Poll: What is the 'proper' age of consent?

[Animavore]

I think the age limit is fine as it is. Although I don't think it should be illegal for 2 'under-age' teenagers to have sex.
Dammit. A contradiction.

Don't know what I think now.

Which age-limit? It varies all over the map.

Its 16 here.

16 will get you 20 here.

I heard that. I also hear they call it statutory rape just to make the crime sound worse than it is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I heard that. I also hear they call it statutory rape just to make the crime sound worse than it is.

Statutory rape is rape according to the statutes of the area. The "victim" is considered too young to give consent, even if they initiate the matter or consent to it in actuality. Each area with "age-of-consent" has chosen an age and decided people below that line are universally unable to make decisions for themselves.

[Animavore]

I heard that. I also hear they call it statutory rape just to make the crime sound worse than it is.

Statutory rape is rape according to the statutes of the area. The "victim" is considered too young to give consent, even if they initiate the matter or consent to it in actuality. Each area with "age-of-consent" has chosen an age and decided people below that line are universally unable to make decisions for themselves.

Still. I think its a little outrageous and completely partisan. You'd be lucky to get a couple of months in this country, if anything, if you had consentual sex with an under-age girl.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I heard that. I also hear they call it statutory rape just to make the crime sound worse than it is.

Statutory rape is rape according to the statutes of the area. The "victim" is considered too young to give consent, even if they initiate the matter or consent to it in actuality. Each area with "age-of-consent" has chosen an age and decided people below that line are universally unable to make decisions for themselves.

Still. I think its a little outrageous and completely partisan. You'd be lucky to get a couple of months in this country, if anything, if you had consentual sex with an under-age girl.

That's the problem with church-based politicians, they do what they're told by the elders, even if it doesn't make sense in a real world.

[Animavore]

I heard that. I also hear they call it statutory rape just to make the crime sound worse than it is.

Statutory rape is rape according to the statutes of the area. The "victim" is considered too young to give consent, even if they initiate the matter or consent to it in actuality. Each area with "age-of-consent" has chosen an age and decided people below that line are universally unable to make decisions for themselves.

Still. I think its a little outrageous and completely partisan. You'd be lucky to get a couple of months in this country, if anything, if you had consentual sex with an under-age girl.

That's the problem with church-based politicians, they do what they're told by the elders, even if it doesn't make sense in a real world.

20 years is a load of bollox and by calling the crime rape when it clearly isn't only makes it seem way worse.
What if the guy didn't know she was under 18? What if the girl lied about her age? Is he still fucked? And is a woman as fucked if its the other way around?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

20 years is a load of bollox and by calling the crime rape when it clearly isn't only makes it seem way worse.
What if the guy didn't know she was under 18? What if the girl lied about her age? Is he still fucked? And is a woman as fucked if its the other way around?

He has to prove his innocence in that case. If a woman does it, well it's only recently that objections were raised to that IIRC. You have seen the South Park where the pre-schooler is having an affair with his teacher? When the brother reports it to the cops they realize the teach is a hottie and their response is simply, "Swwwweet!"

[Animavore]

20 years is a load of bollox and by calling the crime rape when it clearly isn't only makes it seem way worse.
What if the guy didn't know she was under 18? What if the girl lied about her age? Is he still fucked? And is a woman as fucked if its the other way around?

He has to prove his innocence in that case. If a woman does it, well it's only recently that objections were raised to that IIRC. You have seen the South Park where the pre-schooler is having an affair with his teacher? When the brother reports it to the cops they realize the teach is a hottie and their response is simply, "Swwwweet!"

I did have that in mind.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

20 years is a load of bollox and by calling the crime rape when it clearly isn't only makes it seem way worse.
What if the guy didn't know she was under 18? What if the girl lied about her age? Is he still fucked? And is a woman as fucked if its the other way around?

He has to prove his innocence in that case. If a woman does it, well it's only recently that objections were raised to that IIRC. You have seen the South Park where the pre-schooler is having an affair with his teacher? When the brother reports it to the cops they realize the teach is a hottie and their response is simply, "Swwwweet!"

I did have that in mind.

The point they were subtly making was that the laws are selectively applied based on the prejudices of the officials involved. As is always the case, even in the most "heinous" of crimes.

[leo-rcc]

As soon as they can lift a case of beer they are old enough.

[FBM]

Shit, I was hoping y'all would have this all neatly sorted out by the time I woke up.

[floppit]

I'm not sure a universal age is possible, although for protection I think a decided age is needed (imperfect but pragmatic).

Interestingly 16 (in the UK) used to seem right to me because it 'used' to be the age where other big life choices began. At 16 a person could leave or choose to stay at school, could join the army, could marry with parental consent, could smoke and work full time. In a larger context they were beginning to leave the protective control of guardians and I think that process in itself does have a maturing effect on people - ok some start from a lower base and barely seem to move at all, but by and large there's a difference in a person who has some governance over their own life and has at least begun to live with some of their own big errors.

Physically teen pregnancies are higher risk but then so are pregnancies in older people and I don't think anyone would accept an age cap in that direction! As for the immediate risks of the act of intercourse (yeah - I know sex is more than that but hell, to go act by act would take a lifetime!), that's one of many reasons for needing an age of consent and should dictate a point at which discussion starts, the youngest plausible AoC but not perhaps the best.

It would be interesting to see what teens think, I bet it would be more conservative than many might expect.

[floppit]

Put another way, levels of individual autonomy and vulnerability are connected in law for protection, see the classification of 'vulnerable adults' in UK law. The power balance between two people comes into the equation because where consensual sex is involved (rape being illegal at any age), it is the power difference that creates vulnerability to abuse.

In the UK the law seems quite fluid at the moment, teens have less autonomy in some respects (no longer allowed to leave education at 15), and more in others like medical procedures - see the Gillick test.

The law is rarely used, in fact I don't know of a single case, where the power balance between a consenting couple seems reasonable, ie 2 teens one 13 one 17, and more quickly used where although the age difference isn't huge (a teacher in early 20's and a 15 year old) but the power balance is heavily weighted. I voted 17 because I know a couple of teens are neither stopped nor frightened of it not being legal yet and have not seen it used punitively in those cases - if it was I'd have stuck with 16 or dropped to maybe 14. I used 17 because I don't think 16 yr olds have enough legitimate autonomy in their lives to not leave them vulnerable. I say legitimate because I don't count tantrums and refusing to come home the same as being able to have a job and a flat.

[Rum]

I think to some extent it should depend on the age of the older partner. A man of my age with a 15 year od would rightly be seen as exploitation and abusive. Two kids of 15 and 16 is a different kettle of fish altogether.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think to some extent it should depend on the age of the older partner. A man of my age with a 15 year od would rightly be seen as exploitation and abusive. Two kids of 15 and 16 is a different kettle of fish altogether.

It also makes a huge difference if the younger partner is physically mature or not. Sex with a pre-pubescent is just as wrong whether the perpetrator is 12 or 52. In such cases, the younger partner is liable to be physically damaged by the act. Also, in such cases, there is almost certainly coercion or force used by the older party. In general, pre-pubescents do not have sexual desires (although sexual curiosity is normal) and would never instigate such an act (unless of course, it is not the first such encounter and they have learnt that behaviour through earlier abuse.)

Sex with a physically mature person that happens to fall on the wrong side of the age divide is a far lesser offence. Sexually mature people of both sexes and all sexual orientations routinely instigate sexual activity. This is due to their (perfectly natural) sexual desires. It is not uncommon for under-age yet mature people to lie about their age in order to encourage people to have sex with them. Yes, it is easy to say that it is the responsibility of the older party to make certain that they are over the age of consent but sex has a habit of clouding our judgment.

To equate a paedophile that rapes children with someone that pulls a 15 year old that claims to be 18 at a nightclub, is wrong. To brand the latter as a sex-offender and a child molester is wrong. By all means fine that person, as they have broken the law, but to place them on the sex-offenders register, ban them from ever working with children and make them a social pariah is disproportionate to the crime. The first guy, the real paedophile, should be treated as seriously mentally ill and a danger to others and should be closely watched and incarcerated until deemed safe - if ever.

[lsdetroit]

i lost my v-card at 14. so thats what i put. i probably would have consented to sex even earlier .