Should sexual consent age laws be changed to a variable?

[Wessexman]

How is having sex willingly "destructive"?

We aren't just talking about sex but laissez faire sex, including apparently gangbang, pornography and brothels among 13 and 14 year olds.

 

[rivrrat]

We aren't just talking about sex but laissez faire sex, including apparently gangbang, pornography and brothels among 13 and 14 year olds.

And yet stilll...where's the destruction?

 

[Gunface]

We aren't just talking about sex but laissez faire sex, including apparently gangbang, pornography and brothels among 13 and 14 year olds.

O__o That's disturbing. I don't want to do that with the boy I like. I just want to see him naked. :2razz:

 

[Wessexman]

And yet stilll...where's the destruction?

In the mental and physical consequences of such actions.

Is My Teen Having Sex? - Sexual Promiscuity in Adolescents - Teens Having Sex

The greatest risks to teens who are sexually active are unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and damage to self-esteem. When sex is treated like just another teen social activity, it can create serious emotional issues for a young person.

 

[rivrrat]

In the mental and physical consequences of such actions.

Is My Teen Having Sex? - Sexual Promiscuity in Adolescents - Teens Having Sex

The greatest risks to teens who are sexually active are unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and damage to self-esteem. When sex is treated like just another teen social activity, it can create serious emotional issues for a young person.

Pregnancy and STDs are easily avoided with a family who is supportive in such regards. And even if they're not, really. But it's certainly easier if one can talk to one's parents about it.

Not sure how to avoid "serious emotional issues" for anyone prone to them at any age though, for any activitity.

 

[Unrein]

The greatest risks to teens who are sexually active are unwanted pregnancy,

Risk of anyone who sexually active not just teens.

sexually transmitted diseases,

Risk of anyone who is sexually avtive not just teens.

and damage to self-esteem.

More of a risk to those who aren't sexually active in my humble opinion.
I think any 14 year old who gets laid is feeling pretty good about themselves.

When sex is treated like just another teen social activity, it can create serious emotional issues for a young person.

No quite the opposite. When it's forbidden, when it's this grand, illegal undertaking that eveyone is telling them is "wrong' to do, it fosters emotional problems. When it's a normal social activity it ceases to damage people particularly.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Risk of anyone who sexually active not just teens.

Agree. However, impulsivity and over-intensity of emotions increase this possibility in teens.

Risk of anyone who is sexually avtive not just teens.

Agree. However, impulsivity and over-intensity of emotions increase this possibility in teens.

More of a risk to those who aren't sexually active in my humble opinion.
I think any 14 year old who gets laid is feeling pretty good about themselves.

Disagree, to some extent. Depends on the teen's maturity level and what they believe the sex represents. Social and self-esteem implication can vary widely, and because of the intensity of teen peer social constructs, having sex when unprepared for its ramifications both emotionally and socially, can be detrimental.

No quite the opposite. When it's forbidden, when it's this grand, illegal undertaking that eveyone is telling them is "wrong' to do, it fosters emotional problems. When it's a normal social activity it ceases to damage people particularly.

Incorrect. See my comments above, as they apply, here, too.

 

[Wessexman]

More of a risk to those who aren't sexually active in my humble opinion.
I think any 14 year old who gets laid is feeling pretty good about themselves.

I think you mean himself.

 

[Unrein]

Agree. However, impulsivity and over-intensity of emotions increase this possibility in teens.





Agree. However, impulsivity and over-intensity of emotions increase this possibility in teens.

Ok but it's also more likely for a teen to be involved in a fatal car accident should we shelter them from that freedom as well?

Social and self-esteem implication can vary widely, and because of the intensity of teen peer social constructs, having sex when unprepared for its ramifications both emotionally and socially, can be detrimental.

That has everything to do with social consructs and peer pressure (which exists even through adulthood, you don't an adult who can't get laid isn't subject to low self-esteem based on societies propogated value towards sex?) and nothing to do with legal freedoms. And if you are going to argue that the legal freedom translates into an increased frquency then anticipate me responding by asking "Then why also take away adults freedom to sex since this same correlation would not vanish at adulthood?"

 

[Unrein]

I think you mean himself.

Why? Do you think women are ashamed of having sex or something?

 

[Wessexman]

Why? Do you think women are ashamed of having sex or something?

I don't think they are likely to brag about getting "laid".

Ok but it's also more likely for a teen to be involved in a fatal car accident should we shelter them from that freedom as well?

We do.

That has everything to do with social consructs and peer pressure (which exists even through adulthood, you don't an adult who can't get laid isn't subject to low self-esteem based on societies propogated value towards sex?) and nothing to do with legal freedoms. And if you are going to argue that the legal freedom translates into an increased frquency then anticipate me responding by asking "Then why also take away adults freedom to sex since this same correlation would not vanish at adulthood?"

Society is a social construct to a large degree, it doesn't mean it isn't necessary and beneficial despite its flaws to individuals. Would you have us all be hermits or egoists?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ok but it's also more likely for a teen to be involved in a fatal car accident should we shelter them from that freedom as well?

Certainly. And we do. Most states do not allow teens to drive until they are 16-17 and have certain restrictions even at that age, often until they are 18 or 21.

That has everything to do with social consructs and peer pressure (which exists even through adulthood, you don't an adult who can't get laid isn't subject to low self-esteem based on societies propogated value towards sex?) and nothing to do with legal freedoms. And if you are going to argue that the legal freedom translates into an increased frquency then anticipate me responding by asking "Then why also take away adults freedom to sex since this same correlation would not vanish at adulthood?"

The constructs I am talking about are far more prevalent with teens, based on their impulsivity, tendency to react emotionally rather than rationally, their perception of invincibility, and the over-importance social acceptance plays with them. All of these, though occurring in adults, occur less, both because of biology and because of the different social structures that adults have. No matter how you slice it, teens are different from adults, both biologically, how they interact socially, and how they perceive themselves. The same rules cannot appjy to both.

 

[Unrein]

Certainly. And we do. Most states do not allow teens to drive until they are 16-17 and have certain restrictions even at that age, often until they are 18 or 21.

Would you push that age minimum to 21 - 24 since that is the age group most proportionately responsible for fatal car accidents? They make up about 8.7% of the total licenced drivers and are responsible for about 18.4% of the fatal car accidents, That's a 1:2 ratio, much higher than the "under 18" group which ratios 1:1.

http://casualtyactuaries.com/pubs/proceed/proceed50/50043.pdf

The constructs I am talking about are far more prevalent with teens, based on their impulsivity, tendency to react emotionally rather than rationally, their perception of invincibility, and the over-importance social acceptance plays with them. All of these, though occurring in adults, occur less, both because of biology and because of the different social structures that adults have. No matter how you slice it, teens are different from adults, both biologically, how they interact socially, and how they perceive themselves. The same rules cannot appjy to both.

Ok here is one of the biggest problems I have with your argument: "occurs less". OK so what standard are we using here? Exactly How much more or less does it need to occur for it to qualify as worthy of being taken away as a right?

And how do you know it occurs less? And how do you even know that the social perception of younger teens makes them significantly more vulnerable than people in their early 20s? Do you have facts or research to prove this or is this your subjective judgement?

And where does your social protectionism end? Should the state be responsible for regulating all of everyone's behaviors so that no one ever gets hurt? I can't think of many rights we have that one couldn't possibly make a harmful mistake doing, so how you reach a conclusion of permission?

 

[Unrein]

I don't think they are likely to brag about getting "laid".

Had nothing to do with bragging it's about personal feelings. You don't think if a group of 14 year old girls all share interest in a cute boy, the one who manages to nab him isn't going to feel proud in front of her friends? Maybe you underestimate the reservation of teenage girls these days it's a different generation.

We do.

Not as much as you think. For starters the liscence age for people in most States here, not sure what it's like in Australia, is 16. Some places 18 but not as many. Now at the same time the age of consent in most states is 18.

Also, anyone of any age may drive a vehicle on private property legally, you cannot have sex anywhere until you are 18.

Society is a social construct to a large degree, it doesn't mean it isn't necessary and beneficial despite its flaws to individuals. Would you have us all be hermits or egoists?

I'd rather us be socially free to decide for ourselves what will cause us to be happy. Of course practical limitations should exist but as little as we can logically afford.

 

[Bonnie1988]

You rarely hear of a 40 year old women with an 18 year old husband.

One historic problem of old men having very young women (minor age) is because men held the economic power and women didn't. r So it isn't about just older men and very young women as a mattee consent. It also is an issue of power.

 

[Unrein]

Here I have a question for anyone who supports the higher age of consent based on protecting the social fragility of younger teens.

Would you not agree that dating relationships, the pressure to be popular, the pressure to be dating the hottest cheerleader, etc. is collectively at LEAST as pressuring and detrimental to a young teens esteem and moral as sexual pressure is? Should the entire high-school social heirarchy and inlaid construct be banished as well somehow? Where does it end?

 

[Unrein]

You rarely hear of a 40 year old women with an 18 year old husband.

One historic problem of old men having very young women (minor age) is because men held the economic power and women didn't. r So it isn't about just older men and very young women as a mattee consent. It also is an issue of power.

So what are you trying to say in regards to consent laws then? They should be higher or at least the same?

 

[Bonnie1988]

So what are you trying to say in regards to consent laws then? They should be higher or at least the same?

I don't know.

 

[Unrein]

I don't know.

Yeah me neither :2razz:

 

[Wessexman]

Had nothing to do with bragging it's about personal feelings. You don't think if a group of 14 year old girls all share interest in a cute boy, the one who manages to nab him isn't going to feel proud in front of her friends? Maybe you underestimate the reservation of teenage girls these days it's a different generation.

I'm 19 so it isn't like it is exactly a different generation.

Not as much as you think. For starters the liscence age for people in most States here, not sure what it's like in Australia, is 16. Some places 18 but not as many. Now at the same time the age of consent in most states is 18.

Also, anyone of any age may drive a vehicle on private property legally, you cannot have sex anywhere until you are 18.

In Australia and Britain it is 16 and that is the age I'm defending and even then I don't so much care about 14-15 year olds having sex with one partner they are in a deep relationship with, it is laissez faire attitudes that think nothing of 13-15 year olds having multiple partners and engaging in things like gangbangs that I'm arguing against.

I'd rather us be socially free to decide for ourselves what will cause us to be happy. Of course practical limitations should exist but as little as we can logically afford.

Man is a social creature, his personality, freedom, order and meaning are partly determined by the associations that make up his everyday life from family to work to church. These social bonds and how they stay together are not completely comprehendable and they are certainly not held together by the rational, utility-maximising self-interest of individual atoms alone and although the individual should be as free as possible we should not risk these social bonds.

I feel that lowering the age of consent is encouraging behaviour that is both a symptom of and probably will help to cause decay in vital social bonds. We have already seen that studies have shown strong and healthy familial and community bonds help to prevent underage sex.

 

[Wessexman]

Here I have a question for anyone who supports the higher age of consent based on protecting the social fragility of younger teens.

Would you not agree that dating relationships, the pressure to be popular, the pressure to be dating the hottest cheerleader, etc. is collectively at LEAST as pressuring and detrimental to a young teens esteem and moral as sexual pressure is? Should the entire high-school social heirarchy and inlaid construct be banished as well somehow? Where does it end?

I think such attitudes are attacked in most schools. Bullying and the like, which includes what you are talking about is regularly attacked.

Anyway I prefer Free, Montesorri and Rudolph Steiner schools.

 

[Unrein]

Man is a social creature, his personality, freedom, order and meaning are partly determined by the associations that make up his everyday life from family to work to church.

But those relationships do not evaporate just by giving people freedom and choice over these bonds, I might argue it strengthens them.

These social bonds and how they stay together are not completely comprehendable and they are certainly not held together by the rational, utility-maximising self-interest of individual atoms alone and although the individual should be as free as possible we should not risk these social bonds.

You say this as if social freedom causes some deterioration of structures and relashonships and I fail to see how. By giving people freedom over these relationships and choices we know that what constructs do result in this 'atomized' system are natural and the most desired.

I feel that lowering the age of consent is encouraging behaviour that is both a symptom of and probably will help to cause decay in vital social bonds.

Ok explain how. How do make the leap that Consent freedom = decay in social bonds. How so?

We have already seen that studies have shown strong and healthy familial and community bonds help to prevent underage sex.

A. You have it backwords, in that now you are saying stronger community bonds prevent underage sex, where-as before you said underage sex is what weakens community bonds. Now the relationship between those two might be correlated but not necessarily causual. So the opposite of stronger bonds = less underage sex is not necessarily true.

B. I doubt the validity of those studies. The most conservative, social and moral regulating, community valueing areas are the ones with the highest teen pregnancy rates and highest divorce rates.

Divorce Rates by State, 1990?2005 — Infoplease.com
Daily Kos: Teen pregnancy in the Red States

 

[Unrein]

I think such attitudes are attacked in most schools. Bullying and the like,

I didn't say bullying I said dating, popularity heirarchy, etc.

which includes what you are talking about is regularly attacked.

No there is not, there is no regulation on popularity, on pressure to date certain people. None of it.

 

[Wessexman]

But those relationships do not evaporate just by giving people freedom and choice over these bonds, I might argue it strengthens them.

It depends on the situation and bond.

You say this as if social freedom causes some deterioration of structures and relashonships and I fail to see how. By giving people freedom over these relationships and choices we know that what constructs do result in this 'atomized' system are natural and the most desired.

These structures and relationships have been deteriorating for centuries and we certainly don't know this situation is natural or most desired. Most societies have been very traditional and contained the seemingly natural groupings of kinship, religion, friendship, local community, work etc

The important point to remember is that people need these relationships and structures, they are not atoms and generally cannot be happy and healthy that way. If the traditional and natural associations do not provide these people will look elsewhere from evangelical religion to substance abuse but most importantly in our society they will look to the chief feature; the overbearing state.

Conservatives long ago realised this relationship between atomistic individualism and statism.

Ok explain how. How do make the leap that Consent freedom = decay in social bonds. How so?

Because social bonds are created by the actions of rational, autonomous individuals alone. They require in many instances allegiance, function, status and authority within the lives of individuals and communities. If a family has no function and status and the parents have no authority it will greatly weaken the bonds of the family.

A. You have it backwords, in that now you are saying stronger community bonds prevent underage sex, where-as before you said underage sex is what weakens community bonds. Now the relationship between those two might be correlated but not necessarily causual. So the opposite of stronger bonds = less underage sex is not necessarily true.

I'd say both were true but particularly the former. It is a symptom most of all I'd say.

B. I doubt the validity of those studies. The most conservative, social and moral regulating, community valueing areas are the ones with the highest teen pregnancy rates and highest divorce rates.

Divorce Rates by State, 1990?2005 — Infoplease.com
Daily Kos: Teen pregnancy in the Red States

It has been shown that healthy familial and community bonds decrease underage sex, that is not the same as "conservative" areas doing this. Many conservatives go too far the other way and make these necessary bonds too repressive, there are also other issues at stake. I mean the later does not show that these states are having more underage sex just more pregnancy.

To be honest I'm no conservative I just appear that way to many extreme liberals and American style libertarians who have no conception of the social nature of man, society and freedom. I actually want the bonds quite lax but I do recognise they are there, that they are necessary and it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice a little individualistic freedom to preserve them.

 

[Wessexman]

I didn't say bullying I said dating, popularity heirarchy, etc.



No there is not, there is no regulation on popularity, on pressure to date certain people. None of it.

Most of the negatives of what you are talking about are regulated. We were always told such behaviour as leaving people out is bullying.