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
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49045
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:35 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.

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.


I disagree that it is hogwash, the information is available to them in their mind or it isn't. If the information isn't available, they can't consent. This is precisely the same as the conclusion you reached with passed out individuals. No matter what, the individual isn't capable of reaching the information at the time that the sex act occurs or begins.
I understand your position, i just disagree.
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 4:35 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
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?


Touche.

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

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:37 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:Ties in nicely with how impractical it would be to implement things the way you would like, no?


Touche.

Whoa. I'll take that to be a genuine compliment. :)
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 4:40 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:Ties in nicely with how impractical it would be to implement things the way you would like, no?


Touche.

btw, I'm gonna bug out. Thanks for posting your arguments. I always enjoy them. I don't know how you keep up the energy to do this; just yesterday and today, I've noticed how much you are on here, but I hope this isn't a short stint, and you plan on sticking around.
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:41 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:I disagree that it is hogwash, the information is available to them in their mind or it isn't. If the information isn't available, they can't consent. This is precisely the same as the conclusion you reached with passed out individuals. No matter what, the individual isn't capable of reaching the information at the time that the sex act occurs or begins.
I understand your position, i just disagree.


That's not what I'm saying.

The young individual, while they may not possess in their mind at that moment, the information, has the mental capacity to, if the information was put in front of them, know and understand it. They have the mental capacity to be informed.

The passed out person, on the other hand, has no capacity to be informed, due to being passed out.

That's the key difference I'm trying to highlight, and what I think determines consent in the two issues. The young individual may be uninformed, but they have the capacity to be informed if they so chose or if the information was shoved in their face. Therefore they can consent, even if consenting is unwise. The unconscious individual has no such potential. Meaning they cannot consent.

Although I suppose it could be possible to argue that if the unconscious person, if of sound mind before going unconscious, gave you permission to or even requested that you have sex with their unconscious body, that could count as consent. But that's an entirely different debate, and I'm taking this as assuming you just stumbled upon a random unconscious person.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49045
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:44 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:I disagree that it is hogwash, the information is available to them in their mind or it isn't. If the information isn't available, they can't consent. This is precisely the same as the conclusion you reached with passed out individuals. No matter what, the individual isn't capable of reaching the information at the time that the sex act occurs or begins.
I understand your position, i just disagree.


That's not what I'm saying.

The young individual, while they may not possess in their mind at that moment, the information, has the mental capacity to, if the information was put in front of them, know and understand it. They have the mental capacity to be informed.

The passed out person, on the other hand, has no capacity to be informed, due to being passed out.

That's the key difference I'm trying to highlight, and what I think determines consent in the two issues. The young individual may be uninformed, but they have the capacity to be informed if they so chose or if the information was shoved in their face. Therefore they can consent, even if consenting is unwise. The unconscious individual has no such potential. Meaning they cannot consent.

Although I suppose it could be possible to argue that if the unconscious person, if of sound mind before going unconscious, gave you permission to or even requested that you have sex with their unconscious body, that could count as consent. But that's an entirely different debate, and I'm taking this as assuming you just stumbled upon a random unconscious person.


I may have misunderstood.
Then i'll return to my point that you are conflating capability with the possibility of capability. We cannot know the young person is capable of understanding the information, just as we cannot know someone is capable of driving.
They are only potentially capable, and sans a test, we should err on the side of caution.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:44 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
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:45 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
Touche.

Whoa. I'll take that to be a genuine compliment. :)


It is. I hadn't realized how impractical what I was suggesting could be, until you pointed out that example. Good on you.

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:I've noticed how much you are on here, but I hope this isn't a short stint, and you plan on sticking around.


I tend to ebb and flow on forums, but I genrally stick around. I might disappear for awhile, or slow down, then pick up again, rinse and repeat.

I do check this account every day however, as I like playing the game portion of this website, so if you ever want to chat about something, feel free to PM me.

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:47 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:I may have misunderstood.
Then i'll return to my point that you are conflating capability with the possibility of capability. We cannot know the young person is capable of understanding the information, just as we cannot know someone is capable of driving.
They are only potentially capable, and sans a test, we should err on the side of caution.


This is true...and something I'll have to mull over. Thanks.

EDIT: It seems you've put me in a position where I'm forced to either concede that everyone should have to take a test before having sex (which is impractical), or an age of consent (which was my complaint in the first place). Haha.

It seems without perfect knowledge, a completely just solution is impossible.
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49045
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:47 am

At this point we're just quibbling over minutia anyway. :p
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 4:49 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:At this point we're just quibbling over minutia anyway. :p


Made an edit, in case you're interested.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49045
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:53 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:I may have misunderstood.
Then i'll return to my point that you are conflating capability with the possibility of capability. We cannot know the young person is capable of understanding the information, just as we cannot know someone is capable of driving.
They are only potentially capable, and sans a test, we should err on the side of caution.


This is true...and something I'll have to mull over. Thanks.

EDIT: It seems you've put me in a position where I'm forced to either concede that everyone should have to take a test before having sex (which is impractical), or an age of consent (which was my complaint in the first place). Haha.

It seems without perfect knowledge, a completely just solution is impossible.


Pretty much. It's what got me around to the position anyway. The importance is recognizing it is arbitrary and flexible, and that while we aren't sure where the line is, we know it when we see it.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:54 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
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:02 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
This is true...and something I'll have to mull over. Thanks.

EDIT: It seems you've put me in a position where I'm forced to either concede that everyone should have to take a test before having sex (which is impractical), or an age of consent (which was my complaint in the first place). Haha.

It seems without perfect knowledge, a completely just solution is impossible.


Pretty much. It's what got me around to the position anyway. The importance is recognizing it is arbitrary and flexible, and that while we aren't sure where the line is, we know it when we see it.


Here's an idea that just popped into my head.

What if we had an age of consent, but, had some form of tests available for those who wished to go beyond the age of consent. Statutory "rape" isn't the common of a thing anyways, in comparison to relative-same age relationships, so how impractical would it really be? If you want to start a relationship or continue one that would violate the age of consent, you just both take a test of some kind that displays you are both of mental capability to make sound decisions. In this scenario, it doesn't even really matter what the age of consent is. It's more there as a safety barrier than anything. And since the test isn't forced upon someone every single time, for every relationship, but instead is a choice for those rare would-be couples who want to want to go around the age of consent, it's a lot more practical.

User avatar
Copenhagen Metropolis
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1651
Founded: Nov 29, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Copenhagen Metropolis » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:04 am

It's 15 in Denmark, which I'm fine with.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49045
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:26 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Pretty much. It's what got me around to the position anyway. The importance is recognizing it is arbitrary and flexible, and that while we aren't sure where the line is, we know it when we see it.


Here's an idea that just popped into my head.

What if we had an age of consent, but, had some form of tests available for those who wished to go beyond the age of consent. Statutory "rape" isn't the common of a thing anyways, in comparison to relative-same age relationships, so how impractical would it really be? If you want to start a relationship or continue one that would violate the age of consent, you just both take a test of some kind that displays you are both of mental capability to make sound decisions. In this scenario, it doesn't even really matter what the age of consent is. It's more there as a safety barrier than anything. And since the test isn't forced upon someone every single time, for every relationship, but instead is a choice for those rare would-be couples who want to want to go around the age of consent, it's a lot more practical.


Thats pretty much my posistion, except that the test is only necessary for those below the age of consent not those above it.
(I'm assuming thats what you meant anyway.)
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
Eastfield Lodge
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9449
Founded: May 23, 2008
Democratic Socialists

Postby Eastfield Lodge » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:30 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Pretty much. It's what got me around to the position anyway. The importance is recognizing it is arbitrary and flexible, and that while we aren't sure where the line is, we know it when we see it.


Here's an idea that just popped into my head.

