# Age of consent



## Aleksion (Mar 18, 2017)

Given how quickly kids grow up these days, what do you think would be the most up to date age of consent?


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Mar 18, 2017)

High schoolers do it fairly often already. I'd say 16, no lower though. In the US, it is decided by the states. Some are 16, some higher like 17 and 18.


----------



## Andromedahl (Mar 18, 2017)

mmmmyeah 16. That's about when peers in highschool started getting.... frisky, I guess is the word.


----------



## KageSakuraclown (Mar 18, 2017)

18


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Mar 19, 2017)

If you can try people as an adult then you can fuck them like an adult.


----------



## Mandragoras (Mar 19, 2017)

That poll is impressively tasteless.

As for age of consent itself, that's a much more complicated issue than a single number. A bunch of states here and places like Australia have what are known as "Romeo and Juliet laws" which creates a sort of moving window of years between which a partner below the age of majority and an older partner can be in the clear—usually four or five years, with a floor between twelve and fourteen years of age—and I think this solves a lot of problems which an absolute age of sexual consent set at sixteen or eighteen does not. Other forms of legal consent, including participation in pornography, are quite a different matter, with even places with a much lower age of sexual consent putting them much higher; and then there are marriage loopholes where a much older person can marry a young teen, which... are honestly super skeezy. Astoundingly so.

I would set the open point of consent somewhere past sixteen, though, probably around seventeen or eighteen, wherever one can reasonably set the voting age. Generally one is finished with most hormonal bullshit by this point and starting to live away from one's parents or preparing to do so by this point. Between puberty and the age of majority, I think there should be protections in place, but more flexibility than with children; and below that point... I mean, if two kids get up to something (and no, it's not unheard of), that's a different matter, but if you're sixteen and you're lusting after a ten-year-old, there's a big problem already and you probably should see someone about that.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 19, 2017)

16-18, seriously guys? Do you really think you could not said no, before that age?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 19, 2017)

I agree with @Mandragoras that the poll is tasteless. I think the OP is just trying to be provocative, by creating the impression that they endorse paedophilia. (No prizes for guessing which user voted 12.)

Everybody in this thread appears to agree that some time around 16 is appropriate, and that Romeo and Juliet laws should apply in cases that are not overtly predatory. I also think that's a reasonable assessment, so it looks like the discussion has concluded.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 19, 2017)

Personally I think it should be 21. Having sex too early can cause havoc on some people while in general it's fairly risky to do while you're still developing


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 19, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Personally I think it should be 21. Having sex too early can cause havoc on some people while in general it's fairly risky to do while you're still developing



Ehh, the age of consent isn't a recommendation for the age at which people should start having sex. (That's a subjective value judgement that shouldn't be part of the law anyway)
It's just the age below which _any_ sex, _even if it consented to_, is automatically treated as rape.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 19, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Ehh, the age of consent isn't a recommendation for the age at which people should start having sex. (That's a subjective value judgement that shouldn't be part of the law anyway)
> It's just the age below which _any_ sex, _even if it consented to_, is automatically treated as rape.



This, I'm not saying as soon as a child hits 12 he/she must have sex. Most kids start watching porn before 12, so I don't see a problem here. Also the rationale behind why teens must not have sex with adults is a mystery for me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 19, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> This, I'm not saying as soon as a child hits 12 he/she must have sex. Most kids start watching porn before 12, so I don't see a problem here. Also the rationale behind why teens must not have sex with adults is a mystery for me.



I'll just straight up ask you, so that you can choose to either incriminate yourself, or back away back into whatever cave you crawled out of.

Are you saying that you think grown adults should be allowed to have sex with 12 year old children?


----------



## Revates (Mar 19, 2017)

My dick hasn't ever bled.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 19, 2017)

ITT we discuss whether rape is real.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 19, 2017)

I question whether your experience is as universally applicable as you seem to think it is, Aleksion. I mean, it's been almost 20 years since I was 12, but I'm _pretty_ sure that "most" of my peers hadn't watched porn by that age. It frankly sounds on the low side. _If_ kids under 12 watch porn, that attests more to the (lack of) quality of the parenting they've been subject to than to their sexual maturity. From what I gathered at that age most of my male classmates were at most snickering over titty pics. Kids who had crushes on celebrities or teachers might want to kiss them, but I never heard anyone talk about wanting to bone them.

Even _if_ age of consent was that low it's not like you'd have gotten to shag your teacher anyway. That's still an ethics violation and potential abuse of authority (intentional or otherwise) that teachers who value their jobs will generally steer clear of, even with students over AoC.



Saiko said:


> ITT we discuss whether rape is real.


Eh. Statutory rape _is_ largely an artificial construct. Obviously there's _some_ point where an individual will lack the maturity to give meaningful informed consent, but like it or not any line drawn in the sand will still be completely arbitrary. It's not like an individual gains some profound insight into the nature of sex and relationships overnight when they hit a legally-specified birthday.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 19, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Eh. Statutory rape _is_ largely an artificial construct. Obviously there's _some_ point where an individual will lack the maturity to give meaningful informed consent, but like it or not any line drawn in the sand will still be completely arbitrary. It's not like an individual gains some profound insight into the nature of sex and relationships overnight when they hit a legally-specified birthday.



I think the statutory laws are justified. As far as I'm aware, a minor typically suffers from negatives effects that are not only physical, but mental as well. Physical increases the chance of damage and cancer while the mental effects are a bit hazy; been a while, but I believe it was to do with their disposition and dependence


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 19, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I think the statutory laws are justified. As far as I'm aware, a minor typically suffers from negatives effects that are not only physical, but mental as well. Physical increases the chance of damage and cancer while the mental effects are a bit hazy; been a while, but I believe it was to do with their disposition and dependence


I'm not arguing against statutory rape laws _per se_, I'm simply saying they are drawing arbitrary lines that in some cases have more to do with social climate than with anything else, so equating a situation where the law has arbitrarily decided that one party's consent doesn't count with a situation where one party actively does not consent is false equivalence. Obviously the two can overlap, and things get murky as hell if you go out of your way to draw it to extremes. 

Honestly I think the most important thing regarding age of consent is probably that it and legislation regarding mandatory school curricula play nice so that kids get their sex ed before they reach AoC. Preferably with a bit of margin.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 19, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> I question whether your experience is as universally applicable as you seem to think it is, Aleksion. I mean, it's been almost 20 years since I was 12, but I'm _pretty_ sure that "most" of my peers hadn't watched porn by that age. It frankly sounds on the low side. _If_ kids under 12 watch porn, that attests more to the (lack of) quality of the parenting they've been subject to than to their sexual maturity. From what I gathered at that age most of my male classmates were at most snickering over titty pics. Kids who had crushes on celebrities or teachers might want to kiss them, but I never heard anyone talk about wanting to bone them.



20 years ago was 1997. World was much different back them, almost no one had internet, smartphones didn't exist. I think a lot of has changed during those years, especially the availability of information and perhaps that could have impact on children too. The fact that most of my peers watched porn at such age, simply shows young teens are interested in sexual things as much as adults, maybe even more. Keep in mind smartphones weren't the thing back when I was 12, so it could very much be that kids are starting even earlier now. Taking that into consideration it surprises me why most voted for 18.


----------



## WolfyJake (Mar 19, 2017)

16 is the age of consent in my country. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Multoran (Mar 19, 2017)

Germany's age is 14.
In more than a few other countries, its 16.
In my country (US) its largely decided by the individual states.
My own state's age is 16.
-
It seems strange to me though, that a 16 year old can get screwed by 8 horny, sex-deprived, 40 year old bronies but can't be recorded doing so (child porn).
Like, if you're old enough to legally fuck, you're old enough to legally fuck in front of a camera.
It's also interesting to note that prostitution is legal (in the US), so long as the act itself is committed in front of a camera.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 19, 2017)

There are a few countries with official age of consent set at 12, one even has it at 11, a bunch of with 13. So I'm not advocating pedophilia as some of you might assume


----------



## Multoran (Mar 19, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> There are a few countries with official age of consent set at 12, one even has it at 11, a bunch of with 13. So I'm not advocating pedophilia as some of you might assume


Even still, pedophilia actually refers to prepubescent children, not pubescent teens.
That's ephebophilia or hebephilia.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 19, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I think the statutory laws are justified. As far as I'm aware, a minor typically suffers from negatives effects that are not only physical, but mental as well. Physical increases the chance of damage and cancer while the mental effects are a bit hazy; been a while, but I believe it was to do with their disposition and dependence


Right, although there isn't a specific age, even consensual sex at too young an age is known to still be damaging. It just so happens that 16-18 is a fairly safe point in this regard to set the line. I personally think 18 with Romeo and Juliet laws is the most reasonable solution.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 19, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> I'm not advocating pedophilia



When I asked you this question



Fallowfox said:


> Are you saying that you think grown adults should be allowed to have sex with 12 year old children?



Your response was



Aleksion said:


> Correct, why not? When I was 12 we would fantasize about fucking our teachers, we preferred mature looks and some adults like young blood. So it's a win win for both. Don't you remember how horny you were at that age yourself?



You already agreed that you're defending adults who want to have sex with children. You are either a troll who wastes their life on the internet making arguments in support of paedophiles, or you actually _are_ a paedophile, who is pretending to be a troll. 

In any case, I'm sure your mother must be very proud. :\


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 19, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> When I asked you this question
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The plot thickens


----------



## loiloiloi (Mar 19, 2017)

I find it interesting how you listed so many ages below the age of consent in most countries.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Mar 19, 2017)

This thread is quite cringy to be honest. Continue.

By the way it's 18 here...


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 20, 2017)

Hey, guys, can I please ask for more civil discussion and less personal attacks? That'd be great. (Also, it's kinda dickish to take potshots at another subculture. Let's not do that.)


----------



## Rykhoteth (Mar 20, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> The plot thickens


Boiling the water out of an argument is one way, yes, but adding cornstarch or flour is much easier if you don't mind a marginally blander result. Personally, I end up serving nearly everything with sourdough, so I prefer a thinner sauce anyway. I believe the ratio of consent in my country is about 1/3 cup of dry red wine per lb of beef excepting beef dishes with peppers or paprika. There's a reasonable compromise with the Betty & Crocker type laws though allowing ketchup when the tomatos' age difference is sufficiently small.

BRB, making goulash until the next bait thread


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 20, 2017)

Depends... it's 16 to fuck fellow 16 and 17 year olds, but once someone turns 18 they have to wait until their partner is ALSO 18 to fuck each other again... The law is freaking weird, bruh


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 20, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> When I asked you this question
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm basing my opinion on biological factors and you do it on your prejudice. If the attraction is mutual, age or gender of partners should not matter, that is what I'm saying. Stationary rape laws should be abolished.


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 20, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> I'm basing my opinion on biological factors and you do it on your prejudice. If the attraction is mutual, age or gender of partners should not matter, that is what I'm saying. Stationary rape laws should be abolished.


No offense (or all of it, I'm not quite sure at this point), but you, sir, seem to be a regular troll- you will never live down some of your stupidity in the Is Depression Real thread at this rate...


