When does age and age difference make sex a real problem?

[rakim87]

Wow! So I am a scumbag now because what you call personal experience was in fact a lack of experience where you SUPPOSE if you actually had the experience it would have been traumatic? You DIDN'T date that teacher. You DIDN'T hook up with any of those guys on the net. You DIDN'T have sex with those who wimped out. You sit there and diss psychology as not being scientific while you are so unscientific as to GUESS what would happen in situations that never occurred?

You're a scumbag because you took those personal experiences, misinterpreted them with your warped perspective and assumed the rest of the story involved sleaze and judged me based on it. Just more evidence that I shouldn't share such stories, which is a shame considering some people are respectful and learn from these things. My friend had to deal with this adult issue and made fun of him to put aside the fact that it bothers her. Had she not been exposed to such mature lust in her youth she probably would have behaved differently as a teenager. It's so insulting that you show no sympathy to her.

You say I refuse to answer as though you are entitled to something.
You're rude and you don't seem to realize you don't deserve these stories, they are personal.

Also, a science is something you can measure. You cannot measure psychology. People involved in psychology had to fight to earn the "status" of it being a science. That's why they brought in statistics, to create some form of measurement. I learned that in a highschool psychology class, so before you go on another rant maybe you should educate yourself. It's common sense that kids don't develop decision making skills until a certain age, so 16 or 18, it doesn't really matter, you have to pick an age limit.


and what's this about reading minds? You're a loon!

 

[BrianLewis]

OK, if we put ethics aside. Is economic hardship not suffering? If a girl gets pregnant while still in high school, does it not financially drain her family that has to support another child? How much more difficult do you suppose achieving a career would be with that extra financial burden? Can we possibly link poverty to having sex too soon? Would a child even consider these matters? Would an adult? My personal opinion is that an adult would consider these matters to some extent, and weigh the risks with goals that she has at the time, while a child would not.

When it comes to phychology, one 'respectable person' may say that a person is defined by their trauma over the course of their life, while another 'respectable person' would say that it is repressed sexual desires that makes us who we are. These are all opinions, not facts, which makes psychology as a whole a philosophy, not a science. Even if they form statistics or profiles for individuals, that does not explain who they are, or why they do what they do in a concrete, provable manner. Furthermore, how can you test it to prove it true? Is that not required of any science?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It's so insulting that you show no sympathy to her.

What is insulting is that you support a rule that affects us all based on personal experiences that didn't happen and/or you refuse to share the details of or to re-examine.

You call me rude, a scumbag and a loon. I simply ask who the F do you think you are? You have to do much better than this to support throwing a yoke over people you don't even friggen know!

and what's this about reading minds?

Yes, yes. I am sure you know everything about your friend's story than any psychologist knows about hundreds of people with similar stories they have examined using carefully worded questions. The question is how?

Perhaps if its not mind-reading its a crystal ball then?

I suppose that would also explain how you knew your non-experiences would have been bad if you chose another path. Sorry, my bad. Crystal ball it is!

 

[rakim87]

All the information is there and you didn't acknowledge any of it. i'm done arguing.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

All the information is there and you didn't acknowledge any of it. i'm done arguing.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. If I have made a mistake in anything I have said concerning what you wrote, I wish you would just spell it out.

Did you actually sleep with that teacher? Any of those guys on the net? If yes, then I somehow misunderstood. But why could you just not say so? If no, how can that count as proof?

The questions about your friend are to help me understand. You cannot give me half the picture and expect me to understand.

And who is arguing? I am just asking questions, and you are stalling.

---------- Post added at 02:36 ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 ----------

If you want links, I can do that:
Teen Sex May Take Emotional Toll - CBS News

Right. So GG posts this link and vanishes, and so leaves all my questions about it unanswered. (sigh)

Did he only read the headline and the first sentence? Well, here they are:

Teen Sex May Take Emotional Toll -- Teen sex ― oral or vaginal ― may have negative emotional consequences, especially for girls, according to a new study in Pediatrics.

Sounds damned ominous, doesn't it? Would I be wrong to think that is the sentiment that GG wanted to convey? Like when he said: "Actually, sex can be highly dangerous if you arent smart about it and arent mature enough to handle it."

But okay, later in the article it says:

Overall, the teens reported positive consequences ― such as pleasure, popularity, and stronger relationships. But a sizeable percentage noted negative consequences such as feeling used, getting pregnant, contracting a sexually transmitted infection, or feeling bad about themselves.

So why would we want to put the brakes on what is mostly a good thing? I mean this is like saying that some football players reported sprains, fatigue, negative feelings about getting yelled at by the coach, and some even got broken bones. So lets shut down the football program! Or at least reduce it two games a season. That's nuts!

Those reporting at least one negative effect included 31 percent of those who had had only oral sex, 58 percent of those who had had only vaginal sex, and nearly 62 percent of those who had had both.

Why are they harping on the one negative effect without listing the overall number of positive effects? Why are they avoiding the seriousness of the negative effect? Because by doing so, they put pregnancy in the same league as feeling bad about sex because society told them to feel bad, and that's just bullcrap. But just like the headline, it sure does help the sensationalism. Typical media for you. If you can't weed out the crap, and most people can't, you go into a panic. And that is why western society is in a panic.

The headline just does not match up with the contention of "overall positive effects" statement, does it? GG's contention of "highly dangerous" also seems rather unsupported by his own link. Did he even read it?

Also:

Girls were more than twice as likely as boys to say they felt bad about themselves. Girls were also more than three times as likely to say they felt used as a result of having sex.

Those findings may partly stem from society's double standard about sex.

So so many girls felt bad about themselves? So that was in fact a major contributor to the one negative consequence reported? And yeah, isn't that a nice double standard society gives girls?

Boys were more likely to say their popularity rose when they became sexually active. But they were also more likely to report a pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection as a result of their sexual activity.

My guess is that many of the boys were all sleeping with the fewer sexually active girls who were taking multiple partners.

And this shows that the boys just don't know what the hell they are doing.

And I would bet that the sexually active girls would greatly benefit by having older partners who do know what they are doing and also would be more satisfying to the girls in the long term. What do I mean by that? Well, I postulate the reason why the girls were taking on multiple partners or switching partners quickly is because the boys were not satisfying for them. An older partner would open the door to dating stability.

