Is this ever true. Men automatically under suspicion now.

[longeyes]

The problem is the mentality of lawyers and judges.  The odds are stacked.

Frankly, I have watched Feminism morph from a legitimate movement to ensure political and social equality for women to a quasi-religious jihad against men.  I find it very, very sad.

[CAnnoneer]

What the hell happened?

Suffrage.

[Barbara]

Face it guys..like the dodo, you had your turn, but its all about survival of the fittest and you ain't it anymore. Modern society requires a whole different set of traits.

We'll probably let you keep voting, though. As long as you're worthy, anyway, and don't try to make life difficult for us.

[Strings]

Ok... anyone else think it's time to fling poo at Barbara?

[CAnnoneer]

Face it guys..like the dodo, you had your turn, but its all about survival of the fittest and you ain't it anymore. Modern society requires a whole different set of traits.

"Modern" society is a house of cards. The more complex, the more unstable. Moreover, it undermines itself. While the dodo has no biological chance of resurrection, social organization is subject to ambient conditions and can easily change overnight under the right circumstances.

We'll probably let you keep voting, though. As long as you're worthy, anyway, and don't try to make life difficult for us.

Hehehehe. We'll see

[longeyes]

Face it guys..like the dodo, you had your turn, but its all about survival of the fittest and you ain't it anymore. Modern society requires a whole different set of traits.

I give "modern society" twenty years.  The people with the different set of traits are also people who aren't reproducing, and a lot of assumptions about "progressive society" will be proven to be short-lived.  Power comes out of the barrel of a gun and the penis, and the rest is an imaginary bubble. 

The middle-class woman of today is the product of men's kindness and men's technology.  Too bad so many women take this for granted when they side against the things that got them to where they are today in the West.

[Barbara]

I've been hearing how society is falling apart for nigh onto forty years now. I think we're doing ok. Some things are worse, some are better. Not necessarily better for white guys, but you had your turn.

Wait till we chicks get 75% of the House and Senate. That'll be cool, huh?

Then you guys will be whining about equality.

[Phyphor]

Then won't congress be declaring war every 28 days?   


<running like hell>

[CAnnoneer]

That was a mean blow, Phyphor. Let's keep the discussion clean.

In anything, the problem with a 75% female congress would be NOT declaring enough war, and NOT taking harsh but necessary steps, rather than the other way around.

I am with longeyes on this one. I would be crazy-happy if western civilization makes it through the next 30 years.

As far as feminism goes, it seems to me the personal aspirations of the few outweighed the benefit to the many. A society that has manly women and girly men denies nature. Nothing that denies nature survives for very long in the big scheme of things. Technology and social organization can insulate only that far.

From my observations, there is a large identity crisis both for men and women as a result of the breach of traditional gender roles. All the spinsters and divorcees that I have seen are inherently neurotic, unhappy, overstressed, hormonal, and often very lonely. They try to compete with men, often successfully, but at what price to themselves and others?

Freedom can be horribly oppressive to those that cannot shoulder it.

[Phyphor]

That was a mean blow, Phyphor. Let's keep the discussion clean.

Meant as a joke, actually.

In anything, the problem with a 75% female congress would be NOT declaring enough war, and NOT taking harsh but necessary steps, rather than the other way around.

I wouldn't say that!  Women who can survive in politics can be pretty damned mean when they have to be.

I am with longeyes on this one. I would be crazy-happy if western civilization makes it through the next 30 years.

I'm sure we'll muddle through.


<rest snipped>

[MechAg94]

I seriously doubt all women could work together to take over Congress without self destructing.  I doubt most women would vote for a woman just for that reason alone. 

[Hawkmoon]

But at the same time as this trend has developed, there seems to be a fairly recent attitude* that adult men should be ashamed of themselves if they notice the curves on a girl of high school age, as if they were potential child predators.  But the way many girls are dressed seems to announce their sexuality rather stridently, as if begging us all to notice.

Reminds me of an old joke.

