what's your most controversial belief?

submitted by [deleted] from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Hematomato 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

There's no perfect solution. But there are problems in the status quo that really need addressing.

Reddit, and even many states, take the stance that a 17 year old is a child, full stop. So, if a 21 year old and a 17 year old have consensual sex, that 21 year old is a pedophile. And as a pedophile, he needs to go to prison, be placed on watchlists, not live within half a mile of an elementary school, etc.

This is supremely fucked up.

And when people say "don't sexualize minors," they're saying: minors shouldn't be exposed to any sexual content. They shouldn't talk about sex. They shouldn't think about sex. Sex should just abruptly come into existence for them on their 18th birthday.

This is also supremely fucked up. I remember being 15 years old. I jerked off all the time. All I could think about is sex. Modern culture says I should have completely repressed that for three more years? Shouldn't have had a girlfriend, shouldn't have made out with her, shouldn't have read "adult content" on the Internet? I would have been the worst kind of incel, being dropped into adulthood with absolutely zero understanding or awareness of my own sexuality.

And I have a particular problem with the way "minors" are excluded from the culture. Like, around here, I couldn't even legally attend a poetry reading when I was 19 years old. Because a poetry reading requires a carabet license, and a cabaret license requires a liquor license, and businesses with liquor licenses can't allow minors.

It's like our culture forgot that the way people get good at things is by practicing. Whether it's basketball or chess or writing fiction, you get good with practice. And you know what else takes practice? Learning how to be a part of a community. Learning how to live independently. Learning how to date.

To have a system where everyone turns 18 and we say "Well, now you're expected to handle all that stuff competently, hope you magically figured it out" - it's insanity.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Look, I don't agree with what you're saying overall. We draw a line in the sand for what is a child and what isn't a child, and while I agree it's chosen pretty randomly, we all sort of have to agree that there needs to be a line. 18 is what it is, so we respect it. While I'm sure there are situations in which an X year old person and a 17 year old could have a consensual relationship, to avoid forever going back and forth and making different judgements based on various criteria, we, as a society, say: "Hard limit, 18. We have to draw a line somewhere, so it's here."

I also think you're conflating the idea that minors shouldn't be exposed to sex and some idea that people believe minors never think about it. For obvious reasons I don't want to go into long diatribes about what I think underaged people do with their own bits in the privacy of their own home, but I think most, sane people understand that you don't tick the clock over on midnight of your 18th birthday and suddenly discover boobs. We know that kids know about and think about sex. I think what most people want is for them to naturally and healthily discover these things with the guidance of their parents - not to see "Hung Daddy dicks down college Little. Choking orgasms" as their first real exposure to sex, or some book written by an LGBT person explaining how lesbians achieve orgasm together.

There's always going to be sacrifices on certain things in order to let younger people dip their toe into the modern world. I doubt you'll ever find a perfect balance, but I do agree that it shouldn't be some blasphemous topic to talk about. In the spirit of that: What was your idea? You wanted three categories of age, right? What rights are you giving/taking from an Adolescent to separate them from the stage of Child and Adult?

[–]Hematomato 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

We draw a line in the sand for what is a child and what isn't a child, and while I agree it's chosen pretty randomly, we all sort of have to agree that there needs to be a line.

I can't say I agree. I can't see any reason there needs to be a line. There could be three lines. There could be ten lines.

Functionally, in practice, there's more than one line - because there has to be. So you can, for example, ride the go-carts at 10, use social media at 13, drive a car at 16, go to war at 18, and see live music at 21.

But our society's obsessed with that one 18 line, which is basically the line for war, renting an apartment, and being considered eligible for sex. And since most kids aren't going to war or renting an apartment, it's the "sex line."

And we're actually treating it that way - like the sexuality of a 17 year old is the same as the sexuality of a 7 year old. Like they shouldn't be alone with the opposite sex, they shouldn't be exposed to adults who aren't their parents, they shouldn't watch any mature content on TV, they shouldn't see or read any erotic content. This is... crazy. This amounts to a cultural denial of biology and reality. Teenagers need to be eased into their sexualities, and the idea that they should figure it out entirely within their peer groups with absolutely no guidance from anyone who knows what they're talking about - well, what the fuck is that? In our haste to avoid dangerous situations, all we've done is create more dangerous situations.

In the spirit of that: What was your idea? You wanted three categories of age, right? What rights are you giving/taking from an Adolescent to separate them from the stage of Child and Adult?

Actual children - prepubescent children - need certain protections. They should be protected from exposure to any sexual content whatsoever. They should be protected from consequences of their own actions. They should be considered unable to distinguish right from wrong, which means both that they can't consent to any kind of mature activity - whether that's drinking a beer or kissing someone else - and that they can't be held accountable for a crime.

Adolescents need to lose some of those protections and gain some rights. We already take away some of the protections, of course - even though we say "children can't distinguish right from wrong," we still try fifteen year olds "as adults." (Our thinking is just all fucking over the place with the two-category system.) But I'd like to see them with the right to dip their toes into the water of mainstream society. They should, for example, be able to enter most public-facing buildings on their own. Not, like, casinos and strip clubs, but a community event at a bar? Absolutely. I also think they should be allowed to vote.

And, of course, by the time you're eligible to go to war, you should have all the rights of a 30 year old. Alcohol, tobacco, car rental, everything. It's unconscionable to treat someone as a child and also give them the single most adult responsibility possible.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I have to say, if you told me I was going to war tomorrow, but I couldn't get laid today and had to go a virgin because we needed fighting men but couldn't permit a boy to get his end away, I'd die pretty upset! You want ghosts?... That's how you get ghosts!

That being said, isn't this where the spirit of the law comes into play? Yes, it's illegal for a 17 year old to have a beer, but if he's with his father and his father buys him a beer and they drink it in the privacy of their own home, that law rarely kicks down the door hunting for drinkers, and if someone reported it, most judges/police would likely offer a warning at best, knowing full well that many kids are drinking before the legal age and, if their parents consider them ready, that's between them and their kids. On the other hand, 30 teenagers throwing a wild, loud party at 3am might get the cops to start throwing around charges, the difference being that these kids aren't showing their ability to enjoy the beers responsibly and quietly and share the unspoken agreement that the cops won't bother them so long as they aren't proving the reason the law exists.

The same with other tokens of age. We don't send the cops any time our sons or daughters go on a date, even though we know they will likely be doing things that are technically illegal, because we trust the parents to judge if or not the person is ready for that kind of thing. You have an irresponsible, wild child who doesn't know right from wrong? You need to do something. You have an intelligent, emotionally stable child who has shown wisdom? Okay, you kids have fun at the movies. Be home by 11.

[–]Hematomato 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Well, that's the American way right now. "Make everything illegal, and then don't enforce the parts no one cares about."

The problem is that it creates a system that doesn't give any of us the protection of law. It all boils down to: is everyone cool with you? Then you're good. Is someone not cool with you? Then off to prison you go.

And that leads to a situation where people like Jeff Epstein stay free for six decades, because everyone's cool with him, while people like Aaron Swartz kill themselves in their thirties, because people aren't cool with him.

The tribal system is "If we like you, you stay, and if we don't like you, you go." The idea of the rule of law was supposed to be an improvement on the tribal system. It was supposed to be "Even if we don't like you, you can stay unless you break our laws."

But today, everything is illegal and all of us are eligible for life in prison, and we've simply reverted back to the tribal system with more steps.

[–]HomoTomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In a broken legal system, protection and justice depend on popularity and social connections rather than adherence to the law, leading to arbitrary punishments and a society devoid of true justice.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think it's a case of "We like you", so much as it is trying to understand and interpret the Letter of the law and the Spirit of the law. The letter of the law can cover things that we generally agree are abhorrent, it can't always cover all the specific nuance of a situation where we all agree it might be abhorrent, but it's also reasonable. We understand the spirit of the law and enforce that as much as the letter, right? That's why we have judges to offer gaol time rather than just having a single, standard duration for X crime - because we understand that one killing isn't identical to the next, one theft isn't the same as another and one person speeding might be more understandable than the next.

In that way, while we all shake hands and say: "Killing your fellow man is wrong" we also quietly nod at each other and silently understand that this means: "Unless..." The same is true with rules on age. We set that hard line and say: "You can't drink until you're 18.", but then we quietly roll our eyes at each other and say: "But, you know, if it's just you and your mate in your own house, not causing any problems and not flaunting that law in public, no harm, no foul."

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

In that way, while we all shake hands and say: "Killing your fellow man is wrong" we also quietly nod at each other and silently understand that this means: "Unless...."

...we like you.

"You can't drink until you're 18.", but

...we like you.

That's what I'm always trying to say and everyone refuses to believe: our legal system isn't a collection of laws. It's a system where the people in power ask "do we like you" and if they don't, they ask the general public "do you like them," and if they don't, that person goes to prison.

Which means no one in this society actually has legal protections. If you're popular, you can do pretty much whatever you want; they'll decide that none of the 20 million laws apply to you. If you're unpopular, you'll go to prison; they'll decide that 10 of the 20 million laws apply to you.

Nothing else really matters.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, that's not true. It might Feel like that, I'm sure, but while I'm certain... Certain because I've seen them... There are events where the ruling goes in favour of the most likeable person, Mitigating Circumstances aren't a measure of who is cutest or has the nicest smile. It's about measuring if or not the events were reasonable and a person of sound mind would have found themselves doing the same thing.

If you want to try and get by on "We like you", I recommend a Jury. Unlike a judge, they are more inclined to lean towards a person who just seems more charming. Most judges are far too jaded and cynical to give a shit if you have a dazzling smile.

Because everyone involved in the process is human, there's really no doubt that some people will slip between the gaps due to how just dang lovely they are. That can't be helped. Machines would have the opposite problem - not enough understanding of the human condition to excuse reasonable people acting reasonably, but still breaking the law.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

^ fake posts from bots trying to justify lowering age of consent

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Me? I've been here for ages. I know there's a lot of spam right now, but it should be pretty obvious from my history that I wasn't created by Ed a few days ago.

Meanwhile, I'm not arguing about lowering the age of consent on anything. In fact, for most of this, I was saying that, as a society, we kinda just agree on an age and draw the line there, regardless of how much we understand there's more nuance to life than that, because we need to make a line somewhere, else we could argue over the semantics forever. I was putting up questions for u/Hematomato to answer to expand on his thoughts about age classifications and rules. I'm not even really sure his point was to lower the age of consent either, exactly. More about how unreasonable it is to assume everyone who is 17 is equivalent to a literal child.

[–]junior 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Permissive parenting has its place, but it's important to find a balance between freedom and responsibility.