Graded Age of Consent Laws

Why not propose a scheme along these lines?  The first number is the age of one partner, and the range of numbers is the range of people of a certain age who can legally have sex with a person of first.  It goes for any combination or number of sexes.

14: 11-17
15: 12-18
16: 12-24
17: 12-25
18-21: 14-up
21: 15-up

The thing that really bugs society is the whole ADOLESCENCE/children question around the consent laws.  In theory, we have no immediate moral problem with a 25 year old fucking an 80 year old, since both of them have made the mystical transition into adulthood.  However, we say that a 40 year old and a ten year old is RIGHT OUT.  To quantify the ages so precisely around adolescence seems strange, as well.  To accomodate this, we could have less nasty non-jail sentences (seeing a shrink/community service) for, for example, an 18 year old tapping a 13 year-old), all the way up to whatever age is right-out.  Send a 25 year old who got with an 8 year old to jail.  The process of fixing the age cutoffs could be helped by the psychological establishment.

Wow, this is actually a good idea. Good luck getting the godlings to accept it though. Both graduated sentences and consents would change things a lot, and remove the nasty habit the addicts have of killing (because murder brings less punishment than being considered a paedo in some places.)

>>1
so.....a fourteen year old is only allowed to have sex with someone seventeen or younger, but a twenty year old is allowed to have sex with a fourteen year old...

confusing, and contradicts itself.  sounds like it'll fit right in with the rest of the legal system.

I think this is a stupid idea because traditionally sex has always meant adulthood, something that adults do. That is, anyone who have sex is an adult. Therefore this number range would cause more of a sense of 'unfairness'.

Regarding the limit of 18 years for the age of consent (in the US): anyone under that age cannot legally fuck. That was what made the law originally 'fair' -- because anyone under that age is not considered an adult and not able to fuck. But now that 17 and 16 year olds are fucking each other and not being punished for it, there is a sense of 'unfairness' in the law in that no one over 18 can fuck them and so they are seen as special.

In conclusion, this is retarded but something similar is implemented in New Zealand (I think).


However, we say that a 40 year old and a ten year old is RIGHT OUT.

I am sure society would not like a 40 year old fucking a 10 year old but I am equally as sure that society would not like a 13 year old fucking a 10 year old.

as soon as someone hits puberty, sexing them should be legal.  parental consent for under eighteens may make sense, but outright illegaling sex to young people, even after they have all the appropriate hardware and hormones telling them to do so, that's just a recipe for not-goodness.

forty year olds sexing ten year olds might not be socially acceptable, but eighty year olds sexing eighteen year olds is looked down upon too, yet still perfectly legal.  social acceptance shouldn't have any bearing on legal 'right' vs 'wrong'.  it's just 'ewwww'.

>>3
  hence the qualifier 'a scheme along these lines', dumbass.  I was just brainstorming ranges-anyone can sit down and make them consistent with a litter effort.  Why don't you?

Although age is just a human concept to mark time and not everyone hits puberty at the same time, anyone under 18 shouldn't be sexing anyway unless they have the ability to handle the results of said sexing. It is assumed someone over 18 has the ability to take care of themselves and offspring and if not they can rot in jail better than someone under 18. If you want to sex someone that has hit puberty, fine, but you should have the legal obligation to the results and not just financially. If you want to sex someone that hasn't hit puberty you should kill yourself.

>>7
And that's why the good Lord gave us contraceptives and abortions!

That's ridiculous, even conservative american researchers put the pedo rate at like 1 in 4 men and thats with a lot of denials, or people who just don't know they do. its probably more like half, or can't be distinguished

Fact is, i don't give a fuck what you want to sex, be it young, old, or not human.  We simply need the laws to keep society in place, therefore obey them for the sake of the law, not morals.

>>7 "anyone under 18 shouldn't be sexing anyway unless they have the ability to handle the results of said sexing"
then anyone cant have sex until they're like, what? 40?

So, you're saying that you can have sex with a person if their age is x1.34 +-92/145 + the square root of pi + or - 5, right?

I don't know, this seems stupid and a waste of time. 

You're all a bunch of pedos, you know that?

>>11
needs more "amirite"

>>10
all one really needs is a reasonable income and the responsibilty to handle their own family.  raised properly, a boy can be a productive head of a household by the time they hit puberty, and a girl can be a productive keeper of a household by the time they hit puberty.  if such people have the means and ability to sustain their own family, they should be allowed the option.

(this is, of course, assuming a traditional marriage way of doing things.  other options do exist, but the basic premise stands.)

>>14
you stupid, what the hell is a matter with you?

>>14
And you think that's an attractive option, when all his friends are trading baseball cards and eating twinkies?

No, you fuckhead, kids do not have the ability to be responsable.

>>15
>>16
Afraid of competition.

Sure, 13-17 year olds are both physically and emotionally equipped to bear offspring--it just depends on the enviroment they're in.

Imagine a 14-year old girl giving birth some 10,000 years ago in a small tribal village. She wouldn't have to take care of the baby all by herself, she would have the support of her mother, sisters, aunts, cousins, tribemates, and even the goddamn father! In today's modern culture, where school, universities and expanded career choices have extended childhood well into the 20's ("adultolescense"), your average 14-year old is not well-prepared for childrearing, she would be thrust out into the scornful world as a pariah and a liability with no one to look out for her. Hell, even 24-year olds no longer have the social/financial ability to raise a kid!

In short, this isn't the bronze age. </armchairprofessor>

Sure, 13-17 year olds are both physically and emotionally equipped to bear offspring--it just depends on the enviroment they're in.

Imagine a 14-year old girl giving birth some 10,000 years ago in a small tribal village. She wouldn't have to take care of the baby all by herself, she would have the support of her mother, sisters, aunts, cousins, tribemates, and even the goddamn father! In today's modern culture, where school, universities and expanded career choices have extended childhood well into the 20's ("adultolescense"), your average 14-year old is not well-prepared for childrearing, she would be thrust out into the scornful world as a pariah and a liability with no one to look out for her. Hell, even 24-year olds no longer have the social/financial ability to raise a kid!

In short, this isn't the bronze age. </armchairprofessor>

>>18
a large portion of a modern education is 'extra' stuff which doesn't actually help one earn a profitable living.  sure, things like Shakespeare, social studies, and calculus are nice things to know, but if you're training as a carpenter or auto mechanic, they're pretty much useless.

specializing one's education from an early age allows one to become fully productive much faster.  focussing on a career and keeping up to date with current innovations is not unfeasible for someone starting in their teens.

Not everyone needs to be a doctor or a lawyer with years upon years upon years of education mashed into their skull.

>>20
Cuz this world needs more idiot savants, amirite?

plus, learning does not stop at marriage. you can still read shakespeare and go to college after you are married you know.

also, >>18's "in this modern world" argument is flawed because the kids will be raised differently.

>>1
if a fourteen year old is sexually active, what difference does it make if he/she is doing the deed with another fourteen year old, vs an eighty year old?  why should it be 'okay' for one and 'wrong' for the other?  either way, sex is sex.

>>21
No, the world needs more dumb housewives.

>>23
Truth. If someone is sexed, it should't matter who it's by to everyone else.

>>23
Sex in not just sex. With it often comes social and economic consequences, and I don't just mean pregnancy. Seriously, how many guys would expect sex after paying for a date, or women have a sexual attraction to wealthy men? A lot of people don't consciously think about that when they want a fuck, but sex does have this "power" dimension. Sex is in many ways similar to possession.

In "less enlighted" periods of history, women WERE possessions. This is because of 1)sex and 2)kids. I can have sex with my woman, you can't. It was the easiest way reconcile law and sex. But times have changed. Laws partially reflect morals. Sex is liberalised greatly in many countries. Yet, there is stigma and taboo. These are not things so easily changed. To say that there is no moral problem with a 25 yr old fucking an 80 yr old >>1 is not true. It just has no immediate legal consequence.

You know what, maybe the current laws SHOULD be revised. But it won't come without a great deal of campaigning and education and fighting for your point of view. You never know, people might accept it eventually; no right comes without a fight. But given the current state of US politics, I wouldn't be too optimistic.       

>>Sex is in many ways similar to possession.
Exactly why it shouldn't be allowed for little kids.  Older people will take advantage of younger people when such a large age gap exists.  It's human nature.

>>26
Not talking about little kids here. We are talking about after puberty.

And sex is sex. Somthing adults do. If you are having sex, you are an adult. Little kids don't have sex.

>>23
>>24
>>27

Kids just gone through puberty are still kids themselves, and naive and ineffectual in a great many respects.  If you don't understand this simple principle, then you're not too far removed from puberty yourselves.  sex between persons of very different ages usually connotes a "power question", and it's much easier for a middle aged man to abuse a younger teenager (which is not to say that it's not often the case that a middle aged man can abuse a middle aged woman)  Why then, do we not pay special attention to the adults who are abused?  For one thing, it's another discussion.  In the second place, criminology starts with the assumption that abuse is a usual component when there extreme age gaps-and one participant is on the shy side of adulthood, having practically no autonomy.

HOWEVER, it is pretty nuts to me that a 17 year old and a 21 year old can have sex and one of them gets in legal trouble for it-that's what spurred me to suppose a graduated law in the first place, and that's what spurred me to think that there must be a (happier) medium.  Some states already have statutes in a similar spirit.  The idea of these laws is not to condone early sexual contact, but to remove an unnecessary stigma from two young people experimenting.  All laws with respect to abuse, assault, and rape remain intact.

Finally, >>27, you are obviously wrong when you make the blanket statement that "if you are having sex, you are an adult".  Lots of folks may make it to full fleged adulthood with minimal sexual contact, but most don't.  It's-gee-a component of the TRANSITION to adulthood, for most people.  The false dichotomy of "adults" and "little kids" is also inadmissable, since the main group under discussion is adolescents.  As for 12 and 13 year olds who do get caught doing things, I don't see too much use for the law, except if there was an abuse of some kind.

