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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:24 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
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.


No, the question is about love. The question was whether or not parents should be able to deny their child the ability to prove their capability for consent. Which makes it no longer a question of consent, but a question of whether or not parents should be able to regulate whom their children can love and be in a relationship with, regardless of whether or not they are capable of consenting to the relationship.

And I say no, that is abominable.

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

Postby Grave_n_idle » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:29 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Fortunately, even if we accept that as axiomatic, it's irrelevant.

The question is about consent. Not love.


No, the question is about love.


No, it's not. Read the OP.
WASSER IST LEBEN

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

Postby Xathranaar » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:43 pm

No, the question is about love.


Well I'm willing to grant love under all sorts of circumstances. I'm willing to grant that a father could genuinely fall in love with his 14 year old daughter, and that these feelings could be reciprocated. Creepy as I find the idea, I accept that it could, and even probably does rarely happen.

Sex is another matter. I'm not okay with the consummation of the above relationship under any circumstances (barring crazy Skins shenanigans.) What is happening in such a circumstance is probably abuse, and given the power one of the individuals have over the other, there is no way to be sure.

That's an extreme example, but it illustrates a problem fundamental to adult-teen relationships. There is a terrible asymmetry to them.
Last edited by Xathranaar on Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My views summarized.
The Gospel According to Queen.
It is possible that some of my posts may not be completely serious.

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:46 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
No, the question is about love.


No, it's not. Read the OP.


Yes, it is. Read the post I was responding to. And nice, cutting out my explanation of what question was asked of me in the topic. Ignoring reality just makes you ignorant, not right.
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Grave_n_idle » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:13 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
No, it's not. Read the OP.


Yes, it is. Read the post I was responding to. And nice, cutting out my explanation of what question was asked of me in the topic. Ignoring reality just makes you ignorant, not right.


I'm not right because I ignored your nonsense, that much is true.

No, I'm right because one of the two of us is right. And it's not you.

"Love" is irrelevant - the question is sex. Not love.
WASSER IST LEBEN

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:"Love" is irrelevant - the question is sex. Not love.


Love is not irrelevant, as we were discussing romantic relationships, which is more than just sex, if they are at all sexual. If you want to make it about sex, we can also have the discussion in relation to just sex.

What I will not do however, is subject myself to your pedantic games. Quit being a prude and shove off if you're not going to actually contribute anything to the discussion.

Alternatively, voice support or concern with allowing parents to deny their children the ability to take a test, proving they are capable of consenting to romantic relationships and/or sexual relationships with older adults.
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Condunum
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26273
Founded: Apr 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Condunum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:21 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
No, it's not. Read the OP.


Yes, it is. Read the post I was responding to. And nice, cutting out my explanation of what question was asked of me in the topic. Ignoring reality just makes you ignorant, not right.

The extreme level of hypocrisy in this statement right here is so obnoxiously high that we'd need a tower of babel just to reach the top.
password scrambled

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

Postby Grave_n_idle » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:22 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:Love is not irrelevant, as we were discussing romantic relationships...


Loving someone doesn't have a statutory age limit. It's the putting-your-penis-in-them part that has the consent age issue.
WASSER IST LEBEN

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:33 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:Love is not irrelevant, as we were discussing romantic relationships...


Loving someone doesn't have a statutory age limit. It's the putting-your-penis-in-them part that has the consent age issue.


Fair enough.

Now, do you have any thoughts on the proposed idea, and whether or not parents should be allowed to restrict their children from taking such a test?

User avatar
YellowApple
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13821
Founded: Apr 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby YellowApple » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:34 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:Love is not irrelevant, as we were discussing romantic relationships...


Loving someone doesn't have a statutory age limit. It's the putting-your-penis-in-them part that has the consent age issue.


So lesbian relationships involving underage participants are a-ok?

Duly noted ;)

Mallorea and Riva should resign
Member of the One True Faith and Church. Join The Church of Derpy today!

User avatar
Mikland
Envoy
 
Posts: 262
Founded: Nov 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Mikland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:36 pm

Suicune wrote:
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?


