# Age restrictions and the consent of minors **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915 "2003-04-02T06:31:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/101 "2003-04-05T20:36:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted yb Stonebow_ > **where does schooling fall in your calculations of the responsibilities of the child? in my household, my son is aware that his ‘job’ is school. if he is to order his life like an adult, where does school come in?** I’m not quite sure what you mean. Why would he have to reorder his life? The friend I mentioned earlier who ran a computer store was enrolled in an alternative school, where he basically stopped by once a week to pick up assignments. Perhaps that would work for your son if some obligation kept him from attending school full time. > [@](#): > > **also- i think that you are dreaming re:insurance for 12 year old drivers at anything approaching reasonable rates.** I think it’d certainly take time for the rates to approach, er, reasonableness. There isn’t a lot of data on 12 year old drivers for the companies to go on. But as the data came in, 12 year olds’ rates would reflect their risk as a group (as all insurance rates do). If 12 year old drivers actually are as risky as you think they are, the high rates would keep them off the road while they present a risk. Of course, I don’t think they really would be that much of a risk. Driving is more about experience than age or “maturity”; it makes more sense to talk about the risk of first-year drivers than the risk of 16 or 12 year old drivers. > [@](#): > > **i also think that you are making the mistake of seeing 4 years = 4 years = 4 years…but the gap between 12 and 16 is decades compared to 16-20 and an eternity compared to 20-24. that’s based on a whole lot of factors, most biological.** An interesting, though unsubstantial, assertion. Precisely how does the differing gap between 12-16 and 16-20 affect young people’s ability to drive a car, handle liquor, keep up with politics, manage finances, etc.? > [@](#): > > **i’m trying to see where you’re coming from, but it does come across as ‘i’m mature for my age, so i should be able to do what i want’…and who among us did not think or say this to our folks growing up?** I take it you think everyone who said that was wrong? > [@](#): > > \*\*where you are looking for maximum freedom (and risk), most of us as seeking to provide maximum protection for kids…and given where society has been (and remains in third world nations), and where we are now, i can’t see an argument that this shift has been a bad thing. > \*\* I don’t think the lower ages for drinking and sexual consent have hurt Europe. Protection is a noble goal, but it can be (IMO has been) taken too far. As Bob Franklin put it in The Rights of Children: > [@](#): > > Adults do not perceive children as a minority group but as helpless, inexperienced, defenseless young people who need protection. Adult paternalism seeks to protect and if in this process it curtails freedom, truncates potential and destroys civil liberties this is taken to be incidental. The belief in the legitimacy of paternalism justifies and cements the existing power relationships between adults and young people. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by doreen \* > **Except for the few things for which government sets a minimum age (drinking, driving, voting,holding certain types of jobs) parents can allow their children to make most decisions.** And those are exactly the things I’m talking about. Certainly, minors have the option of convincing their parents to do certain things for them, but often the added risk or inconvenience of that arrangement means it won’t be done: A parent who takes out a loan for her kid will be expected to pay off the loan if the kid can’t do it himself. A parent who puts her kid’s name on her credit card account will be held responsible, by the law and the bank, for paying off the account. _Very_ different from letting the kid get his own credit card. > [@](#): > > **On a practical (but not legal ) level, parents can even allow minor children to consent to sex. A 14 year old may not legally be able to consent to sex with a 22 year old, but if no one complains, how likely are the police to find out?** On the other hand, if the police _do_ find out somehow, the parents are powerless to do anything about it. And if I were that 14 year old, I sure wouldn’t want my parents responsible for keeping my SO out of jail. “So,” they’d say one day, “you’ve been spending a lot of time with that woman, and it looks like your grades are falling because of it. It’d sure be awful if something were to… happen… to her, but at least your grades would pick up, huh? I think you catch my drift.” > [@](#): > > **Even your statement > assumes a certain level of maturity on the kid’s part. Sure a fifteen year old might know what the responsibilities are (and I believe that most of them wouldn’t decide the rights are worth the responsibilites- there doesn’t seem to be rush of minors seeking emancipation.** Emancipation is very different from what I’m talking about. > [@](#): > > **You seem to be against _any_ arbitrary age limits, not merely taking the position that they are currently set too high. […] I suspect that even though you seem to be against any arbitrary age limits, you actually have a particular age range in mind, perhaps without realizing it.** Indeed, I do have a vague age range in mind. I’d eat a hat sandwich if I ever met a 10 year old with a deep understanding of politics, or a 5 year old cruising down Division. The prejudice not to take young people seriously is one that should be avoided, but I realize that like most prejudices, it’s based in reality (at least at the lower end of the scale). I’d certainly support the lowering of arbitrary age limits as a step in the right direction. I disagree with the principle of age limits because any limit that sounds “acceptable” is going to exclude someone, but if the limits were low enough that no one was unfairly excluded, I wouldn’t have anything left to complain about - I’m far more concerned with actual people being mistreated by the law than with lofty principles. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by look!ninjas_ > **I’ll say it again - if you want to make a law, make it for the MAJORITY of people, not the minority.** That’s not how we do things in this country. The Constitution protects certain rights from being taken away by a majority - the 1st Amendment isn’t there to protect popular speech, because popular speech doesn’t need protection. Various anti-discrimination laws make it illegal to discriminate against certain minorities. To repeat my previous example, most women aren’t cut out to be firefighters. Breaking down doors and carrying people out of a burning building requires a level of physical strength and endurance that simply isn’t common in women, thanks to biology. But some women, a _minority_ of women, do possess that level of strength, and we fight for their right to be held to the same standard as men. I’m only asking that we do the same for young people. ---
**Author:** ![if\_you\_don\_t\_know\_i\_won\_t\_tell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/fbc32d/32.png) [@if\_you\_don\_t\_know\_i\_won\_t\_tell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/if_you_don_t_know_i_won_t_tell)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/102 "2003-04-05T22:02:11Z")
I completely agree. And as a note… I’m graduating from high school a year and a half early, so please do not assume that age is definitive of maturity, because it isn’t. Not all teens are mature, but not all adults are either. If parents raise their children to be mature, instead of automatically treating them like they’re incapable of making decisions, the children act more maturely. I do realize (who couldn’t) that not everyone is mature. But if we’re going to base laws on how a few people act, then we’d have to outlaw driving altogether. As well as drinking. We’d have to outlaw just about everything, in fact, because surely enough, someone will do something stupid. That’s not the way this country works. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/103 "2003-04-06T13:53:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*Protection is a noble goal, but it can be (IMO has been) taken too far. As Bob Franklin put it in The Rights of Children: Adults do not perceive children as a minority group but as helpless, inexperienced, defenseless young people who need protection. Adult paternalism seeks to protect and if in this process it curtails freedom, truncates potential and destroys civil liberties this is taken to be incidental. The belief in the legitimacy of paternalism justifies and cements the existing power relationships between adults and young people. \*\*One major problem. In this quote, Bob Franklin was talking about POLITICAL rights for children, not their right to be used sexually. I’m not sure how he would feel about you using his position for voting rights for children to condone the repeal of age of consent laws. I know you’ve been repeatedly trying to take “youth rights” arguments and apply them to sexual abuse laws, but, as I’ve said over and over, is a fundamental misconception of the purposes and uses of these laws. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **I’m far more concerned with actual people being mistreated by the law than with lofty principles.** No, you’re just more concerned with the POTENTIAL legal mistreatment of these theoretically ubermature 13 year olds than the very real physical harm of not having protections for every other child. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **The Constitution protects certain rights from being taken away by a majority - the 1st Amendment isn’t there to protect popular speech, because popular speech doesn’t need protection. Various anti-discrimination laws make it illegal to discriminate against certain minorities.** You might want to drop the age of consent laws as violating the Constitution argument. It won’t get you anywhere. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Those minors who have no interest in adult rights or responsibilities will be tried as juveniles; those who want all the rights will be tried as adults; those in the middle will be tried as one or the other, depending on the exact balance of their rights.** How the hell is this supposed to work in the real world? And how does this translate to your wish to repeal all age of consent laws? Are you going to be consistent? How would this work? I fear my role in this debate is drawing to a close because I have yet to see responses to many of mine and other arguments and only see the Socratic method of avoidance. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/104 "2003-04-06T14:09:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > There are countless stories of kids / young adults having their lives f\*\*ked up because of sexual abuse, even with a 18 year sexual consent. It’s a fact. I know it, you guys know it. This is what the law is for. To protect those people to the extent it is possible. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > What we don’t know is how much of that damage was caused by the sexual contact itself, and how much was caused by the reactions of others. Seeing the guy you had sex with taken away in handcuffs, while your relatives tell you “don’t worry, you’ve been hurt but you’ll get through it, he was a very bad man and that was a very bad thing he did to you”, can turn good memories bad and bad memories worse. So how much of the damage is due to the sexual contact, and how much is due to the reactions of others, **in your opinion**? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/105 "2003-04-07T02:27:14Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hamlet_ > **One major problem. In this quote, Bob Franklin was talking about POLITICAL rights for children, not their right to be used sexually.** “Used sexually”? Now that’s a loaded term and a strawman if I’ve ever seen one. The right is to give _informed consent_ to sex. If someone’s being “used” against his will, it’s not consent, now is it? > [@](#): > > **I’m not sure how he would feel about you using his position for voting rights for children to condone the repeal of age of consent laws.** What makes sexual consent laws so different from other paternalistic protection laws? Do you not see how they limit the freedom of minors as well as adults? > [@](#): > > **I know you’ve been repeatedly trying to take “youth rights” arguments and apply them to sexual abuse laws, but, as I’ve said over and over, is a fundamental misconception of the purposes and uses of these laws.** Look, a law that bans women from being firefighters could easily be justified as an attempt to protect those women. It would even have that effect; women can’t be killed in the line of duty if they can’t _be_ in the line of duty. But taking away a group’s civil liberties in order to protect that group is wrong; the goal of “protection” doesn’t justify everything. Remember that most of the arguments made in support of age restrictions have also been made in the past to support oppression of women; laws and policies that banned women from certain places or lines of work were there to “protect” them, because women were frail and naive and couldn’t be trusted to know what’s good for them. > [@](#): > > **You might want to drop the age of consent laws as violating the Constitution argument. It won’t get you anywhere.** I wasn’t making that argument. Sorry if you misunderstood. > [@](#): > > **How the hell is this supposed to work in the real world?** Well, off the top of my head, the simplest plan would be to let minors apply for “full adulthood”. They’d get all the rights and responsibilies that currently come at age 18, but sooner. Another way would be to list various rights and let minors choose the ones they want, then assign them responsibilities according to the specific rights and/or number of rights they’ve chosen. Choose to drive and you’re responsible for any damages you cause; consent to sex and you’re responsible for child support; choose all the rights and you become subject to the adult justice system. Now, I’m no lawmaker. The validity of the principle doesn’t depend on how well I can design an implementation. > [@](#): > > **And how does this translate to your wish to repeal all age of consent laws? Are you going to be consistent? How would this work?** My wish is for an end to age discrimination. Consenting to sex is just one right among many; if I could repeal one and only one age restriction, it’d be the voting age. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > **So how much of the damage is due to the sexual contact, and how much is due to the reactions of others, in your opinion?** That varies case by case, of course. I know a couple people who were molested as children, and from what I know about them I’d say the damage was entirely caused by the sexual contact. But there was no consent in their cases. To really answer your question, I’d need to know how many sex acts that violate age of consent laws take place with the consent of the younger party. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/106 "2003-04-07T02:44:04Z")
> [@](#): > > ## _Originally posted by RandySpears_ So how much of the damage is due to the sexual contact, and how much is due to the reactions of others, in your opinion? > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_\* > That varies case by case, of course. I know a couple people who were molested as children, and from what I know about them I’d say the damage was entirely caused by the sexual contact. But there was no consent in their cases. > > To really answer your question, I’d need to know how many sex acts that violate age of consent laws take place with the consent of the younger party. So given that you acknowledge: (I). An unknown (but with high likelihood substansial) number of minors are damaged (in part / or wholly) due to sexual contact with adults. (II). There exist an unknown (but not unsubstansial) number of adults that nevertheless are willing to sexually abuse minors. (III). Sexual abuse laws are effective (in part / substansially) in reducing the number of sexual abuses done to minors. How then is it that you wan’t to change these laws? Which of these do you question exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/107 "2003-04-07T04:35:36Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > \*\*(I). An unknown (but with high likelihood substansial) number of minors are damaged (in part / or wholly) due to sexual contact with adults. > (II). There exist an unknown (but not unsubstansial) number of adults that nevertheless are willing to sexually abuse minors. > (III). Sexual abuse laws are effective (in part / substansially) in reducing the number of sexual abuses done to minors. > > How then is it that you wan’t to change these laws? Which of these do you question exactly?