Age of consent, again [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Random

08-22-2005, 02:02 PM

From this week's News of the Weird, published in our very own Chicago Reader:

In Lebanon, Ohio, Donna Rose, 39, pleaded guilty in June after being accused by prosecutors of allowing an older man to have sex with her then-15-year-old daughter. Rose's behavior came to light when the man was arrested, at which time he produced a note, signed by Rose, which he apparently believed would absolve him. The note read: "(Curtis Lee Barnes) always had and will (have permission to have sex) until she is 18 or until they break up."
Link to full column:
http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/nw050814.html

I know that the board has discussed this issue before (even though I don't recall participating), but this one intrigued me. It presents a new twist on an old debate.

I'm in favor of reasonable age of consent ("AOC") laws, but am uncomfortable with how they are sometimes enforced. For example, I think that lifetime child sex-offender list status for an 18 year-old guy who slept with his 16 year-old GF is nonsensical. I also think that the use of any phrase which uses the word "rape" to label the crime being committed here is unfortunate. (Reserve that for actual, non-"statutory" situations, or where the victim is below, say, 13 year of age, or where the perpetrator abuses a position of authority.) But all of this is just background explanation. These aren't the issues I want to debate.

Two points get made (almost inevitably) on this issue. First, that persons below a certain stage of mental/social development are not sufficiently mature to have a sexual relationship, or to decide to start one. Accordingly, the actual consent of the minor is considered legally meaningless. Second, in response to an argument that some minors below the AOC are in fact objectively mature enough to make sexual decisions, it is argued that "the line has to be drawn somewhere", and that any alternative means of determining whether a particular minor is ready for sex would be impossibly cumbersome. I agree with the first point and, until today, agreed with the second. Now I have some doubt on the second point.

When I read the NOTW blurb, my knee-jerk reaction was close to the one that the author of this humor column probably intended: laugh at the idiocy of the yahoos involved. Images of backwoods trailers or inner city single-parent situations are evoked. But that's not necessarily the case here. (I have deliberately not researched the Rose case any further - the particular facts of that situation are irrelevant to this debate.)

My debate question: Should parents be allowed to give consent to sexual activity by their minor children, assuming the child is above a certain minimum age? For illustration purposes, let's assume a general AOC of 18 and a parental consent AOC of 15.

Consider the following scenarios: (Note: I am going to use blunt, even stereotypical descriptors, both because they're an efficient way of presenting these hypotheticals and, by generating a reaction, they might remind some readers that we all have unconscious prejudices, and the scenario that the NOTW blurb evokes is not necessarily the only situation possible.)

Scenario 1: Crack mom in city slum. Prostitutes her 15 year old for drugs. Moesha "consents" under parental pressure, or because he/she is an addict as well.

Scenario 2: Sixties holdover parents. Believe sex forms a mystical bond that everyone should enjoy. Parents open about their sexuality, and kids aware of parents' sexual activity from an early age. Daughter Blossom (age 16) meets 22 year old Torquil at the annual commune reunion. Parents all approve of week-long
relationship.

Scenario 3: Educated, liberal, upscale parents. 17 year-old Alison's parents thoroughly approve of 19 year-old Adam, who is pre-law at Stanford. Alison and Adam have been dating exclusively for a while. They met last year at high school. Parents are aware that Alison is mature, both socially and intellectually, and that she's had prior sexual experience, which they're not too thrilled about, because Alison went through a wild-child phase at 15, and they think the guys that she was with were losers. Adam's a big improvement in their minds, and they hope the relationship lasts. Even if it doesn't, they don't want Adam to risk any statutory rape charge that might interfere with his future career. Adam and Alison have been tested for STDs, and Alison is on the Pill. No one involved has any objection to abortion.

Scenario 4: All involved belong to a new-age Wiccan-type religion. Sex is a quasi-sacrament that all members should engage in. Darach and Rowena, 16 and 15 respectively, will be part of a ceremony to honor a fertility goddess. Parents approve, and believe that ceremony, which culminates in a private shrine in the woods, is a religious requirement. D & R truly believe in their religion, are intelligent, well-read, and socially mature. D uses a natural method of birth control, and the congregation (which is stable) believes it has a collective responsibility to raise and support any children that result.

Scenario 5: Dad, lives in a rural trailer. 2 kids, the eldest of which is Luke. Mom's long gone, having left the state to seek her fortune in the adult entertainment industry 15 years before. Luke's 16, and sleeping with Doreen, who's 25 and lives 2 trailers over. (Dad spends his time with divorced Luann, who's 3 trailers beyond that.) Dad's proud of Luke's success with Doreen, who's considered a catch in the community. Her aged great-uncle owns a share of the trailer park, and Doreen stands to inherit. Besides, she's hot, and boys will be boys.

Scenario 6: Immigrant community. It's typical for men to marry much younger women, after they've established themselves financially. Asok, 31, has done well for himself in the software industry, but has a paperwork glitch in his immigation status that precludes (as a present, practical matter) his marriage to Darma, 15. They are engaged, and plan to get married as soon as the glitch can be corrected. Darma's father is long dead, and her mother has to return to the old country to care for a sick relative. Asok is considered to be a great match, and Darma wants to move in with him, both because she considers herself in love with him, and because she doesn't want to return to the old country with her mother, where she's afraid she'll end up tending goats and caring for 8 kids with no access to modern health care. All involved consider American AOC law to be ludicrous. Girls back home get married at 13. Mom's afraid that Asok will move on if Darma leaves, but is confident that community pressure makes the eventual marriage a certainty is she stays.

A couple final points. Some states allow minors to marry, with parental consent. Also, parental consent is a concept that permeates the law: medical treatment, joining the military, and use of alcohol in the home are examples.

So, should any of the parents described here approve of their minor's sexual activity? Should they be allowed to? Should parental consent (together with the minor's actual consent) be available as a defense to statutory rape charges?

Snowboarder Bo

08-22-2005, 02:07 PM

Interesting subject for debate. I can't wait to see what the opinions and legal ramifications are.

Eonwe

08-22-2005, 03:06 PM

Interesting way to look at it.

I think the scenarios you've put forth illustrate exactly why the basis for age of consent laws as they stand seem ridiculous to some.

Certainly from various perspectives the adults in those scenarios have questionable levels of maturity/awareness/consideration when it comes to sex.

So, I'm not sure about how important parental consent is. I think that in situations where it's clear that no one involved is too broken up over the fact that sex has happened, the state shouldn't prosecute. That, though, would require the state to consider a minor's opinions or feelings on the situation valid, which it currently does not.

Actually, I guess that really is the question for you. How could a parent give permission for a minor to have sex when we've already decided that the minor him/herself cannot give consent. As long as that's the case, what the parent thinks has no relevance. And, if we changed it so a minor could give consent, then why on earth would the parents' opinion matter one way or another?

Bryan Ekers

08-22-2005, 03:52 PM

Actually, I guess that really is the question for you. How could a parent give permission for a minor to have sex when we've already decided that the minor him/herself cannot give consent. As long as that's the case, what the parent thinks has no relevance. And, if we changed it so a minor could give consent, then why on earth would the parents' opinion matter one way or another?Well, there may be one possible legal out; the girl and boyfriend might declare themselves common-law married, with her mother's consent. As far as I know, underage marriages with parental consent are not uncommon.

Scott Plaid

08-22-2005, 04:06 PM

As far as I know, underage marriages with parental consent are not uncommon.Macaulay Culkin got married when he was 17, with his parent's permission, as I recall. However, his bride was the same age, so I am not sure what the legal status would have been, if she was just a few years older.

Askia

08-22-2005, 04:15 PM

From last year's thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5021668#post5021668) I proposed a change in Emancipated Minor statutes.

smiling bandit

08-22-2005, 04:28 PM

Even as a Christian, I have no problems with people marrying young, and think it a fine idea if all involved are comfortable and mature enough to handle it. I think it a poor cop that peopoe often feel they cannot marry until their mid to late 30's, due to finances or what-have you.

Beyond that, I think it's all immoral anyway, so who cares about legality? :cool:

Askia

08-22-2005, 04:45 PM

So, should any of the parents described here approve of their minor's sexual activity? Should they be allowed to? Should parental consent (together with the minor's actual consent) be available as a defense to statutory rape charges? Of all the scenarios you presented, the only one that's largely unsupportable under most cultural standards is the first one, as it involves addicts resorting to pimping out a minor in street level prostitution just to get drug money.

I'm more bemused that all scenarios involved heterosexual couples. Some things might challenge your views if you considered them otherwise. Chew on this:

Suppose all the scenarios involved gay and lesbian same sex couples. If 16-year old Bud meets up with 22-year old Torquil, do the hippy parents become charged with contributing to the corruption of a minor for approving of his relationship with a man in his twenties? What if Torquil is revealed to have been involved with members of NAMBLA in his younger days? How supportive would those liberal parents be if Madison and Adam were coming out together? Does 16-year old Luke's openly sleeping with the "hot" 25-year old Darren continue to be a source of secret fatherly pride and remain another case of "boys will be boys?" Would the Wiccans likely be prosecuted as a dangerous child-endangering cult for promoting underaged homosexual sex? Can Mom count on community pressure to make certain a permament "marriage" for 30-year old Asoki and her 15-year old daughter Darma, or would that suddenly be viewed as child molestation?

I mean, age of consent is not just a heterosexual issue, right?

Just stirrin' the pot.

jsgoddess

08-22-2005, 04:47 PM

Actually, I guess that really is the question for you. How could a parent give permission for a minor to have sex when we've already decided that the minor him/herself cannot give consent.

There are a few places where a minor can't give consent for something but a parent can. Marriage, drinking, and surgery are some examples.

Though if you think of a minor being completely incapable of consenting to have sex, the thought of a parent "consenting" for them is really oogy. If you simply think that the minor is capable of consenting but that the law doesn't reflect reality, the oogyness goes away.

Random

08-22-2005, 05:23 PM

I'm more bemused that all scenarios involved heterosexual couples. Some things might challenge your views if you considered them otherwise. Chew on this:

Suppose all the scenarios involved gay and lesbian same sex couples. If 16-year old Bud meets up with 22-year old Torquil, do the hippy parents become charged with contributing to the corruption of a minor for approving of his relationship with a man in his twenties? What if Torquil is revealed to have been involved with members of NAMBLA in his younger days? How supportive would those liberal parents be if Madison and Adam were coming out together? Does 16-year old Luke's openly sleeping with the "hot" 25-year old Darren continue to be a source of secret fatherly pride and remain another case of "boys will be boys?" Would the Wiccans likely be prosecuted as a dangerous child-endangering cult for promoting underaged homosexual sex? Can Mom count on community pressure to make certain a permament "marriage" for 30-year old Asoki and her 15-year old daughter Darma, or would that suddenly be viewed as child molestation?

I mean, age of consent is not just a heterosexual issue, right?

Just stirrin' the pot.

I expected this issue to come up, but deliberately avoided it in the OP. (Although in one of the scenarios, I left some ambiguity, although I admit that the names I chose implied a MF couple.) I have a couple reasons for my choice, which I will explain after this thread plays out a little while longer.

Sage Rat

08-22-2005, 05:23 PM

Should a parent be able to give their child the ability to make the choice for him/herself if that parent thinks the child is sufficiently mature? No.
If the kid is that mature he/she will have sex without getting caught and no one, including the parent, will ever be the wiser.

If the police come looking, someone in there is probably not mature enough.

How many parents do you know who let their daughter and her boyfriend go up to her room, and stay the night? Probably quite a few. But the police are never going to come.

The laws may look funky if you assume they are executed to the word of the law and that the police care enough to track down all the high school boy/girlfriends and keep them under surveillance. But, simply, they don't. And if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Random

08-22-2005, 05:28 PM

Well, there may be one possible legal out; the girl and boyfriend might declare themselves common-law married, with her mother's consent. As far as I know, underage marriages with parental consent are not uncommon.

Most states no longer recognize common-law marriage. Also, except for those who follow the no sex before marriage rule (a distinct minority these days), it's not really a solution. In other words, most people consider themselves ready for sex at a point before they're ready to get married.

Random

08-22-2005, 06:14 PM

Should a parent be able to give their child the ability to make the choice for him/herself if that parent thinks the child is sufficiently mature? No.

The laws may look funky if you assume they are executed to the word of the law and that the police care enough to track down all the high school boy/girlfriends and keep them under surveillance. But, simply, they don't. And if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Two problems with this. As a matter of policy (or philosophy), I believe that laws should be enforced or repealed. Doing otherwise breeds contempt for the process, even if the law is never enforced. If the law is selectively enforced, it leads to unfair results (by definition), even if there's no outright prejudice or malice by those making the decision to prosecute.

What about where high school kids Sean and Rebecca have sleeping together, with no objection from Rebecca until Sean breaks off the relationship, which gets her tearful or angry, leading to a complaint by her parents?

This rest of this is somewhat OT, because it deals with situations where the parents never would have consented, anyway. But there have been cases (or so it has been claimed, anyway) where 17 year-old Muffy's parents, the local cops and the local prosecutor went after Tyrone (age 19), because Tyrone didn't fit their idea of a proper boyfriend for Muffy. Why should Tyrone run that risk, when Chip gets a pass? What if someone gets pregnant, and the parents find out that way? Are you seriously proposing a system where teens rely on lying to their parents and not "getting caught", where "getting caught" may mean a lifelong listing on a sexual offender registry?

And if the parents do find out, why should Bob get a pass, just because Jenny's parents are reasonable folk, when his twin brother gets prosecuted, because his GF's parents are hardcore no-sex-until-marriage types who jump to the conclusion that anyone who touches their darling daughter must be a fiend?

Sage Rat

08-22-2005, 06:30 PM

Are you seriously proposing a system where teens rely on lying to their parents and not "getting caught", where "getting caught" may mean a lifelong listing on a sexual offender registry?
I proposed nothing, I only pointed out that the current system isn't bad.

For the above case, it had been my understanding that most states had things for minors where if you're near or under 18, there's a three years (or however much) age-difference clause which allows teen sex. If not, then the teen rumor to such effect with which I was indoctrinated makes perfect sense--so why not just go with that?

Random

08-22-2005, 06:37 PM

There are a few places where a minor can't give consent for something but a parent can. Marriage, drinking, and surgery are some examples.

Though if you think of a minor being completely incapable of consenting to have sex, the thought of a parent "consenting" for them is really oogy.

We agree on your first point. As for your second, I agree with you, to a point. A teen asking his or her parents for permission to have sex strikes me as odd, or weird. I would have had a hard time with it as a teen.

But maybe we shouldn't be uncomfortable with that. Hell, most people are uncomfortable discussing sex with their parents. I still am, and my teen years are long past. Yet we think that parents should discuss the facts of life with their kids, and we approve of parents making sure that teens know about birth control, and how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. If Lisa is supposed to be able to discuss these issues with Mom, why is the next step so tough? Maybe the reason why we think that asking permission is odd only because, today, it's a pointless act. We've overcome some of the oogy-ness of talking with parents about these other sexual issues, because there is a point. Maybe if parental consent had a point - was a meaningful act under the law - we'd overcome it here, too.

Sure, I know that most parents aren't going to give the consent at issue. There'll still be plenty of 17 year olds sneaking around having sex, risking prosecution. That's a different issue, for another thread. But some parents would give consent. I've tried to illustrate that with my OP scenarios.

Random

08-22-2005, 07:02 PM

I only pointed out that the current system isn't bad.

For the above case, it had been my understanding that most states had things for minors where if you're near or under 18, there's a three years (or however much) age-difference clause which allows teen sex.

I've already listed some of the problems with the current system.

As for your second point, I don't believe that you are correct. Some states may allow people who are below the (otherwise applicable) AOC if the participants are close in age, but I don't believe that most do. Other states do make a distinction in the law for close-in-age sex with a minor but, either way, it's still a crime. In Illinois, for example, a quick check (which ignores some nuances) indicates you'd be guilty of criminal sexual abuse instead of aggravated criminal sexual abuse.

Even if all 50 states adopted a law completely decriminalizing underage sex as long as the participants were within 3 years of age, that doesn't address all scenarios. What about Doreen, or Asok, or Torquil? What about Adam, if he's 20 years old (and 37 months older than Alison?)

Random

08-22-2005, 07:15 PM

...allow people to have sex who are below....

Sage Rat

08-22-2005, 07:18 PM

Even if all 50 states adopted a law completely decriminalizing underage sex as long as the participants were within 3 years of age, that doesn't address all scenarios. What about Doreen, or Asok, or Torquil? What about Adam, if he's 20 years old (and 37 months older than Alison?)
That's just getting back to the whole argument that determining a set-age barrier is arbitrary.
Of course it's arbitrary--but in the end, you do need something that is cut-and-dried and when you do that, there's always going to be cases that slip under the rug and others that get prosecuted when they shouldn't.

The question is whether "near-age" laws are a better or worse bandaid than written parental consent. And there, I would be inclined to believe that "parental consent" would be more likely to allow cases of parents prostituting their children than preventing unfortunate make teens to get slapped with a sex-offender brand. An angry parent who can deny allowing the boyfriend to stay the night can just as easily deny that he wrote a letter of consent.

Random

08-22-2005, 08:06 PM

The question is whether "near-age" laws are a better or worse bandaid than written parental consent.

You're assuming that it's an either-or proposition. It's not. You could have parental consent and a near-age exception. There'd be no crime if either condition were present. Even with unreasonable or vindictive parents, Adam would be off the hook (using the ages in my original post), because he's only two years older than Alison. What a parental consent exception adds is illustrated by the Asok or Doreen scenarios.

That's just getting back to the whole argument that determining a set-age barrier is arbitrary. Of course it's arbitrary--but in the end, you do need something that is cut-and-dried and when you do that, there's always going to be cases that slip under the rug and others that get prosecuted when they shouldn't.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that there's no point in changing the law (even if it reduces arbitrariness and increases fairness) unless the change in the law achieves perfection and eliminates arbitrariness and unfairness? The intro to my OP said that I used to accept arbitrary and inflexible AOC laws beacause I couldn't conceive of any modification - any alternative method to determine maturity - that wasn't impossibly cumbersome. I didn't say that the alternative method had to be perfect and eliminate all possibility of an arbitrary result. Very few changes in the law would meet this standard.

I also have never suggested that parental consent should completely take the place of AOC laws, simply that consent would decriminalize behavior that otherwise would violate the AOC law.

An angry parent who can deny allowing the boyfriend to stay the night can just as easily deny that he wrote a letter of consent.

And a 25 year old woman can deny that she gave consent to her 25 year old date the night before, and report a rape. It becomes a question to be decided at trial. Your point?

jsgoddess

08-22-2005, 09:40 PM

A teen asking his or her parents for permission to have sex strikes me as odd, or weird.

It's not the asking permission part. It's "You're too immature to know if you want to have sex. You might not want to have sex. But I want you to have sex! Sex for you!"

The thing about someone not being able to consent is that we understand that if able to consent they might say no. If we say, "A teen can't consent to have sex" we're saying they can't say yes. If we say, "A teen can't consent to have sex, but a parent can consent for them" we're saying they can't say no.

Random

08-22-2005, 10:01 PM

You might not want to have sex. But I want you to have sex! Sex for you!"

The thing about someone not being able to consent is that we understand that if able to consent they might say no. If we say, "A teen can't consent to have sex" we're saying they can't say yes. If we say, "A teen can't consent to have sex, but a parent can consent for them" we're saying they can't say no.

What? No.

From my OP: Should parental consent (together with the minor's actual consent) be available as a defense to statutory rape charges?

(emphasis added)

jsgoddess

08-22-2005, 10:02 PM

What? No.

From my OP:

(emphasis added)

What is "actual consent" if someone can't consent?

Random

08-23-2005, 12:33 AM

What is "actual consent" if someone can't consent?

"Actual consent" in this context is "Yes, I want to have sex with you", or some similar communication, either explicitly or implicitly. If the person who says that is below the applicable state AOC, that statement is legally meaningless.* Sometimes that's phrased as "A minor is unable to legally consent to sex." So, in kind of a shorthand way, people distinguish between "actual consent" and "legal consent". Saying that she can't legally consent doesn't mean that the minor didn't (actually) want the sex, or didn't (actually) agree to the sex, or didn't (actually) chant "Fuck me now" to her boyfriend during the entire (actual) act.

Under the law now, in every state I'm familiar with, no one can (legally) consent to sex with a minor below the AOC. Not the minor, not her parents. However, the proposal under discussion here contemplates a change in that law. That proposal would make consenting to sex something legally akin to consenting to join the army, or consenting to drink a glass of wine with the family dinner. Both steps (the glass of wine or joining the army), if done by a minor, require parental consent.** Doesn't mean that the parents can legally force their kids into basic training or legally require them to pound tequila shots against their will.***

As I'm predisposed (both by nature and training) to overanalyze issues and anticipate objections, I made sure in my OP to make it clear that the change in the law that I was suggesting would require the actual consent of both the parent and the minor involved for that consent to be "legal".

*Not absolutely true. In many (if not most) states, the minor's actual consent is not completely meaningless. Without that consent, the the person engaging in intercourse with the minor is guilty of rape, or aggravated criminal sexual assault, or whatever the state in question calls The Worst Kind Of Criminal Sexual Conduct You Can Perpetrate. In many states, at least under some circumstances, it's a lesser crime simply to have sex with a near-adult minor, if that minor (actually) consents.

**Or so I understand. I've never (actually) researched either issue. Amazingly, neither came up in law school, and no client has ever asked me to look into these questions.

***Well, maybe on a technical, common-law basis, an argument could be made that a parent has these legal powers. Interesting abstract issue. (Remember what I said about overanalysis?) Ahem. As a practical matter,as the Army ain't going to take any bound and gagged recruits (no, not even now), and as the local Department of Children and Family Services probably has a firm policy against tequila shooters, the minor's consent is required.

Sage Rat

08-23-2005, 02:00 AM

You're assuming that it's an either-or proposition.
I meant it as either-or in the sense that we've already got a solution to the most probable case of mess-ups that you referenced. But certainly you could have both, if having the second adds more positives than negatives.

What a parental consent exception adds is illustrated by the Asok or Doreen scenarios.
Luke & Doreen: Certainly a fine example, and I agree that Dad being able to get a "These two: Sex, Big Okay" license would be fine. I just don't see that the odds that the two are going to be arrented and prosecuted as being terribly high.

Asok & Darma: At 31, I should hope that Asok is mature enough to keep it in his pants for three years. But agreed, if Darma is a fully mature 15 year old and aware of the future she is intending to leap into without ever having had a girly teenhood, I have no issue.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that there's no point in changing the law (even if it reduces arbitrariness and increases fairness) unless the change in the law achieves perfection and eliminates arbitrariness and unfairness?
I'm saying there's no point in creating the law if for the sake of fixing a few rarely occuring issues you open up a whole greater number of worse problems.

I would just be voting that for every 1 Luke who is saved, there will be 3 children prostituted by their parents under the law.

The intro to my OP said that I used to accept arbitrary and inflexible AOC laws beacause I couldn't conceive of any modification - any alternative method to determine maturity - that wasn't impossibly cumbersome.
Humans. It's not official, but police officers don't want to convict people who have done no real wrong, lawyers and judges don't, taxpayers don't, etc. Certainly there are going to be cases where a couple of A-holes band together just for the sake of feeling good about themselves, but I don't see this law as being worth it just to prevent this rare occurence.

And a 25 year old woman can deny that she gave consent to her 25 year old date the night before, and report a rape. It becomes a question to be decided at trial. Your point?
The point is that a little slip of paper isn't going to do much good to protect Doreen from getting slapped with a sex-offender thing. If you made it where Luke's father had to go into the government and register for an official, notarized document then certainly. But as said, I would personally imagine that you're going to get a lot more shady characters coming in for the license on their children than honest individuals who respect their children's rights.

Eonwe

08-23-2005, 10:22 AM

"Actual consent" in this context is "Yes, I want to have sex with you", or some similar communication, either explicitly or implicitly.

Under the law now, in every state I'm familiar with, no one can (legally) consent to sex with a minor below the AOC. Not the minor, not her parents. However, the proposal under discussion here contemplates a change in that law. That proposal would make consenting to sex something legally akin to consenting to join the army, or consenting to drink a glass of wine with the family dinner.

The problem that I have with that is that the supposed reason we have consent laws in the first place, and the reason why it's illegal to have sex with post-pubescent minors, is because we've decided they cannot make that decision, or give "actual consent". As soon as it becomes a 'parental permission' issue, you grant the teen the ability to choose to have sex and give consent on his or her own. On what grounds then do you make it illegal for a teen (who is now able to consent) to have sex without parental permission?

It's not quite the same as your alcohol analogy, as alcohol isn't illegal for a minor because he or she cannot make the decision to imbibe on his or her own. I don't think the concept of consent applies in that situation.

Random

08-23-2005, 03:13 PM

As soon as it becomes a 'parental permission' issue, you grant the teen the ability to choose to have sex and give consent on his or her own.
How does that follow? I don't understand your reasoning. The whole point is that the teen wouldn't be able to make the decision on his own. His actual consent remains meaningless unless and until the parent also consents.

I don't follow your reasoning in rejecting the alcohol analogy either. But no matter. I'll use the underage marriage analogy instead. As with my proposal, underage marriage in many states requires parental permission (by law). That law doesn't somehow make it possible for underage teens to marry without that permission. It's just the opposite.

On what grounds then do you make it illegal for a teen (who is now able to consent) to have sex without parental permission?
Again, he'd not be able to fully consent on his own. That consent becomes adequate only if the parent also consents. On what grounds? Because that's what the proposed statute would require. Are you trying to say that such a statute would somehow be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid? If so, on what legal theory do you rely?

Unregistered Bull

08-23-2005, 04:41 PM

You want a weird "age of consent" issues? Look at alcohol laws. You've got states like New Mexico where supplying a sub-21 year old but still legal adult with alcohol is a felony. A 21 year old could marry a 20 year old and if they shared a glass of champagne at the wedding, the 21 year old would be committing a felony if he had bought the bottle of champagne.

Random

08-23-2005, 08:35 PM

I meant it as either-or in the sense that we've already got a solution to the most probable case of mess-ups that you referenced. But certainly you could have both, if having the second adds more positives than negatives.

Luke & Doreen: Certainly a fine example, and I agree that Dad being able to get a "These two: Sex, Big Okay" license would be fine. I just don't see that the odds that the two are going to be arrented and prosecuted as being terribly high.

Asok & Darma: At 31, I should hope that Asok is mature enough to keep it in his pants for three years. But agreed, if Darma is a fully mature 15 year old and aware of the future she is intending to leap into without ever having had a girly teenhood, I have no issue.

I'm saying there's no point in creating the law if for the sake of fixing a few rarely occuring issues you open up a whole greater number of worse problems. I would just be voting that for every 1 Luke who is saved, there will be 3 children prostituted by their parents under the law.

Humans. It's not official, but police officers don't want to convict people who have done no real wrong, lawyers and judges don't, taxpayers don't, etc. Certainly there are going to be cases where a couple of A-holes band together just for the sake of feeling good about themselves, but I don't see this law as being worth it just to prevent this rare occurence.

Okay, so it appears that we agree on many issues (ref. your first 3 paragraphs).

I don't agree with your prediction in your fourth paragraph, but I concede that reasonable minds can differ. (My first example in my OP essentially acknowledges the potential problem that you raise.) If that's what you believe will happen, that no other legal mechanism will prevent widespread child prostitution sponsored by parents, then you should oppose this change in the law. Again, I concede that the statutory change under discussion would remove one legal tool now available to combat parents who pimp their children. But other tools would remain available. Prostitution would still be illegal. Pimping would still be illegal. Also, it's likely that state child-welfare statutes would also prohibit this behavior. After all, although it may be legal today for a parent to allow a glass of wine with dinner, that doesn't mean that the local state child-protection agency would not have the power to step in if the parents allow their child to drink to excess.

Finally, with respect to your fifth paragraph, I concede that the odds are against Adam being prosecuted. Same with Doreen, although I'd be a bit more concerned if the genders were reversed. I'm not so sure about Torquil or Asok. Bigger age difference, the "victim" is female, and I'm afraid that too many cops and prosecutors might have a bias against weird foreigners or oddball hippies. Same bias exists in some parts of the country against non-mainstream religions, so Darach should worry, as well. Even if Darach isn't prosecuted, the parents involved might have DCFS problems.

Mix up the races, and you increase the risk that someone will get upset and prosecute. And now is probably a good time to return to the point mentioned by Askia. Is Luke's dad going to be just as proud and accepting if Luke is with Donald instead of Doreen?

So, on balance, I'm less comfortable than you in relying on the universal good sense of parents, prosecutors, police and politicians. Even if such arrests and prosecutions are "rare", the consequences can be extreme. Why not reduce them even further?

Sage Rat

08-23-2005, 11:31 PM

Most of the issues you bring up strike me as being much more societal issues than legal ones, and if the government is going to involve itself it would be better to run advertising campaigns to combat homophobia or foreign-culture-phobia. In the long run this would solve this and many other issues much more effectively--as I view it.

Issue 1:

The problem for me is that even liberal, free-sex types seem to just as often as not go back to their upbringing when it comes to their children. They smoked dope and had wild orgies as teens, but I think will generally get rather squeemish about their own kids doing these same things. So when it comes time to go down to the government building and register your baby for sex--how many people, given current USA culture, are actually going to go? Probably people who:

1) are either way pro-sex and would sign their kids up no matter what
2) intend to use the legal sexual status of their child
3) have a teen who is pestering them to do it and are more concerned with getting the brat to shut up, than to insure a bright future for her offspring
4) otherwise have some personal motive
5) honest folk who have a mature son or daughter who deserve to be able to have sex now, and it's silly to make them wait

Issue 2:

With Asok and Darma, and you're dealing with cultural values, is Darma being married to him because the two mutually love each other (#5)? Or is it because her father is trading her off as a possession (#4)?
With current law, we assume that until a person is 18, they aren't mature enough, but also that they aren't independent enough to choose a future for themselves. They don't have an education that can get them a real job, and are likely to not have any experience working even at a Kinkos (of course that probability changes as you get closer to 18), nor any of their friends--so no connections in the real world. Society is built around people reaching maturity at a given age and paces things such that by that age they are ready to begin an independent life--but the further previous to that you go, the harder it is going to be.
So, why are we supposed to believe that Darma's father is respecting her rights as a mature individual (instead of as trade goods), that she is going along with it of her own free will and mature enough to make that decision, and that Asok respects her as an equal human being?
The best we can do is to say that, by 18 it appears that the grand majority of everyone is capable of making his or her own decisions--before that, it's best and safest to assume not. The only disadvantage being that, some guy has to keep it in his pants for a couple of years--which really isn't a bad thing. (And even if he doesn't, as said the probability of anything happening--particularly with a near-age law--are very low.)

So simply, the government has to assume that the parents of a child are capable of raising a child, but there is no reason for the government to assume that the parents can or should be able to choose the future of their child. And at this current point in time, sex is viewed as something that can effect a child's future (be it through pregnancy, STDs, or manipulated or psychologically damaged through sex.)

Conclusion:

Between issue 1, which would make me believe that it is more probable in today's atmosphere for most licenses being made for the wrong reasons, and issue 2, where simply parents should (perhaps) not have such a right and where it really isn't bad that they don't, I just see no outweighing plus in the proposition.

Eonwe

08-24-2005, 10:33 AM

How does that follow? I don't understand your reasoning. The whole point is that the teen wouldn't be able to make the decision on his own. His actual consent remains meaningless unless and until the parent also consents.

Well, I guess the way I see it is this (please correct me if I'm wrong):

Currently it is illegal for people under age X to have sex. The reason for this is because those people are not able (for whatever reason; something having to do with maturity) to actually decide to have sex. A person under age X cannot say yes to sex. This is the crux of my argument, so if I'm confused on this issue, let me know.

Introducing a parent permission componant (it is legal for a person under age X to have sex with permission from parent) would seem to imply that in fact a person under age X can say yes to sex, and it is only a matter of a permission slip that keeps them from doing so (well, probably doesn't keep them from doing so, but you get my drift). So, if teens are mature enough to consent to sex, and it's merely a question of circumstance an parental opinion, what are the grounds on which the sex is illegal in the first place? It can't be the consent issue anymore, because we've now changed the litmus test by which we find teen sex illegal.

Am I making sense? I'm not trying to be obtuse, really. :)

Again, he'd not be able to fully consent on his own. That consent becomes adequate only if the parent also consents. On what grounds? Because that's what the proposed statute would require. Are you trying to say that such a statute would somehow be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid? If so, on what legal theory do you rely?

Right. The consent becomes adequate to satisfy our imaginary law only with parental permission. But my question is now on what grounds is it illegal for the teen to have sex in the first place, if he/she is able to consent? Or are you saying that the teen isn't actually able to consent without parental permission? IOW, parents get to decide if sex is ok (or if a partner is acceptable) for their children on a case-by-case basis, enforcable by statutory rape laws?

Random

08-24-2005, 06:52 PM

This helps, Eonwe - I think I now have a better handle on your point. But I'm still not sure, so forgive me if what I'm about to say is overlong, redundant, or somehow goes beyond your issue.
Well, I guess the way I see it is this (please correct me if I'm wrong): Currently it is illegal for people under age X to have sex. The reason for this is because those people are not able (for whatever reason; something having to do with maturity) to actually decide to have sex. A person under age X cannot say yes to sex. This is the crux of my argument, so if I'm confused on this issue, let me know.

Yes, currently, it is illegal to have sex with someone under the AOC. (Illegal for the person having sex with the minor, that is. It may not be illegal for the minor, if the other participant is above the AOC. Exact nuances will vary from state to state.) The primary purpose of this law is to protect minors, under the assumption that minors lack the mental, physical and/or social maturity to engage in sexual activity. This point can be divided into two separate but related points: A) The minor is deemed to be too immature to make an informed decision about whether to have sex. B) The emotional, physical and other possible results of the sexual act will likely harm the minor. Accordingly, under the present law, if the minor decides to have sex, that decision - that consent - has no legal power or meaning. Essentially, the law steps in, erases the minor's "yes" and replaces it with a "no". So, as far as the law is concerned, the person who engages in sex with that minor is a criminal, just as someone who has sex with an adult who says "no" is a criminal. Said another way: it's not illegal for the minor to say "yes". Rather, that "yes" has no legal effect or meaning. That "yes" is not a defense to the person charged with rape, or sexual assault, or whatever the state calls this particular crime.

Introducing a parent permission componant (it is legal for a person under age X to have sex with permission from parent) would seem to imply that in fact a person under age X can say yes to sex, and it is only a matter of a permission slip that keeps them from doing so (well, probably doesn't keep them from doing so, but you get my drift). So, if teens are mature enough to consent to sex, and it's merely a question of circumstance an parental opinion, what are the grounds on which the sex is illegal in the first place? It can't be the consent issue anymore, because we've now changed the litmus test by which we find teen sex illegal.

No, we haven't completely changed the overall test or standard. It'd still be there. There'd just be an exception that might apply sometimes.

Before I respond to your point here, I need clarify that the change in the law suggested in my OP didn't say anything about written permission slips, or any need to register the parental consent with the government. You and others who have responded here seem to assume otherwise. Sure, the law could require that, and maybe that would be a good idea, but that's not part of what I suggested. Parental consent could be in non-written form, just as consent by an adult to sex under the present law need not be written.

