Lolita love affair scandalises Italy

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

I can only shake my head seeing people here arguing that a person of age 13 should be treated on the same grounds as an adult. Why not sending a few ten thousand gun happy 14 years old boys to Iraq then.

That said, I still find it absurd to justify the existence of an age of consent by arguing (seriously) that teenagers should spend their time on education instead on sex. If that's the point, shouldn't one rather throw those people in jail who sell them playstations?

A 13 yr old *WAS* an adult until quite recently and still is in some parts of the world. The real problem I have with many of the assertions here is that they're just that. Assertions based on irrational taboos should be challenged.

Whats a non-absurd reason to set age-of-consent if not education then?
Religious taboos? They're more often responsible for forcing women into a very limited set of choices in life.
Playstations don't have the potential of making babies though they are another form of distraction.

Maybe you missed that I was being somewhat satirical in my proposal - just to illuminate some of the irrational assertions being bandied about here

[TinyRedLeaf]

I think we're going in circles and starting to go off the rails. I thought cheyannew's post would have settled the key issue of how we can only protect children so far before they must start taking responsibilities for their own actions. Ledgem raised some valid objections, but I note that regardless of his family's higher standards of behaviour, his sister rebelled anyway.

(1)
So then, if the point of having minimum ages of legal consent is to protect children from themselves, then such limits will clearly fail. Children, if they are stubborn enough, will find their ways of getting what they want. Preventing them from doing something has a tendency to turn the activity into forbidden fruit, and all the more "desirable" as a result.

It's not about being more strict with your children and younger siblings, I feel. Rather, it's more about being firm and open to communication at the same time. Don't drive them away with your rules, however well-intentioned they may be, or those rules are likely to backfire.

(2)
But that's not the only point of having age limits. The legal limits are also there to protect children from adults who might exploit them sexually. On this point, I believe, we all agree that such restrictions are necessary. We differ only on the details of implementation.

That's an issue for our respective societies to resolve, so what's the purpose of belabouring this point any further? Freedom, restrictions, practicality, an individual's economic ability to sustain a family, and so on; these are all good reasons to consider when trying to figure out a good minimum age of consent. It should also be clear that your particular social environment will play a very large role in determining which factors are more important.

The morality of the issue, protecting children from harm, is not in question at all. As long as the ethics of any given society upholds this principle, then all is fine, in my opinion. You may wish to question the ethics of societies different from your own, but always bear in mind your personal prejudices when making such comparisons. Don't let your emotions get in the way of learning about someone else's social experiences.

On that note, I daresay that I'm fairly optimistic about the world as it is. Sure, idiots are still around, but by and large, sensible people far outnumber them. Even if that were not the case, there's always room for hope.

[SeedFreedom]

This whole topic going in circles and being drailed. Like with many topics it has simply turned into a debate about personal opinion and this is where I would normally say we each leave it at our own opinions, although in this case i still cannot accept it. But it seems my words are falling of deaf ears so i'll simply leave the fight to someone more capable.

[FatPianoBoy]

Your words are falling on deaf ears because you keep doing exactly what Vexx, myself, and a few others are trying to point out is ridiculous: making decisions based on irrational bases rather than thinking for yourself. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you want to sit on, but pick one after you've used the logic center of your brain a bit rather than the emotional one. Instead the people who continue to think in this manner keep finding little things on our posts to spin around into something entirely different, such as:

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

@fatPianoBoy
so because 18 year old cant handle themselves all 13 year olds should be having ? doesn't work in reverse. i dont disagree there, but one does not imply the other

Again, misconstruing my words into what you want to hear. My point was that 18-year-olds are usually not "qualified" for that sort of thing, and yet legally they're allowed to do it, therefore the age of consent is still total bollocks whether it's 18 or 14 or whatever. You can't give a blanket age for something like this, because maturity levels are all over the place between the ages of 13 and 18, even all the way up to your 30's. My aunt is a total moron who has had 2 failed marriages and constantly strings men along now just to keep her self-esteem afloat, and she's in her 40's. Just going by age, however, she's supposedly more mature than me, but if you asked someone in the family which of us were more mature, I have no doubt who they'd point to despite my being half her age. Emotionally, she's currently at the point i was at at 12 years old.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Well, yes, but the difference is that I believe it *can* happen. Not today, not tomorrow, probably not in a hundred years, but it *can* happen. If I ever run for president, I'm obviously not going to put lowering the age of consent as one of my main proposals--there are a lot of more important things right now. But having society that can free itself from the taboos is not something that can happen in a single lifetime, and that's why the change must be progressive.

I don't. In our increasingly complex societies, if anything, we're staying children longer. To me, if anything, that spells more sympathy for Vexx' 22 than for your 12.

The difference is that I think if someone is considered old enough to vote and enlist in the military, he should be old enough to drink and have sex. I don't really advocate giving him all those rights at the same time, but how about something like sex-booze-vote at 15-18-22? (Not that I think it politically feasible either, but whatever).

Which brings us to my real problems with the age of consent at 22:
- as I said, a law has to be enforced. A corrolary is that if you can't enforce it, don't have it in the first place. Can we enforce it any better than the Prohibition? It will cause a lot of people to become outlaws, we can't count on society to blow the whistle as with 13 years old having sex (for cultural reasons It may not be rational by your standards, but it's there), and if they did the courts would get swamped with cases as stupid as the ones you've talked about.
- empirical observation says that, while a lot of people do get in trouble over it, sex after 18 isn't that big of a problem. While I agree that education is more important, they ought to be able to balance both.
- if you put the age of consent at 22, there's a danger that people won't be ready for it before 24, and so on. There is a point where people have to be allowed to make their own mistakes to grow.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

This whole topic going in circles and being drailed. Like with many topics it has simply turned into a debate about personal opinion and this is where I would normally say we each leave it at our own opinions, although in this case i still cannot accept it. But it seems my words are falling of deaf ears so i'll simply leave the fight to someone more capable.

I disagree. I've found many of the arguments here compelling, and have adjusted and refined my stance on this issue slightly as a result of these discussions. As was said before, the reason your statements are "falling on deaf ears" is because you're not writing based on reason and logic, but emotion. I'm sorry, but "this is wrong and disgusting, would you let your child do this?!" is 100% personal opinion and offers very little "food for thought." From what I remember of your posts in this thread, they've more or less been along those lines.

This is about personal opinion, but what makes it interesting is that we're trying to find out why this bothers us, and if that's right. This requires thinking about your emotions in an analytical manner and determining why you feel how you do. Further, we're going over the merits and consequences of the age difference. In order to get something out of it, you can't come into this discussion feeling that you are 100% right - you must be willing to listen to the reasoning of others, respond to it in turn, and come to realize the strengths and weaknesses of your own reasoning. That applies to any debate that has more meaning than two or more people just yelling their opinions at each other.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Vexx

A 13 yr old *WAS* an adult until quite recently and still is in some parts of the world. The real problem I have with many of the assertions here is that they're just that. Assertions based on irrational taboos should be challenged.

How does that contradict anything I said?

Originally Posted by Vexx

Whats a non-absurd reason to set age-of-consent if not education then?
Religious taboos? They're more often responsible for forcing women into a very limited set of choices in life.

A pragmatical look at the physical, mental, and spiritual development processes of the average human being.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Playstations don't have the potential of making babies

Use of contraceptives does not lower the age of consent in any country I'm aware of. So this is also not the point it seems.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Maybe you missed that I was being somewhat satirical in my proposal - just to illuminate some of the irrational assertions being bandied about here

No I didn't miss that. That's why I put the "seriously" in brackets. Anh_Minh was serious, you weren't.

[Anh_Minh]

You meant me? I'm not really trying to argue for a big age of consent because of education. Heck, I'm not even trying to argue for a big age of consent.

[Slice of Life]

You're right, I see now that I probably misinterpreted one of your posts. Sorry. Much ado about nothing.

[Ziv]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

You're right, I see now that I probably misinterpreted one of your posts. Sorry. Much ado about nothing.

That's really bad word choice considering one of the original meanings of "nothing".

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Additionally, nothing is a double-entendre, as it was commonly used by Shakespeare as a euphemism for the female genitals. Thus the title could be read as "Much Ado about Female Genitalia".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ad...Nothing#Noting

[Slice of Life]

I see. How fitting.

[Archontic]

Obsolete English should be fucking destroyed, along with Shakespeare.

[FatPianoBoy]

Hey, thanks. You've saved me the trouble of reading through a longer post you might make before deciding not to pay any attention to you. Thanks for the heads-up

[Slice of Life]

Thread derail alert.

An age of consent exist for the simple proven fact that children will more likely than adults give their 'consent' to something they might regret later on. They're also less resistant to psychological pressure and less capable of defending their rights.

