Post a response:
|
Both Brian and I admit that a lot of the "harm" caused by early sex is due to social attitudes surrounding sex. In this proposal, however, we accept such harm on its face. Taking Rind's analysis of the Finnish data, for example, we see the following rate of negative reactions to sex with an older partner: Boys < 12 34.4% (with peers 9.6%) Boys 12-14 11.5% (with peers 2.6%) Boys 15-17 8.0% (with peers 1.3%) Girls < 12 72.6% (with peers 35.9%) Girls 12-14 37.7% (with peers 13.4%) Girls 15-17 26.1% (with peers 8.1%) There seems to be a fairly sharp decline in negative response once the younger person is 12 or older- much more dramatic than the difference between the early adolescent and late adolescent groups. There are many possible reasons for that- with "we live in a society that has negative attitudes towards sex" being very likely. However, 16/12 isn't so ambitious as to change attitudes towards sex on the whole. So setting boundaries at 12 and 16 seems in keeping with a cautious liberalization. 16/12 proposes moderate reform within the current social climate. It is not a proposal fit for utopia. |