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 20, 2017)

Crimson_Steel17 said:


> No offense (or all of it, I'm not quite sure at this point), but you, sir, seem to be a regular troll- you will never live down some of your stupidity in the Is Depression Real thread at this rate...



Well I'm used to being misunderstood


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 20, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> Well I'm used to being misunderstood


I think you transcended "misunderstood" to "regularly avoided" on about the second day you were here... take that as you will


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 20, 2017)

Crimson_Steel17 said:


> I think you transcended "misunderstood" to "regularly avoided" on about the second day you were here... take that as you will



You think I like it? Not at all. But it's the reality I have to live with.


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 20, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> You think I like it? Not at all. But it's the reality I have to live with.


Look, I don't have a problem with your opinions. You're entitled to have them, and there's nothing I _could_ do about them even if I _wanted_ to. The issue I have is when you ignore fact, reason, and logic to uphold your beliefs- hell, I wonder if you even research your "facts" before posting them! It wouldn't be such a big deal, except you dismiss anything that doesn't align with what you WANT to believe... and when you're trolling otherwise informed threads with that type of presence, you draw a lot of negative attention. I'm not saying to stop having opinions (here solely for the other readers who actually pay attention to the source material *cough cough* mods and admins *cough* even though I know you'll trim and cherry pick this post to fit your conception of what I never said), I'm just saying to at least _try_ to appear to be informed, and to at least _act_ like you accept what we say, especially when we provide evidence and link research...

But that's just my 2 cents worth, take it or leave it- I don't care.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Mar 20, 2017)

In my state, the legal age of consent is 17. I waited until I was 17 to lose my virginity. Of course I did other things prior to that, but I waited until then to actually have sex. I was kind of a prude, and I also was terrified of getting pregnant.

Just because the way technology has evolved over the last two decades or so does not mean that the age of consent should be lowered, despite the truth in the matter that kids are exposed to sex/sexual things earlier and earlier.

Teens/young adults need to be adequately informed of all of the possible consequences that sex brings with it. STDs, pregnancy, etc. I don't think I even started thinking about sex until I was maybe 14/15, and then I went through sex ed at school and had "the talk" with my parents. Still, into my 20s, I did not know everything there was to know about sex. I made some stupid mistakes that put my health at risk, and thank goodness I came out okay, but I guess I kind of thought I was invincible.

Parents/families/guardians have a lot to do with making sure kids/teens are adequately prepared to make the transition into adulthood and making adult decisions. I consider sex to be an "adult" decision because you're in control of your body, no one else is. Maybe it's the way I was raised, but I don't see how the hell a 12 year old is ready to be out there having sex. I was nowhere near mature enough for that when I was 12.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 20, 2017)

aloveablebunny said:


> In my state, the legal age of consent is 17. I waited until I was 17 to lose my virginity. Of course I did other things prior to that, but I waited until then to actually have sex. I was kind of a prude, and I also was terrified of getting pregnant.
> 
> Just because the way technology has evolved over the last two decades or so does not mean that the age of consent should be lowered, despite the truth in the matter that kids are exposed to sex/sexual things earlier and earlier.
> 
> ...



Maybe you were a late bloomer? Because normally for girls puberty starts at 10-11 and with that comes new interests. Sex does require some responsibility, that is putting on a condom, which isn't much at all. If teens can't do it, it's more of a parenting problem than age related issue. Also a lot of adults don't use condoms, despite being so grown up and responsible.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 20, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> Also a lot of adults don't use condoms, despite being so grown up and responsible.


Lmao you say that like we actually are responsible.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 20, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> Because normally for girls puberty starts at 10-11 and with that comes new interests.


By "starts at 10-11", what they mean is that age is where the physical processes take their very beginning - it's not a useful measure for laypeople to use. A 10-11-year-old will typically not have developed breasts or started menstruating (unless they are VERY early bloomers, likely due to some underlying condition), and that very beginning of puberty will not have immediate overnight mental effects. 14-15 sounds like an absolutely reasonable, plausible age for a girl to start thinking about sex. Prior to that, they may have started to take an interest in the opposite (or same) sex, but that's more likely to be in swooning and kissing than in anything more intimate. 

Even once the body hits fertile age (menstruation starts, for girls), it's not necessarily a good idea to immediately jump into bed with someone. If you look at practically all reputable breeders of pet animals and livestock, they will not immediately breed their animals the moment they hit fertile age (ferrets are an exception because their biology is messed up), but rather wait until they are closer to being done growing, in order to avoid adverse effects on the mother. While that's focused on reproduction, while you're presumably mostly advocating for recreational sex, we do need to acknowledge that even using condoms or other forms of birth control, there's practically always a small outside chance of birth control failing. 

And the younger and closer to menarche a girl is, the less likely she is to notice the irregularity in her periods that's usually the first telltale sign one's caught pregnant. Can you see where I'm going with this?


----------



## AustinB (Mar 20, 2017)

Honestly, 18 _should _be the age of consent. That's when you technically become an adult and that's when you start taking responsibility for yourself. The bare minimum (in my opinion) would be 16, but I'm saying that loosely. Anything lower than 16, I'm sorry, but you're fucked in the head and you should get checked out.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 20, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> And the younger and closer to menarche a girl is, the less likely she is to notice the irregularity in her periods that's usually the first telltale sign one's caught pregnant. Can you see where I'm going with this?



Yes, ban all vaginal sex before 18! But unwanted pregnancy can't be the sole reason for statutory rape laws today...



AustinB said:


> Honestly, 18 _should _be the age of consent. That's when you technically become an adult and that's when you start taking responsibility for yourself.



It surprises me how prevalent infantilization is.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 20, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> By "starts at 10-11", what they mean is that age is where the physical processes take their very beginning - it's not a useful measure for laypeople to use. A 10-11-year-old will typically not have developed breasts or started menstruating (unless they are VERY early bloomers, likely due to some underlying condition), and that very beginning of puberty will not have immediate overnight mental effects. 14-15 sounds like an absolutely reasonable, plausible age for a girl to start thinking about sex. Prior to that, they may have started to take an interest in the opposite (or same) sex, but that's more likely to be in swooning and kissing than in anything more intimate.
> 
> Even once the body hits fertile age (menstruation starts, for girls), it's not necessarily a good idea to immediately jump into bed with someone. If you look at practically all reputable breeders of pet animals and livestock, they will not immediately breed their animals the moment they hit fertile age (ferrets are an exception because their biology is messed up), but rather wait until they are closer to being done growing, in order to avoid adverse effects on the mother. While that's focused on reproduction, while you're presumably mostly advocating for recreational sex, we do need to acknowledge that even using condoms or other forms of birth control, there's practically always a small outside chance of birth control failing.
> 
> And the younger and closer to menarche a girl is, the less likely she is to notice the irregularity in her periods that's usually the first telltale sign one's caught pregnant. Can you see where I'm going with this?


It's a lost cause, Mungo. 

Aleksion has made it clear that he doesn't think grown adults who have sex with 12 year old children should be prosecuted. 

It's straight up advocacy of paedophilia; you can't expect the sort of people who defend paedophilia to be persuaded by reason.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Mar 20, 2017)

I'm by no means an expert, but having to watch over and take care of younger cousins throughout my teens and observing how easily influenced or convinced of things based on who they look up to, and how much they've grown out of that mindset now has given me perspective. There's a lot of blind innocence that I can only forgive them for.

Children are not capable of thoughtfully consenting.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 21, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> It's straight up advocacy of paedophilia; you can't expect the sort of people who defend paedophilia to be persuaded by reason.


Well, technically hebephilia, and I think that's a distinction worth making. "Pedophilia" far too commonly gets used in a uselessly broad manner that doesn't actually reflect the definition of the word.

Either way, you worry about what battles you pick, and let me worry about mine.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 21, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> It's straight up advocacy of paedophilia; you can't expect the sort of people who defend paedophilia to be persuaded by reason.



It's straight up advocacy of homosexuality; you can't expect the sort of people who defend homosexuality to be persuaded by reason. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Start giving solid arguments instead of it's wrong because it's wrong. 



MadKiyo said:


> I'm by no means an expert, but having to watch over and take care of younger cousins throughout my teens and observing how easily influenced or convinced of things based on who they look up to, and how much they've grown out of that mindset now has given me perspective. There's a lot of blind innocence that I can only forgive them for.



I agree young people are easier convinced than adults, but for some reason children are not constantly getting scammed by them. I don't think adults are all evil.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 21, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Well, technically hebephilia, and I think that's a distinction worth making. "Pedophilia" far too commonly gets used in a uselessly broad manner that doesn't actually reflect the definition of the word.
> 
> Either way, you worry about what battles you pick, and let me worry about mine.


Oooooooh damn


----------



## Sagt (Mar 21, 2017)

I found an interesting graphic on the age of consent for each country in case anyone is interested:







It seems like Yemen and Tunisia have the lowest and highest ages.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 21, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Well, technically hebephilia, and I think that's a distinction worth making. "Pedophilia" far too commonly gets used in a uselessly broad manner that doesn't actually reflect the definition of the word.
> .


I don't think it is worth splitting hairs over whether the rape victim has begun puberty yet or not, because in either case the relationship is indefensible for the same reason; because it is predatory.
If we do have to be specific about definitions, I think that hebephilia is a type of paedophilia, as 'paedo' simply means 'children', and 12 year olds are children, whether or not they have begun puberty. 

Anyway, messages which are aimed at convincing users that it is okay for children to have sex with their teachers aren't really acceptable content for a forum which has users as young as 13, because it could mean they don't report improper behaviour. ._.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 21, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I found an interesting graphic on the age of consent for each country in case anyone is interested:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems about right for the middle east
South America I do not approve of
Canada I never knew. I honestly always thought it was 18 but apparently _it is _16. Prior to that it was 14.

That ain't right but then again we've been on a downwards spiral for a while



Fallowfox said:


> I don't think it is worth splitting hairs over whether the rape victim has begun puberty yet or not, because in either case the relationship is indefensible for the same reason; because it is predatory.
> If we do have to be specific about definitions, I think that hebephilia is a type of paedophilia, as 'paedo' simply means 'children', and 12 year olds are children, whether or not they have begun puberty.
> 
> Anyway, messages which are aimed at convincing users that it is okay for children to have sex with their teachers aren't really acceptable content for a forum which has users as young as 13, because it could mean they don't report improper behaviour. ._.



She _does _technically have a point.

Paedophilia is generally 12 or under, but hebephilia is pubescent children aged 11 - 14. If I'm not mistaken there's another term which breaks up another age group of 1 - 6 (?) but that is more correctly paedophilia as well


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 21, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> She _does _technically have a point.
> 
> Paedophilia is generally 12 or under, but hebephilia is pubescent children aged 11 - 14. If I'm not mistaken there's another term which breaks up another age group of 1 - 6 (?) but that is more correctly paedophilia as well



Aleksion argued that the age of consent should be 12, so your definitions imply that it is both paedophilia and hebephilia advocacy anyway. 
I feel that splitting hairs over this is a semantic distraction anyway. It's not like changing the word for Aleksion's beliefs is going to make them any more or less disgusting.



