The Age of Consent: Culture-Dependent or Universally Objective?

[Debater Slayer]

Well no, the highlighted part was not Cyber Sex. Cyber sex is sending naked pictures or otherwise engaging in sex acts via an internet chat device or webcam chat. It's all the rage with today's teens.

What you just highlighted is basically the Chris Hanson sting operation, to catch a predator. Where an adult uses a chat room to groom and ultimately to try to initiate a sex act with a minor. It's more intent to harm a minor than a charge about actually harming a minor. But I don't know much about Austrian law, so don't quote me on that. But bear in mind that the people in that sting operation probably did only receive 2 years prison time. And America is far more harsh, at least legally speaking, with the whole age of consent thing (albeit inconsistently state to state.)

I'd argue age of consent is largely cultural. But age of consent, especially it it's below 18, is not clear cut. Most of the time it will have many many distinct nuances written into the law. In Australia ours is 16, with the caveat that an older partner has to be within a 7 year age gap, cannot be a trusted legal guardian of any kind (teacher, foster parent etc) with certain leeway given to partners of comparable age. (One would agree that a 15 year old having non coerced sex with their 16 year old girlfriend/boyfriend should not end in statutory rape charges.) I sincerely doubt an American who lives in a State with the age of consent being 21 would view that as anything other than disgusting. But to someone who grew up in Australia, it's seen as totally normal.

One must also remember that kids are having sex younger and younger these days anyway. Especially cyber sex. The law should be mindful of this, lest a teenager be charged with distribution of child pornography for sending naked photos of themselves to their boy/girlfriend.

You seem to be aghast that "developed nations" could possibly have an age of consent law as low as it is. I see it as these developed nations being realistic about teenage sex and pragmatic about their approach to it, rather than having kids on the sex offender registry for what is ultimately harmless teenage shenanigans.

I'm not talking about two 14-year-olds having sex with each other; I'm talking about things like a 30-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old. The age difference is crucial when talking about this issue, in my opinion, because there's no way two teenagers of the same age having sex with each other is the same as a 30-year-old having sex with someone half his or her age.

I'd also like to throw this theory into the mix.
Cultural reaction to a minor having sex can influence how severe the trauma is. If society tells a minor who had sex at a relatively young age that they should be utterly gutted from a sexual experience that young, this can exacerbate or even create trauma within the minor and colour how they see and react to the experience.
This is even true among sexual abuse victims. When a child does not react strongly to the abuse, or even at all (and this does actually happen) society implicitly or even explicitly tells them that they are merely masking the "real" affect it has had and therefore they feel pressured to either feel inadequate and broken or try to heighten the trauma they experience.

Well, on the flip side, we have societies where child marriage is not uncommon, yet it is no less destructive than anywhere else:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-childbride-idUSBRE98910N20130910

I think there are certain problems with the marriage or sexual relationship of, say, a 13-year-old to or with a person who is something like 28 or 30 that have little or nothing to do with society's reactions to the sexual relationship between the two. The mental and physical development of a child aren't going to change based on any given society's reaction to such a relationship, are they?

That's obviously not to say a predator should have free reign to abuse children. Ew. But one should be mindful that the black and white approach to sexual abuse of minors can actually detrimentally affect actual children who were sexually abused themselves.

(Please note I am not at all encouraging sex with minors or even defending it. Far from it. This is merely for discussion sake.)

I'm not sure I agree with the point you are raising here. This feels to me like arguing that since some societies don't recognize marital rape as a form of rape, raising awareness about it there could detrimentally affect victims of marital rape in those societies. I think it's important to raise awareness about abuse regardless of whether or not the society the victim lives in tolerates such abuse. That's not what I'm asking about in this thread; what I'm asking about is whether setting the age of consent as low as 14 or 15 is legally sanctioning child rape to begin with.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't see issue in two consenting minors 14 or older having consensual sex. I also don't see any reason why anyone else should think differently, other than moral outrage; which should not be a political force in America. Safe sex is virtually harmless. Sex ed should be required heavily in all schools, private or public. They need to stop teaching abstinence only bull****. Kids need to know how to put on a condom by the age of 13.

