- Joined
- Jul 5, 2011
- Posts
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The whole "age of consent" question is arbitrary, unenforceable in any fair and consistent manner, and rather stupid... at what age does a person have the right to make decisions about his or her own body? How can that age be the same for everyone, considering that every individual develops at a different rate?
And what difference does it make if the person(s) with whom someone shares his or her body is older or younger? What difference does it make if both partners are under eighteen or only one is? What difference if you're sixteen or eighteen, or if your partner is nineteen or thirty?
But considering the arbitrary nature of such laws, it doesn't matter whether the age of consent is eighteen or sixteen. Eighteen is when you are legally of an age to make your own decisions: you can sign contracts, you can smoke, you can have surgery, you can get married, you can join the Armed Forces, you can buy lottery tickets, you can get a job, etc., without requiring permission. So why not make decisions about sex at the same time?
I think my problem with the whole thing, though, is the idea of "statutory rape"... I mean, there's a world of difference between pedophilia and a twenty-year-old having consensual sex with a sixteen-year-old. Though the sixteen-year-old does not have the legal right to give consent, that doesn't make the twenty-year-old a criminal... by rights, it is the sixteen-year-old who has broken the law, giving consent without the right to do so. I mean, consent is consent, no matter if the individual has the legal right to give that consent; rape is rape, and there is no consent... that's what makes it rape.
Excellent post. I agree completely.

