Talk:Age of consent/Archive1

Age of consent as cause of, or cure to, exploitation?
This NYT article points out that economic equality between marriage partners is increasing the economic inequality in society as a whole. Instead of the boss marrying his secretary, he's marrying another manager, since there are a lot of female managers these days.

An early marriage to a rich guy could be a way for a (probably beautiful) young girl to escape poverty. However, an age of consent to marry delays that. Could this actually exacerbate economic inequality, and thereby cause MORE of what leftists would consider exploitation, in the long run?

As with any question of exploitation, the question arises of what kind of situation is worse. Should kids starve to death, or be economic serfs to the Nike factory until they acquire enough capital that they can start their own businesses? I'd rather they temporarily be economic serfs. Anything that takes care of people's immediate needs at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy will tend to make them less desperate, and therefore less vulnerable to predation.

Feminists are concerned with teenage prostitution, and wanting to label it human trafficking; could some of it be prevented by earlier marriages to economically stable older men, and would those teenagers then be better off? I think so. Assuming he treats her kindly, she can relax (rather than worrying about where her next meal will come, what kind of guy she's going to have to fuck next, and where she's going to get a drug fix to help take her mind off her fucked-up life), knowing that her physical and emotional needs will be provided for in the long term and that she can start enjoying the blessings of motherhood. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Prevent becoming a teenage prostitute by selling your teenage body to a single older man? Erm... Yeah, yep, that makes total sense. *facepalm* --Irian (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the whole point of marriage was to make prostitution respectable by turning it into a long-term arrangement that also involves love, protection, nurturing of children, etc. Sex is still being traded for money, but the guy is getting the more romantic "girlfriend experience" and the girl doesn't have to spend so much time standing on street corners in makeup and high heels. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And tomorrow in this lovely channel: "Prevent becoming a heavy drinker by starting with Kokain early." Brought to you by the geniuses from the MRM. --Irian (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST seems to have difficulty distinguishing between the beliefs of radical feminists and men's rights activists (or Victorian males). It does make debates a little confusing. Annquin (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have used "debating" and "MRA" in the same sentence. That alone is confusing. We are talking about a being here who tells us that fucking children should be ok if it's rich people who do it. Do you really think there is a point to debate there? It's just another display of a very disturbed human being. --Irian (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the same issue we run into with mail order brides. Some people say, "American men want a Filipina bride so they can dominate her." That kind of marriage does, at least, help reduce economic inequality, since she'll be telling her husband all the time, "Can you send some money to my family? My sister needs money for college and my brother wants to start a business." Filipinas will usually prefer to marry a rich foreigner, but if laws get in the way of that, then they will often end up just fucking whatever guy (or few guys) will give her money for tuition and books. Or she'll end up working as a topless dancer and fucking many different guys.


 * Beautiful, poverty-stricken girls will usually end up trading sex for money in some way or another. I would rather see girls like that marry a guy who will give them a more dignified life, than be baby mama for some 15-year-old drug dealer who's probably going to end up prison. The fact that her husband is older doesn't mean he'll treat her worse than a guy her own age would. It could be the opposite; he might be mature enough to know how to treat a woman right.


