Europe-Closed on Sunday

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

If the 12-year-old has the mindset of a child (which, of course, is a
good possibility) then she might well have great difficulty in saying
anything about being abused.

Define the "mindest of a child," and describe how you recognize it.

I possibly could, but it's too much like work. Developmental
psychology is a major academic enterprise and, if we are to be
careful, there is not a single "mindset of a child", but each
individual proceeds through a number of stages. And that's without
even taking account of idiosyncratic differences.

If she is past puberty, she'll have the mindest of an adult with respect
to sex. If she's not, she won't.

There is only approximate correspondence between physical maturation
and mental maturation. A post-pubescent girl might not have the
psychological or emotional maturity to cope with sexual involvement.

I incline towards the view that people should not engage in sex before
the generally-accepted marriageable age in a society (whatever that
is). In other words, don't go to bed with a female unless she is old
enough to marry. I'm not saying that you should marry her as a
condition for sex.

To some extent, maturity is a social construct. In some societies
women are considered marriageable in their early teens, and it can
work fairly well. But in western Europe, for example, this generally
does not hold. It is loosely-linked to the complexity of social life:
the simpler the society, the younger the age of marriageability is
likely to be.

In any case, children have no trouble talking about being abused, as a
general rule.

You're way off base here, Mx. It is notoriously the case that children
have great difficulty in reporting abuse. It involves questions of
power, guilt, fear, and ignorance.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:11:00 +0100, Padraig Breathnach wrote:

You're way off base here, Mx. It is notoriously the case that children
have great difficulty in reporting abuse. It involves questions of
power, guilt, fear, and ignorance.

And for this reason, to mitigate the effects of power and guilt, that some
countries in Europe have a second (higher) age of consent, when involving
relationships between a younger and a person in a position of authority or
trust.

--
Tim C.

Padraig Breathnach writes:

I possibly could, but it's too much like work.

So?

There is only approximate correspondence between physical maturation
and mental maturation. A post-pubescent girl might not have the
psychological or emotional maturity to cope with sexual involvement.

Neither might a 30-year-old man; so why is it legal for a 30-year-old
man but not a post-pubescent girl?

The fact is, sex is no big deal, unless one is conditioned from birth to
believe otherwise (as many people are). There is no reason why having
sex requires any special psychological maturity or "mindset"; it's just
sex. Nobody requires a special mindset to eat or go to the toilet. The
specialness of sex is a contrived illusion, not a reality. People think
sex is special because they are taught to believe that, and they are
taught to believe that because they think it is special. It's a
self-propagating phenomenon with no basis in objective fact. And the
world would be a better place if the hang-ups created by these attitudes
could be avoided.

I incline towards the view that people should not engage in sex before
the generally-accepted marriageable age in a society (whatever that
is).

In many societies, that is right around puberty.

In other words, don't go to bed with a female unless she is old
enough to marry.

So she should be at least pubescent.

I'm not saying that you should marry her as a
condition for sex.

Most societies do say that, however. The purpose of statutory rape laws
is not to protect children, but to force people to marry to have sex.
Sex between two people who are married is legal just about everywhere,
even if one or both partners are under the legal age of consent. The
fact that this is so demonstrates that protection is not the issue; the
imposition of a moral code developed by a third party is the real
purpose.

The same is true for many abortion laws, particularly those that grant
exceptions for things like rape.

You're way off base here, Mx. It is notoriously the case that children
have great difficulty in reporting abuse. It involves questions of
power, guilt, fear, and ignorance.

Maybe if the importance of sex were not so ridiculously exaggerated, it
might be easier to talk about it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:21:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Neither might a 30-year-old man; so why is it legal for a 30-year-old
man but not a post-pubescent girl?

Because we have to draw the line somewhere? It might be an arbitrary line,
but a generally acceptable one to most of the society is as good as any.

The floodgates would open after the first chap with a good lawyer got let
off for having sex with a 5 year-old. "She said it was ok, your honour".
It's only a small step from there to legalising paedophilia.

--
Tim C.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

I possibly could, but it's too much like work.

So?

I'm in usenet for recreational reasons. If you want me to do work, pay
me.

There is only approximate correspondence between physical maturation
and mental maturation. A post-pubescent girl might not have the
psychological or emotional maturity to cope with sexual involvement.

Neither might a 30-year-old man; so why is it legal for a 30-year-old
man but not a post-pubescent girl?

For many reasons, most of them good. A 30-year-old man who does not
have the necessary psychological or emotional maturity should not
engage in sex, but it is difficult to visualise how one might frame
laws to cater for the situation -- except for those who are so far
from competence that they are confined to institutions.

The fact is, sex is no big deal, unless one is conditioned from birth to
believe otherwise (as many people are). There is no reason why having
sex requires any special psychological maturity or "mindset"; it's just
sex. Nobody requires a special mindset to eat or go to the toilet. The
specialness of sex is a contrived illusion, not a reality. People think
sex is special because they are taught to believe that, and they are
taught to believe that because they think it is special. It's a
self-propagating phenomenon with no basis in objective fact. And the
world would be a better place if the hang-ups created by these attitudes
could be avoided.

You don't mention babies.

I incline towards the view that people should not engage in sex before
the generally-accepted marriageable age in a society (whatever that
is).

In many societies, that is right around puberty.

Yes. And in many other societies, it's later.

In other words, don't go to bed with a female unless she is old
enough to marry.

So she should be at least pubescent.

At least. In France or in Ireland, I think the bar is a bit higher.

I'm not saying that you should marry her as a
condition for sex.

Most societies do say that, however.

True. but I'm not going to get into that issue.

The purpose of statutory rape laws
is not to protect children, but to force people to marry to have sex.
Sex between two people who are married is legal just about everywhere,
even if one or both partners are under the legal age of consent. The
fact that this is so demonstrates that protection is not the issue; the
imposition of a moral code developed by a third party is the real
purpose.

You may have something of a point there. Laws evolve in untidy ways.
But I believe that most legislators have a genuine intention of
protecting the young.

The same is true for many abortion laws, particularly those that grant
exceptions for things like rape.

Another minefield that I choose not to enter.

You're way off base here, Mx. It is notoriously the case that children
have great difficulty in reporting abuse. It involves questions of
power, guilt, fear, and ignorance.

Maybe if the importance of sex were not so ridiculously exaggerated, it
might be easier to talk about it.

I speak for myself he I consider sex to be important, and that the
importance is difficult to exaggerate. Where would we be if it weren't
for sex?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Tim Challenger writes:

Because we have to draw the line somewhere? It might be
an arbitrary line, but a generally acceptable one to
most of the society is as good as any.

Why not draw the line at puberty, since that is _not_ an arbitrary line,
but in fact one based directly on sound biology?

The floodgates would open after the first chap with a good lawyer got let
off for having sex with a 5 year-old. "She said it was ok, your honour".

Then set the age of consent at puberty, and you're fine.

It's only a small step from there to legalising paedophilia.

Pedophilia isn't illegal. Only having sex with minors is illegal.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Padraig Breathnach writes:

For many reasons, most of them good.

List them.

A 30-year-old man who does not have the necessary
psychological or emotional maturity should not
engage in sex, but it is difficult to visualise
how one might frame laws to cater for the situation ...

Because there actually are no standards of "psychological and emotional
maturity," perhaps? And in that case, how can one assert that anyone
below a certain age lacks this undefinable maturity?

You don't mention babies.

Because I take sex education for granted in any advanced society. You
educate people about sex before they become interested in it.

Besides, there is always abortion for the minority who simply forget or
are routinely careless.

Yes. And in many other societies, it's later.

So if it's at puberty, you don't mind if people at or beyond that age
engage in sex?

But I believe that most legislators have a genuine intention of
protecting the young.

I don't. Most legislators, in fact, don't care about the young, but
they do know that anything having to do with "protecting children,"
however far-fetched, will help them get reelection.

I speak for myself he I consider sex to be important, and that the
importance is difficult to exaggerate. Where would we be if it weren't
for sex?

Far better off.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

For many reasons, most of them good.

List them.

No. Too much work.

A 30-year-old man who does not have the necessary
psychological or emotional maturity should not
engage in sex, but it is difficult to visualise
how one might frame laws to cater for the situation ...

Because there actually are no standards of "psychological and emotional
maturity," perhaps?

Not so. Just very difficult to pin down. Life ain't simple.

And in that case, how can one assert that anyone
below a certain age lacks this undefinable maturity?

I don't. But we tend to operate with generalisations; otherwise, life
would be too complicated. It's a fair bet that a randomly-chosen
40-year-old is more mature than a randomly-chosen 14-year-old. It's on
such probabilities that we arrange much of our lives.

You don't mention babies.

Because I take sex education for granted in any advanced society. You
educate people about sex before they become interested in it.

Sex education is not solely about contraception. In any programme of
which I have heard anything, relationships are also dealt with.

Besides, there is always abortion for the minority who simply forget or
are routinely careless.

Abortion is a big deal for many people. I include particularly those
females who are in a position where they are asked to consider
abortion.

Further, it is not simply the forgetful or the careless who become
pregnant. Most methods of contraception have some failure rate.

Yes. And in many other societies, it's later.

So if it's at puberty, you don't mind if people at or beyond that age
engage in sex?

In a society where it is reasonably normal for females to marry at
puberty, I would accept that it might be okay for unmarried females to
engage in sex. But there are other things to consider, particularly
the attitude in that society to non-marital sex.

But I believe that most legislators have a genuine intention of
protecting the young.

I don't. Most legislators, in fact, don't care about the young, but
they do know that anything having to do with "protecting children,"
however far-fetched, will help them get reelection.

That constitutes a genuine, if not a sincere, intention.

I speak for myself he I consider sex to be important, and that the
importance is difficult to exaggerate. Where would we be if it weren't
for sex?

Far better off.

Non-existent. Think of what your parents had to do as a pre-condition
for your existence.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Padraig Breathnach writes:

No. Too much work.

They don't exist.

Not so. Just very difficult to pin down.

"Very difficult to pin down" is a synonym of "no standards." Usually
it's also a euphemism for "I know it when I see it," which itself is a
synonym for no standards.

Life ain't simple.

Then how can a single age of consent apply across the board to everyone?

I don't. But we tend to operate with generalisations; otherwise, life
would be too complicated.

Too complicated for whom?

It's a fair bet that a randomly-chosen
40-year-old is more mature than a randomly-chosen
14-year-old.

And more mature than a randomly-chosen 20-year-old, too. But
20-year-olds can still consent to sex. Why?

Sex education is not solely about contraception. In any programme of
which I have heard anything, relationships are also dealt with.

The fact that some programs may include such defects doesn't make them
acceptable. Sex is biology, not relationships, and people who confuse
the two invariably are in for quite a bit of grief in their lives.

Abortion is a big deal for many people.

Then those people should learn to use contraception instead, or abstain.

Further, it is not simply the forgetful or the careless who become
pregnant. Most methods of contraception have some failure rate.

Failure rates are very low, and they are the same at all ages.

In a society where it is reasonably normal for females to marry at
puberty, I would accept that it might be okay for unmarried females to
engage in sex.

In a society where it were reasonably normal to keep black people as
slaves, would you accept slavery as well?

Non-existent. Think of what your parents had to do as a pre-condition
for your existence.

I'm already here, so I don't need sex. Neither does anyone else who
already exists.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

No. Too much work.

They don't exist.

You try that trick from time to time: you're not going to provoke me
into doing unpaid work.

Not so. Just very difficult to pin down.

"Very difficult to pin down" is a synonym of "no standards." Usually
it's also a euphemism for "I know it when I see it," which itself is a
synonym for no standards.

Not everything is a yes/no matter, or amenable to a simple measuring
system. Some standards are simple to prescribe, others very difficult.

Life ain't simple.

Then how can a single age of consent apply across the board to everyone?

I already gave the main reason, which is immediately below.

I don't. But we tend to operate with generalisations; otherwise, life
would be too complicated.

Too complicated for whom?

People.

It's a fair bet that a randomly-chosen
40-year-old is more mature than a randomly-chosen
14-year-old.

And more mature than a randomly-chosen 20-year-old, too. But
20-year-olds can still consent to sex. Why?

Social norms. They're something like standards, including being
difficult to boil down to simple rules.

Sex education is not solely about contraception. In any programme of
which I have heard anything, relationships are also dealt with.

The fact that some programs may include such defects doesn't make them
acceptable. Sex is biology, not relationships, and people who confuse
the two invariably are in for quite a bit of grief in their lives.

Abortion is a big deal for many people.

Then those people should learn to use contraception instead, or abstain.

If we set aside the matter of contraceptive failure (which you seem
already to have done in order to allow you to make bold and simplistic
arguments) we can agree on this. I advocate the abstinence option for
those below the appropriate age (and yes, there is place for debate on
that); over that age, they can choose either approach.

Further, it is not simply the forgetful or the careless who become
pregnant. Most methods of contraception have some failure rate.

Failure rates are very low, and they are the same at all ages.

They exist. That makes them important. One baby is a lot.

In a society where it is reasonably normal for females to marry at
puberty, I would accept that it might be okay for unmarried females to
engage in sex.

In a society where it were reasonably normal to keep black people as
slaves, would you accept slavery as well?

No. Nor does the skin colour of the slave make any difference to my
attitude.

Non-existent. Think of what your parents had to do as a pre-condition
for your existence.

I'm already here, so I don't need sex. Neither does anyone else who
already exists.

You're not listening to your genes.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED