GirlChat #592346
1. Let us be rational instead of falling into the unproven and the hysteric. That story has had no independent verification. It is extremely hard to believe. There is no organ in a girl's genitalia (or anusÂ…) whose sudden damage is deadly, the way the heart and lungs, for instance, would be. The only remaining way for her to die would be bleeding out. But, for that to happen, she would have been definitely hurt and in pain much before she got to bleeding; and bleeding non-fatally much before she was bleeding dangerously. Therefore, if the story is true, it was an intentional murder, not an act of sex. Not even rape, although it involved rape as a method of murder. The guy didn't want to have sex with her, didn't even want to rape her, but wanted to kill her. He would also find a different way to kill her if we could, magically, prevent him from using the method he did use. I trust, otoh, the core pro-contact GCers to realize if they are hurting a girl, even if accidentally and even if they realize only after she complains; and I trust them to stop immediately - and both during sex and completely independently of any sex. Intentional murder, and evidently physical assault and injury, and rape too, would still remain criminalized. Nobody is suggesting to do away with any of it. 2. It's impossible to answer to this without being more specific. Depending on exactly what you mean about parents rights, I can be for and I can be against. It also depends on how society would be built around the type of family unit you favor. For example, the BC poster Goethe has a very thorough and complete theory supporting parental rights. I would agree to live under the society he wants, though, because it does solve the issues we are facing today. In any case, my ideal of a society involves child marriage, so evidently I would have to go through parents for that unless I limited myself to orphans. |