Legal age of Sexual Consent

Disarray,

It's fine that you don't want to have relations with younger people. That wasn't my point. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the criminilization of normal sexuality.

 

Surfhippy wrote:

"No one has the right to judge love, only the 2 people who know eachother and know themselves. If they want to express it, they should be able to. And I believe that as soon as a child reaches high school, 14 or 15, they know what they're doing. By then they are considered young adults any way and sex is a normal and healthy beginning of stepping into adult-hood."

EXACTLY. That's a very good statement--- "no one has the right to judge love". Completely agree.

 

I'm not sure what to say about his topic. I'm 16 and I just lost my virginity in January to an 18 year old. So, I'm not in a good place at the moment. Anyway, does anyone know legal age in South Carolina? Since my mom is trying to press charges?!??!

Why would you tell your mother about your sexual experience?(not blaming you or anything, just wondering?)

I'm sure you must know your mother and how'd she'd react.

I think it's disgusting that your mother would want to prosecute this poor guy. He's your first lover and he didn't force you to do anything(right?) She should be happy for you!

As another poster said your boyfriend is in the clear because of the legal age in that state.

 

A good book to read:

"harmful to minors" by Judith Levine

What's so bad about good sex?
"Harmful to Minors" author Judith Levine talks about why American parents are afraid of their teenagers' sexuality, says kids know the difference between coercion and consent -- and blasts critics who say she advocates pedophilia.
[size=-1]- - - - - - - - - - - -[/size]
By Amy Benfer



April 19, 2002 | In the introduction to her new book, "Harmful to Minors," Judith Levine writes, "In America today, it is nearly impossible to publish a book that says children and teenagers can have sexual pleasure and be safe too."

And once you publish such a book in America today, she can now add, it is nearly impossible to escape the wrath of those who believe that such a statement is nothing less than dangerous.

[img]http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N...ie5;sz=336x280;ord=2004.08.07.07.33.52?[/img]
Since the publication of her book, which is subtitled "The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," Levine has been set upon by a mob of furious critics, many of them of the opinion that the author, in at least one chapter of the book, has endorsed pedophilia. It is a predictable response, coming in the midst of general panic about child molestation by the clergy, and a Supreme Court ruling last week that reverses a ban on virtual kiddie porn. But it is also a groundless and inflammatory claim that Levine, a self-described expert in "the sexual politics of fear," does not find surprising.

If the process of researching the book -- which includes a look at campaigns against sex-positive thinking -- didn't prepare her for the firestorm following its publication, says Levine, certainly the experience of trying to get the book published gave her a hint of what was to come.





Looking for Love? Try Salon Personals



"Harmful to Minors" was rejected by many major publishing houses: One editor called the contents "radioactive"; another said that the timing "couldn't possibly be worse"; another asked her to remove the word "pleasure" from her introduction. And once the book was finally picked up by the University of Minnesota Press, it was the target of a campaign spearheaded by the conservative right to keep it from being published altogether.

Levine's book reached the shelves just as the sexual abuse scandal was enveloping the Catholic Church, a coincidence that spurred the author's detractors to focus on a single chapter in the book that questions the motivations behind "age of consent" laws. Levine suggests that the laws -- which define a "child" as a person 18 or younger, depending on the state -- fail to consider the complexities of adolescent sexual relationships.

Age of consent laws are made, writes Levine, by lawmakers who fail to "balance the subjective experience and the rights of young people against the responsibility and prerogative of adults to look after their best interest." Also in this chapter, Levine questions why teens continue to be prosecuted for having consensual "adult" sex at the same time that, in the area of violent crime, "children" as young as 11 are being prosecuted as adults.

The furor about "Harmful to Minors" began when conservative radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger denounced the book on the air. An associate of Schlessinger's, Judith Reisman, had brought the book to Schlessinger's attention, claiming that Levine was another in a long line of "academic pedophiles," who were trying to make pedophilia more acceptable. Reisman also alerted Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, who called the book "very evil," and launched a campaign on the CWFA Web site, asking Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura to halt publication of the book because it had been published under the auspices of the University of Minnesota.

In fact, nothing in Levine's book suggests that the author condones pedophilia. ("No sane person would advocate pedophilia," she said in her interview with Salon.) And, as it turns out, Reisman and Knight have admitted that they hadn't actually read much of Levine's book before they decided to campaign against it. (Reisman told the New York Times, "It doesn't take a great deal to understand the position of the writer. I didn't read 'Mein Kampf' for many years, but I knew the position of the author," while Knight told the same reporter that he had "thumbed through" the book.)

Of course, had they read the whole book, Reisman and Knight probably would have found ample reason to raise the conservative alarm. Levine takes abstinence-only sex education to task, arguing that it limits crucial discussions of contraception and abortion, while depriving teenagers of information they need to have safe sex. Indeed, says Levine, the programs, which are enthusiastically endorsed by conservatives as well as the Bush administration, frequently put teens at greater risk of harm. If abstinence is presented as the only "surefire way" to prevent pregnancy and STDs, she says, students get the impression that "birth control and STD prevention methods don't work." The result, says Levine, is that students in abstinence-only programs are 70 to 80 percent less likely to protect themselves when they do have sex, compared to students who were given accurate information on birth control and condoms.

Pressure from conservative groups has reached past Levine to the publisher, prompting the Minnesota Legislature to ask the University of Minnesota Press to submit to a process in which it must disclose how books are acquired, and the details of each book's peer review. (Levine's book was reviewed by five outside scholars, instead of the usual two.) Lining up to defend the book are a number of civil liberties organizations and book publishers, including the American Association of University Presses, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American Publishers, PEN American Center, the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Office of Freedom of Information at ALA and the Freedom to Read Foundation. All have signed a petition condemning censorship and supporting Levine and the University of Minnesota. Regardless of the outcome of these debates, publicity surrounding the book seems likely to boost sales. The first print run of 3,500 copies has sold out, and the University of Minnesota Press has decided to print an additional 10,000 copies. And the book hit No. 27 on Amazon rankings before its official publication date; as of today, it was No. 54.

Levine, who says in retrospect that she's glad she didn't include an author photo on her book jacket, spoke to Salon from her home in Brooklyn, N.Y., about the book's critics, Britney Spears, virginity pledges, what really helps in stemming teen pregnancy and AIDS and the inevitability that each generation will believe its children are being corrupted more than ever before.

You've been accused by the conservative right of advocating pedophilia. How do you respond to that?

The first thing I have to say is that no sane person would advocate pedophilia. It seems ridiculous to me that I have to say that: It's a "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question.

Your readers might be interested to know what else the Concerned Women for America are campaigning against, besides me. They are against teaching what they call the "lie" of evolution in the schools; they're worried about the "homosexual agenda" of the Bush administration evidenced by the appointment of members of the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay Republican delegation. They are really incensed about the United Nations' Sustained Development Conference, which they said was promoting the "special agendas" of a number of things, including preservation of the world's ecosystems and human rights. So that's all I'd say about my detractors.

 

Their critique of your work seems to be based in a reading -- perhaps a misreading -- of the part in your book that deals with age of consent laws. I'd be interested to know how you arrived at the arguments you make for abolishing age of consent laws, and how that would apply to the pedophilia controversy plaguing the Catholic Church.

What age of consent laws are about is criminalizing consensual relationships. Statutory rape is the prosecution of a consensual sexual relationship; if it were non-consensual, it would be prosecuted under regular rape laws, which, I am here to say, are the greatest thing in the world.

[img]http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N...ie5;sz=336x280;ord=2004.08.07.07.35.46?[/img]What I say is that it is possible for teens to tell the difference between coercion and consent, and that most statutory rape prosecutions have to do with conflict within the family over the sexual lives of their children, most often their teen girls or gay boys. Trying to adjudicate or deal with those conflicts in the context of criminal law -- which only recognizes a perpetrator and a victim, guilt and innocence -- is really a primitive instrument for trying to figure out how young people can have relationships of true consent.

The priest situation is a perfect example of how sexuality always exists inside a culture. It can be a local culture like the Roman Catholic Church, or it can be a national culture, like Afghanistan. In that culture, you have secrecy about sex, you have prohibitions against homosexuality, and, most important, you have the requirement of complete obedience to authority. Those would be among the worst conditions under which any person, young or old, could be involved in a truly consensual relationship. The most important thing to look at is the conditions under which a person -- whether adult or teenager -- engages in sexual behavior that may be harmful to that person. It's not sexuality itself that is the problem.





Looking for Love? Try Salon Personals


That's also true when we return to the question of statutory rape law: What conditions would allow, say, a teenage girl to negotiate equally in a relationship, any relationship? I think she needs to feel good about her own desires, and also to be able to stand up for her own limits. She needs to have a life that's rich in other things -- like friends, and community and school. In general, young teenagers who have sexual relationships with adults also have other troubles going on in their lives, though it's not necessarily true 100 percent of the time.

The Dutch law has been brought up a number of times, and I've been attacked for saying that I support something like it. This law covers the ages 12 to 16: Anything under age 12 is considered sexual abuse, and above 16 is considered the age of sexual consent. [Under the Dutch law, children between the ages of 12 to 16 have "conditional" sexual consent; i.e. sexual intercourse is legal, but they or their parents can press charges if they feel they are being coerced.]

In the United States, if we were to have such a law, it might not begin as young as 12; we may not say 16 is the age of consent. But the really important principles underlying that law are the two most important principles, in my opinion, that one must consider in dealing with childhood sexuality: On the one hand, it respects that teenagers and young people have sexual desires, and that they can make autonomous decisions about their own sexual expression; on the other hand, it recognizes that children and teens are weaker than adults and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation by adults, so the law also protects them from that exploitation. And of course, that balance will shift depending upon the age of the child.

A lot of the examples you raised in your book of consensual sexual relationships between teens under the age of consent and persons who were considered to be adults, dealt with couples who were not that far apart in age. In one couple, the girl was 13 and her boyfriend was 21; another example you raised was of a 16-year-old girl and her 18-year-old boyfriend. Is there any case in which you would feel that the age difference alone would be indicative of a coercive relationship? Perhaps if the couple is, say, a 13-year-old and a 35-year-old? Or a 16-year-old and a 45-year-old?

There is a social worker named Allie Kilpatrick at the University of Georgia who did very nuanced and in-depth interviews with several hundred adult women about their childhood and teenage sexual experiences. When I asked her this exact question -- "Does age have any effect on their actual experience?" -- she said, "No." Having said that, I would reiterate that if a 13-year-old is having a relationship with a 35-year-old, I would say that that sexual relationship is probably symptomatic of other things going on in that person's life, which is the thing that would be most important to me.

So at that point, would you say that, rather than criminalizing the relationship, you intervene in other ways to break off the relationship, such as by talking to the child, or sending them to counseling?

If I were that 13-year-old's mother, I would intervene, yes. I would be worried about it. Would I be able to stop her if she were intent on doing it? Other than locking her in her room, I wouldn't be able to. But I would hope that I would be able to offer her something of what she is looking for from that 35-year-old. And if not me, perhaps it would come from some other adult in her life.

I think it's obvious that if a young teenager is having an affair with a much older adult, he or she is looking for some sort of a parental relationship more than a sexual relationship. You see this a lot with homeless kids, who have what they call "survival sex," where they trade sex for a shower, or a night in a bed instead of sleeping under a bridge. What they need is that bed, that adult companionship, and that shower.

 

The entire interview with the author is available at :

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/04/19/levine_talks/index2.html

Great book, really recommend reading it. I don't agree 100% with everything she says(example I don't believe 12 or 13 is old enough to consent and I think 16 should be fully legal), but she makes a ton of good points. Go get the book at your library or bookstore. A really great read, really eye opening!

", says kids know the difference between coercion and consent"

NO KIDDING!

"Levine questions why teens continue to be prosecuted for having consensual "adult" sex at the same time that, in the area of violent crime, "children" as young as 11 are being prosecuted as adults."

Another great quote

"What I say is that it is possible for teens to tell the difference between coercion and consent, and that most statutory rape prosecutions have to do with conflict within the family over the sexual lives of their children, most often their teen girls or gay boys. "

AGE IS SIMPLY A NUMBER. Just because someone is older doesn't mean there victimizing the younger person. People with a large age difference can and do fall in love.

 

I fully understand and accept everyones opinions, but i think the solution to each conflict between two people varies. I can agree, definitely, that being 16 and being 40, is a huge age gap.To many it seems ridiculous.(most) However, being 20 and 40 is not always considered nonsense, and it shouldn't be from my point of view. I simply think that it depends, all people are different, and all kinds of people have different intentions.

 

And my point is that my opinion is my output towards the subject. All sexuality is normal.

 

So are you conjecturing that any morality regarding age of allowable sexual consent is based solely on CULTURE ?

Do you believe that it would be ok for a 9 year old to have sex with a 40 year old if that particular CULTURE allowed it ?

Most people still believe that it is depraved, sick and disgusting. I am proud to say that I am part of that majority. It is a mental disease.

Yes there are many depraved people out there who hope that the can remove the bar on pedophilia just as they removed the bar on Homosexuality.

You seem to know your Cultural history....but you are too shortsighted. If you look back a little farther you will see that all great civilizations ultimately failed because the moral basis for that civilization eroded and eventually disintegrated. The United States is no different. The human race continues to make the same mistakes. We fail to see them because deep down we believe that we are more civilized, evolved and aware than those primitives that came before us.

Exactly !

The disentegration of the family and the insuing degradation of the moral fiber of this country have all but proven that the humanistic philosophies of the 60's are sadly misguided.

The fact that we have over a hundred sexually transmitted diseases now when we had less than 5 in the 1950's is evidence that is impossible to ignore.

Were you aware that pedephilia and rape have been skyrocketing in this country. Do you fool yourself into believing that pornography has nothing to do with this ?

Teen Suicide is also skyrocketing....how about Columbine (sp?)

I guess it is only a coincidence that we are seeing these trends following the introduction of the anti establishment counter culture of the 60's.

Yes...the general public can definitely be misguided and wrong.

Where do you draw the line Viperman ?

Do you think there is anything wrong with a 40 year old man having sex with an 8 year old girl ? how about 7....how about 4 ?

Where do you draw the line ? Or do you draw it.

Free thinker.....I am a free thinker. My common sense keeps me from drinking this liberal drivel that you are trying to serve up.

We are not talking about vibrators. Your introduction of this piece of data is simply an attempt to undershadow your true motivation.

This post just reinforces my belief that this society will reach a point where it is "Culturally Acceptable" for an adult to have sex with a child. A 40 year old with a 5 year old.

The moral standards will continue to be eroded until they are completely removed. At which point this nation...like all that have come before it....will fall. History will repeat itself because human nature is what it is.

 

Yeah....I'm a fascist... LOL

OK then Kandahar....where would you draw the line ?

And keep in mind that if you draw a line...then according to your definition...your a fascist.

 

Kandahar - so are you saying that a 40 year old cannot have sex with a 5 year old ? I thought you were a free thinker. But your obviously a fascist.

 

Sure there is. I can say that the woman I raped really wanted to have sex. She is just angry about it now. But she really wanted it then.

Just like some will argue that an 11 year child is prepared and ready for sexual relations with someone 4 times their age.

I would also argue that pornography in the hands of minors creates victims.
I would also argue that sex outside of marriage creates victims when unwanted infants are aborted. Of course I'm a religious nutjob...not a free thinker.

 

Correction....this thread is about defining normal sexuality.

What is your definition of normal sexuality Viperman ? What are the age limits that you would set ?

 

\

Viperman

So are you saying that dopesickboy's situation would be relevant if his father had incest with him at the age of 15 ?

On the one hand you bash others for trying to establish working parameters for "Normal Sexual Relations"....yet on the other hand you appear to be drawing lines yourself. So I am confused as to what the definition is between a free thinker and a religious nut job.

Based on your feedback.....one can only assume that the defiinition can only be achieved by consulting you. Specifically, that you yourself are the one that establishes the definition.

Do you think incest is wrong ? Or is it ok if both parties consent ? And what age constrictions (you have obviously shown that you have restrictions) would you set on the minor in a sexual relationship involving a son and a father ?

 

Hopper posted "I would also argue that pornography in the hands of minors creates victims.
I would also argue that sex outside of marriage creates victims when unwanted infants are aborted. Of course I'm a religious nutjob...not a free thinker."

Ok, it's simple Hopper. . .I see now that Your a hard line religious nut jub. Stop trying to push your religious beliefs on other people. If two homosexuals want to have sex, that's there decision, not yours. You can think it's wrong. Thats your right, but you can't interfere with them(ie making a law against gay marriage, being gay is illegal ect.) If you do, your being a fascist. I make my opinions not based on culture, but based on common sense. I was simply pointing out that different cultures have different opinions and views. The fact that you can't tell the difference between raping a woman and having consentual sex with a 17 year old is deeply disturbing and your obviously programmed by religious nonsense. Porn in the hands of minors creates victims.... what a ridiculous statement!!!!! I guess ALL of my classmates in high school who watched porn are victims. Meanwhile, many are in harvard. Watching porn when your a kid is perfectly normal and harmless. My entire class saw there first porn mag in the 5th grade and it was LOTS OF FUN.

 

"Sure there is. I can say that the woman I raped really wanted to have sex. She is just angry about it now. But she really wanted it then.

Just like some will argue that an 11 year child is prepared and ready for sexual relations with someone 4 times their age.

I would also argue that pornography in the hands of minors creates victims.
I would also argue that sex outside of marriage creates victims when unwanted infants are aborted. Of course I'm a religious nutjob...not a free thinker."


Your not making any sense. Obviously anyone can argue anything. WHATS YOUR POINT! You could also argue that the legal age of consentual sex should be 30, so????? You could argue to kill all the jews and obviously this argument is DEAD WRONG. I think all of your agruments are wrong hopper. I have differing values and opinions than you do hopper. Can you not handle that?

Hopper wrote


"Most people still believe that it(homosexuality) is depraved, sick and disgusting. I am proud to say that I am part of that majority. It is a mental disease."

Homosexuality is a mental disease ?, Hopper, I think we all now clearly see where your coming from. Why don't you leave this board and go over to the christian fundamentalist message boads. I respect freedom of speech fiercely, but this is a hippy message board. It's like these neo-nazti's posting on the board about how great hitler was(real sicko's). They can have their freedom of speech by setting up their own message board, not by posting on a hippies message board. I don't think that you should be banned hopper since this is a "freedom of speech" message board, but I do think you'd be better off posting on a christian(or whatever bible religion you belong to) message board simply because your wasting your time here with comments like that about homosexuals. I find your hateful comments about homosexuals deeply offensive.