Age of consent?

I can see the logic in case by case handling of issues like this. And I agree that that's probably ideal, but it's not how our legal system works, as it always cites precedents in past cases of similar stature when a new case is presented to them (the judge, jury, lawyers, plaintiff and defendant) to help then even navigate how to proceed.

 

True the problem, as I have said before, lies in the implimentation of the theory.~

 

Most things in life that are theorized, never work out as planned. Somethings do but there's many variables that get overlooked and throws off the projected results.

Love, sex, attraction, children/raising a family, economics, politics, school/college, friendships, the list could go on.

But I think this thread has naturally reached a conclusion. I don't really know how we can discuss this topic any further we've completely covered for like the 3rd or 4th time now.

 

As I've mentioned before, I lost my virginity to an older man when I was 13. I would honestly consider it a good experience for me. It gave me confidence in myself, and in my sexuality. And, some of my friends had similar experience. It's been my impression that such experiences are rather more common that most people want to believe.

As such, I can only speak of my own anecdotal experience, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of 'age of consent' laws. They are inherently sexist, the result of a society that is still scared of female sexuality. Age of consent laws do not protect children. They discriminate against girls, denying them agency, and promoting the idea that adolescent girls are naive, sexless creatures who must be protected, who lack a will of their own, a right or ability to control their own sexuality. Female sexuality, or more specifically, the agency that comes with it, is still innately terrifying to many societies, including the U.S., and denying that sexual agency is the real purpose of such laws.

While genuine cases of sexual abuse of minors are unfortunate, and prepubescents certainly need to be protected, I reject the notion that there is some magical age where you suddenly become capable of consenting. And I especially reject the implications in aoc laws that adolescent girls are somehow incapable of giving consent. It is a very ugly idea at the root of such notions. Maturity is subjective, not objective. I am sure we have all met at least person in their 30's or 40's who seem to lack any sense of responsibility for their actions, sexually, disregard any concern for the consequences of their sexual habits. Yet, the law and society would say that these people, simply because of their age, are somehow mature enough to have sex, while adolescent girls who seeks out responsible, safe sexual encounters with older men, with full knowledge of the consequences of their decisions, somehow are not. This seems antithetical to the very idea of logic and rationality to me.

 

Beautifully put.~:daisy:

 

Hmm, so would you support a system instead that would grant someone a license to have sex after undergoing some tests like brain scans for proof of brain development, along with knowledge tests about law and what to do in the event of witnessing or being a victim of a sex crime, along with hotlines for help?

And of course this license can be taken away too if say, that person is like super screwed up later in life after making some bad life choices and poses a real threat to their next of kin. It can or can't be reinstated later case by case.

(Aka: Have sex responsibly or lose the right to do so laws.)

Having a license wouldn't mean you always consent, it would just prove that legally you and others know you have some tangible proof of having the "ability/maturity" to consent.

Statutory rape charges would apply by default to those who have sex with someone without this license.

And like the age where one could start taking the tests for these licenses would be like 12 or so.

 

:watchplant:

:leaving:

 

What kind of reply to my post is that?

Was the idea that I floated in the post above that bad of an idea?

 

monkir, I don't know the answer. My best choice would be to implement a system like Spain has (or used to have. They may have changed the laws. Not sure.) At 13, you can legally consent to sex with anyone old enough, and it is only a crime if the party under 18 files a complaint, or if their is any tangible sign of force or coercion.

If not, then handle it on a case-by-case basis, although it may not be workable.

One thing I am sure of is that the aoc laws, as they exist, do not make sense and are inherently discriminatory and sexist, thus need to be abolished and replaced.

 

how do age of consent laws discriminate against girls? statutory rape applies to either gender.

 

But boys and girls are treated differently. If a teenage girl has sex with an older man (as I did), she is a 'victim' and he a monster. *sarcasm*She couldn't POSSIBLY have sought it out or wanted it (as I did), because teenage girls are delicate flowers, pure and innocent, and therefore have no sexual desires of their own.*sarcasm*

If a teen boy has sex with an older woman, there is basically an attitude of 'way to go' and 'what a lucky kid'. There are exceptions, but that is still the prevailing attitude

The perception is, boys want sex, girls have sex because boys want it. Therefore, girls cannot TRULY decide to have sex, because they are pure and chaste.

Males and females are treated differently. Look at sitcoms or movies, things like "8 Simple Rules" and other garbage like that. The implication being, girls are completely sexless beings, simple and naive creatures who lack any willpower of their own, therefore they OBVIOUSLY cannot make the decision to have sex of their own choosing, so if they do have sex, it is all the boy's fault since he coerced her into it. The idea that the GIRL could be the one to initiate sex of her own volition is never considered. Because society is uncomfortable with it.

The males are the one to blame because the girl is intrinsically a victim, a delicate sexless flower who must be protected against rapacious male sexual desires (so, there is also an element of sexism against men, but not in the same way)

This is the basis from which laws against 'statutory rape' originate, a desire to deny the existence of female sexuality, and to protect some mythical concept of female 'innocence' and 'purity'. It's offensive and sexist on the face of it.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

I blame organized Catholicism and Christianity the most for peddling this view about female sexuality, especially in the USA..but not just there in LOTS of other countries as well.

Ugh so mad at them.

---
This is why I prefer the solution I suggested on the last page. If say a 13 year old passes the sex license test and brain scan (searing for things like frontal lobe development for judgement and possible consequences of their actions) they'll earn the right to sex, but a counterpart of someone their same age won't if they fail those same tests.

It's seems more flexible.

 

there is truth to what you're saying here, although these perceptions are becoming less and less common, and are not nearly as prevalent as you seem to be saying.

you mention sitcoms like 8 simple rules. i haven't seen that particular show, but sitcoms do tend to be behind the times, just based on the fact that they adhere so strictly to the formulas that have worked in the past. still, there are plenty of sitcoms out there where women pursue sex.

anyway, the point is that i still see nothing sexist about the laws themselves. sure, if a young girl fucks an old guy, she is seen either as a dirty little ho by some, or a victim by others, while a young guy that fucks an older woman is considered lucky by most. that is sexist. but in both cases, the law considers the younger party a victim and the older party will go to jail and be labeled a sex offender for life.

 

The Age Of Consent Here In Australia Is 16...



Cheers Glen.

 

I'd like to add that recently though (like in the last 2 years) I have seen a LOT of cases where older women have been prosecuted for having sex with a young teenage boy. In those news stories, it was the adult female teacher and a male student, or the mother slept with their child's male friend.

But the court gave the woman jail time and the label of sex offender. I can't remember the exact title of those news story though, i'm sure you'll find what i'm referring too eventually with google.

 

Monk, watching the plant was more a statement on the inextricable nature of this debate..... the other was for you though, a "sex license" based on tests and brain scans?? I don't even know where to begin on that other than to sincerely hope you are not serious.

 

I know how it sounds, but hey we're throwing hypothetical solutions out there for the sake of discussion. I was half-serious in my proposal.

The premise behind current aoc laws, are that the young lack the ability to cognitively understand the consequences of their actions. Brain scans would be able to prove that claim true or false per individual, based on what is seen on frontal lobe development (the part of the brain that regulates self-control and mulls over consequences of a said hypothetical action).

The suggestion is out there and sounds like something out of sci-fi, but you have to admit there's some logic to it.

 

I've heard about those cases with the teachers you're referring to. Yes, they got jail time, but it normally amounted to a slap on the wrist (never the maximum sentence they could receive). Could you imagine if it was reversed and the teacher was male? They probably would've locked him away on a max sentence and thrown away the key.

 

No, I see absolutely no logic in it. It would not be a reliable determination in any way, just another falsely imposed restriction on personal choice and accountability. When you are "ready" for sex is not a quantifiable value. There is no universal solution. And the concept of licensing for sex is just a violation of the right to exist. This is one of those social issues that just can not have an effective solution without someone getting screwed (no pun intended)