Whatever the age of consent is, kids will still have sex.

Keeping sexual knowledge away from kids is stupid. They need to be educated about sex, so they can make an informed decision and, you know, not have a baby at 14.


What kids need to be taught about is that if they want to have sex, then keep it safe. Seriously, my first high school made is seem like if you were not abstinent then you would get HIV and a whiney crying baby that ruined your life...condom or no. Thats not as bad as my last school, however, that had an ex-prostitute come in and tell her story as if anyone who did not remain abstinent would wind up like her.

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

Postby Meryuma » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:26 pm

Person012345 wrote:
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.


You're being a bit too generous.

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:Love is not irrelevant, as we were discussing romantic relationships...


Loving someone doesn't have a statutory age limit. It's the putting-your-penis-in-them part that has the consent age issue.


And for a lot of people, that's an act of love.

Sidenote: I'm rather irritated with people here saying the age of consent should be a certain age because people below that are irresponsible. It's not a law about responsiblity, it's a law about consent. Even if you do believe in legislating away overly risky behavior, falsely calling people who participating in risky behavior rapists isn't exactly the fairest or most rational way to handle it. It's not equivalent to how we respond to underage drinking. If you do want sex between two underage people to be illegal, at least don't put that under consent vs non-consent.
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
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:51 pm

Meryuma wrote:And for a lot of people, that's an act of love.


It certainly can be - but you don't have to be in love with someone to have sex with them, or vice versa - so it's not an inherent and intrinsic part of it.

But that's irrelevant anyway, because it's not the 'love' part of the act that has a statutory baggage.

Meryuma wrote:Sidenote: I'm rather irritated with people here saying the age of consent should be a certain age because people below that are irresponsible. It's not a law about responsiblity, it's a law about consent. Even if you do believe in legislating away overly risky behavior, falsely calling people who participating in risky behavior rapists...


Rape is sex without consent, or sex where the consent is compromised (e.g. consent under duress). Having sex with someone who hasn't consented (because they can't) is rape - that's not 'falsely calling people' anything.
WASSER IST LEBEN

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:14 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:Rape is sex without consent, or sex where the consent is compromised (e.g. consent under duress). Having sex with someone who hasn't consented (because they can't) is rape - that's not 'falsely calling people' anything.


According to this, a lover who wakes their partner up with a sexual act in the morning, which they both enjoy, has raped their partner. If that's what you want to call rape, fine; but rape loses all it's meaning then, as it can hardly be said to be a moral evil in all situations, let alone something that is always undesirable by or harmful to it's "victims". Which in turn, minimizes rape as a crime and the effects it can have on people.

You don't find that dangerous, immoral, or unwise at all?
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 75006
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Conserative Morality » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:24 pm

It's 16 in Maryland. I don't see the point of it being any lower.
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

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

Postby The Steel Magnolia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:28 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:Rape is sex without consent, or sex where the consent is compromised (e.g. consent under duress). Having sex with someone who hasn't consented (because they can't) is rape - that's not 'falsely calling people' anything.


According to this, a lover who wakes their partner up with a sexual act in the morning, which they both enjoy, has raped their partner. If that's what you want to call rape, fine; but rape loses all it's meaning then, as it can hardly be said to be a moral evil in all situations, let alone something that is always undesirable by or harmful to it's "victims". Which in turn, minimizes rape as a crime and the effects it can have on people.

You don't find that dangerous, immoral, or unwise at all?


Um. Yeah.

That's rape.

Sex without active consent is rape. Period.

So. Fuck your misogynistic drivel.
Last edited by The Steel Magnolia on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:35 pm

The Steel Magnolia wrote:
Aurora Novus wrote:
According to this, a lover who wakes their partner up with a sexual act in the morning, which they both enjoy, has raped their partner. If that's what you want to call rape, fine; but rape loses all it's meaning then, as it can hardly be said to be a moral evil in all situations, let alone something that is always undesirable by or harmful to it's "victims". Which in turn, minimizes rape as a crime and the effects it can have on people.

You don't find that dangerous, immoral, or unwise at all?