Aleksion said:


> It's straight up advocacy of homosexuality; you can't expect the sort of people who defend homosexuality to be persuaded by reason. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Start giving solid arguments instead of it's wrong because it's wrong.
> I agree young people are easier convinced than adults, but for some reason children are not constantly getting scammed by them. I don't think adults are all evil.


I'm going to reply to this to succinctly explain why sexual relationships between children and adults are wrong for the benefit of any 13 or 14 year olds reading this post, because I know there are users this age on the website. 

As children who are soon going to become young adults, you will be presented with new feelings that you aren't sure how to respond to, like sexual attraction. 
You are not yet equipped with the appropriate experience and knowledge to make informed decisions about sexual relationships, which could result in an unwanted pregnancy, injury, infection, emotional distress or even death. 
Hence adults who use their positions of authority, for example as teachers, to seek sexual relationships with you are in breach of the duty of care they should have towards you.
It doesn't matter how important an adult might seem. If they make sexual advances towards you or your friends, you need to tell a family member, another teacher, or failing that, the police or a child protection service.


----------



## Sogreth (Mar 21, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Aleksion argued that the age of consent should be 12, so your definitions imply that it is both paedophilia and hebephilia advocacy anyway.
> I feel that splitting hairs over this is a semantic distraction anyway. It's not like changing the word for Aleksion's beliefs is going to make them any more or less disgusting.
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think Alek understands that an adult/teacher can easily convince as 12 year old student to make them "think" they want it. Not saying it's right to do that, obviously. Just saying, at 12 years old, as you pointed out:
_"You are not yet equipped with the appropriate experience and knowledge to make informed decisions about sexual relationships"_
But Alek still seems to think that it's alright for a 30-40 year old to have sex with a 12 year old. When the adult can just be easily taking advantage of the young child.

And it also just makes me believe that Alek is just a huge troll.



Aleksion said:


> Fallowfox = self righteous prick



Thanks for proving my point, bud.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 21, 2017)

Sogreth said:


> I don't think Alek understands that an adult/teacher can easily convince as 12 year old student to make them "think" they want it.



Can you explain how it works? I really want to learn it. And how it differs from adults


----------



## Sogreth (Mar 21, 2017)

I'm not getting anymore involved with you, Alek ^.^
I know a terrible troll when I see one. I said my bit, and now I'm headin' out.


----------



## Sagt (Mar 21, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Seems about right for the middle east
> South America I do not approve of
> Canada I never knew. I honestly always thought it was 18 but apparently _it is _16. Prior to that it was 14.
> 
> That ain't right but then again we've been on a downwards spiral for a while


The middle east (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Oman) is actually surprisingly normal I thought. They are mainly around the 16-18 range with Iran being at 13, which is a bit low, but Spain and Japan are the same.

Personally I think that an age of consent of 16 is quite normal and acceptable. So, I'm not too convinced that it's wrong for Canada to have it at that age. That said, I wouldn't suggest that 16 year olds have sex, but I don't think it's too controversial for it to be legal for them to do it at that age. I do think that some of the European countries and Japan which have their age set at below 16 is a bit questionable though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 21, 2017)

Lcs said:


> The middle east (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Oman) is actually surprisingly normal I thought. They are mainly around the 16-18 range with Iran being at 13, which is a bit low, but Spain and Japan are the same.
> 
> Personally I think that an age of consent of 16 is quite normal and acceptable. So, I'm not too convinced that it's wrong for Canada to have it at that age. That said, I wouldn't suggest that 16 year olds have sex, but I don't think it's too controversial for it to be legal for them to do it at that age. I do think that some of the European countries and Japan which have their age set at below 16 is a bit questionable though.



So the child welfare act in Japan actually forbids any sex with somebody under 18, and most prefectures have exceptions for 'puppy-love' relationships between teenagers. 
Ages of consent in Asia - Wikipedia

As of 2015 the Spanish age of consent is 16.
Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia


----------



## Sagt (Mar 21, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> So the child welfare act in Japan actually forbids any sex with somebody under 18, and most prefectures have exceptions for 'puppy-love' relationships between teenagers.
> Ages of consent in Asia - Wikipedia
> 
> As of 2015 the Spanish age of consent is 16.
> Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia


Ah. Maybe the graphic is out of date?


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 21, 2017)

Lcs said:


> The middle east (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Oman) is actually surprisingly normal I thought. They are mainly around the 16-18 range with Iran being at 13, which is a bit low, but Spain and Japan are the same.
> 
> Personally I think that an age of consent of 16 is quite normal and acceptable. So, I'm not too convinced that it's wrong for Canada to have it at that age. That said, I wouldn't suggest that 16 year olds have sex, but I don't think it's too controversial for it to be legal for them to do it at that age. I do think that some of the European countries and Japan which have their age set at below 16 is a bit questionable though.



It's more the lower areas that people rail on for most things, though I do get your point of the upper areas as well. Granted I will admit I'm surprised to see Saudi Arabia of all places actually has that at a good place.

Canada is slowly losing it with the people we have in places like the House of Commons and the Minister of Immigration



Fallowfox said:


> So the child welfare act in Japan actually forbids any sex with somebody under 18, and most prefectures have exceptions for 'puppy-love' relationships between teenagers.
> Ages of consent in Asia - Wikipedia
> 
> As of 2015 the Spanish age of consent is 16.
> Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia



No comment on Japan. I don't hear nor study about them nor know what the hell puppy love even means
Spain seems a bit too light in their punishment



Fallowfox said:


> Aleksion argued that the age of consent should be 12, so your definitions imply that it is both paedophilia and hebephilia advocacy anyway.
> I feel that splitting hairs over this is a semantic distraction anyway. It's not like changing the word for Aleksion's beliefs is going to make them any more or less disgusting.



Pretty much. Mostly just saying that Mungo did have a point about the definitions


----------



## Arcturus Maple (Mar 21, 2017)

In my area in the US, many people have had sex by age fourteen, but a large number have not done anything of the sort by age eighteen. Myself, age 22 and never had sex, by choice and misfortune (no one shared a mutual attraction, though there was enough one-sided attraction both ways). A lot of it comes down to whether or not you can find the right person, and how long it takes you to find them.

I don't see what age has to do with it, as many people over the age of eighteen aren't responsible, informed on the subject, or sensible. Likewise, many people far younger are strong individuals in their own right who seek out knowledge for themselves, are motivated by their own goals and wants, and are fully cognizant and accepting of there being consequences to their actions.

Regardless of the logical conclusion that age does not necessarily bring wisdom and an arbitrary age of consent is illogical, we do not live in an idyllic world, and age of consent laws exist because there are unscrupulous individuals out there who would take advantage of someone. Such people are scum and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The need for protection from such people is more an abusive relationship issue, though, and could function equally well if the same criteria for identifying toxic, controlling relationships were used to help the victim. Such a change is unlikely to ever happen, as Americans tend to hold on to old puritanical ideals long after the framework around them has faded away. And while I think this part of the legal system needs reform, I still firmly believe the law should be followed until it is changed.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 21, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> No comment on Japan. I don't hear nor study about them nor know what the hell puppy love even means
> Spain seems a bit too light in their punishment



'Puppy love' is an expression used by English speakers; it just means teenagers who are in love.
It usually carries the tacit value judgement that young people's love is heartfelt, but ultimately not very meaningful.
For example a man might dismiss his daughter's infatuation with her boyfriend as 'just puppy love'.
Same thing as Romeo and Juliet laws...I just prefer the expression 'puppy love' because you know...Romeo and Juliet killed themselves. 



Arcturus Maple said:


> .
> 
> I don't see what age has to do with it, as many people over the age of eighteen aren't responsible, informed on the subject, or sensible. Likewise, many people far younger are strong individuals in their own right who seek out knowledge for themselves, are motivated by their own goals and wants, and are fully cognizant and accepting of there being consequences to their actions.
> 
> Regardless of the logical conclusion that age does not necessarily bring wisdom and an arbitrary age of consent is illogical, we do not live in an idyllic world, and age of consent laws exist because there are unscrupulous individuals out there who would take advantage of someone. Such people are scum and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The need for protection from such people is more an abusive relationship issue, though, and could function equally well if the same criteria for identifying toxic, controlling relationships were used to help the victim. Such a change is unlikely to ever happen, as Americans tend to hold on to old puritanical ideals long after the framework around them has faded away. And while I think this part of the legal system needs reform, I still firmly believe the law should be followed until it is changed.



I'm not sure that the age of consent is a 'Puritanical American' notion, because almost every country on Earth has an age of consent, even countries which are notoriously sexually liberal, such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. 

I agree that any abusers in toxic relationships should be liable to prosecution, and I think almost every country already has laws which aim to achieve this; the age of consent is just part of those laws.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 21, 2017)

omg someone voted for 12! You see I'm not crazy.


Arcturus Maple said:


> Regardless of the logical conclusion that age does not necessarily bring wisdom and an arbitrary age of consent is illogical, we do not live in an idyllic world, and age of consent laws exist because there are unscrupulous individuals out there who would take advantage of someone. Such people are scum and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.



I think it's mostly a fruit of bad parenting where children are not allowed to think for themselves and thus can be easily taken advantage of later in life, including adulthood.


----------



## Wither (Mar 21, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> omg someone voted for 12! You see I'm not crazy.


words no sane man has ever muttered


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 21, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> It's straight up advocacy of homosexuality; you can't expect the sort of people who defend homosexuality to be persuaded by reason. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Start giving solid arguments instead of it's wrong because it's wrong.


Oh, sh*t. I guess you're learning after all. Don't worry, I'll get to the other thread- I was muted most of last night


----------



## loiloiloi (Mar 21, 2017)

Better poll idea, is Alek a troll?


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 21, 2017)

loiloiloi said:


> Better poll idea, is Alek a troll?


I mean if people can't differentiate then I pity them


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 21, 2017)

loiloiloi said:


> Better poll idea, is Alek a troll?


Probably


Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I mean if people can't differentiate then I pity them


At that point, it's a poll taking opinion rather than determination by definition. And it gives us an idea of why he still doesn't seem to have been muted, timed out, or the subject of any other form of disciplinary action. It seems that he visits threads with the sole intention of inflaming them to the point of closure- and this effectively prevents meaningful discussion of important topics


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 21, 2017)

If you think another user is a troll, you know where the report button is. Derailing threads by smacktalking other users is not the mature way of handling the situation.


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 21, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> If you think another user is a troll, you know where the report button is. Derailing threads by smacktalking other users is not the mature way of handling the situation.


Yes, ma'am

Just one question: if you report someone, and it turns out you were wrong and they're just horribly misinformed, does the person who filed the report face any consequences? For me, that question is a major deterrent from that button...


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 21, 2017)

loiloiloi said:


> Better poll idea, is Alek a troll?



I'm not a troll, but I would be lying if I said I don't like to occasionally stir things up. However I really do hold some very unusual believes and I want to share them with someone.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 21, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I mean if people can't differentiate then I pity them



Regrettably some 13 year olds might _not_ be able to tell the difference, which is why presenting joke justifications for sex between adults and children to them isn't a responsible idea. 
In addition, there is a real risk of predators masquerading as trolls, so that they can seek out children who would be responsive to grooming, while avoiding repudiation from adult users.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 21, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> In addition, there is a real risk of predators masquerading as trolls, so that they can seek out children who would be responsive to grooming, while avoiding repudiation from adult users.



wow I look smarter than I actually am! I already have one victim on my pedoradar here hehe :3


----------



## PoptartPresident (Mar 21, 2017)

I am convinced this poll was specifically made to provoke someone here because why would the hell would a little kid want to have sex at such a young age...
.
We're not pioneers. We should not be encouraging sex with 12-15 year olds. Why? Because back in those OLD days, the low population was a cause of concern. 

