| I say To-may-toe, you say Tuh-mah-toh. |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November My Links Bobby Joe Daft and Demented AESav - AE's new home Joolieblog II Krazedone's Blog Irishred (aka ApplesnOranges) Andaloo Sillygrrl Crap Pix - Really Briggsy Anagamesx's Blog Susan of Pudlin and the "Puds" Fotocali on tblog Fark all day - you know you want to Lynne (aka ThingsIKnow) Big Doral Mark's Life Flaring and her Fish that were once Fry Ladyblog Tenkin - not to be forgotten Hhunter's Blog The Original Natblog Nattoons's Blog tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.07.04 (11:05 am) The problem with useless analogies is that nobody ever bothers to explain why the analogy is valid in the first place. In this case, somebody went through great lengths to show how cookies compare to cookie dough. Fine. I don't personally care for cookie dough, and I don't think that all cookies are the same, but that's not the point at all. If you are going to say that women are like cookies, at least tell me why. The only connection I can see here is temporal. But if that's all that is needed, then it's just as valid to say that girls are like caterpillars and women are like butterflies, or that boys are like oak trees and men are like Queen Anne desks. If you strip aside the temporal relationship, you are left with nothing. Women are not really made of eggs and flour and water and they don't usually have chocolate chips either. That means that you have to talk about the real subject instead. As far as I can tell, the subject is children as sexual objects instead of women as sexual objects. But that doesn't sound very politically correct. Women aren't supposed to be sexual objects either. But it is ok to have sex with them, as long as the relationship itself is what comes first. So that leaves the difference between having sex with women who are 18 or over and with girls. The rest of the blog entry raises a lot of interesting and relevant points, but it also leaves out a few. The age of consent in the US is fairly arbitrary. In fact, there is none. Not at a national level anyway. It's defined by the states. It ranges from 14 (or so) to 18. In some states, the age difference between the two partners is relevant, and in others, they could be a day apart in age, but the wrong day would make it a crime and the next day would not. When do girls become women? Aside from the age of menstruation, girls are usually fully grown by age 16. Some girls that age may have the emotional maturity to make certain decisions, and others may not. For pragmatic reasons, states make some decisions for them. While a girl does not become inherently more mature on her 16th birthday, it is not practical for society to have a hearing for each girl to determine when she is ready for anything in particular, except maybe driving a car. Instead, we have laws based on a date below which we have questions and above which we do not. Even for driving we have a minimum age. So if the date is, to a certain extent arbitrary, is pedophilia something real? Can we remain vague on the ever changing process of maturity, yet draw lines when it comes to pedophilia? Yes. Realistically, there are plenty of attractive 18 year old women who were equally attractive before their birthdays or even a year or two earlier. It's not realistic to think that young men, and even some older men will not notice that. It's also unrealistic to expect that men, especially young ones, will not get sexually aroused by such women. This is not a perversion but a natural event. That's very different from expecting people to respect the rules of society. While I find it hard to get outraged over an 18 year old woman with a 17 year old boyfriend or vice versa, I do understand why it is reasonable for a state to draw a line, even if it's not always drawn where I would draw it. It's also clear to me why society wants to protect pre-pubescent children, and even those who are still maturing. Just because the age is not a clear determination of anything does not mean that I can't decide that somebody who lusts after pre-pubescent children is a pedophile. So there are clearly children young enough to need protection, and we also allow women 28 and older to make their own decisions. Since it's not practical to do it any other way, we draw a line. We need the line. That does not obviate the need for any debate about whether something should be legal in Alabama but illegal in California, or whether one is inherently more immoral. But there's a point below which no state goes and that means that they are all in agreement that younger children need protection. posted by: dangerkitty (reply) post date: 05.07.04 (11:33 am) Reply to: mblog As always, thank you for your clear, thorough and thought-provoking comments. I feel there needs to be a line drawn. 16 seems fair to me and if at 16 the young lady is not mature enough to handle such situations, I think it should be left to her family to make that call, not the state. However, 14 is just too young. Also I guess I have my own hang-ups when it comes to men who prefer child-like women. To each his own I guess. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.07.04 (12:32 pm) Reply to: dangerkitty I would tend to agree with 16, but I can't give a rational explanation why somebody a day or week younger is any different except that we have to draw a line. But I don't think that we need to protect a 15 year old girl from her 15 year old boyfriend when they both consent to oral sex. We need to educate more and legislate less. |
 Ayn Rant: AESav.net  Daft and Demented: Mal Uncensored  Captain Jack Sparrow Shop DangerKitty on Zazzle.com  |
Inspired by the prospect of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen turning 18 this June and the apparent obsession with teenaged girls.