Anyway, in conclusion, I am not trying to tear GG a new butthole. In fact, this sort of thing is common as water. I have discussed this with countless people who have erred on the side of panic and not bothered to read their own links and then disappeared from the discussion.

But people find countless ways to make me the bad guy for laying this all bare, as if I am not supposed to do that in a discussion like this!

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Oh yes, as far as negative consequences go for girls, I think we ought to remember that some bleed their first time and they pretty much all feel pain. Hardly matters how old they are. But are these reasons to forgo all the positives? Do I even need to ask that question?

As far as physical consequences go, my biggest concerns are AIDs and hepatitis. That is pretty much it. All else is curable. But both of the above pretty much remain gay men's diseases as far sexual transmission goes. I will say it again: sex is safer than riding a bicycle. Are we banning bicycles for children and teens? Are we banning cars from the road so kids can ride their bikes more safely?

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Is economic hardship not suffering? If a girl gets pregnant while still in high school, does it not financially drain her family that has to support another child?

Economic hardship is indeed suffering. Many children and teens are already suffering without unwanted teen pregnancy. In fact, many are suffering because they have too many siblings, many unwanted. If nothing is being done about that, why should we have a high age of consent to attempt to prevent teen pregnancy?

Further to that, what is the proof that the high age of consent is preventing teen pregnancy? Who is more likely to knock up a teenager? A teenage boy, or a man over 20? I am going to go with the teenage boy. And so, given the age of consent, I would expect the teen pregnancy rate to be high in western countries with higher ages of consent. Now, excuse me while I surf the net.

Okay, I am back. This took two seconds:

Teen Pregnancy Rates In The Usa | LIVESTRONG.COM

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world.

What seriously annoys me about even the people who create web pages with information that I agree with, such as above, is that they NEVER point out that condoms are in complete control of the male wearing the damned thing. If it breaks, slips off, or gets intentionally removed during intercourse, the female is not going to notice. So what does that mean? It means a big risk to have sex with a miseducated, inexperience male teenager, which is the only legal sexual option teen females are left with (abstinence not being a sexual option).

And what bothers me about your post is that you ignored abortion as a remedy to pregnancy and economic hardship. There are options. There are LOTS of possible options. So why are so many being thrown in the crapper in favor of blanket bans? Its stupid. And that is why America has so many teen pregnancies.

Another question: Who is more likely able to financially support or be made to financially support an unwanted teen pregnancy, a teenage boy or a man over 20? Don't think too hard about that one.

How much more difficult do you suppose achieving a career would be with that extra financial burden? Can we possibly link poverty to having sex too soon? Would a child even consider these matters? Would an adult? My personal opinion is that an adult would consider these matters to some extent, and weigh the risks with goals that she has at the time, while a child would not.

Exactly. And that is why the age of consent should be lowered, so as to get more adults dating teens and thinking of consequences, rather than leave teens with other teens only.

When it comes to phychology, one 'respectable person' may say that a person is defined by their trauma over the course of their life, while another 'respectable person' would say that it is repressed sexual desires that makes us who we are. These are all opinions, not facts, which makes psychology as a whole a philosophy, not a science. Even if they form statistics or profiles for individuals, that does not explain who they are, or why they do what they do in a concrete, provable manner. Furthermore, how can you test it to prove it true? Is that not required of any science?

So what you are saying is that the high age of consent is based on pure speculation. So why do we have it? Why do you tolerate it?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I'll try to explain it again, even though I'm not optimistic you'll accept it without getting angry.

Sex is unethical, immoral, and illegal in some relationships because they inherently involve an imbalance of power, influence, and leverage. Experience has shown that in such situations, the more powerful person can easily exploit the other for his/her personal gain or pleasure.

So sex is forbidden between doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, teachers and students, coaches and players, social workers and clients, and so on.

Such a relationship arises when one person is an adult and the other is a child (as legally defined). Generally children are taught to obey and submit to the authority of adults. So such relationships inherently bring the risk of the older person exploiting the younger.

It may not be true in all situations, but the law deals in generalities. A skilled race-car driver isn't excused from a speeding ticket just because he personally can drive safely at 170 kph. He gets the same ticket you or I would get.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I'll try to explain it again, even though I'm not optimistic you'll accept it without getting angry.
Sex is unethical, immoral, and illegal in some relationships because they inherently involve an imbalance of power, influence, and leverage. Experience has shown that in such situations, the more powerful person can easily exploit the other for his/her personal gain or pleasure.

I am not about to accept such a negative opinion about sex on your word alone. I am not going to say that even a significant minority of relationships involve a balance of power, I am just disgusted that you would make so awful much of it, and equate the ability to exploit with so many people doing that that we should all suffer the consequences.

You are just going to have to cough up some real proof for such an ugly view of sex and humanity, and not give me maybes or guesses. And I am talking about proof that most people take advantage given the chance. Not some. Most.

Further to that, there are ways, if you just sit down and have a think, to avoid exploitation rather than just drive a wedge between people.

So sex is forbidden between doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, teachers and students, coaches and players, social workers and clients, and so on.

Usually not by law, and most of those are for different reasons than fears of exploitation or a power imbalance. You are trying to tailor those "ethical" generalities to suit your argument. Between doctor and patient, the reason is so that other patients don't think they are being "hit on". This is because of a stupidity in some patients who think that because this doctor is dating one patient, he must have the hots for them all. Its nothing to do with a power imbalance. With lawyers and clients its about a concern the lawyer will break OTHER ethical codes in the interest of defending a lover where he or she would not break those codes to defend a mere client. With teachers and students, its similar, in that a teacher may not grade the student correctly. And all of them also account for the consequences if they should break up, for example if a coach and an Olympic athlete break up before the Olympics, its going to hurt performance and man will the sponsors be pissed off!

But screw the sponsors. I think most people can handle these situtations, its just the ones who cannot getting all the press and capturing your imagination. I say again, your imagination.

Generally children are taught to obey and submit to the authority of adults.

Like hell they are. They are taught to submit to the authority of parents, teachers, doctors and a few others. Not adults in general. And also limits are defined. No kid is going to start stripping on the order of a random adult, or even a teacher. Heck, they balk when a doctor says to. You not only make too much of the point, you also over-generalize with your choice of words.

So such relationships inherently bring the risk of the older person exploiting the younger.

Life is risk. And you make too much of the risks.
What you say is paranoia combined with media bias. And you are so wrapped up in it, you cannot see that each new step we take toward legal restrictions on relationships leads to another, and another and another in a foolish attempt to combat bad apples who never seem to slow down.

The latest bout of foolishness seems to be a legal restriction on student/teacher relationships even when both are over the age of consent. There already were schools who had policies against it. Now the choice of the schools and universities is being taken away by legislatures. Why? Because of the few who cannot handle it. But why make this a jailable offense?

You just cannot see the baby steps toward a straight jacket society can you? You are afraid of freedom. You are paranoid. You think humanity if a pack of exploitive bastards. Its really that simple.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

You don't know what you're talking about. Go do some research on professional obligations and boundary limits before further wasting our time.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

You don't know what you're talking about. Go do some research on professional obligations and boundary limits before further wasting our time.

If there is anything explaning the reasons why they exist, and they coincide with your reasons, I happily await your link.

And remember, you said "sex is forbidden", not discouraged or anything like that. You said "forbidden". I think its you who does not know what you are talking about.

And I will also add that doctor/patient relationships also concern money, because if a doctor at a hospital has a personal problem with a patient, it could affect the rep of the entire hospital and the profits and salaries of other doctors, staff and the owners.

Personally, I don't think we should pander to the profit incentive on things like romantic relationships.

But anyway, links please. Its up to you to prove your contention, not me.

Anyway, fear of abuse of power and authority is not the abuse itself. If it were, all children would have to be taken from their parents immediately. Power and influence exist whether you like them or not, and it would be foolish to try and separate everyone or anyone just because one has power and influence, even if they do not abuse it or you have no good reason to think they will.

The whole dating game is a mishmash of things like coercion, trickery, white lies, power displays, etc. etc. and its people like you who do not appreciate the complexity of the whole deal and seek to tinker with it recklessly.

Its abuse you should be concerned with, not potential. Potential is no guarantee of abuse, in fact, its very far from it.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

As so often happens in threads on this topic, I have to do other people's research for them because they don't want to admit their errors. Its extremely annoying:

sexual misconduct
Professional ethics Any behavior that violates a health professional's ethics through sexual contact of physician and his/her Pt. See Professional boundaries.
Sexual misconduct– AMA Council of Ethical & Judicial Affairs

1. Predatory physicians who systematically attempt to seduce Pts
2. Those who claim to use sex for therapeutic purposes
3. Abuse of the physical examination, in particular when it is not indicated according to his/her standard of care
4. Situations in which the physician asks for a date on first visit or on seeing the Pt in an ER
5. Situations in which a long-term professional relationship evolves into an infatuation
6. Raping or fondling a Pt while either awake or under anesthesia
7. Sexual harassment in which a physician makes erotic or suggestive remarks to a Pt
Note: The Medical Council of New Zealand has proposed a classification of sexual misconduct that is of use in determing the severity of the infraction, and possibly the degree or severity of the sanction levied against the perpetrator; the MCNZ divides SM into sexual impropriety, sexual transgression, and the most severe form, sexual violation JAMA1995; 273:1445; in an analysis of six such sex studies, up to 12% of ﾂ≫?ｰ, and 4% of ﾂ?? physicians have admitted to SM; 20% involved same sex dyads

sexual misconduct - definition of sexual misconduct in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Nothing in there about it being forbidden for a doctor to date a patient. It just says not to abuse the doctor patient relationship in the process of trying to get a date.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I wasn't planning to reply further because of your obvious obtuseness on this issue. And I'm not going to cover every country and jurisdiction. But to counter your misinformation:

Doctor-patient sexual relationships forbidden:

US: Opinion 8.14 - Sexual Misconduct in the Practice of Medicine

Canada: Canadian Health Magazine: Give it to me straight, doc!

UK: GMC | Maintaining boundaries - guidance for doctors

See also: http://www.jaapl.org/content/20/4/365.full.pdf ("From the time of the Hippocratic Oath, physicians have been proscribed from having sex with patients.")

Attorney-client sexual relationships forbidden:

US: Actual rules vary slightly in different states, but attorney-client sex is generally considered unethical (which, in the case of lawyers, means illegal.) See: Attorney-Client Sex Should Always Be Off Limits  Martindale.com

I am a lawyer. I've practiced law in Alaska for 32 years. I would lose my license and risk prosecution if I had a sexual relationship with a client UNLESS the relationship existed before I commenced legal representation. See, Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8(j). Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct

Teacher-student sexual relationships forbidden:

I'm tired of Googling, but trust me. It's against the law in most, if not all, US states. It's also forbidden by school district rules.

Social worker-client relationships.

My wife is a social worker, a child activity therapist. She works with young people (ages 5-16) from broken homes and parents unable to care for their kids. She is forbidden by her agency rules even to hug them. For sex, she'd be prosecuted under Alaska law.

Any more questions?

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

you are very confused zorro -

most people under the age of 25 lack the mental capacity not to be an idiot - or get completely blindsided, confused and mixed up when sex is involved.

so someone who is 11 certainly is no where near mature enough.

you could equally argue that a teenager is not mentally mature enough - but at the same time it's part of growing up - and the teenage mind is actually wired differently from adult minds - so your just not going to stop it happeneing.

however both children and teenagers are incredibly easy to manipulate - so yea - if i'm honest - bit of a creepy topic you have started there

 

[Mark of Zorro]

most people under the age of 25 lack the mental capacity not to be an idiot - or get completely blindsided, confused and mixed up when sex is involved.

I wonder where you got your "facts"? Blindsided, confused and mixed-up? Only about sex? Then why don't we just ban all sex for those under 25? Would you actually support that?

so someone who is 11 certainly is no where near mature enough.

There is that word "mature" again! So clear. So scientific. So necessary to avoid being totally traumatized by sex. NOT! I wonder, do you think one needs to be mature enough to handle masturbation too?

you could equally argue that a teenager is not mentally mature enough - but at the same time it's part of growing up -

Oh, so now getting blindsided, confused and mixed-up is a part of growing up, but somehow only someone who is also confused and mixed-up should be allowed to participate, because if there is one thing that is good, its the blind leading the blind? And of course, no teen ever blind-sided another teen!

and the teenage mind is actually wired differently from adult minds - so your just not going to stop it happeneing.

I have heard a lot of over-reaching claims about the teenage mind. Wired differently, as if they are from Mars? Probably the first time I heard that one. And why would it be automatically a negative to be wired differently anyhow?

however both children and teenagers are incredibly easy to manipulate

Really? And you know this how? I would bet you money that you could not choose a random child from 9 or teen and convince them to have sexual relations with you despite them not liking you, but, that would be illegal. So where is the proof? TV shows and movies?

- so yea - if i'm honest - bit of a creepy topic you have started there

That sentiment has nothing to do with nothing. They used to say the same about topics concerning gays. Its all about what you are used to.

you are very confused zorro -

If so, I cannot say your post was much help frankly.

But here, I will offer you a little solution to some of your concerns. How about parental consent being required for anyone under 18? That way, the teen or child gains the maturity and insight of their own parents. That being the case, what difference would it make if one was 11 and the other was 30? Do you think parents would be more careless about this than some generalized ban?

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

ok well you can have some "over reaching" facts about how the teenage brain is straight up wired differently here:
5 Ways High School Really Does Suck (According to Science) | Cracked.com

There is a reason why there are serious laws regarding even advertising aimed at children.
There is a reason that in many countries for example it is completely illigal to advertise unhealthy food - or alcohol to children.

This is because children are still learning about the world - look i could go into detail - but really i am not.

why don't you go find some "evidence" about how an 11 year old has the world has a full understanding of the world.
You are in effect saying that you were the same person at 11 as you are now. If that is the case.

and yea - you give me ANY 9 year old - and i will mold them to whatever i want.

Give me a 9 year old from the most hard core saudi islamic family there is - by age 14 he will be drinking, f*cking, smoking, athiest and spitting at muslims he see's on the street if thats what i want.

kids are as impressionable as ****

Dogs have more mental resilience than young kids ***.

It's called brain washing - it's a science - used every day in the armed forces of every country.
the younger someone is - the easier they are to brain wash - and that can be positive as well as negative.

and yea - you missed the point about it being part of growing up - either on purpose - trollin
or because your a bit thick - not sure which yet.

yes children develop sexuality in stages - and it's often a confusing time - what with body changes / embaresment etc.
but what you are suggesting is just stupid - and sounds like you are trying to justify shagging kids.

post puberty or not - there is no way that an 11 year old is ready to have sex. at all what so ever - be it physically - and certainly not emotionally / mentally.

so yea - your topic is creepy
mostly because you are trying to argue the point that it's ok to ram an 11 inch, thick manly penis deep into the vagina, anus and mouth of an 11 year old - yup gag - thats graphic - but i'm just not going to pull punches on this, because that is your subject matter -

your talking about f*cking kids.

and when you **** someone thats what you do - you stick your penis - into them - and that is just deeply wrong.

the point being also - you need to be able to give consent to do this. but at such a young age you do not have the mental reasoning to make those kind of decisions because you are
1. an idiot
2. easily manipulated
3. have no concept of the future beyond next week
4. have no concept - or at best a skewed concept - of the consequences of your actions.

which is why kids can't join the army or get married etc.

I've already given your post more time and attention than it deserves -

your wrong -

end of

This is the topic you have started - and this is the point you are trying to argue.

this says it all really - kids are dumb
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsTm5VR73c

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Roland, your first link clearly says its an opinion. As such, they may or may not come with penalties. Its not absolute. Your second link is even more so an opinion and in the form of Ann Landers advice. Your third link labels itself as guidance and begins by saying "we advise". In short, none of these things back up your contention of "forbidden".

From your third link: "If this boundary is breached, this can undermine the patient's trust in their doctor, as well as the public's trust in the medical profession." Well I don't deny that a failed attempt to date a patient could undermine trust. Its a risk, but hey, that is life. But what is one going to do about a patient pursuing a doctor? There could be hard feelings for refusal. Again, this is life. I just advise being aware, careful and responsible. And pay attention to that last bit added like an afterthought. I don't think it is: "public's trust in the medical profession". Why would other doctors want to take a risk on another doctor's love life? Answer: they don't. None will risk anything for another doctor's love life so they will seek to curtail it where possible. Think money.

Protecting people's sexual rights is a difficult thing to do, because other people outside of the people involved may incur risks, including just jealousy, but they never gain any benefits (outside of maybe dowries but we no longer have those in the west).

("From the time of the Hippocratic Oath, physicians have been proscribed from having sex with patients.")

Yet has only been included specifically as unethical by the AMA since 1989. That info is in the same paragraph. Its rather contradictory. And I refer you back to my earlier statement that other doctors have nothing to gain by other doctor's sexual relationships but do have things to lose.

US: Actual rules vary slightly in different states, but attorney-client sex is generally considered unethical (which, in the case of lawyers, means illegal.)

Unethical equals illegal?? This from a guy claiming to be a lawyer?? From your PDF link: "The only way a lawyer's sexual relationship with a client would be wrong would be a case where the lawyer's infatuation with the client caused him to miss a filing deadline." and that was from an unnamed appellate court judge. I salute that judge. He stuck his neck out for little personal gain but considerable personal risk, all in the interest of justice and fairness.

And odd that he could say that with your claim of "generally considered unethical". You seem to be speaking for a whole lot of people out of turn.

Your first link on attorneys is an opinion piece about the way things "should be" (again). From it I gleaned: "Alaska and Pennsylvania have issued ethics opinions advising the bar that attorney-client sexual relations during representation is unethical." Pay special note to the words "opinions" and "advising". This goes against your contention that you would lose your license and risk prosecution.

You are erring on the side of caution so much that you discard your freedom and live in paranoia. This is further substantiated by the fact that I see nothing about sex in your link on Alaska rules of conduct.

No I do not trust you on teacher/student relations because you are not talking about teacher/student relations. You are talking about the age of consent, just as you are with social workers. Anyone under the AOC is forbidden, hardly matters the professional relationship.

Actual laws banning teacher/student relationships over the AOC are new and few. America is experiencing a general sexual moral panic after the free love era, and the only breaks have been internet porn and acceptance of gays. We have people going after all these ethical rules, TV shows like Law and Order and To Catch a Predator to whip up the panic, and we have schools being made to fear monger in sex-ed classes and to never ever describe how one is supposed to even get to first base safely and ethically.

And sadly, you sit there and acquiesce, like so many others.

Any more questions?

Not really a question. I just can't imagine how you have been practicing law for 32 years, unless the key to your profession is trying to baffle people with bull. But hey, I went to a lawyer only once in my life, and that is precisely what my 50 dollars got me.

Half-n-half would destroy you in a courtroom and I am not even sure if he is a real lawyer!

I wasn't planning to reply further because of your obvious obtuseness on this issue.

I really hate it when my honest words are called "obtuse". Sorry if I don't kiss your @$$ in this or any other thread.

---------- Post added at 03:30 ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 ----------

Well, thanks a lot SevenStarsHK2N for avoiding the many questions of the thread and just launching into a rant from scratch.

ok well you can have some "over reaching" facts about how the teenage brain is straight up wired differently here:
5 Ways High School Really Does Suck (According to Science) | Cracked.com

Not fully developed is not the same as being wired differently. Plus I advise you that the contention of the relationship between development and judgment is based on near junk science. And its also based on what the researchers considered to be sound judgment. They seemed to agree with each other that risk aversion was the way to go. And I bet the lot of those shoe gazers lead really boring lives. The article itself pointed to the bias of adults in these matters.

Trust me, no one really knows what is going on in the brain. They can only guess. And how do they guess? Brain scans? This was described to me as watching lights go on and off in an office building, and using that to conclude what is happening in the building. Its nuts.

And I wonder if you read about the complications of sex for those in high school? Did you read about the "chains" that spread STDs? Can you possibly imagine a way of breaking those chains?

There is a reason why there are serious laws regarding even advertising aimed at children.
There is a reason that in many countries for example it is completely illigal to advertise unhealthy food - or alcohol to children.

Yes, and I approve of those. What I don't approve of is advertising sex as a negative, which is the natural conclusion of a high AOC. It says there is something wrong with sex right there. Plus you have the scare mongering of sex ed, abstinence campaigns, ethics garbage, etc. etc. Its all key to a sex negative society. And I do not approve.

Besides, all this has lead to the U.K. and America having extremely high teen pregnancy rates among developed countries. But you back up popular thinking there?

yes children develop sexuality in stages - and it's often a confusing time - what with body changes / embaresment etc.

And not only is your solution to keep them as inexperienced as possible, detached from those who could teach and explain, and therefore stewing in their own misconceptions, you ensure that they begin that way.

These stages that you mention are merely observations of the way things are. And the way things are are brought about by society as much as anything. And society has not examined itself very well to make sure that what it teaches and what it proscribes is actually best, and that goes double for English speaking societies, particularly those with high teen STD and pregnancy rates.

but what you are suggesting is just stupid - and sounds like you are trying to justify shagging kids.

so yea - your topic is creepy

your talking about f*cking kids.

I've already given your post more time and attention than it deserves -

your wrong -

Those are all really just a load of unnecessary shite that do nothing to further the conversation.

and when you **** someone thats what you do - you stick your penis - into them - and that is just deeply wrong.

What an awful way to characterize sex and love. No, these things are not wrong. What is wrong is your stilting of language to try and gain traction for your foregone conclusions.

the point being also - you need to be able to give consent to do this. but at such a young age you do not have the mental reasoning to make those kind of decisions because you are
1. an idiot
2. easily manipulated
3. have no concept of the future beyond next week
4. have no concept - or at best a skewed concept - of the consequences of your actions.

I would not describe myself with any of those from 13 years old. Same with some people I knew. Not really sure why any of those apply to sex so much, but not to riding a bicycle, except say you are a deeply sex negative person.

The only exception to that is manipulation. And I suggested parental consent to avoid that, but you have not responded to it, just like you avoided so much else.

You have had the wool pulled over your eyes by charlatans peddling junk science. The absolute worst thing a young person has to contend with is a lack of experience on which to build future choices. Second is a society hell bent to keep it that way.

You also don't seem to realize or want to accept that the way society works has massive influence on these traits you try and convince us are purely natural biological absolutes, and that is a load of shite. Young people vary the world over, and the ones the most sexually fcked up are from North America and the U.K.

And while I do not deny that some benefits may have been gleaned from the tortuous process, such as making an effective workforce and creating economically and militarily strong countries, I do not value those benefits. Instead, my concern is psychological health and happiness.

Now, would you mind addressing some of the questions and contentions of the thread directly and completely instead of just repeating "Hey, this is about fcking kids!" Because its not at all helpful. Its like saying "Hey, this is about men fcking other men up the @$$!" and that is exactly the sort of dead head moronic jeers that were used to oppress gays for no damned good reason.

Just stick to reason and logic if you please.

---------- Post added at 03:44 ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 ----------

mostly because you are trying to argue the point that it's ok to ram an 11 inch, thick manly penis deep into the vagina, anus and mouth of an 11 year old - yup gag - thats graphic - but i'm just not going to pull punches on this, because that is your subject matter -

Nearly skipped this garbage. Dude, just can it with the emotional outbursts. What you describe there is harm I don't condone it. Ramming? Please. If you have difficulty being gentle, don't lay it on us.

If you don't straighten up and stop with the mischaracterisation shite (similar to saying support for legalization of adultery is talking about "fcking my mother!") I won't respond to you logically and fairly next post but just return the same shite.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

My wife is a social worker, a child activity therapist. She works with young people (ages 5-16) from broken homes and parents unable to care for their kids. She is forbidden by her agency rules even to hug them.

Dear God man! Can you not see the problem with that? Can you not see the extreme paranoia and sex negativity in that, proving so much of what I say? Who needs a hug more than those kids??? Those short sentences lay bare something very fcked up about America. Its a big reason why I have no interest in going back there.

Are they allowed to pick up an abused baby, or do they need to call in a specialist who wears a body condom to ensure there is no skin on skin contact?? Or has America adapted bomb sniffing robot technology to this task??

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Your obtuseness is worse than I thought, and I won't waste time posting here again.

You don't understand the force of advisory opinions by professional organizations. Courts don't issue advisory opinions. Professional organization DO in order to guide their members when there is no controlling statute or court decision. These opinions are qualified in some respects because of uncertainty over how any particular judge might rule. Despite the qualification, they're considered guiding rules for members unless or until over-ruled.

Again, I cite you to Alaska Professional Rule 1.8(j), which states: "A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced and the sexual relationship does not create a conflict under Rule 1.7(a)(2)."

As I said, a lawyer here can't have sex with a client unless the sexual relationship existed before the legal representation commenced. This means I could only represent someone who is already my wife or girlfriend or sex buddy, before they retained me as their lawyer.

Again, I'd be sanctioned or disbarred for violating this rule. Why can't you accept that I know the rules of my profession better than you do?

Never mind. I really don't care about your answer.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

[/COLOR]Well, thanks a lot SevenStarsHK2N for avoiding the many questions of the thread and just launching into a rant from scratch.


And I wonder if you read about the complications of sex for those in high school? Did you read about the "chains" that spread STDs? Can you possibly imagine a way of breaking those chains?

There is free universal healthcare here. Anyone can go into any clinic and get free condoms. and free STD checkups.
It's for the health of the nation.

Which is why that new breed of anti biotic resistant gonorrhoea didn't come from here...

Besides, all this has lead to the U.K. and America having extremely high teen pregnancy rates among developed countries. But you back up popular thinking there?

Yes you are correct. shame on us for have so many teenage pregnancies. Though on the upside,
Beats a population crisis wouldn't you say?
After all, it's always good to have some young healthy people make up the numbers.

And not only is your solution to keep them as inexperienced as possible, detached from those who could teach and explain, and therefore stewing in their own misconceptions, you ensure that they begin that way.

what are you talking about teach for?
can you teach someone to be zen?
can you teach someone to be at one?

is that what you are saying?

for how else can you say that you will teach someone to themselves?

These stages that you mention are merely observations of the way things are. And the way things are are brought about by society as much as anything.

We all get to the top of the mountain.
It doesn't matter if we get there or not.
Because we will all get there in the end.
the path we take is each our own.

What an awful way to characterize sex and love.

What do you really know of these things?
you are sounding a little sheltered to me there.

The absolute worst thing a young person has to contend with is a lack of experience on which to build future choices. Second is a society hell bent to keep it that way.

the absolute worst thing an old person has to contend with is a wealth of experience but a lack of future choices.
is that what you have to say?

A bunch of kids were asked by some small town radio station what they wanted to do when they were older.
One kid, who's parents were poor farmers basically said.
"I dunno, but i like the stars, I want to do something to do with the stars"
he became one of the first people up in space.

You also don't seem to realize or want to accept that the way society works has massive influence on these traits you try and convince us are purely natural biological absolutes, and that is a load of shite. Young people vary the world over, and the ones the most sexually fcked up are from North America and the U.K.

Are you sure you are talking about the uk and america?
The west is a very open society. we don't judge and we believe in freedom.
It's usually in more closed society's where you get the extremes.

And while I do not deny that some benefits may have been gleaned from the tortuous process, such as making an effective workforce and creating economically and militarily strong countries, I do not value those benefits. Instead, my concern is psychological health and happiness.

I'd say as continents go. when it comes to psychological health and happiness. Europe is top.
pretty much all of the top 10 countries on terms of standard of living and happiness are european.

I don't see what that has to do with economic or military strength,
but where in this thing called N.A.T.O and these days it means your either on our side, or your a rouge state.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Your obtuseness is worse than I thought, and I won't waste time posting here again.

So you find me obtuse and are going to drop out?

Golly. I have no idea why you keep calling me obtuse. You just keep saying it, as if repeating the mantra will make it true, but you don't explain it.

Whatever.

Again, I cite you to Alaska Professional Rule 1.8(j),

Sorry, I looked over your link and could not find the bit you quoted. I shall try again.

Why can't you accept that I know the rules of my profession better than you do?

You are right. I should just trust you implicitly about everything.

Actually if there is something I cannot just accept, its that you apparently accept the complete contradiction of allowing a lawyer to represent a sex partner, but not make a sex partner of one they represent.

Is there really a difference there? Its total nitpicking, and again, representative of the crazy sex climate of the U.S., even if only two states have succumbed that far.

Oh well, I am obtuse so I may never get an answer.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Okay I found and confirmed the rule. Its already ridiculous, draconian and totally unnecessary, not to mention contradictory as I already pointed out. Its listed under "conflict of interest". Well either there is a conflict of interest or there isn't, and they are entertaining two different positions. Its VERY unlawyer-like. Plus we have this gem:

Subsection (k) abrogates the portion of Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 92-6 that extended the sexual relationship disqualification to all members of the attorney's firm.

Am I reading this right? They punish all members of the firm for one person's relationship with a client??

---------- Post added at 15:29 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

There is free universal healthcare here. Anyone can go into any clinic and get free condoms. and free STD checkups.
It's for the health of the nation.

Maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel after all? I take it you support that system.

Yes you are correct. shame on us for have so many teenage pregnancies. Though on the upside,
Beats a population crisis wouldn't you say?

You lost me. Do you mean too many or too few by population crisis. And how do you conclude that lowering the AOC will result in one? Places with lower AOC's in Europe seem to be doing fine.

After all, it's always good to have some young healthy people make up the numbers.

Again, I have no idea what this means.

what are you talking about teach for?
can you teach someone to be zen?
can you teach someone to be at one?
is that what you are saying?

for how else can you say that you will teach someone to themselves?

Losing me again. You can teach young people that sex is a positive or that its a negative. You can teach them to do it responsibly and safely. You can teach it all practically and not just from a textbook. Do you learn to drive from a textbook alone? No. You practice too. No one would expect anyone to be able to drive correctly by listening to a lecture, reading a book and then just hand them the keys. Sex is no different. Leaving teens with only other teens who also have no experience is asking for trouble. And lo and behold, you GET trouble.

We all get to the top of the mountain.
It doesn't matter if we get there or not.
Because we will all get there in the end.
the path we take is each our own.

No one can choose the correct path for them in the dark.

What do you really know of these things?
you are sounding a little sheltered to me there.

And you, with your "ramming 11 inches" sound like you are out of control and have quite an imagination about your length.

When I speak of lowering the AOC, I don't mean that there will be no laws, and out of control people will be free to do whatever. In fact, I would bar such people from sex with ANYBODY. Violent abusers would quickly find themselves in jail. You know why? Because I would free up the jails from holding the non-abusers.

the absolute worst thing an old person has to contend with is a wealth of experience but a lack of future choices.
is that what you have to say?

Blah blah blah. Please try to follow the plot.

A bunch of kids were asked by some small town radio station what they wanted to do when they were older.
One kid, who's parents were poor farmers basically said.
"I dunno, but i like the stars, I want to do something to do with the stars"
he became one of the first people up in space.

Are you tripping on something? If I follow you correctly I say this: He might have been one of the first people in space, but it took a whole international team of scientists and engineers to put him there, and they did the same with monkeys and dogs first. You follow? It was expert experienced people who put him there and brought him back safetly. It was not him and another person as limited in knowledge as himself who got there on their own.

Are you sure you are talking about the uk and america?
The west is a very open society. we don't judge and we believe in freedom.

I probably should have been clear that I was talking about developed societies, and among them, the U.K. and the U.S. have poor records on sexual matters.

And "we don't judge"? Holy cow! You have judged and insulted me beyond belief! If I wanted to set up my own polygamous community I would be put in jail fast. If I set up a community violating the AOC just as kindly and gently and beneficially as I said, I would be jail twice as fast.

You call this a lack of judgementalism? Dear God! You cannot even smoke pot legally in your own home!

It's usually in more closed society's where you get the extremes.

Key word is usually. America is very extreme. America has the highest prison population among developed nations, any way you slice it. Violate the AOC, you go to jail, no matter what. Plenty of people get out of jail and marry their "victim". Why? Because their was no victim. That is EXTREME.

America is NOT on the top of the freedom scale. Its more in the middle. Seriously.

I'd say as continents go. when it comes to psychological health and happiness. Europe is top.
pretty much all of the top 10 countries on terms of standard of living and happiness are european.

Yes. And what are their AOC's and sexual mores? We are not talking about Britian are we? But you have been here slugging away on mores that sound British to me.

I don't see what that has to do with economic or military strength,
but where in this thing called N.A.T.O and these days it means your either on our side, or your a rouge state.

The sexually dissatisfied, frustrated and confused do often seem to apply themselves more toward money and violence. That is what I mean about economic and military strength. But they suffer psychologically, as seems the case in America.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

I really can't tell.
Are you taking my words out of context on purpose as a troll - or do you perhaps not quite understand how language works?
So I'm not really going to bother repeating points to you. I would say perhaps you may want to read what i wrote before - because clearly very little of it actually got through to you.
You are the one who is arguing that the age of Consent should be lowered.
You are wrong and i suspect you are lolicon
You say that sex should be taught the same way as driving a car. with theory txt books and then "practical" lessons....
you are wrong....very very creepy (i wonder what the police would make of your hard drive?)...and SO SO Wrong.
You don't need to teach anyone the how to details of sex, or certainly show them...because there is no wrong way to do or have sex.
SO YES - teenagers should exactly be left to fumble about with other teenagers.
At the age of 15 they don't really know what they want or like - it's about making mistakes, for yourself, learning through your own experience. what works for you, what works for her.
What gives you the right to take that experience away from someone?
who are you to claim to know better?
I doubt you even fully understand your own sexuality (as you can't even maintain a happy sex life with your own wife)
so who are you to tell others how things should be done?
i'm not bothering with individual quotes from you - because you didn't even follow it last time but i will refer to this:

No one can choose the correct path for them in the dark.

you don't choose a path - you travel it. and how can YOU choose someone's path for them.
How can you give someone directions, when you don't even know where they are going, or probably even where they are at.
are you buddha or some kami??
please tell me how i can get from location "a" to location "b" - when i'm not going to tell you exactly where location "a" is and i don't even know myself where location "b" is.
and please tell me what are these "trouble" you get when teens are left with other teens - we've gone over the std and pregnancy issues - so what is it then. - what are these troubling things that happened to you? lol - did the girls laugh at you in high school or something?
or so anyway - this is all just friendly banter - but imma change gear on you now...and i am going to deconstruct your failure for all here to understand.

And you, with your "ramming 11 inches" sound like you are out of control and have quite an imagination about your length.
When I speak of lowering the AOC, I don't mean that there will be no laws, and out of control people will be free to do whatever. In fact, I would bar such people from sex with ANYBODY. Violent abusers would quickly find themselves in jail. You know why? Because I would free up the jails from holding the non-abusers.
[..........]
And "we don't judge"? Holy cow! You have judged and insulted me beyond belief! If I wanted to set up my own polygamous community I would be put in jail fast. If I set up a community violating the AOC just as kindly and gently and beneficially as I said, I would be jail twice as fast.
You call this a lack of judgementalism? Dear God! You cannot even smoke pot legally in your own home!

This is the biggest bunch of pro-nonse rubbish i have heard.
You paint your idea in some holistic selfless ideal. when it's actually about you wanting to be in a sexual situation where you don't feel deeply inadequate.

And you, with your "ramming 11 inches" sound like you are out of control and have quite an imagination about your length.
When I speak of lowering the AOC, I don't mean that there will be no laws, and out of control people will be free to do whatever. In fact, I would bar such people from sex with ANYBODY.

Some people like it when you **** them really hard - some people like to **** other people hard.
Some people like it gentle - some people like to cause or recieve pain.
Some people like to take it up the **** - some people like to give it up the ****.
some people love oral - some people don't
The age of consent is a time when the law decides that you are of a mature and robust enough mind frame to be able to deal with any of the plethora of things that you may be faced with in a sexual senario.
You can't grade it.
You can't say. oh 15 is now ok - as long as you are gentle
and 14 is ok as long as you are gentle and have a penis no larger than 4.5"
It's all or nothing.
You try to argue the point that it should be legal to have sex with children - yet at the same time, that couple who like a bit of rough sex, that should now be deemed illegal.

Violent abusers would quickly find themselves in jail. You know why? Because I would free up the jails from holding the non-abusers.

see here is a classic sign that you are both confused and possibly mentally unstable/lolicon
Violence is not just limited to slapping someone in the face.
Violence takes many forms.
Gently touching the genitals or body of a child for your own sexual gratification and/or to illicit a sexual or aroused response from a child - is actually on of the most violent things you can do.
again - because you seem to be incapable of understanding simple English.
Child abuse - is a crime - and a deeply violent one at that.
Something does not have to involve blood and smashing and aggression to be violent.
There is no such thing as non-violent abuse.
Just as there is no such thing as a "victimless Crime"
Perhaps loser lolicons tell them selves they are not violating children because they are even too cowardly to admit to themselves what they are really doing, they are only doing for their own selfish kicks, and they do not care about the children involved.

If I wanted to set up my own polygamous community I would be put in jail fast.

you would not be put in prison - as long as all the people who are in your commune are of legal age and of a sound enough mind to be responsible for their own decisions (so not mentally retarded / disabled etc) then you can live in a comune and sex up as many women as you want. The law will only recognise one wife - but will not limit what you do beyond that in anyway. And you can have your own ceremony and call as many of them your wife as you like - the TAX benefits however will be limited to only a single spouse

If I set up a community violating the AOC [....] I would be jail twice as fast.

yes, and whats more you would be lucky to make it out of prison alive (say what you like about murderers and other Cat A prisoners, they won't stand for child abuse) And when 3 big strong men walk into your cell one day - and one by one **** you up the **** ever so gently - why not remind yourself how as far as your concerned that's not violence - because they are being gentle and didn't hit you or overtly threaten you
hey perhaps they are just showing you - the path rite
because they have more experience in prison than you - and you wouldn't want to be making any "decisions" in the dark rite..
if anything they are being really kind and helpful because they are teaching you how to deep throat a large penis, and not gag when a man cums in your face.
Would you consider that these 3 prisoners are being kind to you?
or would you see yourself as a victim of sexual violence / abuse / rape?
which bring me to

violating the AOC just as kindly and gently and beneficially as I said

the only word in that phrase which is correct is the word "Violating"
there is nothing kindly about it.
don't pretend that you are doing the child a favour.
I have explained to you in many ways now how you are not doing that person a favour.
it is not about you being some generous person.
You are doing what you are doing for your own kicks - if you did not get off on it - you would not do it...so lets amend that shall we

violating the AOC just as gently and beneficially as I said

"gently"
as i mentioned - there is NO gently - even if you think it is - there is not.
I gave you the prison rape analogy above, but that is by no means exhaustive as to the reasons why sexual abuse is a form of violence - and so cannot be described as gentle - even if the physical act - at the time was physically "gentle" - it is still mentally oppressive and dominating, not to mention sexually violent.

violating the AOC just as beneficially as I said

there are no benefits to violating the Age of Consent.
absolutely none. not one. not a single one.
I've gone over the reasons why it is of absolutely no benefit and actually negative in this and previous posts already.
If you do not understand - I suggest you read them again.

violating the AOC as I said

the root of the word violating is violence - you are condoning violence - against someone who is innocent, and unable to adequately defend themselves against such violence.
The rest of your post was factually incorrect drivel that does not really merit a response.
oh and the next time you decide to call the west sexually ****** up and full of extremes and confusion...why not google image search "what Japan" first.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

the root of the word violating is violence - you are condoning violence - against someone who is innocent, and unable to adequately defend themselves against such violence.

I just popped in and read this. If I don't read the rest of the post, that alone is good reason not to.

You are actually claiming the root of a word proves I advocate violence on the innocent? That is the type of argument I would expect to come from someone with a drug addled mind. So if I violate the law against not trespassing, you think I go and beat up trees or something?

You think if I violated the now defunct laws against inter-racial marriage, that I beat the snot out of my Black wife? But when those laws were repealed I now treat her nice?

No, I do not advocate violence against children and teens, not for sex, not for any reason except self-defense. And through a mixture of rude and crazy, you have come up with a very stupid false accusation which you should (but won't) admit and apologize for.

Dude, there is something seriously wrong with you. I don't know what the hell your problem is, but I sure hope I can avoid having any further discussions with you and your silly, spaced out contentions.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Man, I am just perusing your last post a bit SevenStars and a I have a few questions. Please, just answer these before we continue.

Do you do recreational drugs? If so which ones and how often?
Are you an alcoholic?
Are you now seeing or have you ever been referred to a psychologist?
Are you suffering from an age related mental illness, such as dementia?
What was your grade point average for any year of high school?
What is the longest sexual relationship you have ever had with a female?

I am seriously asking here. Not only is your post chock full of angry personal accusations that just don't help anything, its full of logical fallacies and wild imaginings. Whatever you are about, it does not seem to be the topic.

I don't know. Maybe you are just P.O.ed that I exposed so much of your flawed reasoning that you lost your mind? You found you believed a pack of lies and you just can't hack it?

I am not taking a dig at you here. There is seriously something wrong with you.

 

[Sorawakaibutsu]

I was going to take the time to read the comments before I posted, BUT! That went out the window.
At a young age if a girl is to get pregnant, depending on her age say from 10-14, her body is not fully developed to carry a pregnancy and could end up not only killing the child, but the mother as well. That is one risk, the other risk is STD's a 14 year old should not be walking around with one because again, it could do major damage to their body and lead to all other sorts of things that could hinder them for the rest of their life or take their life way too early than it should. Also for your argument about the AIDS bit, If you have the AIDS or HIV virus you have to tell the person you are having sex with before, who are you to play maker and infect everyone you see fit? Seriously?!
How do you not find it disgusting that a grown person be man or woman wants to be with a child? If a grown man ever came on to my daughter I would threaten him to within an inch of his life and if I found out that he did anything with her, if she was willing or not, I would find and cut his stuff off. It's just disgusting, and you are making yourself sound like a pedophile the way you are arguing this and you're trying to find someone who will justify it for you.