Should the age of consent be raised to 20?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL no.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. Adults are adults, and I’d be more worried about them being manipulated into joining the military than them being manipulated into sleeping with someone.

It's kind of weird seeing this sort of thing from a D-NJ to be honest, LOL.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd support an "absolute" age of consent around 25, with consent for lower ages being based on age ranges (say, 1 year for 15-year-olds, 2 years for people aged 16 or 17, 3 years for people aged 18-20, and 5 years for people aged 21-24).

Wow. Per this standard I was almost a statutory rapist myself, my ex who posted here turned 25 less than a month before our first date and I was 32.

You're saying if I met her two months earlier I should've been charged with a felony?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Another issue with some sort of graduated system is that people obviously aren't going to be checking IDs or doing calculations when setting age ranges on dating apps, etc. The current laws are pretty easy to understand and not an issue, don't f[inks] anyone under 18, pretty straightforward, and there's age gap exceptions in place for cases where it would obviously be kind of ridiculous to consider someone a sex offender. But making someone a sex offender because they were not fully up to date on whatever some bracket was or because they miscalculated or were just two months outside of some acceptable window or whatever is pretty ludicrous...oh and good luck getting juries to actually convict for that. Like actually prosecuting a 26-year old for having a 21-year old boyfriend/girlfriend just because their birthday was two months before the younger one's? Just LOL.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Another "clearly didn't think this through" issue with Ferguson and Tony's proposal is that now the age of consent laws are pretty easy to enforce because teenagers aren't emancipated, they almost always live with their parents or relevant guardian, etc. That's not true for adults, even very young ones. 18-year old runs away to go be with some 30-year old they met online? You can argue that perhaps that's not healthy, but how exactly do you enforce laws against it? You can't force an 18-year old to return to their parents. 18-year old moves into a house with friends after high school and works a full time job and has a 25-year old boyfriend or girlfriend? Again, what is going to happen, ban them from visiting? Is there now going to be age limits on who can visit other adults in their homes? 21-year old who lives with their 26-year old boyfriend/girlfriend? Are we going to actually arrest the older party and charge them as a sex offender when the younger adult party living independently on their own has no problem with it?

This is another key issue that Ferguson and Tony fail to grasp I think, if someone is trusted as an adult and has to right to live on their own without the restrictions commonly placed on teenagers, you can't feasibly restrict what type of relationships they have.

"But what about alcohol and tobacco only be allowed for 21+ ages?"

Yes, those laws are TOTALLY a roaring success and certainly keep people 18-20 from drinking and smoking, and are clearly a shining example to emulate in other policies.

Beyond that though, it's also much easier to prohibit a certain age from buying a certain product than it is to prohibit such an age who are able to live on their own from having relationships for the reasons mentioned above. Also Tony's proposal would restrict people above that relevant age as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

broke: half your age plus seven

woke: Okay so first you need to get your age and calculate the general 'tolerance margin' based on §3 c.1 of the Act. Then remember you have a range of not more than twelve calendar months in which you won't go to prison as a nonce, provided your age is 15.  16 is covered in c.2 (subsections 1-3). For older ages it gets a little more complicated: refer back to c.1. Take the 'tolerance margin' you calculated earlier and multiply by a number between 1.2 and 1.6 (but not exactly 1.4) and you will end up with an est

okay this is actually pretty funny

But again, I'm talking about general principles here and the stuff I outlined here wasn't meant to necessarily be how I'd write a f**king bill. If you want to legislate the half+7 rule for people under 25, you know what, why not. That does create a bit more leeway and I guess it would be simpler to remember. And I think not dating 20-year-olds when you're 27 is something people can live with.

One of my church's pastors is 33, her husband is 39. According to her they met when she was just out of high school which surprised me and I assumed they were older. But they're a completely normal well adjusted couples, they have one kid and another on the way and she's adjusted and normal enough to serve as the youth program director before she was promoted to pastor... clearly deeply exploited early on. And of course if this was the law you'd be hearing tons of stories in the media about such adjusted and normal couples dealing with the older one being a felon and sex offender from early on. Do you think someone married to a sex offender would be able to get a job as a church's youth director?

And again how do you enforce this in cases where a 20-yesr old is living consensually with their 27-year old boyfriend/girlfriend? Arrest the older party, charge them with a felony and then tell the 20-year old how they need to date appropriately in their age bracket...oh and sorry we just arrested your roommate and who you're living with and relying on for part of your living expenses but hey maybe you can just move back in with your abusive parents who you specifically tried to flee by moving in here...oh and maybe your family isn't abusive but they live far away and thus you'll have to move away from and quit your job and/or current college admission and education, but hey that's all worth it to protect you from being exploited. Oh but your friend with the 26-year old partner in almost the exact same situation can stay because that's not that falls just under the acceptable limit. Anyway if you want to restart your relationship in a year with the completely non-abusive and supportive older partner who you approached first and they only replied because they thought you were older but had fallen for you when they found out your age you can...but they'll likely be in jail and will have a felony and be a registered sex offender when they get out. Yeah that's totally helpful to the supposedly victimized party.

Also with the 20-year old and 26-year old have a relationship, and then the older one has their birthday...so now the relationship has to be ceased until the younger one turns 21 and then they can start again? (Yes I suppose there could be some sort of grandfather clause in the law but forcing people to keep legally submittable documentation of when their relationship began or else they get a felony sex offense and possibly still forcing them to pay some legal fees even if they do isn't exactly a law I'd expect to be a great success.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

2 unread alert(s)" Gee, I wonder which thread they're from...

But it seems clear to me that people in their late teens and early 20s do often get emotionally or sexually exploited by older adults at the time when their brains aren't fully developed and they're almost always in a position of de facto social inferiority, and I don't think this is something the state should just shrug its shoulders about.

No one in this thread disagrees with you on the first part of this sentence! You don't need to justify the general principle or get involved with haggling over numbers — it's the conclusion that "therefore Jail is the solution" that people are objecting to. The State should not attempt to use the criminal justice system to solve every undesirable feature of society...

I'm certainly open to other solutions! Jail is how we currently deal with people who go after those who are clearly too young to consent, and in many cases that's probably the right call, it probably doesn't have to be the answer in every case. I didn't pretend to rewrite the whole legislation on consent in one Atlas Forum post. If you have other suggestions to protect late teens and early 20s from these kinds of relationships I'm all ears.

I do not have a policy suggestion because I do not believe there should be any state policy addressing this problem. Again, no one is asking you to write or rewrite any sort of technical legislation. I'm asking you to defend your claim that this is an appropriate matter to address through the legal system at all. It seems utterly absurd for the state to regulate the romantic & sexual partners of any 25 y/o adult.

And, by the way, you were the one who advanced an absurd claim in this thread in the first place. Bitching about people responding to it is annoying. You can always delete your posts, you know.

People have every right to disagree with my takes. I just find it interesting which kinds of takes get engagement and which don't.

Anyway, if you were saying you agree that these relationships are a problem but you don't think the state can or should do anything about them, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe there are some cases where the states has a right to intervene to protect the wellbeing even of adults. The whens and hows of it are complicated and if your only point is that this is messy and involves difficult tradeoffs, that's all fair. If you disagree on the principle, I don't see what's left to discuss.

As I've pointed out and given numerous examples of, this sort of law would cause harm to the well-being of adults at least as often as protecting it. You even kind of acknowledged this but didn't propose a solution.

There's even other examples of where this would be immensely harmful that I've thought of, for example the older party would be unwilling to seek aid if they were the one being abused in the relationship (yes it is possible for people to physically abuse someone a bit older than them) and also cases where the older one is actually being exploited more. I've heard one example of a woman who when she was 28 and in hard times moved in with a 20-year old trust fund baby who basically used her as his personal f[inks] toy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I do favor things such as abstinence only education though

This is an objectively terrible policy that results in an increased number of teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs.

Why on earth would you support abstinence only education?

And yet this whole thread is because you proposed an objectively terrible policy that would cause immense harm including to the people it's allegedly protecting. You think my pastor would be better off today if her husband was a felon and sex offender?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Antonio - comes up with crazy, invasive policy that would turn millions of decent Americans into pederasts overnight.
Atlas - hey, that's crazy and invasive.
Antonio - iT wAs jUsT a sUgGeStIoN, I hAtE tHiS fOrUm wAaAaAh!!

The fact that this is being opposed by people from all points on the political spectrum, including someone so prudish they support abstinence-only sex education should also be a bit of a wake-up call.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

People have every right to disagree with my takes. I just find it interesting which kinds of takes get engagement and which don't.

Anyway, if you were saying you agree that these relationships are a problem but you don't think the state can or should do anything about them, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe there are some cases where the states has a right to intervene to protect the wellbeing even of adults. The whens and hows of it are complicated and if your only point is that this is messy and involves difficult tradeoffs, that's all fair. If you disagree on the principle, I don't see what's left to discuss.

I disapprove of your posts. What is the appropriate prison sentence to impose for your posts?

You see the gap there? I am asking you to fill it. The vague and general argument that the state has the right to intervene to protect the wellbeing of adults (tobacco regulation, for instance) is insufficient, in my view and I think many ITT, to justify a draconian intrusion into the most personal aspect of our lives. Many people make decisions that are detrimental to their own well-being every day. How does this one differ?

I think what Tony is missing (not just on this to be honest) is that it's not really possible to craft a law that bans all "bad things" while at the same time not criminalizing any "not bad things" as well. For example the DUI threshold in the US is quite high and used to be even higher but it's also high enough that basically no one should be driving at that point and isn't easy to reach by "accident", it would require an actual near binge drinking like level. Since people are different and their threshold where it's unsafe varies person to person no number would be perfect for everyone. But in such cases it's best to err on the side of leniency for the same reason that criminal trial standards are heavily skewed toward the defendant. So yes we do have cases of people driving with say a 0.05 and that's not great, but criminalizing everyone driving with that BAC and suspending licenses in every such case would cause even more harm. A 30-year old dating an 18-year old kind of falls into the same sort of category, it may not be ideal and might result in some skeevy things, but trying to restrict it would result in some pretty bad things too (which this thread has even highlighted and he acknowledges but doesn't really address.)

And yes there are many examples where the US does not err on the side of leniency, three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, overzealous enforcement of minor public order crimes, etc. but considering the disastrous consequences of those things that we're well aware of now that's not much of an argument for adding even more such things (especially if we're acknowledging it could cause harm but insisting we'll find some way to not make it harmful considering the many status quo examples that already exist.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Worth noting that grad students are often 22-25 themselves and tus would be restricted by this...the notion that people who are entrusted to take LSATs, go into medical school or do studies overseas pursuing a PhD and likely taking out six figures of loans in order to do so are still too much like children to make their own decisions here and need to protected from exploitation is beyond laughable. Even the US' absurdly high drinking age doesn't infantilize these people!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think the issue here is that Antonio is French and believes in certain quite classic principles of French political thought, notably the idea that the State is or at least ought to be a moral undertaking. This contrasts with the Anglo-German conception of the State which holds that it is a morally neutral entity that simply exists to implement the commands of political actors.* So from Antonio's perspective something that he considers to be morally abhorrent must logically - at least in a somewhat more ideal world - be prohibited by law. Which is a stance quite alien to those of us brought up with a different concept of the State and its purpose.

_{*Which, perhaps paradoxically, was not historically inconsistent with the idea - critical to traditional Conservatism across Northern Europe once upon a time - that nevertheless one must be loyal to it, absolutely.}

Fair point but also one that carries some interesting connotations considering the age of consent in France is lower than in any US state and far lower than what he's proposing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just so we're clear that the word you want here actually is "dehumanizing" and not, for example, "infantilizing" or "condescending", you're aware that other animals besides humans have sex, right?

Antonio's original take was extremely poorly considered but it still deserves better than this kind of response.

There are plenty of words I could for Antonio, many of which are not permitted on this forum. Thank you for your suggestions.

Your word is "pedant," btw, though do let me know if you'd prefer "faux-intellectual" or some other variation on that. I'm sure we can be accommodating.

"Pedant" will do just fine. Are you going to acknowledge the broader point that you're approaching this thread in an astonishingly personal, hostile way?

He seems to be upset because he falls under the age limit Tony is talking about and thus is understandable unhappy about the implication that he's not really a full adult and needs some infantilization and coddling under the law which is totally understandable and (to compare to some of my favorite pet issues but at least examples where you'll probably see the point) is kind of reminscient of Latinos being unhappy about a group of predominantly white Anglophone people (in the US at least) telling them how they should speak their language or what terms they should use to refer to themselves or how a lot of trans people are very much not pleased when hyper-woke cis people throw a toddler-like tantrum over someone not listing their pronouns or whatever. Which is totally understandable. Responding to such a concern with essentially "um actually that word doesn't quite mean in the dictionary what you're implying it does" and avoiding the whole greater point and source of hostility is obviously not going to defuse the situation.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think the issue here is that Antonio is French and believes in certain quite classic principles of French political thought, notably the idea that the State is or at least ought to be a moral undertaking. This contrasts with the Anglo-German conception of the State which holds that it is a morally neutral entity that simply exists to implement the commands of political actors.* So from Antonio's perspective something that he considers to be morally abhorrent must logically - at least in a somewhat more ideal world - be prohibited by law. Which is a stance quite alien to those of us brought up with a different concept of the State and its purpose.

_{*Which, perhaps paradoxically, was not historically inconsistent with the idea - critical to traditional Conservatism across Northern Europe once upon a time - that nevertheless one must be loyal to it, absolutely.}

That's an excellent point, and indeed it's probably at the root of almost every instance when I take an overwhelmingly unpopular stance on this forum. Usually that doesn't generate quite this degree of mockery and performative denunciation, though.

To be fair, your unpopular stances are usually not quite as far outside the Overton window or disconnected from the way ordinary people think about the law as this one is. I've made it very clear that I disagree with it myself; I just know you well enough to know that you deserve better than people exploding at you even more viciously than at the guy who wants to make revenge porn legal. If everybody on this forum was candid about every weird, extreme view they'd ever entertained, most of us would have been permabanned years ago.

I'm still not convinced that it's as uniquely extreme. Okay, the specific numbers I spat out yesterday as a quick off-the-cuff take were way out there, I'll give you that. But I do think the idea that the state might want to take a closer look at relationships with big age gaps when the younger party is just barely an adult is something that plenty of regular people would take seriously. I think I've voiced plenty of takes in the past that are far more extreme in mainstream discourse, such as my very narrow conception of freedom of religion (something we sparred about a year or so ago!) or the fact that I want to eventually get to a place of banning tobacco altogether.

The only difference I see here, honestly, is that sexual and relationship issues is something this forum is uniquely defensive about.

Literally no country in the world has an age of consent above 18 or any type of such restrictions on consensual relationships above that age aside from ones that ban all sex outside of marriage, and that's even including Japan and South Korea which view 20 instead of 18 as the age of adulthood, so yeah this is a pretty extreme position (and even more extreme in France where implementing age of consent laws like in the US would be pretty out there.) The reason though I think is simply that most places seem to agree that upon age of adulthood generally around 18 people have full rights and it's easier to regulate that than create a sort of Byzantine system based on certain things and certain ages and infantalizing people who are still legally adults. And yes the US does do this for a few things which is uncommon outside the US, but I don't think anyone would argue that those examples are particularly effective or grounds to be emulated further. Someone who attended a US university should know this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd support an "absolute" age of consent around 25, with consent for lower ages being based on age ranges (say, 1 year for 15-year-olds, 2 years for people aged 16 or 17, 3 years for people aged 18-20, and 5 years for people aged 21-24).

That's actually similar to the law in Florida. I know this because of all the cooks I used to rent to would talk about how there are people in their kitchens on the beach who were felons that violated the law for having sex with a 16 year old when they were 25. The AoC is 16 for anyone under the age of 24 and 18 thereafter.

That's not what he's talking about. The age of consent is still 18 but 16 under certain circumstances. He wants the unconditional age of consent to be 25 and even people older than 18 for it to be illegal to have consensual sex with if the person is above a certain age.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Having thought about this from my personal position I have to say I fully agree with Donerail and I can probably explain why: when I was 24 I was living in my own in a gritty inner-city neighborhood about six hours away from my parents, had already been living on my own and effectively self-supporting for more than three years (even in college I had a job that I often worked near full time hours on despite my school schedule as well and had my own apartment from age 20 onward that I paid for with my own income from my job and received little support from my parents), worked a rather grueling full time job often well over 50 hours a week for at least the latter half of the year, and had already done multiple extended trips on my own to go things like music fests while also keeping my car fully maintained and usually paying for this out of my own pocket, etc. and had actually sought out housing, employment and things like utility services almost entirely on my own with my parents not giving much beyond basic advice, not to mention that I also moved to a major city as well with the entire planning for it also being done mostly on my own.

Now can you understand that considering all of the above why I might find the implication that I was still too immature or not fully developed enough to be able to decide to f[inks] a 30-year old and needed protection from this supposed exploitation under the law to be perhaps a tad asinine?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just know you well enough to know that you deserve better than people exploding at you even more viciously than at the guy who wants to make revenge porn legal.

Actually I think the reason for this is pretty defined: People here generally consider Tony to be a rational and thoughtful guy and thus him taking such a radical out there position seems a lot more jarring than some random troll, much like how there was never much controversy generated from Straha's edgelordery and insane positions (both under his original account and recently banned sock.)

For another example: If I were to make a thread saying that progressives need to make a firm demand that Biden only consider a list of Supreme Court candidates if they are fans of emo, most people would probably just chuckle and think "LOL BRTD" but if I were to advocate for example (obvious disclaimer that no I do not actually advocate this) that ideally people in Catholic churches would be rounded up and forcibly converted to hipster Christianity there would be a lot more outrage and backlash against me, or even if I advocated Beto's much more mild but still well outside the Overton Window position that churches that don't perform same-sex marriages lose their tax exempt status even if Beto's position is held by far more people than believing that only people who listen to emo are worthy to be on the Supreme Court is (which is not to say that it's a fringe one held by a small minority obviously.) Similarly this is why you see much more pushback from wonky center-left types like Matt Yglesias against people like police abolitionists than the batsh!ttery that Marjorie Taylor Greene believes, both are utterly fringe positions not likely to ever occur in anyone on the forum's lifetime, but the former tends to have more of an air of respectability and seriousness to it even if it's still so incredibly fringe and unlikely to happen. Turning back the clock a bit this also explains why the comments about rape by made by Todd Aiken and other Republican candidates attracted much more outrage than random ravings from some incel community, even if I'm sure you could easily find comments even more reprehensible than what Aiken said from such a place.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know Tony, it might help to look at this issue the way a lot of progressives view abortion. That's actually a pretty good metaphor.

Now I know that in progressive Christian circles a lot of people actually do find abortion absolutely morally abhorrent, there was recently a good discussion in a progressive Christian Discord I found through a subreddit about this, and I know a lot of people at my church fully agree and are never going to argue that abortion is a totally fine or even morally neutral action. However unlike conservatives they're also willing to look at the big picture which is that the cost of criminalizing abortion is also pretty extreme and often doesn't even work, it just drives women into unsafe situations. And while it's tempting to just carve out exceptions like rape, health issues, etc. we all know that still would result in quite a few unfortunate situations, especially if a woman can't just prove her abortion was "legitimate" and then faces charges, or even the doctor if only them and they have to effectively police this sort of situation. That means that even if one is disgusted by the action they often end up reluctantly deciding to live with abortion being allowed and legal.

Now that does not mean that the state can't or shouldn't in their view do what it can to limit abortion. Because there's plenty of policies that are proven to do that: providing universal access to birth control, maternity leave, expanding access to childcare and all sorts of various social safety net policies that are actually proven to be more effective at reducing abortion than criminalization. But of course does it mean that abortions will ever be zero or even zero for reasons that we won't be happy with, like sex-selective ones? Of course not. But that's also not something that can be achieved at all.

Now let's look at your position here, you think that young adults deserve better protection from exploitative relationships, I don't think most people here disagree with that including the people hounding on you. However we're just pointing out that your proposal is not an ideal way to do that and would create a ton of other issues and damages to society as well, and you're even kind of acknowledging that but still insisting that there's got to be a way to impose such restrictions while avoiding these bad consequences, even though the reality is that's obviously not possible and plenty of people would end up worse off who don't deserve it including often the very people it's intended to protect.

However there are other policies the state can provide. It can expand access to resources for people in abusive relationships. It can provide more of a safety net for adequate housing for young people, since that's often what drives them into such a difficult situation to begin with, of course a 19-year old is going to prefer living with a 35-year old sexual partner than with abusive parents or being homeless if thrown out entirely especially for being LGBT (a common cause of such wide age gap relationships and why they're disproportionately same-sex by the way.) And expanded social safety nets and mental health resources would do a lot to help people avoid exploitative relationships in general, regardless of age gap (this is after all not just an issue that impacts only very young adults, for example the former keyboardist for The Get Up Kids was kicked out for all sorts of exploitative sexual misconduct allegations, mostly against 30something single mothers, who are obviously a lot more vulnerable demographic than a 19-year old trust fund baby.) And the sort of cases of the older party being in an authority position can be handled by better enforcement and handling of existing policies that employers and schools have. If all of that is done you will probably see a lot less exploitative and abusive relationships in general, and thus probably also less with a notably large age gap.

Now does that mean that there wouldn't still be instances of you hearing about a relationship with an age gap so wide you cringe and are uncomfortable about it? Obviously not. But that's kind of the price we have to pay for living in an imperfect world, and also having to acknowledge and accept that some people are going to engage in behavior that we personally might find distasteful, but also accepting that alone isn't grounds to prohibit it when the consequences of prohibition have quite a bit of negative effects as well. We all know that criminalization often comes with very negative effects as well, and often things are about finding the best equilibrium instead of simply making something illegal because we don't like it or because it can result in bad things.

So yeah, a good metaphor and something to think about.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I do favor things such as abstinence only education though

This is an objectively terrible policy that results in an increased number of teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs.

Why on earth would you support abstinence only education?

And yet this whole thread is because you proposed an objectively terrible policy that would cause immense harm including to the people it's allegedly protecting. You think my pastor would be better off today if her husband was a felon and sex offender?

? When did I say that he should be a felon/sex offender? I'm not endorsing Doctor V's policy. All I said was raise it to 20 and appropriately apply the Romeo/Juliet standard.

Because she was under 20 when they started and he's six years older. By your standard that would be statutory rape and he'd be a felon.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know, I would be a lot more receptive to criticism if I'd seen any recognition that I almost-immediately and repeatedly backed down from the specific setup I outlined in my original post and that I explicitly explained that I don't want everyone to be locked up as a sex predator on that basis. But no, despite clarifying that multiple times, I'm still being held to that original post in its entirety two days later. If y'all just want to dunk, that's fine, go for it, but don't turn around then and demand some high engagement from me.

Anyway, yeah, BRTD and a few others made a lot of valid points that are definitely worth considering (never implied otherwise). This doesn't convince me entirely that raising the age of consent a bit can never work (again, a lot of the problems involved with 20-year-olds would also often be true for 17-year-olds, and I certainly think there is a lot more to be done in both cases beyond age of consent issues). Believe it or not, this isn't an issue I have any strong feelings about except for the strong reaction to the amount of deliberate misrepresentation and vitriolic condemnation I got for making a lazy sh*tpost late one night. So I'd be more than happy to agree that this sh*t's complicated and I don't have all the answers and I don't make strong policy prescriptions, if again the tone of the reactions wasn't that of an online Twitter mob.

If you make a blazing hot take then yeah you'll get called out for it, look at what happens to Glenn Greenwald almost every day. You're not the first person to get such a pile-on after such a burning take here, it used to happen almost regularly to Beet back when he was more active for a notable example but just one, there's plenty of others.

What makes people still upset here is that you're kind of doubling down but in a half-assed way, you may have dropped the ridiculous bracket system but you're also admitted my points are valid but not really saying how you would address them in such a law, you're saying you're not necessarily calling for jail time for violators but aren't clarifying then how you would enforce it (if it's just a slap on the wrist sentence then it'll be kind of meaningless), you're not explaining what ideally would occur to my pastor and her husband or what type of damages occurred to her, etc. You're also not addressing that many posters here found this deeply and personally offensive for completely understandable reasons, you're not addressing the rather bizarre implications that for example Nelsie Yang was at the time of her swearing in considering competent enough to serve on the St. Paul City Council but not competent enough to date someone born in 1990, nor the example I gave of the extreme level of responsibility I dealt with at age 24 and Donerail's very valid examples. Here's another example: the main organizer of Dude Fest was 22 when the first Dude Fest happened. If you want to just laugh about that and say "LOL BRTD who cares about Dude Fest" then you go try organizing a music fest of that size and tell me how easy it is. You're kind of addressing my points by saying "yeah these are valid concerns" but after that just kind of shrugging them off and seemingly just saying "we'll just find some way to make it work" without giving any details or suggestions at all and of course are ignoring why so many here were so offended. So yeah people aren't just shrugging it off, shocked Pikachu.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If you make a blazing hot take then yeah you'll get called out for it, look at what happens to Glenn Greenwald almost every day. You're not the first person to get such a pile-on after such a burning take here, it used to happen almost regularly to Beet back when he was more active for a notable example but just one, there's plenty of others.

Oh cool, now I'm being compared to a transphobe who thinks Tucker Carlson is a socialist and increasingly espouses far-right conspiracy theories, or to a poster who pulls an ideological 180° every other week. Yep, seems like a fair comparison. Guess I haven't built any goodwill whatsoever as someone who's reasonably sincere and level-headed over the 13 f**king years I've been posting here. Good to know.

What makes people still upset here is that you're kind of doubling down but in a half-assed way, you may have dropped the ridiculous bracket system but you're also admitted my points are valid but not really saying how you would address them in such a law, you're saying you're not necessarily calling for jail time for violators but aren't clarifying then how you would enforce it (if it's just a slap on the wrist sentence then it'll be kind of meaningless), you're not explaining what ideally would occur to my pastor and her husband or what type of damages occurred to her, etc.

You can call it half-assed if you want. I'm not going to renounce an idea wholesale if I'm not convinced it's worth renouncing wholesale. And if people can't even acknowledge the things I have renounced, and still continue to attack them 2 days later, what's even the point? If I'm not going to be treated with a modicum of good faith on this, I'm not going to carefully sift through every post to see if they make valid points in between the obvious dishonesty.

You're also not addressing that many posters here found this deeply and personally offensive for completely understandable reasons

Gonna single this out because this one I'm comfortable standing by in full. I really don't give a sh*t if people are offended by the idea of being hypothetically put into a category deserving of greater state protection by virtue of their age. I was 24 not that long ago, you realize, and I'm pretty sure my feelings on the issue weren't that different. And I'm sure that there are 17-year-olds right now who also think they're fully mature and feel insulted by the idea of the law treating them differently because of their age. And some of them might be right! Some 17-year-olds are extremely emotionally mature while some 30-year-olds aren't at all. There's a lot of variation in this regard, but ultimately the law has to make some kind of determination, and arguing for the line to be drawn differently is not some personal attack of the maturity of every single person below that line. On the other hand, the kind of personal outrage I get in response certainly doesn't do much to convince me of their maturity.

you're not addressing the rather bizarre implications that for example Nelsie Yang was at the time of her swearing in considering competent enough to serve on the St. Paul City Council but not competent enough to date someone born in 1990, nor the example I gave of the extreme level of responsibility I dealt with at age 24 and Donerail's very valid examples. Here's another example: the main organizer of Dude Fest was 22 when the first Dude Fest happened. If you want to just laugh about that and say "LOL BRTD who cares about Dude Fest" then you go try organizing a music fest of that size and tell me how easy it is. You're kind of addressing my points by saying "yeah these are valid concerns" but after that just kind of shrugging them off and seemingly just saying "we'll just find some way to make it work" without giving any details or suggestions at all and of course are ignoring why so many here were so offended. So yeah people aren't just shrugging it off, shocked Pikachu.

Well I'm not going to "find some way to make it work", because I'm not a policymaker, and even if I was this isn't the kind of project I would actually push forward myself. If someone else brought forward this kind of project, and I looked at it carefully and evaluated how it impacted all the situations you and others had described, and found that it satisfactorily addressed these concerns, I might support such proposal. That's all I'm saying. I'm not claiming I have the solution, or that I would be able to figure it out, or even that it necessarily exist. I just don't think that any of your example can disprove the possibility that it exists (that's a high burden of proof, you realize!), and given that case, I'm not going to preemptively blanket-oppose any and every effort to raise the age of consent above 18. That is, again, all I'm saying. Call that half-assed if you want.

The problem with this is that you're kind of the only one pushing for it (aside from Ferguson and probably various anime avatars on Twitter, but we all know how much they matter.) You said "I'm not going to preemptively blanket-oppose any and every effort to raise the age of consent above 18." But...there literally are none. No country in the world has this as I noted, and I have yet hear of a single proposed piece of legislation anywhere to do this. This isn't like me saying for example that I won't preemptively blanket-oppose any gun control proposal but I'd have to review any such ones before supporting them because that's a complex issue with a lot of proposals and different laws everywhere, this is a total unicorn policy that no one outside of obscure corners of the Internet are proposing at all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The main reason age of consent/statutory rape started to become enforced far more often is because legislators had pressure to reduce teenage pregnancy rates, and a huge proportion of teen pregnancies is a result of 19-25 years old manchildren sleeping with teens and then fleeing.

This is both a good point and brings up another issue with the Ferguson/Tony proposals: if 18-24 year olds are trusted to have children, isn't that so big of a responsibility they should be allowed to have any partner? My mother was 24 when she had me and while my father was 25 and thus "allowed" it's still worth considering. I mean if it's OK for two 21-year olds to have a kid together, why should it not be for a 21-year old and a 30-year old? An argument could even be made in such cases that having an older other partner is to the benefit because they may be more career established and capable of raising the child.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well I found some people who agree with Tony...but he probably isn't going to like them.

https://twitter.com/bloodberry_tart/status/1518273459616419841

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LMAO, I thought this would be an Atlas-only position but...


https://twitter.com/DDem0cracy/status/1518458091192389641