Reasoning for Age of Consent Laws

[Delta4Embassy]

(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.

No one's talking about abolishment here but you. Ask questions pertaining to the thread and not your own hangups and neuroses and I'll answer them.

 

[G.T.]

(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.

No one's talking about abolishment here but you. Ask questions pertaining to the thread and not your own hangups and neuroses and I'll answer them.

Are you for or against age of consent laws?

That pertains to the thread, because your thread is pertaining to the motives behind age of consent laws.

You're playing dip duck dodge like a little troll because youre quite afraid to answer.

 

[NLT]

I see the usmb #1 Creep is creeping again.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

I disagree, Pillars.


..........with your use of the word "typically", anyway. The word I would use is "exclusively".

 

[pillars]

No one's talking about abolishment here but you. Ask questions pertaining to the thread and not your own hangups and neuroses and I'll answer them.

While you do not directly call for abolishment, it is clear that you find age of consent laws distasteful and would like to see them eliminated. I find that a curious position, given that most parents, medical professionals and other sorts of social services/justice professionals recognize that juveniles do not have fully developed decision-making skills.

In fact, I'm really quite appalled by our criminal justice laws in North Carolina that treat 16 year olds as adults, for that same reason.

You are transparent enough in your views that it is patently obvious that you despise these laws and have created a strawman argument (that these laws are about money, not protecting juveniles) in order to attack the laws.

 

[pillars]

I disagree, Pillars.


..........with your use of the word "typically", anyway. The word I would use is "exclusively".

I say typically because occasionally you run into a young person who is a youth rights advocate who pushes for eliminating the age of consent.

Personally, I would push for modification of them. I have a couple of clients who are now designated as sex offenders for the rest of their lives because they had sex with a 16 year old girl at age 19, and were charged with statutory rape. That seems wrong to me.

It's obvious to me that they are not sex offenders in the traditional sense that most of us mean when we use the term. They are young people who had consensual sex with other young people, and probably thought the girls involved were older than they were, because it can be difficult to tell these days how old a girl actually is.

What I would say is that these laws are enforced unevenly, and that they need to be modified, but that they are still needed.

I think this is a good historical overview of the reasons for the laws: http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60840.pdf It also provides an overview of existing statutory rape laws, and the wide degree of variance by state.

I actually think that the U.S. would be benefitted by greater consistency in these laws so that we could do a better job of educating young people. I personally believe that the age of consent should be 18, but that the age gap should be greater and staggered by age.

For instance, a gap 5-6 years for youth between the ages of 16-18. So, it would be illegal for a 16 year old to have sex with a 22 year old, or a 17 year old to have sex with a 23 year old. And, a child below 16 could not consent to sex at all. I think that's a more realistic law, based upon what I know about teenagers.

For what it's worth, I had sex with a 19 year old when I was 16, and thought nothing of it. It certainly wasn't rape, in my mind. But by law, it was and still is rape in the state I grew up in.

That's kind of ridiculous to me. And, that's what leads to really inconsistent enforcement of these laws.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I disagree, Pillars.


..........with your use of the word "typically", anyway. The word I would use is "exclusively".

I say typically because occasionally you run into a young person who is a youth rights advocate who pushes for eliminating the age of consent.

Personally, I would push for modification of them. I have a couple of clients who are now designated as sex offenders because they had sex with a 16 year old girl at age 19, and were charged with statutory rape.

That seems wrong-headed to me. It's obvious to me that they are not sex offenders in the traditional sense that most of us mean when we use the term. They were young people who had sex with other young people, and probably thought the girls involved were older than they were. In particular, these laws are likely to be inequitably enforced against young black men.

What I would say is that these laws are enforced unevenly, and that they need to be modified, but that they are still needed.

I think this is a good historical overview of the reasons for the laws: http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60840.pdf

I actually think that the U.S. would be benefitted by consistency in these laws, that the age of consent should be 16, and that the age gap should be greater.

For instance, a gap of 5-6 years between the ages of 16-18, and a gap of 3 years below age 16, if that makes sense.

So, 15 and 17 should be legal, but not 15 and 18, or 14 and 17. For what it's worth, I had sex with a 19 year old when I was 16, and thought nothing of it. It certainly wasn't rape, in my mind.

But by law, it is and still was rape.

I agree with everything you say.

Perhaps I should have prefaced it by saying "for those who are in their mid forties" or some such.

 

[G.T.]

No one's talking about abolishment here but you. Ask questions pertaining to the thread and not your own hangups and neuroses and I'll answer them.

While you do not directly call for abolishment, it is clear that you find age of consent laws distasteful and would like to see them eliminated. I find that a curious position, given that most parents, medical professionals and other sorts of social services/justice professionals recognize that juveniles do not have fully developed decision-making skills.

In fact, I'm really quite appalled by our criminal justice laws in North Carolina that treat 16 year olds as adults, for that same reason.

You are transparent enough in your views that it is patently obvious that you despise these laws and have created a strawman argument (that these laws are about money, not protecting juveniles) in order to attack the laws.

Easter ham has been sliced.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree, Pillars.


..........with your use of the word "typically", anyway. The word I would use is "exclusively".

I say typically because occasionally you run into a young person who is a youth rights advocate who pushes for eliminating the age of consent.

Personally, I would push for modification of them. I have a couple of clients who are now designated as sex offenders for the rest of their lives because they had sex with a 16 year old girl at age 19, and were charged with statutory rape. That seems wrong to me.

It's obvious to me that they are not sex offenders in the traditional sense that most of us mean when we use the term. They are young people who had consensual sex with other young people, and probably thought the girls involved were older than they were, because it can be difficult to tell these days how old a girl actually is.

What I would say is that these laws are enforced unevenly, and that they need to be modified, but that they are still needed.

I think this is a good historical overview of the reasons for the laws: http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60840.pdf It also provides an overview of existing statutory rape laws, and the wide degree of variance by state.

I actually think that the U.S. would be benefitted by greater consistency in these laws so that we could do a better job of educating young people. I personally believe that the age of consent should be 18, but that the age gap should be greater and staggered by age.

For instance, a gap 5-6 years for youth between the ages of 16-18. So, it would be illegal for a 16 year old to have sex with a 22 year old, or a 17 year old to have sex with a 23 year old. And, a child below 16 could not consent to sex at all. I think that's a more realistic law, based upon what I know about teenagers.

For what it's worth, I had sex with a 19 year old when I was 16, and thought nothing of it. It certainly wasn't rape, in my mind. But by law, it was and still is rape in the state I grew up in.

That's kind of ridiculous to me. And, that's what leads to really inconsistent enforcement of these laws.

I agree...that's why I think that Statuatory Rape laws seem very loosey goosey. There's a big difference in maturity between 16 and 25 but not much between 16 and 19.

I'm not sure about age of consent being 18 or as young as 16. Teens will have sex. But they can also be exploited by older predators. I'm not sure.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Our statutory rape laws in the US should be modelled on countries where such laws actually work. Japan for example has a law for no parental consent, and a slightly lower aged one for with parental consent. US has this as well but with the addition of if-married or not. One age for sex absent marriage, another for sex in marriage.

Here in Missouri for example the aoc is 17 for sex with anyone over 18 or 21 forget which. But, if you get parental consent you can marry at 15, and there's provision for even younger if with judicial consent (though I'm not sure when or why that'd come into play except maybe for orphans who're wards of the state or something.) So if you got married at 15 to someone of any age over 18 (or 21) the sex you then have is legal.

If parents can already consent to their unusually mature teens getting married then we should extend that consent to general non-married sexual activity as well. Forcing people into marriages just to have sex seems an unnecessary burden. To say nothing of it smacks of respecting religion since sex outside marriage is fornication.

We can both protect chidlren from exploitative adults while at the same time not demonizing sexuality. As is already the case, regardless of what a local aoc might be, you can't make, show, or share imagery of the person if under 18. That's the no child pornography aspect. That should stay the way it is. But we can let teens have sex with other teens and whomever the heck else they fall for while still protecting them from exploitation.

If they're going to have sex anyway, criminalizing it only costs the state additional monies. Laws restricting things people desire have never worked be it alcohol and drug prohibitions, or sex. All the laws against it do is create a criminal enterprise for providing it. And even when it doesn't, it's sending the wrong message: Namely that sex is bad. Sex is not bad. Sex is the very best thing you can do with another person. So outlawing something everyone desires once puberty begins is the bad thing, not the thing our biology has us wanting.

Teens should be allowed to have sex with other teens. Teens and adults is trickier. Amoral adults will say or do anything to have sex sometimes, where the teen thinks they're in love. So we have to balance protecting a teen from a deceptive adult while at the same time passing a one size fits all age for everyone.

Think the aoc should be 17. At 17 I enlisted in the Navy so if that's legal, sex should be too. Can see some logic in it being 16 as with driving but typically a 16 year-old is in 10th or 11th grade when other things like academics should take priority, not relationships. So how about 17, but if your parent consetns can at 16. And if it's two teens they cna have sex completely legally long as they're within say a couple years of each other. Outside 2 or so years the difference in maturity becomes too great and you get the same exploitation problem you see with adults and teens.

On the punishment side of things, no one under 18 should be placed on a sex offender list for their screwy hormones. Adults know better, "kids" shouldn't be held to that standard when everyone's infantilizing them in every other respect. Should be handled in some kind of binding arbitration type thing rather than criminal courts. Get the parents together, the two kids, and someone with legal authority and have em work out some arrangement.

 

[Coyote]

That is a great post Delta - and thank you for explaining your position. That makes a lot of sense and I agree with it.