Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "OxfordUnion" channel.

I otherwise agree but I would argue that you cannot define age in years and claim that those apply to each individual. The neurological development happens without predefined schedule in each individual and if we want to define abilitity to give true consent, we would need psychological evaluation tests, not checking date-of-birth. And yes, psychological evaluation tests are very expensive to arrange for everybody so it makes sense to define one age (e.g. 18 years) where everybody is developed enough to assume that they would pass psychological evaluation test if one was arranged. However, even that would still be only statistical assurance, not a truth about a given individual.
1
@johnm84 "Also people at 13 are ready both physically and mentally." I don't know what you actually meant but 13 year old teens are definitely not "mentally ready" as in fully evolved.
1
@RowanPray I think "age of consent" is a silly concept. What we actually need is "ability to give consent" which is not defined by years after birth but understanding. We can simplify things by declaring that you can assume an individual has reached ability to give consent when they are 21 years old but before that, you need to have psychological evaluation tests if you need to be sure. Some people develop clear understanding of themselves and the world around them really young, and for some people that may never ever happen at all. Setting a single number as years after birth is dishonest at best if you want to protect individuals instead of some statistical value.
1
@deathbyunicorn5213 Are you arguing that having potentially more true victims would be a reason not to have understanding evaluated for real? I agree that such evaluation would be expensive which is why it would make sense to define some age each individual is assumed to be fully developed. I think this could be around 21 years or so. And in addition, you could take optional psychological evaluation test at younger age to declare yourself able to give consent and to make contracts if you don't want to wait until you're 21 years old.
1
I wish they had asked if she ever read the bible from cover to cover as a teen. Some say that nothing converts christian people to atheists faster than actually reading the whole book by himself or herself instead of selected passages here and there.
1
@reviewreviewer1 I don't think there was ever evidence of Oscar Wilde having sex with young people under 16 years old and the then-current legislation defined 16 years as the age of consent (and a few years earlier the age of consent had been 13 years, an another arbitrary age limit, so you have to know when each accused event happened to know what was the official age of consent for that year). As I see it, Oscar Wilde was having more trouble because of his homosexuality, not because of having paid sex with young prostitutes. You have to remember that all homosexual activity was still strictly illegal in UK until year 1967, nearly 70 years after Oscar Wilder died.
1
@lubu2960 I think the whole point is that you cannot just take age in years and assume that it fits psychological development of an individual without making psychological evalution about that specific individual first. If the law was written more along the lines "for ages 12–18, the ability to give consent and to make decisions about themselves, a psychological evalution is required" we would be in much better place. That would also match the idea that Fry is trying to make in his answer.
1