There is probably,with the possible exception of the KKK, no more greatly despised group than NAMBLA. The question I have is why shouldn't the age of consent be lowered. It is only in the last century that the age of consent has been raised. Before 1900 most states did not even have an age of consent. Anyone who does any genealogy will find if 12 year olds had not gotten married to often much older men that most of us would not be here. What is driving the raising of the age of consent in this century?

Another NAMBLA issue, is there any reason for the age of consent to be higher for homosexual activities?

Wow - what a brave opening to this thread, Hugo! I'm on my way out, but will get back to this shortly. A quick note on your first sentence before coming back to address your questions, though: The main reason NAMBLA is so despised is because they're such an easy target. When they are attacked by their many opponents, few - apart from their own membership - are willing to come to their defense. Because of the way the group has been mischaracterized by their enemies, to say a word on their behalf leaves one open to spurious charges of advocating the rape of infants - or worse. This is why I applaud your fortitude in even raising some of the questions which NAMBLA raises. Thanks for a sane introduction to this discussion...

I will try really really hard to keep an open mind on the subject of NAMBLA.

I am interested to find out how this group has been mischaracterized.

So, I'm all ears.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

NAMBLA = one of the many SICK organizations that shouldn't exist


Raping kids is THE SICKEST thing a person can do. Death Penalty for all that commits this crime!

Be constructive here, goamerica. At what age do you think one is old enough to consent to sex? (Isn't that what is at the heart of this issue?)

I believe the age of consent should be 16. Children younger than 16 are unable to make educated decisions about veneral diseases, how to prevent them, pregnancy, how to avoid that as well. As for the post that states we probably wouldn't be here if kids aged 12 hadn't had sex hundreds of years ago, wow, I totally diasgree with that. There are too many people on this earth already, so actually it would have been best if the age of consent was always higher than it was.

What I meant by that is that everyone of us as an individual has at least one female ancestor who was betrothed at the age of 12, and if it had not been for their early betrothal none of us would be here. Why has the age of consent been raised in the western world in the last 120 years? Certainly adolescents are better educated than they were in 1880.

I think that the age should be at least 16. People 120 yrs ago didn't live anywhere near what the average person lives to these years. And if I remember right back in History men were a lot older than the 12 year old girls they married. I think some things don't change. I find it hard for a man to be attracted to a 12 yr. old
She is still a little girl. At 16 she is a least a young women. I being a woman find nothing sexual about a 12 yr. old boy. He is a boy not a man. I may be wrong but men for some reason, maybe mid life crisis, think that if a little girl finds them attracted it boosts their egos. Like I said I may be way off on this one. Your toughts?

From NAMBLA's Statement of Purpose:
I would agree with their campaign for "fundamental reform" of age-of-consent laws - though I wouldn't go along with the abolition of such laws, as some of their members advocate.


Here's an example:
As I predicted in the second posting to this thread, "to say a word on their behalf leaves one open to spurious charges of advocating the rape of infants - or worse."

I agree with GoAmerica that the rape of a child is a heinous crime perpetrated by very sick individuals. I also recognize, though, that such crimes are condemned by NAMBLA and I would never - ever - make such an implication about any organization without solid, incontrovertible evidence that I was doing anything more than participating in a coordinated smear campaign.

To answer Hugo's question, I have no idea why the age of consent shouldn't be lowered ( the key word here being "consent"). As with many issues, I do not feel that the state has any right to legislate what one does with one's own body - nor, for that matter, to prosecute victimless crimes. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that, once a person reaches sexual maturity, age of consent should no longer apply - nor do I believe that sexual activity between minors should be subject to prosecution. This opinion is driven largely by my own personal experience, which I may discuss later, if warranted.

I find it supremely hypocritical that, in a country where those whom the state considers "children" are increasingly being prosecuted as adults, even for capital crimes, those same "children" cannot share physical intimacy with another. It's okay, in short, for the state to kill a minor, but it's not okay for a sexually mature youth to make love. What's up with that?

And, no: there is no reason in the world why there should be different ages of consent for homo- and heterosexual activity - unless, of course, the age of consent for homosexual intercourse should be even lower on the grounds that there's no risk of pregnancy.

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but just to respond, momof3, I believe it is a matter of perception. We perceive a 12 year old girl to be just that, a girl. But in the distant past, it was believed that womanhood began with menstruation, and the reason for an older mate would be that the man, having been learning to hunt or fight through his early teens, would offer physical security. (or so I remember from anthropology)
I imagine that took a long time to rub off. Our perception of teenagers as children is a concept that is not more than a century old, probably less than that.

