How to blow an issue out of all proportions, Bush-style

[Mahdi]

Rape has very little to do with sex, which is why chemical castration is not an effective solution.

[Acriku]

Are you referring to psychological issues causing rape to occur? Either way, rape may very well be a consequence of bottled-up urges waiting to burst out in a manner one cannot control.

[Mahdi]

Nope.

What is going through his mind is not sex- it's anger and rage.  This, by the way, is why it doesn't do any good to castrate repeat rapists-as satisfying and fulfilling as the idea may be to some of us.  The problem is,it doesn't stopthem, either physically or emotionally.  Rape is definatly a crime of anger.

-John Douglas, one of the founders of criminal profiling, former head of the FBI Investigative Support Unit, and one of the worlds formost authorities on lust based crimes such as rape and serial killings.

No criminal profiler or rape expert in the world will say any differently.  It's all about anger and violence, not "pent up sexual urges".

[Acriku]

Ok, you've made your point. Do you have anything else to say or were you just picking on that one example that I gave?

[Mahdi]

You posted somethign that was wrong, I was jsut correcting it.

Also, Priests arn't made into child molestors due to enforced celibacy, child molestors often become priests in an attempt to hide there leanings behind enforced celibacy.

That's not to say all priests are child molestors, it is a vast minority, but just sayign you ahve thigns in the wrong order there.

[Acriku]

Well, I certainly hope you don't stop correcting :)

However, I'm not sure whether or not molestation was the effect or the cause of being a Catholic priest, but it makes sense that if you can't have sex with anybody woman due to God's law, you would then have sex with men and the kind of men who don't fight back - boys. Yes it is a minority, but some people are just that weak.

[Filo]

I completly agree you Acriku.

[nemafakei]

The inevitability of ill deeds occuring does not justify society condoning them.

"kids will have sex. It's inevitable, and foolish to think that parents can stop them. They get sexually frustrated, find someone else just as frustrated, and have sex. The point of teaching sexual education is to teach having safe sex"

If society fails to condemn such underage activities, and even tells them how to go about it, in the eyes of the young, society condones it as an acceptable thing to do. It just ISN'T. Yet by condoning it, you encourage it, and the problem grows, the age at which it occurs becomes lower and lower... when do you stop? In a few decades' time, when people are saying "Face it: 10-year-olds are at it, we need to make sure they're doing it properly"?. And the more you encourage them, the more it'll be common, whether they're doing it safely or not - they'll still do it more since they believe it's alright to do. If they're the sort of person who does that sort of thing at that sort of age, do you think they'll be the conscientious type, who remembers what's been taught, and would abstain without the necessities?

Put another way, would you fund courses showing terrorists the safe way to use grenades so they don't hurt themselves?

[SurlyPIG]

Sorry, but your analysis of the issue, while seemingly logical, just doesn't correlate with reality.  Remember that human psychology sometimes works backwards.

First of all, recognize the distinction that those who condone safe sex do not do so in preference of abstinence, they do so in preference of unsafe or unprotected sex.  I'm sorry but if the person being taught about safe sex can't recognize this distinction for themselves, they probably have bigger problems than their issues with sex.

Second, the slippery slope argument is quite misplaced in this issue.  Your argument seems to require a presumption that there is a universal age where sex is altogether a bad idea (and thus there is a minimum age when it is no longer a bad idea), and that there are universal situations where it is a bad idea.  For an issue as personal as one's sex life, it I think it's quite arrogant for society or for anybody to impose such a specific standard on all people.  Using your logic, and climbing up that slippery slope, what is the age and what are the situations where sex is acceptable?  Obviously we, and I mean we as a society, will never agree on any answers to these questions because of the wonderful nature of our own diversity.  I believe it's foolish for us to make distinctions at any point in the 'slippery slope.'  It must be up to each individual to make their own decisions about what they are ready for and when, but in order to make a good decision they must have enough knowledge to do so.  That, and not pushing some kind of moral agenda on teenagers, is the purpose of sexual education.

Thirdly, this position, which is what is held by the vast majority of professionals in this field, is supported by what happens in reality.  One example I've heard of is that students in Denmark, a country with an open attitude about sex and a complete sex-ed program, when compared to students in the United States, a more repressive sexual environment, were six times less likely to have sex in their teens and Danish girls were more than ten times less likely to become pregnant.  Wile this example could legitimately be considered anecdotal, we can make the general conclusion that not only does openness about sex (forbidden fruit theory in work) and comprehensive sexual education greatly reduce teen pregnancy and therefore unprotected sex, it reduces teen sex in general.

Oh, and the terrorist example?  C'mon, recognize this for what it is.  I would say that you're comparing apples with oranges, but it's more like you're comparing apples with Jupiter.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The inevitability of ill deeds occuring does not justify society condoning them.

"kids will have sex. It's inevitable, and foolish to think that parents can stop them. They get sexually frustrated, find someone else just as frustrated, and have sex. The point of teaching sexual education is to teach having safe sex"

If society fails to condemn such underage activities, and even tells them how to go about it, in the eyes of the young, society condones it as an acceptable thing to do. It just ISN'T. Yet by condoning it, you encourage it, and the problem grows, the age at which it occurs becomes lower and lower... when do you stop? In a few decades' time, when people are saying "Face it: 10-year-olds are at it, we need to make sure they're doing it properly"?. And the more you encourage them, the more it'll be common, whether they're doing it safely or not - they'll still do it more since they believe it's alright to do. If they're the sort of person who does that sort of thing at that sort of age, do you think they'll be the conscientious type, who remembers what's been taught, and would abstain without the necessities?

Put another way, would you fund courses showing terrorists the safe way to use grenades so they don't hurt themselves?

well said nema.. you are on quite a roll here lately.. coming up with good statements for many of the different threads here... however... the terrorist example may have been a bit of a stretch but i like the main body of your statement.

As far as Ace's comments towards you ... i feel that he seems to be an individual who loves freedom ... however he takes it too far.... and i think that you are correct nema that a line must be drawn somewhere and you need to be firm in what you believe and not concede

[SurlyPIG]

If society were to decide that it believes in national solidarity and eliminating forces that undermine it, would it not still be wrong for them to censor political opinion and opress things like religion?  Is it not still a violation of your rights, regardless of what the majority thinks of it? 

And I fail to see what seeing an R rated movie or buying a dirty magazine has to do with your right to control your own body, to which nobody should be denied without cause.

And there may not be a universal age  for all of these different things.. but that is just getting somewhat hyperbolic ... we can all use our common sense and say that pre-teens and teens shouldnt be having sex in our society.

You are one individual, and what individual people consider to be common sense doesn't always fall in line with other people's rights.  For example, every so often on the news I hear about one Jehovas Witness or another with a terminal blood disease declining available, life-saving blood transfusions because of something in their religion that says "You shall take nothing from another body" (which, BTW, was probably renouncing cannibalism and not life-saving medical procedures).  Being agnostic and generally against organized religion, I found this to be a horrible waste of life, flying in the face of all common sense.  Nonetheless, it is their body, and it is their right to deny themselves medical treatment for any reason they choose, therefore it is damned arrogant of me to sit on a high horse and tell them what to do with their own body and their own life.

I know its hard for pre-teens and teens to swallow this idea.. because i know when i was that age i didnt want nobody telling me what to do.. but something magical happens when you age 10 years and get past all the zits and braces and you realize how immature you were.  And that people in that age group need to be restricted.

Once, just once, could you please just speak for yourself for a change?  Your experience is anecdotal, and I'm not saying it's in any way wrong, it's just yours, and it doesn't apply to everybody else.  You can do what you believe is right for you - not only do I respect that, I applaud it.  Just have the respect to allow others to do the same for themselves, okay?  Last time I checked, Victoria was no longer the Queen.

[nemafakei]

"First of all, recognize the distinction that those who condone safe sex do not do so in preference of abstinence, they do so in preference of unsafe or unprotected sex.  I'm sorry but if the person being taught about safe sex can't recognize this distinction for themselves, they probably have bigger problems than their issues with sex."

I recognise it perfectly well, and applaud the good intentions - but I really don't think that those sections of modern youth who are likely to practise such behaviour asre the ones who will think about the message first. Yes, they do have problems. Many, many people have such problems. Those are the people who will do this sort of thing.

"Using your logic, and climbing up that slippery slope, what is the age and what are the situations where sex is acceptable?"

Only what is necessary for the continuation of the species. I can just about tolerate it in those who are commmitted to a permanent relationship, and who are happy to spend the rest of their lives with each other.

Those are the two limits I see as being independant of arbitrary lines: the slope levels off at points of distinction such as this.

"That, and not pushing some kind of moral agenda on teenagers, is the purpose of sexual education"

*I* know that. Do they? Will they remember the subtleties when they're drunk, high, or whatever other state the modern youth likes to get itself into.

As to the example, it's food for thought, but there may well be other, important questions about the difference in culture involved, which need to be taken into account.

"I would say that you're comparing apples with oranges, but it's more like you're comparing apples with Jupiter."

Oh, both are  spherical and have a certain gravity about them, one just happens to be bigger: the form is the same, the detail is just a little different. But it's not as if it's a crucial analogy, so I'll stop.

[GUNWOUNDS]

And I fail to see what seeing an R rated movie or buying a dirty magazine has to do with your right to control your own body, to which nobody should be denied without cause.

[alchemi2]

Your position amases me. IMO why condone or preach ignorance! on any other topic you would all be for finding out the facts and making a informed decission.

Sex ed is not just about having safe sex, it also preaches abstinence. by giving young people knowledge we enhance their ability to make an informed choice and to make the right one.

If they decided they will indulge in sex at least they are armed with the knowledge to protect themselves for unwanted pregancy or disease.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Your position amases me. IMO why condone or preach ignorance! on any other topic you would all be for finding out the facts and making a informed decission.

Sex ed is not just about having safe sex, it also preaches abstinence. by giving young people knowledge we enhance their ability to make an informed choice and to make the right one.

If they decided they will indulge in sex at least they are armed with the knowledge to protect themselves for unwanted pregancy or disease.

Alchemi,

I think the problem with safe sex education is that it gives the idea to children that having sex is an option.... i think it needs to be taught that abstinence or masturbation is the only option and that sex is for grown ups... meaning they need to know that although we are showing them how to put a condom on their penis ... it is just an anatomy lesson and they need to wait until they are an adult before they do such things..

Your kid has a right to their OWN body.... meaning they can masturbate or abstain...

YOUR kid does NOT have the right to have sex and impregnant my kid...that is encroaching on my kids rights.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Sex ed is not just about having safe sex, it also preaches abstinence. by giving young people knowledge we enhance their ability to make an informed choice and to make the right one.

the problem is that we are arguing over a sex education program that we know nothing about...

nobody has posted a sex ed program

[Acriku]

Your kid has a right to their OWN body.... meaning they can masturbate or abstain...

YOUR kid does NOT have the right to have sex and impregnant my kid...that is encroaching on my kids rights.

It is not at all against your kids' rights, if it is mutual.

[nemafakei]

I'm not opposed to denying the young all access to information, indeed, since school leaving age is 16, I agree that there must be some provision that all crucial information is taught by that age. However, it must be recognised that this information is not something that they will need to use until much later in life.

Framkly, I'm not of the view that people need contraception all that much anyway, given that I'd be happier if necessity of procreation were the only reason to engage in such overly biological activities.

[SurlyPIG]

I recognise it perfectly well, and applaud the good intentions - but I really don't think that those sections of modern youth who are likely to practise such behaviour asre the ones who will think about the message first. Yes, they do have problems. Many, many people have such problems. Those are the people who will do this sort of thing.

Forgive me for being blunt, but how in the world do you know?  You're making an assumption based on a stereotype, an inaccurate stereotype at that.  I mentioned a supporting example before (Denmark vs USA), and all of the signs of the issue that I've seen are in contradiction with your assumption.

Only what is necessary for the continuation of the species. I can just about tolerate it in those who are commmitted to a permanent relationship, and who are happy to spend the rest of their lives with each other.

Those are the two limits I see as being independant of arbitrary lines: the slope levels off at points of distinction such as this.

I respect that.  You are entitled to draw the line where you think is best, and I like seeing people make well-thought, informed decisions such as you have, even if they're nothing close to mine.  But for the rest of society?  Sorry, but that's not your call, nor is it mine or anyone else's.

*I* know that. Do they? Will they remember the subtleties when they're drunk, high, or whatever other state the modern youth likes to get itself into.

I might have expected such a remark from Gunwounds, but coming from you, it surprises me.  If that's what you think of teenagers, I've wasted my time.

Well i just think it is ironic that society has laws forbidding the youth to look at pictures or videos of private parts and other people having sex... yet this same society doesnt care whether these under-age youths engage in *actual* sexual intercourse which is obviously more explicit than the aforementioned materials...

Ironic, certainly, but not relevant.

Hell...forget abstinence and safe sex... maybe if they just taught everyone in highschool how to whack it... and took the age restrictions off porn... then there would be less pregnancies and AIDs.... and less "pent up sexual frustration"  as Acriku likes to call it.

That would be about the worst thing that could happen.  The principle behind sex ed is giving kids accurate information about the subject so that they can make intelligent, informed decisions about their own lives.  I don't know what it's like where you're from, but what I've been through was NOTHING like what either of you think it is.  I don't think anybody can make a good decision about anything without good information, and porno would be the worst place for teens to get it.  I'm absolutely dumbfounded as to why you're against professional teachers giving all consequential information about sex (not only including but focusing on abstinence) yet you'd be in favour of kids learning about it from trashy porno movies, the majority of which features guys with foot-long units doing it with girls with 36" DDs in the most absurd situations imaginable.

I think that both you and Nema are a little out of touch with reality.  I don't know what it's like where either of you live, but I'll share my own experience to give you a better idea of what im arguing for.  Sex ed in my high school is a unit in a life management course that students are required to take in grade eleven.  The teacher has little if anything to do with sex ed, for the duration of the unit a representative from the Sexual Health and Wellness Center teaches the class.  Students, having hopefully remembered the "basics" from previous sex ed courses, are taught more about the choices they have and the implications of their decisions.  One of the first things taught is that there isn't such a thing as safe sex, there is unprotected sex, there is abstinence, and everything in the middle was dubbed safer sex.  After the proper use of birth control was covered, the class was asked questions to provoke thought and discussion.  We also heard from an HIV positive guy and a woman who works at a halfway house for people in the sex trade.

Honestly, you would have to be a cement-headed twit to come out of it with the one-dimensional conclusion you think teens will make.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Nema, I might have expected such a remark from Gunwounds, but coming from you, it surprises me.

[GUNWOUNDS]

yet you'd be in favour of kids learning about it from trashy porno movies, the majority of which features guys with foot-long units doing it with girls with 36" DDs in the most absurd situations imaginable.

i NEVER said that the porn should or would be used to "educate" the kids.... i said i would rather have them use it to relieve their pent up sexual frustration instead of banging each other.

I would rather some little kid get his rocks off on a porn flick instead of bending my daughter over a couch and getting his rocks off like that...

As far as getting educated on sex... the parents should basically tell them what is what...

[GUNWOUNDS]

It is not at all against your kids' rights, if it is mutual.

Well this is starting to leave the realm of  sex education  and is starting to enter the realm of Parent's control vs Children's rights.

I personally believe that my kid doesnt have the right to declare a sex act mutual... so that point is moot.

What i never understood is why an 18 yr old has sex with a 14 yr old .. he goes to prison... but if he had been 14 himself he would be ok...

which reinforces my point that if  a 14 yr old cant consent to an 18yr old.. then they shouldnt be able to consent to another 14 yr old.

[Acriku]

It's the different levels of maturity involved, and whether or not the person is mature enough to consent to sex and if not then the 18-year-old has taken an unlawful advantage on the 14-year-old and thus becomes rape, specifically statuatory.

[exatreide]

Im a teenager and Ace is right.

Indiana is a republican state, therefor everyone here is conservitave bla bla bla type.

Abstinence is taught not sex aid just abstinence. You know what no one really pays attention, Most of the people were reading,sleeping or listing to headphones during the movie and most of the lectures.

Porn is readily availibul there is the internet, if kids wana do that they can, but do they? no.

Schools here are very anti tobbacco and Indiana has one of the highest underage smoking rates in the country. Figures eh?

Abstinence dosn't work, its a hormon thing. If it wasnt natural for teenagers to have sex, then the human body wouldnt have the advantage till the people were "mature"

faced with abstience, getting laid or beating off, I would take getting laid anyday of the week, and no absitence progrom can teach me otherwise, Why? Hormons and stuff.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Porn is readily availibul there is the internet, if kids wana do that they can, but do they? no.

Bullshit.....oh so you have never looked at porn and you have never beat it?