In the death penalty debate, the arbitrary age of 18 seems to be the definition of "adult".

As I pointed out, if a 15 year old girl sleeps with a 25 year old guy, the guy goes to jail for statutory rape because it is assumed she does not have the ability to make this decision. However, if the 15 year old girl robs a bank with the a 25 year old man, she can be moved into adult court and sentenced to the same time as the 25 year old as an accessory. Let's not even get into drinking ages and driving and voting and military service etc.

Part of this silliness is different countries definition as well, in Russia they just moved the age back to 14, most feel they did this to get more soldiers into the military. But this also means they are automatically allowed to make all adult decisions and consequences at this age, such as sex, marriage and going to jail for adult crimes.


I feel our laws are very wierd and arbitrary in regards to this, and feel we should abolish the entire concept, and go with a debated and accepted pscyh testing that establishes culpability somewhere around 13. The concept that adulthood doesn't begin until around 18 is very new in the world, as most were considered adult at puberty until about 50 or so years ago.

So, the question is- what is an adult, and at what age?

Its really difficult to make a blanket law which states so concretly when someone has become an adult. After all, a 14 could be more mature - physcially and emotionally - than a 19 year old.

In reference to your specific points. Its the same old story, rules a regulations are made by the powerful concerned and made to primarily to suit their own interests. On a plane you are an adult at 14, so they can charge you more. In other situations, "adult" becomes older to suit other ends.

Even with the help of medical evidence, saying younger people are more inept, vunerable or whatever the "description" is convieniently defined as, is - in my opinion - discriminatory and agist.

Our age of consent laws are not only extremely inconsistent, they are also based on absolutely nothing. Completely arbitrary. Let's use sex as an example. The age of 18 means absolutely nothing in the way of biology. People do not mature overnight, on their 18th birthday. Yet laws relating to sex are based not on human physiology, they are based on...what? Shouldn't it be legal for people to do what their body is clearly telling them? Here in the US, it is considered terrible if a 19 year old is with a 15 year old. That 19 year old is risking jail time, as well as carrying the label of "sexual predator" for the rest of his life, with complimentary shower rape in prison. Is that really right? I mean, we have people who go to school together, but are legally unable to have a relationship. Are we to believe that Russia (legal age is 14) and Japan (legal age is 13) are nations of pedophiles? Of course not. It would make a bit more sense to have laws based on when the body and mind mature. If a 15 year old is old enough to know better than to shoot somebody, shouldn't that 15 year old be able to have a gun? If not, than clearly they CAN'T know better. We have to pick one or the other.

Why would that be nonsense? Half of all internet porn comes from Japan, where where child pornography is not an offense. The second largest concentration of child pornographic sites come from Russia. Japan has (or had, I know they were considering removing them) vending machines that dispensed school children's used underwear. The fact that certain nations condone pedophilia doesn't make them right. Take a trip to Thailand and you can buy just about anything...including a young child (or other things which are unmentionable on this forum).

I think the age should be around 16 myself, but that is my completely arbitrary opinion.

It should either be 18 in all areas - movie tickets, airline tickets, age of consent and so on - or it's being hypocritical. Personally, I believe the age of consent should be 15, to cover the majority of high school students. Seeing how many classes have students of all grades, if someone should start dating a classmate and has sex with that person, this shouldn't be illegal. It's only natural that you might start to like someone in a class of yours. However, to lower it to 14 would cover some freshmen and 8th-graders, and I think that would too often be a scenario of the older using the younger.
I hate how places like the airlines and movie theaters and so on can charge you as an adult if you're only over 13 or some such nonsense The bottom line is that it makes no sense to be considered an "adult" at some places and not at others. There is a consensus on what age someone is an adult, and it's 18 - commercial locations should be forced to adhere to that as well.

This is precisely why I would like to see some universal test, by culture anyway, of to what an adult and cupability is defined as. I always like Robert Hienliens idea of the "full adult" status- wherein you become emancipated and an adult at the completion of some test, based on what the definition of what is adult behavior.

