[Vision2020] Re: Correction to "Age of Consent"

[Joan Opyr]

Hello all,

My fingers got ahead of my brain this morning.  The 18/16 age of 
consent split in Idaho law is between males and females, not straights 
and gays.  I have corrected my earlier post to reflect that anomaly.  
This is a foolish and sexist split, in my opinion.  Why the difference 
between male consent and female consent?  Because young women are more 
mature than young men?  Or so young women can be married off at an 
earlier age?

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment

Begin forwarded message:

> On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:16 AM, Scott Dredge wrote:
>
>> Doug,
>>
>> Curiously within the topic of the Sitler case, you've asked Ralph 
>> what he thought age of consent should be and now you're asking Joan 
>> what it should be which indicates to me that you don't agree with the 
>> present age of consent laws.  True or untrue?  And if true, what do 
>> you think age of consent should be?
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> ===============================
>> Doug Wilson blogged 6/14/2006 3:14:25 PM
>>
>> "I have an article suggestion for Joan, one that should go over well 
>> at
>> New West some time in the future. Why don't you write something on
>> when you think the age of sexual consent should be, and why?"
>>
>> ===============================
>
> While I appreciate suggested article topics for New West, I'm not 
> particularly interested in writing about age of consent laws.  First, 
> they are not uniform from state to state, much less country to 
> country.  I will say that I think the law should be the same for 
> homosexuals and heterosexuals.  In several states, the age of consent 
> for gays and lesbians is older than the age of consent for straight 
> people.  I believe the breakdown is generally 16 for heterosexuals and 
> 18 for gays and lesbians.  Why the difference?  Who's more likely to 
> be faced with an unwanted pregnancy?  And I'll add -- before Doug and 
> others embarrass themselves by trying it on -- that HIV is NOT a "gay 
> disease," and that the fastest-growing infection rates are among 
> heterosexuals.  (Heterosexual black women and heterosexual Native 
> Americans are particularly at risk.)
>
> Let's remember, Doug, that there were two cases discussed in the New 
> West piece.  One, that of Steven Sitler, a child molester and sexual 
> predator, has received the most attention.  The other, that of Jamin 
> Wight, has been lost in the shuffle.  Wight, a 24-year old Greyfriars 
> Seminary student, embarked on an eighteen-month long sexual 
> relationship with a 14-year old girl.  Was that 14-year old 
> psychologically ready to engage in consensual sex with a man ten years 
> her senior?  In my opinion, no.  Was she legally ready?  In the 
> court's opinion, certainly not.  Was she old enough to engage in 
> sexual relations with another 14-year old of the same or opposite sex? 
>  Legally, logically, and speaking as a parent, no.  Should 12 and 
> 13-year olds be allowed to marry with parental permission?  No.  In 
> some countries, Doug, the age of consent for young girls is in the 
> single digits.  Do I approve of that?  Of course not.  I think it's a 
> disgrace.  What do you think?  Would you be willing to pick a marriage 
> partner for your underaged teenager?
>
> The general consensus on age of consent seems to cluster at age 16.  
> Perhaps that's old enough for some; I think it's too young.  But then 
> I'm conservative on these issues.  I would certainly prefer that young 
> people at least wait until they're old enough to vote.  When you're 
> old enough to pick a President, to pay taxes, and to serve in Iraq, 
> then you're probably old enough to pick a sex partner.  Probably -- 
> but not always.  Clearly, even at the ripe old age of 24, Jamin Wight 
> wasn't fit to make that choice.
>
Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.joanopyr.com
>
>
>