Age of consent

[yondyr]

I've done a search and decided to start this thread. My concern with individual rights and obliquely libertarianism draws me to consider what the age of consent should be in an ideal society. Some laws give some rights at some age, i.e. drinking, ability to make contracts, sexual permission, driving. I would prefer to consider the subject as a whole, and confer absolute rights upon a person regardless of activity. Some under 18's are capable of making contracts to purchase goods and it would be a wise businessman who checks the ability to pay with any person. Some adults are incapable of exercising the rights bestowed upon them by reason of lesser intelligence, lack of wisdom or education, yet we accept their rights by the mere fact they have passed some chronological boundary.
We send to war those in another age group who are physically capable of bearing arms though the law bans them from exercising the rights that should perhaps accompany such a serious activity. We may tacitly accept sexual activity in say..twelve year olds, as long as we're comfortable that they're not being manipulated by older partners, which is not a defineable law.
Many of these varying laws and constraints should offend the libertarian, individual rights proponents by the very fact that the law is so arbitrarily applied... or written to target different ages or different stages of development in maturity - an unmeasureable state. Most of these laws are written in a paternalistic I-know-what's-good-for-you fashion based on religious or other so called ethics.
Consistency is lacking and that bothers me most of all. Would the world fall apart if the age of consent were lowered? Or raised?

[Lights]

I came from a fairly "libertarian" community in Wyoming. The kids drove whenever their parents thought they were ready. Which was cute when a 12 year old drove a truck into a ditch and totaled it or a 14 year old had their four wheeler roll over her and kill her. Sex was also dictated by the family's values. And there were a good share of pregnant teenagers in my town. The bars were strict about age, but that didn't stop family friends from offering me beer whenever I came to visit starting when I was about 15. I first started drinking when I was 19, and I probably should have waited until I was 21 to save myself some bad memories.

In an ideal society, parents wouldn't be stupid f*&^s who let their kids do whatever they damn well please, and individuals would be able to make intelligent decisions about when they are ready for things and how to practice them safely. Until then, I think the age of consent on everything should be 35.

[yondyr]

erm, you're 36?

[Lights]

erm, you're 36?

Nope. I'm 22. :p

I was more or less kidding. :thumbsup:

[yondyr]

lol, I was too.
Seriously though, those teenagers took responsibility for their lives when they got behind the wheel. Others of a similar age probably did too with benign results. Common sense, prudent behaviour, driving habits aren't injectable. They're learned by intelligent observation of cause and effect - safe driving habits are not suddenly acquired upon gaining a driving licence or attaining a certain age, else there would few if any adult fatalities on the roads.

[Hdier]

I think that the problem is that you can't generalize an age, as I feel that if I was educated I could drive right now, and I am horrified at the thought of having sex at my age, however there are obviously people who aren't that mature at 3 or 4 times my age. Tests can always be tricked, and shrinks for every 3 or 4 people in America would be to expensive. I'm not sure what the answer is, but none that I can think of are fair and just.

[Nomad]

Interesting subject. It's been medically proven that the part of the cortex that determines risk is not fully developed in the male until the early to mid twenties. i suspect that this is the cause of much risk taking behavior in younger males, and why, on any given day, more males are born than females, yet by the age of thirty, there are more females than males still alive the celebrate their birthday.

The disparity bothers me as well. You can go fight a war, but you can't have a beer? This makes sense, after all, if you upped the enlistment age, you'd get a lot fewer folks volunteering for military service, and if you reduced the drinking age, you'd get a lot more young people in the morgue. It's that risk assessment thing again. But that does not make it right.

That being said, we have a technologically driven society and our young people require extensive, extended training in order to be economically viable. We essentially keep our young people juveniles for far longer than nature designed.

I know a fifteen year old couple with children who farm their own land given as dowries, and are responsible, productive members of their communities. They have full voice, as adults, in their community. There is none of this half child, half adult nowhere land that exists for young people in the industrialized west.

A human child can contribute to it's own support by the age of seven, and can generally reproduce by age twelve to fourteen. That is how we evolved but it does not work in our society. Our society is artificial construct, and its mores are driven by our complexity and nonsensical, romantic Victorian age notions.

-Nomad

[xhaan]

lol, I was too.
Seriously though, those teenagers took responsibility for their lives when they got behind the wheel. Others of a similar age probably did too with benign results. Common sense, prudent behaviour, driving habits aren't injectable. They're learned by intelligent observation of cause and effect - safe driving habits are not suddenly acquired upon gaining a driving licence or attaining a certain age, else there would few if any adult fatalities on the roads.

They not only took responsibility for themslves, but for others also. Unless you want to say that people shouldn't go out at all unless they're willing to risk being run down... (of course theres that risk anyway, but why add to it needlessly?)

[Also as I mention below.. this correlates to there being a line somewhere, it just depends on if that line is set at absurdity, or closer to reason. You OBVIOUSLY will not let a 1 year old drive, even if they were physically large enough to operate the vehicle. Probably would not allow a 5 year old either. These may be absurd notions, but there is still a cutoff point there. The lower that point is, the more clearly defined it is, but as you raise it, more and more variance enters into the picture because there has been more time for differing development, or lack thereof. An average 20 something is often far more prepared to drive than a 10 year old, simply because some form of common sense and responsibility can be gained during those 20 years, even if they have never touched a car before.]

And as for age of consent, I'm with 18 in most cases, for everything, except maybe drinking... I'm a little on the fence about that one. I feel even though some mature later, and some sooner, it is not at all practical to go on a case by case basis, and also not very reliable as things can be misjudged, especially if you have morons doing the determination of someone being of age or not.

I think 18 is a good workable average. I'm usually all for flexability, but I don't think it is the best thing in this case because there are things with dire consequnces. Yes, some may fall through the cracks, I just feel it is more workable, and I definitely feel there should be a cap on things like sex, because all too often kids simply don't have enough years to gain experience. They may be mentally "more mature than thier age", but in many cases are not mature in the heart and can be manipulated or seduced by those with experience in doing such things.

[Lights]

When it comes to age of consent as far as sex, I think it would be wise to have buffers. It doesn't make sense to me to arrest an 18 year old for having consensual sex with a 16 year old. I think a 2 or 3 year buffer would be appropriate.

[xhaan]

When it comes to age of consent as far as sex, I think it would be wise to have buffers. It doesn't make sense to me to arrest an 18 year old for having consensual sex with a 16 year old. I think a 2 or 3 year buffer would be appropriate.

That could perhaps work, and does seem a bit more practical, especially on the higher end. I do thinks it's a bit unnecessary that it's not legally allowed even days before the 18 mark. I remember I was 19 and there was a 17 yo girl that I liked a whole lot, which is fine imo but we waited til her 18th birthday to really come out with the relationship, just to be safe.

[Hdier]

In Nebraska, no one over 19 can have sex with anyone under 17 (or something similar to that). It seems to be a good system.

[Lights]

What about minors having sex with minors? What age difference constitutes child molestation or statutory rape in that instance? What if a 17 year old is sleeping with a 15 year old?

[Hdier]

It's either anyone under 14, or 14 and under (I forget which) for it to be considered sexual assault of a child, which counts even if both are willing. I'm not sure how two people not yet of age would be handled.

[slut poacher]

i believe despite whatever laws are in place the rules that are going to be followed are the ones dictated by the media.if a 13 year old girl without proper parental guidance sees that it is cool and sophisticated to whore around that is exactly what is going to happen. unfortunate but true.

[yondyr]

I would prefer the term 'rape' be expunged from the lawbooks. It conjures up many kneejerk emotive reactions totally unsuited to the fair application of the law. It's mostly applied to one gender. The term should be assault, with or without bodily harm, and should be provable via damage, not he said/she said. Mental damage is unprovable and exacerbated by society's religious and moral shock at things sexual. Just surviving a physical assault renders the victim just plain lucky, for violence of any nature can often result in death.

[ShaiGar]

18 to drink
18 to enlist
15 to be tried and sentenced as an adult without ever being granted the rights of an adult...

That's how it is in australia. I think I'd prefer a world where 12 year olds fuck, have kids and kill themselves by drunk driving on a quadbike. At least in a world like that the stupidity of people would have lethal consequences. I had my first beer at 13, and my first cigarettes then too... I quit smoking after my second one because of the horrid taste and cough. I stopped beer too. I started really drinking at 15 because dad would share a bottle of wine with me at dinner on a friday or saturday night.

I suppose Intelligent parents helped, but there were plenty of opportunities to join the rest of the kids in high school having sex and getting wasted on rum. But then I might be with the majority of them already married to fuckwits or dead from drunk driving.





ShaiGar added to this post, 1 minutes and 16 seconds later...

I would prefer the term 'rape' be expunged from the lawbooks. It conjures up many kneejerk emotive reactions totally unsuited to the fair application of the law. It's mostly applied to one gender. The term should be assault, with or without bodily harm, and should be provable via damage, not he said/she said. Mental damage is unprovable and exacerbated by society's religious and moral shock at things sexual. Just surviving a physical assault renders the victim just plain lucky, for violence of any nature can often result in death.
Damn right, I'd rather be raped than killed.
good idea for a thread.

[Lights]

I would prefer the term 'rape' be expunged from the lawbooks. It conjures up many kneejerk emotive reactions totally unsuited to the fair application of the law. It's mostly applied to one gender. The term should be assault, with or without bodily harm, and should be provable via damage, not he said/she said. Mental damage is unprovable and exacerbated by society's religious and moral shock at things sexual. Just surviving a physical assault renders the victim just plain lucky, for violence of any nature can often result in death.

Ah, the stigma resulting from violating social norms. Mores truly are humanity's alternative to rational thought. Whenever I hear a religious person complaining about the degradation of the precious "social structure", a little part of me jumps with joy because it means we are progressing.

In Idaho, the law is written so only a man can commit rape. :rolleyes: I also find it funny, that by just using the word rape, people can be stirred into a rage and demand terrible punishments for the violator, without knowing any of the circumstances. We really do blindly follow our expectations. Everyone wants to kill child molesters, despite the reality that they often suffer from mental illness and were probably sexually abused as children. How quickly we forget that the worst monsters were once probably the worst victims.

But we love to be certain of right and wrong, and so we pretend that all cases are the same and that we are justified in stigmatizing people as monsters and victims without ever having to bother with the circumstances of each situation. And yet we are suppose to be so much smarter than the primate societies we seem to be emulating.

[xhaan]

I would prefer the term 'rape' be expunged from the lawbooks. It conjures up many kneejerk emotive reactions totally unsuited to the fair application of the law. It's mostly applied to one gender. The term should be assault, with or without bodily harm, and should be provable via damage, not he said/she said. Mental damage is unprovable and exacerbated by society's religious and moral shock at things sexual. Just surviving a physical assault renders the victim just plain lucky, for violence of any nature can often result in death.

It is hard to judge because it is not visible yes, but that does not make it ok. Emotional trauma can be and often is worse than physical trauma... Some are assaulted because they can not fight back, i.e. disabled, and therefore may have no physical injury because no resistance was made. Same case with others who choose not to physically resist for fear of it being worse, or dissociate out of shock.

And yes, "sexual assault" is often viewed as a "man thing", but women can do it too.

What about minors having sex with minors? What age difference constitutes child molestation or statutory rape in that instance? What if a 17 year old is sleeping with a 15 year old?

IMO, at that age, and younger, if the years are close and they are mature enough to understand the ramifications of a sexual relationship (i.e. babies can come from this, and having a baby is a big responsibility), then fine, but if they don't realize what they are doing, i don't think it should be automatically classified as rape, or an assault, because they may be naive and simply exploring something that feels good to them. I feel such cases should be given some guidance about the workings of a sexual relationship rather than going off on how bad and terrible and wrong it is.

Damn right, I'd rather be raped than killed.
good idea for a thread.

I'd rather kick some ass and risk being killed for it than be "raped".
Not because of moral aversion to sex itself, but because it is my body, nobody else owns it nor can they presume what to do with it, especially with malevolent intent. To me a non-injurious assault is still an assault, my space is not to be violated without my permission, I'd fight just on that principal itself.
Also, I understand that people can be mentally ill, but I'd still kick their ass if i had to, being sick does not make it ok, just as I would not stand there and say "ok, I'll let you shoot me because I know you have mental issues and it isn't your fault."

That's how it is in australia. I think I'd prefer a world where 12 year olds fuck, have kids and kill themselves by drunk driving on a quadbike. At least in a world like that the stupidity of people would have lethal consequences. I had my first beer at 13, and my first cigarettes then too... I quit smoking after my second one because of the horrid taste and cough. I stopped beer too. I started really drinking at 15 because dad would share a bottle of wine with me at dinner on a friday or saturday night.

It's not necessarily only lethal for themselves you know. If it were, then I'd say "why not?" Stupidity begets stupidity, as some stupid people survive to have other stupid, smaller people. Education kills stupidity more often than consequences.

And another edit:
I feel that children should not be exposed to potentially harmful influences too early. Take alcohol for example. When a kid sees you having a drink, will you be confident that you can explain to them about the possibility of getting drunk and doing stupid things, without having them think you are just bullshitting and simply don't want to share with them something they want? Just having it in front of them and telling them they can't have it is enough to make them want it more, especially if they do not trust or comprehend what you say. It is sometimes the teacher who is stupid, and not the student.

[iamnotspock]

K.I.S.S. 18 for everything.

[yondyr]

If prosecutions didn't ensue for underage 18 sex, then ignoring laws makes a mockery of them, don't you think?

[iamnotspock]

If prosecutions didn't ensue for underage 18 sex, then ignoring laws makes a mockery of them, don't you think?

Yes. Kids should keep their pants on. But if they don't, it ought to be more like speeding or jay walking than rape or murder. The punishment must fit the crime. A $50 fine might be appropriate. Jail would not.

[yondyr]

I opine that would obviate the need for other taxes, given it's prevalence!

[Lights]

I opine that would obviate the need for other taxes, given it's prevalence!

:laugh:

[ShaiGar]

But you just KNOW they won't remove other taxes, even if it DOES pay off the U.S. Debt.

[Antares]

It's not right to generalize age, since age =/= maturity. I am appalled by some of the things the adults around me do, and in that sense, they're in no way more mature than I, and some of them are triple my age. Even with that said, there must be an age (I'd just say 18 since I have no better idea). For me, I wish independence and capability of legal consent would come earlier because not to sound arrogant, I think I'm old enough mentally. For some, 18 is way to young. For a few others, they're never mature enough. But there must be an age, and the more accepted 18 sounds great to me.

I had my first drink at the age of eight. Still drink socially sometimes when I'm at business parties with my parents' colleagues (Heck. They don't care if I'm not of age), but I hate the taste of alchohol nonetheless. It's horrible. Hm... Never got drunk. Never smoked. Never had sex. For criminal trial as an adult, I think 15 or 16 would be a good age.

[yondyr]

I dislike the idea that we give no rights of self determination until 18 and that all 'adult' activities are illegal before then. Which flies in the face of reality and leaves them open to prosecution. And as you say, Camelopardalis, some NEVER achieve a prudent mind. The same mistakes are made by 40 year olds that would possibly be made by 12 year olds. I say consider when a human knows right from wrong and set the bar there - would chaos ensure any more than it does now?

[xhaan]

I dislike the idea that we give no rights of self determination until 18 and that all 'adult' activities are illegal before then. Which flies in the face of reality and leaves them open to prosecution. And as you say, Camelopardalis, some NEVER achieve a prudent mind. The same mistakes are made by 40 year olds that would possibly be made by 12 year olds. I say consider when a human knows right from wrong and set the bar there - would chaos ensure any more than it does now?

Perhaps not chaos, but certainly a lack of order.
What determines where you 'set the bar', and who is going to set it?
Parents? Parents can be idiots. Government? Government can be morons. Some sort of specialist? Specialists aren't -that- special.
A preferred system is not always a better system.

You are correct that 'some never achieve a prudent mind'. However, as I stated in a post much earlier, people with 'more years' TEND to go in that direction. As I exampled previously, you would not let a 1 year old drive, and you probably would not let a 5 year old drive, they are still developing and have not had enough time to gain maturity. Now, who is to say to a 16 year old: "ok, you are clear to drive" and then say to a 19 year old "YOU are not ready to drive yet."

How many people do YOU actually trust to make this distinction, besides yourself (which doesn't count)?

I get the feeling some here decry the 'unfairness of the system' or whatever, only due to having left over (or still experiencing) 'teen angst' and rebellion.

[OmegaPsi]

I've done a search and decided to start this thread. My concern with individual rights and obliquely libertarianism draws me to consider what the age of consent should be in an ideal society. Some laws give some rights at some age, i.e. drinking, ability to make contracts, sexual permission, driving. I would prefer to consider the subject as a whole, and confer absolute rights upon a person regardless of activity. Some under 18's are capable of making contracts to purchase goods and it would be a wise businessman who checks the ability to pay with any person. Some adults are incapable of exercising the rights bestowed upon them by reason of lesser intelligence, lack of wisdom or education, yet we accept their rights by the mere fact they have passed some chronological boundary.
We send to war those in another age group who are physically capable of bearing arms though the law bans them from exercising the rights that should perhaps accompany such a serious activity. We may tacitly accept sexual activity in say..twelve year olds, as long as we're comfortable that they're not being manipulated by older partners, which is not a defineable law.
Many of these varying laws and constraints should offend the libertarian, individual rights proponents by the very fact that the law is so arbitrarily applied... or written to target different ages or different stages of development in maturity - an unmeasureable state. Most of these laws are written in a paternalistic I-know-what's-good-for-you fashion based on religious or other so called ethics.
Consistency is lacking and that bothers me most of all. Would the world fall apart if the age of consent were lowered? Or raised?

you know...thats a good question. Unfortunatly,and I think most of us would agree, the bulk of normal society is stupid, and/or Iresponsible. So I would say its unfair to those who can handle it, but needed for those who cannot take both the positives and the negatives.

