Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Red Hal » Fri May 10, 2013 6:14 pm UTC

Which they could not have done if they didn't have one.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Fri May 10, 2013 6:34 pm UTC

You know that you are basically asking for a marriage certificate right? In many states, the marrying age is lower than the AoC.

User avatar
ShortChelsea
One thousand four hundred and thirty seven
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:26 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby ShortChelsea » Fri May 10, 2013 6:38 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You know that you are basically asking for a marriage certificate right? In many states, the marrying age is lower than the AoC.

Really? That seems messed up. I don't understand why they wouldn't be the same, or have the age of consent lower than the legal age to get married. Having sex requires less commitment in my opinion than marriage.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Fri May 10, 2013 6:50 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Which they could not have done if they didn't have one.

Because I definitely took the time and effort to validate that it wasn't falsified, just like I did before the new law came into effect and the girl told me she was 18.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri May 10, 2013 8:03 pm UTC

A fake ID is at least a slightly higher barrier than a "Are you over 18? yes/no" checkbox on a website...
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri May 10, 2013 8:15 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Is the tradeoff worth it? What are the issues with it being legal?
Sexual predators can and will rape people and get away with it much more easily.
What are the issues with it being illegal?
Some people will have to find different partners to bone than they would have otherwise, or wait a few years before they start boning.


Unfortunately that is not the trade-off. The problem is that Age of Consent laws have been used to prosecute people under the AoC for having sex with others in their age group. And, because it is possible to charge minors as non-minors, this means that the price of underage sex can be having your life ruined via current laws regarding sex offender registries. It can also lead to families being broken up, people being placed in treatment programs that do more harm than good... etc. etc. etc.... I suggest looking at Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors" if you are interested in how well these laws aren't working (it's 10 years out of date, but given recent reports of youth facing possible charges around child pornography for "sexting," it doesn't seem much has changed).

I am not sure what the solution is, but the law at least as it exists within the U.S. does not work especially well, and the fall-out is not just that certain people can't have sex with certain people for a couple years.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Fri May 10, 2013 8:20 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:Unfortunately that is not the trade-off. The problem is that Age of Consent laws have been used to prosecute people under the AoC for having sex with others in their age group.
...
I am not sure what the solution is, but the law at least as it exists within the U.S. does not work especially well, and the fall-out is not just that certain people can't have sex with certain people for a couple years.

We've already explicitly stated several times that AoC laws that just have a cutoff at 18 or whatever suck. The one I am proposing and defending is the half plus seven rule for anyone under 21.

This means the no-one under 14 is legal for sex. At 14 - 16 it's basically only your immediate age group, and a 20 year old's age range is 17-26.

I think a law like that is worth the trade off. Superior to any flat-cutoff age of consent laws.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri May 10, 2013 8:41 pm UTC

I don't like any laws that says kids can't have sex with kids, and I'll certainly agree that persecuting people who are having sex with one another when there's only a few years difference is silly. The law is certainly flawed insofar as a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old is somehow illegal, but the spirit of the law (a dangerous thing to mention, to be sure) is to prevent predatory adults from taking advantage of or otherwise manipulating minors into sex, something which can be quite harmful.

Again, if you want to make the argument that protecting minors from being taken advantage of doesn't require defining them as minors, then fine; now you've entered a murky realm wherein legal guardians can retroactively remove purportedly freely given consent, and the issue is less clear, which is arguably, even worse than the issue being 'somewhat shitty'.

Frankly, I'd rather somewhat draconic laws preventing a 20 year old from having sex with their 16 year old partner, even if they've been dating for years, than a situation where someone can be vindictively charged with rape by pissed off parents, or where charging a pedophile requires legal gymnastics.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Adam H » Fri May 10, 2013 8:57 pm UTC

I don't quite understand the logic behind the idea that kids should be allowed to have sex with kids. Either kids are old enough to give consent to have sex, or they are not.

I guess it's a culture thing - like it is (or can be?) icky for a 52 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, but it's not icky for a 16 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. However, I don't think ickiness is a good basis for laws...

Izawwlgood wrote:the spirit of the law (a dangerous thing to mention, to be sure) is to prevent predatory adults from taking advantage of or otherwise manipulating minors into sex, something which can be quite harmful
What about predatory minors? They exist.
-Adam

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Fri May 10, 2013 9:02 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:I don't quite understand the logic behind the idea that kids should be allowed to have sex with kids. Either kids are old enough to give consent to have sex, or they are not.

I guess it's a culture thing - like it is (or can be?) icky for a 52 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, but it's not icky for a 16 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. However, I don't think ickiness is a good basis for laws...

Izawwlgood wrote:the spirit of the law (a dangerous thing to mention, to be sure) is to prevent predatory adults from taking advantage of or otherwise manipulating minors into sex, something which can be quite harmful
What about predatory minors? They exist.

The idea is to find the correct balance in the law. Predatory people take advantage of other adults. Is it a good idea to make it blanket illegal for adults to have sex, period? No.

Is it a good idea to not allow 19 year olds to have sex with anyone? No.

Is it a good idea to allow people to have sex with 5 year olds?
No.

I've explained the reasoning for my proposed balance. Is there something about it that you don't care for? What do you think the right solution is?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Adam H » Fri May 10, 2013 9:56 pm UTC

I propose that 15 and older can have sex with whoever they please, 14 and younger can't have sex with anyone.

Or move around the cutoff.
-Adam

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Fri May 10, 2013 10:03 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:I propose that 15 and older can have sex with whoever they please, 14 and younger can't have sex with anyone.

Or move around the cutoff.

You don't see any value in easing into it?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Adam H » Fri May 10, 2013 10:42 pm UTC

Nope.
-Adam

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri May 10, 2013 11:11 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:We've already explicitly stated several times that AoC laws that just have a cutoff at 18 or whatever suck. The one I am proposing and defending is the half plus seven rule for anyone under 21.

This means the no-one under 14 is legal for sex. At 14 - 16 it's basically only your immediate age group, and a 20 year old's age range is 17-26.

I think a law like that is worth the trade off. Superior to any flat-cutoff age of consent laws.


"We" may have said that in the thread, but I did not read you specifically saying it, or rather I read you as largely saying "Yeah it sucks, but whatcha gonna do?" I have given it a more nuanced reading and see that I was at least partially mistaken, that you were proposing something a bit more complicated. I apologize for my partial misreading, but I still find a lot of fault with the concept that the only fall-out from these laws is people not getting to have sex with who they want to. Also can't say I am a fan of upper-age limits for people over the age of 17. I hate the idea that 18- to 20-year-olds should be treated as minors in certain ways, and this makes for some ridiculous standards for sex policing. I am not going to say that bad shit doesn't happen to 18-year-olds because of certain older individuals, but I think it's more complex than the word "predatory" could ever describe and I also don't think you should outlaw adults making potentially bad decisions like this.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat May 11, 2013 12:44 am UTC

So... A lot of the 'but the law sometimes doesn't work, so we should get rid of it entirely' mentality to me smacks of the same lame argument a lot of opponents of gun legislation make. "But it'll be hard for citizens to get guns, so, no gun laws are reasonable" sounds exactly like "Sometimes people get incorrectly entrapped in these laws, so, we better abolish them entirely".

Adam H wrote:I propose that 15 and older can have sex with whoever they please, 14 and younger can't have sex with anyone.
No. The name of the game is not restricting what minors can do with one another, but restricting what adults can do to minors. The closest example I can think of here is that two children getting into a play ground brawl isn't grounds for suing for aggravated assault and battery, but two adults is. I already mentioned that this is kind of a gray area, but part of the issue is the notion of exploitation; two children having sex aren't exploiting one another because they're both on the same playing field, same game. An adult exploiting a child for sex isn't even the same sport.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5943
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Angua » Sat May 11, 2013 10:04 am UTC

This is probably more suited to the discussion on the last page about assessing things on a case by case basis, but I thought that you might find it interesting.
Gillick competence is what is assessed for people under 16 to whether or not they can consent to a medical procedure without needing to involve parents. It is based on the procedure that is to be carried out and whether or not the patient is mature enough to make an informed decision.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Red Hal » Mon May 13, 2013 2:07 pm UTC

That's precisely the sort of thing I was thinking of Angua. I like the idea of half-plus-seven (round to nearest whole number) as an easily defined cutoff which allows a clear understanding of what will definitely not constitute a criminal act if all parties are consenting. I also like the idea that, in addition, if it can be shown that both parties were mature enough to provide informed consent then again no crime has been committed. This leaves two scenarios; where no party is considered capable of providing consent, and where not all parties can provide consent. I believe that in the former, education (for both child and parent/guardian) would be a more beneficial outcome than criminalisation; and in the latter, the current law should continue to apply. This also has the benefit that not every case has to be considered.

