[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]

	Originally Posted by yondyr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	erm, you're 36?

Nope. I'm 22.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

[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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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.

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

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

	Originally Posted by yondyr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I opine that would obviate the need for other taxes, given it's prevalence!

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

[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.