Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. I never said that study said anything about the age of consent. But about cognitive abilities which is relevant to the AOC issue since it basically about a person being competent enough to consent to sex. Placing it at 16 resolves the whole competence issue because a major part of your brain is fully matures at that age as oppose to 18 which every little happens.
But as I alluded to the study doesn't even suggest that 16 year olds are capable of making that decision in the realm of sexual relations, especially with an older person. You are making that inference about the study. And I think you're wrong. A study directly on AoC laws and the psychology therein, would make for a stronger argument.
Quote:
2. You are assuming that all sex involves relationships. We are talking about consent to sexual acts which would also includes hook-ups/one-night-stands and things of that sort.
Maybe I am. But I'm asking why? Again, assuming your inference from #1 is correct what are the advantages of allowing lowering the age/making it a standard 16?
Quote:
3. Not all 18 years are mature either. As a matter of fact teens at 18 are no where near as mature as people in their mid-20s as the study has mentioned.
Of course not. But we err on the side that there would be more 18+ year olds who can make a decision rather than not. And to keep as many formative years under their belts, as possible.
Quote:
4. What about people who finish High school early or late? I know people who finished as early at 16(and 17) and some as late as 19. So should that 16 year old be allow to consent and that 19 year old shouldn't since the former is finished with school and the latter isn't? There are also places where the age of majority is higher or lower than 18 ( as low as 14 and as high as 21). It is arbitrary.
High School is secondary to the point and was just an example of the societal stigma surrounding dating a high schooler. Yes there are 18-19 and even 20 year olds in high school, and I don't know about you but I'd still feel a little weird picking up my GF if she was still going there, even if I were in my early 20's.
Quote:
5. 18 as the AOC is extremely rare even in the US. So what do you mean by "keeping it at 18"? I even mentioned this in the OP.
File:Age of Consent - Global.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Age of Consent - North America.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Age of consent in Pennsylvania is actually 16.
From avert.org an AoC of 18 years old doesn't seem that rare. Not to mention that the stipulations are quite different and vary widely from country to country and even, and as you pointed out state to state.
Look, if you want to have a discussion about statutory rape laws and then having those people labeled sex offenders /or not (in the case of a developed teenager) that's another thing entirely. As I do agree that a 22 and 17 (and maybe 16 year olds) can have relations in certain circumstances. And to call those people pedophiles would be, a bit much. Some states (like Florida) I believe have a 16 yo AoC, but do not allow anyone over 24 yo to copulate with. And IMO that is OK, if that is what the state and the people there approve.
But I haven't seen anything that is clear cut as to why the age should be 16. The reasons to keep it 18 (at least in California) (or to move it higher in other places that are 16) are more clear then just to allow it at 16, and if anything IMO having it at 16 is just more ambiguous and arbitrary than it is at 18; for many of the reason I've listed in previous posts.
But as I alluded to the study doesn't even suggest that 16 year olds are capable of making that decision in the realm of sexual relations, especially with an older person. You are making that inference about the study. And I think you're wrong. A study directly on AoC laws and the psychology therein, would make for a stronger argument.
You know what? You're right about the bold. I was just reminded a study someone posted in another thread on this site.
Quote:
In fact, most teens who have early sex do not become depressed or lose self-esteem as a result, says Meier, who studied more than 8,500 seventh- through twelfth-graders over an 18-month period. In her study, Meier found that those who do suffer negative mental health consequences—about 15 percent of her respondents—tended to be the youngest (girls who had sex before age 15 and boys who had sex before age 14) and those whose relationships were not emotionally close and ended after the sex.
Since it seems 14/15 is the cut-off to prevent emotional damage I still feel that 16 is old enough to consent sexual acts. However hook-ups appear to be unhealthy to teens and I don't see many emotional relationships happening between with people in their mid-20s since the maturity level is significant. After rereading this I decided to change my position a bit. I think that the age of consent should be handled similar to how Utah handles it.
Quote:
The age of consent in Utah is 18. However, it is legal for minors aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual activity with partners less than 10 years older.
So the unrestricted age would be the same as the Age of Majority of whatever area (be it 21). The only exceptions to this would be emancipated teens 16+ because they have proven that their maturity is above most people their age and could sleep with whom ever they want. How do you feel about those terms?
Oh, well, then, that's a horse of a different color! Using 16-yr. olds for sex without dating is just dandy! Why didn't you say from the start that it was only about consenting to sex? Hey, I have a niece I could sell you...
You're quoting an article that says the cognitive abilities of a 16-yr.-old are the same as an adult, but that's been proven to be untrue. In fact, the death penalty age was rolled back from 16 to an older age, for precisely that reason. You must have dug up a very old, obsolete article.
Since it seems 14/15 is the cut-off to prevent emotional damage
Emotional damage can occur at any age. You're really scouring the internet with a fine-tooth comb, aren't you, to try to scrape up "facts" to support your little kink.
However, the feminist politics mixed into your post, seem to be suggestive of something deeper. Consider your first sentence in the post:
"The UN had a campaign in the 90's about letting teen girls finish their childhood so they can mature emotionally and psychologically, before the sexual predation begins. "
Before the sexual predation begins! Even after teen girls have "finished their childhood" and "matured emotionally and psychologically" you're statement is arguing that heterosexual interaction is nothing more than a process of predation-
That wasn't feminist politics, that was sarcasm aimed at some of the posts here. Sorry it went over your head.
You're quoting an article that says the cognitive abilities of a 16-yr.-old are the same as an adult, but that's been proven to be untrue. In fact, the death penalty age was rolled back from 16 to an older age, for precisely that reason. You must have dug up a very old, obsolete article.
Can you pull up the data, please? Because the guy who did the study is still saying this in May of 2012...
Since it seems 14/15 is the cut-off to prevent emotional damage I still feel that 16 is old enough to consent sexual acts. However hook-ups appear to be unhealthy to teens and I don't see many emotional relationships happening between with people in their mid-20s since the maturity level is significant. After rereading this I decided to change my position a bit. I think that the age of consent should be handled similar to how Utah handles it.
The study tacitly suggests that this was sexual relations within the law, among peers. And of course the study does, "not suggest that first-time sex among teens has positive effects." Meaning that even among teens there is no overt benefit from doing it.
This is a better study and better analysis, but I wouldn't say I was swayed by it.
This study on mental health, based off of a depression scale (is only one factor in many). Not to reiterate that, again, this is solely relations among peers.
Quote:
So the unrestricted age would be the same as the Age of Majority of whatever area (be it 21). The only exceptions to this would be emancipated teens 16+ because they have proven that their maturity is above most people their age and could sleep with whom ever they want. How do you feel about those terms?
Well I think the emancipated teens thing is very rare, as either you'd have to get married/with parent's approval, unless you have no parents and can prove you can support yourself. And of course this varies between states.
Otherwise, looking over Utah's AoC rules, I think that's ok however I would err on the side of caution and maybe limit the law from 10 years apart to a sliding scale.This is closer on how California does it (and I agree with).
Something like:
16 = 3 years older/max
17 = 4 years older/max
18 = unrestricted
Penalties however, and offender status should be on a sliding scale as well.
That wasn't feminist politics, that was sarcasm aimed at some of the posts here. Sorry it went over your head.
So, your very serious post about the well-being of girls and women was just a jaunt into sarcasm for the purpose of getting-one-over on an intellectually inferior male who would be unable to see the wittiness of your hidden gem. Ad hominem arguments are the last refuge of someone unable or unwilling to construct a relevant one.
Trying to get back to the OP's original question, I'll ask a few questions of you, because I missed it if you already answered them.:
What do you think the unrestricted age of consent should be?
Should it be the same for males and females alike?
Do you feel as though there should be additional restrictions based upon the amount of age-difference between the older and the younger participant?
Do you feel as though adult men and women should face the same legal sanctions for engaging in consensual sexual contact with an adolescent below the age of consent?
Do you feel as though an adult who engages in a consensual sexual encounter with an adolescent below the age of consent, should go to prison for several years--followed by a lifetime branded as a "sexual offender"?
The age of consent is too high, or not high enough? If you disagree with it, what age do you believe it should be?
Right now I'm thinking restricted age should be 16+(less than 10 years) and unrestricted once a person reaches the Age of Majority(or emancipation). I would have the punishment for someone over a decade older for having sex with a minor 16+ to be a misdemeanor (not worthy of being branded as a "sexual offender") and anything under a felony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar
Penalties however, and offender status should be on a sliding scale as well.
So what would you have the penalties be for sleeping around with a 16 and 17 year old?
Last edited by DevilMayhem666; 12-18-2012 at 07:34 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry it went over your head.