\*\* (I) - I don’t believe that a substantial number of minors are harmed by _consensual_ sexual contact with adults, nor that non-consensual sexual contact is any less harmful when it’s done by another minor. (III) - I don’t believe that legally allowing minors to give informed consent to sex would result in substantially more sexual abuse, because consensual sex is not abuse. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/108 "2003-04-07T11:59:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > (I) - I don’t believe that a substantial number of minors are harmed by consensual sexual contact with adults, nor that non-consensual sexual contact is any less harmful when it’s done by another minor. > > (III) - I don’t believe that legally allowing minors to give informed consent to sex would result in substantially more sexual abuse, because consensual sex is not abuse. (I) Do you agree with me that the “consensual” / “mutual” sexual contacts between children and adults that you discuss are with high likelyhood a very small number of cases in relation to those where the contact is “forced” / “one-sided” / “the child do not even know what’s going on”? (III) In a child abuse / rape trial then, should the suspect be allowed to claim consent on the part of the child, and try to prove that through his lawyer? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/109 "2003-04-07T12:28:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **"Used sexually"? Now that’s a loaded term and a strawman if I’ve ever seen one. The right is to give _informed consent_ to sex. If someone’s being “used” against his will, it’s not consent, now is it?** God forbid you deal with the real issue. At least you’re consistent in your avoidance. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **What makes sexual consent laws so different from other paternalistic protection laws? Do you not see how they limit the freedom of minors as well as adults?** For the 4th time, because the other “youth rights” you speak of are not protection. I’ve never ever heard somebody say that children should not be allowed to vote because voting may harm them. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **But taking away a group’s civil liberties in order to protect that group is wrong; the goal of “protection” doesn’t justify everything. Remember that most of the arguments made in support of age restrictions have also been made in the past to support oppression of women; laws and policies that banned women from certain places or lines of work were there to “protect” them, because women were frail and naive and couldn’t be trusted to know what’s good for them.** And just becasue a rationale was misused once does not invalidate it when used properly. It ignores the vital differnces between women and children, arguments that have been made since page one of this thread, and you still haven’t dealt with them. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Well, off the top of my head, the simplest plan would be to let minors apply for “full adulthood”. They’d get all the rights and responsibilies that currently come at age 18, but sooner.** You would probably have more support if, rather than supporting the repeal of all age of consent laws, you simply allowed some to apply to do it. However, that may be an admission regarding the impropriety of repealing age of consent laws. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Now, I’m no lawmaker. The validity of the principle doesn’t depend on how well I can design an implementation.** Here in the real world, it’s ability to actually work is most definitely a factor in determining the validity of a principle. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*To really answer your question, I’d need to know how many sex acts that violate age of consent laws take place with the consent of the younger party. \*\* Once again it scares me that you would advocate the repeal of age of consent laws WITHOUT this information. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/110 "2003-04-07T20:04:43Z")
> [@](#): > > (I) - I don’t believe that a substantial number of minors are harmed by consensual sexual contact with adults, nor that non-consensual sexual contact is any less harmful when it’s done by another minor. I , for one, am not even sure that age of consent laws (and other protective laws ) are entirely based on what you would consider harm. There’s also the concept of “being taken advantage of”, such as when a ten year old sells a baseball card worth $100 to an adult for $5. Nor am I at all sure that the reasons for the exemptions for those close in age is because they are less harmful. I think it is due to two things- first a lessening of the “taking advantage” factor , and secondly the unfairness of saddling an only slightly older person with _all_ of the responsibility for the contact. To use a non-sexual example, if my 15 year old niece is home alone with her 7 year old brother, she’s going to held responsible if his friends come over while their parents are out. On the other hand, if my 12 year old son and 13 year old daughter are home together , I can’t really hold her responsible for what he does, or hold her solely responsible for what they do together .There’s simply not enough difference in their ages to say to one “You’re old enough to know better” and to exempt the other on the basis of “he’s too young to really know what he was doing” , Additionally, would a child’s consent be communicated in the same way as an adult’s? As an adult, if I don’t say no, am not physically forced, and am not threatened with violence, I have consented. If my boss threatens to fire me, if my teacher threatens to fail me, if my coach threatens to cut me from the team , if someone threatens to spread rumors about me, and I go along with the sexual contact, I have not been raped . If I agree to it because I fear those things will happen without any explicit threat, I have not been raped. Would you have the same go for minors, so that any child who doesn’t actually resist and isn’t physically forced will be deemed to have consented? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/111 "2003-04-08T02:12:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > **(I) Do you agree with me that the “consensual” / “mutual” sexual contacts between children and adults that you discuss are with high likelyhood a very small number of cases in relation to those where the contact is “forced” / “one-sided” / “the child do not even know what’s going on”?** I don’t have statistics one way or the other, but for the sake of argument, I’ll agree. I don’t believe it matters, though; in cases where the minor didn’t consent, rape charges can still be filed. > [@](#): > > **(III) In a child abuse / rape trial then, should the suspect be allowed to claim consent on the part of the child, and try to prove that through his lawyer?** Yes, just like in any other rape trial. The prosecutor may try to prove that the minor didn’t give informed consent–didn’t know what was happening or what it could lead to, or didn’t want it to happen–or in a “sex license required” scenario, the prosecutor could simply show that the minor had never applied for the license and therefore couldn’t legally consent. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hamlet_ > **God forbid you deal with the real issue. At least you’re consistent in your avoidance.** If you’ll _get_ to the real issue instead of dancing around it, tossing off one-liners about a “right to be used sexually”, then I’ll be glad to give you an answer. > [@](#): > > **For the 4th time, because the other “youth rights” you speak of are not protection. I’ve never ever heard somebody say that children should not be allowed to vote because voting may harm them.** I’ve heard the protection argument used to justify the driving age (“they might crash, hurting themselves or others”), drinking age (“they might hurt themselves while drunk”, “they might not be physically ready for alcohol”), and contract age (“they might get themselves in over their heads”). As for the voting age, I’ve heard it justified with statements like “kids will just vote for whoever their parents tell them to”, which sounds remarkably similar to “women will just vote for whoever their husbands tell them to.” > [@](#): > > **And just becasue a rationale was misused once does not invalidate it when used properly. It ignores the vital differnces between women and children, arguments that have been made since page one of this thread, and you still haven’t dealt with them.** Perhaps I’ve missed them; a quick search down the first page for “women” and “differ” didn’t turn up the arguments you’re referring to. Repost them and I’ll address them. > [@](#): > > **You would probably have more support if, rather than supporting the repeal of all age of consent laws, you simply allowed some to apply to do it. However, that may be an admission regarding the impropriety of repealing age of consent laws.** Speaking of missing things from the first page, I see you missed this: (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > I’d require the state to prove the minor’s incompetence, _or alternatively, keep the current laws but implement some kind of “sex license” so minors can become exempt after proving their own competence._ > [@](#): > > **Here in the real world, it’s ability to actually work is most definitely a factor in determining the validity of a principle.** I trust that legislators would do a better job of implementing the policy than I would, since they have more experience writing policy, more knowledge of the interactions between various laws, and because it’s their job. My boss doesn’t know how to write code, but that doesn’t stop him from telling me what he wants a program to do. > [@](#): > > **Once again it scares me that you would advocate the repeal of age of consent laws WITHOUT this information.** Please explain how the proportion of consensual illegal sex acts vs. non-consensual illegal sex acts is relevant to a discussion about legalizing the consensual acts. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by doreen_ > **I , for one, am not even sure that age of consent laws (and other protective laws ) are entirely based on what you would consider harm. There’s also the concept of “being taken advantage of”, such as when a ten year old sells a baseball card worth $100 to an adult for $5.** Ah, but it’s not illegal to buy a baseball card from a minor for less than its fair market value. Seller’s remorse is unfortunate but it’s part of doing business. A similar concept applies to sex: if you consent to sex with Tom, the mayor’s aide, then you regret it the next day when you find out he’s really a City Hall janitor, that’s not rape. 1. The concepts of informed consent and taking advantage seem mutually exclusive to me. How could an adult take advantage of a minor if the minor gives informed consent? 2. How would such a case be different from seller’s remorse or morning-after regrets? > [@](#): > > **Would you have the same go for minors, so that any child who doesn’t actually resist and isn’t physically forced will be deemed to have consented?** I’d apply the same standard as for adults. If you express your unwillingness, verbally or physically, that’s evidence that you didn’t give consent. I’d also accept power relationships (teacher/student, boss/employee, etc.) as evidence of potential coercion, but I don’t believe the relationship between a random adult and a random minor falls into that category. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/112 "2003-04-08T03:31:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **If you’ll _get_ to the real issue instead of dancing around it, tossing off one-liners about a “right to be used sexually”, then I’ll be glad to give you an answer.** Blah, Blah, Blah. I originally asked you about your misuse of Bob Franklin’s quote and the difference between voting rights and the “right” for underage children to have sex. But you would rather argue over a petty throw-away comment, than deal with the issue. Color me oh-so surprised. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **I’ve heard the protection argument used to justify the driving age (“they might crash, hurting themselves or others”), drinking age (“they might hurt themselves while drunk”, “they might not be physically ready for alcohol”), and contract age (“they might get themselves in over their heads”).** I’m glad you’ve heard so much of it. Now, maybe you’ll deal with the argument in regards to sexual abuse. But I doubt it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **As for the voting age, I’ve heard it justified with statements like “kids will just vote for whoever their parents tell them to”, which sounds remarkably similar to "women will just vote for whoever their husbands tell them to."** Running back to the “they said that about women” diversion again? God, you’re getting tedious. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Perhaps I’ve missed them; a quick search down the first page for “women” and “differ” didn’t turn up the arguments you’re referring to. Repost them and I’ll address them.** Reread my post. It’ll make sense if you really try. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*Speaking of missing things from the first page, I see you missed this: (emphasis added) \*\*Didn’t miss it, champ. You’re the one who wants to do away with the age of consent laws. The fact you’ll accept something else, doesn’t change the fact you’re wrong. I’d suggest you stick with the license argument. You may have a chance of convincing somebody with that one. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **I trust that legislators would do a better job of implementing the policy than I would, since they have more experience writing policy, more knowledge of the interactions between various laws, and because it’s their job. My boss doesn’t know how to write code, but that doesn’t stop him from telling me what he wants a program to do.** I’ve pointed out, over and over, the flaws with your wish to repeal the age of consent laws, and you offer no workable alternative. I think the burden would be on you. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Please explain how the proportion of consensual illegal sex acts vs. non-consensual illegal sex acts is relevant to a discussion about legalizing the consensual acts.** For Og’s sake man, have you not read a single word anyone has said here. Over and over I’ve pointed out the issue, and if you still don’t get it, I’m afraid there’s nothing more I can say. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/113 "2003-04-08T10:46:14Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hamlet_ > **Blah, Blah, Blah. I originally asked you about your misuse of Bob Franklin’s quote and the difference between voting rights and the “right” for underage children to have sex.** The quote is equally appropriate in the context of voting rights or any other right denied to minors, although it appeared in an essay about voting rights. > [@](#): > > **I’m glad you’ve heard so much of it. Now, maybe you’ll deal with the argument in regards to sexual abuse. But I doubt it.** First off, let me remind you of this gem: > [@](#): > > For the 4th time, because the other “youth rights” you speak of are not protection. Well, are they or aren’t they? The protection argument doesn’t apply to the age of sexual consent any better than it does to the driving age, the drinking age, or the contract age - that is, it’s still a load of crap. Yes, outlawing sexual contact between minors and adults makes it easier to put certain rapists in jail, just as laws against tax evasion made it easier to put Al Capone in jail. But it also bans an entire class of consensual acts in which no one is harmed and there is no victim. > [@](#): > > **Running back to the “they said that about women” diversion again? God, you’re getting tedious.** I must have missed the part of this rebuttal where you explained the differences in validity between sexist and ageist stereotypes. Ball’s still in your court, slugger. > [@](#): > > **Reread my post. It’ll make sense if you really try.** This must be what you were oh-so-cutely hinting at: > [@](#): > > He would rather err on the side of a very emotionally, physically, and psychologically developed 12 year old and the pervert she sleeps with than an unconsenting 11 year old who is groomed by a child molester. (Note: Your post said absolutely nothing about the “vital differences between women and children”. Is that you, Leroy?) And my reply, from the very same page: > [@](#): > > I’d rather err on the side of too much liberty than too little. If the 11 year old is unconsenting, then it’s rape… just like an unconsenting 16 year old, 18 year old, or 30 year old. Age is irrelevant. Do you believe that rape of minors is _not_ covered under our existing rape laws? Are statutory rape laws _necessary_ for catching people who rape minors? > [@](#): > > **I’ve pointed out, over and over, the flaws with your wish to repeal the age of consent laws, and you offer no workable alternative. I think the burden would be on you.** I offered two alternatives, to which you responded simply: “You would probably have more support if, rather than supporting the repeal of all age of consent laws, you simply allowed some to apply to do it.” Now you’re focusing on my statement that a politician could come up with a better plan, instead of the plans I actually presented. Do you consider them unworkable for a reason, or just dismiss them off hand? > [@](#): > > **For Og’s sake man, have you not read a single word anyone has said here. Over and over I’ve pointed out the issue, and if you still don’t get it, I’m afraid there’s nothing more I can say.** I’m sure your mighty presence will be missed. Wish I could say the same about your contribution to the thread. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/114 "2003-04-08T10:59:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Ah, but it’s not illegal to buy a baseball card from a minor for less than its fair market value. Seller’s remorse is unfortunate but it’s part of doing business. A similar concept applies to sex: if you consent to sex with Tom, the mayor’s aide, then you regret it the next day when you find out he’s really a City Hall janitor, that’s not rape. Lawyer, anywhere? While it’s certainly not a crime to buy a baseball card for less than market value from a minor, that doesn’t mean the minor can be held to the agreement and not end up either reversing the sale, or getting the other $95. Just like it’s not a crime to sign a contract with a minor, but the minor can’t be held to it. > [@](#): > > 1. The concepts of informed consent and taking advantage seem mutually exclusive to me. How could an adult take advantage of a minor if the minor gives informed consent? And how exactly, is the adult to know if the consent is “informed” or uninformed? > [@](#): > > I’d apply the same standard as for adults. If you express your unwillingness, verbally or physically, that’s evidence that you didn’t give consent. So if a child does says nothing and does nothing and wasn’t threatened with violence, they’ve consented.And by the way, adults need only give consent, informed or not > [@](#): > > I’d also accept power relationships (teacher/student, boss/employee, etc.) as evidence of potential coercion, but I don’t believe the relationship between a random adult and a random minor falls into that category. And here again, is where you run into problems with _no_ age of consent law, as opposed to a lower age of consent. Because while the relationship between a random sixteen year old and a random adult may not fall into that category, the relationship between a random five or ten year old and a random adult certainly does. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/115 "2003-04-08T11:47:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by doreen \* > **While it’s certainly not a crime to buy a baseball card for less than market value from a minor, that doesn’t mean the minor can be held to the agreement and not end up either reversing the sale, or getting the other $95.** Hmm… so this ought to work? 1. Have a minor buy a cart full of CDs and software from a store that doesn’t accept returns on opened packages. 2. Copy all the discs. 3. Have the minor return them and get the money back, claiming he can’t be held to the agreement. I’ve never heard of that scam being used, or seen a store that refuses to sell to minors because of it. Maybe there’s something missing. > [@](#): > > **And how exactly, is the adult to know if the consent is “informed” or uninformed?** It shouldn’t be too hard to discover whether the minor knows what sex is, what it can lead to, and whether s/he wants it, with a few simple questions. (Certainly easier than discovering whether the girl in the bar with a fake ID is under 16.) A knowledge of contraception and disease prevention is pretty good evidence that s/he knows what it can lead to. > [@](#): > > **So if a child does says nothing and does nothing and wasn’t threatened with violence, they’ve consented.** Essentially. The circumstances of the act could be used to argue coercion: e.g. the gym teacher asks Jane into his office after class, shows her her failing grade, and suggests she could improve it by stripping for him -\> evidence of abusing a power relationship. > [@](#): > > **And by the way, adults need only give consent, informed or not** Adults who are mentally deficient (that is, adults who are in the state that the law assumes all minors are in) can’t give consent, because their consent is presumed to be uninformed. In a non-“sex license” scenario, where the state must prove that a minor failed to consent rather than proving the minor wasn’t exempt from the law, I’d say they should only have to prove that _informed_ consent wasn’t given. > [@](#): > > **And here again, is where you run into problems with _no_ age of consent law, as opposed to a lower age of consent. Because while the relationship between a random sixteen year old and a random adult may not fall into that category, the relationship between a random five or ten year old and a random adult certainly does.** I don’t think it’d be hard to show that a 5 or 10 year old didn’t give informed consent. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/116 "2003-04-08T11:50:09Z")
It seems that so far, this thread has been focused on sexual consent. Is no one going to speak up in support of any other age restrictions: driving age, drinking age, contract age, or voting age? ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/117 "2003-04-08T12:10:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mr2001_ > It seems that so far, this thread has been focused on sexual consent. Is no one going to speak up in support of any other age restrictions: driving age, drinking age, contract age, or voting age? Well, considering the title and OP of this thread, are you suprised? They were chosen by you, y’know. I’ll get back to you on the other stuff you posted… ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/118 "2003-04-08T12:26:20Z")
Preliminary, In the context of a rape trial: Would it be enough for the defence to prove that the adult at the time of sexual contact had good reason to believe that informed consent was given? If not, how should the law counter situations where informed consent (your interpretation of it) is in fact given at the time of sexual contact, but is later denied by the child in court? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/119 "2003-04-08T14:01:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **The quote is equally appropriate in the context of voting rights or any other right denied to minors, although it appeared in an essay about voting rights. > The protection argument doesn’t apply to the age of sexual consent any better than it does to the driving age, the drinking age, or the contract age - that is, it’s still a load of crap.** Then why is it that adult/children sex is treated much more harshly than children/children sex? Or why is an adult in “a position of trust or authority” over a child treated more harshly. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not because the laws are there to restrict minor’s rights. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Yes, outlawing sexual contact between minors and adults makes it easier to put certain rapists in jail, just as laws against tax evasion made it easier to put Al Capone in jail. But it also bans an entire class of consensual acts in which no one is harmed and there is no victim.** And, now for the 5th time: repealling the age of consent laws would most definitely create more harm and more victims, all so theortically mature child can have sex with her 18 year old neighbor. I find that unacceptable. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **I must have missed the part of this rebuttal where you explained the differences in validity between sexist and ageist stereotypes. Ball’s still in your court, slugger.** You must be watching a different game. Nearly everyone who has posted in this thread has pointed out differences between adult women and children. The child’s immaturity, their susceptibility to coercion, their ability to form contracts, their different treatment in the criminal justice system, their responsibility level for potential children and their own actions, etc. You could also reread my post: “And just becasue a rationale was misused once does not invalidate it when used properly.” Maybe the ball is in my court because I’m hitting against a brick wall. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **Do you believe that rape of minors is not covered under our existing rape laws? Are statutory rape laws necessary for catching people who rape minors?** No, but the inherent immaturity, their susceptibility to coercion, the difference between coercion and truly infomed consent, the difficulty with proving consent with children, are all reasons why it is better to over-protect than under-protect. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*I’m sure your mighty presence will be missed. Wish I could say the same about your contribution to the thread. \*\* Don’t make the mistake and think I’m actually posting here for you, or that I’m concerned in the least bit with whether you’ll miss me or not. As I said in my very first post: “I fear we are so far apart on this issue, debate [with you] would be meaningless.” I’m posting only for the people who actually read your posts and may think you are making good arguments. I’ll let you go on with your thread now. Enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915/120 "2003-04-08T22:19:33Z")
> [@](#): > > It shouldn’t be too hard to discover whether the minor knows what sex is, what it can lead to, and whether s/he wants it, with a few simple questions. (Certainly easier than discovering whether the girl in the bar with a fake ID is under 16.) A knowledge of contraception and disease prevention is pretty good evidence that s/he knows what it can lead to. And of course, the adult also has the can see into the future to know which way the jury will decide later.Which is a point you are not considering. Just because adult A thinks 16 year old B can give informed consent doesn’t mean a jury will agree with him. And on note similar to **RandySpears** ’ last post, in my state, it’s an affirmative defense in the case of the mentally incapacitated that the other party didn’t know of the incapacitation. I suppose I could live with a defense in which the adult had to prove that the child was in fact able to give informed consent. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’d be hard to show that a 5 or 10 year old didn’t give informed consent. Oh, I don’t think it would be difficult to prove it to most of a jury either. But with no age limit, you’ve left the question open as to whether a five or ten year old _could_ consent. And I guarantee there are people out there who think they can. In fact, you yourself, are unwilling to take the position that a ten year old can’t consent and therefore the age of consent should be at least ten. And it’s really not fair to adult A to have no set age in law, if there’s going to be a set age in practice. Maybe he really _does_ believe that that ten year old is exceptionally mature and able to consent. Or maybe it’s a five year old he believes can consent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/age-restrictions-and-the-consent-of-minors/165915.md?page=7)