Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[A Laughing Baby]

I have no idea what you're on about here. Who's talking about seduction, condoms or pregnancy? To me the issue is about whether it's right to criminalize a consensual act based solely on a calendar when, in fact, we have a judicial system that already examines sophistication and maturity of juveniles. Who seduced whom is irrelevant.

It's disturbing to me that so many people treat minors as if they have no rights whatsoever. Yeh, SC will remind us that they are not clamoring for their rights, but I don't recall seeing minors clamoring for the right to get treated for STDs without parental consent. Adults led the charge. We adults are the ones in charge of the laws, and we should acknowledge that the transition to adulthood is a process rather than a bright line.

When you use dog-whistle phrases like "opened her knees" and so on, you're inherently placing a part of the blame on the woman. There's no two ways about it. Is there even an equivalent phrase for a male that carries the same implication of promiscuity?

I agree the the process to adulthood is a transition that is different for each individual. To me, that is not the issue. The idea of setting an age for adulthood legally, at least as far as I can see, is that it's intended to capture this transition. It's not "when you're 18, you're now an adult and you can make decisions on your own," it's "when a person reaches 18, we would expect the vast majority of the population to have completed that transition and therefore we can capture the transition without the necessity for maturity tests on a case-by-case basis."

It's just...statistics. They're catching 99.9% of a distribution by setting a largely arbitrary cutoff point.

I see now from your response to me though that you are arguing against the premise of the law itself and not the concept that a 30-year-old should be able to have sex with a 13-year-old. While I'm glad you're not exactly taking Humbert Humbert's side, I still would put forth that the rationale for an adulthood line is quite sound if you look at it from the standpoint of trying to catch the vast majority of transitional periods to adulthood while still excluding as many romeo and juliet cases as possible. I think as well that the inclusion of some sort of Romeo and Juliet clause or bylaw is a good addition.

The real issue is how to exclude things like relationships between 18 and 17-year-olds from prosecution while still stopping predatory actors. I'm talking (but not limiting my argument to) 50 and 60-year-olds going after children 13 and under.

I get where you're going with this. I really do. Your point is that you think that statutory rape laws deny by their own merits the cognitive capabilities of the young. To an extent, they do. But there are many legal rights that are granted with age. They are not left open to maturity tests, either. I would posit that they follow the same sort of metric that statutory rape laws do--instead of inefficiently pursuing the maturity of the individual on a case-by-case basis, just catch all of the transitions with a cutoff age. Really, it comes down to how you would propose this maturity test be carried out. If there were some sort of statement or waiver the victim (as it were) could sign, that would be plausible. But I frankly don't find it acceptable for a sort of testimony to be delivered, because then it would be quite easy for a lawyer to get into a trial of character of the victim. I understand that you would not do such a thing, but it is quite feasible and even likely that this would occur in statutory rape cases.

 

[Rufo]

That's not really relevant to my point. SC was implying some expertise in her knowledge of age of consent laws. I am impeaching that implication.

I know it wasn't relevant to your point, that's why I prefaced it with "for the record". I wanted to add that fact to the discussion.

Why? Because you think homosexuals/bisexuals are somehow different? Should we look at sexual orientation when deciding to try minors as adults? Hire them for jobs? Are they less mature? Wise?

No, rather the opposite: I don't think they are different. So I find discrepancy in age of consent laws, like the one discussed, to be a form of discrimination against them. The motivations behind such laws seem homophobic, which is different from whatever the movitation would be for a hypothetical blanket age of constent law set at 21.

Simply put, blanket age of consent laws treat people differently based on their age, whereas disparity between gay and straight ages of consent (also) treat people differently based on their sexual orientation. Generally, I find the former defensible, the latter not.

 

[Uncayimmy]

When you use dog-whistle phrases like "opened her knees" and so on, you're inherently placing a part of the blame on the woman.

You can stop right there. I don't "blame" people for having consensual sex. That's your hang-up, not mine.

There's no two ways about it. Is there even an equivalent phrase for a male that carries the same implication of promiscuity?

Promiscuous: characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

Where did I say anything about the number of partners or the casualness of the decision? But to answer your question, it's called keeping your pecker in your pants.

I agree the the process to adulthood is a transition that is different for each individual. To me, that is not the issue. The idea of setting an age for adulthood legally, at least as far as I can see, is that it's intended to capture this transition. It's not "when you're 18, you're now an adult and you can make decisions on your own," it's "when a person reaches 18, we would expect the vast majority of the population to have completed that transition and therefore we can capture the transition without the necessity for maturity tests on a case-by-case basis."

We already use tests of maturity and sophistication. This is not something new I invented.

It's just...statistics. They're catching 99.9% of a distribution by setting a largely arbitrary cutoff point.

And they are also putting people in jail and labeling people as sex offenders for life for performing a consensual natural act with another person capable of making a decision about their own body.

I see now from your response to me though that you are arguing against the premise of the law itself and not the concept that a 30-year-old should be able to have sex with a 13-year-old.

Any sophistication and maturity test will naturally revolve around the specifics of the incident. It will be much like the Kent Factors for trying juveniles as adults. It's not difficult to argue that a 13 year old was mature enough to consent with someone close to his or her own age (say 16) but not mature enough to handle the dynamics of a relationship with someone much older. That's what judges do - they make judgments. They do it in family court every day by considering the minor's wishes along with the ability of the minor to understand those wishes.

It's interesting to me that so many people are quick to dismiss this concept instead looking for a way to make it work.

I get where you're going with this. I really do. Your point is that you think that statutory rape laws deny by their own merits the cognitive capabilities of the young. To an extent, they do. But there are many legal rights that are granted with age. They are not left open to maturity tests, either.

That's true. Everything needs to be looked at on its own merits. We preclude minors from buying cigarettes. The evidence for the negative health effects is unequivocal, and they don't change as the person gets older. It's not a natural act nor is it the result of a strong biological drive present in all animals. We punish those who provide smokes to minors because following the law would simply be a matter not making a sale. Again, there's no strong biological urge to sell smokes nor is it a natural act. The punishment is also much less severe.

Different situations call for different laws. The government, should they want to, simply make smoking illegal for everyone. They can't make sex illegal for everyone. Sex is recognized as a fundamental right, so it needs to be treated much more carefully. Unfortunately, too many people have hang-ups about it.

 

[mike81]

Why are you so hung up 13 year old females organizing themselves in an effort to be allowed to have sex with adult men? This repeated scenario is kind of disturbing. I think there are several reasons why they don't organize. First, they have no power. None. Zilch. Second, it's transient. If you're black, you're black forever. You're only 13 for a year. Third, it's really not difficult to have sex with someone older and not get caught. Fourth, as soon as they brought it up, their parents would freak out, so the effort would be thwarted before it ever got started.

I agree. They don't speak about it because they don't want their parents knowing. I think most parents would be shocked to know what their sweet little girls are out doing. The last thing most these girls want is for their parents to know they are out having sex. Especially sex with older guys.

Also, when I was in school, there were plenty of 13, 14, 15 year old girls who liked finding older guys to have sex with. Now, I don't mean 40 year olds or whatever. They did like having sex with guys in their early 20's. They would talk about how the 20 somethings were better than the ones their own age. So don't tell me teen girls are not looking for sex with older (at least slightly older) guys.

Yes, there has to be an age of consent. I'm against much older people having sex with much younger people. Maybe the age of consent should be 14? As long as the older person was no more than say 10 years older. Then at 18 you are an adult and can have sex whoever no matter how much older they are.

Now, I'm not saying I necessarily think it is ok for a 25 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. I just don't think it should necessarily be illegal. Now if there is actual force, then of course it should be illegal. However, if they consent to it, then maybe it shouldn't be illegal. Just maybe, but I could be wrong. I'm just don't like young guys being labeled perverted child rapist all because they have sex with a teen girl who wanted it.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

snip

Forgive me for not doing this on a point-by-point basis, because I'm really just addressing the entire argument as a whole here. I will start by saying when I use the word "blame," I'm not referring to the act of sex itself. I'm referring to the actual crime (in the legal sense) that we're arguing over here. I am being quite honest when I say that your post is the first time I've ever heard a variation of the phrase "opened her legs" presumably not being used to attack a woman for some perceived character failing--or to imply that she was "asking for" whatever consequences followed.