Consensual sex is consensual sex no matter what psychobabble you filter it through and it should not be illegal.

>>28
should it not be the parent's responsibility to ensure that their children aren't sexing irresponsibly when they hit puberty?  there are already laws in many places where a child may be sexed or married even if they're below the age of consent, if the parents give their consent as well.  this, to me, makes much more sense than a gradiant which just makes things more complex and provides no visible advantage.

>>30

you are naive in this respect: part of the passage from adolesence into adulthood involves working around parental control.  There are two main reasons to keep your kids from having sex: 1. STDs 2. Pregnancy.  Either of these could be treated as a form of abuse in the right setting.

THE POINT, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD, HAS BEEN THIS:  ADOLECENSE, FROM A PSYCHOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, IS VERY DELICATE.  IT DOES NOT MAKE MUCH SENSE TO CREATE A GREAT STIGMA (POSSIBLE JAIL TIME)  FOR TWO YOUNG ADULTS WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE SEX IN A CONSENSUAL FASION.  It DOES

lastly, whoever you are, stop saying 'sexing'.  It's fucking annoying.

>>31 cont

MAKE SENSE TO CREATE LAWS WHICH ARE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE SEXUAL PROBLEMS OF ADOLESCENSE, WHATEVER THEY TURN OUT TO BE.

As for your MAIN point: YES.  GOOD PARENTING SHOULD PREVENT TEENAGE SEX.  I am quite frankly in favor of most people skipping sex until they are around 16-20, preferably on the older side of that margin.  This does NOT imply that we need to make it patently illegal for there to be ceratin contact between persons of a certain age.  That's part of what I'm arguing for.

I am in favor of having sex whenever you want, as long as its consensual not taking advantage of anybody.  I think underneath all the very old-styled analysis is just people who are disturbed by the fact that children/teens have a sex drive. 
Despite what we say, we all know how likely it is to catch STDs in a normal school environment, and how little pregnancies result considering how much teen sex there must be.
Put simply, the REAL problems here are

1. We don't have a cure for all STDs
2. Americans tend to have something against abortion
3. While most kids/teens who have sex are informed enough not to risk STDs or pregnancy, there are still kids not properly educated on the matter. 

The saying that people shouldn't have sex at the time when they want it most is kinda like saying we shouldn't leave the house cause we might get hit by a car, trip and fall.. etc.  Every single animal and humanity up till about now has fucked like crazy during puberty, its natural.  I think its kind of ironic how we see it as a stigma just when contraceptives and medicine become widely available.  Then again only north americans and the religious islamic think this way about teen sex.. so I'm not sure. 

You're all wrong! Kids should be pure innocent virgins till they're 30!

are you guys trying to say society's laws are wrong?  how dare yOU?!@  =P  life doesn't r-evolve around strict laws or guidelines.  iow we are not robots.  however, living in this current society learn to deal with your own choices and not bitch at what you already knew to be against the grain.

>>31
"you are naive in this respect: part of the passage from adolesence into adulthood involves working around parental control."

you say this as if it's a good thing.  adolescence->adulthood should, if anything, be more strict on 'follow the rules', because that's what adults are expected to do.  once they're out and on their own, they can ignore their parents control if they so desire.  it's their own problem then.

if teens have sex without their parents approval when they're old enough to know right from wrong but not experienced enough to properly understand the consequences of their actions, they should be punished, either by the parents or by the law.  anything else would be irresponsible.  shoplifting and murder aren't 'okay' if they're just done for the purpose of experimenting and fun, why should sex with minors be?

>>36
what the fuck. you are confusing sex with minors and sex between minors and mixing up everything to ultimately say nothing.

>>36
because sex with minors doesn't compare to shoplifting and murder? 
i think its only in america that parents think teens don't know the consequences of sex, i'm not sure how true this is, but in most other places it happens that teens know more about risks like STDs/pregnancy than their parents do.  Can't say the same for children though

i don't see why you would need your parents approval to have sex, your consequences are your own, if some kid beat some other kid with a baseball bat, he didn't ask for his parent's approval, not that it would matter if he planned on carrying it out.  It's like asking your mom if you can go to the bathroom every time, the point of growing up is to handle these things yourself, you don't magically become immune to sex risks once you pass 18.

i think its fairer to say that the few teens/kids that do in fact rape another or get somebody pregnant when they don't want to be, are the ones that be punished by law. 

>>37
i'm afraid i don't understand.  how is sex between minors not the same as sex with minors?  they both involve minors, and they both involve having sex with them.

A fourteen year old getting pregnant by a fifteen year old, neither of which is economically responsible enough to handle the child, or a fourteen year old getting pregnant by a thirty-two year old with a steady job and fully capable of supporting a family?  I don't understand why anyone would consider the first option preferable.