[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42493399]Whats so significant about early puberty? That doesn't exactly make you better at making rational decisions. In fact in probably does the opposite.
It has nothing to do with maturity at all. [/quote]
The significance is the physical, its the point at which a person begins to desire sex. Basing the age of consent upon maturity as defined by the ability to make rational decisions would be extremely problematic. Decisions based on emotion, e.g. marrying someone you love when it's financially imprudent or decisions based on faith e.g. preforming rituals to appease a deity even though you have no evidence that said deity exists are fundamentally irrational decisions. Most people regardless of age are irrational, basing the age of consent around rationality would not just ban young people from having sex it would ban almost everyone. the decision to have sex is rarely a rational one anyway, it's usually based around unquantifiable attraction and desire, not careful reasoned debate.
Ultimately sex isn't especially complicated, as long as a person is taught proper use of contraceptives and the basic mechanics of sex, what else is really required? Teenagers regularly have sex anyway no law will ever change that, we might as well remove the barriers that force shame and secrecy onto such relationships.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42493399]
I enjoy think the Canadian system takes a good route. It allows teens to have sex with each other, prevents abuse and bans teenage prostitution.[/QUOTE]
Why is it always abusive, as you seem to imply, when a teenager has sex with someone older than them? It just seems naive to assume that every teenager is an upstanding moral citizen who would never coerce anyone into sex and that all adults will always abuse those they have sex with. Teenagers could very easily abuse each other, there are some 16 year olds who are much more intelligent and mature than the average 16 year old who could and probably do take advantage of this, the law offers no protection from this, it instead demonizes every adult with the absurd preposition that all adults only desire sex and will do anything to get it. How many times does t need to be said? There's a potential for exploitation in all relationships not just ones with a significant age gap, people should only be punished when exploitation takes place not just because ether's a chance that it can.
Age of consent should be tied legal subjectivity.
(in most countries this is based on a two stage system of around 14-16 and18)
Which is why you also see a partial age of consent at the first stage and a full one at the second. And it makes sense, since it works with the assumption that once you are old enough to actually make decisions which can carry ramifications you are old enough to consent, at least partially.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42497779]Teenagers could very easily abuse each other, there are some 16 year olds who are much more intelligent and mature than the average 16 year old who could and probably do take advantage of this, the law offers no protection from this
...
There's a potential for exploitation in all relationships not just ones with a significant age gap, people should only be punished when exploitation takes place not just because ether's a chance that it can.[/QUOTE]
first part, in Illinois if you're both under AoC it is actually a misdemeanor
second part in my mind I've already refuted when I said the consequences are much huger for those in schooling, you never really gave a satisfactory answer to that
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42499528]first part, in Illinois if you're both under AoC it is actually a misdemeanor
second part in my mind I've already refuted when I said the consequences are much huger for those in schooling, you never really gave a satisfactory answer to that[/QUOTE]
The consequences are only different if unwanted impregnation takes place, which isn't a serious risk if there's proper sex education which as I said in the OP would be a requirement for lowering the age of consent. There are also many sexual acts that can be done that carry no risk of impregnation and therefore have no real consequences, or at the very least no serious or life-changing ones.
If the age of consent is the only protection we have for children, we need to rethink our laws.
I have known for a couple years now that the age of consent needs to be re-worked. That is why every month or so I do a google search for posts like you just made. You did a great job of making points that I have made in the private article I am writing. On a related note to your point about exploitation, do we not already have sexual abuse laws in place? As Jookia just said, "If the age of consent is the only protection we have for children, we need to rethink our laws." The point being, it doesn't matter what age either party is, abuse is abuse and should be punished accordingly.
Before I make my final point (which is why I signed up to post here), I would also like to point out that in times before your start date for the article (1880), there was rarely such a thing as age of consent laws. Sporadically through out the 1400's-1800's do you see things pop up in random countries, but for the most part there was no such thing. If society went for thousands of years without the need for these laws, then it stands to reason that something along the line (1800's onward) stirred up people to create these arbitrary laws. From what I could gather on research in this area, one of the reasons was wide-spread hysteria from media outlets making huge stories out of adult/adolescent relationships. Communities became so scared that they demanded for something to be done about this. It didn't matter that these reported stories were probably rare. The media drove people into believing there was a predator around every corner. Fast forward to today, and you see the results. My friend Kara's brother can't be a babysitter because people are paranoid that every guy is a pervert (which goes into this whole problem that there is absolutely nothing perverted about finding a younger girl attractive. If she is pubescent->onward, then it is biologically normal to consider her as a possible candidate, just as much as you can find a 25 year old a possible candidate)
There are many rabbit trails I could have continued down in regards to this last paragraph, but here is my final point. This whole article is focused on the sexual part of the relationship, when there is also the side effect that a guy can't even date a girl under the age of consent. All of society thinks he is out to exploit/have sex with her and as such the parents will tell you to get away and then continue to a restraining order if you don't. It really is sad. What if you simply want to have physical intimacy but without the sex? As a result of these laws, a guy can't even simply be with a girl at X age because everyone assumes the worst and wants to burn you at the stake.
As a few others have stated their beliefs, I myself air on the side of Bolivia's kind of law, but would be perfectly fine with an AOC of 13 or 14 (due to the fact that it isn't only about biological attraction). In a perfect world, we could abolish it all together and let communities/local courts decide if there is a problem with the relationship.
Thank you for the well-informed and [B]logical[/B] post. It all comes down to the fact in the past few centuries there have been many laws created out of emotion, not logic.
[QUOTE=darthclide;42504486]I have known for a couple years now that the age of consent needs to be re-worked. That is why every month or so I do a google search for posts like you just made. You did a great job of making points that I have made in the private article I am writing. On a related note to your point about exploitation, do we not already have sexual abuse laws in place? As Jookia just said, "If the age of consent is the only protection we have for children, we need to rethink our laws." The point being, it doesn't matter what age either party is, abuse is abuse and should be punished accordingly.
Before I make my final point (which is why I signed up to post here), I would also like to point out that in times before your start date for the article (1880), there was rarely such a thing as age of consent laws. Sporadically through out the 1400's-1800's do you see things pop up in random countries, but for the most part there was no such thing. If society went for thousands of years without the need for these laws, then it stands to reason that something along the line (1800's onward) stirred up people to create these arbitrary laws. From what I could gather on research in this area, one of the reasons was wide-spread hysteria from media outlets making huge stories out of adult/adolescent relationships. Communities became so scared that they demanded for something to be done about this. It didn't matter that these reported stories were probably rare. The media drove people into believing there was a predator around every corner. Fast forward to today, and you see the results. My friend Kara's brother can't be a babysitter because people are paranoid that every guy is a pervert (which goes into this whole problem that there is absolutely nothing perverted about finding a younger girl attractive. If she is pubescent->onward, then it is biologically normal to consider her as a possible candidate, just as much as you can find a 25 year old a possible candidate)
There are many rabbit trails I could have continued down in regards to this last paragraph, but here is my final point. This whole article is focused on the sexual part of the relationship, when there is also the side effect that a guy can't even date a girl under the age of consent. All of society thinks he is out to exploit/have sex with her and as such the parents will tell you to get away and then continue to a restraining order if you don't. It really is sad. What if you simply want to have physical intimacy but without the sex? As a result of these laws, a guy can't even simply be with a girl at X age because everyone assumes the worst and wants to burn you at the stake.
As a few others have stated their beliefs, I myself air on the side of Bolivia's kind of law, but would be perfectly fine with an AOC of 13 or 14 (due to the fact that it isn't only about biological attraction). In a perfect world, we could abolish it all together and let communities/local courts decide if there is a problem with the relationship.
Thank you for the well-informed and [B]logical[/B] post. It all comes down to the fact in the past few centuries there have been many laws created out of emotion, not logic.[/QUOTE]
Originally my post was going to be significantly longer, especially the section on history but I paired it down in the hopes that more people would actually read it, and really the historical and geographical sections are more there to demonstrate the need for debate than to actually be a part of it.
My post focused primarily on the sexual aspect of such relationships primarily because they are the part that rouses the most opposition and makes even platonic relationships impossible. It is very true that a relationship should not be based purely on sex but regardless of the age of those involved sex, in some form or another, is a vital part of any romantic relationship. To deny the importance of this is to deny reality, there's nothing dirty or wrong with sex it's the most natural thing in the world and should be defended as a legitimate expression of love.
I'd also like to wish you good luck in writing your own private article, I hope in some small way my post has been helpful to you.
Yes indeed your post was very helpful, and I will for sure be linking this post in it.
As much as I tried to keep "me" out of the equation in my previous post, it just frustrates me that I can't even be close friends with a younger girl (she is 14, so in quite a few other countries nobody would blink an eye seeing me with her). Due to mass hysteria, nobody thinks critically or logically anymore, and would want to send me off to jail if they could. It is those of us with good intentions that suffer, because we not only can't be open about our thoughts, but we also have to work very hard to hide our interest so nobody suspects. No good person should ever have to live their life in fear like that.
Btw, at the very least I wish this paranoia/denial of sexual attraction would go away. Even if AOC never changed, it would be nice to be able to casually mention to someone that X age girl is stunningly attractive. At the very least, this kind of attitude would help foster the possibility of AOC changes.
Thank you again for your post, and I hope people continue a dialogue here as I really do hold out hope that instead of raising the AOC (which many people argue for all over the place), they will understand that abuse will happen regardless of a law. Instead of criminalizing those who have perfectly normal attractions to pubescent->post-pubescent girls, focus your efforts on finding the real predators, as well as any guy who is dishing out physical/emotional abuse (sexual or not).
Just make it a test, fuck it, two tests.
One for just pure sex, tests if someone is unfairly pushing it (both in knowledge or position, both testers have to show similar levels to each other).
Another for making a baby.
In before someone calls me a "pedobear that wants to fuck smart underage girls".
[QUOTE=jlbmw2002;42523276]Just make it a test, fuck it, two tests.
One for just pure sex, tests if someone is unfairly pushing it (both in knowledge or position, both testers have to show similar levels to each other).
Another for making a baby.
In before someone calls me a "pedobear that wants to fuck smart underage girls".[/QUOTE]
That's an interesting suggestion; though I wonder, what do you think should be on these tests and who would decide upon their content if this were to actually be implemented.
its probably fine where it is, but there needs to be romeo and juliet laws where a 15/16 year old having relations with a 20 year old are protected from parents flipping out. when you think about it, a senior in HS dating a freshman could go to jail and become a convicted sex-offender even though they are only 4-5 years appart. also relations with highschool seniors and like people who are only a few years older than them are always comming up in these cases, yet the age is often not all that far appart. the problem is it seems society only recognises that you are both consenting adults when you are 25+, yet you are still fine with smoking,drinking, and going to war.
[editline]14th October 2013[/editline]
espeacially in cases where one is gay and their parents flip out, i remember a while ago some chick (15) was dating a chick who was like 20 and her parents basically go the lady arrested for statutory rape because they couldn't believe their girl was gay.
I knew I guy who was very nearly charged with rape in high school because he was dating a girl who was 14 when he was 18.
The parents freaked out and wen't after him, and although they eventually dropped the charges, his life was very nearly ruined. I agree there should be laws protecting against things like that.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws[/url]
basically they do exist but the criteria are so tightly worded that a highschool senior dating a freshman is still stitory rape and even two kids having sex can be considered double rape (each one is raping the other) if they are far enough in age or they fail any of the other criteria such as in texas where theres a 14 year old minimum qualifying age.
there needs to be a federal romeo and juliet law to cover this but since most states already handle rape-laws its unlikely this will ever change because rape is such an emotional subject to discus
In regards to "Romeo and Juliet" laws I believe they are a good thing in that they address some of the worst excesses of age of consent laws but in many ways they are simply half measures. Take the above example of a 14 year old dating an 18 year old, depending on the specific age limits of the "Romeo and Juliet" law the older partner may be spared jail but why then should a 20 year old dating a 14 year old or a 25 year old dating a 14 year old and so on not also be allowed. Why is a 4-5 year difference okay but a 10 year difference is not? What would the actual difference be? They would do and feel the same things, but one would be punished and the other spared.
Before another spurious argument is brought up about an 18 year old not being able to exploit a 14 year old and a 25 year old only being able to do so, it again must be said that anyone in any relationship of any age can exploit someone of any age.
If it is conceded that an 18 year old should be able to date a 14 year old I see no logical opposition to an adult of any age doing the same.
I think the age of consent should be 18 because I believe around that time, the person figured out their sexuality and a majority of those who are 18 are mature enough to handle the idea of sexual intercourse. Plus I believe that those under 16 can be easily taken advantage of by a superior such as an employer or teacher.
[editline]49[/editline]
Also this article was posted in sensationalist headlines a bit back. It could be unreliable for all I know, but its related to the subject at hand.
[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/08/230428115/many-teens-admit-to-coercing-others-into-sex[/url]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42549991]I think the age of consent should be 18 because I believe around that time, the person figured out their sexuality and a majority of those who are 18 are mature enough to handle the idea of sexual intercourse. Plus I believe that those under 16 can be easily taken advantage of by a superior such as an employer or teacher.
[editline]49[/editline]
Also this article was posted in sensationalist headlines a bit back. It could be unreliable for all I know, but its related to the subject at hand.
[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/08/230428115/many-teens-admit-to-coercing-others-into-sex[/url][/QUOTE]
I read that same article and basically drew the opposite conclusion. Teenagers themselves coerce others into sex so clearly age is not the primary factor in whether or not a relationship is based on coercion or not so raising the age of consent on these grounds is spurious.
I'd also argue that a significant number of 18 year olds have not fully figured out their sexuality, 18 is usually the point at which many people begin university which is often the beginning of more and not less sexual experimentation. People of all ages could be taken advantage of by a superior such as an employer or teacher, so again this is an argument against exploitative relationships, which can occur regardless of age, you just seem to have conflated the two.
I've mentioned this before, but if you're argument is that the age of consent should be when most people are fully emotionally and physically mature, 25 would be the more appropriate age.
Sex isn't especially complicated I don't understand why you would need to wait almost a decade after the onset of puberty to be allowed to have sex, the risks can easily be explained. As your article demonstrates teenagers often take advantage of each other, coercion take place regardless of the age of those involved but it's the exception and not the rule so it's illogical for an entire class of people to be disbarred form sex just because there is a chance that exploitation/coercion could take place. People should be punished when and if exploitation takes place not just because there is the possibility that it could.
18 or 19. However, you shouldn't prosecute for example, two 16 year olds who have sex.
The age of consent should be twenty-five. Why? Because, the human brain doesn't finish developing until you turn twenty-five, which means that you aren't capable of consenting to sexual intercourse and if you had sex before the age of twenty-five, you were raped.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42550399]I read that same article and basically drew the opposite conclusion. Teenagers themselves coerce others into sex so clearly age is not the primary factor in whether or not a relationship is based on coercion or not so raising the age of consent on these grounds is spurious.
I'd also argue that a significant number of 18 year olds have not fully figured out their sexuality, 18 is usually the point at which many people begin university which is often the beginning of more and not less sexual experimentation. People of all ages could be taken advantage of by a superior such as an employer or teacher, so again this is an argument against exploitative relationships, which can occur regardless of age, you just seem to have conflated the two.
I've mentioned this before, but if you're argument is that the age of consent should be when most people are fully emotionally and physically mature, 25 would be the more appropriate age.
Sex isn't especially complicated I don't understand why you would need to wait almost a decade after the onset of puberty to be allowed to have sex, the risks can easily be explained. As your article demonstrates teenagers often take advantage of each other, coercion take place regardless of the age of those involved but it's the exception and not the rule so it's illogical for an entire class of people to be disbarred form sex just because there is a chance that exploitation/coercion could take place. People should be punished when and if exploitation takes place not just because there is the possibility that it could.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I was going to go for something in the low-mid twenties but we should do baby steps first.
Some first world countries/states/provinces still have their age of consent at 16, when I think it should catch up with the countries/states/provinces that have their age of consent at 18. Then when almost everyone is used to that, it should increase to 20 and so on.
It would piss off a lot of people if the age of consent was increased by 9 years in a few months considering one is quite hormonal between the ages of 16 and 25
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42572368]Yeah I was going to go for something in the low-mid twenties but we should do baby steps first.
Some first world countries/states/provinces still have their age of consent at 16, when I think it should catch up with the countries/states/provinces that have their age of consent at 18. Then when almost everyone is used to that, it should increase to 20 and so on.
It would piss off a lot of people if the age of consent was increased by 9 years in a few months considering one is quite hormonal between the ages of 16 and 25[/QUOTE]
When I suggested raising the age of consent into the early twenties it was supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of raising the age of consent on the basis of physical/mental maturity and so I thought no one would possibly think it was a good idea.
I hope you are and just being subtle but if you're not, have you considered the consequences of raising the age of consent so high? People would be imprisoned, put on the sex offenders register and technically be considered rapists for having consensual sex with a 19 year old. Surely anyone can see that this is madness.
Also in a lot of places the increase would be more than 9 years, in Spain it would be a 12 year increase and in Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Hungary and most of the Balkan states it would be an 11 year increase.
At some point you have to accept personal responsibility. Once you are capable to understanding sex and have gone through puberty, It should be your choice. Age of consent laws cause so many problems with absurd strictness. Why is a 16 year old so different from 18? In two years they can join the army, but shouldn't be able to have sex? Look at countries that have a low age of consent (ones without arranged marriage and rampant rape at least)? I don't see a huge problem caused by allowing people to choose without the restrictions of others moral values or judgement of their cognitive abilities. Point it out if there is one.
Also, Aidan_088, great post. Pretty much states my opinion, and is well informed and educated. Nice to see people with a sensible view of these things, and not shouting about "evil pedophiles".
[QUOTE=jlbmw2002;42523276]Just make it a test, fuck it, two tests.
One for just pure sex, tests if someone is unfairly pushing it (both in knowledge or position, both testers have to show similar levels to each other).
[/QUOTE]
So you want the government directly regulating peoples sex lives with paperwork and testing? That's a bit too authoritarian for most people. Enforcing something like this would be incredibly difficult.
Knowing sexual positions isn't really a sign of maturity or self control either.
I think that the age of consent should be 16, but if the two people having sex are within 2 years of each other it should be ok too.
In my opinion, the maturity responsible for a persons responsibility is only loosely tied to age, which is why a legal stated age of consent should not define the legality or illegality of the act itself, but rather be involved in cases such as pedophilia.
I honestly think this is a really interesting question and it's hard to define because generally, age does not reflect maturity for all people. Some people say 18 is the ideal age, but I lost mine before that and I'm very comfortable/happy with that.
Like, I've seen people who were 13 or 14 asking about sexual health on the internet and instead of demonizing them or patronizing, we should be supportive and informative. No matter what age of consent you have in place, we are never going to stop people from having sex and because of that, we should aim to create the safest environment we can.
In the UK, the age of consent is 16 and I personally think that's pretty suitable. I remember someone mentioning to me it's a good idea because at that age, you've just finished high school where if you fall pregnant, you have some form of recognizable education, compared to if you were at 13.
I do think we should be focusing on more coherent sex education and striving to provide more information about consent as a whole. My memory is poor, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned in high school, which I feel it's very important to cover.
[quote] Some places like Yemen also require marriage before any sexual contact can legally take place. Bolivia technically has no age of consent but instead makes sex legal at the onset of puberty.[/quote]
The former is absolutely ridiculous and I can't quite tell what I think of the latter.
[QUOTE=NiandraLades;42640395]In the UK, the age of consent is 16 and I personally think that's pretty suitable. I remember someone mentioning to me it's a good idea because at that age, you've just finished high school where if you fall pregnant, you have some form of recognizable education, compared to if you were at 13. [/QUOTE]
I don't think it's advisable to become pregnant even at 16 but the amount of information/education that you receive by 16 could easily be condensed and taught at a much younger age; there's nothing complicated or difficult about it especially when it's compared with other things a school child is excepted to learn; balancing equations, advanced trigonometry etc. Even if the age of consent doesn't change again soon I think that an overhaul of sexual education is needed in Britain and elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42532334]In regards to "Romeo and Juliet" laws I believe they are a good thing in that they address some of the worst excesses of age of consent laws but in many ways they are simply half measures. Take the above example of a 14 year old dating an 18 year old, depending on the specific age limits of the "Romeo and Juliet" law the older partner may be spared jail but why then should a 20 year old dating a 14 year old or a 25 year old dating a 14 year old and so on not also be allowed. Why is a 4-5 year difference okay but a 10 year difference is not? What would the actual difference be? They would do and feel the same things, but one would be punished and the other spared.
Before another spurious argument is brought up about an 18 year old not being able to exploit a 14 year old and a 25 year old only being able to do so, it again must be said that anyone in any relationship of any age can exploit someone of any age.
If it is conceded that an 18 year old should be able to date a 14 year old I see no logical opposition to an adult of any age doing the same.[/QUOTE]
I do. being 18 is not the same as being 40.
[editline]30th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42527466']I knew I guy who was very nearly charged with rape in high school because he was dating a girl who was 14 when he was 18.
The parents freaked out and wen't after him, and although they eventually dropped the charges, his life was very nearly ruined. I agree there should be laws protecting against things like that.[/QUOTE]
who the fuck does that anyway
[QUOTE=Whiterfire;42700620]I do. being 18 is not the same as being 40.
[/QUOTE]
Could you explain why? What is the meaningful difference, because I don't see it. They're both adults and equal under the law, one might be more intelligent or mature than the other, but it could be either one.
[QUOTE=Whiterfire;42700620]who the fuck does that anyway[/QUOTE]
A skinny Latino guy named Adam. Really he was kinda a jerk but statutory rape charges are a bit much. His girlfriend was really a pretty nice girl, and it was through her that I met him. She was an honor roll student and had really overprotective parents.
Yes, people do do that. All the time, although parents freaking out over it is less common.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
