No. If a man rape’s a woman at knifepoint, and says that he’ll kill her if she doesn’t “consent”, I would think most (reasonable) people would say that the woman’s “consent” doesn’t count. Or if someone is wasted or high and they “consent” to some contract, I would imagine most people would say the “consent” doesn’t count.
Or take a 5 year old prepubescent child that has no interest in sexual relationships (that’s kind of the nature of being prepubescent). 5 year olds do not consent to sex. Why? Because they do not have interest in sex. For a five year old to be engaging in sex with an adult, that adult would have had to have coerced the child into having sex.
Furthermore, you do not seem to understand the libertarian viewpoint of the nature of the child/parent relationship. The parent is a guardian of the child. Until the child demonstrates that he is an adult, the parent fulfills the role of protecting the child’s rights.
Who here is arguing that we shouldn’t follow the NAP other than you?
What causes someone to have an interest in sex? Is it a rational choice or the product of the interplay between the environment and biological programming?
Why wouldn’t it count? Are we assuming impaired function of the brain? If so, what types of brain function were being impaired at the time?
So what? The point is that we don’t consider the “consent” to count.
Not really. It has to do with the nature of law, norms, and disputes.
Five year olds prostitute themselves? The youngest I’ve ever heard of is 8 year olds in Southeast Asia. Guess what? Puberty has hit people as low as 8.
Provide an example of where I have said we shouldn’t follow the NAP. The only person here that I have noticed who finds fault with the NAP but who is still anti-state is Clayton.
Whatever, pretend like “Aggression is inherently illegitimate” means “Aggression is inherently illegitimate except when we’re arresting people I don’t like.”
You didn’t say you think pedos should be arrested? Because I’m pretty sure that was your point.
“Aggression is inherently illegit” does not mean “Aggression is inherently illegit except when it involves arresting people who make contracts with other people who I don’t think can consent to these contracts.”
I’m saying I don’t see how 5 year olds are going to consent to sex with adults. I’m saying that when a 30 year old man is having sex with a 5 year old, that he has aggressed against the 5 year old.
Now, maybe the case could be made that in the case of pedo prostitution, that the 5 year old consented. But I would like you to provide some evidence that this is something that happens. As far as I am aware, child prostitues are typically around 10-12. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
I know you’re not arguing for any particular age for consent, I’m just wondering why an interest in sex would be a relevant criteria for determing the age of consent when an interest in sex could happen as early as nine of ten years old (but usually around 12-13) and doesn’t seem to have any necessary link to overall brain development.
EDIT: This isn’t even mentioning how different our world is from the world in which we evolved. Our stone age brains are being asked to analyze consequences that we can’t really comprehend without some kind of external input and at the age of 10 our brains aren’t even done developing, particularly in the areas responsible for decision making and rationality.
This is a scientific question. What effects does alcohol use, for instance, have on the brain of the user? What sort of brain and body functions does alcohol use impair?
Why might we think that those effects could cause someone to do something or say something or agree to something they might not ordinarly do, say or agree to?
Puberty is biological. There is a reason I asked if you knew what sexual maturity is. Sexual maturity is often linked with adulthood in animals except for humans. Why do some people make extra distinctions regarding people? Because some people start talking about morality. But guess what? For most of human history, if you were sexually mature, you were an adult. So, an interest in sex is a very relevant criterion regarding sexual consent.
No. Whether or not a person’s consent is considered lawful is in the realm of law, norms, and disputes. If it is a norm that someone who is drunk cannot legally consent to the sale of their house, then if said person contests the legality of the contract regarding the sale of his house, he would have norms and law on his side. If it is a norm that someone who is drunk can consent to have sexual relations with someone else, then if said person tries to argue that he/she was raped because he/she was drunk, the norm/law would not be on his/her side.
Sure, it can seem like it’s a double standard regarding the same actions. But like I said, it is a question of law, norms, and disputes. Science is irrelevant to the question.
EDIT: I should say that biology is irrelevant to the question. One could talk about the science of law.
Well, I’ve already said that there might be a logical case, but I’m waiting for you to provide the facts regarding your case. Since you don’t seem to be interested, it is you who is immune to facts and logic. Reported again.
I’m not just talking about morality. I’m talking about using the science of the brain to understand why sexual maturity is no standard for consent in the modern world. It may have made sense in 1250 England or whatever to place the age of consent at sexual maturity but they had nowhere near the information we have now about how the brain works. Hell they probably didn’t even think the brain had anything to do with human action.
Not anymore it’s not. We’re living in a time where these sorts of problems can be examined from a scientific point of view not just a philosophical one. It makes absolutely no sense to assume that just because someone can reproduce that they would understand the potential risks involved in sexual activity. People are pre-programmed to enjoy sex and to be able to reproduce, we’re not pre-programmed to understand the socioeconomic complications of childrearing in the 21st century, to understand how contraception works, to understand the multitude of diseases that can be contracted from unprotected sex, to understand the potential social implications of being sexual at an early age etc.
I guess in theory you’re right. We don’t necessarily have to have some common standard for consensual acts. It could vary from area to area. But if we are going to try to find some common standard for the ability to consent, I think we should look at the organ that actually does the consenting and how it responds to various stimuli including drugs and stress and how underdeveloped brains work differently from fully developed brains.
EDIT: In a way this highlights the reason for my discomfort with leaving these sorts of problems to a market process. God only knows what the market would decide.
Firstly, the age of consent was low even in America, not just 1250 England. From wikipedia on age of consent:
So let’s be perfectly clear that I am not asking for us to return to the middle ages.
Secondly, any standard you (or anyone) comes up with is arbitrary. Any biological standard is arbitrary. Any moral standard is arbitrary. So you cannot appeal to biology in order to inform us when someone is an adult. I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but did you know that the human brain does not fully mature until about age 25? So, why don’t we just use that as the standard for adulthood? Why don’t we just say that when your brain is fully matured, that is when you are considered an adult?
Look, the standard for all animals to be considered an adult was sexual maturity. For most of human history it has been that way. Rothbard proposed a different standard. His standard was when a child asserts that he is an adult, he is an adult. One example he provided was when a child runs away from home. Maybe there are problems with his standard, and maybe it’s a perfect standard. But biology is not able to make a standard. It is out of the realm of biology.
No. What you are saying makes no sense. Just because someone cannot understand the possible consequences is no reason to assert that that person cannot engage in a certain activity. No person can ever know all the possible consequences of any given action. It looks like you are not even talking about pedophilia anymore, and that you are just talking about age of consent in general. So, let’s say we make it illegal for 12 year olds to have sex with each other (okay, it’s illegal already, but I’m talking about for the sake of argument). Okay, so now it’s illegal. But what is the logical conclusion of making something illegal? Death. If somebody breaks the law and refuses to submit to the state, the punishment is death by cop. So, are you really going to say that 12 year olds should not have sex with each other on pain of death? For their own good? Because they aren’t aware of the possible consequences, of which death is one? I mean, really? How fucked up is that?
Well, like I said, legal consent is in the realm of law, norms, and disputes. Someone might use biology in order to make a case that they were not able to give consent, but in the end, legal consent has to do with law and norms, and there may be some double standards as a result, but people would still know the framework under which they are working.
Well this is kind of a pointless statement, as I can say the same about statutory law. People could be put to death as a result of consensual sex in a statutory system. It happens in some Middle Eastern countries already, but theoretically it could happen in America too. The government could just pass a statute saying that 12 year olds cannot have sex with each other on pain of death, or it could just pass a law saying that 12 year olds cannot have sex with each other, and then there is the logical consequence of death if any of the 12 year olds resist arrest. Wonderful. What a pointless statement for you to have made.
I have no problem with an arbitrary standard as long as it convinces the majority and basically serves the ends which I want it to serve which is, among other things, to deter people of a certain age from having sex with other people before they reach a certain age. Whichever argument proves to be the most compelling to people will be the one I will use. If it’s a moral argument, I’ll phrase it as a moral argument, if it’s a biological argument I’ll phrase it as a biological argument. As long as a majority of the populace is willing to accept it, and a majority of the representatives of a state are willing to vote for it, it can be made law and that’s what I care about.
Perhaps phrasing it as a biological argument will not prove convincing to people but I actually find it to be the most compelling because it’s based in fact and then combined with moral judgment rather than just moral judgment.
Yes I did know that. To me that is a good standard for adulthood but it obviously poses practical problems and would probably be seen as many people as being too extreme. It would never be broadly accepted so there’s no use advocating it. I can accept a softened version.
In reality most statutory rape laws don’t just have consent ages, they also have age variance considerations. So the minimum age of consent could be 12 with a maximum variance of 3. Meaning a 15 year old could have sex with a 12 year old, but a 20 year old couldn’t. It’s arbitrary but it’s closer to my ideal than just setting it at 12 with no maximum age variance.
I don’t really care what the standard has been throughout human history, it makes no sense now.
I can’t imagine parents being ok with letting their kids go just because they’ve run away either. I know I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Sure it is. Especially if it’s widely understood that they have no idea what they’re doing. Even more so when there’s a welfare state that promises to fund poor mothers and things like this. Their bad decisions can become a liability to me. That means I have an interest in regulating their behavior. Things might work differently in a free society but I don’t live in a free society.
The statutory punishment doesn’t have to be death. It could be any number of punishments. Death by cop is a possibility during any arrest.
I wouldn’t want the variance to be 0. I’d want it to be no more than 4 though. I see that as being no more fucked up than letting a 20 year old man fuck a 12 year old girl.
Well in my society there’s a political element to this as well. Legal consent is a matter of law but law is not just a matter of what two people agree to in my society.
It’s possible but it seems unlikely given what I know about the political values in this country. I have literally no way of knowing what a market process would generate.
Oh God, not this bullshit again. Customary law is the only form of law that reflects the will of the majority all the time. By definition. Statutory law at best is superflous or it does not reflect the will of the majority. Please do not continue with this bullshit that you want the will of the majority to become law.
I just want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that people can not consent to sex until age 25 in your opinion?
I am aware of age variances, but I have never heard of the variance that wide regarding 12 year olds. I have seen articles or heard on the radio of kids who are within 1 year apart getting screwed by the state.
Well the point of running away is that the kid doesn’t want to be with the parents. It’s not really about the parents.
No. It is not a consistent reason. No one can percieve all possible consequences of any action, sex or whatever.
I know the statutory punishment doesn’t have to be death. That was not my point. My point was the logical punishment for not obeying a statute is death, unless you are willing to accept the punishment.
Okay. Obviously moral standards have changed throughout the centuries. But I thought you stayed away from morals. Unless it has to do with God. Who you have no idea what he thinks. Confusing.
Okay. Two people agreeing is not law in any society except for the 2 person society. What’s your point?
What’s unlikely? That two 12 year olds who have had consensual sex might resist arrest and get murdered by the police? Maybe. Not that many 12 year olds have sex relative to the population anyway.