moral questions regarding children and consent

Maybe not but the point is that's the role they are meant to provide. In the cases where it's happened, the teachers have generally not started their discussions in an overtly sexual way but more like a mentor or confidante.


The added ability to coerce, pressurise and manipulate a vulnerable person into doing something they wouldn't do otherwise seems like a negative impact to me.


Because they make you a lot more likely to do something without fully appreciating the consequences.


No, because they're in the same boat then.

Hold on though. Are you actually addressing what you quoted from me? In other words, are you claiming that the paper in question is a comparative adult/minor study about vulnerability, etc. and that it also factors in how cultural norms affect these issues?

Or are you just piling on a bunch of stuff that doesn't actually address what I'd said?

Give it a google, you'll find quite a few sob stories of where authority figures did just that.


Well it's not the only factor. There's also the naivety, immaturity and impulsiveness of children in these situations.
There may in theory be a case where a child and an authority figure do develop a genuine relationship of course and perhaps in those situations they're hard done by. But changing the law to cater to those few situations would make it a lot easier for the more manipulative authority figures to get away with things. And all the genuine couple needs to do is wait 1-5 years.


Depends on the context. It's not like every culprit of statutory rape has gone to prison. But that's different from legalising it which would give licence to others who are holding back to give it a try.


There's no-one to blame, neither could be said to have been expected to know better.



Sure but then if you're still doing the things after you talk then that doesn't amount to much. Plus this isn't what's happening in these relationships by and large if you read that paper. The culprits want to get sex out of their victims and the victims' impulsiveness helps them get that.

It's not but I would trust off the cuff remarks from child psychiatrists in an academic paper over your gut feeling. Since your stance is the more unusual one, perhaps you have some evidence to back it up?

Sure the evidence for the status quo may be shaky. But since it's you guys who are proposing a change in the law, surely the onus is on you to demonstrate that the received wisdom that these things are harmful is wrong? Especially as if you're wrong young people get traumatised while as if I'm wrong, a few older people will just have to wait a few years to have sex with their crush. Maybe that's a bugger for those who are attracted to younger people but so what? Some people are attracted to supermodels but will never have sex with one of them in their life.

Further to this, even if you were right, loosening up the law would make it easier for people to get away genuine abuse (ie that which both of us would agree is abuse).

Make a good old utilitarian cost-benefit analysis and you'll find removing age of consent laws just doesn't stack up.


Quite possibly. But such intense relationships amongst minors are generally discouraged. They're just not prosecuted because neither party could be said to be at fault.


That's not what I was saying. I was responding to your point that perhaps an older partner might dissuade the younger partner from impulsive behaviour. While this is theoretically true, in practice the older partner has no interest whatsoever in dissuading them from that impulsiveness. So this is a nul point.
And impulsiveness is not the only factor here. These things I listed are perhaps only mildly worrying in themselves but you put them all together, they become very worrying. And yes they may exist in adults, the point is they are much more common in children.

"I would trust off the cuff remarks from child psychiatrists in an academic paper "<---that's ridiculously bad epistemology in my opinion.

I'm not just going by gut feeling.  I'm going by experience.

So do you know of any academic studies into statutory rape cases which have concluded there is no reason to believe statutory rape tends to be more traumatic for the victim than sex between adults is?


I don't think it is. You're proposing a law that will go against what the vast majority of people feel is right and what the child psychiatrists in the paper I posted take as a given. You'd better have something pretty compelling to convince them. A study like that mentioned above would do.


Only if they do it. I don't understand why people have to sleep with these underage people right away.


Fair question. There becomes a point where you have to draw the line. Banning sex completely is obviously ridiculous. Which is why I would say a cost-benefit analysis for deciding an age of consent. Children tend to be more vulnerable and are easier to coerce (unless you can demonstrate this is not true?) therefore they need a greater degree of protection.


Now if someone rapes a 12 year old they go to prison whether they claim consent or not. Under Terrapin' system they just need to target one who has a knowledge of sex acts and then say it was consensual. Unless there's an independent witness, they'll get away with it.


I'm not denying there are grey areas in all this. In theory you could say one underage partner was more mature than the other etc. and could be at fault. And I can understand people being ok with say a 17 year old sleeping with a 15 year old. I think in cases like this they can be assessed on a case by case basis. But a 40 year old teacher sleeping with his 12 year old students? No way. That should always be a crime. But of course no crime is dealt with without trial. Perhaps in certain circumstances a teacher in that situation might get a lighter sentence. But those circumstances would have to be very exceptional IMO.


No, children for instance are generally not allowed to sign legal contracts without a parent's permission. There's all sorts of safeguards against the relative impulsiveness of children compared to adults.

Well probably some truth to that. But the fact that there is a bias towards saying it is harmful does not mean it is harmless. Paedophilia advocates should be campaigning for fairer analyses of the effects of statutory rape, not just assuming there are no effects.
Homosexuality is different because the two men or two women are considered peers in terms of maturity and development.


Not really. If say there is no evidence either way, then his belief that it is harmless is no more justified than my belief it is harmful. Russell's teapot is all well and good for things that make no difference whether we believe them or not, but where the safety of the vulnerable is up in the air, surely the option that grants them greater safety should be preferred.


With Terrapin's method, each trial will go on forever as complex examinations of the alleged victim's competence, willingness and knowledge will have to be made in every single case. So if anything the current system will be less wasteful


Are they innocents? They prey on the vulnerable. The amount of cases of genuine mutual affection seem low and are generally dealt with less harshly anyway.
And anyway, in his system anyone accused of rape would have to do community service so he throws away innocent til proven guilty.


Nope, as mentioned above, his system would likely be more costly as it's so very muddled.


Or on the other hand, genuine rape victims' suffering will be dismissed.


Kids can have sex all they want already - just with each other. There's even a blind eye turned to borderline cases. Really the only ones who benefit from Terrapin's system are the few adults who want to have sex with children.


Also adults can be more trusted in positions of care, exploitation is avoided, coercion, power imbalances and social isolation become lesser factors. And that's assuming you're correct that statutory rape doesn't do psychological damage which you're basing on nothing.



Doing it for just sex is bad enough in my opinion.

I don't know how you can say that. Look at how many stupid things kids do compared to adults. Look at how more susceptible they are to peer pressure etc. Do you really want to give people licence to take advantage of that (sexually or otherwise?)