The motivations for sex and the consequences

[Arch Dornan]

Let's continue it here.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

A quick explanation what this thread is supposed to be about would be helpful.

 

[Arch Dornan]

A quick explanation what this thread is supposed to be about would be helpful.

I felt it was derailing in the dread new years thread so I thought anymore talk can go here thoughts on everything about sex and why there are laws in place to prevent rape etc.

 

[Arch Dornan]

@Urabrask Revealed another way to use this thread for discussion is what motivates both man or woman toward the idea of sex and what they do to express it through anything deemed pornographic or carrying out sexual acts that may or may not be deemed illegal by society.

 

[ShieldWife]

Looking back at the other thread, it seems like some of the second discussion henges in statutory rape - which I think includes a lot of really questionable laws. People go into complete histrionics over anything that remotely even reminds them of pedophilia that they proudly throw logic out the window. When I hear that a guy is on the sex offender registry, I don’t know if he raped a 2 year old or has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18.

Sexual attraction towards teenagers isn’t pedophilia and having consensual sex with a teenager isn’t child molestation. I understand that sex between teens and adults is something we want to avoid (actually, sex between teens or unmarried sex at all) but the draconian way it’s so often handled is absurd. It’s not just absurd, it’s downright malicious, like destroying the lives of innocent young men to virtue signal about how much you hate pedophiles. I focus on young men because statutory rape laws are driven in large part by misandry, even though sometimes women get caught in the net too.

I’m actually a bit wary about sex offender registries in general. If a person is freed from prison, we should hope that they can return to a normal life, but how is that possible when you’ve made them a third class citizen forever? Sex with a teenager shouldn’t ruin your life. If you’re a true sexual predator, a rapist or child molester, then you shouldn’t be walking the streets anyway and so the registry shouldn’t matter.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Looking back at the other thread, it seems like some of the second discussion henges in statutory rape - which I think includes a lot of really questionable laws. People go into complete histrionics over anything that remotely even reminds them of pedophilia that they proudly throw logic out the window. When I hear that a guy is on the sex offender registry, I don’t know if he raped a 2 year old or has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18.

Sexual attraction towards teenagers isn’t pedophilia and having consensual sex with a teenager isn’t child molestation. I understand that sex between teens and adults is something we want to avoid (actually, sex between teens or unmarried sex at all) but the draconian way it’s so often handled is absurd. It’s not just absurd, it’s downright malicious, like destroying the lives of innocent young men to virtue signal about how much you hate pedophiles. I focus on young men because statutory rape laws are driven in large part by misandry, even though sometimes women get caught in the net too.

I’m actually a bit wary about sex offender registries in general. If a person is freed from prison, we should hope that they can return to a normal life, but how is that possible when you’ve made them a third class citizen forever? Sex with a teenager shouldn’t ruin your life. If you’re a true sexual predator, a rapist or child molester, then you shouldn’t be walking the streets anyway and so the registry shouldn’t matter.

That's part of what I wonder about this constant meme even if I can understand the justification.

I have read cases where someone did have sex when they're a few years apart and the man usually ended up on the offenders list.

Which leads to the title of the thread. Why do people want sex which I know is quite simple especially when they're young and fertile. Biologically compelled to fuck and reproduce so there's stories I hear of what could happen in school not just college.

How true was this? I actually had a normal school experience nothing like those mentioned below.


The closest I heard of one was on the train when there were these students on the train talking about teachers pissed about
camp because a couple was caught having sex.

Sexual attraction towards teenagers isn’t pedophilia and having consensual sex with a teenager isn’t child molestation. I understand that sex between teens and adults is something we want to avoid (actually, sex between teens or unmarried sex at all) but the draconian way it’s so often handled is absurd.

I wonder about this when I got older. Obviously when I was a teen I wouldn't understand it until I got older to look at teens who I was once their age to get this weird feeling and think about all the cases of seniors in relationships with their juniors. Plenty of stories like that with teachers looking at young girls or boys with weird looks in classes they take. This also applies to the workplace with older employees getting into relationships with younger ones.

The answer of course is the obvious. Being young is what causes an attraction.

 

[Lanmandragon]

The standard should be within 4 years. So an 18yr old can date a 14yr old,a 19yr old a 15yr old etc. "Was she in school with you" I feel is a pretty reasonable cutoff.

 

[ShieldWife]

The standard should be within 4 years. So an 18yr old can date a 14yr old,a 19yr old a 15yr old etc. "Was she in school with you" I feel is a pretty reasonable cutoff.

I don't necessarily object to the idea that more than a 4 year difference is problematic when it comes to minors, but what should society do in cases where that policy is violated? If a 22 year old college senior is dating a 17 year old high school senior, maybe someone would be justified in saying that she is a bit too young for him, but should that guy be put in prison for decades and/or be branded a monster for the rest of his life? I don't think so. I think that statutory "rape" needs a punishment somewhere between nothing and utterly destroying the life of the so called "rapist."

For the most part, I think that the issue could be resolved if parents actually took responsibility for how they have raised their teenage daughters. Parents let their little girls grow up to be THOTs and instead of maybe realizing that they went wrong somewhere along the line, they want society to put the men that their daughters are choosing to have sex with in jail for life.

 

[Lanmandragon]

I don't necessarily object to the idea that more than a 4 year difference is problematic when it comes to minors, but what should society do in cases where that policy is violated? If a 22 year old college senior is dating a 17 year old high school senior, maybe someone would be justified in saying that she is a bit too young for him, but should that guy be put in prison for decades and/or be branded a monster for the rest of his life? I don't think so. I think that statutory "rape" needs a punishment somewhere between nothing and utterly destroying the life of the so called "rapist."

For the most part, I think that the issue could be resolved if parents actually took responsibility for how they have raised their teenage daughters. Parents let their little girls grow up to be THOTs and instead of maybe realizing that they went wrong somewhere along the line, they want society to put the men that their daughters are choosing to have sex with in jail for life.

That's actually my answer in edge cases the parents must press charges. Where as with egregiouscases(say 19 and 11) the state can charge on thier own.

 

[Yinko]

That's actually my answer in edge cases the parents must press charges. Where as with egregiouscases(say 19 and 11) the state can charge on their own.

Actually, from what I've heard, that is a large part of the problem. A lot of statutory cases are brought to court because the parents don't like the boyfriend.

It would be one thing if society still expected the behavior of children to reflect upon their family implicitely (shame/honor type of thing), in such cases the parents often have the ability to dictate their childrens' social and sexual lives as a matter of course, since it is directly ties to family prestige.

However, as we have effectively done away with this and declaired children to be socially autonimous in terms of prestige and the like, there is little reason I can think of for such parental suits being brought to court for edge cases.

 

[Arch Dornan]

I don't necessarily object to the idea that more than a 4 year difference is problematic when it comes to minors, but what should society do in cases where that policy is violated? If a 22 year old college senior is dating a 17 year old high school senior, maybe someone would be justified in saying that she is a bit too young for him, but should that guy be put in prison for decades and/or be branded a monster for the rest of his life? I don't think so. I think that statutory "rape" needs a punishment somewhere between nothing and utterly destroying the life of the so called "rapist."

For the most part, I think that the issue could be resolved if parents actually took responsibility for how they have raised their teenage daughters. Parents let their little girls grow up to be THOTs and instead of maybe realizing that they went wrong somewhere along the line, they want society to put the men that their daughters are choosing to have sex with in jail for life.

Actually, from what I've heard, that is a large part of the problem. A lot of statutory cases are brought to court because the parents don't like the boyfriend.

It would be one thing if society still expected the behavior of children to reflect upon their family implicitely (shame/honor type of thing), in such cases the parents often have the ability to dictate their childrens' social and sexual lives as a matter of course, since it is directly ties to family prestige.

However, as we have effectively done away with this and declaired children to be socially autonimous in terms of prestige and the like, there is little reason I can think of for such parental suits being brought to court for edge cases.

When did this first start anyway?

The zero tolerance for the age of consent to be 18?

I don't know how they handled it a long time ago but I don't think they had a sex offender list for a girl getting deflowered and a boy popping their cherry.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Actually, from what I've heard, that is a large part of the problem. A lot of statutory cases are brought to court because the parents don't like the boyfriend.

It would be one thing if society still expected the behavior of children to reflect upon their family implicitely (shame/honor type of thing), in such cases the parents often have the ability to dictate their childrens' social and sexual lives as a matter of course, since it is directly ties to family prestige.

However, as we have effectively done away with this and declaired children to be socially autonimous in terms of prestige and the like, there is little reason I can think of for such parental suits being brought to court for edge cases.

Sure maybe but I've got baby girls so the reality is. If I don't like her man I'd like a veto. Selfish sure but I'm not going to lie about hiwni feel.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Sure maybe but I've got baby girls so the reality is. If I don't like her man I'd like a veto. Selfish sure but I'm not going to lie about hiwni feel.

It's a natural instinct. Even someone who was a player to father many children can feel protective on instinct when his kids are frolicking with another player.

 

[ShieldWife]

When did this first start anyway?

The zero tolerance for the age of consent to be 18?

I don't know how they handled it a long time ago but I don't think they had a sex offender list for a girl getting deflowered and a boy popping their cherry.

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say on the topic...

Traditional attitudes[edit]
In traditional societies, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman, and pubic hair for a man.[3] The ancient Greek poet Hesiod in Works and Days (c. 700 BC) suggests that a man should marry around the age of thirty, and that he should take a wife who is five years past puberty.

Reliable data for ages at marriage is scarce. In England, for example, the only reliable data in the early modern period comes from property records made after death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seems that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Modern historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept evidence of young ages of marriage, dismissing it as a 'misreading' by a later copier of the records.[3]

In the 12th century, Gratian, the influential founder of canon law in medieval Europe, accepted the age of puberty for marriage to be around twelve for girls and around fourteen for boys but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if both children were older than seven years of age.[4] There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. Judges sometimes honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than seven: in contrast to established canon, there are recorded marriages of two- and three-year-olds.[3]

The first recorded age-of-consent law dates from 1275 in England; as part of its provisions on rape, the Statute of Westminster 1275 made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was later interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was twelve years of age.[5]

The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only nine when she was married to William Williams.[6] Sir Edward Coke "made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."[3]

In the 16th century, a small number of Italian and German states set the minimum age for sexual intercourse for girls, setting it at twelve years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact similar laws. The first French Constitution of 1791 established the minimum age at eleven years. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons initially set the minimum age at ten to twelve years.[7]

Age of consent laws were, historically, difficult to follow and enforce: legal norms based on age were not, in general, common until the 19th century, because clear proof of exact age and precise date of birth were often unavailable.[7]

In Australia, 18th century thought was that children were inherently sinful and vulnerable to sexual temptations. Punishment for "giving in" to these temptations was generally left to parents and was not seen as a government matter, except in the case of rape.[8] Australian children had few rights and were legally considered the chattel of their parents.[8] From the late 18th century, and especially in the 19th century, attitudes started to change. By the mid-19th century there was increased concern over child sexual abuse.[8]

Reforms in the 19th and 20th century[edit]
A general shift in social and legal attitudes toward issues of sex occurred during the modern era. Attitudes on the appropriate age of permission for females to engage in sexual activity drifted toward adulthood. While ages from ten to thirteen years were typically regarded as acceptable ages for sexual consent in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] by the end of the 19th century changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulted in the raising of the age of consent.[5]

Several articles written by British investigative journalist William Thomas Stead in the late 19th century on the issue of child prostitution in London led to public outrage and ultimately to the raising of the age of consent to 16.
English common law had traditionally set the age of consent within the range of ten to twelve years old, but the Offences Against the Person Act 1875 raised this to thirteen in Great Britain and Ireland. Early feminists of the Social Purity movement, such as Josephine Butler and others, instrumental in securing the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, began to turn towards the problem of child prostitution by the end of the 1870s. Sensational media revelations about the scourge of child prostitution in London in the 1880s then caused outrage among the respectable middle-classes, leading to pressure for the age of consent to be raised again.

The investigative journalist William Thomas Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette was pivotal in exposing the problem of child prostitution in the London underworld through a publicity stunt. In 1885 he "purchased" one victim, Eliza Armstrong, the thirteen-year-old daughter of a chimney sweep, for five pounds and took her to a brothel where she was drugged. He then published a series of four exposés entitled The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, which shocked its readers with tales of child prostitution and the abduction, procurement, and sale of young English virgins to Continental "pleasure palaces". The "Maiden Tribute" was an instant sensation with the reading public, and Victorian society was thrown into an uproar about prostitution. Fearing riots on a national scale, the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, pleaded in vain with Stead to cease publication of the articles. A wide variety of reform groups held protest meetings and marched together to Hyde Park demanding that the age of consent be raised. The government was forced to propose the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which raised the age of consent from thirteen to sixteen and clamped down on prostitution.[9]

