Legal age for consent?

[T3XT]

What do you think it should be?

Here in murica the age is 18, higher than most countries. I hear about too many horny teenagers getting registered as sex offenders because mommy found out that her 17-year-old consensually made fucky with a university student. Now, I'm not encouraging frat boys to go out seeking jailbait pussy, but I think that once you hit about sixteen it's okay to learn how to drive stick.

GEDDIT, BECAUSE STICK HAHAHAHA

[Entice]

The age of consent is not 18 in every state. It is 17 where I live (in Texas) and I believe that it is lower in a few other places.

I agree with you though. Once someone is old enough to drive, there's very few realistic ways to stop them from having consensual sex. 16 is a good general age of consent. I also don't see anything wrong with 13-15 year olds having sex with other people there age, but I'm not sure how one would define that legally.

[Korriken]

At 9/18/13 09:58 PM, Entice wrote: The age of consent is not 18 in every state. It is 17 where I live (in Texas) and I believe that it is lower in a few other places.

I agree with you though. Once someone is old enough to drive, there's very few realistic ways to stop them from having consensual sex. 16 is a good general age of consent. I also don't see anything wrong with 13-15 year olds having sex with other people there age, but I'm not sure how one would define that legally.

16 sounds good, but how about 15? that's only 1 year lower. or maybe 14? you know how horny these kids are nowadays. No need to make them contain it for years. Actually most kids turn seriously hormonal at about 12-13.... hmm Do we even need an age of consent anymore? if a 10 year old wants his 11 year old friend, who are we to say no?

just waxing philosophical.

[Camarohusky]

18 is A-OK with me. 16 year olds are still extremely vulnerable. The difficulty in stopping crime is not and NEVER EVER should be a reason to decriminalize an act.

Once a person is 18 they are legally old enough to make their own decisions, before then, mere access to sex doesn't make one more able to safely engage in sex.

[Entice]

At 9/18/13 10:50 PM, Korriken wrote: 16 sounds good, but how about 15? that's only 1 year lower. or maybe 14? you know how horny these kids are nowadays. No need to make them contain it for years. Actually most kids turn seriously hormonal at about 12-13.... hmm Do we even need an age of consent anymore? if a 10 year old wants his 11 year old friend, who are we to say no?

just waxing philosophical.

Laws are all about drawing lines though. You could make the same argument if I wanted to set the age of consent to 17, or even 18.

[BumFodder]

At 9/18/13 10:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 16 year olds are still extremely vulnerable.

What? 16 year olds arent retards or weak, which is why its 16 in most countries. Its more about changing the culture around things like this than anything else.

[Angry-Hatter]

15 sounds about right.

[Sequenced]

At 9/19/13 05:31 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 9/18/13 10:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 16 year olds are still extremely vulnerable.

What? 16 year olds arent retards or weak, which is why its 16 in most countries. Its more about changing the culture around things like this than anything else.

It just depends on how they were raised...

[NewgroundsMike]

In Germany it's 14, but still the US has a higher rate of teen pregnancy. So... yeah...

[Camarohusky]

At 9/19/13 05:31 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 9/18/13 10:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 16 year olds are still extremely vulnerable.

What? 16 year olds arent retards or weak, which is why its 16 in most countries. Its more about changing the culture around things like this than anything else.

I wouldn't trust most 20 year olds to make life decisions, such as resisting the strong sexual advances of a much older authority figure, let alone a 16 year old who is too immature to realize that posting sexy pictures on the web lures in pervy men.

16 year olds are not very mature at all. 18 is picked because we have arbitrarily decided that at that age a person is mature enough or experienced enough to deal with the consequences of their poor decisions. In the US in 2013, the vast majority (think well above 90%) of teens age 16 and 17 are still not yet mature enough.

[AxTekk]

One thing no-one ever brings up is that "consent" doesn't just cover penetrative sex. If you're a fifteen year old sexting another a fifteen year old, you're committing a sex crime (and a very serious one at that).

Personally, I think 15 is a good age of consent with maybe a few bells and whistles thrown in (maximum two year age difference etc) but the real issue to me is to not criminalise silly hormonal kids doing silly risqué things. To me it's ridiculous that a 14 year old boy getting topless photos from his 15 year old girlfriend could get done for possession of child pornography. Come on people, we can do better.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/19/13 01:01 PM, AxTekk wrote: One thing no-one ever brings up is that "consent" doesn't just cover penetrative sex. If you're a fifteen year old sexting another a fifteen year old, you're committing a sex crime (and a very serious one at that).

WRONG.

Most (if not all) underage sexual contact statutes include a range of close years where it is OK. A 15 year old doing anything sexual with another 15 year old will not be an underage sex crime and such acts will only be a sex crime at all if they fit the circumstances of an age irrelevant sex crime. Usually the buffer is two years apart in age.

If you have a 17 year old sexting a 14 year old you can have an age related sex crime.

The theory behind this is that if both parties of equal sexual immaturity than the possibility of authority based coercion is very small. Age based sex statutes are not based on what we think is 'moral' or 'disgusting.' They're based upon the perceived power differential between the elder party and the younger party. Such is why the laws end at 18, because an 18 year old, being a legal adult, now has the adult privileges and tools available to them to adequately fight back. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good cut off.

[orangebomb]

I would much rather have the age of consent be at 18, mostly because they would be out of high school and for all intents and purposes would be mature enough to make important decisions. Even then, I wouldn't trust that many 18 year olds with really big decisions in life, much less anyone with more than two brain cells.

The vast majority of 18 year olds are barely mature enough as it is, lowering the age of consent is only going to be more messy than it already is. In the big picture, it doesn't really matter considering that there are plenty of 14-17 year olds who will still engage in sexual activity, drink alcohol and smoke anyway, so it would pretty much make it moot outside of the legal realms.

[4761]

I heard that no extramarital sexual relations in Virginia, regardless of age, are allowed. Although, this law is not enforced.

[Havegum]

At 9/19/13 04:06 PM, orangebomb wrote: Even then, I wouldn't trust that many 18 year olds with really big decisions in life, much less anyone with more than two brain cells.

If you disregard pregnancy, sex on its own isn't all that big of a life decision. Proper education and free prevention available should stop most unwanted pregnancies.

I don't think teenagers should be punished by court for having mutually consensual sex.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/19/13 08:43 PM, Havegum wrote: I don't think teenagers should be punished by court for having mutually consensual sex.

Ugh, don't you people listen?

Consensual sex between to similarly aged teens is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT illegal! (I repeat: NOT)

The issue is when you get a big age gap, like a high school senior to a freshman, or a college aged person to a high schooler, or an adult. In those ases one person possesses a far higher maturity and intelligence and on top of that can carry a great deal more authority and leadership than the younger partner. This leads to scenarios where the younger person is either wooed in or non-physically coerced into sexual acts they would otherwise be able to resist from a person their age.

As I said before, the issue is not the sex or the age of sex, but the high potential for such power differential and abuse of power among underage relationships with large age differences.

[orangebomb]

At 9/19/13 08:43 PM, Havegum wrote: If you disregard pregnancy, sex on its own isn't all that big of a life decision. Proper education and free prevention available should stop most unwanted pregnancies.

You would be surprised on how people tend to treat sex as a life decision, especially if it is their first time. Of course there are a lot of others who treat sex almost like breathing or putting on underwear, so it's subjective to say the least.

I don't think teenagers should be punished by court for having mutually consensual sex.

Camaro pretty much nailed it on the head with this one. As long as there isn't a significant age gap between 2 or more partners in sex, then it's perfectly fine from a legal view. What gets people in trouble is that there is a significant age difference between sexual partners, both from a legal and societal standpoint, and that's not including things like pedophilia or molestation, which are obviously illegal.

Given that all partners have consent, a sexual relationship between two high school/college students within at most 2-3 year age gap, that's fine, {although really pushing it with the 3 year gap} but beyond there, that's when it gets messy.

[AxTekk]

At 9/19/13 03:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/19/13 01:01 PM, AxTekk wrote: One thing no-one ever brings up is that "consent" doesn't just cover penetrative sex. If you're a fifteen year old sexting another a fifteen year old, you're committing a sex crime (and a very serious one at that).

WRONG.

Wow, I didn't America was actually this smart with it's AoC laws, I assumed you guys dun' goofed like us Brits.

[Ericho]

18 seems to be the standard age. I heard in other countries, the lowest is 13 (well, it might change depending on the rate you reach puberty) with the highest at 21. I don't know if those countries are that more prosperous than us but it doesn't seem like something people are encouraging to change.

[BumFodder]

At 9/20/13 09:29 AM, Ericho wrote: 18 seems to be the standard age. I heard in other countries, the lowest is 13 (well, it might change depending on the rate you reach puberty) with the highest at 21. I don't know if those countries are that more prosperous than us but it doesn't seem like something people are encouraging to change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Law

18 is definitely not the standard age

[Ron-Geno]

At 9/19/13 08:43 PM, Havegum wrote: If you disregard pregnancy, sex on its own isn't all that big of a life decision. Proper education and free prevention available should stop most unwanted pregnancies.

Most is not good enough.
I'm sure alot of single moms and dads thought the same exact thing before their unexpected child arrived and changed their lives. I'm sure alot of STI-infected and HIV patients thought the same thing before they started taking their meds.

Sex is not the biggest decision in the world. However, in today's day and age, I would warn to approach it in a casual matter. For heterosexuals, they must consider the risks of pregnancy and STIs; for homosexuals, STIs. There's also the emotional factor. Some can and will disregard it; others might "fall in love" with their sexual partner, which could cause problems.

Sex can be fun and enjoyable, whether it's through casual parties or within a loving relationship. But the risks should always be taken seriously.

To get back on topic: the ages of consent in the US are just fine (18 most places, as low as 16 in places like SC). No need to raise them higher (unless you want the 16 and 17 states to raise to 18, which is not a big deal). As for lowering them, there are situations that alot of people are bringing up in this thread. Though disappointing for the parties involved, I feel like these occurrences are a very small minority. If someone could produce the numbers on how often those cases appear per year, that would be great. Otherwise, lowering the limit won't necessarily eliminate these cases. It'll probably just produce the same cases at even lower ages.

TL;DR
- Always consider the risks of sex before participating.
- People don't take sex lightly because the possible negative effects of sex are not light.
- The current age limits in the U.S. are fine as is.

[Havegum]

Sex between to similarly aged teens isn't illegal, dummy!

Right, I presumed the partners would be liable to persecution due to OP's story. If that's not true, then disregard that.

If that is true though, it sounds to me like the age of consent is really 16 with an asterisk, and then another one at 18; rather than just 18.

[Entice]

At 9/19/13 09:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As I said before, the issue is not the sex or the age of sex, but the high potential for such power differential and abuse of power among underage relationships with large age differences.

The same thing happens all the time within age groups.

Some guy has a nice car, a job, and a high social standing, he gets a lot of sex. It doesn't mean that he's taking advantage of every person that he has sex with. Though I see how this could be exaggerated to the point of abuse if we're talking about a 30-year-old CEO and a 16-year-old girl.

Hypothetically speaking though, would you have a problem with an ordinary 19-year-old engaging in consensual intercourse with a 16 or 17-year-old?

[Ron-Geno]

At 9/21/13 06:51 PM, Entice wrote:

At 9/19/13 09:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As I said before, the issue is not the sex or the age of sex, but the high potential for such power differential and abuse of power among underage relationships with large age differences.

The same thing happens all the time within age groups.

Some guy has a nice car, a job, and a high social standing, he gets a lot of sex. It doesn't mean that he's taking advantage of every person that he has sex with. Though I see how this could be exaggerated to the point of abuse if we're talking about a 30-year-old CEO and a 16-year-old girl.

Hypothetically speaking though, would you have a problem with an ordinary 19-year-old engaging in consensual intercourse with a 16 or 17-year-old?

Depends on the situation.
I'd have to say for most situations, I wouldn't have a problem with it, even in states where the law mandates the age @ 18.
By 14, I will have already talked to my son/daughter about sex and relationships, so I wouldn't be too concerned (though I might need to talk to them sooner about the subject because America).

My personal issue, though.
Most older male/younger female relationships, using your ages (19 and 16/17) benefit the male mostly and do little for the female. In those situations, you'll usually looking at an older male taking advantage of a younger female to get sex.
So in that situation, I would have a problem with it.

Will a law prevent that situation from occurring, though? No.
However, parents who teach their children about relationships, sex, and common sense will prevent most of those situations from occurring.

As far as those relationships occurring:
For the parties involved, use common sense and keep the relationship on the low. Though most people won't mind that you two are together, all it takes is one person to not agree and rat you out, and then the older party is in a world of trouble.
Once she turns legal age, then reveal to the world your beautiful relationship.

[JRob]

There really should be a thing where it can't be considered statutory if both consenting parties are between a certain age range. Say, take three arbitrary numbers such as 16, 18, and 21:

If the older one is older than 18, but below 21, and the younger one is older than 16 - not statutory
If the older one is older than 18, but below 21, and the younger one is below 16 - statutory
If the older one is older than 21 and the younger one is older than 18 - not statutory
If the older one is older than 21 and the younger is older than 16, but below 18 - statutory

It would kind of smooth things out a bit more.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/22/13 02:36 AM, JRob wrote: It would kind of smooth things out a bit more.

That's a way to do it, but states have already, for the most part, made an easy set up.

The usual cut off is 18, and any older partner within 2 years' difference from the younger partner (often to a low floor, like 12 or 14) is not statutory. This isn't the rule everywhere, but it's a good general rule that very much reflects the rules across the US.

I would caution against your very wide range too. A 20 year old, being a full fledged adult or a college student has a great deal more economic, mental, and social ability that the 16 year old (not in all cases but in almost all cases) to easily put heavy pressure on the 16 year old that almost all 16 year olds wouldn't have the fortitude to resist.

This doesn't discount that there can be power differentials even within the 2 year gap. It can and does happen. However, the only way to not send every high schooler to jail for rape is to make a close age cut off. Also, the chance for the same level of power difference is very rare.

[KatMaestro]

I think the general age of consent should be pushed to 19. Most 18 can't even make right decisions in that age.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/25/13 10:57 PM, Elitistinen wrote: I think the general age of consent should be pushed to 19. Most 18 can't even make right decisions in that age.

Although most people cannot make proper decisions at that age, they are legal adults and have the legal wherewithall to defend themselves from others.

[RealityPwnz]

I'd say raise the age of consent to 24-25 and upgrade punishments for child pornograpgy and pedophilia, statutory rape and other crimes, I just heard some crazy shit about a 13 year old girl killing herself because a guy who she sent a naked pic of herself to made it public... the shit needs to stop, the liberals wanted all of this to happen and now they're blaming everyone else now that its happening, complete denial of accountability here, it used to be the best thing that information about things people do become public, like in relation to this if a person is a pedophile, it should be known so that the public can react accordingly, but now people are trying desperately to make shit like that acceptable in spite of the harm, no morals they wanted, this is what they got...wtf
You know what nevermind, lower the fuckin age if they want, it'll only lead to the faster extinction of the sick bastards.

[24901miles]

At 9/26/13 11:47 PM, RealityPwnz wrote: I'd say raise the age of consent to 24-25 ... the liberals [are responsible for the existence of pedophilia]
[...] lower the fuckin age if they want, it'll only lead to the faster extinction of the [pedophiles]

Just to clarify, you're saying that:

1. The age of consenting to have sex should be 24-25.
2. "The Liberals" are collectively trying to make pedophilia an acceptable practice
3. "The Liberals" are responsible for thus making pedophilia more common
4. Actually, the age of consenting to have sex should be lower than 18 because more sex at a younger age would result in the extinction of "Those Bastards" (assuming you meant pedophiles?)

And this post was a stream of consciousness... And not thought out or proof-read. Correct?