Age of consent

Great Debates
1

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?

2

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?

3

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.

4

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?

5

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

(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.)

6

AerynSun wrote:

Cite?

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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.

10

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)

11

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:

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

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.

15

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.

16

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

17

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.

18

doreen said:

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.

19

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.

20

pepperlandgirl wrote:

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.