That said, however, I hesitate to endorse lowering the age of consent too far. A century ago, a teenager would have been treated far differently by their parents and other adults. Today, we treat our children as kids until they are 18 (and often far beyond!). They have far fewer responsibilities and thus are far less capable of responsibility. Of course there are many exceptions, but I tend to think that in today's society, a 12 year old girl is not ready to make a consentual decision.

I would support lowering the age of consent to say 16.

It's hard for me to keep a cool head when discussing a topic such as NAMBLA, which stands for North American Man Boy Love Association, which I noticed nobody has stated what the acronym stood for until just now.

I went to their site to do a little research.

Most of this thread so far has been talking about lowering the age of consent across the board for Teens/Children, meaning male and female.

If you read through their site all they are really pushing for is the lowering of the age of consent for BOYS.

Why don't we discuss the REAL facts at hand....

Young people(boys, girls, teens) are much more impressionable. Thus coercing them into having sex whether hetero or homo is a far easier task for the adult attempting to do such a thing.

Wertz: I do agree with you that Children/teens should not be tried as adults as they might have been coerced like I stated above, but to commit a crime instead of a sex act.

That said, it is still WRONG. The act of sex is a natural act. The sole propose being procreation. To advance the human species just as any other species reproduces.

Homosexual sex does nothing for procreation. It is not natural. It does not benefit society. In fact the mass spread of aids in the 80's was perpetuated by homosexual sex(and yes drug use was a contributing factor due to tainted needles), but no where near what homosexual activity was.


NAMBLA's aim is to lower the age of consent because they know it's much easier to coerce a 12-16 year old boy into homosexual sex than would be an 18 year old boy.

Sleeper

As I understand it, in countries in which a female is routinely married (almost always family arranged marriages) at very young ages, the law has stepped in. In places like Pakistan and India (as I recall) the law is that a girl cannot be married until she is 16 - and she cannot be married without her consent. However, the law is routinely flouted.

These countries have tried to impose these laws for a very good reason. It is because younger girls tend to have underweight and less healthy babies and problem pregnancies. So, even in some of these countries where tradition has the female married at very young ages, the law is against it. But, as I said, routinely flouted because it suits the families for economic and political reasons to arrange the marriage and a young girl is more easily coerced into such a marriage.

I have to go the other way, from the people who have posted so far. I would raise the legal age to 21. That's where it was in the state (PA) when I got married. (Yes, I know you can join the military at age 18 - but the military and marriage are not comparable.) Sexual maturity' is not a sufficient definition for the age of marriage as there are quite a number of girls who reach sexual maturity at ten years old.

Beneath the outer trappings of love (yes, I am happily married) marriage is an economic union for the better raising of children. Both the physical well being and the emotional well being of children are better served when the parents are more mature. More mature parents have a better chance of bringing more resources (economic, emotional, experience) to raising children.

Interesting point Hugo. I would say the width of education is much greater now than say 100 years ago. But the DEPTH is not. By that I mean, kids today may know more about things they shouldn't, like sex, drugs, crime. But as for literature, math, economics, kids today are as clueless as ever. SO many adults are ignorant on affairs of money, politics, religion. Kids today learn from MTV, movies, and in a self-indicting admission I guess, the internet. What they are learning is merely pop culture, how to "feel", how to blame society for their ills. GIven a choice between talking a walk with their parents or watching MTV all day, most kids would watch the tube. Given a chance to read a classic book of literature or Maxim magazine, most boys would read the Maxim. People who make those choices aren't ready to have sex, have kids, deal with VD.

Delurking to briefly address this topic.

First, I believe there should be no age of consent, period. Why?

1. People of all ages should have a say so in what goes on with their own bodies.

2. If a parent doesn't want little Sally getting her freak on, they need to keep a better eye on her.

3. I think that if there were honest to goodness SEX education in schools as well as being more encouraged to have such talks at home that our "children" would be better prepared to handle sexual relations. The answer is not to raise the age, the answer is EDUCATION.

4. Victimless crime. I don't buy into prosecuting victimless crimes. Sure, you can say the child is the victim but that is not always true... I daresay that isn't even mostly true.

