Did US age-of-consent laws come about to 'police' female sexuality?

[aaronleland]

I used to be a 'little boy' and as I recall wanted sex rather a lot. I masturbated to climax, and when the time came I could have sex with someone did, enjoyed it, and climaxed then as well.

Our age of consent laws do not address the reality of sexual preparedness. Law's the law, but laws can and do change for various reasons. These laws should change.

Masturbating and enjoying sex does not mean anything. Duh! Obviously you know nothing about sexuality.

Children that age are NOT prepared for an adult intimate relationship. They don't have the mental or emotional capacity for such a relationship. They are immature and cannot handle the responsibilities that go along with such a relationship. They also cannot handle the disappointments that go along with such relationships because . . . they are STILL children!!

Feel like I should take a ss and post this somewhere like people do for stupid tweets.

It's true. As a former 15-year-old girl, I can attest to that.

He's masturbating now...

That explains the tweezers

It also explains the rope and duct tape.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Peoples replies to this thread illustrate very well why politicians don't wanna bring it up.

 

[ChrisL]

Peoples replies to this thread illustrate very well why politicians don't wanna bring it up.

It's because it's WRONG. That's why.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Peoples replies to this thread illustrate very well why politicians don't wanna bring it up.

It's because it's WRONG. That's why.

Not demonizing sex and pleasure isn't wrong. You yourself support the close-in-age exemptions. But they aren't universal, but should be. Hence the need for aoc legal reform. No one here proposing complete repeal like some would try and suggest.

 

[Valerie]

" sex is positive, healthy, natural, and something we're all hardwired to desire once puberty begins.

So regardless of an AoC law, people are going to pursue sex anyway.

Do you then want the increased costs of having to prosecute everyone simply acting on inbuilt biology ? "


" benefits the for-profit prison industry, law enforcement, lawyers and the courts, it's at the expense of people."


^ age of consent laws exist to protect people thus are not considered wasteful by all rational standards.





" When sexuality is repressed, human beings don't take up a hobby, they get violent. To themselves as well as to others."


^ exactly why we need laws to protect people from predators.

 

[ChrisL]

Peoples replies to this thread illustrate very well why politicians don't wanna bring it up.

It's because it's WRONG. That's why.

Not demonizing sex and pleasure isn't wrong. You yourself support the close-in-age exemptions. But they aren't universal, but should be. Hence the need for aoc legal reform. No one here proposing complete repeal like some would try and suggest.

No one is demonizing sex. Sex is something that should be shared between two adults who are fully informed and understanding of all the consequences involved and who are prepared to deal with those consequences when and should they occur.

 

[danielpalos]

Statutory rape laws and ages of consent in the U.S. - The Washington Post

"The ages of consent throughout the country were apparently 10 or 12 throughout much of the 1800s; they then rose to 16 or 18 by 1920, according to Mary Odem’s “Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920,” and there have been minor fluctuations since then. The last state to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 was Hawaii, in 2001. Moreover, until recently the statutory rape laws applied only to girls, not to boys; heterosexual sex with an underage boy wasn’t statutory rape at all — now it is.
...
An age of consent of 16 may seem very low to you. If that’s so, you may be shocked to know that — according to the accounts I’ve seen (e.g., here) — it’s 13 in South Korea and Japan, and, until recently, Spain; 14 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Portugal; 15 in Denmark, France, and Sweden; and 16 in most of the rest of the Western world. The age 17 and 18 states in the United States are outliers, though Ireland and a couple of states in Australia are also at 17."

Roaring 20s History of Human Sexuality in Western Culture

"On the left you have a woman from the early 1900s: her stlye is very conservative, Victorian-like, and covers most of her body. She carries herself in a more formal and disciplined manner. The picture on the right shows women from the 1920s. Their attire is much more revealing and flashy from their their individualized hats, their shorter, sleeveless dresses, down to their strap-on heals. They are expressing emotion, and their body language is less formal and more expressive. Although it appears that they are posing, it is in a way that shows an attitude that is embracing life and rebelling from the previous ideals of how women should carry themselves. This especially applies to their less conservative views about sex."

Could the more restrictive ages of consent to have sex have come about to control this new 'radical' sexuality in women, and not out of any particular concern for young women? Especially in light of the 'statutory rape laws only applied to females' it seems worth asking whether these laws were designed solely to control women (men being almost exclusively in political roles when they came about.)

It is why i believe mature women should just fornicate us until we clamor for a serious relationship in modern times.

 

[aaronleland]

" sex is positive, healthy, natural, and something we're all hardwired to desire once puberty begins.

So regardless of an AoC law, people are going to pursue sex anyway.

Do you then want the increased costs of having to prosecute everyone simply acting on inbuilt biology ? "


" benefits the for-profit prison industry, law enforcement, lawyers and the courts, it's at the expense of people."


^ age of consent laws exist to protect people thus are not considered wasteful by all rational standards.





" When sexuality is repressed, human beings don't take up a hobby, they get violent. To themselves as well as to others."


^ exactly why we need laws to protect people from predators.

 

[Valerie]

" sex is positive, healthy, natural, and something we're all hardwired to desire once puberty begins.

So regardless of an AoC law, people are going to pursue sex anyway.

Do you then want the increased costs of having to prosecute everyone simply acting on inbuilt biology ? "


" benefits the for-profit prison industry, law enforcement, lawyers and the courts, it's at the expense of people."


^ age of consent laws exist to protect people thus are not considered wasteful by all rational standards.





" When sexuality is repressed, human beings don't take up a hobby, they get violent. To themselves as well as to others."


^ exactly why we need laws to protect people from predators.

you agree with delta, do you, aaron?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Peoples replies to this thread illustrate very well why politicians don't wanna bring it up.

It's because it's WRONG. That's why.

Not demonizing sex and pleasure isn't wrong. You yourself support the close-in-age exemptions. But they aren't universal, but should be. Hence the need for aoc legal reform. No one here proposing complete repeal like some would try and suggest.

No one is demonizing sex. Sex is something that should be shared between two adults who are fully informed and understanding of all the consequences involved and who are prepared to deal with those consequences when and should they occur.

When biology makes you want sex when you start puberty (sex hormones start getting produced leading to sexual desires,) but the state says you can't do that until some arbitraily assigned age having nothing to do with medicine, psychology, or reality, you're very much demonizing sex by saying it's something only grown ups should do.

 

[ChrisL]

Peoples replies to this thread illustrate very well why politicians don't wanna bring it up.

It's because it's WRONG. That's why.

Not demonizing sex and pleasure isn't wrong. You yourself support the close-in-age exemptions. But they aren't universal, but should be. Hence the need for aoc legal reform. No one here proposing complete repeal like some would try and suggest.

No one is demonizing sex. Sex is something that should be shared between two adults who are fully informed and understanding of all the consequences involved and who are prepared to deal with those consequences when and should they occur.

When biology makes you want sex when you start puberty (sex hormones start getting produced leading to sexual desires,) but the state says you can't do that until some arbitraily assigned age having nothing to do with medicine, psychology, or reality, you're very much demonizing sex by saying it's something only grown ups should do.

Sorry, but it is something that only grown ups SHOULD do because children are not responsible. That is why we refer to them as "children." You getting this? It's quite simple really.

Having a desire to do something and being prepared to do it are two completely different things.

 

[pillars]

Age of consent laws are about protecting children from victimization by predatory adults. These laws are not used to keep kids from having sex with each other.

So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

Delta4Embassy

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Age of consent laws are about protecting children from victimization by predatory adults. These laws are not used to keep kids from having sex with each other.

So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

Delta4Embassy

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

 

[G.T.]

Age of consent laws are about protecting children from victimization by predatory adults. These laws are not used to keep kids from having sex with each other.

So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

Delta4Embassy

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

And now its very clear they do protect children from predators as they put violators.behind bars and on lists.

They are very beneficial to society.

 

[pillars]

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

Age of consent laws are only enforced at this point against adults who have sex with children. So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

You did not answer my question, so I'm asking it again, Delta4Embassy

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

Age of consent laws are only enforced at this point against adults who have sex with children. So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

You did not answer my question, so I'm asking it again, Delta4Embassy

You're misrepresenting what I said, or didn't understand it. I wanna modernize and update existing AoC to better reflect reality, make close-in-age exemptions universal, and have a single AoC nationwide instead of the 16-18 but lower if you get married thing we have now.

Do I support 13 and 40 (or over 18 yo's) being made legal? No. 13 and 16 is reasonable though. A 3 year close in age exemption makes sense. Some states have 4 and 5 year exemptions but think that's too big a spread as a 17 and 12 doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[ChrisL]

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

Age of consent laws are only enforced at this point against adults who have sex with children. So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

You did not answer my question, so I'm asking it again, Delta4Embassy

You're misrepresenting what I said, or didn't understand it. I wanna modernize and update existing AoC to better reflect reality, make close-in-age exemptions universal, and have a single AoC nationwide instead of the 16-18 but lower if you get married thing we have now.

Do I support 13 and 40 (or over 18 yo's) being made legal? No. 13 and 16 is reasonable though. A 3 year close in age exemption makes sense. Some states have 4 and 5 year exemptions but think that's too big a spread as a 17 and 12 doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, well there are also exceptions to the exceptions in many states Romeo-Juliet laws, such as under 12 cannot give consent under any circumstances and that juveniles WILL be prosecuted for having sex with a person under 14, etc.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

Age of consent laws are only enforced at this point against adults who have sex with children. So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

You did not answer my question, so I'm asking it again, Delta4Embassy

You're misrepresenting what I said, or didn't understand it. I wanna modernize and update existing AoC to better reflect reality, make close-in-age exemptions universal, and have a single AoC nationwide instead of the 16-18 but lower if you get married thing we have now.

Do I support 13 and 40 (or over 18 yo's) being made legal? No. 13 and 16 is reasonable though. A 3 year close in age exemption makes sense. Some states have 4 and 5 year exemptions but think that's too big a spread as a 17 and 12 doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, well there are also exceptions to the exceptions in many states Romeo-Juliet laws, such as under 12 cannot give consent under any circumstances and that juveniles WILL be prosecuted for having sex with a person under 14, etc.

Ya, below some point it has to be illegal regardless of anything else.

Dunno if they do it here in the US, but a trial period for new laws would be a good idea. Like have a new system imposed for 1 year, then check the results and see if it's worth doing or if something else might be better. So haphazard now though. Aoc of one age, but can get married 2 or 3 years below it and it suddenly becomes legal doesn't make any sense.

 

[ChrisL]

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

Age of consent laws are only enforced at this point against adults who have sex with children. So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

You did not answer my question, so I'm asking it again, Delta4Embassy

You're misrepresenting what I said, or didn't understand it. I wanna modernize and update existing AoC to better reflect reality, make close-in-age exemptions universal, and have a single AoC nationwide instead of the 16-18 but lower if you get married thing we have now.

Do I support 13 and 40 (or over 18 yo's) being made legal? No. 13 and 16 is reasonable though. A 3 year close in age exemption makes sense. Some states have 4 and 5 year exemptions but think that's too big a spread as a 17 and 12 doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, well there are also exceptions to the exceptions in many states Romeo-Juliet laws, such as under 12 cannot give consent under any circumstances and that juveniles WILL be prosecuted for having sex with a person under 14, etc.

Ya, below some point it has to be illegal regardless of anything else.

Dunno if they do it here in the US, but a trial period for new laws would be a good idea. Like have a new system imposed for 1 year, then check the results and see if it's worth doing or if something else might be better. So haphazard now though. Aoc of one age, but can get married 2 or 3 years below it and it suddenly becomes legal doesn't make any sense.

Well, I agree that age of consent for sex and marriage should coincide. It really doesn't make any sense that AOC for sex and AOC for marriage would be two different ages.

I think 18 is a good age and not at all arbitrary in today's society. This is the age where most kids have graduated high school and they have at least had some life experiences away from their parents' watchful eyes. They have had an opportunity to be a bit more independent by that age and are probably more likely to make better decisions because they are older and hopefully a bit more mature than a 16-year-old. Although some people would say there isn't much difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old, there is a bit of difference there given the things I stated above. Ideally, IMO, it should probably be even older, but we can't baby them forever.

I think in most cases of 15 and 16-year-olds being sexually active, it is mostly experimentation. They have no desire to really be in a long committed relationship for the rest of their lives. It's also funny that we would never allow for 15 or 16-year-olds to sign any other kind of legally binding contract.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As stated in the OP AoC laws came about in the 20s by a woman who wrote a book called "...policing female sexuality" Thus it didn't start out of any concern about victimization of minors by adults as evidenced by the fact it didn't apply to udneraged males until recently when that case could be made.

Age of consent laws are only enforced at this point against adults who have sex with children. So, why exactly do you want to revoke AOC laws? Do you want to make it legal for 13 year old girls to have sex with 40 year old men?

You did not answer my question, so I'm asking it again, Delta4Embassy

You're misrepresenting what I said, or didn't understand it. I wanna modernize and update existing AoC to better reflect reality, make close-in-age exemptions universal, and have a single AoC nationwide instead of the 16-18 but lower if you get married thing we have now.

Do I support 13 and 40 (or over 18 yo's) being made legal? No. 13 and 16 is reasonable though. A 3 year close in age exemption makes sense. Some states have 4 and 5 year exemptions but think that's too big a spread as a 17 and 12 doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, well there are also exceptions to the exceptions in many states Romeo-Juliet laws, such as under 12 cannot give consent under any circumstances and that juveniles WILL be prosecuted for having sex with a person under 14, etc.

Ya, below some point it has to be illegal regardless of anything else.

Dunno if they do it here in the US, but a trial period for new laws would be a good idea. Like have a new system imposed for 1 year, then check the results and see if it's worth doing or if something else might be better. So haphazard now though. Aoc of one age, but can get married 2 or 3 years below it and it suddenly becomes legal doesn't make any sense.

Well, I agree that age of consent for sex and marriage should coincide. It really doesn't make any sense that AOC for sex and AOC for marriage would be two different ages.

I think 18 is a good age and not at all arbitrary in today's society. This is the age where most kids have graduated high school and they have at least had some life experiences away from their parents' watchful eyes. They have had an opportunity to be a bit more independent by that age and are probably more likely to make better decisions because they are older and hopefully a bit more mature than a 16-year-old. Although some people would say there isn't much difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old, there is a bit of difference there given the things I stated above. Ideally, IMO, it should probably be even older, but we can't baby them forever.

I think in most cases of 15 and 16-year-olds being sexually active, it is mostly experimentation. They have no desire to really be in a long committed relationship for the rest of their lives. It's also funny that we would never allow for 15 or 16-year-olds to sign any other kind of legally binding contract.

Think 18's just the 'safe' or crowd-pleasing answer because it's the age of adulthood and end of grade school and commencement of adulthood by and large. But there's nothing inherently 'adultish' about age 18. By that standard we let "children" drive two year earlier. If we trust "children" to make informed decisions driving with people lives on the line, isn't it sensible we let them have sex too?