The Age of Consent

[Federal Farmer]

I think basicly when can you get in the pants of a kid without going to prison for it

Provided that it does not infringe on any other specifically enumerated Constitutionally guaranteed Right, then it is left to the State to decide.

 

[Pandora]

Provided that it does not infringe on any other specifically enumerated Constitutionally guaranteed Right, then it is left to the State to decide.

The constitution doesnt protect you against being molested does it?


those are laws added arnt they

 

[Federal Farmer]

The constitution doesnt protect you against being molested does it?


those are laws added arnt they

No law protects you from being molested, and in fact, as SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled, the Police aren't even there to protect you from anything. It's up to you to protect yourself. The Police are there simply to investigate a crime, once it has been reported, and to deliver the suspects to the courts for disposition of their alleged offense.

 

[Agnapostate]

The first thing that must be addressed for this issue to be properly considered is exactly what is meant by the phrase "age of consent". Are we to strictly consider it for the purposes of this discussion completely separate from all of the other issues where the State has a compelling interest in the various "age of consent" or "age of majority" laws? If so, it will merely serve as an entertaining academic discussion, that has no real meaning outside the strict context of this thread. If we are, on the other hand, to properly consider the "age of consent" as it applies to all other aspects of our society, then we must consider it in the context of the age at which a young person may drive, vote, enlist in the military, enter into a binding contract, purchase alcohol or a firearm.

I reject as a waste of time any notion that it is intellectually honest, or even prudent to engage in the former, so I shall address the latter.

While there is no argument that sexual relations between consenting adults is of no concern of the governments, except under the most narrow exceptions, the fact remains that the State does have a compelling interest when that conduct is among those who are of an age, adjudged by the State, to be mentally inadequate to be able to provide informed consent. The same principles apply when dealing with those who are of the age of majority, yet are mentally disabled, and therefore not able to make a proper "informed consent" to engage in sexual relations.

The same standard applies to all aspects of life, as the State, having a compelling interest in securing the blessings of liberty to it's citizens, must also ensure that it denies to those who are unable, through disability of mental capability, from engaging in any activity that could render them responsible for damages, debt, or disrepute before they have the ability to fully comprehend the responsibilities they are undertaking.

If we are to assume that there should be no "age of consent" for engaging in sexual relations, from which another life may be formed, are we then to abolish the "age of consent" for which one may purchase a firearm? For which one may operate a motor vehicle? For which one may purchase and consume alcohol and tobacco? For which they may enter into contracts? For which one may enlist in the military service and therefore be sent into combat? NO, of course not, therefore there is no logical reason to believe that doing away with the "age of consent" for sexual relations would be any more advantageous to society.

Even when we refer to the father of American jurisprudence, Lord William Blackstone, he clearly defines the age of majority at 21 years of age, yet he also acknowledges throughout his commentaries that those younger than 21 years of age may engage in other activities, including marriage, at the age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, WITH their parents consent. The fact is that the various "ages of consent" are intentionally graduated, dependent upon the degree of responsibility attendant with the right or privilege being bestowed, congruent with the average mental ability of the person to honor the responsibilities that accompany those rights and privileges.

I find it curious that you would automatically assume that nobody here would oppose a minimum age restriction for driving, firearm possession, or any of the other examples you've cited. Hasn't my position on this issue indicated that I am willing to stand far out of the mainstream?

I find it curious that you would consider "informed consent" a necessary facet of sexual activity. Take your example of retarded humans, for instance. Do you hold that "informed consent" is a necessary facet of other forms of interactions with retarded humans? If so, confining them to specific rooms or areas would be a form of "false imprisonment" because it is done without their "informed consent."

More than that, the State, as well as capitalism, are the natural enemies of liberty and freedom.

 

[Pandora]

ok I disagree with you completely but lets move on

we had a case here with a man who nick named himself the naughty grandpa.

he was molesting his 6 month old grand daughter and putting the pictures on the net for sick twisted perverts to masterbate to.


do you think it is morally acceptable for a man to have a sexual relationship with a 6 month old

AgnapostateYou skipped my question, the one above. please can you let me know if you think this should be made legal and is it morally wrong.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I find it curious that you would automatically assume that nobody here would oppose a minimum age restriction for driving, firearm possession, or any of the other examples you've cited. Hasn't my position on this issue indicated that I am willing to stand far out of the mainstream?

Standing "far out of the mainstream" is all well and good provided you have valid arguments to support that stance, just as the FF's fight for Independence was "far out of the mainstream", however standing "far out of the mainstream" in order to satisfy ones own selfish desires is not now, nor has it ever been a valid reason, especially when those desires impact other people.

I find it curious that you would consider "informed consent" a necessary facet of sexual activity. Take your example of retarded humans, for instance. Do you hold that "informed consent" is a necessary facet of other forms of interactions with retarded humans? If so, confining them to specific rooms or areas would be a form of "false imprisonment" because it is done without their "informed consent."

Informed consent is one of the primary facets of all human interaction. Using the example of mentally challenged individuals, they too are bound by informed consent, for their protection, as well as the protection of those around them. While there are those people who suffer from mild mental disabilities, and are, for the most part, able to function just well in our society, there are also those who are, due to their disabilities, completely incapable of giving "informed consent", and are therefore disqualified from entering into contracts without the advise and consent of their guardians, just as they are precluded from purchasing or possessing firearms, operating a motor vehicle, or many other things that the rest of recognize as both Rights and priviliges. Your "false imprisonment" is nothing but an egregious example of a strawman argument, and will not be entertained.

More than that, the State, as well as capitalism, are the natural enemies of liberty and freedom.

Again, you fail to comprehend the nature of the State in a Representative Republic, and the fact that you would consider that government and capitalism are "the natural enemies of liberty and freedom" clearly show your complete lack of comprehension of history, and life in general.

 

[Agnapostate]

Standing "far out of the mainstream" is all well and good provided you have valid arguments to support that stance, just as the FF's fight for Independence was "far out of the mainstream", however standing "far out of the mainstream" in order to satisfy ones own selfish desires is not now, nor has it ever been a valid reason, especially when those desires impact other people.

I have no selfish desires on this issue. Just what are you implying?

Informed consent is one of the primary facets of all human interaction. Using the example of mentally challenged individuals, they too are bound by informed consent, for their protection, as well as the protection of those around them. While there are those people who suffer from mild mental disabilities, and are, for the most part, able to function just well in our society, there are also those who are, due to their disabilities, completely incapable of giving "informed consent", and are therefore disqualified from entering into contracts without the advise and consent of their guardians, just as they are precluded from purchasing or possessing firearms, operating a motor vehicle, or many other things that the rest of recognize as both Rights and priviliges. Your "false imprisonment" is nothing but an egregious example of a strawman argument, and will not be entertained.

My false imprisonment example was intended to highlight the other interactions between humans and being unable to offer informed consent to acts done to them. Why is it not a valid objection?

Again, you fail to comprehend the nature of the State in a Representative Republic, and the fact that you would consider that government and capitalism are "the natural enemies of liberty and freedom" clearly show your complete lack of comprehension of history, and life in general.

I maintain my point that the state and capitalism has traditionally functioned as the enemy of liberty and freedom. We should discuss this in another thread so as not to derail this one.

 

[Pandora]

Please tell me if you think it is wrong for a man to have sex with a 6 month old child or not.

 

[Agnapostate]

If a man attempted to have sex with a six month old child, that would physically harm them, and physically harming six month old children is morally unacceptable.

 

[Pandora]

If a man attempted to have sex with a six month old child, that would physically harm them, and physically harming six month old children is morally unacceptable.

you did not have a problem when it was a 7 year old, do you not realize that it will harm a 7 year old also.

at what point do you think it is ok for a grown man to have sex with a child, at what age ?

and since your issue is that it would physically hurt the child, what about other types of molestation to the child that is not physical penetration. are you ok with doing this to a 6 month old?

 

[Federal Farmer]

I have no selfish desires on this issue. Just what are you implying?

Guilty conscience much? Trying to change existing laws in order to financially profit by those changes would be a primary example of "selfish desires", now deal with the issue at hand.

My false imprisonment example was intended to highlight the other interactions between humans and being unable to offer informed consent to acts done to them. Why is it not a valid objection?

Because it's what is known in polite circles as a RED HERRING. It's a non-sensical statement designed to draw attention away from the real issue, that being that you don't have anything else to present, so you throw some crap like "false imprisonment" out there to get people going down that path rather than addressing the main issue. Just so you'll know, the term "False Imprisonment" is a legal term, with a VERY specific definition, and your usage of the term, in the context you chose to use it, clearly demonstrates that you know not the first thing about what you're trying to discuss.

