On a re-thinking of the goals of sexual age of consent
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 4:33 am
Most countries today have an age of consent which stands at 16. Some exceptions, like Spain or some parts of Germany, have 13 and 14, while some parts of Mexico, use ambiguity in law to have no age of consent (ambiguity like "puberty", which could be defined from anywhere from 8-9 years of age when early puberty hits many girls to the first time you menstruate for girls, and a possibly fixed later age for boys).
Some countries also adds conditions, usually to boost the image of allowing younger age sexuality or to, in some ideological faith, mimic gay sexuality by having higher age of consent either based on gender of same-sex, or age of same-sex or type of sex (like in Australia there's a state with 21 years of age for butt-fucking).
What all the laws share, is usually a lack of clear goals and targets with their ages of consent. It all works by gut-feeling, and from gut-feeling you can either get places like in Mexico where a 50 year old, who under conditions like not being parent or teacher or doctor of a kid of 10 years (or other closely related person), can freely have sex with the kid, to cases like in Australia where blind faith has made some stubborn legislators in some backwards state make people wait until they are 21 just to but their penis between butt-cheeks.
I offer a new way of looking at it. It should be an intuitive fact that there will always be cases where (there are also data on this, but unfortunately it's difficult to argue from individual cases as opposed to statistics and you can't gather statistics because there's not much structured data to take it from, there's no place you can made a widespread survey), regardless of age between the actors, where it simply will just work, they will both benefit from it by giving each other something valuable, and happiness and prosperity will be achievable for both. It is also a fact that there are people who exploit young people because of their vulnerabilities, rather than out of classical love, and there are people who are especially vulnerable themselves who tries to have relationships with kids, but in so doing pull them both down and can be particularly destructive for the younger part.
It seems to me then that, while most laws were made by (by today's standards) conservatives with ideological or religious purposes, today we live in a new world where facts are becoming more important and studies of sex (sexology), in sociology, in psychology and of paedophilia itself and the children who have been in a paedophilic atmosphere, have revealed much more exact knowledge of the true natures surrounding the parties involved on both bad and good, replacing in so doing previous extremism on both sides which either were staunch defenders of free sex across any age (or stage of development) or very low ages and those who were aggressively against it treating it as vice and contrary to their ideas of the nature of human beings, but also replacing common prejudices, like on children's sexuality or adult's motivations as well as physical attributes.
What we want then, in this new world, the way I see it (I know there still exists a great deal, the large majority perhaps, of the old generation who favours ideology and prejudice, but I'll ignore them, I deal with facts, not opinions) is to be able to "cash in" on those cases that are treated in healthy and prosperous manners with respect to the younger part (but also at some extent the older part, as we can't rule the older part out), at the same time we want to avoid letting young people pay more than is healthy for them to be burdened by.
I therefore have a range of suggestions for developed countries (underdeveloped countries is another matter, because bad bureaucracy and bad rule of law prohibits efficient defence of principles and individuals, also, the exact values may differ from culture to culture, as I take supposition based on the culture and state of the nation of Norway): first part is more standard and involves a basic adjustment, second is the creation of an "exception agency", that is, a bureau that has the authority to give exceptions from the basic law regarding age of consent, following their own sets of conditions under which they are allowed to do so and some obligations they have.
1) Reduce the age of consent itself to a base 15 years. This is because (in Norway) at the age of 15 most young boys and girls have developed some level of sophistication around their thinking, and they are already experienced enough (generally) to make many decisions on their own and work through by themselves bad choices they do (although it's never good to be alone of course in matters of love, romance and sex, but that is another matter). Consequently, introduce an additional boundary-based rule where if the number of years separating the partners is less than three years (that is, two years max) there is an automatic full exception, in Norway this interacts well with the "youth school", secondary school, from age 13-15, and liberalises and simplifies the free flow of emotions and intimacy between people who go at the same school, as it's not unlikely for people who starts up at a school at age 13 to be infatuated with a 15 year old at the same school using the same space in the free time. It's notable that this is already legal in Norway (that is, because age of consent is 16 years, 15 year old can have sex with 13 because only 16+ and younger is punishable by law). Atop of this, legalize the possibility of "light romance and/or erotic communication" between people of any age and down to 10 years of age. Light romance/erotic communication requires definition, I have none for this moment, but imagine one if you can, imagine one that is not consuming your daily life or making you stressful or making you feel excessively emotionally obligated, such one could be said to be "light" because it doesn't drain on your strength much or prohibit you much from taking part in other aspects of life. Light erotic communication involves exploring sexual fantasy and themes on a personal but not an excessively emotionally weighted manner and/or is not showing of restraint from developing into a heavily emotionally and/or psychologically weighted situation (for instance, it should not encourage illegal action, but be clear of its role as fantasy or simple discussion or exchange of intimate details).
