is there a need for age of consent laws?

[s-o-i-d-p]

Wouldn't a better solution be for some kind of test to be taken, which determines one's level of sexual awareness and understanding, as well as the means to consent to sex?

If the age of consent in a country is, say, 17, then I don't see why two 16 year olds should be prosecuted, even if they understand the ramifications of what they are doing.

[Xing]

Don't most places have laws in place that accommodate those exceptions? Like, if the persons are within 2-3 years of one another, it's not a crime.

[general_koffi]

If the age of consent in a country is, say, 17, then I don't see why two 16 year olds should be prosecuted, even if they understand the ramifications of what they are doing.

What Xing said. There are almost always laws with exceptions if the parties are within a certain age limit.

And if there aren't, then there damn well should be.

[Loren Pechtel]

Wouldn't a better solution be for some kind of test to be taken, which determines one's level of sexual awareness and understanding, as well as the means to consent to sex?

If the age of consent in a country is, say, 17, then I don't see why two 16 year olds should be prosecuted, even if they understand the ramifications of what they are doing.

The problem with the test approach is how do you make a good test that isn't very subjective.

*IF* you could devise the test I would be all in favor of it. All age-based laws should be replaced with something of the sort in an ideal world.

A lesser answer would be to permit judicial bypass of all age-based laws.

[WCH]

Tests are expensive to administer and inaccurate, as they can be cheated on, or done poorly at due to insufficient language skills, etc.

[premjan]

They can always take a call on how strongly to prosecute.

[mrunicycler]

Tests are expensive to administer and inaccurate, as they can be cheated on, or done poorly at due to insufficient language skills, etc.

This was my first thought, too.

I'd need to see how much such tests would cost, and how that cost would be met, before I'd think about agreeing to it.

Also, I'd have to see how it beat the inevitable rap of 'elitism' that would come into play.

[EricK]

That's a great idea. Make passing a test a prerequisite for having sex, and maybe that will make kids pay attention in school. No need to restircty the test to sexual awareness either - it could cover a broad range of academic subjects.

[anevilpetingzoo]

I think mandatory testing without the use of some elaborate chastity belt wouldn't do anything. There would just be more hot ass illegal sex.

BTW Here in Oregon, it is illegal to have sex under 18 no matter what. However, no cases have ever been prosecuted where the defendants were less than 3 years apart.

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a great idea. Make passing a test a prerequisite for having sex, and maybe that will make kids pay attention in school. No need to restircty the test to sexual awareness either - it could cover a broad range of academic subjects.

The thing is if there is a reasonable means by which they can do so legally they would be inclined to go that route--it would reduce the ignorant sex and thus the pregnancy and STD rates.

[J.F. Gaul]

Wouldn't a better solution be for some kind of test to be taken, which determines one's level of sexual awareness and understanding, as well as the means to consent to sex?

No. There has to be some capability for responsibility as well. A child may be "sexually aware," but that certainly doesn't mean the child is prepared to deal with the consequences of sex.

Otherwise, why don't we just make a driver's license available to anyone who knows the laws of the road and how to operate a car?

[1997]

You can enlighten kids all you want to about sex and how it is done, but until education finds some way of overriding the victim syndrome (and all of its causes outside of the law), AoC laws will be a self-fulfilling necessity. Wherever the AoC is set, then below that everyone goes into the victim hole.

It's pretty retarded, and the best way of resolving the problem is by reform of sexual attitudes along the lines of the pre-1980s Netherlands and some other N-European countries.

[1997]

Otherwise, why don't we just make a driver's license available to anyone who knows the laws of the road and how to operate a car?And why not?

[zorq]

Otherwise, why don't we just make a driver's license available to anyone who knows the laws of the road and how to operate a car?And why not?

I know six year olds who have no trouble operating video games and understanding their associated rules and limitations. I think they would be perfectly capable of driving an automobile(sized appropriately) and even passing a typical driver test if taught sufficiently.

However I do not think that a six year old is qualified to drive an automobile, which is essentially a deadly weapon.

I think this understanding of responsibility that tends to come with age is what JF Gaul is talking about.

[Sabine Grant]

You can enlighten kids all you want to about sex and how it is done, but until education finds some way of overriding the victim syndrome (and all of its causes outside of the law), AoC laws will be a self-fulfilling necessity. Wherever the AoC is set, then below that everyone goes into the victim hole.

It's pretty retarded, and the best way of resolving the problem is by reform of sexual attitudes along the lines of the pre-1980s Netherlands and some other N-European countries. Speaking of Northern European countries, here is Sweden legislature which does NOT in any way shape or form adopts any claims of a "victim syndrome":

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:cUuOGbnq1uIJ:www.regeringen.se/download/334b059a.pdf%3Fmajor%3D1%26minor%3D46797%26cn%3DattachmentPublDuplicator_0_attachment+Sexual+crimes+in+Sweden&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Let's now take a look at the Netherlands :

http://polis.osce.org/library/f/2716/549/NGO-NLD-RPT-2716-EN-Investigating%20Exploitation.pdf

Particular attention should be given to the chapter 3.3 National Legislation.

There is not even a remote indication if the current legislation of a "victim syndrome".

I will gladly link to other nations in Northern Europe to demonstrate that any of their reforms regarding sexual crimes have absolutely NOTHING to do with your position :
By you:
You can enlighten kids all you want to about sex and how it is done, but until education finds some way of overriding the victim syndrome (and all of its causes outside of the law), AoC laws will be a self-fulfilling necessity. Wherever the AoC is set, then below that everyone goes into the victim hole.

[1997]

I never said that the victim-syndrome is legislated. I said that it has lots of causes outside of the law, and is also influenced by laws that pigeonhole participants in voluntary acts of lust as victim and perpetrator. Failing to find literal mentions of the victim syndrome in pre-80s statutes is a ludicrous way of countering my argument.

If you seek to render the victim syndrome inevitable or natural, then you are effectively advocating an ideology that suppresses and victimises minors by allowing the rabble and even the highest authorities free reign over their minds. And that is inexcusable.

[1997]

And why not?

I know six year olds who have no trouble operating video games and understanding their associated rules and limitations. I think they would be perfectly capable of driving an automobile(sized appropriately) and even passing a typical driver test if taught sufficiently.

However I do not think that a six year old is qualified to drive an automobile, which is essentially a deadly weapon.

I think this understanding of responsibility that tends to come with age is what JF Gaul is talking about.If the person passes the same test as an older person, then why not? How do you justify this ethically?

[Xing]

I don't know what victim syndrome is and the DSM-IV isn't showing it? If this is old hat I can find out in the dumb questions thread, though.

In any event, wouldn't a test-based system for sexual activity be open to all kind of pretty heinous exploitation - e.g. someone getting whatever kid they are trying to exploit to mimic test answers?

I suppose I don't understand the call for this kind of thing at all. It doesn't seem to be coming from the 6 year olds themselves, nor is there any accompanying call to let children, say, work a 40 hour week, as adults do, based on abilities shown from tests. If there was such a movement, I think I would probably assume it was from adults who wanted to exploit the labour of children without criminal repercussions.

What am I missing? How would it be ethical to allow a six year old to work 40 hours a week or have sex?

[Sabine Grant]

I never said that the victim-syndrome is legislated. I said that it has lots of causes outside of the law, and is also influenced by laws that pigeonhole participants in voluntary acts of lust as victim and perpetrator. Failing to find literal mentions of the victim syndrome in pre-80s statutes is a ludicrous way of countering my argument. I corrected you associating in your reply a clear mention of what you refer to as "the victim syndrome" and the mention of "reforms in sexual attitudes".

Consequently, I did some research and found that what you referred to as a "solution to the problem" while using illustrations of Northern Europe and the Netherlands has NO, I repeat NO, reforms even remotely connected to your personal solution of "education overriding the victim syndrome".

Why you felt a need to mention the Netherlands and Northern Europe is rather bizarre as none of their reforms are meant to trivialize sexual crimes against children.



If you seek to render the victim syndrome inevitable or natural, then you are effectively advocating an ideology that suppresses and victimises minors by allowing the rabble and even the highest authorities free reign over their minds. And that is inexcusable. What is inexcusable is the intention to deny the status of victim to facilitate the legalization of sexual rapports between children and adults.

[1997]

I corrected you associating in your reply a clear mention of what you refer to as "the victim syndrome" and the mention of "reforms in sexual attitudes".No, you didn't - there is a clear link between positive attitudes towards sex and a non-judgemental approach towards designating the victim and perpetrator labels in so-called "sexual" crimes. It rests with the idea of not seeing sex or sexual contacts as something inherently exploitative if and when they involve differences in capability and power.

Consequently, I did some research and found that what you referred to as a "solution to the problem" while using illustrations of Northern Europe and the Netherlands has NO, I repeat NO, reforms even remotely connected to your personal solution of "education overriding the victim syndrome".You misunderstood my use of "reform" (I stated reform of attitudes, not laws). Your literalistic "research" was a rather silly idea regardless; maybe you don't wish to cast light on anything but rather just disagree - which I guess you are entitled to anyway.

Nevertheless, there were a series of legal sexual reforms taking place across NE in the 1960s and 70s, <edit>.

Why you felt a need to mention the Netherlands and Northern Europe is rather bizarre as none of their reforms are meant to trivialize sexual crimes against children.Maybe that's because "trivializ(ing) sexual crimes against children" is your subjective interpretation of my position, and in some cases because no such "crimes" of contemporary (negative)utilitarian morality were thought of in those times.
What is inexcusable is the intention to deny the status of victim to facilitate the legalization of sexual rapports between children and adults.And is this the intention of anyone in this thread? I don't think so. I only intended to give the child a choice over how they are defined. Many "victims" I personally know have seized this opportunity themselves, but not without fighting the bigoted essentialism of the child-abuse dogma and its repugnant ideological manifestations in clinical psychology, right-wing sex-negativism and radical feminism.

Your ideas concerning the (lack of) diversity in adult-minor sexual experiences are quite uninformed by the real-world. I would ask you to talk to people (not from a clinical or self-report setting) before forming opinions.

[Sabine Grant]

I corrected you associating in your reply a clear mention of what you refer to as "the victim syndrome" and the mention of "reforms in sexual attitudes".No, you didn't - there is a clear link between positive attitudes towards sex and a non-judgemental approach towards designating the victim and perpetrator labels in so-called "sexual" crimes. I need to ask you to define what you mean by "positive attitudes towards sex". Positive attitudes towards sex have to include reality based data/facts rather than the wishful thinking that there is no exploitative factor at play when an adult engages in sexual rapports with a child.

No matter how "consenting" the child appears to be, such child 's hormonal, physiological,mental and emotional status are inferior to an adult's. You seem to not recognize those scientifically supported realities even though they were demonstrated to you in other threads.



It rests with the idea of not seeing sex or sexual contacts as something inherently exploitative if and when they involve differences in capability and power. You need to provide scientifically supported data which demonstrates that such hormonal, emotional, mental and physiological differences do not affect how the child responds to sexual solicitations. You also need to present scientifically supported data demonstrating that human relationships/rapport between two parties where one represents an authority/power position cannot influence the response of the "inferior" party.

You misunderstood my use of "reform" (I stated reform of attitudes, not laws). Your literalistic "research" was a rather silly idea regardless; maybe you don't wish to cast light on anything but rather just disagree - which I guess you are entitled to anyway. I would not call "shading light" on anything when such "shading light" ignores or dismisses reality centered facts. Such as what I explained above.

Nevertheless, there were a series of legal sexual reforms taking place across NE in the 1960s and 70s, <edit>. An approach NOT related to any notion that sexual rapports between adults and children are non exploitative.

