Civil disobedience and the age of consent

[Beppo]

Throughout history there have been unjust laws, such as persecution on the grounds of skin color, sexuality or religion. These laws were unjust because there was no justification for their existence, other than blind hatred and ignorance. When people disobey these unjust laws it is called civil disobedience.

Age of consent laws vary across the world, from 18 in the USA to 14 in Italy. Clearly there is no consensus in regard to what age one becomes capable of consenting to sex, or at what age sex ceases to be a harmful activity. There is no universal age of consent, yet the law imposes absolutist age based restrictions on sexual activity. Actions must be proven to be harmful in some way in order for them to be illegal, yet there is no evidence suggesting sex with persons under the age of consent is harmful. For example much of the research only looks at individuals admitted to psychiatric hospitals, disregarding the potentially higher number of unharmed individuals who experienced under age sex.

Adding to the complexity of the issue is the role of adults in the lives of persons under the age of consent. For example there is no law preventing parents feeding their children junk food resulting in obesity. Another issue is that of criminal responsibility, it's not uncommon for persons under the age of consent to be tried as an adult - this implies persons under the age of consent can understand the implications of their actions. Finally there are different ages at which one can drive, serve in the army and drink alcohol - all adding to the inconsistency of age based laws. Martin Luther King said "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".


My question is this:

Is it civil disobedience when an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent providing there is no evidence of harm?

[Cher1300]

I think the problem there is that there is a difference betwee underage sex and pedophila.  Sex between a 15 and 18 year old is different than underage sex between a 40 - 50 year old and a 15 year old.   So you really need to ask yourself what you mean by "no harm done."  Does that mean no harm in the eyes of the victim because they didn't fight it?   Does it mean a 14 year old can consent to sex because they can be convicted as an adult for murder?   
Here's the reality:  If you are a 40 - 50 year old man and think a 14 year old boy or girl really wants to sleep with you, then you are probably a pedophile trying to rationalize your actions.  Although this may not be true for everyone, I have to say the when I was a teenager I never looked at guys over 25 as a potential love interest.  For most teeangers, that is probably gross. 
So ask yourself, is the person trying to gain trust of the underaged person just to hurt them later on? There is a predatory nature to pedophelia:  you have to gain a child's trust, rationalize hurting them in addition to threatening them from telling anyone.   If a person approaches a child under the guise that they are "helping them," but later on threatens them for telling about what happened, then they are wrong and know they are wrong.  Consent doesn't include threats and most teenagers - even if they want to have sex - don't want to have it with old people.   And, of course, younger children probably don't even know what it is.   

[justanothersucker]

Society must think there is harm otherwise why would that be the only crime where we track them like tagged animals for the rest of their lives? Seems like society has voted on that one.

[justanothersucker]

I suppose a better example for the "unjust law" argument then the elderly man with a newborn, would be the 17 year old soldier with her 21 year old boyfriend. In Arizona that guy still goes to prison and ends up tagged for life. Old enough to die ain't old enough2fuck.

[fortook]

A NAMBLA argument?  Is NAMBLA making a comeback? Is having sex with an of age prostitute civil disobedience?  If so, I plan on being very disobedient this year. You know, for America.

[Beppo]

Thank you for your replies everyone.

Sex between a 15 and 18 year old is different than underage sex between a 40 - 50 year old and a 15 year old.

Why? Its the same act with the same risks.

  Does it mean a 14 year old can consent to sex because they can be convicted as an adult for murder?   

If they can be convicted of murder they must understand the implication of their actions, therefore they must understand and be able to consent to sex.

when I was a teenager I never looked at guys over 25 as a potential love interest.

You obviously haven't herd the expression 'MILF'. Many young people find people in their 30's and 40's attractive.

is the person trying to gain trust of the underaged person just to hurt them later on?

Why would they have sinister intentions? Cant they find someone underage attractive or love them? Do you always suspect the worst of people?

There is a predatory nature to pedophelia

Don't be silly. In fact it's not uncommon for persons underage to proposition adults! I notice you're a woman Cher1300, it's understandable that you get hysterical over this subject.

Society must think there is harm otherwise why would that be the only crime where we track them like tagged animals for the rest of their lives?

Society onece thought homosexuality and the emancipation of black people from slavery were harmful. Society obviously doesn't feel the need to justify it's prejudices.

[justanothersucker]

At this point I have to ask, OP are you even in lawschool?

It's one thing to debate laws, but I think you are just trying to get support for a sick addiction here.

[.Chuck]

At this point I have to ask, OP are you even in lawschool?

It's one thing to debate laws, but I think you are just trying to get support for a sick addiction here.

+1056

The person is trying to justify pedophilia and other forms of adults taking advantage of young people/adolescents.  It's sick and twisted. The position has no merit no matter how you try to slice and dice or justify it.

Grab a clue and find a moral compass Beppo.

[FalconJimmy]

Maybe he's a perv, but frankly, the emotionally charged nature of this topic prevents a rational dialog on it.

Frankly, I don't see how sex between, say, an 18 year old and his 16 year old high school girlfriend should warrant felony charges and a lifetime on the sex offender registry.  I'd like to see some more commonsense approaches to this issue.

(Not going to look it up... just poking in here and there while working on outlines, but there was a Georgia case where a young man actually did real jail time for, when he was 16, I believe, having sex with a 14 year old at a party and filming it.  As much as we'd rather our 14 year olds didn't have sex, I hardly think we need to start throwing people in jail for felonies when they do.)

OTOH, I'm not condoning 20-somethings (or older) who are trying to date girls in High School (or younger.)  That just seems like people with real problems to me.  Probably borderline (or completely) mentally ill.

Civil disobedience?  Sure.  But Civil disobedience means you're knowingly and willingly committing a crime and willing to suffer the consequences of breaking that law because you have a moral conviction that the law is unjust.

How could anybody really be so sure that sleeping with an underage person is so important that it warrants a felony conviction and a lifetime on a sex offender registry?  Sorry, but having sex with an underage person shouldn't be appealing at all, and if it is, it sure as hell can't be THAT appealing unless you've got something really, really wrong with you.

I'd like teenagers to be able to have sex without fear of a felony conviction and lifetime unemployability, but I'm not about to go to jail, myself, to draw attention to what I feel is an unjust law.

[Cher1300]

Well it's pretty obvious Beppo is making a justification for pedophelia.  The "don't be silly" argument for their predatory nature and me being "hysterical" because I'm a woman is a pretty clear indication.  As Chuck said, there is no merit to the argument.

That being said, I do think everyone agrees that underage sex between teenagers is different than pedophelia and does not justify a felony conviction.  However, I don't think the OP was talking about that.   I should have known better than to give him a reply at all.