posted
Incidentally, there ain't any sex that's gonna let me risk prison time (prison time as a sexual predator, no less!) and the lifetime of stigma.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob- 1.Sarcasm meter seemed a bit high because I'm typing, not talking. I just got annoyed because you are making judgements about how I feel/felt and were being sarcastic about it. So, sorry for that.
2. You are very correct. I felt NO responsibility for him. The only person I'm responsible for is myself.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh- I think the answer I gave Bob applies to your questions as well. Sure, if my buddy was trying to drive in that state I would stop them. They are in no way capable of making a reasonable desicion for themselves at that point. They're drunk. If they told me they were going skydiving, even though I think that's a silly risk and they might get killed, I wouldn't stop them. As long as their sober. To make it even more of an accurate analogy, if they were base jumping illegaly I wouldn't stop them. I might ask "Are you sure this is a good idea?" and try to tell them of the dangers. That's it. If someone I care about is impaired and unable to think for themselves, I'll help. Otherwise, they make their own choices.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This issue is so personal for a lot of people that I can't possibly express my opinion without giving offense. I think I have a right to an opinion even if it gives you offense, but I reckon that there's no point in going back and forth on it anymore.
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith: And if the teacher had been male and the student female, do you think the teacher would be getting probation?
I think you are right. I think society subscribes to a double standard. When a young man, a.k.a. child, has sex, it is a badge of honor - even when the news reports the woman involved was a teacher or his mother or fifteen of his classmates. When a young lady, a.k.a. child, has sex, she is a tramp and sleezy and you probably know a whole boat load of terms. Even, technically, the term "rape" applies to acts forced upon a woman. I don't know that, according to the law, a male can get raped. Imagin some guy going to school and telling his friends the math teacher forced herself on him. The friends would probably respond, "Dude! Awesome! What was it like?! I mean, like, was she all over you an' stuff?!"
Posts: 32 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they told me they were going skydiving, even though I think that's a silly risk and they might get killed, I wouldn't stop them.
Not remotely the same thing. They don't need your help to go skydiving, and you literally could not stop them from doing it if you wanted to. What if they wanted to base jump illegally off of your structure? That's the closest, most accurate analogy.
It's one thing to permit a friend to do something you know is terribly dangerous and poses serious lifelong risks if they do it, if it's just them doin' it. But for your old boyfriend to do this, he couldn't do that without you. You were willing to have this relationship-despite caring for him-even in light of this horrible risk that was largely out of your control and his, once you started having the sexual relationship.
You're willing to actively help him put his life and freedom at serious jeapordy to suit lust. I'll be blunt, that's not an adult, non-harmful relationship.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's conceivable that in some state this is true, but in general I don't think it is.
I don't know how things work in the states, Icky, but in Canada only a man can rape. So a man can rape a man, but a woman can only have inappropriate sexual relations with a minor.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, Please stop telling me my relationship was harmful. Also, I'm removing myself from this thread because it's upsetting me an undue amount for an internet conversation.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's conceivable that in some state this is true, but in general I don't think it is.
I don't know how things work in the states, Icky, but in Canada only a man can rape. So a man can rape a man, but a woman can only have inappropriate sexual relations with a minor.
I thought in Canada, rape was not a legal definition, but was replaced by sexual assault to cover all instances?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
"You're willing to actively help him put his life and freedom at serious jeapordy to suit lust. I'll be blunt, that's not an adult, non-harmful relationship."
So Rakeesh, let me pose this question to you in the abstract: Say a friend of yours wanted to do something in private, where only you and your friend would know. He needs your help for this activity. Now, let us also say that the thing he wanted to do was, technically, illegal. And finally, let's say that you were of the opinion that the law in question was immoral.
Would you allow your friend to engage in that activity?
I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
What really bothers me about this is not the assumption that any sexual relationship that breaks the age of consent law is predatory. It is the State's unwillingness to allow for possible mitigating circumstances. Even if legal guardians don't press charges, and the 'victim' clearly does not believe they have been victimized, in most cases the State presses charges anyway. Very few comparable laws work that way (assault, for instance.)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I always thought most (consensual) sex had some element of "love" involved, especially in young teenagers. Puppy love, idealized love, true love, love in a bottle of tequila, whatever. As such, caring deeply for another person and not wanting to put that person at risk seemed to me to be a given, especially for the female involved. So the idea that someone wouldn't care about their partner's risks of being labeled a sex offender just blows my mind. Hence I can't compare it to a situation like Dan_Frank suggests.
But OTOH, every time a couple who don't know each other very very well have sex without condoms and birth control they are putting each other at risk of pregnancies and STDs. Sometimes they do it KNOWING they have an STD. And yet this happens all the time. So I guess I really shouldn't be surprised at all. Being labeled a sex offender is just another risk, I guess.
I feel very sad about this concept. Sex involves a lot more selfishness than I really realized.
posted
On another note, I don't think the double standard here is quite as clear-cut as people think it is (regarding the question of if it had been a male teacher and a 14-year-old girl).
What if it had been a 14-year-old boy with a male teacher?
I'm thinking there would have been jail time then, as well.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "resource" (POLICE) officer at my high school got in major trouble for shoving his tongue down one too many girls' throats. He messed around with a few seniors and nobody told but then he tried to get with a slutty 15 y/o and she blew the whistle.
Thats just wrong
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I figured this would happen, so I'll stop talking to you about it. I'd just like to point out that you brought it up for the conversation, and were willing to use it to advance your own point. That would seem to make it fair game.
---------
Dan_Frank,
quote:So Rakeesh, let me pose this question to you in the abstract: Say a friend of yours wanted to do something in private, where only you and your friend would know. He needs your help for this activity. Now, let us also say that the thing he wanted to do was, technically, illegal. And finally, let's say that you were of the opinion that the law in question was immoral.
Would you allow your friend to engage in that activity?
I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
Your abstract situation falls apart on many counts. First of all, a sexual and romantic relationship between two people is rarely private. In my experience, almost never, and in all of my jr. high and high school experience, never private. At any time, a parent might ask, "Where've you been tonight, Jeff?" Or a friend of theirs might tell my parents, "You know where I saw Jeff last night? In a hotel with his teacher!"
Or let's say I'm not so discreet. I tell a friend of mine that I'm knocking boots with my smokin' hawt teacher after school. That friend doesn't inform the police, but that friend does tell another friend, who does. Or let's say the teacher gets pregnant. Or let's say it's a total accident-we're caught having sex in the car in a secluded area by a cop patrolling.
Second, it's not a one-time thing, either, so it's not as though the violation would be over and done with.
Third, "technically" crimes are illegal. That's what the law is, a bunch of technicalities.
Fourth, either the person needs my help to do this activity, or they don't. If they do need my help, I don't "allow" it, I help them do it. If they don't need my help, then short of informing the police, whether I "allow" it is besides the point.
quote:I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
I don't think anyone has made that point at all, or hinted at it. The point that Bob made first and that I and others have picked up on is one of grossly disproportionate risk. If you care for someone beyond a lustful interest, more than you care for your own happiness, why are you going to help them put their life at serious risk? It's one thing if you would share that risk, but you're not. By engaging in this abstract activity, you're only putting them at risk.
It calls into question the nature of the caring that goes on. It brings to the surface the point that despite what many of the underage boys and girls may say of their relationship with the adult, on their part at least, the level of caring is, frankly, not that of a responsible adult at all, but of a teenager.
And the law says that teenagers do not have full power over their own lives, because they do not have sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to assume responisibility for themselves.
And frankly, I don't think the law should be changed to protect the "sanctity" of teenaged "caring" for an adult. I mean, I never have, having had a younger sister who much older men frequently put moves on, but it's been years, and thinking about it again with Bob's point, I still don't.
quote:What really bothers me about this is not the assumption that any sexual relationship that breaks the age of consent law is predatory. It is the State's unwillingness to allow for possible mitigating circumstances. Even if legal guardians don't press charges, and the 'victim' clearly does not believe they have been victimized, in most cases the State presses charges anyway. Very few comparable laws work that way (assault, for instance.)
This is precisely the point. In full knowledge of this, the kid and the adult are still willing to have a sexual relationship and may even claim to "love" each other. I don't think it's an adult love that places the freedom, reputation, and livelihood so whimsically at the vagaries of circumstances totally outside either party's control.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your abstract situation falls apart on many counts. First of all, a sexual and romantic relationship between two people is rarely private. In my experience, almost never, and in all of my jr. high and high school experience, never private. At any time, a parent might ask, "Where've you been tonight, Jeff?" Or a friend of theirs might tell my parents, "You know where I saw Jeff last night? In a hotel with his teacher!"
I have had wildly different experiences, clearly. The only time anyone (aside from the person I was with) ever knew I was having sex with anyone was when I told them. Neither I nor any of my partners have ever had the slightest difficulty keeping quiet, even when I was a teenager.
Certainly, a romantic relationship would be very difficult to keep private. But why would it need to be kept private?
After all, you said people in these situations should just wait for sex, right? That's all well and good. People in love can and do wait for sex all the time. But you're not actually telling two people in love to wait before they have any sort of romantic relationship, are you?
quote: Or let's say I'm not so discreet. I tell a friend of mine that I'm knocking boots with my smokin' hawt teacher after school. That friend doesn't inform the police, but that friend does tell another friend, who does. Or let's say the teacher gets pregnant. Or let's say it's a total accident-we're caught having sex in the car in a secluded area by a cop patrolling.
Wait, so your proof that it's an immature thing to do is to present a hypothetical immature person doing it? Yes, if you do not act like an adult, you should not be involved in an adult relationship. That's obvious, but unrelated to the age of the people involved.
quote: Second, it's not a one-time thing, either, so it's not as though the violation would be over and done with.
Well, are we talking about sex or romance? Certainly there could be situations where it is a one-time thing. But I will concede that it is usually not.
[quote Third, "technically" crimes are illegal. That's what the law is, a bunch of technicalities. [/quote]
Is your third point really just nitpicking at my word choice? Okay, sure, the law is a bunch of technicalities. And I'm sure you never diverge from any of them, right? You've never cruised a mile over the speed limit, driving competently, confident that technically you were speeding, but it would be wrong for a cop to single you out?
And you would never have oral sex with your wife in a state that outlaws it, right? Because that would be illegal!
I think what I meant was clear.
quote: Fourth, either the person needs my help to do this activity, or they don't. If they do need my help, I don't "allow" it, I help them do it. If they don't need my help, then short of informing the police, whether I "allow" it is besides the point.
Yes, I agree with that. So rephrase my question to "Do you help them?" Okay?
quote:
quote:I think it's worth noting that some people in this thread seem to believe that morality and legality are one and the same. Some don't. This gulf is much harder to bridge than any specific discussion of the age of consent.
I don't think anyone has made that point at all, or hinted at it.
I will concede that I was wrong to guess at people's motives, and I apologize.
quote:The point that Bob made first and that I and others have picked up on is one of grossly disproportionate risk. If you care for someone beyond a lustful interest, more than you care for your own happiness, why are you going to help them put their life at serious risk? It's one thing if you would share that risk, but you're not. By engaging in this abstract activity, you're only putting them at risk.
Have you ever let a loved one drive to a nearby store for groceries, instead of taking it upon yourself to do so? Have you even helped them to do so, say, by finding the keys?
Do you have any idea how many people die in car accidents close to home?
I think it is fallacious to claim that, because there is risk involved (even risk on one side), it is immature or wrong to engage in an activity. As long as your partner is aware of the risk involved, you are not under an obligation to help them 'for their own good'. Dying in a car wreck is a lot more damaging to your future than even being labeled a sex offender. A lot more common, too.
quote: It calls into question the nature of the caring that goes on. It brings to the surface the point that despite what many of the underage boys and girls may say of their relationship with the adult, on their part at least, the level of caring is, frankly, not that of a responsible adult at all, but of a teenager.
I think my above point already addresses this. If you give your wife the keys to the car and ask her to run to the store for you, is your level of caring that of a teenager?
quote:And the law says that teenagers do not have full power over their own lives, because they do not have sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to assume responisibility for themselves.
I believe the law in question is morally wrong. I believe it is only factually correct insofar as we have molded our society with this expectation, and so we do infantilize teenagers, resulting in many teenagers unequipped to assume responsibility for themselves.
quote: And frankly, I don't think the law should be changed to protect the "sanctity" of teenaged "caring" for an adult. I mean, I never have, having had a younger sister who much older men frequently put moves on, but it's been years, and thinking about it again with Bob's point, I still don't.
I'm a little confused, since I don't think I used either 'sanctity' or 'caring' in my last post. Or, are those sarcastic quote marks? It's sometimes hard to tell online. Is your point that teenagers can't actually care about adults? ... By "adult" I assume you mean the legal age of adulthood, whereupon the magical maturity switch has been switched?
quote:
quote:What really bothers me about this is not the assumption that any sexual relationship that breaks the age of consent law is predatory. It is the State's unwillingness to allow for possible mitigating circumstances. Even if legal guardians don't press charges, and the 'victim' clearly does not believe they have been victimized, in most cases the State presses charges anyway. Very few comparable laws work that way (assault, for instance.)
This is precisely the point. In full knowledge of this, the kid and the adult are still willing to have a sexual relationship and may even claim to "love" each other. I don't think it's an adult love that places the freedom, reputation, and livelihood so whimsically at the vagaries of circumstances totally outside either party's control.
I have already addressed why this argument is fallacious. My closing point was actually just me expressing my distaste for that aspect of our legal system, and not meant to prove anything to you specifically.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have had wildly different experiences, clearly. The only time anyone (aside from the person I was with) ever knew I was having sex with anyone was when I told them. Neither I nor any of my partners have ever had the slightest difficulty keeping quiet, even when I was a teenager.
Certainly, a romantic relationship would be very difficult to keep private. But why would it need to be kept private?
After all, you said people in these situations should just wait for sex, right? That's all well and good. People in love can and do wait for sex all the time. But you're not actually telling two people in love to wait before they have any sort of romantic relationship, are you?
Good for you. Discretion in sexual relationships at least as far as gossip is concerned is, in my opinion, a good thing. I realize this is all anecdotal, but think back to middle and high school. Was such discretion the norm? I think you'll find that very often, such discretion is not practiced, which was part of my point: that an adult in a sexual relationship with a minor is at a high degree of risk because people-especially teenagers-love to gossip about sex, and don't particularly care if the gossip hurts someone.
In any case there are many, many other ways totally outside of the adult or the minor's control that could result in exposure of the sexual relationship.
A romantic relationship is one thing. It implies some degree of love. While I must admit I think a romantic relationship between an adult and a minor would be very unseemly and usually distasteful to me personally, well that's my own particular prejudice, and if they committed to the adult decision of delaying pleasure, I would heartily respect that.
quote:Wait, so your proof that it's an immature thing to do is to present a hypothetical immature person doing it? Yes, if you do not act like an adult, you should not be involved in an adult relationship. That's obvious, but unrelated to the age of the people involved.
That was not my point at all. My point is that regardless of the maturity in all other respects of both parties, an adult engaging in sex with a minor is taking many serious risks that are completely outside of either party's control, because they "care" so much about each other as to have to have sex right now. That degree of needless risk-taking calls into question just how much the parties care for each other, because I do not believe it indicates a high, adult level of caring to potentially sacrifice your friend's freedom and lifelong reputation for the sake of a fleeting (although great) pleasure.
quote:Is your third point really just nitpicking at my word choice? Okay, sure, the law is a bunch of technicalities. And I'm sure you never diverge from any of them, right? You've never cruised a mile over the speed limit, driving competently, confident that technically you were speeding, but it would be wrong for a cop to single you out?
My third point I made was because of the quotes around the word technically. And yes, I break the law in the fashion you describe quite frequently (I usually set my cruise control to 31, 46, 41). But unlike an adult having a sexual relationship with a minor, the risks of being caught and the consequences of being caught are much smaller-cops don't pull people over just for that-and much lighter-you lose some money and get a point, if that. Probably just a stern warning.
Just because people may jaywalk is not a reason to endorse or excuse other lawbreaking. Some laws are obviously more important than others. Everyone knows that.
quote:And you would never have oral sex with your wife in a state that outlaws it, right? Because that would be illegal!
If doing so could put her in jail and label her a sex-offender, and let's say the state infrequently monitored our bedroom activities, no, I wouldn't have oral sex with her, because presumably I'd love her and would a) not want to lose her and b) not want her to risk so much for my sake.
quote:Yes, I agree with that. So rephrase my question to "Do you help them?" Okay?
Okay. No, I would not help them. I would not help a friend put their reptuation, livelihood, and freedom for the sole sake of a pleasure that could be delayed until a brief time passes that engaging in it no longer poses such risks.
quote:Have you ever let a loved one drive to a nearby store for groceries, instead of taking it upon yourself to do so? Have you even helped them to do so, say, by finding the keys?
Do you have any idea how many people die in car accidents close to home?
I think it is fallacious to claim that, because there is risk involved (even risk on one side), it is immature or wrong to engage in an activity. As long as your partner is aware of the risk involved, you are not under an obligation to help them 'for their own good'. Dying in a car wreck is a lot more damaging to your future than even being labeled a sex offender. A lot more common, too.
I'll be blunt, this is totally silly and irrelevant. First of all, unlike an adult having sex with a minor, grocery shopping is a necessity. You know, to eat and drink and not starve to death. Second, the risks are minimal and consequences occur only very, very rarely.
Your point here is just as ridiculous as an NRA fringe nut saying, "We need car-control because lots more people die in car accidents than from gun violence!" Unfortunately, car accident deaths are just a cost of doing business, so to speak, the price of living in modern civilization next to so many other people. If you walked to the store, you'd face similar risks. A bolt of lightning could strike and kill you.
No, your point about car accidents has no bearing whatsoever.
quote:I believe the law in question is morally wrong. I believe it is only factually correct insofar as we have molded our society with this expectation, and so we do infantilize teenagers, resulting in many teenagers unequipped to assume responsibility for themselves.
*shrug* It is my experience that teenagers are less mature, not more mature, than they think themselves to be, in almost any given situation, laws aside.
quote:I'm a little confused, since I don't think I used either 'sanctity' or 'caring' in my last post. Or, are those sarcastic quote marks? It's sometimes hard to tell online. Is your point that teenagers can't actually care about adults? ... By "adult" I assume you mean the legal age of adulthood, whereupon the magical maturity switch has been switched?
Yes, age of consent laws are arbitrary. Cost of doing business. But that's not my point. My point (Bob's originally) was to call into question the nature of caring in such relationships.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll be blunt, this is totally silly and irrelevant. First of all, unlike an adult having sex with a minor, grocery shopping is a necessity. You know, to eat and drink and not starve to death.
Oh come on, there are plenty of ways around it. I know someone who orders all of his groceries online and rarely leaves his house.
Besides, what if you're sending her to the store for something frivolous, like a bottle of wine or a pack of cigarettes or a video rental?
quote:Second, the risks are minimal and consequences occur only very, very rarely.
What do you mean by rarely? People die in car accidents all the time, every day. I believe a surprisingly high percentage of those happen very close to home.
To actually disprove my point on these grounds, you would need to figure out the percentage of people driving to the store who don't get into a car accident, to the percentage of people engaging in sex with a minor who don't get arrested.
It's a pretty hard thing to quantify empirically. Anecdotally, I know many people who have had sex with people under the age of consent, and none of them have ever been arrested.
If you prefer, I can find another analogy other than the car. One people engage in a little less often but carries a lot of risk too.
The analogy is intentionally silly, but it is extremely relevant.
quote:Your point here is just as ridiculous as an NRA fringe nut saying, "We need car-control because lots more people die in car accidents than from gun violence!"
We have car control. And gun control. And too much of both, in my opinion. But that's another thread.
quote:Unfortunately, car accident deaths are just a cost of doing business, so to speak, the price of living in modern civilization next to so many other people. If you walked to the store, you'd face similar risks. A bolt of lightning could strike and kill you.
Yes. Absolutely right. So are you going to live in constant fear of your wife dying, and beg her to never leave the house for fear something could happen to her? We haven't even touched on muggers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, carjackers... the list of dangers goes on.
Rakeesh, every day you and your wife do things you didn't need to do, which placed your life in very real danger. It is part of being alive. Most of those things are not illegal, but they are much more dangerous than the sex in question. Because they could end in your death. And, we have already established that the simple fact that something is illegal does not, ipso facto, make it immoral or anathema. It just entails a specific set of risks.
quote:*shrug* It is my experience that teenagers are less mature, not more mature, than they think themselves to be, in almost any given situation, laws aside.
Which is why you see no difficulty in dismissing the nature of caring in their relationships, and scoff when someone points out that you exhibit the same 'selfishness' in your own relationship.
quote:My point (Bob's originally) was to call into question the nature of caring in such relationships.
I know very well what your point is.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh come on, there are plenty of ways around it. I know someone who orders all of his groceries online and rarely leaves his house
Whatever. You will still, unless you're a total shut-in, need to leave the house sometime. Or a meteor could land on your roof. There are some risks that are, unless you want to modify your lifestyle to Howard Hughes-ish lengths, unavoidable.
quote:What do you mean by rarely? People die in car accidents all the time, every day. I believe a surprisingly high percentage of those happen very close to home.
You know what I mean by "rarely", I think. Incidentally that close to home bit probably has more to do with the fact that people are more often on the roads within a mile of their homes than anywhere else just because they're on their way home.
quote:To actually disprove my point on these grounds, you would need to figure out the percentage of people driving to the store who don't get into a car accident, to the percentage of people engaging in sex with a minor who don't get arrested.
No I don't. I just need to point out that there are methods of having sex with a minor that don't involve risking the freedom, reputation, and livelihood of the adult. Those methods, however, don't include breaking the law and complaining that the law is unfair and putting one party at risk anyway.
Stick to your "it's just like driving" comment if you like, but in the reality of most people in the USA, driving and leaving the home is necessary. Having sex with a minor illegally is not.
quote:It's a pretty hard thing to quantify empirically. Anecdotally, I know many people who have had sex with people under the age of consent, and none of them have ever been arrested.
And how many of those people were themselves under the age of consent, too? (Which isn't illegal in many cases.) And of those people, how many of them weren't being victimized or taken advantage of in some way? And of those people, how many of them had considered the risks and decided to remove the criminality, either by delaying the sex or taking some other course of action?
Anecdotally, of course.
quote:The analogy is intentionally silly, but it is extremely relevant.
No, it's not. Again you insist on obtuseness. The point of criticism isn't just that there's a risk, it's that it's an unnecessary risk that could be avoided by either showing a little restraint, or acting like an adult by getting permission, married, emancipated, something.
quote:Rakeesh, every day you and your wife do things you didn't need to do, which placed your life in very real danger. It is part of being alive. Most of those things are not illegal, but they are much more dangerous than the sex in question. Because they could end in your death. And, we have already established that the simple fact that something is illegal does not, ipso facto, make it immoral or anathema. It just entails a specific set of risks.
Well seeing as how no one has ever said that illegality does not equal immorality, I don't know when anyone ever bothered to establish that. Anyway, yes, it entails a specific set of risks. Unnecessary risks, risks which if the couple really did care so much for each other, they'd (probably) be willing to keep their hormones in check for just a little while.
quote:Which is why you see no difficulty in dismissing the nature of caring in their relationships, and scoff when someone points out that you exhibit the same 'selfishness' in your own relationship.
For the record, I'm a 24 yr. old bachelor who's never been married. I was just saying "wife" as a hypothetical-I should've been more clear. Anyway, that's not why I'm scoffing at the "selfishness" I hypothetically display in my hypothetical marriage. I scoff at it because in that situation, I wouldn't be displaying selfishness.
Wait, I guess I would be, since I'm not willing to live like an hermit who lives in a bomb shelter. Right. Good point.
Your argument is founded on two things. One, there's a risk in everything. Two, the law is incorrect. My argument is founded on this: if the couple cares so deeply for each other, why cannot they wait?
Don't say, "Why should they have to?" because that's not good enough. If you truly care for someone, you take account of how reality will affect that person. You try and help them and make them happy and protect them from harm. I do not see who in an adult-minor relationship is demonstrating a level of caring. I do see a more adolescent and/or lustful level of caring which is founded more on "I want desperately to be with you because it makes me feel so good."
That's only half of the equation, I think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Driving contains risk, but there are different degrees of risk. You might get crippled. You might just get your car scratched.
If you are an adult in a sexual relationship with a minor that violates the laws of your state and word gets out, you will be marked as a sex offender for the rest of your life. The point so many here have made is that if you love someone you shouldn't be willing to jeopardize them in such a manner.
BTW - if you're a labeled as a sex offender you may be running out of places to live. Cities around the country are expanding the no-sex-offender zones around schools and parks wider and wider. Recently in my area a sex offender stayed in jail after he'd served his time because there was literally nowhere in the city he could live.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your argument is founded on two things. One, there's a risk in everything. Two, the law is incorrect. My argument is founded on this: if the couple cares so deeply for each other, why cannot they wait?
You have indeed summed up my position rather well. Especially the first one. Whether or not the law is correct, the simple fact that there is risk involved does not make it a bad idea. Because there is risk in everything.
quote: Don't say, "Why should they have to?" because that's not good enough. If you truly care for someone, you take account of how reality will affect that person. You try and help them and make them happy and protect them from harm.
Forget driving, then. What about engaging in something exciting and fun which contains a very real risk of death? Perhaps some sort of extreme sport. Skydiving. Someone mentioned base jumping. These contain very real elements of risk. Even risk of death, not just lifelong humiliation and stigma. You say that if you care about someone, you should want to protect them from harm. Apparently, according to you, this even includes protecting them from themselves. It includes harm that they are aware of and willing to risk anyway. So why doesn't it extend to other areas?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me the only reason you're drawing a distinction is because in one situation, it happens to be underage sex, specifically, and in another it's not.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course all those examples also have age limitations. It's not the sex. It's the level of maturity and awareness of the consequences that's the limiting factor. While this level is different for everyone, expediency requires an arbitrary age limit to be set to protect the greater number of people.
And they are things that people do alone. The decision is totally and utterly theirs. Sex requires the consent and cooperation of two people (at least) and that means the responsibility for the risks is shared. I submit there is a difference between letting someone do something you know is dangerous and helping sopmeone do the same thing.
What exactly are you arguing for? Striking down all age consent laws? Looking the other way when teachers seduce their students? How should things change, in your view?
Here's mine: I believe all states should have age of consent laws. I also believe that those laws should include provisions for age gaps less than 2 years, and that individual cases should be able to apply for exemptions with the consent of the parents. I believe there should be levels of criminality so that sex offenders are not automatically lumped in with sexual predators.
In short, I agree that current laws should be changed but I think an arbitrary age must be set if only to give us a starting point. As you've been arguing with all-or-nothing logic I can't really tell how you would like the laws changed.
[ November 28, 2005, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An arbitrary line is acceptable for laws - the real trouble is when such lines are used to draw absolute conclusions about a person's character. I do not think our society takes circumstances into account once you are legally labeled (or even accused of being) a rapist. Instead the assumption is made that that person is a monster or predator, no matter what the circumstances.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
This does not mean that, "It's too risky," is an insuffient objection to a given activity.
quote:Apparently, according to you, this even includes protecting them from themselves. It includes harm that they are aware of and willing to risk anyway. So why doesn't it extend to other areas?
Chris handles this nicely, and I think again you're being deliberately obtuse when you suggest that "protect them from themselves" is what I was advocating. There is a world of difference between, say, giving someone you love a shove out of the door of an airplane than watching them jump out themselves. You ignore the fact that skydiving, like driving, poses a host of risks which can be very, very seriously mitigated by the jumper.
The same cannot be said about an adult having sex with a minor, but you're deliberately not seeing that. The reason I question the amount and quality of caring that exists between an adult and a minor having sex is because, to me, it appears to involve caring for the self more than caring for the other, which is not what either party would say if you asked them in almost all cases.
You still have chosen not to answer my question. If you care for someone so much, if you love them, why are you willing to risk their freedom, reputation, and livelihood throughout their lives for sex? Again, don't say, "Why shouldn't they be able to?" and deal in reality when you answer, if you will.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I haven't been arguing much on topic since I started. I am arguing with Rakeesh dismissing the caring in the relationships in question.
Chris, I really like your proposed solutions, by the way. I'd vote for 'em.
quote: If you care for someone so much, if you love them, why are you willing to risk their freedom, reputation, and livelihood throughout their lives for sex?
To be honest, I didn't answer because the question doesn't make very much sense to me. It seems to me the only way this question is answerable is if I have the same basic assumptions as you. Namely, that people in a relationship should care more about the risks involved in their activities, and less about what they both actually want to do. That it is somehow noble to sacrifice not only your own desires but also your partners, for their own good.
I just don't agree with that. I don't think anyone, in a relationship or not, has the right to override someone else's decisions for their own good.
To be clear, here is the hypothetical situation I am discussing.
Jill, 16 years old. Is in love with Jack. Is familiar with sex and would like to have sex with Jack, but would rather not get Jack in trouble.
Jack, 19 years old. Is in love with Jill. Is familiar with sex and would like to have sex with Jill. Is aware that that would be illegal and could potentially ruin his life.
Okay? That's the page I'm on.
Now, if Jack decides that he is willing to live with the risks, I do not believe it is Jill's obligation to stop him. That's not her responsibility.
I think that's where we disagree. Am I wrong?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EDIT: Just ignore this entirely. It has way more to do with my frustrations concerning drugs and my apparent obligation to put up with people doing what I consider to be Ridiculously Dumb **** because, as Cartman would say, "It's my hot body; I'll do what I want!" than anything else.
I really do think that statutory rape laws need some tweaking.
quote:I am arguing with Rakeesh dismissing the caring in the relationships in question.
You're misunderstanding, again. I have not said there is no caring in such relationships, I have said repeatedly that I think the type of caring there is is by definition questionable.
quote:That it is somehow noble to sacrifice not only your own desires but also your partners, for their own good.
Well apparently you're putting a much higher value on "desire" than I am. In my book, putting "desire" ahead of safety and long-term well-being is by definition of questionable maturity and adulthood. Which is invariably a justification people in such relationships provide.
And I think it's very strange to suggest that someone doesn't have the right to override someone else's decisions when those decisions involve them.
quote:Now, if Jack decides that he is willing to live with the risks, I do not believe it is Jill's obligation to stop him. That's not her responsibility.
This line of reasoning considers only desire, only the short-term. You say in this situation there is a calm, reasoned consideration of the risks, but what it doesn't include is a calm, reasoned, adult consideration of the risks. Because adults, people who are as mature as people in such relationships claim to be, have at least a passing knowledge of something called "delayed gratification".
This is like the fifth time you've deliberately ignorned this. People in such relationships almost always say they love each other, or at least care very, very deeply. Why can't they wait, then? If they care so much, if it's not about lust and sex, wouldn't the relationship bear some delayed gratification?
Your response continues to ignore reality. "They shouldn't have to." "Driving is dangerous." "It's not his/her responsibility." The reality is that if caught, one or even both parties will face serious lifelong penalties to freedom, reputation, and livelihood. The reality is that the of the means of getting caught, many of them are entirely outside the couple's control. The reality is that people in such relationships claim to care for or even love each other very, very deeply.
To answer your question, yes, I think it's Jill's responsibility to "stop Jack" if she cares so greatly about Jack. If she cares so much for Jack, she should not be willing to help him take such a monumental risk.
If, however, she cares a lot about Jack but not in the way that he and she say they do, well, that's different. That's what I've been saying all along-that the situation demands the question.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't ignored the fact that there are serious lifelong penalties for the behavior in question. Frankly, continuing to ignore the attitude of your posts is getting increasingly difficult.
To clarify: We have a very different view of adult relationships, and what they entail. We have a very different view of the value of delayed gratification.
And, it seems, we have a very different view of personal responsibility. If someone I care about wants me to help them take a monumental risk, and there is either no risk for me or I am comfortable with the risk on my side, then I will absolutely help them.
I don't see a resolution to this discussion any time soon. Do you?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps my attitude is a reflection of quotes like this...
quote:If someone I care about wants me to help them take a monumental risk, and there is either no risk for me or I am comfortable with the risk on my side, then I will absolutely help them.
So would I. However, that is not an accurate condensing of the situation we're talking about. If a friend of mine wanted my help in taking a monumental risk that was unnecessary at the present time and if delayed for a brief time would then be safe, I would not help them.
Would you drive the getaway car for a bank robbery if you knew your buddy was going to be winning the lottery in three years?
Anyway, you're right. There isn't going to be a resolution here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I want to begin by saying that I agree with your side of the argument and personally would not purposely endanger the livelihood of a close friend for what I also feel is a very unnecessary risk. Despite my personal feelings on the matter, however, I still think Dan_Frank's perspective is completely valid, though perhaps a little foolish and reckless.
Consider how many people throughout history have risked and sacrificed their very lives for reasons or causes that they didn't even understand. At least in this situation, both people are completely aware of what the risks are and why they are willing to take that risk. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that even true love might display this type of reckless behavior. Why? Let me explain.
It all comes down to what a person values in life. For example, many people have adopted the "Carpe Diem" attitude.
What is love? 'tis not hereafter; Present mirth hath present laughter; What's to come is still unsure:
In delay there lies no plenty, - Then come kiss me, Sweet-and-twenty, Youth's a stuff will not endure.
They feel that each and every new day of life is its own miracle that should be treasured, appreciated, and used to the full, because even the best of plans cannot ensure anything beyond the present moment. They feel that coincidence, fate, destiny, or whatever can change the entire future that they may have planned for themselves. Who really knows that they will wake up tomorrow, or that they won't get into a life altering accident that night? Instead of living a lifetime of regret over a lost opportunity, they are willing to risk the possibility of a lifetime of pain in exchange for a moment and a memory that they can relive indefinitely.
I do feel that this attitude is, at the very least, a little foolish. But foolishness doesn't diminish the sincerity and caring and maybe even love that's involved. Is it a wise course of action? No. Is it understandable? Yes.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead of living a lifetime of regret over a lost opportunity, they are willing to risk the possibility of a lifetime of pain in exchange for a moment and a memory that they can relive indefinitely.
I think that a couple that really thought of it in those terms, that's a bit different. But be honest. How many people overall, and especially teenagers, actually think like this? For most teenagers, the road to fulfilling their desire starts and stops at, "I want it." There are exceptions, true, but they're exceptions.
quote:I do feel that this attitude is, at the very least, a little foolish. But foolishness doesn't diminish the sincerity and caring and maybe even love that's involved. Is it a wise course of action? No. Is it understandable? Yes.
Obviously I think it's more than a little foolish, because the attitude you're describing will justify basically any pleasure because, like Dan says, people die in car accidents all the time.
But you're still missing the point. I'm not saying that such couples never really care for each other at all, or never really love each other. I'm saying that most couples if asked would say they love / care greatly for the other person which is why they were willing to take such great and terrible risks.
