How the hell is that (not) acceptable?

[Vrach]

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis, since there are plenty of 16 year olds that are far more mature and able to give consent than many 18 or 19 year olds.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

How do you quantify something like maturity though?

My contribution, I guess I'll throw in with the swearing crowd. It seems incredibly childish to get offended by a 'naughty word.'

Not by age, which is exactly his point. A professional psychologist can give a good estimate though.

OT: Why am I considered socially awkward for playing video games, even though I spend on average just as much time playing online games as any kid spends playing sports or socializing at school?

Because by socialising, people mean doing it in person. If you spend as much time playing those online games with the same amount of people in the same room (LAN party, cybercafes and the like), yeah, you'll be just as sociable. Though they'll still consider you awkward for spending time inside the house. Imagine if some 100 years ago there was a guy who did nothing but sit in his house and send letters/telegraphs to random people he's never met, would you consider him sociable? Because, bar the speed of communication, that's kinda what online chat is.

edit:
OT: Oh wait, no, I've got something much better. How the fuck is it that games get pointed at for all the violence inspiring bullshit (especially among minors) while sports are just perfectly fine? 99% of aggressive kids I ever knew (and I reckon most experiences would agree) were the sporty types, I don't remember a single gamer that was ever violent. Hell, look at a football (football, not handegg) stadium, then look at a gaming event, which one looks more likely to end in physical violence?

 

[Doom-Slayer]

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis, since there are plenty of 16 year olds that are far more mature and able to give consent than many 18 or 19 year olds.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

Sadly its just too idealistic. The reason overarching and arbitrary laws exist like that is because its simply not possible to do everything on a case by case basis. There would just be waaaaay too many incidents, and no possible to do each by its own merits.

With an arbitrary cutoff point, no its not ideal, but its practical.

Because by socialising, people mean doing it in person.

Thats the problem there. Society deems that it only counts if done person to person which I think is rubbish. Its the same view with online/long-distance relationships, the general view is if you haven't met, or dont meet often, it doesn't count because you arent person to person. Which again, is rubbish. Person to person is simply one method of communicating, it isn't "the" way of communicating or even the best way all the time, its just one possibility.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Swearing. I mean you can say poop or pee pee but not shit or piss. How fucked are we as a society when a sound is taboo? No one cares about the meaning, everybody poops after all. But when people start shitting, that's offensive.

In this case, it simply depends on your company. If you are out in public, around children, it (rightfully so) isnt acceptable. Its a matter of respect. I have been in more than one situation where I have had to ask someone to watch their language, because I didnt want my kids to hear it. I behave in a similar way, in public, because I know its disrespectful to curse around children, as well as other people. Sure, it may not bother you and I to "color up" our language, but its not everyones cup of tea, and being civil, we should respect that.

 

[FilipJPhry]

For example, how the hell did public nudity become so taboo? Why did more "civilised" cultures come to disapprove of it? I can understand requiring clothes for specific things, but why the complete shift? Why are clothes now a requirement, rather than an option?

Nudity is a distraction. Car accidents will be frequent. Have you watched that Seinfeld episode?

On another note, why do people get offended when I speak Mi'kmaq(or other languages) in a public restaurant?

 

[LadyRhian]

Homosexuality. Ancient Greece is known as one of history's greatest empire and they practically relished homosexuality, but now a large portion of our society downright abhors it. Pisses me right off and makes me wish I lived in ancient Greece.

And pederasty too!

Homosexual sex in Greece was all older men screwing younger men. If the older man wished to be penetrated, that was considered shameful. Also, homosexual sex between women was taboo there, which is why the poetess Sappho gained such notoriety with her unabashed love for women. It wasn't some Gay Paradise like people seem to think.

As for the nudity taboo, that comes from America being founded by Puritans and religious dissenters. After all, one of the punishments God gives Adam and Eve when they were thrown out of the Garden of Eden is being ashamed of their nakedness and having to cover themselves. As for why it's okay for men to show nipples but women not, well, women's nipples, because they are used for breastfeeding, are considered a sexual area (plus, unlike most other primates, we have these sacks of flesh that make them stand out- other primates only have the sacks of flesh when breastfeeding). So, as a sexual area, they have to be covered- just like the groins of men and women.

 

[Strazdas]

- I never understood how somebody who's 17 and 364 days is off limits, but the day they turn 18, they are fair game . It seems odd that somebody who is 16 or 17 is deemed "unable to give consent"
varies by region but the point still stands). Although, once somebody is into their mid-20s they shouldn't be dating that young anyway, I'm talking more about people ages 18-22 who get pinned for statutory rape.

