Real world Jaime and Cersei Lannister arrested!

[Athias]

doubtful that disagreement with state prohibition of rape is an endorsement of rape. it is there possible to oppose state prohibitions of things as well as the things themselves.

Fair enough. I denounce the authority of the State even if its authority is used to forbid rape. Nonetheless, none of this informs a prerogative, let alone, any claim that precedes the authority of those involved in sexual intercourse.

[Athias]

What is consent? For example: why can a 13 year old not consent to sex?

A 13 year old can consent to sex.

[Castel]

A 13 year old can consent to sex.

All the time?

Question though: at what point can you not consent and why is consent set at that point?

[Athias]

All the time?

Withholding any aggressive contexts, as long as the 13 year old can effectively demonstrate and/or communicate his/her consent, then yes -- all the time.

Question though: at what point can you not consent and why is consent set at that point?

I won't pretend to have a clear-cut answer for your question. Consent can be a transient concept during sex -- which is why rape is hard to prove, absent of any clear signs of struggle--and even that is subject to interpretation. I maintain what I stated above, consent begins when one clearly communicates and demonstrates it (as in physical participation) and ends when one clearly communicates and demonstrates dissent.

[Wise Fool]

Well, it didn't take long for the thread to become yet another platform for the local lolbertarians to screech about The State.

[The Anti-Targ]

The pair were charged with incest, sodomy, and prowling according to sheriff office spokesman David Ehsanipoor.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/brother-and-sister-christopher-buckner-and-timothy-savoy-arrested-for-committing-incest-after-watching-the-notebook-9699919.html

What? Is this a crime independent of incest or only in association with incest? And how many states still have sodomy on the crime books? And how many states actually enforce it? And how the hell did they decide sodomy was one of the crimes in this case? Did the cops actually see the act and have eye witness testimony that is was sodomy? Or did Chris and Tim say "But officer it isn't incest because he was up my bum not in my vajayjay."

Also is prowling doing it in a public place?

[The Anti-Targ]

Withholding any aggressive contexts, as long as the 13 year old can effectively demonstrate and/or communicate his/her consent, then yes -- all the time.

I won't pretend to have a clear-cut answer for your question. Consent can be a transient concept during sex -- which is why rape is hard to prove, absent of any clear signs of struggle--and even that is subject to interpretation. I maintain what I stated above, consent begins when one clearly communicates and demonstrates it (as in physical participation) and ends when one clearly communicates and demonstrates dissent.

So in fact not all the time.

So a 5-year old can consent with a 30-year old? "Can I touch you there?" *quivering voice* "Okay." Yay, consent! Because it is so hard to prove rape, as you say, when it's a he said she said situation isn't it better for the law to pre-determine that certain sexual encounters are rape by their very nature and hence consent doesn't come into it?

[eyenon15]

They aren't even blondes!

Or twins!

[Born Yesterday]

What? Is this a crime independent of incest or only in association with incest? And how many states still have sodomy on the crime books? And how many states actually enforce it?

According to wikipedia, 18 states haven't repealed sodomy laws, although there's a 2003 Supreme Court decision that should have invalidated them - at least the parts that involve humans only. (Sodomy may be defined as anal sex and/or oral sex, and maybe bestiality and other "unnatural acts". It depends on the state, and the law may exempt married couples, or heterosexual couples.) Basically, if wikipedia is correct on this, this particular charge shouldn't have happened - assuming it refers to oral/anal sex and not incest, which was a separate charge anyway.

I also learned that adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although "prosecutions are rare", and would possibly be questionable after the aforementioned Supreme Court decision.

P.S. I'm not a lawyer. Grain of salt and all that.

[DreamSongs]

Kill the stererotype. The whole brother/sister thing in the South stems from people spreading rumors about the Appalachian community from the late 1800's to the modern age. Take your stereotypes back to WV where they originated.

[Athias]

So in fact not all the time.

So a 5-year old can consent with a 30-year old? "Can I touch you there?" *quivering voice* "Okay." Yay, consent! Because it is so hard to prove rape, as you say, when it's a he said she said situation isn't it better for the law to pre-determine that certain sexual encounters are rape by their very nature and hence consent doesn't come into it?

It isn't better; it's just convenient. Age of consent laws, in particular, are designed to protect the interests of the State over one's sexual behavior -- and sometimes, through proxy, the parents. There's no clear establishment of rape other than the "ewwws," "ughhhs" and "quivers" of prude legislators. It's important to understand what is rape is and when it occurs (through the establishment of facts) rather than leaving the legitimacy of sexual behavior to be defined arbitrarily by the State.

[Baitac]

Oh geez. I was having a nice holiday until this thread. Child consent? Stereotyping? Buh bye.

[Isalie]

Stop your limiting of children's freedom to have consensual sex with their parents' friends!

[Athias]

Stop your limiting of children's freedom to have consensual sex with their parents' friends!

You made me smile with this one, :)

[Castel]

It isn't better; it's just convenient. Age of consent laws, in particular, are designed to protect the interests of the State over one's sexual behavior -- and sometimes, through proxy, the parents. There's no clear establishment of rape other than the "ewwws," "ughhhs" and "quivers" of prude legislators. It's important to understand what is rape is and when it occurs (through the establishment of facts) rather than leaving the legitimacy of sexual behavior to be defined arbitrarily by the State.

When dealing with millions of people possibly being exploited convenience has its own value.

The problem is that you yourself admit that you have no concrete system so no one really has any reason to prefer your platitudes to actual legislation. A

Prudish attitudes about sex may come into play, but that's completely different from claiming that it's all only about being prudes and not actually dealing with a real problem. Strip protection for ten year olds and sex slaves and then go tell their parents that it's okay because the State is only looking out for its own prudish interests.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Athias,

It isn't better; it's just convenient. Age of consent laws, in particular, are designed to protect the interests of the State over one's sexual behavior -- and sometimes, through proxy, the parents. There's no clear establishment of rape other than the "ewwws," "ughhhs" and "quivers" of prude legislators. It's important to understand what is rape is and when it occurs (through the establishment of facts) rather than leaving the legitimacy of sexual behavior to be defined arbitrarily by the State.

Are you really advocating the position that pre-pubescent children should be able to legally consent to sex? Or, that the parents of these children, by proxy, should be able to offer such consent?

[Athias]

The problem is that you yourself admit that you have no concrete system so no one really has any reason to prefer your platitudes to actual legislation. A

Prudish attitudes about sex may come into play, but that's completely different from claiming that it's all only about being prudes and not actually dealing with a real problem. Strip protection for ten year olds and sex slaves and then go tell their parents that it's okay because the State is only looking out for its own prudish interests.

First, I don't have any platitudes for actual legislation since, as I mentioned above, I denounce the authority of the State. Secondly, I do not claim that it's "all only about being prudes." In the 1800's, a coalition of Victorian feminists, socialist, and religious groups heavily influenced the age of consent. I reserve judgement on labeling them prudes. I would provide a source but you need a "jstor" account to view it, completely. Thirdly, is it your argument that without an age of consent, 10 year-olds and sex-slaves--I'm not sure how they fit in--would be in danger?

[Athias]

Athias,

Are you really advocating the position that pre-pubescent children should be able to legally consent to sex? Or, that the parents of these children, by proxy, should be able to offer such consent?

My position isn't particular to "pre-pubescent" children. It also does not change, legally legitimized or not, whether one who's prepubescent can consent.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Athias,

So, if an adult can coach a two year old to say "yes" they can legitimately assert consent as a defense to a molestation charge? Would place an age limit on anyone's ability to consent to sex/contract... anything?

[Castel]

First, I don't have any platitudes for actual legislation since, as I mentioned above, I denounce the authority of the State. Secondly, I do not claim that it's "all only about being prudes." In the 1800's, a coalition of Victorian feminists, socialist, and religious groups heavily influenced the age of consent. I reserve judgement on labeling them prudes. I would provide a source but you need a "jstor" account to view it, completely. Thirdly, is it your argument that without an age of consent, 10 year-olds and sex-slaves--I'm not sure how they fit in--would be in danger?

You denounce the authority of the State and reject their solution to the problem both on those grounds and claiming that it doesn't work or isn't better. When asked to provide a useful alternative you have nothing but some platitudes about how consent is a difficult question and we can just...I don't even know what.

As for calling them prudes: I assumed that this was the natural implication of your post where you claimed that "There's no clear establishment of rape other than the "ewwws," "ughhhs" and "quivers" of prude legislators."

My argument is that you haven't provided a meaningful alternative for government enforcement of consent and you'll open the door to a ton of bad shit. Also: your refusal to provide a system may seem like it reflects well on you because you can just claim that the government "isn't better" than any one of a bunch of possible systems, merely more convenient, but it doesn't.

Athias,

So, if an adult can coach a two year old to say "yes" they can legitimately assert consent as a defense to a molestation charge? Would place an age limit on anyone's ability to consent to sex/contract... anything?

Why would it ever go to trial Scot? The State has no right to determine consent. And since they can't determine consent what is he going to be tried on? Consent as decided by everyone on Twitter? As decided by him and he victim?