NATION

PASSWORD

Age of Consent.....Should it be lowered?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:17 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:Then you would have the entire population measured and quantified in each ability to determine who keeps their accorded privileges. A nationwide testing of all citizens with like gazillion certificate programs to test everyone who wants to do anything. And you would have to test them periodically every year or so because they might just by accident, disease, luck, happen to lose some faculties over time at any moment.


Not for everything, just things which pose threats to others. Like driving. And we already do that to an extent. After a certain number of years, you have to get your license renewed, and testing redone, to prove you are still capable.

I don't see how this is unreasonable. Is your complaint that it is impractical?

It's not that it's only impractical. It would be a monstrous bureaucracy. It is theoretically reasonable, but would be near impossible to implement without arbitrary cut-offs of some sort. Age of consent is an artifact of trying to tame this bureaucracy, I would argue.
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:18 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Immoren wrote:Making someone pregnant?
Giving someone STD?


Again, only threats to yourself.

If you have an STD, you could give it to someone else, but again, if they are freely choosing to engage in the act with you, you are not responsible for them; they are responsible for themselves. It's their fault if they have sex with you, and catch an STD from you. They chose, of sound mind, to consent and engage in the act with you. It was their body to put out there.


I somewhat agree with this, but if the information regarding your health status is sought you should provide all information to your partner.
If someone lies about having an STD, there is no realistic way for their partner to know. By removing from them the ability of informed consent you are committing a wrong, and i'd argue should face consequences.
"I don't know" if you genuinely don't know is an acceptable answer.
So is refusing to answer.
LYING is unacceptable.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 62794
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Immoren » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:18 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Immoren wrote:Making someone pregnant?
Giving someone STD?


Again, only threats to yourself.

If you have an STD, you could give it to someone else, but again, if they are freely choosing to engage in the act with you, you are not responsible for them; they are responsible for themselves. It's their fault if they have sex with you, and catch an STD from you. They chose, of sound mind, to consent and engage in the act with you. It was their body to put out there.

Sometimes I wonder, why do I even bother.
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
I ᴛʜɪɴᴋ I'ᴠᴇ ᴊᴜsᴛ ʜᴀᴅ ᴀ ɴᴇᴀʀ Aʀᴀʀᴀɢɪ ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇ.
— Death. Probably.

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:18 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:Good. Then when should they be investigated or retested? How severe a crime is necessary? A fender bender? Vehicular manslaughter? Where do you draw the line? A felony? Misdemeanor?


There is no line. We typically act when any crime has been committed.

Hmm... If people had to be retested for driver's licence every time they had a minor traffic accident, that would pretty much paralyze anybody's lives.
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

User avatar
Hrenoland
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 57
Founded: Jan 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Hrenoland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:18 am

In Finland where age of consent is 16.
In Spain age of consent is 13.
In Bulgaria,Estonia,Germany,Hungary,Italy,Liechtenstein,Portugal and Serbia age of consent is 14.
Last edited by Hrenoland on Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:19 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
There is no line. We typically act when any crime has been committed.

Hmm... If people had to be retested for driver's licence every time they had a minor traffic accident, that would pretty much paralyze anybody's lives.


Points are added to the license for every incident that actually breaks the rules. (If it's caught.) More license points is in itself a punishment. Though I always find it amusing we call them "Points."
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:20 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:Let me phrase it this way. Do you think that we have good cause to prevent someone who has not undergone sex education from engaging in the act if this is known to their partner? The individual cannot know the risks involved nor behave reasonably in this circumstance in my view.


No, I do not. This is because the person is not incapable of not understanding; they just don't at the time. If the information is available to them (as it is), but they don't make sure to properly understand it before engaging in it, that's on them. The other person isn't responsible for their education; they are just responsible in making sure they are capable of making sound judgment, and wise choices. Not that they actually do.

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:22 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:Hmm... If people had to be retested for driver's licence every time they had a minor traffic accident, that would pretty much paralyze anybody's lives.


Points are added to the license for every incident that actually breaks the rules. (If it's caught.) More license points is in itself a punishment. Though I always find it amusing we call them "Points."

You do see how you are inching into slippery slope territory don't you? How are you going to quantify points to match the severity of crime? All vehicular manslaughter are equally culpable hence deserve equal number of points in all cases?
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:22 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:Let me phrase it this way. Do you think that we have good cause to prevent someone who has not undergone sex education from engaging in the act if this is known to their partner? The individual cannot know the risks involved nor behave reasonably in this circumstance in my view.


No, I do not. This is because the person is not incapable of not understanding; they just don't at the time. If the information is available to them (as it is), but they don't make sure to properly understand it before engaging in it, that's on them. The other person isn't responsible for their education; they are just responsible in making sure they are capable of making sound judgment, and wise choices. Not that they actually do.


The information isn't available to them at the time, which is the only time that matters. Consider, if someone is passed out or unconscious, it is rape to have sex with them. Not because they are incapable of consent, but because they are incapable at the time.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:23 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:I somewhat agree with this, but if the information regarding your health status is sought you should provide all information to your partner.


Of course, I should have been more specific to include such a scenario. Yes, if someone is denied information, the other party is responsible. So I can agree that lying is unacceptable.

Any situation in which the information is available however, but the person either disregards it, or does not seek it out, that person is responsible for whatever they choose to engage in I would say.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:23 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Points are added to the license for every incident that actually breaks the rules. (If it's caught.) More license points is in itself a punishment. Though I always find it amusing we call them "Points."

You do see how you are inching into slippery slope territory don't you? How are you going to quantify points to match the severity of crime? All vehicular manslaughter are equally culpable hence deserve equal number of points in all cases?


We already do this. This isn't something i'm proposing.
Typically hitting a pedestrian is an immediate 12 points out of 12.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
The Steel Magnolia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8134
Founded: Dec 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Steel Magnolia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:23 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
It doesn't, somewhat.
But since we're also using driving as an example, the mere possibility of capability is regarded as insufficient to secure the right to drive, and i'd say thats a good thing.
If they can prove they can drive, they get their license.
Similarly, if they can prove they are capable of making sound and reasoned decisions, I have no objection to younger individuals becoming adults before the default age of consent.
Conflating possibility of capability and capability is a bad idea.


The difference is, driving can cause harm to others, whereas unwise sex only poses a threat to yourself. Of course threatening other's wellbeing should be regulated, but your own? I don't think it should.

Now that's a damn lie:

Bottle wrote:
Blouman Empire wrote:
Why does it have to be safe? If you aren't the one engaging in it, what's it to you?

Unsafe sex increases the odds that the population will have a high percentage of carriers of STDs. Since I like to have sex with other humans, and I dislike rashes and boils and immunosuppression, I prefer that my fellow humans take steps to protect their naughty bits in anticipation of my future desires.

Unsafe sex also increases the odds of pregnancy. From my highly scientific sampling of my six close friends who have children, pregnancy causes one to talk about nothing but gluten-free formula and Signing Time videos for babies, and also leads to blanket refusal to come over at play Mario Kart at 2:15 am. I therefore benefit tremendously from increasing safe sex and reducing pregnancy rates, because people with babies do not sufficiently entertain me.

Risky sex practices such as sex whilst driving increase the odds that I will be rendered a greasy smear on the sidewalk by a driver who was too focus on receiving road head and not focused enough on remaining safely within his lane.

Short version: I wish for my fellow humans to maintain good personal health and show reasonable care with their bodies and the bodies of those around them, because this makes it easier for me to get ass and have fun.

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:24 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:You do see how you are inching into slippery slope territory don't you? How are you going to quantify points to match the severity of crime? All vehicular manslaughter are equally culpable hence deserve equal number of points in all cases?


We already do this. This isn't something i'm proposing.
Typically hitting a pedestrian is an immediate 12 points out of 12.

And you don't think that's arbitrary, and we could just as well be arguing for or against why certain penalties are assigned to what and whether or not that's arbitrary?
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:24 am

Aurora Novus wrote:Answer me this.

If the age of consent is set to 17. If two 16 years olds have sex, the law does not act. If one of them is 17, the law still does not act. hese things are seen as morally permissible.

At what point does, in being 17, one day before turning 18, the magic shift to immorality occur? At one point does it specifically become immoral? How does that single day turn something that was once morally permissible, into something morally abhorrent and criminally punishable? What is so different between the last day and the new day, that it radically changes the relationship?

And if your argument is "it's morally ambiguous, so we just pick a number, and enforce it blindly", is that not conceding that you have no moral justification for your actions, but are merely using law to enforce your own personal views?

This is a good question. I am not of the opinion that there is a simple answer. The closest I can come is that I believe a rational line can be justified within a range and I believe my political/legal system is justified in determining where to set the line within that range.

I started to write an essay, even a tome, so I am stopping with it incomplete. It is spoilered below:
That there is not a magic day is not to say there is not rational relationship among the age of an individual; the physical, mental, and emotional risks of sex to that individual; and the capacity of that individual to consent to sex in an informed and sound manner.

You are advocating a line - puberty. You've even said an age - 13, even though some individuals will reach puberty before that age and some will not reach it by that age. You justified it as the average age. There is nothing magic about the day one turns 13 that makes one suddenly have a greater capacity to consent, to have sounder judgment, or less risk of harm from sex. (Moreoever, I am still questioning why puberty is ethically relevant at all. I can see some relevance to physical risk, but that is all -- and it could be argued either way.)

We live in a society/polity with rules set through methods intended to reflect majority sentiment within limits. All these laws are a balance that involve judgments about what is best for society and for the individuals within it considering numerous variables. Far from the least of these variables is the value of liberty. So we create rules that try to be optimum, but will never be perfect.

Any line for age to consent will be underinclusive and any line will be overinclusive. Assuming that one wants a line at all, the question is where it is most reasonable to set a line. Although we should never say something is correct simply because it is the status quo or based on tradition, human society generally tends to learn from experience. Experience and scientific fields like psychology, sociology, and neurology tell us that individuals in their teens tend to develop greater cognitive capacity, better judgment, and emotional maturity. They also have had time to be educated and absorb information. They have also matured physically. It makes sense to draw a line somewhere in this period. It is not a magic line and different jurisdictions may differ quite reasonably and ethically about where to draw the line.

So it is rather absurd to talk about absolutes or rant for or against a particular age of consent line without the perspective that there is a both a reason for having a line somewhere and a range in which a line could reasonably be set. Also age of consent is really just part of a complex set of laws regarding sexual assault. There are varying degrees of crimes, varying severity of punishments, etc., that consider a wide range of factors -- including the age of each individual involved in a sex act. So the line is more complicated than a simple age of one individual, but a general age below which one cannot be said to consent to sex. Among other things this provides notice to everyone as to what is criminally punishable and what is not, so they can decide how to act.

I may or may not complete this bloviating. I may not be bothered. I may wish to abandon this topic. We will see. Regardless, it is almost 3:30am here and I should be in bed.
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:25 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:I somewhat agree with this, but if the information regarding your health status is sought you should provide all information to your partner.


Of course, I should have been more specific to include such a scenario. Yes, if someone is denied information, the other party is responsible. So I can agree that lying is unacceptable.

Any situation in which the information is available however, but the person either disregards it, or does not seek it out, that person is responsible for whatever they choose to engage in I would say.

So would you criminalize lies then?
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:26 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
We already do this. This isn't something i'm proposing.
Typically hitting a pedestrian is an immediate 12 points out of 12.

And you don't think that's arbitrary, and we could just as well be arguing for or against why certain penalties are assigned to what and whether or not that's arbitrary?


I think we could probably improve the system somewhat, but in principle it can work.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:26 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
Of course, I should have been more specific to include such a scenario. Yes, if someone is denied information, the other party is responsible. So I can agree that lying is unacceptable.

Any situation in which the information is available however, but the person either disregards it, or does not seek it out, that person is responsible for whatever they choose to engage in I would say.

So would you criminalize lies then?


It is already criminal to misrepresent your sexual health status to your partner and may result in GBH charges if they become infected. (In some countries)
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:27 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:And you don't think that's arbitrary, and we could just as well be arguing for or against why certain penalties are assigned to what and whether or not that's arbitrary?


I think we could probably improve the system somewhat, but in principle it can work.

But keep this in mind while you put that principle to practice. Unfairly applied law is worse than no law.
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:28 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:So would you criminalize lies then?


It is already criminal to misrepresent your sexual health status to your partner and may result in GBH charges if they become infected. (In some countries)

But by extension, I would argue you would have to criminalize all lies where in one party can be harmed by the lack of information. That would be a very pervasive criminal law.
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:28 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
It is already criminal to misrepresent your sexual health status to your partner and may result in GBH charges if they become infected. (In some countries)

But by extension, I would argue you would have to criminalize all lies where in one party can be harmed by the lack of information. That would be a very pervasive criminal law.


In common law if you can demonstrate the harm, then yes, they are criminal (Or at least culpable. Civil suits and such.) under certain circumstances that are pretty technical.
STD transmission is one of those circumstances.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 62794
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Immoren » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:30 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:Hmm... If people had to be retested for driver's licence every time they had a minor traffic accident, that would pretty much paralyze anybody's lives.


Points are added to the license for every incident that actually breaks the rules. (If it's caught.) More license points is in itself a punishment. Though I always find it amusing we call them "Points."


I am not sure how it's done there, but in Finland drivers license is temporarily taken away after three on-the-spot fines. (that's what dictionaries told me was the correct term. I am not sure if it is.) <.<
Last edited by Immoren on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
I ᴛʜɪɴᴋ I'ᴠᴇ ᴊᴜsᴛ ʜᴀᴅ ᴀ ɴᴇᴀʀ Aʀᴀʀᴀɢɪ ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇ.
— Death. Probably.

User avatar
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:31 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:The information isn't available to them at the time, which is the only time that matters.


Hogwash. If we went by that, anytime anyone was about to have sex, they would have to have laptop pulled up in front of them, just os they can check all the recent information on sex and sexual practices. The information is available to them prior to engaging in sexual practices. It is their responsibility to know it beforehand.

Consider, if someone is passed out or unconscious, it is rape to have sex with them. Not because they are incapable of consent, but because they are incapable at the time.


I disagree that that is the reason. It's not that they are incapable of giving consent at the time per say (though that is it, in a broad sense), it is because they are incapable of having the capacity to have the information for consent. An uninformed person, looking to have sex, while uninformed, has the capacity to be informed. So any uninformed choices they make, they bare the responsibility for. Whereas a passed out individual is not capable of becoming informed in the first place. That is what makes them incapable of giving consent. Not merely the lack of information, but the lack of capability to have the information in the first place.

Does that make sense to you? I may have worded that poorly.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49065
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:32 am

Immoren wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Points are added to the license for every incident that actually breaks the rules. (If it's caught.) More license points is in itself a punishment. Though I always find it amusing we call them "Points."


I am not sure how it's done there, but in Finland drivers license is temporarily removed after three on-the-spot fines. (that's what dictionaries told me was the correct term. I am not sure if it is.) <.<


Seems to follow the same principle, but more strict in implementation.
Here various types of bad driving result in different numbers of points being added. Once 12 is reached, your license is revoked.
It may well be that three on the spot fines is enough to reach 12, i'm unsure of the specifics.
I prefer this system personally as it recognizes that speeding isn't necessarily the same as ramming into another car because you were on your mobile while speeding.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Norcroft
Diplomat
 
Posts: 580
Founded: Jan 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Norcroft » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:32 am

Magni Vastator wrote:I've been thinking lately.....I live in california where the age of consent is 18, and I was wondering if any of you think the age of consent should be lowered. Not just in california, but where you live as well. I like the age of 16 better than 18.

Puberty just seems like mother nature's indicator that a person is ready to engage in sexual activities if they please, but the law says otherwise here. Any sexual subject still feels very taboo among people here, and everyone tries their hardest to keep the youth ignorant about it. Do you think repression of sexual knowledge can make a sexually awkward person?

Holy crap I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'll recap:
Should the age of consent be lowered in california, or wherever you live?
Does puberty decide when someone is "ready"?
Does keeping sexual knowledge away from the youth make them sexually awkward later in life?


The youth should be informed about sex so they cant be taken advantage of.
16 seems reasonable. 18 is safest.

I dont think age of consent should start at puberty. Just cuz u know how to walk it doesnt mean u should run a marathon, know what im saying?
Steampunk:FanT/PMT Nation.
Class O14 civilization.

User avatar
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1925
Founded: Nov 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:33 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:The information isn't available to them at the time, which is the only time that matters.


Hogwash. If we went by that, anytime anyone was about to have sex, they would have to have laptop pulled up in front of them, just os they can check all the recent information on sex and sexual practices. The information is available to them prior to engaging in sexual practices. It is their responsibility to know it beforehand.

Ties in nicely with how impractical it would be to implement things the way you would like, no?
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cannot think of a name, Darussalam, Soviet Technocracy6, The Alma Mater, The Greater Ohio Valley, The New United States, Uiiop, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron