why the age of consent should NOT be lowered

masturbate until they hit their mid-to-late 20s, and then find a teenager who is naive enough to believe that the 27 year old virgin is going to "teach" them how to sex.

 

Ill will between the sexes is unavoidable to some extent. But what specific ill will are you thinking of, that the media has contributed to?

 

I don't have a good reason why it should be lowered. Rather, I have an argument that its existence is inconsistent.
There may be some moral or social or practical reason that is consistent and explains why it is wrong. But so far my thinking suggests that it's baseless. Or at least has a basis I can't identify.

The idea of emotional maturity is not one I've ever encountered as believed to exist at 18. That seems like an excuse for a norm. I know the vast, vast majority of publicly stated opinion is that people up to their 20s are commonly called, snarkily, "immature".

Your argument that for the purposes of law a general rule must be set seems fairly servile to the law rather than meaningfully justifying. I don't know.
But it's a way of saying the law doesn't need to work so hard, why can't the law just be vague and implemented vaguely, because the judges, lawyers, police would have to make an effort to distinguish cases.
This isn't blind justice but lazy justice.

The law makes many exceptions to exacerbate or mitigate charges and it makes things illegal on principle. The fact of age limits, which are never written into law as being based on science, they just are written into law, are quite unique.
In the case of driving, children aren't allowed to drive because cars are manufactured for people who have money, who tend to be larger than children. That is generally an incontrovertible statistical majority. That it should be exactly 16 seems much harder to justify and I've heard of arguments attempted that people who are younger and are tall and have driven a tractor or have learned to drive illegally should be allowed to get a license. Like roller coaster height requirements instead of age requirements. There's some mechanical reason that can be proven.

The fact that I may not be looking to bang 16 year olds (again, depending on the region) and therefore need not fear laws that forbid it, is a way of describing the law as if there were no social world at all. As if, the law that allowed your son to be thrown in jail for joining a gang "shouldn't interest his mother" because it isn't his mother who goes to jail, only her son, so why does she care? etc etc Any parallel you like.
It seems that a 16 year old person who wanted to bang an older person might be interested themselves, that it would be impossible since the older person would fear punishment.

Finally, my point that this whole thing is INCONSISTENT brings me back to the OP.

If emotional maturity, not as defective as in a severely retarded person but only to the level of a teen, is too low to be considered competent to judge things like sex (and voting, while we're at it), then do you think we should outlaw sex for people of a lower IQ or emotional intelligence (there's no test for emotional maturity, that isn't fraught with unreliable assumptions, at all, by the way, so I have no clue where you get your confidence from on that point...there at least is some kind of test for IQ that could be called standard, but even those are questionable).

I ask because you mention porn.
Case: two 16 year olds allowed to have sex (first, why is it "legitimate", as you say, when they are both emotionally incompetent), there's no trick by the clever oldies of the stupid young uns. Why should it be illegal for them to be in porn?
What is the harm in their completely legal relationship being seen?
What is the "thing" that is being taken advantage of or taken. It seems again like you're saying that sex is something special that young people can't handle, because it just is, and old people should keep hands off.
You're argument that emotional maturity means people are less likely to get stds or pregnant and be stupid when older, seems not to apply here. we're talking porn, preplanned. Most likely on a pill with STD's checked by doctors/nurses, whatever.
Yet you put porn of someone of a certain age and sex between people of different ages, in the same basket.
Unless you think sex itself is mostly evil or shameful and inherently "a mistake", I can't think of a reason why the two questions go together.
To make it even clearer. Porn of an under-18 teen, masturbating. NO sex.
Do you think that should be illegal. Is it related to age of consent or to something else?

Thanks for arguing your point. I look forward to more.

 

Just recalled perfect example, real world, of underage porn.

SEXTING.

Sexting can be prosecuted as pornography. This is not some backward country (I don't even want to think about the racism that probably underlies your assumptions about where those places are, if you do want to know, the age of consent is generally HIGHER in poorer, undeveloped countries that most white people probably spit on). This is about America.

Teens prosecuted for sexting just pics of themselves and for filming themselves having sex. It's been in the news. I'm sorry I don't have case references to link to here but hopefully you're up to speed on that.

That is entirely in the same justification as age of consent laws. What are your thoughts on that?

 

isn't it kind of racist to just decide that most white people are racist?

 

Yes, it is... If my judgment was based on something inherently racial. As in, if you are born in a bubble, and you happen to be white, you will likely be racist.
Or, to say I won't associate with people of a certain race, say , white, because they're racist BECAUSE they're white.

But my claim isn't based on the fact of their whiteness. I judge everyone on a case by case basis. And I hold opinions about how people should be treated as human beings, not as one race deserving something and another race deserving something else.

If my experience and knowledge of the opinion of white people is false or biased because I've only met the wrong people and read the wrong reports and seen the wrong surveys, then I may be totally incorrect. But not because of my racism, only my ignorance.

So, no, it's not racist in this case.
Isn't it ageist to say that young people can't handle sex and old people can? (That thought may be a bit much for you to handle, we'll have to see)

It's true I'm assuming when he speaks of backwards countries that he means undeveloped, industrially or socio-economically, which do tend to be places that are common rhetorical names of condescension (like, "that's the kind of thing I'd expect in backwards, poor, ignorant nations like Vietnam, India, Saudi Arabia, Congo, Mexico").
And so I'm assuming he means places like those, from those regions.

If all you had to contribute was that silly gotcha, "...isn't it racist to say some people are racist", then I know how much thoughtful debate I can expect from you.


But, let's get to the point. I'll throw something out here for you to chew on. Whatever race i am, I'll admit only that I'm not black, anyway. So the great American black/white PC fear factor of discussion doesn't need to hang over us here.

Anyone who thinks that it's important to be offended by the suggestion that most white people are racist, is probably a profound racist and a white trash conservative pig.
Probably.
You just might be some liberal in academia who hates the fact that there's enough PC talk about how every work of art in the west is racist and we need to focus on the little people of the world, culturally and that particular thing is your beef. A world where you can't say anything true without being called a racist. Maybe.

but you probably aren't. You're much more likely a douche who can't get ahead in the world, to the extent that he would like, and so he blames the fact that people now have it in for the white man with affirmative action and all that. That's not to say you're a failure. Just that you consider yourself a failure and you find white victimhood to be a good scapegoat.

But there's always that tiny chance that you're the liberal academic who is genuinely offended by the lack of intellectual freedom that PC has forced upon us.

Edit:
There's also the possibility that you are someone with special needs and you enjoy saying nasty little things to put people down, on and off, throughout the forums. In which case, have fun and keep going. Don't take anything I said too personally because even if it were true, I was just going overboard.

 

i could be wrong, but i don't think most racists honestly believe that the perceived negative qualities of the races they don't like are something that would necessarily occur if they were born in a bubble. i've known plenty of racist people, and in almost every case it was based on their experiences with the races in question. so maybe it is just their ignorance rather than racism; i won't say for sure one way or the other.

sure, i never said it wasn't. if anything, i agree that with you that the age of consent (at least in its current state) is an arbitrary and generally pointless rule.

honestly, i don't come here for the thoughtful debate, and i probably won't reply to this thread again. i just happened to come across what appeared to be a blatantly hypocritical statement, and i felt compelled to call it out.

eh, you need to read more posts around here. i'm probably just the douche who points out when people make inconsistent posts. i was never offended by the suggestion that most white people are racist; i just couldn't help but notice the hypocrisy in making such a statement and chose to point it out.

 

I haven't read anything in this thread to suggest that bananaboner has any desire to have sex with underage girls. If there have been other indications to this effect then I havent seen them. What I have read is a really good set up for discussion on the issue that's just been bashed to hell on the basis that suggesting a conversation on consent laws immediately means that a person is a pedophile.

I think most laws based upon age are largely arbitrary and don't work well.

 

Fixed.

 

I actually read every post in this thread, but thanks for your help.

 

But he didn't try to fuck me like I already said. He didn't even fuck me that night. I also made all the advances

 

Awww you know this is why I don't tend to go for guys more my own age, they just don't have a clue. So immature.

People are atracted to other people for all different reasons. Its just so happens that I like guys who are nearly twice my age and a lot of guys twice my age like younger women like me. I dont think there is anything wrong with that, its just society that is prejudice.

 

I actually agree with your statement in its substance here. Trusting older people instead of younger people is an irrational magical attitude.

However, despite my claims to stick to objective argument about arguments, not personal interest, I have to note that,
the most common attack on voices that go contrary to paternalistic sexist wisdom about a woman's place, when they are a woman's but unproven to be a woman,
the most common attack is that "they're really a man".
In cases where their female identity is proven and unquestionable,
they are attacked as screwed up, crazy dumb women.
They aren't "real, healthy" women. The kind who believe that men should make at least some decisions for them.
It works both ways, too. Prudes and pervs. The rapist says she wants it and she's teasing so she has to give it up. The paternalist says she can not possibly want it and if she does it's time to lock her in her room and administer electroshock (or beatings or prayers) till she comes to her senses.

In both cases, she has an opinion about what she wants. And it's dismissed on the grounds that, whatever she's saying she wants/doesn't want, I know better what she wants/doesn't want, and I'm going to GIVE IT TO HER. And if she says no, I'm going to FORCE IT DOWN HER THROAT FOR HER OWN GOOD.
That DOES seem to be the driving attitude of people who are "enthusiastic" (a word they sometimes use to describe themselves) about enforcing age of consent laws.