There's a cultural stigma surrounding sex in most cultures that makes it taboo in most situations. Also, people tend to attach strong emotions to sex, and it "emotionally affects" people too much. Age of consent is mostly culture based. In nor liberal European countries, it's obviously lower and more reasonable. In many countries, age of consent laws aren't really based on actual safety as much as the thought "But their just too young to be having sex!".

Do you see any difference between "knowing how to put on a condom by the age of 13" and having a firm grasp on the concept of informed consent, especially when the age of consent in some countries can mean that young teens are to be relied on to have the ability to understand informed consent if they are to make the decision to have sex with an older person?

As I said, I'm not talking about young teens' having sex in isolation of everything else; I'm talking about their being considered by the law to be capable of giving informed consent to older people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you really believe that those making the laws in these countries could have thought,"Yeah let's sanction child rape"? If not, then what is your point in bringing it up?.

I doubt they consciously thought something like, "Yeah, let's sanction child rape," but my question is to discuss whether the laws that exist now—regardless of what the makers thereof thought while making them—amount to sanctioning child rape instead of forbidding or punishing it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Lowest age I know of is Mexico at 12, lol. Anyway, I am not concerned with the prosecution of consensual relations in most cases, only that reasonable age gaps are enforced for younger people. It's not much concern to me if two people age 12 are fooling around, but there is something completely wrong with someone age 12 messing around with someone age 21.I think hitting it from the age angle is wrong outside of the age gap angle which is the real problem.

According to a reasonable law (as you see it), what should be the allowable age gap between any two sexual partners, especially when one of them is younger than 18?

 

[Mindmaster]

According to a reasonable law (as you see it), what should be the allowable age gap between any two sexual partners, especially when one of them is younger than 18?

Below 18, I'd say a year or two max it's mostly a safety issue, imho.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Honestly, below 18 I'd say a year or two max. It's mostly a safety issue, imho.

Based on what would you determine the maximum allowable age gap? And, for example, how is a difference of a year or two in age any different from no difference in age at all as far as ability to give informed consent goes when both people involved are younger than 18?

 

[Skwim]

I doubt they consciously thought something like, "Yeah, let's sanction child rape," but my question is to discuss whether the laws that exist now—regardless of what the makers thereof thought while making them—amount to sanctioning child rape instead of forbidding or punishing it.

But whether it's statutory rape or not would depend on the specific laws of a country. And one can't justifiably judge the innocence or guilt of someone in another country (state) by the laws of some other country or state. So I don't know what perspective you're using to judge the "amount to sanction child rape instead of forbidding or punishing it."



.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But whether it's statutory rape or not would depend on the specific laws of a country. One can't justifiably judge the innocence or guilt of someone in another country (state) by the laws of some other country or state.

Are you a cultural relativist?

 

[Flankerl]

I see. Is a person's name registered when they are sentenced for contacting a minor with the intent to engage in any of the above illegal activities so as to be sure they don't exploit children when they are released from prison?

After the prison sentence a sex offender (like any other criminal when there is a chance he/she might do it again) is usually under a supervision of conduct with a probation officer.
Though privacy is still a thing here so there are no lists on the net about where a former sex offender lives. If it comes out where one lives its usually not nice but I can understand the reactions.

(Highlighting mine.)

How does the law determine "exploitation of a 14- to 15-year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination"? That is, according to German law, what is the difference between exploiting a teenager of that age and having sex with him or her legally?

Its quite simple actually. If the younger person is taken advantage upon or feels taken advantage on its a criminal offence. Obviously someone has to report it otherwise nothing happens.
Oh and the older person is always the offender.

This is the situation in Germany.
The heart means sexual intercourse is allowed.
The X means sexual intercourse is not allowed.
The ? means that its allowed as long as no money is involved or the younger person is taken advantage upon.
The ! means that its allowed as long as the younger persons "missing sexual self determination" is not taken advantage upon.

About the highlighted part, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to rely on a complaint from a young teen to decide whether or not to convict someone older than 21 for having sex with them. What if the 14- or 15-year-old doesn't complain due to being pressured not to, or because they were led to believe by the older person that they should stay silent? There seems to be so much potential for abuse of that part of the law by older people who want to have sex with young teens.

You realise that any law does not work if no one reports infringements of the law, right?
That is not a valid criticism of law since it leads to the only conclusion there is: Law in itself is inadequate and should be abolished.
Every law can be circumvented since everyone can be pressured to stay silent. So lets abolish all laws.

 

[Debater Slayer]

After the prison sentence a sex offender (like any other criminal when there is a chance he/she might do it again) is usually under a supervision of conduct with a probation officer.
Though privacy is still a thing here so there are no lists on the net about where a former sex offender lives. If it comes out where one lives its usually not nice but I can understand the reactions.

Its quite simple actually. If the younger person is taken advantage upon or feels taken advantage on its a criminal offence. Obviously someone has to report it otherwise nothing happens.
Oh and the older person is always the offender.

This is the situation in Germany.
The heart means sexual intercourse is allowed.
The X means sexual intercourse is not allowed.
The ? means that its allowed as long as no money is involved or the younger person is taken advantage upon.
The ! means that its allowed as long as the younger persons "missing sexual self determination" is not taken advantage upon.

Thanks a lot! That helps clarify the law a great deal.

What constitutes taking advantage of a younger person's "missing sexual self-determination"? Is the sexual act by the older person with the younger person in and of itself not something that constitutes such according to the law? And how is a younger person's sexual self-determination deemed to exist or not in the first place?

You realise that any law does not work if no one reports infringements of the law, right?
That is not a valid criticism of law since it leads to the only conclusion there is: Law in itself is inadequate and should be abolished.
Every law can be circumvented since everyone can be pressured to stay silent. So lets abolish all laws.

Everyone can be pressured to stay silent, but do you agree or disagree that a person as young as 14 or 15 is more susceptible to such pressure than most older people?

 

[Flankerl]

What constitutes taking advantage of a younger person's "missing sexual self-determination"? Is the sexual act by the older person with the younger person in and of itself not something that constitutes such according to the law?

Its determined by a psychological profile.
In German law 14-15 year old teenagers simply don't have sexual self-determination. Which means: Are they for example coaxed into sex by the much older person under lies (for example: no sex means break up) or the 14-15 year old answers "I don't know..." and the older person simply asks again and again till the 14-15 year old gives in.

Note, if the parents of the 14-15 year old are against the relationship their word alone is as if the 14-15 year old had said something. So the parents can report the +21 year old.
And this is where psychology comes into play. If it is then determined that the 14-15 year old is perfectly fine there really isn't much anyone can do.

Everyone can be pressured to stay silent, but do you agree or disagree that a person as young as 14 or 15 is more susceptible to such pressure than most older people?

I agree, which is why the law is the way it is.



Though its funny that you haven't asked why its okay for under 14 year olds to have sex with each other.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Its determined by a psychological profile.
In German law 14-15 year old teenagers simply don't have sexual self-determination. Which means: Are they for example coaxed into sex by the much older person under lies (for example: no sex means break up) or the 14-15 year old answers "I don't know..." and the older person simply asks again and again till the 14-15 year old gives in.

Note, if the parents of the 14-15 year old are against the relationship their word alone is as if the 14-15 year old had said something. So the parents can report the +21 year old.
And this is where psychology comes into play. If it is then determined that the 14-15 year old is perfectly fine there really isn't much anyone can do.

So circumstances such as whether the 14- or 15-year-old was coaxed into sex by the older person are considered due to the teenager's age (because of which they are deemed to not have sexual self-determination)?

