The RMSC

[cantata]

Arguably, until you've had sex you will have no idea what it entails or what its emotional consequences would be.

The test is far too draconian. People must be allowed to make mistakes.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Very, very few people would want a government agency deciding whether they could have sex or not.

Consider, also, that when consenting teenagers and young adults start exploring their sexuality, there's a great deal they don't know about mature relationships - that is part of exploration and maturing. One hopes they've been adequately advised on reproductive health, pregnancy, disease, and consent, alternate sexuality, etc., but face it, they are not gonna be mature for a while and they are gonna have sex, unlicensed or not.

Lawtonfogle, have you read The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood? It is about a dystopian future in which, among other themes, sexuality is highly controlled as a response to a loss of fertility in the general population. Only certain people are permitted to have children, and every woman who can bear children must be controlled by the people with the permits - the government, IOW.

(I should mention, the book also portrays a society in which Christian fundamentalists govern and run society, you may find it insulting or offputting on that level).

I read "His Dark Materials", and my only qualm was the sad ending, so I probably won't find it insulting.

The thing is, the government already says when you can and cannot have sex (by have sex, we mean consent to sex). Do you have a problem with the AoC then because it is a very strong regulation for sex.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Can you imagine how prohibitively expensive a scheme like this would be? We're talking about getting social workers to test the maturity of every single person. I can't see any government going for this.

Incidentally, the grandfather rule means I can only sleep with other people who have also got a free card. 13 years down the line when I'm 40, a person who is 25 (12 when the law came in to affect), would have presumably passed the test, meaning I can't sleep with them until I also pass the test. Seems silly to ask a person who has been sexually active for years to need a license to sleep with a 25 year old.

You seem to miss something here, sorry if I didn't explain it right. The license is a license which states you are mature enough to consent to sex. It would be like the current system where being 18+ says you are able to consent.

Also, it shouldn't be too hard to work out the expenses to not be so high. One can automatically assume that the cost will be high, but that is only an assumption. Are we considering the money tax payers will not be having to pay for court cases where the 18/17 get caught, not paying for the jailing of the 18 yr. old in said case, ect.

How can one say our current system is that far cheaper without doing the math.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Arguably, until you've had sex you will have no idea what it entails or what its emotional consequences would be.

The test is far too draconian. People must be allowed to make mistakes.

Some mistakes, yes. But some mistakes, like driving drunk, or watching TV while driving, or having sex without knowledge of STDs, or making a mistake while using a gun, should not be allowed.

The test is (in part) trying to find the mistakes people shouldn't make concerning sex and test to make sure people know not to make those mistakes.

 

[cantata]

I should think Stan's referring to this:

A grandfather clause is included in this proposal, such that anyone who is over the local age of consent at the time this proposal goes into effect will not need to be tested so long as they wish to be sexually active only with other individuals who were also grandfathered out of the program. If they wish to be sexual with someone operating under the new system, they must submit for testing, and thereafter abide by the new system as though they had not been grandfathered out of it.

You said it!

 

[lawtonfogle]

I should think Stan's referring to this:



You said it!

Ok, my last discussion with the group (which had created this) I thought we had decided to remove it. Granted, I read the test before posting it, but the comments I hadn't. It seems I will need to contact them about this.

I will go edit that part now.

 

[stan1980]

I really think you are wasting your time with this.

There are still major flaws highlighted in this thread, where there are no easy ways for you to get around.

I'd imagine you'd still have court cases but this time with people "playing the system" as you put it, as well as people sleeping with "incompetent" partners. You're right I haven't done the maths, but I'd be amazed if a scheme like this wasn't much more expensive than the current system overall.

And even if you got your government to consider it, can you imagine if the tabloids got a whiff of it! "Bush plans licenses for consensual sex!". Not exactly a vote winner. Considering we are in an age where the public feel their civil liberties are already being eroded, this will go down like a lead balloon, no matter how well intentioned you are.

Oh and edit your spelling too. Competent really isn't a word you want to be spelling wrong!

 

[AnonymousAgnostic]

I think that you would have better luck trying to reform the educational system when it comes to sex. Attack the root of the problem and not the symptoms.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I really think you are wasting your time with this.

There are still major flaws highlighted in this thread, where there are no easy ways for you to get around.

I'd imagine you'd still have court cases but this time with people "playing the system" as you put it, as well as people sleeping with "incompetent" partners. You're right I haven't done the maths, but I'd be amazed if a scheme like this wasn't much more expensive than the current system overall.

And even if you got your government to consider it, can you imagine if the tabloids got a whiff of it! "Bush plans licenses for consensual sex!". Not exactly a vote winner. Considering we are in an age where the public feel their civil liberties are already being eroded, this will go down like a lead balloon, no matter how well intentioned you are.

Oh and edit your spelling too. Competent really isn't a word you want to be spelling wrong!

It's not perfect (even in spelling, but then again, I didn't type it, but I will convey the message).

Anyways, I don't think it will be done anytime soon. This is more like a rough draft of something which may take years to even be agreed upon by all parities who are for it (it here being the basics).

One question I do have is this, is being expensive a good reason not to do it? If that were the case, wouldn't it be cheaper to legalize some of the lesser drugs (those which are on average less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes)?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think that you would have better luck trying to reform the educational system when it comes to sex. Attack the root of the problem and not the symptoms.

What is there to reform? I don't remember a single sex ed in my high school or middle school. Maybe I was one who "fell though the cracks", but I really don't see anything to reform, instead, I see a gap that needs to be filled.

 

[cantata]

I see a gap that needs to be filled.

*snicker*

 

[stan1980]

One question I do have is this, is being expensive a good reason not to do it? If that were the case, wouldn't it be cheaper to legalize some of the lesser drugs (those which are on average less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes)?

That's a bit different though. It would certainly be cheaper for the tax payer, but not so good for your private prison firms, alcohol/tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, not to mention the general public who would be against such changes.

 

[AnonymousAgnostic]

What is there to reform? I don't remember a single sex ed in my high school or middle school. Maybe I was one who "fell though the cracks", but I really don't see anything to reform, instead, I see a gap that needs to be filled.

I know that many states have abstinence only sex education classes, which are not mandatory, which leads to a whole lot of weird beliefs. It's one of the facts of life that young adults will have sex, no matter what. It's our responsibility to at least teach them how they can do it safely. A recent report on sexually active teens in Florida (which has abstinence only sex education) said that because of a lack of teaching about contraceptives and STD prevention, a lot of teens believe that drinking a cap full of bleach would prevent them from contracting HIV, and that drinking certain sodas and energy drinks would prevent pregnancy. (I would link to it, but my post count isn't high enough.)

It's really not that different than the belief that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. It's because things aren't getting taught, and then people will turn to superstition and rumors to protect themselves.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I know that many states have abstinence only sex education classes, which are not mandatory, which leads to a whole lot of weird beliefs. It's one of the facts of life that young adults will have sex, no matter what. It's our responsibility to at least teach them how they can do it safely. A recent report on sexually active teens in Florida (which has abstinence only sex education) said that because of a lack of teaching about contraceptives and STD prevention, a lot of teens believe that drinking a cap full of bleach would prevent them from contracting HIV, and that drinking certain sodas and energy drinks would prevent pregnancy. (I would link to it, but my post count isn't high enough.)

It's really not that different than the belief that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. It's because things aren't getting taught, and then people will turn to superstition and rumors to protect themselves.

Well, really sex ed isn't needed, just cover sex in a biology class.

Anyways, my sex ed wasn't abstinence only, it was literally non-existence. Then again, I knew everything they could have taught me already. I took biology.