The only reason we're biologically able to have kids at that age is because in the Neolithic era life expectancy was 20 years......
Well yeah, so it's not absolute, it's relative. It varies over time, culture, etc... There's examples of societies where child marriage was common.
And again, I don't support this, in my country the age of consent is 16.
And I agree with that system, as long as judges obey the spirit of the law (not the letter) and don't convict a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:Well yeah, so it's not absolute, it's relative. It varies over time, culture, etc... There's examples of societies where child marriage was common.
And again, I don't support this, in my country the age of consent is 16.
And I agree with that system, as long as judges obey the spirit of the law (not the letter) and don't convict a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old.
in the bold, the state of Georgia, U.S., the legal age of marriage is 14.
henry Wrote:George, Of The Jungle Wrote:Well yeah, so it's not absolute, it's relative. It varies over time, culture, etc... There's examples of societies where child marriage was common.
And again, I don't support this, in my country the age of consent is 16.
And I agree with that system, as long as judges obey the spirit of the law (not the letter) and don't convict a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old.
in the bold, the state of Georgia, U.S., the legal age of marriage is 14.
I thought the age of consent in US states was always between 16 and 18? Maybe they don't convict a 14 year old for having sex with a 17 year old. But isn't it illegal when a 30 year old has sex with a 14 year old?
The laws vary, but they all give exception to people that are roughly 3 years apart or less.
The age of consent in the US generally varies by gender and each state has their own laws regarding it. Here in Utah it's 18 for boys and 16 for girls.
I'm in favor of age of consent reform. There are plenty of 13 and 14 year olds out there that have the mental acuity to consent to sex. I know I was at that age. I'd like to see some sort of standardized test or something that reasonably determines whether they're capable of giving informed consent. Of course, this would be something done only with the approval of the minor's legal guardian(s) since they're still legally responsible for what their kids do.
leo Wrote:The laws vary, but they all give exception to people that are roughly 3 years apart or less.
The age of consent in the US generally varies by gender and each state has their own laws regarding it. Here in Utah it's 18 for boys and 16 for girls.
I'm in favor of age of consent reform. There are plenty of 13 and 14 year olds out there that have the mental acuity to consent to sex. I know I was at that age. I'd like to see some sort of standardized test or something that reasonably determines whether they're capable of giving informed consent. Of course, this would be something done only with the approval of the minor's legal guardian(s) since they're still legally responsible for what their kids do.
Sounds ok, but I see some difficulties here though. Imagine the age gets set at 13 years old, as a norm. Then it would be legal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 13 year old. Then I see big problems regarding pedophilia.
Or did you mean testing the capabilities of each person individually?
I think its pretty hard to determine whether a person is mentally capable to consent to sex.
And the approval of the legal guardian is also tricky I think. Usually 'children' don't tell their parents when they're
gonna have/having sex.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:leo Wrote:The laws vary, but they all give exception to people that are roughly 3 years apart or less.
The age of consent in the US generally varies by gender and each state has their own laws regarding it. Here in Utah it's 18 for boys and 16 for girls.
I'm in favor of age of consent reform. There are plenty of 13 and 14 year olds out there that have the mental acuity to consent to sex. I know I was at that age. I'd like to see some sort of standardized test or something that reasonably determines whether they're capable of giving informed consent. Of course, this would be something done only with the approval of the minor's legal guardian(s) since they're still legally responsible for what their kids do.
Sounds ok, but I see some difficulties here though. Imagine the age gets set at 13 years old, as a norm. Then it would be legal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 13 year old. Then I see big problems regarding pedophilia.
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
The way I see it, so long as the legal guardians are in agreement and both individuals are consenting, I'm not gonna judge 'em. I don't know many 13 years olds that want to sleep with 40 year olds, so.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:Or did you mean testing the capabilities of each person individually?
Each person. Not having a strict hard age for this kinda thing. So, for example, say we recognize anyone over 16 as able to give consent freely. Anyone that is under 16 that thinks they're capable of giving consent
and has parental permission can take an unbiased standardized test that determines their ability to give informed consent rationally.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:I think its pretty hard to determine whether a person is mentally capable to consent to sex.
I dunno. We came up with the numbers 16, 17, and 18 as being capable. We trust 16 year olds to drive cars. We've tried 15 year olds as adults for murder. Dave Chapelle says 14 is old enough to know whether you want to get peed or not. I'm sure we could come up with something.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:And the approval of the legal guardian is also tricky I think. Usually 'children' don't tell their parents when they're gonna have/having sex.
Meh, better to have an option than not if you ask me.
There's a good book on some of these issues. It's called "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex" by Judith Levine. Definitely a good read.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:henry Wrote:George, Of The Jungle Wrote:Well yeah, so it's not absolute, it's relative. It varies over time, culture, etc... There's examples of societies where child marriage was common.
And again, I don't support this, in my country the age of consent is 16.
And I agree with that system, as long as judges obey the spirit of the law (not the letter) and don't convict a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old.
in the bold, the state of Georgia, U.S., the legal age of marriage is 14.
I thought the age of consent in US states was always between 16 and 18? Maybe they don't convict a 14 year old for having sex with a 17 year old. But isn't it illegal when a 30 year old has sex with a 14 year old?
It depends on the states law themselves, but yes, that is illegal. And for the most part, the legal age of consent is 17 in ~30 states, some are lower, some are higher, but 17 is the average age.
leo Wrote:Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
The way I see it, so long as the legal guardians are in agreement and both individuals are consenting, I'm not gonna judge 'em. I don't know many 13 years olds that want to sleep with 40 year olds, so.
I know, but in a lot of cases a 13 year old is prepubescent, or barely in the phase of puberty.
But imagine that the age of 13 is the norm (didn't know for sure before you were talking about individual testing), you could have an instance where a 40 year old had sex with a 13 year old. The 40 year old claims it was consensual, the 13 year old didn't physically resist. Then this is legal. But in a lot of these cases the consent is due to heavy manipulation, at that age a lot of them aren't mentally capable of dealing with those situations. The child may have servere psychological traumas that result from this encounter. Under the current laws, this isn't an issue because it's considered illegal.
leo Wrote:Each person. Not having a strict hard age for this kinda thing. So, for example, say we recognize anyone over 16 as able to give consent freely. Anyone that is under 16 that thinks they're capable of giving consent and has parental permission can take an unbiased standardized test that determines their ability to give informed consent rationally.
Meh, better to have an option than not if you ask me.
I agree, although I still think a lot of teens aren't going to inform others that they're gonna have sex.
leo Wrote:We trust 16 year olds to drive cars. We've tried 15 year olds as adults for murder
Not where I live.
leo Wrote:I dunno. We came up with the numbers 16, 17, and 18 as being capable. We trust 16 year olds to drive cars. We've tried 15 year olds as adults for murder. Dave Chapelle says 14 is old enough to know whether you want to get peed or not. I'm sure we could come up with something.
A test like that sounds like a good idea. But at 16, 17 years old it's pretty easy to determine. When you talk about ages 12, 13, 14, it's a grey area.
It reminds me of determining whether a person was sane at the time of a murder, it's pretty much flipping a coin.
leo Wrote:There's a good book on some of these issues. It's called "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex" by Judith Levine. Definitely a good read.
Thanks, I will. Well, maybe, there's a lot of books on my to-read-list.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:leo Wrote:Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
The way I see it, so long as the legal guardians are in agreement and both individuals are consenting, I'm not gonna judge 'em. I don't know many 13 years olds that want to sleep with 40 year olds, so.
I know, but in a lot of cases a 13 year old is prepubescent, or barely in the phase of puberty.
But imagine that the age of 13 is the norm (didn't know for sure before you were talking about individual testing), you could have an instance where a 40 year old had sex with a 13 year old. The 40 year old claims it was consensual, the 13 year old didn't physically resist. Then this is legal. But in a lot of these cases the consent is due to heavy manipulation, at that age a lot of them aren't mentally capable of dealing with those situations. The child may have servere psychological traumas that result from this encounter. Under the current laws, this isn't an issue because it's considered illegal.
Hence the standardized test. If you can give informed consent, that means you're capable of looking at it from many different angles, including that of being manipulated, and know the risks involved (physically, mentally, and emotionally). Many studies claim that the psychological trauma that results is not from the act itself, but the negative social reaction to it.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:leo Wrote:Each person. Not having a strict hard age for this kinda thing. So, for example, say we recognize anyone over 16 as able to give consent freely. Anyone that is under 16 that thinks they're capable of giving consent and has parental permission can take an unbiased standardized test that determines their ability to give informed consent rationally.
Meh, better to have an option than not if you ask me.
I agree, although I still think a lot of teens aren't going to inform others that they're gonna have sex.
Passing a standardized test doesn't necessarily mean someone intends to have sex. It means they want that option available.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:leo Wrote:I dunno. We came up with the numbers 16, 17, and 18 as being capable. We trust 16 year olds to drive cars. We've tried 15 year olds as adults for murder. Dave Chapelle says 14 is old enough to know whether you want to get peed or not. I'm sure we could come up with something.
A test like that sounds like a good idea. But at 16, 17 years old it's pretty easy to determine. When you talk about ages 12, 13, 14, it's a grey area.
It reminds me of determining whether a person was sane at the time of a murder, it's pretty much flipping a coin.
Maybe. I slept with a guy when I was 15 and he was 13. No psychological damage and we both definitely knew what we were doing.
George, Of The Jungle Wrote:leo Wrote:There's a good book on some of these issues. It's called "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex" by Judith Levine. Definitely a good read.
Thanks, I will. Well, maybe, there's a lot of books on my to-read-list.
It's definitely worth the read.