Is the AOC law sufficient?

[Steel-Reserve]

I've given a lot of thought to statutory rape laws, what with all the news stories of adults and children having sex. It got me thinking. Should the age of consent law be reconsidered?

What if we offered adults and children of all ages a test where they answered questions on sexual consent, the basics of conception and reproduction, and the like?

The way I see it, there may be young teens and older children who are better prepared than most in their age group to have sex with one another, and they ight pass such a test. Likewise, there may be adults who, although competent in other ways, but woefully naive in matters of sex, and could fail such a test.

Thoughts?

[K-RadPie]

There's more to maturity than just knowing the basics of conception and reproduction.

[stafffighter]

So if you were caught by the police you'd be asked to show your sex licence? But wat, what if counterfitters turned out sex licences that were not offically sanctioned.?You'd have to train the police force in recognition of a fake sex licence. Some poor guy could go to jail for having sex with a 12 year old who's licence wasen't legitimate.
Your idea is dumb

[Draconias]

Such a test sounds perfectly bureaucratic, but absolutely unreasonable. Consent is usually only tested afterwards, and such a test makes it virtually impossible for any individual to be able to judge whether their soon-to-be-partner is capable of consent or whether they will hit you with jailtime, fines, and a lifetime label of "pedophile." Sorry, but making "consent" even more invisible doesn't sound like a good idea.

I do believe the AOC punishes violators inappropriately in many cases. I do not think it should label sex with a 14+ year old as pedophilia, for the simple reason that most people are sexually matured at that age, and never before in history has the 14-18 age group been so heavily discriminated against based on age (at one point, full adulthood was 13 worldwide).

Sex with sexually-immature individuals should be punished heavily (pedophilia), but it just doesn't make sense to me to treat sex with sexually-matured individuals in the same manner. Banning it is stil okay, but it should be punished differently.

[TheHuman]

Well it's an interesting idea but, not a good one maybe if we applied it to video games. You need to take a test to find your maturity to buy certain games. Just a suggestion.

[MortifiedPenguins]

We, you know, could just keep the system we have instead of instigating arbitrary tests that would befuddle any goverment department and more then likely cause more debt on our government.

[Korriken]

Laws aren't in place to prevent crime, only to punish offenders.

of course the age of consent being 18 is there for a reason, people don't need to be having children before they can graduate high school, not that it stops them from doing it anyway.

of course, the world is going to hell in a prissy pink velvet lines handbasket anyway...

[UWDarDar17]

The age of consent, nationwide, is 18 (US), but it does vary from state to state. going as low as 16.

The idea behind the age of consent is that while teenagers may be mature enough to do the horizontal mambo, they are often not mature enough to realize that their actions have consequences, as Korriken alludes to.

The issue addressed in this topic is statutory rape. Believe it or not, two minors can have sex and not be charged of any wrongdoing. Statutory rape is pretty plain and simple. Adults, don't have sex with minors. End of story. Keep it in your pants, or keep it corked, depending on gender.

These laws are in place to prevent exploitation of minors by adults.

Far out example: "If you have sex with me, I'll change your grade to an A+."

It's not about sticking it in. It's about knowing what happens while and after you stick it in. Some states feel that one can be younger and fully understand the consequences. Others feel that one must be older. It's a tricky subject, but I feel that the statutory rape laws currently in place are fine.

And really, a 20-year-old should not be dating someone under 18. First of all, it tells me that the 20-year-old has such a poor social life that he apparently cannot appeal to people in his own age bracket. Second, it's just damn creepy. If you're 18 and your other is 17, then just freaking wait, and make it a birthday present or something.

And the "I love him, he loves me" arguement? Not good enough. Shit, people under 18 barely understand what they get taught in school. There's no way that they comprehend love. Hell, I'm 19, and I barely even get love in the non-familial sense. It's a complicated thing.

[HighlyIllogical]

The age of consent law is designed to protect minors. If we thought that minors were mature enough to have consensual sex, then, well, there wouldn't be much of a point to having a voting age, a driving age, a drinking age, a draftable age, or any such thing.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/5/07 08:37 PM, stafffighter wrote: So if you were caught by the police you'd be asked to show your sex licence? But wat, what if counterfitters turned out sex licences that were not offically sanctioned.?You'd have to train the police force in recognition of a fake sex licence. Some poor guy could go to jail for having sex with a 12 year old who's licence wasen't legitimate.
Your idea is dumb

If we lived in a society where people were judged on the merits of their tested and approved ability to offer consent, rather than arbitrary age lines, than that wouldn't be the case. Think about it this way: If a child is smart enough to offer or refuse consent, the law would give that child the presumption of intellectual maturity. Therefore, the child would be to blame for the sex act, since they willfully and intentionally broke the law.

Now, if a man were found to have had sex with a child that bought a fake sexual consent license, that man should only be jailed if it can be proven that he assisted in obtaining that sex license. If, however, it is proven that the child bought the phony sex license, and the adult played no part, the adult would not be punished, since he just acted according to the new consent laws.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/5/07 09:45 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: We, you know, could just keep the system we have instead of instigating arbitrary tests that would befuddle any goverment department and more then likely cause more debt on our government.

In other words, anything complex ain't worth doin? =P

This is worth doing, by the way, for the simple reason that there are adults in this world who are dangerously naive in some ways, and need to be protected from sexual predators. You don't have to be seven years old to be preyed on sexually. It has much to do with life experience, and everything to do with base critical thinking skills.

If there are people who are given a comprehensive test that measures their ability to offer sexual co0nsent (or deny other's sexual advances), and are found to have weak resistance and extreme susceptability to mental manipulation, those are the people who need to be prevented from having sex on the basis of not being able to provide consent.

Also, please don't make claims without backing them up with evidence. If you're going to object to this on the basis of financial burden to the taxpayer, you've got to prove conclusively that that will be the case.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/5/07 09:20 PM, Draconias wrote: Such a test sounds perfectly bureaucratic, but absolutely unreasonable. Consent is usually only tested afterwards, and such a test makes it virtually impossible for any individual to be able to judge whether their soon-to-be-partner is capable of consent or whether they will hit you with jailtime, fines, and a lifetime label of "pedophile." Sorry, but making "consent" even more invisible doesn't sound like a good idea.

Actually, my proposed test will do the opposite of what you claim. It will provide evience that a child knows when to say no, when to say yes, and what every ramification of that yes will be. (This test will be open to people of all ages though). If a teen is proven to have the ability to offer and refuse consent, an adult having sex with that teen wouldn't be comitting statutory rape, because the teen has legal documentation of their mental maturity.

Draconias wrote: I do believe the AOC punishes violators inappropriately in many cases. I do not think it should label sex with a 14+ year old as pedophilia, for the simple reason that most people are sexually matured at that age, and never before in history has the 14-18 age group been so heavily discriminated against based on age (at one point, full adulthood was 13 worldwide).

Add the fact that attraction to teens isn't pedophilia at all. Pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to children 12 and under. As for age=based discrimination? It would cease to be, if children were tested on consent, and given government-approved documentation that they have indeed earned the right to have sex with any age group they want.

Draconias wrote: Sex with sexually-immature individuals should be punished heavily (pedophilia), but it just doesn't make sense to me to treat sex with sexually-matured individuals in the same manner. Banning it is still okay, but it should be punished differently.

A point well made. Un-contested.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/5/07 11:34 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote :

The age of consent, nationwide, is 18 (US), but it does vary from state to state. going as low as 16.

The idea behind the age of consent is that while teenagers may be mature enough to do the horizontal mambo, they are often not mature enough to realize that their actions have consequences, as Korriken alludes to.

Than why not prove, once and for all, which teens have the knowledge of sexual consequences, and which ones don't? This sexual consent and sexual ramifications test would seperate the children who can offer consent to adults and which ones can't.

UWDarDar17 wroteThe issue addressed in this topic is statutory rape. Believe it or not, two minors can have sex and not be charged of any wrongdoing. Statutory rape is pretty plain and simple. Adults, don't have sex with minors. End of story. Keep it in your pants, or keep it corked, depending on gender. These laws are in place to prevent exploitation of minors by adults.

Minors aren't the only ones who can be exploited, and adults aren't the only ones who can exploit. A test of a person's ability to offer consent or reject others will provide evidence of which people need protection, and which people deserve the benefit of the doubt in sexual matters.

Children can be skillful manipulators in some cases, and adults can be gullible fools in some cases. So, rather than base victimhood on age, let's base it on what counts.......a person's base critical thinking skills.

UWDarDar17. Far out example: "If you have sex with me, I'll change your grade to an A+."

Or perhaps "Sleep with me, or I'll tell my mom you molested me", hm?

Honestly, you have a good point about adults manipulating children, but you should keep in mind that children can have the mental strengths to manipulate as well.

UWDarDar17. It's not about sticking it in. It's about knowing what happens while and after you stick it in. Some states feel that one can be younger and fully understand the consequences. Others feel that one must be older. It's a tricky subject, but I feel that the statutory rape laws currently in place are fine.

Do the age of consent laws prevent gullible adult virgins from being seduced by sexually accomplshed teens? If the answer is no, than we've got a problem on our hands.

UWDarDar17 And really, a 20-year-old should not be dating someone under 18. First of all, it tells me that the 20-year-old has such a poor social life that he apparently cannot appeal to people in his own age bracket. Second, it's just damn creepy. If you're 18 and your other is 17, then just freaking wait, and make it a birthday present or something.

You've provided a theory for why a 20 year old would date a teen, but you obviously haven't argued successfully why that theory should be a legal basis foe keeping those two apart.

UWDarDar17. And the "I love him, he loves me" arguement? Not good enough. Shit, people under 18 barely understand what they get taught in school. There's no way that they comprehend love. Hell, I'm 19, and I barely even get love in the non-familial sense. It's a complicated thing.

Why are you oppsed to giving teens the chance to prove they have the mental strengths to comprehend love?

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/5/07 11:16 PM, Korriken wrote: Korriken wrote. Laws aren't in place to prevent crime, only to punish offenders.

Is there any way possible that you can tie that statement in with your objection to my proposal? Because I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make.

Korriken wrote. of course the age of consent being 18 is there for a reason, people don't need to be having children before they can graduate high school, not that it stops them from doing it anyway.

I agree with you that people shouldn't have children before they're ready financially, but I think that children can learn about things like abstinance, birth control, conception, and reproduction at any age.

Korriken wrote. of course, the world is going to hell in a prissy pink velvet lines handbasket anyway...

*cackle* XDDD

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

As a Status Quotioian, I say it's fine as it is.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/6/07 04:01 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: As a Status Quotioian, I say it's fine as it is.

So, in plain terms, we should go on doing something, just because it's been done for so long? What if a team of scientists discovered that smoke inhalation was causing longtime smokers to develop life-threatening diseases? What than?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/6/07 04:21 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 7/6/07 04:01 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

So, in plain terms, we should go on doing something, just because it's been done for so long? What if a team of scientists discovered that smoke inhalation was causing longtime smokers to develop life-threatening diseases? What than?

There screwed and it's none of the government's business.

We don't need to confuse an already corrupt and inefficient system with new pointlessly long and complex test's that were somehow supposed to administer to a nation at a whole.

It's pointless. We have a law in place, lets's enforce it.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/6/07 08:09 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 7/6/07 04:21 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 7/6/07 04:01 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

So, in plain terms, we should go on doing something, just because it's been done for so long? What if a team of scientists discovered that smoke inhalation was causing longtime smokers to develop life-threatening diseases? What than?

MortifiedPenguins. There screwed and it's none of the government's business.

Yes, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was using the analogy of the U.S.A.'s long and well-documented history of care-free smoking, to show that what's the status quo isn't always what's best. The status quo can fail us.

MortifiedPenguins. We don't need to confuse an already corrupt and inefficient system with new pointlessly long and complex test's that were somehow supposed to administer to a nation at a whole.

So it's acceptable to deny kids the oppurtunity to prove their rights as thinking individuals, while simultaneously leaving those who can't consent out in the cold, simply because they are legal adults?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--what's easy isn't always what's best.

MortifiedPenguins. It's pointless. We have a law in place, lets's enforce it.

I do agree that this law is better than nothing, as any thinking person would, but i think there should be a more thorough system than that which already exists.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/6/07 02:33 PM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 7/6/07 08:09 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 7/6/07 04:21 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 7/6/07 04:01 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

Yes, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was using the analogy of the U.S.A.'s long and well-documented history of care-free smoking, to show that what's the status quo isn't always what's best. The status quo can fail us.

And that was a bad comparison. One dealt with with self induced smoking, the other was what age one gets legal and financial consent, because in law, they go hand in hand.

So it's acceptable to deny kids the oppurtunity to prove their rights as thinking individuals, while simultaneously leaving those who can't consent out in the cold, simply because they are legal adults?

The act of consent, as I said earlier, be it sexualy or in a contract goes hand in hand. One is not a citizen of this country, nor entitled to all of it's rights till that age of consent is reached. In our nation, it is 18.

If they wish to change the age of consent, one must make it universal and not based upon each individual.

I do agree that this law is better than nothing, as any thinking person would, but i think there should be a more thorough system than that which already exists.

I'm not for whats perfect, I'm for whats plausible.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/7/07 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote

And that was a bad comparison. One dealt with with self induced smoking, the other was what age one gets legal and financial consent, because in law, they go hand in hand.

I think it was an excellent comparison, as it made allusions to the status quo.

MortifiedPenguins. The act of consent, as I said earlier, be it sexualy or in a contract goes hand in hand. One is not a citizen of this country, nor entitled to all of it's rights till that age of consent is reached. In our nation, it is 18.

And that bothers me. It truly bothers me, that children are allowed to take on jobs to support their families, but are denied the right to prove themselves as adults, under the law.

We have something in the law books that allow children to be legally emancipated from their parents (albeit in extreme cases of abuse), and I see giving children a test of sexual competance as a logical extension of that.

MortifiedPenguins. If they wish to change the age of consent, one must make it universal and not based upon each individual.

Except that I'm not arguing in favor of changing the age of consent. I'm arguing in favor of testing children on their knowledge of what consent is, how able they are to reject or accept partners, and the financial/emotional ramifications of sex and parenthood.

MortifiedPenguins. I'm not for whats perfect, I'm for whats plausible.

If every single child who takes the test is documented by the federal government (as well as the government officials who administered the test) than we will have clarity on the issue, and that clarity makes any resulting action that floows that up plausible.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 7/8/07 03:10 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote: And that bothers me. It truly bothers me, that children are allowed to take on jobs to support their families, but are denied the right to prove themselves as adults, under the law.

When you turn 18, as the age of majority currently is, you're an adult. We have those in place for a reason. It's how our society is – at 18, you can go to war, for one, and your parents aren't legally responsible for you anymore. Age of consent is 18 for a good reason. It is well documented that children are not developmentally able to give informed consent.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/8/07 03:10 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote: At 7/7/07 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote

We have something in the law books that allow children to be legally emancipated from their parents (albeit in extreme cases of abuse), and I see giving children a test of sexual competance as a logical extension of that.

Well lets thank god that no one else see's your "logical extension" then.

Except that I'm not arguing in favor of changing the age of consent. I'm arguing in favor of testing children on their knowledge of what consent is, how able they are to reject or accept partners, and the financial/emotional ramifications of sex and parenthood.

Thats what consent is. The ability to reject or accept partners is part of fucking consent. What part of that hasn't been explained yet?

If every single child who takes the test is documented by the federal government (as well as the government officials who administered the test) than we will have clarity on the issue, and that clarity makes any resulting action that floows that up plausible.

Maybe in your little world, sure.

But in reality, you and I both know that this will never happen.

Except the reality of your world and move on.

[AllieLeota]

At 7/7/07 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Well lets thank god that no one else see's your "logical extension" then.

I do.

At 7/7/07 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Thats what consent is. The ability to reject or accept partners is part of fucking consent. What part of that hasn't been explained yet?

The part where "consent" had to equal "age."

At 7/7/07 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Maybe in your little world, sure.

But in reality, you and I both know that this will never happen.

Except the reality of your world and move on.

I must point out that that this "little world" is taking an old, defunct system and replacing it with a better one. That happens in the real world, even if it can't in your "little world."

[cougardravenx5]

At 7/8/07 08:42 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 7/8/07 03:10 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote: If every single child who takes the test is documented by the federal government (as well as the government officials who administered the test) than we will have clarity on the issue, and that clarity makes any resulting action that floows that up plausible.

Maybe in your little world, sure.

But in reality, you and I both know that this will never happen.

Except the reality of your world and move on.

Uh-huh...let me share something with you. You're begging the question. You're depending on a foregone conclusion that it will never happen, so your mind is set.

If you don't like your world...change it.

[UWDarDar17]

At 7/6/07 02:54 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote: Than why not prove, once and for all, which teens have the knowledge of sexual consequences, and which ones don't? This sexual consent and sexual ramifications test would seperate the children who can offer consent to adults and which ones can't.

Because you cannot "test" such things. The only way to really test is to impregnate a teen and see how she copes with it, and tell some other kid that he's the daddy and see how he copes with it. Kids do take tests on sex and consequences and stuff. The class is called Health or SexEd. You learn what the clap is, you learn why it's bad, you learn how to prevent it. But you do not learn how to deal with it if you have it. Same thing with pregnancy.

Minors aren't the only ones who can be exploited, and adults aren't the only ones who can exploit. A test of a person's ability to offer consent or reject others will provide evidence of which people need protection, and which people deserve the benefit of the doubt in sexual matters.

This is true. Anyone with enough intelligence can exploit. However, adults generally have more access to resources and abilities that they can exploit. Kids really don't have that much to go on. Additionally, an ability test of the sort you speak of already exists. We call it life. Adults should know that sleeping with minors is dangerous, and minors should know that sex is a serious issue.

Children can be skillful manipulators in some cases, and adults can be gullible fools in some cases. So, rather than base victimhood on age, let's base it on what counts.......a person's base critical thinking skills.

Again, we call this life. The adult should know through life experience and knowledge of the law that they should not sleep with minors. If they're bamboozled into it, then such a case must be investigated. Obviously, if an adult is drugged by a kid and was sexed, such a case is a unique situation and must be examined as such.

Or perhaps "Sleep with me, or I'll tell my mom you molested me", hm?

Let's say the adult says no, and the kid goes to their mom. There are multiple ways that the child can be found for a liar. Medical examinations can easily tell if anything happened, and even a simple lie detector test can tell who did what.

Honestly, you have a good point about adults manipulating children, but you should keep in mind that children can have the mental strengths to manipulate as well.

I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that they lack the material resources and access to various things needed to really exploit someone.

Do the age of consent laws prevent gullible adult virgins from being seduced by sexually accomplshed teens? If the answer is no, than we've got a problem on our hands.

Actually, a person accused of statutory rape can bring such an accusation to court, and the truth of the matter can be discerned. Obviously, laws have leeway, to fully suit the needs of the people. However, seduction is never an excuse. If this adult virgin was drugged or somehow not in full control of himself, then such a fact will come to light in trial.

You've provided a theory for why a 20 year old would date a teen, but you obviously haven't argued successfully why that theory should be a legal basis foe keeping those two apart.

I'm not saying that the two should not date. I'm saying the adult should be aware of the statutory rape laws. Nothing is keeping this couple from having sex. But should the minor become upset or break up with the adult, nothing is stopping that minor from telling the police, even if the sex is agreed upon by both parties.

Why are you oppsed to giving teens the chance to prove they have the mental strengths to comprehend love?

I'm not. I'm just saying that the chance of a teen comprehending love at their age is very very slim.

[AllieLeota]

Because you cannot "test" such things. The only way to really test is to impregnate a teen and see how she copes with it, and tell some other kid that he's the daddy and see how he copes with it. Kids do take tests on sex and consequences and stuff. The class is called Health or SexEd. You learn what the clap is, you learn why it's bad, you learn how to prevent it. But you do not learn how to deal with it if you have it. Same thing with pregnancy.

Who says pregnancy has anything to do with sexual consent? Lots of adults react irrationally to pregnancy too, and that doesn't mean they should be prevented from having sex. They can do what they want with their bodies. If the understand the and choose to disregard the potential consequences, that's their choice.

This is true. Anyone with enough intelligence can exploit. However, adults generally have more access to resources and abilities that they can exploit. Kids really don't have that much to go on. Additionally, an ability test of the sort you speak of already exists. We call it life. Adults should know that sleeping with minors is dangerous, and minors should know that sex is a serious issue.

Life is not the kind of test we need, because life experience and age are not in direct correlation to capacity for consent. We need an actual test for that capacity. I also think you'd be rather surprised at how quickly children develop the ability to exploit. Ever seen a group of bullies take someone's lunch money? Ever seen a teenage girl use sex to get herself a free meal? It happens, sometimes more so than with adults.

Again, we call this life. The adult should know through life experience and knowledge of the law that they should not sleep with minors. If they're bamboozled into it, then such a case must be investigated. Obviously, if an adult is drugged by a kid and was sexed, such a case is a unique situation and must be examined as such.

An adult SHOULD know these things? Okay, if an adult doesn't know these things, they shouldn't be treated as a victim because they SHOULD? And if a minor does know these things, they are still treated as an incompetent victim because they SHOULDN'T. That's pretty messed up.

Let's say the adult says no, and the kid goes to their mom. There are multiple ways that the child can be found for a liar. Medical examinations can easily tell if anything happened, and even a simple lie detector test can tell who did what.

For one thing, lie detector tests are fallible, and are inadmissible in a court of law. For another thing, if a child says "This man molested me" no matter how significant the lack of evidence, the majority of people will believe the child, because they're "innocent" and "wouldn't lie about that." And for another point, it doesn't take an actual conviction to ruin a person's entire reputation for life. People get fired from their jobs for even being suspected of illicit activities with minors, and never get back to where they were. Even if acquitted, there's still the stigma. No one looks at an accused rapist the same anymore.

I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that they lack the material resources and access to various things needed to really exploit someone.

Uh, how so? It doesn't take a lot of money to use someone for sex. The fact that it's a little more difficult to find somewhere to screw just means that young people that are talented in that area are very talented.

Actually, a person accused of statutory rape can bring such an accusation to court, and the truth of the matter can be discerned. Obviously, laws have leeway, to fully suit the needs of the people. However, seduction is never an excuse. If this adult virgin was drugged or somehow not in full control of himself, then such a fact will come to light in trial.

And therein lies the double-standard. For adults, seduction doesn't count. For minors, seduction automatically equals manipulation. If an 18-year-old adult isn't mentally competent to give consent, but a 14-year-old minor is, then that 14-year-old can take advantage of the 18-year-old with no danger of repercussion. How is that right?

I'm not saying that the two should not date. I'm saying the adult should be aware of the statutory rape laws. Nothing is keeping this couple from having sex. But should the minor become upset or break up with the adult, nothing is stopping that minor from telling the police, even if the sex is agreed upon by both parties.

And that fact is fucked up, frankly speaking. The fact that a consenting minor can legally put their lover away, behind bars, just because they get tired of them, or get upset by normal relationship drama is just plain wrong. Do you really support this state of being?

I'm not. I'm just saying that the chance of a teen comprehending love at their age is very very slim.

Be that as it may, this test would still be useful to sheltered adults that are not competent for sex. It would give us a better precedent than declaring someone universally unfit on one day, and universally fit the next day, simply because that day happens to be their 18th birthday.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/8/07 02:24 PM, AllieLeota wrote:

At 7/7/07 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I do.

Well, that makes two know doesn't it.

At 7/7/07 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The part where "consent" had to equal "age."

Because, untill one equals the age of majority, they can't give away thier consent.

I must point out that that this "little world" is taking an old, defunct system and replacing it with a better one. That happens in the real world, even if it can't in your "little world."

Better is arbitrary. Change for the sake of change isn't always good or hell even plausible.

Maybe you people should realize that.

[AllieLeota]

Well, that makes two know doesn't it.

Yes, yes it does.

Because, untill one equals the age of majority, they can't give away thier consent.

... Legally...

I see no reason to think of it as a realistic depiction of ability in the slightest. You don't just wake up on your birthday and are suddenly able to consent.

Better is arbitrary. Change for the sake of change isn't always good or hell even plausible.

You've given no reason for me to think this change would bring anything but positive results.

Maybe you people should realize that.

And what exactly do you mean by "you people" hm?

[Steel-Reserve]

UWDarDar17. Because you cannot "test" such things. The only way to really test is to impregnate a teen and see how she copes with it, and tell some other kid that he's the daddy and see how he copes with it.

That being the case, I would say the proposal should impose a barrier on legal sex for people who haven't been educated grilled on the fundamentals of sexual reproduction. I think this is an important addition, because I've known to many women who had unprotected sex, got pregnant, and treat their chilren terribly, because they are unwanted children.

Obviously, those are the women who could have benefitted from an education on conception and reproduction, If they haven't had that knowledge tested and recognized under the law, they are not the kind of people who should be given a pass.

UWDarDar17. Kids do take tests on sex and consequences and stuff. The class is called Health or SexEd. You learn what the clap is, you learn why it's bad, you learn how to prevent it. But you do not learn how to deal with it if you have it. Same thing with pregnancy.

I'm glad you've provided clarity on this issue, and I definitely think it should be a staple of my proposal. Children shouldn't be given a sex license if they haven't been tested on pregnancy and STD knowledge, and passed. It's offical.

UWDarDar17. This is true. Anyone with enough intelligence can exploit. However, adults generally have more access to resources and abilities that they can exploit. Kids really don't have that much to go on.

What if there is a boy, who is the son of exxon mobile's vice president, who decides to look for women to be sex partners? Extreme example, I know, but it shows there may be children who are wealthy, and might be neglected by their success-obsessed parents, and can cause a lot of damage.

Those type of children, along with all children across the economic scale, could be tested, and obtain a sex license, so that they wouldn't get a free pass based on age, and would have their power to use presumption of innocence rendered irrelavant.

UWDarDar17Additionally, an ability test of the sort you speak of already exists. We call it life. Adults should know that sleeping with minors is dangerous, and minors should know that sex is a serious issue.

That doesn't sound like a sound legal policy, where we make assumptions of what people's knowledge ought to be, the basis of legal decisions.

UWDarDar17. Again, we call this life. The adult should know through life experience and knowledge of the law that they should not sleep with minors.

But their are adults who are sheltered by their parents in this world, adults who might be railroaded by the justice system, because their lack of life experience isn't taken into consideration.

I am not in favor of a system that makes a de facto guilt/innocence assumption of an inter-age couple. It isn't justice.

IUWDarDar17. If they're bamboozled into it, then such a case must be investigated. Obviously, if an adult is drugged by a kid and was sexed, such a case is a unique situation and must be examined as such.

Absolutely.

UWDarDar17. Let's say the adult says no, and the kid goes to their mom. There are multiple ways that the child can be found for a liar. Medical examinations can easily tell if anything happened, and even a simple lie detector test can tell who did what.

Nonetheless, it sets a train of events in motion that will most likely transform the adult's life for the worse. Also, if such a child were tested on matters of consent and non-consent, and proven under the law to be on an equal mental footing with many adults, the adult in this case would have equal footing with the child in determining who tricked who, who manipulated who, and who needs to be protected from who.

UWDarDar17. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that they lack the material resources and access to various things needed to really exploit someone.

and those children that proven to be at an economic disadvantage to the adult in question should get the greatest consideration of innocence.

UWDarDar17. Actually, a person accused of statutory rape can bring such an accusation to court, and the truth of the matter can be discerned. Obviously, laws have leeway, to fully suit the needs of the people. However, seduction is never an excuse. If this adult virgin was drugged or somehow not in full control of himself, then such a fact will come to light in trial.

There may also be cases where an adult has a learning disability, and might indeed be in the same mental state as a young child. That should be added as a consideration where it applies.

UWDarDar17. I'm not saying that the two should not date. I'm saying the adult should be aware of the statutory rape laws. Nothing is keeping this couple from having sex. But should the minor become upset or break up with the adult, nothing is stopping that minor from telling the police, even if the sex is agreed upon by both parties.

And that is where my proposal will benefit said adult. If the minor in that case were educated and thoroughly tested on how to offer consent, and how to refuse other's sexual advances, and had obtained a sexual consent license, that child wouldn't be able to make a case for being the victim of manipulation, unless they were threatened or abused in some way.

[Steel-Reserve]

At 7/8/07 09:59 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote... Maybe you people should realize that.

O_O

You people? You people?!

My inner negro is outraged at your racism! >=(

Well, now that that bout of silliness is out of the way, I'd like to say that you missed the point, MP, missed it by a country mile. We're not arguing in favor of "change for the sake of change" (straw man, by the way). We're arguing in favor of replacing an unjust system with a just system.