CDZ Did MILO mean young men not young boys? or does he really support pedophilia?

[usmbguest5318]

oh my gosh!

no silly willy! What I was saying was that yes 14 year olds may end up having sex with their peers of around the same age, but at 14 having sex with a 29 year old is the 29 year old taking advantage of the 14 year old's lack of maturity and statutory rape.

It seems that you are making a legal argument. In many if not most states, the age of 14 is below the age of legal consent, so legally a 14 year old can not consent to have sex with an adult. That being said, a 14 year old and definitely agree or give permission to have sex with an adult, but not in the legal since. Agreeing is consent.

No it is not legally or mentally consent at that age with an adult male much older...BECAUSE the brains of boys at that age are not fully developed....and any 29 yr old adult that chooses to have sex with a 14 year old boy knows that he has power over the boy or girl.
\
AND GIRLS mature in that area of the brain years before a boy, and there is no way, that I would believe that a 14 year old girl could give consent for having sex with a 29 year old man, even though she is more matured in that area of the brain than the boy is so why in the HECK would I think that the 14 year old boy giving consent is ok?

It's called statutory rape, there is a reason for it, and it is science now, that shows such development in the brain.

I have kids (all adult now), two each, boys and girls. I get what you're saying, but I wonder whether the immaturity of which you speak ("maturity" is the term "everyone" uses; I'm not semantically quibbling over that) is a function of time or teaching. My thinking is that at something like 14-16, kids, if there are taught frankly about the risks of sexual activity, the attendant responsibility and the potential impact on their later lives, they might very well be able to make what we call mature decisions about sexual activity. It is after all culture, not nature, that advises deferring sexual activity until later periods in life. I know it sounds overly simplistic to say, but Mother Nature gets a lot of things right, and "she's" got a better track record in that regard than do we humans.

I don't know for certain, I would need to read up some more...my impression of what I have read, was that this particular area of the brain that involves reasoning or/and impulse is simply not activated to it's fullest until later....so even if as a father, you explained all of this to him or her, they may think and you may think they understand it fully, but they simply may not.

I do think that you having a discussion on this all with them can only help lead them to understanding....but it is still a "fingers crossed" situation in my book....they are called juveniles for a reason and have so much more on their plate than I did at their age, but this still does not increase the actual development in that part of the brain that relates to these kind of decisions....as far as I am aware...but as said, I will read some more on it to see what I can find out.

Correct, the frontal lobe is credited with "higher" thinking, i.e. critical thinking. It does not develop until people are in their 20's. Therefore it is against nature, who set that timeline, to say that a child at an earlier age should be given the "authority" to make decisions that require that ability. It is that simple.

Okay. So I'm not questioning the frontal lobe development age or its role in higher thinking. What I'm postulating is that the maturity of which we speak in this context is necessitated by culture rather than by nature. The proposition that "it's against nature" seems incongruous with the fact that nature grants fertility at about 14 years of age, give or take. That's not to say one would be a good parent at that age. Indeed, I seem to recall having read that even in the wild, first time mothers experience far higher mortality rates than do their more experienced "sisters" in the species, that being particularly so for non-social creatures.

Mother Nature's a harsh teacher in many instances, requiring as she does experiential leaning, indeed offering only that modality as goes sex, birth and rearing offspring. It seems to me that humanity's cultural mores obviate the need for young people to endure the same lachrymose travails as must beasts. Be that as it may, though we consider ourselves apart from beasts, Mother Nature certainly does not.

 

[Boss]

Correct, the frontal lobe is credited with "higher" thinking, i.e. critical thinking. It does not develop until people are in their 20's. Therefore it is against nature, who set that timeline, to say that a child at an earlier age should be given the "authority" to make decisions that require that ability. It is that simple.

Then why does "nature" make humans sexually inquisitive at puberty? Why do females start getting mammary glands developed at 12-13? Seems like nature may have some contradictions here.

WE set the fucking arbitrary timeline! WE did that... not nature!

At the turn of the 19th century in Appalachia, it was COMMON for 12 year old girls to marry and start having children. And they certainly weren't marrying 13 year old boys. My grandmother was married at 14 and she used to talk about how her parents feared she would be an "old maid" ....we actually attached a stigma to girls who couldn't find a husband before they reached an age that today would barely be legal.

