Age of consent?

there a thirteen year old in my village, who is pregnant, with her 14 year old boyfriend.
this shouldnt be happening.

 

But you gotta admit, that's still progress from where things were before when something like this happened and the women was completely viewed as a victim. It's headed in the right direction if the goal of equal under the law is the argument, well see if we get there in the future.

 

What exactly shouldn't be happening?~ Be specific on what you disagree upon and WHY.~

It you simply throw a statement like that no one is really sure what you are talking about.~

Morality is not assumed and it is not universal, everything is different and right and wrong to someone~

But we're not talking imposing YOUR morality system upon on everyone, we're talking about how to re-establish the laws considering age and sex.~

 

This is exactly my point, that is why I proposed for system that uses an individual case by case basis.~

 

I would agree with that. Consent needs to be based on maturity level and understanding of the circumstances, not how many days you've been on the planet. I know people who could consent at a young age, and I know people who're in their 30s who can't tie their fucking shoes, so I have doubts about their ability to consent to sexual activity.

 

i meant 19 (boyfriend)

 

I'm 100% with this point of view. Being a Mother of a 17yr old daughter I can say that she matured quite early with a very sensible attitude to sex. She did'nt go out having sex early or intended to. But I think that's the point. She understood the implications fully at the age of 13/14 when she had her first serious boyfriend and was only sexually active recently.
In comparison I know friends children who were sexually active earlier and have had a few problems due to maturity..that and peer pressure coupled with emulating people from TV programmes .

 

See my previous posts.~

 

My only real thought is that both of them are idiots for not using birth control. In which case I'd say both the 19 year-old and the 13 year-old were too irresponsible to have sex. The same would be true if it was a 40 year old and a 25 year old, or any other ages for that matter. The age thing doesn't bother me.

All that matters to me is maturity and responsibility in sexual behavior (which I feel go hand in hand).

 

Exactly, becoming a certain age does not make you magically responsible or ready for a sexual relationship or activity.~

 

While I agree that people mature at various ages, unfortunately society has to pick something arbitrary like age.
What are the other options? Every body at any age can consent? The Government gives you a test and then issues you a license to fornicate if meet their maturity requirements? What about the poor dude that still can't pass the test at age 40?
Just curious, about what your thoughts are on some practical solutions...

 

If the 40 year old dude couldn't pass the test, no, I wouldn't want him fornicating.

 

I guess you should cross me off your list then....

 

I'm sure you'd pass with flying colors. :love:

 

I think it should be 15

 

Exactly!

Those licenses would probably have to be paid for 100% from some general tax fund that everyone pays (sales tax, higher income/property tax) so all socioeconomic classes can do the test(s).

The the hypothetical suggestion I threw out there, takes on the core principle that:

1. Sex is not a natural right, it is a privilege.

---

In some way or another, society already cringes at some individuals for their sex/reproductive choices. That woman who had 8 kids for instance, so I would argue that lots of people already agree with the premise #1.

 

But it IS a natural right, this isn't just about "nature", it's about "civilized society" of Humanity, in nature the young are slaughtered to force the females to go into heat so the new male can reproduce with her, and sometimes the male does not need to attract the female to reproduce he just needs to dominate her and force to mate or just get it in before anyone else.~ We in our Human "civilized society" try to protect each other from these sorts of things. Now we discourage rape and the slaughter of a woman's children, acts that would have once been seen as an effort of nature to procreate the species, are now seen as no longer needed and we invented the concept of "morality" supposedly.~

I'm coming to you from the view point of our Human "civilized society" and from a logical point of view that those not "responsible" enough to mate and engage in sexual activities is not the issue. The issue is protecting our "civilized society" from people who would mate with others against their will regardless of age. The issue is not whether someone should have the "right" to have "sex" because everyone has the "right" to have sex and engage in sexual activities and they will naturally do so regardless of laws and societies' views as much as breathing, the real issue is to determine whether or not a person has or has not been mated with against their will or was in fact "deceived" and manipulated into mating. This is not just a "minor" issue, this is also an issue with "adults" to.~

This is why full knowledge is so important to all persons regardless of age, because by delibratly withholding information from any person simply because they are “young” is potentially setting them up for disaster.

 

It is, and I think we're basically saying 99% of the same thing the 1% differing in the terminology we're using.

But yeah "technically", almost all acts that the physical human body can do are "natural", but the notion and awareness of a shared morality among our species as we evolved, eventually lead to the development of civilized society with oral and then written law, and nowadays (at least in western developed society), we're fine tuning it at this point.

The premise was that "natural rights" are understood by society at large to be rights given to us (humanity) by a higher power, that nobody has the right to take away from you. Historically that's what the term "natural rights" mean.

I'm arguing that in this case (the issue of consenting to a sex act), you must first prove you would use that natural right responsibly and with respect to another individual's right to the sex act who has also proven responsible enough to engage in with you (aka: consent).

Proving manipulation and deception in court, in lots of rape cases, is hard to do because lots of physical evidence is lost by the time the trial occurs. Solve the "statutory rape" lawsuits, with a black and white license.

This doesn't mean the crime of rape didn't occur, but in the case of the law being able to accuse someone with "statutory rape" from the presence of a license would clear up a lot of legal ambiguity, and is a more flexible system for a case by case scenario of how the law can treat individuals rather than a blanket-legal policy.


And most people here have agreed that a legal case by case approach is best.

 

I don't think anyone needs to "prove" ANYTHING regarding sex prior to engaging in it.~ Rather the question of whether or not they acted in a way that violates the law and a person's rights to not be deceived, forced, or manipulated into engaging in sex to be raised during the case by which they have been accused of doing so. Do we question people's ability to have sex after the age of 18? No. Only until AFTER someone has been accused do we raise the question of rape.

 

And that latter statement is part of the problem in my opinion in the instance of statutory rape cases, since as it is now, if caught, the charge is brought upon the defendant by default. In some cases I think we SHOULD question people's ability to have sex and deal with the consequences even IF they're 18 or older.

Rather in other types of rape cases, a charge is filed by the plaintiff if they choose to do so.