age of consent

Agrote, please come back and post on this thread when you have a thirteen year old daughter, as it should prove interesting.

0 Replies

Just a tangential question that may or may not be useful in this discussion. Is it illegal for a minor to have sex with another minor? Or is it just minors with non-minors that is illegal?

0 Replies

Re: age of consent

agrote wrote:

I think consensual sex should be legal regardless of age (pretty much). I don't think pre-pubescents are actually physically capable of sex, really, so they don't count... intercourse with prepubesents can only be rape.

Since pretty much any child under the age of 10 would qualify as prepubescent your two sentences here pretty much negate each other.

Quote:

But I disagree with the notion of statutory rape. Sex with, say, a 13/14-year-old should be legal as long as there is full consent. And I really mean full consent; I'm not in favour of rape or molestation or abuse. Minors who have reached puberty should be free to make their own decisions about sex, as long as there is no risk of harm.

That's a bit naive. "Consent" implies that the person giving it can understand the issues involved in making a decision, accepts the risks associated with them and has the ability to make an informed decision of their own free will. Very few 13 or 14 years olds are in a position (physically or mentally) to be able to give consent.

Your line "as long as there is no harm" also implies that "harm" will be immediately detected and that isn't the case. "Harm" can and often does arise years after the fact. I don't know anyone who is capable of predicting the future with a measure of precision that would be required.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Just a tangential question that may or may not be useful in this discussion. Is it illegal for a minor to have sex with another minor? Or is it just minors with non-minors that is illegal?

I believe that in most states it is illegal. I recall one case in particular that was in the press recently where 2 14-year olds in GA were in legal trouble for having had sex.

0 Replies

Doowop wrote:

Agrote, please come back and post on this thread when you have a thirteen year old daughter, as it should prove interesting.

I may never have a 13 year old daughter. Let's discuss it now.

kickycan wrote:

Just a tangential question that may or may not be useful in this discussion. Is it illegal for a minor to have sex with another minor? Or is it just minors with non-minors that is illegal?

I live in the UK, and I'm not sure whether that's actually legal here, but I don't think the law is enforced too harshly on minors themselves. I'm not sure though.

fishin wrote:

Since pretty much any child under the age of 10 would qualify as prepubescent your two sentences here pretty much negate each other.

You're right, sorry I was a bit muddled there. I should have mentioned this: I dunno where the cut-off point would be, but obviously say a 2-year-old is not capable of consenting to sex. Maybe no prepubescents are... I don't know. So there's that issue... if you can't consent to sex then of course consensual sex is impossible.

And also, before puberty I presume that sex is at least difficult and unenjoyable, if not totally unpleasant or physically impossible. You can't have consensual sex if you can't have sex, of course. And nobody would want to consent to doing something unpleasant, so I think if you're at an age where you can't gain pleasure from intercourse then consent to sex would be uninformed, or done merely to please an older person, which I'm not in favour of.

So I don't think prepubescent children are capable of enjoying sex and giving proper informed consent. I'm also ignoring the issue of sex with prepubescents because it doesn't particularly interest me. I'm not a paedophile. I am, however, attracted to post-pubescent minors (females) so the issue of whether it should be legal to have sex with girls of that age is relevant to me personally. So I'd like ot focus on people of that age if that's okay.

And I'm here to discuss it... sorry if I'm sounding forceful or arrogant or whatever. I'm not trying to impose my views on anybody, I just want to put them out there and see what people have to say. Thanks for the comments.

Quote:

Very few 13 or 14 years olds are in a position (physically or mentally) to be able to give consent.

I disagree. What are you basing this on? People of that age are physically equiped to actually have sex, and they sometimes do have sex with each other. They masturbate, and have crushes on people of various ages. They're capable of understanding sex (whether they have been given proper sex education is another matter).

Another thing... I know I've been talking about consensual sex (sorry to be inconsistent again, my arguments aren't fully formed yet), but I read in a book about sexual ethics that consent is perhaps not necessary if the behaviour does not actually cause harm, and certainly not if the behaviour is enjoyable.

Suppose I recommend a film to you, and you say you don't want to watch it. But suppose I know you well, and I know that you will really enjoy the film if you give it a chance. You don't agree to watch it, but I put the film on and coerce you into watching it, and you discover that you love it. The film has not cause you harm, and in fact you have enjoyed it. And it wouldn't be fair to say that I've somehow abused you just because I didn't get your consent for this enjoyable activity.

So perhaps consent is not important IF sex with minors is enjoyable and not harmful (obviously that's a big 'if'). The real issue may be whether sex with minors is actually harmful.

Quote:

"Harm" can and often does arise years after the fact.

I'm sure that happens in cases of rape/abuse/molestation. But does that necessarily happen with teenagers who agree to sex? Do you have any evidence? And if it does happen, is it really any different from psychological distress resulting from previous adult relationships?

0 Replies

agrote. What is the reason you're asking this question? This isn't usually something simply discussed for arguments sake.

How about this...If you (the collective you) want to have sex with a 12 year old, it should be made a requirement that the minor, and the person having attained legal age meet with both of the childs parents.

That way, they can discuss what their feelingss are about their 12 year old having sex with you, and you can present your case as to why you feel this would be a good thing. You would then be able to answer all the questions the parents I'm sure would want to ask you.

Also, the minor would be able to show that they have complete understanding of the situation, and the parents would be able to confirm their child understands, and ask questions to their child, which would have to be answered accurately.

After several meetings over a period of let's say a month, where sex would not take place, but would give the parents the opportunity to monitor their childs changing feelings towards you, as well as observe your intentions and understanding and responsibility toward the situation, they could decide.

In addition, the person wanting to have sex with the minor should incur out of their pocket the expense of a child counselor, who would also interview the child, and you, and determine if the child has the capacity to understand.

I mean, you certainly don't want to have sex with a child if you don't think they fully understand what they are getting into. By meeting with the parents and other professionals, they will be able to assist you in this.

0 Replies

This should be renamed by the moderators. This should be called the "If they're old enough to bleed . . . " thread.

Do you hope to become an inbred hillbilly when you grow up, Agrote?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

And also, before puberty I presume that sex is at least difficult and unenjoyable, if not totally unpleasant or physically impossible. You can't have consensual sex if you can't have sex, of course. And nobody would want to consent to doing something unpleasant, so I think if you're at an age where you can't gain pleasure from intercourse then consent to sex would be uninformed, or done merely to please an older person, which I'm not in favour of.

You are presuming and awful lot here. Prepubescents have been know to have and enjoy sex before. Masturbation is seen in 5 and 6 year olds on a fairly regular basis as a starter so I don't see how your presumptions here hold any water.

quote]

Quote:

Very few 13 or 14 years olds are in a position (physically or mentally) to be able to give consent.

I disagree. What are you basing this on?[/quote]

The mental health journals are packed full of this stuff.. What are you basing your claims on?

Quote:

People of that age are physically equiped to actually have sex, and they sometimes do have sex with each other. They masturbate, and have crushes on people of various ages. They're capable of understanding sex (whether they have been given proper sex education is another matter).

A 2 year old is also "equipped" to have sex (the vagina and penis are there at birth in case you weren't aware! Wink

) and prepubescent children masturbate as well. They sometimes have sex with each other too. The only distinction you have between your pre and post-pubescents here is whether or not they've gone through puberty.

Quote:

Another thing... I know I've been talking about consensual sex (sorry to be inconsistent again, my arguments aren't fully formed yet), but I read in a book about sexual ethics that consent is perhaps not necessary if the behaviour does not actually cause harm, and certainly not if the behaviour is enjoyable.

???? Huh? So, by this theory, it would be OK to rape someone as long as they enjoyed it? How do you propose to know if they will enjoy it beforehand? What happens if you force yourself upon someone and they don't enjoy it? It'd be a little late to try and back up and pretend it didn't happen wouldn't it?

Quote:

Suppose I recommend a film to you, and you say you don't want to watch it. But suppose I know you well, and I know that you will really enjoy the film if you give it a chance. You don't agree to watch it, but I put the film on and coerce you into watching it, and you discover that you love it. The film has not cause you harm, and in fact you have enjoyed it. And it wouldn't be fair to say that I've somehow abused you just because I didn't get your consent for this enjoyable activity.

First of all, this is an asburd comparision. A film doesn't have the ability to harm me physically in any way, shape or form. Sex, on the other hand, can result in pregnancy or the transmission of STDs.

Secondly, I, as an adult, am aware of what a film is and what the possible ramifications of watching it (or not) are (the possible mental/emotional "harm"). If I stayed there of my own free will long enough to watch the film then I have given my consent. But in that I presume that I am, capable of walking out at any time of my choosing an dthat there is no other "incentive" keeping me there. Even if there is some other incentive I, as an adult, am capable of weighing the pros/cons of watching the movie or losing the incentive. I am also aware that the decision is mine alone to make.

Quote:

The real issue may be whether sex with minors is actually harmful.

And our best mental health professionals tell us that it is...

Quote:

Quote:
"Harm" can and often does arise years after the fact.

I'm sure that happens in cases of rape/abuse/molestation. But does that necessarily happen with teenagers who agree to sex? Do you have any evidence? And if it does happen, is it really any different from psychological distress resulting from previous adult relationships?

"does that necessarily happen?" I'm sure there are cases where it doesn't happen. But there are many cases where it DOES happen. And yes, it is different form adult relationships. The teen is almost always in an inferior position for decision making here. As minors their rights are limited. They don't know about or have access to remedies tthat an adult would be expected to know of. They are much less likely to have money or a car to escape the situation if they felt the need to, for example. They are also much less likely to be aware of their legal rights. There aren't many adults that would be all to concerned with their parents finding out that they've had sex. An average 14 year old is signifcantly more susceptile to coercion/blackmail than an average adult would be and leaving them open to predation is exactly what the current laws seek to prevent.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

What is the reason you're asking this question?

This issue is very important to me. I am an ephebophile. I fancy girls aged as young as 12 in some cases. the peak of my sexual attraction is probably with girls aged about 13, and it gradually trails off after that. I am sexually attracted to some girls my age and older (I am 20), and I am emotionally attracted to girls my age, but my attraction to young girls is so much stronger that it causes me quite a lot of distress. The easiest way to explain it is to compare it to being homosexual back when it was a big taboo. I can't help the way I am, and it's not like there are any secret underground clubs for consensual sex with minors, like there were for homosexuals. If I acted on my desires I could go to prison. And I have no luck with women of a legal age, partly because my sexual interest in them is limited. Basically, I can't get no satisfaction. What I want, the law forbids. And I don't think that morality forbids it, so I think that the law should change.

Anyway, your suggestsion... it's a lot of hassle isn't it (were you even serious?). It basically leaves spontaneous sex with minors as illegal. Spontaneous sex with 16 year olds is not illegal in this country... why should being 15 require months of hassle just for a bit of fun?

And what if the minor knows better than their parents? Chances are the parents will forbid their child to have sex with anybody. But what if by doing so they would actually be preventing the minor from doing something both harmless and enjoyable (rather than protecting him/her from something dangerous)? In fact, it could be more than enjoyable. What if love is involved? I experienced unrequited love when I was 14. Suppose I was in love with an adult... it wouldn't be fair for my parents to forbid me from making love to that person if both of us wanted it and knew we could trust each other etc.

Sure, that situation would be rare, but my point is that it shouldn't be the parents' decision. I think that the idea that we become adults at, say, 18, is arbitrary. I don't think that parents necessarily 'own' their children before that age, and I'm not sure that they can always be trusted to judge what is right for their child. Certainly not in the current social climate where most people consider 'underage' sex to be a terrible thing, without really thinking about it too deeply.

With proper sex education in place, couldn't the minor decide for themself?

0 Replies

Woooooo . . .

Somebody cue the Twilight Zone theme music . . .

You need help, Bubba--like serious psychiatric help, and you need it NOW.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

With proper sex education in place, couldn't the minor decide for themself?

No. What we're trying to get across to you is that 12 and 13 year olds are children. They are not merely smaller than adults or less experienced. Their brains are different.