 

Dude, they can say it right in front of you, you wont listen, just go over your head.



She said it right here. what do you think shes talking about? Some sweeter older guy that wasnt about trying to ramn it in all the time. She made the advances, i.e SHE chose him.

And likley no one else knew, to avoid anyone else getting pissy about it, judgemental or aggressive, other females as well as males

Besides simply just sounding scary, like you are frothing at the mouth, You are also telling them, seemingly without even realising it, that you are not one of those guys. So whats the use if you are never going to see all pieces of the puzzle, or even when they tell you still arent going to listen

 

I'm late to this thread, I realize, but I feel compelled to add a comment.

The issue is not as complicated as people want to make it out to be. We live in a society. There is no way that we have resources and time to evaluate every single case to give the the green light to say, "well, you're only 15, but you seem mature enough to have a dalliance with this 25 year old", or what have you.

The world isn't black and white, we all know, but who is going to judge all the shades of grey? We need a baseline law that will do the best it can to protect kids. I know, I was a teen not too long ago. I was always mature for my age, caring for my siblings when my mother couldn't due to her issues. I had a good head on my shoulders as a teen. And I thought I had enough life experience to be able to handle myself in a sexual relationship. But teens think they know everything. Sure enough, I got in over my head. I won't elaborate on this other than to say that I thought I was ready to get involved with an older guy, and I wasn't. It was a mistake, and you can chalk it up to the man being a bad guy, or say that I was stupid and rash... Both are true. This is just an example to show that kids/teens should not be left to their own devices, with no supervision and no law in place to protect them from predators.

If I had a kid, no matter how mature, you can be sure that I'm going to watch, talk, listen, and do my best to make sure they don't get pregnant/make someone pregnant, get and STD, what have you. That's hard enough to do. The laws in place aren't 100% effective, but who has a better idea? Why should we abandon it altogether?

So many young people are taken advantage of because they think they know, only to realize too late that they know nothing. They don't have as many good decision making abilities as they will in a few years. So why give them free reign to fuck up their lives before they know where they're going.

This is only my opinion. I don't have any idea how to fix things, but I haven't heard any viable solution that helps to keep kids from ruining themselves, their futures. And since young people are the future of the world, we should give them all the protection and help we can.

 

You make some very valid points.

I've always been a believer in maturity being a much more reliable measure of consent rather than simply age, for a variety of reasons. What ends up happening in many cases is that, a boy and girl who've been dating and having sex while they were 17 (which is probably legal, given the vast majority of states have Romeo and Juliet laws) suddenly become illegal the day one of them turns 18 and the other is still 17. The older one is often charged with a crime (statutory rape) that results in him/her being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his/her life, which can do irreparable damage (far beyond what most STDs or a pregnancy would do). There's your black and white solution.

You make the point that society needs to "protect" younger people, and I don't disagree with that. But if society is going to determine than someone who is 16 can be charged with the "adult" crime of murder, being of sufficient mind to make such a distinction and be held responsible for it, then it can't argue on the other hand that that same person is simply too immature and irresponsible to engage in a loving relationship with someone and have sex to express that.

You ask who's going to judge all of those shades of grey? The courts do that all of the time now. I see no reason to suggest they couldn't continue doing so.

The overwhelming majority of those under the AoC who engage in sexual activity don't have any problems and don't "ruin" themselves or their futures. Therefore, I see no reason to prohibit it for every single one of them just to keep a few of them from making mistakes. If we're going to pursue such a course of action, then there's a whole slew of other things we should be making illegal for those under the age of consent as well that are far more dangerous and deadly, even.

 

You are absolutely on point about the case you describe in which a 18 year old is prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old. That is a case that I hope would be seen for the farce it is and dismissed. I guess I was focusing more on predators of an age that know better than to go after someone that is way too young to know better.

I responded quickly, with the aforementioned in mind. What you describe is definitely an area that can, and should be fixed.

 

I think that in the case of keeping predators away from children, the AoC laws are kinda weak if they're based on that premise.

I think the best thing parents can do to protect their kids in this day and age is to keep the computers and internet out of their kids bedrooms, seeing as social media is a main way that predators gain access to their targets.

Also I don't believe in sheltering children from the realities of crime, to "protect their innocence". I think parents can ease their children into the realities of WHY rule #1...#10 exists, and then show them real world proof that they're reasonable rules, not just dogmatic parental rules.

Growing up, it always seemed to me that the kids that were the most rebellious toward their parents as teens, where the ones whose parents were too controlling, and came off as controlling for the sake of it without cause. These families were often religious, but not always.

 

You are not alone in that. I often lol'ed at how much trouble the kids of preachers got into.