 * Also, if the guy has enough money to support her being a stay-at-home mom, she can probably keep her kids safer than they would be if she had to leave them with a babysitter. Plus they can give them better food, better health care, etc. than if she were poor. So in the end, what alternative is most effective at taking care of kids' well-being? Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. Now you have also added the typical portion or MRM racism to your ranting about how fucking children should be ok if you are rich. Well done. --Irian (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And would it be correct to say that you believe it's okay for children to grow up in poverty, or for their mothers to whore themselves out on a short-term basis (and subject themselves to all the risks that come with that)? If you're going to support that, then I don't know where your basis for making moral judgments comes from. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be more correct to say that you are trying really hard to prove all the stereotypes about MRAs true, including the one about trying every fallacy known to man. And no, I will not dignify "If you are not for fucking children for money then you are for them starving to death" with an answer. --Irian (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Avoiding starving to death often involves doing something unpleasant, whether it be tilling a field, working in a factory, or opening your legs to someone you'd rather not open your legs to. But sometimes a job or a marriage can be a pleasure (at least on days when it's going well). Maybe you think people should rather starve than submit to someone else's wishes, but the fact that you're still alive means that you submit to someone's wishes (whether it be to a boss, a customer, or a spouse or family member who provides for you), unless you're living off of inherited wealth. That goes to show, you don't practice what you preach. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, because being a child and getting fucked by a rich older man is of course totally comparable to any other job. Sure. Honestly, if I hadn't read what MRAs write before, I really would suspect a Poe here.--Irian (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about teenagers, rather than children? Anyway, lots of beautiful young women would rather choose "getting fucked by a rich older man" over taking a job in the work world. It's just economics. She has little education or work experience with which to bargain for high pay in the workplace, but she's at the peak of her sexual attractiveness. The poor are at even more of a disadvantage in the workplace, because they probably were in a district with shitty schools and can't afford to go to college, plus their parents don't have connections in the work world. Marrying up is therefore a great strategy for escaping poverty, and maybe she can get her husband to help out her family financially too, pulling the rest of them out of poverty. I know a guy who was an unemployed felon until the guy his mom was fucking finally gave him a job as an electrician. So expanding women's access to mates is not just about helping them, but about giving their relatives a chance to move upward too; and in this way we can make progress toward eradicating poverty, even if we never fully achieve that goal.


 * Feminists, though, are so spiteful in their efforts to keep men from enjoying any kind of pleasure, that they would rather see women and their families destroyed than see doors open for cooperation with men. They like to say "we're just trying to protect children" even though it's obvious they're hurting children. What's really going on is that feminists don't want to own up to their true agenda, which is ultimately to radically reshape society by cutting out men from having any role other than as slaves and sperm donors. Their dishonesty is seen in the fact that they won't even call a spade a spade; e.g. they'll call teenagers "children". Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Suprisingly honest, admitting that you derive your pleasure from fucking underage girls who are desperate. I am actually disappointed, because now I have no chance of saying anything that would make you actually look worse than that. Well, too bad. --Irian (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that this guy is actually making substantive arguments, whereas your responses boil down to, "Fuck you, MRA". Well, I guess that's easy to get away with when you're posting on a feminist run and therefore feminist-moderated website that you know will take your side by virtue of you towing the party line, entirely regardless of your conduct. --2001:56A:F90F:A400:F889:7CD3:DC65:4696 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Phl00be
 * "substantive arguments"? He literally just asserted shit with fuckall in the way of evidence. Same as you in fact. 04:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The very first three words of this thread/argument are a link to a NYT article. Mathematically speaking, he provided 100% more sources than this Irian person. --2001:56A:F90F:A400:5924:290C:7561:455F (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Phl0obe

Is the age of consent inherently anti-gay?
Interesting nuances emerge in the "age of consent to sex" debate when we connect it to the "age of consent to marry" debate.

Looking at the historical record, we can see that the Labouchere Amendment raised the age of consent for both gay and straight sex, and also targeted gays for prosecution for "gross indecency".

Legalized gay marriage was only recently introduced in the U.K. and U.S., while heterosexual marriage between minors and adults has been legal for a long time. Because sex within marriage (even if one of the spouses was below the age of consent) tended to be legally permissible, straights had a privilege that gays didn't have.

What about now? It's been argued that homosexuality isn't as well suited to marriage as heterosexuality is. There seems to be some evidence that gays tend to be more "monogamish" than fully monogamous.

(Straights too tend to have some tendencies to be poly, but if they can accept polygamy as opposed to mere polyamory, then that can still be accommodated within a framework of marriage by opening it up to more than one spouse. The distinctive feature of marriage is permanent partnership, and usually one in which sex outside of the marriage is forbidden; monogamy is not its defining feature. Gays, on the other hand, seem to lean more toward the polyamorous side of the spectrum.)

My point is, if gays tend not to be as suited to marriage, then making a marital exception to the age of consent laws tends to disadvantage gays relative to straights. Therefore, I would favor removing this inequity by either eliminating the age of consent for gay sex altogether, or making the age of consent for gay sex the same as the age of consent for straight marriage (which, pursuant to Supreme Court decisions, probably has to be the same as the age of consent for gay marriage).

The age of consent to marry should probably be lowered to puberty. In fact, I would even say that the age of majority in general (including the age of consent to sign contracts, to work in hazardous fields, etc.) should be lowered to puberty as well. We may as well just encourage boys to take jobs, and girls to marry, as soon as their bodies start telling them that they're adults who want to do adult stuff. That way, boys will have less boredom impelling them toward mischief, and girls will be able to fulfill their desires for attention, resources, and protection from a decent man, as well as the maternal drive, before those wishes get them into trouble (i.e. through sluttiness, getting their hearts broken, and/or having a fatherless child). We can't change human nature, but we can adapt the laws to suit it better. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not an american (i am assuming you are) so i am a little confused. Here in the UK, the age of consent for gay folk was reduced to 16, the same as the heterosexual age, some years ago. Here, that battle is over and won. Now the gayers can get matried, i imagine the age of marriage consent is the same as the breeders. That aside, lowing the age of consent to puberty, usually bout 13, is just wrong on so many levels. Have you met any 13 year olds? They are children. Puberty isnt the end of a child becoming an adult, it is the start. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Shotgun weddings
What is the main harm that people are worried will come from teenage girls having sex with adult men? Isn't it that they will get knocked up, or that their hearts will get broken by a guy who uses them for sex? Yet, they can get knocked up or pumped-and-dumped by one of their same-age peers too.

That being the case, why not just reintroduce shotgun weddings and impose a "you break it, you bought it" policy on teenage girls' hymens? The guy to whom she opens her heart (and legs) will need to stay in a relationship with her, and take care of her and any offspring the two have, for the rest of his life. Otherwise, he gets hit with both barrels. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The law doesn't give if a fuck, whether the teenager girl below age of consent was knocked up or not and is actually gender-neutral, a woman shagging a teen under the age of consent would go to jail (how the laws are applied is another story, but this is getting more or less equalized) and I don't think, that shotgun wedding were ever on the books, it was more of a thing relatives did to preserve this so-called family honor (some nastier version of family honor also make the male relatives murder the girls/woman in question).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Shotgun marriages" in some contexts are not what they seem - it was considered reasonable, once the marriage had been arranged, that the couple become more intimate, so 'getting ahead of the event' would be the wrong side of bundling.

To what extent in the past was there a relationship between 'the age of consent' and 'the age of physical maturity'/life expectancy? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A vague and approximate one because lots of numbers correlate positively with time, especially in the last century or so. You could easily tie age of consent to population density or GDPpC too.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For much of human history having 18 as the age of consent would have led to severe depopulation (given infant mortality and life expectancy) - and the issue of celibacy of various kinds (religious persons, eunuchs and others) would have complicated the matter. It should also be recognized that in past times 'marriages in childhood' were not necessarily consummated until much later - Edward V's brother 'married' when he was 4 and his bride 5.
 * At birth, life expectancy in the past is very low compared to today's standards, however, looking at life expectancy from 18, life expectancy has not improved that much. Early marriages back in they day happened mainly because of the extremely high infant mortality rates that are now extremely very low. For this reason, child marriage today is pointless. 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that during 'the last 120 years' the age of physical maturity has decreased but the age of consent increased (this is a paraphrase from memory). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This? Also stress and chemicals such as BPA contribute.  20:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)