I asked at what age is it reasonable to expect a person to successfully manage to defy or resist coersion of a much older (and therefore higher status) person, and this is the age that was given by you.
Yeah, and that means absolutely nothing as I went on to explain and you decided to not answer.
Now I could pull the same exact stunt you just did and not address what you place as an argument, but I am going to set an example... try to follow it. I don't like it when people think its fair to skip over my arguments and then throw new ones at me.
Just because there are some people who are able to consent to full on, penetrative intercourse before the age of 12 doesn't mean that most are,
Great, so then it seems we would need laws to account for that difference, rather than forcing one group to act like everybody which is not like them. Ya think?
By the way I am offended by your desire to limit discussion of sex to full on penetrative intercourse. It defies the rather obvious point that women have sex with children too, and that you have not provided any evidence that full penetrative intercourse is the most representative form of sexual contact among consensual (nonovertly coerced) sex acts with minors.
just as regardless of the fact that there may be some 12 or 13 year olds who are able to pass the physical requirements for entrance into the armed services, we don't allow all 12 year olds to enter the armed services.
You are creating a rather spurious argument. There is no connection between allowing a child to have sex when they want to have sex, and allowing a child to enter a PROFESSION in which they are made to kill other people or be killed.
You will note that I was NOT suggesting that child prostitution or paid child porn actresses be allowed. Employment is yet a whole other subject. I was discussing freedom of personal behavior.
That is to ignore the drastically different conditions between modern warfare and sex. The fact that you could try to equate the two situations is absurd. Indeed unlike sex, there does appear to be causal connection between violence and psychological problems. Of course I imagine you are more likely to allow your kids to play with guns than a vibrator.
And of course there are more than just physical requirements to any occupation. The modern army really does (although they have discussed dropping some of this) have educational requirements. Perhaps you can find a kid who is mentally and physically capable of passing all these requirements. I your question is do I think the kid should be able to serve, if he and his parents wish it, then I wouldn't see why not though personally I wouldn't want my kid in it (and we have to talk about employment issues). Then again, I'd also ask what is the rush? Why not go to a military academy and get drilled so that in a couple extra years we will have an even better soldier.
Granted there have been some very successful child soldiers/warriors. As a nation I think we can field a better army with greater reqs and training. I guess I never saw the military as a place where we should be sticking bodies as soon as they can pass bare minimum reqs.
just because there may be a few 8 year olds who are physically and mentally able to operate a motor vehicle safely, we don't allow all 8 year olds to drive.
And it just keeps on rolling. What 8yo can physically touch the pedals, steer, and see over the dash? What 8yo has the possibility of purchasing a car and insurance, much less dealing with the legal/financial issues if something goes wrong? I mean you may note that when something goes wrong while driving it is not comparable to what goes wrong in sex.
Now clearly there are kids below 16 (age for driving in my state) who can drive as well as those above 16. Maybe they'd even be self-sufficient enough to handle all the stuff that comes with it when something goes wrong. But that would still not allow for an equation of a child being able to have sex as they naturally desire and not face punishment by the state, with the state LICENSING a person to OPERATE a several ton VEHICLE travelling at high speeds down busy streets.
I can agree that the lines are still arbitrarily imposed, but the difference in situation is quite obvious. Oh yes unless all you see is choice and harm, harm and choice.
By the way, you do not get arrested for simply allowing a kid to help drive or park a car (many do), or take pictures of a kid in a car. You can even by them bikes, and scooters, and little motorized cars for 8yo. Heck, they can even get into go carts and atcs and bumper cars. Find the analogy to sex... they can't do it.
I think that the age of consent law should be at an age at which it is reasonable to expect most children to be able to read and understand a drug test result, and have the confidence to require it of their potential partner.
Ah yes, sex=disease. Children should then not be allowed to kiss (mono?), go to school or play in any close contact way (lice? flu? pneumonia? chicken pox? mumps? meningitis?). Oh wait that's right but that isn't from SEX. And we all know that SEXUAL diseases are so much badder than other communicable health issues.
Might I ask why a higher standard is set for sex than for other activities engaged in by children? I love the idea that kids playing house and tickling each other are cute and cuddly, despite the fact that they could be spreading some of the worst conditions, until their hands reach genital areas of their body and then they need to know how to read and understand a drug test, and require it of their partner... sweet.
There is no one more interested in good sexual health than me. But I don't see where AOC laws, specifically with vague appeals to being able to read drug tests, will mean anything.
Teaching kids about safe sexual practices should work to a pretty good degree like for any other safety issue. If you think that is not true, why not?
If parents are also part of the sexual/moral decisions of their child's sex life, why would that not cover questions about sexual health of potential partners?
And most importantly the god damn stigma of underage sex, and potential legal problems faced by those involved because of AOC laws make both kids and anyone else they are having sex with (if not just themselves) AVOID getting help for sexual problems, making it all that much worse! They sure as hell may not know exactly what a disease will do, or what the signs are, but they sure might know what willl happen if they get caught!
I think 14 is a pretty good age.
Bully for you.
How many kids die from flus, pneumonias, meningitis, and other conditions (not to mention just getting ill) because they do not know the status of their partner or were afraid to ask? Heck I guess we should ban them from making food too, since they are unlikely to be familiar with the problems of e coli, and salmonella.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
