why the age of consent should NOT be lowered

I'd like a complete argument put forth on this.

I've heard:

-younger people are too stupid to know what's good for them
(therefore, people should be forced to do what's good for them, a completely totalitarian view shared by well-meaning liberal condom&smoking-nazis)
(therefore, also implying, that stupid people or those of mildly lower IQ should be banned from having sex as well, no matter how old)

-the body is not mature
(does this mean that sex should only occur when pregnancy can occur? if so, does that constitute support for many 12 and even 11 year olds to be legally authorized as consenting sexual agents because "the body can"? does it mean that women and men with sexual dysfunction should be forbidden sex because they are infertile or undeveloped?)

-adults take advantage of children
(this assumes that the younger person is not only legally incapable of consent, but cognitively incapable of consent...please describe how a 13 year old, even if stupid, is intellectually unable to decide that they will engage in the act of sexual intercouse. I don't mean they would make a good decision, I mean would they or not be "aware" of what they are deciding to do.)

-young people will be irresponsible (stds, pregnancy)
(is this then an argument to ban promiscuous people who carry stds from having sex...and also to ban fertile women from having sex)

Finally, the argument that this is just common sense and no big deal seems at odds with the approval of massive, violent power on the part of the state and its police officers, to make sure that this no big deal norm is enforced.
Is it freedom being made safer or is it a police-state invasion of privacy world that we must accept in order to ensure public safety?

I ask these questions not to spam or provoke but to get at the bottom of thoughts on the matter.

 

I think this sums it up nicely.

 

Thank you for your input but I'm not sure it applies.
You linked to a banned? poster and I'm assuming you wanted me to read the forum guidelines posted there.

If that's the case,
it should be clear that my post and this thread are not about describing/creating/using the forum for illegal activities, let alone reproducing imagery thereof.
This is not a duplicate post unless you want to suggest that there can only be one post per topic on the forum, which would make a very small forum.
There is no spamming for commercial links, etc etc.

Please clarify what is being summed up. I'm unsure as to the meaning of your reply.

 

The meaning of his reply sums it up

As a 37 year old male your opinion doesnt count.

Everyones just going to assume you give a crap about this issue so you can do 15 yr old girls

 

It should be +18 not +21 I am sorry but if you can die for your country then you should be able to drink.It should just be like tobacco.I think it should be +18 also for the places here with Marijuana laws.

 

We had a thread about this topic last year it was a pretty big conversation.

But yeah you sum up the reasons in a nutshell in the OP.

Age of consent in the UK though is 16.

So the main debate is 16 or 18 more realistic?

In regards to other sex laws that are supposed to protect the public, I'm still waiting for the day when people who piss in an alley, and teens who get caught sexting amongst each other and get caught, can take themselves off the sex offenders registry.

 

where I live it's 18+

I Think he was just talking about sexual consent, though.

 

I was but why not extend, it's related, after all.

OTOH, they probably just stumbled in here by accident, a little tipsy.

 

I think you might have missed out the social norms of the country in question. In the UK this seems to be 16. This doesn't mean a person under 16 is prosecuted if they happen to have sex. If there is a couple of years difference in the couples ages - nobody is prosecuted. I think it is to protect children from older people abusing (in all senses of the word) them. For instance, a 25 year old man or woman should not be having sex with a 12-13 year old. 16 seems perfectly ok to me. Most of the world seems to agree.

 

The way sex sells amongst teens, I'd suggest most chicks boxes have been banged out and are loose as and probably have rough looking assholes by the time they hit 16.

 

:smilielol5:

 

lol lol lol leave the minors alone holy hell are you that hard up?
tell santa to bring ya a russion bride lol

 

If I can add some analysis instead of the yes/no that is the preferred argument for some,

why should I, presuming that's my purpose (as you're suggesting).

2. are you suggesting minors are "easier" than adult women?
Please explain how that is so.

 

Most of the world does not agree. Although you might not know or think it, 16 is actually on the lower end of what is tolerated and I think "most of" the world might weigh evenly or considerably in favor of 18 as the age of consent. Some countries have it a bit lower but are definitely very few.

How or why do you distinguish between the 16 year old and the 13 year old.
what is your criteria.

Second, how do you feel about what is a VERY prevalent attitude, that a 16/25 match is totally inappropriate.

 

I think 19 should be the magic age for alcohol consumption. It gets most people out of High School. I turned 18 in 1972 when the age was lowered to 18. From January until May I sat in the bar and went to school. As far as voting....... 18.

 

The criteria are those that were listed in the OP.

But what wasn't specifically mentioned was average brain development for all of the issues mentioned in the few posts above this one.

Drinking: is age 21 because of the average stage of frontal lobe development.


Sex: is 16-18 for a similar reason in brain development in handling a sex act, along with possible similar physical reasons, and social reasons of the stress of STD/STI's and pregnancy. And to protect the younger generation from the older generation. That's where the argument for "being to young to consent" comes from.

It should be noted though that from a physical standpoint, some girls are as physically able to have sex and bear a child at ages ranging from 12-25 with relative ease. But the average, even by ancient standards, it was best to give birth in the late teens early-mid twenties.


-----

I agree with this but I understand that a gray area does exist, and when it comes to worldly law, it tends to be absolutely black/white and doesn't acknowledge the gray.

 

Current date minus their birth date

So you want to bang underage girls, and the way to do that is to try change everyones mind on the subject, then the law.

Even if you change the law, they still arent going to talk to you, you still arent going to be hot enough.

So social norms, police states, stds ,pregnancy, everything thats everyone elses fault......before that main bottleneck, that being you need a non ugly head

 

I was asking him how he distinguishes them qualitatively, not just sheer numbers.

Why do think underage girls are interested in "hot" people. And then, why do you think they would ever be interested in a "non ugly" adult?

 

I know you don't have even the mildest reliable scientific data to back up your claims. So my question is, why are you so convinced that you do?

MADD was all about frontal lobe development, when they pushed to raise the drinking age, eh? Only America, with its unique high age of drinking, was scientific in deciding what age of alcohol should be, eh?
Again, why only protect teens, then? or 20 year olds?
Moderate alcohol doesn't cause significant brain damage.
At ANY age, severe alcohol over consumption causes brain damage. Why the fetish about brain development?

You can review the OP but I'll save you time:

social stress of STDs is at every age, so why do we only protect teens by forbidding it.
second, STDs exist among teens, in regions where a near-in-age exception exists, they are still at risk.

when you say "protect the younger generation from the older generation", given that a near-in-age exception nevertheless often means a 20 year old is forbidden sex with a 17 year old, or sometimes even closer,
what exactly is being protected?

If brain development explains why 16-18 is earliest age for sexual permission, why are there near-in-age exceptions for even younger people? Does 2 stupid people having sex make them suddenly responsible and brain-developed?
Why is driving allowed earlier than sex, with its fast paced decision making, when it's all about brain development?

 

Only one sense of abuse comes to my mind. I must be thick headed. would you indulge me and explain what senses other than "mistreat someone against their will" I'm forgetting?