"Isn't she a little young?"

[Jon Miller]

I agree with diss

Jon Miler

[Whaleboy]

Puberty is not an instantaneous process, but instead involves a fairly predictable pattern of growth over a period of 5 to 7 years

And here's me thinking it involves witchcraft...

By age 12 most girls will have some significant breast development, modest curly pubic hair, and the beginnings of vaginal, labial, clitoral and internal development, but most are far from physically mature. Menstruation often begins at this age, but actual fertility often occurs 6 to 12 months later.

Well I'll concede on that, I was plucking a figure out of the air about when one becomes fertile.

My argument is a question of legality, which has to involve the capacity of the individual to decide. The emotional consequences of sex are given but that can only form part of an argument as to why people should rather not have sex until older, but thats not a necessarily tenable position hence my apparent ambiguity. To clarify, if we create a law solely upon the basis of the persons ability to decide, then it will be dependent upon the individual, and one is criminalising a lot of people for sex with, for example, 15 year olds. And before people launch into the ad hominems, I'm 19 and prefer older women .

Physical maturity is different from mental maturity.

My argument is that a reasonable figure for physical maturity should be used as something of a baseline, with coersion not to have sex until one is mentally mature.

It may seem like a weak argument to the point of untenable but I tend to go for consistency. Existentialism and sex usually work well together

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Whaleboy
To clarify, if we create a law solely upon the basis of the persons ability to decide, then it will be dependent upon the individual, and one is criminalising a lot of people for sex with, for example, 15 year olds.[/q]

Voting is also dependent solely on the basis of the person's ability to decide - not public safety, as you said. In fact, if it were on the basis of "public safety" (ie, the teenagers would make decisions we think are bad ones), it would be unjustifiable.

[Whaleboy]

Voting is also dependent solely on the basis of the person's ability to decide - not public safety, as you said. In fact, if it were on the basis of "public safety" (ie, the teenagers would make decisions we think are bad ones), it would be unjustifiable.

In the example of voting, numerous people are capable of deciding at the age of 16, but then many aren't capable until they are much older, some will probably never be able to consider the issues of an election but will still cast a vote based on the most expensive adverts and the shiniest foreheads . An assessment to qualify for the vote would be almost as good as abolishing democracy! If we base it on public safety, we wouldnt vote at all and install a libertarian, benevolent dictatorship (in my opinion)

[Kuciwalker]

My point being that having an arbitrary point for voting age is no different than an arbitrary point for any other right or ability of an adult - including the ability to give consent.

[DinoDoc]

Buch of pervs. Just **** people over the age of consent and then you won't have to worry about this.

[Whaleboy]

My point being that having an arbitrary point for voting age is no different than an arbitrary point for any other right or ability of an adult - including the ability to give consent.

I disagree, since there is a big difference between political rights and social rights. Essentially with a political right, you are granting an artificial, sociological right, whereas with the age of consent, you are granting a right to use your own body. It's like the difference between the right to wear what you want, and the right to order others to wear what you want.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Well I'll concede on that, I was plucking a figure out of the air about when one becomes fertile.

Those were some pretty scary figures to pluck out of the air considering the subject matter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I disagree, since there is a big difference between political rights and social rights. Essentially with a political right, you are granting an artificial, sociological right, whereas with the age of consent, you are granting a right to use your own body. It's like the difference between the right to wear what you want, and the right to order others to wear what you want.

What about contracts? Another example.

[Whaleboy]

Those were some pretty scary figures to pluck out of the air considering the subject matter.

10-12, 12-14 - its all arbitrary.

What about contracts? Another example.

To make a contractual deal, one assumes a measure of responsibility since that affects and requires other people. A girls ability to decide primarily affects herself, assuming that there will always be a quantity of men willing to sleep with her regardless, so the example of a legally verified contract is defunct.

[Kuciwalker]

A contract is between two people.

[Ted Striker]

Whaleboy what is the deal? I cannot believe you are thinking that lowering the age to 12 is realisitic.

You are either trolling or are not right in the head. Nobody in their right mind would pick those ages unless they are sick in the head. You are talking about children.

STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE UNITED STATES FOREVER

[Flubber]

Voting, entering contracts or consenting to sex.

The one thing I think everyone can agree with is that for each of these there is a time when people are too young and it is legitimate that the law disqualifies the young .

I think everyone would also agree that individuals mature at very different rates such that a 13 year old may be more aware, knowledgeable and sophisticated than a 16 year old. BUT since we it is impossible to do individualized testing/assessments, the best we can do is have an arbitrary cut-off age.

What should that age be ?? In Canada its 14 unless both parties are within 2years of each other and the age is 18 if one of the parties is in a position of authority over the other ( catches teachers, police, counsellor etc)

I don't know that 14 is old enough but thats where the law is . I can't even imagine what the legislatore in jurisdictions with lower ages were thinking.

[Whaleboy]

A contract is between two people.

But a contract is not a bodily or cognitive function. If you define a contract as a mutual agreement, then clearly age restrictions are as problematic as age restrictions on sex. Defining that agreement as something recognised by law however then that does concern other people and is secondary to the capabilities of a human, a bit like the difference between a will to go to the moon and the *right* to do thus.

Whaleboy what is the deal? I cannot believe you are thinking that lowering the age to 12 is realisitic.

Plucking a figure from the air. I don't think a flat statement of 16 slapped on everyone is sufficient, accurate or beneficial. What difference occurs between the ages of 15 years 11 months and 16 years one month that make this a consistent idea?

You are either trolling or are not right in the head.

Tough choice....

Nobody in their right mind would pick those ages unless they are sick in the head.

I'm not proposing lowering or abolishing the age of consent because I want to **** children (I prefer women older than me in any case). I'm proposing it because I think it will solve some problems.

You are talking about children.

STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE UNITED STATES FOREVER

[chequita guevara]

There's nothing wrong with an arbitrary age limit, as long as it is consistent. Almost everyone gets older, and thus will achieve "manumission."

Kids are idiots and we should not let them make important decisions without adult supervision.