Age Of Consent - 13?

[Guardian]

So you're 19 with a 16 year old daughter ? I don't think you're in much of a position to be doing that.

Also why do you keep changing the colour of that post ?

Sorry, I should've added that I was talking hypothetically. I don't yet have kids.

-----

I'm just trying to find the right vibe.

 

[Slash]

Well with all the hormones the meat industry pumps into our foods, children are maturing at a faster rate than ever before. Especially girls.

I was doing things at such a young age and when I found out others didn't I was like whoa

You're far too lenient.
Try putting your hand up my 16yo daughters skirt, or doing anything even slightly indecent to any of my kids - and you'll be missing a-lot more than a hand.

^Hypothetical situation - I don't yet have kids.

Yet, when you were/are 16, you want to be the one doing it. I'm not for it or against it though. I'm torn.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I think Famine put forward some great points in his post.

To me, if a child has reached the point where they discover sex or drugs (or rock 'n' roll), etc. and they haven't already been educated about it to an appropriate level, they have been failed somewhere by the adults in their life. We make a big deal about teen pregnancy and alcoholism, etc., yet what can we expect when we near-enough leave them to learn by trial and error?

We need to forget the taboo - if a child asks about sex, why would you hesitate to reward their inquisitiveness? It is that same inquisitiveness that will lead them to make good life decisions and become a valuable member of society. After all, isn't that the aim of parenthood in the first place?

 

[Slash]

I think Famine put forward some great points in his post.

To me, if a child has reached the point where they discover sex or drugs (or rock 'n' roll), etc. and they haven't already been educated about it to an appropriate level, they have been failed somewhere by the adults in their life. We make a big deal about teen pregnancy and alcoholism, etc., yet what can we expect when we near-enough leave them to learn by trial and error?

We need to forget the taboo - if a child asks about sex, why would you hesitate to reward their inquisitiveness? It is that same inquisitiveness that will lead them to make good life decisions and become a valuable member of society. After all, isn't that the aim of parenthood in the first place?

Yes I agree with this. The thing is most parents don't want to imagine their baby doing the deed. Which is understandable but the child still needs to know. And if they don't find out from the parents they will find out from somewhere, be it friends or internet. Curiousness goes a long way.

 

[Spoil-t]

My motto is old enough to drive old enough to ****. If you're allowed to drive a potentially deadly weapon then you should be allowed to defile your body with whomever you want. So I'm saying age of consent should be 16.

Now if you want to go by nature's standard then it's "Old enough to bleed old enough to breed."

 

[TheeFrogmanlego]

20 years from now its going to be that way. liberal mentality at its finest..
and the age of consent by law has a two year buffer zone. I believe it should be at 18, because I know too many girls who are brain washed by 30 year old guys into having sex at age 15 , 16, That law is in my opinion a boundary that allot of sick bastards wont cross it out of fear. For example in Russia the age of consent was 13 but raised to 16 FOR THAT VERY REASON . Considering a family member just came out that she and her step dad had a sexual relationship at the age of 12 * shes now an adult* the bastards going to jail.. The age of consent should be 18 period, with the legal two year buffer * 13 can have sex with 15 year old * and minor legal repercussions . but once that two years is broken once before 18 is a big no no.
Sadly the "civilized world" is losing all morals slowly but surely. I'm thinking of getting a vasectomy just so my kids wont have to deal with this crap.
Edit: Best way to teach your children about sex is thru pets.. simple as that..

 

[Joel]

My motto is old enough to drive old enough to ****. If you're allowed to drive a potentially deadly weapon then you should be allowed to defile your body with whomever you want. So I'm saying age of consent should be 16.

Now if you want to go by nature's standard then it's "Old enough to bleed old enough to breed."

So of course there is infallible and completely sound logic behind the driver's licence age being 16, right?

 

[Nicksfix]

If there's grass on the field, play ball.

My motto is old enough to drive old enough to ****. If you're allowed to drive a potentially deadly weapon then you should be allowed to defile your body with whomever you want. So I'm saying age of consent should be 16.

Now if you want to go by nature's standard then it's "Old enough to bleed old enough to breed."

Do keep in mind, that if you referring to the U.S. .... (16-18 yrs. of age) could get you up to 20.

I'm wondering how you would feel as a parent, if you had a daughter under the age of 16 that has "matured" if you would have the same opinion. Would you let her 18 year old boyfriend "play on the field" ? Or would you just let it be and ignore the fact she may have a sexual prowess about her.

From the article, something to keep in mind.

In all states, dating, hugging, holding hands and kissing are not illegal. In some states, fondling, groping through the clothes or other such things known as "3rd base" is illegal.

Just being curious.

 

[Daniel]

Edit: Best way to teach your children about sex is thru pets.. simple as that..

I love my dog, but I don't love her

 

[arora]

To me, if a child has reached the point where they discover sex or drugs (or rock 'n' roll), etc. and they haven't already been educated about it to an appropriate level, they have been failed somewhere by the adults in their life.

Wait just a second there big guy, are you suggesting we be parents to our children?

 

[niky]

Sadly the "civilized world" is losing all morals slowly but surely.

Really? So banning arranged marriages for twelve year olds doesn't count as progress?

-

I'm of two minds about this. Obviously, many thirteen year olds are not mature enough to deal with the repercussions, nor are they mature enough to "Just say no" when pushed by an adult. But this is also true of some adults.

What is, undeniably true, is that given labor laws, educational requirements for work and legal impediments, no way will a thirteen year old in western society be able to support a child in the way that a "legal" adult can, which goes some way to justifying the age of consent.

 

[Liquid]

Furthermore, would the lack of physiological maturity in a 13 year old girl have a negative effect on the development of the foetus?

I'm far from a biologist, but that's a thought that just occurred to me, whilst reading niky's comment.

 

[homeforsummer]

My motto is old enough to drive old enough to ****. If you're allowed to drive a potentially deadly weapon then you should be allowed to defile your body with whomever you want. So I'm saying age of consent should be 16.

You don't seem to have thought about this fully.

For a start, the age at which people are old enough to legally drive (and indeed old enough to drink legally) is more or less arbitrarily decided in different countries around the world*, and just like the age of consent, varies across a range of years depending on where you are.

So "old enough to drive" is a daft metric to use to decide whether people are old enough to have sex. What if the driving age was eight out in Mongolia or somewhere?

What if the driving age was 25 somewhere else because a country decided that actually younger people are often irresponsible morons who really aren't capable of making a decision on how to handle two tonnes of metal?

In fact, maybe there are parallels - it's the same recklessness of youth responsible for kids stacking their first cars into trees that also sees teenage pregnancies rising, after all.

Bottom line: Age alone is no suitable barometer. Of being able to drive or being able to screw.



* In the UK, age of consent is 16. This matches the age at which you're allowed to ride a moped. It's a year earlier than you're allowed to drive (17). It's a year earlier still before you're allowed to drink alcohol in a pub (18) or indeed watch (or star in) pornography (also 18). So you can boink someone at 16 but for the love of god don't take any photos. Though if you do, you'll only be tried as a minor (under 18). Unless you're in Scotland, where it's under 16. See what I mean about arbitrary?

 

[Scaff]

Sadly the "civilized world" is losing all morals slowly but surely. I'm thinking of getting a vasectomy just so my kids wont have to deal with this crap.

So the 'civilised' world that has put in place age of consent laws (that have gone up as time has gone on), rejected forced and arranged marriage and actually worked towards supporting those who are victims of abuse and manipulation is 'losing all morals slowly but surely'?

Sorry but no its not, heading back out of these civilised times would see an undoing of all that and unless your morals are based around the Old Testament then I don't see that as being a good thing at all.

 

[niky]

Furthermore, would the lack of physiological maturity in a 13 year old girl have a negative effect on the development of the foetus?

I'm far from a biologist, but that's a thought that just occurred to me, whilst reading niky's comment.

Not really, not so far as I know, but it depends more on physical maturity than actual age. Whatever your age, as soon as you get "birthing" hips, men will find you desirable, whether you're thirteen or eighteen.

-

Age is arbitrary. And that arbitrary age of eighteen works for Western society basically because we've built up a social structure in which it is impossible for a young teenage couple to provide for a baby.

 

[Famine]

My motto is old enough to drive old enough to ****. If you're allowed to drive a potentially deadly weapon then you should be allowed to defile your body with whomever you want. So I'm saying age of consent should be 16.

Now if you want to go by nature's standard then it's "Old enough to bleed old enough to breed."

I encourage you to look up a condition called "precocious puberty". There's a very famous case of an individual called Lina Medina who had "grass on the pitch" aged two - and an allegedly rapey uncle decided to play ball, resulting in her giving birth to her son aged five.

She started periods at 18 months. Have fun with that standard.

That law is in my opinion a boundary that allot of sick bastards wont cross it out of fear. For example in Russia the age of consent was 13 but raised to 16 FOR THAT VERY REASON . Considering a family member just came out that she and her step dad had a sexual relationship at the age of 12 * shes now an adult* the bastards going to jail..

That's sexual abuse, whatever age she is. Nothing to do with the age of consent.

Just as teachers can't shag their 16+ pupils, step-parents can't shag their step-children - even if they're 61. And it's got nothing to do with the age of consent, because "sick bastards" cross that line every day, as predator, as opportunistic abuser and even completely consensually (insofar as consent applies). In your own example, the girl was below the age of consent...

Incidentally, it's worth remembering what "consent" means. It means an expressly given permission by an individual to access to their body for a specific function. It doesn't mean "have sex" and it does expire if withdrawn. The reason we have it for sex is because it makes rapes easier to prosecute if you assume one party is rendered unable to say they want it - as we do for people asleep, unconscious, drunk, high or suffering from a cognitive or mental impairment. These folk are less capable of understanding consequences of actions, temporarily or permanently, so their consent cannot be assumed to be given even if they give it. The law does that for children too, as it judges they're not developed enough to understand what they're giving permission for - but who is better placed to make that call than the individual themselves and those who parent them? A catch-all law that says any awake, sober 16/17 year old is sufficiently developed to collect cock like Pokemon?

If someone can demonstrate the reason for the law is moot - that they are aware and they are developed enough to know what they're doing - the law itself should be. And that means there should be no law, because a law that cannot be rationally defended should not exist. But that'd make extra-familial sexual abuse really hard to prosecute - in the same way that adult rape is.

There's a corollary. We give kids rights and responsibilities because we think they understand them. Most of them are for the protection of other people - they're limited in what they can get about in (bike, moped, motorbike, car, lorry) until they reach an age where the majority have demonstrated they understand it and then they have to have a practical test to show they can do it safely. Some are for their own protection - alcohol, sex, tattoos, piercings - and these are just given to them at adulthood without any demonstration of understanding. Bam, 18 years old, drink, ink and pink. Sound rational? Of course it doesn't - but it's not the sudden availability of rights that's the irrational part. It's the lack of any kind of demonstration they understand the responsibility - which is what rights are based on in the first place...

Edit: Best way to teach your children about sex is thru pets.. simple as that..

Takes "animal lover" a bit far, don't you think?

 

[Ranman20]

All I care about is, are these 13 yr olds getting married for the right reason, not just because they can. That's if they really make the age consent 13.

 

[Famine]

What does marriage have to do with it?

 

[theotherspongey]

13?

No...just...no.

 

[niky]

What does marriage have to do with it?

Pre-marital hanky-panky is a sign that liberal/leftist propaganda is eroding our society's morals?

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Could 10 year olds honestly even have real sex? I honestly don't think that their bodies would even be able to do it properly.

I don't even think its developed enough to find its way in...

Unless its fully developed, people should not be having sexual intercourse.

 

[Famine]

I don't even think its developed enough to find its way in...

Please study basic biology more. Mr Winky will operate in that state from birth.

Unless its fully developed, people should not be having sexual intercourse.

And by "it" you mean "mind", right?

 

[TyrrellRacing]

She started periods at 18 months. Have fun with that standard.
That's sexual abuse, whatever age she is. Nothing to do with the age of consent.

Just as teachers can't shag their 16+ pupils, step-parents can't shag their step-children - even if they're 61. And it's got nothing to do with the age of consent, because "sick bastards" cross that line every day, as predator, as opportunistic abuser and even completely consensually (insofar as consent applies). In your own example, the girl was below the age of consent...

Incidentally, it's worth remembering what "consent" means. It means an expressly given permission by an individual to access to their body for a specific function. It doesn't mean "have sex" and it does expire if withdrawn. The reason we have it for sex is because it makes rapes easier to prosecute if you assume one party is rendered unable to say they want it - as we do for people asleep, unconscious, drunk, high or suffering from a cognitive or mental impairment. These folk are less capable of understanding consequences of actions, temporarily or permanently, so their consent cannot be assumed to be given even if they give it. The law does that for children too, as it judges they're not developed enough to understand what they're giving permission for - but who is better placed to make that call than the individual themselves and those who parent them? A catch-all law that says any awake, sober 16/17 year old is sufficiently developed to collect cock like Pokemon?

If someone can demonstrate the reason for the law is moot - that they are aware and they are developed enough to know what they're doing - the law itself should be. And that means there should be no law, because a law that cannot be rationally defended should not exist. But that'd make extra-familial sexual abuse really hard to prosecute - in the same way that adult rape is.

There's a corollary. We give kids rights and responsibilities because we think they understand them. Most of them are for the protection of other people - they're limited in what they can get about in (bike, moped, motorbike, car, lorry) until they reach an age where the majority have demonstrated they understand it and then they have to have a practical test to show they can do it safely. Some are for their own protection - alcohol, sex, tattoos, piercings - and these are just given to them at adulthood without any demonstration of understanding. Bam, 18 years old, drink, ink and pink. Sound rational? Of course it doesn't - but it's not the sudden availability of rights that's the irrational part. It's the lack of any kind of demonstration they understand the responsibility - which is what rights are based on in the first place...Takes "animal lover" a bit far, don't you think?

So can a drunk/high/mentally impaired person call "rape" on any sexual encounter and win a court case by default?

 

[Scaff]

So can a drunk/high/mentally impaired person call "rape" on any sexual encounter and win a court case by default?

If you were so drunk you couldn't talk clearly and 'big Vern' took you to his magic place what would you call it?

 

[Famine]

No.

Remember the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty". If someone can prove they were incapable of giving consent (or consented to less than actually happened) to the sex act that occurred, there will likely be a successful prosecution. In the case of someone with a mental age of 6, proving they didn't consent is easy - but proving a sexual encounter occurred is not.

Less than 6% of all alleged rapes are ever prosecuted.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

If you were so drunk you couldn't talk clearly and 'big Vern' took you to his magic place what would you call it?

If you were drunk and you had sex with your partner, who you later discovered was cheating on you, what would you call it?

 

[Scaff]

If you were drunk and you had sex with your partner, who you later discovered was cheating on you, what would you call it?

What does them cheating on you have to do with it at all?

And answer the question please.

 

[Brend]

I honestly think 16 is fine, seems a well rounded age where the most important 'development' has taken place by that point.

 

[Bigbazz]

I think 13 is too young, the legal age of 16 is fine. Ultimately all this law change would do is allow older people to take advantage of kids, at an age when they are vulnerable to manipulation. There is no logical reason why the age should be lowered, not all kids are even sexually mature at that age.

With that said I was 8-9 when I lost my virginity, with my best friend and girlfriend at the time who was a year older, she introduced me to "kissing like in the movies" along with sex and to be honest I was not so clueless about it even at that age, didn't really understand it but it was fun and didn't seem like any serious thought about what we were doing was put into it, it was just innocent fun between two kids. By time I was 10-11 it was not that uncommon for people to have lost their virginity (or to atleast claim they had).

 

[TyrrellRacing]

What does them cheating on you have to do with it at all?

And answer the question please.

Could a case not be made that you were raped by your partner, who you now have a particular disdain for? The "cheating" part was just added as a motive for claiming rape.

In answer to your question, yes that is obviously rape. But that's an extreme case; I'm arguing for the more ambiguous case. Is picking up girls from a bar/club essentially just a game of Russian roulette and something that should never be attempted unless you can be sure they're functioning mentally correct and are not drunk/high? CCTV will prove they left with you, as will numerous other things and feel free to lament my limited understanding of Biology, but can tests not be conducted to prove intercourse took place ?

No.

Remember the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty". If someone can prove they were incapable of giving consent (or consented to less than actually happened) to the sex act that occurred, there will likely be a successful prosecution. In the case of someone with a mental age of 6, proving they didn't consent is easy - but proving a sexual encounter occurred is not.

Less than 6% of all alleged rapes are ever prosecuted.

According to Wikipedia, rape is defined as "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent." Therefore, is everyone that has sex with a mentally incapable person a rapist?