The clause of Roman law, according to which a girl may wed at age twelve, was accepted by the church, and is still maintained in some of the United States. And that is marriage! In New Jersey, where I grew by and by the sea, the legal age of consent for sexual relations is sixteen. In Hawaii (an island), a nymphet can be freed at age thirteen. In Canada, all is copasetic at fourteen. Far away places of ancient mystery, like Africa, have consent laws that fall below eleven! And in Bermuda, a savage sweating monster of an old man might know the love of a trusting sixteen-year-old schoolgirl, and then go about his day like nothing was a wary.

I do not offer the facts as an excuse; I offer them as facts. At all corners of the globe, humanity is confused about the little girl. She is her own irony – being old enough to control the world with her sexuality, but not being old enough to understand why. Because, for her, the mind and the body mature at different speeds – we are befuddled and bemused by her temptation. Lolita will always be alive on the sharp edge of taboo, because she is a puzzled generalization.

Regardless.. it would be interesting to know your thoughts on this subject.

perhaps some visual aids to further refine the discussion?

The rate at which children mature emotionally and intellectually depends directly on their surroundings.
Family life, immediate influences and culture.

Age is not the only factor at play here.

In the US, we have created a society that slows and stunts emotional and intellectual maturing.

The other aspects (family and other immediate influences) can counter-act that, but the laws should refect the norm to protect the majority.

In Holland, it is 16 BUT you will not be prosecuted IF you have sex with a 12 year old girl AND she or her parents do not complain.

So, if her neighbours complain NO BIG DEAL!, but if its under 12 anybody can complain/turn you in/you are prosecutable by definition of child molest.

It's a very ambigious law, designed to make explorative sex possible between 12-16 year old , but the loophole can be used by very carefull older guys, you just have to walk on eggs, because if the 12 year old girl is no longer amused by sugar daddy she can file a complaint for sexual harassment haha. It also makes ya vulnerable for blackmail.

Evil Rumour has it that this ambigious law still exist in Holland to make sex with young boys possible....

Age is a number, but I have occaisionally seen some 14 year old fruit more ready to be picked than some 18 year old, as the previous poster said, surroundings, mindsret and hormonal development play an important role, but I do feel that you have to draw a line somewhere. I remember this time in southern france on a camping when I was a bit drunk and stoned when this way too young but gorgious girl of the neighbours was kinda making a charm offensive towards me, In this state that I was It took an awfull lot of self-discipline, cause I knew I would just have to blink my eye and she would put her lips round the shaft of my cock.....but anyway, some older female got facially creamed that night, cause I felt really NEEDED BADLY to unload somewhere at that point....

IMO the law in Holland should be tightened to restrict sex between 12 year olds and anything older than 12+4=16 while allowing sex between for instance 12 year olds and a 14 year old. Also a 15 year old in this vision could have a sex with a 15+4=19 year old etc. and at age 16 the rules no longer apply and its free duck hunting hehe. The guys and girls that are ready for it will explore anyway, but this way you can sorta prevent dependancy situations and mental/financial/physical manipulation by much older males/females

Rajisthan, India - Childern are married at the age of 2.

sevenblu said:
At all corners of the globe, humanity is confused about the little girl. She is her own irony – being old enough to control the world with her sexuality, but not being old enough to understand why. Because, for her, the mind and the body mature at different speeds – we are befuddled and bemused by her temptation.

Um... how is it that a "little girl" controls the world with her sexuality? If you find that you are suffering sexual "temptation" towards little girls, you should stop what you're doing, drive yourself to a psychiatrist, and GET HELP!

what about the little boy?

I don't see why anybody should be allowed to have consentual sex, before age 18. People need to be married anyway, before sex.

However, I have no problem with people getting married as young as 12, since puberty comes early anyway, with the parent's consent.

And if they are married, of course they may have sex and children.

As a society, we wait too long to get married. More people should be encouraged to marry young, and have that proper outlet for sex and their reproductive urges, and to welcome children into their families.

<i>At all corners of the globe, humanity is confused about the little girl.</i>

What you really mean is <b>you</b> are confused. Most people have thing very clear in their minds.

