NationStates Jolt Archive

In the western world, we've come a long way in just a several decades, where prejudice against races, interracial unions, homosexuality and obesity was far more common*.

What activities or mentalities considered uncommon, strange and in some cases illegal, do you think will be widely accepted in the future? Which of them will never be accepted in mainstream society?



*Ninja edit: RACISM AND PREJUDICE AGAINST GAYS RACE MIXERS AND FAT PPL STILL OCCUR TODAY LURK MOAR NUB. I noe k thx?

poll added

Ginger headed people will always bear the stigma of their roots as the spawn of the devil, that will never change.

Someday we will have a midget president named Corky. It will be a fine day indeed. *nod*

Someday we will have a midget president named Corky. It will be a fine day indeed. *nod*

He may even be a black, disabled, homosexual midget but he will never be ginger, as certain as death and taxes.

I'm a little concerned that you judge the stigma attached to three different kinds of sexual non-consent actions... effectively somehow equal with polyamoury and two forms of masturbation.

I'm a little concerned that you judge the stigma attached to three different kinds of sexual non-consent actions... effectively somehow equal with polyamoury and two forms of masturbation.

As far as I'm concerned, open-sex relationships between married couples are uncommon, just as masturbation is usually considered embarrassing to their parents/family.

I'm not saying any of them, except bestiality and CP, are wrong. They are just uncommon.

I might have made a mistake with doll-sex, which is more accessible than CP/bestiality. It isn't considered mainstream porn is it? I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the adult world.

Ginger headed people will always bear the stigma of their roots as the spawn of the devil, that will never change.

Dammit, it's the non-gingers who are in league with the devil!:tongue:

He may even be a black, disabled, homosexual midget but he will never be ginger, as certain as death and taxes.

What if he's bald?

He may even be a black, disabled, homosexual midget but he will never be ginger, as certain as death and taxes.

You assume it will be a "he."

You assume it will be a "he."

What if she's bald?

As far as I'm concerned, open-sex relationships between married couple is uncommon, just as masturbation is usually considered embarrassing to their parents/family.

I might have made a mistake with doll-sex, which is more accessible than CP/bestiality. It isn't considered mainstream porn is it? I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the adult world.

Open-sex relationships between married couples is uncommon, yes. But, like the two forms of masturbation - it's not rape... which sex with a minor must be, since they are not able to consent. Similarly, you can't 'assume' consent for pornography or intercourse with an animal

My problem is - that you list the pressure against these things in the same poll as 'prejudices', and refer to them as 'stigma'. Objection to rape is not 'stigma' or 'prejudice'. Rape, and 'knocking on off the wrist' (even with a doll) are in no way equal.

What if she's bald?

A bald, black, gay, midget female president (except that little person is the preferred term - rather than midget).

A bald, black, gay, midget female president (except that little person is the preferred term - rather than midget).

Named Corky.

A bald, black, gay, midget female president (except that little person is the preferred term - rather than midget).

Sounds like my first wife, except she had red eyes, resembled GnI's avatar, and wasn't president.

You assume it will be a "he."

You're entirely correct, my bad.

What if she's bald?

Has there ever been a bald president?

A bald, black, gay, midget female president (except that little person is the preferred term - rather than midget).

Named Corky.

I, for one, welcome our bald, black, gay, midget, female overlords named Corky.

You're entirely correct, my bad.



Has there ever been a bald president?





I, for one, welcome our bald, black, gay, midget, female overlords named Corky.

That I know of, Ford and Eisenhower.

My problem is - that you list the pressure against these things in the same poll as 'prejudices', and refer to them as 'stigma'. Objection to rape is not 'stigma' or 'prejudice'. Rape, and 'knocking on off the wrist' (even with a doll) are in no way equal.


Stigma was a vocabulary introduced by you. All of the things I mentioned have prejudice attached to them, whether they be considered slutty or antisocial.

Did I say they were equally unacceptable or uncommon? No, they just have the same qualifiers of being uncommon. Please stop assuming things.


It was thought to be that black people were incapble of decision making. Perhaps the next social movement may be advocacy for increased freedoms for children, whether they are engaged in sexual intercourse or posing naked.

CP is most definitely child sexual abuse today, but advancements in society 'might' change that outlook, through means of increased education, awareness, regulation, and birth control. It will never be possible today, which is why I mentioned "future," meaning that an open discussion is to follow.


Animal psychology may make bestiality more acceptable through further studies, like orgasmic response and positive attitude. This is all assumption (hence open discussion), and in no way am I advocating any of those things.


I hope I have made my intentions clearer to you.

But the question we really should be asking ourselves is whether President Corky, the gay bald black midget chick masturbates in public.

But the question we really should be asking ourselves is whether President Corky, the gay bald black midget chick masturbates in public.

Only during the State of the Union Address.

Only during the State of the Union Address.

I might not care so much when it preempts Knight Rider. ;)

But the question we really should be asking ourselves is whether President Corky, the gay bald black midget chick masturbates in public.

You don't call a gay bald black midget a 'chick' my friend, she'll bite your balls off and she's just the right height for it.

Murder. It may not be accepted today, but someday advances in society will make it possible to recognize murder as simply liberation of the soul from its earthly prison.

You don't call a gay bald black midget a 'chick' my friend, she'll bite your balls off and she's just the right height for it.

But would she want to? That sort of goes against the whole gay female code about not touching male privates. But she might have control of some scrotum-seeking attack weasels ...

Murder. It may not be accepted today, but someday advances in society will make it possible to recognize murder as simply liberation of the soul from its earthly prison.

Pray that day will come where we are a blessed with the knowledge of post-earth life, floating through time and space as highly advanced, englightened non-corporeal beings.

