Jacobtm
Sr. Member
Posts: 3,216
|
 |
« on: June 19, 2008, 11:45:41 PM » |
|
|
« edited: June 19, 2008, 11:51:03 PM by Jacobtm »
|
So, there's this idea that once you're 18, you're old enough and presumably smart enough to vote. The U.S. is an exception, but most countries think that by this time, you're also responsible enough to drink alcohol. Cigarettes are legal at 18, military service starts at 18, the ability to enter into contracts without parental consent begins at 18, along with lots of other liberties/responsibilities. The idea is that once you're 18, you're responsible for your own actions and developed enough to consent to various things.
But sex, where it's regulated, is different. Throughout the U.S., different states have different "ages of consent," but almost everywhere it's younger than 18. Sex, like alcohol, cigarettes, etc. is seen as dangerous, and as a result regulated, but legislators seem to think teens are able to consent to sex before they can consent to most other things.
Sex obviously has its risks, with pregnancies, STD's, as well as emotional damage. Alcohol has risks too, including damage to your vital organs, and plain old death. Both are things that society thinks shouldn't be allowed until a certain age. Both are things that, even though there are laws against it, kids will do anyway, regardless of what the law says. So what's the reason behind setting a lower limit for sex than most other things that you only can do at a certain age?
In effect, by setting terms for legal "consent" at an age lower than the voting age, doesn't the legal system recognize that those younger than 18 ARE capable of consent, and as a result delegitimize the whole idea of age-based restrictions on consent?
|
