So I heard on the radio today that a man is on a 3 million dollar bail because he had sex with 2 of his students, aged 15 and 16 if I remember correctly. He was a high school teacher.
So I've always felt that the punishment for having sex with 'minors' was quite severe. Shouldn't it completely depend on the circumstances? What if the young lady testified that she in fact was the one who made the advances and wanted nothing more than to hook up with her dreamy teacher?
What if you are 30 years old and met someone that you found deeply interesting and intensely attractive and found out she was 17? Should your attraction for her end immediately simply because you found out her age?
What if you found out she was 16?
Is it just as bad for a 20 year old to have sex with a 15 year old? A 14 year old?
It seems to me, some of this is quite arbitrary. I teach piano and I have 2 young female students, aged 14 and 15 who are quite attractive for their age. They are fun to work with. The type of girls I know I would show interest in if they were closer to my age. The 14 year old is an atheist and acts very mature for her age and is deeply interested in more mature piano pieces. The 15 year old is almost 16 and just overall a total sweetheart.
I understand that many people say that young girls can still be physically attractive, but their maturity levels are not at the same level as their looks usually are, therefore, starting a relationship with a young girl can be very detrimental to her. But what if she was in love with the older guy and he treated her as perfectly as any guy could treat someone?
Then you ask yourself the question...what about 11? 12? Even I, who doesn't get squeamish easily come to a point when I would simply say 'Oh my god, no, that's way too young to even play devils advocate'.
But I also can't quite pinpoint a reason 'why' I get to that point and immediately declare it's just kind of icky and gross.
Opinions? How young is too young? At what age do you think one should have the right to consensual sex with someone even a few years, if not many years, older than they are?
In other words, was Hannah Montana / Miley Cyrus any less a cutie when she was 15 / 16 / 17 - Or did she immediately become 'cute' or 'hot' the precise moment she turned 18?
Which is why I suggested a minimum cap
But a "minimum cap" IS an age of consent!!!!
So once again we both agree there should be one, we're just quibbling over the terminology and the number.
Adults don't restrict youth because it was done to them, but rather because they realize it was done for them.
Sorry, that logic doesn't work either. The statement assumes that something wholesome was in fact "done for them". My point here has been that violating their human rights is not a wholesome act "done for them".
No, it assumes that the adult "believes" that the child, whom they have been raising from birth, teaching, observing, cleaning up after, fixing the mistakes made by that child, might not be able to handle sexual relationships which the adult, not the child, has had years of experience with, from a perspective which is not biased by the child's own impulses. It assumes that if the child gets pregnant, gets a girl pregnant, gets an STI, or suffers or causes any other real consequence before the age where the parent (or foster home, legal guardian, etc.) can ignore them or kick them out without legal repercussions, assuming a parent could even bring them self to do that, the parent is legally obligated to deal with some of the consequences. It is also the parent's responsibility to ensure that their children finish school, something that is interrupted far too often by pregnancies. It assumes that in the vast majority of cases, that the child does not pay the majority of the rent and bills to keep the parent off the street, rather the other way around. This is the classic testimony of parents everywhere. I used to resent it as a kid. How times have changed :)
Comparing punching a child in the face to pushing a child to wait until the age of 18 (or 16 or whatever) before having sex with 30 year olds or even 18 year olds is a false analogy, regardless of the details.
I don't see fairness or subjective views of rights for children (i.e. what I used to worry a lot about when I was a child) as having any priority over safety,
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to stand by that view generally?
Yes. Having been a child and having held those views, but now being an adult and seeing no harm for it, I gladly reject them the same way many parents reject those views as stated by their inexperienced and less responsible children when they are expressed, despite once having had those views themselves.
You are implicitly assuming that all these circumstances are identical, and they almost certainly are not. What you experienced as a child [sic] is not necessarily the same as what any other arbitrarily selected child [sic] experienced.
You cannot determine that opposing perspectives or reasoning from adults toward children and vice versa "almost certainly are not" the same or at least very similar (in regards to the "rights" discussion) unless you have been interviewing parents (I would start with my own, even at this age) and have come to the conclusion based on their statements that either A), as children they felt that restrictions on them were justified, or B) they did not approve of restrictions as children and still do not as adults.
I can't tell if this is some kind of ad hominen strategy or something germane to the topic at hand. Can you explain the reason to me? I'd be happy to answer if I think it will add to the discussion. Besides, you can just look at my profile, right? So why would you ask that here, right?
I will take that as a yes then. Some people, (even on this website), like to place profile pictures of their friends, children, pets, etc., hence the asking.
When I read anyone talking about children having to wait to engage in what most of society (rightly or wrongly) refers to as an "adult" activity as some kind of human rights violation, I assume immediately that the person making the argument is a child, owing to myself and friends having the same views during adolescence, and due to never hearing these arguments as an adult, aside from from the mouths of younger folk.
It is not a down putting strategy, but rather to state, if you are indeed young, consider the possibility that your perspective will change exactly as I describe it, as most of adults I know[, including myself, ]have described their own experience in maturing. If this is not a common experience, may some fellow old (or not so old) TA fogies reply otherwise?
Just for reference, sic is placed after an attributed quotation in which you leave the spelling and grammar exactly "as is".
So, at least as far as my interest in this conversation, I was wanting to know why the apparent lack of desire to accept a case by case scheme.
I have never indicated that I am opposed to "case by case", under the condition that it is practical... but as I see it, it is idealistic. How on earth do we make case by case observations and conclusions about every single adolescents' various sexual relationships? At what age do we require case by case decisions? At the "arbitrary" age of 18? Whom is doing the deciding? Whom is paying whom to do the deciding, and how much will it cost to track so many adolescents?
Does it fall into the same or worse pitfalls than the existing law? Does it fail for just as many or more cases as an outright (age 18) limit due to depending on someone like parents who are failing their role? Are the children and adults who are attracted to them expected to report their desired relationships for inspection... just like they are supposed to obey our "statutory rape" laws?
I couldn't find any links in the prior parts of the topic regarding a "case by case" solution.
You really do like disregarding pieces of information. Is is not part of your suggestion to allow three individuals to determine the minors eligibility of ability to consent?
". to qualify for registration one would have to provide at least 3 persons who could provide oversight."
A lot of people on this particular forum are suggesting that the law needs to be changed to better satisfy our adolescent population. I just barely left the adolescent status (now 20 years old) and had no problems with these laws that protected me and my friends. This was a school wide debate topic and in my highschool with a population of 1,500 98.88% of all students ranging from ages 14-18 stated that they had no issues with the laws surrounding minors. Why change a system that seems to have such a high satisfaction rate.
I think the explicit chronological age restriction approach is really an historical product of histrionic, religious hand waving and not a scheme founded in reason.
Religion certainly demonizes sexuality (particularly for females, and particularly outside of marriage) but I completely disagree that the age restrictions are a product of religion. Just a few hundred years ago (and in some places still today) religion condoned everything from the buying and selling of young females as property to rape. Age restrictions and sexual abuse laws in recent years have come about through reason in modern societies, not religion.