Do you mean that they forget that they protect against STDs as well?
Not forget, they never knew it to begin with.
Some one in collge can understand a contract though, don't you think, even if they arn't fully informed or just don't care.
Not to play more semantics, but it can depend. I know from reading EULA's which all gamers have to agree to, that most of them cannot understand the legalease that it is written in. Saw one article where someone was complaining they had a simpler time understanding their home mortgage. Given enough time and explanation, they can understand it. Given a bit more time and explanation, many children can understand it as well. One might argue that children are more impulsive, but when you look at the actual science, the mylenation of the prefrontal cortext (sorry for spelling), the last stage in human brain development, which contributes to us planning ahead and not being impulsive, doesn't finish till we are 25-28. I can get you Ph.D.'s in psychological physiology who will point out to you that the average 18-22 year old student is still very impulsive and makes very bad decisions. As such, there isn't that great a difference between the college student and a younger teen.
Well if they are doing it on purpose then it is sexual for them.
But you would have to look at it case by case to determine that.
How would you define abuse?
If we based it off of harm (physical, mental, emotional), then the case of one 20 year old college student telling the 18 year old one that 'if you really loved me you would have sex', and after getting her virginity, the 20 year old drops her would be far more harmful than when a 18/14 year old couple dating for 2 years decides to start having sex. The former, not the latter, would be abuse. But no one would stand for calling such things abuse, at least not on a legal level. I like the idea of what causes long term harm to be considered abuse, but I doubt most people would agree to this once they know what it means. For example, ultra-conservative parents who convince a child to be scared of their sexuality would be considered sexually abusive under this (in the end, what is the difference between molestation or conservative preaching if they both end up with an adult who is unable to have sex because they are too scared by it).
So you would say that if the majority were more open minded towards the minority then most sexual things shouldn't be taboo because people can't help it normally?
I think taboo would be more based on harm than merely being in the minority. For example, I think bestiality would be legal, considering all the things I can do to a farm animal (including killing and eating it). I also think that fake child porn and fake gore would both be legal outlets which would be viewed similarly and I think that real abuse videos and real gore images would be seen far more similar than today.
But if we are talking about the law of a country (or state) then there is one age. For example in the UK the age of consent is 16 and adult of adulthood is 18.
Which shows that you can have sex with people who are not adults. In the US, it ranges between 16 to 18, but there are numerous loop holes, namely for a spouse. What shows this to be unjust is that by merely changing where you are located by a mile, you go from something that is fully legal and something that can carry a dozen years in jail and permanent place on an offender registry. At the very least, we need laws that scale, becoming more severe the younger the individual is.
That would make sense, but wouldn't it have to be possible for the older person to be able to know if the person he/she is having sex with is mature enough? It seems wrong to rule against someone when they would have had no idea if what they were doing was wrong.
If we had a card system or something like such, it would be far easier. Otherwise, it would take good judgment. Namely, if the child wants to engage in such and the parents don't see it as abusive, then it is likely not that harmful. Of course things like parents prostituting their child would still be very illegal. This is why I like the idea of Mexico's laws. If you have sex with a minor, and either the minor or their parents complain, you are guilty of statutory rape. But if no one complains, then it is legal. And if you don't like the idea of having someone who has the power to send you to jail for rape by merely making a phone call, then don't have sex with a minor.
Makes sense, even if it sounds a bit wierd. Like a driving license? Wouldn't think tend to make it easier for someone of higher intelligence to have sex earlier because the can learn and understand earlier?
If we assume the ability to have sex is based off of intelligence and maturity, but I somewhat doubt this due to how the laws work, especially concerning mentally disabled adults.
If someone can't consent to having sex in a relationship outside of marriage it sees strange that they can consent to a relationship that is bound by a legal contract possibly for life.
It also requires the parents to agree.
Of course, this makes a whole lot more sense when you realize that statutory rape laws are really a property crime where a man steals the virginity, which the girl's father could have gotten money for. If the man had married her already, then the father had already given up his claim to his daughter's virginity. May I suggest the book Jailbait to learn more on the history of statutory rape, which was meant to prevent sex outside of marriage. The same morality that caused us to put homosexuals to death is the same one that gave rise to our current child sex laws, but instead of being rejected it was embraced.
Thanks. I wont read it right now, but I will hopefully.
So sex with children doesn't cause them as much harm as other things? Other things being??
Depends upon the actual act. Remember, I'm not talking forced sex/rape/incest here. How many children are killed by consensual safe sex? How many are killed by football, either through physical injuries now or that develop later in life (I can't tell you how damaging a concussion to a growing mind is, it is just plain awful and I know professors who would make concussion prone sports illegal for children if they could, but who cares about Jonny's health when he can dream of being a quarter back). If we were to make our society see forcing a child to engage in sports as being as manipulative as consensual sex is seen, sports would be far more dangerous. This is somewhat based off of personal experience as well as I know more children who have suffered massive harm from sports than from sexual abuse (I have a few friends who were sexually active quite young and who don't have many regrets, which might taint my view on the issue).
The 8 year old could still be made to do something he/she wouldn't do if he/she was older.
This is true of young adults as well. How many college students have had their first sexual experience thinking this is something they have to do to show love, which is very much a lie. Especially when you count in how many who would realize they were just being used for sex had they been older. Should we raise the age of consent to 25 till the brain is mature?
This might be true of some with a mental disability too, but they don't have the chance to grow into understanding. Maybe the difference is that the 8 year old is more likely to regret the decision in the future and feel used. But you do make a good point.
I do think the average 8 year old would have far more regrets than average 18 year old. As such, I see the need for a sliding system. But I can't say all 8 year olds will have regrets and all 18 year olds won't, which is why I think we need a system that better determines what causes regrets and is based off of the factors that have better correlation than age.
It doesn't harm them. It might harm them if they survive and know that people are watching it though. Right to privacy perhaps.
I think it does make a difference. For example if someone were to record you being raped, I think the fact that it is being watched on the internet would make you feel much worse. Again the right to privacy.
Yet there is such a difference between how we legally and socially treat these types of videos.
Even if they die shouldn't their lives be respected? If someone dies we still give them the rights to their body for a while after and can't just take their organs.
Actually I think those rights transfer either based on the will or to the nearest relative if not specified in the will. Of course, we do outlaw doing certain things with the body, but some of that is based on more emotional than logical reasoning. For example, if someone said they would like their corpse to be used by a necrophiliac, and even put it into their will, it would still be illegal. On the other hand, if someone said they don't want to be cut up at all, depending upon the circumstances of their death, they could still be forced to be cut open for an autopsy.
Anyone who has been hurt or died or whatever and is unlucky enough to have it posted on the internet did not have that happen to them because of me. It's already happened, and would have happened regardless. I just go find it and watch it after the fact.
