Age of Consent

For porn just any age should be fine; that's not the kind of thing the law should be mucking around in.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

We-eell, there are some particularly disturbing things like shock sites and things. I think it would warrant a fine or something if an older person knowingly showed an innocent kid Goatse. But arresting the kids themselves for watching porn is stupid.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

I've never heard of kids getting arrested for watching porn (though I suppose they could get you for perjury, if you clicked through an "18? Y/N"). I'm not opposed to age limits for pornography, but I think it's somewhat silly to have the age of consent be below the age where you can legally view porn (being in porn is a different matter).

Wow, this thread has stayed remarkably sane for how touchy a subject this is.

My two pennies: I've met way too many responsible teenagers and 40 year old adolescents to give much credence to the notion that "age confers wisdom"....yes it can, but it often doesn't and some people learn faster than others. One of my best friends is 17, and she is way more mature in her relationship decisions than a thousand drunken 30 somethings I baby-sat while working the door at a bar.

To a point age-of-consent laws are superfluous, because rape laws already cover situations involving coercion (and in most civilized places social pressuring and emotional manipulation count as "coercion"). If a girl was pressured, that's already illegal. If an of-age person makes a decision and is cool with the result, then no one's harmed. The assumption that teenagers automatically can't make good choices is erroneous at best and insulting at worst.

Now, laws prohibiting child molestation are not superfluous in the slightest; all emotional concerns aside a child's body is not ready for the act of sex and such is dangerous. The "puberty" law isn't a bad one, and neither is the Netherlands law I read about earlier on in this thread.

Sex is something you should have when you're ready...I felt perfectly ready at 16 and have never regretted the choice. Most of the girls I've known in similar situations regretted it a little, but that might be the age-old Double Standard at work. Societal pressure is a powerful thing.

I agree with laws protecting children, but teenagers aren't children. They're inexperienced adults, and how else is anyone supposed to learn except by experience?

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

I think I've said this before, but as far as I understand the main point of these laws (or what should be the main point anyway, and at least in the US) is to make burden of proof easier. Since in US criminal law burden of proof is always on the prosecution, this effectively means that if some guy (or woman) rapes a 14-year-old, the prosecution need only prove the much easier "they had sex" instead of "they had nonconsensual sex."

Now, as for where to draw the proverbial age line, I've mentioned before that my ideal is somewhere in the 16-18 range, with similar-age exemptions. This has a lot to do with the fact that most states in the US do in fact have it in that range (it's 18 where I live) and as far as I can tell, it seems to work fine. I can certainly see the appeal in lowering the limit so as to not criminalize young people having sex (and face it, kids do have sex). The thing is, if you have similar-age brackets that has much of the same effect.

The question really is, then, at what point can we say that teens will be mature enough to recognize when they're being taken advantage of by someone in a position of power. Unfortunately, it's hard to say, as everyone has their own level of maturity. I think 14 is somewhat low for this respect, but 18 may actually be too high.

16 is good, and it's halfway between 14 (obviously too low, if you ask me) and 18 (obviously too high if you ask me). 15 and 17 are kinda OK, but I think 16 works best.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

So... do I get my teen porn for teens?

If only that had been legal back when the Olsen twins were beautiful (I used to have such a crush as a kid).

edited 4th Jan '11 8:29:34 AM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

A somewhat-related question: is it punishable by law to knowingly give someone an STD? I think it would warrant a fine (if the state is paying for the medical insurance) or money paid to the defendant (if they're paying for their hospital bills). I'm assuming it would be kinda hard to prove, but most of this stuff is.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

I believe that in Sweden knowingly spreding ST Ds are classified as "Misshandel" (Assault I think is the closest english word). But I don't know about other countries.

In the quiet of the night, the Neocount of Merentha mused: How long does evolution take, among the damned?

In the States, it obviously varies from state to state. I think that in most states, simply giving someone an STD if the topic never came up before the deed isn't anything. On the other hand, you could probably get sued, though maybe not criminally prosecuted, if you lie that you're "clean".

edited 4th Jan '11 11:57:54 PM by Linhasxoc

Having sex with an STD counts as sexual assault in Canada and if it is HIV, it can even count as murder.

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO.

It's funny as I've read stories and seen youtube videos of an older brother showing his like ~10 year old little bro Goatse. Also internet fora

Esp given my response...

"child molestation" =/= "sex", so technically those laws are not necessary.

US State of Washington has a criminal law re. distributing a virus that way.

edited 5th Jan '11 2:47:19 PM by BalloonFleet

WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!

I'd be most comfortable putting it at 18, primarily because that's around when people leave/finish high school.

Socioeconomic circumstances are a good deal different than "make lots of babies as soon as possible so we have farmhands and a standing army," and priorities have shifted dramatically. Lifespan has more than doubled. It takes a lot more to have a stable relationship that lasts that long, especially with more leisure time to notice everything that goes wrong, and divorce being so easy to just say "irreconcilable differences" that so many people don't even try. Education through high school is crucial to holding a job as an adult anymore, and sex can seriously mess with your priorities — a lot of the women I saw at the homeless shelter I tutored at were counting on a marriage to stay afloat and it fell through, and most of the people in the one or two remedial-level classes I went to were the type to practice to excess — and it's crazy hard to get back into that loop once you fall out of it.

This is to say nothing of everpresent risk of pregnancy at a time when the participants would have little to no way of handling it financially, or spread of disease — most methods of contraception have nontrivial failure rates, even with perfect-use.

Basically a lot of things matter now that didn't nearly so much before, and it takes a great deal more maturity to be able to handle them responsibly. Yes some people would be fine at 15, I knew a couple people I'd think would have kept themselves from going off the deep end about it, but they're also nowhere near the norm.

Of course the real answer is "parent your damn kids instead of waiting for the government to do it for you," but apparently that's not gonna happen

edited 5th Jan '11 10:19:57 PM by Pykrete

Honestly I think with all teenagers it should be treated on a case by case basis. I don't see why it's so unreasonable. Every child who is victimized by an adult deserves psychological treatment and healing. If we truly want to "think of the children", we will do this. It's the least they deserve after going through such an ordeal. And to know if a person needs that treatment, you at least have to have enough psychological evaluation of them to see if they have indeed been disturbed by the ordeal. And isn't that essentially treating the matter on a case by case basis?

And furthermore, why is so much about "consent" argued on a "common sense" basis that seems to run incredibly counter to basic logic? Why can't you have sex or engage in something sexual with a minor? Because it's immoral. Why is it immoral? Because children can't consent. Why can't children consent? Because children aren't intelligent/mature enough to consent to sexual relations with an adult. Why aren't children intelligent/mature enough to consent to sexual relations with an adult? Because they're minors and it's immoral. And a certain point, the logic seems to go circular. Furthermore, people always filling the idea of Skepticism about the issue with disgust isn't very convincing to some of us. Why is this one area of Skepticism one of immorality. Why is even trying to thinking critically of why so abhorrent? Seems awfully suspicious.

Honestly the amount of anti-Skepticism in this area is so great it annoys me greatly. Especially the way it turns some normally logical individuals into some raving lunatic who says "What do you mean why is the age of consent when it is? Common sense! I think people who try to think of and question this are sick illogical paedophiles who need help."

I have to honestly wonder, at what age is someone absolutely disturbed by socially deemed "sexual" behavior. And at what age is a person able to consent and why? And what is the science behind all the hypotheses and theory of this matter that I can plainly see? Hardly anybody has given anything reasonably exact in all my years of living, and only chastized me for wanting to know. And even blamed me of being a paedophile for it, even when I made such questions under the age of consent.

Also, what counts as molesting? What acts are disturbing and why? Is intercourse with a teenager disturbing for their mind? At what age does this become so? And why is it psychologically harmful? Is the fondling of the chest, torso, or other area of the body, also known as "molestation", psychologically harmful? At what age does it become so, and why?

Anyway, I'm happy to at least have not encountered that hysteria in this thread. I just had to get a bit of that frustration out. Anyway, aside from that rant about Pedo Hunt being a way to vent about how this topic has gone for me in years past, part of the point in saying this was I honestly have no clue when the age of consent should be and why. I don't even pretend to have a good idea. I will say, that I don't even think that most 20 year olds should be having children. Honestly, I don't even much approve of it under the age of 30. And I support no eugenics movement, but I honestly think there ought to be a test for having and raising children to qualify for in the first place. Not for having sex, but for raising children. There is one for driving, so there ought to be one for raising children.

If we were talking about an "Age of Consent" for raising children, instead of having sex, I would say 30, to be completely honest.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Thirty might be a bit old. Then you start getting into health issues for mother and children. I would say 25.

Be not afraid...

"I honestly think there ought to be a test for having and raising children to qualify for in the first place."

I completely agree. At the very least, a psychological screening. Some sort of assessment proving that you know how to take care of a kid would be nice, too. But this is a really sensitive subject - people seem to think we'll turn into some Orwellian hellhole where babies are snatched from their mothers and raised on farms if the parents didn't pass the test. It doesn't have to be that way - I mean, everyone has a birth certificate anyway. All there has to be is a stamp on it that shows that the mother, father, or both have passed the test and that the child can live with the guardian that's passed the test. If it's an unplanned pregnancy, simply take the child home and pass the test within a certain time period, say, two weeks to a month. And boom, you get the stamp and you're good to go. If you don't take and pass the test, you'll get a notification, and the child will be sent either to foster care or to a relative that has passed the test until its parents take care of that.

edited 5th Jan '11 5:44:40 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

While rape is certainly a crime, the victim has to prove that he or she gave no consent. Having statutory rape laws removes this burden of proof, making the conviction much easier. So, while in theory, it might seem superfluous, it's a safety net for the child/teenager because, in practice, rape is not easily proven and rapists are not easily convicted.

We might assume that, even in the absence of the age-of-consent laws, the judge and the jury would take into account the age of the victim and construe the rapist as guilty with more promptness than they would exercise in a case with two adults, but there is also the possibility of the removed age of consent eventually leading to the society re-evaluating their opinions on minors' ability to handle sexual matters (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

As for adjusting the age of consent to 14, that seems far too low. If a teenager is mature enough to have responsible sex, he or she will practice it with discretion and get neither party in legal trouble. If he or she isn't, the law will be there - in the worst case scenario, to penalize the abuser, in the best, to serve as a cautionary reminder that sleeping with much more mature people at a young age is generally a bad idea for both involved.

Although, again, re-evaluating how teenagers handle sex might be not necessarily be a bad idea; and recognizing their sexuality at a younger age might demystify sex enough to help them develop a healthy attitude towards it - one of responsibility and realistic expectations.

edited 5th Jan '11 6:22:53 PM by Gwirion

You are a blowfish.

I'm pretty sure that you don't get birthing issues as young as thirty. I think I'd seen a study that it becomes a little more likely past 40, but not 30. Care for a link?

edited 5th Jan '11 6:23:29 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

But that really isn't the reasoning being given. Children, by and large, aren't emotionally (and, depending on the age, physically) ready for that kind of intimacy. Very few people are able to reduce sex to mutual masturbation; for most, it's an activity that involves a spectrum of emotions that range from blissful to dehumanized. It's better to err on the side of caution and assume that the child isn't ready for this, than assume that he or she will handle it just fine.

I assume this would be influenced by the parents' financial stability, no? Certainly, for anyone lower than the upper-middle class, late twenties to early thirties seem to be the optimal age for giving birth, but life is neither so perfect or formulaic that it means that anything lower than the optimal age would give unpleasant results.

edited 5th Jan '11 6:33:05 PM by Gwirion

You are a blowfish.

It's an explanation I'm frequently given, as well as the one you have about "emotional readiness", which is generally tied to the former that "children aren't mature enough". Most people seem to slew "Social Maturity", "Intelligence" and "Emotional Maturity" together.

Also, I always wonder what areas of these things are most important to "consent". Like for instance, emotional readiness, what does it entail? This is supposed to be a supposed reason that having sex hurts someone psychologically. How does one become emotionally ready, adult or minor? And if it applies to both, wouldn't there be signs to look out for, and to judge the situation based upon those, rather than an arbitrary age? I'm afraid I don't fully understand this concept of "emotional readiness". So it doesn't tell me much about what age is good and healthy, or how understand if a person is emotionally ready for something such as that no matter the age. Or even what all activities this entails. Are there other things that are just as emotionally reactant as sex? Why would sex necessarily be emotionally reactant . How does one become less emotionally reactant to it over time? When on average does one become emotionally reactant to it?

The psychological measurements of this whole matter, again, completely baffle me. Hearing them doesn't give me a good idea of when an age of consent should be. Or anything about about the matter, really.

I hate to be too daft, but could you explain this idea to me better and how it works than I have in the past?

Oh? I would say that the majority of the unpleasant results in terms of family and nurturing are from young, unprepared parenting. And the largest statistics of family problems seem to come from the younger crowd, and seem to get increasingly more sparse as people get older. And avoiding unpleasantries such as these is the entire point of various age laws, I would think. 30 or older seems to be a particularly healthy range statistically for raising children. Though I don't have the statistics offhand.

In any case, I believe the whole purpose in the age of consent in terms of sexual behavior, is due to "optimizing" emotional health as you speak, for human beings. So I don't see why this would be a bad course of action, as it would help to "optimize" and improve the emotional health of citizens as a whole. Particularly children.

edited 5th Jan '11 6:42:21 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Some children find out about masturbation before they can read. I'm not sure if there are studies focused on finding out how many of them turn into manic depressives or serial rapists, so I couldn't tell you whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

But at the same time, sex is less like driving or smoking or alcohol. Okay, it's kind of comparable to, say, alcohol in that it screws with the way you think. And people who aren't entirely aware of how it affects them should probably refrain from messing around with it if they don't know how easily they'll get addicted to the sensation. Yet sex isn't even as addictive or behavior-altering as alcohol.

To top it off, if the participants are educated in safe sex practices, there is almost no risk of pregnancy or infection, while alcohol and smoking carry latent health risks to more than just your mental well being.

I imagine there are studies linking promiscuity or younger sexual activity with all sorts of problems, but unless it is conclusively proven that sexual activity which takes place before a certain age is absolutely the problem, an age of consent is really just an umbrella safety net. If there are underlying problems which lead depressed teens, or people more prone to mental disorders to have more sex, then that's what should be attended to. Admittedly, many of the studies I've seen claiming that children who begin smoking or drinking early are more likely to become addicted aren't this strictly conclusive either, but I hope you see my point.

Theoretically, if there was a practical solution that let us single out those who have a problem with activities that cause them to make unavoidably unhealthy or irresponsible decisions, then we should attend to their problems. Indiscriminate banning of something that is useful and enjoyable strikes me as misguided extremism...or maybe just a last resort with no better solutions. Admittedly, age of consent is probably a decent solution in lieu of any useful alternative, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Some other method of sexual education and preparedness would probably be in the better interest of society, but that would require teachers and parents to act responsibly and take the wellbeing of their children into their own hands.

So yeah. Maybe it is better to just let the government tell everyone when they can and cannot have sex.

Curious: what do you consider "almost no risk" of failure? Throw a number out there.

edited 5th Jan '11 10:21:17 PM by Pykrete

Ukonkivi, the fundamental principle behind your argument appears to be that age is an arbitrary measure, which is quite simply untrue. While maturation rates differ from person to person, and while you can certainly find abundant exceptions to the norm when it comes to age=>maturity=>wisdom (understanding), the norm is what it is, and that is that age confers experience and circumspection. I'd argue that, in adulthood, we reach a plateau of maturity - but as far as puberty goes, I think this formula holds up exceptionally well.

Being psychologically ready for sex, to me, being ready to handle the emotions that come with it. As for why sex includes emotional reaction, I would chance to say that, aside from the chemical processes triggered by intercourse, it is also a socially loaded activity. Whether we practice sex as something casual or as something "special," we will reflect on what our attitude toward sex says about us. We respond emotionally not only to the act of coitus itself, but to our response to it. If we see it as something primordially sacred, we will examine why this is so. If we are indifferent to our partner, we will question what this indifference means to the nature of both the relationship and sexual intercourse in general. If we feel love, proximity, and intimacy, we will reflect on the meaning of all those things aside from the factor of carnal pleasure. If we feel that trust has been violated, we might begin questioning our partner's motives.

It's hard to pinpoint when in one's life one will be ready for this prior to actually committing the act, but as with most things, it's safer to err on the side of caution. I'd stated in my earlier post that a young person who is mature about his or her sexuality should have no problem engaging in sexual activity without censure or legal complications regardless of the statutory laws; this is fine, and it does not undermine the benefit of such laws to other young people who are not, for a number of reasons, ready to deal with sex in as responsible a way.

I'd like you to ask you to clarify what you mean by "unpleasant results." Good parenting is not contingent on affluence. Money helps in the matters of comfort and security, but I think strong values and a proclivity for hard work are more important to raising children.

I find it curious that you see a connection between age and maturity in the issue of child-rearing, but not in the ability to give informed consent, especially considering that the difference in maturity between, say, 25 and 30, is nothing compared to that between 14 and 16, or 16 and 18.

You are a blowfish.

What does that even MEAN? That doesn't sound like an arguement at all. The normality of an idea, such as the age of consent, is by no means an argument that it is correct. The Status Quo is just that, the Status Quo, is doesn't say anything more than what is the status quo. And arguing to the status quo as a source for what is right, is a logical fallacy.

That is a concept that differs from culture to culture. What age are you talking about here, and why? Why don't these "exceptions" matter? And what even do we know causes these exceptions happen? Why do you find this to be the "norm" so much something should be arbitrary? A gut feeling? You haven't even explained what this maturity entails very well and why it is important, and have skipped onto saying "it's a good age because it's normal and the exceptions are few". What age? What maturity? How many exceptions? Why not too arbitrary?

What emotions? Are there emotional feelings unique to sex? What are they?

That's almost EVERYTHING in life. Yes, society has the problem that it makes too big of a deal out of sex. Also a great deal of other things "socially loaded", as much if not more so than sex. If you let other people's opinion's get to you, to the point that you suffer emotional damage for it, then you care dangerously too much what other people think of you in the first place, and you need psychological help, badly. If you care too much what other people think about your sex life, then you will probably care too much what other people think about you in general. And likely suffer from incredibly low self esteem. An issue like being of a different religion than other people could greatly disturb you.

I avoid making an anecdotal in topics like this. But a part of what contributes to how confusing this matter is for me, is how much applying this line of thinking to my childhood doesn't line up with the status quo. So I generally dismiss it for an understanding. But I have deep psychological issues related to my interest in other cultures, due to my peers. And psychological issues related to religion, due to my cruelly strict religious upbrining from my parents. That, I would wish never happened. Sex, on the other hand, that I said "yes" to without "consent", I can't imagine having disturbed me. A moderate concern, at worst. Likely to give me deep psychological issues, unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.

I don't remember anything like that, to be honest. And what you're saying, actually. What of an adult with a minor? Obviously a minor shouldn't be punished for their own good. But what of a minor with a 20 year old?

And I'm more sure about child-rearing than the age of consent because I see the negative effects of young child-rearing in everyday life. 18 year olds make terrible parents. And even twenty-two year olds. I have never seen a child in their early twenties I would consider ready for parenting. And the statistics seem to back me up. While on the other hand, I don't see 22 year olds dating 15 year olds in everyday life. It takes a multitude greater maturity to raise children than it does to simply have sex responsibly. And a "maturity" that I can reasonably describe the parts of required and not just vaguely say "maturity". Financial stability is important, but also financial understanding. Most 18 year olds aren't used to paying bills and making finacial decisions of any kind. Child rearing also takes incredibly patience and understanding of the other. It is incredibly easy to make a mistake. One must frequently understand the limits of the freedom they can give to a child, and how much balance should be met, not too authoritarian, either. Constantly having the future and safety of a child in mind is a job harder than working to earn a living. People around the age of 18 have likely just gotten their freedom, and they don't even have enough freedom to drink alcohol in some parts of the world. They are no where near ready for the task that will cut their freedom to less than it was when they were minors.

I never said I "don't see a connection of age and maturity" in any area. I find it curious that you're using this strawman. I said I am uncertain about the age of consent.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

"What emotions? Are there emotional feelings unique to sex? What are they?"

I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but have you ever had sex?

"That's almost EVERYTHING in life. Yes, society has the problem that it makes too big of a deal out of sex. Also a great deal of other things "socially loaded", as much if not more so than sex. If you let other people's opinion's get to you, to the point that you suffer emotional damage for it, then you care dangerously too much what other people think of you in the first place, and you need psychological help, badly. If you care too much what other people think about your sex life, then you will probably care too much what other people think about you in general. And likely suffer from incredibly low self esteem. An issue like being of a different religion than other people could greatly disturb you."

I can't speak for Gwirion, but I'm fairly certain that "socially loaded" doesn't mean "worrying what other people think of my sex life" in this context. Sex is a social activity, after all, and thinking that you can remove others' thoughts on sex from your own understanding of it doesn't seem merely futile, but counterproductive.

Also, as harsh as this may sound, I'd advise addressing what is being said instead of waxing critical on what hasn't been so much as implied. Sure, some people might care too much about what others think of their sex life, and these people might have low self esteem, and, if you do insist on couch psychology, perhaps they do also have deep seated problems - but that's not what's being talked about. If you don't recognize that sex is something monumental for a great many people, that's one thing. As far as I'm understanding Gwirion's post, [s]he is saying that how we feel about sex is important to us, even if we feel that sex itself isn't, because we recognize that it's a huge driving force and something that's, to a degree, ineffable for most of humanity.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?