h a l f b a k e r yWe have a low common denominator: 2
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Instead of mandating a fixed age of sexual consent, there should be a simple formula:
if (X < 19) then
Y-X < X - a
where X is the age of the younger sexual partner and Y is the age of the older sexual partner.
a is a constant which I would set at a=12.
So, for instance, a 13-year old
could legally have sex with a 14-year old but not a 15-year old.
A 14-year old could legally have sex with a 16-year old but not a 17-year old.
An 11-year old could not legally have sex with anyone because no value of X or Y satisfies the inequality.
The idea is that the legal age difference slowly increases as the younger partner matures, until s/he reaches 19 years when any difference becomes legal.
The precise number of days would be used as age.
Dating Pools
http://xkcd.com/314/
Standard Creepiness Rule [apnea, Aug 31 2008]
[link]
|
| |
I sort of agree, but i'm not sure about it being a law. It really depends on maturity and motives. |
|
| |
Like people will stop to work this shit out when they're all hot and bothered. |
|
| |
// An 11-year old could not legally have sex with anyone because no value of X or Y satisfies the inequality. |
|
| |
Really? "Y - X < X - a" was your inequality. Substituting 11 for X and 12 for a yields "Y - 11 < 11 - 12"; that evalutates to "Y - 11 < -1", or (adding 11 to both sides) "Y < 10". In other words, an 11 year old can have sex with anyone younger than 10. |
|
| |
I don't think that's what you intended! [See below for what I missed.] |
|
| |
It'd work OK for savants. |
|
| |
y-x must be less than or equal to x-a
|
|
| |
y-x<x-a
11-11<11-12
0>-1 .: y-x is greater than x-a, sex is illegal.
|
|
| |
y-x<x-a
14-13<13-12
1=1 equality .: y-x is equal to x-a, sex is legal.
y-x<x-a
16-14<14-a
2=2
.: sex is legal. |
|
| |
The problem with this method doesn't address that children can't be reasonably expected to know what qualifies as consent, or what they are or are not consenting to. |
|
| |
jutta, manicdictator did also specify that //X is the age of the younger sexual partner and Y is the age of the older sexual partner//. |
|
| |
So the full condition is (last part slightly adjusted to account for identical ages): |
|
| |
(X < 19) AND (Y-X < X - a) AND (X <= Y) |
|
| |
In your example, where X = 11 and Y < 10, we see that X > Y which violates the final part of the condition. |
|
| |
Ah, I missed that constraint. OK, thanks! |
|
| |
//because age difference is what matters//.. to who? This scheme is no more or less arbitrary or prejudicial than the various statutes which set fixed ages for consent. In this jurisdiction there already is a variety of conditions that apply to those between 14-16 & 16-18, that are meant to prevent abuse of children. If preventing abuse is the goal, it would make more sense to write laws that criminalize abuse in these relationships, rather than relying on a statistical correlation between 'difference-in-age' and 'likelihood-of-abuse'. |
|
| |
I think this is kind of the situation now. If two under-age children are boinking, they are under the age to be legal, but also under the age to be held legally responsible. If one boinker is of legal age, the alleged adult is held to be responsible and is prosecuted, more harshly as age difference increases. The fine details are left to the legal people involved in the case, with consideration for motives, conditions and wealth. |
|
| |
This formula might help establish a firm legal definition, but of what? I think we need to be able to evaluate more conditions than just legal/not legal, black/white, so to speak. |
|
| |
With a formula as proposed, the police would check IDs, type the dates into the Rape-O-Tron, and either wave the children back to their sport with an apology and a complementary tube of lube, or club them senseless and take them straight to prison, no trial needed. |
|
| |
Surely Romeo and Juliet laws cover this almost as well with none of the fiddly calculating required? |
|
| |
Age difference is what matters? I figured the emotional, and financially ability to cope with the consequence of sex [I.E. kids] of both parties involved is what really matters, in addition: the maturity to be responsible [I.E. not spread STDs all over the place from promescuity + all-inclusiveness]. |
|
| |
Children should not be having sex at all, and it is a foul-though-well-earned mark against modern culture that institutions dole out condoms to children. |
|
| |
I propose a new equation: |
|
| |
If X + Y < 20,000 then S = 0 |
|
| |
where X and Y are the two tenative partners annual incomes and S = the amount of sexual engagments allowed by law. |
|
| |
Incidently, this will also cut down on welfare recipients too! |
|
| |
The bigger problem I see that comes from an arbitrary age of consent is that relationships do not start and stop based on age. For example if you have 2 young people age 17 and one is born 6 months before the other and they were sexually active for a period prior to the first of them turning 18 the existing framework make the now 18yo guilty of statutory rape for having ongoing relations with his longtime girlfriend. Such a sliding scale at least permits some flexibility in interpreting the nature of or lack of a violation. |
|
| |
//Children should not be having sex at all// |
|
| |
Humans older than 12 are not children. They are adolescents. |
|
| |
// where X and Y are the two tenative partners annual incomes and S = the amount of sexual engagments allowed by law // |
|
| |
So you want to ban sex for consenting adults? |
|
| |
Are you a member of the Taliban? |
|
| |
No, not taliban, just an avid social darwinist. |
|
| |
1. A twelve year old is not a supporter but a supportee. This adolescent of which you speak is not capable of supporting himself so how can he support a child? He can't so HIS responsibility falls on his PARENTS shoulders. This behavior is not very adult like. "Adolescent", semantics, whatever. |
|
| |
2. Apart from moral implications, the socio-economical implications of my formula being put into effect are much more favorable than yours. (see I'm a capitalist at heart!) Imagine how much more money we will all have, when the burden of feeding and raising the children of the irresponsible isn't shouldered by those that choose to work for a living. |
|
| |
[MikeD]: dude, you're more like a communist at heart (Communist states being the only ones who currently legislate the number of children you are allowed to have). Banning sex for people without an income is all well in theory, but how do you suggest enforcing such ban without a totalitarian regime? |
|
| |
If you were a capitalist you would allow anyone to have as many children as they like, but insist that they personally deal with the consequences and not rely on the state to support them. Instead you support a heavy-handed police state that controls people's sex lives. |
|
| |
Also, you seem to forget that responsible sex does not lead to pregnancy. If you use contraception and condoms the chance of pregnancy is next to zero. |
|
| |
That coming from a manic dictator! Ha!
You're not being true to yourself buddy. |
|
| |
"If you were a capitalist you would allow anyone to have as many children as they like, but insist that they personally deal with the consequences" come on now -manic There is a difference between being a capitalist and being heartless. While a capitalist may hold that individuals need to deal with the consequences of their own actions, it would not be the consequences of their own actions that the children of these sexually active children had to deal with. The thought "to ensure the common good" is still part of the "equation" |
|
| |
MikeD with "poor people shouldn't have sex" and "a proven effective method of contraception should not be given to kids because we all know that what a sexually active 14 year old really needs is a baby." MikeD, either you are a wit or you are witless. |
|
| |
I think I remember hearing that the law in Canada works pretty similer to what you described |
|
| |