Age of consent?

[bumcheekcity]

In England, there is talk of actually ENFORCING the age of consent, for 14 Year olds etc. I don't believe this is right. True, they're breaking the law, but they both consent to it, and aren't hurting anyone. The law currently stands at 16, but no-one has actually been convicted, if the courts find that they both consent and they are of similar age.

Do you think the age of consent wshould stay at 16? There are talks of moving it down to 14 or even 12. What would you think about this, and what are the laws in your particular state?

[RedSkunk]

Do you think the age of consent wshould stay at 16? There are talks of moving it down to 14 or even 12. What would you think about this, and what are the laws in your particular state?

jesus, 12? That's going a bit too far. Isn't it 18 in NY? Now obviously people are fucking before that, but they are using the same theory as the smoking and drinking age limits. IE: they aren't trying to stop the people a year or two under the limit, they're trying to stop the people 3-4 years under the limit. If they moved the age of consent down to 12, who's to say that an 11 y/o shouldn't be screwing (legally)?

But if they are both consenting, I forget the age you cited (14?) I'm not sure legal action will solve anything. Problems like these require better parenting, not stricter laws.

[JMHX]

Age of consent should be 17 years old nationwide. None of this 14-year-old Mississippi consent crap. This is just my moral ranting, though.

[stafffighter]

In this state the law says 16. A friend of mine in canada says that where she lives the age is 16 as long as the other person is under 18. Thats a system that makes some sence, not making it too hard on the teenagers but doing something about the older people who would take advantage of them.

[Thegreatnick]

i think that the law should be ablolished, because i don't think that having a law stops people from doing it. for example, a stud would've had sex several times, without even caring about the law, whereas, a loser, wouldn't be able to have sex anyway (no offence meant to anyone)
i also bieleve that teachers should tll lies in sex ed., e.g. sex before 18 (or some similar age) has a 1 in fifty chance of blowing your testicles off. that'll get the teen pregnences down.
that's enough ranting for now
nick

[Commander-K25]

I think if they're both underage, then there's no problem. It's only statutory rape if one is over and one is under. (?)

At 11/17/03 05:54 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: I think if they're both underage, then there's no problem. It's only statutory rape if one is over and one is under. (?)

I agree, if little kids want to have sex then they're going to have sex even if it is against the law. However, if a 12 and an 18 year old have sex I don't think it should be illegal as long as its consentual. Kinda nasty though.

[JMHX]

At 11/17/03 05:54 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: I think if they're both underage, then there's no problem. It's only statutory rape if one is over and one is under. (?)

A 16 year old and a 13 year old having sex counts as statutory rape in Indiana.

[Jimsween]

At 11/17/03 06:29 PM, punk_disease wrote:

I agree, if little kids want to have sex then they're going to have sex even if it is against the law. However, if a 12 and an 18 year old have sex I don't think it should be illegal as long as its consentual. Kinda nasty though.

You haven't seen the maturity of a 12 year old in a while have you?

[JMHX]

At 11/17/03 06:43 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 11/17/03 06:29 PM, punk_disease wrote:

You haven't seen the maturity of a 12 year old in a while have you?

That does not in any way make it just.

[JoS]

Ya, that is nasty. The law above posted for Canada is correct. 16 with someone under 18.now that means its leagl for a 18 and 118 year old to do it. EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, get out of my head you stupid mental picture, thats gross, if even physically possible.

[Jimsween]

At 11/17/03 06:46 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 11/17/03 06:43 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 11/17/03 06:29 PM, punk_disease wrote:

You haven't seen the maturity of a 12 year old in a while have you?

That does not in any way make it just.

I'm afraid it does, a 12 year old is not near mature enough to handle any of the emotional or physical reprocutions of sex, and an 18 year old would most certainly be in the dominant role in the relationship. It is the same reason we do not allow 40 year old men to have sex with 10 year old boys. It is completely just to take away the right of 18 year olds to have sex with 12 year olds (and I say it that way because as stated before, the 18 year old is most certainly in the dominant and controlling position) for these exact reasons.

I really hope you misread punks post and thought he said that it should be illegal, instead of him saying it should be legal.

[thissiteisgay]

consent in michigan is 16 as long as the other is under 18, 17 if the other is above 18. the law makes alot of sense. as to lowering an age to 12 or 14. i think that is pushing it a bit too far.

[stafffighter]

A realationship that involves sex should ideally be one with a level of understanding between the people. If you push the age down too much you're going to before people really understand anything.

[I-Am-3]

i have know a 14 year old girl who was dating a 19 year old boy, and a 16 year old girl who was dating a 36 year old woman, and a 12 year old girl who was dating a 15 year old boy, all real scenarios from people i have known, whats everyones opinion on all of those?

[JMHX]

Sween, a million apologies, I misread your earlier post. I agree with you.

[blueloa13]

Anyone between the ages 13 and 17 should be able to have sex. And everyone above 18 should be able to have sex. That just amkes it plain and simple.

[bumcheekcity]

At 11/18/03 02:31 PM, I_Am_3 wrote: i have know a 14 year old girl who was dating a 19 year old boy, and a 16 year old girl who was dating a 36 year old woman, and a 12 year old girl who was dating a 15 year old boy, all real scenarios from people i have known, whats everyones opinion on all of those?

Dont see anything wrong with any of them, as long as both parties are fully aware of what theyre doing, and taking proper precautions to stop diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

Peoplw who are talking about maturity remember this. I was more mature at the age of 12 than one hell of a lot of 36 year olds i know. In fact, I was more mature at 12 than I am now at 14. Just because a person is young doesn't mean they they aren't mature.

Not that i'm saying 12 year olds should go around shagging everyone, I'm just raising a point.

I believe the age of consent should be 14. I see no problem with people of my age and older having sex.

[Jimsween]

At 11/18/03 03:29 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Sween, a million apologies, I misread your earlier post. I agree with you.

I don't accept, beg for it you bastard!

[Chaoslight]

I'm seeing a lot of 'if they're both between the ages of x and y, then they can hump, and if they're both over 18, they can hump.' The main problem with this is you could legally be arrested for screwing someone you've already, excuse my crudeness, nailed to the headboard.

How about, if one or both of the parties is under 18, the youngest person can't be below, say, 14, and the age difference can't be more than four or five years. Once a person reaches the age of 18, they can legally fuck whoever they want.

And to whoever it was who gave the example of 18 on 118 action, thanks fr the lovely image *pukes* and it's legal. There is no upper limit, beyond that imposed by nature.

[I-Am-3]

if they were to actually enforce a law of 13-17 and 18+, imagine this... ok two people have been dating and having sex since they were 13 and 15, then 3 years later(so its a devoted relationship if you can believe it for that age), one of them turns 18 while the other is only 16! OH NO! they wont be able to have sex for another 2 years or the 18 year old will be arrested! thats a big problem....

[RedSkunk]

one of them turns 18 while the other is only 16! OH NO! they wont be able to have sex for another 2 years or the 18 year old will be arrested! thats a big problem....

oh god, why are we still on this topic? Listen, the cops don't peep into people's windows at night, waiting for an 18y/o to nail a 16y/o. The only ones who are only a few yrs over the age limit being arrested is because the parents of the underaged child complained to the police.

[I-Am-3]

because this whole topic is irrelevant if we base it on the true fact that these laws are hardly ever enforced, but if they started to strictly enforce them, which for the sake of the topic i am basing that post on, thats what would happen

[Dagodevas]

At 11/17/03 04:52 PM, RedSkunk wrote: jesus, 12? That's going a bit too far. Isn't it 18 in NY?

Better than how it is in Japan where it’s okay to molest girls as young as 8 and when they accuse their molesters, they’re looked-down on in society.

Sorry, I changed the subject there. Anyway, 14 is too young for someone to legally consent. 16 is acceptable, but 14 is ridiculous. 12 is out of the question entirely.

[stafffighter]

The point is that age of consent isent enforced unless one of the people in the situation is a victem. And Im glad the laws exist for when someone is victemized. I think thats where the age is decided, when its clear they should be able to make adult choices.

At 11/17/03 11:41 PM, Jimsween wrote: emotional or physical reprocutions of sex

Please explain what these "reprocutions" might be.

[OpIvy420]

At 11/18/03 11:11 PM, punk_disease wrote:

At 11/17/03 11:41 PM, Jimsween wrote: emotional or physical reprocutions of sex

Please explain what these "reprocutions" might be.

Yeah. How does feeling really good for an hour or so cause emotional or physical problems? I had sex for my first time when I was 15, it didn't cause me any long term psychological damage. I used a condom, I was safe, and it was pretty fucking tight. Not using protection is more of a natural selection issue than anything. If you're too stupid or too blindly religious to protect yourself, no matter what age you are, you deserve an STD.

In my experience, there really is nothing bad about sex, and there is no logical reason why a young teenager can't be expected to be just as responsible as an older teenager.

[sssuuu]

Basic Age of consent what should it be hmmm... I would say it would all have to lie within the own person's hands to decide if they want to have sex or not. Now basic reasons why we (California) have consent at age 18 or what not...

1. 18 Years old if you get pregnant or what not hopefully both of the 18 year olds would have a job and be able to support the child, a 12 year old and an 15 year old or what not would not be able to support that child.

2. 18 year old people know pretty much plenty about sex and the motives of others and what they want. A 12 year old in some sense may not understand fully what sex is all about and may be confused, and some dirty old man or woman in either case may trick them into doing something that they of never wanted.

3. 18 year olds are considering adults; basically it's their freedom to screw anyone 18 and over, as long as they want it.

4. I am not a doctor maybe someone is here to back me up here, but reading somewhere says that certain age kids that are having sex at a younger age could either cause mental problems in the future or even some physical ones, because their bodies may have the hormones but not physical capabilities to fulfill their sexual desires.

For me, I would say drop it down to 16, that is fine, I am already married so it really doesn’t matter for me but anyways, 16 year old usually have the physical abilities to have sex and should know what is going on with their body and all about sex anyways.

One thing I would love to drop in California or what not it may be other places too, but lets say a 18 year old guy has sex with a 17 year old girl and it's all good, no rape or nuffin, the guy could get in trouble, something like up to 15 years in JAIL, now that is so much much much much bull. If the younger person says the sex was accepted not rape at all than I say its fine, no problem there.

Anyways 16 years old would be a fine age and dropping the bogus law about 15 years in jail for one night of sex. Yah the one thing I can't picture is an 18 doing a 12 year old, ewwww ewww, that is just so wrong, I know a few are mature and stuff like that, but that is too few to change my mind about that.

[JMHX]

Good punishment for sex offenses? Chemical castration.

[bumcheekcity]

At 11/18/03 08:12 PM, Dagodevas wrote: Sorry, I changed the subject there. Anyway, 14 is too young for someone to legally consent. 16 is acceptable, but 14 is ridiculous. 12 is out of the question entirely.

Why is 14 too young? Age makes no difference top maturity. I was more mature at 12 than a lot of adults I know. Now, I'm 14, and although still a virgin, I think that I could make a mature decision about my desire to have sex with girl who made a mature decision to do so?

Question: A 13 Year Old and a 15 Year old have sex. It is fully consentual by both parties. The police get a tip-off. What do they do?