Freud was a sexist pig, Comrade Meatrace.
More than anything, it was his insistence that clitoral orgasms were symptomatic of developmental immaturity and that healthy, normal women subsisted off the more elusive--put still pretty damn satisfying, testifies Sister Greer in The Female Eunuch--vaginal orgasms that earned Dr. Freud his casting off into the dustbin of misogynist history.
On the other hand, if he even knew what clitoral orgasms were in that day and age, he was probably thinking way ahead of his time. . . :P
(In case this thread gets locked for misbehavior, I'd just like to point out how many times I haven't posted something offensive.)
Good afternoon, milady.
If I remember correctly how chivalric romance works out, I expect that we will be getting to know each other quite well indeed.
[Waggles eyebrows]
Gwailos, I would like to nominate Sister Greer for membership in the OHWFA! File.
Srly, though, minus the glowing Mao reference, it's interesting to see how far the debate has progressed in the last 42 years.
Even more srly, though, more Kathleen Hanna.
I've had discussions about legal cases similar to this one involving heterosexual couples. I'm not a lawyer or anything either. Go find a case, start a thread about it and I'll comment on it.
Here's one. Based on the limited facts of the article, I think the judge made the right call. Would you like to talk about it some more?
Not to jump on the "Reverse-sexist! Anti-breeder!" bandwagon, but I looked around.
And guess what I found?
Southern courts prosecuting black males for sexing it up with white females.
Who'd've thunk?
I imagine if we weren't all a bunch of girly-men, sports-avoiding nerds we would've already known about that case.
--
"OTOH, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned most of the charges and had him released."
OTOH, he did 15 months in prison and has a sex offense on his permanent record.
Progress. Meh.
That's the point of progress. It was bad. They've made it better for the next case.
Freud was a sexist pig, Comrade Meatrace.
More than anything, it was his insistence that clitoral orgasms were symptomatic of developmental immaturity and that healthy, normal women subsisted off the more elusive--put still pretty damn satisfying, testifies Sister Greer in The Female Eunuch--vaginal orgasms that earned Dr. Freud his casting off into the dustbin of misogynist history.
On the other hand, if he even knew what clitoral orgasms were in that day and age, he was probably thinking way ahead of his time. . . :P
(In case this thread gets locked for misbehavior, I'd just like to point out how many times I haven't posted something offensive.)
Well it was the time when doctors treated histrionics with special vibrating machines placed on women's neather regions.
Well it was the time when doctors treated histrionics with special vibrating machines placed on women's neather regions.
Ooh, I was just reading an article about that not too long ago...I forget where, though...
I guess they still don't know a lot of the details because it was kept as a medical secret or something.
(The Freud thing was kind of a joke, but, according to my not terribly-deep delves into feminist writing, that comment about clitoral orgasm sure pissed the ladies off!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what you're saying.That's the point of progress. It was bad. They've made it better for the next case.You sure about that?
Eh, I got lost in the [Quotes] and what was actually being said. Woops.
Anyway, I'm saying that laws against high school students boinking each other are stupid, and it's probably not very surprising that they are often used to reinforce racist, sexist, and anti-gay sexual mores.
I think the Goblin's viewpoints are slowly leading me from moderate conservatism to communism. McCarthyism was right all along.
I think the Goblin's viewpoints are slowly leading me from moderate conservatism to communism. McCarthyism was right all along.
Vive le Galt!
We agree there. Maybe with some concerns about the extremes: 18 & 14?
I think my states rule of it's ok if you're within 3 years, at least for the high school ages, isn't a bad approach.
It avoids the ridiculous problem of it's fine one day, illegal the next and fine again a couple months later
Yeah, I know we mostly agree. I'm just more skeptical about the possibility of progress in this country (short of international...), but you probably already knew that.
Anyway, yeah, NH's got the same laws re: age of consent (although that 13-year-old marriage thing is still on the books, according to wikipedia). It's better than Florida and Georgia, apparently, but Kaitlyn Hunt would still be "guilty," I believe.
Me and Fouquier-Tinville think a blanket "no laws against high schoolers boinking each other" would be a better legal principle.
In CT, if I read it correctly she wouldn't. 3 year difference. It depends on exact birthdays, which I'm unsure of, but if the younger girl turned 15 while Kaitlyn was still 17, they'd be fine. And I believe that was the case.
I'll admit I'm a little more Ok with this case than the other two you linked. Not because of the racist angle or the homosexual angle, but because this case was in the context of a long-term (for High school) relationship, while the other two seemed to be one-time hookups.
18 year olds dating and having sex with 15 year olds doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
18 year olds f&~*ing 15 year olds at parties raises all sorts of red flags for me.
Call it the romantic in me.Whether the law could or should distinguish is another question.
My reading of the Hunt case was that the younger girl was still 14 when she turned 18, but I might be wrong.
My initial reading of the Dixon case was that they did it at school, or in the athletic building or something?
My initial reading of the Wilson case was that it was a wild shindig, he was 17, and was getting willfully and consensually (one article said "precociously") blown by a 15-year-old.
Not much to inspire ol' fashioned courtship, I agree, but there you go.
Otoh, the, at least, basic familiarity with the process that I learned as a 16-year-old (I remember hawt, sticky nights in 1993, trying to get to the bottom of this clitoral orgasm phenomenon) was much appreciated by my partners in my early 20s.
But then, of course,
Goblins do it in the streets!
It really shouldn't be Illegal if you can both wind up in the same math class without getting left back...
The truth about gays and money
Just like I always said: gay liberation will never be won without the overthrow of capitalism and the smashing of class society!
Vive le Galt!
It's all about what you obsess about I guess.
True dat. I am becoming obsessed with Anita Sarkeesian.
Last night, in my dreams, she called me back. She wanted to apologize for being a "ball-busting biznitch" (her words, not mine) and I was all like, "It's okay, baby, I like feisty women."
So, then she came over and we examined Tropes Against Women and explored gender roles...on my futon!
OHWFA!
Hee hee!
More on internecine squabbles on the American left
Btw, this Trot objects to being thrown into the same category with the ISO Trots (or, as we derisively call them, the "Cliffites").
They do have a pretty good website, though.
Hmm. I don't think either the feisty rad-libs around Counterpunch nor the opportunist renegades from Trotskyism over at the Socialist Worker are a CIA front. I also missed it if either party accused each other of being agents of state intelligence.
Anyway, my preferred brand of doctrinaire, sectarian ultra-leftism passed the child care witchhunt with flying colors, I'd like to say.
I remember an excellent article about day-care hysteria, Satan and American backwardness from Women and Revolution back in the day, but I didn't find it with a quick search. It might not be on the internet.
Anyway, my preferred brand of doctrinaire, sectarian ultra-leftism also had a somewhat more respectful relationship (which doesn't mean they didn't fight like cats and dogs!) with the Counterpunch editorial board.
Is there an American Left that's not a CIA front?
Famously, during the McCarthy era in the USA, the FBI had many of its members infiltrate the American Communist Party. It was estimated that, at its peak, approximately two-thirds of the American Communist Party consisted of operatives on the FBI payroll.
I have an annoying habit of derailing every thread towards communism. I can't help it.
Back to my other obsession: Gore Vidal.
So, goblins are creatures of (bad) habit(s). Feminism comes up and I go running for my copy of his Selected Works. (You know, his estate should pay me some kind of posthumous literary agent.) And I find this:
"There has been from Henry Miller to Norman Mailer to Phyllis Schafly a logical progression. The Patriarchalists have been conditioned to think of women as, at best, breeders of sons; at worst, objects to be poked, humiliated, killed. Needless to say, their reaction to Women's Liberation has been one of panic. They believe that if women are allowed parity with men they will treat men the way men have treated women and that, even they will agree, has not been very well or, as Cato the Censor observed, if woman be made man's equal she will swiftly become his master." (1971)
So, that's a pretty awesome paragraph, but when I got to the bolded part, I thought to myself "That's a little harsh, but Bravo Gore, you old troll!"
But last night, I was over a comrade's house and we were watching the latest installment of John Green's Crash Course US History, Women in the 19th Century and was reminded of the concept of Republican motherhood.
Bravo, Gore, Bravo!
...Jason Statham...although, he needs to pick better material...Beck, but not Jack Black...
...Gore Vidal, obviously...
Women in the 19th Century
Btw, I yelled at the screen when he called Uncle Tom's Cabin terrible.
Down with Simon Legree!
Vive Uncle Tom!
Paizonians will be interested, I am sure, to read that the CP/ISO debate has moved on to incorporate art history.
Paizonians will be interested, I am sure, to read that the CP/ISO debate has moved on to incorporate art history.
Can't those two goblin tribes just have an alchemist fire drinking contest and get it over with?
To paraphrase Woody Allen, "Leftist intelletuals are like the Mafia they only kill their own."
I don't think this Counterpunch article is a direct response to the ISO's branching off into the history of the female nude and "the gaze," but, it also takes a swipe at Susan Brownmiller, Grandmammy of Rape Culture, so...
From "Reckless Eyeballing" to "Dehumanizing Stares": Who’s Afraid of Black Men’s Eyes? by JOHN ESKOW
|
Hands off until both are 18, not that damn hard to understand. Should be a line drawn hard and clear none of this sometimes adult, sometimes not but ok to cross the line BSNo. You wouldn't put up with the government telling you you can't have sex for a year so why should a 17 year old?
For the same reason they cannot vote, smoke, sign contracts etc. If sex is to be an "adult" thing then it should be. If it is not an adult thing then why do we care if the 14 year old is doing it with the 30 year old? people are just hypocritical as hell with sex.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Age limits on sex are less to do with it being an "adult" thing and more to do with protecting children and allowing them to make informed choices that are not influenced by people with power over them.
I'm of the opinion that teenagers should feel free to experiment sexually with other teenagers if they should so desire (or not do so, as is their will). Sex and sexuality is a healthy and natural thing and should not be tried to be repressed because of archaic religious/social influences.
A 16-year-old is roughly on the same level as her boyfriend she met in maths class. A 16-year-old with her 22-year-old maths tutor is seriously problematic. He has power over her--he's in a position of responsibility and potentially taking advantage of it. She may feel obliged to reciprocate his advantages because he is above her in their power dynamic. She may not be confident enough to turn him down because children are often taught to obey their elders. All in all, not healthy at all.
On the other hand, a 15-year-old dating a 17-year-old is relatively safe (circumstances should determine if there is a power imbalance)... and I don't think they should be forced to stop having sex just because one turns 18.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not able to press charges against high school students for consensual sex.
One thing that hasn't been brought up is that the Age of Consent is about consenting to Anyone. 16 to 18? No. 16 to 15? No. 16 to 16? No.
They probably have more important things to do or consider anyway.
|
Assuming there are no signs of a problematic relationship in one way or another (and no, problematic does not mean 'We do not approve of our son/daughter having sex') then the pare
nts are SOL.
As above, but if we assume that it also sets the ground work for a lot more issues in other cases. Why cant a male/female get the same special treatment? What if the ages are even further apart? Why do we even have the law ts for good and bad, when its easy to get by it if we feel iys okay for some individuals. Sorry Im on my phone and cant go into much detail as Id like.
|
|
I don't understand your point about male/female, I haven't mentioned gender? Nor legal liability...?
As for age gaps, it depends entirely on the age of the youngest person. For example, a 5 year gap between a 30 and 35 year old is nothing. A 5 year gap between a 14 and a 19 year old is pretty significant. The age gap could in itself be evidence of exploitation. I certainly think there is a hard limit on when children should start having sex, too, namely because their bodies and minds are nowhere near developed enough to handle that. It's all about considering the circumstances of the relationship and being sure it's all consensual.
Basically: Teenagers are going to have sex with other teenagers no matter what the hell you do. They had sex 1000 years ago and will be having sex 1000 years into the future provided we haven't destroyed the Earth yet. The least we can do is educate them and make sure they're safe and not being used and abused.
On the other hand, a 15-year-old dating a 17-year-old is relatively safe (circumstances should determine if there is a power imbalance)... and I don't think they should be forced to stop having sex just because one turns 18.
What was it Natalie Merchant say?
|
|
I don't understand your point about male/female, I haven't mentioned gender? Nor legal liability...?
As for age gaps, it depends entirely on the age of the youngest person. For example, a 5 year gap between a 30 and 35 year old is nothing. A 5 year gap between a 14 and a 19 year old is pretty significant. The age gap could in itself be evidence of exploitation. I certainly think there is a hard limit on when children should start having sex, too, namely because their bodies and minds are nowhere near developed enough to handle that. It's all about considering the circumstances of the relationship and being sure it's all consensual.
Basically: Teenagers are going to have sex with other teenagers no matter what the hell you do. They had sex 1000 years ago and will be having sex 1000 years into the future provided we haven't destroyed the Earth yet. The least we can do is educate them and make sure they're safe and not being used and abused.
Essentually your saying that you dont feel that they where in the wrong for breaking the law, or specifically the older one, and therefore should not be at risk of being punished for it. I dont personally necissarily disagree, but she did break the law. I also do not think that the fact that the older one being either gay or female should have any mention, as it should not matter. But, she did break the law, and for the most part, the reason that this is really even such a social issue is because shes gay and a female. Its fairly common occurence between male and females, often with the older one, usually male getting into a lot of trouble, and often once the case is raised, the state (the law) steps in and removes the potential for the parenta to not press charges, as is common with a lot of crimes that involve children and minors. My point is that this should be treated absolutely no different. I do not feel that the fact that the accused is female/gay should have any authority to remove the parent's rights to prosecute within the law. That would be the exact same as if it was a male or a non-gay sexual encounter. I also think that if it is handled differently from other similar cases, it opens up the door for a lot of things that would specifically bypass the reason we have these laws to bwgin with.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DA, I have no idea why you keep bringing up the fact that they're gay, I think it's utterly irrelevant. I'm talking about all teenagers regardless of gender or sexuality.
I'm also not saying she's not in the wrong for breaking the law, I'm saying the law is incredibly dumb and inflexible and unduly influenced by puritanical views.
For the same reason they cannot vote, smoke, sign contracts etc. If sex is to be an "adult" thing then it should be. If it is not an adult thing then why do we care if the 14 year old is doing it with the 30 year old? people are just hypocritical as hell with sex.
We don't put kids in jail and give them a lifelong label of sex offender for smoking or signing contracts.
|
|
DA, I have no idea why you keep bringing up the fact that they're gay, I think it's utterly irrelevant. I'm talking about all teenagers regardless of gender or sexuality.
Because those are really the only two things that separate the case from the norm and to a point make it worthy of notice. It's what the conversation has kind of been about.
I'm also not saying she's not in the wrong for breaking the law, I'm saying the law is incredibly dumb and inflexible and unduly influenced by puritanical views.
You say that like it's a bad/wrong thing. Which I'm not even sure is true.