Baby bunny killed live on Danish radio program

[Valka D'Ur]

The thing here is that "18" is purely a social construct, and has no objective basis for it. Why do we allow 18 year olds to vote? To join the army? To marry? To enter into any number of other legal contracts? But (in the US at any rate) they have to wait until 21 to drink? All social constructs. They have no validity in the objective sense. And they have changed over time, and are different in different cultures. "18" is just a modern Anglosphere construct which has been more or less exported to much of the rest of the world. But ignored by even more of the world.

The ages societies consider people emotionally or mentally mature enough to do some things just has nothing to do with biological realities. Girls go through puberty ages 12-14. Some even younger. Most girls will reach their full adult height by 15. But their bodies may not reach maximum physical maturity for several more years. Boys are a little later than that, and some men don't reach their full adult size until they're past 20. As for mental/emotional maturity, how would you judge? What objective measure could you possibly use?

200 years ago a boy of 14-16 might well be head of his family. He might be enlisted in the army. He might be married, he might be farming his own plot of land. A girl past the age of 16 might be an old maid, and have missed her best chance at marriage. It seems to me that people are taking a social construct that's less than a century old and holding it up as some universal rule. Why 18? Why not 16? Why not 20? With puberty, at least you have an objective measure. With a social construct, it's just a choice.

One reason why kids grew up faster in past centuries is because life expectancy was a lot shorter. There just wasn't time to give kids an extended childhood. As soon as they were physically able to do a job, they were put to work. Period, end of childhood, and they were lucky if they came out of it having had any education at all (ie. reading, writing, arithmetic). In modern times, we have child labor laws to prevent this sort of thing.

It was considered common for girls to marry anywhere from 14-16 onward. By the time they were 20, if they were still unmarried, it was considered shameful. You want to know how recent a thing it is for unmarried older women to be considered normal? When I was in my 20s (back in the '80s), some of my classmates and older family members would come up to me and say right out, "You're not married yet? Why not, what's the hold up?" It wasn't said in a friendly way - it was just another way of saying, "You're not married at your age? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you, that you're not married yet?"

Thankfully, my dad never pushed like that. Neither did my grandmother. My mother, however, was relentless in her attitude of "I want you to get married and have kids. I want to be a grandmother." Even the slightest hint that I'd met someone, or was dating, was enough to provoke a reaction of "Oh, good, is it serious?" like she'd be only too happy to get the wedding all arranged and have it a done deal within the month.

As far as I am aware, kids can get their learner's permit at 14, and take their regular driving tests at 16 - at least that's how it was when I was a teenager - I never did learn to drive, though I aced the written test that they give the 14-year-olds. The legal age in Alberta is 18 - for voting, drinking, and buying lottery tickets and tobacco products. However, most stores have signs that say they will ask for ID if someone looks like they're younger than 25, just to make sure that no mid/late teens slip through.

There is a movement among some people to lower the voting age to 16 - something I approve of, as it would have a positive impact on the high school kids who are taught about democracy in their high school social studies classes, but not allowed to actually participate until they're out of school and have many other things on their minds that tend to take much greater precedence over voting - college/university, finding work, moving out, etc. I remember when I was 18 - I couldn't care less that it meant that I was legally old enough to go into a bar or liquor store. What it meant to me was that I could finally join my grandparents when they did this thing called Voting (yes, they raised me to understand that it was something important). I felt ready to vote at 16 - I went to the municipal and federal election forums at that age, and it just didn't seem fair that I wasn't allowed to actually cast a ballot.

 

[Flying Pig]

One reason why kids grew up faster in past centuries is because life expectancy was a lot shorter. There just wasn't time to give kids an extended childhood. As soon as they were physically able to do a job, they were put to work. Period, end of childhood, and they were lucky if they came out of it having had any education at all (ie. reading, writing, arithmetic). In modern times, we have child labor laws to prevent this sort of thing.

How far, then, was that a matter of people who weren't ready to do things being forced to do them too early, and how far was a it a matter of people developing the necessary maturity faster - at, no doubt, the expense of other things - because society treated them differently? We certainly mollycoddle young people to quite a high degree today - nobody at 20 who has never had to work lived with their parents and had their dinner cooked and washing done every day can really be called capable of living on their own, but people who have been forced by necessity to start doing so much earlier often can. I wonder how far that can be applied backwards, to argue that people actually 'grew up faster' psychologically.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How far, then, was that a matter of people who weren't ready to do things being forced to do them too early, and how far was a it a matter of people developing the necessary maturity faster - at, no doubt, the expense of other things - because society treated them differently? We certainly mollycoddle young people to quite a high degree today - nobody at 20 who has never had to work lived with their parents and had their dinner cooked and washing done every day can really be called capable of living on their own, but people who have been forced by necessity to start doing so much earlier often can. I wonder how far that can be applied backwards, to argue that people actually 'grew up faster' psychologically.

When it's a matter of survival, kids do tend to grow up faster. Obviously I don't mean physically. But psychologically? Yeah, most do, because they either grow up or die. Whether this can actually be measured to strict laboratory standards, I have no idea. Someone should invent a time machine and find out.

 

[Angst]

Alrighty then, we can toss that post in with the camp of it being appropriate to sex people when their bodies start being sexy then? In the lack of bright lines just go with some arbitrary date that roughly coincides with the lowest common denominator of the biological desire to rut the minor?

You know, there's also the camp of "it's appropriate to sex people when their and your bodies start being sexy." - you actively reduce social libertarianism - intended to serve 15-year-olds to carry out their desires, not the other way around - to some sort of a conspiracy, it's beginning to get quite annoying. And confusing. Didn't you claim that you were in the camp of allowing teenagers to get intimate - are you reducing your own perspective to you wanting to boink them as well?

EDIT: Sorry about the tone. My fault, again. Here, listen, the point is that research shows that 15-year-olds aren't hurt by sex. You can also extend your own argument to that simply allowing sex (say at age 18 - or, well, at all) to be a conspiracy of philia and lust where the politickers note to themselves when they really want to boink some person, that the only reason an age of consent exists at all is to allow them to boink the people that they think sexy. I understand this is the argument you're posting, but it just doesn't meld with the data provided to the decisionmakers, data that is - or should - the fundamental premise for deciding when people are allowed to have sex. Because it doesn't matter much if politicians want to boink 15-year-olds if they aren't hurt by it. The reason ephebophilia is legal is not to serve the ephebophiles at the cost of the pubescent. It's to serve either parties, and primarily the pubescent. I understand social stigma can traumatize (and I guess it can in America?) but have you actively searched some data to decide, on your own, what age you think would be appropriate, because I'm unsure.

EDITEDIT, hey a good question! Do you have stories, even anecdotes (I'm honestly curious) about 15-year-olds being traumatized or damaged for having sex with each other, in America? You kind of need considerations like that anyways to pull off the "trauma is often through the social constructs" argument. Because honestly, the two arguments I've heard for keeping the age-18-consent are, first, that sex requires responsibility as it's so srs business (that you'll only get at adulthood, this argument doesn't line up with biology though) and, second, that legal minors should be protected from adults. I've never heard the argument that sex hurts a 15-year-old (when having sex with another 15-year-old, for example); rather it's often considered in the 15-year-old's needs, or wants at least, which is just brushed to the side because "sex is a serious, serious adult thing that needs a lot of responsibility and adult mental surplus to carry out without, say, being an idiot and getting an STD-baby" - what other horrible consequences are imagined? You do understand such a reasoning looks down upon the wants of the biological pubescent because it's rendered immature, and that this actual age group is perfectly able to carry out the act without damaging themselves throughout the world? That's why I said it was a moralism, and why I talked about the air of conservatism or whatever (which has to do with my own perception, I admit). It smells a little bit about a certain paradigmic attitude that considers sex "the beast with two backs," if you understand what I mean - do you?

 

[warpus]

Alrighty then, we can toss that post in with the camp of it being appropriate to sex people when their bodies start being sexy then? In the lack of bright lines just go with some arbitrary date that roughly coincides with the lowest common denominator of the biological desire to rut the minor?

Eh, I like the Danish approach to it the best so far, if it was in fact Danish. I think it was, but I just woke up, so I might be misremembering.

It seems very sensible and healthy.

 

[Angst]

To be fair, it's also partly American and Canadian, along with several other nationalities. My counterpoint was specifically to the American states that approach teenage sexuality unintuitively, there are other countries that approach it as such, and there are countries that approach sexuality at large much much more horrid than the 18-year-standard. Here's a map.

Spoiler :

Note that the individual states' laws vary quite a bit. Iirc, Japan for example, has an age of consent of 13 but disallows people over a certain age to sex these early teens. So many things look worse than they are, while other things looks better than they are, I guess. On the other hand Japan has a practice of certain businesses - names and specifics I forget - but iirc they offer the companionship of 13-year-olds in a superficially nonsexual way, the adults may buy panties of the teens and so on. Again, if I remember correctly - I forget the details of these enterprises. But rather than being an abstraction of actions' implications as Farm Boy outlied with for example 8-year-old Danish girls' backrubs, they're specifically with sexual connotations to please the paying men. So yes, it feeds into his argument - it has some overlap with the abstractions as such. But in my defense ( ) I'd argue there's such a thing as tone and intentionality that 13-year-old kids do have fundamental control over. Still waiting for his considerations about my above points though, Farm Boy, if you're going to discuss this, please also talk about my latest post, I'm interested in what you think, honestly.

 

[Farm Boy]

Warpus, well, despite that he thinks I'm attacking it, I'm not tossing out "you can screw the kids when they're old enough that most adults want to screw them" as a viable option. The timing of 14/15 makes the reason it would be 14 or 15 obvious(as opposed to Romeo&Juliet age of consent laws where 30 year olds aren't allowed to eff the children even though they aren't going to be punished for diddling each other) but that's almost certainly the easiest place to put it. And putting it at the easiest-ish place makes enforcement easy-er-ish. I'm not out of tune with biology completely, I just know that biology does its own thing for its own reasons. Reasons which may, or may not be, a particularly good thing to encourage in a rational society.

Angst, for the "traumatized by social constructs" bit I'm asking how much of the harm reported by 15/16 year olds in America who get screwed by middle aged adults, which is child molestation pretty much everywhere(?) in the US, and they do seem to report being harmed by the molestation, is actually harm because of how the action is socially constructed? How much is caused by being "the girl/boy who got raped and people know you got raped." How much is caused by being "the girl/boy who is screwing her/his friend's older brother when they shouldn't be since it's rape?" How much of the harm is caused by society thundering, "YOU. GOT. ABUSED. YOU WERE NOT VALUED BY ONE YOU LOVED. THIS RENDERED YOU WORTH LESS AS A PERSON WHETHER YOU LIKED IT OR NOT. VICTIM." And how much of that harm disappears if society considers what you did to be normal and healthy? Some? All? None?

 

[Angst]

So that's how it is in the US. That is interesting. I agree, I can buy your argument about social stigma, when it comes to 15-year-olds, they're perfectly capable here. Less so with the 8-year-old.

This is not an 8-year-old - or, well, I don't recall the concrete age - but you might find the doc interesting, if you haven't seen it.


Link to video.

Now there may be some social stigma feeding into her later in her life, but there is concrete observable behavior of damaged psychology happening before any authorities developed her trauma socially, I'd argue.

This is all from memory, of course, I might be completely wrong about the specifics, but I've seen the doc a number of times, so I'm pretty sure I have its details right. (I don't have time to watch it right now, wanted to share as soon as I thought of it.)

edit: I realize that the doc is quite dramatic, but the events outlined, I'd argue, seem authentic and ... proof-wisely-good? Forgot the word. I think it's speaks as proof that children at a certain age, at least, can't deal with sexual abuse. She was abused otherwise iirc, but I think the sexual abuse is quite relevant.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, I'm about 10 minutes into this, and the girl and boy in that documentary were not only sexed from if not, then near, infancy coupled with huge amounts of physical and emotional neglect. If you're tossing in my 8 year old backrub examples with this, then you're not out of the woods of the stigma that would put your life at risk in parts of America were you to be open with the fact that you as an adult man were into effing 14/15 year old girls.

 

[Angst]

It was not to cement anything, I just think it was a good documentary. I am well aware that it's not the same as an 8-year-old's backrub.

 

[Narz]

Discomfort with teenage male sexuality is jealousy? Bwahahaha!

I'm sorry, that might have been rude. But thank you. That was a decent guffaw here.

Hey, I can only speak for myself.

Re : Angst. I think the only thing more traumatizing than being a teenager who has sex is being a teenager who doesn't have sex.

In these discussions I notice you almost never hear from actually teenagers (16, 17 year olds speaking about their own experiences). And if you do there's usually some patronizing person saying "Well they're too young & dumb to even understand the gravitas of sex/love/their actions/etc."

Most people nowadays don't seem to know what the hell they're doing (sexually, emotionally, occupationally, etc.) until their early 30's (I know I didn't, not to say I've all got it figured out now). I don't think lack of maturity should necessarily be coupled with lack of responsibility or autonomy. Actually I'd argue that pushing adulthood back to 18 or 21 or 25 only enhances immaturity.

I'm not making any particular argument for age of consent or whether teens should be able to screw or sext each other without going to prison, just stream of consciousnessing my opinion as is the custom on the Internet.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Angst, for the "traumatized by social constructs" bit I'm asking how much of the harm reported by 15/16 year olds in America who get screwed by middle aged adults, which is child molestation pretty much everywhere(?) in the US, and they do seem to report being harmed by the molestation, is actually harm because of how the action is socially constructed?

You'd have to separate out situations where the act was against the will of either party, which wouldn't leave you a lot to work with I suspect. The same social construct creates repulsive feedback to both parties under normal circumstances, so you're not going to see this too often. You do have the occasional teacher/student news story, but that has conflict-of-interest as a very legitimate non-social construct reason against it.

Outside of situations of conflict of interest and actions that would be obvious crime regardless of age involved, I suspect a large component of psychological harm is social construct. What I'm not sure of is if that's the *only* source in those instances.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, acknowledging teachers-students as a point of disparate power/influence, or conflict-of-interest as you put it, doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't instances of this sort of relationship happening where both parties are relatively satisfied with the goings on. The harm, as such, is still probably socially constructed at least in part. I guess one could try digging around in the relationships of students/teachers who later openly date/marry and see if you can draw the conclusion that some of those couples were into each other and hiding it previously.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, acknowledging teachers-students as a point of disparate power/influence, or conflict-of-interest as you put it, doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't instances of this sort of relationship happening where both parties are relatively satisfied with the goings on. The harm, as such, is still probably socially constructed at least in part. I guess one could try digging around in the relationships of students/teachers who later openly date/marry and see if you can draw the conclusion that some of those couples were into each other and hiding it previously.

Maybe it's possible, but it seems unnecessarily noisy for determining extent of social construct contribution to psychological damage. This topic is noisy enough without extra factors as is just due to differences in personalities, so introducing a legitimate power/influence disparity on top of that (and then only measuring the outcome at a future date) seems like a dangerous way to try to make conclusions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Probably true. I guess you dig through that statutory rape bins then? Still probably going to be a lot of confounding factors. I mean, wouldn't the simplest comparison be like Dutch children who get openly mounted by their old rich and powerful as compared to groups that do the same thing in the states, like some of the FLDS umbrella? Or states that allow young marriages with parental consent? Compare those children to their local peers that don't get sexed in locally acceptable fashion by their elders? Also compare them to non-forcible statutory rape populations? I'm still not sure how you're going to control for disparate educational experiences, different poverty rates, and everything else.

Huh, they've disappeared from the news, but apparently the state of Utah has been busily figuring out ways to evict FLDS people from their homes since they arrested Jeffs.