Age of consent

[PeterB]

And I ain't talkin' bout NewOrder, neither.


What the hell's the point of having an age of consent?

Why is it needed above and beyond rape laws?

Rape laws already say that you can't have sex with someone who's not consenting, and/or not capable of reasonably deciding to give their consent.

So why do we need an age of consent? If a person is lacking the ability to reasonably decide, then it's already breaking the law to have sex with them.

Age of consent laws do nothing to stop pædophiles, and removing them wouldn't make the actions of such people legal (unless both parties were willingly and knowingly consenting, natch).

What's the purpose of such laws?

Why are they needed?

[avalongod]

Well if you removed the "age of consent" laws, having sex with a 14 year old girl,...or say even a 4 year old girl, would be ok, so long as she "consented" Now you (one hopes), I and everyone else who is not a pedophile knows that certainly a 4y.o. and probably not most 14y.o. have the maturity to properly give "consent" for sex. the consent laws make it clear that people under a given age are not able to consent to sex (at least not with people over 18...sex between two youngins is mostly legal). If you got rid of the age of consent you lose statutory rape, lewd and lascivious with a minor, etc. Are you really advocating THAT?

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I think the point of the OP is that if a rape law prohibits sex "with an individual without the capacity to give valid consent," the age of consent is redundant, and also prohibits sex with some people who, despite a young age (say, 16) might have some increased level of maturity giving them the ability to give valid consent.

My answer is that the courts have neither the time nor the inclination to analyze the psyche and background of every minor who has sex with someone over 18. In general, we know that before a certain age, kids can't be relied on to make rational decisions regarding sex (there's even new research showing the teen brain goes through explosive growth, creating a markedly different brain structure than adults have), and we know that the young in general can be easy prey for unscrupulous adults. Therefore, it is far more efficient to select an age of consent and by doing so run the risk that we preclude some very mature 16-year-olds from screwing people over 18.

[RickJay]

I don't know why, but the age of consent in Canada is - in some circumstances - 14. I'll probably blow the details, but my understanding is that the way it works is that persons who may legally give consent comprise

- Anyone 18 or over OR
- 16 or 17 years old except to a person in a legal state of guardianship or a person who elicits consent by way of a false promise of marriage OR
- 14 or 15 years old providing they have had sex before, except to a person in a legal state of guardianship or a person who elicits consent by way of a false promise of marriage.

So technically, in Canada, as I get it, a man can have sex witha 14-year-old as long as he's not her (his?) legal guardian, doesn't promise to marry them, and they've had sex with someone else before.

Creepy, huh?

[Max Torque]

What the hell's the point of having an age of consent?

Why is it needed above and beyond rape laws?

Rape laws already say that you can't have sex with someone who's not consenting, and/or not capable of reasonably deciding to give their consent.

So why do we need an age of consent? If a person is lacking the ability to reasonably decide, then it's already breaking the law to have sex with them.

Age of consent laws do nothing to stop pædophiles, and removing them wouldn't make the actions of such people legal (unless both parties were willingly and knowingly consenting, natch).

What's the purpose of such laws?

Why are they needed?

The laws exist for a couple of reasons; one is to protect young girls, who are, in theory at least, incapable of giving consent to sex. It's easier for the legislature to draw an age-line and say, "above this age is OK, below is not OK" than to force the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the girl was mature enough to have given proper consent.

Another is that the State has an interest in preventing unwanted teen pregnancies. It meets this interest by making sex illegal by definition for a certain age group, discouraging sex and therefore reducing pregnancies.

What's your basis for saying that age-of-consent laws do nothing to stop pedophiles? Is it not at least plausible that some adults would prowl the high schools and dupe girls into consentual sex because they're easier prey than women their own age?

And I feel I should link to this website: Age Of Consent (http://www.ageofconsent.com/)

(note: Yes, age-of-consent laws apply to both genders. However, their reason for being and their application have always been quite sexist, so I focus on the female half of the equation. Deal with it.)

[tracer]

AerynSun wrote:

In general, we know that before a certain age, kids can't be relied on to make rational decisions regarding sex (there's even new research showing the teen brain goes through explosive growth, creating a markedly different brain structure than adults have),

Cite?

Are there any studies out there on teen-agers who have had sex with adults, and what the effects were?

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Gee, does "I read it in a magazine at my dentist's office" count? No? OK:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990809/nycu/teenbrain.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35524-2000Mar8.html

http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=73624

[Ptahlis]

It is also an expedient for the state. While the rape laws may already make it illegal for someone to have sex with a partner "not capable of reasonably deciding to give their consent," the alleged victim's mental state would have to be argued for each case where there was consent given. As it stands, if some guy literally charms the pants off a 14 year old, her daddy could have the guy up on charges even if she gave her consent. Without an age of consent law, he would have to have her evaluated by psychologists, as would the defense team. Then both of them would parade their experts vefore the court saying, "She was fit to decide." "Was not!" "Was too!" "Not!" and so forth.

I will be the first to admit that some people might be mature enough to make those decisions when they are under 18, or 16, or whatever the age is. For them and their lovers perhaps Age of Consent laws are indeed unfair. But, I am a father of 2 girls, and you had better believe that I think that the laws serve a good purpose: They might put the guy in jail before I got my hands on him.

[matt_mcl]

I agree with the OP, and I think the expediency arguments (let us deny justice because it would be more expedient) are appalling. As someone whose first time was before age 18, and completely consensual (not to mention incredibly fulfilling and spiritually enriching), I completely understand where the OP is coming from.

[doreen]

There's another reason besides the expediency argument. That is that people need to know in advance what's prohibited. Let's pretend an 20 year old has sex with a 14 year old, and there's no age of consent- the law relies on the phrase about "reasonably capable of consent" but doesn't specifically define what "reasonably capable " means. ( I used 14 and 20 because in at least some places it wouldn't be a crime if there was less than a five year age difference).The 14 year old's parents get upset, the evaluations would start and it's decided that the 14 year old is not capable of consent. The 20 year old has committed a crime,although the 20 year old may not have known in advance that the 14 year old wasn't capable of consent.
Even if you wanted to have capability evaluated on an individual basis,you'd still want to have an upper limit,above which a person could consent,without the possibilty of evaluation under normal circumstances. Otherwise,someone could claim a ( not mentally retarded, etc) 20 year old wasn't capable of consent. There are probably a few somewhere,depending on the definition of capable.
As it is now, the only things those under 18 _can_ consent to are related to sex. In places where the age of consent relies on an age difference, a 14 year old can consent to sex with a 15 year old. In (at least) some states, minors can consent to abortions,birth control and STD treatment. They _cannot_ legally give consent to their own appendectomy, going on a class trip, etc.
I understand the reasons for the exceptions regarding abortion, birth control and STD treatment and I don't think sex between a fifteen year old and a 19 year old is the same as sex between a 15 year old and a 40 year old,but I don't understand why people who believe that age of consent laws are unfair in relation to sex don't ever say its unfair that a 15 year old can't legally consent to surgery or any of the other things that minors can't consent to. ( I'm assuming the thinking is that the inability to consent is unfair to the minor, not to the partner)

[Max Torque]

If it makes you feel better, many age-of-consent laws have exemptions for males who are under the magical age themselves. Let's use my former home state, New Mexico, as an example:

30-9-11. Criminal sexual penetration.

[some subsection text snipped]

F. Criminal sexual penetration in the fourth degree consists of all criminal sexual penetration not defined in Subsections C through E of this section perpetrated on a child thirteen to sixteen years of age when the perpetrator is at least eighteen years of age and is at least four years older than and not the spouse of that child.

Behold, if you're under 18, you can't be convicted of statutory rape so long as your partner is within 4 years of your own age and over 13, or, to put it another way, persons from ages 13 to 17 can have consentual sex without fear.

Anyway, generally, the laws are designed to keep adults from preying upon the young, not to keep high school students from preying upon each other.

[tracer]

Thanks for the links, AerynSun! Now we can say with reasonable certainty that adolescent brains are still underdeveloped with respect to adult brains. (On average at least.)

I'd still like to see a study on people who'd had sex as teenagers with adults, to determine whether they were better or worse off because of it.

[tracer]

BTW, what I think is most appalling about the Age of Consent laws in most States is that, even if both parents of the teen-ager give their consent ahead of time -- in writing, notarized, and registered in the County recorder's office -- the adult having sex with the teen-ager is still committing an imprisonable crime! Unless he's married to the teen-ager! Gah!

No wonder I was completely unable to get laid as an adolescent.

[pepperlandgirl]

Correct me if I'm wrong about this.
I always operated under the assumption that the authorities will pretty much leave kids alone unless the parents press charges.
For example, last year before I moved, my grandfather was absoluetly CONVINCED that my BF and I were having sex on a regular basis. At the time, this was not true. I think the reason my grandpa believed this was simply because my BF is black/hispanic. Stupid reason huh? Anyway, he threatened my BF with prison,(It was 16, BF was 19) and I rushed to assure him that if my parents don't press charges, he has nothing to worry about. Obviously my parents didn't believe the disjointed ramblings of my grandpa, and never really gave it a thought. But was I right?

On the OP
There are a lot of sicko pedophiles out there. If there is no "age of consent" a 12 year old could say "Sure, sounds like fun to me!" That could be considered consent correct? Of course, more 12 year olds don't really know what sex entails both physically and emotionally. Some people could say "Yeah, but *I* was ready." That's great, good for you. But I'm still legally a child, and I still remember what it's like to be a child, and all of my peers are still "children" Some of them can't handle sex right now at age 16-17, and I know the majority of the people I knew couldn't handle it with an adult at age 12.
Have you ever tried to talk a child into something? I do it all the time when I talk my 11 year old sister into doing my chores. It's not that hard. I don't actually do these things, but I know they would work. I do have some scruples. Appeal to her heart ("Don't you love me? You'd do this if you love me") Appeal to her brain ("I know how smart you are. Smart kids do this all the time) Appeal to her self-esteem ("If you were worth anything, you would do this.") If you do that enough, break the child down, they'll "consent" to anything. And there is no legal repercussions for these actions if there are no "age of consent" laws.

[avalongod]

Pepperlandgirl:

My understanding of the law is limited, and in fact it may vary from state to state. My understanding of the practical side however is that 1.) police will not prosecute for statutory rape unless either the parents press charges, or there are some other extraneous circumstances...for instance if a teen girl is raped, but "rape" can not be conclusively proven, yet semen is collected, they might at least be able to nab him on SR. 2.) Even when parents do press charges, police and DAs are less than enthusiastic in persecuting these crimes unless there is something particularly licenscious about the circumstances.

[Bear_Nenno]

Well obviously laws are going to be different in every state and especially in other countries. I can tell you all how things are done here in the sunny state of Florida.

Sex without consent is ilegal at any age... duh!
Now sex WITH consent gets a little trickier.

If the victim (does not matter if male of female) is under 12 then the crime is a SEXUAL BATTERY, a CAPITAL felony. This varies a little depending on other factors like mulitple aggressors or underaged aggressors and so on. But for the most part it is a capital felony and they get to sit in OLD SPARKY the electric cahir for their crime.


794.011 Sexual battery.--
(2)(a) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony,

Now you are all wondering "What about 12 and 13 year olds? Can we have sex with them in Florida?"

Of course not!!
We have a crime for that too. It is usually a third or second degree felony depending on factors involved, but for the most part, any person having sex with or in front of a person under 16 is committing a crime. THAT INCLUDES A 15 YEAR OLD HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER 15 YEAR OLD. Someone posted earlier about a law in their state that lets people the same age, or close to the same age,have sex. Not here. Of course you have to consider the fact that no cop is going to arrest two high school freshman for having sex. At least I'm not! And if a parent complains that their daughter had sex with a boy and they want the boy arrested, their daughter would have to be arrested too, because two consenting 15 year olds having sex with each other are commiting a felony.

Sucks huh? and speaking of sucking, oral sex is ilegal here too. but that is an issue for another thread.

No you are asking yourselves. "So we can have sex with people over 16 right??"

Well maybe.. This is where the age of consent comes on. 16 and 17 year olds can have sex with anyone under 24. So teenagers can start having sex at 16 and they do not have to worry when their partner turns 18 before they do, or anything like that. 16 - 23 is a pretty big gap but that is how it is here. And anyone 24 or older who has sex with a 16 year is commiting a crime. But a 23 year old shagging away with a person on their 16th birthday is doing nothing wrong, at least not legally wrong.

794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.--
(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

None of the laws here are sexually biased. Females have been sentenced for sexual battery on males and even other females.

Hope this helps....

Bear

[SuaSponte]

BTW, what I think is most appalling about the Age of Consent laws in most States is that, even if both parents of the teen-ager give their consent ahead of time -- in writing, notarized, and registered in the County recorder's office -- the adult having sex with the teen-ager is still committing an imprisonable crime! Unless he's married to the teen-ager! Gah!

No wonder I was completely unable to get laid as an adolescent.


What's appalling about this? Parents do not own their child under the law. Are you saying that a parent should be able to allow their eight-year old child to become sexually active? (I know you said teen-ager in your post, but there is no difference - if a parent is allowed to decide when their child can have sex, than they can decide that at any age). Personally, I find it bizarre that there is a marriage exception to (some) age of consent laws - if a child is deemed legally incapable of giving informed consent to sex, how the hell can they give informed consent to being married?

Several posters have given the correct rationale for age of consent, e.g., cognitive immaturity of children, prevention of adults preying on kids (while usually allowing kids to get it on amongst themselves), not burdening the courts with individual assessments of maturity, and, most important, Doreen's notice argument.

Pepperlandgirl about the law leaving people alone unless parents press charges, nope. Usually, that's how statutory rape charges are raised, but if a cop were to bust a 13 year-old and a 25 year-old in flagrante delicto at the local lover's lane, you can bet statutory rape charges will be filed, even over the kid's parents' objections. Quite frankly, if the parents object and admit they gave permission, they are likely facing child endangerment or conspiracy charges. As damn well they should.

V.

[MysterEcks]

doreen said:

I don't understand why people who believe that age of consent laws are unfair in relation to sex don't ever say its unfair that a 15 year old can't legally consent to surgery or any of the other things that minors can't consent to.

All age laws--age of consent, age to drive, age to drink, what have you--are rough approximations. At what age is a person emotionally/intellectually capable of consenting to sex, or to surgery? There's no real answer for this, because it's different for each individual. But it would be nearly impossible to devise a test to determine this on a case-by-case basis--and it would be very time consuming and costly as well. Hence the existence of such age laws.

I have known at least one young girl who, had she decided to have sex at the age of 13, my personal inclination would have been to say she was capable of making that decision. (She wouldn't have made it lightly, and in point of fact she didn't do it.) I have known a few others who were in their late teens and early 20s, and thus over the age of consent, who I didn't think were really mature enough to make those decisions. There are going to be contradictions like that with any age law.

But to answer the OP...while I think the specific age for the age of consent can be debated, and I can think of times it would be desirable to have exceptions, I wouldn't favor eliminating such laws completely. Sex carries with it a whole bundle of physical and emotional implications--some of which it shouldn't, but it does. There are too many predators out there, and too many younger people who don't yet understand what they'd be getting into.

[doreen]

MysterEcks, I think I might not have been clear. I don't have any problems with age of consent laws. I've come across a few people who do, however.They generally seem to feel it's unfair that someone can't legally consent to sex because of an arbitrary age.( matt_mcl might be in this group). They don't say that anything else based on an arbitrary age (consent to surgery, right to be suppported by parents) is unfair, only consenting to sex. I don't know if they think the ability to consent to sex is somehow different from these other areas, or if they just don't think of them. The argument would be more consistent if they were to advocate getting rid of all age based laws, but they don't.

[tracer]

pepperlandgirl wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong about this.
I always operated under the assumption that the authorities will pretty much leave kids alone unless the parents press charges.

Child Protective Services can press charges too, I believe. As can the kids.

Another problem is that, if the teen-ager and both of his/her parents give their consent (even if it's in writing), but then later the teen-ager or the parents change their minds and decide retroactively that they were against it, they can press charges and send the adult "perpetrator" to prison.

[PeterB]

Doreen: I do.

I think that everything - including such things as driving -- should be permitted for those who are capable of doing them. With some provisos. For instance, I could drive (as in, knew how to work a car, how to push the pedals, work the gears, etc.) when I was 13 or 14. I couldn't drive safely (reach the pedals easily, keep my temper, be vaguely aware of what was going on around me) 'til I was 17 or 18 (I could reach the pedals easily before that, but the other stuff...).

The ability to be tried as an adult is (in this country, at least, certainly for some crimes, if not all) decided on the circumstances of the individual, rather than blanket and arbitrary laws.

So, no, it's not just sex.

[doreen]

Okay, PeterB, you're partway there,but I wasn't just talking about permission. Minors have certain rights that adults don't have.Minors have a right to be supported by their parents, but adults don't. Minors can't be held to a contract, but adults can.
You've got a point with the individual basis for being charged as an adult, but even there, there's a minimum age before the individual decision is made. I doubt if a 7 year old is charged even as a juvenile anywhere in the US,(certainly not in NY), and as far as I know, all the laws allowing juveniles to be tried as adults require a minimum age (possibly different ages for different crimes).
Would you say those arbitrary age limits should also be abolished? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but your driving example sort of confused me with the provisos.I'm not really sure if you think there should be no age distictions, if you just think the line is drawn at the wrong place,or if you think the parent's permission should be sufficient. Suppose a thirteen year old was physically able to drive. Who should decide if he or she is mature enough ( keeping their temper,being aware, etc)? What about an eight year old?

Doreen

[tracer]

Minors can't be held to a contract because they can't make a contract. I hardly see that as a right minors have but adults don't.

I guess my biggest objection to the age-of-consent laws for sex is that they come at the END of puberty. I'd like to see them come at the BEGINNING of puberty.

[MysterEcks]

doreen: I'm sorry--it is I who has been unclear. I used your quote to slide into my discussion of age laws in general, but my final paragraph was directed at PeterB's OP rather than what you said.

PeterB: Ok, then, the question becomes how do you determine who is emotionally and intellectually ready to consent to sex? Could my 13-year-old friend go take a sexual readiness test down at the county building or something? What would this test entail? Would she then be given a licence with her picture and everything? And what say do her parents have in all this?

I get this image of a conversation between mother and daughter:

"Mom, I'm gonna go over to Dan's house and have sex."

"Did you finish your homework?"

"I'll do it later."

"There will be no sex with Dan until you get your algebra done, young lady!"

Sorry, Peter--I don't really mean to make fun of you. I see what you're saying, and I agree in the sense that any age law is going to exclude those who are actually ready for that activity. I would personally not put the age of consent above 16, and I'd at least be willing to listen to arguments for either making it lower or having a mechanism to grant exceptions. (Maybe even those licences.)

But...going back to your OP, you seem to be advocating letting the courts decide the issue on a case-by-case basis as problems arise. This would mean it depended in large part on the luck of draw--does the person up on charges get the tough anti-kiddie-sex judge or the lenient pro-kiddie-sex judge? The bluenose jury who likes to punish sin, or the laid back jury which has three members who have crushes on their own kids' friends? There is way too much discretion there--and I don't see how it could be otherwise, since this is really a judgment call rather than a science. It's a recipe for getting both younger people and older people hurt.

And it would also open the floodgates--anything that can be done will be done. Oh, the serious pedaphiles won't care--they're gonna prey on kids regardless--but there would most certainly be an increase in older people having sexual relationships with younger people. Say, for example, 36-year-old MysterEcks gets involved with a 12-year-old girl--what are the possible outcomes? There's maybe one chance in a thousand (and I'm most likely overestimating by a hell of a lot here) that she and I hit the jackpot--true lasting love, and she doesn't mind that I'm gonna croak (barring accident or major illness) some 30 years earlier than she. There're maybe four chances in that thousand that nothing lasting occurs but nobody gets hurt. (Again, I'm overestimating.) That leaves 995 chances out of those 1000 that it was a really bad idea, whether I end up in the pokey for it or not...and most of those 995 times, it's the 12-year-old who gets hurt. And we are talking about the kind of emotional hurts that people my age don't always recover from, let alone 12-year-olds or young teens.

I'm very libertarian, especially on sex--it's not an area I want the government meddling in at all. And I am well aware that the world can't be made safe--there is a price for freedom, and sometimes there are casualties. But in terms of sex it can be made safer, at least for a little while. The best way to do this is to have some sort of standards, and that's why I can't buy the idea of completely eliminating the age of consent.

[SoxFan59]

Well, maybe no literally, but this thread certainly has me experiencing a serious case of deja vu.

Ben would be proud!

All we need is PeterB to respond to each post with "Why?"

[MysterEcks]

SoxFan59: Huh?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

There is also a huge difference between desiring a teenager, who is sexually, but not emotionally mature, and desiring a child, who is neither. Pedophilia is a mental sickness, and very dangerous. At 12, we are talking about children, not mature individuals.

[yosemite]

I want to elaborate upon something that has been touched upon here previously... Minors are not totally responsible for themselves - they cannot enter into a contract, they do not support themselves. Their parents are financially responsible for their care.

If a 14 year old girl is sexually active, and gets pregnant, who usually ends up footing the medical bills? Who is more financially responsible - the kid, or her parents? Most likely, it'll be the parents (or the taxpayers.) The parents will end up with more of the responsibility, and burden. Because they are the "adults". A 14 or 15 year old kid is, well, a "kid". Sure, there are some who are holding down jobs and are totally responsible, but I am guessing the majority are not. If a kid thinks they are "mature" enough to have sex, do they think they are mature enough to foot all the bills themselves if a pregnancy or STD occurs?

The thing with abolishing age-restriction laws is that people usually want the laws restricting fun things (sex, driving) to be done away with. But I don't hear people demanding that minors not be supported by their parents, starting at age 14, or whatever.

[Jman]

First of all, I'm 22, and the thought of having sex with a 14 year old is disgusting to me...I think anyone who's over 19 or 20 and is trying to have sex with someone under 15 is pretty nasty to begin with. Anyway, about the laws..

Do you know how many young girls are in awe of older men? Tons. Let's say a 14 year old has a crush on her hot 25 year old science teacher. (this happens a LOT). Said science teacher notices that she stares at him all dreamy eyed. So he tests the waters, starts talking to her about how pretty she is, etc. Most girls in this situation would be extremely flattered and amazed that this hot teacher likes them. This is where the problems come in. If the teacher were to ask the girl to have sex with him, a lot of 14 year old girls would not have the courage to turn him down, even if they really didn't feel comfortable doing anything physical. Things would be running through her head like, "Ooooh, he likes me, and he's an older man. I'd better show him I'm mature, or he might not like me any more." or "If I say no, maybe he'll tell my parents I am doing badly in class, or something else." or "Wow, he's dreamy, I'd better not screw this up." Any of those are basically the girl consenting out of fear. Whether that's fear of getting in trouble with the teacher, fear of getting bad grades, or fear of losing this older man's admiriation if she doesn't show him she's a big girl. It becomes too easy. It also becomes an ego thing. People want to have sex with an older person to 1-up their friends, not realizing what is in store for them emotionally. I agree that there should be a 3-4 year age difference exception, so that a sexually active couple won't be committing statutory rape when one is 16 and the other 17, and the 17 year old just turns 18.

Jman

[cjd1984]

...to the days of puberty? The body is literally overwhelmed with new feelings and sensations. To have an age of consent is probably a good idea, since it's intent is to deter sex before the overwhelmed teen is ready.
In and of itself, sex , regardless of age, is not wrong between 2 consenting persons. It's a natural instinct for continuing the human race (you know, the ACTUAL reason for sex). In it's wisdom (and for once I am serious about that) the law has determined that sexual activity with a person under a certain age, is rape (statutory rape meaning that the law has defined a certain act as rape, regardless of it's actual meaning). A teen who is overwhelmed with the new sensations overtaking their body is probably not prepared to make a sound decision on whether or not they are ready to have sex. So the law has made the decision for them, since it is probably obvious that alot men cannot be trusted to make that decision (and yes, I am a male).

[MysterEcks]

Danielinthewolvesden: I assume your comment was directed at what I said, since I used a 12-year-old in my hypothetical. I'll mostly agree with you, but not completely. There are 12-year-olds (of both genders) who are emotionally and intellectually mature enough to consent to sex--a fairly small minority of the total, certainly, but they are there. That, I think, is the whole point to this thread--no matter where you put the age of consent, you will almost certainly exclude someone who shouldn't be. That sort of thing can't be helped, short of abolishing the age of consent (and every other age law, for that matter)--which, you will notice, I'm not in favor of.

As it happens, I chose age 12 for a reason. You will find there are at least two states in the United States which have 12 as their minimum age for marriage (Massachusetts and Kansas) (this minimum age is for girls; the age for boys is higher). Also, if you check out the age of consent website Max Torque posted above, you will find at least four contries which have 12 as their effective age of consent (Argentina, Malta, The Netherlands, and Spain.) So while 16 seems to be the most common age of consent in the US, other countries come to different conclusions on the matter. Twelve seems awfully low--I have no idea why these countries set the age there--but there is at least enough sentiment for it to argue the point, which is why I used it in my example.

[Cam]

Well, I'm in New Zealand and I can say the laws are pretty much the same here. The age of consent is 16. There is no provision in the law for two underage kids, but even if the kid's parents wanted to have the cops press charges they'd be sent home to go and chat with their kids themselves. I really can't think of the last time I heard about any statutory rape charges happening here; anything too solicius would be dealt with by rape. Having said that, one of the more important ministers in the government has just been sacked for an alleged impropiety with a girl under the age of consent nearly 16 years ago. That actually reminds me of a weird one; it's illegal to have sex with anyone that is under your care who's under 21 (section something of the crimes act). In reality here, unless there's a BIG age difference the cops are going to let it be dealt with by the families involved. But just don't try and become a minister-it gets messy. Anyway, just the view from here.

[tracer]

MysterEcks wrote:

I'm very libertarian, especially on sex--it's not an area I want the government meddling in at all. And I am well aware that the world can't be made safe--there is a price for freedom, and sometimes there are casualties. But in terms of sex it can be made safer, at least for a little while. The best way to do this is to have some sort of standards, and that's why I can't buy the idea of completely eliminating the age of consent.

But consider:

If an adult man wants to have sex with a particular 14-year old girl
And the girl wants to have sex with the man
And the girl knows all about what's involved with sex and what the dangers are (or as much as a reasonable modern 18-year-old should know, at least)
And both of the girl's parents give their consent (perhaps with conditions, like condoms must be used and the man must present valid copies of STD tests beforehand)
And the parents and girl hold a belief that sex during ones adolescence is good for your emotional well-being both then and later

... then who are they harming by carrying out their desires?

If you say "themselves, potentially," then you're playing the Nanny. If you say "the girl isn't old enough to fully comprehend what she's getting into", then who has the right to determine when she is old enough? The state? The American Psychiatric Association? Do you really want to put your faith in either of these bureaucracies?

[MysterEcks]

I see what you're saying, tracer, and I agree up to a point. That's why I also said:

I would personally not put the age of consent above 16, and I'd at least be willing to listen to arguments for either making it lower or having a mechanism to grant exceptions. (Maybe even those licences [sic].)

But the problem is, it's not just going to be 14-year-olds. Sometimes it's going to be 12-year-olds. And 10-year-olds. And eight-year-olds. I've already said there are 12-year-olds who are mature enough to have sex; I'm willing to postulate that there may be a handful of 10-year-olds and an eight-year-old who are mature enough, too. But the very large majority of those under 12 (to use the Dutch age of consent) are not mature enough for sex and the baggage which comes with it...and 12 is pretty iffy. Fourteen...well, I'd say about half and half. (It's been a long time since I was those ages--I'm lucky I can remember two weeks ago, let alone 22 years.) And I would submit that the vast majority of those who want sex with younger people are only looking to get laid--they have no intention of building a true romantic relationship with the younger person. (I realize this reflects my own views on sex in general, and is therefore more-or-less irrelevant, but I'm going to be a lot more sympathetic to an older person who actually falls in love with a young teen than I am to some vulture who just likes young noogie.)

There are only three solutions to the question that I can see. One is to declare open season--no age of consent, hope for the best. This is my position on most things, actually--but here we're talking about a class of people who are completely in thrall to their elders. The second possibility is to do what I read PeterB's OP as advocating--take it on a case-by-case basis in the courts when problems arise. I dealt with my opposition to this in an earlier post.

The last solution is the one we use, the age of consent--the drawing of a line. It seems to me this is the way that best protects the most people and hurts the fewest. Yes, having an age of consent will inevitably put some people on the wrong side of the line...but so does any age law of any sort, from drinking to driving to voting. I don't know for sure where I myself would draw the line--no higher than 16, maybe as low as 13 (I think 12 is too low, at least in terms of having sex with adults). And I would probably go along with some way of granting waivers or exemptions in a case such as you describe--a younger person who is in fact mature and informed enough to make those choices. But I can't see getting rid of the age of consent entirely.

I have absolutely no quarel with two consenting people doing whatever they want sexually--or, for that matter, with 200 consenting people who wanna lay in a great big pile. I do not now and have never believed that sex is "evil" or "sinful" somehow. But there is all sorts of emotional and societal baggage that goes with sex--much of it shouldn't, but it does anyway--and there is a minimum of maturity and knowledge needed to know what it entails. Those who don't have that maturity and knowledge need some minimal protection until they have a reasonable chance at figuring it out. And for lack of a better standard, that leaves us with age.

[pepperlandgirl]

I think some of you are looking through the eyes of the adults you are. It's been a while since your first time, it's been a while since puberty, it's been awhile of painful crushes on older men (and women).
Well, it's only been a few years for me. I remember all that stuff very vividly. I also know my peers and how mature they are. I also have some experience now. I think the age of consent laws are great, and they should stay. Otherwise, some sick individuals would legally be able to manipulate some lil girls to sex.

[MysterEcks]

pepperlandgirl said:


I think some of you are looking through the eyes of the adults you are.

I'm sure you are right. You're 16 or 17, right? You're some 20 years closer to the ages we're talking about than I, so I have no doubt you can visualize them better. (Though I think I do pretty well for someone who actually lived those ages during the Carter Administration.)

At the same time, remember that I--and probably most of the others in this thread--am younger than the average state legislator who votes for or against these laws. That, perhaps, is part of the conundrum with age laws in general--they are imposed by those who are so far from the ages in question that they may not remember what it's like to live them.

I also know my peers and how mature they are. I also have some experience now. I think the age of consent laws are great, and they should stay. Otherwise, some sick individuals would legally be able to manipulate some lil girls to sex.

Ok, pepper, then the obvious question is this: where should the line be drawn? At what age are they no longer "lil girls" (or lil boys, for that matter) who we will not allow to make sexual decisions?

The answer to this question has more than one answer, as I've already mentioned in this thread. If you look at the website Max Torque posted near the beginning of this thread, you will find ages of consent vary internationally from 12 (The Netherlands, Spain, etc.) to 21 (Trinidad and Tobago). While the most common age of consent in the United States seems to be 16, states vary from 14 (Hawaii, probably Iowa (there are questions on some of them)) to 18 (several). I seem to recall that you live in California--are you aware that you are under the age of consent in that state? (It's 18.) Do you agree with that? Do you think it should be lower? If so, where should it be? And, for that matter, would you agree or disagree with my suggestion that some kind of waiver system for those who are in fact (rather than by attaining an arbitrary age) mature enough to make those decisions should be considered?

(See what happens when you end up being the house expert on something? Some yutz demands answers from you.)

[pepperlandgirl]

Yes, I am 17, I'll be 18 in September.
I seem to recall that you live in California--are you aware that
you are under the age of consent in that state? (It's 18.)

Yeah, I was aware that the age of consent is 18. It's the same as Utah.
And, for that matter, would you agree or disagree with my suggestion that
some kind of waiver system for those who are in fact (rather than by attaining an arbitrary age) mature
enough to make those decisions should be considered?

Here's what I think should be the laws.
Legal Age of Consent=18
Waivers for the minimum age of 16 but only if the other partner is under 21.
I say this because I know many people who lose their virginity at 16 who seem to be able to handle it. And some parents are aware of it and is cool with it, and some are not. But the point is, people under 16 are not prepared emotionally for sex, or physically for child birth. End of story. I've SEEN it firsthand. I LIVE with these people who are sexually active, or who had children as children. This should not be tolerated, no matter how mature the girls (and boys) "feel". From the age of 12-15 is the most vulnerable times for young people. Young ladies feel ugly because of the changes in their body, and will eagerly seek affirmation, and give in to pressure from older people. By essentially giving adults permission to exploit these young ladies, we are guarenteeing more teenage pregnancies, and emotional trauma.
Does all of this make sense? It's late. Hope you can figure out what I'm trying say.

[Odesio]

What the hell's the point of having an age of consent?

Why is it needed above and beyond rape laws?


There are different kinds of rape under the law. For example statutory rape isn't considered the same as forcible rape. I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on television, but I believe forcible rape has to involve immediate physical threat or harm.

Check out the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics and you'll be able to see the different classifications of rape they have.

Marc

[MysterEcks]

pepperlandgirl: I assume you've read my posts in this thread, so you already know where I disagree with you. I won't go into it again here.

But I find this interesting:

Here's what I think should be the laws.
Legal Age of Consent=18
Waivers for the minimum age of 16 but only if the other partner is under 21.

This isn't what I meant by "waiver," but never mind. Apparently such a split age of consent is how it's done in some places. The one I found offhand is Florida, which has a general age of consent of 18, but also grants an exception down to 16 if the partner is under 24. I have no idea what the significance of under 24 is...but then I don't understand your distiction of under 21, either.

I have to say that I don't think much of this kind of split age of consent. If 16-year-olds are mature enough to choose sex, then I don't see the point of limiting them to an age range. If, on the other hand, 16-year-olds are not mature enough to make these choices, then I don't see that they should have the protection/disability removed at all--at least not in terms of a partner significantly older than themselves. If we are going to make generalized distinctions about maturity levels in this manner, 16-year-olds should be limited to those 18 or under--20 is too high. (We are speaking in general here, of course--the entire age of consent issue is general rather than specific.)

[pepperlandgirl]

MysterEcks, I will answer your questions tomorrow when I post. I'm too tired tonite.