Amazon.com Widgets
  • Between schooling and reality

    I just find it funny that schools teach about sex ed at around grade 7. Yet the legal age of consent is set until 12th grade or graduating. It's unrealistic for boys and girls to restrain for 5 or 6 years from exploring and doing sexual things "legally". Parents giving thier kids with smartphones capable of accessing everything possible in the world at like 10 or 11 doesn't help either. Even in stores at the cashier's, There are magazine of cosmopolitan saying " how to please your man with these sexy tricks" right at a kids eye-level. Every movie, Show and ass on tv has hints of sex in it these days. In my own experience, I was 13 when I got my first blowjob. The thing about that, Is that the girl who gave me this pleasure, Asked me if she can do it to me. She was 12. This happened around the time before smartphones even started. We only had flip phones that you had to hit the "7" button 4 times just to type a S 😂. Times have changed. Kids aren't as innocent as you make them out to be by the time they are even 15. Majority of them smoke(cbd or thc vapes and pens) and drink. If you ask them and they say they don't. I would say at least 70% of them are lying lol

  • Should be lowered

    Most girls get the ability to get pregnant by 13 and most boys can ejaculate by 13. Restricting them from having sex is not natural. Even an Adult should be able to have sex with them because the act remains the same, Regardless of the age difference between the partners.

  • It should be

    It's natural for anyone over the age of puberty to have sex. Puberty is attained by the age of 13 by most children. Girls get the ability to get pregnant by that age. Boys can ejaculate. So it's completely natural for children to have sex since 13. And Sex is Sex, Age difference between partners doesn't matter. So even if the Sexual partner of a 13 year old child is an adult there is nothing wrong in it. In earlier times in many cultures girls as young as 13 were married off to Adult Men. Now this Adult men would obviously be having sexual intercourse with their young wives who were often as young as 13. There was nothing wrong in that then. There should be nothing wrong in it now.

  • Rape and Abuse = Bad. Consensual Sex with a partner who will take no for an answer if you say no = Good

    Let me begin by stating I am thoroughly against abuse. No ands ifs or buts. Abuse and rape are intolerable.

    With that said, I must point out that as it stands now, Two minors having sex are both guilty. Why should they be imprisoned and be listed as sex offenders because their petting got out of hand. No, This is wrong. Then throw in that there are children tried as adults for crimes like murder, Or even rape. So why are they adults, But two thirteen year old's in a treehouse having sex are not adults?

    Also, If a 13 year old rapes a 25 year old, Why does the 25 year old go to jail even if the 13 year old is found guilty?

    Age of consent laws are so incredibly broken.

  • Should be lowered

    By 13/14 teens complete puberty. So nature makes them ready for sex. There is nothing wrong in even an adult having sex with teens who have completed puberty. In past, In many cultures girls were married off by 13/14 to adult men, Who obviously must be having sex with them.

  • Should be lowered

    I don't understand what is wrong with a man of any age to have consensual sex with a girl who is at least 13-14. By that age most girls get the ability to get pregnant. In the past in many cultures girls as young as 13-14 were married off by their parents to adult men. Obviously these men used to have sexual intercourse with their 13-14 years old wives. There was nothing wrong in that. There is nothing wrong in that even today purely from Nature's perspective. It is not unnatural or Pedophilic to have sex with someone past their puberty. It is true for minor past puberty being of any gender. There is nothing wrong for an even an adult woman to have sex with a 13-14 year old boy.

  • It should be

    Should be reduced to 13 or 14. By that age most girls and boys have completed their puberty. Most girls get the ability to get pregnant by the age of 13-14. Nature makes ready to have sex by 13-14. So do boys get the ability to ejaculate by 13-14. And maximum age gap between partners if one is minor past his/her puberty shouldn't exist either. Once nature makes most boys and girls ready for sex by 13-14 it doesn't matter how old their sexual partner is. There is nothing wrong in an adult man having consensual sex with a 13-14 year old girl. In older times across many cultures girls were married by 13-14, Often to adult men. Now obviously these adult men had sex with their 13-14 years old wives. Such relationship in today's times, Whether through marriage or not might not become common place even if legalised. But it's still not unnatural or Pedophilic. How can it be unnatural or Pedophilic to have consensual sex with a girl who is ovulating? Same goes for genders reversed. There is nothing wrong for an adult women to have sex with a 13-14 year old boy. It's actually unnatural for any law to impose restrictions on anyone past their puberty to have sex.

  • Absolutely it should

    Would I have sex with a 13 year old girl if it was legal? Probably not. I just don't think any man should go to prison and be labeled a sex offender for having sex with a girl of any age if the girl is okay with it, Especially if she initiates it. Trust me, If a 13 or for that matter a 10 year old girl wants to have sex, She is going to do so. That said, It would be better if it is with an older and experienced man than with a young boy of 12 to 17 who won't even be able to do the right thing if she gets pregnant.

  • Sex, Not limited to intercourse, Is harmless when engaged in responsibly. The issues is ignorance due to the taboo not that it causes direct harm.

    It is amazing to me that people wanting to enforce their archaic views will blatantly lie to themselves and others concerning the pleasure that sexual activity brings or that a person between 11-18 cannot consent to experiencing that pleasure.

    It is also amazing to me that those same people have no problem allowing their children at 13 years or younger to enjoy the pleasures of eating foods in a habit forming lifestyle that has lead to an increase of obesity. Obesity which is the second leading cause of preventable death and 300 times more deadly than drugs, Alcohol, Car accidents, Etc.

    Why is this? It is because, In most situations, No one in their right mind would think to question if a child could consent to something they enjoy. Excluding obvious extremes such as entering into a complex business agreements or swimming with sharks, It is only when it comes to basic sexual experiences does this come up.

    Fears of a child being kidnapped or raped are valid, But what parent allowed their child to walk the streets at night and meet with strangers on the internet anyway, Whether or not their children are legally allowed to choose who can give them an orgasm and when?

    The question is not does a child have the ability to consent to actual rape or physical abuse, But whether or not a child can experience pleasure from sex and desire to engage in it further.
    Also: "What magic happens at age 18, That suddenly these experiences are consensual? " Is rape not still rape before or after18? Can a person age 11-17 not understand they do not enjoy something? Do all people after the age 18 have an outspoken nature when withholding consent that no 11-17 year old could possibly posses? Countless adults report they were traumatized by being forced into religious, Band, Or sports or other activities they didn't enjoy. Should we extend the inability to consent to other activities that adults express deep resentment towards later in their lives?

    How do we protect them from physical abuse? The same as we protect them from sports injuries, Human trafficking or other dangers. Whether or not they are legally allowed to enjoy sex, These dangers will still exist and will not be lessened by denying them sexual pleasure.

    However, Because a 11-17 year old might fall and crack their head open, Will you not allow them to ice skate? Some might not, But should the law force all parents to deny their child a chance at competitive sports because their is a serious risk for harm?

    Yet, Even though we understand this when we allow children to compete in dangerous sports. We freak out when an 11-13 year old wants experience pleasure even by giving or receive oral sex or sticking a finger in their crotch? Suddenly activities so very unlikely to result in any kind of serious injury, Compared to the most dangerous activates children engage in, Is the greatest evil imaginable?

  • "Pedophile"? Educate yourself.

    A "pedophile" is someone who like Prepubescents CHILDREN. Nature and religion both say you are no longer a child when pubescents. If they raise the age to 25 then you would start calling everyone who likes 22 year old's "perverts" and "pedophiles" you ignorant bunch of idiots. Just because the age becomes 13 or 11 or 9 or 7 or no age limit at all, The ugly fat neighbor doesn't suddenly become attractive. Family is still incest and people in a position of authority and rape is still illegal no matter the age. If a Prison Guard had sex with a 40 year old, That is illegal. Age has nothing to do with what nature has dictated. Stop throwing people in jail for being perfectly normal and natural. A study done by a very well known and respected college proved that even though they would not admit it. 88. 4% of adults (all colors and men and women) were sexually aroused by images of children early and prepubescents. 88. 4% is the very definition of N O R M A L. Old women don't want the age lowered as they already know they can not compete. Given a choice between a 14 year old and a 40 year old, The 14 will win 100% of the time. This is by design of nature (or if you're religious), Then God himself made this decision.

  • What perv thinks this is ok?

    13 year olds ARE CHILDREN. No one in their right mind would think a 13 year old has the emotional maturity to knowingly consent to sexual relations with an adult. 13 years olds should be shielded from predators who want to abuse them this way and anyone who is so delusional as to think that 13 years old is an adult should be punched in the face.

  • It encourages grooming and abuse

    In the UK the age of consent is 16. I believe that this is the right age for the law to stand at. But to think that influential people believe that it should be lowered to 13, it just disgusts me! We cannot let these perverts abuse anymore young children and let them get away with it.

  • No, the age of consent should not be lowered to 13.

    At the age of thirteen, children still are very immature and don't completely understand the meaning behind their actions. They are too young to be having sex. At that age they are just really staring puberty and they don't understand how to protect themselves. The age of consent should be sixteen or seventeen.

  • Not 13 but maybe 15 or 16.

    Some people say "they are just children" but really who's fault is that? For at least the first couple centuries A.D. And earlier, people were married and supported themselves usually between 11-14. They handled all adult responsibilities, including sex. If they could do it then, why not now? The only reason 13 year olds are to immature is because of how we raise them. Mothers don't want their "babies" to grow up, father's want their daughters to stay "daddy's little girl" forever, and so they baby and coddle their children, some still holding their kids' hands WELL into their mid-twenties. This does them no favors. Also this isn't about adults taking advantage of minors, there are already plenty of laws regarding real rape and real sexual assault, and if your argument is "protect the children that I refuse to let grow up" then make laws for REAL rape and REAL sexual adult much stricter when the victim is a minor, but it should not be illegal for them to have sex. As things stand now even minor on minor sex is illegal, would you want your kid to go to jail as a minor for having sex with a minor boyfriend or girlfriend who may even be the same age?? Why should we call them criminals for doing what they are biological programmed to do? I think that right now 13 is too young (at the fault of the parents) but 15 or 16 is not. Most of them already have jobs in addition to school, they drive cars, they handle plenty of adult responsibility and they definitely know what sex is, what the risks are and there outcomes. So why not? Hell most of them are tried as adults if they break the law, why are they adults if they break the law but children if they want to have sex? And besides, most 15+teens are having sex anyway, why should we call them criminals for doing what their bodies are biologically programmed to do? If we were meant to have sex older than that, wouldn't puberty occur at a later age?? I say for now lower it to 15 or 16 everywhere then gradually change how we raise our kids, increase sex ed and actually teach them right from younger ages and watch as they prove to us again, as they had for centuries in the past, that they can, in fact, handle adult responsibilities, then at that point you could consider lowering it to 13.

  • Cannot give consent

    Of course not, how is this even a debate? I was lead to believe that the age in question would be 16, but there's no way a 13 year old can give consent. Consent is the only thing that should matter, and the fact is that those under 16 cannot give it.

  • No, the age of consent should not be lowered to 13.

    Children under the age of 18, and some even over the age of 18 do not have fully developed emotional and decision making skills that would suggest they are capable of making decisions about sexual activity. A 13 year old, especially female, does not understand what it means to be pregnant or care for a child, and should not be considered old enough to consent to opening themselves to that possibility. A child must be given a chance to adjust to their changing bodies, emotions, and possible parental roles and expectations before opening them to the possibility of being put in sexual situations by those older (or even the same age) as them.

  • Yes, It Should Be Lowered, But...

    Yes, I do believe the age of consent should be lowered, but at 13, people aren't mature at all and many things aren't opened up for a child at the age of 13. If it was to be lowered, I think it should be lowered to something more mature such as a 16 year old.

  • No Consent At 13

    Although A 13 Year Old May Look As Though They Are Capable Of Making Decisions Of This Nature, In Actuality They Are Not And Regret It Later In Life. They Are Too Easily Influenced By Peer Pressure And By The Thought Of The "Act" Of Doing Something "Grown Up". Simply Put, Most Teens At 13 Are Naive And Don't Realize The Gravity Of An Early Pregnancy On Their Future.

  • No, the age of consent should not be lowered to 13.

    At the age of thirteen, children still are very immature and don't completely understand the meaning behind their actions. They are too young to be having sex. At that age they are just really staring puberty and they don't understand how to protect themselves. The age of consent should be sixteen or seventeen.

  • No it should not.

    The Age of Consent should not be lowered to thirteen. The laws are meant to protect children who could be taken advantage of. At the age of thirteen, people could not possibly know what they're getting into and the consequences. The age of consent should be at an age where someone could better understand the consequences and make better decisions on it. That age would probably be 16 or 17. Of course, people of these ages could still be taken advantage of, however they've had more time to mature and have had time to better understand the consequences of their actions. Thirteen is far too young.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PathtoWisdom says2021-10-13T17:45:05.727
Most states don't have a minimum age of criminal liability. So they literally think a 14 year old can commit a crime and be tried as an adult, And ackowledge the fact that she/he can make a desicion, But can't decide if he/she wants to be touched or not. That's stupid. I also want to adress the Austin Jones case. The internet celebrity "forced" a teenager to send him her videos while twerking. He forced her, That's wrong. But a 14 year old is both physically and mentally mature enough to make desicions about his/her body. And she made a video about the case, Crying all over the video just for the views in my opinion. She is using Austin for views. And he is in prison. Girl, You were 14, Not 8. Of course it was wrong for him to force her, But the girl is playing dumb for views on You Tube. Austin got 10 years in prison which is really stupid. American laws on age of consent MUST change.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.