Teen Abstinence

[Rían]

Let me ask you a quick question, Blackheart, then I'll be able to respond to your points in a few hours -

IYO, does rape involve any type of sexual behavior?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IYO, does rape involve any type of sexual behavior?

No, let me rephrase the question. IS rape a sexual behavior? No it is not.

Does watching TV involve any type of sexual behavior? Yes, yes it does. Voyeurism. IS however watching TV a sexual behavior? No. No it is not.

[Rían]

OK, playing along with you for a few minutes -

What IS a "sexual behavior", then, according to you?

And what is "rape", according to you?

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Does watching TV involve any type of sexual behavior? Yes, yes it does. Voyeurism.

And if I watch "The Antiques Roadshow", is that "voyeurism", according to you? (assuming I watch it because I enjoy antiques, not the people talking about the antiques)

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What IS a "sexual behavior", then, according to you?

Oh you don't want much do you. That's a very broad topic and difficult to summerize. While it's easy to classify different types of sexual behaviors, compulsive, consensual, obsessive, "normative", "abnormal" etc. etc. it's almost impossible to give a concise definition of sexual behavior because frankly, the concept of sex differs rather broadly from culture to culture, and even from person to person within cultures. Holding hands for example. Is it sexual? oh it depends on the situation you say?

May I suggest:
http://www.answers.com/sexual+behavior&r=67
http://en.mimi.hu/sexuality/sexual_behavior.html

What is important to note, is that the behaviors you keep mentioning are considered to be devient. They are outside the norm of sexual behavior. As such they are abnormal, and are not properly "sexual behavior" because sexual behavior without any qualification is going to have to be assumed as normative (normal) sexual behavior.

And what is "rape", according to you?

Rape is an act of violence. That's why it's often refered to as sexual assault. The terms are legally related, the main difference is that rape denotes some form of penetration of the vaginal area wheras sexual assault is of a more general nature, such as sodomy. (which is one of the reasons the term rape is falling into disuse, it leaves aside the problem of sexual assault on males- 1 in 10 males suffers some form of sexual assault in their lifetime)

The assault is the important legal part however, since sexual is a classification of a type of assault. (Asault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault, etc)... I hate to be cliche' but sexual assault is really about the assault. There certainly are overt sexual components, however there are sexual components in any assault. They are subvert however, not overt. A psycho who stabs someone with a knife 50 times is engaging in a form of sexual subversion, whether or not he (or she) realizes it.

There's some relevant working defintions at http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/legal.shtml
http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_d...EC&sub_cat=351

And if I watch "The Antiques Roadshow", is that "voyeurism", according to you? (assuming I watch it because I enjoy antiques, not the people talking about the antiques)

Voyeurism is a specific paraphelia. UNLESS you have some unknown thing for antiques, it is not Voyeurism. Nor did I say that it was. I said that all TV watching involves aspects of voyeurism. Visual stimulation that involves subvert sexual themes. You do watch the commercials do you not?

All of which is beside the point of the original question. Since we know that there is legal precident to regulate sexual behavior for teens, why not legally mandate abstinenece?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Why don't you just lobby for a law making it illegal for teens to bop each other? ... That would fix the problem right?

I don't think it would fix the problem, so I wouldn't lobby for a law against older teens having sex. I don't think all aspects of morality can or should be legislated against. Like you, I think certain aspects of sexual behavior, such as pedophilia, should be legislated against.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think it would fix the problem, so I wouldn't lobby for a law against older teens having sex. I don't think all aspects of morality can or should be legislated against. Like you, I think certain aspects of sexual behavior, such as pedophilia, should be legislated against.

A very rational position. Though I do semantically disagree that abnormal sexual predatory behaviors are sexual behavior (owing to the fact that I think unspecified "sexual behavior" is "normative sexual behavior"), I do think that they should definately be prohibited.

You are correct, legislating teen abstinence would not fix the problem. No more than any of the prostitution laws enacted have "fixed" the problems they were intended for.

