[Appolinaria]

Oh, gosh darned it, silly me. I forgot that in order for a study to be valid it must survey every person on the planet, one by one! A small group that statistically represents the larger is nonsensical.

[iNow]

Appolinaria, on 5 January 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Oh, gosh darned it, silly me. I forgot that in order for a study to be valid it must survey every person on the planet, one by one! A small group that statistically represents the larger is nonsensical.

Three things. Never once did I claim they had to survey "every person on the planet." Please avoid using the logical fallacy of misrepresenting my position, arguing against that misrepresentation instead of what I actually said and then implicitly claiming victory. Second, you should also avoid the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule, or at least remove the sarcastic tone when yours is the fallacious position. Third, as I thought would be clear to anyone even remedially versed in data sampling, your group of 70 women does NOT provide an accurate cross-section of the population of ~3 billion females on the planet... Contrary to what you've just claimed, it is NOT "a small group that statistically represents the larger."

You can argue all you want. You will remain incorrect if you continue on your current path.

This post has been edited by iNow: 5 January 2012 - 05:28 PM

[dimreepr]

Spooner, on 4 November 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

Throughout history psychologists have made some controversial claims. Until the early 20th century is was generally agreed that masturbation was harmful, resulting in male circumcision (still practised today) and even clitoridectomy. Black people were 'proven' to be mentally inferior to whites, justifying segregation and their mistreatment. Homosexuals were considered mentally ill and subjected to hormone therapy. How can we be certain that today's 'experts' are not simply justifying societies prejudices?

Despite great variation in age of consent laws (ranging from 18 in USA to 14 in Germany) most experts consider consensual sex to be inherently harmful to persons under the age of consent, even teenagers a few years below these arbitrary age based laws are considered 'victims' when they have consensual sex with adults. What evidence leads psychologists to conclude that sex is harmful to pubescent and prepubescent minors? What studies support the criminalisation of consensual sex with persons under the age of consent?

In the same way that African children labelled 'witches' start to believe they are genuinely evil, children labelled 'victims' start to believe they have been harmed i.e. a 14 year old having sex in the USA may see themselves as a 'victim' after the arrest of their adult partner and subsequent therapy sessions, while Germans of the same age might not (as 14 is legal). Clearly therapists can influence how minors view their sexual experiences.

Obviously young people need to be protected from exploitation and harm. Small children are not physically capable of having penetrative sex with adults, however not all sex acts involve penetration. In many cases sex is criminalised despite the consent of partners, use of contraception and lack of physical/mental harm. Can anyone provide me with relevant information explaining why consensual sex with minors is harmful and why? Are there only moral reasons justifying the criminalization of sex with pubescent and prepubescent minors, or does tangible evidence of harm exist?

I have experience in this area having a very young girl make very very obvious sexual advances, just short of acually asking me to have sex. She is very atractive and I was very flattered but how could I? It did however get me thinking. Why should this have been wrong? As previously stated sex doesn't have to mean penetration. She clearly wanted to explore her sexuality. so why would it have been so wrong for me to allow her to do so?

[doG]

FWIW, this study claims around 60% of women have faked an orgasm. The sample size is 366 women out of the approximately 3 billion on the planet so it is still a statistically disproportionate sample of the whole. It does bring out a more significant detail though, that these women only needed to have faked one orgasm to be included in the 60%. Now if a woman with 100 or more trists in her history has faked one orgasm in the lot then what percentage of the whole does she really represent? Me thinks this fork in the discussion is near pointless!

This post has been edited by doG: 5 January 2012 - 06:26 PM

[Moontanman]

WHAT! Women fake orgasm? Please God tell it's not true!!!!!

No! Wait! Do lesbians fake orgasms?

[Beast]

Yes by the way i do have alot of views that are not normal but im not normal.And i dont plan to be.

Just try and imagine this.If everyone believes that sex is not intimacy that how come we arnt just having sex with anybody we see as in walking down the street.

There is something about sex that most people have behind closed doors and its kept private. Does that not describe intimacy


1. close or warm friendship or understanding; personal relationship2. (often plural) Euphemistic sexual relations
Even if your having sex with a stranger it is somewhat intimacy because you are with them and not someone else at that moment but doesnt last.
I know its unrealstic."wait for your soul mate" but it must be more special that way,You can hardly tell me no one wants that

[iNow]

Beast, on 5 January 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Just try and imagine this.If everyone believes that sex is not intimacy that how come we arnt just having sex with anybody we see as in walking down the street.

There are a few answers to this. First, sex has consequences, and babies are a huge investment of time and resources, as well as a potential health risk. Further, we live in a society where some things are taboo, and those taboos influence people's behavior. Finally, you have to think of the old saying, "It takes two to tango." Both people need to agree that they want to have sex with one another before it will happen. The chances of them meeting and feeling this way about one another at the same time are small. One may be attracted, but the other not. One might be committed to another partner and not want to ruin it. One might be tired, or distracted, or not horny... There are tons of reasons why we don't just have sex with anyone we see, but it's not just about a lack of intimacy.

Intimacy is critical when you share an emotional connection with someone, but not all sex is intimate, nor does it have to be. Not everyone equates sex with love or intimacy.

Beast, on 5 January 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

I know its unrealstic."wait for your soul mate" but it must be more special that way,You can hardly tell me no one wants that

That's fine, and it's noble, too. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm just proposing that overall in the animal kingdom intimacy doesn't seem to be the primary motivator for sex (we do it because it's pleasurable, and it's pleasurable because those who enjoyed it and did it more tended to do better through evolution than those who did not).

This post has been edited by iNow: 5 January 2012 - 11:13 PM

[Green Xenon]

Iggy, on 4 November 2011 - 10:26 PM, said:

NAMBLA passes it out

NAMBLA is a terrorist organization that targets boy-children for hate crimes of a sexual nature. Just imagine the societal outrage if there was a NAMGLA

This is just so unfair for boys. To be fair, society should either eliminate namBla or allow the existence of a namGla.

For a warm-hearted, compassionate individual like me -- who respects right from wrong -- it is very upsetting that the same men-of-the-society-of-humans who are protective of girls, are also abusive of boys.

This post has been edited by Green Xenon: 28 March 2012 - 10:31 AM

[lightburst]

Perhaps it all started through the idea of sexual immaturity in terms of mate selection that then eventually led to this social stigma as humans became more civilized? Maybe people just couldn't accept the idea in terms of being an animal and instead rationalized and made it an ethical dilemma.

[Mondays Assignment: Die]

Something about it does seem wrong to me even if the child is pursuing the adult. Particularly, I'm imagining a young female propositioning an adult male. Maybe it's because little girls are so girly, and I'm disgusted by that extra innocent girliness. Those little girls dressed up like women for pageants just make me shudder.
I suppose a young girl who wasn't being exposed to that girly garbage might not be approaching older men. The same could be true for young men who approach older women. Even at the ages when they have mating urges, it seems unnatural for them to proposition someone who they have had no prior intimate interactions with. For example, a student who is trying to prove his masculinity might proposition the teacher even though he has a much more friendly and intimate relationship with some of his peers.

I once heard this argument, although I don't know where the speaker learned this. The children are victims because they cannot experience intimacy when the act is with an adult. A result of this sex without intimacy is a disconnection between intimacy and sex, so they can never enjoy intimate sex.

[Moontanman]

I will say this one more time, adults should never be sexually involved with children, childish sex games are just that for children and no adults should ever been involved, an adult sexualizing a child always results in some harm, if not physical then mental harm that results in a twisted view of what sex is, often poor self esteem and an inability to function as an adult sexually. I was sexualized as a child, i know intimately what it does to you, how it affects your self worth your self esteem and your own sense of what to expect from partners in adult sex. It totally fucked me up and prevented me from having the confidence to go to university. If you are thinking of doing it don't! If you are doing it stop and turn your self in so you and the child can get counciling, there is no excuse for it...

[Mondays Assignment: Die]

Thank you Moontanman. I don't have much to relate to the topic because I'm still only 19, and I haven't read about any case studies.

[Fuzzwood]

Off-topic: i don't really see the point of faking it. If it were with me a woman felt the need to fake it, I'd rather have her just tell me it was dull and encourage me to spice it up a bit...

[Superfusion]

Moontanman, on 2 April 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

I will say this one more time, adults should never be sexually involved with children, childish sex games are just that for children and no adults should ever been involved, an adult sexualizing a child always results in some harm, if not physical then mental harm that results in a twisted view of what sex is, often poor self esteem and an inability to function as an adult sexually. I was sexualized as a child, i know intimately what it does to you, how it affects your self worth your self esteem and your own sense of what to expect from partners in adult sex. It totally fucked me up and prevented me from having the confidence to go to university. If you are thinking of doing it don't! If you are doing it stop and turn your self in so you and the child can get counciling, there is no excuse for it...

I would say that i 100% agree with you here. It can ruin it later and many other things later. Not to mention the damage it can cause outside your sex-life. Having confidence is key in success all over life.

[Green Xenon]

If an adult makes sexual contact with a minor, the psychological distress experienced by the minor is so intense that it physically-damages his/her brain.

Read more about the damage to the central-nervous-system caused by child-molestation: http://en.wikipedia....ological_damage