Like many, possibly all, parliamentarians, I receive a regular e-mail circular from Peter Tatchell. As may be expected, I don’t always agree with what he says, but he often raises important issues and, like a number of my Conservative colleagues, I admire his tenacity and read what he has to say.
Until I got one of his recent e-mails, I had not realised that Professor John Spencer, of Cambridge University, had raised the issue of lowering the age of consent. Peter Tatchell writes: ‘Together with Professor Spencer, I believe the time has come for a calm, rational reassessment of the age at which young people should be lawfully entitled to have sex. We need this debate because the current age of consent of 16 ignores reality.’
I can see the force of the last sentence. But I fully recognise the problems associated with changing the law. I know very few people (actually, I don’t think I know any) who believe that young people should be having sex at fourteen or fifteen. In an ideal world, young people would achieve some degree of maturity before engaging in sex (which could be in their twenties or later, but that’s another debate) and we would have in place effective methods (family, education) of enabling them to know that it is undesirable to have sex at an early age.
The problem is that we don’t live in an ideal world. Some children – rather a lot – do engage in sex at a young age. Do we recognise that by changing the law? If a fifteen-year-old girl falls pregnant by a fifteen-year-old boy, is there much to be gained by sending the boy to prison? But if we change the law, is there not the very real danger that we send out what will be seen as a green light that sex is okay at whatever age the limit is set?
Is the answer to do what some argue in respect of assisted dying? That is, leave the law as it is and allow the courts and agencies of the state to interpret it in such a way as to ensure that the outcome is the best in the particular circumstances? But is that not to give too much discretion to the courts and other bodies? Ultimately, should not Parliament make clear precisely what is and what is not permitted and the courts and other agencies then apply what Parliament has prescribed?
Or are we placing too much stress on legislation when the real challenge is ensuring that we have a culture where responsibility rests with families and others to ensure that children imbue a clear sense of what is right and wrong? Thirteen and fourteen-year-olds learn more from their parents than from the statute book. Is the real answer to be found at home rather than in the Houses of Parliament? Or can Parliament do something to facilitate such a culture?
The fact is that as soon as a child has completed their puberty, which is around twelve to fourteen, they are capable (and driven) to have sex. In certian, important respects then, our consent laws are appalling, failing to take into account basic biology.
Criminalising people, especially young people, seems to be the perennial aim of social conservatives everywhere, which is why we are in the situation, anyway.
If two fifteen-year-olds have sex, providing they paid attention in their sexual health lessons, then I really do not see the problem. Some countries have laws governing the age gap between ‘underage’ sexual revellers; if there is not more than two or three years difference then it is considered foolish but not criminal. Our laws, however, are quite unsophisticated.
Consider, the age to have sex is sixteen, whilst the age to watch sex is eighteen, I do not know what happens in that two year period that changes everything though. However, it is causing problems; two sixteen year olds – thats fine, but if they record and watch it, they are breaking the law. This is not reasonable. I’m glad to see technology challenging old ideas.
Young people having sex is not a problem. Probably better to get the practise in. I mean, after all – the first time you rode a bike you were good at that too?
A simple change to the age of consent is unlikely to do much, instead it it better to recognise that sometimes very young people are going to have sex with one another, and work it into the system using a staggered age difference.
What really needs to happen in our schools, is better sexual health and relationship education, make it mandatory and from a young age. That way, by the time they are old enough to be engaged in it themselves, they will use contraception, and in any case it is likely to be boring.
I don’t have an informed opinion about what age is correct – save a gut feeling that 15 is too young, however I am also intrinsically opposed to the idea of fixed age limits for anything.
Why does the law presume that at midnight on a certain date a person becomes suitable to carry out an action that a few minutes earlier they lacked the maturity to understand?
I would prefer to see a graduated scale that takes into account differing situations – such as permitting sex between two people within an age frame at a younger age, but considering it to be a minor offence which still needs to be dealt with, but not within the criminal system.
I do think there is a need to review the age of consent though – along with both the legal, social and moral frameworks that are impacted by this situation.
I suspect that some aspects might need to be lowered to reflect changes in society, but that should be offset with stronger support for minors who choose to dabble.
Education rather than censure might be the best long term outcome.
It is plainly wrong to automatically put a 16yo on the sex offenders register for having consensual sex with a 15yo. And so, there is a world of difference between the questions of when should sexual intercourse be legitimised and when should consent become legally recognised.
As a teenager, the only “drive” legalities I was interested in knowing about were those to do with my driving test. Troika21 has put a whole new meaning on that particular coming of age!
I recently asked on another intelligent site whether we are born free or have freedoms conferred upon us. This is a basic politics question and one’s reply to such questions posed above will help decide the next election – possibly.
Nice one.
ladytizzy, my point was that once someone has completed puberty then sex becomes not just a possibility but a desirability.
No. If some parents are not prepared to protect their youngsters during that very vulnerable period, below the age of 16, then our society has a duty to do so for them.
What next? Just because some youngsters are inclined to steal or commit acts of violence before the age of sixteen, we should not then consider removing the legal protection given to others. Do not lower the age below 16.
I think you’re confusing a criminal act like theft, where there’s almost always a clear-cut right or wrong, with a moral act like having sex which, of itself is neither right nor wrong. The two are not comparable, so please don’t set out straw men.
As has already been ably pointed out, once you start puberty, nature starts driving you to reproduce and, though some people seem to find this startling, this involves actually having sex. To pretend that there is some magic age at which it becomes “right” to have sex is naive and wrong. The right age to start having sex is when you want to start having sex because nature *makes* you start wanting to have sex.
I think Ian Mansfield is driving in the right direction. I wish I could remember which other European country, but one of them, considers there to be no offence with an underage person so long as the persons are born within three years of one another.
Insofar as the criminal law is concerned, this seems very sensible. Most of us in our old sixth form were criminals, and those that weren’t (it was an all boys school) were pretending to be, and that was in 1969-70.
This can’t really do respect for the law a great deal of good.
But to be honest, we do seem to need an holistic approach to young persons growing up. Different departments come up with different rules and regulations at different times, all of which may seem sensible at the time, but put together look like a chapter of Alice in Westminsterland.
It is of little comfort, for example, to the grieving parents of a youngster who joined the Navy at 15 and has just been blown to smithereens on HMS Sheffield or the like that his Government has protected him from drinking or smoking under 18 or from being able to access a soft porn magazine.
Troika when a two year old is first deprived of his toy he is driven to homicide. Yet despite the fact that many twelve year olds could kill their classmates very naturaly we have all sorts of institutions that frustrate that capcity. The UK is such a horrid spoilsport that outside of a handful of venues it keeps interfering with adults in their desire to kill annoying people. I suppose society sees self-control as something that can be useful.
LadyTizzy,
In the USA many states use a minimum age difference as part of the law. Thus there may be crime but nothing close to rape between consensual minors near eachother in age.
Lord Norton,
I do think it is a big symbolic step when a polity allows coitus between actors who by age cannot contract marriage without censure. I think that would be true even if marriage rates had declined and extramarital relations were commonly accepted. All babies are born virgins and “fundamentalists” a bit as well.
I think there are some arguments against the age difference rule as well as those in favor of it. I do not know if I am crossing a line here but I will say that the fact that so many people seemed to feel that it was really just plain rotten for the Prince of Wales to have a mistress seemed really bad to me. I am ignoring all complications of the current Duchess’s life. Men of greater privilege and in some cases greater age sometimes take on committed relationships which provide wealth, security and advancement to women who would not have it and still perform well as husbands. I would argue that that is a minimum sign of a srtatified civilization, nice dishes are not enough.
I am all in favor of scolding them so long as it is not successful as social policy. So the age difference laws have a bad message in saying sex with an improvident equal is more moral than sex with a provident and prudent sugar daddy. I think coitus prior to the age of marriage should be officialy censured. The facts should affect the law’s application — but I am not a Brit only a guest here. I do think civilization is a bit transnational.
Looking at the health of people in Sweden, for instance, would indicate that firstly the age of consent can be lowered to 15 without any additional restrictions and that the age at which a person can appear in erotica can safely be lowered to the same age.
However, whether it should be lowered any lower than that should be a debate which very much involves psychologists.
We must be very careful to immune ourselves from the emotions and dogma of those who judge or complain (that is, not the people subject to the age restriction). We must also cast aside the “sex is dirty” dogma, the “common sense” which is accumulated not through investigation and evidence, but mere hunches and religious and other superstitious convictions.
I think we should have limits for things, even if only to send out a certain message. If the limits were removed, under-aged sex would suddenly seem acceptable to a range of people who it wouldn’t have done before, and then we risk a downward spiral. Also, isn’t it a bit like the 70 mph speed limit on motorways? Most cars can do more, and the majority of drivers probably do. But we shouldn’t raise it to 80 as then it’d seem more acceptable even in unsuitable conditions, and many people would then be tempted to do 90 or 100.
Surely the age and the penalty for breaking the law need to be considered separately? Parliament can try to suggest a range of penalties and guidelines as to when they apply. But there should naturally not be a single penalty set in stone for having under-aged sex as one can conceive of a wide range of circumstances under which it could happen (if you’ll excuse the expression!)
The excuse of being realistic is used to justify anything these days. Those who want to legalise marijuana say that its unrealistic to expect people, especially young people, not to use it so we’d best make it legal. Now, instead of getting to the root of the problem of why people under 16 are having sex, people want to simply lower the age of consent.
While I agree on a gradient scale, I don’t think that in our modern world the average 16 year old is wise enough to have sex. I also don’t think the matter is at all as simple as you lot seem to think.
For instance, contraception was mentioned. Troika mentioned contraception, but does She (Or he, if I’m mistaken) even realise that some people have moral objections to contraception? Or are we all suppose to think that we should every one of us use contraception if having sex?
Its really not that simple, and by saying so casually that they should be taught how to use contraception, and subsequently that they should use it when they begin to have sex and “Get the practice in”, don’t you think you are making some rather blatant moral decisions for everyone else?
On the entry about teetotalism, didn’t we seem to think it wrong for drinkers to assume that non-drinkers had something wrong wiht them and try to pressure them into a Drink? this is what your casual insistence on Contraception and sex with minors sounds like to me.
I’ll sound incredibly outdated in suggesting this but maybe the real problem is that our society is base don instant gratification of any desire we have so long as its a selfish and hedonistic urge. We’ve become so obsessed with rights and having our own way and have been so sold on the modern lifestyle which includes both casual sex and drunkenness that we don’t seem to think any other way is actually possible or desirable, but if we examine history we will see that people didn’t always have sex at 14 or 15, and many waited till around 21.
I say that we need to restore traditional moral values, and teach that it is best to reserve Sexual contact until we are married, or at the very leas tin a truly committed and loving relationship. Its not as impossible as it may seem as it had been done before, and what really makes this seem absurd today is that we’ve accepted a view that we cant control our urges and a philosophy that largely eschews discipline and responsibility. Really we are saturated in the media and modern culture with the idea that we absolutely must have sex, and young, but that doesn’t mean we actually must, does it?
I say that we leave the age of consent at 16, but simply add to this a gap of 3-6 years. If a 16 year old has sex with a 15 year old, then it is no crime, but should a 36 year old have sex with her it is.
I think that much more adequate.
As to the other point, its not really about people being more mature and reasonable at the stroke of midnight on a certain date that previously they weren’t, its about them becoming mature over time and resting on the averages of Physical, emotional, and intellectual development. Whereas someone whose only a day away form 16 may not be much different after that 24 hour period, he is different than he was a year before, and much different than he was three or four years before.
The law must set some clear date, though, in order to be clear itself.
@franksummers3ba; self-control is all very well and good. But not everything we do is impulse driven. Nor has the state any right to go into peoples bedrooms without a damn good reason.
@Jonathan; if people can drive both fast and well, then why stop them – if they are driving dangerously, however, then that is an offense at any speed. I prefer a state that will trust its citizens to do the right thing, not force it onto them.
@ZAROVE; in Britain (and many other countries) the age of criminal liability is ten, and if a ten-year-old can be put on trial, why not let 15 year-olds have sex? Really, what harm do you seem to think will come to them if they do?
I have not suggested adults have sex with the under-age, and I resent the comment. I have suggested that sex *between* minors should not be considered a similar criminal offense. Some young people do have their lives ruined because of this, ending up on sex-offender lists. The Economist had a recent leader on this in America, very informative.
On the matter of contraception, this is very important. Anyone who has ‘moral’ objections to contraception is either wicked, ignorant or stupid. People object, not on the basis of moral reasons, but religious. These are not related.
The best example is the abstinence-only education pushed heavily in the US (though it is making its way into the UK too, unfortunatly). It denigrates contraception for those very same ‘moral’ reasons you were talking about, and claims forbearance is all that is needed to prevent early sexual actvity, infection transmission and un-wanted pregnancy.
This is claimed in the teeth of evidience of many well-designed studies that have refuted this claim. It does not improve the age at which people start having sex, if anything they start earlier, nor are they free of infection. What is different is that abstinence-only taught youths are less likely to use condoms, increasing their risk of pregnancy or infection.
I don’t know if this is what you were pushing, but I thought that I would get it in there. I don’t think that 15 or 14 yr-olds having sex is always a good thing, there is such a thing as too-young after all. But yourself, Lord N and other commenters have said they wished people are ‘more mature’ before engaging in sex. But this is non-sense, how can you be ‘mature’ about something you have never done?
The first sexual encounter is often presented as a event to remember, but it isnt – it is awkward, embarrassing and neither of you know what you are doing – arms and legs everywhere. Sex, really is like learning to ride a bike, the more you do it, the better you get. When you start learning is up to you, but don’t pretend that you will be any better at it just because you are older.
Zarove, do not deceive yourself about the past, many people then had sex early too, and people today leave it until their twenties. Its just that it used to be covered up or not spoken about, not all over the front page of the Mail.
Lastly, you’ll hear papers claim the ‘Highest teenage-pregnancy rate in Europe!’ for the UK, but you know who has a higher rate? The US – and that is down to the AO promoters, arguing for those “traditional moral values” of yours.
Phew!
With apologies to the above posters. I saw none after the first two or so posts, for the rest awaited moderation.
Lord Norton: Your question “should we change the age of consent” attracts another question: what would we gain by doing so? The question is also indicative of a contemporary society that is preoccupied with having sex and no babies.
The HoL was responsible in part for raising the age of consent to 16 through the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 being only recently repealed. See link. Prior to this, the age of consent in common law had been 12.
What none blogging here have touched upon is the danger to a young girl at the onset of puberty of becoming pregnant. The pelvic bone may not be formed correctly and essential amounts of body fat may not be present to cushion the organs as they are displaced by the pregnancy. However, evolution in its wisdom has made such a pregnancy possible on the basis that all would not die giving birth.
The problems regarding the age of consent was a problem for the Raj in India owing to the religious practices of Hindu’s and Muslims. This resulted in the Age of Consent Act 1891.
Consequently, and in historical terms should the question be rephrased as “should we change the age of consent in marriage”? This would certainly be topical in African Niger where a distinction is made between sexual acts outside of marriage, paedophilia, and acts conducted within marriage. See the ‘heathen’ Austin Clines ‘Shariah in Niger’ link below.
Our problem now is that there are so very many of us. We have forgotten what a struggle it has been down the ages to maintain sustainable populations in the face of considerable adversity from an indifferent planet. That time was a place of young people, there were no old ones; they all died before they were thirty.
The age of consent in my view should stay as it is lest we return to the sexual morals of a Victorian Britain.
Ref: Repeals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885
Passage of Legislation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1891_Age_of_Consent_Act
Shariah in Niger: Marriage & Sex with Prepubescent Girls
http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/02/18/shariah-in-niger-marriage-sex-with-prepubescent-girls.htm
I agree it is a tricky issue as LordNorton noted that if the age of consent were to be lowered, it could make younger girls and boys think it is a free pass to indulge but I agree if a young couple happen to have a child nothing good will come of putting any of the couple in jail. Maybe the age should be lowered and sex education be taught at an earlier age, just because they are taught earlier doesn’t mean they will all just do it, I believe the parents should play a big role in this and not count on the schools to do all the work, they need to teach them that although sex is a part of life, you don’t need to go out and have it just because others are.
Senex, that in turn begs another question: Rather than what is to be gained, ask instead “what is to be lost?” If the answer is “nothing” as I suspect it to be here then the change should be made so as to reduce the level of state interference in a person’s private life.
One has to wonder what actual qualification’s Austin Cline has, other than being a Talking Head on Abouts Atheism pages. I also have to wonder why we ascribe Wisdom to Evolution, when we are told also that no god could possibly exist and this is a purely blind process. Of course I think we all know that our world wasn’t blindly produced, deep inside, but its just an interesting note.
The reason for the Age of consent to be 12 was that life expectancy was lower and infant mortality rates were significantly higher in the not too distant past, and allowing girls to marry as soon as she could conceivably become Pregnant was seen as a valid option in order to ensure the survival of at least some Children after Childbirth.
Such is surely not a concern today.
Besides, at age 12 people were far, far more mature back int he good old days, if not Physically than mentally. I’ve read history, and many men of renown were in the military, or serving as ambassadors, or working farms, or servants of delegations back then, able to execute those functions normally reserved by us for those in their early 20’s or at earliest late teens.
We taught them back then to be adults at an earlier age, and it was a time in which responsibility and duty reigned over their minds, and they knew full well how to be responsible for their actions and understand the consequences of such.
I don’t even think the average 18 year old possesses this, and instead is often obsessed with the latest video game, or getting designer clothing, often off their parents, and seeks to “hang out” with their friends or goof around. Most do not know how to be responsible in their own lives, cannot manage money, do not seem to put much effort into their jobs, and seem far, far more like children than a 12 year old would have if we were to visit that tome period somehow.
With due regards then, I don’t think I’ll listen to Austin CLein, and prefer to listen to the ages of wisdom we have accumulated through Scripture and history, and look at the real world ramifications on how people actually behave today, and what our real options are.
One last thing, Sennex, your not quiet right on it being a world of young people, that there were no old people, they died before 30.
Truth be told, throughout all of recorded history we find men who have lived well into their 80’s or 90’s or beyond. Even Archeology has discovered, for those most ancient of Civilizations which left us no written record, that there were men in their 50’s and 60’s. We have found their skeletons, buried with respect and consideration, some suffering Arthritis or other maladies, and clearly being elderly in other respects.
I don’t think there ever was a time in Human history in which no one lived past 30, or very few did.
This myth was based mainly on the fact that the Average life expectancy in soe periods was 35, but the reason for this was the high infant mortality rates, not because men only lived to be that age. (And certainly not 30 itself.)
While it was much more common to die before you turned 50 in the year 1300, if you lived past the age of 5 or 6, there was a good chance you’d make it to 50. If you made it to 12 the chances were better than even, and in fact favoured you living to 50.
So lets not pretend here that it was a world of the young, with everyone dying before they hit 30. Thats more like the Futuristic world of Logan’s Run than reality, but Logans run was a world in which they were intentionally killed at 30. I know of no past civilization which practiced this, and don’t think we are on the cusp of it being advocated in our world either.
George P: If you browse the link below you will see that the age of consent varies from 13 to 18 across Europe. The one exception to this is the Vatican State where the age of consent between consenting minors is set at 12.
The wiki link reference also explains: “The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 and remained so for six centuries”
Given this and the fact that millions of people across Europe essentially fall into line with our own age limit I see no reason why it should change. We should never lose sight of the fact that giving birth at the onset of puberty is a very dangerous business indeed for both mother and child and that contraception is not perfect.
Men generally have absolutely no idea of the ordeal, pain and disfigurement that women and girls suffer during pregnancy especially if they choose to have a vaginal birth. Caesarean births are often the only reason why such young mothers survive at all.
By all means let us have an informed debate about these issues but not from an entirely male perspective.
Ref: United Kingdom: England & Wales; History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
Providing security for agriculture (in a minimum sense of not allowing farms to be lost in a season), defensive war and some support of marriages (which can vary greatly) are really the basic essentials of the state. Modern people find this difficult to accept. There are many American libertarian conservatives and I am liberty loving conservative who is not like them. I do not believe we should only do the minimum in a state. Rather I believe skill and art more than smallness insure liberty. I would not want a state that only did the three things I have mentioned and I take Senex’s point about the history of marriages that did not accord with nature’s starting pistol. Still I would think that justice most Britons now oppose prepubescent marriage and that is good. Even consensual sex prior to thage that marriage can be contracted should be censured for reasons several commentators seem to loathe. People should grow up knowing and move into sex knowing that responsibility is part of this process. Self-control and moderate prohibition is also useful in helping the inexperienced move together I would argue. There truly are no easy answers. A kind of madness has always pretended that some new answer was simple and effective.
Jonathan and Troika maybe it is too late an hour because I can’t think of a tactful way to say this. When you present the stereotype of young and early sex as dirty and add it as awkward and weave in that it is overhyped (which combines two people with different comments) then there are some people who are thinking things about those comments that are obvious if you think about it but perhaps not when you wrote them.
Zarove, I think consistent conservatism of a particular type emphasizes personal repsonsibilty and I think you make the case pretty well for it.
Lady Tizzy,
Latency certainly varies by generation but every generation has had almost every possible sexual profile including the 40 year old virgins. The difference of proportions is so much harder to measure than Kinsey thought I think.
Lord Norton,
Almost no conservative Americans see the role of the state in positive terms as much as I do. Even if we agreed on the policy it would not be to build a symbolic underpinning for a basic and vital institution. Since I play that role here I want to play it honestly. Supporting community morals and libertarian arguments would typify American conservative arguments in my opinion.
Frank: “Still I would think that justice most Britons now oppose prepubescent marriage and that is good.”
One of the problems for the state in a globalised world is being sensitive to the fact that immigrant cultures within any state attempt to work around such marriage prohibition by sending off children to the originating country for the purpose of marriage. We have introduced laws here in the UK to prevent this but they have been late arriving and I feel we could do more.
If the state prohibits legal marriage to a minor then certain groups will still attempt to do this on a common law basis. One such case in Texas was the discovery of prepubescent “marriage” within the ‘Yearning for Zion’ or ZFZ cult. The age of consent in Texas is 17.
Such closed communities present a challenge to us all in terms of vigilance.
Ref: Petition for Mandamus; Justice O’Neill, May 29 2008
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/Historical/2008/may/080391d.pdf
Your ideological underwear is showing. There is no reason that the state should interfere in interpersonal or familial relationships at all, at least at that “basic” level of state involvement where you can die in a war for the state but not rely on it to look after you if you get cancer.
It’s funny that you should go to marriage enforcement before you go to things like enforcing the social norms that theft, rape and murder are crimes. Funny in a “roll my eyes at the blatant transparency of it” kind of way, that is.
I see that I am getting to the nasty, mean spirited and condescending. I admit my own tone in the last note was less gracious than usual so we shall see. You are perhaps the harbinger of my time to cease being a commentator which had to come eventualy. Almost no country, nation or state has covered cancer effectively. Cancer is a particularly bad choice of examples because it is not contagious or infectious and so there is little public health benefitto providing effective care to the individual in very bad times. Life is just plain tough very often — apparently not yours.
If your note is sincere there are no words that are not utterly unpleasant to describe your point of view. Community survival from famine, invading enemies and total anomie gave birth to the state and continue to provide the basic demand for its existence. Without basic security of title (not necessarily fee title or freehold) for farms all large societies experience famine. Without defensive warfaring capacity they experience conquest at best. Marriage is the most subtle basic need but not very subtle at all really. Nonetheless, I am thinking that I will not pursue the argument for marriage here in this reply. These are just trends consistent with the last 10,000 years or so of data.
Troika, there really is no difference between a Religious objection to contraception and a Moral one. In the past, we made no such distinctions. We also made no such distinctions between ones Religion and ones view of the real world. It is the product of our modern culture that tries to divide Religion away form our everyday life, our governing concerns, and our morality, but the truth is you can’t. Religion is simply a set of beliefs used to define our existence, and is something everyone has, even those who profess to not have a religion or even despise it, and ultimately your claim about contraception and that it should be used is itself a Religiously derived opinion based upon the way you understand the human animal at a fundamental level.
It is also not justified to claim that those who have a Moral objection to Contraception use, which you place in quotations, are either Wicked, ignorant, or stupid. You come off sounding like that fool Richard Dawkins, who blasts happily away at those who happen to disagree with him with abandon as if somehow not agreeing with Dawkins for any reason means you are an incredible idiot.
Why should those who have Moral objections to contraception be seen as wicked? What great evil do they actually embody by opposing it? Do you even know the arguments they would employ in their opposition? Why are they Ignorant? Do you really think that if someone knows a the facts and is not dishonest ( Or wicked as you put it) somehow must arrive at the conclusion you have about it? One, I may add, that you gather from a specific view of the world you hold, and seem to want to impose onto others? Are people really stupid just because they don’t share your particular worldview?
The biggest problem is that you likely don’t, and like most who make the divide between Religion and morality, you think that no rational argument can be made to oppose contraception, and this implies, in my experience, that you think a Religious objection is based on Doctrines which spring into existence for no reason at all; that a Religious objection to Contraception use is not based on reason and has no logical basis, it just exists as an arbitrary rule.
This also tells me, quiet plainly, in fact, that you have never read any of the Religious arguments against contraception, for the Catholic Church alone has written at length about why she opposes contraceptive use, and the reasons they present are far from arbitrary. Joining the opposition are some traditional Anglicans, or other Protestants. Some forms of Mormonism disregard contraception. Some Muslims do.
Also, as shocking as this may seem, there are even Atheists who reject contraception. They may not be part of the Secular Humanist crowd, but they do certainly exist.
Arguments against contraception range from ( And I am being brief, not giving the whole arguments in strength) the fact that it renders sex nothing more than an exercise in pleasure, of which we can readily treat others as mere objects for our own gratification, to how this can easily lead us to disconnect sex from responsibility, to how it prevents us seeing sexuality as limited to committed relationships, and thus making it harder for us to limit them to it, to how it may even interfere with the natural bonding that comes as a result of sexual contact.
Unlike your dismissal of them, those who oppose contraception are not wicked, for their intentions stem from a desire to preserve the happiness and well being of others and to ensure the smooth operation of individual lives and that of society, nor are they all ignorant of the facts, as many are well read and fully comprehend them, either are they stupid, as many of them are well known in intellectual circles.
It seems to me that your attitude is rather a poor one, in which you seek to impose your own moral views and judgments onto everyone else and would condemn them for not sharing in them. On what real grounds do you make these claims?
It seems to me that instead you want to force others into agreeing with you, and instead favour coercing others into your own beliefs.
Also, Toika, abut the pas; whereas it may be true that people did have sex early, and some today do wait, we are talking about averages. Fewer people engaged in sex at age 15 in 1950 than today. Some did, but far fewer then than now.
it is disingenuous to cite the existence of such as evidence against what Ive said.
On last, Troika; It may be popular to bash the US and its Abstinence Only education, and to blame Abstinence Only education with an increase in Teen Pregnancy, but this is sheer sensationalism. The truth is, Teen pregnancy rates actually declined under the Abstinence programs in the US, the reason we saw any upswing at all was because many schools balked at the idea and simply didn’t go along with it.
That said, many news outlets, themselves left leaning, jumped at the chance to demonise it base don one or two reports, and did not look at the issue fairly. Independent investigations have found those claims to be largely fraudulent.
Do I need to cite sources? I will if asked, but I do ask that you abandon simplistic talking points, as the matters of life are never really that cut and dry, and blaming Abstinence Only education with an increase in the US teen pregnancy rates based on what others tell you just because it supports the view you hold is no more valid than me going only to the American Family Association for information.
Hi there
I run an online forum for under 18’s to talk about politics http://www.headsup.org.uk and one of our forum topics for next year is sex education (the begining of March if any of you are interested!)
Rather than these things being exclusively decided by adults probably many decades removed from the age of consent, in my opinion it would be prefereable to see what those that the law will directly effect think of the situation. I may well ask our users what they think of the current age of consent and report back what I find!
As often happens in our debates they may well surprise us…..
Beccy
Beccy: I shall be very interested to see the results.
Beccy, no offense is intended in this post, but I am not given to you proposition.
Teenagers aren’t mature enough to make sensible decisions, for a host f reasons. One of which is that they lack sufficient foresight into matters that would regard long term consequences, and instead act impulsively. Part of this is due to a lack of life experience, and not being aware of the ramifications, and another is that their brains aren’t fully developed yet. The Brain, as our most complex organ, is the last to reach maturity, and actually fully develops around the age of 25. Teenagers are better able to reason than are younger children, and have brains able to process information at a much higher rate, but simply lack fully developed forebrains, and the connection between the forebrain and midbrain is still weaker, leaving them subject to whims and emotions with less ability to really reflect on the events around them or deeper meaning.
That said, I know that you think that those effected by a law should be those participating in the decision, which is, of course, very Democratic of you. Democracy is a virtue in our modern society, but one I don’t think highly of myself. I believe that laws exist to help protect us from harming ourselves and others, and to ensure a harmonious society, and that can’t be done if we allow Teenagers to decide for themselves legal matters regarding them, as they lack maturity of mind to make laws base don reasonable provisions, and would instead favour legislation that would give them what they want at the moment.
As I said, I mean no offense, I just don’t think Teenagers should really participate in legislation, even if it does concern hem.
Firstly we want to protect minors from abuse, both physically and psycologically, by adults. The current law seems well-suited to this.
I suspect many would also agree that it would be good to protect minors from abuse by similar aged peers, avoid unintentional pregnancy and STDs. There seems to be a feeling that the current law does not help to acheive this.
If the legislation and populations in other countries can understand and cope with the complication of exceptions for small age differences, then so can we.
The laws should conform to what we agree is right, not visa-versa, and we have more flexibility than simply changing a sixteen to a fifteen. I can think of no friends who would have lost their virginity any earlier or later because of a change in this law. Criminalising people unnecessarily weakens the influence of well-made laws.
To be slightly facetious, instead of an inflexible lower age, why not a theory test? Or make it illegal for those under 16 to have sex without contraception—then health fears are lessened.
Or instead of “3 years younger”, why not a “half your age plus 7” (sometimes used as a jokey dating guideline): 40 year-olds may ‘date’ those older than 27; 20 year-olds, those above 17; 18 with 16; and 14 year-olds can only be with others the same age.
Education is the best way to enable anyone to make mature and informed decisions about their future. Ignorance is not. Imagining that sex education destroys childhood innocence, is to treat children as no better than parental playthings, unprepared for real life.
Where we can not agree on sexual morality, we should try and explain our aims to find common ground. I personally believe well-being, healthiness and happiness should be the focus of any discussion.
And to parents who dislike the idea of their children having sex, or experimenting sexually—remember that the feeling is entirely mutual.
I apreciate your remarks as a good contribution. From the point of view of growing children I think there is some value to the idea of a relatively complex formula which has the effect of preserving a minimum age — although the details may not be the right ones (or might be). I think however, that when we talk of of health and happiness without reference to morality we are already paying the highest possible social cost.
Let me propose that a liberal result (perhaps too liberal for me) can be achieved without amorality. Amorality is really the counterpart of Wahabist Theocracy it is the all out nuclear war of ideological discussion.
On Morality let me point out:
1.For Christians and Jews religious morality is rooted in the sacred Eden myth when there was no shame in nudity, sex was a completion only and the only prohibition was related to eating (SEX IS CERTAINLY NOT ORIGINAL INIQUITY).
2. The UK is still officialy Christian: Jesus counted among his most trusted followers a woman who had been a public sinner and washed his feet with perfume. He spoke with the Woman at the Well who had been married seven times and was a religious deviant and became one of his evangelists early on from there. The purport of the Gospels was to focus on the values of marriage as opposed to the horrors of sin as regards sex in most of the healthiest eras and sites of Christianity.
3.Hinduism ( a sizeable minority I believe) has at least the possibility of very tolerant sexual mores.
All of this can be interpreted away by others of course. Islam is a bit different also but in different climates it was less different. Healthy religious values are often compatible with a secular and moral legal regime. However, if you seek amorality how would you plan not to make an enemy of everyone with a moral system they believe has something public to say?
I do not mind having enemies but I have a feeling that you are not really a social vandal and arsonist and so I offer you a comment that could be taken as a rebuke I suppose. I do that because I do not think your intentions are actualy destructive.
Ally, you run into more problems with the above. As I mentioned to Troika, not everyone morally approves of Contraception, bug the way you present this case, you act as if everyone does. If we seriously made it illegal for those under 16 to have sex without contraception, we go beyond even Troika’s idea that we should desire them to use it and mandate use of contraception by law. Why do you think that forcing people to use contraception is a good idea?
Again, do we live in a society in which we can impose moral standards like that on others who may object? Should we next outlaw people opposing Contraception on Moral grounds?
That said, your law also leaves us with the problem of consenting adults begin unable to actually do as they like. In your scheme, half your age plus seven means that a 40 year old man is violating the law by dating a 25 year old woman. However, both the 40 year old man and 25 year old woman are mature adults who can readily make their own informed decisions, and unlike Teenagers should by that age be able to understand the ramifications for such things. Why should we make their relationship illegal if they engage freely in it and enjoy one another’s company? What about a 60 Year old man with a 30 year old woman? Thats half his age but not plus anything. Should we really Criminalise it?
Then there are other logistical problems. Lets take your couple for instance. a 40 year old man can date a 27 year old woman as this is half his age plus seven, but as soon as the 40 year old turns 41, half his age plus seven is now 27 and 1/2 years. Once he turns 42 half his age plus seven is only 28. If the 40 year old man begins to date a 27 year old woman, he’d be required by law to break up with her at least by the time he turns 42, because shes a year too young under that sort of statute.
Being half someones age is relative to the age you are. At 24 half my age is 12, but at 42 half my age is 22. If I’m 50 half my age is 25, and if I’m 100 half my age is 50.
I don’t think tat guideline is practical or logical.
I also don’t think we should encourage Minors to have sex by legal sanction. Whereas I don’t think someone needs to have their life ruined by being placed on a sex offender registry for life if they are 16 and have sex with a 15 year old, I do think some punishment should exist for those who engage in underage sex, I just think the punishment should be smaller and more local.
However, these laws exist precisely because Younger people do not have the full experience or ability necessary to make informed and rational decisions, and their actions may lead to strong, adverse complications they did not forsee. Safeguarding them from their own folly as well as sexual predition should take our concern to a place were we see those involved as those not fully aware of the Consequences of their actions, and on this line I proceed in my own thinking.
Which is also why I don’t think on those lines when its mature, reasonable adults. I don;’t care if a 40 year old man is seeing a 24 year old woman, it is none of my concern as they are capable and competent adults making their own desiccation, and the age gap is for them to sort, not me.
The difference being, they are both aware of the situation and can think of these consequences, whereas the average 15 year old can’t.
Also, Ally, no one is advocating ignorance, b ut to attack abstinence only education by claimign it was a total failure, or by invisionign it as simply not telling peopel abotu sex and leavign them in the dark abotu it, is a gross misrepresentation of the positon Troika attacked.
Most Abstinance-Only education packs actually do teach you about Sexual Reproduction, as does Biology class. Abstinance Only education simply informs you that the best choice to make is to refrain from sexual intercorse until you ar ein a stable and healthy relationship, preferabley marriage. Nothign in that prevents one from learning about sex, it only informs you that the best option is to wait.
Thanks for this conversation Zarove – its been enlightening.
Regarding Dawkins, and yes, my, atheist leaning, it is simply a matter that we want people to defend their beliefs or examine them – not just declare them off-limits like your doing now, I disagree with you, and I have voiced my opinion on the matter, but I believe that I have good reasons for doing so, and I want to engage people with them. I feel sorry for you if you think that I am being insulting by asking you to defend what you believe.
The wicked, ignorant or stupid statement comes from Dawkins talking about the Pope on AIDS and birth control in Africa, who made the claim that condom use in there had increased the AIDS problem. This, incidentally, is what I see when I think of religious objections to contraception, if you have better ones then let me know.
Telling me that different groups disregard contraceptives is not going to convince me – I don’t agree with them either, appeals to authority are a logical fallacy you know.
Sex is pleasureable, Zarove, and there is nothing wrong with treating it as such. Sex for fun is a good thing, and the way you state it seems to imply that only one person can enjoy sex at a time. Ditto for objectification.
I don’t know what you mean when you talk of “disconnect sex from responsibility” – from what? and how? Nor is there any problems from having sex outside of a relationship, nor is sex within a relationship any better.
It is just sex, and if you have to attach mystical notions to it then, I think you’re arguements need examining.
Claiming that this is all done for other peoples benifit is all well and good, but I don’t believe that it has any effect, or rather, it makes things worse.
Telling people to wait intil they are within a relationship to have sex is not a good idea – they will grow-up lacking relationship skills for one, or learning about different kinds of sex, especially as you seem committed to the idea that sex is for reproduction only.
Lastly, Zarove – I’m not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone – all I want it to get other people to eiter examine theirs or defend them, if you are having trouble with the latter then I suggest you do the former. Complaining that the other side is being mean is not a valid tactic.
************
On your second comment; yes, I suspect that fewer people have early sex back in 1950 – there were only 2 billion poeple back then. I’ve had trouble finding teenage pregnacy rates for 1950, or for any year prior to 1990, but it was only a quick google search.
Its my belief that ‘back in the good-old-days’ young people who had sex were shot-gunned into marrige, or the man left the woman to fend for herself, and it was considered her fault, of course.
And thats one of the problems, for most of our history its been considered right that men are conquest-driven and women are chaste. Neither fair, nor socially conducive. And yet, this is the attituide that you are attempting to defend.
************
Zarove, Abstinence Only is terrible.
Comprehensive Sexual Health and Relationship Education is the best method of reducing teenage pregnacy and transmission of sexual infections.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2008/04/16/index.html
Conversely, abstinence promoters have not increased the age which people first have sex in the US, but have decreased condom usage by deamonising it, and increasing pregnancy and infection rates by doing so.
To dismiss the evidence behind this is simply an excerise in denial – there was a large, well-funded and wide ranging study in the US that came down very hard on AO for the reasons I’ve listed.
Right, I’m done.
Ive had to chop this up to et it all in, so…
Thanks for this conversation Zarove – its been enlightening.
You say this but then castigate me later.
Regarding Dawkins, and yes, my, atheist leaning, it is simply a matter that we want people to defend their beliefs or examine them – not just declare them off-limits like your doing now,
I always find it amusing how people think this when they follow idiots like Dawkins. I declared the topic off limits and you just want peopel to think about them? Hardly, the oposite is true. You were the one who declared that anyone who disagrees with you is either wicked, ignorant, or stupid. You basiclaly closed off any possibility of a rational discussion when you did that, because you declared yor side self-evidently right, and no one had the right to challenge it, for it was true and that was that.
On the other hand, all I did wa spoint out that your views imposed a moral standard on the rest of society that many in society woudl find to be agaisnt their moral principles, and your atttiude towards such showed a great deal of ignorance as to why peopel oppose things.
You don;t really want peopel to examine the issues and defend their positiin, you simply want them to agree with you and are willing to bully them into it.
I disagree with you, and I have voiced my opinion on the matter, but I believe that I have good reasons for doing so, and I want to engage people with them. I feel sorry for you if you think that I am being insulting by asking you to defend what you believe.
You didn’t ask me to defend what I beleived, you said ayone who disagreed with you were either wicked, ignorant, or stupid. You insisted that your view was correct and demanded complaince with it, and berated those who disagreed. How is that askign me to defend anything? Thats demanding I agree with you.
The wicked, ignorant or stupid statement comes from Dawkins talking about the Pope on AIDS and birth control in Africa, who made the claim that condom use in there had increased the AIDS problem. This, incidentally, is what I see when I think of religious objections to contraception, if you have better ones then let me know.
Did you know that Dawkisn was wrong and the Pope was right, and even an Atheist Harvard proffessor who incidentally supports COntraception as moral has said this?
The truth is, the Campaign to simply supply the Africans with COndoms in the thought htat they simply wont stop having promiscuois sex and thid will prevent disease spread has proven a spectacular failure, and on a logistical level we shoudl abandon that approach. We don’t simply because the ideology behind the COntraceptive methods is too strogn in the mind of it sproponants to even reconsider their position.
Ultimatley the probelm in Africa is promiscuity, which can be resolved by reinforcing culturally restraint and self control, which takes a lot longer, but woudl ultimatley reap more rewards.
Telling me that different groups disregard contraceptives is not going to convince me – I don’t agree with them either, appeals to authority are a logical fallacy you know.
Except my intention, as stated, was a matter of legal authority and not an argument for or agaisnt contraception. Basiclaly I objected to your insistance that we shgoudl want peopel to use contraceotio and hope yougn peoipel use it when they first becoem sexually active. I didnt argue agaisnt COntraception based on the existance of peopel who oppose it.
Misrepresenting my argument as soemthign its not is also a Logical Fallacy.
Sex is pleasureable, Zarove, and there is nothing wrong with treating it as such. Sex for fun is a good thing, and the way you state it seems to imply that only one person can enjoy sex at a time. Ditto for objectification.
Nothign I actually said indicated this. However, I did mention, breifly, that there are concerns that cognraception may reduce sex to nothign but pleasure leading to the objectivisation of people.
I also did not go into explicit detail regarding that argument because the principle behind my own argument was that we shouldnt impose a moral standard onto others as a matter of ocruse and condemn them for not holding it, as you did.
Somethign you still haven’t addressed.
I don’t know what you mean when you talk of “disconnect sex from responsibility” – from what? and how? Nor is there any problems from having sex outside of a relationship, nor is sex within a relationship any better.
If, that is, you reduce sex to simply pleasure, and the object of sex is simply self gratification.
Which, if you do follow Dawkins, woudl explain why he has been married three or four times now, and has never been able to maintian a proper relationship.
The argument rests on the attitude you espouse leading to selfishness, and us treatign other human beigns as disposable objects that we can exploit fo rour pleasure.
But again, I didnt go into detail because ultimatley I wasnt tryong to argue for or agaisnt ocntraceotive use, I was arguing agaisnt your attitude about contraception and how peopel shoiudl hope their young ones use it, and pointing out that this contradicts the moral codes help by others, which even if you disagree with, you have no right to impose upon them your own.
Also, given how little you actually seem to unerstand about those objections, perhaps its time to set Dawkisn and his ill founded claism aside and actually read thos eoposing views? You may be surprised to learn that virtually all of the compalints Dawkisn makes abotu how irrational and llogical religious people are happen to be false, and how Dawkisn himself is simply espousing a divergent religious view.
The truth is, Dawkisn doens’t know much about hwat he speaks of hwen he condemns religion. He doesnt even know much about Ahtiesm. Do you really think if I were an Atbeist i’d agree with Dawkisn on social and moral issues as a result?
It is just sex, and if you have to attach mystical notions to it then, I think you’re arguements need examining.
Did you know that Sex is also a powerful bonding agent? Sex, especially in women, releases certain hormones and chemiclaly alters our bodies. it act sint he same way a Drug would, and fosters a sence of trust and attatchment automatically.
Again, Im not goign into detial since that wasnt the poitn of my arugment, a point you miss since your too busy filterign my words through the Dawkisn test and seeing everyhtign as mystucal VS reality, but sex is designed to be mroe than “Just sex”.
Try reading up on it, instead of takign the word of a womaniser who cant stay married and who has left a trail of broken hearts and lives behind him.
Instead of saying my beleifs need examinine, why don’t you examine your own? Why take them as self-evidently true?
Claiming that this is all done for other peoples benifit is all well and good, but I don’t believe that it has any effect, or rather, it makes things worse.
Based upon what?
Telling people to wait intil they are within a relationship to have sex is not a good idea – they will grow-up lacking relationship skills for one, or learning about different kinds of sex, especially as you seem committed to the idea that sex is for reproduction only.
No, they won’t. I know they won’t because they didnt in the past when we did precicely this.
On what do you rest your assertions? I rest them on modern Psycology, which Im in school for now and getting an advanced degree in, and on the enture corpus of Human History.
You seem to rest it on the vauge humanist notions given to you by modern New Atheists, whi havent the faintest idea on how to run their own lives and only excel at insultign others.
So I ask you, have you really examined your own beleifs? You ask me to examien mine and act as if I have just attributed mystical beleifs to sex and never wuestioned what I was taught and yours is the well thought out and reaosnable approach, but how well thought out is it on your end? Did you actually examine oposing views? Or did you just buy into the “Athiest” stance you hold now?
Because I woll not be lectured aout the importance of examining mybeleifs by someone hwo refuses to examine their own, least of all since I likely have put more time and effort into studying this than you have.
Lastly, Zarove – I’m not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone – all I want it to get other people to eiter examine theirs or defend them, if you are having trouble with the latter then I suggest you do the former. Complaining that the other side is being mean is not a valid tactic.
I didnt complain that the other side was mea, I complain that the other side is decietful. You, gain, are askign me to examin my beleifs but refuse to examin yours, and you didnt even address the reality of my actual argument.
My argument wasnt to explain why contraception use was wrong, but to tell you that we shoudln’t impose moral standards onto others and call them wicked when they reject them.
You then launch into this ridiculous tirade, which in the end reveals the same tactic the NEo-Athiests use all the time, to pretend that you just want us to examine our beleifs. Well, I have. Ive read Augustine but also Marx, Ive read Lenin and Ive read Buddha, I’ve read Kinsey and Ive read Hooker and Ive read Huxley and Ive read Russel and Ive read Neitche and Ive read Rand and Ive read Bonaventure and Ive read Lewis and Ive read Voltare and Ive read Pascal.
Ive run the Gammit.
Ive examined my beleifs.
The real questioin is, have you? Or do tyou just beleive Dawkisn and thos elike him and pretend soemhow thag yours is the well examined truthwhen in fact your just blindly parroting them?
************
On your second comment; yes, I suspect that fewer people have early sex back in 1950 – there were only 2 billion poeple back then. I’ve had trouble finding teenage pregnacy rates for 1950, or for any year prior to 1990, but it was only a quick google search.
This is, again, Dininginious. Percentagewise, fewer teen pregnancies occured, ot just Gross numbers.
Deciet will not win favours.
Its my belief that ‘back in the good-old-days’ young people who had sex were shot-gunned into marrige, or the man left the woman to fend for herself, and it was considered her fault, of course.
Given that you buy into Dawkins, I suspect you also readily buy into other sterotypes, but for soemone who just wants me to defend my beleifs or examin them if I cant, you surly do have an awful lot of confidence in unfounded beleifs you can’t support with any evidence.
And thats one of the problems, for most of our history its been considered right that men are conquest-driven and women are chaste. Neither fair, nor socially conducive. And yet, this is the attituide that you are attempting to defend.
I defended only the attitude of tolerance and respect for others views, which you rode over in a Cavalier fashion.
Also, you know little of Human History of this is your view of it.
************
Zarove, Abstinence Only is terrible.
Only if you beleive biased reports.
Comprehensive Sexual Health and Relationship Education is the best method of reducing teenage pregnacy and transmission of sexual infections.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2008/04/16/index.html
Conversely, abstinence promoters have not increased the age which people first have sex in the US, but have decreased condom usage by deamonising it, and increasing pregnancy and infection rates by doing so.
To dismiss the evidence behind this is simply an excerise in denial – there was a large, well-funded and wide ranging study in the US that came down very hard on AO for the reasons I’ve listed.
Right, I’m done.
You know, your displaying a nice Psycological Phoenomenon here called a COnfirmaion Bias. You selec only information that fits into what you already beelive.
Which is Ironic sinc your standard refrain is that we shoudl either defend ou beleifs, or examien them. You dont examin yors, you just look for tat which agrees with you.
Most soruces say Abstinance Only education actulaly did see some success, and was not an abject failure. One report was seized upon by the media in order to discredit it, and has since been used endlessly.
But, its not the whole picture and I ask you to examine the facts mroe closely rather than just beleive anythign your told because it fits your religious beleifs.
Here are some links.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/census-bureau-data-abstinence-education-reduces-teen-abortion-rate/
http://www.canada.com/cityguides/winnipeg/story.html?id=0de42c8e-3877-419e-a7dc-ad253bce4784
http://blog.abstinence.net/2009/08/27/%E2%80%9Cabstinence-only%E2%80%9D-states-more-effective/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm
More in a moment.
As I said, more.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/141345
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/05/31/Cheek_ART_05-31-09_G4_30E0NBB.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101
http://www.greattowait.com/
http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/sexed_n.htm
Do try to be more reasonable in the future. Just becaue he media, which tends ot be left of centee, reported that it failed on the bssis of a single study does’t mean it actually did fail.
Also, just because your the Atheist who beleives the Dawkinisian lines of your mental superiority, dont talk to me as if Ive never examined the facts becaue I disagree wiht you, or pretend that you are somehow more rational. You arent being rational here and you clearly havent examined any view but those of the supproters of sex-as-nothing-but-pleausre school, and havent seen the implications of that conceptual modle challenged. You just take it as self evident truth, and expect others who disagree to examine their beelifs instead.
So do stop pretending you just want us to examin our beleifs or defend them, you want anyone who disagrees wiht you to shut up, accept what you say, and follow along, then you define this as “Thinking for yourself”, or “Being Rational” and pretend that arriving at your conclusions is the same as examination.
But you won’t examin your own beleifs.
Oh, one last addendum, Troika.
You claim all I did was present a list of groups that disagreed with you abotu contraception and used an Argument from Authority. This is not true, what I did was say that they all have written their own arguments at length, such as the Catholic Church’s Humana Vitae ( I likely misspelled it) which outlines the reasons behind their decision, and stated that you seem not to be aware of the rationale they use.
Isn’t it dishonest to claim tnat I should examine my clims or defend them, when you refuse to look at the examination or defence of the ideas in the firts place? Isnt it goign to be difficult if I tell you were to go to look into the arguments others have made and am met by simple dismissal and a claim that I am making an appeal to authority?
Again, Troika, have you actually read any of the arguments agaisnt contraeption by people hwo actually oppose it? If not, please dont tell me to examine or defend my position, you haven’t even done enough basic study to understand the oposition of your view.
Zarove, it has been enlightening – but thats is because we have been having a damn good arguement, not because we are both sitting around and exchanging pleasentries and avoiding the differences between each other opinions, I mean no offence, I was being honnest.
Zarove, I want to make this VERY clear – I have NOT said that ‘anyone who disagrees with me is wicked, ignorant or stupid’ – not only was I quoting someone else, I mean to say that their attitude is such that it attests to one of those behaviours, and specificaly on the matter of rejeting contraception too, not as people. Nor does this deny rational arguement, you have often criticised my methods without addressing my points.
This goes for the next two statements you make about moral principles (which, unless you are are moral relativist, you also have) and about bullying. You do not get to complain that the other side is making arguements you can’t counter.
Zarove, furnish me with arguements that make your case, dont simply complain that I said something mean.
Dawkins was right, you know that. And an ‘Atheist Harvard proffessor’ – quotes and links would be nice to back that up. Nor do I automatically support someone who is an atheist, arguement from authority is a logical fallacy, you know.
“Ultimatley the probelm in Africa is promiscuity, which can be resolved by reinforcing culturally restraint and self control” – thats an interesting quote, dont you think?
I think I have another quote from you:
“[you] imposed a moral standard on the rest of society that many in society woudl find to be agaisnt their moral principles” – one rule for me, another for you, eh?
I find that you have, once again, made the claim that I am ‘imposing’ my own moral ideas on people. I think, that I am going to have to address this.
If I think that someone is doing something that that hurts someone, whether they claim it is ‘moral’ or’cultural’ or ‘traditional’ is besides the point, if I think it hurts people, I will bloody well argue against it with everything I can summon. Right now, in Africa, its considered right that ‘corrective rape’ is used against lesbians, I think that this is wrong.
Unless you are a moral/cultural relativist, unless you think that this is right, you will also disagree. And then, whats to stop me from claiming that you are trying to ‘impose’ your morals, whatever way you decide, on the situation?
Zarove, what is wrong with sex-for-pleasure? Much of it happens because it is pleasureable.
You could make the same arguement that food has become simply for self gratification, too? Mmmm, think of the roast chicken, the thick chocolate cake, ice-cream!! But no! Bread and water untill you get married!
I do not follow Dawkins, I respect him and think he has done well as a leader of the Atheist Movement, but trying to smear him, is dispicable. Neither of us has any idea why people divorce, least of all someone neither of us knows. Additionally, what about all the atheists out there who have stable relationships? What about the social-conservatives who do not, these seems to be one a month out of the US. Funny for a country with such strong social values, don’t you think?
Also, Zarove, two people having sex with one another for no other reason but to enjoy each-others company in the bedroom, are not exploiting, what?, themselves? I must be missing something.
More ‘imposing morals’ stuff, I’ve addressed this.
And I wont deal with the rest of the Dawkins thing, its off-topic and would make this twice as long, but I will say this.
You tell me that “Do you really think if I were an Atbeist i’d agree with Dawkisn on social and moral issues as a result?” No, I would not expect you to, you’re your own person, but you are doing this to me, for example: “since your too busy filterign my words through the Dawkisn test”, and mentioning that ‘Havard Atheist’, this is all arguement from authority, and I have no truck with it.
You mention that sex can be a powerful bonding experience, true, so why can’t we have it with different people? Who knows, maybe one of those people with the the other half.
More anti-Dawkins stuff. I do not venerate Dawkins, but you have no idea why those marriages failed. Nor does one man prove anything. Unless you are making the claim that once people are married, they should bloody-well-stay-married-whether-they-like-it-or-not, I do not see the relavence.
[On my claim that people will not understand sexual health, if they simply wait] You say “No, they won’t. I know they won’t because they didnt in the past when we did precicely this.”
Patently not true:
Boys were told not to masturbate beacause there was a limited amount of sperm in them, and it decreased their energy too.
Circumcision was promoted as a means to control masturbation as well.
Kelloggs Corp. started as a means to … control masturbation.
And of course, women were expected be obliging to their husbands.
Thats all I can think of at this time of night. Things today are not much better today. For example, some teenagers think that oral/anal sex does not transmit STIs.
Zarove, do not insult me yourself. Complainig that I’m an atheist will not win you any points here, it just makes your arguements look weak if you have to prop them up with complaining about humanists. All you have done it to sure-up my belief that my arguements have made their mark if you have to turn your attention to atheism.
******************
I was not deciving you, I was wondering if you were trying to do that to me.
I can’t find good numbers for this peroid of time, if you want to show me where you are getting them from I will examine them.
“Given that you buy into Dawkins” – I see that you have made your assessment of me, based on this, have you? Provide me with some numbers, all you have given me to work with is your own assertion.
I respect people, especially you Zarove, you’ve argued for what you believe in very strongly, and I respect that, I do, but I do not have to respect peoples ideas.Nor yours, ideas can be wrong you know.
I know little of ‘Human History’ do I? (thats a pretty big area, so your probably right, I suppose). Could tell me the part where women had more power than men?
******************
Guttmacher is a higly-respected organisation. Rejecting it as biased is simple prejudice on your part.
I know all about confirmation bias, this however, is simply the first google-search result, nothing more.
I will read what you have linked to, and will post a response later (if they let us, we need to get a blog!).
******************
I’m tired so heres the rest:
Dawkinisian – no such thing, you’ve based your assessment of me on my atheist affiliation.
your mental superiority – slander
dont talk to me as if Ive never examined the facts becaue I disagree wiht you – I’m argueing as powerfully as I can, no I have never had this arguement before, which is why I told you before that I found it enlightening – I’ve never had to argue for my belief that sex is a good thing.
you want anyone who disagrees wiht you to shut up, – all this make me think is that you cannot support your ideas, and need to whinge about how the other side is going about their affairs
Catholic Church’s Humana Vitae – no I havent read it, funny that
******************
Zarove, I’m sorry this has gotten a little out-of-hand. When I said that I found this enlightening, I honnestly meant it, though it did not mean I was not going to argue with you.
And no, defending my beliefs about sex has not been something I’m used to, telling you to examine yor beliefs or ddefend them came to me because I was defending mine for the first time.
Thank you for the debate, it has been enlightening.
Zarove, concerning your links, I took your advice about confirmation bias:
“Dakota Voice examines local, state, national and world issues of interest to conservatives and Christians.” – from the Dakota Voice about page.
Like asking a king what he thinks about monarchy, really.
All it is doing is reprodicing a pro-life blog post. I do not consider this independant to a sufficient degree, do you?
The second from canada.com, refrences a study that I cannot find, it might as well be an op-ed.
However, this caught my eye:
“[M]any abstinence-only until marriage programs give misinformation about condoms and present the failure rates in a way that would discourage people from using them.” – from lead author John Jemmott.
This seems to be a specifically designed trial that does not have resemblence to abstience only. Besides I have no problem with people not having sex, its the ‘only’ part that I have problems with.
‘blog.abstinence.net’ really? and you accuse me of confirmation bias, and selecting only what agrees we me? Huh.
Besides, they are refrencing the study in the first link.
The Heritage Foundation?
Do you think I was born yesterday?
How dare you accuse me of confirmation bias! When this is what you use to support your own opinions – the first two on the second list are editorials and the third is a bloody abstinance promoter!
Confirmation bias? Confirmation Bias?
How dare you accuse me of such a thing.
Heres what you said:
“You know, your displaying a nice Psycological Phoenomenon here called a COnfirmaion Bias. You selec only information that fits into what you already beelive.”
Zarove, examine your beliefs.
Thanks for the many and varied contributions. I thought I had better comment at this stage, otherwise it may run on for ages with Zarove taking on Troika21. I should mention, incidentally, that if anyone sends several comments, the software sometimes identifies the messages as spam and transfers them to the spam folder. (I check the spam folder regularly, but sometimes genuine comments get lost in a sea of junk messages.)
There are clearly differing views on the age of consent. As Ian Mansfield, ladytizzy, Matt, Cameron and others have recognised, there are some difficult issues involved. There are difficulties if we apply a blanket prohibition at a certain age, with the same penalty for a fifteen-year-old male having sex with a girl of the same age as for a sixty-eight year-old having sex with a fifteen-year-old. As Ian Mansfield, Jonathan and stephenpaterson note, one could have separate scales, considering separately – as Jonathan says – the age and the penalty. There are also important issues relating to morality and the law. To what extent should we penalise by law that which we regard as morally wrong but which may not be deemed to damage others? We have this debate in regard to what are sometimes termed victimless ‘crimes’. What intrudes here, of course, is the capacity of individuals to give informed consent. A thirty-year-old woman who engages in prostitution knows what she is doing; is a fourteen-year-old girl having sex with a boy in a position to know the implications of what she is doing?
I rather incline to the view that we should separate age and penalty. However, I think the most important point is that made in conclusion by Troika21, Ian Mansfield and Ally, namely the need for effective sex education. I agree with Cameron that the biggest influence should be in the home, rather than relying on schools. We do appear to have a problem in this country in that many parents seem to have abdicated responsibility for their children, leaving it to others to instill a sense of right and wrong, or rather responsibility (by which time it may be too late). It is instructive that in the Netherlands, for example, there is a far better programme of sex education that we have here – and, as far as I can see, a culture where parents are more involved – and a far lower rate of teenage pregnancy and fewer sexual health problems than we have in the UK. We need to address the issue more centrally. We tend to shy away from addressing it.
Yes one more.
One of my sites promoted Abstinance and ou act as if this invalidates their claim.
Well, the sex institute you linked promotes the comprehensive sex ed you want. Again, why is yours more reliable than mine?
Troika, you lost all credibility with demanding I examine my beliefs when you told me, after I said the Pope was right and Dawkins was wrong about Condoms not helping in Africa, that Dawkins is right and I know it. At that point, you revealed your true intentions were not to get me to examine my beliefs or defend them, for no matter what I say, you will insist I am wrong until I arrive at the same conclusion you have, and the only way I can “examine my beliefs” is to abandon them and embrace the dogma you preach.
The truth is, you haven’t examined your beliefs. You take as self-evident truth that Condoms are the only solution to he worsening AIDS epidemic in Africa, and would say to anyone who disagrees with this that they are either Wicked, Ignorant, or stupid. But , what if your wrong? What if the Pope is right? You act as if its proven beyond all question that Dawkins is right, yet the AIDS pandemic continues to grow despite the fact that we have supplied the Continent with more than enough Condoms. As you won’t even consider the alternatives, or even entertain for the sake of argument the possibility that Condom distribution isn’t as effective as you previously thought, you demonstrate that you are a Hypocrite. You want me to examine my beliefs, but refuse to examine yours. Really, you want to pontificate.
It may sound nice and reasonable to come up and say you just want to engage us with propositions you think are true, and how you feel sorry for me if I feel insulted by honest inquiry, but this isn’t Honest inquiry. This is you demanding I comply with your specified religious beliefs.
I won’t do that, s you accuse me of shutting off dialogue and wanting to remove from the tale any discussion. Well, Troika, that’s a lie. I’m willing to discuss the evidence, but you aren’t. Unless we use only the sources of information you approve of and arrive at the conclusions you have set for us, we won’t be “Examining our beliefs”.
You don’t simply want to engage us in what you think is a good idea, you want to ram your ideology down our throats, and pretend that any disagreement is refusal to discuss something.
I won’t be bullied, Troika, by Dawkins or by his Disciplines like you. Repeating the lies he tells, lies any bully tells to get his way, won’t work. At the end of the day, Dawkins is still wrong, and he’s still a Hypocrite. He condemns the pope for putting his religion above real people, yet Dawkins puts how own Religion above real people.
I don’t think for a moment that Richard Dawkins or you actually car about the Africans who actually are suffering the effects of the AIDS pandemic. How can I? Dawkins is quick to call other people wicked, but can’t even lead a moral life himself. He’s cheated on two of his former wives, and possibly all three. He’s backstabbed people to get ahead in his meagre career, and only has prominence because of his being a Science Populariser. He’s not really a prominent Scientist and hasn’t contributed anything to the Scientific community worth noting, other than a few Populace books. The prestigious post at Oxford he held was bought and paid for by a millionaire friend of his who liked his Atheistic screeds and was used only to promote his religious beliefs and to attack others.
He’s lived a life of selfish indulgence which has harmed anyone who is around him, and has shown that he has no concern for anyone else’s well being by his own, and yet I’m suppose to think he cares about millions of Africans he’s never met?
And the Pope, who actually has demonstrated repeatedly that he does care about others by tireless service to them, is a monster who doesn’t?
Come on Troika, you know full well that neither you not Dawkins care about the Africans, all you care about is your ideology, which you elevate above everything else.
All this talk of concern for others is like the talk of simply wanting to engage others with your valid opinions, an how I try to prevent that by removing it form discussion. I didn’t remove anything form discussion, you did.
Telling me “Dawkins is right and you know it” is the very definition of removing the matter from discussion.
Well, I don’t know Dawkins is right, I know he’s wrong. We’ve shipped Condoms to Africa for 20 years, and every time we do there is a new increase in AIDS which we combat with yet more Condoms which then caused a new increase.
How does this tell me Dawkins is right? How many Millions of Africans died because of our need to give them condoms?
They don’t work to reduce the numbers f infected, and no amount of demanding I examine my beliefs will restore life t those dead, nor will it make the Condoms work in the future.
You simply don’t care, though, since this is al about promoting your religion, not about the real world.
Incidentally, you do the same thing with Abstinence only education. You cite one report, which was compiled by a highly partisan group which was advocating for comprehensive sex ed, and act as if it was an impartial and objective study. The link you supplied me was to a Sex Institute which itself isn’t a Scientific organisation, but a lobby group which exists to promote Comprehensive Sex Ed and which opposed Abstinence Only education when it was first proposed. Now, that same group gives us the report made by another partisan group and uses it as evidence of what it believed al along. In your mind, this is fair and proves Abstinence Only education is terrible. Meanwhile, I show contrary evidence, and you ignore it, saying that one site is conservative, another Christian and conservative, and another is an Abstinence promoter. You didn’t actually address the Data they presented or their arguments, you simply attacked them base don their ideological bent. Can’t the same be aid of your sources?
Why should I blindly believe the websites you link to, but accept that mine are partisan? What makes the websites I use invalid when you use the same sorts of sites only arguing for the other side?
Again, insisting that I examine my beliefs won’t make your sources unbiased. It seems to me that you started with your conclusion, and then sought put only information that conformed it, then accused me of doing this. But that is an incredibly dishonest tactic.
I do examine my beliefs, and I read information form all sides of any debate. This is not what you do, as you only read sources that agree with what you already believe and refuse to examine anyone’s arguments again that you say.
You act as if noting that they oppose this or support that means they cant be trusted, whilst using sources hat do the same thing only on opposing views. Why should I see Dawkins as Fundamentally unbiased when he is actually fundamentally Biased? Why should I trust a sex institute which in reality is a political lobby group?
Why is The Heritage Foundation or an Abstinence Promoter less viable?
Incidentally, dismissal of them base don their ideological bent without actually addressing the Data they presented is an Ad Homonym attack, which is a Logical Fallacy.
According to the numbers I’ve seen, Abstinence Only education works, and ordering me to examine my beliefs by reading only sources you deem as worthy won’t change my mind on it, since I don’t take kindly to being forced into you conclusion and won’t be.
Here is the truth, people are happier and healthier is they wait for sex. They perform better academically and actually build better relationships that are more stable. The sort of sexual libertine attitude you advocate doesn’t help us develop relationship skills, it prevents us from developing them. The views I advocate, which you don’t even know, aren’t dangerous, as they have always fostered our well being.
Responsibility and commitment are always better for stability than Hedonism, and selfishness.
Not that you will consider what I say, as Ill just get another refrain of “Examine your beliefs”, from you. You wont examine your own though, for you have the truth from on high. But from someone who said you need not respect my ideas as ideas can be wrong and insist I examine them, you refuse to examine yours.
The truth is, you just order me to examine my beliefs as a tool to make it appear as if I didn’t put thought into mine and to force yours onto the table, but since you wont examine your own beliefs, and refuse to think yours may be the ones that are mistaken, you wont have anything intelligent to say. Indeed, you wont even look into those beliefs you’ve decided to be disrespectful to, so how is it I’m to see you as making a rational and informed decision?
It just seems you want to control others, and beat them over the head with your own views, forcing them to accept them, which I wont.
One last thing.
Troika, by saying you are defending your position that sex is good, you impl that I am saying sex is bad. Its like when you said I thought sex should be limited ot Procreation only, a misrepresentation.
No one said Sex was bad, what is being said is that sex should be treated far more seriously, and not engaged in casually. The reason is because, unlike your ideologically biased view of it, its a powerful force and entering into it lightly can prove destructive.
There is a difference between advocatign responcibility and disipline, and saying sex is bad.
Please do actually read what others actually beleive abotu sex and why, you may fidn that more enlightening.
As it is now, your just repeatign the Secular Humanist STance of peopel like Richard Dawkins, who in turn have proven themselves incapable of really being able to tell us how to have a proper relatiomnship since he is incapable of it.
OK something is being greatly overlooked here, and that is that REGULARLY the age of consent for a “minor” only applies if the other person is AN ADULT. TWO 15 YR OLDS HAVING SEX ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO JAIL, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. A 15 YR OLD HAVING SEX WITH A 25 YR OLD, THEN YES, DOUCHEY IS GONNA DO THE TIME. THE WHOLE REASON FOR AGE OF CONSENT IS TO PROTECT THE YOUTH FROM THE PREDATORY OLDER PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM, NOT TO KEEP TWO YOUNG PEOPLE FROM DOING WHAT IS NATURAL, GET THE DIFFERENCE? HELL NO I DON’T WANT AGE OF CONSENT AT 14 SO SOME OLD DESPERATE HOUSEWIFE AND SCREW UP MY SON’S MIND CAUSE SHE WANTS TO GET SOME.