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.

I don't think anyone has defended adults having sex with children here.

Having an understanding of people who broke no laws and did nothing wrong? Maybe.

 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".

Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

 Polonius wrote:

 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.

I suppose that's true. I am willing to admit my failings to people that are being reasonable. I wouldn't say I'm confident. I felt that to an extent there were connections between being gay in the 20th century and a pedophile in today's standards. I will say it wouldn't be a left idea but yeah 200 years could see a lot of things we would find apprehensible as a cultural norm. I still say the political left eventually wins out in the end or at least has in the west for a couple hundred years at least. I mean I suppose people could go insane and do a 180 turn and be like the extremists in the middle east (supposedly they were more peaceful quite a ways back).

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

There's a lot of interesting stuff on adult, consenting incest out there, mostly from siblings separated very early. There are two different aspects to mate selection at work with incest: we are generally attracted to people that share our DNA, because mating with somebody that shares more DNA increases the odds of our own DNA being passed down; while we are generally unattached to people we were raised with in a family unit. That's true in nearly all cultures, by the way.

Incest isn't technically illegal, and right now, many states allow marriage even between first cousins. That more less leaves nuclear families, and most notably siblings. It's possible that over time it sibling marriage could be allowed, but I think it will remain such a small community that it will never really get enough momentum to overcome the taboo.

 flamingkillamajig 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".

Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

Again, power differences cause a situation that could in theory work but carries with it so many risks of trauma that it's simply not acceptable, just like drunk driving. Even between siblings where the power difference is small to non-existant, the major risk of permanent emotional trauma just rules it out completely.

And with that, I'm reporting myself for going madly off-topic, I think we all ought to just give up and consent to let this thread move on.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig 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".

Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

Again, power differences cause a situation that could in theory work but carries with it so many risks of trauma that it's simply not acceptable, just like drunk driving. Even between siblings where the power difference is small to non-existant, the major risk of permanent emotional trauma just rules it out completely.

And with that, I'm reporting myself for going madly off-topic, I think we all ought to just give up and consent to let this thread move on.

Yeah I'm all for that honestly. Hopefully I didn't go off the deep end there.

Some people just really touch a nerve though. Somebody get this thread on topic.

-------

Ugh sorry I'm trying to find the scene in demolition man where Sylvester stallone of all people tells the two factions in L.A. that they should make a society in between what they have. In between ultra free and unrestricted and ultra-censored/politically correct.

I think the drift began because there was an assertion that every generation is more liberal than the one prior, which is certainly an interesting argument.

Western civilization has had a general upward trend in recognized, protected, rights granted by sheer dint of being human. There are, of course, set backs, but if you look at the last couple of centuries in particular, you see more and more people included in the political, economic, and social fabric of our societies.

Much of what is sought by the PC crowd is an awareness that there are barriers to integration aside from laws and rules. That people of color or women or the disabled or the poor may be excluded, consciously or not, by language, behavior, and attitude. It's a solid position, and one that I generally agree with. That it can lead to some goofiness doesn't make the idea foolish, it makes small groups of college students playing politics foolish. And if you need to laugh at college politicians to feel better about yourself, go ahead, but maybe aim a little higher in the future?

I get as tired as the next guy hearing about "privilege" and "microaggressions," but active inclusion is a good way to combat passive exclusion.

Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

Ya know I once applied for a job at a Coney Island and you know what the lady at the front desk said, "I'm sorry we're not offering any male positions right now." To an extent it really bugged me and going back there I only did see waitresses and no waiters. I guess some breakfast places don't let men serve food. I mean they did let men work there sure but I find it a little strange she would just say that.

Normally as I've seen with things you can also try to get people to do something but after a point (generally not even needing to try too hard) they tend to decide if they want to do it or not. I've noticed this with many games including warhammer. The people that wanted to do it didn't need much incentive and they went to seek it out themselves.

Anyway my point about that is sometimes men and women prefer certain things (overall anyway) and trying to make them take a job and forcing them to like something is in a sense wrong.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

Part of the idea is that we as a society are becoming soft overall. How many people know how to cook food (beyond the simplest kind) or do physical chores that used to be more common? Can we accept the fact that maybe we're not all special and maybe that's fine too? I mean the idea that everybody's special means nobody's special and if everybody thinks they're special they might get an inflated sense of self-worth that falls flat when it comes time to prove themselves. I mean often times skill through practice and hard work should be appreciated above some things. There's also the concept of "it's the thought that counts" and while that's a nice thought it's not true mostly. If you continue to do nothing about it the thought mostly means jack all. Watching a man freeze to death and doing nothing but thinking "Oh I hope he gets help!" is the equivalent of doing nothing but feeling like you're somehow moral by wishing them well.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

I think it's in the context of college students asking for "safe places" and avoiding "triggers." This suggests that at least some college students do not have the emotional resilience to get through college, which does align somewhat to the idea of being "soft" as being unable to cope with the demands of life.

The problem was looking at a dozen instances, and extrapolating from what a few college kids were doing to the entire nation. Because a small, albeit loud, minority of college students are clearly a good representation of an entire culture.

Wow, sweeping generalizations everywhere!

OT, I'd not go so far as to call America soft, given the amount of violence that happens here in a given year. If that's "soft", then I'd hate to see a "tough" america.

In regards to OP's post, A) it's easy to take things that happened in a year and run to make accusations about a country, B) some of those crazy things happened with the best of intentions (sure, the PC thing is getting out of hand, but I'd like to think most of it is done with the best of intentions as far as not hurting others), and C) just because 10% of the population votes for something, does not accurately represent the other 90%.

 Polonius wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

I think it's in the context of college students asking for "safe places" and avoiding "triggers." This suggests that at least some college students do not have the emotional resilience to get through college, which does align somewhat to the idea of being "soft" as being unable to cope with the demands of life.

Yeah I think that's the entire point right there. Sometimes life is hard and you gotta brace yourself and deal with it. I mean if you can't handle the small things then the big ones are really gonna kick you in the balls.

 Polonius wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

I think it's in the context of college students asking for "safe places" and avoiding "triggers." This suggests that at least some college students do not have the emotional resilience to get through college, which does align somewhat to the idea of being "soft" as being unable to cope with the demands of life.

The problem was looking at a dozen instances, and extrapolating from what a few college kids were doing to the entire nation. Because a small, albeit loud, minority of college students are clearly a good representation of an entire culture.

Especially when a majority of the college kids are actively laughing at/mocking this kind of culture.

@polonius: Not only that but some of our problems in the West falls directly into the First World Problems section. Ya know some countries actively splash acid in women's faces for so much as daring to show them openly. It's just problems like the ones we have often seem infinitely small in comparison to that.

Yeah, and a lot of generational differences garbage is written from a really bad perspective. It generally focuses on college students, or post college adults, who live very different lifestyles from people even a few years older. It also is focused on people a full generation older, that have no real understanding of how things have changed.

I'm a Gen X-er, and I supervise mostly millennials. Maybe it's because I was the very tail end of X, but I don't see any problems with millenials as workers compared to Xers or Boomers. "Oh no, they want more feedback!" Every management expert on earth would say that giving feedback on performance is a good thing! As for expecting special treatment, it's been my experience that young people are often shocked at how liberal our work policies are.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
As I said consent by itself would just mean if somebody wants to do something.

And, included in that "wanting" is an implied requirement that the person be capable of wanting the thing. They have to have the mental capacity and understanding to really mean that yes, otherwise making "yes" sounds is an empty statement and not valid consent. This is a fundamental principle of both our ethical and legal systems, even if the precise method of determining consent is sometimes debatable. There could be valid arguments that 18 is not the correct age, or that a single discrete point of becoming an adult capable of giving consent is not a good approach, but I don't think we're going to see any kind of "there should be no age limit on consent" argument in the foreseeable future.

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.

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

 Polonius wrote:
Yeah, and a lot of generational differences garbage is written from a really bad perspective. It generally focuses on college students, or post college adults, who live very different lifestyles from people even a few years older. It also is focused on people a full generation older, that have no real understanding of how things have changed.

I'm a Gen X-er, and I supervise mostly millennials. Maybe it's because I was the very tail end of X, but I don't see any problems with millenials as workers compared to Xers or Boomers. "Oh no, they want more feedback!" Every management expert on earth would say that giving feedback on performance is a good thing! As for expecting special treatment, it's been my experience that young people are often shocked at how liberal our work policies are.

You know the funny thing is when I went to my work I was surprised about the 'no fighting' rules. Seriously if you hit somebody and they don't hit you back you are instantly terminated from the job. A guy merely pushed another worker after working there for 14 years or so and was fired after I had been there less than a year. I mean you're allowed one fight per person if the other person fights back but if it happens again you will be fired. Generally it's a 'no hit' rule though and this is in a factory where guys are cursing up a storm. I've been there almost 4 years now and so far that's the only physical confrontation I've heard and it was one shove. I'm honestly surprised at the lack of fighting (at least physically).

In general when school is involved I think the older crowd (what few there are) tend to work harder but that's probably because they most likely paid for it and are taking time out of their busy schedule to see something through. I think it's more a responsibility thing which I think the younger generation could use more of honestly. I almost wish kids would be able to do fairly simple and fairly safe jobs. I mean we already let them mow lawns and babysit our kids for us.

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Its extremely wierd that everyone uses idenitifers according to one of my philisopher teachers it is more of the finding yourself thing which what teenagers try to do. They are trying to figure out themselves with labels and identifiers because its easier to conform than to simply be.

I mean it is not people being soft, its more people not understanding themselves and others. And that we can't get other people because most haven't been taught alot about other peoples cultures or lives.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Woah really? I had no idea. I was pretty sure asexual meant you just don't desire it. I really need to keep track of you guys in the anime thread more btw.

Oh and are you sure you're asexual or is this just what some have considered you. One or two people have considered me things but the known definition stated i was not that term.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Woah really? I had no idea. I was pretty sure asexual meant you just don't desire it. I really need to keep track of you guys in the anime thread more btw.

Oh and are you sure you're asexual or is this just what some have considered you. One or two people have considered me things but the known definition stated i was not that term.

I am considered one by people's definitions. With me I have no freaking idea. Because I live the busiest damn life in the world.

The definition is though:
"without sexual feelings or associations or desire."

Sometimes this could mean no attraction at all, but I think I got them confused between demisexual and asexual. >.< What the hell.

But I don't think that doesn't mean asexuals can't find attraction, As there are three different types of love.


Intimacy – Which encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bondedness.
Passion – Which encompasses drives connected to both limerence and sexual attraction.
Commitment – Which encompasses, in the short term, the decision to remain with another, and in the long term, plans made with that other.


So maybe I could be, not sure as this goes more into the psychology of love.

From what I have read, the passion = sexual, while intimacy = desire, Commitment = emotional. So they want emotional love and not too interested in desire and passion as has been stated.

So they want commitment love. And are looking for that more than a sexual relationship. So by that definition yes. I am a asexual.

If we just start taking everything apart to the basis of sexualities which is sexual preference and what type of love a sexual identity prefers.

One thing I just thought of...all this talk of needing 'safe spaces' being a liberal only thing isn't true.

How many conservative Christian schools were formed with the intention of keeping out other ideas?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Woah really? I had no idea. I was pretty sure asexual meant you just don't desire it. I really need to keep track of you guys in the anime thread more btw.

Oh and are you sure you're asexual or is this just what some have considered you. One or two people have considered me things but the known definition stated i was not that term.

I am considered one by people's definitions. With me I have no freaking idea. Because I live the busiest damn life in the world.

The definition is though:
"without sexual feelings or associations or desire."

Sometimes this could mean no attraction at all, but I think I got them confused between demisexual and asexual. >.< What the hell.

But I don't think that doesn't mean asexuals can't find attraction, As there are three different types of love.


Intimacy – Which encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bondedness.
Passion – Which encompasses drives connected to both limerence and sexual attraction.
Commitment – Which encompasses, in the short term, the decision to remain with another, and in the long term, plans made with that other.


So maybe I could be, not sure as this goes more into the psychology of love.

From what I have read, the passion = sexual, while intimacy = desire, Commitment = emotional. So they want emotional love and not too interested in desire and passion as has been stated.

So they want commitment love. And are looking for that more than a sexual relationship. So by that definition yes. I am a asexual.

If we just start taking everything apart to the basis of sexualities which is sexual preference and what type of love a sexual identity prefers.

Well reason I ask is for a time there was another guy that we thought was asexual and he wasn't. He just wasn't interested all the time or even much of the time. As long as you can be sexually interested at any point then you're not asexual. Of course I dunno all the specifics and I could be wrong even though I'm pretty sure I read it and heard cases of asexuals. One of the asexuals mentioned actually did seem confused by certain things and were confused by things like a hickie and wondered if a woman's boyfriend was abusing her. They did mention they could love but they just didn't understand sexual desire. The whole "I'm hot! You're hot! Let's do it!" seemed confusing more to them and unrealistic. I do wonder though if being asexual can get in the way of a relationship. I mean they probably love a lot about you but some performance is desired. It isn't the only qualification sure but wanting to be satisfied a bit might be rough for some couples with an asexual member.

@skyth: Difference is those schools are openly condemned whereas this stuff seems to be spreading. Same thing true for the most part. I dislike both. It is my opinion the truth is still the truth whether you wish to believe it or not. Both sides could learn a little on that.

People like that will wither and isolate themselves because the real world is cruel.
Not everyone goes to your university and subscribes to your level of "tolerance" and people who can't face any opposition to their ideas have a very rude awakening when they get into places like the workforce and can't do a simple min wage part time job because someone called them the wrong pronouns or they were offended by a sandwich.
The world doesn't care if a bunch of moronic 20 somethings in collage/university with tumblr's and first world problems are upset.
Eventually if it does continue it will get a backlash, tolerance can only be pushed so far until it becomes oppression.
It's already beginning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
One thing I just thought of...all this talk of needing 'safe spaces' being a liberal only thing isn't true.

How many conservative Christian schools were formed with the intention of keeping out other ideas?

I always find it funny these people who claim to be so strong and independent are so weak they need safe spaces and trigger words and all that.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
People like that will wither and isolate themselves because the real world is cruel.
Not everyone goes to your university and subscribes to your level of "tolerance" and people who can't face any opposition to their ideas have a very rude awakening when they get into places like the workforce and can't do a simple min wage part time job because someone called them the wrong pronouns or they were offended by a sandwich.
The world doesn't care if a bunch of moronic 20 somethings in collage/university with tumblr's and first world problems are upset.
Eventually if it does continue it will get a backlash, tolerance can only be pushed so far until it becomes oppression.
It's already beginning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
One thing I just thought of...all this talk of needing 'safe spaces' being a liberal only thing isn't true.

How many conservative Christian schools were formed with the intention of keeping out other ideas?

I always find it funny these people who claim to be so strong and independent are so weak they need safe spaces and trigger words and all that.

As much as I agree with you I find it funny that somebody has such an ominous message with such a cutesy little avatar and the name rainbow dash. Seriously what next barney the dinosaur bringing us news of the coming apocalypse.

I'm somewhat amazed that a thread that started out as a face palm somehow managed to turn into even worse of a thread...

I don't know what the hell has happened here, but it's done