<i>She is her own irony – being old enough to control the world with her sexuality, but not being old enough to understand why.</i>

In what sense does a little girl control the world? Again, I think what you mean is that you can't control yourself.

<i>Because, for her, the mind and the body mature at different speeds – we are befuddled and bemused by her temptation.</i>

Read: <b>you</b> are tempted.

<i>Lolita will always be alive on the sharp edge of taboo, because she is a puzzled generalization.</i>

It is taboo because she is not capable of giving <b>informed consent</b>. Most people have no problem understanding this.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
People need to be married anyway, before sex.

i wouldnt buy a car without test driving it myself...

these threads about age of concent alwayse bring out such weird ideas about age and sex. The essence of it is that there is a segment of any nations population that are basicly lecherous horny old men, and we need laws to stop them from coercing young girls who will be emotionaly damaged by it into sleeping with them. IMHO 16 makes for a pretty good absolute minimum age of concent.

No one seems to think a males age of concent really matters maybe its because by about 14 sex its all we think about anyway.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
As a society, we wait too long to get married. More people should be encouraged to marry young, and have that proper outlet for sex and their reproductive urges, and to welcome children into their families.

Yes, lord knows that children should be rushed headlong into an institution, which rightly, should last the rest of their lives before they have the mental capacity to even comprehend what that really means, and certainly before they are emotionally mature enough to pick the right partner for them.

Good idea, let's get more people trapped in hopeless relationships, and then watch the divorce rate get even higher. Jesus Christ, and people say that allowing homosexuals to marry would defile the sanctity of marriage. What a crackpot idea.

People are idiots.

Originally posted by James R
What you really mean is <b>you</b> are confused. Most people have thing very clear in their minds.

It is taboo because she is not capable of giving <b>informed consent</b>. Most people have no problem understanding this.

what is so clear? the clearness of america 200 yrs ago? primitives, a 1000 years ago? the clearness of hawaii (14 yrs-informed consent)? the clearness of cali (18=informed consent)? the clearness of an indian village in the present day? the clearness of bio/soc in the present?

spookz,

I'm talking about clearness which followed the Age of Enlightenment (for those societies which were affected by it), which occurred several centuries ago.

well that certainly encompasses a fairly wide variety of mores/laws doesnt it?
when even now disparities exists b/w countries or even gender (hetero can fuck at younger age), how do we decide "informed assent? by what/whose standards? bio/psy/soc? let the individual culture decide?

spookz,

We live in a particular culture. Our culture is informed by progress in many fields of knowledge including sociology, human development, psychology, studies of learning, law and applied ethics.

How do we decided informed consent? Answer: we take into account the accumulated knowledge of our society, and weigh up the relevant factors in the fields I mentioned. Then we come to a decision as to where to set the bar.

The process by which we do this is culturally biased to a certain extent, but I would argue very strongly that we are in a better position to set the bar than, for example, a tribal society.

But perhaps you disagree (?)

James R, the particular culture we live in gets hysterical about the very mention of sex.
Did you even read Vortexx's post?

For the most part the age of consent laws in the U.S. are arbitrary, and regularly lead to stupidity like an 18 year old being prosecuted for having consensual sex with his 15 or 16 year old girlfriend.

When I was in highschool, many of the girls were having sex at 15, many more at 16, and even more at 17. And many of them were doing it with guys who were 18 and older. If the laws on the books were consistently applied, many of these guys could have been in big trouble. Few, if any, of these relationships could have been characterized as predatory.
Nobody gets hysterical about a 15 year old guy getting lucky with an older woman.
When I was 15, I would have considered myself the luckiest guy alive if a woman in her late teens or early 20's had been interested in me.

There are many mature for any age girls in their early teens. And there are many 18 year old women who could probably use the protection of a law saying they aren't emotionally ready for the possible consequences of a sexual relationship.

I'm all for a common sense set of rules for protecting children. But with our Puritan background, I don't see a strong possibility for such laws in the U.S. anytime soon.

Repo Man:

What you say is fair comment, but this thread did not start that way. The original posts were talking about sex with young girls (essentially pre-pubescent), which is a very different matter to a 16 year old girl having sex with her 18 year old boyfriend.

Age of consent laws are there to protect young people. They are there to empower a 15 year old girl to refuse sex with an 18 year old if she wishes, and to be able to back that up with the force of the law. But much more importantly, they are there to protect 14 year olds from predatory 50 year olds.

People are always ready to jump in with borderline examples in these kinds of things, while ignoring 95% of the actual cases which occur and which the law is aimed at.

At times though, I think the laws themselves are part of the problem; forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest.

I think there are hundreds of thousands of males that can identify with Kevin Spacey's attraction to Mena Suvari in American Beauty.
But in the end, he realized that she was still just a child, mentally if not physically.

People raised in a culture so hypocritical about sex as ours generally have a warped idea about what it is, and generally pass their unhealthy attitudes on to the next generation.

I think people should have sex when they think they are ready, and only with those they really want to.

But our culture is far from ready for such a liberal attitude.

all this talk is about young girls. i suppose boys become emotionally mature faster than girls? :bugeye: yeeeeah

the way i see it, sex should always be consensual regardless of age. some 15 year olds are ready to have sex. many are not. not everyone is the same. there is no magic space in time between 11:59 and the stroke of midnight of a person's 18th birthday that they suddenly mature and are ready to be adults. it can happen mid-teens or not until mid-twenties. there are 40 year olds who can be misled or pressured into having sex with someone they otherwise wouldn't be if they were thinking for themselves. it would be pretty impossible to take it case by case so a cutoff age must be set. i think 18 is pretty safe. it ensures that a good portion of the population has matured while letting kids sleep with people their own age (or anyone in their high school). relationships between teenagers and non-teenagers are seldom equal, there is almost always an unfair power divide.

James R, the particular culture we live in gets hysterical about the very mention of sex.

Australia is that bad?
You should vacation in the 'States, we have nothing but the mention of sex. It's bloody annoying.

Originally posted by James R
But perhaps you disagree (?)

well james, you are so reasonable it is hard to disagree with you. however i would suggest...."but I would argue very strongly that we are in a better position to set the bar than, for example, a tribal society."...you let them decide. if you cannot/will not, dig out a tribe and indicate the changes you would make in their society and show me how they would benefit.

for instance it is this zeal, "argue very strongly", that forced the dusky young maidens of tahiti to cover their nakedness (semi) and inhibit their sexuality.

I think people should have sex when they think they are ready

Well, really, this is going to happen anyway - laws or not. I don't think north american society is as hypocritcal and uptight about sex as Repo Man for example has portrayed. I mean, go past a supermarket check out - it's almost impossible to find a magazine there without some kind of article on "His Sexual Desires Revealled" or "How to Get The Sex You Want" - never mind the magazines on the high shelves.

When making laws we have to balance the fact that young people are going to experiment with the fact that there are predators out there who will exploit the innocent.

I've spent a couple years working in a sexual assault centre and all I can say is that it's very infrequent for a blatant sexual assault to result in a conviction, so I'm not worried in the least about kids getting charged for consentually fooling around.

It does worry me when people start using the law as a basis for defining what is right - ie. "she is x years old so technically this is legal." Laws are established by community standards. There's no scientific data that states when a person turns x years old, he or she is suddenly endowed with the wisdom to understand his or her actions. Instead, we look at our population and our society our culture, make a judgement and set a limit above which the individual may assume responsibility for his or her actions.

Sure there will be different societies in the world and through time that vary in where they set this limit. What one has to remember though is that circumstances are different. Some societies had to set this limit low because people only lived for an average of 30 years, and the mental and emotional stability of adolescents took a back seat to survival of the tribe.

Anyway, it's getting late, so I'll just close this post by reiterating my point in an earlier post. If you're trying to convince yourself that your attraction to someone under the age of consent is okay by drawing on examples that are inconsistent with the laws of your own society, you need to take a closer look at yourself.

well said dragoon

early civs had to get an early start because they weren't around very long. if you're going to have a dozen kids by the time you die at 25, you'd better get crackin by the age of 12.

Could I just point out that Lolita was not actually a virgin when she sleeps with Humbert Humbert.

