[kj] OT: R.Kelly Likens Self to Bin Laden..

Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:07:15 -0500

Christ on a crutch, did this thread ever take off!

Posting the link in the first place was only my way of saying: "Isn't
R.Kelly a fuckin' jackass?" I didn't think it'd morph into a seminar on
gender roles in society. Go firure.

Alex in NYC

----------
>From: sade1 <saulomar1@yahoo.com>
>To: gathering@misera.net
>Subject: Re: [kj] OT: R.Kelly Likens Self to Bin Laden..
>Date: Tue, Sep 16, 2003, 8:51 PM
>

>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
>_______________________________________________
>Gathering mailing list
>Gathering@misera.net
>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering