Well, I think some people would. For example, a few months ago, there was serious discussion on feminist blogs about raising the age limit for appearing in porn to 21, because 18 year olds who consent to appear in Girls Gone Wild videos might regret it later. We make people wait until they’re 21 to drink, or 25 to run for Congress; one could argue that sex is riskier than either of those.
No, I think an age limit is entirely the wrong way to approach this problem.
Age is loosely correlated with the factor you’re really trying to measure (ability to consent to sex). But then, so are height and weight - surely we’d all agree that most people who weigh 50 lbs and are less than 4 feet head to toe are incapable of consenting to sex. Forbidding sex with people who are less than some arbitrary age makes only slightly more sense than forbidding sex with people who are less than some arbitrary height or weight - in all cases, you’re ignoring the quality you really want to measure, and looking instead at some other quality that’s loosely correlated with it.
Furthermore, since the quality is only vaguely defined, you have no way to know how well your age limit matches up with reality. If you can’t even tell whether an individual has this quality because you haven’t bothered to define it objectively, how can you possibly hope to know how many false negatives or positives will result from a given age limit, and thus know whether one age limit is any better than another?
Then why pick an age at all? Doesn’t this suggest that age limits are the wrong tool for the job?
No, I believe an understanding and ability to consent to sex is completely independent of age. It should be legal to have sex with someone who demonstrates an understanding and willingness to have sex, regardless of their age. If a 12-year-old is obviously trying to seduce you and you have nothing against boinking a 12-year-old, it should be legal for you to have sex with him.
Behavior is a much more reliable indicator of understanding and willingness to engage in sex than age, so I don’t see any good reason for age of consent laws other than age being a quick and easy way of drawing the line between what’s okay and what isn’t. So I think the “hard limit” should be the point at which you notice a reluctance to engage in or continue sexual activity, or confusion over what’s going on or going to happen. If that is ignored, well, that’s where our existing rape laws kick in.
One problematic legal and moral aspect of this is parents’ rights over their minor children. I’m sure few parents would be okay with their young children engaging in sex, even if they understand it and it is consensual. Most people would regard sex as an adult activity, and it’s difficult to reconcile the idea of children wanting sex. However, I don’t think the proper response is to create a law criminalizing sex with an N-year-old, because even if we could agree on an age for that law, the number is still arbitrary. I also think a minor’s sex-related decisions should not always ultimately be left to their parents, but that’s a whole 'nother huge issue.
You’re describing The Blue Lagoon, the movie mentioned in the two posts just before yours.
Again, I haven’t seen the movie, but in the 1908 book upon which it was based the two children were cousins. I haven’t read the book either, but it’s in the public domain and available online. The children are introduced in Chapter II and they are referred to as the son and niece of Mr. Lestrange.
I’m too young to have seen The Blue Lagoon when it was released, but I think it’s unlikely that the filmmakers would have chosen to make the relationship more incestuous, or that there wouldn’t have been public outcry against a mainstream film that portrayed sibling sex in a positive light.
Sorry for the hijack, but I hope by clarifying this point people will be able to continue the main topic of discussion here without getting further sidetracked by discussion of bad Brooke Shields movies.
I accidentally ran into a porcupine on the road yesterday. Therefore, since I don’t condone killing of God’s creatures, I will stop driving, because it doesn’t get me there without mishap in all instances.
I made a mistake in referencing a cite the other day, therefore I will never again use google, because it doesn’t work in all instances.
I bought some produce at the local supermarket that wasn’t as fresh as I hoped, so I will never again patronize that store, because it doesn’t sell fresh produce in all instances.
I bought some grass seed that said it had “1% weed seeds”. Since I don’t want weeds in my lawn, I will never again plant grass, because it doesn’t work in all instances.
The moral? One must consider the relative risks and rewards.
Perhaps - I would argue that such high ages sacrifice too much freedom in the name of safety.
I don’t agree at all. Dwarfs can legally have sex as far as I am concerned.
Not at all.
From my point of view, the purpose of having an age limit is safety - which, of course, must be weighed against freedom. There are no absolutes here - you can never get a solution that is both absolutely safe and absolutely free: there is always a trade-off.