Maybe that's because "trivializ(ing) sexual crimes against children" is your subjective interpretation of my position, and in some cases because no such "crimes" of contemporary (negative)utilitarian morality were thought of in those times. It has been a constant for you to DENY the exploitative aspect of such adult/children rapports. No matter which efforts have been deployed by me to document my counter claim that they are exploitative. Evidence of your persistent denial can be pulled out from other threads at the click of my mouse. And a denial you never support with evidence. Only a series of your subjective claims.

What is inexcusable is the intention to deny the status of victim to facilitate the legalization of sexual rapports between children and adults.

And is this the intention of anyone in this thread? I don't think so. I only intended to give the child a choice over how they are defined. As if such children are aware of their subconscious processes/responses when relating to the adult. As if such children have the necessary mental and emotional maturity to introspect all aspects of such sexual rapport adult/child.

You might as well suggest that a codependent of an abusive person "is to be given a choice over how they are defined".

" no, no.. you are all wrong. I am not a codependent of my spouse.He only means well".



Many "victims" I personally know have seized this opportunity themselves, but not without fighting the bigoted essentialism of the child-abuse dogma and its repugnant ideological manifestations in clinical psychology, right-wing sex-negativism and radical feminism. Meaning that professional mental health care providers, psychologists, social workers dedicated to Child Protection Services etc... are bigots, right wingers and radical feminists. And any of us reading such comments are to consider your claims to be objectively formed and rationally supported. I will label the above as a rant without any argumentative quality.

Your ideas concerning the (lack of) diversity in adult-minor sexual experiences are quite uninformed by the real-world. I would ask you to talk to people (not from a clinical or self-report setting) before forming opinions. Oh the overwhelming irony of such demand in view of the above rant. 1997, you are to provide counter arguments supported by evidence. I am not interested in your prejudicial perception of the professionalism and credentials manifested by mental health care professionals.

You make the claim that such rapports are not exploitative, you provide a rational argument to support such claim. Your prejudicial subjective ranting is NOT a rationally centered argument to support your claim.

[1997]

My problem with your argument, Sabine, is that it is stridently defensive and retaliatory without cutting to the heart of what you appear to believe.

It would appear that you see a difference in stature, psychology and social power as necessarily inductive to an abusive and harmful situation, when involving sex. You appear to believe that attempting to provide evidence of developmental differences is good enough to refute the argument that inequality does not necessarily equal abuse. This is simply not good enough. Using similar techniques, and the plain assumption that the more powerful person is "self interested and uncaring" I could argue against establishment practises such as babysitting, education, coaching, foster parenting and many forms of "acceptable" contemporary relationship.

I also suggest that if we are to continue the debate, we conduct it privately, so there is no pressure or obligation to turn it into a show or time trial. And obviously, with recent changes in the rules, it's not like I want to be taking part if I can help it - and that would be a most unfair way of ceasing my argument.

[Chaupoline]

Why don't they just make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to have sex with anyone. That way you are not discrimiating against people over 18 from having sex with under age kids. There is no way to objectively determine the emotional development of the child so if they are going to regulate sex amoung children or with children they should bring this into account.

[whichphilosophy]

From what I understand, a person who is underage and has sex will not be prosecuted. If however that same person had sex with someone who is underage he/she is more likely to be prosecuted if he/she is of or above the age of consent. This sounds like the most equitable way to administer justice.

[Sabine Grant]

My problem with your argument, Sabine, is that it is stridently defensive and retaliatory without cutting to the heart of what you appear to believe. Such scientific data is there to demonstrate the obvious reality that we cannot speak of competent and informed will when referring to children. Your assumption that we should ignore such realities is bound to lead you to believe that human sexual rapports do not include mental and emotional components.

It would appear that you see a difference in stature, psychology and social power as necessarily inductive to an abusive and harmful situation, when involving sex. It does not appear that I see it as such. I pursue to affirm it as a reality. So do mental health care professionals you have so liberally and without any evidence labeled as bigots, right wingers and radical feminists. And that because they do not support your personal agenda of "empowering children". Interestingly your arguments are similar to NAMbLA's. The end result of such agenda is to empower adults into legalizing sexual rapports between adolescents/ younger children and those adults.

The "empowering children" argument is a lure. And do not expect me to be intimidated out of exposing it for what it is.


You appear to believe that attempting to provide evidence of developmental differences is good enough to refute the argument that inequality does not necessarily equal abuse. The developmental difference is what causes the unbalance between child and adult. That should be obvious. The unbalance places the child in a position of inferiority. It matters not how well intentioned the adult may be, the child remains vulnerable via his/her mental and emotional immaturity.



This is simply not good enough. Using similar techniques, and the plain assumption that the more powerful person is "self interested and uncaring" I could argue against establishment practises such as babysitting, education, coaching, foster parenting and many forms of "acceptable" contemporary relationship. And the purpose of comparing educators, baby sitters, coaches,foster parents to adults who seek sexual gratification with a child is?


Surely you are not envisioning that such above persons are interacting with children for the purpose of satisfying sexual urges? I am not sure how their interaction with children is to be compared to an interaction involving any intrusion of the child's bodily integrity.(sexual).

I also suggest that if we are to continue the debate, we conduct it privately, so there is no pressure or obligation to turn it into a show or time trial. That you are being held accountable for claims you refuse to support is part of any debate.In the future, before launching into defaming rants about the intentions and motivations of professionals, you need to be prepared to support your claims. If you wish to pursue to compare educators to adults who seek sexual rapports with children, you will need to provide evidence that such adults are not seeking self gratification and are in fact placing the best interest of the child above their own. We have already in the past covered such topics, have we not?


And obviously, with recent changes in the rules, it's not like I want to be taking part if I can help it - and that would be a most unfair way of ceasing my argument. Maybe your alleged arguments need to take in consideration that this is a privately owned forum and conditions of participation are dependent on internal policies and rules.

You have been opposed several times in your alleged arguments by several users in several threads. Yet you pursue to present them in any thread where you detect an opportunity to attack the professionalism of various groups invested in child protection/ psychology/counseling and further still promoting the "empowering of children" while describing it as "younger persons having sex with older persons".

There is no issue discussing age of consent. But there is a serious issue with advocating the liberalization of sexual rapports between minors (which includes all age groups from pre pub children to adulthood) and adults. No matter which alleged arguments you present to support such liberalization, they are incompatible with IIDB policies which are meant to reflect the II Mission. Case closed.

[s-o-i-d-p]

Tests are expensive to administer and inaccurate, as they can be cheated on, or done poorly at due to insufficient language skills, etc.

This was my first thought, too.

I'd need to see how much such tests would cost, and how that cost would be met, before I'd think about agreeing to it.

Also, I'd have to see how it beat the inevitable rap of 'elitism' that would come into play.

How exactly would elitism come in?

[Chaupoline]

From what I understand, a person who is underage and has sex will not be prosecuted. If however that same person had sex with someone who is underage he/she is more likely to be prosecuted if he/she is of or above the age of consent. This sounds like the most equitable way to administer justice.

But if both are below the age of consent then they both should be prosecuted, or perhaps their parents. Teenage pregnancy is a big issue today. It causes a lot of problems for the parent and the child. Therefore I think that it should be against the law for anyone to have sex with anyone underage, even if they are underage as well.

[Pyrrho]

Wouldn't a better solution be for some kind of test to be taken, which determines one's level of sexual awareness and understanding, as well as the means to consent to sex?

If the age of consent in a country is, say, 17, then I don't see why two 16 year olds should be prosecuted, even if they understand the ramifications of what they are doing.


Try to create the test, and you will see the difficulty. Try out your test on various people, including adults and many young children who you believe are too young (or too immature or too stupid or too whatever) for having sex. You will also need to consider the question of whether or not the ability to read should be a prerequisite to having sex legally. All tests that are in a language test not only the subject matter, but also the language abilities of the person taking the test.

Additionally, it is a sure thing that some people will cheat on the test, or forge a passing grade for the child with whom they wish to have sex. And others would try to make it hard for "undesirables" to pass the test (perhaps we could have the test in Latin or ancient Greek for the U.S., or ask complicated questions of advanced Calculus ...). There would be no end to trouble with a test for such a thing.

Also, as others have said, it would be expensive to administer a test, and you would need to have some sort of ID that shows that you passed the test. If you did such a thing for other things that currently use age (such as drinking alcohol in the U.S.), then you would need licenses for many different things. With using age, you have one thing to determine, and, although even that is somewhat imperfectly determined, it is far easier than trying another method.

In short, age is relatively easy and convenient, and a test would result in ridiculous amounts of problems. Age, though imperfect, is basically serviceable as a determination for when a person can consent.

In my opinion, though, in the U.S., things are quite stupid, as one can decide to kill people (in the military) or get married at 18, but one must wait until 21 to decide to drink a glass of wine with dinner. In my opinion, that is backwards, as the decision to drink a glass of wine is less important than those other decisions, and consequently should be allowed at a younger, not older, age. Perhaps they should just change the age of drinking to 18, and the age of getting married and joining the military to 21. This, however, is irrelevant to the basic point, that age is convenient, and a test would be expensive, inconvenient, and plagued with problems.

[1997]

OK.

How's about - I will not take part in this debate - because it has become practically impossible for me to do so.

Good enough?

[neohuman]

From what I understand, a person who is underage and has sex will not be prosecuted. If however that same person had sex with someone who is underage he/she is more likely to be prosecuted if he/she is of or above the age of consent. This sounds like the most equitable way to administer justice.

But if both are below the age of consent then they both should be prosecuted, or perhaps their parents. Teenage pregnancy is a big issue today. It causes a lot of problems for the parent and the child. Therefore I think that it should be against the law for anyone to have sex with anyone underage, even if they are underage as well.

This is consistent. Isn't a big deal made about consent esp given as you say teen pregnancy and date rape etc for that matter.

I've never understood the countries that go on about consent but then allow peer sex. This seem to undermine the consent argument as well as the they aren't sexual or they aren't ready for the consequences of sex.

Why shouldn't it be treated like any other crime committed by a minor?

Interestingly I've heard stories of kids/minors both in the US and Australia being treated as sex offenders because they initiated sex with peers. Well I suppose this can be considered consistent. I wonder should they stay on a sex offender registry for their entire lives? I know of US teens who have committed suicide over this.

But how to fix it without undermining other arguments because if consent , potential power differentials -boys and girls at this age can be as different in propotion as many adults to kids- not being sexual or emotionally ready for sex not being issues then it could open the door for some adults to claim their sexual relationship with a minor is no different.

Not sure how one would fix that without just being arbitrary.

[Sabine Grant]

Reminder : the appropriate forum to communicate questions, complaints, suggestions, problems IRW IIDB policies/ moderator actions is http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=16

As clearly indicated in the Forum Rules any registered user is required to agree with them to participate in any exchanges across the entire spectrum of IIDB and specifically regarding :

[3] If you discuss moderation in-thread, it may be edited, particularly if it is disruptive in nature or complaining. If you wish to complain, there are other channels open--Questions, Problems, Complaints & Suggestions or IIDB Private Feedback. (Rule 1) Sabine Grant, Moderator Team MF&P.

[Sabine Grant]

This thread will be temporarily locked pending review and maintenance to split posts resulting in a derail. Our apologies to the thread starter and participants.

[Sabine Grant]

This thread is now reopened. Please make sure to review our Moral Foundations and Principles Guidelines before resuming this debate. Thank you for your patience. Sabine Grant, MF&P Moderator Team.