Lowering the age of consent

[dennisrwood]

do you think education is the problem here? are there kids somewhere who don't know what condoms are, or where to get them? maybe it is the massive amount of unsupervised time we allow our kids. who knows where they are, or what the hell they are doing? i run into these kids all the time late at night.
two years or so back we had a bf/gf killed in a car wreck around 2 in the am. neither set of parents even knew the kids were
missing and dead at 9 that morning. she was 17, he was 18. a third boy wandered from the wreck in shock, walked a couple of miles home and went to bed that morning. again his parents had no idea. the police knocked on the two family's doors. they called the third.

[Plissken]

I actually HAD the (usually) proverbial "Big, Dumb, Ugly Head Phase" in my painting all through my early 20's. I don't know if that means that I wasted those years or not, but I sure wouldn't show those paintings today.

I would like to reassure Jem on a couple of points, though;

1) Things don't STAY bleak. I sometimes think that the helplessness we feel about the state of the entire world is the result of our first real realization that the rest of the world exists. (Stay with me here...) As an infant, we know ourselves - our immediate needs are the sum of our reality. As we grow, we "meet" our parents, who -at first - exist to meet our needs. (At some point, we learn that our parents also have needs. For some, this realization never occurs, but that's not important here...) After a while our circle widens to include friends, family - all people with conflicting, confusing, and contradictory needs... Sometime in the late teens/early twenties the realization begins to dawn that everyone everywhere has all of these needs we can't begin to understand, much less meet. That there are so many problems that we're never going to be able to solve.

We begin to make "Big Dumb Ugly Head" paintings, complete with apocalyptic backgrounds.

Here's the key: Solve what you can. Love those who need it. Vote. Meet the needs of those who are near you, those who deserve it. Do what you can, when you can. Trust that others are doing the same, all over the world.

Things get a lot less bleak, and a lot less bewildering, when you do this.

2) Your worry that we oldsters don't comprehend how much media saturation there is where sex is involved is (and I mean this in the LEAST patronizing way possible) sweet. Believe me - we've seen it, we continue to see it, and it's given us the same questions you're trying to answer for yourself now. Think Barbie's tough to deal with? Try wondering when Viagra will become "right for you".

As for your assertion that sex is a mystery - You're completely right. As far as I can tell, sex - and everything surrounding it - will stay a mystery for as long as we live. Thank whatever deity you like for this. (Given the point of this post, I should say that I could be wrong about this. I don't, however, foresee myself solving it this decade.)

Oh. I mostly paint nudes now. Take from that what you will.

[Avatar]

Here's the key: Solve what you can. Love those who need it. Vote. Meet the needs of those who are near you, those who deserve it. Do what you can, when you can. Trust that others are doing the same, all over the world.

What more can we ask or expect of oursleves. Well Said.

All things change, and the thing that changes the most is us. Follow your own rules honestly, and you won't go too far wrong.

Keep the Faith. Even if it is only in yourself.

--Avatar

[Cail]

Excellent post Plissken, couldn't have said it better myself.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

First of all, I want to thank both of you for your concern :)
It is heartwarming, and a very positive reminder of the fact that there are good people who want to do good things, and comforting. Don't worry about my cynicism! :) It shares my heart equally with joy. I enjoy every moment of life that I can.

Plissken, thank all the gods that be that sex remains a mystery. I think the human race would have a lot to lose if that mystery was taken away! Good to know about your paintings btw.

Sorry, I failed to reflect on what I was saying about you 'oldsters' not noticing sex in the media... of course, you would have seen it changing, if it hasn't always been that way, and you'd know better than I. But perhaps you don't know what it's like to... have yourself form in this environment. It really warps your head. I just don't think it's been noticed in most people my generation, but I think sex in the media is going to get a lot wierder in the next 20 years.

[Plissken]

First of all, I want to thank both of you for your concern
It is heartwarming, and a very positive reminder of the fact that there are good people who want to do good things, and comforting. Don't worry about my cynicism! It shares my heart equally with joy. I enjoy every moment of life that I can.

Plissken, thank all the gods that be that sex remains a mystery. I think the human race would have a lot to lose if that mystery was taken away! Good to know about your paintings btw.

Sorry, I failed to reflect on what I was saying about you 'oldsters' not noticing sex in the media... of course, you would have seen it changing, if it hasn't always been that way, and you'd know better than I. But perhaps you don't know what it's like to... have yourself form in this environment. It really warps your head. I just don't think it's been noticed in most people my generation, but I think sex in the media is going to get a lot wierder in the next 20 years.

There are both good and bad things about the changing role of sex in popular media. Yes, just about everything is right up front now, but even that's not entirely bad -- in my lifetime, we've gone from being "shocked" that Mike and Carol shared a bed, to being able to laugh ('till the milk comes out my nose) at Will and Grace. (There is a valid point here - the same culture that allows 3D homosexual characters to be portrayed has allowed several teens to come out of the closet safely at my daughters' Middleschool. That level of acceptance was unthinkable when I was in Highschool, and dicey when I was in college.)

My point is this: Sex has been a part of advertising, media, and popular culture since those institutions began. Yes, now we notice the absence if a nipple is actually taped down in a music video - but we also have more realistic expectations about sex than we ever have. (More anecdotal evidence: In fifth grade, I remember calmly explaining to a schoolyard compatriot what "those bumps are" after he "copped" his first "feel". The reproductive repercussions alone are staggering.)

Does popular culture promote stereotypes of beauty and sexuality? Yes. Is it unhealthy? Sure - but comparatively? I think we've advanced in more ways than we've fallen behind. I know I'd rather use "Everwood" as a starting-point in a conversation with my daughter than, say, "Gilligan's Island".

As for the stereotypes portrayed affecting self-esteem and future relationships for those viewing them, again, I think that the blame for that option falls to the parents. There is no image whose potential effect can withstand a careful exploration of the ideas behind it by a parent and child. This applies equally to a rap video and the idea of a box of "Sugar-Bombz" that is supposed to be "good for you".

That said, there are things in modern media that play on MY insecurities, to this day. Viagra commercials notwithstanding, the one that currently lays heavily on my mind is the "Everybody Hates Raymond" syndrome. (The reasons for this syndrome could easily fill another thread, and since I'm kinda scared that Zeph is gonna try and hijack this one, I'll leave them alone...)

Try and find a good Dad -or husband- on network TV. Once you weed through all of the bumbling, overweight dorks who are married to gorgeous, capable women, all there is left is the "Preacherdad" on that wierd-ass show where the dialogue repeats at both the beginning and the end of every paragraph ("Heaven"-something? I don't know, but it also has the distinction of having both of the two worst "Trek-movie" characters of all time in the leads), "Everwood-dad" (Bumbling, but at least trying), and Pa Kent (who CAN'T be inadequate - he's PA KENT, for crying out loud! He screws up, a franchise DIES!)

Okay, rant over. But the question remains - Is it worse to have Ginger held up as a TV (pun? could be!) role-model, or to have Al Bundy?

In the end, hopefully, it doesn't matter. Media may give us "issues" to overcome, but it all becomes frippery in the face of real-life. I'm sure that kid in fifth-grade managed to learn what nipples were for, just as Pam Anderson becomes, at best impractical, and at worst somewhat frightening, after the first time you actually experience a healthy, enthusiastic relationship with an equally healthy and enthusiastic partner.

[Queeaqueg]

Zeph will probably to hijack, but it seems to me that he is living in the stone age anyway. Yeah the media shows a lot of sex on TV etc.. and it almosts controls young girls. 'If you don't have sex or dress up sexy, then your not allowed to be in this country' sort of attitude. Pressured to grow up really really fast.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Plissken, good to read as always...

I agree, that it all becomes pretty silly in the face of real life...however, I think the attitudes we see in the media (and I'm being serious here) can limit someones ability to have that real, healthy relationship. So often I see people simply acting out roles that they learned. It seems a part of human nature, because no one gave us a "Being Human" Manual, and so we need to invent it ourselves. I think people can get so confused about what a good relationship or a good partner should be, that they never actually learn what one really IS. Do you disagree?

I find myself fortunate enough to be in an absolutely devastatingly powerful relationship, and have been for a few years now (no slowing down yet) and a lot of people I know will actually tell me that they're still looking to score, but will eventually settle down with a girl who makes a lot of money.... granted, I'm 21 and my friends are around that age, but many of them haven't had that first serious formative romantic encounter yet, and I don't see how they will unless it smacks them over the head with such force that it knocks the stereotypes clean out of them.