I maintain my point that the state and capitalism has traditionally functioned as the enemy of liberty and freedom. We should discuss this in another thread so as not to derail this one.

You are free to maintain any opinion you wish, but that does not make it a valid opinion. If you want to discuss it further, than I agree, you SHOULD start another thread.

 

[Agnapostate]

you did not have a problem when it was a 7 year old, do you not realize that it will harm a 7 year old also.

at what point do you think it is ok for a grown man to have sex with a child, at what age ?

and since your issue is that it would physically hurt the child, what about other types of molestation to the child that is not physical penetration. are you ok with doing this to a 6 month old?

Neither penetration nor most other types of sexual behavior would typically induce physical harm upon a 7 year old.

My objection to a man attempting to have sexual intercourse with an infant is that such an act could cause severe physical trauma to an infant. The other instances of sexual interaction that you are presumably referring to are wrong inasmuch as they cause the infant to suffer. Suffering is a core issue in the consideration of every single being, be it human or otherwise.

 

[Agnapostate]

Guilty conscience much? Trying to change existing laws in order to financially profit by those changes would be a primary example of "selfish desires", now deal with the issue at hand.

You accuse me of wanting to financially profit from exploitation? I almost wish you'd just call me a pedophile like the others have. That is an offensive and sheerly absurd claim.

Because it's what is known in polite circles as a RED HERRING. It's a non-sensical statement designed to draw attention away from the real issue, that being that you don't have anything else to present, so you throw some crap like "false imprisonment" out there to get people going down that path rather than addressing the main issue. Just so you'll know, the term "False Imprisonment" is a legal term, with a VERY specific definition, and your usage of the term, in the context you chose to use it, clearly demonstrates that you know not the first thing about what you're trying to discuss.

It is a parallel analogy that should be addressed if you are able to provide an adequate answer. It does not appear as though you are.

You are free to maintain any opinion you wish, but that does not make it a valid opinion. If you want to discuss it further, than I agree, you SHOULD start another thread.

What should the topic of the thread be? I started this one at your suggestion.

 

[Pandora]

Neither penetration nor most other types of sexual behavior would typically induce physical harm upon a 7 year old.

My objection to a man attempting to have sexual intercourse with an infant is that such an act could cause severe physical trauma to an infant. The other instances of sexual interaction that you are presumably referring to are wrong inasmuch as they cause the infant to suffer. Suffering is a core issue in the consideration of every single being, be it human or otherwise.

Whelp you are pretty freaking wrong. I have spent way too much time in therapy with other girls who were molested and raped as children, and I am here to tell you that you can tear a girl's insides up when a grown man has sex with a child. Some of them can not conceive children, some have a hard time conceiving, most can not really enjoy sex or they are so over sexual. But none of us were “normal” because if sick warped twisted men who cared more about their twisted disease than they did the life of another human being.

If I knew you in person I would be in jail because there is no way I could hear you talk about little children this way and do nothing. You should find a group of women who were raped, molested as kids and see what they are going through every single day of their lives because of it.

I pray to god you are just a sick MF who is only thinking about this sort of stuff and not someone who is or has acted on it.


You have satisfied my curiosity, you are one seriously mentally sick person
And I have no desire to talk any further with you about any topic.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You accuse me of wanting to financially profit from exploitation? I almost wish you'd just call me a pedophile like the others have. That is an offensive and sheerly absurd claim.

Are you mentally challenged? I have accused you of exactly NOTHING. Now, if you have a guilty conscience about something, that's not my problem, so keep your assumptions to yourself.

It is a parallel analogy that should be addressed if you are able to provide an adequate answer. It does not appear as though you are.

There's nothing "parallel" about it, and it doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet, hold your breath until you turn blue, of fall to the floor and throw a tantrum. It's a RED HERRING argument, that has absolutely no basis in reality, or in the law.

What should the topic of the thread be? I started this one at your suggestion.

We WERE supposed to be discussing the "age of consent", but it appears that you're only interests revolve the sexual aspect, exclusive of all other areas of life, which as I clearly stated in my first post in this thread, it intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.