Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations

He does have a point. Just because you started it does not make it your thread. One could argue that it belongs to all of us, because it becomes the sum of all of our input, with thread drift as proof of this. Or one could argue that it belongs to the Duckk and David, with the ability to lock or wipe a thread as proof. Calling it your thread is rather egotistical.

As for the other part your rant, assuming violence is neither used nor threatened, a 25 year old who sleeps with a 12 year old would probably get about the same sentence as a 40 year old. However, if the underage party was 17 years and 11 months old (still underage in some jurisdictions and circumstances) I could understand the 25 year old getting a lighter sentence, even tho both are still technically statutory rape, if only because in thirty days it would have been both a legal and socially normal relationship.

Also, the point that Monster made that you seem to have missed was that we should teach 12 year olds "try to be responsible" not "don't trust old people." If you would care to look up statistics, you will find that, in America at least, most cases of non-violent statutory rape involving one party under 16 usually has the older party in a position of responsibility over the child. Teacher/student, parent/child, employer/employee, that sort of thing.


Furthermore, I suspect that prolong would actually decrease the cases of sexual predators praying on children. Most of the people that are referred to as "pedophiles" are, in fact not. The word pedophile has both generally and legally taken the meaning of sexually engaging with someone under 16 or 18 depending on jurisdiction and circumstance.

Medically pedophile refers specifically to people attracted to prepubescents. The majority of people who are labeled "pedos" are actually attracted to pubescent or just post pubescent individuals, and it is properly referred to as hebephilia and ephobophilia respectively. I am not saying that makes it better, but I am saying that it is what is.

Because third generation prolong delays the onset of puberty and slows the process it is entirely possible that a person who is just post pubescent would be, not 15 as they would be now, but 19 or even 20. This would make the desired relationships of hebephiles and ephobophiles legal, barring a change in the age of consent.

crewdude48 wrote:Because third generation prolong delays the onset of puberty and slows the process it is entirely possible that a person who is just post pubescent would be, not 15 as they would be now, but 19 or even 20. This would make the desired relationships of hebephiles and ephobophiles legal, barring a change in the age of consent.

Let's take a closer look at this. As far as I can tell, in our culture sexual relations with someone who has not matured sufficiently for the physiology, hormones, instincts and so forth to be in place and working is out. O-U-T out. Since the Honorverse is, at least in this respect, a projection of our morality, I wouldn't see this changing. If prolong causes a delay in sexual maturity, it causes a delay in the age where sexual relationships are seen as potentially legitimate.

"Age of consent" is a different issue. There's quite a bit of sentiment that our current legal definitions and age limits aren't working well. I'd think that Beowulf would have a much more rational set of legal definitions, and Manticore probably has a somewhat more conservative version of them, considering how close they are in some respects.

cthia wrote:Immediately you pulled in your horns and claimed a personal affront, by stating "You don't own this thread."

I also said I didn't own any threads, but you seem to have missed that.

attempt to embarrass

You have ASS|U|MEd a motive that does not exist.

Interrupting a thread in that manner is essentially the same and satisfied nothing but your own sense of sick grandeur,

I am fascinated by your ability to diagnose my mental illness without ever having met me, purely based on a few written-word exchanges.

We all know what you were really trying to do, don't we Mr. Houseman, you were trying to initiate giggles by casting your own aspersions on my education.

Where do you get your crystal balls?

They also wanted me to list political as a consideration but I explained to them that political discussions had its own forum.

They do? Could you give me a pointer to it? I don't see anything labelled as such.

You destroyed that thread right from the start, as was your intention.

Really, I must know your supplier for the tools of divination, if for no other reason than to run him out of business for providing you with such shoddy merchandise. Or are the tools sound, but the training in their use lacking?

I have never had the slightest intent to destroy the thread. I engaged in discussion of several points you brought up; while the grammar discussion was just an aside. When you doubled down on your love of "alot", you chose to keep that part of the discussion alive.

Apples and oranges, and you damn well know it. Insult my intelligence even more, thank you.

You don't know what I know. You have displayed an amazing talent for imputing to me things I did not say, and secret hidden meanings I did not intend.

I am not trying to learn English as a foreign language.

You're the one who mentioned all those non-native English speakers that I'd somehow run off with my behavior. I was responding to that, not to the thought that you yourself might have learned English as your second language.

Obviously any side-effect of prolong would be more advantageous and desired if it were to erase humanity's grammatical errors rather than its rude, condescending, self important social miscreants--the socially inept.
Sure.

So you desire to "erase" me due to my social ineptitude? What's it to be, a gas chamber, or an old-fashioned burning at the stake? Perhaps an even older-fashioned crucifixion. Above my head, the inscription "RUDE"?

That's assuming that the capital crime is offending your foreign friends. Or is it the other "social ineptitude" for which I'm to be blotted out? The one that makes it unsafe for your niece and me to occupy opposite ends of the same football stadium?

A and lot, separated by a space. Can and not, separated by a space. What and ever, separated by a space. Counter and clockwise, extra and ordinary. They all represent commonly used dual word combinations that have been simplified to one form. Compound words. They have evolved.

I don't like that counter's orientation. I think it would work better to turn the counter clockwise.

I have here three ordinary socks. That means I have one for each foot, and one extra ordinary sock. Over there is one extraordinary sock. I mean, just look at it. It's truly a one-of-a-kind masterpiece!

The phenomena represented by the big word called etymology.

OK, now you're doing it on purpose because you know it bugs me, right? Or are you? I really can't tell. Either way, you'll be able to take offense, so I guess it doesn't matter.

The English language is not static. No language should be.
Language learns itself. It is ever changing.

Well, in that case, all I can say is gahd n sait chwan nasei en venchlie nownl be a bull tungsten ewe.

I was with a group of irate women, angry over an older boy that had gotten away with rape with one of their young daughters. He was 15, she was 14. Since they had been going out for a few weeks he felt like she owed him. Apparently the justice system did to.

Or the jury might just have been impartial, and she was too close to the situation to see something they saw. There's an item in the news that points out how a teenage girl not telling the truth to her parents about sex can make a bad situation worse. At the risk of being called an apologist for the alleged rapist, I'd like you to consider the possibility that the jury might have had good reason to find as they did, and that saying the boy "had gotten away with rape" could itself be actionable. Please don't provide any further details that could identify the boy, because that might be enough for his attorney to hang a libel charge on you and take a bunch of that net worth you have.

One of them said "We should bobbitt his ass."
Bobbitt, I asked?
"Yes, Lorena Bobbitt."
Ah, you see, experience creates new words.

That's a particularly clever one, because one of the meanings of "bob it" is pretty much synonymous with "bobbitt". I think that's one reason it's gotten so much traction. But I don't think his ass is quite what would be bobbitted. You'd have to aim a few inches forward.

And one of my favorites. "She Jap Slapped him."

Um, I'm afraid that's politically incorrect. Since I don't know your ethnic background, I don't know if you have immunity or not. It's a tricky business, so it's best to stay clear of that minefield.

All over America, rapists are getting off. High powered tactical legal jugglers are getting them off.

Again, if they're exonerated of the crime of rape, calling them "rapists" is the sort of thing that, combined with your sizable net worth, attracts the attention of those jugglers.

These legal jugglers begin by seeking out accomplices--people to sit on the jury. People with thinking sympathetic to their plight. People just like...well, you, Monster.

As the father of daughters, I believe I can be sympathetic both to victims and to the falsely accused.

At what age in a man's life can he, should he, unequivocally be held [absolutely] responsible for his actions?

