Re: My thoughts on statuatory rape

From: Mxsmanic (mxsmanic_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:24:05 +0200

prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com writes:

> But yet you claim that people do EXACTLY that when they vote to restrict
> their liberty on what age groups they can have sex with.

Most people in sexually repressed societies have such strong taboos
against sex that they will vote to restrict it under normal conditions.
They only times they overcome their taboos is when they are aroused
during sex, and even then, they feel guilty about it (and they usually
do not vote at the same time).

The reason sex with underage persons is restricted is that the societies
that do it consider sex to be evil and wrong and _intrinsically_
damaging, and so they don't want anyone engaging in it except within
marriage for the purpose of making babies. They are not content to
restrict their own behavior in this respect; they want the whole world
to observe the same restrictions. It's like censorship.

Additionally, many people maintain a mental double standard that applies
different rules to themselves than are applied to others, and they may
not fully grasp the applicability of specific laws to themselves as well
as the people whom they wish to control. Sometimes they end up being
the most flagrant violaters of the very laws they wanted to enact. Part
of this stems from the fact that people will move to outlaw behavior
they find unacceptable most often when it is behavior they are tempted
to engage in themselves. That is, they'll try to outlaw the parts of
their own behavior that they fear the most, no matter how uncommon it
might be in others.

> Clue-time: people restrict their own liberties all the time.

Yes, and often they don't know that they are doing it. Witness the
current paranoia since 9/11. By the time they figure out what they've
done, it's too late.

> So a 4yo should be able to marry, drink, vote, drive a car, etc?

Why not? If a 4-year-old can pass the driving test, why not give him a
license? And it's possible to argue that the mere act of drinking is
evidence of an inability to reason, so why not allow anyone to do it?
Voting is fine because 4-year-olds are too small a minority to swing an
election and most active votors are old, anyway. Marriage is fine, too,
since it really does no harm, although people that young aren't likely
to be interested in it.

> Crossing a street is far less difficult than driving down it.

Both require similar judgement. And you have to pass a test to get a
driving license.

> It's a lot less difficult than knowing what may happen
> if you have sex.

Not so. The risks of sex are extremely easy to understand, and I
daresay that even toddlers can be taught what those risks might be,
although they won't really have to care about them until puberty.

> We have various age limits foer many things.

Often for no good reason.

> We usually wouldn't let a 4yo cross the street
> alone but we do allow a 10yo.

Who is "we"? Four-year-olds can be taught to cross the street, too.

> We don't let a 10yo drive but we allow a 16yo,
> etc.

Anyone who can pass the test should be allowed to drive. It's not age
that determines capacity, but the ability to pass a relevant test.

> Since when? ALL states have a voting age of 18.

There's more to the world than the United States. In some countries,
entire categories of the population have been forbidden from voting
(e.g., women, blacks, etc.).

> That's a limit imposed by the car-rental agency and is purely due to
> statistical data that shows "the younger they are, the more likely they are
> to crash, speed, etc."

Then why not set the limit at 35 and be safer still?

Then again, why not be logical and look at a driving record instead? 

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ladies only gym; sexual discrimination?
    ... So long as the provisions are equal, they are perfectly allowed to be ... certain activities are allowed if restricted to a single sex. ... Also, "a person who provides goods, facilities or services which are designed for one sex, eg clothes, is not required to provide the corresponding goods, services or facilities designed for the other sex.This applies also in relation to skills which are normally exercised in a different way for men and women, eg hairdressing". ... Thus where facilities or services are provided for,or are likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, it is not unlawful to restrict them to one sex if the nature of the facilities and services is such or the users are such that male users are likely to suffer serious embarrassment if women are present, or vice versa, or if the users are likely to be undressed. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Ladies only gym; sexual discrimination?
    ... allowed if restricted to a single sex. ... the exemption for private clubs. ... Thus where facilities or services are provided ... facilities or services to restrict them to one sex if physical contact is ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: George Bush refuses to protect you
    ... Nice to see you've all been busily discussing bike racing in my ... absence. ... we restrict ourselves to sex and drugs and the surge. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: My thoughts on statuatory rape
    ... > against sex that they will vote to restrict it under normal conditions. ... walk a mile in their shoes. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Smokin And Livin
    ... >> lavish ball for him once a year... ... Once I heard a sociologist on TV talking about taboos. ... that death and sex are 2 taboos that rarely coexist. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)