Yes but there is a HUGE different between a CHILD and a TEENAGER....
Most Teenagers understand what sex is......they think about it enough, any teenager who is willing to give consent pretty much knows what he or she is doing to a large extant, and an Adult who engages in sexual activity with them should not be treated like some sicko.
OMG....if i were enough of an a$$hole i could easily report the multitude of adults ive messed around with starting at age 17.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's what I said above, more or less.-AC
That does not give any a response to whether or not you would have a problem with your 13 year old boy or your 11 year old girl having consentual sex with a 26, 30 or a 50 year old man.
I am asking you a specific question. A yes or a no, followed by a reason will suffice.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes but there is a [B]HUGE different between a CHILD and a TEENAGER....[/B]
If you're not a legal adult, you count as a child. That includes 17 year olds, technically. You're a teen for 7 years, 5 of which are as a child.
Originally posted by GCG
That does not give any a response to whether or not you would have a problem with your 13 year old boy or your 11 year old girl having consentual sex with a 26, 30 or a 50 year old man.I am asking you a specific question. A yes or a no, followed by a reason will suffice.
Considering that this is the first time you've asked me, I'd suggest chilling out.
I personally would have a problem with my 11 year old girl having sex with a 26, 30 or 50 year old man, because I think upward of a decade age gap is miles too much at that age. However, if they had consentual sex and I found out, I would want him charged with full-on rape, purely because he didn't full-on rape her. I'd want him charged with what he deserves, statutory rape. I would fully recognise that she gave consent regardless of if her consent holds any true weight. I wouldn't treat it like the consent of a 20 year old, but it's still consent that needs to be considered.
Same with a boy.
-AC
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
OMG....if i were enough of an a$$hole i could easily report the multitude of adults ive messed around with starting at age 17.
I hope they were all MILFs, you stud. Pff.
As for this group, it's a weird one. If paedophilia is illegal, how can they be allowed to become a recognised party based on such an agenda? Although, I guess as the article states, it's just a means of raising the topic.
The age of consent in most countries is between 16 and 18 years of age, although there are many countries that have lower base ages. Click here for the list.. It seems a little strange that some countries have a lower age for males, as our physical and mental development is slower than girls. Although, I guess it's based on the fact that guys aren't going to be burdened by a bun in the oven at such a young age.
Personally, I think 16 is a fair age as it leaves enough time for innocence to be maintained and childhood to be just that. Most people don't pay strict attention to the exact age, but at least it helps as a guideline.
On a personal note, when I lived in the US my girlfriend was 17, while I was 19. She was smart, and had big boobs, so I don't think there was anything wrong with that.
Forget the statutory part- its just rape.
A person who finds it acceptable to believe that consent given by a 11-14 year old is a credible reason to have sex with him/her is seriously messed up. Adults do understand these emotions and feelings that children go through and know that they can abuse this power to satisfy themselves. Its abuse of power and its rape.
No-one is mature enough especially at that age; yes people mature at different times in their lives and people have different upbringings and laws and things but in my country its 16 and over and thats how I see it.
The statutory rape law is stupid, I mean really unless there is a third party then who knows who did or didn't give consent in the sittuation. The adult could be lying for example to escape the rape charge and given his experience in life can easily manipulate him/her into believing that they gave consent. The adult deserves all the shit he/she gets from society if he feels its necessary to have sex with a child and if the adult is the slightest bit unsure of the persons age then he/she should just not do it.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Forget the statutory part- its just rape.
No, it's not. It's called statutory rape for a reason, do you know what that reason is? The reason is because if it's not forced, harmful or threatening, and the "victim" is only such because she is underaged, then it's statutory.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
A person who finds it acceptable to believe that consent given by a 11-14 year old is a credible reason to have sex with him/her is seriously messed up. Adults do understand these emotions and feelings that children go through and know that they can abuse this power to satisfy themselves. Its abuse of power and its rape.
Yeah, statutory rape. Not the rape that is most commonly known.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
No-one is mature enough especially at that age; yes people mature at different times in their lives and people have different upbringings and laws and things but in my country its 16 and over and thats how I see it.
It's 16 and over here, but regardless of how young a person is, if consent is given, that has to be taken into account and investigated as to why she gave consent. If she gave consent because she was threatened, harmed or other, then it's obviously worse. If she wasn't harmed, forced, or threatened, then it's a different plate of fish.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
The statutory rape law is stupid, I mean really unless there is a third party then who knows who did or didn't give consent in the situation. The adult could be lying for example to escape the rape charge and given his experience in life can easily manipulate him/her into believing that they gave consent. The adult deserves all the shit he/she gets from society if he feels its necessary to have sex with a child and if the adult is the slightest bit unsure of the persons age then he/she should just not do it.
So your rationale is "If you're not sure that the man did it or not, just go with a serious rape charge"? That's incredibly dangerous and stupid. That's as bad as saying "We're not sure if he did anything, she's just saying he did, so we'll not follow it up."
In the event that he didn't do it, you've just tagged him with a label that he will never be able to shake off. That's why it's crucial that we don't do that.
-AC
It's helpful to remember what rape technically means and what statutory technically means.
Rape, by definition, is sex without consent.
Now, literally, speaking, anyone who can express themselves can give consent. There is no dictionary definition of the term that says that only adults can do it.
But most rape laws have a clause that reads something like:
"It is not a defence that the victim consented if the victim is x years or younger"
In a purely legal sense, the option for a person of that age or younger to consent is removed.
That is why it is called statutory- the literal logic of consent is irrelevant, legally speaking it was rape. hence, statutory rape- rape purely under the terms of the law. Technically there is no reason why such a term has to apply only to the consent issue, but that is how it is commonly used.
So it is very difficult to not have statutory rape laws. You need some means to legally confront the issue that, literally speaking, consent might have been given. The law can take the position that it can be left to psychologists to decide whether that person could give reasonable consent, but legally speaking the option simply does not exist.
I'm not a law student, but I am under the impression that very often if there is no consent given, they probably wouldn't treat it as statutory, just as a rape. The statutory clause is only needed if a defence of consent is being used.
It probably varies wildly by country.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it's not. It's called statutory rape for a reason, do you know what that reason is? The reason is because if it's not forced, harmful or threatening, and the "victim" is only such because she is underaged, then it's statutory.
So you don't think using your experience and understanding as an adult of how to play around with the feelings and emotions of a child to satisfy a physical need is harmful or threatening? ...right ... okay.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
So you don't think using your experience and understanding as an adult of how to play around with the feelings and emotions of a child to satisfy a physical need is harmful or threatening? ...right ... okay.
Yeah, I know that we as adults see it as harmful or threatening, but the fact that the child may very well come out of it mentally and physically unharmed is enough to consider.
Regardless of whether the consent is considered credible or not, the fact that it may very well have been there calls to question the ability to give consent. I don't think it should ever be overlooked. I'd not want to be treated on the same level as a man who abducts, abuses and rapes females if all I did was sleep with a girl who gave me her consent. Not saying I would ever do that, to all the anal people out there, but my biggest problem with law and people dealing with it, is that there are tags that- once attached- can never be removed. Paedophila, rapist etc.
No man deserves to be branded either unless he is one, because in today's society that can result in drastic action.
-AC
Most legal definitions of 'consent' are rather ambiguous. It can have a wide variety of meanings, and such meanings are strictly dependant upon culture. Such a term should not be used to characteristically describe sexual relations between persons of a particular age.
Moreover, recent studies conducted in the US, UK, and Germany have demonstrated a gradual decrease in the dating pool for single males and females over the age of 54. A lowering of the consensual age limit would allow for more individual opportunity and freedom in many societies. Presumably, these freedoms would allow for those individuals who have difficulty finding loving life partners due to the current age constraints imposed upon them by the present legal definition of 'consent.'
The odd thing is, it is probably less controversial to abolish the AOC than to lower it to 12.
Abolish it and- I would hope- the idea would be to replace it with legislation designed to prevent the exploitation of children for sexual means.
But lower it to 12 and you are actively condoning sexual activity between children and adults at that age, which is far more worrying.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Paedophilia is defined as an attraction to children. There's no specific age range.It could be applied to a 17 year old, although that's hardly practical.
-AC
if you want to be anal over it, you can say that. however the true nature of paedophilia is to be aroused by a child's immaturity and under/undevelopment, physically and/or mentally...that is as it applies to the psychiatric disorder and not to technical law, which is far less specific.
lets say you sleep with a 14/15 year old girl, but she has the physical and mental characteristics and maturity of a woman well within age. the court will tag the title 'peadophile' on you, and yet you were not attracted to any immature or under/undeveloped qualities. so although you broke the law, the law then labels you with an incorrect and inappropriate title.
so its a term which overly demonises the common 'statutory rapist' (as if tagging on 'rapist' isnt intense enough, right?) , and thus trivialising the very dangers to society for which the term, rooted in psychology, was even conceived: paedophiles.