Well, they're the ones making the declarations, not me-so it begs the question. How much do they love / care for each other, and what kind of love / caring is it, really? Very, very, very few teenagers have a sense of their own mortality like William Shakespeare did, especially someone in the 16th and 17th centuries. Most teenagers (hell, most people) are convinced they're gonna live forever.
All of which begs the question that the couples usually invoke-of what quantity and quality is their emotional relationship?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people overall, and especially teenagers, actually think like this? For most teenagers, the road to fulfilling their desire starts and stops at, "I want it." There are exceptions, true, but they're exceptions.
I completely agree with you here. That is why I wanted to point out earlier that I do agree with your side of the argument. That is why I personally feel that the possibility, the hope, the dream (even if it is never fulfilled) of living a lifetime, 10 years, five years, one month, or even two days with the person I love is not worth the risk of losing just so that I can fulfill an immediate desire, no matter how important it may seem to me at the time.
So I wasn't trying to say that you are wrong. I was just trying to create the exception that allows people like Treason and Dan_Frank to have the opinions that they have without suggesting that they personally are uncaring individuals.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the exception. I have always believed that the exceptions may sometimes-perhaps even often-exist, and I take Treason and others who have been in such relationships at their word that the level of caring and emotional committment is serious in mature, simply because they were there-I was not.
That wasn't to my mind ever the argument, though. The argument was over whether or not such relationships beg the question I and others have asked.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Does the sex feel better if she's more attractive? Are you more ashamed if she's not?
yes, and yes.
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'd think most people generally want to have sex with people they find attractive...
-pH
There is a substantial difference between what you said and what StickyWicket is saying.
There is a difference between saying somebody is attractive and saying you find somebody attractive. The first assumes some independent, concrete standard of attractiveness by which all people can be judged.
In my experience, people who hold and express such views are speaking specifically about judging people by their looks, and rarely acknowledge any other basis for attraction. For example, note the post I was responding to when I posted what SW quoted:
quote:Originally posted by J T Stryker: I want to state that when i was 14, I would have... Sorry, there is no delicate way of putting this... I would have cut my left nut off to loose my virginity to a woman as attractive as that one... I mean just imagine how many boys thought of this reading teacher as they lay in their beds drifting off to sleep...
He doesn't know anything about her other than what he saw in her picture. Do you care to argue that the sentiment he expressed does not exemplify the attitude I just described? It is apparently an empirical fact, with which everyone can agree, that she is attractive, based on a photo alone. Clearly, her personality, intelligence, maturity, sense of humor, etc., are irrelevant. Woman blonde. Want.
The kind of attraction described when you say you find someone attractive incoludes physical attraction, but acknowledges that all sorts of people are attracted to all sorts of things. Some guys like enormous boobs. Me, I actually prefer flatter-chested women. I don't like a lot of makeup. But a huge part of attraction for me, which the original statement does not leave room for, is for attributes beyond the physical. I find an intelligent woman more attractive than a well-proportioned one who is vacuous. I find a sense of humor incredibly attractive. Ditto for a caring personality.
If you believe that attractiveness is universal and concrete, part of the view you espouse must clearly be that some people are not attractive. To anyone. And that the people who claim to be attractive to them are liars. We can postulate reasonable motives for this. People sleep with partners who are unattractive because they themselves are unattractive, and so these empirically ugly people must "settle" for other ugly people like themselves, but would leave them at the drop of a hat if one of the beautiful people would grace them with some sexual attention.
I find the attitude inherent in the statement I responded to abhorrent.
quote: I'd think most people generally want to have sex with people they find attractive...
I think it's vanishingly rare that people have sex with anybody they don't consider attractive. At least, I'd like to. I'm sure it happens, but I can think of few things more disgusting than the concept of having sex with someone you are not attracted to. Therefore, I take it for granted that most people generally do have sex with people they find attractive. I think it's ludicrous to have to even discuss the point.
Stryker's point, and I interpret SW as concurring, though his post was not really substantial enough for me to truly know, seemed to be, as much as anything else, that it's very important that your friends (and peers) agree that your partner is physically attractive.
I hoped Stryker's post was in jest, and I responded, initially, in kind. The fact that I should have to explain myself makes me wonder, however.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow am I glad that a hot teacher didn't have sex with me when I was 14.
Not to belittle her crime, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the "victim" still considers that day the best day of his life.
I understand why the laws are there, and agree with their necessity, but forgive me if I don't shed any tears for him.
I agree. There is an asymetry between boys and girls, and sure it's possible that the boy considers himself raped, and if he does, we should take that consideration seriously, but I remember being fourteen and lusting after my hot teachers- and it was a lust as real and true as any lust I feel now- and I'll tell you now that on the face of it, I'm feel more jealous of him than I feel sorry for him. I'm not going to comment on her intelligence, humor, or maturity, but I'm thinking that she was smart, funny, and mature enough to make the experience enjoyable.
The asymmetry stands. Men are likely predators, and a woman, in the exact same relationship, is a likely dream come true. It's not that I don't think that its possible that 14 year old girls lust like fourteen year old boys, but when I was that age, I wanted to consensual sex like a mole wants to dig. To all of the women who posted on this thread about, did feel that drive in your bones? I gather not.
As long as she brought him along gentle-like, I'm fine with it.
As a future father of (potentially) a 14 year old ANYONE, I would hope for a different and better introduction to sex for a child of mine.
My wish would be for every person that the first time they have sex it is in safe and loving circumstances, with a person who first values them as a person, knows their mind, and truly appreciates the gift of that person's self in the world.
Of course, the reality is that the young person may be aching for a chance at sex to the point where they would consciously choose a horrid partner just to get the chance to rub up against another human being.
But I can still hold onto my dream, eh?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think that men who say things like that are speaking from their own memories and experiences, and projecting them onto others. Men are not inherently likely predators. Some men are. Some women are, in different ways (and sometimes in the same ways) likely predators.
quote:As long as she brought him along gentle-like, I'm fine with it.
