|
Aswad -> RE: Sexy High School Teacher Busted for Sex with Moron Student (6/4/2007 1:04:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I would be looking for an age where it's reasonable to assume children are in a position to make an informed choice. Personally, I don't think minds can be read, so it's all very subjective. Then again, limits are subjective - society makes a collective decision.
Age doesn't have anything to do with an informed choice. I know adults who aren't anywhere near the capacity for an informed choice, and I've been a minor with that capacity (judged in retrospect, although I'll agree that I didn't have the capacity until about a year or so after I thought I did at the time), although I didn't actually get laid.
Limits are indeed subjective. Bear in mind that it's not just a limit relating to protection, but one relating to freedom. At what point does the one begin and the other end? Well, in effect, they overlap, but where does impaired freedom become a bigger factor than provided protection?
To my mind, the reasonable thing is to let the law set the minimum standard, and let society deal with anything beyond that in the usual ways: feedback, shunning, whatever. Once the dust settles after a change, people will be looking askance at those doing the "wrong thing", and giving a damn about those who are just having a good time.
An arbitrary, but well standardized, limit would be 15, as reccommended by the WHO. A less arbitrary, and well documented, limit would be the onset (or regularity of) menses for females, and the onset of voicebox changes in males. This in relation to the minimum standard. Basically, before that point, it's a child. After that point, it's an adolescent, and will at some point (hopefully) become an adult after a few more decades.
Looking to ages past, and other cultures, there is little to support the notion that the age of consent concept has any utility beyond maintaining tradition and dogma, as well as crippling anyone who debuts early.
Humans, in general, are not attracted to prepubescents in a sexual or romantic way, and exceptions to that rule are what is properly called paedophilia, a rare orientation that is generally not practiced by those who are of that orientation. I don't have the data to do any debate about those, and frankly don't have a problem with prohibiting them from pursuing their orientation. Fortunately, this orientation is not often present in sexual predators; they just choose the kids because it's convenient, and because their lack of experience makes them a more vulnerable target. The latter point, of course, goes to support the lowering of ages of consent.
Humans are, however, wired to be interested in those who have entered puberty, at the very least on a sexual level. Most exercise good judgment in this regard, fortunately, as not all youths are mature enough at this point.
But, let's face it, sex isn't really that big a deal, and the only problems that have been scientifically documented with regard to consenting, non-incestous relations between an adult and a minor, is associated with prepubescents, not adolescents. In short, there is one group the law would be on fairly firm grounds banning contact with (prepubescents) and one group where it's on entirely arbitrary grounds (adolescents).
The only way sex, regardless of age, becomes a big deal, is when people make it a big deal. And that's where the trauma enters the picture. Changing the laws would go a long way toward making it a less big deal, and consequently eliminating trauma.
One other point... and it's an important one.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
That shouldn't just be a principle of trials. It should be a principle of law.
When in doubt, do not make criminals out of people you are not sure are criminals. I am reasonably sure you could make a good case that sex with a prepubescent should be outlawed, and I'd support that. Making an age-based blanket statement that is smack in the middle of adolescence (typical ages of consent are) is making a whole lot of criminals out of people I think should have the benefit of the doubt.
After all, any dad worth his salt will be chasing you off with a baseball bat if he thinks you're banging his "little girl" and shouldn't be [:D]
quote:
From personal experience, 13 would have been too young for me, as it would for the lads I knocked around with. By 16, children have developed a level of maturity, education and understanding of the wider world (albeit limited) that supports an informed choice.
From my analysis, at 13, I would have been mature enough, while at 14-15, the bulk of my peers would have been. For the act itself, I mean. The social bits, however, are a different ballgame. But those will adjust, given a change of law and a time for the dust to settle. Again, reiterating for the mods, I didn't get laid as a minor.
quote:
I would argue for 16. If I had children, I wouldn't be happy with 13, 14 or 15 based on what I know from my own childhood.
If I had children, I'd be perfectly happy with any of those, because I know my kids would have better grounds to make an informed decision about sex at that age than I did when I debut'ed (18'ish, as I recall; AoC here is 16). And that they'll know not to allow themselves to be pushed into it.
Any further grounds for the assertion would have to be cleared by the mods first; it's legal here, but it may not be over there, so I'm not posting that now.
|
|
|
|
