What does "age of consent" mean?

shawmutt · 4th May 2009, 07:19 AM

From this thread, I pondered what the meaning of age of consent was. My exact quote was:

Quote:

I know I'll be labeled all sorts of nasty things yet again, and it's a bit off topic since the OP is about Islam allowing pedophilia--but what exactly is the problem with females getting married after they are fertile and able to be pregnant whether they are 12 or 22?

I am completely against pedophilia, i.e. sexual acts on prepubescent children, and that's not what this thread is about. For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate. (I understand that, in rare cases, younger children can reach puberty. However I don't want to cross the line into possible pedophilia.)

I just read articles like this and kinda shudder as I think--that could have been me! I was that 17 year old dating a 15 year old, and we were having consensual sex. It was a great summer...

Anyway...

What is an acceptable age of consent? Most states in the US say 16 is the legal age for females, some are 17, some are as high as 18. A few are as low as 14. Other countries are as varied. Some are pretty bad like the 8 year old married off for money, but the overall average seems to be 16. From this site , there seems to be a whole slew of arbitrary rules and guidelines. I simply don't understand what could possibly happen in two years (16 +/- 2 years) that makes such a big difference.

Safe-Keeper · 4th May 2009, 07:37 AM

The important thing to remember is that Age of Consent is not there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 17 year olds. At least in Norway, the cops look through the fingers with that sort of thing, so long as the sex happens with consent and the parties are similar in maturity.

Age of Consent is there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 40 year olds.

GreNME · 4th May 2009, 07:43 AM

I had about three or four really bad jokes ready to post, but I thought twice about them because I don't want them taken the wrong way. Damn.

I think that 16 is a general arbitrary age of consent because that's about the age when teen females can begin to be physically indistinguishable from adults. That's not really universal, and it tends to apply less with males, but I'm pretty sure that 16-18 is the generally-accepted age of consent because it's about the time when most females "look" adult (or "adult enough").

Kind of creepy? Sure, I think so. My own criteria for age of consent would be that the person be able to: drive, vote, and consume alcohol legally. And I don't mean that to necessarily push the age of consent back (I see no reason why drinking age can't be 18, blah blah another discussion), but to point out that if we're going to look at the issue from a legal perspective, then let's put some legal basis into the arbitrary age that's chosen.

linusrichard · 4th May 2009, 07:51 AM

Here's the thing: a criminal statute has to be specific enough to put someone on notice that they are breaking the law. A law making it a crime to have sex with a girl who isn't mature enough to give meaningful consent is an unconstitutional law, because you can't know whether you're breaking it. So if you want to criminalize sex with children, you have to set a bright line. In other words, you have to set an age.

I think it's more than probable that different people reach a maturity where they can give meaningful consent at different ages. But let's assume that no 11-year-olds are mature enough to give meaningful consent to sex, and that all normal 18-year-olds are mature enough. So all people reach that point somewhere between 12 and 17. It seems reasonable to assume that very few 12-year-olds can meaningfully consent. It also seems reasonable to assume that almost all 17-year-olds can meaningfully consent. So the line probably belongs somewhere between 13 and 16.

I think 16 is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't. Plus - dudes are on notice, so it's not really unfair.

I don't know how many states do this, but in my state there are harsher penalties for sleeping with a girl under 13 than for sleeping with a girl 13-15. I also know some states (not mine) don't criminalize it if the age difference is low enough, e.g. in some states I believe a 17-year-old guy can have sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend legally.

Professor Yaffle · 4th May 2009, 08:02 AM

I think the age of consent should be lower (maybe 13 or 14) where the people involved are similar in age - as I don't think the criminalisation of teenage sexual activity is at all helpful, but should remain the same where one party is much older - to prevent coercion from more powerful adults. The sort of age difference I am thinking about would be about 2 years.

Here's someone who thinks along similar lines:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-academic.html

Autolite · 4th May 2009, 08:35 AM

In Canada...

"The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code".

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...s/prb993-e.htm

So you can legally have sex at the age of 13.
You can get a driver's learner's permit at 14 (Alberta).
You can get a job and pay income taxes at age 15 (British Columbia).
You can drive a car at the age of 16.
You can join the army and kill folks at the age of 17.
You can do bum sex at the age of 18.
But, in most parts of Canada, you must be 19 years old in order to be allowed to have a beer.

Go figure...

Darat · 4th May 2009, 08:50 AM

If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue.

Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt).

Mind you if it was based on being able to give true consent (i.e. fully informed) then I suspect very few people would ever be able to legally have sex!

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by linusrichard

I think 16 is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't. Plus - dudes are on notice, so it's not really unfair.

The problem here is that the average age that people start having sexual relations is younger than 16. I would think widening band of those close in age would more accurately fit what people find acceptable for example a 15 year old and a 17 year old(say they are a year and a half appart in age) they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with statutory rape, a 25 year old and a 15 year old, I am OK with the 25 year old being charged.

The problem is that I don't think a simple yes or no type law is a very good solution.

How about something like at 12 you get a year or two in age difference so a 13 year old and a 12 year old who do have sex don't need to worry about sex laws, and broadening in the age of someone older that they can have sex with as they get older.

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue.

Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt).

There is the issue of do you really want to add criminal charges in addition to the other problems they can have being sexualy active or not?

GreNME · 4th May 2009, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue.

Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt).

Hence my proposition to move age of consent to be when a person can drive, vote, and consume alcohol legally.

Darat · 4th May 2009, 09:05 AM

No and from my personal experience I'm not happy with these age differences being used to determine if legal action should be taken or not. They are equally arbitrary.

GreNME · 4th May 2009, 09:12 AM

Of course they are. If they're going to be arbitrary, then they should at least have some consistency between one another. After all, they mainly exist as legal distinctions.

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Hence my proposition to move age of consent to be when a person can drive, vote, and consume alcohol legally.

The problem with that it that you must then criminalize typical teen behavior.

Cainkane1 · 4th May 2009, 09:15 AM

For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate.

To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15.

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate.

To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15.

And if the partner is 13?

Darat · 4th May 2009, 09:17 AM

Or 12?

Gangularis · 4th May 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

The important thing to remember is that Age of Consent is not there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 17 year olds. At least in Norway, the cops look through the fingers with that sort of thing, so long as the sex happens with consent and the parties are similar in maturity.

Age of Consent is there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 40 year olds.

Why is it wrong for a 40 year old to be with a 15 year old, but not a 17 year old? Is not a 17 year old male, just as capable of taking advantage of a 15 year old girl? If she gets pregnant, which is the more likely age group that's going to be able to support her?

themusicteacher · 4th May 2009, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The problem here is that the average age that people start having sexual relations is younger than 16. I would think widening band of those close in age would more accurately fit what people find acceptable for example a 15 year old and a 17 year old(say they are a year and a half appart in age) they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with statutory rape, a 25 year old and a 15 year old, I am OK with the 25 year old being charged.

The problem is that I don't think a simple yes or no type law is a very good solution.

How about something like at 12 you get a year or two in age difference so a 13 year old and a 12 year old who do have sex don't need to worry about sex laws, and broadening in the age of someone older that they can have sex with as they get older.

Actually, most kids don't have sex before they're 16 so that is a popular misconception.

http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/uplo...Fact-Sheet.pdf

Those pregnancy stats are SCARY!

Consent laws really are meant to keep lacivious adults away from easily-influenced teenagers (children in almost every sense except for the one that most people place too much emphasis on: physically). It gets really shady, though, when you consider different scenario's.

What of the "mature" 16 year-old girl who's parents allow her to date a 19 year old college guy. Now, there may be a "no sex" rule from the gal's parents but who are we kidding? If the consent law says she isn't old enough to say yes, is he raping her (statutorily)? What if the 18 or 19 y/o guy is still in high school?

Two 11 y/o kids doing the nasty is, well, nasty but a crime? No, not even statutorily because neither of them is OVER the age of consent. This type of ridiculousness just brings back the point that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. In almost every way, we reach physical maturity before we reach intellectual and emotional maturity. Most kids over the age of 11 or 12 could have sex but have no business doing so. Their ablility to consent is basically wrapped up in their hormones and inability to comprehend the consequences of their actions, in much the same way the 16 and 19 y/o cannot because their pre-frontal cortex isn't fully formed.

Consent laws are somewhat arbitrary and based off the physical ability to have sex, not the mental capacities to deal with all that comes with being sexual. However, pragmatically, we must have them because nothing is going to come between teenagers and their basic human drive to feel the pleasure (both physical and emotional; though I suspect it's more physical for most boys) of sex. And we certainly must keep those people about whom we say, "What does a 21 year-old want with a 16 year old?" away from those that are vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

Holler Hoojer · 4th May 2009, 09:29 AM

I agree that it should not be hard and fast. It seems obvious to me that a 40 year old man ought not to have sex with a 13 year old girl, but what about a 14 year old boy? So, I propose making the age of consent this way,

f = -0.012m² + 0.80 m + 2.7

where m is the male's age in years and f is the female's. Now, if they wanna have sex, they've got to pass first year algebra.

GreNME · 4th May 2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The problem with that it that you must then criminalize typical teen behavior.

Or move the other things down to a lower age. Quite a conundrum, ain't it?

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by themusicteacher

Actually, most kids don't have sex before they're 16 so that is a popular misconception.

Are we talking sexual intercourse or just sexualy active? Remember the link in the OP that had a 17 year old going to jail for oral sex with a 15 year old.

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Or move the other things down to a lower age. Quite a conundrum, ain't it?

Not really no. I don't think 15 year olds should be able to vote or enlist in the army, but I don't have a problem with them being sexualy active.

GreNME · 4th May 2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Not really no. I don't think 15 year olds should be able to vote or enlist in the army, but I don't have a problem with them being sexualy active.

That's fine. Now try it again, but this time keep in mind that you are not the sole human being on the planet.

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

That's fine. Now try it again, but this time keep in mind that you are not the sole human being on the planet.

If you want people to understand your point, you should present it in a more clear fashion. Either you want to raise the age of consent or lower the age of doing those other things. Be specific about what you want.

GreNME · 4th May 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

If you want people to understand your point, you should present it in a more clear fashion. Either you want to raise the age of consent or lower the age of doing those other things. Be specific about what you want.

What I want is legal consistency. Your false dichotomy aside (they are not mutually exclusive), what I'm pointing out is that if we're going to use arbitrary ages then it would be more effective legally to have them under a more consistent application. One of the problems with age of consent is the lack of consistency, and it's arguably the same for the other possible qualifiers (especially driving and alcohol consumption).

The US can send a kid to fight in battle before they can legally have a beer, yet before they're considered legally responsible enough to have a beer they're considered legally responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle. And age of consent-- that one is all over the place. No consistency, no basis from which to draw legal distinctions outside of the argument "because that's how it's done." The legal equivalent of "because I said so."

casebro · 4th May 2009, 01:13 PM

I guess that in view of the way maturity phases in, then legal restrictions should also phase in. The way it is now. I like the way two kids can get it on, but not an adult and a kid. Plus the way it is now, things are kept discrete. Like teenagers get drunk, but doing it on the sly keeps them from being role models of drunkenness to other kids.

All in all, I'd say the system works.

ponderingturtle · 4th May 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

What I want is legal consistency. Your false dichotomy aside (they are not mutually exclusive), what I'm pointing out is that if we're going to use arbitrary ages then it would be more effective legally to have them under a more consistent application. One of the problems with age of consent is the lack of consistency, and it's arguably the same for the other possible qualifiers (especially driving and alcohol consumption).

Not at all. Being able to consent and be mentaly competant does not mean the same thing for every kind of decision. I have no problems with some decisions being held off for later, while one is competent to make certain decisions.

Quote:

The US can send a kid to fight in battle before they can legally have a beer, yet before they're considered legally responsible enough to have a beer they're considered legally responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle. And age of consent-- that one is all over the place. No consistency, no basis from which to draw legal distinctions outside of the argument "because that's how it's done." The legal equivalent of "because I said so."

So you do think 10 years in prison is an apropriate punishment for a 17 year old performing oral sex on a 15 year old or not? That would seem to fit into your view of consistency.

Zygar · 4th May 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by shawmutt

Most states in the US say 16 is the legal age for females, some are 17, some are as high as 18.

I'm pretty sure the law is not gendered like that.

GreNME · 4th May 2009, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Not at all. Being able to consent and be mentaly competant does not mean the same thing for every kind of decision. I have no problems with some decisions being held off for later, while one is competent to make certain decisions.

I don't think it (mental competence) does mean the same thing for every decision. However, the current spread is pretty odd-- junior can fight and die for the country, but can't buy a six pack. He can drive an automobile-- at least a half ton of metal that can deform the body in amazing ways-- but can't buy cigarettes or vote.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you do think 10 years in prison is an apropriate punishment for a 17 year old performing oral sex on a 15 year old or not? That would seem to fit into your view of consistency.

Methinks you have a bad habit of assuming you know what others are thinking when you're feeling particularly self-righteous.

shawmutt · 4th May 2009, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by linusrichard

Here's the thing: a criminal statute has to be specific enough to put someone on notice that they are breaking the law. A law making it a crime to have sex with a girl who isn't mature enough to give meaningful consent is an unconstitutional law, because you can't know whether you're breaking it. So if you want to criminalize sex with children, you have to set a bright line. In other words, you have to set an age.

I think it's more than probable that different people reach a maturity where they can give meaningful consent at different ages. But let's assume that no 11-year-olds are mature enough to give meaningful consent to sex, and that all normal 18-year-olds are mature enough. So all people reach that point somewhere between 12 and 17. It seems reasonable to assume that very few 12-year-olds can meaningfully consent. It also seems reasonable to assume that almost all 17-year-olds can meaningfully consent. So the line probably belongs somewhere between 13 and 16.

I think 16 is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't. Plus - dudes are on notice, so it's not really unfair.

I don't know how many states do this, but in my state there are harsher penalties for sleeping with a girl under 13 than for sleeping with a girl 13-15. I also know some states (not mine) don't criminalize it if the age difference is low enough, e.g. in some states I believe a 17-year-old guy can have sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend legally.

That makes sense.

Originally Posted by Autolite

In Canada...

"The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code".

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...s/prb993-e.htm

So you can legally have sex at the age of 13.
You can get a driver's learner's permit at 14 (Alberta).
You can get a job and pay income taxes at age 15 (British Columbia).
You can drive a car at the age of 16.
You can join the army and kill folks at the age of 17.
You can do bum sex at the age of 18.
But, in most parts of Canada, you must be 19 years old in order to be allowed to have a beer.

Go figure...

It's better than in the States, where we have all that but still can't drink until 21.

Originally Posted by Darat

If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue.

Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt).

Mind you if it was based on being able to give true consent (i.e. fully informed) then I suspect very few people would ever be able to legally have sex!

That last paragraph is true, as STDs and unplanned pregnancies are of course not limited to teens. I just heard how Baltimore, MD--about 90 minutes away from where I live--has the one of the highest rates of STDs in the country!

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate.

To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15.

You didn't answer the question posited by others. Are two twelve-year olds having sex guilty of pedophilia?

Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer

I agree that it should not be hard and fast. It seems obvious to me that a 40 year old man ought not to have sex with a 13 year old girl, but what about a 14 year old boy? So, I propose making the age of consent this way,

f = -0.012m² + 0.80 m + 2.7

where m is the male's age in years and f is the female's. Now, if they wanna have sex, they've got to pass first year algebra.

That's a great plan, but with my own daughter I think something a bit more difficult would be appropriate. Perhaps solving one of the Millennium Prize Problems? Yes, that would do.

Originally Posted by Zygar

I'm pretty sure the law is not gendered like that.

Follow the links I provided in the OP.

EeneyMinnieMoe · 4th May 2009, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by shawmutt

I simply don't understand what could possibly happen in two years (16 +/- 2 years) that makes such a big difference.

I first had sex about a month before my 16th birthday to a man who was then 22. It was probably a mistake, something I kind of both regretted and didn't regret later, but I wasn't "damaged" by the experience. It's not something I'd like for my daughter but it wasn't really harm.

If I had been 13 going on 14 and he was 20, that would have been a different story.

Two years can make a lot of difference.

Going back to your original point: yes, a middle aged man with a 12-year-old is a crime. End of story. Even an older teenager or very young woman with a middle aged man signifies abuse of some kind and usually is such.

Just because you can technically have children of your own does not mean you have an adult body or an adult mind. A middle schooler is not in physical or mental shape for intercourse and/or carrying children.

shawmutt · 4th May 2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

Just because you can technically have children of your own does not mean you have an adult body or an adult mind. A middle schooler is not in physical or mental shape for intercourse and/or carrying children.

I agree with the physical aspect, but also think that many people, even so-called adults, aren't in the proper mental shape to be carrying children regardless of age. A couple years from 16 one way or the other isn't going to change that. When I was 17 I thought I knew everything, now that I'm older I realize I didn't know Jack or his brother ****

eta: Age of consent in older times was 10-12, and was raised in part because of science and physical observations. Now with newer technology and observations, longer life spans, and a better understanding of the developing teenager's brains, should it be raised even further?

From https://www.health.harvard.edu/press...n_development:

Quote:

Although many teens have fairly advanced intellectual and reasoning ability, recent research has shown that human brain circuitry is not mature until the early 20s. Among the last connections to be fully established are the links between the prefrontal cortex — the seat of judgment and problem-solving — and the emotional centers of the brain. These links are crucial to emotional learning and high-level self-regulation, explains the Harvard Mental Health Letter.

slingblade · 4th May 2009, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate.

To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15.

Having had sexual encounters with 40-year-old men before age 12, and having had sex with boys at age 15, I can tell you, there's a bit more difference than you seem to think.

In a certain sense, I agree with you, except not so much about the 15-year-old boy. I mean, pedophiles were once children, too, so I suppose the occasional 15-year-old could be a pedophile, albeit a very young one.

But most of them are more likely just normal, horny boys.

I think "pedophile" is too strong a term to slap on your typical, randy teenaged boy, don't you? Really?

Sun Countess · 4th May 2009, 02:50 PM

A 12-year old and 15 year old can attend the same school and be in the same general peer group. That's not the case when we're talking about pre-teens and fully-grown men (or women).

Autolite, I thought Canada recently upped the age of consent to 16. Or are they still just talking about it? I never understood (and maybe still don't) how they could allow a 14-year old to have sex with an adult of any age. 14-year olds are children. Every last one of 'em.

Zygar · 4th May 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

A 12-year old and 15 year old can attend the same school and be in the same general peer group. That's not the case when we're talking about pre-teens and fully-grown men (or women).

Autolite, I thought Canada recently upped the age of consent to 16. Or are they still just talking about it? I never understood (and maybe still don't) how they could allow a 14-year old to have sex with an adult of any age. 14-year olds are children. Every last one of 'em.

According to Wikipedia, it's 16. And I agree with you on the 14 year olds.

themusicteacher · 4th May 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

Having had sexual encounters with 40-year-old men before age 12, and having had sex with boys at age 15, I can tell you, there's a bit more difference than you seem to think.

In a certain sense, I agree with you, except not so much about the 15-year-old boy. I mean, pedophiles were once children, too, so I suppose the occasional 15-year-old could be a pedophile, albeit a very young one.

But most of them are more likely just normal, horny boys.

I think "pedophile" is too strong a term to slap on your typical, randy teenaged boy, don't you? Really?

Wow. Now, you call it an "encounter" making me think that you did not, and still do not, consider that this episode had any hallmarks of impropriety. Am I correct in this assumption? If I am correct, let me ask you this: Do you think 40 year-old (or even 20 or 30 year-old men) men or women who have sex with a (pre) 12 year-old are guilty of rape, regardless of whether or not the 12 year-old "consented?" In other words, can a 12 y/o consent to a sexual act with a 40 y/o and the "adult"? I say "adult" because what mature, self-assured man thinks it's okay to have sex with someone who is, for all intents and purposes, a child (except, perhaps, physically)? To me, this is predatory behavior, end of story. Do you have a further take on this?

gumboot · 4th May 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer

where m is the male's age in years and f is the female's. Now, if they wanna have sex, they've got to pass first year algebra.

Why does the male have to be older?

Autolite · 4th May 2009, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer

f = -0.012m² + 0.80 m + 2.7

where m is the male's age in years and f is the female's. Now, if they wanna have sex, they've got to pass first year algebra.

Actual age means little.

I drove a car when I was 11. I had my first beer when I was 14. I got a driver's license when I was 16. Got a full time job and a pilot's license when I was 17.

I didn't get laid for the first time until I was 43 and I still can't do algebra...

EeneyMinnieMoe · 4th May 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by shawmutt

I agree with the physical aspect, but also think that many people, even so-called adults, aren't in the proper mental shape to be carrying children regardless of age. A couple years from 16 one way or the other isn't going to change that. When I was 17 I thought I knew everything, now that I'm older I realize I didn't know Jack or his brother ****

eta: Age of consent in older times was 10-12, and was raised in part because of science and physical observations. Now with newer technology and observations, longer life spans, and a better understanding of the developing teenager's brains, should it be raised even further?

From https://www.health.harvard.edu/press...n_development:

I'll grant you that it's a very slippery slope and it's practically impossible to know where to draw the line. There's no universal standard and it varies across time, culture, gender and religious tradition.

In the Middle Ages, the age of adulthood was considered to be 13 or so and children were married to children, very young teenagers or pubescents were married to one another, children were married to teenagers, children and pubescents were married to adults and teenagers were married to adults much, much older than themselves.

Was this a primitive and barbaric custom that amounted to child abuse and a gross violation of women's rights? Maybe. Is it possible the individuals involved weren't harmed because it was the norm then and part of their culture? Maybe.

It also varies wildly from person to person. I knew a homosexual boy in high school who actually lost his virginity at 14 to a complete and total stranger who was much older than himself- and it didn't seem to have affected him at all. I was more appalled at him when he told me this than he ever was at himself.

INRM · 4th May 2009, 07:31 PM

The problem I have the most with statutory rape laws, and this is predominantly the only issue, is if the girl looks older than she is, lies about her age, even presents fradulent information to suggest she is older, it's essentially still the guy's fault.

The reason is that it is by statute and does not require intent. In my opinion this places an unreasonable burden as the guy can be held accountable even if he had no knowledge the girl was underage, even if the girl lied to him and presented false ID.

INRM

4th May 2009, 07:19 AM	#1
shawmutt Squirrel Murderer Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Greencastle, PA Posts: 1,990	What does "age of consent" mean? From this thread, I pondered what the meaning of age of consent was. My exact quote was: Quote: I know I'll be labeled all sorts of nasty things yet again, and it's a bit off topic since the OP is about Islam allowing pedophilia--but what exactly is the problem with females getting married after they are fertile and able to be pregnant whether they are 12 or 22? I am completely against pedophilia, i.e. sexual acts on prepubescent children, and that's not what this thread is about. For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate. (I understand that, in rare cases, younger children can reach puberty. However I don't want to cross the line into possible pedophilia.) I just read articles like this and kinda shudder as I think--that could have been me! I was that 17 year old dating a 15 year old, and we were having consensual sex. It was a great summer... Anyway... What is an acceptable age of consent? Most states in the US say 16 is the legal age for females, some are 17, some are as high as 18. A few are as low as 14. Other countries are as varied. Some are pretty bad like the 8 year old married off for money, but the overall average seems to be 16. From this site , there seems to be a whole slew of arbitrary rules and guidelines. I simply don't understand what could possibly happen in two years (16 +/- 2 years) that makes such a big difference.
	__________________ http://www.facebook.com/NotYourAverageGunOwner

4th May 2009, 07:43 AM	#3
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	I had about three or four really bad jokes ready to post, but I thought twice about them because I don't want them taken the wrong way. Damn. I think that 16 is a general arbitrary age of consent because that's about the age when teen females can begin to be physically indistinguishable from adults. That's not really universal, and it tends to apply less with males, but I'm pretty sure that 16-18 is the generally-accepted age of consent because it's about the time when most females "look" adult (or "adult enough"). Kind of creepy? Sure, I think so. My own criteria for age of consent would be that the person be able to: drive, vote, and consume alcohol legally. And I don't mean that to necessarily push the age of consent back (I see no reason why drinking age can't be 18, blah blah another discussion), but to point out that if we're going to look at the issue from a legal perspective, then let's put some legal basis into the arbitrary age that's chosen.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

4th May 2009, 08:02 AM	#5
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,360	I think the age of consent should be lower (maybe 13 or 14) where the people involved are similar in age - as I don't think the criminalisation of teenage sexual activity is at all helpful, but should remain the same where one party is much older - to prevent coercion from more powerful adults. The sort of age difference I am thinking about would be about 2 years. Here's someone who thinks along similar lines: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-academic.html
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

4th May 2009, 08:35 AM	#6
Autolite Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,489	In Canada... "The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code". http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...s/prb993-e.htm So you can legally have sex at the age of 13. You can get a driver's learner's permit at 14 (Alberta). You can get a job and pay income taxes at age 15 (British Columbia). You can drive a car at the age of 16. You can join the army and kill folks at the age of 17. You can do bum sex at the age of 18. But, in most parts of Canada, you must be 19 years old in order to be allowed to have a beer. Go figure...
	__________________ "When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark

4th May 2009, 08:50 AM	#7
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue. Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt). Mind you if it was based on being able to give true consent (i.e. fully informed) then I suspect very few people would ever be able to legally have sex!
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 4th May 2009 at 08:58 AM. Reason: '

4th May 2009, 07:37 AM	#2
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,123	The important thing to remember is that Age of Consent is not there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 17 year olds. At least in Norway, the cops look through the fingers with that sort of thing, so long as the sex happens with consent and the parties are similar in maturity. Age of Consent is there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 40 year olds.

4th May 2009, 07:51 AM	#4
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,665	Here's the thing: a criminal statute has to be specific enough to put someone on notice that they are breaking the law. A law making it a crime to have sex with a girl who isn't mature enough to give meaningful consent is an unconstitutional law, because you can't know whether you're breaking it. So if you want to criminalize sex with children, you have to set a bright line. In other words, you have to set an age. I think it's more than probable that different people reach a maturity where they can give meaningful consent at different ages. But let's assume that no 11-year-olds are mature enough to give meaningful consent to sex, and that all normal 18-year-olds are mature enough. So all people reach that point somewhere between 12 and 17. It seems reasonable to assume that very few 12-year-olds can meaningfully consent. It also seems reasonable to assume that almost all 17-year-olds can meaningfully consent. So the line probably belongs somewhere between 13 and 16. I think 16 is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't. Plus - dudes are on notice, so it's not really unfair. I don't know how many states do this, but in my state there are harsher penalties for sleeping with a girl under 13 than for sleeping with a girl 13-15. I also know some states (not mine) don't criminalize it if the age difference is low enough, e.g. in some states I believe a 17-year-old guy can have sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend legally.

4th May 2009, 08:57 AM	#8
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by linusrichard I think 16 is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't. Plus - dudes are on notice, so it's not really unfair. The problem here is that the average age that people start having sexual relations is younger than 16. I would think widening band of those close in age would more accurately fit what people find acceptable for example a 15 year old and a 17 year old(say they are a year and a half appart in age) they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with statutory rape, a 25 year old and a 15 year old, I am OK with the 25 year old being charged. The problem is that I don't think a simple yes or no type law is a very good solution. How about something like at 12 you get a year or two in age difference so a 13 year old and a 12 year old who do have sex don't need to worry about sex laws, and broadening in the age of someone older that they can have sex with as they get older.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 08:59 AM	#9
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by Darat If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue. Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt). There is the issue of do you really want to add criminal charges in addition to the other problems they can have being sexualy active or not?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 09:04 AM	#10
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Darat If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue. Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt). Hence my proposition to move age of consent to be when a person can drive, vote, and consume alcohol legally.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

4th May 2009, 09:05 AM	#11
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	No and from my personal experience I'm not happy with these age differences being used to determine if legal action should be taken or not. They are equally arbitrary.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th May 2009, 09:12 AM	#12
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Of course they are. If they're going to be arbitrary, then they should at least have some consistency between one another. After all, they mainly exist as legal distinctions.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

4th May 2009, 09:13 AM	#13
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by GreNME Hence my proposition to move age of consent to be when a person can drive, vote, and consume alcohol legally. The problem with that it that you must then criminalize typical teen behavior.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 09:15 AM	#14
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate. To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

4th May 2009, 09:16 AM	#15
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate. To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15. And if the partner is 13?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 09:17 AM	#16
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Or 12?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th May 2009, 09:21 AM	#17
Gangularis Muse Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Barberton, Ohio Posts: 985	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper The important thing to remember is that Age of Consent is not there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 17 year olds. At least in Norway, the cops look through the fingers with that sort of thing, so long as the sex happens with consent and the parties are similar in maturity. Age of Consent is there to keep 15 year olds from having sex with 40 year olds. Why is it wrong for a 40 year old to be with a 15 year old, but not a 17 year old? Is not a 17 year old male, just as capable of taking advantage of a 15 year old girl? If she gets pregnant, which is the more likely age group that's going to be able to support her?
	Last edited by Gangularis; 4th May 2009 at 09:22 AM.

4th May 2009, 09:26 AM	#18
themusicteacher Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Burque, NM Posts: 708	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle The problem here is that the average age that people start having sexual relations is younger than 16. I would think widening band of those close in age would more accurately fit what people find acceptable for example a 15 year old and a 17 year old(say they are a year and a half appart in age) they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with statutory rape, a 25 year old and a 15 year old, I am OK with the 25 year old being charged. The problem is that I don't think a simple yes or no type law is a very good solution. How about something like at 12 you get a year or two in age difference so a 13 year old and a 12 year old who do have sex don't need to worry about sex laws, and broadening in the age of someone older that they can have sex with as they get older. Actually, most kids don't have sex before they're 16 so that is a popular misconception. http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/uplo...Fact-Sheet.pdf Those pregnancy stats are SCARY! Consent laws really are meant to keep lacivious adults away from easily-influenced teenagers (children in almost every sense except for the one that most people place too much emphasis on: physically). It gets really shady, though, when you consider different scenario's. What of the "mature" 16 year-old girl who's parents allow her to date a 19 year old college guy. Now, there may be a "no sex" rule from the gal's parents but who are we kidding? If the consent law says she isn't old enough to say yes, is he raping her (statutorily)? What if the 18 or 19 y/o guy is still in high school? Two 11 y/o kids doing the nasty is, well, nasty but a crime? No, not even statutorily because neither of them is OVER the age of consent. This type of ridiculousness just brings back the point that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. In almost every way, we reach physical maturity before we reach intellectual and emotional maturity. Most kids over the age of 11 or 12 could have sex but have no business doing so. Their ablility to consent is basically wrapped up in their hormones and inability to comprehend the consequences of their actions, in much the same way the 16 and 19 y/o cannot because their pre-frontal cortex isn't fully formed. Consent laws are somewhat arbitrary and based off the physical ability to have sex, not the mental capacities to deal with all that comes with being sexual. However, pragmatically, we must have them because nothing is going to come between teenagers and their basic human drive to feel the pleasure (both physical and emotional; though I suspect it's more physical for most boys) of sex. And we certainly must keep those people about whom we say, "What does a 21 year-old want with a 16 year old?" away from those that are vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

4th May 2009, 09:29 AM	#19
Holler Hoojer Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 422	I agree that it should not be hard and fast. It seems obvious to me that a 40 year old man ought not to have sex with a 13 year old girl, but what about a 14 year old boy? So, I propose making the age of consent this way, f = -0.012m² + 0.80 m + 2.7 where m is the male's age in years and f is the female's. Now, if they wanna have sex, they've got to pass first year algebra.

4th May 2009, 09:33 AM	#20
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle The problem with that it that you must then criminalize typical teen behavior. Or move the other things down to a lower age. Quite a conundrum, ain't it?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

4th May 2009, 09:34 AM	#21
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by themusicteacher Actually, most kids don't have sex before they're 16 so that is a popular misconception. Are we talking sexual intercourse or just sexualy active? Remember the link in the OP that had a 17 year old going to jail for oral sex with a 15 year old.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 09:35 AM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by GreNME Or move the other things down to a lower age. Quite a conundrum, ain't it? Not really no. I don't think 15 year olds should be able to vote or enlist in the army, but I don't have a problem with them being sexualy active.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 09:36 AM	#23
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Not really no. I don't think 15 year olds should be able to vote or enlist in the army, but I don't have a problem with them being sexualy active. That's fine. Now try it again, but this time keep in mind that you are not the sole human being on the planet.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

4th May 2009, 09:43 AM	#24
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by GreNME That's fine. Now try it again, but this time keep in mind that you are not the sole human being on the planet. If you want people to understand your point, you should present it in a more clear fashion. Either you want to raise the age of consent or lower the age of doing those other things. Be specific about what you want.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 09:54 AM	#25
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle If you want people to understand your point, you should present it in a more clear fashion. Either you want to raise the age of consent or lower the age of doing those other things. Be specific about what you want. What I want is legal consistency. Your false dichotomy aside (they are not mutually exclusive), what I'm pointing out is that if we're going to use arbitrary ages then it would be more effective legally to have them under a more consistent application. One of the problems with age of consent is the lack of consistency, and it's arguably the same for the other possible qualifiers (especially driving and alcohol consumption). The US can send a kid to fight in battle before they can legally have a beer, yet before they're considered legally responsible enough to have a beer they're considered legally responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle. And age of consent-- that one is all over the place. No consistency, no basis from which to draw legal distinctions outside of the argument "because that's how it's done." The legal equivalent of "because I said so."
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

4th May 2009, 01:13 PM	#26
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,800	I guess that in view of the way maturity phases in, then legal restrictions should also phase in. The way it is now. I like the way two kids can get it on, but not an adult and a kid. Plus the way it is now, things are kept discrete. Like teenagers get drunk, but doing it on the sly keeps them from being role models of drunkenness to other kids. All in all, I'd say the system works.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,800	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

4th May 2009, 01:19 PM	#27
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,434	Originally Posted by GreNME What I want is legal consistency. Your false dichotomy aside (they are not mutually exclusive), what I'm pointing out is that if we're going to use arbitrary ages then it would be more effective legally to have them under a more consistent application. One of the problems with age of consent is the lack of consistency, and it's arguably the same for the other possible qualifiers (especially driving and alcohol consumption). Not at all. Being able to consent and be mentaly competant does not mean the same thing for every kind of decision. I have no problems with some decisions being held off for later, while one is competent to make certain decisions. Quote: The US can send a kid to fight in battle before they can legally have a beer, yet before they're considered legally responsible enough to have a beer they're considered legally responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle. And age of consent-- that one is all over the place. No consistency, no basis from which to draw legal distinctions outside of the argument "because that's how it's done." The legal equivalent of "because I said so." So you do think 10 years in prison is an apropriate punishment for a 17 year old performing oral sex on a 15 year old or not? That would seem to fit into your view of consistency.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th May 2009, 02:00 PM	#28
Zygar Lex Luthor's Evil Twin Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 2,609	Originally Posted by shawmutt Most states in the US say 16 is the legal age for females, some are 17, some are as high as 18. I'm pretty sure the law is not gendered like that.
	__________________ "Judge people. Judge them, Zygar. Pass judgment." -DrBuzz0 Visit my friends: http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/ http://www.spectrum-scientifics.com

4th May 2009, 02:02 PM	#29
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Not at all. Being able to consent and be mentaly competant does not mean the same thing for every kind of decision. I have no problems with some decisions being held off for later, while one is competent to make certain decisions. I don't think it (mental competence) does mean the same thing for every decision. However, the current spread is pretty odd-- junior can fight and die for the country, but can't buy a six pack. He can drive an automobile-- at least a half ton of metal that can deform the body in amazing ways-- but can't buy cigarettes or vote. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So you do think 10 years in prison is an apropriate punishment for a 17 year old performing oral sex on a 15 year old or not? That would seem to fit into your view of consistency. Methinks you have a bad habit of assuming you know what others are thinking when you're feeling particularly self-righteous.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

4th May 2009, 02:09 PM	#30
shawmutt Squirrel Murderer Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Greencastle, PA Posts: 1,990	Originally Posted by linusrichard Here's the thing: a criminal statute has to be specific enough to put someone on notice that they are breaking the law. A law making it a crime to have sex with a girl who isn't mature enough to give meaningful consent is an unconstitutional law, because you can't know whether you're breaking it. So if you want to criminalize sex with children, you have to set a bright line. In other words, you have to set an age. I think it's more than probable that different people reach a maturity where they can give meaningful consent at different ages. But let's assume that no 11-year-olds are mature enough to give meaningful consent to sex, and that all normal 18-year-olds are mature enough. So all people reach that point somewhere between 12 and 17. It seems reasonable to assume that very few 12-year-olds can meaningfully consent. It also seems reasonable to assume that almost all 17-year-olds can meaningfully consent. So the line probably belongs somewhere between 13 and 16. I think 16 is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't. Plus - dudes are on notice, so it's not really unfair. I don't know how many states do this, but in my state there are harsher penalties for sleeping with a girl under 13 than for sleeping with a girl 13-15. I also know some states (not mine) don't criminalize it if the age difference is low enough, e.g. in some states I believe a 17-year-old guy can have sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend legally. That makes sense. Originally Posted by Autolite In Canada... "The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code". http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...s/prb993-e.htm So you can legally have sex at the age of 13. You can get a driver's learner's permit at 14 (Alberta). You can get a job and pay income taxes at age 15 (British Columbia). You can drive a car at the age of 16. You can join the army and kill folks at the age of 17. You can do bum sex at the age of 18. But, in most parts of Canada, you must be 19 years old in order to be allowed to have a beer. Go figure... It's better than in the States, where we have all that but still can't drink until 21. Originally Posted by Darat If we could then we would determine this issues based on an individual's ability to consent since that is what at issue. Lacking that we have to ask questions . So can an under 16 year old consent to sex? I'd say a lot can (using the post-pubescent definition of the opening post) but I'd also say a lot can't given the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STD rates in under 16 year olds and their apparent lack of knowledge of what the risks etc. from sex are (the later is from watching TV documentaries so I take it with a pinch of salt). Mind you if it was based on being able to give true consent (i.e. fully informed) then I suspect very few people would ever be able to legally have sex! That last paragraph is true, as STDs and unplanned pregnancies are of course not limited to teens. I just heard how Baltimore, MD--about 90 minutes away from where I live--has the one of the highest rates of STDs in the country! Originally Posted by Cainkane1 For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate. To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15. You didn't answer the question posited by others. Are two twelve-year olds having sex guilty of pedophilia? Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer I agree that it should not be hard and fast. It seems obvious to me that a 40 year old man ought not to have sex with a 13 year old girl, but what about a 14 year old boy? So, I propose making the age of consent this way, f = -0.012m² + 0.80 m + 2.7 where m is the male's age in years and f is the female's. Now, if they wanna have sex, they've got to pass first year algebra. That's a great plan, but with my own daughter I think something a bit more difficult would be appropriate. Perhaps solving one of the Millennium Prize Problems? Yes, that would do. Originally Posted by Zygar I'm pretty sure the law is not gendered like that. Follow the links I provided in the OP.
	__________________ http://www.facebook.com/NotYourAverageGunOwner Last edited by shawmutt; 4th May 2009 at 02:12 PM.

4th May 2009, 02:19 PM	#31
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,660	Originally Posted by shawmutt I simply don't understand what could possibly happen in two years (16 +/- 2 years) that makes such a big difference. I first had sex about a month before my 16th birthday to a man who was then 22. It was probably a mistake, something I kind of both regretted and didn't regret later, but I wasn't "damaged" by the experience. It's not something I'd like for my daughter but it wasn't really harm. If I had been 13 going on 14 and he was 20, that would have been a different story. Two years can make a lot of difference. Going back to your original point: yes, a middle aged man with a 12-year-old is a crime. End of story. Even an older teenager or very young woman with a middle aged man signifies abuse of some kind and usually is such. Just because you can technically have children of your own does not mean you have an adult body or an adult mind. A middle schooler is not in physical or mental shape for intercourse and/or carrying children.
	__________________ Help Robert out- please visit (Stop) Sylvia Browne ! StopJohnofGod.blogspot.com

4th May 2009, 02:26 PM	#32
shawmutt Squirrel Murderer Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Greencastle, PA Posts: 1,990	Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe Just because you can technically have children of your own does not mean you have an adult body or an adult mind. A middle schooler is not in physical or mental shape for intercourse and/or carrying children. I agree with the physical aspect, but also think that many people, even so-called adults, aren't in the proper mental shape to be carrying children regardless of age. A couple years from 16 one way or the other isn't going to change that. When I was 17 I thought I knew everything, now that I'm older I realize I didn't know Jack or his brother **** eta: Age of consent in older times was 10-12, and was raised in part because of science and physical observations. Now with newer technology and observations, longer life spans, and a better understanding of the developing teenager's brains, should it be raised even further? From https://www.health.harvard.edu/press...n_development: Quote: Although many teens have fairly advanced intellectual and reasoning ability, recent research has shown that human brain circuitry is not mature until the early 20s. Among the last connections to be fully established are the links between the prefrontal cortex — the seat of judgment and problem-solving — and the emotional centers of the brain. These links are crucial to emotional learning and high-level self-regulation, explains the Harvard Mental Health Letter.
	__________________ http://www.facebook.com/NotYourAverageGunOwner Last edited by shawmutt; 4th May 2009 at 02:34 PM.

4th May 2009, 02:30 PM	#33
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 For the purposes of this discussion I'd like to stick to 12 year olds and older teens who have reached puberty and can procreate. To me sex with a 12 year old is pedophelia. Even if the partner is 15. Having had sexual encounters with 40-year-old men before age 12, and having had sex with boys at age 15, I can tell you, there's a bit more difference than you seem to think. In a certain sense, I agree with you, except not so much about the 15-year-old boy. I mean, pedophiles were once children, too, so I suppose the occasional 15-year-old could be a pedophile, albeit a very young one. But most of them are more likely just normal, horny boys. I think "pedophile" is too strong a term to slap on your typical, randy teenaged boy, don't you? Really?
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

4th May 2009, 02:50 PM	#34
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	A 12-year old and 15 year old can attend the same school and be in the same general peer group. That's not the case when we're talking about pre-teens and fully-grown men (or women). Autolite, I thought Canada recently upped the age of consent to 16. Or are they still just talking about it? I never understood (and maybe still don't) how they could allow a 14-year old to have sex with an adult of any age. 14-year olds are children. Every last one of 'em.

4th May 2009, 02:53 PM	#35
Zygar Lex Luthor's Evil Twin Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 2,609	Originally Posted by Sun Countess A 12-year old and 15 year old can attend the same school and be in the same general peer group. That's not the case when we're talking about pre-teens and fully-grown men (or women). Autolite, I thought Canada recently upped the age of consent to 16. Or are they still just talking about it? I never understood (and maybe still don't) how they could allow a 14-year old to have sex with an adult of any age. 14-year olds are children. Every last one of 'em. According to Wikipedia, it's 16. And I agree with you on the 14 year olds.
	__________________ "Judge people. Judge them, Zygar. Pass judgment." -DrBuzz0 Visit my friends: http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/ http://www.spectrum-scientifics.com