How About Some Other Sex Controversy?

Remove all ads!

Why? And why not 18? In my own opinion, it's strange to have the minimal age for sex with an adult lower than the minimal age for marriage. It gives an impression that the lawmaker can make up his mind on when people become able to understand the implications of sexual intercourse and partnership. Further, it even gives a slight impression that the lawmaker (or, simply put, the state) believes a period of having sex with none or minimal obligations to be an integral stage of development in young people.

In Europe, Spain and a couple of other countries. Probably the highest in Europe is 16. Poland has 15. In Poland, no four years here four years there crap is defined, so prosecutors and judges can decide whether to prosecute and later sentence a young adult for a slight violation in a given case.

However, I can't fathom a contemporary fourteen year old being mature enough. WTF? Not mature enough to get a driving license but mature enough to have sex? Fourteen year olds shouldn't have sex, period. The direct, literal purpose of age of consent laws is to decide when it's punishable for the offender, not when the minor is "entitled" to have sex. But it may well be and actually is often read as sort of a legal permission to have sex. And that's dangerous.

Parents of minors starring in porn movies or any sexual scenes whatsoever should serve a hefty prison term for neglecting parental duties and even longer term if they actually give consent to that.

 

Stupidity of lawmakers sometimes amazes me. Good is that they actually allow homosexual sex. In some places they sentence people to death for this.

 

Probably has to do with not being able to get pregnant from homosexual sex, but it's still

 

You know, that's probably the most sensible thing anyway has brought up on the topic. The purpose of age of consent is not to give the go ahead to have sex, but rather protect the people who shouldn't yet be having sex. I agree that many people view the age of consent in the former way, as when it's "OK" to have sex.

First, I agree with you that age of consent should match up with minimum age for marriage.

As far as why I think 17 is too high for an age of consent, I can only argue from what I can remember growing up. By age 17, whether male or female, you certainly know what you're doing. I can't see how any 17-year old can claim that they were unaware of potential consequences of having sex, most notably a pregnancy or contracting an STD. With sex ed now commonplace as part of public school education, I find it hard to believe that any teen doesn't know what they're doing by the time they're even 14.

Furthermore, to take your arguement regarding marriage a step further, in most states the legal marrying age is lower than the age of adulthood (18) with parental consent.

 

To quote Johny Cochran: "If there is grass on the field, punishment you cannot wield."

 

Is that an actual quote? I mean, that seems over-the-top even by Cochran standards.

 

Aldeth, I think it's more of a paraphrase than a direct quote.

In any event, society is changing faster than our laws can keep up. If you read Romeo and Juliet, they mention that girls under the age of 13 were often "happy mothers made". Most westerners no longer see that as appropriate, myself included.

Where to draw the line is a difficult thing, though, but I am of the firm belief that the line must be drawn somewhere and then stuck to. It should also be made somewhat unifrom across states.

In this particular case, I can tell you that I teach a lot of 13 year olds. I wouldn't trust any of them to take care of a pet rock, let alone a baby. Social services should have gotten involved a long time ago and investigated the sick 19 year old for humping a 13 year old, the stupid parents for giving their consent to the subsequent marriage, and the idiot judge or clergyman or whoever who performed the ceremony.

 

I don't know if I agree that there must be a strict line drawn for an age of consent, moreso for sex than marriage. Marriage is a legal contract, sex isn't, so I guess I'm OK with an age restriction on marriage, but not sex. No matter what age you pick, it's still an artificial, subjective standard that we are imposing.

I'll make my point using two opposite ends of the spectrum: I think everyone will agree that someone who is 18-years old should be able to consent to marriage and sex. At the same time, I think that everyone will also agree that someone who has not yet reached puberty should not be able to consent to marriage or sex. In fact, with the notable exception of Kansas, I'd imagine pretty much every state in the country has laws that state exactly that. There are obviously some variations, but generally you're allowed to consent some time between puberty and 18.

The problem is the area in between. The two examples I posted are black and white. One, definitely yes, the other, definitely no. How do we address the gray area? In Maryland it's 16. A 16-year old can consent to sex with a 60-year old, but a person who is as little as a day away from their 16th birthday cannot. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the gray area.

As far as offering a solution, this is the best that I can come up with. For marriage - just make it 18. There's no other legally binding contract you can enter into prior to the age of 18, so why make an exception for marriage? I know we have the "parental consent" caveat, but after turning 18 you could probably challenge the marriage and have it ruled invalid on the basis that you were a minor when you entered into it. So let's just get rid of the gray area and say in order to get married you have to be a legal adult - like most people are when they get married anyway. Got your high school sweetheart knocked up? Sorry, but you'll be having an illegitimate child until you're both 18.

For consenting to sex, I really think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. I will agree that 99% of the time a 20-year old having sex with a 13-year old is not OK. But I'd still want to hear both sides of the story.

I'm not comfortable with any strict age-based guideline, because it doesn't take into account the actual individuals in the case, but rather assumes both individuals are representative of other members of their age group. It rules out the possibility of them genuinely having feelings for one another. Don't get me wrong - generally speaking I'm not OK with 20 and 13, but let's play a game, and tell me when to stop:

20-13?
20-14?
19-13?
19-14?
18-14?
18-15?
17-15?
17-16?
16-16?

Se the problem with strict age-based limits? The way I see it, yeah, most likely the 20-year old is just taking advantage of the 13-year old, but how do we know the 16-year old guy isn't taking advantage of his 16-year old girlfriend? We can rule out this possibility on the basis of them being the same age? Case by case.

 

I respectfully have to disagree on this one, Aldeth. I know that whatever age we select between puberty and 18 is going to be arbitrary, but once that age is selected, it needs to be laid down as the law. I don't care if she is one week shy of her 16th birthday, if the law says you have to be 16 to consent to sex with an adult, that's what it says. I understand your point completely, but I see no grey area there. I don't care if she has a 500 IQ, once we set the rule it needs to apply to all people or the rule becomes meaningless.

An example -- Americans vote on Nov. 4 (right? or is it Nov. 2? Damn. Let's say for the sake of this example it's Nov. 4, ok?) You have to be 18 to vote. If your birthday is November 5, you still can't vote in that election, even if you are one day shy. It's a pain and all that, but once we strarted making exceptions the whole shooting match goes out the window -- people will start arguing that their son is 16 years old but by any measure of mental, emotional, societal, spiritual, or whatever health and advancement, he is far and away beyond the capabilities of a dimbulb such as, say, my brother in law, who is 45. Nevertheless, the numbers are there and preclude the precocious little fellow from voting.

 

Election day is the 1st Monday in November, unless the first Monday happens to be the 1st day of the month, in which case it is set for the 8th. So depending on what year you pick, election day could very well be either the 2nd or the 4th.

Now obviously, once you set a law, yes it does have to apply equally to everyone. What my point was that I am against setting ANY strict age-based law for consenting to sex. Your point is valid - you need to be 18 to vote, 16 to drive, 21 to purchase alcohol. And once such a law is passed regarding sex, you have to enforce it, which is why I'm not sold on it being a great idea.

 

Point taken; that's the crux of our divergence in opinion -- I don't see the necessity of enforcement as being something to make society think twice. There's just too many people with too many silly arguments out there for true justice to have a chance if the regulations on this sort of thing are not strictly spelled out.

I know it wasn't a sex-related case, but the Twinkie defense for murder pops into mind as one of the all time stupidest arguments that actually made it into the court system (IIRC, it was slapped down, but still . . .)

 

Adult woman with teen husband - you get nine months in prison.

However, if you're an adult man, and have sex with a teenage girl, you get 30 months.

 

Both sentences are too short.

 

Bruno is right. 10 to 15 years in both cases would be about right...

 

I'm not so sure I agree though. Especially in the case of the guy. I mean, he did marry this girl, and now he also has a baby to support. Putting him in jail will ensure he can't provide for his family. Granted, he's going to have a hard time gettnig a job anyway, now that he is going to have to check "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?", but still, I'd like to think that if his intentions of loving this woman and providing for his wife and child are genuine, then some balance between the rule of law and the welfare of those dependent on him must take place.

 

But the girl would be better off without this pervert aroung her kids (present and future)...