On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:12:56 -0500, Secret Squirrel wrote:

wrote in
oups.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:
snippage of mass destruction

I LOL'ed when I read this; I said, "MIB prolly thinks I
go around tilting at this particular windmill given half
a chance--and to some extent, he's right." ;-)

The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms.

The problem is, or course, is that the society at
large, led by the Fox-y News Media,


Faux News doesn't "lead" anybody. It's reenforcement for
the

Don't try to change my mind;
It's already been made up for me.

crowd.


doesn't see it as
a complicated issue at all. People who transgress the
line and who give a 13-yo boy a blowjob are simply worse
than murderers. Yeah, as absurd as that sounds, I've
heard quite literally it said that way.

When I was a teenager, I used to hitchhike a lot. I can
remember jumping from the cab of a semi going about 25mph
because the guy was fixin' to charge me for the ride.


Voltai "When we believe in absurdities, we will
commit actrocities".

Ooohhh, I love it! [stolen, {of course} after verification]

That pretty much sums up what's
happening today.

On
the other, there's the question of if teens are
emotionally ready, and they certainly aren't
ready for the stigma of pregnancy. Or the
economic realities of having children. When
you're talking about girls who recently got their
period, they're most likely not physically ready
for pregnancy either.


Hell, they're not ready for "french-kissing"!


Of course, part of the reason they might not be
emotionally ready is cultural,

Of course, it's "cultural"; but for us'n livin' in the US,
that's going to be the over-riding factor in
"relationships" - for good or for ill.

and I've met
people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s
or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14.

I sure wasn't. Just out of curiosity, were you raised -
more or less - in an urban environment?

But that still
leaves the harsh economic realities.

Oh, I agree, I agree with the last part. Raising kids
requires financial resources that 14-year olds won't have in
current society. However, preventing teenagers from having kids,
and preventing STDs, both very legitimate objectives,

agreed

is not
quite the same as preventing them from having orgasms

Durn right! I can't help think that my parents - given any
wish - would have gotten a second bathroom!


or having
sex

I just don't buy into "if you're old enough to , then
you're old enough to .

I really like the idea of letting children be children. A
child uncomfortable with his/her body is jus' liable to be
uncomfortable with her/his body when an adult.

In my opinion, when people try to "collapse" children's
"growing up", those people are responsible for children who
will never "grow up".

Dealing with a second person is a /tremendous/ jolt for a
child/child growing and one I prefer being put off until
the child feels somewhat comfortable ("somewhat" because
many [most?] people /never/ feel /totally/ comfortable
initiating a "relationship" or even responding to that
"initiation").


---not anymore than preventing unwanted pregnancies
and STDs
among adults requires them to forgo orgasms and sex. Nor are the
ages of the particular participants especially important in
achieving those objectives. I personally would tell any teenaged
girl to get an abortion, and aid her in being able to get one.

I, also, but I would suffer anguish at a child having a
child - aborted or not. [As a matter of fact, among "my"
group in college, there were a couple of times when the
"hat was passed" and no one - except the person holding the
hat - knew who was getting the abortion.

[A reminder to /everyone/: the legal choice of abortion or
not is /not/ the choice between abortion and no abortion
but between /legal/ abortion and /illegal/ abortion.]

My example above was in the middle 1960's and, obviously,
they were /illegal/ abortions not being performed by
doctors.

It's wrongheaded, I think, to conflate preganancy avoidance
and disease prevention with notions of chastity,

Agreed and I hate to see those combined.

though that's
exactly the card that the Religious Reich wants to seed played.


In all liklihood, my views are generally considered the
same as the wackie righties and the result is the same but
with the intention - if nothing else - of not wanting to
rush children into non-child relationships or even
child-child relationships that go too "fast".

I would be against "sex education" in school except for one
thing: it's the only "sex education" that most children
get. School has to do it because the parents (Shame on
Them) aren't doing it and the churches most /certainly/
aren't doing it.

Notice that (the last time I saw the figures, anyway) the
"Bible Belt" has the most teen (unmarried) pregnancies of
any area in the United States.

If these parents and these religionists continue to tie
"intimacy" to "sin", we're going to continue having unhappy
people and people who "tie" sexual arousal with
non-consensual and violent sex that has nothing whatsoever
to do with "making love".


Allow children their childhood.


Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional.







Secret Squirrel