[quentin]

Anyone else here familiar with this case?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's outrageous that such an injustice could be sanctioned by the law in this day and age.

[yondyr]

Thanks, Quentin, I read the whole sorry mess. We end up shaking our heads, calling the law an ass, and seeing no enlightenment for the future.

[xhaan]

Anyone else here familiar with this case?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's outrageous that such an injustice could be sanctioned by the law in this day and age.

Yeah, I remember when that happened. It's off the deep end.

[karen]

I think the laws we have today are tricky. They can really help to stop children from being victimized. On the otherhand I have a student that is facing being permanently titled a 'sex offender' for sleeping with a 12 year old girl when he was 14 (technically they were 14 months apart in age). Is this right or just? They say the average age in which a child can handle the emotional and psychological impacts of sexual activity is 16 and that seems reasonable for most.

[Lights]

They say the average age in which a child can handle the emotional and psychological impacts of sexual activity is 16 and that seems reasonable for most.

Who says that?

[xhaan]

I think the laws we have today are tricky. They can really help to stop children from being victimized. On the otherhand I have a student that is facing being permanently titled a 'sex offender' for sleeping with a 12 year old girl when he was 14 (technically they were 14 months apart in age). Is this right or just? They say the average age in which a child can handle the emotional and psychological impacts of sexual activity is 16 and that seems reasonable for most.

Yeah, that's rediculous. A year plus two months is NOT that much of a difference.

What I wonder is, if it would go the same if -she- were 14 and he were 12, separated by the same time (14 months)

[iamnotspock]

I opine that would obviate the need for other taxes, given it's prevalence!

LOL. I can see headlines now:

SEX TAX SAVES AMERICAN ECONOMY

Social Security Crisis Averted by Contributions of Horny Underage Youngsters

Des Moines, Iowa - Here in the nation's heartland one of three people are retired, two of three people are in debt, and nobody wants to raise taxes. But behind closed doors -- of classrooms, cars, bedrooms, and the occasional barn -- the youth of Iowa are quietly, and eagerly, resolving this state's fiscal crisis. Just walk along Main St. on a crisp, still, and starless midnight in the middle of winter and you can just about hear the mattresses squeaking. It is the sound of ... tax revenues being generated.

"Well, I wasn't a big fan of pay for play when they first came up with it," admits high school junior Joe Watts, "because I figured it would cost me a bundle, personally. I mean, a typical week could run over a grand, easy, the way I roll, right guys? But, you gotta worry about the middle school kiddies, so I guess I'm down with it, yeah."

Eight grader Jamie Edwins was non-chalant, though. "Look, it's not like **I'm** gonna pay that fine, you know? That is like what guys are for, you know?"

Seventh grader Adam Rorr agreed. "Unquestionably, I would pay the fine if I were caught with Jamie. Absolutely. In fact, I would be willing to put up the money up front, just to allay any concerns Jamie might have about that particular issue. If that is her concern, it is taken care of." He added, "But we are probably dealing with a hypothetical here. I mean, Jamie Edwins? Does she even know who I am?"

This reporter could not confirm whether Jamie Edwins knows who he is as Ms. Edwins' spokesperson only said, "Yaaa.. that is a no comment. But was that the kid with the pic of Ryan Seacrest on his MySpace page? Or did he have the chimpanzee porn? Never mind." In any case, members of the evangelical community were more out-spoken.

C.J. Hampton, 74, is a retired mill worker, part-time Internet Bible sales-person, and co-cordinator of the local God-a-thon (motto: "Run for God. He would run for you. If he had legs. But, God did not evolve from an ape.") He said, "Did you ever have one of those hampsters? You know, those blessed li'l gerbil creatures that run around in the woodchips and the maze, bite your kids' fingers and poo on them when they get sqeezed too hard, and then get out from their maze one day and pop their ticker under your sink?"

No, but --

"My point is, these critters spend all day running around in that wheel, which just turns and turns, and you just look at those things, running and running, and you think, my Golly, what if we could harness all that energy? Is that not what Jesus would do?"

This reporter could not confirm if that's what Jesus would --

"Well, that is what this tax did. It harnessed all that energy. So any time this town is short of cash, we know where to go, and I've been keeping especial track of where to find it."

Hampton admitted the tax was not quite fair, though, since the underage couldn't actually vote on it.

"But how else are we going to fund Medicare when Viagra is $40 a pop? We can't always be running to Mexico every time a Yanni Live from Machu-Pichu special comes on Lifetime and Ma gets in the mood."

So true, so true. Yet the greater debate in the coummunity centers on gays. Technically, sex as defined by the statute regulating the fine, requires a man and a woman. Thus, gay "sex" is not actually sex, meaning it is not fined. And doesn't that just encourage kids to become gay?

Local gay feminist rights leader and trial attorney Anne DeWatt Downing-Segeforth, II took time out from the nineteenth round of an elimination Steel Cage Roller Derby Champion Match Up to assail the bill from the other side.

"In fact, it's blatantly discriminatory ** against ** gays, in particular women, by dint of its failure to acknowledge that gay people even have sex, or could be women, or for that matter that penetration, per se, as set forth in the statute, must involve a man."

She suggested that the gay feminist legal community might sponsor an under-age "love-in" to protest their inability to be legally fined for illegal acts, though the precise means of penetration "would have to be worked out."

Let's just hope she doesn't meet the gerbil guy.

-- From Iowa, this is iamnotspock reporting. Back to you in the studio.

[yondyr]

LOL you're a hoot!, (and a very literate one.)

[iamnotspock]

He he. Glad you liked it. I just get these random thoughts all the time . . .

[danalaina]

Consistency is lacking and that bothers me most of all. Would the world fall apart if the age of consent were lowered? Or raised?

i agree with you that there should be a consistent age of consent for rights conferred to adults...that's always bothered me too.

i think it should actually be higher than 18. seems to me, the more technology advances, the more complex it becomes to be young. i think growing up takes longer now than it did in, say, the Middle Ages.

though my opinion doesn't really have anything to do with morality, where sexuality is concerned, i think the extra time might be helpful. i don't at all like the idea of sexually active 12-year-olds...childhood is short enough as it is.

without a loving and supportive home life, though, no age of consent could be enough, so this might be moot.





danalaina added to this post, 2 minutes and 53 seconds later...

[stuff.]

i wish i'd read your post before adding mine. i could probably have squeaked by with "ditto."

[OmegaPsi]

Consistency is lacking and that bothers me most of all. Would the world fall apart if the age of consent were lowered? Or raised?

Here in SC, they lowered the age of consent for sex to 14 from 16

[xhaan]

i agree with you that there should be a consistent age of consent for rights conferred to adults...that's always bothered me too.

i think it should actually be higher than 18. seems to me, the more technology advances, the more complex it becomes to be young. i think growing up takes longer now than it did in, say, the Middle Ages.

though my opinion doesn't really have anything to do with morality, where sexuality is concerned, i think the extra time might be helpful. i don't at all like the idea of sexually active 12-year-olds...childhood is short enough as it is.

without a loving and supportive home life, though, no age of consent could be enough, so this might be moot.


Well, I don't like the idea of sexually active 12 year olds either, but I don't think it should be 'illegalized' to the point where a 14 year old can get in TROUBLE FOR LIFE for having sex with a 12 year old.

Come on, it's two years! That amount of time is not even considered much when both are over 18, or whatever the legal adult age is. Yes, 30 year olds sleeping with 12 year olds is quite different, but 14 vs. 12 is NOT.

[rocksteady]

A human child can contribute to it's own support by the age of seven, and can generally reproduce by age twelve to fourteen. That is how we evolved but it does not work in our society. Our society is artificial construct, and its mores are driven by our complexity and nonsensical, romantic Victorian age notions.

good stuff! We humans don't really need an age of consent, but when society imposes one, we adapt to it.

[xhaan]

good stuff! We humans don't really need an age of consent, but when society imposes one, we adapt to it.

Perhaps we should have kids do all the labor, baby making, farming, and 'adults' can have all the fun and toys.

Edit:
Also, industrialism and human society IS evolution. We wouldn't be talking right now if it weren't for industry.

If one doesn't agree with human society, it may be time for him to go live with some monkeys and tigers.

Another edit, since I'm in a pissy mood right now:
Let's take away 'artifical constructs of human society'.
Now I can KILL you, and take your house and food for myself. And eat your children. But I'll save your pubescent females in order to procreate my offspring.

[PortInStorm]

just a quick aside:

re: not being sexually manipulated by an older partner not being definable

I think we either have a law or are in the process of passing one that defines it by age gap. People under a certain age are being manipulated if the partner is x # of years older than the "manipulat-ee" :thinking:or more.

[rocksteady]

Perhaps we should have kids do all the labor, baby making, farming, and 'adults' can have all the fun and toys.

Edit:
Also, industrialism and human society IS evolution. We wouldn't be talking right now if it weren't for industry.

If one doesn't agree with human society, it may be time for him to go live with some monkeys and tigers.

Another edit, since I'm in a pissy mood right now:
Let's take away 'artifical constructs of human society'.
Now I can KILL you, and take your house and food for myself. And eat your children. But I'll save your pubescent females in order to procreate my offspring.

I'm not sure what you are so mad at, I was merely stating that in nature these things are not necessary, it is social constructs that make these things necessary, and we adapt to them.

point being,the older you make the age, the longer it takes to "grow up", it has nothing to do with making children work or any of that non-sense. Obviously small children should be sheltered from a few things, but the general idea is that society creates these "childhoods" and they are pretty arbitrarily decided in regards to physical development.

[yondyr]

lol 2nd, I can just see it. Cops carrying a sliding scale, if you're x then you can screw y but not z, but if you had a birthday yesterday all the z's become available, but not yet the b's...

[Lights]

I'm not sure what you are so mad at, I was merely stating that in nature these things are not necessary, it is social constructs that make these things necessary, and we adapt to them.

That sounds exactly like something Kinsey would say. Sociology isn't immune to the laws of evolution. Social conventions and constructs must have evolved out of a need for such things. At one point or another, there must have been a clear need for an age of consent even if there isn't one now.

[rocksteady]

That sounds exactly like something Kinsey would say. Sociology isn't immune to the laws of evolution. Social conventions and constructs must have evolved out of a need for such things. At one point or another, there must have been a clear need for an age of consent even if there isn't one now.

I don't know if there was a clear need, but can you concede the point that our biological systems have not changed, but the age of consent has fluctuated based on cultural whims?

basically what I am saying is that it doesn't matter what the age of consent is ( as long as really small children are protected), we will adapt.

[Lights]

I don't know if there was a clear need, but can you concede the point that our biological systems have not changed, but the age of consent has fluctuated based on cultural whims?

basically what I am saying is that it doesn't matter what the age of consent is ( as long as really small children are protected), we will adapt.

But we have changed considerably. Better nutrition has resulted in marked earlier sexual development in children. Overtime, we have also increased the lifespan of most people. So you have a populace that is living longer and children who are developing younger and younger. I would say that an age of consent could be considered imperative under those conditions. Why do we even have an age of consent? It's to protect younger people from being exploited by older people. At what age would you consider most children have the mental capacity to protect themselves from be sexually exploited? Psychological development in children hasn't changed considerably over the course of that last 50 years. So there appear to be biological, psychological, and sociocultural reasons that we have an age of consent.

[rocksteady]

So you have a populace that is living longer and children who are developing younger and younger.

I would say that an age of consent could be considered imperative under those conditions.

I don't see the correlation.

I believe the parents should be allowed to make the decision, regardless of age.

I believe each child is different and different rules apply for each child. The only person truly qualified to make that decision is the parents, there is no need for a government enforced "age of consent"

I also don't understand how longer lifespans have anything to do with the need for an age of consent?

[Lights]

I don't see the correlation.

I believe the parents should be allowed to make the decision, regardless of age.

I believe each child is different and different rules apply for each child. The only person truly qualified to make that decision is the parents, there is no need for a government enforced "age of consent"

I also don't understand how longer lifespans have anything to do with the need for an age of consent?

A good rule of thumb except for two problems.

1. The person most likely to sexually abuse a child is a male figure in the family, usually the father or an older sibling.
2. Other countries such as Thailand where age of consent laws are lax, prove that parents will willfully sell their children into prostitution.

It also isn't uncommon for families to intentionally overlook sexual abuse, especially if it is between siblings. Some pedophiles have gotten away with molesting children for years and years because they can convince the parents that what they are doing is for the good of the child. Parents are by no means perfect, and the belief that they always know what is best for their children may be a little foolhardy.

[rocksteady]

A good rule of thumb except for two problems.

1. The person most likely to sexually abuse a child is a male figure in the family, usually the father or an older sibling.


how does an age of consent do anything to stop this?

also how do you make the leap from weak age of consent laws to selling children into slavery? how are those connected at all?

age of consent has nothing to do with any of this, you are clearly grasping at straws here, I am having trouble following your logic. Some bad parents in thailand have nothing to do with establishing an age of consent.

[Lights]

how does an age of consent do anything to stop this?

also how do you make the leap from weak age of consent laws to selling children into slavery? how are those connected at all?

age of consent has nothing to do with any of this, you are clearly grasping at straws here, I am having trouble following your logic. Some bad parents in thailand have nothing to do with establishing an age of consent.

I figured it was clear. You made the argument that parents are the best people to make the decision about when their kids are ready for sex. I made two arguments for why that isn't true. One, parents are the most likely to sexually abuse their child or allow a sibling or relative to do it. Two, it's evident from other examples that parents can make absolutely terrible decisions for their children, even selling them into prostitution.

[rocksteady]

I figured it was clear. You made the argument that parents are the best people to make the decision about when their kids are ready for sex. I made two arguments for why that isn't true. One, parents are the most likely to sexually abuse their child or allow a sibling or relative to do it. Two, it's evident from other examples that parents can make absolutely terrible decisions for their children, even selling them into prostitution.

Yeah but an age of consent doesn't do anything to stop those problems, they aren't valid counter-points.

[Lights]

Yeah but an age of consent doesn't do anything to stop those problems, they aren't valid counter-points.

I'm not saying it does. I'm leaving it to your imagination what it would be like if we didn't have an age of consent and we left it to parents to decide. Your argument was that leaving it to the parents would be better, and I made those counter points to prove that it wouldn't. To the contrary, I can't see how it would be anything but worse. If parents are the most likely to sexually abuse children or allow others to sexually abuse them, do you think that it would be better if parents were given the complete power to decide when their children are ready for sex? In your proposed society, parents could let pedophiles sleep with their children with no penalty. Is that better?

[iamnotspock]

Well, I would have to call this one in favor of the INFJ ;-)

[rocksteady]

I'm not saying it does. I'm leaving it to your imagination what it would be like if we didn't have an age of consent and we left it to parents to decide. Your argument was that leaving it to the parents would be better, and I made those counter points to prove that it wouldn't. To the contrary, I can't see how it would be anything but worse. If parents are the most likely to sexually abuse children or allow others to sexually abuse them, do you think that it would be better if parents were given the complete power to decide when their children are ready for sex? In your proposed society, parents could let pedophiles sleep with their children with no penalty. Is that better?

I just want to see some numbers that support this.

I really don't think if you gave parents the responsibility (in a civilized country) they would start letting pedophiles sleep with their children. it seems like an irrational fear, unnecessary.

I am more worried about 18 year old kids that are in jail for having sex with 16 years olds.

[Hdier]

Yeah, rocksteady, you are the one who is grasping at straws. Lights has provided a real-world example of why allowing the parents decide would probably make things worse. Also, you are twisting words just a little bit; in post #51 you left out his second point, and talked about kids being sold into slavery rather than prostitution, which is a difference especially when you say that selling kids into slavery has no correlation to age of consent right after words.

Also, saying that legalizing something because it will happen anyway (in post #53) is not, in my opinion, a valid argument.

[yondyr]

ok, another way of approaching the problem. Dangle enough money, toys, candy in front of a young person and you can gain their acceptance (consent) to all sorts of acitvities. At what age does/should the state step in to bar their involvement, and at what age should the state step back and allow such?

[Lights]

ok, another way of approaching the problem. Dangle enough money, toys, candy in front of a young person and you can gain their acceptance (consent) to all sorts of acitvities. At what age does/should the state step in to bar their involvement, and at what age should the state step back and allow such?

There is no universal answer for that. However, I would say that the age of consent probably needs to be lowered to 16 since demographically, most people first have sex between the ages of 16 and 18. It would probably also be wise to have a buffer of 2 years. I believe most states have it that way.

[rocksteady]

ok, what is worse -

parents overfeeding their children and shortening their lifespans

Parents sending their kids to jesus camp for brainwashing

parents using their children for income in the sex trade

I'd say these are all eqaully bad, yet for some reason the government only intervenes in one instance. We allow parents free reign in every other aspect of the childs life, even if it is destructive, so what is it about sex that creates the need for a law? I think brainwashing and slowly killing your children is just as sick and twisted as sex crimes.

My point being, the socio/economic problems in those countries are what causes the problems, not the actual laws. Laws reflect the views of a society, and a law is usually a knee-jerk reaction from people that aren't always all that smart. Who are we to judge Thailand through our moral lens, when we have similar problems? There are other more effective ways to curb undesirable behavior, that's my main point.

If your laws are so effective, why do we still have pedophile problems in America, where we strictly enforce age of consent?

[PortInStorm]

lol 2nd, I can just see it. Cops carrying a sliding scale, if you're x then you can screw y but not z, but if you had a birthday yesterday all the z's become available, but not yet the b's...
Technically, that could happen, but it's not likely that a younger person is looking to have sex with whoever they can find (and by younger I mean 14 or so and younger, our age of consent- yes older teens are a lot hornier), and a cop is charging some of their sex partners by age but not others.

Realistically, kids under 14 are either having sex with others within a few years of their age group (a typical romantic relationship), or vastly older (ie. teachers, adults in their life etc. that would be considered sexually manipulative).

If there is a sexual partner that just squeaks outside of the age discrepancy limit, I wonder why both partners didn't know they were breaking the law? If you can't get the other person's age straight (and/or you were easy to lie to because you had known the partner for 15 minutes), should you be having sex? Are you ready to potentially become a parent? It's not a perfect law, but as good a boundary as you're going to get, in my mind anyways. Better than a straight age of consent.

[Hdier]

Here's the problem with that though:

A 25 year old and 36 year old fall in love and want to get married. They can never legally have sex because they are 11 years apart.

Unless there are conditions that can be met to legalize this?

[yondyr]

I had hoped we could separate the two - the urge to have sex and the urge to be a parent. Unfortunately, the means to prevent the latter are less available to the very young, because it's illegal.
I put this whole thread out to promote the lowering of the legal age of consent because they've already taken that step in many cases and making them criminals never has quenched that basic human drive.

[Lights]

ok, what is worse -

parents overfeeding their children and shortening their lifespans

Parents sending their kids to jesus camp for brainwashing

parents using their children for income in the sex trade

I'd say these are all eqaully bad, yet for some reason the government only intervenes in one instance. We allow parents free reign in every other aspect of the childs life, even if it is destructive, so what is it about sex that creates the need for a law? I think brainwashing and slowly killing your children is just as sick and twisted as sex crimes.

My point being, the socio/economic problems in those countries are what causes the problems, not the actual laws. Laws reflect the views of a society, and a law is usually a knee-jerk reaction from people that aren't always all that smart. Who are we to judge Thailand through our moral lens, when we have similar problems? There are other more effective ways to curb undesirable behavior, that's my main point.

If your laws are so effective, why do we still have pedophile problems in America, where we strictly enforce age of consent?

Ummm...no.

First off, I find it reprehensible that you consider obesity and religion to be equitable to child prostitution. Even with your argument that parents are endangering their kid's health or manipulating the way they think, it just doesn't come off as comparable to the damage caused by sexual abuse and molestation. Second, we don't allow parents free reign in every other aspect of their child's life. If they abuse, neglect, or endanger a child, then you can be sure a social worker will be knocking at their door. Third, I hope the laws aren't the cause of the actual problems as that would defeat the purpose of having the laws. Fourth, socio-economic issues do cause a lot of the problems, but not all them. Fifth, rich Westerners are the biggest consumers of 3rd world child prostitution, so I think it makes sense since we are a part of the problem, that we should work with 3rd world countries to resolve it. There wouldn't be a real market without us. Sixth, there are more effective methods, and we do utilize them in accordance with the laws. Seventh, by your logic we should do away with laws regarding homicide, fraud, rape, etc. because those things still exist in our country.

I'm sorry, but rocky, that last post seemed to be bordering on delusional.

[yondyr]

Actually, I like that rocksteady brought in other aspects of this subject, since sex is just one of many rights we choose to endow on young people at an arbitrary age, regardless of maturity. One might say sexual manipulation, brainwashing, unhealthy nutrition and lack of education are all valid concerns, with possibly physical and mental problems down the road, although if we didn't lay on them the religious shock/horror response to the former (sexual), the long term effects might be minimised.

[Lights]

Actually, I like that rocksteady brought in other aspects of this subject, since sex is just one of many rights we choose to endow on young people at an arbitrary age, regardless of maturity. One might say sexual manipulation, brainwashing, unhealthy nutrition and lack of education are all valid concerns, with possibly physical and mental problems down the road, although if we didn't lay on them the religious shock/horror response to the former (sexual), the long term effects might be minimised.

Are you suggesting that the only negative implications to sexual abuse/molestation and child prostitution are the result of sociocultural perspectives?

[yondyr]

I am suggesting that there are many experiences young people (or anyone for that matter) endure from peer humiliation, accidents, breakdowns, health problems, assault, etc that need have little long term damage if handled in a sensible manner. And I prefer not to deal in absolutes, thank you.

[Lights]

I am suggesting that there are many experiences young people (or anyone for that matter) endure from peer humiliation, accidents, breakdowns, health problems, assault, etc that need have little long term damage if handled in a sensible manner. And I prefer not to deal in absolutes, thank you.

Very well. As a social work major with quite a bit of experience in this particular area, I'm curious what you would consider to be a "sensible manner" in handling sexual abuse, molestation, and child prostitution. What would you suggest be done differently?

