Sex

[Nathan_Morrison]

Why is it that if a two under age people(be it man and man man and woman) have sex, with it being consenting only the boy gets charged, why not the girl especially if she is the older of the two? Myself I find this disgusting. Also why is it lesbians are able to have sex yet gays are not? just because they 'can't' spread anything which is a lie as you can still get genital warts, herpes etcetera from lesbian sex.


What are your opinions on it?

[Comrade J]

I have no idea where you're from Nathan, but gay men can have sex in most of the places lesbians can. Unless you're talking about the Bible (which is more against men having sex than it is women)?

[TC]

because age of consent laws are a throwback to patriarchal, misogynistic sexual views, and as typical, prejudices like sexism that can no longer be enforced on a broader legal level due to the economic requirements of capitalism (specifically the need for a larger labour force) are played out on people too economically and politically weak to defend themselves from them: children and teenagers.

the ideological premise of age of consent laws is patriarchal, paternalistic and sexist, it presumes that teenage girls do not or should not have independent sexual desire, so if they are having sex, they're being used/exploited/raped/etc because obviously, according to the patriarchal logic, good girls wouldn't want to do anything like that of their own accord.

Likewise, there were laws against male-on-male sex but not female-on-female sex because they refused to acknowledge that girls were having sex with each other (that would, you know, kind of require acknowledging that at least one of them wanted to). When there are differences in the legal age of consent for gay males and everyone else, its just a result of the fact that lesbianism was never criminalized for that reason, and when male homosexuality was decriminalized it was done at a higher age of consent.

Its really not that different from the old pre-capitalist practice of fathers marrying off their virgin daughters to their choice of socially useful partner in arranged marriages.

[Jude]

What about Prostitution? You cannot honestly say that a 7 or 8 year old child, male or female, is consenting?

[Nathan_Morrison]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 09:57 pm
I have no idea where you're from Nathan, but gay men can have sex in most of the places lesbians can. Unless you're talking about the Bible (which is more against men having sex than it is women)?
No what i didn't mean that they couldn't have sex I meant that why should gay men have an age of Consent yet lesbians do not.



What about Prostitution? You cannot honestly say that a 7 or 8 year old child, male or female, is consenting?

Yeah i agree with that however i think that if above 12 it should be all right if people of the same age and not to much of a gap(like 6 years and above) is all right, but we wuld try and stop the people selling their bodies like that.

[TC]

What about Prostitution?

what about prostitution, i'm not sure what point you're making here.


You cannot honestly say that a 7 or 8 year old child, male or female, is consenting?

You can honestly say that a 7 or 8 year old child has the capacity for simple consent, whats in doubt is whether or not they give informed consent. Both depend on the circumstances, but i think its wrong to equate lack of informed consent with lack of simple consent since while one may be exploited in scenarios that they lack information required to make an informed choice, it is not the same level of personal violation in scenarios that lack simple consent.

I think, it should be pointed out here, though, that this is an area where people are supremely hypocritical, because they feel comfortable doing things to children of 7 or 8 years old, forcibly, with no level of consent, all the freak'n time. I believe that, if you want to express *horror* at sexual instances where 7 or 8 year olds express simple consent but are presumed to be incapable of informed consent (which is reasonably understandable), one should express vastly greater horror at the every day instances where parents, teachers, doctors, babysitters, older siblings, and so on do any number of things to them without their simple consent.


I mean, to me its objectively irrational to think that its horrifying for an adult to touch a kids dick, but its okay for an adult to cut part of it off!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And in any case, this is not, practically speaking the issue with age of consent. The problem is that the legal age of consent is always higher than the onset of sexual desire, which means that it oppresses people under the age of consent but above the age where they'd like to have sex.

It would not be problematic to have the age of consent set at 9 years old, because its unlikely for many 8 year olds to complain about it or to want to have sex, so their rights are not being violated. It is however, extremely problematic to have the age of consent set at 16, or 14, or even 12, since this denies a population who want to have sex the ability to do so, thereby stripping them of their personal autonomy (naturally plenty of 12 and 14 and even 16 year olds don't want to have sex, but they're protected under normal rape laws and not statutory rape laws anyways so they aren't relevant to the issue).

To me, its extremely wrong to to prosecute someone for doing something to someone else that they wanted; there should be no such thing as a victimless crime or one where the alleged victim does not believe themselves to have been harmed. An alleged 'victim' willing to testify on behalf of the defendant should always be a legitimate defense against any "crime."

[Vanguard1917]

I mean, to me its objectively irrational to think that its horrifying for an adult to touch a kids dick, but its okay for an adult to cut part of it off!

The difference between sexual abuse and circumcision is that the latter is a triviality which will not have any negative effects on the child. Sexual abuse, on the other hand, has pretty serious negative effects on the child.

Because children can't look after themselves, they need the care, protection and guidance of adults. Sexual abuse of a child is an adult abusing his position of authority over the child.


It would not be problematic to have the age of consent set at 9 years old, because its unlikely for many 8 year olds to complain about it or to want to have sex, so their rights are not being violated. It is however, extremely problematic to have the age of consent set at 16, or 14, or even 12, since this denies a population who want to have sex the ability to do so, thereby stripping them of their personal autonomy (naturally plenty of 12 and 14 and even 16 year olds don't want to have sex, but they're protected under normal rape laws and not statutory rape laws anyways so they aren't relevant to the issue).

But it's up to adults to decide when children are ready for sexual relationships. Society's laws and norms need to be decided by rational adults, and not according to the wishes of children. Whether or not it's OK for a man to have sexual relations with a 10-year-old needs to be decided by society's adult population - not by the 10-year-old girl or boy.

Small kids may think that they're old enough to do a lot of the things that adults do - stay up late, leave school, go out to work, drive a car, start a family, vote in elections, smoke, drink, or whatever.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. The point is, it is adults who decide - not kids.