Proper age of consent
Scroll to see replies
You voted no. Stop lying.
Dionysus
Absolutely NO WAY. 12 is a young child, not a woman.
is a 16 year old a woman? I don't think so, don't think that means that it should be illegal for a 16 yr old to have sex though. I think it so depends on the person and the relationship, ie whether a fling or a relationship that's been going for a year or so. Does a lower age automatically give the impression that everyone at that age should be mentally ready and sexually active, I really don't know. Some places with a lower age, of 14, have a lower teenage pregnancy rate, don't really know if that means that because it is so early, people will assume they're not ready and actually wait until they are mentally prepared. The problem is stopping people being taken advantage of. I take back all I've said, I don't think under 16 is ready, and 12 is certainly not. But someone of any age can be taken advantage of. Should the age be lower if the age of the partner is lower ...
This was written last night. I don't know what's been written since, but I'll post it anyway.
Hi everyone. 
Let me make the debate a bit more interesting.
The age of consent should be lowered to zero, and child pornography should be legalised.
There are a number of good reasons for this:
- laws against these things waste much police time and money when there are far more serious crimes that need fighting.
- such laws are almost impossible to enforce where consent is given without giving the government additional tyrannical powers.
- making adult-child sex where consent is given illegal makes it more likely that adult-child sex will occur where consent is not given.
However, more important than any of these reasons is that children have the same rights as anyone else, and nobody is able to justify why that shouldn't be so. Laws against children's rights are tyrannical in themselves.
In most cases, I think that it's a bad idea for 12 year olds to get married, or to have sex. But it's not unrealistic to assume that there may be occasional exceptions to that rule. And even if there were no exceptions (which is not true), government has no right to prevent people from harming themselves, assuming that they have some idea of what they're doing.
Children should have the same rights as adults, and that includes the right to have sex and get married. It also includes the right to get a job, the right to own property, and the right to do everything else that adults can do.
There are two main objections to this view.
(1) We must "protect" children as they're incapable of deciding on these things for themselves.
(2) Allowing children to do whatever they want tramples on the rights of the parents.
In response to (1), I agree that children are, on average, less capable of rational judgement than adults are.
However, I reject the conclusion that, because of this, children do not have equal rights.
In fact, I'm sure that most posters here, who have insisted that children do not have the same rights as adults because they are less capable of rational judgement (which is true -- on average) would be appalled if someone was to say that Black people should not have the same rights as White people because they have a genetic propensity towards violence (which they do -- on average), or that women should not have the same rights as men because they have smaller brains (which they do -- on average).
The point is that the state does not have the rights to take our rights away because of "averages". And yet both of the arguments I have given here were used against ending slavery and state-enforced racial discrimination and against giving women the same rights as men.
The point is that all people should be considered free and equal citizens. People accept this when it comes to ethnic minorities, and for women, but not for children. Why not?
I believe in freedom for children for the same reasons that I believe in freedom for adults. It has beneficial consequences, and is good for its own sake anyway. Individuals-- not governments -- are more likely to know what is best for themselves.
Also important is the fact that if you deny freedom to children, they won't expect it when they become adults, which is why we have so many Sheeple in this country today.
It would of course remain wrong to obtain access to goods or services, or to a 12 year old girl's body, by deception. Therefore, anyone wanting to have sex with a 12 year old girl would have to make sure that the girl knew about sex and its consequences. The key point here is that this applies to adults as much as it does to children -- no special extra protection is required for children. (For example, it's also wrong to agree a contract with an adult person of exceptionally low intelligence who has no idea what they are signing.)
In response to (2): the child may have agreed to part of a contract with another individual which prohibits them from doing whatever they want. For example, if parents are offering their children free board and lodging, they are entitled to attack any conditions to these gifts that they want -- and this includes preventing them from getting married and having sex. But if the children wish to run away from their parents, and leave that contract, the state has no right to stop them.
--
I am an atheist BTW. Not that I see why it makes much difference to this issue, except that I judge things according to reality, and not to what I think my imaginary God might like, and that I am prepared to defend my position with rational debate rather than Bible quotations.
Finally, as should be needless to say, I have no sexual interest in 12 year old girls. If there is to be debate on this issue, let's keep it serious.
Let me make the debate a bit more interesting. The age of consent should be lowered to zero, and child pornography should be legalised.
There are a number of good reasons for this:
- laws against these things waste much police time and money when there are far more serious crimes that need fighting.
- such laws are almost impossible to enforce where consent is given without giving the government additional tyrannical powers.
- making adult-child sex where consent is given illegal makes it more likely that adult-child sex will occur where consent is not given.
However, more important than any of these reasons is that children have the same rights as anyone else, and nobody is able to justify why that shouldn't be so. Laws against children's rights are tyrannical in themselves.
In most cases, I think that it's a bad idea for 12 year olds to get married, or to have sex. But it's not unrealistic to assume that there may be occasional exceptions to that rule. And even if there were no exceptions (which is not true), government has no right to prevent people from harming themselves, assuming that they have some idea of what they're doing.
Children should have the same rights as adults, and that includes the right to have sex and get married. It also includes the right to get a job, the right to own property, and the right to do everything else that adults can do.
There are two main objections to this view.
(1) We must "protect" children as they're incapable of deciding on these things for themselves.
(2) Allowing children to do whatever they want tramples on the rights of the parents.
In response to (1), I agree that children are, on average, less capable of rational judgement than adults are.
However, I reject the conclusion that, because of this, children do not have equal rights.
In fact, I'm sure that most posters here, who have insisted that children do not have the same rights as adults because they are less capable of rational judgement (which is true -- on average) would be appalled if someone was to say that Black people should not have the same rights as White people because they have a genetic propensity towards violence (which they do -- on average), or that women should not have the same rights as men because they have smaller brains (which they do -- on average).
The point is that the state does not have the rights to take our rights away because of "averages". And yet both of the arguments I have given here were used against ending slavery and state-enforced racial discrimination and against giving women the same rights as men.
The point is that all people should be considered free and equal citizens. People accept this when it comes to ethnic minorities, and for women, but not for children. Why not?
I believe in freedom for children for the same reasons that I believe in freedom for adults. It has beneficial consequences, and is good for its own sake anyway. Individuals-- not governments -- are more likely to know what is best for themselves.
Also important is the fact that if you deny freedom to children, they won't expect it when they become adults, which is why we have so many Sheeple in this country today.
It would of course remain wrong to obtain access to goods or services, or to a 12 year old girl's body, by deception. Therefore, anyone wanting to have sex with a 12 year old girl would have to make sure that the girl knew about sex and its consequences. The key point here is that this applies to adults as much as it does to children -- no special extra protection is required for children. (For example, it's also wrong to agree a contract with an adult person of exceptionally low intelligence who has no idea what they are signing.)
In response to (2): the child may have agreed to part of a contract with another individual which prohibits them from doing whatever they want. For example, if parents are offering their children free board and lodging, they are entitled to attack any conditions to these gifts that they want -- and this includes preventing them from getting married and having sex. But if the children wish to run away from their parents, and leave that contract, the state has no right to stop them.
--
I am an atheist BTW. Not that I see why it makes much difference to this issue, except that I judge things according to reality, and not to what I think my imaginary God might like, and that I am prepared to defend my position with rational debate rather than Bible quotations.
Finally, as should be needless to say, I have no sexual interest in 12 year old girls. If there is to be debate on this issue, let's keep it serious.
Please tell me you didn't just write that.....
Captain Crash
Please tell me you didn't just write that.....
I did.
What's wrong with it?
I think I make a good case. I'm quite pleased with it.
Are you going to attempt to explain why I'm wrong, if you believe that to be the case, or is my reasoning simply too logical for you to argue against coherently?
I emphasise: my position is not that 12 year old girls should be having sex, but rather that politicians have no right to impose their preferences on everyone else.
I should also remind posters here that adult-child sex is only acceptable under certain conditions, which I have already explained. Allowing children complete freedom will not lead to their misery and suffering, but, in most cases, happiness and liberty.
Bismarck
Lovely solution. The way to stop some children getting abused is to abuse all children. Makes perfect sense.
I am not saying that we should "abuse all children"; only that all children have a right to make decisions on what they choose to do, just as adults are entitled to do so.
How do you define the word "abuse"? I would define abuse as forcing someone to do something they don't want to do.
My point, therefore, is that if adult-child sex was legal, then paedophiles are more likely to go looking for a 12 year old who is willing to have sex with them for a lot of money, rather than looking for a 12 year old to rape. Similarly, child pornographers will look for a child who is willing to act in child porn for a lot of money, rather than looking for a child to abduct for this purpose. Therefore, abuse, as I have defined it (forcing someone to do something they don't want to do), goes down.
You might think that those 12 year olds who will have sex with middle aged paedophiles are making a bad decision. I would concur. However, protecting the rights of idiots, even 12 year old idiots, is simply not a legitimate function of government.
Finally, I said earlier that if you restrict the freedom of children, they will not desire freedom in adulthood. Judging by the number of statist sheeple I have encountered so far on TSR, I think there's a very strong case to be made for that position.
Bismarck
So you think a 12-year-old understands the consequences of life-changing decisions? Since you said there should be no age of consent at all, are you also saying that a 5-year-old also understands the consequences of getting married and having sex? Because you know, I'm sure a 40-year-old won't find it very hard to convince a 5-year-old to play with his private parts.
No, I'm not.
Having sex with a child, of any age, who doesn't understand that sex may be painful, that it may lead to pregnancy, etc, would remain illegal. Similarly, having sex with a mentally ill or retarded adult who doesn't understand this would also be illegal. The same laws should apply to both adults and children.
Once again, I am repeating what I've already said, because you have not read my post properly. Try again:
It would of course remain wrong to obtain access to goods or services, or to a 12 year old girl's body, by deception. Therefore, anyone wanting to have sex with a 12 year old girl would have to make sure that the girl knew about sex and its consequences. The key point here is that this applies to adults as much as it does to children -- no special extra protection is required for children. (For example, it's also wrong to agree a contract with an adult person of exceptionally low intelligence who has no idea what they are signing.)
In response to (2): the child may have agreed to part of a contract with another individual which prohibits them from doing whatever they want. For example, if parents are offering their children free board and lodging, they are entitled to attack any conditions to these gifts that they want -- and this includes preventing them from getting married and having sex. But if the children wish to run away from their parents, and leave that contract, the state has no right to stop them.
In response to (2): the child may have agreed to part of a contract with another individual which prohibits them from doing whatever they want. For example, if parents are offering their children free board and lodging, they are entitled to attack any conditions to these gifts that they want -- and this includes preventing them from getting married and having sex. But if the children wish to run away from their parents, and leave that contract, the state has no right to stop them.
Simon Rigelsford
I did.
What's wrong with it?
I think I make a good case. I'm quite pleased with it.
Are you going to attempt to explain why I'm wrong, if you believe that to be the case, or is my reasoning simply too logical for you to argue against coherently?
I emphasise: my position is not that 12 year old girls should be having sex, but rather that politicians have no right to impose their preferences on everyone else.
I should also remind posters here that adult-child sex is only acceptable under certain conditions, which I have already explained. Allowing children complete freedom will not lead to their misery and suffering, but, in most cases, happiness and liberty.
What's wrong with it?
I think I make a good case. I'm quite pleased with it.
Are you going to attempt to explain why I'm wrong, if you believe that to be the case, or is my reasoning simply too logical for you to argue against coherently?
I emphasise: my position is not that 12 year old girls should be having sex, but rather that politicians have no right to impose their preferences on everyone else.
I should also remind posters here that adult-child sex is only acceptable under certain conditions, which I have already explained. Allowing children complete freedom will not lead to their misery and suffering, but, in most cases, happiness and liberty.
Where to start?
Your basic premise that children should have equal rights is flawed from the start. We don't allow children to drive, smoke, drink alcohol, vote etc. These are all rights too. Unless you are saying children should have these too?
You also refer to children being able to give consent. Biology and psychology are against you here. Developmental psychology dictates that children can fully be aware at 8 AT THE EARLIEST, usually only coming in childhood. Biologically, sex before puberty can only cause harm - no person fully aware and informed of this would ever consent short of being machoistic. Finally the medical principle of consent is well established and it is accepted that children cannot make fully rational and informed decisions agian until early teens.
Aside from the flawed premises, there are a number of practical issues. Like Bis said how do prove that a child is fully informed? Also children are the most impressionable a person can be. They can be forced into sex and there is no way of proving it due to the child reciting what the adult has told them as a defence. The problems with child abuse - sexual and otherwise - is a testement to this.
I could go on.
Essentially I just don't see a single justifiable point in your reasoning. I didn't think this needed pointing out...
Bismarck
Do tell how one can prove that the 12-year-old they're having sex with understands the consequences of sex.
When I say "understands the consequences", I'm talking about the physical consequences (such as the possibility of pregnancy and pain) rather than the social consequences (such as social disapproval and ostracism). Unless these are understood, then the sex cannot be considered consensual. However, I see no reason why a 12 year old is unable of understanding the biological facts of sex. And she is, of course, entitled to say "stop" at any time, if she decides that she doesn't like it.
Similarly, in the case of marriage, the child would have to understand that s/he is signing into a contract which will be enforced by the courts, not just a meaningless piece of paper. (As you may gather, I am opposed to no fault divorce, but that's another issue entirely).
Under our traditional Anglo-Saxon legal system, if a child wanted to take a paedophile to court over the fact that the sex between them was not fully consensual, the onus would be on her to prove that this was so; it would not be up to the paedophile to prove his innocence. This is the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
In the case of 5 year old girls, I expect that most juries would convict, since it is obvious that five year olds cannot give informed consent, so all that they would need to prove is that sexual activity occurred. In the case of older children who have just reached puberty, however, some can and some can't. So it's likely that some 12 year olds, who didn't really understand these consequences but are unable to prove this, will not win their case. Too bad for them.
This post is not really a full answer, but I make no apologies for that. To answer properly, it would be required to go beyond the topic of discussion, and instead provide justification for the Anglo-Saxon legal system. However, the fact that there are many other examples of similar problems which do not involve children mean that this point does not add anything to your argument.
Captain Crash
Where to start?
Your basic premise that children should have equal rights is flawed from the start. We don't allow children to drive, smoke, drink alcohol, vote etc. These are all rights too. Unless you are saying children should have these too?
Your basic premise that children should have equal rights is flawed from the start. We don't allow children to drive, smoke, drink alcohol, vote etc. These are all rights too. Unless you are saying children should have these too?
Problems such as these can be settled by recognising private property, and privatising all public property*. If I owned a road, I certainly wouldn't allow 12 year olds to drive on it; and since it's my property, I'm justified in banning them from driving on my road. But the government has no right to specifically legislate against these things.
(*My exception here is the courts; I can't see how they would work in an anarcho-capitalist society. Regardless, this point is not relevant to the debate)
You also refer to children being able to give consent. Biology and psychology are against you here. Developmental psychology dictates that children can fully be aware at 8 AT THE EARLIEST, usually only coming in childhood.
What I am saying is that the issue should not be the age of the person, but whether they are willing to give consent.
It is true that more young children are unable to give informed consent than are adults. I accept this as a fact, and have not indicated otherwise. However, it does not justify preventing children who are able to give consent from having sex or getting married.
The example I gave in an earlier post is that mental ******* are also likely to be less likely to be able to give consent. Do we specifically ban mental ******* from having sex? No, we simply prohibit non-consensual sex. Problem solved.
[Edit: what is wrong with the word "ret@rds"? It is a proper word, which is defined as those with an IQ of below 70. Or should we ban the word idiot as well, as this is defined as a person with an IQ of below 20, and is therefore presumably even worse? Pathetic!]
Essentially I just don't see a single justifiable point in your reasoning. I didn't think this needed pointing out...
Well, I've seen nothing in yours either.
Bismarck
You didn't answer my question. How does one prove that a 12-year-old understands the consequences of sex and/or marriage.
Yes I did. (The same way that you prove a 16 year old understands the consequences of sex and marriage. The onus is on the jury to prove that this was NOT the case.)
I am an atheist BTW. Not that I see why it makes much difference to this issue, except that I judge things according to reality, and not to what I think my imaginary God might like, and that I am prepared to defend my position with rational debate rather than Bible quotations.
I'd need to see some proof to back up that assertion.
Original post by Hilariously
Yeah, only backwards religions think this is okay.
Bloody hell. Haven't you got anything better to be doing than bumping threads from years ago?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 14 Year old's consenting to 13 year old's in Germany and it being illegal.
- 18 year old having sex with a 56 year old?
- What can I do once I am 16?
- 2 year age gap
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Do I need to have a bf before I have sex ?
- Why does people on reddit always criticizes a 21-23 year old dating someone 18/19?
- LNAT Practice
- can an 18 year old kiss a 16 yr old
- Royal Holloway applicant hub
- Can a student date an older man?
- Is it weird that I have a crush on any boy any age
- Less painful losing your virginity as an older female?
- Was I abused as I child or am I looking into it to deeply?
- Can i get a belly piercing at 16yo without a parent being present/consenting?
- is my boyfriend over his ex and does he even love me?
- age difference?
- Relationships
- holidays under 18
- Sharing a photo
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
The Official Funding questions/moans/possible joy ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1156
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 minute ago
Will an IVA cause my Civil Service pre employment check to fail?Last reply 2 minutes ago
What does a timetable look like for a psychology student at the UOL?Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 5 minutes ago
Official: Brighton and Sussex (BSMS) A100 2023 Entry Applicants and Offer HoldersLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
can't go to ucl bc intl fees but got home fees for others :(Last reply 10 minutes ago
Edexcel A-level French Paper 3, IRP/Speaking (9FR0 03) - 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities!Last reply 11 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewTrending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 7 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 7 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