However, in your entire setup regarding judgments and family courts, you failed to address my main concern with a system such as that--a case of an actual predator whose lawyer would use this opportunity to attack the character of the girl and make an honest victim seem like she knew what she was doing and simply regretted it. All of a sudden, the roles are reversed and a victim is forced to defend herself. That's what I mean by "trying the victim." Of course there are cases now that are unjust in every sense of the word wherein loving couples are separated or hounded by a legal technicality, and that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. However, I am reluctant to say that there should be an absolute abolishment of ages of consent and a move toward a maturity test.

There is some middle ground here that is most likely the most appropriate answer, but to be honest, I feel that it is beyond the scope of my knowledge on the topic.

 

[bookitty]

That's not really relevant to my point. SC was implying some expertise in her knowledge of age of consent laws. I am impeaching that implication.


Why? Because you think homosexuals/bisexuals are somehow different? Should we look at sexual orientation when deciding to try minors as adults? Hire them for jobs? Are they less mature? Wise?

Or instead should we look at how the issues directly related to homosexuality get marginalized and therefore do not get the same attention. For example, the wiki page on age of consent laws is the usual mile-long scroll. There is a single paragraph dedicated to homosexual age consent and it is under "Discrepancies and inconsistencies."

It is impossible to know everything about a topic that has an enormous amount of variables. A forum like this is a place to learn. For some of us, it's not about scoring google points, it's about an exchange of ideas.

 

[Johny2x4]

Well, here in Portugal, the age of consent is 16, but usually people don´t really care. In fact it´s very popular amongst young girls to date older men ( better if they have a car), it´s a popularity thing. Unless the age gap is really young most people don´t give much of a thought.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I agree. They don't speak about it because they don't want their parents knowing. I think most parents would be shocked to know what their sweet little girls are out doing. The last thing most these girls want is for their parents to know they are out having sex. Especially sex with older guys.

Also, when I was in school, there were plenty of 13, 14, 15 year old girls who liked finding older guys to have sex with. Now, I don't mean 40 year olds or whatever. They did like having sex with guys in their early 20's. They would talk about how the 20 somethings were better than the ones their own age. So don't tell me teen girls are not looking for sex with older (at least slightly older) guys.

Yes, there has to be an age of consent. I'm against much older people having sex with much younger people. Maybe the age of consent should be 14? As long as the older person was no more than say 10 years older. Then at 18 you are an adult and can have sex whoever no matter how much older they are.

Now, I'm not saying I necessarily think it is ok for a 25 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. I just don't think it should necessarily be illegal. Now if there is actual force, then of course it should be illegal. However, if they consent to it, then maybe it shouldn't be illegal. Just maybe, but I could be wrong. I'm just don't like young guys being labeled perverted child rapist all because they have sex with a teen girl who wanted it.

It's true that the girls not organizing is not really a relevent point. That was more of a side issue for "who does allowing this to be legal benefit?" There are no substantial benefits for teens, there is potential harm for teens. The benefit is for the sexual gratification for adults. And changing laws that protect kids for no other reason than to make sexual gratification easier is not to me worth it. My point wasn't "if girl's don't organize to legalize it, it shouldn't be legal" - though I can see how it seemed that way. My point was that the only argument I've heard for why age of consent should be abolished is "People want to have sex with young girls and not get in trouble for it." That to me is not reason enough to do away with a law that offers some manner of protection. My point wasn't that teenage girls not organizing is relevent, just that it is ridiculous to base whether a crime should be legal or not on the fact that the people who want to commit the crime want to commit the crime and not get in trouble for it. Because by that standard, as I said, forcible rapists should get a say in whether forcible rape is illegal. If there were better arguments presented to me, I would consider them, but "I don't want to go to jail for crime" is not a convincing argument to me if the crime has potential for harm. My point wasn't that teens organizing against it alone would make me reconsider my position, more like, if they (or anyone really) were to offer me an explanation of how abolishing such laws would do more good for teens than the harm such laws seek to prevent, I'd reconsider. If a law is set up to protect kids from harm, I'm not going to get rid of it just cause some guy like UY makes the argument - "Well I think that a man should be able to impregnate a 13 year old and not get in trouble for it. In fact, I'm going to refer to what a leg spreading slut she is." There has to be a better reason for that. AGAIN, with that reasoning, let's send any 13 year old boy who can pass the physical to war because he really wants to and knows what war is.


