If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I certainly don't think it's good ....
Are you sure you understood the emotional side of it? Well, I am surprised. Maybe I and my friends were unusual but although we had knowledge of the physical side, only my maturity now shows that I had no true understanding of the emotional side at that age.
Oh well, we're all different!
Ah! But sexual education and sexual maturity are two different things .... but I take your point.
A grey area. There have been many cases of adults with learning disabilities being raped in care - they are deemed not of sound enough mind to give consent.
As I said - its about power dynamics.
Really? I don't actually believe you tbh. Its impossible (IMO) to deal with the emotional side of sex and relationships until you've experienced them - and even then its really hard. I agree that children are sexual beings, but there is no way that an 8 year old is mature enough or understands enough to give informed consent.
This is getting tedious now. I'm not talking about legal consent. Dogs are not humans. They are not self aware in the way that we are. Do I really need to point this out to you? :rolleyes:
What are you wittering on about?
Are you related to Steelgate by any chance?
You were either an incredibly mature 8 year old or an incredibly immature 16 year old.
People change. They grow up. Puberty happens, hormones happen which change the way that you think. You learn from people around you, from having that first wank, that first kiss, that first crush, that first grope etc.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! You cannot even BEGIN to compare the two!!!!
Because its about informed consent :rolleyes:
*goes away to scream in the middle of a wide open space* :rolleyes:
i think its more about what girl with sharp teeth is missing tbh...
Somebody suggested that males are "designed" to copulate with a woman. This should have read "some men". Gay men are "designed" to sleep with a man. Everybody's different. But it doesn't mean they should be excluded and deemed "unnatural", when it is clearly a natural aspect of humanity because it occurs within the human race instinctually for some people.
We're all human
I find it difficult to understand why people see that the way forward in this society is to exclude others. I get the feeling some people are allowing their own personal hangups to interfere with a political judgement on what is right and wrong.
The way I see it "right" is to make the world an equal place, and a happy place for everyone to live in. Apologies if your bigotry interferes with that projection.
I don't think you can argue with that. Two male's copulating is unnatural, a male and a female copulating is natural.
What a crock of shit. First of all - "designed". Designed by who? Secondly "natural" and "unnatural". False binary opposition there mate. If homosexuality was "unnatural" then it wouldn't occur in the animal kingdom would it? And man is part of nature, no? Therefore human behaviour is "natural", no?
Well, you are entitled to your opinion ... but then Hitler (for example) had some rather strange opinions too. Fortunately, it seems MOST people on this board display more common sense, thought, care of their fellow man and fairness of spirit than you do ... which I find very refreshing.
Also I am not gay.
I think I can and will argue. With that.
Some men are not designed to mate with a female - their biochemistry, whatever, means their instincts drive them towards men. They are designed to have sex with men, most likely from birth. Throw up the term "unnatural" as much as you like - what you're saying is flawed, because people are born the way they are. Therefore homosexuality is naturally occuring - perhaps it's not unnatural as opposed to alternative.
Leaving the animal kingdom aside - homosexuality is a part of the human race, a person does not decide on what their sexuality is. Adding to this, if, in Christianity, homosexuality is wrong - and God is the creator of all life, why would God create homosexuals?
I think the world should be equal - those, in particular Christians, who claim that it is wrong to grant people equality, and right to discriminate people on the way they are born should be the one's who are criticised. If they think it's wrong they have the right to believe what they want, but I don't think they have the right to impose it onto society, and the various groups within it.
however my personal opinion is that the new live-in rights gay couples wil get, should be got rid of and they should be able to have the legal equivilent of marriage, like a union or registrar marriage or something since as this country has an official state religion which tolerates(which is debatable but i think since the church here allow gays yet celebate preists, that counts as tolerance) but is still debating whether it accepts homosexuality on principle, so until the COE comes to a decision, i think they should be allowed to get married in a registrar office or somewhere like normal(but since people will call me a homophobe for that i mean a) heterosexual couple
Regardless of what i said, I believe people have the right to an opinion - homosexual weddings should, in my opinion, be allowed - but out of respect for people's religious beliefs, it would be understandable that it wouldn't happen in a church.
Surely, that would make everyone happy.
Why can't someone under 16 give "informed consent" then?
Oh, and the bit you are missing is the bit where you are focussing on consent alone. Take a leap outside of the box and assume that it was possible to prove that an animal had consented to sex. What is it now which makes it wrong?
We can get caught up in the "was consent" given argument, but then you can for any form of sexual contact...
What GWST is suggesting is that we assume that adults can give consent, and can be proven to give consent. As a consequence we say that sexual contact between adult is okay - provided cnsent is given.
So why is sex with a child/animal illegal even if consent is given (in whatever format that takes)?
@ Alan, don't get caught up in the paedophilia/homosexual issue. There was no link between the two until you mentioned it. I have yet to come across anyone on here who believe that the two are linked in anyway.
The question was about consenting to sexual contact, not the ability of homosexuals to adopt...
See my comments about power relations.
E.g. the function of the nose is to smell. I can try eating through my nose, but thats not whats its designed for is it? Some people may actually be able to eat through their nose, but its not the natural way to eat is it?
A guy can fuck another guy up the arse, but then again, he can also drill a hole in the wall and fuck the wall, he can also fuck his dog up the arse, he can also also shove his dick between two cussions and fuck the cussions. The list goes on.
Sorry about the graphical detail.
You know and I know that the only natural form of copulating involves a penis and a vagina. Simple as. Anything else is unnatural.