Reasoning for Age of Consent Laws

[G.T.]

Instead of skirting the issue with pseudo intellectual gymnastics, answer a direct question.

Delta,

Youre a midde aged looking guy. How young of a child do you think you should be able to have sex with, LEGALLY?

please, dont duck.

Delta4Embassy you dont want any part of answering this, i take it.

 

[Muhammed]

matiacal

I don't have a religion. I do not believe in supernatural stuff.

But I still agree with your pronouncement that you're a moron.

A question isnt a pronouncement.

English your second language?

Also - the original point stands unrefuted. Your post was fucking stupid.

Too bad, so sad, yo dad.

You claimed to be a moron, and I agree.

Lie ^

So youre a liar, don't know english, and are fucking stupid.

Lets add to this list. Post again.

Can you understand that every time you post here, you commit serious grammar and spelling errors that most 8 year old school children in America could spot?


What the fuck is a "youre"?

It means you are, sans the completely unnecessary apostrophe for relaxed conversation.

But i do understand its fully necessary for some complete morons. Ill keep that in mind in the future.

Maybe.

I doubt that because I'm convinced that you lack the ability to use proper grammar.

 

[G.T.]

matiacal

A question isnt a pronouncement.

English your second language?

Also - the original point stands unrefuted. Your post was fucking stupid.

Too bad, so sad, yo dad.

You claimed to be a moron, and I agree.

Lie ^

So youre a liar, don't know english, and are fucking stupid.

Lets add to this list. Post again.

Can you understand that every time you post here, you commit serious grammar and spelling errors that most 8 year old school children in America could spot?


What the fuck is a "youre"?

It means you are, sans the completely unnecessary apostrophe for relaxed conversation.

But i do understand its fully necessary for some complete morons. Ill keep that in mind in the future.

Maybe.

I doubt that because I'm convinced that you lack the ability to use proper grammar.

You can doubt in one hand and look for your dick with the other, and we'll never be sure which one youll find certainty with first.

 

[Tuatara]

matiacal

You claimed to be a moron, and I agree.

Lie ^

So youre a liar, don't know english, and are fucking stupid.

Lets add to this list. Post again.

Can you understand that every time you post here, you commit serious grammar and spelling errors that most 8 year old school children in America could spot?


What the fuck is a "youre"?

It means you are, sans the completely unnecessary apostrophe for relaxed conversation.

But i do understand its fully necessary for some complete morons. Ill keep that in mind in the future.

Maybe.

I doubt that because I'm convinced that you lack the ability to use proper grammar.

You can doubt in one hand and look for your dick with the other, and we'll never be sure which one youll find certainty with first.

The grammar police is not going to like that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

(watches GT and Mohammed flirt wondering how long until they declare their true feelings for each other and start making out)

You ducked a very direct question.

I didn't duck anything, I completely ignored you because it was a stupid question having nothing to do with the thread.

 

[G.T.]

(watches GT and Mohammed flirt wondering how long until they declare their true feelings for each other and start making out)

You ducked a very direct question.

I didn't duck anything, I completely ignored you because it was a stupid question having nothing to do with the thread.

Its a question very pointed at the thread.

And you wont answer because it will coincide with your very real and scary sexually obsessive pattern youve had going here.

Specifically....you talk about sex and minors WAY TOO MUCH.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

(watches GT and Mohammed flirt wondering how long until they declare their true feelings for each other and start making out)

You ducked a very direct question.

I didn't duck anything, I completely ignored you because it was a stupid question having nothing to do with the thread.

Its a question very pointed at the thread.

And you wont answer because it will coincide with your very real and scary sexually obsessive pattern youve had going here.

Specifically....you talk about sex and minors WAY TOO MUCH.

As evidenced by your love fest with Mohammed you're not anyone to be taken seriously. You're a troll. Go be a troll.

 

[G.T.]

I asked you your opinion on what the aage of consent should be, in your thread about age of consent. You are ducking

 

[Valerie]

Does the government define an age at which you can legally have sex with anyone you want over age 18 mean they care about your health and safety? All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. It's about money. Unweb mothers are more likely to be on welfare which costs a state money. Since teens who become rpegnant by older adults usually get pregnant, the state has an interest in defining when teens can have sex with older adults.

"Statutory Rape Laws and an Excess of Legislation

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reform act that obligated states to revise or expand statutory rape laws on the foundation that the issue was a matter of public health (Goodwin, 2013). Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity? The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money. As young single mothers are more likely to need welfare assistance as they begin their difficult journey to adulthood, the hope is that by criminalizing the sexual activity that gives rise to those occasions, government resources will be spared and perhaps better distributed across the social spectrum. The perception that emerges is one of an economically prudent move to prevent future strains on an already overburdened welfare system (Cocca, 2002)."
Statutory Rape and Teen Sexting Laws The Consequences of Poorly Crafted Legislation - Student Pulse

This was the second time I'd encountered the money reasoning, first was in California's Penal Code,

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
California - Age of Consent

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. Brain not finished developing isn't the reason either or the aoc'd be in the mid-20s when the brain finally develops fully. And it's certainly not that sex in and of itself is bad or dangerous, as mammals we're evolved to desire sex when puberty begins and capable of reproduction from that point on. It's about teens getting pregnant on going on welfare that they care about and why there are statutory rape laws.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex. But adults usually avoid becomming pregnant understanding the burden that represents. Teens usually get tunnel-vision wanting the sex and not considering the implications of that decision. So the reason for ages of consent is protect the state from its' teenaged population wanting sex more than they don't want the financial burden of getting pregnant from sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves. And doing so will never get them pregnant, catch something icky, or even get them in trouble with the law.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual. As seen with smoking and drugs, telling people not to do things usually has the opposite desired effect and they wind up doing what they've been told not to. And especially when sex is the issue, everyone knows it feels good and is fun so trying to convince kids not to do something fun is like trying to get cats to march in a parade.

Even in the most extreme societies as in the Muslim world, people still desire sex. In fact there's considerable evidence that the more a society represses sexuality, the more sexual it becomes. Can't not think about sex if you're being told constantly not to have or think about sex. Just one of those odd things. So instead of trying to legislate it away, or scare kids away from sex we need to do things that actually work. A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe. So just as with pest control, if you interupt the reproduction process in one or the other sex you can control the population better than not doing so. If boys are given the means to satisfy themselves, they'll opt for that instead of partner-sex where pregnancy and financial liability is possible.

"Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity?

The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money."

"In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. "





the welfare of children depends upon protecting them from the harm of sexual predators...

clinically qualified child welfare advocates help define that legal line for that purpose.


for what purpose do you repeatedly question that line...?

is IT to 'troll' internet forums for reactions? you imagine yourself enlightening, do ya??


now GT is a 'troll' for seeing through your act and responding to your multiple threads on the topic..?

go cry to the mods again, you poor poor victim...



will you be baking cookies for the neighborhood kids again today Delta4Embassy ??

inquiring minds want to know...

 

[G.T.]

Now he has a thread on teenager self esteem.

Not gunna lie. Quite a bit spooked by this weird assed character.

 

[eots]

Instead of skirting the issue with pseudo intellectual gymnastics, answer a direct question.

Delta,

Youre a midde aged looking guy. How young of a child do you think you should be able to have sex with, LEGALLY?

please, dont duck.

18

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Does the government define an age at which you can legally have sex with anyone you want over age 18 mean they care about your health and safety? All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. It's about money. Unweb mothers are more likely to be on welfare which costs a state money. Since teens who become rpegnant by older adults usually get pregnant, the state has an interest in defining when teens can have sex with older adults.

"Statutory Rape Laws and an Excess of Legislation

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reform act that obligated states to revise or expand statutory rape laws on the foundation that the issue was a matter of public health (Goodwin, 2013). Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity? The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money. As young single mothers are more likely to need welfare assistance as they begin their difficult journey to adulthood, the hope is that by criminalizing the sexual activity that gives rise to those occasions, government resources will be spared and perhaps better distributed across the social spectrum. The perception that emerges is one of an economically prudent move to prevent future strains on an already overburdened welfare system (Cocca, 2002)."
Statutory Rape and Teen Sexting Laws The Consequences of Poorly Crafted Legislation - Student Pulse

This was the second time I'd encountered the money reasoning, first was in California's Penal Code,

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
California - Age of Consent

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. Brain not finished developing isn't the reason either or the aoc'd be in the mid-20s when the brain finally develops fully. And it's certainly not that sex in and of itself is bad or dangerous, as mammals we're evolved to desire sex when puberty begins and capable of reproduction from that point on. It's about teens getting pregnant on going on welfare that they care about and why there are statutory rape laws.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex. But adults usually avoid becomming pregnant understanding the burden that represents. Teens usually get tunnel-vision wanting the sex and not considering the implications of that decision. So the reason for ages of consent is protect the state from its' teenaged population wanting sex more than they don't want the financial burden of getting pregnant from sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves. And doing so will never get them pregnant, catch something icky, or even get them in trouble with the law.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual. As seen with smoking and drugs, telling people not to do things usually has the opposite desired effect and they wind up doing what they've been told not to. And especially when sex is the issue, everyone knows it feels good and is fun so trying to convince kids not to do something fun is like trying to get cats to march in a parade.

Even in the most extreme societies as in the Muslim world, people still desire sex. In fact there's considerable evidence that the more a society represses sexuality, the more sexual it becomes. Can't not think about sex if you're being told constantly not to have or think about sex. Just one of those odd things. So instead of trying to legislate it away, or scare kids away from sex we need to do things that actually work. A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe. So just as with pest control, if you interupt the reproduction process in one or the other sex you can control the population better than not doing so. If boys are given the means to satisfy themselves, they'll opt for that instead of partner-sex where pregnancy and financial liability is possible.

"Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity?

The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money."

"In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. "





the welfare of children depends upon protecting them from the harm of sexual predators...

clinically qualified child welfare advocates help define that legal line for that purpose.


for what purpose do you repeatedly question that line...?

is IT to 'troll' internet forums for reactions? you imagine yourself enlightening, do ya??


now GT is a 'troll' for seeing through your act and responding to your multiple threads on the topic..?

go cry to the mods again, you poor poor victim...



will you be baking cookies for the neighborhood kids again today Delta4Embassy ??

inquiring minds want to know...

Find it interesting some assume anyone who writes about these things is suspect when I can source similar writings by professional trauma counsellors, law enforcement, judges, lawyers, and the like.

I think the problem lies in how most threads here and on other discussion sites are purile and infantiles designed to provoke or mock instead of spark legitimate discussions. So when someone comes along who knows what they're talking about and how to write well, it stands in sharp relief to the usual crap.

Wanna question my motives fine, but you're only popping red flags of those who see you can't htink about these kidns of things without thinking of them in sexual terms instead of combatting the sexualization of young people by predatory adults. What would you have us do? Not write about it and pretend it isn't happening? Ignore the problem and hope it goes away?

I don't care if people wanna make me a punchline to conceal their own inadequacies. I know I'm right and whose side I'm on. As do those whose opinions actually matter.

 

[G.T.]

Instead of skirting the issue with pseudo intellectual gymnastics, answer a direct question.

Delta,

Youre a midde aged looking guy. How young of a child do you think you should be able to have sex with, LEGALLY?

please, dont duck.

18

I agree homey

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Thus bringing the current tally to 3468 postings by Delta involving children and sex.

 

[G.T.]

Does the government define an age at which you can legally have sex with anyone you want over age 18 mean they care about your health and safety? All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. It's about money. Unweb mothers are more likely to be on welfare which costs a state money. Since teens who become rpegnant by older adults usually get pregnant, the state has an interest in defining when teens can have sex with older adults.

"Statutory Rape Laws and an Excess of Legislation

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reform act that obligated states to revise or expand statutory rape laws on the foundation that the issue was a matter of public health (Goodwin, 2013). Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity? The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money. As young single mothers are more likely to need welfare assistance as they begin their difficult journey to adulthood, the hope is that by criminalizing the sexual activity that gives rise to those occasions, government resources will be spared and perhaps better distributed across the social spectrum. The perception that emerges is one of an economically prudent move to prevent future strains on an already overburdened welfare system (Cocca, 2002)."
Statutory Rape and Teen Sexting Laws The Consequences of Poorly Crafted Legislation - Student Pulse

This was the second time I'd encountered the money reasoning, first was in California's Penal Code,

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
California - Age of Consent

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. Brain not finished developing isn't the reason either or the aoc'd be in the mid-20s when the brain finally develops fully. And it's certainly not that sex in and of itself is bad or dangerous, as mammals we're evolved to desire sex when puberty begins and capable of reproduction from that point on. It's about teens getting pregnant on going on welfare that they care about and why there are statutory rape laws.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex. But adults usually avoid becomming pregnant understanding the burden that represents. Teens usually get tunnel-vision wanting the sex and not considering the implications of that decision. So the reason for ages of consent is protect the state from its' teenaged population wanting sex more than they don't want the financial burden of getting pregnant from sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves. And doing so will never get them pregnant, catch something icky, or even get them in trouble with the law.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual. As seen with smoking and drugs, telling people not to do things usually has the opposite desired effect and they wind up doing what they've been told not to. And especially when sex is the issue, everyone knows it feels good and is fun so trying to convince kids not to do something fun is like trying to get cats to march in a parade.

Even in the most extreme societies as in the Muslim world, people still desire sex. In fact there's considerable evidence that the more a society represses sexuality, the more sexual it becomes. Can't not think about sex if you're being told constantly not to have or think about sex. Just one of those odd things. So instead of trying to legislate it away, or scare kids away from sex we need to do things that actually work. A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe. So just as with pest control, if you interupt the reproduction process in one or the other sex you can control the population better than not doing so. If boys are given the means to satisfy themselves, they'll opt for that instead of partner-sex where pregnancy and financial liability is possible.

"Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity?

The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money."

"In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. "





the welfare of children depends upon protecting them from the harm of sexual predators...

clinically qualified child welfare advocates help define that legal line for that purpose.


for what purpose do you repeatedly question that line...?

is IT to 'troll' internet forums for reactions? you imagine yourself enlightening, do ya??


now GT is a 'troll' for seeing through your act and responding to your multiple threads on the topic..?

go cry to the mods again, you poor poor victim...



will you be baking cookies for the neighborhood kids again today Delta4Embassy ??

inquiring minds want to know...

Find it interesting some assume anyone who writes about these things is suspect when I can source similar writings by professional trauma counsellors, law enforcement, judges, lawyers, and the like.

I think the problem lies in how most threads here and on other discussion sites are purile and infantiles designed to provoke or mock instead of spark legitimate discussions. So when someone comes along who knows what they're talking about and how to write well, it stands in sharp relief to the usual crap.

Wanna question my motives fine, but you're only popping red flags of those who see you can't htink about these kidns of things without thinking of them in sexual terms instead of combatting the sexualization of young people by predatory adults. What would you have us do? Not write about it and pretend it isn't happening? Ignore the problem and hope it goes away?

I don't care if people wanna make me a punchline to conceal their own inadequacies. I know I'm right and whose side I'm on. As do those whose opinions actually matter.

The topic itself is not the concern.

Its your glaring obsession with it.

Hopefully, you can see the difference.

And youre still ducking.

 

[Valerie]

"I can source similar writings by professional trauma counsellors, law enforcement, judges, lawyers, and the like."

and YOU get your jollies baiting concerned citizens into respond on internet forums by repeatedly conjuring the age of consent subject while also posting about baking cookies for neighborhood children...

Think the ones that are creepy are those who can imagine the worst too easily.

seeing right through trolls like you is what's TOO EASY, d...

 

[G.T.]

This dude is in the internet trying to argue that CHILDREN can consent if the MENTALLY HANDICAPPED can.

And also talking about giving cookies out to neighborhood

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Will usually ignore stupid people's stupid questions.

So my obsession with sex seems odd to you? So a vice cop or cybercrimes investigator would too I assume? As would reporters who then write about such crimes, the lawyers who prosecute the offenders, the defense attorney who defneds them and anyone that has anything to do with such things?

You realize how stupid that sounds right?

Ask yourselves this: why is anyone who actually lives their life the way we teach children to live being good and helpful and kind viewed with suspicion? Is it because there's so much crap in the world when ever we encounter something good it seems out-of-place. Or is it that we can't imagine a world with good in it and try to make everything that might actually be good bad?

 

[G.T.]

Will usually ignore stupid people's stupid questions.

So my obsession with sex seems odd to you? So a vice cop or cybercrimes investigator would too I assume? As would reporters who then write about such crimes, the lawyers who prosecute the offenders, the defense attorney who defneds them and anyone that has anything to do with such things?

You realize how stupid that sounds right?

Ask yourselves this: why is anyone who actually lives their life the way we teach children to live being good and helpful and kind viewed with suspicion? Is it because there's so much crap in the world when ever we encounter something good it seems out-of-place. Or is it that we can't imagine a world with good in it and try to make everything that might actually be good bad?

Why do you want children to be able to consent with sex with adults is the better question.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

When I first moved here from the bay area California ~15 years ago I viewed locals' niceness with a lot of suspicion. Anyone who smiles and acts friendly is highly dubious. Over time though I realized it wasn't the nice people being nice that was suspicious but my own negative feelings about it. And I realized it wasn't them, it was me. Coming from where I did people simply weren't as nice as they are around here. So I couldn't imagine a legitimate reason anyone would actually be nice.

Just because someone comes along who likes sex and doesn't have all the negative baggage about it most do doesn't mean they're any part of a problem. Maybe they're the way you're supposed to be, and the people saying sex is bad are the ones suffering the problem.

Consider the bruhaha a few Superbowls ago with Janet Jackson's nip-slip. Big to-do about that. But that same tv stations airs programs with simulated violence every day and no one seems to care. Is acceptance of violence and discouragement of sexuality really how we wants things to be? Do any of us grow up looking fowards to being the victim of violence? Don't we all grow up looking fowards to sex?