Sex ed and the age of consent

S

scott3x

Banned
Banned
As we all know, most countries believe that the best way to regulate sexuality is through ages of consent to sexual activities. However, the age varies not only from place to place (from 12 to 21 the last time I checked for adult/minor relations), but also depending what age the 2 partners are. All of this can get incredibly confusing. Making it worse is the fact that most people below the age of consent are taught little if anything concerning the ages of consent in their jurisdiction.

Little wonder, then, that the issue of whether this is the best way to do things so rarely comes up. There is a movement for age of consent reform, as can be seen on wikipedia's "age of consent reform" page:

"While some there actually want to raise the age of consent, there are others who which it to be lowered or abolished and still others believe that believe there should be an "age of protection", wherein "People below this "age of protection" (if totally replacing the age of consent) – or between a lower age of consent and this age of protection – would be subject "to a context in which the onus of proof that valid consent existed would lie with the older partner."

This has some good aspects to it, but it still doesn't deal with what is called "informed consent". I believe that wikipedia once again says something that resonates with me in its "informed consent" article:
"While children may be able to give consent, a more complex question applies in terms of informed consent: whether children are developmentally and otherwise able to give informed consent, in particular to an adult, bearing in mind power relationships, maturity, experience and mental development. For this and other reasons most states have an age of consent under which a child is deemed unable to give consent. As evaluation of maturity, mental maturity, child development, child communication, and child intelligence are further explored, this may be based on psychological and medical evaluation of status for sexual activity instead of chronological age."

So, this is my question to people here: Do you think we will one day move beyond age in regulating sexuality? I'm not a parent, but I personally think it makes much more sense to regulate what a minor can do based on what they know then how many times the earth has revolved around the sun since they were born.

I believe that sex ed in schools could at first work in conjunction with the age of consent, as it does with driver's licenses and eventually replace it, since I believe we should be testing for maturity, not age.
 
Um, do you know how much confusion and argument and uncertainty it will cause if the law started giving out sexual consent based on maturity and experience rather than age? People still don't agree about developmental stages, or if there are any, so a system based on it will be a disaster. How on earth would you implement it?
 
Good question and topic…


Good point how on earth would you ever implement and manage such a confusing system, although I agree with the original post that different people mature at different times.

My question has always been why do I keep seeing people being sent up the river for having sex with a minor that is 15 or 16 years old even if the person having sex with them is 18 or 20 years old and it is consensual (Not forcible rape), but then one the same news cast you see the court certifying a minor that is 15 years old for a crime and charging them as an adult saying they know right from wrong?

Isn’t this a double standard? Or is that only in the USA where it is done?
 
SheWolf said:
Um, do you know how much confusion and argument and uncertainty it will cause if the law started giving out sexual consent based on maturity and experience rather than age? People still don't agree about developmental stages, or if there are any, so a system based on it will be a disaster. How on earth would you implement it?
Click to expand...

The implementation part isn't the hard part; heck, there are already sex ed programs, if they became uniform, when they pass the course, they're licensed. I can definitely agree with you when it comes to there being argument and uncertainty. And you're completely right about people not agreeing about developmental stages and all.

I think you're argument is that it'd be hard to do, so why not just leave things as they are. My answer is that the current system, in my view, is pretty bad. There are worse alternatives; allowing parents total control (pretty bad) or allowing kids total control (worst option in my view). But just because there are worse doesn't mean we can't aspire for better.

And seriously, if people can't agree if someone is mature, with what moral right are we throwing people in jail just because they're below a certain age (which varies from country to country; in the US, it actually varies from state to state).

On a positive note, it seems that the exclusive 'abstinence until marriage' sex campaign is dying down. In my view, the next step is to standardize sex ed testing, atleast by state (this is the way driver's licenses work too). Then after that, there could be a 'thorough course' at age 16 (which is the average AoC in the US right now) and then essentially tying the passing of this course with sexual rights.

The next step, in my view, would be to allow anyone to try to pass the course.

However, there's a restriction I would like to add: people shouldn't be allowed to engage in unprotected sex if they can't afford to have the child and haven't lined up someone to be contractually obligated to care for the child (as in, an adoption before conception).

As to protected sex.. in theory it could work; I have heard that condoms if used properly almost never fail. Society may want to limit this only to people who can take care of a baby as well, not sure.

Finally, there are the sexual actions that have no risk of having a baby. I really do think these should be in another category.

I also think that, as with driving, there should be some limitations on being under the influence while engaging in sexual activities. People tend to forget things like how far to go or condoms when in such a state.
 
oiram said:
Good question and topic…


Good point how on earth would you ever implement and manage such a confusing system, although I agree with the original post that different people mature at different times.

My question has always been why do I keep seeing people being sent up the river for having sex with a minor that is 15 or 16 years old even if the person having sex with them is 18 or 20 years old and it is consensual (Not forcible rape), but then one the same news cast you see the court certifying a minor that is 15 years old for a crime and charging them as an adult saying they know right from wrong?

Isn’t this a double standard? Or is that only in the USA where it is done?
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a double standard and I believe the the USA is not the only one engaged in it, although I'm not completely sure.

In terms of sex crimes; essentially, I think we have to look at what is best for society; is it best to lock up 2 lovebirds for having illegal sex? I mean, yes, it could lead to an unwanted pregnancy or std and the couple may not be able to afford such things.

However, in a fair amount of westernized countries, I've heard that the population would actually be falling if it weren't for the constant influx of immigrants.

And in the case of STDs, there are other diseases, but we don't lock someone up for inadvertently spreading those.

This whole thing reminds me of the "war on drugs". I've never been interested in drugs, perhaps because I saw the negative effects of alcohol with my father and determined that drugs in general were generally an excuse to do whatever you want to do but not have the courage to do in a 'normal' situation. I find that I'm not lacking in the courage department and so don't bother with such things.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Define children.
Click to expand...

Well, I once heard that in old Hawaii, a boy became a man when he could catch enough fish to sustain himself. Following this logic, someone who is dependent on someone else in a non job way could be thought of as a 'child'. I'm simplifying a lot of things here, but of all the definitions for a child, I like this one the best. Certain privileges (sexual, for instance) should come with certain responsibilities (the ability to take care of oneself).

Things get complicated when you factor in some other factors, though. Let's take the case, say, of a 16 year old girl. She's at the age of consent where she's at, but she's by no means financially independent. You could argue that she shouldn't be able to do whatever she wants sexually, because she doesn't have the financial means to take care of a child if one would arise.

But what happens if she finds a young man (20 say) who has a job and can do so. She's not yet an adult.. I wouldn't even know legally what she could do; could she move out without her parent's permission? Personally, I think that as long as the man looks ok, she should be allowed to. Even if I were her parent. Sure, she could be making a mistake, but it's her life and atleast it looks like things could work out. And in life, there really isn't any guarantees.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
There's no war on drugs (in the USA). It's a war on people.
Click to expand...

I hear you. I really liked some aspects of "Traffic". I also really liked "Ending the War on Drugs". It was written by a former advisor to Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California. In the book, he essentially says that even hard drugs are no worse or more addictive then alcohol; the problem is their illegality and all the additional issues that brings. I'm not sure if he makes the case, but I've also heard that during the prohibition in the US, which made it so that alcoholic beverages could only have a small amount of alcohol in them, people actually had stronger alcohol in general then they do today; in part, because more concentrated alcohol meant you could pack more in smaller spaces, which was good considering it was bootlegged and therefore, the less space the better.

I also think that, since it was illegal, some people felt they should get the best kick for the risk they were taking. Now that the prohibition has ended, you find that a lot of people prefer fairly mild alcohol, such as beer, over the harder stuff as a general rule.

So basically, this argument would suggest that if certain illegal drugs were unbanned, the same process would happen with drugs (the coca leaf unconcentrated is something that native americans have used for a long time, for instance; and to this day they still use decocanized coca in coca cola from what I've heard). In the book, they say that they should get the government to sell these drugs, like the canadian government sells alcohol in its stores. The idea is that if it were legalized, people could use certain drugs for recreational use and come to no harm just as many people drink alcohol and are ok.

With the profits made, they could treat the inevitable addicts that will always result, just as today we have alcoholics. But the idea is that with the stigma of illegality gone, people will be more open to seeking help.

For the record, I don't really like drugs (I don't even want to take legal ones usually :p), but I once had a friend who was an addict and I just think that if it had been legal and there were more programs for people like him, he might have been more interested in getting help.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
The state wants it both ways & they usually get it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I've heard that even as the government has been waging its 'war on drugs', the CIA has been involved in its distribution.

I think it's in line with a lot of citizens; in public, people generally say they're against illegal drugs, but in private, some play a different tune.
 
scott3x said:
As we all know, most countries believe that the best way to regulate sexuality is through ages of consent to sexual activities. However, the age varies not only from place to place (from 12 to 21 the last time I checked for adult/minor relations), but also depending what age the 2 partners are. All of this can get incredibly confusing. Making it worse is the fact that most people below the age of consent are taught little if anything concerning the ages of consent in their jurisdiction.

Little wonder, then, that the issue of whether this is the best way to do things so rarely comes up. There is a movement for age of consent reform, as can be seen on wikipedia's "age of consent reform" page:

"While some there actually want to raise the age of consent, there are others who which it to be lowered or abolished and still others believe that believe there should be an "age of protection", wherein "People below this "age of protection" (if totally replacing the age of consent) – or between a lower age of consent and this age of protection – would be subject "to a context in which the onus of proof that valid consent existed would lie with the older partner."

This has some good aspects to it, but it still doesn't deal with what is called "informed consent". I believe that wikipedia once again says something that resonates with me in its "informed consent" article:
"While children may be able to give consent, a more complex question applies in terms of informed consent: whether children are developmentally and otherwise able to give informed consent, in particular to an adult, bearing in mind power relationships, maturity, experience and mental development. For this and other reasons most states have an age of consent under which a child is deemed unable to give consent. As evaluation of maturity, mental maturity, child development, child communication, and child intelligence are further explored, this may be based on psychological and medical evaluation of status for sexual activity instead of chronological age."

So, this is my question to people here: Do you think we will one day move beyond age in regulating sexuality? I'm not a parent, but I personally think it makes much more sense to regulate what a minor can do based on what they know then how many times the earth has revolved around the sun since they were born.

I believe that sex ed in schools could at first work in conjunction with the age of consent, as it does with driver's licenses and eventually replace it, since I believe we should be testing for maturity, not age.
Click to expand...

sex education in the UK (my daughters school anyway) is more about body changes and periods (for the girls obviously) and body changes for the boys, they do practise putting condoms on bananas, they also have what they call "Super learning days" that are aimed at social and physical development, and they also teach the kids about sex, drugs, drinking and smoking, (most of the kids are already doing all four)

i think it should be down to the perants to teach they're kids about sex and the age of concent, because there are many teachers whp say that the homosexual life is a good one, and that wrong, they should not be promoting homosexuality in schools.

because being pushed into a certain sexual group is wrong for that person.

and the age of concent should be 18yrs old for straight couples and 20yrs old for homosexuals
 
because there are many teachers whp say that the homosexual life is a good one, and that wrong, they should not be promoting homosexuality in schools.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality isn't a choice. You either are or you aren't. There is no amount of "promotion" that will make a straight kid gay. And considering that you can't spell, I don't think you're the one to be opining on who should be teaching kids about anything.

I do get a kick out of how some people can't be bothered to learn how to read, but it doesn't stop them from hating.

So, this is my question to people here: Do you think we will one day move beyond age in regulating sexuality? I'm not a parent, but I personally think it makes much more sense to regulate what a minor can do based on what they know then how many times the earth has revolved around the sun since they were born.
Click to expand...

You can't do it on a case-by-case basis, simply because it would be a logistical nightmare. It's better to make a general rule that people over the age of ____ cannot have sex with anyone under said age. That way, you might have some kids that screw up, but it's far better than clogging the legal system (and whatever other infrastructure you have to install in order to decide who is and who isn't ready) with all of this kind of crap.

What we should do is educate. We have to stop allowing religious zealots deciding what can and can't be taught in our schools. All they do is promote ignorance, and it's hurting more and more with each generation. I mean, leave it up to the parents? The same people saying that are the ones who never have a candid conversation about sex with their kids, or don't know enough about it to speak from an informed point of view. We need legitimate sex education in schools, bottom line. If we can raise up enough generations of people that truly understand sex--and all the trappings of it--then maybe these laws will be revisited.
 
scott3x said:
I believe that sex ed in schools could at first work in conjunction with the age of consent, as it does with driver's licenses and eventually replace it, since I believe we should be testing for maturity, not age.
Click to expand...

Great Idea, but how would you implement it ? Instead of deregulating it, wouldn't the "maturity test" idea be enforced in some form of licesnse to have sex ? But isn't that what the age of consent is anyway ?
 
JDawg said:
Homosexuality isn't a choice. You either are or you aren't. There is no amount of "promotion" that will make a straight kid gay. And considering that you can't spell, I don't think you're the one to be opining on who should be teaching kids about anything.

I do get a kick out of how some people can't be bothered to learn how to read, but it doesn't stop them from hating.



You can't do it on a case-by-case basis, simply because it would be a logistical nightmare. It's better to make a general rule that people over the age of ____ cannot have sex with anyone under said age. That way, you might have some kids that screw up, but it's far better than clogging the legal system (and whatever other infrastructure you have to install in order to decide who is and who isn't ready) with all of this kind of crap.

What we should do is educate. We have to stop allowing religious zealots deciding what can and can't be taught in our schools. All they do is promote ignorance, and it's hurting more and more with each generation. I mean, leave it up to the parents? The same people saying that are the ones who never have a candid conversation about sex with their kids, or don't know enough about it to speak from an informed point of view. We need legitimate sex education in schools, bottom line. If we can raise up enough generations of people that truly understand sex--and all the trappings of it--then maybe these laws will be revisited.
Click to expand...

i think your an idiot!!
 
Challenger78 said:
Great Idea, but how would you implement it ? Instead of deregulating it, wouldn't the "maturity test" idea be enforced in some form of license to have sex ? But isn't that what the age of consent is anyway ?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what the age of consent does, but it would be fairer, because it would be based on knowledge instead of age, which I think is far too abritrary as being of a certain age doesn't mean you know any particular thing.
 
JDawg said:
You can't do it on a case-by-case basis, simply because it would be a logistical nightmare.
Click to expand...

Testing children isn't a logistical nightmare; they are already tested on multiple subjects and they either pass or they fail. If they fail, ofcourse, they are allowed to try again.


It's better to make a general rule that people over the age of ____ cannot have sex with anyone under said age. That way, you might have some kids that screw up, but it's far better than clogging the legal system (and whatever other infrastructure you have to install in order to decide who is and who isn't ready) with all of this kind of crap.
Click to expand...

I believe that it wouldn't be much of a burden for schools to have a sexual maturity test, as they already have many more. Once one passed, they could issue a sexual license, alleviating the problem of people who say they didn't know the person's age (some people at or above the age of consent don't have photo id so this doesn't always work).


What we should do is educate.
Click to expand...

This I definitely agree with :)


We have to stop allowing religious zealots deciding what can and can't be taught in our schools.
Click to expand...

Well it sounds good when you put it that way. The real issue is that the government itself is the one who at times supports things like abstinence until marriage sex ed. I suppose you could make a case that certain governments are run by religious zealots, but a lot of people voted for them as well (in the case of the U.S., ofcourse, is has been argued that George Bush won by fraud both times, but he still got a lot of votes even if this is true), so it is at times a reflection of the society they're in.


All they do is promote ignorance, and it's hurting more and more with each generation. I mean, leave it up to the parents? The same people saying that are the ones who never have a candid conversation about sex with their kids, or don't know enough about it to speak from an informed point of view.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is at times the case. This is why I don't believe that parents should have sole discretion as to when their children learn about sexuality. I certainly think they should be included in the process, but I don't think they should have the right to ensure their children are left in the dark concerning sexuality.


We need legitimate sex education in schools, bottom line.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The real struggle is deciding on what should be considered legitimate.

If we can raise up enough generations of people that truly understand sex--and all the trappings of it--then maybe these laws will be revisited.
Click to expand...

Yep, perhaps one day we'll regulate sexuality based on knowledge instead of age ;-).
 
lucifers angel said:
sex education in the UK (my daughters school anyway) is more about body changes and periods (for the girls obviously) and body changes for the boys, they do practice putting condoms on bananas, they also have what they call "Super learning days" that are aimed at social and physical development, and they also teach the kids about sex, drugs, drinking and smoking, (most of the kids are already doing all four)

i think it should be down to the parents to teach their kids about sex and the age of consent, because there are many teachers who say that the homosexual life is a good one, and that's wrong, they should not be promoting homosexuality in schools.

Because being pushed into a certain sexual group is wrong for that person.
Click to expand...

As Jdawg said, I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, although I personally believe that one's environment may affect one's attractions. And environment is a very vague term, however, and it can encompass everything from brain chemistry to social settings. In terms of being 'pushed into a sexual group', this may happen, but from what I've seen of society, I think most people are 'pushed' into conforming with society's mores; I have heard of a religious group that would 'convert' gay people to become straight, for instance.

There is also the fact that many people with homosexual attractions end up having a straight marriage, only to later break up. A little while ago, I read an article in a newspaper regarding a woman who'd gotten married to a guy only to have to break up with him later when she found that he'd been cheating on her; with guys. She later finds a group dedicated to helping people who have this type of thing happen to them.

I also believe that people's sexuality is something that is at times not completely rigid; the idea that one can only be 'straight' or 'gay' is blown out of the water by the fact that there are also people who are both (bisexuals), for starters.


and the age of consent should be 18 years old for straight couples and 20 years old for homosexuals
Click to expand...

Why not 20 for both? or 16? Seriously, what are you basing your decision on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top