Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: r9etb
Your scenario has already happened, and it's no HBO flick. The self-described comedian Jerry Seinfeld flaunted his relationship with a lovely female - one that began when she was 14 and continued thru her teen years. It was in all th' papers, and so noted in a thread here on FR yesterday.

And the youngER girl/oldER guy plot line goes back to biblical times. Not exactly new.

While I find the idea of "child sex" abhorent, there's an effort on the part of many to paint the "child" label on sexually-sentient biologically-adult adolescents, and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't fly. According to the CDC, today's 13 year-old girl in this country is almost two years PAST menarche and as biologically functional as an adult. She has probably reached 95% of her adult height and has reached about 90% of her adult figure development. By the age of 16, those figures are closer to 100%. Yet, the American society wants to call these gals "children." Sorry, but that is counter to nature. Yes, these girls may lack the mental and psychological maturity to make what we oldsters would like to think are responsible decisions about their bodies, but that, too, is a fact of nature.

I'm not sure exactly when the artificial and arbitrary age of 18 was decided upon as the demarcation point between "childhood" and "adulthood," but I can tell you that "childhood" ends with the onset of puberty. Modern society enforces a sort of adolescent purgatory on those who emerge from childhood into self-awareness, asking them to function, in some ways at least, as children until they reach the chronological age of 18.0000000 years. Then, somehow, magically, they're no longer "churldrin."

Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me. You want to talk adult-child sex - i.e., with real "children"? Yes, it's abhorent and against nature and God. But once the flowers of biological adulthood bloom, adult-like behavior is instinctively driven to follow, and all the social strictures you wish to put in place won't stop it. It's happened forever, and will continue to do so.

As for your HBO movie idea - the real oddity these days is a 13-year old who is NOT sexually self-aware and developed. If you don't realize this, then you must lead a sheltered life, because it ain't th' same as when YOU went to Jr. High.

And your protagonist need not be "well-stacked," despite the contention by some here on FR that ALL adult women (by definition) have huge breasts, and if some gal does NOT, then she must be underage. No, the sexual organ that's most important in making the plot work is her MIND. You can see desire in the EYES, in the tone of voice and cadence of breathing. Big tits would spoil the illusion.

Michael

9 posted on 04/19/2002 8:08:00 AM PDT by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Wright is right!
And your protagonist need not be "well-stacked," despite the contention by some here on FR that ALL adult women (by definition) have huge breasts, and if some gal does NOT, then she must be underage.

True, but for it to fly in Hollywood, breasts are a must. Besides that, a 13-year old character without breasts would be regarded as a little girl -- which is obviously not the goal.

I'm not sure exactly when the artificial and arbitrary age of 18 was decided upon as the demarcation point between "childhood" and "adulthood," but I can tell you that "childhood" ends with the onset of puberty. Modern society enforces a sort of adolescent purgatory on those who emerge from childhood into self-awareness, asking them to function, in some ways at least, as children until they reach the chronological age of 18.0000000 years. Then, somehow, magically, they're no longer "churldrin."

I think you're much mistaken to separate the physical and psychological aspects of sexual maturity. I think you're also seriously wrong when you call age limits "artificial and arbitrary."

You might consider that those age limits were arrived at for sound reasons, and that you just don't know what those reasons are.

It might work for a society where survival techniques are (a) extremely low-tech, (b) there are requirements for the girl to be provided for by either father or husband, and (c) the society is set up to support the young wife(!!).

In our society, however, the physically mature teenage girl almost never has the psycological maturity to survive on her own. The emphasis is on sex, not marriage; and the girls are educationally and mentally unequipped to make their own living in a society designed for mature adults.

That "artificial" age of 18 isn't at all arbitrary, nor artificial. It happens to be the age at which people have the rudiments of maturity, and enough education, to earn a reasonable living in our society.

14 posted on 04/19/2002 8:56:05 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson