Age Of Consent - 13?

[Tornado]

I don't really understand why voting should be any different from the year you can be prosecuted as an adult.

 

[niky]

There should be a minimum EQ/IQ for voting. Personally, I'd be good with a certain number of years of military service or civil service (not desk work, but hands-dirty fieldwork).

-

Age of Consent? When you're old enough to work and support a child.

Marriage? Same.

-

Driving License? When you meet minimum competency requirements (higher than the current ones), can demonstrate control of the vehicle in low-grip conditions, emergency lane-change, tire blow-out, etcetera, and has passed a probationary one year period wherein their on-road behaviour is evaluatied.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I don't see why alcohol would be any different than anything else that is mind altering.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Age of Consent? When you're old enough to work and support a child.

I disagree. Such a thing is outdated thinking for this age of readily available contraceptives. I think such high a high age of consent causes more harm than good.

I don't see why alcohol would be any different than anything else that is mind altering.

Alcohol is so ingrained in western culture, it has a different standard. Alcohol also isn't harmful in moderation.

I guess tobacco is engrained in culture too, but the difference is that regularly drinking beer or wine won't cause severe health problems like smoking cigarettes can.

 

[McLaren]

Without too much thought:

Voting: 18?, seems fine as is
Driving: None with proper driver education/testing, 18 at least if the licensing is a joke like it is here
Consent: 12
Alcohol: 15 (or with parental consent)
Cannabis/Tobacco: 18 (or with parental consent)
Marriage: 15?
Prosecuted as an adult: 12
Gambling: 15?

I can see the divorce rates & debt of the general population just skyrocketing now.

 

[niky]

I disagree. Such a thing is outdated thinking for this age of readily available contraceptives. I think such high a high age of consent causes more harm than good.

From a pragmatic point of view, ability to support also means the ability to purchase contraceptives, and the discipline to use them. And then there's the problem of sexually-transmitted diseases, which also carry a cost.

Not being prudish, or anything. Early marriage back in the old days presupposed that 12 year olds were old enough to farm and fish.

Of course, if vasectomy were reversible...

Alcohol is so ingrained in western culture, it has a different standard. Alcohol also isn't harmful in moderation.

I guess tobacco is engrained in culture too, but the difference is that regularly drinking beer or wine won't cause severe health problems like smoking cigarettes can.

Alcohol abuse carries a whole lot of health complications. Nicotine itself isn't the main problem with smoking... it's the smoking part. Vaping, though it still uses addictive nicotine, is not as big a cancer risk (depending on who you ask... many studies are inconclusive, but the risk is generally acknowledged to be a whole lot lower than smoking).

And marijuana carries very little health risk compared to both.

Just because it's ingrained doesn't make it better, and tradition is a poor excuse for whether or not something should be legal or illegal.

 

[SagarisGTB]

I can see the divorce rates & debt of the general population just skyrocketing now.

I adjusted a minimum organized gambling age to the age of high school graduation (for most). I'm still unsure about a marriage age.

From a pragmatic point of view, ability to support also means the ability to purchase contraceptives, and the discipline to use them. And then there's the problem of sexually-transmitted diseases, which also carry a cost.

Not being prudish, or anything. Early marriage back in the old days presupposed that 12 year olds were old enough to farm and fish.

Of course, if vasectomy were reversible...

What you say makes sense, but it's not realistic. Teens want to bone and they will bone whether it is illegal or legal. The problem is that when it is illegal, acquiring contraceptives for adolescents becomes more complicated and difficult. You simply cannot unequivocally preach for the use of contraceptives to adolescents if the age of consent is high.

Alcohol abuse carries a whole lot of health complications. Nicotine itself isn't the main problem with smoking... it's the smoking part. Vaping, though it still uses addictive nicotine, is not as big a cancer risk (depending on who you ask... many studies are inconclusive, but the risk is generally acknowledged to be a whole lot lower than smoking).

And marijuana carries very little health risk compared to both.

Just because it's ingrained doesn't make it better, and tradition is a poor excuse for whether or not something should be legal or illegal.

The abuse of potato chips carries a whole lot of health complications as well. Are we to ban fatty, salty and high calorie foods from children until they reach a certain age? I just don't see the logic in banning something for a certain age group when it can be enjoyed without adverse affects. Of course it can be harmful when abused, but so can almost anything. There comes a point when protecting people from themselves becomes repression. Some human beings will make poor choices no matter what is legal or illegal or right or wrong.

And about alcohol tradition: whether it is right or wrong, it is what it is. There is simply such a giant demand for alcoholic beverages in the western world, banning would incite riots and create a humungous black market. Only bad things would come from making alcohol illegal.

 

[niky]

I know you can't ban kids from having sex if they want to... but if you were to set an age, that's what I would set it at. Unrealistic as it is.

-

As for alcohol, that was merely in response to having it at a lower age limit than other substances with mind-altering effects. Whatever age liimt you set for one mind-altering substance should be the same age limit you set for all mind-altering substances.

 

[SagarisGTB]

As for alcohol, that was merely in response to having it at a lower age limit than other substances with mind-altering effects. Whatever age liimt you set for one mind-altering substance should be the same age limit you set for all mind-altering substances.

That's fair. I initially set an umbrella age for smoking (all substances) higher than a drinking age because of the addictive properties of nicotine and because supposedly cannabis is harmful for the adolescent brain (not sure if that's really true or not tbh). But you bring up a fair point and I revised the "smoking age" for now. One of the reasons I posted a list of ages is because I wanted to see opinions from others, as this subject is not something I've really though about before (other than the age of consent and age for prosecution as an adult) so my opinions aren't fully formed.

One thing I didn't list among the "age limits" was a minimum age for prostitution and/or (minimum age to "act" in) pornography. I wouldn't mind seeing opinions about those two as well.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

My take :

Voting: 21
Driving: 21 - driving test + 100 hours supervised log - most young kids are slow to mature, especially boys
Consent: 18
Alcohol: 21
Cannabis/Tobacco: 21
Marriage: 21 or 25
Prosecuted as an adult: 18
Gambling: 21

 

[Keef]

Interesting idea. I'm not sure I can subscribe to one line though. The age at which you should be allowed to engage in sexual activities is probably significantly lower than the age for voting.

I'll just throw this out there to get the ball rolling:
- Voting: 30, or military service (whichever comes first)
- Driving: 14, or with competency test
- Consent: 14
- Drinking/Drugs: 14
- Marriage: 14
- Prosecuted as an adult: 14

I was leaning toward 16 as a decent age for everything. The only things I'm caught up on are voting and military service. I'm not sure if I want to allow kids still in high school to quit and enter the military. At the same time, the military does teach practical skills similar to a technical high school, and their college-level academies are top-notch.

As for voting, I think 30 is a terrible idea. Thirty years is plenty of time for kids to get frustrated that they can't change the system, stop caring, and become fully indoctrinated by whatever propaganda they hear over that span. Especially in my area of the country, I see much more political intelligence from people under 30 than I do over it. If I were to generalize, I'd say those over 30 are terrified of change, are too busy with life to bother learning about the world, believe in authoritative rule in various aspects of life from group punishment in school to government, and would rather have somebody else make a meaningful decision because they've gotta catch up on late bills. In contrast, the majority of my close friends and many others I know are much more likely to be suspicious of authority, ask it questions or confront it, ignore rules that don't seem to actually protect anybody, and try to figure out ways to keep from being tied down by the system. They see a problem and they try to solve it rather than backing down because it might be illegal.

Another consideration: Working. I think the working age should be lowered to 14 if not lower. Hell, make it 12. I'm sure there's plenty of outstanding 12 year olds that already understand that a couple hours of $6 work after school will get them some new jeans in a month or a video game by summer.

My take :

Voting: 21
Driving: 21 - driving test + 100 hours supervised log - most young kids are slow to mature, especially boys
Consent: 18
Alcohol: 21
Cannabis/Tobacco: 21
Marriage: 21 or 25
Prosecuted as an adult: 18
Gambling: 21

I've got problems with a couple of these ideas. Currently, the 21 year rule for alcohol is a farce. It doesn't work. Tobacco is 18 and weed is mostly illegal; neither rule works.

 

[homeforsummer]

Driving License? When you meet minimum competency requirements (higher than the current ones), can demonstrate control of the vehicle in low-grip conditions, emergency lane-change, tire blow-out, etcetera, and has passed a probationary one year period wherein their on-road behaviour is evaluatied.

In other words, immediately revoke driving licenses from 95% of the current population irrespective of age

 

[Famine]

I'll just throw this out there to get the ball rolling:

- Voting: Competency test (theory); Minimum entry age - 18
- Driving: Competency test (theory and practical); Minimum entry - tall enough to reach the pedals
- Consent: Competency test (theory; includes parenting); Minimum entry age - 12
- Drinking/Drugs: Competency test (theory); Minimum entry age - 17 (for public consumption)
- Marriage: Competency test (theory); Minimum entry age - 16
- Gambling: Competency test (theory and practical); Minimum entry age - 21
- Prosecuted as an adult: Contingent on passing any one of the above competency tests or 21.

 

[niky]

In other words, immediately revoke driving licenses from 95% of the current population irrespective of age

Why... precisely. And if I happen to be number 95, I'll gladly give up my license and get a motorbike, safe in the knowledge that the vanishingly few drivers left on the road will probably not hit me.

Probably.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I'll participate:

Voting: 18
Driving: 18
Consent: 13
Alcohol: 18
Cannabis/Tobacco: 18
Marriage: 18
Prosecuted as an adult: 21
Gambling: 18

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I've got problems with a couple of these ideas. Currently, the 21 year rule for alcohol is a farce. It doesn't work. Tobacco is 18 and weed is mostly illegal; neither rule works.

So, alcohol should get higher or lower ? I've seen enough drunk teens and weeds should be illegal everywhere on earth, but reality says otherwise.

I want most of these at older age to give people time to get more mature when making life changing decision. Almost half of my friends has got into traffic accident once when they started driving at young age, some of them died due to speeding, fatigue or under influence ( drunk ). My trust to younger human gets lower and lower everyday as now they seems to get mature a lot slower than they used to be. The scary thing is male mostly still immature compared to their biological age, when most female tend to be more mature at younger age.

 

[Keef]

In other words, immediately revoke driving licenses from 95% of the current population irrespective of age

This is the exact obstacle with driver's licenses. In my experience flying and training for it I've come to realize that the vast majority of current drivers are almost fully incompetent and would only reach an acceptable level of skill after months of difficult training over similar areas as pilot training - rules, systems, performance, theory, etc. Earning a pilot's license isn't all fun and games and it's hard to do without the sort of work ethic that would get you a bachelor's degree. Except that instead of passing a bunch of tests and not doing much else, you have to do a whole lot of things and only pass one test.

I think Danoff's limit of 14 to manage that is plenty. In fact, the FAA allows kids of almost any age (I forget the minimum) to train, but not actually be granted a license until 16. So we know kids are capable of doing the work and doing it well.

 

[lbsf1]

- Voting: Competency test (theory); Minimum entry age - 18
- Driving: Competency test (theory and practical); Minimum entry - tall enough to reach the pedals
- Consent: Competency test (theory; includes parenting); Minimum entry age - 12
- Drinking/Drugs: Competency test (theory); Minimum entry age - 17 (for public consumption)
- Marriage: Competency test (theory); Minimum entry age - 16
- Gambling: Competency test (theory and practical); Minimum entry age - 21
- Prosecuted as an adult: Contingent on passing any one of the above competency tests or 21.

But therefore are you assuming that someone may not engage in sexual intercourse until you have passed a state regulated test. When you put it that way it doesn't sound quite so good.

Also why should you be allowed to drive a car (which has the potential to kill others very easily), yet you arn't allowed to drink alcohol which is a personal choice that only affects yourself??

 

[Famine]

It doesn't sound very good if your only experience of a state is the incompetent, corrupt, invasive, obscene chunk of crap we have now. But even they can administer a five question test that lets you know someone's competent when it comes to sex.

Hell, I can do it in one. "When's the right time to put a condom on during sex?". If you don't know the answer, you're not ready.

And, as I mentioned earlier, it's not possible to drink or smoke safely because even the slightest participation affects your body chemistry. Poisons are best put into a body that has stopped developing, not one that's still going.

 

[homeforsummer]

This is the exact obstacle with driver's licenses. In my experience flying and training for it I've come to realize that the vast majority of current drivers are almost fully incompetent and would only reach an acceptable level of skill after months of difficult training over similar areas as pilot training - rules, systems, performance, theory, etc. Earning a pilot's license isn't all fun and games and it's hard to do without the sort of work ethic that would get you a bachelor's degree. Except that instead of passing a bunch of tests and not doing much else, you have to do a whole lot of things and only pass one test.

There's a good case here for making the driving test as difficult and expensive as it is learning to fly. I'd happily have paid more to go through a tougher test if it means, at the end of it, I'm one of a significantly smaller percentage of the population able to do so.

It'd certainly separate the people who really, really want or need to drive from the ones just getting a license for the heck of it. Nobody who isn't interested or skillful enough to do so goes out and gets a license to fly a plane or drive an 18-wheeler, so I don't see why driving a car should be any different. And you can be damn sure the ones who make it through the tougher tests would also mean the percentage of competent, safe drivers on the road would skyrocket.

Emptier roads full of more skillful drivers? I'm all for that.

I'm not sure everything should be tested or licensed to the same degree, but I bet if you applied the same stringency to drugs/drink/voting/getting laid there'd be a whole lot less drug/alcohol abuse/crap policy/STDs flying about.

 

[Danoff]

Ok I've got a new requirement for voting instead of being 30 years old. You have to have paid money (net) in federal taxes to vote federally, and paid money in state to vote state. That means you paid more out than you got back in tax credits. No social security does not count, nor any other specific entitlement programs like unemployment.

That requirement would disenfranchise approximately 48% of all US voters (so probably many of the US members reading this thread). And no, you should not be voting if you're not funding the government.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok I've got a new requirement for voting instead of being 30 years old. You have to have paid money (net) in federal taxes to vote federally, and paid money in state to vote state. That means you paid more out than you got back in tax credits. No social security does not count, nor any other specific entitlement programs like unemployment.

That requirement would disenfranchise approximately 48% of all US voters (so probably many of the US members reading this thread). And no, you should not be voting if you're not funding the government.

Yes!!! There is no more surefire way to get a smaller, more efficient, more effective government, than limiting voting to those that pay taxes. Maybe we'll see it in a sci-fi movie someday...lol.

 

[Danoff]

Interestingly enough, a lot of the people who would lose the right to vote under that definition are elderly.


Note:

I should add that I intended that to read that you need to have net paid in money at some point during the year that the vote occurs, not just at any point in your life.

 

[Exorcet]

Competency test

I think this is more important than the actual age.

 

[Jubby]

I think having such a low age of consent is a problem. Think of it this way; if you can consent to sex, you should be able to be responsible for the consequences. Does that mean that a 12-15 year old (under most of the ideas) can have a child but can't get a job (think school, can't drive, can't vote, etc). They can't pay for said child, then you end up needing a socialist or welfare environment so the baby doesn't suffer.

Is that what we're looking for?

Competency test (for marriage, consent, gambling, drinking): who administers this, who pays for it? I don't disagree with the premise, but with the issues that our economies face, why will I need to have my taxes raised to pay for the people who "cannot" afford it. You can't discriminate against the people who can't pay if you pass the cost on to the test taker (family).

Do you want to pay for it?

Ok I've got a new requirement for voting instead of being 30 years old. You have to have paid money (net) in federal taxes to vote federally, and paid money in state to vote state. That means you paid more out than you got back in tax credits. No social security does not count, nor any other specific entitlement programs like unemployment.