What if we had an age of consent, but, had some form of tests available for those who wished to go beyond the age of consent. Statutory "rape" isn't the common of a thing anyways, in comparison to relative-same age relationships, so how impractical would it really be? If you want to start a relationship or continue one that would violate the age of consent, you just both take a test of some kind that displays you are both of mental capability to make sound decisions. In this scenario, it doesn't even really matter what the age of consent is. It's more there as a safety barrier than anything. And since the test isn't forced upon someone every single time, for every relationship, but instead is a choice for those rare would-be couples who want to want to go around the age of consent, it's a lot more practical.

Good idea, but it's one thing proposing such a system, but another thing to try and get kids to adhere to it.
Economic Left/Right: -5.01 (formerly -5.88)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31 (formerly 2.36)
ISideWith UK
My motto translates to: "All Eat Fish and Chips!"
First person to post the 10,000th reply to a thread on these forums.
Flag courtesy of Astrolinium.
International Geese Brigade - Celebrating 0 Radiation and 3rd Place!
info to be added
stuff to be added
This nation partially represents my political, social and economic views.

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:21 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
Here's an idea that just popped into my head.

What if we had an age of consent, but, had some form of tests available for those who wished to go beyond the age of consent. Statutory "rape" isn't the common of a thing anyways, in comparison to relative-same age relationships, so how impractical would it really be? If you want to start a relationship or continue one that would violate the age of consent, you just both take a test of some kind that displays you are both of mental capability to make sound decisions. In this scenario, it doesn't even really matter what the age of consent is. It's more there as a safety barrier than anything. And since the test isn't forced upon someone every single time, for every relationship, but instead is a choice for those rare would-be couples who want to want to go around the age of consent, it's a lot more practical.


Thats pretty much my posistion, except that the test is only necessary for those below the age of consent not those above it.
(I'm assuming thats what you meant anyway.)


Yeah, I should've been more clear on that part.

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

Postby Grad Duchy of Luxembourg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:36 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Pretty much. It's what got me around to the position anyway. The importance is recognizing it is arbitrary and flexible, and that while we aren't sure where the line is, we know it when we see it.

Aurora Novus wrote:
Here's an idea that just popped into my head.

What if we had an age of consent, but, had some form of tests available for those who wished to go beyond the age of consent. Statutory "rape" isn't the common of a thing anyways, in comparison to relative-same age relationships, so how impractical would it really be? If you want to start a relationship or continue one that would violate the age of consent, you just both take a test of some kind that displays you are both of mental capability to make sound decisions. In this scenario, it doesn't even really matter what the age of consent is. It's more there as a safety barrier than anything. And since the test isn't forced upon someone every single time, for every relationship, but instead is a choice for those rare would-be couples who want to want to go around the age of consent, it's a lot more practical.

Ostroeuropa wrote:Thats pretty much my posistion, except that the test is only necessary for those below the age of consent not those above it.
(I'm assuming thats what you meant anyway.)

I'd endorse this 100%. We may have to somehow consider whether taking the test is a right or a privilege. In this case, right would imply ability to take the test without parental consent, and privilege would imply ability to take the test only with parental consent.
Last edited by Grad Duchy of Luxembourg on Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Member of Caninope Contingent

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:41 am

Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:I'd endorse this 100%. We may have to somehow consider whether taking the test is a right or a privilege. In this case, right would imply ability to take the test without parental consent, and privilege would imply ability to take the test only with parental consent.


Right, definitely. Parents have no place regulating who their children can and cannot love. If the child passes the test, they are obviously capable of making their own decisions, thus parental authority becomes meaningless, and only serves to oppress and spread misery.

People should have the right to be with whom they love.

User avatar
Esternial
P2TM RP Mentor
 
Posts: 51674
Founded: May 09, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Esternial » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:46 am

NERVUN wrote:As stated in the last thread on the topic, one's body does not equal the ability to mentally understand the consequences or be able to handle it (And indeed for women, they are capable of getting pregnant before their growth catches up with being able to safely handle it).

Plus our society has extended one's youth to 18 years as opposed to an average 12-14 back in Ancient Rome.

People will probably use the "it's natural" argument in this debate, failing to realise how disconnect current society is with nature these days.

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:54 am

Maurepas wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
It's not. The problem isn't how old the carrier of the material is - it's how old the person IN the material is - and that doesn't change with who is carrying it.

But should it not change with the age of who is carrying it? And why should it not?

Rather, why should it? Are they capable of making decisions with one person, but then because another person is slightly older it renders the ability of the younger person to decide null and void? Or are you here with the morality police?

User avatar
Meryuma
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14922
Founded: Jul 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Meryuma » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:15 pm

I Want to Smash Them All wrote:The only good thing about yet another thread on this topic is a chance to post this request and challenge below early in a thread:

If you are going to argue about age of consent laws (or more accurately laws penalizing engaging in sexual activity with someone based on age), please:

  • If you objecting to any laws or what you think are laws, make yourself familiar with the actual laws to which you are objecting. Perhaps even cite/quote typical laws. (If you are objecting to a specific jurisdiction's or several jurisdictions' particular law(s), say so.)

  • Do not mischaracterize the relevant laws. For example, in the U.S., laws relating to age of consent vary by state. Most state rape or sexual assault laws differentiate among several different types of and degrees of rape, sexual assault, sexual violence, and other sex offenses. Most states characterize sexual activity with minors as separate offenses with various exceptions, degrees, etc., based on circumstances including the age of the individuals involved. So sweeping generalizations about such laws tend to be inaccurate, particularly when part of emotional rhetoric.

  • Be clear whether you are against any legal age of consent (a line concerning an age below which someone is presumed or conclusively held to be unable to consent) or just advocate for a specific age of consent that is different than that of certain jurisdictions.

  • If you are against any legal age of consent, please explain why you think, for example, it should not be presumptively illegal an adult should be able to have intercourse (or engage in some other sexual activity) with a 3-year old. (No, that is not an emotional appeal. That is a legitimate question that would actually be an issue if there were no laws concerning an age to consent.)

  • If you agree that there should be some age of consent, explain why the age at which you would draw the line is (1) any less arbitrary than a different line, (2) justified, and (3) improves upon current law (in whatever jurisdiction applies).

  • If you are going to argue there should be no age of consent but each minor's ability to consent should be judged individually, explain exactly how this would work. What would be the test or standard for determining if a minor could consent to sex? How would the law read? What would be the standard for probable cause to arrest someone for having unconsensual sex with a minor based on this individual standard? What would be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual minor could not consent to sexual activity?

  • If you are going to argue there should be no age of consent but each minor's ability to consent should be judged individually, how would someone who wishes to engage in sexual activity with a particular minor going to know if that minor can legally consent? One of the primary virtues of the rule of law is the ability to know what is permitted and what is prohibited and to adjust one's activities accordingly. How on a practical level will this be possible without any age of consent law?

  • If you object to either current age of consent related laws in a specific jurisdiction or age of consent laws under any situation, please explain exactly what harm is caused by such laws. Be specific. Perhaps provide evidence. Be sure to link the alleged harm to the specific part of the age of consent law to which you object (as opposed to other factors).

  • If you object to either current age of consent related laws in a specific jurisdiction or age of consent laws under any situation, please explain whether you do so based on the belief that such laws do not serve any legitimate purpose. Again, be specific. For example, do you not think sexual activity is likely enough to harm someone below age "X" to justify legal prohibition? Or do you not think sexual activity between age "X" and an adult is likely enough to be coercive enough to justify presuming it to be non-consensual? Be sure to tie your answers to your specific position regarding whether there should be no limit on sexual relations with someone below age "X" (or whatever specific alternative to the law of a specific jurisdiction you advocate).
I could go on, but that is a good starting place.

And, although I am sure there will be objections, I assert that any argument against "age of consent laws" that does not answer most (if not all) of the questions raised above is simply not sufficiently thought out and should be disregarded until such time as it is fully developed.
[spoiler]I am not going to debate this topic. Been there, done that. Still dismayed, horrified, offended, and disgusted. Of course, I will get an immediate "well why post?" or "you don't have to post here" response. My answer is that discussion on this topic are often disconnected from reality and some opinions argued in the past have been poorly considered or intellectually dishonest. Thus, I make the above request and challenge.



To address the blue part, I believe that ideally consent would not be judged by a set age but that an age of consent set at 12 or 13 is about as good. This ties in with the question about "why wouldn't sex with a 3 year old be presumed to be consensual"; there would be a specific definition of consent still that would include full awareness of the act you are choosing to participate in. Such an approach would be preferable because it is more biologically sound, does not perpetuate alarmism about youth sexuality and marginalization of young people, and reduces the risks of people being apprehended as rapists for engaging in consensual relations.

Examples of laws I object to:

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

(2) Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony. [1988 c 145 § 4.]


I knew a boy (he was 16 when I talked to him) who at the age of 14 seduced a guy who was 19 and didn't originally plan on having sex with him. Under this law, the 14 year old would be considered a victim of rape and the man who he had sex with would be branded a felon, even though the younger boy initiated it in the first place.

Also, in the UK, the age of consent is 16 but the age of criminal responsibility is 10, and there are no close-in-age exemptions. This means that if two 15 year olds engage in sex with each other, each one is considered to have raped the other.

As for not mischaracterizing or overgeneralizing, I will admit that I have in the past, and realize I shouldn't in the future.

I have to go now, but I felt I shouldn't go too long without responding, seeing as I mentioned I would yesterday. I can probably respond to more when I get home.
Last edited by Meryuma on Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ᛋᛃᚢ - Social Justice Úlfheðinn
Potarius wrote:
Neo Arcad wrote:Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass.


In layman's terms, orgy time.


Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.


Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."


Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.



Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.

Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...

*puts on sunglasses*

blow out of proportions."

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

...so here's your future

User avatar
The Truth and Light
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29396
Founded: Jan 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Truth and Light » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:47 pm

NO. Most people under 18 don't even know what consent is. Hell fucking no.

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:55 pm

Meryuma wrote:Also, in the UK, the age of consent is 16 but the age of criminal responsibility is 10, and there are no close-in-age exemptions. This means that if two 15 year olds engage in sex with each other, each one is considered to have raped the other.

But the police and the CPS are made up of humans and if such cases even get found out they aren't generally going to be prosecuted criminally.

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:15 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grad Duchy of Luxembourg wrote:I'd endorse this 100%. We may have to somehow consider whether taking the test is a right or a privilege. In this case, right would imply ability to take the test without parental consent, and privilege would imply ability to take the test only with parental consent.


Right, definitely. Parents have no place regulating who their children can and cannot love.


Fortunately, even if we accept that as axiomatic, it's irrelevant.

The question is about consent. Not love.
WASSER IST LEBEN

User avatar
Xathranaar
Minister
 
Posts: 3384
Founded: Jul 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Xathranaar » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:21 pm

The Truth and Light wrote:NO. Most people under 18 don't even know what consent is. Hell fucking no.

I never found it to be that difficult of a concept.

I suspect that a lot of the ignorance regarding consent is actually of the strategic variety you run across quite often on the internet. "If I just don't understand the point, that somehow shields me from it, right?"
My views summarized.
The Gospel According to Queen.
It is possible that some of my posts may not be completely serious.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Canadensia, Danubia-Slavia, EldrichVoid1-3, Fartsniffage, Great Eldaria, Grinning Dragon, Heloin, Hiachijan, Ifreann, Kerchistania, Kilobugya, Lux Pulchrae, Majestic-12 [Bot], Pax Nerdvana, Proctopeo, Republic of Turbin, Serconas, Tarsonis, Telconi, The Federal District of Vice Santos, The Galactic Liberal Democracy, The Grims, The South Falls, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads