You are completely off base. For one thing, when I see an attractive man, I might admire his attractiveness and say that he's hot or whatever, but I certainly don't start "throbbing in my nether regions" for him. :roll: It takes a lot MORE than that for most woman than to LOOK at a person. You guys are so pathetic and a menace to society.
Not to be creepy, or anything, but I can actually start to go a bit hard from simply standing within a few feet of a woman that I find to be sexually attractive sometimes.
That's just kind of the way guys work. :shrug:
That doesn't mean it's good for 16-year-olds to be open game for adult males of all ages.
Most of the world does exactly that, and has no problems whatsoever because of it.
Again, you're arguing solely off of abstract rhetoric here. Unfortunately, the simple fact of the matter is that practical comparison to other models shows your rhetoric to be almost completely without merit.
We have not seen any better outcomes result from having the Age of Consent set to 18 as opposed to some lower age. As a matter of fact, our society actually performs far worse in many regards when compared to those within our peer group who adopt the lower model.
Even if there are other factors at play there, the conclusion this reality must lead us to is ultimately self evident. Higher ages of consent are, by and large, simply ineffective at achieving their desired goals.
But that is the "line in the sand" we have drawn.
Which is exactly my point. It ultimately is only a "line in the sand."
There really is no greater morality or compelling reason behind it.
I saw what Arcana said about herself. I have no business discussing her personal decisions.
They were
her decisions, not society's. Such decisions are common place in the part of the world where she lives, and they also do not seem to result in much in the way of objective harm.
That's the key takeaway here.
And I disagree with Sweden's law, just as I disagree with you you.
Demonstrate the harm it causes. :shrug:
And you don't know that, because it's legal. Whereas in the U.S., there are cases all the time about men having sex with underage girls. Look at the Superbowl.
A) I don't agree with your premise that men having sex with young women under the age of 18 is really all that terrible in the first place. If pursued consensually and in a mutually loving content, it can be just as valid as any other form of sexual expression.
B) Prostitution is already illegal and unethical under any context. Age of consent barely even comes into play here.
The law makes it right or wrong, to start with.
Law is not the arbiter of my morality.
Frankly, if we were to follow your logic here, wouldn't that mean that having sex with girls you consider to be under aged would be "right" for me (considering that AoC in South Carolina is 16) and people living in Europe, where it is "wrong" for people in the part of the country where you live? How does that work, exactly?
Then there is the whole, why does an adult want sex with an underage teenager?]
Both distinctions are rather arbitrary in the first place.
Yep, because as a society, we make laws for the benefit of society. Like driving at 16. Or voting at 18. Or drinking at 21. Or retirement at 65. It's all arbitrary, but a majority of our society agreed with those benchmarks and so it it.
Granted. However, the "benefit" to which you allude is still far from conclusive.
In any case, just because society arbitrarily decides something to be the case, doesn't mean that it actually is the case, or actually makes any damn sense, for that matter. This is all I was saying.
Now, once again you have made an odd statement, two times in the post I responded to, and didn't answer my question.
Why is personal responsibility not necessary in all circumstances? Under what circumstances would you say personal responsibility not desirable?
You were implying that it was indicative of "personal responsibility" to follow irrational laws. I do not necessarily agree.
If it were to be made illegal for a man to urinate standing up, for instance, I would hardly consider it to be a lapse of my "personality responsibility" to ignore or question that law.
Sure, I might go to jail for my decision, and I might very well be coerced into "towing the line" for that reason. However, that still wouldn't make the act of defying the law in question intrinsically immoral or a breech of "personal responsibility." Legal morality and
actual morality are two entirely different concepts.