It's the main reason why most people back in the day encouraged reproduction with extremely young girls. They needed to keep the population up and running as much as they could. Especially since disease and the average lifespan being 40-50 was the main factor of deaths.


But modern studies have shown that those kind of behaviors are very unhealthy. Nowadays we have modern medicine to keep us alive longer, and now the population is way too big for the Earth to handle.

In fact, I discourage sex with anyone under 18. We don't need more babies being born. We need *less* of them. 
But the truth is, the government is smart, and knows that hormones are going to control the teenagers over basic laws. So in some areas of the world, that kind of policy is very variable.

But in the United States, it's widely agreed that somewhere around 16,17, and 18 is a good age for consent.





But let's not forget. 
You still need consent, no matter the age.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 21, 2017)

Most people don't have sex for reproduction purposes. Interesting enough Europe has significantly lower teen pregnancy rates than the US despite having lower age of consent


----------



## Andromedahl (Mar 21, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> Most people don't have sex for reproduction purposes. Interesting enough Europe has significantly lower teen pregnancy rates than the US despite having lower age of consent


A part of that is sex ed I feel....
US has shit sex ed.


----------



## AustinB (Mar 21, 2017)

What the hell is this thread dude


----------



## Andromedahl (Mar 21, 2017)

AustinB said:


> What the hell is this thread dude


A mess.


----------



## Wither (Mar 21, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> wastes their life on the internet making arguments


is this hitting too close to home?


----------



## ZaraphayxRedux (Mar 21, 2017)

Wither said:


> is this hitting too close to home?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 22, 2017)

Knock off the shitposting, please! And don't make me tell you again.



Crimson_Steel17 said:


> Just one question: if you report someone, and it turns out you were wrong and they're just horribly misinformed, does the person who filed the report face any consequences? For me, that question is a major deterrent from that button...


As long as you make your report in good faith, and don't drag it out into an argument with staff if we disagree with you, nah, we don't penalize anyone for being wrong. If you abuse the report function, that's a different matter, but we can usually tell the difference.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Mar 22, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> Maybe you were a late bloomer? Because normally for girls puberty starts at 10-11 and with that comes new interests. Sex does require some responsibility, that is putting on a condom, which isn't much at all. If teens can't do it, it's more of a parenting problem than age related issue. Also a lot of adults don't use condoms, despite being so grown up and responsible.



I *was* a late bloomer, thank you very much. I didn't start my period until almost 14, and did not really develop womanly "curves" until about 18 and onward. I had other interests in my life, my mind was not focused on sex. But what does that have to do with anything? Going through puberty does not mean you're ready for consensual sex. Puberty tends to be a hormonal, emotionally-charged time for both boys and girls, regardless of the age they go through it. And I'm sorry - sex requires more responsibility than just knowing how to use a condom. If you think that is the only "responsibility" required to have sex, you have been very misguided. Even condoms can fail if not used properly, resulting in pregnancy, and/or STDs.

You're welcome to your opinions, I'm sticking to mine.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Mar 22, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> Yes, ban all vaginal sex before 18! But unwanted pregnancy can't be the sole reason for statutory rape laws today...
> 
> 
> 
> It surprises me how prevalent infantilization is.



I doubt that's the stance @quoting_mungo  was taking with her post. You seem to just be grasping at straws now.


----------



## Arcturus Maple (Mar 22, 2017)

aloveablebunny said:


> I *was* a late bloomer, thank you very much. I didn't start my period until almost 14, and did not really develop womanly "curves" until about 18 and onward. I had other interests in my life, my mind was not focused on sex. But what does that have to do with anything? Going through puberty does not mean you're ready for consensual sex. Puberty tends to be a hormonal, emotionally-charged time for both boys and girls, regardless of the age they go through it. And I'm sorry - sex requires more responsibility than just knowing how to use a condom. If you think that is the only "responsibility" required to have sex, you have been very misguided. Even condoms can fail if not used properly, resulting in pregnancy, and/or STDs.
> 
> You're welcome to your opinions, I'm sticking to mine.



You are indeed welcome to your own opinion, as we all are. I enjoy conversations like these, because they introduce us to new ideas we wouldn't otherwise discuss in our daily lives and can give us a better perspective. The opinions I held yesterday have grown old and now I reevaluate them and either retain them or refine them with each new thing I learn. Your post helped me come to a bit of a realization about the subject, thank you. 

I do not know nearly enough about how puberty affects the development of the human body to hold an informed opinion on the subject other than that after puberty the body is better suited to producing and protecting offspring, and the chemistry of the brain is altered to change the priorities of the human from learning and growing to finding a mate. Maybe it would be better for humans to have some experience with sex before their body compels them to just go out and do it. Thoughts?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 22, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> Yes, ban all vaginal sex before 18! But unwanted pregnancy can't be the sole reason for statutory rape laws today...


Very cute. :V

As Bunny rightly observed, that's missing the point by a mile. As I said earlier in the thread I do think that regardless of what the local age of consent is, care should be taken that children receive comprehensive sex ed before they reach that age. But my point in comparing human recreational sex to animal breeding was that if profit-driven industries (such as many animal breeding operations) realize that it's not in the best interests of the animals to breed them as soon as they're fertile, because that will risk injury or suffering on the part of the animals, that _probably_ means the same would be true for humans, who generally develop slower than animals anyway. (And if the alternative to vaginal sex is anal, can I just say "OW!"? There's a certain amount of maturity and self-control necessary to be able to do _that_ safely.)

Statutory rape laws are, in my opinion, inherently flawed. Because they're trying to regulate one problem (predatory behavior) by regulating a tangentially-related-at-best factor (the age at which we consider an individual capable of giving meaningful informed consent). In an ideal world, we'd have methods for measuring predatory behavior and have laws to regulate that, instead, since that is where most of the actual problem lies (and this would also protect adults who are subjected to sexual predation, who have limited if any protection under most countries' laws). However, nobody's found such methods yet, and as such statutory rape laws serve as a necessary band-aid to keep kids safe.

Regardless of my own opinions, however, I do think people need to respect the laws in their own jurisdiction. Just because I don't think something is inherently unethical doesn't mean I'm a proponent of going out and doing it when the law says you shouldn't.



Fallowfox said:


> If we do have to be specific about definitions, I think that hebephilia is a type of paedophilia, as 'paedo' simply means 'children', and 12 year olds are children, whether or not they have begun puberty.


While the "age ranges" nominally overlap, the overlap is due to the fact that not everyone hits puberty at the same time, not because the definitions overlap (beyond, I suppose, some slight "squish" in defining the exact start of puberty). Definition of pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It's in my opinion relevant since individuals with paraphilias for children/preteens/teens generally tend to be fairly specific in their preferences and pedophiles who are also attracted to (visibly) pubescent children/preteens would be in significant minority.

Does that mean adults should be getting it on with pubescent children? No. Is the type/severity of trauma inflicted on the victim different depending on the victim's age/developmental stage? Likely.

You don't have to agree with me; I'm just personally sick of seeing hebephilia and ephebophilia lumped in with pedophilia since they have separate and distinct definitions.



Andromedahl said:


> A part of that is sex ed I feel....
> US has shit sex ed.


Sad but true. Abstinence-only sex ed is honestly only marginally better than child abuse by neglect.


----------



## Mandragoras (Mar 22, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> While the "age ranges" nominally overlap, the overlap is due to the fact that not everyone hits puberty at the same time, not because the definitions overlap (beyond, I suppose, some slight "squish" in defining the exact start of puberty). Definition of pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It's in my opinion relevant since individuals with paraphilias for children/preteens/teens generally tend to be fairly specific in their preferences and pedophiles who are also attracted to (visibly) pubescent children/preteens would be in significant minority.
> 
> Does that mean adults should be getting it on with pubescent children? No. Is the type/severity of trauma inflicted on the victim different depending on the victim's age/developmental stage? Likely.
> 
> You don't have to agree with me; I'm just personally sick of seeing hebephilia and ephebophilia lumped in with pedophilia since they have separate and distinct definitions.


It is worth taking into account, however, that sexual interest in minors regardless of specifics seems to stem by and large from a similar pool of psychological and perhaps neurochemical issues, particularly a "crossed wire" between the instinct to protect and sexual desire. In some cases, however, it's not about age so much as power and violence; keep in mind that the data suggests that most child molesters are not paedophiles, and most paedophiles do not molest children. Think of it this way: If you were someone who knew that you were attracted to children, and knew that a child could not provide substantial consent, and had anything resembling scruples, wouldn't you generally just avoid kids like the plague rather than deal with that level of tension and self-loathing?

Insofar as I can tell, this is usually the case, and it's... sad, honestly, to know there's something so deeply wrong with you and have to live with that every day and orient your whole life around coping with it. That we have no mechanisms in place to adequately identify and treat people with those tendencies who have not hurt children and do not want to hurt them seems to me an excellent example of our (justified) societal horror and disgust at sexual violence towards children actually exacerbating the problem by refusing to face it honestly and openly.

Conversely, if you just want power over someone and to make them suffer without concern for the impact or consequences, children are an excellent target.

...just adding that last sentence made me a bit sick.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 22, 2017)

Mandragoras said:


> In some cases, however, it's not about age so much as power and violence; keep in mind that the data suggests that most child molesters are not paedophiles, and most paedophiles do not molest children. Think of it this way: If you were someone who knew that you were attracted to children, and knew that a child could not provide substantial consent, and had anything resembling scruples, wouldn't you generally just avoid kids like the plague rather than deal with that level of tension and self-loathing?


No doubt there's a variation in motivations - I know I've heard immaturity (emotional/developmental retardation) cited as being behind some cases of preferential attraction to preteens. Simply put, those individuals develop attraction for children roughly matching their mental age, rather than their chronological age. My quibble does predominantly concern preferential offenders, and I'll happily acknowledge that.

Mind that humans have a pretty astonishing capability for self-delusion, so there will always be the small but unfortunate portion of offenders who convince themselves that the children they fixate on are soliciting _them_ for attention. It strikes me that such delusions at least on the surface bear a similarity to the sort of thought process that some stalkers go through, convincing themselves that looks and unconscious gestures have a deeper meaning. Those individuals will lose insight of the fact that children do not possess the life experience and maturity to give meaningful consent or deal with inappropriate advances from an adult.



Mandragoras said:


> Insofar as I can tell, this is usually the case, and it's... sad, honestly, to know there's something so deeply wrong with you and have to live with that every day and orient your whole life around coping with it. That we have no mechanisms in place to adequately identify and treat people with those tendencies who have not hurt children and do not want to hurt them seems to me an excellent example of our (justified) societal horror and disgust at sexual violence towards children actually exacerbating the problem by refusing to face it honestly and openly.


This is part of why I prefer more accurate language being used in discussing adults attracted to children, actually. The word "pedophile" too easily invokes the image of someone molesting a five-year-old in people's minds, which is hardly fair neither to people suffering from pedophilic disorder without acting on their desires, nor to an individual listed in the sex offender registry with a statutory rape conviction after having sex with a 16-year-old in their early 20s. I absolutely agree that we as a society need to find a way to support rather than demonize people who do not want to act on unhealthy desires.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 23, 2017)

I'd say the age of consent is about right. Norway's age of consent is 16. Even then, kids have sex younger than that, anyway. Ephebophilia's not exactly uncommon, either. How many 14/15-year olds do you see going down the street who look like they are 18 or older? Quite a few, I can tell you.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Mar 23, 2017)

Arcturus Maple said:


> You are indeed welcome to your own opinion, as we all are. I enjoy conversations like these, because they introduce us to new ideas we wouldn't otherwise discuss in our daily lives and can give us a better perspective. The opinions I held yesterday have grown old and now I reevaluate them and either retain them or refine them with each new thing I learn. Your post helped me come to a bit of a realization about the subject, thank you.
> 
> I do not know nearly enough about how puberty affects the development of the human body to hold an informed opinion on the subject other than that after puberty the body is better suited to producing and protecting offspring, and the chemistry of the brain is altered to change the priorities of the human from learning and growing to finding a mate. Maybe it would be better for humans to have some experience with sex before their body compels them to just go out and do it. Thoughts?



Puberty does signify that the body is becoming ready to bear offspring... but because humans are such complex creatures, even if the physical body is "ready" to reproduce, a 12-year old boy or girl is likely nowhere near being emotionally (or financially ready) to actually do that. Now, at ages 10-16 (which is the usual range for when boys and girls go through puberty), physical changes and also emotional changes happen, and it can be a very confusing time to navigate. Yes, at that point is when "libido" (sex drive) starts to become apparent and then the appeal for sex/sexual things comes into existence... but in my personal opinion, I don't think that just because of that it means that teens/young adults should jump right into sex. They are likely not well-informed yet about all of the risks that come with it... pregnancy, STDs, etc. Some families are great about being open and talking with their kids about sex and all that comes with it... others, not so much. Every one is different, as every situation is also different though.

I just believe that teens and young adults deserve to be well-informed about what sex encompasses, so that if/when they end up in that situation, they have the capability to make smart choices. When I lost my virginity at 17, I didn't quite know what the hell I was doing. I wasn't in love with the guy I lost it to, it wasn't a pleasurable experience, and although we were dating prior to it happening, it kind of changed my perspective on the relationship and I feel like it made the guy really really clingy. Luckily, I knew to use a condom, and shortly after that I got started on birth control so that I did not end up pregnant.

Although I have not always made the smartest choices when it comes to sex, I have been informed enough to not become pregnant or end up in a situation that could ruin my life. Looking back on myself when I was going through puberty (I'm 27 now), I know I was nowhere near ready to consent to sex at that age (13-16).

When it comes time for me to have children, I plan on giving them the best resources that I can so that they can make informed choices regarding sex and their bodies. As a parent, giving your child the resources they need to make smart decisions on their own is one of the best things you can ever do for them.


----------



## Mandragoras (Mar 23, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Mind that humans have a pretty astonishing capability for self-delusion, so there will always be the small but unfortunate portion of offenders who convince themselves that the children they fixate on are soliciting _them_ for attention. It strikes me that such delusions at least on the surface bear a similarity to the sort of thought process that some stalkers go through, convincing themselves that looks and unconscious gestures have a deeper meaning. Those individuals will lose insight of the fact that children do not possess the life experience and maturity to give meaningful consent or deal with inappropriate advances from an adult.


Oh so very true.

For the record, I think this is probably true of much sexually predatory behaviour in general, not just stalking but even more subtle behaviours like the creepy dude at the bar who won't take no for an answer. There's this element of convincing oneself that rejection is not rejection and that what is not open rejection is acceptance or even approval and thus a "win" state.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 23, 2017)

Mandragoras said:


> For the record, I think this is probably true of much sexually predatory behaviour in general, not just stalking but even more subtle behaviours like the creepy dude at the bar who won't take no for an answer. There's this element of convincing oneself that rejection is not rejection and that what is not open rejection is acceptance or even approval and thus a "win" state.


To be completely honest, and I know this is an opinion that will upset some groups, I think women who play hard to get have a not insignificant portion of blame in the development of bar creepers. If you play games where "no" sometimes means "try harder", you can't be surprised if someone takes your sincere "no" for "convince me." If all people started taking "no" at face value tomorrow, I can pretty much guarantee there would be some upset from those who enjoy watching would-be suitors trip over themselves to make an impression, but over time we'd get a much healthier social environment.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 23, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> To be completely honest, and I know this is an opinion that will upset some groups, I think women who play hard to get have a not insignificant portion of blame in the development of bar creepers. If you play games where "no" sometimes means "try harder", you can't be surprised if someone takes your sincere "no" for "convince me." If all people started taking "no" at face value tomorrow, I can pretty much guarantee there would be some upset from those who enjoy watching would-be suitors trip over themselves to make an impression, but over time we'd get a much healthier social environment.



We're men. Most of us don't understand those games.

Get straight to the point or get out


----------



## Kaprima (Mar 23, 2017)

yuck, oh god those people who voted for 12. if it wasn't satire you should feel ashamed for yourselves.
I went with 18, as I personally  felt around that age I had better decision making skills, knew how to say no, and understood myself and my body better. 
I really regret who I was with at 16 and I was easily manipulated. Some people don't really care around then and still don't, but man if I could reverse time I'd take back that whole year lmao.
(why am I even replying to this thread it's a disaster)


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 23, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> We're men. Most of us don't understand those games.
> 
> Get straight to the point or get out


^ This.

Either be honest or get out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2017)

That creepy feeling when people start talking about ranking women on attractiveness scales. ._.


----------



## PoptartPresident (Mar 23, 2017)

If I do say so myself, I don't blame all adults for their desire for children in a sexual manner.

I've always believed that there are just some things that's cannot be controlled as you grow older. For example, I have a vore fetish. And to this day, I still have no real clue where it even came from. I didn't have a particular interest in seeing things swallowing another thing until I got a lot older. And even then, I'm still not sure how I even discovered it.

I feel like the same scenario happens to "pedophiles". They might not even know why they think children are sexually attractive, but they can't help how things feel. (At least not all of them)


But there is definitely a 2-way line in place for this.

1) There's being a pedophile, and not wanting to be one. So you seek help and be honest about your feelings so that you can get the help you would want to get. I'm pretty sure most of us know that fetishes don't just go away. But at least getting help can teach someone how to overcome their own urges.

2) And then there's the ones that we are allowed to shame because they actually act on those feelings. Or the people who "like the way they are, and *want* to be this way"

I never blame people for their seemingly horrifying desires unless they decide to act on those desires


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 23, 2017)

PoptartPresident said:


> 1) There's being a pedophile, and not wanting to be one. So you seek help and be honest about your feelings so that you can get the help you would want to get. I'm pretty sure most of us know that fetishes don't just go away. But at least getting help can teach someone how to overcome their own urges.


In an ideal world, this is how it'd work. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world; in too many jurisdictions, a mixture of therapists' duty to report if a patient says something that indicates they're likely to commit a crime, fear of liability, and the strong emotional response crimes against children provokes in most people, practically turns attraction to children into a thought crime. Seeking help is liable to get these people arrested. It isn't fair, and is likely counterproductive in the grand scheme of things, but no therapist wants to risk being wrong in their assessment of whether their patient poses a danger to the children around them.



Sergei Sóhomo said:


> We're men. Most of us don't understand those games.
> 
> Get straight to the point or get out


Pretty much my point, yeah. Men (or women) aren't mind readers, so all you accomplish by playing hard to get is putting up barriers in the way of efficient communication. And not just for yourself, but for everyone.

Ain't nobody got time for that shit.



Kaprima said:


> I went with 18, as I personally felt around that age I had better decision making skills, knew how to say no, and understood myself and my body better.
> I really regret who I was with at 16 and I was easily manipulated. Some people don't really care around then and still don't, but man if I could reverse time I'd take back that whole year lmao.


Not to say your feelings on the matter aren't valid, but as food for thought, would you have had those same skills and understanding at 18 if you hadn't made those earlier mistakes? There's obviously a "too early" to learn certain life lessons, I just find it interesting that I made my mistakes and had my first heartbreak at like... 18-20 or so, and kinda wish I'd gotten some of them out of the way earlier.


----------



## PoptartPresident (Mar 23, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> In an ideal world, this is how it'd work. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world; in too many jurisdictions, a mixture of therapists' duty to report if a patient says something that indicates they're likely to commit a crime, fear of liability, and the strong emotional response crimes against children provokes in most people, practically turns attraction to children into a thought crime. Seeking help is liable to get these people arrested. It isn't fair, and is likely counterproductive in the grand scheme of things, but no therapist wants to risk being wrong in their assessment of whether their patient poses a danger to the children around them.



Ahh I didn't think about that cause I'm only a kiiiiid

Honestly if there was a way that scientists could just find the exact reason as to why people develop the attractions they have later on, then maybe there could be a way to control it...
But that's technology for the future I guess


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Women do it to other women as well. Everybody judges other people's attractiveness all of the time, even subconsciously.



I have a bit of a suspicion that some men get the impression that forward women are somehow rare because most normal women aren't really interested in men who discuss how women should be ranked on 10 point attractiveness scales, or who complain that 'women play mind games'. 


But I'm a gay man- so what do I know? I will defer to the opinion of any women users of this forum.


----------



## Mandragoras (Mar 24, 2017)

There are definitely people of both sexes who treat flirting as a kind of game, but generally speaking, the difference between "try harder, dope" and "please go away, creeper" is extremely obvious if you know shit about body language and actually talk to other human beings on a regular basis, and shifting the blame from the person who refuses to actually make the effort to read the other person to the one who is the object of that lunkheaded behaviour is frankly pretty gross to me.

And mind you, the creepy guy who does not take "no" for an answer is not categorically male, straight, or cisgender. Being sleazy and ignoring the discomfort of others is a trait that transcends many boundaries. It's just easier to be that person if you're male for a number of reasons.


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 24, 2017)

PoptartPresident said:


> I am convinced this poll was specifically made to provoke someone here


It wouldn't surprise me, given who the OP is...

In all honesty, I'm surprised that we've managed to transition to relatively informed debate- it's a quite welcome change from what a number of threads became recently...


----------



## PoptartPresident (Mar 24, 2017)

Can't we all just agree that there will always be a creeper who doesn't take no for an answer??
(No gender assigning)


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 24, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Then you've never experienced this, I'd imagine the effort is more 50/50 in a same-sex relationship. Straight guys are expected to make most of the moves and initiations in a relationship. It's exhausting.  I can see why some dudes go batshit and start treating women like vending machines as an extension of this. What a lot of us more sane individuals really want essentially boils down to a good roommate, aka a level effort from both people, but there's a bunch of cultural expectations in the way of that for both genders which still haven't been completely dismantled. Even if both persons are managing a good 50/50 in their own way that works for them, there's still the resistance from everyone else on how they "should" be doing that split.
> 
> Delightfully subtle high-horse and insult. I have a hard time believing you or other gay men abstain from ranking people's attractiveness. I believe I'm fairly accurate at rating other men too, despite being straight. Don't assume I speak openly to anyone about such thoughts either, I don't swap that kind of talk IRL. I can and do rank all people regardless, as I'm willing to bet money most people do as part of natural social interaction regardless of intentions.
> 
> ...


