Dobbs 3K Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 One of the biggest problems of adolescence is sexual suppression by society. The teenage years are the time when sexual energy is at its height. Why should it be repressed? Do you really need it explained, or are you purposedly trying to obstinate? Because most people feel that STDs and pregnancy should at least be put off until college, when the kids are, you know, adults.
cbacon Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 Sex education exists you know. You know, the kind of thing the Africans you feel unworthy to help need.
Dobbs 3K Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 Yeah, when their own leaders are having them take holy water to cure AIDS, I don't know if there is much we can do about that.
snuffbox Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 Africans need more abstinence-only education. That would cure aids, homosexuality, and Islamofundamentalradicalfascism.
Dobbs 3K Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 Eh...kind of hard to have that when their rulers get to have their pick of 100s of local virgins.
cbacon Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 I don't think Invader knows what he's even arguing about anymore. Anyways, let dem kids have secks
Dr. Zaius Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 There's a very practical reason why sex is supressed. My assumption is that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, but that assumption is based on the idea that adults are responsible for their own actions and would have to face the consequences if they behaved in a dangerous way. Parents are legally responsible for children's well-being, and because of their emotional development, are usually too immature to deal responsibly with sex until they are adults.
Ripper Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 I wanted to continue to argue some points, but I personally don't believe that C-bacon can be serious at all. The human body isn't supposed to be having sex that young. It isn't done developing. No person can seriously sit here and say they are fine with any child that has gone through puberty (which is like 10-11) having sex with each other because there is sex education. You just can't be serious or you are in a word insane. Man. Bacon, you and Invader3k are like the opposite ends of the spectrum. Neither of you could possibly get more delusional or crazy.
Dobbs 3K Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 Man. Bacon, you and Invader3k are like the opposite ends of the spectrum. Well, like, duh.
cbacon Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Parents are legally responsible for children's well-being, and because of their emotional development, are usually too immature to deal responsibly with sex until they are adults. I think I generally agree, but there are cases when someone as young as 10 or 11 is ready in their own mind, and that's all that should matter. Though I wasn't referring to children that young when I made my initial statement regarding sexual liberation of teenagers
theintensifier Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Invader3K vs C-Bacon in a nutshell That is so awesome. Unless a child is paying the electricity bill, internet bill and bought the computer, then they actually don't own any of the shit in the house, therefore, they aren't entitled to privacy in that case. I guess you are also in favor to say a 14 year old bringing over their boy or girlfriend and closing the door to their room and the parents not being able to open the door, because they should respect their privacy. QFT The right to privacy is implied, but not stated out-right in the U.S. Constitution. The limits and bounds are pretty ambiguous. All rights have limits, though. I refuse to take this argument that children are just mini-adults with the same rights and ability to make decisions seriously, though. It is pretty self-evident that, as a whole, children are too immature to make informed decisions for themselves. That's why parents are held legally accountable for their actions and are given decision making-power over them until the age of 18. QFT Unless a child is paying the electricity bill, internet bill and bought the computer, then they actually don't own any of the shit in the house, therefore, they aren't entitled to privacy in that case. Parents don't own their MySpace account, which last I checked, was free. I guess you are also in favor to say a 14 year old bringing over their boy or girlfriend and closing the door to their room and the parents not being able to open the door, because they should respect their privacy. That's essentially what privacy entails, yes. One of the biggest problems of adolescence is sexual suppression by society. The teenage years are the time when sexual energy is at its height. Why should it be repressed? Let's see, their physiology cannot handle the stress of sexual intercourse, nor do they know how to properly protect themselves effectively, teenage pregnancy (were #1 in that area by the way), sexually transmitted diseases, etc. Yeah, that's why. Have a kid and see. Exactly. Sex education exists you know. You know, the kind of thing the Africans you feel unworthy to help need. Most schools don't allow anything of merit to be taught in sexual education. You could have a Marine Corps Drill Instructor screaming in a kids face, but the moment he turns his back, you know what's going to happen. Hah. Yeah, sex education is going to help the African nation, you know, since the men actually pay the hookers more for unprotected sex, and/or rape an average of 147 women daily. Sex education will help out tremendously. Yeah, when their own leaders are having them take holy water to cure AIDS, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. Are you fucking serious? If that is true......jesus christ.
Dobbs 3K Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263662,00.html Story from Ethiopia that I referenced. No amount of condom handouts is going to overcome that sort of thing.
Boon Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Parents are legally responsible for children's well-being, and because of their emotional development, are usually too immature to deal responsibly with sex until they are adults. I think I generally agree, but there are cases when someone as young as 10 or 11 is ready in their own mind, and that's all that should matter. Though I wasn't referring to children that young when I made my initial statement regarding sexual liberation of teenagers Just to clarify- are you saying that kids as young as 10 should be able to have sex if they believe they're mentally ready?
Dobbs 3K Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 That's still stupid. Do any of you remember what you were like when you 10? Can anyone here honestly say it would've been good to have intercourse at 10 years old, and that it wouldn't have affected their psyche?
cbacon Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Parents are legally responsible for children's well-being, and because of their emotional development, are usually too immature to deal responsibly with sex until they are adults. I think I generally agree, but there are cases when someone as young as 10 or 11 is ready in their own mind, and that's all that should matter. Though I wasn't referring to children that young when I made my initial statement regarding sexual liberation of teenagers Just to clarify- are you saying that kids as young as 10 should be able to have sex if they believe they're mentally ready? The question is, who is going to stop them? Parents? The state? Kids may or may not choose to listen to them, but if they want to have sex they might decide to, and no, I don't think they or their partners should be punished for it.
cbacon Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 But I don't think punishment is ever an appropriate response to a perceived "wrong," nor do I think any entirely consensual activity should ever be prohibited. Nor do I think young people need to be protected any more than other people.
Ripper Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 what the hell does "QFT" mean? I am behind in my internet speak.
Guest Eagle Man Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Quoted for truth. e.g., I think we need to send pot smokers to hard labor camps in Alaska.QFT. It's a hot and trendy new way to make a big post full of quote boxes and text and not add anything to the discussion!
theintensifier Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 Were you attempting to make yourself look like an ass? If so, you did a damn good job of it.
Guest Eagle Man Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 I don't believe I was wrong in my assessment.
snuffbox Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 Instensifier is like Mike-lite. Having spent some time at that board he's seen how to use that posting style of harassing others when they make dissenting points/jokes without actually adding anything sensible or openminded to any conversation. Then, when the heckling turns towards him he simply can not take it. Plenty of examples of this in the past couple days here as intensifier simply quotes alot, gives a limp response, then jumps on anyone that isn't taking this messageboard seriously.
theintensifier Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 Instensifier is like Mike-lite. Having spent some time at that board he's seen how to use that posting style of harassing others when they make dissenting points/jokes without actually adding anything sensible or openminded to any conversation. Then, when the heckling turns towards him he simply can not take it. Plenty of examples of this in the past couple days here as intensifier simply quotes alot, gives a limp response, then jumps on anyone that isn't taking this messageboard seriously. 1. How can't I take it? Its just annoying when posters like Eagle Man (or whoever he really is, its impossible to keep up with all of the name changes) flood a topic that was having a good discussion with his idiotic attempts to insult the people actually contributing to this thread. 2. I quote as much as any other person on this board, and the only reason I've had to quote so much was due to my tardiness from the thread. 3. How are my responses exactly weak? 4. And you don't? You're always the first one to jump down someone's throat when they lack the necessary seriousness in a topic. I like to have a some what serious conversation in this folder, which is its purpose, and posters like Eagle Man need to stick to the CS where their bullshit is appreciated.
Slayer Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 You really have been hanging out at the Pit too much "This is a serious topic for serious discussion that needs to be discussed seriously!"
theintensifier Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 Yeah, the Pit has that effect on people.
snuffbox Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 If I call you a pussy will you put me on ignore?
Boon Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 "This is a serious topic for serious discussion that needs to be discussed seriously!"
Boon Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 You think 10 year olds should be allowed to have sex.
theintensifier Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 If I call you a pussy will you put me on ignore? No. But I would ask why you'd call me a pussy, though. And then ask "would you really care if I did put you on ignore?".
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now