Um. Yeah.

That's rape.

Sex without active consent is rape. Period.

So. Fuck your misogynistic drivel.


Misogynist drivel?
Tell me, where did you get the from such a vague post? The woman couldn't be the one performing the act in my example? Couldn't the couple be two homosexual men? Or is it that all rapists are just men by default, and women always victims?

Take your feminist garbage elsewhere.

In any case, as I said, if you want to define rape that way, fine; but you can hardly call rape a moral evil in all situations then. There are plenty of couples who would enjoy that "rape" scenario I just posited. So if that's your definition of rape, you're going to find a ton of people who just laugh at you when you tell them they are a victim of a heinous crime. And rightly so.
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby The Steel Magnolia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:43 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:Misogynist drivel?
Tell me, where did you get the from such a vague post? The woman couldn't be the one performing the act in my example? Couldn't the couple be two homosexual men? Or is it that all rapists are just men by default, and women always victims?

The part where rape is disproportionately targeted against women?


Take your feminist garbage elsewhere.

How charming.

In any case, as I said, if you want to define rape that way, fine; but you can hardly call rape a moral evil in all situations then. There are plenty of couples who would enjoy that "rape" scenario I just posited. So if that's your definition of rape, you're going to find a ton of people who just laugh at you when you tell them they are a victim of a heinous crime. And rightly so.


Pffahahahaha what.

No. Stop. Seriously, just stop.

You're honestly so bad at this, it's like kicking a little puppy that just keeps coming back and back, no matter how many times you kick it. It never does seem to learn.

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:48 pm

The part where rape is disproportionately targeted against women?


Which is (1) not true, especially if you consider prison rape, and (2) irrelevant to my example, as again, I left it intentionally vague. Which means you came to your conclusion on no basis than your own internal misandry.


Pffahahahaha what.

No. Stop. Seriously, just stop.

You're honestly so bad at this, it's like kicking a little puppy that just keeps coming back and back, no matter how many times you kick it. It never does seem to learn.


"You're so wrong, it's laughable, but I'll never explain how, or why I'm right! You should definitely listen to me though, and take me seriously! Honestly!

Right then.

No counter-argument I see?

Oh wait. Let me guess. "It's not worth my time"?
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby The Steel Magnolia » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:50 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:Which is (1) not true, especially if you consider prison rape, and (2) irrelevant to my example, as again, I left it intentionally vague. Which means you came to your conclusion on no basis than your own internal misandry.


I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Bitch I'm the motherfucking misandry queen. Misandry 4 lyfe, baby!


"You're so wrong, it's laughable, but I'll never explain how, or why I'm right! You should definitely listen to me though, and take me seriously! Honestly!

Right then.

No counter-argument I see?

Oh wait. Let me guess. "It's not worth my time"?


Nah. The topic's worth my time. You aren't. You're just like TJ, except, stunningly, less capable of cohesive arguments.
Last edited by The Steel Magnolia on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NERVUN
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 29035
Founded: Mar 24, 2005
Right-wing Utopia

Postby NERVUN » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:53 pm

Coffee break gang, take 10 to chill...
To those who feel, life is a tragedy. To those who think, it's a comedy.
"Men, today you'll be issued small trees. Do what you can for the emperor's glory." -Daistallia 2104 on bonsai charges in WWII
Science may provide the means while religion provides the motivation but humanity and humanity alone provides the vehicle -DaWoad

One-Stop Rules Shop, read it, love it, live by it. Getting Help Mod email: nervun@nationstates.net NSG Glossary
Add 10,145 to post count from Jolt: I have it from an unimpeachable source, that Dark Side cookies look like the Death Star. The other ones look like butterflies, or bunnies, or something.-Grave_n_Idle

Proud Member of FMGADHPAC. Join today!

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

Postby Xathranaar » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:03 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:Rape is sex without consent, or sex where the consent is compromised (e.g. consent under duress). Having sex with someone who hasn't consented (because they can't) is rape - that's not 'falsely calling people' anything.


According to this, a lover who wakes their partner up with a sexual act in the morning, which they both enjoy, has raped their partner. If that's what you want to call rape, fine; but rape loses all it's meaning then, as it can hardly be said to be a moral evil in all situations, let alone something that is always undesirable by or harmful to it's "victims". Which in turn, minimizes rape as a crime and the effects it can have on people.

You don't find that dangerous, immoral, or unwise at all?

Err... yeah, that would be rape.

Just like hitting someone is still technically assault even in a BDSM den.

You don't have to press charges just because its a crime.
My views summarized.
The Gospel According to Queen.
It is possible that some of my posts may not be completely serious.

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:20 am

Xathranaar wrote:Err... yeah, that would be rape.

Just like hitting someone is still technically assault even in a BDSM den.

You don't have to press charges just because its a crime.


I am of the opinion that "crimes" should only be referred to in the sense of someone being harmed. So I wouldn't consider someone hitting you as part of a BDSM role play "assault", nor would I consider my above illustration "rape". To call it that to me seems to defeat the purpose of having those terms be crimes.

You could call them victimless crimes I suppose, but even that is nonsensical in my eyes, as a crime should only be considered a crime when actual harm has occurred.

Again, if you want to call those things "rape" and "assault", I suppose you can, but at the same time, it becomes nonsensical in my eyes, because one can easily then argue not all assault or rape is a moral problem. Which defeats the purpose in my view. These things should be less broadly defined, to only refer to actual incidents of unjustified harm.

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

Postby Xathranaar » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:28 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Xathranaar wrote:Err... yeah, that would be rape.

Just like hitting someone is still technically assault even in a BDSM den.

You don't have to press charges just because its a crime.


I am of the opinion that "crimes" should only be referred to in the sense of someone being harmed. So I wouldn't consider someone hitting you as part of a BDSM role play "assault", nor would I consider my above illustration "rape". To call it that to me seems to defeat the purpose of having those terms be crimes.

You could call them victimless crimes I suppose, but even that is nonsensical in my eyes, as a crime should only be considered a crime when actual harm has occurred.

Again, if you want to call those things "rape" and "assault", I suppose you can, but at the same time, it becomes nonsensical in my eyes, because one can easily then argue not all assault or rape is a moral problem. Which defeats the purpose in my view. These things should be less broadly defined, to only refer to actual incidents of unjustified harm.

The problem with implied consent in a legal framework is that it is easy to abuse. If you can find a way to address this issue then I am all ears.
My views summarized.
The Gospel According to Queen.
It is possible that some of my posts may not be completely serious.

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

Postby Aurora Novus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:36 am

Xathranaar wrote:The problem with implied consent in a legal framework is that it is easy to abuse. If you can find a way to address this issue then I am all ears.


Admittedly, I don't have an idea just at the moment. But I should think it wouldn't be too hard in most situations to determine whether or not consent was implied, or at the very least, misinterpreted.

On that subject, if it isn't already and I'm just unaware of it, I also think there should be a distinction between intentional rape and unintentional rape. After all, most human interaction is not verbal, especially when it comes to sexual matters. If someone were to misread signs and begin to have sex with someone without their consent, I think there should be a legally distinct term for that, instead of lumping it in with the same term that relates to knowledgeable sex against someone's will. The two aren't comparably the same in really any sense, other than the base problem itself. Sorta like how "murder" and "manslaughter" are distinct terms, based on the situation.
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Akemari, Andsed, Artarum, Chernobyl-4, Democratic Republic Of Unified States, Dogmeat, Dooom35796821595, Draxtica, Eastfield Lodge, Endem, Estanglia, Fahran, Fartsniffage, Fore Godlacky, Genivaria, Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States, Greater Hunnia, Hediacrana, Heloin, Holy Tedalonia, Ifreann, Imperium Antonium, Marxist Germany, Mushet, Nea Byzantia, Novus America, Segmentia, Shofercia, Some People on Planet Arcadia, The Alma Mater, The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp, The South Falls, The Xenopolis Confederation, United States of Devonta, Valtamaria, Valyxias, Vassenor, Vistora, Yagon, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads