Poll on sexual regulations

[John Dibble]

Martial race needs to always be criminalized.

I dunno... the poor Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans could not practice their martial arts

Typo of the day!

What confuses me is that the 'c' key is virtually on the opposite side of the keyboard.

[PBrunsel]

Martial race needs to always be criminalized.

I dunno... the poor Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans could not practice their martial arts

Typo of the day!

Dang i'm out of it tonight.

Give me a break, I just got done running 9 miles.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It would actually be interesting to include bestiality in the poll.

Obviously an animal cannot consent to sex.  But animals do not consent to be slaughtered or hunted either.  Why does society believe it is acceptable to murder animals but not to rape them?   I think the question of consent is not really what bothers people about it.

[Lunar]

Obviously an animal cannot consent to sex.  But animals do not consent to be slaughtered or hunted either.  Why does society believe it is acceptable to murder animals but not to rape them?   I think the question of consent is not really what bothers people about it.

What about animal cruelty?  I can't break my dog's legs with a baseball bat.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Obviously an animal cannot consent to sex.  But animals do not consent to be slaughtered or hunted either.  Why does society believe it is acceptable to murder animals but not to rape them?   I think the question of consent is not really what bothers people about it.

What about animal cruelty?  I can't break my dog's legs with a baseball bat.

But why not?  It's not about the animal's consent.  
The reason we think bestiality and animal cruelty should be illegal is because it offends the sensibilities of people who are in no way parties to the activity.  It's the same reason that many people think sodomy should be prohibited, yet our legal system no longer accepts this argument about sodomy.  

Our laws continue to reflect society's gut reactions to various activities and are not governed by any coherent principle of consent.  They change only when our gut changes.  Not that that's a bad thing...I do think sodomy should be legal and bestiality illegal.  But I don't have a good reason why.

[swarch]

Legal Comparison: In the U.K, Marital Rape is illegal as is sodomy between non-homosexuals (called "Gross Indecency")...

Does the UK still have a buggery law? About 20 years ago, one of my former teachers was prosecuted for having sex with a number of 8th-grade male students. The Canadian Criminal Code is based on the British legal system except in Quebec. He was charged with multiple counts of buggery and gross indecency. Presumably the rape law had yet to be rewritten to cover such activities, so they had to fall back on these rarely used laws.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

All

Could you for once decide on your conscience rather than trying to sound as conserative as possible?  You really think we should be throwing people in jail for cheating in a personal relationship?  

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Al - wait a second...

Are you saying that in the UK it is legal for homosexuals to take it in the back door but illegal for heterosexuals to do it?

Sheesh....

Legal Comparison: In the U.K, Marital Rape is illegal as is sodomy between non-homosexuals (called "Gross Indecency")...

Does the UK still have a buggery law? About 20 years ago, one of my former teachers was prosecuted for having sex with a number of 8th-grade male students. The Canadian Criminal Code is based on the British legal system except in Quebec. He was charged with multiple counts of buggery and gross indecency. Presumably the rape law had yet to be rewritten to cover such activities, so they had to fall back on these rarely used laws.

[MHS2002]

6

[swarch]

Al - wait a second...

Are you saying that in the UK it is legal for homosexuals to take it in the back door but illegal for heterosexuals to do it?

Sheesh....

Legal Comparison: In the U.K, Marital Rape is illegal as is sodomy between non-homosexuals (called "Gross Indecency")...

Does the UK still have a buggery law? About 20 years ago, one of my former teachers was prosecuted for having sex with a number of 8th-grade male students. The Canadian Criminal Code is based on the British legal system except in Quebec. He was charged with multiple counts of buggery and gross indecency. Presumably the rape law had yet to be rewritten to cover such activities, so they had to fall back on these rarely used laws.

It may be even more curious than this. My understanding, not having read the statutes, is that gross indecency = oral sex, and buggery = anal sex. For either of these to be legal for gays only is passing bizarre and would probably be struck down by SCOTUS under the equal protection clause.

[migrendel]

Perhaps all is what he believes, HockeyDude.

And swarch, laws which prosecute homosexuals differently already have been struck down.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al - wait a second...

Are you saying that in the UK it is legal for homosexuals to take it in the back door but illegal for heterosexuals to do it?

Sheesh....

Legal Comparison: In the U.K, Marital Rape is illegal as is sodomy between non-homosexuals (called "Gross Indecency")...

Does the UK still have a buggery law? About 20 years ago, one of my former teachers was prosecuted for having sex with a number of 8th-grade male students. The Canadian Criminal Code is based on the British legal system except in Quebec. He was charged with multiple counts of buggery and gross indecency. Presumably the rape law had yet to be rewritten to cover such activities, so they had to fall back on these rarely used laws.

It may be even more curious than this. My understanding, not having read the statutes, is that gross indecency = oral sex, and buggery = anal sex. For either of these to be legal for gays only is passing bizarre and would probably be struck down by SCOTUS under the equal protection clause.

Gross Indecency=Buggery. I'm not sure about the legal status of Oral sex.

And yes it's true... it's illegal for heterosexuals to "take it up the back door" in the U.K.
Remember as far as Constitutional stuff goes in the U.K Parliament (Read: the House of Commons) is all but God (the Monarch is less than a figurehead nowadays. We are a de facto Republic).
How many M.P's are seriously going to vote "Aye" on a bill legalising Buggery for heterosexuals? (and become the new tabloid hate figure) And what Government would introduce it?
The Judicary is not allowed to make Law over here (tho' they can change it via interpretations and stuff)
Not that anyones actually been prosecuted for it for ages though.

[English]

All

Could you for once decide on your conscience rather than trying to sound as conserative as possible?  You really think we should be throwing people in jail for cheating in a personal relationship?  

He's ludicrous. Every single poll he just opts for the most conservative option, however ridiculous. How on earth you could  prosecute someone for being unfaithful is beyond my comprehension and frankly stupid. For starters people like Pat Robertson would be jailed. I dread to think how many flusies he's had on the go at anyone time. Then again?! Yeh, jail Pat Robertson!!!!

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Perhaps all is what he believes, HockeyDude.

And swarch, laws which prosecute homosexuals differently already have been struck down.

He seems to try to sound as conserative as possible all the time.  And I don't think any sane person could condone throwing a guy in jail for cheating on his wife.  

[Niles Caulder]

I'm not sure whether delving into this one is a good idea or a bad one...but here we go:

The issue of 'concent' is a critical one.

First off, marital rape statutes can surely be abused.  How many laws can't?  But failing to have it on the books for that reason invites a wholly worse extreme of abuse.  If women (or husbands) are considered incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not they want to have sex--they are at best children, and at worst animals, and the legal authority to decide belongs to the strongest--even people hearing a spousal rape in the neighbors' backyard can't do anything--no crime would be broken so calling the cops would be useless, and trying to stop it would force them to illegally trespass!  I think justice for the public is served better by risking perjury against defendants accused of this crime, as the risk of sexual assault upon all women is already well enough in excess.

Consent for animals:  Well, I consider "Right to life" requiring the condition of the Capacity to cognitively concent.  Most animals don't have a right to life, in my opinion...with some notable exceptions (and probable exceptions) in the mammal family.  We just happen to be one of those animals with the capacity abstract our own individuality, that of others, and transpose each others' conditions in a situation to process one's concept of "equality."
But all pain is nuerologically programmed to be 'non-consentual,' so all animals capable of pain have the right not to be tortured (imo).  They can be slaughtered humanely and it's not murder.
All that's to say, if sex with your barnyard friends isn't substantially more terrifying or painful for them than the typical primates climbing on your back, vet shots, and having dogs bark at them and nip at their heels, I suppose it's not unethical.  Very prime candidates for psychological treatment, but not unethical.

And this segways into a plausible rendition of the "Right to Life."  Not all living things have a right to life.  If we draw the line at cognition of one's own life, and the capicity to abstractly prefer its extention, and recognize that same capicty in other animals...then in the sense of contractual ethics...we can claim a right to life so long as we agree to respect it for those perceived others.

Humans born without brains will never have that capacity.  Organs grown in the lab won't either.  Chimpanzees who can solve 3rd grade math exams do.  I'm pretty sure dolphins and whales have enough going on upstairs for me to err on the side of caution until we know for sure.

Human children don't have that capacity until months after birth.  As a matter of political position, I don't endorce legalizing infanticide.  But the authority over a woman's own body is too important to prohibit the right of abortion, given the fetus doesn't have the capacity to desire its own survival, much less concent.

Sorry for being a boor and veering this thread down a needless contentious context.  Feel free to ignore me.  If not, let's keep it scoped to "consent;"  that's all I really meant to argue for in determining the idea of "rights" in general.

[cwelsch]

Six.  Everything that is consensual shoul be legal.

What if somebody wants to work 72 hours a week for $2.15 an hour?

[Lunar]

Six.  Everything that is consensual shoul be legal.

What if somebody wants to work 72 hours a week for $2.15 an hour?

I was talking about sexual regulations.  In general, I've become more socially liberal these past couple months and would support the government almost completely pulling out of all of the social regulations (support freedom to own guns too, but registration and safety locks should still exist).

I'm not a libertarian yet in the economic sense due to my skepticism of the free market and the need of society to act together to prevent exploitation.

[cwelsch]

If both employer and employee agree to it, how can we ethically stop it?

[MarkDel]

All

Could you for once decide on your conscience rather than trying to sound as conserative as possible?  You really think we should be throwing people in jail for cheating in a personal relationship?  

He's ludicrous. Every single poll he just opts for the most conservative option, however ridiculous. How on earth you could  prosecute someone for being unfaithful is beyond my comprehension and frankly stupid. For starters people like Pat Robertson would be jailed. I dread to think how many flusies he's had on the go at anyone time. Then again?! Yeh, jail Pat Robertson!!!!

This thread is so funny. All of you left wingers jump on Josh for having an unpopular opinion (I think he's dead wrong too by the way) and then none of you jump on English for his comments on Pat Robertson.

English, you have to be the most anti-Christian, hateful little pr*ck I have seen on this forum. You accuse Josh of always taking the most conservative position, reflexively, yet ALWAYS take the most anti-Christian, mean-spirited position you can find. But somehow in your world, Christians are intolerant, but you're not...

[dazzleman]

I would say option #6 - the only thing that should be regulated by the government is marital rape.

Not that I think a marital rape law is very practical.  I think it would have to be reserved for consistently abusive relationships, because outside the context of consistently abusive relationships, it would be hard to have real proof of rape.

Rape is unique among crimes in that the act itself is not a crime; the only issue is consent.  Therefore, finding a man's semen in a woman does not necessarily mean that he raped her.  Throw in alcohol and drugs, in particular, and the concept of consent can become very subjective and confusing.  Then there's the issue of some women falsely claiming rape in order to gain some kind of advantage.  All this makes for a difficult situation legally.

The easiest rape cases to prosecute are those in which the man and woman do not know each other, and they are not together voluntarily.  Once a woman goes to a man's room voluntarily, the ability to convict goes down substantially.  And if they are married, an institution that is defined around sexual relations, conviction becomes very difficult outside the context of a consistently abusive relationship.

[English]

All

Could you for once decide on your conscience rather than trying to sound as conserative as possible?  You really think we should be throwing people in jail for cheating in a personal relationship?  

He's ludicrous. Every single poll he just opts for the most conservative option, however ridiculous. How on earth you could  prosecute someone for being unfaithful is beyond my comprehension and frankly stupid. For starters people like Pat Robertson would be jailed. I dread to think how many flusies he's had on the go at anyone time. Then again?! Yeh, jail Pat Robertson!!!!

This thread is so funny. All of you left wingers jump on Josh for having an unpopular opinion (I think he's dead wrong too by the way) and then none of you jump on English for his comments on Pat Robertson.

English, you have to be the most anti-Christian, hateful little pr*ck I have seen on this forum. You accuse Josh of always taking the most conservative position, reflexively, yet ALWAYS take the most anti-Christian, mean-spirited position you can find. But somehow in your world, Christians are intolerant, but you're not...

Alright, don't get your knickers in a twist! Flaming Nora!

Anyway, Pat Robertson deserves to be castigated. He's a nutter.

[Nym90]

Option 6.

And cwelsch, if someone truly wants to earn less than the minimum wage, and doesn't want to get paid time and a half for overtime, they can always take the extra money that they earned and give it back to their employer in the form of a charitable contribution or some such. It's perfectly legal to give money to a business without getting anything in return. No one is forcing you to keep the extra money if you really don't want it.

[nclib]

All

Could you for once decide on your conscience rather than trying to sound as conserative as possible?  You really think we should be throwing people in jail for cheating in a personal relationship?  

Actually if Josh thinks marital rape should be illegal, that is a liberal position.

[lidaker]

Option 6. Rape is rape, doesn't matter if there's a marriage involved or not.

[Gabu]

Option 6, for the above reason.  Adultery is detestable, but it shouldn't be a criminal offense.  It should be between the people involved and no one else.  As for sodomy, if the two people who engage in it are both consenting adults, why not?  The fact that someone might not like the thought of it is not any reason to make it illegal and I can't think of any other reason to make it illegal.