Street cred for life.Follow

Um... Given that we were talking about age of consent, the comparison to age 18 was assumed. My mistake for making the assumption that you got that without having to be explicitly told. Next time, I'll make sure to add a couple extra paragraphs to explain this to you.



Why doesn't it make sense? The whole point here is about how it's legal for a 25 year old to have sex with an 18 year old, but not a 16 year old, and to ask whether this really makes any sense at all. I'm not advocating a solution, just pointing out that from a natural developmental point of view, 16 and 18 aren't that different. What makes most of the difference between those two ages isn't biological, but sociological. A 16 year old is less likely to make mature choices, not because he's significantly less mature physically, but because he is less likely to have as much experience with responsibility. The older someone is past the age at which we arbitrarily define him/her as an adult, the more responsibilities they have taken on, the more adult choices they have made, and thus the better equipped they are to interact with others in an adult manner.

If we declared the age of adulthood to be 15, within a generation or so, we'd see 15 year olds acting with about the same level of maturity that we see 18 year old acting with today. More significantly, we'd see 18 year olds acting more like 21 year olds today. We'd push the point at which maturity is gained up. My point is that with the exception of the very early teen years (adolescence maybe), maturity level is most affected by environment and not biology.



Again though, I'm not advocating anything, just making an observation. The idea that a 16 year old is incapable of granting consent for any reason other than legally, but an 18 year old can is patently absurd. They're both more or less equally capable of doing so, and what difference there is between their abilities to make rational choices regarding consent is far more affected by social influences than physiological ones.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 6:53pm by gbaji

As opposed to your bullshit rambling?

Age of majority in Colonial America was 21. In fact, the age of majority in most US states was 21 until the 1970's (some states had a lower age by state legislation). The US age of majority shouldn't be a surprise since it was based directly off British common law which also pegged it at 21. Which was around the age where males got married and moved out to start their own families.

This fantasy of Real American Men striking out at age 10 or whatever nonsense you believe is just fiction. I'll let it go with that since I guess it doesn't really affect me if you want to believe a conservative fantasy about Real Men of the Glorious Past before the evil liberals ruined them with public education and helicopter parents.

This would be a better argument for prohibiting relationships between 25 and 18 year olds than it is for allowing them between 25 and 16 year olds. I'm not advocating for such

You should be though, if you think brain development post puberty is important to 16 year old boning. If not, what's the point of bringing it up? To show Gbaji's wrong? Sure, he's technically wrong, but that happens every time he posts. You have to let that **** slide unless it damages his main point, which in this case is that 16 year olds aren't more likely to be significantly damaged via consensual sex with older people than 18 year olds are.

Which is almost unequivocally the case. If we set aside "vaginas are magic and the only thing of value girls or women posses" for a brief minute it becomes an absurd law. Children aren't porcelain dolls who become real when they cross the line of the age of majority. There's an imbalance of power between a 16 year old and a 30 year old, but there is between a 25 year old and a 40 year old as well, or someone with an IQ of 100 and someone with an IQ of 150. Or a physically stronger person and a disabled person. Whatever. We shouldn't legislate around perceived imbalance unless it literally leaves one party almost defenseless. Even when they have magic girl vaginas.

I could pretend to argue if there's a difference between boning 16 year old vs boning 18 year olds but it's honestly not a topic I give enough of a **** about to even have a debate for funsies.

Right, unlike adolescent brain development and societies view of the onset of adulthood throughout the ages. Those are laugh riots. :)

I'm glad that someone was quick to point out the difference in difficulty for a man to sleep with a woman versus a woman to sleep with a man. It amazes me how people don't realize that.

In respect to the age difference, my philosophy through observation and experience has always been that men have more influence when they are older and women when they are younger. I use the term "influence" very loosely, but it correlates with our difference in desires. When women look for someone who is financially stable and mature, those aren't qualities akin of a 21 year old.

I have noticed, however, that as women get older, they are more likely to date younger men. Since physical attractiveness isn't a concern for older men, I can see older women looking for younger men. That's why the mid-ages is a sweet spot for men. You get all of the 20 year olds who are looking for that "mature older man" and you get the attractive 40+ year olds who don't want to date someone who looks like their dad.

You just made that up, and it's bs.

Indeed I did. People were not legal adults until 21. They could not vote, buy/sell land or even get married without permission. They were "allowed" to do other things such as work and join the army. This doesn't meant they were regarded as adults for it, they were kids having to work and be in the army. Technically you could buy land as a minor but since you couldn't be sued until you were 21, it's unlikely anyone would sell to you (much like financing a stereo system to a 15 year old and then trying to sue them for breech of contract).

The point being that the actual acts of power as an adult: voting, serving in court, free transfer of land and property, ability to sue others, ability to marry and form your own family, etc came when you were 21. Being able to work and get shot at before that didn't make you an adult or show you respect, it was the people in the positions of power using children as resources. Children working in a mine weren't there because people respected them as adults, they were there because they were cheap. You didn't get drafted into in the military at age sixteen because you were trusted as a full adult, you served in the military because wealthy landowners wanted full militias.

More to the point, the notion you gave that a sixteen year back in the day would already be working, married, have kids and own a home was patently false. He would be working probably, but unlikely for the rest. Hey, kind of a like a sixteen year old today (well, except for the conscription -- what a shame).

Edited, Oct 6th 2014 11:16am by Jophiel

Don't worry. Indy will keep them safe. Only the big guy with the scarf gets really hurt.