The ethics of shagging.

[Rum]

16 is the age of consent here in the UK - and you are probably right about two 15 year olds - at least in many cases.

[Seth]

What constitutes consent? And why can't a 12-year-old consent? ( they can in Mexico ).

I personally don't like 12. I'm not sure about 16 though. Maybe 15? But 18 is just ridiculous.

And when can you ASSUME that consent is given? Or do you have to hear the words "I consent", before you fuck someone? If you are both pissed, how pissed do you have to be, before you are raping each other?
And if the person you are shagging falls asleep, does it become rape? And when?

And does no always mean no? If it does, I've both raped a woman, and been raped by a woman.
But I know perfectly well that I haven't done either. So no can't always mean no, can it?

Considering this is in General Serious Discussion & Philosophy I was quite surprised to see these replies here.

Consent is when that person is willing to have sex with you. A 12 year old can't consent because a 12 year old is a child.
In the Western world you are a child until you are 18. Therefore you cannot, as an adult, have sex with anyone under the age of 18.

How does being a "child" have anything to do with consenting to sex? Why can a "child" not consent to mutually pleasurable sexual activity when the same "child" can wank to their heart's content without opprobrium? The legal presumption that a "child" cannot form knowing consent is just so much ideologically prudish nonsense. That may be true of SOME children, but not others. It depends entirely on the specific child.

And what is a "child" anyway? Just because the "western world" defines anyone under 18 as a "child" doesn't mean it's true. In most cases it's absolutely NOT true. Biologically speaking a "child" is a human person whose sexual organs have not matured enough to productively participate in procreation. Therefore, any boy-child who is capable of ejaculating sperm, and any girl-child who has achieved menses is no longer a "child" but is an "adult" by any scientific measure. Which means by about 12 years old, boys and girls are both not biological "children", which probably explains why some fifty percent of them are sexually active at that age.

If the woman/man you are having sex with reciprocates your affection you can assume that consent is given UNLESS you are deceiving that person in some way (lying about things like age etc.)

Not on some Ivy League college campuses.

I think you would have to be pretty pissed and equally pissed for it to be possible to rape each other. By that time you would probably not be capable of having sex anyway.

The real question is whether or not it's possible to consent when drunk, and if so, when does that consent become inoperative?

Yes, if the person you are having sex with falls asleep you stop having sex, otherwise it is rape.

Why? If they consented to sex before they fell asleep why should the consent end when they fall asleep?

No always means no unless other things have been discussed forehand (roleplay).

No, no does not always mean no, sometimes it means "keep trying till I say yes."

I hope this clears this matter up for you and you won't rape anybody

If you don't want to get "raped" then avoid getting drunk, keep your knickers on, and avoid intimate physical contact with others unless and until you are prepared to get screwed.

[Seth]

It isn't a case of subtle shades of consent. Quite rightly the law draws a line with a nod to the context and to the degree of coercion and/or exploitation. Thus a 35 year old guy having sex with a 15 year old girl will land him quite rightly in the poo, whereas a 15 year old male doing the same will either be ignored or at worst have his wrist slapped (metaphorically). The degree or otherwise of compliance of the girl is quite rightly irrelevant, even if she was an enthusiastic participant. That puts the responsibility and the guilt in the lap of the adult male.

Why is it "rightly irrelevant?" Because those who make such claims are prudes?

[JimC]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification. Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent. The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier. This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

While I have nothing against a precocious teenager exploring their sexual limits, one has to remember that they haven't heard all the bullshit lines before and often take them at face-value! A skilled Lothario, such as Jim, can talk a 14 year old out of her knickers when she only came up to his desk to ask for a pencil sharpener. With such great age, experience and prowess, comes great responsibility! Leave the littl'uns to get diddled by their peers. Their mothers are far better at it in any case!

[Rum]

It isn't a case of subtle shades of consent. Quite rightly the law draws a line with a nod to the context and to the degree of coercion and/or exploitation. Thus a 35 year old guy having sex with a 15 year old girl will land him quite rightly in the poo, whereas a 15 year old male doing the same will either be ignored or at worst have his wrist slapped (metaphorically). The degree or otherwise of compliance of the girl is quite rightly irrelevant, even if she was an enthusiastic participant. That puts the responsibility and the guilt in the lap of the adult male.

Why is it "rightly irrelevant?" Because those who make such claims are prudes?

It is nothing to do with prudery. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to sexuality. It is about power and exploitation. I've seen what sexual abuse can do having worked in that field as a social worker for 14 years early on in my career. For once perhaps consider the welfare of those you are discussing rather than your libertarian self centred and self indulgent values.

[Seth]

It isn't a case of subtle shades of consent. Quite rightly the law draws a line with a nod to the context and to the degree of coercion and/or exploitation. Thus a 35 year old guy having sex with a 15 year old girl will land him quite rightly in the poo, whereas a 15 year old male doing the same will either be ignored or at worst have his wrist slapped (metaphorically). The degree or otherwise of compliance of the girl is quite rightly irrelevant, even if she was an enthusiastic participant. That puts the responsibility and the guilt in the lap of the adult male.

Why is it "rightly irrelevant?" Because those who make such claims are prudes?

It is nothing to do with prudery. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to sexuality. It is about power and exploitation. I've seen what sexual abuse can do having worked in that field as a social worker for 14 years early on in my career. For once perhaps consider the welfare of those you are discussing rather than your libertarian self centred and self indulgent values.

Right, I agree that "sex abuse" is an awful thing, but this does not mean that all sexual activity between adults and sexually-mature young people is "sex abuse." That's the point.

It's only "sex abuse" in some cases because the law defines it as sex abuse (malum prohibitum) when the actual acts with the actual individuals involved may not be malum in se actions that are neither abusive nor harmful to either party.

And that's always the question in any individual case, as far as I'm concerned; did any harm actually occur or is the harm assumed merely because of the difference in ages of the participants.

There was a case recently where a young lady committed suicide after the older man she'd been in relationship with for some time was arrested because the girl told a friend what she was doing and the friend reported it. I have always wondered why the girl killed herself, and the press have studiously ignored the question of whether she killed herself because she was "sexually abused" or whether she killed herself because her lover got arrested and will spend the rest of his life in prison because she let it slip that they were having a love affair. Was it "harm" from the sex that killed her, or was it harm from the prudish and uncaring attitudes of society and the law that killed her by destroying both her and her lover's lives?

So don't take my skepticism as being an endorsement of sexual abuse, it's not. My comments are meant to point out the fact that what many people believe to be something that's inherently and inescapably harmful to the younger person may very well be anything but harmful, may be at the instigation and with the full consent of the younger person, and applying malum prohibitum laws to such relationships may do far, far more harm to both parties than any consensual sexual intimate relationship ever would.

[Seth]

Not because of prudery, but mainly because adults can put undue pressure on children, and manipulate their behaviour for their own gratification.

The key word there is "can", which is not synonymous with "inevitably and inescapably do". And what about the young people who manipulate both their and their partner's behavior for THEIR own gratification?

Below the age of 15/16, adolescents are too easily dominated by an adult personality (i.e. someone significantly older) for it to be a true case of mutual consent.

Fuzzy thinking. You cannot say that as a truism because it's simply not true. It is perfectly possible for a sexually-mature adolescent (not child) to not be "dominated" by an adult and in fact it's more than slightly possible that the adolescent is the one doing the dominating and manipulating and it's the older person who is being "sexually abused." I can think of circumstances where this would be quite obvious, such as where a horny adolescent comes on to an attractive older person, becomes angry at being rejected and threatens to cry rape if the adult does NOT agree to gratify the sexual and emotional desires of the adolescent. Hell, they make Hollywood movies about that very thing. Viz: "The Crush" with Alicia Silverstone.

The existence of particular cases from time to time where there is enthusiastic participation and no lasting psychological harm doesn't change the fact that the risk of serious harm justifies a legal barrier.

Sorry, but why is a "legal barrier" appropriate, as opposed to a fact-based inquiry into the actual circumstances of a particular case? I think it's moralistic prudery and ideological distaste and not any sort of genuine concern about protecting adolescents from their own hormones that's involved.

This is not simply my opinion, but the legal reality in most jurisdictions, supported by a clear majority of people.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Also indirect appeal to the consequences of a belief fallacy.

[Sælir]

How does being a "child" have anything to do with consenting to sex? Why can a "child" not consent to mutually pleasurable sexual activity when the same "child" can wank to their heart's content without opprobrium? The legal presumption that a "child" cannot form knowing consent is just so much ideologically prudish nonsense. That may be true of SOME children, but not others. It depends entirely on the specific child.

I just don't think children should have sex. They don't have the maturity to understand what it can possibly result in. And do you care whether that certain child is 14 or if it is 7? Why would you care? It is also much easier to convince a child to do things it does not want to do. But...

And what is a "child" anyway? Just because the "western world" defines anyone under 18 as a "child" doesn't mean it's true. In most cases it's absolutely NOT true. Biologically speaking a "child" is a human person whose sexual organs have not matured enough to productively participate in procreation. Therefore, any boy-child who is capable of ejaculating sperm, and any girl-child who has achieved menses is no longer a "child" but is an "adult" by any scientific measure. Which means by about 12 years old, boys and girls are both not biological "children", which probably explains why some fifty percent of them are sexually active at that age.

That is another question. By law they are children until 18. That does not mean that in some countries they are not allowed to have sex sooner. And rightly so.
My parents could have had my first boyfriend arrested because I was not "old enough" to have sex. They did not.
But when you are 12 years old are you ready to become a parent? 12 year old girls are not and although I have nothing against abortions I really don't think you should strive to have one at the age of 12 (although probably a better idea than becoming a parent at that point in your life).

If the woman/man you are having sex with reciprocates your affection you can assume that consent is given UNLESS you are deceiving that person in some way (lying about things like age etc.)

Not on some Ivy League college campuses.

I didn't go to an Ivy league college and really don't watch American news enough to know what you are talking about.

Yes, if the person you are having sex with falls asleep you stop having sex, otherwise it is rape.

Why? If they consented to sex before they fell asleep why should the consent end when they fall asleep?

Because that person is not conscious anymore. I don't think I should have to explain that any better.

No, no does not always mean no, sometimes it means "keep trying till I say yes."

No. That no always means no. You might decide to keep trying and get yes in the end. That no still meant no at that time.

If you don't want to get "raped" then avoid getting drunk, keep your knickers on, and avoid intimate physical contact with others unless and until you are prepared to get screwed.

So I am not allowed to want to fool around without getting raped? I am not allowed to drink without getting raped?
Seriously.
I don't think I am responsible for the actions of rapists.
I can get drunk without knickers and fool around with some guy without it being an invitation to get raped.

[mistermack]

In the Western world you are a child until you are 18. Therefore you cannot, as an adult, have sex with anyone under the age of 18.

Not right at all. That only applies to a tiny bit of the western world. Certainly not here in the UK. The age is 16. In Spain it can be as young as 13, if I remember rightly. ( or even 12 ).
They have a graduated set of circumstances, taking a lot more than age into account.

If the woman/man you are having sex with reciprocates your affection you can assume that consent is given UNLESS you are deceiving that person in some way (lying about things like age etc.)

Not really. Some women reciprocate your affection, but won't have sex. Whereas some say no, I shouldn't !! But don't do much to stop you. Which is bloody sexy actually.

No always means no unless other things have been discussed forehand (roleplay).

That's complete rubbish. I've said no to an ex who let herself in and got into bed. I told her to go, said no, but she "forced herself on me". In other words, I made no effort to stop her.
I said no, but did nothing. Was I raped? No way.

Going in the other direction, it's a minefield. Some women say no and mean yes, or mean "I might be persuaded" just like I was.

I hope this clears this matter up for you and you won't rape anybody

Yeh, clear as mud.
And I won't rape anybody, but that doesn't mean that I'll necessarily stop trying if someone says no.
In that situation, actions speak louder than words.

[Sælir]

In the Western world you are a child until you are 18. Therefore you cannot, as an adult, have sex with anyone under the age of 18.

Not right at all. That only applies to a tiny bit of the western world. Certainly not here in the UK. The age is 16. In Spain it can be as young as 13, if I remember rightly. ( or even 12 ).
They have a graduated set of circumstances, taking a lot more than age into account.

If the woman/man you are having sex with reciprocates your affection you can assume that consent is given UNLESS you are deceiving that person in some way (lying about things like age etc.)

Not really. Some women reciprocate your affection, but won't have sex. Whereas some say no, I shouldn't !! But don't do much to stop you. Which is bloody sexy actually.

No always means no unless other things have been discussed forehand (roleplay).

That's complete rubbish. I've said no to an ex who let herself in and got into bed. I told her to go, said no, but she "forced herself on me". In other words, I made no effort to stop her.
I said no, but did nothing. Was I raped? No way.

Going in the other direction, it's a minefield. Some women say no and mean yes, or mean "I might be persuaded" just like I was.

I hope this clears this matter up for you and you won't rape anybody

Yeh, clear as mud.
And I won't rape anybody, but that doesn't mean that I'll necessarily stop trying if someone says no.
In that situation, actions speak louder than words.

I already answered this in my reply to Seth and cannot be bothered repeating myself.

[mistermack]

I already answered this in my reply to Seth and cannot be bothered repeating myself.

Probably for the best.

[Sælir]

I already answered this in my reply to Seth and cannot be bothered repeating myself.

Probably for the best.

Yes, if you can't read it once you can probably not read it if I post it again

[mistermack]

Yes, if you can't read it once you can probably not read it if I post it again

I didn't think you would just post the same shite yet again.
Everyone deserves another chance.

[Seth]

How does being a "child" have anything to do with consenting to sex? Why can a "child" not consent to mutually pleasurable sexual activity when the same "child" can wank to their heart's content without opprobrium? The legal presumption that a "child" cannot form knowing consent is just so much ideologically prudish nonsense. That may be true of SOME children, but not others. It depends entirely on the specific child.

I just don't think children should have sex.

Your opinion is both valid and noted, but I also note that "children" have sex all the time, which is verified by surveys going back decades indicating that 50 percent or more of 12 year olds are sexually active. Should we base policy on unicorn farts and glitter or on the reality of human sexuality, which happens to include sexual drives in persons who are sexually mature enough to have such drives (biologically speaking) but who may be younger than you are willing to consider acceptable?

They don't have the maturity to understand what it can possibly result in.

That seems to me to militate for educating them rather than trying to prevent them from doing what they are going to do if they feel like doing it no matter how much we make it illegal for them to do so?

And do you care whether that certain child is 14 or if it is 7? Why would you care?

The obvious biological line between "child" and "adolescent" is puberty. Generally speaking pre-pubertal children don't have sophisticated sex drives or desires, so ONE rational point of demarcation for when it's inappropriate for a young person to have sex with someone else (as opposed to masturbation) would be menses and the ability to ejaculate. That certainly does not have to be the ONLY metric, but it's a science-based one that ought to be considered.

It is also much easier to convince a child to do things it does not want to do. But...

Again, the distinction between sexual abuse and normal sexual activity presupposes the absence of coercion on anyone's part. The actual question is what "does not want to do" means and whether it is synonymous with "does want to do, but I just don't think they should..."

And what is a "child" anyway? Just because the "western world" defines anyone under 18 as a "child" doesn't mean it's true. In most cases it's absolutely NOT true. Biologically speaking a "child" is a human person whose sexual organs have not matured enough to productively participate in procreation. Therefore, any boy-child who is capable of ejaculating sperm, and any girl-child who has achieved menses is no longer a "child" but is an "adult" by any scientific measure. Which means by about 12 years old, boys and girls are both not biological "children", which probably explains why some fifty percent of them are sexually active at that age.

That is another question. By law they are children until 18.

"If that's what the law says, the law is a ass." The very idea that a 17 year, 11 month, 364 day-old person is a "child" and one day later is an "adult" is an asinine and pernicious mendacity of monumental proportions that is based solely in moralistic angst, and which is in no way connected with fact or human biology.

That does not mean that in some countries they are not allowed to have sex sooner. And rightly so.
My parents could have had my first boyfriend arrested because I was not "old enough" to have sex. They did not.

The question is should they even have had that option?

But when you are 12 years old are you ready to become a parent?

Engaging in sexual activity and being a parent are not the same thing at all.

12 year old girls are not and although I have nothing against abortions I really don't think you should strive to have one at the age of 12 (although probably a better idea than becoming a parent at that point in your life).

Then don't let 12 year old girls get pregnant. That doesn't mean you have to put them in a chastity belt and deny them their fundamental civil right of personal pleasure.

If the woman/man you are having sex with reciprocates your affection you can assume that consent is given UNLESS you are deceiving that person in some way (lying about things like age etc.)

Not on some Ivy League college campuses.

I didn't go to an Ivy league college and really don't watch American news enough to know what you are talking about.

Some universities now have sex policies that require the man to obtain affirmative verbal consent to EACH AND EVERY ACT. "May I kiss you?" "May I fondle your left boob?" "May I continue to fondle your left boob while simultaneously stroking your inner right thigh?"

I'm absolutely serious here. I think it's

Yes, if the person you are having sex with falls asleep you stop having sex, otherwise it is rape.

Why? If they consented to sex before they fell asleep why should the consent end when they fall asleep?

Because that person is not conscious anymore. I don't think I should have to explain that any better.

What does that have to do with anything? If she consented to sex, she consented to sex. If she wants to be able to revoke that consent, she should either do so before she falls asleep or not fall asleep. If you give me consent to borrow your car, it doesn't expire merely because you take a nap.

No, no does not always mean no, sometimes it means "keep trying till I say yes."

No. That no always means no. You might decide to keep trying and get yes in the end. That no still meant no at that time.

No, sometimes it means exactly what I said it means. The difficulty is, of course, determining when that is the case and when it's not. But to say that "no always means no" is simply wrong and ignorant of actual human sexual behavior.

If you don't want to get "raped" then avoid getting drunk, keep your knickers on, and avoid intimate physical contact with others unless and until you are prepared to get screwed.

So I am not allowed to want to fool around without getting raped?

If you want to "fool around" it's up to you to make sure the parameters are set before you begin, as opposed to suddenly deciding to change your mind. This is not to say that you can't change your mind or that doing so doesn't revoke your consent, it merely says that you are responsible for yourself, your safety and the proper operation of your sexual organs and it's up to YOU to control them, and control access to them, which makes it prudent for you not to voluntarily render yourself incapable of revoking consent after having given consent. If you say "Whoo! I'm really drunk! Fuck me hard baby!" and he does, and you pass out in the middle, he's not at fault for fucking you, you are at fault for handing him the keys to the cooch and nodding off. He's perfectly entitled to rely upon your previously-given consent until and unless you clearly and unambiguously revoke it. You don't get to have society protect you from your own misdemeanors by saying that if you get drunk and therefore incapable of revoking consent your sex partner spends the rest of his life in jail for "rape," because it wasn't rape.

On the other hand, if you get drunk, pass out and THEN he has sex with you, that IS rape because you didn't consent in the first place. However, you still bear a good deal of liability for what happens when you voluntarily intoxicate yourself and hand your body, and the burden of ensuring its safety and health, over to someone you don't trust to do it as you would wish it to be done. Society is under no obligation to protect you from your own stupid mistakes, nor should it because if you don't suffer the consequences of stupid mistakes you'll just keep on making the same stupid mistakes again and again, and it's not fair for other people to be made responsible for your stupidity.

I am not allowed to drink without getting raped?

Of course you are. But if you get drunk, strip off your clothes and beg someone to fuck you, you shouldn't be surprised if you get fucked, and it sure ain't rape.

Seriously.
I don't think I am responsible for the actions of rapists.

No, you're responsible for YOUR actions. Completely responsible. So act responsibly and you're far less likely to have a sexual encounter you didn't plan for.

I can get drunk without knickers and fool around with some guy without it being an invitation to get raped.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether your actions can be reasonably construed by a normal person of average intelligence placed in the same situation as agreeing to have sex with them. Just because you wake up in the morning with massive butthurt and can't remember telling him he could bang you in the ass like a Japanese drum doesn't mean you didn't give him permission to do so, it means you failed to audit your own conduct so that you are in control of your body and mental faculties at all times. Getting drunk isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't give you license to do or say as you please and then make an ex post facto change of mind and by doing so impose criminal liability on someone else.

It's your body, you are responsible for it. Don't turn over that sovereignty to someone else unless you trust them not to do something you might not like with it. That's just common sense.