Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[Dorian Gray]

No. I could never rape someone (note: I'm talking about actual rape here). I couldn't care less if have consensual sex with someone and the law tells me it's rape, sexual assault, terrorism, crime against nature, sodomy, buggery or whatever colorful words people can come up with. Now of course i don't want to have my head cut off, be thrown in jail, be fined, be forced to do community service and etc but that's just pure self-preservation.

Yes i know, i don't give a **** the about the laws and societies views. I'm just that awesome.

I'm talking about statutory rape so my characterization of your post is still valid.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I'm going to have to confess that i mostly based the OP on my own subjective experience growing up. Looking stuff up on wikipedia I see that i was wrong in saying that "the majority of all 13 and over are actively searching for sex". It was apparently a small minority. As people have already said a whole lot of these kids, mostly girls, are more likely to have health problems amongst other things. I can't say why that is but i assume a whole lot of these people are close to those that party, drink and generally have more loose and permissive morals. Sex, fighting and generally acting like ******** isn't uncommon. Not exactly a good and upstanding group of people.

Though just because it's a small minority and that they are more likely to have mental health problems and generally a "worse childhood" isn't good enough reason to lock up people for having consensual sex with them unless one can show that it reduces the amount of problems and suffering. A whole lot of these kids are going to have sex no matter what you do and locking up their older partner (because I'm hoping that no one is insane enough to advocate locking up minors that have sex with each-other) is going to take a whole lot of money, time and basically ruins the life of the older partner.

Two examples that i feel have relevance: Anal Sex and the cannibal guy.

I don't know how many people repeatedly indulge in anal sex but i assume it's the minority, maybe in the range so that you could describe it as being "normal". Is anal sex dangerous? Absolutely. Has anal sex led to pain, suffering and even death? Undoubtedly. Is the best response to this risk to lock people up for having anal sex, perhaps even killing them like we have done before? No.

Now in this outrageous case in which a German (i think) butchered and ate a guy he had found on the internet. He was apparently willingly and consensually (i think) killed and eaten by this guy. Should this be illegal even though they were apparently two adults who willingly indulged in death and cannibalism? Yes. (though this might be a case for another thread)

I mean if wanted we could have total sexual freedom and allow parents to have sex with their six month old babies but i don't think any sane people would allow something like that to happen.

ETA: a better example might be that we don't allow people who know that they are infected with an STD to have unprotected sex with someone without telling them about their infection. One could argue that the risk is too small for the partner to get the STD so there's no point in telling them but that's demonstrably wrong.

I can give you permission to rob a bank, but if you do it, it's still illegal. Thus, just because I've given consent doesn't make it a lawful act. Hey, just like statutory rape.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I can give you permission to rob a bank, but if you do it, it's still illegal. Thus, just because I've given consent doesn't make it a lawful act. Hey, just like statutory rape.

Turns out if you own property, you can allow it to be robbed. In fact we don't even call it robbery then. Hey....

 

[JJM 777]

You think there exists a condition in which it is okay to have sex with small children. My point is that such a condition does not exist because the problem is not the location or the surroundings.

I consider prepubescent persons, say under 12 years, to be insufficiently developed mentally and mostly also physically to carry full independent human rights and responsibilities, to which the right to have sex belongs.

But then I consider unrealistically high age legal limits to be against the human rights young people too. If they are physically and mentally ready and winning go to de facto, it is against their human rights to forbid them de jure.

Sexuality is a complex and partly taboo topic, replace it with alcohol for example, maybe you see more clearly my point: I wanted to drink when I was 13, and I also did. The law limited my rights, but really nobody in my friend circles allowed themselves to be restricted by the law. A practical problem was that we were forced to steal all our alcohol, since buying it was illegal.

 

[Eddie Dane]

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

Classic mistake.

Men behave as adults in this period of their lives because they are married and forced to behave like adults.

Then they can't take it any more, get a divorce and what happens? They start acting like eighteen-year-olds again.

Women call this a "midlife crisis". But it is actually just normal male behaviour.

Shallow drunken frat-boy antics, choosing partners solely for physical attractiveness, sports cars, booze, motorcycles.

 

[Arcade22]

If a person is attracted to 14 year-olds, then there isn't much chance for a long-term relationship. Of course, this only applies to those who are attracted to 14 year-olds exclusively but it is one of the reasons why hebephilia is seen as predatory.

Ah then in understand. Yes of course it's harmful to both individuals if someone is only sexually attracted to a very narrow group of people, especially young people. I mean there are people who, like an obsessive compulsive and his hand-washing, searches every nook and cranny of the internet for some young meat.

Personally as i said it isn't exactly their age that turns me on but that they are generally slim, beautiful, boyish and preferably with some noticeable musculature and a beautiful smile. There are plenty of people who are way, way over the age of consent in Sweden (15) that embodies those qualities. I mean i could show you a video of a 21 year old who looks like a 15 year old but I'd be breaking one or two rules...

Then again on the opposite extreme you have people like Malcom McDowell. Most old people (50+) aren't even remotely interesting to me but damn.

This boy is very vulnerable right now. He's too naive to cover his tracks for one thing.

Yeah that was pretty stupid of him. I wonder if it wasn't a troll who stole someones photo and decided to try to start a *********, because mentioning his age would be just as stupid as clicking the "I'm under 18 take me away from this porn site" button. I believe most people who are under 18 are clever enough to lie about their true age.

There is no way to regulate for the best case scenario. Even if there were most relationships will fall somewhere in between. Unless there is a compelling reason to believe that the best case scenario is the norm, that the worst case scenario is not damaging, or that there is some distinct benefit to the middle ground, the age of consent laws need to be in place.

Then i guess we are in agreement. No one is going to change the age of consent here in Sweden anytime soon and it hasn't negatively affected me. There are plenty of boys and men who are over the age of consent that are hard, horny and willing than below. It would be sad to have to turn someone down because they were below the age of consent but you can't win them all. I'm sure as hell not going to risk being thrown in jail because of some temporary pleasure.

 

[Arcade22]

I'm talking about statutory rape so my characterization of your post is still valid.

I don't know if i misunderstood your post but I'll say it again: I don't feel that if i "raped" a 14 year old that wanted me to "rape" him to unnerving in the slightest. I couldn't honestly care about the laws beyond practicalities such as a prison sentence.

The only moral judge i have for my actions is my own heart.

 

[varwoche]

Quote filled in for completeness:

I don't feel that if i "raped" a 14 year old that wanted me to "rape" him to unnerving in the slightest. I couldn't honestly care about the laws beyond practicalities such as a prison sentence.

The only moral judge i have for my actions is my own heart despite that the evidence from medical experts unanimously indicates that adult+child sex is harmful to the child. My desires are more important than this inconsequential fact.

Does that basically sum it up?

 

[Arcade22]

Does that basically sum it up?

No. As i said i love them and i sure as hell wouldn't jeopardize their wellbeing for my selfish desires. If i however traveled to a state in the US where the age of consent is 18 i wouldn't feel bad if i "raped" someone.

 

[varwoche]

No. As i said i love them and i sure as hell wouldn't jeopardize their wellbeing for my selfish desires. If i however traveled to a state in the US where the age of consent is 18 i wouldn't feel bad if i "raped" someone.

On a fundamental level, you're failing to follow the conversation.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Turns out if you own property, you can allow it to be robbed. In fact we don't even call it robbery then. Hey....

Wrong. I own a house. I rent it to tenants. I give you permission to rob it. You go to jail, because my consent does not make robbing the house legal, even though it belongs to me.

Plus, the only way for you to get my money out of my bank with my permission but nothing else is to rob it.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I consider prepubescent persons, say under 12 years, to be insufficiently developed mentally and mostly also physically to carry full independent human rights and responsibilities, to which the right to have sex belongs.

But then I consider unrealistically high age legal limits to be against the human rights young people too. If they are physically and mentally ready and winning go to de facto, it is against their human rights to forbid them de jure.

Sexuality is a complex and partly taboo topic, replace it with alcohol for example, maybe you see more clearly my point: I wanted to drink when I was 13, and I also did. The law limited my rights, but really nobody in my friend circles allowed themselves to be restricted by the law. A practical problem was that we were forced to steal all our alcohol, since buying it was illegal.

Then you want the law to be "whatever JJM says the law is." Meaning you not only don't want all the equality you have been preaching in this and other threads, but you want a dictatorship with you in charge. Nice.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No. As i said i love them and i sure as hell wouldn't jeopardize their wellbeing for my selfish desires. If i however traveled to a state in the US where the age of consent is 18 i wouldn't feel bad if i "raped" someone.

Then your moral judge has sentenced you to prison, where hopefully you won't feel bad about Bubba.

