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

[G.T.]

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?

16 yr olds can have sex.

 

[Agit8r]

It comes from a time when children were considered property. This is shown by the decision to charge the offense being left to parents to decide. If society really cared about children being exploited, it would be an offense against the state, rather than the parents.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Did you know that teen drivers make up only 12% of all drivers and responsible for almost half of all car accidents? Just because we have given them the privilege to drive doesn't mean it was ever a GOOD idea.

 

[ChrisL]

It comes from a time when children were considered property. This is shown by the decision to charge the offense being left to parents to decide. If society really cared about children being exploited, it would be an offense against the state, rather than the parents.

What on earth does this even mean? You think all children should be wards of the state or something?

When something is against the law, it IS an offense to the state.

 

[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.

Don't you think 13 years old is rather young to be even experimenting with sex . . . I mean besides kissing and handholding, things like that?

 

[ChrisL]

Also, most 16-year-olds don't really want to be hanging out with 13-year-olds. Usually, they prefer their own age group or older girls. You know, because of boobies and things like that. Usually, if a 16-year-old is dating a 13-year-old, he or she would be socially outcast from his or her own peer group. Just as we do with 40-something-year-old men who show an odd interest in teenage girls.

 

[Agit8r]

It comes from a time when children were considered property. This is shown by the decision to charge the offense being left to parents to decide. If society really cared about children being exploited, it would be an offense against the state, rather than the parents.

What on earth does this even mean? You think all children should be wards of the state or something?

When something is against the law, it IS an offense to the state.

I mean against the state independently. At present these laws are arbitrary; protecting those whose parents care only.

 

[ChrisL]

It comes from a time when children were considered property. This is shown by the decision to charge the offense being left to parents to decide. If society really cared about children being exploited, it would be an offense against the state, rather than the parents.

What on earth does this even mean? You think all children should be wards of the state or something?

When something is against the law, it IS an offense to the state.

I mean against the state independently. At present these laws are arbitrary; protecting those whose parents care only.

Ah yes, good point. That is true. There are some rotten parents out there. Some would even sell their children and we read stories about those that have done just that. I've heard stories of parents selling their young (I mean single digits here) children to men for money. Very disturbing stuff.

 

[Agit8r]

It comes from a time when children were considered property. This is shown by the decision to charge the offense being left to parents to decide. If society really cared about children being exploited, it would be an offense against the state, rather than the parents.

What on earth does this even mean? You think all children should be wards of the state or something?

When something is against the law, it IS an offense to the state.

I mean against the state independently. At present these laws are arbitrary; protecting those whose parents care only.

Ah yes, good point. That is true. There are some rotten parents out there. Some would even sell their children and we read stories about those that have done just that. I've heard stories of parents selling their young (I mean single digits here) children to men for money. Very disturbing stuff.

I couldn't help noticing that the show 'To Catch a Predator' was always set in upper middle class neighborhoods. It seems that our society has different sets of standards for different folks.

 

[ChrisL]

It comes from a time when children were considered property. This is shown by the decision to charge the offense being left to parents to decide. If society really cared about children being exploited, it would be an offense against the state, rather than the parents.

What on earth does this even mean? You think all children should be wards of the state or something?

When something is against the law, it IS an offense to the state.

I mean against the state independently. At present these laws are arbitrary; protecting those whose parents care only.

Ah yes, good point. That is true. There are some rotten parents out there. Some would even sell their children and we read stories about those that have done just that. I've heard stories of parents selling their young (I mean single digits here) children to men for money. Very disturbing stuff.

I couldn't help noticing that the show 'To Catch a Predator' was always set in upper middle class neighborhoods. It seems that our society has different sets of standards for different folks.

I've heard of the show, but I've never really watched it, so I couldn't say. I don't think it really matters to the child predator if the child is middle class, rich or poor though. They are just looking for an easy opportunity in most instances.

 

[Agit8r]

It comes from a time when children were considered property. This is shown by the decision to charge the offense being left to parents to decide. If society really cared about children being exploited, it would be an offense against the state, rather than the parents.

What on earth does this even mean? You think all children should be wards of the state or something?

When something is against the law, it IS an offense to the state.

I mean against the state independently. At present these laws are arbitrary; protecting those whose parents care only.

Ah yes, good point. That is true. There are some rotten parents out there. Some would even sell their children and we read stories about those that have done just that. I've heard stories of parents selling their young (I mean single digits here) children to men for money. Very disturbing stuff.

I couldn't help noticing that the show 'To Catch a Predator' was always set in upper middle class neighborhoods. It seems that our society has different sets of standards for different folks.

I've heard of the show, but I've never really watched it, so I couldn't say. I don't think it really matters to the child predator if the child is middle class, rich or poor though. They are just looking for an easy opportunity in most instances.

True, but now they know what sort of a house they shouldn't knock on.

 

[ChrisL]

What on earth does this even mean? You think all children should be wards of the state or something?

When something is against the law, it IS an offense to the state.

I mean against the state independently. At present these laws are arbitrary; protecting those whose parents care only.

Ah yes, good point. That is true. There are some rotten parents out there. Some would even sell their children and we read stories about those that have done just that. I've heard stories of parents selling their young (I mean single digits here) children to men for money. Very disturbing stuff.

I couldn't help noticing that the show 'To Catch a Predator' was always set in upper middle class neighborhoods. It seems that our society has different sets of standards for different folks.

I've heard of the show, but I've never really watched it, so I couldn't say. I don't think it really matters to the child predator if the child is middle class, rich or poor though. They are just looking for an easy opportunity in most instances.

True, but now they know what sort of a house they shouldn't knock on.

I suppose. There are groups online that do the same thing that I've read about, also undercover officers go online and pretend to be children at times. I'm glad we have some of these groups to put some fear into these losers though.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Age of consent should be 18 across the board. This gives children a chance to be educated and to experience some independence and gain some knowledge. It is NOT right to marry or to have sex with an inexperienced child, unless you are ALSO an inexperienced and ignorant child.

You mean older than my uncle when he enlisted, and my grandmother when she was married?