Children and Informed Consent

[Invader Zim]

Are children capable of informed consent when it comes to the sexual advances of adults. By child I do not mean teen. I would argue that they are not.

Discuss and vote

[Demogorgon]

I am pretty sure that they are not. Such ability probably comes somewhere in the early to mid teens.

[Dean]

I think this is avery complicated issue.

First you have to define consent. Clearly, children can make agreements, this is not the issue. To be informed, what information is required?

I don't have the answers to all these questions, and I doubt anybody wil give decent answers to them here (no offense).

[apathy maybe]

Define "children". I totally think that from about age 10, children (assuming that they have had sexual education, and are thus informed), can consent to sex with other people there age and similar. With adults, again assuming decent sex ed. (which, yes, I had when I was 10), power dynamics come into it, but I don't see why most ten year olds couldn't make an informed decision about wanting to have sex with an adult.

Younger children, well it starts getting difficult, and I'm not a child psychologist (and neither are you!). However, from what I recall of the psychology I have done, from about seven or something children can meaningfully consent to things (assuming they know what is going on).
Of course, vaginal sex between an adult male and a pre-pubescent female probably wouldn't do her any good, and would probably be rejected by any such informed female.

Simple touching or whatever, why couldn't a child consent to touching? And, assuming that we are talking a free society (i.e. not now), what harm would it do?

[pusher robot]

No they are not. No amount of education can replace simple experience and young children simply lack sufficient experience with human relationships to be able to make an informed decision. Furthermore, their lack of experience make them much more succeptible to manipulation. Finally, the simple power dynamics that exist between adults and children (which is essentially unavoidable so long as children must depend on adults to meet their needs) makes the independence of any such decision highly suspect.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think this is avery complicated issue.

First you have to define consent. Clearly, children can make agreements, this is not the issue. To be informed, what information is required?

I don't have the answers to all these questions, and I doubt anybody wil give decent answers to them here (no offense).

People like you are purposefully being obtuse.

The question is very simple; informed consent to endulge in sexual relations with an adult by a 4 year old (or any other prepubescent child).

Only an utter idiot would say that a 4 year old is able to do that.

Could a 4 year old also consent to smoking a cigarette? To taking drugs? To drinking alcohol?

Anyway, let me repost what I wrote in the other thread on the matter, information I received from a person who has actually studied this stuff and works as a social worker and psychological counsellor at a school:

I work at a school as a caretaker of prepubescent children (from the ages of 4 to 12) and there is a social worker there who has studied child pedagogy, psychological development of children, etc.

I asked her what her opinion was and she basically confirmed what I had already said; She said that you're not beginning on an equal basis to begin with. The adult has life experience which the 4 year does not, the adult has a social position in society which the 4 year old does not, the adult has more knowledge on the subjects of sex and consent specifically which the 4 year old does not, and of course there's the fact that a 4 year is simply unable to understand the concept of actual sexual acts.

She said that prepubescent do show sexual signs like touching themselves and such, as I had said, and that it was a normal part of the child's development which follows that trajectory, if you put an adult in between that before the trajectory is finished with and the child has reached the age of maturity (not just in the biological sense but also in the psychological sense) then you will screw up that process, and the child will suffer from it mentally throughout their life.

[Holden Caulfield]

prepubecent children cannot give 'informed consent', and wouldn't recieve any sexual pleasure anyway,

simple as,

[Jazzratt]

Only an utter idiot would say that a 4 year old is able to do that.

This is the problem with just saying "child" and leaving it at that. It means that when someone is speaking about an older child (say, 12) they get attacked as if they're talking about incredibly young children (say 6 and below), without any definition about the subject we're just going to go in the same boring circles.

I know for example that at around the age of 6/7 I enjoyed playing with my penis but I didn't frame the experience sexually and know full well I would have been damaged by sex with an older person (obviously) but around 12/13 I had the raging horn and that only increased (until I sort of calmed down a bit a few years ago). I can't universalise these experiences but I can say that, yes, before puberty claims of child "sexuality" on a level with adult sexuality are dubious but as soon as puberty hits the questions become a lot less clear cut.

[Invader Zim]

This is the problem with just saying "child" and leaving it at that. It means that when someone is speaking about an older child (say, 12) they get attacked as if they're talking about incredibly young children (say 6 and below), without any definition about the subject we're just going to go in the same boring circles.

Well, I actually attempted to eliminate that factor as best I could be restricting it to pre-teens. Obviously the edges blur to a degree (though not as much as I think many here would like to imply) with the oldest end of the defined age bracket, but for the most part I think that the implication that this poll isn't about 'older children' (which is just as arbitrary a term), and rather the pre-pubecent, is pretty clear. But please, if anyone did not find it clear, i hope it is now.

[Scrap]

It really depends on the Child's intelligence. A 17 year old might not know what they're doing but a 16 year old might be more mature and ready.

