NationStates Jolt Archive

Age of concent is an important issue when it comes to sexuality. At what age is it appropriate for someone to have sex? At what age has their mind caught up with their body? Should there even be an "age of concent" law?

As you answer the polls, consider these questions as well.

History has shown us that young people were trusted to be responsible with sexuality at a much younger age than today. Young people are still having sex, but the difference is that in the past it was relatively accepted. What do you thing brought about this change?

ALSO

There have been arguments for and against the idea of child sexuality; that children aren't capapable of understanding the totality of their choice, or that they are, like the rest of humanity, sexual beings. What is your take on this?

PS: Keep it clean...I emplore you...

There is already a thread on this. And first and foremost, the age of consent should be 16. Anything lower is not acceptable. Children are not fully developed sexually or emotionally. To advocate lowering the age of consent below 16, would advocate rape.

I still like my idea of giving parents the right to label their kids "non-consenting" until they finish high school. I suppose school counselors can also administer tests starting at age 13 or so, and only a rare group of people can be labeled "consenting." I refer to those who are seriously groun up and have parents who are not necessarily permissive but have raised their kids with a good head on their shoulders. I know this system isn't perfect, but come on neither is what we have.

There is already a thread on this. And first and foremost, the age of consent should be 16. Anything lower is not acceptable. Children are not fully developed sexually or emotionally. To advocate lowering the age of consent below 16, would advocate rape.

Very well, if the mods feel that this thread is just sucking up precious bandwidth, they can lock it.

Are we talking about age of consent in regards to adults, or other teens?

If other teens, 14. If adults, 16.

i agree that the age of consent should be around 16. while many teenagers younger than that might be "ready," they definitely shouldnt be fooling around with anyone much older than them.

that said, since it seems to be agreed (in the general public) that children can't think rationally about sex before 16, how can we charge 11-year-olds as adults in murder cases?

sorry for the hijack :)

i agree that the age of consent should be around 16. while many teenagers younger than that might be "ready," they definitely shouldnt be fooling around with anyone much older than them.

that said, since it seems to be agreed (in the general public) that children can't think rationally about sex before 16, how can we charge 11-year-olds as adults in murder cases?

sorry for the hijack :)

Not at all, it's an intresting inconsistancy.

I voted no age of consent. Consent only takes the fun out of it.

Just crazy. There's too much crap flying around in the mid-teens to lower the consent age. Honestly, if you get a pregnancy and become a parent, how the hell are you gonna support a family AND work a good job to pay the support AND finish high school, no less college? This is the reason why the current law stands. Anything else is just completely stupid.

Yeah, it's kind of relative. Teens are going to be sexual. If they're sexual with each other, no problem. That's their decision, and they're on the same maturity level. If it's with someone much older than them, that's starting down a shaky slope.

If anything, I do think age of consent should be raised, not lowered. And I dated older guys when I was a teenager. Lucky for me, I've always been a strong girl and knew (for the most part) what I was doing. I had friends that weren't so lucky. Still, looking back on it, I think it was wrong for someone in their early/mid-20's to want to be with a girl that couldn't even leave her house without her parents' permission. It's a whole different world out there after you graduate high school. The life experience at that point in time is just so different that it seems wrong in retrospect.

It depends on that age of those involved. If it's two minors, I'd say 15 or 16, or not at all. If at least one is a legal adult, I'd say all of them have to be 18 or older.

I voted no age of consent. Consent only takes the fun out of it.

What do you mean by that? :confused:

What do you mean by that? :confused:

I agree, that sounded kinda...ify...

I'd say around 18...so you're already out of high school in case you get pregnant.

I voted no age of consent. Consent only takes the fun out of it.

Amen to that!

I agree, that sounded kinda...ify...

You might want to watch what you post. (Original poster, duh.)

Amen to that!

And what do you mean by that? :eek:

Crapshaiths is just being an inflammatory fool.

IMHO, 16-17 is an acceptable age. Although on that, it would be concerning to know someone who is 30+ is having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old. There should definitely be an age gap restriction put in place so that a 16 year old can only have a sexual relationship with someone 21 years or under, for example.

The key to this argument is that there is an almost intangible line between what should be made ILLEGAL and what is seen as IMMORAL or unethical.

Meh. Like I said in the other thread, at some point sheltering people from the world has to take a back seat to the rights of people who don't want to be sheltered. I don't think an age-based system is really the best answer. My idea:

When you feel you're ready to have sex, you go to the courthouse to declare your intent. They ask you a series of questions and, if they determine you're mature enough to understand your decision, you get a little tatoo on the back of your hand. This eliminates the problem of the 11-year old that's ready and the 16-year old that's not.

I'd say around 18...so you're already out of high school in case you get pregnant.
yeah right 'cause..an age limit will definitely keep folks from having sex. that's oh so true. if still in doubt, check the american reality. living proof. [/sarcasm]

edit:// modalert: i suggest merging this thread with the "legalize paedophilia" thread

There is no way in hell I would have waited until age 16. I was fully sexually mature and perfectly capable of making informed decisions at the age of 13. This idea that nature doesn't know what it's doing and needs to be legislated and babysat and hand-held needs to end. For hundreds of thousands of years people have started having children as soon as their bodies were old enough to do so. People only remain children as long as society tells them they are children.

Meh. Like I said in the other thread, at some point sheltering people from the world has to take a back seat to the rights of people who don't want to be sheltered. I don't think an age-based system is really the best answer. My idea:

When you feel you're ready to have sex, you go to the courthouse to declare your intent. They ask you a series of questions and, if they determine you're mature enough to understand your decision, you get a little tatoo on the back of your hand. This eliminates the problem of the 11-year old that's ready and the 16-year old that's not.


Personally, I think the US is in need of a total attitude-towards-sex overhaul. We have more problems than other nations that are more open about sex being something natural instead of as exotic as we portray it here.

I think it is precisely that we villify it that it does become such a problem, but sadly I also think that's something it will take years upon years upon years to change, since it's a state of mind.

I used to say nudity is the answer to world peace... :p

There is no way in hell I would have waited until age 16. I was fully sexually mature and perfectly capable of making informed decisions at the age of 13. This idea that nature doesn't know what it's doing and needs to be legislated and babysat and hand-held needs to end. For hundreds of thousands of years people have started having children as soon as their bodies were old enough to do so. People only remain children as long as society tells them they are children.

I think the point is more not that you shouldn't be having sex that young (which would be a discussion for another thread), but rather that 30 year olds should not be able to have sex with you at age 13.

Personally, I think the US is in need of a total attitude-towards-sex overhaul. We have more problems than other nations that are more open about sex being something natural instead of as exotic as we portray it here.


That's why we need to strengthen punishment against pedophiles, to life sentences. That is what this nation needs.

I used to say nudity is the answer to world peace... :p

Ewww....

More nudity, means there'd be less sex, less sex means less babies. Less babies means were doomed :eek:

People only remain children as long as society tells them they are children.

That is a really valid and almost poetic suggestion Phasa. I totally agree that people mature at different rates. I'm 22 and know of people in their late teens or even early 20's who are not 'ready' whereas there are some who are very young who either are or THINK they are ready.

The point here is to protect the youth from unscrupulous people who will aim to exploit young people not to prevent people from freedom of action.

I would prefer to restrict 13 year olds from having sex AND prevent exploitation and statutory rape, even if some parties believe it is an afront to civil liberties.

Age of concent is an important issue when it comes to sexuality. At what age is it appropriate for someone to have sex? At what age has their mind caught up with their body? Should there even be an "age of concent" law?

As you answer the polls, consider these questions as well.

History has shown us that young people were trusted to be responsible with sexuality at a much younger age than today. Young people are still having sex, but the difference is that in the past it was relatively accepted. What do you thing brought about this change?

ALSO

There have been arguments for and against the idea of child sexuality; that children aren't capapable of understanding the totality of their choice, or that they are, like the rest of humanity, sexual beings. What is your take on this?
The answer, as usual, is found between the two extremes: yes, children are sexual creatures, but no, they should not be prey for adults ( which is what they would become if you allowed sex before sufficient maturity to understand consequences ).

More nudity, means there'd be less sex, less sex means less babies. Less babies means were doomed :eek:

Just imagine a bunch of a nudist colony full of hairy old chubby men.. ewwwwwww....

That's why we need to strengthen punishment against pedophiles, to life sentences. That is what this nation needs.



Ewww....


Hey, no argument from me here.

And if everyone was naked all the time, after awhile it would seem perfectly natural, and so there would be no "eww." :p

People would recognize body parts for what they are...parts of a body that serve a physical function (won't elaborate on that atm). I think it would give way to decreasing lust and lustful deceit and make human interactions more meaningful altogether.

And yes, this is a crackpot just-for-fun theory, and although there's some elements of truth in it, I obviously am not totally serious. :cool:

And if everyone was naked all the time, after awhile it would seem perfectly natural, and so there would be no "eww." :p

Hey I like human beauty...

But.. I'm a fashion guru.. I wouldn't be able to give people advice anymore on what to wear... I would die without my clothes. :p

I would start a riot...

Doesnt necassarily mean we're doomed, i mean we're already out growing the planet. If we stopped making as many babies..then maybe we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now! hehe on the other hand - im sure we'd get bored if we were having sex and such, and i dont know, blow up other countries out of sexual frustration or something...oh wait..already are...damn..maybe bush needs to get laid! HA i solved it!

Doesnt necassarily mean we're doomed, i mean we're already out growing the planet. If we stopped making as many babies..then maybe we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now! hehe on the other hand - im sure we'd get bored if we were having sex and such, and i dont know, blow up other countries out of sexual frustration or something...oh wait..already are...damn..maybe bush needs to get laid! HA i solved it!

Nah...

More gay sex would help... :) No pregnancy involved there.

Ah, but isn't physical beauty is a creation of society/media, otherwise what was attractive in the 1950s would be considered attractive today (for instance, larger women as opposed to stickfigures), and what is beautiful in the US would be the same as what is considered beautiful in African nations, would it not?

I actually had to write a really long research study on something along these lines once. The most interesting things I learned revolved around what people from various societies consider beautiful, and in some cases, how Western images/media/etc infiltrated those societies and completely changed the way they looked at their own bodies, and what they considered attractive.

Let's see...if the world was a giant nudist colony, what would fashion become? Maybe body paint? Could you work with that? :D

Nah...

More gay sex would help... :) No pregnancy involved there.

Yeah, but I have another crackpot theory about that, involving evolution. :D

Ah, but isn't physical beauty is a creation of society/media, otherwise what was attractive in the 1950s would be considered attractive today (for instance, larger women as opposed to stickfigures), and what is beautiful in the US would be the same as what is considered beautiful in African nations, would it not?

Well I like... uh... pretty slender tanned guys like myself.. physical beauty is beauty in the eye of the beholder.

Let's see...if the world was a giant nudist colony, what would fashion become? Maybe body paint? Could you work with that? :D

Nah, i need my clothes.

Yeah, but I have another crackpot theory about that, involving evolution. :D

What?

Well, i'm not saying that people should totally become gay, but just try it out with another guy (or member of same sex). You'll be surprised at how amazing it is. :D

Hey I like human beauty...
But.. I'm a fashion guru.. I wouldn't be able to give people advice anymore on what to wear... I would die without my clothes. :p
I would start a riot...
"They can have my " clothes " when they pry them from my cold dead hands."
:p

What?

Well, i'm not saying that people should totally become gay, but just try it out with another guy. You'll be surprised at how amazing it is. :D

I've tried it out with guys...but I'm a girl. ;)

My theory started because I have a lot of gay friends, and I live in a really liberal and tolerant town. Iowa City was in some big newspaper for having the largest number of co-habitating homosexual couples in the nation, or something of the sort.

I just thought that with a growing population of homosexual individuals, that Malcom's theory from Jurassic Park would prove true also: "Life always finds a way." Therefore, the theory was that bodies will evolve...let's just say it centered around the adaptability of the uterus. :p

I've tried it out with guys...but I'm a girl. ;)

My theory started because I have a lot of gay friends, and I live in a really liberal and tolerant town. Iowa City was in some big newspaper for having the largest number of co-habitating homosexual couples in the nation, or something of the sort.

I just thought that with a growing population of homosexual individuals, that Malcom's theory from Jurassic Park would prove true also: "Life always finds a way." Therefore, the theory was that bodies will evolve...let's just say it centered around the adaptability of the uterus. :p

Well obviously I edited my post to say members of the same sex.

I never said people should become exclusively gay. I'm saying guys should try it more with guys, and girls with girls. Straight guys will be surprised on how nice it is. :D

Nah...

More gay sex would help... :) No pregnancy involved there.

I'm not sure gay sex is a good thing *cough* AIDS! *cough*.

What?

Well, i'm not saying that people should totally become gay, but just try it out with another guy (or member of same sex). You'll be surprised at how amazing it is. :D\\ :eek:

I'm not sure gay sex is a good thing *cough* AIDS! *cough*.

yea...that's true...

I'm not sure gay sex is a good thing *cough* AIDS! *cough*.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Gay sex does not cause AIDS. AIDS is not a gay disease. It is a disease that effects straight and gay people alike.

Wow, this is so much friendlier and joyful than the other one.
I am....at peace :)

That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Gay sex does not cause AIDS. AIDS is not a gay disease. It is a disease that effects straight and gay people alike.

Yes, but isn't it easier to spread through anal sex because of the exchange of more bodily fluids?

That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Gay sex does not cause AIDS. AIDS is not a gay disease. It is a disease that effects straight and gay people alike.

Well we all KNOW that. But I'm sure you realize that the AIDS epidemic spread so quickly because of that dumbass gay Quabec guy, and since in the gay community casual sex is much more common, it spreads MUCH faster. Too bad we couldn't quarantine him... We'd be better off if we did... :sniper:

I still like my idea of giving parents the right to label their kids "non-consenting" until they finish high school. I suppose school counselors can also administer tests starting at age 13 or so, and only a rare group of people can be labeled "consenting." I refer to those who are seriously groun up and have parents who are not necessarily permissive but have raised their kids with a good head on their shoulders. I know this system isn't perfect, but come on neither is what we have.Like i said on the other Locked thread...This is a fresh idea...and I like it.

Well we all KNOW that. But I'm sure you realize that the AIDS epidemic spread so quickly because of that dumbass gay Quabec guy, and since in the gay community casual sex is much more common, it spreads MUCH faster. Too bad we couldn't quarantine him... We'd be better off if we did... :sniper:

I know that it started off with gay people in the developed world (in reality, they say in Africa it was with heterosexuals who either ate or had sex with monkeys [from what I heard]). That is becaus the government neglected to do anything about it. But right now I would say casual sex is much more common amongst heterosexuals, then it is of homosexuals. It isn't spreading faster in the gay community. In fact heterosexual females are the biggest at risk right now.

Well we all KNOW that. But I'm sure you realize that the AIDS epidemic spread so quickly because of that dumbass gay Quabec guy, and since in the gay community casual sex is much more common, it spreads MUCH faster. Too bad we couldn't quarantine him... We'd be better off if we did... :sniper:what Quebec guy???????
are you Talking about the next PM of Quebec?

I think there is no sense in having this poll on a global forum. This isnt a global issue, it is a cultural issue. Like all cultural issues, the answer will rightfully vary from culture to culture. The age of consent should be whatever is considered appropriate in your culture, it's that simple.

Are we talking about age of consent in regards to adults, or other teens?

If other teens, 14. If adults, 16.
Most countries have adopted a fixed AoC...
and I agree...cos Laws need to be least complicated...

I don't really think that anyone should have sex until they are fully able and willing to commit to getting married and having children. If you aren't in a mature enough place to consider having children then you shouldn't be having sex. The only 100% safe choice is not to have it. Condoms and birthcontrol only work a 95%-98% of the time and that is with perfect use, one mistake and your chances of being protected drop considerably. Think before you have sex, would I spend the rest of my life with this person? Am I emotionally and financially ready to have a kid? If the answers are "no" then you should abstain. I can't really pull an age out, as to when you should be considered "consenting" because it would vary for everyone. I know that not many will agree with my veiw so to answer the question, I think 18 would be a fair age. (when you are a legal adult) but I want to make sure you all know I don't condone having 18 year olds out having sex jus' cuz there adults now.

17-18

I don't really get it. I mean, lots of conservatives dislike gays so wouldn't they be happy that the gays got AIDS instead of the oh-so-holy straight people? I mean, it's not like they're going to start doing the straight men and women.

I don't really think that anyone should have sex until they are fully able and willing to commit to getting married and having children. If you aren't in a mature enough place to consider having children then you shouldn't be having sex. The only 100% safe choice is not to have it. Condoms and birthcontrol only work a 95%-98% of the time and that is with perfect use, one mistake and your chances of being protected drop considerably. Think before you have sex, would I spend the rest of my life with this person? Am I emotionally and financially ready to have a kid? If the answers are "no" then you should abstain. I can't really pull an age out, as to when you should be considered "consenting" because it would vary for everyone. I know that not many will agree with my veiw so to answer the question, I think 18 would be a fair age. (when you are a legal adult) but I want to make sure you all know I don't condone having 18 year olds out having sex jus' cuz there adults now.
Blah, then we need better birth control lol. I guess nothing will be perfect, but it seems like such a disconnect to so throughly deny yourself something that you really really want LOL. It like, creates a complete dissonance. Blah.

Well we all KNOW that. But I'm sure you realize that the AIDS epidemic spread so quickly because of that dumbass gay Quabec guy, and since in the gay community casual sex is much more common, it spreads MUCH faster. Too bad we couldn't quarantine him... We'd be better off if we did... :sniper:

Blaming gays AND Canada for the world's problems in one post...I'm impressed.

Blaming gays AND Canada for the world's problems in one post...I'm impressed.

I'm not surprised really. I've seen plenty of people blame gay people for their own shortcomings...

I'm not surprised really. I've seen plenty of people blame gay people for their own shortcomings...

Kinda like how I blame Wal-Mart for the decline of business ethics...wait...bad example...

Blah, then we need better birth control lol. I guess nothing will be perfect, but it seems like such a disconnect to so throughly deny yourself something that you really really want LOL. It like, creates a complete dissonance. Blah.
Just because you want something doesn't mean you need it, or that it is necessarily good for you.

I don't really think that anyone should have sex until they are fully able and willing to commit to getting married and having children. If you aren't in a mature enough place to consider having children then you shouldn't be having sex. The only 100% safe choice is not to have it. Condoms and birthcontrol only work a 95%-98% of the time and that is with perfect use, one mistake and your chances of being protected drop considerably. Think before you have sex, would I spend the rest of my life with this person? Am I emotionally and financially ready to have a kid? If the answers are "no" then you should abstain. I can't really pull an age out, as to when you should be considered "consenting" because it would vary for everyone. I know that not many will agree with my veiw so to answer the question, I think 18 would be a fair age. (when you are a legal adult) but I want to make sure you all know I don't condone having 18 year olds out having sex jus' cuz there adults now.

So what about forms of sex that have no risk of pregnancy? Oral, anal, mutual masturbation, toys, both partners being the same sex etc etc. I can assure you now that all of these techniques are 100% effective at preventing pregnancy, and quite a few of them are also remarkably good at preventing the spread of STDs. Should these fun and exciting alternatives to traditional baby-making sex also be off limits for people who aren't willing to settle down? And if so, considering that many of them are pretty much consequence-free, why should they be off limits?

So what about forms of sex that have no risk of pregnancy? Oral, anal, mutual masturbation, toys, both partners being the same sex etc etc. I can assure you now that all of these techniques are 100% effective at preventing pregnancy, and quite a few of them are also remarkably good at preventing the spread of STDs. Should these fun and exciting alternatives to traditional baby-making sex also be off limits for people who aren't willing to settle down? And if so, considering that many of them are pretty much consequence-free, why should they be off limits?
Just because they don't have the concequence of pregnancy doesn't mean they are concequence free. (besides you know how one thing tends to lead to another)
This is when I get into a tough place. You see as a Christian I don't believe in any sex of any kind before marriage. As an American though, I do realize that everyone doesn't share my veiws. I picked 18 not because I think it is right, but because I think it would be most fair. (lesser of the evils, so to speak)
I do have to say that no sex is consequence free in my opinion. Consequences do not have to be bad, but I fear that the majority of the time having sex outside of a commited relationship ( see marriage) does end up with bad concequences (emotional, physical, and spiritual.) I don't think that I am a very good American or Christian if I try to force my veiws on others. It is a free country and God did afford us free-will, but also I am not a good American or a good Christian if I don't let my veiws be known either. ;)

The age of consent for all sexual acts should be the age of majority. Period. If the age of majority is 18 in one country, the age of consent should be 18.

I realise that there are people in their 30s and 40s that aren't mature enough to make decisions about sex and there may be people in their early teens or possibly younger who are mature enough to weigh the emotional ramifications of sexual acts. But it would be entirely impractical to render a decision on sexual consent on a case by case basis.

There is already a thread on this. And first and foremost, the age of consent should be 16. Anything lower is not acceptable. Children are not fully developed sexually or emotionally. To advocate lowering the age of consent below 16, would advocate rape.
You say this but do you have evidence for this blanket statement? (sorry you just sound like you are trying to make a statement based in objective fact but fail to provide the data for your "facts")

The age of consent for all sexual acts should be the age of majority. Period. If the age of majority is 18 in one country, the age of consent should be 18.

I realise that there are people in their 30s and 40s that aren't mature enough to make decisions about sex and there may be people in their early teens or possibly younger who are mature enough to weigh the emotional ramifications of sexual acts. But it would be entirely impractical to render a decision on sexual consent on a case by case basis.
Maybe we should lower the age of majority then … it exists because that is the age we deem people mature enough for some things …

But there are exceptions it is not a blanket age … if statistics show an age of 16 to be more appropriate for some 18 for others and 21 for others we might want to listen to those statistics rather then just randomly choosing 18 as the transition faze
(I personaly thing more should be brought to the age of 18 such as drinking age but I by no means think everything should)

Maybe we should lower the age of majority then … it exists because that is the age we deem people mature enough for some things …

But there are exceptions it is not a blanket age … if statistics show an age of 16 to be more appropriate for some 18 for others and 21 for others we might want to listen to those statistics rather then just randomly choosing 18 as the transition faze
(I personaly thing more should be brought to the age of 18 such as drinking age but I by no means think everything should)
ah but they didn't ask about changing the age for anything else. If I could change the age of majority.... well I don't know what I would do. see above post for my specific dilema...

ah but they didn't ask about changing the age for anything else. If I could change the age of majority.... well I don't know what I would do. see above post for my specific dilema...
I understand

I am more of the opinion that under age 18 (so age 16 – 18) there be a restriction on difference of age between partners for example to two years

So that it is fine if they are older then 16 and their partner is younger then 19

After 18 no restriction

To me this allows some freedom while maintaining the ability to crack down on people exploiting our young

Yes, but isn't it easier to spread through anal sex because of the exchange of more bodily fluids?

errr no... it is easier to spread all types, other that type E through anal sex due to the higher propensity for tearing in the lower colon. Aids requires fluid to fluid transmission (exception being type E) where one type of fluid is generally blood (in anal) or lubricant (in vaginal), the other ejaculant. In type E there is just required a semblance of contact, and a warm (for virii) environment, so normal P-V sex can spread it from M-W and W-M.

I understand

I am more of the opinion that under age 18 (so age 16 – 18) there be a restriction on difference of age between partners for example to two years

So that it is fine if they are older then 16 and their partner is younger then 19

After 18 no restriction

To me this allows some freedom while maintaining the ability to crack down on people exploiting our young
my wanting to be a fair American side agrees, but my Christian side (which takes precidence, still knows that sex without marriage is harmful) and my anti-big government side doesn't think that government should be involved in the sex lives of citizens, but then my mother side realizes that children can be abused freely if government doesn't make some kind of rules of consent.
I don't know I am soo confused. I guess if I listen to all of them, and try to compromise then 18 (the current age of majority) would have to be the best answer I can give.

I know that it started off with gay people in the developed world (in reality, they say in Africa it was with heterosexuals who either ate or had sex with monkeys [from what I heard]). That is becaus the government neglected to do anything about it. But right now I would say casual sex is much more common amongst heterosexuals, then it is of homosexuals. It isn't spreading faster in the gay community. In fact heterosexual females are the biggest at risk right now.


Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.
2. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

my wanting to be a fair American side agrees, but my Christian side (which takes precidence, still knows that sex without marriage is harmful) and my anti-big government side doesn't think that government should be involved in the sex lives of citizens, but then my mother side realizes that children can be abused freely if government doesn't make some kind of rules of consent.
I don't know I am soo confused. I guess if I listen to all of them, and try to compromise then 18 (the current age of majority) would have to be the best answer I can give.
I agree but I have to leave my personal morals aside for my decision

I am of the opinion that morals should never be legislated just on the fact that they are morality (if the morals are objectively supported by things like societal benefit that is something different)

I agree but I have to leave my personal morals aside for my decision

I am of the opinion that morals should never be legislated just on the fact that they are morality (if the morals are objectively supported by things like societal benefit that is something different)
wouldn't society benifit if there were less teenage parents and less STDs and less emotional problems because of irresponsible sex?
just for the sake of this debate let us assume that all sex between people under the age of 18 is harmful ( I know it isn't) wouldn't it benifit society if the age of consent was raised to 18?

I guess what I am trying to ask is where do you draw the line between when morals can be used to make laws and when it is just "forcing" your beliefs on others?
I think I was setting my morals aside to a great degree when I said that 18 was a good age for consent. If I only listened to my morals then sex before marriage would be outlawed.

Maybe we should lower the age of majority then … it exists because that is the age we deem people mature enough for some things … I would disagree with lowering the age of majority. I think the number has been set to 18 for a reason.

But there are exceptions it is not a blanket age … if statistics show an age of 16 to be more appropriate for some 18 for others and 21 for others we might want to listen to those statistics rather then just randomly choosing 18 as the transition fazeDid you not read the other point I made? I specifically said that creating a case-by-case basis for deciding whether or not someone was mature enough to consent to sex was impractical. The cost that would be involved if defence lawyers were to argue the point that a 16 year old was mature enough to make such a decision in statutory rape cases would be prohibitive.

Look, I personally know people in their early to mid teens whom I would think are mature enough to decide whether or not to have sex. Creating a set of laws where a judge would have to say, "I know this one's 14 but he's mature enough to have sex, but you at 17 years and 364 days are not," is just too impractical. It's far too difficult to establish a set of standards that cannot reliably be administered because everyone interprets law somewhat differently.

My opinion is that you should be allowed to have sex once you cease to be a child. By German law this is at age 14, which is also the legal age for being able to commit criminal acts and be employed to some degree.

Age of consent is an important issue when it comes to sexuality. At what age is it appropriate for someone to have sex?


I didn't participate in your poll. There is no doubt that humans are sexual or potentially sexual creatures, but we also have developed what we call societies that limit sexual activity to what we consider to be adults. Where adulthood begins is the question.

In societies that require their members to spend the years of early adulthood in schools / universities and make it difficult if not impossible for them to 'set up their own families' - then adulthood is postponed. Yet, humans being human, that does not interfere with the sex drive among young adults. Since people develop at different rates, it is impossible to make a law that 15, 16, 17, 18, etc. is the age of consent. And since females must 'bear the burden' of any relaxation of the age of consent, I would think that whatever decision would be made should consider the maturity of the female and her ability to become independent.

Just to point out that all the activities listed are perfectly capeable of spreading STDs - some moreso than plain sex as people do not realise the danger of spread and so take fewer precautions and some are very very good at spreading STDs.

Well anal sex is the only one that's actually more dangerous than traditional boy-on-girl intercourse. Of various other kinds of sexual act available for two or more people, oral manages to reduce the risk of catching bloodborne infections like HIV/AIDS to almost zero (while admittedly not doing much for STDs that can be contracted through skin contact), and several of the other options are remarkably safe. Mutual masturbation and toy play can both be done with absolutely no exchange of bodily fluids whatsoever if you want to make it that way, and the contact you're likely to make with one another if you don't stay completely hands-off is still staggeringly safe compared to regular sex. Throw in long-distance options like phone sex and cybersex, and you've even got ways for two peopl to get mutually down and dirty without any health risks whatsoever.

Agreeing with a previous post, it has been a thought in my mind that morals should not be used in legislation.

Scientific evidence should be used in determining the legal age, perhaps. When is the average that someone is physically ready for sex? We know little of emotional developement I think, but sex has a heavy impact on it, so it should also be seriously considered.

However, no matter what age at which you participate in such an act, it will have an earthshattering impact, positive or negative. That simply relies on the experience itself.

Also, by sex, do we mean only M+F intercourse? I recall seeing masturbation and such.. As for that, in my opinion, it is no one's business to dictate at what age it'd be permissable at. I, for one, stumbled upon some things completely by accident and didn't know what they were at my young age :P

And for the record, the people who scream that it's JUST SICK really are no help to this discussion (which has been quite civil thus far, yae!) and their messages are just a complete waste.

wouldn't society benifit if there were less teenage parents and less STDs and less emotional problems because of irresponsible sex?
just for the sake of this debate let us assume that all sex between people under the age of 18 is harmful ( I know it isn't) wouldn't it benifit society if the age of consent was raised to 18?

I guess what I am trying to ask is where do you draw the line between when morals can be used to make laws and when it is just "forcing" your beliefs on others?
I think I was setting my morals aside to a great degree when I said that 18 was a good age for consent. If I only listened to my morals then sex before marriage would be outlawed.
But that just begs the question that would outlawing it realistically cause the effects that you state as desirable

Perhaps there are children younger than 16 mature enough physically and mentally to safely become active in this area. But until all children are mature enough, then 16 is the benchmark I'm sticking to. You have to have a line that cannot be crossed, because individually testing children for 'sexual maturity' would be completely impractical (and probably impossible).

The fact that this law is completely unenforced and that children will engage in sexual activities much younger than this whether they are ready or not seems to render this whole debate useless, though.

Think about when you first lost your virginity...Or atleast when you first WANTED to loose it. Do you remember what your mentality was back then? At the age of 15-17 the human mind and body have changed and adapted to its world. Pysically a person regardless of sex, is ready to reproduce, why would "nature" make you like this if it wasnt time for sex? Do any ofther animals in the wild mature first, then wait 3 or 4 years to then reproduce? DONT FORGET PEOPLE! WE ARE ANIMALS! WE ARE MAMMALS LIKE LIONS< DOGS< OR RATS! Difference? Ofcourse there is... we have a voice box! Thats it. Those who think otherwise, well then excuse me for being "uncivilized". Beside the fact that most Western countries are the only ones who share this belief. The rest of the world see, 'sex' as more recreational than anything. Regardless of age. Dont get me wrong, Im not for orgies or unprotected sex or child porn. NEVER! But hopefully most of you get the basic idea. Nature is nature. Life is Life, if you want to live your life by another mans rules than so be it. If you like being governed by the snakes, the illuminati mind state... fine... P.E.A.C.E. be with you!



SALAM!

Difference? Ofcourse there is... we have a voice box! Thats it.




And they dont?

I wonder how a cat meow's without their own voice box how bout chimps ... do they not also have a voice box?

Seriously though I have a feeling there are a few more differences then just a voice box

when i was a kid, i masturbated a lot. and by a lot i mean A LOT.
and by A LOT i mean around 7 times a day

when i was a kid, i masturbated a lot. and by a lot i mean A LOT.
and by A LOT i mean around 7 times a day
Thank you so much for that TMI post. :rolleyes:

Those of you who selected any age in the poll less than 17 need to explain yourselves. I would bet my next year's pay that none of you have children that age! :(

Those of you who selected any age in the poll less than 17 need to explain yourselves. I would bet my next year's pay that none of you have children that age! :(Well, the legal age has little to do with the age most people would want their offspring starting at.

Another Pedophile thread?

There is already a thread on this. And first and foremost, the age of consent should be 16. Anything lower is not acceptable. Children are not fully developed sexually or emotionally. To advocate lowering the age of consent below 16, would advocate rape.


I agree. Although, many arent even mature enough at this age.

I dont agree with anything under 16 yrs of age.

And when my 20 mo old daughter nears 16, I will change my opinion to 19.

when i was a kid, i masturbated a lot. and by a lot i mean A LOT.
and by A LOT i mean around 7 times a day


Was there a squeegee in the house, I hope? That really calls for a planned procedure to be in place.

Riight. And you were raised by bible-thumping Christians who would wack you if you "let of steam" by sexually pleasing yourself, eh? Way to go, pass the tradition on ;)

As for the topic - a certaint age is not equal rape...f.eg, should we prosecute teen's if they fuck each-other? Not like I care. The point isn't the consential age - but if it's forced or not....then it could be any couple for what I see...but as'for at, my country has 16 year's old o'age, so I voted, 15-16 (A.k.a. lowering it a year) - Can't be too radical (Yet?) huh? I guess I can explain this choiche easily: I've never been raped, true, but, I don't consider that an usual case of a teenager...a kid's more like under 14 or somethin' in my eyes, but I wouldn't go lower :)

Those of you who selected any age in the poll less than 17 need to explain yourselves. I would bet my next year's pay that none of you have children that age! :(
No I don’t … maybe that adds to my objectivity and realization that my wishes as a parent should not necessarily or automatically translate into legislation

Thank you so much for that TMI post. :rolleyes:
you are most welcome :)

Those of you who selected any age in the poll less than 17 need to explain yourselves. I would bet my next year's pay that none of you have children that age! :(

My children are all much younger than that, but I think AoC laws are a bit stupid. And I bet everyone who voted less than 17 has actually been less than 17. I know i wanted to have sex when i was less than 17. Didn't you? I really don't feel that I was damaged by it.

I believe that sexual abuse is abuse, and as such is very very wrong.

What the age of consent law says is that sex with someone below a certain age is always abuse, and I'm not sure that is true.

If, when I was a horny masturbating 11 year old, some nice person I felt comfortable with had kindly offered to blow me, I think I would have been nervous and overjoyed. I have been capable of erection all of my life that I can remember. I don't think it would have been abuse.

The age of consent for all sexual acts should be the age of majority. Period. If the age of majority is 18 in one country, the age of consent should be 18.

Why? You seem totally sure about this, but why? Give at least one reason. Historically, people have gotten married around age 13. Why was this bad? Human beings become sexually mature ie able to produce children at this sort of age. Why have a law preventing them from doing what they are entirely capable of doing until some arbitrary age?

And no, having sex isn't like driving a car. I don't believe I should need a license for my penis.

My children are all much younger than that, but I think AoC laws are a bit stupid. And I bet everyone who voted less than 17 has actually been less than 17. I know i wanted to have sex when i was less than 17. Didn't you? I really don't feel that I was damaged by it.

I believe that sexual abuse is abuse, and as such is very very wrong.

What the age of consent law says is that sex with someone below a certain age is always abuse, and I'm not sure that is true.

If, when I was a horny masturbating 11 year old, some nice person I felt comfortable with had kindly offered to blow me, I think I would have been nervous and overjoyed. I have been capable of erection all of my life that I can remember. I don't think it would have been abuse.
I am not under 17 and voted for a 16 year old age of consent ... so whatever you bet you just lost

And I bet everyone who voted less than 17 has actually been less than 17


So are you telling me that you have NOT actually been less than 17?
You were born 18 years old?

So are you telling me that you have NOT actually been less than 17?
You were born 18 years old?
Ahhh the wording through me off I apologize

the age of consent is NOT about when its OK for a person to start having sex. i would put that age at "when you are living your own life outside of your parents home" or if i had to put a number on it, 18.

the age of consent is about what age of person it is acceptable for you to have sex WITH. who is fair game and who isnt?

below what age would you throw a man (or woman) into prison, deny them the right to vote and hold certain professions, make them register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives and be repeatedly driven from their homes by angry neighbors afraid for the safety of their children? at what age would it mean that this person is no longer acceptable in society?

that age aint 17.

im my opinion the age below which a fully consentual and loving sexual relationship is can never be allowed is 14, the age when most people are in highschool.

does this mean i think that 14 year olds should be having sex? no.

it means that if a 20 year old is found to have had sex with a 14 year old s/he doesnt automatically go to prison and have their life ruined for it.

here's a great idea:

let's stop having sex, and stop reproducing, too. just think about it: we can cleanse the earth within a generation or so! it'll be great!

here's a great idea:

let's stop having sex, and stop reproducing, too. just think about it: we can cleanse the earth within a generation or so! it'll be great!


See the problem with this? Only intelligent people want to cleanse the earth and get rid of all the trashy, unintelligent people right? Here's the problem. The T.U.P.'s (Trashy Unintelligent People), which is not determined by race, age, economic status, or geographic location, are always making more babies. The only possible way to "cleanse" is to sterilize everyone, because no one, not even the intelligent people, will stop having sex. It's fun.

So...in short...that isn't an option.

I think the age of consent should be 16 personally. And in many ways it should be weighted for males and females. Males tend to regard sex as a part of a relationship or as something to do. Females can often at that age consider sex the entire relationship (i.e. sex = love forever).

Sex is a messed up thing and putting an age on when it's okay or when someone is old enough to have a sexual relationship is a bit ridiculous, considering various factors go into the development of the coping mechanisms involved in having that type of relationship.

Sure I'm all over the place...but it's monday people, give me a break.

The only possible way to "cleanse" is to sterilize everyone, because no one, not even the intelligent people, will stop having sex. It's fun.Actually, there was a Christian sect that preached total abstinence, as sex was a dirty thing and must be avoided at all costs. They couldn't maintain a flow of converts, however, and died out.

The only possible way to "cleanse" is to sterilize everyone, because no one, not even the intelligent people, will stop having sex. It's fun. Um… you don't seem to be suggesting any alternatives that will have a great effect.
However, chlamydia is quite a good thing in this respect as it sterilises those who get it.

yeah, balipo, just a dream =( "inherently flawed," i say.

that sect sounded like good people. they did their part.

personally, i'd say go for an unusually high age of consent. twenty-one oughtta do it, or hell, maybe even older. most people are really nothing more than "old children," so we may as well keep their sticks out of the mud as long as we can. on the other side of that, i'd also go for no age of consent at all, because that way, we could just let the insanity unfold as it was meant to.

all or nothing, my friends.

yeah, balipo, just a dream =( "inherently flawed," i say.

that sect sounded like good people. they did their part.

personally, i'd say go for an unusually high age of consent. twenty-one oughtta do it, or hell, maybe even older. most people are really nothing more than "old children," so we may as well keep their sticks out of the mud as long as we can. on the other side of that, i'd also go for no age of consent at all, because that way, we could just let the insanity unfold as it was meant to.

all or nothing, my friends. Yes, but laws on consent HAVE VIRTUALLY NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. Unless all those teens got pregnant by immaculate conception, in which case the whole issue is moot, since Armageddon is probably about to take place.

Yes, but laws on consent HAVE VIRTUALLY NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. Unless all those teens got pregnant by immaculate conception, in which case the whole issue is moot, since Armageddon is probably about to take place.

that's why we would then need to hire us up some "sex police," so they could go around policing everyone's intimate practices. either that, or we could just install chastity devices onto each and everyone one of our precious human beings. that, or we could let them opt into sterilization or surgical removal of their genitals.

sounds like good news to me!

that's why we would then need to hire us up some "sex police," so they could go around policing everyone's intimate practices. either that, or we could just install chastity devices onto each and everyone one of our precious human beings. that, or we could let them opt into sterilization or surgical removal of their genitals.

sounds like good news to me! Of course, another important aspect of law is that it's practical. Please do not attempt to force one of those horrendously painful-looking male chastity belts onto me.

[EDIT/] Another mildly cockeyed idea would be to sterilise people at birth and only reverse the procedure after they're married and thus stably safe to have children. Actually, maybe it's not that cockeyed.

Of course, another important aspect of law is that it's practical. Please do not attempt to force one of those horrendously painful-looking male chastity belts onto me.

hey, it only hurts for a little bit. then you go numb!

Um… you don't seem to be suggesting any alternatives that will have a great effect.
However, chlamydia is quite a good thing in this respect as it sterilises those who get it.


I don't want an alternative.

And the clap doesn't permanently sterilize. Only temporarily. Permanent sterility via chlamydia is a myth.

hey, it only hurts for a little bit. then you go numb!

Lisk doesn't need a chastity belt. Hell, he is a chastity belt.

Lisk doesn't need a chastity belt. Hell, he is a chastity belt. That COULD be implying that I am a dickhead… or a man of steel… have you seen those male chastity belts? You do NOT want to get excited in those.

But that just begs the question that would outlawing it realistically cause the effects that you state as desirable
I really don't think outlawing it would be realistic, or right. like I said I am fighting with many parts of my personality. That would be if I only listened to my moral part not to my American part that realizes that for me to have freedom others do also.

Personally, I think that it should be 18, after what crap is flying between teenagers here in Essex, and the less said about teenage preganacies, the better. Or perhaps a better solution would be to have only protected sex 16-18. Two of my best mates was close to getting chlaymidia and passing it on to others by having sex at 15/16. This sort of stuff should not be happening, especially as I saw their relationship every day, and knew that weren't ready for it, and eventually proved right. (Jeez, I really do sound like a boring git!) Summink needs to prevent that from happening, and I'm not just talking about law. I just did GCSE Personal Development which virtually encourages 16 year olds like myself to have sex, which ain't right.

But then, I've never been in a relationship ( :( )and so wouldn't know much about the 'want' to do it in a relationship. How depressing...

That COULD be implying that I am a dickhead… or a man of steel… have you seen those male chastity belts? You do NOT want to get excited in those.

I've never seen them...but judging from that statement, I don't want to.

And I wasn't implying you were a dickhead, or a man of steel (deflate that ego). Just that you are so anti-sex that i could see you as causing other people to lose their excitement for the sport via your chatter about the non-plusses.

I've never seen them...but judging from that statement, I don't want to.

And I wasn't implying you were a dickhead, or a man of steel (deflate that ego). Just that you are so anti-sex that i could see you as causing other people to lose their excitement for the sport via your chatter about the non-plusses. I am Stalin! Ahem.
Firstly, I am not "anti-sex" (much). You're confusing me with Armandian Cheese.
Also, you are failing to be coherent again. "Non-plusses" - if I am correct, that means confusions. Anyway, you seem to be saying that I deflate people's libidos, correct?

I am Stalin! Ahem.
Firstly, I am not "anti-sex" (much). You're confusing me with Armandian Cheese.
Also, you are failing to be coherent again. "Non-plusses" - if I am correct, that means confusions. Anyway, you seem to be saying that I deflate people's libidos, correct?

Basically...it's monday man, cut me a break...

I could agree to the Ago of Censent being 17 with no problem.
I am sure one day it will be 16 in the not to far flung future.
But I would hope that there would be conditions set such as.
It is illegal to have sex with a person under 18 if you are in a position of trust of authority, or responsible in a relationship of dependence, with them. This applies to teachers, lifeguards, coaches, guardians, social workers, childcare workers, babysitters, etc., whether or not they are under 18 themselves. It doesn't matter whether they are male or female.


Regards,

JMayo

I think the thing is that people are often under the impression that they can't catch STDs from oral/mutual materbation/toys - and so do not take precautions and hence can end up at a fairly large risk due to a false sense of security.
There are a number of STDs that can be transferred by the *safe* options if care is not taken and while they are generally not the more dangerous ones they can still be very unpleasant, damaging to health and can also be unknowingly transferred to another.
Agreed that for the same level of precaution most of the options (apart from anal) are safer than normal sex, however a false sense of security and lack of precaution that can acompany the *safer* options can lead to them being more unsafe than conventional sex due to lack of precaution taken.

Meh, that's easy fixed. If sex ed in high schools was comprehensive rather than forever being bowldlerized in the name of not offending the community (or worse yet, being replaced by hopelessly inadequate Abstinence Only) programs, we'd be able to teach the youth of today not only that there are safer alternatives to sex, but how to effectively manage the risks of these alernatives.

Plus if society as a whole could actually deal with the topic of human sexuality without collectively blushing or getting offended, then the kids who don't pay attention in class would still pick it up from their parents or peers :D

My children are all much younger than that, but I think AoC laws are a bit stupid. And I bet everyone who voted less than 17 has actually been less than 17. I know i wanted to have sex when i was less than 17. Didn't you? I really don't feel that I was damaged by it.

I believe that sexual abuse is abuse, and as such is very very wrong.

What the age of consent law says is that sex with someone below a certain age is always abuse, and I'm not sure that is true.

If, when I was a horny masturbating 11 year old, some nice person I felt comfortable with had kindly offered to blow me, I think I would have been nervous and overjoyed. I have been capable of erection all of my life that I can remember. I don't think it would have been abuse.

Actually I'm getting annoyingly close to 30 and I voted for 16 as the age of consent. But that's probably largely because down here in Australia, the age of consent in all states has always been 16 for heterosexual sex, and in the last decade or two the age of consent for homosexual sex (which varied from being outright banned in some places due to old laws that were still on the books, through to 18 or 21 in some states) has recently been brought down to 16 as well so as not to be discriminatory.

And really, 16 seems to be an age that works out well for the most part. it means you don't have ridiculous situations like 21 year olds being sent to prison and registered as sex offenders for having 17 year old partners, but it's still more than adequate to protect the most vulnerable (young teens who are just getting all hormonal and haven't figured out up from down yet) from being preyed upon by cynical older men and women.

That being said though, they could bump the age of consent all the way up to 21 and I'd only be opposed to it on principle, since I can't stand being around young whippernsappers for any reason at all these days :)

i dont know why people keep bringing up child sexuality and AOC since most people are not able to talk about it without resorting to insults and threats.
how can you expect the average ADULT to be able to handle such a complicated topic when they cant even have an intelligent conversation about politics and the present government corruption and manipulation of the masses through the use of the media?

everyone has been conditioned to believe that:

1. kids are not sexual beings
2. they would never be interested in sex,especially with an older partner
3. if you find one who is,you should stop the kid immediately!
4. all males are potential rapists
5. sex is dirty,naughty,nasty,sinful... I.E its just WRONG!
6. if you lower or remove the AOC,our whole society will crumble,and mass
raping of children will ensue
7. anyone who wants to talk about this and expresses anything less than
total contempt MUST be a baby raper....

knowing this,why do people keep starting threads on it? are you trying to piss
people off? the last such thread was locked after it turned into a flame war(as i predicted). the masses cant handle rational debate. best leave it alone....

i dont know why people keep bringing up child sexuality and AOC since most people are not able to talk about it without resorting to insults and threats.
how can you expect the average ADULT to be able to handle such a complicated topic when they cant even have an intelligent conversation about politics and the present government corruption and manipulation of the masses through the use of the media?

everyone has been conditioned to believe that:

1. kids are not sexual beings
2. they would never be interested in sex,especially with an older partner
3. if you find one who is,you should stop the kid immediately!
4. all males are potential rapists
5. sex is dirty,naughty,nasty,sinful... I.E its just WRONG!
6. if you lower or remove the AOC,our whole society will crumble,and mass
raping of children will ensue
7. anyone who wants to talk about this and expresses anything less than
total contempt MUST be a baby raper....

knowing this,why do people keep starting threads on it? are you trying to piss
people off? the last such thread was locked after it turned into a flame war(as i predicted). the masses cant handle rational debate. best leave it alone....

I could agree to the Ago of Censent being 17 with no problem.
I am sure one day it will be 16 in the not to far flung future.
But I would hope that there would be conditions set such as.
It is illegal to have sex with a person under 18 if you are in a position of trust of authority, or responsible in a relationship of dependence, with them. This applies to teachers, lifeguards, coaches, guardians, social workers, childcare workers, babysitters, etc., whether or not they are under 18 themselves. It doesn't matter whether they are male or female.


Regards,

JMayo
I think according an age difference provision would be easier to enforce then trying to define what a person of trust or authority is

EDIT: Statement retracted. My apologies. I misread this post.

I think according an age difference provision would be easier to enforce then trying to define what a person of trust or authority is

Don't flame me or nothing mate, but do you think that a teacher or a sports coach or anyone should be able to have sex with a student? I personally think that opens up a can of worms with regard to students being manipulated or used.

Well, I'm 15, and I know a few people who have lost their virginity for sure, and a couple others who I think have. They're either 15 or 16... Personally, I think sex should wait as long as possible and should be shared with someone very special (i.e. marriage) because as much as the kids wish it will last, the high school relationships that they said were "true love" WILL most likely fall apart.

Despite my personal beliefs on the subject, I would say between teens, once you are 15 or 16 it is consent. If one is 18 or older, they BOTH (or all 3 or 4.. whatever) need to be 18.

There is no way in hell I would have waited until age 16. I was fully sexually mature and perfectly capable of making informed decisions at the age of 13. This idea that nature doesn't know what it's doing and needs to be legislated and babysat and hand-held needs to end. For hundreds of thousands of years people have started having children as soon as their bodies were old enough to do so. People only remain children as long as society tells them they are children.
Great points

Why is this resricted to only sexuality? When "SEX" is involved people can't seem to think straight. I voted to eliminate AoC laws altogether, mainly because I feel that a crime should be treated as a crime. That means rape is rape, regardless of age differences, and murder and other felonies are treated as such and not swept under the rug when a criminal becomes of age.

What is the purpose of consent laws? If it is there to protect children it isn't doing a very good job, bad things still happen to our kids with or without them.

Lowering or increasing the age of consent will do absolutlely nil to change that. If you want to protect your children give them a lo-jack braclet, mace keychain, arrange for a walking patner; protecting children is a partent's responsibility not the gov't's.

The worst thing that AoC tells our kids is that they have no free will, and that they can get away with anything (in many cases murder) until they hit 18.

Great points

Why is this resricted to only sexuality? When "SEX" is involved people can't seem to think straight. I voted to eliminate AoC laws altogether, mainly because I feel that a crime should be treated as a crime. That means rape is rape, regardless of age differences, and murder and other felonies are treated as such and not swept under the rug when a criminal becomes of age.

What is the purpose of consent laws? If it is there to protect children it isn't doing a very good job, bad things still happen to our kids with or without them.

Lowering or increasing the age of consent will do absolutlely nil to change that. If you want to protect your children give them a lo-jack braclet, mace keychain, arrange for a walking patner; protecting children is a partent's responsibility not the gov't's.
The worst thing that AoC tells our kids is that they have no free will, and that they can get away with anything (in many cases murder) until they hit 18.

1. That's very true, but in many cases, the parents don't protect their children. So it's left to the government to do what's best for the majority of children.

2. That's because in many cases, children are unable to determine the meaning of the consequences of their actions until at least their 20's. They have free will, they just don't know how it can impact on their life until they are much older. 18 is a cultural not psychologically valid construct. But it's the best one we've got.

1. That's very true, but in many cases, the parents don't protect their children. So it's left to the government to do what's best for the majority of children.

2. That's because in many cases, children are unable to determine the meaning of the consequences of their actions until at least their 20's. They have free will, they just don't know how it can impact on their life until they are much older. 18 is a cultural not psychologically valid construct. But it's the best one we've got.

The gov't does protect our children when the parents fail to but they often do a bad job (think NJ's DYFS) and the main point is, age of consent laws is not what is protecting them.

This belief that the gov't will come and save us from our bad parenting is a dangerous one. We should be the ones monitoring our children, informing them and punishing them. It's easy to "kids will be kids" and let them run around acting the way they do. If they make a mistake (like sleep with a older man) then they should live up to their mistakes and learn from them (hopefully with the right info they will not make that mistake to begin with).

The worst thing about AoC laws is that if your son is assulted or killed by teenager that is not of age, then they will get away with a slap on the wrist. Juvie hall in the US is joke and just a place to train teenage criminals to be adult criminals. This is from personal experience working at a group home, if a teenager is unable to feel the full consequence of his actions he just won't learn, no matter what his/her age. It's true that teens feel that they are untouchable but what signal are we sending when we let them get away with crime?

i dont know why people keep bringing up child sexuality and AOC since most people are not able to talk about it without resorting to insults and threats.
how can you expect the average ADULT to be able to handle such a complicated topic when they cant even have an intelligent conversation about politics and the present government corruption and manipulation of the masses through the use of the media?

everyone has been conditioned to believe that:

1. kids are not sexual beings
2. they would never be interested in sex,especially with an older partner
3. if you find one who is,you should stop the kid immediately!
4. all males are potential rapists
5. sex is dirty,naughty,nasty,sinful... I.E its just WRONG!
6. if you lower or remove the AOC,our whole society will crumble,and mass
raping of children will ensue
7. anyone who wants to talk about this and expresses anything less than
total contempt MUST be a baby raper....

knowing this,why do people keep starting threads on it? are you trying to piss
people off? the last such thread was locked after it turned into a flame war(as i predicted). the masses cant handle rational debate. best leave it alone....
Yup people act like sex is what will de-evolve us into apes..... the last thread turned into a flame fest with the sole intent to have it closed.

It started off as a rational disscussion but then turned into some people rejecting some research findings, then science in general, then someone proclaimed that "it's just wrong period" and then the masses proceed to burn books and elect a new moral dictator.......

It made me very scared to live in the most religious country in the world.....

The of consent forever. That is a must in Ogletree. :fluffle:

eh


i forgot what i was gonna post :confused:

Yup people act like sex is what will de-evolve us into apes..... the last thread turned into a flame fest with the sole intent to have it closed.

It started off as a rational disscussion but then turned into some people rejecting some research findings, then science in general, then someone proclaimed that "it's just wrong period" and then the masses proceed to burn books and elect a new moral dictator.......

It made me very scared to live in the most religious country in the world.....
Yeah me as well (though I would argue that we are the "most religious" ... we are deffinatly up there though