Should laws concerning the age of consent be changed to be more permissive?

  • It's my right!!!!

    The day you turn 18 does not automatically make you in any way smarter or more mature than the day before. I believe that the age if consent should be lowered as in this day and age, many of us have to deal with "adult" problems before the law accepts us as adults. By the age of 16, we are basically developed and know our bodies. Teens are not nearly as ignorant as adults and parents believe. We know that sex can result in pregnancy or cause us to contract a disease, and we know how to take precautions to avoid this. Why should I be denied an act at 17, but be allowed the day I turn 18 when my views and thoughts will not magically change on that day? If I am legally able to drive, then I have the right to do with my body as I please!

  • No, laws concerning the age of consent should not be changed to be more permissive, because minors tend to not think logically.

    When people are under the age of 18, I don't believe they think too logically. I really think changing this law would be terrible. Of course, my heart does go out to those who are lied to as well. It would be terrible to think you're having sex with a consenting adult, and then find out you aren't. However, I do not believe that this law should be changed. It was put forth for a reason.

    Posted by: Qu4ntBenj
  • The age of consent currently being 17 or 18 years old is outdated and should be updated.

    Today teenagers are making the decision to become sexually active at a younger age than ever before. I believe that the age of consent should be updated for a few reasons. The biggest reason that I feel that the age of consent should be lowered is actually to protect people. In today's world a 19 year old male can be prosecuted for consensual sex with his 17 year old girl friend. I don't believe that it is fair to have a hard and fast rule. Each situation should be looked at and judged individually. I feel that angry parents push for the conviction of the partners of their daughters when the young man may have done nothing morally wrong.

    The age of consent should be lowered to 16. No so long ago, it was common for people to get married and have children by the time they were in their late teens. I feel that parents should talk with their children and help them decide when the time is right for them to make important choices on their own, and when they do, we have no right to hold someone else responsible for that choice.

    Posted by: D4li5General
  • 15 and knows what their doing

    If a 15 year old is going to be held responsible for a crime as an adult then they should be held responsible for their body as well. 15 year old boys and girls know what they are doing when they decide to have sex. They need to be educated to handle the responsiblety of sex but having a law saying they are to young to know what they are saying yes to only creates problems for them and there partners.

  • The Laws of Nature Trump the Laws of Man

    A child, biologically, is someone who has not entered puberty. Once this occurs they, are a child no longer and have sexual desires and feelings, which they now possess the ability to act upon. And they do. The amount of kids having sex at a young age has increased, but it's estimated that %50 had had sex before leaving high school all the way back in the 1950's. Regardless of whether we think they should or shouldn't, the kids are having sex.

    Don't forget all arguments made about the propriety of it are from the perspective of our own culture, and thus form our basis for judgement. There are other cultures in existence today with radically different standards. Take the Mangaia of Polynesia for example, who not only encourage and facilitate sexual activities among adolescents, at 13-14 they actually train them in sexual techniques for pleasing their partners (boys and girls receive this training). Teenagers are sexual beings, and funnily enough they are almost never asked about this issue. It's always older people debating what's best for them, and they rarely have an opportunity to weigh in with their own beliefs about who they should be allowed to engage in intercourse with.

    Finally, to the pedophile argument: pedo=child, again, biologically, this is one who has not entered puberty. Being attracted to someone who is say, 15 years and has developed sexual characteristics is not the same thing as a pathological obsession with presexual humans. We trust teenagers to make a lot of mature decisions, and they tend to make the ones we don't trust them to a lot of the time anyway. When I was 14 years old, my school had educated me on all the risks associated with sex, pregnancy, all the known STI's, and the various methods of prevention available to me. It wasn't a very difficult decision to know whether I wanted to have sex with someone or not. It was instinctive, and easy. Yes, I find that person attractive, no I want nothing to do with that one. If we trust a teenager to drive a car, I think we can trust them to operate their own genitals.

  • Age of consent should be ATLEAST 16

    I think the laws concerning the age of consent should change to 16. 18 is way to ridiculous. Teens hormones come around the age of 16 and it is natural for everyone. Facing facts, people still do it whether they are 18 or not, and that is the dumbest reason to get into trouble for. It is their own personal life and should be able to make choices on their own without worrying about getting caught up in the law. LET THE AGE OF CONSENT CHANGE TO 16!

  • Age is relative

    I've know 23 year olds who were far less mature than some 16 year olds. It should be up to the two people if they are both consenting-adult minded.
    We need to stop putting people in prison because they had a consenting, mature sexual experience. They're not hurting anyone...It's time to evolve as a society. Rape is one thing but consensual sex is completely different.

  • Age of Consent should be at least 16.

    17, 16 even 15 is already High School age and should be old enough to consent. So no need to put people in jail for having consensual sex at that age or with someone that age. No need to make having sex a crime at that age. And it is just an Age of Consent, which also means you don't have to consent if you don't want to. Just means you can with out it being a crime.

  • Age of consent laws should be more permissive, as kids grow up faster than they used to.

    Children and teenagers grow up much faster nowadays than previous generations did. Even though they are not legally allowed to have sexual intercourse, drink and vote until the range of 18-21, many start having sex and alcohol much earlier than that. In cases of serious crimes, teenagers can be tried as adults. And, 18-21 year olds can serve and die for their country, but not be trusted with alcohol. If adult responsibilities are expected of them, they should have adult rights too. Many college campuses would be able to curtail and help underclassmen alcoholics, if the drinking age were lowered and binging was not so covert.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • sometimes the minor is the agressor .

    if this is the case and alcohol or drugs are involved the young adult is not in their right mind and never would have done it if they were sober.sometimes there is past abuse within the young adults life.all this should be considered when it comes to their many people lives are ruined for a big mistake that would never happen again.not to mention their families lives as well.

  • Yes, I agree that the age of consent should be changed, but it should be changed to be more consistent, and not necessarily lowered in order to be more permissive.

    The age of consent in the United States varies from state to state. This means that if a 16-year old from Louisiana is visiting relatives in Georgia, and has consensual sex, no one knows quite what to do about it. If it happened in Louisiana, it would be legal. But in Georgia, the age of consent is 17. It would seem that if we do not allow our young people to vote until they are 18, we should keep that as the age when we consider children to have become mature enough to make good decisions. The age of consent in America varies from 14 to 18, from state to state. It seems that it would be legally helpful to standardize the age at 18, although it is highly doubtful whether that will have any impact on the actions of young people at all. It is also interesting to consider that the young couples who settled our western and midwestern states were frequently 13 or 14 years old. "Adulthood" is defined within the needs of such variables as life expectancy, the probability of women dying in childbirth, etc. Perhaps the government should get out of the sex business entirely.

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • No, the age of consent should not be change; minors make enough decisions already - don't add more.

    I do not believe they should be allowed to make more decisions. Allowing minors to make more decisions only allows them to cut their parents and guardians out of their lives because they are not needed there anymore. By allowing this we are forcing minors to grow up too soon in a society that moves too fast.

    Posted by: WillowsErv
  • The age of consent should not be changed as it would lead to irresponsible behavior.

    The age of consent should not be changed as it will increase the chances of promiscuous behavior and increase the rate of teen pregnancy and early marriage, hurting educational and economic prospects of youngsters.

    Posted by: danoneeno
  • No, not unless the world wants more calamity.

    If anything, the age of consent should be raised. Every day there are more and more examples presented of individuals who are of consensual age, but have extremely poor judgement. This extremely poor judgement jeopardizes lives. Young persons have not proven that they deserve more responsibility. More hand holding? Yes.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • No, laws should not be changed concerning the age of consent as there is already too much sexualizing of children!

    There is no valid reason to make the age of consent any more lenient than it already is. The laws in most places is three years age difference (unless they are over eighteen). There is no good reason that someone over the age of 20 should be with anyone under 17. Children are already sexualized in so many ways- the last thing we need is older men legally being able to prey on these children. These laws are in place for a reason- children are naive and sick people take advantage of it.

    Posted by: I33Horray
  • No, teenagers need time to mature before making that decision.

    Just because teens look like adults does not mean they have the maturity and emotional stability to decide to have sex. Teenage girls, in particular are more emotionally persuaded to become intimate by smooth talking older boys/men. They need to be protected until they are 18 years old and more capable of making that decision. In some states the age of consent is already 16, letting predators know that they can legally go after teens this age. Give them a couple more years protection from sexual predators; they have the rest of their lives to engage in consensual,adult relationships.

    Posted by: NettN355
  • There needs to be some structure to what is and what is not okay.

    Each state is run quite differently, so there is no main consensus regarding "age of consent". Changing current laws wouldn't change someone wishes and they will do what they want no matter the law, in fact may even rebel if the law seems to strict.

    Posted by: Ramon Griffith
  • No, young people need to be protected for as long as possible.

    The age of consent is in place to protect young people from those who might take advantage of them. Lowering that age would result in much more harm than good. A young person may have a body that has developed into that of an adult but their mind is still immature, and they need to be protected. There are way too many sick individuals in this world who take advantage of young people. Once they hit a certain age, we cannot protect them any more, unfortunately. Don't lower that age and make them even more vulnerable.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • I don't think that laws regarding age of consent should be more permissive, they should be more restrictive and standardized to the age of 18.

    I think that when it comes to the age of consent it should be standard across all states to the age of 18 unless legally emancipated. The reason for this is that I don't think that persons under 18 should be allowed to wed or consent to relationships of a sexual nature. I think that in particular to consent to a relationship of a sexual nature before the age of 18 especially in women can be damaging since they have not developed biologically.

    Posted by: tadaoantonio
  • No, it should not be changed.

    Certain teenagers, yes they are mature enough to consent, but the majority of them are not. Especially in situations where the young teen is 10-14 (really really really hoping younger than 10 I don't even have to say. Didn't want to have to say 10 but I've known people) are definitely not mature enough to consent. Especially if the person is like 16-17-18 years old (depending on the age of the younger one) There should definitely be laws against that kind of thing. The maturity physically and mentally between these ages are significant, and think about me being 17 and going and having sex with a 13 year old. Think about what a 17 year old and a 13 year old normally looks like. It is just completely abnormal for a 17 year old to be sexually attracted to a person this age. That's five years. Which wouldn't be a big deal if they were in their thirtys but come on they're in their teens. A junior or senior, with a seventh or eighth grader. No. They may consent, but do these kids really have any clue? They might understand all the pregnancy and STD crap but that doesn't mean they are mature enough to consent.

Research this topic: Delhi
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.