A question on Paedophilia Laws

But that gets into the area of how it's silly that an arbitrary number determines maturity. I've known sixteen year olds that are more mature than some twenty-five year olds.

Using myself as an example again, I completely understood the potential consequences of filming my boyfriend and I, but I did it anyways, and I don't regret doing it.

Edit ninja: Imposing a waiting period for sale of minors distributing images of themselves might be a good idea, but I'm not sure how one would enforce it.

edited 4th Aug '11 6:12:40 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

If I were to enunciate it again, the root of the issue is two things: one, a young person is probably not mature enough to handle certain kinds of relationships and activities without intense supervision and regulation lest they harm themselves, and two, there are simply things a young person's body is not equipped to do that a mature person's is.

The question, though, is exactly when a person crosses the stage of "young person" to "mature person," and how the law can reasonably discern the difference.

The one aspect of the debate of child porn specifically comes back to the question of how exposure to child porn might possibly cause an older person with certain kinds of proclivities to act in ways that cannot be prevented without removing their access to the content to begin with.

It's originally just another big consideration over the terms of personal responsibility.

edited 4th Aug '11 6:14:08 PM by Toodle

It's generally accepted that young people are not usually mature enough for such actions, though. As much as most of them think they are. I think the age thing, though it is very cut and dry on a difficult issue, is the only reasonable way to quantify such a thing. The kid's opinion certainly can't be the standard, because just because they believe they're mature certainly doesn't mean they are, and it wouldn't be cost-effective to do psych-evals every time.

As for understanding the consequences, if I may—I don't mean to insult, but you gave the example readily—just because you think you understood the consequences at the time doesn't necessarily mean that you did, or at least not fully. After all, there is the fact that, now that you're older (and presumably do understand), you remember it differently from how it actually was.

Perhaps 18 is the better age. Old enough to die for your country, old enough to do what you like within reason. Seems simple enough to me...

Well the point of the discussion is to back the issue up, and consider the hypothetical terms.

I agree indeed that neither of us probably remembers what it was like being a young person (unless one of them happens to be posting). But that doesn't mean a young person knows what's best for themselves either.

But does that mean an arbitrary age limit is the solution?

Like I said, I think it's probably a good practical solution in the modern world. Age can be faked, but in general, forcing people to carry identification papers which are difficult to counterfeit isn't difficult, informing them of the ages of consent isn't difficult, and it's easy to tell when someone is very very young.

Is this the ultimate solution? I certainly hope not, for all the mistakes it has led to. And from a standpoint of personal maturity, it's very likely that such a universal age limit does nothing to help people optimize their personal happiness.

Just because someone is "old enough" doesn't mean decisions they make won't actively be the primary reason their life goes down the tube.

As I said, if we're going to work through the lens of a discussion, the importance isn't "what's practical." Unless we're being especially narrow about the topic.

edited 4th Aug '11 6:26:54 PM by Toodle

"Sometimes the irrational opinion is right."

LO Locaust!

"As for understanding the consequences, if I may—I don't mean to insult, but you gave the example readily—just because you think you understood the consequences at the time doesn't necessarily mean that you did, or at least not fully. After all, there is the fact that, now that you're older (and presumably do understand), you remember it differently from how it actually was."

This reads like the (ir)rationale for all kindza paternalistic endeavours.

I'm only 16, and I sure as hell feel no shame in admitting that I'm not mature enough for sex. Of course, that's not a valid argument, so much as it's a personal opinion.

In favor of what? Allowing some to do what they want because they're "mature enough," then finding out they really weren't—which would be the majority of such cases—while the others ignore us because we aren't being fair. I'd rather be equal and only stop a small number of people who honestly have an argument in favor of letting do something than try to decide on an individual basis and completely lose any ability to regulate the situation.

But then it's back to the "how do we determine when people are mature enough" argument. Plenty of thirty and forty-somes do immature things and regret them later.

A thirty- or forty-something doesn't have an excuse unless they're actually mentally impaired. That's just momentary stupidity... or perhaps constant stupidity, I wouldn't know. A child has not actually reached proper maturity yet. There is actual biology involved. Of course it's all not a constant. It would be nigh-impossible to enforce it on a case-by-case basis, however, and the blanket age requirement works.

Well, if you wanted to use biology as a base, the brain doesn't stop developing until the early to mid-20s. Should we bump the age of consent and the age of majority back to 25?

But once again, I have known some older people who have made some truly badly informed decisions. That's a very common thing in the world, actually. The matter of determining how mature and rational a person is only has so much correlation with their age.

And of course, that comes back to the issue of how we truly determine how to understand human behavior, and how to best implement means of managing a society.

Which is complicated. Did I already say that in this thread? Somehow I think I did.

Anyway, I'm sure someone creative can carry go into more detail about how we might practically determine those kinds of things, but I actually have to be going now, and I'm mostly just glad that we could get past the part of these topics where words like "opinion," or "subjective" get thrown around in only a few pages.

edited 4th Aug '11 6:46:32 PM by Toodle

The existance of some exceptions to a law's correctness doesn't mean that the law itself is bad.

I mean, yes, perhaps a minor being prosecuted for uploading a picture of themselves is wrong. But that doesn't mean the law should just be thrown out because it doesn't fit one situation. Laws are there to be blanket rules, and I don't believe it's possible for them to be just in all possible situations.

This is mostly Californiafication rather than actual evidence. California has the age of consent up to 18(not sure if it's still this high today), and as a result, most Holly Wood movies try to assume it's that in the rest of the world, and it spread to the porn industry as well to suit California. While it's true that humans don't fully mature until a certain age, most people are fully developed far earlier than 18.

The ages 16, 18, and 21 are nothing special. They're all a product of the Protect The Children mindset of parents who rather their children stay as little kids for the rest of their lives. As many people have told you, it's entirely possible for a 16 year old to be far more rational than a 21+. In fact, I know a bunch of adults who are so retarded they still think having sex while standing up will prevent AIDS and pregnancy. Now go to any secondary school, and you'll find a great majority of them already know the importance of condoms, and it's significance in slowing the spread of AIDS.

Last but not least. The age to drive a car ranges from 15-16. The age society deems is mature enough to handle driving a car, and taking the safety of their lives, other drivers, and pedestrians into their own hands, is lower than 18. Let that sink in.

>implying that a porn star even have the IQ of a 15 year old.

It's all a matter of Protect The Children. Porn stars are no longer children, so parents don't give a rats ass about what happens to them whether they're intelligent enough to consent like an adult or not.

While a brain doesn't fully develop until a certain age, people tend to forget that sexual development is one of several developments a brain undergoes, and it's definately not one of the last of the brain's development.

edited 4th Aug '11 6:53:09 PM by Signed

I agree with Loni that laws are meant to cover the fast majority of situations rather than the very specific exceptions. If it turns out that a certain thing keeps coming up that seems like it should dispute the law, then maybe they can modify it for that exception once enough people bring it up.

Again, this is where the Power of Precise Enforcement comes into play.

IMPO: age 16 for sex and age 18 for voting are reasonable numbers. The alternative to setting arbitrary numbers is everyone has to sit a maturity exam.

Currently, there is a fetish for 15 year olds precisely because it is a taboo. If there were a maturity exam, the fetish would be for girls who failed the exam.

Fifteen year olds in charge of CARS? Bloody hell, that's asking for trouble... over here it's seventeen, and looking at some (but by no means ALL) seventeen year old drivers... well, you wouldn't let them drive a Tonka truck....

Dat necro.

Pretty much a pointless necro of a thread that should have been buried when it died the first time.