 

[Loss Leader]

Turns out if you own property, you can allow it to be robbed. In fact we don't even call it robbery then. Hey....

Wrong. I own a house. I rent it to tenants. I give you permission to rob it. You go to jail, because my consent does not make robbing the house legal, even though it belongs to me.

No, DG, you're mixing things up. And it's because you've equivocated with the word "own." You'll notice that in order to make your hypothetical work, you had to "rent it to tenants". That means that you don't "own" it in quite the same way you did. You gave away your posessory right to the house. Other people have the right to live there. If you crashed on their couch, they could throw you out. In fact, you'd be tresspassing.

A leasehold interest, which is what your tenants have, is still a type of "ownership." In fact, it's the type of ownership that matters most for robbery: a present possessory interest.

If I, who own and live in my house, invited you to come, break the door down, take my TV and leave, you would be committing no crime whatsoever to do so.

This has application in one real world scenerio that gets repeated every day: police gaining permission from one person to search the living space of another. For two roommates with their own bedrooms, how much of the apartment can the non-suspect permit police to search? What about roommates who share a bedroom but have separate closets? What about the tenant of a house allowing police to search an attic where the landlord has kept some of his things?

It's an interesting area.

 

[Morrigan]

Wrong. I own a house. I rent it to tenants. I give you permission to rob it. You go to jail, because my consent does not make robbing the house legal, even though it belongs to me.

That's not really a good analogy. You might own the house, but "robbing a house" doesn't mean stealing the house itself, but rather, stealing the property of its occupants.

 

[JJM 777]

Then you want the law to be "whatever JJM says the law is." Meaning you not only don't want all the equality you have been preaching in this and other threads, but you want a dictatorship with you in charge. Nice.

I just pointd out that human rights is a concept that loses its moral and philosophical foundation quite strangely if you just draw an imaginary line somewhere, without actual biological reasons, to drop some humans outside of the said rights. In this case, you would drop persons under 18 or 16 outside of the rights, while the biology of humans (and many other mammals too) suggests that creatures become independent long earlier in their development towards adulthood. Which is a never ending process by the way, 30-year olds are fuller adults, more complete in their adult development, than 20-year olds.

 

[lionking]

I just pointd out that human rights is a concept that loses its moral and philosophical foundation quite strangely if you just draw an imaginary line somewhere, without actual biological reasons, to drop some humans outside of the said rights. In this case, you would drop persons under 18 or 16 outside of the rights, while the biology of humans (and many other mammals too) suggests that creatures become independent long earlier in their development towards adulthood. Which is a never ending process by the way, 30-year olds are fuller adults, more complete in their adult development, than 20-year olds.

For goodness sake, society is all about drawing lines. Show me a law which doesn't draw a line? Are you an anarchist?

 

[bookitty]

I just pointd out that human rights is a concept that loses its moral and philosophical foundation quite strangely if you just draw an imaginary line somewhere, without actual biological reasons, to drop some humans outside of the said rights. In this case, you would drop persons under 18 or 16 outside of the rights, while the biology of humans (and many other mammals too) suggests that creatures become independent long earlier in their development towards adulthood. Which is a never ending process by the way, 30-year olds are fuller adults, more complete in their adult development, than 20-year olds.

Perhaps you have noticed one or two of the many posts regarding the Romeo and Juliet exception? Which makes it legal for young teens to have sex with each other but bars them sex with adults. This blurs the line sufficiently and protects their rights.

Of course it doesn't protect their right to have sex with an adult. If it could be shown that it is beneficial for young teens to have sex with adults, then the law could be changed further. So far, research is showing that is not the case.

 

[Sudahl]

I like this thread. The thinking errors, rationalizations,and self excuses used by sex offenders are all present here, not to mention the attitudes found in psychopaths and narcissists about their victims. Reading this thread would be a good assignment for beginning therapists learning to run sex offender treatment groups. "How many thinking errors are there in this thread? How would you challenge such thinking in your treatment group in jail?"

There might be some good here after all.

 

[Loss Leader]

I like this thread. The thinking errors, rationalizations,and self excuses used by sex offenders are all present here, not to mention the attitudes found in psychopaths and narcissists about their victims. Reading this thread would be a good assignment for beginning therapists learning to run sex offender treatment groups. "How many thinking errors are there in this thread? How would you challenge such thinking in your treatment group in jail?"

There might be some good here after all.

You should visit the three pages that got sent to AAH. There's a textbook worth of abnormal psychology down there.