Them Dutch

[Madame Adequate]

Except my logic has "at the end of puberty, physical maturity" to back it up, and your age is arbitrarily chosen and unreasonable.

No, you said "You can't be an adult until you are one. You can't have the wisdom that life gives you before you live it."

The first part I can't really argue with. It's like "You can't have hair until you grow hair". But the second part I take issue with. Wisdom and experience aren't the same thing, in fact I'd categorize wisdom as knowing what to do without specifically related experience. Furthermore your point of physical maturity is conceded (You'll note I didn't argue with that side of it.) but there's no reason mental maturity should hinge on physical maturity.

I just mean the police don't care, so what's the harm of keeping the age high? lowering it means no more statuatory rape charges, and that younger teens could be coerced into porn, prostitution, etc. And yes, it can't be case by case because we need to set an age limit in order to have laws regarding age of consent.

How many statutory rape charges are brought against people who sleep with 17 year olds? Or 16 year olds? Until you drop below that, I'm not aware that it's common unless the younger person's family takes massive offense, or unless the older person has done something else which there isn't enough evidence for.

Yes, and I think 16 or under is too young. A 15 year old is NOT mature or responsible enough to handle a sexual relationship.

Can't argue with 'I think'. Can and do contest 'is not'.

What, are you pulling the "agism" card now? Is it also agism to say that babies can't drive cars? A line has to be drawn. I say the line is around 18, because that's when we reach maturity. You've given no reason for me to think otherwise other than "some 15 year olds are very mature", to which I counter with: well, what about the ones that aren't, and could get taken advantage of?

Actually, you've hit on what I meant with "Oppress" right there. I don't think it's right to make laws against the people who are mature enough to handle it because some people aren't. The law has no business protecting people from themselves in the first place, and as for exploitation by others, that's why I say 15-17 can sleep with up to three years older, whilst 17 and up doesn't have those limits.

The law should stay that age. Would you also apply that if we reduce the age of consent, that they should also be allowed into porn? I really hope I don't have to point out how the possibly AWFUL consequences of that. I just really can't see any good reasons for lowering the age. I DO agree that some people younger than 17 would be ready. That DOES NOT mean it's a good idea to lower the age of consent.

Eh, I dunno, I think porn should be set at 17 with the 'sleep with anyone' bracket.

About older people being immature: absolutely there are many. But they are also mature enough in other ways to handle it when a relationship with sex involved breaks up. Most 15 year olds aren't, certainly not the ones I know. They're horribly hurt. How can kids that young know about love and how to be in a good relationship when they're only just entering that period of their lives? It takes years to know. 16 and under is just too young.

"You can't have the wisdom that life gives you before you live it." How else do they get knowledge about handling relationships? And as my earlier link suggests, countries with more liberal attitudes to sex have significantly fewer teen pregnancies. This further implies either protection is used, or less sex occurs. In either case STD spreads are reduced, unless they are all on the pill. The purely educational side of it appears to be quite alright with lowering the age, and there is no way to educate people (Except perhaps through very good fiction) about how to deal with relationships, they either inherently know it or they learn it through the exact method you suggest, experience.

[Emerald Aeris]

"No, you said "You can't be an adult until you are one. You can't have the wisdom that life gives you before you live it.""

That was one of the things I said. I thought the "at the end of puberty" part was understood, as I talked about physical and mental maturity.

"But the second part I take issue with. Wisdom and experience aren't the same thing, in fact I'd categorize wisdom as knowing what to do without specifically related experience."

Dictionary says wisdom is "accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment", and I'd agree. Knowing without related experience is common sense, and my common sense says that young people routinely and repeatedly make poor decision regarding sex and relationships.

"but there's no reason mental maturity should hinge on physical maturity."

If your brain is still developing it does. I definitely notice a difference between the mental capacity of most 15 year olds and most 20 year olds. But I do see your point.

"How many statutory rape charges are brought against people who sleep with 17 year olds? Or 16 year olds? Until you drop below that, I'm not aware that it's common unless the younger person's family takes massive offense, or unless the older person has done something else which there isn't enough evidence for."

Why does that matter? Laws are there for protection. That's like saying "it's not common for people to rape 80 year olds, so let's repeal the law". 16 year olds DO get taken advantage of.

"Actually, you've hit on what I meant with "Oppress" right there. I don't think it's right to make laws against the people who are mature enough to handle it because some people aren't. The law has no business protecting people from themselves in the first place, and as for exploitation by others, that's why I say 15-17 can sleep with up to three years older, whilst 17 and up doesn't have those limits."

So if the law isn't in place to protect people from themselves, then I'm going to have sex with a 4 year old, because they said yes.

"Eh, I dunno, I think porn should be set at 17 with the 'sleep with anyone' bracket."

Hmm. 17 is more reasonable, but I would draw the line there. I should clarify, that I don't think that means that we should run around arresting any 16 year olds getting nookie. As I said, the law is there to protect people who might be taken advantage of. If two 15 year olds both consent, there why would the law be contacted? But if an 18 year old, most of which are ready for sex LONG before 15 year olds, coerces a 15 year old into bed, that's not right. It happens. I know many it's happened to. Younger kids (girls especially) tend to idolize older people and are more liable to be pressured into doing things they don't actually want to do. That's how pedophiles get kids to do things with them. I'm not saying the 18 year old is necessarily a pedophile, but they (could! I'm saying IF they coerce them here, to clarify) are still taking advantage of someone who's not ready. Do you see what I mean?

"How else do they get knowledge about handling relationships?"

I had many relationships that didn't involve sex.

"And as my earlier link suggests, countries with more liberal attitudes to sex have significantly fewer teen pregnancies."

I believe widely available information leads to fewer pregnancies. I dunno what you mean by "liberal attitudes". I'd like to think I am pretty liberal. I fully believe in sex ed starting in grade school.

"In either case STD spreads are reduced, unless they are all on the pill."

I was on the pill years before I was sexually active. Your point is moot.

"The purely educational side of it appears to be quite alright with lowering the age."

Uh, what?

"and there is no way to educate people (Except perhaps through very good fiction) about how to deal with relationships, they either inherently know it or they learn it through the exact method you suggest, experience."

Sex ed?

And you act as if "no sex" and "no relationships" are the same thing. Ideally younger teens (14ish) would have relationships involving kissing etc, and gradually build up experience until they're ready for sex (18ish, meaning 16+). If you say a 15 year old is ready, then that suggests they either begin having relationships ready for sex (which I think is nonsense), or they've been having relationships since they were 12-13, which I think is far too young to begin to understand the workings of a good relationship. If they don't have that framework, then I don't see how they could be ready for sex, and I don't see how they could gain that wisdom at such a young age.

[Madame Adequate]

Dictionary says wisdom is "accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment", and I'd agree. Knowing without related experience is common sense, and my common sense says that young people routinely and repeatedly make poor decision regarding sex and relationships.

Dictionary's wrong.

If your brain is still developing it does. I definitely notice a difference between the mental capacity of most 15 year olds and most 20 year olds. But I do see your point.

Mmm, I honestly don't see that much difference between teenagers and adults. It's not that teenagers are mature, it's that adults very often aren't. But that's personal opinion, which isn't that great a basis for laws.

"How many statutory rape charges are brought against people who sleep with 17 year olds? Or 16 year olds? Until you drop below that, I'm not aware that it's common unless the younger person's family takes massive offense, or unless the older person has done something else which there isn't enough evidence for."

Why does that matter? Laws are there for protection. That's like saying "it's not common for people to rape 80 year olds, so let's repeal the law". 16 year olds DO get taken advantage of.

But when 80 year olds get raped, and it gets found out, there is a massive outcry about it. Nobody, at least nobody I know of, makes a big fuss if a 16 year old sleeps with someone a couple of years older. 16 year olds get taken advantage of, but not by other 16 year olds (And even if they do it's moot because I don't know of ANY cases in recent times where two people under the AoC who are the same age have been brought up for it.). That is why I support having shifting limits, because I see a difference between a 16 and 18 year old, and a 16 and 40 year old.

So if the law isn't in place to protect people from themselves, then I'm going to have sex with a 4 year old, because they said yes.

They'd be being protected from you, not themselves. Again, that's why I suggest different limits for different ages

Hmm. 17 is more reasonable, but I would draw the line there. I should clarify, that I don't think that means that we should run around arresting any 16 year olds getting nookie. As I said, the law is there to protect people who might be taken advantage of. If two 15 year olds both consent, there why would the law be contacted? But if an 18 year old, most of which are ready for sex LONG before 15 year olds, coerces a 15 year old into bed, that's not right. It happens. I know many it's happened to. Younger kids (girls especially) tend to idolize older people and are more liable to be pressured into doing things they don't actually want to do. That's how pedophiles get kids to do things with them. I'm not saying the 18 year old is necessarily a pedophile, but they (could! I'm saying IF they coerce them here, to clarify) are still taking advantage of someone who's not ready. Do you see what I mean?

I think you are being a little stricter than I would be in the differences between people in their mid to late teens, but in principle I agree with what you're saying there.

I believe widely available information leads to fewer pregnancies. I dunno what you mean by "liberal attitudes". I'd like to think I am pretty liberal. I fully believe in sex ed starting in grade school.

By liberal attitudes I don't mean anything political, I just mean being open-minded and not demonising sex. Incidentally, I think a fair amount of the harm sex causes is because people do see it as such a big deal. Biologically it is, but socially it doesn't have to be. We don't make a big deal out of breathing, and that's even more essential. So if we lighten up, accept the inevitable, and don't act like totally normal things are horribly harmful, they won't be horribly harmful.

I was on the pill years before I was sexually active. Your point is moot.

I don't see what you're saying there. My point was that it's fair to presume STD rates are lower among teens in countries with lower teen pregnancy rates, on the basis that those lower pregnancies are either due to more protection being used, or less sex occuring. As a provisor to the first possibility, I made it clear I was aware of baby prevention methods which wouldn't prevent STD spread.

"The purely educational side of it appears to be quite alright with lowering the age."

Uh, what?

... I have no idea. Ignore that. xD

Sex ed?

You've got some spiffy sex ed if it teaches you how to deal with relationship issues. Mine, and that of many people I know, was "This is how babies are made and this is how you stop it. *Teacher puts a condom on a dildo*" In essence, it taught you the mechanics. Certainly nothing about dealing with a relationship.

[Emerald Aeris]

"They'd be being protected from you, not themselves. Again, that's why I suggest different limits for different ages "

That's my point. They agreed to it, but they didn't have a clear understand of what they were doing or the implications. I do. Same could be with a 15 and 18 year old having sex.

"I don't see what you're saying there. My point was that it's fair to presume STD rates are lower among teens in countries with lower teen pregnancy rates, on the basis that those lower pregnancies are either due to more protection being used, or less sex occuring. As a provisor to the first possibility, I made it clear I was aware of baby prevention methods which wouldn't prevent STD spread."

Ok then, lets regroup: what the heck does that have to do with what we're talking about?

[Madame Adequate]

"They'd be being protected from you, not themselves. Again, that's why I suggest different limits for different ages "

That's my point. They agreed to it, but they didn't have a clear understand of what they were doing or the implications. I do. Same could be with a 15 and 18 year old having sex.

And therein lies our disagreement. There's no reason to presume a 15 year old wouldn't, or that an 18 year old would. A society which didn't prepare people for sex wouldn't equip an 18 year old, for instance, and until they do it they'll probably be ignorant for a potentially infinite time. Counterwise, a society which is open about it likely will have prepared a 15 year old, certainly a lot more than an 18 year old. There are plenty of variables beyond this, too, but that's an obvious example.

Ok then, lets regroup: what the heck does that have to do with what we're talking about?

Less stringent measures/less uptight opinions* regarding sex = fewer problems with teenagers regarding sex.

*I'm not referring to you specifically, but rather the general feelings on sex in the US compared to those in Europe. EDIT: I just realized, I've confused this thread and the other one on AoC laws going on right now. There's a link in there which shows some interesting figures.

[Emerald Aeris]

"Less stringent measures/less uptight opinions* regarding sex = fewer problems with teenagers regarding sex.

*I'm not referring to you specifically, but rather the general feelings on sex in the US compared to those in Europe. EDIT: I just realized, I've confused this thread and the other one on AoC laws going on right now. There's a link in there which shows some interesting figures."

Information is also MUCH more available over there. I think that is the key, not a bunch of 15 year olds rutting.

[Yamaneko]

At least their platform is better than what the Nazis proposed.

[Renmiri]

I see no reason to believe that a 12 or 14 year old is ready for sex, biologically, mentally, whatever way you want to look at it. Humans are not mature until around 18, so around 18 is what the limit should stay at.

Well like someone said above, it's not just the sex, it's the "side effect" - a pregnancy (or disease) - that complicates things. I don't believe anyone younger than 18 should be raising a child!

Even 18 year olds should not be parents. They should get an opportunity to go to college, travel, settle on a career, get a job they like, date, got to parties, movies, concerts and enjoy their adult life before being tied down with raising kids.

Parenting is wonderful, but it demmands a lot from people. No more seeing movies when they come out, no more concerts, parties only the kiddie ones... Definitely not something you should do while beeing a teen or before you get a shot at making a life for yourself!

PS: On other note, please don't stereotype the Dutch. Not all Dutch people are like that

[VorpalCyberWolf]

I saw this on the news. It really doesn't suprise me, though I still don't think they are going to get very far. Most of the other Dutch Parties and Citizens are trying to shut that party down.