Peter,

I'm not exactly sure how hormonal changes somehow trigger a jump from being physically and psychologically unprepared for sexual experience and suddenly ready. So a person undergoes the beginning stages of puberty - big deal. At what stage, exactly, does this make them "ready" for sex? At the very start of puberty? When it's finished? Somewhere in the middle? To me, arguing that the onset of puberty somehow equates to preparedness (in all its forms) for sex is just as arbitrary as the government stipulating an age of consent.

And when we are talking about pedophilia and the sex slave trading of children, I frankly think any "arbitrary" age of consent that proceeds more from the basis of protecting extremely vulnerable children and is thus set higher than say, 9, is preferable.

Aka
Your argument is back-the-front, and going in a circle. We don’t start from the position that everything should be a criminal offence unless one can show reason why it should not be. It’s the other way around: people should be free to choose what values they live by unless they are aggressing against someone else. According to your logic, there would be no justification for questioning what government does, ever.

Also, youth and age have notoriously different time preferences and risk assessments. That doesn’t mean that the opinion of the older should automatically prevail, nor be backed up by criminal penalties.

UYaz
It is doubtful that the legislature represents any kind of presumptive wisdom. They are more likely to legislate as a knee-jerk reaction to moral panic in the tabloids, which is precisely the origin of the age of consent laws.

You have at least found valid reason. But I think to justify a criminal penalty, especially a very severe one, you need to show something will be necessarily harmful, not just ‘might be, might not be’, or probabilistic.

There is no question that divorce and step-parenthood have statistically significant deleterious effects on children’s well-being. Butter contributes to heart attacks. Unprotected sex may lead to STIs at any age. Hot-air ballons taking children on joy-flights may crash. Should people be imprisoned for these crimes? Every action affects people. That is not enough to justify using violence or threats of violence to get one’s way.

To the extent we’re talking about children - *real* children, not sexually mature, sexually active, consenting people – there is no issue, and no-one’s suggesting sex with them is okay. To the extent we’re talking about slavery - *real* slavery – non-consensual coercion-based transactions, no issue.

But the criminal law should not be used just so middle-aged middle-class matrons, or people with a higher than lower risk aversion, or sexually conservative people, or older people, can bully-rag and coerce and violate and threaten everyone else into obeying their moral opinions.

W.A.U
You are only proving my point.

Applebees
I agree.

Peter: children are at serious risk of both psychological and physiological harm if they engage in sexual activity. There is a plethora of scientific evidence to demonstrate this.

The medical evidence alone tells us there is a greater preponderance of risk of harm for early sexual activity than later, as the statistics on cervical cancer rates for girls who have their first sexual experiences under the age of 16 versus those who have their first sexual experience after the age of 24. The psychological literature, similarly discusses risks for early sexual exposure.

Thus, we legislate to protect children under the age of 16 against this risk, particularly because they are generally unlikely to be able to make full and consensual decisions whilst their brains are still maturing. There is also scientific literature that talks about risk behaviour in teens and their sexual activity that demonstrates this.

The question then becomes, does a society have the right to legislate against a specific action. The vast majority of us accept that the state has a legislative right (i.e. it has the moral right to use force against individuals who do not comply) where there is an *unacceptable risk of harm*.

The scientific, moral, religious, ethical, societal consensus is that for children under the age of 16, this preponderance of risk of harm to individual children is too great to allow them to engage in sexual activity. This risk of harm is even more likely where the sexual partner is a mature adult, because there is even greater likelihood that the child is unable to make a consensual decision in their best interests in the face of subtle or overt pressure from a more powerful figure.

Thus, the state legislates, and because it is a legal question it has to draw a sharp line in the sand, even though psychologically individuals might mature a little more or a little less around their late teens and early twenties. Otherwise, the law would be ineffectual and sexual predators would have a field day hiding behind the 'fuzziness' of age of maturity in individual children.

Furthermore, the state has a right to impose severe penalties commensurate with the harm suffered, which is why you do tend to get a 'blind eye' result when two fifteen year olds engage in sexual relations (even though it may be more harmful to them than two 24 year olds), whereas we bring the justifiable full force of the law down when a mature adult in his twenties, thirties, forties etc. engages in sexual grooming and predatory behaviour with children under 16.

We call this sexual abuse, because it is very harmful to the children involved as the medical literature demonstrates. Consequently, we legislate severe punishments for individuals who harm children in this manner.