What's your age limit?

[roamingguy 300291]

Some people are more mature and more responsible younger, and some people will never be responsible adults as long as they live. Applying the graduated privledge mentality to sex doesn't make sense to me.

 

Even people who mature at a younger age still are bound by the same laws as everyone else. They can't vote until 18. Can't legally drive until 16. And can't legally drink until age 19.

Likewise, an underage child cannot consent to have sex with an adult

irrespective of perceived maturity. Who is going to determine if the child is both mature enough to have sex, and is giving informed consent to have sex. The adult who wants to prey on him/her? That would be self serving for the adult targeting the underage. Or does the underage child just need a note giving permission from mommy and daddy?

Something you may not know, but should is that men go out with women, boys go out with girls. Men aren't supposed to target girls (or boys for that matter) for sex.

Part of being a responsible adult is complying with the laws of the land.

That includes not exploiting the underage for your own sexual gratification.

RG

[loopie 15358]

Even people who mature at a younger age still are bound by the same laws as everyone else. They can't vote until 18. Can't legally drive until 16. And can't legally drink until age 19.

Likewise, an underage child cannot consent to have sex with an adult

irrespective of perceived maturity.

 

Yes. This is what I said in my post. Our society gives out privledges at certain ages. We don't do this because it makes sense. We do it because it's easy. Rather than assess each person's ability to drink responsibly, we just say that once your 18(Quebec)19(Ontario), you ought to be mature enough to drink responsibly.

 

Part of being a responsible adult is complying with the laws of the land.

 

Discussing the validlity of laws is not the same as breaking them.

 

That includes not exploiting the underage for your own sexual gratification.

 

This isn't about my pleasure. If you read my posts you would've noted that I am not interested in anybody that young.

[roamingguy 300291]

Discussing the validlity of laws is not the same as breaking them.

 

Well really the validity of the laws hasn't been discussed. This is what you said (copied/pasted)

 

Our society is one of graduated privledges. We allow people the right to do things (drink alcohol, smoke, gamble, vote etc) at certain ages based on approximations of maturity level. But as we all know, everybody doesn't mature at the same rate. We pick these ages for privledges and hope for the best. Some people are more mature and more responsible younger, and some people will never be responsible adults as long as they live. Applying the graduated privledge mentality to sex doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

 

This isn't about my pleasure. If you read my posts you would've noted that I am not interested in anybody that young.

 

Does that mean graduated privileges for drinking, smoking, gambling, voting, etc etc etc makes sense to you, but when it comes to sex, no such restrictions should exist. That there should not be an legal age of consent? If you follow the logic of that argument, then anyone can have sex with anyone of any age.

Frankly it sounds to me that is exactly what you are arguing for

The reason for a legal age of consent is so the underage (underage of all ages) are legally protected from adults wanting to have sex with them.

 

Well understand my confusion then. I just can't understand why someone

would say the graduated privilege mentality to sex doesn't make sense if he was interested in adult only sex. Certainly the gist of your post leads one to believe that there could be an interest in the underage

 

RG

[scribbles 6031]

Once more into the breach, and all that...

 

So, far be it for me to come to the defence of someone who likely would deem themselves perfectly capable of defending themselves (well or not, I refuse to judge.) So, let's just call this my own opinion on the latest squabble.

 

There is a biological imperative to sexual attraction, and there is a whole lot of psychological baggage as well. Biologically, men are generally more attracted to younger women because they are more likely to exhibit good health and more likely to be able to successfully breed. Attraction has to do with an internal impulse driven by preferences shaped by a ton of personal and socially instructed factors. Sum it up, it means the difference between finding the taught ass of an underage girl as appealing as the taught ass of a 23 year old usually has more to do with what cultural mores have taught us to feel is "right" and "wrong."

 

And that's good. A well functioning society needs that structure.

 

Now, we enshrine these morals in law by determining the reason for this judgment to be about maturity and ability to make fairly rational choices. So, we have to put a number to it. The bar has to be set. We say (for sake of argument) 18 is the age when a person is mature enough (based on a whole lot of studies and educated debate) to be adequately rational. This doesnt mean that all 20 year olds are that mature, or that no 14 year old is. It just means this is the line of "majority" (which is why 18 is given that label.)

 

So, saying 18 doesn't fully make any more sense than saying 14. It is, educated or not, still somewhat arbitrary. There is no way to assess maturity on a case by case basis that would better withstand scrutiny. This is the best method of social-sexual governance we have.

 

But let's not forget we're just intelligent mammals. Pillorying someone for suggesting that a 15 year old can be hot is a conditioned knee-jerk reaction to a subject that is clearly very touchy. It doesn't mean that person is advocating bedding a truckload of underage girls.

 

Oh, and neither am I. I still believe 18 is the bar, and even that is sometimes too low.

[Frank7 3939]

Well understand my confusion then. I just can't understand why someone

would say the graduated privilege mentality to sex doesn't make sense if he was interested in adult only sex. Certainly the gist of your post leads one to believe that there could be an interest in the underage

RG

 

Someone in favor of same-sex marriage is automatically gay or bi? Speaking for rights isn't always just about the one speaking.

[loopie 15358]

Does that mean graduated privileges for drinking, smoking, gambling, voting, etc etc etc makes sense to you, but when it comes to sex, no such restrictions should exist. If you follow the logic of that argument, then anyone can have sex with anyone of any age.

 

I think drinking, smoking, and gambling are fine for all ages. However, I am also fine with individual establishments setting age of entry restrictions. So if a casino only wants to allow entry to patrons over 20, that is their right.

 

In some cases, age restrictions are the best system I can think of. For example: voting. I thought maybe voting should be dependent on finishing secondary school, but then I reconsidered and realized that would just give schoolteachers the power to determine who's eligable to vote. So until somebody suggest something better, I'm fine with voting being a right one receives at a certain age.

 

I also think you should be at least 18 in order to work as a sex trade worker. I think this because there is more to being a sex trade worker than just willingness to have sex, and some of these things are (or should be) taught in school.

 

And no, I don't think anybody of any age should be allowed to have sex with anybody else of any age. Sex with prepubescents is pedophilia, and pedophilia is wrong. Prepubescents are not sexual beings and being exposed to sexual situations often results in psychological trauma.

 

I just can't understand why someone would say the graduated privilege mentality to sex doesn't make sense if he was interested in adult only sex.

 

You don't have to be black to oppose the apartheid, you don't have to be gay to believe in gay rights, you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist. I don't see why one has to be directly effected by an unjust law in order to disagree with it.

 

I disagree with the age of consent laws because it makes no sense to me and because of what I have seen in my life. Allow me to share.

 

When I was in secondary school, a lot of the girls I knew would date men in their 20s. They usually met these guys through their weekend jobs or through older siblings. I was always raised to think of these guys as "creeps". But honestly, thinking back, I never really saw any evidence that these relationships were any different than if these girls had dated boys their own age. Does a 16 year old boy have more "pure intentions" with girls than a 22 year old man? I don't think so. So why make a criminal out of these guys?

 

Another anecdote I can think of is a former colleague of mine (who was about 25 at the time of this incident), who did in fact go to prison. He went to a bar where everybody was checked for identification upon entry. So in my opinion, he should be safe to assume he's in the company of adults. He met a girl at the bar who looked like she was in her 20s and they flirted and went to his place and had sex together. Later that week he was arrested. It turns out the girl had a fake ID and was under age. Her parents had asked her where she had been and got the story out of her and got the police involved.

 

So it's stories like this that make me see the fault in these laws.

[fortunateone 156618]

You make a criminal out of the 22 year old because if you don't, then you are also not making a criminal out of a 35 year old, or 45 year old or 55 year old. The girl is still 15. or 14, or apparently, 13, since according to the definition, only the 12 year olds are considered prepubescent and therefore off limits?

 

See the difference?

 

And yes, it doesn't matter how you spin it or how 'willing' the 15 year old is, there isn't enough life experience to make that informed consent. So you put the onus on the adult, the one over 5 years older than her, to be the one making the informed decision.

 

From a female perspective, which is the assumption here, any interest in a 15 year old (as in a 15 year old who admits their age, not the 15 year old who tells the 22 year old she is 18 ) is predatory.

 

On that note, as a 16 year old I was easily able to enter a licensed bar without ID check. As a 19 year old, I celebrated my 19th birthday in my favourite club, the one I'd been a regular at for over a year. I am not much of a drinker so it was about the dancing not the drinking lol.

 

So i do forgive the 22 year old who is lied to , but if the 15 year old lies and says they are 18, I really don't forgive the 45 year old who pursues her.

[scribbles 6031]

If just the raw age differential is the unforgivable part, I dare say there are a lot of unforgivable gents on CERB (judging from what I've seen and had related to me.) What are we saying about our community as a whole, then, or "hobbying" (I hate that term) in general?

[nntsci 11076]

I personally have no problem being with gals who are of a legal age. If that's what society has determined is (on average) old enough I'm ok with that. However, I'm personally wary of being with any gal who says she is under the age of 21 to avoid the hassles that could come from a girl that misrepresents he age... and also to avoid any potential issues about the age of the woman in the pictures I look at. This issue is of particular concern when I travel because I know that any image I see on my computer may well still be recoverable from the hard drive of my computer and rather than reformatting the hard drive every time I travel, I avoid looking at really young women (e.g., 18 year olds). I'm also not keen on being with inexperienced women -- I don't get the appeal of virgins at all!!! I like a gal that knows what she doing.

So for these reasons, I figure 21 is a safe margin of error.

 

I also know that past the age of 24, gals seem to start to pretend to be younger than they are, lol, and if a gal says she is 23, there is a good chance she is over 30. I have been with 2 service providers who were listed as being in their early 20s on their web page, but confessed to being in the 30s. That was fine with me; both lady's were very hot 30 somethings. Another service providers was listed as 35, but told me about her adult children so I figured she was in her mid 40s... damn good looking nonetheless.

 

I must say one of the few nice aspects of getting older (past 50) is that the percentage of the female population that I would willingly sleep with keeps getting larger... Of course, the percentage of the female population that would sleep would me is perhaps a different story. LOL.

[loopie 15358]

You make a criminal out of the 22 year old because if you don't, then you are also not making a criminal out of a 35 year old, or 45 year old or 55 year old.

 

....

 

So i do forgive the 22 year old who is lied to.

 

I think you contradict yourself there.

 

If you forgive a 22 year old who has sex with a 16 year old, then why do you support a law that doesn't forgive him? Do you really think punishing the innocent is an acceptable tactic for intimidating the guilty?

[roamingguy 300291]

I think you contradict yourself there.

 

If you forgive a 22 year old who has sex with a 16 year old, then why do you support a law that doesn't forgive him? Do you really think punishing the innocent is an acceptable tactic for intimidating the guilty?

 

Someone innocent hasn't been punished

A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old is guilty of a crime, not innocent

And a individual expressing she can forgive a 22 year old doesn't mean she

believes the law is wrong or that she thinks what the 22 year old did was right

Nor does it mean this 22 year old shouldn't accept responsibility under the law for his crime

RG

[Brad 49548]

Straw man argument, Loopie.

 

The specific scenario of the 22 year old who is arrested for having sex with someone underage when they were lied to and had every reason to think the person was older--and had they known the truth they wouldn't have touched the person--is not what is being debated here. A lot of people would agree that enforcement of the law is flawed or at least problematic (assuming the older person can truly demonstrate they couldn't have known better).

 

What most people are discussing, and I think you know this, is the issue of the older person who knows the other is not of the legal age of consent as it is currently defined.

 

Where I--and I think some others--disagree with you is your assertion that:

 

To my mind, once you cross the line of puberty, you are a sexual being capable of sexual desire and sexual functions and your sexuality should be yours to explore.

 

Now, if all you mean is that these young people should have access to sex education (and not the unhelpful abstinence-only type advocated in so much of America but real education) that would be one thing. If you mean self-exploration, you likewise would have few people disagreeing with you (I doubt anyone here thinks young people should be ashamed of their bodies).

 

Where I and others disagree is any suggestion that puberty alone is enough to warrant sexual exploration with others of any age.

 

There is no practical test someone can write to demonstrate that they are mature enough for sex. If there was, no doubt some would pass it at an earlier age, just as others would likely go their whole life never making the grade! But the test doesn't exist.

 

And let me emphasize, having reached puberty is not the test! Being physically capable of conceiving a child is no indication of emotional or mental readiness -- or indication that the person is ready to hop in the sack with someone twice their age who does likely know better.

 

So all we as a society can do to protect people from predators is pick an age for consent that seems reasonable, based on what most people of a given age in our society have in terms of life experience and maturity. It may mean the occasional 15 year old who is just as mature and ready as most 19 year olds doesn't get to have a relationship with an older adult. But that is a fair trade off to ensure that the many more younger teenagers who would be taken advantage of by older adults are protected.

[fortunateone 156618]

Both Brad and roaminguy have explained my comments well.

 

 

I am not sure what point loopie is trying to make by focusing on my comment, when the focus of that is a younger man (22) being lied to by the 15 year old who claims to be 18, and he believed her. He is looking to be with someone 18, not someone who is 15 in other words, even being 18 might make him question if she is too young for him.

 

I forgive him for believing the lie that she told him in order to convince him she is old enough to date him, that there isn't much of an age gap between them. But 18 isn't the right age for a 35 plus year old to consider as a suitable dating companion.

 

 

This has nothing to do with the sp/client relationship and their relative ages, fwiw. Only dating, BF/GF situations, which I consider open to more of an exploitive situation. When you take the 18 year old (as in the legal age to work as an sp and the legal age to provide consent to working as an sp) out of this discussion you are left with the 17 and unders, btw.

 

If someone think it is appropriate to take advantage of the desire that is growing in the developing bodies and sexuality of a teenager, then they have to assume that others are going to see them either as predatory or emotionally immature.

 

 

What you see in a 15 year old is the ability to have a crush on someone older. This is why there are laws against dating them, in order to give them time to get beyond school girl crush immaturity which will develop into mature adult relationship ability. School girls don't usually have crushes on same age guys, so being BF/GF with a same age guy is entirely possible.

 

 

When

[Easygoinglaidback 183]

I like the women I spend time with to have a good balance between beauty and brains. So this normally means between the ages of 25-45. However as every individual is unique and different there have been periods of my life where exceptions are made. And very gladly too I may add.

[loopie 15358]

I do want to thank Brad for his well-reasoned response. Of all the people who have disagreed with me in this thread, I think you might the one who best admits that the laws are flawed and you acknowledge the somewhat arbitrary nature of graduated responsibility. And those were two of my main points and my reasoning for disagreeing with age of consent laws.

 

And as far as I know, sex education is part of the current school system curriculum and taught to children before the average age puberty. I have not seen these lessons and I do not know how sexuality is taught to kids so I cannot comment on the methods or information. And yes, I do support sex education in schools.

[Phaedrus 209521]

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_discussillegal

 

Just putting that out there. I think some folks need to read it.

 

I'm not commenting further on this thread, because doing so would undoubtedly get me banned.