"Isn't she a little young?"

[Saint Marcus]

Nope -- I just can't swallow the possibility of legitimate recognition of a 30 year old man who wants to "get it on" with a 15 year old girl.

what about a 50 y/o man with an 18 y/o girl? Hardly any different.

[MrFun]

I find that questionable too, Saint -- but intergenerational relationships betwen two consenting adults should not be prohibited. Even if an 18 year old woman -- not girl -- wants to have sex and/or a relationship with a 50 year old man.

Adults are responsible for themselves -- even when they are doing harm to themselves by engaging in unhealthy, but legal behavior.

Children and teenagers are not independent, and therefore, are not wholly responsible for themselves in the same way adults are.

[General Ludd]

An 18 year old is still a teenager.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This stops you from logging into your account.

Well, he has his computer cookied for everything, so he's rather I didn't mess them up.

Originally posted by DinoDoc

But hey, carry on with the ad hominems, if it makes you happy.

I'm just trying to see why your trying to justify moving in on young kids. Especially with you being 19 with a girlfriend.

I'm justifying people aged 14-17 being able to decide for themselves. I don't like the idea of a 30 year old man with a 15 year old girl, but I don't see it much different from a 30 year old man with an 18 year old girl. 15 year olds now are far mroe self aware than my year was at that age, because people grow up faster now. Many people complain children grow up so fast they hardly have a childhood. They do mature earlier than they used to. I think a 15 year old can decide whether or not they want to go out with someone, or sleep with them. I think the age of the other person doesn't affect their ability to decide. If someone is taking advantage of someone, then as in all occasions, that's bad, but blanket rulings that no-one under 18 can have sex is a bit far IMHO.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by General Ludd
An 18 year old is still a teenager.

Yes, but that is also the age when many parents decide to allow their son/daughter to move out on their own if they have proven themselves to be mature, and responsible enough.


How many parents allow their kids to move out on their own at age 13 even if they prove to be more mature than some 18 year olds??

[Dr Strangelove]

Moving on to a related subject, I saw a patient today who reminded me of a similar problem we have in our society. She was sitting on a table, and as I entered the room she chanted: " Doc.....shot.......Mommy......home". She talks like a 2 year-old, but she's 28, and she saw me today for guess what?

Oh come on, guess.

[MrFun]

a pregnancy?

[Dr Strangelove]

Birth control. It seems that even though she has the mental development of a toddler and is a ward of the state she has the right to make decisions about her own sexuality. Her caretakers are expressly fobidden to interfere in such activities. Presumably this not only includes interactions with her mentally retarded peers, but could also allows her to be seduced by a non-retarded person.

What do you think?

[Kuciwalker]

How would a two-year-old know to ask for birth control?

[Dis]

what's her phone number?

[Whaleboy]

So we see Doc that ones ability to decide is not strictly related to age. Being able to decide can occur before or after 16.

[MrFun]

Whaleboy -- it is nearly unfeasible to customize legal laws on an individual basis.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Birth control. It seems that even though she has the mental development of a toddler and is a ward of the state she has the right to make decisions about her own sexuality. Her caretakers are expressly fobidden to interfere in such activities. Presumably this not only includes interactions with her mentally retarded peers, but could also allows her to be seduced by a non-retarded person.

What do you think?

this is sad

[Ben Kenobi]

I disagree, but I'm a libertarian not a moral-absolutist. The law is a simple system of saying what is acceptable in societies eyes, not a system of what is right in the individual's eyes.

And generally, what is acceptable in the individual case, will also be so with society. There can be notable exceptions, which is what I am looking for here. It seems to me, that in the vast majority of cases, it is only beneficial to have a policy restricting sexual contact between minors and adults in order to protect the minors.

Even if there are a few girls who do quite well in the situation, this does not justify the vast majority of the cases where things do not work out.

Now, this is not even from a moral absolutist, but rather from Mill. The privilege of one cannot be used to justify the punishment of many.

No, but ideally that should form part of the individuals decision in this regard, not their allowance to make such a decision. I don't think the reasons as to why "one" shouldn't are sufficient in the context of a libertarian looking for a consistent legal position to say "all" mustn't.

Again, what is the primary goal of consent limitations? To protect the vunerable or provide freedom? I would argue the former and not the latter.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dr. Strangelove:

What do I think about that situation? It is sad that there are predators who would take advantage of these people.

Yet, it is also not right that they should be treated differently than other persons with respect to their fertility.

Therefore, while they ought not be required to take contraceptive drugs, due to the potential side-effects of such drugs, they ought to be properly taken care of, such that they are not exploited by those who wish to take advantage of their innocence.

As for the other case, where they might experiment with others who are mentally handicapped, there are worse things than a perfectly healthy baby.