- I never understood how a film (or other forms of media) can have violence and killing and only be PG13, but one woman's nipple will give it an R rating.

- I never understood how men's nipples are allowed to be exposed, but not women's.

- I never understood why halloween is normal but cosplay is weird.

- I never understood why rats and mice are considered ugly, but hamsters are cute.

I have more, but these are the first ones I thought of : \

First 2 - religion.
the last one - tail. Hamsters dont have it.

 

[TheClownKnight]

Breast feeding. I love women as much as the next guy but if a woman is feeding he baby I don't look and that's what other people need to do. If you think it's that bad don't look the women is feeding her baby.

 

[Lunatic High]

No need to start an argument here, buddy. He was simply stating that you were a little hypocritical in your post, he didn't mean it as a personal attack against you. You had your opinion and then he had his. There's my little "grunt of disapproval". I'm now moving on.

Its ok pal, I quite like replying to these kinds of posts.

Making out in public, I mean REALLY making out we're talking Gene Simmons tounge action here. Or even just regular frenching, to me it always appears to make people uncomfortable for reasons I don't quite get I mean what real concern is it of anyone elses other than envy if you ask me.

My gf and I were kicked out of a bus transit station just for this, well that could be considered the cause of the interation between ourselves and transit security and I know that we were basically kicked out because cause I called the fat prick an envious nazi essentially, I suppose I didn't have as good a control on my temper when I 19, but still just the fact that the guy came up to us and told us "either don't do that, or take it somewhere else" all matter of factly. There is a polilte and adult way to deal with any situation.

have another read of that last paragraph and try to spot the hypocrisy

So what's your point?

For starters 1. Who cares?
2. What are you gonna do about it?
3. If you didn't like reading why post a reply? (HIPOCRACY ALERT!!)

Just make your annoying little grunt of disaproval and move on. Being able to spot hipocracy dosen't make you smart you know, and commenting on it without development of an opinion as to why you disagree in the first place just makes you sad and you shouldn't make waves if you're not willing to get wet, that's just cowardly, but I suppose thats something total anonymity is good for. For both our sakes.

It seems you also don't have control over your temper now.

OK, I'll bite, lets go.

What's my point? Don't ask people to deal with things in a 'polilte and adult way' if you aren't willing to do the same.

1. Me. So someone asked you to stop doing something and you called 'the fat prick' an 'envious nazi'. Yes that seems like the 'polilte and adult way' to deal with this situation. I dislike people who give other people shit just for doing their jobs.

2. Aside from call you out on being a hypocrite? Nothing. It's an internet forum. I'm not really sure as to what else you think I could do about it, this just seems like unnecessary posturing.

3. So in your world if people don't like a post they should just sit there, shake their head and tut? No thanks.

Total anonymity? Click my profile. I have a picture of myself right there. There's a link to my FaceBook page aswell. More pictures are available there. Admittedly I change my name on FB when I get bored, so it's rarely my own, but if you care so much my name is Ian Cottam. I have nothing to hide.
Although that last paragraph is a mess and I'm still struggling to understand what it's trying to say.

Alright fair enough I could've deffenitly made that a little clearer. I don't like it when people get shit for doing their jobs either been there enough times. However this incident occured when I was 19 that was 6 years ago, but there is a difference between doing your job politly as your supposed to and being an utter dick about it like he was. If he had said "excuse me could please stop" wouldve got a much more polite response than what I basically gave him, I wouldn't have liked it but I would've complied, but that doesn't matter now anyway. Its just that when I read such a short answer I immedeatly assumed condecension which happens to be one of my "triggers" when I'm not careful about it which I wasn't. Now for the sake of this thread I'm gonna leave at this, cause in hindsight this whole inncident is just a little silly, and I apologize for my overreation.

 

[Easton Dark]

In queensland you can have vaginal sex or oral at 16 but the age of consent for buttsex is 18.
AND NOW YOU KNOW.

That makes 0 sense to me. For one, if the point of the AoC is give a specific age where you can consent to an act legally, what's the difference between saying "Stick it in the front" and "Stick it in the back"?

And if the alternative motive for the AoC is to ensure you're at an age to get a job in case baby making does happen, Vaginal should be 18 with the other 2 at 16. Those 2 kind of go together anyway.

Queensland, you're weird.

 

[Eamar]

Homosexual sex in Greece was all older men screwing younger men. If the older man wished to be penetrated, that was considered shameful. Also, homosexual sex between women was taboo there, which is why the poetess Sappho gained such notoriety with her unabashed love for women. It wasn't some Gay Paradise like people seem to think.

Actually, as far as we can tell anal sex was pretty rare. It does seem that being penetrated was considered shameful (for both older and younger men), and that's why most depictions and descriptions we have of gay relationships from the period favour intercrural sex.

Also, Sappho was celebrated as one of the greatest poets of all time, and she remained popular well into the Roman era, so her supposed homo/bisexuality didn't exactly hold her back.

Not saying it was a "gay paradise" or anything, just that sexuality was WAY less of a big deal.

Sorry for jumping in and correcting you. I'm a(n ex-)Classicist, and you'd be amazed how much of the study of Classics has to do with sex

 

[manic_depressive13]

That makes 0 sense to me. For one, if the point of the AoC is give a specific age where you can consent to an act legally, what's the difference between saying "Stick it in the front" and "Stick it in the back"?

And if the alternative motive for the AoC is to ensure you're at an age to get a job in case baby making does happen, Vaginal should be 18 with the other 2 at 16. Those 2 kind of go together anyway.

Queensland, you're weird.

Nothing to do with logic. It's because Queensland is very homophobic.

 

[snappydog]

As a sort of extension on the nudity thing, why is it usually (in my experience) considered perfectly acceptable for women to ogle men - y'know, in an overtly sort of lusty/ sexual way - but not for men to do the same to women? If we do it to them, we're sick perverts apparently.

 

[LadyRhian]

Why is having sex wrong without the production of a baby, It feels good and plays a very large very integral part in Human relationships in addition to the reproduction?

Religion. Any sex where you *don't* go forth and multiply is bad.

Nudity, Holy shit we all have the same parts (guys and girls) if you see them enough they stop becoming something that you drool over or freak out about.

In addition to nudity being bad we are somehow okay with murder/war/violence/blood those are the things that should really be gross and taboo. It is the end of life, it should cause fear and the willies inside of you, not something as common and mainstream as sex and nudity.

I agree, but certain people think that kids are mentally harmed by seeing adult size parts. They think theirs will never measure up and feel bad about them. I dunno. Just saying, "You're small, you have to grow up to have adult size parts, and everyone is different in size, even as adults." Would fix that. But nudity is not very comfortable. Clothes shield us from the sun, protect us from bugs and dirt, and provide warmth in cold weather. Nudity tends to be taboo in cultures where going naked could literally be the death of you. And just imagine getting sunburned in places where clothing covers you, and how painful that would be!

Drugs being illegal, The majority of drugs are plants or plant matter, they were all legal for 7000+ years and within the last 50 years we made them all illegal...? Seriously we made it to this point with them being around us, many cultures used them daily or had ceremonies dedicated to them, and the death tolls were very low, yet here we are.

Public safety. Most of the cultures where drugs are used in ritual do not use them recreationally. Even Peyote is considered sacred. You don't see Native Americans dropping a Peyote button "just because". They do it as part of a ritual and are raised to think of that as sacred. Most people from cultures where drugs are not used as part of ritual will abuse it because they don't view those drugs as sacred. And there was a time when stuff like cocaine, morphine and marijuana were more used (and abused), and they stopped people from putting them into patent medicines because of the harm it did them. They used to put morphine in "infant soother", to make the kid stop crying, and some people dosed their kids so much that the kid was always listless and underweight, not to mention addicted. Stuff like that is why drugs got made illegal- People misusing and abusing them.

People not parenting anymore, no one wants to be a parent to their child now and days they all want to be their friend. Every little child I meet in my area is spoiled to all hell, and their parents never do anything about it. I watched a kid throw a tantrum in a supermarket for almost 30 minutes the whole time that was happening his mother did absolutely nothing, just sat there watching him do it.

I have way more as well.

On this, I will agree with you. Kids need to be parented. Spoiled kids turn into spoiled adults, and its horrible when parents don't do the job they are supposed to do. That's why I think you should need a license before pumping out kids. If you can't raise 'em right, you shouldn't be having them.

Homosexual sex in Greece was all older men screwing younger men. If the older man wished to be penetrated, that was considered shameful. Also, homosexual sex between women was taboo there, which is why the poetess Sappho gained such notoriety with her unabashed love for women. It wasn't some Gay Paradise like people seem to think.

Actually, as far as we can tell anal sex was pretty rare. It does seem that being penetrated was considered shameful (for both older and younger men), and that's why most depictions and descriptions we have of gay relationships from the period favour intercrural sex.

Also, Sappho was celebrated as one of the greatest poets of all time, and she remained popular well into the Roman era, so her supposed homo/bisexuality didn't exactly hold her back.

Not saying it was a "gay paradise" or anything, just that sexuality was WAY less of a big deal.

Sorry for jumping in and correcting you. I'm a(n ex-)Classicist, and you'd be amazed how much of the study of Classics has to do with sex

No, perfectly okay! I enjoy being corrected on stuff like this, because it gives me an opportunity to learn. And I thought Sappho was considered rather "notorious" in her time for what she wrote- yes, her stuff was popular, but because it was written to other women, it was considered somewhat risque...

 

[LaughingAtlas]

I've got a theory on the swear thing, forgive me if it's been said already. Maybe it's that people generally swear when angry/annoyed/in pain and people associate those words with the negative feelings, which makes them uncomfortable enough to demand that the words, whether said in angry tones or not, not be said. Ever. Makes me want to shout the names of random fruit or insects when agitated, see what can be made into an 'offensive' term. USB not fitting in the slot properly, "APRICOT!" Stub toe, "CENTIPEDE!" Fall in a ditch, "SON OF A POTATO!" (which is actually a vegetable, but that probably doesn't matter)

OT: I can guess, but still don't quite understand why the concept of death makes people uncomfortable. I don't mean "Hey, ever thought about dying? I bet it's a jolly old time down the River Styx!" Just bringing up that people are not immortal makes some people act like the room is filling with poison gas. Maybe the whatever-the-pineapple-it-is that comes after life being unknown is a tad scary, but I've seen people that are mere enunciation from denying their mortality altogether.

In a course I had last semester, the professor liked to have a student play a song at the start of class, when my turn came, I chose this:

The class seemed perturbed and said it was depressing. I asked if anyone happened to catch that one line they repeated a few times, the title of the song, "Yea," said the professor, "But they're talking about death!" I felt I had missed something...

 

[Eamar]

No, perfectly okay! I enjoy being corrected on stuff like this, because it gives me an opportunity to learn. And I thought Sappho was considered rather "notorious" in her time for what she wrote- yes, her stuff was popular, but because it was written to other women, it was considered somewhat risque...

Well, I suppose a bit of scandal and notoriety never hurts when it comes to getting your name out there I imagine that, while certainly unusual and a bit risque that she was writing about women (though you *could* argue that she was assuming a male persona or something), most of the disapproval would have stemmed from her being so independent.

I guess she may have been saved from too damaging a scandal since there just hasn't been as much public recognition of the concept of female homosexuality throughout history as there been for the male version...

 

[Matt King]

Swearing. I mean you can say poop or pee pee but not shit or piss. How fucked are we as a society when a sound is taboo? No one cares about the meaning, everybody poops after all. But when people start shitting, that's offensive.

whis is swearing immature when it's called adult language

 

[Dogstile]

- I never understood how somebody who's 17 and 364 days is off limits, but the day they turn 18, they are fair game . It seems odd that somebody who is 16 or 17 is deemed "unable to give consent"
varies by region but the point still stands). Although, once somebody is into their mid-20s they shouldn't be dating that young anyway, I'm talking more about people ages 18-22 who get pinned for statutory rape.

Because there has to be a cut-off point, and on that age it is recognised they should have undergone enough development to be able to give informed consent.

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis, since there are plenty of 16 year olds that are far more mature and able to give consent than many 18 or 19 year olds.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

Sounds to me like you just wanna boink someone under the age of 18, otherwise why would this be an issue?

Then take it from me, considering my current partner for "fun times" is over 18 and I still think the law is stupid

 

[zehydra]

Homosexuality. Ancient Greece is known as one of history's greatest empire and they practically relished homosexuality, but now a large portion of our society downright abhors it. Pisses me right off and makes me wish I lived in ancient Greece.

And pederasty too!

Homosexual sex in Greece was all older men screwing younger men. If the older man wished to be penetrated, that was considered shameful. Also, homosexual sex between women was taboo there, which is why the poetess Sappho gained such notoriety with her unabashed love for women. It wasn't some Gay Paradise like people seem to think.

As for the nudity taboo, that comes from America being founded by Puritans and religious dissenters. After all, one of the punishments God gives Adam and Eve when they were thrown out of the Garden of Eden is being ashamed of their nakedness and having to cover themselves. As for why it's okay for men to show nipples but women not, well, women's nipples, because they are used for breastfeeding, are considered a sexual area (plus, unlike most other primates, we have these sacks of flesh that make them stand out- other primates only have the sacks of flesh when breastfeeding). So, as a sexual area, they have to be covered- just like the groins of men and women.

Isn't it true that women find abs to be sexual?