Speaking as an abuse survivor, I can spell out very clearly what is magical about the age 18. It is the age at which, in this society, a person can vote, own property, sign a contract and work a full-time job (okay technically one can work full time at 17). Prior to age 17 or 18, then - unless legally emancipated - one is dependent upon …
Speaking as an abuse survivor, I can spell out very clearly what is magical about the age 18.
It is the age at which, in this society, a person can vote, own property, sign a contract and work a full-time job (okay technically one can work full time at 17). Prior to age 17 or 18, then - unless legally emancipated - one is dependent upon one's family (or the state, if in the foster system) for survival. A person under 18 years of age is not free to choose where they live, whom they live with or even what activities they participate in, without permission from their legal guardian. And if that person is in a situation - at home, at school, at church - where they are expected to have sex with someone, unless their legal guardian intervenes on their behalf, they are essentially a slave to that situation. Tragically, more often than not, where abusive situations exist, the legal guardian either has failed to intervene in the way they should, or is the perpetrator. And even if a child runs away, choosing homelessness over an abusive situation, they may be brought BACK to the abusive situation by police if they are found. So the child is stuck with it, until they can get a job and sign a contract to get their own place to live.
And THAT is what is magical about the age of 18.
Now, if we were to grant individuals full rights of adulthood at 16 or 17 years of age, then it would also make sense for 16 or 17 to be the age of consent for sex.
"Now, if we were to grant individuals full rights of adulthood at 16 or 17 years of age, then it would also make sense for 16 or 17 to be the age of consent for sex."
Exactly. Pedophilia apologists always make the argument that the age of consent is arbitrary. And they're right. The age of majority os different in different countries and makes different things legal/illegal. There's no airtight argument that the age should be 18 vs 17 or 16.
But there *is* an airtight argument that there needs to be an age of consent. An age where we can say, legally speaking, that most people will be mature enough to make serious decisions for themselves. That makes it harder for predators to manipulate young and vulnerable people.
If an adult feels aggrieved because they're being asked to put a child's (or, in fact, *anybody's*) emotional needs before their own sexual needs, I think that tells us everything we need to know about them.
People have gone all their lives without sex. I don't recommend it but it didn't kill them. Needs are things like food and water, denial of which leads to illness or death. This Rogue guy doesn't "need" underage girls. He desires them. If he acts on that desire he will end up in prison where this sort of thing is not survival-positive.
I urgently desire a Moog One. I can afford it but the double shipment and the customs would double the price, as they did for my Moog Grandmother. I will likely go to my grave without a Moog One.
I urgently desire a certain drug-enhanced extremely dangerous sexual experience. I accept that I will never have it.
Wants and needs. I would not want a world restricted to "why does anyone need [x]?" but is important to understand the difference.
In the case of the subject at hand, sex drive is powerful for most people in their teens but it is certainly not a need. Indeed, immature choices can screw up your whole life. There, I think, is the reason for age of consent laws.
We already have more than enough pull to screw up our lives in youth without some asshole adult coming along and pushing us off that cliff.
We all know that 18 is based on averages and that until recently the threshold for some rights was 21. Kids at 18 don't seem as mature as they were a few generations ago, with their ability to reason crippled by desperately short attention spans. We didn't have computer games or channel-surfing in the 1960s.
For example I would say that anyone who starts smoking has shown an indisputable inability to run his own life. I don't care how old he is.
"ability to reason crippled by desperately short attention spans"
A huge issue. Are the members of society victims in the face of purposeful shortening of attention span to maximize exposure to advertising in the digital world? Perpetually toddlers who drop a toy at the sight of another toy.
Could be, but I try to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Where it really scares me is how few people can read a book, or even a short document, or hw brief a period of dead air leads someone to say "gotta go, things to do," which is horseshit, it's just about getting back to the phone or the TV and smiling at it.
I don't recall if I've mentioned it here before. One year as I reviewed one of my daughter's reading lists, I noticed that a number of books dear to me in my youth were struck out. I went to the parent meet the teacher event and asked about it. She said that those books had Cliff's Notes. She wanted her students to read books, not summaries. Sacrificing good books to achieve that was her reason. What happened to a love for reading?
Since I started doing technical writing in 1993 I've had to shorten paragraphs and use more bullet lists. Half the software management fads like agile and scrum are founded on deprecating documentation because so many can't read a full page and hardly anyone can write.
Years ago, a mentor advised me to put an executive summary at the beginning of my multi-page technical reports because few managers would read the whole thing, even engineering managers. There was some justification for that.
Speaking as an abuse survivor, I can spell out very clearly what is magical about the age 18.
It is the age at which, in this society, a person can vote, own property, sign a contract and work a full-time job (okay technically one can work full time at 17). Prior to age 17 or 18, then - unless legally emancipated - one is dependent upon one's family (or the state, if in the foster system) for survival. A person under 18 years of age is not free to choose where they live, whom they live with or even what activities they participate in, without permission from their legal guardian. And if that person is in a situation - at home, at school, at church - where they are expected to have sex with someone, unless their legal guardian intervenes on their behalf, they are essentially a slave to that situation. Tragically, more often than not, where abusive situations exist, the legal guardian either has failed to intervene in the way they should, or is the perpetrator. And even if a child runs away, choosing homelessness over an abusive situation, they may be brought BACK to the abusive situation by police if they are found. So the child is stuck with it, until they can get a job and sign a contract to get their own place to live.
And THAT is what is magical about the age of 18.
Now, if we were to grant individuals full rights of adulthood at 16 or 17 years of age, then it would also make sense for 16 or 17 to be the age of consent for sex.
Until then, no.
"Now, if we were to grant individuals full rights of adulthood at 16 or 17 years of age, then it would also make sense for 16 or 17 to be the age of consent for sex."
Exactly. Pedophilia apologists always make the argument that the age of consent is arbitrary. And they're right. The age of majority os different in different countries and makes different things legal/illegal. There's no airtight argument that the age should be 18 vs 17 or 16.
But there *is* an airtight argument that there needs to be an age of consent. An age where we can say, legally speaking, that most people will be mature enough to make serious decisions for themselves. That makes it harder for predators to manipulate young and vulnerable people.
If an adult feels aggrieved because they're being asked to put a child's (or, in fact, *anybody's*) emotional needs before their own sexual needs, I think that tells us everything we need to know about them.
"before 'their' own sexual needs"
This is not a need. This is a desire.
People have gone all their lives without sex. I don't recommend it but it didn't kill them. Needs are things like food and water, denial of which leads to illness or death. This Rogue guy doesn't "need" underage girls. He desires them. If he acts on that desire he will end up in prison where this sort of thing is not survival-positive.
I urgently desire a Moog One. I can afford it but the double shipment and the customs would double the price, as they did for my Moog Grandmother. I will likely go to my grave without a Moog One.
I urgently desire a certain drug-enhanced extremely dangerous sexual experience. I accept that I will never have it.
So it goes.
Wants and needs. I would not want a world restricted to "why does anyone need [x]?" but is important to understand the difference.
In the case of the subject at hand, sex drive is powerful for most people in their teens but it is certainly not a need. Indeed, immature choices can screw up your whole life. There, I think, is the reason for age of consent laws.
We already have more than enough pull to screw up our lives in youth without some asshole adult coming along and pushing us off that cliff.
We all know that 18 is based on averages and that until recently the threshold for some rights was 21. Kids at 18 don't seem as mature as they were a few generations ago, with their ability to reason crippled by desperately short attention spans. We didn't have computer games or channel-surfing in the 1960s.
For example I would say that anyone who starts smoking has shown an indisputable inability to run his own life. I don't care how old he is.
"ability to reason crippled by desperately short attention spans"
A huge issue. Are the members of society victims in the face of purposeful shortening of attention span to maximize exposure to advertising in the digital world? Perpetually toddlers who drop a toy at the sight of another toy.
Could be, but I try to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Where it really scares me is how few people can read a book, or even a short document, or hw brief a period of dead air leads someone to say "gotta go, things to do," which is horseshit, it's just about getting back to the phone or the TV and smiling at it.
I don't recall if I've mentioned it here before. One year as I reviewed one of my daughter's reading lists, I noticed that a number of books dear to me in my youth were struck out. I went to the parent meet the teacher event and asked about it. She said that those books had Cliff's Notes. She wanted her students to read books, not summaries. Sacrificing good books to achieve that was her reason. What happened to a love for reading?
What happened was shortened attention spans.
Since I started doing technical writing in 1993 I've had to shorten paragraphs and use more bullet lists. Half the software management fads like agile and scrum are founded on deprecating documentation because so many can't read a full page and hardly anyone can write.
I read more than ever.
Years ago, a mentor advised me to put an executive summary at the beginning of my multi-page technical reports because few managers would read the whole thing, even engineering managers. There was some justification for that.
Once I put a line into a document right in the middle of a paragraph:
"when Johnny comes marching home again hurrah hurrah when Johnny comes"
Nobody remarked.
Most managers are too self-important for menial things like details.
You have more nerve than me and/or greater power of prediction.
This was not the regulatory submission I wrote to the FDA