thats fucking gross! the reason the legal age is 18 in the USA is because younger than that men and women don't really understand what is happening! I can't believe anyone would want to take the innocence away from a 10-12 year old!!!!!! How dare you!

 

and also, "10,000+ years ago"...REALLY! I want you to find me any text that is dated to 8000 BC! Fucking dumbass!!!!

 

*takes a deep breath before speaking*

Frankly, nobody forced me to start having sex when I was 13, I just DID.
I wanted to, I was curious about it, and I DID. I don't think this impeded my growth or harmed me in any way.

So I DO think those laws are far too strict. You can disagree if you like, but I think that once children of any age decide that they want to have sex, they're going to do it anyways. It doesn't always mean that they were coerced, forced, misguided, etc. Some kids just develop a sexual interest earlier. I was one of them. Does that make me a bad person? No! Does that make my parents bad people? No!

Frankly, I find it ridiculous that those laws are often used as a scapegoat for angry teenage girls that are pissed at their ex-boyfriends. The fact of the matter is, those laws basically give girls who are considered underage by law a way to get back at their boyfriends for breaking up with them. I've seen it happen to plenty of young guys who were the same age as their girlfriends, even when they weren't the ones initiating the sex.

The thing most people tend to ignore is that some teens honestly have high sex drives. Our society is constantly bombarding us with sexual images; barely clad women modeling clothes on billboards, commercial after commercial of over-sexed women or bare-chested men. Television is essentially a "meat market" and kids are exposed to sexual innuendo/content from a very, very young age whether their parents are conscious of it or not. This is bound to ignite a spark of curiosity in kids, and as they grow up, especially once they reach puberty, many kids act on it.

This is where the laws fail us; even for kids who are having consensual sex, even if they are the same age, if they're underage it's illegal in the eyes of the law and, as such, can be used to press charges on either party (am I wrong about this? I was pretty sure that was how this worked, or do these laws in fact favor women?).

Just a year ago, my best friend's little brother was charged with statutory rape after his girlfriend of two years (they were 15 at the time, had been having sex irregularly for about a year) told her parents that they had been having sex and that she was pregnant. They threw the book at him, despite the fact that they were the same age AND the fact that the girl admitted that she had often been the one initiating the act in question AND the one insisting that they didn't need to use condoms (thank you abstinence only education!). They went ahead and said that their sexual encounters were rape because she was underage and "didn't know any better, especially when 'pressed into sex' by someone whom she 'thought' she was in love with at the time". They WON. He can't enroll in any area schools because he is now listed as a R.S.O. until he reaches age 20, he had to drop out and is trying to earn his High School Diploma through a home-schooling program.

How is this right?! I understand that those laws were originally intended to protect kids from pedophiles, and while I can respect the fact that this IS an issue and that children can be taken advantage of, can you honestly look at HALF of America's Statutory Rape convictions and say that the minors involved were completely innocent and had been "taken advantage of"?

And I just have to say, that at age 15 I wanted NOTHING to do with guys my age, and I was dating men at least 5-8 years older than me... My parents knew them, liked them, knew that I was dating them and knew that I was having sex with them as well. They also knew that I was on birth control and using condoms. I was not being "taken advantage of". I was not being "raped". I was in two, albeit very different, devoted, loving relationships. If I had ever wanted to say no, I easily could have. But I DIDN'T. And, quite frankly, I feel that these laws in many ways insult the intelligence of our youth. Essentially, the message we are sending is, "We know what's right for you. You don't. Deal with it."

While I don't think that children ages 12 and up should be fair game, those laws really need some working over. Not only to protect today's youth from themselves (because, as we all know, most kids consider going against the wishes of their parents a spectator sport at age 14) but also to protect them from eachother, because nobody will ever convince me that it is right for a child to be able to cry "statutory rape" just because they're mad at somebody when they know full well that everything they did was consensual. YES maybe early teenage years is too early to be having sex, but I don't think we have our children to blame for the fact that they are having sex so early now, it's or society in general! And really, how many "Proud Americans" want to fix that? Well children? Show of hands?

Agree or disagree as you wish. Just my opinion on the matter.

 

If you're going to start a thread like this it would be good to know what it is you're talking about... Having FACTS helps too, so does citing your resources and proper grammar.
Not that I entirely disagree with you or anything, even though I do feel your opinions may be a little far away from what I am comfortable with myself, it's just that if you're going to say something that you know is going to be provocative for a lot of people, starting off with a good solid piece of writing that is well documented and full of concrete examples makes it a little more difficult for people to disagree with you.

 

Ten and eleven I can understand but when was the last time you saw or overheard conversations twelve year old girls were having, let alone those same such whom text-sext and-or (web)cam ?

You are in for quite an education.

 

a if there is grass on the field it can b played on lol......

 

underaged girls can look really hot...but just look i think

 

As long as the legal age is 18, it can be selectively enforced. If you like the guy your 17 year old daughter is dating, no problem. But if he's black, you can have him thrown in jail, and marked for life in a sex offender registry so he'll never get an education or decent job as long as he lives.

(And if you don't think a lot of these prosecutions have been racially biased, you haven't followed the news.)

