The case against adolesence + Age of Consent

[March]

So we learn better. I'm glad you "love how people are trying to use science to back up cultural norms", I love it too. I love using science to back anything because it's the smart objective way.

I think you're confusing scientific fact with unsupported assertion. It's a fact that the brain is not full developed in teenagers. It's your opinion that it has not developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex. Understand the difference?

Where is it denied that "teens are going to have sex"? It's there to discourage adults from having sex with minor - that's why the adult is charged and not the minor.

To discourage something must in and of itself acknowledge that that something can occur - which is the opposite of denial.

You know what he/she meant, our society tries to stop the inevitable. They've made a declaration that teenagers having sex is a bad thing, as they have often done in the past (homosexuals, pre-marital relations, inter-racial, etc.).

Who said that "all teens are at the same stage"?

When we test drugs, we look at the reaction of the whole group to the drugs - there are individuals who will react differently from the aggregate, it's doesn't invalidate the findings for the whole group. Neither do we generally make law base on "individuality", we make law base on what is "reasonable" i.e. what is the norm in the group.

It does lead to collective stupidity, though. Five hundred dumbasses don't somehow equal an Einstein. The law should most accurately reflect the facts, and not unsupported premises and assertions. Placing the burden of proof on the prosecution would largely solve this problem. You claim the "victim" wasn't able to consent? Prove it. They do it in murder trials all the time, why should sex be any different?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

False, at the time I made that statement you did NOT provide an explanation. You said "Someone hasn't read the studies that demonstrate the difference between a fully developed adult brain and a not fully developed adolescent brain. Someone also doesn't understand the impact that hormones have on teenagers."

I simply asked you to elaborate on that point. "What is a "fully developed brain?" What features can we expect from this "fully developed brain" that are not present in an adolescent brain? Why are they important? And what impact do hormones have on teenagers, and why is that relevent?" That was my reply.

You were being intellectually lazy and I called you on it. You still haven't answered any of my questions in any meaningful way. All you have done is say they are different but haven't made any qualifications about what specific differences make teenagers incapable of consenting to sex with older adults.

The correct method would have been to ask for links or more information, rather than making an unfounded accusation of "begging the question". I do not take kindly to that kind of debating.

How on Earth can I be "misrepresenting" what you said when I asked, quite plainly, "agree or disagree?"

Because your question does not address what I said. Your question is also a false dichotomy. Perhaps you might want to ask your question in an open-ended rather than a close-ended way.

You could have said "I disagree because...." no you didn't do that. You simply refused to grasp the implications of your own argument.

No, I completely understand my argument. I also understand what you are attempting to do. I do not play that way. If you want to discuss this, you can address the points that I have actually made and ask me open-ended question about them. If you attempt to create false dichotomies, I will point that out.

So I'll ask again, what IS your argument exactly?

Again? This is the first time you actually have asked this question. Might have been a good idea to start here.

That adolescent brains are different from 30 year old brains? Ok, but that doesn't explain why adolescents can't consent to sex, or vote, or work, etc. That's like saying "orange is different from blue.....therefore black is better." Does not follow. So what if they are different?

You read what I wrote in describing how they are different. Decision-making, impulsivity, motivation, and emotional reactions are all affected. Information is processed differently. We are NOT talking about anything but sex between a teen and an adult, so don't try to change the topic or add other pieces. That is not acceptable. Because of the things that I have identifed and the science has verified, as a general rule, teens are at a disadvantage in a relationship with an adult. It is a power-relationship with the adult having power because of the emotionally driven brains of teens... looking for ways to release these emotions.

Your argument must take the form "adolescents cannot consent to having sex with older adults because X." You can't simply say "well they are different" and expect that to be that. That's not an argument, that's just a statement that has no relevence. Please form an argument, sir. That's all I'm asking.

In general, it is appropriate for teens to not be able to legally consent to having sex with adults because of the difference in power in those types of relationships, based on the combination of the emotions involved in such relationships and the issues with how teens process emotions and make decisions based on brain development and hormonal/limbic system issues.

In post #17 you go on a diatribe about how adolescents -- for various reasons -- can't make informed decisions. Yes, you did that, remember? Post #17, check it out.

"Better decision-making, using cognative skills rather than impulsive/emotional decisions can lead to better and more informed outcomes."

See that? That's called an unsupported assertion. You say it "can" lead to better outcomes. I called that into question, saying there is no evidence for that. For some reason, you have a problem with this.

Your comment "how adolescents -- for various reasons -- can't make informed decisions" is a straw man. I never said that. Please learn how to debate around arguments I make, not arguments you WANT me to have made.

There is nothing wrong with that question, and it could be easily answered. It's not a loaded question, period. You seem to be unfamiliar with the term. Either your argument holds water or it doesn't.

Of course it's a loaded question. It creates a scenario that only has options that are NOT part of the scenario that I have presented. Please demonstrate where I have claimed that because of a teens hormones, they are NOT responsible for their behavior. I'll give you a hint. I haven't. This is the straw man YOU have created, because it's what you want to debate against. Have fun debating yourself; it's not my argument you are debating, though.

You're saying adolesents can't make informed decisions because their brains aren't fully developed. That is exactly what you said, it's right there in post#17 if you look it up.

No, that's not what I said... it's what you WANT me to have said, because, seemingly, you know how to debate THAT argument.

Following that to it's logical conclusion, if they murder someone, how can they be held responsible? After all, their brains are still developing, right? Or wrong?

Nothing logical about that since you are arguing against something I never said.

What exactly is your position? You've spent hours explaining what it ISN'T, claiming people are putting words in your mouth, but haven't ever bothered to elaborate on your own position. I'll ask you one final time, what exactly is your argument?

Stated above. You should have started off with a question like this, rather than just making assumptions.

Now it is, prior to that it was an unsupported assertion. I'll allow us to continue forward from this point. What level of development is sufficient to allow a person to make informed decisions?

Depends on the individual and on the decision.

Why should this kind of exploitation be illegal compared to say, aggressive marketing geared towards teenagers? Is there something special about sex that set's it apart from any other action a teen could logically engage in?

The emotionality involved in sex and relationships and how it relates to both brain development and the explosion of hormones during this time period.

And about this lack of development, how much is it lacking?

Depends on the individual, their age, and the situation.

Do teenagers have no control or only limited control? How much control? How much are they responsible for their actions?

Depends on the individual, their age, and the situation.

Could I, for example, use the lack of brain development as a defense for murder, or is the brain developed enough to understand that concept?

I think you are quite aware that people are often tried under the believe that because of their age, their level of understanding is different from that of an adult.

And why is the age of the partner relevent?

Power differential with the abilty to manipulate.

Are other teens not also exploiting this lack of development, or does their own lack of development make it impossible for them to exploit this weakness?

There is no power differential in this kind of relationship, though an age difference even amongst teens might make a difference.

What is common knowledge?

You seem to be interested in this topic. I would have assumed that you would have read information on it... not only on YOUR position, but on the opposing position. I suppose I was wrong. My error.

You really haven't even made an argument. All you've done is show that teenage brain development is not complete, but haven't demonstrated why that necessarily means they can't have consensual sex with adults. That, my friend, is an opinion, not a fact.

No, I have presented facts. You have now asked for my position based on those facts, which I have done.

You're not saying anything. How can I respond to a non-argument?

You did not ask for my argument. You just made assumptions of what my argument was.. incorrect assumptions. Next time, ask, directly.

So, tell us, What is your argument on this... with some facts and evidence, please.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ok, let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion then, shall we? Let's use science to determine whether someone is capable of consenting to a consensual relationship, and not an arbitrary number, what about that? Let's use brain scans instead of age.

Or if we're going to use age, let's set 25 as the age of consent. After all, "science" says that this is when the brain stops developing, right?

No. This is inefficient. One does not create laws and rules based on the possibility of exceptions. It's like approving a medication. You neither hold up approval because there are ANY side effects whatsover, nor do you assess a medication based on how it affects each individual. You approve based on a general safetiness. Based on this, and the science of brain and hormonal development, I think 21 is a good rule of thumb. 18 would be a bare minimum.

Sorry, you don't get to frame this as a "science vs" debate.

Sorry. You don't get to tell me how I can debate. I'll frame this anyway I choose.

You're side is not the "scientific" side.

Yes, it is, as I have shown.

There is your opinion vs other peoples opinions.

No. There is my position based on scientific evidence. Thus far, I have seen nothing from you... no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps you might want to provide some that supports your position.

It's your opinion that teenagers can't consent to having sex with adults.

Based on the scientific evidence I have provided. Don't forget that part.

Another view is that "although brain development is not completely finished, it has progressed enough to the point where teenagers can be held accountable and responsible for their own actions." See?

This is entirely dependant on the age of the teen and that teen's brain development. Further, you are again making a straw man argument. Please show where I ever said that teens cannot be held responsible for their own actions.

Sure it is, people take driving tests all the time. Individuals who pass get a drivers license and those who don't, don't get one. Same thing would apply for a competency test as Dr. Epstein suggests. The rule is you have to demonstrate competence. Would you object to such a system?

I've read a bit about Dr. Epstien. One of his major flaws is that a competency test does not exist that could measure this, accurately.

 

[March]

Your quote mining has become unbearable at this point, so I will have to summarize to get it back down to a manageable size.

The correct method would have been to ask for links or more information, rather than making an unfounded accusation of "begging the question". I do not take kindly to that kind of debating.

Because your question does not address what I said. Your question is also a false dichotomy. Perhaps you might want to ask your question in an open-ended rather than a close-ended way.

No, I completely understand my argument. I also understand what you are attempting to do. I do not play that way. If you want to discuss this, you can address the points that I have actually made and ask me open-ended question about them. If you attempt to create false dichotomies, I will point that out.

I never asked any loaded questions, that's nonsense. You simply never answered any of my legitimate questions. Nobody created any false-dichotomies either, more nonsense. You made unsupported assertions and I asked you to support them. You claimed to already have supported them yet I've demonstrated that to be false, and so finally you relented and offered some kind of evidence to support those assertions.

Nobody is putting words in you're mouth, you are the one making nonsensical arguments that really only leave us guessing as to what exactly your point is.

You read what I wrote in describing how they are different. Decision-making, impulsivity, motivation, and emotional reactions are all affected. Information is processed differently. We are NOT talking about anything but sex between a teen and an adult, so don't try to change the topic or add other pieces. That is not acceptable. Because of the things that I have identifed and the science has verified, as a general rule, teens are at a disadvantage in a relationship with an adult. It is a power-relationship with the adult having power because of the emotionally driven brains of teens... looking for ways to release these emotions.

The funny thing about logic is that you don't just get to confine it to certain situations where you feel comfortable. If you say "lying is wrong" then it's perfectly acceptable for people to present scenarios in which that is not the case. Likewise, if you say that a teenagers brain is not sufficiently developed to allow them to consent to sex with an adult then it just begs the question of what else their brains don't allow them to take responsibility for. If a teen can't consent to sex then I don't see how they could consent to murdering someone. After all, their delicate, developing brains process emotions differently. That means if someone pisses off a teen they don't know what to do with that anger, so they stab them to death. But hey, it's not the teens fault, it's all those crazy emotions, and the lack of grey matter in the brain and connections to the pre-frontal cortex. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid debate tactic.

So you think the relationship is "disadvantaged" and "based on power," so what? What conclusions should we draw from that observation? So what if it's based on power, what are you getting at? I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth after all. Is there something wrong with that? Should it not be based on power? Should it be illegal because it's based on power? What? What the hell are you saying exactly? Or is it time for you to admit that you aren't actually saying anything useful, and instead screaming holy hell when people make assumptions about what exactly your point is?

In general, it is appropriate for teens to not be able to legally consent to having sex with adults because of the difference in power in those types of relationships, based on the combination of the emotions involved in such relationships and the issues with how teens process emotions and make decisions based on brain development and hormonal/limbic system issues.

But why should this "power" difference mean that teens can't consent to sex? Power differences exist all throughout our society. Marketing and advertisement have a significant power advantage over the average consumer. The goverment has power over the people. Strong minded people have power over weak-minded people. Men almost always have power over females, and sometimes that too can be reversed as well. And what about a 25 year old and a 20 year old? The 20 year olds brain isn't finished developing, and therefore, according to your argument, the 25 year old has power over the 20 year. Should the 25 year old be thrown in jail? Why or why not?

All you've done is demonstrate that the teenage brain is still developing. That doesn't somehow lead to >>>> cannot consent to sex.

Your comment "how adolescents -- for various reasons -- can't make informed decisions" is a straw man. I never said that. Please learn how to debate around arguments I make, not arguments you WANT me to have made.

Nonsense, your logic clearly implies that. You said "Better decision-making, using cognative skills rather than impulsive/emotional decisions can lead to better and more informed outcomes." What are we supposed to gain from that? If you have no implications, then it's just useless information, totally irrelevent. So which is it?

Of course it's a loaded question. It creates a scenario that only has options that are NOT part of the scenario that I have presented. Please demonstrate where I have claimed that because of a teens hormones, they are NOT responsible for their behavior. I'll give you a hint. I haven't. This is the straw man YOU have created, because it's what you want to debate against. Have fun debating yourself; it's not my argument you are debating, though.

No, that's not what I said... it's what you WANT me to have said, because, seemingly, you know how to debate THAT argument.

Nothing logical about that since you are arguing against something I never said.

Stated above. You should have started off with a question like this, rather than just making assumptions.

Very well then, if that is not your position, then I declare a teen is responsible for their own actions, including who they choose as sexual partners. Nobody is to "blame," because each individual is responsible for their own actions. Thus, no law should assign blame to anyone, because teens are just as responsible for their behavior as adults are. Because teens are responsible for their own actions we can't make a law that says an adult should go to jail for having sex with a teen, because in fact he did nothing wrong, because teens are responsible for their own actions. Would you agree or disagree with this declaration? Why or why not? (Either way, I win. Either I've demonstrated that this is in fact your position, or you agree with me that no wrong has been committed in such a relationship).


As far as my argument, I believe many teenagers have developed enough cognitive function to be able to distinguish between right and wrong, to be able to consent to sexual relations with whoever they choose, to vote, to drive a car, own property, work whatever job they want to, etc. The fact that the brain is still developing is irrelevent in my opinion, my arms are still developing until my 30's, but that doesn't mean I can't lift weights. The best system would be one that more accurately reflects reality instead of making assumptions and self-fulfilling prophecies about age. A competency test should suffice for this purpose. Instead of making blanket generalizations about people of certain ages, we judge them as individuals.

 

[nonpareil]

I think you're confusing scientific fact with unsupported assertion. It's a fact that the brain is not full developed in teenagers. It's your opinion that it has not developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex. Understand the difference?

I think you're confused about who said what. If you can find a quote of me saying: teenage brain is "not developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex", then show it. Otherwise, calm down and actually reply to what I say (or reply to CC is that's what he said, though I haven't read him saying that either).

You know what he/she meant, our society tries to stop the inevitable. They've made a declaration that teenagers having sex is a bad thing, as they have often done in the past (homosexuals, pre-marital relations, inter-racial, etc.).

I know what s/he wrote. I can't read someone's mind over the internet from thousand of km away. If what s/he wrote is not what s/he meant, and then I think s/he's the best person to clarify that, not you.

And societies is not trying "to stop the inevitable" (the phrase just smack of teenage drama), it tries to discourage adult from having sex with minor. If we thought it will stop people from having sex with minor completely, we wouldn't bother with detailed punishments for those who violate the law and have proceedings to punish them.

It does lead to collective stupidity, though. Five hundred dumbasses don't somehow equal an Einstein.

Again, smack of teenage outburst that has no relevance to anything I said whatsoever.

The law should most accurately reflect the facts, and not unsupported premises and assertions. Placing the burden of proof on the prosecution would largely solve this problem. You claim the "victim" wasn't able to consent? Prove it. They do it in murder trials all the time, why should sex be any different?

The Law reflects the values of society. The burden of prove is on the Prosecution. The Law states that a minor cannot give consent. If someone is proven to be a minor - then the fact, according to the Law, is that consent couldn't be given. Anything else is a contradiction in Law.

I think the problem might be that you don't understand how the Law works.

 

[March]

No. This is inefficient. One does not create laws and rules based on the possibility of exceptions. It's like approving a medication. You neither hold up approval because there are ANY side effects whatsover, nor do you assess a medication based on how it affects each individual. You approve based on a general safetiness. Based on this, and the science of brain and hormonal development, I think 21 is a good rule of thumb. 18 would be a bare minimum.

My my what a coincidence, 18 and 21. And this is based on "science," not numbers you've been indoctrinated since childhood to accept as the norm, right?

And why 21? The brain can and often does continue developing past that age, why not 22 or 23? Why should 18 be the minimum by the way? Explain your answer, because if I had to guess I'd have to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with the "science of brain development" and everything to do with the social norms that CaptainCourtesy was raised in, more than anything else.

And that's funny too, 21 for the age of consent. See how following silly arguments makes you defend untenable positions? What actually happened here is that you made the conclusion before the argument. You already rejected the idea of teen liberty before it was even presented, then went about trying to form an argument for why the beliefs you've held your entire life are correct. You did not independently arrive at the figures 18 and 21 through reason and self-inquiry, don't lie to yourself.

And by the way, what if the law simply said "prosecution must demonstrate that victim was unable to consent." What is wrong with that? Why can't the law say that, because you said so? It has to be a specific number? Why? Because all people of a certain age group are the same? No, clearly they are not. Inefficient? Well I would certainly hope so! We don't want to make it "more efficient" for the government to lock up innocent people.

Sorry. You don't get to tell me how I can debate. I'll frame this anyway I choose.

Not truthfully you won't!

Yes, it is, as I have shown.

No. There is my position based on scientific evidence. Thus far, I have seen nothing from you... no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps you might want to provide some that supports your position.

Based on the scientific evidence I have provided. Don't forget that part.

But you are being delusional again, because you never provided "scientific evidence" that teens can't consent to sex with adults. That is your opinion, remember? Your opinion is not science, it is based on indoctrination. The only thing you provided evidence for was that teens brains are still developing. Thats it. That does not necessarily lead to >>> therefore they can't consent to having sex with adults. Not in any way.

I will show you a similar argument: In males, the chest muscles continue to develop well past the 20's. Therefore, prior to age 30, men can't lift weights. You see what happened there? First a fact is presented, then a conclusion which is supposedly based upon the fact yet totally does not follow from it. It's called a non-sequitur, and that's exactly what your argument is.

This is entirely dependant on the age of the teen and that teen's brain development. Further, you are again making a straw man argument. Please show where I ever said that teens cannot be held responsible for their own actions.

You literally JUST said that, in the quote above. Man oh man I would love to get my hands on whatever it is that you are smoking that could cause that kind of memory loss.

Me: It's your opinion that teenagers can't consent to having sex with adults.
You: Based on the scientific evidence I have provided. Don't forget that part
You: Please show where I ever said that teens cannot be held responsible for their own actions

Hello? You just said teens can't consent to having sex with adults, allegedly based upon "scientific evidence."

I've read a bit about Dr. Epstien. One of his major flaws is that a competency test does not exist that could measure this, accurately.

That means we can't make one? You know before the invention of electricity people didn't have a place to plug in their t.v.'s either...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Your quote mining has become unbearable at this point, so I will have to summarize to get it back down to a manageable size.

If a point needs to be addressed, individually, I will do so.

I never asked any loaded questions, that's nonsense.

Of course you did, as I demonstrated.

You simply never answered any of my legitimate questions.

Any legitimate questions you made were answered. Any logical fallacies were exposed and then ignored.

Nobody created any false-dichotomies either, more nonsense.

You did so repeatedly. I pointed them out. I hope you are quite done with presenting fallacies such as those.

You made unsupported assertions and I asked you to support them. You claimed to already have supported them yet I've demonstrated that to be false, and so finally you relented and offered some kind of evidence to support those assertions.

I presented information. Instead of asking for more information or substantiation, you went on a logical fallacy binge. Perhaps, next time, you might want to ask logical questions rather than assumptive questions.

Nobody is putting words in you're mouth, you are the one making nonsensical arguments that really only leave us guessing as to what exactly your point is.

Of course you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I, of course will not allow you to do so.

The funny thing about logic is that you don't just get to confine it to certain situations where you feel comfortable. If you say "lying is wrong" then it's perfectly acceptable for people to present scenarios in which that is not the case. Likewise, if you say that a teenagers brain is not sufficiently developed to allow them to consent to sex with an adult then it just begs the question of what else their brains don't allow them to take responsibility for. If a teen can't consent to sex then I don't see how they could consent to murdering someone. After all, their delicate, developing brains process emotions differently. That means if someone pisses off a teen they don't know what to do with that anger, so they stab them to death. But hey, it's not the teens fault, it's all those crazy emotions, and the lack of grey matter in the brain and connections to the pre-frontal cortex. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid debate tactic.

What's funny is that when we are talking about one scenario, that does not mean that it applies to another scenario. You are doing it again. Making a straw man argument... claiming that I hold a position that I do not, just because you can't argue the position I actually hold... and because you prefer to argue a different position, probably because it is easier for you. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. Your above paragraph, therefore is nothing but nonsense. Try again.

So you think the relationship is "disadvantaged" and "based on power," so what? What conclusions should we draw from that observation? So what if it's based on power, what are you getting at? I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth after all. Is there something wrong with that? Should it not be based on power? Should it be illegal because it's based on power? What? What the hell are you saying exactly? Or is it time for you to admit that you aren't actually saying anything useful, and instead screaming holy hell when people make assumptions about what exactly your point is?

You seem to be good at being hysterical... that is what your "screaming" seems to be amounting to. I have already explained my position on this. Power relationships lend themselves to manipulation. This creates scenarios where an individual can be taken advantage of... and yes, this should be illegal in my view.

But why should this "power" difference mean that teens can't consent to sex? Power differences exist all throughout our society. Marketing and advertisement have a significant power advantage over the average consumer. The goverment has power over the people. Strong minded people have power over weak-minded people. Men almost always have power over females, and sometimes that too can be reversed as well. And what about a 25 year old and a 20 year old? The 20 year olds brain isn't finished developing, and therefore, according to your argument, the 25 year old has power over the 20 year. Should the 25 year old be thrown in jail? Why or why not?

Sorry. Diversionary tactics do not work with me. Do try to stay focused on the topic at hand. The issue is not society, or government, or jail. The issue is the how brain and hormonal differences create a power differential between teens and adults and how this differential causes the potential for adults to easily manipulate a teen in sexual situations.

All you've done is demonstrate that the teenage brain is still developing. That doesn't somehow lead to >>>> cannot consent to sex.

Since I never made a claim that a teen cannot consent to sex, your point is irrelevant. It seems to be very hard for you to stay on topic. I will continue to attempt to help you to do so.

Nonsense, your logic clearly implies that. You said "Better decision-making, using cognative skills rather than impulsive/emotional decisions can lead to better and more informed outcomes." What are we supposed to gain from that? If you have no implications, then it's just useless information, totally irrelevent. So which is it?

Nonsense. You are straw manning AGAIN. Seems to be your main form of debate. Not very effective. I never said that teens cannot make informed decisions. The implications of what I said... if you read it as written, are that teens have less of an ability to make informed decisions based on cognition alone. Because of this and the hormonal element of sexuality... and the increased hormonal activity with teens, making decisions around sexual activity are more difficult, cogntively, for teens to make. I hope this was clear so you will not continue to misrepresent my position.

Very well then, if that is not your position, then I declare a teen is responsible for their own actions, including who they choose as sexual partners. Nobody is to "blame," because each individual is responsible for their own actions. Thus, no law should assign blame to anyone, because teens are just as responsible for their behavior as adults are. Because teens are responsible for their own actions we can't make a law that says an adult should go to jail for having sex with a teen, because in fact he did nothing wrong, because teens are responsible for their own actions. Would you agree or disagree with this declaration? Why or why not? (Either way, I win. Either I've demonstrated that this is in fact your position, or you agree with me that no wrong has been committed in such a relationship).

Your "declaration" is without substantiation and refutes nothing that I stated, nor any of the information that I provided. Further, as usual, your "position" is a logical fallacy... a false dichotomy. A teen is not always either responsible or not. It depends. Further, a teen teen is not fully responsible for behaviors that they are manipulated into doing, especially when that manipulation is based on both a power relationship and issues with brain development and hormones. You lost... easily and without mounting any defense whatsoever. You are not very good at this debate-thing, probably because your arguments are false dichotomies or straw men.

As far as my argument, I believe many teenagers have developed enough cognitive function to be able to distinguish between right and wrong, to be able to consent to sexual relations with whoever they choose, to vote, to drive a car, own property, work whatever job they want to, etc. The fact that the brain is still developing is irrelevent in my opinion, my arms are still developing until my 30's, but that doesn't mean I can't lift weights. The best system would be one that more accurately reflects reality instead of making assumptions and self-fulfilling prophecies about age. A competency test should suffice for this purpose. Instead of making blanket generalizations about people of certain ages, we judge them as individuals.

"I believe". Weak. Further, as I said, there is not competency test to measure maturity, since even definng maturity is complex. Also, what you propose is entirely inefficient. Science is on my side. All you have is "I believe".

 

[March]

I think you're confused about who said what. If you can find a quote of me saying: teenage brain is "not developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex", then show it. Otherwise, calm down and actually reply to what I say (or reply to CC is that's what he said, though I haven't read him saying that either).

So IS IT sufficiently developed to allow teenagers to consent to sex, then? I'm tired of playing these games with you guys. If you do NOT believe that statement to be true, is it safe to assume that you disagree with it?

You object to the statement: "(teenage brain) not developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex." Ok, so what is your position, that it HAS developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex? Or what exactly is the basis of your objection, besides the fact that you did not specifically say it. Do you agree with it or not?

And societies is not trying "to stop the inevitable" (the phrase just smack of teenage drama), it tries to discourage adult from having sex with minor. If we thought it will stop people from having sex with minor completely, we wouldn't bother with detailed punishments for those who violate the law and have proceedings to punish them.

Non sequitur.

The Law reflects the values of society. The burden of prove is on the Prosecution. The Law states that a minor cannot give consent. If someone is proven to be a minor - then the fact, according to the Law, is that consent couldn't be given. Anything else is a contradiction in Law.

The law reflects ignorance, stupidity, and laziness, and should be changed. The law incorrectly states that a minor cannot give consent, even when this is a totally unsupported premise. Thus, the law should be such that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the minor could not give consent, rather than a blanket law -- which does not ever have to prove it's premise.

I think the problem might be that you don't understand how the Law works.

No the problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand how a debate works. You see, when somebody is questioning the law itself, you can't then use the law as support for your position. It doesn't work like that.

For example:
"Gay marriage should be legal."
"No, the law says gay marriage is not legal."

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

My my what a coincidence, 18 and 21. And this is based on "science," not numbers you've been indoctrinated since childhood to accept as the norm, right?

And why 21? The brain can and often does continue developing past that age, why not 22 or 23? Why should 18 be the minimum by the way? Explain your answer, because if I had to guess I'd have to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with the "science of brain development" and everything to do with the social norms that CaptainCourtesy was raised in, more than anything else.

And that's funny too, 21 for the age of consent. See how following silly arguments makes you defend untenable positions? What actually happened here is that you made the conclusion before the argument. You already rejected the idea of teen liberty before it was even presented, then went about trying to form an argument for why the beliefs you've held your entire life are correct. You did not independently arrive at the figures 18 and 21 through reason and self-inquiry, don't lie to yourself.

And by the way, what if the law simply said "prosecution must demonstrate that victim was unable to consent." What is wrong with that? Why can't the law say that, because you said so? It has to be a specific number? Why? Because all people of a certain age group are the same? No, clearly they are not. Inefficient? Well I would certainly hope so! We don't want to make it "more efficient" for the government to lock up innocent people.

More hysterics. And again, you are not paying attention. All you are doing is creating your own arguments, rather than responding to mine. As I have said, science shows that brain development is usually completed by the early 20's. 21 is the early 20's. See how easy that was? You might want to pay attention more than you are. Further, brain development is not a "light switch". Unlike your thinking, which is total black or white, with no ability to see shades of gray, brain development is a continuum. Based on MRI scans, I would imagine that there has been enough brain development at the age of 21 for individuals to, mostly, make decisions that are not over-ridden with impulsivity and emotionality. Further, since not everyone develops at the same rate, 21 seems like the appropriate age. I don't like 18 and only mentioned it because it is often used. I would consider it a bare minimum, but really do not accept it because of brain development stage.

Not truthfully you won't!

Of course I did. The only one debating dishonestly is you. Probably because that's all you've got.

But you are being delusional again, because you never provided "scientific evidence" that teens can't consent to sex with adults. That is your opinion, remember? Your opinion is not science, it is based on indoctrination. The only thing you provided evidence for was that teens brains are still developing. Thats it. That does not necessarily lead to >>> therefore they can't consent to having sex with adults. Not in any way.

You are still not paying attention. I presented science, demonstrating how teen brains work and the issues with them making decision. I also applied this to the power relationship and to manipulation. You, on the other hand, have presented nothing. I know it bothers you that you have been so soundly defeated, but that is your problem. Rather than making personal attacks, you might want to try to educate yourself both on the issue and on how to debate.

I will show you a similar argument: In males, the chest muscles continue to develop well past the 20's. Therefore, prior to age 30, men can't lift weights. You see what happened there? First a fact is presented, then a conclusion which is supposedly based upon the fact yet totally does not follow from it. It's called a non-sequitur, and that's exactly what your argument is.

You did it AGAIN. False premise. Seems like you are unable to see things that are not black or white. Here is an accurate description of your example. In males, the chest muscles continue to develop well past the 20's. Therefore, proir to age 30, men may continue to improve in lifting weights.

What I just did above is demonstrate the failure in all of your arguments. You cannot seem to understand that things are not black/white.

You literally JUST said that, in the quote above. Man oh man I would love to get my hands on whatever it is that you are smoking that could cause that kind of memory loss.

Me: It's your opinion that teenagers can't consent to having sex with adults.
You: Based on the scientific evidence I have provided. Don't forget that part
You: Please show where I ever said that teens cannot be held responsible for their own actions

Hello? You just said teens can't consent to having sex with adults, allegedly based upon "scientific evidence."

Please quote where I said, EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD, that teens cannot be held responsible for their behaviors. I have been clear that this depends on the situation and on a continuum. Unlike you, I understand that things are more complex than being just black or white.

That means we can't make one? You know before the invention of electricity people didn't have a place to plug in their t.v.'s either...

There were no TV's before electricity. Until a competency test is created, one cannot be used. REAL simple concept.

 

[March]

If a point needs to be addressed, individually, I will do so.

Ok, you asked for it. Let me know when you want to get back to rational discussion so we can end this.

Of course you did, as I demonstrated.

Nope you're lying.

Any legitimate questions you made were answered. Any logical fallacies were exposed and then ignored.

nope another lie

You did so repeatedly. I pointed them out. I hope you are quite done with presenting fallacies such as those.

Nope, you're just making things up now.

I presented information. Instead of asking for more information or substantiation, you went on a logical fallacy binge. Perhaps, next time, you might want to ask logical questions rather than assumptive questions.

Fact is you made unsupported assertions and I called you on it, end of story.

Of course you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I, of course will not allow you to do so.

And of course you're lying, again.

What's funny is that when we are talking about one scenario, that does not mean that it applies to another scenario. You are doing it again. Making a straw man argument... claiming that I hold a position that I do not, just because you can't argue the position I actually hold... and because you prefer to argue a different position, probably because it is easier for you. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. Your above paragraph, therefore is nothing but nonsense. Try again.

Reductio ad absurdum is a completely valid debate tactic and has been used for centuries. The method is internationally recognized. There was nor straw man argument, only your logic taken to it's logical end.

You seem to be good at being hysterical... that is what your "screaming" seems to be amounting to. I have already explained my position on this. Power relationships lend themselves to manipulation. This creates scenarios where an individual can be taken advantage of... and yes, this should be illegal in my view.

Wow, seriously? I have to ask? "Why should it be illegal?"

Sorry. Diversionary tactics do not work with me. Do try to stay focused on the topic at hand. The issue is not society, or government, or jail. The issue is the how brain and hormonal differences create a power differential between teens and adults and how this differential causes the potential for adults to easily manipulate a teen in sexual situations.

Wow, congratulations. You are officially the densest person I have ever met. Rational debate is literally impossible with you. Very well, we'll just keep going in circles then because you don't seem to understand the implications of your own logic. Why should it be illegal for an adult to manipulate a teen in sexual situations?

Since I never made a claim that a teen cannot consent to sex, your point is irrelevant. It seems to be very hard for you to stay on topic. I will continue to attempt to help you to do so.

You said it should be illegal for adults to have sex with teens, why is that?

Nonsense. You are straw manning AGAIN. Seems to be your main form of debate. Not very effective. I never said that teens cannot make informed decisions. The implications of what I said... if you read it as written, are that teens have less of an ability to make informed decisions based on cognition alone. Because of this and the hormonal element of sexuality... and the increased hormonal activity with teens, making decisions around sexual activity are more difficult, cogntively, for teens to make. I hope this was clear so you will not continue to misrepresent my position.

So what if it's more difficult?

Your "declaration" is without substantiation and refutes nothing that I stated, nor any of the information that I provided. Further, as usual, your "position" is a logical fallacy... a false dichotomy. A teen is not always either responsible or not. It depends. Further, a teen teen is not fully responsible for behaviors that they are manipulated into doing, especially when that manipulation is based on both a power relationship and issues with brain development and hormones. You lost... easily and without mounting any defense whatsoever. You are not very good at this debate-thing, probably because your arguments are false dichotomies or straw men.

I win, because you refused to answer any questions.

I declare a teen is responsible for their own actions, including who they choose as sexual partners. Nobody is to "blame," because each individual is responsible for their own actions. Thus, no law should assign blame to anyone, because teens are just as responsible for their behavior as adults are. Because teens are responsible for their own actions we can't make a law that says an adult should go to jail for having sex with a teen, because in fact he did nothing wrong, because teens are responsible for their own actions.

You neither agree nor disagree with this statement, apparently. So again, rational discussion is not possible. You'd rather whine and cry about how people are engaging in logical fallacies when you're the only one who is doing so.

"I believe". Weak. Further, as I said, there is not competency test to measure maturity, since even definng maturity is complex. Also, what you propose is entirely inefficient. Science is on my side. All you have is "I believe".

Hahaha, you're entire position can be reduced to the belief that use of certain words somehow impart authority. You used the word "science," that means your position is "scientific." I used the word "believe," that means my position is based on "beliefs."

Creation "science."
Evolution "theory."

Well I guess one side has "science" on their side and the other is just a "theory." LMAO Logic 1, You 0.

Let me know when you've graduated in the debate world. I've been doing this a lot longer than you my friend. How can I tell? Easy, the quote mining was the first give-away, that usually stops after the 3rd or 4th year.

 

[nonpareil]

So IS IT sufficiently developed to allow teenagers to consent to sex, then? I'm tired of playing these games with you guys. If you do NOT believe that statement to be true, is it safe to assume that you disagree with it?

No. It's not safe to assume anything. Ask instead, don't assume.

You object to the statement: "(teenage brain) not developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex." Ok, so what is your position, that it HAS developed sufficiently enough to allow teenagers to consent to sex? Or what exactly is the basis of your objection, besides the fact that you did not specifically say it. Do you agree with it or not?

My position is that teenagers are not mature enough (whether from brain development or life experience) to give legal consent - and this is not particular to sex.

My stance on statutory rape is about personal belief - I think it's sick of adult to have sex with teenagers. The law is there to discourage them from doing this. If I have to choose an arbitrary point - I would choose 18.

Non sequitur.

Whatever.

The law reflects ignorance, stupidity, and laziness, and should be changed. The law incorrectly states that a minor cannot give consent, even when this is a totally unsupported premise. Thus, the law should be such that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the minor could not give consent, rather than a blanket law -- which does not ever have to prove it's premise.

The Law sets the premise, the procedures and the sentence. The Law says a minor can't give consent - that is the premise. To show that consent couldn't be given, all the prosecution has to do is prove that the party is a minor - again this is according to the Law and the burden of prove is on the prosecution. And when that is satisfactory to the extend of the law, the Prosecution will ask for the sentence on the guilty party. Everything done according to the Law. If the prosecution has done anything that is not according to the Law - i.e. illegal - then please let us know.

Even if you think that not allowing travelling is a "stupid" rule in Basketball, that's still what the rule says. The referee only has to show that the player travelled to call him, he doesn't have to show why not allowing travelling is "stupid" rule.

If you want to argue that the should be changed, that's entirely different from the arguement you made above. You have yet to rationally argue why it should be changed, verified by objective evidence. Using emotional appeal like "ignorance, stupidity, and laziness" and so on are not proper arguements.

No the problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand how a debate works. You see, when somebody is questioning the law itself, you can't then use the law as support for your position. It doesn't work like that.

And who made you the arbiter of how debates work? Is that how you understand debating to work? You telling others the rule that is advantageous to you? Sorry, you were mistaken.

You weren't putting up rational arguement why the Law should be changed, instead you went on about "placing the burden of proof on the prosecution", according to the Law you want to change, that's exactly what's going on. So why change it?

For example:
"Gay marriage should be legal."
"No, the law says gay marriage is not legal."