Is the 14- or 15-year-old examined psychologically (if I'm not misunderstanding you) to determine if they're perfectly fine to see whether they were traumatized or mentally affected by the sexual acts with the older person, or is the examination done to determine whether the teenager was mentally sound when they (supposedly) consented to the sexual acts in the first place?

I agree, which is why the law is the way it is.



Though its funny that you haven't asked why its okay for under 14 year olds to have sex with each other.

Well, could an 8-year-old sexually abuse another 8-year-old? Is that possible when both of them are still small children? I haven't heard of something like that happening, which is why I'm asking.

Although I could see it possibly being problematic if a 13-year-old could legally have sex with, say, a 7-year-old. That thought is just... awful, especially if one of them has hit puberty and the other hasn't. I think the law should take such possibilities into account and make sure they are illegal, because if they do happen, then that seems to me to be a huge problem.

Sorry if I'm asking too many questions. I'm interested to know about the details of the German age of consent laws (and some other European ones, really, not just the German ones) because they are definitely more nuanced than a lot of their counterparts that I've read about.

 

[Skwim]

Are you a cultural relativist?

I believe that to find one legally guilty or innocent in a particular country, and you were talking about law, one has to apply the laws of that country. Don't you?


.

 

[Flankerl]

o circumstances such as whether the 14- or 15-year-old was coaxed into sex by the older person are considered due to the teenager's age (because of which they are deemed to not have sexual self-determination)?

Yes.

Is the 14- or 15-year-old examined psychologically (if I'm not misunderstanding you) to determine if they're perfectly fine to see whether they were traumatized or mentally affected by the sexual acts with the older person

Yes.

or is the examination done to determine whether the teenager was mentally sound when they (supposedly) consented to the sexual acts in the first place?

Yes.

Well, could an 8-year-old sexually abuse another 8-year-old? Is that possible when both of them are still small children? I haven't heard of something like that happening, which is why I'm asking.

Children are Children.
Under 14 year olds are simply not accountable.
Its in itself not sexually abuse since.... well they are children.

Last year there was a Kindergarten in Germany where some children talked other children (among other acts) into showing their private parts or sticking objects into their anus'.
The end of it all was that the Kindergarten teachers were fired as they should have watched the children. Because they are children. There is a reason why we see them as different from adults.

Before you write something, watch this video.

Children are just children.

Although I could see it possibly being problematic if a 13-year-old could legally have sex with, say, a 7-year-old. That thought is just... awful, especially if one of them has hit puberty and the other hasn't. I think the law should take such possibilities into account and make sure they are illegal, because if they do happen, then that seems to me to be a huge problem.

Uhm no if an under 13 year old does something wrong the parents are usually liable. This includes everything.
And if a 13 year old actually has intercourse with such a small child then there is probably a psychological evaluation in order.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm not talking about two 14-year-olds having sex with each other; I'm talking about things like a 30-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old. The age difference is crucial when talking about this issue, in my opinion, because there's no way two teenagers of the same age having sex with each other is the same as a 30-year-old having sex with someone half his or her age.

Does the law which you speak of allow this age gap specifically? Like I said, when the age of consent is lower than 18, most of the time there are various nuances written into the law that one must take into consideration. Japan's age of consent is 14 too, but it's still illegal for adults to take advantage of them like that. Course I do not have the time or patience to list off every single nuance of the age of consent laws in Japan because they are seemingly too numerous. With benefits and detriments in and of themselves.
Ours is 16, but it's still illegal for a 30 year old to have sex with them. Age of consent just means the law recognizes that they can enter sex legally, it does not necessarily mean that it's legal for an adult to sexually abuse them.

Well, on the flip side, we have societies where child marriage is not uncommon, yet it is no less destructive than anywhere else:

I'm not arguing that sexual abuse never causes harm in some instances. I'm saying that society's expectations of the reactions to said abuse may in fact exacerbate it in some children. May even cause it where there is none. A child might be groped and brush it off as nothing. People react differently to trauma is what I'm saying. Expecting all children to be severely traumatized by even the (for lack of a better word) slightest abuse can cause trouble.

I think there are certain problems with the marriage or sexual relationship of, say, a 13-year-old to or with a person who is something like 28 or 30 that have little or nothing to do with society's reactions to the sexual relationship between the two. The mental and physical development of a child aren't going to change based on any given society's reaction to such a relationship, are they?

That I wholeheartedly agree with. No child should be forced to enter a marriage. No person should be forced to enter a marriage, really. Any adult who takes advantage of or abuses a minor like that should be punished severely. (Obviously if it's a minor doing the abuse, then psychological evaluation and mental health help is the route we usually take.)

I'm not sure I agree with the point you are raising here. This feels to me like arguing that since some societies don't recognize marital rape as a form of rape, raising awareness about it there could detrimentally affect victims of marital rape in those societies. I think it's important to raise awareness about abuse regardless of whether or not the society the victim lives in tolerates such abuse. That's not what I'm asking about in this thread; what I'm asking about is whether setting the age of consent as low as 14 or 15 is legally sanctioning child rape to begin with.

Well firstly, to answer your question. No. Not necessarily at least.
14 and 15 year olds are not children. They are adolescents. Studies are showing that the brain is actually different during the teenage years than that of a child and adult. To call them children is inaccurate. Sure they aren't quite adults yet, but they're not children either.
I'm sure there are some countries that do sanction child rape. The aforementioned child marriages. *shudders*
But really it all depends on what allowances are made. What sanctions are put into place to ensure age gap and coercion are eliminated as much as possible. I doubt many countries think to themselves "well raping children is a okay, so let's set the age of consent at this number instead of the higher number of our overseas counterparts." It's a lot more complex than that. Usually.
Plus, one has to take into account puberty. This is not some clear cut process. Some teenagers will be ready for sex at a younger age than their peers, some at an older age, some in the middle. The brain changes for an adolescent are quite significant during this phase of human development. So it would make sense, at least according to this knowledge, to set the age of consent relatively low to allow the sexual experimentation of teenagers (among peers of comparable ages, not adults) to go unpunished easier.
Even in places where the age is higher like 16, one has to be extra careful not to try to label sexually experimenting teens as sex offenders. Even though the law usually allows certain leeway.

Secondly, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying not to go all witch hunt/mental mob every time the mere whisper of child sexual abuse is uttered. Yes, stand against it firmly. But don't go overboard and don't go plying the victims with the expectation that they react a certain way to the trauma. (Not saying that is what you are doing, I'm speaking more in general.) Which is what society often does, though it does mean well.

 

[Jiddanand]

Age of puberty is the answer.

 

[Sutekh]

It's not much concern to me if two people age 12 are fooling around, but there is something completely wrong with someone age 12 messing around with someone age 21.I think hitting it from the age angle is wrong outside of the age gap angle which is the real problem.

Well[emoji38][emoji38][emoji38] if someone is a female and she is 21 she might be perhaps beautiful.[emoji6][emoji6][emoji6][emoji6][emoji57][emoji57] I would probably be happy if she went after me.[emoji57]

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think consent gets based on "readiness".

My guess is some countries determine a safe age where sexual activity dosent pose a threat whereas others view psychological maturity an importaint factor as well hence 17 to 18 years as opposed to 14 - 15 years.

It makes sense that there be a determination that establishes an age where both criteria are met. I think 17 to 18 sounds appros givin on how medicine and psychology plays into determining age of consent and of course the culture itself.

It seems to fall into a matter of opinion weighing in factors of national culture and legality as well.

Seems to float around 15 to18 globally in developed countries. 18 seems to be the most standard age universally accepted. It's a good determination I think for consent.

 

[McBell]

The Age of Consent: Culture-Dependent or Universally Objective?

Culture dependent.
Just like morals.
Just like ethics.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

The reality is, if there is no central guide, then everything becomes dependent upon culture, what is popular at that particular time, in that particular society and what the majority wants. The same goes for age of consent.