If the age limit is to ensure that everyone is making a wise decision about sex, well, take a look at the number of 30 and 40 year olds who lose their home over a divorce and an affair, and tell me what age limit could possibly be high enough.

Everyone's had a bad relationship where they felt used at the end of it. I'm glad they don't all end up with one party going to prison.

Teens should be entitled to make some mistakes. Having sex with someone who breaks up with you the next day won't scar you for life.

The smartest policy would be to only allow sex with people within 5 years of your age, 10% of your weight, +/- 2 of your attractiveness on a scale of 1-10, and 30% of your income. Anything outside of that might mean that the older, richer or more attractive person was taking unfair advantage of the other person. This law should apply your whole life.

Or, maybe we could just set the age to 13 (like Spain), 14 (like Germany, Portugal and Italy) or (15 like France and Greece) or 16 (like the UK).

 

I've been having sex since I was eight. the laws are such that they are repressive to most people and I agree they should be changed. It is correct that our bodies are ready from the age of between 8 and 15 to reproduce and that is the reason for sex. I personally think their should be a reduction in the age of consent law to 12 tears old. I am not alone on this and I know more people than would like to admit also thinks this. If only we could stand and be counted without persecution.

 

Jason you made a misprint there and put 12 tears old. In this case however it could not have been more apt.

 

Hahaha. 12 tears old. I should have checked more carefully. Anyway, thank you for the agreement.

 

Just because you WANT that age to be 12-13, doesn't mean THOSE girls are ready. I know a TON of 12 and 13 year olds and they're still innocent! They have no idea what any of that is! The legal age, and consent is fine where it is, you're just making yourself sound GROSS.

 

no....just.....no

 

I have to agree that a ton of these laws are misused and it needs to stop.

As to age of consent.. I'd probably say there shouldn't be a strict line. Of course 40 year olds with 14 year olds is a bit creepy... but making an 18 year old go to jail for doing it with a 17 year old girl... just isn't right.

It's not like there's some magical change that occurs on one's 18th birthday. It's a gradual change that happens at different speeds with different people.

 

Thanks Louise.

You make a lot of really good points, and I agree with you 100%.
The fact is that at 16 people are allowed to operate motor vehicle, a deadly weapon in the wrong hands, but they're not responsible enough to control their own sex lives?
Not to mention the fact that minors are often charged as adults for committing crimes.
It's the inconsistency that's ridiculous.

I remember some years back Chile's parliament passed a law stating that fifteen year olds would be tried as adults if they were charged with a crime, and the president, Michelle Bachelet, introduced a policy of allowing fifteen year olds access to birth control without parental permission.
Needless to say the mostly conservative parliament was not happy about this, but the president simply pointed to the law that they'd just passed, and asked very seriously, should fifteen year olds be considered responsible for their own actions, or not?

The very idea that one somehow magically become "responsible" at the age of eighteen is just patently absurd.

 

My sexual activity started when I was 7-8 years old...fondling etc. (loved it too) I know I developed much faster, so I think it should be up to each person, but know there must be rules assigned...so I think it should be "teens". Meaning thirteen and up.

 

where is it?

 

we are considering consent backwards

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I need to point out that the idea of "consent" being discussed in this thread isn't what's being considered in US courts.

In common law rape is traditionally defined by two elements; sex, and the use of force or threat of force to coerce the victim's participation. New York State, for instance, follows this example with some exceptions we will consider next. In order to convict a fellow of rape, and they nearly all are men, the prosecutor needs to prove both elements: 1. sex occurred, this is usually any sort of penetration, and 2. that the perpetrator used force or threat of force to get it.

EXCEPT... that children of a certain age were not expected to offer any resistance, or even say no, to a sexual advance. And in these instances the prosecutor was excused from proving force or threat of force and could win a conviction solely upon proving sex occurred. To make things fair, and to not have to consider the maturity and character of each victim individually, this age was set by statute; and thus the title, statutory rape. In the old days, in England, this number was 12. A child 12 or older was expected to be able to say no, but if younger and the prosecutor could invoke the statute and win a rape conviction without proving use or threat of force.

So, contrary to usage in this thread, age of consent is the age at which a girl is expected to be able to say NO! Rather than the age at which she can say yes.

In New York State a girl isn't expected to be abel to say No until she's 17. That's rather patronizing in my opinion.

 

There used to be a tort, that's something you can sue over, called seduction. It allowed a minor's guardian, (usually the father), to sue someone, (usually a fellow he didn't care for), who had sex with his charge (almost always his daughter). Unfortunately daddy could only recover money damages on the theory that the scoundrel had deprived him of some useful service provided by his daughter. "Per quod servitium amisit" was the latin term.

The tort evolved somewhat over the years but was always based on the idea that women were vulnerable, chastity was valuable, and daddy had an economic interest in his daughters virginity. Most courts won't recognize it any more.

I think something like it should be brought back though. Statutory rape (see post above) could be a felony reserved for those who abuse children too young to say no. While seduction could be a tort to get damages and a restraining order against that creepy guy sleeping with your minor daughter (that's upto 21 depending on the state).