Let's talk a bit about age of consent!

Gillipig · Post by **Gillipig** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:46 pm

Depending on what country you live in the age of consent can vary between no lower limit to the age of 21. Most countries have an age of consent limit set to between 14-16 years. What do you think is the appropiate age of consent? Do you think the age of consent in your state should be raised, lowered or is appropiate where it is? What do you think about the idea that the age of consent should be set after puberty, and do you think homosexuals should have the same limit for age of consent as heterosexuals? (in many countries that's not the case!) What do you think is positive and negative with a low age of consent and what do you think is positive and negative with a high age of consent?

Just to give people a source I'm going to put the link to wikipedia here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

0ojakeo0 · Post by **0ojakeo0** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:17 pm

Lowered.

nietzsche · Post by **nietzsche** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:24 pm

No consent necessary

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:29 pm

16, but it should be lowered down to 15 or even 14.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:04 am

The close-in-age regulation sounds like the most sensible approach to me. That way an (essentially arbitrary) age at which it is fairly safe to say that any more or less normal person should be capable of telling any other more or less normal person whether they want to have intercourse or not can be chosen (be it 16 or 21 or 17 years, 216 days, 4 hours, 9 minutes and 17 seconds), while still allowing for relationships between people and ensuring that they don't suddenly have to essentially break up just because someone turned 18 and the other still has a few months to go.

joecoolfrog · Post by **joecoolfrog** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:59 am

16 is probably about right , more important is the general concept of protecting minors. A 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend may be moraly unpalatable but should not attract the full weight of the law, a 28 year old guy grooming a 15 year old girl is a different matter entirely.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:11 am

Hmm, I wish they changed the age of consent for homosexual males. Currently, in Australia, heterosexual couples and lesbians are allowed to consent at age 16, while homosexual males consent at 18.

Other than that, I like the age of 16.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:51 am

joecoolfrog wrote:16 is probably about right, more important is the general concept of protecting minors.

Why 16? Do you have specific reasons or is it just an age you determined more or less arbitrarily?
Protecting minors from what exactly? In order to come up with any sort of sensible suggestion you need to know what your goals are.

A 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend may be moraly unpalatable

How exactly is it "morally unpalatable"? Please, do tell me, because I really don't get it.

And why is it important that the girl is younger? Or is it just as "morally unpalatable" if a 16 year old girl has sex with her 15 year old boyfriend?

but should not attract the full weight of the law,

No shit, Sherlock, but why should any weight of the law be attracted at all if 2 persons aged 15 and 16 have consensual sex?

a 28 year old guy grooming a 15 year old girl is a different matter entirely.

Indeed, a 28 year old woman grooming a 15 year old boy is a different matter entirely. Oh, sorry, I got the genders wrong, but I agree with you. Even so... how is it different from a 29 year old having sex with a 16 year old? I'm just asking because I have no idea how you reached 16 years as a good candidate for age of consent, at least I had the decency of admitting that any age I come up with is arbitrary.

Gillipig · Post by **Gillipig** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:41 am

joecoolfrog wrote:16 is probably about right , more important is the general concept of protecting minors. A 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend may be moraly unpalatable but should not attract the full weight of the law, a 28 year old guy grooming a 15 year old girl is a different matter entirely.

To shake your world a little bit I'm going to ask you this question: Why would it be better for a 15 year old girl to have sex with a 16 year old boy than a 28 year old man? A 28 year old man obviously have more experience of sex and has much more maturity, and could therefore be argued to be more considerate and understanding than a 16 year old.
We are supposed to protect our teenagers with all these laws but I think the laws sometimes does the opposite!
I don't have a source that support this but I'm willing to bet that most rapes of minors are committed by other minors.

The onset of puberty occurs at the age of 10 for most girls, and for boys at the age of 12. So that should be the the lowest age of consent level a country can have. Any age of consent level set under that I regard as deeply immoral!
I think an age of consent level set to over 15 years is not only against our natural instincts but actually quite pathetic.
Isn't it interesting that when a 17 year old girl has sex with a 18 year old boy in California the least mature (the boy) would be committing statutory rape

!?

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:40 am

These laws have been set up to protect younger girls and women from being taken advantage of by older men. That is the basic purpose of the law at the root. It is also to protect all minors from a highly emotional act when they may be too young to handle it.

Further, sex is a procreative act, and does result in children, and its safe to assume that younger boys and girls, will be much less likely to use protection, and are certainly less able to care for a child if that is a result of what many here think is just a care-free consequence-less act of love. Also, sex has the threat of sexually transmited disease. Again, minors will be much less likely to protect themselves against these.

This is not just some arbitrary law, made up by adults to control children. They are laws to protect them from a great many risks all at once. I do agree that between two people who are virtually the same age, the law is less important, and usually it is enforced with this in mind. You may question this, until you research exactly how many minors under 18 or whatever the limit is, actually are having sex, and how many arrests are actually made. It makes drug enforcement seem effective.

The laws are necessary however, because under 18 in my opinion, the full weight of the decision cannot be appropriately understood by the minor, and especially in the case where someone older is involved, coercion and the risk of taking advantage of this is just too high.

By age 18, if a girl doesnt realize that any boy, any man anywhere and at any time will do anything, say anything to screw them....well, lets just say there are other laws to protect those girls. But younger than that, its a different situation all together, and since Intercourse is a contract, which allows one person to literally enter the body of another, and potentially create another life in doing so....regulation is more than just appropriate, it is completely necessary, and fully warranted.

Because of the very nature of the contract, and its potential importance and ability to change lives in very real ways, the age of consent should be that of every other contract, which is 18. I do agree that both parties below this age, especially at 16 or 17 really arent breaking the spirit of what the law is trying to protect against...they still are taking risks, and entering into an act that realistically they are in no way able to handle the possible consequences of.

joecoolfrog · Post by **joecoolfrog** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:53 am

MeDeFe wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:16 is probably about right, more important is the general concept of protecting minors.
Why 16? Do you have specific reasons or is it just an age you determined more or less arbitrarily?
Any age is arbitrary because not everybody develops sexualy and mentaly at the same rate, 16 seems to me to be a reasonable guideline.
Protecting minors from what exactly? In order to come up with any sort of sensible suggestion you need to know what your goals are.
I dont think that any age of consent should be set in stone, it needs to be used as a guideline , I have no problem with kids younger than 16 having sex if they are both up for it, I do however have a problem with adults grooming children for sexual purposes.

A 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend may be moraly unpalatable

How exactly is it "morally unpalatable"? Please, do tell me, because I really don't get it.
It is not to me but it is to others.
And why is it important that the girl is younger? Or is it just as "morally unpalatable" if a 16 year old girl has sex with her 15 year old boyfriend?
No different and I made no such inference.

but should not attract the full weight of the law,
No shit, Sherlock, but why should any weight of the law be attracted at all if 2 persons aged 15 and 16 have consensual sex?
Well the obvious case would be if one of the kids was deemed to be too immature to be fully consensual, I have already made the point that whatever the age of consent judgement calls need to be made.

a 28 year old guy grooming a 15 year old girl is a different matter entirely.
Indeed, a 28 year old woman grooming a 15 year old boy is a different matter entirely. Oh, sorry, I got the genders wrong, but I agree with you. Even so... how is it different from a 29 year old having sex with a 16 year old? I'm just asking because I have no idea how you reached 16 years as a good candidate for age of consent, at least I had the decency of admitting that any age I come up with is arbitrary.

I have already said that 16 is arbitrary but that common sense should be applied to those a year or two younger, If however we used 14 as the age of consent then I believe there would be less scope for manoeuvre.

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:45 am

xkcd got it about right. It's OK to date anybody as long as their age is equal to (your age/2) + 7. According to that formula, 14 is the age of consent but is only allowable with other 14 year olds.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:32 am

Frigidus wrote:xkcd got it about right. It's OK to date anybody as long as their age is equal to (your age/2) + 7. According to that formula, 14 is the age of consent but is only allowable with other 14 year olds.

I've seen these kids do math. You'd be screwing them. <laughing>

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:35 am

Frigidus wrote:xkcd got it about right. It's OK to date anybody as long as their age is equal to (your age/2) + 7. According to that formula, 14 is the age of consent but is only allowable with other 14 year olds.

A 12 year old may date a 13 year old but not vice versa?

Still, I rather like the general idea and it fits quite well with the close-in-age regulation except that people above age of consent are legally allowed to date anyone else above age of consent. But as the comic uses the formula to measure the creepiness factor that does not pose a major problem in its original function. The problem of one person's birthday changing the status of a relationship from normal to creepy is still an issue... maybe we could use logarithms or an exponential function and age in days instead of age in years to address that.

Anyway, joecoolfrog, prepare to be blasted by logical and reasonable debate.

Unless you think something is "morally unpalatable", don't say it is or that it may be. You will only confuse others if you do.

And why do you think 16 is a "reasonable guideline"? And still "judgement calls" have to be made... (btw, you didn't mention those in your first post) Would you get a psychologist on every case where it comes up in court so it can be determined whether, say, 4 months difference in age make such a big difference between two persons' emotional developmental stages? Just to have the party that doesn't like the conclusion ask another psychologist. Or even better, have parents ask a psychologist whether their child is emotionally stable enough to consent or not before said child can have a sexual relationship?
Probably not. But how about you come up with a better suggestion than the one you made before? Because I can easily see this happening.

If the respective gender of the people doesn't matter to you, then why explicitly state that the boy was 16 and the girl 15 in the first place? So, yes, you did imply that older males having sex with younger females is somehow worse than the reverse case.

You never answered my question regarding what the big difference between a 28 year old and a 15 year old having sex, and a 29 year old and a 16 year old having sex is. Maybe the "judgement calls" from "common sense"? Don't make me laugh.

I think you posted before taking even a minute to think.

joecoolfrog · Post by **joecoolfrog** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:56 am

Blast away

I am sorry that you apparently cannot grasp what I am trying to say and have found so much implied that was not intended, perhaps it is better to write without thinking for one minute than think for ten and let ones imagination go wild

Simply put I think that an age guidline is required for legal reasons,some kind of formula seems impractical, 16 seems to me to be a good general measure of the requisite level of maturity desirable.
You are indicating that I am proposing something novel, in fact I am simply affirming that which is currently in widespread usage, only the actual age differing, though there is growing standardisation to 18 in response to so called 'sex tourism ' abroad. The point I am stressing is that no age of consent should be set in stone, considerations need to be, and generally are, made. Im quite sure you would agree with this in principle so cannot really see why your tone is so hostile

Lord and Master · Post by **Lord and Master** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:24 am

I'd agree with the majority view that 16 is a reasonable age to set as most young people of that age are intelligent, articulate and educated enough to make their own choices. Obviously though our societies do have to be aware of the existence of predators and need to legislate as such. It's ridiculous that the age of consent differs for hetero- and homo- though, that is statutory bigotry.

...on a personal note though I've 2 very young daughters so while generally I agree on 16yrs in their particular case NEVER!!!

...or not til they're either 21, they've moved out, or are married! Hypocrisy or "Concerned Parent"? Clearly both but oh well

hahaha3hahaha · Post by **hahaha3hahaha** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:10 am

-deleted-

Kid_A · Post by **Kid_A** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:36 am

there should not be an age of consent. If my daughter is hot, I should not have to wait until she is 18 before I can f*ck her!

jonka · Post by **jonka** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:12 am

MeDeFe wrote:
A 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend may be moraly unpalatable
How exactly is it "morally unpalatable"? Please, do tell me, because I really don't get it.

And why is it important that the girl is younger? Or is it just as "morally unpalatable" if a 16 year old girl has sex with her 15 year old boyfriend?

Plus, girls mature faster, so its pretty much equivalent to a 16 year old guy and a 16 year old guy having sex, which you might still find "morally unpalatable", but as reasonable due to their same age. So when you consider that girls mature faster, a year or two younger for them makes no difference.

joecoolfrog · Post by **joecoolfrog** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:42 am

hahaha3hahaha wrote:It's funny I stumble across this thread seeing that this topic was covered on a radio station I was listening to a few weeks back. I was surprised to hear that its fine for anyone over the age of 10 [yes you heard me, TEN], as long as the 2 people involved both thought (evidence must be provided) that the other was of 2 years or less age difference {This rule obviously only applies for anyone 17 or under}. TEN YEARS OLD. Its just absolutely ridiculous.

Can you elaborate on this please , are we talking about a particular State or Country.
I would find it very difficult to believe that there is legislature to that affect, even as a guideline 10 seems improbable.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:54 pm

Kid_A wrote:there should not be an age of consent. If my daughter is hot, I should not have to wait until she is 18 before I can f*ck her!

QFT

Though in my case, it would be a guy. lol.

TeletubbyPrince · Post by **TeletubbyPrince** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:10 pm

joecoolfrog wrote:Blast away
I am sorry that you apparently cannot grasp what I am trying to say and have found so much implied that was not intended, perhaps it is better to write without thinking for one minute than think for ten and let ones imagination go wild
Simply put I think that an age guidline is required for legal reasons,some kind of formula seems impractical, 16 seems to me to be a good general measure of the requisite level of maturity desirable.
You are indicating that I am proposing something novel, in fact I am simply affirming that which is currently in widespread usage, only the actual age differing, though there is growing standardisation to 18 in response to so called 'sex tourism ' abroad. The point I am stressing is that no age of consent should be set in stone, considerations need to be, and generally are, made. Im quite sure you would agree with this in principle so cannot really see why your tone is so hostile

Are you literate?

ljex · Post by **ljex** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:43 pm

Just to give people a source I'm going to put the link to wikipedia here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent[/quote]

Using wikipedia as a source

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:22 pm

ljex wrote:Using wikipedia as a source

Yup. It's excellent for a quick rundown of basic information on a subject.

StephenB · Post by **StephenB** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:01 am

I don't think there should be an age of consent. It should be up to the parents to teach their kids to do whatever the parents believe is right. Although I don't believe anyone should lose their virginity below the age of 14, no matter how mature they are, nothing will be gained by punishing those that do. Making people wait longer before they can (legally) have sex won't stop people from sleeping around when they're older. Only a good upbringing can do that.

PS. Spamming smileys makes you look more intelligent, especially the laughing one!! Click it a couple of times after every sentence, regardless of whether the sentence is funny or not!!!