Of course, if you were to report that the age of consent in Italy is only 14 (16 if there's a "relation of dependence"), this might not seem as shocking. Or you could note that the Vatican criminal system is itself based on the 1889 Italian criminal code. Andrew Sullivan, who is not a hack, included these things in the article that you linked to. But for some reason, these mitigating factors are not in your clever little post.

No, 12 is still shocking.

@ROM, more like give the shocker ot a 12 year old. What? Huh? I didn't just say that.

Well, I suppose it's a mitigating factor in that they base their system of ethics on a document 2,000-5,000 years old, so what's a hundred years here or there?

Still, pretty dang gross.

Ah, so 12 is shocking, but 14 isn't. Okay, why?

This might be true but what is the legal age a kid can get away from an abusive living arrangement and not be branded a runaway? In other words, if a sixteen-year-old is being abused by, say -- a stepfather. Can the abused minor walk out the door without the the fear of cops bringing them back? like it use to be in Oregon before we raised the age of consent to 18.

Todd,

Let's try an exercise. Stretch your imagination and assume that most people assume 12, 13, 14 or even 15 to all be a bit shocking.
Step two of the exercise: explain why you feel there's no distinction between 12 and 14. If that's too much of a mind-scrambler for you, stick with explaining why 14 is just fine. Ignore the 12. For now. This should be no problem for you, right? Certainly if there were "mitigating factors" due to journalistic omission, as you claim.

How'd that go? Great.

NOW, re-visit the exercise with the context in mind. I ain't no expert but rumors abound of Catholic priests fucking young boys while these priests-and the church- take finger-wagging, moral stances on a variety of other social issues.
Oh, and don't forget the age 12 issue this time!

Good luck!

TSW, I have no trouble imagining most people think 12-15 to be too young for consent. Dan Savage apparently isn't one of those people, though, because he's not complaining about the age of consent being 14 in Italy. Though it was noted in the article he linked to, he's not complaining about that. So the question is: why does 14 merit no comments, but 12 does? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that it has more to do with Catholics, and less to do with the actual numbers.

I don't know what the actual age "should" be, though I don't have too much of a problem with 18 (given appropriate loopholes for partners who are only a couple of years older). But I'm not going to pretend that people who think 16 is the proper age of consent are somehow ghastly perverts. It's a gray area. As such, I'd like to know what arguments people who think 14 is okay would use to tut-tut at an age-of-consent of 12.

As for priests abusing boys, what about that involves consent? Maybe you're reading different stories than I am, but the ones I've read do not involve consent by the boys who were abused. As such, it's a bit of a red herring to take pot-shots based on Vatican City law.

Maybe Dan Savage is bringing this up to remind us about how silly we are to have had all that ridiculous over-reaction about Mr Adams and the 17-yr-old?

If so, Mr Savage, please forget it. The Vatican is synonymous with institutionalized pedophilia; Europeans maintain low consent ages generally because, while they have a healthy measure of outrage on the subject, they don't believe in locking up a 10th of the population, the way we do here, just because lots of people are scumbags.

And just because they don't see jail as a solution to the scumbag problem, doesn't mean they would ever happily accept a scumbag remaining in political office.

Berlusconi, age 70 plus, level 10 political disgust factor, finally actually faced a serious political crisis after it was revealed he attended a birthday party for a luscious 18-year-old "friend."

You are all dumb. Dan Savage is a troll. Y'all postin' in a troll thread.

Plus, if you start listing the ways the Italian political system is fucked, you pretty much can't ever stop.

tODD: "if you were to report that the age of consent in Italy is only 14 (16 if there's a "relation of dependence"), this might not seem as shocking."

I responded that, even with this context, it still seems shocking. But! Me saying that doesn't mean that I think 14 is a-okay. So don't put words in my mouth, please.

The likely reason why the Italian age of consent isn't mentioned here (or cared about very much) is because the news story is about the age of consent in the Vatican - because apparently everyone forgot about this nugget of news until right now, and because holy people boning kids seems really raunchy. But yeah, another reason it wasn't mentioned is because - as Graham said - Savage is a bit of a troll.

todd,

Who's to say Savage has no comment on 14 being the age of consent in Italy? That's the real red herring, friend. 12 is creepy, no matter. In the very least, it is creepIER than 14.

Unless you're 15 years old, couching your obvious, general dislike for Savage in such a way is disengenuous. And how noble your respect for Vatican City law. Except to everyone else, it comes off as superficial and potentially creepy.

And I only say that because you've yet to comment on the real issue: whether 12 (and 12 in the vatican city, regardless of the law) is acceptable. To you.
Go.

In California you can't be charged with rape if you are under 14. (You can be charged with assault and other things, but rape is a over 14 thing only.) So it is legal in some places to have sex at 12, (with 70 year olds,) but you can't commit rape in other places, until 2 years later? WTF?