Age of consent

[andrewducker]

I engaged in discussion about the age of consent and teacher/student sex over here, and was wondering what people, in general thought.

[Poll #436438]

As I said over there, 14 doesn't seem desperately young to me, providing they know what they're doing - 14 is as young as I'm comfortable with young people actually having any idea what they're doing, emotionally speaking. And even then I'm iffy because there are a fair number of people that don't. Although if you're going to stop the emotionally unprepared having sex then the age of consent should probably in the mid 50's.

If you're interested in knowing what the age of consent is around the world, you can see here.

Comments

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

I think 16 is right, but relationships where both partners are a year or two under that age shouldn't be prosecuted, which I believe to be the current situation (I might be wrong).

14 just seems too low, because you're always going to get people with paedo tendencies taking advantage.

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

Oh, and teacher/student sex is just plain wrong.

[andrewducker]

Yes, definitely.

Except in sex education classes, obviously.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

... and even then it's promoting practical demonstration a little too enthusiastically. :-)

[andrewducker]

In which case there's always the "You can have sex at the age of 14, but you can't have sex with a person with more than 4-years age difference unless you're 18 or over" option.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd support the lower age limit if that were the case. The idea of two fourteen year olds deciding to have sex doesn't bother me, provided they have been reasonably educated about doing it safely.

I nearly chose 14, then I thought about some 30 year old putting pressure on a 14 year old to have sex and it squicked me considerably, but I still don't think two 14 year olds having sex should be in danger of prosecution.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I'm not comfortable with declaring that sex between people of age X and age Y is always wrong. Cases where someone was the victim of nonconsensual sex can always be prosecuted regardless of the ages of the people involved, so I don't see the need to have any age of consent laws.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

The thinking behind an age of consent is that you have to be of a certain maturity before you can really give informed consent on this issue.

Having an age of consent means that older people who prey on children sexually simply can't offer the defence of consensus.

Sex between people of ages X and Y may not always be wrong in a moral sense, but the law here is surely designed to protect the vulnerable, not to say what is morally right or wrong.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Having an age of consent means that older people who prey on children sexually simply can't offer the defence of consensus.

This has never made any sense to me. A child who has been raped is as capable of saying, "X did this to me and I didn't want it" as is an adult. They might not have as good an understanding of the situation as an adult would, but if harm took place, the child will know it. If the child doesn't feel that any harm took place, it's unlikely that any harm did take place. A child too young to communicate is obviously too young to consent to sex. So I don't see where the problem is.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

A child who has had an unwanted sexual encounter with an adult may not be capable of saying, "X did this to me and I didn't want it".

Sometimes adults have difficulty saying this much. Children are in a special position of dependence with respect to adults in our society. They are not simply short people whose age is < 16.

I do not say that every sexual encounter between a person under 16 and A N Other is abusive and involves harm to the child; but what there is, is a unrebuttable presumption of harm. The presumption is there as a strong discouragement to A N Other.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

It seems like we're talking about a trade-off between possibly convicting people of crimes they didn't commit, and possibly allowing some guilty people to go free. Generally, in American law, one prefers to do the first when it's not possible to avoid both. A lot of people seem to agree with this rule but think that sex crimes should be the exception. I don't see why.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why you are saying that people are being convicted of crimes they didn't commit? If the crime is defined as sex with a minor, then where an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent the crime has been committed.

The harm that results, or whether you or I think it was morally right or wrong as an act, are separate issues.

Respect for personal liberty and the presumption of innocence are fundamentals of English law. I suspect that has more that a bit to do with why they are also so important in American law.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I suppose I should say "wrong" rather than "crime". An adult who has consensual sex with a minor may be guilty of a crime, but isn't doing anything wrong. If consensual sex between adults and minors is made illegal, people who haven't done anything wrong will be convicted of crimes. This is generally considered to be one of the worse consequences that laws can have.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

This is generally considered to be one of the worse consequences that laws can have.

Well, I think so too, but I'm not sure about "generally considered". There's an awful lot of locking folks up without charge going on in Westerm society, apparently with the majority support of the general population, which would be difficult to reconcile with the above statement.

people who haven't done anything wrong

That's the crux of the matter though, isn't it? People's view of what is wrong is personal. I suppose a law is supposed to represent society's view of what is wrong. In any free-thinking society, not everyone will agree with the view of the norm.

I'd like to friend you, if that's OK? I enjoyed this conversation. :-)

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Well, I think so too, but I'm not sure about "generally considered". There's an awful lot of locking folks up without charge going on in Westerm society, apparently with the majority support of the general population, which would be difficult to reconcile with the above statement.

I'd like to think that most people don't actually support this, and are simply uninformed or misinformed. I don't know, though.

That's the crux of the matter though, isn't it? People's view of what is wrong is personal. I suppose a law is supposed to represent society's view of what is wrong. In any free-thinking society, not everyone will agree with the view of the norm.

Well, again, I'd *like* to think that most people would view a 14-year-old and a 21-year-old in a consensual sexual relationship as not doing anything wrong. And if people do assume that the 21-year-old is doing something wrong, that it would be because paranoia about sex crimes has reached such great heights that people's ability to understand that sex isn't always a bad thing has been damaged. But again, I don't know.

I'd like to friend you, if that's OK? I enjoyed this conversation. :-)

Sure, friend away. My friends list is pretty crowded right now, so I might or might not add you back right away.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with what you say in the thread, but would you advocate a difference between the right to have sex and the right to have babies? Just curious - interesting topic.

[andrewducker]

Was discussing this with Green_Amber just now and she suggested that the age of consent for marriage should be at least 22. I'd go with that - although nowadays with it being less permanent at least people aren't locking themselves into a lifetime at an early age. I certainly wouldn't want to have to stand behind any decision I made at age 16.

And yes, same with kids. I liked the idea in some SF novel I once read where people were sterilised at an early age, but could become fertile if they chose to later on. Make children into a conscious choice, rather than an accident.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

I certainly agree, thinking of myself at 16 too.

I think I have more of a problem with teens having children, than the age of consent. It has to be a less attractive option - it's too easy. Of course how you go about changing that without going too far is difficult.

Instinctively, part of me, the cool logical part, says take the babies born from teen (<16 for a start) parents away from them. Or alternately don't support teenage parents and put the welfare money elsewhere. In the real world, no idea. It's just something that bothers me.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

Instinctively, part of me, the cool logical part, says take the babies born from teen (<16 for a start) parents away from them. Or alternately don't support teenage parents and put the welfare money elsewhere.

This kind of thinking is the result of the Western World's nuclear-family approach to raising children. There's Mum, Dad and the kids, with the state having to fill in when anything's not quite right with that little triangle.

In a lot of other societies, (and in many a Western World family), children are raised by the extended family - grandparents, uncles, aunts and so on - not just Mum and Dad. A child of teens, (early or otherwise), is most likely going to be brought up well enough in such a culture.

And that was probably the human default way of living for nearly as long as we've been human, whether as hunter-gatherers or the first farmers and in the first towns and cities. How you keep that in a modern society where people move around so much is the big puzzle though.

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

Expanding on the ticky box:

I think that 16 - what we have now - is about right. But I also think it's silly to separate it from adulthood and so they should be grouped - either be an adult at 16 or get to consent at 18. I also accept that loads of kids ignore the rules anyhow and feel that if the bar is set at 18 maybe they'll be breaking it at 15 rather than 13. It's all very well saying they should be able to do as they want at 14, but the consequences of making bad sex-related decisions are pretty long lasting and the less mature 14 year olds don't deserve to be landed with that if rules can help prevent it.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that the responses to the poll largely support the present age of consent (am I right in thinking the law is similar in the UK and US and that would be whether the majority of responses are coming from?)

I can think of 2 explanations ... (one) our respective legislatures have finally got something right ;-) or (two) it's an impossible question and so most people can't justify a move away from the status quo.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting to also poll people on what age they were when they had sex, and see just how hypocritical everyone is :-)

[alienspacebat.livejournal.com]

I say 14 but with three conditions:

Consent refers to any sexual act with another, not just intercourse

Until the age of 16, you are limited to partners no more than 3 years older than yourself

Both parties consent and could be considered able to consent

[gomichan.livejournal.com]

I think the fact that we're talking about sex obscures the issue. The important part is not, "When are they emotionally ready?" but "When can they be held accountable for their actions?" In that context, I think it's more important to have a consistent age at which people take on the responsibilities of adulthood.

So I'm in favor of choosing an age -- probably 16 or 18 -- at which you can have sex, drive a car, vote, smoke, drink, join the military, and own property in your own name. The essential part is that people understand that when you have that birthday, you step into the adult world.

We lack rites of passage. We need adulthood celebrations. And, I dunno, a new haircut or a plate in our lip or something, so everyone can see to treat you differently. :D

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Depends on the person and the circumstance, really, but if I had to put a number I'd say 12, but admit that it wouldn't fit in all cases.