Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Age of Consent Laws in the U.S.

Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 10:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have to write a short response paper on this topic but I also want to procrastinate on DDO.... so I figured I would combine the two in a magical mixture of procrastination and thoughtfulness- you know, exactly what DDO is for.

Also, after that whole "I'm 16 dating 21 year old. opinions?" thread, the topic has been on my mind lately.

So here are some interesting statistics:
About 74% of teenage females had their first (heterosexual- got no #'s for homosexual) sexual encounter with another teenager.
Seems fair. O.k. Next.

Only 8% of teen females have their first sex partners with someone who is 6 or more years older.
8% sounds about right..

33 states and D.C. use 16 as the age of consent. 6 have 17 as the age of consent and 11 have 18 as the age of consent


The difference in the laws makes it an interesting situation for sexually active teenagers where they might be off the hook in one state, committing a misdemeanor in another, and a felon in another.

95% of victims in statutory rape cases are female and 99% of offenders in those cases are male.

Of course, I use the term "victim" for lack of a better word. They may not at all be victims- that is the point.

What we also see in media coverage is the blatant sensationalizing of females raping young boys as in the infamous case of Mary Kay LeTourneau (35) who had two children with a 13 year old boy. (disgusting.....)

However, it wasn't until the early 1990's that statutory rape laws reflected even the possibility of young boys being abused by women. The laws did not have gender neutral language and took for granted that all the victims were female and all the perpetrators male.

This seems to be in large part because statutory rape laws, in the first place, were created to protect the virginity of young white girls. Even as late as the early 90's, this was so. And along with that, increasingly, teenage boys were being tried as adults in statutory rape cases. So what we're left with is a national discussion which treats girls as innocent little children who have no agency and boys as sexually mature adults who can be held legally responsible for rape though they were engaging in consensual sexual activities.

There is also the problem of race- black men are disproportionately prosecuted and punished more harshly for statutory rape. There was the case of Marcus Dixon- an 18 year old- who had sex with a white girl who was almost 16. He was convicted of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. Though, because that is obviously bunk, there was a public outcry and he was released after a year. In my opinion, he shouldn't have been in there at all.

There is also homosexuality which creates a problem- Matthew Limon served six years in prison for consensual gay sex. He had just turned 18 and his partner was nearly 15. He was convicted of criminal sodomy. Kansas has a "Romeo and Juliet" law which reduces penalties for consensual sex between two teenagers but it only applies to heterosexual sex. And this guy got off lucky- he was actually sentenced to 17 years but because the case went to the supreme court and was overturned, he only served six. If his partner had been a female, he would have been sentenced to 15 months. The age is iffy here but 17 years???? He was 18 when this happened- that is his whole life over again in prison.

And the difference between penile-vaginal intercourse and oral sex sometimes creates a problem- In Georgia, a guy named Gernariow Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation for receiving oral sex from a 15 yr old when he was 17. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. At the time, if they had simply had intercourse, he would have only been sentenced to 12 months tops. However, he served 3 years before the conviction was overturned. And yet again, it seems he shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

And marriage- in some states, the age of consent laws don't mean a damn thing if you're married.... that is, if you have your parents blessing.

I have a lot more stories. But basically the point is- What the everloving fvck, America? Get your damn shtt together.
If this many teenagers are losing their virginity with other teenagers, why, oh why, are we making such a normal part of growing up illegal??? It is obviously doing nothing to stop the issue. It's only exacerbating it and ruining lives. Of course, as many of you know, I like to take a harm-reduction approach. The route we're going now is obviously not reducing the harm done.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 11:46:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 11:41:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
what's the question specifically?

This is more of a "discuss.." thread.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I, for one, support abolition.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 4:28:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lower the marriage age to 12.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 7:08:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I, for one, support abolition.

of what?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:17:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 7:08:25 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I, for one, support abolition.

of what?