It sounds like you would probably disagree with this, but I think it's obvious that this woman qualifies as a sexual predator herself, deliberately seeking sexual partners vastly out of her "weight class", so to speak. I'm not speaking about attractiveness, objective or subjective, I'm speaking about partners whom she will find it incredibly easy to hold the dominant status in the relationship. Parasites don't have to leave their host organism feeling wounded, after all. Sometimes the host organism isn't even aware the parasite is there.
Given that she is a sexual predator, I find your attitude that it's OK so long as she was a gentle parasite disturbing. For several reasons, first being that I doubt you'd be so sanguine about it were the genders reversed. Second, it relegates the boy in question to the status of cattle.
He was a 14 yr old boy. 14 year old boys are almost invariably pretty damn stupid, when compared to a cunning and clever adult. Just because the woman serviced him and left him feeling good does not make it 'OK'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to wanting the person you're with to be attractive to other people:
Maybe I'm shallow, but I definitely want the person I'm with to be attractive on some level to other people. I really do. And I suspect that I'm not the only one.
quote:I definitely want the person I'm with to be attractive on some level to other people. I really do. And I suspect that I'm not the only one.
It's certainly understandable to want the other person to be attractive, but I think the important question is whether it is necessary for a relationship to be successful. Does the level of attractiveness determine the how far the relationship can go?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that men who say things like that are speaking from their own memories and experiences, and projecting them onto others. Men are not inherently likely predators. Some men are. Some women are, in different ways (and sometimes in the same ways) likely predators.
This is true. If were to every find my way to the bed of a high schooler, I'd be up to no good.
quote:Given that she is a sexual predator, I find your attitude that it's OK so long as she was a gentle parasite disturbing. For several reasons, first being that I doubt you'd be so sanguine about it were the genders reversed. Second, it relegates the boy in question to the status of cattle.
Of course I wouldn't be so casual about it if the genders were reversed. I think that the sexual drives of boys and girls are different. Sure, we can pretend that that's not the case, but I think that that's pretending. I don't know if he was treated like cattle. I'm thinking his dreams come true. You know, when I was 15, if I had a chance of having an affair with my attractive teacher or learning how to fly, I'm thinking I may go with the affair. You guys think it's impossible for this kid to have made concious decision to have an affair with her.
quote:He was a 14 yr old boy. 14 year old boys are almost invariably pretty damn stupid, when compared to a cunning and clever adult. Just because the woman serviced him and left him feeling good does not make it 'OK'.
It kind of does. When he is 80 years old, and he looks back at his life, I doubt he is going to think, "You know, one thing I regret in my life is that I slept with too many full breasted 25 year olds."
_______
quote: My wish would be for every person that the first time they have sex it is in safe and loving circumstances, with a person who first values them as a person, knows their mind, and truly appreciates the gift of that person's self in the world.
I'll settle for a safe and affectionate place.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have slept with men who were overweight, I have slept with men who were underweight, I have slept with one man in particular who was as close to perfect shape as I think humanly possible, with every muscle perfectly defined and beautiful. I have slept with handsome men and frankly ugly men. In every case I was highly attracted to them, and while there is a certain level of amusement in being on the arm of someone who makes everyone else in the room jealous, that has never been a deciding factor for me in picking a date or a lover. And when it comes to enjoying what happens in the bedroom, or anywhere else, there is no correlation whatsoever between conventional attractiveness and how good the sex is. Since so much of sex is psychological, a 14 year old boy might feel differently about that. But that is my experience.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If were to every find my way to the bed of a high schooler, I'd be up to no good.
I think that the sexual drives of boys and girls are different. Sure, we can pretend that that's not the case, but I think that that's pretending.
Well, you're not pretending when you're aware the kind of person who decides to seek out sexual partners in that sort of situation. In this particular situation, the gender of the older party is almost irrelevant. You've got someone who is seeking a sexual relationship with someone over whom they have major advantages in experience, knowledge, devotion, and power.
Rather like that thread we had discussing that book, Are Men Necessary I believe it was called in which among other things, it was speculated that men generally prefer to have the edge over their mates in all three categories.
The roles and motives which you assign men-we still disagree on that, by the way, your position implies that men are cattle, incapable of controlling their bodily impulses-are, in this case, almost certainly that of the older woman in this case.
She is, it has been said, physically quite attractive. Obviously she is neither shy nor unwilling when it comes to seeking sexual partners. Such a woman would have little to no trouble finding a partner whom was more in her league in experience, knowledge, and power. But she chose a 14 year old boy.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting that the boy necessarily feels victimized or outraged. Quite possibly his reaction is the one you would have, and many men, including myself, have fantasized having. But that doesn't mean he wasn't victimized.
quote:It kind of does. When he is 80 years old, and he looks back at his life, I doubt he is going to think, "You know, one thing I regret in my life is that I slept with too many full breasted 25 year olds."
Hell, in a hostage situation, prisoners can develop Stockholm Syndrome in which they grow to love their captors. People go to astrologers all the time, and flush their money down the toilet. Such people might not feel victimized, either, but they still are, by major psychological manipulation and stress on one hand, and stupidity on the other.
You know, cows just love to chew cud, to stand around all day in the sun, to sleep, eat, drink, and defecate. Chances are they hardly notice that they're being milked or kept in cages, because the rest of the day, they're left to their own devices. The lucky ones even get to knock hooves with other cows to make baby cows.
But I had a hamburger for lunch today, Irami. No matter what that cow thought of his life, he was being victimzed. Which is fair enough, he's a freakin' cow. People should be different. People should not be expected or even encouraged, as you're suggesting with teenage boys, to dwell on, to thrive in their physical instincts. That's why we have houses and air conditioning and anti-biotics, so we don't have to do things like that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
To make it even more of an accurate analogy, if they were base jumping illegaly I wouldn't stop them. I might ask "Are you sure this is a good idea?" and try to tell them of the dangers. That's it. If someone I care about is impaired and unable to think for themselves, I'll help. Otherwise, they make their own choices.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
