Enforcing Taboos
When the "crime" harms no one, but the taboo is so strict that the punishment has to be brutal and extreme.
When the "crime" harms no one, but the taboo is so strict that the punishment has to be brutal and extreme.
She hooked up with a 14 yr old, that's not cool. She doesn't get a pass because she's a woman
Putting sugar in your coffee is not cool. Doesn't deserve a brutal life sentence.
There are appropriate punishments for "crimes" which harm no one.
There is not a shred of evidence that anyone was harmed.
You literally chose to call yourself "STUPIDVIPGUY"... sorry. I'm blocking you. I want intelligent discussion, you declaring you're stupid before you even begin is disqualifying. Bye.
Age of consent exists because young humans are ridiculously easy to manipulate and take advantage of, especially by an adult. It's not that 14 year olds don't get horny or their junk doesn't work, rather they are vulnerable to abuse and so these laws exist to try and protect them.
Almost universally, people don't want anyone fucking their children until they're certain that they are old enough to make informed decisions.
I don't think the punishment necessarily fits the crime here, but it's not a simple taboo either.
young humans are ridiculously easy to manipulate and take advantage of, especially by an adult
This myth is brand new. It started around 25 years ago, and there really isn't any evidence for it at all. In the 80s teens were known for being notoriously hard-headed. The exact opposite of easy to manipulate. Our culture has, over the last two decades, invented a lot of beliefs which justify the infantilization of young adults aged 14-24, and stripping them of legal rights.
What is operating here is a very strong sex-phobic Puritan tradition. Americans fear and loath sex, and since around 2000 they've decided, despite all the obvious scientific evidence to the contrary, that teens are children. So of course they're working hard to criminalize as much love-making as possible.
When it comes to sex, most countries legislate against the age difference, not so much the act itself. If it's two 15 years olds doing it together then the law doesn't care in most places. The law does care if one of them is 20 though. There's a huge power imbalance between a 15 year old and a 20 year old, the 15 year old doesn't have any real life experience to draw on either, so they are vulnerable to abuse.
Teenagers are stubborn and think they know everything - this is absolutely true, call that headstrong if you will. They are also at the mercy of hormones, tend to be emotionally unstable, don't have any real life experience yet, are idealistic, rebellious, etc. Throw in the inherent power imbalance between them and an adult, and I maintain that they are really easy to manipulate and take advantage of.
I think we can both agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, you just believe it should be lower. Indeed countries around the world aren't aligned on it either, the age of consent is 16 in some places, 18 in others, some even higher, etc.
Some things are outright silly, for example I strongly disagree with having to be 21 to buy alcohol in the states, I think that's just stupid. In places like Belgium the legal drinking age is 16 and to me that feels right. Teenagers are going to drink no matter where you set the bar, driving it underground helps nobody.
I also see no problem with two 16 year olds getting it on. I absolutely think it's problematic for a 25 year old to be chasing a 15 year old though.
Personally I would define it based on the age gap, e.g. it's not a problem as long as the age gap between them doesn't exceed 2 years while one of them is under 18. All bets are off after that.
Drinking legally I would set at 16, voting and joining the army at 18.
Yes we can watch a short documentary with moving music and touching narration about how the life of this poor young mother is ruined because she had consensual drunken sex with a minor. There are also countless examples of grown adults preying on young teens for their sexual gratification. At the end of the day, nobody wants that to happen to their child.
All power-imbalance arguments are total bullshit. It's very easy to prove. They don't withstand the slightest scrutiny.
There is not a shred of evidence that age-gap sex is harmful in any way. No one should be punished for doing harmless things.
The vast majority of sexual assault of teens is committed by other teens. And the vast majority of child molestation is committed by family members. You have the fear-mongers' paradigm in your head and you're using it to justify the obviously heinous treatment of a woman who had a lovely romp in the hay one day. Yes, abuse happens sometimes. That doesn't mean that innocent people need to be brutally punished.
What is the argument to why power imbalance is bullshit? You say it's easy to prove but provide no counter arguments.
That's a bit like saying there is no evidence that working in the mines harms children if there are adequate safety measures in place.
Laws are like that, they are somewhat rigid and imperfect. Yes abuse happens so the law is there to combat that. Sure, we can look at this attractive young woman and consider that we would've been happy to have sex with her at 16 - this doesn't invalidate the reason why the law exists. She should've known better as an adult, the fact that she's young and attractive and otherwise a nice person is tough shit.
you built a pathetic strawman here
"young and attractive" is not the relevant factor
SHE HARMED NO ONE is the point. "Crimes" which harm no one should not precipitate brutal punishments. re: "abuse happens so the law is there to combat that" but this law didn't combat abuse in fact it allowed the legal punishment system to abuse an innocent. You realize that laws can be bad, right? Some laws do far more harm than good. Those laws should be changed.
existence of power =/= abuse of power
Ronald Reagan controlled enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth.
His wife, Nancy, organized Christmas decorations.
Galaxy-sized power imbalance. There's no way she could consent. Every time they made love it was rape.
(Power-imbalance dogma is absurd)
If Ronald would've used his immense power to sleep around with young girls, that would've absolutely been a problem. Look at Bill Clinton for that example. We legislate against power imbalances everywhere, the entire structure of the US government is meant to provide a system of checks and balances. We try to break monopolies, give workers rights, create unions, give tenants rights, etc, all of this is as a response to power imbalances.
Are you going to tell me that Epstein was innocent too?
There are Epstein victims who don't consider that any harm was done. There are also far more who do. Epstein didn't pull them into the bushes to rape them, he used his power and influence to get them into those situations where they felt compelled to go along with what was happening.
You are totally out of your mind. None of that is in any way related to anything I wrote.
All relationships have power imbalances. One partner is always richer, more savvy, better-looking, better-connected, more intelligent, etc. That does not make all sexual relationships rape.
Further age =/= power. It happens less often but there are many circumstances in which the younger party has much more power than the older one.