The reason being, as you have stated, is that it is very difficult to legislate morality. In fact it's damned difficult to change people's behavior even if they want to change it!

The few successes that we can point to in these types of endeavors, changing people's behavior, usually have education in common. But specifically education that provides a diverse range of complete information, allowing the individuals to make their own decision. And surprisingly, it is usually the decision that is regarded as "best" for "everyone".

It has a lot to do with something Socrates observed a very long time ago. True wisdom is the narrowing of choices down to nothing. A truly wise man would have no choices, indeed he would need to make none, since he would already know what was "best".

If we knew what was "best" perhaps we could legislate other people's behavior, or lie to them, or withold information. Unfortunately (or fortunately) we do not know with certainty what is best for everyone, much less if it applies equally to all individuals.

Therefore the only palatable solution is to provide all the information available to the individuals, and trust them to make the correct decisions for themselves. It certainly isn't a perfect solution, but it isn't a perfect world either.

Which is why I find sex education that covers the entire range of possible solutions preferable. If it makes anyone feel better, I certainly think that they could do more to teach teens HOW to stay abstinent... It's not as simple as saying no, or even introducing simplistic ideas of peer pressure.

I'd suggest masterbation, but then that's probably going to set up another round of outrage about what the hell are they teaching our children about in these damned sex education classes...

It's a real shame that most people never get any real information until they reach college, and then only if they happen to take the correct courses. By which time it's usually a bit late...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

IS rape a sexual behavior? No it is not.

Does watching TV involve any type of sexual behavior? Yes, yes it does.

*blink*

Kiddies, all I can say is, don't watch TV at Mr. Blackheart's house ...

[Blackheart]

I'd say they're pretty safe, except for the commercials. I don't let my spawn.. er children.. watch the commercials. Absolutely dripping with subliminal sexual content.

I much prefer that any content be out in the open where they can ask questions about it....

Though mostly all they ever see is violence... On the news, in the shows... It's no wonder that predatory behavior is on the rise...

And you toss in those subliminal commercials and what do you have? The perfect brainwashing tool to create predators with sex-related fixations.

Actually, it might be better off if children didn't watch TV at anybody's house....

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I'd say they're pretty safe, except for the commercials. I don't let my spawn.. er children.. watch the commercials. Absolutely dripping with subliminal sexual content.

...

Spawn....LOL

It's a no-brainer, abstinence is the ONLY way to go, but peer pressure is more subtle than the kind they warned us about in grade school in the 90's *coughImean70'scough*. The pressure to be accepted by another (physically) & (emotionally) are more than somewhat tied during those years. I suggest we get a government program to fund a "Lets distract them" campaign....we buy them all PS2's plus 10 games and send them to their rooms...

[Blackheart]

Well... I have to disagree that abstinence is the ONLY way to go, applied absolutely and without qualification, in each and every situation.

It's like saying everyone is always the same. A patently uninteresting and stale idea.

[Rían]

I finally have some time to catch up on the threads now -

As I re-checked the thread title, I realized that the whole discussion I've been having with Blackheart on this thread is actually a digression from the thread topic, in response to Blackheart's snide remark about people who are interested in other people's sex lives, when Lawrence v. Texas came up. I pointed out that unless he was willing to remove all laws that refer to sex, that he, too, is interested in other people's sex lives. In the course of the discussion, he used terms, then used them later with modifiers like they were somehow the same when in fact the meaning was quite different. He also brought up the classic response about rape - that it's about power and/or violence (I forget which one he used). Of course it has quite a lot to do with power and/or violence, but if it was ONLY about power and violence, then my forcing one of my kids to wear a jacket when they don't want to wear it would be rape. It's obvious that rape is also about some type of sexual behavior or act.

So to keep off-topic posts at a minimum, I'll just give one example (since he has difficulties defining sexual behaviors in general, on his own admission) - sexual intercourse. I hope he would admit that this is a sexual act or behavior! And forced sexual intercourse is rape. And I sure hope he isn't campaigning to remove rape laws, because people shouldn't be interested in other people's sex lives.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Well... I have to disagree that abstinence is the ONLY way to go, applied absolutely and without qualification, in each and every situation.

It's like saying everyone is always the same. A patently uninteresting and stale idea.

What it IS saying, IMO, is that humans share a physical design, and that we are wonderfully designed to express our sexuality in the context of a committed marriage, and that any other option is damaging to us in varying degrees. Not uninteresting and stale at all - just part of the reality of any design.

My finger would get damaged if I stuck it into the frying pan when I was browning onions. Shall I tell one of my kids to stick their finger in the pan, because everyone is NOT always the same?

It's a design consideration - pure and simple (and VERY interesting! People are fascinating to me - altho it's obvious that their bodies share a common design, their MINDS are wonderfully different and imaginative!)

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I re-checked the thread title, I realized that the whole discussion I've been having with Blackheart on this thread is actually a digression from the thread topic, in response to Blackheart's snide remark about people who are interested in other people's sex lives, when Lawrence v. Texas came up.

Awww.... you make it sound like I'm evil or something. Actually I don't see it as a digression. More of a progression, since the insistence on abstinence only education springs from the same fear response.

he used terms, then used them later with modifiers like they were somehow the same when in fact the meaning was quite different.

You mean the meaning somehow changed? That's called discussion. It's what leads to greater understanding. Perhaps I should just do what most people do and stick their fingers in their ears and stomp around shouting you're wrong! You sound like you think I tricked you or something, instead of trying to explain what my meaning was. The intent of my message never changed. Communication is not words. Words are merely the medium.

He also brought up the classic response about rape - that it's about power and/or violence (I forget which one he used). Of course it has quite a lot to do with power and/or violence, but if it was ONLY about power and violence, then my forcing one of my kids to wear a jacket when they don't want to wear it would be rape. It's obvious that rape is also about some type of sexual behavior or act.

Kudos to you for stating the obvious. I'm sorry if you thought that I was saying the sexual part of a sexual assault was negligable. It is not. What also should be apparant however is that it is not the defining or central part of the assult.

If you forced your child to wear that jacket by beating him senseless would it then be an assault? You're damned right it would.

It's a perfect example of why you can't seem to understand the point about sexual assault. The jacket is not the central issue, the fact that you had to beat the child or hold a weapon on them to make them wear it its.

So to keep off-topic posts at a minimum, I'll just give one example (since he has difficulties defining sexual behaviors in general, on his own admission) - sexual intercourse. I hope he would admit that this is a sexual act or behavior! And forced sexual intercourse is rape. And I sure hope he isn't campaigning to remove rape laws, because people shouldn't be interested in other people's sex lives.

Get your head out of the sand. Open your eyes. Take a deep breath. Now stifle your fear response brought on by deep conditioning to think of sex as the source of the ultimate source of all of humanities sins, and try to be rational.

Why do you think that a sexual assault is more horrible than any other assault? Because it's a more personal violation? OK, I'll buy that. But there are other forms of personal violation more heinous. Brainwashing, cannibalism, torture, and of course death, to name a few.

These are however also assaults. Murder can be a type of assault also, it is differentiated only by the termination or attempt to terminate someone's life (Note that poisoning someone is not an assault). But the difference is only in the result. Not the method. The method is violence.

It's not me that has difficulty defining sexual behaviors. It's in the nature that such interactions are subjective from culture to culture and person to person. But I see you chose to ignore that and stick your head back in the sand.

Why don't you go ask the baptist convention why they think blowjobs aren't sex.... When it's pretty obviously open to debate. If it's not sex, then how can it be sexual behavior?

Lastly, this isn't off topic. It directly relates to the idea that abstinence only education is a less effective way to do things, and it's proponants objections are based more on their fear response and taboo acculturation than on any solid data.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Awww.... you make it sound like I'm evil or something. Actually I don't see it as a digression. More of a progression, since the insistence on abstinence only education springs from the same fear response.

