Wait wait wait...

People have sex with you to make up for poor sitcoms?  You're not Matt LeBlanc are you?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWait wait wait...

People have sex with you to make up for poor sitcoms?  You're not Matt LeBlanc are you?

Wow... I actually laughed at something on the internet. It's been a looooong time, and I thank you.

Nah, though, I was making a comment about one of the less-creepy-more-lame Dragonworld posts (can't remember who posted it) and noting that sitcoms nowadays actually do toss around terms like "pity sex."

Although... I guess I've heard dumber excuses than that IRL.

Quote from: mythusmageBTW, people on Dragon Earth have terms for various sorts of sex. there is...

•Pleasure sex
•Obligation sex
•First Night sex
•Comfort sex
•Pity sex
•Reconciliation sex
•Initiation sex (Used with virgins.)
•Healing sex
•Fun sex
•Interspecies sex (Mostly between species of Human, but non-humans can be included as well. Non-humanoids are right out.)
•Duty sex

Yeah... I was referring to this.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalDude, when one pillar of your opposition to an argument is "Well it's legal in some states to have sex at 14 anyway", you really don't get to climb up on your moral high-horse about someone suggesting it should be 12.

I'm not saying that I approve of those laws, though I would argue that most children go through some fairly significant changes related to puberty between 12 and 14.  I'm saying that the arguement that Levine was somehow bringing the light of truth to benighted idiots who don't know that those less than 18 years of age might be sexual is absurd.  I think almost of her right-wing critics are well aware that children can be sexual beings.  

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalA) Actually address her argument as opposed to stand around huffing and puffing about how outrageous it is, and
B) Find out what her actual fucking argument is.

I know more about her argument than what I've said.  There are plenty of articles on it, pro and con.  I've suggested that people do their own Googling (though not from work) and make up their own mind.  I'm not trying to convince you that Levine is the anti-Christ.  But I would suggest that her left-wind defenders are not necessarily any more objective than her right-wing critics, but by all means read both sides or her book, if you want.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYou really shouldn't condemn books without reading them, especially when that involves dragging someone's name through the mud in a potentially libellous manner.

OK.  To make it clear since you are concerned with libel, I do not think Judith Levine actually supports NAMBLA.  I do think that advocating sexual relations which children as young as 12 years of age, especially when talking about issues such as "consent" with a child of that age is making an argument that effectively supports the agenda of NAMBLA and, in many ways, (probably unintentionally) parallels the arguments used by pedophiles who don't think they are doing children any harm and, in at least some cases, seem to think they are doing children a favor.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf you're interested in the issue of age of consent politics, I suggest you go out and read some books about it rather than wallowing in self-righteous fury about a book you haven't even read simply because some right-wing websites tell you to.

Have you read any books on the subject?  Have you read her book?

Going back to my original mention, Levine's argument, as summarized in every article I've read on the book, is that children can be sexual beings.  She also doesn't seem to see anything inherently wrong with sex between an adult and a 12 year-old (I'll happily look at evidence or quotes to the contrary, which given that this is a core criticism of her work, shouldn't be hard to find if she actually doesn't support such a thing -- maybe I'm just missing them).  That idea does seem to be at the core of the setting that more people than I seem to find troubling, unless you think that the difference between a 12 year-old and an 11 year-old makes a big difference in the morality of the situation.  Unlike NAMBLA, Levine is a mainstream source with some mainstream support.  Assuming that the author of the setting in question is not a supporter of NAMBLA, I'm honestly curious if they instead got their ideas from Levine, since her book seems to be the lightning rod book on the issue.

I'm well aware that right-wing websites exagerrate and distort, which is why I've read pro and con arguments.  It's often not that difficult to tell where the lies and exagerrations are when you read the arguments and counter-arguments.  In fact, a large part of why I haven't provided a more detailed summary of her arguments is that I think people should do their own research.  By all means make up your own mind.  

What I look for are specific claims and counter-claims.  Generally, when a claim is false or exagerrated, it's not difficult to find refutations.  Maybe I'm just missing them.  I'll happily look at any source that provides a detailed refutation of the arguments made against her and her book.

There's the debate on the age of consent and then there's the discussion on sex education for kids - both primarily dominated by adults. I'm more interested in the latter.  With all the problems going on with child rape, prostituition, exploitation etc carried out by adults - and I'm talking about crimes committed by adults here - I find that a setting any setting that attempts to normalize situations in which adults have realtionships with children repulsive.

Children experimenting between themselves is one thing. Adding adults to the mix brings nothing but trouble. There is too much room for abuse. There is an unbalance of power. Now some if not all of this is applicable to relationships children have between themselves - but I feel this is where education comes into play.

I have no objections to sexuality in games. In a post apocalyptic world issues such as safe child bearing ages, abortion etc could possibly be a factor depending on how realistic one wants the setting to be.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowI think almost of her right-wing critics are well aware that children can be sexual beings.  

  ...and yet these are the people who oppose any form of sexual education for kids apart from telling them not to engage in it.  Sounds to me like not only do they have trouble grasping the idea that kids are sexual beings but they also have trouble understanding how a sex drive even works.

  Clearly, the American right needs to learn a few lessons about childhood sexuality and as such I think it's a good thing that a mainstream book be written on the subject.

QuoteBut I would suggest that her left-wind defenders are not necessarily any more objective than her right-wing critics, but by all means read both sides or her book, if you want.

  The substance of the debate should be one dealt with by empirical science.  Where does psychology stand on the issue?  It's not about left and right-wing bias, it's about psychological facts.  Any discussion of the subject that doesn't engage with that side of things is a waste of everyone's time.  Politics doesn't really enter into it at all.

QuoteI do think that advocating sexual relations which children as young as 12 years of age, especially when talking about issues such as "consent" with a child of that age is making an argument that effectively supports the agenda of NAMBLA and, in many ways, (probably unintentionally) parallels the arguments used by pedophiles who don't think they are doing children any harm and, in at least some cases, seem to think they are doing children a favor.

  That's a fallacy too.  It's called poisoning the well.
 "Well she says X and paedophiles also say X therefore she must be wrong"

  NAMBLA could very well stand for the lowering of the age of consent.  In fact, every paedophile in the world could agree with Levine and it wouldn't matter a jot to whether her argument is worth listening to, let alone whether or not it's correct.

  In fact, if Levine's position is what you claim it is and it turns out that she has the psychological facts right then it could very well be that many of the people who are in jail right now for trying to shag 12 year old's are being unjustly persecuted because their partners in fact could and DID give their consent.

QuoteI'm well aware that right-wing websites exagerrate and distort, which is why I've read pro and con arguments.

No... you've read for and against arguments because you're too lazy to actually read a book that you feel justified in commenting about, especially when you've made such sweeping and damning accusations as you have about not only the content of the book but the content of LeVine's character.  

There's a reason why the first item on a university reading list is invariably the source material because if you don't actually read the text itself you're not commenting on it, you're regurgitating old (and quite possibly tired) opinions.

It's not even as if this book is some dense and complicated work of academic theory; it's a mainstream book written by a mainstream author for a mainstream audience.

I have to say, it chills me to the bone that you actually get to vote.  What do you do when the elections come around? listen to the adverts both sides air and then toss a coin?

Analytical, you're coming across like a moron in this one.  Calm the fuck down and try to salvage what little dignity you have left.

Guys, I don't know why we're pussy-footing around with this.

Quote from: mythusmageOn Dragon Earth it works like this...

Where the young are concerned, the availability of truth magic and telepathy is of great assistance. Helps a lot in determining the truth of claims of consensuality or rape. Acknowledging that very young children can consent to sex has also helped in developing devices and magic aimed at the children.

It has also helped in identifying and apprehending sexual predators. One might see a grown man and his 11 year old boy lover assisting the authorities in the apprehension and arrest of a sexual predator and his grown male victim.

mythusmage, you are obviously a pervert. Take your fat-arsed, trenchcoat-clad, cat-piss smelling, parents' basement-dwelling body, out of our fucking hobby. Go play WoW or something.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical...and yet these are the people who oppose any form of sexual education for kids apart from telling them not to engage in it.  Sounds to me like not only do they have trouble grasping the idea that kids are sexual beings but they also have trouble understanding how a sex drive even works.

There is quite a range of opinions on sex education on the right.  I find it curious that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing further on in your reply.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalClearly, the American right needs to learn a few lessons about childhood sexuality and as such I think it's a good thing that a mainstream book be written on the subject.

There are plenty of mainstream books on the subject, just not ones that go quite as far as this one.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe substance of the debate should be one dealt with by empirical science.  Where does psychology stand on the issue?  It's not about left and right-wing bias, it's about psychological facts.  Any discussion of the subject that doesn't engage with that side of things is a waste of everyone's time.  Politics doesn't really enter into it at all.

Is this author dealing with empirical science or does she have an ideological axe to grind?  Don't you find it the least bit curious that her field is not psychology?  In a pro-Levine article, I found this quote:

"If sexual expertise is expected of adults, the rudiments must be taught to children," insists Levine.

Is that a personal opinion or psychological fact?  And does she also believe that if we don't teach children how to drive at 12, they'll never master it at 17, 18, or even later in life?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThat's a fallacy too.  It's called poisoning the well.
 "Well she says X and paedophiles also say X therefore she must be wrong"

Or, "Well he says X and right wing nuts who oppose teaching childre anything about sex also say X, there fore he must be wrong," right?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalNAMBLA could very well stand for the lowering of the age of consent.  In fact, every paedophile in the world could agree with Levine and it wouldn't matter a jot to whether her argument is worth listening to, let alone whether or not it's correct.

True.  But it does suggest that the agenda of those looking to lower the age of consent may be no more apolitical or morally pure than the agenda of those looking to teach children nothing about sex.  If a mainstream book were released proposing that sex for children is largely bad and that abstinence is the best form of sex education for children, wouldn't you question their credentials, sources, and agenda precisely because their argument just happens to be similar to an argument you apparently think is absurd?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn fact, if Levine's position is what you claim it is and it turns out that she has the psychological facts right then it could very well be that many of the people who are in jail right now for trying to shag 12 year old's are being unjustly persecuted because their partners in fact could and DID give their consent.

Is that what you honestly believe, or does it fail to pass even a sniff test for obvious reasons?  Have you ever read William Dear's book about the disappearance of James Dallas Eggbert III?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalNo... you've read for and against arguments because you're too lazy to actually read a book that you feel justified in commenting about, especially when you've made such sweeping and damning accusations as you have about not only the content of the book but the content of LeVine's character.

OK.  Please tell me exactly where I've made a sweeping and damning accusation about her character.  Please provide the quote and why you think it qualifies.  

No, I haven't read her book and freely admitted as much.  I don't have time to read every book on every subject I'd like to opine about and nobody does.  It's not laziness.  It's about the world being too full of information and the reasonable expection, based on various quotes I've read even in the pro-Levine articles, that I'm not going to learn anything else from reading the whole book.

I raised her originally because we have a setting being presented in which adults having sex with children is depicted as harmless.  Levine's book seems to be the primary mainstream work making an argument like that.  Assuming that the author of the Dragon Earth setting is not an advocate of pedophilia, a possible source of such opinions was a mainstream book on the subject -- like Levine's.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThere's a reason why the first item on a university reading list is invariably the source material because if you don't actually read the text itself you're not commenting on it, you're regurgitating old (and quite possibly tired) opinions.

Yeah, and there's a reason why therpgsite.com isn't a credentialed university, I'm not paying tuition, and RPGPundit isn't handing out diplomas.  If it becomes one, I'll read original sources and write footnoted papers.  Until then, please spare me the ivory tower indignation.

As I've said repeatedly, feel free to dispute what I'm saying, especially if you've read the book (something you haven't yet answered).  If you have, I'll take your commentary on it seriously.  If you haven't, then you are on no firmer ground than I am.  

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIt's not even as if this book is some dense and complicated work of academic theory; it's a mainstream book written by a mainstream author for a mainstream audience.

Have you read it?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI have to say, it chills me to the bone that you actually get to vote.  What do you do when the elections come around? listen to the adverts both sides air and then toss a coin?

And I'm quite happy that people like you don't get to decide who does or doesn't get to vote.

Yeah, adverts and coin flips are the same as reading pro and con articles and books, right?  No, no straw men there.  What do you do?  Trust whatever the candidates say about themselves as the truth or trust whatever the side you agree with says about both of the candidates and then follow their lead?  Yeah, that's a lot more reliable.

MythusMage seems to have left the building.

I definitely agree with pundit about not making a game a place for polemics against another time/culture's values unless this is explicitly known and approved by all participants. Wouldn't recommend it either for suspension of disbelief...

This thread is the longest abuse-dump I've seen in a while. Fun.

Mr A's and John Morrow's discussion aside, I just felt, that this setting was pretty fucked up. Okay, the thing is, I don't want folks reading this thread and not remembering the context of the age of consent discussion that followed, and coming to the conclusion that this hobby of ours is filled with folks like MythusMage or that therpgsite is in anyway associated with this kind of bullshit.I mean folks are prone to focus on the fucked up stuff and forget about context most times.

I don't want this forum in any way to be known as that site.

Regards,
David R

I'm certainly not here to champion Levine.  I'm just saying that her writing has to be taken in a certain context: ivory-tower academia, specifically marxist-feminist academia.  This is a pretty particular context, and it really should not be mixed up with the idea of groups like NAMBLA.

I'll admit I haven't read Levine's work, but I'm well on track with the criticism its generated and the reviews of the work itself. The point is that the right-wing extreme reaction to the book all comes outside of academia, that are using her book as something it really isn't and probably wasn't ever meant to be. It should be noted that there's also a wealth of liberal ivory-tower elite left-wing criticism about the book, but these are real critiques done within the academic context of the book itself, rather than ideological opportunism.

I have no doubt that like most of the ivory-tower academia's work, Levine's book starts out with a number of very reasonable premises and then makes some absurd conclusions.  Like most feminist-marxist academia, she probably lacks serious citation and research to back up her argument, as well.  In the new academia, that doesn't really seem to matter nearly as much as if your pet theory is controversial and fashionable.

RPGPundit

I have a message for certain parties. If your prick offends you, cut it off.

"It is icky and it makes my skin crawl."

If you think that's bad, did you know that all nursing infants are cannibalizing their mother? :eek:

Quote from: mythusmageI have a message for certain parties. If your prick offends you, cut it off.

I can't parse any kind of good meaning out of this. Matter of fact, the only thing I can manage to draw from it is "If you think justifying sex with children, fictional or not, is icky, well, just abstain from sex completely!" And man, there's so much wrong with that...

Quote"It is icky and it makes my skin crawl."

Thinking about widespread sexual predation and its apologists should really do that.

QuoteIf you think that's bad, did you know that all nursing infants are cannibalizing their mother? :eek:

Hey, I don't like children either. But may I refer you to the kitchen table/ISS experiment of another thread, re: differences between what we're talking about and your reply?

It's a shame this isn't a higher traffic site.  This was truly a troll of legendary proportion.