Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
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.
"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.