• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
I am not the author of the following piece, but I have dealt with it before.

Preface: The Age of Consent is either based arbitrarily or off of some set of qualities. If it is based arbitrarily, then why not change it to something which is not arbitrary. If it is based off a set of qualities, why not just directly test for those qualities.

Please remember, this isn't about morality, it is about law (which is based in part off of morality).

RMSC:
Proposed Relational Maturity and Sexual Competency (RMSC) testing schema:

In order to be declared mentally competent to engage in consensual sexual activities (rather than having had a certain number of birthdays) under the proposed system, the test-taker proves his/her mental competence by passing a test.

The testing requirements include:
1.) Factual knowledge about sex, sexuality, reproduction and STDs.
1.a.) Subject must understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse. Sexual anatomy, some common intercourse activities (at least the big three oral, anal and vaginal), masturbation, and outercourse activities (mutual masturbation in its various forms) should all be understood at a mechanical level.
1.b.) Subject must understand the mechanics of human reproduction. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], sperm fertilizing egg cells, warning signs of pregnancy including missed periods, a basic understanding of the nine month gestation period, childbirth, and the intrinsic physical risks of pregnancy. (Including factors that can increase those risks, ie low body mass and lack of physical development.)
1.c.) Subject must understand his or her options in terms of preventing pregnancy. Subject must be aware of the existence and useage of barrier methods like condoms, hormone options like birth control pills, sterilization procedures like vasectomies, spermacide options, and demonstrate an understanding of the relative failure rates of these products. While it is not neccissary to be able to prattle off statistical failure rates, an understanding of which are most and least effective must be demonstrated, as well as the understanding that they can be more effective when used together.
1.d.) Subject must be aware of abortion, what it is, the legal status of the procedure locally, and, if legal, the risks inherent in this procedure.
1.e.) Subject must know about STDs. Subject must be aware that exchanging bodily fluids, particularly sexual fluids runs the risk of transmitting diseases. Subject must be aware that some such diseases are uncurable. HIV in particular should be understood in terms of its transmission methods, and its effects.
1.f.) Subject must know where to go for testing and medical advice regarding STDs.
1.g.) Subject must be aware of methods besides abstinence for preventing STDs, in particular the efficacy of barrier methods and the risks of multiple partners and anonymous sex.
2.) the capacity to use critical thought to judge situations (consequence acknowledgment, goal setting, etc)
2.a.) Subject must understand that actions have consequences.
2.b.) Subject must be able to use prior experience and provided factual information to select the course of action leading to the best outcome in a hypothetical situation.
2.c.) Subject must be able to recognize when there is not enough information provided in a question to provide a meaningful answer.
3.) Ability to identify the fact that people lie to and use each other, and be able to judge (to a certain extent) when that's occurring in certain examples.
4.) Understanding of the concepts of rejection (both non-personal caused and personal caused rejection, as well as being able to reject people themselves).
4.a.) Subject must understand that not everyone wants to have sex with them.
4.b.) Subject must understand sexual orientation, and that some people just don't want sex with certain categories of people.
4.c.) Subject must recognise that some people do not want to have sex with them personally.
4.d.) Subject must be able to reject others.
5.) Understanding sexual ethics (like how rape is wrong, using sex to hurt people is wrong, and that using the withholding of sex as a weapon is wrong too. All because these hurt people for no justifiable reason.)
5.a.) Subject must be able to diferentiate between rape and consentual sex in examples.
5.b.) Subject must understand that rape is illegal.
5.c.) Subject must be able to recognise sexual abuse other than rape in examples.
5.d.) Subject must understand that sexual abuse is illegal.
5.e.) Subject must recognise the problems with using sex as a comodity.
5.f.) Subject must be aware of how to report the crimes they were required to be able to identify.
5.g.) Subject must understand that they have the right to request any potential sexual partners be tested for STDs before consenting to sex.

The proposed testing format is as follows:
Use a review board, and allow researchers to propose alternative testing methods, approved by the review board, and allow anyone applying to take the test to use whichever approved test they wish. (I should point out the need for an oral test, under the assumption that even iliterate adults or children could potentially have the neccessary skills and knowledge even if they lack the skills and knowledge of reading and writing.)