In fact, in most states today, the actual age of consent is 16. Again... an arbitrary timeline. Why is someone perfectly legal at 16 but a statutory rape victim at 15yrs 364 days? Does "nature" make something miraculous happen at midnight on their 16th birthday? And this is the case for EVERY person regardless of their maturity level?

Okay... so what if you are on a bus traveling west and you are celebrating a 16 yr. old's birthday by helping them lose their virginity when the bus travels across into another time zone and suddenly it's 11 pm! Are you now violating the law and committing statutory rape? When you started you were legal but now it's the day before so you're a criminal... right? Because nature, right?

Again... Milo's point (and I think it's valid) is that society sets these boundaries for "age of consent" when the truth is, people can consent and are fully capable of consent before reaching this arbitrary line or maybe not until after the line... people are different. It's the line that is arbitrary. Maturity in individuals varies and it's kind of prudish to think we can arbitrarily make that decision for everyone. That's not condoning or advocating anything, it's just stating an unvarnished and perhaps uncomfortable truth.

When did YOU lose YOUR virginity? When did you first become sexually stimulated? Are these uncomfortable questions to discuss? Maybe we need to go back to the Medieval times and put women in chastity belts until they're 20... when their frontal lobes are fully developed and they can make informed decisions? Liberals are all about controlling people so why don't you run with THAT idea?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It seems that you are making a legal argument. In many if not most states, the age of 14 is below the age of legal consent, so legally a 14 year old can not consent to have sex with an adult. That being said, a 14 year old and definitely agree or give permission to have sex with an adult, but not in the legal since. Agreeing is consent.

No it is not legally or mentally consent at that age with an adult male much older...BECAUSE the brains of boys at that age are not fully developed....and any 29 yr old adult that chooses to have sex with a 14 year old boy knows that he has power over the boy or girl.
\
AND GIRLS mature in that area of the brain years before a boy, and there is no way, that I would believe that a 14 year old girl could give consent for having sex with a 29 year old man, even though she is more matured in that area of the brain than the boy is so why in the HECK would I think that the 14 year old boy giving consent is ok?

It's called statutory rape, there is a reason for it, and it is science now, that shows such development in the brain.

I have kids (all adult now), two each, boys and girls. I get what you're saying, but I wonder whether the immaturity of which you speak ("maturity" is the term "everyone" uses; I'm not semantically quibbling over that) is a function of time or teaching. My thinking is that at something like 14-16, kids, if there are taught frankly about the risks of sexual activity, the attendant responsibility and the potential impact on their later lives, they might very well be able to make what we call mature decisions about sexual activity. It is after all culture, not nature, that advises deferring sexual activity until later periods in life. I know it sounds overly simplistic to say, but Mother Nature gets a lot of things right, and "she's" got a better track record in that regard than do we humans.

I don't know for certain, I would need to read up some more...my impression of what I have read, was that this particular area of the brain that involves reasoning or/and impulse is simply not activated to it's fullest until later....so even if as a father, you explained all of this to him or her, they may think and you may think they understand it fully, but they simply may not.

I do think that you having a discussion on this all with them can only help lead them to understanding....but it is still a "fingers crossed" situation in my book....they are called juveniles for a reason and have so much more on their plate than I did at their age, but this still does not increase the actual development in that part of the brain that relates to these kind of decisions....as far as I am aware...but as said, I will read some more on it to see what I can find out.

Correct, the frontal lobe is credited with "higher" thinking, i.e. critical thinking. It does not develop until people are in their 20's. Therefore it is against nature, who set that timeline, to say that a child at an earlier age should be given the "authority" to make decisions that require that ability. It is that simple.

Okay. So I'm not questioning the frontal lobe development age or its role in higher thinking. What I'm postulating is that the maturity of which we speak in this context is necessitated by culture rather than by nature. The proposition that "it's against nature" seems incongruous with the fact that nature grants fertility at about 14 years of age, give or take. That's not to say one would be a good parent at that age. Indeed, I seem to recall having read that even in the wild, first time mothers experience far higher mortality rates than do their more experienced "sisters" in the species, that being particularly so for non-social creatures.