You don't call a gay bald black midget a 'chick' my friend, she'll bite your balls off and she's just the right height for it.

:eek:

:(

Open-sex relationships between married couples is uncommon, yes. But, like the two forms of masturbation - it's not rape... which sex with a minor must be, since they are not able to consent. Similarly, you can't 'assume' consent for pornography or intercourse with an animal

My problem is - that you list the pressure against these things in the same poll as 'prejudices', and refer to them as 'stigma'. Objection to rape is not 'stigma' or 'prejudice'. Rape, and 'knocking on off the wrist' (even with a doll) are in no way equal.

Sex with someone under 18 is legal in many countries in the world. Paedohpilia has been accepted in previous societies.

I don't think the OP was implying that there was an equivalence in them. Simply "all these things are currently unacceptable to most of society, which do you think will become acceptable". If you think rape won't, but polyamorous relationships will then fine, say so. But I think you're going after the OP somewhat unnecessarily.

But would she want to? That sort of goes against the whole gay female code about not touching male privates. But she might have control of some scrotum-seeking attack weasels ...

The Code allows it where a demeaning and sexist term has been used, Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph III.

'In the event of a demeaning and sexist term being uttered by a member of the historic male hierarchy, the right is reserved to enter into contact with the male appendage in order to detach it from the aforesaid male in a violent and bloody manner'.

The Code allows it where a demeaning and sexist term has been used, Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph III.

'In the event of a demeaning and sexist term being uttered by a member of the historic male hierarchy, the right is reserved to enter into contact with the male appendage in order to detach it from the aforesaid male in a violent and bloody manner'.

But wasn't there a codicil added later - "If, in the event of a demeaning and sexist term is uttered by a male, scrotum-seeking attack weasels are available, it is preferred that they be used in preference to touching the male appendage." Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph IIIa.

But wasn't there a codicil added later - "If, in the event of a demeaning and sexist term is uttered by a male, scrotum-seeking attack weasels are available, it is preferred that they be used in preference to touching the male appendage." Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph IIIa.

I probably trained those weasels too. :(

But wasn't there a codicil added later - "If, in the event of a demeaning and sexist term is uttered by a male, scrotum-seeking attack weasels are available, it is preferred that they be used in preference to touching the male appendage." Article VII, Section IV, Paragraph IIIa.

Possibly, I only have the 2003 version, regardless, LG should be wary before uttering such nomenclatures to bald, gay, female midgets, especially where they're president.

I think we've suitably answered the OP now, and learned a little on the way.

I expect the Mods to sticky this.

Probably all of your options; may I ask why you only picked sex-related "prejudices" (bigotries would be closer)?

Probably all of your options; may I ask why you only picked sex-related "prejudices" (bigotries would be closer)?

Sex-related bigotries are easier to talk about than other cultural relativism topics, such as legalization of honor killings, vegan movements, and animal advocacy.

Sex-related bigotries are easier to talk about than other cultural relativism topics, such as legalization of honor killings, vegan movements, and animal advocacy.

From studying history, I have come to the conclusion that the world will continue to become more liberal. In all likelihood, it will eventually be illegal to breed animals for meat, nudism will be acceptable, polygamy will be legal, et cetera. As Ambrose Bierce said, a liberal is just the conservative of tomorrow interjected into the affairs of today.

Consent is impossible in pedophilia, because children are too mentally and emotionally immature to consent, too physically immature for... I'm not even going to say it, and because the adult has a position of power over the child. Likewise for child pornography.

Between two teenagers, on the other hand, is a different matter. All US states should legalize that, and probably will if the country continues to improve.

I voted for sick fuck destroying the fabric of morality (though I would swap the word "American" with the word "human"), since describing something as a "prejudice" suggests that it is an unfounded point of view (and thus carries a negative conotation). This in turn suggests that you feel opposition to bestiality, pedophilia, and child pornography is wrong, which is so much bullshit that I don't know if I can fully articulate it. These are sexual acts which are likely to cause physical harm, in the case of pedophilia and child pornography at least will definitely cause emotional harm (animal too, depending on the species), and to which the victim cannot reasonably give consent. In short, rape.

In hindsite, however, you clearly were not supporting these behaviors. I was misslead by your use of the word prejudice, and the fact that I voted before reading past the OP. I apologise.

So, you're justifying raping a child? If I'm missing anything, please clarify.

Yes, since the OP announced opposition (at the beginning of this thread) to the very acts you accuse him/her of supporting.

I'm not saying any of them, except bestiality and CP, are wrong. They are just uncommon.

Sex-related bigotries are easier to talk about than other cultural relativism topics, such as legalization of honor killings, vegan movements, and animal advocacy.

So you consider the general disgust at killing a woman in order to assuage an injured male ego a matter of "bigotry?"

And why on earth are sex-related topics like pederastry and pedophilia easier to talk about than the legalized murder of women for slights to the male ego, vegetarianism and PETA?

Conceded, with my sincere apologese. I went off the OP, and I should have read the whole thread.

However, he might want to be more careful how he words things in the future, given the conotations of the word "prejudice." Granted, some people might be prejudiced against such things without having thought them through, but if a reasonable person thinks it through, they'll come to the same conclusion.

I will delete the comment in question from my post.

So you consider the general disgust at killing a woman in order to assuage an injured male ego a matter of "bigotry?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

I would say the definition fits if we drop the "especially" and what comes after it.

And why on earth are sex-related topics like pederastry and pedophilia easier to talk about than the legalized murder of women for slights to the male ego, vegetarianism and PETA?

An excellent question.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

I would say the definition fits if we drop the "especially" and what comes after it.



An excellent question.

I'm still trying to figure out why antipathy to honor killing is a matter of bigotry. I do consider any man who carries out an honor killing or who supports honor killing to be a bigot - he is clearly bigoted against women.

So you consider the general disgust at killing a woman in order to assuage an injured male ego a matter of "bigotry?"

Some people think that way, which is why I disincluded it from the poll. Sexism is the result of bigotry. If you don't know what bigotry means, please look it up.

Other codified sexism for example, is less accessible to discussion in this society than the more obvious problems such as CP.


And why on earth are sex-related topics like pederastry and pedophilia easier to talk about than the legalized murder of women for slights to the male ego, vegetarianism and PETA?

Please forgive my wording, I should have said more sensible and beneficial for the sake of discussion. Schooling and my personal study have already covered things like animal rights and religious/secular vegetarianism. There is a lot of bawwing on both sides which I already am aware of.

Perderastry and pedophilia however, is less discussed, so I thought it would be interesting to see what people's views are on for this matter. My assumption was that legalized pornography, or at least its mainstream acceptance would lead to even more liberal forms of this activity, which was the premise of my question.

I detect a lot of emotion, please let me know if I crossed the line with trying to understand the acceptance or intolerance of these subjects.

I'm still trying to figure out why antipathy to honor killing is a matter of bigotry. I do consider any man who carries out an honor killing or who supports honor killing to be a bigot - he is clearly bigoted against women.

:confused:

A man who conducts or supports honor killing is a murderous bigot. Honor killing is a matter of bigotry and violence.

:confused:

A man who conducts or supports honor killing is a murderous bigot. Honor killing is a matter of bigotry and violence.

Ok. I got the impression from the way your statement was worded that you thought people who wanted to eliminate honor killing were bigoted as regards those cultures that practice honor killing. Of course, the answer is that we (at least I) have no particular problem with the cultures per se, only harmful aspects of those cultures, like honor killing.

Ok. I got the impression from the way your statement was worded that you thought people who wanted to eliminate honor killing were bigoted as regards those cultures that practice honor killing. Of course, the answer is that we (at least I) have no particular problem with the cultures per se, only harmful aspects of those cultures, like honor killing.

Yes it was my mistake, I assumed double negative when you said:

I'm still trying to figure out why antipathy to honor killing is a matter of bigotry.

Especially with my use of the word cultural relativism, I see how confusing it was. Sometimes I just assume these things are implied, like it is in speech :)

Sex with someone under 18 is legal in many countries in the world.


Which isn't the same as paedophilia.


Paedohpilia has been accepted in previous societies.


Which is irrelevent to now and the future.


I don't think the OP was implying that there was an equivalence in them.


The fact that opposition to them is uniformly referred to as 'prejudice' suggests the OP is implying some kind of equivalency.


Simply "all these things are currently unacceptable to most of society, which do you think will become acceptable". If you think rape won't, but polyamorous relationships will then fine, say so. But I think you're going after the OP somewhat unnecessarily.

I don't.

If I made a poll along the lines of... say:

"which of the following shouldn't be used as a meat animal"

O.... Wild Pigs
O.... Domestic Pigs
O.... Genetically engineered Pigs
O.... Black People

I think people would say I was suggesting something, even though the wording didn't say it, per se.

The fact that opposition to them is uniformly referred to as 'prejudice' suggests the OP is implying some kind of equivalency.

I already stated that there is no such equivalency. Why are you so eager to uncover my non-existent agenda against liberally minded people?


If I made a poll along the lines of... say:

"which of the following shouldn't be used as a meat animal"

O.... Wild Pigs
O.... Domestic Pigs
O.... Genetically engineered Pigs
O.... Black People

I think people would say I was suggesting something, even though the wording didn't say it, per se.

Why are you still arguing over this? I've already explained my choice of poll options, and clarified misconceptions about the intent of this poll, twice.

I agree that it is the my fault that it seemed to imply polyamourous relationships are equivalent to immorality. BUT I have stated multiple times that that was not my intention. In case you didn't understand, I will explain it again:

Multi-partner relations are uncommon. Bestiality is uncommon. Relationships with people under the age of consent (pedophiliac relation) is uncommon. The question was if you think these practices may be accepted in mainstream society and being rid of its associated prejudices in the future.

I already stated that there is no such equivalency. Why are you so eager to uncover my non-existent agenda against liberally minded people?

Why are you still arguing over this? I've already explained my choice of poll options, and clarified misconceptions about the intent of this poll, twice.

I agree that it is the my fault that it seemed to imply polyamourous relationships are equivalent to immorality. BUT I have stated multiple times that that was not my intention. In case you didn't understand, I will explain it again:

Multi-partner relations are uncommon. Bestiality is uncommon. Relationships with people under the age of consent (pedophiliac relation) is uncommon. The question was if you think these practices may be accepted in mainstream society and being rid of its associated prejudices in the future.

I'm coming back to it, because it keeps getting re-raised in people referencing my posts.

Your poll was bad, and your OP was bad - because they create an arena in which masturbation and raping children are dealt with with the same 'value' attached - i.e. 'they are both uncommon' and they are both 'prejudiced against'... at least, according to you.

And that's the real problem - your post talks about these 'prejudices'. It is not 'prejudice' that stops people having sex with children - it is law.

To me - your poll and OP are worse than useless.

In the western world, we've come a long way in just a several decades, where prejudice against races, interracial unions, homosexuality and obesity was far more common*.

What activities or mentalities considered uncommon, strange and in some cases illegal, do you think will be widely accepted in the future? Which of them will never be accepted in mainstream society?



*Ninja edit: RACISM AND PREJUDICE AGAINST GAYS RACE MIXERS AND FAT PPL STILL OCCUR TODAY LURK MOAR NUB. I noe k thx?

poll added

Human nature dictates, new ones will form.

