It seems to me that our society has a different attitude to men's and women's sexuality.

If a 15 year old guy successfully seduces his 35 year old female teacher (leaving aside for the purpose of this debate the student teacher aspect), or even if the teacher made the first advances, the attitudes are likely to be...

1. Great work mate, nudge nudge.
2. Lucky guy
3. Wonderful for the guy. Every guy should have a mature woman to educate them on sensual lovin, the way only a mature woman can.

In the reverse situation, 15yo girl and 35yo male teacher, you will find the attitudes are more likely...

1. Disgusting dirty old man. Should be locked up.
2. The poor girl just wanted attention when she seduced him, and the dirty man took advantage.
3. This will scar her for life.

Twice I have read, by coincidence, two stories reflecting the above scenarios within a couple of days of each other, and both times the male teacher got around 5 times the gaol time of the female teacher. In one occurrence I remember the woman successfully got no gaol time, as she said she was drunk and depressed.

I know all cases are unique, but I really think there is a different attitude in our society to the two situations, and the gaol time handed out reflected this.

For whatever reason, men are seen as predatory, and women needing protection. Even if a young couple get together when drunk the male is responsible for the ability of a female to consent. Notice also nobody was at all interested that Henson had naked pics of boys too, and there wasn't half the outcry about Germaine Greer and her book of naked boys. I even see an element of resentment or aggression in society towards young men in particular as they are shagging society's daughters.

Now the law is supposed to reflect society's values. So I say, lets lower the age of consent for boys to 14, and raise it for girls to 18?

US” Now the law is supposed to reflect society's values. So I say, lets lower the age of consent for boys to 14, and raise it for girls to 18?”

I associate the “age of consent” being that age at which a person is considered able to “consent”. That means they are of a maturity to reason the consequences of agreeing to participate.

That being said, should we extend that level of maturity to other aspects of life, such as voting and drinking?

I can see you being burnt in effigy by the feminist zealots if you were to suggest boys were “mature’ at 14 and girls not “mature” until 18.

LOL when I saw the thread header I thought you were going to talk about voting ages, not sex.

I guess I was mistaken but would suggest, what ever should be decided, it should apply equally to both males and females. Anything else rancours against my sense of what should prevail in terms of gender equality.

For myself, I have to admit I considered myself lucky to have lost “it” at the tender age of 17. However the girl I lost it with was 3 months short of 16.

I'm with Col on making the age the same for everyone.

Usual Suspect what you say in regard to the individual cases is oftentimes the case. Although more women are now being jailed for child abuse like in the US. Most of us are probably guilty of thinking along the same lines at different times, although teachers should know better because they are the adult and in a position of authority either way.

I agree that the age of consent should be the same for both sexes.

Each of us is an individual - with our own unique personality. Each matures at their own pace. We can't make generalisations - because there's always exceptions to every rule.

So if you're going to change the age of consent for one gender - in all fairness - you must do the same for the other.

It's only when we will recognise each other's individuality, and human worth, that perhaps true equality will come into play.

Sure. Let's change the law and all the traditions to suit the 'bad' guys. It'll make things much easier. Noone will need to be investigated or prosecuted; there'll be more room in the jails.

On the other hand, apologists for childish behaviour among young adults are not claiming that the brain is properly formed until the age of 25.

How about 25 for the new age of consent?

I meant are NOW claiming.

MrRight>"Sure. Let's change the law and all the traditions to suit the 'bad' guys"

The 'bad' guys used to be homosexuals and black people, not too long ago.

The only point I want to make is... MIUAUG :)

By what ..... do we determine 'age of consent' for sex?

What about 'group sex for kids'? or..adult child sex?

Why not ask "Should sex be before and/or outside of marraige"?

It seems that the MIUAUG crowd always want to 'make it up' in terms of the line of least resistance.

Ok..fine..lets go to the next step.. lower the age of consent to 'physically possible'....now where would that take us? Pre-pubescent children cannot bear children, but an adult can still have physical pleasure with them?

One un-named culture/religion practiced 'thighing' of betrothed female children.. so we could end up with 53 yr old men shoving their penis between the thighs of little girls who cannot yet physically accomodate them, for fun.

Another un-named culture/religion has documented opinions that claim betrothal is based on actual intercourse with a girl who is aged 3 yrs and 1 day but not less....

I mean.. miuaug can take us ANYwhere.....

The "age of consent" seems at best to be a compromise which seeks to both limit the real world age where humans can indulge in sex, in the best interests of society as a whole, and accomodate the practical reality that some people do actually become sexually active sometime after puberty. (although as kids did we not play mummies and daddies and doctor with some peers and 'I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?)

I shudder at where miuaug will take us. This thread is an example of the process.

-Raise the question.
-Realize that the status quo is arbitrary
-Loud voices rule the roost.

There is no 'legal' basis for declaring 'Thus and so' only spiritual and common sense. God forbid that we ever arrive at the point where people claim its 'common sense' for adult child sex or child group sex simply because 'we are sexual beings'.....

Hmm...I'm hearing 'voices'..and I don't much like what they are saying.

Boazy: << Hmm...I'm hearing 'voices'.. >>

No kidding?

Col,

'I can see you being burnt in effigy by the feminist zealots if you were to suggest boys were “mature’ at 14 and girls not “mature” until 18.'

I've always heard that girls mature a couple of years in advance than boys, making the sentences in the cases in my introduction even more out of wack.

'That being said, should we extend that level of maturity to other aspects of life, such as voting and drinking?'
Well I've always thought it unfair that teenage tax payers aren't allowed to vote.

BOAZ,

What the hell is MIUAUG?

All,

I think there are many reasons for the discrepancy in gaol terms. It seems the general consensis here is that the age of consent should remain the same. But you are never going to have a woman doing serious gaol time for sleeping with a 15yo guy.

So what are the causes? Is it women in this situation are only seen as nurturing, not dirty as men are? Is it a young girls sexuality is precious and a young boys not? Is a 15yo guy seen as in an equal power position as a 35yo woman? Can we imagine a 15yo guy being sexually assertive and not a 15yo girl? Are we as a society incapable of processing in our brains a scenario of female as powerful abuser and male as powerless victim, whatever the ages?

See these are the equalities I don't see feminism fighting for. Fighting for women to be seen as equaly capable of commiting crimes, and being equally able to handle the gaol time. Of being equally able to drink responsibly and be responsible for their actions when drunk. Of being capable of instigating domestic violence. We're all very interested in seeing women equally represented and doing anything positive a man can, but pretty reluctant on the negative things.

Maybe while ever women cant be accepted as being in a position of power for the purposes of abusing it, they will never be properly accepted in any positions of power.

Usual Suspect, why oh why did you ask David about MIUAUG?
It's a pet theme of his in which he pretends that he beliefs are none of his own creation or interpretation (and ignores that the older people in his own church have different beliefs about head coverings to the younger ones, ducks for cover when Jesus words about what to do if your eyes are causing you to sin etc) whilst he loudly criticises the fact that others of us are trying to use the best knowledge and to determine how to conduct our lives.

While David insists that a somewhat transient interpretaion of one ancient book is the only basis for working out how to live (and therefore not MIUAUG) whilst those that draw from a much wider range of learnings are missing out.

It's a convenient lie used by David which ignores how much of his own beliefs are based on interpretion, tradition and extension rather than clear and unambigious and irrefutable instruction from his god.

R0bert

*Hmm...I'm hearing 'voices'..and I don't much like what they are saying.*

Sounds like a bit of schyzophrenia has been thrown in there as
well.

US “Well I've always thought it unfair that teenage tax payers aren't allowed to vote.”

Yes, of course, taxation without representation, people have gone to war over it in the past.

For myself, I would be content to forego the responsibility of children having to pay tax.

Unfortunately, a lot of our brethren from the left plus the ATO hold a less magnanimous view, especially toward those kids who ‘earn’ via a family trust.

But what about the children?

Surely it's the long term reaction of the young boy or girl that matters, not the reaction of society?

freediver,

There's two different issues. The law, and the sentences handed down. I suppose what I am saying, is if you're not going to gaol women for shagging their 15yo students, and most people find this acceptable, what's the point of the law?

US.. this has now become the 'orthodox' terminology in debate between we 'values' driven gb's and the 'flexible' mob ..atheists etc '

MIUAUG= MAKE IT UP AS U GO :) ( ya know..ethics..morality)

....what's that.. another voice ? *looks around*.. ohh nooooo its CJ.

BOAZ,

Wouldn't it be MIUAYG?
Hmm. If you're sticking to values of the bible, I'm sure in the old days a 13yo was considered mature enough to marry when the bible was written.

I'm sure atheists are values driven just as much as gb's (god botherers?).

Is BOAZ an acronym?

Hi US..no..not an acryonym- BOAZ is an old testament character of good character :)

I use U instead of Y..no special reason. (reflects lazy to write YOU and U suffices)

Yes, of course atheists also have values..I've never denied that.

What I have said is they don't have any foundation for them other than loud voices and personal choice.

Todays illegality of homosexual behavior in Tasmania is tomorrows 'gay pride day'.... 20 yrs of activism did it.

"Loud voices" coupled with weak willed people who don't like to be thought of as 'intolerant'....

The most predictable but stupid part of Rodney Croom's statement about the anniversary of their first protest was that he described the Laws against homosexual acts as 'hate filled'.... so..I guess we all 'HATE' people who do white collar crime? I rather thought such things were mean't to be emotionless and more about justice, not hate or revenge.

Well..as one USA newsreader used to say "That's..how it is"

I agree with one age for all. There is a common but primitive belief in most societies that women are demeaned by sex, but men are glorified.

For that reason, I think a lot of people are deeply uncomfortable with the realisation that teenage girls are sexually aware. After all, what sort of trashy slut would want to disgrace herself by even thinking about sex before turning 21?

You responded to the less interesting part of Usual Suspect's post, Boaz, and totally ignored the bit that I thought was most intriguing.

Here's the bit you were happy with:

US >>Wouldn't it be MIUAYG?<<
BD >>I use U instead of Y..no special reason<<

And here's the bit you ignored

US >>If you're sticking to values of the bible, I'm sure in the old days a 13yo was considered mature enough to marry when the bible was written<<
BD >> <<

It is of far more interest to me - and to, I suggest, most people here - what your views on underage sex in biblical times might be, as opposed to your - somewhat sad, it must be pointed out - use of phone-text shorthand notation.

So, take a deep breath, and tell us Boaz. Where in the Bible do we find the appropriate age limits set out for us?

Did they perhaps make it up as they went, as well?

Or was there this divine command that said "fifteen bad, sixteen good"? After which everyone suddenly said, ah, thank goodness, now we don't have to wrestle with the rights and wrongs of that any more.

Don't try to sidetrack again into pre-marital sex, adultery or homosexuality, just address the question, which is the age of consent.

Specifically, since you introduced it as your evidence, what does the Bible say about the age of consent.

Chapter and Verse, please.

Fair Point Pericles.

"What does the Bible say about age of consent"?

There is no law, rule or command. NONE...

What there is though is this "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

Also, there is a record of human behavior when when read in its entirity, conveys the clear impression that common sense is good sense.

The reason I've not sought to make 'pronouncements' on what the age of consent should be, is that there nothing much to say about it in terms of 'Biblical law'...

The bible does not have an age of consent for SEX, it has a common sense age of MARRIAGE.. as I said..that emerges out of the totality of the record.

For example..there is NO example of a specific age being mentioned as there is with Islam. (Ayesha bretrothed at 6, consummated at 9)

My own namesake is partially indicative.

1/ Cared for Ruth as a kind of 'father figure' initially.
2/ When Naomi nudged Ruth to 'get in good with Boaz' he still did not take advantage of her (based on what the record 'actually' says)
3/ He tried to hook her up with the most appropriate kinsman by custom.
4/ When none was forth coming, he married her.
6/ Community approval was sought.

Sounds like 'common sense in the face of established custom and Biblical mandate' was at work there.

I find zero examples of 'children' being either played with sexually or married.

Yes, we might conclude that 'puberty' is a signal 'she is ready',but not for anything other than marraige. This is the point where community wisdom must prevail.
As I've said a few times, my wifes parents were married when mum was 12 and dad 14 (NOT 53!)... but they were more interested in playmates than taking the responsibilities (and joys) or marraige.

Even if they managed to produce a child at that age, the community all knew they were married and could support them as extended family.

AS TO LAW? :) sure..lets CHANGE the 'age of consent'..and make it 21!

*smile*

I waited until I could legally consent to seducing my 35 yo female teacher. Neither of us made headlines. Not even a mention in the school newsletter.

Interesting apologia, Boaz.

If I understand your example correctly, it would seem to boil down to:

>>Sounds like 'common sense in the face of established custom and Biblical mandate' was at work there<<

But since you do actually agree that the Bible is entirely silent on the matter:

>>There is no law, rule or command. NONE...<<

That only leaves "community wisdom".

How, exactly, does that differ from your concept of "making it up as you go?"

Because, as you also make clear:

>>Yes, of course atheists also have values..I've never denied that. What I have said is they don't have any foundation for them other than loud voices and personal choice<<

This is simply another way to describe the gestation of "community wisdom", is it not?

Clearly, the biblical folks are yet another example of people who MIUAUG, n'est-ce pas?

Seeker,
Said,"I waited until I could legally consent to seducing my 35 yo female teacher. Neither of us made headlines. Not even a mention in the school newsletter.+"

Perhaps seeker you could have mentioned you married a wife who was a 35 yr old school teacher. Therefore could legally seduce her.

I don’t think she wanted to marry me Philo; I had only just turned 16. My point was that it happens a lot more than most of us realise, and when it comes to females abusing their position of trust and power over their young charges, we don’t seems to be too concerned. As Usual Suspect posits, our case law reflects this. Our society indeed treats men and women (boys and girls) differently even when legislation is supposedly gender neutral.