I'd say that point comes before he is considered responsible for my actions in the form of being able to vote for the laws that constrain my liberty (either directly in initiative/referendum and New England town-meeting style democracy or indirectly through representatives) and to sit on juries that decide cases brought under those laws. Since the Constitution essentially forbids excluding anyone 18 or older from voting on the basis of age, that clearly requires we demand men to be fully responsible before that.

For millenia, Jewish boys have stood before their communities at age 13 and announced "Today I am a man." I'd say that gives us a lower bound.

Two men are on trial for taking indecent liberties with a minor, one 23 and the other 40.
The 23 yr old will be convicted, but probably with a lighter sentence.
The 40 yr old will be convicted, but with a heavier sentence.

I don't believe that's consistent with the notion of "equal justice" and "equal protection under the law." I don't think the victim of the 23-year-old deserves less protection than the victim of the 40-year-old. I think that the unequal sentences in those cases represent an emotional response to a man who chooses significantly-younger sex partners, like, say, Hugh Hefner and his stable of playmates. We just think that's icky, but so long as his paramours can and do legally consent to the relationship, the fact I find it distasteful is irrelevant. I have no right to intervene in the matter, and therefore no just power of a government can be derived from my desire to have it do so as my agent.

The jury is thinking, the 23 yr old hasn't grown up yet, but still must be punished. Too bad he's thrown his life away. At least that's what a good lawyer will have them thinking.

But he has grown up. Or he should have anyway. But now we have enshrined into law that through age 26 your parents' insurance company has to offer to cover you on their policy. It's ridiculous on its face. If you're not responsible for yourself, you can't be responsible for us all as a voter and juror.

[Sentence them both...but castrate the one before sentencing. The filthy SOB!]
You don't understand that?

I understand that some people think this way, but it's wrong. The 23-year-old should be just as responsible as the 40-year-old. I think we're prolonging childhood artificially, and creating the expectation that it's OK for the 23-year-old to be irresponsible.

I mentioned before that in the old days a boy became a man at 13. Children are physically maturing faster now than they did then, but we're deliberately retarding them socially. We're telling them to screw around (in many senses of the phrase) and not bother to grow up until they're in their late 20s. That's a recipe for disaster.

Children aged seven to fourteen (13 years, 364 days 23'59'59" aged) were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong.[1] Children fourteen and older were presumed capable of committing a crime.

That's awfully close to the Bar Mitzvah age.

But people like you, don't believe its any worse. That's why you are picked as a juror by the defense

You have it backwards. I don't believe the 23-year-old is any less bad than the 40-year-old. I want the case against either of them to be proven, but once I'm satisfied of their guilt, they both get equally convicted and punished.

No wonder children cannot count on the legal system to protect them. Too many cancerous minds.

See, here's where it reads to me like you think my unwillingness to cut the 23-year-old a break for being immature is "cancerous". I think it's just plain "justice" to punish them both equally for the same crime.

But if you think, seriously think, that in the minds and hearts of the average human, and especially to the victim's' family, that it isn't worse, that the average loved one doesn't want to castrate the 40 year old, then you really have issues.

There's a reason we don't let the victim's family on the jury. Of course they want to castrate him, even if he's innocent, just like that poor father who killed that kid in Texas.

And if you yourself don't feel that way, then I really wouldn't feel comfortable with you within 300 yards of my niece.

See, you're back to implying that you think I'm a sexual predator who would ravage your niece again. There's no place for that; no matter how much you dislike my linguistic pedantry, it's no excuse to accuse me of ped-(something else).

That kind of baseless accusation ruins lives, and in the Texas case literally ended one.

Your rudeness is appalling to people. You are aware of it, as this is not your first time to interrupt my threads

Again, neither of us own any threads here.

Only your time is important, not any of the other people that may actually have wanted to discuss the topic.

And yet, here we are, discussing it.

Is that why you name yourself TheMonster because that's what you intend to be?

