Talk:Age of consent reform/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

What in the Sam Hill...?

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"):

"Some due process of law advocates (including members of ACLU) oppose any age of consent, arguing that it is unfair to send someone to prison without proper investigation, and that statutory rape laws violate the basic principle of presumption of innocence'...Some deem these laws as unconstitutional."

I think my head just exploded.

"It is pointed out that, although this principle [due process - ed.] is used in practically all other criminal cases – including the murder of children, it is not used with respect to statutory rape or age of consent... They sustain that, on the contrary of (child) murder cases, in statutory rape cases the accused is already guilty even before the trial begins, and what is left to the court to decide is only the degree of punishment to be applied."

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)

I just found this after typing in "abolition of age-of-consent laws" into google. It is one of a list of demands on a website for The Communist Party of Great Britain:

• The abolition of age-of-consent laws. We recognise the right of individuals to enter into the sexual relations they choose provided this does not conflict with the rights of others. Alternative legislation to protect children from sexual abuse.

Here is the url http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/prog_demands.html

Does this kind of thing deserve a mention? - Neural 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the article that gradual NPOV editing and citation insertation couldn't fix. As for the "presumption of innocence" issue, they are simply saying that if you commit the act in question, you are guilty regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Slightly shoddy logic, at least unless someone can cite some case law to support it, but it's not THAT confusing... --tjstrf 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The "NPOV editing and citation insertation" should not be "gradual", it should be immediate. This article makes too many POV asserts without sources. If the authors don't fix it soon I will pare it down to the sourced material. -Will Beback 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Most sections have sources - youth rights activists, pedophile activists, French intellectuals (especially Foucault) and French petitioners, which together comprise 80% of the article. Sources on specific countries' laws were recently added as examples. Paulo Andrade

• The part on the rationale of due process of law advocates does not present sources, it's true, but the lenghty section "rationale of statutory rape laws" in the article Statutory rape does not have any sources as well - Paulo Andrade

• The issue is not "age of consent", it's "abolition of age of consent". To keep the overall neutrality of information, I added the article "Initiatives to raise the age of consent" with interchangeable links (and also a paragraph inside "age of consent" with a link). Of course the two could be merged into "Initiatives to change the age of consent", but this would probably lead to size problems... Paulo Andrade Here is the link: Initiatives to raise the age of consent - P.Andrade

First section, first sentence

Sigh. This is after editor Paulo Andrade claimed to have edited the article to remove POV.

• Today (July 22, 2006) I made several changes to introduce more detailed explanation about presumption of innocence, conclusive presumption/certainty of guilt, and rebuttable presumption/presumption of guilt. I believe now the text is more clear. Paulo Andrade 17:08, July 22 2006 (GMT)

First sentence:

• "Some due process of law advocates (including members of ACLU) oppose any age of consent, arguing that it is unfair to send someone to prison without proper investigation"

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:

1. It's probably not true.
2. Even if it is true, valid references are not cited.
3. Even if it is true, it presumably applies to a very small, insignificant group of far-right extremists, of limited notability for encyclopedic purposes.

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)

• I don't know if this material is so "extremly incendiary" as you say, once 18% of respondents in UK seem to favor the abolition of AoC (see poll recently added). It's not 0,18%, it's 18% - or almost 1 out of 5 ! I believe there may be a tabboo on the subject, but I suspect this is caused mainly by censorship (or self-censorship) of the media. This UK program seems to be an exception. Paulo Andrade 17:00, 22 July 2006 (GMT)

Globalize tag

Skipping out of sequence here to note that I added the

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)

• I believe age of consent laws are not enforced in a draconian way in Brazil. On the other hand, child prostitution and child pornography laws are indeed enforced draconianly. Paulo Andrade 17:00, 22 July 2006 (GMT)

First section, second sentence

OK, continuing.

• "It is pointed out that, although this principle is used in practically all other criminal cases – including the murder of children, it is not used with respect to statutory rape or age of consent, what would constitute a double standard."

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)

• I made some changes and now the text is more clear. This paragraph is not only about Brazil or South America, it's about modern democracies in general, mainly in the Western world. Paulo Andrade 17:00, 22 July 2006 (GMT)

First section, third sentence

• "They sustain that, on the contrary of (child) murder cases, in statutory rape cases the accused is already guilty[citation needed] even before the trial begins, and what is left to the court to decide is only the degree of punishment to be applied."

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)

• • Now the text is more clear. The conclusive presumption (or certainty of guilt) leads to the fact that no evidence to the contrary can be given, because the accusation is based solely on the grounds of age. There is no "show trial", the present laws allow many defences, but they only serve as a means to determine the degree of penalty. It is not possible to prove "innocence" because guilt is assumed by the law, solely on the basis of age of the victim. Paulo Andrade 17:17, July 22 2006 (GMT)

First section, second subsection ("Certainty of guilt vs. presumption of guilt")

• "The law on most jurisdictions assumes that the accused of statutory rape is necessarily guilty[citation needed], even when there is clear and convincing evidence that there was actually mutual consent, beyond any reasonable doubt, and in some cases even when parental consent is given." There is then a certainty of guilt.

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 paragraph just tried to explain a little more the mechanism of conclusive presumption, so as to differentiate it from the presumption of guilt/rebuttable presumption (which follows in the next paragraph). It has nothing to do specifically with Brazil, or South America. Paulo Andrade 17:00, 22 July 2006 (GMT)
  • In Brazil at least, and I suspect in many countries in continental Europe as well, law does not distinguish between several different types of consent. There is only a presumption of violence below a certain age. And by the way, of course selling a child is not legal in Brazil as well as in most other countries (I'm not sure about India or Iran or Afghanistan). This is legally treated as a form of prostitution. Paulo Andrade 17:00, 22 July 2006 (GMT)

• ''In some countries or jurisdictions (like in Uruguay), there is another age boundary below the age of consent (e.g., 12 and 15, or 13 and 16), so that for ages between the two limits there is a shift in the burden of proof (the accused has then a presumption of guilt [2] but has the chance to prove his innocence if there is clear evidence of mutual consent). The certainty of guilt in these places is reserved for ages below the lower one."

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)

• • Please show me your sources. I didn't find any possibility of a rebuttable presumption below the age of consent anywhere in the United States. Paulo Andrade 17:03, 22 July 2006 (GMT)
    • Look, this is ridiculous. Your language sounds like you talking about written statues, which you're obviously not. You are saying one of two things:
      1. The written statutes themselves specificy a presumption of guilt. If you're saying that's prima facie ridiculous.
      2. People accused of age of consent violations are railroaded. Look, its a rotten world. Innocent people get convicted all the time, and guilty people get off. Are age of consent violations any worse in this regard than rape, murder, possession of controlled usbstances with intent to distribute, or whatever? Then prove it. Wikipedia is not your soapbox to rail at the world and I will now demonstrate this by removing the entire lucicrous first section, followed by the others as required. Herostratus 22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus,

• It seems we have different worldviews. I don’t live in a rotten world. I do believe in laws, I use my real name in Wikipedia (I could use an alias like most people) and I frankly believe this world is wonderful in spite of all difficulties (and perhaps because of them). Paulo Andrade 15:10, 31 July 2006 (GMT)
• It looks like you didn’t understand the rationale for the abolition of AoC. In cases of violent rape, murder and in most other crimes, one is not presumed guilty, of course. As for possession of drugs, one can be found guilty based on unfair evidences (e.g. if you give a lift to someone with drugs, you can also be arrested and convicted), but law is not perfect.

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)

Strawman

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)

• I see no connection between ultra-right-wing radicals and the ideas of those who want to abolish AoC. Foucault, for instance, was a leftist and a liberal. These extremists that you mention probably want to raise AoC and would love to see all adolescents using a chastity belt. Paulo Andrade 15:11, 31 July 2006 (GMT)
  • I understand where you are coming from, Paulo, but think this through with me. The left, generally speaking, favors protection of the individual, and especially the most vulnerable - the poor, the aged, children, the crippled, etc. - against the exigencies of this world, and partiularly against the effects of predatory capitalism. To the right, it's every man for himself. Removal of child protection laws, particularly child labor lawa, but also age of consent laws, is typical of the most extreme right libertarianism. It's a scary world, and it's a hard world, and the weak need protection. And children are very vulnerable people. Like it or not, they just don't have the physical and mental tools to survive well on their own.

• • Please read my comments at the end of yours. Paulo Andrade 16:35, 03 August 2006.

• • Establishment of child labor laws (and also age of consent laws) was definitely a left movement, at least here in the United States. Removal of child labor laws would "liberate" children to be exploited as cheap labor, as they were in the 19th century. Of course, a right libertarian would say Well its a person's choice to work or not. But Paulo surely you know that the world is more complicated that, that there are heavy pressures and unscrupulous persons in this world. Perhaps if all capitalists were paragons of moral virtue this would not be a problem.

• • Similarly, one big effect of the removal of age of consent laws would be a flowering of child prostitution. In the United States, child prostitution is fairly rare, and mostly confined to immigrant communities, because the laws against it are quite severe (while the laws against regular adult prostitution are fairly lax, in practice - often just a fine, or at most a very short sentence). Again, a right libertarian would say Well if an eleven year old wants to be a prostitute, why stop her. But there are pimps in the world. And they are clever, and ruthless.

• • Have you not visited the slums of São Paulo. There you will find children "liberated" to work as beggars, refuse pickers, petty criminals, and prostitutes - practically the only occupations open to children, who lack the mental and physical development to compete against adults for jobs in factories and offices. No one will hire a twelve year old to work as a secretary or machinist.

• • An adult is stronger than a child, much stronger. Physically stronger, more clever, more experienced, a more subtle thinker, a more convincing talker. I saw a comment from a fireman recently that said through about age eleven, children in a fire will usually hide under a bed or in a closet, even if an escape route is available. They find small bodies in these places. How can a person who believes that the way to escape a fire is to hide in a closet establish themselves in an equal relationship with a strong, clever, smooth talking, mentally developed person with a driving adult lust.

• • Foucalt, I don't know his politics. I suspect that he was mainly interested in being a gadfly, and in the 1930's he would have been happy to be a fascist. Certainly his philosophy ultimately devolves to a position where it is illogical to oppose evil (which cannot be defined anyway) up to and including Naziism, which is a big reason why he has become of interest mainly to acadamecians and no longer commands respect among laymen. Herostratus 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'll read with more calm your previous remarks and comment on them later. Paulo Andrade 15:12, 01 August 2006 (GMT)

• Herostratus, here are my comments:

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).

• To your arguments, there are the following counterarguments:

• On the left vs. right - You simplified your point. A good part of the left is composed of liberals with respect to behavioral issues. They tend to defend pro-choice arguments in abortion debates and also homosexual rights. They also defend civil rights, among which the due process of law in criminal procedures. There are also those in the left who defend more sexual freedom, including a whole generation who participated in the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s (feminists, hippies, intellectuals, artists, students, etc).

• Although part of the left may favor keeping or raising the age of consent so that the “weakers” can be protected, as you said, another part of the left may well favor lowering or abolishing the age of consent for one of the reasons aforementioned (e.g. more rights to the youth, more civil rights in court, a position against sexual repression etc.)

• On the other side, part of the right (mainly the far-right) is comprised of people who are very religious and preach sexual abstinence, so that they tend to favor keeping or raising the age of consent.

• And not only right-wing libertarians, but also left-wing libertarians may indeed favor lowering or abolishing the age of consent. The position of libertarians may be irrelevant, but they certainly are not the only ones who favor lowering or abolishing the age of consent.

• Personal reasons - The issue may be not only political, but also emotional to some. Many of those who suffered from sexual repression tend to favor lowering/abolishing AoC, so that others won’t have to pass through what they have passed, whereas many of those who were actual victims of child abuse tend to favor keeping/raising AoC, for the same reasons.

• The U.S. vs. Continental Europe - Other factors may well play a role. In most of continental Europe, for example, sexual education is “natural” and common at schools at early ages and most of pedagogy is derived from the school of thought founded by Jean Piaget, which preaches more freedom to the child. Additionally, capitalism is not so predatory there as is in the U.S. due to the welfare state system they still have (although less protective than before).

• On Foucault - As for Foucault, you associated him with Nazism and fascism. Frankly, I wouldn’t make such wild suppositions. Evidences are in the opposite direction. You probably didn’t read the full text of Foucault’s “Sexual Morality and the Law”. There you will find an association between two ideas - the notion of the “individual dangerous to society” and the theories of Cesar Lombroso about the “born criminal” (which were used by Hitler to justify the Holocaust). The text denounces the use of the idea of the “dangerous individual” as derived from Lombroso’s ideas of the “born criminal”.

• On child labor - I’m sorry, but the topic here is age of consent, not child labor.

• On the weakness of children - The argument is that children in general are inherently weaker than adults so that age of consent laws should be kept or raised, and so children must refrain from sex.

• The possible counterarguments are: (a) the reality on the ground shows that hormones speak higher and with or without laws they will make sex, if they want, so that age of consent laws only increases hypocrisy once what is forbidden becomes hidden; (b) the balance of power in relationships with older persons can be equalized in cases where there is full support or approval of parents; (c) today’s children are smarter and more mature than the children of 20 or 30 years ago, as they have access to more information and means of communication (cell phones, computers, Internet etc).

• On child prostitution - The argument is that lowering age of consent laws favors child prostitution. The counterarguments are many:

• • (a) In many countries with a lower age of consent like Italy, France and Spain, among other European nations, you hear practically no news about child prostitution in the streets, just like in the U.S.

• • (b) Laws about child prostitution typically are specific and separate from laws on age of consent. The client is punished, as well as the pimp. Evidences of prostitution or paid sex are investigated by authorities like any other crime. In Brazil at least, the establishments are closed and their license invalidated. If parents are involved, they can lose their powers as legal guardians.

• • (c) A higher age of consent may well INCREASE child prostitution and child pornography, and be in the interests of those who profit from these activities. One law of Economics says that “where there is demand, there will be supply”. If you restrict supply only to higher ages, while the demand for lower ages continues to exist, then supply for lower ages will assume other forms (either hidden relationships or the consumption of child prostitution or child pornography).

• • (d) One has the classical image of child prostitution as poor and often squalid children offering themselves in the streets or small roads. One of the things I’m learning while studying Journalism, Herostratus, is that the world of news does not reflect the real world. Child prostitution in the streets is true, but it’s certainly only part of the puzzle. There is also a niche of expensive prostitutes, usually with her bodies developed, and sometimes only for selected clients.

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.

• On "heavy pressures, unscrupulous persons" - I don’t know why did you mention this, but I frankly believe that whoever has principles and a good character can resist all pressures of unscrupulous persons. That’s what I particularly try to follow as an individual, and I hope you follow this as well.

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.

(edit break)

• If 18% of respondents in a UK poll want to abolish AoC laws (not 0,18%), this group certainly has a vast majority of “normal” people, and outnumbers by far any minoritarian fraction you can imagine, including the pedophiles themselves (researches show pedos represent 2% of the population in the U.S.). Paulo Andrade 15:11, 31 July 2006 (GMT)

Telephone polls are utterly invalid. There is absolutely no possibility of selecting a valid sample, nor any protection against people voting twice or indeed many times.Herostratus 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The poll listened to people that had access to a qualified information (that is, after watching a special program discussing the subject), and I don't know if it was by phone or through their website. The technology for avoiding multiple votes already exists both in Internet polls and in telephone polls (some reality shows for instance use it). Paulo Andrade 15:10, 01 August 2006 (GMT)

What Herostratus says regarding surveys is correct, I've studied statistics and politics at university level and learned that voluntary call in respondents do not give you a representative sample. A survey needs to find a representative sample of the population (or poll the entire population) in order to conclude that the results will be "true". If you discount the posibility of individuals posting multiple responces, you still have the posibility of "gaming" where an action group encourages all their members, their members' families and so on, to all provide a certain response. If you discount gaming, you are still left with the only people who respond are; 1) People who watched the programme. 2) People who could be bothered or feel strongly enough to vote. and 3) People who watch the programme will probably already have a view in the first place which skews any result. All statisticians know, non-representative surveys are junk data. --Monotonehell 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and reformated the section, and also I might add that the wording of the question and the order of choices can have an impact on surveys. It's a bit like the old "Sir, when did you stop beating your wife?" legal question. --Monotonehell 05:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have bolder and deleted it, and I probably will later. First of all, as you say, its invalid. Second of all, all the respondants had just seen a TV program which, who knows how the information in the program was skewed. Third of all, let's be reasonable. No person with two neurons to rub together actually believes that 18% of the population of the United Kingdom thinks that the age of consent should be abolished, so what does this section have to do with the price of eggs. The whole thing is just cherry-picked to prove a point. What I would like to see is some real polls, Roper or Gallup or whatever, on the subject, although even those I'm leery of. They must have polled on the subject somewhere, sometime. Herostratus 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I did consider zapping it, but it does add a bit of "colour" to the article. All it shows is that an audience of such a documentary are virtually split 50/50 on the subject... What was that quote about lies, damn lies and statistics? ;) --Monotonehell 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rationale of age of consent reform

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

• Close-in-age exemption arguments
  • argument 1
  • argument 2
  • argument 3 etc.

• Arguments to keep or raise AoC
  • argument 1
  • argument 2
  • argument 3 etc.

• Arguments to abolish or lower AoC
  • argument 1
  • argument 2
  • argument 3 etc.

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.

• Subject A
  • Close-in-age exemption argument
  • Raise AoC argument
  • Keep AoC argument
  • Abolish AoC argument
  • Lower AoC argument

• Subject B
  • Keep or Raise AoC argument (variations for keeping and raising)
  • Abolish or Lower AoC argument (variations for abolishing and lowering)
• Subject C (etc.)

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)

Eh you again, from my experience trying to fit points of view in an unbiased way into the Age of consent article I'd agree with your opinion on them. When Canada recently had some politics regarding raising the AoC there. Several anons jumped in to the article trying to push their PoV on the topic. I was within the same two weeks accused of being a "Leftist" and a "Rightist" by two different people who couldn't see that what they were adding was pure PoV. After trying to present all cases that appeared and trying to balance the positions with counter-positions and having angry editors with ownership issues dummy spit I shunted the whole section off to a breif paragraph in the AoC in N.America subpage under "Canada" simply saying that there are moves to raise it and opposition to that. This is why I was against merging the two former articles that this article now represents into AoC; they were two PoV camps that would have started an edit war. Better to let them war it out in their own article until a concensus is reached and link to it from AoC, I thought. --Monotonehell 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the layout of the article has improved somewhat, I notice that some quite well-sourced info has been deleted along with the clean up. Does this have to be cut simply because some people think it makes the article unbalanced? Isn't it better to include all arguments, and mention the dissent, rather than just delete? I imagine that some editors are never going to be happy if they think something obvious is missing. -Neural 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I think Monotonehell is right. Probably the article should be re-splitted into the two former ones (Initiatives to raise and Abolition of AoC). Paulo Andrade 16:43, 9 August 2006 (GMT)

Argh, that's not what I was suggesting at all. If we go back to having two separate articles as before we will have TWO POV articles instead of one that addresses the WHOLE subject in a balanced way. Previously we had one article with a jumble of unconnected claims and another article with a pne sentence statement and no references. I'm going to remove this split suggestion as it is a backward step after a lot of previous consensus that only occured a few days ago. --Monotonehell 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • But maybe an introdutory page called "AoC reform" wouldn't be a bad idea, including the main ideas of the 4 topics and links pointing to specific articles (like "abolition of AoC") with more details on a topic. Or at least in the case of Abolition, where there is already a large amount of information. Whenever another topic deserves a separate article, it could be created in the future. It would be like a general article on "Politics" with links to specific articles on "Communism", "Socialism", "Liberalism", "Democracy", "Dictatorship" etc. Just an idea. Paulo Andrade 16:43, 9 August 2006 (GMT)

That would be a good idea if there was enough materia lto warrant several pages. --Monotonehell 05:08, 10 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)

• No, no. Again you're right. I'm gathering more info and will add to the article ASAP, and I'll try to find also info on the other areas as well (not only abolition).Paulo Andrade 22:19, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
  • Hmmm... Anyway, Monotonehell, I still believe that "abolition" deserves (or maybe will deserve in the future) a separate article, with a link from AoC Reform, and that this wouldn't be POV, provided that the article is descriptive, neutral, showing its sources, and avoids using adjectives (unless they're in a quote). I see no POV for example if an article on "Socialism" is developed with a link from "Politics", even if other articles on other political topics ("Democracy", "Communism" etc) were not created yet. I mean, it has to begin somewhere. I began my research with "abolition" and may expand to other areas, however it would be good if this expansion wouldn't be made at the cost of the previous research. You know, it's a time-consuming activity sometimes... It would be good if other people added valuable info as well. Just a thought. Paulo Andrade 14:44, 11 August 2006 (GMT)

That's true in many respects, but a topic like socialism has a lot of history and an article can cover what has passed. Whereas AoC abolition is still a hot button topic and is mostly rhetoric. There's so little academic literature on the subject that all we seem to present here is the opinions of certain groups. That's going to always be POV, unfortunatley.

Abolition is a part of 'reform'. Having all forms of reform on one article puts all the cases together and presents a more balanced and complete encylopedic picture of the topic. You've said that it deserves its own article. What exactly would having abolition separate from other forms of reform achieve?

On your second point, is there any research that has been removed that you can point to as something that should be reintegrated? --Monotonehell 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree in part with you. But think about this: (a) Wikipedia has separate articles on Satanism, Neonazism and White supremacy, along with Pedophile activism. All these are hot issues that deserved a page; (b) in Politics, there are separate articles on Anarchism and Libertarianism, although they represent very small minorities;

(c) On the other hand, "Abolition of AoC" is probably not so hot as these topics and is much likely not so minoritarian. It's a legal issue, maybe we should compare it to abortion or marijuana for instance. On abortion we have pro-choice and pro-life; about marijuana, there is legal issues of cannabis, with links to four separate articles about decriminalization - 1 wikinews

(decriminalization in Mexico) and 3 articles (Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom, Cannabis legalization in Canada and Drug policy of the Netherlands);

(d) As for the academic literature, I added yesterday some literary references (section "authors"). I don't see the difference between the opinion of authors and the opinion of groups. I mean, if an article describes the opinion of X or Y, it is not advocating anything, it is just providing a fact (like in pro-choice or in the 3 articles about the decriminalization of marijuana).

(e) of course, a section on abolition inside "AoC reform" should continue to exist, but the main rationale for creating a separate article is due to size problems. Another reason is to create a condition in which the "unbalanced" tag can be removed (it was placed on the grounds of disproportionality in size between "abolition" and other sections).

(f) no relevant information has been removed yet from "abolition" that I have noticed, but my concern with size refers to the future. I probably will add new info on "abolition" and in other sections as well. Paulo Andrade, 23:47 15 August 2006 (GMT).

edit, rewrite, etc

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)

This drained me. time to go play in the early morning garden now. 14:23 27 November 2006 Resonanteye

Abolitionism

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)

So anyway, if that is tl;dr, to summarize, it should be reflected that age of consent reform is not a discrete issue and that often such proposals are accompanied by 'consent reform' as in, finding ways besides age to evaluate the informedness that makes legal consent deserved. Tyciol (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are arguments left out of this article

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)

Why were my citations removed?

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?

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)

Who is in charge of this article?

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)

Here are a couple of reasons I see: You are making large numbers of edits over a short period of time without explanations as to what each edit involves. Your edits are very hard to follow -- you add and remove big blocks of copy without using edit summaries to explain what you're doing or discussing on the talk page. You are marking your edits as minor. Your username is a red flag, and you are forcing other editors to do due diligence, which may be annoying to them. Your issues may be less about content and more about etiquette -- i.e. making your edits easy to understand and check. After all, we're all volunteers. Flowanda | Talk 21:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok first of all when I first started editing this article I didnt make huge changes. Some of my changes were just adding on to the reason's on why the age of consent should be changed. And some of my changes were were erased withut any reason given to me. So it's not lie ALL my edits were big huge edits. Secondly, when the changes I made were take off, I didnt always get a reason why. Thirdly, I did give some reason on why I was making edits. I mean it's not like I gave NO EXPLANATION AT ALL. What is your answer to that?......And last thing, the reason I made big edits was because I was just re-arranging the article. I mean in this article, the reasons on why some want the age of consent lowered, is low in the aritcle. SHouldnt that be put higher in the aritcle? I mean when people come to this page dont some of them want to know why some people want the age of consent to be reformed? So shouldnt it be higher? ARYAN818 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lowering age of consent sourcing

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:

Arguments for lowering age of consent

Abolitionists argue that the issue of consent should be left to individual choice or at least to parental consent. They also state that:

• No major religious text endorses an age of consent or condemns intergenerational sex. It may say that a person of adult age should not engage in sex with a child, so the question become's what is the definition of an adult and child.
• Social definitions of adulthood rely on the use of biological, legal and other social subjectivities. But there are different opinion's as to what an adult is. Therefor there should not be a law that assumes everyone under a certain age not to be a mature adult. This would be ageist and discriminatory;
• The concept of deviance varies from person to person, according to his personality, opinion, culture, or worldview;
• Consensual sex between age-disparate partners is not inherently deviant or harmful, especially when there is love or a romantic relationship. Victimisation is often secondary - for example Iatrogenesis;
• Throughout parts of history people have married under the age of consent and have successfully raised families;
• The state should grant freedom of choice to all and not interfere in consensual relations, especially when there is parental consent;
• Teen pregnancy is not avoided through statutory rape laws and can be reduced by other means;
• The state should not overprotect children against their own desires at the cost of sending their loving partners to jail when there is consent;
• Because many teenagers have sex under the age of consent regardless of the law, the AoC laws merely guarantee that they will do it under unsupervised (and therefore unsafe) conditions.
• Legislation which permits individuals under the age of consent to engage in sexual activity with persons of a similar age (i.e. within 5 years as in canada) does not take into account that sex has the same risks regardles of the ages of those involved. For example if a 14 year old can have sex with a 19 year old what makes having sex with a 21 year old any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.105.36 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Criticism of lowering or abolishing age of consent

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.

Ok this is really unfair. Some of these arguements are good arguments. I mean your taking out some of the reasons on why to lower the age of consent? You don't have to take out everything. You can put the links for citation needed next to them if you like. ARYAN818 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a sourcing dispute. This has nothing to do with the quality of the arguments. I do not see any problem with having the arguments unsourced until something can be found. forestPIG^(grunt) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does everything have to be sourced? CAN EVERYTHING be sourced? I mean for example, if a person under 18 drive's a car, and has a job, and has never been arrested, and doesn't drink, or smoke, or do drug's, you can say that person is mature right? And that is a good argument right? But where would you "source" this from? Does someone have to say this to make it true? I mean sometime's common sense is good enough instead of sourcing everything. ARYAN818 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the consensus block at the top of this article that is related to the sourcing of this article's contents. In part, it says "In the interest of accuracy and quality it was decided by consensus* to hold these pages to a high standard of verification and to avoid ambiguity through the use of prose (not dot points) discussing the relevant statutes, case law or other authorities." The subsections I removed included a number of unsupported statements attributed to unnamed or general "authorities", and none of them were sourced. The sections were already tagged for lack of citations, so just adding more citation tags wasn't a solution to keep the sections in the article. And I'm not going to do the work this editor does not seem willing to do to put these sections back into the main article. Flowanda | Talk 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That refers to numerical ages of consent and laws (90% of the project in question). Trying to apply that to this article (an exceptional case) would be lawyering; the usual practise with lists such as this article is to be pragmatic and collect popular arguments by consensus of editors - looking for sources at a later date. forestPIG^(grunt) 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We definitely are reading things differently. I disagree with your assessment and the belief that such vague and contentious assertions belong in the main space of a controversial article without adequate sourcing, but as I have decided not to help with sourcing, I don't think I can be impartial in this discussion. Restore the edits and add more tags, but who's going to do the sourcing? And by when? Flowanda | Talk 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a more concise and less contentious set of arguments. There should always be a view to sourcing them. forestPIG^(grunt) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some argument's that you don't have to source becuase it is common sense. I mean if you have a argument that is common senese, it has to be sourced? I can understand if you want SOME thing's sourced. But every argument has to be sourced? Do you know some of the argument's? ARYAN818 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everything on Wikipedia is sourced. And even some things that are not sourced have that thing that says "Citation Needed" (I think or something like that).....I mean some things where are you going to get a source from anyway? For example, one example is the argument that supposedly no major religion says a person over 18 can't have sex with someone under 18, is there any book that says that? Or anything online that says that? And if there is, and we don't know the source, is the argument not a valid arguemnt anyway?......I'll give you another example......Let's say you use the argument that some people under 18 are mature, and some people over 18 are immautre, do you source that? ARYAN818 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been an editor since 2005, but seem to have absolutely no idea about the basics of Wikipedia editing, or any willingness to learn from the number of editors who provide you with ongoing detailed feedback. Verification is a core Wikipedia policy; you need to stop editing and arguing until you show some sort of understanding about how Wikipedia works. Continuing to make the same kinds of naive, ignorant edits and arguments you've done since 2005 will ultimately fail, no matter how vigorously you argue or add them. What's "unfair" and "annoying" is how you continue to waste other editors' time and contributions. Flowanda | Talk 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I love how you make me seem like the bad guy, and yet you tell me about how im making the "same kind of naive, ignorant edits and arguments". Real mature..........I also love how you put the words unfair and annoying in quotation marks as if there is no possiblity of something being unfair or annoying on wikipedia. Great response.......I also love how you tell me that im wasting other editor's time and contribution's without any evidence. Can you give me some example's when you put something like that? Or did you just want to put something really broad to make me seem like the person who isn't right?...........I mean seroiusly....... Did I or did I not, give you some example about how things on wikipeida are not always sourced? And yet you did not answer that part. And did I not mention how sometimes they put the words CITATION NEEDED? I mean you could leave the stuff you took out and put CIATION NEEDED next to soem of the stuff that you took out. And yet you did answer that. And did I or did I not give you at least one example about how you might not be able to source something (I gave you at least one example) and yet you did not answer that. But instead of addressing most of what I said, all you did was ignore it, and made it seem like Im some idiot who doesn't understand how wikipedia works lol. This is another reason why im frustarted with some of the user's on wikipedia. I mean you get logical question's and/or logical response's and you can't address them with logic. No instead you have to make it seem like im some wikipedia user who jus doesn't get it....classic responses from someone on wikipedia who is not always fair about how thing's are done on wikipedia........oh by the way.....you were wrong about something else. YOu said something like "Continuing to make the same kinds of naive, ignorant edits and arguments you've done since 2005 will ultimately fail, no matter how vigorously you argue or add them."......Well your wrong. Sometime's the things ive tried to change has worked. What do you say to that? Let me guess. Im making Naive comments since 2005 right? ARYAN818 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is why no one wants to help you. Flowanda | Talk 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You just proved my point. I mean I typed alot. I gave you example's. I tried to get you to understand why your not even making sense. And you didnt address most of what I said. And you pretty much ignored everything. All you came up with is THIS IS WHY NO ONE WNATS TO HELP YOU? No Flowanda that is not an argument. You know I find it amazing that for someone who want's to go by sources and facts, you cant even factually tell me how am I wrong and giving me examples. I mean did I, or did I not, type alot? DId you not ignore most of what I typed? I mean its a catch 22. If I dont type alot, then people like you dont understand how frustrating you can be. And if I do type alot, it ends up being a big waste of freaking time, becuase you dont even answer most of what I wrote. So it's being stuck between two rocks......again.....did you read most of what I typed? Cus if you did, you didn't even try to answer most of what I typed.....All you could come up with was, "THIS IS WHY NO ONE WANTS TO HELP YOU".......THat is not an argument. That is just you proving the point, that no one is trying to help lol. ARYAN818 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for lowering age of consent section sourcing -- from 2006; and badd grammer

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)

Flowanda rule's

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 be a little higher?

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)

Pedophile advocacy groups

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)

O.K. 'Leading intellectuals' may not be ideal and the clause could be made less awkward. How about Despite their substantial agreement with the views of some notable figures such as John Holt and Judith Levine (see Commentators)...?The Relativist (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's original research. If there is no reliable source reporting that pedophile advocacy groups agree with particular authors, you can't add that claim based only on your belief that what they wrote is similar.

And for writers who are still living, it's also a serious BLP issue to link them to pedophile advocacy, unless they have made the link themselves or it has been reported in reliable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Legitimus, I've noticed those problems with the Commentators section as well. It's undue weight for individual fringe opinions of writers who are expressing their personal ideas, not based in science, and who have not taken any action to reform the age of consent laws. This is not a philosophy article, it's an article about laws. That section needs to be trimmed and attribution added.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it reads better without that line anyway. Really, the reader should be making an inference such as that, and technically in some cases these organizations were simply quoting the commentators, not formulating their own arguments that happen to be the same.Legitimus (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that 'age of consent reform' would include issues of underlying philosophy as well as concrete reform proposals.The Relativist (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Childlove movement

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)

I agree. But we need more 'reliable' sources to set against the flawed CSA orthodoxy.The Relativist (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles redirecting here

These names direct to this article:

• Girllove
• Man boy love
• Pro-pedophile activism
• Abolition of age of consent laws
• Childlove movement
• Pedophilia advocacy
• Pedophilia activism
• Pedophile activism
• Pro pedophile activism
• Advocacy of pedophilia
• Paedophilia advocacy
• Pedophile advocacy
• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism
• Pedophile activist

There are many more. Flowanda | Talk 10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Asian Sex Gazette sourcing

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)

No Pro-Pedophile Activism article anymore?

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)

Dunno what lead up to it getting nixed, but I remember there were a lot of problems with that article. For one, most of the organizations in the traditional political sense died out, and most of the article really had to do with rationalizations that pedophiles use which was kind of off the mark. Today there are mostly online groups that don't so much do politics as they exchange porn and spout their pseudo-intellectual arguments to each other. Another problem was the article was prime bait for pedophile users to tamper with so that the "movement" would be portrayed in a positive light. While most pedophile users got blocked last year, more pop up on occasion, and there are a few left that seem to be tolerated (The Relativist and Tyciol) because they sorta behave you might say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.51.87 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never read anything so ignorant and, I would say, slanderous in a Wikipedia comment. No wonder you didn't sign it.The Relativist (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As a victim of child rape its absolutely GALLING that Wikipedia uses a sick euphemism like Age of Consent reform to describe pedophile predators attempts to change the law in order to justify their sick delusions. Find me an "Age of Consent" activist and I'll show you a likely pedophile that ought to be in jail. Don't sugarcoat things in a weak attempt to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.250.113 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Law in the Netherlands

In 1991, as a result of the work of the Melai Commission, Dutch law was changed so that in cases of sexual contact between adults and 12-to-16 year olds, there would be no prosecution in the absence of any complaint from the young person herself, her parents or the Council for the Protection of Children.

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)

That's a good point, and moreso - the whole paragraph was unreferenced, so it's been removed. That content should not be in the article unless it is based on a solid verifiable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)