Back to your point. First, the premise behind present AOC law is not that every minor lacks the maturity to have sex. That's certainly not my premise, and in prior debates on this board, most people seemed to agree that at least some minors were mature enough to make an informed decision about sex, and wouldn't be harmed if they did have sex. But how do we determine who is ready and who is not? An arbitrary age cutoff is less than perfectly satisfactory - set it high enough to ensure that all (or nearly all) people who need protection are protected, and lots of people who don't need protection end up frustrated and restricted. (or if they ignore the law, someone's risking prosecution.) People mature at different rates. Some 14 year olds might be ready. Some 18 year olds may not be. But if age shouldn't the sole standard, what should be? Medical testing? Judicial determination? Psychological eveluation? A written test that must be passed? All way too cumbersome, expensive or inaccurate. Most people conclude "you've get to set an age limit somewhere", and settle for an arbitrary, exceptionless AOC. Too bad for those minors that wouldn't be harmed by sex, at least under some circumstances. But that's (to use your words) "the grounds on which the sex is illegal in the first place".

Next, the statutory change that I suggest would not acknowledge (to use your words again) that all "teens are mature enough to consent to sex". It merely acknowledges that some are mature enough - at least mature enough that sex with an appropriate person, under appropriate circumstances won't be harmful. Who decides? The same person who presently gets to make all kinds of similar decisions for the minor - his parent. There's really nothing bizarre about that basic concept. Same thing as driving a car, or getting married. Peggy Sue wants to get married, or buy a car, or drive that car tonight? If Peggy Sue is 16, she doesn't get to do any of those things if her parents decide otherwise. Peggy wants to drive to school, or on Sunday afternoon? Parents can say "go ahead". Peggy wants to drive to the rave, with 5 friends, and be out until 3 a.m.? Parents can refuse permission if they think it's a bad idea. And they can still refuse permission, even if they let her drive to school yesterday. Same with marriage. Peggy gets engaged to unemployed 29 year old drug-addicted heavy metal drummer Wayne, who lives in his Mom's basement, and her parents can refuse to allow the marriage. Replace Wayne with Adam from my OP, and the parents can bless the marriage if they think that it's a good decision that won't harm Peggy. Logically, why should sex be treated any differently? "Mom, I've decided to work as a call girl this summer." "No." "Mom, I want to drop out of high school and move in with Wayne." "No." "Mom, you know Adam? The guy I've been dating for a year that you've met 12 times? We'd like to start sleeping together and I need to make a doctor's appointment to discuss birth control." "Okay, Peggy, we need discuss it some more, but if that's what you want, give Dr. Brown a call. Do you need the car to drive to the appointment?"

Right. The consent becomes adequate to satisfy our imaginary law only with parental permission. But my question is now on what grounds is it illegal for the teen to have sex in the first place, if he/she is able to consent? Or are you saying that the teen isn't actually able to consent without parental permission? IOW, parents get to decide if sex is ok (or if a partner is acceptable) for their children on a case-by-case basis, enforcable by statutory rape laws?

1. Yes. 2. Because the statute would provide that such sex without parental consent remains illegal - that consent by the minor is not enough by itself. Such a statute would be completely within the powers of a state legislature. 3. The teen is able to actually consent, but that consent isn't legal - or more accurately, doesn't make the sex legal - without parental consent as well. 4. Precisely. (but the minor still has to consent, too.)

jsgoddess

08-24-2005, 07:53 PM

So, on balance, I'm less comfortable than you in relying on the universal good sense of parents, prosecutors, police and politicians. Even if such arrests and prosecutions are "rare", the consequences can be extreme. Why not reduce them even further?

But it seems you are very comfortable relying on the universal good sense of parents if you give them the opportunity to okay underage sex.

Random

08-24-2005, 08:20 PM

But it seems you are very comfortable relying on the universal good sense of parents if you give them the opportunity to okay underage sex.

Are you concerned about parents consenting to sex when they shouldn't, or parents not consenting to sex when they should?

jsgoddess

08-24-2005, 08:24 PM

Are you concerned about parents consenting to sex when they shouldn't, or parents not consenting to sex when they should?

You stated that the status quo depends on parent (and others) having good sense.

How does allowing parents the leeway to permit or deny sex for their offspring change the requirement of good sense?

Would the parents who don't show good sense now suddenly develop good sense if their permission were sought? I don't see it.

Random

08-24-2005, 08:35 PM

You stated that the status quo depends on parent (and others) having good sense.

How does allowing parents the leeway to permit or deny sex for their offspring change the requirement of good sense?

Would the parents who don't show good sense now suddenly develop good sense if their permission were sought? I don't see it.

Is there an answer to my question somewhere in here? Answer my question and I'll answer yours (to the extent I can understand it.)

jsgoddess

08-24-2005, 08:53 PM

You said:

So, on balance, I'm less comfortable than you in relying on the universal good sense of parents...

Your proposal gives parents more discretion. You don't want to rely on the "good sense" of parents, but your proposal would rely on the "good sense" of parents even more, since some parents would still withhold permission and potentially spur prosecution while others would wrongly give permission, and still others would deny they gave permission.

How does allowing parents discretion lessen reliance on their "good sense"?

Random

08-24-2005, 09:29 PM

So your answer is "both"?

The Flying Dutchman

08-24-2005, 09:36 PM

And, if we changed it so a minor could give consent, then why on earth would the parents' opinion matter one way or another?

I could be nitpicking here, but minors are able to give consent now in all states and certainly in Canada.

Here in Canada for example, depending on the province, the age of majority is either 18 or 19, but a 14 year old can have legal sex with anyone except someone who has a relationship with him/her of trust or dependancy.

If my 14 year old daughter decides to have a sexual relationship with a 29 year old coke addict, there's nothing I can do about it.

Legally.

jsgoddess

08-24-2005, 09:37 PM

So your answer is "both"?

I'm asking you for clarification of your own OP and subsequent statements. One of the reasons you dislike the status quo would also be true of the changes you suggest. Can you please explain why you do not see it that way? I do not have a firm position on any of this. I probably will not form a firm position on any of this. I am asking you to clear up what I see as a major disconnect.

Random

08-24-2005, 09:59 PM

I could be nitpicking here, but minors are able to give consent now in all states and certainly in Canada.

I'm being nitpicky right back, but this isn't true, at least if www.ageofconsent.com is correct. There are a few states where the AOC is 18. Your main point is accurate, though. AOC does not necessarily equal the age of majority. AOC tends to be younger in most places, sometimes much younger, as your Canada example shows. I (and others here) have been using minor as a shorthand term for person under the age of consent, but (as you point out), there's a difference.

Here in Canada for example, depending on the province, the age of majority is either 18 or 19, but a 14 year old can have legal sex with anyone except someone who has a relationship with him/her of trust or dependancy. If my 14 year old daughter decides to have a sexual relationship with a 29 year old coke addict, there's nothing I can do about it.

I don't know anything about Canadian law, but a websearch agrees with you about the Canadian AOC. Is the last part really true, though? Even if you ignore the point that you might be able to get a cokehead busted for violating drug possession laws, doesn't Canada have something akin to contributing to the delinquency of a minor? If not (and again, I don't know Canadian law, and I'm not even particularly knowledgable about American criminal law), then you may be correct about having no criminal recourse against the cokehead. But don't you still have the ability as a parent of a minor to legally restrict her activities and prevent her from seeing him to some degree? Yes, easier said than done, I admit.

Legally.

Ha.

Thanks for a most-welcome linear post.

Random

08-24-2005, 10:21 PM

jsgoddess, I've given thoughtful replies to three of your posts in this thread. Is it really that hard to answer a simple question in return?

Sage Rat

08-25-2005, 03:56 AM

Random, your question came after she asked for a clarification-which clarficiation you did not make; instead changing the subject.

Random: "I don't think zookeepers are able to choose the life for their monkeys. Thus, we should let zookeepers be able to give freedom to their monkeys."

jsgoddess: "If the zookeepers can't choose properly, it doesn't make sense to make a law them gives them such a choice."

Random: "Are you concerned with zookeepers choosing properly? Or improperly?" <- WTF?

jsgoddess: "No, I'm saying that your OP is internally conflicting."

Random: "So then, both?" <- WTF??

etc.

jsgoddess

08-25-2005, 09:51 AM

Random: "So then, both?" <- WTF??

Thank god. I was beginning to think I was completely nuts instead of moderately nuts.

Random

08-25-2005, 10:26 AM

Sorry, I've already written some very long replies to people in this thread, and some of those replies were likely longer than they needed to be. That's because I couldn't figure out the exact concern, or point, or source of confusion of the the person I was responding to. So I had to respond to all of the possible issues that I though may have been meant, and sometimes I still wasn't sure that I had figured out the post.

So, in her first post, jsgoddess says: Though if you think of a minor being completely incapable of consenting to have sex, the thought of a parent "consenting" for them is really oogy.

I'm not sure what she has in mind here, but I take a guess, Oogy? Maybe she's troubled by the need for parents and children to have uncomfortable discussions about sex as part of the permission process. So I respond on that assumption.

But apparently I failed to read her mind correctly:

It's not the asking permission part. It's "You're too immature to know if you want to have sex. You might not want to have sex. But I want you to have sex! Sex for you!" **** If we say, "A teen can't consent to have sex, but a parent can consent for them" we're saying they can't say no.

This one puzzled me, too. Apparently, she had formed the belief that, under my proposal, parents could force unwilling minors to have sex. Even though I clearly said in the OP that the minor's actual consent would be a requirement. (and even if I had left that out, her assumption that I intended forced sex for teens would still have struck me as bizarre.) Oh well, I think. She must have missed that
line in my OP.

So I refer her back to the relevant OP phrase which said that the minor's actual consent would be required under my suggested change in the law.

But no, apparently I guessed wrong again:

What is "actual consent" if someone can't consent?

At first, this seems fairly obtuse to me. These are common English words. Even if someone doesn't understand all of the nuances of the phrase "actual consent", to reach the conclusion that she reached in her prior post - that no consent of the minor would be required - seemed to be a wilful disregard of what I had said.

But no matter. I decide that she's unfamiliar with at least one the basic premises and terms of this debate, so I define actual consent at some length, with as much precision as I can.

Have I now addressed her original source of confusion? I have no idea, as she makes no response or comment. Instead, she (apparently) jumps to another issue. She pulls a one-sentence fragment from one of my earlier replies to another poster and adds a one-sentence comment that appears to be saying that she disagrees with my sentence, or at least has concerns about it. As my sentence was part of a multipost debate with that other poster, a debate that had veered (in some part) off the topic of the OP, I thought it possible that she
had missed the context in which it was made. And I was tired of guessing wrong, and responding to assumed concerns and sources of misunderstanding that, as it turned out, might not have been there.

So I asked her a clarifying question, which she has so far refused to answer. Unless she gives me the courtesy of an answer, I will not be responding to her posts. I'm afraid I'd just be wasting more time.

jsgoddess

08-25-2005, 11:01 AM

This one puzzled me, too. Apparently, she had formed the belief that, under my proposal, parents could force unwilling minors to have sex. Even though I clearly said in the OP that the minor's actual consent would be a requirement. (and even if I had left that out, her assumption that I intended forced sex for teens would still have struck me as bizarre.) Oh well, I think. She must have missed that
line in my OP.

So I refer her back to the relevant OP phrase which said that the minor's actual consent would be required under my suggested change in the law.

One of your scenarios casts doubt on the idea of "consent" for minors. You even showed the doubt explicitly:

Scenario 1: Crack mom in city slum. Prostitutes her 15 year old for drugs. Moesha "consents" under parental pressure, or because he/she is an addict as well.

In other words, you are the one who introduced doubt of what a minor's consent means. Now you claim that the idea of "forced sex for teens" is "bizarre." What is Moesha's mother doing? Your scenario points out a specific though extreme example of your idea working against the minor.

You're complaining about a system. The faults in the system are not improved by your suggestions, as others in this thread have already pointed out to you. I pointed toward a specific, obvious, disconnect between what you think the problem is and how you think you're going to solve it. Apparently, pointing out that contradiction requires me to answer a question that I find meaningless.

I'll ask the question again, in case someone else, perhaps someone not so apparently emotional, can explain what you mean:

If the problem with the current system is, at least in part, that parents don't use good sense, how is giving them more discretion going to help?

And, as a followup, the parents who were going to call the cops before would still be calling the cops they would refuse consent, so how is giving them more discretion going to help?

The only people who would be getting parental permission are the people whose parents weren't going to call the cops in the first place.

jsgoddess

08-25-2005, 11:09 AM

And, as a followup, the parents who were going to call the cops before would still be calling the cops they would refuse consent, so how is giving them more discretion going to help?

Bah. Left out a word.

the parents who were going to call the cops before would still be calling the cops because they would refuse consent, so how is giving them more discretion going to help?

Random

08-25-2005, 11:20 AM

. Apparently, pointing out that contradiction requires me to answer a question that I find meaningless.

It's can be one word answer. Humor me.

After all, I've responded to your posts and questions, even when I found them difficult to understand, or caused by a failure to read the OP. It's not a one way street. I answer your questions. You answer mine.

ouryL

08-25-2005, 11:57 AM

ouryL

08-25-2005, 12:01 PM

Random, play nice.
If jsg is saying she cannot understand what you said or are asking, telling her to reread what you wrote is silly.

Random

08-25-2005, 12:43 PM

Random, play nice.
If jsg is saying she cannot understand what you said or are asking, telling her to reread what you wrote is silly.

She hasn't said she doesn't understand the question. She's said that she doesn't want to answer it because she doesn't understand why it's meaningful. In other words, she doesn't understand why I'm asking it.

I'm the one who has said that I sometimes haven't understood her questions. In an effort to avoid further misunderstandings in this regard, I've asked a question in an effort to better understand her concern(s). I don't want to keep on spending time writing long, general replies that may miss the mark. I'd rather write a short, focused one if that is possible.

I've got no obligation to reply to anyone, let alone someone who refuses to cooperate in my efforts to save time and write a more focused reply.

Random

08-25-2005, 12:57 PM

To wit:
Minors cannot give consent to have sex because they are presumed to be too immature mentally and emotional to have sex. Can a minor be adjudged mature enough to have sex? Who determines exceptions to the law? Under present law, only a judge or similar magistrate can make such a determination. Under common law, certainly parents can give consent to minors marrying. The idea is that the parent can affirm the emancipation of their minor children into adulthood since are not the parents the shepherds of their children unto adulthood? However, does this mean parents can give consent to their minor children to have sex without benefit of marriage? :confused:

1. Under present law, yes. That certainly one of the reasons behind the law. (again, as used here, "minor" = person below the AOC.)

2. No, not in any state that I'm aware of. Some states have emancipated minor procedures, but I've never heard one of one that allowed a minor to consent to sex, even after emancipation. If you know of such a statute, please direct me to it.