Actually, the name got stuck on my by a former co-worker. I'm 6'6" and well over 250 lbs., which seems pretty Monstrous to people, and I find fitting the etymology of the word back to the Latin verb "monstro". Since it's apparently condescending for me to explain the definition of a word, I'll trust that you know how to find an online dictionary and look it up for yourself.

And if any aspersions were cast in your direction. You cast them yourself.

Feel free to call me "pedantic" if you wish, but lay off the "ped-(other thing)", which doesn't just offend me, it makes me question how you could possibly have amassed such a huge net worth as you claim without a juggler juggling it all away from you by now.

Trataţi cu raţă

Sper că aveți consilier juridic adecvat

Would you two please take your dispute somewhere else?
Cheers
John

TheMonster wrote:

cthia wrote:Immediately you pulled in your horns and claimed a personal affront, by stating "You don't own this thread."

I also said I didn't own any threads, but you seem to have missed that.

attempt to embarrass

You have ASS|U|MEd a motive that does not exist.

Interrupting a thread in that manner is essentially the same and satisfied nothing but your own sense of sick grandeur,

I am fascinated by your ability to diagnose my mental illness without ever having met me, purely based on a few written-word exchanges.

We all know what you were really trying to do, don't we Mr. Houseman, you were trying to initiate giggles by casting your own aspersions on my education.

Where do you get your crystal balls?

They also wanted me to list political as a consideration but I explained to them that political discussions had its own forum.

They do? Could you give me a pointer to it? I don't see anything labelled as such.

You destroyed that thread right from the start, as was your intention.

Really, I must know your supplier for the tools of divination, if for no other reason than to run him out of business for providing you with such shoddy merchandise. Or are the tools sound, but the training in their use lacking?

I have never had the slightest intent to destroy the thread. I engaged in discussion of several points you brought up; while the grammar discussion was just an aside. When you doubled down on your love of "alot", you chose to keep that part of the discussion alive.

Apples and oranges, and you damn well know it. Insult my intelligence even more, thank you.

You don't know what I know. You have displayed an amazing talent for imputing to me things I did not say, and secret hidden meanings I did not intend.

I am not trying to learn English as a foreign language.

You're the one who mentioned all those non-native English speakers that I'd somehow run off with my behavior. I was responding to that, not to the thought that you yourself might have learned English as your second language.

Obviously any side-effect of prolong would be more advantageous and desired if it were to erase humanity's grammatical errors rather than its rude, condescending, self important social miscreants--the socially inept.
Sure.

So you desire to "erase" me due to my social ineptitude? What's it to be, a gas chamber, or an old-fashioned burning at the stake? Perhaps an even older-fashioned crucifixion. Above my head, the inscription "RUDE"?

That's assuming that the capital crime is offending your foreign friends. Or is it the other "social ineptitude" for which I'm to be blotted out? The one that makes it unsafe for your niece and me to occupy opposite ends of the same football stadium?

A and lot, separated by a space. Can and not, separated by a space. What and ever, separated by a space. Counter and clockwise, extra and ordinary. They all represent commonly used dual word combinations that have been simplified to one form. Compound words. They have evolved.

I don't like that counter's orientation. I think it would work better to turn the counter clockwise.

I have here three ordinary socks. That means I have one for each foot, and one extra ordinary sock. Over there is one extraordinary sock. I mean, just look at it. It's truly a one-of-a-kind masterpiece!

The phenomena represented by the big word called etymology.

OK, now you're doing it on purpose because you know it bugs me, right? Or are you? I really can't tell. Either way, you'll be able to take offense, so I guess it doesn't matter.

The English language is not static. No language should be.
Language learns itself. It is ever changing.

Well, in that case, all I can say is gahd n sait chwan nasei en venchlie nownl be a bull tungsten ewe.

I was with a group of irate women, angry over an older boy that had gotten away with rape with one of their young daughters. He was 15, she was 14. Since they had been going out for a few weeks he felt like she owed him. Apparently the justice system did to.

