Talk:Age of consent

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

I'll act less stupid, but let me change this stuff

Compulsion is a strong force, yeah? Anyways, my alt was never closed in time, so might as well use it :D This time, I'll play nice and talk before I delete stuff. Please reply to me quickly, or I'll probably delete the stuff without citation (so not rule-breaking!) myself.

Age Does Not Reflect Maturity no longer has a proper source (404). Additionally, the source itself was always, well, bad — it was debate-wise, which sucks. No peer-review, no nothing. Also it is logically unsound: I could say "Individuals drive well at different speeds; some people above the speed limit can weave like a boss, whereas some people below the speed limit may crash into a tree. Since cars can't be banned entirely[note 7], it might as well be legal at all speeds.[10]" Taking this wiki's love for Nader into account, I assume this argument wouldn't work. It also doesn't work based off of logic alone; nothing can be banned entirely, if we're taking circumvention of laws into account, so everything should be legal. Yeah, no :/

Human Rights no longer has a proper source (404). Like above, its source was debate-wise, which is bad. Also, human rights has been defined by the UN and multiple agencies. I have never heard it refer to pedastry or child-sex. Never. Until now, I guess.

Conflict between protection and autonomy also no longer has a proper source (404). Outside of that source, I have rarely heard the autonomy argument applied to children, and it is my firm belief that it should not be. Besides, the argument itself calls for informed decision making, which the previous arguments FOR the age of consent argue doesn't exist for children (and also Ratwiki's own article on AoC supports this idea as well). This argument is, in my opinion, invalid.

On Reluctance to seek or offer advice, I have no comment.

I will admit bias — I hate the idea of innocence being tarnished. I dread pedophiles. And men like Peter Scully and Jeffrey Dahmare are the stuff of nightmares. Call me sentimental, but just out of spite for Mr. Scully especially, I am for the legal protection of teens and tots and babies from any sexual activity with older folk.

Also, I'd like to add a link to NAMBLA in the article. NAMBLA's article share my opinion on pedos and AoC, and is anyhow an important point of discussion for any discussion of AoC.

Get back to me soon, thank you. ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I think nobody is gonna come here and look :( That's fine. I'll edit this article as I believe my actions follow norms (provided explanation for every addition and subtraction, only modified sourceless material). If someone edits this back, I'm willing to talk.ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RationalWiki, my faith in you is (partially) restored

No longer do I fear the pedo in our mix! Turns out the first arguments against the age of consent were made by someone mocking it. This is what Cheeseburger Face added on 23 Nov 2016. Note that this forms the basis of all future "against age of consent" arguments: (THE FOLLOWING IS ALL CHEESEBURGER FACE, NOT ME)

• Tl;dr: The person is a pedophile
• Age does not reflect maturity: Individuals mature at different rates, even a person above the age of consent may not be mature enough for a relationship.[9]
• Human right: As human beings, adults have the right to have sex with kids ((this part was marked off sarcastically, idk how to replicate it)) kids should have the freedom to have sex with adults[9]
• [Insert any other argument against age of consent here]: The person is a pedophile.[citation NOT needed]

Haha! My angry heart calms. Glad to see even here, these bottom lines are maintained :D That being said, apparently someone took these arguments real seriously in the future, and made them professional and non sarcastic. :/ Oh Cheeseburger face, what hast thou unleashed? Nonetheless, I will stand firm then that the arguments I deleted (Argument Age Does not reflect maturity, Human right, and Protection/Autonomy) did deserve to be deleted. They started off as apparently a joke, using joke (debate-wise) sources. Since they were made serious, despite the sources not being professional, it only makes sense to revert this source back to its professional phase. If nobody cares for this, I hope you all delete the last pro-noAoC argument as well.128.135.98.162 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait I wasn't logged in nvm :/ 128.135.98.162 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional reason

Not sure if this should be added, but I feel that the AoC is partially there to get rid of "he said, she said" situations. Rather than having to prove that the sex was non-consensual, which is notoriously difficult under normal circumstances, we just declare it to be rape by statute. It's a bit of an assumption that sex with an underage girl is more likely to be non-consensual than consensual, but it's "good enough". CoryUsar (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Plus, it may sound a bit crass, but we only charge people with statutory rape if we catch them, which I'd imagine happens mainly when the girl herself claims it was a rape. In which case, it's back to "he said, she said"... except that technically what "he said" is now legally defined as a form of rape. CoryUsar (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"Should (*name subject*) be at the age of 26?"

Those arguments are nonsense. Being in the military, being held on trial, driving, etc. before the age of 26 is not the same as being unable to consent to sex under the age of 18. The fact that all humans are unable to consent until they're 18 years old means that anyone who engages in any form of sexual activity with anyone who is under the age of 18 always violates the latter person's boundaries without their consent, because all humans are unable to consent until they are 18 years old. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:6067:1568:DBE9:BC7F (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

While yes, certain parts of the article are likely problematic and this is an area that has a history of being edited by unsavory users, there were many problems with that edit. Firstly, saying "the age of consent is 18" is misinformation; there are many jurisdictions where that is not the case. Secondly, you need references if you are going to make sweeping statements, and I'm not sure "we should ban all sexual activity between two minors" is really a good take here. Plutocow (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Are they really "common" arguments?

Plutocow pointed out that Nathan Larson edited this article, and honestly, it kind of shows. The article lists a bunch of "for" arguments, but then it seems to try to subtly rebut them. I'll give three examples:

• The Woman Will Later Regret It Argument: OK, so it is implying that people who want to raise the age of consent are sexist?
• The Innocent Child Argument: Why the fuck is the word 'innocence' in scare quotes? It's basically implying that we should be skeptical about the psychological harm that child sexual abuse inflicts.
• The Unmarried Sex With a Teen is Wrong Argument: Honestly, is child sexual abuse being "unmarried sex" really a big concern, compared to the much more severe physical and psychological harm that it causes?

The "woman" and "unmarried sex" arguments are really weak, and are they really "common" arguments like the section header claims? They might be historical or religious arguments, but if that's the case, make that clear and don't label them as "common" arguments. 45.130.81.97 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed the entire section, it was written by a banned user named Men's Rights EXTREMIST. I'm not sure if it's a Nathan Larson sock or not, but either way that whole section was unsourced and questionable.

The history section was also written by the same banned user, and also shows (The Guardian article linked does not *quite* match what the text says). This probably needs a rewrite at some point. BobJohnson (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I did think it was a bit weird that one of the bulletpoints made the "brain development stops at age 25" argument and then followed up with a note linking to the Slate article debunking that as a myth. Chillpilled (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)