Age of Consent

I don't know if that's how the law currently works (15 year olds can consent to sex w/ 18 year olds?) but it makes perfect sense to make it impossible for kids of a certain age to consent to sex. Yucky has nothing to do with it. Kids of a certain age haven't developed fully and are probably not able to give perfect consent. It's like being drunk all the time, except they're drunk until they grow up.

Would you do away with statutory rape altogether? Would you want a 50 year old having sex with a 6 year old?

Where we draw the line is an entirely different question. But no matter where we draw the line there will be some idiots complaining that X age is too old to not be able to give consent.

 

agree, which is usually why most states have a buffer zone of within 5 years of age of each other when a minor, to cover the Romeo and Juliet's out there

 

Really good question. 10 year olds ARE capable of premeditation, perhaps that is the rationale? I really don't know.

 

we should treat that more as a medical condition then as an adult.... have them committed to a mental hospital until fixed (which may be never)

.

 

of course, if you are a pretty 18 y.o. lesbian, who stat-rapes a 14 y.o., it's not about AOC, it's because you are a homophobic bigot if you don't support Kate.

 

There's a simultaneously funny and infuriating bit in Transformers: Age of Extinction where Mark Wahlberg finds out that his seventeen-year-old daughter is dating a young man who carries in his wallet a laminated card that explains the particular Texas law that allows him to have sex with a seventeen-year-old.

This is one of those so-stupid-it's-funny kind of things. 'Cause sure, it's technically legal in the eyes of the state of Texas. Whatever. The state of Texas is not in the room with that guy and the father of the girl he's talking about. That's second-degree (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)baggery, that is. And any dad worth his salt will risk a long prison sentence to keep his seventeen-year-old daughter from having sex with a second-degree (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, safe or sane, that's just the way it is. At some point -- hypothetically -- she'll be an adult and have to do most of the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag-avoidance herself. But at seventeen, the dad can still beat the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag to death with a smile on his face and no moral quandries whatsoever. Only in a Michael Bay movie will the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag survive the day.

Michael Bay's jailbat fetish aside, this is why the law is kind of a moot point. It's not up to the law. It never has been. It never will be. If you're willing to risk prison, the law has little hold. And who wouldn't risk prison for their kids? If you're a teenager that wants to have sex -- and what teenager doesn't? -- you better not be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Avoid laminated cards. They imply a vast misunderstanding of the state's power to regulate human interaction.

 

Your support for interracial marriage is coming around to bite you in the ass.

 

hmm, so now you want to get into consent and "minors"

this is where you see inconsistency.

We had the case where 2 homosexuals rented out their adopted child to other homosexuals for sexual reasons. The adults of course must have consented.

The homosexuals were prosecuted but why is not the same thing then done for abortion? How is it that a female can consent for the unborn child to be murdered yet an adult cannot provide consent for a 3 year old to be used for sex?

We have created the slippery slope by embracing abortion and the homosexual lifestyle.

 

The thing with age of consent is it's a murky grey area. Some 14 year old's are mentally mature enough to give meaningful, informed consent. Some 20 year olds are not. 30 states set the age at 16, a handful at 17, and the rest are at 18. (Last I checked, anyway, and it's been awhile.) But, I think there needs to be room for discretion in prosecution on the part of authorities. Surely if we can decide that a 13 year old is old enough to be charged as an adult because of a crime, there needs to be a way to also decide that same 13 year old made a fully informed, adult decision to willingly engage in sex with someone older. I have NO idea how to implement such a standard, but when a physically mature teenager REALLY IS providing meaningful consent, their chronological age should not matter. We are, after all, to the best of my knowledge, the only species on the planet that does not start immediately procreating as soon as physical able, at least not on a widespread basis.

 

Evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

Homosexuals have nothing to do with age of consent.

It's been a changing legal issue for centuries.

Your obsession with gays seems unhealthy to me.

 

Age of consent changes based on societal needs. It used to be as early as 12 or whenever the girl was able to start having children simply because families needed more people to sustain life on the farm. Prior to that you needed girls to have children because the death rate was occurring at very young ages so communities simply needed more people.

We don't have those issues anymore so we can now focus on the mental issues that come along with having sex at early ages. As others have said, we need to pick a age and draw the line even though you could make arguments all around it. Here is a young lady pushing for the age of consent to be 14 and she does bring up some good points but I feel the current age is sufficient.

Warning: Some strong language

[video=youtube;OGl0pw42s2c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGl0pw42s2c[/video]

 

The law isn't set up to subjectively determine whether someone is mentally an adult. That would be ridiculously expensive and unreliable. It's most cost-effective just to set an objective standard. And it's not like two people are perpetually prohibited from having sex because of these laws. All they have to do is wait until they are both within the age of consent.

 

[/QUOTE]

you mean, beyond Milk's biographer. or do you think just because Milk went to the grave with his sexual predator nature still secret, it should remain that way... lol

 

On the one hand, I agree with you. Setting up a system where everyone get's their own personal "age of consent" based on their actual mental and emotional maturity would be, if not literally impossible, very intrusive, expensive, and time consuming. But in that case the same standard should apply to criminal acts, and none of this charging a juvi as adult nonsense. It's a double standard.

 

Do you think this post represents you well as a human being?

 

Someone who despises those who would exploit children sexually? I'd like to think so.

 

That's not how it read to me. It read to me like someone trying to score political points by implying that if you give this any consideration at all, you must be a pedophile. You shouldn't turn something as tragic and harmful as pedophilia into cheap points in an insult contest. You're not doing anything to stop pedophiles -- if anything, your argument enables them.

 

Here is a video of another young woman explaining age of consent and why it is important for adults to follow it. It is very in-depth and surprisingly incredibly well articulated for such a young person.

There are some great points in it that you may be able to use in future arguments with those people who say that the age of consent is stupid. I agree that those who bring this argument up usually have ulterior motives behind it. This lady explains this very well.

[video=youtube;UZ01iuQBm_k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ01iuQBm_k[/video]

 

I can't think of a single reason why any adult male would spend a lot of time complaining about the age of consent laws unless part of them wants to explore another alternative lifestyle possibility.

 

It's your assertion that 'progressives' have a pedophilic agenda. That's just disgusting, man.

 

Lol, biographer.

You mean the guy who wrote a book 30 years after milk died and never once mentioned milk having sex with anyone underage?

Lol

 

That is my assertion, yes, and I agree it's a disgusting agenda. It comes from constantly pushing for change and sexual license.

Just think of how far the norms of sex have been pushed since the 60's progressive social revolution. In the name of "change", these will be pushed even further as time goes on and people need more and more excitement. They'll get bored with the current crop of fetishes eventually, then what? It will be just like in Amsterdam, arguably the most progressive city in the world, where child porn was available for sale in stores.

 

I don't know, maybe because it's NOT A CHILD yet?

Really, the slippery slope is in the fallacious reasoning used by some on these boards.

 

Do you have proof of this? Or is this just another one of those throw away lines because you think no one will question your assertion?

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-11-03/news/8503150222_1_pornography-netherlands-dutch-justice-ministry