Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[Arcade22]

In another thread we started to talk about age of consent laws and statutory rape and not to attempt a derail of that one I've decided to create this thread.

My principal opinion on sexual matters is this: if someone has sex with another human being and

1. They are sexually mature
2. They give consent without being deceived, threatened and actually want to have sex
3. They are sound of mind i.e not drugged up or unable to understand what sex is
4. It's safe and sane

then there is nothing immoral with it.

If all those conditions are met i don't feel that the age of the people having sex is of any real importance. I can't see how it would be wrong if a 14 year old, or even a 13 year old, had sex with a 57 year old. It's a little extreme example but you get the gist of it.

That is my principal view. For practical reasons i understand that making it a general rule that having sex with someone under a specific age should be illegal because it would be easier for the justice system to uncover and punish rapists easier. This age doesn't have to be arbitrary, chosen because of our personal biases and prejudices. We have an obligation to create laws based on reason, logic and human decency.

The far, far majority of all people who are 13 years old and over aren't just sexually mature enough for sex, they are also actively searching for sexual partners. Because most, if not all, of their friends and the people they are around are about the same age as themselves most of their sexual partners will be about the same age. If this 13 year old found a partner that actually was significantly older than themselves, either because he/she was actively looking for someone older through the internet or simply because of luck, i can't see why it would be wrong if the older guy/gal actually indulged in sex with the minor.

Therefor: if someone cannot prove to me that putting the age of consent at the age of 13, with the added stipulation that deceit or coercion doesn't take place and that the older person isn't someone in a position of power over the minor, would cause needless grief and suffering in society then there is not rational reason why it shouldn't be on that level. If you have no rational, factual basis on why people should be thrown in jail because they had sex with someone 13 years old and over then YOU are the perpetuator of immorality and human suffering and YOU deserve to be destroyed in every conceivable way.

And if you for some reason got the impression that I'm some sort of pot smoking fanatic with little to no contact with reality then you're going to have to tell the Spaniards why they should put their age of consent higher, which is now at age 13.

 

[Aepervius]

Age of consent vary culturally, germany it is 14, some other country it is 12.... It is more a culturaly accepted thingy rather than a real psychologicvally studied, scientifically shown average age at which people can consent.

Since the law don't follow science but the folks gut feeling, I don't see much to discuss eitehr way.

 

[JFrankA]

Since the law don't follow science but the folks gut feeling, I don't see much to discuss eitehr way.

This is correct.

And I agree with the concept that it's attitude, knowledge, education and individual choices that make a person ready to be sexually active, it is difficult to actually draw the line using that as a basis and satisfy everyone involved.

 

[Lothian]

The far, far majority of all people who are 13 years old and over aren't just sexually mature enough for sex, they are also actively searching for sexual partners.

What are you saying here by 13 and over?

The world popualtion split by age is
0-14 years: 27% (male 944,987,919/female 884,268,378)
15-64 years: 65.3% (male 2,234,860,865/female 2,187,838,153)
65 years and over: 7.6% (male 227,164,176/female 289,048,221) (2010 est.)

Are you talking about the group aged 13 to 65+ in which case the same agrement about majority could be made for the group aged 2 to 65+

If you are saying that "The far, far majority of all people who are 13 years old and over aren't just sexually mature enough for sex, they are also actively searching for sexual partners" I would ask for evidence.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I always wondered how you could trust a 16 year old with 3000 pounds of life and death machine on the public streets, but not trust her with her own vagina

 

[Dancing David]

In another thread we started to talk about age of consent laws and statutory rape and not to attempt a derail of that one I've decided to create this thread.

My principal opinion on sexual matters is this: if someone has sex with another human being and

1. They are sexually mature
2. They give consent without being deceived, threatened and actually want to have sex
3. They are sound of mind i.e not drugged up or unable to understand what sex is
4. It's safe and sane

then there is nothing immoral with it.

If all those conditions are met i don't feel that the age of the people having sex is of any real importance. I can't see how it would be wrong if a 14 year old, or even a 13 year old, had sex with a 57 year old. It's a little extreme example but you get the gist of it.

That is my principal view. For practical reasons i understand that making it a general rule that having sex with someone under a specific age should be illegal because it would be easier for the justice system to uncover and punish rapists easier. This age doesn't have to be arbitrary, chosen because of our personal biases and prejudices. We have an obligation to create laws based on reason, logic and human decency.

The far, far majority of all people who are 13 years old and over aren't just sexually mature enough for sex, they are also actively searching for sexual partners. Because most, if not all, of their friends and the people they are around are about the same age as themselves most of their sexual partners will be about the same age. If this 13 year old found a partner that actually was significantly older than themselves, either because he/she was actively looking for someone older through the internet or simply because of luck, i can't see why it would be wrong if the older guy/gal actually indulged in sex with the minor.

Therefor: if someone cannot prove to me that putting the age of consent at the age of 13, with the added stipulation that deceit or coercion doesn't take place and that the older person isn't someone in a position of power over the minor, would cause needless grief and suffering in society then there is not rational reason why it shouldn't be on that level. If you have no rational, factual basis on why people should be thrown in jail because they had sex with someone 13 years old and over then YOU are the perpetuator of immorality and human suffering and YOU deserve to be destroyed in every conceivable way.

And if you for some reason got the impression that I'm some sort of pot smoking fanatic with little to no contact with reality then you're going to have to tell the Spaniards why they should put their age of consent higher, which is now at age 13.

Legislation and rational thought are often not the same, it would be very hard to determine exactly an overall age of consent in rational terms.

Different young adults have different capacites to understand the consequence of their choices.

Some eight years olds are quite capable of being at home alone and not burning down the house, some 19 year olds should not be left at home alone.

legally adolescents are a mixed bag they are basically still the property of their parents.

 

[Dancing David]

I always wondered how you could trust a 16 year old with 3000 pounds of life and death machine on the public streets, but not trust her with her own vagina

Because God hates vaginas.

 

[seayakin]

I think the only think about the age issue is that even if someone has reached sexual maturity physiologically, they may not have the cognitive abilities to fully understand the ramifications of such an action. With that said, I don't think you can necessarily have a defined age on this because it varies highly between people.

Overall, I would agree with your statements. I think a couple definitions are are important. What is sexually mature? Reaching puberty? Are there cognitive requirements? What is sane? I think this is the most difficult because it is not easy to define sanity.

 

[Lothian]

I think this is the most difficult because it is not easy to define sanity.

Something to do with the amount of salt in a liquid?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I always wondered how you could trust a 16 year old with 3000 pounds of life and death machine on the public streets, but not trust her with her own vagina

Round here I think it's the other way round.

Dave

 

[Lothian]

Round here I think it's the other way round.

Dave

Yes

18
Minimum age to buy alcohol
Minimum age to buy cigarettes (Is this right? I got it from a wiki page.)
Minimum age to vote in government elections

17
Minimum age to drive a car

16
Minimum age to drive a motorbike up to 50 cc
Minimum age when you can be married
Age of consent for sex

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

In another thread we started to talk about age of consent laws and statutory rape and not to attempt a derail of that one I've decided to create this thread.

My principal opinion on sexual matters is this: if someone has sex with another human being and

1. They are sexually mature
2. They give consent without being deceived, threatened and actually want to have sex
3. They are sound of mind i.e not drugged up or unable to understand what sex is
4. It's safe and sane

then there is nothing immoral with it.

If all those conditions are met i don't feel that the age of the people having sex is of any real importance. I can't see how it would be wrong if a 14 year old, or even a 13 year old, had sex with a 57 year old. It's a little extreme example but you get the gist of it.

That is my principal view. For practical reasons i understand that making it a general rule that having sex with someone under a specific age should be illegal because it would be easier for the justice system to uncover and punish rapists easier. This age doesn't have to be arbitrary, chosen because of our personal biases and prejudices. We have an obligation to create laws based on reason, logic and human decency.

The far, far majority of all people who are 13 years old and over aren't just sexually mature enough for sex, they are also actively searching for sexual partners. Because most, if not all, of their friends and the people they are around are about the same age as themselves most of their sexual partners will be about the same age. If this 13 year old found a partner that actually was significantly older than themselves, either because he/she was actively looking for someone older through the internet or simply because of luck, i can't see why it would be wrong if the older guy/gal actually indulged in sex with the minor.

Therefor: if someone cannot prove to me that putting the age of consent at the age of 13, with the added stipulation that deceit or coercion doesn't take place and that the older person isn't someone in a position of power over the minor, would cause needless grief and suffering in society then there is not rational reason why it shouldn't be on that level. If you have no rational, factual basis on why people should be thrown in jail because they had sex with someone 13 years old and over then YOU are the perpetuator of immorality and human suffering and YOU deserve to be destroyed in every conceivable way.

And if you for some reason got the impression that I'm some sort of pot smoking fanatic with little to no contact with reality then you're going to have to tell the Spaniards why they should put their age of consent higher, which is now at age 13.

I think the film "Hard Candy" had perhaps the best quote in response to the justification of, "Well, why can't I sleep with a 13 year old if she wants it?"

"Just because a girl knows how to imitate a woman, does not mean she is ready to do the things a woman does."


Ultimately, I agree that the age of consent is pretty arbitrarily decided, and has already been established, a person's readiness for sex varies greatly from person to person, so I can't really say that I have a strong opinion of what exact age is appropriate or not.

But 13 dude, really? REALLY? Have you been around 13 year olds lately? I volunteer with them so I'm around a lot of 13 year olds, and they don't even look remotely like adults to me, even the most physically mature among them. They look like kids. And even the most mature 13 year olds I know still ACT like little kids. If I had ever in my life met a single 13 year old that didn't look, think, act, and sound like a child, I might agree with you. But I never have. Thinking you're ready to have sex and risk pregnancy, STDs, etc is one thing (which can happen even with protection, let's remember). Actually being able to have that cognitive ability and fully comprehending the ramifications for your actions is quite another.


Also, using Spain as an example for sexual laws isn't gonna work with me. Both Spain and Italy have very low age of consent laws. I went to both Spain and Italy as a teenage girl. My girl friends and I were harassed frequently by the men there. I don't know how young girls and women who live in those countries stand it. I had my breasts groped by random men, was touched between my legs, had my butt grabbed. This one time in Italy, I was in a pulic courtyard by the Trevi Fountain in Rome, it was really crowded. These street vendor I had just bought something from started to fondle my breasts (I developed early and had very large breasts despite being a very small teenage girl who looked even younger than I was). I cried out, and you know what the people around me, including a cop did? They laughed at me.

Even when they kept their hands to themselves, I had men making very aggressive sexual advances towards me. And as a teenage girl, it was very intimidating to be propositioned by an adult man for sex and to have him being very persistant in trying to get me to acquiese. I ultimately DIDN'T have sex with any of these men, but I felt very overwhelmed by the situation. I didn't know how to handle it. And these men had no "authority" over me. They weren't a teacher of a priest. They were just random guys who harassed me in the streets. And it was still very difficult for me to say no to them, because I just was at a loss for how to handle myself. Even though they made no overt threats, they frightened me, and I felt very pressured to do what they wanted, even though I didn't want to. Now, as a mature woman, in such situations (usually encountered in foreign countries), I'm not intimidated at all. I just shove the jerk away. And yes, boys my own age had pressured me for sex as well, but when they're your own age, yeah you're still feeling pressured, but there's not that intimidation factor that goes along with it when I was dealing with adult men. You're just so used to adults being authority figures that it's hard to escape that mentality. And they, being mature and experienced, are much better equipped to combat your rejection and persist in their advances.


Of course, the flip side of this is that you have fully adult women who are equally incapable of warding off aggressive advances, and 13 year old girls who would have no problem doing so. But I think, generally speaking, adult women, simply due to age and exprience, are more likely to be able to handle such advances, where a 13 year old, due to lack of development of their frontal lobe and a lack of life experience, is inherently less likely physiologically and mentally to be able to do so, and thus should be warranted protection in the form of statutory rape laws.

I am very grateful for laws in place in the United States that allow me to not have to be put in that situation. My entire teenage life in the United States, I can't think of an adult man even once doing what I experienced on a regular basis in Spain and Italy. As a woman does this happen? Sure. But I feel confident and comfortable to handle such situations.

Sorry Arcade, you're not going to convince me that Spain is some bastion of sexual liberation with low age of consent laws for the benefit of mature young ladies. The reason they have low age of consent laws seemed to me to exist so they could bully young girls like me into sex without getting into trouble for it.

Obviously age of consent laws are not the only things which create such a culture. Sexist views towards women have just as much to do with it. For instance, Germany has a low age of consent and I never experienced anything like this while there as a teen. I'm not saying it's not a complicated issue with a clear cut answer that's always right. I also realize that my opinion is based off my personal experience and is not universally applicable. Furthermore, there is the fact that even though I approve of statutory rape laws, I'm at a loss for what age I think it exactly should be. So its not like I've got this all figured out and don't think the OP made any good points.

But I personally am still am in favor of laws which prevent an adult who has every advantage over me from being able to legally pressure me into sex I didn't want to have when I was still a kid. And I assure you, at 13, I was a child.

 

[Upchurch]

I always wondered how you could trust a 16 year old with 3000 pounds of life and death machine on the public streets...

To be honest, I really don't but that is yet another topic of discussion.

 

[Sophronius]

I mostly agree with the OP. People are way, way too paranoid with regards to the idea of children having sex. However, I would like to see some scientific basis behind putting the age of consent at 13. If you really could show that at that age, 95%+ of children are sexually mature (however this is defined) then you've got my vote. Otherwise I don't think arguing for an age of consent of 14 or so is unreasonable at all.

 

[Mark6]

I know it's been mentioned on JREF a hundred times, but is worth repeating.

Whether or not age of consent laws are sane, one thing in United States is undeniably, bat-poo insane:

While age of consent varies among states and is 16 in most of them, child pornography is a federal law and defines anyone under 18 as "child". Thus it is entirely legal for me to have actual sex with a 17-year old, but I can go to jail for taking a naked picture of her. In fact, she can go to jail for taking a naked picture of herself.

 

[Loss Leader]

Does it bother you at all that a 13 year-old is generally biologically incapable of exercising good judgment? The judgment centers of the brain are the very last to undergo myelination. Before that, nerve impulses are substantially slower and less efficient.

The brain is not fully myelinated until late adolescence to young adulthood. The is about the age when, in the US, adults are legally allowed to have sex with each other.

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that a person with good judgment should be able to have sex with a person who, if they were an adult, would be considered to be seriously brain damaged (see demyelination) because the brain damaged person claims to want to.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I know it's been mentioned on JREF a hundred times, but is worth repeating.

Whether or not age of consent laws are sane, one thing in United States is undeniably, bat-poo insane:

While age of consent varies among states and is 16 in most of them, child pornography is a federal law and defines anyone under 18 as "child". Thus it is entirely legal for me to have actual sex with a 17-year old, but I can go to jail for taking a naked picture of her. In fact, she can go to jail for taking a naked picture of herself.

Indeed. Whatever the age-of-consent age should be, it should be consistent between states, consistently applied to other matters such as the pornography one you mention, and every state should have "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions to statutory rape laws.

 

[seayakin]

Does it bother you at all that a 13 year-old is generally biologically incapable of exercising good judgment? The judgment centers of the brain are the very last to undergo myelination. Before that, nerve impulses are substantially slower and less efficient.

The brain is not fully myelinated until late adolescence to young adulthood. The is about the age when, in the US, adults are legally allowed to have sex with each other.

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that a person with good judgment should be able to have sex with a person who, if they were an adult, would be considered to be seriously brain damaged (see demyelination) because the brain damaged person claims to want to.

I agree completely and you stated this much better than I did. I think this is why any definition of sexual maturity cannot mean only that the person has reached puberty.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Does it bother you at all that a 13 year-old is generally biologically incapable of exercising good judgment? The judgment centers of the brain are the very last to undergo myelination. Before that, nerve impulses are substantially slower and less efficient.

The brain is not fully myelinated until late adolescence to young adulthood. The is about the age when, in the US, adults are legally allowed to have sex with each other.

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that a person with good judgment should be able to have sex with a person who, if they were an adult, would be considered to be seriously brain damaged (see demyelination) because the brain damaged person claims to want to.

That really is such an important point and very well said.

I know it's been mentioned on JREF a hundred times, but is worth repeating.

Whether or not age of consent laws are sane, one thing in United States is undeniably, bat-poo insane:

While age of consent varies among states and is 16 in most of them, child pornography is a federal law and defines anyone under 18 as "child". Thus it is entirely legal for me to have actual sex with a 17-year old, but I can go to jail for taking a naked picture of her. In fact, she can go to jail for taking a naked picture of herself.

I so agree that sex laws are ridiculously inconsistent in the United States and that this is a problem. It's like how paying someone for sex is illegal. Unless someone else is taping it for sale to the public. Then it's legal.

with the added stipulation that deceit or coercion doesn't take place

This is the part of your post which most confuses me.

Uh, people lie to get laid all the time. ALL THE TIME. The difference is that adults tend to be better equpped to know when someone is lying to them. They have the experience and brain development. Also I'm assuming by coersion you mean "emotional pressure" because obviously actual "coersion" meaning force is rape in is illegal under any circumstances so you wouldn't need to stipulate that this should be off limits.

Pressuring someone isn't illegal, neither is lying to someone, in order to have sex. So would you be saying now that it SHOULD be illegal to lie to somone you hope to sleep with, or pressure someone into having sex? Because then you'd have a majority of the population of the United States in jail. There's simply no way of knowing what makes another person come to the decision that you are a sexual partner they want. Even a trivial lie that seems inconsequential to the liar could potentially by the final thing that makes someone decide to have sex with them. So really, you'd have to make it illegal to have sex with anyone you have ever lied to, and how on earth is that enforcable?


I'm assuming that that isn't the case though, that you don't actually think that most adults in the United States should be in jail because they said something untrue to someone they might sleep with, or because they pressured someone to have sex when they weren't in the mood.

But then, if that's not what you mean, that it shouldn't be illegal to lie or pressure someone into sex in general, than what one would imagine is that you mean they shouldn't be able to do this to young teens. And if your argument is that there should be different rules for how one can proposition young teens than how one can proposition an adult, you are negating your entire argument, because you yourself are showing that young teens are inherently less able to protect themselves against such devious sexual advances than adults are. Which means that young teens do need to be protected from sexual advances in a way that adults do not. Which negates your entire point.

I'm not really sure how well you've thought this one through, Arcade.

They are sexually mature
They give consent without being deceived, threatened and actually want to have sex
They are sound of mind i.e not drugged up or unable to understand what sex is
It's safe and sane

You do realize girls can hit puberty as young as 9, right? And with rare disorders, even earlier (the earliest known pregnancy ever recorded was that of a 5 year old girl who had developed mature sex organs and her period at age 2).

I understood what sex was when I was 9. Younger than that, even.

And as far as "safe and sane" - that's subjective. ALL sex has some risk - you could get an STD, or get pregnant, even with protection. So there is no such thing as completely "safe" sex. Also "sane" is completely subjective. There's no objective definition of what constitutes "sane" sex.

So by your own definition, a 9 year old who has hit puberty who knows what sex is and says okay is fair game, and it is not immoral to sleep with them.


Again, Arcade, I really don't think you've thought this one through.

 

[Mark6]

I so agree that sex laws are ridiculously inconsistent in the United States and that this is a problem.

Agree. Although a minor nit:

It's like how paying someone for sex is illegal. Unless someone else is taping it for sale to the public. Then it's legal.

Only in California. Or nearly so.

In most states making porn is likely to run afoul of some law, which is why almost all of it is made in California.

Which of course is more inconsistency.