If that were the law in my country, I could live with that.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Mon May 13, 2013 4:16 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:
Роберт wrote:We've already explicitly stated several times that AoC laws that just have a cutoff at 18 or whatever suck. The one I am proposing and defending is the half plus seven rule for anyone under 21.

This means the no-one under 14 is legal for sex. At 14 - 16 it's basically only your immediate age group, and a 20 year old's age range is 17-26.

I think a law like that is worth the trade off. Superior to any flat-cutoff age of consent laws.


"We" may have said that in the thread, but I did not read you specifically saying it, or rather I read you as largely saying "Yeah it sucks, but whatcha gonna do?" I have given it a more nuanced reading and see that I was at least partially mistaken, that you were proposing something a bit more complicated. I apologize for my partial misreading, but I still find a lot of fault with the concept that the only fall-out from these laws is people not getting to have sex with who they want to. Also can't say I am a fan of upper-age limits for people over the age of 17. I hate the idea that 18- to 20-year-olds should be treated as minors in certain ways, and this makes for some ridiculous standards for sex policing. I am not going to say that bad shit doesn't happen to 18-year-olds because of certain older individuals, but I think it's more complex than the word "predatory" could ever describe and I also don't think you should outlaw adults making potentially bad decisions like this.

Fine, put the top cutoff at 18 instead of 21. Either way, it's better than no age of consent laws and better than a flat cutoff.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
rieschen
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby rieschen » Mon May 13, 2013 6:17 pm UTC

People over the age of 18 are treated as minors in some ways already before the law in the US - they're not allowed to drink (nor gamble, I think). It's certainly the same in my country - for example, you can't adopt until you're much older than you could legally conceive a child by having consensual sex. The exact rights vary, though.

(I'm not sure what kind of law I'd be for - the only thing I really know is that kids shouldn't be criminalised for messing around with others in their own age group who weren't coerced.)

Just editing to correct a typo.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Adam H » Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Adam H wrote:I propose that 15 and older can have sex with whoever they please, 14 and younger can't have sex with anyone.
No. The name of the game is not restricting what minors can do with one another, but restricting what adults can do to minors. The closest example I can think of here is that two children getting into a play ground brawl isn't grounds for suing for aggravated assault and battery, but two adults is. I already mentioned that this is kind of a gray area, but part of the issue is the notion of exploitation; two children having sex aren't exploiting one another because they're both on the same playing field, same game. An adult exploiting a child for sex isn't even the same sport.

So make it illegal for an adult to exploit a "child" anyone for sex.

If someone in a position of power forces an underling to have sex, you prosecute that person. You don't make it illegal for people in power to have sex with less powerful people.

I have pretty extreme libertarian views so I understand that not many are going to agree with me. :P But basically I dislike laws that presecute moral/ethical people.
-Adam

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon May 13, 2013 6:39 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:So make it illegal for an adult to exploit a "child" anyone for sex.
Yeah, I've mentioned this a few times in the thread, that it may be unnecessary to define 'child' in this mess.
The problem there is that a minor is likely less equipped than an adult to make educated decisions. If there's a legal precedent for keeping child and adult sexuality separate, you at least create a safer space around sex, insofar as discouraging adults from seeking sexual activities with children. That said, of course, making something illegal doesn't do much for the impulse.

This isn't neccesarily an issue of force; an adult is simply better able to emotionally manipulate a child into 'consensual' sex, and this is a problem. Saying 'well the child's guardian will have to act as intermediary' only muddies the waters. Again, I'd rather a catch all law that occasionally strings up the wrong person, than no law that lets the wrong behavior proliferate. The flaws in the laws as they stand now mean we need to fix those laws, not abandon them.

Adam H wrote:I have pretty extreme libertarian views so I understand that not many are going to agree with me. :P But basically I dislike laws that presecute moral/ethical people.
This isn't legislating morality as much as protecting children. You can certainly make an argument that society wide acceptable of child-adult sex has no negative ramifications on a child, but we don't live in a society where that is acceptable, and as such, the world isn't really full of underage Harold's seeking and finding Maude's. It may sound a bit circular, but if we lived in a society that more freely accepted sex, and even more freely accepted sex between people of vastly different ages, than we could consider not wanting to protect children from sexual encounters with adults. But we don't, and many child-adult sexual encounters are likely/probably/possibly predatory in nature, so, we protect the children.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Mon May 13, 2013 7:23 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:So make it illegal for an adult to exploit a "child" anyone for sex.
Yes. And one of the ways of determining if exploitation occurred is if it's an adult with a child.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Adam H » Mon May 13, 2013 7:35 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:This isn't neccesarily an issue of force; an adult is simply better able to emotionally manipulate a child into 'consensual' sex, and this is a problem.