Child porn comes out of Russia because it is near anarchy right now, and the rules don't apply. I know culturally, they consider an adult at around 14, and expect these poeple to act as adults at 14, and make good decisions. I know nothing about Japan's deal however. But anyway, in Russia, this is not an accepted thing by society.

I do think, in the interest of a safer and freer society, we DO need to eventually nail this down a little better.

Age of concent worldwide

It would seem that a vast majority of the world are "pedophiles", if pedophiles is to mean anything below the age of 18. And many countries are below 16 as well. The idea that all those people in all those countries are pedophiles is ludicrous. That's like saying "Everyone in the world is crazy, except for me." A possibility, no doubt, but that's not what I'd bet on.

It's the same for every mammal on this planet -- puberty marks the onset of sexuality. And as much as we would like to change that with laws, I don't see it happening. Our bodies don't know what legal age of concent the politicians came up with in whatever country we happen to live.

Hmmmm- even this side debate on pedophillia doesn't really touch the subject- really a pre-pubecent would be the target of "pedophile"- sex AFTER puberty is STATUTORY rape, NOT pedophillia. So once again, we don't really have a good definition of what a "child" is- even the word "adolecent" is a product of the fifties- where prior to the early 1900s, you became an adult at around 13.

Let us get our definitions straight here. From www.preventchildmolestation.org

What Is A Ephebophile And How Is He Different From A Pedophile?

You have probably read since January 2002 about reports in the Roman Catholic Church of priests molesting children. When these cases have been examined in detail, the majority of accusations relate to adult priests molesting adolescent boys, 14 to 17 years of age. These molesters are called “ephebophiles” because they have a sexual interest in boys who are post-puberty. Less common in the media reports of molestations in the Roman Catholic Church are reports of priests molesting children under 14 years of age. These molesters are called “pedophiles.”

More info, ephebophilia is considered a socio-sexual disorder while pedophilia is considered a psycho-sexual disorder and is much harder to treat. I personally think about the age of 14 is old enough to make decisions about your sex life. This eliminates ephebophilia and saves the Catholic Church a lot of money.

Sounds like sophistry, not to mention a rather distasteful attempt to shift public acceptance along towards the thick end of a particularly unpleasant wedge. Who came up with these definitions? Not legal minors I'll bet.

And, frankly, saving the money of the Catholic church is not high on my list of legislative priorities. The molestations that have taken place already have done so illegally, whether or not the very detailed definition of them considers about whether the victims have reached puberty or not. The perpetrators will have been perfectly well aware that their actions were illegal (ignorance of the law being no defence), whatever their moral opinions, and so any criminal or civil proceedings against them for such offences are fair game. If the Catholic church is so worried about its finances, pehaps it should have invested more money in more rigorous selection and man-management procedures.

On the broader thread topic, I'm not so sure that the testing idea isn't a way forward, at least for driving. There's no reason why a 14 year old that is physically capable of passing a driving test - perhaps a bit tougher than the current one - should not be allowed to drive. I also think that scheduled re-testing would be useful - most of the worst drivers I've seen on the road have been well past their teens.

Of course, this idea only stretches so far; I've no idea how you would test someone to see if they are ready to have sex or drink alcohol.

Culpability testing is pretty scientific and pretty straight forward- basically being able to pscyh test if someone is responsible for thier actions- it has been done, reformed and refined for a few decades now, it is pretty reliable. We only use it though when someone commits a crime or wishes to be emancipated.

The fact is I will bet every single one of us has a ephebophile for a ancestor within 4-5 generations. In many countries having sex with anyone who is past puberty is perfectly legal. If I see a gal with a beautiful rear end, and I am sexually attracted to her, only to see she is only 15 when she turns around, that is not abnormal. If I have the same attraction to a ten year old I should be hung from the nearest tree. Now if once I see the girl is only 15 and I still act upon my initial sexual desire I should be punished to the extent my society finds that wrong.

My grandfather was 32, my grandmother was 16 at the time of thier marriage, in 1932. The marriage was almost an arranged marriage, with the meeting, courtship and marriage itself carefully managed by both families. Was my granddad a pedophile? Grandma might object to that after 6 children that survived to adulthood and over 60 years of a very loving marriage!

So this definition has certainly morphed over time, and our definitions are certainly not the world at large's definition as it stands right now.

I think arbitrary numbers for age of consent has a large part of what is wrong with our judicial system and even the way we treat our children.

Yes, it is discriminatory and ageist. Too bad for you, but it is also TRUE.

The sophistry in question is on the part of the gay elite, which worked very hard to have the RCC scandals cast as PEDOPHILE scandals, not as GAYS MOLESTING TEENAGE BOYS.

Sure there is, you close your post with an implicit recognition. JUDGEMENT. I mean, hey, its easy to test whether somebody is physically ready to have sex, right? As for alcohol, babies can drink it, so why don't we let them?

The remarkable ability some folks have of confusing matters never ceases to astound me. Puberty doesn't indicate whether an individual is emotionally mature, and to use it as such is foolish. What puberty does do is indicate when substantial numbers of OTHERS in society are going to want to bang Lolita. Yeah, let's lower the age of consent so that all the Humberts out there can get off legally.

Aside from accomodating the relentless sexualization of youth, there is no reason for lowering the age of consent.

No, your grandpa wasn't a pedophile, if he were, would your grandma's family have permitted the marriage? No. As you've said, things have changed, and one of them is that young'uns today have the silly notion that they have enough wisdom to make such choices on their own. ja, right. Grandpa and Grandma's pairing had to make it through a stout set of filters consisting of the applied wisdom of both families before they could get married. Contrast that to today's teen "you're not the boss of me"....

Actually, you have put what I propose in a different manner- since the "filters" are no longer there, let us replace them with a sane and logical set of new filters, something based on empiricaly obtained research- such as a test for culpability.

I certainly don't think puberty should be the defining moment of adulthood- but I feel equally strongly about an arbitrary age of 18 and 21.

So, the collective wisdom of 200 million voters isn't good enough? You'd rather have an "empirically obtained benchmark" that will measure JUDGEMENT? How, exactly, are you going to differentiate "good judgement" from "bad judgement", especially in a society that seem be losing the ability to teach that making judgements is a good thing?

inquiring minds want to know...

IT is not that hard really, all over the US every day courts demand this very testing done- in criminal trials mostly, but also in civil matters dealing with guardianship.

I have seen it done on a daily basis in my career, and I don't think we ever got it wrong- professional pride of course- but culpability, the ability to know the difference between right and wrong, to understand why it is wrong, is not hard to test for. Some Neurological testing for organic disorders, some basic intelligence batteries (IQ testing as most know it is obsolete).

The one thing we do know- whether or not you consider the consequences is immaterial- whether it is because you are 14 or 40, very few poeple that make bad choices on a regular basis has any problems due to chronilogical age- it is thier total lack of empathy and sociopathic behavior that makes them make "bad choices".

For instance, the girl that keeps on hanging out with abusive men over and over again, or going back to the same abuser, and say she is oh, 50 years old, it is not because of her inability to know right from wrong, or the consequences of her behavior, it is bad choices made for a variety of reasons. I know 14 year old girls that could make better choices.

And yes, 200 million voters have got it horribly wrong on this as well as other issues.

Actually, it is not judgement itself we are benchmarking, but the ability to make an informed choice or judgement based on developement level or something like this.

We have the freedom in this country to make judgements, good or bad, and should be punished when those judgements hurt others, either intentionally or negligently.

CR, you keep going back to culpability. As you've noted yourself, wisdom is more than merely the ability to differentiate moral right from moral wrong, which is the cornerstone of culpability. Nor is a lack of wisdom always rooted in "lack of empathy and sociopathic behavior."

No, sometimes its nothin' more than "being young and dumb." Of course, in a world where the teenagers know EVERYTHING, and adults know NOTHING, acknowledging such a concept is anathema, but that doesn't alter the reality that the vast majority of teenagers ARE 'young and dumb.'

So how are you going to measure wisdom? The ability to differentiate between that which is right and wrong, as well as the ability to differentiate between smart and stupid?

Another rub I have with this "adulthood test" is this: any test you devise is going to be arbitrary. Now, since you object to the age of consent laws on the basis that they are arbitrary, I'm at a loss as to why you'd simply advocate a different arbitrary standard?

It is hard for me to explain myself on this one without me going on and on about culpability testing, quoting copyrighted material, scanning the tests themselves, and talking case history, and because of this, I am doing a poor job of explaining myself.

As you posted earlier about a "filter" of the combined wisdom of two families, think of it is a filiter, with the combined wisdom of several thousand "real world" psychologists (NOT pop culture therapists with the " diagnosis of the week" publishing creditials) trying very hard to discover and test for what makes a person liable for thier decision making process.

Is a early onset Alzhiemers patient more culpable of his/her actions than an intellegint non-diseased 15 year old? Of course not, but the 50 year old alzhiemers patient is automatically treated as an adult and then the testing begins- I would like this to begin at 13, this testing.

What intrigued me so much about Robert Hienlien's idea for this (and it was written in the 50s) was how he covered the bases- checks and balances to keep discrimination based on the usual issues, training to learn how to be a "full adult" (which I really liked because there was training on how to be a good parent as well, basic stuff, not morals and values) psych testing for abilities and the like, all part of the "normal" school curiculum.

I would really like to see some logic injected into our system instead of the silliness we currently have.

If you have to be able to pass an adult test in order to consent to sex...my wife is guilty of statutory rape. The reason we set these arbitrary lines is because it is very expensive and/or very difficult to set up and administer an appropriate test. When we were youths it quickly became clear to me and my buddies that my driving skills, while under the influence of liquor, exceeded theirs. Thus when we went out drinking I usually drove, the ole jury of 12 rather than 6 pallbearers applied. I always thought you should be able to take a driving test under the influence and if you passed it get a drunk drivers license, society disagreed.

This argument bears the same problems as the drinking age argument. While it's true that some 16 year olds are responsible enough and emotionally ready to start having sex, many are not and should not be having sex. So it's the same lowest denominator argument. The question is what is a good (admittedly arbitratry) age to choose as the point at which you're preventing (or at least discouraging) most immature youths from doing something stupid while allowing most mature youths the same freedom "legal adults" enjoy.

So yes there should be an age of consent. Maybe not 18, but the criteria for that age are debatable. Coming from a person who recently unwittingly dated a minor , 17 might be good. Until then, I guess I'll have to card 'em.

CR, I don't think that Heinlein's "adulthood" test is practical, not in today's world, nor anytime soon. Mind you, I love Bob's work, but ...

One practical problem is this:
What proof do you have that its not even easier for several thousand "real world" shrinks to be collectively wrong than it is for 200,000,000 folks? Especially when the vast majority of those 200,000,000 folks have the additional corrective incentive of paying the price when they're wrong? (One of the crucial distinctions between expert opinion and everyday Joe wisdom)

The adulthood test is a fine ideal, it is not, however, practical, and I question whether it ever will be.

well i live in the UK, where the age of consent is 16. i think this is a fair enough estimation of when people are "physically and emotionally mature".

BUT

the idea that me eyeing the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** of a girl who is 13 makes me a "sexual predator" is utter bollocks, it makes me a biological organism who in a crude sense sees in that *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** a means of caring on my genes.

in society, women like to give across the idea that men have sexual desires, but they, of course do not.

but the fact that women and teenagers wear clothing souly for increasing their sexual attraction factor ( how could someone find a thong comfortable? ), this would then indicate that they must want to have sex, yes.

i am not saying that once a person becomes physically mature that they are ready for sex, but that most are.

i totally agree with someone here that the age of adulthood, if there is one, is UNIVERSAL accross all factors of life and all human races, and the huge differences around the globe illustrates the stupidacy of the age of concent. "underage" sexual encounters should be judged on a case by case basis. clearly the age of consent is there to protect young people from child molestation and such, so if two people shag and enjoy this ( regardless of age )then this is censentual and so no crime has been committed.

i'm 15, and would have sex with anyone who i found physically attracted to and vice versa. i don't give a *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** what any people who believe are superior and in denial of there sexual nature , have no sex drive think to be honest

(i almost wish it was the stone age and we didn't have to pay council tax, get jobs get an education and we could get laid whenever and whoever we wanted. freedom is a pathetically concealed illusion. we work ourselves to the ground for pointless crap we could do without, and then the government restricts our sexual activities.)

............anyway

For what it is worth, my current girlfriend always wears a thong ENTIRELY because she says it is so much more comfortable... Bonus for me I guess.

ANYways, in Canada the age of consent is now 14. (18 for anal sex) Some say that is too low, but the real point should be that this is the minimum age when people can reasonable consent to sex. That does not mean that 14 and 15 year old SHOULD be having sex, that is up to the parents to help control through passing morals and self-esteem on to their children.

Far more of morality should be put in the hands of the parents and secondarily the schools. The more the government steps in the worse it gets. I saw a CNN report about a Georga politician who is trying to pass an ordinance banning low-"hip hugger" jeans, as he feels it 'offends the sensibilities' of people and leads to the corruption of minors. Unsurprisingly he is very religious, but in that 'only in the deep-South' kind of way...

If I can just toss an opinion in here, among all the lustful men drooling over young girls?

Quite possibly the arbitrary 18 is because we actually want the little boogers to (supposedly) have a comprehensive education and finish high school before being able to vote? Not a guarantee, I know, what with the dropout rate, but it's something to consider.

It's impossible to legislate what sexual maturity is by age. Kids don't go through puberty at the same age (me-12, a once stepdaugher-15), and has been mentioned, emotional maturity is even tougher to measure. A legal, metaphoric "line in the sand" is drawn to prevent abuse. I'm appalled that some countries have an age of consent as low as 13-14. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but that's awfully young. How to put this...I was 17 when, well, you know, and thought I was so mature that I should get married when I was 18 cuz I was in loooooove. At 22, when I really was mature (and disappointed) and realized what an idiot I'd been, I was a 22-yr old divorcee. So, like they say, age is just a number. Personally, I don't think anyone should get married before they're 25!

And as for driving age (16 in CA), drinking age (21), and all that, I haven't a clue why they're different. I do think there should be a national standard to eliminate all the state line crossing.

It is problematic to pin down one age of adulthood in all areas. 16 is the age of legality for sex in many states and other places. It is the age (at least here) that you can acquire a drivers license. I think individuals who push for 18 for car driving age are ridiculous. If I was a parent (and I probably will be one day) I would rather my child learn to drive while they are still living under my roof and can be regulated more easily.

In Maryland the law for sexual consent is 16 within 4 years of your age. 18 you are legal for whomever you choose. This seems reasonable to me.

I don't think it is necessarily problematic to have different ages for different things. For instance renting a car...not sure the exact age but I'm pretty sure its around 25 with a lot of companies. I can completely understand why car rental companies would want to have things this way. Most individuals are more financially established by 21 or 25 than they are at 18.

As for the drinking age set at 21...I think that this age standard is a bit too lofty and I would support lowering it to 18 (especially for beer and wine). I do have issues with the fact that you can enlist at 18 and are able to vote but cannot even have a beer. I also don't see why cigarettes and pornography are 18 and alcohol 21. Thats just my personal opinion though.

It will always be problematic to try pinning down a particular age at which individuals are "ready" for certain responsiblities and or rights. Perhaps the gradual initiation into adult culture isn't such a bad thing.

Generally Speaking this is how things look...
ADULT PRIVILEGES:
restaurants usually = over 12
sex/cars = 16
(R rated) movies = 17
pornography/cigarettes/voting/enlisting in the military = 18 (legally an adult in most areas)
alcohol = 21
car rental = anywhere from 18-25 depending on the company
.... etc

I wonder how much things would change if all of the above were changed to 16....or maybe 18... not terribly much I think.

something to ponder anyway...

Just to add a little tidbit, you have to be 21 to buy sex toys. WTF? With abstinence I would think that sex toys would be encouraged.

Now my opinion. Age of consent laws are rather retarded in my opinion. There needs to be some logic included into it, in order to lower the effects of the arbitrary nature of the ordeal. I know that my idea is completely arbitrary, but I think that 13 is rather sufficient, just include laws that protect against age exploitation. I believe that Canada has something similar to what I'm envisioning. If two parties completely consent to one another, then I don't see the big deal, so long as the product of that lovely lovely relation doesn't drain on my wallet in the way of people not being able to take care of their lovechildren. I also think that if the parents know about any hanky-panky going on and don't mind it, then why should the government step in and rear its ugly head? (Yes, some parents could pimp out their children which is definitely wrong, but I highly highly doubt it to happen (and I doubt that many parents would let their 13y/o daughter date some 30-something guy, but indulge my opinion for a second)). But let's face it that a 40y/o should not be with 13y/o. Heck, I don't like it when some old 70y/o geezer lands some 20-something. In the words of Adam Sandler from Big Daddy, "He's old. With old...balls!" Honestly though, if the two parties are consenting, in the end I can't tell people what they should do. Yet I can't say I won't be somewhat disgusted. I care about me and what I do and what applies to me. If people want to do what they want to do and not bother me, then it's fine with me. I don't try to push my beliefs too much on anyone. I guess when you grew up on watching Jerry Springer, nothing surprises you. If I had a daughter who came home saying she was in love with a 40y/o, I would just wait for the topless woman to come on stage along with the white supremacists. Not much surprises me anymore.

I also think that there should at least be some grace period to prevent against the rigidity of the system many U.S. states employ currently. In Georgia (correct me if I'm wrong), the age of consent is 16. If a 16y/o has sex with a 15y/o, that's statutory rape. Am I the only one who finds this absurd? Thus I think that there should be some sort of grace period of maybe a 5-year margin. So if a 18y/o has sex with a 14y/o, it's not statutory rape. I just find that ideal that at 16 or whatever the age of consent is, we are all-the-sudden sexually aware. That's just stupid and nescient. Hell, if you look at the ages of consent in the U.S., it's a smorgasbord all over the map. Check Age of Consent.com and see some of the different ages. From 13 (for homosexual sex (it's 17 for male-female sex)) in New Mexico to 18 in many states. In plenty of states, homosexual sex is illegal. We can't even come to an agreement on something as simple as to whether male-male and female-female sex is illegal. It's completely stupid. I've met girls in sororities smarter than these laws. I REALLY HAVE, I SWEAR!

I just know of a couple cases where there is discrimination based on stupid arbitrary decisions. I remember reading in my sister's Advocate about some 17y/o that was getting jail time and being labeled a sex offender because he had sex with a 15y/o of the same sex, blah blah blah and if the 15y/o had been female, it would've been nothing nearly as severe.

Which makes me think about this double-standard: Why is it that we have this idea that women cannot be the sex offender? Why is it ALWAYS the men? (Granted, usually they are, but it still irks me for whatever reason).

Okay, I think I've soapboxed about something that really doesn't apply much to me. But like every American, I have an opinion about everything, and I'm willing to share it!

I do not see a problem with 14. I can remember 14 very vividly. I was 14 when I first had sex and I knew what I was doing and I knew what I was losing. 14 should be the required age because most kids are 14 when they enter high school. A freshman in high school is aware of the implications of sex. I dont thin you give 14 year olds enough credit. In middle school no of course not but 14 year olds no what they are doing for the most part.