|
US questions the "morality" of teens attending nudist camps (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceGiant |
| Holy CRAP! :stongue: |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Right up until this guy walks through your front door wanting to date your 14 year old....
Talk about scary! |
What's the problem? He looks like a nice kinda fellow :).
Btw, look at how his nose is bent from beatings, haha. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I agree with what you're saying, it's just that the age limit after which the dating becomes inapropriate varies in our opinions. I'm not saying 20 years is always appropriate, if a 20 year old biker dude would want to date my daughter, I'd beat him up, but I know quite a few nerds who are sort of nice people and who are quite harmless at 20. Anyway, what would you say would be the highest age a 14 year old girl could date? |
Hmmmm I would say around 17. A 2-3 year variance is acceptable to me. If a nice 20 year old nerd wants to date I don't see why he can't date somebody in the 20 year old nice nerd crowd. I mean, you have to make a concerted effort to hang around a 14-15 year old crowd to get to the point where you start dating a 14 year old.
Shakka: I might make an exception for that guy. He looks like the sensitive caring type. Someone who knows how to treat a girl right! |
|
|
| TiestoFanMatt |
It's really nice for you people to sit here and talk about us being animals. But do try and remember, we are unique. I can't imagine life without love. How can love not be a emotional? I love my dog? Why? Coz i have a strong bond with it. I love my mum. A different kind of love, but non the less i love my mum. How you sit there and say love doesn't exist is, well i find it shocking. So when you get married, and you realise that love does not exist, you look for a person who is wealthy, has no diseases in their background etc...? IF they said they love you you wouldnt feel the most intense feeling inside of accpetence of someone who can say the golden words? WOuld your reply be, oh whatever love dont exist? Good luck in life if thats the case?
Life isnt about finding a sexual partner at 14 in my opinion, at that age, you are getting to the grips with school, plus u get pressures for exams, having sex brings allot of emotional with it, whether u darwinist people believe it or not. I remember 14 vividly. Sleepovers, football matches, who the hell believes that a person of 14 should have sex is, in my mind, well something is wrong!
Have fun when your a child, and you are still a baby at 14.
I havn't got a degree in anything, I would not count myself as a clevor individual, but i do feel insulted when someone would tell me a 14 year old is likely to be more mature than me when i will be 20 years old. You ask that person to deal with a situation, for example, you have just failed an exam. Look at a reaction of a 14 year old. Likely to have a "paddy" and get upset, mood swinkg etc... Now i know if i, my friend, or other people failed a test at 19, they would maybe cry, be depressed etc.. but they would not be immature about it etc...
I remember taking my SAT's at 14 and getting a level lower than expected and i stormed out of school because i was upset about it. Not exactly mature is it!
Back to the subject title, i think it is worrying that people would wnat to be in nudist camps. Nudist beaches are there for people to sunbath and play inthe see, you see any noodist playgrounds, course not! Pedaphiles are so hard to catch because they are really, what we see, normal people. i remember watching a programme on them on the bbc once, and they founda guy ringed in with a childrens home, who took them to a special house and took pics of them nude, and with him doing sick things with them, including close ups of their geneticals. These were people between ages of 6 to 14 years of age. His wife had no idea about this, and commited suicide after because of the guilt. Nobody in the family knew. These people are normal people to most people.
anyway, ideas are jumbled. I aint really good at debating, because i muddle my argument, but i really do enjoy reading you ppl on here, no matter what view point you have, and i must say i admire your ability to argue with each other. As you can see about the love thing, i kinda lose it lol
Anyway, keep arguing:)/debating
Matt |
|
|
| Renegade |
Wow, when did this topic pop up? 62 replies and I've only just noticed it. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that we've deviated from the original topic of conversation, so I'll jump in at the deep end.
I think my views on this topic fall somewhere in between those of Occrider and Vesa. Firstly, I am of the belief that many cultures have adopted a ridiculously convoluted set of moral axioms concerning sexuality, with little resort to reason or logic. The opposition to nudism would be one such instance - how have we gotten to the stage, in our respective societies, that the display of breasts on television and film is condemned as strongly by the relevant censorship boards as, say, the display of wanton violence? I'm not saying that violence (particularly real life violence) should necessarily be censored either, but why is it exactly that we believe that if a young child views a naked body on film, he will somehow be negatively affected by it?
But nudism, in this regard, is only the tip of the iceberg. Some people have such a prudish attitude to sex it makes me cringe - why must we wait until marriage before engaging in sex? Why is sexual promiscuity (provided sufficient care is taken) "wrong"? Why shouldn't 14 year olds be sexually active (providing, as with all other cases, it is consensual)? Who invented these moral axoims and why have they taken root so succesfully in otherwise comparitively liberal societies?
Before I go on, let me say one thing - ceteris paribus the repression of sexual desire is infinitely more dangerous than the expression of sexual desire. Repression of congenital and inescapable desires only forces them to re-emerge in more perverse ways. Without, perhaps, the requisite psychological evidence to support me, I would not mind suggesting that rape, paedophilia and other more benign "fetishes" are often brought about by the pronlonged repression of sexual desires and these phenomena simply mark the manifest emergence point of the said desires. One need only look at the self-imposed celibacy of Catholic priests (to use a cliched example) for evidence of this - they may be able to supress the desire to engage in consensual sexual intercourse with women, but that is not to say that their inherent sexual desire (and we all have sexual desire) can be suppressed so easily. Every man has his breaking point, and if one has precluded oneself so vehemently from a given activity, the desires will simply manifest themselves in other ways. Unreasonable repression of desires can often produce the opposite result - dieting by self-imposed starvation can lead to huge eating binges for example. If any society encourages the repression of sexual activity to the extent of total abstinence, then the desires are only going to become stronger and the manifestation of the desires all the more extreme - it should come as no suprise that two of the western nations with traditionally prudish attitudes to sex (namely the US and UK) have among the highest teen-pregnancy ratios in the western world.
But we'll return then to the morality of teenagers having sex. Firstly, individuals who have reached puberty will face sexual desires. It's an inevitable biological fact. If two 14 year olds want to have sex, and that desire is mutual, then I fail to see how this act of sexual intercourse is in any way immoral, or something we should go to great lengths to prevent. Given that teenagers have sexual impulses - and given, regardless of our views on the matter, that these impulses will often be acted upon - our only responsibility as adults (speaking as an individual classified as an adult in Australia but apparently not quite yet in the US :rolleyes: ) is to ensure that these teenagers are informed enough to understand the implications of sexual activity (STDs, pregnancy etc.) and how such negative consequences can be prevented via the implementation of contraceptives. Is it reasonable for parents to take such a liberal view towards the sexual promiscuity of their children at such an age though? Well, allow me to put it this way: your teenage son or daughter informs you that they are sexually active, what is your reaction? Do you berate or scorn them about the immorality of sexual relations at such a young age and push them further away from you, or do you accept the fact that biological entities with sexual impulses will engage in sexual intercourse (at differing stages) and do all you can do is to ensure that they are informed enough to protect themselves from the negative consequences of their actions? Sure, you may argue, they may not be ready for sexual intercourse but then, I say, at which point can we say that one is ready? Why do we assume that we know when they may or may not be ready, but they don't?
The only grey area, for me, is "consensual" intercourse between, say, a 14 year old and a 30 year old. Firstly, I dismiss Occrider's argument:
| quote: | | Sure it is ... you're screwing an immature minor. Who cares if their body is mature or not ... like I said before, it would be something similar to screwing a mentally handicapped girl. |
The argument here, I suppose, is that a 14 year old girl lacks the mental faculty to ascertain whether she wishes to have sex or not, one which I disagree with. At which point can we say one is mature enough to make that decision? I can remember my dad telling me about when I was wee young 'un and he was pushing me around in a pram (a stroller for those on the other side of the Pacific) and he overheard two older women say to each other "far to young to be having children at his age". For the record, he was 33. Now he and my mother knew they were ready to have children at that age, irrespective of the views of the older women who, via personal experience, came to ascertain that 33 was "far too young" to be fathering children. Who was right, then, in this circumstance? Were my parents wrong to conceive my incredibly brilliant being because the older generation - having learnt from experience - "knew" it was too young? Or were they within their right to conceive because they "knew" they were ready? Do the more mature individuals have a monopoly on truth and what is right, or is it acceptable for less mature individuals to forge their own path and find out for themselves?
Now obviously conception is a radically different issue from that of sexual intercourse (parenting a child involves the moral obligations of an action being translated into a moral responsibility for a third being - as contrasted between an action involving only two consenting moral agents) but I hope you can see the parellels I'm drawing here. It was the moral obligation of my parents to ensure that, prior to giving birth to me, they were adequately prepared to care for me. So long as this obligation is met, the older generation's perspective about "being ready" is rendered invalid. Similarly, while we may discourage a "minor" from engaging in sexual conduct of any kind on the grounds that we know better what is good for them, so long as the moral obligations of sexual intercourse are being met by each party (mutual consent, adequate protection etc.) then I fail to see at which point our opinions (as the "older generation") on the subject are relevent.
BUT (and as you can tell from the capitalisation, this is a big "but") my hypothetical sexual liberalism falls short in one key area - it's only hypothetical. The grounds upon which a 30 year old having sex with a 14 year old is made permissable are purely conditional on completely untestable conditions - namely that the sex is truly "consensual", that the 14 year old actually considers his or her self "ready" and so forth. And it is on these grounds that I am inclined to reject Vesa's "hardcore Darwinism" (as appealling as it sounds ;)) and accept what Occrider said:
| quote: | | If males and females follow proper courtship procedures such that the female is BOTH mentally and physically mature (I don't think both occurr concurrentely at the same time in every instance) then I would see nothing wrong with males and females having sexual relations. However, much like you stated, in life few play by the rules and abuse and manipulation would likely result in such a scenario. When it comes to protecting children, laws must err on the side of caution. |
^^ Well put.
Where the Darwinian/biological attitude towards human sexual relations collapses is in its inability to take into account factors that, in a sense, "transcend" biology. What must always make us weary about, for instance, older men engaging in sex with young girls has nothing at all to do with biology. Biology may make men attracted to younger women (and I'm sure that it is a general rule of nature that younger females are more attractive to males that more mature ones) but there is an aspect to human sexual relations that is not in any way biological - I'm talking about the psychological impact. If we tear down age-restriction laws, sure the majority of couples involved in relationships with a large age discrepency may be able to exist happily together without any significant repurcussions, but if only a small fraction of these relationships involve coercion, lack consent, or ivolve the older partner "manipulating" a minor into believing they are psychologically ready for sex when, in fact, they are not (much in the same way that, without laws, a vendor may be able to manipulate a naive minor into a binding contract where the minor may not otherwise quite understand what they are getting themselves into) then surely it is in the best interests of society to draw an imaganery line - existing on the side of caution - that can prevent such circumstances from occuring. The psychological damage that can result from such a relationship can leave permanent mental scars on the psyche of a girl as she develops into a woman and if it means forcing couples of disparate age with a legitimate "bond" to wait until the age of consent before engaging in sexual intercourse then so be it. Sometimes the costs of preventing a course of action can outweigh the benefits of permitting it and this, I believe, is one of those instances.
So, to sum up:
Hypothetically I support minors engaging in sex.
Practically I don't, though it can only ever really be established on a case by case basis. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| Man this turned into the best thread in a long time here. Looking forward to actually go through every post written in the last 3 pages. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Were my parents wrong to conceive my incredibly brilliant being... |
arrogance
\Ar"ro*gance\, n. [F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.] The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.
;) |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
arrogance
\Ar"ro*gance\, n. [F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.] The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.
;) |
Your point being.... ? :D |
|
|
| Shakka |
One thing to remember about a 14 year old girl, regardless of who her sexual partner may be...
While her body may be physically 'developed' enough to become pregnant and carry a baby, I believe that research shows that babies born to girls of that young age are more prone to defects and problems that a more fully developed woman wouldn't be as susceptible to. I'm sure science has a way to make the statistics better, but even still-- a 14 year old girl is just that: a girl. Not a woman. Generally speaking, she's not mentally or emotionally prepared to really raise a child as she still has a LOT to learn about the world and about herself.
And what about education? Nobody has even mentioned the fact that a 14 year old girl would probably have to sacrifice education, and going through life with a sub-highschool education isn't going to take anyone very far. I have a feeling the child would end up on welfare or in the care of a foster parent. Even if the girl's mother decided to help her in caring for it, that still creates a less than desirable situation.
I am guessing that there are some pretty young people on this board that think they've got life pretty much "figured out" and are ready to take on the world, but as in so many examples, they still have much to learn about the way the world really works. A 14 year old girl does not understand the dynamics of the world at least 9 times out of 10. Hell, she's barely been on the earth for a decade and you think she's got things figured out?
The fact is, even if nature gives the 14 year old girl the capacity to have offspring at such a young age, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea in the big picture.
I do agree with the post about nudity vs. violence on TV and the dichotomy that exists there. It's a shame indeed that society in America and other locales places a higher premium on seeing nudity than on seeing unabated violence.
I think it is important that youth be educated on sexuality, but that is by no means a free pass to encourage lewd behavior among minors. Why are kids in such a rush to grow up??? |
|
|
| occrider |
Good post renegade. I especially agree about the part about educating rather than forcing your moral values upon your children. And that repression is probably worse for you than expression.
But really ... 14 year old girls don't have the bearthing hips to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen! And they probably don't know how to cook very well at that point. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | The opposition to nudism would be one such instance - how have we gotten to the stage, in our respective societies, that the display of breasts on television and film is condemned as strongly by the relevant censorship boards as, say, the display of wanton violence? I'm not saying that violence (particularly real life violence) should necessarily be censored either, but why is it exactly that we believe that if a young child views a naked body on film, he will somehow be negatively affected by it? |
The censorship in american tv shows is rediculous. I just watched on tv some accidents caught on tape tv show. After many scenes of people being burned or breaking their bones, there was this one scene where a bull nailed some guy on its horn. You could clearly see pieces of the guys leg flying around, but when the bull ripped the guy's pants off, so that his but was showing, that part of the screen was blurred. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I thought that was part of social evolution??? More and more women wait until later in life to have children--a well documented trend. To revert to having sex children with 14 year olds is a bit...barbaric so to speak. |
|
|
|
|
