CornishChris 5 #1 September 10, 2010 I had a thought whilst reading yet another low jump numbers GoPro thread about the difference between Australia and America, (this will be about sex, keep reading). In Oz the camera limit is set at 100 jumps, in the US it's 200 but both federations consider themself right, so which is? On to the big question. In the US the age of consent is between 16 and 18 years, depending on state, and if you were to have sex with a 17 year old in the wrong state then you would be committing statutory rape. In the UK the age of consent is 16 and surveys indicate, in the UK at least a third of kids have sex before this age. Many countries worldwide have an age of 12 or 13. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png Each state themselves right, as each country does. hat do you think the age of consent should be in your country? Do you also believe that there should be a different age for homosexual relationships (men & women) than hetro ones? Finally should the law apply differently to 2 kids than one adult and one young person - i.e. a 40 yr old man and a 16 yr old girl? CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 September 10, 2010 Yeah, we're not going to go down this road on my watch. See item number 2. The Rules. I'm not saying the topic can't be discussed, but when you start off joking about it, it's pretty much over.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #3 September 10, 2010 Way I see it... 16 seems about right for sex given that the age for making pornography is 18. There is a big difference between having sex with someone and having DVDs made of you having sex, to turn on others and become a project of lust. I see no sense in having the age of consent the same as the age to produce pornography. It doesn't matter about the age of consent when it comes to minors, they will do it anyway. I also believe in implying what some countries use, where if the offender of a statutory rape case is within 3 years of age, it's not the same as say a 40 year old doing it. AoC laws are there so that children aren't manipulated by older men into having sex against their will. And considering most teens are drinking and smoking by 16, I don't see why 16 would be too low of an age. If I'm not mistaken the minimum age to join the Army is 17, and there is no logical reason for the age of consent to be higher or even the same as that- and apparently it was recently raised from 16. As for the countries where it's 12 and 13, that's dangerous for children's well-being, at 12 years old you definitely easily manipulated. I do believe though if a 16 year old girl/boy wants to have sex, that's up to them and no government should be allowed to decide for them. Physically, for the most part girls at 16 are quite matured, and as for mentally, that's different from case to case but many of them are just as mature as their 18 year old counterparts. Sex is not the end of the world, but thanks to religion it has become so. "oh my god! SEX!! NO YOU MUST MAKE IT SPECIAL"... That's entirely that persons choice, if you understand the risks, you should be able to have it with whomever you want and however you want. And at 16 the general population is well aware of the risks of sex. There are millions of unwanted pregnancies from teens, but there's also millions from adults. Sex is not that big of a deal, only irresponsible sex is (which people from all ages sometimes enter into). As for homosexual sex, again- it's not a big deal. And all up to the person involved. I think it should be exactly the same as heterosexual sex. And if it's not, then again it's purely a religion based ideal. Joining the army is far more dangerous and far more of a big decision than having sex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fratricide 0 #4 September 10, 2010 QuoteFinally should the law apply differently to 2 kids than one adult and one young person - i.e. a 40 yr old man and a 16 yr old girl? Laws are all out of whack. In Nevada the age of consent is 16, 'however, if the adult involved in the sexual act is 21 years of age or older and is a teacher, instructor, professor, administrator, head coach, assistant coach or in certain positions of authority over the minor at an educational institution, it is a crime to have sexual relations with a student under the age of 18. (Unless they are married)' When I was living in Cali, my now ex's parents found out we were boinking (I was 18, she was 17) and they were going to have charges pressed (they didn't like anyone coming in between them and their baby girl) until they found out their 18 year old daughter was pregnant and the dad was 17. Haha. Saved by the semen! I think there should be a set age all around, none of this crap where the state decides and therefor some states differ. And as far as the age being different for homosexual relationships, I see no reason to do so. Keep it all the same so you don't leave people guessing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #5 September 10, 2010 age of consent , it should correlate with age of independence . no bringing your underage sex problems home to mom and/or dad . take care of your own baby , take care of your own STD's , take care of your loafing sex partner who's only ambitious enough to get your clothes off. that's just from a practical standpoint . there are many other valid religious and cultural considerations as well ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #6 September 10, 2010 That is up to the family though, the law shouldn't be able to regulate family situations like that. The reason for AoC is not for that reason. Most people still live with their parents when they turn 18 and it will always become the families problem, until you've graduated college and gotten a decent paying job and are able to sustain yours and your child's life. Being pregnant at 16, 17, 18 or 19 for the most part will have the same effects. Unless by some miracle the person in question managed to get a great paying job to pay for both their college, rent, living expenses etc. And there is nothing valid about anything religious, again that's their own families problems if they choose to be religious, not something the government should try to take care of with laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #7 September 10, 2010 The age of consent in my country is 16, and I agree that it should be that. That's my short answer. The long answer... As parents who raise children from birth, much of what we restrict children from doing is intended for their health and wellbeing; don't run with scissors, don't put your fingers in electrical sockets, don't have sex... If we neglect to apply these restrictions we could well be considered bad parents, resented even by our own children who might live with serious consequences of an unsupervised youth. The grey factor is that people can mature intellectually and socially at very different rates. There are certainly people who have had sex at 16, or earlier, with no regrets at all many years later. It would seem unfair therefore to have imposed a law on those people. Conversely, there are many adults in their 20's and 30s with the intellectual maturity of some 16 year olds. Should these adults be barred from having sex? Author Judith Levine once commented regarding teenage sex; "...it's a great part of being a teenager...you'll never have sex like that again." While I don't endorse all her social viewpoints, I can certainly concur with that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #8 September 10, 2010 I believe we have a 'young man's clause' in the UK that essentially allows for younger people (I think 21 or under) a get out of jail free card if they believed the person was over 16. Above that age then they should know better. I think the comments about young people are right - I don't know anyone when I was young who cared about the age of consent particularly. I also think that 16 is about right. Quade - I removed the comments from my OP out of respect for your comment but I am in no way making jokes about paedophilia and didn't intend it t be read that way, I am raising a topic of discussion that I was interested to see views on. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #9 September 10, 2010 I honestly think age of consent is something that can be right at different ages in different countries because it is something that is sociologically/culturally determined. People are old enough physcially to reproduce once they hit puberty (and some of them will have sex at that age regardless of age of consent). However in the U.S. (and in most Western countries, I'm not familiar enough with other places to say for sure) children who are 12 and 13 are not mature enough to be making those decisions as adults. It doesn't mean they couldnt' be, as there are many cultures throughout history where that was the expected norm. It just means our society is not geared that way. In such a society like ours it would not be appropriate to allow anyone to have sex with younger teens, lead to a lot of damage and problems--if you want to see some of them look at the Mormon polygamist societies in America, although there are a lot of confounding problems there. 16, 18, etc. I think is debateable but I'm okay w/ either as long as that is not an option for defense for teachers, coaches, etc. to sleep w/ 16 year olds. It doesn't stop younger kids from doing it. Some states have exclusions for younger people if they are within a certain age range (say 2 years) of just don't prosecute such cases as a matter of public policy. Seems okay to me as one of the primary purposes of the law is to protect younger people from predatory behavior and I dont' see much public benefit to putting a 15 yr. old in juvie if she and her 14 year old boyfriend decide to have sex."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #10 September 10, 2010 I think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #11 September 11, 2010 QuoteI think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30.did you mean biological ?30 sounds good till i moved into a house next door to 2 forty year olds living with their working mother . caveat 30 and on your own ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #12 September 11, 2010 Quote I think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30. I think heterosexuals should be forbidden to procreate at any age until they've proven that they won't have gay kids. It's soooo simple. No straight sex = no gay kids = no gay marriage debate and no "don't ask, don't tell debate" Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #13 September 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteI think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30. did you mean biological ? 30 sounds good till i moved into a house next door to 2 forty year olds living with their working mother . caveat 30 and on your own ! We've had spelling Nazis come and spelling Nazis go, they are all as needless the ones before them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #14 September 11, 2010 Quote Quote I think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30. I think heterosexuals should be forbidden to procreate at any age until they've proven that they won't have gay kids. It's soooo simple. No straight sex = no gay kids = no gay marriage debate and no "don't ask, don't tell debate" Ok, so at what age should gay parents be allowed to procreate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #15 September 11, 2010 Quote Ok, so at what age should gay parents be allowed to procreate? Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #16 September 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteI think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30. did you mean biological ? Oh. Yes. Bi-logical would be something else. My wife, for example, is bi-logical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #17 September 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30. did you mean biological ? Oh. Yes. Bi-logical would be something else. My wife, for example, is bi-logical. She goes both ways with logic? I know some people here that do that very thing.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #18 September 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think the bilogical minimum age of procreation should be raised to 30.did you mean biological ?30 sounds good till i moved into a house next door to 2 forty year olds living with their working mother . caveat 30 and on your own !We've had spelling Nazis come and spelling Nazis go, they are all as needless the ones before them.you have a nazi fetish ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #19 September 12, 2010 I just knew this was gonna happen...this is the start of the age of consent being lowered to physical sexual maturity...The way this country (the U.S) is starting to think, it's almost a sure thing....and if that's gonna happen, this country better start maturing mentally really fast! Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #20 September 12, 2010 Wow, I didn't realise my post was going to kick start a reform of law in the US! CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #21 September 12, 2010 Quote I just knew this was gonna happen...this is the start of the age of consent being lowered to physical sexual maturity...The way this country (the U.S) is starting to think, it's almost a sure thing....and if that's gonna happen, this country better start maturing mentally really fast! You may want to check your history. Quote In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, with ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen; the campaign was successful: by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
