A proposed solution to the problem of age of consent for sex

[saizai]

(Inspired by this article, with which I broadly agree but for which I am offering a different solution. Thanks to Alex Fink for helping me revise this. Crossposted from my blog.)

Premises:
1. People mature idiosyncratically (i.e. at different rates per person) - physically/sexually, intellectually, emotionally. Their ability to consent to various things, including sexual activity, is primarily a function of this maturity.

2. As a social taboo / policy, we do not want:
a) someone who is mentally mature to take undue advantage of someone who is mentally immature, or more generally, for there to be an excessive power imbalance in emotional relationships; this includes but is not limited to explicit rape
b) someone who is mentally immature to make decisions that are unusually likely to cause them long-term harm by virtue of their immaturity (e.g. not having the skills to successfully prevent an unwanted pregnancy)

2a. The vast majority of adult/adult relationships, by definition, do not have excessive power imbalance as in a) above. Thus, the average power imbalances in adult relationships are necessarily below 'excessive' and any power imbalance less than that is necessarily acceptable.

2b. The vast majority of adults, by definition, are at least sufficiently mature to make decisions as in b) above. Thus, anyone with at least that much maturity is necessarily able to act freely, consent, etc.

3. There is a testable set of factors for what constitutes maturity sufficient to consent to sexual activity. This may include, for instance: tests of knowledge of STDs, pregnancy, and countermeasures; tests of knowledge of the impact of sexual and romantic relationships to one's life and to one's place in society; psychological tests of intelligence; psychological tests of psychosocial / emotional maturity.

4. No standard based on an age threshold will account for 100% of the population.

5a. Those violating 2a deserve punishment along the same rationale as any other crime involving the willful taking advantage of another or the denial of another's volitionality - e.g. rape, theft, etc. I.e., it may be punished by incarceration, fines, mandatory rehabilitation, etc.

5b. Those violating 2b may deserve protection (as with other parental & social guarding of children from things that they are not mature enough to be able to protect themselves) but not punishment, e.g. rehabilitation, education, sheltering, temporary restraining orders, etc.

6. Per 4, it is acceptable to allow a minority of guilty people to go free, in order to not restrict the freedom of the innocent majority. (E.g. suppose 80% of 18 year olds are what we deem 'sufficiently mature' to have complete control over & responsibility for their lives; the 20% is an acceptable loss.) It is unacceptable to allow a minority of innocent people to be punished.

7. It is a miscarriage of justice per 6 when there is an incident between two people, one or both of whom is under statutory age, which does NOT involve an instance of 2a (excessive power imbalance), that is punished in the manner of 5a. An example of this is a 15 year old being jailed for 10 years for having sex with a 13 year old, when both are of approximately the same emotional, sexual, and intellectual maturity. Approximately, here, means that they are different no more than the partners in any acceptable adult/adult relationship are different (as in 2a).



If you don't agree with the above (which I will not attempt to defend here), then the rest of this will not be convincing.



There are various ways proposed to address this issue. I'll only address two. I will not address the lack of consistency in the law across various jurisdictions, as this would apply to any attempted solution.

1. Strict age of majority (e.g. 18).

By this method, any two people above the age of majority may have sex, and anyone below it is necessarily being raped, even if both participants are below it. By standard practice, if both parties are statutorily rapees, then the male and/or the older person is considered to be the rapist.

This has obvious problems. The simplest breaking case is sex between people 17.9 and 18.1 years old - by any reasonable measure of maturity, this is extremely unlikely to have the power disparity needed to qualify under 2a. Likewise, it is improbable that the 17.9 yo is significantly more likely than the 18.1 yo to qualify under 2b.

Moreover, it may be the case that the 17.9 yo is in reality sufficiently more mature than the 18.1 yo that there does exist a power imbalance, and if this is the case, the 18.1 yo is effectively without legal recourse because they are statutorily presumed to be the aggressor. Thus, if they wished to bring a rape case against the 17.9 yo, they would risk being convicted of statutory rape themselves and having their actual rape case thrown out.

2. Age of majority (e.g. 18) plus age difference exception (e.g. +- 2 years)

By this method, any two people above the age of majority may have sex, as may any two people where the age difference between the two is less then the difference exception. Any sex between people where at least one participant is under the statutory age, and the age difference is more than the waiver, is necessarily rape of the younger participant.

