FA+
Shop
AOC Laws
18 years ago
General
Warning before we continue: many people may find this post controversial or questionable. If you feel very strongly in favor of traditional, puritanical views on sex, you should probably move on. If you're willing to read on with an open mind, feel free to continue reading.
When younger, I often agreed with the Age Of Consent laws (referred to hereafter as AOC laws) in the United States. I now attribute to this as having a narrower view of the world, not having enough experience in the world as a whole and especially not in the sex world. Now that I'm older, I personally believe that the puritanical values on which our current AOC laws are based are... flawed. Flawed is, perhaps, too weak a word to describe my feelings towards this. Allow me to elaborate...
For those of you who are outside of the US (or those who aren't familiar with US AOC laws), I'll sum them up in a vague description. 18 is the age of consent. Two 18+ year old people can consent to sexual intercourse with one another without needing to face any possible legal ramifications (excepting, of course, if you live in a state which actually outlaws oral or anal sex -- yes, they exist). There is a legal "grey-area" for those under the age of 18... if two sixteen-year-olds mutually consent to sexual intercourse, and someone finds out and pushes a lawsuit, it's entirely likely that such a case will be open-and-shut, the "defendant(s)" found not-guilty and the case set aside. Although, according to law, the two committed an illegal act, the law sometimes looks the other way in such instances, though there are times when the parties are charged with a misdemeanor offense and fined. Now, a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, this is a darker shade of grey in the eyes of the law. There's no real cut-and-dry answer on the subject; most seem to be taken on a case-by-case basis with no uniform code to dictate, or at least none that is strictly followed.
As for my views on the subject, I believe that these laws are complete and utter bullshit. These laws, just like tobacco and alcohol legislation, is based on the notion that a 17-year-old is not responsible enough to make an educated, logical opinion on a subject and make their own choices. But, when you turn 18, suddenly you're endowed with some magical sense of responsibility, now you're suddenly capable of making these decisions which, only a day earlier, were beyond your ken. This is, of course, a stumbling-block which is difficult to get around; we live in a society of laws and, in law, a clear definition must be laid down, lest it be left open to abuse. If age is to be a factor -- a de-facto necessity for an age-of-consent law -- it must have a set date. A sliding-scale simply is not acceptable in the eyes of the law, as it is far too vague a scale to judge against.
Do we need an age-of-consent law? Certainly. To do otherwise is to invite pedophiles to lead children to dark alleys and do terrible things; there are few eight-year-olds who understand what sex is, let alone be responsible enough to make an opinion on it. I personally find pedophilia disturbing, and I don't in any way shape or form endorse or advocate it. But I personally don't consider sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old to be pedophilia. Don't agree with me? A few years ago, I wouldn't have, either -- but think about these facts for a few moments:
The majority of cultures throughout history considered a human old enough to be an "adult" (I use this term to refer to someone who is afforded full legal status to make their own decisions and live their own life) when they reached the age of 12. Twelve. One-two years old. At this point, they were generally sexually mature and, in these societies, were given a dosage of "real life" - the same "real life" that many US parents try to shield their children from until they're much older. At twelve years old, these people were marrying, reproducing, holding down jobs, running their own homes, and exercising self-determination. Here in the US, a twelve-year-old is still considered a child by most, incapable of making real decisions on their life, and certainly incapable of performing a real-world job and providing for themselves. True, in these times, it was rare for a person to live past 30 - many mothers would never live long enough to see grandchildren. Still, the fact that these 12-year-olds were able to contribute to the workforce, run their own lives, and reproduce speaks volumes on the capabilities of a young mind. Someone able to evaluate their environment and make potentially life-or-death decisions is certainly capable of practicing self-determination in the matters of sexual intercourse.
In the US, most people believe in the false "innocence of youth" - that children are pure, untainted, and incapable of handling the real world and its true nastiness. They think that a child seeing violence on TV will turn them into a mass-murderer or serial killer. They think that even the merest glimpse of sex will turn them into a ravening porn-fiend with an appetite for all sorts of despicable sexual acts. They believe that no child is capable of logically approaching real-world problems and taking a look at the situation as a whole, evaluating the factors, and reaching an educated conclusion. On this point, I would have to agree with them, and this is because of one simple fact...
They shield their children in the first place. They shield their children, "protect" them from the evils of the world rather than letting them face the bad parts of life, letting them see first-hand how truly terrible some things can be. As a result, they end up having a difficult time comprehending anything but their white-bread, picket fence, happy suburban lifestyle; in the eyes of these shielded children, everyone in the world lives like they do, happy and peaceful, everyone getting along together with no problems in the world whatsoever. They live in a fantasy world constructed by adults who believe that the proper way to prepare a child for adulthood is to give them an utterly false impression of the world, to brainwash them into believing that life is nothing but joy and happiness, free of any hardships, hatred, or troubles. This of course results in a human being who is freed from the responsibility of needing to make decisions for themselves; the parents take care of this for them. Thus, when required to make a potentially life-altering decision, something that deeply impacts them, or are confronted with any sort of crossroads, they are not fully equipped with the tools required to make such a decision.
Allow me to put it another way, an example. Imagine, if you will, that you never knew violence, you had no concept of murder or malice. You lived in a fantasy world in which such things were unheard of. As a result, you never learned how to respond to a real-world problem, such as a mugging. You see someone on the street being held at gun-point and forced to surrender their belongings. How would you feel? You've never heard of such a thing, it's unfathomable to you; you have no concept of such an act and have no idea how to react, or if you should react at all.
Now, think about sex. Sex is a natural act, a biological function required of nearly all life. Sex is the means by which we reproduce, and amongst many mammals with highly-ordered minds, it is also an act to strengthen relational bonds and produce a euphoria. Arousal is a biological response to certain stimuli, both external (such as genitalia or an arousing image) and internal (such as a mental exploration of an intimate setting). At an instinctual level we understand what reproduction is and how to go about it; all animals do. As such, even someone who has never in their life been exposed to any form of sexual stimuli or explained to what sexual intercourse was, would experience the same biological responses and urges when presented with such an experience. Contrary to popular belief, sheltering someone from sex their entire childhood will not mean they won't take an interest in it; it's inevitable, for the majority of the population. It's instinct, something we are born with, much like a baby's instinct to nurse from its mother, or the instinct to crawl and explore. A baby need not be taught how to feed, or how to crawl. This is genetic knowledge built into all of us, just the same as sex.
So with the knowledge that sex is a vital, necessary function of life, and that all humans are born with an instinct for it, and that these instincts begin manifesting themselves around 12-14 years of age, why, then, do we insist on sheltering our children from this fact of life? We shield them from pornography, and insist that they not participate in sexual education classes in school. We delude ourselves into believing that this will keep them from knowing about sex. We tell ourselves that they would never find out about it from their friends, either. If we shield them from sex, they'll behave perfectly. We "protect" them, and don't see how damaging this truly is.
The "rebellious teenager" is a relatively modern phenomenon, developed over the past 100 years or so, after child labor laws kept 12-year-olds out of the factories (when stricter safety codes in factories were what was really in order). Curfews, regulations, and strict lawmaking began to restrict these people who, until recently, were afforded all the legal rights of an adult. At a point in their life where someone is feeling the urge to explore their sexuality, express their own life, and practice self-determination, we began telling them that they weren't capable of doing such, they were now no longer capable of making these decisions and needed to be sheltered and looked after. Is it any wonder that these people act out, rebel against authority, and express a desire to live their own life?
Is it any wonder that, when faced with a sexual decision, many sometimes make the "wrong" choice? They've been shielded from the requirement of problem-solving and logical thinking, and thus aren't equipped with the proper resources to think it through. Above that, it's viewed as yet another chance to rebel, to do something that they possibly wouldn't otherwise do in another situation, but they want to feel edgy and live their own life, and so decide to commit an act that they aren't supposed to, according to law and their parents. Were these children exposed to this reality, and more realities of life, from an earlier age, they would have time to build the skillset and tools that is needed to come to a logical conclusion on the subject. Further, if it wasn't explicitly forbidden of them, the "edge" would be gone; they're no longer living risky and proving themselves a rebel.
All in all, where I'm going with this, I believe the AOC laws should be lowered. Most nations in the world have AOC at 15 or 16, and some even to 14, 13, or lower. To this date, nobody has been able to give me a good explanation of why the US AOC is 18 while most other countries are at 16 or younger. Most of these explanations come across as sounding smugly superior; "they're just a bunch of hedonists" or "well, they're a bunch of child-molesters" or "that's disgusting!" Valid *personal opinions*, perhaps, but far from a good legal definition. My view is that the AOC laws are just a small fraction of the larger problem, that until we stop shielding our children from life in order to maintain this facade of innocence, this is a problem that will continue. Lowering age of consent is a step in the right direction, but as long as alarmists continue to shriek about every drop of blood on television and in video games, the problem will not resolve itself.
Life happens, our children need to learn this, and sheltering them from this fact and trying to raise them in a magical fairyland in which nothing bad ever happens does nothing but sour their palate for later in life, when they realize that not everything fits the lie they were raised to believe.
When younger, I often agreed with the Age Of Consent laws (referred to hereafter as AOC laws) in the United States. I now attribute to this as having a narrower view of the world, not having enough experience in the world as a whole and especially not in the sex world. Now that I'm older, I personally believe that the puritanical values on which our current AOC laws are based are... flawed. Flawed is, perhaps, too weak a word to describe my feelings towards this. Allow me to elaborate...
For those of you who are outside of the US (or those who aren't familiar with US AOC laws), I'll sum them up in a vague description. 18 is the age of consent. Two 18+ year old people can consent to sexual intercourse with one another without needing to face any possible legal ramifications (excepting, of course, if you live in a state which actually outlaws oral or anal sex -- yes, they exist). There is a legal "grey-area" for those under the age of 18... if two sixteen-year-olds mutually consent to sexual intercourse, and someone finds out and pushes a lawsuit, it's entirely likely that such a case will be open-and-shut, the "defendant(s)" found not-guilty and the case set aside. Although, according to law, the two committed an illegal act, the law sometimes looks the other way in such instances, though there are times when the parties are charged with a misdemeanor offense and fined. Now, a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, this is a darker shade of grey in the eyes of the law. There's no real cut-and-dry answer on the subject; most seem to be taken on a case-by-case basis with no uniform code to dictate, or at least none that is strictly followed.
As for my views on the subject, I believe that these laws are complete and utter bullshit. These laws, just like tobacco and alcohol legislation, is based on the notion that a 17-year-old is not responsible enough to make an educated, logical opinion on a subject and make their own choices. But, when you turn 18, suddenly you're endowed with some magical sense of responsibility, now you're suddenly capable of making these decisions which, only a day earlier, were beyond your ken. This is, of course, a stumbling-block which is difficult to get around; we live in a society of laws and, in law, a clear definition must be laid down, lest it be left open to abuse. If age is to be a factor -- a de-facto necessity for an age-of-consent law -- it must have a set date. A sliding-scale simply is not acceptable in the eyes of the law, as it is far too vague a scale to judge against.
Do we need an age-of-consent law? Certainly. To do otherwise is to invite pedophiles to lead children to dark alleys and do terrible things; there are few eight-year-olds who understand what sex is, let alone be responsible enough to make an opinion on it. I personally find pedophilia disturbing, and I don't in any way shape or form endorse or advocate it. But I personally don't consider sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old to be pedophilia. Don't agree with me? A few years ago, I wouldn't have, either -- but think about these facts for a few moments:
The majority of cultures throughout history considered a human old enough to be an "adult" (I use this term to refer to someone who is afforded full legal status to make their own decisions and live their own life) when they reached the age of 12. Twelve. One-two years old. At this point, they were generally sexually mature and, in these societies, were given a dosage of "real life" - the same "real life" that many US parents try to shield their children from until they're much older. At twelve years old, these people were marrying, reproducing, holding down jobs, running their own homes, and exercising self-determination. Here in the US, a twelve-year-old is still considered a child by most, incapable of making real decisions on their life, and certainly incapable of performing a real-world job and providing for themselves. True, in these times, it was rare for a person to live past 30 - many mothers would never live long enough to see grandchildren. Still, the fact that these 12-year-olds were able to contribute to the workforce, run their own lives, and reproduce speaks volumes on the capabilities of a young mind. Someone able to evaluate their environment and make potentially life-or-death decisions is certainly capable of practicing self-determination in the matters of sexual intercourse.
In the US, most people believe in the false "innocence of youth" - that children are pure, untainted, and incapable of handling the real world and its true nastiness. They think that a child seeing violence on TV will turn them into a mass-murderer or serial killer. They think that even the merest glimpse of sex will turn them into a ravening porn-fiend with an appetite for all sorts of despicable sexual acts. They believe that no child is capable of logically approaching real-world problems and taking a look at the situation as a whole, evaluating the factors, and reaching an educated conclusion. On this point, I would have to agree with them, and this is because of one simple fact...
They shield their children in the first place. They shield their children, "protect" them from the evils of the world rather than letting them face the bad parts of life, letting them see first-hand how truly terrible some things can be. As a result, they end up having a difficult time comprehending anything but their white-bread, picket fence, happy suburban lifestyle; in the eyes of these shielded children, everyone in the world lives like they do, happy and peaceful, everyone getting along together with no problems in the world whatsoever. They live in a fantasy world constructed by adults who believe that the proper way to prepare a child for adulthood is to give them an utterly false impression of the world, to brainwash them into believing that life is nothing but joy and happiness, free of any hardships, hatred, or troubles. This of course results in a human being who is freed from the responsibility of needing to make decisions for themselves; the parents take care of this for them. Thus, when required to make a potentially life-altering decision, something that deeply impacts them, or are confronted with any sort of crossroads, they are not fully equipped with the tools required to make such a decision.
Allow me to put it another way, an example. Imagine, if you will, that you never knew violence, you had no concept of murder or malice. You lived in a fantasy world in which such things were unheard of. As a result, you never learned how to respond to a real-world problem, such as a mugging. You see someone on the street being held at gun-point and forced to surrender their belongings. How would you feel? You've never heard of such a thing, it's unfathomable to you; you have no concept of such an act and have no idea how to react, or if you should react at all.
Now, think about sex. Sex is a natural act, a biological function required of nearly all life. Sex is the means by which we reproduce, and amongst many mammals with highly-ordered minds, it is also an act to strengthen relational bonds and produce a euphoria. Arousal is a biological response to certain stimuli, both external (such as genitalia or an arousing image) and internal (such as a mental exploration of an intimate setting). At an instinctual level we understand what reproduction is and how to go about it; all animals do. As such, even someone who has never in their life been exposed to any form of sexual stimuli or explained to what sexual intercourse was, would experience the same biological responses and urges when presented with such an experience. Contrary to popular belief, sheltering someone from sex their entire childhood will not mean they won't take an interest in it; it's inevitable, for the majority of the population. It's instinct, something we are born with, much like a baby's instinct to nurse from its mother, or the instinct to crawl and explore. A baby need not be taught how to feed, or how to crawl. This is genetic knowledge built into all of us, just the same as sex.
So with the knowledge that sex is a vital, necessary function of life, and that all humans are born with an instinct for it, and that these instincts begin manifesting themselves around 12-14 years of age, why, then, do we insist on sheltering our children from this fact of life? We shield them from pornography, and insist that they not participate in sexual education classes in school. We delude ourselves into believing that this will keep them from knowing about sex. We tell ourselves that they would never find out about it from their friends, either. If we shield them from sex, they'll behave perfectly. We "protect" them, and don't see how damaging this truly is.
The "rebellious teenager" is a relatively modern phenomenon, developed over the past 100 years or so, after child labor laws kept 12-year-olds out of the factories (when stricter safety codes in factories were what was really in order). Curfews, regulations, and strict lawmaking began to restrict these people who, until recently, were afforded all the legal rights of an adult. At a point in their life where someone is feeling the urge to explore their sexuality, express their own life, and practice self-determination, we began telling them that they weren't capable of doing such, they were now no longer capable of making these decisions and needed to be sheltered and looked after. Is it any wonder that these people act out, rebel against authority, and express a desire to live their own life?
Is it any wonder that, when faced with a sexual decision, many sometimes make the "wrong" choice? They've been shielded from the requirement of problem-solving and logical thinking, and thus aren't equipped with the proper resources to think it through. Above that, it's viewed as yet another chance to rebel, to do something that they possibly wouldn't otherwise do in another situation, but they want to feel edgy and live their own life, and so decide to commit an act that they aren't supposed to, according to law and their parents. Were these children exposed to this reality, and more realities of life, from an earlier age, they would have time to build the skillset and tools that is needed to come to a logical conclusion on the subject. Further, if it wasn't explicitly forbidden of them, the "edge" would be gone; they're no longer living risky and proving themselves a rebel.
All in all, where I'm going with this, I believe the AOC laws should be lowered. Most nations in the world have AOC at 15 or 16, and some even to 14, 13, or lower. To this date, nobody has been able to give me a good explanation of why the US AOC is 18 while most other countries are at 16 or younger. Most of these explanations come across as sounding smugly superior; "they're just a bunch of hedonists" or "well, they're a bunch of child-molesters" or "that's disgusting!" Valid *personal opinions*, perhaps, but far from a good legal definition. My view is that the AOC laws are just a small fraction of the larger problem, that until we stop shielding our children from life in order to maintain this facade of innocence, this is a problem that will continue. Lowering age of consent is a step in the right direction, but as long as alarmists continue to shriek about every drop of blood on television and in video games, the problem will not resolve itself.
Life happens, our children need to learn this, and sheltering them from this fact and trying to raise them in a magical fairyland in which nothing bad ever happens does nothing but sour their palate for later in life, when they realize that not everything fits the lie they were raised to believe.