*****Personal Information*****
I had relations with a man when I was 12, not intercourse, just, uh, relations. I went on to have intercourse with this man when I was 15. This man was 31yrs my senior. To this day this man is a great friend of mine. I am not damaged. I am not in denial. I did what I was comfortable with at 12 and what I was comfortable with at 15 and this person respected that and we've had a great and longlasting friendship. Believe it or not, and I know you won't, he is not a sick man preying on young children. Having a child of my own I wouldn't associate with someone like that.
*****END*****

So... no age of consent laws. For boys OR girls. I don't believe teenagers need be "children". I think age laws concerning sex, work, marriage, all need to be lowered or abolished.

Teenagers are "children" today and act as such because they have been MADE to be that way. I don't think 18yrs of childhood is beneficial, that's effectively killing a good six years of productivity and basically putting "kids" out on the street not knowing their head from a whole in the ground when they DO leave.

Educate them, make them responsible, make them to where they CAN make their own decisions about sex, love, relationships and how to manage each and all.

Raising the age! Pah! That's doing nothing but putting off the inevitable and excusing lack of education and responsibility. How easy it would be to raise it to 21yrs old. Then, no one would have to educate these "children" because they turn into consenting adults at 21yrs of age and can learn on their own.

I suspect this attitude is the same reason so many early 20s fall into such serious debt. Pull your "protect-the-children" heads out of the sand and realize they are capable of MUCH MORE than you care to give them credit for and then arm them as such (with information).

I'm addressing what I've bolded.

First point- Is this a flaw in children (the lack of education) or the glorious adults who are supposed to be responsible for this education?

Second point- How many parents offer a walk with their children? Perhaps if they did bother to offer, more children would turn the tube off. Again, is this a flaw in children or a flaw of the parents who are raising them (or not, depending on how you look at TV parenting)?

Third point- Then by your standards neither are today's adults since (a) they were yesterday's children, ( they are doing a sorry job if one takes to heart your first two points I addressed and © having been "children" for eighteen years or longer I doubt they've ever learned to grow up sufficiently to raise children of their own. Never HAD to grow up thanks to this long term childhood culture.

Well, yeah - they're an organization of gay men and gay youth. And they're hardly going to be lobbying for lowering the age of consent for MEN. Duh. Obviously, though, were the age of consent to be lowered, it would unlikely be for just one gender. If you're seriously concerned about girls being left out of a lower age of consent, however, start your own group.


Since you present this as "REAL fact", could you please cite sources for your opinion that young people are much more impressionable than older people. Speaking as a former child, an adult, and a parent, that certainly hasn't been my experience. My first sexual encounter was at the age of six (with a fifteen-year-old), btw, and I began a sexual realtionship when I was nine, which lasted seven years (longer than most adult marriages); one of my foster sons had been a boy prostitute for a few years, from the age of twelve; and, in my thirties, I had an affair with a seventeen-year-old (horrors!) which lasted off and on for three years (though this was in Ireland where the age of consent was sixteen). I am not, therefore, speaking entirely out of ignorance - and none of the sex I've just mentioned was in any way coercive.


Hugo posed three questions at the start of this thread: Why shouldn't the age of consent be lowered? What is driving the raising of the age of consent in this century? Is there any reason for the age of consent to be higher for homosexual activities? The passages quoted above address none of these questions. If you wish to see just how wrong the opinions you've posted here are, might I suggest you visit the Nurture vs. Nature thread. Your notions about AIDS are also factually incorrect, but I'm not gonna be bothered - it's off topic and I suspect it would be pointless correcting you anyway.


I haven't seen this anywhere in their literature, their publications, or their web site - nor have I ever heard any member of NAMBLA express such an intent. Do you have anything apart from prejudice to back this statement up, please?

What could possibly be added to this? It pretty much says it all. Great post, MadMax!

Max: I'm not convinced that age of consent should be abolished altogether. There are those who would have some kind of sick-o sex with infants and toddlers, which I feel would preclude consent. I mentioned sexual maturity, i.e. puberty, as a possible age because at least then both partners would be capable of consensual sex. Then again, the sexual encounters I had when I was six and seven were exciting and exhilarating and were in no way detrimental to my overall well-being, so maybe I'm being a bit conservative here. So to speak.

LOL, So you are saying that it is my Opinion that primal nature of sex is to procreate? Last time I checked the main goal of sex in any species was to procreate. We as humans have found it to very enjoyable as well and is also a for of pleasure. There are some species of mammal in which sexual intercourse is extremely painful, cats being one.


And yes, minors/children are much easier to coerce into doing something they may find questionable. All you have to have is common sense to realize this. Yes you can persuade/coerce a grown person to do something, but it is much easier to do this with a child/minor because they have had less life experiences.


Sleep

Coming up with hard evidence that Homosexual sex did spread aids more than any other means(tainted needles, blood transfusions, or baby being born to an infected mother)

Better start a new thread on that. I would suggest in Lifestyle debate.

ok - I have this really dumbo question.....

If NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Love Association......

Doesn't 'boy' signify a child and ipso facto under age of legal consent?

And isn't that a crime?

Then wouldn't such an organization be espousing an illegal act?

What am I missing here?

Asked, answered, and to be further pursued (if necessary) here.


Ah. As I suspected: pure, unfounded conjecture. Oh, yeah - based on "common sense". Like the common sense that tells us the sun rotates around a flat earth?


"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
-- Albert Einstein

"Common sense is in spite of, not as the result of, education."
-- Victor Hugo

"Common sense is judgment without reflection."
-- Giambattista Vico

You're not missing anything, Basheva. The stated goal of NAMBLA is to render what are currently illegal acts legal. Sorta like NORML "espousing" the illegal act of cannabis consumption. Both groups are lobbying for legislative change.



Oops - apologies for two postings in a row, Jaime.

I have been in sales a good portion of my working life. And in those years I know for a fact based on my experiences it has always been an easier task to sell(coerce into buying) something to a younger person than one that is older.

Let's break it down further. Let's take for example we have a 13 year old and a 19 year old that is in his first year of college.

The Challange: your task is to convince either the 13 year old or the 19 year old(your choice now) that you have a special glass of water that if they drink it they will grow taller by 1 foot.


If you can succeed in doing this you will be awarded $1000. To succeed the person you convince has to admit he thinks the water will make him grow 1 foot.

Which one will you pick to try and convince, and why did you pick them?

Personally, I think 13 or 14 is a good age. 18 in order to engage in prostitution.

Sleeper: Attempting to compare human sexuality with a mountebank exchanging magic beans for a cow or whatever is downright silly. To answer your question in its own context, though. I'd opt for the college freshman. He or she would've just been through twelve years of the American education system and would probably be as credulous as they come.



BREAKING NEWS
From ABC News:

Never mind differing ages of consent, the inequality of penalizing homosexual and heterosexual offenses is criminal. It'll be interesting to see if this Supreme Court decides to hear Limon's case. They have an almost unbroken record of dismissing or voting against equal protection cases - unless it's a matter of throwing presidential elections.

I think I am missing something here. The thread is should the legal age to have sex older than 12. I have 3 kids (hence my name momof3). I would want anyone who had sex with one of my kids at the age of 12 to be considered a rapist. At 12 not all but MOST have no idea what sex can lead to. Diseases, Babies, etc. Even if one was 19 and the other 12 what job security is there? The father would probably not be around and then that would leave a girl of 12 with a baby. Who will provide for this baby? Her? She's not old enough to get a job. So that leads to other alternatives. Her parents are now respondsible or now being forced to have an abortion! I think that's what it comes down to, at 12 no kid has any idea what the consequences are. Times have changed. You need an education, get a job and then, and not in all cases will be able to afford a wife and child.

I'm inclined to agree with Mo3 on this one... 12 is on the young side, and most children are not even sexually mature by that age. What about 14, though, like in the Netherlands? If by age 14 a teenager isn't educated about sex and the consequences thereof, then there are definitely parental issues there, IMHO.

I think everyone is missing the point here. Having someone in their late 20's seducing an under-aged teenager is rediculous. Do you really expect a 12-16 yo will be able to understand what the other person is doing? Do you think they, as children, have the right to do anything they want when YOU as a parent are responsible for everything they do until they are 18? As a parent "I" have a say in who or whom my child dates...simple as that. After 18..they are on there own. I don't think at these ages, where kids should be able to be kids, adults need to be indulging their sex lives or attempting to seduce some teenage kid. If you think some 14 year old kid knows what they are up against when it's a much older adult I want to know what drug your on.


Darcaine

First, it doesn't seem to have all that dramatic of an effect on society in the Netherlands, and I don't think it would have that sort of effect here, either. Secondly, I know a large number of parents who speak exactly the way you just did, when they refer to their college-aged daughters dating men in their 30's. It sounds like overprotective parenting, for the most part.

I agree with Darcaine, the point seems to be missed here. The ACLU is an agency that avidly defends Constitutional rights from infringement by the government. It pursues actions on the frontier or civil rights and often times its cases are seen as absurd. But I would rather have top legal talent in this country working on the defense of my civil liberties (even when I don't agree with the result of the defense) than have a dream team defending the likes of OJ, Enron, and all of the other people who have a right to the best defense allowable under the law (and just happen to also be able to pay for it). If we need to curtail these liberties I would rather have it be with an amendment than with a law or executive order.

Isn't the point whether we support the ACLU or see it as a misguided organization?

As to adults having sex with fourteen year olds . . . . sorry the parent in me doesn't have censorable thoughts on that matter, hetero or homo sexual.

No I am missing the point. Drat, twice in a row.

Stefan when you talk about girls in College they are at least 18 yrs old. And the man is in his 30's. I think at 18 a girl is of legal age. As for the Netherlands with their 14 yr. olds having sex keep it there. We have more than our share of babies having babies. More people on welfare than we can handle. As for being an overprotective parent I think that is what we are respondsible for till they are of legal age.

Stefan, there is a BIG difference between high-school age and college. "Over" parenting in protecting my kids from older people ruining their lives and living their fantasy's out at their expense is not rediculous. If you haven't noticed..the Netherlands has what population? Sorry, this "over" protective parent will let his kids grow up first before someone trys and make them grow up.

Darcaine

I'm sorry mom, but I have to disagree on this point. The Netherlands, where the age of consent is 14, and sex isn't considered such a horrible and abominable 'tabooed' sin, has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world.

Article Here

The fact of the matter is, at age 14, sex was about all that was ever on my mind, and everybody around me was too embarrassed to talk about it. What I learned about it, I learned from other teens, and guess what? They knew about as much about it as I did. Sex education in school was great for explaining the new hairs growing on my body and for learning all the terminology for the "plumbing" involved, but that was about it. I remember the 'dreaded' film that the teachers were so embarrassed to show us. Produced sometime in the 1950's, it actually showed... cutaway drawings of the penis and vagina! OH, THE HORROR!

The level of sex education in this country is appallingly low, and I find it difficult to believe that any rational human being would have a problem with their children learning about sex, a NATURAL FUNCTION of the human body. THAT is what explains statistics like this: (United States as of 1998):

Males who have sex before age 18....................................73%
Females who have sex before age 18................................56%
Percentage of US Births resulting from teen pregnancy.....13%

By attempting to squelch teen sex via rule of law, we've worsened the problem that the law was intended to solve.

THAT is what sheltering your children from their own bodies accomplishes. It also neglects to teach them how to deal with sex and sexual advances properly. YES, a teenager can be coerced, as can an adult, but someone who is educated about sex and his/her body, is better equipped to deal with that sort of situation. They become ten times as likely to turn down the guy in the polyester pants who uses the line, "Hey... Where have you been all my life, babe?"

I actually agree with an earlier post I saw from Darcaine, though, in reference to parents' involvement:

You do... You have all the options as a parent to help your children make healthy and wise decisions for themselves, and that's the point right there. It should be up to YOU as a parent to help your teenagers in this. It shouldn't be left up to the government to set such an incredibly high standard for everyone. I don't suggest that age of consent should be repealed, only lowered to a more reasonable level, and let parents' and their teens make the decision from there. Isn't getting the government out of our personal lives exactly what conservatives/libertarians stand for?

It is what libertarians stand for.

I think we're losing the point here--while Stefan and some others may be keen on lowering the age of consent to a "more reasonable age"--I think 16 was tossed around--is that really what NAMBLA is about? I don't get the impression that the creeps in NAMBLA are upset that they can't legally have sex with 16 year-old boys; I think they're upset they can't legally have sex with 5 and 8 and 10 year-old boys. So let's not get too distracted.

I, for one, would have a real problem with the idea of my 16 year-old son going out with a 30 year-old who was cruising his high-school for dates--I think it would most likely be a relationship based solely on sex, and dominated by an older man who likes to have sex with adolescents. Great for the older man, but not, IMO, a way for an adolescent to develop meaningful relationships. Now I would have a HUGE problem with a 30 year old man who was cruising the roller rink or little league parks for dates with my 8 year-old son. There's a name for adults who have sex with children--pedophiles. I don't see any good coming from removing the stigma from such a bizarre and despicable act.

I definitely agree that some here are missing several points. The first is that this thread is supposed to be about the age of consent. Those who keep trying to bring "seduction" and "rape" into the discussion strike me as attempting to derail and coopt the topic. If you feel that a lower age of consent will make seduction or rape easier and that that should be a consideration when contemplating lowering the age of consent, then PLEASE BACK THAT OPINION UP WITH SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE THAN MORE OPINION. Otherwise, if you just wish to continue discussing seduction and rape, and how awful pedophiles are and how terrible non-consensual sex is, please start your own damned thread. I doubt you'll get much argument from anyone.

As you insist on dragging this debate off topic, Darcaine, what about an underaged teenager seducing someone in their twenties - or thirties or forties? As an underaged teenager, I was way attracted to older men. Had I not been raised in such a rural backwater, I would've taken every possible opportunity to seduce older men - which, as soon as I got my driver's license, I did.

I sure as hell knew what I was doing. By the time I was twelve, I'd had three different sex partners and was in the third year of a seven-year relationship. By the time I was sixteen, I expect I could've taught most adults a thing or two. In fact, I believe I did.

As long as they are informed and are doing nothing to harm any other individual, yes, Darcaine, I do - absolutely. Absolutely.

Then I thank God you were not one of my parents. My parents have been there to offer me guidance and support, whatever age I happened to be, but were always of the opinion that my life was my own - as were the choices I made with it.

I offer up another prayer of thanksgiving. My parents have been there to offer me guidance and support, whatever age I happened to be, but were always of the opinion that my life was my own - as were the choices I made with it. We raised our kids the same way - and they have both always been very frank with us about their relationships and felt they could trust us with their problems and come to us for advice - they still do. Neither has ever had a sexually transmitted disease or been responsible for an unwanted pregnancy or committed any sex crimes - and both have had very active sex lives and some very healthy relationships.

Sexuality, whether you like it or not Darcaine, is part of being a kid. No one is talking about seduction here - except those with some sort of hysteria about child sexuality. Childhood sexuality is a fact. Children have active and vivid sex lives from a very early age - even if it's only masturbatory. They are not genderless, sexless, pristine little possessions of their parents by any stretch of the imagination. What they need is education - from as early as possible. I remember my sister and I getting "the talk" from my parents when I was ten and she was seven - as a result of "playing doctor" with a twelve-year-old neighbor. By that stage, though, they didn't have much to tell me that I didn't already know - and they left homosexuality out of it altogether. That talk came when I was sixteen and they discovered that I'd been having sex with a male cousin for two years. In my experience, "kids being kids" means kids exploring their sexuality. I say, just keep them informed. It's ignorance that is damaging and destructive, not experience.

I knew full well what I was up against - and what was up against me - by the age of fourteen. And the only thing I was on at the time was endorphins. It was another two years before I started playing with euphorics - and another four years before I took my first drink. I did not have my first sexual encounter with an older partner (excepting the fiddling about I did with a fifteen-year-old when I was six) until I was sixteen. And, boy, was I grateful to finally have a partner who wasn't "just another kid"! For a few years, I sought out only older partners (of both genders), but by the time I was nineteen or twenty, I settled into partners who were roughly my age. I've only had one relationship of any sort with a significantly younger partner. When I was in my thirties, I had an off-and-on relationship for about two years with a guy who was seventeen when we met - and he was the initiator of the affair. And, despite an embarrassingly full resume in terms of sexual experience, he was able to teach me a thing or two. Trust me, Darcaine, fourteen-year-olds know far more than you think. In fact, they may know far more than you, period.


Finally - again - we are talking about the AGE OF CONSENT here, people. What many of you fail to realize is that an overwhelming majority of relationships among teens - even young teens - and most relationships between teens and older men or women are consensual. A change in the age of consent is not going to significantly change the behavior of children or of teenagers - or of pedophiles - nor increase the amount of nonconsensual sex. It hasn't happened in countries where the age of consent is sixteen. It hasn't happened in countries where the age of consent is fourteen. Before participating in this thread and discovering how many people here seem obsessed with seduction and rape, I would've said it wouldn't happen here either. Now I'm not so sure. Some of you guys have some really unhealthy imaginations...

Should those in position of authority, such as priests and teachers, be held to a higher standard than other citizens when it comes to sex with teenagers?

Wertz,

It sounds like your argument is "I had sex with a fifteen year old when I was six, and I turned out fine, so there should be no objection." If we're going to base policy on anecdotes, I think we should probably offer the point of view of the boy who was molested by a teen at age six and was traumatized for life, just for balance.

While you may be able to fit this incident into your life now, looking back, and force it to make some semblance of sense, I don't think any rational person can believe that a six year-old was a willing participant in a sexual "relationship". We're talking about A SIX YEAR OLD. A kindergartner. That's not a relationship--that's abuse, whether you think it was or not. I would recommend some serious therapy for any child subjected to such behavior.

I've read all the posts trying to condone this deviant NAMBLA. Let's cut to the chase and dispense with all this double talk. If you support NAMBLA, if you try to twist what they are really about, you are just looking for a way to legitamize illegal, preverted behavior. No two ways about it. SOme things government should not be involved in, like the economy, and other things they must be involved in to protect the public interest. Many of the liberals in this forum are all about preventing anyone from smoking, owning a gun, voting if you are in the military. How hypocritical that now all of a sudden it is intrusive to enforce an age of consent. Society's stay around until they begin the descent into depravity, moral vacousness. I don't care if a 14 year old girl says she is ready for sex, she AIN"T. That's the point. Mentally, emotionally, she does not understand that her life may be ended because of a disease she may get. As for the rational that some 14-15 year olds are being tried as adults, therefore they should be able to do adult crimes, only a softheaded person thinks that up. You can be 18 and die in the military, but you still can't drink until you are 21. Such comparisons avoid the subject.Decent society has dictated that 16 years old is the age of consent. When that is lowered, the end of America won't be far behind, because the nihilists, and hedonists and communists will have taken over by then.

Stephan you are missing the point. The fact someone HAS sex isn't at issue. Teens have and probably always WILL have sex between themselves. Now, that being said when some 40 year old guy try's to sleep with a 13 year old...I have a problem with that. Being the parent of the 13 year old..

a) I know where my kids are ALL the time.
My kids know about sex and how to report a pervert to the police.
c) This guy shows up to my house I will have him arrested or file a report on harassment.
d) Thank GOD for the NRA cause I WOULD go to jail after some pervert was taking a dirt nap.

Just to let everyone know..yes I have kids...both teenagers. My daughter IS 16 and is dating a guy...well she says seeing but same thing. I am going through this right now...and I am here to tell you BOYS ARE EASIER TO RAISE! LOL I have met her boyfried and his parents because it was a "pre-requisite" for her to go dating. Now, am I being un-reasonable making sure she is going to be ok? I think not.

Darcaine

Wertz,

I find the lack of parenting disturbing...and it explains much. The fact I don't treat my "kids" as equal adults doesn't make me a bad parent..quite the contrary. I let my kids make decisions, to a point. The problem today is parents NOT knowing what their kids are up to. I am letting my kids "grow up" and mature at a pace that sets them up to be successful in school and what ever lies ahead. Confusing them at this stage of their lives could ONLY be hurtful. The mere fact a group like NAMBLA exists speaks much of the lack of parental supervision there is and/or was. The fact also that some would even suggest a 15 year old teen ager knows what he/she is getting into with, lets say a 35 yo is ignorant to say the least and possibly the fact of not having children speaks to this. Trust me, teen agers THINK they know everything...I think this about a universal truth if there is one.

Darcaine

Cyclone: I thought we'd covered this back at Arianna Online months ago. There are a few things I need to research again, but it's after 2:30 and I have an early start tomorrow. I will get back to your posting, though.

Darcaine: Yours, too. A couple of questions, though:

1. To which or whose "lack of parenting" do you refer?
2. Who said anything about treating kids as equal adults?
3. What do you believe constitutes "confusing" children?
4. To whom do you believe "the fact of not having children" applies?

Wertz,


I meant it as an overall thing I see today. Case and point, I was going to an even this weekend and my nephew wanted to invite a friend. Well, needless to say my son and my nephew never told me this so when they confronted me about it I said no. The ironic thing was this kids parents not ONCE called me to talk to me about it..they were about to just drop him off and I had never met them.



I thought from your post kids were capable of making every decision for themselves...am I mistaken?



Adults, bringing adult sex themes to children. Most kids are going to high school don't need the distraction from adults that wish they were kids or with a kid. This type of confusion is not needed.



Anyone who has not had children. Let me tell you, kids are awesome between the ages of 8-12. I would have never guesed in a million years what teen agers are like. My mother just laughs at me cause I must have been hell when I was this age too. Aside from that, raising kids gives you a perspective you don't normally see..it's intereting watching them grow up and so far I am very proud of them.

Darcaine

Did we? I have a tendency to forget things, so I'll assume we figured it out--I'd rather not focus on the personal anyway. In the most general sense, as far as the age of consent is concerned, I would think there would need to be some compelling reason to drop it down, something that serves the public interest. The burden lies with those who want to lower that age of consent to demonstrate why it should be dropped, lowered, whatever, and I don't hear a compelling argument for that. As far as I can tell, it is not children who are demanding they be allowed to engage in intimate relationships with adults--it's the adults who want to have sex with children who are calling for a policy change. This all seems very predatory to me. Let me know if we're going around and around on this.

Thats because children dont get in trouble for having sex with someone older than them. They have nothing to fear by having sex with someone older than them, they dont run the risk of having to go to jail.

My feelings on this will be quick, but I dont think there really needs to be an age of consent, as I dont think there are many kids att he age of 6 (lest it be Wertz!) who feel like having sex with a teenager. I think the age of consent harms most people having CONSENSUAL sex. What needs to be more encouraged in our society is that 1) its not wrong to have sex, and 2)if you dont feel ready dont have it. Our society puts pressure on young people to have sex by a certain age, and people feel pressured to do so (this has NOTHING to do with age of consent, so try not to get confused), AND HAVE SEX UNWILLINGLY (this happened to me when I was 13. I was not ready, but there are other people who were. I am not going to play god with someone else's body.) If teens and young adults were taught that its ok to say no, or that its OK not to be ready then I think we wouldnt have so many children distraught by their first sexual experiences.

Im sure I just sort of confused everyone with my opinion, and will probably not have another time to try and clarify. Sorry.

No, Darcaine, you missed the point of my whole post. I didn't say anything about 13 year olds, I stated that a 14 year old in the Netherlands, thanks to education, is better prepared to deal with sexual situations than most 18 year olds in this country. A couple of posts within this thread were 'downing' the age of consent in the Netherlands because of teen pregnancy. I brought out the actual statistics to show that it was a moot point. Teen pregnancy is hardly an issue AT ALL in the Netherlands. WHY? EDUCATION.

People argue that the high age of consent actually DOES something positive for this country, yet the Netherlands with its LOW age of consent has FAR better statistics on every issue from teen pregnancy to VD, violent sex crimes, and anything else you care to throw on the table. Making something taboo makes teens want it MORE, and the statistics in the US reflect that.

As to your parental guidance... GOOD FOR YOU! You SHOULD be there for your kids, and it sounds like you're teaching them your values system very well. You're absolutely not being unreasonable for making sure that your 16yo is ok. The only unreasonable thing is expecting the government to do that for you. It should be your decision and your teen's decision whether your daughter can date a man, whatever his age. It should not be the decision of the government. That is the point I'm trying to make.

KP,

Admittedly, you have confused me just a little bit here. You are correct that the penalties for having sex with a minor fall on the adult, so it's the adult who needs to be, well, THE ADULT. "She came onto me" isn't going to fly in a courtroom--it's the adult's *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** that's going to be in a sling, and our society presumes an adult is better equipped to make choices than a child (most of the time), so the simple fact is that an adult has to be more responsible than a child in cases like this. Ask Mary Kay Letourneau how she feels about the whole thing.

I'm not sure about your "it's okay to have sex" comment. I suspect when I have kids, they'll develop relationships in their teens and mess around, but you can be damned sure my message won't be "it's okay to have sex." That would be moronic. I'm not going to tell them sex is wrong, and I'm not going to tell them sex is evil, but I'm not going to tell them to go forth and have sex. Frankly, it's none of my business—I'm not going to be one of these parents who thinks it's their place to butt into their kids' romantic lives--but I'll hope they deal with their libidos responsibly, that they respect their girlfriends or boyfriends, that they refrain from engaging in any behavior that will result in consequences they're unable to accept or deal with, and that they don't go slutting around like streetwalkers. Very seldom, in my experience, is sex just a thing you do, with no emotional fallout or feelings to consider, or potential for something greater than the act--and even if it were, I wouldn't want my kids to spend their time engaging in such an empty pastime. I'm sure that will sound square to the free-wheeling sex brigade, but that's my 2 cents.

I would argue that LIFE experience of a 14 YO is not enough to make that decision no matter the education. We have geniuses in this country going to grad school at 14 years old...and THEY aren't able to deal with what an adult would be able to throw at them.

Darcaine