[yondyr]

I would suggest not communicating a sympathy for the victim that encourages self pity, self disgust, self deserving, contamination or wallowing over what in many cases is a form of assault upon the person. Assault victims are encouraged to put it behind them and move on once their wounds are healed. We might look askance at victims of robbery with violence who consider themselves permanently unclean and unable to function.

[Lights]

I would suggest not communicating a sympathy for the victim that encourages self pity, self disgust, self deserving, contamination or wallowing over what in many cases is a form of assault upon the person. Assault victims are encouraged to put it behind them and move on once their wounds are healed. We might look askance at victims of robbery with violence who consider themselves permanently unclean and unable to function.

The stigma of sexual abuse and the accompanying victimhood has a lot more to do with sensationalized media and the inability of people to openly discuss it than when a person is allowed to have sex. Psychologists and social workers are trained in how to minimize trauma with sexually misused and exploited people, even to the point in some cases that we aren't even allowed to call them victims anymore.

[yondyr]

I'm glad to hear it.
My original intent was not to dwell on the sexual aspects of age of consent but of all the limitations that are placed on the young.

[Lights]

I'm glad to hear it.
My original intent was not to dwell on the sexual aspects of age of consent but of all the limitations that are placed on the young.

What limitations did you have in mind?

[yondyr]

Drinking alcohol, making contracts, emancipation, military service, compulsory schooling are a few that come to mind.

[Lights]

Drinking alcohol, making contracts, emancipation, military service, compulsory schooling are a few that come to mind.

I can understand your argument that you believe such ages are arbitrary but in some cases the laws do make a lot of sense for more than ethical or religious reasons.

The simple fact of the matter is that children aren't the same as adults and they usually have neither the cognitive capability, nor the maturity and experience to make the best judgments. That is just common sense. Developmental psychology points out stages of cognitive development (Piaget (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) and limitations that occur all the way into adolescence. So it doesn't even makes sense to discuss these limitations for anyone under the age of 14-15. Many countries actually use this information to justify an age of consent of 16. For example I believe fewer than 10% of nations actually have an age of consent set at 18 or above for sexual age of consent (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

In addition to that there is biological and demographic information available which justifies things like drinking age. Alcohol consumption is proven to have a substantially detrimental effect on developing minds and bodies and predispose young drinkers to behavioral problems later in life. There is evidence of this in adults all the way up to the age of 25.

[PortInStorm]

Here's the problem with that though:

A 25 year old and 36 year old fall in love and want to get married. They can never legally have sex because they are 11 years apart.

Unless there are conditions that can be met to legalize this?
Yep, the age gap law is only when the youngest is below the age of consent.

[rocksteady]

The main point I am trying to make is that laws and policies are one size fits all solutions, and that is clearly not effective. Everyone has different needs, and those most qualified (parents) should be given most of the decision making power. I don't think that getting rid of a few laws would deconstruct society. You ignore human nature in favor of laws.



Ummm...no.

it just doesn't come off as comparable to the damage caused by sexual abuse and molestation.

so you are telling me that -

if a girl gets raped/assulted once when she is 16, and grows up and gets married and has kids, the damage that is done to her is

INCOMPARABLE

to being taught bad eating habits and living a life of obesity and dying of diabetes complications at 50?

who made you this moral/ethical judge of what kind of trauma is worse?

[yondyr]

*smiles sweetly all around* Is this the point where once again we need to agree to disagree? I have no wish to reiterate my points, actually I had no specific points except the dismay at the variable age the law is applied. One thing I'm wondering since it points to a legal acceptance of cognisance of right/wrong..could anyone tell me the youngest age that a person is able to be charged for a crime as an adult? Yanno, those heinous shock/horror acts that make prosecutors push for greater accountability. Or, sighs, is THAT variable according to states too?

[rocksteady]

*smiles sweetly all around* Is this the point where once again we need to agree to disagree? I have no wish to reiterate my points, actually I had no specific points except the dismay at the variable age the law is applied. One thing I'm wondering since it points to a legal acceptance of cognisance of right/wrong..could anyone tell me the youngest age that a person is able to be charged for a crime as an adult? Yanno, those heinous shock/horror acts that make prosecutors push for greater accountability. Or, sighs, is THAT variable according to states too?

I've heard it as young as 16. Can't have sex with a 19 year old, but can be charged for murder.

That is probably the real issue, finding out at what age the threat of legal punishment actually becomes an effective crime deterrent.

Again, an exercise in futility due to difference in maturation rates, so why even try to get involved, knowing it will probably cause a great deal of people more harm than good?

[Lights]

The main point I am trying to make is that laws and policies are one size fits all solutions, and that is clearly not effective. Everyone has different needs, and those most qualified (parents) should be given most of the decision making power. I don't think that getting rid of a few laws would deconstruct society. You ignore human nature in favor of laws.

I already made the argument that parents aren't the best people to give sole power to, but I'll agree to disagree with you.

if a girl gets raped/assulted once when she is 16, and grows up and gets married and has kids, the damage that is done to her is

INCOMPARABLE

to being taught bad eating habits and living a life of obesity and dying of diabetes complications at 50?

who made you this moral/ethical judge of what kind of trauma is worse?

:rolleyes:

Nope, actually the case you described would probably be worse for the second person. Of course that really has nothing to do with the argument when you say, Person A had no long term bad effects but Person B did have long term bad effects, so Person B has it worse. Not at all a logical way to make an argument for your case. I could just as easily make this case.

if a girl gets raped/assulted once when she is 12, and ends up pregnant, with HIV and serious bahavioral problems that affect her ability to function in society is

INCOMPARABLE

to being taught bad eating habits and living a life of obesity and dying of heart disease at the age of 80?

When you set your own terms, then you can easily weigh the argument to your benefit. But that isn't how it works. The reality is that people who are sexually abused generally face far more challenges and complications than people who are obese. But even comparing them in the first place is like comparing apples to oranges. One is an often traumatic event forced upon a person and the other is a behavior a person can learn to overcome.