That requirement would disenfranchise approximately 48% of all US voters (so probably many of the US members reading this thread). And no, you should not be voting if you're not funding the government.

Danoff, unemployment is not an entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid by a company that insures the employee if they are laid off or get fired under certain circumstances. However, this is moot as we'd be taking back our social system back to 1850. Remember when you had to own land to vote? Same premise. If you want to solve the tax issue, stick to fixing the tax code that eliminates the zero net tax.

If you need an age: apparently the brain won't fully mature until around the age of 25 (US Dept HHS)1. I suspect it may be later (I know too many idiots ). However, since we're all living longer and we all need (supposedly) a college education, why don't we make completion of college the requirement of all? I see many talking about exams, education, etc. Incorporate everything into the education process. Sure we can all have sex at 15 illegally, drink at 16 illegally, and drive without a licence... nothing will change. At least there would be more of an incentive to stay in school.
1http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/

Now on the other hand, why don't we just abolish the idea of an age of consent or permission. Anyone can try to pass the driver's exam (as currently constituted now) when they want. Good luck to the 10 year old children who try and good luck getting insured. That would be the barrier of entry there. Drinking, smoking, and marriage: does an age really matter- truthfully? Children can get married in many places early with parental consent and people obtain alcohol and tobacco products illegally already and sometimes it's simply in spite of the law (the "I'm cool" effect).

 

[Danoff]

I think having such a low age of consent is a problem. Think of it this way; if you can consent to sex, you should be able to be responsible for the consequences. Does that mean that a 12-15 year old (under most of the ideas) can have a child but can't get a job (think school, can't drive, can't vote, etc). They can't pay for said child, then you end up needing a socialist or welfare environment so the baby doesn't suffer.

Uh no.

The consequences of sex are as follows:

- STDs

and

- The need to use contraception or
- abortion or
- giving the child up for adoption or
- raising a child

Raising a child is one possible outcome of several. A teenager who has sex can practice contraception to avoid that outcome. If they don't, they can have an abortion to avoid having the child. If they don't do that, they can give the child up for adoption. Raising a child on welfare is not a required outcome.

Competency test (for marriage, consent, gambling, drinking): who administers this, who pays for it?

The person who takes the test pays for it.

Danoff, unemployment is not an entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid by a company that insures the employee if they are laid off or get fired under certain circumstances.

It is not an insurance program, it's an entitlement program paid for through employment taxes. Insurance is voluntary.

However, this is moot as we'd be taking back our social system back to 1850. Remember when you had to own land to vote? Same premise.

You'll have to explain to me why that's the same premise. I don't see the connection.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think having such a low age of consent is a problem. Think of it this way; if you can consent to sex, you should be able to be responsible for the consequences. Does that mean that a 12-15 year old (under most of the ideas) can have a child but can't get a job (think school, can't drive, can't vote, etc). They can't pay for said child, then you end up needing a socialist or welfare environment so the baby doesn't suffer.

Is that what we're looking for?

Kids can have sex at any age. The consequences are the same at every age. The age of consent determines for everyone, uiversally, the minimum age of someone an older person can have consenting sex with, and not go to prison for for doing so.

 

[SagarisGTB]

"Statutory rape" is also a bogus concept: it's not rape, it's a non-crime. Eliminate statutory rape and treat rape as rape, coercion/manipulation as coercion/manipulation and consent as consent. A 20 year in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old isn't inherently immoral, so why automatically treat it as a crime, waste tax payer dollars and incriminate the innocent?

 

[Jubby]

The consequences of sex are as follows: [snip]

I know what the consequences of sex are. Most folks in here should be.

A teenager who has sex can practice contraception to avoid that outcome. If they don't, they can have an abortion to avoid having the child. If they don't do that, they can give the child up for adoption. Raising a child on welfare is not a required outcome.

What is the age that someone can make a decision to terminate(if it's even legal), when can they do it, and why did you eliminate welfare? You didn't make any stipulations to your consent age. Are you requiring proof of income for having a child?

