Article Rec

[heidi]

There was a lot of discussion this summer about stories about people who are "underage" engaging in sexual activity, and some nasty words were thrown at those who write about people under the age of 18 engaging in sexual activity, even where said people live in countries where it is (a) legal to engage in sexual activity when under the age of 18, or (b) legal to marry when under the age of 18, and (c) definitely legal to write about or draw *fictional* people under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity.

But that's not what this post is about.

This post is about an article in Slate Magazine today on reasons as to why an age of consent exists, and reasons why it should be lowered, or at least the law should focus more on age disparity when all parties are over the age of 12, or over the age of 16.

Interesting food for thought, IMHO. I don't agree 100% with what the author is suggesting, but I think that there is definitely a need for the justice system to differentiate among situations where the parties are, say, 15 years apart, where there is a work- or school-generated power-imbalance, and where the parties are peers.

Comments

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

The age of consent here is 16 (for both hereto and homosexual sex (except in N. Ireland) and I think that’s about right. It’s an arbitrary age anyway and no two 16 year olds are the same. One 16 year old could be moreorless running the household and another may have incredibly protected from the world.

There’s only so much the law can expect ot be able to do. Choosing an age where people are usually at a stage to know what they’re doing and are physically and mentally able to cope with it is the right thing but not to go over the top. Don’t send two 15 years olds down the cop shop for sleeping together but if there’s a real imbalance of power, then yes.

[viridescence13]

There is definitely a need to differentiate among situations -- there should not be a one-size-fits-all law when it comes to this. Thanks for pointing to the article; it's interesting food for thought, especially for someone who lives in the very county where Genarlow Wilson was convicted.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

As the mother of an 11-year-old girl who looks to be about 14 (albeit a relatively flat-chested 14) and who is already getting some interest from boys (one anyway), believe me, this is on my mind. Thanks for the timely article.

[here-be-dragons.livejournal.com]

That was an interesting article, and yes, I agree with most of what he's saying. Like you said, there should be a way to differentiate.

I do have a concern about some of the statistics he used. He said:

From ages 10 to 21, only one of every four young people scores at an average adult level. By ages 22 to 25, one in three reaches that level. By ages 26 to 30, it's up to two in three.

What I want to know is what he means here by "adult levels." Later, he lists the age of 25 as the final "cutoff," and I think just about everyone would say that anyone age 25 is an adult. (Most people would probably use 21, and some 18). So how is it possible for only two in three people aged 26 - 30 to exhibit a high level of "adult" behaviors? People that age ARE adults, so by definition their behaviors are adult, and they would be the standard by which "average adult" would be measured. So what does he really mean? He must be trying to express some other way of measuring "mature" behavior, but the way it's worded here is off-putting for me. No, on the whole it's not terribly important to what he's saying - he still gets the point across. But he loses credibility because of it, IMO.

The article was still worth reading, though. :)

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I wondered about that too but I remember a study on brain development that indicated that people's brains reach a level of maturity when they're in their early 20s, not at 18 - I could find it if you want to see it...

And I think, also that only 50% of people should score at or above the "average" adult level, because it's the average. I'm wondering about the mean and medium as well, though. And I also wonder what the questions are - is it more mature and adult to say no to sex, or is it more mature and adult to use a condom, or do both count equally?

[quidditchgrrl.livejournal.com]

Know what just kills me? That we even have to discuss the common-sense approach to these laws, and it they cannot simply be adjudicated case-by-case.

*headdesk*

[ladyblack888.livejournal.com]

Here there are a lot of things to take in consideration: first of all the age of consent is 16 for all. Second, if the minor is 14 or 15, it's legal for someone who is no more than 4 years older to have sex with them (it was just for straight couples, but that was considered against the Constitution, so now it's for gay and lesbian couples as well). If the minor is younger (but not younger than 12) and the adult older (but not older than... 23?), the maturity of both as to be taken in consideration. No school teacher can have sex with a student (it doesn't apply to college, of course, but then there's the oddity that a college teacher can have sex with a 17 years old student, but a school teacher can't have with a 18 or 19 years old one. Oh well)

[royalmidnight.livejournal.com]

Do me a favor.

Make an appointment in your SK for whenever your oldest girl is 13, and revisit this post.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

When my daughter is 13, my oldest son will be 19, and I'll have dealt with any issues I have about sexual behaviour among teens twice over. While I would, ideally, like my kids to wait until marriage before they ever significantly kiss anyone, I know that's completely unrealistic. They're all going to know very well by the time they're thirteen, if not by the time they're eleven, that we want them to wait until they're mature enough, and that we don't expect that to happen until they're at least 17, and I hope they take that lesson seriously. In other words, I don't want my daughter - or my sons - to consent to anything at 13, or 15, or 16 - but I also don't want any of them to be deemed a criminal with a sex offender tag on it if they do engage in anything consensual when they're 16 or 17 and the person they're with is within a year or two of that age.

[royalmidnight.livejournal.com]

And that's how you feel right now, and that's valid for right now, where you are.

Maybe you'll feel the same then, maybe you won't.

[roguebitch.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the article yet, probably will do so after the girl is in bed, but I am about 16 years older than the guy I'm currently dating, who is an employee at my workplace. I'm a supervisor. Since I don't groove on powertrips, I don't feel that there will be a problem, but I'm making sure that things are all very discreet and mature at the job. I wish that people could all be mature and intelligent and clearheaded about workplace/age-disparate relationships.

[ness-va.livejournal.com]

The article does make for some good points. And he wrote it firmly without being insensitive, which is unusual.

Age of permission for anything in the law has always seemed pointless in some ways to me. I can understand they need an age (drinking, smoking, sex, whatever it may be) so they can tell who's 'wrong' or not but maybe it's not the peoples fault, maybe it's that the law doesn't take into account that it's people being dealt with, and people aren't the same.