Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[Mark6]

Does this apply to humans only? Or differently to humans than to others? Is this meant as a subjective opinion or something objective, possibly even authoritative?

It seems to apply to elephants. I have no references handy, but this is what I had read:

Elephants live in female-dominated herds. When male calves reach maturity they are kicked out of the herd and remain loners for the rest of their life. Normally the only males who get to mate are oldest ones -- they are biggest, as elephants grow their entire life, and they rarely have to fight for mating priviledges as mere presence of an older bull reduces testosterone in young ones so much they just slink off. The bull has the herd of females to himself, but he does not get to mate with all of them. What usually happens is, herd matriarch prevents him from mounting youngest females, ones who are sexually mature but had not yet learned migration routes. As a result, no elephant becomes a mother until she "knows what she is doing".

Now, if all huge old bulls are killed by hunters, young male elephants have a field day. There are too many of them for the herd matriarch to chase away, and they mount every female they find. Including young (but sexually mature) ones. Who then become elephant equivalent of teenage mothers, and have much lower calf survival rate. They simply do not know enough yet to take care of these calves.

 

[Aepervius]

It is interesting reading this thread. There are very sound reasons for age of consent laws wherever they occur, which you can research if you choose.

If you look into the attitudes of sexual offenders, you will find them arguing against age of consent rules, using the same "reasoning" as found in this thread. If you have ever heard of NAMBLA, or actually assessed sexual offenders, you might not be as naive.

And, it is not up to anyone to "prove" to one individual that the laws are sound. That is a matter for community consensus through the legislative process. That is what legislative and public policy debate is for. Look into how your local age of consent laws were developed. No need to re invent the wheel.

If anyone here is a parent, think about it. You will have to one day. Would you choose for your 13 year old to have a sexual relationship with anyone not close to their age and maturity?

The problem is not that some people want to remove age of consent law and diddle young boy or girl (we leave that to catho priest). The problem is that , despite what loss leader says, there is no real scientific evidence to put the age of consent SOMEWHEN at a fix line, and then that line simply vary by culture.

And loss leader, myelinisation or whatnot, sex education has a much much bigger impact on risk behavior than whatever causal effect myelenisation you think has. Germany age of consent 14 : teen preganancy rate 13 ; USA age of consent above 16 teen pregnancy rate : 55. German kid can have sex earlier but have less pregnancy, and I am pretty sure we can agree risky/irresponsible behaviour as your describe and pregnancy can directly be linked as a causal effect. As far as I can tell all european country have a 4 to 5 time lower rate than the US, and have all identical or lower age of consent.

The difference of amount of freedom/power (linked to money) may be an argument, but it is an argument which in our society would then be valid also for people not having money dating people having money. Not sure if anybody really want to go that way.

Ultimately education, and parentage (as well as teaching the kid to be rsponsible and self suffisent EARLY enough instead of handling it like a little kid which can NEVER take a decision until they reach the very late age of 18, and good luck fighting agaisnt hormone ) will be a much more important factor than any arbitrary age set later.


That said, I am more into kinda older women (30-40) with big breast, so I think I'll never understand really why people like young teen.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It seems to apply to elephants. I have no references handy, but this is what I had read:

Elephants live in female-dominated herds. When male calves reach maturity they are kicked out of the herd and remain loners for the rest of their life. Normally the only males who get to mate are oldest ones -- they are biggest, as elephants grow their entire life, and they rarely have to fight for mating priviledges as mere presence of an older bull reduces testosterone in young ones so much they just slink off. The bull has the herd of females to himself, but he does not get to mate with all of them. What usually happens is, herd matriarch prevents him from mounting youngest females, ones who are sexually mature but had not yet learned migration routes. As a result, no elephant becomes a mother until she "knows what she is doing".

Now, if all huge old bulls are killed by hunters, young male elephants have a field day. There are too many of them for the herd matriarch to chase away, and they mount every female they find. Including young (but sexually mature) ones. Who then become elephant equivalent of teenage mothers, and have much lower calf survival rate. They simply do not know enough yet to take care of these calves.

That's terrible. We should start a nonprofit agency dedicated to issuing young elephants with condoms.

 

[Xephyr]

I think age of consent for boys should be 35... when their maturity level finally reaches the same as an 18 year old female.

Bwahahahahaha

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

It seems to apply to elephants. I have no references handy, but this is what I had read:

Elephants live in female-dominated herds. When male calves reach maturity they are kicked out of the herd and remain loners for the rest of their life. Normally the only males who get to mate are oldest ones -- they are biggest, as elephants grow their entire life, and they rarely have to fight for mating priviledges as mere presence of an older bull reduces testosterone in young ones so much they just slink off. The bull has the herd of females to himself, but he does not get to mate with all of them. What usually happens is, herd matriarch prevents him from mounting youngest females, ones who are sexually mature but had not yet learned migration routes. As a result, no elephant becomes a mother until she "knows what she is doing".

Now, if all huge old bulls are killed by hunters, young male elephants have a field day. There are too many of them for the herd matriarch to chase away, and they mount every female they find. Including young (but sexually mature) ones. Who then become elephant equivalent of teenage mothers, and have much lower calf survival rate. They simply do not know enough yet to take care of these calves.

I read about this in National Geographic some time ago. They said the problem is two fold. The mother elephants are teenagers, and because the bull elephant has been killed off, the calves also lack a strong male role model.

What's interesting is that even when such male calves survive to adulthood and are in good physical health, they end up being much more likely to have behavioral problems and to be particularly aggressive when compared to elephants born to mature mothers and raised with a bull elephant present to show them how to be proper male elephants.

Which is the way it is with humans, with young teenager mothers being far more likely to have children who grow up to be criminals, academic failures, have behavior problems, etc.

That's terrible. We should start a nonprofit agency dedicated to issuing young elephants with condoms.

Be careful, TM, or the Pachyderm Pope might come after you!

 

[marplots]

I don't get the "unfair" element. Is it that by denying sex between the age groups, someone is harmed overtly?

1) You know going in what the laws are (or should for the more mature partner).

2) The line should be set somewhere, if for no other reason than clarity in the law.

3) Sex is an act that requires a decision. It doesn't "just happen."

Keep it in your pants. If this is the love of your life, woo them, but don't have sex with them until they are old enough. I see no reason to change the law merely for someone's convenience. There is a remedy you can access -- time.

That said, I am against mandatory minimums and would like to see much more judicial discretion allowed -- which would help in the borderline cases.

"I sentence you to marriage."

 

[Mark6]

Q: What is the longest sentence in English language?

A: "I do."

 

[Segnosaur]

If you look into the attitudes of sexual offenders, you will find them arguing against age of consent rules, using the same "reasoning" as found in this thread. If you have ever heard of NAMBLA, or actually assessed sexual offenders, you might not be as naive.

Since when did the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes state their position on age of consent laws?

 

[Rogue1stclass]

That's terrible. We should start a nonprofit agency dedicated to issuing young elephants with condoms.

Don't laugh. Some years ago there was an attempt to mitigate this by giving female elephants birth control implants. It did not go well.

If I remember correctly, the female elephants went into full time estrus, but wouldn't mate, which drove the male elephants crazy. They became extremely aggressive, attacking humans and trying to mate with endangered rhinos, neither of which tended to survive the experience.

You just don't toy with the affections of the largest land animal in the world.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You just don't toy with the affections of the largest land animal in the world.

Seems to work for Stedman.

 

[Loss Leader]

Keep the laws as they are, but add an affirmative defense where the "victim" is evaluated much in the same way he or she would be evaluated if charged with a felony. In other words if we are capable of determining that a 13 year old was mature enough to understand the consequences of (say) robbing a liquor store, we are certainly capable of determining if that same teen was capable of consenting to sex.

