"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yes, but as with all such matter it's important to recognise that the
law
> > is an instrument not an absolute definition of right or wrong. The
notion
> > that sex on the day before the 16th birthday is wrong, and not the day
> > after isn't going to seem particularly rational to a child (or is it
> > adult?) of that age, because it isn't, but it is a necessary law for
the
> > reasons we've discussed.
>
> So what about the Netherlands? Do you (from your European perspective)
> see any evidence that people there are scarred by having an age of
> consent of 12?

The important issue is surely that they have an age of consent and it
corresponds with some sensible notion of sexual and intellectual maturity.
Yes it's lower than in the UK and USA but my impression of the Dutch is
that although their laws seem very liberal they are quite inflexible in
the application of those laws. It wouldn't surprise we to learn that have
sex with a person of 12 years less one day is treated as a serious offence,
as would having sex with anyone above that age without their consent. To
my mind it doesn't add weight to your belief that there should be no fixed
age of consent. All it does is raise a question as to whether it should be
linked to the age at which sexual maturity occurs or the age at which
individuals are free to marry.


> Do you see any evidence that behavior there would change
> if there were no age of consent law?
>

Absolutely. The Dutch (like all the rest (or most?) of continental Europe)
don't have trial by jury so clearly defined laws are a must. The Dutch are
very liberal, but also very inflexible. They also allow euthenasia - do
you believe there should be no lower age at which a person may ask a doctor
to end their life?


Michael Saunby