I think that everything - including such things as driving – should be permitted for those who are capable of doing them. With some provisos. For instance, I could drive (as in, knew how to work a car, how to push the pedals, work the gears, etc.) when I was 13 or 14. I couldn’t drive safely (reach the pedals easily, keep my temper, be vaguely aware of what was going on around me) 'til I was 17 or 18 (I could reach the pedals easily before that, but the other stuff…).
The ability to be tried as an adult is (in this country, at least, certainly for some crimes, if not all) decided on the circumstances of the individual, rather than blanket and arbitrary laws.
Okay, PeterB, you’re partway there,but I wasn’t just talking about permission. Minors have certain rights that adults don’t have.Minors have a right to be supported by their parents, but adults don’t. Minors can’t be held to a contract, but adults can.
You’ve got a point with the individual basis for being charged as an adult, but even there, there’s a minimum age before the individual decision is made. I doubt if a 7 year old is charged even as a juvenile anywhere in the US,(certainly not in NY), and as far as I know, all the laws allowing juveniles to be tried as adults require a minimum age (possibly different ages for different crimes).
Would you say those arbitrary age limits should also be abolished? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but your driving example sort of confused me with the provisos.I’m not really sure if you think there should be no age distictions, if you just think the line is drawn at the wrong place,or if you think the parent’s permission should be sufficient. Suppose a thirteen year old was physically able to drive. Who should decide if he or she is mature enough ( keeping their temper,being aware, etc)? What about an eight year old?
Minors can’t be held to a contract because they can’t make a contract. I hardly see that as a right minors have but adults don’t.
I guess my biggest objection to the age-of-consent laws for sex is that they come at the END of puberty. I’d like to see them come at the BEGINNING of puberty.
doreen: I’m sorry–it is I who has been unclear. I used your quote to slide into my discussion of age laws in general, but my final paragraph was directed at PeterB’s OP rather than what you said.
PeterB: Ok, then, the question becomes how do you determine who is emotionally and intellectually ready to consent to sex? Could my 13-year-old friend go take a sexual readiness test down at the county building or something? What would this test entail? Would she then be given a licence with her picture and everything? And what say do her parents have in all this?
I get this image of a conversation between mother and daughter:
Sorry, Peter–I don’t really mean to make fun of you. I see what you’re saying, and I agree in the sense that any age law is going to exclude those who are actually ready for that activity. I would personally not put the age of consent above 16, and I’d at least be willing to listen to arguments for either making it lower or having a mechanism to grant exceptions. (Maybe even those licences.)
But…going back to your OP, you seem to be advocating letting the courts decide the issue on a case-by-case basis as problems arise. This would mean it depended in large part on the luck of draw–does the person up on charges get the tough anti-kiddie-sex judge or the lenient pro-kiddie-sex judge? The bluenose jury who likes to punish sin, or the laid back jury which has three members who have crushes on their own kids’ friends? There is way too much discretion there–and I don’t see how it could be otherwise, since this is really a judgment call rather than a science. It’s a recipe for getting both younger people and older people hurt.
And it would also open the floodgates–anything that can be done will be done. Oh, the serious pedaphiles won’t care–they’re gonna prey on kids regardless–but there would most certainly be an increase in older people having sexual relationships with younger people. Say, for example, 36-year-old MysterEcks gets involved with a 12-year-old girl–what are the possible outcomes? There’s maybe one chance in a thousand (and I’m most likely overestimating by a hell of a lot here) that she and I hit the jackpot–true lasting love, and she doesn’t mind that I’m gonna croak (barring accident or major illness) some 30 years earlier than she. There’re maybe four chances in that thousand that nothing lasting occurs but nobody gets hurt. (Again, I’m overestimating.) That leaves 995 chances out of those 1000 that it was a really bad idea, whether I end up in the pokey for it or not…and most of those 995 times, it’s the 12-year-old who gets hurt. And we are talking about the kind of emotional hurts that people my age don’t always recover from, let alone 12-year-olds or young teens.
I’m very libertarian, especially on sex–it’s not an area I want the government meddling in at all. And I am well aware that the world can’t be made safe–there is a price for freedom, and sometimes there are casualties. But in terms of sex it can be made safer, at least for a little while. The best way to do this is to have some sort of standards, and that’s why I can’t buy the idea of completely eliminating the age of consent.
There is also a huge difference between desiring a teenager, who is sexually, but not emotionally mature, and desiring a child, who is neither. Pedophilia is a mental sickness, and very dangerous. At 12, we are talking about children, not mature individuals.
I want to elaborate upon something that has been touched upon here previously… Minors are not totally responsible for themselves - they cannot enter into a contract, they do not support themselves. Their parents are financially responsible for their care.
If a 14 year old girl is sexually active, and gets pregnant, who usually ends up footing the medical bills? Who is more financially responsible - the kid, or her parents? Most likely, it’ll be the parents (or the taxpayers.) The parents will end up with more of the responsibility, and burden. Because they are the “adults”. A 14 or 15 year old kid is, well, a “kid”. Sure, there are some who are holding down jobs and are totally responsible, but I am guessing the majority are not. If a kid thinks they are “mature” enough to have sex, do they think they are mature enough to foot all the bills themselves if a pregnancy or STD occurs?
The thing with abolishing age-restriction laws is that people usually want the laws restricting fun things (sex, driving) to be done away with. But I don’t hear people demanding that minors not be supported by their parents, starting at age 14, or whatever.
First of all, I’m 22, and the thought of having sex with a 14 year old is disgusting to me…I think anyone who’s over 19 or 20 and is trying to have sex with someone under 15 is pretty nasty to begin with. Anyway, about the laws…
Do you know how many young girls are in awe of older men? Tons. Let’s say a 14 year old has a crush on her hot 25 year old science teacher. (this happens a LOT). Said science teacher notices that she stares at him all dreamy eyed. So he tests the waters, starts talking to her about how pretty she is, etc. Most girls in this situation would be extremely flattered and amazed that this hot teacher likes them. This is where the problems come in. If the teacher were to ask the girl to have sex with him, a lot of 14 year old girls would not have the courage to turn him down, even if they really didn’t feel comfortable doing anything physical. Things would be running through her head like, “Ooooh, he likes me, and he’s an older man. I’d better show him I’m mature, or he might not like me any more.” or “If I say no, maybe he’ll tell my parents I am doing badly in class, or something else.” or “Wow, he’s dreamy, I’d better not screw this up.” Any of those are basically the girl consenting out of fear. Whether that’s fear of getting in trouble with the teacher, fear of getting bad grades, or fear of losing this older man’s admiriation if she doesn’t show him she’s a big girl. It becomes too easy. It also becomes an ego thing. People want to have sex with an older person to 1-up their friends, not realizing what is in store for them emotionally. I agree that there should be a 3-4 year age difference exception, so that a sexually active couple won’t be committing statutory rape when one is 16 and the other 17, and the 17 year old just turns 18.
…to the days of puberty? The body is literally overwhelmed with new feelings and sensations. To have an age of consent is probably a good idea, since it’s intent is to deter sex before the overwhelmed teen is ready.
In and of itself, sex , regardless of age, is not wrong between 2 consenting persons. It’s a natural instinct for continuing the human race (you know, the ACTUAL reason for sex). In it’s wisdom (and for once I am serious about that) the law has determined that sexual activity with a person under a certain age, is rape (statutory rape meaning that the law has defined a certain act as rape, regardless of it’s actual meaning). A teen who is overwhelmed with the new sensations overtaking their body is probably not prepared to make a sound decision on whether or not they are ready to have sex. So the law has made the decision for them, since it is probably obvious that alot men cannot be trusted to make that decision (and yes, I am a male).
Danielinthewolvesden: I assume your comment was directed at what I said, since I used a 12-year-old in my hypothetical. I’ll mostly agree with you, but not completely. There are 12-year-olds (of both genders) who are emotionally and intellectually mature enough to consent to sex–a fairly small minority of the total, certainly, but they are there. That, I think, is the whole point to this thread–no matter where you put the age of consent, you will almost certainly exclude someone who shouldn’t be. That sort of thing can’t be helped, short of abolishing the age of consent (and every other age law, for that matter)–which, you will notice, I’m not in favor of.
As it happens, I chose age 12 for a reason. You will find there are at least two states in the United States which have 12 as their minimum age for marriage (Massachusetts and Kansas) (this minimum age is for girls; the age for boys is higher). Also, if you check out the age of consent website Max Torque posted above, you will find at least four contries which have 12 as their effective age of consent (Argentina, Malta, The Netherlands, and Spain.) So while 16 seems to be the most common age of consent in the US, other countries come to different conclusions on the matter. Twelve seems awfully low–I have no idea why these countries set the age there–but there is at least enough sentiment for it to argue the point, which is why I used it in my example.
Well, I’m in New Zealand and I can say the laws are pretty much the same here. The age of consent is 16. There is no provision in the law for two underage kids, but even if the kid’s parents wanted to have the cops press charges they’d be sent home to go and chat with their kids themselves. I really can’t think of the last time I heard about any statutory rape charges happening here; anything too solicius would be dealt with by rape. Having said that, one of the more important ministers in the government has just been sacked for an alleged impropiety with a girl under the age of consent nearly 16 years ago. That actually reminds me of a weird one; it’s illegal to have sex with anyone that is under your care who’s under 21 (section something of the crimes act). In reality here, unless there’s a BIG age difference the cops are going to let it be dealt with by the families involved. But just don’t try and become a minister-it gets messy. Anyway, just the view from here.
But consider:
[ul]
[li]If an adult man wants to have sex with a particular 14-year old girl[/li][li]And the girl wants to have sex with the man[/li][li]And the girl knows all about what’s involved with sex and what the dangers are (or as much as a reasonable modern 18-year-old should know, at least)[/li][li]And both of the girl’s parents give their consent (perhaps with conditions, like condoms must be used and the man must present valid copies of STD tests beforehand)[/li][li]And the parents and girl hold a belief that sex during ones adolescence is good for your emotional well-being both then and later[/li][/ul]
… then who are they harming by carrying out their desires?
If you say “themselves, potentially,” then you’re playing the Nanny. If you say “the girl isn’t old enough to fully comprehend what she’s getting into”, then who has the right to determine when she is old enough? The state? The American Psychiatric Association? Do you really want to put your faith in either of these bureaucracies?
I see what you’re saying, tracer, and I agree up to a point. That’s why I also said:
But the problem is, it’s not just going to be 14-year-olds. Sometimes it’s going to be 12-year-olds. And 10-year-olds. And eight-year-olds. I’ve already said there are 12-year-olds who are mature enough to have sex; I’m willing to postulate that there may be a handful of 10-year-olds and an eight-year-old who are mature enough, too. But the very large majority of those under 12 (to use the Dutch age of consent) are not mature enough for sex and the baggage which comes with it…and 12 is pretty iffy. Fourteen…well, I’d say about half and half. (It’s been a long time since I was those ages–I’m lucky I can remember two weeks ago, let alone 22 years.) And I would submit that the vast majority of those who want sex with younger people are only looking to get laid–they have no intention of building a true romantic relationship with the younger person. (I realize this reflects my own views on sex in general, and is therefore more-or-less irrelevant, but I’m going to be a lot more sympathetic to an older person who actually falls in love with a young teen than I am to some vulture who just likes young noogie.)
There are only three solutions to the question that I can see. One is to declare open season–no age of consent, hope for the best. This is my position on most things, actually–but here we’re talking about a class of people who are completely in thrall to their elders. The second possibility is to do what I read PeterB’s OP as advocating–take it on a case-by-case basis in the courts when problems arise. I dealt with my opposition to this in an earlier post.
The last solution is the one we use, the age of consent–the drawing of a line. It seems to me this is the way that best protects the most people and hurts the fewest. Yes, having an age of consent will inevitably put some people on the wrong side of the line…but so does any age law of any sort, from drinking to driving to voting. I don’t know for sure where I myself would draw the line–no higher than 16, maybe as low as 13 (I think 12 is too low, at least in terms of having sex with adults). And I would probably go along with some way of granting waivers or exemptions in a case such as you describe–a younger person who is in fact mature and informed enough to make those choices. But I can’t see getting rid of the age of consent entirely.
I have absolutely no quarel with two consenting people doing whatever they want sexually–or, for that matter, with 200 consenting people who wanna lay in a great big pile. I do not now and have never believed that sex is “evil” or “sinful” somehow. But there is all sorts of emotional and societal baggage that goes with sex–much of it shouldn’t, but it does anyway–and there is a minimum of maturity and knowledge needed to know what it entails. Those who don’t have that maturity and knowledge need some minimal protection until they have a reasonable chance at figuring it out. And for lack of a better standard, that leaves us with age.
I think some of you are looking through the eyes of the adults you are. It’s been a while since your first time, it’s been a while since puberty, it’s been awhile of painful crushes on older men (and women).
Well, it’s only been a few years for me. I remember all that stuff very vividly. I also know my peers and how mature they are. I also have some experience now. I think the age of consent laws are great, and they should stay. Otherwise, some sick individuals would legally be able to manipulate some lil girls to sex.
I’m sure you are right. You’re 16 or 17, right? You’re some 20 years closer to the ages we’re talking about than I, so I have no doubt you can visualize them better. (Though I think I do pretty well for someone who actually lived those ages during the Carter Administration.)
At the same time, remember that I–and probably most of the others in this thread–am younger than the average state legislator who votes for or against these laws. That, perhaps, is part of the conundrum with age laws in general–they are imposed by those who are so far from the ages in question that they may not remember what it’s like to live them.
Ok, pepper, then the obvious question is this: where should the line be drawn? At what age are they no longer “lil girls” (or lil boys, for that matter) who we will not allow to make sexual decisions?
The answer to this question has more than one answer, as I’ve already mentioned in this thread. If you look at the website Max Torque posted near the beginning of this thread, you will find ages of consent vary internationally from 12 (The Netherlands, Spain, etc.) to 21 (Trinidad and Tobago). While the most common age of consent in the United States seems to be 16, states vary from 14 (Hawaii, probably Iowa (there are questions on some of them)) to 18 (several). I seem to recall that you live in California–are you aware that you are under the age of consent in that state? (It’s 18.) Do you agree with that? Do you think it should be lower? If so, where should it be? And, for that matter, would you agree or disagree with my suggestion that some kind of waiver system for those who are in fact (rather than by attaining an arbitrary age) mature enough to make those decisions should be considered?
(See what happens when you end up being the house expert on something? Some yutz demands answers from you.)
Yeah, I was aware that the age of consent is 18. It’s the same as Utah.
Here’s what I think should be the laws.
Legal Age of Consent=18
Waivers for the minimum age of 16 but only if the other partner is under 21.
I say this because I know many people who lose their virginity at 16 who seem to be able to handle it. And some parents are aware of it and is cool with it, and some are not. But the point is, people under 16 are not prepared emotionally for sex, or physically for child birth. End of story. I’ve SEEN it firsthand. I LIVE with these people who are sexually active, or who had children as children. This should not be tolerated, no matter how mature the girls (and boys) “feel”. From the age of 12-15 is the most vulnerable times for young people. Young ladies feel ugly because of the changes in their body, and will eagerly seek affirmation, and give in to pressure from older people. By essentially giving adults permission to exploit these young ladies, we are guarenteeing more teenage pregnancies, and emotional trauma.
Does all of this make sense? It’s late. Hope you can figure out what I’m trying say.
There are different kinds of rape under the law. For example statutory rape isn't considered the same as forcible rape. I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on television, but I believe forcible rape has to involve immediate physical threat or harm.
Check out the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics and you’ll be able to see the different classifications of rape they have.
pepperlandgirl: I assume you’ve read my posts in this thread, so you already know where I disagree with you. I won’t go into it again here.
But I find this interesting:
This isn’t what I meant by “waiver,” but never mind. Apparently such a split age of consent is how it’s done in some places. The one I found offhand is Florida, which has a general age of consent of 18, but also grants an exception down to 16 if the partner is under 24. I have no idea what the significance of under 24 is…but then I don’t understand your distiction of under 21, either.
I have to say that I don’t think much of this kind of split age of consent. If 16-year-olds are mature enough to choose sex, then I don’t see the point of limiting them to an age range. If, on the other hand, 16-year-olds are not mature enough to make these choices, then I don’t see that they should have the protection/disability removed at all–at least not in terms of a partner significantly older than themselves. If we are going to make generalized distinctions about maturity levels in this manner, 16-year-olds should be limited to those 18 or under–20 is too high. (We are speaking in general here, of course–the entire age of consent issue is general rather than specific.)