Age of Consent

In my opinion, age of consent laws are overall ineffective and seem to cause more confusion then they resolve. To clarify: I am talking about laws that regulate at what ages people are allowed to have sex and it further stipulates the ages required for certain ages to have sex with. I believe that most of the frustration and ineffectiveness come from the 'gray' areas of the laws. For example, is a 16 year old girl able to give consent to a 19 year old male? I feel as if the answer should be yes. Since though, the 19 year old is technically an adult and cannot touch this 'minor' even though she can give her consent. This further complicates things, as it seems only the laws are in place to stop adults from having sex with teenagers. If a 17 year old boy has sex with a 16 year old girl, they can try to charge him as an adult, further complicating and disregarding the law concerning age of consent. I feel as if though there are many "what if" scenarios that are in play. Such as 15 year old girl having sex with a 16 year old male, but she turns 16 next week, so is that week going to really matter? I purpose clear cut rules that clarify and have zero tolerance for no room to debate, only for the sake of arguing of 'gray' areas.
1. No adult -i.e. any personage over the age of 18- may have sex with a minor, regardless of consent.
2. Any teenager over 16 but under 18 may have sex with the same age group.
3. Any teenager under 15 may not have sex with anyone over 16 and under 14.
thoughts?

 

We have to draw the line somewhere and no matter where we draw it there will be someone complaining HUR DER BUT WHY CAN'T A 13 YEAR OLD CONSENT TO SEX WITH A 14 YEAR OLD?!?

 

What if someone lies about their age?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, the laws only apply to the very small percentage of teenagers who actually get caught.

 

the need to draw a line isn't itself a justification for where you have drawn the line.

 

I think the point of the age of consent is so that children aren't burdened with the baggage of starting a family before they're mentally ready to commit to such an endeavor and they are SURE that's what they want. 18 is a fair age to set it at.

That said, true mental maturity, in the form of the abstract reasoning centers of the brain don't fully activate until the early 20s. So really, and I know some people will begrudge me for it, I think the age of consent is still too low.

But, well, people can vote when they're 18, so who am I to say no?

 

These are necessary laws to protect immature preadults from risky, socially costly behavior that can have lifelong results... legitimate social interest in public health and welfare. yes, there are many gray areas as there are in most areas of the law.

OTOH, there is a definitive cultural trend of infantilizing young women in an attempt to bring them into the victim tent, and so bolster illegitimate, discriminatory feminist goals, "but she's just a baaaaaaaaabeeeeeee!" Watch any three Dr. Swill episodes, and you will run smack into this bogus leftist hand-flapping.

 

I told you people this stuff was coming.

And your support of homosexual marriage is going to come around to bite you in the ass.

 

Age of consent laws are not consistent.

Plus a lot of the time they are abused.

The intent behind them though is to protect young girls from older predatory men.

It's only molestation when it's a forty year old man who's unattractive and has an affair with a fifteen year old girl.

Even though some of those young girls genuinely like older men.

You simply can not molest a guy because guys want sex all the time.

 

14 yrs for BJ etc.

16 yrs for intercourse

seems about right

 

The problem with this is that you're just shifting the grey areas. For example, two 17 years olds having sex on the night of one of their birthdays are suddenly breaking the law when it turns midnight. It makes more sense to me to manage these divisions at you ages on the basis of age difference rather than fixed lines. Such as between 14 and 18, sex is permitted with no more than two years between the partners.

Even that doesn't eliminate grey areas though. The whole point of consent, especially at these ages, is seeking to prevent a more authoritative person taking advantage. Obviously no simple measure of age is going to take account of that and while some definitive laws address it (part of the reason for incest laws and those preventing teachers having sexual relationships with their students, regardless of age) I think there always needs to be some scope for consideration of individual cases. Exactly what the best way of doing that is I'm not entirely sure.

 

why?

why must a line be drawn?

Is it based upon your own morals and beliefs?

Why would it be OK for an 18 year old girl to have have sex with a 15 year old boy but a 50 year old male would not be allowed to legally have sex with a 15 year old boy?

Because you may think one is yucky while the other is not, is not a method for enacting laws.

 

at the beginning of my career, a teacher a couple of counties over went to a (21 and older) bar during summer break.... met a girl, had a one night stand.


no problems until day 1 of school and low and behold.... that girl shows up in the teacher's 1st period class. Turns out, she was a transfer in, 18 y.o., lived on her own (well, she didn't live with her parents), but was a senior in highschool. She had a fake ID to get into a bar that was 21+.

Situations like this are rare... but happen. Not that he violated any law, since she was 18.... but his career was most definitely was put in jeopardy by sleeping with an 18 yo student at his school.

I think that's garbage, though, since she did lie about her age. As a teacher, I personally would NEVER go to an 18 and over bar because of the risk of running into students who were 18, but still in school. I've taught a 19 yo before even.


I'm not saying a 35 y.o. can screw a 15 y.o., and when caught, get the kid to say "yeah, I lied and said I was 18, so our entire 5 month relationship, he thought I was 'legal'.... " There has to be some sort of standard applied where ignorance can't be used as an exxuse. but in a rare case like the teacher above.... there needs to be a way for a teacher in this case, or a random guy in a bar to be able to get out of stat-rape charges when the girl was shown to take deliberate actions to decieve.

persoanally, I can't tell the difference between a 17 y.o. and an 18 y.o. but if she's in a 21+ bar, that's a 15 year prison term risk a guy takes whenever she has a fake ID

 

gays make stamps in honor of adults who stat-rape minors though.... as long as it's gay sex that happens. if it's hetero sex.... they should lock the pedo away

 

This thread and topic has nothing to do with homosexuals.

Stop obsessing about gays.

 

Keep thinking that while these people use the same EXACT arguments and defenses the homosexuals used.

But you keep deluding yourself.

 

What adult stat raped a minor and has a stamp?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry hat you are obsessed with gays. But this issue has no relevance to homosexuals. Age of consent have shifted constantly for decades.

 

Harvey Milk

 

This issue is COMPLETELY relevant to gay marriage because the arguments used to accept gay marriage can also be used to accept a reduction or even removal of age of consent laws.

You can lie to yourself all you want to if it makes you feel better. But you're not going to be able to lie to everybody else enough to convince them that the two are unrelated.

 

You do know these issues differ from state to state. It's hard to generalize due to that.

 

If you raise the speed limit to 80, people will drive 100. If you lower the age of consent....

 

"teenageblogger" starts a thread about stat-rape and AOC laws.


me thinks that 19 y.o. has a 15 y.o. freshman g/f and is trying to justify his own stat-rape

 

Allegedly Harvey Milk. and congressmen Stubbs. Both now deceased.

 

you will hear about how the "slippery slope" argument is BS

you are correct that the homosexual movement to have a deviant sexual activity be treated like a race or gender is the same tactic that pedophiles will use.

We heard how homosexuals do not want to force people to accept them. They want to educate

really

re-education camps for Christians
preachers threatened with jail if they DON'T preside over homosexual weddings
pastors sued and threatened to turn over their sermons
CEO fired because he supports normal/traditional marriage

we were assured that none of the above would occur

 

Age of consent is not only about sex. Currently, from a legal perspective, a 16yo cannot give consent. A 16yo cannot enter into a binding contract, for instance.

With regards to sex, 16 year olds are going to have sex with whomever they please, regardless of consent laws. They are not checking IDs before they bionk. It's only when there is a "problem" do these age-of-consent issues come into play. She is raped by an older man, her 19yo boyfriend gets her pregnant, or beats/abuses her, etc.

The libertarian-leaning side of me says government should not be involved in these matters at all, and certainly the federal government should stay out of it. But giving law-enforcement folks something to snag dirtbag pedophiles and put them away on is not a bad thing in my view.

 

Well then we have a problem. How are we trying 10 year olds as adults for murder if they're not capable of consent?