Age of consent (not a rant on Laurel's take on it)
- Thread starter TheEarl
- Start date
Arsehole Addict
Virgin
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2001
- Posts
- 1
Age of Consent - correction
Just to be clear on the situation in UK law: It would NOT be legal for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl! 16 may be the age of consent, but it's not the age of majority. 2 16 year old can have sex, hell, they can get married. But if an 18+ guy screws a 16 year old girl then he can be prosecuted (though he'd a have a reasonable defence).
Tom
Just to be clear on the situation in UK law: It would NOT be legal for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl! 16 may be the age of consent, but it's not the age of majority. 2 16 year old can have sex, hell, they can get married. But if an 18+ guy screws a 16 year old girl then he can be prosecuted (though he'd a have a reasonable defence).
Tom
MathGirl
Cogito
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Posts
- 5,825
"Lolita"
Dear TW,
You're being deliberately obtuse. We all know that I used the term "Lolita" in the generic sense in which it's used today.
I doubt that most fanciers of young girls have ever heard of Vladimir Nabokov, much less read the book.
MG
TheWriter said:
Dear TW,
You're being deliberately obtuse. We all know that I used the term "Lolita" in the generic sense in which it's used today.
I doubt that most fanciers of young girls have ever heard of Vladimir Nabokov, much less read the book.
MG
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Just-Legal, where can I find those supercool HP-logos in your sig line?
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
You've never seen herpesface then, MG?
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Re: Age of Consent - correction
I think the key word here is consent.
Gauche
Arsehole Addict said:
I think the key word here is consent.
Gauche
SlickTony
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 25, 2002
- Posts
- 6,344
I think it's safe to say that the term "Lolita" for a sexually active, very young woman, especially one who draws an older man into a fatal liaison, has passed into the vernacular.
Besides that, there's Sting: ("Don't Stand So Close to Me")
...It's no use! He sees her!
He starts to shake and cough.
Just like the old man in that book by Nabokov!"
Just-Legal
Goth Flufflet
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2001
- Posts
- 4,075
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
Scene: Lister and Rimmer are marooned in a crashed ship in the middle of a snow blizzard on an ice planet.
Rimmer: What are you doing?
Lister: Burning the books. There's nothing left to burn.
Rimmer: You can't burn my books just to keep your mitts warm for another half hour. A book is a thing of beauty, of grace, of civilisation.
Lister (picking a book from the pile): Biggles Learns To Fly?
Rimmer: Okay, well maybe not that one, but you know what I mean.
Lister (picking another book): The Complete works of Shakespeare. This'll keep the fire going for a couple of hours.
Rimmer: You're seriously going to burn the last surviving copy of the greatest work in English literature. That's it is it? Goodbye Macbeth. Toodle-pip King Lear. Aurevoir Richard the Third.
Lister: Have you ever actually read it?
Rimmer: I...I've seen West Side Story, that's based on one of them.
Lister: But have you ever actually read any of it?
Rimmer: Not all the way through. But I can quote some.
Lister: Go on then.
Rimmer (hunches himself into a hunchback, dragging one arm and one leg): Now.... [standing up] That's all I can remember.
Lister: What's that from then?
Rimmer: Richard the Third you gimboid. That magnificient 'Now' speech: 'Now, something, something, something.' Ah, brilliant. Unforgettable.
Lister: Well I'll save that one till last then. [Picks up another book] Lolita? Is it all right if I burn Lolita?
Rimmer (leaning over his shoulder): Save page 61. [waits until Lister turns to the page and points] That bit.
Lister: That's disgusting. [rips out page, tucks it into his coat pocket and throws the rest of the book on the fire]
Rimmer: What are you doing?
Lister: Burning the books. There's nothing left to burn.
Rimmer: You can't burn my books just to keep your mitts warm for another half hour. A book is a thing of beauty, of grace, of civilisation.
Lister (picking a book from the pile): Biggles Learns To Fly?
Rimmer: Okay, well maybe not that one, but you know what I mean.
Lister (picking another book): The Complete works of Shakespeare. This'll keep the fire going for a couple of hours.
Rimmer: You're seriously going to burn the last surviving copy of the greatest work in English literature. That's it is it? Goodbye Macbeth. Toodle-pip King Lear. Aurevoir Richard the Third.
Lister: Have you ever actually read it?
Rimmer: I...I've seen West Side Story, that's based on one of them.
Lister: But have you ever actually read any of it?
Rimmer: Not all the way through. But I can quote some.
Lister: Go on then.
Rimmer (hunches himself into a hunchback, dragging one arm and one leg): Now.... [standing up] That's all I can remember.
Lister: What's that from then?
Rimmer: Richard the Third you gimboid. That magnificient 'Now' speech: 'Now, something, something, something.' Ah, brilliant. Unforgettable.
Lister: Well I'll save that one till last then. [Picks up another book] Lolita? Is it all right if I burn Lolita?
Rimmer (leaning over his shoulder): Save page 61. [waits until Lister turns to the page and points] That bit.
Lister: That's disgusting. [rips out page, tucks it into his coat pocket and throws the rest of the book on the fire]
Un-registered
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Posts
- 457
Re: 0.5 + 7
* Except if both were born on 29th February in which case it really goes doolally.
You, of all people, as a Math Girl should realise that's a formula for disaster. Marrying a person who fits that formula guarantees that the marriage will fail, because twenty-four months later (at most*) the formula will no longer be true, even allowing diophantines!MathGirl said:
* Except if both were born on 29th February in which case it really goes doolally.
psiberzerker
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,093
MIght as well through my two bits in...
I'm not a big fan of pedorasto, but then, I'm a bit prejudiced. A pre-sexualized child will never have a normal sexuality without more treatment than is good for someone that young. As to when they're too young...
Alright, the first thing I'd like to point out is that everyone is an individual. The point's been made, but I'll beat it a little more. I'd like to start with physical maturity, because it just doesn't make sense if they haven't had their menarche yet. (Not to be sexist, girls just tend to start first.)
That said, I'd like to give the little buggers a while to get used to the whole sexuality thing, you know, whatever they can figure out on their own. Most girls start dropping eggs around eleven, so a couple years makes it thirteen before they're even too big to throw back. A couple more evens it out to fifteen.
This is when we get back to individuality. I personally mastrubated long before my innocence was lifted, but the devout often have problems with such things. If they're catholic, or otherwize pudish, I'd tack on a few more just to be sure.
Just to be on the safe side, I'd err on the side of caution. If there is any doubt that the child isn't ready, protect their purity at all costs. After that, I use the BDSM tempo. Start softer than soft, build slower than slow. I know, you're all hot, and bothered, but you've got plenty of time.
One of the things that pre-sexualization ruins is the little baby steps. If you go straight from virginity to coitus then you miss out on a lot of stuff that ain't as all fired fun once you've moved on to the main course.
I'm not a big fan of pedorasto, but then, I'm a bit prejudiced. A pre-sexualized child will never have a normal sexuality without more treatment than is good for someone that young. As to when they're too young...
Alright, the first thing I'd like to point out is that everyone is an individual. The point's been made, but I'll beat it a little more. I'd like to start with physical maturity, because it just doesn't make sense if they haven't had their menarche yet. (Not to be sexist, girls just tend to start first.)
That said, I'd like to give the little buggers a while to get used to the whole sexuality thing, you know, whatever they can figure out on their own. Most girls start dropping eggs around eleven, so a couple years makes it thirteen before they're even too big to throw back. A couple more evens it out to fifteen.
This is when we get back to individuality. I personally mastrubated long before my innocence was lifted, but the devout often have problems with such things. If they're catholic, or otherwize pudish, I'd tack on a few more just to be sure.
Just to be on the safe side, I'd err on the side of caution. If there is any doubt that the child isn't ready, protect their purity at all costs. After that, I use the BDSM tempo. Start softer than soft, build slower than slow. I know, you're all hot, and bothered, but you've got plenty of time.
One of the things that pre-sexualization ruins is the little baby steps. If you go straight from virginity to coitus then you miss out on a lot of stuff that ain't as all fired fun once you've moved on to the main course.
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
So many things to comment on and so little time left in the window while our firewall is down.
To answer the outright question, no I don't think that a sexual relationship between an 18 yo and a 14 yo is inherently a bad or hurtful thing. It depends on the circumstances. I very much agree with psiberserker that the individuals are the issue.
However, it's difficult to craft the laws to accommodate all individual cases. If I were going to craft Competent Consent Laws for Individuals Below the Age of Majority these are the things I would consider:
Physical maturity --- anyone who hasn't pubed is a child. Period. I don't care how mature a 9yo is. No menarche? No sex. ***see note below***
Parental Acknowledgement --- if you aren't mature enough to tell your parents you're having sex then you likely aren't mature enough to have sex. Also, the very young need someone experienced enough to guide them through things like birth control and protection against STDs not to mention the stresses involved in sexual relationships.
Balance of Power --- things don't have to be completely equal, but they'd better be damn close. The minute somebody doesn't have the option to say no is the minute it is no longer consentual.
I know some of the above is pretty subjective. I'm also aware that stipulating the involvement of the parents would be a no-go for a lot of people, but I think it's far better to put a 14yo's sexuality in the hands of his parents than in the hands of the state.
***Note***
I consider those sexually attracted to pre-pubescents to be pederasts. They are attracted specifically because the child exhibits no secondary sexual characteristics. An 80yo man who likes 15yo girls isn't a pederast regardless of the fact that they are legally children.
This is why I believe that the Age of Consent laws are actually harmful to the young in a lot of ways. To insist that there is no difference between a 5yo and a 17yo is assinine.
To answer the outright question, no I don't think that a sexual relationship between an 18 yo and a 14 yo is inherently a bad or hurtful thing. It depends on the circumstances. I very much agree with psiberserker that the individuals are the issue.
However, it's difficult to craft the laws to accommodate all individual cases. If I were going to craft Competent Consent Laws for Individuals Below the Age of Majority these are the things I would consider:
Physical maturity --- anyone who hasn't pubed is a child. Period. I don't care how mature a 9yo is. No menarche? No sex. ***see note below***
Parental Acknowledgement --- if you aren't mature enough to tell your parents you're having sex then you likely aren't mature enough to have sex. Also, the very young need someone experienced enough to guide them through things like birth control and protection against STDs not to mention the stresses involved in sexual relationships.
Balance of Power --- things don't have to be completely equal, but they'd better be damn close. The minute somebody doesn't have the option to say no is the minute it is no longer consentual.
I know some of the above is pretty subjective. I'm also aware that stipulating the involvement of the parents would be a no-go for a lot of people, but I think it's far better to put a 14yo's sexuality in the hands of his parents than in the hands of the state.
***Note***
I consider those sexually attracted to pre-pubescents to be pederasts. They are attracted specifically because the child exhibits no secondary sexual characteristics. An 80yo man who likes 15yo girls isn't a pederast regardless of the fact that they are legally children.
This is why I believe that the Age of Consent laws are actually harmful to the young in a lot of ways. To insist that there is no difference between a 5yo and a 17yo is assinine.
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
Another thing I want to commend psiberserker on is acknowledging the power that very little sexual contact can have on the uninitiated --- and how precious and fleeting those feelings are.
I remember being so excited by just sitting next to the object of my childhood crush that I thougt I'd pass out. Holding hands was a huge deal. I can still get a rush thinking about how it felt to brush against a crush backstage in a student performance. Small, nearly insignificant touches that nearly set my skin on fire at the time.
Now I still like and can appreciate those things, but I don't get the same thrill or satisfaction. The very idea that just making out --- not heavy petting or even "first base" --- could be a stunning end to the evening is almost totally beyond me now.
A little pleasure can go a long way when you're new to things. It's a shame to rush through those experiences because you really can't get them back.
I remember being so excited by just sitting next to the object of my childhood crush that I thougt I'd pass out. Holding hands was a huge deal. I can still get a rush thinking about how it felt to brush against a crush backstage in a student performance. Small, nearly insignificant touches that nearly set my skin on fire at the time.
Now I still like and can appreciate those things, but I don't get the same thrill or satisfaction. The very idea that just making out --- not heavy petting or even "first base" --- could be a stunning end to the evening is almost totally beyond me now.
A little pleasure can go a long way when you're new to things. It's a shame to rush through those experiences because you really can't get them back.
When I see a pretty girl who's younger (like, so young that I'm invisible to her) I don't usually see myself romancing her, I imagine myself at that age talking to her. I don't think it's too smart for a 30 year old guy to be chatting up a high-school sophmore (or moral, or, in most states legal) but a guy my age can at least admire a pretty girl, even if she is a bit on the young side.
A word that was used that got my attention was "presexualized". Boys and girls all reach sexual self-awareness at different ages, part of the reason adolescence is such a horror show, and that's why there's some argument over what the age of consent should be. I had friends who were 16 and mature adults, I have friends who are 31 and still need help crossing the street.
I think the age of consent is often in the eye of the beholder. Sure, I could have a meaningful relationship with a gorgeous teenage girl, I'm a considerate, intelligent adult, sure. When I become the father of a teenage girl, I think my opinions will change, to something along the lines of, "Touch my daughter and your family will be able to bury you in a teacup."
A word that was used that got my attention was "presexualized". Boys and girls all reach sexual self-awareness at different ages, part of the reason adolescence is such a horror show, and that's why there's some argument over what the age of consent should be. I had friends who were 16 and mature adults, I have friends who are 31 and still need help crossing the street.
I think the age of consent is often in the eye of the beholder. Sure, I could have a meaningful relationship with a gorgeous teenage girl, I'm a considerate, intelligent adult, sure. When I become the father of a teenage girl, I think my opinions will change, to something along the lines of, "Touch my daughter and your family will be able to bury you in a teacup."
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
That's the beauty about being a 26-year-old in Sweden.
Not only is age much less of an issue here than in the states, but also, I'm in that glorious age when it's neither a compliment nor an insult if someone can't tell how old I am.
Not only is age much less of an issue here than in the states, but also, I'm in that glorious age when it's neither a compliment nor an insult if someone can't tell how old I am.
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
MathGirl said:
Ha! If average ten year olds had a body like you, the entire male part of the world's population would be paedophiles...
Similar threads
- Locked
