The AGE of CONSENT

D

DizzyME

New member
A couple debates here:

Do you think that the age of consent should be the same all across the country?

What do you think the age of consent should be?

At what point should the elder of the two in a relationship be punished for being with a person underage? (I wasn't quite sure how to word this. Example: Lulu is 15, Billy is 19: should he be put in jail? What if she was 14? Where is the line?)

Should those that break the age of consent laws be labeled a *** offender if the younger of the two is NOT under the age of 13? Should there be a new category for these "*** offenders"?

This (Sexual deviance) is my area of concentration within my major (Criminology). I am always curious as to what answers people have regarding *** crimes.

 
fullauto

fullauto

New member
personally... I think age of consent is what ever age they're at when they consent to it... I personally won't touch anyone younger than 18 even if it was legal... But if she's 15 and wants to have *** with her 19 YO boy friend... that's her ******* problem.... and his! Let them hash it out....
 
Komrade Vostok Hazard

Komrade Vostok Hazard

New member
Not really so much punishment if one is under age (Nothing wrong with a 17 y/o and an 18 y/o) but just have it low enough so that actual children and pre-teens who are flat out too young and therefore don't really know what *** is, and aren't physically and mentally devloped for it are off limits.
 
phreakwars

phreakwars

New member
Considering the age of consent issue is a morality issue, and a cultural issue, and it will vary in all parts of the world, the LOGICAL age of consent, should be when the male or female reaches puberty and is able to reproduce. While that WILL make the age of consent somewhere like 11 or 12, it should be up to a parent to enforce an abstinence policy with there children. Pedophilia and other such crimes are crimes of culture. In some cultures, mainly uncivilized (supposedly) cultures, it is very common for a male or female to lose there virginity at a young age as this, and have sexual contact with others without anybody thinking it is wrong otherwise.

.

.

 
builder

builder

New member
Interesting case in our headlines not so long ago.

The residents of remote Pitcairn Island have been turning a blind eye to paedophile activity in their midst for so long, that it became passe.

There are so few men on Pitcairn, that the jail (gaol) that will house them had to be built by those who will reside in that prison.

I find that Pitcairn's problems don't necessarily reflect on society as a whole. This is just what happens when you place a small group of people in extremely isolated conditions. Pitcairn Islanders are direct descendants of the crew of The Bounty; an English exploratory ship. Mutineers, who set their captain and officers adrift in a lifeboat.

ADAMSTOWN (Pitcairn Island), october 20 In a wooden post office on a small rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a confessed child molester is selling stamps. The postman is Dennis Christian, and his customers are two black-gowned lawyers, each clutching a postcard bearing the slogan
Click to expand...
 
GrayGal

GrayGal

New member
I think it should be 17!

I mean your about to be legal and you have made up your mind if your gonna have *** or not. I think if they are any younger, charges should be filed even if the parents dont want to. Kids think they are ready for adult activities but most of them would ***** if you told them they had to get a job. SO 17...i dont care if both are 15 yrs old...TOO ******* YOUNG TO HAVE ***!

 
phreakwars

phreakwars

New member
And if you were living in a remote village with a tribe from say Africa that DID let younger people have ***, you would think NOTHING of the age if said person was 12. Like I said, it's a cultural issue. Pedophilia is ALSO a culture issue.

.

.

 
GrayGal

GrayGal

New member
Yeah i meant in AMERICA!!!

Africa and other countries are different....but here i think as a society it should be 17 because maturity hasnt yet set in but most think it has so...

 
D

DizzyME

New member
Considering the age of consent issue is a morality issue, and a cultural issue, and it will vary in all parts of the world, the LOGICAL age of consent, should be when the male or female reaches puberty and is able to reproduce. While that WILL make the age of consent somewhere like 11 or 12, it should be up to a parent to enforce an abstinence policy with there children. Pedophilia and other such crimes are crimes of culture. In some cultures, mainly uncivilized (supposedly) cultures, it is very common for a male or female to lose there virginity at a young age as this, and have sexual contact with others without anybody thinking it is wrong otherwise.
.

.
Click to expand...
People usually freak out when I bring up the cultural issue. Excellent point.

 
hugo

hugo

New member
First this issue is in the domain of the states. the federal government has no business in this. If it was up to me the age would be 14.
 
D

DizzyME

New member
First this issue is in the domain of the states. the federal government has no business in this. If it was up to me the age would be 14.
Click to expand...
I know it is a state issue, I am asking if it SHOULD be.

 
hugo

hugo

New member
Yes, it should remain a state issue. The federal government was not granted the authority to infringe on the state's domain on this issue. Any attempt to nationalize age of consent laws would be blatantly unconstitutional. The people of Arkansas and the people of New York can disagree on the age of consent and both have their way.
 
S

seachelle

New member
If this were a morality or cultural thing, it wouldnt be a law, would it? Some parts of the world do think it's ok to make a girl a bride at 12, and to them, that' s normal.

I think there are more men everywhere interested in dating younger women than the other way around. I'm not really sure what the attraction is for a grown man to want a girl who's pre-teen. I get a hint of him having power over her maybe because I dont see the "thrill" of it.

It seems that these days young people are maturing faster, at least physically. And also that kids are starting to have *** at a younger age on average. I dont know the statistics of it all, that's just what I see. I know when I was in high school, I wasnt ready for all that. I didnt even kiss anyone till i was in high school. I think it's hard to dicatate when someone should be able to consent to having ***. Two 14 year olds could consent to having *** with each other and that's ok, but it's wrong if it's a 14 and an 18 year old?

I have gone to dating websites and most of the men on there put in their profile that the age they're looking for in a partner is significantly younger than their own age. Not many of them seem too interested in finding someone their own age. Does that mean that women their age are not attractive?

Maybe they want someone who still has a few eggs left or maybe they just want someone who's breast are perky? I dont know.

A 16 yr old can drive, an 18 yr old can join the military, a 21 yr old can drink.

The age at which a person acts with maturity is not universal. I've met some 20 year old who didnt know their *** fromtheir elbow, and some who had their **** together. I guess for the sake of putting down a number, I'd say 18. Becuase at 18 a person can leave their parent's house, sometimes is expected to leave, can join the military and so can therefore, make decisions for themselves.

Younger than that? well theyre only allowed to have *** with people their age.

 
D

DizzyME

New member
Yes, it should remain a state issue. The federal government was not granted the authority to infringe on the state's domain on this issue. Any attempt to nationalize age of consent laws would be blatantly unconstitutional. The people of Arkansas and the people of New York can disagree on the age of consent and both have their way.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think there needs to be a nationwide agreement on this. How can we allow a state to label a man a *** offender in one state, when if he had been in another, he would have been perfectly fine?

 
hugo

hugo

New member
What you are proposing, unless there is an amendment, is blatantly unconstitutional. There were solid reasons our founding fathers strongly limited the powers of the federal government 1) Localized power allows people to vote with their feet. If you do not like the laws of one state you can move to another, more importantly 2) the division of powers, our federal system which divides powers between the states and federal government, provides a check on federal tyranny. The conditions in states differ the voters of those states should decide these issues. Wasddhington DC does not need to tell someone in Montana who they can screw. There is no federal jurisdiction for people committing *** crimes within the boundaries of a state, unless on federal property. What you are proposing is ending the US's status as a republic.
 
D

DizzyME

New member
What you are proposing, unless there is an amendment, is blatantly unconstitutional. There were solid reasons our founding fathers strongly limited the powers of the federal government 1) Localized power allows people to vote with their feet. If you do not like the laws of one state you can move to another, more importantly 2) the division of powers, our federal system which divides powers between the states and federal government, provides a check on federal tyranny. The conditions in states differ the voters of those states should decide these issues. Wasddhington DC does not need to tell someone in Montana who they can screw. There is no federal jurisdiction for people committing *** crimes within the boundaries of a state, unless on federal property. What you are proposing is ending the US's status as a republic.
Click to expand...

You do bring up a good point, and it would be a sticky issue to try to get around this. I just cannot understand how there can be such a broad difference of political opinion from state to state on this issue. I feel it is unfair to the citizens of the state.

 
hugo

hugo

New member
I just don't see anything that different. States also differ in what crimes are felonies and misdemeanors. It is just the citizens of the states exercising control of their criminal system. I personally think your average 14 year old can say no and that voluntarily sexual intercourse at that age , providing steps are taken to prevent pregnancy and disease, will do no harm. I think it is sad that people label ephebophila as pedophilia. The Catholic priest scandals really involved almost exclusively ephebophilia, sexual intercourse with a post puberty minor, not pedophilia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom