I read somewhere that this could be because of all the hormones in our food these days. Do you think that’s possible? What else could explain it?
As a 16 year old whose been there done that (I was 14 he was 17 and it made a huge difference…he knew what he was doing, I didn’t) I’m all for the satutory rape thing. Except I’m worried about those girls that might try to get back at a boyfriend that broke up with them by charging him with statutory rape.
An 18-year-old is an adult, according to the law. If the law says the Age of Consent is 18, and he has sex with someone who is 17 and 11 months, he has comitted statutory rape. It’s that simple. You can’t have the protections you mention without the absurdities I mention.
On the other hand, sex doesn’t involve or threaten anyone other than the two consenting participants. You can’t accidently plow through a crowd of bystanders and kill dozens of people in the throes of orgasm, for example.
Keep in mind that I am DEFINITELY against sex whilst driving. Completely ruins the joy of the sex, in my opinion. 
Only slightly older than 16, in a cosmic sense. Just slightly.
If your tongue-in-cheek post was accurate, by now Askia would be pushing for 12 1/2.
As I mentioned, California’s code:
IANAL, but there seems to be a “stepping” platform there for being so much older than the victi- er, minor.
Oh, great, so I would have spent less than one year in jail.
No, you would have a misdemeanor.
The idea is still there. It isn’t black and white like you make out.
There are a couple problems with that…
-
Minors need their parents’ consent to be emancipated. An overprotective parent who doesn’t want Junior to have sex until the parent is dead surely won’t grant permission if he knows Junior will be able to have sex once he’s emancipated.
-
Minors must be financially independent to be emancipated. Even if you repeal the child labor laws for emancipated minors, there’s still a chicken and egg problem: a 14 year old needs to be emancipated to legally work enough to support himself, but he can’t become emancipated until he already supports himself. And as above, a parent who doesn’t want his kid to have sex probably won’t let him work enough to support himself, even if the kid legally can work.
Oh, I never said there wouldn’t be problems…!
-
Depends on the jurisdiction and the disposition of the judge, I think. A child with an incarcerated parent or a parent who dies suddenly might be able to plead emancipation without their parent’s consent in order to avoid foster care, for example. Aside from that extreme, I agree there’s not much a minor can do without their parent’s support and permission (as it should be) but a pathologically overprotective parent might demonstrate an unhealthy desire to control their child’s actions to such a degree as to make the minor’s case to be declared emancipated be approved.
-
My reading of the law (but IANAL) says the minor must be able to manage their own finances, have a legal source of income and be able to support themselves. Financial independence is the goal, not necessarily the prerequisite. (Hell, I’m a college grad and I’m not financially independent yet! Damned student loans.) A minor who has other resources, like trust or sudden inheritance, might have the funding s/he needs to be declared emancipation, if the judge thinks that’s in their best interest. Consider the opportunities for advancement in the current age of intellectual properties: it is possible for a young adult skilled in computer programming, gaming language, excellent writing skills, and/or attractive appearance and a certain amount of savvy to market a successful video game, write best-selling book, or be a model. Not always realistic goals but ones where child labor laws could put a crimp in their potential earnings. The whole reason the Olsen Twins were working at all as toddlers is so that they could double the screen time available by having them both play one character.
Askia, I don’t doubt that girls seem to be maturing physically faster now than when I was a kid but I don’t think I’d want to use that as a basis for deciding when they are mentally/emotionally ready for sex. I do agree that we owe it to our kids to give them high quality sex ed, starting at an early age - ignorance is not safety, it’s just ignorance. But the goal of that, frankly, should be that kids make the intelligent decision to wait until they are ready (got some horror stories by way of a friend what young kids - 12 to 14 - are indulging in, thinking that they are safe).
To everyone who wants to lower the age of consent, how young would your son or daughter have to be before you felt that there was something wrong with their having sex, especially with an adult?
I’ll bet everything seems to be happening faster now than when you were a kid.
I well remember that one girl in our 4th grade class (9 years old, ca 1931-32) waited until the teacher left the room and then stood and held a hand lettered sign over her head inviding all the boys to fornicate with her.
Well, valgard, to be glib about it, my sons’d have to have pubes. Daughters, pubes and boobs.
What was it my daddy used to tell me when I was 12…? “Look at you, smelling yourself.”
Yes. B.O. will let me know it’s time to get serious about my children’s possible interest in sex.
I’d take my cues if they’re ready or not based on their overall behavior and interest, with a series of long, serious talks about what is and what is not acceptable sexually active behavior.
I find it unlikely I would ever openly APPROVE of a child mine having sex with someone significantly older than they, and I would teach them to expect me to be pissed, but it happens all the time. My own parents, for one. The only thing I’d be able to do is advise caution, and trust I have taught my children to have some sense of good judgment.
On the other hand, the parents of a minor child can decide that they don’t want to pay for car insurance for their kid, because they don’t think their kid is ready to be responsible to drive. They can refuse to allow the kid to drive their car, because they (the parents) don’t want to risk the well-being of their kid, the car, and everyone else. They know their kid and they (being the ones that will foot the bill for any car accidents or medical bills for injuries) get to decide (at least up to a point) whether the believe the kid is ready to take on that responsibility. And if they don’t feel the kid is ready, they have several ways to make it really difficult for the kid to drive anyway (legally, that is).
Also, the primary way for their kid to defy the parents’ wishes and drive anyway is to get a job, buy their own car and own car insurance—thus proving that they are capable (whether their parents believe it or not) of being at least financially responsible for their own driving.
With sex, the parents wouldn’t have an effective way to curb an irresponsible child’s actions, other than threatening to ground the kid if he or she has sex. They can’t force the kid to use birth control, they can’t buy some sort of “sex insurance” for the kid, to cover expenses if the kid gets pregnant or gets someone else pregnant or contracts an STD. No, basically they get far less control over whether or not their kid has sex, but yet are still expected to be responsible for the consequences of their minor child’s actions. Like, for instance, paying to support a grandchild that was the result of their child’s irresponsible sex. They may (rightfully) know that their kid is not ready to be responsible with sex, but, unlike driving, they can’t withhold the use of the family car or refuse to allow their kid to be insured on the road (making it extremely difficult for the kid to drive legally). The kid doesn’t need to prove that they are “responsible” enough to have sex by getting a job and earning their own money (like they would if they were determined to buy their own car and insurance). All they need to do is be able to sneak away long enough to have sex against their parents’ wishes. And then most likely the consequences of their actions will fall on their parents to fix.
So, no, it isn’t the same thing.
Also, what about the procreation side of it? If for the sake of example the age of consent was lowered to 13, you are effectively saying it is ok for 13 year olds to become parents. Even when contraception is practiced accidents happen.
That’s the thing: it is OK, biologically speaking, for 13-year-olds to become parents. Peope used to get married at that age.
Biologically speaking sure, but people also used to send 5 year olds up chimneys, just because it used to be the norm doesn’t mean it’s ok now. (I know you know this, im not tyring to be snarky). Granted I haven’t met many 13 year olds, but thinking back to being that age myself, I didn’t know anyone one of my contempories (myself included) who could have been a responsible parent at that age. If sex were just sex, I would probably be more amenable to the lowering of the age of consent, but sex inevitably leads to children.
Just to give you guys something to talk about, in Sweden the age of consent for heterosexual actions is 15. Has been since forever. So if there’s anything particular you want to know about the effects of a lowered age of consent (15 isn’t 13, but it isn’t 18 either), ask and I’ll find out what it’s like over here.
What’s the deal with young mothers there? I can’t imagine it could be any worse than here in the UK where the age of consent is 16.
Sure, but what about the vast majority of minors who don’t have trust funds or big inheritances? They’ll be unable to work until they’re emancipated, but they can’t be emancipated until they’re living on their own and managing their own finances.
In that case, those 13 year olds will have a crash course in either (1) the options available for dealing with pregnancy other than raising a baby oneself, or (2) getting a job.
The statistics are publicly available over the internet but bloody difficult to navigate. I’ll get back to you.