Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because is has nothing to do with reality. The path that we're on right now is increasing acknowledgement that a person's choice of sex acts/partners/etc is their business as long as it's between consenting adults, and society should take a "hands off" approach to dealing with it. A reasonable prediction might be that, if we continue down the same path that led to gay marriage, we'll start to see increasing support for recognizing and accepting non-monogamous relationships. But it is NOT a reasonable prediction to suggest that the trend might lead to legalizing sex with animals and children because they are not capable of giving consent. There's a reason we laugh at this slippery-slope idiocy when it's used by right-wing religious fanatics as an argument against gay marriage.

Isn't it offensive to say other people's ideals are stupid?

(I mean this is full humour Peregrine, don't throw yourself out of wack)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

Please, tell us your brilliant insights into this new definition of consent that will allow animals and children to qualify. Does it depend on some technobabble mind-reading machine that will allow humans to understand animal "speech" while simultaneously giving the animal the required mental capacity to understand the question they are being asked?

It's rape by current legal terms and I'm not saying it's right.

If you took gay sex and pedophilic sex in the early 20th century and all involved wanted to have sex they'd both probably be considered not consenting.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

Please read people. At least Polonius did.

Also no I didn't say what they're doing is right I just think there needs to be a way to handle people that have these pedophilic urges. I find it horrible people often find the answer to be killing them. Perhaps if we could find a way to take away their sexual urges or adjust them somehow we could help them before they do something illegal and get in trouble. Seriously they probably feel evil all their lives (just as gay people did in the early 20th century). If they don't do the act they should at least be treated ok. I mean they make their lives unlike how they want (just as gay people did marrying the opposite sex) and just feel wrong somehow. To me there are quite a few parallels.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It's rape by current legal terms and I'm not saying it's right.

If you took gay sex and pedophilic sex in the early 20th century and all involved wanted to have sex they'd both probably be considered not consenting.

No, and one reason we know this is because Sodomy was a common law crime, and like all common law crimes, it required the intent to commit it.

The idea that people actually wanted to engage in sodomy was what made it a crime.

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

Were the people in the Dark Ages SJW's who thought homosexuality was alright?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It's rape by current legal terms and I'm not saying it's right.

If you took gay sex and pedophilic sex in the early 20th century and all involved wanted to have sex they'd both probably be considered not consenting.

Oh FFS, why is this complicated for you?

Sex with your own gender has been considered wrong because of ridiculous "eww, gross" arguments and/or "because Jesus said so". The arguments against it had nothing to do with the ability to consent, and in fact the acts were considered to be inherently wrong even if everyone involved consented to them. Consenting to gay sex would simply be an acknowledgement that you're truly an abomination before god and fully deserving of execution and eternal damnation.

Sex with children has been considered wrong for those same reasons, but also because a child can not give consent to sex. It doesn't matter if the acts are right or wrong in some inherent sense because at least one person involved is an unwilling participant. Laws against it exist to protect one party from abuse by the other, and that's an issue that can't be overcome by taking an open-minded approach to sex.

So no, the path that leads to legalizing one does not lead to legalizing the other. Your slippery slope argument is incoherent nonsense.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

So, the people in the dark ages are the ones currently championing homosexual relationships, right?

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

So, the people in the dark ages are the ones currently championing homosexual relationships, right?

Clearly I read the intial post wrong.

 Polonius wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

-------

Anyway we are so far off the original topic it may as well be its own thread. Make it if you guys want but I don't think I'm in the mood for it right now. I have better things to do than argue with people for an hour only for a thread lock.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

I would assume it makes them not want sex until they change their mind

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

I would assume it makes them not want sex until they change their mind

Asexual people have no desire to ever have sex (not even once). They are rare but exist. The entire attraction doesn't exist for them (at least not sexually but supposedly they can find love). They probably might as well be castrated for all intents and purposes. My point being they are incapable of desire so the thought of sex might happen but might be awkward for them. They are of age but have no sexual desire and never will. In fact it seems to confuse them.

------

Anyway I think I've created Frankenstein's monster and derailed this thread. I think I'm gonna sit the rest of this out for a while. I don't expect the thread to last much longer.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Yes, there are gray areas with defining adulthood and consent as a fixed point. But this is a fundamental part of our legal system, a person isn't considered an adult for legal purposes until they're 18. For example, they can't sign the paperwork for a loan without their parents being involved and taking responsibility for the loan, even if a 17.9 year old is probably just as capable of understanding their student loans as an 18.01 year old. Changing this would mean making major changes in how our legal system works, with consequences that extend far beyond legalizing specific sex acts.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

No, an asexual adult has the ability to consent to sex. They simply choose not to, much like I have the legal ability to consent to playing AoS but have absolutely no desire to ever do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Anyway I think I've created Frankenstein's monster and derailed this thread. I think I'm gonna sit the rest of this out for a while. I don't expect the thread to last much longer.

Ah. Lose the argument and get embarrassed, run away and pretend that you're just trying to keep it from getting derailed. I did not see that coming at all...

The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

What the feth?



I know where this thread began but I've no idea how the hell it wound up here and I'm pretty sure nothing you said has anything to do with America getting soft.

.

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

So, the people in the dark ages are the ones currently championing homosexual relationships, right?

The ancient Greeks were very keen on homosexual relationships long before the Dark Ages. That said, I think a lot of their relationships would have failed the modern test of one partner being in a position of power over the other. (Meaning for instance that teachers should not have se with their pupils even if they are over 16 and 'street legal'.)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

As I pointed out, that's a really good question. it's a societal prerogative to make arbitrary rules, and say that at a certain age people can handle certain decisions. We allow people to drive at 16, vote or join the military at 18, but not drink until 21.

At some point, we as a society are going to realize that teenagers are sexual beings, and that's going to ugly.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

Based on my limited understanding of asexuality, both theoretical and applied, being asexual wouldn't prohibit consent, because people can want to do things for reasons other than a primal desire. An asexual person may want to please a romantic partner, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The ancient Greeks were very keen on homosexual relationships long before the Dark Ages. That said, I think a lot of their relationships would have failed the modern test of one partner being in a position of power over the other. (Meaning for instance that teachers should not have se with their pupils even if they are over 16 and 'street legal'.)

Only because I don't care about further derailing this dumpster fire of a thread....

If you really want to look at how cultural views of sex can shift, look at sexual relationships between adults in the same hierarchy. Professors and grad students, bosses and employees, etc. the views on this can shift wildly over time, and place to place. For example, a lot of academics don't see any real problem with a sexual relationship between a PhD student and his Professor, while a lot of workplaces strictly forbid it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Yes, there are gray areas with defining adulthood and consent as a fixed point. But this is a fundamental part of our legal system, a person isn't considered an adult for legal purposes until they're 18. For example, they can't sign the paperwork for a loan without their parents being involved and taking responsibility for the loan, even if a 17.9 year old is probably just as capable of understanding their student loans as an 18.01 year old. Changing this would mean making major changes in how our legal system works, with consequences that extend far beyond legalizing specific sex acts.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

No, an asexual adult has the ability to consent to sex. They simply choose not to, much like I have the legal ability to consent to playing AoS but have absolutely no desire to ever do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Anyway I think I've created Frankenstein's monster and derailed this thread. I think I'm gonna sit the rest of this out for a while. I don't expect the thread to last much longer.

Ah. Lose the argument and get embarrassed, run away and pretend that you're just trying to keep it from getting derailed. I did not see that coming at all...

Consent in this case meaning the legal term of being of age. As I said consent by itself would just mean if somebody wants to do something. To many consent means needing to be of a proper age to make these choices. A lot of these are current legal definitions that go by our current rules. To say it doesn't follow our current rules of consent is saying it doesn't follow our current definition. Consent could mean different things through different times. Obviously somebody disagreed with this or we'd have stayed the same. Understand this!

Yeah my point being asexual people are allowed in a sense to consent even though the idea of sex is confusing to them and they have no desire. Might seem an awful lot like a child with no understanding of sex and no desire but hey they're of age so screw it let people have sex with em as long as they say ok but I won't get enjoyment out of this. It's mostly the same thing with the only difference being age.

Yeah insult all others that disagree with you as you always do. Just makes more people dislike you. Gotta love how you stalk me into a lot of threads I enter btw just to find me and attack my posts outright. I mean what do you have some absolute need to prove me wrong every time I enter off-topic?

-----

Thank you AlmightyWalrus I was just comparing some details. I'm not saying it's ok and yeah maybe pedophilia won't be a thing in the future but maybe people will tap alien peoples (which is sorta close to bestiality) but I suppose it'd be ok because they're of age and have mental capacity.

 Breotan wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

What the feth?

I know where this thread began but I've no idea how the hell it wound up here and I'm pretty sure nothing you said has anything to do with America getting soft.

.

I'm not sure how we got here myself, and I've been active for most of the thread.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

What the feth?

I know where this thread began but I've no idea how the hell it wound up here and I'm pretty sure nothing you said has anything to do with America getting soft.

.

I'm not sure how we got here myself, and I've been active for most of the thread.

Honestly as I said I will admit it must've been me that derailed it. I apologize.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


Consent in this case meaning the legal term of being of age. As I said consent by itself would just mean if somebody wants to do something. To many consent means needing to be of a proper age to make these choices. A lot of these are current legal definitions that go by our current rules. To say it doesn't follow our current rules of consent is saying it doesn't follow our current definition. Consent could mean different things through different times. Obviously somebody disagreed with this or we'd have stayed the same. Understand this!

You are quite the legal scholar sir. I will endeavor to under this!

Currently, the law presumes that individuals under a certain age lack the competency to grant consent for sex. It's not that consent means being a certain age, it means that below a certain age consent cannot be given, in much the same way that intoxication or illness can remove an adults ability to consent.

Consent means the same thing, but right now the law sees certain groups, correctly or not, as incapable of giving consent. By the way, this is why sex with a minor is called "statutory rape," because the law was introduced in a statute, not by the common law. Under common law, menarche was usually seen as when a woman could consent.

Yeah my point being asexual people are allowed in a sense to consent even though the idea of sex is confusing to them and they have no desire. Might seem an awful lot like a child with no understanding of sex and no desire but hey they're of age so screw it let people have sex with em as long as they say ok but I won't get enjoyment out of this. It's mostly the same thing with the only difference being age.

It's not close to the same thing. An asexual can give consent or not as he chooses, in the same way I can consent, or not, as I choose. Do I want to have sex every time my wife does? Probably not. But I want to make her happy, so I do so.

The law does not ask "do you really, really want this?" It asks "did you say okay? Were you capable and competent to make that decision?"

Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Its like getting banned from a reddit because you said "Pedophilia isn't a disease. Its a defect."

 Asherian Command wrote:
Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Where?

@polonius: I will admit I'm very happy you and AlmightyWalrus can at least discuss a topic without need to yell it out at somebody and insult the poster for the most part. That must be a rare thing in off-topic.

@Asherian Command: Not really I'm more defending their right to not be hated as long as they don't commit a crime. I just can't imagine what it'd be like to feel evil for existing and I feel that to an extent that's what they feel. There's something so messed up about that. To feel even if you live as best you can and obey the law that your desire might consume you and if people knew about it they'd consider you evil and in a sense you yourself feel evil for having this desire. I just pity them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Where?

Good place to start...
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

I dunno, me calling your line of reasoning insane might've been a bit rude.









I still totally think it's insane though.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Where?

Good place to start...
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

Wut? The way I read it Asherian Command was accusing people in the thread of "defending pedophilia activity", and I was asking him to clarify what and where he meant.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@polonius: I will admit I'm very happy you and AlmightyWalrus can at least discuss a topic without need to yell it out at somebody and insult the poster for the most part. That must be a rare thing in off-topic.

To be fair to some of the more aggressive response, you are speaking very broadly and confidently about the topic, yet your posts show a very tenuous connection to facts. I happen to find the history of sexual laws and mores to be fascinating, so I'm indulging that hobby.