Without further ado, let’s kick off round 2 of the Great Glibs Debate Series! This sees Jarflax square off against PieInTheSky. Topic as given: Sensationalism aside, it does anecdotally seem that there is an increase in stories of adult female teachers having sexual liaisons male teenagers; this is a topic that always seems to sharply divide the Glibertariat whenever it comes up. Many Glibs point out that male teenagers may, in fact, enjoy the affairs, while others argue that whether they enjoy it is irrelevant; still others bring up double standards if the genders were switched. To me it brings up larger questions of age of consent and the vagueness inherent in making hard-and-fast laws to problems with fuzzy borders. Thus, the topic is whether age of consent laws are, in and of themselves, ethical. If so, why? If not, why not?
Sex is a very fundamental, and therefore very powerful thing. People are as psychologically damaged by rape and abuse as they are by extreme violence. Children cannot protect themselves, and therefore need to be protected from sexual abuse. Parents have primary responsibility for this protection. However, in order to preserve the peace and avoid vendettas we have delegated punishment of crime to Government. This means that we have to either decide that sexual abuse of children is not a crime, or we have to craft laws that define sexual abuse.
Criminal laws that are vague are inherently unjust, because they allow people to be punished for behavior that they reasonably believed was allowed. That means that laws have to draw bright lines that allow people to know whether or not something is a crime.
So why can’t we just use the same rules we use for adults, and define sexual abuse based on consent? The problem here is that children are not born with the capacity to consent to things. You cannot consent to something unless you:
1. Have some degree of understanding of what the thing that you are consenting to is. (knowledge)
2. Have some degree of understanding of the context that allows you to at least guess at the consequences. (judgement)
3. Have the ability to say no to the request. (will)
The whole process of growing from birth to adulthood is the process of developing these three things, knowledge, judgment, and will. At some point the child has developed enough of all three to be capable of consent, before that point they are not able to consent. Age of consent laws, imperfect as they are, are our best attempt at a rule that allows us to define that point for the purpose of punishing abusers.
PieInTheSky
Age is just a number, as a vaguely creepy saying goes – and it holds a kernel of truth. It is fairly strongly correlated to development in humans, but not fully. Humans take a very long time to mature and are vulnerable in the meantime. The world dangerous and the young require protection. This, for most of history, was simply a parental duty, but, like in most things, it has been taken over by government via law. The ethics of a law are, in general, related to fairness, justice, and proportionality. Does it address a problem correctly without making things worse and without too much potential for abuse?
Human sexuality is, I don’t need to tell anyone, messy. There are a lot of, pardon the expression, blurred lines and there are no easy solutions. Just because there are no easy solutions, it does not mean apply something simple but wrong. Is a fixed age of consent – a number – the ethical way to protect the young from sexual exploitation? Age of consent does not have something objective underlying it. Is 20 to young? 18? 16? Why? This does not take into account circumstances, individual variation in maturity and, importantly, whether there was any harm done.
The essence of law should be justice. There is no justice with an arbitrary number as a fixed age of consent. Someone may be perfectly competed to give consent at 16, someone else not so at 18. Age of consent in themselves punishes the first while failing to protect the latter. Yes, an adult can manipulate a 16 year old into sex, but it can be the other way around, or it can be fully consensual. Legal age can be a matter of a calendar day and an insignificant biological change. The law ignores all this and basically says: A and B have sex this week, bad; next week, all fine. While there are predatory adults, often age of consent issues come from mostly young people barely out of their teens themselves, and not fully mature, who can have their lives ruined by consensual exercise of what youth hormones lead to.
An age of consent is not quite justice, just an expedient and generic way to “do something”, because something must be done, this is something, QED. Sure protect the children, but find a proper way. I would say that we can have a clear no before biological puberty – not tied to an age, but to a biological event. After biological puberty, on a case by case basis, should there be reason for suspicion, malevolence can be detected and punished without indiscriminately prosecution people who did no harm.
Vote here!
Chicks, foxes, and eye candy?
Or is that a vixen?
Dammit.
I hate debates where both sides are respectful and make good points.
Here. Have a song while I think some more about this.
Wasn’t that the whole point of the series?
Seems un-American to me.
^^^THIS^^^
? ?
Tundra, you ignorant slut!
Pie for the win.
Nice. I think i’m supposed to recuse myself or something.
If you are old enough to keep a site such as this going, you are old enough to consent is all I’m saying.
Hey, no arguing your point in the comments, especially with disguised appeals to authority!
“Disguised”? It’s right out in the open.
Cover up, Pie!
Fine. I did not say much last debate so I won’t now. Although I de feel these debates need a counter argument phase…
Oh, I was just giving you grief trying to be funny. I do agree with the counter argument phase, maybe if this happens again, the arguments should be sent to the other debater to respond to before posting?
To be fair, previous debate was against a lurker so not the same
Before you do away with age of consent laws you need to first become comfortable with eliminating age requirements for a binding contract, as sexual relations are an unspoken contractual agreement.
Well, that’s an interesting take.
Are you being factious, because I feel like that’s exactly what Jarfax was implying and I think it’s a pretty solid point.
Not at all facetious, my thought went from “contract? ridiculous” to “wait a minute, let me think about this a bit”. Not really sure where I come down on it at this point.
I like Pie’s point about biological puberty. What would happen if all of our laws (not just sexual ones) were aligned to considering people adults at age 12 or 13 instead of 16, 18, 21, or 26?
There’d be a lot more kids on the streets as parents kicked them out en masse.
Given what I know of teenagers – it’d be godawful. Who here was not a fucking moron at those ages?
Hey!
I’ll have you know I’m still a fucking moron.
Or a moron, fucking.
But you are a Minnesoda guy so that’s redundant
Just because socialism made you a teenage moron is not a good reason to increase the socialism.
This isn’t about biology, its about agency. As Caput points out, if you aren’t (deemed) old enough to consent to much of anything, how are you deemed old enough to consent to sex?
I think we can either do case-by-case, or have an arbitrary/bright-line rule. 18 seems pretty old for a bright-line rule on sex, but 16 seems too young for a bright-line rule on everything else.
My objection to statutory rape laws has to do with mens rea. Sure, the consent of the minor may not be valid, but if it was honestly believed to be valid by the “perp”, where’s the criminal intent?
Some states allow considering mens rea, at list in some instances. Pennsylvania’s statutes on sex crimes contain the following section:
OMWC would still be out of luck, but if you can prove that a 16 year old lied about being 18 and you can convince a jury that it was a believable deception you can use that as a positive defense against statutory rape.
Interesting. While I may be a criminal lawyer, I’m not the kind of criminal lawyer who is knowledgeable about the criminal law.
There is a large amount of variability between the states on consent laws, and an awful large amount of willful misinformation. Unless you were a defense lawyer practicing in Pennsylvania I wouldn’t expect you to be familiar, and even then unless your specialty was sex crimes I’d still be wary about your knowledge.
unless your specialty was sex crimes
Who says its not?
Oh, you meant professional specialty. Never mind.
looks around at the partners of the firm
Checks out, carry on.
Aren’t all lawyers criminal…s.
New York is a strict liability jurisdication – even if they lied and had a fake ID, if they were in fact underage, you are guilty.
A friend’s younger sister was having a school debate about raising the driving age, I suggested the following slogan:
When you are old enough to drink, you are old enough to drive.
I liked it for all the wrong reasons.
It seems retarded on the facts that people are “allowed” to drive long before knowing how alcohol affects them. At the very least the drinking age should be abolished.
18 seems pretty old for a bright-line rule on sex, but 16 seems too young for a bright-line rule on everything else.
IMO, this seems to bake in a worldview. Namely the “teenagers are idiots and shouldn’t be in charge of their own lives, but sex is a normal teenager thing” worldview.
What do you do about the modern left, who does not believe in biology?
Putting aside your assertion that sex creates a contract for a moment, the core issue is the same regardless. Entering into contracts, or sexual relations, or imbibing alcohol, or using anything containing nicotine, all entail possible long term consequences be they legal obligations, pregnancy, or addiction. We, in the loosest possible definition of the word, have decided that certain decisions cannot, or rather should not, be made by people that cannot fully grasp the potential ramifications. We can enforce such strictures in two ways, by deciding on a case by case basis whether someone is competent enough to have freely made the decision, or short circuit the process and decide that anyone above a certain age is presumed to be competent. The question of which system is better seems to be the real argument.
In general libertarians tend to favor case by case stuff (even in economic/safety/enviroment regulations) though this does not necessarily apply to getting frisky
Ignore this, I should not be commenting.
Nonsense, you just shouldn’t be commenting on topic. Here, some local news for you to comment on.
stock photo, aint no snow global warming fucked us up.
Then wouldn’t every sexual interaction have to be litigated regardless of age? If you say only those relations with children need to be evaluated on a case by case basis aren’t you already imposing age of consent?
Do we litigate every contract?
Yes.
*files suit against RBS*
We don’t allow minors to enter into binding contracts without a guardian and I’d imagine even those contracts are litigated at a higher frequency than standard contracts between adults.
But, if you’re completely eliminating age of consent and each instance is a case-by-case basis then I imagine there will be a slew of similar cases.
Then wouldn’t every sexual interaction have to be litigated regardless of age?
You just gave a gaggle of feminists an orgasm with that proposition.
The lawsuit is the sexual act for them. They get off on it.
Prostitutes are cheaper than lawers.
Depends on who you want fucked.
And you feel less dirty for hiring them.
And how do you determine the case-by-case basis? Maybe an “adulting” license with some set of questions to ascertain the applicant’s mental maturity?
You can drink, have sex, drive, smoke, work, you name it at 12 if you’ve passed the test?
What if you never pass?
Most people won’t.
Case-by-case still doesn’t obviate the need to make some judgement about fitness. You can leave it to the courts, but that’s not changing the fact that someone is making the call. Maybe an “adulting” license. If you can pass some test of mental maturity, you get the whole litany of adult rights and responsibilities (sex, drinking, driving, voting, etc.). The downside of that, of course, is I’m not sure I’d pass the test even yet.
Who designs the test? How can you prove the test shows maturity?
We can’t pretend as if the case-by-case method somehow reduces government involvement more than age of consent. They both require government
Age of concent is less of a proactive intrusion than an adulting test.
An “adulting test” (off topic, but I hate the word “adulting”) would inevitably develop in a case-by-case situation. Especially in our common law system
No, it would result in Top Men designing a qualification system for… everything. On your RealID, you could have all of your qualifications listed — driving a car, driving a motor cycle, driving a bicycle, driving a scooter, driving on federally funded roads, drinking 3.2 beer, drinking liquor, drinking alcohol mixed with caffeine, drinking soda, voting in local elections, voting in state elections, voting in federal elections, smoking maryjuwana, smoking tabaccy, eating sugar, eating gluten, eating nitrate-cured meats, eating meat…
The best part about this is it would give LEO an excuse to stop and check to make sure you were qualified to do any particular thing they observed you doing, PLUS when you swiped your card to prove you were qualified to engage in any particular vice like drinking booze or buying bacon, it would generate a record of your activity to the government so they could make sure you weren’t abusing your privileges…
Would there be a learner’s permit?
There would be a curriculum designed by the finest minds in the social sciences to ensure you were being taught in a culturally sensitive manner.
*grabs ak & pops tin of 7N6*
The debate is really just centered around “what would be the best method to employ government in said situation”.
Unless you’re willing to go full ancap, that is always the question when debating criminality.
Well said. Let the bugaloo commence
Folks, this was intended as a pointed joke. Ultimately, any system is going to draw on some standard. And, if you’re concern is Top Men devising the exam (and it’s a legitimate one), how do you get around the fact that you’ve got Top Men (judges) doing the case-by-case judging? Age is a lousy standard, and it misses a lot. But, at least it’s a objective standard.
And again, the case-by-case situation will inevitably result in some form of an “adulting test”, just like there’s the “Lemon Test” and all the other moronic tests that common law courts devise in order for their to be some sort of uniformity in their rulings.
A simple age of consent law is actually the less government alternative.
“have decided that certain decisions cannot, or rather should not, be made by people that cannot fully grasp the potential ramifications”
Congress, for example.
I believe in most countries those ages are not the same and not viewd as the same…
Are those the same countries that think Roman Pulanski is the bees knees and Americans are fuddy duddies for frowning on kiddie rape? Are they really the best example for your case?
I disagree. It is like saying a minor can’t go to McDonald’s by themselves because ordering a Big Mac is a contract.
If you reject the notion that it is a contract any different from purchasing a product then do you also reject paternity acknowledgement? If it’s no different than purchasing a product then isn’t the man’s part of the exchange finished once he has finished?
We play coy when we reduce sexual relations to simple transactions, but no one actually believes that they’re the same
I don’t see sex as different from any other interaction. All interactions need to be consensual or it’s a violation of the non consenting person’s rights. That is what needs to be litigated, the violation of rights, not a violation of statutes.
Do you actually believe that, though? You see no difference between a thirteen year-old being allowed to sign-up for the military and a thirteen year-old buying a cheese burger?
The military can set its own standards. Why would they want 13 year olds? For the rest it’s a parenting issue more than a legal issue. If your 8 year old is in the bar pounding shooters and smoking blunts, you are a bad parent.
So, you are honestly contending that you see no problem with a thirteen year-old enlisting in the military? Forget why the military may want to draft thirteen year-olds (I mean they do a lot of drone warfare now so a couple of video game weathered thirteen year-olds may fit right in controlling killer flying robots), it’s a significantly different contractual agreement than buying a cheese burger.
And I feel that sex, likewise, is significantly different from smoking blunts or drinking. Sex effects two people. Not all sex is without repercussion. Not just pregnancy, but also sexually transmitted disease makes that contractual relationship significantly different from ingesting whatever you want in your own body.
I think policing the world so parents don’t have to raise their children is a bad decision. Hysterical hypotheticals can be used to justify any law.
I just don’t see age of consent laws as some kind of “moral panic” driven endeavor. It just seems logical to me and we all pretty much agree that there are certain things that a ten year-old should not be allowed to do as we might allow an eighteen year-old to do.
there are certain things that a ten year-old should not be allowed to do
Is it just me, or is it kind of odd that OMWC is sitting this one out?
If a parent is letting a 10 year old go out with 40 year olds, they are a bad parent. If a 10 year old is seeking a sexual relationship they were likely abused. That is already illegal. People get laws passed with extreme cases and it’s alway people are the margins that get punished most.
If it’s legal for the 10yo to be engaging in those relationships, you can’t say for certain the abuse laws are still there.
you can’t say for certain the abuse laws are still there.-
No, that’s like saying if you allow for self defense you have to repeal murder laws.
My issue is picking hard ages makes an act illegal regardless of consent. It’s legal to have sex with a 60 year old. If she has dementia and is unable to give consent it’s rape. It’s not the age that’s an issue, it’s the lack of consent. Does every sexual encounter have to be litigated? No, only the ones where a victim files a complaint. If 17 yo is happy banging a 21 yo, it’s none of the court’s business.
It took this long for someone to finally bring up parents and the state removing their responsibilities.
It is like saying a minor can’t go to McDonald’s by themselves because ordering a Big Mac is a contract.
Its not a crime for a minor to enter into a (commercial) contract. Its that the contract is unenforcable against the minor. Since Big Macs are a cash transaction, enforcability isn’t an issue.
Sex is a one time transaction too…for me. ?
Do you mean “one-time” or “cash”?
Or both?
The prices always seem to go up after the first taste. I’m not made out of money!
Huh. Oldest known photograph opf a snowman 1853. But there were records of them going back to 1380.
I suspect people have been making snowmen since they first figured out snow could be sculpted.
So you’re saying Snowmen can consent?
Don’t stick in in Icy.
I’m guessing that writing your name in the snow is eons older.
You’d need writing first, so probably not.
It was in your Mom’s handwriting, Trebek!
Stuff like that makes me wonder what other kinds of things people used to do before photos and people writing things down.
They used to bang 13 year olds.
*Bringing it back on topic*
Snowman.
The appropriate amount of time having past, now to off-topic . . . . a show I might actually pay to see.
Just the headline at Slate — I wasn’t going to click through.
HOW TO DO IT
I Had an Orgasm During a Professional Massage With a Man. Should I Tell My Husband?
Uh huh.
They charge extra for that.
Pretty sure it’s a crime. She should call the cops.
And admit to solicitation?
Fake news
Should I Tell My Husband?
According to some internet documentaries I saw, you should make him watch while it happens again.
I liked the pro-age-of-consent argument even though I tend to find the age of consent laws too often arbitrary. It’s possible that we’re more likely to discuss more controversial cases when the age of consent laws seem to be particularly unjust.
Or maybe the fox picture that I saw while reading the pro argument pushed me in its favor.
There is also the point of vigilantism. Not that there’s inherently wrong with seeking ones own justice. And maybe daddy castrating the creepy old dude that banged daddy’s little girl is better anyways. Of course wasn’t that long ago when a single 16 yo was an old maid.
This is just part of a larger question of why people are different before they reach the age of majority.
Until you reach the age of majority . . .
– you can’t vote in elections
– you can’t sign a contract without parental consent
– you can’t get a drivers license without parental consent
– you can’t get married without parental consent
– you can’t get an abortion without parental consent . . . . oops, well some places you can
– you can’t fuck without parental consent . . . oops, well some places you can
When you reach the age of majority you can
– buy a house
– buy a car
– get married
– buy alcohol . . . . oops, not really
– buy tobacco . . . . oops, not really
I don’t like age of consent laws because they’re arbitrary and lead to many cases of injustice.
On the other hand, middle aged people having sex with tweens seems abusive to me.
Re: Playa’s link to Robbie Soave yesterday,
Isn’t it telling that when Robbie wanted a piece of art from the glory days of HyR, he knew he had to turn to the Glibs?
I must have missed it. What’s the context?
Robby was on the twitters asking for a copy of Injun’s Downfall meme, and he atted WeGlibs.
He should have come to the comment section here.
Not because it would be more effective, but because it would be entertaining.
I don’t know about others, but I think Fruit Sushi got a bad rap a lot of times. It would be hilarious to have him write an article about how he learned to change a tire posted on Glibs.
My main problem with Fruit Sushi was all of his knee-jerk “to be sure” nonsense. But he was one of the least bad at TOS.
It reached the point where all I got out his articles were his virtue signals.
I recall the criticism was the prevarication, to be sure.
Sushi never saw a solid libertarian argument that he couldn’t wimp out on in the end. It became grating toward the end.
Shikka was a fucking idiot who always got it wrong. Always.
I have a lot of respect for Robby going up in front of congress and having to endure the haranguing by “academics” screeching about how he is an alt right nazi because he happened to interview Richard Spencer for his book, in which he strongly criticizes Richard Spencer. But you know, he did interview the guy, so LITTTEERRALLLY HHIIITTLLLEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR1111111111111111111111111111111oneoneoneoneoneoneonelevenoneoneoneonehundredeleven
Yeah and he voiced his opposition to the notion of “hate crime laws”. I can’t imagine anyone else at TOS even whispering that before Congress. Not to mention all the grief he got for pointing out the bullshit narrative around the Covington Catholic fiasco.
He is a single balled man in a universe of eunuchs. And I respect his one tiny shriveled ball.