The following discussion questions a very basic moral value of present day Western society. As such, it is highly taboo: The American Psychological Association interviewed individuals 18 and over who when they were under 18 had sexual relations with people 18 and over. The interviewed people, after they became 18 and over, claimed that they were not currently experiencing any type of emotional dysfunction due to their sexual experiences. They said that the experiences were pleasurable and that they had no regrets. The American Psychological Association (APA) published their findings, and religious leaders and politicians joined forces and launched a severe ad hominem bombardment upon the APA for their conclusion that minors are not psychologically harmed by having sexual relations with someone 18 and over. Thus, the current public support of age of consent laws is not based on scientific fact, but superstition, similar to the majority belief in deities, the Soul, and the Afterlife. As an anecdote, I remember myself as a 15 year old male and all the radical sexual thoughts I used to have about various 18 and over females and what I would have greatly enjoyed doing to them had they consented - I would not be regretting it right now. Here is a thought that may greatly disturb feminists: All males right now that are 40 and over, they were once 15 and may have had sexual relations with their female school mates who were of ages 14, 15, and 16. These experienes are still in the memory of the now 40 year old men: they remember the now "pedophilic" imagery in their heads of the 14, 15, and 16 year old females they were with when the males themselves were 15 year old. So, since these experiences are still in the now 40 year old males, would they be "evil closet pedophiles with child molesting fantasies"? Is this not a delemma for feminists: they now have to consider arresting every single male in the Western world who had relations when they themselves were minors and who currently have that memory still in their heads: the memories of explicit situations with underage females. Of course, the feminists don't have much of a problem with adult females having relations with underage males: this is why adult females just receive "a slap on the wrist" when caught engaging in statutory rape, while males get 15 or more years in prison. Consider the recent example of a female teacher who had sex with her students: she only got a few years of probation and lost her teaching liscense. Male teachers on the other hand get 15 or more years for the same crime in state prisons where they will most likely be homosexually raped and beaten and probably given STDs by other inmates: male prison rape data: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/ http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1195495 http://www.spr.org/ http://www.vachss.com/help_text/prison_rape.html http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/23/prisons/ What is the difference between a 15 year old having sexual relations with a 17 year old, versus having the relation with a 22 year old? In each case, she is doing the same stuff with a male human. As such, it seems irrational to me that such laws exist, except for the sole reason of finding ways to vilify and imprison males. But in any case, if this is what the Western male is satisfied with, then that is what he will vote for. But such anti-male policies don't currently exist in China. Finally, I ask any of the males here who are now 18 and over: when you were under 18, did you have sexual relations with other females who were also under the age of 18? If yes, are these memories still in your head? If yes, are you now disgusted by the images? Or are they pleasant memories? If you did not automatically and instantly find the memories revolting at the very micro-second you became 18 years of age, would that make you a closet pedophile?
Most people agree that the issue of teenage sex is a grey area that needs looking at. Most people also agree that the idea of a 50-year-old grooming and having sex with an 8-year-old is repulsive and unacceptable. The question is, where do you draw the line? Age-of-consent laws are somewhat arbitrary and vary widely from country to country, but all are designed to protect those who are considered too young to understand the issues involved and make informed decisions about them. Do you have a problem with this?
I consider your argument an invalid extrapolation: my examples ranged from ages 14 to 17, not age 8. If a 15 year old can consent to a 17 year old, then why not to a 19 year old? Likewise, if feminists believe that a 15 year old should have the right to consent to an abortion because it is her own body, then why can't she consent to using her body for sexual relations with a 19 year old? And if a 16 year old "has enough brains" to get a liscence and drive all over the country all alone, why can't the 16 year old consent to dating a 19 year old? My analysis indicates that it all comes down to finding ways to vilify and imprison males: keep in mind that it's mostly females that choose to date older men: so it's mostly going to be males who are affected by these age of consent laws.
That's because you misunderstand my argument. Or didn't bother to read it. Let me simplify it for you: 1. It's deemed necessary by many governments, and many people in general, to protect young, vulnerable people from sexual exploitation. Therefore age-of-consent laws have been introduced in these countries. 2. The minimum age-of-consent is arbitrary and varies from country to country, depending upon a consensus about the age that people in that country reach maturity, and become able to make infomed decisions. Without age-of-consent laws how are the very young (eg 8-year-olds in my example) to be protected from sexual exploitation? If you think 15-year-olds need no legal protection, what about 14-year-olds? Or 13? Or, 12, 11, 10? Where would you draw the line? Do bear in mind that your opinion is as arbitrary as the next persons. In drawing up the laws, of course, psychologists and experts in other relevant fields are consulted. Do you have enough qualifications and experience in the field to be able to refute their arguments? Why would any government want to do this?
The age of consent is to some extent arbitrary, as it has to be. Some people age faster than others, but for legal purposes, society needs to draw the line somewhere. Some kids will fool around no matter what the law is, and we can't help that. In most cases, they go on with their lives, no harm done.
Age of consent laws are designed to protect those in society that are unable to CONSENT to sexual relations. These are mostly determined by the society in which the person lives, but also by bias and limited imagination. Most people simply cannot understand the desire to mate with a 15 year old that's hot, most people wouldn't even think she was hot! Even if they did it their mental mindset would prevent something like that from ever happening. Woman are ready to bang when they're sexy and alluring, and hot. This would get rid of all age of consent laws focusing instead on how they look, or appear, to most of the population. If they are really super fine and 14 then bam damn thank you mame, get some'a that. In my personal opinion there comes a time when you're very young that sex is all you want, and that is when these laws aren't really reasonable. Now the question really comes down to is it RIGHT, or is it SICK? I'd say niether. If you get with a girl that's young and she likes you, and you're not older then 3 years, I think these younger relationships are alright. But if you're with an 17 year old girl that's hot and you're 21, well my friend that's sick. Why? Because the girl is stupid, she's so young and has no ability to grasp this guy isn't the most wonderful thing in the world, she'll believe anything he says. So as long as the people share similar emotional / intellectual development I think it's ok. This topic is a big one, and I really wouldn't say I have the perfect answer, but I do think if a girl is 17 the oldest she should be legally able to bang is 17, there shouldn't be something allowing her to screw with a 19 or 20 year old, they're just ruining our chances when we're 17 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because the law presumes that there is a potential power imbalance in the relationship between a 19 year old and a 15 year old, due to differences in experience and other factors. You'll need to be specific as to why you think the two acts are similar. They can. Dating is not a problem, as I understand it. Males also commit the majority of sexual crimes, by far.
So we have to be careful as to the freedom we give to people to wander around freely in glass shops, don't we?
Well, one good reason for the age of consent to be arbitrary is that at least a person can be found innocent if he is on the right side of the law. Suppose it took sophisticated thinking to come up with the not guilty verdict? A lot of judges aren't up to it and prosecutors don't want to.
Obviously the line should be drawn at the age where empirical evidence shows that a consensual sexual relationship is substantially likely to harm the person. It seems like this would be relatively easy to study. I think Charles_Wong's entire point in his opening post is that the laws aren't based on any sort of empirical, scientific evidence - just vague, non-scientific notions that vary from one politician to another. If they were actually based on scientific evidence, there wouldn’t be such huge variation from region to region. I think most people would agree that it's a bad idea to pass laws designed to "protect" people against dangers that have not actually been demonstrated to exist.
If you really want to minimize the risk that sex poses to teenagers, you should probably ban them having sex with each other before you ban them having sex with older people. Who do you think is more likely to be knowledgeable and responsible about contraception and safe sex: the 16-year-old, or the 26-year old?
Well I can't say I know tha answer to that one, but alas I do wanna tell you all I am so very attracted to younger woman, but once they speak I feel somewhat sick to my stomach, afterall a girl in highschool barely has any life, let alone one I'd like to become involved with. I still have fantasy's about going into the girls high school locker room and seeing them in panties and bras undressing for gym class, then again when they run away screaming I'd likely be put off by the sheer stupidity of the situation, let alone the arrest later on! So in general stay away from young girls, in my opinion date someone a few years older that way they'll never be an issue. I'd like to get a girl that's like 27, but since I'm not really like everyone else socially I feel I may always be the virgin that I am, please people luV me :-(
And the law affects the primary sexual behavior of male humans: males place more weight on actual physical engagement, while females place more weight than men, on average, on the emotional aspects, like cuddling, sentimental chatter, reciprocal gift exchanges, non-sexual ritualisms to symbolize the emotional attachment, etc. Now, since contemporary Western ethos has incorporated radical feminism, the sexual interests of the human female has been "sold" to us as being more virtuous and morally superior to the sexual interests of the male human: a man who wants the physical aspects are "dirty dogs," "pigs," "womanizers," "sexual predators," "pedophiles," "child molestors," etc. All these terms are subjective of course: to use objective scientific terms would create less negative emotional responses. But, on the other hand, while male desires as described above are "sold" to us as "evil" by the media, government, and acadamia, female desires are "sold" to us as virtuous, noble, and morally superior. This is also exemplified in the media where men who put of their desires and instead emotionally pamper the female, buy them emotionally symbolic gifts, hold their hands instead of their breasts, remembers all their anniveraries, etc. are portrayed as noble and desirable men, while men who instead follow their own interests are portrayed as "dogs." Tv shows/movies show women as being "strong" for not giving in to the desires of males. Now, the only reason i consider good for portraying sexual activity as negative is for the sole sake of preventing STDs are unwanted pregnancies, the two empirically proven consequencies of sexual activity. But, the media and acadamia go much further than this, considering sexual activity in of itself as an "evil male act," that is, so long as its the male who is seeking it. A female who seeks sexual activity is just "a girl wanting to have some healthy independence and fun," even if its an adult girl desiring an underage male. And again, if the contemporary Western male is content being placed as secondary to females as opposed to being equal (which I support), then they can disregard this post.
Charles_Wong, I'm not really sure how topical all this anti-feminism stuff is. I think it’s pretty clear that most of the things that you are blaming feminism for were around many hundreds of years before the feminist movement. If anything, they are probably the product of religious-motivated thought that regards sex and physical pleasure in general as an inherently bad thing that young people need to be protected against. Age of consent laws have been around since at least the 1800s, long before the "women's movement" and feminism came around - so it seems unlikely that age of consent laws are the product of feminism. Similarly, the idea that the "male" aspects of sex (physical acts) are bad while the "female" aspects (emotional bonding etc.) are good is an idea that goes back all the way to 16th century Puritanism - so I don't see how you could possibly blame that on modern feminism. If anything, our society has become far more tolerant of having casual sex solely for physical pleasure as our society becomes more secularized and less concerned with prudish Victorian era values.
Well, age of consent is a political issue ...... How old have you got to be, to understand - and give consent to sexual relationship ???? In most countries it is regulated by politicians ..... young people normally get interested in sex , when puberty starts ( around 13 years old for girls ... a little later for boys ) ... but often very young sexually interested kids , can be manipulated into sex by adults - sometimes actually against the real will of the young kids .... In some countries the age of consent is so low, that it is before the puberty !!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click on the map - one of the lowest age of consent in the western world is in Spain (12 years old ) - but it goes dow to 9 (nine !!!) years old worldwide !!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
