Debate:At what age should consensual sex be a crime?

From RationalWiki

This is a Debate Page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story
But keep it civil or we will like totally do... something involving something that could be considered in some way hurtful. This Debate was created by signed users

This debate was created in order to address some issues on a talk page. The initial comments have been cut to this article's talk page.

[edit] Additional Talking Points

It's somewhat curious that there are different 'ages of consent' for sex, drinking, driving, gun ownership, flying and voting in most societies. Why? DogP 12:36, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention different ages when you can join the army and kill people.--Bob^{bing up} 13:07, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

It was Dave Chappelle who connected the florida boy who killed his friend wrestling and the girl who had sex with R Kelly. Can't have both. I'll address actual question later. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Get to the bunker} 13:21, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Because the laws were all made at different times, when the government and society of the day had differing ideas about the level of maturity needed to be able to do these things. There is not, after all, a clear dividing line between childhood and adulthood - now apply that to every person in the country and drawing a simple line would be impossible. Having said that, there needs to be some line somewhere, unless we allow sex with, or gun ownership by, children. Totnesmartin 13:22, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

So, when should the legal age of consent be? eighteen? sixteen? Should there be a semi-let-off for people one year above the line to have sex with their underage loved one? (Austria and some other countries allow this). In Britain it's a flat rate of 16, or 18 if one of the people is in a "position of trust" with the other (e.g. a teacher). Some combination of Britain and Austria would probably be a good place, although (cut to car interior in a dark alley: two horny teens trying to work out if they can or not yet, looking through helpful government leaflets and counting on their fingers). Totnesmartin 13:22, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I would personally say that the entire concept of statutory rape should be done away with. Perhaps allow only the younger one to have the right to press charges, as opposed to the state or the parents (after all, we'd all agree that parents don't always make the best choices for children). I think it really comes down to protecting those who don't have the mental maturity to know what they are getting themselves into. The problem is, I've met 11 year olds with perfect maturity to make that descision, and I've met 30 year olds who don't have the maturity to talk, much less have sex. Those in a position of power who can say "I'm older, have sex with me" are very very bad people. I think that that should replace the law of stutory rape with one of Coersion, trying to have sex with a minor (or anyone for that matter) by using influence and claims of power. Now this is completely seperate from actual rape and if we can't get rid of the law of stuttory rape, at least don't use the word rape which means "non-consentual sex". I'm almost to the point of, if it's consentual, mind your own fucking business and let me spread peanut butter on my dog's ass. (To be clear, though, I do not. But I think you should if you want to) But we need someone to protect these kids who are told by those in a position of power that they need to, which I suspect happens a lot. And that's as bad as rape, in my opinion. If there must be a legal rate, the age of 18 is utterly ridiculous, as that will make a sexual raltionship between a perfectly capable girl who turns 18 tommorow and whos boyfriend is 18 today illegal. But a 45 year old man telling a 7 year old she should have sex because you should respect your elders is bullshit. And even worse the parents who use the honor your father and mother excuse to bang his daughter. Thank you 10 Commandments. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Get to the bunker} 14:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

You don't make a very compelling case. You say the 45 year old man & the 7 year old girl together is wrong. Agreed. But you want to abolish the concept of statutory rape, which would basically leave it unpunishable. The concept of "coersion" is a very hard one to prove. A 7 year old will not fully understand what is going on & may unwittingly "consent" to sex. That is why there is a legal "age of consent" - it marks they age at which consent to sex is recognised by law. And that's why sex with minors is statutory rape: sex with a 7 year old is rape, whether she "consented" or not. And I would not regard an 11 year old as having "perfect maturity to make that decision" either. Even if she thinks she feels ready for sex, at that age she cannot predict what effect the decision may have on her life afterwards. Also, the body is not necessarily physically ready for sexual activity at that age, and the effects could be damaging. As for the 18 year old & the 17 year old, that is much less likely to go to court. If it does, the sentencing would probably be very leniant. There is a fixed age of consent because the law needs it, but judges will recognise a difference between cases of teenagers of a similar age and cases of an adult abusing the child. As for the dog, I sure hope you're not being serious. There is no way you can apply the concept of "consent" to abusing an animal. Weaseloid 15:32, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I must disagree on a few points. Skipping to the 11 year old point, I am not talking about the physical ability to have sex, as that isn't the point to me. How can you say with absolutel, 100% accuracy that she can't possibly understand sex. I never said they all do, but to say that none of them do is preposterous. As for the 17 and 18 year olds, it is the same thing in the eyes of the law, and although I would agree it would be a more lenient sentence, there would still be a sentence. It's the reason sodomy laws have remained in effect, because they're "Really really hard to prosecute". But the very fact that it is possible is wrong. As for the dog, have you ever seen an animal humps something? They seen rather ready to me. Onto the 7 year old. You have a point, but why must we include the bad people with the good, who just want to have sex? Why is it essentially the same thing when a 45 year old man tells a 7 year old she has to have sex and when a 20 year old has sex with a 15 year old? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 15:53, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I understand that there are people who argue that sex between two consenting tens should be punished on the grounds that neither of them is capable of giving consent. But that sounds a bit odd to me.--Bob^{bing up} 15:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Editor_at_CP - Thanks for pointing out that it should be should be teens not tens.--Bob^{bing up} 16:22, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Technically Bob, it is illegal. If a 15 year old has sex with a thirteen year old, and they both consent, then (If I'm not mistaken), it will be illegal.

I would not allow "sex between two consenting tens"... Speaking of teens, 17 yo I'm ok with, but where do you draw the line? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:56, 10 August 2008 (EDT) (forgot to sign, and the sentence above this is not mine)

That's the million dollar question. But it can't be a question of general age because there isn't some magical thing that happens on your 18th birthday that automatically makes you respicible. People younger can be mature enough, and some people older aren't nearly mature enough. Give them a test. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 15:53, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

While I won't address teh idea of an adult cooercing a child (which to me is just wrong, in most cultures and contexts), the other side of this argument -- say that of 13 year olds and above having sex with people of reasonably like age, rings very much of a primary "abortion" issue we here. "it's my body, so fucking butt out". I despise the state (or parents, for that matter) who think they know better than the individual - and think they have a right to punish us for what we as individuals do. If i am 14 and say "now is the time" the state has no moral right to say "you or your boyfriend or both must go to jail for your sexual activity". Several states in the States have laws where both kids must do time. So you have 14 year old boys and girls in some kind of juvinal criminal program cause they got horny and decided "now is the time". WTF. Besides, the human as animal is quite ready and willing to have sexual intercourse at 13ish, thereabouts. It seems beyond comprehension that we define laws about when it is *legally* (not morally) allowed for a girl or boy to have sex. Why don't we also talk about the first them they can Jack off. Or the first time they can read slutty mags (not BUY, but read), or the first time they can start fantasizing about having sex with some particular someone. It is not the state's job to regulate morality, thought, or non-victim behaviors. Unsigned comment byUser:WaitingforGodot

Waiting, we can't do that because of some little technicality. But we're working on it. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{I can has rank?} 17:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Somewhat idealistic! The consent laws are not there to interfere with teenagers' sex lives or regulate peoples' thought or morality. They are there to protect children and adolescents from being abused and victimised. I don't think teenagers having sex with others of a similar age is a major issue. It may technically be illegal, but unless anybody presses charges, that doesn't matter. Weaseloid 17:16, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Again, you are taking the position that allowed sodomy laws to exist for so long. Part of it's symbolic. And if the parent catches their little girl having sex, do you really think they're gonna think about it rationally and say "Well, I trust you"? It is a big issue, and it is, to an extent to regulate morality. But, of course, it manages to get the truly bad guys. But again, why must a mature, intelligent, teen fear getting nasty with someone? Just because the government says so? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{GET TO THA CHOPPER} 17:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I didn't know that teenagers in the US could (and apparently do) get prosecuted for having sex each other. That does sound OTT. If a thirteen year old gets caught masturbating, can they be prosecuted for child sexual abuse? If not, why not?--Bob^{bing up} 02:43, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Because that violates something called "rights" or something like that, whatever they are. But I promise you, the Conservatives are working on it. And my guess is one, if thirteen year olds did get prosecuted, there wouldn't be any thirteen year olds out of jail and two, they don't count "self" abuse. But they teach you in Health class that you don't have functioning genitals and that thinking about penis' and vaginas is VERY NAUGHTY. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 17:42, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, conscent laws are *not* to catch pedophiles, or they would be worded that only the ADULT can be prosecuted for acts perpetrated on those much younger. In the states it is quite common for Teen Tina's daddy to sue Teen Tommy cause they did the wild thing. Also, though a few romeo laws exist, most states do not have well grounded ones, and often 18 year old boyfriends of 15 year old girlfriends were safe yesterday, but convicted on thier birthday cause they were (for a few weeks, anyhow) 3 years apart. It can, and does happen. Wanna know a totally sick one? In kansas, it is a crime to have sex with a minor. Romeo laws exist for straigh couples but NOT heteroxesual ones. a gay 18 year old (who had literally just turned 18) was caught having sex with a gay 17 year old, and he is now on year 7 of a 17 year sentance. for a blow job that was legal just a week or two earlier. Make the laws reasonable. a 25 year old or older going after a 16 year or younger. --Waiting for Godot 17:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

(PS sorry for no spell checking. I'm on a different computer with IE, and unlike firefox, it doesn't seem to have a built in spell checker. LysDexia Rlues!--Waiting for Godot 17:50, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

What the laws do is assume all kids are too stupid to make their own decisions. Interestingly enough though, they give minors the death penalty, but don't let them fuck. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{I can has rank?} 17:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] The Register Issue

Continuing the point about consenting teens - so, here in the UK, a sixteen year old boy has sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend. Now, not only is he breaking the law but he will also end up on the Sex Offenders register which has huge implications for the rest of his life. Here the punishment vastly outweighs the crime but, as I understand it, there's no wriggle room in the British law. Silver Sloth 18:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] What choice do you have?

It is impossible to assign an age, with confidence, for any activity given the huge variablity of human maturity. Even without that variability, we couldn't set it with confidence. We have no convincing way of setting them on anything other than age (say a maturity test). Yet virtually no one believes a 6-y-o to be mature enough to have consensual sex with a 22-y-o, and probably no one believes that 22-y-o shouldn't be in big trouble, for the sake of deterrence.

Conclusions. Even when we cannot know which ages would work out best, we know that we do have to assign legal ages -- we can't just throw up our hands and ignore the problem. But also we know that we can't insist that ages set by other societies and cultures are wrong because they don't match ours, given that we are uncertain about them in our own society.

-- Rem^Beau 20:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)