Disagree with this. I think children (remember we're talking about "children" between the age of 15-18) are in general much better at resisting adult manipulation than peer manipulation.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Adam H wrote:I have pretty extreme libertarian views so I understand that not many are going to agree with me. :P But basically I dislike laws that presecute moral/ethical people.
This isn't legislating morality as much as protecting children. You can certainly make an argument that society wide acceptable of child-adult sex has no negative ramifications on a child, but we don't live in a society where that is acceptable, and as such, the world isn't really full of underage Harold's seeking and finding Maude's. It may sound a bit circular, but if we lived in a society that more freely accepted sex, and even more freely accepted sex between people of vastly different ages, than we could consider not wanting to protect children from sexual encounters with adults. But we don't, and many child-adult sexual encounters are likely/probably/possibly predatory in nature, so, we protect the children.

If the majority of adult+teen relationships are predatory (doubtful), then I think it's because of selection bias - by making it illegal, you're eliminating the possibility of relationships between law-abiding adults+teens.

Роберт wrote:
Adam H wrote:So make it illegal for an adult to exploit a "child" anyone for sex.
Yes. And one of the ways of determining if exploitation occurred is if it's an adult with a child.
And I'm saying that's a bad way to determine if exploitation occurred (unless you define child as "too young to make their own decisions").
-Adam

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 13, 2013 8:13 pm UTC

Except the vast vast vast amount of cases of adult child sex are cases of abuse by the adult. Enough that even if there was no AoC, the age difference alone would be beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.

Society has two options. 1) establish an expensive and intrusive bureaucracy to determine if a child can give consent, or 2) just have AoC. So few people's rights are really violated by 2 and by so minimal an amount compared to the cost of implementing 1 that option 1 isn't the better option.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon May 13, 2013 8:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 13, 2013 8:22 pm UTC


Disagree with this. I think children (remember we're talking about "children" between the age of 15-18) are in general much better at resisting adult manipulation than peer manipulation.

Adam, 'in general' is a dangerous term here. Manipulative people target the susceptible and vulnerable, not the average. And while every age group has vulnerable people, the group of teenagers around 15 or so contains a far greater amount of sexually insecure people than any other, while they are at the same time becoming physically attractive to most adults.

Even if age limits are perhaps not the best way to be protective, there are still good reasons to be more protective against manipulation for this age group than for older groups.

Except the vast vast vast amount of cases of adult child sex are cases of abuse by the adult.

If we use 'child' for ages up to 18, then this is far from obvious.
Last edited by Zamfir on Mon May 13, 2013 8:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 13, 2013 8:24 pm UTC

Which is why AoC is not 18 in most states. It's 18 in California, and since most media is from there, everyone thinks it's 18.

Most states have it 16, and some 17. Cali and Florida are the only major states with 18.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 13, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

You're still making an extremely bold statement. For all I know, most sex by children of 14 or 15 is not particularly abusive, not even when it's with people who years older. The risks for abuse are far higher, but that hardly means that the vast majority is abuse.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 13, 2013 8:44 pm UTC

The cutoff has to be made somewhere, and most places chose 16. The chance for abusers goes up exponentially the younger you set the AoC. The extra rights given to a 40 year by allowing him to have sex with a 15 yr old instead of a 16 yr old are (ostensibly according to the law) dwarfed by the extra safety granted to 15 yr olds.

Most of Europe disagrees, and think it should be 14 or 15; Spain has an AoC of 13.

But they do have it.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Adam H » Mon May 13, 2013 8:51 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Disagree with this. I think children (remember we're talking about "children" between the age of 15-18) are in general much better at resisting adult manipulation than peer manipulation.

Adam, 'in general' is a dangerous term here. Manipulative people target the susceptible and vulnerable, not the average. And while every age group has vulnerable people, the group of teenagers around 15 or so contains a far greater amount of sexually insecure people than any other, while they are at the same time becoming physically attractive to most adults.

Even if age limits are perhaps not the best way to be protective, there are still good reasons to be more protective against manipulation for this age group than for older groups.

Good point.

But I think my point still stands if I use different wording: teens can manipulate sexually insecure teens just like or perhaps even more effectively than adults can manipulate sexually insecure teens. So if you are going to ban adults from consensual sex with teens, then I think it follows that you would also ban teens from consensual sex with teens.

I'm all for protecting the children, but shouldn't we protect them from each other as well as from adults?
-Adam

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby HungryHobo » Tue May 14, 2013 12:27 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:But I think my point still stands if I use different wording: teens can manipulate sexually insecure teens just like or perhaps even more effectively than adults can manipulate sexually insecure teens. So if you are going to ban adults from consensual sex with teens, then I think it follows that you would also ban teens from consensual sex with teens.

Lets put it this way: teens are vastly more likely to be on a similar level with each other.
I'm not amazingly witty or an adept socialiser.
In a group of people of my own age I can hold my own.

In a group of 13 year olds helping out at a scout event I know every comeback and the "right" answer to any joke simply because I've had twice as long as them to learn.
I can be more geeky than the geek and be quicker with a comeback than the joker.

the percentage of the 13 year old population who can wrap other 13 year olds round their little finger is tiny.
the percentage of the 20-30 year old peopulation who can wrap a 13 year old round their little finger is huge.

there's an almost automatic huge power difference there.

as mentioned that doesn't automatically imply an abusive relationship.
A black belt can spar with a beginner and it doesn't make it automatically a beating just because the more capable party can make it such.

but then you're down to trust and there's a lot of older men and women who would use it as a chance to get an easy lay.

as a libertarian you can apply the same logic to the question of "if a child inherits a house why is it held in trust until they're an adult rather than allowing them to swap it for a bag of shiny pennies but they are allowed to swap some shiny pennies for some sweets".

also it's much harder to hold someones body in trust than their assets.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Pjotr
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:37 am UTC
Location: Leiden, NL

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Pjotr » Sat May 25, 2013 4:27 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:the percentage of the 13 year old population who can wrap other 13 year olds round their little finger is tiny.
the percentage of the 20-30 year old peopulation who can wrap a 13 year old round their little finger is huge.
Not sure I agree with that.
Every finger is touching and searching / Until your secrets come out,
In the dance, as it endlessly circles / I linger close to your mouth.
--
This sentence is as succinct as possible.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby addams » Sat May 25, 2013 4:47 pm UTC

Pjotr wrote:
HungryHobo wrote:the percentage of the 13 year old population who can wrap other 13 year olds round their little finger is tiny.
the percentage of the 20-30 year old population who can wrap a 13 year old round their little finger is huge.
Not sure I agree with that.

I have no idea what kind of consent you are talking about, now.
I agree with the dissenting voice.

Some thirty year old people are easily manipulated.
Some 13 year old people are Master Manipulators.

When I came from, the words, 'Age of Consent' were about Religion.
The Age of Consent was 8. At eight years old a person could be Baptized.

You are talking about consensual Sex.
In all cases of Consensual Sex the burden of proof is on the shoulders of The Adult.

Getting Baptized was a big deal for me at eight.
Sex at Thirteen is not a big deal for some girls and boys.

It may be for you. It is not for All.
Some of that is Cultural.
Some of that is Personal.

I met a Sexually Provocative eleven year old girl.
She is 165 lbs. She is 5 feet and 7 inches tall.
She looks, 18 to 25 years old.

She speaks openly of her distain for her confidants at school.

She told me, one thirteen year old girl from her school had Sex with three different men.
The thirteen year old girl, then pressed charges of Statutory Rape.
Each one of the men was convicted.

It is, just, a Rumor from the Mind of an eleven year old girl.
The World has not changed. Eleven year old girls have not changed.

Some eleven year old girls are skinny and as innocent as a children.
Because, they Are children!

Some seem so Adult.
No matter what a person looks like, it is a good policy to ask.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby HungryHobo » Sun May 26, 2013 8:37 am UTC

addams wrote:Some thirty year old people are easily manipulated.
Some 13 year old people are Master Manipulators.

I think you're not getting the idea of "more" and "less".

lets imagine that instead of the ability to manipulate people and get what you want we were talking about the ability to play the piano.

How many 13 year olds are master pianists? a few
How many 26 year olds are master piansits? a lot more

having twice as long to learn a skill makes a big difference.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Pjotr
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:37 am UTC
Location: Leiden, NL

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Pjotr » Sun May 26, 2013 9:42 am UTC

HungryHobo wrote:having twice as long to learn a skill makes a big difference.
Sure. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the older one gets, the more manipulative one could be. But to flat-out state
the percentage of the 13 year old population who can wrap other 13 year olds round their little finger is tiny.
the percentage of the 20-30 year old population who can wrap a 13 year old round their little finger is huge.
should be backed up with some statistics. Also, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, peer pressure could easily skew the percentages.
Every finger is touching and searching / Until your secrets come out,
In the dance, as it endlessly circles / I linger close to your mouth.
--
This sentence is as succinct as possible.

screen317
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby screen317 » Wed May 29, 2013 4:26 am UTC

Pjotr wrote:
HungryHobo wrote:having twice as long to learn a skill makes a big difference.
Sure. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the older one gets, the more manipulative one could be. But to flat-out state
the percentage of the 13 year old population who can wrap other 13 year olds round their little finger is tiny.
the percentage of the 20-30 year old population who can wrap a 13 year old round their little finger is huge.
should be backed up with some statistics. Also, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, peer pressure could easily skew the percentages.
Whose institution do you suppose would come up with such statistics?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby addams » Wed May 29, 2013 6:40 am UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
addams wrote:Some thirty year old people are easily manipulated.
Some 13 year old people are Master Manipulators.

I think you're not getting the idea of "more" and "less".

lets imagine that instead of the ability to manipulate people and get what you want we were talking about the ability to play the piano.

How many 13 year olds are master pianists? a few
How many 26 year olds are master piansits? a lot more

having twice as long to learn a skill makes a big difference.


Some people do not learn the piano; Not ever.
Some people do not learn to be manipulative.

It may be hard to understand.
There are innocent people of all ages.

Some people are Jerks early.
Some people never develop the inner Jerk.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby HungryHobo » Wed May 29, 2013 3:40 pm UTC

addams wrote:Some people do not learn the piano; Not ever.
Some people do not learn to be manipulative.

It may be hard to understand.
There are innocent people of all ages.

Some people are Jerks early.
Some people never develop the inner Jerk.


Yes?
your point? how does that contradict anything.

and I wasn't talking about being a jerk.
I was simply talking about being more socially capable, you can have the ability to manipulate someone without using it for nefarious ends.

Hell the most capable openly manipulative person I've ever met was a professional social worker who only used his powers for good.

I could equally say that most 26 year olds are physically stronger than most 13 year olds and **could** beat them up, that doesn't mean that most 26 year olds go round beating up 13 year olds or being jerks about it.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby addams » Wed May 29, 2013 10:24 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
addams wrote:Some people do not learn the piano; Not ever.
Some people do not learn to be manipulative.

It may be hard to understand.
There are innocent people of all ages.

Some people are Jerks early.
Some people never develop the inner Jerk.


Yes?
your point? how does that contradict anything.

and I wasn't talking about being a jerk.
I was simply talking about being more socially capable, you can have the ability to manipulate someone without using it for nefarious ends.

Hell the most capable openly manipulative person I've ever met was a professional social worker who only used his powers for good.

I could equally say that most 26 year olds are physically stronger than most 13 year olds and **could** beat them up, that doesn't mean that most 26 year olds go round beating up 13 year olds or being jerks about it.

Yes. I think you made my point.

oh! oh! Most eleven year old girls can not beat the crap out of a normal 26 year old man.
Some can. I have seen it!

So, far I have only seen her threaten.
She is a threatening young woman when displeased.

Many of The Young Women are threatening.
It is a Sign of The Times.
They learn it on TV and it is reinforced everyday in everyway.

Some of those girls are Huge!
When did we start making them so big?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
AYC
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:43 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby AYC » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:37 pm UTC

16 seems reasonable to me. Though honestly, this is an issue that is very complex and multifaceted and I doubt there is a clear catch-all answer to the age of consent.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Thesh » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:52 pm UTC

Age of consent laws, to me, are both overreaching and inadequate at the same time. First off, I don't think any crime that is based on an age limit, or hasn't resulted in direct harm to someone should be more than a misdemeanor (drunk driving included, although fines and revocation of driver's license are perfectly acceptable, IMO).

The idea of whether minors are able to consent to an adult has been discussed already, but to reiterate I don't think you should make laws on generalization. If your concern is manipulation, then prove that there was manipulation. When it comes to manipulation, the law does not adequately cover the most common cases of people manipulating others into having sex anyway. We have an entire community of people who think manipulating other people into sex is an art form, and this doesn't cover it.

I would much rather the law be written to make "manipulating someone into engaging in sex acts, or engaging in sex acts with someone who is not mentally competent to consent" as being rape, and handle it on a case by case basis, while acknowledging that a lot of guilty people will go free. I would rather not see people have their life ruined when they had done nothing wrong.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests