can we assume children are all all stupid ?

[dragonstar57]

The idea that children should be denied the legal right to consent to sex before a certain age seems based on the notion that they have to be protected by the state against their own risk-benefit calculations. But interestingly, you can legally take a dangerous, potentially neck-breaking dive off a diving board into a swimming pool at a younger age than you can legally choose to do something perfectly natural and minimally dangerous like have sex. Most kids today know how to prevent pregnancy (or the fetus can be aborted easily enough), and AIDS education is ubiquitous, so both of these risks are now much smaller than the risks of taking a high dive into a pool. So we have to assume that the 'risk' young kids are being protected against by the law is the purely 'moral risk' that they will be sexual too early for social convention, though obviously not too early for their own biological drives. But is it legitimate for a free society to criminalize young people voluntarily acting out their sexual interests with consenting partners just because this is a moral affront but not as serious a health risk as a whole variety of other perfectly legal risks?

 

Another problem with defining underage sex as statutory rape is that the minimum ages for consent to sex were set at historical periods when puberty occurred much later than today, largely because of dietary inadequacies. Also, the common social practise of society was to forbid sexuality outside of marriage quite strictly and to deny that choice to anyone under 18, but today most people accept that their teenage children will be sexual, yet the law has not caught up with this change in behavior. The final absurdity is that the legal age for marriage (with parental consent) in many jurisdictions is lower than the legal age for consent to sex, so society winds up defining unmarried but consensual sex as rape at age 13 but married consensual sex at age 13 as legal, which amounts to burdening teenagers with a rape conviction just because they weren't married, rather than because they forced someone into having sex against their will.

that what I was trying to say thank you for clarifying what I have been saying.

[Mr Skeptic]

The final absurdity is that the legal age for marriage (with parental consent) in many jurisdictions is lower than the legal age for consent to sex, so society winds up defining unmarried but consensual sex as rape at age 13 but married consensual sex at age 13 as legal, which amounts to burdening teenagers with a rape conviction just because they weren't married, rather than because they forced someone into having sex against their will.

 

I think the purpose of the statutory rape law was because of the difficulty of proving non-consent in the cases of child abuse. In fact, I think many of said children really did give their consent, either in exchange for trivial gifts or fear of reprisal. I suppose it would be sensible to allow an exception with parental consent (even without marriage), although I don't think many parents would make use of such.

[Moontanman]

The age of sexual consent seems to be a big part of this conversation but it should be pointed out that the idea of sexual consent at age 18 is new. In some parts of the USA, until the 1970s ( i think) the age of sexual consent was 12, possibly even younger in some places or even nonexistent. Age of consent has been quite low and variable in the USA at least until recent years. I can't see how the idea of early or late puberty years ago figures into it.

[random]

Why don't we look at it from a totally new perspective .......If some 20 + bozo was to have sex with my 13 year old daughter and someone told me it was alright because she was old enough to make that decision well I tell you me someone aside from mr 20+ is apt to get a swift kick in the ass. Kids are kids and do stupid things and bozo 20+ would be safer in jail anyway. I learned the hard way we are not emmotionally or financially able to have children until IMO mid 20's.

[dragonstar57]

It is not illegal for 2 14 year olds to have sex .

 

yes it is

 

On another note look at smoking, and drinking a large part of the allure is that it is illegal one can't help but wonder if it were permissible would they still choose to do it?

yes they do it because they want to do it and I don't see how anyone has the right to stop them

 

Those pre disposed to alcoholism wouldn't stand a chance.

that is like saying alcoholics can not stop drinking.

 

 

 

What would happen if we made a law whereby adults could choose for themselves if they were intoxicated and be free to drive?

this is a very poor analogy as the legal diving limit is to protect others from the drunks this law is to protect a teen from themselves

 

 

Why don't we look at it from a totally new perspective .......If some 20 + bozo was to have sex with my 13 year old daughter and someone told me it was alright because she was old enough to make that decision well I tell you me someone aside from mr 20+ is apt to get a swift kick in the ass. Kids are kids and do stupid things and bozo 20+ would be safer in jail anyway. I learned the hard way we are not emotionally or financially able to have children until IMO mid 20's.

this opinion seems to be strongly influenced by the flowing flawed beliefs

1. the religious belief that sex is wrong

2.the belief that children are there parents propriety

3. that it is your responsibility or right to protect anyone from themselves

who said anything about children?

teens are not irresponsible due to a brain flaw they are irresponsible due to the fact that our society awards immaturity. and because the teen years are the end of childhood and the beginning of adulthood and teens try to make statements that they are more adult than child ie. smoking drinking having sex

Edited September 24, 2010 by cipher510

[iNow]

It is not illegal for 2 14 year olds to have sex .

 

yes it is

Can you please elaborate, or preferable supply a source for this assertion so I can learn more?

[random]

Never in my life have I ever heard of a legal case where 2 14 year olds were both charged with an illegal act for having sex with one another. I don't mind providing references for difficult to obtain information but I'm not going to scour the criminal code for a reference to common sense.

 

Extremely young mothers give birth to children everyday in western civilization and if it was an illegal act they would be charged and dealt with accordingly don't you think?

 

Cipher 510 I trust you do not have children or any experience dealing with the younger generation. Teens are easily manipulated by someone older or the same age often enough, We call it "peer pressure" It is where one takes on activities they would not ordinarily engage in in an attempt to gain popularity and status. The desire for acceptance is much stronger in youth. You may not care if you present a "cool" appearance anymore but when you were in high school you did. When you couple the popularity and acceptance of drinking in the younger generation with a pre disposed alcoholic and then give them a virtually unlimited supply of alcohol and then trust they will make the right decision and not drink well...........that's just dumb. And a "flawed" belief it is my responsibility to protect someone (children" ) from themselves your damn right that is what a parent does.

 

At 5 mommy knows everything, at 10 mom knows alot, at 15 mom doesn't know anything, at 20 mom likely knows about this. at 25 I'll just ask mom.

 

I do not believe sex is wrong I do believe a 20 year old taking advantage of a 13 year old is wrong. I do not support the idea that young teens should have sex but I don't condemn it either, after all I was at that age too you know. Where a kiss from a pretty girl caused an erection, The physical response imply's to me that nature intended young reproduction, A throwback to when human's only lived to 30 or whatever. We are now in an age where we live much longer, a much larger knowledge base is required to live in stability, Because of economy a person must be financially stable before raising a family etc. In short you need to be able to supply food, shelter, clothing etc in a much more complex jungle and it takes longer to learn the survival skills neccessary.

[Marat]

Since the minimum age for legal consent to sexual intercourse varies greatly from one time and place to another, you can only answer the question whether it is illegal for two 14-year-olds to have sex if you specify the legal jurisdiction and the date. But generally 14 is regarded is below the age for legal consent to sex, even though both children in the example may in fact feel and say that they are consenting to sex with each other. Many of the laws regarding minimum age for sexual consent were set back in the 19th century, when malnutrition and ricketts delayed puberty until 17 or so. Now puberty is occurring earlier and earlier, so teenagers are being required to wait four or five years after becoming sexual in fact before being allowed to be sexual by law, in contrast to the situation in the 19th century, when they were legally allowed to be sexual at about the age that they felt biologically ready for it.

 

But why is it legal for children to make contracts to supply them with 'necessaries,' that is, things like food and clothing, even when they are very young, but not legal for them to choose to be sexual, which is also a necessary biological drive which demands fulfillment as much as hunger does. There lurks in the background of all these laws to 'protect' children from acting out their sexual feelings in sex with a partner the pre-modern assumption that sex is bad and so children have to be protected from it. But even though eating too much food is bad for children, and probably much more risky to health than having sex at a young age, there is no legal prohibition for children eating as much as they like, but if children consent to underage sex bourgeois society and its legal system go hysterical as though the children had swallowed a bottle of poison.

[dragonstar57]

Never in my life have I ever heard of a legal case where 2 14 year olds were both charged with an illegal act for having sex with one another. I don't mind providing references for difficult to obtain information but I'm not going to scour the criminal code for a reference to common sense.

 

Extremely young mothers give birth to children everyday in western civilization and if it was an illegal act they would be charged and dealt with accordingly don't you think?

 

Cipher 510 I trust you do not have children or any experience dealing with the younger generation. Teens are easily manipulated by someone older or the same age often enough, We call it "peer pressure" It is where one takes on activities they would not ordinarily engage in in an attempt to gain popularity and status. The desire for acceptance is much stronger in youth. You may not care if you present a "cool" appearance anymore but when you were in high school you did. When you couple the popularity and acceptance of drinking in the younger generation with a pre disposed alcoholic and then give them a virtually unlimited supply of alcohol and then trust they will make the right decision and not drink well...........that's just dumb. And a "flawed" belief it is my responsibility to protect someone (children" ) from themselves your damn right that is what a parent does.

 

At 5 mommy knows everything, at 10 mom knows alot, at 15 mom doesn't know anything, at 20 mom likely knows about this. at 25 I'll just ask mom.

 

I do not believe sex is wrong I do believe a 20 year old taking advantage of a 13 year old is wrong. I do not support the idea that young teens should have sex but I don't condemn it either, after all I was at that age too you know. Where a kiss from a pretty girl caused an erection, The physical response imply's to me that nature intended young reproduction, A throwback to when human's only lived to 30 or whatever. We are now in an age where we live much longer, a much larger knowledge base is required to live in stability, Because of economy a person must be financially stable before raising a family etc. In short you need to be able to supply food, shelter, clothing etc in a much more complex jungle and it takes longer to learn the survival skills neccessary.

1 they just send the male to jail

2. I am in high school right now

 

Since the minimum age for legal consent to sexual intercourse varies greatly from one time and place to another, you can only answer the question whether it is illegal for two 14-year-olds to have sex if you specify the legal jurisdiction and the date. But generally 14 is regarded is below the age for legal consent to sex, even though both children in the example may in fact feel and say that they are consenting to sex with each other. Many of the laws regarding minimum age for sexual consent were set back in the 19th century, when malnutrition and ricketts delayed puberty until 17 or so. Now puberty is occurring earlier and earlier, so teenagers are being required to wait four or five years after becoming sexual in fact before being allowed to be sexual by law, in contrast to the situation in the 19th century, when they were legally allowed to be sexual at about the age that they felt biologically ready for it.

 

But why is it legal for children to make contracts to supply them with 'necessaries,' that is, things like food and clothing, even when they are very young, but not legal for them to choose to be sexual, which is also a necessary biological drive which demands fulfillment as much as hunger does. There lurks in the background of all these laws to 'protect' children from acting out their sexual feelings in sex with a partner the pre-modern assumption that sex is bad and so children have to be protected from it. But even though eating too much food is bad for children, and probably much more risky to health than having sex at a young age, there is no legal prohibition for children eating as much as they like, but if children consent to underage sex bourgeois society and its legal system go hysterical as though the children had swallowed a bottle of poison.

and what is with the school classes being so Christian. my health teacher is such a blatant fear monger that I don't believe almost anything she says and all i hear when she talks is the repeated phrase "Christian agenda".

 

Can you please elaborate, or preferable supply a source for this assertion so I can learn more?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=age+of+consent

 

I think the purpose of the statutory rape law was because of the difficulty of proving non-consent in the cases of child abuse. In fact, I think many of said children really did give their consent, either in exchange for trivial gifts or fear of reprisal. I suppose it would be sensible to allow an exception with parental consent (even without marriage), although I don't think many parents would make use of such.

how would consent be any more difficult to prove than a normal case where it becomes a he said she said?

Edited September 24, 2010 by cipher510

[Marat]

But if we assume that children aged 14 freely consent to sex with someone their own age or older, then why is it so important that their consent to sex was immature, stupid, silly, with the wrong person, or a too soon for their intelletual and emotional development? Children that age can consent to swimming lessons which may drown them if they mis-estimate their strength and ability to swim back to shore, or which may break their neck if they dive off the diving board of the pool in a reckless way, but society doesn't seem especially concerned about this potentially lethal mistake, and inducing children to start swimming too early for their ability to assess its risks competently in all circumstances is not illegal. Early swimming lessons, just like early sex, can have good as well as bad effects, so why do we let children consent to the former but not to the latter?

 

I think that there is no way out of this trap for a supposedly liberal, rational, positivistic society which is dedicated to legal freedom except where the likely injury of exercising that freedom clearly outweighs any potential benefits. We simply have to admit that the reason why two 14-year-olds having consensual sex with each other is illegal while two fourteen-year-olds going swimming in challenging waters is not is just that we hate and fear sex while we are relaxed about swimming. When making the cost-benefit analysis in each case, society exaggerates the risks, conceiving sex as nothing but a series of near-certain exposures to Aids, unwanted pregnancy, kidnapping into the harems of Fu Man Chu in the Orient, or death at the hands of Jack the Ripper, and negates the benefits, which are the sexual pleasures involved, which in the mind of bourgeois respectability count as non-existent.

[dragonstar57]

my health teacher once said that unmarried sex is illegal even if your way past the age on consent (like 30) and also explained that (in the event of teen sex)

alcohol if consumed by the male did not offer an excuse but if it was the female that was drunk it just made it worse. this is a obviously sexist law as it is.

 

But if we assume that children aged 14 freely consent to sex with someone their own age or older, then why is it so important that their consent to sex was immature, stupid, silly, with the wrong person, or a too soon for their intelletual and emotional development? Children that age can consent to swimming lessons which may drown them if they mis-estimate their strength and ability to swim back to shore, or which may break their neck if they dive off the diving board of the pool in a reckless way, but society doesn't seem especially concerned about this potentially lethal mistake, and inducing children to start swimming too early for their ability to assess its risks competently in all circumstances is not illegal. Early swimming lessons, just like early sex, can have good as well as bad effects, so why do we let children consent to the former but not to the latter?

 

I think that there is no way out of this trap for a supposedly liberal, rational, positivistic society which is dedicated to legal freedom except where the likely injury of exercising that freedom clearly outweighs any potential benefits. We simply have to admit that the reason why two 14-year-olds having consensual sex with each other is illegal while two fourteen-year-olds going swimming in challenging waters is not is just that we hate and fear sex while we are relaxed about swimming. When making the cost-benefit analysis in each case, society exaggerates the risks, conceiving sex as nothing but a series of near-certain exposures to Aids, unwanted pregnancy, kidnapping into the harems of Fu Man Chu in the Orient, or death at the hands of Jack the Ripper, and negates the benefits, which are the sexual pleasures involved, which in the mind of bourgeois respectability count as non-existent.

good point

Edited September 25, 2010 by cipher510

[ccdan]

is it fair to assume that all children teens are idiots to keep them safe?

and is it fair to limit the rights of all children teens because some children teens act stupidly.

no, teens are actually more reasonable than most adults, largely because of less irrational indoctrination like religion and other things... also, they're definitely far more intelligent than 80-90 yr. old people... and let's not forget the concepts of adulthood/minority are purely subjective social constructs... at 18 absolutely nothing special happens from a scientific point of view... moreover, concepts like maturity/immaturity are also subjective social constructs... they're also relative, because there's no clear definition for "mature"

 

I don't think it's a bad idea to keep these ages as high as possible. Yes, it promotes greater responsibility and accountability to let people suffer the consequences of their choices as adults, but who wants to advocate shortening people's childhood?

do you think throwing them in prison for having sex or for drinking alcohol is something sensible and humane? they only have to be educated, not punished... crossing the street even while sober is often far more dangerous than having sex or drinking alcohol... and far more children die while crossing the street than because of having sex or drinking alcohol

 

If sex was inevitable, why wouldn't people be doing it constantly in public and other illegal ways that get them jailed? Apparently people can control themselves when the incentive to do so is great enough.

sex is indeed inevitable but most people don't do it in public, because of another natural trait: they're ashamed to do it in public... your ideas are a result of religious and/or cultural indoctrination

 

What would happen if we made a law whereby adults could choose for themselves if they were intoxicated and be free to drive?

this analogy doesn't make any sense! neither adults nor teens can drive while drunk! but for some reason, teens can't drink while adults can!

 

A still developing brain and body cannot be expected to make the same rational choices as a fully developed one.

oh, really? first, what really is a "fully developed" brain? when is it so, and how do you measure that? then, how do you explain that a larger proportion of adults believe in irrational things like gods, astronomy, numerology and so on?

 

As for sex laws well they exist to keep a predator at bay and ensure they will be held accountable.

the age of consent has nothing to do with keeping any predators at bay but with people's idiotic religious and cultural beliefs...

 

It is not illegal for 2 14 year olds to have sex but it is illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 14 year old.

don't be that sure!

 

Teens Charged With Raping Each Other While Engaging In Consensual Sex

When an Oak Creek woman found her 14-year-old daughter nude in the woman's bed with a 14-year-old boy, the teens didn't strike her as being overly concerned.

 

"They both freely admitted that their intention was to 'have sex,' " records quote the woman as saying. They "were confrontational and remorseless."

 

The teens even "challenged" the woman to call police. So she did.

 

Now, the couple's would-be sexual encounter in October has both of them facing serious criminal charges.

But prosecutors say children have no right to have sex.

 

"Sex between kids is not legal," said Assistant District Attorney Lori Kornblum, who is prosecuting the case.

 

According to the law, "Whoever has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 is guilty of a Class C felony." There is no mention of consent.

http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001669.php

 

And for good reason.

no, there's no good reason for that... it's pure idiocy! the age of consent in other parts of the world is as follows: between 13 and 15 in most of Europe (including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal), 13 in Japan and South Korea... 14 in most of South America... the US on the other hand has some of the highest ages of consent in the world, closer to countries like Turkey, Egypt, Congo, Gabon, Liberia, Rwanda and so on, where people tend to keep it very high to to their religious beliefs! normally the age of consent should be at around 13, at the onset of puberty

Edited September 28, 2010 by ccdan

[dragonstar57]

the age of consent should be at around 13, at the onset of puberty

I agree

but a non Christian dominated coarse about its risks and benefits should occur before this age to educate teens about the subject. but with no Christian religious bias as this coarse would be ignored if it had one.

Edited September 28, 2010 by cipher510

[Marat]

A 19th century English case, R. v. Prince, established the rule that there could be statutory rape of a young person only if the older person having sex were at least 3 years older than the younger partner. This has been adopted in various forms in the legal codes of various common law countries.

 

The idea seems to be that it must be exploitation if an older person induces a younger person to have sex with him or her, because the difference in ages makes independent, autonomous agreement impossible. But when I was 10 my figure skating teacher persuaded me to attempt a difficult jump and when I landed, I hit the pick of my blade on the ice, fell on my face, and was severely injured. Now why is this case of an older person persuading a younger person to do something carrying potential risks perfectly legal, while an older person persuading a younger person to do something much less risky, such as sex, is regarded as one of the most horrendous crimes in modern society? The explanation must have absolutely nothing to do with age, autonomy, or risk, but just with society's strange assumption that children acting out their natural curiosity and interest in sex is inherently evil.

[dragonstar57]

A 19th century English case, R. v. Prince, established the rule that there could be statutory rape of a young person only if the older person having sex were at least 3 years older than the younger partner. This has been adopted in various forms in the legal codes of various common law countries.

 

The idea seems to be that it must be exploitation if an older person induces a younger person to have sex with him or her, because the difference in ages makes independent, autonomous agreement impossible. But when I was 10 my figure skating teacher persuaded me to attempt a difficult jump and when I landed, I hit the pick of my blade on the ice, fell on my face, and was severely injured. Now why is this case of an older person persuading a younger person to do something carrying potential risks perfectly legal, while an older person persuading a younger person to do something much less risky, such as sex, is regarded as one of the most horrendous crimes in modern society? The explanation must have absolutely nothing to do with age, autonomy, or risk, but just with society's strange assumption that children acting out their natural curiosity and interest in sex is inherently evil.

agreed

[dragonstar57]

this topic has become more narrow than I had intended

what about purchasing things such as pellet guns or gamble?

Edited October 25, 2010 by cipher510

[dragonstar57]

i for one don't get why teenagers can't gamble

[lemur]

i for one don't get why teenagers can't gamble

Why should your kids be allowed to gamble when you are still legally/financially responsible for them? If people should be allowed to gamble at all, shouldn't it be when they have surplus money to lose/waste? When their losses have the potential to affect people beyond themselves, why should they be allowed to risk those people's welfare? Why should parents, for example, be allowed to gamble unless all their kids expenses are covered first?

Edited January 13, 2011 by lemur

[dragonstar57]

Why should your kids be allowed to gamble when you are still legally/financially responsible for them? If people should be allowed to gamble at all, shouldn't it be when they have surplus money to lose/waste? When their losses have the potential to affect people beyond themselves, why should they be allowed to risk those people's welfare? Why should parents, for example, be allowed to gamble unless all their kids expenses are covered first?

be careful little johnny your allowance affects the families welfare. if you lose that 20$ we might starve

lol

[lemur]

be careful little johnny your allowance affects the families welfare. if you lose that 20$ we might starve

lol

Dad, I need $20 for new shoes.

What do you mean? I gave you $20 for shoes last week.

Yeah, but I spent it all on lottery tickets.

 

 

 

[Marat]

I once saw a 60 Minutes episode about some boy genius who was starting university at age 14 and could perform all sorts of remarkable intellectual feats, so he certainly wasn't stupid in that sense. But he then rather proudly announced that he refused to continuing reading any book after he came to the fourth profanity in it, so I guess he could never get through the works of Shakespeare or many other great contributors to literature. So while he was 'smart' he was also profoundly stupid in his immaturity, which is why it is not sensible to extend much trust or responsibility even to the 'brightest' child.

[lemur]

I once saw a 60 Minutes episode about some boy genius who was starting university at age 14 and could perform all sorts of remarkable intellectual feats, so he certainly wasn't stupid in that sense. But he then rather proudly announced that he refused to continuing reading any book after he came to the fourth profanity in it, so I guess he could never get through the works of Shakespeare or many other great contributors to literature. So while he was 'smart' he was also profoundly stupid in his immaturity, which is why it is not sensible to extend much trust or responsibility even to the 'brightest' child.

That sounds pretty mature that he gave the writer three chances to clean up their language before giving up on the book. Also, compared to some people who would burn the book or threaten the life of the writer, this guy sounds relatively peaceful. Why is it immature to stop reading something that offends you?

[Marat]

I would hope a mature mind would have some more sophisticated criterion for finishing a book beyond 'four obscenities and you're out.' The book might also be philosophically deep or aesthetically rich, or the value of the text overall might far outweigh the negative significance of the obscenities, etc.

[Doc. Josh]

Children by nature tend to be ( less informed/intelligent) mainly due to lack of experience. And sometimes the choices that are made can lead to life changing consequences. And for argument sake let's say the 13 year old, was old enough to consent to sex due to the (natural) aspect. Accidents happen same as adults, unwanted pregnancy's, std's. Now obviously not every case ends up in that situation. Now the parent's guardian etc is still responsible for their child and now the new born. The parent gets the short end of the stick per say. Because it's not against the law for their child to have sex so now their pregnant and jobless, and it falls back on the parent. In 10 years when little amy grows up to be 23 year old woman she's going to look back and say wow mom/dad where were you on that one. I was only 13 why did you let me date and have sexual relations with little tommy from up the street. ( well honey it's not against the law in fact in the medieval times it was very common, big family's to help farm,house work and kids didnt go to school instead at 14 they were married had job's etc...) Hence the medieval time period... The modern society has a structure in place for both health safety and to assist in the protection of both parent and child for that matter. Yes special cases are in everything, i have no doubt a small fraction of youg teen's could manage to have sex early and nothing ever come about it, just honest to goodness sex. But it's hard enough to tell children no in the first place, do we really need to promote and undemonize it. Also as stated prior it is also to keep the adult men away from teens etc. Without repercussions it could in fact get ugly!! Children/teen's are in that odd mid stage of puberty and feel like a man/boy and woman/girl all at one. which fusterating as it is will pass. And They need guidence and a rules to form the person for tomorrow's sucess. on one final note the system is i give you an inch and if you take a mile then it's a law not a guidline anymore. As quoted from uptop.

[lemur]

I would hope a mature mind would have some more sophisticated criterion for finishing a book beyond 'four obscenities and you're out.' The book might also be philosophically deep or aesthetically rich, or the value of the text overall might far outweigh the negative significance of the obscenities, etc.

Obscenities have the effect of lowering one's spirits for some people. They may consider the aesthetic or philosophical richness of the text a vehicle for lowering their spirits with the use of obscenities or other disheartening content.