Good point, how, if at all, would anyone justify prosecuting a 30 year old man for having "sexual relations" with a 16 year old girl when she has already slept with 5 other men?

Many girls lose their virginity by the age of 13 or 14 (some younger), anyway. As some have pointed out they do it with or without consent with their peers. I have, in my high school days, known quite a few young ladies to get taken advantage of at parties because they were "buzzed" and weren't in their right mind. It was legal, age wise, but they were certainly not well treated... most were used the one time and never spoken to again.

I have also met a handful of young ladies, in my time, who have lied to me about their age....

How would a man be protected by the law by a young girl dressing up and lying about her age to get laid? He would not, if the parents prosecuted, he would go up the creek for it.

Just some more food for thought.

grrrr always with the underaged girls. i refuse to believe boys mature emotionally any faster than girls do. it is well known they mature slower.

i'd like to add the case if the teacher who had two babies by a 13 year old student into the mix. or the women who made her teenaged lover kill her husband.

YEs, according to studies, women mature faster than men. I have no links to this (didn't bother to look) but I have heard/seen this many times.

I view the situation the exact same with underage boys also... same situations can apply, but for some reason it's "the poor helpless girls who must be protected", yeah right!

The reason I was trying to correct the misconception about Lolita is because most people comment on the story/book, perhaps having seen the film, and that she is seduced by H. As the book is supposed to have been written by H. and from his point of view he writes as thought she seduces him and uses the argument that he wasn’t even her first.

Peoples remarks concerning the book is like most of the arguments concerning under age children. People have heard of studies and findings but don’t check to see if they are just myths or how ‘emotional maturity’ was measured. And I have no reason to suggest that they do so unless they are interested.

However I would suggest that what is important is not the act which is carried out, but how it is viewed by society and the children surroundings. A relationship between two children may still be sexual and innocent until it reaches the eyes of the parents.

Has anyone read the Kinsley report?

"A relationship between two children may still be sexual and innocent until it reaches the eyes of the parents."

anyone remember playing doctor?

fond memories, sis still blushes!

Originally posted by SwedishFish
anyone remember playing doctor?

We are two sisters. one year apart. I was always the doctor. I remember one time, I was five and she was four, my parents went for a nap and me and my sister started playing doctor. I got the thermometer and stuck it in her butt to take her temprature, then as I pulled it out it didn't come out....My sister started asking what is wrong, and all I was doing was saying nothing, nothing, don't worry, 10 minutes later, she started freaking, and I told her that before she goes to mom and dad, we should agree on the story, but she wasn't in the mood for my suggestions, my sis was at my parent's bed with pants half down and a thermometer stuck to her butt.

Let's just say, we had a lot of explaining to do.

How would a man be protected by the law by a young girl dressing up and lying about her age to get laid? He would not, if the parents prosecuted, he would go up the creek for it.

This is an interesting point. Surely there are underage girls (and guys for that matter) who look older than they are. But the bottom line is that we live in a buyer beware society and as an adult, this man is responsible for his actions. Legally (in Canada anyway), one must obtain consent to engage in sexual relations. In order for that consent to be legal, it must come from a person who is of age to give it, who is not coerced into giving it, and who is sober.

Now before anyone jumps on me and says "Hey man, chill out! It's sex. It's not like we have to sign a contract." I'll say I agree. I'm just pointing out how the law looks at things. That and if you're so stupid that you get duped by a little girl then I don't have any sympathy for you.

how, if at all, would anyone justify prosecuting a 30 year old man for having "sexual relations" with a 16 year old girl when she has already slept with 5 other men?

What does her history have to do with it? Some people would see this as an older man taking advantage of a teenager with low self esteem. (For the record, where I'm from this would not be considered a crime.) This is exactly like asking "How, if at all, would anyone justify prosecuting a burglar for breaking into a house that's already been broken into five times before?"

Originally posted by Dragoon
This is exactly like asking "How, if at all, would anyone justify prosecuting a burglar for breaking into a house that's already been broken into five times before?"

or "How, if at all, would anyone justify prosecuting a burglar for breaking into a house whose owners invited him in and gave him all their posessions?"

[edit: spelling]