If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Planned Parenthood Perversity
Secret Squirrel wrote:
snippage of mass destruction 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. 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. Of course, part of the reason they might not be emotionally ready is cultural, and I've met people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14. But that still leaves the harsh economic realities. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:08:58 -0500, Gray Shockley wrote
Hell, they're not ready for "french-kissing"! Hm,m,m, should that be - instead of "french-kissing" - "freedom kissing"? Gray Shockley ------------------------------------------------- Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Secret Squirrel wrote:
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, 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. Voltai "When we believe in absurdities, we will commit actrocities". That pretty much sums up what's happening today. People always want simplified issues. People don't like to think. Wait . . . Worse than murder? 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. Of course, part of the reason they might not be emotionally ready is cultural, and I've met people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14. 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, is not quite the same as preventing them from having orgasms or having sex---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. Then we get into the ethics of abortion. That's why I always use condoms, even if there IS still a 3% chance she'll get pregnant in a typical year. (Which gets worse because I'm not sure what "typical couple" means.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Gray Shockley wrote:
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. Unfortunately, while they're not the majority, they're the ones who get the best press. Better to be strong than right. 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"! Too true. A lot of reasons to be protective of a daughter. I know that if I were to find out a daughter of mine was pregnant at 14, I'd tell her "Damn right there's a double standard!" Then I'd get her boyfriend and make sure he never gets another girl pregnant again. 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? This is me talking, not Secret. Rural actually. Pine Rdige. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Secret Squirrel wrote:
People always want simplified issues. People don't like to think. Wait . . . Worse than murder? Absolutely, I've heard that remark with my own ears, when listening to people comment on a molestation case on TV or in the papers (and not necessarily a horrific, or violent one to boot). "The child would have been better off if they had been murdered", or something to that effect. Not once, but more than a few times. More than a little goth with that one, init? This could be simply a brain fart on their part, but I think that--going back to my point about AOC laws and the notion of childhood 'sexual innocence' in our society being largely the result of Christianity (which would make AOC laws unconstitutional, btw)--that if you really think that a boy is better off dead than getting a blowjob, what does that really say about the assumptions being made? I think that said underlying assumption is that the murdered child would still 'exist', in heaven, with Jesus. This underscores to what extend this is a religious taboo of sorts being maintained by the state. It also makes since that despite the hypocrisy you've pointed out, the Religious Right plays the anti-pedo card more frequently than anyone. Too true. Of course, the anti-pedo card is rarely played against actual pedophiles. More often than not, it's played against homosexuals who prefer a partner roughly the same age as themselves. Of course, hysteria has to be maintained, IMHO, to keep the current system in place, as any rational discussion causes a 'WTF is going on?' reaction. That's why studies like the Rind et. al one draw such immediate flak from the Dr. Lauras. The hysteria is necessary to squelch opposition and to *prevent* any rational examination of the emperor's new clothes. Or even studies which show that the pedophile isn't the stereotype. I mean, Lewis Carroll was into little girls, but a world where male virginity is more closely guarded than female virginity is definitely through the looking-glass. I guess I have less of a problem with abortion, as I really do believe that the medical evidence says that a fetus, at least early on, doesn't have brain activity and hence no consciousness. And that's as good a definition of 'human life' as we have, drawing a correspondence with those brain dead but kept alive-by-machines not really being 'alive', either. The brain starts developing by the third week. It's most rapid in the seventh month, though. At least abortion actually IS a legitimate bioethical issue, unlike (say) contraception or euthanasia. But hell, if you get a woman pregnant, you probably planned to anyway. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Secret Squirrel wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Gray Shockley wrote in .com: A very quick reply, Gray. Don't have much time now. 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. I think that Faux News is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. You *do* realize that Faux News has been sued by some of its former reporters, who said that they were fired when they refused to knowingly air false information---and that Faux News won the case. But did you know what Faux News's defense was? Not that the reporters were factually incorrect at all, oh no! It was: "We have every right to lie to the public". I think that this very admission should be enough to have the FCC pull the plug on them. The public owns the airwaves, and it shouldn't be licensed out to a propaganda machine that by its own admission deliberately has spread falsehoods. Good news reporting, good public service, should cause people to *question* their own beliefs, not reinforce them. I can post the link to the story mentioned, but not today. Do you have this much of a problem with 80% of the domestic media being far-left, or is media bias only bad when it doesn't reflect your own personal feelings? 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. I can well believe that. Voltai "When we believe in absurdities, we will commit actrocities". Ooohhh, I love it! [stolen, {of course} after verification] It's one of my favorites too. I think it applies here, we're quite literally throwing perfectly decent and productive people in jail who aren't tangibly harming (in the vast majority of cases) anyone, for long lengths of time. I think that the correspondence to the former witch hysteria fits, and for similar reasons. I believe that there is a very evil social agenda at the back of this new witch craze, just like there was for the former one. 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. Mostly for ill, but I acknowledge the point. 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? Me? A mix of both. One of my first encounters with homosexuality was during a sleepover with some friends as a preteen, and the friends were practicing *anal sex* together! (They also volunteered this bit of misinformation: "don't let anyone give you a blowjob, that'll mean that you were 'queer'"). I know one of those boys today: heterosexual, and married. 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! Hahaha! That was the place if you had to sleep with siblings! 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". To me, that's the whole point behind the new witch craze-- it's an attempt, by the Religious Right, to take over *everyone's* child-raising. The Right has lost battle after battle in the sexual revolution, but now has stumbled on this 'magic bullet' of pedophilia in the battle. This allows them to mandate to every boy and girl in America receive a "sex is 'bad touching'" sex education. If you're a liberal parent who believes that occasional sex play is harmless and just part of growing up, you'd better watch out and hoe the line. Because your child too might be hauled before juvenile court as a 'sex offender' for a mere game of "doctor and nurse" played with a younger boy or girl. (I can post a horror story example of this, of an 11-year old boy in Colorado who's a 'sex offender' for a mere game of 'doctor' with an 8 year old girl, if you want). And of course, if your kid gets a childhood of "sex is bad touching"-mandated education drummed into him or her, what type of adult will he or she be? I have to give the Right credit, this was a brillant stroke on their part to achieve their objectives. Sadly, too many so-called 'progressives' fell for it, they somehow believe that you can teach kids that 'sex is bad touching' then-- poof!--they'll grow up to be sexually mature, comfortable, adults. They also seem to suffer under the illusion that sex can be advertised as wonderful, fulfilling, beautiful on the TeeVee for adults and then teens will meekly submit to a "but not for YOU" answer. I think that the Right's objectives, though evil, are logically consistent. 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"). I agree with much of this. I suspect that in adult-juvenile cases in this society, that you would find the cases where the youngster initiated the activity would have better outcomes than where the opposite was true. However, the fact is, that in this culture, we've made sex into a huge friggin' "deal", blown it all out of proportion to its tangible and material consequences. Why? Because the Religious Right makes sex into a huge friggin' deal. They largely write the laws, and so-called 'progressives' meekly go along with them. If sex was a much smaller 'deal' the comfort level would be far greater. It's sad to say, but most people have to try to *un*-learn the conditioning they get as kids to be able to function sexually as adults. ---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. Because when sex is a huge 'deal', when it's 'bad touching', then--well, what do you expect? Parents can't talk about sex because they're not comfortable doing so, because it's a 'sinful', 'bad touching', etc. But if sex is a small deal, of small importance--then why are we throwing people in jail for 20 years for acts which are, by themselves, materially harmless? Even if one thought that they still in many cases might be illegal, the penalties are waayy out of whack with the consequences of the 'crime'. 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". I believe that we have high rates of rape because we make sex a huge deal. Getting laid is an obstacle course. And some men get angry over this, wrongly turn their anger against women, and rape is the result. We as a society pay a price for this. Apologies for this poor response, I don't have time to post anything more today. Your post deserved a better response; thank you for your insights. Secret Squirrel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: N/A iQEVAwUBQqeGgT/rA6+b3AyhAQGClgf9Fw2gLaj8d2BeL8SORfIGsVb9QlIUGA95 2f/DkxqN612BjPm68L0PIbvbFhF9y0PCgj9Z1eTRhhVPVB3AkYqV9 BuTJDRtG6jy x7Tci+dO+V573UkUBFGkI1I0Y/zYzP9KZn+43uMz5OcKn1vPiMWzq+xxWW+oGFMb ZeNgSZ9jRF8wVzjUY9lpzTVCo05U22N0zO+y5R3sAxK7Dg1Mf3 edTCHnd5KkTAKb BK1hraHUbSTNyWUpbCDQ4BfKrq41OHLfUPhYKBpFYfCQ+9PZHa Za29j3XJT4dw4W AYUmDkpFgWdFepvYmbm7zwdj0EgHAZ+WaI1mQMlBfWeFxc+f6t m/2g== =umb+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:29, anonymous poster wrote:
[chomp] Do you have this much of a problem with 80% of the domestic media being far-left, or is media bias only bad when it doesn't reflect your own personal feelings? I haven't looked in years; how many of the networks are owned by defense contractors? [chomp] Gray Shockley ------------------------------------------------------ If there's two trillion dollars to privatize Social Security, then there is /no/ Social Security problem. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Squirrel:
Gray Shockley wrote in .com: A very quick reply, Gray. Don't have much time now. 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. I think that Faux News is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. You *do* realize that Faux News has been sued by some of its former reporters, who said that they were fired when they refused to knowingly air false information---and that Faux News won the case. But did you know what Faux News's defense was? Not that the reporters were factually incorrect at all, oh no! It was: "We have every right to lie to the public". I think that this very admission should be enough to have the FCC pull the plug on them. The public owns the airwaves, and it shouldn't be licensed out to a propaganda machine that by its own admission deliberately has spread falsehoods. Good news reporting, good public service, should cause people to *question* their own beliefs, not reinforce them. I can post the link to the story mentioned, but not today. I would be most interested in that, if you can get around to it. Thanks. -- cary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
caesarean ops 'no help for blues' | Anna | Pregnancy | 8 | April 19th 05 12:33 AM |
Sad story | Plissken | Pregnancy | 181 | July 20th 04 12:14 AM |
Question about planned c-section | Ollie | Pregnancy | 37 | October 13th 03 02:48 AM |
Midwives & Home birth vs. an OB & hospital ? | LSU Grad of '89 | Pregnancy | 54 | October 12th 03 09:26 PM |
Question about planned c-section | phill | Pregnancy | 0 | October 7th 03 03:00 AM |