Originally posted by CoconutCoconut,
The age when the parents let the child go off on his/her own and make his/her own decisions on matters. Usually that is 12 or 13, when a kid is allowed off to bike-ride, go for walks, etc. Should a child be allowed to make such a potentially life-altering decision? Well, they are able to choose to bike in traffic too once that point comes.
Have you ever noticed that, in a subset of males, the insistence of their sex drive, combined with their lack of empathy, leads them to gratify themselves without regard to the pain it causes others?
So don't you think it is simply too dangerous to permit children below the age of about 16 to enter into sexual relations with adults?
Are you seriously claiming that the social stigma associated with intergenerational sex is wholly responsible for the trauma it causes to children?
I would say that the reason for the current age of consent is based on the stages of adolescence. A person is just becoming an adult and adjusting with his/her new body. They are just becoming sexually active and the legal age of consent are safe guards against people who want to take advantage of this fact.
I cannot see how a 12 or 13 year old (who has only likely just started puberty) could be sexually developed enough to have a reasonable sexual relationship.
I consider a 40 year old having sex with a 16 year old (which is legal in this country) is quite deranged, but to have the age of consent varied according to the ages and age differences of both parties would open a new can of worms.
I will now propose a solution to the problem at hand (as well as many other related problems). It seems that age is not a very good delimiter in deciding who's mature enough to do this or that. Alcohol consumption immediately comes to mind. Some 30 year olds can't even handle alcohol, yet we say that once you've reached the age of 18 (in Sweden) you are allowed to consume alcohol in restaurants and the like, and from the age of 21 you can even buy it for consumption in the privacy of your own home.
There are lots of things that we are forbidden to do up to a certain age and then suddenly allowed to do whether we can handle it or not. Having sex. Being a parent. Driving. Engage in warfare (well that one seems to be ok any age, but bare with me...), consuming a certain range of drugs, "owning" animals and so on and so forth.
The truth is, that despite my age, I really am not a suitable animal owner. There's lots I don't know about, say, dogs. We had a dog when I was little, and it was a real pain in the... behind. It rarely followed commands and it often got aggressive against total strangers. It was of course because that particular breed of dog was not meant to live in a apartment to get out a total of two hours a day. It was the kind of dog you'd have on a farm, herding sheep and stuff. But we thought it was cute and the seller wanted the money. So without checking our qualifications or even the most basic dogtraining skills, we were allowed to buy and "own" a dog.
Ok, what I'm getting at is that age is irrelevant from a psychological point of view. What's relevant is that we are mature about what we're doing. This usually involves the ability to take responsibility and give leeway to those around us without losing our selfcontrol in the process. I propose, that whatever action we want to take that could potentially harm another person/animal, we must first get a...
...license. Granted, the drivers license in the states aren't hard to come by, but in some countries it is only after extensive studying and practising that you get this license. Also, there are those who still can't do it right, but they lose their license and have to restudy. So, a license for having sex, a license for being a parent, a license for being a pet owner, a license for consuming alcohol, a license for...
😕
Well, it's a thought anyway. 😞
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI don't think it does. However, I think it is established that a lot of the trauma suffered by a child abuse victim can be due to being told it was wrong. Let metry to exaplain befroe you bite my head off...
Coconut,
Have you ever noticed that, in a subset of males, the insistence of their sex drive, combined with their lack of empathy, leads them to gratify themselves without regard to the pain it causes others?
So don't you think it is simply too dangerous to permit children below the age of about 16 to enter into sexual relations with adults?
Ar ...[text shortened]... sociated with intergenerational sex is wholly responsible for the trauma it causes to children?
Children are hedonistic, and without knowing at what age a person can physically start to enjoy sexual contact I will for now just say that they like attention. So it is fully possible that a child in a sexual relationship enjoyed the attention given and felt good about it. When the relationship is discovered they are told that although it was not their fault it was very very wrong and evil. But if they enjoyed some aspects of the relationship then surely to a childs mind this means that they themselves are wrong & evil? The impossibility of reconsiling the wrongness of the relationship and the fact that they may have enjoyed/passively consented could therefore leave the child torn and hating themselves.
I'm not saying that accepting child/adult relationships as OK is the answer as they are blatantly not. I'm not saying that there is a better answer. But if social stigma could be reduced without encouraging adult/child relationships then I think it would an improvement
Originally posted by stockenWe are all going to require quite a big wallet. What do you have to do to pass your sex license? 😀
I will now propose a solution to the problem at hand (as well as many other related problems). It seems that age is not a very good delimiter in deciding who's mature enough to do this or that. Alcohol consumption immediately comes to mind. Some 30 year olds can't even handle alcohol, yet we say that once you've reached the age of 18 (in Sweden) you are allo ...[text shortened]... for consuming alcohol, a license for...
😕
Well, it's a thought anyway. 😞
I propose an implanted ID chip instead. This being linked up to a large database which states what we all can and can't do. 😉
Seems to me that the solution to the problem is for us all to stop being so hung about sex. I'm not entirely sure what the "dangers" are for anybody of whatever age that wants to have sex with anybody else of whatever age as long as nobody is coerced or forced into it (and we already have laws to protect against that).
Everyone is talking as if having sex is some great big trauma that only people of a certain age can deal with. The only reason, it seems to me, that there is any negative feelings towards sex is because we all think of it, to a greater or lesser extent as naughty.
It isn't like drugs or alcohol that alter your mind, it doesn't cause physical harm (usually) and it's fun!
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm certain that in some societies you had to be married before you could have sex, sometimes even having to be married in the eyes of both church & state separately. However, I'm not so sure that at a time that the legal age for marriage in the UK was 12 and the average age for puberty was 16 that people automatically started shagging the second they were married. Marriage in some cultures could be seen as the time at which a girl passes from her parent's household into her husbands (which is why a dowry was necessary to represent the extra cost to the groom and the saving the parent would make) and not necessarily the time at which the married couple would start having sex. I'm not denying that it happened, but I'd question that it was as automatic as we addume today.
Marriage once was considered a "license" for having sex. However that changed over the years ......
nb. could this explain why marriages can be annulled if you haven't slept together? It always seemed a bit silly seeing as most couples shag on the wedding night if not before, but if it were the case that the the bride may have been living with you for years without sex happening then the get-out-clause when you realise that it's not going to work makes more sense...
Would it not be possible to have the legal age lowered, but only to make it legal for consenting minors of the same age to have sex without breaking the law. Bearing in mind the accepted view that teenagers mature at different ages, why should we be stopping them from doing what older children, in terms of chronological age, but perhaps not maturity, are doing.
I would suggest that whilst obviously keeping it illegal for a person +16 to have sexual relations with someone aged -16, it might be an idea to lower the legal age for sex with someone your own age to 14. I say 14 because in today's world, where people are maturing so much younger, it seems as though 14 is the age at which most teenagers start to consider sex.