Your poll was bad, and your OP was bad - because they create an arena in which masturbation and raping children are dealt with with the same 'value' attached - i.e. 'they are both uncommon' and they are both 'prejudiced against'... at least, according to you.

And that's the real problem - your post talks about these 'prejudices'. It is not 'prejudice' that stops people having sex with children - it is law.

The mental arena of your's is created by your impartiality and determination to expose the vaporous-pedophile in me.

Your lack of comprehension is also harmful to your argument, because I didn't say masturbation or raping children is prejudiced against.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to extend pedophile to post-pubscent children. I included pederasty and pedophilia because that would incorporate pro-pedophile views, which is completely unrelated to my own.


So why would sexual relationships involving children younger than 18 be possible in the future? Sex is approached with a much more open attitude today, and children are learning sexual responsibilities at a much earlier age. With a combination of education, exacting birth control and a healthily exposed environment, younger people may be able to make sexual choices at an eariler age. All entirely speculation, but I believe it is quite founded, for the following reasons:

Sexual responsibilities include:

- STD awareness
- birth control, or for pro-life couples, the ability to raise a baby
- emotional effects of sex

In the future, there would most likely be even more effective methods of STD and birth control, considerably easing those two factors of responsibility. With the "private" and "mature" stigma removed from sex through liberalization of it, it may become just another pleasurable activity between consenting people.





To me - you're just creating an argument because you still hold to your belief that I am demoralizing open relationships, which was your target in the first place. If you aren't interested in discussion, don't post.

I'm pretty sure 'obsoleted' isn't a word.

I'm also pretty sure that people aren't going to run out of things to dislike about each other any time soon. Even if everything on your list was to be completely subsumed into the range of 'natural' or 'normal' human behaviors(a possibility on the far side of 'pretty friggin' unlikely')people would come up with new ones.

The mental arena of your's is created by your impartiality and determination to expose the vaporous-pedophile in me.

Your lack of comprehension is also harmful to your argument, because I didn't say masturbation or raping children is prejudiced against.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to extend pedophile to post-pubscent children. I included pederasty and pedophilia because that would incorporate pro-pedophile views, which is completely unrelated to my own.


So why would sexual relationships involving children younger than 18 be possible in the future? Sex is approached with a much more open attitude today, and children are learning sexual responsibilities at a much earlier age. With a combination of education, exacting birth control and a healthily exposed environment, younger people may be able to make sexual choices at an eariler age. All entirely speculation, but I believe it is quite founded, for the following reasons:

Sexual responsibilities include:

- STD awareness
- birth control, or for pro-life couples, the ability to raise a baby
- emotional effects of sex

In the future, there would most likely be even more effective methods of STD and birth control, considerably easing those two factors of responsibility. With the "private" and "mature" stigma removed from sex through liberalization of it, it may become just another pleasurable activity between consenting people.





To me - you're just creating an argument because you still hold to your belief that I am demoralizing open relationships, which was your target in the first place. If you aren't interested in discussion, don't post.

Just a quick question; is English your second language? I'll be more inclined to be understanding about spelling, grammar, syntax, misused words if it is.

Just a quick question; is English your second language? I'll be more inclined to be understanding about spelling, grammar, syntax, misused words if it is.

Yes it is, and I'll fix it now.

The mental "arena" is a manifest of your partial attitude toward the intention of the OP, which you have attacked in the beginning of thread.

I did not imply that masturbation or child-rape is merely prejudiced against; whatever you derived from the OP is clearly the fault of your lack of comprehension in it.


For the sake of argument, I'm going to extend the OP's condition of "pedophile relations" to include relations involving post-pubescent children. I've mentioned pederasty and pedophilia in the poll to incorporate a pro-pedophile option.


Here are my thoughts on the normalization of sex involving younger, pubescent children: As sex is becoming a topic that is approached with more openess, children are learning sexual responsibilities much earlier. With a combination of sexual education, exacting standards of birth control and a healthily exposed social context, people will be able to make informed sexual choices at earlier ages. This is all entirely speculation, but I believe it is quite well-founded.

Sexual responsibilities include:

- STD awareness
- birth control, or for pro-life couples, the ability to raise a baby
- dealing with emotional effects of sex

In the future, there will most likely be more effective methods of STD and birth control, which would considerably ease and possibly eliminate those two aspects of sexual responsibility. With the social stigmas removed from the topic of sex through its liberalization, it may just become another pleasureable activity that is healthily enjoyed by younger people.





To me - you're just creating an argument because you still hold to your belief that I am demoralizing open relationships, which you have targetted in the first place. If you aren't interested in discussion, don't post.

I hope, hopelessly at that, that racism becomes obsolete at some point.

From studying history, I have come to the conclusion that the world will continue to become more liberal. In all likelihood, it will eventually be illegal to breed animals for meat, nudism will be acceptable, polygamy will be legal, et cetera. As Ambrose Bierce said, a liberal is just the conservative of tomorrow interjected into the affairs of today.
That sounds like the sort of lame "utopia" you get in shitty sci fi novels by Arthur C. Clarke. I am never, ever, ever going to forgive him for 3001: The Final Odyssey. Never. Ever.
So you consider the general disgust at killing a woman in order to assuage an injured male ego a matter of "bigotry?"
It is only general in the Westernized world, and even then only in certain sectors of the Westernized world. There are many people who would argue that the general disgust at the idea of letting a woman live after she ahs violated <cultural norm X> makes honor killings natural.

So you consider the general disgust at killing a woman in order to assuage an injured male ego a matter of "bigotry?"
Don't think of it as killing, think of it as a penalty.

And don't think of it in the context of ego, think in the context of Intellectual Property rights. If every copy of everything that was once touched by your mind is your property, and using it without your permission is illegal - can't the same logic be applied to everything that has been touched by your cock?

I know it's highly inhumane and demeaning, but think of it. The logic used to justify IP rights and the logic used to consider adultery a capital offense are not dissimilar.

Don't think of it as killing, think of it as a penalty.

And don't think of it in the context of ego, think in the context of Intellectual Property rights. If every copy of everything that was once touched by your mind is your property, and using it without your permission is illegal - can't the same logic be applied to everything that has been touched by your cock?
No, because your analogy makes absolutely no sense. A piece of art is not "touched" by someone's mind, it is created. While it is true that nothing occurs in a vacuum, such that each artist must operate in the tradition and use (or abuse) the modes and structures which existed before him, it is still the time and effort of that artist (or author or musician or game programmer, whatever) that made the original work come into being. I Against I would not exist if it weren't for the efforts of the band behind it.
A woman, on the other hand, existed before her husband encountered her. She existed even before her parents encountered her, as she is the only entity with direct access to herself.
I know it's highly inhumane and demeaning, but think of it. The logic used to justify IP rights and the logic used to consider adultery a capital offense are not dissimilar.
No. They're not.

A piece of art is not "touched" by someone's mind, it is created. While it is true that nothing occurs in a vacuum, such that each artist must operate in the tradition and use (or abuse) the modes and structures which existed before him [...]
A woman, on the other hand, existed before her husband encountered her. She existed even before her parents encountered her, as she is the only entity with direct access to herself.
Here's the similarity.

So, the artist took a canvas and turned it into a painting. Or, he could take a Public Domain painting (invention), add his elements and make it into his painting (invention). Suppose he did that. According to IP rights doctrine, he now holds the exclusive right to decide who and how can use that painting - even after he has sold it and it belongs to someone else.

Similarly, the man took a "public domain" girl and turned her into a woman - fed her, fucked her, dressed her up. By a concept very similar to IP rights, he now holds the exclusive right to decide who and how can use that woman - even if she actually belongs to herself.



Obviously, this concept doesn't use the feminist view of women as individual self-capable beings equal to men, but rather an older heavily sexist view where the wife is semi-property of her husband, and the daughter is almost property of her father/family.

Similarly, the man took a "public domain" girl and turned her into a woman - fed her, fucked her, dressed her up. By a concept very similar to IP rights, he now holds the exclusive right to decide who and how can use that woman - even if she actually belongs to herself.

This the first time I've seen a Western analogy used to describe honor killings.

Here's the similarity.

So, the artist took a canvas and turned it into a painting. Or, he could take a Public Domain painting (invention), add his elements and make it into his painting (invention). Suppose he did that. According to IP rights doctrine, he now holds the exclusive right to decide who and how can use that painting - even after he has sold it and it belongs to someone else.
No. The raw materials are not transformed. The art exists in the artists' intentionality and abilities, and in the interpretive process of his audience. The artwork exists as a continual interaction between the person who created it and the people who perceive it.
Similarly, the man took a "public domain" girl and turned her into a woman - fed her, fucked her, dressed her up. By a concept very similar to IP rights, he now holds the exclusive right to decide who and how can use that woman - even if she actually belongs to herself.

Obviously, this concept doesn't use the feminist view of women as individual self-capable beings equal to men, but rather an older heavily sexist view where the wife is semi-property of her husband, and the daughter is almost property of her father/family.
I understand that. However, assuming that a woman is property, she still isn't owned in the same sense that IP rights are owned. What you're confusing in this circumstance is the difference between owning the rights to a piece of art and owning cattle.

That sounds like the sort of lame "utopia" you get in shitty sci fi novels by Arthur C. Clarke. I am never, ever, ever going to forgive him for 3001: The Final Odyssey. Never. Ever.

Eh, utopia is relative. One thing commonly portrayed in science fiction future that I doubt will happen is world-peace.

The mental arena of your's is created by your impartiality and determination to expose the vaporous-pedophile in me.

Your lack of comprehension is also harmful to your argument, because I didn't say masturbation or raping children is prejudiced against.


Uh:

"What prejudices will be obsoleted in the future?"


Yeah, it seems you did.


So why would sexual relationships involving children younger than 18 be possible in the future? Sex is approached with a much more open attitude today, and children are learning sexual responsibilities at a much earlier age.


None of which equates to children being able to give consent.


To me - you're just creating an argument because you still hold to your belief that I am demoralizing open relationships, which was your target in the first place. If you aren't interested in discussion, don't post.

That wasn't 'my target in the first place'.

Uh:



Yeah, it seems you did.



None of which equates to children being able to give consent.



That wasn't 'my target in the first place'.

I believe your anger is unfounded.

I believe your anger is unfounded.

I didn't say I was angry.

No. The raw materials are not transformed. The art exists in the artists' intentionality and abilities, and in the interpretive process of his audience. The artwork exists as a continual interaction between the person who created it and the people who perceive it.
Pretty words, but meaningless. This would do great among art students.

Car design is most definitely art; one of the most exclusive artistic professions. However, when I buy a great looking car, it isn't some "continual interaction". Yes, my thanks to the folks who made it so pretty, thanks. But it's a piece of metal that gets my butt from A to B. A good looking result of good craftsmanship directed by good designers, thanks to which I can move my butt in style. My piece of metal, for which I have paid its creators, and looking good was included in the price.

You have to be heavily stoned to perceive people saying "Nice wheels!" as a continual interaction between their perception and the artist's intentionality.



What you're confusing in this circumstance is the difference between owning the rights to a piece of art and owning cattle.
No, no. It's not cattle. Ownership of woman isn't the same as of cattle. Cattle you can kill, buy, sell, use in any way you desire. A woman somewhere in the not-very-old days is a subject to law; can't be killed at whim, for instance, can't be legally sold (transfer as a wife isn't exactly the same), can even have property herself. Not cattle. And a widow doesn't have even a partial owner, so has rights very close to a man. A person in her own right, not property. Yet partially owned, with her creator/feeder able to dictate the use of her body.


I understand that. However, assuming that a woman is property, she still isn't owned in the same sense that IP rights are owned.
The concept of non-slave human ownership goes a bit earlier. It all starts at a child. Actually, no, it all starts at an embryo, which is still considered property of the parent.

But let's take the child. In the West, a child is still a partial property of his/her/its parents. The parents decide which school the child goes to, if any, how to program it, make all the decisions for it. Oh, yes, there's a concept of "guardianship", which asserts that they are merely best suited to act in the child's best interests, but, sadly, it's bullshit.

For instance, in a hospital, the parents decide whether to consent to a procedure on their child. Which is kinda stupid, because a doctor is obviously more qualified to make medical decisions. It makes sense to ask the child, but who in the hell are the parents and on what basis do they have any say in the matter? Because the child's genes bear a similarity to theirs? That's absurd.
No.

It's because they feed the child, dress it, and house it. They have mentally and financially invested into the child, and as such have a de-facto limited ownership over it. Much like an artist has mentally invested into his brainchild.
This concepts dates from long ago. In the old days, this ownership was absolute. And, in the old and not so old days, this ownership continued not until an arbitrary cutoff age, but until they gave it up.
Here we come to husband-wife relationship. A girl wouldn't marry on her own, but would be married by her parents to whom they choose. Transferred. Since women these days didn't work in an office, but under the direction of their husband, mostly in secondary duties, they still didn't provide for themselves on their own. And that's why they were still considered their husband's partial property.


Now, the relationship between the artist and the work, "I have created you", and between the parent/husband and the child/wife, "I have created you and feed you" aren't exactly the same, but... both in the same zone.
Both are about partial ownership over what you have created, or more broadly what exists thanks to you (feeding your wife).

Yeah, it seems you did.

Read it again, masturbating is not the same thing as being open about masturbating.

A theoretical situation where children under 18 are medically and legally able to give consent is not the same thing as rape. But you have made it very clear that you believe it will never be possible, which fulfills the second question of the OP: "which of these will never be justified/acceptable?"


None of which equates to children being able to give consent.

Fair enough, I think it will be different in the future. A person who turns 18 is not suddenly thrusted with the ability to make unclouded judgements, but that is an argument for another thread in another day.


That wasn't 'my target in the first place'.

Yes it was, you attacked the poll for placing polyamory beside open masturbation and child pornography.

I didn't say I was angry.

You are acting in an impolite and unnecessarily hostile manner.

To me - your poll and OP are worse than useless.

Yes it was, you attacked the poll for placing polyamory beside open masturbation and child pornography.

I suggest you actually read what I wrote.

You are acting in an impolite and unnecessarily hostile manner.

Impolite is a matter of opinion, apparently - and does not equate to being angry.

I fairly rapidly presented my objection to the construction of the OP/poll, and the response you cite comes after several excuses for why it's okay to group things together like that, and why the poll is okay.

To me, it's not okay. For the purpose for which it's allegedly intended, it's worse than useless.

That's not especially impolite. It certainly isn't any kind of strong emotion, much less anger.

I suggest you actually read what I wrote.:

I'm a little concerned that you judge the stigma attached to three different kinds of sexual non-consent actions... effectively somehow equal with polyamoury and two forms of masturbation.

You attacked the poll for placing polyamory beside open masturbation and child pornography, because the stigma attached to masturbation and polyamoury is unjustified prejudice, whereas child abuse is more along the lines of "illegal".

:



You attacked the poll for placing polyamory beside open masturbation and child pornography, because the stigma attached to masturbation and polyamoury is unjustified prejudice, whereas child abuse is more along the lines of "illegal".

I had no problems with open masturbation and polyamoury being together. Those are matters of personal preference, and so you could make the argument that the stigma attached to them is 'prejudice'.

Sex with a child, on the other hand, is not a matter of personal preference - because a child is not capable of giving effective consent.

I understand your anger/discontent with the choices of options in my poll and its agenda of humanising illegal sexual activities. That's fine, you've already mentioned that in your first reply.

But the question did harbor interesting responses from other posters, which was the point of this thread.

If you believe this thread is an unjustified attack against certain activities (flamebaiting), please hit the report button and let the moderators handle it. If you don't like this thread, please just ignore this thread and the other replies to your post, rather than continuing to threadshit with the same things you've been saying since page 1.

Sex with a child, on the other hand, is not a matter of personal preference - because a child is not capable of giving effective consent.

[devil's advocate]If birth-control is used, what do you mean by "consent"? can a child not give consent to eat ice-cream or play Candy Land?[/devil's advocate]

It is impossible for us to accurately judge these things, since we have been so deeply socially conditioned to view these things as objectively immoral.

It is impossible for us to accurately judge these things, since we have been so deeply socially conditioned to view these things as objectively amoral.

Immoral.

Immoral.

My fault. Editted.

If certain religious extremists take over the world, polyamory (well, polygamy) will become acceptable.
If certain hedonists take over the world, polyamory will also become acceptable.

The other options do not have two fanatical but opposite groups promoting them (maybe one, and not that fanatical), so they're less likely.

I hope all the options that are sex with an inappropriate partner will become acceptable to talk about, but not to do. Perhaps the dolls could be used as a replacement. The reason I hope so is that if the people with these desires don't have to fear for their lives when they talk about them, it will be easier to know who to keep your children and pets away from. Also, they'd be more likely to receive support in their not giving in to their desires.

Actually I hope nobody who says something shocking will have to fear for their life anymore.

[devil's advocate]If birth-control is used, what do you mean by "consent"? can a child not give consent to eat ice-cream or play Candy Land?[/devil's advocate]

The parts of the brain that deal with evaluating cause-and-effect and repurcussion have been shown to evolve fairly slowly - 'maturing' somewhere between 16 and 22 years.

A child below 16 lacks the hardware to make a real evaluation of the risks and responsibilities inherent in his/her actions - which isn't that big a deal when the game is Candy Land, or even eating ice-cream.

Pretty words, but meaningless. This would do great among art students.
As opposed to your words, which would do great among the poorly read and ignorant.
Car design is most definitely art; one of the most exclusive artistic professions. However, when I buy a great looking car, it isn't some "continual interaction". Yes, my thanks to the folks who made it so pretty, thanks. But it's a piece of metal that gets my butt from A to B. A good looking result of good craftsmanship directed by good designers, thanks to which I can move my butt in style. My piece of metal, for which I have paid its creators, and looking good was included in the price.

You have to be heavily stoned to perceive people saying "Nice wheels!" as a continual interaction between their perception and the artist's intentionality.
Car design is most definitely not art. It has a practical function which is paramount. Any aesthetics the car might possess are embellishments on a utilitarian object.
If someone said, "Hey, you know what would make this car really aesthetically interesting? If we put the wheels where the headlights and turn signals go, and then attached turning signals and headlights to the drive shafts!" The only rational response would be, "What are you, a fucking moron?"
Artists, however, regular break such bounds and conventions. To be an artist, you have to be at least capable (even if you don't do it constantly) of challenging the culture that you exist in.
Now, the relationship between the artist and the work, "I have created you", and between the parent/husband and the child/wife, "I have created you and feed you" aren't exactly the same, but... both in the same zone.
Both are about partial ownership over what you have created, or more broadly what exists thanks to you (feeding your wife).
They are in entirely different zones, for reasons I have already elaborated. I really don't want to be responsible for another split thread about a topic I was only slightly interested in the first place, so let's just let this die.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;14576148]Open-sex relationships between married couples is uncommon, yes. But, like the two forms of masturbation - it's not rape... which sex with a minor must be, since they are not able to consent. QUOTE]

So minors are incapable of saying "yes, I will have sex with you?"

So minors are incapable of saying "yes, I will have sex with you?"

You can make them say the words, but that's not the same.

So minors are incapable of voluntarily saying "yes, I will have sex with you"?

So minors are incapable of voluntarily saying "yes, I will have sex with you"?

What age of minor are you speaking of? Children over 16 may be expected to have some knowledge of what they're consenting to, but it's doubtful that many of them are ready for the full ramifications of it. I doubt very much that many nine-year-olds can say "yes, I will have sex with you," with any understanding of exactly what it is they are consenting to. The key word, which many people want to ignore is "informed" as in "informed consent." And even if they understood the words, they have no real context in which to understand the act. So, no, minors, in general, are not capable of fully informed consent.

This is why they have to be protected from predators who would take advantage of this lack of information. Unless, of course, you think it's cool to abuse the innocent.

What age of minor are you speaking of? Children over 16 may be expected to have some knowledge of what they're consenting to, but it's doubtful that many of them are ready for the full ramifications of it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I am just curious. What ramifications are there beyond STD risk and pregnancy?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I am just curious. What ramifications are there beyond STD risk and pregnancy?

Aside from the physical, there is the emotional. Much as many people would like to deny it, there is an emotional component to healthy sexual relations. Whether you call it love or "friends with benefits" you rarely find a sexual relationship where both people remain emotionally unconnected. It's hard enough on presumed adults who have some knowledge and understanding of their own emotions, but adolescents are just barely coming to terms with them and frequently mistake other feelings, like need, for love. Again, they need to be protected from predators (some of whom may be their own age) who would exploit this vulnerability.

What age of minor are you speaking of? Children over 16 may be expected to have some knowledge of what they're consenting to, but it's doubtful that many of them are ready for the full ramifications of it. I doubt very much that many nine-year-olds can say "yes, I will have sex with you," with any understanding of exactly what it is they are consenting to. The key word, which many people want to ignore is "informed" as in "informed consent." And even if they understood the words, they have no real context in which to understand the act. So, no, minors, in general, are not capable of fully informed consent.

This is why they have to be protected from predators who would take advantage of this lack of information. Unless, of course, you think it's cool to abuse the innocent.

I would agree that in our current society, a nine year old isn't capable of informed consent (I would still say the AoC should be lowered to fourteen, considering the number of people who have sex at that age without issues beyond what someone over the current AoC has). I would have to assume, however, that with a lower or eliminated age of consent, other reforms would be made that would give a nine year old (or even younger) just as much ability to know about the world as someone that can legally have sex now.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not personally interested in having sex with nine year olds. I consider AoC to be one of many changes that should be made, as anyone who looks at my previous posts should notice.

I would agree that in our current society, a nine year old isn't capable of informed consent (I would still say the AoC should be lowered to fourteen, considering the number of people who have sex at that age without issues beyond what someone over the current AoC has). I would have to assume, however, that with a lower or eliminated age of consent, other reforms would be made that would give a nine year old (or even younger) just as much ability to know about the world as someone that can legally have sex now.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not personally interested in having sex with nine year olds. I consider AoC to be one of many changes that should be made, as anyone who looks at my previous posts should notice.

It's not 'informed' in as much as educated - it's 'informed' in as much as understanding the ramifications.