Again, consider speed limits. The purpose of having a speed limit is to achieve a relative balance between freedom (to go as fast as you want) and safety. It would make little sense to allow everyone to go as fast as they wanted, wait for the inevitable car crashes, and the afterwards to forensically determine at the resulting court cases which car (if any) was exceeding the scientifically-determined correct speed, which of course varies from vehicle to vehicle.
Moreover, if it is so difficult for a court to tell the “correct” speed, with the assistance of experts and scientists of all sorts, given the multiple factors involved, it is even more difficult for an individual who has no particular training in engineering to tell. So what is an individual, getting behind the wheel in the morning, supposed to do?
It makes more sense from a social point of view to strike a reasonable, if arbitrary, compromise between freedom and safety - say, 100 KM per hour, no faster - which will not of course be right for everyone but which is at least easy for everyone to comprehend.
The same goes for age of consent laws. There may be some 12 year olds out there who are mature enough to handle the emotional and physical aspects of a sexual relationship (I personally doubt it but I do not pretend to know). I would not be willing, however, to trust the judgment of the sort of person sexually attracted to 12 year olds to tell the difference. For the safety of the vast majority of 12 year olds out there who are not mature enough to give valid consent, it simply makes sense to sacrifice the freedom of the tiny minority who are, and of those who are sexually attracted to them - it is a small sacrifice (they merely have to wait a few years to have sex) set against a huge potential risk (childhood sexual abuse).
As the age decreases, so the argument becomes more compelling. Sacrificing the freedom of a 6 year old to have sex with adults? A toddler?
I disagree with much of this. I do not think that the ability is “completely independent of age”. That would imply that there are toddlers around with the ability to consent to sex, which simply cannot be true.
Moreover, a demontration of a willingness to have sex, or a young child “obviously trying to seduce you” is, to my eyes, not necessarily any good indicator at all of someone possessing the maturity to legitimately engage in consensual sex. Indeed, if I saw a very young child “obviously trying to seduce” me, I’d be inclined to think that they either (1) had no idea what they were doing or (2) that they were themselves the victims of sexual abuse.
Disagree. “Behaviour” is not necessarily a reliable indicator of actual maturity - it could just as easily be a reliable indicator of someone who has been “groomed” for inappropriate sex.
Waiting for “our rape laws to kick in” strikes me as most unwise. The idea is to prevent harm, not simply to punish harm. That is a major reason why “few parents would be okay with their young children engaging in sex” - they above all else do not wish to see their kids come to harm (at least, good parents act this way). As a society it is wise to, in general, defer to this wish, until children come to an age in which they may assert their rights to freedom or until the parents have demonstrated unfitness to care for them. The first is of necessity age-dependent - a two year old simply cannot reasonably make his or her own decisions about anything major.
I see the point you’re trying to make. My logic is somewhat overcompensating. However, you’re referencing trivial matters that “don’t work in all instances”. I’m referencing the conception of a child between siblings. There’s a gaping gulf of difference there.
Instead of going to such extreme lengths to poke holes in my argument a better approach might be to conter my argument with good reasons as to why incest shouldn’t be legislated against. If there are any.
Our enormous penises, of course. White girls, coming from a stock whose males have penises averaging much smaller, require special training, equipment, & hypnotherapy. UNLV has a elective course intended for would-be-hookers of Scandanavian descent would intend to service basketball players if anybody’s interested. (I’m told the mandatory pre-course medical exam rather, ah, intrusive.)
Other people would argue that setting the age at 18, or even 16, also sacrifices too much freedom in the name of safety. What makes your argument any more persuasive than theirs?
Again, this is the problem with using age limits instead of defining the quality you’re really concerned about. You can’t really know how much freedom you’re taking away or how much safety you’re gaining. All you can do is ask your gut whether it feels like you’re taking away too much freedom, too little, or just the right amount.
You’re missing the point. Most people who are below that height and weight aren’t dwarfs, they’re children, who you already believe are incapable of consenting to sex.
Basing the law on height and weight instead of age would be a little less accurate, but you’re already willing to accept that, right? You said “it simply makes sense to sacrifice the freedom of the tiny minority” of minors who are capable, so why not sacrifice the freedom of a few dwarfs on the same altar? Is their freedom inherently worth more?
I contend that it’s not difficult for a court, or an individual, to tell whether someone is capable of consenting to sex. It’s a simple matter of defining what sex is, what information is needed to give informed consent, and determining whether they have it.
So why do we still insist on an arbitrary age limit? I believe it’s because an objective standard would reveal that the capacity for informed consent exists in many teens who are below the current age of consent, and people don’t want to admit that. They see a proposed objective definition and they think it must be flawed because they know a few “uncomfortably young” people who’d be able to meet it, and they’re unwilling to consider that their gut feeling might be wrong.
Stop right there. What makes you so sure that the “vast majority” of 12 year olds are “not mature enough”? If you can’t even explain what “mature enough” means, how can you possibly know how many people of any given age meet that definition?
What’s the difference?
No, really. How could you tell whether someone possesses actual maturity (whatever that is) or has simply been groomed for inappropriate sex? Does someone who’s been “groomed” not actually want to have sex? Is a person’s consent only valid when it can’t be traced back to a cause?
I’m very about why you would include, among your related examples… a black man (and why bring in race at all?) boinking… even if it were to be for a lonnnnng while. -???
Were you slipping in a little joek as well as making a typo? (Oooops! :smack:) Presumably you meant a white girl, and “girl” these days usually connotes someone under 18, but you didn’t speak about a specific age for the girl… unless you meant to say that she had to wait for a while until reaching the age of consent.
You will never be able to satisfactorily define these terms so that they will be true for everyone. Does that mean that having sex with infants is a-okay?
To my mind, of course not. Much better, knowing that the terms are not suceptible of exact definition, to set a limit. Arguing otherwise exposes too many to too much potential harm.
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Age IS strongly correlated to maturity - height is not. A dwarf over the age of consent - all such dwarves, in fact - are prefectly capable of consenting, so theor sacrifice means nothing at all.
Moreover the “sacrifice” of a child’s freedom is inherently a temporary measure - children grow. Dwarves do not.
I can see some potential issues with allowing the sort of individuals sexually attracted to pre-adolescent children the freedom of “simply” determing whether or not the kid is mature enough.
If it is so easy to define whether a teen below the age of consent can in fact give proper consent - what would you suggest is this “objective standard”?
To my mind none exists, as the matter is highly subjective. The way it works now with adults is that we simply accept their word for it, if they are not obviously incapacitated in such a manner as to vitiate their consent. This will obviously not do for young children.
12 is the average age of the onset of puberty. It is obvious that the vast majority of children have not, by that time, developed the emotional and social maturity to handle sexual relationships.
You are asking what is the matter with having sex with a child who is only open to sex because s/he’s been unquestionably sexually abused already?
If you are the answer is as follows: because that openness is not necessarily indicative of any real maturity of decision-making, but may rather simply be an acting-out as a result of the child being exposed to trauma in the form of rape, in some cases brutal and repeated over long periods of time by trusted authority figures (like daddy).
If you knew a a guy who had been mugged so often and so badly that every time any man approached him, that guy gave money to appease the fellow approaching him - would you say “Great! Free money!”?
Many people don’t want copulation to result in offspring, so they take appropriate precautions. Just because a few do not doesn’t mean we should ban all copulation.
There’s nothing preventing siblings from taking the same precautions. Your claim that a child might result isn’t sufficient to prohibit all acts. Love might result, too, but you can’t take that chance, either?
I prefer to attack your arguments with satire. Some people are unswayed by facts.
Incest shouldn’t be legislated against because it replaces what should be a personal choice with what Big Brother wants.
I believe you can. What makes you think otherwise? What’s so hard about defining consent? (Watch, I’ll do it myself in this very post.)
Are you suggesting that some infants out there might meet a reasonable definition of being capable of giving informed consent to sex? Because I’ll eat a truckload of hats if that’s true.
No, neither of them are strongly correlated. Very young people are “immature”, and very old people are “mature”; likewise, very short people are “immature”, and very tall people are “mature”. Just like we can agree that 1 year olds are incapable of consent, we can also agree that people 1 foot tall are incapable of consent. And just like we can agree that, say, 30 year olds are generally capable of consent, we can also agree that people 7 feet tall are generally capable of consent.
The correlation falls apart between those extremes, though. Why? Because age really isn’t what you’re trying to measure. “Maturity” tends to start within a certain age range, but it’s the result of other factors which aren’t directly tied to age any more than they are tied to height or weight. It’s little more than a coincidence.
Similarly, a minor who knows what sex is, what it can lead to, and still wants to have sex, is perfectly capable of consenting. But you’re willing to sacrifice their freedom, even though you find it unacceptable to sacrifice short people’s freedom for the same purpose.
Then would you accept a waiting period on dwarves’ consent? A mature 12 year old has to wait, say, 4 years before his consent is legally recognized, so would you accept forcing dwarves to wait 4 years between wanting to have sex with someone and being legally allowed to?
They must know what sex is (which acts are sexual, why people want to do it), what it can lead to (pregnancy, disease, etc.), and express their desire to continue in light of that knowledge.
I don’t think this vague “emotional and social maturity” is truly a prerequisite. In any case, the way to gain that maturity is through experience, not hiding from the world until this maturity magically appears.
Please explain the difference between “real maturity of decision-making” and this other, presumably fake, kind of decision-making. If you offer someone a choice, and they know what they’re getting into, and they aren’t being threatened or drugged, what exactly is wrong with accepting their decision as valid?
I wouldn’t question his ability to give consent. If he freely makes the choice to hand out money to anyone who asks for it, that’s up to him. His decision doesn’t become invalid just because you can point to an event in his past that predisposed him to make it.
He may have a problem, and it may be in his best interest to get help for it, and I might feel guilty about taking advantage of his generosity. But I absolutely shouldn’t be arrested for robbery - giving me money is ultimately his choice.
Likewise, having sex is ultimately the choice of the person giving consent. If they know what they’re agreeing to, then their consent is valid. Maybe they have a problem, maybe they should be in therapy, and maybe the people who have sex with them should feel bad about it. But as long as the consent was freely given, no one should go to jail for it.
Yet presumably if said infant appears “seductive”, you’d see no problems with going for it.
That is nonsense. Maturity is tied to age, within ranges.
Because the sacrifice you are proposing makes no sense.
Again, the analogy is poor.
This standard is absurdly low. Many a five or six-year old fits the first two criteria; I certainly knew how babies came when I was five.
Maturity appears with age and experience under the capable guidance of trusted adults.
Note that “trusted adults” excludes those who wish to have sex with them - that’s a conflict of interest.
Because you know that they are probably not really capable of appreciating in any meaningful sense the consequences of what they are doing. Moreover, if you are reasonable and intelligent, you strongly suspect that their “willingness” is triggered by a vulnerability that you are cynically exploiting for your own gratification, not a true desire for a sexual liason fior its own sake.
Which is pretty well the definition of immoral, to my mind.
In short, as long as someone is able to point to an agreement, that’s good enough - you will not look behind that, where the person is obviously vulnerable (mentally unstable, or a child).
I guess in the case of the man, there is some excuse - one could say one didn’t know of his backstory, and so were unaware of his vulnerability.
In the case of a child, there is no such excuse. One can see that it is a child. If a child approaches a grown man for sex, that highly unusual occurrance creates to my mind a duty on the reasonable person to look beyond the “consent” being offered, and show something in the way of empathy for the child. It strikes me as highly unreasonable that a grown man would accept a child’s willingness to have sex at face value - it is very much like any breach of trust or exploitation of vulnerability; and such should be considered both immoral and illegal.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. I’m very happy with the laws being in existence, though I may quibble with many of their specifics and how they are applied.
about why you would include, among your related examples… a black man (and why bring in race at all?) boinking… even if it were to be for a lonnnnng while. -???