John Dailey Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 (edited) ~ Consider the following actual conundrum (a type of which I've often beaten an hypothetical drum about) re the puritanically based idiocy of laws regarding sex-behaviour amongst legally-defined 'minors'...When puritanically-based and arbitrary-age criteria in 'laws' make the victim='perp'...~ Some might think this properly belongs in the POLITICS sub-Forum, but, we're talking 'shoulds' here re what (or IF) politically authorized enforced penalties 'should' be made into 'laws.'LLAPJ:D Edited January 25, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 John; Thank you for opening this discussion. I have a few thoughts and will be posting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 A couple of suggestions. 1) Lower the age of consent to 14. 2) State that no consent can be given where one of the parties is in a position of authority over the other. (Ie. prison guard and prisoner). State that no consent can be given if there is a significant age difference. The lowest I would put would be 5 years. Sex between a minor and an adult would be wrong in all cases if the minor is under the age of six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 ~ Consider the following actual conundrum (a type of which I've often beaten an hypothetical drum about) re the puritanically based idiocy of laws regarding sex-behaviour amongst legally-defined 'minors'...When puritanically-based and arbitrary-age criteria in 'laws' make the victim='perp'...~ Some might think this properly belongs in the POLITICS sub-Forum, but, we're talking 'shoulds' here re what (or IF) politically authorized enforced penalties 'should' be made into 'laws.'LLAPJ:DIn the Old Days we used to have a saying: Sixteen will get you twenty.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 A couple of suggestions. 1) Lower the age of consent to 14. 2) State that no consent can be given where one of the parties is in a position of authority over the other. (Ie. prison guard and prisoner). State that no consent can be given if there is a significant age difference. The lowest I would put would be 5 years. Sex between a minor and an adult would be wrong in all cases if the minor is under the age of six.That's what I admire: someone who is willing to make a stand on principle for the propriety of an adult having sex with a six year old--and not a day younger, mind you! (But judge, she had the body of a seven year old!) :no: REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Roger,That did sound kinda weird. But knowing Chris, I wondered if I understood it correctly...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I'm in the "sixteen will get you twenty" camp. Even with teenagers, anything more than about a three year difference in age strikes me as inappropriate. It is a psychological/family matter when children are having sex with other children. If it is a case of an authority figure put in charge of caring for the child such as a teacher, it most certainly is a criminal matter. If a 12 and 13 year old are doing it "consensually," it is immoral and possibly psychologically damaging, but should be left to the families involved to deal with it rather than the courts. More than likely if kids are having sex at such a young age, I would suspect that at least one of them has been sexually abused or exposed to pornography by an adult. In such cases, an investigation may warranted to protect the children and catch a pedophile. Sexual abuse of children is far more common than most people realize.Kat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 If a 12 and 13 year old are doing it "consensually," it is immoralIt really escapes me why that would be immoral.and possibly psychologically damaging, but should be left to the families involved to deal with it rather than the courts. More than likely if kids are having sex at such a young age, I would suspect that at least one of them has been sexually abused or exposed to pornography by an adult. In some 12 or 13 year old children the call of the hormones can already be very loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Roger,That did sound kinda weird. But knowing Chris, I wondered if I understood it correctly...MichaelRoger & Michael; It does sound weird. Let me try again.I don't know if there is anyone who is a lawyer but my understanding is that everyone under 18 is considered an infant. I am proposing that age be lowered to six.I would like to propose a more realistic age for consensual sexual behavior like 14. I think with people who are yet adults but not infants a difference of more than five years should be considered as warranting legal action.My premise is there should be no legal defenses for adults having sex with children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I'm still more interested in hearing Objectivists identify the age of stigma than the age of consent -- how low of an age of consent can a person advocate without being labeled a pervert?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Jonathan,The age of stigma is a very interesting way to look at it. Age is only one measurement, though. I think a critical parallel inquiry is: What is the fundamental nature of a pervert? What are the measurements and what are the parameters being measured and why?If this gets clearer, it will be less likely for abuses of stigma to result in easy smears, like the unjust persecution of Jim Peron. And it will also be less likely for real perverts to get off easy.But reality is what it is. Perverts exist. Smearers exist. Control freaks exist. Victims exist. Evil exists. Mistakes exist.Children are not fully rational until maturity (however one defines "rational" and "maturity.")I can't think of an area where reason and rational standards are more needed at the moment.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Just as I would never serve liquor to a child or buy them cigarettes, I would not advocate minors having sex. Children cannot consent to underage sex any more than they can consent to drinking or voting. The laws set the age. It's not up to them.Sex is an adult activity. Teens mature differently, I have two teenagers. They are 3 years apart and it seems like they are 10 years apart. Rather than look at age as a number in these cases, people probably want other things considered such as maturity, age gap between the parties involved as well as the ages of those involved. If a 19 year-old is sexually involved with a 17 year old, most people would think nothing of it. If the gap were wider, say a 20 year old and a 15 year-old, you are talking jailbait and the older one may get in trouble. If the child is younger than 12, any adult who touches them is a predator IMHO. I'm sure many people will see me as puritanical, and that's fine. I lived my life and seen what I have seen. I'll just say that I've seen too much too close.Kat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Just as I would never serve liquor to a child or buy them cigarettes, I would not advocate minors having sex. Children cannot consent to underage sex any more than they can consent to drinking or voting. The laws set the age. It's not up to them.Sex is an adult activity. Teens mature differently, I have two teenagers. They are 3 years apart and it seems like they are 10 years apart. Rather than look at age as a number in these cases, people probably want other things such as maturity, age gap between the parties involved as well as the ages of those involved. If a 19 year-old is sexually involved with a 17 year old, most people would think nothing of it. If the gap were wider, say a 20 year old and a 15 year-old, you are talking jailbait and the older one may get in trouble. If the child is younger than 12, any adult who touches them is a predator IMHO. I'm sure many people will see me as puritanical, and that's fine. I lived my life and seen what I have seen. I'll just say that I've seen too much too close.KatKat; In your post you are noting the problem. Teenagers like all other people are all different. More than five years difference causes big problems for me.What about a sexual mature 14 year old and less sexual mature 20 year old.Finally let not forget that this is not a philosophical discussion but that real people are serving real time and having no place to live because of being registered sex offenders.Germonald Wilson required the intervention of the Georgia Supreme Court threw out his conviction for consensual sex. The first name of Mr. Wilson is probably not correct.I don't see you as a puritan and I hope you don't see me as a libertine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I've heard a lot of people say that consensual sex at a young age can be psychologically damaging. Even Kat has said so on this thread. I'd like to see some research that supports such claims, and I don't think I'd consider it "serious" research if it didn't demonstrate that psychological damage was caused by the sex itself and not by any resulting parental or social disapproval."Damn, that felt great" doesn't usually turn into "Oh my God, I'm so disgusted with myself" without lots of harsh judgments from others.I'd find it hard to believe that the 13-year-old girl and 12-year-old boy in the Denver Post story that John posted above were more traumatized by having consensual sex with each than by being charged with a sex crime.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust06 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) The lines are really blurred as to when it's "okay" for younger people to have sex.. they don't all age the exact same way. Generally, it should be fine in their mid-teens.. knowing myself and others back at that age, we were all horny as hell. You can't keep them from having sex, but you can educate them and keep them from doing something incredibly stupid. A teenager doesn't generally think they're immature or "too young" for sex.That being said, the "legal age" should be lowered to at least a year or two after the age that teenagers are generally easily aroused.. which is around 16."Damn, that felt great" doesn't usually turn into "Oh my God, I'm so disgusted with myself" without lots of harsh judgments from others.Right, depending on the environment a child grows up in. Too be honest, I discovered jerking-off when I was around 8 years of age without any outside motivation. Edited January 28, 2008 by Faust06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Faust; It was not only self-abuse, it was also self taught. Edited January 28, 2008 by Chris Grieb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust06 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) What was? Masturbation? I don't see your point. Edited January 28, 2008 by Faust06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I think this is another example of what happens when children have too much freedom. I am not religious but "idle hands do the devils's work" is an excellent expression and applies to many things children (and "adults") do. One of the biggest challenges facing us in this day and age is spending time with our children so they don't make these poor choices when we aren't paying attention. Passing laws and prosecuting children is most certainly not the right approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 ~ A MAIN part of the purpose of my post was precisely Jonathan's point in his last paragraph in his post #14: Is the behaviour indulged in by the 'victim'/'perp' that which necessitates a legally-enforced penalty upon the 'perp'/'victim', thereby protecting them without inducing additional (if not magnified) so-called psychological 'trauma'? --- Think about Dagny and Frisco 'getting caught' (in the wrong State)!~ An interesting thing here: *I* purposely used the term 'legal minor'. The news-item used the terms 'juveniles', 'adolescents', and 'younger minors' in describing the law and its applications; but only in quoting the personal views of the prosecuting Attorney General and the Defense attorney did the terms 'child(ren)' come up therein.2BcontLLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 ~ The responses in this thread so far have used the terms 'teenagers', 'teens', and that wonderfully ambiguous catch-all term 'children' (as well as 'jailbait'); and clearly, for non-'children' (='adults') involved being 'perverts', 'pedos', 'predator.' --- Can we say that one's chosen terminology itself can be very emotionally loaded in discussing this subject?~ 'May-December' romances are unnacceptable if one's a 'legal minor', correct? - And, an 18-yr old 'doin it' with a 17-yr old is a predatory pedo 'adult' victimizing the 'under-age' unable-to-consent little child, correct? - Even if the 18-yr old is the female and the 'vic' is male, correct? --- Man, we gotta get our ideas more clarified here, just morally (hmm...emotionally?), even before discussing any legal penalizing being applicable, nm 'appropriate.' And, to get our ideas clear, we need to use better terms/concepts than the ambiguous ones so far, like...'children.'2BcontLLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 ~ I was wondering if anyone would bring up Peron; indeed, there're a few other less noted, but 'in the news' situations re mob-crying over nothing more than photos by prof photogs (females, even) re nude children; can one say there's a Puritanical 'Witch-Finder' concern in this whole subject?~ Aside from all that, my SECONDARY point was to exemplify, via the article, how SLOPPY laws are made by our politicians (er, 'legislators'). The 'intent' of protection is admirable; the level of 'thinking' applied therein is deplorable; talk about the old 'Peter Principle' re legislators becomeing such! This article merely illustrates the nature of ALL laws being made, from the city-level throughout the higher ones up to the Feds!~ However, it seems that all respondents, so far, have allowed themselves to tangentialize about the 'morality' of behaviour amongst 'legal minors.' My original post's question was about what 'laws' should be made, if any(!), about such...and not should such be personally allowed by us to occur. LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) ADDENDUM:~ I'm all for the 'Sixteen will get you Twenty'...for some; but, not for my 14-yr old male 'kid'. We'd KNOW that she (the '16-yr old') was the seducer (or, would that be 'predator'?) --- (Let's leave gayness out of this, for now.)LLAPJ:D Edited January 28, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) ADDENDUM II:~ Just a suggestion: my question was about 'proper/morality-based (penalizing) LAWS' regarding the subject of the article. It was not about individual 'proper morality-handling' of the behaviour itself. The latter delves into controversial (and obviously emotional) territory; this controversial aspect itself, however 'objectively' argued (from contrary arguers!), should be obvious about its being also legally (if not merely 'PC') risky...nowadays...especially if one advocates something contrary to any present 'law' on this subject.~ Let's not discuss what one personally would/should 'allow' (aka: consider morally acceptable) in behaviour of ages A->Z, but, as I asked about, what one thinks 'should' be legally penalized about re what I've termed legal minors.LLAPJ:D Edited January 28, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 John; I think you have hit the nail on the head in your last sentence.Kat; I might point out that some states are proposing not allowing any smoking where children are in the house. The above really sounds like a "nanny" state to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust06 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 what one thinks 'should' be legally penalized about re what I've termed legal minors.It's sketchy.. would you make punishment more or less severe based on age gap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now