At the testing facilities, social workers will be present to evaluate and ensure that test takers are here by their own free will. Abuse intervention programs and counciling services will be avalible at testing centers.

On site sex education classes will be availible in order to help prepare test takers for aquiring the factual knowledge required for requirement two. This should help aleviate the imballances in educational backgrounds of test takers.

Upon having passed the test, a picture ID is issued indicating you are compotent to have sex. Having sex with an unlicensed idividual is treated as statutory rape. Test status will be hidden from third parties (First is Child, second is Government) unless the first party decides to tell someone (Ostensibly to prove sexual legality).

If there is reason to suspect that an individual is trying to "play the system" (by deliberately remaining untested dispite being actually compotent in order to maintain access to partners unable to offer meaningful consent), the court could order that the parties involved be tested, and dealt with accordingly in terms of the results. If one party is found be capable and the other not, it should serve as compelling evidence that this was a case that should be treated as statutory rape, and the now compotent party would have to prove in some way that they only gained this compotence in the intervening time between the act and the sexual encounter. If neither party proves compotent, there's nothing to be done, regardless of ages involved. If both parties prove compotent, they should both be held criminally responsible, but not to the same level as if they were the only one involved who was compotent. Likely a fine of some sort would be the best choice for such an infraction.

A grandfather clause is included in this proposal, such that anyone who is over the local age of consent at the time this proposal goes into effect will not need to be tested so long as they wish to be sexually active only with other individuals who were also grandfathered out of the program. If they wish to be sexual with someone operating under the new system, they must submit for testing, and thereafter abide by the new system as though they had not been grandfathered out of it.
<edit>
The grandfather clause is being as to be this way, or to change so as to just say once you have been grandfathered, you are given the card as if you had passed the test.
</edit>

Conclusion:
The primary difference is that actual compotency as determined by the test, rather than assumed compotency based on age is the primary determiner.

Thoughts? Additional testing requirements you feel are important?
 

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
I have a problem with the moral bits.

Apart from that, it's a decent proposal (*snicker*).

What problem would this be. I think that laws should be separate from morals directly, but that good morals state what should be law. My morals say homosexuality is wrong, but that they should be allowed to marry (considering marriage here as a social institution), yet at the same time, it states murdering is wrong and that murder should be against the law.

Anyways, on topic. Do you see anything lacking from it?
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
39
Oxford, UK
✟39,693.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
What problem would this be. I think that laws should be separate from morals directly, but that good morals state what should be law. My morals say homosexuality is wrong, but that they should be allowed to marry (considering marriage here as a social institution), yet at the same time, it states murdering is wrong and that murder should be against the law.

Anyways, on topic. Do you see anything lacking from it?

Lacking? No, not off the top of my head. But I don't think that believing that withholding sex as a weapon is wrong should be requirement for legally being allowed to have sex. In fact I don't think believing anything is wrong should be a legal requirement. Not everyone believes the word means anything at all.
 
Upvote 0

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟27,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Surely they mean competent rather than compotent?

Just a few of points...

If the law was brought in today, I wouldn't have to take the test, but say 13 years down the line when I reach 40, I want to have sex with say a 25 year old who has had to pass the test, suddenly I'd be required to take the test as well at the age of 40? Seems a bit silly.

Also, since you are only really learning facts I'd imagine most 6 or 7 year olds could pass. That could be a recipe for disaster. (I only skim read this so I might have missed something)

And I agree, the moral stuff should be got rid of.

Apart from that seems decent enough, but I'd like to think all this stuff should be taught at school anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Domenico

Sacrifice to the Gods of Speed
Jun 10, 2007
1,021
65
Dunedin, New Zealand
✟31,512.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
The easiest way to get around this is for no one at all to decide to go through testing.

How is it going to be tested that a subject understands that actions have consequences? Or that he understands not everyone wants to have sex with him?

Not to mention it is still entirely possible that a person can understand all of this, and still not be emotionally ready to have sex.
 
Upvote 0

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟27,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The easiest way to get around this is for no one at all to decide to go through testing.

How is it going to be tested that a subject understands that actions have consequences? Or that he understands not everyone wants to have sex with him?

Not to mention it is still entirely possible that a person can understand all of this, and still not be emotionally ready to have sex.

Yeah, good points. Considering there would most likely be some sort of fee to be paid, probably very few people would take the test anyway. It does seem majorly flawed.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
Lacking? No, not off the top of my head. But I don't think that believing that withholding sex as a weapon is wrong should be requirement for legally being allowed to have sex. In fact I don't think believing anything is wrong should be a legal requirement. Not everyone believes the word means anything at all.

Well then, how would you have it phrased. The concept behind that particular point makes sense, but really how would one word it?
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
Surely they mean competent rather than compotent?

Just a few of points...

If the law was brought in today, I wouldn't have to take the test, but say 13 years down the line when I reach 40, I want to have sex with say a 25 year old who has had to pass the test, suddenly I'd be required to take the test as well at the age of 40? Seems a bit silly.

Also, since you are only really learning facts I'd imagine most 6 or 7 year olds could pass. That could be a recipe for disaster. (I only skim read this so I might have missed something)

And I agree, the moral stuff should be got rid of.

Apart from that seems decent enough, but I'd like to think all this stuff should be taught at school anyway.

I forgot to mention, grandfather clause. If you are legally over the age of consent when the law comes to pass, you get a free card.

Also, it will be closer to a driving test. You may only need facts to get a permit, but you need to actually show someone trained that you are ready to drive for the license. There will be people trained at determining maturity. Also, once a few people with expertise help out, we should have a much better test for maturity.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
The easiest way to get around this is for no one at all to decide to go through testing.

How is it going to be tested that a subject understands that actions have consequences? Or that he understands not everyone wants to have sex with him?

Not to mention it is still entirely possible that a person can understand all of this, and still not be emotionally ready to have sex.

One thing often pointed out is that this test is not perfect, instead it is offered as a better alternative than a set age. How many people 18+ (16+ some places) are not emotionally mature enough for sex.

It is probably impossible to know 100%, but a well designed test (more than a pencil and paper test) should be able to get a much better result than an age line.
 
Upvote 0

IndomitableAmy

Regular Member
Mar 22, 2008
565
65
✟23,552.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It seems to me that, were this law, it would effectually be a sort of eugenics in that only the people good enough at test-taking to pass it would be legal for reproductive rights (at least with anyone who could pass the test.) It's a moral issue, true.. but by law this nation gave up on taking away reproductive rights a while ago and I'd hate to see it come back as a guise for "better determiner for who is ready for sex." I don't think it's "much better", not in the least. You admit that the idea is not perfect.. but it is far from perfect, IMO.. and wide open for abuse as the requirements for testing could easily get stricter by degrees.. with outcomes suggested by a number of dystopian stories. No thank you to starting down that path.
 
Upvote 0

Domenico

Sacrifice to the Gods of Speed
Jun 10, 2007
1,021
65
Dunedin, New Zealand
✟31,512.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
The problem is that the age of consent is primarily to prevent older people taking advantage of young people, not to decide the age when one is ready to have sex. If youre under sixteen (the legal age of consent here) and you want to have sex, theres not much the law can do to stop you, licenses or no.

And I know people who don't have a drivers licence because the cost of getting one is prohibitive.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
It seems to me that, were this law, it would effectually be a sort of eugenics in that only the people good enough at test-taking to pass it would be legal for reproductive rights (at least with anyone who could pass the test.) It's a moral issue, true.. but by law this nation gave up on taking away reproductive rights a while ago and I'd hate to see it come back as a guise for "better determiner for who is ready for sex." I don't think it's "much better", not in the least. You admit that the idea is not perfect.. but it is far from perfect, IMO.. and wide open for abuse as the requirements for testing could easily get stricter by degrees.. with outcomes suggested by a number of dystopian stories. No thank you to starting down that path.


Well, outside you invoking the slippery slope, you seem to mis a point here. If you fail this test, then you lack one of the mentioned areas. So, if you don't know about STDs, or how to refuse sexual advancements, should you be having sex?
 