They are soft targets and in many cases of sexual abuse it would be hard to prove the wrongdoing of older, smarter, more powerful perpetrators who knowingly exploit the relative helplessness of their victims to achieve the goal they wouldn't achieve that easily with adults. Or who simply feel attracted only to inferior partners.

And because that is the case, the legislators do the next best thing, namely additonally to prohibiting to blow up the petrol station they also forbid smoking there, period. And arguing that you, personally, have no intention to set the petrol station on fire and take great care with your cigatette etc. won't help you. Meaning of the analogy: they not only prohibit sexual abuse (goes with out saying) but all kinds of sexual relationships with partners below a certain age. And arguing about your special "true love" relationship won't help you either.

That's all. Please note that my reasoning does not contain phrases like "sex is dirty", "Jesus does not approve", or "kids should work and not enjoy themselves" or anything about teenage pregnancies (because their frequency does not correlate with the age of consent).

The fact that the exact age of consent always depends on a social agreement does not mean that the whole idea is just a social construct.

A properly implemented law with a proper philosophy behind does also not forbid the younger partner anything, only the older. Because it's not to restict the freedom of children but to protect it. Especially sex between partern of equal age must never be a crime. Because either you are already responsible for your actions or not.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I disagree. I've found many of the arguments here compelling, and have adjusted and refined my stance on this issue slightly as a result of these discussions. As was said before, the reason your statements are "falling on deaf ears" is because you're not writing based on reason and logic, but emotion. I'm sorry, but "this is wrong and disgusting, would you let your child do this?!" is 100% personal opinion and offers very little "food for thought." From what I remember of your posts in this thread, they've more or less been along those lines.

This is about personal opinion, but what makes it interesting is that we're trying to find out why this bothers us, and if that's right. This requires thinking about your emotions in an analytical manner and determining why you feel how you do. Further, we're going over the merits and consequences of the age difference. In order to get something out of it, you can't come into this discussion feeling that you are 100% right - you must be willing to listen to the reasoning of others, respond to it in turn, and come to realize the strengths and weaknesses of your own reasoning. That applies to any debate that has more meaning than two or more people just yelling their opinions at each other.

I haven't heard any real evidence from the other side either. They all say "wheres the proof that she couldn't handle herself/ shes being abused" when in reality when i ask the question back i got no response. This is something that goes against everything i believe in and while smooth words may make me do a double take after a minute of thinking i still cannot accept it. I will admit i am stubborn, and usually enter these discussions believing that i am undoubtedly correct, but a really good argument will usually sway me. This however I am unwavering about, I'm just sick of people demanding me to produce huge long research about the affect of sex of a 13 year old in Itay with a 34 year old man. Seems like any less and there will always be differences and will never prove this case. I don't have the research but i would think it was common knowledge that kids don't handle themselves as well as their older counterparts. We also can't be sure that she would be better financially with this man and therefore needs to do this for a good future. Besides the argument here is her saying she loves him and stay with him for that which i think is completely stupid.

Oh and i find the comment "Kids will do whatever they want so there is no point in trying to stop them" even more of a laugh. If you cant control your kids having sex at the age of 13, you need to get some help rasing them. This is far from teenage rebellion like drinking of smoking.

So i will ask again, before anyone says that i am lacking logic where is the proof this girl would be better off with this man, i.e. she needed his finical support and would otherwise be homeless/jobless for the rest of her life OR that she is fully capable to make her decisions. Also kids are becoming more dependent as part of the growing trend, so to say that in the past this would have been acceptable is not an acceptable argument. Before most kids were out earning a living at the age of 17. Now most places wont even consider hiring before 16 and some places, not under 18.

@Vexx
Looks like i've been misreading you comments this whole time. So if your "22" example was an outrageous extreme, and the focus shouldn't be on school/job alone, what do you believe to be more important at that age? Procreation? Humanity will live without one baby, and is in my opinion overpopulated anyways. Love? So for the sake of Love we should be willing to do anything even if it is harmful? I asked to see what you truly believed as how you would deal with situation as if she was your own kid, seeing as how my beliefs were so "unrational"

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

I haven't heard any real evidence from the other side either.

Because they don't have any. And neither do you, which is what they're trying to point out. "The other side" is saying that you can't say she isn't mature enough, you're saying that you can't say that she is. You're both right, in this case, as the only way to know is to get to know her yourself.

[WanderingKnight]

@SeedFreedom

The point is to try to rationalize the situation. To think. It's perfectly fine to believe that kids should not have sex with adults, but the point Vexx, FatPianoBoy and I were trying to make is that it's important to do a bit of a rationalization instead of holding a tabooed belief as some sort of godlike commandment. As Vexx said, simply yelling "But it's wrong!" doesn't cut it. There can be kids, you want it or not, that mature before the rest of the kids. Hell, there are really immature 30 year olds. The important thing in this, if you're trying to defend the law, is to think why the law is good in the first place. As Ahn_Minh and Slice of Life have pointed out, it's about protecting the children, not about denying the children the possibility of being mature enough. Of course, I'm one of those people that would rather have that law to disappear in the future, but that doesn't mean I want it to disappear now. In summary, like Ledgem pointed out, you have to give up your emotions when rationalizing.

So i will ask again, before anyone says that i am lacking logic where is the proof this girl would be better off with this man, i.e. she needed his finical support and would otherwise be homeless/jobless for the rest of her life OR that she is fully capable to make her decisions.

No one can make any judgment on this particular case. The only words we're left with are those of the judge, who we're forced to trust since there isn't any other side we can take a peek at. Anything more than that would be making outright assumptions, just like you're doing.

However, we can make approximations about children in general. And the fact remains that, whether you want it or not, children can mature faster, depending on several factors such as education and parenting environment, so there's a very clear possibility that a 13-year old kid could be perfectly capable of understanding sex and its implications since there doesn't exist a hardwired barrier between an adult and a kid that age, and the body is ready to procreate at that age. Whether you can or cannot accept that, the possibility of it occurring remains true.

That and the law are separate subjects. As people have said already, the law is supposed to restrict your freedoms in order to protect you--but it's not about adherence to irrational taboos like "13-year olds can't understand sex!".

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Of course, I'm one of those people that would rather have that law to disappear in the future, but that doesn't mean I want it to disappear now.

Wait a minute. What do you mean, you want the law to disappear? What do you want to replace it with?

Or are you hoping that through the wonders of Education(tm):
- kids will be able to accurately determine whether they're ready for sex or not
- will have the kind of spine and intelligence needed to protect them from the kind of moral pressure the age of consent laws are designed to protect them from
or:
- sexual predators won't arise in the first place?

[WanderingKnight]

- sexual predators won't arise in the first place?

Hopefully enough, yes. I think I mentioned it already. Of course, that's why it's a bit of an utopic ideal, but it's still an ideal. I don't mean to apply it to the current society, though... it's not something that can happen in a long, long time.

Keep in mind that it is a personal utopia, and by no means I intend to 1) discuss it here, and 2) guide my actions by it.

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Oh and i find the comment "Kids will do whatever they want so there is no point in trying to stop them" even more of a laugh. If you cant control your kids having sex at the age of 13, you need to get some help rasing them. This is far from teenage rebellion like drinking of smoking.

Mayhaps I missed it somewhere; but I don't recall seeing anyone say "there is no point in trying to stop them"; merely that when it comes down to it, you CANNOT; save locking them in a jail cell until they're 20 or what have you.
I find it infinitely amusing that someone who doesn't have children can make such statements as to judge others on their abilities. We'll see how your teenagers are when you have them
You can't totally control anyone; it's not possible, save for total absolute brainwashing, and even then, that's been known to backfire. Human beings have free will, MOST kids will listen to their parents advice, but some, like myself, will not. I would never dream of implying my mother was anything near a good raiser of children, but she would not have been able to stop me to begin with, had I set my mind on something. You also fail to take into account, though one assumes you mean CONSENSUAL sex, that a child may have been exposed to sex early on, and therefore have become active early on. Child molestation/rape, anyone? I assumed that was not being taken into account, as I should sincerely hope THAT would not be blamed upon the parents as well, unless they were a direct party of it.

Spoiler for Violence, bleh:

Being sexually active at an early age saved my life, I suspect, since I was gangraped as a teenager by 4 grown men. Had I NOT been active, the damage would've been FAR more severe. My parents could not have stopped it from happening had they tried, unless they shadowed me EVERY step from the time I woke up till I woke up the next morning. Mayhaps that is why I have a differing opinion of premarital/young sex and the like; it had no detrimental effect on me, for one, and as stated above, very likely saved me when I was left in the woods in the middle of winter to bleed to death.

So mayhaps before impugning someone's child rearing ability, you ought have some actual experience in the subject to fall back on. We're also talking about a different culture entirely than our own (for most of us, we seem to be in the US and therefore, that's what our "morals" are based on. I don't know the customs of child-brides and whatnot in Italy, mayhaps it's more accepted there, to a certain extent, socially.``````