Age of consent

[Diakun]

Well... I solved the law issue so no more discussion on that needed. Looks like we are taking a darker turn now:

1) I meant any older adult would be bored by a 15 year old. What I want approching 30 is totally different than what a 15 year old wants or needs. When I'm looking to buy a house/setting down into a career/family it isn't fair to basically rob a 15 year old of their carefree college/uni days. Unless you are going to hang around with their 15 year old friends lol.

2) So what if there is an attraction overlap for you? It isn't right for the young person as mentioned above. I would also add that mental capacity isn't the be all and end all, what about life experience of which they have none by definition? That old guy with money may look great at 15 but pretty shitty at 30 with several children and none of your own friends or qualifications.

3) I didn't call any of you paedophiles, I just listed the triggers which would show you who is. Pretty sure some of those got hit in the angry responces against me! Wikipedia is infested by paedophiles trying to weasel definitions changes so I wouldn't go to that to understand the spirit behind the law.

"Rather pathetic fallacy to attempt to debauche a debate by calling those on the other side of the argument a paedophile."
point still stands, would help if you actually responded to arguments instead of just saying the same things again.

and who gave you the ability to know what is best or needed for someone else

[Iain Keers]

Point is that in most of Europe, a 15 year old could legally have sex with a 30 year old. You're drawing the line at 16/18 because that's the law in the UK. Obviously you're incapable of making an objective analysis of the actual debate, which is "what should the age of consent be".

[Malkaiser]

Diakun: I did respond to the arguments, it's right there in your fucking quote!

Iain: I didn't draw the line at 16/18 read my goddam post! I nearly put in my usual "THIS IS AN EXAMPLE DON'T BE PEDANTIC OVER THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE NUMBER WHICH CAN BE DISUCSSED TO DISMISS THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT." warning... didn't think you'd be this stupid but I guess you are doing this on purpose.

I'm glad to learn that going off laws in other countries makes you objective, we should go Mohammad on little girls eh because the age of consent in Islam is 9 or less? http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/058-sbt.php#005.058.236

[Diakun]

countries laws are meaningless, age of consent could be objectively derived from whenever puberty takes place (natures sexual maturity) and no obvious mental conditions that would inhibit mental capacity

[Malkaiser]

So a problem we have here is... erm... what are we even arguing about? We are "discussing" age of consent but nobody has said "I think it should be <this>".

I'll go a bit further from my post and say 18 for adults (school leaving age now), with +/- 1 for children down to the age of 12 (puberty). You could argue me 2 years either way. What do you guys think... show us some numbers to discuss?

[Diakun]

My previous post describes what i think it should be, arbitrary ages defined black and white in a law are in opposition to the human condition of endless exceptions and circumstances.

This is why my idea is based on the individual case which means being based on natures definition of maturity that disregards age and can also be scientifically verified through the various chemical changes that occures during puberty.

[Malkaiser]

So if someone makes an accusation of statutory rape, you haul in the kids and test them. If they are both at puberty/same brain development stage then good to go, otherwise one is a rapist even though they had no way of knowing where the chemicals were at.

Alternatively old men can have sex with young girls they have groomed (I assume you know what this is, knowing and preventing is part of my IRL job) if they hit puberty or a certain stage of brain development, despite not having any life exerience to know the consequences of then having pregancy or an older circle of friends.

People developing at different speeds is why I think that age of consent should be set high (to be safe) with the age range exception I mentioned for people below that age so that normal coming of age behaviour is not criminalised.


What angle are you coming at this from guys? Are we discussing same age partners (which my solution nicely solves) or old guys having sex with teenagers?

[Diakun]

the physical changes of puberty are usually easily noticable, scientific tests would be usefull in courts. i dont accept the idea of statutory rape since it relies on arbitrarily defined ages and ignores whether both consent to it, it seems to me like the abuse of state power in peoples lives and treats those below the defined age basically as mindless animals who cant think for themselves.

life experience and learning the consequences (which seems self-evident to me), is gained from actually experiencing things yourself in life. you'll make terrible decisions sometimes but thats what being human is all about.

[Iain Keers]

You still haven't responded to the question in OP, or explained why you'd draw the line at 18, other than "it's the law". Are you saying Germans are pedophiles for having 14 as the age of consent?

I'm asking these questions because objectively they're difficult to answer, not answering them then using caps to shout that you did isn't anything impressive.

[Malkaiser]

These are not arbitary numbers, they are when most people end the growth stage of mental/physical development. This is why some countries have 12-14 (minimum puberty age) and some have 16-18 (maximum puberty age). I'd rather err on the side of caution and put it high to protect children as long as same age relationships are allowed within reason.

I think that the best way is for people to have starter relationships in the teens with people facing the same life choices and getting experience that way, not having some 50 year old guy come in with expectations of children, mortgages and dinner parties etc. There is no situation in which a 20+ year old should be with a 14- year old, ever. This is a social taboo anyway so I doubt it comes up much in Germany, people generally don't/don't want relationships with teenagers.

You guys should also look up "grooming" and how children are manipulated by abusers to think that they are making the choices. Even adults end up in abusive relationships, let's have some kind of limit to keep that shit away from still learning teenagers?

Are we getting at "Iain is 30 and would like to go out with his 12 year old next door neighbour" here or something? Do you think that is wrong Iain?

[Butjam]

Although he's phrasing it wrong, I actually have to side with Goku. You can be all like "Nah man, free love, make your own choices and be free, we don't need laws" but then there is little to nil protection available for young people who are being groomed.

Ideally, a statutory rape law would exist with a defined age limit to allow the state to prosecute those who are clearly abusing people who aren't of sound mind but there would be an element of trust in that prosecution would not be taken up against 'reasonable' relationships. I'm of the belief that we do need an age of consent, I think having a law as open to interpretation as Kun suggests would lead to a lot of abuse being unprosecuted. Plenty of teenagers who have gone through puberty aren't ready to make that decision for themselves and can be taken into an abusive relationship, or at least an amount significant enough to warrant legal protection being available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang

I believe that is an excellent example of predatory nature with relation to teenage victims. Like I said earlier though, choosing the actual age and deciding when prosecution is appropriate is much more difficult and better left for wiser men than me.

[ApronChef]

What about people who are ultimately never going to be able to 100% display or approve of sexual activity?

By this, I mean people affected by mental illness, would they be technically banned from any sexual activity in the event of it being abusive? Even if it appears not, and they're unable to communicated their thoughts on the matter, is it fair its allowed to happen/continue?

This heavily goes for people who are paralysed and/or unable to communicate in any fashion. (They might want to bonk too.)

(I have probably explained this badly, but you get the idea.)

[Talon Karrde]

I think 16 is working as intended. Kids know both the plumbing and some semblance of cultural ethics in our society then, and are just about mature enough to make their own choices.

[Diakun]

Although he's phrasing it wrong, I actually have to side with Goku. You can be all like "Nah man, free love, make your own choices and be free, we don't need laws" but then there is little to nil protection available for young people who are being groomed.

Ideally, a statutory rape law would exist with a defined age limit to allow the state to prosecute those who are clearly abusing people who aren't of sound mind but there would be an element of trust in that prosecution would not be taken up against 'reasonable' relationships. I'm of the belief that we do need an age of consent, I think having a law as open to interpretation as Kun suggests would lead to a lot of abuse being unprosecuted. Plenty of teenagers who have gone through puberty aren't ready to make that decision for themselves and can be taken into an abusive relationship, or at least an amount significant enough to warrant legal protection being available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang

I believe that is an excellent example of predatory nature with relation to teenage victims. Like I said earlier though, choosing the actual age and deciding when prosecution is appropriate is much more difficult and better left for wiser men than me.

The current black and white laws that are in place now has led to many cases of non-abuse being prosecuted too, as the quote well known and in which is incredibly vital to the idea of justice and liberty says "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

people must not be presumed guilty thus flexible and interpretive laws are supportive of presumption of innocence. laws that put automatic guilt on the accused (that these sorts of laws tend to do even if unintended) and overprotection of the alledged victim are nearly allways tyrannical and end with abuse of liberty by the state.

This may well lead to children being abused that could be prevented by draconian laws but this is the price we have to pay for liberty and freedom. i dont believe in making concessions that would chip away at this in any form.

[Malkaiser]

What exactly are these gray areas Diakun? People having Yaoi fantasies about 14 year old boys perhaps?

In my mind the only grey area are the inevitable similar age outliers having sex at 12 with most people falling between 14-18, making many people's first loves technically illegal (though this is not an enforced law for same age couples). At most I'd accept maybe a 18 year old and 14 year old with a very specific set of circumstances, but you need it at least checked over...

Anyone over 20 falls firmly into "black" in this discussion if they are having relationships with people younger than 16.

[Diakun]

checked over by whom? the state? id rather not have the state monitoring and controling everyone who acts differently than to what it wants.

As to this "black", this is again assuming they are allready guilty of mal intent which is the tyranny in itself. even though the younger party is most likely easily capable of consenting, i find it insulting to humanity to treat the younger party as essentially subhuman by saying that they arent allowed to consent because they are too stupid and lack the mental capability. and they are controlled by people who think they know whats best for them.

If the younger party is abused then they can go to the law in which it will try to protect them, but i wont have those in power thinking they have the right and are good enough to dictate how others will live their lives.

[Diakun]

dubpost

[Butjam]

Although he's phrasing it wrong, I actually have to side with Goku. You can be all like "Nah man, free love, make your own choices and be free, we don't need laws" but then there is little to nil protection available for young people who are being groomed.

Ideally, a statutory rape law would exist with a defined age limit to allow the state to prosecute those who are clearly abusing people who aren't of sound mind but there would be an element of trust in that prosecution would not be taken up against 'reasonable' relationships. I'm of the belief that we do need an age of consent, I think having a law as open to interpretation as Kun suggests would lead to a lot of abuse being unprosecuted. Plenty of teenagers who have gone through puberty aren't ready to make that decision for themselves and can be taken into an abusive relationship, or at least an amount significant enough to warrant legal protection being available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang

I believe that is an excellent example of predatory nature with relation to teenage victims. Like I said earlier though, choosing the actual age and deciding when prosecution is appropriate is much more difficult and better left for wiser men than me.

The current black and white laws that are in place now has led to many cases of non-abuse being prosecuted too, as the quote well known and in which is incredibly vital to the idea of justice and liberty says "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

people must not be presumed guilty thus flexible and interpretive laws are supportive of presumption of innocence. laws that put automatic guilt on the accused (that these sorts of laws tend to do even if unintended) and overprotection of the alledged victim are nearly allways tyrannical and end with abuse of liberty by the state.

This may well lead to children being abused that could be prevented by draconian laws but this is the price we have to pay for liberty and freedom. i dont believe in making concessions that would chip away at this in any form.

I'd like examples and citations, I know I've only provided one but it's a major case in which multiple young, pubescent people were targeted by predators. Can you provide me with factual examples of consenting relationships being prosecuted to the full extent?

Similarly who says that it's better that 10 guilty escape than 1 innocent suffer? Those 10 guilty can sure be responsible for many people suffering arguably worse conditions than prison and societal shunning.  Surely that is a problem for our penal system, that the guilty should not be made to suffer and simply rehabilitated.

[Iain Keers]

I'm actually extremely conservative on this issue and most sexual ethics issues, as most of you probably know. I'm not interested in 12 year olds

[Malkaiser]

Alright thanks Iain, sounds like you really are just raising an interesting area of debate. Kind of worried by Diakun though.

I'll repeat: There is no scenario in which a 20+ year old adult should ever be having a relationship with a 14-15 year old child. Ever.