Age of consent

JacksDad · Post by **JacksDad** » Sat May 26, 2007 6:09 pm

Agreed, Mags.

It is pedo.

There's not many 30 year olds I know that can accept the responsibility of raising a child.

WTF are they thinking?

I'm almost starting to agree with Truthbringer.

This planet has turned insane.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat May 26, 2007 10:52 pm

I think there are two age parameters, once a person turns 18 they are only allowed to... cavort with other adults. It caused problems for couples that were 18 and 17. They were supposed to suddenly stop until the other's birthday. :wah:

Despite what I thought the laws were, in Canada, my friend's 14 year old ran away from home to be with an 18 year old and the police wouldn't do anything because she was 14 and they said she could make her own choices. I'm not sure whether the girl was any more absent of reason than the average 16 year old who does the same thing.

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sun May 27, 2007 8:20 am

It should really read as "age of personal responsibility" or "age of reasonable accountability". This would mean that girls on the whole would be ready by the age of 18 and boys around the age of 35.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Sun May 27, 2007 8:09 pm

I would love it if the age of consent was more like "the age of responsibility" or the "age of maturity." But how do you measure that?

As for being able to have consensual sex at 14, I think that's absolutely insane. For god's sake, most boys haven't fully finished puberty at 14! And it certainly does muddy up the water when it comes to pedophilia. Where I live, I believe the law says a person has to be at least 16, but they can't have sex with someone 10 or more years older or with an authority figure like a teacher or a police officer, etc. I think that's how the law here goes. Still. How many 16 year olds are making wise decisions when it comes to sex?

It just doesn't make sense to me. As the risk of STDs rises, the age of consent shouldn't be lowered.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:30 am

Wouldn't it be cool if they came up with a test each person had to pass to prove their competence no matter their age? Pass the test and the world is yours! Voting, drinking, driving, having sex, the works!

Kids would be trying to take it from age 12 to 17, then stop. :wah:

Parents would be seen driving their 35-year-old son to the tester and paying the proctor pad the score! :yh_rotfl

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Mon May 28, 2007 10:57 am

magenta flame;623320 wrote:

then we have a boy who has had sex with his girlfriend he's now 19 and she's 16, they have been close since their early days and now he's being charged with indecent assault and other charges. they had a falling out and to get back at him she went to the police.

SO no matter what the law is someone innocent doing what comes naturally after a long friendship winds up with a conviction and the arsehole doing the wrong thing gets off scott free.

Well... if the boy just kept his willy in his pants long enough for the girl to be of age, he wouldn't have gotten in that situation. If she's immature enough to go to the police and scream rape or whatever, then perhaps she wasn't mature enough to have sex in the first place. With the ability to have sex there should come the maturity to know that if there's a falling out you don't go crying wolf. And if this boy and girl were so close than why couldn't they wait it out? He wouldn't be in that mess if he had paid attention to the law.

JacksDad · Post by **JacksDad** » Mon May 28, 2007 1:55 pm

Accountable;623438 wrote: Wouldn't it be cool if they came up with a test each person had to pass to prove their competence no matter their age? Pass the test and the world is yours! Voting, drinking, driving, having sex, the works!

Kids would be trying to take it from age 12 to 17, then stop. :wah:

Parents would be seen driving their 35-year-old son to the tester and paying the proctor pad the score! :yh_rotfl

Bravo Acct.

Myself being 45 had only just passed the test about two years ago.

:D

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon May 28, 2007 3:05 pm

JacksDad;623849 wrote: Bravo Acct.

Myself being 45 had only just passed the test about two years ago.

:D

being that I am a born again virgin, I still am trying to understand the test never mind take it and pass it... :wah:

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Tue May 29, 2007 3:00 pm

minks;623925 wrote: being that I am a born again virgin, I still am trying to understand the test never mind take it and pass it... :wah:

I'm not trying to offend you, minks, or anyone else, but I've always wondered... what is the point of being a born again virgin? If you have sex once you can never be a virgin again, period. So why even try with the born again stuff? Would love to know your side!

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Tue May 29, 2007 4:19 pm

Pinky;624568 wrote: I think she was joking that she hasn't gotten any in while!:D

Hell, what's the point of being a virgin? Where's the fun in that?:wah:

Oh duh. :p

Well, I assumed she was being serious since there are some people who really do call themselves born again virgins. Usually in cases where a woman had sex before marriage and wants to wait until after marriage to have sex again. Or something like that.

There I go getting off topic again. :rolleyes:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 29, 2007 4:22 pm

laneybug;624610 wrote: Oh duh. :p

Well, I assumed she was being serious since there are some people who really do call themselves born again virgins. Usually in cases where a woman had sex before marriage and wants to wait until after marriage to have sex again. Or something like that.

There I go getting off topic again. :rolleyes:

It's been a running joke here for the past year or so.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 am

magenta flame;622638 wrote:

Britain wants to lower the age of consent to 14.

They do????

Im not sure thats true.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:15 am

it makes no difference what the age the law says they do it any way and any age waste of bloody time setting rules.

We have the highest rate of teenage pragancey any way and that is with the rules of age consent

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:16 am

Bryn Mawr;624614 wrote: It's been a running joke here for the past year or so.

I believe it was "reconditioned virgin"

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:35 am

recycled virgin thats me:wah: :wah:

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:33 am

neffy;624839 wrote: it makes no difference what the age the law says they do it any way and any age waste of bloody time setting rules.

We have the highest rate of teenage pragancey any way and that is with the rules of age consent

I dont think 14 would be so bad, as long as there were rules in place to protect from predatory older people. For example I see nothing much wrong (to the extent that there should be a law against it) with two 14 year olds having sex, yet I see LOTS wrong with a 40 year old and a 16 year old having sex, and thats perfectly legal!!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:19 am

neffy;624839 wrote: it makes no difference what the age the law says they do it any way and any age waste of bloody time setting rules.

We have the highest rate of teenage pragancey any way and that is with the rules of age consent

and if a fourteen year old had sex with a thirteen year old would you put them on the sex offenders register as they do now with a sixteen year old?

At fourteen they are too young to know the responsibilities that can go with becoming sexually active - there are too many kids already shouting "it's legal" on their sixteenth birthday.

I'm a grump - I say put it up to eighteen

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:14 pm

suzycreamcheese;624955 wrote: I dont think 14 would be so bad, as long as there were rules in place to protect from predatory older people. For example I see nothing much wrong (to the extent that there should be a law against it) with two 14 year olds having sex, yet I see LOTS wrong with a 40 year old and a 16 year old having sex, and thats perfectly legal!!

I agree with Bryn on this one. Most 14 year olds don't know how to handle the responsibilities of having sex. If you can't live on your own and support yourself at the age of 14 why the hell should you be sexually active when doing so could bring a child into this world? 14 year olds should be focusing on school and their future, not whether or not it's legal to have sex. Yes, they're gonna do it anyway, but that doesn't make it right, safe, or healthy. Just because kids know how to have sex doesn't mean they should. They need to experience a little more of life and be fully educated about STDs, rape and unwanted pregnancies. And it'd be better if that knowledge, in this case, didn't come from trial and error. Besides, let's face it, the younger someone is the less aware they are of how to avoid predatory people and situations, even when there are laws in place to protect them. They should be taught how to protect themselves first so they don't need protection after the fact.

And uhh, I'm not quite sure if a 40 year old having sex with a 16 year old is legal, even if the 16 yo is at the age of consent. I think the age difference with a minor makes it illegal. I think I mentioned this before, but at least where I live, it's illegal to have sex with someone 10 or more years older than you if you're not 18. Not positive, though. I know different places have different laws.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:49 pm

Age of consent is great in theory I suppose but rightfully difficult to mandate.

I can't believe anyone actually thinks a law is going to stop anyone in this situation. All this stuff, love, sex, (ir)responsibility, creating a life; all of it...is a messy business for anyone of any age, just by its nature. Make your laws and hope they hold but don't be surprised when they don't.