Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shasarak · 09-26-2007, 10:17 AM

Really?! Any chance of a link? I'm fascinated that they managed to pass that law without anyone complaining.

(engaging "devil's advocate" mode...)

I wasn't going to bring this up, but since someone else almost has: if it is possible for a 13-year-old to "experiment" with another 13-year-old and for the result not to be emotionally damaging or traumatising, then why is it impossible for the same 13-year-old to "experiment" in a physically and emotionally identical way with an adult, with a result that is equally non-damaging? If anything, one could argue that "experimenting" with a responsible adult who knows what he is doing and understands the need for (e.g.) contraception is less likely to be damaging than experimenting with a clueless kid who will just charge in there without any forethought.

People will no doubt complain about the motivations of such an adult - how can he possibly have any kind of emotionally meaningful relationship with a 13-year-old? - but one has to ask: what proportion of consensual sex between adults actually involves meaningful emotional attachments? You don't throw people in prison just for having one-night-stands.

There are clearly limits to this if you thinking only about actual penetrative sex - to take an extreme example, there's no way an adult man could have penetrative sex with a 7-year-old girl without causing physical injury - but if you take penetration out of the equation, what then?

You also have to ask, why consider only thirteen-year-olds? I used to have an american friend who, at the age of only five, had full penetrative sex with a seven year old boy and she loved it. I've known a number of women who have been masturbating to orgasm since the age of 7 or 8. The capacity to experience sexual pleasure does not begin at puberty.

09-26-2007, 10:17 AM	#73
shasarak Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Emily's Shop Posts: 60	Re: Sex & Violence Really?! Any chance of a link? I'm fascinated that they managed to pass that law without anyone complaining. (engaging "devil's advocate" mode...) I wasn't going to bring this up, but since someone else almost has: if it is possible for a 13-year-old to "experiment" with another 13-year-old and for the result not to be emotionally damaging or traumatising, then why is it impossible for the same 13-year-old to "experiment" in a physically and emotionally identical way with an adult, with a result that is equally non-damaging? If anything, one could argue that "experimenting" with a responsible adult who knows what he is doing and understands the need for (e.g.) contraception is less likely to be damaging than experimenting with a clueless kid who will just charge in there without any forethought. People will no doubt complain about the motivations of such an adult - how can he possibly have any kind of emotionally meaningful relationship with a 13-year-old? - but one has to ask: what proportion of consensual sex between adults actually involves meaningful emotional attachments? You don't throw people in prison just for having one-night-stands. There are clearly limits to this if you thinking only about actual penetrative sex - to take an extreme example, there's no way an adult man could have penetrative sex with a 7-year-old girl without causing physical injury - but if you take penetration out of the equation, what then? You also have to ask, why consider only thirteen-year-olds? I used to have an american friend who, at the age of only five, had full penetrative sex with a seven year old boy and she loved it. I've known a number of women who have been masturbating to orgasm since the age of 7 or 8. The capacity to experience sexual pleasure does not begin at puberty.