Swingers cucks and cheaters oh my.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

You still haven't answered my question. Other than stds and unplanned pregnancies, what else is there about sex that isn't totally harmless?


ANSWER ME!

In most people, sex stimulates the release of hormones and neurotransmitters which cause a sense of attachment and bonding. Therefore, people who have the maturity and mental capacity to be responsible with who they have sex with, and with the context and circumstances surrounding that sex, have an ethical obligation to do so, to avoid doing emotional and psychological harm to their sex partners.

It's not magic. It's just the intersection of biology and human intellect.

People who don't have the maturity and mental capacity to be responsible with who they have sex with, and with the context and circumstances surrounding that sex, probably shouldn't really be having sex. Which is why those who DO, shouldn't have it with them.

I was aware of the imprinting thing, I was not aware that it was strong enough to cause the kind of issues you imply. But since it definitely is another thing that can cause problems as I asked, and since I admittedly don't have a good enough working knowledge of Kinsey and so forth to make any sort of valid argument as to what severity of problems it is most likely to cause, and since I feel I have sufficiently executed my duties as self-proclaimed promotor fidei I will concede the argument.

[The Johnny]

You still haven't answered my question. Other than stds and unplanned pregnancies, what else is there about sex that isn't totally harmless?


ANSWER ME!

Ive heard of clinical cases in which individuals were sexually abused at a very young age, develop so called "sexual addiction" and consequently want to have sex with anyone, or everyone... at age 11.

Whats your opinion on, say, NAMBLA, for example?

Curious.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

...
You want to renew your subscription to jstor to confirm that having sex with someone lacking emotional maturity is a bad idea....

...wow

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Shit! I accidentally deleted my last post while trying to modify it!

But yes. Without a rigid definition of "emotional maturity" and scientific testing we're both just blowing a bunch of hot air. Come to think of it, we'd also need a rigorous definition of "bad". I think there's definitely some minimum cutoff for required emotional maturity below which things do indeed get bad, but I'd wager the cutoff is lower than where you think it is, instead being in the range of violent posessiveness and actually disordered personalities.


But until I can find anything solid for or against, I will concede the argument.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Shit! I accidentally deleted my last post while trying to modify it!

But yes. Without a rigid definition of "emotional maturity" and scientific testing we're both just blowing a bunch of hot air. Come to think of it, we'd also need a rigorous definition of "bad". I think there's definitely some minimum cutoff for required emotional maturity below which things do indeed get bad, but I'd wager the cutoff is lower than where you think it is, instead being in the range of violent posessiveness and actually disordered personalities.


But until I can find anything solid for or against, I will concede the argument.

Maturity is a spectrum. You're not going to get a clearly scientifically defined definition. It's also an ongoing thing, and large disparities in age or maturity aren't conducive to healthy romantic relationships.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Also, y'all are trying to entrap me with strawman arguments. If you'll look back to the beginning of the thread, you'll see that I was talking about emotionally immature like an 18 year old, NOT emotionally immature like a 12 year old or a 5 year old like you people are trying to make it out to be. There's a difference to those who can see it and remember it; if you aren't so old that you just subconsciously group anyone young enough to still have their original knees into the category of "small children"

EDIT:
Ninja'd

EDIT:
But it's a relevant ninja. It is a spectrum, and people are making me out to be pointing at a different range than I am.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also, y'all are trying to entrap me with strawman arguments. If you'll look back to the beginning of the thread, you'll see that I was talking about emotionally immature like an 18 year old, NOT emotionally immature like a 12 year old or a 5 year old like you people are trying to make it out to be. There's a difference to those who can see it and remember it; if you aren't so old that you just subconsciously group anyone young enough to still have their original knees into the category of "small children"

EDIT:
Ninja'd

EDIT:
But it's a relevant ninja. It is a spectrum, and people are making me out to be pointing at a different range than I am.

No one is making the strawman that you think they are.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

It certainly sounds like they are

[Doktor Howl]

This thread is a pile of arse biscuits.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It certainly sounds like they are

Probably because you can't wrap your head around the idea that people who have attained their majority can still have a maturity disparity with another consenting person who has also attained majority. A forty year old can legally fuck a nineteen year old but it's generally considered skeezy.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And let's face it, in that sort of situation, it's probably as emotionally unhealthy for the forty year old as it is for the nineteen year old.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

It certainly sounds like they are

Probably because you can't wrap your head around the idea that people who have attained their majority can still have a maturity disparity with another consenting person who has also attained majority. A forty year old can legally fuck a nineteen year old but it's generally considered skeezy.

That's also a strawman. If you'll look back to the beginning of this discussion, you'll see that I was responding to Q. G. Pennyworth saying that Meunster shouldn't be having sex with anyone

[Doktor Howl]

It certainly sounds like they are

Probably because you can't wrap your head around the idea that people who have attained their majority can still have a maturity disparity with another consenting person who has also attained majority. A forty year old can legally fuck a nineteen year old but it's generally considered skeezy.

That's also a strawman. If you'll look back to the beginning of this discussion, you'll see that I was responding to Q. G. Pennyworth saying that Meunster shouldn't be having sex with anyone

Neither should you.  There's too much risk associated with your genes moving around.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

You don't sound mature enough to be fucking.

Why should he need to be mature? Of age should be sufficient

Ewwwwwwwww.

I think you read my post backwards. I said they do have to be of age.

There's a difference between "not illegal" and "not gross" that you seem to be missing here. Age of consent laws are designed to prevent people who are too immature to consent to sexual activity from being taken advantage of by more mature people. The laws by necessity use age as an approximation of maturity, because there's no way to legally define the latter. Your statement can easily be read as "I would gladly fuck someone who isn't capable of comprehending the ramifications of sexual activity as long as I won't go to jail for it." Which is ewwwww.

What are the ramifications, assuming you remember to use a condom? Because it seems like a simple condpm would take care of most of them (assuming it doesn't break; that scenario has never been likely but people seem to love to bring it up because of the ocasional times that it does happen. Maybe every time I drive a car I should be overly apprehensive about the possibility that the brakes might fail; that's something that occasionally happens too)


EDIT:
It was always my understanding that age of consent laws were based on a combination the assumption that anyone prepubescent would be so unlikely to want sex that it could safely be assumed to be rape, and attempts by purtianical interests to oppress teenage lovers because they see all sexuality as wrong and teenagers are a non-voting demographic that can be safely oppressed in this regard.

This is the thing you said. It is gross and so are you.

By what you said right there you believe the only reason age of consent laws should exist is because the bulk of underage children don't want to have sex. Not because they could be psychologically harmed by engaging in sexual acts with another person. Not because they can't say yes because they don't know what they're saying yes to. Not because children are impressionable by their nature and can be taught to say yes by predatory adults. Not because their brains are so under-developed that they can't make reasoned judgments about the risks of pregnancy and disease. Not even because sex between a minor and an adult can be physically dangerous. No, it's because "puritanical interests" and "safe assumptions." Fuck you, you ridiculous asshole. I hope all the bad things in the world happen to you and only you.

Meunster thinks there's a "right way" for people to arrange their lives and if he just thinks at it hard enough he can logic a solution, which is indicative of someone not having the slightest ability to recognize the differences between individuals and individual relationships, and based on his earlier post about how now that he's been dumped he's going to spiral into a self-destructive cycle of hedonism, I'm pretty comfortable with my statements.

[Doktor Howl]

Ew