Reasoning for Age of Consent Laws

[Delta4Embassy]

Will usually ignore stupid people's stupid questions.

So my obsession with sex seems odd to you? So a vice cop or cybercrimes investigator would too I assume? As would reporters who then write about such crimes, the lawyers who prosecute the offenders, the defense attorney who defneds them and anyone that has anything to do with such things?

You realize how stupid that sounds right?

Ask yourselves this: why is anyone who actually lives their life the way we teach children to live being good and helpful and kind viewed with suspicion? Is it because there's so much crap in the world when ever we encounter something good it seems out-of-place. Or is it that we can't imagine a world with good in it and try to make everything that might actually be good bad?

Why do you want children to be able to consent with sex with adults is the better question.

Here again, that you think I've said that anywhere says a lot more about you than me since I never did.

 

[G.T.]

Will usually ignore stupid people's stupid questions.

So my obsession with sex seems odd to you? So a vice cop or cybercrimes investigator would too I assume? As would reporters who then write about such crimes, the lawyers who prosecute the offenders, the defense attorney who defneds them and anyone that has anything to do with such things?

You realize how stupid that sounds right?

Ask yourselves this: why is anyone who actually lives their life the way we teach children to live being good and helpful and kind viewed with suspicion? Is it because there's so much crap in the world when ever we encounter something good it seems out-of-place. Or is it that we can't imagine a world with good in it and try to make everything that might actually be good bad?

Why do you want children to be able to consent with sex with adults is the better question.

Here again, that you think I've said that anywhere says a lot more about you than me since I never did.

You argued against consent laws in your OP.

thats about you, creep. Not me.

Leave the kiddy sex subject alone for a while.

 

[Coyote]

Threads on topics like these get hot very very quickly and can easily go off topic...

I think maybe it would be good to remember a few things. Pedophilia has a definition - and that is desiring sex with prepubescent children.

The OP isn't about that. It's talking about Statuatory Rape and it's relationship with Age of Consent and it's specifically talking about teens.

Once puberty is reached there is a huge fuzzy grey area of consent and hard wired biological urges. The OP, if I understand it correctly, claims that Age of Consent mainly came about as a result of the economic cost of pregnancy in unwed women. I'm not sure I understand that rationale.

In todays world, however, there is a very real need for age of consent laws and that is to protect children and allow them to mature in a world that is no longer defined exclusively by early marriage, childbirth and death. Childhood is a recognized "right" of sorts and teenagers are recognized as a distinct group, different from adults and children where in earlier times puberty signified adulthood and no differentiation was made.

When you have early marriages - you often have abusive relationships, a loss of opportunity and an end education for the girls involved. With sexual activity amongst teens it's a bit trickier. You have young people who's bodies are telling them it's time to start experimenting and discovering their sexuality. You can look the other way and pretend it doesn't exist but it does and that is one of the differences between children and teens. But teens often lack the emotional maturity to assess the risks and responsibilities associated with sexual activity and more important, to curb their impulsive actions. That belongs to the pre-frontal cortex which doesn't fully mature until around 25. So you have this area where they are ready for sex but not fully mature either physically or mentally.

It seems to me that statuatory rape laws are a funny sort of category and almost arbritrary. For example - the differences between 15 yr old and an 18 yr old are negligable (I think) except one is under the age of consent and the other over it. If they were 14 and 17 - the law might not apply (depending on the state) - if they were 25 and 28 no one would care.

But - yet, what if it were:
a 15 yr old and a 35 yr old?
a 12 yr old and a 17 yr old?

In the first, a 20 yr gap is huge and the chances that the 15 yr old is being exploited are huge. In the second - the maturity gap between 12 and 17 is equally huge. In both cases, I think it's potentially harmful for the younger, if not exploitive.

It's not clear however - because teens are both adults and children in many respects. I think Age of Consent Laws are very important. Statuatory rape laws are needed to prevent exploitation but they seem to be all over place in how they are applied. JMO

 

[HenryBHough]

26.

Doubt it?

It's already defined in law that humans are infants until age 26.

Until then they are covered under the parents Obamacare.

Infants.

Should not be allowed to drink, drive, even think about having sex; especially vote.

 

[G.T.]

Im not making any veiled attempt to call someone a pedophile coyote.

Im saying that the guy is creepy and suspicious.

Because he is.

If you take a brief moment and see how many child sex threads he has made, and combine that with his anti age of consent law positioning in the op (its not justified cuz mentally disabled can still consent!)...and talking about giving out cookies to kids, at the same time all these child sex threads are going on???....then the pattern is drawn.

And perhaps the onus of not looking like a creepy pervert is on the writer, not the reader.

So lets not skirt the issue.

He is saying, by arguing that age of consent laws arent justified (b.c. of the mentally impaired example), that he does not support age of consent laws, by proxy.

He will not answer that question, when pressed, coyote.

Forgive me, but, he opened the can of worms and is then unwilling to discuss it. Its not the others that needed a "talking to," so to speak.

 

[G.T.]

26.

Doubt it?

It's already defined in law that humans are infants until age 26.

Until then they are covered under the parents Obamacare.

Infants.

Should not be allowed to drink, drive, even think about having sex; especially vote.

Of course, this is horseshit.

Being able to be covered on insurance by your parents your first couple of years out of college while hunting down your profession has pretty much dickall to do with whether or not youre legally an adult.

 

[HenryBHough]

Being able to be covered on insurance by your parents your first couple of years out of college while hunting down your profession has pretty much dickall to do with whether or not youre legally an adult.

Pity you didn't read it before you thumped the tubs for it, child.

 

[Michelle420]

Not every adult wants to have sex with kids.

Kids that are underage do experiment sexually with each other and that is not against the law, it's when adult men as you put it with a 7 year average difference in age break the law by having sex with an underage kid.

If an adult had sex with an under aged mentally impaired person they would be breaking the law.

Not all kids mature physiologically at the same rate, the law is setup for a majority agreed upon age humans are physiologically mature for sex.

Some states say 18, 16 or 14.

Schools do teach about masterbation and safe sex, this is all covered in sex education classes around 5th grade.

 

[Michelle420]

26.

Doubt it?

It's already defined in law that humans are infants until age 26.

Until then they are covered under the parents Obamacare.

Infants.

Should not be allowed to drink, drive, even think about having sex; especially vote.

Of course, this is horseshit.

Being able to be covered on insurance by your parents your first couple of years out of college while hunting down your profession has pretty much dickall to do with whether or not youre legally an adult.

Does the government define an age at which you can legally have sex with anyone you want over age 18 mean they care about your health and safety? All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. It's about money. Unweb mothers are more likely to be on welfare which costs a state money. Since teens who become rpegnant by older adults usually get pregnant, the state has an interest in defining when teens can have sex with older adults.

"Statutory Rape Laws and an Excess of Legislation

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reform act that obligated states to revise or expand statutory rape laws on the foundation that the issue was a matter of public health (Goodwin, 2013). Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity? The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money. As young single mothers are more likely to need welfare assistance as they begin their difficult journey to adulthood, the hope is that by criminalizing the sexual activity that gives rise to those occasions, government resources will be spared and perhaps better distributed across the social spectrum. The perception that emerges is one of an economically prudent move to prevent future strains on an already overburdened welfare system (Cocca, 2002)."
Statutory Rape and Teen Sexting Laws The Consequences of Poorly Crafted Legislation - Student Pulse

This was the second time I'd encountered the money reasoning, first was in California's Penal Code,

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
California - Age of Consent

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. Brain not finished developing isn't the reason either or the aoc'd be in the mid-20s when the brain finally develops fully. And it's certainly not that sex in and of itself is bad or dangerous, as mammals we're evolved to desire sex when puberty begins and capable of reproduction from that point on. It's about teens getting pregnant on going on welfare that they care about and why there are statutory rape laws.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex. But adults usually avoid becomming pregnant understanding the burden that represents. Teens usually get tunnel-vision wanting the sex and not considering the implications of that decision. So the reason for ages of consent is protect the state from its' teenaged population wanting sex more than they don't want the financial burden of getting pregnant from sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves. And doing so will never get them pregnant, catch something icky, or even get them in trouble with the law.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual. As seen with smoking and drugs, telling people not to do things usually has the opposite desired effect and they wind up doing what they've been told not to. And especially when sex is the issue, everyone knows it feels good and is fun so trying to convince kids not to do something fun is like trying to get cats to march in a parade.

Even in the most extreme societies as in the Muslim world, people still desire sex. In fact there's considerable evidence that the more a society represses sexuality, the more sexual it becomes. Can't not think about sex if you're being told constantly not to have or think about sex. Just one of those odd things. So instead of trying to legislate it away, or scare kids away from sex we need to do things that actually work. A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe. So just as with pest control, if you interupt the reproduction process in one or the other sex you can control the population better than not doing so. If boys are given the means to satisfy themselves, they'll opt for that instead of partner-sex where pregnancy and financial liability is possible.

"Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity?

The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money."

"In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. "





the welfare of children depends upon protecting them from the harm of sexual predators...

clinically qualified child welfare advocates help define that legal line for that purpose.


for what purpose do you repeatedly question that line...?

is IT to 'troll' internet forums for reactions? you imagine yourself enlightening, do ya??


now GT is a 'troll' for seeing through your act and responding to your multiple threads on the topic..?

go cry to the mods again, you poor poor victim...



will you be baking cookies for the neighborhood kids again today Delta4Embassy ??

inquiring minds want to know...

Find it interesting some assume anyone who writes about these things is suspect when I can source similar writings by professional trauma counsellors, law enforcement, judges, lawyers, and the like.

I think the problem lies in how most threads here and on other discussion sites are purile and infantiles designed to provoke or mock instead of spark legitimate discussions. So when someone comes along who knows what they're talking about and how to write well, it stands in sharp relief to the usual crap.

Wanna question my motives fine, but you're only popping red flags of those who see you can't htink about these kidns of things without thinking of them in sexual terms instead of combatting the sexualization of young people by predatory adults. What would you have us do? Not write about it and pretend it isn't happening? Ignore the problem and hope it goes away?

I don't care if people wanna make me a punchline to conceal their own inadequacies. I know I'm right and whose side I'm on. As do those whose opinions actually matter.

If someone was profiling you, they would see your interests are mostly sex related by your posts.
It's the same thing with people who are passionate about race issues, or gender or abortion.

You mostly post about sex. So it makes sense to conclude you have a big interest in that topic.

 

[G.T.]

Not every adult wants to have sex with kids.

Kids that are underage do experiment sexually with each other and that is not against the law, it's when adult men as you put it with a 7 year average difference in age break the law by having sex with an underage kid.

If an adult had sex with an under aged mentally impaired person they would be breaking the law.

Not all kids mature physiologically at the same rate, the law is setup for a majority agreed upon age humans are physiologically mature for sex.

Some states say 18, 16 or 14.

Schools do teach about masterbation and safe sex, this is all covered in sex education classes around 5th grade.

16 and 14 being ahlges of consent is creepy too. Umm, yuckkkkkk

 

[Michelle420]

Not every adult wants to have sex with kids.

Kids that are underage do experiment sexually with each other and that is not against the law, it's when adult men as you put it with a 7 year average difference in age break the law by having sex with an underage kid.

If an adult had sex with an under aged mentally impaired person they would be breaking the law.

Not all kids mature physiologically at the same rate, the law is setup for a majority agreed upon age humans are physiologically mature for sex.

Some states say 18, 16 or 14.

Schools do teach about masterbation and safe sex, this is all covered in sex education classes around 5th grade.

16 and 14 being ahlges of consent is creepy too. Umm, yuckkkkkk

The point is if you read his original post, he starts out saying teens but also argues that mentally handicapped adults can have sex so the brain or emotional maturity doesn't matter. He also suggests about masterbation being taught in schools so kids don't see sex as scary and dangerous.

The verbiage here teens, kids without defining what differences you mean when you use them is what you were after when you posed the question.

Delta no need to be defensive, you make these threads because you want to have the discussion so participate then.

All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual.

A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe.

 

[G.T.]

Not every adult wants to have sex with kids.

Kids that are underage do experiment sexually with each other and that is not against the law, it's when adult men as you put it with a 7 year average difference in age break the law by having sex with an underage kid.

If an adult had sex with an under aged mentally impaired person they would be breaking the law.

Not all kids mature physiologically at the same rate, the law is setup for a majority agreed upon age humans are physiologically mature for sex.

Some states say 18, 16 or 14.

Schools do teach about masterbation and safe sex, this is all covered in sex education classes around 5th grade.

16 and 14 being ahlges of consent is creepy too. Umm, yuckkkkkk

The point is if you read his original post, he starts out saying teens but also argues that mentally handicapped adults can have sex so the brain or emotional maturity doesn't matter. He also suggests about masterbation being taught in schools so kids don't see sex as scary and dangerous.

The verbiage here teens, kids without defining what differences you mean when you use them is what you were after when you posed the question.

Delta no need to be defensive, you make these threads because you want to have the discussion so participate then.

All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual.

A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe.

I want to know, from him, if there should be any age of consent laws.

His OP only argues against them, with no qualifiers.

So - if he wont answer, we can all be left with our suspicions. I have mine.

Without age of consent laws, 70yr old men could con 6 year old girls into thinking it was a game. Fuck outta here with this no consent laws bullshit.

Further, putting aside the cases like 19yr olds with 17yr old.....

The cases where its like a 25yr old with a 12 year old? Castration, please.

 

[Michelle420]

Not every adult wants to have sex with kids.

Kids that are underage do experiment sexually with each other and that is not against the law, it's when adult men as you put it with a 7 year average difference in age break the law by having sex with an underage kid.

If an adult had sex with an under aged mentally impaired person they would be breaking the law.

Not all kids mature physiologically at the same rate, the law is setup for a majority agreed upon age humans are physiologically mature for sex.

Some states say 18, 16 or 14.

Schools do teach about masterbation and safe sex, this is all covered in sex education classes around 5th grade.

16 and 14 being ahlges of consent is creepy too. Umm, yuckkkkkk

The point is if you read his original post, he starts out saying teens but also argues that mentally handicapped adults can have sex so the brain or emotional maturity doesn't matter. He also suggests about masterbation being taught in schools so kids don't see sex as scary and dangerous.

The verbiage here teens, kids without defining what differences you mean when you use them is what you were after when you posed the question.

Delta no need to be defensive, you make these threads because you want to have the discussion so participate then.

All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual.

A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe.

I want to know, from him, if there should be any age of consent laws.

His OP only argues against them, with no qualifiers.

So - if he wont answer, we can all be left with our suspicions. I have mine.

Without age of consent laws, 70yr old men could con 6 year old girls into thinking it was a game. Fuck outta here with this no consent laws bullshit.

Further, putting aside the cases like 19yr olds with 17yr old.....

The cases where its like a 25yr old with a 12 year old? Castration, please.

Personally, I think he just likes to stir the pot and get people worked up, It probably gives him a laugh.

 

[G.T.]

Not every adult wants to have sex with kids.

Kids that are underage do experiment sexually with each other and that is not against the law, it's when adult men as you put it with a 7 year average difference in age break the law by having sex with an underage kid.

If an adult had sex with an under aged mentally impaired person they would be breaking the law.

Not all kids mature physiologically at the same rate, the law is setup for a majority agreed upon age humans are physiologically mature for sex.

Some states say 18, 16 or 14.

Schools do teach about masterbation and safe sex, this is all covered in sex education classes around 5th grade.

16 and 14 being ahlges of consent is creepy too. Umm, yuckkkkkk

The point is if you read his original post, he starts out saying teens but also argues that mentally handicapped adults can have sex so the brain or emotional maturity doesn't matter. He also suggests about masterbation being taught in schools so kids don't see sex as scary and dangerous.

The verbiage here teens, kids without defining what differences you mean when you use them is what you were after when you posed the question.

Delta no need to be defensive, you make these threads because you want to have the discussion so participate then.

All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual.

A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe.

I want to know, from him, if there should be any age of consent laws.

His OP only argues against them, with no qualifiers.

So - if he wont answer, we can all be left with our suspicions. I have mine.

Without age of consent laws, 70yr old men could con 6 year old girls into thinking it was a game. Fuck outta here with this no consent laws bullshit.

Further, putting aside the cases like 19yr olds with 17yr old.....

The cases where its like a 25yr old with a 12 year old? Castration, please.

Personally, I think he just likes to stir the pot and get people worked up, It probably gives him a laugh.

Not when sex, and often child related sex issues, is the center of his entire posting history.

Theres much darker context there.

 

[Michelle420]

Not every adult wants to have sex with kids.

Kids that are underage do experiment sexually with each other and that is not against the law, it's when adult men as you put it with a 7 year average difference in age break the law by having sex with an underage kid.

If an adult had sex with an under aged mentally impaired person they would be breaking the law.

Not all kids mature physiologically at the same rate, the law is setup for a majority agreed upon age humans are physiologically mature for sex.

Some states say 18, 16 or 14.

Schools do teach about masterbation and safe sex, this is all covered in sex education classes around 5th grade.

16 and 14 being ahlges of consent is creepy too. Umm, yuckkkkkk

The point is if you read his original post, he starts out saying teens but also argues that mentally handicapped adults can have sex so the brain or emotional maturity doesn't matter. He also suggests about masterbation being taught in schools so kids don't see sex as scary and dangerous.

The verbiage here teens, kids without defining what differences you mean when you use them is what you were after when you posed the question.

Delta no need to be defensive, you make these threads because you want to have the discussion so participate then.

All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual.

A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe.

I want to know, from him, if there should be any age of consent laws.

His OP only argues against them, with no qualifiers.

So - if he wont answer, we can all be left with our suspicions. I have mine.

Without age of consent laws, 70yr old men could con 6 year old girls into thinking it was a game. Fuck outta here with this no consent laws bullshit.

Further, putting aside the cases like 19yr olds with 17yr old.....

The cases where its like a 25yr old with a 12 year old? Castration, please.

Personally, I think he just likes to stir the pot and get people worked up, It probably gives him a laugh.

Not when sex, and often child related sex issues, is the center of his entire posting history.

Theres much darker context there.

Some people like to get others worked up for self amusement.

From the things he says, I think he may have had religion forced on him or was judged harshly by a religious person in his life.

 

[Marianne]

Does the government define an age at which you can legally have sex with anyone you want over age 18 mean they care about your health and safety? All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. It's about money. Unweb mothers are more likely to be on welfare which costs a state money. Since teens who become rpegnant by older adults usually get pregnant, the state has an interest in defining when teens can have sex with older adults.

"Statutory Rape Laws and an Excess of Legislation

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reform act that obligated states to revise or expand statutory rape laws on the foundation that the issue was a matter of public health (Goodwin, 2013). Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity? The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money. As young single mothers are more likely to need welfare assistance as they begin their difficult journey to adulthood, the hope is that by criminalizing the sexual activity that gives rise to those occasions, government resources will be spared and perhaps better distributed across the social spectrum. The perception that emerges is one of an economically prudent move to prevent future strains on an already overburdened welfare system (Cocca, 2002)."
Statutory Rape and Teen Sexting Laws The Consequences of Poorly Crafted Legislation - Student Pulse

This was the second time I'd encountered the money reasoning, first was in California's Penal Code,

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
California - Age of Consent

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. Brain not finished developing isn't the reason either or the aoc'd be in the mid-20s when the brain finally develops fully. And it's certainly not that sex in and of itself is bad or dangerous, as mammals we're evolved to desire sex when puberty begins and capable of reproduction from that point on. It's about teens getting pregnant on going on welfare that they care about and why there are statutory rape laws.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex. But adults usually avoid becomming pregnant understanding the burden that represents. Teens usually get tunnel-vision wanting the sex and not considering the implications of that decision. So the reason for ages of consent is protect the state from its' teenaged population wanting sex more than they don't want the financial burden of getting pregnant from sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves. And doing so will never get them pregnant, catch something icky, or even get them in trouble with the law.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual. As seen with smoking and drugs, telling people not to do things usually has the opposite desired effect and they wind up doing what they've been told not to. And especially when sex is the issue, everyone knows it feels good and is fun so trying to convince kids not to do something fun is like trying to get cats to march in a parade.

Even in the most extreme societies as in the Muslim world, people still desire sex. In fact there's considerable evidence that the more a society represses sexuality, the more sexual it becomes. Can't not think about sex if you're being told constantly not to have or think about sex. Just one of those odd things. So instead of trying to legislate it away, or scare kids away from sex we need to do things that actually work. A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe. So just as with pest control, if you interupt the reproduction process in one or the other sex you can control the population better than not doing so. If boys are given the means to satisfy themselves, they'll opt for that instead of partner-sex where pregnancy and financial liability is possible.

How many times do we have to go through this Delta?

The human brain doesn't finish development until late teens early 20's. The AOC laws in most states is 16. This means the government feels that in general, a minor has enough brain development at that age to give consent. It's been different in the past due to scientific advances in understand brain development. It's got nothing to do with cash. A female age 7 and 10 shouldn't have sex because they are too young.

Also female minors shouldn't have sex before the AOC because:

1. They can't fully understand what they are consenting too.
2. Because their body is fully developed and girls who have had sex that early have died.
3. At age 10 a girl may be able to get pregnant but because she is not developed enough delivery may kill her.
4.10 -15 aren't developed enough mentally to raise a baby properly.
5. Statutory rape isn't about money it's about protection from exploitation of minors who are to young to fully understand the consequences of their actions.
6. If masturbation is about as effective as abstinence. The answer is birth control. You will never stop teens from having sex with other teens.
7. Am I understanding this correctly, this statement is claiming that girls don't cease to have desire following an orgasm because if that's the case, it's a load of crap. Of course if we have an orgasm we are satisfied just like boys(for a while).

"Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe."

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Does the government define an age at which you can legally have sex with anyone you want over age 18 mean they care about your health and safety? All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. It's about money. Unweb mothers are more likely to be on welfare which costs a state money. Since teens who become rpegnant by older adults usually get pregnant, the state has an interest in defining when teens can have sex with older adults.

"Statutory Rape Laws and an Excess of Legislation

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reform act that obligated states to revise or expand statutory rape laws on the foundation that the issue was a matter of public health (Goodwin, 2013). Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity? The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money. As young single mothers are more likely to need welfare assistance as they begin their difficult journey to adulthood, the hope is that by criminalizing the sexual activity that gives rise to those occasions, government resources will be spared and perhaps better distributed across the social spectrum. The perception that emerges is one of an economically prudent move to prevent future strains on an already overburdened welfare system (Cocca, 2002)."
Statutory Rape and Teen Sexting Laws The Consequences of Poorly Crafted Legislation - Student Pulse

This was the second time I'd encountered the money reasoning, first was in California's Penal Code,

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
California - Age of Consent

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. Brain not finished developing isn't the reason either or the aoc'd be in the mid-20s when the brain finally develops fully. And it's certainly not that sex in and of itself is bad or dangerous, as mammals we're evolved to desire sex when puberty begins and capable of reproduction from that point on. It's about teens getting pregnant on going on welfare that they care about and why there are statutory rape laws.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex. But adults usually avoid becomming pregnant understanding the burden that represents. Teens usually get tunnel-vision wanting the sex and not considering the implications of that decision. So the reason for ages of consent is protect the state from its' teenaged population wanting sex more than they don't want the financial burden of getting pregnant from sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves. And doing so will never get them pregnant, catch something icky, or even get them in trouble with the law.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual. As seen with smoking and drugs, telling people not to do things usually has the opposite desired effect and they wind up doing what they've been told not to. And especially when sex is the issue, everyone knows it feels good and is fun so trying to convince kids not to do something fun is like trying to get cats to march in a parade.

Even in the most extreme societies as in the Muslim world, people still desire sex. In fact there's considerable evidence that the more a society represses sexuality, the more sexual it becomes. Can't not think about sex if you're being told constantly not to have or think about sex. Just one of those odd things. So instead of trying to legislate it away, or scare kids away from sex we need to do things that actually work. A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe. So just as with pest control, if you interupt the reproduction process in one or the other sex you can control the population better than not doing so. If boys are given the means to satisfy themselves, they'll opt for that instead of partner-sex where pregnancy and financial liability is possible.

How many times do we have to go through this Delta?

The human brain doesn't finish development until late teens early 20's. The AOC laws in most states is 16. This means the government feels that in general, a minor has enough brain development at that age to give consent. It's been different in the past due to scientific advances in understand brain development. It's got nothing to do with cash. A female age 7 and 10 shouldn't have sex because they are too young.

Also female minors shouldn't have sex before the AOC because:

1. They can't fully understand what they are consenting too.
2. Because their body is fully developed and girls who have had sex that early have died.
3. At age 10 a girl may be able to get pregnant but because she is not developed enough delivery may kill her.
4.10 -15 aren't developed enough mentally to raise a baby properly.
5. Statutory rape isn't about money it's about protection from exploitation of minors who are to young to fully understand the consequences of their actions.
6. If masturbation is about as effective as abstinence. The answer is birth control. You will never stop teens from having sex with other teens.
7. Am I understanding this correctly, this statement is claiming that girls don't cease to have desire following an orgasm because if that's the case, it's a load of crap. Of course if we have an orgasm we are satisfied just like boys(for a while).

"Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe."

Have any sources supporting your refutation of California's own written law, or the other source saying aoc IS about money?

 

[G.T.]

Who cares if its about money?

Its side effect is that an evil act is illegal.

Age of consent protects children, and prosecutes against offenders who have violated said children.

Stopping that would be evil.

 

[Marianne]

Does the government define an age at which you can legally have sex with anyone you want over age 18 mean they care about your health and safety? All evidence suggests that that's not the reason for age of consent laws. Originally, the age of consent in the US was 10, though one state had it at 7. Partly due to life expectency, partly due to mortality during childbirth, but never has it been about protecting children from sexual exploitation by adults. It's about money. Unweb mothers are more likely to be on welfare which costs a state money. Since teens who become rpegnant by older adults usually get pregnant, the state has an interest in defining when teens can have sex with older adults.

"Statutory Rape Laws and an Excess of Legislation

In 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reform act that obligated states to revise or expand statutory rape laws on the foundation that the issue was a matter of public health (Goodwin, 2013). Why does welfare reform concern itself with criminal statutes regarding sexual activity? The answer lies not between the sheets but in the product of sexual activity: babies. Children cost money. As young single mothers are more likely to need welfare assistance as they begin their difficult journey to adulthood, the hope is that by criminalizing the sexual activity that gives rise to those occasions, government resources will be spared and perhaps better distributed across the social spectrum. The perception that emerges is one of an economically prudent move to prevent future strains on an already overburdened welfare system (Cocca, 2002)."
Statutory Rape and Teen Sexting Laws The Consequences of Poorly Crafted Legislation - Student Pulse

This was the second time I'd encountered the money reasoning, first was in California's Penal Code,

"WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.

3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.

In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.

In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.

In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.

The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.

This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.

AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.

Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
California - Age of Consent

In other words, the state could give a damn if teens have sex. If teens didn't get pregnant it'd be interesting to hear the rationale cited to define the age at which a teen can have sex. Emotional maturity can't be a reason since we let mentally impaired/handicapped adults consent to sexual activity. Brain not finished developing isn't the reason either or the aoc'd be in the mid-20s when the brain finally develops fully. And it's certainly not that sex in and of itself is bad or dangerous, as mammals we're evolved to desire sex when puberty begins and capable of reproduction from that point on. It's about teens getting pregnant on going on welfare that they care about and why there are statutory rape laws.

Every adult (but those that are weird) desire sex. But adults usually avoid becomming pregnant understanding the burden that represents. Teens usually get tunnel-vision wanting the sex and not considering the implications of that decision. So the reason for ages of consent is protect the state from its' teenaged population wanting sex more than they don't want the financial burden of getting pregnant from sex.

Instead of making laws indicative of existing in a fantasy land where teens don't want sex, we should accept the reality we exist in and instead of trying to suppress sexual desire (ask the Catholic clergy how well that works,) accept it and channel it into more fiscally responsible outlets like masturbation.

Instead of teaching school-aged kids not to have sex, sex is dangerous and bad, teach them instead that they can satisfy their bodies needs themselves. And doing so will never get them pregnant, catch something icky, or even get them in trouble with the law.

Teaching kids about sex is counterproductive if no method to satisfy their urges comes with it. In effect all you're doing is putting sex on their minds then telling them they can't be sexual. As seen with smoking and drugs, telling people not to do things usually has the opposite desired effect and they wind up doing what they've been told not to. And especially when sex is the issue, everyone knows it feels good and is fun so trying to convince kids not to do something fun is like trying to get cats to march in a parade.

Even in the most extreme societies as in the Muslim world, people still desire sex. In fact there's considerable evidence that the more a society represses sexuality, the more sexual it becomes. Can't not think about sex if you're being told constantly not to have or think about sex. Just one of those odd things. So instead of trying to legislate it away, or scare kids away from sex we need to do things that actually work. A boy who's just had an orgasm naturally doesn't want sex any more (for at least a little while.) A boy who wants sex is going to keep wanting it until he gets it. Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe. So just as with pest control, if you interupt the reproduction process in one or the other sex you can control the population better than not doing so. If boys are given the means to satisfy themselves, they'll opt for that instead of partner-sex where pregnancy and financial liability is possible.

How many times do we have to go through this Delta?

The human brain doesn't finish development until late teens early 20's. The AOC laws in most states is 16. This means the government feels that in general, a minor has enough brain development at that age to give consent. It's been different in the past due to scientific advances in understand brain development. It's got nothing to do with cash. A female age 7 and 10 shouldn't have sex because they are too young.

Also female minors shouldn't have sex before the AOC because:

1. They can't fully understand what they are consenting too.
2. Because their body is fully developed and girls who have had sex that early have died.
3. At age 10 a girl may be able to get pregnant but because she is not developed enough delivery may kill her.
4.10 -15 aren't developed enough mentally to raise a baby properly.
5. Statutory rape isn't about money it's about protection from exploitation of minors who are to young to fully understand the consequences of their actions.
6. If masturbation is about as effective as abstinence. The answer is birth control. You will never stop teens from having sex with other teens.
7. Am I understanding this correctly, this statement is claiming that girls don't cease to have desire following an orgasm because if that's the case, it's a load of crap. Of course if we have an orgasm we are satisfied just like boys(for a while).

"Girls don't actually experience this cessation of desire following orgasm, but at least the boy is rendered safe."

Have any sources supporting your refutation of California's own written law, or the other source saying aoc IS about money?

I never said money wasn't a reason but the claim of " Public Health" that Ms. Rankin cites may have had other contributing factors aside from cash. In the stat's provided there was a great increase in teen pregnancy's and many due to men over the age of 20. That is clearly one main reason for the law. Actually the stats say that 70% of teen pregnancy's were fathered by adult males. The stats also cited "the rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys." that clearly is an issue of public health and not just a financial one.

Regardless, in the law itself as quoted below, which basically supports some of what I said about development and immaturity of minors and lack of fully understanding the consequences of their actions.

" We accept the premise that due to age and immaturity, minors often
lack the ability to make fully informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range consequences."

In re T.A.J. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1350 [73 Cal.Rptr.331]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2.
From: (Site Has Moved

A juvenile court petition was filed alleging that a 16-year-old boy had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old female. The
petition alleged the child engaged in statutory and forcible rape. At the jurisdictional hearing the only issue was
whether the sexual encounter was consensual. The juvenile court found that the act was consensual and that the
statutory rape charge was true, but made no finding with regard to the forcible rape count. The child appealed,
contending that Penal Code section 261.5 was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. Specifically, he
contended that the statute (1) violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution and (2) may not be
constitutionally applied to him since he was a member of the class the statute was designed to protect. The Court of
Appeal rejected both contentions. First, the court held that American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16
Cal.4th 307, did not confer upon children the right to engage in consensual sexual intercourse. "While we do not ignore
the reality that many California teenagers are sexually active, that fact alone does not establish that minors have a
right to privacy to engage in sexual intercourse. We accept the premise that due to age and immaturity, minors often
lack the ability to make fully informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range consequences."
The court further found that the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists for a child deciding whether to have an
abortion (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.373), "cannot be imputed to their
decision to engage in consensual sexual intercourse." On the child's second contention, the court noted that the
legislative intent behind the statutory rape law was to make illegal sexual intercourse both between children and adults
and between children. Although children cannot be prosecuted for felony statutory rape (unlawful intercourse between
an adult and a child) because the child is the victim in such a crime, there is no parallel with regard to misdemeanor
statutory rape, which by its terms involves sexual intercourse between two children.

 

[pillars]

(watches GT and Mohammed flirt wondering how long until they declare their true feelings for each other and start making out)

You ducked a very direct question.

I didn't duck anything, I completely ignored you because it was a stupid question having nothing to do with the thread.

Answer the question. It has a lot to do with the thread. Abolishment of age of consent laws is typically pushed by perverts who want to have sex with kids.