3. Not applicable. See answer to #2.

4. Not in any state I'm familiar with. Where and how can a judge do this?

5. Yes, as I've said before, parents can consent to the marriage of their minor children, at least in most states.

6. I don't understand this sentence.

7. No, not under present law. But this is exactly what is under discussion in this thread - a change in the law to allow parents to do this. The whole thread would make no sense if parents could do this today. Has this escaped you somehow?

Scott Plaid

08-26-2005, 03:45 PM

Ummmm, yeah. All the confusion about how a single sentence can be read many ways aside, I thought I should bring up an real-life example. The fark.com headline reads "Police find registered sex offender sleeping in bed with 15-year-old. He's fine with that, she's fine with that, mom's fine with that. The police, not so happy"

Looking at his his mug shot (http://www.wtvf.com/content/news/14014.asp), and considering that two years has gone by since his initial arrest, it appears he might have been only one or two years older than the girl in the original case. What is he? 21?

Mr2001

08-26-2005, 09:48 PM

One of your scenarios casts doubt on the idea of "consent" for minors. You even showed the doubt explicitly:
I think you're reading too much into those scare quotes. The point is that if she's "consenting" because her parents coerced her, that isn't really consent, even though other minors who haven't been coerced can give actual consent.

The only people who would be getting parental permission are the people whose parents weren't going to call the cops in the first place.
Ah, but there's a difference. Under Random's system, a teenager can get permission to have sex, and even if her parents change their mind in the future ("What's this, a D in chemistry? No more sex for you, young lady!"), she and her boyfriend are safe from prosecution for anything they did while she had their consent.

Under the present system, all she can do is ask her parents not to turn her boyfriend in, and they can hold that over her for as long as they want. ("If you don't bring these grades up, so help me, I'll tell the cops all about what you and Jeremy were up to last weekend!")

Furthermore, I may be wrong here, but isn't it possible for a third party to report underage sex? If so, even asking her parents not to report him may not be good enough if a neighbor or police officer passing by happens to hear what's going on.

jsgoddess

08-27-2005, 10:58 AM

I think you're reading too much into those scare quotes. The point is that if she's "consenting" because her parents coerced her, that isn't really consent, even though other minors who haven't been coerced can give actual consent.

I think the point is that if she's consenting because she's coerced other kids might consent because they are coerced. Having the opportunity to give consent opens the door to coercion in a new way.

And the OP screamed that fearing such coercion was "bizarre" even though it was in his own post.

Ah, but there's a difference. Under Random's system, a teenager can get permission to have sex, and even if her parents change their mind in the future ("What's this, a D in chemistry? No more sex for you, young lady!"), she and her boyfriend are safe from prosecution for anything they did while she had their consent.

No, because he has specifically said that his idea was not built around having something in writing.

Before I respond to your point here, I need clarify that the change in the law suggested in my OP didn't say anything about written permission slips, or any need to register the parental consent with the government.

The teen would have no way of proving what the status of the consent was at the time she believed she had consent. The parent(s) could revoke the consent at tany time, in the middle of a relationship they had previously consented to, and the teen would be just as vulnerable as if consent didn't exist.

And, of course, all of the parents who now refuse their children sex by using the law would still be doing so.

Under the present system, all she can do is ask her parents not to turn her boyfriend in, and they can hold that over her for as long as they want. ("If you don't bring these grades up, so help me, I'll tell the cops all about what you and Jeremy were up to last weekend!")

Under the new system all she can do is ask her parents not to turn her boyfriend in. The parents get a little boost of power, but the teen is in the same situation she was before.

Furthermore, I may be wrong here, but isn't it possible for a third party to report underage sex? If so, even asking her parents not to report him may not be good enough if a neighbor or police officer passing by happens to hear what's going on.

I don't know if third parties can report it. It seems likely. Most underage relationships don't get reported, or if reported don't get prosecuted. I believe most parents would not give permission and that permissions once given would be subject to being revoked or denied without warning. The number of actual prosecutions this law would prevent would, in my opinion, be vanishingly small.

Random

08-27-2005, 12:42 PM

The fark.com headline reads "Police find registered sex offender sleeping in bed with 15-year-old. He's fine with that, she's fine with that, mom's fine with that. The police, not so happy"

Isn't it possible for a third party to report underage sex? If so, even asking her parents not to report him may not be good enough if a neighbor or police officer passing by happens to hear what's going on.

Yup, police can and do arrest people for statutory rape, even without any parent complaining. (Yeah, I'd bet most arrests originate with an unhappy parent. But that's not always the case.) So my proposed change in the law would have potential value in all of those situation where a neighbor, or a cop, or a DCFS representative, or a local minister, or a jealous ex-GF, or anyone other than a parent learns of the sexual act(s) with the minor and makes a stink.

And I can even think of a few (admittedly rare) situations where the proposed law could prevent a statutory rape conviction even when it is the parent who files the police complaint. One I touched on already - where the 18 year old ends the relationship and the 16 year old gets angry and vindictive, or tries to blackmail the 18 year old into returning, or gets despondent, and this reaction by the teen leads to a complaint by her parent.

Another situation might involve divorced parents. The custodial parent gives permission. The non custodial parent objects, either because she (a) legitimately believes premarital sex is evil; or (b) wants to paint the custodial parent as evil because she hates him, or to convince a judge to give her custody, or to blackmail him so that she can avoid making child support payments.

A third situation is akin to the one described by Mr2001: A parent could use the past sex act as a weapon against the minor and her BF - "If you don't do what I want, I'll report you for what you did last Saturday, even though I gave permission at the time."

I don't necessarily agree with one aspect of Mr2001's interpretation of my proposal, though. Althougn parental permission would be continuing in one sense, in that Alison wouldn't need to ask Mom every time she and Adam do it ("Hey, Mom! Adam and I are back at his dorm. We're going to have sex again! That ok? Thanks, bye!") I think that the parent should be able to revoke permission for the future, either because circumstances change or, in the parent's view, the sexual relationship is no longer in the minor's best interests.

Mr2001

08-27-2005, 08:02 PM

I think the point is that if she's consenting because she's coerced other kids might consent because they are coerced.
Adults might also "consent" if they are coerced, but we recognize that it isn't really consent.

Having the opportunity to give consent opens the door to coercion in a new way.
No, not really. It just opens the door to coercion in the same way that it's already open to everyone else. Similarly, if I have no money, I don't have to worry about someone stealing it from me; if you give me a $20 bill, the door is now open to theft, but only in the same way that it's already open for everyone else who carries cash.

I don't necessarily agree with one aspect of Mr2001's interpretation of my proposal, though. Althougn parental permission would be continuing in one sense, in that Alison wouldn't need to ask Mom every time she and Adam do it ("Hey, Mom! Adam and I are back at his dorm. We're going to have sex again! That ok? Thanks, bye!") I think that the parent should be able to revoke permission for the future, either because circumstances change or, in the parent's view, the sexual relationship is no longer in the minor's best interests.
For the future, certainly. But they shouldn't be able to revoke it retroactively, which is what I was referring to. ("A D in chemistry, huh? Gee, that reminds me, I changed my mind about letting you have sex with Adam last week, just before you left for his dorm. Guess I just forgot to tell you. You didn't do anything I'd have to call the police about, did you?")

How would you deal with a situation like that?