Should the age of consent be decided by the individual (yes) or government (no)?

Asked by: ladiesman
  • Who are we kidding.

    Our of a situation where no one is harmed, we destroy a life by sending a person to prison and then giving him a felony for life. It doesn't makes sense. People make choices and that is it. Also, who are we kidding, most of the world does not have 18 as a legal age anyhow. It is America that is crazy and we see that our underage girls look like they are in their 20s and we see them going after older men all the time. We are in such denial.

  • Please don't acting like maturity can be measured.

    I don't feel it should be anyone's "right", regardless of who you are, to tell me when I'm ready to have sex. It should absolutely be the choice of the individual, no questions asked.

    Nobody can measure maturity. And maturity comes at different times for different people. Believing all teenagers mature at the same time is just stupid and ignorant. Teens should not be threatened with the law for maturing faster than average.

    And what on earth makes you think that as soon as someone turns 16, they'll magically transform into a mature adult, just like that?

    It's just the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life.

    The State has no place in such a personal chapter my life, and they do not have the right to an opinion.

  • Mostly the individual

    I oppose government intervention in personal matters, so I believe decisions about sex should be left to the individual. I had a sociology professor who told the class that he had his first sexual experience at 15 with a 13-year-old girl. Some of our society's laws about sex are too harsh; statutory rape is treated almost as severely as forcible rape.

  • What will the punishment be otherwise?

    If there is a legal age of consent policy enforced by the government then what should the punishment be for those who disobey? What if two 14 year olds engage in sexual activity without consent? They're both minors regardless and if they were both keen and nobody was hurt in any way it seems pointless causing a fuss and punishing them. However, if a law is in place shouldn't there be a punishment for disobeying?

  • Yes it should by individual

    What actually matter us are prepubescent children and these people should be protected form sexual predators i agree because they cannot consent.But i think having sex with mature teenager is not as wrong,since they are young adults and have social sense of making informed decision.Just let them choose,it their rights.

  • It is relative

    I know a lot of guys who started going out with girls as young as 11 / 12
    when they were in their 20's and most of them are still in couple after more than 10 years. Some even have kids.
    A lot of people have sex with people below the age of consent and no one seems to be traumatised by it at all.
    In fact, Most people i know think that this is plain stupid to decide who can have sex and who can't. Everyone is different. I was "hit on" by a lot of girls as low as 11 all throughout my adult life. I always rejected their proposals because of the law.
    I'm still single and i missed on a lot of potential long lasting relationships because of those laws.

  • Ethics can only ever be the domain of individuals and families

    Kids have sex. Uncomfortable, but true. The law does not stop that, it only criminalizes it. Worse, near-in-age exemptions guarantee that minors can only have sex with other people who are exactly as naive and inexperienced as they are: a perfect recipe for a fatherless home and a societal disaster.

    Almost all old cultures have a remarkably sound rule regarding sex that equates to "you break it, you buy it" which hinges on the fact that even in the most egalitarian and feminist-ruled of societies, a woman's marriage value still tends to decrease the more partners she has had. The "you break it, you buy it" rule codifies that a man's obligation is therefore strongest to a virgin. Virginal (or even just "early") sex can happen, but only at the cost of a marriage (or support) offer, and any offspring are squarely the responsibility of the father. This incentivizes self-moderation in sexual relations and forces considerations much broader than the narrow indicator of age.

    In the current situation we have, young girls that can survive only through sexual exploitation continue to do so but are criminalized for it (and face far worse horrors than mere sex), men have an incentive to cover up relationships, there is no possibility of a full consenting relationships across ages (to include cases where the families agree), and most damagingly, the slightest and most groundless accusation of pedophilia can destroy a person's career and personal life due to rampant pedophobic virtue signaling. And that's all it appears to be: virtue signaling -- but in this case on the Right, though it is every bit as deleterious as the virtue signaling so common on the Left.

  • Looks like I'm the Tie breaker.

    While the social purity movement may have been in alignment with the science at the time, that being the average age of puberty in girls in 1880 was around 16, that is no longer the case. The fact is the average age of the onset of puberty has dropped by about 5 years to 11. Therefore under this scheme we deny youth their ability to freely express their burgeoning sexuality with whoever they so choose, and it is a gross imposition on their sexual freedom, which will probably not be tolerated in the future.

  • Repealed all age of consent law !!!

    We live in an modern society and we don't need such kind of nonsense age of consent law. Children can consent to sex and many of them will have sex even before the age of consent anyway.At least sexual experimentation between minor should not be criminal.Some people argue age of consent meant to protect young people from adult predatory but in my opinion it doesn't.In fact it only make the situation worse because simply people should not be restricted freedom from having consensual sex whenever they want regardless of the age .Age of consent law is ineffective,immoral and violate the fundamental right,freedom,and privacy of a person.

  • Age of consent is ineffective and should be abolish

    Children and teens are sexual active at early age and will have sex before the legal age of consent anyway .By establish an age limit would prosecute a number of innocent people for breaking the law having consensual sex before age of consent which no real serious crime have been commit .Consent of an individual should be private and decide by themselve which can occur at any age whenever they are mentally and physically ready for sexual encounter.Just because you're 16 or 18 (current age of consent) doesn't truly ensure you're suddenly mature or more mature than those under 16.If sex with minor is consensual it shouldn't bother the law or anyone else regardless of the sexual age of consent.

  • Are you for real?

    Is this question serious? What if a 50 year old gets a 5 year old to have sex by offering candy? The child would probably say yes and a child that age is NOT old enough to be sexual.

    The child could suffer major damage from that encounter. You aren't seriously OK with that scenario, are you?

    There has to be some limit. You can't seriously be for repealing the age of consent.

    If you want to make the case that it should be younger or that we should have graduated ages(plural) of consent depending on how old the older partner is then you might have a point, but repealing the age of consent is NOT a reasonable position to take.

  • Yes and no

    When it comes to underage sex the age of consent should be void unless it was forcible rape. When it comes to kids a year or two over 18 and there isn't more than a two year difference then the age of consent should be void. Otherwise guys and girls. Date 18 or above. It really isn't that hard and I support the government preventing 40 year olds dating 13 year olds. That's a bit much. If it really is a match made in heaven then you can wait until they turn 18

  • To protect children

    Statutory rape laws don't exist to stop children experimentin with one another. The punishment for two fifteen year-olds sleeping together is different to a 25 year-old sleeping with a fifteen year-old. The laws exist to prevent the predation of children and this is an important social protection we are morally obligated to uphold.

  • Consent requires mental maturity and situational stability:

    Teenagers simply don't have the maturity needed to make every decision. They don't understand consequence well. Say what you want to think, but science has proven this many times before.

    Along with the mental maturity to not screw up the entire rest of their life's, teenagers lack the situational stability to manage the consequences. A baby would destroy a teenagers chances of a successful life. They don't have the careers, time, money, or maturity, to handle the consequences.

    That said, "the Government" really means "the Parents" acting through Government to protect their children from themselves. While the idea of being protected from yourself sounds bad, it isn't when referring to anyone lacking the mental development to not destroy themselves before the rest of their live even begins.

    Leave it up to them, and you might as well give them the noose, tied and ready, while you're at it. Too many teenagers ruin their futures because they have sex thinking they're old enough.

    You might think it's better to leave it up to the parents... But your kid isn't having sex with himself... That's another parent's (hopefully) kid, and they won't have the same age of consent set. I'd set mine at 18, and you set yours at 16, now your 16 is sleeping with my 16 year old, and you see the issue. It has to be set at the same level.

    This is why teenagers also can't sign their own contracts.

  • While I am a libertarian, ...

    There should be at least a test of consent, to test your cognitive ability to make decisions, ponder judgement, and understand consequences, and also proper sexual education if under 18.
    . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

  • It would be ineffective

    Consent ability of a child must be studied overbroad and accomplished to make sure no child being harm cause by sexual act so it should be given by government.If it decide by individual it could be possible that a child being force when they are not mature yet to give consent.So in order to prevent non-consensual sex it should be decide by government.

  • Of course obviously not

    If an age of consent decide by individual then there wouldn't be any age limit including it could be devastating because an older man can exploit and abuse younger girls.It doesn't mean consensual sex between minor should be prevented but children should be protected from abusive adult predators,it should be decide by government.

  • Children aren't able to rationalize.

    That doesn't mean an 19 year old should be charges as a sex offender for sex with a 16 year old partner.

    It does, however, mean a grown person can't indoctrinate and coerce a child into believing their "relationship" isn't unhealthy and is what the child actually wants. Kid's aren't qualified to give consent.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.