Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Opinions Regarding Age of Consent
I’ve spoken about age of consent many times over the years, but never actually wrote an article about it. When I say “age of consent,” I mean the minimum age at which sex becomes governmentally legal for a teenager or young adult. There are huge and radical differences around the world regarding what the age of consent should be. As I’ve said many times, cultural Societal Programming is the strongest type of Societal Programming there is. This means that these differences in age of consent laws are an emotional hot button for a lot of people. Just read the comments below on this article and you'll see.
-By Caleb Jones
If you’re from Europe, you probably think having an age of consent as high as 18 is insane, and are astounded at those silly Americans who think it’s somehow wrong or evil or disgusting for a 17 year-old girl to have consensual sex with an older guy.Going even further, in parts of Central and South America, as well as Asia, the age of consent is 14, which is considered no big deal at all. Who is right? Who is wrong? Is there even a “right” answer? I shall do my best to analyze as rationally as possible, ignoring all Societal Programming as usual and only focusing on the facts.
Determining A Rational Age of Consent Should there be age of consent laws? Yes. Clearly an eight year-old can’t make the decision on whether or not to have sex with an adult, and any adult taking advantage of that should be punished by the law. Therefore, regardless of my minarchist libertarian political beliefs, I think age of consent laws are needed. (Though again, as a libertarian, I would want those laws implemented only by a government that was small, local, and decentralized, but that's a discussion for a different blog.)
The next question, and the more complicated one, is what this age of consent should be. Clearly an eight year-old can’t consent, but can a 14 year-old? A 17 year-old? A 22 year-old? The rationale used by people who are for higher age of consent ranges (age 18 or above, and yes, there are people who think the age of consent should be higher than 18) is that teenagers can’t consent, since they aren’t yet fully formed adults, and don’t yet have full decision-making capacities of such.
The problem is those pesky facts. You want age of consent to be 18. Okay, but is an 18 year-old’s brain fully formed? Nope. Not even close. The human brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25.Therefore, saying a woman (and I’ll use a younger woman example for the rest of this article since that’s what presses people’s hot buttons the most) cannot consent to sex at age 17 but can at age 18 makes absolutely no sense in terms of the science or the biology. It also doesn’t make sense if you say she can’t consent at age 14 but can at 15. In all of those cases, you’re talking about a person who can’t consent, by your logic, until age 25.Therefore, to be logically consistent, age of consent, indeed age of adulthood in all things (drinking, smoking, going to war, driving, voting, signing contracts, etc) should only be for people age 25 and above.
The problem with that is obvious. We can’t even enforce an age of consent at age 18 or alcohol consumption at age 21. Most of the population these days has sex way before they hit 18 and drink alcohol (or smoke cigarettes, or do drugs) way before age 21, and often do both of these things to excess. It would be a logistical nightmare to raise the legal minimum age of all this to 25. As logical as it is, no society could handle that.
1. The “too young to understand / consent” argument can not be used as a sole basis for determining age of consent, since any age under age 25 falls into this category. It can be a factor, but it can’t be the sole basis. Again, I think we all agree that eight year-olds can’t consent, since they’re literally children who have not gone through puberty yet, but if you say that 17 year-old's can’t but 18 year-old's can, you’re just pulling random numbers out of your ass. This leads to the second item:
2. Any age you choose for age of consent between an obviously prepubescent age (like age ten) and age 25 is totally arbitrary, and one you’re just picking purely based on your emotions and Societal Programming, not anything objective. That means that in debates between age of consent being 15 or 18 (for example), both sides are objectively wrong, since both of these ages are:
A. Well past puberty
B. Regarding humans who are fully sexually developed, can clearly have sex and procreate
C. Regarding humans who lack fully developed adult brains and full adult reasoning capacity. It doesn’t matter how strongly you feel about what age of consent should be, or what the “appropriate” age teenagers should have sex, and with other teenagers or adults… it’s all arbitrary. And by the way, this applies to me as well. There are many people who think that age of consent should be literally when a person goes through puberty, of which is around age 12 or 13. I see the logic in this viewpoint, but I have to admit that I feel very queasy about the idea of someone having sex with a 13 year-old or 14 year-old, even if he/she is fully done with puberty and even if the sex is 100% consensual. But I’m rational and self-aware enough to realize this is strictly own feelings and cultural Societal Programming talking, not any objective, scientific analysis.
Another issue is that a huge amount of people under the age of consent are already having sex. And not just having sex, but having a lot of sex. In my past, I’ve had sex with 18 year-old’s who were shockingly sexually experienced, knowing how to do literally everything and do it well. Why? Because before she was 18 when I met her, she had already had sex with 10 or 20 other men! Choosing an age of consent that is well after most teenagers start having consensual sex (and enjoying it) makes literally no sense.
On the flip side, we also have to address the issue of pregnancy and STD’s. If you live in a largely free, secular, left-wing society like (today’s USA, Canada, Europe, etc) and then you start legally encouraging 13 and 14 year-old's to have sex, you’re going to end up with a decent amount of babies that society doesn’t want and can’t afford. STD’s may also be an issue too.Therefore, there are indeed some objective and rational arguments to keep the age of consent a little higher than “as soon as she starts her period” or "as soon as he gets his pubes." Again though, what age is best? Now we’re back to arbitrary, emotional standards. What The Hell Should It Be Then?
Based on all of the above data, I don’t know what the ideal age of consent should be, and I don’t think anyone else does either. Regardless, I will give you my opinion on what I think the least-bad answer. This is just my opinion; I don’t have all the answers on this. I have always said that the age of consent should be 16, and I’ve been saying this for at least 25 years, all the way back to when I was a teenager myself. In addition, I think that in the modern age, age of full legal adulthood should also be age 16, meaning that as soon as you turn 16, you can legally:
Have sex Get married (I’m against traditional marriage, but that’s another story) Fight in a war Own your own bank accounts Sign contracts Vote (I’m against the entire concept of democracy, but that’s another story) Drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, do drugs Be completely and legally emancipated from your parents
Obviously you can’t limit all these things until the brain fully matures at age 25, which means, at least to me, that you need to go the other route and go as low as possible on the age. I’m concerned that having a bunch of 13 and 14 year-olds having sex, driving cars, getting married, etc, would cause a lot of problems, so those ages are out. Age 15 is a grey area; I suppose I could be persuaded to make age of consent/adulthood age 15 instead of 16, but I think 16 clears enough problems, especially with the next aspect of my opinion, which is...
Make age of consent (and adulthood) 16, but change the way violators are punished. Right now, in sexually uptight countries like the US and Canada, if someone has consensual sex with someone even one day before they turn age of consent, that person can be (and sometimes is) immediately thrown in prison and branded as a sex offender for the rest of his/her life. I’ve documented many cases of this on this very blog, including this one. This is insane overkill and makes absolutely no sense. No rational person can defend this practice. Seriously; I'd like to see you try.
For example, if 16 is age of consent, 16 year-olds can have consensual sex with any other persons they want as long as they too are age 16 or over, regardless if that person is 18 or 72, and regardless of which gender the younger person is. If an older person has consensual sex with a 15 year-old, it’s a misdemeanor and you pay a $500 fine or something like that. If the younger person is 14, the fine goes up to $15,000 (or something like that). If 13, now it’s getting very serious; it’s a class C felony where you’re on probation for two years, plus fines, and the felony crime goes on your record. If 12 or under, now you’re a fucking sex offender for life and you’re off to prison.
Don’t get hung up on the exact ages or punishments; I’m just giving you an example for illustration purposes. A tiered system like this makes much more rational sense than throwing a 22 year-old woman in prison and branding her a lifetime sex offender just because she has consensual sex with a guy four days before his 18th birthday.
I would also include into the age of consent law that age of consent minimums do not apply if you have power over the younger person. If you were that person’s teacher, coach, or boss at work, you could indeed be prosecuted for having consensual sex with a “minor” even if the minor was at or slightly over the age of consent. I think that’s fair. But, outside of that, there would be no other restrictions on this. That means if a 52 year-old guy does daygame at a mall and picks up a cute 16 year-old girl and they have consensual sex, it’s perfectly legal and there’s nothing anyone can do about it from a legal or government standpoint.
Therefore, my stance boils down to:
1. As long as you’re talking about post-pubescent people, you can’t use the “too young to give consent” argument, because biologically, you could make that argument for anyone under the age of 25 (since the brain doesn’t fully develop until then).
2. On the flip side, I don’t agree with the “as soon as she bleeds she’s legal” argument either, because I think that would cause a lot of chaos in society with STD’s, babies, stupid marriages, rampant divorces, and so on. I realize that’s how they did it in the middle ages or 1800's, but as I so often have to remind right-wing conservatives, we aren’t in the 1800's anymore.
3. Most teenagers are already having sex before the legal age of consent, making your age of consent stupid and irrelevant.
4. As usual, your feelings regarding this issue don’t matter. Your cultural Societal Programming also doesn’t matter (and is usually false anyway). You should make these kinds of decisions based on facts, not feelings, and not how your culture happens to do it. (Your culture is probably wrong anyway.)
5. I think age 16 (or maybe 15) is a good compromise given all these factors, particularly if you have punishments for violations on a sliding scale. If you have a better system for handling age of consent, please let me know in the comments. I’m willing to have my mind changed on this if I see any compelling arguments.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
SmileV 2018-01-08 05:42:14
Interesting post. I am from Europe, and indeed, I think 18 is too high. Me and my brother are from Baltics and our mom had us quite young (me when she was 18, and my brother when she was 20). We never really thought about it, until a couple of years ago we realized through simple math that when mom and dad met, he was 28 and she was... 16. Luckily, age of consent in Latvia and Lithuania is 16 (in Estonia it is 14). Considering they were married for 15 years and had two healthy kids, I think it worked out fine for society.
Tom 2018-01-08 06:13:05
BD, great article, especially in these times of me too, please comment on R. Polanski ,keep up the good work, all the best for 2018, Tom H.
prepped 2018-01-08 06:53:26
Nature and religion have already provided the answer, put as follows. If it bleeds, it breeds.
hollywood 2018-01-08 07:02:35
I imagine, just as you said, this will result in a bit of controversy eventually here in the comments. Logic will be hurled out the window. A side note. I sometimes stun friends with a little tidbit of information about myself. I have been with a 14 year old. Usually shock is displayed instantly on their face. This is not a lie, it is 100% fact. However I had just turned 17 years old and she was a month or two away from turning 15. I was with her for quite some time, we had lost our virginity to each other, and as compared to most of my sexual experience since then, she was highly sexual, perhaps moreso than almost any woman I've been with since. She was extremely horny and very much a woman at age 14. However someone only a year older than me would have been thrown in jail and tarnished for life for it in most places in the US. (Just as a side note, her parents were ok with the situation and age 16 is the age of consent in my area, and we even accept consent for 14 year olds, granted the person is no more than 5 years older, so 19 and 14 is allowed).
CrabRangoon 2018-01-08 08:44:45
It'll never change in this odd juxtaposition of puritanism in regards to hetero sex and progressiveness in the US. This country is bipolar when it comes to sex. We're in this weird time where trannys make the cover of Time but your labeled a predator is you date girls way younger. I'm 4o and get the sneers and boos if I hook up with girls in their 20's since that's not "age appropriate" in society's eyes. Oh but let us not forget if a "cougar" woman hooks up with a much younger man, she's empowered and strong. To quote the Joker, "it's a funny world we live in..."
Oden 2018-01-08 09:32:14
BD, great article, especially in these times of me tooI was wondering if you wrote an article about the #metoo. Are you ever worried some girl will come after you in the future? Im so confused about this phenomenon. Is it only for the rich and famous or are regular guys a target too? I would like to hear especially your opinion on all of this
Noname 2018-01-08 09:47:49
Always interesting and sort of hilariously entertaining how people from the unUnited States of Corruption, Injustice and overall Hypocrisy deal with controversial opinions. My usual general reaction is just *TRIPLE FACEPALM* This one is of course quite hopeful since apparently there are at least some Americans who are not completely insane. 🙂 Having read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent additionally I find it interesting in a similar fashion, that seemingly nobody ever and anywhere in the world really gave a shit about this until the first feministic movements started. And they even used kind of the same tactics back then. I always wanted to migrate to the USA when I was young. I am so glad now, that I never did... 😀 Cheers
Kirth 2018-01-08 11:07:10
In England and Wales the age of consent is 16 (unless the other party is in a position of authority over him/her, in which case the age is 18). However, the absolute age of consent is actually 13. Any sex with someone under the age of 13 is automatically an offence. If one partner is over 13 but under 16, while the other is over, it gets more nuanced. Whether a conviction is in order, and the strength of the sentence, depends on many things. A legitimate defence might be that he reasonably believed she was over sixteen, their respective maturity, or that there was a small age gap between the partners. This all seems pretty reasonable. An immature 17 year old is unlikely to be convicted for sex with a mature 14 year-old for example. A 50 year old who slept with someone 15 years old who he met in a nightclub (have to be 18 to get in) who claimed to be 17, looked 17 and acted 17, would also be unlikely to be convicted. Depends on the judge I guess, but at least they get some leeway to use common sense. I think you are right when you say that people's attitudes to all this tend to be determined by the law as it stands. However, I was surprised a few years back. I was giving English lessons to a group of middle-aged Swedish women. The age of consent there is 15. One of the women had a 14 year old daughter whose boyfriend was 18. They went to the same school. He came over to stay one night and she let them sleep together in her bedroom. She wanted to know if everyone else thought that was OK, given that it was technically illegal and Swedes are generally real sticklers for legal rules. Everyone agreed that it was fine anyway. I think I would have to agree. I would prefer my slightly underage daughter to have her first sexual experiences comfortably with her boyfriend in my home, where she is safe, rather than in the back of a car.
Blackdragon 2018-01-08 11:36:19
please comment on R. PolanskiHe is a disgusting child rapist and the support he gets in left-wing Hollywood circles is equally disgusting. But the Polanski thing is not an issue of age of consent; that's an issue of rape. Same with Kevin Spacey; that was about attempted rape; it was not about age of consent. People in the US often conflate these two completely separate issues (forcible rape and age of consent). I think one of the reasons for this is that we call it statutory "rape," which of course is not rape if it was consensual. As usual, thank America's right-wing, puritanical views about sex. Stupid.
Nature and religion have already provided the answer, put as follows. If it bleeds, it breeds.Nature doesn't take into account modern day realities such as welfare, STD's, and child support. And religion is bullshit.
This country is bipolar when it comes to sex.That's a good way of putting it.
I was wondering if you wrote an article about the #metoo.https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/10/23/celebrity-sexual-harassment-dark-cultural-changefor-men/ https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/04/20/bill-oreilly-harassment/
Are you ever worried some girl will come after you in the future? Im so confused about this phenomenon. Is it only for the rich and famous or are regular guys a target too? I would like to hear especially your opinion on all of thisIf you don't date women at your work and follow all the parameters I listed here, it's a 2% Rule thing and you never need to worry about it. It is only when men fail to do those things do they get into a risky zone well outside the 2% Rule.
John Smith 2018-01-08 11:39:04
I think this sounds like a reasonable approach to dealing with the age of consent. As a side note, it's kind of funny (and sad) the way liberals and conservative overact to to sex. Gay Marriage Liberal: What consenting adults do together is no one's business by their own. The government should stay out of the bedroom Conservative: It's an abomination and legalizing it will create a slippery slope to accepting things like pedophilia and bestiality Sex between young adults and older adults Liberal: the age/life experience difference makes it inherently predatory even if both are consenting adults and should be illegal. (what happened to the government staying out of the bedroom?) Conservative: Roy Moore was just attracted to the purity of these young women and teenage girls should consider themselves lucky to have a relationship with a respectable, older, Christian man like Roy Moore and we wouldn't have Jesus if God hadn't knocked up Mary when she was like 13 or something (is this the slippery slope to accepting pedophilia* you guys were so afraid of with gay marriage?) *I realize that's not technically pedophilia, but I believe 15 was under the age of consent in Roy's state and remember hearing something about him and a 14 year old too but never looked into the details.
Blackdragon 2018-01-08 11:54:36
One of the women had a 14 year old daughter whose boyfriend was 18. They went to the same school. He came over to stay one night and she let them sleep together in her bedroom. She wanted to know if everyone else thought that was OK, given that it was technically illegal and Swedes are generally real sticklers for legal rules. Everyone agreed that it was fine anyway.Isn't it fascinating how different cultures can be so radically different about this? I still think 14 is too young, but regardless, can you imagine anything happening like this in America? If it did, the 18 year-old would be thrown in jail, the mom would be thrown in jail (and perhaps have her daughter take away from her), and the daughter would be subjected to some kind of long-term "rape" counseling. Compare that to your country where everyone just shrugged and said, "sure, it's fine" and moved on.
what happened to the government staying out of the bedroom?Exactly. Left-wingers, just like right-wingers, will instantly toss their ideology out the window if they feel it can help them elect some corporatist politician on their "team." In other words, they have no real ideology, they're just playing a game.
Oden 2018-01-08 12:21:20
Wow, that is the first time hearing the audio of Harvey.
hollywood 2018-01-08 13:29:04
Isn’t it fascinating how different cultures can be so radically different about this? I still think 14 is too young, but regardless, can you imagine anything happening like this in America? If it did, the 18 year-old would be thrown in jail, the mom would be thrown in jail (and perhaps have her daughter take away from her), and the daughter would be subjected to some kind of long-term “rape” counseling. Compare that to your country where everyone just shrugged and said, “sure, it’s fine” and moved on.Actually right here in the good ol USA, because of states rights, the state I live in permits a 14 year old and a 19 year old, but that's the limit. Equally, a 15 and 20 year old is legal as well. 16+ is legal age of consent for any age partner in this state.
Duke 2018-01-08 13:43:02
The rational used by people who are for higher age of consent ranges (age 18 or above, and yes, there are people who think the age of consent should be higher than 18) is that teenagers can’t consent, since they aren’t yet fully formed adults, and don’t yet have full decision-making capacities of such.Typo. should be rationale
Blackdragon 2018-01-08 13:50:32
Actually right here in the good ol USA, because of states rights, the state I live in permits a 14 year old and a 19 year old, but that’s the limit. Equally, a 15 and 20 year old is legal as well. 16+ is legal age of consent for any age partner in this state.Yes but you're just talking about the law on the books, not American anti-sex culture. In other words, if you're a a guy in his 30's or 40's (or beyond) and you start going around banging multiple 16 year-old girls in a US state where it's legal, you're still going to be in for all kinds of problems, including legal ones. Their parents / friends / family will freak out and will get you slapped all kinds of stuff like "endangerment of a minor" and even kidnapping, and the court system will gleefully go along with it. It happens all the time. I don't want to have sex with 16 year-old's so I don't care (shit, forget about under age 18, women under 23 are a pain in my ass) but I semi-regularly get emails from older American guys wanting to go as low as 17 and 16 where it's legal, and I usually tell them it's not a good idea, regardless of what the law says. Even having consensual sex with a 18 or 19 year-old in the USA introduces some risk if you're significantly older.
hilsey 2018-01-08 14:24:02
Current US age of consent law is very much SP. I read a book on the movement to raise the age that high...Delinquent Daughters by Mary E. Odem. Besides learning that my state had an age of consent of only 7...a lot of the ppl who were punished under the new 16-18 age of consent law were teenaged boys a couple years older than their girlfriends. The powers that be at the time didn't like the freedom city girls were having--away from the country, earning their own money, and dating 17-19 year olds. The boys were jailed for dating girls. Basically, teen sex is scary. Those laws are less about protecting and more about controlling teenagers since day 1.
bryan bolo 2018-01-08 15:18:10
On the flip side, I don’t agree with the “as soon as she bleeds she’s legal” argument either, because I think that would cause a lot of chaos in society with STD’s, babies, stupid marriages, rampant divorces, and so on.I agree that STDs and babies could be a problem. However a country could always legalize sex with someone who has gone though puberty. But make impregnating someone under 16 or giving them an STD a harshly punished crime. We already have stupid marriages and rampant divorces due to 18 year olds being able to marry. Yet I don't see anyone advocating raising the legal age of marriage because of that. Personally I think it's logical to have higher legal ages for more dangerous activities such as smoking or joining the military. But allow lower ages for less dangerous activities drinking a beer or having protected sex. Also I have to commend you for picking that photo for this blog post! It's hilariously inflammatory! lmao!
jack 2018-01-08 15:22:51
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and claim that the most rational system is indeed a system which does not have any age of consent whatsoever. Before that though I'll point out that your 2 and 3 are obviously contrary to one another. Because of #3, that's why #2 is stupid and pointless. The problem is, there are effectively ZERO teenagers who refrain from having sex because it is illegal, or out of fear of legal consequences. That's just not how it works. Unwanted pregnancies and STD's will not rise if you lower the age, because they were already doing it. The only difference would be fewer insane jail sentences and lives ruined. The law currently is protecting literally nobody. However, you MIGHT be able to lower those rates, because if we were working with reality as a society instead of attempting to repulse it, then we would be in a position to offer meaningful education to those teens. The only rational way of handling this is nothing other than consent vs. non-consent. The problem is that we have defined sex as literally equal to abuse, based on an age. How old you are is the definition of sexual abuse. This is beyond absurd. There is nothing _intrinsically_ abusive about sex, no matter the age difference. There is absolutely no reason why we can't determine abuse with consent vs. nonconsent alone. If one of the people does not want to have sex, does not enjoy having sex, and another person is forcing them into it, that's abuse. If they want it and enjoy it, that's not abuse, and age is irrelevant. Personal safety is a personal responsibility, not the governments. It's unthinkable that we have countless numbers of cases where two perfectly happy individuals are enjoying a sexual relationship, and we storm in and throw one of them in jail for "abuse". Hell, we're even throwing kids in jail for photographing _themselves_ and calling that abuse. It's pure madness.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-01-08 16:19:17
Alright, I'll first give my uncompromising libertarian opinion, and then a compromised opinion that society may one day agree to. Libertarian Position: There needs to be a huge legal wall of separation between the physical and the psychological, and the government needs to stay exclusively on the physical side of that wall. Because of this, the government should only criminalize things which are physical threats to human free will, or things which offend or violate the human body, or private property. Of course, emotional devastation or trauma may be taken into account if such emotional pain is the result of a physical violation of human rights. But such emotional pain must only be a symptom of a physical violation, which may then increase the criminal's legal penalty, such as when the judge takes the emotional trauma of a family into account when passing sentence on a murderer. However, emotional injuries, which are NOT symptoms of human rights violations, must be recognized as being completely outside the purview of government, because there should be a legal wall of separation between the physical and the non-physical, with the State sticking exclusively to the physical side. On pedophilia: This all means that pedophilia can indeed, and should be, criminalized by government, because if a child is a "biological pre-sexual," any type of sexual interaction with the child is, by definition, a physical offense against the child's underdeveloped and pre-sexual biology. So laws against pedophilia - sexual activity with biological pre-sexuals - are indeed kosher in a libertarian society with a legal wall of separation between the physical and the psychological. Indeed, my only problem with the current laws against pedophilia are that they are too lenient. In my opinion, all pedophiles who act on their urges should be legally executed. All distribution, exhibition, or possession of child porn (involving biological pre-sexuals) should be punished with physical castration. On puberty: However, when a child hits puberty, becomes horny, starts masturbating, and develops visual and physical signs of biological fertility and a sexual orientation of their own, his or her biology and physical body becomes compatible with sexual activity. Thus, the legal age of consent should be puberty. "But, but, but, but.......emotions.........psychological maturity.....they are emotionally incapable of consenting......they're still children....a 12 year old is a child......" Ahem! Remember the legal wall of separation between the physical and the emotional? Two responses to this hysterical shrieking: 1. The government, in a libertarian society, must remain exclusively on the physical side of that wall. Emotions are subjective, individualistic, chaotic, and must be judged on a case by case basis. But the government cannot be that judge, because the government must be objective and treat everyone equally. But our emotions are not equal. In fact, every human being has emotional responses which are slightly to radically different from every other human being. An objective government, therefore, cannot delve into such subjective things without completely violating the principle of equality under the law that a just government must adhere to. Our physical bodies are equal. Our physical properties are equal. But our emotions and personalities are not equal. So if the government were to judge people based on causing emotional injuries to other people, every single person would be a different law unto themselves. It would be like giving a blank sheet of paper to every person and having them write their own different law upon it, which violates the principle of equal protection under the law. It would make every person a legal dictator, subject to nothing but their own emotional and subjective whims. That may even be fine for the culture and the social sphere, but it is unacceptable as far as a governmental aim. 2. A police officer cannot find any physical or forensic evidence of emotional injuries. Emotional injuries only exist because the person who has them says they exist. Emotions don't exist outside the realm of subjective experience. This means that, if a person says they were emotionally injured, the government would just have to take their word for it, which means that a person's verbal word would become infallible law, even if he's lying - which is the definition of a dictatorship (which is what social justice warriors wish to bring about). So no, emotional pain and psychological abuse are matters which the government has no claim to in a free libertarian society. Your feelings are your problem, not the government's. If the private sector and the larger culture wishes to make your emotions a larger societal issue (in the form of therapy, professional counseling, etc...), that's fine (and you extroverts and touchy feely types can have fun with that), but subjective issues, like feelings, have no existence for an objective government charged with legal equality. The age of consent should, therefore, be puberty, because trying to protect the psychological or emotional states of horny teenagers should not be done with physical force (i.e. government). Keep emotions and government forever separate!
Jack Outside the Box 2018-01-08 20:16:11
Okay, so in the debates I've had with several people over the years on this subject, a few have pointed out that not everyone goes through puberty at the same time. Some reach puberty at age 12 (like I did), whereas others (the so called "late bloomers") don't reach it until age 14, or even 15. But the law must treat everyone of the same age equally under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Different laws can't apply to different people of the same age. So in order to truly protect biological pre-sexuals from sexuality, these people argue, the law, just to be safe, needs to set the age of consent at something significantly higher than 12. Okay, so here is my compromised position, which hopefully society will accept one day. It's similar to BD's actually, with some slight differences. My Compromised Position: Make the legal age of consent 16 for adults age 18 or over and make it 12 for teenagers 17 or younger. So, any teenager, age 12-17, would be legally allowed to have sex with anyone who is also 12-17, with no legal problems. This would allow teenagers to make commonsense decisions based on who is pubescent and who still isn't within their respective peer groups. And if any pre-pubescent late bloomer comes to harm, there are always existing rape laws. Now, in terms of penalties, if anyone who is age 12-15 commits a sexual act with anyone who is 11 or younger, that teenager gets prison time, or perhaps castration (if appropriate). If any teenager age 16 and above does something sexual with an 11 year old or below, they should be executed. This should be the legal scheme for teenagers age 12-17. However, as soon as the teenager turns 18, the age of consent for them instantly becomes 16, unless they can prove a pre-existing sexual relationship with a 12, 13, 14, or 15 year old which began before the person turned 18. Then it should be fine. Barring that one exception, however, if you're 18 or over, 16 should be the legal age of consent for you. If you, as an 18 year old (or older), have sex with someone under 16 (and weren't having sex with them before you turned 18), BD's sliding scale of justice should apply. So, fucking a 15 year old = 1,000 dollar fine. 14 year old = 50,000 dollar fine or 6 months in prison 13 year old = 1-5 years in prison 12 year old = 10 years in prison 11 year old or under = death That should be the legal scheme for 18 year olds and older. That's my little compromise, which society might actually get behind one day (hopefully).
joelsuf 2018-01-08 20:19:36
Emotions are subjective, individualistic, chaotic, and must be judged on a case by case basis.Speaking of emotions, that was one of your least emotional comments, JOTB. I agree with your observation that lawmakers etc should separate the physical from the emotional. However, I do believe that most (current) consent laws are just another form of Rollo Tomassi's Feminine Imperative. Consider that no one would bat an eye at grown women who have sex with young boys. I'm firmly in the Trad-con/manosphere camp when they argue that there should be tighter consent laws for women and less consent laws for men. Women are much more manipulative than men nowadays and will use sex to get what they want. The reason why we see so many single mothers is because we have chicks in their late teens and 20s hooking up with guys 5+ years older than them, leaving them, then making the guys pay child support. They know exactly what they are doing. We don't see nearly as many men doing this kind of thing. If I were to make consent laws, they would mostly protect older men from girls trying to use them with sex. Here's how I would draw up the laws: Under 13 = Out of bounds age. Anyone caught having sex with anyone under 13 will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Automatic 3rd strike (see the end of my comment). Age 16 = General age of consent. Girls who are 16 can have sex with any boy or man under 25 but no one over 25. Boys who are 16 can have sex with anyone over 13. Homosexuals over 16 can have sex with any other homosexual over 16. Age 18 - 25 = Girls can have sex with any boy or man from 16-25 but no man over 25. Men can have sex with any girl or woman over 16. Over 25 = Anyone over 25 can have sex with anyone over 18. I would have a three strike rule for anyone who breaks these. And for the record, I'm in that "all people should be tried as adults no matter how young they are" camp. Juvy is a giant waste of state money and is a good way for gangs to form. Strike one = Misdemeanor, Mandatory weekly classes (education about protection, STDs, pregnancy, child rearing, child support) for 3 months. They'll take a test on the stuff they learned and if they do not do perfect, they must go for another 3 months, etc etc. Strike two = Class C Felony, 1 year probation, mandatory weekly classes, big fines and stuff. On house arrest for 3 months. Strike three = Registered Sex Offender.
Anon 2018-01-08 20:33:58
Clearly an eight year-old can’t make the decision on whether or not to *** with an adult, and any adult taking advantage of that should be punished by the law.BD, a glaring omission in most discussions of this kind, including yours, is failure to state what differentiates sex from other activities that could replace the *** in your quote. Let's be specific, for example, if someone convinces a child to perform a blowjob, what harm is caused to the child? How does this compare to, say, supplying the child with food that may or may not be enjoyable, may or may not be healthy, with varying degrees of coercion regarding consumption of said food?
Blackdragon 2018-01-08 20:42:39
I agree that STDs and babies could be a problem. However a country could always legalize sex with someone who has gone though puberty. But make impregnating someone under 16 or giving them an STD a harshly punished crime.Hm. That's actually a very good idea. Play around with younger women all you want, but if you start making unexpected babies with them that burden the welfare system, we nail your ass.
Also I have to commend you for picking that photo for this blog post! It’s hilariously inflammatory! lmao!Yep. Just a nice little poke. (Although over 60% of the internet reads at a 6th grade level, so a lot of people will have no idea what you're referring to.)
Unwanted pregnancies and STD’s will not rise if you lower the age, because they were already doing it.They will, because more stupid and/or traditional/right-wing people and/or areas of the country will think it's "great" when a 13 or 14 year get traditionally married and then have babies, which makes it "okay" with these idiots, as just one example. I have no idea how much this would increase things if you dropped the age of consent way down, but I know it would increase at least somewhat.
The only difference would be fewer insane jail sentences and lives ruined. The law currently is protecting literally nobody.Agree completely. 18 is way too high.
The problem is that we have defined sex as literally equal to abuse, based on an age. How old you are is the definition of sexual abuse. This is beyond absurd. There is nothing _intrinsically_ abusive about sex, no matter the age difference.Correct, and well stated.
The government, in a libertarian society, must remain exclusively on the physical side of that wall. Emotions are subjective, individualistic, chaotic, and must be judged on a case by case basis.Agree.
So, any teenager, age 12-17, would be legally allowed to have sex with anyone who is also 12-17, with no legal problems. This would allow teenagers to make commonsense decisions based on who is pubescent and who still isn’t within their respective peer groups. And if any pre-pubescent late bloomer comes to harm, there are always existing rape laws.Another interesting idea. I think I agree.
If any teenager age 16 and above does something sexual with an 11 year old or below, they should be executed.As a real libertarian, I'm against the death penalty. It was actually a few libertarians who shifted me to this position (I used to be pro-death penalty). Outside of that, yes, I'm for extremely brutal punishments for any adult who get sexual in any way with prepubescent children.
Blackdragon 2018-01-08 20:49:13
Let’s be specific, for example, if someone convinces a child to perform a blowjob, what harm is caused to the child?That's sexual molestation, which can and does leave all kinds of serious and long-term psychological scars. My dad is a psychologist; he's talked about this before (and he could give a more detailed answer than I could). This is different than letting your eight year-old eat Twinkies. A kid raised on a substandard diet (i.e. almost all Western children today) can overcome this later by correcting their diet. It's not easy but it can be done. Overcoming sexual molestation is much harder; just ask some victims of this and they'll tell you all about it.
Lovergirl 2018-01-08 21:06:16
There are girls that are capable of getting pregnant at 10 years old. I was 11 when I got my period, and definitely not ready to have sex. The problem with allowing children to “consent” is that consent is very hard to prove or disprove and those laws are there to protect young teens and children from being raped. They might not be able to prove rape from someone who is clearly manipulating and taking advantage of a child but they can prove statutory rape. Additionally, a 16 year old is still living in her parents home. It makes sense that the age of consent correspond to when a person becomes an adult, no longer under the authority of their parents. Parents should not have to allow things under their roof that they are not okay with and legally you can’t just kick out your under age 18 child. You’re responsible and if a teen can throw in their parents face that it is legal that just adds to the already steep problem of teenage rebellion and puts parents in a helpless position.
roger 2018-01-08 23:00:41
In my country New Zealand we have a 16 year old singer called Lorde, she had sex with a 26 year old man - NO ONE bats an eyelid. If it was a man, people would be in trees screaming. It's all down to who has power, if the woman has power - then she can do whatever the hell she wants!
Jack Outside the Box 2018-01-08 23:12:46
I almost forgot! Let's talk about child porn, baby! On child pornography: The current legal definition of "child pornography" is completely absurd. Watching two 17 year olds fucking on camera, or you, as an 18 year old, being in possession of a picture of your 17 year old girlfriend's naked body on your phone is "child porn." And the penalty is many years in a federal prison. That's insane. The legal term "child pornography" needs to be narrowed to encompass only biological pre-sexuals. Underage porn should have the designation "teenage porn," or something! Actual child pornography (involving biological pre-sexuals) should result in the death penalty for making or distributing it and castration for viewing or possessing it. By contrast, amateur teenage porn - on the teenager's own volition for their own personal entertainment, should be completely legalized, as long as the teenager isn't pre-pubescent. Making, the amateur teenage porn, distributing it, possessing it, AND watching it (regardless of how old the viewer is) should be completely legal. By contrast, professional porn within the porn industry, or other professional sex work, like prostitution, may be legally restricted to age 18! I cringe when I think of how many teenagers can go to federal prison today for "possession of child pornography" just for sexting naked pictures to other teenagers whom they're already having sex with anyway! And the Alt Right wants this puritanism to be strengthened! Fuck tradcons!
Magok 2018-01-09 00:03:47
I think that an age of consent at 18 is ok. It might be a conservative rule but it is aimed to protect the weaker individual in a relationship. Imagine a dude of 16 that is still in high school with a girl of 30 who's already working. Who has more power? Now add all the insecurities and shit that adolescents goes through and make the girl be a manipulative and violent piece of jerk. Please don't tell me that this case falls in the 2% rule. If you have an age of consent at 18 you give more power to the weaker individual. Probably is not a perfect law but is not a bad rule either.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-01-09 01:40:30
I think that an age of consent at 18 is ok. It might be a conservative rule but it is aimed to protect the weaker individual in a relationship.This makes no sense. No two people have identical emotional or psychological strength. This esoteric bullshit can't be measured. You're just spouting the mainstream social justice narrative.
