Age of Consent

First thing that comes to mind is LoliCon but that seems an unfair assumption to make.

First, I'd say that age of consent is arbitrary. People mature at different rate, and physical maturity does not necessarily corresponds with mental one. However, since evaluating emotional and mental maturity and ability to make informed decisions is likely to open another, highly unpleasant can of forms, age of consent should stay arbitrary.

Agreed with OP that whatever age is stated as appropriate for sex, it should be the same for homo and heterosexual relationships, and for viewing pornography.

Also, regardless of age of consent, noone should be prosecuted if the age difference between both participants is no larger than a year. Because in this case it is not possible to claim that one took advantage of other.

However, arbitrary as it is, an age of consent should be sent. It is not unknown for a child to be develop physically as early as in an age of 9, and that is certainly way too early to have a full understanding of sex and it's implications.

Of course, whatever arbitrary age is set, there would be some people who are younger than that, yet have both a desire to have sex and enough maturity to make such decisions. Which is unfortunate. However, contrary to what pop-culture tells, it is more than possible to live a year or two without sex and not feel too unhappy about it. Honestly, those who are incapable of waiting a couple of years are probably not mature and responsible enough anyway, regardless of whether their bodies are developed or not.

I'd say viewing pornography should be allowed earlier. Less likely of permanent issues.

Also, regardless of age of consent, noone should be prosecuted if the age difference between both participants is no larger than a year. Because in this case it is not possible to claim that one took advantage of other.

Eh, yes it is.

What we mean by "below the age of consent" is "incapable of making the decision to have sex". If two people who are both below the age of consent are having sex, neither of them should have been capable of initiating it and yet sex is still going on. That points to either an outside party coercing both of them into it, or else an admission that we've set the age too low.

^ Age of consent isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about when people are capable of having sex. It should be about when people can tell they're being manipulated. That's why we only care if an adult fucks a kid, not if a kid fucks a kid—our assumption is that neither of the kids is mature enough to manipulate the other.

edited 31st Dec '10 1:05:54 PM by feotakahari

Which is why similar-age exemptions make sense.

Okay well here's my crazy take on the issue.

Age of Consent

This is a law purely for the ability of giving informed consent. It is not a social norm law, it is just protection against rape for people who are vulnerable to abuse. This means several things

-Consent cannot be given under duress -Consent cannot be given to a person who is in a position of authority over the other -Consent cannot be given if the person is shown to be mentally incapable of doing so

I would support a law where, below the age of 14, the onus of proof for capability of providing consent is on the defendant.

Pornography

Assuming no illegal acts are committed in the pornography, it should be legal. (Fictionally illegal acts are of course okay)

I would support a law where, below the age of 14, the onus of proof for capability of providing consent is on the defendant.

Uh, it is not even possible to write that law in the United States.

Constitutionally, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. And that's for a damn good reason.

Indeed, which is why it's not a point I put into my main list. I was just favourable to the idea and in 50 years that'll probably be seen as some kind of prudish unconstitutional old man conservative view.

IIRC, there was a common-law age of consent - namely, twelve for women and (I think) 16 for men. Like most common law, it was developed over centuries of practice, though Church law IIRC had some impact on it. So ages of consent were in place long before the 19th century. They just got stricter about it.

Personally, I'm OK with 18 with close-in-age exceptions.

Blue Ninja: What can I say, different people have different experiences with sex. That's why I don't think there should be a blanket "age of consent" that's supposed to cover everyone. To put it bluntly, just because you weren't ready for sex before 18 doesn't mean I wasn't, and I see no reason why I should be punished for your lack of maturity.

I think the policy I read about that was my favourite was that of the Netherlands (I believe), where having sex with someone under 12 is always illegal, having (informed, consentual) sex with someone over 18 is always legal, whereas in the age gap of 12-18 (or it might have been 12-16, I'm not sure, it's been a while... :P), each case is considered individually. So, if someone is clearly taking advantage of a naive young girl, they put a stop to it, but if a 14 year old girl is being mature about it and is perfectly informed of the consequences and still gives consent, then it's perfectly all right. I like this system far more than the American method of throwing a guy in jail just because the girl's parents don't like her boyfriend.

So, if someone is clearly taking advantage of a naive young girl, they put a stop to it, but if a 14 year old girl is being mature about it and is perfectly informed of the consequences and still gives consent, then it's perfectly all right.

I don't know whether you just chose to use the word "girl" in your example or used it because you assume that a girl is more likely to be taken advantage of than a boy, but I think I need to say (just in case) that these laws are in place to protect children, not just girls, and that people who take advantage of minors are present in both sexes, so no assumption should be made that a 26-year-old woman couldn't take advantage of a 14-year-old boy. (Again, I'm just saying this in case someone still thinks that the victims are always female and that the abusers are always male; I find it unlikely that such an attitude would exist here, but I'm just playing it safe).

On topic: The age of consent here is 16, but having sex with a 15-year-old even if you're (say) 17 is OK if neither party takes it to the cops. In other words, as long as both parties are OK with it, you're allowed to have sex across the age of consent. For example, I was 16 and my (then) girlfriend was 15 when we first had sex, and if she had had a problem with it, I would've been charged with sex with a minor, but since she didn't object to it, there was no crime.

I think the policy I read about that was my favourite was that of the Netherlands (I believe), where having sex with someone under 12 is always illegal, having (informed, consentual) sex with someone over 18 is always legal, whereas in the age gap of 12-18 (or it might have been 12-16, I'm not sure, it's been a while... :P), each case is considered individually. So, if someone is clearly taking advantage of a naive young girl, they put a stop to it, but if a 14 year old girl is being mature about it and is perfectly informed of the consequences and still gives consent, then it's perfectly all right. I like this system far more than the American method of throwing a guy in jail just because the girl's parents don't like her boyfriend.

I'm pretty sure it's slightly different to how you described, although I think thge system you just attributed to the Netherlands is an agreeable way to deal with Ao C.

What the other wiki says on the Netherland's Age of Consent.

There's also safety and the risk of pregnancy to consider, if they don't use contraception. A 14 year old's body isn't fully grown and having her get pregnant is dangerous. So the age of consent should probably be at some time when girls are at least finished growing.

Well I don't think that's part of an Age of Consent law. That's a separate "Government enforcing better behaviour" law. I don't think we should mix purposes with the Age of Consent. It's to prevent sexual assault of minors who are vulnerable to being taken advantage of (or those mentally incapable).

What sort of a law would that be? Mandatory contraception? I can't see that catching on.

edited 2nd Jan '11 2:54:24 PM by LoniJay

Then I suppose you shot down your own idea.

How did I do that? My idea was that age of consent should be a time when (the majority of) girls are fully grown and preganancy will not constitute a health risk.

Have clear and concise sexual education available at that age?
Also a mandatory trip to a respectable (not pro-life) family planner who can also talk about The Pill, as well as being able to supply free condoms and maybe if in needed supply subsidised morning after pills?

@Loni Jay: Actually, the age below which pregnancy becomes dangerous for the mother seems to be 14.

Not that that would matter much even if it wasn't; it's possible to avoid pregnancy with over 99% certainty if you're responsible about sex.

edited 2nd Jan '11 4:59:13 PM by BlackHumor

That's the thing - responsible. I don't think 14 year olds are really capable of handling their sexuality responisibly - depending on their upbringing and stuff of course. Some would be, but I think the majority just won't think. I have a sister who will be 14 in a year, and there is no way in hell I would trust her or any of her friends to make that sort of decision and treat it responsibly.

Now, when I was 14 I certainly wasn't mature enough to make a good decision about sex, but I think could have at least given informed consent if I wanted to.

In fact I think I would've refused it in most situations, which is pretty much proof positive for a horny 14 year old that I could've given informed consent.

Not that this is relevant; the plural of anecdote is not data. Just as long as we're trading them I thought I'd give mine.

Can 15-year-olds be good parents? Most of them are still in high school.

edited 2nd Jan '11 10:51:21 PM by EldritchBlueRose

^I would say pretty universally no.

But they can be good at not becoming parents.

I realize it's probably going to take more time and money than it's worth, but we could have some sort of system that's flexible and doesn't have a set age. What about "Both parties have to have reached puberty, if it's heterosexual the female has to be physically capable of bearing a child without being severely hurt/killed, and if one party is a minor and the other is not, the age difference can't be more than two years."

Edit: And for watching porn, just...puberty, I guess? I don't think this is enough of an issue to make a law about, and it's so rarely enforced anyway. I mean, who's going to turn in their kid to the police for watching porn?

edited 3rd Jan '11 6:19:29 PM by OnTheOtherHandle