Read the topic title you wrote.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:20:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:17:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 7:08:25 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I, for one, support abolition.

of what?

Read the topic title you wrote.

gotcha. Care to elaborate?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:24:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:20:40 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:17:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 7:08:25 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I, for one, support abolition.

of what?

Read the topic title you wrote.

gotcha. Care to elaborate?

What elaboration do you need? It's not complex, it's abolition. Poof, no age of consent. Age no longer a factor in determining consent.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:33:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:24:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:20:40 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:17:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 7:08:25 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I, for one, support abolition.

of what?

Read the topic title you wrote.

gotcha. Care to elaborate?

What elaboration do you need? It's not complex, it's abolition. Poof, no age of consent. Age no longer a factor in determining consent.

I heard your conclusion. I'd like to hear your reasoning.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 11:46:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:44:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
Kfc

Yes, kfc may be a better option than the current laws, in fact.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 12:46:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/24/2012 11:33:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:24:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:20:40 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:17:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 7:08:25 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I, for one, support abolition.

of what?

Read the topic title you wrote.

gotcha. Care to elaborate?

What elaboration do you need? It's not complex, it's abolition. Poof, no age of consent. Age no longer a factor in determining consent.

I heard your conclusion. I'd like to hear your reasoning.

I consented to many things when a minor. I can testify as to the validity of that consent due to continuity of consciousness.

More important, the burden of proof is on those who affirm a law.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 1:12:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, it would be permissible for three year olds to engage in sexual activity? Consent entails making a rational decision that you understand. You are advocating a system that takes advantage of minors.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 2:58:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 1:12:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
So, it would be permissible for three year olds to engage in sexual activity?
It's permissible for them to play soccer. This has a risk of concussion you know.

Consent entails making a rational decision that you understand.
And three year olds are rational beings. I've met plenty, they know how not to consent to things.
Of course, usually no one cares when they say no, in any domain but sex, where no one cares when they say yes all of a sudden. But there are other tools to deal with that than so blunt and discriminatory an instrument as the arbitrary declaration of a number-- for example, ending runaway laws, making consent a defense to kidnapping (which logically follows from the same premise anyway), etc.

You are advocating a system that takes advantage of minors.
Every system takes advantage of X, unless it takes disadvantage of X. Advantages are good.
I am advocating a system in which initial coercion is not present.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:10:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 2:58:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 1:12:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
So, it would be permissible for three year olds to engage in sexual activity?
It's permissible for them to play soccer. This has a risk of concussion you know.

Risks from sex are far worse than "concussions".
Consent entails making a rational decision that you understand.
And three year olds are rational beings. I've met plenty, they know how not to consent to things.
Of course, usually no one cares when they say no, in any domain but sex,
First, most toddlers do not even know what sex is, and they do not have the capacity to understand it. Consenting to having cheese and crackers for a snack is not the same thing as consenting to having sexual activity. Toddlers are not capable of consenting to sexual activity, so having sex with them is the moral equivalent of rape. End of Story.

Second, the laws are designed to also protect children from pedophiles and other individuals who will take advantage of them when they do not understand what is going on. Eliminating age of consent laws will make this more difficult to prosecute.
where no one cares when they say yes all of a sudden. But there are other tools to deal with that than so blunt and discriminatory an instrument as the arbitrary declaration of a number-- for example, ending runaway laws, making consent a defense to kidnapping (which logically follows from the same premise anyway), etc.

The right to vote is also granted arbitrarily on a discriminatory basis. Should infants who are born on Election Day be able to vote?
You are advocating a system that takes advantage of minors.
Every system takes advantage of X, unless it takes disadvantage of X. Advantages are good.
Any system that takes advantage of another individual is bad, lol. Are you sure you believe in Randian philosophy?
I am advocating a system in which initial coercion is not present.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 8:22:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course, usually no one cares when they say no, in any domain but sex, where no one cares when they say yes all of a sudden. But there are other tools to deal with that than so blunt and discriminatory an instrument as the arbitrary declaration of a number-- for example, ending runaway laws, making consent a defense to kidnapping (which logically follows from the same premise anyway), etc.
I am advocating a system in which initial coercion is not present.:

But coercion IS present in these cases, and it's incredibly naive to think that really young children aren't naive. This may be all well and fine for two 8 year olds to innocently "play doctor," but in effect the abolition of the law means that pedophilia is also fair game with no legal recourse. Pedophiles bank on the naivette. Many children feel uncomfortable, but they often don't know how to say 'no' in these instances because they're manipulated.

Consent is a great thing, but is consent really consent when there is no informed consent? An adult has the intellect to manipulate a young child to do just about anything, even things the child may not feel comfortable doing. (Priests and alter boys come to mind)

And it stands to reason that if there is no age of consent, you give full rights to young children to do whatever the f*ck crosses their mind, even though their mental faculties are not even remotely developed. There would be no reason not to. That means when a 2 year old wants to go play in traffic, it is not permissible for any adult to stop them. Honestly, how practical is that?

I don't know what to tell you, perhaps you'll change your mind when you have children of your own, I certainly hope so.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:18:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 1:12:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
So, it would be permissible for three year olds to engage in sexual activity? Consent entails making a rational decision that you understand. You are advocating a system that takes advantage of minors.

This coming from the person that thinks a year earlier we can kill them if we want.....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:29:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 12:46:02 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:33:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:24:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:20:40 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 11:17:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/24/2012 7:08:25 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/24/2012 3:40:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I, for one, support abolition.

of what?

Read the topic title you wrote.

gotcha. Care to elaborate?

What elaboration do you need? It's not complex, it's abolition. Poof, no age of consent. Age no longer a factor in determining consent.

I heard your conclusion. I'd like to hear your reasoning.

I consented to many things when a minor. I can testify as to the validity of that consent due to continuity of consciousness.

More important, the burden of proof is on those who affirm a law.

The problem with a three year old giving consent is that they don't understand what they are giving consent to. If they couldn't possibly understand what they are consenting to, then it isn't possible for them to consent at all- ergo age of consent. The laws are clearly fvcked as is, but there is not really much reason to believe that a toddler can consent to something it doesn't understand.

So, for a human being which can barely communicate it's needs and wants in general (let alone know what it's needs really are), 1) how can we be sure that it is giving consent (i.e. what constitutes consent for a human who can't quite speak) and 2) how do we know that it understands what it is consenting to if it has no experience whatsoever with sex?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 1:48:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:10:13 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/25/2012 2:58:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 1:12:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
So, it would be permissible for three year olds to engage in sexual activity?
It's permissible for them to play soccer. This has a risk of concussion you know.

Risks from sex are far worse than "concussions".
Debatable, especially with protection plus the inability to impregnate persons of a certain age.

Consent entails making a rational decision that you understand.
And three year olds are rational beings. I've met plenty, they know how not to consent to things.
Of course, usually no one cares when they say no, in any domain but sex,
First, most toddlers do not even know what sex is, and they do not have the capacity to understand it.
Pssht, what's the first thing an infant grabs for?

Consenting to having cheese and crackers for a snack is not the same thing as consenting to having sexual activity.
What if the cheese is full of trans fats, you sex-negative nancy?

Second, the laws are designed to also protect children from pedophiles and other individuals who will take advantage of them when they do not understand what is going on.
I don't care what the motive is, only their nature.

The right to vote is also granted arbitrarily on a discriminatory basis. Should infants who are born on Election Day be able to vote?
Voting isn't a right. It's the positive act of the government obeying you, not the negative thing, the inactivity of the government not oppressing you.

You are advocating a system that takes advantage of minors.
Every system takes advantage of X, unless it takes disadvantage of X. Advantages are good.
Any system that takes advantage of another individual is bad, lol
So all sex should be banned, as I derive advantage from individuals who will consent to sex from me.

Are you sure you believe in Randian philosophy?
State your premises and conclusion, madam

But coercion IS present in these cases, and it's incredibly naive to think that really young children aren't naive.
Lots of 18 year olds are naive. That doesn't negate their consent. If I have to engage in mind reading to accept consent from someone no one can consent to anything.

Many children feel uncomfortable, but they often don't know how to say 'no' in these instances because they're manipulated.
Children are exactly as capable of saying "no" as adults, if you've ever met one.
Some adults are doubtless "manipulated." This does not justify banning sex.

Consent is a great thing, but is consent really consent when there is no informed consent?
Tell me, how much does the average adult know about their computer?

Probably about as much as the average child will know about their friendly neighborhood pedophile with things out in the open--- they'll know which other children report being pleased and which ones report being displeased.

An adult has the intellect to manipulate a young child to do just about anything
Childcare would be much easier if this were the case.

. That means when a 2 year old wants to go play in traffic, it is not permissible for any adult to stop them. Honestly, how practical is that?
Well, if it's a two year old who can express their case in court that their right to play in traffic was violated in a manner a judge will understand, quite practical.
If it's a normal two year old who won't even realize what the law says and hence will not make a claim based on it, also quite practical since nothing will change. Preventing a 2 year old from playing in traffic, after all, is clearly a civil matter, not a criminal one.

I don't know what to tell you, perhaps you'll change your mind when you have children of your own, I certainly hope so.
I have younger siblings, and could not possibly be stupid enough to want children after that.

The problem with a three year old giving consent is that they don't understand what they are giving consent to
Sex isn't complicated. The mentally challenged have it just fine. When I was 3 I understood things at least the level of complexity most drunken idgits put into their flings. And would not have consented.

1) how can we be sure that it is giving consent
Yes means yes. No means no. Of course, courts should scrutinize claims of safewords and such more heavily when dealing with children or the mentally challenged than with more normal adults. This is no reason for a flat ban based on age (based on demonstrated ability to communicate, sure. I'm fine with having a rebuttable presumption that kids of a certain age can't say the words "yes" or "no." Rebuttable by testing in court with "Do you like ice cream?" "Do you like broccoli?" Etc.

2) how do we know that it understands what it is consenting to if it has no experience whatsoever with sex?
So what you're saying is it's impossible for a virgin to consent to sex.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 3:40:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 1:48:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1) how can we be sure that it is giving consent
Yes means yes. No means no. Of course, courts should scrutinize claims of safewords and such more heavily when dealing with children or the mentally challenged than with more normal adults. This is no reason for a flat ban based on age (based on demonstrated ability to communicate, sure. I'm fine with having a rebuttable presumption that kids of a certain age can't say the words "yes" or "no." Rebuttable by testing in court with "Do you like ice cream?" "Do you like broccoli?" Etc.


Ragnar, what you are saying basically amounts to the opinion that every law should be made in such a way that it applies to every individual on an individual basis.

If "society" has the time and the resources for it, it would certainly do so. But clearly, such a thing is not practical. Or is it?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 8:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think a person should be prosecuted if they are ignorant of the youth of their sexual partner. I had a friend who looked a lot older than she was, 14, but she didn't tell guys that she was 14, and because of this, they could get in serious trouble for something she neglected to tell them.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 3:40:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/25/2012 1:48:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1) how can we be sure that it is giving consent
Yes means yes. No means no. Of course, courts should scrutinize claims of safewords and such more heavily when dealing with children or the mentally challenged than with more normal adults. This is no reason for a flat ban based on age (based on demonstrated ability to communicate, sure. I'm fine with having a rebuttable presumption that kids of a certain age can't say the words "yes" or "no." Rebuttable by testing in court with "Do you like ice cream?" "Do you like broccoli?" Etc.


Ragnar, what you are saying basically amounts to the opinion that every law should be made in such a way that it applies to every individual on an individual basis.

If "society" has the time and the resources for it, it would certainly do so. But clearly, such a thing is not practical. Or is it?

Whether a disputed instance of adult sex is rape is always determined on an individual basis. If that's not practical, only fascism and bills of attainder are"practical." I do not believe that.
Besides, the law would still be the same for everyone-- it's just "You need consent" instead of "You do not have enough birthdays."
If our present rules for adult rape law function, on the other hand, there is no reason you've given here they don't function just as well for rape law with minor accusers.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:00:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:10:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 3:40:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/25/2012 1:48:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1) how can we be sure that it is giving consent
Yes means yes. No means no. Of course, courts should scrutinize claims of safewords and such more heavily when dealing with children or the mentally challenged than with more normal adults. This is no reason for a flat ban based on age (based on demonstrated ability to communicate, sure. I'm fine with having a rebuttable presumption that kids of a certain age can't say the words "yes" or "no." Rebuttable by testing in court with "Do you like ice cream?" "Do you like broccoli?" Etc.


Ragnar, what you are saying basically amounts to the opinion that every law should be made in such a way that it applies to every individual on an individual basis.

If "society" has the time and the resources for it, it would certainly do so. But clearly, such a thing is not practical. Or is it?

Whether a disputed instance of adult sex is rape is always determined on an individual basis. If that's not practical, only fascism and bills of attainder are"practical." I do not believe that.
Besides, the law would still be the same for everyone-- it's just "You need consent" instead of "You do not have enough birthdays."

This here is the bone of contention. Consent cannot be determined as easily as one can determine if someone has had enough birthdays.

Every child is different and it cannot be easy to determine if the said child has consented or not. It'd require mind reading of the sort you yourself have deemed impossible.

If you believe that a child cannot be easily bribed into doing something, then you surely must think that every parent is some kind of superhuman who's able to TALK a child into obedience.

I'm all for treating all cases on an individual basis, but to have some sort of standard guideline that demarcates a child and an adult is surely an important factor that can ease the burden on lawmakers.
If our present rules for adult rape law function, on the other hand, there is no reason you've given here they don't function just as well for rape law with minor accusers.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:11:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:00:27 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:10:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 3:40:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/25/2012 1:48:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1) how can we be sure that it is giving consent
Yes means yes. No means no. Of course, courts should scrutinize claims of safewords and such more heavily when dealing with children or the mentally challenged than with more normal adults. This is no reason for a flat ban based on age (based on demonstrated ability to communicate, sure. I'm fine with having a rebuttable presumption that kids of a certain age can't say the words "yes" or "no." Rebuttable by testing in court with "Do you like ice cream?" "Do you like broccoli?" Etc.


Ragnar, what you are saying basically amounts to the opinion that every law should be made in such a way that it applies to every individual on an individual basis.

If "society" has the time and the resources for it, it would certainly do so. But clearly, such a thing is not practical. Or is it?

Whether a disputed instance of adult sex is rape is always determined on an individual basis. If that's not practical, only fascism and bills of attainder are"practical." I do not believe that.
Besides, the law would still be the same for everyone-- it's just "You need consent" instead of "You do not have enough birthdays."

This here is the bone of contention. Consent cannot be determined as easily as one can determine if someone has had enough birthdays.
Therefore adult rape law is inefficient nonsense? What do?


Every child is different and it cannot be easy to determine if the said child has consented or not. It'd require mind reading of the sort you yourself have deemed impossible.
Determining consent does not require mind reading where someone is capable of communication.


If you believe that a child cannot be easily bribed into doing something, then you surely must think that every parent is some kind of superhuman who's able to TALK a child into obedience.
I believe that bribery is not coercion. If you want to give little Suzie a doll and she likes the doll more than she dislikes the licky game, so be it, Suzie's made her choice and ought not be denied her doll.


I'm all for treating all cases on an individual basis, but to have some sort of standard guideline that demarcates a child and an adult is surely an important factor that can ease the burden on lawmakers.
The purpose of justice isn't to make things easy on lawmakers. It's to make things right. If one can do it, one should. Can one? I ask again, is adult rape law functional? One should no go around oppressing people just to save the government a little cognitive effort.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:02:15 PM, tulle wrote:
Ragnar, I don't really understand why things have to be all or nothing with you :/

Law of the excluded middle.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:27:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:12:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:02:15 PM, tulle wrote:
Ragnar, I don't really understand why things have to be all or nothing with you :/

Law of the excluded middle.

False dichotomy.
yang.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:11:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:00:27 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:10:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 3:40:17 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/25/2012 1:48:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1) how can we be sure that it is giving consent
Yes means yes. No means no. Of course, courts should scrutinize claims of safewords and such more heavily when dealing with children or the mentally challenged than with more normal adults. This is no reason for a flat ban based on age (based on demonstrated ability to communicate, sure. I'm fine with having a rebuttable presumption that kids of a certain age can't say the words "yes" or "no." Rebuttable by testing in court with "Do you like ice cream?" "Do you like broccoli?" Etc.


Ragnar, what you are saying basically amounts to the opinion that every law should be made in such a way that it applies to every individual on an individual basis.

If "society" has the time and the resources for it, it would certainly do so. But clearly, such a thing is not practical. Or is it?

Whether a disputed instance of adult sex is rape is always determined on an individual basis. If that's not practical, only fascism and bills of attainder are"practical." I do not believe that.
Besides, the law would still be the same for everyone-- it's just "You need consent" instead of "You do not have enough birthdays."

This here is the bone of contention. Consent cannot be determined as easily as one can determine if someone has had enough birthdays.
Therefore adult rape law is inefficient nonsense? What do?

I was going more for the consent given by children, not adults. My bad.

Every child is different and it cannot be easy to determine if the said child has consented or not. It'd require mind reading of the sort you yourself have deemed impossible.
Determining consent does not require mind reading where someone is capable of communication.

Right. I'm just trying to work through a scenario where an adult bribes a child to sexual consent and then the child finds out that it's quite painful and wants to stop, but the adult carries on till finished. When caught, the adult can definitely say that the child had said yes.

If you believe that a child cannot be easily bribed into doing something, then you surely must think that every parent is some kind of superhuman who's able to TALK a child into obedience.
I believe that bribery is not coercion. If you want to give little Suzie a doll and she likes the doll more than she dislikes the licky game, so be it, Suzie's made her choice and ought not be denied her doll.

Seen this way, what you say is valid. Unless a law is already in place that takes a stern view on bribery in particular cases. You can bribe a child to go to sleep. You can bribe a government employee to bend the rules a bit in your favor. In your view, both are valid.

I'm all for treating all cases on an individual basis, but to have some sort of standard guideline that demarcates a child and an adult is surely an important factor that can ease the burden on lawmakers.
The purpose of justice isn't to make things easy on lawmakers. It's to make things right. If one can do it, one should. Can one? I ask again, is adult rape law functional? One should no go around oppressing people just to save the government a little cognitive effort.

The "purpose" of justice may well be to make things right, but you of all people should know that justice just means "fair compensation inasmuch as it is possible for society (the upholder of law) to make".

Also, justice can be done only where there is a law in place. I was talking of easing the burden on lawmakers, not judges and juries. It makes no point having a law that's so convoluted and individualized that the application of the law itself becomes contentious, yes?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:55:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:27:51 PM, tulle wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:12:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:02:15 PM, tulle wrote:
Ragnar, I don't really understand why things have to be all or nothing with you :/

Law of the excluded middle.

False dichotomy.
Law of the excluded middle is A or ~A. It's always true.

A dichotomy is A or B (B doesn't have to be a negation of A). It might sometimes be false, you have to show that it is though and why.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.