![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What the hell is this? The article starts off with the clear implication the persons accused of statutory rape are sentenced without trial...look at some of this (from the first section, "Due process of law advocates"):
I think my head just exploded.
My head definitely exploded.
There's more... this is long article. OMG. What to do with this? Is there a WP:CSD for "Causes cranial explosions"? Should this article be AfD'd? There's a lot of stuff in this article. Am I actually going to have to read the whole thing and try to salvage something out of it? Nooooo... I can't bring myself to read any further for the moment. I'm afraid; hold me. Herostratus 04:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. This is after editor Paulo Andrade claimed to have edited the article to remove POV.
First sentence:
The clear implication - later stated openly - is that individual accused of violation of age of consent laws are sentenced without investigation or trial.
If this is the case in Brazil, it must be noted that it applies only to Brazil. If the editor is talking about other countries, we definitely need to see cites, and the countries where it applies. If it applies to countries where due process is not in effect for other crimes, the statement loses all its meaning and may be considered a sneaky way of introducing bias.
It is bad editing for the following reasons:
Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for making of extremist positions more than they are, and the inclusion of extremly incendiary material such as this needs to be rigoursly cited - keeping in mind that citations should be, to the extent possible, from sources that are verifiable, neutral, notable, and peer-reviewed (when this applies). Ideally, sources should come from second-party descriptions of the position or group rather than from advocates of the position itself. Herostratus 14:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Skipping out of sequence here to note that I added the
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (December 2010) |
tag as it seems that at least some of the material appears to apply only to or especially to South America, which needs to be noted.
IF Brazil and other countries DO follow due process EXCEPT in a few cases, arrests for violation of age of consent laws being one of those cases, that should be noted in the articles on the legal systems of those countries. It seems wildly out of place here.
I guess in some countries child prostitution is a serious problem, and perhaps draconian enforcement of age of consent laws is an attempt to address this. (I would think that reform, rather than abolition, of age of consent laws would then be in order, but I can't speak for the politics of various other countries.) Herostratus 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, continuing.
Again - Brazil only, other South American countries, what. Last clause may be unneccesary, slightly polemical in tone, however it may be OK. "It is pointed out" is classic weasel wording, and there is enough similar wording in the section that I added the {{weasel}} templage. Herostratus 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, "They" say that the trial is de jure merely a show trial. I think that the editor intended to put scare quotes around the word "guilty", that at least, although unacceptable, would show that the editor is only saying that they are de facto show trials
Again, unless this is about Brazil, in which cases, belongs in article on Brazilian legal system.
Yay, we got through all three sentences of the first subsection of the first section. To be continued. Herostratus 15:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This must be more South American stuff, I guess. Previous comments apply, move to articles on legal systems of those countries. (I think that in all English-speaking countries that I can think of, the idea that a parent can legally sell or give their child for sex would be considered bizarre at best.) In (I think) all English-spealing countries, children can only give simple consent (not informed consent, which is not consideredto be enough for sex.
This is true in much of the United States as well, and I think other English-speaking countries. In the USA it's a state-by-state definition. This is covered in other articles. It is descriptive and, again, has little to do with the article title, unless the editor is going somewhere with this. Herostratus 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Herostratus,
With respect to statutory rape, it’s different. There is no need for evidences - the age of the partner is enough to determine the guilt. In other words, to prove there was no violence (nor manipulation or deceit) is not a valid defense. This rationale is so difficult to understand? Paulo Andrade 15:10, 31 July 2006 (GMT)
The section "Criticism of lowering or abolishing age of consent" is tagged because (1) it is basically a set of abolitionist strawman arguments and (2) it somehow leaves the impression that there is some kind of dialog between equals, rather than between a tiny handful of ultra-right-wing wackjobs and normal people. I'll comb back later and rake it up, or maybe just delete the whole thing. Herostratus 07:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
On your arguments - They are good from an intellectual perspective and I believe those who are related to age of consent could be included in the “rationale” or “criticism” section. Personally, I agree with some and disagree with others (however, my personal views are not important here and do not necessarily reflect in the counterarguments I show).
There is child prostitution also in the U.S., although it has to assume more subtle forms. Some 14-year olds look 18 and some 18-year olds look 14, so that sometimes the client does not even know about the real age of the girl, who may be using a fake ID. Remember the case of Traci Lords, who starred porn movies at 15 using a fake ID.
Hero, I also hope some of the ideas from this fruitful dialogue between us can be used to improve the section on “criticism”/”rationale”. Paulo Andrade, 16:35 03 August 2006.
If I may suggest something, I suggest that the whole sub-section “Criticism” inside section “Abolition” be transformed into “Rationale of age of consent reform”, being moved to an independent item, and comprising the rationale of all groups. This is due to the fact that the article is no longer restricted to the abolition of AoC. Probably all present arguments used in “Criticism” may be included or improved in this new lay-out, and completed with new arguments for the other groups. One possible model for arranging the arguments is what follows (example):
>> Rationale of age of consent reform
Another possible model is maintaining the present structure of arguments divided by subjects (e.g. “On child protection”, “On age limits and law enforcement” etc), just moving “Criticism” to an independent item like “Rationale of Age of Consent Reform”, and then add more arguments in each subject so that the main arguments for each subject are present. Probably some subjects do not apply to all groups.
This seems to be more easily implemented, as the present structure can simply be renamed and moved, and then the work can take place, step by step. Paulo Andrade, 15:12 01 August 2006 (GMT)
Er, I'm not sure. But I would say, I think we'd be better of with less emphasis on criticisms and arguments, which are very hard to present in an umbiased manner, and which can end up being bait for unending edit wars, and more on things that have happened -- legislation that has been proposed, passed, or rejected -- candidates who have run, been defeated, been elected (on AoC reform platorms) -- books and position papers (emphasizing major-party positions) that have been published (with brief descriptions, not getting overly into details) -- polls (valid polls) conducted -- that sort of thing.
The RAISING of AoC section... its very bare. What HAPPENED in the Georgia, India, Canada etc. cases? Why then, why there? What were the votes? Etc... Ditto for the close-in-age exception section... There's been a movement over the past 20 some-odd years to implement these... which is only logical IMO. This is far and away the most sucessful recent AoC reform. But where did it start, where did it fail, what (in the USA) did the parties say about it, was there a seminal book or two that started it, etc.
Also, another thing that comes to mind... AoC reform is SO different in different areas, I think. The article Age of consent points to different countries, and maybe this info should be in a Recent Developments section or whatever in those articles... I'm not sure of this, just a thought. Herostratus 08:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I probably just went beyond WP:BOLD there and into starting a revert war. Sorry for that. But the fact remains that I didn't suggest spliting this page again at all. I've highlighted my words above and sorry for not being clear. What I was saying was I was initialy against merging the two former articles that make up this article INTO Age of consent. Mostly due to them not being of any sort of quality as they stood. They were at odds and a lot of work needed to (and still needs to) be put into them to make a valid summary of all opinion regarding AoC reform. Splitting up this page now would be a major step backward. There are no clear lines of demarcation to perform a split over. If we did split this into two articles we would have two POV articles, totally unbalanced. We need to summarise as many camps as we can find supporting evidence for, in a rational and fair way. That cannot be achieved in two articles.
Again sorry to Paulo for my heavy handedness there. *shamed* -- Monotonehell 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
( decriminalization in Mexico) and 3 articles ( Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom, Cannabis legalization in Canada and Drug policy of the Netherlands);
I'm going to be bold and just rewrite, and try to keep as much content as possible, while phrasing and structuring in a more coherent manner. This seems like a fairly hot spot for conflict, so I hope my soft tread with NPOV works for everyone. If I change any content or meaning that you feel should not be changed, please fix up after me and drop me a note letting me know where I went wrong. I'm newer and would like the feedback. Here goes Resonanteye 13:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize that the final bullet which is not addressed is the abolition of age of consent laws. Shouldn't the article address this? I would think that abolishment of a law still constitutes reformation of a law. The only reason I could think not to mention is if there were a more appropriate inclusive article such as 'consent law reform' or 'legal consent reform' or 'informed consent reform' or something to that effect. The presentation of abolition and of modification of consent laws as steps to abolition are summarized in a rather extremist stance which I think paints a somewhat grim and anarchous picture of it. While there are anarchists like this who want no legal interference with sexuality, many abolitionist stances favour a 'replacement' instead. As in, rather than determining the capacity to consent based upon average age of mental maturity as determined by psychological testing over the years, you could apply that psychological testing on an individual basis and issue a 'sex license' (much like a driver's liense which tests mental capacity and knowledge) to those deemed informed/competant/mature/etc. enough to consent to the act.
Few believe in an outright replacement, but rather, a modification of existing age-based laws to include testing to fill the 'maturity gap'. As currently exists, there would be a law under which you could not consent no matter what, and a law over which you are judged to inherantly possess the capacity to consent. Right now (albeit, often different ages for different acts/sexes/married or unmarried) these ages are the same. What is proposed is a 'gap' to signify the differences in rates of personal maturation between individuals. This could be attained either by increasing the (always higher) auto-yes number (likely more socially acceptable for protective adults, less so for minors within the gap) or by decreasing the (always lower) auto-no number (likely more acceptable to youths formerly without any option but to wait, less acceptable for protective adults). A gap of even simply a single year initially would serve the purpose well. The expense for such testing could be initially fronted by individuals taking the test, as to not incur public expense for the recognition of additional capacity. No different from the processing fees for taking a driver's license, and possibly (I don't know if there are any) for those applying for early emancipation status.
A gap of one year is the best idea due to the controversial nature of testing and lack of public faith in it, and the slowless of society to adapt to the introduction of new legal/social processes. Further changes would be introduced in the same manner as the laws are changed normally. Increasing the auto-yes age would protect the mentally retarded (or whatever the politically correct term is) from being taken advantage of. While there are currently laws in place to do this, they often rely on a voluntary analysis or reporting to be recognized. Decreasing the auto-no age would give further chance for rights to minors, but without recklessly endangering them so long as the test is sufficiently difficult.
One method of promoting comparative evaluations would be to have those over the auto-yes age who want relations with those under the auto-yes but over the auto-no is (besides the obvious of having the partner passing the testing) require that auto-yes adult to pass the test as well. This does not take away rights of the auto-yes people, as they would not previously be able to engage in relations with people within the gap previous to the legislation. But, should they wish to engage in such new freedom, it is only fair that they be incurred the same requirements as that minor is. An additional benefit of this is that the test will not be made too easy. If complaints by adults intentionally failing this test are levied in order to make it easier, adults who object that it is not too hard could prove this point by passing the test. Showing that it is possible to pass it, they could levy the alternative that rather than making the test easier, the auto-yes age should be increased as to better represent the lack of sexual and emotional-intellectual maturity of some young adults (or adults in general) where it was formerly presumed to be superior to youths. Democracy, of course, would prevent excessive sexual repression of the super intellectual elite of the less elite, as voting would of course play a part in what is considered to be acceptable. Obviously the age of voting priviledges would also play a part in determining what is fair age-related laws. Obviously those above the voting age have a vested interest in maintaining their own rights, and no vested interest in maintaining the rights of those below the voting age. Tyciol 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I put in some arguments about why the age of consent should be lowered and they were erased. I had some good arguments and im not sure why they were erased. Can someone tell me why?
And by the way, shouldnt the reasoning for why the age of consent be lowered be put much higher in the article? Like at the top? ARYAN818 ( talk) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the reasoning for why the age of consent should be lowered should be at the top of the article; that's where the table of contents should go, not this. As to your arguments, I haven't seen them and don't know who took them out.
Shade3x (
talk)
16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to put them back in as no explanation was given.. Shade3x ( talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
SHouldnt one of the first things be mentioned is the REASONS one why to lower the age of consent? Would there be an issue or issue's if I make one of the first things mentioned on why there are reasons to lower the age of consent and/or abolish it? So I will just re-arange the article, and add a few things. ARYAN818 ( talk) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean this is really annoying. I made some changes (basically re-arranging the article) and just adding a few things , and it was un-done. And no one (unless im wrong I apologize then) has given me an explanation why? I mean were not allowed to edit this article and now were not allowed to get an explanation why our edits aren't allowed? Who is in chare of this? ARYAN818 ( talk) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the first two subsections from the Age of consent reform#Lowering age of consent section until they can be sourced per WP:RS and weasel wording removed. With so many unsourced statements and general claims, it didn't seem likely the subsection info could be be verified and accepted within a reasonable amount of time to stay in the main article. Flowanda | Talk 22:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the removed content:
Abolitionists who? argue that the issue of consent should be left to individual choice or at least to parental consent. They also state that:
Another opinion is that in the case of most other arbitrary age limits, which have minor penalties, in this case someone can go to prison, so that law should treat cases individually in order to be fair. Some also believe that raising the age of consent increases child prostitution and is in the interests of those who profit from it. The argument is that the demand for sex with those of lower ages would be supplied by illegal child prostitution and child pornography, and also would generate a greater number of hidden relationships.
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. (December 2010) |
Most child protection groups strongly oppose the abolition of age of consent laws, saying that although an average age for everyone may be unfair for some, all age limits contain a certain degree of arbitrariness. Many police officers argue that it is more expedient for them when age boundaries are defined and they can identify suspects quickly and arrest alleged offenders. Many religious people argue that age of consent laws should be influenced by moral principles, and that adolescents and children should not be allowed the chance to engage in sexual relations (especially with older partners) until they reach what they deem as a proper age. Currently, all defendants in statutory rape cases in the US have the right to an attorney, to speak in court, to a fair defense, to present mitigating circumstances, to a fair trial, and to appeal. Therefore, some argue that these age-of-consent laws show a community consensus about these moral principles.
Some believe the state should grant children special protection against behaviors deemed as deviant, and make all efforts to avoid teen pregnancy. They state that children are influenced by the examples given by other children, so that in order to protect all children the families of other children should not be able to give legal consent to sexual relations, especially with older partners, and avoid giving their children too much freedom. Another argument against lowering the age of consent is that it would increase child prostitution, arguing that prostitutes theoretically give their consent to sexual relations (and therefore their clients would be acquitted of any charges), and also that poor parents would be more willing to 'sell' their children to prostitution.
Back to the reason I moved the content here for discussion. Considering that most of the content I removed from the main article has been sitting in the main article unsourced for a couple of years, these sections need to remain in the talk space until each statement can be adequately and independently verified and sourced. No matter what creepy little dark corner this article tries to live in, it's ludicrous to think Wikipedia policy provides the kind of sourcing latitude needed for this BS to be readded to the main article as is. Flowanda | Talk 02:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all your majesty, just becuase you think this article is going into a creepy dark corner doesnt mean its true. I mean your just being close minded and not even trying to understand why the age of consent is something that some people want to reform. Seconldy, there was no reason to call this BS. It is not BS. There were alot of logical reasons on why the age of consent maybe need's to be reformed......And lastly.....I have given you reason(s) on why certain things might not be able to find a source on, but that is not a big deal becuase some arguement's are logical arguemnt's that don't need a source. Ive given you example(s) about this, and you have not addressed any of those examples. I have typed and typed and typed alot of stuff, and you've ignored alot of them. That tell's me your not even trying to understand. You just want to be a dictator and dictate what goes and stays. DONT MIS-LEAD people into thinking that im saying NOTHING NEEDS to be sourced. That's not what im saying. Im saying alot of things, but your not answering alot of what im saying. ALl you is come up with answer's like THIS IS WHY NO ONE WANTS TO HELP YOU (FLOWANDA was saying that to me as her answer). For those of you who have no idea what im talking about just scroll up. All she said to me in one of her resposnes was "This is why no one wants to help you". She didnt even try to answer anything else that I wrote (and I wrote alot). So she is not trying to be cooperative. She just want's to dictate what goes and stay's here. I mean I type and type and type and type and type , and she doesn't answer everything. "This is why no one wants to help you" is one of her answer's to me. ARYAN818 ( talk) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is about age of consent reform. But if a user come's to this aritcle he/she may not learn about alot of the reason's as to WHY some people want an age of consent reform. And that is because Flowanda has decieded to take it out. Flowada is not being open minded to anything ive said. I have given her many examples and some logic about why certain thing's might not have to be sourced, and why certain thing's might have a hard time to finding a source. And she hasn't answerd all my point's..........For example........I typed alot of stuff at one point and one time her response to me was "This is why no one wants to help you"........wow......what a logical response? I type and type trying to get her to understand, and that is one of her response's to me ? ARYAN818 ( talk) 18:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the argument's about why maybe some people want the age of consent to change be higher in the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.83.91 ( talk) 18:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this recent edit: [1] This sentence reads a little awkwardly, and almost seems like it's making an "excuse." It also seems to attribute too much weight and veracity to the Commentator's section (calling them "leading intellectuals"). I feel their atrributed credibility should be limited in that all the commentators noted, while not necessarily pedophiles, are journalists or teachers. None of them have any sort of psychiatric or academic qualifications; they are merely "musing" as it were, in a philosophical sense. Legitimus ( talk) 12:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was redirected here looking for information about the childlove movement. The word "childlove" isn't even mentioned in the article!
What is this merging and censorship insanity? If something exists and plays a significant part in some parts of society, it should have its place in wikipedia, regardless of some wikiwarriors' thickheaded efforts to "remove what's not right". 84.215.119.169 ( talk) 06:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
These names direct to this article:
There are many more.
Flowanda |
Talk
10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Information sourced to Asiansexgazette.com that I removed was reverted. I could not find evidence this website met WP:RS, so please provide links and information. Flowanda | Talk 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
From an encyclopedic standpoint, redirecting pro-pedophile activism to this page doesn't quite work. Both articles should exist, and link to each other. A parent looking for information on these organizations won't be interested in their legal stances (who is?). These organizations consist of more than legal activists, in fact their activism doesn't seem to get into court very often at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.135.246 ( talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Did the law apply only to girls? This is not a rhetorical question. It would be quite conceivable that adults having sexual contact with girls (which would mostly mean heterosexual sex) might be more tolerated than adults having sexual contact with boys (which would mostly mean homosexual sex, for which the age of consent in many jurisdictions has traditionally been higher). If the law applied equally to girls and boys it would be more clear if 'herself/himself' and 'her/his' were substituted.-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What the hell is this? The article starts off with the clear implication the persons accused of statutory rape are sentenced without trial...look at some of this (from the first section, "Due process of law advocates"):
I think my head just exploded.
My head definitely exploded.
There's more... this is long article. OMG. What to do with this? Is there a WP:CSD for "Causes cranial explosions"? Should this article be AfD'd? There's a lot of stuff in this article. Am I actually going to have to read the whole thing and try to salvage something out of it? Nooooo... I can't bring myself to read any further for the moment. I'm afraid; hold me. Herostratus 04:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. This is after editor Paulo Andrade claimed to have edited the article to remove POV.
First sentence:
The clear implication - later stated openly - is that individual accused of violation of age of consent laws are sentenced without investigation or trial.
If this is the case in Brazil, it must be noted that it applies only to Brazil. If the editor is talking about other countries, we definitely need to see cites, and the countries where it applies. If it applies to countries where due process is not in effect for other crimes, the statement loses all its meaning and may be considered a sneaky way of introducing bias.
It is bad editing for the following reasons:
Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for making of extremist positions more than they are, and the inclusion of extremly incendiary material such as this needs to be rigoursly cited - keeping in mind that citations should be, to the extent possible, from sources that are verifiable, neutral, notable, and peer-reviewed (when this applies). Ideally, sources should come from second-party descriptions of the position or group rather than from advocates of the position itself. Herostratus 14:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Skipping out of sequence here to note that I added the
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (December 2010) |
tag as it seems that at least some of the material appears to apply only to or especially to South America, which needs to be noted.
IF Brazil and other countries DO follow due process EXCEPT in a few cases, arrests for violation of age of consent laws being one of those cases, that should be noted in the articles on the legal systems of those countries. It seems wildly out of place here.
I guess in some countries child prostitution is a serious problem, and perhaps draconian enforcement of age of consent laws is an attempt to address this. (I would think that reform, rather than abolition, of age of consent laws would then be in order, but I can't speak for the politics of various other countries.) Herostratus 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, continuing.
Again - Brazil only, other South American countries, what. Last clause may be unneccesary, slightly polemical in tone, however it may be OK. "It is pointed out" is classic weasel wording, and there is enough similar wording in the section that I added the {{weasel}} templage. Herostratus 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, "They" say that the trial is de jure merely a show trial. I think that the editor intended to put scare quotes around the word "guilty", that at least, although unacceptable, would show that the editor is only saying that they are de facto show trials
Again, unless this is about Brazil, in which cases, belongs in article on Brazilian legal system.
Yay, we got through all three sentences of the first subsection of the first section. To be continued. Herostratus 15:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This must be more South American stuff, I guess. Previous comments apply, move to articles on legal systems of those countries. (I think that in all English-speaking countries that I can think of, the idea that a parent can legally sell or give their child for sex would be considered bizarre at best.) In (I think) all English-spealing countries, children can only give simple consent (not informed consent, which is not consideredto be enough for sex.
This is true in much of the United States as well, and I think other English-speaking countries. In the USA it's a state-by-state definition. This is covered in other articles. It is descriptive and, again, has little to do with the article title, unless the editor is going somewhere with this. Herostratus 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Herostratus,
With respect to statutory rape, it’s different. There is no need for evidences - the age of the partner is enough to determine the guilt. In other words, to prove there was no violence (nor manipulation or deceit) is not a valid defense. This rationale is so difficult to understand? Paulo Andrade 15:10, 31 July 2006 (GMT)
The section "Criticism of lowering or abolishing age of consent" is tagged because (1) it is basically a set of abolitionist strawman arguments and (2) it somehow leaves the impression that there is some kind of dialog between equals, rather than between a tiny handful of ultra-right-wing wackjobs and normal people. I'll comb back later and rake it up, or maybe just delete the whole thing. Herostratus 07:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
On your arguments - They are good from an intellectual perspective and I believe those who are related to age of consent could be included in the “rationale” or “criticism” section. Personally, I agree with some and disagree with others (however, my personal views are not important here and do not necessarily reflect in the counterarguments I show).
There is child prostitution also in the U.S., although it has to assume more subtle forms. Some 14-year olds look 18 and some 18-year olds look 14, so that sometimes the client does not even know about the real age of the girl, who may be using a fake ID. Remember the case of Traci Lords, who starred porn movies at 15 using a fake ID.
Hero, I also hope some of the ideas from this fruitful dialogue between us can be used to improve the section on “criticism”/”rationale”. Paulo Andrade, 16:35 03 August 2006.
If I may suggest something, I suggest that the whole sub-section “Criticism” inside section “Abolition” be transformed into “Rationale of age of consent reform”, being moved to an independent item, and comprising the rationale of all groups. This is due to the fact that the article is no longer restricted to the abolition of AoC. Probably all present arguments used in “Criticism” may be included or improved in this new lay-out, and completed with new arguments for the other groups. One possible model for arranging the arguments is what follows (example):
>> Rationale of age of consent reform
Another possible model is maintaining the present structure of arguments divided by subjects (e.g. “On child protection”, “On age limits and law enforcement” etc), just moving “Criticism” to an independent item like “Rationale of Age of Consent Reform”, and then add more arguments in each subject so that the main arguments for each subject are present. Probably some subjects do not apply to all groups.
This seems to be more easily implemented, as the present structure can simply be renamed and moved, and then the work can take place, step by step. Paulo Andrade, 15:12 01 August 2006 (GMT)
Er, I'm not sure. But I would say, I think we'd be better of with less emphasis on criticisms and arguments, which are very hard to present in an umbiased manner, and which can end up being bait for unending edit wars, and more on things that have happened -- legislation that has been proposed, passed, or rejected -- candidates who have run, been defeated, been elected (on AoC reform platorms) -- books and position papers (emphasizing major-party positions) that have been published (with brief descriptions, not getting overly into details) -- polls (valid polls) conducted -- that sort of thing.
The RAISING of AoC section... its very bare. What HAPPENED in the Georgia, India, Canada etc. cases? Why then, why there? What were the votes? Etc... Ditto for the close-in-age exception section... There's been a movement over the past 20 some-odd years to implement these... which is only logical IMO. This is far and away the most sucessful recent AoC reform. But where did it start, where did it fail, what (in the USA) did the parties say about it, was there a seminal book or two that started it, etc.
Also, another thing that comes to mind... AoC reform is SO different in different areas, I think. The article Age of consent points to different countries, and maybe this info should be in a Recent Developments section or whatever in those articles... I'm not sure of this, just a thought. Herostratus 08:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I probably just went beyond WP:BOLD there and into starting a revert war. Sorry for that. But the fact remains that I didn't suggest spliting this page again at all. I've highlighted my words above and sorry for not being clear. What I was saying was I was initialy against merging the two former articles that make up this article INTO Age of consent. Mostly due to them not being of any sort of quality as they stood. They were at odds and a lot of work needed to (and still needs to) be put into them to make a valid summary of all opinion regarding AoC reform. Splitting up this page now would be a major step backward. There are no clear lines of demarcation to perform a split over. If we did split this into two articles we would have two POV articles, totally unbalanced. We need to summarise as many camps as we can find supporting evidence for, in a rational and fair way. That cannot be achieved in two articles.
Again sorry to Paulo for my heavy handedness there. *shamed* -- Monotonehell 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
( decriminalization in Mexico) and 3 articles ( Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom, Cannabis legalization in Canada and Drug policy of the Netherlands);
I'm going to be bold and just rewrite, and try to keep as much content as possible, while phrasing and structuring in a more coherent manner. This seems like a fairly hot spot for conflict, so I hope my soft tread with NPOV works for everyone. If I change any content or meaning that you feel should not be changed, please fix up after me and drop me a note letting me know where I went wrong. I'm newer and would like the feedback. Here goes Resonanteye 13:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize that the final bullet which is not addressed is the abolition of age of consent laws. Shouldn't the article address this? I would think that abolishment of a law still constitutes reformation of a law. The only reason I could think not to mention is if there were a more appropriate inclusive article such as 'consent law reform' or 'legal consent reform' or 'informed consent reform' or something to that effect. The presentation of abolition and of modification of consent laws as steps to abolition are summarized in a rather extremist stance which I think paints a somewhat grim and anarchous picture of it. While there are anarchists like this who want no legal interference with sexuality, many abolitionist stances favour a 'replacement' instead. As in, rather than determining the capacity to consent based upon average age of mental maturity as determined by psychological testing over the years, you could apply that psychological testing on an individual basis and issue a 'sex license' (much like a driver's liense which tests mental capacity and knowledge) to those deemed informed/competant/mature/etc. enough to consent to the act.
Few believe in an outright replacement, but rather, a modification of existing age-based laws to include testing to fill the 'maturity gap'. As currently exists, there would be a law under which you could not consent no matter what, and a law over which you are judged to inherantly possess the capacity to consent. Right now (albeit, often different ages for different acts/sexes/married or unmarried) these ages are the same. What is proposed is a 'gap' to signify the differences in rates of personal maturation between individuals. This could be attained either by increasing the (always higher) auto-yes number (likely more socially acceptable for protective adults, less so for minors within the gap) or by decreasing the (always lower) auto-no number (likely more acceptable to youths formerly without any option but to wait, less acceptable for protective adults). A gap of even simply a single year initially would serve the purpose well. The expense for such testing could be initially fronted by individuals taking the test, as to not incur public expense for the recognition of additional capacity. No different from the processing fees for taking a driver's license, and possibly (I don't know if there are any) for those applying for early emancipation status.
A gap of one year is the best idea due to the controversial nature of testing and lack of public faith in it, and the slowless of society to adapt to the introduction of new legal/social processes. Further changes would be introduced in the same manner as the laws are changed normally. Increasing the auto-yes age would protect the mentally retarded (or whatever the politically correct term is) from being taken advantage of. While there are currently laws in place to do this, they often rely on a voluntary analysis or reporting to be recognized. Decreasing the auto-no age would give further chance for rights to minors, but without recklessly endangering them so long as the test is sufficiently difficult.
One method of promoting comparative evaluations would be to have those over the auto-yes age who want relations with those under the auto-yes but over the auto-no is (besides the obvious of having the partner passing the testing) require that auto-yes adult to pass the test as well. This does not take away rights of the auto-yes people, as they would not previously be able to engage in relations with people within the gap previous to the legislation. But, should they wish to engage in such new freedom, it is only fair that they be incurred the same requirements as that minor is. An additional benefit of this is that the test will not be made too easy. If complaints by adults intentionally failing this test are levied in order to make it easier, adults who object that it is not too hard could prove this point by passing the test. Showing that it is possible to pass it, they could levy the alternative that rather than making the test easier, the auto-yes age should be increased as to better represent the lack of sexual and emotional-intellectual maturity of some young adults (or adults in general) where it was formerly presumed to be superior to youths. Democracy, of course, would prevent excessive sexual repression of the super intellectual elite of the less elite, as voting would of course play a part in what is considered to be acceptable. Obviously the age of voting priviledges would also play a part in determining what is fair age-related laws. Obviously those above the voting age have a vested interest in maintaining their own rights, and no vested interest in maintaining the rights of those below the voting age. Tyciol 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I put in some arguments about why the age of consent should be lowered and they were erased. I had some good arguments and im not sure why they were erased. Can someone tell me why?
And by the way, shouldnt the reasoning for why the age of consent be lowered be put much higher in the article? Like at the top? ARYAN818 ( talk) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the reasoning for why the age of consent should be lowered should be at the top of the article; that's where the table of contents should go, not this. As to your arguments, I haven't seen them and don't know who took them out.
Shade3x (
talk)
16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to put them back in as no explanation was given.. Shade3x ( talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
SHouldnt one of the first things be mentioned is the REASONS one why to lower the age of consent? Would there be an issue or issue's if I make one of the first things mentioned on why there are reasons to lower the age of consent and/or abolish it? So I will just re-arange the article, and add a few things. ARYAN818 ( talk) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean this is really annoying. I made some changes (basically re-arranging the article) and just adding a few things , and it was un-done. And no one (unless im wrong I apologize then) has given me an explanation why? I mean were not allowed to edit this article and now were not allowed to get an explanation why our edits aren't allowed? Who is in chare of this? ARYAN818 ( talk) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the first two subsections from the Age of consent reform#Lowering age of consent section until they can be sourced per WP:RS and weasel wording removed. With so many unsourced statements and general claims, it didn't seem likely the subsection info could be be verified and accepted within a reasonable amount of time to stay in the main article. Flowanda | Talk 22:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the removed content:
Abolitionists who? argue that the issue of consent should be left to individual choice or at least to parental consent. They also state that:
Another opinion is that in the case of most other arbitrary age limits, which have minor penalties, in this case someone can go to prison, so that law should treat cases individually in order to be fair. Some also believe that raising the age of consent increases child prostitution and is in the interests of those who profit from it. The argument is that the demand for sex with those of lower ages would be supplied by illegal child prostitution and child pornography, and also would generate a greater number of hidden relationships.
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. (December 2010) |
Most child protection groups strongly oppose the abolition of age of consent laws, saying that although an average age for everyone may be unfair for some, all age limits contain a certain degree of arbitrariness. Many police officers argue that it is more expedient for them when age boundaries are defined and they can identify suspects quickly and arrest alleged offenders. Many religious people argue that age of consent laws should be influenced by moral principles, and that adolescents and children should not be allowed the chance to engage in sexual relations (especially with older partners) until they reach what they deem as a proper age. Currently, all defendants in statutory rape cases in the US have the right to an attorney, to speak in court, to a fair defense, to present mitigating circumstances, to a fair trial, and to appeal. Therefore, some argue that these age-of-consent laws show a community consensus about these moral principles.
Some believe the state should grant children special protection against behaviors deemed as deviant, and make all efforts to avoid teen pregnancy. They state that children are influenced by the examples given by other children, so that in order to protect all children the families of other children should not be able to give legal consent to sexual relations, especially with older partners, and avoid giving their children too much freedom. Another argument against lowering the age of consent is that it would increase child prostitution, arguing that prostitutes theoretically give their consent to sexual relations (and therefore their clients would be acquitted of any charges), and also that poor parents would be more willing to 'sell' their children to prostitution.
Back to the reason I moved the content here for discussion. Considering that most of the content I removed from the main article has been sitting in the main article unsourced for a couple of years, these sections need to remain in the talk space until each statement can be adequately and independently verified and sourced. No matter what creepy little dark corner this article tries to live in, it's ludicrous to think Wikipedia policy provides the kind of sourcing latitude needed for this BS to be readded to the main article as is. Flowanda | Talk 02:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all your majesty, just becuase you think this article is going into a creepy dark corner doesnt mean its true. I mean your just being close minded and not even trying to understand why the age of consent is something that some people want to reform. Seconldy, there was no reason to call this BS. It is not BS. There were alot of logical reasons on why the age of consent maybe need's to be reformed......And lastly.....I have given you reason(s) on why certain things might not be able to find a source on, but that is not a big deal becuase some arguement's are logical arguemnt's that don't need a source. Ive given you example(s) about this, and you have not addressed any of those examples. I have typed and typed and typed alot of stuff, and you've ignored alot of them. That tell's me your not even trying to understand. You just want to be a dictator and dictate what goes and stays. DONT MIS-LEAD people into thinking that im saying NOTHING NEEDS to be sourced. That's not what im saying. Im saying alot of things, but your not answering alot of what im saying. ALl you is come up with answer's like THIS IS WHY NO ONE WANTS TO HELP YOU (FLOWANDA was saying that to me as her answer). For those of you who have no idea what im talking about just scroll up. All she said to me in one of her resposnes was "This is why no one wants to help you". She didnt even try to answer anything else that I wrote (and I wrote alot). So she is not trying to be cooperative. She just want's to dictate what goes and stay's here. I mean I type and type and type and type and type , and she doesn't answer everything. "This is why no one wants to help you" is one of her answer's to me. ARYAN818 ( talk) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is about age of consent reform. But if a user come's to this aritcle he/she may not learn about alot of the reason's as to WHY some people want an age of consent reform. And that is because Flowanda has decieded to take it out. Flowada is not being open minded to anything ive said. I have given her many examples and some logic about why certain thing's might not have to be sourced, and why certain thing's might have a hard time to finding a source. And she hasn't answerd all my point's..........For example........I typed alot of stuff at one point and one time her response to me was "This is why no one wants to help you"........wow......what a logical response? I type and type trying to get her to understand, and that is one of her response's to me ? ARYAN818 ( talk) 18:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the argument's about why maybe some people want the age of consent to change be higher in the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.83.91 ( talk) 18:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this recent edit: [1] This sentence reads a little awkwardly, and almost seems like it's making an "excuse." It also seems to attribute too much weight and veracity to the Commentator's section (calling them "leading intellectuals"). I feel their atrributed credibility should be limited in that all the commentators noted, while not necessarily pedophiles, are journalists or teachers. None of them have any sort of psychiatric or academic qualifications; they are merely "musing" as it were, in a philosophical sense. Legitimus ( talk) 12:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was redirected here looking for information about the childlove movement. The word "childlove" isn't even mentioned in the article!
What is this merging and censorship insanity? If something exists and plays a significant part in some parts of society, it should have its place in wikipedia, regardless of some wikiwarriors' thickheaded efforts to "remove what's not right". 84.215.119.169 ( talk) 06:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
These names direct to this article:
There are many more.
Flowanda |
Talk
10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Information sourced to Asiansexgazette.com that I removed was reverted. I could not find evidence this website met WP:RS, so please provide links and information. Flowanda | Talk 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
From an encyclopedic standpoint, redirecting pro-pedophile activism to this page doesn't quite work. Both articles should exist, and link to each other. A parent looking for information on these organizations won't be interested in their legal stances (who is?). These organizations consist of more than legal activists, in fact their activism doesn't seem to get into court very often at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.135.246 ( talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Did the law apply only to girls? This is not a rhetorical question. It would be quite conceivable that adults having sexual contact with girls (which would mostly mean heterosexual sex) might be more tolerated than adults having sexual contact with boys (which would mostly mean homosexual sex, for which the age of consent in many jurisdictions has traditionally been higher). If the law applied equally to girls and boys it would be more clear if 'herself/himself' and 'her/his' were substituted.-- Oxonian2006 ( talk) 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)