This means many things, including the fact that they are much more easily manipulated than adults. It's not as hard to get "consent" that needs those quotation marks -- the critical thinking, long-term thinking, and all kinds of other things are simply not yet developed to the point where true consent can be given.

Have you sought help yet? This whole thing is of concern, but I find the following downright chilling:

agrote wrote:

I read in a book about sexual ethics that consent is perhaps not necessary if the behaviour does not actually cause harm, and certainly not if the behaviour is enjoyable.

Suppose I recommend a film to you, and you say you don't want to watch it. But suppose I know you well, and I know that you will really enjoy the film if you give it a chance. You don't agree to watch it, but I put the film on and coerce you into watching it, and you discover that you love it. The film has not cause you harm, and in fact you have enjoyed it. And it wouldn't be fair to say that I've somehow abused you just because I didn't get your consent for this enjoyable activity.

It's very hard not to read this as saying that you are able to determine whether a 12 or 13-year-old actually wants to have sex with you, and that even if the 12 or 13-year-old SAYS she doesn't want to, you think that you can override that because your judgment on the subject is better than hers.

That is rape, plain and simple.

(At what point do you discover that she maybe didn't enjoy it even though you thought she would? Before or after the act has taken place?)

If you haven't sought help yet, please do.

0 Replies

Setanta, if you want to discuss the issue sensibly then I'll be happy to respond. But I'm going to ignore that post.

fishin wrote:

You are presuming and awful lot here...

Yeah, you're right. To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on prepubsecent sex. But I'm not particularly interested in discussing it either, because it doesn't affect me at all. I think the issue, of whether sex with post-pubescent minors should be accepted, can and should be seperated from the issue of whether paedophilia should be accepted.

Don't underestimate puberty. Pre-pubescents might experiment with masturbation and be sexual to somne extent, and obviously they have genetalia. But they're not properly equipped for sex are they. Prepubescent boys don't get erections too often. And also, for biological reasons, I don't think children of those ages tend to get too horny either. Puberty brings sexual maturity.

Quote:

The mental health journals are packed full of this stuff..

Could you show me please? I can't just take your word for it. What evidence/argument is there that, say, early teens are unable to consent to sex.

Quote:

What are you basing your claims on?

It depends which claims you're referring to. If you tell me which claims you want me to back up, I can try my best. I've tried to back myself up with argument so far... if you want some concrete evidence for something then tell me what you want the evidence for and I'll see what I can find. I'm in the process of learning here, so apologies if I make unsubstantiated claims.

Quote:

The only distinction you have between your pre and post-pubescents here is whether or not they've gone through puberty.

See above. Puberty is pretty significant!!

Quote:

So, by this theory, it would be OK to rape someone as long as they enjoyed it?

If they didn't suffer, then yes. Think about it... the reason rape is bad is that it causes intense suffering! If there were no suffering, then what would be bad about it? If a man raped a woman, and the woman both enjoyed it and experienced no physical or emotional pain at all as a result of it (not even in years to come), then no harm would be done. Anyway, I don't think that would ever happen, so I don't think that rape is ever OK in practice.

Quote:

How do you propose to know if they will enjoy it beforehand? What happens if you force yourself upon someone and they don't enjoy it? It'd be a little late to try and back up and pretend it didn't happen wouldn't it?

Good points. Maybe I should stop talking about enjoyment and focus on lack of harm. If you have sex with someone and they don't enjoy it, that doesn't necessarily mean it is abuse. There has to be actual harm (physical or psychological) for it to be abusive. So what I need to know is whether sex with minors causes harm. If you forced yourself on somebody and they really and truly didn't mind at all (and I mean really and truly), and were not harmed at all by it, then I don't think there would be any wrongdoing. Enjoyment isn't necessary; absence of harm is necessary.

Quote:

A film doesn't have the ability to harm me physically in any way, shape or form. Sex, on the other hand, can result in pregnancy or the transmission of STDs.

Well the whole point is that I'm assuming lack of harm. The argument is that consent is not necessary as long as there is no harm done. I'm not conding forced impregnation of minors, or the passing on of STDs to minors. Why can't contraception and medical precautions be used, as with adult sex? I am conding harmless sex, simple as that. If you think that sex with minors is harmful for reasons other than pregnancy or STDs, then I'd love to hear it.

Quote:

Secondly, I, as an adult, am aware of what a film is and what the possible ramifications of watching it (or not) are (the possible mental/emotional "harm"). If I stayed there of my own free will long enough to watch the film then I have given my consent. But in that I presume that I am, capable of walking out at any time of my choosing an dthat there is no other "incentive" keeping me there. Even if there is some other incentive I, as an adult, am capable of weighing the pros/cons of watching the movie or losing the incentive. I am also aware that the decision is mine alone to make.

I think that teenagers are capable of that level of reasoning. And I think (though you might disagree, and I'm willing to hear why) that the burden of proof is on you for saying that they are not. I mean, didn't you make informed decisions as a teenager?

And of course they should be free to withdraw from a sexual encounter at any time... if they were not allowed to do so, then it would be rape. I do not condone rape.

Quote:

And our best mental health professionals tell us that it is [harmful]...

Which ones? I've honestly never heard a mental health professional say that about pubescent/post-pubescent minors. Help me out here.

Quote:

The teen is almost always in an inferior position for decision making here. As minors their rights are limited. They don't know about or have access to remedies tthat an adult would be expected to know of. They are much less likely to have money or a car to escape the situation if they felt the need to, for example. They are also much less likely to be aware of their legal rights. There aren't many adults that would be all to concerned with their parents finding out that they've had sex. An average 14 year old is signifcantly more susceptile to coercion/blackmail than an average adult would be and leaving them open to predation is exactly what the current laws seek to prevent.

Some good points there. I guess what I have in mind is trustworthy adults having sexual relationships with minors. Maybe I'm being too idealistic. But I personally wouldn't coerse or blackmail anybody, of any age, into sex. ANd if I were to have a relationship with someone young, I'd be particularly careful not to push them into anything they might regret. And I really mean that. But of course, not everyone would be the same. Maybe I'm just fishing for acceptance rather than an actual change in the law... I dunno.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

What we're trying to get across to you is that 12 and 13 year olds are children. They are not merely smaller than adults or less experienced. Their brains are different.

There's no definite cut-off point between childhood and adulthood. 12 and 13 year olds are only children because we have decided to call them children. And of course their brains are different, but the brains of 40 year olds are different from the brains of 50 year olds, and I doubt you'd complain about sex between people of those ages.

What's important is in what way their brains are actually different. When you emphasise that the brains of minors are different, what differences do you have in mind? If they are different in a way that means that sex with people of that age would cause harm, then I agree with you that sex with them would be inappropriate. But I'm not convinced that their brains are different in that sort of way.

Quote:

This whole thing is of concern, but I find the following downright chilling:

agrote wrote:
I read in a book about sexual ethics that consent is perhaps not necessary if the behaviour does not actually cause harm...

I can see why you'd find that disturbing. But give it a moment's thought. Suppose a stranger came up and suddenly gave you thousands of pounds in cash and said you could keep it. You didn't consent to that in advance, but that doesn't make it abusive. To take the most extreme example... rape is a terrible thing. Why? Because it causes a great deal of harm. Rape is defined as forced sex, but it isn't the fact that it is forced that makes it such a terrible thing. What makes rape terrible is the fact that the act of forcing sex upon somebody causes them a great deal of harm. It's the harm that makes rape bad, not the lack of consent.

If rape were as enjoyable and harmless as recieving thousands of pounds, then there would be nothing wrong with it. But that's a HUGE 'if'. The fact is, rape is harmful, and therefore we can't allow it. And if we cannot allow sex with minors, it should be for the reason that it is harmful (I don't think that it is harmful, of course), and not for the reason that there is no consent. Lack of consent may very well be a source of harm, but it's the resulting harm that is important, not the lack of consent itself. This really isn't a very chilling thing to say if you think about it carefully.

Quote:

It's very hard not to read this as saying that you are able to determine whether a 12 or 13-year-old actually wants to have sex with you, and that even if the 12 or 13-year-old SAYS she doesn't want to, you think that you can override that because your judgment on the subject is better than hers.

Just to be clear, I would never have unconsensual sex with anybody. So you're missing the point there. I'm arguing that consent is not the real issue; harm is the real issue. But incidentally, I personally would never force sex upon anybody no matter who certain I might be that they would enjoy it.

Quote:

If you haven't sought help yet, please do.

If you can convince me that I have a problem, I'll seek help.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Doowop wrote:
Agrote, please come back and post on this thread when you have a thirteen year old daughter, as it should prove interesting.

I may never have a 13 year old daughter. Let's discuss it now.

I didn't for one second suggest that you shouldn't discuss it now. In fact, from what I've read of your contributions so far on this thread, I would strongly suggest that you discuss this whole matter with as many people as possible, including someone who is qualified to counsel you on the subject.
I am sure that you knew what I meant when I made that post, but for the sake of clarity, I will expand upon it.
It was obvious to me from the start that you did not have a thirteen year old daughter, as the parent of such would never come onto a public forum and put forward views such as yours. If they did then I would say that they had serious issues.
Your argument seems to be twofold, and revolves around the fact that kids of that age may be a)sufficiently developed, physically, to successfully engage in sexual intercourse, and b) of sufficient mental maturity to give their informed consent.

a) Physical. Just try doing some research (ask your GP) as to what long term physical harm can come from a female having full internal sex at such an age. You know jack shiite as to whether I'm qualified to advise you on this matter, so it would be of little use if I went into detail. Find out for yourself, as I'm sure it'll be an eye opener for you.

b) Mental maturity. Do you really need me to try to argue the toss with you about whether a twelve or thirteen year old has the mental maturity of an adult? Are you that daft?

Talk to a professional about all this, agrote, for your sake.

0 Replies

It's chilling. Full stop.

You are proposing that you are able to make the determination ahead of time. Nobody has that kind of ability. And what if you are wrong?

It's quite clear to me that you need to be speaking to a professional about this. I could go find the evidence for the differences in children's brains, for example (a 12-year old's brain and a 22-year-old's brain are far, far more different than a 40-year-old's and a 50-year-olds' brain). But the boggling jumps in logic and the self-delusion I see already leave me little hope that I could accomplish anything. It's possible that other people here will be able to get somewhere, but I still say see a professional. You recognize that this is a problem -- you want to do something that is illegal. A professional can explain everything in excruciating detail and get you the answers you seek.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Setanta, if you want to discuss the issue sensibly then I'll be happy to respond. But I'm going to ignore that post.

I can think of nothing more sensible than to advise you that you need professional help, and you need it now. Thirteen year old girls are not sufficiently matured intellectually and emotionally to give informed consent to sexual relations--not in a legal sense and not in a psychological sense. Your pathetic attempt to rationalize a desire to consummate sexual fantasies which have absolutely no regard for the mental health and well-being of the child in question provides all the evidence needed that you are seeing thirteen year old girls as sexual objects, and not as people. All that this has to do with is your selfish, sexual gratification.

You need professional help, and you need it now.

0 Replies

Jesus, this is just plain scary stuff in here...I think I could easily end up writing a post about a mile long, so I will stick to just one point out of the million things I'm tempted to say.

You keep talking about post-pubescence, but you also say 12-13 is the age you are interested in. How can you try to claim that this age range is generally post-pubescent?? Please try to back that up with some actual medical and psychological evidence. Puberty is a rather long process, for one thing; for another, how on earth do you think you can judge if some girl you're interested in is really post-pubescent? Do you have some way of knowing whether the hormones being produced are at normal adult levels? Or are you thinking you'll just see if she has breasts yet? 'Cause having breasts does not post-pubescent make, my dear. And what about the psychological side of puberty? It isn't up to you to decide that only the physiological side of puberty counts, you know. Bottom line, you are not fit to determine whether a 12 or 13 year old is done with puberty.

0 Replies

Thanks for making that point, cyphercat. I'm also trying to keep myself from writing an enormous screed and so picking and choosing, but that's a really important one.

0 Replies

During my tenure as a child protection worker I heard similar statements fairly often, the speaker usually was wearing handcuffs.

0 Replies

age of consent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know