To restate the rules, the idea here is not to argue your true beliefs on the subject, but to debate one side or the other according to somewhat random assignment. We're practicing our debating skills, not solving the actual problem.

So, teen sex. This might seem like a strange topic, but it came up at my office a few months ago, and I was surprised by how strongly -- and differengly -- people felt, and it didn't seem to matter whether they were parents.

The specific issue is, should it be against the law for underage minors to have sex with each other? For instance, should a sixteen year old caught having sex with another sixteen year old be subject to juvenile delinquency laws?

Those of you who are arguing against such laws can set a minimum age if you want for the purposes of your argument, but give us a good reason for that cut-off. You can all discuss age-of-consent laws in general however you want, but we're not talking about minors having sex with adults here, so you can come down wherever you want on that issue. I want to hear about kids fooling around with other kids, and winding up in juvenile hall for it.

Just so everyone doesn't wind up arguing against the same people every week, let's mix it up. If your birth *month* is an odd number, you are in favor of maintaining laws which criminalize underage sex. If your birth month is an even number, you think we ought to take it easy on the kids.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Answers

To give you a starting point, here is the relevant text of the unlawful intercourse statute in California:

261.5.  (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
perpetrator, if the person is a minor.  For the purposes of this
section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an
"adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.



   (b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or
three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.



   (c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.



   (d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

Note that the offense is more serious if the perpetrator is over 21 or if there is a significant age difference between the two, but even if they are within three years of age and both are minors, it's a misdemeanor.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Sex between minors should be decriminalized both because it criminalizes the theoretical victims and because the theory of the crime is flawed and there are no victims. Children can give informed consent just like adults, a fact our criminal laws ignore until it's time to mete out the penalties. I am not denying that there's some wisdom in maintaining an artifical, bright-line rule on the "age of consent" for things like drug use, voting, making contracts, and joining the army. In those cases the purpose is both to shield a young person from making a life-altering decision for which he or she is not ready, and also to prevent the young person from being taken advantage of by an adult who has an interest in the decision (like a pusher or a recuiting sergeant).

In the case of sex between teenagers, though, there are two distinctions that argue against a legal bar: First, teenagers need their teen years to learn about relations with the other sex. To actively promote quasi-sexual relations like going steady (which our society does in a thousand ways, from proms to movies targeting the teen date audience) and yet to criminalize taking the relationship a step too far is illogical.

Worse, the criminalization of inter-teen sex turns the rationale for the law -- the protection of minors -- on its head. It is an open invitation to impose adult penalties on a child for refusing to act like a child. It is as if, instead of voiding contracts made by minors, we charged the minors with fraud for purporting to enter a contract. Regardless of whether the teenager is charged as a child or an adult, the penalty changes the law from a protective guardian, thereby increasing and not reducing the hazards of the proscribed activity.

Further, the criminalizing sex between minors relies in large part on a logical inconsistency. The penal codes allow a child to be tried for crimes as an adult because children may have an adult level of knowledge about the consequences of their actions. Yet the law against inter-teen sex starts from the assumption that minors CANNOT have an adult level of knowledge. Whenever a child is subjected to adult criminal jeopardy for inter-teen sex, the law in effect is simultaneously (i) acknowledging the individual child's moral responsibility, but (ii) denying his or her ability to give informed consent to the sex act itself. Obviously, if the child knows well enough what her she is doing to be tried for a crime, that stands as proof that the child must have given informed consent. To proceed from this shaky platform and engage in an analysis of which of two similarly young sex partners is an offender, based on the argument that one could consent and the other couldn't, is to invite abuse of the system. The clearly better choice is to impose criminal liability for sexual intimacy only when an adult had taken advantage of a minor.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

I don't think it makes any sense at all to make sex between two underage individuals a criminal act on any level. There is a need to protect underage individuals from becoming the victims of sexual predators, and also from those who are older and may be considered manipulative, but, no matter how one personally feels about teenage sex, the whole concept of labelling an individual "underage" is that he or she is considered too immature to be making legal decisions. I don't believe there is any predation or victimization going on between two 16 year olds. Bad judgement, emotional immaturity - maybe. But those are parental issues, not government ones, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I can, on the other hand, see the need for laws protecting extremely young minors from older minors - 16 year olds having sex with 12 and 13 year olds is not a good thing, IMHO.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

(May. Odd. Anti. Damn.) (*ahem*)

By and large, teenagers simply aren't ready to have sex. Sex is important stuff; it requires a level of emotional maturity and life experience that most teens don't have. It's in their best interests that they wait a few years until they are ready, and it's our job as a responsible society to enforce that.

This is meddling in teens' lives, you say? There are some teens who are mature enough to decide? Of course it is, and of course there are. But we meddle in teens' lives all the time, casting a protective net over as wide a range as possible, even if that means a small minority get protected when they don't need to be. It's no big loss; they can wait a few years.

Alcohol, for example. We feel that anybody under 21 isn't ready to drink, even 19-year-olds who can vote and serve in the military. Statistically speaking, even those in their late teens can't handle booze, so we have no compunctions about limiting their access to it. Cigarettes. Grown-ups can make an informed choice; teens can't. We have labor laws preventing teens from taking on more work than they can handle. And so on.

The life-altering effects of sex can potentially exceed all of the above examples, ranging from pregnancy to sexually transmitted diseases. Teenagers don't really understand the risks, and encouraging them to make their own decisions is sadly misguided. We need to make it clear that sex is an unacceptable activity for them, and that they'll end up in juvenile court facing real penalties if they try to ignore that.

Tom Dean's argument misses the point. He sets up a straw man -- criminalizing teen sex as an adult crime -- which is easily defeated, but which was never an issue; the original question makes it clear that we're speaking of juvenile delinquency laws. Understanding the full ramifications and effects of having sex is one thing; understanding that "this is against the law" is a much easier concept, one even a child can grasp.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Just a quick point of clarification ... the juvenile delinquency issue here, at least under California law, is that the minor would be adjudged a delinquent because he/she violated a penal statute. So just as with all juvenile "offenses," (unless tried as adults, which is only for serious offenses), the same criminal statutes that apply to adults also apply to juveniles, but they are adjudicated and punished differently.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Damn, I thought California was like Florida -- y'know, mandatory life imprisonment for 14 year olds. Back to the drawing board for me.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Treating minors engaged in sex as delinquents is a proxy for illegalizing abortion and making safe sex impossible. If intercourse is illegal, teens will have sex clandestinely, and of course they won't be easily provided with contraceptives. Pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections will naturally be the way that illegal sex will come to light. Pregnant teen mothers will then have to choose between the risks of criminal prosecution and those of clandestine abortions. Infected children will have a strong incentive to delay or avoid medical treatment, a syndrome that will have its own ripple effects as more infected children have sex with uninformed and unprotected children.

Even if legal and regulated family planning clinics are not required to report underage mothers who seek abortions and teens seeking treatment for STIs, the clinics' records will be easily obtained by overzealous prosecutors. If those overzealous prosecutors want to pander to the religious right in an election year, so much the worse. We absolutely do not want to create this chain of destructive incentives, even if we believe that intercourse should be reserved for adulthood. It is therefore not a good idea to penalize children for early experimentation with sex.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

It's often a bad idea for teenagers to have sex with each other - at least, it was for me - but trying to keep them from doing it with laws isn't going to work.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Tom Dean wrote:
the risks of ... clandestine abortions

The risks of "clandestine abortions" are generally exactly the same as for legal abortions. It's a myth that illegal abortions are dangerous.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

June...

This is another example of a law that is rooted more in moral preference than reality - laws that are in place regarding nonconsentuality and abuse should be applied to protect minors from being victimized, but that is not the case when both participants are minors and consenting. While the standard argument is that a minor doesn't have the judgement necessary to adequately consent, in a situation where they are both underage, that assumption would apply equally to both - and if one doesn't have the judgement necessary to abstain by virtue of age, they should not be held legally accountable for actions that result.

In point of fact, most adolescents DO have the judgement necessary to choose, and while they don't bring as much maturity into the decision as we might desire, neither do many adults. In this particular case, adulthood is nothing more than a common and recent agreement on our part to set an age for it - throughout history adulthood has come far sooner than 18 years. In the recent past, couples commonly married within a couple years of puberty and were obviously regarded as being ready for both sex and childbearing.

In recent decades, we've come to understand that with long lifespans (made more likely by increased healthcare and fewer deaths from childbearing), it isn't in a person's best interest to engage in the lifelong commitments of marriage and childbearing. However, that understanding does not strip adolescents of their sexuality or suddenly remove either their desire or ability to handle it. We are attempting to criminalize a natural facet of their life - one where the body's own hormones would suggest is perfectly natural for this stage of life - because we are too uncomfortable with it to adequately give them the proper tools in which to respond to it sensibly. Instead, adolescents and pre-adolescents are sent millions of signals (forget the R-rated stuff - try watching the Disney channel and its parade of pubescent Madonna wannabes) that are designed to appeal to their sexuality, and then told not to use it or even acknowledge openly that it exists.

Maturity doesn't happen magically once a person reaches the age society has decided a person is supposed to be mature enough to be accountable for their actions - it's a gradual process which some people achieve quite young, and others never do. Rather than criminalizing a behavior that adolescents have been engaging in since the beginning of time, we need to get serious about adequate sex education, reduction of the sort of judgementalism that denies them the means to attain proper birth control and work seriously to get off the idea that adolescents - young girls especially (and this law is nearly always applied against the male for 'ruining' the girl rather than the reverse or both) - are not sexual creatures, but only victims manipulated by some other (male) person's sexual urges. Until girls get over that idea - which is legitimized by these laws - they will continue act in ways that increase their own risks in making the choice, by feeling required to be 'swept off their feet' or not be prepared to require reasonable protection because that would indicate that they were willing.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

...it isn't in a person's best interest to engage in the lifelong commitments of marriage and childbearing...

at such a young age.

(I'll be glad when we can edit posts!)

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Dave: please cite your sources.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

I'm interested in seeing them too, but could it be done in a separate topic?

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

It depends on how long they are. Or how badly people really want to open that debate. I'd really just like a link.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

That'll work... I'd just prefer it not suck up this one.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Well, I didn't mean to side track the debate, but I am kind of tired of that old saw. You want a link? That's a tough one, as most everything online regarding this issue is polarized. This touches on the issues involved, but of course is full of flaws. The graph is pretty interesting.

Table 19 of this report gives 24 deaths due to legal abortions in 1972 -vs- 39 deaths for illegal ones (just before Roe v Wade). Of course we need to know how many of each type was done to make a valid comparison.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of illegal abortions were done by people as skilled as those doing the legal ones, and there is no reason to expect any differently were abortion made illegal once again.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Ah. Okay, then I think we can resolve the sideline and bring this back into the context of the debate, because a "clandestine" abortion is not necessarily synonymous with a pre-1972 illegal one. Presumably, if someone in 2001 is having a "clandestine" abortion, it is not being performed by a doctor. Prior to Roe v. Wade, some doctors would perform abortions even though they were illegal; there is no particular reason why those abortions would have been unsafe. But a teenager trying to hide a pregnancy who is unable to obtain an abortion in the usual fashion -- whether that's due to fear, consent laws, money, or logistics -- is probably looking at a self-induced abortion, and that's not the same thing at all.

I think that takes care of the sidetrack, but if anyone wants to discuss this further, please start a new topic. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Teen sex:

I was for it as a teen. Lots of it. Couldn't really get enough. Now that I'm not a teen, I'm for adult sex. Lots of it. Can't really get enough.

Funny thing: I thought at first the topic was Tenn sex. I'm totally against Tenn sex. People from Tenn should not have sex. Not as teens or adults. Definately not.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

Even, so I'm for reducing restrictions.

Sex is natural - sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody should
Sex is natural - sex is fun

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

So... am I really the only person here to have been born in an odd-numbered month?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

No, Shmuel, damnit all, I'm an odd-monther too. And I've been pondering this for days. The only semi-coherent thing I can come up with goes thusly:

Teens, given that they are still the legal responsibility of their parents (physically), shouldn't be given the right to do something (sex and the consequences thereof) that will necessarily force the parents into other responsibilities. I know that's a mess, but what I'm thinking is that if parents are responsible for the physical well-being of the teen and have medical say, shouldn't they also have some say in the physical act of sex? The parents will be responsible for the physical consequences (pregnancy, STDs), so they should have a voice in the preceding action. Kids have to have permission to play sports, correct? If teen sex was ruled legal, parents would lose a tool to raising their own child. I hardly think that the kids themselves are filing any of the complaints under the current law.

I know it's faulty, but can anyone think of something along that line?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

Oh, all right. You all know my birthday is in July; I can't really get away with not answering.

The trouble is, no matter how much we dislike the idea of calling Romeo and Juliet a pair of petty delinquents, children under the age of 18 have very few rights. Even thoses issues that are not regulated by the government -- drinking, driving, compulsory school attendance, curfews, and labor laws -- are almost entirely under the control of the child's parents. If parents have the ability to dictate what, when, and how their children can eat, wear, read, watch, learn, and experience, then it becomes clear that minors have no fundamental right to have sex, because they have no fundamental right to do anything except what they are told to do, within reasonable limits.

Obviously we have laws against abuse and neglect, but as long as a child is not being abused and is being fed and clothed and sent to school, the child has no legal recourse for complaint, regardless of the restraints on his or her liberty.

So that takes care of the question of the minor's rights. If the state didn't proscribe sex for children, parents certainly could. The only question is whether this is an area where it's best for the state to take over in making that decision instead of leaving it up to parents.

I think this would be an easier issue for people to swallow if the penalties were fixed upon the parents rather than on the children, if this were considered an issue of neglect rather than one of delinquency. But neglect and delinquency often go hand in hand. If you allow your child to stay home and watch television all day instead of going to school, she will be considered a truant, and you'll be facing neglect charges. If you allow your child to drink and do drugs in your home, you will both face legal consequences if you are caught. In each of these cases the consequences due to the parent will be punitive in nature; the consequences faced by the child will (hopefully) be enforced with rehabilitation in mind.

There's no reason to treat underage sex any differently. Each of these behaviors -- underage drinking, truancy, and sexual activity -- is prohibited precisely because it has implications beyond the home and beyond the family. When your child drinks or does drugs, that behavior affects the people he encounters, his future productivity, his ability to abide by other laws designed to protect the community. When your child skips school, the rest of us are faced with the prospect of supporting him when he is unable to find work. Likewise, when your child has sex, the rest of society is very likely to shoulder the burden of supporting any children that result.

As a society we have the right to say no, we aren't going to willingly take on that burden, and you as a parent need to control your child. We do it with drugs, we do it with drinking, and we do it with school. There is no difference whatsoever.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

Some of the even-month folks have argued that as long as both partners are underage, we can assume that one did not exert undue influence on the other. This is a fallacy. A high-school sports star can use his or her popularity to pressure classmates into sex. Someone near the bottom of the social totem pole can see sex as a sort of validation of his or her worth, and therefore be careless in deciding who to have relationships with.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

[How come Tom keeps getting the good arguments and I keep having to be Darth Vader? What's next? "Kicking puppies. Argue for it unless your initials are TD?" Ok, just kidding, but I've been thinking about this all day and can't come up with a single argument for these laws. Except that teenagers should only be allowed to have sex if I can take pictures, put them on the web, and make a lot of money off Rudeboy].

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

Teenagers engaging in intercourse should be treated as delinquents because of the real harm they inflict on society. As with any other crime that becomes a crime because of highly specific circumstances, an overzealous police force could of course over-enforce the law into senselessness by peeking into bedrooms and backseats at inappropriate times.

That said, society needs a way to restrict irresponsible teen sexual behavior so that it can take steps to control the teens who engage in it. Criminal sanctions allow us to put irresponsible parents or likely parents in a place (custody) where they cannot become parents again and/or encourage others to become parents.

If we are serious about protecting children -- sepecifically very young children -- we need the power to enforce responsibility on their potential parents. Letting teens have sex means that teenagers will become mothers and fathers who are unprepared for their responsibilities. Criminal laws let us prevent teens from having children for whom they cannot care.

Next week, why the damned puppies should be kicked.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

See, Tom, even there your argument didn't detail what harm teen sex causes. It just makes a blind assertion. If I were born on an even month I would call bs on that. But for now I say, "right on."

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

(Born in September. Crap.)

Maybe teen sex doesn't cause harm 100% of the time, but teen pregnancy is always a possibility and a very serious consequence for thoughtless actions. In the United States, about one million teenagers get pregnant each year. One million. Furthermore, it has been discovered that lower-income teens are less likely to use birth control. This could mean that they are also less likely to receive adequate prenatal care, possibly resulting in complications. Yet teenage mothers need care the most due to the greater risk of anemia and hypertension. Their health is affected by the pregnancy and their future is affected by the possibility of raising a child when they themselves have not grown up.

Maybe some teens are ready for this. Maybe some can "take care" of the pregnancy, as it were. But by and large, those are the more privileged teens we're talking about. If a lot of those pregnancies occur among low-income teens, decriminalizing teen sex would ultimately serve to keep them down. But if having a blanket law to protect teens from extreme consequences can lessen the damage, so be it.

(I feel so dirty now. Hold me.)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I'm curious - am I the only odd-birthday that is refraining from responding to the poor evens' argument out of pity for them being stuck on that side of things? (You guys are doing a great job, considering what you have to work with, but it would still feel like stomping bunny rabbits)

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Damn. You scared me there, Lynda; I thought I'd been arguing the wrong side. I think you meant you're the only *even* letting us poor odds off the hook. (Months, not days, this week.)

But don't let us off the hook. Sometimes you don't come up with the finer points of your own argument until you get demolished by the other side.

I would like to apologize right now to anyone who has an odd month, an even day, and an odd year (that's me), because whenever there is a question where one side has a seemingly impossible position to defend, I'm probably going to feel like I have to take the impossible position myself, just because I'm the dummy who came up with the question.

And if anyone else has a question they'd like to propose, just e-mail me so I know not to come up with one for that week. And then you get to assign the birthdays. I think we should stick with a new question on Mondays.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

heh... The next one should be between those with brains and those too senile to remember their own birthday before they've had coffee! Thanks for knowing what I *meant*!

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Well, I was thinking that it would be interesting to occasionally break it into over and under 30, or 35. Or men vs women, on a totally non gender-related issue. I like the random assignment better, but we don't *always* have to be random.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

"Maybe teen sex doesn't cause harm 100% of the time, but teen pregnancy is always a possibility and a very serious consequence for thoughtless actions. In the United States, about one million teenagers get pregnant each year. One million."

Pregnancy is a possibility whenever a fertile couple engages in sex. As far as I know, no one is keeping stats on the number of adults who get pregnant unintentionally, but I suspect it is not at a lower percentage - even with easier access for adults to abortion, I doubt the percentage of resultant births is any lower either.

The difference lies in the increased ability of adults to adjust their lives to accomodate the needs of that child, along with a lower acceptance for adults who choose the path of putting their child up for adoption. (these two may even things out regarding the capacity for an unwanted pregnancy to permanently 'ruin' the parents life and the odds of the unwanted child living in an abusive environment)

If the risk of becoming pregnant IS higher for a teen than an adult, however, a more practical solution is to end the barriers that keep them from engaging in sex responsibly. At a time in their lives when privacy is very important, they are not given the same courtesy that adults are regarding getting proper medical care (or even advice) and birth control that adults are. I would guess that many adults wouldn't use proper birth control, either, if they had to jump through the same hoops that teenagers do, even with their extra years of maturity. Nor are adults stigmatized or at risk of being jailed for seeking out those choices.

The 'teen pregnancy' scare is a weapon used by those who are more than willing to keep those rates high, rather that take the steps necessary to reduce the threat if it means having to accept teenagers as sexually active human beings.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Hey there, I'm from Ireland where the age for consent is 16. If there is a line to be drawn, who should really have the power to draw that line, and why does it differ so much depending on where in the world you're from. I know this isn't an answer, but Im interested in seeing if any of you think that there really is a difference in mentality or maturity between the ages of 16 and 18, or is it all just politics. I personally feel that all cases are individual but of course it's impossible to run a country in that way. I do feel that teens should be given a bit more respect and responsibility, it might help them grow into more responsible adults. I apologise for the random nature of this mail, but it's my first reply and I'm not feeling very coherent at the moment...

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

The Washington Post has an article about a judge in Corpus Cristi that just required a bunch of sex offenders on probation to post placards on their house, bumper stickers on their car (and a portable stick on sign to be used if they're traveling in anyone else's car) identifying them as sex offenders. None of these were men who spent time in prison.

A number of those who've had this requirement put on them are young men (20 or so) who were involved consentually with 15 year olds. They aren't differentiated in any way (in the eyes of those seeing the signs) from the pedophile who rapes small children.

It just reminded me of this discussion when I saw it.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Actually, you are more fertile during your teen years. Just like everything else works better when you're young(more energy, hair, etc). I'm 18 and female. I waited till I was an adult to have sex, because now I have certain things, like a job, a steady relationship, an education I'm working toward and a perspective bigger than high school. What some of you forget is how limiting your circumstances and word views are. Your world is only as big as the halls you roam, and possibly the crappy job you have. Your biggest concern is fingernail polish and gossip. I had no concept of how sex would change me, or any ability to handle it. I can't even imagine what life would be like if I had become pregnant. I wanted to wait until I knew why I was supposed to be waiting, if that makes any sense. To make an informed decision. Yes, allow the clinics to provide Depo-Provera and the Pill at no cost, no questions, just like they do now. There will always be those who want to rush into maturity instead of enjoying their youth burden-free. It is okay to outlaw sex for minors and provide birth control. We outlaw underage drinking, but it is perfectly legal if they drink under parental supervision. Both of these laws leave room for parents to do their job, but provide protection for children who don't have the advantage of a good family. In the end, it's society's job to protect children from themselves as well as others.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Teen sex. The first question is the Clinton question, Are we talking about copulation? We must be, for this is the sure way to have offspring. And having offspring is the proof that two people had sex. I could say that I had sex and didn't actually do it and vice verse. The only substantial proof is fruit of the union. The fruit becomes society's reminder of their responsibilities to the rest of society. Hobbes might say that we give up individual rights so that government(society)(law) as whole takes the responsibility for their actions. The second question is whether a child is delinquent? Can a child be delinquent if he/she has no rights? Can you be responsible for how other people feel? Laws are the imposition of ones morals on another. So one group says 16 is old enough while another says 18 and another 12. These numbers (ages) fit (or do not fit) into the whole makeup of that individual, group, county, country (whoever makes the laws) makeup. So, what we do is make laws and, by making them, make some other nameless entity (government) responsible for the actions of the other. There is a kind of protective cloak when we are viewed not as an individual but as a group, especially, when there is blame.

To answer the question. Government should not make laws over those who have no rights and therefore no responsibilities. Rather, should there be a governmental law that makes adults responsible for their children? This is what we avoid by making laws regarding children. Our own responsibilities. Children will experiment. Experimentation is how they become adults. They will act foolishly and responsibly. They become adults when they act more responsibly than foolishly, not when they reach some magic age.

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

I'm an odd month... but actually i just have one thought after reading through all of this...

How do you maintain a law like that? Tap people on the shoulder while they are having sex, and ask for ID? Card kids who ask for condoms? Knock on car and bedroom windows and ask if they are legal adults?

It seems to me that the enforcement of that kind of law would end up ticking off a whole lot of college-aged kids, and young adults, who were mistaken for minors.

How embarrassing!

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2001

Hey Reb. Fancy running into you here.

(even month) Granted, sex is something that theoretically should be done by consenting adults who either have birth control or whatever or are trying to conceive, who use condoms to help prevent the spread of disease, etc.etc...

But, um, I'm wondering about enforcement also. I mean, okay. If it is more harmful to enforce the law than to let it go, shouldn't that be an answer in itself? What am I trying to say here... if we start carding kids for condoms, they'll stop buying condoms. That's Not Good. To drink, someone has to purchase alcohol. To smoke, someone has to get cigarettes. To do drugs... oh you get the idea. But sex, man, sex you don't need anything except another person.

I suppose my terribly weak argument is that the difficulties of enforcing such actions will make it pointless to have such laws.

Ah, you say, but what if the girl gets pregnant? Who do we punish then, both of them? How do we know who the father is?

Man, that's a shitty argument. I'll think more on the subject and get back to you.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

I don't think it's a waek argument, Em - as you point out, this law will not stop underage sex, it will only increase the risk that engaging in sex has on the couple and on society at large in the form of more unwanted pregnancies (by a demographic least capable of caring for them without societal assistance) and increased disease.

What is the purpose of such a law in the first place? Presumably it is to reduce the unhappy complications that underage sex has - except, as noted, it won't reduce those complications.

In practice, such a law would only be used to further punish those teenagers who are already facing the complications of sexual activity (since those are the conditions under which their sexual activities would become public knowledge). In so doing, the teenagers involved with be even less able to meet the resultant responsibilities, further increasing the burden on society.

I tend to believe that these laws are pictured as something that would be worked against the male, with the female regarded as victim, however, given that girls are no longer regarded as lesser citizens than boys, this law, to be applied fairly, would have to act against both parties if both are underage.

I don't see any good purpose for the law given the inability to enforce it in any way that will increase the betterment of either the people involved or society as a whole.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

I believe the law is usually enforced by the parents of one of the parties. Teenagers, who typically have little privacy are "caught in the act" all the time by parents or, if they're doing it in some public place like a car, by cops or other passers-by. But since I was born in April I'll point out that if parents are able to monitor this activity, they should also be the ones in charge of controlling it. The police aren't babysitters.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

I think it almost always comes up after a pregnancy. As for proving who the father is, DNA testing for that is pretty routine these days.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001