Imagine a dude of 16 that is still in high school with a girl of 30 who’s already working.Lucky bastard! You mean, like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lx9RHo33tI
Who has more power?Who cares? Should it be illegal for a billionaire to sleep with a woman on welfare? Why does "power" matter? You REALLY need to drop that radical feminist line of irrelevant horseshit!
Now add all the insecurities and shit that adolescents goes throughLots of low self esteem adults go through insecurities as well. Your point?
and make the girl be a manipulative and violent piece of jerk.HAHA! Who talks like you? Are you a woman? Manipulative in what way? Violent? Now you're talking about an actual crime. That's a problem in adult relationships too. Should all heterosexual sex be criminalized?
Please don’t tell me that this case falls in the 2% rule.It doesn't matter. If a few people fuck up, that's no excuse to punish everyone else.
If you have an age of consent at 18 you give more power to the weaker individual. Probably is not a perfect law but is not a bad rule either.Power imbalances are what attract many women to many men. Most women prefer the man be taller, muscular, physically stronger, and many conservative women want a man they can look up to. Gold diggers on welfare want billionaires. College girls may want to fuck their professors. Many nurses choose doctors. Some secretaries choose their bosses. That's called female hypergamy, not rape. By trying to define female hypergamy as rape, what you're really targeting for destruction is female heterosexuality - the goal of the lesbian radical feminist. Most women aren't attracted to men who are equal to them in power. I'll ask again: Do you REALLY want to criminalize billionaires sleeping with women on welfare? Under your thinking, most, if not all, heterosexuality would be judged as rape. No thanks!
Jack Outside the Box 2018-01-09 02:47:37
However, I do believe that most (current) consent laws are just another form of Rollo Tomassi’s Feminine Imperative. Consider that no one would bat an eye at grown women who have sex with young boys.Correct. And that's good. That teenage boy was lucky. And I agree that the double standard is despicable, but most people want to abolish it the other way. I, on the other hand, want to abolish it by claiming that the 14 year old girl who seduced an adult man was lucky too.
I’m firmly in the Trad-con/manosphere camp when they argue that there should be tighter consent laws for women and less consent laws for men.Massively disagree! That would be slut shaming and VERY bad for us.
Women are much more manipulative than men nowadaysSo what? Are they violating men's free will?
and will use sex to get what they want.Not if the man doesn't allow it.
The reason why we see so many single mothers is because we have chicks in their late teens and 20s hooking up with guys 5+ years older than them,Good! I met my girlfriend when I was 28. She was 19. We started as fuck buddies. I am now 34 and she just turned 25 last December. Should I go to jail? Should she?
leaving them, then making the guys pay child support.Ahem! Well, if you're stupid enough to make a baby with an 18 year old.....
If I were to make consent laws, they would mostly protect older men from girls trying to use them with sex.So......when I was 28, you would cockblock me by putting my 19 year old fuck buddy in jail???? Dude, I WANT to be used for sex by hot high school seniors! Don't fuck this up for me! I got a good thing going!
Age 18 – 25 = Girls can have sex with any boy or man from 16-25 but no man over 25.So.....you'd put my 19 year old fuck buddy in jail and she'd never become my girlfriend! Remember, I was 28. Really? You'd fuck me up like that? What about my current brand new fuck buddy who's 18? I'm 34. You'd lock her up for molesting me? HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Dude, bros don't cockblock other bros, or something like that.
Men can have sex with any girl or woman over 16.How? As soon as I try, you'd lock her up! You're making no sense and you're being a prude.
Over 25 = Anyone over 25 can have sex with anyone over 18.So if I'm 34 and the girl is 24 and I want to fuck her brains out, I can't because she'll go to jail? Are you fucking kidding me, dude?
And for the record, I’m in that “all people should be tried as adults no matter how young they are” camp. Juvy is a giant waste of state money and is a good way for gangs to form.Agreed.
Strike one = Misdemeanor, Mandatory weekly classes (education about protection, STDs, pregnancy, child rearing, child support) for 3 months. They’ll take a test on the stuff they learned and if they do not do perfect, they must go for another 3 months, etc etc. Strike two = Class C Felony, 1 year probation, mandatory weekly classes, big fines and stuff. On house arrest for 3 months. Strike three = Registered Sex Offender.Under your prudish and insane scheme, my girlfriend would be a registered sex offender for a long time now. She was fucking 25 (and over) year old men when she was as young as 20. She even told me a story once about how she had a threesome with a father and son (age 39 and 19) when she was 19 (two weeks before she first met me)! You want to lock her up dude??? To all you prudes out there: At least leave two (or more) consenting adults alone! Sheesh!
Roberto 2018-01-09 02:57:05
In England and Wales the age of consent is 16 (unless the other party is in a position of authority over him/her, in which case the age is 18). However, the absolute age of consent is actually 13. Any sex with someone under the age of 13 is automatically an offence. If one partner is over 13 but under 16, while the other is over, it gets more nuanced. Whether a conviction is in order, and the strength of the sentence, depends on many things. A legitimate defence might be that he reasonably believed she was over sixteen, their respective maturity, or that there was a small age gap between the partners. This all seems pretty reasonable. An immature 17 year old is unlikely to be convicted for sex with a mature 14 year-old for example. A 50 year old who slept with someone 15 years old who he met in a nightclub (have to be 18 to get in) who claimed to be 17, looked 17 and acted 17, would also be unlikely to be convicted. Depends on the judge I guess, but at least they get some leeway to use common sense.I think a lot of this approach is sensible, in particular the distinction, if one party is under 18, between any older partner and the situation in which the older partner is some sort of position of authority over the other (teacher; sports coach; youth group leader; religious leader; employer; etc, etc). Also, the situation in which, say, a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old have sex does seem to me to different from the one in which, say, a 15-year-old and a 30-year-old have sex.
Elkay Mann 2018-01-09 03:09:01
As a real libertarian, I’m against the death penalty. It was actually a few libertarians who shifted me to this position (I used to be pro-death penalty).Could you mention who? I mean, if they share their ideas through blogs or videos. I still are pro-death penalty even if I identify myself as a libertarian. I think aberrant crimes where there is no reasonable doubt should be punished with the death penalty: it's cruel but psychology and science have already demonstrated they have no fucking idea how to "fix" that type of criminals and it's also cheaper than maintaining them.
jack 2018-01-09 04:32:43
Jack outside, your ideas about pre-biological sexuality are naive. Most girls begin masturbating _themselves_ starting even earlier than they are capable of remembering it. I have dated countless women who told me they began watching porn and masturbating and fantasizing about sexual encounters with the men around them at age 7 or 8. BD, the reason that _some_ girls report psychological trauma as the result of molestation, is either A. the molestation was unwanted, or B. Social programming. I'm not sure since you seem to be using the word molestation as encompassing any sexual activity with a pre-biological to borrow Jackinthebox's term. I would again think that word should be saved for _unwanted_ sexual attention. But yeah, that kid is growing up in a society that teachers him/her that all those pleasant experiences they had were disgusting and evil, because they are somehow "too young" to experience pleasure in that way? If not for SP, there is absolutely nothing differentiating the pleasure of sex and the pleasure of eating twinkies. It is the SP that psychologically scars, not the sexuality. We already put 17 year olds in prison for taking nude selfies, (abusing themselves). If prebiologicals are as you say they are jackinthebox, perhaps we should be incarcerating them for the psychological self abuse they will inevitably suffer as well when we catch them masturbating before they are deemed mentally ready for it. However I am surprised to say that I have to conced to what lovergirl says, that proving rape or nonconsent at those young ages is nearly impossible, and individuals have less and less power against adults the younger they become. I can see that the law exists because the protection of those who are actually being raped outweighs the protection of those who want to participate consensually. (although I still believe that probably, all the actual rapists out there are already raping in spite of the laws and passing laws doesn't reduce them, merely allows us to do something about it in the rare cases we actually catch them) But if we're talking strictly what makes logical rational sense, free of all SP, I believe my points stand.
FD 2018-01-09 05:21:46
Lots of good ideas there, and what you describe looks like the state of laws in France. Here, age of consent is 15, unless you are the teacher or boss or parent of the person. In that case, it is 18. If you fuck someone underage but they consented, it's not a rape, it's a sexual abuse ("only" 5 years in prison at most, vs 20 for a rape). It is currently discussed whether or not having sex with someone younger than 13 when you are above 18 should always be considered rape, no matter what. Fun fact : some people say that our current president, Macron, was fucked by his current wife while he was only 15 and she was her teacher, but they are probably lying, right?
Tom Hansen 2018-01-09 05:39:49
Hm, is the US legal system really that black/white on the age? Over here we have age of consent of 16, but with no legal actions if the involved are "equal in age and development".
Blackdragon 2018-01-09 10:53:14
a 16 year old is still living in her parents home. It makes sense that the age of consent correspond to when a person becomes an adult, no longer under the authority of their parents. Parents should not have to allow things under their roof that they are not okay with and legally you can’t just kick out your under age 18 child. You’re responsible and if a teen can throw in their parents face that it is legal that just adds to the already steep problem of teenage rebellion and puts parents in a helpless position.Absolutely correct. Age of consent and full adulthood should start at age 16. I have personally seen parents put up with all kinds of horrific hell from terrible 16 and 17 year-old's, due in part because the parents were terrified of kicking them out and being legally responsible for the damage the kids may do. Ridiculous! At age 16, that kid should be a full, legal adult, and you should be able to kick that little bitch/bastard out of your house with no legal ramifications if they're not behaving.
Imagine a dude of 16 that is still in high school with a girl of 30 who’s already working. Who has more power?That's his problem. It's not relevant to you or me or the law.
Now add all the insecurities and shit that adolescents goes through and make the girl be a manipulative and violent piece of jerk. Please don’t tell me that this case falls in the 2% rule.The purpose of laws are not to protect teenagers from feeling bad. They are to prevent crimes.
Probably is not a perfect law but is not a bad rule either.A rule that society agrees to follow because of culture is fine. A law where innocent people's lives are destroyed is not.
Could you mention who? I mean, if they share their ideas through blogs or videos.No one you'd know, though Vox Day (way back when he actually was a libertarian before he became alt-right) made some similar points back in the day, as did Penn Jillette. But this is off-topic so I'm not discussing it further (though you can).
BD, the reason that _some_ girls report psychological trauma as the result of molestationI'm talking about boys too.
is either A. the molestation was unwanted, or B. Social programming. I’m not sure since you seem to be using the word molestation as encompassing any sexual activity with a pre-biological to borrow Jackinthebox’s term. I would again think that word should be saved for _unwanted_ sexual attention.Dude, if a prepubescent eight year-old (boy or girl doesn't matter) actually wants sexual contact with someone else (same age or older person doesn't matter), there is something very wrong with that child and psychological damage/problems already exist. We have laws to protect retarded people in the same way; laws I agree with.
But yeah, that kid is growing up in a society that teachers him/her that all those pleasant experiences they had were disgusting and evil, because they are somehow “too young” to experience pleasure in that way? If not for SP, there is absolutely nothing differentiating the pleasure of sex and the pleasure of eating twinkies. It is the SP that psychologically scars, not the sexuality.I understand your point, but I don't know psychology well enough to know if you're correct, and I don't think you do either. Even if you're right (and I think you are not), today we don't live in Ancient Greece. We live in a modern, Western culture where SP clearly says having sex with prepubescent children is destructive (and it is), so my point stands.
Hm, is the US legal system really that black/white on the age?Yup.
Anon 2018-01-09 12:27:52
We live in a modern, Western culture where SP clearly says having sex with prepubescent children is destructive (and it is), so my point stands.Yes, the parenthesized part is a result of a self-fulfilling prophecy to a significant extent. But doesn't it boil down to the point you often repeat regarding older men and younger women---it's not creepy unless you make it creepy?
Blackdragon 2018-01-09 12:33:26
Yes, the parenthesized part is a result of a self-fulfilling prophecy to a significant extent.Not when talking about prepubescent children. But once again, I don't have enough physiological expertise to argue that point, and neither do you.
But doesn’t it boil down to the point you often repeat regarding older men and younger women—it’s not creepy unless you make it creepy?When talking about people whose bodies are capable of having sex, having babies, and biologically desire to have sex, yes. When talking about tiny children whose bodies can't/don't do any of those things, no.
Blackdragon 2018-01-09 14:10:12
Edit: "Tim / Lolita" - You're that same weirdo who was commenting above under a different name and IP address. Nice try and goodbye.
anon 2018-01-09 17:19:40
Dude, if a prepubescent eight year-old (boy or girl doesn’t matter) actually wants sexual contact with someone else (same age or older person doesn’t matter), there is something very wrong with that child and psychological damage/problems already exist.Umm, dude, no. You're normally so rational but where the hell is this nonsense coming from? It is _extremely_ common for kids to start developing sexual desires at this age. I have been an elementary school teacher, teaching English as a second language for over a decade. I learned a long time ago to never under any circumstances let on to the kids that I actually am fluent in their native tongue. I hear everything. These are my estimations: Ages 7-8: I'd say a minimum of 15-20% of kids this age have begun viewing porn on a regular basis. We actually had to suspend an 8 year old girl because she literally would not stop accessing it openly on her smart phone in the middle of class. Ages 9-10: huge jump. You're looking at probably 100% of these kids have seen porn a few times, over 50% of them view it with relative frequency. Most of the girls in the class have a "favorite" male porn star they think is the most handsome who they can name specifically, and sexual jokes are generally the rule of every single day. Here's a literal quote from two students just last week, and honestly I'm not sure these girls were joking at all: Jaime: Brenda is my boyfriend. Eric: What? Brenda is a girl, how can she be your boyfriend? Jaime: because when we go to her house, she is the one that always holds the rubber dick for me! I can also agree with what Jack said above, I've dated several women who, when discussing these issues, described themselves as becoming interested in sex between ages 8-10. I'm no shrink but they seemed like perfectly normal and mentally healthy people to me. I know one girl who said she used to attempt to seduce both her father and her brother by intentionally walking around without underwear and wearing a short shirt, hoping they would want to have sex with her. (they never did) One of my exes father actually did have sex with her, her mother found out, and they sent him to prison. She had to testify, at age 8 or 9, against her father and send him away forever. To this day, it is not the sexual "abuse" she remembers as horrible. She still says as far as she knows, he never did anything to her that she didn't want or enjoy. What haunts her, literally every day of her life, is that she was responsible for destroying his life and grew up without a dad. I also know two girls who say their first experiences happened at the age of 12 or 13 with a neighbor in his 30's, who they remain in touch with and good friends with and have happy memories about. I know these are common experiences and many of you would find the same if you started talking to women you're having sex with about it, as long as they truly believed you wouldn't be judging them for their answers. So yeah, I'd say there is tons of evidence that it's not the sex that is traumatic (in cases of consensual sex). That is society's fault.
Andrew 2018-01-09 18:07:02
Anon i’ve Known enough victims to know that what your saying is complete bull. if your story about those kids are true those are probably kids that are in some f***** up left wing European country. that is not I repeat not normal behavior for children. seriously.
Andrew 2018-01-09 18:10:57
One lady I know was molested by her uncle. now while she has made great strides in her life and has a very loving and supportive boyfriend she still has problems and has struggled with her weight her whole life. Clearly she was effected in a terrible way.
Andrew 2018-01-09 18:20:02
I agree that 16 seems like a rational position. “If it bleeds it breeds” No. 12 and 13 is too young because they literally just hit puberty at that age. 16 is good because it gives them a couple of years to adjust to their new bodies. Psychologically speaking there is a big a very big difference between a 13 year old and a 16 year old.
Andrew 2018-01-09 18:23:35
Just curious BD what’s your opinion on josh Duggar ?
B 2018-01-10 01:47:48
I've probably met about a half dozen women who remember having orgasms as small children, like age 6-10 (6 being the lowest age one of them recalled). Most of those women remember doing either solo play (rubbing on the bed, pillow, teddy bear, etc) or playing with another one of their female friends (rubbing on each other). I found this fascinating in every instance and asked a lot of questions. They all reported actually having orgasms, which I didn't know was possible in someone so young. I remember not having one until I was 11 or 12, and even then it was dry. So, perhaps some people are physically/physiologically able to enjoy sexual pleasure, but I would be willing to bet that actually having sexual relations with an adult would be extremely psychologically damaging.
FD 2018-01-10 02:32:29
Dude, if a prepubescent eight year-old (boy or girl doesn’t matter) actually wants sexual contact with someone else (same age or older person doesn’t matter), there is something very wrong with that child and psychological damage/problems already exist.I was already sexually active at about that age (10 years old, doesn't make a difference here) with a girl my age. AFAIK, I have no psychological problem, neither does the girl in question (at least the last time I saw her, once we were adults). And yes, we both knew what we were doing, and didn't regret it afterwards. Now, if an adult has sex with a child that age, it's a very different thing.
POB 2018-01-10 04:06:05
I'm sure most guys who think 7-8 year olds are already craving sex forget one basic thing about human beings: curiosity. It's VERY different to compare a young kid who is curious about something it doesn't understand yet, and a teenager who's fully aware of what sex means. Child molesters know this and are always disguised as a nice warm adult who's gonna satisfy that curiosity. There's also an extremely complicated factor with kids because they are like sponges - not only curious, but have no filter about anything. Expose a person to sex too early in life and even if he or she likes it, it would feel weird, dirty and wrong AT SOME LEVEL. And it could manifest many many years later, staying hidden in the subconscious, harming that person for life. We can't mess with peoples childhoods, sorry.
Oden 2018-01-10 06:36:53
BD I think its really cool that you answer almost 100% of the comments on here. That alone makes this one of my favorite blogs
Gil Galad 2018-01-10 08:57:08
BD, can you make an article about the new OkCupid update where women only receive messages from men they've already Liked on the site? I'm not even sure I really understand it, it sounds nuts if that's really what it is.
Mike Hunter 2018-01-10 09:58:36
Gil Galad: Yeah the OKC thing is insane. They're turning what was a useful site into a bad version of tinder. Both people have to like each other to see messages from one another. Inexplicably the site still allows you to send messages to someone whom hasn't liked you. It just hides the message. OKC used to be a GREAT platform due to its matching system. The problem was that they didn't have enough users. This change will basically kill the site if they continue on the current path. My opinion is they have a new CEO who made big changes, and doesn't want to admit that he made a huge mistake. He's also the CEO of tinder now so OKC is small fish to him. I'm leaving my profile up. But for now I'm pretty much abandoning the site for greener pastures. The reduced return on investment with the new changes to the site just doesn't make it worth my time to try and generate leads from there.
Blackdragon 2018-01-10 11:00:30
Umm, dude, no. You’re normally so rational but where the hell is this nonsense coming from?I didn't say a percentage of kids aren't curious about sex, think it's funny, engage in sexual-like activities for yucks, or watch porn, which is what you presented in your anecdotal evidence. I said little kids aren't horny, they don't go around wanting to fuck people like teenagers and adults do (barring exceptions to the rule).
Just curious BD what’s your opinion on josh Duggar ?From what little I know, he's a child molester. I don't really follow TV stuff though.
So, perhaps some people are physically/physiologically able to enjoy sexual pleasure, but I would be willing to bet that actually having sexual relations with an adult would be extremely psychologically damaging.As I said, none of us are professional child psychologists so we're all just guessing based on our feelings and anecdotal experiences. We need more official and informed opinions regarding this, which we're not going to get in this thread.
BD I think its really cool that you answer almost 100% of the comments on here. That alone makes this one of my favorite blogsI won't be able to do it forever, but thanks.
BD, can you make an article about the new OkCupid update where women only receive messages from men they’ve already Liked on the site?https://blackdragonblog.com/off-topic/
ItalyMich 2018-01-10 12:24:09
BD if you are interested in the baby and child sexuality topic, Hal M. Wells (Sensuous child) is the go-to author. Freud (but Freud was no serious psychologist) too dealt with the sexuality of babies. It seems they masturbate at an age so young to remember (I am talking 2-4 years old, normally to be forgotten from 6 onwards), and, if they are put in groups, play with each other bodies. We are talking child-child relationships too, taking place in a pre-guilty time of their minds. This has nothing to do with having sex with an adult.
Marty McFly 2018-01-10 14:27:01
Getting somewhat off topic with all the talk about actual children's (mainly subconscious) sexuality. I doubt that affects very much of this blog's readership. Germany's age of consent is fourteen, and they seem to be doing fine. I think that's reasonable, seeing as most girls start puberty a few years prior to it. For young men (<30) who have sex with 11-13's the punishment should be a slap on the wrist at first, and escalate with further offenses. Under eleven, and that's child rape.
American 2018-01-10 19:44:20
Also I have to commend you for picking that photo for this blog post! It’s hilariously inflammatory! lmao!
Yep. Just a nice little poke. (Although over 60% of the internet reads at a 6th grade level, so a lot of people will have no idea what you’re referring to.)I read at an advanced level. But have no idea what the lollipops represent. What's the story associated to them?
Stefano 2018-01-10 22:40:22
People are going to do what they're going to do, and if it's not allowed, there will be black market or side entrances to what they want. Simple supply and demand: people will always want what they can't have. If you put "bad" or "not allowed" on anything, it still happens... usually moreso. Any kid 10 years or older in the USA who hasn't 'played doctor' or watched pornography is full of it. Face it: Laws vary all over the world, but group accountability and common sense must prevail (since tragedy of the commons has occurred). Whether the slavery is wage slaves or tax slaves or "free" people, it will happen. ...The key then becomes prevention of sexual VIOLENCE against one's consent, and a "child" cannot speak up on that when they don't know what right and wrong is. What we are doing wrong is that humans should not have such a closed door policy on their sex! They should learn early from the responsible adults in their social tribe (verbally and visually), and that usually means their parents (biologic or adoptive or mix). Greek art of Baccus (Dionysus) says it all: a picture is worth 0100 words. https://uploads4.wikiart.org/images/william-adolphe-bouguereau/the-youth-of-bacchus-1884.jpg ...In the end, you've gotta do it with group accountability (yes, that means cameras for oversight many times) and good leadership. Designing forward-thinking education and research is progressive, but it takes time to find the gold. Right now, day-to-day enjoyment is usually the way to live.
jack 2018-01-11 06:35:47
Umm I guess I'm mentally damaged then because I CLEARLY remember that when I was in kindergarten, I used to pull down my pants during naptime and masturbate in the open because I was hoping the little girl next to me would see it and want to touch it. I saw an interview with some famous porn star dude, he's really famous because for some reason, girls in elementary and middle school are fan-girling him in the thousands, which has drawn negative media attention to him, and he says in interviews he knew he wanted to be a porn star in kindergarten : p A hilarious quote when asked his response to all the underage girls who are following him was something like: "My advice to the underage fans is turn 18, then watch porn" lol Nonetheless, society being as it is, and basically unchangeable in the immediate future, I do agree we are forced to have laws about this. However, I don't see any rational argument anywhere here that proves that those laws are just. They absolutely aren't. Society is going to mentally traumatize young people who follow their natural instincts, so those laws are a necessary evil that actually protects them from the unfortunately prudish society they grow up in. If you took that away the trauma would also not be there. But there's no arguing that your amended laws are significantly more reasonable and would be a big step forward. But BD, seriously, sex impulses far predate biological capacity for procreation. I am extremely shocked that you would be unaware of that. We learned that in _high school_ psychology for fuck's sake.
Anon 2018-01-11 10:12:34
I believe I'm speaking for most commenters when I summarize: in most cases of child trauma related to nonviolent sexual activity, the cause of said trauma is the society. BD, when Ascendia puts you on some fucking committee, do your best to make its citizens sex-positive and non-judgmental, and the question of age of consent will solve itself : )
Blackdragon 2018-01-11 10:22:44
Umm I guess I’m mentally damaged then because I CLEARLY remember that when I was in kindergarten, I used to pull down my pants during naptime and masturbate in the open because I was hoping the little girl next to me would see it and want to touch it.Do you not agree you were the exception to the rule? Seriously, how many 5 year-old's do that? I knew some little kids when I was young who did that stuff too, but they were in the tiny minority. Doesn't that indicate something?
But BD, seriously, sex impulses far predate biological capacity for procreation. I am extremely shocked that you would be unaware of that. We learned that in _high school_ psychology for fuck’s sake.That isn't what I'm saying and of course that's true. I'm saying sexual desire felt by prepubescent children, when it happens, is a very different thing than when it's felt by a teenager or adult.
I believe I’m speaking for most commenters when I summarize: in most cases of child trauma related to nonviolent sexual activity, the cause of said trauma is the society.I don't disagree. I'm saying I'm not an expert in this area (and none of you are either) so I don't have a definitive answer (and you don't either). But we're going in circles on this so I'm moving on from this particular topic. (Not this thread, but this topic.)
BD, when Ascendia puts you on some fucking committee, do your best to make its citizens sex-positive and non-judgmental, and the question of age of consent will solve itself : )Ah, that's a cultural issue, not a governmental one. Ascendia's government has little control over that.
ThomasNordic 2018-01-11 13:51:04
I remember a prominent danish politician having drunken sex with a 15- year-old some years ago. There was no legal issue with consent set at 15 but the story still broke as a minor scandal with him apologizing, resigning, condemned by his party. But then something happened that completly changed everything, not least public opinion. What happened? Nothing much. It just came out that the drunken sex had happened at a youth political event. Thats enough simply because the weak, vulnerable imature 15 year-olds are rarely politically active, meaning the girl in question was unlikely to need much protection. The politician returned in weeks, I think. Point of story? Any specific age of consent is useless. At that age its all about how it happens. Did the politician do wrong? Not in my opinion. The girl was likely above average intelligence and maturity, knowing full well what she were doing and they likely both enjoyed it. Age of consent should be linked to behaviour.
Anon 2018-01-12 09:41:31
Ah, that’s a cultural issue, not a governmental one. Ascendia’s government has little control over that.Great governments nudge people in socially beneficial directions without limiting freedom. For example, Germany and Austria have vastly different rates of drivers who have permitted their organs to be used in case of their deaths; the cultures in those countries are very close, so what's the reason? Just the form the drivers fill in. One is opt-in, the other is opt-out.
Blackdragon 2018-01-12 12:31:11
Great governments nudge people in socially beneficial directions without limiting freedom.1. If it costs the taxpayer money, it limits freedom. 2. Forcing your citizens to opt-out of organ transplant status if they don't want it limits freedom. (Not by a lot, but it does.) 3. "Nudging people in society beneficial directions" is not the role of a libertarian government. We're off-topic now so this is the last time I will address this in this thread.
Anon 2018-01-12 14:01:18
Let's revisit the topic when you continue your Ascendia series. It's a very interesting topic.
Throughfare 2018-01-28 20:59:11
Hi BD, Everyone likes to get all riled up over Roman Polanski and the fact that he fucked a 13 year old in what was clearly a case of statutory rape. They also accept everything the media says without his use of drugs, providing alcohol to someone underage, and so on . . . without questioning what's been left out. The Polanski case goes deeper than you might think, and opens up some fundamental questions about where the United States for decades has been headed as a country. Polanski copped a plea deal that was very lenient by today's standards, but was fairly average for the 1970s. There were incentives on both sides, especially in light of reports to the court casting significant doubt on the actual use of drugs and on refusal of consent (bet you've never heard of those) and desire to keep the girl's identity private in what would have turned into a media circus. Part of the plea deal allowed Polanski to go to Europe to finish a film before returning for serving the terms of the deal, but when he came back his attorney told him the judge in the case had decided to renege on the the deal. He had even made statements to acquaintances about giving a 50 year sentence to Polanski. His lawyer also found out through the grapevine that an LA prosecutor who had no official involvement in the case had met privately with the judge and advised him on how to get around the deal by some legal maneuvering that would get him lots of "tough judge" publicity ahead of upcoming elections. Yeah, Polanski was a sleazeball, but now put yourself in Polanski's shoes and imagine if you were told by your lawyer that you were facing a sentence that would have you spending the entire rest of your life in jail, so that some judge could get publicity. A sentence like that would almost certainly be reduced to something more normal on appeal, but how long would the appeals take? Would it take 4 years? What would it be reduced to? So tell me now that if you had French citizenship that you just wouldn't get out of Dodge? The larger problem Polanski's case points out is the US propensity for what I call "show trials." These are trials where massive, unjust sentences are sought to either intimidate people or gain "tough prosecutor" points with the public or higher-ups. What about cases like the attempts to extradite a guy called Gary McKinnon from the UK to the US under the threat of a 60 year sentence for hacking, on charges that typically draw sentence of home detention for a few years in Britain. The case drew such outrage in Britain that future Prime Minister Teresa May stopped the extradition by decree when she was Home Secretary. You see, the US prosecutors see nothing wrong with threatening outrageous sentences on a young hacker because he got into Pentagon computers, thinking it would intimidate others, but they wound up with empty hands because of their bullying. Then there's the case of a guy called Aaron Swartz who was being threatened with 35 years in jail for using using university's network to violate academic journal publishers's copyright. I would contend that fundamental justice and the rule of law is broken in the United States. The constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment, and right to a trial are being violated, and this is something that is costing the United States far more than the the passive masses could imagine. For example, I personally know some venture capitalists and bankers who have decided to avoid entering the US market because of concern about what they've seen of people in the financial industry being railroaded by the US legal system and the myriad of agencies like the SEC that have quasi-law enforcement status. But all that is off the original topic for now. Maybe another time. But I hope readers will think in a less knee-jerk fashion about the Polanski case.
Entropy-7 2018-03-02 12:02:20
Two things to consider are the close-in-age provisions and what you could call a "bright line" age. I used to be a lawyer in Canada (didn't practice criminal law, but bumped up against it) and not so long ago the "age of consent" was 12! The way the law read was that the age was 14 but if you were within 2 years, it went down to 12. The exceptions were being in a position of trust or authority (cops, teachers and such), and anal sex which were both 18. When the Conservative party came out of the wilderness and got elected, a sop to their religious supporters was to bump the general age up to 16 but they kept some sort of close-in-age provisions. There are various ways of handling these, either with something like a 2 year gap being acceptable, or on a sliding scale where - as a for instance - there could be a gap of 5 or more years at the higher end such that a 22 year old college graduate isn't breaking the law by banging a 17 year old high school student. In Canada, there is no such (legal) thing as "statutory rape". The offences are "sexual interference" and "invitation to touch". Virtually any sort of sexual activity with an underage person is an offence. In one case a guy was convicted after he wanked into a kleenex an underage girl was holding. I didn't research the topic extensively, but heavy petting might be a no-no as well. However, one day over the legal limit and all bets are off. AFAIK, in other jurisdictions the age of consent is for penetrative sex rather than an all or nothing line that is mystically crossed. As for what the "right" age would be, any number from about 13 to early 20s is totally culturally driven, which does not make it arbitrary. Culture is a social context that has to be considered. Plus when you get beyond close-in-age issues and set aside anything short of oral, anal or coitus, then you are really looking at the extreme cases. I'm now just into my 50s; when I was still late-40s I went on a few dates with an 18 year old, although nothing came of it. But what if something did, and what if she was 17 or 16 or 15 or 14? It seems common-sensical that a younger teenager who would canoodle with a guy three times her age probably has some issues and that certain legal protections should be in place to prevent predatory older men from seducing vulnerable girls.
Toysrus 2019-01-09 09:37:42
I'm a black American woman, I have been wanting to have sex since I was 10 years old. I had a crush on a 15 year old boy and wanted to fuck him when I was 10. I also had tits and pubic hairs. I had my first period at 11/12. And was masturbating and horny at those ages. I had never been touched or molested. Adults have babies and dont be ready for them and end up with STDs or single moms. So even adults past 25 arent that responsible cause shit happens. Maybe implementing the young ones getting married and grooming them to be more mature will solve the issue of u worrying about STDs and single motherhood from teenage pregnancy. I think the legal age of consent should be 14, 15. If it's a 12 year old parental acceptance needs to be had. So if the parents dont consent then they should become a registered sex offender. 14 to me is a good age or even 13. Just judging from my own sexual personal experience. As a youngin. I'm 27 now.
Toni Gee 2019-07-28 19:36:15
LEGAL VS LAWFUL + NATURE DETERMINES EVERYTHING The AOC was set at 13 in the UK throughout Pre 1885 Victorian Era until they rose it to 16. However, nature CLEARLY dictates that the age required to give consent should be post pubescent and 13 is the correct age to set that around so currently what it's at now is UNLAWFUL and is criminalising love. The old back then knew the score, not like you lot today who call for it to be at 18 or 25 in fear of being labelled a paedophile. So what will the AOC be by 2030? 30 ? lol Reminder: a Paedophile is someone who has an attraction to prepubescent Children under the age of 13 or 12. Regarding the said age of 13 then the line is drawn there. You CANNOT dictate nature. ANYONE 25 + who has an interest in someone between the ages of 13 and 25 should be should be thrown-ed upon. "Facts" 13 + are having kids anyway. Just youtube 13 and pregnant. Many as well. It was like that since day one. You CANNOT change them and you CANNOT change the way it is nor can you criminalise it. It was also taboo back in the day and no one gave a shit unlike today. Elvis Presley (24) married Priscella (14) was ELvis a paedophile? as things stand with the ages then he OBVIOUSLY was not. He was a Americas Rock n Roll legend and no one considered him a creep. An age of consent above 13 would CRIMINALISE the NATURAL FREE BORN PERSON leaving them guilty for the rest of their life's if the majority decided that it was criminal and would have an EFFECT on them and the child along with the whole family. "You" trying to play GOD and are also being the "legal" binding citizen instead of the "lawful"are trying to prevent harm when instead "you" are actually causing more harm than good by INTERFERING in the NATURAL FREE BORN PERSON'S RIGHT TO LIVE FREELY and do as they freely wish to do so. "FACT" you can't interfere with nature and if "you" try to then nature will STRIKE back hard and there will be SERIOUS consequences for choosing the word "legal" and as "you" are ALREADY probably AWARE then nature is striking back. We are already witnessing the TRAGIC decline of western civilisation because: 1. You can't decide when a child becomes an adult (when we already have the answer) 2. "You" dictate when a post pubescent person can have sex or not when it's really not any off your business 3. We live in a world where life has stages such as birth to child hood then the post pubescent stages which are to be considered the "important years"where choices are to be made that determine your whole future. 4. Your acts are an act of protectionism which is a form off Communism. 5. We are all free (Birth Right) to make "our" own choices ONCE "we" get to the appropriate age not the government nor the Judiciary nor you. Also, regarding the word "Legal" then abortion is "Legal" today however, is abortion Lawful? many think not. Legal is a dangerous word. One more thing; women 13 + can look and act mature which is dangerous to men with the current legislation having been rolled in and can actually deceive an older male in to believing that she is older then she actually is. With all the current (set up to fail) legal rubbish in place then for males is it really worth the risk trying to find love and raising a family?? answer: if you are aware of the present global events and are intelligent enough to understand it then NO. The Government are committed to UN agenda 2030 goals that includes gender equality and which clearly promotes the empowerment of all women and girls. You should read up Agenda 2030 when given the chance. Agenda 2030 goal 5: Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls