Age Of Consent

[kiwi]

In NZ the age of consent for females is 16

there is NO age of consent for males

charges are laid under something like "sexual contact with a minor" if your charging someone for molesting an "underage" male

I think is should be 16 for both sexes.

[Greenday]

I had also planned on doing the 21 shots ritual for a long time. Luckily I have good friends who helped me get in a little underage drinking (a margarita and a screwdiver, nothing crazy) so I could see that alcohol isn't the ambrosia it's cracked up to be before killing myself.

21 shots is suicide. Unless you pace it like one an hour, nothing good will happen.

Let's say I took 21 shots in FIVE hours. That'd leave me with a BAC around 0.4. 50% of people who get to a 0.4 die. And I'm a guy that weighs 178 lbs.

[McDreidel09]

Where I live, 17 is the age of consent. Done. No limits on age difference. Just 17. I'm really cool with this because guys around my age suck. Not all, just most. If at 17, I can go to actual jail instead of juvie, then I better be able to have sex with someone I have feelings for, even if they are older.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - I'm undecided on this whole topic, especially since Mysty brought up the Pre-marital thread.

Over her (Australia) it's state dependant, but basicall the 15/18 split. But cigarettes and alcohol are 18 everywhere (that's federal law). Driving is also state specific, but mostly around 17.

Issues - firstly, given pre-marital thread, there is indication that sex is just something to be enjoyed, and is a very personal thing... so what's the whole big deal about it? Not being facetious, it's a real question... what really is the hang up?? Ok, pregnancy and disease... other than that?

Secondly, nature has designed us so that we are capable of parenting (at least physically, if not emotionally) at ages earlier than legal, which indicates to me that this whole age of consent thing is a load of malarky.

Thirdly, as was pointed out in the OP, the age thing was only really a social construct that we adhered to fairly recently - what happened prior to that? Did we specifically need laws to protect kids (well, yes, certainly some...). But things were quite different 'back then'.

OTOH, nature has given us an earlier parenting age to counter a shorter lifespan... is that likely to change through evolution? Does it matter?

Society has a hang up on sex. It has done so in most cultures for a long time... but not all. The more prudish the society, the more the issues that seem to develop from them. Did (and do) the various aboriginal cultures of the planet who didn't worry so much about clothing have major sexual issues?

Also, kids these days (doesn't every generation say that??) seem to be less mature in some ways. Certainly, we can afford to be... basic survivability for the individual is more likely, and less time consuming. So, we have a lot more time to actually enjoy our lifetime however we choose to - such as play computer games... or type posts on a forum

Speaking of kids, when is too young to be having them? I know it's easy for us as adults to pass judgement, but having kids is a life-changing event. For some, it will bring out maturity and responsibility like nothing else. Others may crack. And I'm not sure if anyone is really able to tell in advance.

Have I sufficiently copped out on giving a decision on this??

[IDrinkaRum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson Here's the wiki. To summarize, there was a holdover in the law that made oral sex with someone underage a felony.

I remember that case. IIRC, the only reason charges were brought up was because Mr. Wilson is black and his teenage partner was white and the father insisted Mr. Wilson be "punished" for what he had done.

[daleduke17]

How about one set age for everything?

Make it 16 or 17 and you're considered an adult. Drive, buy booze/cars/guns/etc, have sex, sign contracts, join the military, whatever.

No fuss, no muss.

[Flyndaran]

How about one set age for everything?

Make it 16 or 17 and you're considered an adult. Drive, buy booze/cars/guns/etc, have sex, sign contracts, join the military, whatever.

No fuss, no muss.

But completely ignoring certain key facts. Driving in the U.S. is usually a necessity, even in the very few areas with expansive public transport. This requires that driving age be painfully young.
Sex is a no win situation. No matter how young you set the age, kids will still experiment, especially when puberty starts, and we certainly don't want them legally screwing around. This requires a painfully, to those not yet old enough, old limit to set.
Military is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it is a quite possibly lethal, and very psychologically intense decision, so should be reserved for responsible adults. On the other hand, no military in the world could survive with only responsible adults. So the set age is required to be almost stupidly young.
Alcohol, a toxin, and guns, lethal weapons by design, are local moral and complicated public health topics to regulate so can reasonably have regional differences.

[Slytovhand]

Alcohol, a toxin, and guns, lethal weapons by design, are local moral and complicated public health topics to regulate so can reasonably have regional differences.

Couldn't a similar argument be made for sex, then?

[Flyndaran]

Couldn't a similar argument be made for sex, then?

Sex is a no win game. Youths will do it no matter what laws are made. Laws are mainly to prevent older adults from manipulating them into sex that they aren't ready for.

While underage sex often involves a potentially dangerous injection, I can't see how one would seriously equate it to toxins.

[Slytovhand]

No, not equating it with toxics, equating it with the 'regional differences' bit.

[Flyndaran]

No, not equating it with toxics, equating it with the 'regional differences' bit.

Should we really accept regional/cultural differences for something like this? In the U.S. we don't. If an american goes to a country and has sex with someone legal there but underage here, he will be arrested when he returned.
That's why we should have a federal "no exceptions" lowest age allowed law.
States should then be allowed to increase it if they so chose.

In general I would greatly prefer a more individuals involved and sliding scale of iillegality that is quite counter to the way in which most american want now. Today, people want minimum sentencing and less power to th judicial branch and more to the other two. Not to mention this country's gross problem, since the beginning, with what is known as, "executive creep" whereby many aspects of government are being taken over by said branch.

[anriana]

Should we really accept regional/cultural differences for something like this? In the U.S. we don't. If an american goes to a country and has sex with someone legal there but underage here, he will be arrested when he returned.

Really? How does that make any sense? Will Americans also be arrested for smoking pot or hiring a prostitute while vacationing in the Netherlands?


And America does have regional differences in its sex laws regarding prostituion and, until recently, sodomy and sex toys.

[Flyndaran]

Really? How does that make any sense? Will Americans also be arrested for smoking pot or hiring a prostitute while vacationing in the Netherlands? .

It's mainly, or at least officially, designed to prevent sex tourism and the violation of tiny children..

And America does have regional differences in its sex laws regarding prostituion and, until recently, sodomy and sex toys.

Yes that is very odd, that no supreme court justice has ever called sex a human right. Also, some states still do have sodomy laws. The unconstitutional bit was that some made only gay sodomy illegal. As long as you make it illegal across the board for any pairings it's constitutional.

[anriana]

It's mainly, or at least officially, designed to prevent sex tourism and the violation of tiny children..

While I certainly disagree with sex tourism/pedophilia, I also disagree with a law that says "You're American, and X is illegal in America, therefore it's illegal for you to do it ever." The only thing that should apply to is matters of national security, because seriously, why would that law not equally be applied to smoking marijuana or those under 21 drinking alcohol in countries without ridiculous drinking ages?

Yes that is very odd, that no supreme court justice has ever called sex a human right. Also, some states still do have sodomy laws. The unconstitutional bit was that some made only gay sodomy illegal. As long as you make it illegal across the board for any pairings it's constitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

4/9 Supreme Court justices ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional due to privacy, period.

[Flyndaran]

While I certainly disagree with sex tourism/pedophilia, I also disagree with a law that says "You're American, and X is illegal in America, therefore it's illegal for you to do it ever." The only thing that should apply to is matters of national security, because seriously, why would that law not equally be applied to smoking marijuana or those under 21 drinking alcohol in countries without ridiculous drinking ages? .

At least you realize that there should be limits to our wants and needs to protect our citizens from themselves and others from us.
It all comes down to the unbeatable debate strategy...."But it's for the children!" Any politician faced with such a cry can do nothing but capitulate fully and completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

4/9 Supreme Court justices ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional due to privacy, period.

That makes their reticence to shoot the elephant in the room all the weirder.
Gay people are not allowed to marry because of the expected sodomy they commit to/on eachother. If my sexual activity, or lack thereof, is none of the governments business, then why is that of gays'?

That kind of blatant hypocrisy just make the U.S. look stupid and appear even more of a giant loose cannon than our actions have already made us out to be.