Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

I'm a below average, not math/English majoring, person who has missed a great deal of high school, so I can say with a good deal of certainty that the SAT is too easy. My friend who "doesn't do math" got a math score that would indicate that he's in the 95 percentile of students, but if that's true, then how on earth are these people who get less that that majoring in math-based areas? By leaps and bounds, the SAT tests are too easy. I think the most difficult word on the test was "duplicity," and even that word's meaning is pretty obvious.

---

Originally posted by Cruel Justice

---

Most girls (especially the ones who talk to alot of guys) don't like lovey-duvey dudes.

---

Originally posted by Rom Manic

---

For a Christian, you seem awfully hateful towards sinners, SS...Love those around you who sin like brothers, and lead them by example to forgiveness.

---

Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

But that's the thing. The SAT doesn't mean anything. A person not excelling in English and math can ace it, with a TI-89 and a SAT class or two. A person good at English and math can fail it, because of the awkward format of the test.

---

Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

This shouldn't be the case, there shouldn't be any need for SAT classes. The test shouldn't be the norm. School curriculum shouldn't revolve around getting a good grade on the SAT or AP; the test should adjust to what people learn in school.

---

Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

To bring up the example of my friend, the fact that he did well on the SAT didn't reflect upon his level of English mastery or math mastery, because the SAT isn't a valid indicator of intellect.

---

Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

The SAT doesn't consider the fact that not everyone is a English or math majoring student.

---

Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

But regardless of this, the university system propagates this system, and if they didn't support it, it would filter out of the system.

---

Originally posted by Rom Manic

---

So how does one go about teaching them the ways of kindness, show them resentment and let them wallow in their self pity? You must take it upon yourself to show others what you believe is right, for they very well have influences to show them otherwise. From there, it's a choice up to them to make, but you can take peace in knowing you did all you could.

---

Originally posted by Rom Manic

---

I do not mean to imply following your beliefs to be a way of guiding others; more so, let it guide your own moral thought train to influence others. If someone you know sees you doing what is right, it influences them, however small or large. I'm glad to see you chose that path, but that is because that is what I believe is the right thing to do.

---

Originally posted by Rom Manic

---

Off topic in response to the second part of your post, Christianity may not call for that, but what do you have to lose by being a beacon of light in their darkness?

---

Originally posted by Rom Manic

---

By forgiving this person, you showed her that forgiveness is always an option. That's something not easily forgotten. You are under no ethical obligation, of course, but by being yourself, your moral self, you show others that there is a path to righteousness and a path to sin. You may wander between them, but when you take a situation literally and analyze the decisions made, you might realize that there is no escaping there is right, and there is wrong.

---

Originally posted by Ziff

---

Inter-human communication leads to sex? Daaaaamn. I thought that is how it worked!

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

On talking to guys and being promiscuous -- I would just like to say that I talk to a lot of guys... that doesn't mean I fuck them though

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

And the girls you know seem very strange to me. Course, in the various social circles I frequent, the girls I know mostly talk to blokes as friends, not exclusively as potential sex partners.

---

Originally posted by C`aos

---

There's nothing wrong with original characters as long as they have enough glaring faults to make them human (or less than), either by being innately less powerful or being less than likeable. On the other hand I think it's perfectly legitimate for them to gain power, but they should be willing to go through hell to accomplish it, or gain other unresolved problems in the process. And of course, they shouldn't need the overwhelming support of the fandom characters to get anywhere, nor should the fandom characters have any great dependancy on him/her.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

SS, your experience is limited and/or ridiculous. Some people, girls included, just like to talk to lots of people. They're what's known as "social" or "friendly". Even some of the slutty ones still just like talking to people too, while many are, indeed, utterly oblivious to any sexual undertones to this behaviour. Disclaimers or no, the idea that this somehow makes them morally suspect is actually vaguely insulting.

---

Originally posted by Arwon

---

At least you're qualifying your baffling opposition to promiscuity (such an ugly, clinical word, but unfortunately there's not many better ones) with the recognition that that's just your weirdo papist preoccupations at work, though ("a bit too promiscuous for my taste"). Cheers!

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

I'm going by my Abnormal Psychology textbook from college. For someone to have the disorder of pedophilia the object of their desire must meet 2 criteria, they must be pre-pubescent, and the age difference between the 2 must be greater than 6 years. The word pedophile is very commonly misused in the media.
As for your other point, being attracted to any person who is past the onset of puberty is not, strictly speaking, deviant. It is perfectly natural, even says so in my psych books. To act on such an attraction may be socially inappropriate, but simply finding the person attractive is natural. The point of the sex from a biological point of view is to have children, thus it is natural to find attraction to anyone capable of having children.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

[Coercion] is covered by forcible rape or sexual assault laws, you are still guilty of one of these crimes if you use threats or coercion to force sexual relations. Age of consent law is not necessary to cover this.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

True, and any teen girl with her heart set on it will find a way to do it by hook or by crook, age of consent laws wont stop her. All they end up doing is severely punishing the man she ends up seducing or lieing to about her age. Not to say that there are'nt older men who would love to be seduced by a teen girl, but its hard for me to see her as some poor distressed victim when she was out intentionally seeking an older man to seduce.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

True, most people who commit real sex crimes (not these bullshit ones), have mental disorders which need to be addressed. Sadly for them our current system of locking them up and labeling them in a way that makes them social pariahs only makes their mental distress worse.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Some states have an exception for things like this, but an alarming number do not. In the state I used to work in, not only did it not make any difference from a legal standpoint if she lied about her age, but you could'nt question her in court because you are'nt allowed to ask her anything in court which might hurt her reputation due to their laws meant to protect minors. So as a consequence there were alot of registered sex offenders who were just some poor sap who picked up a woman at an over 21 bar for a one-night stand only to discover later that she was actually 14-17 years old and had snuck in the bar and misled him.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

I did'nt do that on purpose, I did it because the societal stuff is dwarfed by the natural stuff. When societal rules get out of touch with what is natural human behavior we get a mess like this. In respect for our society I'd go along happily with making this sort of a "crime", in which no one was harmed and everything which took place was perfectly natural, into a misdemeanor. That way the young man gets something to show disapproval, but yet can still recover and have a good and normal life later on.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

*LOL* what a we debating about then? I guess we are just degenerate debaters

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Age of consent laws dont care what the circumstances were, all they do is robotically lock up anyone who who violates them. I even once came across a case where a young married couple (very young, they were both 15, I think they were Mormons) moved into the state where I was at. In their own state they were legally married and had a child. When they moved over, the girl had another child. They locked both of them up for Statutory Rape and took away their children after the birth certificate was signed.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

But the act is the same no matter what society thinks. I'm not sure males are actually able to deal with it better, because in Western society males are taught to hide their emotions and feelings more than females are. The male may brag about it and be a "player", but thats a very immature way to deal with it. The other thing to consider here is that our society is changing alot in this area, girls these days are not like they were when i was in high school. They act increasingly more like males used to. Female violence and crime is on a huge rise. So is promiscuity among female teens. Today many of them brag about their sexual conquests much like teen boys often do. This isn't the 50's anymore. I have a much younger sister, and I've been shocked several times by some of the girls she's brought around my parents house.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

True. In our Western Society, and actually in most societies world-wide, females commonly enter into relationships with males who are at least somewhat older. There is a biological explanation here as well, in that females mature slightly earlier than males do, so in olden times would marry slightly earlier than their male counter-parts. Many woman I've known have told me point-blank that they prefer to date men who are at least a couple years older than them. There will be cases of girls who later regret who they selected as a sexual partner. Many women origionally find themselves attracted to narcissistic men or men who beat them. Ideally they learn from the bad experience to avoid those types of men.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

the situation here is no different. A man who is trying to use a girl strictly for sex is just as wrong whether he's 40 or 17. The girl he slept with is just as used whether she is 14 or 35. Ideally she will realize she is being used and be less naive next time. If no force or coercion were involved then it's basically a life lesson akin to learning the hard way not to stick a fork in the light socket or drive like a race-car driver in the suberbs as you said earlier. Not everyone will need to learn these lessons the hard way. Most will realize these things on their own without actually trying them. "learning who is an appropriate sexual partner" is not so much about age anyway, it's about the individual. Just because there is an age difference in a relationship does not always mean that there are'nt real feelings there, and likewise, just because 2 people are the same age does'nt mean that they are automatically appropriate sexual pertners. What I'll be imparting on my children (when i finally get around to having them), is to assess the person more deeply than simply what their age is. Their motivation is of primary importance.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

It happens, absolutely. What i was saying was that generally (though once again not always), when there is such a huge age gap, there is also force, drugs or coercion. Meaning that age of consent laws were not necessry because other laws already cover those things. For example, if the older man enticed the young girl with alchohol, age of consent is not necessary because he is already guily of furnishing alcholol, corruption of minors, and Sexual Assault (in most states you can get Sexual Assault charges for having sex with someone who is intoxicated)

---

Originally posted by Young Guru

---

I used the term afraid exactly because of what Ziff said. The United States is currently being pushed arounded by politicians who use fear. Fear is behind all the "Think of the children" laws, all the "Anti-Terror" laws, etc. It is being used because there is no real justification for the removal of basic constitutional rights, but by stirring up fear people will disregard those power grabs.

---

Originally posted by Ziff

---

It isn't a dig at the right wing. It is talking about the usual bipartisan HE WILL RUIN AMERICA BECAUSE mongering that is used in every single election.

But I guess if the right want to feel victimized all the time... _¬

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

I don't see how it could be a dig at the right wing. This is about the Democratic primaries. The right wing has nothing to do with it.

---

Originally posted by Young Guru

---

So my question is, knowing what you know of the people of the United States, who do you think would be more likely to be elected president if there were no other choices.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Any "injury" in these sorts of cases is strictly in the mind's eye. If we can convince someone they are a victim, then encourage them to wallow in it, do we really have a victim? Likewise, if we take someone and try to convince them they have a problem, does that make the problem real? These developmental consequences you speak of are real when we talk about pre-pubescent children, but when we talk about teenagers, the majority of which are not virgins to begin with, you're on much shakier ground.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Perhaps there may be rare examples of teenagers who later become very distressed over consentual sex acts they involved themselves in, but this is the exception, not the rule, and is most prevalent when we talk about promiscuous sex. Just because there is an age difference that does'nt always make the sex promiscuous, many of these types of relationships have a romantic element as well. And promiscuous sex would be equally promiscuous if both parties are 13 or one is 15 and one 25.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Biology does not compel people to injure each other, except in cases of self-defense, or in cases of tribal territory disputes, but that would'nt come into play as we are all of the "American" tribe in my examples.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

And last i checked, self-defense is fully encouraged and the law accomodates that instinct rather well. If you are suggesting that there is an instinct to murder, you are mistaken, killing your own people is discouraged on the strongest terms throughout recorded history and among all primitive people that I'm aware of (with the rare exception of human sacrifice, which is another instance of culture being at odds with nature).

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

But teenagers having sex has been universally expected and encouraged until very very recently (speaking historically), and is clearly a natural instinct. But what about our ancestors then? Were they all being abused when they got married young? Is there a long standing cycle of trauma amongst our ancestors for marrying in their teen years? And usually with an age difference? It was regarded as cause for celebration back then, not as some dire traumatic event they'd never recover from....

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

I'm not speaking of children here (except in the most generic way that we're all somebodies child). It is unnatural to have sex with the pre-pubescent, no argument here.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Some teens know exactly what they want.. many dont, but some do. There are numerous examples of people who met when one of both of them were teens who ended with a long and happy marriage. The worst examples should'nt be used to punish the people who really have good intentions, or who are young and foolish themselves. Even in the worst case that could exist legally without age of consent laws (which to me is a very old person sweet talking a young teen), I think 10 years in prison and a life time of sex offender registration is very harsh. That sort of thing should be reserved for when there are small children or violence involved. I'd not have any problem with making that particular scenario a misdemeanor though.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

Because biology is real. Sociology is artificial. Both are necessary, but when there is a conflict between the to, biology should be given more credence. Someone who is acting on natural instinct is not a super-villain, they are more likely to be people who had a moment of weakness and followed their natural impulse. But sociology can be warped into some truly disturbing things (such as the human sacrifice from earlier).

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

The point which makes the most sense here, is the simple fact that the average age in which people lose their virginity is well below the age of consent in most states. This is an obvious indication that the law is out of touch with what is actually going on.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

People are having sex sooner and more frequently than in the past few decades, yet the age of consent has risen. Common, ordinary, everyday behavior should not be a felony.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

That sort of thing cheapens it when someone actually is raped for real [...]

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

[...] ontop of ruining lots of lifes needlessly.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

You speak alot about the "traumatized" teen girls who had consentual, un-coerced sex.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

What you may not realize is that alot of these girls are traumatized, but not in the way you think. Many of them were in love with the person they had uncoerced consentual sex with. When this person is locked away for years and otherwise severely penalized, the girl can be traumatized that that happened to someone they love and they feel responsible for it, because they were an equal partner.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

And what about if children are involved? They lose their father, and will have to deal with the shame of trying to explain to their friends later on that their father is a registered sex offender.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

This isn't always the case, there are numerous exceptions to this. It comes down to motivation once again, if that 40 year old truly loves and cares about that 16 year old, and vice versa, then damage is highly unlikely, except when one dies much sooner than the other, of course.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

I mentioned drugs and alchohol because in many cases with an age difference and one shady partner in the relationship, the lure is that the older guy entices the young girl with alchohol or drugs which she cannot obtain easily on her own. What other lure would a very old man use to seduce a young teen girl? [Emphasis mine.]

---