Perhaps this. Most people accept among a parent's governing principles that parents owe their children a lot, including doing the best they can as a parents. it seems to me that one such principle is that a parent should not sacrifice a child's well-being to a principle. Simply, a parent should consider breaking a rule, if the rule is the wrong thing at the wrong time. I don't mean rocket science here, only that there are times when a child ought to be told; this as against those who hold that you shouldn't tell a child but rather advise, discuss, educate, & etc. his sensibilities in the hopes that he - or she - will understand and act with newfound wisdom.

When your three-year-old is about to step into traffic, what's needed is the imperative voice. When your twelve-year-old is at the edge with cigarets, liquor, drugs, promiscuity,criminal behaviour, & etc. the imperative voice has a place - the boundaries must be clearly established. "Should not," too often means can. I don't mean to over-simplify what is in reality sometimes a very great and difficult problem, nor offer the authoritarian voice as best for parenting. But it must be part of the repertoire. Permissiveness is appropriate with the permittable, when the options are meaningful as options. Not when potential consequences are disproportionately "consequential." No doubt the matter of degree comes into play, but most parents know, have the experience of ,extremes in matters of degree.

And to be sure, sometimes the failure to tell is heard as a lack of caring.

When your three-year-old is about to step into traffic, what's needed is the imperative voice. — tim wood

Agreed, any method to prevent the child walking into traffic is appropriate including force because the child cannot learn from their mistake, nor be persuaded otherwise. The child clearly does not want to be run over, they're not aware of the consequences and we can make an almost certain guess that, were they aware of the consequences, they would not take the action they're about to take. Simple.

When your twelve-year-old is at the edge with cigarets, liquor, drugs, promiscuity,criminal behaviour, & etc. the imperative voice has a place — tim wood

This is not at all like your last example. The children can learn from their mistakes, they can (theoretically) be persuaded otherwise. It's not at all clear that the child hasn't considered all the consequences and decided that they'd prefer to take the risks,and we have plenty of time to make those consequences clear as many times as we like just to be absolutely sure.

Getting run over is definitely bad, everyone in the world agrees on that, it's not cultural, there's no personal opinion, just plain bad.

Cigarettes, drink, drugs, promiscuity and criminal behaviour are not definitely bad. Almost everyone in the world disagrees on one or more aspects of each, it is entirely cultural, the law can't even agree between countries or at different points in history. To impose any of those things directly against the child's will, when they are in full knowledge of the potential consequences, is to make that child into a possession of yours, not a person in their own right.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must often guess what another person wants, or would want if they knew what we know. This principle covers all sudden eventualities and most of a child's decisions as a baby/toddler.

At all other times we just don't have the right to impose by force what we think they ought to do without the same justification used to impose any normal restriction (demonstrable harm to society).

...is appropriate including force because the child cannot learn from their mistake, nor be persuaded otherwise. — Pseudonym

Nice point, nicely expressed. However (this is TPF, there's always a "but," even if padded as a however, else why are we here?), operative here is the "because." The because warrants the imperative on the grounds of combined ignorance, ineducability, and circumstance. Narrow grounds, however comprehensive within their own boundaries. Let's move outwards.

When your twelve-year-old is at the edge with cigarets, liquor, drugs, promiscuity,criminal behaviour, & etc. the imperative voice has a place
— tim wood

This is not at all like your last example. The children can learn from their mistakes, they can (theoretically) be persuaded otherwise. — Pseudonym

Indeed they can learn, but now you have confounded meanings of learning. Two points: with the three-year-old, the imperative is necessary (I rule out force as a separate issue, not under consideration here). With the twelve-year-old, the imperative has a place. Two: learn, sure, but what? Education is not the same as learning; learning is not the same as education. In particular, both education and the imperative voice can guard, protect, from harm. Not so learning (qua learning). An example is perhaps simplest: your twelve-year-old hears your advice and your beliefs about promiscuity (no imperative), makes her own decision, goes out and contracts Aids or gets pregnant, or fathers a child. Well, he or she sure learned (even that is a presumption - what, exactly, did they learn?), but the learning doesn't cure the harm!

Cigarettes, drink, drugs, promiscuity and criminal behaviour are not definitely bad. — Pseudonym

C'mon! Sure they are! You're tripping over degree, maybe. But in themselves they're bad, even by definition. That we can survive and even learn and benefit from the experience of the bad is agreed. But that is not a merit of the bad things, else we reasonably could have, teach, official smoking, drinking, drugs, promiscuity, and criminal behaviour in schools (don't waste our time on the joke implicit here).

I agree that people can differ about all kinds of things. Clearly we differ on some aspects of parenting. Where we can reasonably differ, I don't think it useful to argue. Where it may be useful to argue is where one or the other of us (or both) is in plain error. I think, for reasons apparent above, you're in error. It's admirable to facilitate the growth of your children in terms of decision making; I think you're mostly right. But if (for example), as a matter of philosophy you loose your twelve-year-old into the open range of the areas listed above, subject to whatever wildness might harm, consume, damage, or kill them, without benefit of fence or protection, why then I think your plain wrong.

An example is perhaps simplest: your twelve-year-old hears your advice and your beliefs about promiscuity (no imperative), makes her own decision, goes out and contracts Aids or gets pregnant, or fathers a child. — tim wood

Does a twelve year old Stay away from sex because they are

too scared of mom and dad finding out and them getting angry with her?
too scared of catching something or getting pregnant?
too ignorant about it, has no real idea what it is all about?
has considered all of the information given to her and decided to wait a while.

I for one would hope the last to be true.

I for one would hope the last to be true. — Sir2u

It's a given, I think, that children cannot do that. That's why they're children. When it comes to a twelve-year-old and sex, let's first remind ourselves that children often engage in sex-play with peers. I'm under the impression that such play is a part of development and considered beneficial as against never engaging in any sort of peer sex-play as a child. Of course, even with this some bad things can happen, but somehow, they usually don't. Anyway, to proceed we need to keep track of what "sex" we're talking about, which is, I think, not developmentally appropriate child play-sex, but rather more like what adults call sex, which by its name suggests that children can't do it - notwithstanding whether the child makes a good job of it or not.

And you missed an option - why did you miss it? - because Mom and Dad love me; I trust them; and they told me not to, that I shouldn't. So I won't.

In the culture I grew up in, that is probably how girls handled it (I'm not a girl). Boys, not so much, which I know for a fact. .

Anyway, to proceed we need to keep track of what "sex" we're talking about, which is, I think, not developmentally appropriate child play-sex, but rather more like what adults call sex, which by its name suggests that children can't do it - notwithstanding whether the child makes a good job of it or not. — tim wood

What exactly do you mean when you say "a twelve year old can't do it"?

And you missed an option - why did you miss it? - because Mom and Dad love me; I trust them; and they told me not to, that I shouldn't. So I won't. — tim wood

No I did not miss it, the last one includes that. Where do you think kids should get their knowledge and advice from, mom and dad, right. But as you said earlier.

"Should not," too often means can. — tim wood

Most parents either tell their kids that they cannot and had better not do it, or the leave the decision up to the kid to make. Hoping all the while that they have enough knowledge on the topic and that things wont turn out all screwed up.

What exactly do you mean when you say "a twelve year old can't do it"? — Sir2u

You're right to focus on this. I thought you were saying the twelve-year-old was possessed of a maturity adequate to making right decisions on difficult questions. I thought that was what you said, but in fact you didn't say it. You said she [merely] considered. In that sense, I can suppose she did what she was told for her own reasons. My point is that children, by definition, are not adult thinkers. And whatever you implied, you did not write as an option that the child just did what it was told. There are children who obey their parents, not from fear or anything like, but because they trust them. But that requires that on the relevant occasions, their parents have to actually tell them. And "should not" should not be confused with, "Do not!" Children know which is which, so don't confuse them.

My point is that children, by definition, are not adult thinkers. — tim wood

Right, they are not. But that does not mean that they don't think.

And "should not" should not be confused with, "Do not!" Children know which is which, so don't confuse them. — tim wood

And here is an example of them thinking. As you say they do know the difference.

Most kids are smart enough from an early age to tell the difference between what is good and bad. Even without cultural influences that they are too young to understand. I will try to find the paper I read a while ago about this but for now here is an article from everyone's favorite source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

All of these examples of when and why children should be able to make their own choices in life, expressing free will of decisions and paths to take are all wonderful in theory and many are wonderful in application.

The omission that keeps being left by the way side is that the female under the age of 18, now possesses a life long commitment to the decision that she now has to make. Have a baby at age 19 by herself and the flowery path that a single woman with a child has ahead of her OR deal with the life long ramifications of having to make the choice to have an abortion and have to disclose that on medical records for the rest of her life.

And where is he who has been slapped on the wrist twice by the law and still believes he is morally correct in attempting to have "consensual" sex with anyone over the age of _____ <insert under the age of 18 here> because she was willing?

Out buying formula after working a double shift? Or out trying to tempt another young lady into his trap?

With all due respect, whether or not a girl of 16 yrs old "likes to have sex" is irrelevant when you are speaking sex with a man over the age of 40 yrs old. Hanover would know better than I what the law is but I can tell you what a mother or father of the age of 40 would think of such a pursuit. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Since you're pointing out irrelevancies...

What they think might also be irrelevant to whether it's morally right or wrong, and even the law might be irrelevant to whether it's morally right or wrong, since neither of those necessarily determine the moral rightness or wrongness of the act. Certainly, it's not inconceivable that it's both legal and morally acceptable, and that what the parents or others think has arisen as a result of prejudice (ageism) or overprotectiveness.

Wow, thanks for taking a stand and biting the bullet of consistency. No one else has. — Tree Falls

Show me where, in this discussion, I have not taken a stand for principles I believe in, despite the potential controversy surrounding them. Show me where I have been inconsistent. Either do so or retract your comment.

You assert as a fact "that there are some sixteen year olds which are sufficiently adult-like... to consent to sex." With whom under what circumstances for what purposes and reasons? And what evidence do you have that they can? — tim wood

It is a fact in UK law that, under the right circumstances (which I won't elaborate upon, but which you could look up), a sixteen-year-old in the UK can consent to sex.

Now, given that in the same reply from which I quoted you above, you said that the law is a statement of collective wisdom, why the need for me to provide additional justification? I think that it's safe to assume that this legislation was not enacted on a whim, but rather based on a considered assessment of the available evidence.

And to be sure, to resolve these we're going to have to figure out what is meant by "sex." — tim wood

With regards to what I mean by that word, that is again something which can be looked up with relative ease, given that we have the internet at our disposal, and given that my meaning is no different to that set out in the legislation to which I've been referring.

"The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women. "Sex" can mean penetrative sex, oral sex or masturbating together".

The community from time immemorial has decided and usually decreed that inequality between sexual partners is not a good thing to the point of proscribing it usually under threat of stern punishments. — tim wood

Two important points:

1. The views of the community are not always right.

2. The views of the community at a given time are often, though not always, reflected in law.

With that in mind, here is some legal history for you:

In 1275, the first age of consent was set in England, at age 12 (Westminster 1 statute). In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 raised it to 16.

Other countries have set the legal age at anything from 12 to 20.

There were laws put in place and maintained for lengthy periods of time in Britain over many centuries, from Roman times right up to the last century, which criminalised homosexual activity.

Often, the views of a community are influenced by prejudice and narrow-mindedness. This is perhaps most notable in medieval times and the period known as the Dark Ages, but also in more recent history with examples such as Apartheid, The Civil Rights Movement, and women's suffrage. Enlightenment has been a long, long process, and we still have some way to go.

There are also a matters of psychological, psycho-sexual, and physiological development. All these argue against adult/child sexual contact. [sic] — tim wood

That's a dangerously worded red herring. I will insist that you do not make out as though I am defending adult/child sexual contact. As far as I am concerned, for the sake of this discussion and my involvement in it, let it be known that a "child" refers only to anyone under the age of consent in the UK, which is anyone under the age of sixteen. Is that clear?

Your view of the matter seems to be if a person can engage and consents, then they should be free to do so. [sic] — tim wood

Of course they should, barring any unmentioned circumstances which might make me think otherwise! I'm a liberal, not an outdated reactionary, not someone blinded by prejudice, not someone who rushes to cry out in alarm, "Won't somebody think of the children!?"

That view is less than a millimeter deep, and won't do. — tim wood

Says you. Such dismissals are a dime a dozen. I'm only interested in substantial disagreement.

Do children engage in sex? Of course they do. Most are better off for it. But in pretty much every case, those better off were in like-age relationships, with their peers. Those in unequal relationships usually are injured in some way. It may be statuary as opposed to violent, but there's still a reason it's called rape. — tim wood

What are you calling a "child"? What are you calling an "unequal relationship"? What are you calling "rape"? You need to be much clearer. First of all, I need to know what you're actually talking about. I can't tell whether you're taking aim at something I have no intention of defending, or something I consider perfectly acceptable but subject to prejudice. Perhaps both. If your use of terminology differs from that in UK law, then you risk talking past me.

You both seem to be arguing from a utilitarian perspective that because some harm can arise from the young adult's actions you (or the law) is justified in acting to prevent that harm.

But this alone is clearly not enough, adults make really bad decisions and yet the law does not intervene. We could, for example ban people from drinking alcohol if they've ever made a bad choice and drunk too much. We could make it illegal to have sex with someone who has had an abortion. We could put anti-social octogenarians under house arrest.

So why don't we do these things, they would be quite certain to avoid further harms. In fact someone whose already had an unwanted pregnancy has proved themselves at least likely to make the same mistake again. More than can be said for the teenager.

We don't do them for one of two reasons, both of which you are both ignoring. Either we consider autonomy to be a right and so it is a duty to maintain it, or, remaining utilitarian, we consider the harms of acting outweigh the harms of not.

So my question to you both is, if you think that a 17 year old should have the full authority of the law brought to bear to ban them from having sex with whomever they choose, then why would you not extend the same ban to those adults who have demonstrated themselves by their actions liable to make the exact same bad decisions that you are concerned the 17 year old will make?

On a separate note, check your statistics. Countries with lower ages of consent have lower rates of teenage pregnancies, so if you're really concerned about teenage pregnancy then you should logically be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent.

I was reminded of this study in another discussion about voting ability in the mentally ill, but it's relevant here too. The criteria used in law to decide if a person is capable of making a rational, informed choice is the MacCAT-CR test. When that test is applied to children, about half of 7-11 year olds pass, almost all over 11 year olds pass the test.

Due process. You are not a court. — Bitter Crank

:up:

But not being a court doesn't mean that you don't have freedom-of-speech, or that you're required to keep his sex-with-children secret. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know if this point has already been made, but there are other laws which may be of relevance here, such as defamation law. You can't just go around publishing accusations of such a serious nature without risk of legal consequences, and that's just how it should be. (And whenever you post something online, that's an instance of publishing).

How did you arrive at that judgement given the facts? — Michael

He mistakenly includes speculation amongst the facts, hence he arrives at a different conclusion from that of you or I.

Do you think it's relevant that most likely over 90% of mothers who have daughters would think my brother's behavior is deplorable? — Tree Falls

Yes, it's relevant, but perhaps not in the way that you think it is. Do you think that it's relevant that a higher percentage of football fans would think that racism is acceptable when compared to the average? Do you think that it's relevant that a higher percentage of oil tycoons would take the stance of denying or underplaying the effects of climate change when compared to the average? It's not a good idea to appeal to those groups who are most likely to have a conflict of interest for a judgement on such matters. To suggest otherwise is indicative of naivety at best.

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

:lol:

At first I thought that you were joking, but having read further, it seems that you were actually being serious. I think that that's a terrible idea. I think that you'd have priests, scout leaders, and youth football coaches quitting their jobs en masse to apply for this job.

I think that that's a terrible idea. I think that you'd have priests, scout leaders, and youth football coaches quitting their jobs en masse to apply for this job. — Sapientia

I think I specified that it would be a psychological test and that there would not be a practical part to it. And you forgot to mention politicians.

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

I think I specified that it would be a psychological test and that there would not be a practical part to it. And you forgot to mention politicians. — Sir2u

Yes, but who would be making the psychological assessments? Who would determine whether they pass or fail? Or do we have have computers that can do that now?

It's asking for trouble. It would increase the risk of sexual predation on vulnerable youths. You've come up with the bright idea of fixing an imperfect system by replacing it with a weaker alternative which would bring with it an additional set of problems. What you're suggesting is a bit like trying to fix a leaking roof by demolishing the house.

And I forgot to mention radio DJ's and presenters from the BBC in the seventies.

Yes, but who would be making the psychological assessments? — Sapientia

Maybe a psychologist could do it?

Or do we have have computers that can do that now? — Sapientia

That would at least be impartial and unbiased.

It would increase the risk of sexual predation on vulnerable youths. — Sapientia

How so? In what way could it increase the level of "predation"?

You've come up with the bright idea of fixing an imperfect system by replacing it with a weaker alternative — Sapientia

How is it possible to state that something that has never been tried is weaker than the present unfair system? How did you make the comparison?

What you're suggesting is a bit like trying to fix leaking roof by demolishing the house. — Sapientia

It is about time it was done as well. A system that discriminates against people needs to be removed and replaced.
At least my method would make a complete sex education for everyone obligatory so no one could claim that "I did not think she could get pregnant and she never told it it was possible"

Maybe a psychologist could do it? — Sir2u

Yes, great idea. And I'm sure that that would in no way be seen as an attractive position for child sexual predators.

That would at least be impartial and unbiased. — Sir2u

Yes. The only problem is that these computers don't exist, unless you know something that I don't.

How so? In what way could it increase the level of "predation"? — Sir2u

Just think about it. It's not rocket science. It would be yet another position in which one would have power over a child which could be exploited, except that in this case it would be even easier to abuse. You've given them the green light to determine whether or not, in their professional opinion, they're ripe for the picking. And you don't think that that's vulnerable to exploitation? What planet are you living on? If it's happened in the Catholic Church, if it's happened in professional football youth teams, if it's happened in schools, and in the scouts, and with politicians and parents and children's TV presenters, why on earth wouldn't it happen here of all places?

I know that no one likes having their bright idea trashed, but you can't polish a turd.

How is it possible to state that something that has never been tried is weaker than the present unfair system? How did you make the comparison? — Sir2u

My goodness. It doesn't have to be tried to foresee the risks. One would expect the people responsible for these things to think about these things long and hard before jumping straight into a trial and error methodology.

How did I make the comparison? Well, I thought about the one, and then I thought about the other, and then I compared the two, and then I thought some more and reached a conclusion. Do you not have such an ability?

It is about time it was done as well. A system that discriminates against people needs to be removed and replaced. — Sir2u

Not if the costs outweigh the benefits, and they would in this case.

At least my method would make a complete sex education for everyone obligatory so no one could claim that "I did not think she could get pregnant and she never told it it was possible" — Sir2u

Yes, and at least my demolished house doesn't suffer from a leaking roof! :lol:

It's been fun, as always, although I'm afraid the fun has been at your expense. No hard feelings. :victory:

Yes, great idea. And I'm sure that that would in no way be seen as an attractive position for child sexual predators. — Sapientia

So when you go to get your drivers license you have no way of knowing that the people testing you are qualified to do so? I am sure that for something as important as this test there would be no way anyone with any evil thoughts would be allowed to participate.

And you don't think that that's vulnerable to exploitation? What planet are you living on? If it's happened in the Catholic Church, if it's happened in professional football youth teams, if it's happened in schools, and in the scouts, and with politicians and parents and children's TV presenters, why on earth wouldn't it happen here of all places? — Sapientia

Could you please tell me which of these positions has to go through a rigorous psychological testing to find out if they have any inclinations towards sexual abuse. What planet do you live on? So many people enter those jobs just because it is easy for them to become sexual predators. There are no checks made except for criminal records. You really do need to think about what you say.

I know that no one likes having their bright idea trashed, but you can't polish a turd. — Sapientia

But there are a whole bunch of idiots doing that right now by saying that the current system works. Do you need ant old rags, I have a big bag of them I could donate to the cause.

My goodness. It doesn't have to be tried to foresee the risks. One would expect the people responsible for these things to think about these things long and hard before jumping straight into a trial and error methodology. — Sapientia

The results of letting people drive cars does not have to be seen to gauge the risks, that is why people are made to take classes and get a license. Why do the same ideas not apply in this situation?

Where did I say that we are starting tomorrow and that we are hiring? I never said for the perverts to get in line for a juicy job.
Of bloody course things would have to be organized and set up, they would have to think long and hard about every detail. Not like the system in place that says if you are this age then no but if you are that age then yes hump away ready or not.

How did I make the comparison? Well, I thought about the one, and then I thought about the other, and then I compared the two, and then I thought some more and reached a conclusion. — Sapientia

So let me guess, the whole comparison took you maybe 20 seconds?
What problems, apart from those you mentioned above, can you foresee in establishing a system of permissible sexual activity for those that prove they are capable of it even if they have to wait until the are thirty before they are allowed to do so?
What are the benefits of allowing someone of sixteen who has had no sexual education to have sex just because he is sixteen?

Do you not have such an ability? — Sapientia

Oh yes I do, and I also know how to use it properly. Give it a try sometime.

Not if the costs outweigh the benefits, and they would in this case. — Sapientia

So now you are a tightfisted fortune teller! How did you reach the conclusion that it would cost more that treating all of the sexually transmitted problems, the unwanted pregnancies and the accompanying abortions, the welfare payments for all of the fatherless kids and the state maintenance of all of the orphans and abandoned babies. Or do you actually have the time to work out how much it would cost to set up my idea and compare it to the government costs of the items mentioned above.
Get real, you think it is not a good idea so you try to make fun of it instead of actually doing so thinking.

Yes, and at least my demolished house doesn't suffer from a leaking roof! :lol: — Sapientia

Duh, how many demolished houses actually have roofs to leak. ONLY yours. So sad. :cry:

It's been fun, as always, although I'm afraid the fun has been at your expense. No hard feelings. — Sapientia

And how did you figure that out. You being a pompous ass as usual cost me nothing. :rofl:

You both seem to be arguing from a utilitarian perspective that because some harm can arise from the young adult's actions you (or the law) is justified in acting to prevent that harm. — Pseudonym

I think you are mistaking a "utilitarian perspective" with a "Parents perspective". I am not only suggesting that "some harm can arise" I am saying even if you get away without getting pregnant, you were still a victim of a predator (yes I am using that word accurately) who was after you for your age, not for who you were as a person.

But this alone is clearly not enough, adults make really bad decisions and yet the law does not intervene. We could, for example ban people from drinking alcohol if they've ever made a bad choice and drunk too much. We could make it illegal to have sex with someone who has had an abortion. We could put anti-social octogenarians under house arrest. — Pseudonym

I will give you that adults can and do make really bad decisions but if it affects another in a bad way, the law most certainly does intervene. In the same way the law will intervene on a drunk on a club crawl, OB/Gyn's are OBLIGATED to report any signs of abuse to a woman (pregnant or not) AND if Mom with baby in utero has a blood screen done and it comes up 'fuzzy' they are obligated to contact the authorities to follow that Mom's pregnancy through the babies birth. Even though pregnancy is contained to the woman's body, the law has it's eyes on that baby from the first New Pregnancy visit of any woman. All of this oversight by the law seems to keep a pretty good tab on very natural event.

So why don't we do these things, they would be quite certain to avoid further harms.In fact someone whose already had an unwanted pregnancy has proved themselves at least likely to make the same mistake again. More than can be said for the teenager. — Pseudonym

Source please.

We don't do them for one of two reasons, both of which you are both ignoring. Either we consider autonomy to be a right and so it is a duty to maintain it, or, remaining utilitarian, we consider the harms of acting outweigh the harms of not. — Pseudonym

Again you use the term "utilitarian" and I use the word "parenting", maybe even throw in the word "actively parenting" and that position in life, I absolutely agree it involves weighing out the harm of acting or not acting.

So my question to you both is, if you think that a 17 year old should have the full authority of the law brought to bear to ban them from having sex with whomever they choose, then why would you not extend the same ban to those adults who have demonstrated themselves by their actions liable to make the exact same bad decisions that you are concerned the 17 year old will make? — Pseudonym

If my 17 year old chose to have sex with someone who was 40+yrs old, I would be looking to put both of them through a therapy of choice. He could go to jail and she would go to counseling to try and get to the root of why she is looking for comfort in the man my age, not her age.

On a separate note, check your statistics. Countries with lower ages of consent have lower rates of teenage pregnancies, so if you're really concerned about teenage pregnancy then you should logically be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent. — Pseudonym

Even though pregnancy is a huge concern of mine, the mental affects a 40+yr old man having sex with my 17 year old daughter would be far more lasting.

Where I live there are still a lot of girls that get hooked up at 16/17. It used to be 15/16 but nowadays they get jobs and just look for friends with benefits. Just kike it was back in England 50 years ago.

One of the things that is pissing me off about the comments on this thread is the absolute certainty that a man of forty could not have good intentions towards a girl of 17. A lot of men and women live with people a lot younger than they are.

Another thing thing is the absolute certainty that the younger of the two is going to suffer some form of trauma. Just a quick look at the case where older females have seduced "young innocent boys" of 14 to 17 years old. As an ex 14 year old I know for a fact that I would not have been traumatized by such an event, unless it was something violent of course. Most guys at that age would be delighted by the brag-ability of the whole thing. They only get traumatized when mom and dad start screaming. Shit, men used to be proud of their sons when they lost their virginity. Now it is a crime.

Before anyone goes accusing me of anything nasty, I am not in anyway implying that I am in favor of anyone taking advantage of other people. But I restate that I believe maturity and education should be the most important factors when considering a legal age of consent.

I think you are mistaking a "utilitarian perspective" with a "Parents perspective". — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Right, so your argument is that the age of consent should stay where it is because you "as a parent" want it there. Well I "as a parent" don't. That's not how we do ethics.

if it affects another in a bad way, the law most certainly does intervene. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You've shifted the goal posts, we're not talking about if it affects another, we're talking about if it affect themselves. The only harm we're considering here is the harm to the teenager themselves. Your arguing that the law should be used to prevent them from harming themselves psychologically, I'm asking you why you do not consider the same should be the case of adults who have proven themselves to be bad decision makers. Why do we not have laws preventing known alcoholics from buying more alcohol? Why do we not have laws against fast-food, coffee, adventure sports, fast cars...all areas where people have demonstrably made bad decision which have resulted in serious harm. What is it about sex in young adults that you want to single out for the harm it may cause?

If my 17 year old chose to have sex with someone who was 40+yrs old, I would be looking to put both of them through a therapy of choice. He could go to jail and she would go to counseling to try and get to the root of why she is looking for comfort in the man my age, not her age. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, but you still haven't explained why, other than repeated assertions that you personally wouldn't like it and that it might harm the child psychologically. Overbearing parents have been proven to harm children psychologically, requiring years of therapy to overcome, shall we throw them in jail too?

Even though pregnancy is a huge concern of mine, the mental affects a 40+yr old man having sex with my 17 year old daughter would be far more lasting. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Far more lasting than an unwanted pregnancy? I really don't think you'd have any psychologist back you up on that assertion.