Actually as far as I know, the gay world is even worse. More gay men are apt to be very critical of minor flaws compared to straights.

Or so I've heard many times anyways


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Then you've never experienced this, I'd imagine the effort is more 50/50 in a same-sex relationship. Straight guys are expected to make most of the moves and initiations in a relationship. It's exhausting.  I can see why some dudes go batshit and start treating women like vending machines as an extension of this. What a lot of us more sane individuals really want essentially boils down to a good roommate, aka a level effort from both people, but there's a bunch of cultural expectations in the way of that for both genders which still haven't been completely dismantled. Even if both persons are managing a good 50/50 in their own way that works for them, there's still the resistance from everyone else on how they "should" be doing that split.
> 
> Delightfully subtle high-horse and insult. I have a hard time believing you or other gay men abstain from ranking people's attractiveness. I believe I'm fairly accurate at rating other men too, despite being straight. Don't assume I speak openly to anyone about such thoughts either, I don't swap that kind of talk IRL. I can and do rank all people regardless, as I'm willing to bet money most people do as part of natural social interaction regardless of intentions.
> 
> ...



I'm gay but I_ have_ consorted with the opposite sex. (When I was younger I thought that if I pretended to be straight that I would just...be straight. I know it was crazy.)
I've been asked out by women several times before and, when I went out with them, they didn't try to manipulate me with mind games.

That's why I have trouble believing it when men complain to one another that women are manipulators who sit around expecting men to make the first move and most of the effort in a relationship. I _do_ know that any reasonable woman who gets the impression that this is what a man thinks will probably run a literal mile from him though, lol.

I do think a woman's perspective would be more informative. (I don't know how many of the regulars on this forum are actually women...)



Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Actually as far as I know, the gay world is even worse. More gay men are apt to be very critical of minor flaws compared to straights.
> 
> Or so I've heard many times anyways



I don't really know if this is true or not. I'm more inclined to believe it's just part of the stereotype that gay men are predisposed to capricious histrionics or aloof attitudes.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Mar 24, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> We're men. Most of us don't understand those games.
> 
> Get straight to the point or get out



While I agree with this (being straightforward), some people (men AND women) are not raised to be straightforward. They may have come from an environment where they are constantly bashed and belittled for speaking up and expressing themselves. Which then goes on to teach them that being straightforward is not okay. My ex was like this... even after two years of dating, he only marginally improved in his ability to say what he meant instead of being a people-pleaser incapable of saying "NO". (He has borderline personality disorder - waif personality - and comes from a toxic home environment of an overbearing and narcissistic mother, and a BPD and narcissistic father)

When I was younger, I suffered from really terrible social anxiety, which gave me issues with being able to stand up for myself and to be straightforward about things. It's taken me years to get past that, and I had finally gotten to a point where, after experiencing that from someone else, that I finally said "ENOUGH!" and stopped being hesitant about speaking my mind and being up front about things. BTW, my issues stemmed from being bullied a lot in my childhood. It made me close off to people and it made it incredibly difficult to be bold and straightforward.

So... while I'm all for "get straight to the point or get out", sometimes people just aren't raised or grow up understanding that notion. It is, however, something that can be learned. And there is definitely a difference between intentionally playing "hard to get" and being unable to be straightforward with people because of how you were raised.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 24, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> discuss how women should be ranked on 10 point attractiveness scales, or who complain that 'women play mind games'.


I honestly didn't take Rhykhoteth's comment literally, as you seem to have, but rather as "women who don't play games and say what they want are significantly more attractive all other things equal." Which I personally think is a fair outlook. Not sure, in light of that, what you actually are getting at regarding the mind games. Of course women who do play games would prefer men who don't complain about it (or ideally haven't seen through them enough to recognize that games are being played) - I'm sure pickup artists would much rather that women didn't see through them, as well. That doesn't mean men do anything wrong by refusing to play those games. 

I don't personally give a shit about how other people gauge physical attractiveness, and I've already made it pretty clear, I think, that I have no love for mind games in this context.



Fallowfox said:


> I do think a woman's perspective would be more informative. (I don't know how many of the regulars on this forum are actually women...)


What am I, chopped liver?  I can assure you, I'm at _least_ female enough to convince a gynecologist. I have no idea why people seem to have such a hard time believing this...



Mandragoras said:


> There are definitely people of both sexes who treat flirting as a kind of game, but generally speaking, the difference between "try harder, dope" and "please go away, creeper" is extremely obvious if you know shit about body language and actually talk to other human beings on a regular basis


You're assuming that people have a somewhat uniform body language, and that everyone is equally skilled in reading it. That aside, far as I'm concerned, unless those exact words are used, why in the world would it be to anyone's advantage to force others to work out what the intended message is? Making people guess invites a certain percentage of wrong guesses. I'm pathologically nice and generally pretty soft-spoken, so I'd not be surprised at all if my "I'm not interested, sorry" more resembles someone else's "try harder and you might convince me." 



Mandragoras said:


> shifting the blame from the person who refuses to actually make the effort to read the other person to the one who is the object of that lunkheaded behaviour is frankly pretty gross to me.


I, at least, have never said it's by necessity the object of the behavior that's to blame. I do place some portion of the blame on those who train men that "no" does not always mean "no," however. And I stand by that - the only time it's okay for "no" not to mean "no" is in prenegotiated consent play situations, where another safeword has been agreed upon. 

Ideally, the pursuer would just refuse to play that stupid game, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon. And in the meantime, _every time_ someone gets a yes after first having been told no, the idea that persistence pays off is being reinforced. That includes both situations where someone is deliberately playing hard to get (large portion of the blame on the object), and situations where someone's reluctance is worn down but the initial no was sincere (little blame on the object), as well as everything in between. I understand that this may not be how everyone relates to things, but I've _been_ in situations where I've given in after someone's nagged enough (see above about being pathologically nice - I was even more so 10-15 years ago, and a large part of maturing for me throughout my 20s was learning to tell people to knock it the fuck off), and I accept that giving in was a bad decision and that it in no way helped bring the other party closer to an insight that their behavior was inappropriate. 



Mandragoras said:


> And mind you, the creepy guy who does not take "no" for an answer is not categorically male, straight, or cisgender. Being sleazy and ignoring the discomfort of others is a trait that transcends many boundaries.


Absolutely. I've been using male/female largely as a shorthand, assuming the most typical dynamic, but I'll readily acknowledge that things happen in interactions involving any gender combination. 



Crimson_Steel17 said:


> In all honesty, I'm surprised that we've managed to transition to relatively informed debate- it's a quite welcome change from what a number of threads became recently...


It takes more than one person to create a shit thread. As long as a significant majority of posters behave themselves, most threads that aren't _utterly_ frivolous can be salvaged into something more constructive. It's all about choosing to build on the good rather than the bad.



aloveablebunny said:


> So... while I'm all for "get straight to the point or get out", sometimes people just aren't raised or grow up understanding that notion. It is, however, something that can be learned. And there is definitely a difference between intentionally playing "hard to get" and being unable to be straightforward with people because of how you were raised.


Oh, no ill will towards people who are simply shy and/or awkward. As long as you refrain from saying "no" when you mean something other than "no," I absolutely understand not being terribly take-charge or assertive. True story, I got to meet up RL with my now-husband for the first time for a weekend more than a decade ago. It wasn't until like 2-3 months later that we finally established that, yes, both of us had actually wanted to get it on then. I very easily get myself lost in "if that's okay with you"s. While it's something worth working on for your own sake, it's not something anyone should give you a hard time over.

Playing hard to get is as you say a wholly different matter and will very quickly wear down my patience with you.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 24, 2017)

aloveablebunny said:


> So... while I'm all for "get straight to the point or get out", sometimes people just aren't raised or grow up understanding that notion. It is, however, something that can be learned. And there is definitely a difference between intentionally playing "hard to get" and being unable to be straightforward with people because of how you were raised.



If they dance around everything then they're not worth your time


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> I honestly didn't take Rhykhoteth's comment literally, as you seem to have, but rather as "women who don't play games and say what they want are significantly more attractive all other things equal." Which I personally think is a fair outlook. Not sure, in light of that, what you actually are getting at regarding the mind games. Of course women who do play games would prefer men who don't complain about it (or ideally haven't seen through them enough to recognize that games are being played) - I'm sure pickup artists would much rather that women didn't see through them, as well. That doesn't mean men do anything wrong by refusing to play those games.
> 
> I don't personally give a shit about how other people gauge physical attractiveness, and I've already made it pretty clear, I think, that I have no love for mind games in this context.
> 
> ...


I was half expecting Rhyto would say it wasn't serious, but he didn't. If he wants to say it wasn't serious now, then yeah I'll accept that. 

Anyway I think there certainly are some men who regard women as broadly devious and manipulative. Those men often wonder why they can't find nice women, and many of them assume it must be because sincere women are rare, a holy grail, a 'fantasy'. I suspect it's actually because very few women want to hang around men who think like that. 

Indeed one of the biggest ironies, as you mention, is that the very men who accuse women of being manipulative often follow the advice of 'seduction communities' in an effort to manipulate women into liking them.


----------



## Wolveon (Mar 24, 2017)

Aleksion said:


> You think I like it? Not at all. But it's the reality I have to live with.


Perhaps you wouldn't have that problem if you, I don't know, didn't advocate for pedophilia?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 24, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Anyway I think there certainly are some men who regard women as broadly devious and manipulative. Those men often wonder why they can't find nice women, and many of them assume it must be because sincere women are rare, a holy grail, a 'fantasy'. I suspect it's actually because very few women want to hang around men who think like that.


There's a huge difference between "ugh all women play games" and "ugh I'm sick of women who play games." The former is a turn-off, sure, but the latter I don't have a problem with. And it's not like women in fandom aren't used to being declared mythical creatures. :V



Fallowfox said:


> Indeed one of the biggest ironies, as you mention, is that the very men who accuse women of being manipulative often follow the advice of 'seduction communities' in an effort to manipulate women into liking them.


That's not... quite what I was saying, though. Rather I was drawing a parallel between game-playing women and pick-up artists, in that they both approach the dating scene in a dishonest and borderline antisocial way. I know perfectly reasonable, sweet guys who are less than keen on women trying to provoke them into playing games. And I think they have every right to find that shit obnoxious.


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 24, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> There's a huge difference between "ugh all women play games" and "ugh I'm sick of women who play games." The former is a turn-off, sure, but the latter I don't have a problem with. And it's not like women in fandom aren't used to being declared mythical creatures. :V
> 
> 
> That's not... quite what I was saying, though. Rather I was drawing a parallel between game-playing women and pick-up artists, in that they both approach the dating scene in a dishonest and borderline antisocial way. I know perfectly reasonable, sweet guys who are less than keen on women trying to provoke them into playing games. And I think they have every right to find that shit obnoxious.


No offense, but I think the general consensus is that we all hate the mind games in the dating scene, regardless of gender/orientation/sex/tumblr wizardism/etc, etc


----------



## AshenWolf (Mar 24, 2017)

Stay on topic or it will get locked


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 24, 2017)

AshenWolf said:


> Stay on topic or it will get locked


In case you haven't noticed, this thread IS still mostly on topic- just without some of the inflammatory content that was here before... conversations evolve, and I'm pretty sure that the admins recognize that better than the rest of us


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> There's a huge difference between "ugh all women play games" and "ugh I'm sick of women who play games." The former is a turn-off, sure, but the latter I don't have a problem with. And it's not like women in fandom aren't used to being declared mythical creatures. :V
> 
> 
> That's not... quite what I was saying, though. Rather I was drawing a parallel between game-playing women and pick-up artists, in that they both approach the dating scene in a dishonest and borderline antisocial way. I know perfectly reasonable, sweet guys who are less than keen on women trying to provoke them into playing games. And I think they have every right to find that shit obnoxious.



So I think that since Rhyko has started quoting academic literature, I was probably right to take his comment literally.



Rykhoteth said:


> Nope. There's a lot of papers on this, though the babies doing it from birth one amuses me in particular.  Do I really need to starting linking books and papers and such on human psychology and relationships? Or do I just point you towards wikipedia for a wiki binge? I still think claiming otherwise is a high horse.
> 
> Online dating has started to collapse dating I think, due to limiting what can be judged.
> 
> ...



I'm just going to point out that attractiveness exists inside people's heads, so the notion of a 'more accurate' idea of it is kind of..I don't know, is tautological the right word? If you looked at a population of does, and found out they rated potential mates' attractiveness as a Boltzmann distribution, a populations of gannets (whose ratings form a bell curve) and a population of lake fish (whose ratings form a bimodal distribution), then you wouldn't be able to say that any of the groups had the 'most accurate' way of rating attractiveness.

It just tells you a bit about the biology going on. For example, the does might mate in harems with a single successful stag, so they would deem most stags as unattractive and very few as satisfactory.
The gannets might be monogamous, so their ratings may tend towards a random Gaussian curve around a standard average.
The lake fish might have two morphs, one which is successful in shallow waters and another more successful at the bottom. Hence this dichotomous ecology might encourage assortative mating and result in very few fish which are rated as 'average'- potential mates will either see them as very compatible or very incompatible.

So we can't really look at Men's attractiveness ratings of women (Gaussian) and Women's attractiveness ratings of men (positive skew) and say that it implies one sex is a better judge.

It _probably_ implies that Men are more likely to reproduce by following opportunistic behaviours. Indeed that is a good hypothesis because it is consistent with the observation that one man can impregnate many women and this hypothesis naturally predicts that Men should be more likely to initiate/broadcast a mating call and that they should broadcast many more initiations in total.
Women don't benefit from an opportunistic approach because reproduction requires them to commit considerably more resources than men; it's in their interest to assess the commitment and suitability of male suitors, rather than broadcast their own mating calls.

None of this though, even if we regard it wryly, implies that women are 'playing games' with men.


----------



## AshenWolf (Mar 24, 2017)

Of course women and men are very different.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> This wasn't a bait thread until someone implied assessments of attractiveness aren't hardcoded psychology everybody deals with, and implied the *only *people working under it are male redpill assholes.



Can you see why saying that men have a more accurate notion of attractiveness than women and that women typically don't hold equal conversation to men makes it look like that?

Like, obviously a lot of girls would be repelled by that sort of commentary. Maybe think about why other users thought your comments should 'obviously not be taken literally'.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 24, 2017)

Crimson_Steel17 said:


> No offense, but I think the general consensus is that we all hate the mind games in the dating scene, regardless of gender/orientation/sex/tumblr wizardism/etc, etc


You are correct


----------



## Tytysi (Mar 24, 2017)

In order to consent, an individual should understand what sex entails, physically and emotionally. They must understand that it could very well leave them stressed in their body and mind. On top of that, they should be aware of the objective dangers that sex could bring and how to prevent them (pregnancy, STDs, bleeding, etc.). 

If they are old enough to fully grasp these concepts, truly appreciate the consequences and are okay with them, then they are old enough to decide for themselves if this is what they want to do, with whomever is offering it to them.  I would say this understanding doesn't truly come about until around 16-17 years of age, though for some it does come sooner, even as young as 12-14. I know it seems "creepy and predatory" to think of age gaps between sexual partners, but age doesn't make a difference if there is no coercion involved. Saying that an older adult is more likely to coerce a younger partner is biased, so not quite a great argument. This doesn't mean that it can't happen, it can, and probably does, but it can and probably does happen with people of all ages, not just those in later adulthood. No, that isn't me promoting pedophilia, that is me promoting sexual independence and discouraging age-based stereotyping/discrimination.


----------



## AshenWolf (Mar 24, 2017)

I guess when the body stops growing is the right time, at least they recommend that with dogs. Mentally people will continue developing their whole lives, so it's difficult to say when they are developed enough.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> OK this is like the third time now you thinking I'm taking about women being manipulative and "games women play". I repeatedly talked about how being straight-forward is attractive as part of the general assertive/communication deal since societal norms skew whats expected from each gender and actively work against people who do otherwise. That's not a "game women play", I'm been talking about societal phenomena also making assertive women attractive. "Not playing games" itself is also attractive, yes.
> 
> 
> My first comment about "+2/10" itself was indeed originally sarcastic, but mountains of literature don't cease to exist because implications make you uncomfortable. There's much more uncomfortable stuff that came out of these kinds of studies too. And, yes you are correct, biology-derived game theory is the currently accepted explanation why women rate the majority of men as "below average" in the fishtank that is online dating, and men produce a nearly normal curve in the same fishtank for the same reason. It's fascinating as with all these other uncomfortable studies, sue me.
> ...



Ah, it _was_ sarcastic? Fine then, Mungo was right. 

I don't think that the different attractiveness rating curves that men and women report are 'uncomfortable', indeed I agree they are very interesting. I definitely don't think any scientist would imply one sex's assessment of attractiveness is more accurate than the other though. It would be just as meaningless to say that does have a more accurate assessment of which stags are attractive than the other way round.


----------



## Mandragoras (Mar 25, 2017)

I think what I'm getting out of this is that there are a lot of weird semantic arguments surrounding an underlying consensus that fucking with people's heads to get laid is never OK.


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 25, 2017)

Mandragoras said:


> I think what I'm getting out of this is that there are a lot of weird semantic arguments surrounding an underlying consensus that fucking with people's heads to get laid is never OK.


That sounds about right... and whatever happened to OP, anyway? I want to thank him for bugging out long enough that we could come to a logical conclusion like this... and show him the ways of having unpopular opinions without trolling to convey them


----------



## MrPhox (Mar 25, 2017)

The problem is age is just a number. The brain is suppose to be fully developed at 25 years, but peoples are not more mature at that age.

There is a video on that on youtube. 

But at what age someone should have to right to have sex? Well I can't really answer that question. Many factor are to consider.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 25, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Dating in school when young is a whole different beast from adult online dating.It's also is an excellent source of data mining. It's had some very interesting implications, I actually believe men are a more accurate judge since the assumption is that the population has a bell-curve, as seen below.
> [...]
> It goes further than this implies, I dare you to try chatting up women with online dating. Even once you've got a conversation going, it's typically pretty dry with the guy leading the woman. If she can actually hold a conversation equally, I don't care if she's a talking pile of gravel that launches into an introductory on basket weaving. It's attractive. It's not just me either, this is actually the case:


Using online dating sites as a data source you do kind of have to acknowledge you don't have a representative sample of the population, though. It _could_ be that women are more inclined to rate men lower on an appearance scale, or it could be that men lower on the scale are overrepresented in the demographic "people who use dating sites" while women have a more normal distribution across attractiveness levels. Seeing side-by-side comparisons of photos that have a high incidence of being rated 1, 2, 3, etc. of/by either gender would _possibly_ give a hint of which it might be, but it wouldn't be perfect. (Hell, comparing a hypothetical curve for lesbians to the curve for straight men could also give a hint, though again wouldn't be perfect.)

There_ is_ a certain amount of science to physical attractiveness; while everyone has personal preferences that will impact how they respond to a given person, there is an overall tendency in humans to find people with a strong facial symmetry more visually appealing. We also tend to prefer individuals whose facial (and overall, to some degree, I imagine - most studies on attraction seem to focus on faces, however) proportions conform to the Golden Ratio. So you could, in theory, probably develop a semi-accurate "attractiveness rating" program; I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find one already exists, either.



Fallowfox said:


> None of this though, even if we regard it wryly, implies that women are 'playing games' with men.


If you are seriously trying to claim there isn't a subset of women who will play hard to get, deliberately court jealousy in their partners, or otherwise set the dating scene up as a game they're the scorer of, I really can't call you anything nicer than "wrong" on that count. 



Tytysi said:


> Saying that an older adult is more likely to coerce a younger partner is biased, so not quite a great argument. This doesn't mean that it can't happen, it can, and probably does, but it can and probably does happen with people of all ages, not just those in later adulthood. No, that isn't me promoting pedophilia, that is me promoting sexual independence and discouraging age-based stereotyping/discrimination.


While I think I can see where you're coming from, there's a separate-but-related thing that is significant here: Statistically speaking, older adults are more likely to hold some sort of position of authority or power over a younger partner. I absolutely agree that coercion, including using a position of authority as leverage (or, on the flip side, using sex as a bargaining chip to advance oneself), is not something that is limited by age, but teens and younger children are partcularly vulnerable to them since there's a level of authority that the entire adult world has over them, that lessens with age. 

Does that suck for the hypothetical balanced May-December couple with a teenage younger partner? Yeah, sure. But it's kind of... an aspect of reality that's better acknowledged, because it's not going away for denying it's there.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 25, 2017)

Rykhoteth said:


> Only certain people use online dating, yes, or online dating is screwing with people who use it.


Probably a bit of both, to be perfectly honest. I'm not familiar enough with the online dating scene to say - is there also a possibility that men and women are using the sites to different ends? (I know different sites cater to different sets of desires, but I don't know what specific sites do what, so I can't say how that would have impacted the studies you cite.) I could see it impacting usage patterns if e.g. more men use the site to get laid, and more women use the site to settle down. If your goal is to stick your dick in something, it makes sense to send out more messages, and be less choosy in whom you're sending those messages out to. If your goal is to find a man to settle down with, you're likely to subconsciously rate a man lower if something about their profile picture makes you suspect they'd be bad husband/father-of-future-children material, even if he's otherwise pretty hot. Point is, you're not looking at a representative sample of the population if you let the users' choice to use an online dating site be the first limiting criterion. 

I'm cautiously pro meeting people online, since communication through text has the potential of giving you a "distilled" impression of a person - more values and thoughts (and chemistry) communicated in a shorter amount of time. I do acknowledge that the flip side of this is how the anonymity and limited medium can also facilitate lies to a greater degree, and that technology has advanced significantly since I got to know my husband online around the turn of the century. Back then sending someone a photo of yourself was a minor bother, and these days kids are plastering their Facebooks and Instagrams with selfies. *shakes cane* Dating sites, from what I can tell, kind of turn that back around, to where appearance once again is a large portion of first impressions. Can't say I personally care much for that development.

Hell, we're kind of reaching a point where sex ed needs to include online privacy lessons.

(As a sidenote, regarding game theory, my understanding is that evolution-wise it's beneficial for both sexes to have multiple partners, for different reasons, and beneficial for each sex if the _other_ sex doesn't have multiple partners. Since evolution has very little impact on human survival these days, that's mostly a curiosity at this point, however.)


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 25, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Probably a bit of both, to be perfectly honest. I'm not familiar enough with the online dating scene to say - is there also a possibility that men and women are using the sites to different ends? (I know different sites cater to different sets of desires, but I don't know what specific sites do what, so I can't say how that would have impacted the studies you cite.) I could see it impacting usage patterns if e.g. more men use the site to get laid, and more women use the site to settle down. If your goal is to stick your dick in something, it makes sense to send out more messages, and be less choosy in whom you're sending those messages out to. If your goal is to find a man to settle down with, you're likely to subconsciously rate a man lower if something about their profile picture makes you suspect they'd be bad husband/father-of-future-children material, even if he's otherwise pretty hot. Point is, you're not looking at a representative sample of the population if you let the users' choice to use an online dating site be the first limiting criterion.
> 
> I'm cautiously pro meeting people online, since communication through text has the potential of giving you a "distilled" impression of a person - more values and thoughts (and chemistry) communicated in a shorter amount of time. I do acknowledge that the flip side of this is how the anonymity and limited medium can also facilitate lies to a greater degree, and that technology has advanced significantly since I got to know my husband online around the turn of the century. Back then sending someone a photo of yourself was a minor bother, and these days kids are plastering their Facebooks and Instagrams with selfies. *shakes cane* Dating sites, from what I can tell, kind of turn that back around, to where appearance once again is a large portion of first impressions. Can't say I personally care much for that development.
> 
> ...



Dunno, but from the infographics and majority of ads plastered on http://pounced.org/stats.php

It's massively male-dominated dating site that has a large majority of men wanting others to seek them, rather than seeking themselves. Generally it's either for friends, boning or dating

But one thing that stands out is that an overwhelming majority seem to be very submissive and _*only *_want to be sought


----------



## Honey Lavender; (Mar 25, 2017)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> But one thing that stands out is that an overwhelming majority seem to be very submissive and _*only *_want to be sought


Eeenteresting. Very, very, eeeenteresting...


----------



## Arcturus Maple (Mar 25, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> While I think I can see where you're coming from, there's a separate-but-related thing that is significant here: Statistically speaking, older adults are more likely to hold some sort of position of authority or power over a younger partner. I absolutely agree that coercion, including using a position of authority as leverage (or, on the flip side, using sex as a bargaining chip to advance oneself), is not something that is limited by age, but teens and younger children are partcularly vulnerable to them since there's a level of authority that the entire adult world has over them, that lessens with age.
> 
> Does that suck for the hypothetical balanced May-December couple with a teenage younger partner? Yeah, sure. But it's kind of... an aspect of reality that's better acknowledged, because it's not going away for denying it's there.



I consider children as a group with less authority as compared to adults being a result of coddling and general lowered standards and consequences which cultivate lessened responsibility and encourage them to not make their own decisions. My personal definition for child is someone who is incapable of taking care of himself or herself. My definition of an independent is someone who can take care of himself or herself. My definition of adult is someone who can take care of others in addition to himself or herself. According to this distinction, I would consider it reasonable for children to be shielded from sex until that was the only deficiency in their autonomy which separated them from an independent and a healthy understanding of and respect for sex could be the graduation stage from child to independent. Basing the difference between childhood and adulthood by physical maturity gives authority to people who may still be mentally immature while denying authority to a well-adjusted and mentally developed person who has not achieved physical/reproductive maturity. The fact that someone would abuse others is a sign of mental immaturity which would label them as a child, not an adult or independent and unworthy of the respect and authority those groups would be regarded with. 

In summation: I would consider a responsible, reasonable person to be worthy of my respect as an equal, regardless of age. Likewise, those who do not apply reason to their actions and do not take responsibility for their own lives are not worthy of my respect or considered a valid figure of authority, nor should anyone else consider them one either. Children should be encouraged to take care of themselves, make their own decisions, and take responsibility for their actions until they are capable of doing so, at which point they can stop being considered children and become an equal instead.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 25, 2017)

Crimson_Steel17 said:


> Eeenteresting. Very, very, eeeenteresting...


I could be wrong but that what it seems like from looking at most ads


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Using online dating sites as a data source you do kind of have to acknowledge you don't have a representative sample of the population, though. It _could_ be that women are more inclined to rate men lower on an appearance scale, or it could be that men lower on the scale are overrepresented in the demographic "people who use dating sites" while women have a more normal distribution across attractiveness levels. Seeing side-by-side comparisons of photos that have a high incidence of being rated 1, 2, 3, etc. of/by either gender would _possibly_ give a hint of which it might be, but it wouldn't be perfect. (Hell, comparing a hypothetical curve for lesbians to the curve for straight men could also give a hint, though again wouldn't be perfect.)
> 
> There_ is_ a certain amount of science to physical attractiveness; while everyone has personal preferences that will impact how they respond to a given person, there is an overall tendency in humans to find people with a strong facial symmetry more visually appealing. We also tend to prefer individuals whose facial (and overall, to some degree, I imagine - most studies on attraction seem to focus on faces, however) proportions conform to the Golden Ratio. So you could, in theory, probably develop a semi-accurate "attractiveness rating" program; I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find one already exists, either.
> 
> ...



Of course there is and I agree that's what it is; a subset. I just think it's weird when some men imply that women who don't play mind games are somehow exceptional.



Rykhoteth said:


> There's two possibilities to this: Only certain people use online dating, yes, or online dating is screwing with people who use it. I really do think it's changed how people assess each other when there's an overload of potential persons with very limited representations of them causing otherwise subtle game theory to get stretched out. I also like to entertain the possibility both genders grade by logarithmic scale, but women are better at misleading photos. There's not a lot to go off of with just a profile and chatlog.
> 
> Side note about the possibility it's mostly ugly males doing online dating, same studies quoted found the bulk of messages sent are by the most attractive men. So the 'ugly' majority is silent. A woman's attractiveness had no influence on how many messages they would send, they still just wait to be approached.
> 
> ...



The idea of accuracy isn't rigorously defined here, so it's not useful. 

For example consider a population of gibbons that can either be orange, brown or black. It might be observed that the male gibbons exhibit a diverse array of preferences, while female gibbons almost exclusively prefer black males. 
This would *not *imply that the female gibbons had a more accurate idea of which gibbons were attractive. All it implies is that the male gibbons have a more disparate idea of attractiveness, and there could be numerous explanations for this such as negative frequency dependent selection. 

(For example it might be observed that black gibbons are less likely to be predated upon, because they have superior camouflage, but that female black gibbons are also less likely to be approached by male mates, because their camouflage means they are not spotted so easily by their male suitors.)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 27, 2017)

Arcturus Maple said:


> I consider children as a group with less authority as compared to adults being a result of coddling and general lowered standards and consequences which cultivate lessened responsibility and encourage them to not make their own decisions.


Small children kind of have to defer to adults by necessity - if you're not old enough to comprehend that touching a hot stove element is a bad idea, you better listen to the people who do know. As an individual ages, they'll earn more independence, but odds are still good that the people in positions of authority over them will be older than they are for a good chunk of their lives - teachers tend to be older than those they teach, in many cases the senior positions in a workplace will go to older employees due to them having more experience, and so on. Even aside from that, there is a certain level of respect for one's elders that is appropriate. None of that has anything to do with coddling children, it's just common sense and courtesy. 



Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I could be wrong but that what it seems like from looking at most ads


Sorta playing devil's advocate it's kind of natural for personal ads to be written to encourage people to contact the writer, is it not? If you're going to post an ad that has "don't contact me; I'll contact you" written all over it, that seems like a waste of time and effort to me. (But I also never really got the point of specifically seeking romantic partners from among strangers, so maybe this is just me being a little too demiromantic for my own good.)



Fallowfox said:


> Of course there is and I agree that's what it is; a subset. I just think it's weird when some men imply that women who don't play mind games are somehow exceptional.


I can see that, though on the other hand, I could well see the women who play games being a lot more visible in the dating scene. Sort of, like... it's easy to generalize that people get loud when they get drunk, because if you're in a room with a hundred drunk people and half of them are loud and obnoxious, you're going to be noticing those loud people a lot more than the quiet drunks. Terrible analogy is terrible, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at? It probably also goes hand in hand with the stereotype (and societal expectation) of women as having lower libidos than men.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 27, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Sorta playing devil's advocate it's kind of natural for personal ads to be written to encourage people to contact the writer, is it not? If you're going to post an ad that has "don't contact me; I'll contact you" written all over it, that seems like a waste of time and effort to me. (But I also never really got the point of specifically seeking romantic partners from among strangers, so maybe this is just me being a little too demiromantic for my own good.)



Personally it just seems like a waste of time. With ads you only have a small frame of who someone is so if they seem to want _you _to seek them then it makes them seem very submissive and weak.


Then again, I'm me and I despise the weak and soft so I'm pretty biased against it all


----------



## Filter (Mar 29, 2017)

37

But seriously, 18 sounds about right. Although the brain doesn't stop developing until 25 or so, being 18 comes with other adult responsibilities so I think it should be legal.

As far as big age gaps are concerned, I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone involved is over 25. When one person is well under 25 and the other is over 25, like let's say an 18 year old with a 30 year old, that's potentially problematic because the 18 year old can expect to change a lot over the next few years. A 26 year old with a 50 year old, on the other hand, might have a bigger age gap but I'd expect fewer problems. According to normal human development, both should be reasonably stable by then and perhaps less likely to regret their decisions. I'm not suggesting that 18 year olds should never get with people over 25, just that if they do they should proceed with caution.

I'm over 25, and wouldn't go younger than that unless she threw herself at me and seemed legitimately mature for her age.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Mar 29, 2017)

Filter said:


> 37
> 
> But seriously, 18 sounds about right. Although the brain doesn't stop developing until 25 or so, being 18 comes with other adult responsibilities so I think it should be legal.
> 
> ...



If you're going with adult responsibilities then I'd say 19 as that's the legal drinking and smoking age for the majority of Canada


----------



## M4CH (Mar 30, 2017)

The age where a punch or kick will cause a sufficient amount of pain.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 30, 2017)

Filter said:


> As far as big age gaps are concerned, I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone involved is over 25.


My rule of thumb for age gaps is, if one party has children, the other should be old enough to be their parent. (So basically, make sure everyone is at _least_ ~15-16 years older than any children from prior relationships involved.) I know it _can_ work when this isn't the case, but most of the time is seems like the risk of resentment for a stepparent is increased manifold if that stepparent isn't old enough to be the stepchild's biological parent at least in theory.


----------