And exactly how do you know it "springs from the same fear response"? Are you claiming that everyone who supports abstinance-only education does it out of fear? If so, how can you support that? Of course you can't; obviously, it's just your opinion.

I don't support abstinance-only education, btw. Am I motivated by fear? Wait - you think those who support ab-only ed. are motivated by fear, so I can't be motivated by fear, right? Or are both sides motivated by fear? Is everyone motivated by fear, according to you, or just everyone but you? Just what IS your unfounded opinion on this matter?

You mean the meaning somehow changed?

No, you changed the words you used. I'll go find an example - hold on.

Perhaps I should just do what most people do and stick their fingers in their ears and stomp around shouting you're wrong!

What an arrogant, insulting (and totally incorrect) statement to the Mooters here.

If you forced your child to wear that jacket by beating him senseless would it then be an assault? You're damned right it would.

Did you actually think I wouldn't think it was an assault? Boy, do you misunderstand people.

Get your head out of the sand. Open your eyes. Take a deep breath.

I say the same to you. Or we could be more considerate and not insult each other, and assume that each of us has arrived at our opinion with lots of thought. I know that I have; have you?

Now stifle your fear response brought on by deep conditioning to think of sex as the source of the ultimate source of all of humanities sins...j

Are you talking to ME? Can you point to ONE post to support this totally untrue representation of my views on sex? Of course not. Would you please try to not make unfounded accusations about me If you've ever read anything that I've posted about sex, you'd see that I think in the right context, it is a wonderful, amazing, fun, marvellous invention. It is by NO means the "ultimate source of all of humanities sins" IMHO. Please stop making up viewpoints and attributing them to me.

and try to be rational.

Where have I been irrational?

Why do you think that a sexual assault is more horrible than any other assault?

Again, you're making up opinions and attributing them to me - please stop. Where did I say this? Nowhere.

Why don't you go ask the baptist convention why they think blowjobs aren't sex.... When it's pretty obviously open to debate. If it's not sex, then how can it be sexual behavior?

I'm not interested in what the baptist convention thinks. I prefer to think for myself.

Lastly, this isn't off topic.

I was trying to be considerate to the thread starter and show that I was open to stopping this discussion if they considered it to be off-topic. I'm into being considerate of others.

It directly relates to the idea that abstinence only education is a less effective way to do things, and it's proponants objections are based more on their fear response and taboo acculturation than on any solid data.

And you base this opinion on what? Your own unfounded opinion? Well, I know how much weight to give to that!

[Rían]

OK, here's examples of what I mean by your saying one thing and then modifying it later on and acting like that's what you meant in the first place:

Quote 1

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is indeed one of the decisions that people who are concerned with minding other people's sexual behavior quote when they note the left leanings of the courts.

Quote 2

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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?

Quote 3

Originally Posted by Blackheart

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.

In quote 1, you say "sexual behavior". When I call you on the obvious problem with that (i.e., YOU are concerned with some sexual behaviors, like rape), you CHANGE what you're saying - you say that I need to familiarize myself with what sexual behavior is, then you seem to include things like pedophilia in the group of sexual behaviors (modified by "predatory"), then modify "sexual behavior" with "between consenting adults".

I have no problem with you modifying your statements; I agree that's part of a discussion, but you certainly haven't invalidated my objection by changing your words! The objection to your quote 1 still stands, unless you are willing to change it to something like this : "Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is indeed one of the decisions that people who are concerned with minding other people's acceptable sexual behavior quote when they note the left leanings of the courts. "

I would HOPE you're concerned, along with many others, with sexual behaviors that you DON'T think are acceptable. I would HOPE you would continue to support laws against rape, which involve certain types of sexual behavior (e.g., intercourse; in this case, forced).

Quote 4

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

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.

Do you agree with the last paragraph in this quote (quote 4)?

Quote 5

Originally Posted by Blackheart

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

Where did I say this, or say anything that would lead you to conclude this? Again, please either support your statements about what you think I'm saying, or stop making them. Of course I don't think sex between consenting adults is the same as pedophilia or rape.

Quote 6

Originally Posted by Blackheart

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.

I think at this point, you lost track of what I was referring to. It seems like you object to people "minding other people's sexual behavior", and I was suggesting that perhaps you meant "minding other people's sexual behaviors that Blackheart considers acceptable."

Quote 7

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.

And in THIS quote, you added a very important word - "primarily" - that changes the meaning of the situation. And one can argue that "ANY" act of murder or violence has sexual components (after all, one can argue anything), but one wonders, then, why ALL crimes are not just lumped into the general category of sex crimes ...

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What it IS saying, IMO, is that humans share a physical design, and that we are wonderfully designed to express our sexuality in the context of a committed marriage, and that any other option is damaging to us in varying degrees. Not uninteresting and stale at all - just part of the reality of any design.

Really? So the church was right when it ordained all those marriages of 14 year old girls to 30 year old men in the middle ages? Reality isn't a flat broad plain when it comes to subjective things like human devolpment and emotions. It's most definatly NOT simplistic. What is emotionally or physically damaging to one individual is not damaging to others, and vice versa.

My finger would get damaged if I stuck it into the frying pan when I was browning onions. Shall I tell one of my kids to stick their finger in the pan, because everyone is NOT always the same?

So sex is the same as browning onions hmm? Not. I'm always amazed by the way people want to over-simplify things.

Sex in and of itself isn't damaging. It's the associated factors that are dangerous. To use your analogy, it would be like telling your children to never stick their fingers in any pan, anytime, anywhere. Even the unheated ones under the cabinet.

Or to reverse your analogy, a heated pan would be like having unprotected sex with an HIV patient. Risky at the very least, and likely to be highly damaging. And yes, I do not reccomend you tell your children to do it.

Maybe you should tell your children to never drive or ride in a car. It is the number one killer of young people in this country after all.... Maybe we need more money for driving lessons too...


[/QUOTE]It's a design consideration - pure and simple (and VERY interesting! People are fascinating to me - altho it's obvious that their bodies share a common design, their MINDS are wonderfully different and imaginative!)[/QUOTE]

Is that why marriage is a "relatively" recent cultural invention? Setting aside the issue of whether or not humans were designed, there's plenty to argue about whether humans are by nature monagamous.

Marriage is not a cultural institution common across all cultures, and it certainly varies from culture to culture.

Multiple wives, multiple husbands, and group marriages have all been "common" at some point in human history. I'm sure all those people were sure humans were "designed" for those types of relationships also.

There are even societies where the concept of marriage is horrifying to people, the idea that one human would have such a claim over someone.

Serial monogamy is what is most common in western cultures, and it may indeed be the most practical form of relationship. At least for our culture and time.

But the idea that this structure fits everyone, or is even the best for everyone, is demonstrably false, simply by the fact that other societies have relationship systems that work equally well (if not better) than ours.

And if you can't say with any certainty that serial monagamy is best for everyone, then you can't say that only sex inside such a relationship is best for everyone.

[inked]

Blackheart,

Try here for the issue of marriage. A little sociology and history would do you well.

http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=11533

'Moot style, of course!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Really? So the church was right when it ordained all those marriages of 14 year old girls to 30 year old men in the middle ages?

That's a valid point, altho a 14-yr-old was considered an adult in some societies, and personally, I think many might have been mature enough for a marriage.

But based on your objection, I'll clarify my statement to reflect more accurately what I thought and say this :

"What it IS saying, IMO, is that humans share a physical design, and that we are wonderfully designed to express our sexuality in the context of a committed marriage between a man and a woman, and that any other option is damaging to us in varying degrees. Not uninteresting and stale at all - just part of the reality of any design."

Now do you have any objections with that statement? (note how I granted your objection and phrased my statement more accurately. Will you rephrase YOUR statement, now, about minding other people's sexual behaviors?)

What is emotionally or physically damaging to one individual is not damaging to others, and vice versa.

Is this an all-inclusive statement? I'll agree that for SOME things, "What is emotionally or physically damaging to one individual is not damaging to others, and vice versa." but not for ANY thing.

So sex is the same as browning onions hmm? Not. I'm always amazed by the way people want to over-simplify things.

Yes, you do it quite often!

Sex in and of itself isn't damaging. It's the associated factors that are dangerous. To use your analogy, it would be like telling your children to never stick their fingers in any pan, anytime, anywhere. Even the unheated ones under the cabinet.

But I wouldn't tell them that

Maybe you should tell your children to never drive or ride in a car.

Why would I tell them that? I would explain how cars are designed and how they work, and how to maintain them, and how to drive as safely as possible, but that life isn't simple, and even if they drive safely, others could NOT drive safely and crash into them. But IMO, it's WORTH the risks to drive a car properly!

And I will tell them how sex is designed and works, and how to maintain a great sex life, and how to have sex as safely as possible, but life isn't simple, and even if they have safe sex practices, others might not, and they might get hurt. But IMO, it's WORTH it to have sex properly!

Is that why marriage is a "relatively" recent cultural invention?

And what data supports this opinion? ' "Relatively" recent" '? Usually people that make that claim base it on the TOTALLY unproven idea that primitive man didn't have marriages! I suppose since they can't find a rock newspaper with a marriage column in it, they think the concept of marriage didn't exist ...

But the idea that this structure fits everyone, or is even the best for everyone, is demonstrably false, simply by the fact that other societies have relationship systems that work equally well (if not better) than ours.

Both "religious" and secular studies show that a committed, man/woman marriage is the best possible structure for children.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In quote 1, you say "sexual behavior". When I call you on the obvious problem with that (i.e., YOU are concerned with some sexual behaviors, like rape)

Wrong. I'm not concerned with such behaviors. There are already laws that deal with those types of behaviors. They were not germane to the discussion about abstinence education, i.e. a discussion about what to teach teenagers about normative sexual behaviors. Which is probably why the discussion went off on a tangent, since you decided to toss those behaviors into the mix.

you CHANGE what you're saying - you say that I need to familiarize myself with what sexual behavior is, then you seem to include things like pedophilia in the group of sexual behaviors (modified by "predatory"), then modify "sexual behavior" with "between consenting adults".

Wrong again. You decided that it would be an effective tactic to toss irrelevant behaviors into the mix on a discussion about abstinence education, which is again, discussion nominally about normative sexual behaviors.

Anyone with any common sense would have known that sexual behavior in the context of such a discussion referred to normative sexual behavior. But I learned a long time ago not to take such things for granted. So I went on a tangent to explain the difference. If you think that means I changed my position, or my meaning, or my intent, you are mistaken.

I have no problem with you modifying your statements; I agree that's part of a discussion, but you certainly haven't invalidated my objection by changing your words! The objection to your quote 1 still stands, unless you are willing to change it to something like this : "Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is indeed one of the decisions that people who are concerned with minding other people's acceptable sexual behavior quote when they note the left leanings of the courts. "

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have explained it more clearly to you. People who generally voice such objections equate behaviors like rape and pedephillia with homosexuality and sodomy. Which is exactly what the legal decision was about. I'm sorry you don't find homosexual behavior and sodomy acceptable, but I do. So no, you can't put words in my mouth by saying that because I find sodomy and homosexual behavior acceptable, I must find rape and pedophelia acceptable.

I would HOPE you're concerned, along with many others, with sexual behaviors that you DON'T think are acceptable. I would HOPE you would continue to support laws against rape, which involve certain types of sexual behavior (e.g., intercourse; in this case, forced).

I'll only state once more, that the only reason I am concerned with those types of behaviors, are because they are violent predatory behaviors. The fact that they have sexual connotations are of only secondary concern to me.

Do you agree with the last paragraph in this quote (quote 4)?

No I don't. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, on stage, or in their cars. As long as it it is consensual, i.e. violence isn't used to coerce someone i.e. it isn't an ASSAULT, I don't think it's any of the government's business. You will note however that children and minors cannot legally give consent, so they cannot be consensual. Which is why statutory laws are a neccesary adjunct. But it's certainly no reason to keep them ignorant.

Quote 5Where did I say this, or say anything that would lead you to conclude this? Again, please either support your statements about what you think I'm saying, or stop making them. Of course I don't think sex between consenting adults is the same as pedophilia or rape.

Neither did I, but you certainly didn't have any problem stating that I thought so, because I brought up Lawrence v Texas. The fact that you stated:

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

is exactly what I pointed out earlier about tossing such irrelevant items into a discussion about normative sexual behaviors. Of course I didn't say so, because anyone should have known that such a statement meant normative sexual behavior in the current context. You were the one who dragged those kinds of irrelevant behaviors into the discussion, by insinuating that I must be for repealing rape and pedephelia statutes.

Since I obviously am NOT, I could only conclude that since you seem in favor of regarding those types of behavior as sexual behaviors, and the discussion context was about normative sexual behaviors, you must regard them as normative. I'm relieved to find that you do not.

But it sucks to have someone purposefully "misunderstand" you doesn't it? If you want the real reason, it was to illustrate graphically how such tactics are destructive to discussions. You knew quite well that such behaviors were not within the scope of what I was talking about, but you chose to throw them in anyway.

Unfortunately it had the side effect of making it look like you equated such behaviors with normative behaviors. Which I could probably have been nicer about pointing out. But then I'm human on odd weekdays, and therefore prone to human failings.

I think at this point, you lost track of what I was referring to. It seems like you object to people "minding other people's sexual behavior", and I was suggesting that perhaps you meant "minding other people's sexual behaviors that Blackheart considers acceptable."

Uhm, no, I'm going to try to get very specific from now on, so that we can quit haggling over semantics. I meant I'm against the government in any form minding other people's normative sexual behavior. I really don't care what you, for example, or anyone else, other than the two women I live with, think about my sex life.

[Blackheart]

only 8000 words?!

And in THIS quote, you added a very important word - "primarily" - that changes the meaning of the situation. And one can argue that "ANY" act of murder or violence has sexual components (after all, one can argue anything), but one wonders, then, why ALL crimes are not just lumped into the general category of sex crimes ...

I added the word "primarily" to get you to try and understand that the "primary" concern about such behaviors is that they are violent. Not that they have a sexual component. That would be "secondary".

If you are really wondering, and not just being facetious, I can probably give you an intelligable explination of why "sex crimes" are called "sex crimes" when almost any crime has a sexual element. But then you seemed not to understand when I pointed out that watching TV has a sexual componant, so I may be wrong in my estimate of explaining it in a comprehensive enough manner...

Suffice it to say that they are called "sex crimes" because they contain an obvious overt sexual component. Stealing women's underwear is a "sex crime". The sexual component is obvious enough that even lay people "get it".

However you might not understand the sexual componant of a crime such as a seemingly random assault on a same sex stranger. It does, of course, depend on the individual involved, but such crimes are often linked to the individual's fear of their own latent homosexual tendancies.

Other times it is related to psycho-sexual conflicts with a father-figure who was somehow viewed as a competitor (instead of a care-giver) for mother's affection. Which (without going into a deep explination of post-Freudian thinking) basically means that the individual grows up viewing most males as competitors for sex and affection. Sex and affection (for males especially) are deeply linked to necessary love from females, because of the desperate need that children have for mother's affection. It's a survival issue, because children who aren't loved by their mother often do not survive very long.

If that's not enough explination, perhaps another thread should be started