So-called "barely legal" pornography and content depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives are set to be banned amid efforts to regulate intimate image sharing.
I know some states have 16 as age of consent but I really think some push towards 18 as a global standard would do a lot of good. It’s not perfect but a 16 year old is a lot more vulnerable since they’re still a minor under the law. It doesn’t magically make you an “adult” at 18 but having the protections of adulthood, such as they are I think is an important legal distinction.
The US has similar laws to what you describe as well (Romeo and Juliet laws) so that if two underage ppl (16 and 17 for instance) don’t become criminal when one turns 18. I should say it’s actually important to have those as well, because otherwise parents can use the law against their kids if they don’t approve of who the date (eg. a gay kid who is 16 dates a 17 year old and after the partner turns 18 the parents could prosecute the partner w/o these carve outs).
Importantly though, this doesn’t protect some 23 year old creeping on underage girls, and rightly so.
Ultimately I think a standard 19 or 20 for all adulthood (drink, smoke, sex, vote, drugs) would make the most sense, but I recognize some people think a 16 year old is old enough to consent. I just think the power dynamics there are disgusting
my fear is that, by increasing the age of consent too much will legitimize older people to hook up with young teenagers. Ex. Let’s say, for absurd, that we raise the age of consent to 25. This means that the law will consider a 24 years old and a 14 years old equally incapable of giving consent, thinking and acting for themselves etc
Yeah that’s why unfortunately it’s ultimately fairly arbitrary. All but the biggest sickos probably see somewhere between 16-20 as the “right” age for sexual consent. However, as you note, lumping people who are "too old’ under minority is also an issue. I do think consolidating things (versus different ages for sex drugs and rock and roll) would have a bit of a useful effect though.
It is arbitrary man. We can’t even state that 16 years old is too much or not enough because it depends on the culture. We can’t even use the argument about people teenagers not being 100% cerebrally developed since recent studies proved that we are not until our mid 30s, but I don’t think a 25 years old isn’t able to consent.
Of course. What I’m saying is a clear arbitrary line is more important than the specific morality. After all, in some cultures 16 might be more free of the power dynamics that make it disgusting. Meanwhile, some 19 year olds might be so precarious in their material conditions that their consent to an older partner while “legal” isn’t moral at all.
This is why setting a standard is important. The actual morality of any consent/sexual dynamic is bound up in so much contingency (age, class, culture) that its important to just set an arbitrary line, and people who try to skirt it need to be punished. We can’t (legally) account for all of this so it isn’t about morality it’s about positive law.
That’s not the case in all countries, in Spain the age of consent is 16, but can be less if there are proximity in degree of maturity and age.
I’m not aware that this model has created problems, and it’s better than the old law (13 the age of consent).
13 is depraved.
I know some states have 16 as age of consent but I really think some push towards 18 as a global standard would do a lot of good. It’s not perfect but a 16 year old is a lot more vulnerable since they’re still a minor under the law. It doesn’t magically make you an “adult” at 18 but having the protections of adulthood, such as they are I think is an important legal distinction.
The US has similar laws to what you describe as well (Romeo and Juliet laws) so that if two underage ppl (16 and 17 for instance) don’t become criminal when one turns 18. I should say it’s actually important to have those as well, because otherwise parents can use the law against their kids if they don’t approve of who the date (eg. a gay kid who is 16 dates a 17 year old and after the partner turns 18 the parents could prosecute the partner w/o these carve outs).
Importantly though, this doesn’t protect some 23 year old creeping on underage girls, and rightly so.
Ultimately I think a standard 19 or 20 for all adulthood (drink, smoke, sex, vote, drugs) would make the most sense, but I recognize some people think a 16 year old is old enough to consent. I just think the power dynamics there are disgusting
my fear is that, by increasing the age of consent too much will legitimize older people to hook up with young teenagers. Ex. Let’s say, for absurd, that we raise the age of consent to 25. This means that the law will consider a 24 years old and a 14 years old equally incapable of giving consent, thinking and acting for themselves etc
Yeah that’s why unfortunately it’s ultimately fairly arbitrary. All but the biggest sickos probably see somewhere between 16-20 as the “right” age for sexual consent. However, as you note, lumping people who are "too old’ under minority is also an issue. I do think consolidating things (versus different ages for sex drugs and rock and roll) would have a bit of a useful effect though.
It is arbitrary man. We can’t even state that 16 years old is too much or not enough because it depends on the culture. We can’t even use the argument about people teenagers not being 100% cerebrally developed since recent studies proved that we are not until our mid 30s, but I don’t think a 25 years old isn’t able to consent.
Of course. What I’m saying is a clear arbitrary line is more important than the specific morality. After all, in some cultures 16 might be more free of the power dynamics that make it disgusting. Meanwhile, some 19 year olds might be so precarious in their material conditions that their consent to an older partner while “legal” isn’t moral at all.
This is why setting a standard is important. The actual morality of any consent/sexual dynamic is bound up in so much contingency (age, class, culture) that its important to just set an arbitrary line, and people who try to skirt it need to be punished. We can’t (legally) account for all of this so it isn’t about morality it’s about positive law.