Children's brains don't work like adult brains - hence ages of consent.

scientifically speaking, that's not true. (I'll show my source later)

scientifically speaking, that's not true. (I'll show my source later)

Nuh uh. Show it now. You don't say things like that and then defer showing the source, knowing that later will never come. Source, now, please.

scientifically speaking, that's not true. (I'll show my source later)

We've actually got people on this forum, trained in this field, who have provided sources supporting what I said.

I've yet to see an actual scientific study that contradicts it. And, apparently, I'm still waiting.

Islamophobia, either my way or their way.

Aresion: Actually, Grave is right. Adults' and youths' brains are different. Brain function deteriorates with increased age (Dennis, et.al., Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20:8, pp. 1390–1402).

Oh shit, did I just turn your ageist argument around and use it against you? DAMN RIGHT I DID!

Children do not have the same ability to understand their emotions, their decisions and the consequences as older people. They do not have the ability to determine when they are being led up the garden path by unscrupulous sorts, so to speak. As long as this is the case, children will continue to be manipulated into situations they don't understand and certainly don't want, by adults who know how to manipulate and confuse children.

This is the reason that children cannot give informed consent. They do not have the emotional and intellectual ability to determine whether someone is lying to them. They do not have the ability to determine whether someone is working in their best interests or not. It has nothing to do with their understanding of the mechanics of the sex act.

Do you seriously think that removing the age of consent, or lowering it substantially is not going to create a terrible and traumatic situation for children everywhere? Far worse than what it is now, with a paedophile able to use the excuse, "S/he said s/he wanted it."

Aresion: Actually, Grave is right. Adults' and youths' brains are different. Brain function deteriorates with increased age (Dennis, et.al., Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20:8, pp. 1390–1402).

Oh shit, did I just turn your ageist argument around and use it against you? DAMN RIGHT I DID!

You're far more impressed with yourself than you deserve, I'm afraid.

There is nothing 'ageist' about saying that brains develop, and that the abilities of a young and an old brain will be different - any more than it would be 'ageist' to stop babies driving cars, or to say that a week-old-baby is too young to talk. Describing actual aspects of physical development is not a prejudice.

Children do not have the same ability to understand their emotions, their decisions and the consequences as older people. They do not have the ability to determine when they are being led up the garden path by unscrupulous sorts, so to speak. As long as this is the case, children will continue to be manipulated into situations they don't understand and certainly don't want, by adults who know how to manipulate and confuse children.

You may be interested in the research of Make Males. He found that the reason youth are less mature is not inherent from their age, but rather due to the expectations of society. In expecting immaturity, society creates it. If youth were given rights, they would not be infantilised by society and would be more capable.

Pretty words, but meaningless. This would do great among art students.
It's perfectly tangible art theory.

You may be interested in the research of Make Males. He found that the reason youth are less mature is not inherent from their age, but rather due to the expectations of society. In expecting immaturity, society creates it. If youth were given rights, they would not be infantilised by society and would be more capable.
Mike Males is talking about developed youths and young teens, not young, developing children.

You may be interested in the research of Make Males. He found that the reason youth are less mature is not inherent from their age, but rather due to the expectations of society. In expecting immaturity, society creates it. If youth were given rights, they would not be infantilised by society and would be more capable.

From what I read on this website (youthfacts.org), supposedly his own, I'll take real scientists over this pathetic conspiracy theorist drivel.

mike males is talking about developed youths and young teens, not young, developing children.

qft

You may be interested in the research of Make Males. He found that the reason youth are less mature is not inherent from their age, but rather due to the expectations of society. In expecting immaturity, society creates it. If youth were given rights, they would not be infantilised by society and would be more capable.

You may be surprised by:

(Note: This link will open a .pdf file)

"This process is not simply a matter of cognitive understanding of consequences (e.g. knowing the risks of HIV, pregnancy, or driving drunk or the long-term rewards of hard work, discipline, or academic accomplishments). Rather, adolescents must develop the ability to use such knowledge to reliably guide behavior in the absence of adult supervision.

Further, this new level of self-regulation must be achieved at the same time that maturational changes may alter the nature and strength of emotions evoked by contexts that are also undergoing change. Successful navigation of behavior through complex social challenges and ambiguous conflicts in adolescence requires a complex balancing of many strong competing feelings related to goals, fears, and desires. Mature judgment and behavioral control in the face of strong feelings and desires are only partially in place at the end of childhood and are skills that continue to show maturational improvements well beyond early adolescent years and into the mid-20s. It is precisely this increased ability and necessity of integrating maturing cognitive elements and emerging emotional and motivational factors in a complex system of conscious control that is in many ways the hallmark of adolescence (Keating, in press). As noted above, contemporary neuroscience evidence supports the view that systematic integration of an “executive suite” lies at the core of the adolescent transition (Keating, in press), shown particularly in the enhanced development of the prefrontal cortex, in expanded corticocortical communication (prefrontal and whole brain increases in white matter density), and in apparent synaptic pruning (proliferation and then decrease in gray matter density).

https://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/ebrief/000219/archives/DevelopmentalHandbook.pdf

Conventional wisdom says that there is an evolving 'suite' of tools for dealing with things like the effects of your actions, and that it is linked to the changing brain (specifically, in this article the changes and expansion/contraction in white/gray matter).

You may be surprised by:

(Note: This link will open a .pdf file)



https://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/ebrief/000219/archives/DevelopmentalHandbook.pdf

Conventional wisdom says that there is an evolving 'suite' of tools for dealing with things like the effects of your actions, and that it is linked to the changing brain (specifically, in this article the changes and expansion/contraction in white/gray matter).

See, this is scientific research that doesn't appear to have an agenda.

"What prejudices will be obsoleted in the future?"

eventually and ultimately all of them (there's nothing natural nor logical about any of them): but as long as politicians win elections by divide and concor, i'm not holding my breath.