Age of Consent Laws

[Guest empire]

For the purpose of this conversation I'm referring to both gay and straight age of consent laws worldwide.

 

I recently researched the age of consent laws in many countries and was stunned to find what I did. In many places the age of consent is 16 some countries still younger. In the US most states are 18 but several are less than that.

 

I feel all of these age of consent laws are far too young. Though everyone reaches maturity at different times I find it hard to believe that children as young as 16 can make an informed decision and/or understand their decision to have sex at such a young time in their life.

 

From my interaction with teens I believe strongly that the age of consent should be 20 years across the board. Those slightly younger and mature enough to have sex sooner should also be mature enough to wait till they reach my proposed age. It's my feeling that the vast majority of boys and girls would remain much healthier emotionally and physically if they show some restraint and wait till they reach age 20 years.

 

At 20 years these young adults, for the most part, have an emotional understanding of their sexual actions. They will also have a greater appreciation for sex as well as the responsibility that goes with the pleasurable act.

 

Just my feeling, yours might be different.

[Zippy]

Yeah, and the legal age to drive should be raised to at least 21, the drinking age should be raised to around 30 and high school should be mandatory for everyone until age 23. That'l keep those youngsters outta trouble....

 

Of course, the draft age should be lowered to around 14 or 15. Because, hell, if ya can't kill someone with a rifle at that age, ya need to learn right quick.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot. The earliest age for retirement should be raised to 70. There are more and more old farts just hanging around out there not doing a damn thing but livin' off social security and causing trouble. They should be hard at work someplace, damit!

[trilingual]

Empire's point of view doesn't take into consideration the cultural values of other societies and fails to recognize the great differences in conditions between developed and less-developed countries. In the latter, people begin working and forming families much earlier than in the developed countries because it's a matter of economic and social necessity. People who have had to work at early ages and don't have the range of benefits and protections that "cocoon" young people in developed countries from the hard realities of life. As a result, they may be young in years but considerably older in terms of experience and maturity than their counterparts in developed countries. Nevertheless, I think 16 is a reasonable age just about everywhere. In many countries people that age can vote and are treated as adults in other ways. That makes it reasonable that they should also be able to consent to sexual relations.

[Guest empire]

>Empire's point of view doesn't take into consideration the

>cultural values of other societies and fails to recognize the

>great differences in conditions between developed and

>less-developed countries.

Your point is noted on the difference between developed and less developed countries. For the purpose of my initial post I will clarify I'm speaking of developed countries.

 

>In many

>countries people that age can vote and are treated as adults

>in other ways. That makes it reasonable that they should also

>be able to consent to sexual relations.

 

I began with the age of consent for sex first and was going to follow up related to other age of consent topics. However, I can see that it is going to be difficult for some to have a discussion without combining the others.

 

So for the record on driving a motor vehicle, voting, serving in the military, drinking and the use of pot I feel 20 years is the appropriate age.

 

I know I'm probably a little on the conservative side on this issue but that doesn't make me wrong and others right.

 

What is wrong is not allowing children to be children. Why must we enbale them to grow up so quickly ... why the rush?

[bigguyinpasadena]

The idea of a period of "childhood"(letting children be children)is fairly modern.Before the 1800's as soon as children were able to help with the family work they were expected to do so.Also because of a much shorter life span young people were betrothed and wed much younger than in modern day.

I take the exact opposite view.I feel the age of consent should be lowered to 16.Not for any pervy reasons-I rarely find 18 year olds desireable let alone 16 year olds.But I think if you surveyed most gay men one would find lots of fooling around before our silly age of consent.

Did you know some states have different AOCL's for different genders?This is called a "Romeo and Juliette"clause.So a boy can bed and wed a girl of 16 when he is 18-and as long as no coercion or force was used then it is ok.But G-D help him if Joey and Johnny want to mees about.That is crazy.

I am so tired of Moms and Dads using a "sex hystaria"to asuage their guilt over not being there for their kids.

I was fooling around much earlier than 16.And I was able to find guys that really liked me-not just a sexual object,but as a whole person.Never was raped by one of my suiters-what ever happned was because I wanted it to happen.Now closeted priests=well that is another story-filthy bastards!There was sure no consent there.

[+ deej]

For what purpose?

 

Girls younger than the age of consent have been getting pregnant since before there was an age of consent. Raising the age of consent certainly won't change that. You're using the same logic that says "teach abstinence, not protection".

 

The problem with both is they're ineffective. They prevent nothing and enable nothing. Kids are still going to have sex (or try to) as soon as the hormones kick in. No "age of consent" is going to change that.

[+ ArVaGuy]

>For what purpose?

>

>Girls younger than the age of consent have been getting

>pregnant since before there was an age of consent. Raising the

>age of consent certainly won't change that. You're using the

>same logic that says "teach abstinence, not protection".

>

>The problem with both is they're ineffective. They prevent

>nothing and enable nothing. Kids are still going to have sex

>(or try to) as soon as the hormones kick in. No "age of

>consent" is going to change that.

 

 

Actually children are starting to enter puberty at a younger age than in the past. According to the medical journal Pediatrics females have traditionally entered puberty about the age of 11 to 12. However, in recent years the age is dropping to 10 to 10.5 for whites and as low as 9.0 to 9.5 for non whites.

 

Several factors are believed to be contributing to this including chemical pollution of the water supply as well as less activity and exercise. According to one hypothesis the level of body fat may help trigger the hormones "to kick in". Since western kids tend to spend more time playing video games than exercising the body is being tricked into thinking that the child is actually older and ready for the hormones to bring about secondary characteristics.

 

(Note the terms "white" and "non whites" were used in the study I read about this issue.)

[LovesYng]

"Age of Consent - Sexual Consent Ages From Around The World"

 

http://www.ageofconsent.com/

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[Guest Jesse Dane]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a588/a588.gif

[Guest ncm2169]

< I feel all of these age of consent laws are far too young.

 

I always wondered: when I was 14 and messin around with my 15 y/o buddy, were we supposed to be concerned about age of consent laws? }(

[twinkboylover28]

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

 

Canada's age of consent is 14.

Are all Canadian's child molesters? I don't think so! God bless Canada.

[Guest zipperzone]

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

>

>Canada's age of consent is 14.

>Are all Canadian's child molesters? I don't think so! God

>bless Canada.

 

I could be wrong, but I think this applies to hetrosexual sex only. I seem to recall that the age is higher for gay sex. Does anyone know for sure?

[Guest zipperzone]

>From my interaction with teens I believe strongly that the age

>of consent should be 20 years across the board.

 

Wow - would Geo W. ever love you!

 

>Those slightly

>younger and mature enough to have sex sooner should also be

>mature enough to wait till they reach my proposed age.

 

Honey - WHAT are you smoking?

 

>It's

>my feeling that the vast majority of boys and girls would

>remain much healthier emotionally and physically if they show

>some restraint and wait till they reach age 20 years.

 

Now give me a break! How could they possibly be healthier physically?

And I suppose you think a horny teenager's emotional health won't actually suffer from abstinance? And you are from what planet?

 

>At 20 years these young adults, for the most part, have an

>emotional understanding of their sexual actions. They will

>also have a greater appreciation for sex as well as the

>responsibility that goes with the pleasurable act.

 

What exactly do you feel the "responsibility" should be when a 19 yr old male has sex with a 18 yr old male. Perhaps you think one of them can get pregnant.

 

>Just my feeling, yours might be different.

 

Well, you got that right. I can honestly say that yours is the silliest post I have ever read in my many years of checking in here daily.

[Luv2play]

As far as I am aware, the age differential in age of consent between straight and gay sex has been ruled unconstitutional in the major jurisdictions (eg. Quebec, Ontario, BC) and cases are pending before the Supreme Court. The new government wants to increase the age of consent but Quebec in particular has reservations. With a minority position, don't expect any changes soon.

[Guest empire]

>>From my interaction with teens I believe strongly that the

>age

>>of consent should be 20 years across the board.

>

>Wow - would Geo W. ever love you!

 

I don't see the connection. Was that meant to be a personal insult?

 

>

>>Those slightly

>>younger and mature enough to have sex sooner should also be

>>mature enough to wait till they reach my proposed age.

>

>Honey - WHAT are you smoking?

 

Again, is this some type of personal attack? I fail to see the discussion in your comments so far.

 

>

>>It's

>>my feeling that the vast majority of boys and girls would

>>remain much healthier emotionally and physically if they

>show

>>some restraint and wait till they reach age 20 years.

>

>Now give me a break! How could they possibly be healthier

>physically?

 

Is that question for real? You can't be serious.

 

>And I suppose you think a horny teenager's emotional health

>won't actually suffer from abstinance? And you are from what

>planet?

 

I have read my post several times and don't see where I mentioned abstinance, do you? However, just because someone is horny isn't an excuse to have intercourse. There are many ways to take care of ones urges.

 

>

>>At 20 years these young adults, for the most part, have an

>>emotional understanding of their sexual actions. They will

>>also have a greater appreciation for sex as well as the

>>responsibility that goes with the pleasurable act.

>

>What exactly do you feel the "responsibility" should be when a

>19 yr old male has sex with a 18 yr old male. Perhaps you

>think one of them can get pregnant.

 

There is an emotional responsibility that goes with the act of sex. Granted that men who pay for sex, I being one of them, don't hae that same emotional attachmentinmost cases. But the unprepared adolescent mind can have a hard time dealing with the aftermath of sex at such a young age.

 

>

>>Just my feeling, yours might be different.

>

>Well, you got that right. I can honestly say that yours is the

>silliest post I have ever read in my many years of checking in

>here daily.

>

 

I don't think that is true, I've been reading this board for a while and have found far worse.

[Guest empire]

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

>

>Canada's age of consent is 14.

>Are all Canadian's child molesters? I don't think so! God

>bless Canada.

 

I find it amusing how you have injected your own words as if they were mind. I never wrote or suggested that any legal sexual activity was child molestation regardless of my views on the age of consent.

 

With that fact stated I also should comment that if your information is correct I find it quite disturbing that Canada will allow children to engage in sexual activity at such a young age. I wonder if they will allow childrent to also smoke pot, drink, vote and serve in the military at 14 years.

[Guest empire]

>The idea of a period of "childhood"(letting children be

>children)is fairly modern.

 

No it isn't.

[Guest Jesse Dane]

I have to say that I find this quite ridiculous as well. I started having sex at 18 and to be honest that seemed quite late.

 

You would have wanted me to wait until I was 20? Good god. By the time I was 20 I was in a 2 year long relationship, managing a hotel, and well on my way to a happy life.

 

I was no longer a kid at 18 and had no desire to be a kid. I was ready to be on my own, live my own life, pay my own bills, and be an adult.

 

So please don't impose "childhood" on those who are ready to grow up.

[+ Tom Isern]

You ask: "What is wrong is not allowing children to be children. Why must we enbale (sic) them to grow up so quickly ... why the rush?"

 

That's a very good question. Our warped American culture rushes children in so many, many ways--the pressure to do sports and excel as an athlete is the biggest one I can think of. The pressure to wear fashionable clothing, get good grades, start earning money, etc. are all ways we rush children. It's a big issue in the literature of psychology.

 

One way we DON'T rush children, however, is in sexuality. Oh, no. Sex remains the big thing they aren't supposed to know about, the big taboo. A breast exposed on tv sends the entire country into spasms of anguish and outraged moral shrieking and finger-pointing rage--MY GOD, THE CHILDREN SAW THAT--A NAKED BREAST--THEY ARE SCARRED FOR LIFE!! We are, frankly, ridiculous.

 

The truth is that sexuality, AND WE'VE KNOWN THIS AT LEAST SINCE FREUD, is an integral and irreducible part of childhood. There is no such thing as a pristine childhood that is untouched by sexuality. We can teach children how to be safe and happy sexual beings and contribute to their health and well-being or we can pass laws that further restrict the age at which they can have sex and restrict their access to knowledge and then they can grow up as many of us did--repressed, unhappy, in the closet, flirting with illicit sex, unaware of condoms and birth control methods, afraid of sex, and dysfunctional. If that sounds like a good idea, why not extend childhood to the age of 30?

[bigguyinpasadena]

Yes it is!Just look at Dickens.Only the very wealthy kept children as pets as is todays custom.And even then they were(as happens today with wealthy families)shoved into someone elses arms for care and feeding.

If you are so unaware of very common knowladge about such things then any discussion you will have will be greatly flawed.

[Guest zipperzone]

>>Wow - would Geo W. ever love you!

>

>I don't see the connection. Was that meant to be a personal

>insult?

 

Not at all, just an observation. Geo W., being the arch conservative that he is would probably give you a medal and a position in the White House.

 

>>>Those slightly

>>>younger and mature enough to have sex sooner should also be

>>>mature enough to wait till they reach my proposed age.

>>

>>Honey - WHAT are you smoking?

>

>Again, is this some type of personal attack? I fail to see the

>discussion in your comments so far.

 

No not personal - just curious, as the weed seems to be working pretty good, I thought you could tell us the name so we could all get some.

 

>I have read my post several times and don't see where I

>mentioned abstinance, do you?

 

Well you may have never used the actual word, but as you are advocating no sex until age 20, I don't know what else you could call it!

 

However, just because someone is

>horny isn't an excuse to have intercourse. There are many ways

>to take care of ones urges.

 

But isn't wasting one's seed by the evil practice of masturbation just as sinful as having sex before 20??? You conservatives should be united in this view eh?

 

>There is an emotional responsibility that goes with the act of

>sex. Granted that men who pay for sex, I being one of them,

>don't hae that same emotional attachmentinmost cases. But the

>unprepared adolescent mind can have a hard time dealing with

>the aftermath of sex at such a young age.

 

The "aftermath"? What fucking aftermath - you sound like you write Victorian breast-beating novels for a hobby.

 

>I don't think that is true, I've been reading this board for a

>while and have found far worse.

 

In YOUR opinion.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

I say that at 18, if they're old enough to die for their country, they're old enough to have sex.

 

I agree that everyone mature at a different rate, but I wouldn't agree with a law, for example, that forbids an 18 y/o from having sex with another 18 y/o.

[VaHawk]

>I say that at 18, if they're old enough to die for their

>country, they're old enough to have sex.

 

Then shouldn't they also be old enough to drink at a bar?

>

>I agree that everyone mature at a different rate, but I

>wouldn't agree with a law, for example, that forbids an 18 y/o

>from having sex with another 18 y/o.

 

WTF?? does this statement mean? Nothing, but then again nothing was expected. Talk about a vague, meaningless, no stance taken statement of opinion.

[Guest empire]

>You ask: "What is wrong is not allowing children to be

>children. Why must we enbale (sic) them to grow up so quickly

>... why the rush?"

>

OOPS I spelled enabled wrong.

Tom I was waiting for someone to post a substanced-based on topic response and I thank you for your effort. Your points have merit.

 

> If that sounds like a good idea, why

>not extend childhood to the age of 30?

>

Because Michael Jackson has proven that it doesn't work

[Guest empire]

Follow up:

 

I find the majority of the replies almost comical. Aren't some of you who are beating me up and insulting me the same people who beat up and insulted escort Juan Vancouver for his views on older adult - younger teen sex? I believe you are.

 

I also recall that some of you who are beating me up and insulting me are some of the same people who beat up and insulted another poster who advocated sex with legal age but extremely young looking boys - yes I believe you are.

 

Your hypocrisy is quite ironic and hasn't gone without note by several people involved at this message center.

 

I feel had I made a post advocating lowering the age of consent in all western countries to 14 the majority of you would have taken the complete opposite view that you took here. You can fool yourself and say no - I believe it to be true based on your posting histories.

 

Thank you to those who attempted to create a discussion in this thread. Your effort has been appreciated.