sounds to me like you still have the views he had before he left to the other country — David Solman

Nope. I've been an atheist since the age of 11. I am currently living in sin with a woman ;-)

the parents couldn't possibly know when their daughter wants to have sex. consider that a mother doesn't want her daughter to have sex because of the stigma attached to sex and the possibility that a relationship might fall apart after sex and so leading to heartbreak. the idea that a stranger (to the parents) is having sex with your daughter would be very frightening and i understand why a mother would want her daughter to wait but they don't have that instinct.

then if you have an understanding of sex it shouldn't be a big problem to you. as long as he isn't hurting anyone you should respect that his sex life is personal

There are a lot of countries (such as Scandinavian countries) where sex doesn't have much of a stigma. I submit that even in those countries, a mid-40s male pursuing their 16 year old daughters for casual sex would be a cause for concern.

yes i do not disagree that his sexual preference is concerning but it should only be a matter of real concern if you have reason to believe he is manipulating these 16 year olds into having sex with him, whether that is with force or not but you said you dont have any reason to think that. of course for any parent that is a concern but your children arent your possession and you have to understand that at the age of 16, especially females you can be very mature. this is why the age of consent is at 16 for this reason. whether she decides to have sex with males her own age or older that's her choice.

Different places. Collective wisdom usually refers to collective local wisdom. To address it a little more closely, I don't know how different European communities handle the question. You've cited law, but maybe there's more to it. I doubt if most are more casua/ltolerant on the issues than in the U.S. Maybe they have a different spectrum of options than in the U.S., and maybe there's difference in the details. I am going to guess that legal protection is also a function of class and economic status. No doubt in the U.S. as well, but more de facto here and de jure there - my guess.

In no case do I suppose that any Europeans care less about their children than do folks in the U.S.

You know, "consent" is kind of tricky business. If you go to the hospital, you will be asked (kind of required, really) to sign a consent form giving the hospital permission to provide treatment to you. You sign it, of course, because if you don't the hospital isn't going to do much for you. But when you give consent at a hospital, you are consenting to various unknown possibilities.

I'm a gay man who was once very sexually active (sigh). Age has since snowed white hair on my head and cooled my carnal enthusiasms. As a mature adult (before and after reaching 40) I sometimes "consented" to sex with other men that turned out to be ill advised in retrospect (interest = consent). I was never risk averse in sexual encounters. Some people are very risk averse, and shy away from situations that present any risk whatsoever.

One of the "risks" of having sex at 14, 15, 16, or at 30, 40, or 50 is that one may regret having taken risks that one later feels were too high or not rewarding enough. Exactly what happened in an encounter is always subject to reinterpretation later--and this is true whether we are talking about sex, medical treatment, financial activity, trying out herbicides on the lawn, and so on. Maybe the sexual experience wasn't as great as one hoped it would be. Maybe a sexual partner had annoying habits; wore too much cologne; popped chewing gum constantly; didn't make the right moves, didn't measure up to expectations, etc. Or, in one case, was far more progressed with AIDS than I thought.

I had sex as a minor, sex which also happened to be illegal at the time on a couple of different counts, with a guy who was about 10 years older than me. I later had regrets about it, NOT because I was abused in some way -- I don't feel I was abused, though I had been carefully seduced and coaxed into the encounter. The sexual relationship went on for several years, and while I was glad to have sex available, I just didn't like the guy that much. I regretted it. I wished it had not happened. (What I really wished was that it had happened, even earlier, with somebody else.)

I didn't give "consent" the way "consent" is now interpreted. I'm still OK with that part. Where this relationship became really problematic was when the desperate neediness of this guy resulted in intrusive, highly inconvenient behavior. Worse, he was kind of like velcro and I couldn't figure out then how to get him unstuck. I wasn't quite mature enough to call his suicidal bluff, a device he used a couple of times to get me to come visit him a few hundred miles away.

So, a first sexual encounter, whether consented or unconsented, can have unforeseen consequences, which we may or may not regret for various reasons. We don't know, sometimes, to what, exactly, we might be consenting.

I think we've entered entirely too speculative a territory here. I really don't see any way to untangle what we know to be an extremely culturally variable attitude to sex from what might be generalisable moral.

I think we've entered entirely too speculative a territory here. I really don't see any way to untangle what we know to be an extremely culturally variable attitude to sex from what might be generalisable moral. — Pseudonym

Variable, to be sure. Speculative? Only on the basis of my, and perhaps your, ignorance. What muddies the water, imo, is both the (in some places even current) history of women as chattel. Female as asset. Protection of the female thus being not for her benefit, but for her "owner's." And the treatment of women as being too provocative even to be seen (burkas and other coverings).

I'd prefer to think that modern western laws are about protecting the person. Not from life experiences, but from being victimized and harmed as prey by predators. It can happen that the law creates its own victims, but that is a flaw in the law not law itself. I think the idea of laws for the protection of certain persons is appropriate. That guides us to first thinking not reactively about existing laws but instead proactively about what the law is to accomplish. This is the way to untangle.

Driving is maybe more dangerous than sex, but all you need to do in most places is reach a certain age and pass a test. Then you can drive a very dangerous weapon of mass destruction.

It all depends on your abilities to handle certain situations.

How about we institute a sex license test? And forget the age limit.

How about we institute a sex license test? And forget the age limit. — Sir2u

Good idea! What might be a few questions?

I think such a test must imply a view towards sex (however defined). What view do you have in mind?

What might be a few questions? — tim wood

Not so much of a question type test, but more in line with psychological development and maturity. Obviously there would be a part of it that would question the person's knowledge about the risks and consequences of sex would have to be included, but it would be more important from my point of view to evaluate their ability to make rational decisions.
And I don't think that there should be a practical section to the test.

think the idea of laws for the protection of certain persons is appropriate. — tim wood

But we're not talking here about protecting certain people from others, we're talking about presuming to protect them from themselves.

Smoking is definitely a bad choice, as is drinking in excess and eating a poor diet, not getting enough excersice, all bad decisions a person might make with harmful consequences (far more definitively harmful than sex with someone much older than you). Yet we do not intervene to ban people from making these bad choices.

The ordinary individual is clearly in an unbalanced power relationship when faced with the might of the advertising industry, the media etc, yet we do not intervene to ban them from making bad decisions egged on by those industrial giants.

So it's clearly not just about protecting people in low positions of power from harm. We're saying that one group of people require, not just advice and guidance, but actual legal bans in order to prevent them making decisions that they might later regret. Whereas the rest of humanity do not.

The only logical framework I can see for doing this is to base it on some psychological understanding of a child's developing ability to make informed decisions. But that's not what's happening here, all sorts of decisions, including some really important ones, are given to children at all sorts of ages.

Ages of consent, unless biologically based (ie puberty) are just a reflection of a culture's attitude to sex, and it's a breach of human rights to have a cultural preference forced on someone by law.

What would you do if you saw a 40 yr old man hitting on the girl in the picture? I was 15 in that picture and wound up dating a man who was 23, who was my first sexual relationship. At the time I thought it was extremely flattering that a man of 23 would find me attractive despite the horror and anger my Mom expressed when she found out we were having sex. The most poignant question I have ever been asked in both therapy and in confiding in friends came from @Hanover who dared to ask where my Dad was.... good question.... because as a parent now? Whomever was hitting on her would have been speaking in a different octave when they left then when they came in.

Not so much of a question type test, but more in line with psychological development and maturity. Obviously there would be a part of it that would question the person's knowledge about the risks and consequences of sex would have to be included, but it would be more important from my point of view to evaluate their ability to make rational decisions.
And I don't think that there should be a practical section to the test. — Sir2u

Work this through then. Bob's been arrested for statutory rape, so he puts the girl on the stand and proves she's mature, or not, and if the jury sides with him, he goes home, but if not, he goes to prison. Bob goes free after having sex with a street wise 14 year old but Joe goes to prison for having sex with a naïve 22 year old?

Rape shield statutes specifically protect rape victims from having their sexual past presented at trial. Are in favor of eliminating those so that juries can consider the background of the victim, despite the fact that no rape victim with an extensive sexual past would ever want to press charges?

My point here is that laws have to be clear and let the public know what to expect and what is expected of them. Since the passage of the test you propose generally will follow age, it seems to make sense to base these laws on age instead of case by case bases, especially considering the scrutiny the victim will be forced to undergo at trial and the uncertainty the accused will have in knowing who they can have sex with.

But this is exactly what happens with all adults out of necessity. If a rape claim is brought on the grounds that the victim was not able to consent - drugs, alcohol, mental health, then someone has to decide if that really is the case. The availability of an easy way of dodging this difficulty in some cases by banning young adults from choosing their own sexual partners does not simply justify itself, it must be weighed on its merits like any other legal proposition.

But we're not talking here about protecting certain people from others, we're talking about presuming to protect them from themselves. — Pseudonym

Huh? How many twists did it take to get where you are? Although in a sense it does make sense: predators need to be protected from themselves!

Let's try a different approach. The question appears to be about consent. What do you imagine "consent" means in this context? Surely it cannot mean only the physiological ability to say "yes," yes? If, then, it means more than that, what do you say it means?

Huh? How many twists did it take to get where you are? Although in a sense it does make sense: predators need to be protected from themselves! — tim wood

He was saying that we're talking about protecting children from themselves, rather than protecting children from adults. His point is that we're making it illegal for children to decide for themselves if they're mature enough to have sex.

He was saying that we're talking about protecting children from themselves, rather than protecting children from adults — Michael

You nailed it. Well done

clarified what I meant (thanks).

What do you imagine "consent" means in this context? Surely it cannot mean only the physiological ability to say "yes," yes? If, then, it means more than that, what do you say it means? — tim wood

I think it's reasonable to assume that "consent" means something more than the physiological ability to say yes, but there are problems with the notion that consent relies on something which can be safely presumed to be absent in young adults.

I would say consent requires that the person knows what it is they're consenting to, but most teenagers know stuff as complicated as the basics of particle physics, I think it would be a hard call to argue that they didn't know what sex was.

I would say consent had to be freely given, but again, it would be difficult to argue that the power imbalance that age disparity can bring is any different to the power imbalance in employee/employer, teacher/student, doctor/patient, client/worker relationships and yet young adults are asked to give their "consent" to all sorts of things in those relationships.

What I wouldn't say consent had to be, which it seems to be entirely about in these discussions, is avoiding doing something you might regret, or avoiding doing something your parents would disapprove of.

I would say consent requires that the person knows what it is they're consenting to, but most teenagers know stuff as complicated as the basics of particle physics, I think it would be a hard call to argue that they didn't know what sex was. — Pseudonym

Sex? What's that? Is that what you think consent is about? After 25+ years of sex-ed, and free online pornography, I think it's very fair to suppose that children know what sex is. But again, is that what consent is about? I think consent laws are an effort to protect a class of people from exploitation and abuse. It's about those occasion when "imbalance" cannot be corrected or established. As to other relationships, there are child-labor laws and a host of other laws protecting both children and adults in "imbalanced" relationships. Given they're not perfect, but we take their fruits for granted and forget the history they grew out of.

As to regret or parental disapproval: again, do you think that's what consent law is all about? You're on a slippery slope to affirming as principal that no damage, no injury, no foul. Is that the substance of your view?

And to restate my view, consent addresses inequality. I believe that same-age sex, without force or coercion and with mutual "consent," should be free from legal scrutiny. Schools, parents, guardians may have a viewpoint, but the matter should not be criminalized.

You're on a slippery slope to affirming as principal that no damage, no injury, no foul. — tim wood

I think there's something like that in Germany. Between a certain age range, it's only a crime if the younger party files a complaint.

Work this through then. Bob's been arrested for statutory rape, so he puts the girl on the stand and proves she's mature, or not, and if the jury sides with him, he goes home, but if not, he goes to prison. Bob goes free after having sex with a street wise 14 year old but Joe goes to prison for having sex with a naïve 22 year old? — Hanover

First of all we are talking about a test to decide whether a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities with other people, not rape.

My idea would be applied before the act, not after. Much like acquiring a drivers license. A sort of preventive measure if you like. And it would be applied to both sexes, not just females. Most males under 18 would probably fail it though due to lack of maturity.

Rape shield statutes specifically protect rape victims from having their sexual past presented at trial. Are in favor of eliminating those so that juries can consider the background of the victim, despite the fact that no rape victim with an extensive sexual past would ever want to press charges? — Hanover

Again, not relevant to my idea of a test.

My point here is that laws have to be clear and let the public know what to expect and what is expected of them. Since the passage of the test you propose generally will follow age, it seems to make sense to base these laws on age instead of case by case bases, — Hanover

While there should be a minimum age somewhere in there it would not be a deciding factor in each case, as your own example of the wise and naive young ladies shows.

especially considering the scrutiny the victim will be forced to undergo at trial and the uncertainty the accused will have in knowing who they can have sex with. — Hanover

Again here you go towards rape and victims, not age of consent which I was discussing. And apart from underage sex being called statuary rape there is quiet often a bit of willingness and even wantonness involved on the part of the victim.

First of all we are talking about a test to decide whether a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities with other people, not rape. — Sir2u

Rape is defined as non-consensual sex. Having sex with someone lacking the ability to consent is rape.

My idea would be applied before the act, not after. — Sir2u

So it's rape if I have sex with a 50 year old who has unliscensed sex?

Again here you go towards rape and victims, not age of consent which I was discussing. And apart from underage sex being called statuary rape there is quiet often a bit of willingness and even wantonness involved on the part of the victim. — Sir2u

Ummm yuck. I can't get aboard your victim blaming.

Rape is defined as non-consensual sex. Having sex with someone lacking the ability to consent is rape. — Hanover

As I stated earlier, this is what a test would have to be designed to do. Find out if the person actually has the ability to consent to having sex.

So it's rape if I have sex with a 50 year old who has unliscensed sex? — Hanover

If she or he is not capable of making a rational informed decision the yes, you can rot in prison.

Ummm yuck. I can't get aboard your victim blaming. — Hanover

I am not blaming anyone. Just stating a fact. Many young people engage in sexual activities because they want to.

No where have I talked about rape, coercion, or any other type of unacceptable behavior. I just suggested a method of deciding upon the age of consent. Personally I believe that the basic idea that one sock fits all sizes is great, for socks. But it does not work for kids and their sex lives.

Basically I think that most of the things teenagers have to wait for till a certain age should be looked at more closely. The age that they can buy booze being one of the most ridiculous. It should be a minimum of at least twenty five.

I think consent laws are an effort to protect a class of people from exploitation and abuse. — tim wood

Agreed, so on what grounds are we deciding that a 17 year old requires protection from exploitation and abuse but an 18 year old does not?

there are child-labor laws and a host of other laws protecting both children and adults in "imbalanced" relationships. — tim wood

Yes, and they are all set at an entirely arbitrary and culturally determined age. Why shouldn't a 14 year old do healthy and rewarding work? Why shouldn't a responsible 15 year old be allowed a glass of wine with their meal?

Its not the existence of an age of consent I object to, its the cultural influence over what that age actually is. We cannot keep denying a young adult's right to choose what to do with their own body on the basis of some cultural notion of development with no objective basis.

And to restate my view, consent addresses inequality. I believe that same-age sex, without force or coercion and with mutual "consent," should be free from legal scrutiny. — tim wood

OK, so what is "same-age" - same year, same month, exactly the same birthday? Why is it you are so confident that age determines power with such accuracy?

Its not the existence of an age of consent I object to, its the cultural influence over what that age actually is. We cannot keep denying a young adult's right to choose what to do with their own body on the basis of some cultural notion of development with no objective basis.

OK, so what is "same-age" - same year, same month, exactly the same birthday? Why is it you are so confident that age determines power with such accuracy? — Pseudonym

"With no objective basis"? Well, if there is "no objective basis," then you're right. Is that your argument, that there is no objective basis?

My argument is that there are lots of reasons, admittedly some not so good. As reasons, they're in themselves objective. And it's reasonable to argue that studies of the phenomenon of youth and childhood afford an objective (read: not just cultural) basis for some decision making. Which is to say that the claim of "no objective basis" is simply meaningless. If thoughtless then mere ignorance (please take no offence; we're all infinitely ignorant; I'm just noting what may possibly be an area of yours). If on the other hand not thoughtless but rather considered and deliberate, then it's worse than ignorance, and feel free to take offence, because here it would be intended as fair return for offence given.

Now, is law perfect? Of course not; of necessity it tends towards one-size-fits-all, the Procrustean aspect. That is why, usually, judges have some discretion in sentencing.

As to denying youth - young adults (do we have a definition for adult, here?) - it's been my experience that youth manages. There is - perhaps you've forgot it - a natural tension between adult and child about what a child can and cannot do, should or should not do. Never has it been successfully resolved in mere permissiveness. The tension serves a purpose. The child works within it, and works through it, and in due course becomes him- of herself an adult. Age of consent, among other things, protects that working within and through, so that the young adult's decisions have a better chance of being actually their own decisions.

You can argue flaw and lack of perfection all day long and no objection here. False categorical statements, on the other hand, both deserve and need to be called out.

I believe that same-age sex, without force or coercion and with mutual "consent," should be free from legal scrutiny. — tim wood

A lot of sex happens between preteens and also early teens, so if they are the same age and there is no force or coercion and with mutual "consent" sex would be alright? It is funny to think that the teen years in when kids suffer from peer pressure more than at any other time. Most of the time it is not even an individual that coerces them into having sex but the groups the associate with.

A lot of people would disagree with that idea because they would say that they are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions.

A true age of consent should not be a blanket number of years covering everyone. It should take into consideration not just their needs, desires and the ability to understand what they are doing but what would actually be needed to make sure they live a fulfilling life.

so if they are the same age and there is no force or coercion and with mutual "consent" sex would be alright? — Sir2u

Why do you omit the next clause?

And to restate my view, consent addresses inequality. I believe that same-age sex, without force or coercion and with mutual "consent," should be free from legal scrutiny. Schools, parents, guardians may have a viewpoint, but the matter should not be criminalized. — tim wood

Whether that is all right is a different subject.

it's reasonable to argue that studies of the phenomenon of youth and childhood afford an objective (read: not just cultural) basis for some decision making. — tim wood

I doubt you'd have any trouble finding studies which show that unpleasant sexual relationships can be psychologically harmful. What I very much doubt is that you'd find any demonstrating that this is uniquely the case for under 18s but miraculously goes away after then, that's my point.

In hunter-gatherer societies children are given complete freedom, they are free to play with knives, poisons, fire, deep rivers, wild animals etc. What they learn from this is that they have to decide for themselves what is dangerous and what is not, they have to learn how to spot danger and avoid it. In the really deadly scenarios, and adult is always close by to step in, but other than that, they are allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them. The result is some of the most psychologically well-adjusted young adults in the world.

In our culture we spend the whole of childhood being told what we can and can't do, we learn nothing but that someone else will tell us whether a thing is a danger or not. During the teenage years, we rebel against this authority in order to try and dictate our own person-hood, but having learnt absolutely no skills at all to help us spot danger. The result is a period in life where reckless behaviour is the norm.

How do you expect a child or young adult to learn what is good for them if you protect them from all and every harm? How do you think they magically know what to do on their 18th birthday having had absolutely no experience at all up to then.

We're failing our children badly by mollycoddling them until later and later ages, postponing their learning of vitally important life skills and teaching nothing but the fact their personal autonomy means nothing to us.