I was attempting to rephrase/make sense of turvy's post since Surreal mentioned he/she was having trouble making heads or tails of what turvy was saying.

Also 'societies' is a word.

Last edited by vix86 (2012 February 11, 11:14 am)

vix86 wrote:

I was attempting to rephrase/make sense of turvy's post since Surreal mentioned he/she was having trouble making heads or tails of what turvy was saying.

Also 'societies' is a word.

Saying "some societies" has as much weight as saying "some people", "some surveys", "some scientists", and about as much credibility.

About 0. Maybe -5.

If there isn't a clear cut answer on whether its right for a 15-16 year to have sex with an adult, be they 19 23 or 60, then there isn't much point quibbling over prostitution. I will therefore try to logically break down my line of thought in a series of questions which build on each other. I hope this will provide some clarity to my reasoning (at the very least). I don't expect to change any ones view, but maybe at the very least it'll show I'm not simply approaching this as:
"(:.;ﾟ;Д;ﾟ;.)ﾊｧ~ﾊｧ~ Sweet 13 yr poontang!"

For clarity we'll define teen in this context as 16 years old. Everytime you read teen, know I mean "16 year old" unless I state otherwise.

The core question
Is it right for a teen to have sex with an adult?
By answering this question it then becomes possible to say that "No, adults shouldn't engage in sex with teens because...." or "Yes, they can because..."

If its wrong we make laws against it. But if we are making laws against it then we should have a set of reasoning for why its wrong based on as much evidence to support it. Meaning the argument should be divorced from emotional reasoning. (Yes I realize there are already laws made. Not every law is justly made.)

The key determinants to answer this question seem to be:
1) Is the act of sex physically damaging to a teen?
No.

2) So then is the act of sex damaging in the psychological sense?
Correlation studies would have you believe it is, but I'm more keen to believe that surrounding situational and environmental variables are really what gives rise to the link. So this one is a Probably not.

3) So then if there is nothing that inherently damaging about the act of sex with a teen, then Is there something about sex with an adult that makes it damaging?
If sex with your same aged peers is not damaging then sex with someone of a different age should not be damaging so: No. Therefore, the act of sex in itself with an adult is not damaging.

4) Can adults in their position of age and experience abuse the situation for whatever gains and damage the teen? Yes, but this is applicable in a multitude of situations so why should sex be singled out for legal protection?  For the sake of continuing this line of questioning I'll interpose the idea that "sex is generally a very primal act and leads to irrational desires and potential abuses which could be damaging." In addition there is always the possibility of manipulation from both parties.

5) Are teens capable of divining these potential pitfalls?
The brain research suggests that teens and adults have suboptimal performance on a slew of things, of which includes planning. I hope no one is going to argue that teens are completely devoid of planning skills and impulse control. So the question is,
Do they have enough facilities to make a decision about whether to have sex with an adult based on the potential pitfalls?
This here is one of the key questions involved in deciding whether to legally protect teens, and the answer is a subjective one. Since there is no way (yet) to quantitatively say "Yes at this age they don't have enough." We can only answer this with a "Probably some do but maybe some don't."
So the final question is.

6) What is the age where the majority of that age possess ample facilities to make a balanced decision about the potential pitfalls surrounding sex with an adult?
This is the question of contention. Since there are no quantitative means to determine this we must subjectively decide. The law in most countries has decided this age is 18. I think it could be set at 16 and you'd see only minor differences. Also, pointing to studies and anecdotes showing that teens have regrets, feel bad, or generally have negative reaction to sex/first sex; isn't in anyway supportive unless you can show that those older don't have the same reaction. In particular "first sex" reactions at <18 vs 18+ are important since someone older has the benefit of "experience" to provide a positive correlation between sex and "good feelings."
(As an aside. Is there any point in changing the age most countries? Probably not. In fact I'd say there is good reason to leave it at 18 but it has nothing to do with 16-18 yr olds lacking facility. It has to do with protecting those under 16, which is a different topic and set of reasoning.)

By extensions of this line of reasoning. At this age, the facilities which allow you to determine the pitfalls associated with sex with an adult (without money) should also be just as readily usable to determine pitfalls associated with sex with money. Therein, making the exchange of money for sex fine at that age.

This brings us back to the original point that started all this which was basically "Is it OK for high schoolers (generally 16-18 yr olds) in Japan to seek out and have sex and accept money or goods in exchange?" If you believe the age of sufficient facilities is 16+ then ya its fine, if you think its 18+ though then its not OK and adults shouldn't be actively seeking sex with those under 18.

---

As to your links [, IceCream]. The first is mostly anecdotal nonsense, though there is a nice report on a study done on Enjokosai in there which sounds interesting and might be worth hunting down the original paper on. It had a nice sample size.
The second link on prostitution though. The problem with that site and their argument against legalized prostitution is that they are arguing against organized prostitution rings. Brothels, hustling/pimps, etc. Legalizing prostitution could definitely lead to more brothels (actually I'd bet money on it) but at the same time it could also primarily just drive it away into systems like Enjokosai where people do it for themselves. I really don't think its fair to also use the handful of bastions of legalized prostitution in the world as a basis for deciding whether legalizing removes crime, violence, abuse, etc; though. Demand still remains high internationally for access to legal organized prostitution and the supply is minimal so obviously this will put pressure on for more. Hence human trafficking and slavery remain a problem.
My comments to date about prostitution though have never been with organized prostitution systems in mind, they have been with stuff like enjokosai. Or Craigslist. Or 出会い系 forums.

turvy wrote:

Although I play by the rules of society and have no intentions to stop doing so, I can't justify that there could be an intrinsic moral quality in any form of life, my rational side and current position is that there is no such thing as morality. Killing, raping, stealing, that used to be acceptable, that used to be the means of survival. Fortunately we have evolved socially for the last 2000 years and now recognize that such generalized behavior can only be detrimental if we mean to further our species towards advancement.

However, there is not a default moral quality, we made that up. For the sake of consistency we can all agree to play by the rules and enforce their observance, because if only one person breaks them why wouldn't the next person do as well?, that would lead to anarchy and ruin the collective effort of our species of the last 2 millennia. However, in a case by case basis, if you could get away with committing any crime that wouldn't change absolutely nothing. That idea bothers me.

There is no 'ugliness'.

i also went through a stage like this, so i understand where you're coming from.

However, i think this kind of thought stems from overthinking things. Forget about catergorical imperatives and obscure moral reasoning for a bit.

It really isn't that difficult. I used the word "ugly" rather than "wrong" for a reason. I'm assuming you're not a sociopath here... if you are then yes, just please play by society's rules that are ready laid out for you.

The rest of us have another faculty we can rest on... empathy.

Most of us, regardless of high level philosophical problems and thought experiments involving situations we're never actually going to have to face in the world, have a basic and strong feeling that harming others is an ugly thing, and that kindness and compassion are beautiful.

In fact, empathy in the brain actually mimics someone elses pain in a very real way... when feeling empathy we quite literally feel pain for someone else. The same parts of our brain are active as if we were feeling pain ourselves.

We aren't "just animals" we're animals with a built in faculty for understanding and sharing the feelings of others.

So, even though there is no external moral code for you to base your decisions to act on, that doesn't mean that you should go ahead and ignore all your intuitions about which actions are ugly and which are beautiful. Why would you when you have this basic faculty built in?

If you could get away with a crime it wouldn't change anything?? Of course it changes something if you cause harm to another person. It's caused them to feel pain or suffering. Why does society have to potentially collapse to tell you that that's not a good idea when you can understand both that you have caused pain, and use empathy to imagine what that pain must feel like for someone else instead?? That alone should be enough to show you that it's an ugly thing to do, surely...?

@Vix:
I think your argument is still too much like a backwards slippery slope, stating that if we accept that one thing is ok, then everything must be ok with regards to sex. This just isn't necessarily the case. But let me address some of the points specifically.

vix86 wrote:

The key determinants to answer this question seem to be:
1) Is the act of sex physically damaging to a teen?
No.

As Zgarbas already pointed out, even once a girl is used to sex, it can still be quite a painful, uncomfortable experience if it's with someone you aren't attracted to.

vix86 wrote:

2) So then is the act of sex damaging in the psychological sense?
Correlation studies would have you believe it is, but I'm more keen to believe that surrounding situational and environmental variables are really what gives rise to the link. So this one is a Probably not.

Why is it that you're so keen to believe that, despite having no evidence supporting it, and despite the fact that there is at least some evidence that gestures in the other direction?

I don't think you can claim with much credibility that every act of sex is on the same level here. Is there something psychologically damaging in the act of having loving sex with your husband in a loving relationship? No.
Is there something psychologically damaging in the act of sex as in being violently gang raped? Yes.
Do other situations maybe fall between these two in amounts of psychological damage and need to be assessed on their own merits? Yes.

Regardless of which, i think the first few sexual relationships you have with people ARE a great deal more psychologically taxing than they later become. So for most teenagers, this is a sensitive time.

vix86 wrote:

3) So then if there is nothing that inherently damaging about the act of sex with a teen, then Is there something about sex with an adult that makes it damaging?
If sex with your same aged peers is not damaging then sex with someone of a different age should not be damaging so: No. Therefore, the act of sex in itself with an adult is not damaging.

Why are you assuming this? Doesn't this again depend on the relationship between the two people, and what terms they're having sex on, how able the adult is to understand the psychological and emotional needs of the 16 year old, etcetc..?
Regardless of this, the majority of 16 year olds on the bell curve simply are not going to be attracted to men 30+, so those men will generally have to use some other means to convince them to do so, which leaves them far more susceptible to psychological damage.

vix86 wrote:

By extensions of this line of reasoning. At this age, the facilities which allow you to determine the pitfalls associated with sex with an adult (without money) should also be just as readily usable to determine pitfalls associated with sex with money. Therein, making the exchange of money for sex fine at that age.

This doesn't follow, actually. Firstly, the decision to let someone else exploit you sexually for x-amount of money is a very different one from "am i attracted to this person?" There is no good basis for saying that a teenager is able to make both decisions at the same age.

Secondly, you are implicitly assuming that there is no more psychological damage done in being sexually exploited or allowing yourself to be sexually exploited than there is in having sex with someone you like, which is pretty unconvincing.

Thirdly, there are much higher risks involved in prostitution: rape, violent sex, etc. Even if we make the legal age of consent 16 (which it is in the UK fyo), maybe we still want to make it illegal for 16 year olds to register on dating sites to avoid those kinds of risks too. Again, a good age for the age of consent for sex isn't necessarily the same age as the age of legal responsibility for everything.

I'm a little surprised that you've changed it to 16 now, because a large proportion of the girls involved in Enjo-Kousai appear to be Junior High age... 12-15.

Personally, i've been approached for sex with men over 35-40 multiple times. Once it was a guy who was 70!!! ewwwwwwwwww. Honestly, it's a really uncomfortable situation to be put in. When i was younger (and this is right into early 20's) i found it particularly difficult, because i was worried about hurting these men's feelings when i rejected them (it took me 3 hours to get away from that 70 year old while he kept offering various amounts of money because i didn't want to hurt his feelings by just saying ew gross and leaving!!). Honestly though, older men should just get over themselves and go back to their wives or find someone their own age, srsly, and stop preying on young girls. It really is a massive problem in society.

Last edited by IceCream (2012 February 11, 4:39 pm)

vix86 wrote:

LivingNexus wrote:

*Sits quietly waiting for the thread to get back on track*

We'll get back on track or at least leave this topic behind when we agree that there are parts of the argument that can't yet be quantified and are therefore subjective. And so there will be varying opinions on the matter.

well, we do agree on that. I'm not trying to argue that there are rigid lines you can draw at age "x" where sexual act "y" is ok. These things differ from person to person, so it's not even possible to quantify like that.

If you just base your personal decisions on the potential for harm, and minimising that harm, respect for others and protecting those who might not yet have the capacity to make adult decisions, i think it's fine. I think it's important to err on the side of caution as an adult though, because as an adult we should bear the weight of the consequences if a child does become psychologically damaged through our actions.

******

ok, just for LivingNexus

i don't think any of my experiences of Japan are particularly representative of "Japan", only my particular time there. However, here are some of my thoughts on some of the issues in this thread.

Visa: i overstayed my visa by a few hours, and didn't get locked up & the key thrown away or anything. They simply asked me to pay the extension fee on the spot. I didn't have the money to pay though, which caused a whole host of other problems. It's definately something you should be careful about, but you don't have to worry that you're going to be starved in a police cell for making a simple mistake.
However, knowing your legal rights is very important when you visit any foreign country, and Japan is known for not having great legal rights compared to the UK for example, so yeah, you should try to read up on that.

Creativity: In my experience, this is a load of bull. I stayed at a university and there were quite a few highly creative, highly intelligent people there, just like you'd find at any university. People were perhaps slightly less argumentative / loving of debate as a group, but it really varied a lot depending on the situation, and from person to person.

Kindness: I thought that everyone there treated me very kindly and most people seemed like genuinely kind, thoughtful people. Regarding kindness to strangers, i was given an umbrella on 2 seperate occasions by strangers who just came up to me in the rain and gave it to me when i got caught in a shower, and they wouldn't take no for an answer.

Confidence: i thought that especially younger people seemed a little less confident and self assured than they do in Western countries. A few times i thought people didn't like me, but it turned out they were having some kind of inferiority complex... even though they knew a ton more than i did lol.

Openness: i found it more difficult to make strong friends with people while i was there that i could talk really openly with. While everyone treated me kindly, i wasn't really sure i could call them friends at the end of 3 months, which can be a little lonely at times. In another situation i would probably make more effort though, as i was caught up with studying the majority of the time, so i don't know how representative that is.

IceCream wrote:

As Zgarbas already pointed out, even once a girl is used to sex, it can still be quite a painful, uncomfortable experience if it's with someone you aren't attracted to.

Point well made (assuming you were referring to stuff like a torn hymen). But this is equally applicable to adults with regards to sex.

Why is it that you're so keen to believe that, despite having no evidence supporting it, and despite the fact that there is at least some evidence that gestures in the other direction?

I believe this because sex as an act is as natural as a process as taking a shit. Its not like someone has to take some tools and attach stuff to you to make it possible for you to do it. You're born with the programming to eventually be able to do it and in most cases want it. So why should I presuppose that sex would psychologically damage someone, there in leading to less sex (I would assume that would be the result of psychological damage w/ sex). Considering evolutionary pressures, it seems ridiculous to me that something like that would propagate through a species. Let me put it another way, no one argues that masturbation is psychologically damaging. (And no I am not acknowledging religious arguments in this)

I don't think you can claim with much credibility that every act of sex is on the same level here. Is there something psychologically damaging in the act of having loving sex with your husband in a loving relationship? No.
Is there something psychologically damaging in the act of sex as in being violently gang raped? Yes.
Do other situations maybe fall between these two in amounts of psychological damage and need to be assessed on their own merits? Yes.

汗 Really... Did I really have to actually specify that I was excluding cases of assault and rape in this? I figured it'd be a given.

Regardless of which, i think the first few sexual relationships you have with people ARE a great deal more psychologically taxing than they later become

I agree with you on this. First sex encounters regardless of age are memorable and taxing.

Why are you assuming this? Doesn't this again depend on the relationship between the two people, and what terms they're having sex on, how able the adult is to understand the psychological and emotional needs of the 16 year old, etcetc..?
Regardless of this, the majority of 16 year olds on the bell curve simply are not going to be attracted to men 30+, so those men will generally have to use some other means to convince them to do so, which leaves them far more susceptible to psychological damage.

The point of question 3 was to ask whether there was something inherently different about sex as a result of age difference. Excluding all other factors of coercion, relationship, etc. Does sex, oral/anal/vaginal, some how magically become different when compared with a 16+16 vs 16+20? or 16+40? Obviously the older the one party gets the more "ewwy" the younger person might find them. But thats not pertitent to the question. Whats pertitent is that if sex between a teen and a 18+ suddenly changes somehow and results in damaging the teen, then that would be where you draw the line and say "Yes we need laws because when a 20 year old sticks his penis in a 16 year old girl, the girl has seizures because its an old penis."

It seems from what I have read that I would take your stance to be that When sex with adults is involved there are a lot of 'what if's, 'could be's, and 'might happens' cases and so its better to set the age at 18 (for whatever reason) so that we protect them. And by this line of thought it basically falls in with what I said on 5 and 6 about mental facilities. You are arguing that the slew of "what-ifs" and the lack of mental resources of those under age is what brings about the age of 18.

This doesn't follow, actually. Firstly, the decision to let someone else exploit you sexually for x-amount of money is a very different one from "am i attracted to this person?" There is no good basis for saying that a teenager is able to make both decisions at the same age.

Secondly, you are implicitly assuming that there is no more psychological damage done in being sexually exploited or allowing yourself to be sexually exploited than there is in having sex with someone you like, which is pretty unconvincing.

Thirdly, there are much higher risks involved in prostitution: rape, violent sex, etc. Even if we make the legal age of consent 16 (which it is in the UK fyo), maybe we still want to make it illegal for 16 year olds to register on dating sites to avoid those kinds of risks too. Again, a good age for the age of consent for sex isn't necessarily the same age as the age of legal responsibility for everything.

In other words you think prostitution is a separate set of issues.

I'm a little surprised that you've changed it to 16 now, because a large proportion of the girls involved in Enjo-Kousai appear to be Junior High age... 12-15.

I had always presumed that the largest population participating in Enjo-kosai were high schoolers primarily because that's where popular media tended to show it. I never bothered to fact check it.

It really is a massive problem in society.

I think its symptomatic of other problems in society, but still something to be concerned about.

Last edited by vix86 (2012 February 11, 5:50 pm)

Zgarbas wrote:

She took a year off(IIRC she just took all the free days that she had missed in 10-15 years worth of work...and they amounted to a year) to travel the world, and found stuff like listening to music a great luxury... I guess I never realized how crazy the work life there can be until it hit me that some people can't even afford wasting 5 minutes of passive attention.

It was a huge letdown to realize that I am most likely never going to be able to live there without sacrificing my sanity.

I feel the same way, except I've only been working for four years.
And in America.

There's so many things to occupy your time. TV, books, studying, games, listening to music...

It's a mental state more than where you work.
Maybe you can find a better place to work in Japan.

え？ How do I use the English language @Surreal? Is that a flattering remark or a disguised insult? That's how ambiguous I read you. Perhaps you meant you didn't get my point, well, read this: when I write I am more trying to understand myself than to educate people about my views. Our opinions change all the time or rather, mature with time. I don't know about you but the person I was 10 years ago is way more embarrassing than the person I am now. However the trend is one of refinement where it is ever more unlikely for things to flip-flop drastically. I am most definitely not becoming a Christian after realizing atheism is compulsive. But am I right?

@IceCream I dare to say there's more we agree on than disagree, but the one component of your discourse that raises red flags and sets off alarms and bells in my hogwash detector is when you try to call on empathy to seemingly justify that there is such thing as morality. I don't deny those qualities, I myself, not being a sociopath, experience the phenomenon of empathy towards other living beings and cry unstoppably at movies every so often, but I think these are just aspects of our emerging conscience. Any attempt at distinguishing right and wrong can't be inherently true since I can't possibly believe that morality exists outside our capacity to produce these ideas. Does morality exist by itself or do we have to draw it by reasoning?. It seems impossible for morality to exist beyond the realm of intelligence, therefore, morality is the result of our sapience and this one the product of evolution and not an intrinsic characteristic of the universe. Behaving according to any set of rules respected by a group would be moral by definition, which is clearly flawed but even now, that's exactly what we have. If we are visited by hostile extraterrestrials, would it be moral to exterminate them if we figure out how to overcome them?. The answer is, it would be the only option to exterminate them if we agree that they represent a threat to our survival, which is the only thing that matters.

@Zgarbas This is such a long thread, I kind of touched on what countries already. Is not at all relevant since that is just my personal experience. Compare it to your own anecdotes and ask other people about it. I don't have studies at hand that talk about the perception of sex in the world sorted by countries, it would be worth looking at though.

@LivingNexus If we are having a never ending conversation about your favorite ice-cream and suddenly, but not so abruptly as to seem terribly rude, I change the topic, bring up a new subject, switch tracks or pop up the は particle trump, does that annoy you?. What's wrong with derailing the train?

Last edited by turvy (2012 February 12, 7:36 am)

Surreal wrote:

Vix, why do you think that 16 is a better age as compared to 15 or 14? I'm just wondering if you aren't actually applying the same kind of logic when deciding that as I and Icecream have been arguing for all this time. Or maybe you're assuming that something is "magically different" between 15yos and 16yos because you're basing your reasoning on your "prototypical" 15yo and 16yo, ie something similar to the average (or maybe something a fair distance off from the average depending on how skewed your worldview is - I mean I don't know that many 15yos/16yos today either, and noone has an entirely objective view regarding anything), and so you're imagining what situations would be like for these prototypes. In reality of course, there are some 15yos that are more adultlike than some 16yos, just like how I said earlier that some 16yos are more adultlike than some 25yos.

Because most 16 year olds are sexually mature. They can have sex, make babies, and generally not suffer problems in child birth. This does not mean I am trying to say they should be having babies but simply looking at it from the angle of "does this damage?" and being able to say "yes, it damages physically as a result of sex, pretty often." I feel this is solid grounds for arguing for laws protecting against sex for that age range.  Additionally, lots of 16 year olds want sex, lots of 16 year olds are sexually active (depending on how you define the term). The point of contention is still #5 and #6 though. Do they lack the facilities to properly judge situations with adults? And at what age will they have these faculties in majority to judge? I think you could say 16 is pretty good. My proof? Anecdotal evidence mostly, but its the same for saying 18 is probably a good age too.

Also, I want to point out an important difference in how I and Icecream have been argumenting and perhaps a difference in how we see the issue. I'm saying that sex, even sex with prostitution involved, between a 16 year old and a 40 year old CAN be meaningful and beneficial for both parties, while Icecream has mostly been saying that it won't happen. For my part however, just because these ideal situations do happen doesn't mean we should legalize prostitution of 16yos. I've been saying that all the "what-ifs" really are what it's all about and that the risks of the "what-ifs" happening are so much higher when non-adults and adults engage in sex-money transactions that the benefits of prohibiting non-adult prostitution far outweigh the benefits of not doing so.

I'll give on prostitution I guess. Everyone else is thinking about the 'culture' that has arisen up around the idea/concept of prostitution and all the bad stuff that can/does go on and saying thats why it should be illegal. I've been speaking idealistically, everyone else is speaking realistically. Idealistically you can legalize the simple act of adding money to sex and use other laws to punish the bad stuff: coercion, blackmail, rape, assault, abuse, etc. Realistically that stuff happens a lot with prostitution and so you ban prostitution. I just can't get on board it though because people argue stuff like weed should be banned because it has lots of negative stuff associated with it as well, but I don't believe thats simple enough grounds to ban anything.

turvy wrote:

え？ How do I use the English language @Surreal? Is that a flattering remark or a disguised insult? That's how ambiguous I read you.

Well I did say "That's not meant as an insult either, I've really tried to read your posts multiple times but I can't quite grasp what you're getting at." It's not an insult, nor is it a flattering remark. It's me saying that I have a hard time understanding you and I think your unorthodox manner of writing is part of the reason I do.

I'll try to explain, here's an example to begin with "This is such a long thread, I kind of touched on what countries already. Is not at all relevant since that is just my personal experience." What is "is not at all relevant" referring to? You probably meant "It is not relevant at all" which of course anyone can figure out but this kind of "word skipping" makes reading your posts more taxing and distracts the reader from what you are attempting to convey. Same thing with "I kind of touched on what countries already" - the reader has to do a double take and think about the context, then mentally edit the text into "I already kind of touched on what countries I meant". Besides, after thinking things through and figuring out that you're probably saying "It doesn't matter exactly what countries I was referring to since I'm only speaking from my own personal experience", the reader is frustrated because you're being so vague in your reasoning that it has no proper foundation. This lessens the impact of your message and makes it seem like you're backtracking now that someone asked you to back up a previous claim.

Here is another piece "Is not as bad as "don't get away from the pride pussy or you will be ambushed by the other cats", but if you are lured into having sex by a seductive alpha male and then dumped, well too bad for you, is your fault for not being more quick on the uptake. In any case, is not a tragedy." The continuous use of just "is" instead of "it's" is again confusing, but most of all the "quote" doesn't really make any sense. I tried googling it thinking maybe it's from some movie or something that I haven't seen and so you need to know the context to get it, but the only result was your post. Are you saying someone shouldn't get away from the "pride pussy", and if you are saying that then who/what is that and how is it relevant to not getting ambushed? Are you saying that a "pussy" shouldn't get away from "the pride"? What does it mean to get away from "the pride"? Why would staying with "the pride" keep you from being ambushed? When you drop these neologismlike constructions without providing any real explanation of them, assuming that what you mean will be clear to the reader makes it hard to follow you, like in your reply to me now:

"I am most definitely not becoming a Christian after realizing atheism is compulsive."
Atheism is compulsive? What? Even if you do think, for whatever reason, that atheism is compulsive, just dropping that statement with no further comment leaves the reader bewildered and mystified. What kind of "compulsivity" is meant here, for who is it compulsive? Since you mainly wanted to provide an example of some kind of view/belief that you hold today that is more stable today than it used to be, you could've chosen a more straightforward example that wouldn't grab too much attention to itself and would do its job as a clear example well. (I don't think neither of us would gain much from discussing whether atheism is "compulsive" here since it's irrelevant to the current thread discussion, I only brought this up to illustrate what kind of obstacles to understanding you the reader runs into)

You did say that you mainly write to understand yourself, but this is a message board where we supposedly interact to learn more from each other (as well as to have fun and simply talk with each other of course). Writing in a way that's as clear as possible will help make sure that the discussion has a better flow and that you can get better "feedback" on your own thoughts which will help you grow and develop as an individual. The more you are misunderstood because of purely linguistic reasons the less relevant feedback you'll get.

Again, I really don't want to make you feel bad by writing this post, I sincerely hope it was worth reading.

Edit: Qwerty all I hear from you is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp0RvEVD9w

Last edited by Surreal (2012 February 12, 11:27 am)

@Surreal Why would that make me feel bad? I have been praised for my writing before and that hasn't particularly flattered me either. But you are right I screwed up in a few is's, I'll go fix them for my sake later on. Thanks for taking the time to point that out and comment on my style, you are a patient one. I do, however, disagree about that of writing as clear as possible. If you just 'don't like' my style or find it inconvenient that's one thing but imposing more clarity or less use of the context is just not acceptable, I take the advice but I don't want to write more clearly always. I'm exploring my writing and I am not just trying to get my message across, I do want to get it across though. This reply is just my immediate reaction to your message, as the matter of fact, I agree with several points you are raising.

As for the atheism comment, if it left you a little bewildered then I am well contented. I certainly realize is not the most straightforward example and I chose it because of its impact. On a side note, non-belief or unwillingness to grant credence to any belief is the default state you are rationally set to until you are given a satisfactory explanation and/or convincing evidence. Atheism is the default condition among the contending religions trying to impose you their spurious views. Since no religion succeeds at procuring the proof to substantiate its system of beliefs and willfully accepting an unfounded reality as true is unjustifiable, atheism is a compulsion if one means to be consistent and rational. This also implies that belief in any of these systems would be compulsive given enough convincing evidence. In other words, belief is not a choice. Ideas are either true or untrue and not both simultaneously, belief in one or the other does not change reality.

EDIT: A pride is a family group of lions.

@Qwerty @Zgarbas Massive lol.

Last edited by turvy (2012 February 12, 3:20 pm)

Just to let everyone know, there is a strong chance of me going to Japan THIS OCTOBER!!!!!

hopefully i will be able to answer this question for myself ^ ^