Or the jury might just have been impartial, and she was too close to the situation to see something they saw. There's an item in the news that points out how a teenage girl not telling the truth to her parents about sex can make a bad situation worse. At the risk of being called an apologist for the alleged rapist, I'd like you to consider the possibility that the jury might have had good reason to find as they did, and that saying the boy "had gotten away with rape" could itself be actionable. Please don't provide any further details that could identify the boy, because that might be enough for his attorney to hang a libel charge on you and take a bunch of that net worth you have.

One of them said "We should bobbitt his ass."
Bobbitt, I asked?
"Yes, Lorena Bobbitt."
Ah, you see, experience creates new words.

That's a particularly clever one, because one of the meanings of "bob it" is pretty much synonymous with "bobbitt". I think that's one reason it's gotten so much traction. But I don't think his ass is quite what would be bobbitted. You'd have to aim a few inches forward.

And one of my favorites. "She Jap Slapped him."

Um, I'm afraid that's politically incorrect. Since I don't know your ethnic background, I don't know if you have immunity or not. It's a tricky business, so it's best to stay clear of that minefield.

All over America, rapists are getting off. High powered tactical legal jugglers are getting them off.

Again, if they're exonerated of the crime of rape, calling them "rapists" is the sort of thing that, combined with your sizable net worth, attracts the attention of those jugglers.

These legal jugglers begin by seeking out accomplices--people to sit on the jury. People with thinking sympathetic to their plight. People just like...well, you, Monster.

As the father of daughters, I believe I can be sympathetic both to victims and to the falsely accused.

At what age in a man's life can he, should he, unequivocally be held [absolutely] responsible for his actions?

I'd say that point comes before he is considered responsible for my actions in the form of being able to vote for the laws that constrain my liberty (either directly in initiative/referendum and New England town-meeting style democracy or indirectly through representatives) and to sit on juries that decide cases brought under those laws. Since the Constitution essentially forbids excluding anyone 18 or older from voting on the basis of age, that clearly requires we demand men to be fully responsible before that.

For millenia, Jewish boys have stood before their communities at age 13 and announced "Today I am a man." I'd say that gives us a lower bound.

Two men are on trial for taking indecent liberties with a minor, one 23 and the other 40.
The 23 yr old will be convicted, but probably with a lighter sentence.
The 40 yr old will be convicted, but with a heavier sentence.

I don't believe that's consistent with the notion of "equal justice" and "equal protection under the law." I don't think the victim of the 23-year-old deserves less protection than the victim of the 40-year-old. I think that the unequal sentences in those cases represent an emotional response to a man who chooses significantly-younger sex partners, like, say, Hugh Hefner and his stable of playmates. We just think that's icky, but so long as his paramours can and do legally consent to the relationship, the fact I find it distasteful is irrelevant. I have no right to intervene in the matter, and therefore no just power of a government can be derived from my desire to have it do so as my agent.

The jury is thinking, the 23 yr old hasn't grown up yet, but still must be punished. Too bad he's thrown his life away. At least that's what a good lawyer will have them thinking.

But he has grown up. Or he should have anyway. But now we have enshrined into law that through age 26 your parents' insurance company has to offer to cover you on their policy. It's ridiculous on its face. If you're not responsible for yourself, you can't be responsible for us all as a voter and juror.

[Sentence them both...but castrate the one before sentencing. The filthy SOB!]
You don't understand that?

I understand that some people think this way, but it's wrong. The 23-year-old should be just as responsible as the 40-year-old. I think we're prolonging childhood artificially, and creating the expectation that it's OK for the 23-year-old to be irresponsible.

I mentioned before that in the old days a boy became a man at 13. Children are physically maturing faster now than they did then, but we're deliberately retarding them socially. We're telling them to screw around (in many senses of the phrase) and not bother to grow up until they're in their late 20s. That's a recipe for disaster.

Children aged seven to fourteen (13 years, 364 days 23'59'59" aged) were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong.[1] Children fourteen and older were presumed capable of committing a crime.

That's awfully close to the Bar Mitzvah age.

But people like you, don't believe its any worse. That's why you are picked as a juror by the defense

You have it backwards. I don't believe the 23-year-old is any less bad than the 40-year-old. I want the case against either of them to be proven, but once I'm satisfied of their guilt, they both get equally convicted and punished.

No wonder children cannot count on the legal system to protect them. Too many cancerous minds.

See, here's where it reads to me like you think my unwillingness to cut the 23-year-old a break for being immature is "cancerous". I think it's just plain "justice" to punish them both equally for the same crime.

But if you think, seriously think, that in the minds and hearts of the average human, and especially to the victim's' family, that it isn't worse, that the average loved one doesn't want to castrate the 40 year old, then you really have issues.

There's a reason we don't let the victim's family on the jury. Of course they want to castrate him, even if he's innocent, just like that poor father who killed that kid in Texas.

And if you yourself don't feel that way, then I really wouldn't feel comfortable with you within 300 yards of my niece.

See, you're back to implying that you think I'm a sexual predator who would ravage your niece again. There's no place for that; no matter how much you dislike my linguistic pedantry, it's no excuse to accuse me of ped-(something else).

That kind of baseless accusation ruins lives, and in the Texas case literally ended one.

Your rudeness is appalling to people. You are aware of it, as this is not your first time to interrupt my threads

Again, neither of us own any threads here.

Only your time is important, not any of the other people that may actually have wanted to discuss the topic.

And yet, here we are, discussing it.

Is that why you name yourself TheMonster because that's what you intend to be?

Actually, the name got stuck on my by a former co-worker. I'm 6'6" and well over 250 lbs., which seems pretty Monstrous to people, and I find fitting the etymology of the word back to the Latin verb "monstro". Since it's apparently condescending for me to explain the definition of a word, I'll trust that you know how to find an online dictionary and look it up for yourself.

And if any aspersions were cast in your direction. You cast them yourself.

Feel free to call me "pedantic" if you wish, but lay off the "ped-(other thing)", which doesn't just offend me, it makes me question how you could possibly have amassed such a huge net worth as you claim without a juggler juggling it all away from you by now.

Trataţi cu raţă

Sper că aveți consilier juridic adecvat

John Prigent wrote:Would you two please take your dispute somewhere else?
Cheers
John

I agree with John. Take this to PMs or Email. Some of the rest of us want to play in this sandbox, not avoid your fight.

I once provoked a fight with former Mayor of Portland, US Secretary of Transportation and Governor of Oregon Neil Goldschmidt by asking him if he had been motivated to molest his 13 year old baby sitter because women his own age, including his wife, kept asking him if he was in it. The 13 year old baby sitter had a very difficult, drug addicted life that recently ended with suicide. It is not a victimless crime. There is some reasonable doubt about Mayor Sam Adams (aka "Sodomy Sam") having an affair with a male intern who allegedly had become of legal age when Sam popes his cherry after his birthday. Both maintain that their earlier first kiss in the men's bathroom at city hall did not escalate to actual sexual contact.

JohnRoth wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:Because third generation prolong delays the onset of puberty and slows the process it is entirely possible that a person who is just post pubescent would be, not 15 as they would be now, but 19 or even 20. This would make the desired relationships of hebephiles and ephobophiles legal, barring a change in the age of consent.

Let's take a closer look at this. As far as I can tell, in our culture sexual relations with someone who has not matured sufficiently for the physiology, hormones, instincts and so forth to be in place and working is out. O-U-T out. Since the Honorverse is, at least in this respect, a projection of our morality, I wouldn't see this changing. If prolong causes a delay in sexual maturity, it causes a delay in the age where sexual relationships are seen as potentially legitimate.

"Age of consent" is a different issue. There's quite a bit of sentiment that our current legal definitions and age limits aren't working well. I'd think that Beowulf would have a much more rational set of legal definitions, and Manticore probably has a somewhat more conservative version of them, considering how close they are in some respects.

KNick wrote:

John Prigent wrote:Would you two please take your dispute somewhere else?
Cheers
John

I agree with John. Take this to PMs or Email. Some of the rest of us want to play in this sandbox, not avoid your fight.

After reviewing the thread I have came to the conclusion that certain people made unwarranted assumptions about someone else's reasons for nuancing their position relative to pedophilia.

IMHO, Weber's portrayal of people who look pubescent because they are on prolong being sexually active creeps me out. The Pavel Young with Honor Harrington scene in the shower conjured images of our heroine feeling threatened by a boy who is hung like a hamster. This is why I took such a liking to Abby Hearnes whose classmates described her as being "curvy" and therefore physiologically mature during that favorite shower scene in "IN THE SERVICE OF THE SWORD.".

Then again, I was an avid cougar hunter in my youth.

JohnRoth wrote:"Age of consent" is a different issue.

I don't believe it is really different. Age of consent is part of the legal codification of the moral/ethical principle that certain people are not sufficiently mature to consent to sexual acts, and therefore anyone taking advantage of that immaturity by persuading them to engage in those activities should be punished regardless of whether the victim is a willing participant.

If there is any distinction at all, it's that "age of consent" legally proscribes a subset of relationships that most people consider distasteful. Each state sets the bar a bit differently, not only for the general age of consent itself, but for the "Romeo and Juliet" cases under which both parties are under the AoC or the partner who is over AoC is still within a few years' age of the younger of the two. The extent of leniency extended to the "Romeos" varies considerably.

But the word "pedophilia" has been stretched beyond its clinical definition to become synonymous with "statutory rape", and the distinction crewdude properly makes has been eroded. But hey, language evolves, and we just need to get over it, even if that evolution leads people to conflate a true psychological disorder with a legal distinction subject to change by legislative action.


As has been amply demonstrated, one of the biggest problems with trying to deal with the issue sanely is that a lot of people seem incapable of doing so. Anyone who dares express an opinion that could by some tortured logic be interpreted as "sympathetic to the rapists" can be implicitly accused of being a proto-rapist himself.

I find it reminiscent of the scenario of a white woman having sex with a black man, then when her fther found out, rather than admitting to him that she did in fact consent, intimidated by the prospect of being called a "n****r lover", she let herself be bullied into saying it was rape. Perhaps there would be a trial, if there were a defense attorney unafraid of being an "NL" himself, to put the veneer of judical approval on the proceedings, but we know that sometimes, the lynch mob would go directly into action.

So when someone dares to honestly discuss how arresting physical maturation in the late teens (well beyond the age when it was considered normal to be married a few generations ago) for a few decades might affect any of this, the high-tech lynching naturally follows.

TheMonster wrote:<<SNIP>>
Lots of points to consider.

Now this is the type of post I expected from you in response to cthia. There was some important distinctions in your other post that got lost in the noise. Please restate them so that we may have a reasonable discussion of the points you raised about the differences in age of the various clinical definitions. They are important not only within the context of the Honorverse, but of our current society.

Without having read the entire thread I have a few comments to make.

1. There are reasons why most people do receive 3rd gen prolong at the earliest possible date, despite the fact that this might cost them in total life expectency.

As far as I can tell the reasons amount to there being issues with administering prolong to people going through pubescence, hormones going out of balance and such, and the fact that people know that waiting a year or two greatly shortens the I'm stuck in an young adolescent body phase.

2. At one point it was mentioned that the extended pregnancy duration associated with 2nt gen prolong causes the child to be unusually responsive to prolong. Honor, and maybe Elizabeth, is an example of this effect.

3. I note that no one has brought up the inverse problem, people squicked out by the thought of a 'looks like she is 12', girl finding a boyfriend.