NationStates Jolt Archive

Age of consent: Any use at all? If not, should it be revoked, or changed, and what should be put in place to protect people?

16 in MD, under that it is still legal but only within 4 years older or something like that, which I think is a pretty good law

I think 16 is fine as the age of consent in the UK.

Of course there are 14, 15 year olds who are old enough to know what they're doing but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. We can't police every eventuality.

I think 16 is fine as the age of consent in the UK.

Of course there are 14, 15 year olds who are old enough to know what they're doing but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. We can't police every eventuality.So what should happen to a pair of 15 year olds who have sex? Punishment? Have a point put on their breeding licences?

Doesn't having an age of consent make government funded sex ed lessons rather hipocritical?

I think 16 is fine as the age of consent in the UK.

Of course there are 14, 15 year olds who are old enough to know what they're doing but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. We can't police every eventuality.So what should happen to a pair of 15 year olds who have sex? Punishment? Have a point put on their breeding licences?

Doesn't having an age of consent make government funded sex ed lessons rather hipocritical?

In that case I agree with my state, about the 4 years thing

Of course ages of consent are a good idea. A 14 year old is no match for a persuasive 45 year old (I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme topic). Hell, at 31 I'm still not sure I fully understand what it's all about.

Of course ages of consent are a good idea. A 14 year old is no match for a persuasive 45 year old (I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme topic). Hell, at 31 I'm still not sure I fully understand what it's all about. this is insane to be questioning age limits. without it having sex with five year olds would be legal, and thats just wrong :x

Of course ages of consent are a good idea. A 14 year old is no match for a persuasive 45 year old (I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme topic). Hell, at 31 I'm still not sure I fully understand what it's all about. this is insane to be questioning age limits. without it having sex with five year olds would be legal, and thats just wrong :xI certainly don't advocate that, but surely theres a better way to deal with that problem.

Of course ages of consent are a good idea. A 14 year old is no match for a persuasive 45 year old (I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme topic). Hell, at 31 I'm still not sure I fully understand what it's all about.Personal choice means freedom to make bad choices as well though surely

Of course ages of consent are a good idea. A 14 year old is no match for a persuasive 45 year old (I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme topic). Hell, at 31 I'm still not sure I fully understand what it's all about. this is insane to be questioning age limits. without it having sex with five year olds would be legal, and thats just wrong :xI certainly don't advocate that, but surely theres a better way to deal with that problem.

Well, better education for a start. Instead of treating sex as a taboo topic for young people while blizting them with the idea that it's even more effective as an advertising tool, we should give them all the pluses and minuses of the act.

I think 16 is fine as the age of consent in the UK.

Of course there are 14, 15 year olds who are old enough to know what they're doing but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. We can't police every eventuality.So what should happen to a pair of 15 year olds who have sex? Punishment? Have a point put on their breeding licences?

Laws of consent should be in place to protect younger people being abused by older.

As I said we can't police ever eventuality, two 15 years shagging would technically be illegal but I doubt the CPS would seek a punishment.

Of course ages of consent are a good idea. A 14 year old is no match for a persuasive 45 year old (I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme topic). Hell, at 31 I'm still not sure I fully understand what it's all about.Personal choice means freedom to make bad choices as well though surely

Yes, but part of the maturation process is the ability to learn how to differentiate between outcomes of choices without necessarily having to suffer life-long consequences for making a bad call. I rarely raise the banner of "Won't Someone Please Think About The Children", but I do think that adolecents should be given a certain amount of protected environment where they are allowed to explore their own conceptualizations of the world without undue interference by those who might wish to take advantage of their innocence. I mean, I have no real great argument for why an age of consent law is appropriate for saying that, magically on your 17th birthday, you wake up fully armed with the knowledge, street smarts and common sense to spot those who might wish to do you harm or use you for their own purposes, but it seems like there should be some grace period where kids can work it out between themselves before having to deal with someone with years of experience trying to influence them.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worse

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.
I agree the government has no right to decide when kids have sex.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.
I agree the government has no right to decide when kids have sex.

Cool, I've made a good point. Glad you have some sense guys. Really it doesn't matter, it's the person's choice if they want to be stupid. And you should follow your instincts.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.
I agree the government has no right to decide when kids have sex.

So what happens when a 45 year old man wants to have sex with a 12 year old and she says yes?

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.

Who's going to prosecute him though?

Maybe there could be a law saying that if you are ten years apart both of the parties have to be over 16 or so, that would be more reasonable.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.
I agree the government has no right to decide when kids have sex.

So what happens when a 45 year old man wants to have sex with a 12 year old and she says yes?Ok, well now we're talking about a different thing here. Before it was two teenagers having sex, now you're talking about an adult and an (almost) teen. Maybe the within 4 years thing is the way to go here, but a simple, one line AoC has at least as much restriction on the young person's right as it provides protection.

