sam on May 02, 2011, 06:54:32 pm
Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time.

And the laws of the time don't have anything about age of consent as such - it was not an issue until 1895.

You have offered zero evidence beyond hearsay.

For something to be illegal, someone has to be prosecuted for doing it.  I cannot produce absence of laws and absence of prosecutions.  You have to produce prosecutions, or laws that display an intent to prosecute.

The phrase "statutory rape" is extremely rare until recent times.  Searching google books, "statutory rapes" does not show up in in preview and limited view until the 1920s, though women's libbers were campaigning on the issue, using different terminology, from 1895 onwards.  Before 1895, the thought just does not occur to people.

Show me the "age of consent" laws before or after 1895 that comport with your above assertion.

There are no age of consent laws as such until after 1895, often well after, and when "age of consent" laws were first introduced, after 1895, often well after 1895, they were for substantially older ages.  This is not an issue that normal people talked about or thought about until 1920 or so in America, only political activists talked about or thought about after 1895, and no one talked about or thought about before 1895.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 07:07:29 pm by sam »

sam on May 02, 2011, 07:11:43 pm
I agree that the age of consent is largely about the age one can have sex. However, the section quoted only explicitly references age of consent for marriage.

Produce prosecutions.  If no prosecutions, legal.  If Polanski is fine outside the USA, legal.

Legal is what there are no laws against, no prosecutions about.  No one can produce evidence of absence to the standard that you demand.  If you insist on that standard evidence, you have to produce evidence of presence.  The best evidence of absence that can ever exist is what I have already produced.


Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 08:07:30 pm
There are no age of consent laws as such until after 1895, often well after, and when "age of consent" laws were first introduced, after 1895, often well after 1895, they were for substantially older ages.  This is not an issue that normal people talked about or thought about until 1920 or so in America, only political activists talked about or thought about after 1895, and no one talked about or thought about before 1895.

Hm. So as with "the moral equivalent of war" ("the War on Poverty" and "the War on (some) Drugs" and "the War on Terror"), we're looking at yet another toxic residuum of the "Progressive" era. 

Wotta surprise....
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 08:09:08 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on May 02, 2011, 09:10:03 pm
When the objective of sexual congress is not the combination of gametes even remotely apt to bake a baby, but rather pleasurable erotic stimulation (in whatever ways the participants' erotic desires might find non-coercive fulfillment), who else has cause to care?  

If we were wholly rational creatures, no problem, but quite obviously, we are not.

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.

So, the parent of a daughter engaging in sex with lots of people faces the likelihood that he will have no grandchildren, but grandcats instead, or he, the grandfather, rather than the father, will have to support such children.

Thus parents, in particular fathers, suffer a great and grave externality when their daughters have sex with people who are unlikely to stick around, who are apt to be the great majority of people their daughters have sex with.

In addition, fathers prefer their daughters to have sex with high status males as males measure status.  Daughters notoriously have a more primitive concept of status, to the continual and great grief of fathers.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 09:16:59 pm by sam »

Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 09:40:38 pm
Quote
Me: Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent -- or at least that the right comes with the right to a gun. Now if Sandy would admit it....

Quote
Sandy: I never denied it. It is axiomatically drived from the concept of self-ownership, which underlies ZAP and market anarchy. I merely declined to debate the obvious. Happy now?  

Ecstatic.  :)

Quote
So, that is what happens in a market anarchy such as the Belt. So it is your turn to provide primary evidence (or admission of your lack there of) in support of the claims from the "Purity" guy, quoted in the NYT? Any closer to putting up or being plonked?

I never had a dog in that hunt. I couldn't care less what the NYT guy had to say about morality or lack of. All I was after were the basic facts, such as age of consent law in the states and the amazing claim that Delaware's AoC age was 7. Wikipedia is a rotten source for politics and religion, and highly suspect for the the soft sciences and hot button historical events, such as WWII bombings, but it's usually good for hard science and non-politicized stats. I was curious why you rejected what I thought was a pretty good case on age of consent state statistics, so I did some searching of my own. I was startled, but not too surprised, to see the 7 year-old Delaware figure repeated in what looks to be a completely independently researched document.

***

Quote
Me to Sandy: Who cares what the age of consent in the US was in 1880 or 1890? How does that relate to Cererean society? I'm repeating this because you ignored that very key point in my last reply, preferring instead to concentrate on a straw man.

Quote
sam: It relates because of my original argument, that political correctness is a state imposition, and that an anarchic society would be substantially less politically correct, and would, if we continue to reproduce in the old fashioned way, probably be as patriarchal as past anarchic societies.

That's an interesting argument, sam.  To me, PC has always gone hand in hand with the peculiar, and what I cal mentally ill leftist mind. They feel they are doing good by forcing people to change their language or habits -- for the good of all, all definitions being reserved to themselves, of course. These tyrannical caretakers elevate feelings over facts, and live in simplistic fantasy worlds where they are, by definition, good, and those who oppose them must be evil. To that extent it isn't a state imposition, it's a philosophical imposition.

However, since these sick people took over the state, their policy has become the state's. It's an insidious union of overlapping drives: the lefties want to impose "correctness" on us all, and the state's natural tendency is to bring more power to itself. They are in paradise at the moment, ensnaring their citizen/subjects in a web of controlling regulations and correct-think.

You make the argument that without PC, Cererean society would follow the patriarchal, traditional family values, sort of a frontier model. That's interesting. A few pros and cons:

Pros:

1)  Men who would go to live in the Belt would not be the PC beta males of the UW; they'd be of sterner alpha male stock. Alpha males are more secure in their masculinity. Unlike their emasculated counterparts on Earth, they'd be less willing to accept an instinctually unnatural PC "equality" role, and certainly not a secondary role.

2) Women are attracted to alpha males. Such marriages would tend to the more traditional man-woman type -- a patriarchy.

3) The Belt is huge and there's plenty of room for expansion within it and beyond. An optimistic, proud, happy society produces children. If women wanted to play it safe, they'd stay on Earth. Women Belters are likely to be a rugged variety of female.

4) The Belters and Cerereans are relatively wealthy. Most wouldn't require two salaries to survive.

Cons:

1) They live a long time, so some might feel the need to restrain their child-bearing instincts.

2) Women are generally better educated than those of the past. They might be interested in their careers more than having children

3) A patriarchy where women packed firearms could be something of a contradiction.

Overall, I'll go with a modified patriarchy. Unlike the UW and its suffocating rules of conduct, the Belt sounds like a place where men can be men and women can be proud of it.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 09:44:51 pm by Aardvark »

Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 11:50:38 pm
Quote
Tucci78: And that's why I hold the social/traditionalist "conservative" mindset in such profound contempt.  They're a buncha frackin' mundanes, damn them.  What any such critters are doing commenting upon Escape From Terra - except as obviously hostile trolls - I cannot accept or credit.

I don't think that blind obedience to traditional values is productive. However, I think the past is a gold mine of sociological knowledge. We aren't so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt. It can be instructive to compare societies. What worked, and why? Which societies were happiest, and which were strong and enduring? Which societies disintegrated through weakness and were held together under tyranny? And it can get PC perilous: what roles make men and women happiest?

The lessons we can take from studying the past, and through it, human nature, is hideously complex and debatable. Modern inventions -- and future inventions such as long life -- make a good deal of what made sense in the past obsolete, and yet, there are societies from which we can reasonably extrapolate: we can expect a Utopian collective to be a soul-deadening tyranny. Enforced equality and wide-open sex produces few quality marriages, a lack of male commitment, and ultimately, a lot of unhappy women who can't find what they desire in a man. I don't think it's wrong to consider the past when constructing or evaluating a society.

mellyrn on May 03, 2011, 08:50:14 am
Quote
what roles make men and women happiest?

The ones they choose for themselves.

spudit on May 03, 2011, 09:38:27 am
Quote
what roles make men and women happiest?

The ones they choose for themselves.

The Lady is right again.

In my opinion only. The age of consent, drumroll,  is the age when they as a unique individual are smart and sophisticated enough to make that decision. I know 13 year old adults and 30 year old children. I think we all do.

Forget the IQ tests and the rest of the apptitude and intelligence tests, too restraining and a lousy way to sort people. We have far more mental, intellectual, psychological variation than ever imagined. It is a treasure beyond belief.

Take ADD/ADHD, I like the Hunter Farmer hypnosis by Hartman. He observed that what makes for a lousy dirt farmer/public school kid makes for a superb hunter/warrior/inventor.Then looked at diagnosed cases among recent hunter gatherer cultures, the Inuit for one as I recall, and compared them to strains of humans long domesticated. This last my own tongue in cheek terminology.

Know what, the kid who was hopeless in school tended to be superb at patiently waiting hyper focused on the ice at a seal's breathing hole then making an instant transition to run like hell when a polar bear climbed out. Don't even think about asking him to till turnips.

Imagine Henry Ford sentenced to Julliard or some budding Mozart doomed to shop class. One size does not fit all.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

sam on May 03, 2011, 04:18:15 pm
Quote
what roles make men and women happiest?

The ones they choose for themselves.

What they choose, depends on other people's roles, what other people agree to - and if they cannot trust other people to carry out those roles, they behave differently.

Thus happiness, requires some role enforcement.

The Roman Republic had some of the most harshly coercive marriage laws ever, but for a marriage to take place, the father of the bride had to publicly consent, the father of the groom had to publicly consent, the bride and the groom had to publicly consent three times before three sets of witnesses, and then romantically hold each other.

One cannot choose a role for oneself, since roles involve other people. 

Tucci78 on May 03, 2011, 04:56:22 pm
When the objective of sexual congress is not the combination of gametes even remotely apt to bake a baby, but rather pleasurable erotic stimulation (in whatever ways the participants' erotic desires might find non-coercive fulfillment), who else has cause to care? 

If we were wholly rational creatures, no problem, but quite obviously, we are not.

To the extent that the irrationalities can be brought under conscious consideration and rational solutions thereby applied, that's not necessarily true. 

We ("Whaddaya mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?") are not "wholly rational creatures" on the subject of human sexuality right now, sure.  But does this mean that we're always gonna have to be bloody irrational damned fools about this aspect of our lives?

More "conservative" cement-headed shortsightedness.  If the history of western civilization in particular seems to show anything, it's that radical departures from the time-tested verities are not only possible but - because such changes have produced improvements in people's material condition - they've become something of an expectation built into our (and I mean "our," no joke) sociocultural system. 

Over the past half-century especially, in the Western cultures (and that's come to include not only Japan and the rest of the "Asian Tiger" polities but also China), people have given much more weight to the natural neophilia of our species, as opposed to the neophobia so prevalent among the social/traditionalist "conservative" clowns afflicting America's political scene. 

What we're looking at in Escape From Terra and in speculative fiction generally are hypothetical situations in which human action is taking place under conditions different from those which had prevailed.  SF is a kind of entertaining Gedankenexperiment, which is one of the reasons why reasoned consistency and intellectual integrity have value in this genre as in no other art. 

Let me pull a couple more paragraphs from Eric Raymond's "A Political History of SF" here:

"From World War II into the 1950s Campbell's writers many working scientists and engineers who knew leading-edge technology from the inside created the Golden Age of science fiction. Other SF pulpzines competing with Astounding raised their standards and new ones were founded. The field took the form of an extended conversation, a kind of proto-futurology worked out through stories that often implicitly commented on each other.

"While space operas and easy adventure stories continued to be written, the center of the Campbellian revolution was "hard SF", a form that made particularly stringent demands on both author and reader. Hard SF demanded that the science be consistent both internally and with known science about the real world, permitting only a bare minimum of McGuffins like faster-than-light star drives. Hard SF stories could be, and were, mercilessly slammed because the author had calculated an orbit or gotten a detail of physics or biology wrong. Readers, on the other hand, needed to be scientifically literate to appreciate the full beauty of what the authors were doing."


Those readers have also been praxeologically literate in the extreme.  This is perhaps the single most important reason why socialism has never been able to gain sustained traction in science fiction, no matter all the efforts of Marxists and crypto-Communists and other socialists among writers and editors throughout the history of the genre. 

If a woman has sex with lots of different people, then when someone is considering marrying her, he faces the problem that she will probably feel dissatisfied, since the best male who is willing to bang her is apt to be considerably more attractive than the best male willing to stick around, hence he will be reluctant to expose his assets to her potential lawyers, reluctant to have children with her, and so forth.

Er, WTF? You might be susceptible to such insecurities, sam, but I'm not.  Neither are a helluva lot of other men who marry widows and divorcees. 

Projecting your neuroses on other folks, sam?

Jeez, how "conservative."
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

wdg3rd on May 03, 2011, 05:19:46 pm
Sam does seem hung up on monogamy as well.  Those of us who've been involved in multiple partner marriages (and I'm not talking mormon/muslim style polygyny here) seem to be completely outside of his scope.  Although polygyny seems to be my next step.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Tucci78 on May 03, 2011, 05:44:09 pm
I don't think that blind obedience to traditional values is productive. However, I think the past is a gold mine of sociological knowledge.

It's also not a goddam straitjacket.

We aren't so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt.

Not altogether true.  Those of us who directly descend from those ancient Dead White Guys are a helluva lot more resistant to a lot of infectious diseases than they were, chiefly because those among the populations of Europe in the "Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia [and] Egypt" who were genetically susceptible to such pathogens died or were otherwise rendered incapable of passing along their genes. 

Just to avoid "eurocentrism," didja ever consider the survival benefits of sickle trait?

It can be instructive to compare societies. What worked, and why? Which societies were happiest, and which were strong and enduring? Which societies disintegrated through weakness and were held together under tyranny? And it can get PC perilous: what roles make men and women happiest?

The authoritarian assignment of "roles" to suit somebody else's ideas of what's supposed to make the assigned human being "happiest" is idiocy.  It might be well-meaning idiocy, but it's still pretty goddam dumb, don'tcha think?

Why don't you just say: "When I have the power to assign other people to the roles for which I think them best suited, I'm happy," and be done with it? 

Beyond that, of course, I'm not sure if I can express this with proper strength without using what the proprietors of this Web site consider obscenities, Aardvark, but would you please quit reifying the abstraction called "society" as if it were a concrete entity capable of being "happy"?  Human beings can be - subjectively, relatively - happy or sad.  A society? Nope.

And I suspect they'd be happiest if people like you aren't allowed to meddle in their lives.

I agree that we can gain insight by examining the praxis prevailing in a precedent society, but only to determine how those modes of human action operated to achieve the results - for good and ill - they attained, and how they were superceded by the sociopolitical arrangements that replaced them. 

Optimistically, it might show us how to reproduce what was good (hopefully doing an even better job of it) and pessimistically speaking, it might enable us to avoid screwing up in quite the same way. 

I tend to put the greatest value on the study of history to avoid screwing up.  No matter what our predecessors achieved, remember, there was a lot that they screwed up, much of the time catastrophically.

We lose focus on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and the fact that even more common in the universe than hydrogen and dark matter is human stupidity), and we're fracked.

Hm. Guess that's yet another reason why I'm emphatically not a "conservative."  Praiseworthy though some small number of our predecessors might have been, most of them were spectacular screw-ups.  Copying those screw-ups is pathologically stupid.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 06:11:05 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 06:17:44 pm
See, you have missed the point. How does a woman tell which genes are more likely to exist several generations later?
Pheromones include DNA compatibility according to a psych friend of mine who studied this extensively. She advocated the same point different ways, and discussed mate selection by gender, by history, from different perspectives, etc.

Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 07:17:33 pm
Rather than have 5 separate replies for the discussion over the last two days with quotes and references to each quote I'm just going to jump in peanut gallery style. Each numbered point is separate from the others, but connected to the discussion. I am glad someone looked up my Vanuatu rape reference and found out that I was correct.

#1 Humans are the only species where the females have permanent breasts. All the talk of tribal selection, "bad boy" attraction, etc is either talking about "a society" or "a species". When we discuss attraction at the species level, pheromones and breasts are key topics. What is it about a woman that made her ability to hide her pregnancy better at selecting mates?

#2 According to Freud sexual stimulation for females is very early, as in toddler early. Female babies are born capable of orgasm, while males must wait until the gonads develop more. Freud claimed males derived pleasure other ways at the same age, but I only have (impersonal) evidence for females and I don't trust Freud.

#3 The "Age of Consent" in Japan is still 13 at the national level, but 18 in some cities. Women can marry in Japan at age 16, men at 18. The man is expected to provide for his wife. Rome had an age of consent at age 18, due to property laws. In some states of Greece, it was a large benefit for a boy to begin sexual consort with an older man who would later provide him advantages in education, job placement and be his advocate in general. Historical references, even modern references and discussions over age of consent are all loaded guns.  I much prefer the condom debate, because it contains all of the relevant elements but none of the gunpowder. In the US, using a condom is considered responsible. In Mexico, you go to hell for using a condom.

#4 SandySandfort clearly lost the argument on all fronts but used smoke, mirrors and a lack of replying on topic to hide that fact.

#5 Rights, justice, happiness, morals, all of these are fuzzy topics that we can't measure. I like Heinlein's idea of sticking to things that we *can measure* like damage but not risk. E.g. Risk is not wrong. Elevated risk is not wrongdoing. Damage is wrongdoing. No damage? You're just applying your preconceptions onto someone else. Back off.

#6 Population soared as soon as infant mortality dropped. Industralized societies mitigate the boom by requiring extended education in order to have a decent lifestyle. Unfortunately this means the stupid people outbreed the intelligent educated ones.

#7 With Telomerase treatment (and there are different kinds) we could live a lot longer. There are a number of contentions, but none of them change three core pieces of information A) The Hayflick limit is no longer obeyed (80 divisions for humans, then the cells die) B) Telomerase is used in the eyes, bone marrow and sex organs (selectively) of humans, and none of these areas develop cancer. C) Telomerase active differentiated cells will dedifferentiate in varying degrees, replicate more quickly, and function more adeptly (the first two I can back up with paper only medical studies, the last is a summary)

Aardvark on May 03, 2011, 07:48:08 pm
Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on Today at 12:50:38 AM
I don't think that blind obedience to traditional values is productive. However, I think the past is a gold mine of sociological knowledge.

Quote
Tucci: It's also not a goddam straitjacket.

Straw man. Nobody said it was.

Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on Today at 12:50:38 AM
We aren't so genetically different from those who lived in the Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia or Egypt.

Quote
Tucci: Not altogether true. Those of us who directly descend from those ancient Dead White Guys are a helluva lot more resistant to a lot of infectious diseases than they were, chiefly because those among the populations of Europe in the "Middle Ages, ancient Rome, Mesopotamia [and] Egypt" who were genetically susceptible to such pathogens died or were otherwise rendered incapable of passing along their genes.  

Just to avoid "eurocentrism," didja ever consider the survival benefits of sickle trait?

We aren't so genetically different means we have some genetic differences. Obviously, I was speaking about genetic differences that have sociological meaning. Straw man again. I swear, you just like to throw up things to attack other people with, don't you?

Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on Today at 12:50:38 AM
It can be instructive to compare societies. What worked, and why? Which societies were happiest, and which were strong and enduring? Which societies disintegrated through weakness and were held together under tyranny? And it can get PC perilous: what roles make men and women happiest?

Quote
The authoritarian assignment of "roles" to suit somebody else's ideas of what's supposed to make the assigned human being "happiest" is idiocy.  It might be well-meaning idiocy, but it's still pretty goddam dumb, don'tcha think?

Why don't you just say: "When I have the power to assign other people to the roles for which I think them best suited, I'm happy," and be done with it?

I speak of what the experience of the past might teach us about ourselves, and you try to twist that innocent message, the heart and soul of the science of Anthropology, into some sort of ... who knows ... a sociological attack? if it weren't so sad it'd be laughable.

The rest of your uttering contains much of the same irrational drivel. I weary of repeating myself, so I'll stop my analysis here.

What is this with you and the word "conservative" that has you raging mad? Why this dripping condescension in nearly every phrase, when I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion? Is it possible for you to simply disagree and state your case without hurling insults about one's intelligence?

 

anything