As babies grow up, they need less care and control until they reach 25 when the brain seems to finally settle down. The mere existence of a scale of care doesn't automatically justify any intervention we decide to make, it must be proportionate to the care required so as not to treat autonomy without due importance. — Isaac

I agree. So perhaps we can now start to have that debate about where and how to draw the inevitably arbitrary line so that it approximates to proportionality. You seem to think 15 is too high, I think 12 is too low. The way I see it, we set the age of consent above the literal ability to speak "yes" or "no", in large part to protect children from being pressurised or otherwise manipulated by adults, and obviously some adolescents are much more vulnerable than others at any given age, and some social conditions make one more vulnerable all else being equal.

Yes, but as I've just pointed out above, we don't really need to have a big discussion. The age of consent is 14 in Germany, they're fine, job done. Anyone wanting to set it higher will have to point to some clear evidence of harm in Germany, otherwise its sounding more like an excuse to moralise than a concern for their welfare. Likewise with voting, 16 in Scotland, there's been no constitutional collapse, so there's absolutely no excuse for it being any higher anywhere else in the world. Likewise with alcohol, 16 in Germany, no major problems among teenagers, so the 21 in the American Bible belt is unjustifiable.

If one wanted to argue lower than these ages, that would be a different matter. Not impossible, given that we have to guess anyway, but certainly a discussion to be had. But where there is clear evidence from entire countries full of teenagers, I really don't see it's even a matter of debate.

It's a bit more complicated than that. You haven't provided any evidence that they are 'fine' in Germany or that being 'fine' in Germany translates to being 'fine' everywhere else or even what 'fine' is in measurable terms and how we get from 'fine' to 'not fine' (e.g. are things not 'fine' as they stand in the UK? Why not?). It's as if you're claiming that any social policy that doesn't cause such obvious harm that it would be general knowledge to a foreigner must be a good idea and must be a good idea universally.

Further, to un's point: Why 14 and not 13? Why 13 and not 12? Is it that you share the same concerns as others but simply make different presumptions about the level of maturity of children of a certain age? If that's the case, shouldn't figuring the ideal level out and how generalizable it is cross-culturally be the focus re international comparisons? Anyhow, to clarify, where would you set the age of consent and why?

No it isn't, otherwise they'd be a competency test to entitle one to vote. There is an estimation of competency made in some case, but not in the case of adolescents. 16 year olds are allowed to vote in Scotland but not in England. Are Scottish teenagers more competent than the English? No. Is Scotland collapsing under the strain of so much incompetent voting behaviour? No. So why are English 16 year olds not allowed to vote. Its not competency is it? — Isaac

Because the voting age is arbitrary, set by a decision of the democracy. It makes no more sense to make it 16 or 18 or 21, but there is an advantage to having a clear rule. Laws are as much based upon pragmatism as they are on precision. Whatever problems might exist in Britain or in the US are doubtfully the result of their respective voting ages, meaning 18 works in the US and 16 in Britain. Might 15 work in Timbuktu, sure.

It really is not that complicated. There already exist countries in which the age of consent is 14. Are those countries collapsing under the burden of psychologically damaged teenagers? No. So when a country chooses 18 its not doing so on the basis of the child's welfare is it. It is evident from entire countries like Germany, Italy, Portugal etc that no endemic problems result from this, so states in America where it is set at 18 can't claim to be 'erring' on any side, its not guesswork, we have whole sections of Western Europe proving it's fine. — Isaac

And there are states where 14 is legal. As I've noted, there's a difference in quibbling over the arbitrary age we choose and arguing that minors have some inherent right to have sex with adults regardless of age. The age a society chooses for anything is based upon democratic and political reasons. No where does it say that a properly running democracy must base its decisions upon some scientific reason. If Montana wants to set the speed limit to 100, it can, maybe because it doesn't care about highway deaths, maybe it doesn't care about saving fuel, or whatever. You act like some study should be the controlling factor in what priorities a society wants to create.

So the whole of Germany, Italy and Portugal are overrun with damaged teenagers, I'm surprised no thing's turned up in the literature. — Isaac

You really need to clarify your position. Are you simply asking that the age of consent be lowered from the fairly standard 16 in most US states to 14 (which does exist in some US states)? It seems you're asking for something more.

A specific question: Should a 6 year old be permitted to consent to sex with an adult?

This is just more of the same patronising stuff. Of course the laws regulate children. There are two partners in a sexual relationship and few people are so callous as to just take whatever they want so long as the consequences fall on someone else, particularly if that someone else is their sexual partner. — Isaac

A child who has sex with an adult does not face any societal condemnation or prosecution. The adults are regulated. Before I feel sorry for the poor children who are left wanting because the adults were deterred from having sex with them, I think it's fairly clear that the real societal consequences will befall the adults. Why then can't an adult simply choose someone else to have sex with if society is telling them not to?

Is it really the child who is being victimized here in your opinion, or do you really believe there are adults being victimized because they are limited in who they can have sex with?

I haven't recently read Wilhelm Reich (like the Mass Psychology of Fascism or The Function of the Orgasm). It seems to me he promoted greater sexual autonomy for adolescents.

During the 1968 student uprisings in Paris and Berlin, students threw copies of The Mass Psychology of Fascism at police. I am excited out of my skin by the nonpareil strategy of Parisian students. Would such a tactic work here? Where can one buy many inexpensive copies of his book?

My two cents' worth. The age of consent is a legal fiction for the purpose of assigning responsibility and culpability. As such it can also speak the the understandings (and lack of) of the lawmakers. That is, it's a tool, and a crude one. Not in itself really a matter for philosophy, although very much a topic for criticism and critique.

1968, eh? A bit too much autonomy maybe. There is this, for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/jonhenley

"Now an MEP for the French Green party, Mr Cohn-Bendit has been severely embarrassed by the resurfacing of an article he published in 1975 about the "erotic" nature of his contacts with children at an alternative kindergarten in Frankfurt, where he lived and worked after being kicked out of France for his part in May 68.

"Certain children opened the flies of my trousers and started to tickle me," he wrote. "I reacted differently each time, according to the circumstances ... But when they insisted on it, I then caressed them."

Cohn-Bendit denies the above actually happened. Nevertheless, he did write that it did.

No, it's a legal fact. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth arguing over.

Likewise with voting, 16 in Scotland, there's been no constitutional collapse — Isaac

The voting age in Scotland was lowered from 21 to 18, in 1970. The voting age of 16 was used once for the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2013.

I don't know what the average level of political literacy is in Scotland, but I have a hard time imagining the average 16 year old in the US making sensible voting decisions--or the average 35 year old, for that matter. A good share of the population display a reasonable level of political literacy, but there are a lot of adults whose political thinking is just screwy.

Screwy thinking coupled with a rigged political system...

Point. Legal fact. But the fact the "fact" refers to is a fiction, yes? And as fiction not a fact. No need to reply; I accept the correction but just wanted to push back with a little refinement.

but I have a hard time imagining the average 16 year old in the US making sensible voting decisions--or the average 35 year old, for that matter. — Bitter Crank

Maybe a discussion for another thread, but if you have any good theories for why almost half of US voters chose Trump, I'd read 'em.

While not to downplay the seriousness of raping children, however defined, I think the laws that cover such crimes are an admission on the part of adults that children need to be saved from adults in a broader sense. Raping children is just the tip of the iceberg. Other real problems are not teaching them values, cramming them into mediocre schools, killing their dreams by failing to provide the right environment for their talents, and the list goes on. Unfortunately children aren't protected from such willful negligence by any laws at all.

"Certain children opened the flies of my trousers and started to tickle me," he wrote. "I reacted differently each time, according to the circumstances ... But when they insisted on it, I then caressed them."

Right, the 1960s (running into the 1970s) are not the 2010s. Given episodes of more recent mass hysteria about pedophilia, his story and his denial of its veracity are not going to fly in some quarters.

Wilhelm Reich died in an American prison in 1957, not for child abuse, not for rape, but for promoting his corny invention, the "orgone box" which was an adult-sized box in which one could accumulate orgasmic energy. The government said it was a medical fraud. They could have said the same thing about the then dominant practice of psychoanalysis, but the couch was in, the organ box was out.

Unfortunately for us all, Reich's really excellent ideas got buried along with his sillier ones.

Given episodes of more recent mass hysteria about pedophilia, his story and his denial of its veracity are not going to fly in some quarters. — Bitter Crank

Is it hysteria or just a realization that there was previously inadequate protection of children?

I would not expect the kindergarten children of Frankfurt to be fondling adults unless that was something taught them by adults.

I do know that Frankfurt (at least today) has a thriving red light district right down the street from the train station where all the friendly visitors can visit.

Maybe a discussion for another thread, but if you have any good theories for why almost half of US voters chose Trump, I'd read 'em. — tim wood

I wish I knew much more about the why; so do a lot of other people.

One can sift through the election results, electoral college strategy, demographic analysis, and so on. The answer lies in the foundational delusions of our political system which are operating now, in the run-up to the next election as much as they were operating in the last election.

The foundational delusions are that the two parties are fundamentally different; that the two candidates represent real alternative futures; that the Presidency determines whether the economy will do well or not; that representatives, senators, and the president valiantly strive to perform the will of the people.

It's a fraud in ever so many ways, and I wish I understood why the fraud is not recognized. But as you say, it's a topic for another thread.

Unfortunately for us all, Reich's really excellent ideas got buried along with his sillier ones. — Bitter Crank

Thanks.

Why does evil, no matter how small, taint everything a man does while the good, no matter how great, fails to achieve such a feat.

a small evil
great goodness unravel

great goodness feats
small evil defeats

You haven't provided any evidence that they are 'fine' in Germany or that being 'fine' in Germany translates to being 'fine' everywhere else or even what 'fine' is in measurable terms — Baden

I think you and I might be working from different principles of justice. I don't think we should be taking anyone's freedom away without pretty overwhelming evidence that doing so is necessary for their wellbeing. A reckon isn't enough, a reversal of the burden of proof isn't enough. If, for you, it is necessary to prove lack of harm beyond the level of a functioning social system, then I presume you would have been against lowering the age of consent for homosexual sex, since no such evidence was presented there.

As I said earlier, we do not, in other circumstances, simply restrict freedoms based on some guesswork about what might be in people's best interests, so why are adolescents made an exception to this rule?

It's as if you're claiming that any social policy that doesn't cause such obvious harm that it would be general knowledge to a foreigner must be a good idea and must be a good idea universally. — Baden

Ag good idea? No. Since when have we made laws restricting people's freedom on the basis of "a good idea". It's undoubtedly a good idea to eat less bacon, should we legislate against that? No, my argument is that it is not demonstrably a sufficiently bad idea to warrant restricting someone's freedom in such an intrusive way.

Why 14 and not 13? Why 13 and not 12? Is it that you share the same concerns as others but simply make different presumptions about the level of maturity of children of a certain age? — Baden

It's not a presumption, given the approach I've outlined above. 13 may well be fine, but we've no real way of knowing so there I think debate (among experts) is warranted. 14, we actually have the evidence of three European countries from which we can collect data (and we have done so many times). If there's a lot of call from 13 year olds to be allowed to have sex, then it might need to be considered, likewise 12, but I can't see it really. There's a biological limit below which it's simply not normal to want sex and never will be. It's not a slippery slope.

Because the voting age is arbitrary, set by a decision of the democracy. It makes no more sense to make it 16 or 18 or 21 — Hanover

You said earlier it was based on competence, now you're saying it makes no sense. Which is it?

The age a society chooses for anything is based upon democratic and political reasons. No where does it say that a properly running democracy must base its decisions upon some scientific reason. — Hanover

That may well be the mechanism, but it doesn't have any bearing on the presentation of moral or scientific arguments to that demos in order to try and persuade them of a better course of action. Their choices may be the final arbiter, but they are not arbitrary.

A specific question: Should a 6 year old be permitted to consent to sex with an adult? — Hanover

One cannot permit consent. Consent is an expressed state of mind. One can treat consent as sufficient justification or not, usually on the basis of whether such consent is sufficiently informed and not coerced. I can't see any way in which a six year old could be either. I have a hard time indeed believing a 14 year old has neither, and if they do, it is more likely the result of society's error in their upbringing, which is what then needs adjustment, not their freedom.

Why then can't an adult simply choose someone else to have sex with if society is telling them not to? — Hanover

Really? This is, I suspect, at the root cause of much of this moralising. The treatment of children like they're mindless property without any genuine feelings. "Choose to have sex with someone else"? Since when do we just 'choose' who to have sex with, like some supermarket shelf. Imagine talking to an adult couple like that. "Having trouble with your sex life, why don't you just choose to have sex with someone else?". Apologies if romanticism is a bit passe here, but in my world people fall in love (or at least in lust) and have sex with the object of their carnal affection, it's not a game of musical chairs.

I haven't recently read Wilhelm Reich (like the Mass Psychology of Fascism or The Function of the Orgasm). It seems to me he promoted greater sexual autonomy for adolescents. — Bitter Crank

Not someone I've read. To be honest, despite the subject matter, sexual autonomy isn't really my main gripe, it's autonomy in general. I dislike the way that a requirement for care becomes a rope with which to restrain. I don't think it's healthy for the children or the adults doing the restraining.

But I'm always keen to try new authors, so thanks for the name.

Is it hysteria or just a realization that there was previously inadequate protection of children? — Hanover

Both. Here is a good summary of a sex hysterical sex abuse case in Jordon, Minnesota in 1983-84: http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/Olson%20Sex%20Ring2.pdf

If there was a valid case against one individual to start with, the number of accused ballooned, and after causing much damage to innocent people. The Scott County prosecutor, Kathleen Morris, whipped up hysteria and ruined a number of innocent people. Instead of 1 sound case, she created a case of three dozen which was in the end thrown out by the court.

The article is also a review of the book, We Believe the Children: A Moral Panic in the 1980s by Richard Beck. He covers a number of sex abuse hysteria cases from the period. I have not read the book.

15 is really just one year beyond where anyone could ever reasonably expect for anyone to be able to responsibly consent. — thewonder

The notion that there's anything difficult or sophisticated required to consent to sexual activities is bizarre.

We expect teenagers to understand far more complex ideas than what's required for sexual consent.

It's a bit more complicated than just a blanket "14 is the age of consent" in Germany. It can still be considered rape if the other person is over 21 and if the 14 year old felt exploited, for example. There are also laws giving special sexual protections for children up to 18.

Basically, like with their ages for alcohol (16 for beer and wine, 18 for hard liquor), Germany gradually gives children responsibilities and freedoms as they age. Which, at least with the alcohol, has been shown to be more effective in preventing tragedies than some total, overnight shift in one's rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

It's a bit more complicated than just a blanket "14 is the age of consent" in Germany. It can still be considered rape if the other person is over 21 and if the 14 year old felt exploited, for example. — Artemis

Yes, this, I think, is a really good way of balancing the duty of care with a minimal imposition on freedoms. We allow adolescents to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but we recognise that they may need some special protection whilst doing so, like riding with stabilisers.

AGE OF CONSENT LAWS IN TORONTO, ONTARIO

I passed that age, whatever it is. The significant law for me is that the city fathers decreed that children ought to be allowed to bicycle on sidewalks, but adults, not. At age 50 I bought some children's bike, with 20 inch wheels. Because the lawmakers (I guess the law was a city-by-law) in their inifinite wisdom (must have been lawyers) decided that AGE is hard to ascertain in the absence of a document, and kids don't carry documents; so the law was made so, that no bicycles were allowed on city sidewalks that were over 20 inches in diameter.

This not many new, but I read the applicable laws.

And you must know that bicycling on Toronto city road arteries is next near to suicide attempts.

So I happily bicycled all over the sidewalks, being 50 and / or over, riding small children's bikes.

=====================

In this spirit, the city fathers ought to replicate this example with marriage licence issuing. If a man (regardless of age, since it's hard to ascertain in the absence of documents) has a penis less than 20 inches, he is considered boy, and can't marry. 20 inches and over, he is a man. No arguments, this is the law.