Age of consent

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Here is an article I came across which summarizes the different ages of consent throughout the Western world:

http://volokh.com/posts/1209579954.shtml


What do you guys make of the differences between certain countries, and which age would you prefer to see as the age of consent? Or do you agree with consent laws at all?

[Kami]

Its a hard figure to place, and should probably be judged on individual cases, rather than using a coverall (else we get rediculous cases of 15-year-olds sleeping with 18-year-olds, who then get prosecuted as a sex offender). If I had to place a figure, it'd probably be closer to 14. Hell, kids are doing it then anyway.

[Lector Malibu]

damn you Burgandy!

Now I've got New Order in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VcGJZpfl1c

[Vi~]

I think 13 should be the minimum age of consent. And at that age there probably shouldn't be an age gap of more than 3 years...

[BobKKKindle$]

The problem with age of consent is that any age will always be arbitrary. It is implausible to suggest that someone can suddenly become ready for sex overnight, and, given that everyone feels differently about when they want to have sex, it's unfair that everyone should be subject to a single legal age. Socialists should therefore promote the total abolition of age of consent, and sexual relations should be based on the concept of effective consent, which means that, if two individuals express mutual consent to engage in a sexual act (or any other form of activity) the state has no right to intervene. A more open attitude towards sex and discussion of sexual issues from a young age should encourage people to resist unwanted sexual advances.

Are there any "socialists" who support an age of consent?

In addition to being morally illegitimate, and age of consent also discourages youths who wish to have sex below that age from asking for contraception, because they risk being reported to the police.


I think 13 should be the minimum age of consent. And at that age there probably shouldn't be an age gap of more than 3 years...What if a 12 year old and a 17 year old express mutual consent to sexual intercourse? What right does the state have to tell them what they are permitted to do?

[RHIZOMES]

In my country the age of consent is 16. I think it should to judged on an individual basis.

For example, a 60 year old having sex with a 15 year old is certainly different to a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old.

[Vi~]

Are there any "socialists" who support an age of consent?

Why did you put socialist in " " marks? Do you think that someone who supports a minimum age of consent is not a socialist?!
In addition to being morally illegitimate, and age of consent also discourages youths who wish to have sex below that age from asking for contraception, because they risk being reported to the police.

ROFL. Have you ever bought condoms or had sex for that matter? Most chemists sell condoms to anyone who asks for them. There is no minimum age in which you can buy a piece of elastic plastic. And chemists are certainly not going to report you to police.

[Vi~]

What if a 12 year old and a 17 year old express mutual consent to sexual intercourse? What right does the state have to tell them what they are permitted to do? The minimum age of consent, obviously, ignores the individual maturity of the sexual partners. However, if you have no age of consent, what is to prevent an 11 year old and a 60 year old if they are both 'express their consent'? Frankly, a 17 year old is in a position of dominance over a 12 year old, and typically that is going to be male dominance.

[BobKKKindle$]

However, if you have no age of consent, what is to prevent an 11 year old and a 60 year old if they are both 'express their consent'?Nothing exists to prevent this. As implausible as this situation might be, there is nothing wrong with these two individuals having sex. Sex is something that is dependent on individual preference, and so what right does anyone have to make judgements about the sexual relations of others? The idea that there is a "normal" kind of sexuality to which we should all conform is absurd, as shown by the diversity of sexual practices across different cultural groups, and the historic changes in the way humans perceive sexuality.


Most chemists sell condoms to anyone who asks for them. This is of course available - but if someone is having sex illegally, will they feel comfortable asking questions about sex? Even if contraception is available to under-age youth, how does this make the concept of an age of consent legitimate? Why should someone be punished for consensual activity?

[Guerrilla22]

the age of consent should be 13 in all states in the US. I'm sure a thirteen year old is capable of saying yes or no to sex.

[BobKKKindle$]

the age of consent should be 13 in all states in the US. I'm sure a thirteen year old is capable of saying yes or no to sex.What about someone who has sex the day before their thirteenth birthday? They would, under your proposal, be punished - and yet there are some people at this age who want to have sex.

[Guerrilla22]

What about someone who has sex the day before their thirteenth birthday? They would, under your proposal, be punished - and yet there are some people at this age who want to have sex.

Yeah, but then one could say what about someone a younger than 12 and a day under 11 and so on. Thirteen seems like a reasonable age for age of consent thats all.

[BobKKKindle$]

Yeah, but then one could say what about someone a younger than 12 and a day under 11 and so on

Exactly - hence my point above the concept of an age of consent, regardless of the actual age which is chosen, being arbitrary.

[Holden Caulfield]

it should be 16, its not like anybody would give a fuck unless the age gap was massive in which case the parents should be allowed to bring the case before a jury to judge if the younger individual has been taken advantage of or is being used etc..

[Luís Henrique]

The problem with age of consent is that any age will always be arbitrary.

Evidently. How is this a problem, however?


Socialists should therefore promote the total abolition of age of consent,

I don't think so, at least not as long as capitalist relations are not completely abolished. The exploitation, sexual or otherwise, of young people will always spread under the disguise of "consent" as long as some individuals have effective power to change the will of others.

Which means, as long as there is a State, such State will be required to establish ages of consent.


In addition to being morally illegitimate, and age of consent also discourages youths who wish to have sex below that age from asking for contraception, because they risk being reported to the police.

That should make no sence. The age of consent should have no legal bearing regarding the minor party. Which is to mean, if a 20 year old is banging a 9 year old, the 20 year old is responsible for his acts, which are in violation of law. The 9 year old is not.


What if a 12 year old and a 17 year old express mutual consent to sexual intercourse? What right does the state have to tell them what they are permitted to do?

Everybody has the right, and indeed I would say the obligation, to question if such consent in fact exists, or if the 12 year old is being, simply put, exploited by the older person.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

For example, a 60 year old having sex with a 15 year old is certainly different to a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old.

Yes? Why?

Luís Henrique

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Nothing exists to prevent this. As implausible as this situation might be, there is nothing wrong with these two individuals having sex. Sex is something that is dependent on individual preference, and so what right does anyone have to make judgements about the sexual relations of others?

Yes, sex is dependent on individual preference.

But it is not independent of social relations. A 60 year old man is in a severe position of dominance over an 11 year old girl.

Trying to imagine that we are all equal and independent members of society is just that - imagination.


The idea that there is a "normal" kind of sexuality to which we should all conform is absurd, as shown by the diversity of sexual practices across different cultural groups, and the historic changes in the way humans perceive sexuality.

Cultural relativism much?


This is of course available - but if someone is having sex illegally, will they feel comfortable asking questions about sex?

Err...if someone is already having sex I doubt they are going to need to ask any more questions about it. Its not exactly rocket science.

Of course I advocate sex education. Arguing for a minimum age of consent does not go against this.

Besides, I am sure most teenagers learn about sex like I did - by coming across porn or by a err trial and error basis.

And there is, of course, the internet.


Even if contraception is available to under-age youth, how does this make the concept of an age of consent legitimate? Why should someone be punished for consensual activity?

They shouldn't.

That's the thing; an 11 year old cannot give free consent to having sex with a 60 year old man.

[Awful Reality]

Why does the government get to decide who has sex and who doesn't? As long as it's consensual, I don't care if some paedophile is fucking 10 year olds. As long as it's consensual. I'm repulsed by the idea of such, but apparently the parties wouldn't be.

The problem, however, is that rape is hard to prove, and the likelihood is that in a case such as above, it's highly unlikely that the 10 year old would consent. So instead of needing to prove consent to convict a criminal, it becomes far easier to just say that there's no way the two parties could consent and be done with it.

In summation, I support a law similar to my state's (Pennsylvania): Anyone, between the ages of 13-16, is in consent with anyone no older than four years more than them. After 16, you are officially of full consent. I, however, would remove the "13" part and just make it anyone under 16.

[Luís Henrique]

But it is not independent of social relations. A 60 year old man is in a severe position of dominance over an 11 year old girl.

Yes, and we should spell out loud what the difference between them is: an adult man (or woman, FWIW) is economically independent; a child is not. A person who does not provide his/her own subsistence must be protected by law until it is able to do so.

So the only possibility that we could have no age of consent regarding sex is if we had no age of consent regarding labour; that is, abolishing the ban on children's labour.

And that is certainly an anti-working class position; in fact, probably the most reactionary liberal position one can imagine. And this is what all anti-ageist indignation boils down to: liberal reactionarism.

Indeed, the fact that we indulge in such abstract reasonings is a clear indication of how much we are removed from the reality of class struggle and working class life in general.

Luís Henrique

[Hyacinth]

Yes, and we should spell out loud what the difference between them is: an adult man (or woman, FWIW) is economically independent; a child is not. A person who does not provide his/her own subsistence must be protected by law until it is able to do so.
Stepping outside of the context of existing society, where, as you say, the issue of economic independence (or dependence, as might be the case) does play into a person’s capacity to consent. What about in the context of a communist society, where, presumably, every members, regardless of age, will have their economic wellbeing ensured (and by extension, will have economic independence)? I’m not suggesting that a 9-year old, or even a 12-year old, is psychologically capable of consenting to such an act, but with the economic difference removed, it becomes a more difficult question to answer of when exactly, and under what circumstances, can one consent to sex.

[Luís Henrique]

Stepping outside of the context of existing society, where, as you say, the issue of economic independence (or dependence, as might be the case) does play into a person’s capacity to consent. What about in the context of a communist society, where, presumably, every members, regardless of age, will have their economic wellbeing ensured (and by extension, will have economic independence)? I’m not suggesting that a 9-year old, or even a 12-year old, is psychologically capable of consenting to such an act, but with the economic difference removed, it becomes a more difficult question to answer of when exactly, and under what circumstances, can one consent to sex.

I don't know, starting from the fact I don't know how people will organise to breed children. It is my impression that nuclear families will not be the chosen solution. But I don't think adults seeking sexual relationships with children will be encouraged at all. Even if a 12 years old actively seeks sexual intercourse with an adult, the proper response from a healthy adult is to refuse.

Luís Henrique

[Hyacinth]

I don't know, starting from the fact I don't know how people will organise to breed children. It is my impression that nuclear families will not be the chosen solution. But I don't think adults seeking sexual relationships with children will be encouraged at all. Even if a 12 years old actively seeks sexual intercourse with an adult, the proper response from a healthy adult is to refuse.
Fair enough. It is a difficult question since there really aren’t clearly defined criteria for capacity to consent.

[professorchaos]

There should be no official law, but everyone should follow the equation of x=(n/2)+7 where n is one's own age and x is the youngest allowable age for a sexual partner. This equation becomes null when n<14, as the output will yield an older age than the input. Age would not likely be a factor any longer in sexual victimization, and thirteen year olds are probably not emotionally mature enough anyway.

[Kronos]

Ideally, women should begin reproducing immediately after a substantial phenotypical conditioning has occured (when that time is...I have no fucking idea), and not long after they are biologically mature (physically capable of reproducing). The earlier the woman produces a child, the more time she has to spend with her offspring, thereby strengthening and enriching the quality of the family bond.

The fine line to be determined is when this age is: have the appropriate phenotypes been developed by say, age eighteen, or should she wait longer before reproducing so that she can acquire better, more evolved characteristics? The importance of the phenotype, as opposed to the genotype, is that it is procured and developed through environmental conditioning and influence....so that the following generation would be born equipped with traits which are superior and "aligned" with environmental circumstances. To best accommodate the human being to his environment, a period should be alloted for phenotypical development.

The father, of course, should be selected initially by eugenic standards, which would be determined by a consensus of specialized scientists. After the health and intelligence became better for the average citizen, everyone would be encouraged to reproduce.....but until that time, citizens should trust in the judgments made by the specialists. I mean to say that people would feel no sense of lost rights or privileges if they were advised not to reproduce. By the same token, there would be no concept of the "private consumerist family" that exists in capitalist society, so members of society would not be alienated from anyone else- essentially you have one big family which would cooperate together. The child of one couple would be culturally related to another couple that didn't reproduce, for example. Part of the significance and "special emotional sentiment" in having a child is due to false metaphysical ideologies, such as the importance of perpetuating one's own genes, despite the constitution and health of the parents. There are people out there who have bloodlines full of hereditary diseases, and yet they feel they should reproduce because "God said be fruitful, yada, yada, yada."

But you see my point above, regarding the importance of reproducing sooner. A mother who bears offspring at age eighteen will have a far longer life with her offspring than if she had waited until she were in her late twenties.

What we need, comrades, is a new Sparta. In less than five generations we would be breeding the ubermensch.

Concerning the age of consent for sex as a means of pleasure only....that's a difficult issue to decide on. Certainly a female shouldn't be encouraged to have sex until she, herself, was capable of experiencing an orgasm, or else the pleasure would not be mutual, and she would be exploited for only the male's pleasure. Also, people would need an entirely different mentality to be sexually active at young ages. The atmosphere today, because of religion and other cultural institutions, has stigmatized sex morally, thereby causing people to feel shameful about it. First the air must be cleared of these old customs before a more liberal approach to sex is taken.

[Hyacinth]

What we need, comrades, is a new Sparta. In less than five generations we would be breeding the ubermensch.
<there is no emoticon to properly express my reaction>
Surely you’re joking?

[Kronos]

I have a romantic fascination with Fritz, I'm sorry.

"I teach you the Communist. The capitalist is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome the capitalist? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And the capitalist shall be just that for the communist: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment..."

(slightly edited for propaganda purposes)

[Hyacinth]

I have a romantic fascination with Fritz, I'm sorry.

"I teach you the Communist. The capitalist is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome the capitalist? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And the capitalist shall be just that for the communist: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment..."

(slightly edited for propaganda purposes)
"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him...The overman is the meaning of the earth...Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which you should be inoculated? Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this lightning, he is this frenzy."--Thus Spoke Zarathustra

I think that you’re misinterpreting Nietzsche, and reappropriating him for the same cause which the Nazi’s did, namely eugenics (a discredited pseudo-science).

Communism, among other things, is about free association. Selecting candidates for breeding in order to produce a master race isn’t on the agenda. Who people have sex with, or reproduce, is no one’s business aside from the relevant consenting parties.

As for the issue of genetic disorders which might be passed down to offspring, that is something that medical science is working to rid us of. We should look to that as a solution to congenital defects rather than deciding who can and who can’t breed.

[Holden Caulfield]

Why does the government get to decide who has sex and who doesn't? As long as it's consensual, I don't care if some paedophile is fucking 10 year olds. As long as it's consensual. I'm repulsed by the idea of such, but apparently the parties wouldn't be.


i disagree as a 'cool'(ish) older person at school i could probs fuck a year 7 (11 year olds if ya aint english) simply on the merit of this, it would be easy to manipulate them as they are not yet emotionally (or physically) fully developed, this type of thing needs to be prevented and so a age of consent would be ideal to use as a fail safe to stop such actions in extreme cases

[Luís Henrique]

What we need, comrades, is a new Sparta. In less than five generations we would be breeding the ubermensch.

I've selected this sentence, among many of a comparable gist. Just to say we definitely do not want a new Sparta or any kind of barracks communism, and that we deem such ideas opposed to the liberation of our class.

Luís Henrique

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Concerning the age of consent for sex as a means of pleasure only....that's a difficult issue to decide on. Certainly a female shouldn't be encouraged to have sex until she, herself, was capable of experiencing an orgasm, or else the pleasure would not be mutual, and she would be exploited for only the male's pleasure.

I propose a boycott on sex until men learn how to give orgasms and not consider it solely a woman's problem that she cannot orgasm but understand that you are just as culpable due to your ignorance about what you are doing and that sex is a two-way street. And the rest of your statements were pseudo-chauvinistic 'spending time with the offspring' 'strengthening the family bond.' Please. :glare:

[Awful Reality]

i disagree as a 'cool'(ish) older person at school i could probs fuck a year 7 (11 year olds if ya aint english) simply on the merit of this, it would be easy to manipulate them as they are not yet emotionally (or physically) fully developed, this type of thing needs to be prevented and so a age of consent would be ideal to use as a fail safe to stop such actions in extreme cases

But where do you draw the line of how old one has to be?

[Holden Caulfield]

each case will be judged individually by a jury?
that is the best most rational idea that i can think of,
it would be very complex however obviously it would be only resorted to in extreme cases

[Unicorn]

15 years would be a good age of consent which is needed to prevent child molestation. If a younger person has sex with someone they should not be prosecuted if they are physically and mentally on similar level of development. For example, it is OK if a 14-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old but criminal if a 14-year-old has sex with a 30-year-old.

[Coggeh]

What about this law : If you are over 21 and have sex with under 18 you can be prosecuted otherwise its none of the states business unless theirs an individual case been brought up ?

[professorchaos]

Did anyone read my suggestion? (Writ semi-ironical, btw)

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

What about this law : If you are over 21 and have sex with under 18 you can be prosecuted otherwise its none of the states business unless theirs an individual case been brought up ?

:ohmy:

No, a 17 year old is perfectly entitled to have sex with whomever he or she pleases. Indeed, that law would be more restrictive than current laws, in certain countries.

[AGITprop]

I don't know, starting from the fact I don't know how people will organise to breed children. It is my impression that nuclear families will not be the chosen solution. But I don't think adults seeking sexual relationships with children will be encouraged at all. Even if a 12 years old actively seeks sexual intercourse with an adult, the proper response from a healthy adult is to refuse.

Luís Henrique

Why would a healthy adult who is sexually active and attracted to a 12 year old refuse?

I dont see an issue if sex is consensual.

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes, and we should spell out loud what the difference between them is: an adult man (or woman, FWIW) is economically independent; a child is not. A person who does not provide his/her own subsistence must be protected by law until it is able to do so.Why is economic independence important in this debate? People who draw benefits from the state because they cannot find a job or are not willing to work are also economically dependent - but this does not change their ability to give consent.

An unspoken assumption in this debate is that it is legitimate to speak of "teenagers" as a demographic category, separate from adults. The concept of "adolescence" has only emerged recently, as in previous historic epochs, people were seen as being "adults" as soon as they reached the age of sexual maturity, and were thereafter expected to join the labor force, and giving birth at an age that would today be seen as too young was not uncommon. The concept of "adolescence" serves as the ideological support for such paternalist legislation as age of consent laws, but is of dubious scientific validity, as explained here: The Case Against Adolescence (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4311.html)


And that is certainly an anti-working class position; in fact, probably the most reactionary liberal position one can imagine. And this is what all anti-ageist indignation boils down to: liberal reactionarism.

Really? Why is supporting the right to work for non-adults a position that is incompatible with socialism? Non-adults are already working in many countries, they are needed to support the family income.

[Unicorn]

Really? Why is supporting the right to work for non-adults a position that is incompatible with socialism? Non-adults are already working in many countries, they are needed to support the family income.
Abolition of children's factory labor has always been one of the minimum demands of Communists.

[Unicorn]

Why would a healthy adult who is sexually active and attracted to a 12 year old refuse?
Because the sex would likely traumatize the child.



I dont see an issue if sex is consensual.
A 12-year-old is unable to give an informed consent.

[Luís Henrique]

Why would a healthy adult who is sexually active and attracted to a 12 year old refuse?

Because if s/he doesn't, s/he isn't healthy.


I dont see an issue if sex is consensual.Children's "consent" is irrelevant, as it is considered, and with good reason, uninformed.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Why is economic independence important in this debate? People who draw benefits from the state because they cannot find a job or are not willing to work are also economically dependent - but this does not change their ability to give consent.

That's foolish - obviously those people are not dependent in the same sence that children are.


An unspoken assumption in this debate is that it is legitimate to speak of "teenagers" as a demographic category, separate from adults. The concept of "adolescence" has only emerged recently, as in previous historic epochs, people were seen as being "adults" as soon as they reached the age of sexual maturity, and were thereafter expected to join the labor force, and giving birth at an age that would today be seen as too young was not uncommon. The concept of "adolescence" serves as the ideological support for such paternalist legislation as age of consent laws, but is of dubious scientific validity, as explained here: The Case Against Adolescence (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4311.html)
Yes, an unspoken assumption in this debate is that we live under a capitalist society, and that we don't want to go back into feudalism or worse things. So adolescence is assumed, and not going back into an age in which children worked and gave birth is also assumed.

But thanks, you are really showing what all that "anti-ageist" bullshit means: unmitigated social regression, that has nothing to do with socialism or anarchism.


Really? Why is supporting the right to work for non-adults a position that is incompatible with socialism? Non-adults are already working in many countries, they are needed to support the family income.

And we should evidently oppose such situation. They are "needed" to support the family income because wages are too low for a family to survive, unless the children work. And one of the reasons that wages are too low is that children work, thus increasing competition among labourers, reducing their ability to organise, and strengthening the employers' position.

That someone who pretends to be a leftist would defend such situation is staggering.

Luís Henrique

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I also want to add that if such minimum age laws were abolished, we all know that it would be far older men having sex with far younger girls. Not older women having sex with young boys. It would simply be fuelling the unequal position between men and women; this time from a younger age. I doubt few here would consider that both partners would have an equal position in the partnership as Luis pointed out with the economic standing of the child. This of course, also extends to the intellectual and psychological development of the child. Now, even today relationships between adult men and women are not equal, what will it do for them if its extended to older men abusing their position over girls? The relationship would be one of severe undue influence.

Let's be clear, the abolishment would far more likely have repercussions on the social standing of females rather than allow for 'sexual liberation.'

[Luís Henrique]

Let's be clear, the abolishment would far more likely have repercussions on the social standing of females rather than allow for 'sexual liberation.'

Evidently, and what is more staggering is that they even know that, as Bobkindle's post about the concept of adolescence makes clear:


The concept of "adolescence" has only emerged recently, as in previous historic epochs, people were seen as being "adults" as soon as they reached the age of sexual maturity, and were thereafter expected to join the labor force, and giving birth at an age that would today be seen as too young was not uncommon. The concept of "adolescence" serves as the ideological support for such paternalist legislation as age of consent laws,

Luís Henrique

[Awful Reality]

I propose a boycott on sex until men learn how to give orgasms and not consider it solely a woman's problem that she cannot orgasm but understand that you are just as culpable due to your ignorance about what you are doing and that sex is a two-way street. And the rest of your statements were pseudo-chauvinistic 'spending time with the offspring' 'strengthening the family bond.' Please. :glare:


Well, if you don't want to have sex so be it. But we're talking about people who do. And other than Kronos, who's been Chauvinistic here?

[Awful Reality]

I also want to add that if such minimum age laws were abolished, we all know that it would be far older men having sex with far younger girls. Not older women having sex with young boys. It would simply be fuelling the unequal position between men and women; this time from a younger age. I doubt few here would consider that both partners would have an equal position in the partnership as Luis pointed out with the economic standing of the child. This of course, also extends to the intellectual and psychological development of the child. Now, even today relationships between adult men and women are not equal, what will it do for them if its extended to older men abusing their position over girls? The relationship would be one of severe undue influence.

Let's be clear, the abolishment would far more likely have repercussions on the social standing of females rather than allow for 'sexual liberation.'

Really, why is that? There are plenty of paedophilic women, they just are not all that visible. Is there something about male nature that makes males want to fuck young women but not vice-versa? Give me statistics to back that up if it's the case. Actually, I'd say that society keeps things like female rape and female paedophilia on the down-low because of patriarchal society.

We don't see paedophilia on the part of women as existing because society thinks only that women are a tool for sex (which is wrong)- so that they do not get to decide who they have sex with (as the sexists see it), especially those younger. So everyone just ignores it.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Really, why is that? There are plenty of paedophilic women, they just are not all that visible.

'There are plenty of UFOs, they are just not all that visible.'

Case for case, men greatly outnumber female rapists and female paedophiles.

It is estimated in the United States that 3-10% of all serious sexual offenses are female-female in nature. From Wikipedia so take it for what its worth but that generally mirrors studies which I have read which puts the ratio at least 10-1.

See this also: An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)

However, rape statistics should generally be taken with a large amount of salt.


Is there something about male nature that makes males want to fuck young women but not vice-versa?

Straw man. Never argued it.

There is something regarding social relations which makes males want to fuck young female children and rape. It has to do with the gender relations and patriarchy of society. Statistics back this up too.


Actually, I'd say that society keeps things like female rape and female paedophilia on the down-low because of patriarchal society.I think it would be reasonable to say that men report being raped by females less because it is certainly damaging to the concept of masculinity in society. Socially humiliating if you will.

That and the fact that statistically it occurs far, far less often.


We don't see paedophilia on the part of women as existing because society thinks only that women are a tool for sex (which is wrong)- so that they do not get to decide who they have sex with (as the sexists see it), especially those younger. So everyone just ignores it.It is certainly socially abnormal that a paedophile is female.

But it is wrong to suggest that it is ignored. Just doing a google search I came across several articles on female paedophile offenders.

Besides, there are numerous publicised cases of female teachers having sex with students and being demonized and prosecuted for doing so. The law certainly does not ignore them.


Well, if you don't want to have sex so be it. But we're talking about people who do.I didn't say I didn't want to have sex. I was arguing that it is not solely a woman's problem if she did not orgasm...just as it is not solely a man's problem if his partner can not please him. Sex is between two people...


And other than Kronos, who's been Chauvinistic here?I don't hunt witches. I don't call chauvinism when I don't see it because it denigrates what it actually is.

[Luís Henrique]

Is there something about male nature that makes males want to fuck young women but not vice-versa?

Yes, unhappily there is. Men never get pregnant; women do. So men have always had the option of having sex without caring about its consequences; women only started to be relatively able to do so in the late decades, after the invention of effective contraceptives.

It's again a liberal position: to pretend that there are no material differences, and then conclude that law and customs do not have to reflect these material differences. Which in your case results in distorted reasoning about male supremacy, and in the OP case in reactionary positions that deny children the right to be children, under the excuse of giving them the "right" to be adults.

Luís Henrique

[Awful Reality]

You have failed to address my question. I wasn't talking about rape, although I mentioned it. What is it about female nature that inclines women less to paedophilia?


There is something regarding social relations which makes males want to fuck young female children and rape. It has to do with the gender relations and patriarchy of society.
So in a matriarchal society women would be rapists and paedophiles?

And addressing the question about rape, I never said that all rapists are women, or that an equal number of rapists are women. As Luis Henrique pointed out, men are more likely to be sexually agressive due to the fact that there are few tangible consequences for them.

And to reply to Luis, the question of paedophilia has nothing to do with whether-or-not one gets pregnant- women know that having sex with men may likely get them pregnant. It's how old that man is.

EDIT: Demonized and Prosecuted? My god, that's biased. "Demonized."

[Luís Henrique]

And to reply to Luis, the question of paedophilia has nothing to do with whether-or-not one gets pregnant- women know that having sex with men may likely get them pregnant. It's how old that man is.

Of course it does, because it creates a general ideology that women should not seek for sex, but, instead, wait for male initiative and then chose to accept it or not. That makes women in general less likely to seek for sex.


EDIT: Male supremacy? How am I being a male supremacist?

Never said that. Called your reasoning about male supremacy distorted, but by no means said you were a male supremacist.

Luís Henrique

[Awful Reality]

Of course it does, because it creates a general ideology that women should not seek for sex, but, instead, wait for male initiative and then chose to accept it or not. That makes women in general less likely to seek for sex.

Is that not irrelevant due to birth control? Also there's the possibility of Oral Sex, etc, which never results in pregnancy. I think it's rather malleable.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

You have failed to address my question. I wasn't talking about rape, although I mentioned it. What is it about female nature that inclines women less to paedophilia?

I don't think there is anything in female 'nature' that inclines them less to paedophilia.

If you are a Marxist, its understood that the concept of 'human' nature is not a good explanation for social issues.

So I stand by my former remark:
There is something regarding social relations which makes males want to fuck young female children and rape. It has to do with the gender relations and patriarchy of society.


FURTHER EDIT: Demonized and Prosecuted? My fucking god, that's biased as hell. "Demonized."

You don't consider being charged with sexual assault (and all the humiliation which comes with that) and losing your job owing to consensual sexual relations as demonization?

All whilst this is being broadcast across the nation?

I certainly would.

[Awful Reality]

I don't think there is anything in female 'nature' that inclines them less to paedophilia.
So in a matriarchal society, would women be rapists and paedophiles?



You don't consider being charged with sexual assault (and all the humiliation which comes with that) and losing your job owing to consensual sexual relations as demonization?

Actually I agree, but "demonized" is a bit yellow, is it not?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

So in a matriarchal society, would women be rapists and paedophiles?

Its an interesting question; I have no idea. I don't have any familiarity with any matriarchal societies so I can hardly judge.


Actually I agree, but "demonized" is a bit yellow, is it not?

Yellow?

[Awful Reality]

Yellow?

Sensationalist.

[Luís Henrique]

Is that not irrelevant due to birth control?

We have had about ten millenia of patriarchy; it isn't going away in a few decades.


Also there's the possibility of Oral Sex, etc, which never results in pregnancy.

Of course, and that is the reason oral sex, anal sex, and other alternative sexual practices have been so intensely repressed until very recently.

Luís Henrique

[Awful Reality]

We have had about ten millenia of patriarchy; it isn't going away in a few decades.
What does that have to do with birth control? And you're saying matriarchy would be any better?


Of course, and that is the reason oral sex, anal sex, and other alternative sexual practices have been so intensely repressed until very recently.

Luís Henrique

True, but not relevant.

[Luís Henrique]

What does that have to do with birth control?

Women have been taught that they should not actively seek sex for millenia. Obviously birth control is instrumental to putting an end on this, but it takes time, it is not automatic, and it still requires social struggle.


And you're saying matriarchy would be any better?

I don't believe in matriarchy.


True, but not relevant.

How is it not relevant?

Luís Henrique

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ideally you could determine the age of consent, voting abilities, and driving privileges on an individual basis; unfortunately, I don't know if this is possible.

[Dust Bunnies]

Its hard to tell if you have enough wisdom to decide sex or not. I propose when the child thinks he/she is ready and is the age of 12 or under a week away from turning 12, the child can go to an interview, the interviewer will then decide whether or not the child is mentally able. The child will also be told about the dangers of pregnancy. If you are licensed and under the age of 15 or a week or under away from turning 15 then you can do any sex acts except very harmful ones (whips anyone?) or vaginal intercourse. Once you are a week or under away from turning 15 or 15+ then you are safe from any legal troubles. The person having sex with someone under the age of 18 must be within 10 years of age. If the person is under 15 then the person can only have sex with people within 5 years of age.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Really? Why is supporting the right to work for non-adults a position that is incompatible with socialism? Non-adults are already working in many countries, they are needed to support the family income.
Abolition of children's factory labor has always been one of the minimum demands of Communists.

Unicorn, either Bobkindles has forgotten a lot of Marxist basics, or he doesn't know them at all. He's still running around in circles whenever I talk about the revolutionary "merger" of Marxism and the workers' movement - and the history behind that formulation. :glare:


And we should evidently oppose such situation. They are "needed" to support the family income because wages are too low for a family to survive, unless the children work. And one of the reasons that wages are too low is that children work, thus increasing competition among labourers, reducing their ability to organise, and strengthening the employers' position.

That someone who pretends to be a leftist would defend such situation is staggering.

Luís Henrique

Seconded.