Roman Polanski arrested in Zürich

[garbon]

The law is outdated.  Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before.  All a matte of context I say.

G.

Except that trauma isn't caused simply because we "encourage"(?) kids to be traumatized.

[HisMajestyBOB]

The law is outdated. Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before.  All a matte of context I say.




G.

Given that the United States has tied a whole lot of education money into teaching abstinence in Health class instead of condom use (which isn't allowed until 10th grade), I don't see that part happening any time soon. 

Did you know that the rates of teenage pregnancy has been rising since about 2005?
Gee, wonder why...

[CountDeMoney]

I'm afraid that Grallon has swayed me to his point of view.  I want to bang teenagers, too.  I want to spooge all over their Facebooks.

[merithyn]

Did you know that the rates of teenage pregnancy has been rising since about 2005?
Gee, wonder why...

Yes, this is a common topic at school whenever the Abstinence Guy comes. (Yes, they bring in a special teacher for that week of lessons.)

[DontSayBanana]

Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.

I disagree with grallon that age of consent is irrelevant or it is "I-take-them-as-I-see-them" but just as I oppose child abuse, I oppose overbearing parents making arbitrary decisions for their children who are capable of making them on their own.

I think my position is the most principled one of the three (the other two presented by grallon and CCR).

Opening myself to fire here by posting this before reading the last page, but "age of consent" is a social norm, not a natural right.  As has been mentioned, most authoritative studies point to a mental "age of maturity" of around 24 for males and 21 for females, so a naturalist should actually be arguing for a higher age of consent.  Also, in response to grallon's position, the obvious flaw (to manipulate his own metaphor) is that the fruit isn't ripe if there's still a lot of green to it- maturity isn't something you wake up with one morning; it is progressive and as slow as any other biological growth; taking years of adolescence to reach full maturity.

[CountDeMoney]

The law is outdated.  Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before.  All a matte of context I say.

G.

Except that trauma isn't caused simply because we "encourage"(?) kids to be traumatized.

I want to traumatize Hanna Montana.
There.  I said it.

[garbon]

I want to traumatize Hanna Montana.
There.  I said it.

I'd say that I'm sorry for you, but I don't care.

[dps]

I recall you opposing the trial of 15 year olds as adults, but here you are defending 15 years as a reasonable age of consent. 

I think that there is naturally a logical problem with the fact that the age at which we consider a person to be an adult and to have all the legal rights and priviliges that we associate with adulthood varies for different rights.  However, one has to realize that those ages limits are always necessarily going to be somewhat arbitrary, and while having one particular age limit for everything would be tidy, there's no compelling reason that I can see that different rights and priviliges shouldn't have different age limits associated with them.  (Which is not to say that I agree with every choice that we've written into law.)

[Jaron]

I'm afraid that Grallon has swayed me to his point of view.  I want to bang teenagers, too.  I want to spooge all over their Facebooks.

Get grumbler to put you on the sub list.

[Martinus]

Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.

That's reasonable.  How would you respond to someone who said the age of consent should be 12 and you're a Taliban for making it 16?

That I would disagree with, obviously.

[The Brain]

FWIW I think that the age of consent should be 35, and there should also be land ownership requirements.

[Ed Anger]

FWIW I think that the age of consent should be 35, and there should also be land ownership requirements.

I QUALIFY!

YES!

[The Minsky Moment]

I recall you opposing the trial of 15 year olds as adults, but here you are defending 15 years as a reasonable age of consent. 

I think that there is naturally a logical problem with the fact that the age at which we consider a person to be an adult and to have all the legal rights and priviliges that we associate with adulthood varies for different rights.  However, one has to realize that those ages limits are always necessarily going to be somewhat arbitrary, and while having one particular age limit for everything would be tidy, there's no compelling reason that I can see that different rights and priviliges shouldn't have different age limits associated with them.  (Which is not to say that I agree with every choice that we've written into law.)

But can a 15 year old can be presumed sufficiently mature as to give meaningful consent to sex with a much older and experienced person, but at the same time be presumed to have insufficient capacity to grasp the blowing someone's head off in a drive by is an evil act?

I take your point but it seems to me that to the extent different age cutoffs apply to different sorts of age-based limits, the criminal law cutoffs should be lower than age-of-consent cutoffs, because the judgment required for an adoloscent to grasp and control their own emerging sexuality is far more difficult to acquire than the judgment required to understand that (e.g.) murder is bad.  Which makes Martinus' dual positions even more untenable.

[Capetan Mihali]

FWIW I think that the age of consent should be 35, and there should also be land ownership requirements.

And, of course, only applicable to males.

[Grallon]

... it seems to me that to the extent different age cutoffs apply to different sorts of age-based limits, the criminal law cutoffs should be lower than age-of-consent cutoffs, because the judgment required for an adolescent to grasp and control their own emerging sexuality is far more difficult to acquire than the judgment required to understand that (e.g.) murder is bad. 

This is so disingenuous!   As if we should expect teens to be conversant in sexual theory before engaging in recreational sex.  I maintain they can since they do already with other teens.  In fact what matters here is whether or not they can determine if they really want to accept an offer or if they feel pressured into accepting it.  And that is entirely subjective and should be approached on a case by case basis.




G.