Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-06-10 19:59:46
Plenty. Though "dogs" aren't on my favorite list, the comment is still more spot on than they'd like to know.
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 7 points on 2016-06-10 20:31:49
Yes I have had some very awkward moments in the past. My friends and I have a habit of saying things that most people would think are very obscure in a very suave manner. Sometimes it's hard to go with it when it catches you off guard.
WeAreDifferentCanines 12 points on 2016-06-10 21:59:24
Me and my brothers curse at each other. A lot. For fun.
So it became a frequently used "joke" made by my two brothers (and myself even), that I'm such a perverted and horny being, I wouldn't even hesitate to fuck my dog, because I couldn't withstand her cute rump wagging around, basically begging me to fuck her. ^They ^don't ^know ^how ^right ^they ^are.
To have my own counter, I called my brother and his male cat faglords, who would frot their dicks every time they went to sleep. The other brother faps to his screen watching Hentai, because "not even" animals would have sex with him.
Dats' loving family.
But aside from that, I've actually had a very similar experience happen like you, OP. It happens and it's always funny.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 7 points on 2016-06-10 23:00:31
I like when people joke around with zoophilia.
Kexylea 2 points on 2016-06-11 00:11:15
After meeting a very strange dude at a mutual friend's party, my best friend and I were discussing how it was unacceptable for how touchy feely he was with the two people he didn't know (us, both being female and younger than him). Somehow we ended up on the subject of taboo sex and rape and I, being slightly drunk, mentioned that necrophilia and pedophilia were disgusting and unacceptable. We laughed about it, but neither of us mentioned zoophilia. I am kinda curious if she picked up on that or not. Guess I will never know?
Swibblestein 1 point on 2016-06-11 05:30:40
Now see, while I feel that necrophilia is personally disgusting, and there are plenty of legal issues, I don't see why it would be unacceptable.
Say that someone had an agreement with someone else along the lines of "when I die, you can have sex with my corpse". Would that be wrong?
Again, I can see there being a myriad of legal issues that I'm not quite sure how to resolve, but is it morally wrong, and if so, why?
Kexylea 3 points on 2016-06-11 18:19:34
Personally, I find it wrong even with a mutual agreement prior to death due to the increased chance of diseases spreading and bacterial buildup within a dead body. It doesn't take long for the body to start decomposing (even of there are no physical signs of it). However, have sex with a dead body right after death is still a problem. The brain continues to think and feel after death (unless you know death was caused by intense brain trauma, but with that type of trauma the body maybe unsuitable for fucking). Another thing I think I should being up, again this is personally preference, sex is mutual between the two or more persons. Otherwise it is rape or masturbation. In my opinion, it's not exactly have sex with the dead body, but using it as a sex toy. The concept of nechrophilia is similar to cannibalism. Even with a mutual agreement prior to death and the act itself, it is still not safe for the person doing the act of nechrophilia or cannibalism due to the spread of diseases and how quickly the human body is known to decompose. If any of that makes sense to you. I'm really not the best to explain things.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2016-06-11 19:17:30
that's actually a very good explanation
Kexylea 1 point on 2016-06-11 20:25:04
Oh, okay. Thank you!
Swibblestein 2 points on 2016-06-11 19:45:40
See, now, I really don't think the disease argument holds water.
First off, I think people have the right to do things that are dangerous to themselves. For instance, a person may want to go tornado-chasing. Probably not the safest thing to do, but I don't think it's right to forbid them from it.
It's only an issue when other people's safety is at risk, in which case you'd need to demonstrate that the diseases they're likely to get would be significantly contagious to others.
Also that reasonable precautions (condoms, for one) would not protect against these diseases.
The disease argument was historically (and still is) used against homosexuality, especially in the context of HIV. I'm curious if you believe that argument is valid or not.
As far as death goes, that the brain is alive after death applies only if you use the definition of death of "stopped heart". I'm using the definition of "stopped brain", because while we can restart a stopped heart, we cannot restart a stopped brain.