[Plissken]

I don't deny the possiblity of the idea that some never learn "what a real relationship is".

I also don't think that it's going to be improbable physical stereotypes that impede the development of loving, healthy relationships.

In my experience, the real impedements are the "emotional stereotypes" potrayed by the media. The need for drama over substance in a relationship is one damaging stereotype. Another is that personal responsibility can be abdicated if there is a powerful emotional motivator for "negative" action. (ie-"I'm sorry I cheated on you, but I've had trouble committing myself to a relationship ever since Daddy walked out...") Others include the idea that treating your partner, or the relationship itself, with respect involves a repression of self, or that relationships should end for the most trivial of reasons. Most of the most pointed examples involve the portrayal of long-term responsibility as a suppression (instead of an opportunity for expression) of the best an individual can offer.

However, not even these examples are the relationship-stopping juggernaughts some would have them be. A person may be able to identify where they got an "unhealthy" idea in hindsight, and is entitled to bemoan the time wasted in "un-learning" it. But these lessons would have to be learned, with or without a media influence.

(And I'm not sure that any 21 year-old has the background to learn ANYTHING about relationships, unless one "knocks them over the head" with great force. I'm basing this on my own youth. You, I'm happy for.)

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I can't tell if that "You, I'm happy for" was tongue in cheek, or if you really do get the impression that I know anything about relationships I'm still bruised by the force. My good relationship was at least 1/3 difficulty and hardship :p
I agree that the physical stereotypes are not what will impede good relationships. I retract that... generally the power of a serious, emotional, shared joy will trump that sillyness.. at least as far as I've seen.

What's most interesting to me is the idea of the 'repression of self' myth because it's a problem that my relationship has gone through, very recently. I have to admit, my girlfriend did have her points though... she was definately limited in her options by staying with me. For example, she couldn't have a relationship with anyone else, and couldn't up and move to Los Angeles or some such place. The key for me when looking at that was that if I wanted to do those things more than I wanted to be with her, then I would change my life so that I could do them. And if I didn't want to do anything more than be with her, then that was how I wanted it to be. Done and done.

[Plissken]

Getting back to the main point: Any idea or image, no matter how well or poorly intentioned, without council and challenge from a loving parent is dangerous to a child.

Fairy tales can teach us about honor, and personal resposibility, they can teach us to wait to be saved, or they can teach us to ignore all warning signs and rush in to slay the dragon.

The Bible can teach us about love and mercy, or...

Even the most well-intentioned, idealistic message can have devestating impact without an active parental filter -- You can imagine everything I had to "unlearn" after stumbling upon the works of Andrea "Every-Penetration-Is-A-Rape" Dworkin at my Mother's house about the time I was getting all that extra hair...

[Avatar]

Great posts folks, as usual.

Getting back to the main point: Any idea or image, no matter how well or poorly intentioned, without council and challenge from a loving parent is dangerous to a child.

I couldn't agree more. What bothers me though, is that too often parents abidicate that responsibility. The seem quite happy to put the kid in front of a TV, and let them get on with it. Reducing or countering the impact of media-saturation requires time and effort from a parent. It requires a willingness to probe, question, and explain. It's work, and perhaps not enough parents are willing to put that work in.

--Avatar

[Plissken]

... which is the best "Pro-Choice" argument I've heard in awhile.

[Avatar]

You could be right.

And its scarcely a glowing recommendation of humanity either. *shakes head*

--A

[Skyweir]

If there is one thing that we all should be familiar with, it's the idea that it doesn't matter whether or not the situation is hopeless. What matters is that we try.

I think Jem makes a good point there. Education will not easily match, or counter, the massive weight of popular culture. But it is the only tool that we have in attempting to teach people anything. It may be an insufficeint answer, but what other answer do we have?

It is, finally, up to each and every one of us to teach by example, to back our opinions with our actions, and hope that the important stuff gets through.

Cail, you may see those ten years as a waste, but they are an integral part of what makes you the person that you are today.

--Avatar

I believe this to be sound council .. Parents are just ordinary folk .. they do not enter parenthood with a clue .. mostly .. Most parents have to learn what it means to be a parent and how in practice to parent effectively.

But its about caring about each other. Till they introduce licenses in order to parent .. and intensive training degree courses to qualify for a licence .. parents are as effective as they are individuals.

Thats the bummer eh?

And using av's words .. it is up to each individual to give a damn. The fortunate aspect is that there are those that are bound to their offspring from the moment they enter their lives and their offsprings wellbeing is their highest concern.

These individuals couldnt endure their childs suffering and by extension any childs suffering. There is an empathy that comes to some who have this bond with their offspring.

I am being a little fascecious (sp?) so I please forgive me .. When we speak of stereo-types .. the same is true .. of "parent". Not all parents are apathetic nor are all .. perfect icons of parenthood.

I think plissken is right .. parental filters are vital to a childs healthy development. It is not easy to stave the influence of pop-culture .. but it is possible to provide balance to media/pop-culture proffered world views.

my desire is that my children experience love and a wonderful relationship .. not just a truck load of physical/sexual experiences ..

Being sexually active offers a child physical experience .. I want more for my children.

I dont support lowering the age of consent .. for a host of reasons .. this being just part of one reason.

There are legal consequences to lowering the age of consent .. re: ADULT CHILD unlawful sexual intercourse/rape offenses.

And ofcourse there are ethical questions that can be proferred .. sexuality is such a powerful medium .. a medium through which life itself is replicated .. does your 12 year old son have the maturity to parent a child of his own?? to accept responsibility for parenting that child?

These are theoretical questions .. I am not suggesting that you have 12 year old children.

Do you at what ever age you are, possess the maturity to accept responsibility for a dependant and all that entails?

Do you possess what it takes to care for and provide for a dependant?

My point is .. if we lower the age of consent .. do we also lower the age and expectation of responsibility? Its not just about having sex .. its also about being responsible enough to have sex .. A great way to determine this is to seek the answer to those questions.

Great discussion ..

gotta go

[Avatar]

...Till they introduce licenses in order to parent .. and intensive training degree courses to qualify for a licence .. parents are as effective as they are individuals.

I've always thought that this wouldn't be a bad idea. Reversible sterilisation at puberty, and no children unless you prove that you are competent enough to have them.

We've all encountered people who just shouldn't be parents. For the sake of their children, if nothing else. This would not only help them, but would address the population problem as well.

The questions that Skyweir raised are valid for everybody, and not just children. If only we could get real parental planning started, where people actually prepare for a child, and learn whether or not they are ready.

--Avatar

[Skyweir]

...Till they introduce licenses in order to parent .. and intensive training degree courses to qualify for a licence .. parents are as effective as they are individuals.

I've always thought that this wouldn't be a bad idea. Reversible sterilisation at puberty, and no children unless you prove that you are competent enough to have them.

We've all encountered people who just shouldn't be parents. For the sake of their children, if nothing else. This would not only help them, but would address the population problem as well.

The questions that Skyweir raised are valid for everybody, and not just children. If only we could get real parental planning started, where people actually prepare for a child, and learn whether or not they are ready.

--Avatar

Indeed! I agree .. I too think much of licensing parents!! LOL .. I know I would have been a lot better prepared if that were the case!

Parenting is such an immense responsibility that we do need to ask the question .. Are we ready? Now take that now and apply it to lowering the age of consent .. and how will doing this aid children and youth?

Does lowering the age of consent benefit those relevant? If it becomes legal to have sex at age 12 .. what benefits will that child receive by this liberty?

And further .. how would it benefit society as a whole?

[Avatar]

I think that the context in which it was first brought up as a question here, was that it was considered in order to end the admittedly ridiculous practice of prosecuting younger children for what was plainly consensual sex. Below the age, it's considered statutory rape, regardless of whether or not it was consensual.

Unfortunately, keeping it illegal to have sex at twelve will have no real effect on the number of people doing it. People will act as they wish, usually regardless of what the law says about it. And I thin k that hat probably goes double for children, who may only have a shaky conception of why the law exists anyway.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

we have the laws to prosecute thos who would have sex with 12 year olds. take away the consent and you are one step closer to letting 20 year olds having sex with 12 year olds. we bar fast that door, to protect children that we seem to care so little for.

[Avatar]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The problem, and the reasoning behind it, is that that same law that prevents a 20yr old from having sex with a 12yr old, is also used to prosecute 12yr olds who have consensual sex with other 12yr olds.

The reasoning behind the law doesn't apply in these cases, but the charges do.

--A