That's genius. Let's turn every statutory rape case in the country into a trial of the victim. Get her up on the stand and really let the guy's defense attorney go after her - how many sexual partners she's had, their names and ages, the age she was when she lost her virginity, whether she knows the definition of a Pittsburgh Plate Job, whether she has a favorite position, whether she uses protection, whether she's ever been on the pill, whether she's ever carried a condom to a party, whether she's ever kissed a girl and whether she liked it ...

I see a huge upsurge in the total number of statutory rape cases dropped when the victim kills herself the night before opening arguments. Other than that, it may not have much of an effect.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I don't get the "unfair" element. Is it that by denying sex between the age groups, someone is harmed overtly?

1) You know going in what the laws are (or should for the more mature partner).

2) The line should be set somewhere, if for no other reason than clarity in the law.

3) Sex is an act that requires a decision. It doesn't "just happen."

Keep it in your pants. If this is the love of your life, woo them, but don't have sex with them until they are old enough. I see no reason to change the law merely for someone's convenience. There is a remedy you can access -- time.

That said, I am against mandatory minimums and would like to see much more judicial discretion allowed -- which would help in the borderline cases.

"I sentence you to marriage."

yeah, though I would still disagree with Arcade's post, I would at least respect it if he hadn't added:

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.

I mean for pete's sakes, you'd think he was taking a stand against Apartheid here. It's not a difficult law to follow, and it being in place doesn't do anyone any harm so long as they follow the law. You're already not allowed to just have sex with whomever whenever you want, because rape is illegal. Such statutory laws don't prevent anyone from having sex. They don't even prevent you from having sex with that underaged person in general. You just need to wait.

It's like, here in Massachusetts, its illegal to buy alcohol on Thanksgiving outside of the food/hospitality industry. It's a completely stupid, arbitrary law. But its really easy for me to follow. I can just buy alcohol the day before, or the day after. Or I can go to a bar or restaurant to drink, rather than buy liquor at a liquor store. There is not one bit of suffering on my part by this law being in place. The only thing it does is create a minor inconvenience for me, in that I cannot buy alcohol in the exact manner at the exact time I want to.

And what's more, such laws don't affect another person's life, the way statutory rape laws do. They literally do not serve one bit of public good.

Do I favor getting rid of this law? Sure. But I'm not going to say that people who keep such a law in place ARE PERPETUATORS OF HUMAN SUFFERING WHO MUST BE DESTROYED IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY.

I mean jeeze, man. Have a little perspective.

That's genius. Let's turn every statutory rape case in the country into a trial of the victim. Get her up on the stand and really let the guy's defense attorney go after her - how many sexual partners she's had, their names and ages, the age she was when she lost her virginity, whether she knows the definition of a Pittsburgh Plate Job, whether she has a favorite position, whether she uses protection, whether she's ever been on the pill, whether she's ever carried a condom to a party, whether she's ever kissed a girl and whether she liked it ...

I see a huge upsurge in the total number of statutory rape cases dropped when the victim kills herself the night before opening arguments. Other than that, it may not have much of an effect.

Not to mention the fact that the victim themselves more likely than not thought they WERE mature enough to have sex and would maintain that position. That doesn't mean they were. So other than asking their own opinion, how on earth would you determine whether or not a 13 year old was "mentally mature" enough? Someone made this point earlier, it just doesn't work. What is there, like, a written exam?

I was a pretty mature 13 year old. I didn't get into trouble, excelled in school, I volunteered, I babysat, I preferred to spend my Saturdays at the library book club meeting rather than watching cartoons. By all appearances, I was very mature for my age. But as I said earlier, I was still a child. I was incredibly naive about sex and unready for it. Just because I could read at an adult level and didn't like cartoons as much as Charles Dickens didn't mean I was ready for sex.

So what else is there to judge by? I mean, is the argument that if the girl was already sexually active, it's alright? Is that the test? That doesn't work, because a kid being sexually active doesn't mean they are sexually responsible and SHOULD be having sex.

When I think back to my teenage years and the kids I knew who had sex the earliest, they were the most troubled kids. Kids with crappy home lives, who got into trouble, who did badly in school, etc. Basically, the kids who were the least ready to have sex were the ones I knew who were actually having it first, and who were having the most of it.

 

[themusicteacher]

Seems to work for Stedman.

Zing, POW! I've never seen such an opportunistic Oprah joke. Well-played, sir!

 

[Uncayimmy]

That's genius. Let's turn every statutory rape case in the country into a trial of the victim. Get her up on the stand and really let the guy's defense attorney go after her - how many sexual partners she's had, their names and ages, the age she was when she lost her virginity, whether she knows the definition of a Pittsburgh Plate Job, whether she has a favorite position, whether she uses protection, whether she's ever been on the pill, whether she's ever carried a condom to a party, whether she's ever kissed a girl and whether she liked it ...

I see a huge upsurge in the total number of statutory rape cases dropped when the victim kills herself the night before opening arguments. Other than that, it may not have much of an effect.

It's called gathering the facts. If the sex was consensual, the state is presuming that simply because of age or age difference the "victim" was incapable of consenting. Right now it doesn't matter if the "victim" says, "I've been in a relationship with this person for a year. We're in love. I fully understand the ramifications of having sex, and we took the proper precautions after waiting six months. We met when I was a freshman, and he was a senior." The "perp" will be sent to jail and be labeled a sex offender for life. She has no rights as far as the state is concerned, and she's treated essentially as property, which is not surprising considering that age of consent laws originated in efforts to protect property.

Of course, if she had gotten pregnant and wanted an abortion...

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

oops deleted duplicate. Did not mean to post that

 

[Darat]

I thought about this quote today in a different context but it's apt for these types of debates:

Voltaire: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

There is no way to set any age and be absolutely sure that everyone will be able to consent to sex once they reach that age, but not being able to reach perfection does not mean a law setting a demarcation is a bad thing - it may be good enough.

 

[Loss Leader]

It's called gathering the facts. If the sex was consensual, the state is presuming that simply because of age or age difference the "victim" was incapable of consenting.

So, let me ask this:

If someone is found to be driving without a license, should it be an affirmative defense if at trial he proves that he's a really safe driver who knows what all the road signs mean?

If someone is charged with murdering and eating another human being, should it be an affirmative defense that the victim answered an ad asking for a volunteer to be murdered and eaten and that the victim signed a document indicating his consent?

If someone is found to be operating an airplane while high on meth, should it be an affirmative defense that he's a great pilot when he's on meth?

The point of legal presumptions is that they drastically shorten the decision-making process by providing shortcuts through the facts to the most likely logical conclusion. What percentage of 13 year-old girls are actually mature enough to weigh the risks and benefits of having sex with a 30 year old man?50% ? 15% ? 5% ? 1 in a thousand?

How many defense attorneys are you going to let cross-examine 13 year-old girls to find that percentage who are so mature? How many immature 13 year old girls would you like to torture to get at that number?

She has no rights as far as the state is concerned, and she's treated essentially as property

I'm not sure that this is any different than the victim of any crime. It is the state who prosecutes the criminal. Sometimes, they never speak to the victim at all. In fact, if I remember correctly, there's never been a single case of murder where the prosecutors ever contacted the victim.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I thought about this quote today in a different context but it's apt for these types of debates:

Voltaire: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

There is no way to set any age and be absolutely sure that everyone will be able to consent to sex once they reach that age, but not being able to reach perfection does not mean a law setting a demarcation is a bad thing - it may be good enough.

Great quote, Darat, and very appropriate.

 

[John Jones]

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

Agreed. The driving age should be raised to the legal voting age.

 

[Darat]

Agreed. The driving age should be raised to the legal voting age.

I think the various age limits should be looked at in countries like the USA and the UK, we've got into these strange seemingly contradictory age limits because different pieces of legislation were passed at different times for different reasons.

I can understand why politicians would rather not deal with it - it would be a can of worms, and the result would be something every politician hates - they couldn't make anyone happy!