Should the age of consent be raised to 20?

[Donerail]

The vast majority of ~23-25 y/os dating people in the 19-22 range are not graduate students. Seems odd to base policy on the potential for "toxic power dynamics" among a very small minority of people who would be affected by this law, especially since university policy often already addresses that specific scenario.

[Donerail]

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...

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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?

[Donerail]

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 simply think the potential harm that could be done to people by exploiting them at an age when they're still emotionally vulnerable is enough to warrant some type of state intervention to protect them. It's that friggin' simple. If you disagree, good for you, but another paean about personal freedom won't change my mind.

I am trying to understand why you think people who are under the age of 25 are something less than full human beings capable of making choices for themselves. If you continue to refuse to elaborate, fine. But I will not let you get away with this sort of vile, dehumanizing line of argument without objection.

[Donerail]

I am trying to understand why you think people who are under the age of 25 are something less than full human beings capable of making choices for themselves. If you continue to refuse to elaborate, fine. But I will not let you get away with this sort of vile, dehumanizing line of argument without objection.

It was mentioned in a reply critical to my original post (in retrospect, far more thoughtful and willing to engage than most of the replies that followed) that the human brain isn't done developing until around 25. It's pretty shocking if you're not aware of that yet want to call me out for not having a ready-made answer to every possible question relevant to the issue. In addition to all the neurological evidence, just not having had a lot of life experience puts younger people at a clear disadvantage when it comes to forming emotional relationship, a disadvantage that people with longer life experiences can very easily abuse. If you don't think that's a real problem, or that it's not worth addressing because MUH FREEDUM and whatnot, fine. But at least spare me the ridiculous wokespeak nonsense about "dehumanizing".

I am 24. You believe I am incapable of making fundamental decisions about my life. Your argument is that, because of some fuzzy science around the pre-frontal cortex and lack of "life experience," the state should step in and imprison a 30 year-old in a relationship with me. How is that not dehumanizing? Seems like a clear-cut denial of the idea that I have any agency in that choice.

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

Which is what I was working up to addressing with Donerail, before he decided that calling me a faux intellectual was an appropriate response to me questioning his use of incendiary accusations in a zero-stakes forum thread. On the other hand...

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.

...you know what, that's fair. I'm sorry for missing the point, Donerail.

I think BRTD gave a fair summary of why I'm invested here. I'm particularly sensitive to these kinds of things because I'm in a field where most of the people I am working with are older than I am — the average age of my classmates is 26-27, and there's a fair number of students who are in their mid-30s. It's important to me that I am seen as equal to my peers.

Beyond the usual drink/drive/die in war markers of adulthood, the state now trusts me to represent clients in litigation (under the supervision of a practicing attorney) and serve in a position of public trust. It seems more than a little odd that I'm allowed to do all those things, but that I wouldn't have the legal right to do something (lol someone i guess) on account of my age. Sorry if my responses were overly hostile, but I usually get these kinds of reminders only from rental car companies, so this suggestion really struck a nerve.