| | On the child issue.
(I have to cite Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia with stating definitive...umm...definitions of the terms...it's a really useful resource.)
Age of consent seems to be a subjective issue, considering the wide array of ages that have been deemed appropriate in having sexual relations, in any given society/nation. Even in a totally free, capitalist society, I can't see how even John Galt would determine Age of Consent based on a standard, set age.
An adult is defined as a fully mature organism--mature meaning physically, since animals can't be emotionally mature, can they? In its reference to humans, adulthood must mean that stage in life when an individual can rationally judge what is in their best interest, since man's mind is what he needs for survival; this would define an adult for me.
But what about really smart kids? Some actually do realize what's best for their lives at a very young age, so would they be considered adults? Depends. If a suit is brought against a legal adult, say an 18 year old man (because to prosecute a crime you must be able to define the offender, and what makes him such) by a child's parents, then perhaps the best way of determining whether the sex was consensual is by psychological examination of the child. The examination would determine if the child knows right from wrong, and can make valid, rational decisions based on information within realistic situations; similar to examinations done by courts to determine whether a man on trial is sane or not--whether he knows right from wrong. There is an inherent flaw in this system--the examiner. After all, they would be the final say in whether the child ~rationally~ consented. But this is the closest proximity to a viable solution as I can get.
All of this taken into account, how can one expect a child to make rational decisions? Well, besides a few exceptions, one can't. A child lacks life experience, and can rarely place actions and their consequences in context with complex, vital issues such as sex. Of course, that's why we don't expect children to have sex. A standard Age of Consent is in every society, throughout history, in varying age brackets. Despite the lower age standards for some societies, there was still ~some~ kind of accepted norm. My contention is that humans have realized that a child cannot be expected, on average, to make rational decisions all the time. Therefore a certain protection is afforded children, by the laws of a given society. The same protection should most likely be given to human with the body and legal age of an adult, but the mind of a child. A person with mental defects can't be expected to make rational decisions on their own behalf all the time.
There must be a reason an Age of Consent exists. In some cases, sex with children will cause physical injury. In others, a sense of dependency on the perpetrator--(or enslavement to the same). The most commonly-known result is a sense of guilt--from parents, society, etc. While a child can enjoy the physical sensations of sexual contact, that doesn't make it inherently right. If I enjoy the physical sensation of having sex with forty different women in a given week, does that make it right?Aren't there consequences? Pregnancy, disease, jealousy...(not to mention I'd probably die from a lack of energy by the end of the week) Because it feels good, it is good? Nietzsche-esque, I'd say.
Coercion is not moral. Blackmail--"Everyone will hate you if you tell"--is not moral. Persuasion can be a valid form of interaction, but ~only if both sides are completely informed of all the repercussions of their actions~. A definitive answer on age of consent is difficult...but the most logical one I can come up with is: Consent requires rational thought, and knowledge of one's actions, and their consequences.Can we expect a child to be completely informed, even a child genius?
Most of the time? Nope.
So age of consent may not be a subjective issue after all...
J
|
|
