ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:57 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Should there be a legal age to have sex?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 3:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Now, there's of course a lot of good laws regarding, say, a 30 year old and 15 year old. That's not what I'm talking about (though feel free to give your thoughts on it if you want). I'm talking about sex between two (though threesomes are something to consider, too...never really could find a logical argument against polygamy) consenting, similar-aged (like, ±1 year) partners.

Do you think there should be? Obviously teenagers don't have the best judgement (I speak from experience), but should there be laws about what age they should be allowed to have sex, just like it's illegal to drink or smoke at 17 in most places?

If you do, where do you draw the line? Why? What kind of punishments?

If you don't, how do you think this should affect porn (if at all)? Or age-difference laws?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hmm.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:56 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 9:11 am
Posts: 38
I was wondering this just the other day... can you charge a minor with statutory rape? Would you have to charge both of them?

We fool ourselves, in this culture, into believing that children are somehow asexual. Obviously, it is important to safeguard those who are vulnerable from adult perverts.... but sex between children?

The obvious problem is that children, by and large, lack emotional maturity. They might not understand the true import of their actions.

....no, I don't think it's logical to set an arbitrary age limit. Children all mature differently. But, at the same time, I think it is important to make sure kids know... sexual behaviour is significant. It's not just a way to kill time or pretend to be grown-up.

An arbitrary age limit might not be logical, but I think it's probably the best way we have to protect the children from themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:34 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Sadly, Tailsteak, if it came down to it, only the male would be charged, if anyone. The female is always the victem, according to the current legal structure.

I had an interesting pondry about that recently.

My theory is that our bodies know better than anything. When you're able to have children, you should have them.

It's my Primal Tribal Procreation and Structure Theory.

The young are weened until they reach childbearing years. Then, they have children. The female becomes either a hunter, or childcarer. The male, Hunter, or worker.

At about 20, you take your role seriously. You still breed, but it's the teens that tend to the children. As you hit thirty, you become both your role, and a teacher. Forty, you become a teacher to the new hunters, or workers, or whatever. After that, you're cared for again, like the children.

It's a simple system, but it's always worked out.

-H-Kat

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:40 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Good question. I think in an ideal society the answer would be "no", but this obviously isn't an ideal society. Since we seem to need a cutoff, I think it should be around the period of full sexual maturity, combined with enough mental maturity that the child (or adolescent, as they must be considered by that point) can be called responsible for their own actions without glossing anything over.

There's no way to quantify that that I can think of, though; by way of comprimise, let's put the cutoff at sixteen. Couples of similar ages (say, within two years) might be legal from fourteen to sixteen, as long as consent can be proven (i.e. an unequivocal "yes", not just the lack of objections). If you have any better ideas, by all means post them.

P-M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 3:32 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
As far as I understand it, at least in my state, the legal age of consent is 16. Now, you can have sex with anyone within 4 years of your age at that point, but having sex with anyone older than that is illegal, for the older person. But, I'm in favor of raising the age of consent back up to 17 and limiting the sexual encounter age to 1-2 years. 4 years is a bit much, in my opinon. There's a lot of difference between a 16 year old and a 20 year old.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:12 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 5:09 am
Posts: 1722
Location: Under a rock
A strange thing ive noticed about that here is that there seems to be different legal-ages limits in south australia for men and women , for women its 16 but for men it's 17.. is that illogical or is it just me...

anyway.. i dont see the reason for legal age limits. as long as they people involved are prepared for the consequences of their actions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2003 12:03 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
In Texas, the true age of consent is 17. However, it is also stipulated that people must be withing three years of age if one person is under that. Now, say I'm 19. I can legally sleep with someone 16, as long as she turns 17 before I turn 20. Now, if both parties are under 17, the three year rule applies. A 16 year old cannot sleep with a 12 year old, for example. Now, the older, regardless of gender, would be charged. A 20 year old woman is at fault for sleeping with a 16 year old guy.

I don't think there should be an age restriction. Strange laws result from that, and then people start getting arrested for ridiculous reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:53 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
I find that this subject is a very sensitive one. I cannot so anything other then direct you to a site that helped me out wen I was younger. Taught me that kids as young as 2 have a sex drive...

http://www.allaboutsex.org

Good line from the site though...

good artical too

Quote:
Protecting kids from exploitation by adults is one thing. Now kids are being brusquely protected from their own sexuality. This is a new and violent form of exploitation: kids' sexuality is being colonized by legislatures and communities, seized from them because they can't be trusted to survive it.



It's my point on cencorship over again people... We as a society can't be trusted with this type of limiting power.

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:35 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
....
..... .... ....
.... okay, children are children. Children don't have sexualities. Teenagers do, but not children. And I say this because when I think of "kids", I think of 10 year olds. I'm all for teenagers having protected, safe, responsible sex with teenagers with partners their own age, but something about this line:


some guy wrote:
Some adults apparently want kids to go from age 4 to 24 without sexual feelings, experiences, or experiments.


REALLy pisses me off.

While I agree that it's outrageous that children are being charged with child molestation charges, it's equally as sick to hear people saying that 8 year olds need to experiment sexually.

Sick fucks. Children aren't sexual.


:evil:

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:57 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Ryven wrote:
Children don't have sexualities.


d00d, haven't you read any Freud?

...Okay, he was a crackpot, and wrong about as lot of things, but still...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:03 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
*steps out of the debate before someone says something about child porn, sexuality and molestation, thereby averting anger issues*

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 4:07 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
The state of play in society is bad enough, leave the age of concent alone.... at least its a standard to be slipped under, rather than there be none at all.

8 year olds... god, I hate people.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group