Teen Abstinence

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so how would you strike it down? or would you keep sodomy laws on the books? if you ruled the world what would be allowed and what wouldnt be allowed?

I don't know how I would strike it down. I don't know if I would keep sodomy laws on the books or not. I'm sure you know I think sodomy is wrong, but I don't think you can legislate some aspects of morality.

If I ruled the world? I would probably abdicate but if forced to choose laws, I would base laws on my own beliefs of what is right and wrong, after a lot of thought and talking with other people. I imagine you would do the same thing. Even tho I think the Bible contains the truth of the state of the universe, and therefore how humans can maximize their joy and fulfillment, I would still not legislate exactly to what the Bible says. After all, that would include thoughts, and obviously discerning thoughts is rather difficult! I would just come up with the best compromise I could, with the goal of what is best for everyone, according to my best understanding.

How 'bout you?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, I'm not taking it personally - I'm just showing you, by a first-hand example, and using your style of speech, that you were wrong. And because I showed you you were wrong, you clarified your statement

Actually I wasn't wrong, I just don't want to go into it. Nobody is perfect. The Cleavers have some serious socialogical issues, and could probably use some treatment for several neurotic disorders. After all, they named their son Beaver....

Are YOU concerned with other people's sexual behavior? If not, then I hope you're campaigning for the removal of ALL laws concerning sexual behavior, including laws against pedophilia. After all, one should be logically consistent, don't you think?

Typical neo-conservative exaggeration? I hope it's atypical...

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what is considered sexual behavior, and what is considered a mental disorder. Then you wouldn't try to stretch your logic a tad too far.

But barring mental disorders such as pedephilia, necrophilia, and other associated disorders that are indicitive of predatory personalities, no I don't have a problem with removing legislation covering sexual behavior between consenting adults.

Not that it's directly germane to the topic of teen abstinence.So why don't I make it so: Why don't you just lobby for a law making it illegal for teens to bop each other? Then you can just toss the little harlots in jail for being immoral... oh and the bad boys too. We have statutory laws governing sexual behavior for teens already, vis a vis you are suddenly an adult at age 18/19 and can now be arrested for having sex with your 16/17 year old girlfriend... Why not just extend it to cover all teen sexual behavior? That would fix the problem right?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

....illegal for teens to bop each other....

Hey, leave me out of this; I'm done with spotty teenage boys.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Not that it's directly germane to the topic of teen abstinence.So why don't I make it so: Why don't you just lobby for a law making it illegal for teens to bop each other? Then you can just toss the little harlots in jail for being immoral... oh and the bad boys too. We have statutory laws governing sexual behavior for teens already, vis a vis you are suddenly an adult at age 18/19 and can now be arrested for having sex with your 16/17 year old girlfriend... Why not just extend it to cover all teen sexual behavior? That would fix the problem right?

Nitpicky point: In most places, age of consent starts at 16, as long as the other party involved is no more than four/five years older...thus, eighteen year old boyfriends don't get busted for being with their seventeen year old girlfriends and such.

[Janny]

I come from that sweet little area of the UK which boasts the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. That's the problem: it boasts it - it's not seen as a problem.

The laws on teenage sex get ignored. They will always be ignored. But the government should still never condone it.
And I'm a little shocked that you riddicule the idea of prosecuting 19 year olds for having sex with 15 year olds. Relationships do get abused by some men. The least you can ask for is the safeguard of laws to protect the vunerable.

Sorry, cross post...

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Janny

And I'm a little shocked that you riddicule the idea of prosecuting 19 year olds for having sex with 15 year olds. Relationships do get abused by some men. The least you can ask for is the safeguard of laws to protect the vunerable.

I agree. We have these laws for a reason: there are serious social as well as moral questions involved in the issue of teenagers having sex. It's one thing to say that lawmakers should keep out of sexual behaviour, but does this extend to ignoring the implications such behaviour has for the education system, the social security/benefits system, or criminal issues like child abuse? It's not all about moral judgements.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Nitpicky point: In most places, age of consent starts at 16, as long as the other party involved is no more than four/five years older...thus, eighteen year old boyfriends don't get busted for being with their seventeen year old girlfriends and such.

Not all places. It varies from state to state. But again, that's beside the point. Why not just legislate abstinence?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Not all places. It varies from state to state. But again, that's beside the point. Why not just legislate abstinence?

That's draconian and impractical IMO. Not only would people ingnore this law, but do you really want the government regulating your sex lives? I sure as hell don't.

[Starr Polish]

So you apparently have issue with these kind of consent laws? Whoa..I have nothing against consent laws. I'm surprised at this attitude...apparently since I support such laws I support required abstinence? What? No...

[Nurvingiel]

I don't have a problem with consent laws because they protect minors.

What Blackheart said about "legislating abstinence" implied legislating abstinence for everyone. That's how I took it anyway.

[Starr Polish]

It came off as a sarcastic jab to me.

[Nurvingiel]

Sorry Starr, I didn't mean anyone to read that as sarcastic.

[Starr Polish]

No, not you! Blackheart!

Oh, the joy of text based conversation.

[Nurvingiel]

Oh yeah. Haha!

Erm... it's all good now.

Yeah, text conversations...

[Blackheart]

No, I wasn't entirely sarcastic. If you really believe that it's better for teens to not be taught about birth control (because apparantly they will be unable to resist trying out a condom if they are mentioned), and that abstinence only education is the best way to teach teens about sex, then why not take it one step further and just legislate that you must be 18 (or whatever age of majority) to have sex?

After all it's for their own good...

[Starr Polish]

Wow, way to jump to conclusions. I have never once said I support abstinence only education. Interesting that you get this from me supporting laws that protect minors from being taken advantage of by those who are considered adults by law (and I use the term "adult" loosely, since I am surrounded by legal adults at college that act like spoiled children).

I support sex education that puts an emphasis on abstinence being the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs (and by abstinence I mean abstinent from all sexual activities that involve bodily fluids other than saliva being exchanged). That doesn't mean I'm against teaching about birth control and protection. Far from it. I'm not so naive to think that people aren't going to have sex if they aren't educated about it....and if someone is going to engage in it, I'd rather they be informed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Actually I wasn't wrong, I just don't want to go into it.

Wow, you've totally convinced me with this logic!
I'll have to remember that one!

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what is considered sexual behavior, and what is considered a mental disorder. Then you wouldn't try to stretch your logic a tad too far.

Thank you, I'm quite familiar with what constitutes sexual behavior. What you were thinking of, perhaps, was "acceptable" sexual behavior (which is, of course, different for different people, depending upon their worldviews). But you didn't say that, so my point is still valid, and my logic not stretched a bit - it's quite comfy, thank you

You seem to imply that "minding other people's sexual behavior" is wrong, and that you don't do this. Unless you want to repeal ALL laws against sexual behavior, then this just isn't true - you DO mind other people's sexual behavior. Really, if each person defines their own morality (which is what your worldview is, I imagine, because I think you're an atheist), you can't call someone's actions "wrong", anyway - or at least with any authority or sense. Maybe you can call it "a minority opinion", but you can't call it "wrong" - they're a person just like you; who's to say who is right? Perhaps they're just more enlightened than you are, and in 100 years, you'll find out you were wrong (if you're still alive).

Let's be consistent here. There are lots of sexual behaviors. Some we both agree are fine, some we both agree are NOT fine, and some we disagree on. Neither one of us can prove we are right. Both of us think "minding other people's sexual behavior" IS right sometimes, esp. if that sexual behavior harms someone else.

[Rían]

I don't remember if I mentioned this before, but a friend of mine (a young lady in her mid-20s) is getting married in 2 months. Both she and her fiance are virgins - yay for them!! It's hard to remain a virgin until you're married - but well worth it. It was so great to see the two of them and how excited they were that they had saved the full expression of their sexuality for each other, and NO ONE ELSE had taken a part of it away. The plans for their honeymoon (my advice - don't go rustic here - plenty of time for that later! Go for comfort and privacy and good bathrooms!), the loving consideration they had for each other, the excitement and anticipation - all so wonderful and beautiful to see. Such fun! I need to get myself over to Victoria's Secret for a present for her (and indirectly for him )

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Wow, way to jump to conclusions. I have never once said I support abstinence only education. Interesting that you get this from me supporting laws that protect minors from being taken advantage of by those who are considered adults by law (and I use the term "adult" loosely, since I am surrounded by legal adults at college that act like spoiled children).

What makes you think it was specifically directed at you?

I support sex education that puts an emphasis on abstinence being the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs (and by abstinence I mean abstinent from all sexual activities that involve bodily fluids other than saliva being exchanged). That doesn't mean I'm against teaching about birth control and protection. Far from it. I'm not so naive to think that people aren't going to have sex if they aren't educated about it....and if someone is going to engage in it, I'd rather they be informed.

Glad to hear it. It is true that if you don't put yourself in the batter's box you significantly lower your chances of getting beaned in the head with a baseball. However you never get to first base....

But I'm still curious why you think it has anything to do with statutory laws. I only noted the existence of statutory laws to show the legal precedent for laws regulating sexual behavior for minors. Not because the two points are in any other way related.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thank you, I'm quite familiar with what constitutes sexual behavior. What you were thinking of, perhaps, was "acceptable" sexual behavior (which is, of course, different for different people, depending upon their worldviews). But you didn't say that, so my point is still valid, and my logic not stretched a bit - it's quite comfy, thank you

So you're saying that sex between consenting adults is no different from pedephelia or rape? Or any other compulsive sexual disorder?

Somehow I doubt that. But no, I wasn't at all refering to "acceptable" sexual behavior. I was refering to paraphelias that involve a victim. Predatory behaviors, I think I mentioned.

You seem to imply that "minding other people's sexual behavior" is wrong, and that you don't do this. Unless you want to repeal ALL laws against sexual behavior, then this just isn't true - you DO mind other people's sexual behavior.

Again your point is drawn from a faulty conclusiuon based on the idea that because a predatory behavior involves sex, it is primarily a type of sexual behavior. It has sexual components, but then so does ANY murder or act of violence.

Furthermore you are engaging in obfuscatory behavior. You know damned well what I mean by predatory behavior.

Really, if each person defines their own morality (which is what your worldview is, I imagine, because I think you're an atheist), you can't call someone's actions "wrong", anyway - or at least with any authority or sense. Maybe you can call it "a minority opinion", but you can't call it "wrong" - they're a person just like you; who's to say who is right? Perhaps they're just more enlightened than you are, and in 100 years, you'll find out you were wrong (if you're still alive).

I am a utilitarian relatavist when it comes to definitions of morality. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, then leave it be, because you do more harm in trying to change the behavior.
That is not the same as saying that everyone can decide what their own morality means.

You may also note for your records that I am not an athiest, however I do maintain that western religion is completely back asswards and wrong in their worldview regarding man's relationship to the divine.

The idea that humans can live together in a society with each man as an island is one of the common misconceptions people have about relativism. Did you really fall prey to that misconception or are you being obfuscatory again?

Let's be consistent here. There are lots of sexual behaviors. Some we both agree are fine, some we both agree are NOT fine, and some we disagree on. Neither one of us can prove we are right. Both of us think "minding other people's sexual behavior" IS right sometimes, esp. if that sexual behavior harms someone else.

If you're going to insist on the idea that predatory behaviors with a sexual component are the same as consenting sexual behaviors (i.e. sex), then I suppose from that kind of worldview it makes a certain twisted sense. However it makes me feel kind of ill to think that people actually regard pedephellia, and other predatory behaviors as a form of sex, instead of the abnormal disorders that they are.

I suppose it's one of the cultural shortcomings we have. Anything that involves sex is taboo, so it must be what makes those behaviors bad. So it must be the most serious part, and therefore the defining characteristic. I can only ask what the real difference is between a sociopath who tortures his victim by mutilation before death, and one who tortures his victim by sexual humiliation? Do you really think that the sex is anything other than a tool? Which is worse... They're both pretty horrible, I can't really say which one is sicker. But I can say that sex really doesn't have all that much to do with that kind of predatory behavior.

Not as normal people define sex. And in those kinds of cases it's pretty simple to tell normal from abnormal.

You're also avoiding the question by throwing up all this smoke about relativism. Since YOU anyway, believe in minding other people's sexual behavior than answer the question. Why not legislate teen sexual behavior to enforce abstinence?