Mother Nature's a harsh teacher in many instances, requiring as she does experiential leaning, indeed offering only that modality as goes sex, birth and rearing offspring. It seems to me that humanity's cultural mores obviate the need for young people to endure the same lachrymose travails as must beasts. Be that as it may, though we consider ourselves apart from beasts, Mother Nature certainly does not.

Fertility is a process. It would be nice if our anatomy process granted females fertility overnight. But that is not what happens. A girl may be able to get pregnant at 14, but she is still not anatomically ideal to carry and birth it. Her young body cannot provide the needs of a growing baby. Birth weight is significantly lower the younger the pregnancy age.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have kids (all adult now), two each, boys and girls. I get what you're saying, but I wonder whether the immaturity of which you speak ("maturity" is the term "everyone" uses; I'm not semantically quibbling over that) is a function of time or teaching. My thinking is that at something like 14-16, kids, if there are taught frankly about the risks of sexual activity, the attendant responsibility and the potential impact on their later lives, they might very well be able to make what we call mature decisions about sexual activity. It is after all culture, not nature, that advises deferring sexual activity until later periods in life. I know it sounds overly simplistic to say, but Mother Nature gets a lot of things right, and "she's" got a better track record in that regard than do we humans.

I too have adult children, and I would say that 14-16 yo's do NOT and will never have the capacity to make proper "adult" decisions about their own sexual activity. Not even close.
Statutory rape is there for a reason, and a good one. Under no conditions would I change my mind or even consider that these laws should be changed or altered for any reason.

Um....was it rape when yours and my ancestors bred at that age? I guess you didn't get to that inference before you replied?

Perhaps it's my mistake. Maybe I should have been clearer about my aim to inject a different set of considerations pertaining to the theme. Sorry.

It would have been if there were laws protecting them yes.
It was common across the globe for 30 yo and older to wed 14 year old girls or even younger. It was a deplorable practice that was specifically done to give the matured male dominance and use his size and greater life experience to lord over her.

It would have been if there were laws protecting them yes.

Okay...well, do you not see the law as being an aspect of culture? Again, the foundation of my comment has do with our attitudes about when people are suitably aged for sex. My proposition is that it culture shapes our present day attitudes about it. If nature "thinks" it fine for 14 year-olds to have sex, and it must given fertility happens around then, then it's quite plausible that the requisite maturity exists at ~14, the factor militating against that assertion's verity being only the extant culture.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No it is not legally or mentally consent at that age with an adult male much older...BECAUSE the brains of boys at that age are not fully developed....and any 29 yr old adult that chooses to have sex with a 14 year old boy knows that he has power over the boy or girl.
\
AND GIRLS mature in that area of the brain years before a boy, and there is no way, that I would believe that a 14 year old girl could give consent for having sex with a 29 year old man, even though she is more matured in that area of the brain than the boy is so why in the HECK would I think that the 14 year old boy giving consent is ok?

It's called statutory rape, there is a reason for it, and it is science now, that shows such development in the brain.

I have kids (all adult now), two each, boys and girls. I get what you're saying, but I wonder whether the immaturity of which you speak ("maturity" is the term "everyone" uses; I'm not semantically quibbling over that) is a function of time or teaching. My thinking is that at something like 14-16, kids, if there are taught frankly about the risks of sexual activity, the attendant responsibility and the potential impact on their later lives, they might very well be able to make what we call mature decisions about sexual activity. It is after all culture, not nature, that advises deferring sexual activity until later periods in life. I know it sounds overly simplistic to say, but Mother Nature gets a lot of things right, and "she's" got a better track record in that regard than do we humans.

I don't know for certain, I would need to read up some more...my impression of what I have read, was that this particular area of the brain that involves reasoning or/and impulse is simply not activated to it's fullest until later....so even if as a father, you explained all of this to him or her, they may think and you may think they understand it fully, but they simply may not.

I do think that you having a discussion on this all with them can only help lead them to understanding....but it is still a "fingers crossed" situation in my book....they are called juveniles for a reason and have so much more on their plate than I did at their age, but this still does not increase the actual development in that part of the brain that relates to these kind of decisions....as far as I am aware...but as said, I will read some more on it to see what I can find out.

