The problem I have
is that we say that there is a specific developmental age below which a person suffers psychological damages from a sexual encounter, and hence makes every sexual activity with a person below that age immoral (as one person is gaining pleasure at the cost of another). Because of this, we establish a law to protect people below that age.
All this fine with me.
Except that we obviously have no idea what precise chronological age corresponds to this developmental age or how this might work for different people.
So we establish an arbitrary age, mostly based on our personal perception and morals. And this is what I object to. If there is a scientific basis for it: I'm the first to back it. If it's someone's ideas or morals, I don't think it should interfere with how consenting people interact with each other.
And willingly breaking morals or values (and even stupid laws, think homosexuality) is all fine with me, as long as it doesn't cause or potentially cause harm to other people.
For the rest, I agree with you that 13 seems very low (16 seems reasonable) but it's only my impression and it still would be nice to have a more objective view.
Molesting and exploiting are crimes, independently of age.
(, Fri 9 May 2008, 20:07, Share, Reply)
But then...
I dont think age necessarily plays a factor in the psychological damages suffered from a sexual encounter. Rape victims for example suffer long term psychological problems regardless of their age. The fact is that everyone is their own individual and as such develop at different times.
There are admittedly many 14 year olds who feel that they are mature enough and are ready to have sex, but the fact is that there are also many that aren't. The law as an ideal is meant to be there to protect the innocent and as such the focus should always be on protecting those that aren't ready. Through this notion it has been decided that 16 is an age where the vast majority of people are ready to experiment sexually. That isn't to say that many aren't ready before that age, but in order to protect the ones that aren't a proper limit has to be set. I'd love to know what your alternative to that would be. By your logic it would seem that if an 11 year old decided they were ready and had gone through puberty, then he or she would be fare game. After all, if theres grass on the wicket, lets play cricket.
At the end of the day we could argue about the pedantics of the law forever and a day, and probably never agree. The fact is an old man is singing about how he loves to bugger children and sees nothing wrong in doing so, a mind set that I find morally reprehensible
(
Furness, Sat 10 May 2008, 0:56,
Share,
Reply)