Democrat intends to introduce bill to raise Indiana’s age of consent to 18

[kail]

what the fuck, mexico?

what the fuck world in general? there's way too much light blue and yellow out there. we should cut trade ties with those countries if that means it's legal for an adult to fuck a 13 year old.

In the end, it's all consent.

As for the 21 age restriction for drinking alcohol, yea that's pure lol. As Jeffries put it: you can be a pornstar at 18 but still be too young to have a beer.

[Zan15]

The fact that you're casually broaching the subject of a likely married man who has kids having an affair with an underaged girl so casually is quite disturbing. This should not be happening and it's great that we crack down on this.

umm wow that is a stretch. No one said the coach had a wife or kids.
the coach could be 22 right out of college.

so 2 months later you would not have a problem with that same girl having sex with that person. like some magical maturity happened a few months later.

that is the problem with age restrictions they really don't measure the ability of someone to do X. There is not even data to back up most age restricted laws, just seems like the generation in charge hates to see the generation growing up have fun to they restrict them more and more.

[derpkitteh]

In the end, it's all consent.

i don't give a damn if a 12 year old is thought to be able to consent in those countries. no adult should be able to fuck a kid, it's just not right.

[I Push Buttons]

21 seems so random for drinking. It really should be 18 for hard alcoholic stuff and 16 for soft stuff like beer.

21 used to be the age of majority in the US. It was changed with the 26th Amendment because of the Vietnam War. People (everyone, not just potential draftees) were pissed they couldn't vote until they were 21, but could be drafted to go fight in the Vietnam War at 18.

[kail]

i don't give a damn if a 12 year old is thought to be able to consent in those countries. no adult should be able to fuck a kid, it's just not right.

The age we set to what determines an adult is arbitrary. You also assume it's only some 30+ year old fucking a 13 year old. Two close friends in school could just want to try out sex. In select countries, that isn't a crime.

[derpkitteh]

The age we set to what determines an adult is arbitrary. You also assume it's only some 30+ year old fucking a 13 year old. Two close friends in school could just want to try out sex. In select countries, that isn't a crime.

that's an entirely different case.

it shouldn't be a crime for kids to experiment with each other. setting a consent law that low though, i would assume that means an adult could do it to, and that's not good.

set the age of the consent to maybe 16(i don't personally agree with 16, but i remember what it was like to be 16, i was basically the same as i am now). then, have age of consent laws not apply to acts between minors.

[Belize]

Our drinking age use to be 18 but kids here take longer to grow up it seems.

Very interesting, maybe all the chemicals in the water streams make kids in the U.S. grow up slower.

If yes, then why are they allowed to join the army and go get blown up by an IED or smoke at 18 then? Hm.

[Ialak]

21 used to be the age of majority in the US. It was changed with the 26th Amendment because of the Vietnam War. People (everyone, not just potential draftees) were pissed they couldn't vote until they were 21, but could be drafted to go fight in the Vietnam War at 18.

Yeah In most of Australia the drinking age was 21 until we changed it for similar reasons. If you can go and die in Vietnam at 18 you deserve a fucking drink at 18.

[sheggaro]

Hmm, I agree but it should be legal if you're like 20 something. I mean 20 and 16 is not a huge difference.

[Ahhdurr]

This is a stupid bill.

The problem isn't with the bill. It's with the stupid people.

[stabetha]

21 seems so random for drinking. It really should be 18 for hard alcoholic stuff and 16 for soft stuff like beer.

your brain is not fully developed till around 21 drinking alcohol before that cause more damage.

[Kaeth]

This is pointless government over reach in an attempt to "save the kids." Kids are going to have sex, it doesn't matter if it's 16 or 18. Only thing this will do is mess up that 17 year old's future cause they had sex with their 16 year old partner. It doesn't matter they had sex they day before the birthday.

Oh, so you read the headline but couldn't be bothered to commit sixty seconds of your life to read the block of text below? This law, as described, is only intended to make it a statutory infraction if an adult over the age of 23 engages in sex with a 16- or 17-year old. The author of the bill even expresses her support for so-called "Romeo and Juliet" clauses. A college senior with a high-school-age girl/boyfriend wouldn't even be impacted by this law.

[Cirayne24]

your brain is not fully developed till around 21 drinking alcohol before that cause more damage.

And yet we can be tried as an adult, smoke, go off to war, engage in sexual activity and make "grown up decisions" before 21. Why do we have to save 18 years from 1 vice but leave so many open for them to choose from?

Oh, so you read the headline but couldn't be bothered to commit sixty seconds of your life to read the block of text below? This law, as described, is only intended to make it a statutory infraction if an adult over the age of 23 engages in sex with a 16- or 17-year old. The author of the bill even expresses her support for so-called "Romeo and Juliet" clauses. A college senior with a high-school-age girl/boyfriend wouldn't even be impacted by this law.

No, I read the ~6 paragraph article and agreed with the Public Defender. The claim is it's goal is to stop 23+ year olds, but it's still raising the age of consent. So if a 18 year old had a 1 night stand with a 16 year old at a party, it's not a previously ongoing relationship therefore he may or may not be charged with statutory rape since 16 would then be considered a minor. And yes, both 16 and 18 year olds are still in high school together.. and no I didn't make that clear enough in my last post, so you got me there with your zing about 60 seconds and life.

[Lynarii]

The question I have is really how many 17 year olds are being harmed by sexual activity in a manner that would NOT be a problem if they were 18? You obviously want to crack down on exploitative behavior, but an arbitrary change to an already arbitrary number simply doesn't seem to actually do much about that. Someone 24 and someone 17 could have a very loving and responsible relationship, and it's quite possible for a 19 year old to exploit an 18 year old. I'd want to see exactly how this leads to beneficial outcomes other than stock 'think of the children' rhetoric. If there's solid real-world evidence that it will make a positive difference, great, do it! But I can't say I've ever seen any in most similar discussions.

[Yvaelle]

i don't give a damn if a 12 year old is thought to be able to consent in those countries. no adult should be able to fuck a kid, it's just not right.

To be fair, most countries which have low age of consents also have age brackets to which it applies. So Canada's age of consent is technically just 12... if you are a 15 year old. Adults can't sleep with children, but anyone over 16 can consent to any age of partner.

- - - Updated - - -

25, actually.

I feel like that's actually peak development, so it's fair to make a curve start it at 21 - given that after 25 the brain deteriorates for the rest of your life: meaning that anyone over 25 has a deteriorated brain compared to a 25 year old, and at some age (not sure when), it's likely that old people have more deteriorated brains than 21 year olds have development still to come.

The reality is that anything that fucks with your brain chemistry isn't good for your brain at any age, and that includes non-lethal poisons like alcohol, definitely includes drugs, also includes adrenaline junkies, caffeine, nicotine, prayer, etc.


Edit: It occurs to me, if you can't vote before 21 because your brain isn't ready - we should figure out what age surpasses the deterioration of the brain beyond the 21 year old point - and then deny old people the vote because they're too senile. So you can then vote between the ages of 21 and say, 60. If you are older than 60 you still have your freedom of course, but steering the country must be left to people who have the brains for it still.

[Ehrenpanzer]

http://cbs4indy.com/2017/01/08/democ...consent-to-18/

I wonder if they're gonna raise it to 21 in the future to be in line with the legal age to drink alcohol.

Honestly everything should just be set at 18. Driving, Smoking, Military enlistment, Gambling, Drinking, Age of Consent etc...

[Themius]

In the end, it's all consent.

As for the 21 age restriction for drinking alcohol, yea that's pure lol. As Jeffries put it: you can be a pornstar at 18 but still be too young to have a beer.

An older drinking age makes sense as drugs including alcohol have a great effect on brain development and considering the brain isn't near ending its development until 25 21 is a happy medium while 18 is far too low in my opinion. Honestly the drinking age can be 25 for all I care, same with smoking age especially in states were it's legal to smoke weed.

[Yvaelle]

Honestly everything should just be set at 18. Driving, Smoking, Military enlistment, Gambling, Drinking, Age of Consent etc...

The problem with that strategy is that you push people to do nothing until they are 18, and then you're like "okay, go nuts, also move out and figure this all out on your own!".

The reality is that kids should be allowed to drink, under parent supervision, starting way earlier - because it removes the stigma around alcohol that leads to stupid drinking age antics. Age of consent should be set to a reasonable limit, with age parameters below that - because human beings are bonobos and fucking is why we exist, nothing we ever do will change our urge to fuck, and that doesn't just turn on at 18 - it turns on at puberty and is never stronger than those teenage years: you may as well ban eating until 18, because it won't work.

Why would gambling need to be 18? Instead, it just needs to be set to an age where people have agency over their own income - the proper way to fix gambling addiction isn't to wait until the potential addicts are 18 (clearly doesn't work), it's to teach kids math in school, so they know that a) the house always wins, b) the likelihood of winning the lottery is so low that they are better off saving that money rather than gambling for the virtually non-existent chance to have more.

18 is the right age for the military, because kids should finish high school and mostly finish growing first - which enables them to do better in the military.

[Cirayne24]

Edit: It occurs to me, if you can't vote before 21 because your brain isn't ready - we should figure out what age surpasses the deterioration of the brain beyond the 21 year old point - and then deny old people the vote because they're too senile. So you can then vote between the ages of 21 and say, 60. If you are older than 60 you still have your freedom of course, but steering the country must be left to people who have the brains for it still.

I know you used 60 as a number, obviously way to low considering pretty much all law makers are 60+ and both Presidential candidates are +/- 70, but it comes down to freedoms and taxes. Prior to 18, you are typically a ward of a parent, guardian, the State, etc., and you aren't required to work. Should everything work out as planned, you shouldn't have to work and be provided what you need to live and learn (food, shelter, schooling). [Yes I know people work, like I did, before 18 due to family issues but that's not the point unless you want to argue anyone paying taxes should vote.]

At 18, the parents are no longer required to support you and you are considered an adult. That means you work, in turn pay taxes, and in turn can vote. Unless the proposed age of no longer letting people vote also restarts someone, lets say the State, providing a way to live (food, shelter) and we stop taxing them, then we run into "taxation without representation," which was a founding principle of how we started our country.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with that strategy is that you push people to do nothing until they are 18, and then you're like "okay, go nuts, also move out and figure this all out on your own!".

Why are all vices except gambling and drinking regulated to 21?

An 18 year old get in a fight, they can be tried as adults for assault.
An 18 year old can sign up for the military and be shipped off to war.
An 18 year old in certain Nevada counties become a legal prostitute.
An 18 year old can smoke.
An 18 year old can buy a gun.

They can do all that, but they can't gamble or drink?

[Yvaelle]

I know you used 60 as a number, obviously way to low considering pretty much all law makers are 60+ and both Presidential candidates are +/- 70, but it comes down to freedoms and taxes.

I take issue with this as a defense against what I suggested (though it was just a thought experiment based on the rationalization that young people shouldn't be allowed to do things because their brains aren't fully developed yet... which by extension, old people aren't fully there anymore...).

Just because both presidential candidates were 70, doesn't mean that is the best way it could be. Perhaps candidates shouldn't be over 60 either, perhaps 70 year olds who don't know how the modern world works, are not qualified to govern a nation into a future state, when they don't grasp the current state.

I'm not denying the value of history and experience in leadership by any means, but there is also value in competency around today's world, which old people almost universally lack: perhaps even by 'design' - in that their preconceptions are still shaped by the mentality of post-WW2, and the Cold War. Experience can be a double-edged sword.

Geopolitical and military understanding is the obvious example, so let's talk economics instead. Both Clinton and Trump's understanding of economics was shaped before Bretton Woods, before Nixonomics, before Margaret Thatcher, before Reaganomics, before Neo-Keynesian revival, etc. When they talk about jobs in America, they talk about coal miners and factory workers - despite that both of these industries and their suppporting fields are just a couple percent each of the total US labor force (and still shrinking).

They reference first, second, third world economics still - an ideology from the 1970's which is wholly inaccurate of a post-globalism integrated economic system. When they think about trade agreements, at best their conception is updated to NAFTA, which was implemented 23 years ago - and really the discussion of it probably goes toward the decade prior as far as policy wonks like Hillary Clinton had their say on the subject. When she talks about the benefits of the TPP, or TTIP - she keeps relating it back to her time thinking about NAFTA potentially more than three decades ago - but TPP and TTIP are worlds apart from NAFTA or the EFTA. Note that neither TTP/TTIP even claim to be free trade agreements explicitly - these are partnership agreements - but our politicians talk about them like it's just trade structures - when in reality they are superceding globalist agreements to our national sovereignty, as well as legal and intellectual property systems.

I think it's probably fair to say that the entirety of the US Senate, working in collaboration, might be able to boot a desktop up and find Solitaire in the start menu - to give them any more credit for computer expertise is dubious/controversial. Why does that matter? It's quickly becoming the entirety of the economic structure, labor markets, and value creation of developed economies - all relies on computers - and our leaders hardly know what the fuck a computer even is, even less what the current state of technology is, they collectively have negative insight into the future state of technology (that is, it's not even that they know they don't know shit, it's that they think they know shit, and what they think they know is consistently wrong - which is worse).

Yet, they are in charge of driving our economy and our country by extension forward. Using an academic models that are - at best - 50 years out of date. With no apparent awareness to the colossal shifts in the job market since their youth. With no understanding of the paradigm shift that technology has had. With negative insight of what's coming next.

Putting 70 year olds in charge of execution makes sense when history and experience count for a lot, but we also rely on our executive leaders for leadership and vision - and frankly - 70 years olds - generally are not at all qualified to create a vision for the future based on a world that no longer exists, for a society they no longer understand. There are of course exceptions to the rule, as with any - but neither Hillary, nor Trump, nor Bernie - are actually qualified for true leadership.

What I'm half-proposing - is that for the good of the developed world, we should force Elon Musk to accept, as his civic duty, the role of POTUS

A chicken in every pot. A solar panel on every roof. A city on Mars by 2030. 30000 low orbit satellites providing free, fast internet to every spot on Earth.