The age of consent varies greatly in the United States. Some states have it as low as 14 (in limited circumstances). Others have the age of consent as 18. In Missouri, the age of consent is 14-17. At age 14, it is legal for anyone from 14-17 to have sex with you. At 15, the age limit jumps to 14-18. At 15, it is 14-19. At 16, it is 14-20. At 17, it is 14+. Yes, Missouri has a complicated age of consent law.

Personally, I think a universal age of consent of 17 or 18 is preferable. However, I would never be with someone of such a young age. There is also the issue of consistency. Should the age of consent in the United States be the same in all 50 states? Should the age of consent be the same for male to female, female to female, and male to male?

I think there should be a graduated system of age of consent, and that it should at least be national. In Florida, it works out so that the general age of consent is 18, but for those 25 and under the age of consent is 16. This cuts down on the issues associated with people of relatively close ages dating and doing what comes natural in the course of that dating. I think its also important to leave the laws vague in terms of punishment, so that judges can use their good judgment about what punishment, if any is appropriate. A situation where its plausible someone lied about their age and the other person fell for it, the judge should be lenient... but if the person says they lied and its pretty obvious that the kid is well underage regardless of what they said, the judge should take that into account. Furthermore, judges should be held accountable when they do something stupid, such as that judge in New England who let a pedophile who was abusing a girl over the course of several years get off with just a couple months in prison. Another situation where its important for a judge to have room to determine appropriate action rather than be bound too tightly by law, is where sex occurs between minors under the age of consent...


I'd also like to say that the sex offender registry/list, while started with the best intentions, has become an utter disaster. While those on it end up facing a tremendous amount of social stigma, the fact that people get dubbed sex offenders/predators for things as assinine as mooning somebody erode the value of the registry.

The age of consent is a convenient construct because it is the best approximation we have of the real gauge of consent: maturity.

The ability to give informed consent is a factor of maturity, and I've met some very mature fifteen-year-olds and very immature twenty-five-year-olds.

I agree with Demetz that a graduated set of ages is a good idea. Eighteen is the legal definition of an adult (apart from the USA concept that those adults aren't responsible enough to consume alcohol... but that's another subject ), and unless you want to apply the same 'logic' regarding sexual intercourse as is applied to alcohol, the age of consent should be no higher than eighteen.

Under eighteen, it gets tricky. From my limited experience, I believe sixteen-year-olds are mature enough to understand the concepts involved, and curious enough that a significant number will want to try. Making it a criminal offense is as stupid as making it a criminal offense to consume alcohol at that age. Having said that, making it a criminal offense when there is a significant age difference is worth while. Again, it gets back to maturity. The sixteen-year-old is still developing their maturity, and are capable of being manipulated by more mature adults. A mature thirty-year-old would understand this and would wait until their partner is eighteen. That would often be more difficult for a twenty-year-old, and some leniency is deserved. Which is why I like Demetz's example of graduated ages of consent, depending on the age of the older partner.

This table of worldwide ages of consent is really enlightening.

Here in Spain it's 13 for all. In the U.K. it's 16.

My feeling is the law shouldn't get in the way of people discovering their sexuality, whatever it is. As youngsters seem to be maturing physically at an earlier age it makes sense the AOC should be lower, otherwise the law artificially creates 'criminals' where it shouldn't be involved.

Protection from abuse of any sort is there in existing laws so I don't think there needs to be complications introduced with rules for age differences. If someone is forced or coerced into doing something they don't consent to, it is assault or rape or similar.

I voted for it to be Universally 18 years of age. I think a structured number will eliminate anyone falling through on technicalities. If the age of consent is universally 18 years of age it does hinder some people to date that are close in age, but it also doesn't allow any arguing in legal matters of that age based on the "maturity" of the underage partner. When things become universally sound it makes it easier to identify with as well - not having any room for interpretation and argument can be a good thing when it comes to sexual relationships. I wouldn't want the age of consent based on Maturity at all, as maturity isn't measurable, but numbers usually are. For me, 18 year old people have more life experience to make better decisions when it comes to relationships, so that is why I picked that number based on all the others.

I have no problem with that as long as they are restricted to kids their own ages. 13 is rather low for the age of consent imho. Adults should not be sleeping with chidren of 13 or 14 years of age. That is clearly not acceptable adult behavior. However, the 13 and 14-year-olds should be free to explore with one another, but they need to be taught about safety.

I went with states, 16 and all. I meant universal though. Anyways, the reason why I said 16 is because of high school relationships. Some do actually last, and most people are dating those who are in higher/lower grades then they are. Just my thoughts.

The age of consent according to this site for India is an abysmal 14 for males and 16 for females!!

I feel that the female part of it is fine, but the male?!!

Also, the distinction between consensual sex and rape is not there in India (in the case of child sexual abuse as sex below the age of 18 is child abuse in another law)

In short, laws in India are complicated and sometimes contradictory!!

Here in Canada, it's a federal job to define (all criminal laws are under Ottawa's power). It's 14 at the moment.

They should be all universial for all men and women regardless of age and sexuality. It's retarded that the USA have so much patchworks that only serve to confuse people and unintentionally get them in trouble where they don't want to do be in. We can't memorize 50 different laws at a time. :s

I think there should be an age gap allowance as well. For example, if an 18 year old boyfriend have sex with a 17 year old girlfriend in Arizona, he'd be jailed for "corrupting" a minor despite them holding a relationship before the boyfriend turned 18. We shouldn't have to be that strict.

So I think the age of consent should be 14 or 15 with age gap allowance of two or three years up to 19/20 (it would be a moot point once the youngest hit 18, the age of adulthood), so a 19/20 year old won't be afraid to be slammed in jail for hitting a 17 year old. And protects teenagers from abuse by those much older than 20.

But! I will not accept a 55 year old man having sex with a 15 year old. That's abuse to me. He would deserve to be jailed. Likewise for someone who is 25 or 30.

For high school students, I roll my eyes every time they worry about the age of consent. I always tell them, "keep it in your bedroom when your parents aren't home" or something like that. I think they're responsible enough and it's not my business to stop a 16 year old having sex with someone who is 15. They're teenagers... they're going to do it most of the time when we tell them not to, especially about sex. So I just tell them not to be STUPID to get caught, like doing it in a public park or at a party in the woods that are often subject to police raids. And I would also tell them to use condoms no matter what. Even a drop of precum will get the girl pregnant (or for the gays, a drop of that from a little known person will give you SIDS or HIV).

Well, I am in agreement with everyone except Krista (no offense, Krista! ), but I think Demetz most closely summed up how I feel.

In general I think 16 is a perfectly good number to use for age of consent and I definitely agree that allowing for circumstances of +/- two or three years is a good idea. I also definitely and strongly agree that this should be the same in all states and regions governed by U.S. law, and that the gender/sexuality of the people involved should be irrelevant.

Tim also mentioned that he had no issue with 13 year olds having sex with each other, but that it was inappropriate for an adult to do this. I most definitely agree! I guess that blurs the whole "age of consent" thing if I'm saying it's okay for 13 and 14 year olds to make that decision as well as long as they're restricted to people around their own age, but really it's not so much that I like the idea of 13 and 14 year olds having sex - I don't really think that's a good idea at all - but it does seem ridiculous and pointless to make it illegal for them to do so. I think a far better option would be to encourage them to wait and to definitely make sure that they're making informed decision and taking precautions.

Personally speaking, imagining myself in the role of a parent, I wouldn't have a huge problem with my 15 or 16 year old having sex as long as both he/she and their partner knew what they were getting into and mutually wanted it, the person was close to their age, and most of all that they were using condoms and otherwise being safe. Admittedly, I would prefer for them to wait until they were 16+, but it wouldn't be the end of the world for me if they didn't, like I said as long as they were being safe, and wanted to versus feeling pressured to.

I think the most important thing is for parents and adults to get their heads out of the sand and educate kids about safe sex, and all the stuff that goes along with it instead of just pretending it doesn't happen.

-Kevin

I saw today that one fourth of teenage girls in the US have some kind of sexually transmitted infection.

Oh boy. Don't hate me please.

Truthfully? I hate the AoC laws. I personally don't want them at all.
In the greater scheme of things, I see and agree with them. I'll even advocate them, even though I hate them.

I know, that sounds rediculous. Well, let me explain.
I am attracted to both people around my own age as well as younger boys. Yeah yeah, shout paedo, go ahead. I won't even hide behind the facade "boylover."
I think that I should be allowed to explore relationships with younger boys.
However, that is because I know that I wouldn't ever do anything to hurt the boy. I'd not manipulate (consciously).
I wouldn't. Others would, I know that and I see that. (I've spent time with "boylovers" - trust me "love" has nothing to do with it.)
So for the one out of...say...a hundred thousand paedophiles like me that would never hurt a child, I do not a drastic change should be made. One in ten million people should not influence the laws for everyone.
I love kids. Thus, I don't want them hurt by someone older and manipulative.

So that said. I'm for 14/15...something like that. With a plus six years partner. That is, a 14 year old could be with a 20 year old. A 15 year old with a 21 year old, etc.
This is mostly for my own plight though, I've fallen for a 14 year old....being 19 I cannot touch him until he is 18 in my state. (it is confusing, but plus 5 years for a partner starting at 16, I think.)
No worries though guys, the kid is straight as an arrow so I can only dream anyway.

Ok, its like 3am and I'm past tired, so if something didn't make sense I'll clear it up tomorrow! Today...whatever

That is a scary statistic. That is why condoms are so important. That is part of the reason we have an age of consent.


Tarin, what happens when you are 30? Do you think your desire for someone that age will go away? I'm not going to call you a pedo or anything, but I do not like the idea of stripping away the AoC just so someone who wants a 14-year-old can have his or her way legally. In my opinion and those of many in the field of psychology, a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent. In fact, I think that is the definition by most mental health professional, and I tend to agree. It is morally reprehensible to sleep with a minor. This is not Classical Greece. In the modern world, we understand the impressionable nature of the adolescent mind. As we have discussed before, we have no problem with 14-year-olds having relations with one another, but we do draw the line at an adult having such relations with them.

I also found this useful information from here:



I tend to agree with the mental health professionals on this one. There is a big difference between 13 and 17. The government should be able to recognize that difference.

All right for the "easiest" questions,,, the age of consent should be the same no matter if it's male/female, male/male, female/female. I don't see any good reason for it to differ depending on what you are doing. it would be prejudicial.

The age of consent should be the same in every part of any countries. I know that in big countries, it's harder to makes directive that will take into account the "needs" of every part. But I think that for something this important, it should be centralized.

Now, for the key question, I think that an age of consent of 16 is fine, of course with keeping the disposition of the position of power... Yes, at 16, for most of them, all you think is sex and don't think for sure about the consequences. But I think that 18 is too old and 17 is too "unusual" age limit.

All of the U.S. states if they haven't already should have the same age of consent for same sex behavior as they do heterosexual behavior. There was a relatively famous case in Kansas where there was a teenager punished for having sex with an underage boy and received a harsher sentence than if it was heterosexual behavior. The court ruled there that due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (the case that overturned laws banning private consensual adult sodomy) that laws that treated sexual behavior differently because of the gender of the people involved violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution. So while some of the laws may remain on the books because well they haven't been challenged yet, they would not likely sustain a constitutional challenge if someone was charged and received a punished that was greater the behavior was between two people of the same gender than if it was between people of different genders.

As far as age of consent laws, that is specifically a power of each state to set as it falls under the general police powers of the various states to regulate behavior within their states. There is actually a federal age of consent, but that only applies if you transport the minor across state lines. That age of consent is 18.

Some of us already knew about the federal statute. However, we are debating if there should be a statute on the federal level in which there is a uniform age of consent regardless of "transporting". I thought I was clear. I apologize if that was not the case. Lawrence vs. Texas was probably the most important USSC case in the last 10 years. It is certainly the most important for us.

Probably not. Ever since I was 13 I've been attracted to boys around that age and a bit younger. All the way up to older than me.
My preference changes as I grow older though, and generally is on the edge of legality thus far.


Agreed. That is pretty much exactly what I said.
I am for a slightly lower AoC than is currently. 15 is where I'd vote, 14 is for my personal wants.
However I think that 6 years is a decent plus age. I don't think a 30 year old should be able to legally be with a 14 year old. However, a 20 year old...if the parents are ok with it, sure.


You are referring to pederasty, correct?
I don't remember Greek culture being full of damaged adult males.
I think that it was part of the culture, and it was okay. Thus there was nothing wrong with it, and it wouldn't damage an adolescent. They were doing what was acceptable to them, parents, culture, etc.
I'm sure our adolescents do things that they would have found "morally reprehensible."
I don't think we have learned it is "morally reprehensible," I believe we have made it morally reprehensible.


Erm, I only had time to skim the article, but what I did read in "causes and symptoms" made me laugh. Whole 'nother thread though.


There is also a big difference between 13 and 13. 14 and 14. It is a difficult age range to judge maturity, that is why there are so many laws about it.

Oh what I meant to say is that the federal government probably does not have the authority to pass a federal age of consent law as that is the province of the states. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be accomplished in another way.

I'm sure my uncle never thought he was hurting me. I rather enjoyed it actually so I know he didn't think he was hurting me. But as I got older I realized how wrong it was and I still sometimes have bad thoughts and nightmares about it. Pedo and incest. A real double-whammy.

I do hope you'll think about what I just told you. You might be physically gentle but you can never know what sort of emotional harm you're causing.

I'm sorry your uncle hurt you.

Don't worry, I have never, and probably will never, do anything with a young boy.
Anyway, lets get this back on topic, shall we?

I bet it'll find a way. It managed to succeed making the drinking age uniform.

As I recall, they related it to driving, which is a logical connection up to a point, and said to the states you can set any drinking age you choose, of course, just that if you choose something under 21, we'll cut off all your federal highway funds.

Maybe they could say that since a lot of teenage sex takes place in cars, we'll cut off highway funds if you don't conform.

Age of Consent-

It wasn't always like this...

When you turn the clock back say 500 years or so to pre-industrial society, adolescence was considered adulthood. Laws at the time in Europe (Germany) showed that persons 13 years or older had the right to marry. It was quite common for an established man in his 30s or older to take a bride of 14. There were many such marriages in the royal courts of Europe. In Hebrew tradition the age of accountability or 12 years of age marked adulthood.

There were several reasons for this. Life expectancy was much shorter. In labor intensive agrairian societies every hand available was absolutely necessary and greatly needed. Education was reserved for the wealthy or nobility.

There was no social stigma associated with marrying or simply taking a lover in the age range that we now consider "protected". Leonardo da Vinci had a 30 year relationship with a servant, Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, who entered his household at the age of 10. In 1506, Leonardo met Count Francesco Melzi, the 15 year old son of a Lombard aristocrat who became his life-long companion. Michelangelo composed 50 sonnets for his friend Cecchino de' Bracci who was 16 when they met. de' Bracci died a year later and it is said that Michelango is said to have moured his death every year until his death. It is common knowledge that his masterpiece, David, was modeled after one of his his teen aged lovers. At the age of 57, Michelanglo met 27 year old Tommaso dei Cavalieri who became his life long companion.

The change began during the Industrial revolution. As employers needed workers with more and greater skills, education became more and more important. Socially, the various Christian churches became more and more adverse to May-December and homosexual relationships. Churches were quite influential in early education. Marx in particular was quite homophobic and countries under communist rule were uniformly repressive.

Adolescence, as the construct that we know it today, began in English boarding schools: the six years betweeen 12-18. England being a dominate world superpower was emulated and we see this system of education moving out through the old British empire. This gave England a well educated middle and upper class that dominated other countries for some years.

Around 1900 social activists began pushing for child labor laws and compulsory education began taking hold in numerous western countries.

In the 60s and 70s the feminist lobby began pushing for laws that protect women and children from sexual exploitation. That is how we got to where we are now.

Your posts always make for fascination reading James. Thanks.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but IIRC the Hebrew age of accountability has traditionally been 13 years plus one day for boys and 12 plus a day for girls.

I thought those two might have been gay. This is the confirmation of my suspicions! James, you are always insightful. I am impressed once again!

As for teenage lovers, I am not sure if the old ways are better than our current standards. I do happen think 16 or 17 would be the most appopriate age of consent.

Please don't anyone throw stones at me...

I remain convinced that relationships with a huge gap between the ages of the partners aren't a good thing.

However, is there anything positive to be said about an older man mentoring a younger man, who has reached the AoC, in the ways of more enjoyable -- and these days safer -- sexual techniques?

The May/December relationships work for some people I could never deny that. I can "have fun" though. It all depends on my mood.

Amen to that!

I know this is a discussion of Age of Consent, but let me once again echo the importance of safe sex!

Part of the reason for an age of consent is because adults are more apt to practice safe sex. Those adults who do not knowingly risk their lives. All I have to say about those risking the lives of others is that karma is a b****.

Yes, I completely agree. Again, trying not to diverge into a discussion of safe sex, but what some people do, or refuse to do, in this realm is very very disappointing and maddening

I talked about this (on a different forum) a couple months ago, I'll copy and paste what I said, adding my 2 cents worth.

First, watch this (nevermind, video is no longer available), basically, it was Dave Chappelle talking about how old 15 really is. R Kelly pissed on a girl that was 15 (allegedly or maybe they found out he really did, not sure), and they found she wasn't able to decide on whether or not she should be pissed on. He talked about how that Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped and the consensus was "Oh she's only 15." But then again, a 15 year old black kid in Florida accidentally killed his friend when they were practicing wrestling moves on a trampoline. They tried him as an adult and convicted him of murder.
The question being, "How old is 15 really?" and to make up your mind across the board. If you're going to try them as adults, then it should be legal for them to make their own decisions on whom to date.

If any of you have visited sites such as myspace, facebook, xanga, things of that nature, you know there are underaged people that post nudes of themselves, private or otherwise. Whether you search these out or accidently stumble across them, I don't care. The fact is is that in this day and age, kids know more about sex and porn than ever before.

This is my view on it, let's see if you agree or not. Most people at the age of 15 are over halfway through with puberty, some lag behind some are farther than others. They also know what sex is. How old is 15 really?

Now for those who takes naughty pictures of themselves and send it to their boyfriend or girlfriend, that is illegal pornography. Should it be? My answer is no. Why? Because:
1) They took it willingly. This is key. KEY.
2) They know what they're doing. They choose to do it. That ties into the age as well. They know how to upload/text the pic to various places, things of that nature.

So why should that be illegal? It shouldn't. Makes no sense. You can't say they're kids because they can take their driving permit, wielding a killing object, in the video the 15 year old that was sentenced as an adult to life in jail. You can't waver on this.

Now taking that into the act of actual sex. As long as they know the consequences of sex, safe sex, STDS, pregnancy, then why not? Why can't a 24 year old date at 16 year old? Or why can't a 19 year old date a 15 year old? Hm?

I think it fits for the most part. Can a 17 year old date a 29 year old? Why not? If they both want to, I see nothing wrong, at all.... at all......... at all.

Yes no maybe so? Discuss

I say:
1) Up for states to decide, it should not be universal, each state should be the ones to determine it.
2) I think it should be 15, but not opposed to it being 16.
3) It should be the same across the board.

Yagami, I disagree. A 15 year old having a relationship with someone his or her own age is one thing, but having a relationship with an adult is another. Sexual maturity and emotional maturity are two different things. There are 13 year olds who are much more developed than others their age. However, the emotional maturity is still similar to others in their age group. They are not ready for a relationship with an adult. In fact, the reason it is illegal is because it can cause emotional damage that may not be able to be repaired.

Emotional maturity really is the issue. That varies a good bit from one individual to another. There really isn't any way to write that into law, so the law has to use chronological age as a rather arbitrary standard.

There is about a 99% consensus that pre-pubescent children are not ready to engage in sexual relations. One they pass through puberty, then it becomes difficult to set a standard for when they can be expected to be emotionally ready. Anything we come up with is going to be problematic to some extent because there will situations in which it does not work well. However, it does seem reasonable that we should have some uniform national standard. The courts have managed to establish such a national standard for abortion which is a similarly emotionally charged issue.

I think youre definitely right that emotional, rather than physical, maturity is the issue here. Also right that there is no way to measure it. That is the difference between this issue and the abortion issue, no real way to measure.
Unless every child takes an emotional maturity exam every year after they are 12 or something til they pass?

It's similar to abortion in that age of viability is the point that many people see as a reasonable cutoff point for elective abortion. That can't be conclusively determined for every pregnancy so the first trimester gets used as a somewhat arbitrary point.

Nobody could agree on what would constitute a valid emotional maturity exam.

I agree with Richard in that the Age of Consent (AOC) should ideally be based on emotional maturity. On that basis, I can think of some people in their twenties that wouldn't qualify However, we don't have a reliable measure of that maturity, so chronological age is used instead. It's a crude measure, but it's the best we can come up with.

However, Yagami_Light has raised a good point for discussion. If the courts are able to treat people below the AOC as adults, then that is blurring that use of that as a measure of emotional maturity. They are saying that for some acts, the person is mature enough to make a rational decision, but for other acts, they are not.

Leaving aside the question of whether that's fair, is that reasonable?

I think the answer is yes. The AOC is not there to judge the activities of those under that age, but to prevent their exploitation by those above it. A person below the AOC may be intellectually mature enough to understand that certain activities are illegal and should not be done, but not emotionally mature enough to withstand the attention of that 'sexy older guy/girl who is interested in me!', not realising that in most cases they are being used.

Graeme, teenagers are capable of discerning right from wrong. That does not necessarily mean that they are mature enough to a romantic relationship with a 30 year old. They're definitely old enough to have sex and usually do. Then again, they often don't use condoms or birth control, and that causes a lot of problems. Age is simply a basic guideline. People mature emotionally as they age. If you used emotional maturity as some kind of measurement for whether or not the person can consent, people with certain handicaps would never be emotionally mature enough by some courts' standards, and that would likely be unfair to them. Just because someone has such a handicap does not mean that he or she should not be free to be in a romantic relationship.

We agree on everything except the last part.

If (and it's a big if) a good test for emotional maturity was developed, then I would advocate the use of that, rather than chronological age for determining if a romantic relationship is reasonable.

If it is wrong for a fifteen year old to have a romantic relationship with a thirty year old because the fifteen year old is not sufficiently mature, then it should be wrong for a twenty-five year old to have a romantic relationship with a thirty year old if the twenty-five year old has the maturity of a fifteen year old. Doing otherwise is discriminatory.

Graeme, that's the reason why chronological age is used instead of emotional maturity as a measurement for whether or not a relationship is appropriate. I am not sure about Australia, but I know the US is an extremely litigious society. Court cases about emotional maturity would be in courtrooms across the nation backing up other important cases. While chronological age is not perfect, it is certainly better than any alternative the legal system has today. Might there be a better way to measure in the future without have to sort it out in court? Maybe, but that day is certainly not today. Thus, chronological age is preferred, and that is unlikely to change any time in the future. I do think there are laws regarding some individuals with hindered psychological development and understanding in regards to having enough culpability to be a party in a contract, but I don't think there is such a standard for consenting to sexual relationships.

Tim, if you go back, you'll find that I'm not disagreeing. As Richard said, and I agreed (and I think I even said it earlier in this thread, too), emotional maturity should be the gauge, but we can't measure it, so we use chronological age instead. We don't have anything better.

BUT, if a good test for emotional maturity was ever developed, I would prefer it to be used instead of chronological age. I just don't see that happening, because maturity is a very, very tricky thing to define, let alone measure.

These laws are directed primarily at the behavior of an older person who might exploit a younger person. The person who is considered as being too young to consent is seen as a victim. It is the older person who is prosecuted and convicted.

Consent is not an entirely black and white thing. There is the issue where one party says yes but is seriously intoxicated and has second thoughts about it the next morning. Power is a central factor in all this. A person who is much older, a teacher or an employer may be in a position to persuade a person to say yes to sexual activity when it's not really what they want to do.

The origional notion of age of consent arose in common law during a time when girls were seen as their father's property to control. The law is still focused primarily on teenage girls. Nobody gets very upset about straight boys losing their virginity, except in the rare case where an adult woman teacher gets involved with a 14 year old boy. However it will always be a convenient tool to use against gay men and boys.

It's funny you bring that up Richard, I know on Jay Leno, they'll do jokes about the 24 year old female teacher getting it on with a 14 year old male student. The consensus is "WAY TO GO!"

Graeme said:

That's fine and all, but what about comparing this to murder. If they can be tried as adults for murder, but then turn around and not be adults about sex, for real? Apparently sex is > whether or not you can end human life.

Now if they did lower the AOC down to 15 or 16, there's a few things that need to be changed. First off, sex ed. I mean actual education. Lube, condoms, the whole shabang. Not "Well, when a male and a female love eachother very much...... ta da! Baby."
It should go along the lines of, "When two people love eachother very much, and one cheats on the other and leaves them, the person who was cheated then goes to the local watering hole where they get extremely wasted and accept the first dick offered to them, and 9 months later you were born."

That was indeed humor by the way. But in all seriousness, knowledge is key. My sex ed never talked about how to use a condom or anything, and it's not like I'm 50 years old, I'm 21, so the stuff is still recent, and I don't exactly live in hicksville.

Glad I could help keep the discussion going. It's interesting, and it's been brought up to me before about the whole mental maturity thing, and hey, if they can decide whether or not to kill someone, or if they can handle driving something that takes responsibility (carssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss), then they should be able to make up their minds on whether they want to date someone, or get it on with someone.

We're talking two different things, here.

A fifteen year old should be mature enough to understand that killing someone is wrong. Hence, it's legitimate to try them for murder as an adult.

A fifteen year old is also able to have sex with a thirty year old -- not a problem FOR THE TEENAGER. It is the adult who gets into trouble.

So the cases are not comparable. The other thing is that killing someone has consequences 'now', while relationships are a 'in-the-future' thing as far as consequences are concerned. The impact of a sexual relationship before you are emotionally mature is a more subtle thing than killing someone, so it is more difficult for someone emotionally immature to identify.

We've had some recent cases of female teachers being jailed because of sexual relationships with male students. In at least one, the student acknowledges that it has adversely affected him.

Okay, so, is 16 the age then? Are we able to agree to that?

Based on the poll, sixteen is the most popular choice, but it doesn't have the majority of the votes. Personally, I agree with the sliding scale that's been proposed previously, where, until they are eighteen and a legal adult, there's a maximum age limit for the older partner before AOC issues come into play. If that was three years, for example, a twenty year old could have a sexual relationship with a seventeen year old, but not a sixteen year old.

I voted 16 as it in my country.
"The age of consent in Switzerland is 16, as specified by the Swiss Federal Criminal Code, Article 187(1). However, there exists a close in age exception if the difference between the ages of the participants is three years or less {Art 187(2)}."
It was never a problem for me. I prefer mature partners, about the the same age as mine, well a little younger now .

I have some thoughts on recent posts






I agree very much with these two.




This gender disparity really ticks me off too!

It's preposterous to get upset about your 15 year old daughter having sex but blow it off for your 15 year old son. Either you're saying that you don't care about your son, and thus don't care what he does sexually, or you're saying you don't have any confidence in your daughter and think she's too stupid or immature to handle something your son could handle.

This really irritates me! Regardless of what you think the Age of Consent should be, it should be the same for both genders.

Similarly, sexuality shouldn't matter. One of the biggest issues IMO is that many states and countries make a distinction between same-sex sex and heterosexual sex. That's also stupid and unfair.

If I'm okay with a 25 year old female having sex with my 16 year old son (which I doubt I would be) then as far as I'm concerned I'm also obliged to accept the same 25 year old female having sex with my 16 year old daughter or a 25 year old male having sex with my 16 year old son or my 16 year old daughter. The gender and sexuality should not matter.

I think what it really comes down to is an issue of safety, respect, and mutual desire and maturity.

Graeme is also right that when it comes to emotional maturity some people in their twenties (and beyond) aren't ready for sex and relationships. Personally speaking, I'd be a lot more upset if someone who was 20 had sex with my 27 year old, mentally handicapped child (male or female) than if they had sex with my mature 17 year old (male or female).

I also think that in some cases society and the parents themselves cause the 16 or 17 year olds to feel 'scarred' and 'abused' by what really was a consensual relationship. Don't get me wrong I have no sympathy for child molesters and I think that anyone over a certain age has no business messing around with anyone under a certain age, regardless of the circumstances. However, I think that very often a 16 or 17 year old is essentially 'convinced' that they were 'violated' by someone who was really only a few years older than them and only 'technically' illegal. We're not doing them any favours in this case. Assuming it really was a 'normal' set of circumstances I'd rather my 17 year old chalk up their failed relationship with a 19 year old as general incompatibility, or one of them acting like a jerk, than decide that they were 'abused'. That's going to give them a lot more baggage than just another failed teen romance.


That does seem like the most sensible alternative to me, given the situation.