Sex At Fourteen?
April 20, 2003 1:47 PM Subscribe
Lawyer says sex should be legal for 14-year-olds Should a 14 year old be allowed to make up his or her mind to have sex with whomever they want? This lawyer thinks so. The current legal age of consent in New Zealand is 16. He is proposing making it 14.
"Age of consent" is a weird concept. I accept that people feel a line has to be drawn somewhere, but chronological age isn't necessarily indicative of anything except birthdate. Some 14 year olds are perfectly capable of informed consent, some 18 year olds definitely aren't. And, as fff said, 14 isn't at all an unusual age to use as the magical "age of consent".
posted by biscotti at 2:21 PM on April 20, 2003
posted by biscotti at 2:21 PM on April 20, 2003
That's how it should be in the US to. The problem is this culture is scared of sex. If you suggested sleeping with a women under the age of 18 you would be attacked as a sick pedophile, and locked up for the rest of your life. It's really to bad. It's ok to watch violent acts which in my opinion are far worse, but here you put sex in a movie everybody goes ape shit.
posted by tljenson at 2:23 PM on April 20, 2003
posted by tljenson at 2:23 PM on April 20, 2003
Headline misleading. It is legal for fourteen year olds to have sex, it just might not be legal for the other person.
Mind you Canada has a "position of power" rule, so if you're an employer/teacher/swim coach/manager the other person has to be 18.
posted by bobo123 at 2:29 PM on April 20, 2003
Mind you Canada has a "position of power" rule, so if you're an employer/teacher/swim coach/manager the other person has to be 18.
posted by bobo123 at 2:29 PM on April 20, 2003
I wonder what 14 year old that lawyer is wanting to have sex with?
Or maybe its a 13 year old and he's just preparing for the future.
posted by Trik at 2:31 PM on April 20, 2003
Or maybe its a 13 year old and he's just preparing for the future.
posted by Trik at 2:31 PM on April 20, 2003
Children under 13 needed to be protected, said Mr Amery, but children older than that should be allowed to make their own decisions and were able to get information about sex from the media, especially television.Note to self: If you want to change statutory rape laws, do not ever use the word "children."
IMHO, these laws are really about property rights. Parents do not want their offspring used in ways they do not approve of. "There is no putting body piercings or tattoos on my property, and you are certainly not having sex with my property."
Also, the problem is not pedophiles, but it's the definition of "child." In modern civilization, childhood is constantly being expanded. In the U.S. you are still a child until you graduate from college. Whereas, it used to be, 13-years old was a good age to move out on your own and get married.
Maybe... statutory rape laws should be repealed, and replaced with a clearer definition of offspring as the property of the parent? Whether the girl was ready or not, whether she wanted it or not -- it's completely irrelevant -- because she did not belong to the person who had sex with her. This is actually the way it works in practice now; the police aren't called if the parents consent. Now that's a law I could support.
On preview: Kick ass. I was afraid I'd be the only person skeptical of consent laws.
posted by son_of_minya at 2:32 PM on April 20, 2003
I wonder what 14 year old that lawyer is wanting to have sex with? Or maybe its a 13 year old and he's just preparing for the future.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, that particular lawyer has children who are aged 16 or 17, and doesn't want them criminalised for having sex? But given that your pseudonym is 'Trik', we can see why you equate a desire to reassess consent laws with support for paedophilia.
posted by riviera at 2:52 PM on April 20, 2003
Or perhaps, just perhaps, that particular lawyer has children who are aged 16 or 17, and doesn't want them criminalised for having sex? But given that your pseudonym is 'Trik', we can see why you equate a desire to reassess consent laws with support for paedophilia.
posted by riviera at 2:52 PM on April 20, 2003
I don't know. I think teenagers are physically prepared to have sex, may be emotionally prepared, but I also think there need to be some rules about minors having sex with adults just because of the legal ramifications, because an adult is automatically in a position of power which is easily abused.
Obviously, this has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis but I wouldn't say a 14-year-old should be a freely available sex object. As others pointed out, it's not illegal for the minor, it is for the adult, so two teens having sex would be legal. I think they'd do well getting practice on their own at that age, but that's just me.
posted by dagnyscott at 3:00 PM on April 20, 2003
Obviously, this has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis but I wouldn't say a 14-year-old should be a freely available sex object. As others pointed out, it's not illegal for the minor, it is for the adult, so two teens having sex would be legal. I think they'd do well getting practice on their own at that age, but that's just me.
posted by dagnyscott at 3:00 PM on April 20, 2003
Personal opinion...
It should be legal for M14-16 to have sex with F14-16 as long as both are using (different) forms of contraception. Both should have a legal responsibility for their own contraception, and a partial for each other's.
Yes, I believe contraception should be enforced if under 16. Maybe 18.
Please feel free to flame me to a crisp. I'm cold. But I'm serious...
posted by twine42 at 3:03 PM on April 20, 2003
It should be legal for M14-16 to have sex with F14-16 as long as both are using (different) forms of contraception. Both should have a legal responsibility for their own contraception, and a partial for each other's.
Yes, I believe contraception should be enforced if under 16. Maybe 18.
Please feel free to flame me to a crisp. I'm cold. But I'm serious...
posted by twine42 at 3:03 PM on April 20, 2003
twine42:
M14-16 + M14-16?
F14-16+F14-16?
In other words, is it ok, as it is in some countries, to eliminate gender from the legislation?
As a 14 y.o. guy, that would make a difference.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:11 PM on April 20, 2003
M14-16 + M14-16?
F14-16+F14-16?
In other words, is it ok, as it is in some countries, to eliminate gender from the legislation?
As a 14 y.o. guy, that would make a difference.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:11 PM on April 20, 2003
Or perhaps, just perhaps, that particular lawyer has children who are aged 16 or 17, and doesn't want them criminalised for having sex?
FWIW, the age of consent in New Zealand is 16.