The person who takes the test pays for it.

What if they can't pay for it, legitimately?

It is not an insurance program, it's an entitlement program paid for through employment taxes. Insurance is voluntary.

Ever heard of FUTA? Maybe it's time to research how unemployment works. If you need additional help, PM me and I'll find some literature to help. (I don't mean this sarcastically)

You'll have to explain to me why that's the same premise. I don't see the connection.

No land=No vote, No pay taxes=No vote. It's a parallel to discrimination. So the 18 year old who is finishing high school has no right to responsibly determine who their representation will be? What if they're going to have a job and be responsible--- they still don't have a say until they "pay in"? I guess you must not believe every vote counts. Let's go to another example. Mom (or dad) of 4, who can afford to be a stay at home mom (or dad) because the spouse has a great job. By your definition they have no rights. Technically they don't pay taxes, their spouse does. Are you breaking down households that far? Or if you're extending it to adults in a tax paying household, can we include state but not federally recognized marriages?

Kids can have sex at any age. The consequences are the same at every age. The age of consent determines for everyone, uiversally, the minimum age of someone an older person can have consenting sex with, and not go to prison for for doing so.

I hear you on this- so you're correct, I was reading more about responsibility to have sex than okaying it. But, if age of consent is (say) 12, we're okay with a 12 year old and a 36 year old?

 

[Johnnypenso]

No land=No vote, No pay taxes=No vote. It's a parallel to discrimination. So the 18 year old who is finishing high school has no right to responsibly determine who their representation will be? What if they're going to have a job and be responsible--- they still don't have a say until they "pay in"? I guess you must not believe every vote counts. Let's go to another example. Mom (or dad) of 4, who can afford to be a stay at home mom (or dad) because the spouse has a great job. By your definition they have no rights. Technically they don't pay taxes, their spouse does. Are you breaking down households that far? Or if you're extending it to adults in a tax paying household, can we include state but not federally recognized marriages?

The specifics of "don't pay taxes and you can't vote" would have to be worked out. A stay at home Mom with a working husband or vice versa, could easily be an exception to that rule. Another exception could be the elderly that paid taxes their whole lives but pay little or no tax in retirement. Rather than get bogged down in specifics though, the gist of the argument is, for me anyway, that people who only receive benefits from the government and contribute nothing to it's financing, will never vote for a candidate who advocates smaller, more efficient government when it includes eliminating, cutting or altering benefits. When that number, combined with the people that work for the government becomes large enough, and I believe it's approaching 50% in Canada and the U.S., you'll never be able to reduce the size of government except in a dire crsisis, because no one will vote the party of austerity into power.

Conversly, the candidates that support increasing benefits and giving out continuous raises above the rate of inflation to unionized government employees will find an easy path to power. My own province of Ontario is a great example of that. Scandal after scandal, billions of dollars wasted on gas plants that get started and then moved for political reasons, e-health, windmills, solar energy, combined with over $100 Billion in new debt. And yet the ruling Liberals get elected over and over.

I hear you on this- so you're correct, I was reading more about responsibility to have sex than okaying it. But, if age of consent is (say) 12, we're okay with a 12 year old and a 36 year old?

I have a step-daughter that was 12 at one time. Do I want her to be with a 36 year old? No. is it creepy as hell. Yes!! But if she's willing and consents to have sex with him, she's likely willing to have sex with boys her own age and I don't believe he should go to prison for doing so. We taught the little Johnette about the birds and the bees very early in life so she was well aware at a young age, where everything went and what it did and what could happen.

But when she was 12, her Mom and I pretty much knew where she was at all times of the day and night. When she had a sleepover, we knew the parents and who was going to be there. She wasn't allowed to hang out in the mall or wander the streets aimlessly. The most likely way for a 36 year old to have enough time to develop a relationship with her would have been another parent. I would have been insane if that had happened and probably went to jail, at least overnight...lol, but I still don't think I'd want him to go to prison for it if she consented to it. I'd consider it a mistake in judgment on her part and something I messed up on as a parent.