The dangers of making men out of boys overnight

The Sydney Morning Herald ^ | May 9 2003 | Al Stewart

[presidio9]

I wonder how many of us have noticed the irony that two of the main news stories on the Herald's front page of May 7 were about the sexual exploitation of children. One focused on the Governor-General controversy. The other concerned the age-of-consent legislation for homosexual men in NSW.

Our society treats 16-year-olds as children. They are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to hold a driver's licence. They are not even allowed to watch explicit sex scenes in R-rated movies, yet, under this proposed legislation, they would be allowed to participate in such sexual acts.

So it strikes me as a massive case of hypocrisy of our society that we would consider crucifying the Governor-General for his lack of care in not protecting children from sexual exploitation and, at the same time, consider reducing the age of consent for homosexual sex to 16.

Do we really believe that on one day a 16-year-old is in need of protection, while he is still young and vulnerable and trying to sort out the issues of sexuality, and on the next day legislation could be passed to make the 16-year-old an adult?

Sexual decisions or mistakes made at the age of 16 can have lifelong consequences for young people.

I have worked in youth ministry in Mount Druitt, Liverpool and in the eastern suburbs. I also have four children of my own, three of whom are teenagers. I understand fully how vulnerable kids are in their mid-teens and their need to be protected.

Anyone who believes that an age of consent of 16 will not be taken advantage of by predatory older males is living in a fantasy land.

My question is a simple one. Are we as a society genuinely concerned about protecting our children? The argument that every other state in Australia has this age of consent does not mean this is the right thing to do. Let us at least be consistent as a society in our concern for the wellbeing of our children.

The two different stories on the front page of the Herald demonstrate that we are a society that has lost any belief in moral absolutes.

[Grampa Dave]

The Homosexual predators are getting politicians around the globe to make their fresh meat legal to infect and later kill with deadly diseases.

[sharktrager]

Do we really believe that on one day a 16-year-old is in need of protection, while he is still young and vulnerable and trying to sort out the issues of sexuality, and on the next day legislation could be passed to make the 16-year-old an adult?

While I may not agree with the legislation, this is a gross mis-statement.

Such a change is not saying what we believe today we will not believe tomorrow. It would be indicative that we do not believe it today, and have probably not believed it for some time.

[Lorianne]

In most jurisdictions a child can emancipate himself from his parents at age 16 (with the consent of a judge). There fore age 16 is a reasonable age of consent for sex.

Furthermore, most AOC laws have provisions for age discepancy which allow criminalize sex between adults and minors, but do not criminalize sex between like-age individuals. Typically the AOC will have a 3 or 5 year age difference limit. This is also a reasonable provision. What we want to discourage is predatory adults, preying on children and older minors, not make criminals out of the minors themselves.

An AOC of 16 with a 3 year age disparity limit is a practical and reasonable solution to curb sexual predation and exploitation of children and minors by adults. Under this scheme the worst situation allowed legally would be 19 or 20 year old with a 16 or 17 year old. After age 18, anything goes (with consent of course).

A 16 year old AOC is reasonable.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[Lorianne]

It's not just homosexuals. Many heterosexuals lobby for lowering the AOC as well so that young girls will be fair game.

We have both homosexual and heterosexual men who travel to certain countries specifically for sex with children. It's a huge worldwide problem for children. Google "sex tourism" and see what I mean.

[Grampa Dave]

You are exactly correct. The sexual predators from both sides want the ages lowered. That includes female heterosexual predator teachers who go after young male students.

[Grampa Dave]

You are exactly correct. The sexual predators from both sides want the ages lowered. That includes female heterosexual predator teachers who go after young male students.

[Grampa Dave]

You are exactly correct. The sexual predators from both sides want the ages lowered. That includes female heterosexual predator teachers who go after young male students.

[presidio9]

Lorianne, you do realize why these laws were put in place, don't you? For the same reason why 16 year olds can't legally drink alcohol.

[Lorianne]

Under statuatory rape laws, the legally culpable party is the ADULT, not the minor.

[presidio9]

Exactly. Sixteen year olds are rarely emotionally prepared to make decisions about sexuality that could have life-altering consequences.

[Lorianne]

I don't agree. It's not about limiting a teenager's "sexualtity". This is what those opposed to statuatory rape and higher AOC laws use as ammunition. Statuatory rape laws are not about curbing anyone's sexuality, they are about protecting minors from sexual predation by adults.

The intent of the laws is not limit minors sexually. They are to protect minors from those who would exploit them and use them, not protect them from sex per se. That is why sex between like age minors or between minors and like age adults is generally excluded from statuatory rape laws.

We may want to discourage minors from having sexual experiences but this is outside the scope of statuatory rape laws. These laws are to prevent exploitation of children and minors at the hands of adults.

[thepitts]

Our society treats 16-year-olds as children. They are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to hold a driver's licence. They are not even allowed to watch explicit sex scenes in R-rated movies, yet, under this proposed legislation, they would be allowed to participate in such sexual acts.

And, of course, they can be tried as adults and put to death.

[sauropod]

"So it strikes me as a massive case of hypocrisy of our society that we would consider crucifying the Governor-General for his lack of care in not protecting children from sexual exploitation and, at the same time, consider reducing the age of consent for homosexual sex to 16."

Aromatherapy!

[presidio9]

Fine. But that does not explain why you think 16 would be a good age to stop protecting them.

[Lorianne]

I didn't suggest that. A 16 AOC with 3-5 year older age limits on the adults protects 16 and 17 year olds and is a reasonable measure.

In some states the AOC is set at age 18 as an absolute (no age disparity allowance) and it not well enforced because it is not seen as reasonable. A 18 could theoretically be prosecuted for having sex with his/her 17 year old girl/boy friend. For this reason a 16 year AOC with age disparity limits on the adult is seen as a reasonable protection. Again, it is not about sex but about exploitation.

[presidio9]

In some states the AOC is set at age 18 as an absolute (no age disparity allowance) and it not well enforced because it is not seen as reasonable. i>

But it is enforced for 15 and 16 year-olds. Lower the AOC to 16 and perhaps people begin looking the other way down to 14.