This just sounds like a lawyer trying to make it easier to get his client off, who in all likelihood would get labelled as a "kiddy-fuck" in prison and treated accordingly.
posted by John Shaft at 3:11 PM on April 20, 2003
FWIW, the age of consent in New Zealand is 16.
This just sounds like a lawyer trying to make it easier to get his client off, who in all likelihood would get labelled as a "kiddy-fuck" in prison and treated accordingly.
posted by John Shaft at 3:11 PM on April 20, 2003
given that your pseudonym is 'Trik', we can see why you equate a desire to reassess consent laws with support for paedophilia
given that your moniker is 'riviera' which is almost the same as geraldo's, we understand the callous sensationalist ad hoministic attack which implies Trik is a paedophile.
posted by quonsar at 3:20 PM on April 20, 2003
given that your moniker is 'riviera' which is almost the same as geraldo's, we understand the callous sensationalist ad hoministic attack which implies Trik is a paedophile.
posted by quonsar at 3:20 PM on April 20, 2003
dash_slot, no, no difference in my mind MF, MM, FF, MA*, but a change in contraception problems.
But then in the UK we've only just had the legal age for gay sex come down to 18 (16 for MF) while lesbian sex is legal from ANY age as long as the females are of a similar age...
[* A = Albatross... kinky... ;) ]
[ It originally said Female/Aardvark, but I decided that was a touch too dodgy... ;) ]
posted by twine42 at 3:20 PM on April 20, 2003
But then in the UK we've only just had the legal age for gay sex come down to 18 (16 for MF) while lesbian sex is legal from ANY age as long as the females are of a similar age...
[* A = Albatross... kinky... ;) ]
[ It originally said Female/Aardvark, but I decided that was a touch too dodgy... ;) ]
posted by twine42 at 3:20 PM on April 20, 2003
while lesbian sex is legal from ANY age as long as the females are of a similar age...
Until the younger has aged to a certain point, yes?
posted by cohappy at 3:36 PM on April 20, 2003
Until the younger has aged to a certain point, yes?
posted by cohappy at 3:36 PM on April 20, 2003
Kids are having sex with each other when they are 14 - that shouldn't be illegal. An adult having sex with 14 year olds strike me as somewhat perverse, and definitely kids need protection from being exploited by adults.
posted by cx at 3:45 PM on April 20, 2003
posted by cx at 3:45 PM on April 20, 2003
How did primitive/native cultures handle the age question?
The notion of two 14 year olds having babies is screwed up.. a 14 year old male can't take care of himself much less a baby and mother, this is what our society says is ok.. yet the idea of an established older guy with a means of income and stability who can provide for her and the baby we call perverse. Why is that?
posted by stbalbach at 3:56 PM on April 20, 2003
The notion of two 14 year olds having babies is screwed up.. a 14 year old male can't take care of himself much less a baby and mother, this is what our society says is ok.. yet the idea of an established older guy with a means of income and stability who can provide for her and the baby we call perverse. Why is that?
posted by stbalbach at 3:56 PM on April 20, 2003
I loved him, woman says of 13-year-old boy
The boy's mother is furious that sex crime laws dating back 42 years mean the woman cannot be prosecuted as a man would be if he slept with a child.
Why can't a 13y old boy have sex with this 21 year old woman if he wants to ? She likes him, he likes her, the only problem is mother who probably doesn't get any....
posted by bureaustyle at 3:58 PM on April 20, 2003
The boy's mother is furious that sex crime laws dating back 42 years mean the woman cannot be prosecuted as a man would be if he slept with a child.
Why can't a 13y old boy have sex with this 21 year old woman if he wants to ? She likes him, he likes her, the only problem is mother who probably doesn't get any....
posted by bureaustyle at 3:58 PM on April 20, 2003
As far as I know the laws in the US already allow for a younger age of consent than in many countries but have strict limitations on the age gap between the partners to protect younger teenagers from being "taken advantage of".
The problem with this is of course just as the fact that people are ready for sex at different ages is an argument in favour or lowering the age of consent it also works against the proposal. For example if the age of consent is lowered to 14 even with limitations as to the age difference of the couple then if one partner is "not ready" then are they being taken advantage of, not legally under the new law, no.
In terms of UK law in relation to the age of consent for lesbians, uk.gay.com states,
The problem with this is of course just as the fact that people are ready for sex at different ages is an argument in favour or lowering the age of consent it also works against the proposal. For example if the age of consent is lowered to 14 even with limitations as to the age difference of the couple then if one partner is "not ready" then are they being taken advantage of, not legally under the new law, no.
In terms of UK law in relation to the age of consent for lesbians, uk.gay.com states,
There is no age of consent for lesbian sex laid down in statute.posted by greatneb at 3:59 PM on April 20, 2003
However, a girl under 16 is deemed not capable of consenting to any sexual behaviour, which could be classed as sexual assault. The courts have taken this to mean an age of consent for lesbians of 16.
To me the issue is not whether someone is physically or emotionally ready to have sex at age 14, 16 or 18. If it were only a matter of personal freedom and such, I would say forget about age of consent. The problem I see in lowering the age is that a 14 year old is not financially prepared to raise a child, and the burden would necessarily fall on the parents. For that reason if nothing else there has to be a lower limit to consent, and it certainly has to be higher than 14.
Even 16 is kind of stretching it.
posted by Hildago at 4:05 PM on April 20, 2003
Even 16 is kind of stretching it.
posted by Hildago at 4:05 PM on April 20, 2003
Maybe... statutory rape laws should be repealed, and replaced with a clearer definition of offspring as the property of the parent? Whether the girl was ready or not, whether she wanted it or not -- it's completely irrelevant -- because she did not belong to the person who had sex with her. This is actually the way it works in practice now; the police aren't called if the parents consent. Now that's a law I could support.
Um, no. First, calling the children the property of the parents sounds remarkably like slavery. That's probably something you want to shy away from, as modern law tends to recognize the dignity of any individual, child or adult. Second, your law would make any abuse, sexual or otherwise, of children by their parents legal. Regardless of your view of human dignity, that's certainly something you want to avoid.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:10 PM on April 20, 2003
Um, no. First, calling the children the property of the parents sounds remarkably like slavery. That's probably something you want to shy away from, as modern law tends to recognize the dignity of any individual, child or adult. Second, your law would make any abuse, sexual or otherwise, of children by their parents legal. Regardless of your view of human dignity, that's certainly something you want to avoid.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:10 PM on April 20, 2003
This all assumes that 14-year-old boys have any chance in hell of getting laid in the first place. IIRC, none of the 14-year olds I knew got any, probably cos they were off screwing lawyers like this guy.
posted by jonmc at 4:20 PM on April 20, 2003
posted by jonmc at 4:20 PM on April 20, 2003
Some context:
The ruling Labour/Progressive Alliance coalition in NZ depends upon the support of the Greens, and the ghastly Christian fundamentalist United Future Party to govern. The government is planning on lifting the moratorium on Genetic Engineering in October, which will probably result in the Greens withdrawing their support and issuing a motion of no confidence against the government. At least, that's what they promised to do at the last election.
The case involving the 21 year old swimming coach bureaustyle brings up, meanwhile, is just the kind of moral non-issue that the United Future party thrives on, and brings up periodically to remind everyone that it still exists. They are responsible for seeding this story in the media, to which the link in the FPP is a follow-up. What we're witnessing in the NZ media is the unedifying spectacle of United Future flexing its political muscles, and the ruling Labour party falling all over itself to accommodate it in advance of the confidence/supply problems that may arise in October. In other words, it's politically motivated morals hysteria, not a genuine debate about teenage sexuality.
This thread, on the other hand, is a lot better...
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:27 PM on April 20, 2003
The ruling Labour/Progressive Alliance coalition in NZ depends upon the support of the Greens, and the ghastly Christian fundamentalist United Future Party to govern. The government is planning on lifting the moratorium on Genetic Engineering in October, which will probably result in the Greens withdrawing their support and issuing a motion of no confidence against the government. At least, that's what they promised to do at the last election.
The case involving the 21 year old swimming coach bureaustyle brings up, meanwhile, is just the kind of moral non-issue that the United Future party thrives on, and brings up periodically to remind everyone that it still exists. They are responsible for seeding this story in the media, to which the link in the FPP is a follow-up. What we're witnessing in the NZ media is the unedifying spectacle of United Future flexing its political muscles, and the ruling Labour party falling all over itself to accommodate it in advance of the confidence/supply problems that may arise in October. In other words, it's politically motivated morals hysteria, not a genuine debate about teenage sexuality.
This thread, on the other hand, is a lot better...
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:27 PM on April 20, 2003
in the UK we've only just had the legal age for gay sex come down to 18 (16 for MF)
You're not keeping up with the pace of legislative reform, twine42: the age of consent for gay men in Britain has been 16 for a couple of years now, thanks to the Human Rights Act. (Apart from in Northern Ireland, where it's 17 across the board, in line with the Republic.)
Anyway, quonsar, it was Trik who made the 'callous sensationalist' assumption that the lawyer in question had a 13-year-old girl lined up for his sexual attention, so perhaps direct your spittle somewhere else?
posted by riviera at 4:29 PM on April 20, 2003
You're not keeping up with the pace of legislative reform, twine42: the age of consent for gay men in Britain has been 16 for a couple of years now, thanks to the Human Rights Act. (Apart from in Northern Ireland, where it's 17 across the board, in line with the Republic.)
Anyway, quonsar, it was Trik who made the 'callous sensationalist' assumption that the lawyer in question had a 13-year-old girl lined up for his sexual attention, so perhaps direct your spittle somewhere else?
posted by riviera at 4:29 PM on April 20, 2003
Connecting age with sex has always bothered me. It's like connecting dieting with eye color. There's no correlation. I agree that it's uncool for a 14 year old to be with a 21 year old, but it's okay for an 18 year old to be with a 25 year old? It's the same number of years apart. Why is one acceptable and the other is not? It makes no sense.
This has nothing to do with age and everything to do with maturity. And what is maturity? The state at which a body is fully developed. So. If a body is mature enough to perform the act of sex, but the brain is not, whose fault is that?
Sex education should start in the home, supported by private and public schooling, and it should begin MANY years before we adults have the balls to start it. Kids should start being cautioned about it, carefully and maturely, BEFORE their bodies start changing; not after.
That's not being perverse. That's being practical. However, this DOESN'T happen, because parents are chickensnits, the gov't gets yelled at by the parents when they try to rectify it, and the children end up being unprepared when the Boobie Fairy, Nocturnal Emissions Man, and the good old, ever-dependable Stork come a'callin'.
Regarding considering children "property" of their parents, why not go all the way and let the parents decide who the child has sex with, and under what circumstances? Not too many generations ago, many parents worked with other parents to plan marriages for children long before the kids even met each other. That worked really well, didn't it? ..not. The very idea that children are property of their parents is demeaning. Children are not anyone's property. We go that way, we set progress back a hundred years. When, by the way, fourteen year olds were getting married and pregnant and starting farms in rural areas, with their parents' blessings.
By physiology, a human is capable of having sex when puberty kicks in. For girls that's between the ages of 11 and 14, for boys it's between 13 and 16. For some a year or two earlier or later than that, but pretty much all human beings are capable of sexual activity by 18 years of age, at least physically. Emotionally? Psychologically? Most can't handle it until after they've done it a few times, and sometimes by the time they wise up and learn on their own, it's too late. There ARE human females who are both emotionally and physically capable of performing the act of sex at a very early age, but they are in the vast minority, and they are held back in the classroom by the rest of us. When the law steps in, it has to make a blanket judicial decision for everybody. Is it fair? Maybe not.
Maybe instead of making laws conforming teenagers to the dictates of conservative adults, we should try to understand why DNA insists on making a human body capable of procreating years before the human brain is mature enough to cope properly, and start focusing on educating our youngsters many years before we do, about the cause and effect complexities of sex.
Insisting children wait many years after their bodies are ready, is like forcing square pegs into round holes. Sure you can do it, but it takes a big hammer, a lot of force, and the result is far from pretty. It would be far better to understand better why nature thinks the body is ready when it is, and do our part to make sure the mind is ready when the body is. We adults fail our children when we are too afraid to teach them the truth about what it means to be human.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:37 PM on April 20, 2003
This has nothing to do with age and everything to do with maturity. And what is maturity? The state at which a body is fully developed. So. If a body is mature enough to perform the act of sex, but the brain is not, whose fault is that?
Sex education should start in the home, supported by private and public schooling, and it should begin MANY years before we adults have the balls to start it. Kids should start being cautioned about it, carefully and maturely, BEFORE their bodies start changing; not after.
That's not being perverse. That's being practical. However, this DOESN'T happen, because parents are chickensnits, the gov't gets yelled at by the parents when they try to rectify it, and the children end up being unprepared when the Boobie Fairy, Nocturnal Emissions Man, and the good old, ever-dependable Stork come a'callin'.
Regarding considering children "property" of their parents, why not go all the way and let the parents decide who the child has sex with, and under what circumstances? Not too many generations ago, many parents worked with other parents to plan marriages for children long before the kids even met each other. That worked really well, didn't it? ..not. The very idea that children are property of their parents is demeaning. Children are not anyone's property. We go that way, we set progress back a hundred years. When, by the way, fourteen year olds were getting married and pregnant and starting farms in rural areas, with their parents' blessings.
By physiology, a human is capable of having sex when puberty kicks in. For girls that's between the ages of 11 and 14, for boys it's between 13 and 16. For some a year or two earlier or later than that, but pretty much all human beings are capable of sexual activity by 18 years of age, at least physically. Emotionally? Psychologically? Most can't handle it until after they've done it a few times, and sometimes by the time they wise up and learn on their own, it's too late. There ARE human females who are both emotionally and physically capable of performing the act of sex at a very early age, but they are in the vast minority, and they are held back in the classroom by the rest of us. When the law steps in, it has to make a blanket judicial decision for everybody. Is it fair? Maybe not.
Maybe instead of making laws conforming teenagers to the dictates of conservative adults, we should try to understand why DNA insists on making a human body capable of procreating years before the human brain is mature enough to cope properly, and start focusing on educating our youngsters many years before we do, about the cause and effect complexities of sex.
Insisting children wait many years after their bodies are ready, is like forcing square pegs into round holes. Sure you can do it, but it takes a big hammer, a lot of force, and the result is far from pretty. It would be far better to understand better why nature thinks the body is ready when it is, and do our part to make sure the mind is ready when the body is. We adults fail our children when we are too afraid to teach them the truth about what it means to be human.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:37 PM on April 20, 2003
Um, okay you guys. Sure. Having sex with a 14 year old -- peachy keen. And when, exactly, was the last time you met or saw a 14-year-old boy or girl? They are *young.* Way too young to be liasing with people older than them for sure, and way too young to be having sex with each other too, though I can't see prosecuting children for that.
This has very little to do with high-flying theories about teaching kids "what it means to be human" and a lot to do with simple, old-fashioned, horrible child abuse. Those of you who are claiming that age-based consent laws are stupid because age 'doesn't mean anything' are missing the point: because children mature psychologically at different rates, it's therefore necessary to have a conservative age of consent to protect those who are not yet ready or who live in vulnerable circumstances. ZachsMind, this is also why there are laws against speeding: though it is unfair to capable drivers that they are handicapped at low speeds, it is far more important that those who are incapable are restrained, in part for their own good.
And where is the necessity for lowering ages of consent anyway? I sincerely doubt that many adults have suffered significantly because we couldn't have sex between the ages of 14 and 16. Yet it is unquestionable that many children would suffer at the hands of adults if the age of consent were lowered. The necessity of having an age of consent is obvious (read Lolita!) -- what would be the equally compelling necessity for lowering it?
posted by josh at 5:02 PM on April 20, 2003
This has very little to do with high-flying theories about teaching kids "what it means to be human" and a lot to do with simple, old-fashioned, horrible child abuse. Those of you who are claiming that age-based consent laws are stupid because age 'doesn't mean anything' are missing the point: because children mature psychologically at different rates, it's therefore necessary to have a conservative age of consent to protect those who are not yet ready or who live in vulnerable circumstances. ZachsMind, this is also why there are laws against speeding: though it is unfair to capable drivers that they are handicapped at low speeds, it is far more important that those who are incapable are restrained, in part for their own good.
And where is the necessity for lowering ages of consent anyway? I sincerely doubt that many adults have suffered significantly because we couldn't have sex between the ages of 14 and 16. Yet it is unquestionable that many children would suffer at the hands of adults if the age of consent were lowered. The necessity of having an age of consent is obvious (read Lolita!) -- what would be the equally compelling necessity for lowering it?
posted by josh at 5:02 PM on April 20, 2003
Zach - in fact, correllating sex with age does make sense. You say so yourself in pointing out when the body is physically capable of sex without too much damage.
So, how about that for a law? "A person can have sex with whomever they want as soon as they're physically capable of doing so (or doing him or her har har)."
Well, see, kids are kids. They are easily manipulated, they're naive - and I don't mean just about sex. They're naive about the devious locutions adults are fond of using on each other. When a 33 year old man tells a young girl he loves her to get her into bed, he doesn't mean it. He just wants to fuck her. By the time she figures this out, she very probably does love him and all sorts of bad things happen.
I submit to you that the non-damaging cases of jailbait sex generally weed themselves out. Neither side reports it. Furthermore, many of the damaging cases also don't get reported by either side. To that end, I think the only way to supply any protection is to have the laws available. Maybe a proviso to deal with angry parents who seek to prosecute a partner in spite of the child's informed consent. There are some evil, evil people out there though, and we need to have something available to deal with them.
On preview: what josh said. Specifically, about the fact that simple education won't magically make people emotionally and intellectually ready for sex.
posted by kavasa at 5:08 PM on April 20, 2003
So, how about that for a law? "A person can have sex with whomever they want as soon as they're physically capable of doing so (or doing him or her har har)."
Well, see, kids are kids. They are easily manipulated, they're naive - and I don't mean just about sex. They're naive about the devious locutions adults are fond of using on each other. When a 33 year old man tells a young girl he loves her to get her into bed, he doesn't mean it. He just wants to fuck her. By the time she figures this out, she very probably does love him and all sorts of bad things happen.
I submit to you that the non-damaging cases of jailbait sex generally weed themselves out. Neither side reports it. Furthermore, many of the damaging cases also don't get reported by either side. To that end, I think the only way to supply any protection is to have the laws available. Maybe a proviso to deal with angry parents who seek to prosecute a partner in spite of the child's informed consent. There are some evil, evil people out there though, and we need to have something available to deal with them.
On preview: what josh said. Specifically, about the fact that simple education won't magically make people emotionally and intellectually ready for sex.
posted by kavasa at 5:08 PM on April 20, 2003
Way too young to be liasing with people older than them for sure, and way too young to be having sex with each other too, though I can't see prosecuting children for that.
14 is old enough to get 20+ years for aggravated murder in this state.
posted by y2karl at 6:18 PM on April 20, 2003
14 is old enough to get 20+ years for aggravated murder in this state.
posted by y2karl at 6:18 PM on April 20, 2003
monju_bosatsu:
Second, the laws covering "abuse" would still stand. A consenting sex act in itself, though -- under my revised version of the law -- would still be treated like statutory rape if the parents did not also consent.
ZachsMind:
It can be argued that the legal guardian of a minor has the right to keep people from having sex with him/her until a certain age. Some of the more moralistic people out there would say the guardian has a responsibility to do that.
There's a big difference between picking up a runaway drug addict prostitute who looks 18, and picking up a 14-year old girl who lives with her parents in the suburbs. They may look exactly the same, and they may both be on a level emotionally where having sex with older men is not going to do any harm. The one lives with her parents in the suburbs, though...and I doubt they want her having sex with you.
There's nothing wrong with the law providing recourse for parents who believe they have been wronged. I just wish that was the lawmakers' intent. These laws, IMHO, are not motivated by any rational argument, but are just moralistic actions. They're like sodomy laws.
[snarky]And, for the record, I do not want to have sex with underaged girls. Just women who look like they're underaged, like Kate Moss.[/snarky]
posted by son_of_minya at 6:51 PM on April 20, 2003
First, calling the children the property of the parents sounds remarkably like slavery. That's probably something you want to shy away from, as modern law tends to recognize the dignity of any individual, child or adult. Second, your law would make any abuse, sexual or otherwise, of children by their parents legal.First, I just want honesty in the law. That's the way things are now, only nobody wants to admit it. Your point about the law recognizing the dignity of any individual, child or adult, is exactly in line with my thinking, and is (one of the reasons) why I am against consent laws in principle.
Second, the laws covering "abuse" would still stand. A consenting sex act in itself, though -- under my revised version of the law -- would still be treated like statutory rape if the parents did not also consent.
ZachsMind:
Regarding considering children "property" of their parents, why not go all the way and let the parents decide who the child has sex with, and under what circumstances?Don't a large number of parents feel that way now? A vast majority of American parents (AFAIK) feel exactly that way.
Insisting children wait many years after their bodies are ready, is like forcing square pegs into round holes. Sure you can do it, but it takes a big hammer, a lot of force, and the result is far from pretty. It would be far better to understand better why nature thinks the body is ready when it is, and do our part to make sure the mind is ready when the body is. We adults fail our children when we are too afraid to teach them the truth about what it means to be human.Again, I agree with this completely. I'm just saying that if you are going to have a law on the books, you have to be honest about it, and you have to have a rational reason for it.
It can be argued that the legal guardian of a minor has the right to keep people from having sex with him/her until a certain age. Some of the more moralistic people out there would say the guardian has a responsibility to do that.
There's a big difference between picking up a runaway drug addict prostitute who looks 18, and picking up a 14-year old girl who lives with her parents in the suburbs. They may look exactly the same, and they may both be on a level emotionally where having sex with older men is not going to do any harm. The one lives with her parents in the suburbs, though...and I doubt they want her having sex with you.
There's nothing wrong with the law providing recourse for parents who believe they have been wronged. I just wish that was the lawmakers' intent. These laws, IMHO, are not motivated by any rational argument, but are just moralistic actions. They're like sodomy laws.
[snarky]And, for the record, I do not want to have sex with underaged girls. Just women who look like they're underaged, like Kate Moss.[/snarky]
posted by son_of_minya at 6:51 PM on April 20, 2003
One might want to look at, say, the Dutch approach to sex education and see how if laws on consent are to change, they really need to be done in the context of education; now, I'm no expert on American schools, but my guess is that if evolution proves controversial for some, then talking about contraception is likely to be... tricky.
posted by riviera at 7:32 PM on April 20, 2003
posted by riviera at 7:32 PM on April 20, 2003
son_of_minya: You think parents should be able to consent to let their children be fucked?
posted by delmoi at 10:33 PM on April 20, 2003
posted by delmoi at 10:33 PM on April 20, 2003
delmoi: I think the parents' consent should be required before their children can be fucked.
posted by son_of_minya at 10:35 PM on April 20, 2003
posted by son_of_minya at 10:35 PM on April 20, 2003
As usual, another wasted effort.
This is like banning what people can see and say. What are you going to do? Install chastity belts on anyone "underage"?
It's like legislating speeding.
Let's instead focus more on laws against rape and abuse.
It's simple: To a jury, it'd be VERY hard for an older person to disprove allegations from a young girl that they were raped. If both were really keen on it, there'd be courting, etc that could be proven, and during that time, the parents would find out and would have their say in it all. Without all that, and without parent's permission, I doubt any jury in the universe would say not guilty. Problem solved without more laws clogging up our books. Yay.
posted by shepd at 11:23 PM on April 20, 2003
This is like banning what people can see and say. What are you going to do? Install chastity belts on anyone "underage"?
It's like legislating speeding.
Let's instead focus more on laws against rape and abuse.
It's simple: To a jury, it'd be VERY hard for an older person to disprove allegations from a young girl that they were raped. If both were really keen on it, there'd be courting, etc that could be proven, and during that time, the parents would find out and would have their say in it all. Without all that, and without parent's permission, I doubt any jury in the universe would say not guilty. Problem solved without more laws clogging up our books. Yay.
posted by shepd at 11:23 PM on April 20, 2003
(All that law stuff brings me up to one other point).
Anyone ever notice what happens when you fill the books with more stupid laws?
Consentual sex between "minors" in Canada might be legal, but sodomy for those under 18 isn't. (Read article 5 of the criminal code to verify).
That's what happens when you fill the books with stupid, pointless, wasted laws.
posted by shepd at 11:26 PM on April 20, 2003
Anyone ever notice what happens when you fill the books with more stupid laws?
Consentual sex between "minors" in Canada might be legal, but sodomy for those under 18 isn't. (Read article 5 of the criminal code to verify).
That's what happens when you fill the books with stupid, pointless, wasted laws.
posted by shepd at 11:26 PM on April 20, 2003
This is a tough issue obviously. Clearly there is a concern over an adult misusing authority, or stripping the meaningful consent option away from a younger person... and there needs to be a mechanism in place (the courts) to evaluate these cases.
But it seems clear to me that over a certain age (say, 14) this needs to be a case by case evaluation.
What really bothers me is the hypocrisy. A 15 year old can't consent to have sex, but they can be convicted of murder as an adult? At 15 they cannot consent to sex but some feminist groups want a 15 year old to not need parental consent to have an abortion?
Either you feel that a young person is capable of thought and decision making - or you do not. If you believe that a 15 year old cannot make informed decisions in the face of strong urges (sex) then they are not liable for violent or criminal acts... and certainly can't be trusted with abortion decisions.
Oh - and that would mean that they are valueless as witnesses in court cases as well - as they are incapable of controlling the influence adults might have ont hem. So no more children who live with mommy all the time going into court and saying "Daddy hit me" ... because Mommy might well have influence their testimony.
You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to trust them with these things when it's convenient and then ignore that trust when it is icky to you.
The absurdity is getting worse. There are several I know who are more than willing to declare that anyone who finds someone who is 17 attractive is a pedophile - yet clearly anyone with eyes can find at least one actress or celebrity who is and was hotter than hell at 17.
The politics behind it are not about the "children" of course. Pedophilia is the new "original sin" - it is the bogey man that drives the anti media, anti sex and extreme feminism movements. It is the new "drug war" and is doing a fine job as a wedge to continue the concept of thought crime we gained from the "PC" movement.
It's not what you do anymore - it's what you think.
posted by soulhuntre at 11:30 PM on April 20, 2003
But it seems clear to me that over a certain age (say, 14) this needs to be a case by case evaluation.
What really bothers me is the hypocrisy. A 15 year old can't consent to have sex, but they can be convicted of murder as an adult? At 15 they cannot consent to sex but some feminist groups want a 15 year old to not need parental consent to have an abortion?
Either you feel that a young person is capable of thought and decision making - or you do not. If you believe that a 15 year old cannot make informed decisions in the face of strong urges (sex) then they are not liable for violent or criminal acts... and certainly can't be trusted with abortion decisions.
Oh - and that would mean that they are valueless as witnesses in court cases as well - as they are incapable of controlling the influence adults might have ont hem. So no more children who live with mommy all the time going into court and saying "Daddy hit me" ... because Mommy might well have influence their testimony.
You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to trust them with these things when it's convenient and then ignore that trust when it is icky to you.
The absurdity is getting worse. There are several I know who are more than willing to declare that anyone who finds someone who is 17 attractive is a pedophile - yet clearly anyone with eyes can find at least one actress or celebrity who is and was hotter than hell at 17.
The politics behind it are not about the "children" of course. Pedophilia is the new "original sin" - it is the bogey man that drives the anti media, anti sex and extreme feminism movements. It is the new "drug war" and is doing a fine job as a wedge to continue the concept of thought crime we gained from the "PC" movement.
It's not what you do anymore - it's what you think.
posted by soulhuntre at 11:30 PM on April 20, 2003
Y'know, minya, that makes good sense in a lot of ways. There are a lot of things that require parental consent. I'll bet it's damn difficult to rent a car at age 16 without the parent signing a form. Any school trip outside the city would require a consent form. Etc.
So, yah, consent required to have sex.
Truly enlightened parents would then sit the kid down and outline the requirements: use of contraceptives, method of use, etc. And would be aware of any changes in behaviour that indicate the kid is not participating willingly or enjoying the experience.
All in all, it certainly couldn't work any worse than the way things are now.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:34 PM on April 20, 2003
So, yah, consent required to have sex.
Truly enlightened parents would then sit the kid down and outline the requirements: use of contraceptives, method of use, etc. And would be aware of any changes in behaviour that indicate the kid is not participating willingly or enjoying the experience.
All in all, it certainly couldn't work any worse than the way things are now.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:34 PM on April 20, 2003
A 15 year old can't consent to have sex, but they can be convicted of murder as an adult?
In Denmark they can, but I hear what you're saying.
posted by cx at 2:41 AM on April 21, 2003
In Denmark they can, but I hear what you're saying.
posted by cx at 2:41 AM on April 21, 2003
M14-16 to have sex with F14-16
It's legal for assault rifles to have sex with fighter jets? J.G. Ballard, here we come...
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:11 AM on April 21, 2003
It's legal for assault rifles to have sex with fighter jets? J.G. Ballard, here we come...
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:11 AM on April 21, 2003
I was one of the lucky guys who was getting some at age 15, with my 15 year old girlfriend. Were we emotionally prepared for sex at 15? No. But let me tell you that it was so great that we became addicted to each other. So we went out, on and off, for three years even though we were totally incompatible and were very immature and sometimes mean to each other and caused each other a lot of emotional turmoil and crying and we even cheated on each other (more underage sex!) and at times even humilliated each other because we were stupid underage kids.
Did I mention that it was also GREAT!?
Because, even though there was some pain, we also enjoyed, first of all, the great sex (btw nobody got pregnant, thanks, coitus interruptus!) and second of all because this intense life experience was a part of what we sometimes call "growing up".
Now at at more than twice that age, there are still days where I am emotionally unprepared for sex (few and far between, knock on wood) and there are days when my wife isn't emotionally up to it either. This is normal.
Most of the other bad stuff in that first sexual relationship (immaturity, being mean to each other, emotional turmoil, infidelity etc.) was repeated to varying degrees in many of the other adult relationships that I and just about everybody I know has had. So I guess at any age we all act crazy at times when it comes to love and sex.
Now, almost all of the arguments that I have heard for setting an arbitrary age for statutory rape laws are just that, "arbitrary":
When a 33 year old man tells a young girl he loves her to get her into bed, he doesn't mean it. He just wants to fuck her. By the time she figures this out, she very probably does love him and all sorts of bad things happen.
I know men (and at least one woman) who have spent their whole lives telling women that they love them just so they can fuck them. Mature adult women. And they believe them. Perhaps it is women who can't be trusted to have consensual sex? No, I don't think so either. In love and sex people sometimes lie and hurt each other. Those who do so are assholes, to be sure, but criminals? Again, I don't think so.
Um, okay you guys. Sure. Having sex with a 14 year old -- peachy keen. And when, exactly, was the last time you met or saw a 14-year-old boy or girl? They are *young.* Way too young to be liasing with people older than them for sure, and way too young to be having sex with each other too, though I can't see prosecuting children for that
Way too young to be having sex? My then girlfriend and I were having some of the best sex of my life at 15, so physically your statment is incorrect (because it it too sweeping). Again, emotionally, well we had good and bad days, just as ALL of us had good and bad days througout our adult lives. For me, this criteria is much too arbritary on which to base a law.
The problem I see in lowering the age is that a 14 year old is not financially prepared to raise a child, and the burden would necessarily fall on the parents. For that reason if nothing else there has to be a lower limit to consent, and it certainly has to be higher than 14.
First of all, the idea that sex is only for procreation is sad. Again, let me argue that SEX IS FUN! Teach people how to not get pregnant, then, do it early and often! Sure, once in a while plan to have a child, if you are into that, but 99.9% of the time do it just to enjoy life, damn it! You've earned it! Furthermore, if the criteria for "legal sex" is going to be whether or not a couple is financially and emotionally prepared to have a baby, we are going to criminalize even more decent people than the war on drugs. I don't think that would be wise.
Of course we do want to protect young people from sexual abuse, but we also want to protect adults from sexual abuse, don't we? So why don't we use the same laws to protect all? When we are charging somebody with sexual abuse or rape we need to prove case by case beyond a "shadow of a doubt", if there has really been a crime committed, not, in my opinion, create some absurd blanket law that leaves no room for individuals and context.
.
posted by sic at 10:26 AM on April 21, 2003
Did I mention that it was also GREAT!?
Because, even though there was some pain, we also enjoyed, first of all, the great sex (btw nobody got pregnant, thanks, coitus interruptus!) and second of all because this intense life experience was a part of what we sometimes call "growing up".
Now at at more than twice that age, there are still days where I am emotionally unprepared for sex (few and far between, knock on wood) and there are days when my wife isn't emotionally up to it either. This is normal.
Most of the other bad stuff in that first sexual relationship (immaturity, being mean to each other, emotional turmoil, infidelity etc.) was repeated to varying degrees in many of the other adult relationships that I and just about everybody I know has had. So I guess at any age we all act crazy at times when it comes to love and sex.
Now, almost all of the arguments that I have heard for setting an arbitrary age for statutory rape laws are just that, "arbitrary":
When a 33 year old man tells a young girl he loves her to get her into bed, he doesn't mean it. He just wants to fuck her. By the time she figures this out, she very probably does love him and all sorts of bad things happen.
I know men (and at least one woman) who have spent their whole lives telling women that they love them just so they can fuck them. Mature adult women. And they believe them. Perhaps it is women who can't be trusted to have consensual sex? No, I don't think so either. In love and sex people sometimes lie and hurt each other. Those who do so are assholes, to be sure, but criminals? Again, I don't think so.
Um, okay you guys. Sure. Having sex with a 14 year old -- peachy keen. And when, exactly, was the last time you met or saw a 14-year-old boy or girl? They are *young.* Way too young to be liasing with people older than them for sure, and way too young to be having sex with each other too, though I can't see prosecuting children for that
Way too young to be having sex? My then girlfriend and I were having some of the best sex of my life at 15, so physically your statment is incorrect (because it it too sweeping). Again, emotionally, well we had good and bad days, just as ALL of us had good and bad days througout our adult lives. For me, this criteria is much too arbritary on which to base a law.
The problem I see in lowering the age is that a 14 year old is not financially prepared to raise a child, and the burden would necessarily fall on the parents. For that reason if nothing else there has to be a lower limit to consent, and it certainly has to be higher than 14.
First of all, the idea that sex is only for procreation is sad. Again, let me argue that SEX IS FUN! Teach people how to not get pregnant, then, do it early and often! Sure, once in a while plan to have a child, if you are into that, but 99.9% of the time do it just to enjoy life, damn it! You've earned it! Furthermore, if the criteria for "legal sex" is going to be whether or not a couple is financially and emotionally prepared to have a baby, we are going to criminalize even more decent people than the war on drugs. I don't think that would be wise.
Of course we do want to protect young people from sexual abuse, but we also want to protect adults from sexual abuse, don't we? So why don't we use the same laws to protect all? When we are charging somebody with sexual abuse or rape we need to prove case by case beyond a "shadow of a doubt", if there has really been a crime committed, not, in my opinion, create some absurd blanket law that leaves no room for individuals and context.
.
posted by sic at 10:26 AM on April 21, 2003
Of course we do want to protect young people from sexual abuse, but we also want to protect adults from sexual abuse, don't we? So why don't we use the same laws to protect all?
Out of the fog comes a voice of reason...
U.S. participants have to remember that their leadership is duty-bound to promote abstinence.
In truth, to the religious right, there *IS* no age of consent. You are either married or not. In their view 35 year olds should not have sex outside the bonds of marriage.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:27 PM on April 21, 2003
Out of the fog comes a voice of reason...
U.S. participants have to remember that their leadership is duty-bound to promote abstinence.
In truth, to the religious right, there *IS* no age of consent. You are either married or not. In their view 35 year olds should not have sex outside the bonds of marriage.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:27 PM on April 21, 2003
The great thing about the age of concent in this country, is that it only works one way.
A male of any age at all can have sex with any female over the age of 16 legally.
So when I had sex with a 20 year old when I was 15, that was legal. But when I had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend when I was 18, that was illegal.
If there is going to be a legally enforced age of concent it should be equal at least. I feel 14 is too young, but when I was 15, I wouldn't have. Mind you, when I was 15, I had no hope in hell of getting laid.
Our law is based on the foundation that only males are capable of predatory sexual behaviour (which is really what these laws are supposed to prevent.
posted by sycophant at 5:20 AM on April 22, 2003
A male of any age at all can have sex with any female over the age of 16 legally.
So when I had sex with a 20 year old when I was 15, that was legal. But when I had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend when I was 18, that was illegal.
If there is going to be a legally enforced age of concent it should be equal at least. I feel 14 is too young, but when I was 15, I wouldn't have. Mind you, when I was 15, I had no hope in hell of getting laid.
Our law is based on the foundation that only males are capable of predatory sexual behaviour (which is really what these laws are supposed to prevent.
posted by sycophant at 5:20 AM on April 22, 2003
If there is going to be a legally enforced age of concent it should be equal at least. I feel 14 is too young, but when I was 15, I wouldn't have. Mind you, when I was 15, I had no hope in hell of getting laid.
I don't understand this part of your post. Were you having sex at 15 or not? And if you were, why do you think that 14 should be the magic number and not 15? Why not 13 or 17 or 21? I´m sure arguments could be made for any age, but they would all be arbitrary. Once again, the arbitrary nature of the "legal age for sex" theory doesn't hold water for me.
And again, since every imaginable kind of "sex predator" law already exists, why is it necessary to add more laws that that make it illegal to have consensual sex wholly based on arbitrary age limits? Because these laws have nothing to do with predatory sex offenders; their intent is to make the legality of consensual sex dependant on age (and if your observation is correct, on gender). Which, in my opinion, is wrong.
Again, if a 36 year old sexually assaults or rapes a 13 year old, or a 17 year old sexually abuses or rapes a 50 year old, laws are in place to punish them, WHATEVER the age configuration. Statutory rape laws are inherently flawed because they ONLY consider age, not intent or context.
.
posted by sic at 6:24 AM on April 22, 2003
I don't understand this part of your post. Were you having sex at 15 or not? And if you were, why do you think that 14 should be the magic number and not 15? Why not 13 or 17 or 21? I´m sure arguments could be made for any age, but they would all be arbitrary. Once again, the arbitrary nature of the "legal age for sex" theory doesn't hold water for me.
And again, since every imaginable kind of "sex predator" law already exists, why is it necessary to add more laws that that make it illegal to have consensual sex wholly based on arbitrary age limits? Because these laws have nothing to do with predatory sex offenders; their intent is to make the legality of consensual sex dependant on age (and if your observation is correct, on gender). Which, in my opinion, is wrong.
Again, if a 36 year old sexually assaults or rapes a 13 year old, or a 17 year old sexually abuses or rapes a 50 year old, laws are in place to punish them, WHATEVER the age configuration. Statutory rape laws are inherently flawed because they ONLY consider age, not intent or context.
.
posted by sic at 6:24 AM on April 22, 2003
The view that children are property is pretty sick, imho. You're placing a lot of weight on parents, because they're parents. Being a parent does not necessarily mean you know what's best for your kid.
I don't know where these statistics are coming from, but I for one am sure that some males reach puberty before the age of 13.
I feel it is this type of attitude that breeds the kind of thinking that considers consensual sex at 13 "crazy".
What does it mean to be responsible, or mature? Surely there exist young people who are more responsible/mature than their elders.
Where is the magical line drawn in the sand that when a teenager crosses he/she becomes responsible? There isn't one, no use looking. Proposed laws like this are silly.
posted by cohappy at 9:54 PM on April 24, 2003
I don't know where these statistics are coming from, but I for one am sure that some males reach puberty before the age of 13.
I feel it is this type of attitude that breeds the kind of thinking that considers consensual sex at 13 "crazy".
What does it mean to be responsible, or mature? Surely there exist young people who are more responsible/mature than their elders.
Where is the magical line drawn in the sand that when a teenager crosses he/she becomes responsible? There isn't one, no use looking. Proposed laws like this are silly.
posted by cohappy at 9:54 PM on April 24, 2003
« Older Celebrate Pinkster, June 8 | Not Exactly Darwin's Radio: Philosophy Radio and... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by five fresh fish at 2:13 PM on April 20, 2003