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.
I agree the government has no right to decide when kids have sex.

So what happens when a 45 year old man wants to have sex with a 12 year old and she says yes?Ok, well now we're talking about a different thing here. Before it was two teenagers having sex, now you're talking about an adult and an (almost) teen. Maybe the within 4 years thing is the way to go here, but a simple, one line AoC has at least as much restriction on the young person's right as it provides protection.

Yeah my point is that if two 14 year olds have sex, I agree neither should be prosecuted for sex offensense. Will modifying current consent laws cover it? That's my concern.

Of course one is no less sexually responsible the day before his/her 16th birthday as they are the day after but I still maintian there has to be a cut of point as a guideline.

Not overally sure about the four way rule... a 17 year old can still take advantage of a 13 year old that way.

It's not uncommon to see someone who is less than a year over the age limit prosecuted for having sex with someone less than a year under it. Such prosecutions seem to ignore the intent of the law.

Yeah my point is that if two 14 year olds have sex, I agree neither should be prosecuted for sex offensense. Will modifying current consent laws cover it? That's my concern.

Of course one is no less sexually responsible the day before his/her 16th birthday as they are the day after but I still maintian there has to be a cut of point as a guideline.

Not overally sure about the four way rule... a 17 year old can still take advantage of a 13 year old that way.

No law is perfect.

Maybe there could be a law saying that if you are ten years apart both of the parties have to be over 16 or so, that would be more reasonable.

In which case why not keep the current system of 16 being the age of consent and in cases in which it is mutually horny 14 olds going at it, the CPS is unlikely to prosecute.

Maybe there could be a law saying that if you are ten years apart both of the parties have to be over 16 or so, that would be more reasonable.

In which case why not keep the current system of 16 being the age of consent and in cases in which it is mutually horny 14 olds going at it, the CPS is unlikely to prosecute.

But then when a 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old they could still get punished, and that is what I think is wrong.

Yeah my point is that if two 14 year olds have sex, I agree neither should be prosecuted for sex offensense. Will modifying current consent laws cover it? That's my concern.

Of course one is no less sexually responsible the day before his/her 16th birthday as they are the day after but I still maintian there has to be a cut of point as a guideline.

Not overally sure about the four way rule... a 17 year old can still take advantage of a 13 year old that way.And hows that better or worse than a 45 year old taking advantage of a 16 year old?

Maybe there could be a law saying that if you are ten years apart both of the parties have to be over 16 or so, that would be more reasonable.

In which case why not keep the current system of 16 being the age of consent and in cases in which it is mutually horny 14 olds going at it, the CPS is unlikely to prosecute.Because I don't think that its a particularly wonderful idea for laws to be based on probability.

Because I don't think that its a particularly wonderful idea for laws to be based on probability.
If they are the government will control too much of our life, people need to be able to make their own mistakes. (I am adding to your statement just to be clear.)

Maybe there could be a law saying that if you are ten years apart both of the parties have to be over 16 or so, that would be more reasonable.

In which case why not keep the current system of 16 being the age of consent and in cases in which it is mutually horny 14 olds going at it, the CPS is unlikely to prosecute.

But then when a 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old they could still get punished, and that is what I think is wrong.

I agree and I would imagine that most courts would refrain from prosecuting with these variables into consideration.

As I've said twice already there needs to be a cut off point, and we can't police every eventuality.

Because I don't think that its a particularly wonderful idea for laws to be based on probability.

What would your alternative be?

I agree and I would imagine that most courts would refrain from prosecuting with these variables into consideration.

As I've said twice already there needs to be a cut off point, and we can't police every eventuality.
But parents of girls get mad at the guys and send them to jail to punish them for having sex with their daughter with the laws now in place. Like I said already there need to be a age difference that over rides the age of consent.

16 seems OK to me, I am glad the UK has a sensible policy. The thing about couples aged 15/17 is a tricky one, I would say no prosecution unless there is an actual complaint from one of the parties. There does have to be a line somewhere though, saying that someone is just a kid. Below 15 I would say.

16 seems OK to me, I am glad the UK has a sensible policy. The thing about couples aged 15/17 is a tricky one, I would say no prosecution unless there is an actual complaint from one of the parties. There does have to be a line somewhere though, saying that someone is just a kid. Below 15 I would say. But what right does the govenment have to say when or where people can have sex if both parties wants to?

Because I don't think that its a particularly wonderful idea for laws to be based on probability.

What would your alternative be?Lets go with 3 years between the partners. Thats a big age gap for teenagers, its not often that someone is going out with someone three years older than them when they're in their teens, and then put the age of consent at 16. That gives legal security to a 15 year old guy who's worrying that some puritanical judge may slam him up for going down on his girlfriend.

AoC doesn't make any difference anyway, teenageers will have sex whatever, so why not protect them under the law rather than making them afraid of it and reenforcing the view that the police and the government are there to bring trouble into people's lives.

I agree and I would imagine that most courts would refrain from prosecuting with these variables into consideration.

As I've said twice already there needs to be a cut off point, and we can't police every eventuality.
But parents of girls get mad at the guys and send them to jail to punish them for having sex with their daughter with the laws now in place. Like I said already there need to be a age difference that over rides the age of consent.

Don't get me wrong I'm with you on the unfairness of the current skewed nature in which all the comeback, erm if you'll excuse the unfortunate choice of phrase, is on the male.

But what right does the govenment have to say when or where people can have sex if both parties wants to?
Precisely why I mention that there should be some flexibility. Just not complete freedom, you know. The UK already has some pretty liberal rules on this sort of thing, compared to other countries, it is a good balance.

But parents of girls get mad at the guys and send them to jail to punish them for having sex with their daughter with the laws now in place. Like I said already there need to be a age difference that over rides the age of consent.

Don't get me wrong I'm with you on the unfairness of the current skewed nature in which all the comeback, erm if you'll excuse the unfortunate choice of phrase, is on the male.
It is ok; I think it is funny that I am upset with the government punishing the opposite sex. I really have no problem since I would never get punished but anything unfair irks me.
I agree with Spoffin as long as the age difference over rides the age of consent.

But what right does the govenment have to say when or where people can have sex if both parties wants to?
Precisely why I mention that there should be some flexibility. Just not complete freedom, you know. The UK already has some pretty liberal rules on this sort of thing, compared to other countries, it is a good balance.
Well in the U.S. there cannot be gray areas in laws of they are usually used against you.

Because I don't think that its a particularly wonderful idea for laws to be based on probability.

What would your alternative be?Lets go with 3 years between the partners. Thats a big age gap for teenagers, its not often that someone is going out with someone three years older than them when they're in their teens, and then put the age of consent at 16. That gives legal security to a 15 year old guy who's worrying that some puritanical judge may slam him up for going down on his girlfriend.

AoC doesn't make any difference anyway, teenageers will have sex whatever, so why not protect them under the law rather than making them afraid of it and reenforcing the view that the police and the government are there to bring trouble into people's lives.

Oh definatly teenagers will have sex regardless and I'm strongly in favour of a reform to sex education.

But in honest I really don't think the law enters the head of many horny teens.

I am really mad at Bush for trying to pass an abstinence only program at schools. It will only make things worse. When kids are only told not to do something but not why, they will want to do if only to see why they could not in the first place. This will only make the spread of diseases worse.

Precisely why I mention that there should be some flexibility. Just not complete freedom, you know. The UK already has some pretty liberal rules on this sort of thing, compared to other countries, it is a good balance.
Well in the U.S. there cannot be gray areas in laws of they are usually used against you.
Well, I guess it's just the European in me speaking, but there have to be grey areas in law, a bit of scope for improvisation built in, because if you try to set rigid boundaries for everything, you end up with injustices arising from arbitrary decisions.

Bush is an idiot. Clinton wouldn't have passed that bill, we all know that right. I actually liked Clinton, he was a tight guy.

Not that I support what he did with his wife though.

Not that I support what he did with his wife though.Its what he did with his WIFE thats your problem?

Not that I support what he did with his wife though.Its what he did with his WIFE thats your problem?

I mean the fact that he cheated on her. I suppose you'd rather me say I don't like what he did with his intern, which was cheating on his wife with her.

You get what I mean man.

Not that I support what he did with his wife though.
Bush is an idiot. Clinton wouldn't have passed that bill, we all know that right. I actually liked Clinton, he was a tight guy.
I understand, he was an ok president. He did not cause any problems it was just like he was there.

Not that I support what he did with his wife though.Its what he did with his WIFE thats your problem?

I mean the fact that he cheated on her. I suppose you'd rather me say I don't like what he did with his intern, which was cheating on his wife with her.

You get what I mean man.Fair enough.

Not that I support what he did with his wife though.Its what he did with his WIFE thats your problem?

I mean the fact that he cheated on her. I suppose you'd rather me say I don't like what he did with his intern, which was cheating on his wife with her.

You get what I mean man.Fair enough.

I really don't think that should matter to us that much, I mean everyone has their secrets.

(this is odd, talking to both of you at the same time)

Well that was Clinton's personal life, he may not have been a good person. But he was a great president.

Well that was Clinton's personal life, he may not have been a good person. But he was a great president.
Very true. It is funny, I think this is one of the very few topics that most people can agree on.

How was he a 'great' President? :?

How was he a 'great' President? :?

Well, after four years in office, he didn't manage to have the rest of the world shouting for US blood. I consider that a hallmark of effective leadership.

How was he a 'great' President? :?

Well, after four years in office, he didn't manage to have the rest of the world shouting for US blood. I consider that a hallmark of effective leadership.
Me to, he did not cause any major problems.

Maybe there could be a law saying that if you are ten years apart both of the parties have to be over 16 or so, that would be more reasonable.

In which case why not keep the current system of 16 being the age of consent and in cases in which it is mutually horny 14 olds going at it, the CPS is unlikely to prosecute.

But then when a 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old they could still get punished, and that is what I think is wrong.

Which country/state/province law?

In the US the laws regarding sexual age of consent are not federal hich is to say there are at least 50 state variations ith others for DC, PR, Guam, USVI, etc.

In the US the one who is of age would be liable while the minor would not.

SHL

In the US the one who is of age would be liable while the minor would not.

SHL

But the guy's parents never prosecute the girl it is always the other way around.

16 seems OK to me, I am glad the UK has a sensible policy. The thing about couples aged 15/17 is a tricky one, I would say no prosecution unless there is an actual complaint from one of the parties. There does have to be a line somewhere though, saying that someone is just a kid. Below 15 I would say. But what right does the govenment have to say when or where people can have sex if both parties wants to?

Is your conclusion is based on the premise that, legally, a minor can give unrestrained consent?

SHL

16 seems OK to me, I am glad the UK has a sensible policy. The thing about couples aged 15/17 is a tricky one, I would say no prosecution unless there is an actual complaint from one of the parties. There does have to be a line somewhere though, saying that someone is just a kid. Below 15 I would say. But what right does the govenment have to say when or where people can have sex if both parties wants to?

Is your conclusion is based on the premise that, legally, a minor can give unrestrained consent?

SHL
Under the law at the moment they can't. If the girl is 15 and the guy is 17 and the parents of the girl find out she had sex and don't like that fact, then they can prosecute the guy. That is why the age difference should always over ride the consent age.

16 seems OK to me, I am glad the UK has a sensible policy. The thing about couples aged 15/17 is a tricky one, I would say no prosecution unless there is an actual complaint from one of the parties. There does have to be a line somewhere though, saying that someone is just a kid. Below 15 I would say. But what right does the govenment have to say when or where people can have sex if both parties wants to?

Is your conclusion is based on the premise that, legally, a minor can give unrestrained consent?

SHL
Under the law at the moment they can't. If the girl is 15 and the guy is 17 and the parents of the girl find out she had sex and don't like that fact, then they can prosecute the guy. That is why the age difference should always over ride the consent age.

No, that is exactly why the law is the way it is. The 17 year old, being more mature and of an age to be able to control himself, should keep it zipped. He is old enough to be aware that he may impregnate the girl, generally speaking, a burden that he is unprepared for and that may well fall on society's shoulders.

So society has an interest in his behavior and as a result has placed on him the responsibility he is prepared to shoulder. If he chooses to ignore that law then he may well face the consequences of his immaturity and lack of self control.

Either way the girl will also be made to pay by way of lost opportunity and motherhood at a very tender age. An age when she isn't yet done being a child herself.

SHL

You should be able to have sex whenever you want to. If your stupid and have it to early that's your problem.

Consent laws are really to safeguard against peadophilia not punish horny 14 year olds.horny 14 year olds have to answer to their parents, not the government which can be alot worseThats it exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. Parents, taking responsibility for their own kids and not using the law as a sledgehammer. If your daughter has had sex with her boyfriend, its at least as much to do with her as him, and he shouldn't end up with a record as a sex offender because of it.

As a parent of 3 all now in their 20's (thankfully!) I have had to be concerned with a number of topics that they had to learn to deal with in their teen years. As far as sex goes, it is a given that any healthy teen will or at least will want to explore.

A parent does indeed have a responsibility in how they prepare their children by way of perspective and information and in being able to limit their behavior when necessary. But to say that it is ultimately the parent's burden alone is a mistaken approach.

The law sets a minimum standard that is objective and distinct from what a parent says. It serves the parent in that they have something higher than their own authority to point to as a reasonable guide. There are enough opportunities for the teen to go it on their own. How often when parential control is exerted are the usual charges of parential obstructionism thrown at them.

It serves the teen in that the standard is set for those outside their age group to steer clear, or else face criminal charges and imprisonment. While they may have quite sexually mature bodies, the emotional and deliberative processes are not always quite up to the level of full accountability.

Why 16 or 17 or any other point that one comes of age? The point can be argued endlessly and examples of individuals cited but short of the government testing individuals, a single line must be drawn for everyone somewhere. So one is agreed upon by those who have already lived through that phase of life.

SHL