Kexylea 1 point on 2016-06-11 20:47:28
The bacteria from a freshly dead body can spread very easily (which is why the people that clean up after the death of someone as well as those that work at the morgue and funeral homes wear gloves, goggles, etc and clean themselves after removing said gloves etc). Its a hazard for those that come into contact with said necrophiliac. During the swine flu and ebola scares, they quarantined the sick as well as the recently deceased. Families of the sick found this to be immoral and actually snuck into quarantined zones and spread the viruses outside, causing more outbreaks. Tornado chasing and riding rollar coasters is dangerous, but it doesn't make further contact with others dangerous. Condoms can help protect against STIs, bacteria, etc but that are not foolproof. The thing with HIV is that it used to be believed (although some uneducated or close-minded people still believe) that only gay males and trans people could get it. Some straight males even commuted suicide because they were positive for HIV. It wasn't until later that they realized that the HIV virus was spread from bodily fluids and anybody could catch it. I agree that death happens when all vital organs fully shut down. However, there have been cases of people who's vitals were gone for hours (in one case I read it was days but that was before the health advantages of today so I don't think it's reliable) and yet they woke back up. Yes, it's unlikely to happen, but it sure as Hell would be awkward.
SusitarCanidae 1 point on 2016-06-12 14:49:22
A cleaned skeleton would not spread disease, and it seems like some necrophiliacs prefer skeletons and bones. And well, I think consent before death equals consent. After all, when we donate organs we sign the paper before death, and that counts as consent even though we cannot change our mind after death.
Kexylea 1 point on 2016-06-14 08:42:08
Isn't the attraction to bones called something else though?
SusitarCanidae 1 point on 2016-06-14 14:47:05
I think it falls under necrophilia even if it's only parts of the body, yes. There was the famous case of the "necrophiliac woman" here in Sweden not too long ago, and she only collected skeletons and bones. Illegally, yes, but anyway.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2016-06-11 19:18:16
What about hebephilia? Or are you even aware of that term?
Kexylea 1 point on 2016-06-11 20:51:20
The sexual attraction to adolescents. I categorize that within pedophilia (I know that it's not correct terminology, but it is common at least in the US to consider anyone below the age of 18 a child).
Kexylea 2 points on 2016-06-11 20:54:36
I mean, personally, I believe that you are a child if you are still in your teens. A lot of people may find that odd, but I'm okay with being considered a child until I'm 20.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2016-06-13 00:14:17
Well I have to disagree with you VERY strongly there. A child stops being a child when they start having sexual desires. Then they are a teenager which is another thing altogether, and which should be bound by different rules.
Kexylea 2 points on 2016-06-14 08:50:02
Until the brain and sexual organs are fully developed, they are not matured enough to be considered an adult. The way you see it is like saying asexuals or demisexuals can never be adults because they don't feel sexual desires. Some very young people (we're talking 4-9 years of age) start to masturbate and even develope sexual thoughts and feelings. That certainly doesn'tt make them teens or adults. Hell, a teen is just a child that has reached double digits (10-19) hence the name.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2016-06-14 19:51:29
My point is that you can't say that just someone's below a certain age that means sexual intercourse with them is somehow immoral. Note, I'm not advocating it, but I certainly don't believe in thinking people are "pedophiles" or "monsters" if they choose to interact sexually with someone WILLING who is younger than the arbitrary age of 18. Plenty of science has been done which shows that sexual interaction between a "child" and adult, or another "child," if willing and consensual, has very little long-term effect upon their psychological health. Now if NOT consensual - that's another story.
[deleted] 1 point on 2016-06-15 22:55:04
[deleted]
SexySpinster75 2 points on 2016-06-15 22:57:45
I never understood why if a child sprays a school with bullets ..said child is considered an adult in court yet that same child fucks someone a month older than them and all of a sudden they were raped because they are a child and treated as if they were not able to think as an adult and consent.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2016-06-16 01:13:16
Precisely.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-06-19 03:42:35
That is a better argument against treating murderous children as adults than one for treating adolescents as fully functional sexual beings.
SexySpinster75 0 points on 2016-06-19 06:28:40
Not the point. Obviously it can go either way
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-20 19:54:51
Not in my mind, to be frank.
SexySpinster75 1 point on 2016-06-20 20:05:58
It's my point, my opinion has nothing to do with your mind
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-20 22:09:28
I'm simply stating that your point seems rather blunt in my view. But hey, whatevs.
Ineedrealanswers 1 point on 2016-06-19 16:16:17
That is because we fear violent behavior and believe they are inherently evil. Thus unbale to be reformed. Look at the US prison system. It is about money for the private ones (more people means more money), and we no longer correct their bad behavior. We as a country, don't trust thearpy or believe in mental health with violent beings. That said not compare able to a child having sex with an adult.
A month older is different than a decade older, btw. People love the 17 with an 18 year old pretending that is all they referring to. When they really they also mean 12/13/14 with 20s/30s/40s+
Ineedrealanswers 2 points on 2016-06-19 16:10:07
Within age range children can be with other children. They both have underdeveloped brains and less likely to exploit one another like adult with a child. You cannot pretend that age doesn't give one more (more delevoped brain. I recommend looking up child's brain vs adolescent brain vs adult brain.)
How do you define willing? What if the child has sex the adult based on fear of punishment? The adult lies to a child in order to gain sex? The adult does not disclose they are having sex but is a game? The adult gives the child an STD? What if the adult has to convince the child to have sex? I think you assume that any willing child is comfortable and truly consenting. As a child I was very obedient child, even when I didn't want to do what was asked of me. I'm glad I never had an adult take advantage of that.
You can trick a child to be willing, aka grooming.
A big issue that people who think kids should consent never recongize that those children would have to prove in the court of law they were raped. If we force kids to prove they were raped wouldn't it make it easier for rapist to be seen as not guilty? Now children don't have to prove they were sexually assaulted, of their is proof of sex that is enough. If children can consent they have to prove this. Plenty of sexually assulted doesn't result in any injuries or at least long-term lasting. Or just like women, people will could claim "false rape accusation", "they just regretted it", "the were asking for it based on what hey had on", or "they are a slut" etc.
Children tend to be protected with extra laws because it lifts the burden off of them. Based on multi-faceted research children are not aduts and thus certain things they cant handle and shouldn't be forced to. By giving them "more rights" you give them more burdens. Children have guardians for a reason.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2016-06-20 00:43:28
I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about teenagers who are capable of sexual desire and also of recognizing when someone is attempting to manipulate them. When I was 13 I was mature enough to consent or not consent to sexual intercourse with a full understanding of the meaning of it. I never had any opportunity to do so and probably would have chosen not to - but I DID have a mind capable of consenting, I am certain of that. Maybe that isn't true for others but it was true for me. I DO think however that it should be illegal to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent person - a child - however.
Ineedrealanswers 3 points on 2016-06-20 02:26:30
I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about teenagers who are capable of sexual desire and also of recognizing when someone is attempting to manipulate them.
Do you really believe that teenagers will be able to tell? Adults still get manipulated.
When I was 13 I was mature enough to consent or not consent to sexual intercourse with a full understanding of the meaning of it.
You did? You didn't defy biology and have a brain that was delevop ed like an adult in their 20s.
>I never had any opportunity to do so and probably would have chosen not to
Many people feel this way. I was very sexual and thought I wanted sex. Looking back I didn't have the ability of consent. Plus I had a low self-esteem so I would have been easy to exploit. Thus is important. Many people if being honest will cite they have sexual desires. However masturbating is not the same as engaging with another person. Glad I stuck to masturbation.
>but I DID have a mind capable of consenting, I am certain of that. Maybe that isn't true for others but it was true for me.
This isn't about individual basis rather laws have to be general. If we lived in a small village and had uncomplicated, short lives then I could see the argument for individual judge basis.
I DO think however that it should be illegal to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent person - a child - however
Another issue is that the lines of prepubescent and pubescent are blurred. One might start puberty at 7 another at 12. How would the law handle these cases? Poorly. We'd have to test children somehow. For girls puberty begins at breast growth. You want people looking at little girls chest to determine she can have sex? Err.
Unfortunately the law doesn't recongize exceptions to the rules or individuals. Our complex society can't handle those aspects, thus we generalize with laws. The interests are the same, welfare for the children, but our positions are different. Children/teens make poor choices, their brains can't help it so we try to protect them as much as possible. That is the point I think is most important. Although sex isn't innately harmful their are risks unique to sex that we must avoid. People want to protect children/teens from those risks that can permanently alter your life for the worse. Their brains don't think long term and are prone to be risker. This can't be fully changed by social aspects. Biology has to do its work and help the maturity of the brain.
However I do believe there needs to be better sex education. Less information leads to more problems. Additionally I don't have an issue with teens experimenting with other teens. Adults should stay out of it or an older party should stay out of it (a 16 should not be with a 12 year old). We tend to let minors enage in activities within their age group. Age limit is important. After 20/21 even if a person needs a high school diploma they should not be in a high school for it. Just like a 20+ cannot join a high school sports team even if they are less skilled then all the teens on the team. In society we separate many activities based on age, sex is one.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2016-06-22 00:42:46
Thank you for the conversation and for not simply going "EWW YOU'RE A PEDO" and refusing to reply when I started this. I don't really know how to defend my views much more, but it is very nice to see people who are open minded enough to talk about it at least. :)
In general I would prefer that people not have sexual intercourse at all until they are at least 18 and preferably older than that because it's true, they often are immature. All I am thinking is that our society unfairly paints a picture of people interested in minors as monsters, unfairly puts them in jail in the special cases where true consent occurred, and that the issue needs to be thought and debated about - like we have been doing - instead of just dogmatically ignored. :)
Ineedrealanswers 2 points on 2016-06-22 15:35:08
Thank you for not taking this personally. I can't stand discusdions that resort to name calling and insults. I'll admit i have done that before. I think discussions like this are important. We have the same interests, the welfare of people and of beings in general. Our positions may differ, but it is critical we remember the interests.
I think everyone has been attracted to a minor, especially the gray area ones. I am in my 20s but have been mistaken for 14-16 by people of all ages. Age can be hard to discern.
For certain individuals I think they need mental health more than prison. Or they should have the same provisions that sucidual people have (hotlines, hospitalization) I do believe that certain individuals didn't mean any harm to the minor. Unfortunately the law isn't about exceptions to the rules, but blanket sentences.
Valiant1204Now with added gay! 6 points on 2016-06-11 13:57:36
I was talking to a gay friend (who knows about me) and a guy advised me to be wary around him because he would 'corrupt' me. Me and my friend laughed greatly.
KynophileDog lover 6 points on 2016-06-11 18:09:42
I make a lot of jokes about bestiality to my friends, to the point where some of them surely know at this point. Here are a couple of my favorites:
Girl: Oh my god, Disney channel is doing a marathon of their movies. I can't wait!
Me: Meh. None of them are all that good, in my opinion.
Girl: What?! But Wizards of Waverly Place was awesome!
Gay Guy: Luck of the Irish was my sexual awakening!
Me: Mine was Scooby Doo, but that doesn't make it a good movie.
awkward silence, followed by prolonged conversation on hot guys in Degrassi.
Another time, we were having a conversation about the hanky codes in gay bars (I have a lot of gay friends). This led to the following exchange:
Older Gay Guy: I remember this one time that a couple cops came in with German Shepherds, and everybody got nervous that they'd be arrested.
Me: Why, were any of you wearing fur hankies? That could've been fun.
cue knowing looks among the gay men in the group.
For the finale, once I walked into a conversation with some acquaintances, talking about one of the strangest family conversations they ever had. It went like this:
Young Woman: So he asked if there was another man in my life, and I said, "It's not a man..."
Older Woman: Hehe, it was probably a Great Dane.
Me: YES!!! two thumbs up, giant smile
bemused looks and laughter all around.
G_Shepherdfluffy wuffy 2 points on 2016-06-11 23:32:20
Me and a good friend tend to joke about a lot of controversial things.
One of the things that I still remember was when she joked;
"Look at that girl over there (which was not at all our type of person we'd love to hang out with) walking an Anatolian shep, I bet if you had to choose between them, you'd choose to fuck that dog.
Where I replied; "hell yeah"
We both laughed at it and continued as usual, and I'm thinking: "you have no idea how true this is."
zetacola+ Rum 3 points on 2016-06-12 18:53:59
Mum: So, zetacola, do you want to go back to Costa Rica, maybe you'll see your girlfriend again?
Friend: What? Zetacola had a girlfriend?
Mum: It was a cute little dog. A female.
Me: Eh... \*stares at wall with awkward smile\*
Hotdogzew-Fiel 4 points on 2016-06-16 19:00:53
My dog sleeps in my bed, a friend of mine who is staying with me currently walked in on us "cuddling". He basically said along the lines of "man that dog is soooo fucking lucky to have found you"
He doesn't know that I just had my lips behind his knot a few minutes prior.
schlomocobaltstein 0 points on 2016-06-24 04:33:39
/r/zoophilia archive
Plenty. Though "dogs" aren't on my favorite list, the comment is still more spot on than they'd like to know.
Yes I have had some very awkward moments in the past. My friends and I have a habit of saying things that most people would think are very obscure in a very suave manner. Sometimes it's hard to go with it when it catches you off guard.
Me and my brothers curse at each other. A lot. For fun.
So it became a frequently used "joke" made by my two brothers (and myself even), that I'm such a perverted and horny being, I wouldn't even hesitate to fuck my dog, because I couldn't withstand her cute rump wagging around, basically begging me to fuck her. ^They ^don't ^know ^how ^right ^they ^are.
To have my own counter, I called my brother and his male cat faglords, who would frot their dicks every time they went to sleep. The other brother faps to his screen watching Hentai, because "not even" animals would have sex with him.
Dats' loving family.
But aside from that, I've actually had a very similar experience happen like you, OP. It happens and it's always funny.
I like when people joke around with zoophilia.
After meeting a very strange dude at a mutual friend's party, my best friend and I were discussing how it was unacceptable for how touchy feely he was with the two people he didn't know (us, both being female and younger than him). Somehow we ended up on the subject of taboo sex and rape and I, being slightly drunk, mentioned that necrophilia and pedophilia were disgusting and unacceptable. We laughed about it, but neither of us mentioned zoophilia. I am kinda curious if she picked up on that or not. Guess I will never know?
Now see, while I feel that necrophilia is personally disgusting, and there are plenty of legal issues, I don't see why it would be unacceptable.
Say that someone had an agreement with someone else along the lines of "when I die, you can have sex with my corpse". Would that be wrong?
Again, I can see there being a myriad of legal issues that I'm not quite sure how to resolve, but is it morally wrong, and if so, why?
Personally, I find it wrong even with a mutual agreement prior to death due to the increased chance of diseases spreading and bacterial buildup within a dead body. It doesn't take long for the body to start decomposing (even of there are no physical signs of it). However, have sex with a dead body right after death is still a problem. The brain continues to think and feel after death (unless you know death was caused by intense brain trauma, but with that type of trauma the body maybe unsuitable for fucking). Another thing I think I should being up, again this is personally preference, sex is mutual between the two or more persons. Otherwise it is rape or masturbation. In my opinion, it's not exactly have sex with the dead body, but using it as a sex toy. The concept of nechrophilia is similar to cannibalism. Even with a mutual agreement prior to death and the act itself, it is still not safe for the person doing the act of nechrophilia or cannibalism due to the spread of diseases and how quickly the human body is known to decompose. If any of that makes sense to you. I'm really not the best to explain things.
that's actually a very good explanation
Oh, okay. Thank you!
See, now, I really don't think the disease argument holds water.
First off, I think people have the right to do things that are dangerous to themselves. For instance, a person may want to go tornado-chasing. Probably not the safest thing to do, but I don't think it's right to forbid them from it.
It's only an issue when other people's safety is at risk, in which case you'd need to demonstrate that the diseases they're likely to get would be significantly contagious to others.
Also that reasonable precautions (condoms, for one) would not protect against these diseases.
The disease argument was historically (and still is) used against homosexuality, especially in the context of HIV. I'm curious if you believe that argument is valid or not.
As far as death goes, that the brain is alive after death applies only if you use the definition of death of "stopped heart". I'm using the definition of "stopped brain", because while we can restart a stopped heart, we cannot restart a stopped brain.
The bacteria from a freshly dead body can spread very easily (which is why the people that clean up after the death of someone as well as those that work at the morgue and funeral homes wear gloves, goggles, etc and clean themselves after removing said gloves etc). Its a hazard for those that come into contact with said necrophiliac. During the swine flu and ebola scares, they quarantined the sick as well as the recently deceased. Families of the sick found this to be immoral and actually snuck into quarantined zones and spread the viruses outside, causing more outbreaks. Tornado chasing and riding rollar coasters is dangerous, but it doesn't make further contact with others dangerous. Condoms can help protect against STIs, bacteria, etc but that are not foolproof. The thing with HIV is that it used to be believed (although some uneducated or close-minded people still believe) that only gay males and trans people could get it. Some straight males even commuted suicide because they were positive for HIV. It wasn't until later that they realized that the HIV virus was spread from bodily fluids and anybody could catch it. I agree that death happens when all vital organs fully shut down. However, there have been cases of people who's vitals were gone for hours (in one case I read it was days but that was before the health advantages of today so I don't think it's reliable) and yet they woke back up. Yes, it's unlikely to happen, but it sure as Hell would be awkward.
A cleaned skeleton would not spread disease, and it seems like some necrophiliacs prefer skeletons and bones. And well, I think consent before death equals consent. After all, when we donate organs we sign the paper before death, and that counts as consent even though we cannot change our mind after death.
Isn't the attraction to bones called something else though?
I think it falls under necrophilia even if it's only parts of the body, yes. There was the famous case of the "necrophiliac woman" here in Sweden not too long ago, and she only collected skeletons and bones. Illegally, yes, but anyway.
What about hebephilia? Or are you even aware of that term?
The sexual attraction to adolescents. I categorize that within pedophilia (I know that it's not correct terminology, but it is common at least in the US to consider anyone below the age of 18 a child).
I mean, personally, I believe that you are a child if you are still in your teens. A lot of people may find that odd, but I'm okay with being considered a child until I'm 20.
Well I have to disagree with you VERY strongly there. A child stops being a child when they start having sexual desires. Then they are a teenager which is another thing altogether, and which should be bound by different rules.
Until the brain and sexual organs are fully developed, they are not matured enough to be considered an adult. The way you see it is like saying asexuals or demisexuals can never be adults because they don't feel sexual desires. Some very young people (we're talking 4-9 years of age) start to masturbate and even develope sexual thoughts and feelings. That certainly doesn'tt make them teens or adults. Hell, a teen is just a child that has reached double digits (10-19) hence the name.
My point is that you can't say that just someone's below a certain age that means sexual intercourse with them is somehow immoral. Note, I'm not advocating it, but I certainly don't believe in thinking people are "pedophiles" or "monsters" if they choose to interact sexually with someone WILLING who is younger than the arbitrary age of 18. Plenty of science has been done which shows that sexual interaction between a "child" and adult, or another "child," if willing and consensual, has very little long-term effect upon their psychological health. Now if NOT consensual - that's another story.
[deleted]
I never understood why if a child sprays a school with bullets ..said child is considered an adult in court yet that same child fucks someone a month older than them and all of a sudden they were raped because they are a child and treated as if they were not able to think as an adult and consent.
Precisely.
That is a better argument against treating murderous children as adults than one for treating adolescents as fully functional sexual beings.
Not the point. Obviously it can go either way
Not in my mind, to be frank.
It's my point, my opinion has nothing to do with your mind
I'm simply stating that your point seems rather blunt in my view. But hey, whatevs.
That is because we fear violent behavior and believe they are inherently evil. Thus unbale to be reformed. Look at the US prison system. It is about money for the private ones (more people means more money), and we no longer correct their bad behavior. We as a country, don't trust thearpy or believe in mental health with violent beings. That said not compare able to a child having sex with an adult.
A month older is different than a decade older, btw. People love the 17 with an 18 year old pretending that is all they referring to. When they really they also mean 12/13/14 with 20s/30s/40s+
Within age range children can be with other children. They both have underdeveloped brains and less likely to exploit one another like adult with a child. You cannot pretend that age doesn't give one more (more delevoped brain. I recommend looking up child's brain vs adolescent brain vs adult brain.)
How do you define willing? What if the child has sex the adult based on fear of punishment? The adult lies to a child in order to gain sex? The adult does not disclose they are having sex but is a game? The adult gives the child an STD? What if the adult has to convince the child to have sex? I think you assume that any willing child is comfortable and truly consenting. As a child I was very obedient child, even when I didn't want to do what was asked of me. I'm glad I never had an adult take advantage of that.
You can trick a child to be willing, aka grooming.
A big issue that people who think kids should consent never recongize that those children would have to prove in the court of law they were raped. If we force kids to prove they were raped wouldn't it make it easier for rapist to be seen as not guilty? Now children don't have to prove they were sexually assaulted, of their is proof of sex that is enough. If children can consent they have to prove this. Plenty of sexually assulted doesn't result in any injuries or at least long-term lasting. Or just like women, people will could claim "false rape accusation", "they just regretted it", "the were asking for it based on what hey had on", or "they are a slut" etc.
Children tend to be protected with extra laws because it lifts the burden off of them. Based on multi-faceted research children are not aduts and thus certain things they cant handle and shouldn't be forced to. By giving them "more rights" you give them more burdens. Children have guardians for a reason.
I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about teenagers who are capable of sexual desire and also of recognizing when someone is attempting to manipulate them. When I was 13 I was mature enough to consent or not consent to sexual intercourse with a full understanding of the meaning of it. I never had any opportunity to do so and probably would have chosen not to - but I DID have a mind capable of consenting, I am certain of that. Maybe that isn't true for others but it was true for me. I DO think however that it should be illegal to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent person - a child - however.
Do you really believe that teenagers will be able to tell? Adults still get manipulated.
You did? You didn't defy biology and have a brain that was delevop ed like an adult in their 20s.
>I never had any opportunity to do so and probably would have chosen not to
Many people feel this way. I was very sexual and thought I wanted sex. Looking back I didn't have the ability of consent. Plus I had a low self-esteem so I would have been easy to exploit. Thus is important. Many people if being honest will cite they have sexual desires. However masturbating is not the same as engaging with another person. Glad I stuck to masturbation.
>but I DID have a mind capable of consenting, I am certain of that. Maybe that isn't true for others but it was true for me.
This isn't about individual basis rather laws have to be general. If we lived in a small village and had uncomplicated, short lives then I could see the argument for individual judge basis.
Another issue is that the lines of prepubescent and pubescent are blurred. One might start puberty at 7 another at 12. How would the law handle these cases? Poorly. We'd have to test children somehow. For girls puberty begins at breast growth. You want people looking at little girls chest to determine she can have sex? Err.
Unfortunately the law doesn't recongize exceptions to the rules or individuals. Our complex society can't handle those aspects, thus we generalize with laws. The interests are the same, welfare for the children, but our positions are different. Children/teens make poor choices, their brains can't help it so we try to protect them as much as possible. That is the point I think is most important. Although sex isn't innately harmful their are risks unique to sex that we must avoid. People want to protect children/teens from those risks that can permanently alter your life for the worse. Their brains don't think long term and are prone to be risker. This can't be fully changed by social aspects. Biology has to do its work and help the maturity of the brain.
However I do believe there needs to be better sex education. Less information leads to more problems. Additionally I don't have an issue with teens experimenting with other teens. Adults should stay out of it or an older party should stay out of it (a 16 should not be with a 12 year old). We tend to let minors enage in activities within their age group. Age limit is important. After 20/21 even if a person needs a high school diploma they should not be in a high school for it. Just like a 20+ cannot join a high school sports team even if they are less skilled then all the teens on the team. In society we separate many activities based on age, sex is one.
Thank you for the conversation and for not simply going "EWW YOU'RE A PEDO" and refusing to reply when I started this. I don't really know how to defend my views much more, but it is very nice to see people who are open minded enough to talk about it at least. :)
In general I would prefer that people not have sexual intercourse at all until they are at least 18 and preferably older than that because it's true, they often are immature. All I am thinking is that our society unfairly paints a picture of people interested in minors as monsters, unfairly puts them in jail in the special cases where true consent occurred, and that the issue needs to be thought and debated about - like we have been doing - instead of just dogmatically ignored. :)
Thank you for not taking this personally. I can't stand discusdions that resort to name calling and insults. I'll admit i have done that before. I think discussions like this are important. We have the same interests, the welfare of people and of beings in general. Our positions may differ, but it is critical we remember the interests.
I think everyone has been attracted to a minor, especially the gray area ones. I am in my 20s but have been mistaken for 14-16 by people of all ages. Age can be hard to discern.
For certain individuals I think they need mental health more than prison. Or they should have the same provisions that sucidual people have (hotlines, hospitalization) I do believe that certain individuals didn't mean any harm to the minor. Unfortunately the law isn't about exceptions to the rules, but blanket sentences.
I was talking to a gay friend (who knows about me) and a guy advised me to be wary around him because he would 'corrupt' me. Me and my friend laughed greatly.
I make a lot of jokes about bestiality to my friends, to the point where some of them surely know at this point. Here are a couple of my favorites:
Another time, we were having a conversation about the hanky codes in gay bars (I have a lot of gay friends). This led to the following exchange:
For the finale, once I walked into a conversation with some acquaintances, talking about one of the strangest family conversations they ever had. It went like this:
Me and a good friend tend to joke about a lot of controversial things.
One of the things that I still remember was when she joked; "Look at that girl over there (which was not at all our type of person we'd love to hang out with) walking an Anatolian shep, I bet if you had to choose between them, you'd choose to fuck that dog. Where I replied; "hell yeah"
We both laughed at it and continued as usual, and I'm thinking: "you have no idea how true this is."
My dog sleeps in my bed, a friend of mine who is staying with me currently walked in on us "cuddling". He basically said along the lines of "man that dog is soooo fucking lucky to have found you"
He doesn't know that I just had my lips behind his knot a few minutes prior.
All of you need serious help.