• Age of consent should be lowered.
    608 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;28536397]They may be based on morals, but they're based on widely accepted morals. You keep saying it like only the Government holds these morals when in reality the majority of the citizens hold the same moral stance. Otherwise there'd be massive calls to change this law.[/QUOTE] The problem I have is that age of consent laws are based on very little besides morality.
[QUOTE=Lamar;28531606]The age of consent should be lowered in America. It is abnormally high and there are too many people wasting away in prison for having consensual sex acts with 14 year olds.[/QUOTE] "It is abnormally high" needs a point reference to make sense. I managed to dig up [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png"]this[/URL] diagram which shows the age of consent across the world. The highest point is age 20 in one country, which is both abnormal and high, being four years above the majority of the world's age of consent (that being 16). Some states of America have an age of consent of 18, which is less common than the majority, but not in the minority or even abnormal. It's not high in comparison to the majority either [QUOTE=Lamar;28531606]In nations that are much more physically and mentally healthy than the USA (such as Spain, where the age of consent is thirteen) it is not uncommon to see middle aged men dating thirteen year olds.[/QUOTE] While you've provided no source on nations being healthier, I've dug up [URL="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_hea_yea-health-life-expectancy-healthy-years"]this chart[/URL] showing the life expectancy of people by countries, and interestingly enough Spain is more healthy than the United States. However, the health of people shows no bearing on the age of consent in their countries. For example, Japan's (the healthiest) age of consent is 13, but Switzerland's (the second healthiest) is 18, Sweden's (the third healthiest) is 15 and Australia (the fourth healthiest) is 16. [QUOTE]There is no rational basis for these ridiculous modern laws. Thankfully the laws are going to be smashed in the coming economic collapse.[/QUOTE]The rational basis is that legally children can't make decisions, not even if you click 'I am under 18' on websites. I don't understand what you mean by 'ridiculous modern laws'. Would you like to go back to stoning people for having an affair? You also provide no source that the laws are going to be smashed in an economic collapse, or even the economic collapse you are talking about. [QUOTE=Lamar;28531606]read this to be more informed [URL]http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn/[/URL][/QUOTE] You provide a link to an insight into child porn, which has nothing to do with the age of consent, but instead has everything to do with child porn.
You're all begging the question.
[QUOTE=archangel125;28536410]Someone still developing, like a child or young teenager, simply does not understand.[/QUOTE] Because children do not receive proper education on the matter. It's not as if their brain suddenly clicks when they turn 16; "OH BOY, I UNDERSTAND SEX NOW!" Sexual education should be mandatory for all children.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536442]The problem I have is that age of consent laws are based on very little besides morality.[/QUOTE] They're there to protect the innocence of the young from being exploited by the degenerates in society. I don't agree with their rigidity in most cases, but they serve their purpose. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;28536475]Because children do not receive proper education on the matter. It's not as if their brain suddenly clicks when they turn 16; "OH BOY, I UNDERSTAND SEX NOW!" Sexual education should be mandatory for all children.[/QUOTE] Education is a part of it, but not the whole. It has to do with the development of the brain as well. I'll be more specific when I find out more.
[QUOTE=archangel125;28536476]They're there to protect the innocence of the young from being exploited by the degenerates in society.[/QUOTE] Laws should only be put in place to protect the lives of others. Innocence is nothing more than a concept; a concept which has changed very much over the years. It means nothing. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;28536476] Education is a part of it, but not the whole. It has to do with the development of the brain as well. I'll be more specific when I find out more.[/QUOTE] There should be sexual education classes starting in first grade. Sex exists and it's something that people should understand and be aware of as soon as possible. The idea that sex is evil and you should feel guilty for having sexual thoughts is why teen pregnancy, STDs, etc. are so prevalent.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536442]The problem I have is that age of consent laws are based on very little besides morality.[/QUOTE] If the majority of the populace sees no problem with said laws, though, I see no reason why people like you need to raise such a fuss. I'm not saying you should immediately agree with everyone else and say there's no problem, but you could at least get off their case about it. From a logical viewpoint, nothing here is broken, so why try to fix it?
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536516]Laws should only be put in place to protect the lives of others. Innocence is nothing more than a concept.[/QUOTE] 'Innocence' is the colloquial term used to describe the naive state of emotional development in young people. If this is damaged by someone who takes advantage of the child's naivety for their own satisfaction, that young person is more likely to develop serious personality/self-esteem issues. Psychopaths, sociopaths and schizophrenics are the products of this in extreme cases. You can not dispute the fact that adults are, for the most part, far more emotionally developed than children, and that most sexual predators use this advantage to manipulate their victims. Thus, a wrong is being committed.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;28536593]From a logical viewpoint, nothing here is broken, so why try to fix it?[/QUOTE] From a logical viewpoint, age of consent laws shouldn't exist. I know I'm really adamant in saying that, but what is logical about said laws?
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;28536077]Because most women aren't biologically ready to bear the burden of pregnancy until they're between 17-20 years old? As in, if they get pregnant before their bodies are formed enough, they could be put under serious trauma or even die in childbirth, unless medical procedures like the C-Section are underwent? That's what I was taught in sex-ed. And before you say it, it doesn't matter what preventative measures are taken. There's always the chance, no matter how small, that an accident could occur (broken condoms, anyone?). At such a young age, do you really think that girl will be unafraid to ask her parents if she could get an abortion? No, chances are she'll hide it until it's too late.[/QUOTE] Condoms + birth control = no chance
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536628]From a logical viewpoint, age of consent laws shouldn't exist. I know I'm really adamant in saying that, but what is logical about said laws?[/QUOTE] Read my last post.
[QUOTE=archangel125;28536641]Read my last post.[/QUOTE] I think I'm getting confused about semantics. I have no idea what's going on.
You are comparing the US with Spain The mentality of both countries is completely different, you can't compare them. Lowering the age of consent in a country just because another one has a lower age is as smart as building an Apple store in the middle of an African desert.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536628]From a logical viewpoint, age of consent laws shouldn't exist. I know I'm really adamant in saying that, but what is logical about said laws?[/QUOTE] Yes, they should. There's saying someone who is developed should be able to have sex, but if you have not hardly even began to develop your sexual organs it is very logical to say that it is illegal for those people to have sex.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536654]I think I'm getting confused about semantics. I have no idea what's going on.[/QUOTE] "'Innocence' is the colloquial term used to describe the naive state of emotional development in young people. If this is damaged by someone who takes advantage of the child's naivety for their own satisfaction, that young person is more likely to develop serious personality/self-esteem issues. Psychopaths, sociopaths and schizophrenics are the products of this in extreme cases. You can not dispute the fact that adults are, for the most part, far more emotionally developed than children, and that most sexual predators use this advantage to manipulate their victims. Thus, a wrong is being committed. " Sanius, I strongly, STRONGLY suggest you do some serious study into Psychology and Sociology. I believe you'll understand exactly why age of consent laws exist if you do.
also note that kids will have sex regardless and get pregnant there was a girl at my middle school who got pregnant when she was 13. age of consent laws stop no one
[QUOTE=Azaer;28536669]Yes, they should. There's saying someone who is developed should be able to have sex, but if you have not hardly even began to develop your sexual organs it is very logical to say that it is illegal for those people to have sex.[/QUOTE] I agree that people who are not sexually developed shouldn't have sexual intercourse (i.e. penis in the vagina, etc.) because it can be physically harmful.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536696]I don't disagree that people who are not sexually developed shouldn't have sexual intercourse (i.e. penis in the vagina, etc.) because it can be physically harmful.[/QUOTE] Thats a huge reason for AoC laws, its saying "these people are too young to have sex", thus that is why their existence is logical. All I'm saying, they weren't a bad idea, but they are difficult to set. Probably best to be decided on a more local basis.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536628]From a logical viewpoint, age of consent laws shouldn't exist. I know I'm really adamant in saying that, but what is logical about said laws?[/QUOTE] It's logical to create a law that says something most people believe anyways. Most people in America believe that sex with a person under a certain age is wrong, so what's wrong with making a law that just reinforces that belief? If America ever changes its mind about it, said law can be changed or even abolished but for now, it stays because that's what most people believe anyways.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536628]From a logical viewpoint, age of consent laws shouldn't exist. I know I'm really adamant in saying that, but what is logical about said laws?[/QUOTE] If you knew anything at all about psychological development and behavioral science, you'd know that the reason they exist is very, very logical and has almost nothing to do with 'morality.'
[QUOTE=archangel125;28536791]If you knew anything at all about psychological development and behavioral science, you'd know that the reason they exist is very, very logical and has almost nothing to do with 'morality.'[/QUOTE] I understand the psychological implications. I'm not a brain-dead moron. I just don't think that laws should be based on such things, which is what I've been trying to convey.
The argument from rationality is a very tricky one to use. As soon as you appeal to the notion of rationality, you leave yourself open to the difficult task of drawing the line. Not just in terms of age, but of mental disability. You could say some people who are cognitively impaired - for life - but it doesn't seem fair to say that they never get to experience sex (legally) because of that. The key tenet of any good law is that it treats like for like, hence if you're appealing to rationality you have to take these sorts of cases into account. Personally I think the notion of an age of consent is totally flawed - the law should aim to prevent exploitation in a way much, much less superficial than just age.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536812]I understand the psychological implications. I'm not a brain-dead moron. I just don't think that laws should be based on such things, which is what I've been trying to convey.[/QUOTE] But that's what we're saying: AoC is not some Puritan moral crusade, they're perfectly logical and are supported by the general population.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536812]I understand the psychological implications. I'm not a brain-dead moron. I just don't think that laws should be based on such things, which is what I've been trying to convey.[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't laws protect people from things that can result in serious psychological damage to them?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28536826] Personally I think the notion of an age of consent is totally flawed - the law should aim to prevent exploitation in a way much, much less superficial than just age.[/QUOTE] I agree. My biggest problem with age of consent laws is that they are based on age, which is really not a good way to gauge mental/emotional maturity, considering the fact that everybody is different in that regard.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;28536764]It's logical to create a law that says something most people believe anyways. Most people in America believe that sex with a person under a certain age is wrong, so what's wrong with making a law that just reinforces that belief? If America ever changes its mind about it, said law can be changed or even abolished but for now, it stays because that's what most people believe anyways.[/QUOTE] I hate to use this example, but I very much doubt you'd be singing the same tune if it was something else, say slavery. But then again, if the majority thinks it, it's logical to make a law for it! :downs:
Op should realize that 14 year olds are stupid, always will be stupid, and always have been stupid. Your brain doesn't really stabilize until the mid 20s. 14 year olds just aren't in a sound state of mind for that on the whole due to hormones and I wouldn't really want my 14 year old kid having sex at all, even with a kid their own age as hormones make you do stupid stupid shit. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;28536867]I agree. My biggest problem with age of consent laws is that they are based on age, which is really not a good way to gauge mental/emotional maturity, considering the fact that everybody is different in that regard.[/QUOTE] Age is the best determining factor though. You can't really force people to submit to IQ tests to fuck, nobody would ever take them except those who know they could pass and everyone else would just not take it and fuck anyway.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;28536893]Also OP by definition is a pedophile.[/QUOTE] Definitively speaking, paedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children, so he isn't (even if he expressed any attraction to anyone under the age of consent in the first place).
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;28536893]Op should realize that 14 year olds are stupid, always will be stupid, and always have been stupid.[/QUOTE] People who think this are stupid, always will be stupid, and always have been stupid. Everybody develops differently; mentally and physically.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28536939]Definitively speaking, paedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children, so he isn't (even if he expressed any attraction to anyone under the age of consent in the first place).[/QUOTE] Yeah you're right. I'm just being stupid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.