A businessman walks into the employee lounge and sees the secretary wearing a derriere-hugging knit skirt. He walks up behind her, gives her a pat on the derriere, and politely asks, "Is this for sale?"

Horrified, she snaps back, "Of course not!"

Unperturbed, the boss responds, "Then perhaps you shouldn't be advertising."

[Hawkmoon]

What the hell happened?

This:

Then there is the ultimate double standard: The wink wink, nudge nudge, of boys getting their sexual initiation from grown women.

"Society sees it as they got 'lucky' " to receive a sexual initiation from a woman, according to Dr. Keith Kaufman, chairman of the department of psychology at Portland State University. "But their brain maturation isn't complete. Boys aren't in a position to give consent to a sexual relationship. Girls see it as abusive much more quickly. Boys won't want to see themselves as a victim."

There is a prevailing sense that boys are not harmed by sexual liaisons with older women. It's called the "Mrs. Robinson Syndrome," after the character in the 1967 film "The Graduate." But Benjamin, Mrs. Robinson's target, wasn't a child; he was in his 20s, had just graduated from college and was contemplating that career in plastics.

"We tend to see the female teacher-male student relationship as less abusive and less harmful psychologically," according to Dr. Susan G. Kornstein, a psychiatrist and director of the Institute for Women's Health and the Mood Disorders Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University. "But in fact, a sexual relationship between a female teacher and a male student can be just as harmful and can have both short- and long-term consequences on the child's emotional stability and psychological and sexual development."

Boys who have sex with grown women are anything but "lucky." "It is always abuse," says Dr. Kaufman.

Experts like "Dr." Kaufman came along, that's what the hell happened. Remember, he's a psychologist, not even a psychiatrist (not that they're any better. In fact, they may be worse, because they can back up their idiotic notions by drugging you into submission). What does he know? When I was in high school, every guy in my class would have died willingly for the chance to be "abused" by our HOT French teacher. Alac and alas, she wasn't interested in being a facilitator of any "rites of passage" and we were left to figure it out on our own.

[Strings]

Hawkmoon, adolescent fantasies aside, it's bad for the boys. It can VERY easily mess them up farther along in life...

 One trend I've noticed, is that the earlier a boy becomes sexually active, the less emotional attachment the act has later. One kid, who I KNOW was boffin' away at around 14, made the statement "hey... a f*** is a f***. Don't mean nuthin'!". To him, the act of sexual intercourse was absolutely meaningless outside of his immediate physical gratification. Which is part of the reason he ended up in prison, for murder (of a woman that wouldn't "put out" for him anymore)...

 And you'll please pardon the starred out profanity: that was a direct quote from said "misunderstood youth"...

 point being, boys are NOT usually emotionally mature enough to deal with the (as you say), "rite of passage" while in high school (especially early). To make matters worse, even if they ARE coerced by a female authority figure against their will, society has taught them that they've "gotten lucky", and should keep their mouths shut. That ain't right...

[Barbara]

As far as  goes, it seems to me the personal aspirations of the few outweighed the benefit to the many. A society that has manly women and girly men denies nature. Nothing that denies nature survives for very long in the big scheme of things. Technology and social organization can insulate only that far.

From my observations, there is a large identity crisis both for men and women as a result of the breach of traditional gender roles. All the spinsters and divorcees that I have seen are inherently neurotic, unhappy, overstressed, hormonal, and often very lonely. They try to compete with men, often successfully, but at what price to themselves and others?

Freedom can be horribly oppressive to those that cannot shoulder it.

Really working at justifying why I'm not entitled to freedom there, aren't you? I'll take the ugly with the good, thanks, but anyone who tries to deny me the right to live my life as I see fit is going to have a problem.

The 28 days thing was actually kind of funny.

[280plus]

they can back up their idiotic notions by drugging you into submission

Ain't THAT the truth...

The 28 days thing was actually kind of funny

I thought so too, in a HOLY CRAP!! DUCK!! kind of way... 

Somehow, reading some (but not all) of this, I'm reminded of the circa 1630 grave here in the nearby town of Tolland where the 30-something YO husband is buried next to his 16 YO wife. He did not survive her by very long. I always wanted to research that story but never have. Times have apparently changed... Of course I imagine back then being married was a matter of survival for both of them .

[tyme]

Strings, can you offer a mechanism by which sex will seriously disturb young teens?

My theory is that culture's insistence that young teens aren't ready for sex creates doubt and ambivalence in the teen's mind, which then screws up the teen psychologically.  There's the whole Mrs. Robinson thing, but ultimately culture strongly implies that both young males and young females aren't ready for sex, and teens would have to live under a rock not to pick up on that general cultural view.

I also noticed that in your example you didn't specify the age of the kid's partners.  Are you suggesting all sex should be banned below the age of consent?  ...below the age of majority?

You also completely ignore a plausible explanation for the kid's later homicide... that he was screwed up independent of his sexual history.  I'll even allow that being screwed up might make someone somewhat more likely to be promiscuous at a young age.

Your assertion that he was obviously psychologically/emotionally damaged because he didn't attach much emotion to sex is invalid, as far as I can tell.  First, I doubt you were actually present during any of his boffings, so you don't know how he behaved or reacted.  Everyone, and kids in particular, often misrepresent their sexual encounters (it's irrelevant for the sake of discussion whether this is purposeful or whether hormones cloud the brain and cause misremembering).  Second, a lot of people with a progressive/liberal general outlook don't attach much emotional meaning to sex if their partners don't seem like relationship material.  Maybe the kid just didn't find the right partner.

There's a huge jump from "a f* is just a f*" to "a girl is just a f*", which I think might be your implication with your observation that he later killed someone.  It simply doesn't follow that lack of emotional connection with a partner during sex leads to devaluing the partner as a human being.  Then there's the minor problem that a lot of people who have sex at a young age don't turn into killers, or even antisocial misogynists, reinforcing my theory that the kid in your example was seriously screwed up in other ways.

[Perd Hapley]

Strings, can you offer a mechanism by which sex will seriously disturb young teens?

My theory is that culture's insistence that young teens aren't ready for sex creates doubt and ambivalence in the teen's mind, which then screws up the teen psychologically.  There's the whole Mrs. Robinson thing, but ultimately culture strongly implies that both young males and young females aren't ready for sex, and teens would have to live under a rock not to pick up on that general cultural view.

Can you offer a mechanism by which doubt and ambivalence "screw people up psychologically"?  Why do you think the taboo is damaging, rather than the sexual activity?  Is there evidence to demonstrate that people have been psychologically damaged by a lack of sex in their teen years?  I find that people have urges to do many things that are considered wrong.  Should such taboos be dropped, to avoid psychological damage?  Might there be consequences to under-age sex that would outweigh psychological damage? 

This is not to say that I agree with Strings.  In my own estimation, age is not so much a factor as is the context of the sexual activity.  Age and moral judgments aside, amarital sex presents many physical dangers that could be easily avoided by abstinence.  Whatever psychological harm that may result would seem to be outweighed by the chances of STDs or pregnancy.  Not to mention that brushing aside taboos against amarital sex would only encourage the male tendency to use girls as sex toys.   

[CAnnoneer]

Really working at justifying why I'm not entitled to freedom there, aren't you? I'll take the ugly with the good, thanks, but anyone who tries to deny me the right to live my life as I see fit is going to have a problem.

We are talking about very wide averages. You may very well be one of the aspirant exceptions, but that does not nullify or undermine the general argument in any way.

In any case, the offered explanation is not inevitably tied to gender anyway, just highly correlated. There are many girly men that a sensible society would keep away from the political process as well. If there is a quick way to describe my own views on the subject, it would be something close to the Heinlein political model from Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie).

[tyme]

Can you offer a mechanism by which doubt and ambivalence "screw people up psychologically"?

Can we at least agree that the physical act of sticking Y into X doesn't somehow change neuron connections, resulting in the claimed psychological damage from sex at a young age?

So then we're left with the question of where the psychological damage comes from.  Strings' argument seems to boil down to some inherent psychological damage caused by sex at early post-pubescent stages in development, caused by genetics and mediated by chemical signaling (expressed as emotions).  Unless you or he are suggesting that there's some rational mechanism for self-caused psychological damage based on rational processing of the experience of sex, which I find equally bizarre.

People regularly go insane all the time based on ideas.  It's been demonstrated fairly conclusively that psychologists can convince people, particularly young people, of things that aren't true.  They then (re)act to those recollections as if they were true.  Is it such a stretch to conclude that societal taboos that seem harmless enough can convince people that something they did was wrong, maybe leading them to the subconscious conclusion that they're social misfits, inducing all sorts of other unhealthy behavior?

I can envision that even consensual sex between an older relative and a young teen (or child) could be developmentally damaging due to complex changes in family interactions.  However, I can't see how sex with peers or random other people would inherently cause problems in social or psychological development.

I find that people have urges to do many things that are considered wrong.  Should such taboos be dropped, to avoid psychological damage?

There aren't very many other taboos that involve consenting individuals and involve activities conducted in private.  And although I'm sure you'll pull some tangential taboo out of your hat, I'm pretty sure it won't involve an activity that is a biological/evolutionary necessity at the species level.

Why do you think the taboo is damaging, rather than the sexual activity?

Because it's a common pattern among higher mammals, and our closest genetic relatives, that they have sex starting at (or even slightly before) puberty.  Any "harm" this causes is pretty obviously due to some higher (psychological) phenomenon that is not primarily genetic/chemical.

[CAnnoneer]

If you start from the idea that consensual sex is somehow dirty and shameful unless a very specific set of conditions is met, and you instill that idea into a person, that person is likely to feel bad about having sex outside the boundaries of that set. The feeling of guilt may find different outlets, such as blaming others, decreased sense of self-worth, fear of societal retaliation. But, is it the act itself that caused the guilt, or the instilled attitude to it that started the chain of negative perceptions?

I purposefully do not define what the set of conditions is, because I am making a very general argument.

Most of ethics is not innate. It is trained and conditioned by society. Then an argument can be made that certain damage is done by the interaction of the individual with societal norms, rather than by the consensual act itself.

[roo_ster]

Can you offer a mechanism by which doubt and ambivalence "screw people up psychologically"?

Can we at least agree that the physical act of sticking Y into X doesn't somehow change neuron connections, resulting in the claimed psychological damage from sex at a young age?

No, we can not, as it does change brain function and chemistry.

[Jamisjockey]

That was a mean blow, Phyphor. Let's keep the discussion clean.

I thought it was pretty damn funny!

[CAnnoneer]

I thought it was pretty damn funny!

I didn't say it wasn't funny. I said it was mean.

[Strings]

Ok... first off, although I can't say how the boy in my example conducted his affairs during the act, I CAN say that he engaged in the act: I ran into him in the process one night. And nowhere did I imply that sex at a young age leads to homicide: I suggest that, becoming sexually active at a young age helped lead to the emotional disconnect in this case (yes, boy was screwed up before).

 And it's not just that one: EVERY male I've run into, who became sexually active before the age of 16, seems to be messed up (emotionally). Could it be caused by the societal taboo? Sure... but how do we delete the taboo? And, without running a study (which would take at least 16-20 years), we have no way of knowing what the actual cause of the problem is.

 I'm not suggesting we get draconian, trying to enforce some sort of "age of consent" on peers: if two 14 year-olds decide they're gonna do it, they WILL find a way. However, saying that there's no problem with Ms French seducing lil' Johnny, as it does him no harm, is patent BS. Regardless of wether the resulting emotional problem is because of societal influences or something internal, the damage is still there.

 We're discussing someone dying of a sucking chest wound, and you want to argue what make gun was used. Regardless, the damage IS there, and needs to be addressed...