Age of sexual consent [Archive]

View Full Version : Age of sexual consent

Pages : [1] 2

Dr Mindbender

11th August 2008, 00:13

What should the sexual age of consent be?

Gay and straight of course.

politics student

11th August 2008, 00:18

I would say slapping an age down is a bit off.

I would say 16 but some people are sexually aware and active at a much younger age of 13-14.

Kami

11th August 2008, 00:19

politics student

11th August 2008, 00:20

BTW the UK age of consent is 16, which I think is well placed by that age they had detailed sex education and developed the reason to make the decision to have sex with protection.

Dr Mindbender

11th August 2008, 00:20

I would say slapping an age down is a bit off.

I would say 16 but some people are sexually aware and active at a much younger age of 13-14.

it might sound authoritarian of me but i think it should be raised (for heterosexuals in particular).

Bringing it up to 18 would not only discourage underage pregnancy (as a technocrat i attach a high importance to education and schooling) but bring it up to the same age as homosexual consent.

politics student

11th August 2008, 00:22

gah. This is a difficult one to pin a set age on, due to the whole individual levels of maturity (both physical and mental). If I had to set an age, I'd probably say early teens (what, 14 or so?) but it would be ideal if it were done case-by-case, specifically taking both parties into account.

I was thinking that but if you took it case by case it would create a new element which could cause issues in legal battles.

I do agree that it depends on the individual.

Dr Mindbender

11th August 2008, 00:24

I was thinking that but if you took it case by case it would create a new element which could cause issues in legal battles.

I do agree that it depends on the individual.

as do i, but sadly i dont think the courts judge each case on it's merits.

Which is probably what they should be doing.

politics student

11th August 2008, 00:26

it might sound authoritarian of me but i think it should be raised (for heterosexuals in particular).

Bringing it up to 18 would not only discourage underage pregnancy (as a technocrat i attach a high importance to education and schooling) but bring it up to the same age as homosexual consent.

I think the age consent for homosexuality should be brought down to 16.

Putting up the age of consent will not drop teenage pregnancy the same goes for underage drinking. If you want to change teenage pregnancy rates then you have to provide free condoms and improve sex education in schools.

Kami

11th August 2008, 00:28

Bringing it up to 18 would not only discourage underage pregnancy
Punishing all the people who have sex before 18 is not the way to combat that - education and contraception, along with availability of abortions covers that base.

Dr Mindbender

11th August 2008, 00:28

I think the age consent for homosexuality should be brought down to 16.

Putting up the age of consent will not drop teenage pregnancy the same goes for underage drinking. If you want to change teenage pregnancy rates then you have to provide free condoms and improve sex education in schools.

i think it's naive to simply give them free condoms and 'hope' they use them.

I think the key is to remove the alienating aspects of the transition between school and the workplace.

There is a repugnant failure in the system to infuse teenagers with inspiration to take an interest in their future. This is why they are turning to distractions like drink, drugs, and yes, sexual promiscuity. If they were busy studying they wouldnt have time for that.

StrictlyRuddie

11th August 2008, 00:32

it might sound authoritarian of me but i think it should be raised (for heterosexuals in particular).

Bringing it up to 18 would not only discourage underage pregnancy (as a technocrat i attach a high importance to education and schooling) but bring it up to the same age as homosexual consent.

I Agree, underaged pregnancy would decrease,

and the homosexual age of consent should be the same as the heterosexual age.

politics student

11th August 2008, 00:39

i think it's naive to simply give them free condoms and 'hope' they use them.

Well using education combats this issue.

I think the key is to remove the alienating aspects of the transition between school and the workplace.

People are having sex while in highschool. I doubt this is really an issue in pregnancy rates.

There is a repugnant failure in the system to infuse teenagers with inspiration to take an interest in their future.

Hate to break this to you but have you seen the state of the UK school system (over worked, under payed, over crowded class rooms, no career guidance worth mentioning.)
Our educational system like health seems like its slowly being lined up for privatization.

How can inspiration be created in a system like this?

This is why they are turning to distractions like drink, drugs, and yes, sexual promiscuity. If they were busy studying they wouldnt have time for that.

Ummm all work and no play...... :rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with drinking or drugs or sex for that matter but everything in moderation. My ability to take drugs or drink is not hindered by my personal or official education.

You increase the work load and drugs/drink just becomes an escape from stress.

PigmerikanMao

11th August 2008, 01:10

14 at least, anything before that is ridiculous. :laugh:

Kami

11th August 2008, 01:16

14 at least, anything before that is ridiculous. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

Why? Does it make all that much difference if it's 13?

Decolonize The Left

11th August 2008, 01:22

14 seems a little young.. I have yet to meet a 14 year old of any gender that is sexually active and consenting. It seems like 16 is when folks generally begin experimenting and so-forth.

- August

Kami

11th August 2008, 01:32

14 seems a little young.. I have yet to meet a 14 year old of any gender that is sexually active and consenting. It seems like 16 is when folks generally begin experimenting and so-forth.

- August

Perhaps it's just your area, but you'd have to go through school with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears to think that :P
I reccomend you explore Essex. or better yet, don't.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

11th August 2008, 01:34

I've seen 72 year olds not mature enough to have sex. It's a hard process. I would like to hand the responcibility off to parents, but then you have child molesters. I voted "15" just because it's an age I really don't feel uptight about. Perhaps basing it off of particular signs in puberty? Like, the first "moon blood" or dropped testicles? I don't know.

Could be you just take it on a case-by-case basis.

N3p7uN3

11th August 2008, 01:51

Putting an age limit on your ability to consent is about as successful as keeping specific substances illegal. Do you honestly think making laws about this will do a damn thing?

Besides, who says you to tell what a person can or cannot do? Everyone's maturity level and responsibility is negligible to age (of course, maturity of a 3 yr old is not the same as a 14, don't state the obvious).

Therefore, I agree with Kami, education is the key to know how to do anything responsibly and safely, and to understand the consequences if something goes horribly wrong.

PigmerikanMao

11th August 2008, 01:52

Good point, Neptune. Good Point :)

spartan

11th August 2008, 01:55

Well people are sometimes late bloomers in the puberty field so I think 16 seems a fair age for all.

If two consenting people both under the age of 16 have sex then I don't have a problem with that, but if someone way over 16 (20 or above) starts sniffing around someone under 16 then that's when alarm bells start ringing for me.

As for tackling things like teen pregnancy, didn't the Nederlands used to have a problem with that?

If I remember correctly they brought in new sex education techniques (that sounds like a bad joke) which ended up reducing teen pregnancy rates dramatically (a third of what they were before apparently).

N3p7uN3

11th August 2008, 01:55

PigmerikanMao

11th August 2008, 02:03

If I remember correctly they brought in new sex education techniques (that sounds like a bad joke) which ended up reducing teen pregnancy rates dramatically (a third of what they were before apparently).

Really? Do you recall any of those by chance?

11th August 2008, 02:15

i really consider this as a matter of every wo/man maturity and personality.It may varies between 2 person of the same age.Moreover matter plays if they "kids" know what they are doing,i mean they have the knowledge of what it is,but thats matter of society and schools to teach them from early age.If i would set an age i would say 15-16 where kids usually are total mature and aware of the thing.

Fuserg9:star:

spartan

11th August 2008, 02:36

Really? Do you recall any of those by chance?
Well I can't remember everything but it was a pretty hands on approach to sex education where the teachers used to bring in dildo's so that the kids could learn how to put condoms on properly and stuff like that:lol:

Mind you I shouldn't laugh as their methods actually work when compared with ours.

RHIZOMES

11th August 2008, 10:11

I think 16. I think the average age of emotional maturity for sex is 16, even if it feels otherwise when you actually under 16. :lol: When I was younger, I was a horny fuck (Puberty) and pissed off that I never got any or was in any sort of relationship. However, as I've grown older I've realized I wasn't actually mature enough at the time to handle either.

Maybe it's different for other people, but I don't know. I do think these should be judged by a case-by-case basis, for age differences etc.

The Feral Underclass

11th August 2008, 10:13

This old chestnut.

Are we discussing the age of consent now or in a future society? if we're talking about the present class society then I suspect the age varies depending on culture. In the UK it's 16 but in mainland Europe it's as young as 14. My opinion on that is that sex is viewed and encouraged differently than in the UK, where the subject is viewed with more conservatism. In a future society the discussion about sex would be wholly different (I would hope) and would encourage and nurture chidlrens sexual exploration in a more productive, honest and independent way. This attitude of course shouldn't be limited to just sexuality but in all walks of life. We should be teaching children that they are not docile nor do they need to be submissive, but have a valid voice within communities and that they have the power to make choices. If this was done alongside real education, compassion and love then there is no reason to suggest that a child as young as 12/13 cannot make informed consensual decisions. I think any younger than that a child physically would be unable to engage in sex in a meaningful way.

I voted 12 although it's highly debatable.

BobKKKindle$

11th August 2008, 10:38

There should be no age of consent. Any of age of consent (regardless of the age which is actually chosen, which is not the same in every country) will always be purely arbitrary, because it is implausible to assume that someone can suddenly become ready to have sex just because they reach a certain age, and yet not be mature enough the day before. The basic principle which should guide sexual relations is effective consent - as along as all the participants are aware of what they are doing and have first given consent, the state should not be able to intervene and prevent people from having sex, or punish those who have already had sex.

Raising the age of consent is not an effective solution to the "problem" of teenage pregnancy, because teenagers will always want to have sex regardless of state legislation (simply because sex is a natural urge experienced by all human beings, although the age at which one may first begin to experience sexual desire can vary due to biology) and so the government should try and ensure they are able to do it in the safest way possible, by providing contraception in schools (combined with an extensive program of sex education based on open discussion) and changing abortion laws so that women are able easily obtain abortion if they accidentally become pregnant and do not want to carry the pregnancy to term. In reality, however, the actual prevalence of teenage pregnancy is vastly overstated (hence the use of quotation marks to indicate that a problem does not really exist) and pregnancy rates have consistently declined in the past decade, mainly due to the improved provision of contraception. In the United States, the current rate of teen pregnancy is 75/1000 which means that less than one in ten teenage girls become pregnant each year, and this rate represents a fall of 35% compared to the rate in 1990 (Source: Guttmacher Institute, Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health, Pregnancy (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html)) and of this decline, studies suggest that 85% is due to more sexually active teens using contraceptives, especially more effective methods of contraception, and multiple methods in combination. (Source: Science Daily, US Teen Pregnancy Rates Decline as Result of Improved Contraceptive Use (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061201180530.htm))

PigmerikanMao

11th August 2008, 15:09

Well I can't remember everything but it was a pretty hands on approach to sex education where the teachers used to bring in dildo's so that the kids could learn how to put condoms on properly and stuff like that:lol:

Mind you I shouldn't laugh as their methods actually work when compared with ours.

I heard about a school, I think it was in Maine, where the male principal and female secretary derobed themselves in front of the students to explain what sexual organs were which. I can't seem to find the article though.
:(

Lost In Translation

12th August 2008, 18:14

You can't really stick an age limit and expect everybody to follow it. It might be too early for some, but to late for others. Ultimately, it's their choice.

However, I voted 17 for no reason.

Sasha

12th August 2008, 19:12

Well I can't remember everything but it was a pretty hands on approach to sex education where the teachers used to bring in dildo's so that the kids could learn how to put condoms on properly and stuff like that

my mom used to give those classes in schools, quite embarsing, i some times still have freinds who meet my parents and suddenly remember where they know my mom from... :blushing:

but yeah, it works and have been working for decades. Only real big problems with teen pregnacys in holland are with the caribean minority because it became kind of a part of their culture wich is hard to change.

but on topic; to parafrase my hero Dan Savage; the fundamentel rule of any relation, sexual or not, should be consent and eqality.

So i see no more problem in two 8 year olds playing "doctors" or 14 teen year olds bonking each other than i have with the sex live of "adults". I do have big problem with (sexual)relationships with a big power imbalance, so like some other people here i'm extremly waery of people having relations with people half their age. (i my self slept with people both 7 years younger than me as with people 20 years older, but i always made sure the power balence was kosher, and stepped away a lot more than the oposite)

and keeping with the consent rule; animals, childeren, dead people, mentaly incapelbels, sleeping/passed out people, etc etc should be/stay off limit to everybody.

Joe Hill's Ghost

13th August 2008, 02:43

Mala Tha Testa

13th August 2008, 02:49

i don't know exactly...in my freshman year at highschool i heard of at least two people getting pregnant and many more in the upper classes. so i'm just gonna say 16 for the hell of it

Foldered

13th August 2008, 10:36

I say whenever. I don't think there should be a law governing when people can have sex and when they can't. I lost my virginity at 16, but had other kinds of sex before (oral, digital/mutual masturbation) a while before. When people are ready, they will, regardless of laws. Fuck it.

Sharon den Adel

13th August 2008, 10:43

I voted for 15. I was going to go for 16 but I thought 15 is pretty much grown up enough...

apathy maybe

13th August 2008, 13:30

For all the anarchists saying that they want an "age of consent", how are you going to enforce this?

If two 10 year olds get together and start playing "mummies and daddies" (or daddies and daddies, etc.) what are you going to do? Lock them up?

Of course fucking not...

What if a ten year old initiates sexual contact with a 12 year old? (It is possible to hit puberty before 10 years old.)

What if a 16 year old initiates sexual contact with an 18 year old?

Basically, any age of consent laws are fundamentally anti-anarchistic. So yeah, fuck off with them.

BurnTheOliveTree

13th August 2008, 13:46

I went for 12 for the same reasons as TAT.

Less than that and it becomes an issue of straight biology - you can't really do it. More than that and you start to oppress mature young teens.

But, as someone pointed out, these laws are pretty much redundant. No one gives a shit about the age of consent, it happens when it happens.

-Alex

LuÃs Henrique

13th August 2008, 14:43

It seems a lot of people believe a legal "age of consent" forbids people from having sex before a certain age. It is not what it does. It forbids people above penal responsibility age from having sex with people below the consenting age.

Luís Henrique

Sentinel

13th August 2008, 15:50

For all the anarchists saying that they want an "age of consent", how are you going to enforce this?As a popular measure of course. It's not like an anarchist society couldn't be organised and have rules.

This said, most of the age of consent laws curently in effect are ridiculous. I think it's too hard to set a set age limit, what should be considered is whether or not the person has reached at least early puberty, how developed they are mentally, etc. Case by case basis.

Post-Something

14th August 2008, 00:49

LuÃs Henrique

14th August 2008, 01:30

For all the anarchists saying that they want an "age of consent", how are you going to enforce this?

If two 10 year olds get together and start playing "mummies and daddies" (or daddies and daddies, etc.) what are you going to do? Lock them up?

Children playing with each other; children are penally irresponsible.

What if a ten year old initiates sexual contact with a 12 year old? (It is possible to hit puberty before 10 years old.)

Still children playing with each other.

What if a 16 year old initiates sexual contact with an 18 year old?

Two young adults. They better take contraceptive measures, of course. Nothing else.

Basically, any age of consent laws are fundamentally anti-anarchistic. So yeah, fuck off with them.

No, they aren't. You misunderstand the point, which is a completely different issue.

Luís Henrique

Demogorgon

14th August 2008, 03:46

I'd put it around sixteen, though I think it needs to be a bit more flexible. An eighteen year old having sex with a fifteen year old is far more acceptable than a thirty year old doing so for instance.

The law here is fairly stupid, it says that it is always illegal for somebody over sixteen to have sex with anyone under sixteen, even if the difference is only a mater of days, however the policy is that such a law will never be enforced for under eighteens except in extreme circumstances. If that is the case, why not just put it in statute to avoid confusion?

Anyway, I would put the age of consent at sixteen but with the provision that it s still legal at a younger age so long as the partners are within three years of each other in age.

jaiden

14th August 2008, 08:10

i say older than 18 cuz kids shouldn't be having sex at all. they should be married FIRST and they shouldn't be married UNDER 18 anwyays.

BobKKKindle$

14th August 2008, 09:12

i say older than 18 cuz kids shouldn't be having sex at all. they should be married FIRST and they shouldn't be married UNDER 18 anwyays.

Why should people below the age of eighteen not be allowed to have sex, given that people begin to experience sexual feelings many years before they reach this age (most adolescents begin to explore their bodies around the age of thirteen when they are in the initial stages of puberty, and throughout the world the average age of first sexual experience is below eighteen) and are able to make mature decisions? Why do people need to be married before they have sex, given that many people have sex simply because sex is a pleasurable experience, and not because they want to establish a long-term relationship?

jaiden

14th August 2008, 09:22

Demogorgon

14th August 2008, 10:11

no way man i'm 18 and i dont have sexual feelings. kids should be playing outside or playing video games and such, not having sex. c'mon, sex is for marriage because it is a ultimate expression of love. if it's used casually it looses its significance. sex is also primarly for reproduction anways.

I don't mean to be funny, but if you are 18 and don't have sexual feelings, you probably never will.

BobKKKindle$

14th August 2008, 10:30

no way man i'm 18 and i dont have sexual feelings.

If this is actually true, then you represent a deviation from the norm. Numerous studies have shown that masturbation (which is an obvious indication that someone is interested in having sex or is at least aroused by the concept of sexual intercourse) is widespread amongst teenagers, and many teenagers begin masturbating before they have reached the age of sexual maturity. For example, a survey conducted by NOW magazine in 2004 (Love and Sex Guide (http://www.nowtoronto.com/minisites/loveandsex/2004/s_survey_results.php), 2004) showed that twenty five percent of all women who masturbate started masturbating when they were between twelve and thirteen years old, and generally women tend to start masturbating at a younger age than men, even though men tend to masturbate more frequently.

c'mon, sex is for marriage because it is a ultimate expression of love. if it's used casually it looses its significance. sex is also primarly for reproduction anways.

Why does sex need to have a main purpose? People choose to have sex for a wide range of reasons - there are many people who enjoy having sex simply because sex is a fun and pleasurable experience (as shown by the fact that many people purchase contraception so the woman does not become pregnant, and several schools have chosen to make contraception freely available for students to avoid the spread of infectious disease) and there is no reason to assume that sex should only take place as an "expression of love" or to reproduce.

Sentinel

14th August 2008, 20:31

Topic split -- jaiden's opinions on gay people have been moved to Opposing Ideologies. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/gay-people-should-t86674/index.html?t=86674)

The Feral Underclass

15th August 2008, 11:34

ashaman1324

17th August 2008, 06:36

no age.
if your old enough to feel the urge for sex, and are in love, and are mature enough. go for it.
i think you should be mature enough to appreciate what youre doing with your mate, but theres no real age that everyone will be ready by. its a topic that cant be universally decided upon until everyone matures at a universal rate.

SamiBTX

26th August 2008, 03:49

gah. This is a difficult one to pin a set age on, due to the whole individual levels of maturity (both physical and mental). If I had to set an age, I'd probably say early teens (what, 14 or so?) but it would be ideal if it were done case-by-case, specifically taking both parties into account.

Hey, I like your avatar of Minsk.
Did you think that no one would have a clue who it was? ;)

disobey

26th August 2008, 09:29

I began experimenting with myself around age 12. You seem to be way off of the average.

Me too - my parents didn't see much of me that weekend.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

26th August 2008, 09:33

I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis, with the law only stating that you should affirm the other party consents before partaking in fun skills: in Germany consent means not exploiting the other person's ignorance.

Honggweilo

26th August 2008, 17:48

i think when hormones kick in, sexual behaviour is natural, so i say 12/13

Sharon den Adel

30th August 2008, 06:13

no way man i'm 18 and i dont have sexual feelings. kids should be playing outside or playing video games and such, not having sex. c'mon, sex is for marriage because it is a ultimate expression of love. if it's used casually it looses its significance. sex is also primarly for reproduction anways.

You don't sexual feelings at the age of 18? I doubt you ever will, then.

Sex is not just for marriage - non married couples share the same love as married couples, marriage makes no difference.

I'll ignore the procreation crap or else we'll be here all night.

Charles Xavier

30th August 2008, 16:07

16 year old having sex with a 40 year old they are Pedophiles.

I think 16 year olds can consent to those 2 years above their age, and that 18 year olds can consent otherwise.

Bad Grrrl Agro

30th August 2008, 16:08

I put 17. Although, I believe in the sliding scale in a certain few circumstances.

BobKKKindle$

30th August 2008, 17:41

16 year old having sex with a 40 year old they are Pedophiles.

This is objectively false, because pedophilia is defined as a desire to have sexual relations with people who have not yet reached the age of puberty, and clearly a sixteen year old is not someone who could be placed in this category, because by the time someone reaches sixteen they have already undergone many of the biological changes which are generally associated with sexual maturity, such as the development of breast tissue, and hormones which give rise to a sex drive. The fact that you confuse sex between two mature adults with sex between an adult and a child (where the ability of one participant to fully understand the consequences of what they are doing and therefore give informed consent is open to question) is an indication of the extent to which consensual relationships where an age gap exists are looked down upon by society, and your personal lack of understanding.

I think 16 year olds can consent to those 2 years above their age,

If a sixteen year old is capable of consenting to having sex with a eighteen year old, what makes you think they are incapable of consenting to having sex with older partners?

Charles Xavier

30th August 2008, 18:36

This is objectively false, because pedophilia is defined as a desire to have sexual relations with people who have not yet reached the age of puberty, and clearly a sixteen year old is not someone who could be placed in this category, because by the time someone reaches sixteen they have already undergone many of the biological changes which are generally associated with sexual maturity, such as the development of breast tissue, and hormones which give rise to a sex drive. The fact that you confuse sex between two mature adults with sex between an adult and a child (where the ability of one participant to fully understand the consequences of what they are doing and therefore give informed consent is open to question) is an indication of the extent to which consensual relationships where an age gap exists are looked down upon by society, and your personal lack of understanding.

If a sixteen year old is capable of consenting to having sex with a eighteen year old, what makes you think they are incapable of consenting to having sex with older partners?
A 16 year old is a child. Their body are not fully developed their minds are not fully developed. You sir are a pedophile.

RaÃºl Duke

30th August 2008, 18:37

Between 13 and 15 be fine...

Although really IDK....it's suppose to be at around puberty of course but it differs for everyone.

BobKKKindle$

30th August 2008, 18:59

A 16 year old is a child. Their body are not fully developed their minds are not fully developed. You sir are a pedophile.

The basic concept of someone being "fully developed" is problematic and therefore not sufficient justification for preventing people from having sex, because it implies that mental development is a process which has a definite end, whereas in reality the mind of any individual will continue to develop for the rest of her life even when puberty has ended, not solely due to the impacts of further biological changes, but also the benefits of accumulated experience. The fact is that teenagers aged sixteen will always want to have sex regardless of what the government tells them to do, as research has consistently shown that the average median age of intercourse is sixteen for both males and females, although substantial numbers of teenagers also had sex before they turned sixteen. (Source: National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, Natsal 2000)

Mujer Libre

31st August 2008, 01:53

A 16 year old is a child. Their body are not fully developed their minds are not fully developed. You sir are a pedophile.

Please don't accuse members of being paedophiles just because they disagree with you. (I never thought I'd see myself typing that sentence)

Also, can you define "childhood?" These things are blurry, but afaik childhood is a distinct developmental stage from adolescence, which a 16 year old certainly falls into, especially considering that the onset of puberty these days is very early- apparently the average age girls get their period is 9.

One of the major developmental tasks of adolescence is finding one's own identity, separate from the family, and a part of that is sexual identity. That's why 16 year olds will have sex, no matter what you or others try to do to stop them. And yes, in most cases where a 16 year old has sex with a much older person there will be an element of exploitation/maladaptiveness in that relationship, it's not the same thing as paedophilia, which bob has defined. By calling it paedophilia you're pathologising any sex had by 16 year olds, which is clearly totally inaccurate.

Bad Grrrl Agro

31st August 2008, 02:33

If a sixteen year old is capable of consenting to having sex with a eighteen year old, what makes you think they are incapable of consenting to having sex with older partners?

That would not be pedophilia. I would personally find it disturbing for someone that old to be with someone that young. But pedophilia might not be the right word.

31st August 2008, 02:57

A 16 year old is a child. Their body are not fully developed their minds are not fully developed. You sir are a pedophile.

i am 16 and my mind seems to be more developed than yours so take such things out of here.16 year olds are fully at least mentally developed and can understand whats going on,so no,in 16 i dont consider myself a child.you can give a try to prove that i am not fully mind developed but i can assure you you are loosing your time.:rolleyes:

Fuserg9:star:

Michael2

31st August 2008, 03:31

Does "sexual consent" mean the lowest age that someone over 18 can go out with (as in boyfriend/girlfriend) even if it doesn't involve sex?

If it does: it should be lowered to 14
If its just sex: upped to 18+

welshboy

31st August 2008, 11:16

I reckon personally that there should be a 'buffer zone' of sorts around young teenagers with regards to sex. Something that allows them to experiment with their peers but also a way of protecting them from dirty old folk. Kinda like it being fine for a 14 year old and a 13-15 year old to have sex but not a 20 year old and a 13 year old.

Anyway I voted over 18 cos if I'm not getting laid at the moment neither are any of you wee gob shites :D

Charles Xavier

31st August 2008, 13:59

The basic concept of someone being "fully developed" is problematic and therefore not sufficient justification for preventing people from having sex, because it implies that mental development is a process which has a definite end, whereas in reality the mind of any individual will continue to develop for the rest of her life even when puberty has ended, not solely due to the impacts of further biological changes, but also the benefits of accumulated experience. The fact is that teenagers aged sixteen will always want to have sex regardless of what the government tells them to do, as research has consistently shown that the average median age of intercourse is sixteen for both males and females, although substantial numbers of teenagers also had sex before they turned sixteen. (Source: National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, Natsal 2000)

16 year old should not be having sex with 40 year olds. The mind is not developed in an adult mind. I didn't say the bring will stop developing at 18. I meant that a 16 year old's mind is still a child's mind.

Sam_b

31st August 2008, 16:46

16 year old should not be having sex with 40 year olds. The mind is not developed in an adult mind. I didn't say the bring will stop developing at 18. I meant that a 16 year old's mind is still a child's mind.

Firstly, 16 is the age of consent over here so let's not go banding around people as being paedophiles. Second of all, this is mind numbingly stupid. Say all you like about minds no being 'developed' but until I see any evidence I shall think otherwise. If a forty year old and a sixteen year old have sex together and there is consent, then it is not any of our business whatsoever.

Lets get this straight - at sixteen you are 'adult' enough to enlist to the army, get married, pay taxes....but not old enough to be able to pick your sexual partners? :rolleyes:

31st August 2008, 20:15

Mujer Libre

1st September 2008, 00:30

Joe Hill's Ghost

1st September 2008, 01:30

Firstly, 16 is the age of consent over here so let's not go banding around people as being paedophiles. Second of all, this is mind numbingly stupid. Say all you like about minds no being 'developed' but until I see any evidence I shall think otherwise. If a forty year old and a sixteen year old have sex together and there is consent, then it is not any of our business whatsoever.

Lets get this straight - at sixteen you are 'adult' enough to enlist to the army, get married, pay taxes....but not old enough to be able to pick your sexual partners? :rolleyes:

To be honest I don't think 16 year olds are mature enough to get married or enlist in the army, and well taxes are nonsense anyway. People seem to forget that there's a real power difference between a 16 year old and a 40 year old. That's not a healthy relationship for the younger party. Most likely there will be damage done. I don't think that merits a law, but I think it merits attention.

1st September 2008, 01:40

To be honest I don't think 16 year olds are mature enough to get married or enlist in the army, and well taxes are nonsense anyway. People seem to forget that there's a real power difference between a 16 year old and a 40 year old. That's not a healthy relationship for the younger party. Most likely there will be damage done. I don't think that merits a law, but I think it merits attention.

power?in what meaning?:confused:

Fuserg9:star:

Charles Xavier

1st September 2008, 04:15

how old are you?

None of your business.

Charles Xavier

1st September 2008, 04:17

Firstly, 16 is the age of consent over here so let's not go banding around people as being paedophiles. Second of all, this is mind numbingly stupid. Say all you like about minds no being 'developed' but until I see any evidence I shall think otherwise. If a forty year old and a sixteen year old have sex together and there is consent, then it is not any of our business whatsoever.

Lets get this straight - at sixteen you are 'adult' enough to enlist to the army, get married, pay taxes....but not old enough to be able to pick your sexual partners? :rolleyes:

http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/04-05/mar19.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec04/brain_10-13.html

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/adolescent.html

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.11-science-the-teenage-brain/

http://www.medinstitute.org/content.php?name=teenbraindevelopment

http://www.medinstitute.org/content.php?name=teenbraindevelopment

http://teenagebrain.blogspot.com/

1st September 2008, 15:02

None of your business.

You have something to hide?:rolleyes:

Fuck off with those bloody shit statistics you have their.I am 16 years old and my mind could be more developed from a lot adults,and your stance indicates from yours too.
Why you continue this annoying stupid propaganda trying to prove that we the "kiddos" arent fully mind developed,we are stupid to understand what we do,we dont know whats sex(bees?).You are a RACIST,you try to prove that 16 years old arent mentally cable to understand things.I can understand things even better from you so fuck off!

Fuserg9:star:

leftace53

1st September 2008, 15:26

Here where I live in Canada, the laws are pretty complicated (I'm not even a 100% sure about them). Consent age is 16 (heterosexual), but 16+ year olds have a 4 year leeway to have sex with people younger than them (19 year olds can have sex with 15 year olds legally).

although i voted 14 in the poll, i thought about it for a minute, and figured, theres no point in punishing a 13 yr old hanving sex with a 15 year old, chances are what they would be looking for is support if anything goes wrong (pregnancy etc...) So i'd go with no age of consent, because no one person can dictate when other people are sexually ready

Charles Xavier

1st September 2008, 18:41

You have something to hide?:rolleyes:

Fuck off with those bloody shit statistics you have their.I am 16 years old and my mind could be more developed from a lot adults,and your stance indicates from yours too.
Why you continue this annoying stupid propaganda trying to prove that we the "kiddos" arent fully mind developed,we are stupid to understand what we do,we dont know whats sex(bees?).You are a RACIST,you try to prove that 16 years old arent mentally cable to understand things.I can understand things even better from you so fuck off!

Fuserg9:star:

I have nothing to hide. I don't want to put personal information down other than geography. Because age, gender, race, etc should have nothing to do with my viewpoints.

16 year olds aren't a race. And the fact that you are telling me to fuck off is very immature.

I am not saying 16 year olds are stupid I'm saying they can be heavily taken advantage of and their bodies and minds are not fully developed.

I have no problem with 16 year olds having sex, it is not illegal for 16 year olds to have sex. It is illegal for 40 year olds to have sex with 16 year olds. I think thats right.

Sam_b

1st September 2008, 20:04

I am not saying 16 year olds are stupid I'm saying they can be heavily taken advantage of and their bodies and minds are not fully developed.

Thats exactly what you're saying. Your viewpoint is that sixteen year olds are intelligent yet not intelligent enough to make rational choices about sexual partners.

It is illegal for 40 year olds to have sex with 16 year olds

Not over here its not, and in cases such as this I don't consider it a barrier to having a fulfilling sexual relationship.

Djehuti

2nd September 2008, 11:57

14 seems a little young.. I have yet to meet a 14 year old of any gender that is sexually active and consenting.

That's not very uncommon.

Ken

2nd September 2008, 13:34

Decolonize The Left

3rd September 2008, 07:29

i dont think there should be any law regarding age of consent. i am being utopian here, because there will always be laws like these with capitalism(even if the age of consent, legal age of drinking etc is different in every country, seemingly randomly).

i dont really care if a 40 year old has sex with a 16 year old. the 16 year old can look after him/her/itself.

Are you sure? What about a 13 year old? What about a 10 year old?

What about a 6 year old who cannot lookout for itself? Still cool to rape this child?

- August

Ken

3rd September 2008, 08:00

Decolonize The Left

3rd September 2008, 08:11

ifeelyou

3rd October 2008, 07:08

nope, not cool. if that happens or someone is attempting to do that, the person should be killed immediately.

you dont need a law to tell you not to walk in front of a bus, do you?

common sense tells us what is and isnt rape. and in a society where rapists and pedophiles are killed or at least ostracized, there will be less fear of speaking out about rape.

Anthropologist Gilbert Herdt has carried out extensive ethnographic research within the Sambia culture of Papua New Guinea. His primary focus has been in Sambia conceptions of gender and sexuality, with specific interest in sexual rituals of initiation. He has explored how boys, as young as 7 years old, were until relatively recently obliged to engage in customs like boy-insemination in order to become bigger, stronger, and fearless warriors. The idea is that the more semen one ingests from performing fellatio on older men the more masculine and powerful the boy will become. This has been a custom practiced for time immemorial among societies and cultures of Papa New Guinea and others like the Greeks.

I'm not asking this because I necessarily disagree with you or not, rather I'm genuinely curious: Should the men that inseminated these young boys have been "killed immediately"?

Decolonize The Left

3rd October 2008, 07:28

Anthropologist Gilbert Herdt has carried out extensive ethnographic research within the Sambia culture of Papua New Guinea. His primary focus has been in Sambia conceptions of gender and sexuality, with specific interest in sexual rituals of initiation. He has explored how boys, as young as 7 years old, were until relatively recently obliged to engage in customs like boy-insemination in order to become bigger, stronger, and fearless warriors. The idea is that the more semen one ingests from performing fellatio on older men the more masculine and powerful the boy will become. This has been a custom practiced for time immemorial among societies and cultures of Papa New Guinea and others like the Greeks.

I'm not asking this because I necessarily disagree with you or not, rather I'm genuinely curious: Should the men that inseminated these young boys have been "killed immediately"?

Firstly, I don't support the immediate killing of rapists. My previous comment was an effort to bring the question of 'age of consent' back to it's purpose - namely, determining an age of consent.

Secondly, there are important questions which would need to be asked, for I cannot determine if this even qualifies as rape.
- Does this practice harm the boys in any fashion? After all, there are many ways to consume semen...
- Do the boys oppose this consumption? Is it forced physically? Culturally?
- Are these people aware that the consumption of semen will not increase their size, strength, or power?

- August

ifeelyou

3rd October 2008, 07:46

[QUOTE=AugustWest;1253527]Firstly, I don't support the immediate killing of rapists. My previous comment was an effort to bring the question of 'age of consent' back to it's purpose - namely, determining an age of consent.

Secondly, there are important questions which would need to be asked, for I cannot determine if this even qualifies as rape.
- Does this practice harm the boys in any fashion? After all, there are many ways to consume semen...

Please define harm. Consumption was by means of fellatio.

- Do the boys oppose this consumption? Is it forced physically? Culturally?

A minority of boys opposed it, most did not. I'm not totally certain I'd say "forced." Prior to Western colonization it was a widespread cultural custom, a part of the Sambia lifeway. With the arrival of missionaries, the custom, at least among the Sambia, is no longer, to my knowledge.

- Are these people aware that the consumption of semen will not increase their size, strength, or power?

According to their cultural worldview, it did increase all three.

Decolonize The Left

3rd October 2008, 07:52

Please define harm. Consumption was by means of fellatio.

Harm: "Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune." (wiktionary.com)

A minority of boys opposed it, most did not. I'm not totally certain I'd say "forced." Prior to Western colonization it was a widespread cultural custom, a part of the Sambia lifeway. With the arrival of missionaries, the custom, at least among the Sambia, is no longer, to my knowledge.

That's tough then. I think my judgment of said activity would rest on whether or not the boys were harmed by the act. It seems to me as though the 'elders' had acquired/created a very simple way of receiving oral pleasure on a fairly frequent basis...

According to their cultural worldview, it did increase all three.

Yes, but a cultural worldview is different than a scientific fact.

- August

ifeelyou

3rd October 2008, 08:04

Harm: "Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune." (wiktionary.com)

Then no harm was done.

That's tough then. I think my judgment of said activity would rest on whether or not the boys were harmed by the act. It seems to me as though the 'elders' had acquired/created a very simple way of receiving oral pleasure on a fairly frequent basis...

The Sambia did not view boy-insemination as a "simple way of receiving oral pleasure on a fairly frequent basis." The custom, although indeed sexual and pleasurable, was inextricably linked with ritual initiation into manhood and acquisition of masculinity. Furthermore, the elder men believed, for cultural reasons, that they were genuinely imparting a masculine essence to the young boys, they were not "simply" "receiving pleasure." For you to think that oral sex can only equate to sexual pleasure doesn't really account for the many other cultures that have treated such as much more than simply a means for getting off.

Yes, but a cultural worldview is different than a scientific fact.

So, does your "scientific fact," outweigh cultural relativism, other ways of living?

Decolonize The Left

3rd October 2008, 08:10

Then no harm was done.

Hmm, then I would have to say that this was not rape. Without harm, and more importantly, with consent, this appears to be fine.

The Sambia did not view boy-insemination as a "simple way of receiving oral pleasure on a fairly frequent basis." The custom, although indeed sexual and pleasurable, was inextricably linked with ritual initiation into manhood and acquisition of masculinity. Furthermore, the elder men believed, for cultural reasons, that they were genuinely imparting a masculine essence to the young boys, they were not "simply" "receiving pleasure." For you to think that oral sex can only account to sexual pleasure doesn't really account for the many other cultures that have treated such as much more than simply a means for getting off.

I am aware that they did not see it as such. I was merely approaching the situation from such a perspective. One could make an analogous argument towards conventional sexism: Maybe men genuinely believed that women couldn't perform the same labor as themselves and were better at working in the household and raising children. While this may be true, it doesn't stop me from analyzing the situation from a different perspective (a materialist perspective), and pointing out that the man benefits materially in X number of ways.

So, does your "scientific fact," outweigh cultural relativism?

It does only because the question was an empirical one and hence falls within the realm of science. Should it have been normative it would have fallen within the realm of cultural relativism.

- August

ifeelyou

3rd October 2008, 08:19

I am aware that they did not see it as such. I was merely approaching the situation from such a perspective. One could make an analogous argument towards conventional sexism: Maybe men genuinely believed that women couldn't perform the same labor as themselves and were better at working in the household and raising children. While this may be true, it doesn't stop me from analyzing the situation from a different perspective (a materialist perspective), and pointing out that the man benefits materially in X number of ways.

Point taken, but perhaps we should make sure we are not committing what Gayatri Spivak has called epistemic violence, an uncritical use of a Western epistemology and projection of such onto any part of the world.

It does only because the question was an empirical one and hence falls within the realm of science. Should it have been normative it would have fallen within the realm of cultural relativism.

Please explain how the question was empirical rather than normative.

Decolonize The Left

3rd October 2008, 17:15

Point taken, but perhaps we should make sure we are not committing what Gayatri Spivak has called epistemic violence, an uncritical use of a Western epistemology and projection of such onto any part of the world.

This is a very interesting point - I especially like the simplicity of the term 'epistemic violence.'

In all, this seems to be another case of science and rationality taking the place of mysticism/religion in the realm of explanation and meaning-creation. We've witnessed this trend for well over a hundred years.

Please explain how the question was empirical rather than normative.

Consuming semen either increases one's strength, size, and power, or it doesn't - It is empirical.

- August

La ComÃ©die Noire

3rd October 2008, 21:54

14 seems a little young.. I have yet to meet a 14 year old of any gender that is sexually active and consenting. It seems like 16 is when folks generally begin experimenting and so-forth.

- August

I was 14 when I first lost my virginity and had been expirimenting since I was 13. I don't think we can stick an age on this stuff.

I think when two people have reached puberty they can begin to expirement. Most kids now a days know what sex is by the time they are 9 so I don't know how much sexual education comes into this.

ifeelyou

3rd October 2008, 23:14

In all, this seems to be another case of science and rationality taking the place of mysticism/religion in the realm of explanation and meaning-creation. We've witnessed this trend for well over a hundred years.

I take issue with the term "rationality." Your use of it implies that other systems of meaning and sexual/ritual customs are irrational if they do not meet the guidelines of "science."

Consuming semen either increases one's strength, size, and power, or it doesn't - It is empirical.

I'm still a little lost. What does whether the question is empirical, or normative, have to do with the issue at hand?

Dust Bunnies

6th October 2008, 00:24

I put no age since it should be up to the community on what is rape, and what is love. You cannot put an age on mental development.

Decolonize The Left

6th October 2008, 07:37

I take issue with the term "rationality." Your use of it implies that other systems of meaning and sexual/ritual customs are irrational if they do not meet the guidelines of "science."

Rationality as opposed to irrational/non-rational belief systems.

Science is nothing more than a system which operates on the principle that experiments which can be repeated by any number of independent observers offer a greater truth value than those which cannot.

I'm still a little lost. What does whether the question is empirical, or normative, have to do with the issue at hand?

I asked whether or not these people knew that consuming semen would not increase their size, strength, and power.
You said that according to their cultural worldview, it did.
I said that this worldview was not the same as scientific fact.
You asked whether or not scientific fact outweighed cultural relativism.
I claimed that this question was not in the realm of cultural relativism because it was empirical.

Basically, one can approach this from two points:
1) Does consuming semen increase one's strength, size, and power?
- This is an empirical question; it has a yes or a no answer. It is determined by science.
2) Is it problematic to hold a cultural practice which demands that some boys consume the semen of elders?
- This is a normative question; it is subject to cultural relativism.

- August

ifeelyou

6th October 2008, 08:44

Rationality as opposed to irrational/non-rational belief systems.

Science is nothing more than a system which operates on the principle that experiments which can be repeated by any number of independent observers offer a greater truth value than those which cannot.

I still take issue with the wording and now with your description of science.

I asked whether or not these people knew that consuming semen would not increase their size, strength, and power.
You said that according to their cultural worldview, it did.
I said that this worldview was not the same as scientific fact.
You asked whether or not scientific fact outweighed cultural relativism.
I claimed that this question was not in the realm of cultural relativism because it was empirical.

Okay. I think we are looking at this question from two different angles. It seems that you're treating empiricism as not only diametrically opposed to cultural relativism (which is unfortunate) but as a way to answer whether semen ingestion, from a "scientific" point of view, does in fact increase body size and strength. I'm looking at this issue from an ethnographic point of view (a form of empiricism that is, in part, concerned with trying to understand the world as others see and experience it) that is not concerned with "scientifically" verifying whether semen ingestion actually does increase size, strength, and power. Through ethnography Gilbert Herdt (and many others) was able to establish that the Sambia believe that boy-insemination, according to their cultural worldview, did increase body size, etc. This is what I'm concerned with. Whether the Sambia know about "scientific facts" or not is almost irrelevant.

Basically, one can approach this from two points:
1) Does consuming semen increase one's strength, size, and power?
- This is an empirical question; it has a yes or a no answer. It is determined by science.

Again, through ethnography (a form of empiricism) we know that it does increase one's strength, size, and power--according to the Sambia. We, as Westerners, have a different point of view. Clearly things are a little more complicated than what you're allowing for. Are you at all worried that dogmatically arguing there is a simple "yes or no answer" without accounting for different cultural perspectives could be read as cultural imperialism?

Ps. There are many more ways than simply two that one can approach this topic.

Decolonize The Left

10th October 2008, 07:55

Okay. I think we are looking at this question from two different angles. It seems that you're treating empiricism as not only diametrically opposed to cultural relativism (which is unfortunate) but as a way to answer whether semen ingestion, from a "scientific" point of view, does in fact increase body size and strength. I'm looking at this issue from an ethnographic point of view (a form of empiricism that is, in part, concerned with trying to understand the world as others see and experience it) that is not concerned with "scientifically" verifying whether semen ingestion actually does increase size, strength, and power. Through ethnography Gilbert Herdt (and many others) was able to establish that the Sambia believe that boy-insemination, according to their cultural worldview, did increase body size, etc. This is what I'm concerned with. Whether the Sambia know about "scientific facts" or not is almost irrelevant.

(Bold added to quote)
I understand your point, but you have effectively made mine in this quote. "The Sambia believe that..." consuming semen increases body size, etc... Yes, ok. But this doesn't mean that it actually does do so.

Analogously, I can believe that taking a pill (a sugar pill or placebo) counter-acts the effects of smoking. You seem to be arguing that if this is a part of my cultural worldview, that it actually will counter-act the effects of smoking. But it doesn't. My lungs will still be filled with burning ash and tar and will still degrade and ultimately fail. I can take pills all day believing whatever I want, it doesn't actually change my lungs.

So I accept that they believe that to be the case whole-heartedly, and that for them it is true. But just because one believes something to be true doesn't actually make it true in terms of material reality (the semen actually increasing the boy's size, strength, and power).

Again, through ethnography (a form of empiricism) we know that it does increase one's strength, size, and power--according to the Sambia.

I guess this depends on how one defines "strength, size, and power."

We, as Westerners, have a different point of view. Clearly things are a little more complicated than what you're allowing for. Are you at all worried that dogmatically arguing there is a simple "yes or no answer" without accounting for different cultural perspectives could be read as cultural imperialism?

I am not worried about this as I already differentiated between viewing this situation from a normative perspective or an empirical perspective. Should I have been arguing against this practice from a normative perspective I would most certainly be a cultural imperialist - it would be very offensive in fact. But I am not. I am not saying that this practice ought or ought not to occur. I am saying that consuming semen doesn't increase one's size, strength, or power in a material fashion.

It is not cultural imperialism to claim that something which can be observed by any number of individuals over any period of time is a better account of reality than something which cannot be observed by anyone but is believed by many...

After all, "reality" seems to imply that it is available to everyone...

Ps. There are many more ways than simply two that one can approach this topic.

I'm sure there are - but it seems as though the two general categories of analysis would be empirical and normative.

- August

Hiero

10th October 2008, 12:20

Yes, but a cultural worldview is different than a scientific fact.

The two are not always seperate. Both influence each other. In some ways a scientific fact can influence cultural worldview, such as the discover of aids and its effect on sexual practices, or the scientific work on germs influencing the extreme clinical society we have today in the west.

But also cultural worldview can determine what we think is a scientific fact, even in the developed West. Such examples include pyschology. Thomas Sazz said psychiatry and pyschological treatment replaced the days of witch hunts. Behaviour that does not seem to conform to mainstream society, such as thoose who feel depressed about everyday living like marraige, work, friendship etc are labeled as having a disorder called "depression" which to some people in powerfully positions is a scientific fact. These things are cultural thought of as being pleasing and if one is dissatisfied with these social relations then they must have problem that is located within the brain. In this thread some people are arguing against the idea of a fixed age for consent, challenging what some think as scientific fact.

Not to say I am an idealist and that scientific fact's do not exist and are subjective. I think there are scientfic facts. The protein in semen is probally very small and would not influence growth in Sambian boys. The findings by Herdt revelead how cultural worldview influences scienfitic fact, especially in gender and sexuality. What we are also find in these studies is how much culture determines human activity, even the most mundane activity.

Alot of today's scientific facts are based on bourgeoisie morality, and before that feudal morality. This is seen especially when we come to human behaviour, specifically sexuality where we see scientific fact through a bourgeois mentality. Also scientific facts which are even true, go on to influence everyday logic with its own force way beyond the logic of science, such as not using utensils that have fallen on the floor for fear of contamination.

My point, which is a bit of tangent to the thread is that scienftic thought and cultural worldview are not always mutually exclussive and both influece each other.

ifeelyou

11th October 2008, 09:40

(Bold added to quote)
I understand your point, but you have effectively made mine in this quote. "The Sambia believe that..." consuming semen increases body size, etc... Yes, ok. But this doesn't mean that it actually does do so.

And you also believe that you have a better grasp on what is actually happening.

Analogously, I can believe that taking a pill (a sugar pill or placebo) counter-acts the effects of smoking. You seem to be arguing that if this is a part of my cultural worldview, that it actually will counter-act the effects of smoking. But it doesn't. My lungs will still be filled with burning ash and tar and will still degrade and ultimately fail. I can take pills all day believing whatever I want, it doesn't actually change my lungs.

If this was actually a part of your cultural worldview I would be inclined to reconsider my beliefs on the matter in order to make room for yours, but since you're simply trying to make a point (for in all likelihood this is not actually a part of your cultural worldview) I'm more tempted to dismiss this as nothing more than part of your personal argument against mine.

So I accept that they believe that to be the case whole-heartedly, and that for them it is true. But just because one believes something to be true doesn't actually make it true in terms of material reality (the semen actually increasing the boy's size, strength, and power).

It may not make it "true" for you in terms of "material reality," but it does for them. You do not have a better understanding of the world, no matter how much you believe that you do and dogmatically subscribe to the culture of positivism.

I am not worried about this as I already differentiated between viewing this situation from a normative perspective or an empirical perspective. Should I have been arguing against this practice from a normative perspective I would most certainly be a cultural imperialist - it would be very offensive in fact. But I am not. I am not saying that this practice ought or ought not to occur. I am saying that consuming semen doesn't increase one's size, strength, or power in a material fashion.

It is not cultural imperialism to claim that something which can be observed by any number of individuals over any period of time is a better account of reality than something which cannot be observed by anyone but is believed by many...

You do understand that "empiricism" itself is a (Western) cultural construct, right? And you do realize, as Hiero has nicely stated, scientific views/facts are often (I personally would say always) entangled with cultural beliefs, correct?

What makes it cultural imperialism is that you're adamantly claiming to know a "truth" or "reality" about a certain socio-cultural phenomenon better than the actual participants in such, when in fact you don't. You are imagining what happens among the Sambia through your own cultural framework (which includes the scientific method) as much as they are looking at the world through theirs.

After all, "reality" seems to imply that it is available to everyone...

I don't even know where to begin with this. lol.

BobKKKindle$

11th October 2008, 10:29

You do understand that "empiricism" itself is a (Western) cultural construct, right?

No, empiricism is the foundation of all scientific knowledge because it uses observation of the real world often through a process of controlled experiments to ensure that our beliefs correspond to the way the world really is, whereas a lack of empirical evidence or a rejection of empiricism as a school of thought gives rise to belief-systems which are not an accurate reflection of reality, including religion and other forms of superstition. It is insulting to suggest that there is something particularly "western" about empiricism, given the incredible scientific advances made by other cultural groups through the use of the empirical method, and the universality of scientific knowledge.

Are you seriously suggesting that believing humans arose as a result of a prolonged evolutionary process, and believing that humans suddenly came into existence at the command of a divine being are two equally valid beliefs, despite the fact that one (the former) is supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence, whereas the second has none? This is tantamount to saying that there is no objective basis of truth, and reality is dependent on the individual observer!

ifeelyou

11th October 2008, 11:27

No, empiricism is the foundation of all scientific knowledge because it uses observation of the real world often through a process of controlled experiments to ensure that our beliefs correspond to the way the world really is, whereas a lack of empirical evidence or a rejection of empiricism as a school of thought gives rise to belief-systems which are not an accurate reflection of reality, including religion and other forms of superstition. It is insulting to suggest that there is something particularly "western" about empiricism, given the incredible scientific advances made by other cultural groups through the use of the empirical method, and the universality of scientific knowledge.

It is insulting to think empiricism as a discourse has existed throughout all of human history and cross-culturally. Before you write, do your research on the history of concepts, including that of "empiricism," which is both a cultural (as in produced in and by the West involving Hume, Locke, and Berkeley) and a historical product (as in developed in the 17th century).

Are you seriously suggesting that believing humans arose as a result of a prolonged evolutionary process, and believing that humans suddenly came into existence at the command of a divine being are two equally valid beliefs, despite the fact that one (the former) is supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence, whereas the second has none? This is tantamount to saying that there is no objective basis of truth, and reality is dependent on the individual observer!

Should the belief that there is an "objective basis of truth" and "reality" that is not "dependent on the individual observer" be taken as an automatic, universal, and natural given without critical analysis?

BobKKKindle$

11th October 2008, 13:54

Should the belief that there is an "objective basis of truth" and "reality" that is not "dependent on the individual observer" be taken as an automatic, universal, and natural given without critical analysis?We should accept that an objective reality does exist outside of human perception. By way of example, regardless of whether we believe it or not, the sun lies at the centre of the solar system, and no amount of dogmatism will ever change this basic fact. This means that people who accept that the sun lies at the centre are correct, in the sense that their knowledge of the world is an accurate reflection of material reality, whereas people who dispute this fact (possibly by claiming that the sun actually revolves around the earth, or that the sun is a higher power who travels across the sky each day, as was once believed by multiple ancient cultures) are wrong.

It is insulting to think empiricism as a discourse has existed throughout all of human history and cross-culturallyEmpiricism first gained explicit philosophical recognition in a "western" country, but scientific advances have occurred in all civilizations (note the scientific and cosmological achievements of the Arabs prior to the European renaissance as an example) and scientific advance is only possible when we adopt an empirical approach to the natural world, because if we refuse to rely on empirical evidence we have no method by which we can ensure that our beliefs are accurate, and ultimately no conception of truth.

The central problem with this immature post-modernist discourse is that it has serious repercussions if we apply it to the field of ethics. If the views and approaches of different cultures are equally valid and there is no universally true system of thought, then does this mean we should accept practices such as genital mutilation, the execution of homosexuals, and other acts of violence? After all, it would be unfair of us to try and stop these acts from taking place or even to condemn them, because to do so would signify an attempt to impose our liberal values on the tribes who persist in these practises, which to us appear outdated, but are an important part of tribal culture.

ifeelyou

11th October 2008, 20:43

We should accept that an objective reality does exist outside of human perception. By way of example, regardless of whether we believe it or not, the sun lies at the centre of the solar system, and no amount of dogmatism will ever change this basic fact. This means that people who accept that the sun lies at the centre are correct, in the sense that their knowledge of the world is an accurate reflection of material reality, whereas people who dispute this fact (possibily by claiming that the sun actually revolves around the earth, or that the sun is a higher power who travels across the sky each day, as was once believed by multiple ancient cultures) are wrong.

I'm not simply going to "accept" anything, but you could. Now, do I agree that there is an "objective reality" that exists "outside of human perception"? Sure. However, do I believe that it can easily be accessed without bringing one's subjectivity to bear on the matter? No. Your example of the sun is a perfect case in point. In discussing how the sun lies at the center of the solar system you've managed to place a value on those who favor your view and devalued (wronged) those that don't. Of course I believe the sun is at the center of the solar system, but I am not going to, with knee jerk reaction, blow off other people's views nor devalue them. For me, the issue is one of encroachment. I am not going to force my beliefs onto the rest of the world and I expect that others don't force theirs on me.

Empiricism first gained explicit philisophical recognition in a "western" country, but scientific advances have occured in all civilisations (note the scientific and cosmological achievements of the Arabs prior to the European renaissance as an example) and scientific advance is only possible when we adopt an empirical approach to the natural world, because if we refuse to rely on empirical evidence we have no method by which we can ensure that our beliefs are accurate, and ultimately no conception of truth.

Yes, scientific advances have occurred in many many places. And? Does that take away from the fact that empiricism is a Western cultural construct?

The central problem with this immature post-modernist discourse is that it has serious reprecussions if we apply it to the field of ethics. If the views and approaches of different cultures are equally valid and there is no universally true system of thought, then does this mean we should accept practises such as genital mutilation, the execution of homosexuals, and other acts of violence? After all, it would be unfair of us to try and stop these acts from taking place or even to condemn them, because to do so would signify an attempt to impose our liberal values on the tribes who persist in these practises, which to us appear outdated, but are an important part of tribal culture.

The central problem with your infantilization of post-modernism, your black and white view of the world, and your suggestion that "science" has all the answers for everyone in every situation is that you can, whether intentionally or not, be endorsing imperialism. You write as if you personally know this "universal true system of thought" and that everyone else should believe what you believe because you know the "truth."

Is it not possible for you to condemn certain cultural customs (e.g., genital mutilation) and simultaneously be sensitive to cultural differences, or do you have to pretend, with polarizing effects, that you know the right and wrong ways to live life by invoking some universal "truth" to back up what you say?

Black Sheep

13th October 2008, 19:40

I think that the age minimum depends on the education of the child.
A society with a full and rich education system which would cover the subject thoroughly without considering it 'taboo' would be very helpful and determining on the person's mentality about it.

But then again there is the physical thing about your body's development.
I voted 16.

However it would be interesting to consider,in a communist society, what/if penalties would apply to "law"-breakers with a different opinion (i.e. someone might consider the age 'barrier' is minus 2 years).

Since it cannot be objectively decided,what would happen?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th October 2008, 22:07

Decolonize The Left

16th October 2008, 07:12

And you also believe that you have a better grasp on what is actually happening.

No, I don't. I have already explained this.

I don't believe I have a better view of what's actually happening. This is a normative statement which I am not making - please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I am saying that I believe I have a more accurate view of what's actually happening.

If this was actually a part of your cultural worldview I would be inclined to reconsider my beliefs on the matter in order to make room for yours, but since you're simply trying to make a point (for in all likelihood this is not actually a part of your cultural worldview) I'm more tempted to dismiss this as nothing more than part of your personal argument against mine.

I have a feeling that there is a deep misunderstanding between us. If you are referring to accepting these cultural practices, I have already stated that I would do so. I am not taking a normative stance on the issue.

The point of the analogy is that I can believe something to be true all I want - but it doesn't make it true.

Ex: I can believe I can fly. Material reality will prove me wrong.

It may not make it "true" for you in terms of "material reality," but it does for them. You do not have a better understanding of the world, no matter how much you believe that you do and dogmatically subscribe to the culture of positivism.

As I have just argued:
I can believe I can fly - but I can't.

The fact that I cannot fly is not dependent upon belief.

You do understand that "empiricism" itself is a (Western) cultural construct, right? And you do realize, as Hiero has nicely stated, scientific views/facts are often (I personally would say always) entangled with cultural beliefs, correct?

Alright, but this doesn't mean that it isn't the most accurate form of understanding the material world.

What makes it cultural imperialism is that you're adamantly claiming to know a "truth" or "reality" about a certain socio-cultural phenomenon better than the actual participants in such, when in fact you don't. You are imagining what happens among the Sambia through your own cultural framework (which includes the scientific method) as much as they are looking at the world through theirs.

Yes, yes I am claiming to know a "truth" or "reality" about a certain practice. Similarly, I can claim that I know the "truth" or "reality" that a human being cannot fly no matter how hard and adamantly they believe they can. They can't. They do not have enough force and lift within their bodily energy to move against the gravitational pull of the planet in such a fashion.

This doesn't make believing you can fly bad, or worse than believing you cannot fly - this is another question. It merely means that my belief in my ability to fly is wrong. That's all - it doesn't correspond to material reality.

I don't even know where to begin with this. lol.

It was silly, nevermind.

- August

ifeelyou

16th October 2008, 07:41

No, I don't. I have already explained this.

I don't believe I have a better view of what's actually happening. This is a normative statement which I am not making - please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I am saying that I believe I have a more accurate view of what's actually happening.

I have a feeling that there is a deep misunderstanding between us. If you are referring to accepting these cultural practices, I have already stated that I would do so. I am not taking a normative stance on the issue.

The point of the analogy is that I can believe something to be true all I want - but it doesn't make it true.

Ex: I can believe I can fly. Material reality will prove me wrong.

As I have just argued:
I can believe I can fly - but I can't.

The fact that I cannot fly is not dependent upon belief.

Alright, but this doesn't mean that it isn't the most accurate form of understanding the material world.

Yes, yes I am claiming to know a "truth" or "reality" about a certain practice. Similarly, I can claim that I know the "truth" or "reality" that a human being cannot fly no matter how hard and adamantly they believe they can. They can't. They do not have enough force and lift within their bodily energy to move against the gravitational pull of the planet in such a fashion.

This doesn't make believing you can fly bad, or worse than believing you cannot fly - this is another question. It merely means that my belief in my ability to fly is wrong. That's all - it doesn't correspond to material reality.

It was silly, nevermind.

- August

Let me refrain from further addressing your points and ask: What is the point of asking whether they know boy-insemination actually does or does not increase size, strength, etc? What does this question get at? What was you initial intention when asking this question? Besides taking objection to me stating that you think you "better" understand the ritual at hand, what is the point of claiming that you have a "more accurate view on what's actually happening"?

Decolonize The Left

16th October 2008, 07:57

Let me refrain from further addressing your points and ask: What is the point of asking whether they know boy-insemination actually does or does not increase size, strength, etc? What does this question get at? What was you initial intention when asking this question? Besides taking objection to me stating that you think you "better" understand the ritual at hand, what is the point of claiming that you have a "more accurate view on what's actually happening"?

I believe this all originated when I asked whether or not the boys 'knew' that consuming semen would not increase their size, strength, etc... I forget why I asked it, it was a while ago...

- August

apathy maybe

16th October 2008, 09:36

Age limits on sexual activity are completely arbritary, without empirical basis. I propose instead two simple rules:

1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.

2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.

1. What if the 10 year old wants to engage in sexual play with the 12 year old? (Even though only the later has "reached puberty"?)

2. Define "position of authority" in an anarchist society. Teachers, parents and similar are obvious possible examples. But do your "rules" permit a 40 year old who has no other relationship to a 14 year old, to have sex with said 14 year old? (Assuming the 14 year old had "reached puberty".)

I'm not saying I disagree (or agree), I just would like to see a bit more explanation.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th October 2008, 10:16

1. What if the 10 year old wants to engage in sexual play with the 12 year old? (Even though only the later has "reached puberty"?)

I don't think sexual play is really comparable to the sexual activity of adult and adolescents. The case you mention seems really borderline and I really think it would depend on the context. If the 12 year old in question is a "late bloomer" then I don't see the problem. Otherwise it's most likely inappropriate but hardly deserving of the "OMGZ A PEDO KILL KILL" reaction.

There are always going to be borderline cases but I feel the two rules I gave will cause the least grief.

2. Define "position of authority" in an anarchist society. Teachers, parents and similar are obvious possible examples. But do your "rules" permit a 40 year old who has no other relationship to a 14 year old, to have sex with said 14 year old? (Assuming the 14 year old had "reached puberty".)

Sure, why not? Although I must make the observation that most 14 year old show much more of an interest in older teens.

As for the matter of authority, does someone have the ability to make your life unpleasant unless you do what they say? That's a position of authority.

apathy maybe

16th October 2008, 10:27

Thanks for your answers, I just want to jump in on this point. (If the discussion continues for more then a few posts, it may be worth splitting out.)

As for the matter of authority, does someone have the ability to make your life unpleasant unless you do what they say? That's a position of authority.
That's a position of authority. However, even if a person doesn't have the capability to make your life unpleasant, they can still have authority over you. A priest has moral authority over people who come to them for confession. However, if a particular person refuses to do what the priest says, at least in most "Western" countries, the priest cannot make their life unpleasant.
In a school situation, kids make each other's life unpleasant all the time, yet I would hesitate to say that bully A has authority over child B.

In a future "anarchist" society, I can't see anyone having that sort of authority over another person.

I just think that you need to think about "authority" a bit more in the context.

Revy

16th October 2008, 10:28

In Florida the age of consent is 16. But only if the older person is 24 or younger. If the person is 25 or older, then it is considered molestation.

Revy

16th October 2008, 10:46

An underage minor may fantasize often about older adult partners, even if it wouldn't be legal or socially acceptable. I don't know if it is so evil if in fact the minor is actively seeking a relationship. It's not that easy to corral that "innocent child" into the "victim" category in that situation, if they don't even feel victimized.

Today, the definition of pedophilia has been broadened to an absurd degree so that a relationship with a 16 year old is considered "pedophilia" even though that is an age of sexual maturity.

Dr Mindbender

2nd November 2008, 22:35

In Florida the age of consent is 16. But only if the older person is 24 or younger. If the person is 25 or older, then it is considered molestation.

another reason america is fucked up. You can be old enough there to get married, have kids or die in war but you still cant have a beer. What is going on over there?

Oneironaut

2nd November 2008, 23:35

another reason america is fucked up. You can be old enough there to get married, have kids or die in war but you still cant have a beer. What is going on over there?

Couldn't agree with you more. However, it is my understanding that soldiers can drink on base and whatnot so that argument is tough to make.

Dr Mindbender

2nd November 2008, 23:41

Couldn't agree with you more. However, it is my understanding that soldiers can drink on base and whatnot so that argument is tough to make.

yeah but they probably turn a blind eye whenever they're outside US jurisdiction.

besides, i cant imagine US army officers being as rigidlly authoritarian in the same way as their homegrown judges, look at abu ghraib for f sake.

Arreola

25th November 2008, 03:32

I voted 15 but it's a tough question.

In an ideal we shouldn't worry about it, but that world is never going to exists.

I know the idea of a fixed age is stupid but is the best that can be done.

I know that many kids are not manipulable but don't fool yourselves. Just look at many examples of people legally considered "adults" who suffer the same way with domestic violence.

26th November 2008, 14:25

I say >23, kids who have sex beyond this age should be castrated and or killed!:mad:Of course the gulag option is always there!:mad:

Sean

26th November 2008, 16:33

Black Dagger

27th November 2008, 00:36

The laws are there to prevent adults from having sex with kids, not to prevent people their own age having sex even if they are underage.

Right, but that's not actually what 'the law' says, is it? The merely states that under a certain age (16 where i live) sex is illegal. So if you two under16s have sex they can be prosecuted (not without precedence) or if a 17 y.o. has sex with a 15 y.o. (their partner) the former can be charged with rape (again, not without precedence). That's the problem with these laws, they're too inflexible - to argue that the people involved should have more of a say in how such matters are dealt with (rather than merely punishing people involved in sex of ages above or below a specific age) is not to advocate pedophilia.

Operator

27th November 2008, 00:51

Sean

27th November 2008, 01:13

Interesting...
Given that folk become sexually 'ready' at very young ages indeed, one would think that there should be no set age of consent, as it depends on the individual, but we cannot forget the outcomes of sexual activity: children.

We can't have children rearing children.

Perhaps have the age of consent to be 13, but on the condition that legal action could be taken against the fornicating couple if the female should become impregnated.
Tell me as soon as you have said that in public for your community to hear. I'd love to hear how that goes. Again, the laws are to stop adults abusing kids. This thread is getting scary. I need clarification on the point I made on my previous post.

Maybe I'm oldschool and hardwired to this but internet tough guy shit aside you know what would happen if you said it to the average person. I'm with the angry mob on this one.

Rascolnikova

27th November 2008, 01:48

I think there shouldn't be an age of consent, but that coerciveness in relationships should be punishable, and that it's extremely reasonable to presume that a relationship between a person below some maturity level and another person who is a certain amount more mature than them is necessarily coercive. The criteria should be some evaluation of maturity, though, not just chronological age.

disclaimer: haven't read the whole thread. sorry.

Guerrilla22

27th November 2008, 02:25

13 seems reasonable to me.

Rosa Provokateur

27th November 2008, 03:27

18. By that time you've got all your identity issues sorted out and you can responsibly enter a relationship that involves sex. But what the hell, I'm a virgin.

Black Dagger

27th November 2008, 03:59

^--- yeah i don't think virgins should be the ones making these kinds of laws :p

Junius

27th November 2008, 04:41

>18

Module

27th November 2008, 04:48

>18Are you serious? :confused: Why?

I voted 'no age', as I don't think there should be any legal restriction on whether or not somebody can give consent to something on the basis of age.
However, obviously in some circumstances apparent consent should be strongly scrutinised, such as with a 10 year old child or something.
If a 10 year old child truly wants to have sex, and has made this decision totally freely then I don't think anybody has a right to stop them.
(I'm not sure if I've already posted in this thread, but either way, here's another post.)

18. By that time you've got all your identity issues sorted out and you can responsibly enter a relationship that involves sex. But what the hell, I'm a virgin.Who's to say somebody has gotten all their identity issues sorted out by 18?
Who's to say somebody hasn't gotten all their identity issues sorted out by 17? Who are you to say what is a responsible sexual decision and what isn't, and who are you to stop people making irresponsible decisions?

Jazzratt

27th November 2008, 10:11

18. By that time you've got all your identity issues sorted out and you can responsibly enter a relationship that involves sex. But what the hell, I'm a virgin.

Yeah, I remember my 18th birthday really well and that's exactly how it goes, when I was 17 and 364 days old I was so thoroughly confused so as to be fundamentally incapable of entering any kind of emotional, much less sexual, relationship. Then, at around 3 o'clock in the morning, I suddenly became completely and concretely sure of my identity. It was fucking magic.

Incidentally on that day I also became more able to treat alcohol responsibly, make a reasoned choice based at a polling booth and emotionally mature enough for a wide range of films and computer games that would have, the day before, warped my poor little mind.

Naturally you're going to put an arbitrtary age on these things, if only as a sort of guideline but it's insane to set one so damn high. It's probably tempting because you're a virgin to deny others sexual relationships, but I've known a swathe of people who have had sex before the age of consent (16 where I am) without becoming fucked up beyond all belief.

Junius

27th November 2008, 12:39

Are you serious?

No. :o

Rascolnikova

27th November 2008, 17:54

It's not about stopping people from making irresponsible decisions; it's about stopping people from hurting each other.

27th November 2008, 19:33

I continue to think that its an embarrassment that people even on the left cannot distinguish between whats socially undesirable and harmful and what ought to be criminalized. Just because something is wrong does not mean there should be criminal sanctions for it.

Criminal laws are instances where organized gangs of armed people known as the state have declared their intent to bring violence against unarmed, defenseless individuals. That is a terribly grave thing and one that requires a profoundly high threshold for justification, such as in order to protect other individuals from *more* extreme acts of violence.

On this criteria, I don't think there should be a *criminally enforced* age of consent and "rape" should only be presumed with individuals who are incapable of using the words "no" and "stop" in their ordinary meaning (i.e., young children, severely mentally handicapped people, and anyone unconscious). Simply put, having any sort of sexual experience with someone much older than yourself, so long as you could put a stop to it simply by saying 'stop' or 'i don't want to do that', is not as traumatic and personally violating as being handcuffed, publicly humiliated and imprisoned. It only surpasses that threshold, for anyone, when saying "stop" would be insufficient to end the sexual encounter, and if thats the case then the issue of 'age of consent' does not arise because the encounter amounts to actual rape.

Do I think anyone should do anything sexual with 8 year olds? No, I don't, I think its profoundly wrong and they should be *socially condemned and shamed* for it. However I think even at that age a child is capable of expressing or withholding simple consent and while simple consent is, in my opinion, not sufficient to justify any sort of sexual conduct, if present then the case is not extreme enough to warrant the application of state violence over.

I think, between an 8 year old seeing someone disrobe in front of them, and sending an 8 year old in shackles escorted by armed men to a ritualistic judgement ceremony condemning them to years imprisoned held against their will where they would likely be raped, beaten, cut off from the world and deprived of every experience and emotional connection that makes life worth living, only to be cast out again into a society that will treat them as a subhuman for having recieved societies most severe sanctions...there is no question in my mind which is more violent and which is more destructive. Criminal sanctions with the possibility of imprisonment are simply disproportional to any sex act done with simple consent.

Sex acts with simple consent but without informed consent (i.e. anything involving anyone prepubescent and many involving just adults being assholes to each other) should be subject to other social sanctions.

Glenn Beck

27th November 2008, 21:03

I voted 13, but that would ideally apply when sex education, contraceptives, and condoms are readily available to anyone. I agree with TC's general point about the fact that something that is gross and probably unethical shouldn't necessarily be illegal. That's how I feel about 13 year olds having sex. I used 13 cause its a decent approximation of when a person becomes sexually mature to a reasonable degree and I feel that education and a culture relatively free of taboos would make people at that age better equipped to make good decisions (I'm assuming that most would simply choose to abstain from sex until they matured and entered into a relationship if there weren't such a mystique about it and any sort of coercive sex was strongly discouraged and sanctioned by the community).

The reason I support a rather liberal restriction rather than none at all is because I think the circumstances in which sex with someone younger than a certain age group would not be exploitative are so exceedingly rare that it would be on average safer to just shut the door entirely rather than risking protecting serious offenders.

I'm not really comfortable with the concept of "statutory rape". I think it's a legal fiction that sex that wouldn't meet the standard criteria for rape suddenly is because of the age of the folks involved, and I think it's great for the moral police with their network television fueled panics to be able to equate a playground kidnapping child rapist with a 21 year old having sex with a 16 year old. I would definitely support a flexible legal standard that could fill the spectrum between rape and consensual sex when there is a disparity in age or mental ability on a case by case basis.

28th November 2008, 19:54

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th November 2008, 22:43

Tell me as soon as you have said that in public for your community to hear. I'd love to hear how that goes.

The validity of an argument or position is not decided by it's popularity or lack thereof.

Again, the laws are to stop adults abusing kids.15 year olds are not "kids" mentally speaking unless they are retarded, and frequently display secondary sexual characteristics.

This thread is getting scary. I need clarification on the point I made on my previous post.You mean this particular waste of electrons?:

I'm not sure of the age range of the people who voted on this poll, but if the majority is over 18, it looks like NAMBLA would feel at home in this thread.

First, a little bit of moral panic, conflating those who see age of consent restrictions as arbritary and pointless, with members of NAMBLA. How does it feel to get your views on sexuality from the sensationalist media?

The laws are there to prevent adults from having sex with kids, not to prevent people their own age having sex even if they are underage.That's not how it works out in the real world, bucko. Due to the infantilisation of teenagers and widespread moral panic about child molesters, innocents get caught in the crossfire as judges try to "look tough" by putting an 18 year old man on the sex offender's register for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.

Yes, real child molesters are caught and punished under these laws, but many posters in this thread, myself included, have posited alternatives that could work just as well to prevent child abuse.

I'm sorry to say it, but the answers you're giving to this reads to the casual viewer "What age kid should an adult be allowed to fuck?"Not everyone is a News of the World reader - basic reading comprehension is not an alien concept to most people, and besides, the people likely to be outraged at our discussion do not tend to be those amenable to any kind of rational discourse.

The results from this are useless without the age of the voter along side them. In fact they're worse than useless, they're dangerous taken out of context like that.Oh please. "Dangerous"? What is the basis for all this melodramatic language?

Maybe I'm oldschool and hardwired to this but internet tough guy shit aside you know what would happen if you said it to the average person. I'm with the angry mob on this one.So you're with those Neanderthal thugs who would physically assault anyone who merely questions the legal concept of an age of consent? That says a lot about you, none of it good.

Rascolnikova

29th November 2008, 07:36

The logic of why something ought to be criminal is often: "its wrong, therefor there should be a law against it.

I can't speak for anyone else. For myself, though, I'd like to be clear. My suggestion on how we ought to deal with informed consent comes from two premises.

1) I would like to live in a society which feels it has some responsibility to protect those who are not in a position to protect themselves, and

2) The implementation of this should not look anything like our current justice system.

Kurt Crover

29th November 2008, 22:57

I would say "each to their own". Some people don't have sex until later in life (like when they are married for instance), some people have sex at 15, 16, 17, whenever. Although I think people are having sex earlier than before, that's their decision and it's like reverse-psychology. Saying "Don't have sex" makes them want to do it anyway.

scarletghoul

29th November 2008, 23:01

There is a lot of underage sex deseases and pregnancies in this country I think because at school they just give you condoms and stuff and say "now its ok to have sex but you have to put this thing on your penis". If they stopped giving kids contraception and if sex was as taboo as it was back in the day, then I think there would be a lot less kids havin sex.
Not saying they should do that though

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th November 2008, 23:12

Rascolnikova

30th November 2008, 04:32

I've also heard it said, though I can't back it up, that the rate of teen sex hasn't changed that much since the 50s--it's just now, they don't get married.

Sean

30th November 2008, 05:57

I've also heard it said, though I can't back it up, that the rate of teen sex hasn't changed that much since the 50s--it's just now, they don't get married.
Given the attitudes towards sex in the 1950s, even if evidence existed, it couldn't be trusted as accurate given the fact that sex was something shameful back then.

Confession: As part of one of many hangovers from Roman Catholicism (even though I had wised up to it in my early teens) up until recently, I rarely used condoms. Not so much because I have a particular aversion to them, but the women in my community, also being brought up catholic didn't ask for them (shameful laziness). I do now, and last time I checked, nothing has turned green, close call.

Deprogramming youth of religious mumbojumbo whether it be abstinence only or coitus interuptus is in my opinion the major obstacle. Sexual health and dogma are simply incompatible in some major religions; the two cannot be reconciled regardless of all the campaigns for awareness that public figures lend their half-assed support to (without looking like they're going soft on Satan for the nutjob demographic).

Until modern society places more importance on the health of young adults over primitive superstitions about what the Holy Ghost doesn't want you wrap around your pee-pee, kids will get STDs and pregnant, and mouth-breathing adults will blame society without a hint of irony.

alpharowe3

2nd January 2009, 00:43

Its not efficient or practical to do it case by case... I say 18 its better to have the bar to high than to low. And even at 18 you dont have a completely developed brain.

Mike666

2nd January 2009, 00:48

I'd say 13 - I think the crux is whether the parties have sexual desires.

Killfacer

3rd January 2009, 15:41

Pawn Power

3rd January 2009, 17:11

I'm not disagreeing with anyone but what about where a 40 year old male grooms a 10 year old. The kid wants to have sex with them, but only because they have been manipulated. Shouldn't this be illegal?

Obviously this should not be allowed. Coercion is any sexual situation should be stopped.

Killfacer

3rd January 2009, 17:16

It's not really direct Coercion though is it. It's manipulation. The only way you can definatly stop it is by having an age of consent of about 16.

Pawn Power

4th January 2009, 01:28

It's not really direct Coercion though is it. It's manipulation. The only way you can definatly stop it is by having an age of consent of about 16.

Because people can't be manipulated at 16? The number 16 doesn't have magical properties. Some people at the age of 14 are much more mature then those at 18. This is obvious.

Any sort of consent laws must be based on the fact that people develop at different rates and respect all peoples bodily autonomy.

Killfacer

5th January 2009, 16:57

Because people can't be manipulated at 16? The number 16 doesn't have magical properties. Some people at the age of 14 are much more mature then those at 18. This is obvious.

Any sort of consent laws must be based on the fact that people develop at different rates and respect all peoples bodily autonomy.

So what do you suggest?

Pawn Power

6th January 2009, 00:32

So what do you suggest?

My point is that 16 is an entirely arbitrary number. People can both be manipulated at an older age and can consent at a younger age then 16.

I don't know how a law would specifically be constructed in this regard. But variations in development must be taken into account when individuals are prosecuted. If not we get cases in which a 17 year old is thrown in jail for rape for receiving oral sex from a 15 year old. http://www.revleft.com/vb/17-year-old-t57944/index.html?t=57944&highlight=age+of+consent

Killfacer

6th January 2009, 23:13

My point is that 16 is an entirely arbitrary number. People can both be manipulated at an older age and can consent at a younger age then 16.

I don't know how a law would specifically be constructed in this regard. But variations in development must be taken into account when individuals are prosecuted. If not we get cases in which a 17 year old is thrown in jail for rape for receiving oral sex from a 15 year old. http://www.revleft.com/vb/17-year-old-t57944/index.html?t=57944&highlight=age+of+consent

It's easy enough to change the law so that 15 year olds can give oral sex to 17 year olds without getting rid of the age of consent.

Black Dagger

16th January 2009, 00:37

Green socialist - i assume you are joking, but regardless. That sort of comment is not appropriate for this forum.

commyrebel

10th March 2009, 01:37

Louise Michel

10th March 2009, 02:13

This is a problem that has no solution under capitalism. In a more developed society, where education is better, where there are no extremes of wealth, knowledge and most importantly self-respect, maybe it will be possible to judge consent on a case by case basis. But now?

I've heard accounts of adults who have been sexually pursued by kids and ended up in jail because they gave in. As has been said different people mature at different ages and given the sick society we live in probably all we can do is set an age of consent law at 16 or 14. But really, this is no solution.

Blackscare

10th March 2009, 02:39

I know it's not particularly "revolutionary" in some people's minds to be satisfied with anything that exists now but I'm quite happy with the legal age as it is where I live (18).

Legal ages of consent don't punish the minor (like someone said on the first page), they prevent adults from getting their grubby hands on young people who are vulnerable and "learning the ropes" so to speak. There's nothing illegal about two young people getting it on, in fact that's the way it should happen. When teens start to experiment, it's best that it's with other teens, someone about as new to it all as them and who isn't in a position of power over them, as an adult often could be over a teenager.

The idea of doing things case by case is just absurd though. For one, how is it supposed to be enforced? Everyone caught having sex with a kid under x age is brought before a judge and it's sorted out? But wait, there's no set age at all, so how do we even know who needs to be brought in front of a judge for a ruling on whether it's legal to shtup a particular kid in the first place? It would be unworkably vague. Also, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. And what sort of criteria would be used to determine, on a case by case basis, that it's ok to have sex with one kid but not the other?

What if aliens landed and saw we had people who's job it was to determine if individuals were bangable or not? They'd pack up and leave, that's what they'd do! They'd think we were a bunch of crazies! :D

Blackscare

10th March 2009, 02:43

It's easy enough to change the law so that 15 year olds can give oral sex to 17 year olds without getting rid of the age of consent.

How would you verify that all was happening was oral sex? These laws are by nature a bit blunt and arbitrary, because they involve things that happen behind closed doors. All they can say is "sexual relations" are ok at a certain age, but it's not practical to start naming specific acts because then it would become unenforceable.

You can verify an age easily, the character of a couple's sexual relationship not so much.

Blackscare

10th March 2009, 02:53

Dr.Claw

10th March 2009, 18:29

It's really hard to actually "set" an age for sexual consent but I guess that it would have to be based on the distance of age between the partners unless they are both adults. But then there is the question of what you consider to be an adult.

Bitter Ashes

11th March 2009, 08:40

Can someone clarify something for me? In Europe, is it common practice that the age of consent also serves to forbid minors to fool around with other minors of a similar age? Everyone here is talking as if a "high" age of consent like 18 is somehow denying minors the right to have sex, which just sounds silly to me. I think there should of course be a within 3 years clause, among minors but also for someone who is a minor but is dating an "adult" who is up to 3 years older, since the age similarity is pretty apparent.
There has actualy been cases where minors have been prosecuted for having sex with each other. They have also ended up on a sex offenders list too for it. I think the police usualy turn a blind eye to it unless somebody actualy comes forward to charge them, which nine times out of ten is some self-rightious parent. That three year clause sounds pretty well thought out to me actualy!
There's plenty of really stupid laws in the UK regarding sex too. Like the guy who was having sex with his bicycle in his hotel room (dont ask...) and was put on the register for it. And the new "violent" pornography laws that would make a lot of non-pornographic anime illegal. Within my lifetime, there was even a higher age of consent for male-gay-sex than hetrosexual sex and a totaly grey area in the law concerning female-fay-sex because the last Queen of England couldnt get her head around it.
Westminister really hasnt thought this out in my opinion.

Killfacer

11th March 2009, 11:14

This is shit. No age of consent? That's fucking moronic.

Boy Named Crow

11th March 2009, 13:23

At the end of the day it is a moot question in some respects.

Young people will have sex in private whether they are above or below the age of consent anyway.

The only thing the age of consent does is act as law by which the state can legally punish someone over the age of consent having sex with someone below the age of consent. That really is its only practical purpose - to prevent/punish statutory rape.

Obviously this is a worthy purpose.

My only issue with age of consent is: How can the state tell the individual when they are ALLOWED to have sex? I voted for 16 in the poll simply because when I was under that age I can honestly admit that I personally wasn't ready I guess.

apathy maybe

11th March 2009, 15:21

This is shit. No age of consent? That's fucking moronic.

That's a great post. Except for the lack of argument. The single line. And the whole un-thought out bit...

I would say, having an age of consent is fucking moronic. Because no matter what it is set at, it is going to be arbitrary. Not to mention, you are going to be punishing "children".

Dr.Claw gave a better option (age range) than an age, but even that is still going to be arbitrary.

And to Blackscare:

Legal ages of consent don't punish the minor (like someone said on the first page), they prevent adults from getting their grubby hands on young people who are vulnerable and "learning the ropes" so to speak. There's nothing illegal about two young people getting it on, in fact that's the way it should happen.
It depends on where you are. In many places the age of consent is when you are first allowed to have sex at all. Not the age when you are allowed to have sex with adults. And you will be punished (there have been many cases in the US of this).

Killfacer

11th March 2009, 15:53

That's a great post. Except for the lack of argument. The single line. And the whole un-thought out bit...

I would say, having an age of consent is fucking moronic. Because no matter what it is set at, it is going to be arbitrary. Not to mention, you are going to be punishing "children".

Dr.Claw gave a better option (age range) than an age, but even that is still going to be arbitrary.

What does that even mean? You haven't even said anything. It's going to be arbitary... who cares? In practise it's the only thing would work. Anyway, an age range is essentially an age of consent.

apathy maybe

11th March 2009, 16:00

What does that even mean? You haven't even said anything. It's going to be arbitary... who cares? In practise it's the only thing would work. Anyway, an age range is essentially an age of consent.

There is a difference between an age and a range. But, the point is, you haven't explained why you think it is required. Because otherwise those nasty 25 year olds will have sex with 16 year olds? Or maybe it is the 40 year olds that are the problem?

:rolleyes:

Killfacer

11th March 2009, 16:02

There is a difference between an age and a range. But, the point is, you haven't explained why you think it is required. Because otherwise those nasty 25 year olds will have sex with 16 year olds? Or maybe it is the 40 year olds that are the problem?

:rolleyes:

You're missing the point. It isn't acceptable for a 40 year old to have sex with say a 13 year old. Mainly because it is a possibilty that the 13 year old may have been manipulated or coerced into the act.

I fail to see what is wrong with what we have at the moment. It's not going to be possible to do it on a case by case basis, so having an arbitary number seems fine to me.

Also stop the annoying smug eye rolling. It's annoying and smug.

apathy maybe

11th March 2009, 17:54

Killfacer

11th March 2009, 18:06

Why isn't it acceptable for a 40 year old to have sex with a 13 year old? (Or a sixteen year old?) Because of the possibility of manipulation or coercion? 'Cause that seems really silly.

And if you want a proper justice (as opposed to legal) system, you have to look at things on a case by case basis.

Even between two "adults" (20 and 20 for example), it is possible for one to manipulate and coerce the other into having sex. Why not make that illegal?

Because making that illegal with be stupid and you well know that. Stop being purposfully obtuse.

The possibily of coercion is far more likely to occur in a relationship between a 13 year old and a 40 year old than two people of a similar age.

apathy maybe

11th March 2009, 18:15

Because making that illegal with be stupid and you well know that. Stop being purposfully obtuse.

The possibily of coercion is far more likely to occur in a relationship between a 13 year old and a 40 year old than two people of a similar age.

I'm not being fucking obtuse! Why would it be stupid to make coercion and manipulation in a sexual relationship illegal?

If it is a problem between a 40 year old and a 13 year old, why isn't it a problem between two 20 year olds? Why isn't it a problem between a 40 year old and a 20 year old?

And of course manipulation and coercion exists between 40 year olds and 20 year olds, why isn't it a problem?

You appear to agree that it could occur between two people of a similar age (even if it is more likely between two people of quite dissimilar ages)...

We are meant to be rational products of the enlightenment, socialism is a product of the enlightenment. And to apply arbitrary limits, just because, even when other options are available... That doesn't seem very rational to me.

Killfacer

11th March 2009, 18:25

I'm not being fucking obtuse! Why would it be stupid to make coercion and manipulation in a sexual relationship illegal?

If it is a problem between a 40 year old and a 13 year old, why isn't it a problem between two 20 year olds? Why isn't it a problem between a 40 year old and a 20 year old?

And of course manipulation and coercion exists between 40 year olds and 20 year olds, why isn't it a problem?

You appear to agree that it could occur between two people of a similar age (even if it is more likely between two people of quite dissimilar ages)...

We are meant to be rational products of the enlightenment, socialism is a product of the enlightenment. And to apply arbitrary limits, just because, even when other options are available... That doesn't seem very rational to me.

Are you saying that 20 years olds and 13 year olds are at the same point of maturity?

Bitter Ashes

12th March 2009, 12:31

Even between two "adults" (20 and 20 for example), it is possible for one to manipulate and coerce the other into having sex. Why not make that illegal?
It IS illegal. It's called rape.
Maybe you have drawn attention to one thing though. Is somebody taking advantage of a child really any different to somebody taking advantage of an adult? They're both equaly serious crimes when you look at it, so why the seperate term for it? Is it just because of maternal/paternal instincts? What I mean by that is that if somebody harms an adult they face less stigma than harming a child no matter what the nature of the crime is. I put it down to instinct.

apathy maybe

12th March 2009, 12:47

It IS illegal. It's called rape.
Maybe you have drawn attention to one thing though. Is somebody taking advantage of a child really any different to somebody taking advantage of an adult? They're both equaly serious crimes when you look at it, so why the seperate term for it? Is it just because of maternal/paternal instincts? What I mean by that is that if somebody harms an adult they face less stigma than harming a child no matter what the nature of the crime is. I put it down to instinct.

So, if rape is illegal, why does any non-rape sex need to be made illegal? My point is, that to single out 13 year olds as needing special legal protection as compared to 20 years olds is damn silly.

(Mind you, rape can be reduced to something less than all sexual coercion and manipulation.)

Bitter Ashes

12th March 2009, 13:05

So, if rape is illegal, why does any non-rape sex need to be made illegal? My point is, that to single out 13 year olds as needing special legal protection as compared to 20 years olds is damn silly.

(Mind you, rape can be reduced to something less than all sexual coercion and manipulation.)
They're classed as a vunerable individual who's not really capable of making tha tkind of judgemetn call. A bit like somebody who's drunk, been drugged, or has a severe mental illness. These people cannot give informed consent because of those factors and bieng 13 years old is usualy a factor too.

Killfacer

12th March 2009, 15:49

Rebel_Serigan

13th March 2009, 20:54

In life there are no lines. Only an idea or maybe a small blurry smudge. My whole argument for having no age limit is the same as Apathy's idea. Things must be taken at a case by case. You can not say that because you are a certain age that a magical switch pops in your head and now you can make a sexual choice. One of the things that piss me off exponentialy is that the goverment places restrictions on who we can express love for. If two sixteen year olds are caught having sex it is rape on both of them. That means that whiether it was concentual or not doesn't matter. I do not agree with a child having sex with an old man/woman but that is exactly what kind of case by case matter I was talking about. As for manipulation that is totally bs. no matter how old you are someone can seduce you, don't go putting the same steriotypical labels that the goverment does. Also, rape is rape. if a woman is forced to have sex then punish the man, regardless of her age.

Lastly, my girl is eighteen, I am about to turn eighteen but if we got caught in the act she would have a registered sex offender status untill she is forty, is that just? Case by case my brothers and sisters.

Killfacer

13th March 2009, 23:11

Poison

21st March 2009, 04:08

apathy maybe

22nd March 2009, 02:44

Obviously there has to be an age, an infant can't give consent! Neither can very young children, who really can't understand it. It's no different from pretending that very young children fully understand religion and are making that conscious choice--they aren't, they're too trusting.

I think this is really something communities need to decide, as they are the ones who will be raising the youth and who will know how mature and informed they are.

Obviously there has to be an age... This is the same discussion that was had earlier, that came full circle to face killer saying, it should be 13 without explaining exactly why.

There doesn't need to be hard and fast age limit.

If you fuck someone who didn't or can't give consent, that's rape. That's it. You don't need to set an arbitrary limit and say, "any younger than this age and by definition you are too ignorant to consent to sex". Indeed, as I said above, that's a fucking stupid approach. Some 13 year olds are going to be more experience, and a lot harder to manipulate then some 20 year olds. When I was twenty I was not exactly the most experienced person sexually... But I know people who were rutting from when they were 14.

Killfacer

31st March 2009, 20:30

If you fuck someone who didn't or can't give consent, that's rape. That's it. .

Don't you think that's a bit blinkered. Just because you can verbally give consent, it does not mean you a psycologically developed enough to understand the consequences.

spritely

31st March 2009, 21:14

"Obviously there has to be an age" is not an argument. It's not obvious to people who think.

Any age is going to be arbitrary. Consent [which doesn't just mean saying yes as the above poster asserts] is the only measure we need. Government out of the bedroom!

Glorious Union

31st March 2009, 22:49

i think it's naive to simply give them free condoms and 'hope' they use them.

Most people in my school that I know of having had sex say that they had access to condoms, but decided not to use them because it takes away from sexual pleasure.

Sean

31st March 2009, 23:03

"Obviously there has to be an age" is not an argument. It's not obvious to people who think.
How about you read all the previous tedious pages instead of joining up to a forum and calling people idiots? And lets just skip past your reply to this: no you didn't. While enthusiasm is great, the last thing the internet needs is another needlessly angry person peppering discussions with "fuck you mom, society" posts. Just settle down and acclimatise yourself here before you start slinging shit or handing out judgements.

Child sex laws are as oppressive as child labour laws. In both cases, yes there are numerous scenarios where they restrict freedom, but on the whole they are there to protect victims from manipulation and abuse. I don't care if you happen to be/were a super shrewd, asskicking kid, those people are the exception, not the rule. The age of consent is rarely ever used against the child/teenager and when it is, it becomes news very quickly as people are incredulous about it.

For every pair of star crossed lovers caught on the wrong side of the age of consent there are thousands of drunk step dads, creepy uncles and weirdos out there.

Its not a matter of "the man" objecting to this, these are your peers and community objecting to it and any society in whatever form, as long as it's ethics are higher than Bronze Age and isn't centred around a creepy religion will always reflect this.

If you're a teenager pissed off that its illegal for you to get laid, the fact that most housing estates are full of teenagers pushing around buggies attest that theres noone stopping you from getting your rocks off at whatever age. Go nuts, but innocent people aren't going to suffer just because YOU can handle it.

If you're only supporting this because you feel that your liberal attitudes bring you to this conclusion then fair enough, but you're going to have to move to another planet to bring in some bizzaro NAMBLA state.

The revolution will not have paedophiles.:laugh:

spritely

31st March 2009, 23:28

drunk step dads, creepy uncles and weirdos out there.

And I'm guessing that you're suggesting those people would be having sex with people without their consent right? So that's rape. Sex without consent is rape. End of story.

"Age of consent" is reactionary. Revolutionaries oppose it.

Pogue

31st March 2009, 23:31

And I'm guessing that you're suggesting those people would be having sex with people without their consent right? So that's rape. Sex without consent is rape. End of story.

"Age of consent" is reactionary. Revolutionaries oppose it.

Erm, no, because I understand psychology and the human mind and also biiology to the extent to realise that at some ages having sex is just not a good idea and has a damaging effect. Revolutionaries are not up for 6 year olds doing thigns they're in no way ready for, as an example.

Sean

31st March 2009, 23:45

And I'm guessing that you're suggesting those people would be having sex with people without their consent right? So that's rape. Sex without consent is rape. End of story.
I didn't say rape. I was clearly discussing manipulation if you read the whole post. By "drunk stepdad" I meant lecherous old fucker, not a rapist. Don't guess, especially when I took the time to write it something completely different. You answered something that wasn't there, Spritely.

"Age of consent" is reactionary. Revolutionaries oppose it.
This is the kind of idiotic post you've been making all over the boards. Your post above implied killfacer was an idiot for making what you saw as a baseless statement. That's what you just did. Have fun with your revolution of one person if you're the decider of who gets to revolt.:laugh:

spritely

31st March 2009, 23:51

Revolutionaries are not up for 6 year olds doing thigns they're in no way ready for, as an example.

Can 6 year old consent to sex?

spritely

31st March 2009, 23:53

I didn't say rape. I was clearly discussing manipulation if you read the whole post. By "drunk stepdad" I meant lecherous old fucker, not a rapist. Don't guess, especially when I took the time to write it something completely different. You answered something that wasn't there, Spritely.

If the drunk stepdad does something sexual to his stepdaughter without her consent that is rape.

What on earth does that have to do with shitty laws that name some arbitrary age as a magical spot on a gregorian calender when all humans can uniformly and suddenly give effective consent at 12:00 am?

spritely

31st March 2009, 23:54

This is the kind of idiotic post you've been making all over the boards. Your post above implied killfacer was an idiot for making what you saw as a baseless statement.

I never used the word idiot. You did. Now you're using it towards me. Thanks babe.

Sean

1st April 2009, 00:11

I never used the word idiot. You did. Now you're using it towards me. Thanks babe.

Your post above implied killfacer was an idiot for making what you saw as a baseless statement.

implied
Main Entry:im·ply http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?imply001.wav=imply%27%29)Pronunciation: \im-ˈplī\ Function:transitive verb Inflected Form(s):im·plied; im·ply·ingEtymology:Middle English emplien, from Anglo-French emplier to entangle — more at employ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/employ)Date:14th century 1obsolete : enfold (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enfold) , entwine (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entwine)2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>3: to contain potentially4: to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>Lets not derail the thread with one line posts any more anyway.

Thanks babe.
Babe is reactionary. Revolutionaries say "Sweet cheeks".

Jazzratt

1st April 2009, 01:48

Government out of the bedroom!

Unless, you know, someone only uses that bedroom with one person. Then it's reactionary.

spritely

1st April 2009, 02:08

So I'm not allowed to further the argument revolutionaries like Engels, Goldman, Bryant, Kollantai, the Weather Underground etc have made against monogamy but you can come in an unrelated thread, misconstrue my argument, personally attack me and it's fine?

Mujer Libre

1st April 2009, 08:13

6th April 2009, 04:11

Folks- let's stick to the issue please.

And spritely- there's an edit button so that you don't make consecutive short posts. You can just edit the earlier post.

Also- when apathy maybe said "consent" on the previous age he clearly meant "informed consent" which implies being competent and understanding what saying "yes" means, free of coercion- rather than simply being able to say yes.

I suspect that many of the more wowserical arguments in this thread stem from a misunderstanding of what the term "consent" actually means.

Really the word "consent" means both "informed consent" and "simple consent".

When someone encroaches on another's person without their simple consent, the offense is assault, sexual assault, rape, battery, murder, etc depending on the nature of the encroachment. When someone encroaches on another's person with their simple consent but without their informed consent, the offense is fraud, medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death, breach of duty of care, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. depending again on the nature of the encroachment. The former set of wrongs is traditionally, and I think sensibly, protected with criminal penalities, the threat of state violence against persons (via imprisonment) to defend the bodily intergity of other persons.

Its wrong to have sex with someone with their simple consent (said yes) but without their informed consent (said yes but would likely regret their decision later). Its something that society shoul dhave sanctions against. Those sanctiosn however, should not be criminal, because the violation inflicted is so much less severe than the violation inflicted by either actual rape or imprisonment.

This is a difficult discussion because as soon as anyone talks about children and sex, there are certain things that become socially taboo to question, since our society's political discourse holds children as quasi-sacred and sex as quasi-defiling...that doesn't mean that among leftists we should shy away from the difficult questions, avoid making distinctions or look for the easiest rather than the most rational answers.

Iuvo

11th April 2009, 07:50

Bilan

11th April 2009, 11:09

Wow, how could people actually vote 'no age'? Are you people aware of this thing called 'reality'?

To say a revolutionary opposes age of consent is like saying a revolution opposes reason as the basis for making decisions.

Are you seriously implying that the age of physical, mental, and sexual development develops at an equal pace.
If so, you my friend, are on another planet.
Age is not the determining factor, anyhow. Consent is.

Iuvo

11th April 2009, 19:43

I don't understand what you mean by 'consent' being the determining factor. Clearly a 10 year old can and have willingly had sex with older people (even then, they weren't so informed about the consequences nor the processes). The point is a 10 year old is easily manipulated into having sex, a 15 year old (or 13-16 area) has just started developing hormones (ready to test out a new toy). If anything 17 or 18 is the more reasonable age for a person to make an informed decision.

CHEtheLIBERATOR

18th April 2009, 07:45

I choose other because I think it should be a five year distance until your 20.

Rascolnikova

18th April 2009, 08:35

I choose other because I think it should be a five year distance until your 20.

Five years is quite a lot for really young kids. A five year old and an infant? Really?

Also-
http://xkcd.com/314/

Young-and-angry

18th April 2009, 10:17

Good posts here, but say you took it down to 13, wouldn't that mean those of that age would be easier exploited by much older people than those at 15/16?

WhitemageofDOOM

20th April 2009, 11:45

The point is a 10 year old is easily manipulated into having sex, a 15 year old (or 13-16 area) has just started developing hormones (ready to test out a new toy). If anything 17 or 18 is the more reasonable age for a person to make an informed decision.

Puberty hits well before 15 years old.
There is no magical age at which every human becomes capable of giving consent. This isn't really something we can slap a law on and make it work, any barrier we place(other than say puberty.) will lead to two kids below that age having consenting sex.

Bilan

22nd April 2009, 03:43

Puberty hits well before 15 years old.

This is not strictly true. Puberty can hit at a variety of ages, some well before 12 or 13, and some later. It's not fixed.

Hoxhaist

22nd April 2009, 03:49

the rule ought to be only sex with people your own age upon reaching 15 and anyone your age or older at 18

apathy maybe

22nd April 2009, 10:01

the rule ought to be only sex with people your own age upon reaching 15 and anyone your age or older at 18

Why? What's wrong with a sixteen year old having sex with a fourteen year old? (Assuming all the required consent etc.)

Why is 18 magically special anyway?

I direct everyone to a couple of webpages (that aren't specifically about sex, but more generally about teenagers as adults or as children):

http://www.peacefire.org/info/why.shtml
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/20/1239212&art_pos=9

Then of course — you know what's coming — there is the other "larger sense" in which unblocking the LGBT category doesn't "fix the problem," which is that there would be no "problem" if we didn't think of teenagers as children instead of adults. You've probably already decided which side you're on in that debate, but consider it as a scientific question instead of a moral one. Do you think there is any objective evidence that teenagers, if they were given the opportunity to have the same rights and responsibilities as adults, would behave differently from adults to a large degree — more differently than, say, men and women behave from each other? The trouble with the "evidence" that we gather from personal interactions is that it's not truly objective — if someone believes that teenagers are immature and adults are not, they're likely to see and remember only the pieces of evidence that confirm that belief. A true double-blind experiment might involve talking to someone through a computer terminal and rating the other person's "maturity" just based on their responses. That's a start, but the trouble with that experiment is that adults tend to know a larger set of words, so a participant might rate the other person as more "mature" because of their large vocabulary, even though having a large vocabulary is completely different from having mature thoughts or logical reasoning skills. A fairer test might be to take a non-native-English-speaking adult and a native-English-speaking young teenager who scored about the same on a test of English vocabulary, and see if participants could tell the difference in maturity between those two test subjects while talking to them through a computer terminal. I am not aware of any experiment along these lines that has been done, but this is the sort of evidence of differences between adults and minors, that would be truly objective.
My emphasis.

So, why are teenagers treated differently to adults? Do you have any objective evidence that they are different?

rastari

22nd April 2009, 12:48

I don't think the law makes much of difference, better education would be far more effective.

la lucha sigue

22nd April 2009, 13:27

you cannot have a universal age of consent, it differs so much from person to person and from culture to culture. what you're talking about here is at what age can the consent of a child be overridden by society's belief that their children are their property and that they can be forced to conform. Education, not criminalisation.

reddevil

23rd April 2009, 00:28

i don't think there should be any age at which sex between consenting youth should be criminalised, that is to say two fourteen year olds who have sex shouldn't be prosecuted. I do however support an age of consent law whereby adults who engage in relations with those who differ considerably from them in sexual development should be punished. i'd say 16 is about right. i also think that if you're above the consent age and your partner isn't then there should be at least three years difference between you, for example it shouldn't be illegal for a seventeen and fifteen year old or a fourteen and sixteen your old to have sex.
Should we teach abstinence?
It's a difficult issue for us on the left. We don't want to teach our young that sexuality is shameful but nevertheless i think we can all agree it's best they wait until they reach a certain level of maturity at around sixteen or seventeen.

Jazzratt

23rd April 2009, 02:25

the rule ought to be only sex with people your own age upon reaching 15 and anyone your age or older at 18

I wish I had your ability to think in arbitrary absolutes. The world would be a whole lot simpler. The nuanced approach apathy maybe, la lucha sigue et al. are taking is pretty much the only way to hash out any useful thoughts on the matter.

Hoxhaist

23rd April 2009, 02:31

LOLseph Stalin

23rd April 2009, 05:48

Weezer

23rd April 2009, 05:54

Whenever you're ready, how about that?

LOLseph Stalin

23rd April 2009, 05:58

Whenever you're ready, how about that?

That may sound all good to some people, but somehow I just don't think children should be having sex. I think it's a maturity thing. A person should have a certain amount of maturity before they start having sex.

progressive_lefty

23rd April 2009, 06:41

Just thought I 'd mention that, after traveling in Brazil, I noticed people are quite open about dating between young women and older men. I knew a 20 year old guy that was asked out by a 14 year old (??). A brasillian friend of him told him not to worry and said that it was quite normal, but he still decided that he wasn't interested. This kind of things pretty shocking, I think a sexual consent law has its place at around 16. I remember seeing an episode of 'cidade dos homens', where a 15 year old girl was seeing a middle aged man (??). Weird.

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd April 2009, 07:14

I think the age of consent should still be eighteen as that is when you're typically considered an adult, but mind you I could be slightly biased as my views on sex are a bit on the Conservative side.

No, Kids are going to fuck even if you turn your own choice of abstaining into law . You may as well let them do it (with proppper education such as condoms etc) and and not make the criminals for it.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

23rd April 2009, 08:33

I figured the question to mean sexual consent between an adult and another and I'd say 18, with the possible exception of 18yr olds dating 17 then turning 18 if you catch my drift.

If two consenting minors want to get together, I say let 'em. That's what being a kids all about anyways. So that when you turn 18, you're good at it :lol:

apathy maybe

23rd April 2009, 11:20

I just dont think that a 14 year old has the maturity to give meaningful consent to a 45 year old and that opening the floodgates of ages of consent is not a good idea and people should have some years to explore consent with people their own age for awhile to understand the issues and gain experience in making decisions
You think, it's a gut feeling, you have no fucking evidence! Go and read my last post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1422300&postcount=201), especially the bit in the quote. How about a bit of science?

That may sound all good to some people, but somehow I just don't think children should be having sex. I think it's a maturity thing. A person should have a certain amount of maturity before they start having sex.
And, who the fuck are you to say that these person's don't have the maturity to decide or not? It's not like there is even an objective standard for majority!

I figured the question to mean sexual consent between an adult and another and I'd say 18, with the possible exception of 18yr olds dating 17 then turning 18 if you catch my drift.

If two consenting minors want to get together, I say let 'em. That's what being a kids all about anyways. So that when you turn 18, you're good at it :lol:

Yeah, and why 18? Why not 16? Why not 14? Why pick a fucking age at all? Go back and read the thread before you respond... Your comments have already been commented on, your possible answers already addressed.

Jazzratt

23rd April 2009, 12:06

Invariance

23rd April 2009, 12:52

I don't believe there should be a minimum age of consent. I feel that the criteria should be one of consent. And even if there was an age of consent, I don't feel it would serve any purpose for the state to persecute 'under-age' persons for committing those acts; it would serve no rehabilitative purpose (rehabilitating from what?), and have its aim entirely concerned with enforcing traditional 'virtues.' Questions of age differences become more difficult. However, I'm typically of the view that one person's (older) age does not automatically negate another (younger person's) capacity to consent. This is, of course, unless the person has an influence over that younger person which I would feel inhibits upon that person's capacity to consent. For example, a teacher may occupy that position, and there is also a conflict of interest issue there. I am not talking of informed consent; I don't think having sex under false pretences is necessarily rape since the person consented to sex, but nor am I denying that that person has committed a wrong act. I'm concerned with people equating informed consent with what is in that person's 'best objectives' since I think the only person who's decision matters in that situation would be the one making that decision (and poor decisions are just poor decisions, not unconsensual ones); its not up to a state to define whom a person can and cannot have sex with on the basis of their notion of what is in their best interest.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

23rd April 2009, 22:24

Yeah, and why 18? Why not 16? Why not 14? Why pick a fucking age at all? Go back and read the thread before you respond... Your comments have already been commented on, your possible answers already addressed.

Because adults shouldn't be able to fuck little boys or girls.

Are you insane? Do you not see the issue if it's perfectly legal for a grown man to hook up with children? Maybe we could set up a pedophile bar, you know, get a beer and offer the hotties some apple juice.

Where are you posting from, Bangkok?

And as I said earlier, if an 18yr old is dating a 17yr old it shouldn't be a problem. I'll also say that if a man or woman lies about their age to a prospective mate then they shouldn't get in trouble for it, as long as it's not overly obvious that they're fucking someone under age.

23rd April 2009, 22:47

Because adults shouldn't be able to fuck little boys or girls.

Are you insane? Do you not see the issue if it's perfectly legal for a grown man to hook up with children? Maybe we could set up a pedophile bar, you know, get a beer and offer the hotties some apple juice.

Where are you posting from, Bangkok?

And as I said earlier, if an 18yr old is dating a 17yr old it shouldn't be a problem. I'll also say that if a man or woman lies about their age to a prospective mate then they shouldn't get in trouble for it, as long as it's not overly obvious that they're fucking someone under age.

You know what, fuck you.Are you a fucking idiot?What point makes the "Bangkok", hah?I now understand who needed to stay in OI, and who not!
Do you say that a 16 years old shouldnt be "fucked" with a 25 years old, 30 etc?WHY?Give me one reason beside you are stupid.Who are adults?What differs me here from a 19 year old?Maturity?Brain capability?Fuck me, some idiot "adults" like you, cant talk to me and lots of others on my age and lower about such things..
If you want to open a bar, open a morons one, and be the king of it...
With the uncontested "love" of an "under age", or a "little boy" as you say....

Fuserg9:star:

TheCultofAbeLincoln

23rd April 2009, 23:45

You know what, fuck you.Are you a fucking idiot?What point makes the "Bangkok", hah?I now understand who needed to stay in OI, and who not!
Do you say that a 16 years old shouldnt be "fucked" with a 25 years old, 30 etc?WHY?Give me one reason beside you are stupid.Who are adults?What differs me here from a 19 year old?Maturity?Brain capability?Fuck me, some idiot "adults" like you, cant talk to me and lots of others on my age and lower about such things..
If you want to open a bar, open a morons one, and be the king of it...
With the uncontested "love" of an "under age", or a "little boy" as you say....

What exactly marks the difference between a 9 year old and a 15 year old, then?

If I fall in love with a 10 year old, and he or she loves me (as best he or she can, because obviously physical, emotional, and mental maturity will almost always be lower than that of someone who's been through their teens and it's very possible that I could be manipulating them) then we should be allowed to fuck all the time, eh?

Guess it should be legal for any sick fucker to pick up anyone of any age they want to then? As long as they consent to come along?

What if a young girl does not know that there is something wrong in their relationship when an uncle makes love to her? It could very well be that she, too, has been manipulated and may even think it is quite normal and therefore be strapped into a life of massive psycological problems.

You know, on second thought I'm not going to get into a discussion about how pedophilia should be allowed. I'm just not. Fuck off.

Oh, and you may be as intelligent and mature as anyone else, but in the US you would also have zero legal rights (and many other places that have decided that 18 is the age of consent. I don't know about Cyprus). Because of the fact that children do not understand the law, it has been decided that all legal decisions should be made by the parents or guardian. If we were to allow adults to have sexual relationships with children, there would be no legal basis to stop fundamentalist Christians from marrying off their 14 year old daughters to grown men, as has been attempted numerous times in the last few years alone. (El Dorado ranch, for example)

Other cultures in which children are married off at a young age is none of my business, I suppose.

Weezer

24th April 2009, 01:02

That may sound all good to some people, but somehow I just don't think children should be having sex. I think it's a maturity thing. A person should have a certain amount of maturity before they start having sex.

Sorry, but you're wrong. What is this? You have a certain amount of 'maturity currency' to have sex? Are you a capitalist, sir?

Jazzratt

24th April 2009, 04:05

What exactly marks the difference between a 9 year old and a 15 year old, then?

This isn't really the relevant question. What's the difference between someone who is <age of consent years> old and someone who is <age of consent years -day> old. And if there is no difference, when do we stop subtracting days? Considered in small steps your question makes little sense.

If I fall in love with a 10 year old, and he or she loves me (as best he or she can, because obviously physical, emotional, and mental maturity will almost always be lower than that of someone who's been through their teens and it's very possible that I could be manipulating them) then we should be allowed to fuck all the time, eh?

How old are you? What is your relationship with the 10 year old? How sexuall mature is the 10 year old? Your question makes too many assumptions.

Guess it should be legal for any sick fucker to pick up anyone of any age they want to then? As long as they consent to come along?

You're not getting the point at all, are you?

What if a young girl does not know that there is something wrong in their relationship when an uncle makes love to her? It could very well be that she, too, has been manipulated and may even think it is quite normal and therefore be strapped into a life of massive psycological problems.

What is wrong? Presuming that the niece understands what sex is, what is it she doesn't understand about what's "wrong"? How old is the "young girl" and her uncle? You've presumed there is something "wrong" without presenting further evidence. She could be manipulated, true, but how do you legislate against manipulation - really?

You know, on second thought I'm not going to get into a discussion about how pedophilia should be allowed. I'm just not. Fuck off.

You have no leg to stand on. Fuck you.

Oh, and you may be as intelligent and mature as anyone else, but in the US you would also have zero legal rights (and many other places that have decided that 18 is the age of consent. I don't know about Cyprus). Because of the fact that children do not understand the law, it has been decided that all legal decisions should be made by the parents or guardian.

Therefore this must be morally correct? What the fuck?

If we were to allow adults to have sexual relationships with children, there would be no legal basis to stop fundamentalist Christians from marrying off their 14 year old daughters to grown men, as has been attempted numerous times in the last few years alone. (El Dorado ranch, for example)

Other cultures in which children are married off at a young age is none of my business, I suppose.

Piss off back to OI, weirdo. Fuck knows why I voted for your unrestriction.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 05:02

This isn't really the relevant question. What's the difference between someone who is <age of consent years> old and someone who is <age of consent years -day> old. And if there is no difference, when do we stop subtracting days? Considered in small steps your question makes little sense.

What are you talking about? He said that he should be considered sexually mature even though he's under 18, what's the difference between that and a 10 year old who feels the same? Are they even capable of being sexually mature enough to get into a sexual relationship with an adult?

How old are you? What is your relationship with the 10 year old? How sexuall mature is the 10 year old? Your question makes too many assumptions.I'm an adult. I'm obviously referring to a sexual relationship with a 10 year old. The 10 year old is sexually mature enough for me to talk into let me have sex with him or her. Even if I don't use the word sex and they don't yet understand what sex really entails.

Should we set an age, or should it be based on how old someone feels about themselves?

If I am able to make a 10 year old feel that they want to make love to me, should it be OK with society?

That's what I'm asking, you need to look at the sticky issues instead of just bullshitting your way through.

What is wrong? Presuming that the niece understands what sex is, what is it she doesn't understand about what's "wrong"? How old is the "young girl" and her uncle? You've presumed there is something "wrong" without presenting further evidence. She could be manipulated, true, but how do you legislate against manipulation - really?I meant this in the case of young girl, like I said. As in, maybe 5. Do you not understand that she could be manipulated, like many children are every day, into having sex with older perverts?

You have no leg to stand on. Fuck you.Answer the fucking question at hand, for once.

If I talk a child into having sex with me, should society allow it? And when I say child, I mean a child.

Therefore this must be morally correct? What the fuck?
Never said it was. But that's the way it is.

Piss off back to OI, weirdo. Fuck knows why I voted for your unrestriction.You need to look around at reality. There are Christian Fundamentalists who would marry their children off to older men. Why can't you answer the question at hand, if there was no determined age at which it was OK for people to engage in sex with other adults, is there any issue with this?

Legally, no.

Jesus Christ it's painfully obvious that very few people on here have children of their own. Also, it's disturbing that so few realize why the fuck these laws were put on the books in the first place.

LOLseph Stalin

24th April 2009, 06:35

Sorry, but you're wrong. What is this? You have a certain amount of 'maturity currency' to have sex? Are you a capitalist, sir?

First off it would be Ma'am, not sir. ;) Also, this was a ridiculous statement. If a person can't even have a mature discussion about sex then obviously they wouldn't be ready for the real thing. I'm talking about little preteens and younger teenagers who laugh and giggle at even the mere mention of words such as "intercourse", "condom". Hell, even "vagina" and "penis". These are the people who aren't ready for sex.

Weezer

24th April 2009, 06:52

I hear adults giggle at those words too, oddly enough, ma'am.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th April 2009, 08:48

Yes, but in the case of pre- and sometimes even young teens, do most even understand what can come out of sexual intercourse between a penis and a vagina?

Like, you know, babies?

I think we can all agree, at the very least, that if that fact has not been ascertained by the individual then he or she is not ready for sex.

Rascolnikova

24th April 2009, 09:08

So, why are teenagers treated differently to adults? Do you have any objective evidence that they are different?

When I trained to be a CASA, they brought in (supposedly, but I have no reason not to believe them) one of the better adolescent neurology experts in the country. She outlined the latest information on neurological development of teenagers and young adults in some detail. I don't have my notes with me, or I'd give you more specifics but here's a couple of key differences I do remember;

1) Far greater tendency to revert to midbrain (emotion and instinct) function in situations of high stress or social pressure than adults. This "reversion" is in contrast to higher levels of activity in the forebrain--the part of the brain that deals in language, reason, long term planning, and restraint. Apparently this function in the brain remains underdeveloped into the early 20s.

2) Differences in processing alcohol. Teens are--apparently due to specific, known neurological function--often unable to detect the impact alcohol is having on their reflexes, and are often able to maintain much greater normalcy in their physical functioning when they are objectively mentally impaired.

On top of this, alcohol does exponentially more damage to the developing neural tissue of teenagers than to the mature neural tissue of adults.

An interesting after-the-fact validation of our weird drinking age laws. :/

I'm sure there's more, but that's what I remember at the moment.

apathy maybe

24th April 2009, 11:00

When I trained to be a CASA, they brought in (supposedly, but I have no reason not to believe them) one of the better adolescent neurology experts in the country. She outlined the latest information on neurological development of teenagers and young adults in some detail. I don't have my notes with me, or I'd give you more specifics but here's a couple of key differences I do remember;

1) Far greater tendency to revert to midbrain (emotion and instinct) function in situations of high stress or social pressure than adults. This "reversion" is in contrast to higher levels of activity in the forebrain--the part of the brain that deals in language, reason, long term planning, and restraint. Apparently this function in the brain remains underdeveloped into the early 20s.

2) Differences in processing alcohol. Teens are--apparently due to specific, known neurological function--often unable to detect the impact alcohol is having on their reflexes, and are often able to maintain much greater normalcy in their physical functioning when they are objectively mentally impaired.

On top of this, alcohol does exponentially more damage to the developing neural tissue of teenagers than to the mature neural tissue of adults.

An interesting after-the-fact validation of our weird drinking age laws. :/

I'm sure there's more, but that's what I remember at the moment.
Well thank you for being the only one in the thread to actually present any differences.

Of course there are differences between fully developed (physically) adults and non-fully developed (physically) persons. The question is, do these physical differences mean that there are significant differences in maturity, understanding etc.? Are these differences enough to justify preventing non-fully developed persons (teenagers for example) from having sex, both with each other, and fully developed persons?

As for TheCultofAbeLincoln, I told you to read the entire thread. You obviously didn't, because you gave the same arguments others had before, which had already been addressed.

-----

When talking about "age of consent", we assume that an individual is actually able to understand, and provide consent. In the case of babies, we can talk to them, and realise that they aren't able to provide consent.

In the case of a 13 year old, it is possible to scientifically, and objectively determine if they are able to provide informed consent.

As such, to set any age is to arbitrarily draw a line. Instead of drawing lines, why not actually determine on an individual basis if a person is able to meaningfully consent to sex?

I think I've mentioned it before, but I understood (having been taught at school) what sex was when I was 12 (and possibly earlier, sex ed. started when I was 10). I was fully able to refuse consent to anyone (including creepy "uncles", though none were around). However, if a person in my class wanted to fool around, I might well have consented.

It was definitely the case that by the time I was 14 I would have been happy to have sex, including (potentially) with a certain teacher (who I think was 30 or something).

So yeah, I was mature enough to meaningfully consent to sex when I was a young teenager, even if I wasn't fully physically developed. As it was, I didn't first have sex until I left home. But whatever.

Rascolnikova

24th April 2009, 11:57

In the case of a 13 year old, it is possible to scientifically, and objectively determine if they are able to provide informed consent.

What do you mean by this--what, in practice, would it look like?

____________
I think a big part of the problem here is the question of which side to err on. In any formalized system, there will be errors.

I would prefer an error that unjustly prevents or penalizes people who are capable of giving consent over an error that fails to recognize coercion where it is actually taking place.

apathy maybe

24th April 2009, 12:45

What do you mean by this--what, in practice, would it look like?

____________
I think a big part of the problem here is the question of which side to err on. In any formalized system, there will be errors.

I would prefer an error that unjustly prevents or penalizes people who are capable of giving consent over an error that fails to recognize coercion where it is actually taking place.

A true double-blind experiment might involve talking to someone through a computer terminal and rating the other person's "maturity" just based on their responses. That's a start, but the trouble with that experiment is that adults tend to know a larger set of words, so a participant might rate the other person as more "mature" because of their large vocabulary, even though having a large vocabulary is completely different from having mature thoughts or logical reasoning skills. A fairer test might be to take a non-native-English-speaking adult and a native-English-speaking young teenager who scored about the same on a test of English vocabulary, and see if participants could tell the difference in maturity between those two test subjects while talking to them through a computer terminal. I am not aware of any experiment along these lines that has been done, but this is the sort of evidence of differences between adults and minors, that would be truly objective.

I quoted this earlier in the thread.

Rascolnikova

24th April 2009, 12:56

I quoted this earlier in the thread.

That would be truly objective in the same way IQ tests are truly objective.

In other words: I think that's a non-solution.

Invariance

24th April 2009, 13:20

Differences in processing alcohol. Teens are--apparently due to specific, known neurological function--often unable to detect the impact alcohol is having on their reflexes I really doubt this; anyone who gets moderately drunk is very aware of the consequences of taking that alcohol on their body and reflexes. Its part of the 'fun' of first getting drunk.

...and are often able to maintain much greater normalcy in their physical functioning when they are objectively mentally impaired. But then you say this which I doubt, if not for the fact that teenagers generally have a smaller body mass, and hence the effect of alcohol is going to make it more difficult for them to maintain 'normalcy.' But are you saying that the effect of alcohol on teenagers allows them to maintain 'greater normalcy' in their physical functioning than adults? Doesn't that contradict what you've first said - that teenagers are often unable to detect the impact of alcohol is having on their reflexes? Or did you mean the opposite - that teenagers have a more difficult time 'maintaining normalcy' when drunk - that sounds more reasonable, but you don't need a nation's top adolescent neurology expert to tell you that.

On top of this, alcohol does exponentially more damage to the developing neural tissue of teenagers than to the mature neural tissue of adults. So?

An interesting after-the-fact validation of our weird drinking age laws. Why do you think that a complex social issue can simply be determined by the fact that drinking alcohol may cause more damage to developing neural tissue of teenagers? What would be the difference in me saying that alcohol shouldn't be consumed period because it causes x damage to whomever?

apathy maybe

24th April 2009, 13:46

That would be truly objective in the same way IQ tests are truly objective.

In other words: I think that's a non-solution.

Err, I disagree.

IQ tests don't actually test intelligence as such (though a person's intelligence will affect their score). IQ tests are affected largely by the culture of the test taker, the culture of the person who wrote the test etc.

The test proposed by Bennett Haselton (which I quoted) is similar to the Turing Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) (from which, I believe, it is derived). If you don't know what that is, it's really simple.

Rather than ask, "can a machine think", it is better to ask, "can a machine be indistinguishable from a human in a natural language conversation over a text only medium?". If a human is talking to a computer and another human over an instant messenger program, and is unable to tell which is human, then the machine is considered to have passed the test. (It's slightly more complicated than that, actually, see the Wikipedia article.)

If you have an adult talking over an instant messaging program to a 13 year old and an adult, would you be able to tell the difference? (To compensate for the difference in vocabulary, maybe it might be better to say, "an adult who's first language is not the same as the teenagers".)

If this was done often enough, with different people in the various roles, and the response was largely, "I don't know which is the adult and which isn't", then it is an objective test.

And indeed, I see the same thing on this website. I don't know who is male, who is female, who is adult, who isn't. Unless I see something that indicates a person's age, gender etc., I generally can't tell. Yes, there are some people who I assume are young teenagers (due to their spelling, grammar, and poor grasp on certain ideas), but the rest, no idea.

RevMARKSman must be only about 14 or 15 now, when they first joined the site I think they were only about 11. Not that you could tell, they were posting intelligent, articulate posts almost every time.

So yeah, I think the idea of communicating with someone over a text only medium is a great way of testing their maturity. Sure you can't come up with scores (like you can with an IQ test), but we aren't after numbers (we have them already, that person is 15 years, 11 months and 5 days old, they aren't mature enough to have sex, that person who is 18 years and one day old is mature enough to be filmed in porn, even though they have an IQ of only about 60, and are illiterate, etc.).

Rascolnikova

24th April 2009, 15:49

I wasn't making an argument about the drinking age; I was answering the question "what are the clear objective differences between a teenager and an adult" as best I was able.

I really doubt this; anyone who gets moderately drunk is very aware of the consequences of taking that alcohol on their body and reflexes. Its part of the 'fun' of first getting drunk.

What is there to say to this? Science disagrees? Every stupid drunk who thinks they can drive just fine and ends up killing someone is a piece of evidence to the contrary, and cumulatively there've been quite a lot of them.

But then you say this which I doubt, if not for the fact that teenagers generally have a smaller body mass, and hence the effect of alcohol is going to make it more difficult for them to maintain 'normalcy.' But are you saying that the effect of alcohol on teenagers allows them to maintain 'greater normalcy' in their physical functioning than adults? Doesn't that contradict what you've first said - that teenagers are often unable to detect the impact of alcohol is having on their reflexes? Or did you mean the opposite - that teenagers have a more difficult time 'maintaining normalcy' when drunk - that sounds more reasonable, but you don't need a nation's top adolescent neurology expert to tell you that.

So?
-Teens are unable to internally observe the extent to which alcohol has impaired their physical abilities when they are drunk.

-Not observing that anything is wrong, they do not restrict their physical functioning as a person who knows they are less able would. Do remember that being unsafe to drive doesn't mean you're going to get into an accident every single time you do drive--it just means your chances of getting into an accident are much higher because you are less able.

-Observing their apparently successful participation in challenging physical activities, they presume that their mental function is not impaired--often leading to further poor decision making.

Hopefully you now understand what I was saying. I'm not going to address "So?," because this isn't a discussion about the drinking age.

Why do you think that a complex social issue can simply be determined by the fact that drinking alcohol may cause more damage to developing neural tissue of teenagers? What would be the difference in me saying that alcohol shouldn't be consumed period because it causes x damage to whomever?Why do you think you know anything about my stance on drinking age? I said the information I was providing gave an interesting validation for the policies in place--which, particularly when the two items are combined, it certainly does. I didn't say I felt the validation it offered was adequate.

If you would like to discuss drinking age, we can do it in the relevant thread. Until then, I'd thank you to attribute to me only the things I've actually said.

Edit to include this, to Apathy Maybe--

1) I don't understand why you think the turing test is in any way objective. It depends entirely on the subjectivity and cultural background of the person judging the computer. Refer to the historic infantalization of non-whites and females. . .

2) Being able to pass for an adult is not an adequate measure of sexual maturity. I could have passed that test at 9, but didn't seriously begin to understand sexual consent till I was about 22. (This is what a fucked up enough cultural background will do for you).

3) I think your idea of compensating for undeveloped language abilities is a poor one--certainly this is so if one accepts the position that language is fundamentally related to consciousness.

4) Even if there were a way to objectively measure maturity, this would not be nearly the only factor in determining whether a given sexual relationship is adequately non-coercive.

apathy maybe

24th April 2009, 17:51

Regarding your points:
1) The point is that the tester is unable to determine who is a computer or not, except via the text medium. And, it only becomes "objective" if repeated tests agree with the finding.

2) How else would you test sexual maturity? And if you couldn't understand sexual consent until you were 22, well... Maybe the age of consent needs to be up to 22? (And what about the people who can't consent at all, no matter what the age? I.e. an age of consent is an absurd idea. Maybe the test could be modified to discuss sex instead of random stuff?

3) It wasn't my idea (it was the original authors idea, I just re-mentioned it). And I don't understand your point at all actually.

4) Really, the only reason I introduced this test was because people were rattling of numbers as if they meant anything. Unless there is a systematic way of determining whether a person can meaningfully give consent, I suggest maturity would work as a stop gap.
But of course, it isn't the only thing. Considering that many many relationships between adults involve coercion, we have to look at everything. Unless we ban all sex, it's a bit hard to get rid of all coercion. And, if a 15 year old is just as mature as a 25 year old ...

frozencompass

24th April 2009, 21:15

I voted for 16, but it's merely a number with no deeper meaning behind it. As long as sexual education is sufficient, any number above 14 would be okay, if there has to be a universal age of consent.

On the other hand, it makes sense to me as well that an individual age of consent based on some sort of scientific method of measuring would be more effective.

Hoxhaist

24th April 2009, 21:20

You think, it's a gut feeling, you have no fucking evidence! Go and read my last post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1422300&postcount=201), especially the bit in the quote. How about a bit of science?
What the hell do you know about science?! I'm not scientific enough just cause I didnt quote some nobody like "Joe Schmo the Eskimo" or "Bennett Haselton" like you did (whoever the fuck he is!!!) I chose 14 because thats when sexual maturity is usually underway in most adolescents. Whats your problem? why are so itching to cajole people into letting 9 year olds have sex with 60 year olds?????

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

24th April 2009, 21:50

Is there a criteria we can utilize to persecute sex offenders? If I encourage someone to try a new food, and they don't like it, it's alright. However, if they decide they don't like the food, and I encourage them to try it again, it's iffy. If I ask someone to play a video game, and they dislike the first level, do I tell them the second level is fun? If I honestly think they will like it, I encourage them to keep going.

Someone honestly thinks a 9 year old will enjoy sex, with them, so they encourage the action. I'm not sure young children can't enjoy sex. I suspect they can. However, we also live in a cultural framework. If someone takes a naked picture of you, and posts it everywhere, you might not care. However, many people would, myself included. We have little rational basis for such a view, but we want the law to protect certain values of taste.

If playing scrabble turned a child black, and the world was racist, would it be ethical to play scrabble with a child? It's a tough call. If I know you dislike ketchup, I can still eat it even if it disgusts you. If the disgust is significant enough, though, does it eventually become unjust? Hate speech laws say yes, with respect to sound. You can't yell fire in a building, either.

The question is, then, will doing X actually influence society? Are their prejudices grounded in something? Does sex with young children harm society? Yes, but they think it's harmful for poor reasons. Does sex with young children harm them? Yes, but they think it's harmful because society tells them so. However, you "knew" society would stigmatize them. Just like you knew, if scrabble made a kid black, his life would be entirely different. Were black individuals, then, unethical in having children at all?

A child is incapable of conceptualizing the risks, whether socially created or intrinsic, of the activity in question. If they don't understand the circumstances, I don't think the adult can consent for them, in some cases. In simple matters, sure. In larger matters, which society seems to feel sex qualifies, this is not the case. There is a default position assumed - don't have sex with children.

This idea seems compelling, but it entails that a parent can "never" give a child a value that is outside the social norm. You can't tell a child about any value, then, until what age? If you explain the circumstances to the child and believe they understand, will you let them choose values? You should. Actions? You should.

No child can rationally choose to have sex with an adult, I think, is the underlying premise behind opposition. If they knew the social stigma attached to having sex as a child, though, I think this rule holds. This suggests that playing scrabble with the black kid is unethical.

Gotta think on this one more. It's getting me thinking. I think the sexual desire, probably, has to be present.

Nulono

26th April 2009, 02:07

I say slapping any age down is blatant discrimination. I'm glad so many people seem to agree.

Agnapostate

28th April 2009, 01:12

I'm not sure of the age range of the people who voted on this poll, but if the majority is over 18, it looks like NAMBLA would feel at home in this thread. The laws are there to prevent adults from having sex with kids, not to prevent people their own age having sex even if they are underage. I'm sorry to say it, but the answers you're giving to this reads to the casual viewer "What age kid should an adult be allowed to fuck?" The results from this are useless without the age of the voter along side them. In fact they're worse than useless, they're dangerous taken out of context like that.

Now, now, no worries! As long as you're accusing those with unorthodox opinions of being supporters of NAMBLA or pedophilia, you can safely do so without discriminating on the basis of age. After all, Frend and Kuban's Toward a testable developmental model of pedophilia: the development of erotic age preference (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8472184) tells us the following:

Retrospective self-reports about childhood curiosity to see persons in the nude were used to compare the development of erotic sex and age preferences among four groups of males; 46 heterosexual pedophiles, 30 homosexual pedophiles, 462 gynephiles (who erotically prefer physically mature females), and 51 androphiles (who erotically prefer physically mature males). The results suggest (a) throughout this erotic developmental process among males, the establishment of erotic sex preference precedes that of erotic age preference, and (b) a greater proportion of pedophiles than of individuals who prefer physically mature partners remembers curiosity in their own childhood to see nude children without remembering such curiosity in regard to adults. This suggests that in a substantial proportion of pedophiles the occurrence of this paraphilia is predetermined at a very early developmental phase.

A similar result can be derived from the analysis of Marshall, Barbaree and Eccles in Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters (http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/3/323):

One hundred twenty-nine outpatient child molesters (91 nonfamilial and 38 father/daughter offenders) were assessed and interviewed regarding various aspects of their deviant sexuality. Of our total sample, 29% reported having deviant fantasies prior to age 20, and this was most pronounced (41.1%) among those who molested the sons of other people. Fourteen percent of the nonfamilial offenders against boys, 11.8% of the nonfamilial offenders against girls, and 7.9% of the incest offenders had one or more paraphilia additional to their index offense; only three of the total sample reported more than two additional paraphilias.

Moreover, a coordinating analysis of the behavior of actual juvenile offenders, Wieckowski et al.'s Deviant Sexual Behavior in Children and Young Adolescents: Frequency and Patterns (http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp66753603454k80/), notes the following in its abstract:

A descriptive statistical study was performed to assess the characteristics of youth who began committing sexual offenses in childhood. The youth in this study ranged in age from 12 to 15...The results suggested that deviant sexual behavior may begin in early childhood, with some offenders developing patterns of offending prior to the onset of adolescence. These youth committed a median of 69.5 sexual offenses each, with each offender having a median of 16.5 victims. They used either force, threats, or violence in the large majority of their contact offenses. They predominantly came from multiproblematic families, were abused in early childhood, and were exposed to pornographic materials at a young age. The results suggest that children have the capacity to commit serious sexual offenses similar to those of older juvenile and adult offenders.

Moreover, considering that a necessary criterion of formal clinical diagnosis as noted by DSM-IV involves having attained the age of 16 rather than 18 (the legal age of majority in many places), you can safely accuse underage posters of being part of the vast pedophile conspiracy. I personally don't believe that the argumentum ad hominem is the pinnacle of logical debate, but we all have our own preferences, I suppose...;)

When I trained to be a CASA, they brought in (supposedly, but I have no reason not to believe them) one of the better adolescent neurology experts in the country. She outlined the latest information on neurological development of teenagers and young adults in some detail. I don't have my notes with me, or I'd give you more specifics but here's a couple of key differences I do remember; 1) Far greater tendency to revert to midbrain (emotion and instinct) function in situations of high stress or social pressure than adults. This "reversion" is in contrast to higher levels of activity in the forebrain--the part of the brain that deals in language, reason, long term planning, and restraint. Apparently this function in the brain remains underdeveloped into the early 20s.

Whilst MRI and fMRI scans provide us with intriguing observations of physical brain development, we must be cautious about extrapolating data from these scans in an attempt to form broad policy approaches, as Jay Giedd, Laurence Steinberg, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd have been far too quick to do, in my opinion. The chief opponent of this approach thus far has been the psychologist Robert Epstein (former editor of Psychology Today), who writes this in The Myth of the Teen Brain (http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf), published in Scientific American Mind:

This work seems to support the idea of the teen brain we see in the headlines until we realize two things. First, most of the brain changes that are observed during the teen years lie on a continuum
of changes that take place over much of our lives. For example, a 1993 study by Jésus Pujol and his colleagues at the Autonomous University of Barcelona looked at changes in the corpus callosum—a massive structure that connects the two sides of the brain—over a two-year period with individuals between 11 and 61 years old. They found that although the rate of growth declined as people aged, this structure still grew by about 4 percent each year in people in their 40s (compared with a growth rate of 29 percent in their youngest subjects). Other studies, conducted by researchers such as Elizabeth Sowell of the University of California, Los Angeles, show that gray matter in the brain continues to disappear from childhood well into adulthood. Second, I have not been able to find even a single study that establishes a causal relation between the properties of the brain being examined and the problems we see in teens. By their very nature, imaging studies are correlational, showing simply that activity in the brain is associated with certain behavior or emotion. As we learn in elementary statistics courses, correlation does not even imply causation. In that sense, no imaging study could possibly identify the brain as a causal agent, no matter what areas of the brain were being observed.

Similar analysis is typically regarded to come from sociologist Mike Males, The "Teen Brain" Craze: New Science, or Ancient Politics? (http://www.youthfacts.org/brain.html), though his approach primarily centers around evaluating the apparent lack of a connection between physical brain development and the actual behaviors of adolescents and similar age youth, since it would seem that a faulty or underdeveloped brain would make one inclined to greater risk-taking and similar behaviors. He writes this:

1. Adolescents, immature brains and all, are doing far better today than the supposedly cerebrally-developed midlifers complaining about them.

2. Scientists always seem to find biological flaws in the brains of populations that politicians and the public find fearsome or blameworthy for social problems.

3. The preponderance of laboratory research does not find significant differences between adult and teenage cognitive ability.

4. Scientists have not compared teenage and adult risk taking on a level playing field.

...

Conclusion: The supposedly immature brain development that renders teenagers naturally risk-prone mysteriously fails to affect teenagers from more affluent backgrounds, or from Europe or Japan (where youth poverty rates and dangers are low), who routinely display risks lower than adults do. Rather, “science’s discovery” of the problematic “teenage brain” is just the latest in a long, disgraceful history of alliances between officials, interest groups, sensational media, and a small number of scientists who serve their needs. The ability of authorities to scapegoat unpopular, powerless groups in society instead of facing difficult social problems—in this case, rising middle-aged drug and crime epidemics and the effects of poverty on youth risk—endangers Americans by preventing realistic solutions to serious crises.

Of far greater interest to me personally is the literature on the actual mental abilities and competence of adolescents and other youth to make rational and informed decisions, not snapshots of physical brain development that may necessarily diverge from analyses of actual mental functioning: effectively another necessary distinction between "the brain" and "the mind." A few random drawings from the literature reveals empirical analyses such as that of Weithorn and Campbell in The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1130087):

In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)…The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the “cutoffs” below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents.

The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11662545), came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating the following:

[E]xisting evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on the topic of minors' competence to provide informed consent to abortion, entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion (http://www.springerlink.com/content/ut79373503167618/). The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults. Consider the abstract:

We examine an underlying presumption that minors are not competent to consent to abortion. Participants (N=75 age 13–21, seeking a pregnancy test at a women's medical clinic) completed an interview that was audiotaped and scored on four cognitive and volitional criteria of legal competence. Competence was compared in three age groups (15; 16–17; 18–21) for participants who considered abortion and for those who did not. Adolescents age 16–17 and adolescents 15, who considered abortion, appeared as competent as legal adults; only15-year-old adolescents who did not consider abortion appeared less competent. Regression analysis was used to identify psychosocial predictors of competence. Results challenge the presumption that minors are not competent. An alternate policy based upon informed consent and empowerment of minors as decision makers is proposed.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, entitled Children And Adolescents’ Capacity To Provide Informed Consent For Participation In Research (https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2635) researchers Kuther and Posada noted this:

[T]he literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents.

To a significant extent, this confirmed the legitimacy and soundness of the previous studies. It's thus my belief that studies of the actual decision-making abilities and related competence of youth have far more legitimate application than the aforementioned isolated snapshots of physical brain development. Furthermore, the deliberate infantilization of youth as manifested through the establishment of repressive age restrictions plays an integral role in preventing them from acquiring the sort of skills and abilities that would incline others to consider them "mentally competent."

2) Differences in processing alcohol. Teens are--apparently due to specific, known neurological function--often unable to detect the impact alcohol is having on their reflexes, and are often able to maintain much greater normalcy in their physical functioning when they are objectively mentally impaired. On top of this, alcohol does exponentially more damage to the developing neural tissue of teenagers than to the mature neural tissue of adults. An interesting after-the-fact validation of our weird drinking age laws. :/

I'm not so sure about that one! As noted by David J. Hanson (another sociologist), in Drinking Alcohol Damages Teenagers’ Brains" (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/healthissues/1127400726.html), the evidence regarding that comes from dubious sources and does not match up especially well with seemingly more accurate analyses. He writes the following:

The evidence about teen drinking and potential brain damage comes from two sources.

(1) The first source of evidence is from lab rats that are typically given very large doses of alcohol. Large enough quantities of alcohol appear to cause brain impairment in young rats, especially if given over a long enough period of time.

Interestingly, at lower levels of consumption, the “adolescent” rats tend to be less susceptible to motor impairment 10 and also less easily sedated than are older rats. The conclusions to be drawn from this for rats’ brains and alcohol isn’t clear.

A more serious problem is that rats aren’t humans and many if not most processes found in rats don’t apply at all to humans. For example, innumerable drugs cure diseases in rats but the vast majority of such drugs fail to do so in humans.

(2) The second source of evidence comes from humans. However, the humans who are studied are virtually always alcohol and/or drug dependent individuals. Not surprisingly, long-time alcohol abusers tend not to do as well at a variety of mental tasks as those who don’t abuse alcohol. 12

It appears that large enough quantities of alcohol can impair brain development in rats and that it can also do the same in humans. There’s no surprising news there.

These studies never deal with light or moderate alcohol consumption among young humans. However, “natural experiments” on drinking among young people have been going on for thousands of years around the world.

In many societies most people drink and they begin doing so in the home from a very early age. Examples familiar to most people include Italians, Jews, Greeks, Portuguese, French, Germans and Spaniards. 13 There is neither evidence or any reason to even suspect that members of these groups are brain impaired compared to those societies that do not permit young people to consume alcohol.

There appears to be absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the light or moderate consumption of alcohol by persons under the age of 21 causes any brain impairment or harm.

Moreover, in regards to the testing and subsequent analysis of rats, there have been concerns raised over the nature of those rats' exposure to alcohol (specifically dosage amount), and whether the equivalent human dosage would be anything near what's conventionally regarded as "moderate" alcohol" consumption. For instance, John Cloud notes the following in [i]Should You Drink with Your Kids? (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1816475,00.html):

It is accepted as an article of faith in the prevention community that "the teen brain" should not be exposed to any alcohol. But the research on alcohol and the young brain is actually quite murky. It has mainly shown that very high doses of alcohol given to adolescent rats (those roughly 40 days old) affect those animals differently from the way alcohol affects adult rats. In typical studies, the rats are injected with 5 g of alcohol per 1,000 g of their body weight, often after the rodents have been deprived of food for 12 hours. Rats metabolize alcohol about 10 times as fast as humans, but in a typical rat, this 5 g/kg dose on an empty stomach still results in a monumentally high blood-alcohol concentration. "It's difficult to compare to humans, but it's about a case of beer," says Aaron White, an alcohol researcher at the Duke University Medical Center--that's a case of beer ingested all at once.

Ultimately, the analysis of alcohol specifically damaging the teenage brain is somewhat dubious, as far as I'm concerned. Even if true, it wouldn't address the aforementioned validations of adolescents' competence to make rational and informed decisions, and what should arguably be a right to ingest or consume substances that may be potentially harmful if done with full knowledge of this. For instance, there is no sexist restriction preventing women from drinking as much as men, though men have a greater physical tolerance for ingestion of higher levels of alcohol than men; neither should there be ageist restrictions implemented if adolescent youth possess similar abilities to make rational and informed decisions.

Agnapostate

28th April 2009, 01:14

As for my own personal view of the age of sexual consent, I'm in favor of its abolition, not because I believe that it's beneficial for infants or young children to be engaging in sexual behavior, but as a rule, no age can be anything but arbitrary to one extent or another. It's true that reduced ages may be less arbitrary than increased ages, and I'd thus not have any extreme objection to setting a relatively low age of consent. I'm broadly in favor of the "youth liberation" scheme elaborated on by apathy, so I'm effectively in favor of the abolition of all age restrictions, not specifically the age of consent. So I believe that persons of any age who have demonstrated an ability to make rational and informed decisions should have the same rights of self-governance over their lives that "adults" currently do, including self-governance over their own sexual affairs. Ultimately, deviation would simply be inconsistent, though it might be justified in the short-term on the grounds of the inferior social status of "minors" to "adults."

More radically, I'm not of the opinion that "informed consent" is necessarily a critical facet of sexual activity (hence, I'm in favor of the legalization of other sexual behaviors typically considered "repugnant," such as bestiality, etc.) Human children are a far more complex matter than animals because of their ability to experience long-term psychological harm as a result of sexual abuse, but I'm not personally of the opinion that every single sexual interaction between adults and prepubescent children is abusive in nature, and that it might be prudent to distinguish between violent/coercive relationships and those that are rudimentarily "consensual," in determining what "punishment" or "treatment" might be assigned to the parties involved, if any. I'm aware of the unpopularity of that view, but I prefer empirical analysis to irrational and clearly untenable (to a fair-minded person), dogma.

Rascolnikova

3rd May 2009, 07:36

Regarding your points:
1) The point is that the tester is unable to determine who is a computer or not, except via the text medium. And, it only becomes "objective" if repeated tests agree with the finding.

That can only "objecively" determine a norm about interaction. If I were trying to develop a metric for maturity, it would center around decision making in various contexts.

2) How else would you test sexual maturity? And if you couldn't understand sexual consent until you were 22, well... Maybe the age of consent needs to be up to 22? (And what about the people who can't consent at all, no matter what the age? I.e. an age of consent is an absurd idea. Maybe the test could be modified to discuss sex instead of random stuff? I refer to my earlier solution in this thread; the metric shouldn't be about maturity, but rather about coercion. . . and it should take into account a wide variety of factors. Such a legal metric would never be precise, but in combination with active efforts to build a culture of non-coercion, I think it's the best we can do.

It is a seldom discussed reality that many children are sexual beings. Girls will sometimes masturbate from infancy. The question isn't "who is mature enough for sexuality," it is "how do we protect those who are unable to protect themselves, from having their sexuality co-opted by others."

3) It wasn't my idea (it was the original authors idea, I just re-mentioned it). And I don't understand your point at all actually. If it isn't something you're attached to, I don't feel the need to go into it.

4) Really, the only reason I introduced this test was because people were rattling of numbers as if they meant anything. Unless there is a systematic way of determining whether a person can meaningfully give consent, I suggest maturity would work as a stop gap.
But of course, it isn't the only thing. Considering that many many relationships between adults involve coercion, we have to look at everything. Unless we ban all sex, it's a bit hard to get rid of all coercion. And, if a 15 year old is just as mature as a 25 year old ...The goal isn't to get rid of coercion, though of course that would be nice; the goal is to create policy that accurately reflects the relative values we place on coercion and sex.

It's also worth mentioning that I've experienced subcultures where non-coerciveness was valued a lot less than sex, and where the opposite was true; the latter circumstances make for much, much better sex. I suspect this is especially true for the 15% plus of the female population who have survived sexual assault. Sometimes values are not as exclusive as they appear.

Eva

3rd May 2009, 21:37

None. I feel like establishing an age of consent infringes upon the rights of young people to make decisions in regard to their own sexuality. I believe that there should not be a contract dictating a specific age, but rather legislation protecting everyone, regardless of their age, from violence, manipulation, coercion, or any type of abuse in the context of a sexual or affective relationships.

MilitantAnarchist

3rd May 2009, 21:45

Since when has anyone listened to the age of consent anyway?
Of course 50year olds shouldnt be fucking 10year olds, any idiot knows that, and that 50year old should know better. Not everybody wants to fuck kids, people always presume that. Do you want to fuck a kid? of course not, neither do i.
Of course there are people who do, but the law doesnt make a difference to them anyway because those people are RAPISTS.

apathy maybe

4th May 2009, 14:48

What the hell do you know about science?! I'm not scientific enough just cause I didnt quote some nobody like "Joe Schmo the Eskimo" or "Bennett Haselton" like you did (whoever the fuck he is!!!) I chose 14 because thats when sexual maturity is usually underway in most adolescents. Whats your problem? why are so itching to cajole people into letting 9 year olds have sex with 60 year olds?????

It isn't about quoting someone, I merely quoted Bennett because he proposed a scheme that seemed workable to measure maturity. The scheme is the science part, not the fact that I quoted someone. (And Bennett Haselton is the founder of Peacefire (http://www.peacefire.org/)*, you can find more information about him -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_Haselton <- there.)

* "Peacefire.org was created in August 1996 to represent the interests of people under 18 in the debate over freedom of speech on the Internet." 1 (http://www.peacefire.org/info/about-peacefire.shtml)

As for your age of 14 being "when sexual maturity is usually underway in most adolescents", Wikipedia says "with average ages of 9 to 14 for girls and 10 to 17 for boys" for the beginning of puberty. So, all those 16 year old boys who haven't started puberty shouldn't be having sex should they. Except, with an age of 14, well...

As for saying I want 60 year olds to have sex with 9 year olds, care to quote where I said anything of the sort? I've been saying that to set an age of consent is absurd. Mind you, if a 9 year old is mature enough, and understands the issues, and wants to have sex, I don't see anything wrong with that. After all, I believe that children have the right to control their own bodies just as much as adults.

If that 9 year old wanted to have sex with a 60 year old (which is very unlikely I would suggest, I don't know why people keep bringing up such absurd age differences), and there was no coercion involved, what actually is the problem?

Or maybe you think that children shouldn't have rights? That they should be considered the property of their parents (as has been discussed on RevLeft before)? Or something equally absurd?

-----

More generally, even with an age of consent set at 16,18 or 21 (or any other age), there will still be people past that age who are unable to meaningfully consent to sex. They might have a very low IQ, be in a coma or whatever. If a person has sex with a person unable to consent, that is rape, no matter the age.

So, rather than setting an arbitrary age, why not just say, "meaningful consent has to be given", and then rule on a case by case basis?

(It was raised earlier in the thread that the court system wouldn't be able to cope. I didn't say bullshit then, but it is bullshit. The court system looks at complex issues all the time, sentences are given based on a variety of factors etc.)

redSHARP

5th May 2009, 08:25

is a number really going to stop people from having sex?

apathy maybe

5th May 2009, 10:21

is a number really going to stop people from having sex?

No, it's not. Many of the people here are saying though, it's not about stopping people having sex, but stopping old people having sex with young people.

The thing is though, what we see where there exists an "age of consent" for sex is that everyone gets punished.

There are stories all the time about fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen year olds getting prosecuted for having sex with each other, or with people within three years of each other.

I remember a story of a fellow who couldn't become a teacher, because when he was 19, he touched the breast of (and nothing else) his (then) 17 (I think) year old girlfriend. He was put on the sex offenders list for life...

As soon as you outlaw having sex with a person under a certain age, you outlaw anyone under that age having sex (with anyone). And, if they have sex with someone else the same age, you can punish both of them.

But, it doesn't stop them having sex.

Just like teaching "abstinence" instead of "condom use" doesn't stop teenagers having sex. It just means that they have unsafe sex, 'cause they don't know about condoms.

Killfacer

5th May 2009, 16:50

No, it's not. Many of the people here are saying though, it's not about stopping people having sex, but stopping old people having sex with young people.

The thing is though, what we see where there exists an "age of consent" for sex is that everyone gets punished.

There are stories all the time about fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen year olds getting prosecuted for having sex with each other, or with people within three years of each other.

I remember a story of a fellow who couldn't become a teacher, because when he was 19, he touched the breast of (and nothing else) his (then) 17 (I think) year old girlfriend. He was put on the sex offenders list for life...

As soon as you outlaw having sex with a person under a certain age, you outlaw anyone under that age having sex (with anyone). And, if they have sex with someone else the same age, you can punish both of them.

But, it doesn't stop them having sex.

Just like teaching "abstinence" instead of "condom use" doesn't stop teenagers having sex. It just means that they have unsafe sex, 'cause they don't know about condoms.

What sentance do these young people get? I bet they get fuck all done to them.

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 19:12

The pedophiles are also against an age of sexual consent. I voted for 14, but I would be ok with 16.

These kind of issues should be answered by scientific research instead of ideologues or ignorant people.

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 19:14

If that 9 year old wanted to have sex with a 60 year old (which is very unlikely I would suggest, I don't know why people keep bringing up such absurd age differences), and there was no coercion involved, what actually is the problem?

Because he/she is not capable of making such decisions, and this is scientifically supported.

Agnapostate

5th May 2009, 21:13

Because he/she is not capable of making such decisions, and this is scientifically supported.

I don't believe that 9 year olds should be engaged in sexual interactions with 60 year olds, but if I wanted to play devil's advocate, Weithorn and Campbell's data did indicate that 9 year olds were capable of making informed and competent decisions to some degree (not to the same extent as adults), and that was when they'd not been trained to do so.

Killfacer

5th May 2009, 21:18

I don't believe that 9 year olds should be engaged in sexual interactions with 60 year olds, but if I wanted to play devil's advocate, Weithorn and Campbell's data did indicate that 9 year olds were capable of making informed and competent decisions to some degree (not to the same extent as adults), and that was when they'd not been trained to do so.

To some degree? Well that ain't enough to be frank.

Agnapostate

5th May 2009, 21:41

Then read the study.