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

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:22 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:First off, I don't think any crime that ... 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).

So, let's say they caught the Boston bombers before the bombs went off, and successfully diffused them. Slap them with as many misdemeanors as you can, I guess?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:31 pm UTC

I think he means either in intent or consequence. Basically victimless crimes such as drug addiction alone shouldn't get lengthy prison sentences.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:03 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think he means either in intent or consequence. Basically victimless crimes such as drug addiction alone shouldn't get lengthy prison sentences.

But firing a gun into the air is only a victimless crime if no one gets hurt. The action is not materially different if it kills a baby, the mayor, or no one. I don't think the crime should be prosecuted solely on the outcome of said crime. Driving drunk may be victimless only due to incredible evasive action by a sober driver. The action on the drunk driver's part is not materially different in either case.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 10:32 pm UTC

Yes, intent matters. Drunk driving should not be allowed, but I don't think it should be a felony (and I don't believe it is in most states), and it should probably not result in jail time, but it should probably result in people losing their license to drive, at least temporarily. Similar to firing a gun in the air; it should result in a fine, it should also probably result in a period of probation in which you are no longer allowed to be in possession of a firearm. People do stuff that could get other people killed all the time, take speeding as an example, but I don't think it should be a felony and it certainly shouldn't result in your life being destroyed (which is often the case if a 19 year old has sex with a 15 year old). I would even argue that the consequence of the action shouldn't result in a stronger punishment, but that's another debate that I really don't want to get into (one I believe we have had before).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:41 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Yes, intent matters. Drunk driving should not be allowed, but I don't think it should be a felony (and I don't believe it is in most states), and it should probably not result in jail time, but it should probably result in people losing their license to drive, at least temporarily. Similar to firing a gun in the air; it should result in a fine, it should also probably result in a period of probation in which you are no longer allowed to be in possession of a firearm. People do stuff that could get other people killed all the time, take speeding as an example, but I don't think it should be a felony and it certainly shouldn't result in your life being destroyed (which is often the case if a 19 year old has sex with a 15 year old). I would even argue that the consequence of the action shouldn't result in a stronger punishment, but that's another debate that I really don't want to get into (one I believe we have had before).

Right, but say you're caught driving drunk a while your license is already suspended for drunk driving again. At some point shouldn't we take it seriously? It's still just as victimless a crime as it was the first time.

Actions that have serious risk of causing serious damage are not "victimless crimes" just because they happened to get lucky and not hurt anyone. That goes for drunk driving, firing a gun into the air, etc.

A lot of people would argue a 30-year-old having sex with a 10-year old is also dangerous enough to make illegal. Are they right? I think so. Grown men are much more likely to be in a position to successfully groom young children in and unhealthy way in order to participate in sexual behavior with them that the children don't want but are not in a position where they will call them out on it. And again - it's not like it's making it illegal for a 30-year-old man to have sex ever. Just not with kids. If he's really in love, he can wait 8 years.

Of all the sexual laws (bestiality, sodomy, prostitution, etc), the AoC have a principle behind them that actually makes sense.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:00 pm UTC

Errm, bestiality also has the informed consent principle behind it. Only humans are known to be sophonts. While dolphins may be willing, being the vicious rape-carnivores of the sea, they have about the mental maturity of a mentally retarded human, and we have laws against sex with the mentally challenged for a reason.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:01 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Errm, bestiality also has the informed consent principle behind it. Only humans are known to be sophonts. While dolphins may be willing, being the vicious rape-carnivores of the sea, they have about the mental maturity of a mentally retarded human, and we have laws against sex with the mentally challenged for a reason.

Yeah, but you're allowed to kill and eat animals. I wasn't saying bestiality should be legal, I'm saying AoC protects people which is more important the protecting animals.

Obviously I'm assuming rape (of people and animals} should still be illegal, so I'm talking about situations where it's not obviously rape. Just like AoC laws are.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:07 pm UTC

Thesh wrote: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.


In the case you described, I think there is a very high probability of his conviction under the rules I previously stated.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:55 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Thesh wrote: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.


In the case you described, I think there is a very high probability of his conviction under the rules I previously stated.

How do you prove well enough to convict that the child wasn't manipulated, and how do you determine that the child is capable of consent?

I thinks it's OK to both have it be illegal to shoot people AND have it be illegal to shoot into the air.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 » Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:How do you prove well enough to convict that the child wasn't manipulated, and how do you determine that the child is capable of consent?


Our legal system doesn't require proof, it requires convincing a jury.

Роберт wrote:I thinks it's OK to both have it be illegal to shoot people AND have it be illegal to shoot into the air.


I agree, but shooting in the air shouldn't be treated the same.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:10 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Роберт wrote:How do you prove well enough to convict that the child wasn't manipulated, and how do you determine that the child is capable of consent?

Our legal system doesn't require proof, it requires convincing a jury.

In the United States, the adversarial system is used. The prosecution must prove each element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_l ... n_of_proof
Thesh wrote:
Роберт wrote:I thinks it's OK to both have it be illegal to shoot people AND have it be illegal to shoot into the air.


I agree, but shooting in the air shouldn't be treated the same.

True. Perhaps statutory rape shouldn't be as serious legally as non-consensual rape.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:15 pm UTC

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the key part. That's not proof, that's called being convinced. If we required proof, no one would ever be wrongly convicted.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:28 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Beyond a reasonable doubt is the key part. That's not proof, that's called being convinced. If we required proof, no one would ever be wrongly convicted.

I don't think you know what the word "proof" means. I'll give you a hint. If you divide the proof in half, you get %abv, but only sometimes.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:31 pm UTC

Proof is something that can only be determined by experts in the subject, who examine the evidence and find there is no other reasonable conclusion. Juries aren't experts, and they don't require proof to convict.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:46 pm UTC

Take a couple shots of something at least 80 proof, then go back and read my post again.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:55 pm UTC

You're arguing supposed to bes and semantics, I'm arguing the reality.

If you think convincing any group of 12 random people is proving something, then apparently people prove evolution to be wrong all the time.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:00 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You're arguing supposed to bes and semantics, I'm arguing the reality.

If you think convincing any group of 12 random people is proving something, then apparently people prove evolution to be wrong all the time.

If you think proof only has one meaning, you haven't had enough whisky yet.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:06 pm UTC

You know something, I really don't give a shit about arguing this. If you are ready to actually argue a point, let me know.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:48 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You know something, I really don't give a shit about arguing this. If you are ready to actually argue a point, let me know.

My point that my question
How do you prove well enough to convict that the child wasn't manipulated, and how do you determine that the child is capable of consent?

is a perfectly valid question and your response
Our legal system doesn't require proof, it requires convincing a jury.

is completely pointless.

You know what I meant by the question; answer it instead of pretending that "prove" can only mean proof in the sense of a rigorous mathematical proof.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:54 pm UTC

If you weren't using the colloquial definition of the word proof, then you are way overestimating juries. Let me ask you something, if you were on the jury, how difficult would it be to convince you that a 10 year old is not mentally competent to consent to sex?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:If you weren't using the colloquial definition of the word proof, then you are way overestimating juries. Let me ask you something, if you were on the jury, how difficult would it be to convince you that a 10 year old is not mentally competent to consent to sex?

Well, considering we're talking in a world where age of consent doesn't exist, I'm not sure. And I thought it was obvious that I was using the colloquial definition of proof, rather than a mathematical or scientific one. I would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the ten year old wasn't competent. It'd probably be pretty easy to put a reasonable doubt in my mind, depending on the ten year old. 5% chance that it was okay means it shouldn't happen because 19 out of 20 kids are getting raped, but it also means I wouldn't be able to convict.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby mathmannix » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:17 pm UTC

"Half plus seven" is a good rule of thumb to avoid ickiness, and I think it should be (and usually is) applied to dating, not sex (the two groups may have a large percentage of overlap, but neither one really implies the other.) But I have broken it... when I was 27, I briefly dated an 18-year-old, clearly outside my half-plus-seven range... but we were in somewhat similar circumstances in our lives - we had both just joined the armed forces. Not saying it was right, though, but I don't think it should have been illegal.

One major problem with this idea being the law is that people become mature at different ages and rates. Not just physical maturity, but emotional / psychological maturity. And of course, there are disabled people who never should be considered able to consent to sex, and laws do exist to protect them in this way.

I know that this isn't really a viable solution, but I propose something along the lines of a driver's license - a sex license. Different states can give them (or the more restrictive "learner's permits") at different ages, like they do driver's licenses in the U.S., but you have to be able to prove knowledgeable about sex and its consequences before you are allowed to have one. And they can be taken away for a period of time, possibly permanently, for serious violations (rape, obviously). I am thinking here of a written test, not a "road test". (I am not going to mention oral examinations, either.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:13 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:" And they can be taken away for a period of time, possibly permanently, for serious violations (rape, obviously).

Wait, what? If you're convicted of rape, the next time someone has sex with you THEY are guilty of statutory rape?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby addams » Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:56 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
mathmannix wrote:" And they can be taken away for a period of time, possibly permanently, for serious violations (rape, obviously).

Wait, what? If you're convicted of rape, the next time someone has sex with you THEY are guilty of statutory rape?


Goodness where is this going?
Places where people without license can have sex with other unlicensed people?

Forbidden Fruit? Some people don't want anything until they can't have it.
It is one way to get some people to eat vegetables.
Fruit makes better forbidden fruit.

It is a rare person that will sneak off to eat broccoli.
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 Jun 19, 2013 9:32 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:And of course, there are disabled people who never should be considered able to consent to sex, and laws do exist to protect them in this way.

Though depending on how you look at this this is a pretty horrifying statement. That physically mature human beings who have physical sexual needs and desires just like any other human beings shouldn't be allowed to ever have sex.

or an even less charitable way of looking at it: it's saying that the severely mentally disabled shouldn't be allowed to breed.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:41 am UTC

Not horrifying, sad.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:45 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:or an even less charitable way of looking at it: it's saying that the severely mentally disabled shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Not a fan of eugenics, eh?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:44 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Not a fan of eugenics, eh?

Not that kind.

I'm quite happy with the voluntary version(people choosing to not have kids) and even the genetic modification version(people choosing to engineer their offspring or making sure they have a kid without a specific gene) if it can be done right but I'm definitely not a fan of the version where someone just dictates that some other group of human beings shouldn't get to breed.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:46 pm UTC

At the risk of being told I'm not speaking to the point, be sure you understand the situation and the variables before you pass judgement on that statement, no matter how you read it. For what it's worth it is easy to throw out the word eugenics, good trigger, bad associations. It preloads the idea that there could exist no practical or ethical reason for the decision, when in point of fact it may not be true, at least not in all cases.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:02 pm UTC

Eugenics are why people aren't allowed to have sex with first cousins in many states, yes?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:38 pm UTC

Cultural morals, but morals that arose due to proto-eugenic reasons.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:39 am UTC

Some reasons for not allowing a mentally disabled individuals to have access to sex are only remotely related to genetics. Or improving the breed.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Some reasons for not allowing a mentally disabled individuals to have access to sex are only remotely related to genetics. Or improving the breed.

Maybe, but you really can't say the same for disallowing cousins from marrying unless they are infertile, or similar laws. Since those laws exist in some parts of the U.S., it shines a light on what some of the motivations might be on other sex-restricting laws.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:45 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Some reasons for not allowing a mentally disabled individuals to have access to sex are only remotely related to genetics. Or improving the breed.

Maybe, but you really can't say the same for disallowing cousins from marrying unless they are infertile, or similar laws. Since those laws exist in some parts of the U.S., it shines a light on what some of the motivations might be on other sex-restricting laws.
There are basic reasons why inbreeding isn't healthy. All the rest is the busybody principle at work. We all know what everyone else should be doing and we intend to fix it for their own good. AOC laws are conveniences, arbitrary points where we decide the lines should be, because doing otherwise is fraught with hard work, ie., having to decide on a case by case basis if somebody is able. It actually protects you from the worst of the busybodies. There is course is collateral damage. But in my opinion there will always be, no matter where you draw the line. But while I have opinions I'm not really competent in the subject. I do however have a mentally disabled son and have had to do the heavy lifting on deciding if sex was going to be in his repertoire. It turned out that it wasn't. And that was sad.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jun 21, 2013 7:24 pm UTC

That physically mature human beings who have physical sexual needs and desires just like any other human beings shouldn't be allowed to ever have sex.

Not that I disagree in the specific case, but this isn't necessarily true: not every human has physical sexual needs or desires.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

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

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby HungryHobo » Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:19 pm UTC

any, not every.

But a huge proportion.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Choboman » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I do however have a mentally disabled son and have had to do the heavy lifting on deciding if sex was going to be in his repertoire. It turned out that it wasn't. And that was sad.

I'm sorry that you and your son have such heavy challenges to deal with. I can't imagine how difficult that must be, and recognize that such a decision wouldn't have been made lightly.

That said, if it's not being overly intrusive I'd be interested in your insight since you've clearly had to think about the topic more than I have done. What criteria do you think are appropriate for determining whether someone is capable of informed consent and therefore appropriate as another's sexual partner? Do you think those criteria change depending on whether the person's conditions are temporary (e.g. age/maturity/psycological development) or permanent (mental defect or persistent illness)?

I completely understand if this question is too personal given your situation and am ok with you telling me to piss off if necessary.

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby lgw » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:04 am UTC

addams wrote:Forbidden Fruit? Some people don't want anything until they can't have it.
It is one way to get some people to eat vegetables.
Fruit makes better forbidden fruit.

It is a rare person that will sneak off to eat broccoli.


I just wanted to say that I find this quite insightful.

As someone who spends a lot of time on conservative forums, I do find all this talk of "sex licenses" amusing. It's not a new idea - we used to call it "marriage" (though not in the way most modern conservatives imagine, as I note below). It's interesting that now that we're decoupling sex and marriage, we're discovering that the problems are complicated. On conservative boards you get a lot of railing against teen sex in any form, but then you also get a lot of pushback from women saying "I was a grandmother at 30 - and I wasn't abused or stupid, nor was my mother". People really do mature at different rates.

The traditional (pre-birth-control) solution in many cultures was not age-limited, but commitment-limited. I suspect that marriage-before-sex was pretty rare historically (despite what many modern conservatives believe), but you didn't sleep with someone unless you were willing to either marry them or become a pariah should pregnancy result. We certainly need something to fill the gap, but I think Addams has rightly pointed out the problem with licensing, or really any other prohibition-based system. Personally, I believe that there are just things in life that you have to learn by being hurt by them, and relationships include many such lessons, but to elaborate would I think be too at odds with modern helicopter-parent culture.
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby addams » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:48 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Роберт wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Some reasons for not allowing a mentally disabled individuals to have access to sex are only remotely related to genetics. Or improving the breed.

Maybe, but you really can't say the same for disallowing cousins from marrying unless they are infertile, or similar laws. Since those laws exist in some parts of the U.S., it shines a light on what some of the motivations might be on other sex-restricting laws.
There are basic reasons why inbreeding isn't healthy. All the rest is the busybody principle at work. We all know what everyone else should be doing and we intend to fix it for their own good. AOC laws are conveniences, arbitrary points where we decide the lines should be, because doing otherwise is fraught with hard work, ie., having to decide on a case by case basis if somebody is able. It actually protects you from the worst of the busybodies. There is course is collateral damage. But in my opinion there will always be, no matter where you draw the line. But while I have opinions I'm not really competent in the subject. I do however have a mentally disabled son and have had to do the heavy lifting on deciding if sex was going to be in his repertoire. It turned out that it wasn't. And that was sad.


There are basic reasons why inbreeding isn't healthy.
Hell-o;
There are Basic Reasons.
Basic Science is harder than it sounds.

Basic Science is K though 8.
Basic Science is Also The Very Basic Stuff.
That kind of Basic Science is Hard.

The Basic Reasons that Alleles Do some of the things they do is Interesting to people that Like Alleles.
oh. I read some papers on The Subject. Brothers and Sister, first degree relatives, have in The Past had Children Together and No One was Upset about it.

The chances of The Two Alleles Matching Up to Create One Fan-Fucking-Tastic Human Being are Much Greater than the Chances of The Thing having Two Heads.
Of Course, Two Heads is an Attention Getter.

A Wonderful Human Being so much like Its Grand Father and Mother is Not a Big Attention Getter.
Well; Some are. (shrug.)

I don't care Who You Bonk-a-dee-Bonk as Long as the Bonkee says OK.

To tell people the Child will have two heads is Mean.
It might. Alleles can match up for disastrous results.

It is against The Law? jeeze.
I won't tell. If you are both Happy. I won't tell.

oh. Dear. Don't get mad at me.
If you and your sister want to be, just, friends it is OK with me.
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.

Brent666
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:38 pm UTC

Re: Lowering The Age of Consent: Discussion

Postby Brent666 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:10 am UTC

I'd go with no means no and yes means yes.

Rationally, there's not really a good reason for an age of consent. Voluntary sexual activity should not be a crime any more than any other voluntary physical activity. The only realistic downsides are teen pregnancies and STDs, but they can be avoided pragmatically and they hardly justify statutory rape laws.

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking this law is rational any more than the religious anti-gay rage is rational.

(Btw, if you don't want to piss the parents off, you can make it legal iff both the parents and the minors consent)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests