• ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    The rules are not written for those who develop earlier that might be able to consent, they are written for those who don’t develop early and who shouldn’t be considered mature enough. But also, the attraction seems to be an age during which a consent is not possible anyways. They’re just fucking gross.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      True, but better terminology would still help ensure proper punishments. Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
      If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.

      • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The law here doesn’t allow for statutory rape charges for fewer than 2 years here. Anyway, regardless, off topic, but I don’t think the minors want to be tortured or eaten, so there’s that.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Also… I would argue many 18 year olds aren’t mature enough for a lot of decisions. Yet magically, convincing one to have sex is no longer a crime. The brain doesn’t finish developing until the early 20’s. I a, not saying the age of consent should be 21, just that it’s a nuance our terminology and laws don’t cover well.