Oh, the drama! "Survivors"!!! Auschwitz had survivors. Gene Simmons' mom is a survivor. People whose parents starved to death in the Sahel Desert are survivors. A victim of a violent rape is a survivor. A late Senator and fine man was a survivor of an airplane crash and subsequent Hanoi Hilton imprisonment. Having received a blowjob you regret for whatever reason doesn't make you a "survivor". Inflationary use of language, let's not get carried away. The statistics of people dead from received blow jobs are insignificant - and there are likely to be worse deaths while we're at it.
You're going to nitpick a word I used? I used that to underscore one of the implied reasons (i.e. rape, as you mention, earlier in childhood) for why some people may not be ready or OK with this sort of thing (addressing the quoted post directly re any 17 year old would jump... BTW it is important to understand the distinction between actually being ready to jump at the opportunity and just agreeing with the guys that you would). I was NOT referring to Bennet as a survivor; whether he is or is not I have no bloody idea, in fact you'll notice I stayed the hell away from this thread until the discussion moved past that specific incident (which, I doubt any of us have enough information to pass any sort of public judgemnent on, but I digress).
I use that word to be respectful and because I refuse to use the word 'victim.' Trust a lawyer to take advantage of a guy's better nature in the cross examination ;P
There are plenty of things worse than being dead, but ignoring that, for someone who accuses another of misplaced hyperbole, you seem to be a rather big fan of it yourself. Nothing is wrong unless it results in death? Are you even trying?
Isn't your dad a scientist? We're mammals made to mate and breed. Lots of things people want at any given time can be problematic and regrettable in the aftermath, you wanna forbid them all?
Are you actually falling back on the obsolete (since before your time even) theory that all behaviour, syndromes, anatomy etc can be evolutionarily traced to the survival impetus? Come on man - next you'll tell me schizophrenics and homosexuals are a fiction as well. There are plenty of people who exhibit psychologies and general behaviours in direct contradiction with procreation and I don't even have to resort to the easy example I already dropped of the LGBT+ community; recluses, asexuals (and demisexuals - which are the most pertinent to the discussion at hand actually), and we could go on. Additionally, as a maturing species we have also learned to expand upon (or break through, depending on one's point of view) our programming.
No I am not suggesting any change or ban on anything. Again, my only purpose was to address some of the arguments being made because I find them very problematic (and they exist on both the left and the right, if in slightly different forms), and not to discuss the appropriate age of consent. I agree that you cannot legislate away all risk, and without it, one never develops the proper helmet (to reference the colloquial phrase) to deal with what life will throw at you, much less be in a position to dive into it and seize the day.
The alleged psychological and sociological side effects of sexual acts have been blown out of all proportion IMHO, it's a primal act. If it goes together with love, so much the better. If it doesn't, people can still enjoy it. It should neither be a life- nor world-changing matter. We've built this huge cultural and moral bogus structure around it - sacrificing all reason and proportionality in the process.
You are doing the exact thing I was trying to point out; looking at your (rather charmed, by contrast to the average, you must admit) experience and extrapolating that nobody else's is significantly different. You're neither a psychologist nor a survivor (or even friendly with survivors who have spoken about it at all to you apparently), so, what are you basing this on exactly? Yeah, maybe, just maybe, your opinion is not entirely valid here because you have exactly zero data to work from. This is not something you have actually spent considerable time investigating (whether just from your armchair or otherwise); it's off the cuff. I used to think that too, back when I was 17, but I know better now. These things are insidious and can sometimes not show up for years. We've made so much progress since Freud, As Western44 pointed out re Jung, but even he (Freud) knew this much (no I am not a particular fan nor do I take much of his theories seriously... though they do work well to describe his own behaviours, to bring this around to my point again; you can't base a universal theory on your own experience). Jung would not disagree on this bit either.
My son - like most people - probably has all kinds of issues, some of which I am no doubt to blame for. Sexual experiences with a very much older woman as an adolescent are not among the known sources of any issues I have yet noticed with him. And yes, we have deep conversations about all aspects of life, sex included. Last I heard, we were in the 21st century, not the 19th one and I faintly remember something called the "sexual revolution" in the 60ies (when I was born) - not all of which has yet been the victim of an ideological reactionary roll-back (whether religious, conservative or feminist). So, while I might not be the first to know, I generally take enough of an interest to get to know eventually.
A very loquacious way to seemingly dismiss the point, while actually fully acknowledging it. You agree that you don't actually know; you just haven't detected it. I don't doubt he's fine (nothing to detect), and that you have a good relationship; the point is if he wasn't fine about it you wouldn't necessarily be the one to know it (or to be more true to what you actually said and taking my previous paragraph into consideration, not necessarily know it
yet). This goes hand in hand with the other people, some I quoted others not, saying that they've never known this to be an issue - same thing, if it was an issue for someone you knew, their mates would not be the people they'd blab about it to. Also, I hope you realise, the fact that he mentioned that it happened to you does not preclude there being an issue (again I am not saying there is one but trying to explain that drawing conclusions from one's limited experience is usually not going to lead one to the truth, though it certainly works to reinforce the beliefs one already holds).
I get what you mean about modern times, but the opinions and machismo-based dismissals on display in this thread do not support your position. I have made a habit of criticising both feminists (liberals/progressives in general) and, I dunno what term to use, conservatives, I guess, as a handy catch-all, for conflating masculinity with machismo. E.G. Masculinity is not a prison, to riff off that tired slogan (certainly no more than femininity); but machismo certainly is (and on the other hand it doesn't make me less of a man to cry or wear a skirt - if I had the influence I would love to bring back tights n tunics for men; think Luke Skywalker in A New Hope - so comfy).
The (60s) sexual revolution, in some ways, was a crock. Personally I hardly think the 60s was either the begining or end of it. Knowledge of the human condition means we must throw away any argument that uses as it's base the supposition that we've figured something out perfectly already (watch the video of Woodstock - there's a lot of sex but not much of it looks too healthy or fullfilling to me). All it was was a release from, to borrow a term you like, the overwhelming prudishness of the early modern era. It certainly did very little to address other important issues around the act, such as safety (VD etc). I'd argue that, except for the vestiges of that prudish moral authority, overall progress has been made since then, but that's a whole other topic.