[Invader Zim]

It really depends on the Child's intelligence. A 17 year old might not know what they're doing but a 16 year old might be more mature and ready.

Have you read the thread? From the opening post: -

"By child I do not mean teen."

I do not mean to be rude, but this is not yet a long thread and it would not have taken a lot of effort to read the first post which sets the context of the poll.

[Scrap]

Have you read the thread? From the opening post: -

"By child I do not mean teen."

I do not mean to be rude, but this is not yet a long thread and it would not have taken a lot of effort to read the first post which sets the context of the poll.


oh...no i didn't read the thread. sorry.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, I can't vote--but a child is a child. They don't even have a clue who they are let alone have any idea of what their sexuality is and why it exists.

There is a reason for childhood and sex has nothing to do with it.

[lvl100]

One of the reasons that in many countries child sex its also automatically considered rape its becouse kids cant give informed consent.

Just consent ? Sure they can. But giving blowjobs or anal sex for a cookie or some other sweets (as many kids would do) its not exactly what i would call informed consent.

On the other hand, if we look at the staggering amount of mature infected with aids and countless other STD , we can see that even adults are not really informed about sex.
How a preteen child who cant even spell his own name can be "informed" then ?

[Dean]

People like you are purposefully being obtuse.

The question is very simple; informed consent to endulge in sexual relations with an adult by a 4 year old (or any other prepubescent child).

Only an utter idiot would say that a 4 year old is able to do that.

Could a 4 year old also consent to smoking a cigarette? To taking drugs? To drinking alcohol?

First off, please don't insult me. I try to be very concise and direct, I despise the notion that I am somehow ignoring the issue.

Obviously, I'm not talking about four year olds. Waht you said about the social worker is dead on: there is a certain level of life experience inherent in such egregiously offset relationships which make them unequal and exploitative. It is clear that a four year old cannot consent on a rational basis int he context of our society, biological development by the age of four etc..

But I think, rather that you don't get waht I'm saying. My main concern is where we draw the line, and this concern is drawn out quite clearly in my post. The concept that I am uncertain about what degree of knowledge and life experience is necessary for consent says two things:

-I am aware that there is a problem with egregious cases like the one you present. This is obvious given my statement.

-I am uncertain as to how we can define what level of understanding and knowledge we must have to be rationally consenting. I think further that nobody here will give a good justification (ability to enjoy sex and to orgasm is not where we should draw the boundary, like others would say).

Please don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I highly doubt that anybody is really apologising for such clear examples of exploitation, I think the issue is simply how we can draw the line. And like I said before, I don't think you have the answer, since I have seen nothing come close from anybody here (though some have made some earnet attempts to make that distinction, drawing some really harsh and unfair criticism).

I really fucking sick of this witch hunt shit going on. Nobody here is a pedo or a threat, and I think it offends me more that people are unwilling to listen to others discuss the issue candidly than that some people are standing up for people who often represent a very vile part of society, right or wrong.

[lvl100]

But I think, rather that you don't get waht I'm saying. My main concern is where we draw the line, and this concern is drawn out quite clearly in my post. The concept that I am uncertain about what degree of knowledge and life experience is necessary for consent says two things:

-I am aware that there is a problem with egregious cases like the one you present. This is obvious given my statement.

-I am uncertain as to how we can define what level of understanding and knowledge we must have to be rationally consenting. I think further that nobody here will give a good justification (ability to enjoy sex and to orgasm is not where we should draw the boundary, like others would say).





Somewhat your answer lies in your own questions.

You cant really know "where we draw the line"
You cant exactly draw the line , if for a deadly car accident someone needs to drink 10 beers or only 2.
For every guy who can drink 20 beers and have a clear mind, there are dozens who cant stand up after 2.
For every 12 years old that may find sex good it would be dozens who would suffer.

Thats why the law is made on fail-safe rules. No drinking behind the wheel and no kiddie sex

[Led Zeppelin]

This is the problem with just saying "child" and leaving it at that. It means that when someone is speaking about an older child (say, 12) they get attacked as if they're talking about incredibly young children (say 6 and below), without any definition about the subject we're just going to go in the same boring circles.

I know for example that at around the age of 6/7 I enjoyed playing with my penis but I didn't frame the experience sexually and know full well I would have been damaged by sex with an older person (obviously) but around 12/13 I had the raging horn and that only increased (until I sort of calmed down a bit a few years ago). I can't universalise these experiences but I can say that, yes, before puberty claims of child "sexuality" on a level with adult sexuality are dubious but as soon as puberty hits the questions become a lot less clear cut.

Well yes I completely agree with this, and basically all the science does as well, that is why I was specifically referring to prepubescent children.


Obviously, I'm not talking about four year olds.

I and most other people obviously are.

The term "prepubescent children" must have been used a hundred times during the pedo debates.

And since puberty starts (and stops) at different ages for different children the term applies to each child separetely, so for one child prepubescence stops at 11, for the other at 12 (though in most cases it's around a certain age; 10/11/12 in the case of puberty starting).

That is irrelevant, since I was specifically referring to children still in the prepubescent stage of development.


I am aware that there is a problem with egregious cases like the one you present. This is obvious given my statement.

No, it wasn't obvious at all, you just said that "a certain amount of information is required" and then went on to say that you "don't know the anwer to these questions".

So you were saying that you don't know for sure that a 4 year old can or cannot have enough information to be able to consent to drinking a shot of Vodka.

That is absurd.

A prepubescent child is not even psychologically able to understand or comprehend such issues, let alone having "enough information" about them.


I highly doubt that anybody is really apologising for such clear examples of exploitation

Desrumeaux and Bobkindles have said that 4 year olds can "consent" to sucking off a 40 year old, and that there's nothing wrong with it if they do.

So there are actually members who apologize for it.


And like I said before, I don't think you have the answer, since I have seen nothing come close from anybody here (though some have made some earnet attempts to make that distinction, drawing some really harsh and unfair criticism).

Obviously you don't have the answer, neither do I or anyone else, that's because there is no clear-cut line able to be drawn with laws.

The peculiar thing about laws is that they are for a certain part arbitrary; At the age of 18 you are allowed to drink alocohol in some countries, 16 in others, why? Because people believe that enough information about the consequences of drinking alcohol is known by 18 and 16 years in those countries.

Obviously some 16 year olds don't have the same information or responsibility as other 16 year olds, so in that respect it is arbitrary, but in general lines studies and other scientific reports have indicated that in the vast majority of cases this is already known at that age, which is why the law applies specifically to that age.

In the case of consent to sucking off a 40 year old it's set at 18 right now (at least in the Netherlands), though I doubt that 16/17 year olds who consent to that will be legally prosecuted; if they don't report a crime there is none, in other words, if it was really consensual it wouldn't be a problem.

Personally I believe that the current laws are quite fine to deal with the issue, though it could be argued that it should be lowered to 16 or 17 since a lot of children have already been sexually active for several years by that time.

But this is all irrelevant to the discussion we are having about prepubescent children specifically, who can range from the ages of 4 to 10/11/12.

They should obviously not be able to consent to drinking alcohol, taking drugs, or sucking off a 40 year old, for the reasons mentioned.

If you "don't know the answer to that" then either you are being purposefully obtuse, as I suggested, or you're just really misinformed about the mental and biological capacities of prepubescent children.


I really fucking sick of this witch hunt shit going on. Nobody here is a pedo or a threat

They're not pedophiles themselves, but they have no problem with a pedo fucking a 4 year old "only if they consent", which amounts to advocating pedophilia because 4 year olds can objectively not consent to something like sexual activity.

That is the fact of the matter, and if you're "sick of the witch hunt" against such members then that is your problem, not mine, because I'm perfectly fine with "witches" (i.e., advocates for pedophilia) being hunted as long as they are "witches" (i.e., advocates for pedophilia).

[Dean]

If you "don't know the answer to that" then either you are being purposefully obtuse, as I suggested, or you're just really misinformed about the mental and biological capacities of prepubescent children.

Or maybe I simply wasn't talking about 4yo kids, as I pointed out in the last post?

I find it funny how you can make such a long - winded post reliant of evidence I already refuted.

[Led Zeppelin]

Or maybe I simply wasn't talking about 4yo kids, as I pointed out in the last post?

I suggest you crack open a dictionary and look up the definition of the word "prepubescent", then I suggest you read the opening post wherein Invader Zim clearly stated:


Are children capable of informed consent when it comes to the sexual advances of adults. By child I do not mean teen. I would argue that they are not.

Then I suggest you alleviate your ignorance on the matter by reading something about it, you can start with the posts made by myself, Wanted Man, Luis Henrique, Leo and Invader Zim.


I find it funny how you can make such a long - winded post reliant of evidence I already refuted.

The only thing you have refuted is the notion that you are not totally ignorant on the matter.

Congratulations, you just established that you are.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

First, I do not understand why there is so much staggering in legal ages.
If an individual is mature enough to operate a several-thousand-pound potentially-fatal machine (automobiles), why are they still too immature to drink alcohol or vote?

The same philosophy applies to sexual emancipation.

If, and only when, an individual is mature enough to drive, vote, drink, etc. should informed consent apply.
Up until that point, the individual should be protected by the law in addition to being restricted by it.
For example, does it not bother anybody else when a minor is tried as an adult? They are denied any rights an adult has, yet are punished as one.

Once again, the same philosophy applied to sex.

Anyway, I vote no. A child is not mature enough to consent, especially before the teen years. The human brain continues to develop until the early 20s. Until that time, behaviour of the individual can be erratic.

For example; teenagers tend to have a delusion of immortality. Even if the individual knows intellectually that they are susceptible to illness or injury (including sexually transmitted infections and emotional distress), they emotionally have an attitude that it "happens to other people". When it does happen to them, they often blow it out of proportion since they have only begun learning how to cope with it by themselves.

Preadolescence is a time when children are significantly more mature then middle-childhood, however they still have unreasonable fears and expectations. Whereas a younger child may fear monsters or ghosts, preteens fear media events, rape, kidnappings, etc. to an unreasonable extent. A case study about a 12 year old girl who learned about rape in sex-ed and then wouldn't let her father hug her for years comes to mind. In addition, while preadolescence is the time most individuals start becoming sexually aware, they have a hard time grasping the concept of romantic love other then limerence (a "crush", but potentially longer-lasting.)

Middle childhood (elementary ages 4-8 or so) children do not understand many or most adult concepts (such as sex) or they understand them in crude manners. These children have rather immature wants and fears, and their understanding of romantic love and sex can appear delusional and warped to an adult, or non-exist altogether.

Sexual contact with an adult at any of these ages can cause long-term emotional confusion or damage. While individuals in these groups can and should explore sex and relationships with others of their own age group (simple playing or interacting with children of both sexes at the younger ages, group outings when they become interested, and more one on one, hands-on interaction as a teenager), they should be left to explore sexuality at their own pace.

Each individual should be based on their own since maturity levels differ from person to person, but I don't see how children could possibly be informed when approached by an adult.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

While sexuality is not the exclusive preserve of the post-teen the intellectual and psychological development of a person requires upon experience and the self-instruction drawn from it.

The rate at which a child's mind becomes sexually engaged or even the rate at which they become sexually mature is irrelevant as there is no predictable age at which one could be said to be able to informed decision about sexual contact.

The simple point is I as somebody who lost their virginity shortly before the start of their teens do not think such an act could be said to be right or wrong for everyone but as a society generalisations must be made and to rule in favour of the youth's protection is the common rule.

As such I would say that a child might be able to give consent and it is impossible to say if it would be informed or not. Unfortunately laws work on precedent and this is one that cannot be allowed to be made for the sake of protecting the children who are raped after giving coerced consent or giving consent having no idea of it's meaning.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Unless we're going to hand out intercourse licenses, I think the age of consent is going to remain an arbitrary number with no significant value to every individual. Similar protections are set up around people with low IQs.

[Dr Mindbender]

its arguable that it is dependent on a case to case basis. Some children mature more quickly than others.

Some adults are not capable of informed consent, ie. the mentally infirm.

Is someone who has sex with a mentally sick or deficient adult as reproachable as a paedophile?

[Bud Struggle]

Is someone who has sex with a mentally sick or deficient adult as reproachable as a paedophile?

Doh! Yea. What kind of sicko would even want to have sex with someone that isn't fully concenting and understanding of what is going on?

[Dr Mindbender]

Doh! Yea. What kind of sicko would even want to have sex with someone that isn't fully concenting and understanding of what is going on?


if that person looked like pamela anderson would you think twice?

Tread carefully.

[Bud Struggle]

if that person looked like pamela anderson would you think twice?

Tread carefully.

Hmmm. You might have a point. :cool:

[Jazzratt]

Is someone who has sex with a mentally sick or deficient adult as reproachable as a paedophile?

Yes. Even if the person who is incapable of consent is a stunning 22 year old with massive pecs/tits/hairy warts/whatever turns you on.

[Dr Mindbender]

Yes. Even if the person who is incapable of consent is a stunning 22 year old with massive pecs/tits/hairy warts/whatever turns you on.

problem is its impossible to tell exactly how mentally challenged one is unless they have access to their medical history.

The misplaced trust or mannerisms of an adult without understanding of adult sexual behaviour could quite possibly be misinterpreted as sexual consent. If we were to prosecute someone who did this on on false pretences under the same terms as someone who fucked a child that would be wholly unfair.

And where do you draw the line where one isnt or able to provide this consent bearing in mind no one has successfully given a definiton of what it means to do so?

[Bud Struggle]

problem is its impossible to tell exactly how mentally challenged one is unless they have access to their medical history.


You'll know it. Best not to screw with ANYONE that has any problem. Best not to take advantage on anyone that any problem. Best to look and to check and be helpful to people that need help rather than prey on them. Best to treat people as you would want to be treated. If you have to ask how mentally challenged is this person it's best to walk away.

Geez you guys, what the hell are you thinking?

[Jazzratt]

problem is its impossible to tell exactly how mentally challenged one is unless they have access to their medical history.

It's generally easy to tell if someone's mental capacity is so far below normal they would not have a good enough understanding of sexuality to give informed consent, but I see your point.


The misplaced trust or mannerisms of an adult without understanding of adult sexual behaviour could quite possibly be misinterpreted as sexual consent. If we were to prosecute someone who did this on on false pretences under the same terms as someone who fucked a child that would be wholly unfair.

I think in this case the offense would be to rape what manslaughter is to murder, if you see what I mean?


And where do you draw the line where one isnt or able to provide this consent bearing in mind no one has successfully given a definiton of what it means to do so?

Again this is a tricky one, but as who's(sic) world is it said earlier in the context of children it is, in this case, best to err on the side of caution.

[R_P_A_S]

question.. why do some people here love to talk about having sex with children???

[Led Zeppelin]

question.. why do some people here love to talk about having sex with children???

'cause they need to stand up for the opppppppressed pedos, of course.

[Bud Struggle]

question.. why do some people here love to talk about having sex with children???

Maybe this is why:

Stalin and his lover aged 13

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454291/Stalin-lover-aged-13.html

( I know--the Daily Mail :rolleyes::lol:)

[Jazzratt]

question.. why do some people here love to talk about having sex with children???

What? Who here has shown that they "love" talking about sex with children? The number of threads and posts on the matter is pretty low compared to a hell of a lot of other topics.

[Comrade Rage]

( I know--the Daily Mail :rolleyes::lol:)
Then why did you bother to post this crap?

Besides, quoting capitalist rags to 'debunk' Stalin is just like quoting the National Review to debunk your liberalism. Capitalist rags offer flat-out propaganda and lies to debunk socialism, and right-wing rags do the same to your politics.

This isn't to say that there aren't any valid ways of criticizing socialism/communism, I'm just saying that this crap attacking the personal lives of revolutionaries with "newly uncovered 'evidence'" is a joke. In this case, the 'evidence' was anecdotal crap from Khrushchev, the wingnut who banged his shoe at the UN.:blink:

[Jazzratt]

Maybe this is why:

Stalin and his lover aged 13

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454291/Stalin-lover-aged-13.html

( I know--the Daily Mail :rolleyes::lol:)

Oh come on it's been years since Stalin defeated the Daily Heil's mate Hitler, you think they'd stop with the rather shakily-grounded libel.

[Bud Struggle]

Then why did you bother to post this crap?

Besides, quoting capitalist rags to 'debunk' Stalin is just like quoting the National Review to debunk your liberalism. Capitalist rags offer flat-out propaganda and lies to debunk socialism, and right-wing rags do the same to your politics.

This isn't to say that there aren't any valid ways of criticizing socialism/communism, I'm just saying that this crap attacking the personal lives of revolutionaries with "newly uncovered 'evidence'" is a joke. In this case, the 'evidence' was anecdotal crap from Khrushchev, the wingnut who banged his shoe at the UN.:blink:

I didn't mean to be taken all that seriously.

[Mersault]

I am pretty sure that they are not. Such ability probably comes somewhere in the early to mid teens.

How are you sure? I'm not being facetious, it just seems that you have managed to be sure about something a lot more than those people trying to be sure. As for me I', not in the know about any of it. I don't know any children except for my cousin and she's certainly not capable of this kind of thing. Or much, really. She doesn't concern herself with that sort of stuff.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

For the protection of those individuals who cannot make a decision of informed consent to sexual acts an arbitary limit must be put in place at the upper end of the scale of mental maturity I simpy think that the limit imposed should be more flexible to the circumstances of individual cases in a court of law.

For example two 15 year olds taking their first shaky steps into the world of sexuality should not be considered rape by law as both partners consented but were below the legal age where that consent means anything in law. For a more personal example a 11 and a half year old and a 14 year old (I think) should also not be prosecutable as both are consenting and neither is forcing the act upon the other, whereas an 18 year old engaging in sex with a 14 year old should be. it's not so much the act itself as the intent and mental capability of the individuals engaged in it.

The line is drawn when somebody who can safely be assumed to have an understandng of sex engages in a sexual act with somebody who it can generally be assumed does not.

[Peacekeeper]

Define "children". I totally think that from about age 10, children (assuming that they have had sexual education, and are thus informed), can consent to sex with other people there age and similar. With adults, again assuming decent sex ed. (which, yes, I had when I was 10), power dynamics come into it, but I don't see why most ten year olds couldn't make an informed decision about wanting to have sex with an adult.

There's the rub.

[lvl100]

Define "children". I totally think that from about age 10, children (assuming that they have had sexual education, and are thus informed), can consent to sex with other people there age and similar. With adults, again assuming decent sex ed. (which, yes, I had when I was 10), power dynamics come into it, but I don't see why most ten year olds couldn't make an informed decision about wanting to have sex with an adult.


In order to solve this extremply important dilemma of our times, i lost countless nights studying on this matter. So now i`m able to give a philosophical answer :

If you cant get laid pay a fucking hooker and solve your problem.
But leave the kids alone.
Childhood its proabbly the most pure and untainted part of life. They should be playing with dolls and action figures not polishing your salami.

If a 10 years old its developed enough its ok to send him to a coal mine to make some bucks , only becouse his phisical capabilities allow him to work ?? I dont think so.

Childhood must remain to the children.

They have a full life in front on them to worry about condoms, pills, pregnacy, STDs, AIDS etc

LE :
Anyway how ppl will take us seriously when our "revolutionary" problem is how to boink a 8 years old :)

[Sharon den Adel]

Are children capable of informed consent when it comes to the sexual advances of adults. By child I do not mean teen. I would argue that they are not.

In order for anyone to give consent to sex, they must know what sex actually means, and it's importance. Children cannot consent to sex because they can't comprehend it's meaning.

You don't give an age specific. You are not talking about teenagers, so are we talking about children as young as twelve, ten, or younger? How young a child are you thinking of?

[Jazzratt]

LE :
Anyway how ppl will take us seriously when our "revolutionary" problem is how to boink a 8 years old :)

It's not "how to boink an 8 year old", cockend. If you'd managed to read any part of this thread before shitting that long ill-thought out rant onto this website you'd have noticed the discussion was on the morality of "boinking" (are you 12 or something? Who the fuck uses the verb "boink" to describe sex?) a child and whether or not it was justifiable. This is an actual issue and is relevant to a lot of people around the world.

[Dr Mindbender]

You'll know it. Best not to screw with ANYONE that has any problem. Best not to take advantage on anyone that any problem. Best to look and to check and be helpful to people that need help rather than prey on them. Best to treat people as you would want to be treated. If you have to ask how mentally challenged is this person it's best to walk away.

Geez you guys, what the hell are you thinking?

I believe theres also something wrong about discriminating against people because of their mental health.

Its wrong for an employer to discriminate (depending on the work involvement), so why should a potential sexual partner do the same?

Its something of a delicate tightrope though, i'll grant you that.

[Bud Struggle]

I believe theres also something wrong about discriminating against people because of their mental health.

Its wrong for an employer to discriminate (depending on the work involvement), so why should a potential sexual partner do the same?

Its something of a delicate tightrope though, i'll grant you that.

I do agree it is a mental health issue--but i also believe it is one that can be controlled.

But how about this for a similar situation of "concent."

I could fly up to my plant today and go and see "Alba"--a woman that works for me. Spanish, about 30 and hot as all get out. I could "ask" her to have sex with me. I could insist on it--but of course, not force her. She knows that I know that she has a couple of kids that she is the sole support of.

She knows that, me being a hell of a guy and all, I probably wouldn't fire her if she said no to me. But then again, I could--she made a mistake a while ago that could have gotten her fired, and I let it go.

Hmmmm. It would, of course, be her choice. The only way I would ever have sex with her is if she concented. So is it OK?

(The above--is a PURE HYPOTHETICAL.)

[eyedrop]

I do agree it is a mental health issue--but i also believe it is one that can be controlled.

But how about this for a similar situation of "concent."

I could fly up to my plant today and go and see "Alba"--a woman that works for me. Spanish, about 30 and hot as all get out. I could "ask" her to have sex with me. I could insist on it--but of course, not force her. She knows that I know that she has a couple of kids that she is the sole support of.

She knows that, me being a hell of a guy and all, I probably wouldn't fire her if she said no to me. But then again, I could--she made a mistake a while ago that could have gotten her fired, and I let it go.

Hmmmm. It would, of course, be her choice. The only way I would ever have sex with her is if she concented. So is it OK?

(The above--is a PURE HYPOTHETICAL.)

Cases like this is the reason why we have boss-employe sex laws, or at least I think we do. Nevertheless (what a pretty word) it always gets lots of press scorn every time it's discovered and the firing stick gets taken out.

The whole adult-child sex issue is the exact same principle for me. Sex between partners in unequal power relationship to each other. Offcourse it will always be somewhat differing powerrelationship between partners but it should be as small as possible. If one part has some sort of hold on the other it cannot be fully consentual, as it will always be in a sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

Sexual exploring between young children is a different case and I see nothing wrong with it even though I doubt it happens so much if at all. An anectdocical story: When I was around 8 me and the neighbour girl was playing around the house. We started to talk about how our differing sexual organs looked since we were both curious of how the sexual organs of the opposing sexes looked. We ended up running into the forest were we dressed off ourselfes and proseded to examine our sexual organs. The thing is that in the whole experience sex didn't get into my mind at all, maybe because I didn't properly know what it was.

To me that experience was a perfect example of the natural way children should get to experience the feeble beginnings of sex. But still sexual thoughts weren't on my mind as I don't think children of that age is even capable of sexual thought, some may be but then they shouldn't anyway be exposed to a sexual relationship with an unequal powerelationship, just as TomKs example showed.

It was just maybe 3 years after that when I started watching porn and were probably ready to enter a sexual relationship, with an equal. We even gathered around 6-7 of us boys in the class when some of us got holds of some porno movies and sat watching it jacking of and thinking of sex. Somewhat homoerotical:lol: (Silly masculinity defence; "fingered" a girl at the age of 8, not that I don't like things up my butt as the result of being the victim of itching worms up my rectum through my childhood)


I'm not really sure where I'm going with this post, but anyway sexual encounters should as far as possible always be between somewhat equal partners. Teachers having sex with their students shouldn't happen as the teacher is in an authority position over the student. On the other hand I can also see the desire of young people to get initiated into sex life by and experienced partner.

[eyedrop]

Addendum; if we thought up a way to remove the unequal powerelationship between a child and an adult, which I very much doubt is possible, then I wouldn't necessarily see anything wrong with a sexual relationship as long as the initiative is the childs. But as it is now I view it as TomKs example as a at it's best half excortion and should be opposed. From my own experiences I doubt that many children even have much of a sexual desire. Sure they may enjoy being cuddled with, even on their sexual organs, but they wont think of it in a sexual way.

[lvl100]

It's not "how to boink an 8 year old", cockend. If you'd managed to read any part of this thread before shitting that long ill-thought out rant onto this website you'd have noticed the discussion was on the morality of "boinking" (are you 12 or something? Who the fuck uses the verb "boink" to describe sex?) a child and whether or not it was justifiable. This is an actual issue and is relevant to a lot of people around the world.

No offence, but how talking about fucking a kid who barelly know to spell his own name is "relevant to a lot of people around this world" ?

Whats the next topic ?

Its moral to realy realy love our mothers ?

Necrophilia, did the corpse really need to express his consent trough his will, or its ok anyway ?

Zoophilia , how old must be the chicken to be a moral intercourse ?

PS : I just love how the word "boink" sounds :)

[Jazzratt]

No offence, but how talking about fucking a kid who barelly know to spell his own name is "relevant to a lot of people around this world" ?

Because, you infuriating prick, there is (and to a great extent always has been) a lot of discussion on the (im)morality of paedophilia, pedastry, ephebophilia and so on. To pretend that the subject is only controversial in leftist circles exposes your titanic ignorance.


Whats the next topic ?

Its moral to realy realy love our mothers ?

Wow, so not only are you completely unable to understand why paedophilia is subject to more than just black and white judgements you heavily imply you're a sexual conservative cockdribble. What is your major objection to incest (including non-reproductive incest) beyond "ew that's gross"?


Necrophilia, did the corpse really need to express his consent trough his will, or its ok anyway ?

I would say that a discussion on necrophilia would have to be based on whether a corpse counts as anything other than an inanimate object, and if so why and what implications does that have regarding our treatment of corpses.


Zoophilia , how old must be the chicken to be a moral intercourse ?

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to ask if an animal can give meaningful consent and whether or not that even matters.

[lvl100]

Ok ok i see your point. I guess this is the meaning of the forum anyway, to debate even the biggest taboos.

But in the case of pedophilia, my reaction was due to the giant gap between theory and reality, leading to some grade of hypocrisy.
I`m curious, how many from the members who think that a 10 year old may have informed consent would agree to let his 10 year daughter to take it up her ass.
The sentence above may look like a simple and limited view of the problem, but i really think that when we discuss about morals we should discuss something that involves our personal beliefs too.
If someone who in real life is like " if i see my daughter even holding hands with that boy again i will kill her" and comes here and advocates the informed consent of little girls to use all their available holes, then its just a debate for the sake of a debate, with no real substance.

[casper]

I believe the current age of consent here is 16. it sounds like a good age to me. any younger and its abuse(unless you yourself are under 16 or so). although i would argue that 17 is probably more proper if not 18, if we're basing it off of maturity and ability to be informed. people have sex because of a natural instinct, if that natural instinct is not present then they shouldn't be manipulated into giving it out. That instinct and passion isn't there in young ages. Also when it first matures the cognitive and social aspects of a person hasn't caught up. Youth should have a say in their lives, but why any one would be attracted to someone so young, who has yet to form much of their views and who they could easily control is cause for concern.

[apathy maybe]

Thanks for bumping an old thread.

What about two 13 year olds having sex? Should they both be punished for being below the age of consent...?

[Bitter Ashes]

No to the original question and no to Apathy Maybe's question.
Hormones are a mighty powerful thing when you're 13. It would be unfair to punish them when they're so naturaly disadvantaged in self control! :lol:

[casper]

i didn't look at the time, i thought i found this in the new post search function results... odd. it was at 5 this morning, perhaps i clicked something i thought i didn't.

[danyboy27]

we should rename this thread the pedophile dilema

[Comrade Anarchist]

not children as in like 13 and under but ya to 16 and up.

[apathy maybe]

not children as in like 13 and under but ya to 16 and up.

Thanks for keeping an old thread alive.

My previous post is of course still relevant.

What about two 13 year olds having sex? Should they both be punished for being below the age of consent...?

(The other question is, as always, why 16? It's a very arbitrary age to pick.)

[Dejavu]

What about two 13 year olds having sex? Should they both be punished for being below the age of consent...? Punishment implies a consequence or penalty for doing something wrong. I guess the first question would be; wrong according to whom?

If the act is purely voluntary and lacks coercion ( be it physical , mental , or emotional) then how can any 'punishment' be justified? Surely the 'punishing party' would have to be an external third source that judges the activity based on his own interpretation of moral values. If he enforces his own preferences of behavior upon the two people involved in the act of sex then this seems coercive to me.

[Jazzratt]

If the act is purely voluntary and lacks coercion ( be it physical , mental , or emotional) then how can any 'punishment' be justified? Surely the 'punishing party' would have to be an external third source that judges the activity based on his own interpretation of moral values.

Please try to keep up. The thread is quite explicitly about whether or not people of a certain age are capable of meaningful consent so blundering in with a tired old libertarian platitude about whether or not something is "voluntary" is, at best, rewording the same sodding question.

Although your post, as regards a punishing party, raises an interesting question. How do you define physical, mental or emotional coercion (interesting your little list of coercive methods didn't include the world's most common: economic)? And do you think it would always be clear cut whether or not someone was coerced and if it isn't do you automatically assume that a person engaged in their behaviour voluntarily or that they were coerced into it? And if you investigate into whether or not someone was coerced into something do you investigate it - and if so what investigatory organs would you have in place? Finally, is a decision made when not sound of mind 'voluntary' in a meaningful sense; or is that not black and white?

For the record, two 13 year-olds having consensual sex is probably non-coercive.

[Dejavu]

Please try to keep up. I don't appreciate the condescending attitude. If you wish me to reply then you won't infer I might be too 'slow' to 'keep up' with the level of debate and discussion. I find this snark comment unwarranted.


The thread is quite explicitly about whether or not people of a certain age are capable of meaningful consent so blundering in with a tired old libertarian platitude about whether or not something is "voluntary" is, at best, rewording the same sodding question.Oh, so now I'm a blundering as well? I am perfectly capable of understanding the topic or else why reply to any of my post at all? Your snark comments are a bit annoying.




Although your post, as regards a punishing party, raises an interesting question. How do you define physical, mental or emotional coercion (interesting your little list of coercive methods didn't include the world's most common: economic)?Hey, it looks like my post is meaningful after all if it aroused some interest on your part. Again, why the snark attitude?
All these types of coercion fall into a type of bullying. When someone more dominating than you uses negative reinforcement to get what they want out of you. If you do X or if you don't do X , I will physically hurt you ( physical). If you don't do X or do X, you're a disgrace and (god) will be angry with you ( mental , used in religion a lot). If you do X or don't do X you will feel horrible and lowly, or I will get angry and not like you ( type of emotional). Of course, there are many methods of bullying I did not mention but can generally fall into one of these categories. Do you understand a little bit better now?
As far as economic coercion, I never claimed it doesn't exist. It really depends on how we define economic coercion. The way I would see it is a type of unilateral forced trade in which only one party benefits to the detriment of the other, of course this is only applicable as coercion if one party is forcing the other to trade what he doesn't want to trade. A coercive reinforcement is then typically one of the aforementioned three.

I do notice yet even more condescension and snark attitude here on your part. Interesting how you say ' your little list of coercive methods' as if this is some kind of contrivance of mine that has no rational basis , which of course, you never even challenged. If I see this same unwarranted arrogant attitude in your following posts I will refrain from addressing them.




And do you think it would always be clear cut whether or not someone was coerced and if it isn't do you automatically assume that a person engaged in their behaviour voluntarily or that they were coerced into it? And if you investigate into whether or not someone was coerced into something do you investigate it - and if so what investigatory organs would you have in place? Finally, is a decision made when not sound of mind 'voluntary' in a meaningful sense; or is that not black and white?What do you mean by 'always clear cut?' I am not a 'perfect' judge and neither are you. You can no more confer that something was coercion or voluntary than I can without some evidence to shed more light on the truth. As far as investigating itself goes, its completely dependent on the situation itself. You would have to give me an example for any answer of mine to be more definitive. As for your final question, can you rephrase precisely what you mean? I don't understand where you're getting at with ' sound of mind 'voluntary' in a meaningful sense.' And please, leave out any undeserved snark reply.


For the record, two 13 year-olds having consensual sex is probably non-coercive.
Depends on the situation and the individuals involved. I would agree if both 13 yr olds are capable of basic reasoning skills.
__________________

[Richard Nixon]

I voted yes, but only if there is radical change in the way society views both sex and children, (i.e its not the sex it's the cultural attitudes that cause the damage).

No sexual consequences at all? Say, a ten year old can be manipulated to having sex and they will be emotionally scarred and what if a say 13 year old girl get pregnant? It's not some stuffy old conservative cultural attitudes it's plain old common sense supported by 99.999999% of civilized people.

[RedAnarchist]

No, they cannot. I know kids who are nearly teenagers who have the mentality of a 5 or 6 year old.