And about girls wanting it - it's true. There are some girls who want it. Lots of kids want lots of things. That doesn't mean it should be legal to give it to them. If my 13 year old cousin wants to get drunk and asks me to help him do so, I will say no, stupid kid, I am an adult and responsible, and I will not assist you in committing this crime. And if I got him drunk, and my cousin then got alcohol poisoning and went to the hospital, I would be in big trouble. And I should be. We do not let 13 year olds join the army even if they want to. We do not let 13 year olds drive cars if they want to. Because they are children, and we expect children to want to do things they shouldn't. And our responsibility as adults in society is to try and prevent, not aid, children from doing these things. And when you talk about girls being very young and being promiscuous and wanting older guys - as I said earlier, that is very often a symptom of sexual abuse and/or a bad home situation. Not always, but often, and if that's the case, such girls are often actually probably even LESS capable of consent than a normal 13 year old, because not only are they a kid, they're a kid with mental issues.

And Mike, I absolutely agree with you. This is not a black and white issue. That is why I am so against mandatory minimums, am in favor of Romeo and Juliet laws, and against automatically putting someone on a sex offender registry. I think a judge should evaluate each case on a case by case basis for the purpose of sentencing. Furthermore, in cases where the guy had a reasonable expectation that she was of age, I think charges should be dropped entirely. I knew of a guy in college who was 21 and met a girl at a college party. She was at a sorority house wearing a college sweatshirt, and she said she was a 19 year old sophmore. She was 14 and there visiting her sister. As this guy met her at a college party and she stated she was a college student, he had no good reason to think she might be underaged, and in such a case, I would not want any charges pressed against him. Unfortunately, in real life the guy got a harsh sentence and is labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.


And even if the guy does know. You're right. A 20 year old who sleeps with a mature looking 14 year old who hits on him first is not the same as a 50 year old who sets out to seduce and pressure a reluctant 14 year old into sex. Just because I think both these things should be illegal does not mean that they should be treated the same.

I've had friends who got arrested for crimes that they DID commit, mostly drug possession, and its not like the crime was considered "not illegal" in their case. It was illegal, and jail sentences were the norm for their crimes, but the judge considered their circumstances and personal histories and the fact they'd never been in trouble before. Basically they got sentences of "you're getting a warning, and if you stay out of trouble for 'X' amount of time, this arrest will be wiped from your record completely." I have no problem with the same being possible for statutory rape cases. Just because I think it should be illegal, doesn't mean that I think it has to be enforced the same. I think the judge should be able to, as marplots said, let the "punishment suit the crime" which could include potentially wiping said crime off the person's record if the judge deems it appropriate.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Or instead should we look at how the issues directly related to homosexuality get marginalized and therefore do not get the same attention. For example, the wiki page on age of consent laws is the usual mile-long scroll. There is a single paragraph dedicated to homosexual age consent and it is under "Discrepancies and inconsistencies."

It is impossible to know everything about a topic that has an enormous amount of variables. A forum like this is a place to learn. For some of us, it's not about scoring google points, it's about an exchange of ideas.

I see. So when I explain to you that your question to me in this thread doesn't make sense because it appears you don't have the background, you give me crap about not educating. So then I provide a link to some background information so that you can re-ask your question. You don't bother.

However, when another member exaggerates her knowledge of age of consent laws to dismiss the opinions of others, you give me crap for pointing out that her knowledge isn't as broad as she implies.

Then when somebody tries separate heterosexual versus homosexual age of consent laws as if they are completely different subjects, and I point out that the same issues are involved regardless of their sexual orientation, you give me grief.

But if you want to be educated, here's a listing of the age of consent laws around the world including a by-state breakdown for the USA. There are three columns: male-female, male-male, female-female. If you look at it with eye to understanding why the laws are like there, you'll hopefully conclude that at least in part it's a result of people wanting to control what they consider improper behavior.

As I said, parts of the roots of the laws were in protecting the value of a daughter, not about protecting them as persons. Cases could be settled out of court by marriage or with financial settlements. A parent could allow a daughter to be married and have sex but not have sex without marriage. Even today some countries have marriage as part of their laws. And in some states in the USA, homosexual sex is treated very differently.

Even in this thread people are citing examples of very young girls with much older men. There's a reason for that - it bothers them, just as homosexual sex bothers some. There have been claims of harm but no actual evidence supporting it.

Why is that these girls are depicted as helpless creatures unable to make their own decisions about their bodies when it comes to sex, but they are allowed to make decisions about getting medical treatments? Young girls are allowed to do gymnastics, which has one of the highest injury rates of all sports. The evidence is clear and objective. If (per year) 7.8 out of every 1,000 teen girls having consensual sex with adults ended up with emergency room visits, I might be persuaded we needed government intervention.

There's a lot of emotional baggage in these discussions.

 

[mike81]

Also, relationships with much older men are much more likely to be predatory, though from what studies I've read, this is really only the case when the age difference is 10 or more years, which again, is where sentencing (or possible dismissal of charges entirely) comes into play.

Which is why I suggest making the age of consent something like 14 or 15 as long as the older person is no more than 10 years older. Then at 18 you can get with whoever you want no matter how much older they are than you.

 

[Segnosaur]

We already use tests of maturity and sophistication.

You're right, we do. But you have to put things into context.

When we (for example) use a maturity test on a 13 year old who killed someone to see if they should be dealt with as an adult or kid, the person we are doing the tests on is the one who actually committed the crime. i.e. they are the offender.

On the other hand, if we decide to apply a maturity test to a 13 year old who's been having "consensual" sex with a 30 year old, in that case the 13 year old is (or could be) the victim.

In the first case, we are dealing with someone (interviewing, cross-examining, dealing with personal details or badgering) who actually, you know, did something wrong (assuming it were a valid arrest). In the second case, you're potentially badgering someone who may be naive and/or tricked into sexual activity.

 

[Morrigan]

I don't think there is any perfect answer here. I think we do need to set some age of consent. The problem I have with the way the laws are is that sometimes people get prosecuted unfairly.

I know someone who was about to be 21 years old and lives in a state where the age of consent is 16. He met a girl who claimed to be 17 almost 18. They started going out and having sex. A few months into it he found out she was younger than she claimed. She physically looked at least as old as she claimed. Well, he eventually gets arrested for statutory rape. She admitted to lying, but even if the "victim" misrepresents their age, the accused is still guilty.

He ended up getting a few years probation and was a registered sex offender. Luckily he was charged as a first offender. As a first offender, he was able finish his probation, get removed from the registry, and is not a convicted felon. The charge was expunged from his record.

Did he do something dumb? Yes, but doing something dumb when you are young does not mean you should be punished like that. 21 is still young no matter what the law says about being an adult at 18. He had to go to therapy with old guys who molested little girls and take polygraphs (junk science) every few months. Tell me that makes any sense.

I know a guy with a story similar to that. The ages are even the same. She was 15, but claimed she was 17 (legal age in the state this happened). The guy was 21 and had sex with her, thinking she was 17 and having no reason to believe otherwise (she didn't look like a little girl at all) . He didn't do jail time, but got branded as a sex offender and had long probation. He's still on the registry, and when I look up his name it says "sexual assault on child". It was consensual sex with a lying 15-year old girl, for chrissake.

In any case, your friend entered into a sexual relationship with a very young girl. That hurt her in ways that psychologists are just beginning to unravel. It appears that young girls who have sex with men 3 or more years older then themselves will engage in more risky sexual behavior with more partners throughout their lives. They are more likely to catch STDs, including HIV. They're more likely to smoke. He hurt a little girl. I feel no sympathy towards him.

Wow, what a bunch of overreacting, fallacious garbage. "He hurt a little girl"? The girl was a sexually developed teenager, not a "little girl", lied about her age to have sex with him. How did she get hurt? HE did, by getting branded as a sex offender. If anything, if she had feelings for the guy (she might not, but it's possible) she would be far more hurt to see her boyfriend get treated like a child molester and rapist than if nothing had happened to him.

No offense but you're completely out of touch with reality here. Teenage girls who lie to older guys about their age so they can have sex with them are not precious, fragile, innocent snowflakes.


That said, in general I agree with Schrodinger's Cat and bookitty with regards to the main topic. I just think punishing older teens and young adults for having sex together is completely moronic, unfair and counter-productive.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Call them "nymphets," if you will.

 

[Rufo]

Then when somebody tries separate heterosexual versus homosexual age of consent laws as if they are completely different subjects, and I point out that the same issues are involved regardless of their sexual orientation, you give me grief.

I wasn't trying to do that.In fact, my intent was almost the exact opposite: I was trying to separate discrepancy in age of consent laws from age of consent laws in general. I can see how you made the mistake, but I've clarified my reasoning.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

A lot of posters have already said what I would like to say about this subject. (E.g. thank you Darat for bringing up the discriminatory previous difference in age of consent between hetero- and homosexual couples)

In my opinion there is good argument for having an age of consent and the charge of statutory rape - not least because of the issues recently debated in Swedish media and blogs under the hashtag #prataomdet (app: talkaboutit).

The subject is the fact that when it comes to sex there is a kind of sliding scale grey area between full consent and rape that involves different levels of pressure - societal, peer-, badgering, abuse of authority etc which is hard enough to navigate even for an adult, let alone for the very young. Which is why we may feel the need, as a society, to decide that at some point it's just plain wrong. Some societies don't. We do. Where the limit should be is one thing, and it certainly should not differ between sexual orientations.

It is natural that us former girls can weigh in only from our own experience, but I would like to, if we can, let the discussion include young boys as well. At the moment we seem to focus only on former girls and I'm afraid that this might act prohibiting for former boys who may have important input.

At the moment it has turned into a kind of girls vs. dirty old men discussion and while I absolutely see the validity, I would just wish the discussion could maybe veer slightly more towards young, vulnerable people vs. predatory adults because otherwise we may miss out on valuable input.

It is always precarious to, as a man, post on these topics. I know for a fact that we have male posters with first hand experience of this very grey area. I know we have male abuse survivors on these boards and I don't want them to feel they can't contribute because they grew up to be men. There might be threads about abuse where the nature of the particular discussion may make it hard for them to participate, but this topic - age of consent - concerns them too.

I think they ought to feel able to weigh in, without having to declare their life history to feel entitled to do so. We can't just assume they have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Yeh, I'm not buying the rationalization, but if that's the position you want to take upon further reflection, that's fine by me.

I doubt you'd change your position anyway, so we'll just agree to disagree there.

Personally, I think anecdotes such as that are relevant since we really are talking about what happens to individuals. Since no clinical evidence is forthcoming and most of the opinions are based on how people feel, I see nothing wrong with looking at how experiences shaped their opinions.

I won't say too much here since I already said I wouldn't continue this line of argument, but at the very least, it would probably be best to refrain from a line of discussion where anecdotes could be potential admissions of crime, even if it's the justification for the law they're arguing against.

The straw man you've constructed isn't really about my argument. It's your failure to see that few people view themselves as anti-sex. Most people will argue that sex is good. That is, until the discussion comes around to some sort of sex act that they view as bad. That's different, right? They will then rationalize why it's bad.

You can realistically apply this to many things like that. We all agree that drinking in moderation is good. But when it comes around to some sort of drinking that we view as bad, say, a 5-year old having 3 with dinner, then it's different. However, you can also extend this into more moderate territory, such as pubs being open to fairly young people in Europe. If this happens to be your personal crusade, that's fine. But just realize that your justification here is awfully shaky, since it can be applied to a lot of things. I mean, driving is good, but when I perceive someone as driving in a way that's bad, say, driving 90 miles an hour in a residential neighborhood, that's different, so I rationalize it as bad.

I do, however, feel that this is perhaps taking your argument to its logical extreme, and I don't mean to misrepresent you. What I'm saying is that you're getting very close to the ages-old philosophical argument of cultural perception and what is trully right and wrong. If that's the case, why is this your personal sticking point?


ETA: For that matter, is not the maturity test you are proposing a simple further rationalization along the lines of your argument? I am inclined to assume that you would think a 40-year-old having sex with a 3-year-old is bad, right? How is that different? Because they wouldn't pass a maturity test, clearly. So there's a seemingly arbitrary standard again for what is bad because it's different, complete with a rationalization, and we're back at the same sticking point with the rationalization changed.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I won't say too much here since I already said I wouldn't continue this line of argument, but at the very least, it would probably be best to refrain from a line of discussion where anecdotes could be potential admissions of crime, even if it's the justification for the law they're arguing against.

So now you're concerned about people incriminating themselves?

You can realistically apply this to many things like that. We all agree that drinking in moderation is good.

No, we don't. Where did you get such a crazy idea? I mean, I am seriously at a loss as to how to respond.

But when it comes around to some sort of drinking that we view as bad, say, a 5-year old having 3 with dinner, then it's different.

That wouldn't be moderation. But please don't waste your time on analogies. Sex, unlike drinking, is not a matter of degree. We can quantify the amount of alcohol, the level of intoxication, and both the long and short term physical effects. It's just a horrible analogy when one isn't needed.

What I'm saying is that you're getting very close to the ages-old philosophical argument of cultural perception and what is trully right and wrong. If that's the case, why is this your personal sticking point?

Sorry, but that's not close to my point at all. My point is simple:

Ostensibly for some reason, we have decided that below a certain age a person cannot consent to sex and above that age they can (barring exceptions like mental retardation). Ostensibly there is some sort of criteria we've examined to say that a sufficient percentage of people above that age meet those criteria.

Important: I haven't said what those criteria are except that they exist.

So, my premise is simply that we apply those criteria on a case by case basis just like we do in juvenile criminal court and family court. The line will surely move because it's subjective. I don't care about that - it's unavoidable.

What I care about are the people whose lives are wrecked by sex crime convictions and those younger persons who are treated like they are property to be tended.

The sex hang-up tangent is my way of demonstrating that much of the argument for not even attempting the above is due to emotional and moral issues about sex itself. People aren't trying to find a way to make it work. They are simply looking for ways to reject it. One of those ways is the alleged harm, for which I have seen no evidence.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'd be fascinated to see how one "objectively" determines how someone's outcome in life is "worse" than another. You can objectively measure some outcomes, but it's subjective to call one better or worse.

You're not one of those lunatic relativists are you?

Most people are happy to agree that it's better to not be suicidal than to commit suicide, better to not be mentally ill than mentally ill, better to live a longer life than a shorter life, better to have a happy relationship that lasts than to divorce and so on. Most would even agree that it's better to be above the poverty line than below it. If you disagree maybe you should go start a new thread about it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And as for the marijuana users example, that doesn't work. Because marijuana users are both the perpetrators AND the victims of the crime. With statutory rape, the law is: "It is against the law for you, an adult, to sleep with a child. Because it is bad for the child." With marijuana laws, the law is "you shouldn't smoke marijuana, because its bad for YOU." And marijuana users say, "No, no its not bad for us as long as we use it responsibly. We aren't vicitms at all. And look; here are all these medical studies and scientfic studies and social studies that show that it's not bad for us, and we're not victims." This is the reason the marijuana decriminalization movement has been so much more successful than the crack cocaine decriminalization movement. Because the "victims" of marijuana say they aren't victims, they aren't harmed by marijuana use, and here are the studies to prove it. Whereas crack cocaine users cannot make that same argument.

You are attacking irrelevant parts of the analogy. The point is that presenting the claim "group X only argue for making Y legal because they want to Y" as an argument against making Y legal is irrational. Why they want Y to be legal is utterly irrelevant. All that should matter is whether making Y legal leads to good outcomes or bad outcomes.

Attacking the motives of one side or another is counterproductive to rational discourse and irrelevant to boot.

But we do know that sex for young teens is harmful. We know, especially, that pregnancy for young teens is dangerous and has extremely negative social consequences both for the teen and for the child. It's NOT like with marijuana laws, where the person doing the crime is the one affected. The person committing statutory rape is affecting someone else. "I will go to jail if I am not allowed to do this" is not enough to make me consider your opinion, because if that was the case, heck, regular, forcible rapsists should get to have a say in whether or not forcible rape is legal, because they are the ones who go to jail if it is. If an act (young teens having sex) has a significant risk of harm, then unless you can show me that it harms you NOT to have sex with young teens, I want those laws on the book. "Going to jail" is not enough of an argument because by that standard, we shouldn't sentence ANYONE for crime. You should have to show how following the law hurts you.

Actually in a supposedly free society the onus should be on pro-criminalisation spokespersons to show that Y is harmful. By default in a free society we should be allowed to do whatever we want, unless it causes harm in which case some kind of social control on that behaviour might potentially be defensible.

There is no such argument that can be made by an older adult seeking to sleep with a minor. They do not suffer by following the law. They suffer by BREAKING the law, sure, but so do all criminals, so 'jail sucks' is not an excuse. By having this law in place, in order to abide by it, adults are only inconvenienced, nothing more.

Most marijuana users (those not with cancer or other serious health issues for which marijuana is therapeutic) would not suffer from following the law either, so this argument just doesn't work. In fact since marijuana has some negative health effects, impairs cognition and costs money they benefit in meaningful ways if they observe the law. However they don't want to observe the law, because they think marijuana is fun, and in a free society I think they should be allowed to have their fun unless there is hard evidence that allowing it causes unacceptable amounts of harm.

Also Kevin, with the AIDS thing, you know, that's a very good question. I tried to find a number but I couldn't find any exact statistics on the percentage of kids who get into relationships with adults get STDs. But 1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD, and girls who are in relationships with older men are twice as likely to develop an STD than a girl in a relationship with a boy who is of comparable age. And the most common STD is HPV, which can cause infertility and cervical cancer. So it's not like we're talking about a 1 in a million girls who have sex with older men are affected by STDs. The number is statistically significant, and to me, that's a good reason to not make such high risk relationships legal, when there is no harm, only inconvenience, suffered on the part of adults for having to abide by this law.

But what are the actual numbers here? Once again you are presenting incomplete statistics spun to create the greatest appearance of harm. What is the actual increase in infections per one hundred women if they have sex with an 18+ partner as opposed to a 17- partner, and how serious are the consequences of these infections? (Or better yet, what is the change in infection rate amongst women who would be willing to enter into a relationship with an older man? Those women might be more prone to high-risk behaviour in the first place, which could account for part of the difference).

If it turns out that there really is a significant difference in the relevant subset of the population, and the harm caused is serious, and that the harm caused cannot be better mitigated in other ways (like better STD education, vaccination against HPV and so on) then there's definitely a case for criminalising sex between underage and overage persons. However these redacted and spun statistics you present cannot make such a case.

And as far as determining who is a kid on a "case by case" basis, we typically do NOT do this either. A 13 year old can't join the army, or enter into a legal contract. They are considered a child and too young across the board. The ONLY time (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) we determine legal adulthood on a "case by case" basis is when determining if said 13 year old will be tried as an adult rather than a juvenile. And personally, I think this is a horrible thing to do, and is a practice we should be looking to get rid of, not expand.

I'm already on the record as agreeing with this - I think the practice of trying children as adults is irrational and immoral. Age of consent laws, if they are to exist at all, should be like speed limits. They should be clearly posted, chosen to make an acceptable trade-off between safety and other concerns, and enforced impartially.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You're not one of those lunatic relativists are you?

I dunno. I Googled that phrase and didn't come up with a definition. Can you help?

Most people are happy to agree that it's better to not be suicidal than to commit suicide, better to not be mentally ill than mentally ill, better to live a longer life than a shorter life, better to have a happy relationship that lasts than to divorce and so on. Most would even agree that it's better to be above the poverty line than below it. If you disagree maybe you should go start a new thread about it.

You are citing individual objective measurements with the implication that there is some sort of measurement that looks at all of these things to generate a score. Seems rather silly to me, but I'd love to see the approach.

So, please support your claim and show us the rates of the above mentioned issues in regards to the age at which sexual relations were started.