Except that's not what you said. You said:

The law should most accurately reflect the facts, and not unsupported premises and assertions. Placing the burden of proof on the prosecution would largely solve this problem. You claim the "victim" wasn't able to consent? Prove it. They do it in murder trials all the time, why should sex be any different?

I explained correctly that the Law does exactly all that. It doesn't ask for a different standard on sex than on Murder. The Law sets the premise of what is a Murder as it does on who can give consent. The Law asks for facts - is the party a minor or not? The Burden of prove as to whether the party is a minor is on the Prosecution.

Let me give you another example: Some Muslims would argue that judging Honour Killing as Murder "reflects ignorance, stupidity, and laziness, and should be changed".

But the Law clearly states what actions constitute Murder, and the Prosecution has to prove that those actions took place to prove that a murder took place. The Prosecution doesn't have to prove why prosecuting Honour Killing as Murder is not "ignorant, stupid, and laziness".

And saying that "gay marriage should be legal" is not enough to change the law, proper rational arguements about why "gay marriage should be legal" might (other than your opinion that it's "stupid" "lazy" and so on), but you haven't offered it.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Seriously... all this nonsense to try to rationalize inappropriate behavior with a minor.


Pretty ****ing sick if you ask me.

 

[Panache]

Someone hasn't read the studies that demonstrate the difference between a fully developed adult brain and a not fully developed adolescent brain. Someone also doesn't understand the impact that hormones have on teenagers.

So there are no diferences between a 20 year old's brain and a 70 year old's brain?

Do hormones have no impact on adults?

 

[Panache]

This does beg the question, will people one day be able to be certified "sexual consent mature" by a MRI image instead of going by age?

Begging the Question

 

[Panache]

The adolescent brain is not very mature, their hormonal are new to them and many make impulsive decisions that are extremely harmful. If you want adolescents to be treated like adults, then have them get full time jobs and pay their way for everything. I don't support lowering the age of consent, and I believe that todays teenagers are extremely immature. If anything, we should force all teenagers to take money management classes and get part time jobs in high school to help mature them.

The 30 year old brain is not very mature, their hormones are still relatively new to them and many make impulsive decisions that are extremely harmful. If you want 30 year olds to be treated like octagenarians, then put them in a home. We should raise the age of consent to 65.

 

[molten_dragon]

You hope they show up with a loaded pistol huh?

So do I. That would make for awesome TV.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So there are no diferences between a 20 year old's brain and a 70 year old's brain?

Never said that.

Do hormones have no impact on adults?

Never said that either. The impact is different.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The 30 year old brain is not very mature, their hormones are still relatively new to them and many make impulsive decisions that are extremely harmful. If you want 30 year olds to be treated like octagenarians, then put them in a home. We should raise the age of consent to 65.

And you have MRI data to back this up, of course.

 

[Panache]

And you have MRI data to back this up, of course.

Are the terms "very mature," "new," "impulsive decision," and "extremely harmful" quantitative variables that an MRI would demonstrate? As a work of satire, I don't think my post should be held to any standard not applied to the original.

 

[Temporal]

Firstly, your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

Using science to make laws and rules is probably the most efficient method we might have. It is neither possible or efficient to create laws/rules based on indivualization. You do not make decisions based on the the exceptions to the rule. You create the rule and then evaluate the exceptions.

And my anecdotal experience is relevant to me, as I am an individual, just as your scientific background makes you an anecdotal voice in the chorus on this subjective issue. Trying to act as though you have the moral high ground is irrelevant in a debate like this.

You're arguing that brain development dictates the laws, even though the age of consent laws generally pre-date the MRI. Brain development is not relevant to this issue. Age of consent has always related to material stability and power dynamics (the former being the most important), and not brain development. This is mainly due to concern surrounding childbearing and the resources to care for offspring. If anything, the brain argument just reinforces ageism instead of openness in accounting for the varied exceptions that come up. It's incidental and a convenient segue that's a product of modern thought and little else.

Also, let's not forget that marriage among teens was very common not too long ago in our short history as a country. It was common for a young woman to be married to an older man as part of a family arrangement and traditional values. This still happens in the world. In fact, in most traditional societies, the issue of teens having sex with adults is less relevant to whether or not they are married when they have sex.

In the modern world where we have contraception, a young population hitting puberty sooner, more open sexual norms, and a culture of individualism, the age of consent laws should be reformed. I only mentioned my anecdotal experience to demonstrate that young people can and will have intimate relations with adults, and it has the capacity to be NOT wrong. There's no point in denying that many young people have the capacity to have meaningful relationships with adults.

 

[Panache]

Never said that.

If my reading comprehension skills are correct, (and I did score very highly on the SATs in that section) there was a strong implication in your post that if someone had read studies about the difference between an adult brain and an adolescent brain that someone would have come to a different conclusion about the ability of an adolescent to consent to sex.

If there is similarly a difference between the brain of a 20 year old and that of a 70 year old, why would someone not come to a similar conclusion about the ability of a 20 year old to consent to sex?

Never said that either. The impact is different.

Is the impact different between a 20 year old and a 70 year old? Is it different between a 30 year old woman and one going through menopause?

The adolescent brain may not be fully matured, but neither is the 20 year old brain, or the 35 year old brain. Having a fully matured brain seems like a poor prerequisite for the ability to consent.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ok, you asked for it. Let me know when you want to get back to rational discussion so we can end this.

I've been discussing this rationally. I'm still waiting for you to start.

Nope you're lying.



nope another lie



Nope, you're just making things up now.

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt. Good description of your debate style. I've exposed that you do not know how to debate properly. If you learn, you might not have to resort to logical fallacies and then complaining when they get pointed out.

Fact is you made unsupported assertions and I called you on it, end of story.

Fact is I supported my positions with substantiation, you didn't like it, so now you are crying. Sorry. Fresh out of tissues.

And of course you're lying, again.

And of course you remain in denial.

Reductio ad absurdum is a completely valid debate tactic and has been used for centuries. The method is internationally recognized. There was nor straw man argument, only your logic taken to it's logical end.

This is you creating an argument that you can debate because you cannot debate the argument I've presented. Of course reductio ad absurdum is a valid debate tactic. I never said it wasn't. What I said was that you were not using it. You committed a straw man fallacy, AGAIN.

Wow, seriously? I have to ask? "Why should it be illegal?"

I think I already explained this, repeatedly.

Wow, congratulations. You are officially the densest person I have ever met. Rational debate is literally impossible with you. Very well, we'll just keep going in circles then because you don't seem to understand the implications of your own logic. Why should it be illegal for an adult to manipulate a teen in sexual situations?

Poor March. It is obvious that when you get destroyed in debate, you need to resort to ad homs. Probably the only thing that you have left, since you've tried almost every other logical fallacy. Now, I know you would prefer to discuss things that you can actually debate... though I have no idea what those things could be, but do tty to stay focused on the topic at hand.

You said it should be illegal for adults to have sex with teens, why is that?

Stated many times. Reduced ability for teens to make these kinds of decisions based on brain development and hormonal activity, which makes it far easier for them to be manipulated in a power relationship with adults.

So what if it's more difficult?

What are you asking?

I win, because you refused to answer any questions.

You lose because you made the absurd claim that you won. Only very inexperienced and weak debaters do this while providing no information. This is how you would be described.

I declare a teen is responsible for their own actions, including who they choose as sexual partners. Nobody is to "blame," because each individual is responsible for their own actions. Thus, no law should assign blame to anyone, because teens are just as responsible for their behavior as adults are. Because teens are responsible for their own actions we can't make a law that says an adult should go to jail for having sex with a teen, because in fact he did nothing wrong, because teens are responsible for their own actions.

"I declare". :lol: :lol: :lol: More evidence of an inexperienced and weak debater. You don't say "I declare" and expect that you are correct, especially when you offer no evidence, no logic, and no substantiation. You sound like someone holding their hands over their ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALA".

Your position is rejected for lack of evidence, substantiation, and logic. Try again.

You neither agree nor disagree with this statement, apparently. So again, rational discussion is not possible. You'd rather whine and cry about how people are engaging in logical fallacies when you're the only one who is doing so.

Only one here whining and crying is you. Not my fault you can't debate properly and tried to use logical fallacies to prove your position. If you don't like being called on this, don't do it. Real simple.

Hahaha, you're entire position can be reduced to the belief that use of certain words somehow impart authority. You used the word "science," that means your position is "scientific." I used the word "believe," that means my position is based on "beliefs."

You do know the difference between fact and opinion, right? Here... I'll tell you. Facts are what I have and opinions are what you have. So, which do you think wins out on that competition?

Creation "science."
Evolution "theory."

Well I guess one side has "science" on their side and the other is just a "theory." LMAO Logic 1, You 0.

Now you are just spouting nonsense. I suppose that is what you do when you get upset that you have been thoroughly beaten.

Let me know when you've graduated in the debate world. I've been doing this a lot longer than you my friend. How can I tell? Easy, the quote mining was the first give-away, that usually stops after the 3rd or 4th year.

It's pretty obvious that you are a noob when it comes to debate. You are unable to form a proper argument without committing fallacies of logic, you offer no substantiation for your position, you use personal attack, and you get over-emotional when you are proven wrong. Your weakness is also evidenced by your false need to claim you know what you are doing in debate. Perhaps if you actually learned how to debate, you wouldn't have to make those claims... but, based on your style, no one would believe for a second that you know what you are doing... even when you claim that you do.

If you would like to be educated on how to debate, I can recommend some good websites or show you some good debates here at DP. Just let me know if I can help.

 

[Temporal]

^ Plus, what is a "fully developed brain"? What about people who have brain damage, have developmental differences than the general population, or their brains develop faster than the stated age range? Again I mention myself... when I was 16, my youngest friend was 19, the others 22, 24, and 26. They were my best friends, and one of them I was in a relationship with. My peers were hopelessly incompatible with me.

But the science buffs will continue to try and assert some kind of sterile, statistical reason for why the laws make sense. If there's an exception to the rule, we'll just ignore it because it doesn't fit with our established notions - even though the laws are arbitrary as they always have been. :shrug:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And my anecdotal experience is relevant to me, as I am an individual, just as your scientific background makes you an anecdotal voice in the chorus on this subjective issue. Trying to act as though you have the moral high ground is irrelevant in a debate like this.

Are you seriously claiming that anectodal evidence is as valid as science? So, if peanuts make you ill, but science shows that peanuts are healthy for most people, you would claim that peanuts should be banned? That's ridiculous.

You're arguing that brain development dictates the laws, even though the age of consent laws generally pre-date the MRI.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that current age of consent laws can be justified by brain development.

Brain development is not relevant to this issue.

Too bad. That's what I'm arguing and you have yet to prove that it is not relevant. In fact, what I have presented demonstrates that it certainly IS relelvant.

Age of consent has always related to material stability and power dynamics (the former being the most important), and not brain development.

That's nice. Not what I'm arguing though. That was then.

This is mainly due to concern surrounding childbearing and the resources to care for offspring. If anything, the brain argument just reinforces ageism instead of openness in accounting for the varied exceptions that come up. It's incidental and a convenient segue that's a product of modern thought and little else.

It confirms what we have always observed.

Also, let's not forget that marriage among teens was very common not too long ago in our short history as a country. It was common for a young woman to be married to an older man as part of a family arrangement and traditional values. This still happens in the world. In fact, in most traditional societies, the issue of teens having sex with adults is less relevant to whether or not they are married when they have sex.

OK. Not relevant to my argument, though.

In the modern world where we have contraception, a young population hitting puberty sooner, more open sexual norms, and a culture of individualism, the age of consent laws should be reformed. I only mentioned my anecdotal experience to demonstrate that young people can and will have intimate relations with adults, and it has the capacity to be NOT wrong. There's no point in denying that many young people have the capacity to have meaningful relationships with adults.

Define "meaningful relationship".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

^ Plus, what is a "fully developed brain"? What about people who have brain damage, have developmental differences than the general population, or their brains develop faster than the stated age range? Again I mention myself... when I was 16, my youngest friend was 19, the others 22, 24, and 26. They were my best friends, and one of them I was in a relationship with. My peers were hopelessly incompatible with me.

Thank you. You just helped to prove my point. "My peers were hopelessly incompatible with me." Perhaps you were different. One does not make rules/laws based on the exception.

But the science buffs will continue to try and assert some kind of sterile, statistical reason for why the laws make sense. If there's an exception to the rule, we'll just ignore it because it doesn't fit with our established notions - even though the laws are arbitrary as they always have been. :shrug:

I would prefer to have laws based on scientific evidence than those that are not. If you do not, that is your perogative.