The Debate Thread: Age of Consent and Sexting

My blog on the subject.

From the Letting off steam thread:

my future brother-in-law got arrested this afternoon on 3 felony charges (short story, sexting) he's 21, she is supposedly 16

What's the age of consent where you are? I've always found it absurd that it's legal for two people to have sex, but not for them to see each other naked.

Since all the surrounding states are 16 to JaoSming's area I'll assume it happened prior to today or outside of that general area. Especially once factoring in the stupid parents pushing the case.

For references sake, I agree with consent laws but I'm not sure an arbitrary age definition is best. I think it is possible to set some age level while allowing for a way to prove consent is possible below that age. I've met 25 year olds I wouldn't grant consent to, and 10 year olds I could. (I'm assuming all contracts, not sexual interaction you perverts! I'M NOT ON TRIAL HERE! JACKAL WAS OF AGE!)

Yeah, I've certainly met plenty of people over 18 far more stupid than some I've met under 18. It's a bit hard to assess maturity and whatnot in any sort of concrete way, however, so an age limit has its benefits in that regard.

The thing with the age of consent, though, is that any 'pornographic depiction' of someone under the age of 18, with the definition of 'pornographic' and 'depiction' varying from one jurisdiction to another, is considered in most places to be child pornography, even if the age of consent for that area is lower. Further, they'll often prosecute the person sending the image, even though they're technically the victim of the crime.

Any age of consent sexually is a bit silly, though. An age below which you can only legally have sex with people also below that age makes far more sense. Prosecuting two 12 year olds for having sex with one another is silly, because you're again really just prosecuting the victim of the crime.

Discuss.

Last edited by koberulz on Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Since you quoted me I have "nothing" to add. Except that I would accept a hard limit outside of my test idea through which no one below it can consent. I accept 12 for entirely arbitrary reasons but could be persuaded for many areas. (I don't think the current age of consent laws are that bad in many states, except the sex thing is the only time they're ever enforced, and they only seem to be done so in stupid ways.)

I would not oppose scaling contractual situations. For me the sex thing is merely an extension of all contractual restrictions. I would probably not honor any contract between two people below say 15 (ignoring my test), but I would never prosecute anyone within a year of age on any sex "crime."

My ideas would increase punishments for laws however. If you could consent for contract, you could become viable for first degree murder prosecution as an "adult."

This would allow judicial and jury say on if a party could consent (I'd require both to agree at least) but I'm for jury nullifcation, which is why I'll never serve on a jury so everyone wins!

Regarding child pornography, I'd adjust it to punish those above the age transacting the image as that would imply they are trafficking in child porn. A 15 year old "sexting" (ugh) a 17 year old would never be so. But a 13 year old and 23 year old who then redistributes it? Yes.

And anything involving this even in that last case has to be civil. Criminal statutes are too far I think, even though I personally think 23/13 is very much pushing it I can't really fathom throwing the former in jail for it. I may just be saying this since I knew tons of 15 year olds whoring themselves out for college guys and the alcohol they had. And I'm not sure they were entirely unaware of their consequences anymore than people 5 years older as they do the same thing. But something like 45/15 does seem far too much even if I cannot justify it beyond math.

As if not obvious from the length of my post this is one of those issues I find most difficult to entirely figure out. If there was an abortion thread that would probably be the other. (Someone can start that if they want to. I don't really want to do it. It'll let everyone figure out the very few areas where I'm not predictable.)

Oh, and it's "The Debate Thread." GET IT RIGHT "KOBERULES"! UNIFORMITY OR ELSE!

I would not oppose scaling contractual situations. For me the sex thing is merely an extension of all contractual restrictions. I would probably not honor any contract between two people below say 15 (ignoring my test), but I would never prosecute anyone within a year of age on any sex "crime."

Is that a year shy of being legal, or within a year of the other person involved?

The thing with likening it to other contracts is that two 14 year olds entering into a contract isn't illegal, nobody can be arrested, and nobody goes on a register for the rest of their life. Age of consent laws basically say that whilst the 'victim' is unable to fully understand the consequences of consenting, the 'perp' is entirely able to understand the consequences of offering the 'contract' and following through with it, which if both parties are below the required age - whatever that may be - just seems silly to me. Particularly if you're going to arrest both of them for sexually assaulting each other.

but I'm for jury nullifcation, which is why I'll never serve on a jury so everyone wins!

Eh?

Regarding child pornography, I'd adjust it to punish those above the age transacting the image as that would imply they are trafficking in child porn. A 15 year old "sexting" (ugh) a 17 year old would never be so. But a 13 year old and 23 year old who then redistributes it? Yes.

Unless there's redistribution, I don't see it being reasonable to punish someone for receiving a sext they didn't ask for. If they did ask for it, then I see it as being no different to sex - if they're legally allowed to fuck I don't see why they can't see pictures of each other naked. Redistribution is an entirely different issue, though, and I don't really think being under the age of consent should be a defense there. Whatever concessions are given to minors would stand, but it's still a crime.

23/13 is very much pushing it I can't really fathom throwing the former in jail for it.

Depends what exactly 'it' is, receiving, asking or redistributing. And, in a perfect world, it would also depend on the maturity of that particular 13 year old.

Oh, and it's "The Debate Thread." GET IT RIGHT "KOBERULES"! UNIFORMITY OR ELSE!

No idea what you're talking about.

Is that a year shy of being legal, or within a year of the other person involved?

Year of the other person.

The thing with likening it to other contracts is that two 14 year olds entering into a contract isn't illegal, nobody can be arrested, and nobody goes on a register for the rest of their life.

Not illegal, but the contract is automatically void.

Eh?

If you're going to pontificate about the U.S. legal system and especially Constitutional history, like on your blog, you need to learn about jury nullification. A concept so "vile" you'll instantly be excused from jury duty if you say you accept it.

Unless there's redistribution, I don't see it being reasonable to punish someone for receiving a sext they didn't ask for. If they did ask for it, then I see it as being no different to sex - if they're legally allowed to fuck I don't see why they can't see pictures of each other naked. Redistribution is an entirely different issue, though, and I don't really think being under the age of consent should be a defense there. Whatever concessions are given to minors would stand, but it's still a crime.

Which is why I made the point of specifically demarcating the concept of redistribution. Solicitation should be able to be proven in such a case, if it cannot be, then simple reception is not enough evidence. I could consider a civil fine of possession, but a criminal fine absent of coercion seems a bit much.

Depends what exactly 'it' is, receiving, asking or redistributing. And, in a perfect world, it would also depend on the maturity of that particular 13 year old.

It was blanket consent. Yes, the maturity test would apply, but the strictness of a test would be more relevant on the distance between ages, and the age of the person. I don't think 16 or 18 or 21 is a valid automatic cut-off but an upper and lower bound on non-consent and auto-consent is not entirely unreasonable merely for simplicities sake.

No idea what you're talking about.

The title of my initial reply says otherwise.

Year of the other person.

Right. That seemed the most logical answer, but the way you phrased it seemed to indicate the other.

Not illegal, but the contract is automatically void.

Obviously. But you can't really 'void' sex, and voiding the contract doesn't lead to arrests/jail/registers, so the limits can be handled differently there.

If you're going to pontificate about the U.S. legal system and especially Constitutional history, like on your blog, you need to learn about jury nullification. A concept so "vile" you'll instantly be excused from jury duty if you say you accept it.

Whilst aware of the definition of the term, I didn't see how that flowed to you never serving and everybody winning. I assume the former refers to this, though I'm still not sure where you're coming from with 'everyone wins!'

Solicitation should be able to be proven in such a case, if it cannot be, then simple reception is not enough evidence. I could consider a civil fine of possession, but a criminal fine absent of coercion seems a bit much.

What about length of retention? If the picture's been there for months, you can't really argue the person in possession of it didn't wish to possess it, even if they didn't express a desire to receive it. Not sure what can or cannot be proven to what degree of satisfaction regarding whether or not it's been viewed, though, as the ignorance of the image's presence could well be a defense to that charge.

Sexting is so lame.

I'd leave the age of consent laws as they are. If you don't want to go to jail, don't fuck around with someone under age you pervert.

As far as pornography laws go and sexting, why on Earth does a 15 year old need to be sending nude pics to her boyfriend in the first place? I don't' care if he's 14, 15, 16, 17, whatever. When I was that age no one had mobile phones let alone picture messaging so this sort of crap was never an issue. Anyone under 18 dumb enough to strip off on webcam or send pics to her boyfriend or his girlfriend of 3 weeks or whatever stupid teenage romance they're involved in is going to have to put up with the consequences. Whether they be legal or social.

That being said I would find it harsh if a couple of 15 year olds were sending pics or whatever and one of them (or both) got in trouble for possessing child pornography. If they're the same age then it's a bit weird, but when you start talking about 14/15 year olds and 17/18/19 year olds then fuck them, I'd be happy to see them get in trouble for it. Regardless of what anyone says about male/female maturity levels, if you think a 19 year old dude isn't doing/saying anything he can to convince that 15 year old to send him pics then you're delusional.

I'd leave the age of consent laws as they are. If you don't want to go to jail, don't fuck around with someone under age you pervert.

This ^
There are so many fucking people in the world, stop screwing around with some dumb shit underage person and go find someone you're own age. Bullshit theyre perfect for you, you just need therapy if you think they are. And so do they... Leave that kiddy porn shit for the asians and the 1800's

When I was that age no one had mobile phones let alone picture messaging so this sort of crap was never an issue.

and we had to walk to school in bare feet for 5miles in the blistering snow and have frozen water icypoles for lunches.

As I was typing that I was honestly thinking "holy fuck I have become my grandmother".

