positive and may be helpful to some men. The Samson project deals more specifically with men who have sexual issues/addictions. That your correspondent was a leader in his local Samson group while still obviously having issues with what defines a child in regards to consensual sexual activity seems disturbing. You may wish to research these organizations further.
MAPs - "Minor attracted persons" are the new 'politically correct' term that some are trying to use to normalize pedophilia. The LGBTQ movement has nothing to do with it so far, but they WILL be targeted eventually, and if any of their number are willing to embrace pedophiles, my guess it will be the TiMs who might go for children if it were legal. Because they're trans? No, because they're men, and that's the demographic who go after children the most.
Speaking as an abuse survivor, I can spell out very clearly what is magical about the age 18.
It is the age at which, in this society, a person can vote, own property, sign a contract and work a full-time job (okay technically one can work full time at 17). Prior to age 17 or 18, then - unless legally emancipated - one is dependent upon one's family (or the state, if in the foster system) for survival. A person under 18 years of age is not free to choose where they live, whom they live with or even what activities they participate in, without permission from their legal guardian. And if that person is in a situation - at home, at school, at church - where they are expected to have sex with someone, unless their legal guardian intervenes on their behalf, they are essentially a slave to that situation. Tragically, more often than not, where abusive situations exist, the legal guardian either has failed to intervene in the way they should, or is the perpetrator. And even if a child runs away, choosing homelessness over an abusive situation, they may be brought BACK to the abusive situation by police if they are found. So the child is stuck with it, until they can get a job and sign a contract to get their own place to live.
And THAT is what is magical about the age of 18.
Now, if we were to grant individuals full rights of adulthood at 16 or 17 years of age, then it would also make sense for 16 or 17 to be the age of consent for sex.
Until then, no.
I think it’s pretty obvious that this guy wants access to children, sexual access. There is simply no reason to be so wrapped up with the “arbitrary” age of 18.
The alternative to setting a “one age fits all” standard would be regular and routine psychological testing of adolescents for decision-making ability and not only would this be impractical, it would simply shift your opponent’s outrage from the “arbitrary age” to "the tyranny of the government-administered tests." Again, government is keeping him from the underaged bodies he craves.
And since the test score would replace the "arbitrary age of consent," there would be those who would never pass, who in their 30s or 40s or 60s would still not be allowed to do things that everyone is "arbitrarily" granted on the 18th birthday.
And frankly this guy is dumb. “Divided states” wasn’t even funny once but he kept repeating it. His threat to report responses was indicative. His use of “proof” instead of “evidence” shows a weak education if not a weak mind. And resentment of government is increasingly tiresome. So he had to wait his turn at the DMV. This shouldn’t be the basis of an ideology.
Edit: about your introduction here. It's easy to see promiscuity in a relationship as a moral issue. But when a relationship began with a pledge of monogamy and one partner breaks that pledge, the issue isn't morality, it's betrayal. My first two relationships each lasted four years because my partners wanted to pursue sexual fantasies. If the original agreement had been that the relationship was sexually open that would be a different thing, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the longevity of such pairings.
I was wondering for a minute there if he was talking about the difference between children and teenagers and adults, because of course there are big differences, as the varying ages of consent can attest to. Honestly I found the points he was trying to make to be really confusing. But then I saw the lines "When is a person “old enough” to chose when they are trans? If they are old enough at 10, aren’t they old enough then to consent to sex?" and suddenly his perspective was... clarified. 😬
This guy is freakin scary. I read a series by Andrew Vachss who is a child advocate in sexual abuse cases. He couldn’t get his non-fiction book traction so created a hard-bitten character named Burke who would have had NO tolerance for talking to Rogue.
There is such a short window for innocence. To be a child, smiling in sheer joy at the sun.
Those who prey on this are simply evil. Takers. Robbers of innocence.
Thank you for challenging this guy. He’s just dead wrong. I don’t know what the age of consent is/should be yet indulging crap like this without pushback makes no sense.
And I, too, care nothing about what consenting adults choose to do with each other - although I will admit the self-mutilating trans stuff gives me pause.
I’m looking forward to your taking on someone really interesting, smart and controversial. Flex your considerable intellectual muscle.
This turd is not in your league Steve.
The left lost its moral compass a long time ago, just like the right. Its mania for 'inclusivity' and lightening up on sexual mores (which the world DID and still does need) has led it to becoming *too* inclusive, 'too' being defined as 'to the detriment of others'.
Like the much-discussed-here-already problem of the androcentric trans movement and its misogynist treatment of adult human females (I had one yesterday on Twitter try to argue how TW are 'adult human females' and I set him straight on that tout de suite.)
The other problem is the increasing embrace of *open* sexual fetishism. While whatever goes between consenting adults, it doesn't mean the rest of us should be exposed to it or pressured or coerced to accept it, esp as it relates to children and the increasingly pedophilic tone I'm getting from the 'drag show for kids' crap.
Did anyone else see Twitter trending yesterday with Jon Stewart slapping down an anti-drag conservative by pointing out to him, quite rightly, that guns were a bigger threat to children? Good point, but it sure did sound like a defense of drag shows for kids. Stewart strikes me as having lost his own moral compass, his ability to think logically on some occasions, and now he can't even tell that however this guy feels about gun rights, he's RIGHT to come down on drag queen story or whatever the fuck they call it?
If the left can't see what's going on with these people, they're no more morally correct than the right. I don't know if this guy is part of the trans movement, even if just a supporter, or not but I'd bet me he is. Because I think pedophiles are beginning to latch onto the overly-inclusive movement for their own agenda.
I wonder how long it will be before this guy & others like him start mouthing NAMBLA talking points.
Thanks for sharing! I'm right there with you in being totally ok with however consenting adults desire to express their sexuality amongst themselves. I'm also in agreement that children must, absolutely be protected in as much as possible from sexual interaction that they have no way of understanding or refusing. My mother had huge sexual issues and abused both of my sisters. I can tell you how helpless and terrified you feel as a child. That there are laws defining a child vs an adult are important for many reasons.
As for how the respondent referred to his 'kids' (whom he still considers kids?!?) but also Israelis, Danes and, perhaps most telling, his involvement with the Samson and Mankind projects makes my skin crawl. Thanks for taking on the daunting task of trying to communicate with people of his ilk.
The conversation brought an awkward thought. I frequently opine, "no victim, no crime" for other issues. I doubt that I am unique in saying that I had sex before the age of 18. I dated girls older than myself, in some cases they were older than 18 when I was younger and I'm not talking about a one or two year difference. Was I a victim? How does one justify that opinion? If the sexes had been reversed and I had been a girl would that change anything? Why? I'm not giving an opinion with this and even if you are in favor of victimless crime laws I ask, where is the victim in this? https://youtu.be/G2NhmnI0dpc
And then there's this. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/pedophiles-hebephiles-and-ephebophiles-oh-my-erotic-age-orientation/
I think you stumbled upon the connection between pedophilia and the trans movement. I didn't pick up on it this morning as Rogue's words were confusing. But the bit about "if you can make a decision about being trans at a young age," now makes it clearer how pedos can take advantage of this movement, like adult sexual predators already have. It's kind of a backhanded good point: If we can trust them with this, why not that? Instead of questioning how fucked up it is to medically "treat" children and young people for a non-problem, he asks why we can't shag the little kiddies if they agree.
I am not well informed on these programs but am aware of controversy around the ManKind project, despite its criteria that appears positive and may be helpful to some men. The Samson project deals more specifically with men who have sexual issues/addictions. That your correspondent was a leader in his local Samson group while still obviously having issues with what defines a child in regards to consensual sexual activity seems disturbing. You may wish to research these organizations further.
MAPs - "Minor attracted persons" are the new 'politically correct' term that some are trying to use to normalize pedophilia. The LGBTQ movement has nothing to do with it so far, but they WILL be targeted eventually, and if any of their number are willing to embrace pedophiles, my guess it will be the TiMs who might go for children if it were legal. Because they're trans? No, because they're men, and that's the demographic who go after children the most.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lgbtq-community-p-acronym-idUSKBN2352J8
Betcha my bottom dollar Rogue is familiar with 'MAP' ideas.
Hard to blame pedophiles for their proclivities when mass culture gives them a wink and a nod.