Again, I don't think that in cases like this one the law is fair. Were it up to me, there would simply be an age range that determined these things (for example, it is legal for a 16-year-old to have consensual sex with anyone else in a two-year age range).

Clear as mud, right? But the whole sliding scale thing does make sense to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lady Moonlight:
Here's another aspect. If the 16-year-old girl in Miz Scarlett's example was to commit murder, she'd probably be tried as an adult, right? So how come she's considered responsible for her actions when it comes to murder, but not when it comes to sex? Sounds like age discrimination to me.

---

That is a FABULOUS point.

Punishment for committing murder is about deterrent, and (supposedly) about rehabilitation. Its relatively easy to prove that someone did something - but far harder to prove why.

Punishment against seducing a minor is about protecting children from predators. True, sometimes a 17 year old guy who genuinely cares about a girl gets in trouble. That's bad. However, it can be difficult to establish that fact - like I said, its easy to prove what happened, but hard to prove why.

Lets face it - men DO lie to get sex, and young females tend towards gullibility in that regard.

Besides, a politician who loosened such laws would not survive the next election.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
Punishment for committing murder is about deterrent, and (supposedly) about rehabilitation. Its relatively easy to prove that someone did something - but far harder to prove why.

Punishment against seducing a minor is about protecting children from predators.

---

But is a 17-year-old boy really "preying" on a 16 1/2-year-old-girl? Maybe. But middle-aged men prey on middle-aged women, too, and vice-versa, and nobody goes to jail. I guess what I'm saying is that the law should have some consistency.

If "punishment for committing murder is about deterrent," as you say, then it's also about choices. It's no mistake that the laws are a lot gentler on folks who commit murder "in the heat of the moment" or in self-defense than on those who murder as a premeditated act. We have traditionally tried minors who murder as being less responsible for their actions than adults.

However, in every state that I can think of, a 16-year-old who committed premeditated murder would be tried as an adult. This assumes, then, that a 16-year-old is capable of making adult choices regarding violence and understanding the consequences of his or her actions. Why then, is that same 16-year-old not capable of making choices about sex? Why is he or she an "adult" in one situation and a "child" in the next?

quote:

---

Lets face it - men DO lie to get sex, and young females tend towards gullibility in that regard.

---

~sigh~ You're generalizing again. Believe it or not ThisGuy, women have hormones just like guys do and we LIKE having sex. We do not have to be lured into it. Furthermore, we have brains and are capable of using them. That doesn't mean we always DO use them, but it doesn't mean that we're a bunch of fluffheads who are constantly being misled by you nasty scheming males.

quote:

---

Besides, a politician who loosened such laws would not survive the next election.

---

Here, I think, you may have a point. Consistency has never been big amongst politicians. Witness the fact that in the U.S. an 18-year old is considered adult in all aspects but the ability to decide whether or not he or she can handle alcohol responsibly. Instead, we make a big deal out of it so that heaven knows how many people can go out every year and get embarrassingly drunk on their 21st birthdays, proving that those extra three years didn't add one whit to the person's judgment where alcohol is concerned.

I think they are necessary to some degree, because children need to be protected from sexual predators, who are too willing to claim that children are “sexual beings just like adults” and can hence make informed sexual consent (into sex acts with adults).

There needs to be some kind of limit, most definitely. But where should the line be dawn? I really have no idea.
The way AOC laws seem to be enforced in the US sometimes seems very unreasonable and simply over the top and lacking coherent logic. – Lady Moonlights argument about the fact that teens are often tried as adults in murder cases yet seen as minors in AOC issues is something that strikes me as odd, too.

After all (and there are a LOT of variables with this, so it is not by any means unfaulty) the rate of child sexual abuse SINCE AOC laws were instituted has gown WAY up, not down. And, in most countries where it is lower, the pregnancy and STD rates are also lower.

In fact, AOC laws in the US are at the highest ages anywhere, yet we also have the highest STD rates.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

I don't think AOC laws offer any *real* protection of kids, they mainly state the judgement of a society that children aren't sexual beings. So that would make AOC laws punitive.(Does that make sense?)
I wasn't saying that in my opinion AOC should be "18", definitely not. I just wanted to point out that there should be some kind of expression of society (through laws) that children aren't able to consent.
My definition of children would in that case be around 12/14 (which is where kids get to decide several things about their lives over here in Germany, such as whether they want to continue religious education and where they are legally able to be a party in certain contracts).

I agree that the way it's working in the US isn't the right way.
I think the Netherlands, are yet again a good example for more reasonable AOC laws (as with most things sex ed and all related):
Age of consent there is 12/16, i.e. (if I understand that correctly) teens between 12 and 16 can consent to sex with each other, teens over 16 can also consent to sex with an adult. The Netherlands also have one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancies, STDs and new HIV infections in the world. Has that something to do with the AOC laws?
In my opinion - pretty likely. Simply because teens are regarded as human beings who can (legally) have sex lives (so this kinda corresponds to the other thread you recently started, Heather), I think that's one of the reasons why they get better education, health care and the whole deal.
Over here, AOC is 14/16, and that's something I find quite reasonable, too.

In my opinion, AOC laws in some US states are -overall- pretty ridiculous. Even some of the peer relationships I had would have been against laws in several US States, which I find kinda absurd. Due to the laws over here, even the relaionship I had at 16 with a partner who was 9 years older would most likely have been within the boundaries, because the (sexual) relationship between someone over 21 and someone over 16 but under 18 is only then against the law, if the younger partner can -due to mental reasons- not consent (which would ahve been determined by a psychological exam).

In addition, AOC laws in the US way too often discriminate against non-hetero teens.

So just to clear it up:
I was in no way supporting the US standards....but I think completely getting rid of AOC laws might send the wrong message, too.

------------------
“...i'm just trying to find
a decent melody
a song that i can sing
in my own company...”

The other thing, too, to address, I suppose, is the fact of WHY AOC laws came to be in the frist place. Basically, they came around in order to protect children from prostitution, which they were often participating in to help support their families, or because they were homeless (it's alot more complex than that, but that's the tip of the iceberg).

<< Punishment against seducing a minor is about protecting children from predators. True, sometimes a 17 year old guy who genuinely cares about a girl gets in trouble. That's bad. However, it can be difficult to establish that fact - like I said, its easy to prove what happened, but hard to prove why.

Lets face it - men DO lie to get sex, and young females tend towards gullibility in that regard. >>

Ayup, but that doesn't make the laws correct.

------------------
if p then q (statement)
if p then not q (negation)
if q then p (converse)
if not p then not q (inverse)
if not q then not p (contrapositive)

I personally would like to see a law where there is an acceptable age -gap.- Say, two years. Then after 18, since you're a legal adult, any other legal adult. For it to be illegal to have sex with somebody who is a year younger than you... that's just stupid.

My boyfriend is four months older than me. I am seriously not happy about the fact that when he turns 17 in July, he could be charged with statutory rape.
I've been raped. I know the difference.

Actual rapists are out there and people are worried about a four month age difference???
I hate this country sometimes.

~Corset~