In the United States, as late as the 1880s most states set the minimum age at ten to twelve (in Delaware, it was seven in 1895).[10] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" articles, female reformers in the U.S. initiated their own campaign,[11] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least sixteen, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to sixteen to eighteen years by 1920.[5][12]

In France, Portugal, Denmark, the Swiss cantons and other countries, the minimum age was raised to between thirteen and sixteen years in the following decades.[5] Though the original arguments for raising the age of consent were based on morality, since then the raison d'être of the laws has changed to child welfare and a so-called right to childhood or innocence.[13]

In France, under the Napoleonic Code, the age of consent was set in 1832 at eleven,[14] and was raised to thirteen in 1863.[15] It was increased to fifteen in 1945.[16]

In Spain, it was set in 1822 at "puberty age", and changed to twelve in 1870,[17] which was kept until 1999, when it became 13;[18][19] and in 2015 it was raised to 16.

So, this tends to indicate that statutory rape or age of consent is a relatively modern thing, especially the idea that consensual sex with someone younger than 18 makes an adult the worst villain imaginable. Not that I think it's okay to marry little kids, but we should be careful not to assume that our current values are the things always have been or must always be. I have daughters myself and I don't think that it would be the end of the world if they married an older man before they became 18. Sleeping around at that age, even with similarly aged partners, is more objectionable.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say on the topic...



So, this tends to indicate that statutory rape or age of consent is a relatively modern thing, especially the idea that consensual sex with someone younger than 18 makes an adult the worst villain imaginable. Not that I think it's okay to marry little kids, but we should be careful not to assume that our current values are the things always have been or must always be. I have daughters myself and I don't think that it would be the end of the world if they married an older man before they became 18. Sleeping around at that age, even with similarly aged partners, is more objectionable.

That's why I understand the why but the implementation is something I wonder about when it gets abused.

Still it's what many have to live with in today's society. Maybe they'll be a victim of it on purpose or by no fault of their own doing the right thing.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'm not sure what to think to be honest. I get why the age of consent is there on paper, and yet I can tell you several couples I know with massive age gaps (10+ years) who have strong happy healthy marriages. It also seems odd to me that the culture that's so heckbent on the age of consent being 18 have no problem with 13 & 14 year old girls trying to look more "Mature" and posting said pictures on the internet. When I was growing up, it was an epidemic on myspace, now it appears to be on tumblr and instagram.

course granted I also grew up in a culture where one essentially had the blessing or at least the tolerance of the respected patriarch/matriarch of the house you didn't get married unless the inlaws at least knew something about you, so there wasn't as much concern about daddies little girl shacking up with some unknown criminal.

Not a fan of arrange marriages As too often it seems something more akin to glamorous prostitution, but I do have to wonder if we would have to have near as many arbitrary and often contradictory laws about Sex, if we viewed the concept of courtship as truly a family affair as opposed to just a business or sexual contract. At the very least it would fix a lot of the uncertainty people have about finding the right person.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Not a fan of arrange marriages As too often it seems somthing more akin to glamourous prostitution, but I do have to wonder if we would have to have near as many arbitrary and often controdictory laws about Sex, if we viewed the concept of courtship as truly a family affair as opposed to just a business or sexual contract. At the very least it would fix alot of the uncertiny people have about finding the right person.

I have known some people in arranged marriages. Didn't know much on their happiness but from the spouse side in when I was in international school she expressed discomfort by the idea.

Don't know about now if she's ok or not. Marriages is a matter of commitment and the situation at hand.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

she expressed discomfort by the idea.

Of course she did. Anything that takes power away from women is bad, eh?
Did she have the option to veto her potential husband?

 

[Arch Dornan]

Of course she did. Anything that takes power away from women is bad, eh?
Did she have the option to veto her potential husband?

I don't think so no not unless the father said the marriage is off but I'm not too familiar in middle eastern culture and the divorce strategy there from mena men who talked about it.

But to be fair even the groom can be uncomfortable about it. There are Indian men kidnapped by the bride's family to get their daughter hitched.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I have known some people in arranged marriages. Didn't know much on their happiness but from the spouse side in when I was in international school she expressed discomfort by the idea.

Don't know about now if she's ok or not. Marriages is a matter of commitment and the situation at hand.

in theory it's "We want to strengthen families bounds together." In reality it becomes more of "I sell you my son/daughter" for your prized pig/thier weight in gold/X acres of land ect. Again pretty much a more sophisticated form of prostitution.

Ideally what I'm talking about is two kids essentially being raised for each other.