If you guys had children, would you honestly be ok with them having sex at 14, 15? I mean jeez, that's young. You can't even have a driver's license at that age. I think past 16 you're ok, but I'd say more around 18-ish would be a better age to start engaging in sexual activity.
You should not be allowed to be doing baby-making activities until you are old enough to earn money to support them.
No matter how kind and supportive your parents or the other person are. Because some people's parents and other people aren't, and then that would be unfair.
Sure, a 14 year old might be mentaly and phisicaly mature for sex, but most won't. As we can't go and check each one individualy, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and 18 years seams to work out pretty well.Whut? I know people who have been physically mature at 15, and at 24. I know people who are mentally and emotionally mature at 14 or 15, and some who never are. Age is only a very rough indicator of maturity.
sometimes im ashamed of where i come from
this is such a moment.
Too big. <-- yeah i heard that one before
Regarding the first post thing: Yeah, that's gross.
Leeza: It was in the papers today. I think it's pretty open news all over the world, actually. Unless there's a very, very large and elaborate prank going on, I'd say that it's factual.
With regards to age, I've grown up with the 16-years-old rule and that's where I've always thought it should stay. Once you come down to it, 16 is probably the average age people first have sex all throughout the first world anyway. It seems to be the norm.
People going on about how mature you need to be need to consider the fact that some people might not give a damn about having a baby. I know it's a possibility, but it's a remote one (provided you use protection - if you don't use protection when you're that young, you wouldn't be smart enough to say 'no' anyway) - and the vast majority of 18 year olds aren't so much better off than 16 year olds that they can support kids at that age anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if an 18 year old is 95% as likely to abort as a 16 year old is. So if you're pulling the "what if they have a baby" card, then you may as well lift the legal age to 21 or something.
But no, that's not the way it is these days. People have sex for fun, and if they're smart enough to respect the legal age then hopefully they're smart enough to do it safely so they don't have to think about the baby ordeal. So long as they aren't going to suffer mental trauma from it in their future or anything like that, then I don't see the huge problem with sex-for-fun. That's why I think 16+ is fine.
This also means that society can start properly readying 16 year olds without being seen as training the underage. They're probably going to have sex at around this age anyway, parents, so you should be happy they're learning about what the hell they're getting into.
Personally, I would have never had sex at the age of 16. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone should have the right to.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Damn the Dutch!
What a load of sick bastards... how can anyone thing this is right? Seriously... geez... what a world we live in...
Pedophiles can think this is right, because they would benefit from it. The rest of the world doesn't. Simple as that.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
Speaking of Pedophiles, here's how to spot one!
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....=spot_the_pedo
WICKED-AWESOME SIG.
By which logic I can turn around and say you're not mature until you're 50 years old. Hell, my father was about as mature as a 12 year old. You say the law doesn't/can't work on a case-by-case basis, but in this situation it does, because we tend to be sensible enough not (As you pointed out) to go arresting 15 year olds for doing it. I'd also note that at almost every point in the legal process various people have various discretions, and that the law clearly does have a case-by-case aspect to it, but that's another discussion.Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Of course it isn't. The law's limits are placed at the point when it is decided that the majority of people are mature enough to handle whatever it is they're being allowed to do. The entire argument rests on at what age people are considered mature enough to not cause harm to others and themselves.Generally, I don't think people 16 and under have the wisdom necessary to make good decisions in this area, and others (drinking, driving, voting, etc). Just because some people do sometimes, or some teens do all the time does not change that generally they don't. Laws should be in place to protect them from hurting themselves and others. Saying that some are mature enough is simply splitting hairs. It's irrelevant to the law.
Edit: And it's ok to oppress a minority now?
wow. Jess is a post icon. I never thought I'd see the day.
EDIT: hey, on second glance, I'm not so sure that is Jess.
...12 years old? That's more than wrong. I think 16 is a good law.
What is next? The brutal rape party?
Brutal Rape Party: "We think people should be able to beat someone over the head and have surprise sex with them when ever they feel the urge."
I actually don't know what is worse now that I think about it. Rape or sex with 8 year olds. They said they plan to move to 12 at first but then move to eliminate the age restriction.
That's freaky-deeky dutch.
As for age limits, it comes with each case, but generally, I think when it comes to teens and others around that age, over 3-4 years is too much. Like I said though, it comes with each case, and that can't be applied to everything.
"By which logic I can turn around and say you're not mature until you're 50 years old."
Except my logic has "at the end of puberty, physical maturity" to back it up, and your age is arbitrarily chosen and unreasonable.
"You say the law doesn't/can't work on a case-by-case basis, but in this situation it does, because we tend to be sensible enough not (As you pointed out) to go arresting 15 year olds for doing it."
I just mean the police don't care, so what's the harm of keeping the age high? lowering it means no more statuatory rape charges, and that younger teens could be coerced into porn, prostitution, etc. And yes, it can't be case by case because we need to set an age limit in order to have laws regarding age of consent.
"Of course it isn't. The law's limits are placed at the point when it is decided that the majority of people are mature enough to handle whatever it is they're being allowed to do. The entire argument rests on at what age people are considered mature enough to not cause harm to others and themselves."
Yes, and I think 16 or under is too young. A 15 year old is NOT mature or responsible enough to handle a sexual relationship.
"Edit: And it's ok to oppress a minority now?"
What, are you pulling the "agism" card now? Is it also agism to say that babies can't drive cars? A line has to be drawn. I say the line is around 18, because that's when we reach maturity. You've given no reason for me to think otherwise other than "some 15 year olds are very mature", to which I counter with: well, what about the ones that aren't, and could get taken advantage of? The law should stay that age. Would you also apply that if we reduce the age of consent, that they should also be allowed into porn? I really hope I don't have to point out how the possibly AWFUL consequences of that. I just really can't see any good reasons for lowering the age. I DO agree that some people younger than 17 would be ready. That DOES NOT mean it's a good idea to lower the age of consent.
About older people being immature: absolutely there are many. But they are also mature enough in other ways to handle it when a relationship with sex involved breaks up. Most 15 year olds aren't, certainly not the ones I know. They're horribly hurt. How can kids that young know about love and how to be in a good relationship when they're only just entering that period of their lives? It takes years to know. 16 and under is just too young.
I agree with Elyse (big surprise, there). There does need to be an objective standard. Emotional/mental maturity cannot be a standard since it is not remotely objective, therefore the best thing we can do is set an age limit. 18 is as reasonable an age limit as I've heard of, because that's around when we reach physical maturity. If anything, from what I know, it could be argued that that should be raised. A 14-year-old does not have the mental development or competence to decide things as an 18-year-old would. The body and brain are still developing at that time, and continue to do so until 18+.
Experience, maturity, etc count as moral arguments, and while I consider that more than a valid basis to denounce a 20-year-old sleeping with a 14-year-old as a jerk, it's not a legal basis for criminalizing it. However, the fact that the 14-year-old has not completely developed physically and has not developed mentally enough to make a competent decision concerning life-altering events (hence why minors can't solely sign contracts) is more than a valid legal basis.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
