No. I'm not saying anything, I'm just correcting you. ;)

I'm actually having a hard time working out whether society has got a point with the whole "no sex for kids" thing... sex seems to be very similar to drinking - it's potentially damaging to your health if you don't do it responsibly, it can affect people in adverse ways, you need to be a certain age to be legally allowed to do it, but it's good, enjoyable healthy stuff when done responsibly and safely. But also there's this deep down nagging feeling telling me that sex shouldn't be portrayed as being so vulgar and disgusting.

Wow, interesting topic here.

I don't agree to kids having sex, they don't even know what they're doing.
Would you want to go mountain climbing if you didn't know what you were doing?

An excellent topic, Dino. I have to agree immensely. If society and all the people in it adopted a healthy, matter-of-fact view of sex, all of this nonsense wouldn't be a problem. Children exploring their sexuality pre-puberty makes perfect sense to me. I'm positive it's been the experience of men around the world of being aroused at a relatively young age and not knowing what the hell was going on. If we removed all these arbitrary taboos and were candid with the facts, children would be aware of how natural sex is, and would be in a much better frame of mind to learn about it, which would make the activity safer for everyone across the length of their lives.

Some people seem to think there's no point for children to have sex with one another, so why should they. This seems to exclude anybody from doing anything pleasurable at all. As other people have said, sex without the intent of offspring exists, and if we allow children to be aware of sex and its potential greatness and dangers, then society will benefit by being a healthier, more liberating place to be.

The idea of a single age of consent is also daft, as far as I can make out. I completely understand the reasoning, because there are paedophilic people in society - and this isn't to completely devalue them as people, merely to comment on the dangers they can cause - we need to protect children from their activities if, as Ambi points out, physical damage can result. Psychological damage is a bit harder to understand. Again, it seems to me as though the children's turmoil later on could be from seeing themselves as raped and abused, when in a utopian society, maybe this wouldn't be the case, and it would be normal and healthy as it was in Ancient Greece. Ergo perhaps it would be safer to adapt the law - people under 16 shouldn't be allowed to have sex with anyone of more than one year's age difference on either side, or something along those lines.

And why would we let children smoke and drink and take drugs at a young age? These are all activities which dramatically damage people's bodies with too few positive points to validate them, whereas sex, as has been repeatedly made clear, is fundamentally safe is performed with awareness.

That's ture, but those were the superficial problems I listed. The thing that should really keep them from having sex is the lack of experience.

Well, it's not likely, but it can happen enough to be a statistic.

Everybody has to start some place. Surely if they start practising at a young age, they'll be better at it and have more experience overall. I don't see how having a lack of experience is necessarily bad.

People who **** at 16 have had no previous sexual experience but they seem to get on fine. (Masturbating is a different kettle of fish).

'And why would we let children smoke and drink and take drugs at a young age?'

We don't let them.

Thus far, all of the people who are going on about children having relations at a young age seem to be bringing up speculative points. "It COULD be better for them. It COULD make society a better place" how? How could it? How, in the world, would society be a better place if we allowed children to experiment sexually? And i still haven't been given any proof that society is against sex.

It's also, in my opinion, pointless to bring up the animal agenda. Animals are a completely different specie to humans. We have a higher level of consciousness and are not driven by our primal instinct - animals, however, are. And like i mentioned prior, we have an emotional connection that is often established during sex.

Which brings me to another point - do we really want children having sex at such an early age? Not only will they lose respect for their virginity but they will lose respect for sex and love-making. Which are two different things.

That said, this happened in the 60s with everybody bounding around sexing each other, and because of some random Africans doing it with Chimpanzees, we eventually got a mutated form of SIV (HIV).

Great(!)

To you and Rich, I was referring to my previous post.

Sorry, leapt into a long thread and didn't read 100% of it. My fault.

I was refering to an earlier point that asked that question, and was repeating it to introduce my reasons just why we don't, and why that makes sense.

As far as my current train of thought goes, this would merely be an aspect of a much more grown up society, one where sex is not a taboo, and children are introduced to the idea at a young age and made away that's a primal urge as natural as eating, drinking and staying at the right temperature. They won't be embarassed or intrigued by it so much, and we can teach them to perform sex safely and guide them as to its appropriate use. If a society that doesn't titter at matters of natural fact and can eliminate the dangers of a commonplace activity isn't a marked improvement, what would that constitute?

Indeed we do have higher brain functions, which is exactly why people have come up, completely spontaneously, with the ideas that children shouldn't have sex and such. It's arbitrary, and we rationalise it with ideas that have been impregnated in us throughout our lives (that's not to in itself decry them as bad). And animals such as swans and other birds do form lifelong partnerships that any ornathologist could describe as love, or a primitive form of it. I don't think allowing free sex would completely eliminate human emotion. People would still find love-making to be an immense expression of love, maybe even more so if children can be tought the romantic notions of the activity.

I've never understood this. Preach to me here : just what's so special about virginity?

I was unaware of this theory. I understood that humans consumed chimps and contracted the amalgomate retrovirus that the chimps contracted by eating monkeys.

What if the child really, really wants to? If he comes up and asks you why not, exactly how are you going to justify it to him? Sentimentally speaking, I know how awkward it is to lose faith in those Blue Remember Hills of innocence and realise there are other substantial qualities to life, but really in the end we're denying intelligent beings of something they could be emotionally prepared for if we only let them grow uninhibited.

It's not speculative, it's actually based on some very well founded knowledge. Human psychology gives us a lot to draw from, as well as history. As Max pointed out, sex in ancient Greece wasn't a big deal, and people did it all the time, men and women, boys and girls, young and old - homosexuality was just as normal as heterosexuality, and it is well known that ancient Greece was a very successful society. Had this nonchalant attitude toward sex been a bad thing, it would almost certainly have reflected on the success of the society. But the ancient Greeks didn't fall victim to STDs, or psychological problems.

You need to stop thinking about this from the perspective of someone who is used to sex being considered bad. Stop listening to what society has told you for a minute, and just imagine sex as being normal - yes you've still got the same health risks, but other than that, HOW is it bad? If sex doesn't screw with people mentally, and sexual abuse doesn't really happen any more because people can get sex whenever they want so there's no need to abuse or rape to get it, then why is it bad?

I wouldn't be so sure. We are still animals, and we still have primal instincts very much hardwired into us. Fight or flight, sex drive, flirting, and the way we react to stimuli, are all quite primitive. As a species we like to distance ourselves from the rest of the natural world, and arrogantly assume that we're somehow more advanced than they are, but it's really only our use of advanced tools and language that make us more advanced as a species, physically we're just as primal as the ape.

That's speculation. It's not necesserily true that children will lose their respect for virginity or sex, and it's not necesserily true that it even matters if they do. Respecting virginity falls under the catagory of meaningless imposed values of society, as it is part of viewing sex as bad and impure. So if you do not consider sex to be bad, then virginity is not important and carries no meaning. Some people already don't respect sex and virginity anyway, so it's not like considering sex bad ever stopped those detirmined enough. But really I think it should be up to the individual what values he assigns to sex. Values should never be imposed, especially values that don't really make sense.

Also I agree with Max's point about it creating an easier environment to teach kids and people in general about sex. Sex is hard to teach to people because it's been made an embarressing, bad, controversial thing. However if it wasn't any of those things it would be much easier to teach people about the dangers and so on.

That's a dubious myth at best.

Okay, so, with the most part i agree with you - sexual relations needs to be taught properly and we do need to get rid of the embarassment that surrounds it, i just don't see how allowing children who are not emotionally, mentally or physically mature enough to perform such deeds to do so will help.

'I was unaware of this theory. I understood that humans consumed chimps and contracted the amalgomate retrovirus that the chimps contracted by eating monkeys.'

I've heard of that theory also.

On the topic of the Greeks, the Greeks only taught/did things with young teenagers when they deemed them physically and mentally mature. Which is completely different to saying "Oh, the Greeks shagged kids, surely we can!" besides, even if that was the case our two societies are incredibly different now and so that argument is obsolete.

On the animal topic - i'm not arrogant enough to distance ourselves from animals that much, and i agree totally that we are animals, but our emotions are far more developed than that of an animals and thus we're far more capable of being emotionally fudged up.

You still haven't answered my question on exactly how does society make sex bad?

You're saying that as though it isn't true that children don't screw anyway.

The fact of the matter is that they do. We just don't like to admit it as being sexual because that would harm their "innocence" or whatever crap. They fondle each other, they fool around, they're horny little beasts, who actually ARE capable of orgasm, even boys.

Why is there this preconcieved "mature enough" barrier in terms of emotions, mental state and physical development? I assure you that it doesn't exist. If it was the case that kids weren't capable of it, then they wouldn't be doing it, but the fact of the matter is that they are, and it's pissing society off.

But they did shag kids. Young teenagers ARE kids. The fact that they're physically and mentally mature is subjective to who is making those observations, but beyond that it still doesn't change the fact that they are just kids - kids who are capable of ejaculating or becoming pregnant, but still kids nonetheless. If these greeks did what they did then in today's society they would be branded pedophiles, and demonized by the news media. But back then it was fine with them, it wasn't an issue. Young or old, it didn't matter, sex was NOT taboo. So surely that's the whole point? They were a society in which sex wasn't an issue - our current society is one where sex very much is an issue. And look how it is affecting us. We see sex with kids as wrong, and we are a society which considers sex to be an issue. They saw sex with kids as normal, and they were a society which considered sex to not be an issue.

I don't follow your logic. It would seem to me that the fact that our two societies are indredibly different is the very essense and basis of the argument. We're comparing our society, one which considers sex to be a taboo, to a society which wasn't bothered by sex.

But in that sense you're comparing rape victims to consensual (for want of a better word) fuckers. Yes, someone forcing you to have sex with them is scary and can mess some people up, but I don't see how just plain having sex with people, no forcing involved, would mess someone up if sex wasn't a bad thing. Being 11 years old and having consensual sex with a 34 year old housewife in a society that doesn't consider sex to be bad, or a violation of innocence, or whatever, then it's not going to have any kind of adverse affect on someone.

Society doesn't make sex bad, society simply says that sex is bad. It stems from religion, the christian faith as it likes to call itself, which preached pretty early on in the modern world's development that god says sex is sinful, and should only be done if you intend on getting a woman pregnant. As an atheist I don't particularly enjoy being part of a society who's values come from a religion that I don't subscribe to, but there we go. There are some things that I guess we just have to live with.

Ah yes, enjoyable it is and I like you (probably) wouldn't say it's wrong if your'e under 18, sure why the hell not?, let's all go have sex right now (not with each other) with diffrent people did that sound "wrong" to you in any way?, I think this is what Dino is getting at society has poisened our minds thinking it's wrong to have sex if we have safe sex where is the problem? no body's gonna get pregnant etc. (although you can still get herpes) so why not?. If you got confused during the reading of this post I reccomend reading it again untill you understand it.

Dino, I very much feel your point,and I cant empathize with you enough, I think it is trully wonderfull such topic pops up

Jacob, First of all...I can see that most of your point, is that sexual intercourse is a very emotionally complex thing, I do not agree...the only reason it is, is because of all the preconceptions our society attaches to it first , are you a whore if you do it? are you taking advantage of someone? should you **** whitout love? why are you ruining your virginity? would you ruin a friendship with sex? whitout all those doubts and insecurities it is just plain old fun. and wouldnt that be what happened if kids did it? I sure as hell would have liked it to awaken to this when I was a kid. it would have just taken a lot of the complexities of it away.

Jacob, I seem to gather that you think of yourself as being a bit more open about this than you actually are.

"'NAMBLA stands for 'National Man-Boy Love Association' which is basically a group of Paedophiles and Child molesters stating that abusing a child is healthy for both the abuser and the abusee. I believe this also extends to children performing acts upon each other."

http://216.220.97.17/ does this really seem like the kind of webpage of molesters and abusers? it is simply advocating it's cause, and according to wikipedia they also made protestings against rape. Do people who passively advocate their cause and protest against raping really deserve these biased tags? I just wanted you to realize how you're acting about this.

You also mention the posiblity of emotionally being damaged by all of this, which I belives relates to psychology, and if I remember right the founder of this very field was the first one to record childs behaving sexually, little girls spontanueously humping their beds rythmically to obtain orgasm. now it was based on observations of this amongst other things that he set the foundation of psychology and theorised that traumas and emotional damage came from the inhibition of these very sexual desires. if psycholgy is such a well renowed field, how is it even remotely rational to still generate these sexual traumas to all of our kids?

because society doesnt want it, these child sexual studies were the only ones, and even though this person's memes made it and formed a very well renowed field, we still deny it's very foundations.

Ask Religious fools and the people on BBC Teens.

I see it as a disadvantage. As you gain nothing, where as being a whore at least you're feeling good!

Okay, i'm going to explain -
Young teenagers (as in 12+) i can see your point, vaguely. However, when it falls beneath that age bracket i really can't see how it would help society.

'We see sex with kids as wrong'

I'm sorry, but how exactly is it right?

' Yes, someone forcing you to have sex with them is scary and can mess some people up, but I don't see how just plain having sex with people, no forcing involved, would mess someone up if sex wasn't a bad thing.'

Because kids can be talked into it, so they consent. It's all very well saying "Oh, well this kid consented" but did he/she really? That's where the line blurs and that's where damage is done.

'does this really seem like the kind of webpage of molesters and abusers?'

Christ, go on the BNP website and i'm sure they don't brand themselves as mindless thugs with racist intent, but the good majority of them are.

I'm still trying to get my head around exactly how this is damaging society and exactly how allowing a 35 year old man have relations with a 5 year old would help. Okay, so kids are sexually mature at an earlier age, that doesn't mean we have to throw them in the deep end and hand them other to Fred West.

In a perfect world kids would have proper parenting and proper sex education. If they, then, wanted to pursue their sexual education and put it to literal use, i'm sure they could find somebody of their own age to experiment with. But allowing someone not of their generation to do it is rather obscene.

And NAMBLA only want to abolish the age of consent so that when they groom the kids into having sex with them, they don't get charged with statutory rape.

Consent laws ought to be at 18, period.

88Th8e 8ab88ov8e88 s8en88t88ence t8oo888k8 8838 an8d 8a8 h88a8l8f8 8m8in8ute8s 8to8 8ty8p8e.8
8
Fu8c8k8 8t8he8 8n8um8b8er 88 8i8n 8the 8ear8 8a88l8l8 8n8ig8ht8 8l8o88ng.8

Why? Just because the average American doesn't know which bit the condom goes on?

I couldn't agree more. I think you genuinely hit the nail on the head there and you've outlined my own point quite nicely. Well done.

Also, I'd like to commend you on your mention of NAMBLA. That's quite a controversial topic and I think you handled yourself well, and raised another very good point.

So, props to you sir.

I still think you should outline your arguments properly, since the subject matter has moved on quite rapidly from the original titles point. Which is about sexual abuse.

No I think I've outlined them enough, and I don't agree that it has moved on at all. I think we're still chewing over the same cud. The subject and core of the discussion is still the same. This was never about sexual abuse. The title of the thread only says "Abusing" because I couldn't think of another word for it, and it's basically what the article I pointed out said.

Besides that, all the points that I wanted to make have been made several times over, both by myself and numerous other people, namely Caracal and Max, who have both made some superb contributions.

You have moved on. The initial statement was about children exploring their sexuality, this then moved on to the age of consent being abolished and adults being allowed to have relations with children.

To actually get back to the point (the one that is completely different to the title 'Children sexually abusing each other', and is more akin to 'Children exploring their sexuality'), i have no problem with a child who is fully sexually developed exploring it's sexuality with it's peer group. I do, however, see a problem with adults getting involved and children of a younger age doing things they're not physically mature enough for.

If we can stick to this line of topic instead of deviating to Paedophilia, or the age of consent, then an argument can be put across far better.

To Carc - okay, so children from the age of three years old can experience orgasms, i fail to see how allowing children of this age to have sex would be a responsible thing to do.

Finally, what exactly is the rush? You all bring up the fact that sex is enjoyable et al, but surely allowing children (11-) to do it would only make them do it constantly, which would, potentially, run the risk of them becoming "addicted". In a responsible society, sex shouldn't really matter. I personally couldn't give a tap-dancing shissen whether i was going to have sex or not in the next year, it's not one of my priorities and i doubt it will be. And discussing it as if it's something that will help society in some way is fairly immature. I've repeatedly read that it would somehow make a society a better place if we could just screw each other...

Erm, how?

I can't be bothered to edit.

Somebody drag up Volsungs idea, it was in a topic a while a go and it was sort of like a "Court room game". I think it'd suit some of the previous topics, including this one, fairly well.

The subject is about sex and society, and I've already told you this - although it begins with the example of children having sex with children, it's more about the broader picture, the "what if?" implication that society may be overreacting to what is simply normal and natural behaviour - the "who is wrong here?" question on the end of the title should've given that away to you. Basically, the title should be, "Is society wrong about sex?". AND THAT IS THE LAST TIME I WILL BE DISCUSSING THE TITLE AND SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD. I DID NOT PUT IT HERE FOR US TO HAVE A STUPID NONPRODUCTIVE OFFTOPIC DISCUSSION. Like I said I've already told you this once before.

And Jacob, could you please try to be less closed minded? I'm hardly inclined to continue a debate with you if all you're going to do is stubbornly defend your point by desperately hunting for faults in other people's points. To be honest you've not shown me any valuable or credible evidence for your argument, and so far the only convincing points that I've seen made have been those FOR, not against.

Why should the age of consent be 18. Because at this point people are legally acknowledged to be mature enough to enter into adult things like military service and legally binding contracts on their own.
Secondly, the last thing this world needs is more bastards spawned by bastards who will go on to spawn more bastards. I'm sorry that the language is harsh, but the data is there. People who conceive children before marriage or underage in a broken home are far more likely to do the same damn thing. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like helping an already gigantic problem with bastardity(is that a word? Well it is now.)
Thirdly, just because something is consensual doesn't mean it can't mess your life up. Kinky sex and the buying and selling of drugs are consensual, victimless acts and in the latter case crime. They still can damage people.
/not against drugs or kinky sex. Just gotta be 18 and 21.

'and so far the only convincing points that I've seen made have been those FOR, not against.'

Yes, because every against argument people put across you seem to retort with "Oh no, that's society implementing that idea in you. No. Be quiet now"

Thinking about it, i think that society is too harsh. But it has a point. It's not exactly healthy to allow 3 year olds to have sex, and you can bring up as many scientific theories that go against that as you like, but i can guarantee there'll be some other one's that will go against them. The best thing to do is to look at the affects that consensual adult-minor sex has on the minor, and in all cases it has an adverse affect on the child.

'I'm hardly inclined to continue a debate with you if all you're going to do is stubbornly defend your point by desperately hunting for faults in other people's points.'

I'd hardly call it "hunting" when the faults themselves are pretty evident.

Though i can see your points, the fact of the matter is that it'd never work ever in this day and age. Firstly you would need to purge societies stomachs of all the Lesser Orders. Then you'd need to stop people from taking advantage of them and then you'd have to make it so they didn't listen to peer pressure.

Is society or the kids in the wrong? Neither are.

That's because so far a lot of people have just said "sex with children is bad" - that isn't what it's about. People have been really struggling to explain why sex with children or among children is bad, and most (including yourself) have come up with highly unsatisfactory excuses involving innocence, responsibility, ability to choose, psychological effects, and other sorts of nonsense. It's just clutching at straws, there's no hard evidence that has been offered, just speculation, and it's showing that rather than look at it objectively, and neutrally, you're coming at it from the perspective of someone who has already made their mind up about it. Debates do not work if you're closed minded or you've already made your mind up.

There you go again. WHY is it not healthy to allow 3 year olds to have sex? What's your evidence for this?

Have you considered that maybe the whole reason why it affects people mentally and in a bad way is because they're constantly encountering other people who are telling them that it's such a bad thing? If enough people shake their head, tut, and tell you how horrible it is, you'll start to believe it and react to it accordingly. I firmly believe that it isn't the actions themselves but more the society that lives around those actions - if the values of your society say that having sex at a young age is bad, then you're going to feel bad about it.

Also, you could quite happily say that eating food with CDs could have bad psychological effects - the fact that there is no evidence to say that it doesn't, does not instantly mean that you can say it does. It means that it can't be proven either way, because nobody does it.

'unsatisfactory excuses involving innocence, responsibility, ability to choose, psychological effects'

Yes, because responsibility, ability to choose and psychological effects are far from important when it comes to relations with children. Out of interest, in this "perfect society" where adults f*ck toddlers, who exactly makes sure it's consensual or not.

'There you go again. WHY is it not healthy to allow 3 year olds to have sex? What's your evidence for this?'

How exactly can it be healthy!? What can they gain from it? Where's your evidence that it is healthy, and how do you know that your evidence isn't biased? You say that everybody elses evidence is biased because of societies viewpoints, but then that's like saying our arguments are completely obsolete, even though a child who is molested from an early age thinks of it as normal until told otherwise. And even though he/she think it's normal, he/she still is f*cked up psychologically and mentally.

'Have you considered that maybe the whole reason why it affects people mentally and in a bad way is because they're constantly encountering other people who are telling them that it's such a bad thing?'

Because smokers have the exact same problem(!)

The Prince Edward Island had a little child abuse society going on there, and even in the instances where mental/physical torture wasn't going on and it was purely sexual, the kids were still f*cked up in the head and needed counselling.

Like i said before, whatever evidence you bring up, can be countered by evidence that somebody against such a topic brings up, and vice versa. But you really have got to ask yourself, who does the research to say it's healthy to have sex with children and why are they doing it? Could you be using research advocated by Paedophiles and Child molesters?

When it's all said and done, what's so wrong with protecting kids? So they're physically capable of reaching orgasm at an early age, what does that prove? Is society really that f*cked up that to make it right you're advocating sex with children...

I agree with Jacob.
(Head asplodes)

Once again I say it.
"Just because most Americans don't know which bit the condom goes on"

Ok, maybe the UK has the highest teen pregnancy rate ever. But that isn't because of low consent laws.

'Ok, maybe the UK has the highest teen pregnancy rate ever.'

It doesn't, it's the USA. But we have the highest pregger rate in Europe.

The reason being that both the USA and England are allowing Lower Orders to breed, it's disgusting. The USA has the Dizzy-rascals ("Mofo, i'll pop yo' ass!") both the Nigger kind and the Wigga kind. Whereas the British equivalent is Chavs.

Best thing to do? Cas. Tra. Tion.

Yes.

Oh yeah, the stupid Londoner, from 'the streets'. Boasts about being stabbed.
I still don't see what's wrong with the UK laws though.

Sub-par enforcement and too much freedom.

When I read your post Jacob, all I saw was accusation after accusation, stupid faulty comeback after stupid faulty comeback, error ridden statement after error ridden statement, misunderstanding after misunderstanding.

You've made use of words like "molest" "abuse" "pedophile"... none of these words apply. You wanted to know what makes your arguments obsolete? Well it's the inclusion of these words. You're talking to me and everyone else like we're advocating child abuse, and that's a really stupid, childish thing to do. Not to mention it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

You also admitted to being convinced that it's bad. So if you've already made your mind up, then go away. This is a debate not an argument. You're not supposed to just impose your views and attempt to convert everyone to it by being an asshole and shoving it in their faces.

So I'm not going to continue this until you either go away, or until you decide to play ball properly. Mainly because you've just taken the life out of the debate and effectively killed it, but also because it's impossible to continue this with you here just finding new ways of saying "YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE WRONG!" at everything we say. My opinion on this subject could go either way, but there is no way you or anyone else is going to force me into subscribing to one mindset or another. I'll make my mind up about this subject at a later date when you aren't here.

With other laws maybe. Actually, next week I'm doing work experience at a police station. This station looks after some of the roughest areas of the city. Should be an exciting time. ;)

Then again it depends on the people. I'd never happy-slap (or whatever the hell it is nowadays) someone randomly in the street and I'm pretty sure Dino, Jacob, you and all the other Brits on here wouldn't either. But 90% of the under 20's in the UK are quite happy to revel in this chav, lawbreaker lifestyle.

It's because they can.
i.e, sub-par enforcement of laws.

For example, my older brother is/was a chav. Not so much anymore because he's gotten older (just ignore the benefit fraud he committed earlier today...). Any repucussions for his vigilante behaviour? I saw none.

'But 90% of the under 20's in the UK are quite happy to revel in this chav, lawbreaker lifestyle.'

It's because they're c*nts.

'You've made use of words like "molest" "abuse" "pedophile"...'

Yes, because in the instances i've brought up where children thought it was "normal" and "consented" child abuse was going on.

'This is a debate not an argument'

'Debate'
To deliberate on; consider.
To dispute or argue about.
To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.

Shush now.

'You're not supposed to just impose your views and attempt to convert everyone to it by being an asshole and shoving it in their faces.'

Like you, you mean? Where you bash people down by telling them society has imposed that viewpoint and that they're wrong because they're not thinking properly?

'you here just finding new ways of saying "YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE WRONG!" at everything we say.'

You still haven't managed to prove whether you have a point to be considered wrong, yet.

'all I saw was accusation after accusation, stupid faulty comeback after stupid faulty comeback, error ridden statement after error ridden statement, misunderstanding after misunderstanding.'

Where exactly? So far all you've retorted with is "Society has made you think this way, think my way and then agree with me. Yes"

Jacob, hush now, and play with the toys in the sand quietly please.

Well, jacob....I do think you are missing why Dino is so intent on proving his points, mainly because all his points been nothing but shut down since it was posted, except for me and like one or 2 other persons

since until they reach puberty they wouldn't have any sexual feelings.

this was your main point until I came along, I proved wrong, and you didnt even notice, in fact you started arguing more agressively, like this
word definitions AND shush?, come on....someone who does this is clearly NOT, trying to see the other person's view, if you were listening to his ideas you wouldnt CARE that he mis-used the word, because you obviously did see trough his mistake and reach the meaning as it is made clear in your next post.

someone who quotes a definition and then tells the other to shut up DESPITE completly understanding his message is desperately trying to make the other person shut up. scratch that, someone who quotes a definition only to follow it with a shut up can only be trying to make the other person SHUT UP!.

You have moved on. The initial statement was about children exploring their sexuality, this then moved on to the age of consent being abolished and adults being allowed to have relations with children.

No Jacob, you have moved on. actually you are the one who keeps bringing up adults ****ing children, if we touch the subject to it is just to respond to you.

you keep bringing up things like age limits. I mean..really, what could be more arbitrary? whoever personally enjoyed being expected to do something because of his age? seriously, it's not like: hey, my 13th birthday*poof* WOW curses werent after all!! hey my 18th birthday *poof* YAAAY, now I dont get scared with violence anymore! and boy, is it important to not have unsafe sex!!

....humans just dont get automatic emotional/mental updates when they have birthdays because that kind of growth doesnt happen overnight, so inevitably you will be either more mature than the prediction, or less mature than the prediction which flat out doesnt protect anyone.

-if you are more mature than the age limits predict, you will either just lose respect for society's authority figures for imposing them, or think there's something wrong with you because you want to do something ilegal.

-if you are less mature you will resent and fear society for pushing you to do something you dont care for, you will feel weird for not wanting it, and become more conflictive .

it's just a LOSE/LOSE situation

if hearing curses scares you, it will probably take a LOT more than being 13 to get over it, I never cared etiherway, my mom is above 40 and she is the only one in the house who gives a sh!t eitherway, it would take years and years of very carefully designed reconditioning to make her change if it is even posible, not a freaking birthday cake.

I mean, face it, age limits are imposed by people who are scared of raising kids with lifes richier than theirs, becauseit will render them morally inferior if their kids do things they didnt, it's just something designed by scared uptight individuals, for scared uptight individuals.

I keep getting the feeling you are thinking of THIS society, it's like you thought we were saying " HEY, let's go out to kindergardens and hand out textless kamasutra coloring books!! we'll SAVE THE WORLD!!" no.

stop thinking of it as MY society, forget about that for a moment, just A society, just like you say the Greek society, think the representative democracy society or whatever you want to call it.Think of this more of in terms of individual vs situation. stop thinking of it as...person and kid get laid, kids goes out to society and *snip* think of just the effect that getting laid will do to this kid, whitout the society, witout the stranger, you're the only one bringing that up, most of us are just thinking of honest, continual sex education..and if anything kid/kid relationships. nobody ever touched the adult/kid relationship before you did.

you are so incredibly biased in your actions you have to be filled with rage to not see it because it's so exageratedly obvious it's almost cartoony:

Jacob:And i'm sure if it was natural we'd see some form of it in nature, in the shape of pre-pubescant Chimps fondling each other, when we don't, we see Chimps that are the equivalents of teenagers doing that, but never younglings.

Dino:Chimps HAVE been seen fondling each other. Chimps of all ages. Same with monkeys, gorillas, and so on. They all screw and fondle each other, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, grandparents, literally everyone and anyone. It's quite repulsive, but it happens.

Jacob:So, just because animals do such things with families, are you saying we should allow such a thing also?
COME ON!!!

you propose a situation as a fact, you get proven astoundly wrong (not only their childs do it, but they do it with EVERYONE) and then you flat out accuse Dino of doing anything animals would because he posted the most logical responce to your unfounded speculation. THIS should is just way too evident for you to ignore. it not only proves your attitude, but that you are taking your prejudices as FACTS. which actually proves Dino right in his point of "society told you that"

It's also, in my opinion, pointless to bring up the animal agenda. Animals are a completely different specie to humans.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP!! Dino is blamed of being inconsequential because he responds yo what you bring up????

now, please...jacob, I think this flat out speaks for itself, I would like to belive your're someone I could talk to.

within all that abnegation and all that prejudice I did see some intersting points, such as that you dont think sex is so damned sensational, and yes, also your point about the emotional impact (even though I belive it is unfounded, it is thought provoking), but it just takes so many snap-back coments, and so many empty denials to get you to say anything intersting you do not allow an interesting conversation to go on.I do not want to be proven right every time I speak, I just want to tickle my mind with ideas that I dont get to speak about every day! I want to use conversation to explore and redefine my mindset.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
and now, just to get it off my chest and just release the tension, I am pretty amazed of how conditioned most people here is to automatically shut down new points of view, considering the series this forum is based on, first of all it tags you as a hardcore videogamer, one abnomrality, second one interested in plot and unusual gameplay, yet another sub-class of abnormality, third an unpopular and not well known class of game, another, fourth of the kind that can consider himself a fan very much like a "trekkie", and among that one who joins forums and actively discusses it, yet more rare, and even more so a relatively very unpopular type of forum.

after someone goes trough all this depth to discuss a simple fiction, I would think this person would be more open to something as simple as MAYBE kids should have some sex.

only 3 or 4 persons cared to consider the concept by itself( against it?, fair enough), whitout situating it in THIS society, all I could see was it's wrong it's wrong it's wrong....dont you remember hating your mom for her saying "it's wrong" about something she didnt even know shit about just because she was afraid of what bad things it could bring? dont you remember getting scolded for getting a violent game? have you gone wondering what it's like to scolding SO fast? do you even remember being a kid?......it is truly discouraging for me.

now, to something I found after this, jut after making a search for "child sexuality research" on google and finding only ONE site that wasnt about knocking down child abuse, and was actually about promoting a child sexuality book.

http://www.ipce.info/host/martinson/

damn good read I say.

'if you were listening to his ideas you wouldnt CARE that he mis-used the word'

Oh, i didn't care, he was being a c*nt about it however, so i decided to be fastidious.

'DESPITE completly understanding his message is desperately trying to make the other person shut up.'

Oh no, you misunderstand. I was telling him to hush over saying that it was a debate and not an argument. Not for him to hush-up completely.

'actually you are the one who keeps bringing up adults ****ing children, if we touch the subject to it is just to respond to you.'

The first thing i mentioned in regards to this was what the difference was between consensual relations with a child and another child and consensual relations with a adult and a child. Dino then replied, i then replied, he then responded with "Oh, i don't see how a child can become f*cked up by doing something so natural" which then indicates that he himself doesn't find anything wrong between an adult and a child having consensual relations.

'humans just dont get automatic emotional/mental updates when they have birthdays because that kind of growth doesnt happen overnight, so inevitably you will be either more mature than the prediction, or less mature than the prediction which flat out doesnt protect anyone.'

So, are you saying we shouldn't have age limits?

'I do not want to be proven right every time I speak, I just want to tickle my mind with ideas that I dont get to speak about every day! I want to use conversation to explore and redefine my mindset'

Okay, that's fine.

'dont you remember hating your mom for her saying "it's wrong"'

I see your point and i partly agree with it when it comes to young adolescants. I just don't agree that allowing toddlers to do such things is right. My main reasons are the emotional, psychological and the fact they have only just learnt to speak. Talk about running before you can walk!

'do you even remember being a kid?......it is truly discouraging for me.'

See, i'd like to think i'd be quite a laid back and liberal parent. I'd tell my kids that sex isn't a really big issue, but if they want to do it then to consider it carefully. Kids already feel pressured and think that they're missing out on something, and by talking about it as if it's an issue, you're adding more fuel to the fire. Okay, it's enjoyable, okay, it's vital to our survival, but is it really THAT important? No. Get over it.

And out of intrigue, what're the chances that kids, if they were allowed to have relations with each other, would not only just continually do so, forgetting to do certain "kid" shtuffs, but also get tired of vanilla sex at an earlier age and thus would have to keep doing something more riskier and riskier to get their kicks. Just a speculation, but it happens with Drugs.

'but that you are taking your prejudices as FACTS'

Well, when we've used them with this society and we're still coping perfectly well, they can't be that bad.

'Jacob, hush now, and play with the toys in the sand quietly please.'

Only if you promise you won't try and rape me.