age of consent

STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD.

Nobody's convincing him of anything. In a perfect world, he'd just go kill himself and there would be one less pedophilia in this world.

I know. My previous post here was intended to be my last one.

Slappy Doo Hoo, f--k off. It's not nice to wish death on somebody. I don't do that to you.


Sozobe, I'm reluctant to approach people for expert opinion, because of the embarassment that would cause me. Much easier to hide behind my computer. Perhaps I should look for experts online.

But I'd want to know the basis for any claims that such an expert might make. I'd want to know which studies, or ethical arguments, their opinions are derived from. Perhaps it is easier for me to skip the expert and read the articles myself. I have a degree in psychology and philosophy, so I'm qualified to some degree to draw reasonable conclusions from journal articles on the subject.

Why am I bothering to discuss the subject in this forum? Well, I've learned a hell of a lot doing this. Look at my original posts: they're a bit crap. By provoking you lot into showing me some of the possible counter-arguments to my belief, I've refined my own arguments a great deal. I haven't really changed my mind, but my belief was originally just an ill-informed opinion. Now that I have a bit more knowledge (thanks to your responses, and responses to my responses), my belief is a bit less prejudicial and I have a better idea of what would count as a counterexample to my claim that adult-minor sex shoudl be accepted.

Maybe I'm asking to much of you to provide me with lots of evidence or to settle this matter once and for all. Maybe I've exhausted the benefits of this thread... if so, I'm sure it will grind to a halt at some point and I'll abandon it. But so far, for me it's been worthwhile.

Having said all that, my next post will be another "yes but..." response to an article that somebody linked to. If you think I'm just weaseling out of things, then please read what I say before you make that assumption. But if nobody wants to read it, then they don't have to.

If people are sick of this debate, then they should stop taking part in it.

Okay, thanks for the link, I've read the article. One important point that I should mention first is that underage sex usually happens with peers, or so I would guess. And some of the arguments against teen-teen sex won't necessarily apply to adult-teen sex. But many of the points raised in the article apply to both.

The article mentions a few risks which might be substantial enough for sex with minors to remain illegal, but then they might actually be preventable through contraception and sex education, rather than abstinence. The risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease can be massively reduced with contraception. The article mentions an increased risk of cervical dysplasia in girls who have sex underage, and that is worrying. But it doesn't explain why the risk is increased. I don't have access to the source cited in the article, so I can only speculate here, but perhaps the increased risk is due to the reduced likelihood for people of that age to use proper contraception, which the article also mentions. That problem might be overcome by improved sex education and improved supply of contraception. But even if people of that age often don't have the maturity to realise that they need to use protection, if we're talking about adult-child sex then this is not so much of a problem, because adults do have the necessary maturity. Perhaps only unprotected sex with minors should remain illegal.

I've read the abstract for the source which found that adolescents who have sexual intercourse have an increased risk of depression and suicide. There are many possible explanations for this. One possibility is that those teens who have sex tend to be the same ones who go to parties and drink alcohol. It is fairly obvious why alcohol abuse would increase the risk of depression, since it is a depressant, and so it is possible that the risk of depression with underage sex is only due to its association with underage drinking. I don't know whether the source explores that possibility; I don't have access to the whole report. On the other hand, it is possible that there is something about sex itself which, for those teens who engage in it, causes depression. But, as with any explanation of these results, we need further evidence before we can be sure that the sex is to blame. It is not enough to say, "there is a link between underage sex and depression, therefore underage sex is bad". We need to know whything

Agrote:

The reality of this situation is that anything can be justified by one who is intent on justifying anything. History shows this to be true. To prove a point - can you provide an act that cannot be justified (w/o moral and/or lawful boundaries)?


You've made it clear that being against the law should not be a cause, being against popular vote should be discounted, and so on. You seem to be an articulate, at least somewhat intelligent and perhaps even charming young man. The same was said for some of the most popular rapists & serial killers of our time. I am not saying you are either; just pointing out that those very same people may very well have justified their choices the same way that you view your potential actions. The bottom line comes down to moral boundaries and compassion for others.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean by 'justified' here. You seem to mean that: anything can be argued for convincingly, even if it is utterly false. Is that right?

Well, the same applies to the following: sex between an adult and an adolescent carries a much greater risk of harm than sex between two adults. So you could say precisely the same thing to everyone else who has posted in this thread... "anything can be justified by one who is intent on justifying anything". The other posters are intent on justifying the law and public attitude to sex with minors. Why not pick on them?



So what? An ice cream man might justify the selling of ice cream to children by saying, "they like it". Sounds fair enough. But hang on a minute! That's the same thing a rapist might say about his victims!! Does this mean the ice cream man is deluded, or wrong? Of course it doesn't.

I don't understand what you're getting at with this post.



What makes you think I lack compassion? I definitely have compassion for others. I'm not sure how I could prove that to you...

As for moral boundaries, I'm actually a moral skeptic, so I don't believe that anything is 'right' or 'wrong'. But I have boundaries between what I would/wouldn't do, and what I want other people to do/not do, and these could be seen as sort of quasi-moral. I'm against unecessary human suffering, not because I think it's wrong, but just because I happen to care about other humans and I don't want them to suffer. So my 'moral' boundaries are based on whether an action causes unecessary suffering.

Too many people base their moral boundaries on the law, or on public consensus. I don't see the law as a source of morality; I see it as a source of law. And public consensus just tells you what most people think, not what's true.

I am not picking on you - what gives you that impression? You started this thread, so I am directing my questions and thoughts toward you. Make sense?

You did not answer my original direct question - so here it is again: "To prove a point - can you provide an act that cannot be justified (w/o moral and/or lawful boundaries)"?


I am not surprised that you do not get what I'm saying. That is the point I'm trying to make.


I am unsure whether you have compassion or not. Clearly you think you do, but I am unsure. Your entire premise is based on justifying the choice of having consensual sex with a minor - implying that minors are fully capable of making mature decisions such as choosing to have sex. That mindset completely eliminates a need for minors to have a need for parents and/or guardians. Given your position - at what age [point in time] should a minor be allowed to go out into the world on his/her own? Upon being weened from Mom's breast? Prior to school-age? Middle school? Given that world-wide society believes that minors are incapable of making sound decisions on many issues and have established guidelines for these minors to learn, means something to most. But not to you. You feel that if a minor wants to have sex - then he/she should have it - w/o regard for the mental & emotional maturity level of said minor. It seems to me that if you were a responsible & compassionate person - you would take into account that a minor is not yet equipped to make a serious decision about whether or not to have sex. The world says that minors should learn how to make good decisions from adults - you disagree with the world. Is that compassion?



You are completely contradictory here. Nothing is right or wrong (true or false) - yet you have quasi-boundaries. You're against human suffering; yet you have no problem if a 12 year old girl tells you that she wants to have sex, you go for it, she develops emotional difficulties because she is under-developed to deal with all that goes with the act of having sex. What about her inevitable (as historically proven) human suffering from the poor decision of having sex at such a young age?

Sorry about the length...


I meant 'morally right' and 'morally wrong'. This is a compeltely different distinction than true and false. Giving money to charity might be considered morally 'right', but it doesn't even make sense to say, "giving money to charity is true". Torture may be considered 'wrong', but that is not to say that, "torture is false". 'Right' and 'wrong' can be used to mean 'correct' and 'incorrect', or 'true' and 'false'. But that is not what they mean in the context of morality.

I believe in factual rightness and wrongness (i.e. truth and falsehood), but not moral rightness and wrongness (i.e. good and evil, or virtue and vice). Understood? I can elaborate if need be.



That's more than one definition. Which one are you using? Shown/proven to be just? Or right? Or reasonable? Or lawful?

If you mean "proven to be right" (taking 'right' to mean 'true' in this context), then your claim is false. Only true statements can be proven to be true, so it is wrong (false) to say that "anything can be justified".

If you were using one of the other three definitions, please get back to me.



I don't think you're picking on me, I didn't mean that literally. My point is that your comment about justification (if I interpreted it correctly) fails as a criticism of my views, because it could just as easily be applied to the opposing views held by the other posters in this thread.



First I need you to clarify what you mean by 'justified' (see above).

I'm also confused by the parenthesis... do you want me to name an act that cannot be justified without reference to moral/lawful boundaries? or an act that has no moral/lawful bounderies and which cannot be justified?



Which point are you trying to make?



I don't think I'm informed enough to give you a specific answer, so I'll have to give you a vague and rambling answer.

I think that what makes (some) adolescents capable of making mature decisions is the knowledge that they have. They need the right sex education - not just the usual biological stuff, but thorough relationship guidance as well - to help them make informed decisions about entering into sexual relationships. I think that pubescent minors have the cognitive potential to comprehend the information required to give informed consent, as long as it is presented to them in a way that they can understand. But they do need to have learned that information to be ready to make sexual decisions; the potential by itself is not enough.

As for leaving home, I don't think that has much to do with being capable of making mature decisions. Many people these days live with their parents into their 20s or even 30s or older. Those people aren't incapable of making mature decisions (choosing to live at home could itself be considered a mature decision, say if it is following a divorce or separation). So just because an adolescent is reasonably mature, or has the potential to be reasonably mature given the right education, that does not mean that going out into the big, wide world is necessarily what's best for them.

And anyway, I'm not against compulsory schooling for teens... society seems to benefit from all of its members having a secondary (high school) education. And going to school can hardly be considered going out into the world. On the other hand, I do think we underestimate the potential maturity and independence of adolescents. 100 years or so ago, children would have been employed. Now I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it does suggest that the apparent childishness of today's adolescents may just be a product of modern culture. Maybe if we let them leave home and live independent lives (after preparing them for this throughout pre-pubescence), they'd cope just fine. It seems plausible.



Spot on. A worldwide consensus does not mean much to me, because if you look at history, you find that throughout the ages, the whole world has been absolutely certain of something which has later turned out to be false. Of course, sometimes the whole world turns out to be right. So clearly a worldwide consensus is not a reliable guide to truth, since sometimes the world gets it right, and sometimes it gets things wrong. (Bear in mind that in this context I am using the words 'right' and 'wrong' to mean factually correct or incorrect; this has got nothing to do with morality.)

That is not to say that other people's opinions don't matter to me. If somebody disagrees with me, it is imperative that I hear what they have to say, because it is important for me to have my beliefs scrutinised in case they are untrue. But I will not abandon my beliefs just because somebody else (or the entire world) disagrees with them... I need to be shown that my beliefs are false, not told. I think that is more rational than following the herd or believing everything you hear.



That's not true. The mental and emotional maturity level is important; if it's too low, then I don't think the minor should have sex. The point is that I think adolescent minors are (given the right education) mentally and emotionally ready to have sex if they want to. You and I disagree about when people are ready for sex, but we both agree that people need to be ready for sex before they have it.



It's not a matter of taking it into account. I don't know of any evidence which conclusively shows that minors are never equipped to make serious decisions about sex. It's still open to debate, so it's no good assuming it to be true (unless you know something that I don't - if so, please tell me) and then demanding that I accept it.



It's got nothing to do with compassion. Compassion is about sympathy and concern for the well-being of others. Having an intellectual disagreement with billions of people (the world), most of whom will never meet me, does not affect their well-being as far as I can see.



As I've now explained, I do believe in truth and falsehood.



Hang on. I do have a problem with that. If a 12 year old girl suffers as a result of my having sex with her, then I never should have had sex with her. But the point is that I don't think a 12 year old girl would necessarily grow up to develop emotional difficulties. I haven't seen any substantial evidence for this. If you have seen evidence, please show it to me. If you haven't then why do you believe this to be the case?



Can you show me the historical proof? (Remember that we're talking about consensual sex, not rape.)



Facts. Or reliable evidence for facts. A consensus among non-experts is a very unreliable kind of evidence.

Liar and Phoney
Agrote: you're also a big liar and phoney as you said: "I have a degree in psychology and philosophy."

You described yourself as a 19-yr-old. Not only don't you talk like any 19-yr-old I've ever met...but your multi-degrees are a fairly unlikely achievement for a 19 yr old. It's clear by your own words that you aren't interested in anything but your own selfish needs. What harm what it have done to tell the truth?

Oh, yes...I see. Telling people you are a 30-yr-old pervo who's interested in 13-yr-old might not have gotten many responses.

The purpose of your overly wordy threads seems to be to intellectualize and rationalize social taboos (incest thread).

I'm not sick of the deabte. I'm just sick of you!

Re: Liar and Phoney


What?! Where did I say I was 19? Please show me.

I turned 21 last month.



They are overly wordy, I'll agree with you there.

The problem with your 'philia is that you will only be able to be in relationships for a few years, until a girl grows up. So even if it's legal, you won't be able to have a successful marriage because you won't like her that much anymore when she gets older. Keep that in mind as a reason for trying to get help.

Somebody already mentioned that. I'm not exclusively attracted to adolescents, so it might not be a problem. And even if the sexual attrraction did die down after a few years, the other aspects of the relationship wouldn't need to. Most married couples probably have less sexual interest in each other after a certain age, but they don't necessarily fall out of love.

Thirdly, what's wrong with having relationships which only last a few years anyway? Millions of 'ordinary' people do that. A long-lasting marriage isn't an essential part of life.

Ah, my apologies, I guess I missed it..

Anyhow, children are sad when a parent leaves after a few years. Millions of parents do it, but it's not for the best. Children are the healthiest when both parents are present. Or, if you don't have children, you're basically removing your genes from the gene pool. It baffles me how some lack the basic instinct of passing on their genes, even though people with genes that make them not want to pass them on should have already been naturally removed from the gene pool, regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creationism.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. But I do have an opinion... I'm not sure that many people have an instinct to pass on their genes. We instinctively want to have sex, and sex just happens to be somehing which passes on our genes. But we don't have an instinct to do it because it passes on our genes... we want to do it because it's pleasurable. We have evolved to find it pleasurable because it is something which allows our genes to survive, but we aren't instinctively aware of that - all that our bodies know is that it's pleasurable and we want to do it.

The same goes for maternal instincts. Many women instinctively want to have children and nurture them, but I don't think this is because they want to pass on their genes. We didn't even know that genes existed before the 20th century, yet people still wanted to raise children. They want to do it for its own sake - it feels nice to raise children. We have evolved to make and look after children, and the reason for that is that it propogates our genes, but we have no natural direct desire to actually pass on our genes.

just a question for everyone who opposed the notion this thread started with (sex should be legal regardless of age)... when did you guys start having sex? and if you were under the age of consent, how do you explain your current view?
btw, before i get lynched by everyone, i must stress that i DON'T think sex with minors should be legal, because i don't think teenagers are mature enough to have sex (which was already explained in detail by a lot of you). at least I didn't feel ready for sex, so i didn't do it till a bit later.
i just thought this might be an interesting point.