The ethics of shagging.

[mistermack]

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?

[Brian Peacock]

No.

[Tero]

All sex is now rape. In Sweden. Get with the program!

[Brian Peacock]

I feel unqualified.

[JimC]

I make sweet, sweet love.

You shag.

He rapes.

[laklak]

I wait till the roofies start taking effect and ask "are you sure you want to have perverted sex with me?". When they nod I take it for a yes.

[mistermack]

I make sweet, sweet love.

You shag.

He rapes.

They gang-bang.

[jamest]

You're not allowed to have an opinion on this subject which deviates from 'the law' as it stands, without pissing off countless people and being called a pervert or prude or whatnot. So, I'll stick to debating whether the world exists.

[JimC]

You're not allowed to have an opinion on this subject which deviates from 'the law' as it stands, without pissing off countless people and being called a pervert or prude or whatnot. So, I'll stick to debating whether the world exists.

You should make that a mass debate...

[mistermack]

You're not allowed to have an opinion on this subject which deviates from 'the law' as it stands, without pissing off countless people and being called a pervert or prude or whatnot. So, I'll stick to debating whether the world exists.

You're a fucking whatnot.

[jamest]

You're not allowed to have an opinion on this subject which deviates from 'the law' as it stands, without pissing off countless people and being called a pervert or prude or whatnot. So, I'll stick to debating whether the world exists.

You're a fucking whatnot.

Yes, I have been known to fuck whatnot. That's my problem.

[Sælir]

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.

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

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

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

[Forty Two]

12 year olds can generally consent to sex with other 12 year olds, or to children younger than them.prov

The notion of an age of consent generally applies to sex between children and adults, not children and other children.

These age of consent rules are legal fictions. It has nothing to do with the notion that before a certain age people are incompetents without the capacity to "consent" to things. Of course a 12 year old can "consent" to things. They're not mentally incapable. The point of such rules is to provide a clear and easy line that can't be crossed because it is so difficult to determine if a 12 year old has meaningfully consent to sex with an adult or whether some sort of undue influence has been used. The law also recognizes that the process of figuring out, after the fact, if a teenager or pubescent child consented or was raped is itself a difficult and stressful process, and people are better off just refraining from sticking their genitals in or on kids. There is also little value seen in allowing sex between adults and kids.

18 is not generally the rule in most places. A 19 year old can usually, in most jurisdictions, have sex with a 17 year old. The laws vary considerably, but the blanket statement that you cannot, as an adult, have sex with anyone under the age of 18 is not accurate. Many places place the age at 16, which I think is not unreasonable. A 16 year old is competent to determine what genitals should go in or on them.

Deception and sex doesn't mean it's rape. If someone lies about their wealth, profession or other qualities to attract another person, that has nothing to do with whether consent was given to sex.

[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.

[Forty Two]

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.

In most places a 15 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl would not be deserving of a wrist slap (at least not any more than the 15 year old girl deserves a wrist slapping either). But, otherwise, yes -- the notion is that there are thorny issues involved when adults are dealing sexually with minors, and therefore there should be a cutoff point where the details don't matter - -just keep your genitals off of them. It's not always, or even usually, 18, though. Raising the age to 18 is a rather modern trend, whereas back in the day the cutoff was younger, and still is younger in most places.

I think 16 is a decent cutoff, as far as for adults over the age of 18. If you're over 18, the other person is under 16, then you should just wait until he or she gets to 16. I would be o.k. with 15 being that age limit, too. There is no magic number. It's just a balance and pragmatic compromise.

But to be putting people in their 20s in jail for having sex with 17 year olds is silly.