In this case, the problems above are addressed, but only to a certain degree. It is still possible - just less likely - that the situations described above as occurring between a 17.9 yo and a 18.1 yo will occur between a 17.9 yo and a 20.1 yo or a 15.9 yo and a 18.1 yo.

As such, while the addition of an age gap helps the situation, it necessarily leaves a sizeable number of people to be harmed as per premise 7. Therefore, this policy is insufficient.




I propose the following solution instead.

Use, as a basis, a majority-plus-age-difference-exception law such as #2 above.

In addition to the defense against the facts on the basis of coming within an age difference exception,
a) it shall be a complete affirmative defense to any charge of statutory rape that the alleged victim is demonstrably mature; and
b) it shall be a partial affirmative defense that the alleged aggressor is demonstrably immature.

(An affirmative defense essentially is one that admits the facts, but claims that one is not liable for some reason that requires burden of proof, e.g. self-defense as an affirmative defense to a charge of murder.)

A. This defense may be prepared in advance, by taking a test demonstrating that one has the knowledge, intelligence, and emotional maturity that is within the range socially deemed to be acceptable per premise 2b. Any minor may take this test at any time, without parental consent, and it shall be made readily available, confidential, and free or minimal cost. If they pass they will be confidentially recorded as having done so and optionally given a proof of passing (like a driver's license or medical marijuana card) for their safe keeping. Any person who has done so may not be considered the victim for a charge of statutory rape, and it shall be a defense against the facts (i.e. minimal burden of proof) to have a charge dismissed on these grounds.

Additionally, at trial, the alleged statutory rapee may voluntarily take this test post hoc, or the alleged rapist may require them to do so by court order; if they pass, the charge must be dismissed.

This test is analogous to a declaration of emancipation, but grants far more limited rights (just immunity to harassment for under-age sex) and is far easier to pass (e.g. not requiring proof of ability to support oneself).

B. This defense may not be prepared in advance, and could be considered a variant of the 'insanity defense'. If the alleged perpetrator can demonstrate, by taking a test of maturity, that they are not sufficiently mature, then the charge must be lessened to one appropriate to sex between two immature people of whom neither is properly the aggressor, and treated as in premise 5b.



I believe that this policy would:
a) close the gaps that allow miscarriages of justice upon innocent people;
b) allow an older person to pursue a charge of rape against a younger person with less fear that they themselves will be convicted on statutory grounds;
c) allow relationships between people more mature than their age would nominally indicate, by giving them a preemptive way to protect themselves from prosecution;
d) encourage people in such relationships to take the test, and if one or both do not pass, to take that information into consideration as demonstrating that they are not yet mature enough, and need further education, growth, etc;
e) allow the State to provide materials, resources, and education to people who choose to take the test, as a form of early intervention.

[JoeEllison]

Here's another idea: keep your bits to yourself. Works every time.

[skeptifem]

something that complicated leaves more room for error, not less imo.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Here's another idea: keep your bits to yourself. Works every time.

That is what many christians are working on getting everyone to follow.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by saizai

In addition to the defense against the facts on the basis of coming within an age difference exception,
a) it shall be a complete affirmative defense to any charge of statutory rape that the alleged victim is demonstrably mature; and
b) it shall be a partial affirmative defense that the alleged aggressor is demonstrably immature.

I don't think these are likely to be work effectively. What percentage of the adult population in your experiance is actualy mature?

I also don't like it because there is no way to know beforehand if an act is legal or not. The demonstrably mature is determined later not at the time. The only way to make it work would be some sort of licience and that seems also like such a bad idea.

[saizai]

ponderingturtle - Note 2b. I have given as a premise that the majority of adults are by definition sufficiently mature.* So we are not, here, coming up with a standard for what is "mature enough to have sex", but rather what is mature enough to fit within the maturity range of adults. This is very different.

Basically, if adults can be immature yet legal, minors should be allowed to be *equally or less* immature and legal.

Re beforehand - you seem to have completely missed my elaboration of proposition a), which starts "This defense may be prepared in advance..."


* I am not arguing that this is "objectively" true (nor am I sure how one might go about doing so). I am simply giving it as a fact about our social mores that we accept it as so. I.e., there already exists a de facto standard for what 'sufficiently mature' is, and I am just trying to leverage a new group to be able to use that same standard.

[Dancing David]

Well, I agree with Romeo and Julliette provision in many laws and i don't like the way statutory rape is often applied.

here are the issues that I see:

1. laws are laws and they can be rationaly based but they will always be arbitrary.

2. maturity is an elusive concept and is culurally defined, therefore one set of people may agree that someone is mature and another group will not, still arbitrary

3. the whole is ssue of impulse control is a sticky one related to maturity

4. the whole issue of wisdom is a sticly one related to maturity

5. immaturity can not be even a partial defense as the system already has juvenile provisions to the law, it does not matter, if an immature person commits rape it is still rape ( I chose the example)

6. the issue is not what I would label as maturity but consent, the law defines a point at which one is old enough to consent I don't think that we need to address maturity but what constitutes consent?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

How about a minimum age of consent, but anyone under that age who believes themselves sufficiently mature to enter into a sexual relationship can do so (with any partner of any age) providing they demonstrate in advance that they are sufficiently mature?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

How about a minimum age of consent, but anyone under that age who believes themselves sufficiently mature to enter into a sexual relationship can do so (with any partner of any age) providing they demonstrate in advance that they are sufficiently mature?

What would you take as such a demonstration?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

What would you take as such a demonstration?

If they could convince a court, magistrate or similar, in advance of starting the relationship, that they were sufficiently mature.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

If they could convince a court, magistrate or similar, in advance of starting the relationship, that they were sufficiently mature.

What grounds would be used in such an arugement.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

What grounds would be used in such an arugement.

No detailed plan, but the sort of things mentioned at point 3 of the OP sound reasonable. And of course reliance would be placed on the good sense of the presiding judge/magistrate.

[Darat]

Hmm - court deciding:

J: So you want sex with person X but you are only 15 and turn 16 in 6 months?
Kid: yes
J: So you're mature enough to understand the issues that can arise from a sexual relationship?
Kid: Yes
J: OK I'll just want you to do one task that will demonstrate that you do indeed have a mature attitude to forming a sexual relationship - are you OK with that?
Kid: Yes
J: Don't start a sexual relationship for 6 months.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

No detailed plan, but the sort of things mentioned at point 3 of the OP sound reasonable. And of course reliance would be placed on the good sense of the presiding judge/magistrate.

The thing is to a large extent this already happens. It is in the decision of who to prosecute.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Darat

Hmm - court deciding:

J: So you want sex with person X but you are only 15 and turn 16 in 6 months?
Kid: yes
J: So you're mature enough to understand the issues that can arise from a sexual relationship?
Kid: Yes
J: OK I'll just want you to do one task that will demonstrate that you do indeed have a mature attitude to forming a sexual relationship - are you OK with that?
Kid: Yes
J: Don't start a sexual relationship for 6 months.

Heh, heh. Like it.

Of course if someone tries to argue that the under age person they had sex with was mature as a mitigating factor when charged, they are going to have to explain why they didn't make sure that person had confirmed this with the court first....

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That is what many christians are working on getting everyone to follow.

I think everyone is working on that, when it comes to adults sniffing around kids.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Darat

Hmm - court deciding:

J: So you want sex with person X but you are only 15 and turn 16 in 6 months?
Kid: yes
J: So you're mature enough to understand the issues that can arise from a sexual relationship?
Kid: Yes
J: OK I'll just want you to do one task that will demonstrate that you do indeed have a mature attitude to forming a sexual relationship - are you OK with that?
Kid: Yes
J: Don't start a sexual relationship for 6 months.

That's half of what I was thinking. The other half was that some 20 year old sniffing around the local high school's JV cheerleaders probably shouldn't be allowed to sleep with anyone.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I think everyone is working on that, when it comes to adults sniffing around kids.

And kids with kids. Remember less than three years difference in age does not mean you don't get 10 years in prison and be a sex offender for life. Remember that just because you are under age does not mean you are not victimizing someone for statutory rape.

You where not at all specific as to what sex you where against as well.

[Beerina]

Quote:

If they could convince a court, magistrate or similar, in advance of starting the relationship, that they were sufficiently mature.

This presumes there is something wrong with it, or something valuable in the concept of "mature, informed consent".

A study was done of 14 and 15 year olds who had consentual sex with adults. No attempt was made to determine "meaningful consent". Rather, they just asked for a simple yes/no consent.

As it turns out, there were little if any "serious psychological problems" later in life for these people, and many looked back positively on their experiences.

Since there's no correlation between simple consent and psychological damage, there's no need to bother further trying to see if they had given "meaningful consent", whatever that may be.

Hence the need and justification to prove anything to a judge evaporates: Why prove something unnecessary? And prove exactly what?


Political theories should not be exempt from science. To pass a law, you should have good reasons. After the law is passed, it should be studied to see if it is having the intended effect, and any unforseen side effects, and modified or repealed as appropriate.

Of course, someone might reply, "Well, what about STDs or pregnancy?" Well, sure, but that's not what drives 20 year sentences now, is it?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by saizai

6. Per 4, it is acceptable to allow a minority of guilty people to go free, in order to not restrict the freedom of the innocent majority. (E.g. suppose 80% of 18 year olds are what we deem 'sufficiently mature' to have complete control over & responsibility for their lives; the 20% is an acceptable loss.) It is unacceptable to allow a minority of innocent people to be punished.

It is right here that I have the greatest difficulty with your argument. On two specific points:

1) it is acceptable to allow a minority of guilty people to go free, in order to not restrict the freedom of the innocent majority

In many cases, I might agree with you; but we are talking here about a crime that inflicts very significant damage on its victims, much moreso than in other crimes. Where there exists "reasonable doubt" as to the actual guilt of the person (ie. did they do it or not), I'd agree with you. But where guilt is not in question (there is adequate evidence to render a guilty verdict), then I'd say that there is a much greater responsibility to protect potential victims.

2) suppose 80% of 18 year olds are what we deem 'sufficiently mature' to have complete control over & responsibility for their lives; the 20% is an acceptable loss

There's an even greater problem with your argument here -- the entire argument about "a minority of guilty people" is based purely on an unsubstantiated supposition about how many people we judge to be "sufficiently mature". Upon what data do you base this figure, or this argument? Because many of your subsequent arguments are premised upon a "conclusion" that, so far as I can see, has nothing to substantiate it other than your own personal opinion.

I'm generally in favor of the principle of allowing a 2-year leeway (two people within two years of age of each other who engage in mutually consensual sex should not be charged with sex crimes); and in situations where the adult party was truly ignorant of the actual age of the person he had sex with (ie. a 15 year old claims to be 18). But beyond that, I'd generally support laws that restrict sexual conduct, and to punish those who engage in it.

Let me offer one final argument in this regard -- your own stated standard of being "sufficiently mature". In my opinion, any individual who knew that there were laws against sexual relationships with minors, but who nevertheless engaged in such a relationship, is not, in fact, "sufficiently mature". They have demonstrated lack of self-control, and willingness to deliberately violate the law in order to satisfy physical urges.

Its simple, in my opinion.

Put the laws in place. Those who are "sufficiently mature" will be able to restrain themselves from sexual relationships with minors. Those who are not "sufficiently mature" will ignore those laws, and face the consequences. Since it is your argument that you are trying to protect those who are "sufficiently mature" from being unfairly punished along with a "minority" of people who aren't, this should entirely address all of your concerns, since by definition a "sufficiently mature" individual will not do it.

[pgwenthold]

I think we should just apply the half-your-age+7 rule to everyone.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Since there's no correlation between simple consent and psychological damage, there's no need to bother further trying to see if they had given "meaningful consent", whatever that may be.

Political theories should not be exempt from science.

And indeed from logic - if all of those in your sample gave meaningful consent (you admit yourself there is no way to know if this is the case or not) then it is entirely possible that the absence of harm is due to the fact the consent was meaningful and that, absent meaningful consent, harm will occur.

Therefore your conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

And indeed from logic - if all of those in your sample gave meaningful consent (you admit yourself there is no way to know if this is the case or not) then it is entirely possible that the absence of harm is due to the fact the consent was meaningful and that, absent meaningful consent, harm will occur.

Therefore your conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

Actually, your conclusion is unwarranted. If a statistically large sample was used, which I think it was, then for your worries to be legitimate, they'd have had to have missed all the "unmeaningful consent" cases, which, by the very basis of statistics, is highly unlikely to have been the case.

It is you, pontificating politicians, and anti-sexuality religious zealots, who make the claim that "meaningful consent" is important. As with any other endeavor involving threats of massive jail time, please demonstrate the difference between this and simple consent with respect to psychological damage (or, alternatively, where this study failed in missing all cases where simple consent differs from meaningful consent, miraculously just happening to catch only meaningful consent cases.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Actually, your conclusion is unwarranted. If a statistically large sample was used, which I think it was, then for your worries to be legitimate, they'd have had to have missed all the "unmeaningful consent" cases, which, by the very basis of statistics, is highly unlikely to have been the case.

It is you, pontificating politicians, and anti-sexuality religious zealots, who make the claim that "meaningful consent" is important. As with any other endeavor involving threats of massive jail time, please demonstrate the difference between this and simple consent with respect to psychological damage (or, alternatively, where this study failed in missing all cases where simple consent differs from meaningful consent, miraculously just happening to catch only meaningful consent cases.)

Right, so I am supposed to take your word about this survey (no link) which you "think" had a statistically large sample and which is effectively immune from any criticism over design, interpretation or any other aspect.

You think it is unlikely they missed all the unmeaningful consent cases. Great. Whoopee. There is absolutely no way I can challenge this because there is no link, no cite nothing that allows anything you say to be reviewed. However I can see circumstances in which it would be entirely predictable to get a sample which included only those who gave meaningful consent.

In any event, even if the survey is perfectly designed and has no flaws, your statement that I quoted "Since there's no correlation between simple consent and psychological damage, there's no need to bother further trying to see if they had given "meaningful consent", whatever that may be." does NOT support your conclusion - without knowing the proportions of meaningful and other consent your statement is unsupported.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by saizai

Basically, if adults can be immature yet legal, minors should be allowed to be *equally or less* immature and legal.

How do you prove maturity?

[saizai]

Originally Posted by Darat

J: OK I'll just want you to do one task that will demonstrate that you do indeed have a mature attitude to forming a sexual relationship - are you OK with that?
Kid: Yes
J: Don't start a sexual relationship for 6 months.

Sorry, but that's bull. Putting something off, and being emotionally mature, are not the same thing.

If they want to be a complete slut, and are emotionally as mature as an adult who wants to be a complete slut, then that's their business.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The thing is to a large extent this already happens. It is in the decision of who to prosecute.

This is completely unacceptable. It suggests that one should trust the wisdom of the prosecuting attorney, rather than actually having protection of law.

Originally Posted by Wolfman

1) it is acceptable to allow a minority of guilty people to go free, in order to not restrict the freedom of the innocent majority

In many cases, I might agree with you; but we are talking here about a crime that inflicts very significant damage on its victims, much moreso than in other crimes. Where there exists "reasonable doubt" as to the actual guilt of the person (ie. did they do it or not), I'd agree with you. But where guilt is not in question (there is adequate evidence to render a guilty verdict), then I'd say that there is a much greater responsibility to protect potential victims.

Sorry, I was using the term slightly loosely in this instance. As you inferred, I am intending it as a description of the possible 'victim' rather than a matter of allowing a literally guilty person to be freed. (However, this could and should be prosecuted as a regular rape case rather than statutory...)

More broadly, we accept that it is OK for some adults to be very emotionally immature (e.g. less mature than a typical 13yo), yet write them off as not needing protection because they are an adult, except for the extreme case of people who are sufficiently retarded to be considered legally incompetent.

This is what I mean by 'acceptable loss'.

Quote:

2) suppose 80% of 18 year olds are what we deem 'sufficiently mature' to have complete control over & responsibility for their lives; the 20% is an acceptable loss

There's an even greater problem with your argument here -- the entire argument about "a minority of guilty people" is based purely on an unsubstantiated supposition about how many people we judge to be "sufficiently mature". Upon what data do you base this figure, or this argument? Because many of your subsequent arguments are premised upon a "conclusion" that, so far as I can see, has nothing to substantiate it other than your own personal opinion.

What exactly are you contesting here - the 20% figure? That is purely an example to demonstrate the concept, and I am not seeking to defend it.

Quote:

I'm generally in favor of the principle of allowing a 2-year leeway (two people within two years of age of each other who engage in mutually consensual sex should not be charged with sex crimes); and in situations where the adult party was truly ignorant of the actual age of the person he had sex with (ie. a 15 year old claims to be 18). But beyond that, I'd generally support laws that restrict sexual conduct, and to punish those who engage in it.

Interesting that you assume that the adult is male.

Quote:

Let me offer one final argument in this regard -- your own stated standard of being "sufficiently mature". In my opinion, any individual who knew that there were laws against sexual relationships with minors, but who nevertheless engaged in such a relationship, is not, in fact, "sufficiently mature". They have demonstrated lack of self-control, and willingness to deliberately violate the law in order to satisfy physical urges.

In my opinion, this is circular logic. You are saying essentially "it's illegal, therefore [...] it should be illegal".

Don't forget that the minor in question may be the one who is initiating the relationship. If they are as mature as a non-minor, then what justification is there for making this conduct illegal?

I don't believe that "providing an arbitrary test for somebody's self-restraint, solely on the basis of its illegality rather than anything inherent to ethics of the situation" is a valid justification.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by saizai

Sorry, but that's bull. Putting something off, and being emotionally mature, are not the same thing.

If they want to be a complete slut, and are emotionally as mature as an adult who wants to be a complete slut, then that's their business.

...snip...

Well first of all that was meant as a light hearted post....

However it does contain a kernel of truth - if you are a mature adult then you certainly would understand that you do not need to have sex with someone right at that moment. Therefore someone not understanding that would be showing that they are not yet a mature adult when it came to matters of sex.

[saizai]

Darat - Yeah, I know you meant it in jest (and it was inded funny). But e.g. the following poster made essentially the same argument - that putting off sex is the same as maturity - so I responded to the point.

If *I* were to meet someone I found totally hot, and they felt likewise, and we had sex that night - is that immature? That's a cultural question - among the people I associate with, it wouldn't be particularly uncommon. But is it immature enough to mean either of us is being taken advantage of? No. Why? Because we both know what we're getting into, what the consequences probably are, how to protect ourselves, how to handle it emotionally, etc. That is the kind of maturity I'm talking about.

So, I think that simply waiting an arbitrary period of time is not an appropriate standard to determine maturity.

I would agree however with your statement that if someone doesn't understand that they can wait if they want to, then that's immature. I just do not agree that we should mandate that they wait.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by saizai

Darat - Yeah, I know you meant it in jest (and it was inded funny). But e.g. the following poster made essentially the same argument - that putting off sex is the same as maturity - so I responded to the point.

If *I* were to meet someone I found totally hot, and they felt likewise, and we had sex that night - is that immature?

...snip...

No but that is not the point I was making. What would be immature would be for you to consider you needed to have sex with them that night. Indeed I would say a sign of maturity has to be that you understand that immediate gratification of a desire is not a right.

Originally Posted by saizai

...snip...

So, I think that simply waiting an arbitrary period of time is not an appropriate standard to determine maturity.

I would agree however with your statement that if someone doesn't understand that they can wait if they want to, then that's immature. I just do not agree that we should mandate that they wait.

Why not? If you wish to test for "maturity" it seems to be one of a whole range of sensible was you could test for it.

[saizai]

Originally Posted by Darat

No but that is not the point I was making. What would be immature would be for you to consider you needed to have sex with them that night. Indeed I would say a sign of maturity has to be that you understand that immediate gratification of a desire is not a right.

I'd agree with you, but only up until there. It's immature to feel that it's a need or a right, but it is NOT immature to feel that you want to do it and act on that.

Quote:

Why not? If you wish to test for "maturity" it seems to be one of a whole range of sensible was you could test for it.

Because this unduly restricts behavior that, in mature adults, we consider perfectly fine (or even encouraged).

Like I said - if they want to be a slut, that's their business. The only reasonable question is whether they're emotionally/etc mature enough to make that decision - and it's not good logic to judge that, by requiring them to not make it.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I think we should just apply the half-your-age+7 rule to everyone.

So if you are 12, you have to diddle with a 13 year old, but the 13 year old can't reciprocate. Sounds like a set up for a rash junior high blow jobs, for starters.

(I realize the idea is to use the elder persons age as the object of division and addition, but thought I'd have some fun in the mean time.)

The more I think on that little rule of thumb, the more sense it makes, but George Burns would poke me in the eye with a cigar for advocating it.

For sazai: A lot of feedback to you already, I'll try to add something later when I can digest your OP, and the in depth replies, as this is a bit to chew. Chat with you then.


DR

[saizai]

DR - I'll look forward to it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by saizai

...snip...

Because this unduly restricts behavior that, in mature adults, we consider perfectly fine (or even encouraged).

Like I said - if they want to be a slut, that's their business. The only reasonable question is whether they're emotionally/etc mature enough to make that decision - and it's not good logic to judge that, by requiring them to not make it.

Then you are also saying your solution is "not good logic" since your proposal also has them having to wait until their maturity has been established.

[saizai]

Originally Posted by Darat

Then you are also saying your solution is "not good logic" since your proposal also has them having to wait until their maturity has been established.

Except if they elect to do it post hoc at trial.

But this is not the same thing. In my case, I am suggesting that they wait until after there's been a determination that they are competent. In yours, you are suggesting that they wait an arbitrary period as the determination that they are competent.

Mine does not have the problem of yours, that requires someone to not do X in order to prove that they are ready to do X.


P.S. Great quote in your sig.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

So if you are 12, you have to diddle with a 13 year old, but the 13 year old can't reciprocate. Sounds like a set up for a rash junior high blow jobs, for starters.

Exactly. So no one is allowed to do anything.

Quote:

(I realize the idea is to use the elder persons age as the object of division and addition, but thought I'd have some fun in the mean time.)

But if you enforce it both ways, then it works just fine. All it means is that there is a hard bottom line of 14, before which the concept is meaningless.

Quote:

The more I think on that little rule of thumb, the more sense it makes, but George Burns would poke me in the eye with a cigar for advocating it.

Hey, that 100 year old guy has no business fooling around with anyone younger than 57...

(actually, of course, this would just apply until the age of majority; however, it does handle the 18 year old boy/17 year old girl situation just fine - so long as he doesn't drop lower than 16, which he shouldn't be doing)

[Suggestologist]

There's a basic error here.

One immature person plus another imature person is less safe than one immature person plus one mature person.

Would you rather a 13 year old learn to use a gun from an 18 year old, or from another 13 year old?

The basic purpose of age of consent laws is religious nonsense around limiting people's rights to "sinful" activity. It doesn't take the real issues into account at all.

[Pardalis]

How does one tell a mature person from an immature person, especially when that person is underaged?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by saizai

What exactly are you contesting here - the 20% figure? That is purely an example to demonstrate the concept, and I am not seeking to defend it.

You aren't seeking to defend a specific value of 20%, perhaps; but you are most definitely seeking to defend the argument that "it is acceptable to allow a minority of guilty people to go free, in order to not restrict the freedom of the innocent majority". Where is your demonstration/proof that the "majority" of people in this situation are "innocent"? Your arguments and conclusions on both this point, and the following point, are based entirely upon this unsubstantiated assumption.

Quote:

In my opinion, this is circular logic. You are saying essentially "it's illegal, therefore [...] it should be illegal".

Don't forget that the minor in question may be the one who is initiating the relationship. If they are as mature as a non-minor, then what justification is there for making this conduct illegal?

Sorry, wrong. I'm not saying "its illegal, therefore it should be illegal". I am saying that one of the easiest ways to determine whether either party (male or female) involved in such a relationship is "sufficiently mature" is to determine their ability to control their sexual urges to participate in an act that they know to be illegal.

I'd argue that any individual who knows the sexual acts they are engaging in are illegal, and will become legal if they simply wait until the minor reaches an appropriate age, but still is unable to control themselves...that person is, by definition, not "sufficiently mature". The question of whether the action is initiated by the minor or no is irrelevant; a "sufficiently mature" person should demonstrate the ability to refrain from sexual activity that they know is illegal.

If you disagree, then please demonstrate an argument in which you feel a person is so overcome by physical desire that that they knowingly break the law, and subject themselves to potential criminal charges, is nevertheless a "sufficiently mature" individual to be making such decisions? By the very nature of the act, they've demonstrated they aren't making a rational decision; they are giving in to physical urges that have superceded their rational decision-making ability. Which is not, in my opinion, "sufficiently mature".

I have certainly met very attractive females, whom I knew to be minors, towards whom I felt sexual attraction, and who were quite willing to engage in sexual activities with me. However, I've been able to control my urges, and make the rational decision not to do so, because I know that doing so would put me in a position of potentially getting in significant trouble. That is a demonstration of being "sufficiently mature". Were I unable to restrain myself, and I engaged in such acts despite knowing it was illegal, I would argue that I would, by definition, not be "sufficiently mature".

So...in your argument, there is no reasonable manner to differentiate between those who are "sufficiently mature", and those who are not. Therefore, you conclude that we must let those who are guilty of actual sexual abuse of a minor go free, for fear of "punishing those who are innocent". Yet my solution solves that problem for you entirely.

Put these laws in place. Those who are "sufficiently mature" (regardless of whether they are a minor or not, regardless of who initiates the relationship) will be able to "just say no", and wait until they reach an appropriate age (or find someone else with whom such activities are not illegal). Those who are incapable of controlling themselves are, pretty much by definition, proving that they are not "sufficiently mature".

[saizai]

Originally Posted by Suggestologist

There's a basic error here.

One immature person plus another imature person is less safe than one immature person plus one mature person.

I think that in this case, it is generally considered that
a) immature + mature = psychological force ~= rape
b) immature + immature = stupid = education needed

Quote:

The basic purpose of age of consent laws is religious nonsense around limiting people's rights to "sinful" activity. It doesn't take the real issues into account at all.

Not exclusively, I think, though certainly that has a significant role. E.g. your argument does not hold for age of consent to sign a contract.

Originally Posted by Wolfman

You aren't seeking to defend a specific value of 20%, perhaps; but you are most definitely seeking to defend the argument that "it is acceptable to allow a minority of guilty people to go free, in order to not restrict the freedom of the innocent majority". Where is your demonstration/proof that the "majority" of people in this situation are "innocent"?

*laugh* I see.

I have no proof that the majority are 'innocent' - which in this case maps to 'mature'. I added it in as a premise by definition. This is intentional.

We already accept, as a society, that adults are ready to have sex. I am not seeking to examine this claim (which may indeed be false), but to build upon it by trying to provide minors with a way to demonstrate that they are within the normal range of adult maturity for this.

Quote:

Sorry, wrong. I'm not saying "its illegal, therefore it should be illegal". I am saying that one of the easiest ways to determine whether either party (male or female) involved in such a relationship is "sufficiently mature" is to determine their ability to control their sexual urges to participate in an act that they know to be illegal.

Except that this is a different thing altogether from the standard that I gave as a premise.

Being able to obey an arbitrary law, and being mature enough to handle sexual relationships in a compassionate, intelligent, etc manner, have no demonstrable(-ated?) correlation.

You are claiming that if someone cannot obey a law, then they are insufficiently mature, and you haven't backed up this claim. You are also using this argument to support the claim that the law essentially justifies itself. Suppose I say that the age of consent is 50, and you're 30 and have sex. I say then "well, you had sex when you weren't allowed to, clearly you shouldn't be allowed to have sex" - in line with your argument. Reductio ad absurdium.

Moreover, you claim that "controlling sexual urges" is a necessary prerequisite to a determination of maturity - and given the behavior of adult males (whom we deem by definition to be "mature enough") in bars, I am very skeptical of this claim.

Quote:

I have certainly met very attractive females, whom I knew to be minors, towards whom I felt sexual attraction, and who were quite willing to engage in sexual activities with me. However, I've been able to control my urges, and make the rational decision not to do so, because I know that doing so would put me in a position of potentially getting in significant trouble. That is a demonstration of being "sufficiently mature".

No. It is a demonstration of obeying a law for fear of punishment.

The definition of maturity that I have been using, consistently, is the ability to handle relationships in an adult fashion. Your example did not give any indication that the sexy young girls you met were in fact unable to do this.

Quote:

So...in your argument, there is no reasonable manner to differentiate between those who are "sufficiently mature", and those who are not.

There is, and I proposed methods of doing so.

Quote:

Therefore, you conclude that we must let those who are guilty of actual sexual abuse of a minor go free, for fear of "punishing those who are innocent".

You have completely ignored my clarification above.

a) I support prosecution under normal rape law, which would need to demonstrate compulsion or the like.

b) My use of "guilty" and "innocent" above was an analogy; "guilty" maps to "immature" and "innocent" to "mature".

Quote:

Yet my solution solves that problem for you entirely.

By criminalizing behavior that is not, in itself, a problem. Your only proposed justification for this criminalization is to serve as an arbitrary test of someone's ability to wait.

Quote:

Put these laws in place. Those who are "sufficiently mature" (regardless of whether they are a minor or not, regardless of who initiates the relationship) will be able to "just say no", and wait until they reach an appropriate age (or find someone else with whom such activities are not illegal). Those who are incapable of controlling themselves are, pretty much by definition, proving that they are not "sufficiently mature".

Incapable of controlling themselves just because a law tells them to? No problem by me.

Incapable of controlling themselves because it would be unethical, i.e. because the other person isn't mature enough to handle it? Problem.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

There is still the problem of, say, a 15 year old stalking/raping 18 year olds thinking that they won't be prosecuted.

I'm sure all the women understand that problem right away, but for the horny toad guys who fail to remember the minimal number of situations in which they wouldn't consent to have sex: Imagine you're 18, drunk, and nearly passed out at a party. A 15 year old girl that all your friends make fun of (unfortunately that means she's probably overweight, pimply, smelly, homely, etc.) rapes you. All your friends know about it (again unfortunate this matters, you have to see this from a male pig perspective). You can't prosecute because age of consent laws would make you the perpetrator.

The divide age by half +7 fix may solve the 17.9/18.1 and +/- problems but not the above.