Correct, the frontal lobe is credited with "higher" thinking, i.e. critical thinking. It does not develop until people are in their 20's. Therefore it is against nature, who set that timeline, to say that a child at an earlier age should be given the "authority" to make decisions that require that ability. It is that simple.

Okay. So I'm not questioning the frontal lobe development age or its role in higher thinking. What I'm postulating is that the maturity of which we speak in this context is necessitated by culture rather than by nature. The proposition that "it's against nature" seems incongruous with the fact that nature grants fertility at about 14 years of age, give or take. That's not to say one would be a good parent at that age. Indeed, I seem to recall having read that even in the wild, first time mothers experience far higher mortality rates than do their more experienced "sisters" in the species, that being particularly so for non-social creatures.

Mother Nature's a harsh teacher in many instances, requiring as she does experiential leaning, indeed offering only that modality as goes sex, birth and rearing offspring. It seems to me that humanity's cultural mores obviate the need for young people to endure the same lachrymose travails as must beasts. Be that as it may, though we consider ourselves apart from beasts, Mother Nature certainly does not.

Fertility is a process. It would be nice if our anatomy process granted females fertility overnight. But that is not what happens. A girl may be able to get pregnant at 14, but she is still not anatomically ideal to carry and birth it. Her young body cannot provide the needs of a growing baby. Birth weight is significantly lower the younger the pregnancy age.

It would be nice if our anatomy process granted females fertility overnight.

I don't know what you think that means. What is this "overnight" thing? Are you merely noting that girls reproductive systems develop over time before becoming capable of bearing children?

Under normal circumstances, once a female ovulates, she's fertile. Her first menstrual cycle is generally what confirms that. Yes, fertility is one state of being for a female, and peak fertility is a subset of the length of time during which a female is fertile.

I'm not even sure why you introduced the idea above:

• It seems to me you've pedantically split hairs by introducing the distinction between what is a bodily process that happens for a female individual each month and the general nature in which I've been discussing fertility and whether, by nature, young people (~14 or so) may be mature enough -- in mind and body -- to have sex?
• Why did you introduce females into this discussion? I don't see the correlation with this discussion's context of 14 year-old males' readiness for, at that age or so, commencing their life of sexual activity, be it with peers in their minority or with men in their majority.
• I also see no correlation between female fertility processes, coming of age in general, and the matter of whether one's readiness for sexual activity, as we perceive it in the U.S. in the 21st century, is indeed a function of nature or one of cultural constructs.

A girl may be able to get pregnant at 14, but she is still not anatomically ideal to carry and birth it. Her young body cannot provide the needs of a growing baby. Birth weight is significantly lower the younger the pregnancy age.

I agree that physiologically, 14 is likely not an ideal age for "birthin' babies." If you want to make the argument that by nature's design, mental readiness for sexual activity happens after physiological capability's emergence, I'll read the argument you present to that effect. I'm not going to accept that assertion as so merely because you claim it is. I don't demand that you develop the argument from scratch, but I will expect to see something credible offered (linked) in support of the claim. Note too that, given the context I've been pursuing and that you seem inclined to explain, you should present something equally credible that shows (inductively or deductively) whether the mental readiness is forestalled beyond adolescence by cultural influences and mores.

 

[MarathonMike]

You can debate what age delineates a boy and a young man. Milo did not condone Pedophelia which is a man seeking out a sexually immature boy, what ever age he is. Milo's language was imprecise enough to be misinterpreted and/or twisted and unfortunately that is all she wrote in this wonderful age of internet GOTCHA.

 

[Moonglow]

The people who brought this upon him love pedophilia for themselves.

So you have no dyslexia?

 

[usmbguest5318]

You can debate what age delineates a boy and a young man. Milo did not condone Pedophelia which is a man seeking out a sexually immature boy, what ever age he is. Milo's language was imprecise enough to be misinterpreted and/or twisted and unfortunately that is all she wrote in this wonderful age of internet GOTCHA.

Well said and spot on.

(See MLK quote in signature below.)

 

[The Great Goose]

The people who brought this upon him love pedophilia for themselves.

I'm pretty sure HE brought this on himself.

SMH

That's a gangstalker slogan you just used.

Lesbian gangstalkers brought that on him.