Upvote 0

IndomitableAmy

Regular Member
Mar 22, 2008
565
65
✟23,552.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, outside you invoking the slippery slope, you seem to mis a point here. If you fail this test, then you lack one of the mentioned areas. So, if you don't know about STDs, or how to refuse sexual advancements, should you be having sex?
If I'm invoking slippery slope, it's only with the dystopian comment, I think. Otherwise, this kind of thing has happened before -- specifically, states of America judging certain people too feeble-minded to reproduce.. and forcibly removing that capacity. The idea suggested doesn't go about this the same way, but the practical upshot strikes me as quite similar.

I don't at all agree with you when you say, "If you fail this test, then you lack one of the mentioned areas." The only thing that failing the test would really prove would be that the person couldn't pass the test. There can be reasons for this quite outside of the one you mentioned.

The question of "should you have" seems much different to me than the question of "should you be prohibited from having (at least with certain people)".
 
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟28,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Very, very few people would want a government agency deciding whether they could have sex or not.

Consider, also, that when consenting teenagers and young adults start exploring their sexuality, there's a great deal they don't know about mature relationships - that is part of exploration and maturing. One hopes they've been adequately advised on reproductive health, pregnancy, disease, and consent, alternate sexuality, etc., but face it, they are not gonna be mature for a while and they are gonna have sex, unlicensed or not.

Lawtonfogle, have you read The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood? It is about a dystopian future in which, among other themes, sexuality is highly controlled as a response to a loss of fertility in the general population. Only certain people are permitted to have children, and every woman who can bear children must be controlled by the people with the permits - the government, IOW.

(I should mention, the book also portrays a society in which Christian fundamentalists govern and run society, you may find it insulting or offputting on that level).
 
Upvote 0

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟27,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I forgot to mention, grandfather clause. If you are legally over the age of consent when the law comes to pass, you get a free card.

Also, it will be closer to a driving test. You may only need facts to get a permit, but you need to actually show someone trained that you are ready to drive for the license. There will be people trained at determining maturity. Also, once a few people with expertise help out, we should have a much better test for maturity.

Can you imagine how prohibitively expensive a scheme like this would be? We're talking about getting social workers to test the maturity of every single person. I can't see any government going for this.

Incidentally, the grandfather rule means I can only sleep with other people who have also got a free card. 13 years down the line when I'm 40, a person who is 25 (12 when the law came in to affect), would have presumably passed the test, meaning I can't sleep with them until I also pass the test. Seems silly to ask a person who has been sexually active for years to need a license to sleep with a 25 year old.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
39
Oxford, UK
✟39,693.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well then, how would you have it phrased. The concept behind that particular point makes sense, but really how would one word it?

I would eliminate it altogether. It is not the government's business to interfere with people's personal relationships.

And all that needs to be said about rape is that it is highly damaging to victims and that it is illegal.

Probably not much more than one for a driver's license.

Why on earth should you have to pay to be able to have sex?!
 
Upvote 0

AnonymousAgnostic

Active Member
Apr 15, 2008
26
5
Visit site
✟22,674.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
I disagree, highly. The age of consent laws are hard enough to enforce as it is, and a mentally or physically disabled person can still produce a perfectly healthy baby.

This proposal reminds me a lot of the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. And quite frankly, that story scared the crud out of me.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
If I'm invoking slippery slope, it's only with the dystopian comment, I think. Otherwise, this kind of thing has happened before -- specifically, states of America judging certain people too feeble-minded to reproduce.. and forcibly removing that capacity. The idea suggested doesn't go about this the same way, but the practical upshot strikes me as quite similar.

I don't at all agree with you when you say, "If you fail this test, then you lack one of the mentioned areas." The only thing that failing the test would really prove would be that the person couldn't pass the test. There can be reasons for this quite outside of the one you mentioned.

The question of "should you have" seems much different to me than the question of "should you be prohibited from having (at least with certain people)".

Could you please give some examples of reasons why they could fail the test, but would still (by the standards of the test) be able to consent to sex.
 
Upvote 0