I'd leave the age of consent laws as they are. If you don't want to go to jail, don't fuck around with someone under age you pervert.

This ^
There are so many fucking people in the world, stop screwing around with some dumb shit underage person and go find someone you're own age. Bullshit theyre perfect for you, you just need therapy if you think they are. And so do they... Leave that kiddy porn shit for the asians and the 1800's

If nobody's getting hurt, where exactly is the problem?

The 15 year old's butt could be hurt?

That could be a problem for some, mightily enjoyable for others...

I'd leave the age of consent laws as they are. If you don't want to go to jail, don't fuck around with someone under age you pervert.

This ^
There are so many fucking people in the world, stop screwing around with some dumb shit underage person and go find someone you're own age. Bullshit theyre perfect for you, you just need therapy if you think they are. And so do they... Leave that kiddy porn shit for the asians and the 1800's

If nobody's getting hurt, where exactly is the problem?

That post made my skin crawl. The reason age of consent laws exist is to prevent older people from preying on younger/less experienced people. It's not about "getting hurt". At high school every day you'd see guys in their early 20's outside the gates in their cars waiting for their 14/15 year old girlfriends, it made me sick. If you're enough of a social reject to be that old yet still need to go after girls who are still going through puberty you should probably be shot.

That was his intention. Always "playing devils advocate". Trying to be Maddox to the T.

Look at me, look at me, I'm badass. K?

The reason age of consent laws exist is to prevent older people from preying on younger/less experienced people. It's not about "getting hurt".

It is, the premise being that sexual contact under such circumstances would be emotionally harmful. But as discussed earlier in this thread, that depends far more on maturity than on age. And whilst the laws may exist with the intention of preventing older people from preying on younger people, they're used in cases in which two people, both under the age of consent, had some form of sexual contact. You can't be the victim of the crime you're committing.

At high school every day you'd see guys in their early 20's outside the gates in their cars waiting for their 14/15 year old girlfriends, it made me sick. If you're enough of a social reject to be that old yet still need to go after girls who are still going through puberty you should probably be shot.

Who says it's a need? Perhaps it's more about that individual girl than anything general concerning age. And again, if nobody gets hurt, there really shouldn't be a legal issue. You can make it a social issue, and call the guy a creep, all you damn well please, but at the end of the day there's no sense locking the guy up. It's not as though he's a paedophile - any 15 year old these days is well into puberty - so there's no risk to actual children (as opposed to adolescents) by leaving him out on the street. Best case, it's a particularly mature girl, both emotionally and physically (though given the lack of emotionally mature and intelligent women over the age of consent I do doubt this), worst case the guy has significant social issues. The most he needs is therapy and a social life with people his own age, not jail and a spot on the sex offender's registry.

Obviously. But you can't really 'void' sex, and voiding the contract doesn't lead to arrests/jail/registers, so the limits can be handled differently there.

Then you'd need two different age of consent laws, one for entering contracts and one specifically for sexual activity.

Whilst aware of the definition of the term, I didn't see how that flowed to you never serving and everybody winning. I assume the former refers to this, though I'm still not sure where you're coming from with 'everyone wins!'

If jury nullification was properly found valid by the courts and properly taught everyone would win because people would simply not convict for stupid laws.

My "everyone wins" was sarcastic, as "everyone wins" in that I don't have to serve and the DA doesn't have someone in his jury pool who might dissent and undermine his prosecution record.

What about length of retention? If the picture's been there for months, you can't really argue the person in possession of it didn't wish to possess it, even if they didn't express a desire to receive it. Not sure what can or cannot be proven to what degree of satisfaction regarding whether or not it's been viewed, though, as the ignorance of the image's presence could well be a defense to that charge.

Dem's the breaks if you're going to codify this, either write the law to specify it or leave it up to a jury.

I'd leave the age of consent laws as they are. If you don't want to go to jail, don't fuck around with someone under age you pervert.

But should someone go to JAIL for it, and be placed on a prohibitive registry for life? We're having people under 12 put on these lists for consensual activity.

As far as pornography laws go and sexting, why on Earth does a 15 year old need to be sending nude pics to her boyfriend in the first place?

Why on Earth does anyone need to be able to send whatever they want without first getting government approval? There's apparently a bunch of hate speech against Filipinos out there, why on Earth should we let this be transmitted across the internet?

Anyone under 18 dumb enough to strip off on webcam or send pics to her boyfriend or his girlfriend of 3 weeks or whatever stupid teenage romance they're involved in is going to have to put up with the consequences. Whether they be legal or social.

The disagreement on the legal thing is the only disagreement, lamebook exists for a reason, the question is why does it become a legal matter for people only when they're under an arbitrary age limit? Why not an arbitrary hottness limit? (Yes, stop pretending I didn't propose this knowing how you'd answer.)

Regardless of what anyone says about male/female maturity levels, if you think a 19 year old dude isn't doing/saying anything he can to convince that 15 year old to send him pics then you're delusional.

And what about a 19 year old girl and a 15 year old boy? And why once we cross that arbitrary line does "anything" go? A 50/60/80 year old can't "prey" on a 20 year old? I know a hell of a lot of completely stupid 20 year olds. There's this show, you may have heard of it, "Girls Next Door" with a predatory 80 year old and a bunch of 18-22 year olds who couldn't tell you what a contract even is other than "that thingy you sign that gives me money for sleeping with him?"

Leave that kiddy porn shit for the asians and the 1800's

Asians are disproportionally prone to pedophilia? It's not like they're Catholic priests and ancient Greeks.

And I think child pornography was pretty hard to acquire in the 1800s.

That post made my skin crawl. The reason age of consent laws exist is to prevent older people from preying on younger/less experienced people.

No, they don't. They exist to punish those people after the fact.

It's not about "getting hurt".

Huh? It's not? So it's merely a criminalization of a victimless act to make vindictive and judgmental people feel better? But, that's not what you argued before?

Look at me, look at me, I'm badass. K?

I'll "bad ass" you, and I don't care about the age difference!

I should add and clarify:
I don't think there is any disagreement here that below a certain age and maturity there is no true ability for someone to consent and that the acts are definitely rape. The disagreement is on the codification of the law AND the punishment. Namely:
1. You merely do not "do the time" for the act, you are permanently put on a list with negative consequences.
2. The line for this is arbitrary and never applied in a reasonable manner. So a 18 year old can sleep with a 16 year old and be put on the list for life even if that person never sleeps with anyone under the age of 18 again. But a 19 year old and 17 year old is fine, a 21 and 17 year old is fine, a 90 year old and 17 year old is fine. Why does crossing that line make it suddenly okay, other than people are attributing an emotional feeling to a number?
3. We have situations where two 7 year olds and two 11 year olds and so on are being charged with criminal sexual conduct when there is no possible way they can understand the laws they are violating and there is no reasonable case that can truly be brought against them as to them BOTH violating the rights of the other.
4. Therefore the laws in many cases are merely acting as punishment for the violation of the sensibilities of the parents or society not the committing of an actual crime and actual violation of the rights of a minor.
Instead of charging these people with CRIMINAL acts, the law should be far more flexible and consider it a CIVIL case. Even then it'll be abused because you're essentially still codifying that people under a certain random age are property of the parents and thus the parents are due restitution despite any consent that their property gave, i.e. an arbitrary age defines your full transition from property to person. (Something it should be noted we already don't fully codify, as we allow for emancipation WELL below the age of consent.) But at least it won't be a criminal act that can have serious lasting effects because of a youthful ignorance of an arbitrary line.

But should someone go to JAIL for it, and be placed on a prohibitive registry for life? We're having people under 12 put on these lists for consensual activity.

Is this common enough to warrant a change of laws? I do agree with sending people to jail though. Not 12 year olds obviously but if some 21 year old is sleeping with a 14 or 15 year old then hell yeah he can go to jail because as far as I'm aware even with the stupid differing ages of consent in various states, 15 is not ok anywhere.

Why on Earth does anyone need to be able to send whatever they want without first getting government approval?

By this logic transmitting pornographic images of children from one person to another is fine, because people should be able to send whatever they want without first needing government approval.

The disagreement on the legal thing is the only disagreement, lamebook exists for a reason, the question is why does it become a legal matter for people only when they're under an arbitrary age limit? Why not an arbitrary hottness limit? (Yes, stop pretending I didn't propose this knowing how you'd answer.)

Don't even pretend that I disagree with the hottness limit in the first place. That aside, there's obviously been some sort of thought process behind the various age limits and yeah some are more ridiculous than others (in different countries) but you can't possibly think without a reasonable age limit there wouldn't be guys in their 20's for example trying to hook up with 12 or 13 year old girls, since they no longer have the fear of imprisonment hanging over their head. Even if you consider it arbitrary, the only thing stopping that sort of shit happening more than it already does is the age limit.

And what about a 19 year old girl and a 15 year old boy? And why once we cross that arbitrary line does "anything" go? A 50/60/80 year old can't "prey" on a 20 year old? I know a hell of a lot of completely stupid 20 year olds. There's this show, you may have heard of it, "Girls Next Door" with a predatory 80 year old and a bunch of 18-22 year olds who couldn't tell you what a contract even is other than "that thingy you sign that gives me money for sleeping with him?"

I'm (surprisingly) not hypocritical about this. The 19 year old girl/15 year old boy situation would still apply the same to me legally. The difference between a 20 year old being preyed on by a 50 year old and a 15 year old being preyed on by a 20 year old is that the said 20 year old in both cases has sufficient life experience to be able to make their own decisions i.e they've actually finished puberty for a start. I just refuse to believe that by and large, girls (or guys) who have pretty much gone from being children and are now going through puberty or whatever are capable of understanding and fully consenting to a normal healthy relationship with someone who is considered an adult.

Yes there are morons who could be 30 and still not understand and consent to a normal healthy relationship with someone but that's more down to the stupidity of the individual, not necessarily the fact that the person hasn't been alive long enough to even understand what that sort of relationship would involve.

No, they don't. They exist to punish those people after the fact.

I disagree. How else do you prevent something from happening without making people aware that they could be punished for doing it? The only way you could do it in this case would be to just ban people from having any sort of human contact until the age of 16. It's the same with murder or any other law, it's supposed to be a deterrent.

Huh? It's not? So it's merely a criminalization of a victimless act to make vindictive and judgmental people feel better? But, that's not what you argued before?

Victimless act? So if some 35 year old guy figures out that by buying a 15 year old presents and telling her he loves her can get her to strip off and do whatever for him, she is not a victim? She's hardly old enough to understand that he doesn't actually have any interest in her outside of physical and at that age could very well be the first male to ever show any interest in her.

When he said "getting hurt" I assumed that to mean physically btw.

2. The line for this is arbitrary and never applied in a reasonable manner. So a 18 year old can sleep with a 16 year old and be put on the list for life even if that person never sleeps with anyone under the age of 18 again. But a 19 year old and 17 year old is fine, a 21 and 17 year old is fine, a 90 year old and 17 year old is fine. Why does crossing that line make it suddenly okay, other than people are attributing an emotional feeling to a number?

The thing is though, there'll never be a foolproof way of handling this. Especially when you have different ages of consent from state to state, which is completely ridiculous. That is bordering on entrapment, because someone could easily go from a state where 16 is the age to somewhere where it's 18 and suddenly they're in jail. As I mentioned before there are cases where that doesn't apply but I can see how people could get screwed over by that particular system.

My "If you don't want to go to jail don't screw someone under age" statement was more directed to the 20 year olds going after 14-15 year olds and so on.

Anyway as far as this arbitrary number I'd go with something like this...

14 and under: off limits no exceptions
15: maximum age of sexual partner 18
16: maximum age of sexual partner 22
18: age of consent

I'm one of those who looks less at the fairness of the law or the application of it to individuals etc and more at the "why the fuck is a 25 year old dating a 16 year old?" side of things.

We're never going to agree on this because I don't think an older person having a sexual relationship with a teenager necessarily contains a harmful act, whereas everyone else considers the very act itself to be harmful. But because I love you no matter what your age:

Is this common enough to warrant a change of laws?

Yes. Even one instance of it is enough, but we have had increasing number of cases like that. Especially when the acts happen in schools.

I do agree with sending people to jail though. Not 12 year olds obviously but if some 21 year old is sleeping with a 14 or 15 year old then hell yeah he can go to jail because as far as I'm aware even with the stupid differing ages of consent in various states, 15 is not ok anywhere.

Should knowledge of the age beforehand be required? Or can the 15 year old claim to be 18 and then get vindictive if the 21 year old cuts it off upon learning the age? Or if a parent finds out about it and decides to prosecute the "asshole who slept with my daughter"?

By this logic transmitting pornographic images of children from one person to another is fine, because people should be able to send whatever they want without first needing government approval.

It probably should be fine, it's evidence of a crime but is removed from the actual crime itself. I certainly can't see why it should be jail-worthy.

I should add an example to illustrate my point here. Let's say a guy sends in his computer and it's found to have child pornography, I see no reason they couldn't investigate him for all sorts of things, but if all they have is that he downloaded it off limewire or torrents I don't see why his distaste and sexual interests is necessarily cause for imprisonment. He wasn't involved in the production (a clear crime) and he didn't assist in it by contributing funds. Did he really harm anyone in this case?

You could (and would I assume) say he "encourages" the production through his third-hand consumption of it, but that's a slippery slope in my opinion if you start criminalizing things on the basis of what they "encourage" through a secondary consumption route. What couldn't you criminalize? Everything is in the ether "encouraging" criminal acts. My having fancy clothes and a fancy car "encourages" that guy to rob me. Let's criminalize fancy clothes and fancy cars!

but you can't possibly think without a reasonable age limit there wouldn't be guys in their 20's for example trying to hook up with 12 or 13 year old girls, since they no longer have the fear of imprisonment hanging over their head. Even if you consider it arbitrary, the only thing stopping that sort of shit happening more than it already does is the age limit.

I don't see how it inherently stops it. When you commit a crime is your thought process always "woah, that's illegal better not do it" or is it often "hope, I don't get caught"? Especially when it's something your obsessed with to a possibly detrimental point?

The difference between a 20 year old being preyed on by a 50 year old and a 15 year old being preyed on by a 20 year old is that the said 20 year old in both cases has sufficient life experience to be able to make their own decisions i.e they've actually finished puberty for a start. I just refuse to believe that by and large, girls (or guys) who have pretty much gone from being children and are now going through puberty or whatever are capable of understanding and fully consenting to a normal healthy relationship with someone who is considered an adult.

Then why not define it as "sufficiently past puberty" instead of picking an age out of a hat?

I disagree. How else do you prevent something from happening without making people aware that they could be punished for doing it? The only way you could do it in this case would be to just ban people from having any sort of human contact until the age of 16. It's the same with murder or any other law, it's supposed to be a deterrent.

No, it's not. Law is meant to punish the person who violates another's liberty and try to make good for the victim. Law cannot prevent crimes before they happen without serious liberty infringement like you mention outside of those rare instances where someone may think rationally first. We have laws against murder and taking drugs and having sex with kids, yet people are still doing those things. You can't stop people from doing it without creating some kind of police state, and even then you'll still wind up punishing people after the act 90% of the time.

Victimless act? So if some 35 year old guy figures out that by buying a 15 year old presents and telling her he loves her can get her to strip off and do whatever for him, she is not a victim? She's hardly old enough to understand that he doesn't actually have any interest in her outside of physical and at that age could very well be the first male to ever show any interest in her.

I think at 15, for the majority of people, they would be able to understand that if you explained it to them.

And what if he actually did have further interest in her? Would that make it alright then?

The thing is though, there'll never be a foolproof way of handling this.

Make it a civil case instead of a criminal act at an "age sufficiently past puberty" until 18 (when they become an adult and all bets are off) if the alleged victim contends they gave consent, allowing a judge and jury to do as they do in finding any fitness to stand trial a fitness to consent in the victim. This would make it possible for a 18 year old to not get a criminal history because the dad of the 15 year old girl hates him. He could potentially avoid any punishment if a judge or jury were convinced the 15 year old fully understood the consent she had granted.

And because sexual predation on children is the most hated act after murdering a child you're not going to see many situations where a 21 year old who had sex with a mature and blossomed 14 year old gets off without at least a fine and that thing I can't think of the phrase for, where you pick up trash on the highway. But he also wouldn't have a permanent criminal record that blocks him from living places and getting employment. And there's no way for example that 35/15 guy would.

You could also easily grant judges the authority to elevate a case to criminal conduct. So if that 35 year old guy does it once he gets the fine and work time, but if he keeps showing up in-front of the judge or the act was deemed sufficiently heinous, it can be elevated to a criminal case.

I'm one of those who looks less at the fairness of the law or the application of it to individuals etc and more at the "why the fuck is a 25 year old dating a 16 year old?" side of things.

I know.

We're never going to agree on this because I don't think an older person having a sexual relationship with a teenager necessarily contains a harmful act, whereas everyone else considers the very act itself to be harmful.

Pretty much. I've never been a 14 or 15 year old girl (yet) so I don't know what the actual potential for damage emotionally/psychologically is, but I just find the whole thing creepy, so that influences all of my opinions and thoughts as I don't vote and feel no need to really be too informed on anything political and legal beyond my own subjective thoughts.

I'll just cherry pick the things we're not going to endlessly argue about..

I should add an example to illustrate my point here. Let's say a guy sends in his computer and it's found to have child pornography, I see no reason they couldn't investigate him for all sorts of things, but if all they have is that he downloaded it off limewire or torrents I don't see why his distaste and sexual interests is necessarily cause for imprisonment. He wasn't involved in the production (a clear crime) and he didn't assist in it by contributing funds. Did he really harm anyone in this case?

I guess from my standpoint the reason to punish that guy would be to try and deter him from taking his interest any further than downloading crap from Limewire. I mean there's obviously no way to predict if he would have or not, but a pretty good way to guarantee that he doesn't is to get him in the system in some capacity and hope that being punished for just obtaining those images or whatever would stop him wanting to progress these fetishes any further than he already has.

I don't know if I'd send him to jail for that, it'd depend on exactly what was on his computer. I mean if he had 3 gig of little Cambodian kids being raped then yeah I'd send him to jail, but if it's a bunch of pictures or videos or whatever I think having him registered (not as a sex offender, maybe a 'person of interest' or something) and fined or given community service etc would be enough.

I don't see how it inherently stops it. When you commit a crime is your thought process always "woah, that's illegal better not do it" or is it often "hope, I don't get caught"? Especially when it's something your obsessed with to a possibly detrimental point?

Depends on the crime I think. Like if you're shoplifting, you know chances are you'll get a fine and maybe some community service. If you're risking being caught for having sex with a minor then you know you're most likely going to jail. As you said later on in the post, any sex crimes (particularly towards children) are particularly hated and we all know what sort of reputation jail has for dealing with them. That would be enough of a deterent for me anyway.

Also goes back to what I just said about stopping people from progressing their desires/lust towards something else. If they are obsessed with it then at some point they're probably going to cave in and try something, but if they've already been caught/cautioned and are in the books as having downloaded child pornography or something it might make some kind of difference.

I don't know what sort of therapy helps these people. I watched a documentary about a place that supposedly rehabs them and it was pretty much a joke. Chemical castration helps but ultimately that seems a bit 3rd World for my liking.

Make it a civil case instead of a criminal act at an "age sufficiently past puberty" until 18 (when they become an adult and all bets are off) if the alleged victim contends they gave consent, allowing a judge and jury to do as they do in finding any fitness to stand trial a fitness to consent in the victim. This would make it possible for a 18 year old to not get a criminal history because the dad of the 15 year old girl hates him. He could potentially avoid any punishment if a judge or jury were convinced the 15 year old fully understood the consent she had granted.

Interesting. That does make sense, and I like the "until 18" stipulation because that does grant protection against some of the scenarios I mentioned before. The only grey area for me would be what constitutes "sufficiently past puberty" because people reach it/complete it at different ages so it could be argued there is no actual way of measuring that age etc but everything else I agree with.

You could also easily grant judges the authority to elevate a case to criminal conduct. So if that 35 year old guy does it once he gets the fine and work time, but if he keeps showing up in-front of the judge or the act was deemed sufficiently heinous, it can be elevated to a criminal case.

I like that too, though I would change it slightly so that it can only be made a civil case for people like 26 and younger (still gives me a year to do my thing). After that I'd make it criminal, because I personally can't see any justification in anyone older than that being involved romantically with someone under 16. I know there's differing levels of maturity and everything but I've spoken to some 14, 15 year old girls in the last few months (my friends sister's friends) and they are so stupidly naive and unaware of everything to do with life outside of school that I can't imagine they really know what they're getting themselves into, especially with a guy who's like 28-30 and has been contemplating marriage and kids since 25.

I'd leave age of consent laws alone for the most part as well but I'd be inclined to add a couple of exceptions when the individuals in question are around the same age. I read an article a while back on men who are registered sex offenders for life because when they were in high school and a couple of months past sixteen, they had sex with their girlfriends who were a couple of months off turning sixteen. Vindictive parents pushed for prosecution and because he technically broke the law, he's treated like a pedophile. In a couple of the cases the parents actually had a change of heart afterwards and have tried to help them but to no avail. They were convicted of having sex with a minor and that's that, because there's no consideration given to the specific circumstances of their case.

I read an article a while back on men who are registered sex offenders for life because when they were in high school and a couple of months past sixteen, they had sex with their girlfriends who were a couple of months off turning sixteen. Vindictive parents pushed for prosecution and because he technically broke the law, he's treated like a pedophile. In a couple of the cases the parents actually had a change of heart afterwards and have tried to help them but to no avail. They were convicted of having sex with a minor and that's that, because there's no consideration given to the specific circumstances of their case.

Age difference or type of relationship, I think should be considered during a trial, rather than simply labeling somebody with a permanent pedophile tag.

Ain't know much about relative laws on this issue nor I care much, but if the current system punishes pedos well enough, leaving age of consent as it is, is good enough I believe.

Exactly. If there's a few months difference between a couple of hormone-charged teenagers who are in the same grade, I personally don't think that's cause to brand one of them a sex offender for life. Similarly, if both of them are underaged, don't turn it into a crime. Punish them if you must, deal with it as a family and don't allow things to get vindictive through the courts.

Then you'd need two different age of consent laws, one for entering contracts and one specifically for sexual activity.

That seems to me to be the best way to do it, given the criminal penalties involved with sexual activity that simply aren't there when contracting a 12 year old to mow your lawn.

3. We have situations where two 7 year olds and two 11 year olds and so on are being charged with criminal sexual conduct when there is no possible way they can understand the laws they are violating and there is no reasonable case that can truly be brought against them as to them BOTH violating the rights of the other.

This one also comes back to the register, which people are being placed on for the 'crime' of being sexually attracted to people their own age. For some reason, all the concessions granted to minors in all other aspects of law fly out the window with sex crimes.

Is this common enough to warrant a change of laws?

Isn't once more than enough? How many lives have to be ruined before we consider changing the law that's ruining them? Again, for the "crime" of being sexually attracted to people their own age.

15 is not ok anywhere.

By what non-arbitrary standard?

Even if you consider it arbitrary, the only thing stopping that sort of shit happening more than it already does is the age limit.

But if it's arbitrary, there's no reason why it happening is a bad thing. The age of consent could arbitrarily be raised to 28, if enough people think people over that age shouldn't be having sex with people under that age. It's completely meaningless.

The difference between a 20 year old being preyed on by a 50 year old and a 15 year old being preyed on by a 20 year old is that the said 20 year old in both cases has sufficient life experience to be able to make their own decisions i.e they've actually finished puberty for a start.

You'd be surprised how early puberty begins and ends these days. The fact remains that I've met 15 year olds with far more maturity than some 20 year olds, so a blanket law like that simply doesn't make sense.

I just refuse to believe that by and large, girls (or guys) who have pretty much gone from being children and are now going through puberty or whatever are capable of understanding and fully consenting to a normal healthy relationship with someone who is considered an adult.

What difference does it make that they're considered an adult? How is two fifteen year olds dating really all that different to a fifteen and twenty year old dating? In most cases, I'd suggest either the older party is incredibly immature or the younger party is incredibly mature (or some degree of each), or they wouldn't be interested in each other in the first place.

Yes there are morons who could be 30 and still not understand and consent to a normal healthy relationship with someone but that's more down to the stupidity of the individual, not necessarily the fact that the person hasn't been alive long enough to even understand what that sort of relationship would involve.

Why wouldn't a 15 year old's lack of understanding be down to that individual, too? Even if 99% of them are that retarded, that doesn't mean they're the ones involved.

Victimless act? So if some 35 year old guy figures out that by buying a 15 year old presents and telling her he loves her can get her to strip off and do whatever for him, she is not a victim? She's hardly old enough to understand that he doesn't actually have any interest in her outside of physical

Who are you to know what he wants and what she expects? If he actually is interested in her, or if all she wants is sex, nobody's getting hurt.

and at that age could very well be the first male to ever show any interest in her.

Most people these days (at least those who would be involved in a situation like this) start dating/being interested in one another when they're 11 or 12.

When he said "getting hurt" I assumed that to mean physically btw.

Physically or psychologically, the same criteria that should be used for all laws. I won't go so far as to say emotionally, because that could give every girl I've ever rejected reason to press charges, and I'd never get out of jail.

The thing is though, there'll never be a foolproof way of handling this.

So? It will never be perfect, so let's not even fix what we easily can?

Especially when you have different ages of consent from state to state, which is completely ridiculous. That is bordering on entrapment, because someone could easily go from a state where 16 is the age to somewhere where it's 18 and suddenly they're in jail. As I mentioned before there are cases where that doesn't apply but I can see how people could get screwed over by that particular system.

I'm one of those who looks less at the fairness of the law or the application of it to individuals etc and more at the "why the fuck is a 25 year old dating a 16 year old?" side of things.

But it should be about the fairness of the law and its application, not any arbitrary moral standard. That's how homosexuality becomes illegal.

You could (and would I assume) say he "encourages" the production through his third-hand consumption of it, but that's a slippery slope in my opinion if you start criminalizing things on the basis of what they "encourage" through a secondary consumption route. What couldn't you criminalize? Everything is in the ether "encouraging" criminal acts. My having fancy clothes and a fancy car "encourages" that guy to rob me. Let's criminalize fancy clothes and fancy cars!

Poor analogy. That logic leads to criminalisation of having children, not of possessing child pornography. Possession of child pornography obtained through channels other than the person in the pornographic material is the area I have most trouble with here.

"age sufficiently past puberty"

Past the onset of puberty, or past the end of puberty?

And because sexual predation on children is the most hated act after murdering a child you're not going to see many situations where a 21 year old who had sex with a mature and blossomed 14 year old gets off without at least a fine and that thing I can't think of the phrase for, where you pick up trash on the highway. But he also wouldn't have a permanent criminal record that blocks him from living places and getting employment. And there's no way for example that 35/15 guy would.

You could also easily grant judges the authority to elevate a case to criminal conduct. So if that 35 year old guy does it once he gets the fine and work time, but if he keeps showing up in-front of the judge or the act was deemed sufficiently heinous, it can be elevated to a criminal case.

I think the biggest change that needs to be made, and I mention this in my blog, is putting the sex offender's registry in the hands of the judge/jury. As it is right now, if you have sex with someone under the age of 13 in Australia, you're automatically on the register. Regardless of your own age (12), her age (12) or the age she said she was (13).

I guess from my standpoint the reason to punish that guy would be to try and deter him from taking his interest any further than downloading crap from Limewire. I mean there's obviously no way to predict if he would have or not, but a pretty good way to guarantee that he doesn't is to get him in the system in some capacity and hope that being punished for just obtaining those images or whatever would stop him wanting to progress these fetishes any further than he already has.

I'd rather a paedophile watch child pornography than, knowing he's going to jail and the registry for the rest of his life regardless of his crime, figure that he might as well actually rape a child. I'm not sure if there have been any sort of studies done on it, but I'd imagine paedophilia to be much the same as any other fetish or sexual orientation - you're just born that way. Deter all you want, the urges will still be there and I'd rather give those people as many outlets as possible that aren't real prepubescent people.

The only grey area for me would be what constitutes "sufficiently past puberty" because people reach it/complete it at different ages

So why no acknowledgement of this in your blanket condemning of anyone having sex with anyone under 15?

Last edited by koberulz on Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How in the fuck did you do THAT?

Thank Xenu it wasn't only me that's seeing things.

How in the fuck did you do THAT?

I have no idea.

EDIT: I left one quote tag open. Bizarre.

Last edited by koberulz on Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.