Age of consent

[Gamera]

There has been a debate in the Peruvian parliament recently. Whether to lower the age of consent for sex to 14 or to keep it to the current 18. In different countries there are different points of view, in South America mostly we are among the ones with the highest age limit (being 14 usually the age of consent in SA).

In my opinion it should be lowered, if not to 14, then to 16. Mainly because in the highlands, for example, they get married and form a family many times while being very young, and the "age of consent is 18" law is usually used by mothers who don't like the girl's boyfriend in order to send him to jail. That's one reason, of course there are plenty of others as well, on both sides.

Which are your opinions regarding the "age of consent" in each of your countries? Which would be a proper "age of consent"?

[Eldritch]

I don't think an age of consent of 18 is realistic, or even necessary. I'd probably set it at 16, with the maximum age difference for the partners of under 18-year olds at around five years or so.

[Vasconcelos]

I don't think an age of consent of 18 is realistic, or even necessary. I'd probably set it at 16, with the maximum age difference for the partners of under 18-year olds at around five years or so.

It's how it works here, with the partner being at most 4 years older.

[antonio]

12-14 (Spanish one is 13). Historically there were another reasons. Reason today is that average kids are exposed to too much shit to be controlled, specially taking into account the kind of "parents" some children have.

[Grumpy Cat]

In Canada, it's 14 for heterosexual sex, but the current government wants to raise it to 16. I agree to this.

It's 18 or 19 for homosexual sex.

[Austin]

In Texas seventeen is the legal age of sexual consent.

Literally though it is a joke of a law. Some girls who are 14-16 could (and often do) pass as 20-25 physical-looks wise.


The Mexicans are all pregnant in my city by the time they are 17 usually. I'm not joking on that, look up where most new U.S. births are, south-central Texas is the prime spot thanks to illegal aliens.

[Bloodeagle]

Here, the age of consent is 16. This does exclude those adults who are in positions of authority and trust, like teachers, police and foster parents.

[The Ripper]

Citing the famous Jimmy Carr on the Mexican age of consent (12 years of age):

I guess that's one way to deal with paedophile problem. "She looked twelve to mee" [/Mexican accent]. :p

[Sahson]

Honestly i still do not think teenagers at 16 and 17 have the mental maturity to have consensual sex...

[Austin]

From what I've seen in Texas the whites who are pregnant by 18-20 are the ones who were raised in strict country/conservative settings, the very type that will lecture you on morality will usually be pregnant by the time they are nearing college putting all the burden on their parents. Such whites are in decline though numerically and socially, I'd refer to them as what used to be. It is the suburban ones with a secular slant and motivation and or modern sensibilities who are untainted and have upward mobility in this respect, most of them do not get pregnant or get someone pregnant.

The Mexicans have a different culture in that they believe in lots of kids early on. This is partly due to a fervent Catholic mentality but also the reality that most Mexicans live in poverty. This means that more kids=more welfare money. In my city over half are Mexican and the goal of many is to become a proud welfare queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen). By 15-20 most Mexican girls are under massive pressure to marry and have kids from everyone else in their communities who largely already do. The guys refer to them as their 'baby mamas (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baby%20mama)' meaning that they are not with her but she has his child and takes care of it while he messes around.

Personally I would mandate government temporary-sterilization for all minorities till the age of 24. It would save the taxpayer hundreds of millions in wasted welfare costs.

[antonio]

Honestly i still do not think teenagers at 16 and 17 have the mental maturity to have consensual sex...

Well, at least at Spain, other options are plainly ridiculized, so I cant get the point of penalizing teenager of with-teenager behaviours when just two years after those behaviours would mean normality. For not to talk about homosexual sexuality, openly exposed in schools as a respectable alternative from 10 or 12 y.o. ...blame it on teachers and politicians if sons and daughters are applying school-learned tolerance and knowledge before eighteen.

[Liffrea]

I believe there should be a mandatory IQ test at 18 with sterilisation automatic for chavs (who frankly should be strangled at birth with their own umbilical chord).

[Foxy]

http://www.reallygoodfriend.com/images/age_of_consent_laws_worldwide.jpg

In Italy it is of 14. I think it is a realistic choice and I'd mantain it.
What shocked me was to see that in Yemen the age is only of 9. I think that at that age it is lecit to speak only of rape.
I also think it is too strick the choices of Australia and the US to have an age of 16 at least, when most people there do sex before that age.

[Grumpy Cat]

Age of consent in Madagascar is 21?

[Grumpy Cat]

http://www.reallygoodfriend.com/images/age_of_consent_laws_worldwide.jpg

In Italy it is of 14. I think it is a realistic choice and I'd mantain it.
What shocked me was to see that in Yemen the age is only of 9. I think that at that age it is lecit to speak only of rape.
I also think it is too strick the choices of Australia and the US to have an age of 16 at least, when most people there do sex before that age.

Well I used to think 16 was too old until I found out my 16 year old cousin was screwing a 21 year old. Love to have his ass arrested like the predator he is, but alas, it's legal.

I'm sorry, no adult who dates a teenage girl is not a creep, since most teenage girls have low self-esteem and are easy to take advantage of.

[Wyn]

I also think it is too strick the choices of Australia and the US to have an age of 16 at least, when most people there do sex before that age.

Most people? Wow, that's very sad if true. Do you have any actual statistics?

In my glorious republic the age of consent is 16, but a male of any age can have sex with a female providing she is over 16, to my knowledge (which theoretically means that a 12 year old boy can have sex with a 45 year old woman...).

[la bombe]

It's 16 in my state and I think that's perfect.

[Bloodeagle]

Most people? Wow, that's very sad if true. Do you have any actual statistics?

:icon_ask: I was 14 but she was an experienced 15 year old.:redface_002:

[M.I.A.]

Why is 10 an option?

[SwordoftheVistula]

I'm sorry, no adult who dates a teenage girl is not a creep, since most teenage girls have low self-esteem and are easy to take advantage of.

Wouldn't the same apply to teenage males dating teenage girls, under that logic?

[lei.talk]

Well I used to think 16 was too old until I found out my 16 year old cousin was screwing a 21 year old. Love to have his ass arrested like the predator he is, but alas, it's legal.

I'm sorry, no adult who dates a teenage girl is not a creep, since most teenage girls have low self-esteem and are easy to take advantage of.
your experience is a strange contrast
to the teen-aged girls
that have routinely approached me for sex
over the past thirty-five years. :confused:

they are intelligent, self-confident and frustrated
by their chronological peers:

early in the conversation,
they always complain that
"Boys my age are so-o-o immature/dumb/inexperienced! "

occasionally accompanied with
"They just don't understand women."

perhaps, your cousin had similar frustrations?

[Sunray]

The age of consent is a funny thing. It is a law which is broken all the time, even though the consequences of getting caught weigh heavy. The sex offender's register is no place to be, and does not differentiate between the 16 year old sleeping with his 1 year younger girlfriend and the paedo. Thankfully where sexual behaviour transgresses the law but not our society's definition of 'fine' it is very unlikely the transgressee will be handed up. Of course in a diverse society where 'fine' is wildly variant this helps less. Still 16 seems about the point where the vast majority are developed enough for sex, even if when I was younger 15 was more normal. Indeed it was seen as important to give consent before the legal age, but not too much before - very British rebelliousness.

[Agrippa]

I'm sorry, no adult who dates a teenage girl is not a creep, since most teenage girls have low self-esteem and are easy to take advantage of.

That's not the problem of the male, if a female is sexually mature, it is interesting and if the parents and relatives didn't raise her otherwise, to not have any sex at all, it is just normal for a male "to try it", even more so if being approached by the female. That's a normal biological functionality.

If you don't want it, you must raise the girls to not do it and to not agree on a sexual relationship with an older man. If they do agree, you can't blame the male unless he used "strange methods" for a person which is disable in one way or another.

Most girls at the age of 16+ aren't though and that's a reasonable age in my opinion.

14 is an option, but there are still many unclear cases in that age category, so one would have to make an individual based decision rather, whether a person is sexually mature or not, so 16 is already higher, but the more secure standard.

Below 14 is no option for European Europids in any case, because too many are sexually and mentally immature, individual differences can't change that if it's about making general rules.

So I'd say 14 for males to the age of 21, otherwise individual evaluation in critical cases and 16 as a general age of consent regardless of the partner's age.

[Sunray]

your experience is a strange contrast
to the teen-aged girls
that have routinely approached me for sex
over the past thirty-five years. :confused:

they are intelligent, self-confident and frustrated
by their chronological peers:

early in the conversation,
they always complain that
"Boys my age are so-o-o immature/dumb/inexperienced! "

occasionally accompanied with
"They just don't understand women."

perhaps, your cousin had similar frustrations?

When they say this they are trying to impress. Translation: 'I am mature enough for you despite the age difference.'

[Agrippa]

When they say this they are trying to impress. Translation: 'I am mature enough for you despite the age difference.'

Women always try to get the status males and fact is, biologically, females have their best age earlier than males and can't achieve much more later in life. Whereas a male matures later, just compare 14 year old girls and boys, the difference is usually just HUGE if talking about sexual and mental maturation., and PROVES his abilities later in life.

A younger male might "promise" success for a female, but a successful mature male HAS PROVEN IT, whereas the same is completely irrelevant for a female, which is sexually mature and fertile from a certain age on and that's it.

If you reduce things to the sheer biological facts that's what everything is about. If a female is genetically and memetically programmed to go for the status male, the natural choice will be, on average, the older bloke.

Many people say the females just go for the money, but in fact, if a young and good looking male goes for an old female, it should be much more often just the money than vice versa, because as I said, the successful status male has proven "something" - at least from an ethological point of view - for the female too, the older female on the other hand can't offer anything for biological success than money and ressources alone since her fertility will definitely lower to gone.

And going on in the same pattern, youth is a much more important criteria for females than males. So a female below average for her age group, has still an advantage for older males.

What I saw quite often are highest level young and old males with highest level young females and higher level older males with medium level younger ones.

You get the deal again? She can't get a male of that niveau at her age, but she can get the older male of a higher niveau which has basically the same traits and genes, probably even PROVEN his abilities to care and provide, being socially successful, surviving the time, being materially better off and so on.

I can just wonder if people question those very basic principles of human sexual behaviour and social-biological selection, try to pathologise normal behaviour of both sides, as if there are just perverted-wicked older males and disoriented girls doing what they do...

What I really wonder about is that there seem to be different female strategies in that regard, be it by genetic or memetic reasons, or both. Because some go primarily to only for younger males, some don't differentiate and others prefer older ones.

The "fatherless syndrome" alone seems to be insufficient, I guess there is more going on in that normal differentiation among females. I observed such differences even among siblings at times and the way they came to their preferences remains - to a certain degree, still a mystery to me.

[Sunray]

Instinctively I believe you are mostly right, minus girls maturing faster after 16.

Evolutionary psychology does not explain everything, however. I do not formally date girls say 18/19. I would feel very awkward introducing such girls to my friends especially other girls. They would ascribe the results of such actions as me being unable to get over my ex properly.

Then again I wonder whether that is because I am closer to 18 and have a natural need to distance myself from that age, and my female friends' comments would derive more from being threatened than anything else.

[Agrippa]

Instinctively I believe you are mostly right, minus girls maturing faster after 16.

Evolutionary psychology does not explain everything, however. I do not formally date girls say 18/19. I would feel very awkward introducing such girls to my friends especially other girls. They would ascribe the results of such actions as me being unable to get over my ex properly.

That are social norms, they can be very influential and change like the weather...


Then again I wonder whether that is because I am closer to 18 and have a natural need to distance myself from that age, and my female friends' comments would derive more from being threatened than anything else.

Most males at the age of lets say 14-16 I knew dreamt of older women too, because older meant "the ideal age" = 17-25 for Europeans.

In fact, regardless of being younger or older, a male should prefer, by default and without considering other factors and traits, that "ideal age".

Whether you have a girl which is 17 or 25 is only important for the period she is "in the ideal age", if she is 17, she is for 8 years in that category and this is also the age ideal for biological reproduction obviously.

Needless to say, if the social norm tells you that the age of 18 is "strange" for chosing your mate, you can still go for a 20-25 in your age and even take an older one without trade-offs.


minus girls maturing faster after 16

Females mature (maximal) to about 17-19 - males 21-23 if it's about the growth too, about maturation in general:


The beginning of the increase in growth velocity is about age 11 in boys and 9 in girls but varies widely from individual to individual.

The peak height velocity occurs at a mean of 13.5 years in boys and 11.5 years in girls.

Pubertal growth accounts for about 20% of final adult height, a total averaging 23-28 cm in females and 26-28 cm in males.

The average growth spurt lasts 24-36 months.

Growth during the year of PHV in the normal female averages 9 cm/yr and varies normally from 5.4 cm to 11.2 cm. In the normal male, the PHV averages 10.3 cm/yr and varies normally from 5.8 cm to 13.1 cm.

Males on average are 12-13 cm taller than females primarily because of the 2-year delay in bone closure as compared to females. This accounts for about a 10-cm difference between the two sexes; in addition, males also have 2-3 cm more of growth during their growth spurt.



http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/Health_Center/adolhealth/content/a1.html



On average, female growth velocity trails off to zero at about 15 years, whereas the male curve continues for approximately 3 more years, going to zero at about 18. These are also critical periods where stressors such as malnutrition (or even severe child neglect) have the greatest effect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/AvgGrowthCurveMF.JPG

Average (50th percentile) growth curves for male and female 0-18 years

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/AvgGrowthCurveMF.JPG

[themandylion]

The age of consent should be one year after the first menstruation AND when the parents reasonably decide the young lady is mature enough for such a decision, OR, age 16, whichever comes first.

That said, sex between a willing girl who has reached puberty and a male should never be classed as "child molestation." Though a true predator should be subject to the father's will. ;)

[Agrippa]

The age of consent should be one year after the first menstruation AND when the parents reasonably decide the young lady is mature enough for such a decision, OR, age 16, whichever comes first.

That said, sex between a willing girl who has reached puberty and a male should never be classed as "child molestation." Though a true predator should be subject to the father's will. ;)

It is worth to mention that the age of sexual maturity is not the same between races, populations, climatic and geographical regions, nutritional status, individual differences and over time.

F.e. in the past the first menstruation came much later - before secular acceleration - than now and this was more true if the individual had serious diseases, malnutrition and/or lived in a colder climate area.

So there are really significant differences between individuals, based on different factors. Some are really sexually mature at the age of 13, others about 17 even, it really depends on the exact traits and circumstances.

Just to make the topic more complete.

What's true for the physical sexual maturity is also true for the mental development, though some people never reach the niveau of many 13 year old even at the age of 30 and beyond of course, which is also part of the "individual variation"...

[The Lawspeaker]

Right now it's 16 in the Netherlands and I think that that's realistic (it could be set on 15 for all I care because I believe in "steps towards adulthood."). The rate of teenage pregnancies is rather low here in the Netherlands (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-teenage-pregnancy-rates-so-high-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-1623828.html) (the lowest in all of Europe) because of a culture of openness and the relative easy access to sexual education (although in my experience those living in immigrant communities, conservative areas AND juvenile care facilities should be specifically targeted for improvement as those are risk groups. The same goes for those sleeping with migrants.)

[The Lawspeaker]

What do I mean with "steps towards adulthood." ? We now have the ridiculous idea that people at age 18 are fully ready to take on the world. The brain doesn't work that way and perhaps we can instead let the transfer to becoming a mature human being go in stages as depending on the person and the development of his or her brain.

Age 12. A child can be heard in court in divorce cases. His or her decision will be the deciding factor.

Age 15. Jugendweihe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugendweihe) or confirmation. Adolescence starts. Age of consent.

Age 21. Financial and partial independence (can be given from the age 16 too in case of certain parental issues). Your parents are no longer legally responsible for you.

Age 25. Military service, driving license, full independence.

[Debaser11]

How is having sex a "step towards adulthood"? It's not necessarily part of maturing in the mental sense. Anyone can have sex, unfortunately. I would think learning to show restraint toward sex would be a step toward adulthood. Delaying gratification and the urge to do something because some bodily impulse tells you to do so is what should be encouraged.

I'd be fine with keeping the age of consent on the high side (17). I don't know that I'd throw the book at a guy who had sex with a consenting fifteen year old, though.

[The Lawspeaker]

Let's forget about the American morality lessons for a while. We only have to look at the discrepancies in teenage pregnancies and STD-rates to know that we will learn nothing from them. And perhaps our British brethren can learn a thing of two from the continental European approach too. "Nuff said.

Mature people (and teenagers are well on their way to becoming that with all the urges and cravings attached to it) have sex. It's normal and healthy but there should be a set law. At age 15 or 16 a person is mentally capable enough to handle such stuff and a lot of boyfriends or girlfriends that are slightly older. It's a natural thing.

[Debaser11]

Let's forget about the American morality lessons for a while.

An undeservedly condescending way to blow off an argument. Again, I didn't bring patriotic chauvinism into this discussion, either. Is that a knee-jerk thing for you to use the American nationality as an ad hominem attack?

What if I were to say: "How about you can your silly Dutch relativism?"

Well, that'd be a first for me. Think about that.


We only have to look at the discrepancies in teenage pregnancies and STD-rates. "Nuff said.

How many minorities do you have in your country? Not as many as we do. And guess what? Minorities are the ones with the high STD rates who tend to spread them and who also are the ones largely getting pregnant as teenagers. Secondly, who said anything about America being better than Europe about pregnancies and STD-rates? This is a complete non-sequitur. Did it ever occur to you that there are things outside of the consent question that could also factor into pregnancies and STD-rates? Lowering the age of consent (and thus making sex permissive) wouldn't seem to help the matter. Furthermore, you have no evidence that raising the age of consent even in Europe and being less loose about sex wouldn't help lower your own STD rates.

And should we just push condoms onto 14 year olds so they can forever treat sex as a leisurely game and have the same stellar birthrates found among Europe's native population rather than emphasizing that sex is something sacred rather than being a "step"?


Mature people have sex.

Of course. So do immature people, unfortunately. People do a lot things. Big whoop. The above tells me nothing about whether the act should be done.


[It's normal and healthy

Argumentum ad naturam.


but there should be a set law. At age 15 or 16 a person is mentally capable enough to handle such stuff

Talk about an unsubstantiated claim! You can't just paintbrush an entire population as being ready for sex at that age. Obviously, it's not the same for everybody. Whether someone is "mentally capable" (the standards of which you didn't define at all) and what a society should promote to be good are two entirely different considerations.


[and a lot of boyfriends or girlfriends that are slightly older. It's a natural thing.

Again, an appeal to the natural doesn't impress me. Do you just pee in a crowded street because it's "natural and healthy" rather than let your blatter stain a bit until you find a more appropriate place to relieve yourself? When you're aroused, do you just jerk off right then and there irrespective of the time and place because it's "healthy and natural"?

[Wyn]

And should we just push condoms onto 14 year olds so they can forever treat sex as a leisurely game and have the same stellar birthrates found among Europe's native population rather than emphasizing that sex is something sacred rather than being a "step"?


This. Some time ago I was speaking to a type of social/community worker (not for my own needs, I met her when I was out and got talking about the group she's a part of), and she told me that her organisation gives condoms out to 13 year olds for free. As in, the 13 year old turns up, asks for some condoms, and they give them to them. I told her of course that this was disgusting and her response was that they'd "go and do it anyway".

Oh well, that attitude to sex certainly seems to be benefiting my country.

[The Lawspeaker]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Map-world-teenage-biological-mothers2002.svg
Rate of teenage pregnancies around the world. I don't need much more to state the obvious. The Netherlands it that very light country (very small and not next to Rome .. o.k just in case) in North-Western Europe between Britain (yes the bigger island) and Germany.
Be careful... it's the one to the north as the other one is rebel country. So please... take your morality lessons and shove 'em.






How many minorities do you have in your country?

According to the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=37325eng&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0-1,84,102,139,145,210,225&D6=a&LA=EN&HDR=G2,G3,G4,T&STB=G1,G5&VW=T) a while back. Around 3 million out of a population 16.5.


Not as many as we do. And guess what? Minorities are the ones with the high STD rates who tend to spread them and who also are the ones largely getting pregnant as teenagers. Secondly, who said anything about America being better than Europe about pregnancies and STD-rates? This is a complete non-sequitur. Did it ever occur to you that there are things outside of the consent question that could also factor into pregnancies and STD-rates? Lowering the age of consent (and thus making sex permissive) should wouldn't seem to help the matter. Furthermore, you have no evidence that raising your age of consent and being less loose about sex in your country wouldn't help lower your own STD rates.
Apparently it does as we have the lowest abortion rate, teenage pregnancy rate (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-teenage-pregnancy-rates-so-high-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-1623828.html) and I am quite sure also one of the lowest STD-rates (http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-europe.htm). A lot of teenagers have themselves checked at least once a month. As I said before: those in the risk group are the ones that don't get decent sex education and are from a conservative background. Usually the same kind of biblethumpers as that are so prevalent in the U.S.A.




How many minorities do you have in your country?

According to the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek a while back. Around 3 million out of a population 16.5.


And should we just push condoms onto 14 year olds so they can forever treat sex as a leisurely game and have the same stellar birthrates found among Europe's native population rather than emphasizing that sex is something sacred rather than being a "step"?
We don't have machines in schools yet (although some maybe have it) but every pub, a lot of restaurants and every single chemist has condoms available and it works.

[Debaser11]

This
Oh well, that attitude to sex certainly seems to be benefiting my country.

Sarcasm? Because I'd say it's not. Or does the "labor shortage" and it's likely links to sexual norms and attitudes not weigh on your mind?

[Wyn]

those in the risk group are the ones that don't get decent sex education and are from a conservative background. Usually the same kind of biblethumpers as that are so prevalent in the U.S.A.


Britain does badly in the areas of teen pregnancy etc. though, and we are not a conservative society at all. And I seem to remember sex education starting when I was about 10 or 11 years old. It was very comprehensive, too, as I recall.

[Wyn]

Sarcasm? Because I'd say it's not. Or does the "labor shortage" and it's likely links to sexual norms and attitudes not weigh on your mind?

HEAVY sarcasm, mate. If the sexual attitude of Britain as a whole was a place it could only be described as an abject shithole.

[The Lawspeaker]

Nothing that a little bit of common sense won't solve, Wyn. To the teenagers: use a bloody condom and a birth control pill. It's on the NHS (for as far as I know) so use it. And no: sex is not something you have because you're bored and alone in a room with one of the lads/lassies of the estate but because you're together as a couple and are ready for it.

[Debaser11]

Why are you pushing your secular humanist religion on everyone?

[The Lawspeaker]

Why are you pushing your secular humanist religion on everyone?
Why are you pushing your backwards, "Christian" ideas on people ?

Common sense has a track record of working fine. American ideas one of abject failure.

[Debaser11]

I asked you first!

[The Lawspeaker]

And you better reply to mine. I have no reason whatsoever to explain my views to a colonial.

In particular to someone from a country where they even have laws regarding conduct in the bedroom, religious fundamentalism and then still have the nerve to call themselves a "free country."

[Debaser11]

And you better reply to mine. I have no reason whatsoever to explain my views to a colonial.

More national chauvinism. You really cannot talk when someone "bashes" your country of origin.


In particular to someone from a country where they even have laws regarding conduct in the bedroom, religious fundamentalism and then still have the nerve to call themselves a "free country."

Well, I thought I was going to get a response. It hardly seems fair that you don't have to explain yourself but that I do. But then again, you think it's okay to talk negatively about my nationality yet demand respect for yours. At least your hypocrisy is consistent across the board.

And I didn't say that I agreed with all of my country's laws on sex. My country's laws have nothing to do with my opinion about the topic at hand. Can you not grasp that?

My gov=/= me.

[Wyn]

Nothing that a little bit of common sense won't solve, Wyn. To the teenagers: use a bloody condom and a birth control pill. It's on the NHS (for as far as I know) so use it.

This is the thing - those thing's don't help. By the time I was about 14 I knew everything there was to know about sex despite never having had engaged in it. They even had us put condoms on those life-size plastic example model things (not joking) so that we'd know what we were doing when the time came (that time generally being the next year or the year after that when people were 15/16, in my community). Seriously...it doesn't get much more informative or comprehensive than what they teach you in British schools. Every method of birth control is covered. And they're available for free!

You talk about common sense, and I agree. The attitudes need changing. This is where things have to be looked at in a more in-depth manner. Promoting condom use and the rest of it don't help in the long run because European societies overall have really perverted peoples' attitude to sexuality with condoms and pills acting as a kind of fail-safe. Young British people have a completely careless attitude toward sexuality. Not much thought is given to it, it's almost purely recreational, and if 'accidents' happen there's always abortion etc. Giving free contraception to people not old enough to buy a packet of cigarettes and so on, these things are the problem.

You only have to look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherlands) at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_UK#Fertility) the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#CIA_World_Factbook_demograp hic_statistics) fertility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Demographic_statistics_and _policies) rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain#Total_fertility_rate) of European countries to see how much good all this really does. Aye, Dutch teenagers aren't having children - and nor are many people in the Netherlands overall, it seems. Or in Britain. Or in Germany.

[Agrippa]

Giving free contraception to people not old enough to buy a packet of cigarettes and so on, these things are the problem.

Yet I don't think that this is decisive, it is the general trend(s) in society which changed the outlook on life for the young ones, which is really decisive.

Like you said:

The attitudes need changing.

But that goes back to the adults and the system we have, Capitalism, Pseudo-Hyperindividualism, Consumption-culture, corruption, mass media influence, Liberal and Cultural Marxist ideologies etc.

There are worse things around than having sex at 14 or 21, or even getting pregnant and raising a family at 15 or 25.

The question is always which people you refer too, how they could deal with the situation and how they really end up in the current structures...

[Magister Eckhart]

http://www.reallygoodfriend.com/images/age_of_consent_laws_worldwide.jpg



I think we ought to abolish age-of-consent laws and replace them with stricter codes of extramarital sexual ethics. Simply put, establish an age at which a woman can legally marry (or, alternatively, make all females who have gone through puberty legal to marry), make that the "age of consent", and replace all sodomy laws with a simple, blanket anti-adultery law that makes it illegal to have any sex outside of marriage. If you keep homos from "marrying" (I use the word broadly, because no people of the same gender can actually be united in matrimony), that solves the paedo problem, the homo problem, and the whore problem, all in one fell swoop.

So, I approve of the purple dot, and would like to see it in many more countries. I think it's rather sad that there are those among our enemies who have a stronger and more admirable moral code than we do.

Also, NINE?? Seriously? Even married, that's a bit inappropriate.

[Savant]

Do you even know what these terms mean?

Half the things you listed are exact opposites of each other.


Capitalism, Pseudo-Hyperindividualism, Consumption-culture, Liberal and Cultural Marxist ideologies etc.

[Raskolnikov]

Age of consent is when both are attracted to each other.

[poiuytrewq0987]

In Texas seventeen is the legal age of sexual consent.

Literally though it is a joke of a law. Some girls who are 14-16 could (and often do) pass as 20-25 physical-looks wise.


The Mexicans are all pregnant in my city by the time they are 17 usually. I'm not joking on that, look up where most new U.S. births are, south-central Texas is the prime spot thanks to illegal aliens.

That's good news since we'll need more of them to take back the land stolen by imperialists from Europe.

[The Lawspeaker]

That's good news since we'll need more of them to take back the land stolen by imperialists from Europe.
There is no problem that can't be solved:

http://westerncivww2.pbworks.com/w/page/13789307/f/mg42dummyontripod.jpg

[Loki]

... make that the "age of consent", and replace all sodomy laws with a simple, blanket anti-adultery law that makes it illegal to have any sex outside of marriage.

What shall the punishment be ... castration or a public stoning?

[Magister Eckhart]

What shall the punishment be ... castration or a public stoning?

You're pretty uncreative if those are the best you can come up with. Besides no one has ever used stoning as a form of punishment in the West.

However, I think you're on the right track. Pogroms and lynch mobs have been proven effective means of moral control in the past, and generally speaking that's what stoning amounts to; some form of public shaming is definitely necessary.

Shaving the woman's head, perhaps? We'd have to come up with an equivalent for the male. In China, criminals had their faces branded. Some public mark that makes the whore or whoremonger an outcast is necessary, or legal measures to make them an outlaw - a simple bill of attainder would substitute any formal punishment. Every society needs outcasts to remind them what is acceptable and what is unacceptable: it maintains order and is the only effective means of maintaining social morality - after all if you leave legislation and enforcement in the hands of an all-powerful state you run the risk of creating a rebellion and even worse debauchery. Rather than risk total collapse, it's better to take advantage of the peasant penchant for forming mobs and let them tear at the offenders themselves.

The primary argument against this approach is always "but the innocents!" I submit to you, however, that state-sponsored enforcement of any law, from libel right up to rape, runs the risk of harming some innocent people. Running the risk of a witch hunt by putting enforcement of a law in the hands of the peasantry is the same as running the risk of putting an innocent man to death for murder, but to oppose either of these methods because of that only encourages the crimes. Strong statements need to be made to remind would-be wrongdoers that there are certain things that make you no longer part of the whole, and no longer deserving of the benefit of social order, since you chose to violate that order for base desires.

Therefore, the advantage of the bill of attainder in approaching social crimes is that it creates a strong sense of unity within a community and makes the state a guardian rather than a scolding disciplinarian. It is very important that any given government be integrated within society rather than elevated entirely above it - people forget their place when there is separation between state and society.

[Loki]

Shaving the woman's head, perhaps? We'd have to come up with an equivalent for the male. In China, criminals had their faces branded. Some public mark that makes the whore or whoremonger an outcast is necessary, or legal measures to make them an outlaw - a simple bill of attainder would substitute any formal punishment.

Why is sex considered so evil and unwanted? If it wasn't for sex outside of marriage, neither you nor me would have been here today. Or perhaps you will argue that all your ancestors were only conceived within wedlock?

[Magister Eckhart]

Why is sex considered so evil and unwanted? If it wasn't for sex outside of marriage, neither you nor me would have been here today. Or perhaps you will argue that all your ancestors were only conceived within wedlock?

I have marriage records for my entire family going back 10 generations.

Furthermore, if you want to go to prehistory, feel free, but I'll take this opportunity to remind you that there is no continuity of Western Culture from prehistory to today - the continuity, the only constant, is the need for strong social order - that is a constant not only throughout time but throughout all cultures. You attempt to make sex out to be the problem here; this is typical of the sex-craving hedonist, to make those with any form of sexual ethics into some kind of "enemy of sex" or "afraid of sex" or some other nonsense. It's misdirection as a means to hide the guilt and criminal nature of the hedonist's lack of discipline and control. It's not coitus that's the issue here, the issue is the abandonment of the sanctity of marriage.

I know "sanctity of marriage" has become something of a catch-phrase for the anti-homo crowd who tend to ignore the sexual transgressions among normal people, but here I mean it in its pure sense. The sanctity of matrimonial bonds is one of the central pillars of social order, of preservation of balance in male-female relations, and of furthering our culture through reproduction and proper family life. There can be no family life for bastards, nor can there be any hope for those without a healthy upbringing contributing meaningfully to the community; even if the odd one turns out fine, the exception always proves the rule by being an exception. Likewise for so-called "broken families". The exception always proves the rule.

Sexual intercourse outside the realm of marriage is always immoral, because matrimony is the only force that can bind a man to a woman in a meaningful, healthy, spiritual way. Extramarital sex is therefore an affront to humanity, a surrender to the animalistic, and a declaration of the subhumanity of participants. Only through marriage and the joining of man and woman by Divine Will (which is why marriage in every society down through history has been religious in nature) can sexual intercourse be elevated above mere animal copulation. If the leftists, the whores, and the debauched want to copulate like beasts, then they are beasts and should no longer be regarded as human beings. Like any other social crime from rape to murder to betrayal, the abandonment of human dignity to selfishness and hedonistic lusts transforms the person entirely from man into animal.

As for accusing me of being a bastard and my ancestors likewise, I find it in extremely poor form.

[Loki]

You attempt to make sex out to be the problem here; this is typical of the sex-craving hedonist, to make those with any form of sexual ethics into some kind of "enemy of sex" or "afraid of sex" or some other nonsense. It's misdirection as a means to hide the guilt and criminal nature of the hedonist's lack of discipline and control. It's not coitus that's the issue here, the issue is the abandonment of the sanctity of marriage.


If the urge is so strong in human beings to do what they want to do, why suppress what we naturally are? In any given society, there will be faithful and unfaithful people. Harsh laws won't change that, no less than harsh drug laws prevent people from taking heroin etc. I have a problem with authority trying to meddle too much into people's private lives. Let them be, as long as they don't physically hurt others.



As for accusing me of being a bastard and my ancestors likewise, I find it in extremely poor form.

Well I don't consider being a bastard a particularly bad thing, so I'm not insulting you. All of us are, and you are no exception. I hardly think Homo erectus practiced wedding vows. But I doubt we'd have to go that far back to find an illegitimate issue in our lineages.

[Magister Eckhart]

Well I don't consider being a bastard a particularly bad thing, so I'm not insulting you. All of us are, and you are no exception. I hardly think Homo erectus practiced wedding vows. But I doubt we'd have to go that far back to find an illegitimate issue in our lineages.

Then there is nothing more to be said on the matter. If you identify "humanity" with under-developed ape species only halfway down the path to the discovery of true humanity, there's nothing more that can be said on this matter. You may like to think of yourself as a bastard and an animal. To abandon one's humanity is a matter of choice; it's the one element of true free will we possess as divine beings.

I will not debate or discuss morality with a self-confessed animal.

[Loki]

You may like to think of yourself as a bastard and an animal.

I will not debate or discuss morality with a self-confessed animal.

I most certainly am a bastard. Not that I have any genealogical proof, but I'm a realist. As for an animal - that I am too.



To abandon one's humanity is a matter of choice; it's the one element of true free will we possess as divine beings.


I am not the one guilty of this.

[Savant]

Attempts to legislate morality have overwhelmingly been failed policies. People have rights, beyond those exist only the morals of an individual, family, group, tribe, nation, etc. and they ebb and flow, develop and evolve with time. Attempts to legislate morals have largely failed because for them to flourish they have to exist in people's heart, not their law libraries. When this ceases to be the case those exempt from laws due to status begin breaking the morality laws, and it eventually becomes an observable phenomenon, which the masses (rightfully) view as hypocrisy. Society then becomes less stable and everyone suffers, all because some fucking bureaucrats decided to tell everyone what was right and wrong, and how everyone else should live their lives. Sorry, but I don't want to answer to a bureaucrat for personal decisions about my own life. The disaster that is the American "family court" system is just a taste of how fucked up this can get.

While I think that we currently need, and dearly hope we always do have laws in place to protect children, these laws have also been abused by authorities. A 16 year old girl fucking her 20 year old boyfriend (who may well be dearly and hopelessly in love with her) should NOT have to go to prison for 3-5 years, and that does happen in America today. Just m2c.

[Debaser11]

If the urge is so strong in human beings to do what they want to do, why suppress what we naturally are?

Well, just because something is natural does not make it right. Someone could pass wind right in front of me or scratch and belch. I don't think that would amount to proper behavior in the presence of company, though. I would describe it as unvirtuous behavior in the same way promiscious sex is unvirtuous behavior. And just as common courtesy and prudence are virtues, so are control and chastity. We like to think of our sexual norms today as being the way things have always been. But the fact of the matter is our sexual norms would horrify most people who made up Western civilization even as recently as a hundred years ago.

In fact, it's not uncommon to see this revulsion in the faces of older people still alive when they come into contact with lude material. We keep pushing the envelope. It's dangerous. They're not mad that the kids are having fun and they can't anymore (even though that's how they're often portrayed). They're genuinely mortified by what they see. They see great tragedy. And rightfully so. I'd wager a lot of them see tragedy in witnessing the very act which lead to some of the most transcendental moments they experienced in their lives being portrayed in the form of animals grinding on a rap video or two strangers engaging in a "quickie" enjoying it "doggystyle." Nothing is sacred in post-modern life, anymore. If you use sex that way or conceptualize sex that way, that's what sex becomes too because so much of it is mental. Either it's "for fun" or it's a superlative form of intimacy in its purest form. It can't be both.

I wouldn't go so far to label a person who engages in promiscuous sex as immoral; I associate morality too closely with justice to call promiscuity immoral at face value, I suppose. (Perhaps I am in err, though.) But I do think there is some truth to calling the current sexual trends "animalistic." They degrade something that can be (and ideally is) sacred and transcendental into something that mere animals without any or limited self-awareness do to simply survive.

Sex, by its intimate nature, plays a huge role in framing a relationship. And the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman frames the whole setting for family life. I don't think we should separate sex from the idea of the family. The attitude of "it's just sex" is harmful on an individual level and a cultural level. Sex should not be seen as something to enjoy the way I'd enjoy a chocolate cake. That degrades sex (because it is so much more meaningful in its ideal form) and it degrades humans.

And unvirtuous behavior tends to lead to immoral acts (which is why virtues are important in upholding civilized society). For example, the current promiscuous society has undoubtedly lead to an increase in failed marriages and shattered families and children born out of wedlock which I don't understand how a person can be indifferent to.



In any given society, there will be faithful and unfaithful people.

Being unfaithful seems largely more common today. I don't even think "fidelity" is word that most people are cognizant of today except when talking about audio speakers.

I say that while asking any secular humanist religious nay-sayers to keep in mind that it is contradictory to claim that religion controls people and then also claim that social standards are the same today as they were a century ago regarding sex.



Harsh laws won't change that, no less than harsh drug laws prevent people from taking heroin etc.

In today's world, I tend to agree that legislating harsh laws would not change anything too much. That would be putting the cart before the horse. But given the right context of a society's organic form, such laws that Wag described could act as a "social dam," so to speak, in order to keep sexual norms in check.


I have a problem with authority trying to meddle too much into people's private lives. Let them be, as long as they don't physically hurt others.

I agree with the sentiment expressed here to a degree. In all honest sincerity, it's natural to feel this way.

"Hey, it's my life! Butt the f*** out!" Right?

The problem with relying on that view too much is it treats individuals as if they lived in a vacuum. As if their personal discretions had no ramifications on society whatsoever. As if someone else's promisuity had no effect on my life or my future children's lives (who I want to raise to have healthy attitudes about sex).

For example, if you support social programs that involve the government assisting single mothers or educating children, then you're sort of committed to a double standard.

"Ignore everyone's sex life. Don't preach to people. It doesn't affect YOU."

"Oh, wait. We need to allocate more public monies to pay for all these single mothers."


Well I don't consider being a bastard a particularly bad thing, so I'm not insulting you. All of us are, and you are no exception.

I'm guessing you were being jocular here, but no, not all of us here are really bastards if that word has any real meaning.


I hardly think Homo erectus practiced wedding vows. But I doubt we'd have to go that far back to find an illegitimate issue in our lineages.

Well, maybe you weren't joking? I don't think what you're describing here has much to do with who is a bastard and who's not.

[Cato]

18+, unless you all like to fuck pubes. :puke:

[Defiance]

Who the FUCK chose the first option!?!?!?

[Lumi]

I think it should remain at 16.

[rhiannon]

16

[Queen B]

I said 18.Though in my country is 16.

[mymy]

In Serbia it's 14. Maybe it should be 16, because not all of us mature same way. I read in some book that in females, it is safe to start sexual life 3 years after first menstruation. What do you think about that?

[Queen B]

In Serbia it's 14. Maybe it should be 16, because not all of us mature same way. I read in some book that in females, it is safe to start sexual life 3 years after first menstruation. What do you think about that?
I think is wrong. Because many girls start their period at 9 or 10 years old. While some quite much more.

[Nairi]

I think in Armenia it is 16 but I voted over 18...
They will have all life for sex, let them enjoy time of innocent games...

[mymy]

I think is wrong. Because many girls start their period at 9 or 10 years old. While some quite much more.

Yes it's true, but i think they though that getting first period mean that your body is getting prepared for sexual activity and it is not in all females in same time. That's pure physical aspect. But you are right because we can not forget maturity in psychological sense, that's much more important.

I also heard that in average girls in South get first period earlier than girls from North. But i don't know why it's like that and if that means they also have menopause earlier?

[mymy]

I think in Armenia it is 16 but I voted over 18...
They will have all life for sex, let them enjoy time of innocent games...

Nairi, yes, but the question is do they want to enjoy in innocent games... And do they feel like children in that age. I really believe it is individual, people are very different. Problem is that society has lot of influence on young people, so some teenagers have sex without being prepared both, physically and psychically and then can have consequences on view on sex in future. Other for example mature faster in both way and sex comes natural to them. But the question is how to make the law that will suit both categories.
I believe it should be before 18, but not so early like 13-14.

[Hess]

Who the FUCK chose the first option!?!?!?

probably one of our "Muslim European" members :coffee:

[Queen B]

Yes it's true, but i think they though that getting first period mean that your body is getting prepared for sexual activity and it is not in all females in same time. That's pure physical aspect. But you are right because we can not forget maturity in psychological sense, that's much more important.

I also heard that in average girls in South get first period earlier than girls from North. But i don't know why it's like that and if that means they also have menopause earlier?

Don't know it its true. I had it in my 15 years :lol:

[mymy]

Don't know it its true. I had it in my 15 years :lol:

Me in 11. I know some girls who are much more "bigger" and "developed in certain parts" got it latter, so maybe it was surprising.

My sister got it in 10, she is 17 now, but has body of a 12 years old child.

[Queen B]

Me in 11. I know some girls who are much more "bigger" and "developed in certain parts" got it latter, so maybe it was surprising.

My sister got it in 10, she is 17 now, but has body of a 12 years old child.

I think is quite the opposite actually.
The girls I know that got early, have already boobies, hair in ''those'' areas and stuff like that.

What is different to girls that got it late, is that they grow up / became taller more, coz once you get your period, your body don't grow up much.

Anyway, still, no matter the body, I think is wrong to be okay to have sex after 3 years.
I mean, some girls got it at 9, so its okay to have sex at 12?

:confused:

[mymy]

I think is quite the opposite actually.
The girls I know that got early, have already boobies, hair in ''those'' areas and stuff like that.

What is different to girls that got it late, is that they grow up / became taller more, coz once you get your period, your body don't grow up much.

Anyway, still, no matter the body, I think is wrong to be okay to have sex after 3 years.
I mean, some girls got it at 9, so its okay to have sex at 12?

:confused:

You are right when i think better. I didn't change much from that time... And i already had noticeable hips in those years (what wasn't really pleasant).

Agree, 12 is too early. But as i said, psychical and physical aspect need to match. You must be prepared for sex on both ways.

[Queen B]

Agree, 12 is too early. But as i said, psychical and physical aspect need to match. You must be prepared for sex on both ways.
Exactly. Though I believe the age of consent should be at least 16, I prefer the legal one to be 18..
:lol:

[Bobcat Fraser]

Thanks to Triton for the inspiration. What should be the legally minimum age for a guy or gal to have sex? Their partner can be any age. Should there be different laws based on the sex of the individual?

[Stefan]

After they've finished their last health and/or sex education class in high school. So somewhere around 16 +.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I chose "sixteen". I don't think that unmarried teenagers should have sex, but I live in the real world. My grandma married my grandpa when she was sixteen, and they were content and happy for many years. That's how it was back then. I realize that picking an age seems arbitrary since bodies and minds mature differently, but there has to be a law on these matters to protect all people in society. "Sixteen" is the age of consent in some states, and that seems reasonable to me. As arbitrary as it might sound to some people, "fifteen" is too young to be covered in a universal law. You can fight in a war when you're seventeen, so that age is too old to be considered underage. That's why I chose "sixteen". That said, I advise the young guys here to ask for at least two proofs of age from a girl if they're not sure about how old she is. A birth certificate and a driver's license might be enough. I'm only half kidding.

[Hayalet]

I tend to associate these things with the age of majority, which is 18. But I suppose exceptions can be made for 14-17 years olders provided their partners are in the same age bracket.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I tend to associate these things with the age of majority, which is 18. But I suppose exceptions can be made for 14-17 years olders provided their partners are in the same age bracket.

It's tempting, for the sake of simplicity, to support a law that would make "eighteen" the universal age of consent for all legal activities. Unfortunately, such a law would be as realistic as a unicorn-riding leprechaun.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I should add something. Seek help if you think that it should be lower than thirteen or fourteen in this day and age. "Fifteen" is too young too, but I can see certain circumstances that could explain it. Say that a high school couple got married because the guy got his girlfriend pregnant.

[Bobcat Fraser]

OTOH, why would someone choose the last option? That's going too far in the opposite direction IMO. It reminds me of this woman I heard on one of those awful talk shows I listen to when I get one of my bouts with anxiety (from events in life) and insomnia. She claimed that you should be at least *25* to have sex!:eek:

[Moonbird]

Thanks to Triton for the inspiration. What should be the legally minimum age for a guy or gal to have sex? Their partner can be any age. Should there be different laws based on the sex of the individual?

I think 16 is a realistic choice. But the partner's age shouldn't be more than maximum four years older. A 16 year old shouldn't have sex with e.g. a 36 year old.

[Pallantides]

15 or 16 seem reasonable, 16 is the age of consent in my country.

[Sikeliot]

16.

For some reason even though in many places in the US the age of consent is 16, I know you can still get in trouble if the person who is underage has parents who decide to report it in.

[kabeiros]

16 years old is good, methinks... but if both are underaged (for example a 16 years old boy with a fifteen years old girl) it should be fine, too.

[Comte Arnau]

I think Spain's got the lowest age of consent in Europe, at 13. I find it too low, but I guess that the Law must fix an age for all, and many Southern Spaniards and Gypsies at 13 seem three or four years older.

[Cynewald]

14 for girls 21 for guys.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I think 16 is a realistic choice. But the partner's age shouldn't be more than maximum four years older. A 16 year old shouldn't have sex with e.g. a 36 year old.

Some state laws address such age disparities. They sometimes protect younger men from prosecution. There are cases in which slightly older guys are prosecuted for having sex with slightly younger girls. Some laws were passed to differentiate Romeo and Juliet from real criminals.

[Bobcat Fraser]

15 or 16 seem reasonable, 16 is the age of consent in my country.

How old do you have to be to buy beer in Norway? We have to be 21 (cough, cough) here.

[Bobcat Fraser]

16.

For some reason even though in many places in the US the age of consent is 16, I know you can still get in trouble if the person who is underage has parents who decide to report it in.

That made me laugh because you really went after that forty-something cougar in the other thread. Her "prey" was seventeen.:whistle:

[Bobcat Fraser]

16 years old is good, methinks... but if both are underaged (for example a 16 years old boy with a fifteen years old girl) it should be fine, too.

I agree; the laws should address age gaps. They always should address mental age too. For instance, it would be wrong for a genius of sixteen to have sex with a challenged man or woman of forty. Say that the challenged person has an IQ of fifty.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I think Spain's got the lowest age of consent in Europe, at 13. I find it too low, but I guess that the Law must fix an age for all, and many Southern Spaniards and Gypsies at 13 seem three or four years older.

That seems crazy to me. Thirteen seemed too young for me when I was....fifteen. I went on a blind date with a thirteen-year-old when I just turned fifteen, and it felt like I robbed the cradle or maternity ward basket. Of course, Jerry Lee Lewis would have been fine with it.:rolleyes:

[Bobcat Fraser]

14 for girls 21 for guys.

LOL Are you serious? I know that girls supposedly mature faster than boys, but *that's* ridiculous.

[Contusion]

The younger the better??

[Bobcat Fraser]

The younger the better??

I'm Chris Hanson. Take a seat.

[xajapa]

I say 17. I know in many places it is 16, but, that extra year seems to add some maturity to youth. They have so many other things they are experiencing at 16.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I say 17. I know in many places it is 16, but, that extra year seems to add some maturity to youth. They have so many other things they are experiencing at 16.

It's a thin line. What makes someone about to turn 17 less mature than someone who just turned 17?;)

[MST3K]

Agreed 17. Giggity.

[CelticViking]

Don't think some guys here want to be fathers. I think they just might want an easy root.

[xajapa]

It's a thin line. What makes someone about to turn 17 less mature than someone who just turned 17?;)

True. This is somewhat of an artificial construct. But, for most youth turning 16 years old is your passage from youth. You can now drive (at least in the US), work, etc. There is a lot going on. Another year gives you some perspective, perhaps.

[Dandelion]

Many people are ready at 14, but for the juridical sake I'd say 16. Of course, consentual sexual intercourse of a 14-year old with another underaged person (say up to 17-tear old) is a different matter entirely.

On a side-note: my grandmother bore her first child at 16, because it was considered normal in those days (the '40s).

[PetiteParisienne]

I voted for 16 simply because it seems to be the most common age for the start of sexual activity. There's no need to criminalise that.

[xajapa]

I voted for 16 simply because it seems to be the most common age for the start of sexual activity. There's no need to criminalise that.

At least in the state that I live in (US), law enforcement typically does not charge two youth who about the same age for consensual sex. It only applies when an adult (say 20 years old) has some sexual relations with an adolescent under 16 years of age.

[Dandelion]

At least in the state that I live in (US), law enforcement typically does not charge two youth who about the same age for consensual sex. It only applies when an adult (say 20 years old) has some sexual relations with an adolescent under 16 years of age.

My father was 22 when he met my mother at 16.

[Sarmatian]

Don't think some guys here want to be fathers. I think they just might want an easy root.

You just being polite, gorgeous ;) Honestly speaking most of the guys today do not want to be fathers until age of 30 at least. Same goes for the girls.

And that is the tragedy of white people. Not only they have very few kids but it also takes long time to start making them. Which means gap between generations is much wider than in case of some wogs who start breeding like rabbits at the age of 16.

[xajapa]

My father was 22 when he met my mother at 16.

In days past, that was more acceptable. Today, in the US, that would be acceptable in most states, but if your mother had been 15 years old, and her parents were opposed to this union, they could have pushed for some sort of charges. the idea behind the consent laws is, when are people ready and able to really understand the actions they undertake?

[aherne]

Instead of "age of consent" laws I would propose laws insuring there is no "consent" until marriage. Jews have utterly destroyed our societies with their liberation garbage. In the good old days, as long as a girl had a menstrual cycle she was marriageable. These new laws simply regulate whoredom...

[Magtheridon]

The legal age of consent should be the average age at which girls are sexually developed. I believe that age is roughly 16.

[Bobcat Fraser]

True. This is somewhat of an artificial construct. But, for most youth turning 16 years old is your passage from youth. You can now drive (at least in the US), work, etc. There is a lot going on. Another year gives you some perspective, perhaps.

You can drive, but you can't drink. You can't drink until you're 21. You can fight and kill in a war at 18, though. I'll buy a beer for a vet' of any age.

ETA: My brain's on vacation. Young guys *wish* that the legal drinking age is 18.

[The Lawspeaker]

I've merged the two existing threads into one.

[The Lawspeaker]

Right now it's 16 in the Netherlands and I think that that's realistic (it could be set on 15 for all I care because I believe in "steps towards adulthood."). The rate of teenage pregnancies is rather low here in the Netherlands (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-teenage-pregnancy-rates-so-high-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-1623828.html) (the lowest in all of Europe) because of a culture of openness and the relative easy access to sexual education (although in my experience those living in immigrant communities, conservative areas AND juvenile care facilities should be specifically targeted for improvement as those are risk groups. The same goes for those sleeping with migrants.)



What do I mean with "steps towards adulthood." ? We now have the ridiculous idea that people at age 18 are fully ready to take on the world. The brain doesn't work that way and perhaps we can instead let the transfer to becoming a mature human being go in stages as depending on the person and the development of his or her brain.

Age 12. A child can be heard in court in divorce cases. His or her decision will be the deciding factor.

Age 15. Jugendweihe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugendweihe) or confirmation. Adolescence starts. Age of consent.

Age 21. Financial and partial independence (can be given from the age 16 too in case of certain parental issues). Your parents are no longer legally responsible for you.

Age 25. Military service, driving license, full independence.

I am still in favour of this earlier idea only I would keep the age of consent now at 16 (and institute a secular Jugendweihe/ Christian confirmation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation#Protestant_views) and I would move the right to vote/to be elected to 25 as well.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I don't know how to vote. People go through so many changes when they're in that age group. In some cases, a younger adolescent is more mature than an older adolescent in both body and mind. If you put a gun to my head, I would choose "eighteen" to cover *all* activities.

[The Lawspeaker]

I wouldn't: we actually have mock elections here for high school students and they consistently vote for either their parent's party or for the more extreme parties. And when it comes to most traffic accidents: the group that just got their driving license is consistently the most dangerous and accounts for the vast majority of the wounded or fatalities. In a lot of cases it's the combination drink and drive.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I've merged the two existing threads into one.

Should they be merged? I referred to just sex in my poll. I take it that this one covers all categories, from drinking to voting. If it's about just sex, I change my vote to "sixteen".

[The Lawspeaker]

Should they be merged? I referred to just sex in my poll. I take it that this one covers all categories, from drinking to voting. If it's about just sex, I change my vote to "sixteen".

Well the thread already existed and it started off as just sex anyway :) I was one of the first to make it more a legal thread. Besides: the age of consent is of course also a legal matter.

[xajapa]

The legal age of consent should be the average age at which girls are sexually developed. I believe that age is roughly 16.

I believe girls are sexually developed quite a few years before 16. That is why you occasionally here about a 12 year old giving birth.

[Contusion]

I believe girls are sexually developed quite a few years before 16. That is why you occasionally here about a 12 year old giving birth.

True but that's just sick. A 12 yo girl I would almost certainly break in two. :eek:

That's way too young.

[xajapa]

True but that's just sick. A 12 yo girl I would almost certainly break in two. :eek:

That's way too young.

Sometimes their sexual partner is around their age, sometimes they are much older and the 12 year old's parent(s) doesn't seem to care. Hence, consent laws, as society has to protect children that young from their own poor judgement.

[Skrondsze]

14 for a married girl with her husband only and 18 for single woman.

[Defiance]

F***ing goddamned hell, who went with the 10-12 option? I really do wonder how some of these assholes would have voted if even younger ages were included as options.

Eight? Five? Three? I mean, just so long as it's not YOUR daughter, right?:rolleyes:

[Jocorpi]

15.

[Bobby Martnen]

Extramarital sex should be illegal, and the minimum age of marriage should be 16 for men, 13 for women.

[idioteque]

I think that it should be 18 across the board. In the US at least.

Teens are not responsible enough here.

[Luca]

Just let all the roasties f*ck each other in high-school (ie. >15). Even if there are laws against it, kids will do it anyway.
As long as nobody is forced to do this stuff, who am I to object?


14 for a married girl with her husband only and 18 for single woman.

What does it change if she is married?
And isn't 14 too young for marriage?


Extramarital sex should be illegal, and the minimum age of marriage should be 16 for men, 13 for women.

THIS IS QUITE THE SURPRISE!
Aren't you the one who is against relationships? How come marriage is suddenly oki doki if you even dislike relationships?

[Bobby Martnen]

I think that it should be 18 across the board. In the US at least.

Teens are not responsible enough here.

Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. Marrying off 16 year olds would help make sure that more people were virgins when they got married.

[Bobby Martnen]

J
Aren't you the one who is against relationships? How come marriage is suddenly oki doki if you even dislike relationships?

For procreation only