Age of Consent

[TCO]

Mike, I'm not sure how these laws affect both ebing under the age. They are usually just against the person who is older. Not all are sex neutral also...

[MikeH]

That sounds similar to here I think.

[SpencerH]

Sorry, I wrote 16 but meant 15. The procedure I've seen more than once is that the person under the age of consent is not generally charged so long as they provide evidence. The severity of the charges and the prosecutorial zeal varies considerably from place to place. I vaguely recall a case where a 17 year old (I think) was facing life for having sex with his girlfriend who was under the age of consent. The girls parents were the driving force behind the charges and the prosecutors went along with it.

[MrFun]

EDIT:

fallacy argument deleted

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
If sexual relations between a 15 year old boy and a 40 year old man is morally right, then that is your opinion.

However, I simply disagree --- how can a teeanger relate with a significantly older adult in an intimate/romantic relationship??

Morally right or no is irrelevant. Many feel any homosexual relationship is morally wrong, but you certainly wouldn't say there should be laws prohibiting it?

Age differences are one thing, but such laws (like in Britain) also effected those of the same ages, prohibiting a 16 year old from sleeping with another one. While I'm not in favor of such behavior in general (as such things are, indeed, rarely done responsibly), making it illegal is, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional. I'm not in favor of prostitution in general, but it is also something I think shouldn't be illegal.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
Let's legalize murder -- after all, there are people who murder anyway.

This is unusually specious and fallacious, even for you.

There is no correlation between a consentual crime and a violent crime of this nature.

Now if you said:

"Let's legalize marijuana -- after all, there are people who smoke pot anyway."

I would say, yes. Legalize right away. Down with consentual crimes.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




This is unusually specious and fallacious, even for you.

There is no correlation between a consentual crime and a violent crime of this nature.

Now if you said:

"Let's legalize marijuana -- after all, there are people who smoke pot anyway."

I would say, yes. Legalize right away. Down with consentual crimes.

I still do not see the validity in legalizing all crimes that involve people consenting to non-violent acts, like sex or street drug use.

With any law enacted, there WILL be people who carry out such actions anyway -- so this is not valid grounds to abolish such laws if they are meant to protect people's health and safety.

[SpencerH]

The question is, do children have the right to give consent. Legally they dont unless they've been granted adult status (I forget the correct term). Children are not given the same rights and responsibilities as adults in order to protect them. This is one of those situations where protection from predatory adults can have odd consequences.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun


I still do not see the validity in legalizing all crimes that involve people consenting to non-violent acts, like sex or street drug use.

Because illegalizing them is invalid. It is a violation of a person's right to choose for themselves. It's the same with laws against suicide. It is the government telling people what to do with their own bodies. This is something you especially should understand intimately. There is no logical difference between making gay sex illegal and making prostitution or drug use illegal, or making rock climbing illegal for that matter. Anyone can cite potential risks to the well-being of the consenting persons involved and some sort of moral argument against them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The question is, do children have the right to give consent. Legally they dont unless they've been granted adult status (I forget the correct term). Children are not given the same rights and responsibilities as adults in order to protect them. This is one of those situations where protection from predatory adults can have odd consequences.

I suppose one potential solution is to have an age difference clause, so if there are x number of years between the person under 18 and the person over 18, it can be considered a crime. However, this seems a little arbitrary...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Because illegalizing them is invalid. It is a violation of a person's right to choose for themselves. It's the same with laws against suicide. It is the government telling people what to do with their own bodies. This is something you especially should understand intimately. There is no logical difference between making gay sex illegal and making prostitution or drug use illegal, or making rock climbing illegal for that matter. Anyone can cite potential risks to the well-being of the consenting persons involved and some sort of moral argument against them.

First off, sex between two mutually consenting adults is definitely legitimate -- no matter what sexual orientation the two adults are.

But, I draw the line when it involves sex between a 10 year old and a 45 year old, or a 15 year old and a 40 year old.


I want a society that has SOME boundaries --- where do you draw your boundaries, Boris??

[Tom201]

Laws should never be the inner bounderies, but the very outer bounderies. Morals can differ within these law bounderies.
If the morals of a significant percentage of the population overlap with the laws (outsite the law), the law definitions should move to the new boundery.

Thats how it should be (if you dont want to teach the ppl. the laws arent fair anyways, and there is no moral obligation to obey them)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun


First off, sex between two mutually consenting adults is definitely legitimate -- no matter what sexual orientation the two adults are.

But, I draw the line when it involves sex between a 10 year old and a 45 year old, or a 15 year old and a 40 year old.


I want a society that has SOME boundaries --- where do you draw your boundaries, Boris??

What were talking about here is what defines "mutually consenting." To say a 16 year old can't consent and isn't intelligent enough to make a decision is bull****. They may make the wrong decision, but they are capable of making the right one.

No one is arguing here about 10 year olds. We're talking 16, and IMO 16 is as good as 18 in terms of sexual maturity. Even 15. But if parents don't want their kids having sex that young, that's their responsibility, not the government to be babysitters. But when a person is physically mature enough to have sex, then they are ready to consent to it.

Now, if the instance is clearly one of coersion or abuse of authority in the sex act, of course that should be considered a crime. It's rape, same as for anyone. And I certainly draw a boundary at that.

But establishing 18 as a boundary for consentual sex is absurd, IMO. I think this further stigmatizes it, makes it "taboo," which in turn makes it all the more exciting for teens to go out do such things. So is 21 for drinking (If I can vote and be drafted, I sure as hell better have every other right of a legal adult).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think sex should be illegal for everyone. It would make it even more fun.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


What were talking about here is what defines "mutually consenting." To say a 16 year old can't consent and isn't intelligent enough to make a decision is bull****. They may make the wrong decision, but they are capable of making the right one.

No one is arguing here about 10 year olds. We're talking 16, and IMO 16 is as good as 18 in terms of sexual maturity. Even 15. But if parents don't want their kids having sex that young, that's their responsibility, not the government to be babysitters. But when a person is physically mature enough to have sex, then they are ready to consent to it.

Now, if the instance is clearly one of coersion or abuse of authority in the sex act, of course that should be considered a crime. It's rape, same as for anyone. And I certainly draw a boundary at that.

But establishing 18 as a boundary for consentual sex is absurd, IMO. I think this further stigmatizes it, makes it "taboo," which in turn makes it all the more exciting for teens to go out do such things. So is 21 for drinking (If I can vote and be drafted, I sure as hell better have every other right of a legal adult).

Yes, there is a qualitative diference between a 10 year old and 15 year old -- that is why I commented on those separately.

Physical maturity is not the only factor in determining if a person is ready for sex --- mental/emotional maturity is also an important factor.


I am flexible somewhat, as I am not opposed to 17 year old having sex with a 22 year old, for instance.