Age of Consent

[blue_tetris]

The age of consent is really there because the law knows some people cannot consent, and instead of having to rule explicitly on every single case that comes up, they proposed a general rule to make things run more smoothly.

In truth, a 32-year-old could say they didn't have the wherewithall or capacity to consent and an 8-year-old could argue that they did. In order to determine whether someone was wise enough to consent, we'd have to create tests or draw out long and laborious character studies every time someone had sex and someone else complained about it.

The law regarding age of consent expedites the process by discerning what a reasonable person considers to be an appropriate mental condition to make proper decisions. And that condition is a certain age, a certain soberness, and a certain verifiable mental capacity--i.e. no retards and no vegetables.

Sure, the age of consent seems a little unfair (especially if you're a kid), but the alternatives are either extremely impractical or would allow me to have sex with anyone that I can manipulate with my perceived authority. And trust me, that alone would allow me to rape any one of you kids on this forum.

*bolts shut the doors, keeps an eye out for the FBI*

[Luminaflare]

By the way in japan the age of consent is about 12 I think.

Now what I don't get about this is why in most places in the world the age of consent is below 18 yet to legally look at women naked you have to be 18.

[Kablizzy]

Touching a bit on what Dave posted, did anyone hear the story about the woman who claimed that her husband had raped her against her will for the entire duration of their seven-year marriage? I thought it relevant with the consent topic.

[Luminaflare]

Touching a bit on what Dave posted, did anyone hear the story about the woman who claimed that her husband had raped her against her will for the entire duration of their seven-year marriage? I thought it relevant with the consent topic.

...What?!

[KinGAleX]

No sex before marriage can lead to many complications down the line.

Had you said this some 400 years ago, you would have been burnt at the stake.

BTW, I decided to beat your 6-1 run. Very satisfying!

Great that it isn't 400 years ago, then. I don't see how that's pertinent. I was providing my view on the topic.

Pretty sure not nearly as many people as you would assume were actually were burnt at the stake.

[blue_tetris]

If you lack the ability to consent then, yes, you can get raped for seven years straight. However, I don't see how it's a criminal offense if the man doesn't know nor has any reason to believe they can't consent. Clearly, if there's no mens rea there's no reason to consider you a violent criminal.

Beyond that, it's a civil issue. What possible financial or punitive recourse could a woman have for getting free dick on and off for seven years? I hate to sound Al Bundy-ish, but she should be glad that someone out there was willing to put the meat to her.

[Atilla]

No sex before marriage can lead to many complications down the line.

Had you said this some 400 years ago, you would have been burnt at the stake.

BTW, I decided to beat your 6-1 run. Very satisfying!

Great that it isn't 400 years ago, then.

Especially since they didn't have internet forums 400 years ago. It was so boring back then.

If you lack the ability to consent then, yes, you can get raped for seven years straight.

Or if you don't actually consent. With regard to this particular case, simply being married to someone doesn't mean you can get it on whenever you want, regardless of their opinion. It's entirely possible that an abusive partner could rape their wife over the course of seven years - after all, it's hardly unknown for someone to beat their wife over a number of years, and that's most definitely assault (not to mention that it often leaves rather visible marks).

[blue_tetris]

Love is the easiest way to manipulate someone into enduring anything.

[jean-luc]

If people weren't stupid as lamp-posts, we'd never need a single rule or law. Same thing with the forums. If people weren't unfathomable jackasses, we'd never need rules ever.

John Locke (the man credited for founding the concepts on which the United States Constitution is based) said that, and I'll put this in a blockquote for readability but I'm only paraphrasing:

Society is created by the intelligence and compassion of man. Government, however, is required by man's vices. Thus society, at any level, is a blessing. Government, at its best, is a necessary evil.

Locke was of the opinion, as is Kablizzy, that we only have government because, if left to ourselves, we'll screw it up.

Although I don't think that our current system for handling the topic of teenagers and sex is optimal, I do think that age-of-consent laws are written in the spirit of preventing those who are not yet mature enough from consenting to sex. So it's a good idea, but implemented badly.

[Zora_S_Kenneth]

Although I don't think that our current system for handling the topic of teenagers and sex is optimal, I do think that age-of-consent laws are written in the spirit of preventing those who are not yet mature enough from consenting to sex. So it's a good idea, but implemented badly.

That's what I was going to say until I lost track of this topic. In any case, I think I'll just re-phrase what I said before.

1: Aside from cases of one side bailing out some information or a female side getting pregnant, there isn't a way to enforce Age of Consent. What, are the FBI going to make raids at everyone's house at ten in the afternoon every day to check for loving teenagers? Not to say it's a bad idea behind the law, it's just poorly implemented. The BETTER option would be to increase education on the topic so that enforcement wouldn't be needed. I believe Norway discusses the topic of sex early on, and there are very few cases of teenage pregnancy by % of population, relative to the US where the whole idea of sex seems to be highly taboo, and still highly practiced among the younger people. See argument two though, because some people do need a backup plan.

2: Age of Consent would be better if it was called Level of Consent and written appropriately. The idea, from what I gather, was to prevent an immature person from attempting an action that could lead to great deals of responsibility in the future. Trouble is, quite a few adults themselves aren't mature enough to support a family. The only solution if one was to keep the age limits and still not educate people would be to raise the age limits to 25-30 years of age minimum, and I think one can expect a great deal of outrage at that. A psychological, mental, and physical maturity test would be better. In terms of age limits in general, this is a much better choice, maturity tests instead of skewed assumptions based on something that is somewhat connected with maturity. Still can't enforce it, but with proper education and good guiding hands, maybe we won't need those.

3: *swears at Kablizzy* That hat better be one of those hats that a grandma would wear while gardening >:D. Still the point remains, the people enforcing the laws/rules seem to break them when they please, how ironic. I saw several policemen run red lights without lights or sirens, and one even gave my friend a parking ticket after she honked at him and told him calmly that he was blocking an exit to a road by parking half into that intersection, the side of which was clearly lined with signs "No stopping any time". She herself didn't break any laws, and the courts later verified that. Not to be a troll or anything, but you almost seem like those policemen, breaking the rules when you see fit. Your "knowing" when to do it means nothing, because those rules were set down not to be broken, and these are the rules that nothing good can come out of breaking them. Sorry, I just had to point that out.

4: Okay fine, I'll be honest. I agree with Kablizzy's statement of "No idiots, no rules". But I don't think that when a spammer/flamer/internet troll comes up if and when it happens, we can persuade him to stop for good unless we really focus on nurturing a wound rather than pointing it out like we did with Glock G22 Owner on the old forums. Dave and others several times (myself too, yes, it was a mistake, I regret it now) displayed open disgust at his trolling, showing that it doesn't seem like that many would try to convert the problem into something good as a first resort. So we're stuck with rules here, unless someone in the mod/admin section (Floor 500, Satellite 5) agrees with me.