2) Introduce the "Exception Agency", in Norway probably only an organization with one full-time worker (because I don't think little Norway will need more, but with supporting part-time workers and support from other agencies with specializations). The exception agency deliver any tailored "package" of allowance and conditions and obligations to their applicants, and work by three "tiers", three "levels" of seriousness, and consequently have an increasingly strict set of criteria on each level for whether they should grant exception to couples that have become highly emotionally attached and wants to go to a new level (of romance, intimacy and sexuality) without waiting any given amount of years (or wants to have the opportunity if they'll be in the mood for it). Before I describe these levels, I must mention that all unique couples have the chance to have sex up to one time before they need to apply for further allowance, this is to allow for first-hand experience so that one can for instance decline instead of pursuing something for which one figured out, when it all came down to it, that one didn't want anyways. Also, it should be easy to cancel ones own "deal" with the Exception Agency, because obviously these deals will have significance for people, while you don't have to "use" the deals so you can acquire any amount of deals you want without ever taking advantage of anyone of them and they don't have to mean anything explicitly, people would likely still quickly consider them as sorts of tokens of a high level of a relationship, almost like a prototype or primitive version of legal "partnership" among young people instead of the real thing for which they are too young to commit to.
The first level of seriousness, of strictness, has a minimum age of 12 years and can take up to 6 years in difference of age between partners. This one should not take too much effort to acquire given that the older part is descent enough and follow basic guidelines like allowing for the younger part to fully attend school without interruption, allow for time and energy to do homework and not be an obstacle for nourishing a friend circle. I was unsure for a while whether or not I shouldn't write 19, but then I remember that while 18 year olds can drink, it is very typical to start drinking a lot when you get 19 (Russefeiring: distinct Norwegian period of the year for graduation partying), and I didn't think heavy drinkers and 12 year olds would work well together, not that the Exception Agency would allow this anyways, and in case of 13 year old and 19 year old they would be restrictive on this point. Another case is that 18 year olds usually would lag behind in their moment of reaching "adult" while 19 year olds would've had a year to experience all the things that quickly come to consume one in terms of adult life and the older the more they are adult-like and diverge from the young part people and I figured 6 years is good max time, for 13 year and 19 this would also be regulated of course, but depending on the personality of the older, it could be relatively straight forward and problem-free.
The second level is a 12 year minimum with up to 10 years age difference. At this point the older part is starting to enter adult life but has not fully yet embraced it, and therefore there remains likely a greater and more easy bridge between their difference of age (here speaking of 12 and 22). I first though 12 years age difference but then thought 24 year olds would be a little bit too life-experienced for that level of seriousness and ease of granting allowance with a 12 year old.
Third level is a 10 year minimum age with unlimited age difference. However, at this point a number of strict criteria regulates what are the situations that should see exceptions from the basic law. While naturally situations of 16 year olds with 11 year olds would be treated less serious than 65 year old with a 10 year old, the idea is still basically the same that there should be a strict set of criteria to allow it (in the 16-year case they only have to wait one year anyways, so declining application is not too big a deal for the two when they can reapply within a year, for the unlikely case of 65 year old with 10 year old, however, the case would be initially harder to make and the increased amount of criteria has to be satisfied at the same time).
Heavy romantic relationships should carry penalty if they can be proven to be destructive also to the young part. Heavy romantic relationships without clear destructive part (destructive means any attack on the psychological health of the younger part and any both psychological and emotional directed attack on their health) should only be penalized if it is discovered but the relationship is not corrected to a lighter level of communication and handling of each other, it should also be penalized if more than one warning is needed or two warnings were the second warning concerns a smaller overstep.
That is the proposal then for a re-think of the entire problem. Here one sees a more natural more relaxed legal framework while at the same time keeping constraints and within those constraints allowing for exceptions that also seems natural given any situation where both parts are likely or have a fair chance to benefit and enjoy and prosper from their allowance. Before anybody asks, my personal stance, if you look away from this, on the matter of age of consent, is that the ideal is to have no age of consent at all or any initial restrictions, and that it instead should be based on human needs and when those needs arise and should be satisfied, that however, is another and more complicated manner and not very realistic as of yet (because it arguments from the point of a science that hasn't materialized yet), and this above is meant to be an initial step towards finding the cases where it makes sense for people to be together despite low age of one of the parts and large age discrepancies between the two parts.
Some countries also adds conditions, usually to boost the image of allowing younger age sexuality or to, in some ideological faith, mimic gay sexuality by having higher age of consent either based on gender of same-sex, or age of same-sex or type of sex (like in Australia there's a state with 21 years of age for butt-fucking).
What all the laws share, is usually a lack of clear goals and targets with their ages of consent. It all works by gut-feeling, and from gut-feeling you can either get places like in Mexico where a 50 year old, who under conditions like not being parent or teacher or doctor of a kid of 10 years (or other closely related person), can freely have sex with the kid, to cases like in Australia where blind faith has made some stubborn legislators in some backwards state make people wait until they are 21 just to but their penis between butt-cheeks.
I offer a new way of looking at it. It should be an intuitive fact that there will always be cases where (there are also data on this, but unfortunately it's difficult to argue from individual cases as opposed to statistics and you can't gather statistics because there's not much structured data to take it from, there's no place you can made a widespread survey), regardless of age between the actors, where it simply will just work, they will both benefit from it by giving each other something valuable, and happiness and prosperity will be achievable for both. It is also a fact that there are people who exploit young people because of their vulnerabilities, rather than out of classical love, and there are people who are especially vulnerable themselves who tries to have relationships with kids, but in so doing pull them both down and can be particularly destructive for the younger part.
It seems to me then that, while most laws were made by (by today's standards) conservatives with ideological or religious purposes, today we live in a new world where facts are becoming more important and studies of sex (sexology), in sociology, in psychology and of paedophilia itself and the children who have been in a paedophilic atmosphere, have revealed much more exact knowledge of the true natures surrounding the parties involved on both bad and good, replacing in so doing previous extremism on both sides which either were staunch defenders of free sex across any age (or stage of development) or very low ages and those who were aggressively against it treating it as vice and contrary to their ideas of the nature of human beings, but also replacing common prejudices, like on children's sexuality or adult's motivations as well as physical attributes.
What we want then, in this new world, the way I see it (I know there still exists a great deal, the large majority perhaps, of the old generation who favours ideology and prejudice, but I'll ignore them, I deal with facts, not opinions) is to be able to "cash in" on those cases that are treated in healthy and prosperous manners with respect to the younger part (but also at some extent the older part, as we can't rule the older part out), at the same time we want to avoid letting young people pay more than is healthy for them to be burdened by.
I therefore have a range of suggestions for developed countries (underdeveloped countries is another matter, because bad bureaucracy and bad rule of law prohibits efficient defence of principles and individuals, also, the exact values may differ from culture to culture, as I take supposition based on the culture and state of the nation of Norway): first part is more standard and involves a basic adjustment, second is the creation of an "exception agency", that is, a bureau that has the authority to give exceptions from the basic law regarding age of consent, following their own sets of conditions under which they are allowed to do so and some obligations they have.
1) Reduce the age of consent itself to a base 15 years. This is because (in Norway) at the age of 15 most young boys and girls have developed some level of sophistication around their thinking, and they are already experienced enough (generally) to make many decisions on their own and work through by themselves bad choices they do (although it's never good to be alone of course in matters of love, romance and sex, but that is another matter). Consequently, introduce an additional boundary-based rule where if the number of years separating the partners is less than three years (that is, two years max) there is an automatic full exception, in Norway this interacts well with the "youth school", secondary school, from age 13-15, and liberalises and simplifies the free flow of emotions and intimacy between people who go at the same school, as it's not unlikely for people who starts up at a school at age 13 to be infatuated with a 15 year old at the same school using the same space in the free time. It's notable that this is already legal in Norway (that is, because age of consent is 16 years, 15 year old can have sex with 13 because only 16+ and younger is punishable by law). Atop of this, legalize the possibility of "light romance and/or erotic communication" between people of any age and down to 10 years of age. Light romance/erotic communication requires definition, I have none for this moment, but imagine one if you can, imagine one that is not consuming your daily life or making you stressful or making you feel excessively emotionally obligated, such one could be said to be "light" because it doesn't drain on your strength much or prohibit you much from taking part in other aspects of life. Light erotic communication involves exploring sexual fantasy and themes on a personal but not an excessively emotionally weighted manner and/or is not showing of restraint from developing into a heavily emotionally and/or psychologically weighted situation (for instance, it should not encourage illegal action, but be clear of its role as fantasy or simple discussion or exchange of intimate details).
2) Introduce the "Exception Agency", in Norway probably only an organization with one full-time worker (because I don't think little Norway will need more, but with supporting part-time workers and support from other agencies with specializations). The exception agency deliver any tailored "package" of allowance and conditions and obligations to their applicants, and work by three "tiers", three "levels" of seriousness, and consequently have an increasingly strict set of criteria on each level for whether they should grant exception to couples that have become highly emotionally attached and wants to go to a new level (of romance, intimacy and sexuality) without waiting any given amount of years (or wants to have the opportunity if they'll be in the mood for it). Before I describe these levels, I must mention that all unique couples have the chance to have sex up to one time before they need to apply for further allowance, this is to allow for first-hand experience so that one can for instance decline instead of pursuing something for which one figured out, when it all came down to it, that one didn't want anyways. Also, it should be easy to cancel ones own "deal" with the Exception Agency, because obviously these deals will have significance for people, while you don't have to "use" the deals so you can acquire any amount of deals you want without ever taking advantage of anyone of them and they don't have to mean anything explicitly, people would likely still quickly consider them as sorts of tokens of a high level of a relationship, almost like a prototype or primitive version of legal "partnership" among young people instead of the real thing for which they are too young to commit to.
The first level of seriousness, of strictness, has a minimum age of 12 years and can take up to 6 years in difference of age between partners. This one should not take too much effort to acquire given that the older part is descent enough and follow basic guidelines like allowing for the younger part to fully attend school without interruption, allow for time and energy to do homework and not be an obstacle for nourishing a friend circle. I was unsure for a while whether or not I shouldn't write 19, but then I remember that while 18 year olds can drink, it is very typical to start drinking a lot when you get 19 (Russefeiring: distinct Norwegian period of the year for graduation partying), and I didn't think heavy drinkers and 12 year olds would work well together, not that the Exception Agency would allow this anyways, and in case of 13 year old and 19 year old they would be restrictive on this point. Another case is that 18 year olds usually would lag behind in their moment of reaching "adult" while 19 year olds would've had a year to experience all the things that quickly come to consume one in terms of adult life and the older the more they are adult-like and diverge from the young part people and I figured 6 years is good max time, for 13 year and 19 this would also be regulated of course, but depending on the personality of the older, it could be relatively straight forward and problem-free.
The second level is a 12 year minimum with up to 10 years age difference. At this point the older part is starting to enter adult life but has not fully yet embraced it, and therefore there remains likely a greater and more easy bridge between their difference of age (here speaking of 12 and 22). I first though 12 years age difference but then thought 24 year olds would be a little bit too life-experienced for that level of seriousness and ease of granting allowance with a 12 year old.
Third level is a 10 year minimum age with unlimited age difference. However, at this point a number of strict criteria regulates what are the situations that should see exceptions from the basic law. While naturally situations of 16 year olds with 11 year olds would be treated less serious than 65 year old with a 10 year old, the idea is still basically the same that there should be a strict set of criteria to allow it (in the 16-year case they only have to wait one year anyways, so declining application is not too big a deal for the two when they can reapply within a year, for the unlikely case of 65 year old with 10 year old, however, the case would be initially harder to make and the increased amount of criteria has to be satisfied at the same time).
Heavy romantic relationships should carry penalty if they can be proven to be destructive also to the young part. Heavy romantic relationships without clear destructive part (destructive means any attack on the psychological health of the younger part and any both psychological and emotional directed attack on their health) should only be penalized if it is discovered but the relationship is not corrected to a lighter level of communication and handling of each other, it should also be penalized if more than one warning is needed or two warnings were the second warning concerns a smaller overstep.
That is the proposal then for a re-think of the entire problem. Here one sees a more natural more relaxed legal framework while at the same time keeping constraints and within those constraints allowing for exceptions that also seems natural given any situation where both parts are likely or have a fair chance to benefit and enjoy and prosper from their allowance. Before anybody asks, my personal stance, if you look away from this, on the matter of age of consent, is that the ideal is to have no age of consent at all or any initial restrictions, and that it instead should be based on human needs and when those needs arise and should be satisfied, that however, is another and more complicated manner and not very realistic as of yet (because it arguments from the point of a science that hasn't materialized yet), and this above is meant to be an initial step towards finding the cases where it makes sense for people to be together despite low age of one of the parts and large age discrepancies between the two parts.