»Age of consent: Is 18 too old?«
|
|||
 Register first to vote here See also IMO → Child molestation is not child molestation For more info see age of consent world ♣ posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Age of consent: Is 18 too old? |
|
|||
 I vote 15 because I think it is an average age. It's really hard to say because in different countries and in different climates things differ greatly. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 This is one of those things that changes with age. When I was a teen, I probably would have said lower, now I'm older - I don't. Kids are far too keen to grow up - but they always have been - in the Town where I live, they let them in Nightclubs from the Age of 12. When I was twelve I still had toys. 
If I could offer anything to the next generation it would be this; Treasure the time you have as a child / teen, don't be in too much rush to be an adult, it's not as much fun as the brochure makes out. 
Sex is a lot of fun, but you have to be aware that it often costs you more than you realise. There are far too many teen mums in Britain today - and far too few teen dads.  posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Many believe that the age of consent is set at 16 because that's the 'average' age for first sex.
In fact, the age of consent was set at 16 in a bid to stop Victorian child prostitution. In 1885, a journalist, William Stead, wrote a campaigning article describing how he had managed to procure a girl of 11. The resulting outcry added weight to a campaign headed by social reformer Josephine Butler and led to the age of consent being raised to 16. Previously, in 1875, it was set at 13; before that, it was 12, deriving from the 1275 Statutes of Westminster. ...
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||
 What is the point of having an 'age of consent'?
I think it should be 18. Perhaps if a country is pushing it, 16 would be ok. Because, assuming that they're not delinquent or something and would actually follow the law, 18 is sufficient to have some sort of high school education to ensure some sort of job, while being a high school drop-out wouldn't be that useful. And being 18, one would have had sufficient arguments with one's parents, and enough exposure to birth-control, and presumably sufficient sound judgement to match an adult's. Did you add the physical characteristics option newly, knn? Why? posted by ryder |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||
 ryder: What is the point of having an 'age of consent'? Only to have legally binding age to either prosecute or not prosecute. The alternative is the following (was done in some countries): To check whether a person (at the time of the sex) was already sexually developed (pubic hairs etc). For example one could argue that a 9year-old with pubic hairs was not raped. The drawback of this is that these kids have to undergo an embarassing medical examination which will be presented in court. ryder: Did you add the physical characteristics option newly, knn? Why? Because some countries do it /did it. ryder: 18 is sufficient to have some sort of high school education to ensure some sort of job What has that to do with anything? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Only to have legally binding age to either prosecute or not prosecute. That's only from the point of view of a court. What about social impact? Isn't an age of consent also for the benefit of the person himself, in that he cannot enter into a contract until that time, and therefore won't set off events out of his control? knn: What has that to do with anything? The fact that the 'real' point of sex is to have kids, and that the partners can cope with that consequence should it arise. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ryder: That's only from the point of view of a court. What about social impact? This thread is ONLY about the legality. I have clarified the poll. ryder: The fact that the 'real' point of sex is to have kids, and that the partners can cope with that consequence should it arise. 1) That's too Catholic 2) Then the age of consent would be 30+ when both partners have enough money. However, these ideas are offtopic here. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 ryder: The fact that the 'real' point of sex is to have kids There are plenty of couples who choose not to have children but who have lots of sex. Are you saying they're "doing it" wrong? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: There are plenty of couples who choose not to have children but who have lots of sex. knn: 1) That's too Catholic 
I don't see National Geographic talking about animals having sex only for the pleasure associated with it. I thought this was a normal thing to say - why was sex developed for humans? So that they could procreate. I did not say that people had sex only to have children, I said that the reason why it exists was to create offspring. Even my former bio text would agree. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You said that the "real" point of sex is to produce offspring. So I reiterate --- you're saying that people having sex for pleasure are having sex for the wrong reason? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: you're saying that people having sex for pleasure are having sex for the wrong reason? Sex for the side-effects - not to have kids, only for the experience or whatever. Perhaps not the 'wrong' reason but yes not the 'natural' reason either. I reiterate as well ryder: I don't see National Geographic talking about animals having sex only for the pleasure associated with it. But we shouldn't be discussing why people have sex, sorry to drag you into it. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ryder: Perhaps not the 'wrong' reason but not the 'natural' reason. Well if we're deciding when people can legally have sex based on the "natural" reason for it (producing offspring), then we should put the age at the point of sexual maturity, which is definitely younger than 18. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ryder: why was sex developed for humans? Sex was -developed- for humans? Do you know anything we mortal earthlings don't know? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: based on the "natural" reason for it (producing offspring) Tiefling: we should put the age at the point of sexual maturity, which is definitely younger than 18. I'm not saying this is untrue, but the "natural" reason is also to assist the survival of the species.. a 15 year old girl is certainly not fit to be a mother with a 15 year old father - they can barely afford their education, don't have enough of it to find decent work, social stigma that prevents own family from helping.. If they go through with a pregnancy termination then the girl experiences stress she could have done without. If they don't, then they are wrongly imposing their error on an innocent life which will be exposed to below par existence. A 10-12 year old who presumably is just getting over the idea that he will probably never meet GIJoe and Santa was just his dad in a costume and ew cooties and oh i wasn't listening in class why did my teacher put the condom on the banana.. fathering a child? 
posted by ryder |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 23:19 php B.B. |