Many Dopers posted in the above thread that many 13 year olds are capable of making sexual decisions, and that a 14 year old male having sex (with any partner, adult or child) is not damaging or dangerous, and applauded his efforts.
The impression I got is that they believe these youngsters have the capacity to make sexual judgements and practice sex, and that this should be OK and normal. Mayben to the extent of Kinsey’s suggestions, but at least the teenagers.
I think it may make an interested debate. So, do you think the AoC should be lowered, and if so, to what? 16? 14? 13? Why? At what age are the majority of children capable of making sexual decisions? What age should they be protected by the law until?
Yes. Conditionally. For a very few young people. Only if they meet the standards of being emancipated minors, which would change from state to state. I think young adults who can satisfactorily demonstrate to a court they don’t need parental support or supervision to earn a living or make their way in the world should be restricted on who they can love or have sexual relations with. Yes, I believe I would set the age as low as 13, perhaps, in deference those who’ve had a bat or bar mitzvah and showed unusal precociousness and maturity. Being Jewish isn’t a requirement, but could help, (Smiley icon)
However, to be consistent, I don’t think emancipated minors need to be required to go to school or have their parents’ permission to marry, either. Nor should they be barred from joining the armed services if they so wish. Whether they see combat or not would be dictated by their effectiveness as soldiers and their training.
Restrictions against driving, drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes should be done on a case-by-case basis.
Never happen, there would be consderable obstacles even monitoring such a situation to prevent abuse, but… there ya go.
Teachers and caregivers of such a young adult – esp. if they chose to enter school or be tutored – would be legally and professionally prevented from ANY kind of sexual conduct with the EM until that young adult reaches universally recognized age of adult consent of 18, or face appropriate legal consequences, including jail and the loss of teaching accreditation and a general blackballing in the profession. A teacher will be absolved, however, if they surrender their teaching license prior to enganging sexually with an EM.
I base my beliefs on the fact that my great-aunt married her first husband when he was 40 and she was 15, and that they had 36 years of long (reportedly) happy marriage in the lowcountry of South Carolina until he died at 77. She raised their kids responsibly, suffered no apparent ill-effects and still speaks well of him (though not in front of her second husband.)
I found it fascinating that there are differences in some places in age-of-consent figures depending on the sex of both parties.
Here in the US, the average appears to be about 17 for hetero couples. For homo, it’s either illegal, or the law has been repealed.
For practical purposes, I think legal Age of Consent should probably be pegged at 16 or so. My memory of high school leads me to believe that most kids who haven’t had sex by then either can’t get it or have strong religious objections. The idea that if an 18-year-old kid boinks a 17-year-old kid they’re now a statutory rapist just seems ludicrous to me. Even some seniors get over their fear of cradle-robbing and bag themselves a freshman. Nobody in these instances, so far as I can tell, winds up mentally damaged. If 18-year-olds are adults, then it must be considered that they will have relations with other kids under 18; otherwise you’ve got schools brimming with rapists, as far as the law is concerned. Ridiculous.
I agree with this. If they are independent enough to deal with the consequences of their decisions, they should have all the rights as an adult. If they can’t, and they would expect their parents to pick up the pieces of their bad decisions, then they aren’t grown up enough to make these choices.
It wouldn’t necessarily BE large scale case-by-case evaluations. There aren’t exactly a rush of young people seeking to be Emancipated Minors now, is there? And not every EM would WANT to smoke or buy alcohol or have sex with someone considerably older or even get married. But the options would be there.
In my provisions, there are financial and demonstrably independent living requirements that would make many applicants ineligible. Also – this kind of legislation tends to favor young adults who are already well-off due to their families’ standard of living and not necessarily because of their own work ethic or responsible natures. Maybe the ACLU would support that, maybe not.
It IS a slippery slope. But menses in many young women are reaching a younger and younger age. (At the school I work at there’s a 10 year old on the rag!) To some extent, to continue to expect chaste behavior from young women and men whose bodies are physiologicalluy ready for sex seems counterproductive. Perhaps we should change laws and encourage responsible behavior, rather than uphold laws that act against a biological imperative.
Right, but the primary reason for this is the difficulty of a EM providing for him/herself. A “sex license” would create a much longer line at the door of the local social offices. Hm, maybe unless parental permission were required… but again, I don’t see the point…
In my provisions, there are financial and demonstrably independent living requirements that would make many applicants ineligible.
[/quote]
In that case, I don’t see the point of the issue. If we’re talking about the effect on a relatively tiny number of minors who would likely qualify for EMship in any case…
Yeah, I think the age of consent should be 16. Why? If you can hurtle around our streets in 3,000 pounds of death, you should be able to fuck. 'Course, I also think the drinking age should be lowered to 16, as well.
Well, the point is you asked my opinion. Should the age of consent be lowered? I reponded, “yes, conditionally, for a very few young people.” Then I outlined a scenario where this might occur in a responsible way. There are some young people who will have sex no matter what the hell you say or try to punish them. Well, that’s what other laws are for. So at least encourage responsible behavior where it MIGHT work legally and responsibly.
I’ve never advocated whole-scale lowering of the age of consent across the board for every sexually mature young person who experiences the first twitches of hormonal pangs. But in this way you might see a more reasoned approach in achieving sexually responsible behavior from young people who are physically mature enough and emotionally responsible enough to handle it.
Don’t think of revamped emancipated minors as a “sex license” (although that’s EXACTLY how opponents would spin it), but rather a special societal status of earned early adult privileges bestowed on those few who meet state-established legal criteria.
Of course, in order to legally hurtle around our streets in 3,000 pounds of death, you have to pass a test proving you have some marginal clue what you are doing, and you have to find a way to foot the bill for insurance (or have parents who are willing to foot the bill for you). A lot of kids can’t (legally) drive because their parents won’t pay for car insurance. The parents can make that choice. Or, if the kid can afford to pay for their own insurance, they are showing some level of responsibilty (the ability to earn money).
My children (twins) will be 12 in less than two weeks, therefore I am fully comfortable with the age of consent being set, nationwide, at 13 years of age …
… to be incremented by one year on July 1st of every year from now until I die.
This talk about case-by-case assessment of one’s sexual readiness is absurd. It’s ludicrous. Do you really think we ought to be paying public officials to examine teenagers or maybe handing out some sort of sex license based upon a standardized test or something? That’s worse than fatuous. It’s borderline nuts. Yeah, you try to get this teen sex regulating infrastructure set up, have the cops pulling over teens, “son, are you fucking without a license?” Enough. It’s impossible to police kids having sex now, what’s the point of this individual consideration lunacy? Who is going to have the authority to assess? Who in their right mind would want such a position anyway…“Yes, ma’am, I know you disagree, but in my professional oppinion, your son is fully qualified and entitled to fuck under the law.” Come on. Age of Consent is practically a blue law item as it is, for all practical purposes.
18-year-olds are adults! They have sex with minors all the time! I did! Yes, me, the statutory rapist! I had sex with a 17-year-old as an 18-year-old. I’m guilty! Lock this pervert up.
It may as well be 16 for all the good it will do. There’s so much greyness surrounding the whole issue of consensual sex I’ve never had any hope of sorting it out with any certainty. 18 is just so far outside of the orbit of the planet of Reality, I have to ask why the states that have 18 on the books even bother. It’s gotta be politics. But is it better to have schools full of statutory rapists? Is that what we’re after? Well, that’s what we’ve got, apparently. Gee, I wonder how many state legislators have statutory rapists living in their very homes.
Kids have sex. They always have, they always will. Why don’t we learn to deal with that fact constructively rather than impose laws restricting what appears to be perfectly normal behavior, and making criminals out of a good percentage of the high-school population?
I don’t think that is how most stutory rape laws work. 18/17 isn’t illegal, at least here.
How do you propose to “deal with the fact constructively”?
I’m all for giving out condoms and all that, stonger sex ed. But I’m also against doing away with statutoy rape laws - those are there to protect youths from abuse by adults - not the 19 year old and his 17 year old girlfriend scenario you and many others bring up, but the 18 year old and 13 year old, or as in the topic thread, 23 and 14.
Loopydude. it’s not a sex license I’m proposing, but a change in currently existing emancipation laws.
So basically I propose to do away with most of the laws that apply to the emancipated minor, such as child labor laws, sex and compulsory schooling, and that young adults who seek emancipation as early as 13 be considered, possibly because of religious backgrounds.
I also think if you can do all the rest of this, restrictions on the right to vote and enlist oneself in military service need to be repealed.
I agree that an emancipated minor should probably be allowed to have sex with whoever he wants, given that he’s assumed to be able to make decisions by himself in many other situations, but there’s no reason to believe that a non emancipated minors wouldn’t be as responsible. He might be highly responsible but having no reasons/desire/possibility of living apart from his parents.
FTR, the age of consent over here is 15 (except when the partner has some jind of authority on the minor, like a teacher, parent, priest, sport coach…, in which case it’s still a statutory rape until 18). I don’t notice civilisation being on the verge of collapse as a result. I suspect some parents might be pissed off in some cases, but anyway, teens are rarely interested in sexual partners significantly older than them.
Spoofe here advocates the age being lowered to 16, for drinking as well. (Spoofe buddy, you’re not 16 now are ya?..)
Spoofe of course says my tongue-in-cheek post was a fallacy. 8 short posts later Askia weighs in with a potential age of 13.
Do I hear 11 anyone? Has the NAMBLA contigent entered the room yet?
As the parent of a 13 and 11 year old daughter, I would only think it reasonable to repeal the law that would hold me accountable for the violence that I visit upon the person who considers my child sexually emancipated.