Those sexually predatory 12 year old girls!

[Coito ergo sum]

Would i go nuts if the law in my State changed to 15? No. it's not, again, a magic number. It's a compromise.

But that's exactly the problem. There is a magic number for you.

No there isn't. There is only my best judgment as to what makes sense given my experience and understanding of our society/culture, and my understanding of what is best for children.

Would you go nuts if the state changed to 14?
13?
12 years 6 months?
12 years 3 months?
12?
11?
At some pin-point age your mind will switch from ‘not going nuts’ to ‘going nuts’.

Yes, at some point i will switch from "I could go either way on it" to "there is no way i would support that.

i can tell you for a fact that at age 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and 8, 9, and 10, and 11 -- I am really convinced that adults ought not fuck them, even if the kids consent or are horny sluts.

Why is that a "problem?" The concept of an age of consent is not, I repeat, not, about any suggestion that all kids below age X are in fact incapable of meaningful consent or in fact lack sufficient emotional maturity. The concept is that kids below age X ought to be legally incapable of consent because it is impracticable to determine consent on a case by case basis, and it is very likely (not 100%, but very very likely) that they are not sufficiently emotionally mature and are ripe for manipulation, being taken advantage of, etc., and may not be thinking straight and they are of an age where special protection is deemed advisable.

i put the minimum age at 16 for reasons i expressed earlier, and i hold myself to a higher standard than that. Others my have a different view, and the legislature makes laws based on what the people think or what is politically feasible or desirable. i am comfortable with 16, although it is not a perfect number which alone distinguishes the mature from the immature.

All you've done is duck the issue using the word 'compromise'. You can do that and say it's valid by all means. All it does is show is that legal rules, however wordy, cannot possibly match reality.

Nobody ever said they can be a perfect match, but laws that are rough approximations are sometimes the best we can do. i haven't heard a persuasive argument at all from anyone suggesting that there should be no age of consent at all. Any age picked arguably has the same "problem" that you describe.

They have to, perforce, be a 'compromise'. Something better ought to be in place, I have no idea what however. At the very least juries should have it rammed home to them that whilst they are considering evidence against written legal rules, those rules will often fail spectacularly to match the reality being under trial.

i think it's possible to factor in protections for the issues people have identified here. The law can be written to allow as a defense that the adult was of diminished capacity and/or threatened in such a way as to render themselves a victim. I think if a 12 year old commits extortion, demanding cunnilingus at the point of a gun, for example, then that should be a defense, and it probably is a defense even today. i've never heard of such an event, or even a similar event, but I think where the adult can say "i never wanted to have sex with the 12 year old, but i was threatened or coerced to do it" that would likely not make it into the courtroom.

The most common circumstances, however, are not that kind of thing, nor does the general rule have to be eliminated merely because we can envision exceptions arising.

[Coito ergo sum]

For those of you who are having some trouble with an age of consent rule, because it is not a perfect determiner of who is emotionally mature sufficient to consent to sex and who isn't, do you have a similar issue with a minimum age to operate heavy machinery, or with a minimum age to buy alcoholic beverages, buy cigarettes, get a tattoo or drive?

i mean, driving a car, i'm sure there are some 14 year olds who have the skills and ability and maturity to operate a car. But, don't you see that it is (a) impractical to test everyone at every age to determine their level of skill and ability, and (b) a decent approximation to pick 16 or 17, or sometimes 15, etc., as a minimum age?

Why is this so troublesome for ages of consent? It's the same concept. in our culture, until a kid reaches the age to drive, they cant' drive, even if they technically would be a good driver. The same goes for sex. In our culture, until a kid reaches the age of consent, they can't legally consent, even if they technically would have no issues with sex and have an adult level mental capacity.

Why? Because in both instances (a) the vast majority of underage kids are not sufficiently ready to drive, or be sexually active, even though some are, and (b) it's impractical to deal with it on a case by case basis due to the imprecision of these kinds of determinations.

[Incy Wincy]

Why is this so troublesome for ages of consent?

Because the age of consent for the others doesn't deny them access to young uns affect them (as badly) if they make a mistake of judgement. Perhaps?

[Coito ergo sum]

Why is this so troublesome for ages of consent?

Because the age of consent for the others doesn't deny them access to young uns affect them (as badly) if they make a mistake of judgement. Perhaps?

Perhaps, perhaps.

I'm not convinced, though, that keeping one's dick out of a 12 year old is as difficult as it's being made out to be.

[Animavore]

Why is this so troublesome for ages of consent?

Because the age of consent for the others doesn't deny them access to young uns affect them (as badly) if they make a mistake of judgement. Perhaps?

Perhaps, perhaps.

I'm not convinced, though, that keeping one's dick out of a 12 year old is as difficult as it's being made out to be.

When I had my first confession for my Confirmation I thought the same.

[Coito ergo sum]

not sure I understand that....

[colubridae]

Yes, at some point i will switch from "I could go either way on it" to "there is no way i would support that.

“I could go either way on it” is not a valid overlap. One either commits a crime or one doesn’t, there is no verdict “I could go either way on it”. There may be sentencing leeway etc. But one is guilty or not guilty.
All my post was designed to point out was the yawning gap between legal rules and reality.
Yes, I accept that legal rules are a compromise society makes. But I don’t accept that that’s good enough. Unfortunately my lack of any better solution, isn’t helpful.


Bit off topic but still in the legal area..
BTW a consensual sexual relationship between a 44 year-old (M or F) and a 24 year-old (M or F) is perfectly acceptable?
What if the 44 year-old is a blood parent of the 24 year-old?

[colubridae]

not sure I understand that....

I think he means someone performed 'predatio' upon him.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, at some point i will switch from "I could go either way on it" to "there is no way i would support that.

“I could go either way on it” is not a valid overlap. One either commits a crime or one doesn’t, there is no verdict “I could go either way on it”. There may be sentencing leeway etc. But one is guilty or not guilty.

Yes, but one can "go either way on it" in terms of being agreeable to the law being a age X or age Y.

All my post was designed to point out was the yawning gap between legal rules and reality.

nobody disputes that. But, legal rules don't presuppose that people don't do what is prohibited. They presuppose the opposite. They presuppose that people do, in fact, do what is to be proscribed, and the law is put in place to impose a punishment for engaging in that behavior, generally with a view toward getting people to stop doing it.

Yes, I accept that legal rules are a compromise society makes. But I don’t accept that that’s good enough. Unfortunately my lack of any better solution, isn’t helpful.

Well, right - I mean, the lack of a perfect line, however, doesn't mean there ought not be any line at all.

Bit off topic but still in the legal area..
BTW a consensual sexual relationship between a 44 year-old (M or F) and a 24 year-old (M or F) is perfectly acceptable?

To some people, yes. To other people no. however, "legal?" There is no jurisdiction of which I am aware where the 24 year old with a 44 year old is illegal.

"Acceptable" is broader than legal. Lot's of legal things are objectionable to some people or unacceptable to some people.

To me, I don't equate that to a 12 year old, because in our culture a 24 year old who is not of diminished capacity is generally able manage their own sexual affairs. Some aren't, of course, but that doesn't change if we remove the age of consent altogether.

What if the 44 year-old is a blood parent of the 24 year-old?

From a consent standpoint, I don't think it makes any difference. However, incest is generally prohibited for moralistic reasons and for reasons associated with the high incidence of problems with children of such unions. However, from a standpoint of age of consent, there is no difference. From a standpoint of "acceptability" that depends on personal opinion.

To me, it seems weird. But, I wouldn't be concerned about making it illegal. If consenting adults want to bang, bang away. Not my business. That's my view of it, others may have a different one.

[colubridae]

If you consider the legality of magic age of consent to be hopelessly inadequate for real circumstances then we are on the same viewpoint.
If you consider that as bad as it is it’s difficult to engineer something better then we are on the same viewpoint.

In the 44yearold/24yearold my ‘?’ was meant to be a rhetorical segue into the consanguinity question.
Clearly 44/24 relationships are perfectly acceptable.

Also yes I’m aware that consanguinity (in humans) unmasks detrimental alleles.
So provided infertility measures are taken then 44/24 year old consanguinity is perfectly acceptable.
Who bangs who, and with what, is “the who’s” business, provided that no coercion takes place.

So we are of the same viewpoint I think.


What if infertility measures are deliberately eschewed?

[Animavore]

not sure I understand that....

The confession was the first time I was left alone with a priest.

It's a Catholic thang

[Coito ergo sum]

If you consider the legality of magic age of consent to be hopelessly inadequate for real circumstances then we are on the same viewpoint.

I said nothing of the kind. I think an appropriate age of consent is imperfect, but reasonable, and better than the alternative.

If you consider that as bad as it is it’s difficult to engineer something better then we are on the same viewpoint.

I think it's pretty reasonable, and also difficult to engineer something better.

In the 44yearold/24yearold my ‘?’ was meant to be a rhetorical segue into the consanguinity question.
Clearly 44/24 relationships are perfectly acceptable.

To you, but not to everyone. Some folks don't find them acceptable at all because the age difference to them is too great.

Also yes I’m aware that consanguinity (in humans) unmasks detrimental alleles.
So provided infertility measures are taken then 44/24 year old consanguinity is perfectly acceptable.

Again, to you. Others may find it unacceptable for a variety of reasons.

Who bangs who, and with what, is “the who’s” business, provided that no coercion takes place.

So we are of the same viewpoint I think.

Close, except I do not find ages of consent as objectionable or problematic as you do.

What if infertility measures are deliberately eschewed?

I don't think there is any good way to enforce sterility on people.

[colubridae]

Tsk tsk

Don't put words in my mouth, that weren't there.

I do not find ages of consent objectionable.
I do find an age of consent problematic. Extremely problematic.

That’s what my whole position is about. I can’t stop you conflating problematic and objectionable but to my mind they are quite different.

It is absurd that sex with a 15 year 364 day old carries a severe prison sentence, sex with a 16 year old does not. As highly problematical as this is, I can’t see any viable workable alternative. (Please don’t quote different rules in different places – my point is a generalised one – hence one reason for unworkable alternatives)

My belief is that each individual has its own age of consent. Trying to work this into a legal system would be ludicrous. On the other hand ‘one age fits all’ is equally ludicrous.

[Coito ergo sum]

Tsk tsk

Don't put words in my mouth, that weren't there.

I do not find ages of consent objectionable.
I do find an age of consent problematic. Extremely problematic.

hopelessly inadequate was the term you used. I would think that things that are hopelessly inadequate are also objectionable, but if you have a distinction there that's fine.

I didn't intend to mince words.

That’s what my whole position is about. I can’t stop you conflating problematic and objectionable but to my mind they are quite different.

O.k, but it was hopelessly inadequate. I'll retract objectionable and replace that with hopelessly inadequate, and I will simply say that I don't find them to be hopelessly inadequate, and to the extent they are problematic, I don't find them egregiously so. Lots of areas of the law are problematic. The issues can be thorny.

It is absurd that sex with a 15 year 364 day old carries a severe prison sentence, sex with a 16 year old does not. As highly problematical as this is, I can’t see any viable workable alternative. (Please don’t quote different rules in different places – my point is a generalised one – hence one reason for unworkable alternatives)

Yes, it's kind of like human development where it is absurd to call something that is X days old an embryo and X+1 days old a fetus, and it's absurd to call a child X years old a baby and X years plus one day a toddler.

The line is drawn somewhere, and a best approximation is the best we can do.

I don't find the 15 year 364 day vs. 15 year 365 day issue particularly problematic. If there ever was a case of one day making the difference, then I haven't seen it and I think that in the vast majority if instances like that there would be some "prosecutorial discretion" exercised. But, this kind of thing is the case with lots of age cut offs. It is absurd to say that a 17 year 364 day old person can't have a beer but the next day he can, but that's the way it is.

My belief is that each individual has its own age of consent. Trying to work this into a legal system would be ludicrous. On the other hand ‘one age fits all’ is equally ludicrous.

Well, I think the reasons behind an age of consent for children are many:

1. difficulty in determining a person's capacity to consent -- so we are pretty much resigned to a rule that sets a date when a person is legally held to be responsible for themselves in that way.
2. The difficulties of proof in sex related cases.
3. The trauma of a child having to testify and be examined by expert witnesses regarding her or his mental capacity and sexual maturity
4. The general difference in capacities between adults and children, where adults can normally be held to be required to be more responsible than children.
5. The ease of application of a bright line rule -- "just don't fuck underage people" -- seems to me to be fairly simple. How old are you? 15. Oh, ok, my dick must stay outside of you.
6. The comparative benefits of a bright line rule compared to the drawbacks of a la carte determinations vis-a-vis children, seems to weigh in favor of bright line rule.
7. There doesn't appear to be anything much gained by requiring easier or greater access to the vaginas, mouths and anuses of middle schoolers and such. I mean, what's lost if we prevent an encounter between a 40 year old and a 12 year old? The 40 year old doesn't get his rocks off? And, the 12ps her virginity or doesn't give blowjob she might otherwise give?

So, that, to me kind of shows that it's not "hopelessly inadequate" to have a bright line rule. It's actually rather adequate. Not perfect, but not bad. year old kee

So, that, to me kind of shows that it's not "hopelessly inadequate" to have a bright line rule. It's actually rather adequate. Not perfect, but not bad.

[laklak]

I posted this over at Ratskep and didn't want to type it all in again. Over there they seem to think she's 13, but the points still stand.

(Another member's) previous point about age differences meaning less as we age is well taken. I'm 16 years older than Mrs. Lak, she was 31 and I was 47 when we got together. That raised a few eyebrows at the time, particularly her mum's. Now that she's 43 and I'm 59 it doesn't seem to matter to anyone. However, if she had been 13 and I was 29 it would have been entirely different.

There are 13 year olds that are sexually active and look a lot older. When I was 23 I was approached, in an extremely intimate manner, by a young lady at a bar. I assumed she was 18 because she was drinking at the bar. We went back to my place. Imagine my surprise when the next morning her father was banging on my front door and I found out she was only 13. I about shat myself. Lucky for me I had a couple of rather large biker type roommates or he probably would have physically attacked me. Also lucky we were in a country that didn't have a legal age of consent, had I been in the U.S. or U.K. I'd be on the sex offender list. So I can understand how someone could be fooled, but honestly a 41 year old shouldn't be messing about with a 16 or 17 year old in the first place