[kj] OT: R.Kelly Likens Self to Bin Laden..
sade1
gathering@misera.net
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
If only everyone had your level of awareness on this. But I'd
found a lot of ambiguity in articles and papers on how people
perceive this issue because the way we arrive at the consent-age
is very arbitrary. And a lot of people out there try to exploit that
ambiguity in large part to convince themselves, in their own minds,
that, "but it's OK, if like this or like that."
We need to define legal-age in a way more relevant to people's
maturity levels, maybe more than one age -- any volunteers for
raising it back? Doubt it.
Do you mean risk-free, as in no pregnancy or disease? Even so,
I dont think 15year-olds are anywhere NEAR ready to start. The
emotions for BOTH are overwhelming and the warping you do to your
self by pretending it's no big deal is very rough on both--hence
the deep burial or denial of said feelings or of their true
importance. Subsequent misperceptions on the other person's actions
can lead to distorted/devaluing judgement of the opposite sex.
Maybe guys are better able to pull this off but, as
women are usually more aware of, feelings are feelings and the
wear n' tear still ricochets inside both. We(the guys) just go
off and act it out in any way that makes us look "bad-ass" and
macho(grunt grunt), but that's all Bull.
Saul
P.S. Hey, didn't this thread originally start off as,
"R.Kelly Likens Self to Bin Laden"? then Al-Q...then....
--- Amy Moseley Rupp <amyr@jump.net> wrote:
> > HOW MANY people follow these laws of consent out of an actual
> > sense of morality?
>
> Because there's a huge difference between two people in
> a committed relationship, no matter what their ages, and
> a one-nighter. With a one-nighter, if both parties are
> overage, we might raise our eyebrows about the wisdom and
> morality of such an act; but with a one-nighter between
> an underaged person and an overaged person, we say, and
> rightfully so, that the overaged person should have known
> better and not subjected the underaged person to the
> very real risks of sex. If it was truly risk-free, it'd
> be an entirely different story: but it isn't. We would
> like to pretend it is, because it *is* enjoyable: but just
> like it's a primal force, it causes feelings of attachment
> from one person to another, and .... pregnancy! We can
> try to defeat procreation, and win most of the time, but it
> is hard to defeat millions of years of evolution. Most
> young girls and women have sex because they feel *attached*
> to a guy -- they want to make a connection, an emotionally
> deep one as well as a physically deep one. Unfortunately,
> that's not reciprocated by most young males.
>
> The rules we follow regarding sexual age-of-consent have
> a *lot* to do with the age of female reproductive ability.
> It truly used to *be* more like 16. Now, with a higher
> fat diet, it can be as low as *10*. We've therefore extended
> the outward sexual maturity of the female body, and the
> ability to get pregnant, to far younger ages than ever before.
>
> We want to protect our children (of both sexes) from pedophiles,
> and we want society to protect them somewhat from being
> taken advantage of -- for example, there are many jobs a "child"
> under 18 cannot work, if they are deemed hazardous. I was in
> one of them, and they thought I was 18 cos I'd graduated high
> school. Boy did they freak out when I casually mentioned I
> was 17 ;-) if anything had happened to me, my parents coulda
> sued the shit out of them and won. And that's another part
> of the equation. Parents are *really* going to protect their
> children, and I guarantee if you diddle most 15-year-old girls,
> and their parents find out about it, they'll come after you.
>
> As to the right of a 15-year-old to express themselves
> sexually: they have that right. Nobody goes after the
> 15-year-old. They go after an overaged person. That 15-year-old
> can experiment to his or her heart's content with a like-aged
> person. Two 15-year-olds? Okay, they are mutually experimenting.
> But a sexually mature and experienced older person, with a 15-year-
> old? What is that older person looking for? obviously they
> don't need to experiment, and they aren't looking for a long-term
> relationship in most cases, because a 15-year-old is simply too
> young for that. Two inexperienced 15-year-olds are also
> less likely to give each other a disease.
>
> This is waaaaaaay more than I probably should say on the subject,
> but I *am* making an attempt to explain my feelings. I remember
> very well what it was like to be a teen: both from the wanting-to-
> have-sex role and the feeling of exploitation. I'm a mother of
> two daughters, and frankly, if there was some hot 17-year-old
> guy I wanted to go after, I jolly well could wait until he was 18 ;-)
>
> --Amy
> >
> > Now, that texan father would still draw his gun(yay!) b/c his
> > daughter still got used, then kick her ass for consenting to sex
> > with that 22-year-old married military man in Her Majesty's
> > Forces, but not because she was raped. (Because he's 22? married?
> > military? a man? British?)
> > Because he'd have rationalized(the country too)long ago that 15
> > wouldn't be considered rape.
> >
> > Something similar happens nowadays with prostitution being legal
> > outside of Las Vegas. If a 'john' doesn't pay, he's accused of
> > robbery, but not for solicitation, or the girl for prostitution,
> > or the madam for "madaming", or the guy who spritzes the girls
> > down B4 each gig for complicity or similar. Because their 'take'
> > on it is that those activities, given an appropriate context and
> > (though grudging) acceptance, are not illegal.
> > So what defines a person being competent for sex?
> > Age? we Gotta do better than that.
> >
> > PP.SS. (looking for a woman's perspective)
> > As opposed to the phrase, "she WAS raped"**,
> > does the phrase "she GOT raped" somehow feel like it's
> > implying the woman had somehow 'caused' her being victimized?
> >
> > Saul
> >
> > --- Amy Moseley <amyr@jump.net> wrote:
> > > Quoting Jester <webmaster@killing-joke.com>:
> > >
> > > > > In the US it's 18.
> > > >
> > > > No it is not. It varies from state to state. Here in Texas, the age of
> > > > consent is 17 for both males and females, and affirmative defense is 14.
> > >
> > > You're correct, and in Texas we can also execute 17-year-olds, but
> > > they can't vote. Affirmative defense is a laugh. Again, the over-18-
> > > year-old oughtta know better. Lowering the age for "sexually active"
> > > individuals is like saying rape isn't rape if the girl was slutty.
> > >
> > > Let's put it this way: if a 15-year-old Texas girl went to the UK
> > > on a school trip, and got shagged by a 22-year-old married military
> > > man, you *know* many Texans would feel her father justified in
> > > taking a shotgun over there! It's not about just being a prude:
> > > it's about disease and pregnancy. What if said 15-year-old had
> > > gotten pregnant? Would've been pretty hard to marry her given
> > > he was already married!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gathering mailing list
> > > Gathering@misera.net
> > > http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gathering mailing list
> > Gathering@misera.net
> > http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gathering mailing list
> Gathering@misera.net
> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com