What do you believe the "age of consent" should be?
21 or older | 49 | |
20 | 22 | |
19 | 11 | |
18 | 178 | |
17 | 73 | |
16 | 328 | |
15 | 106 | |
14 | 112 | |
13 | 77 | |
12 or younger | 95 | |
It should not be legally mandated at all. | 203 | |
Other (explain) | 42 |
Ask Your Question today
21 or older | 49 | |
20 | 22 | |
19 | 11 | |
18 | 178 | |
17 | 73 | |
16 | 328 | |
15 | 106 | |
14 | 112 | |
13 | 77 | |
12 or younger | 95 | |
It should not be legally mandated at all. | 203 | |
Other (explain) | 42 |
These choices are all too old. I like mine before they come out, still fresh and slimy, dripping with placenta.
It is a fact that there are people in prison, or free but living with the label of "sex offender", merely because the age of consent is just a wee bit too high (19 year old "Romeo" got caught with 15 year old "Juilet"). This illustrates an inherent problem with having a singular age of consent.
I realise this is from two years ago but I'll respond just the same. These age of consent laws do exist for a reason, first of all. It's to protect minors from sexual exploitation. So we know from step 1 that we need these laws.
it must be stated that the law is the law, and if you knowingly break a rape law you've made your own bed. I do realise that there are places where an adult would be branded as a sex offender for sleeping with his 20 year old girlfriend the week before she turns 21. And that wouldn't be in the original intention of the law to protect minors.
I think we need these laws, I think if you break the law it's your own fault usually.
I said 18, but I'd be more okay with 16 if they actually enforced the law instead of just portraying it as almost a guideline. When you're 14, you're 'only' two years off the age of consent (in UK), and so it doesn't seem so bad. If it were 18 or maybe even 20, I think that things would be a lot better.
Plus, people seem to forget that the law is there to protect you, not just to keep everyone in line. With the age of consent being 16-18 in most states/countries, I find myself coming across men who think that it's okay to behave inappropriately towards you because you're *nearly* legal. Which is both gross and frightening.
The age of consent is a highly flawed law. In all U.S states, despite an age of consent being under 18, as long as the girl is under her parents care, they still have the last say. In that respect, the age of consent is pointless. There should be a law stating that the person at the age of consent can consent to sex regardless of what their parents say.
There isn't a blanket answer. Should someone with the mental age of four (but physical age of an adult) be having sex? I'm not saying yes or no. Just that it's not simple.
You could say that it's decided for you individually by people who care for you (normally, your parents or guardians). If they think you're ready and they approve your partner, then it's time, but that'd be impractical and embarrassing.
Perhaps it could be like driving. You have to pass some kind of test to show you are emotionally ready and understand the consequences.
I guess that fact that it's different all over the world means that it's too complicated to have a simple answer.
It is noteworthy that the concept of "age of consent" didn't exist in most civilizations before our modern era. Is it because the thought had not yet become part of collective consciousness? Or perhaps because people typically shared your opinion of the matter (which is also mine), Dappled? Interesting either way.
People saying under 16 are a bit..... Well er ...... Anyone under 16 shouldn't be having sex. Although people say its about the maturaty which I agree with. But say if you get pregnant you will not beable to support yourself as you can't get a flat, full time job or even some household goods eg bleach and other things you would need. Without leaning on others for help like family and government. The big B for benefits comes in here but that's another discussion
I think the age of consent laws came into play due to the mass amount of child exploitations that have arisen over the decades. With the exploitations most likely leading to sexual molestation, laws have to be created to protect the well-being of the children. However, at the same time, the laws ended up getting ridiculous from state to state. For example, in California, the age of consent is 18. Are you serious? That's so stupid. So everyone under 18 must live in fear of getting caught having sex. Imagine if everyone followed that law? Many of you probably wouldn't even be born as a result. lol
I think it depends on how bigs the age difference is. 15 and 20 is ok, but 16 and 35 is not. If the age diffance isnt that big, I see nothing wrong with it. Most guys at that age aren't as mentally mature as the girls their age anyways.
if a person has sexual feeling that cause them to masturbate, they're old enough.
We are doing quite well with 14.
However, i would actually advocate 12. With a corridor restriction up to 15.(That is, neither partner may be more than 3 years older than the other. Would probably turn that into 2 years.)
One must always be wary of laws that turn perfectly normal, reasonable people into 'criminals' (marijuana, anyone?) However, setting the age too low can invite and legalise child abuse. It's a tricky one - clearly the best (practical) approach is an age difference thing, as has been suggested (and is used in some countries, I believe).
Whatever age is set, it's ludicrous and socially damaging to make it different to the age for marriage - or naked photos!
i believe a 12 year old should be able to but only with someone closer to his/her age.
otherwise the age of consent should be 16 which it is in my country (it was 17 when i was 16).
I think 15 because we are way too padded up in this society. Most younger people have sex before 16 anyway because of hormones.
I think since the age of consent and the age of buying sex toys are the same that the age of buying sex toys should be lower. Like now, the age of consent is 16 now right? I think the age of buying sex toys should be lowered to 14. Young teens would be less likely to go and have sex if they can pleasure themselves. Within the 2 year age gap the teens would learn and mature and think more reasonably about having sex. And they would know more about the cosequences. Just my thinking. :P
If they're mentally strong enough and mature, do it safely and understand what they're doing, then that should be their age, there should be a lower age like 13 because people have sex whether its legal or illegal ..
I think that the age of consent should be the same as when you're legally considered an adult.
I'm against legal mandation of ANY form of personal life, so long as the person IS in fact knowledged and consenting. One's personal maturity and actions with their own body should not be controlled by the social norms of others. I personally think it's a bid off for those particularly young to be having sex but who cares? It's not my right to choose for others.
The fact that Sex at 16 is the most popular answer leads me to believe that 90% of iin users live with thier Parents.
If their age is on the clock, they're too young for the cock. Lol just kidding, I voted 16.
18 is a good age, EVERY person i know who has lost their V at 16 or younger got used, and not with them too young
3 votes for 21 and older? c'mon, people.. you like your girls ancient here. Don't forget a walker or one of these walmart carts for your date.
;)
6, maybe 7.
J/K, I have absolutely no idea how to approach that question, because of the huge difference in maturity between sexes, and individuals!