Chocolate Forum

Chat => General => Topic started by: on June 19, 2005, 09:44:59 am

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: on June 19, 2005, 09:44:59 am

The age of consent should be lowered to 15.  Discuss.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: lemoneye on June 19, 2005, 10:40:25 am

I'm too old these days to be still playing with schoolgirls - until a year or so ago, i still looked young enough to mix in the younger circles... but time has caught up with me... and as i have a baby daughter and possibly another daughter on the way (not sure if its a boy or girl yet) then i would be against lowering the age of consent

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: goldencup on June 19, 2005, 10:48:29 am

As discussed before, a fairly high proportion of people 'experiment' a year or two before reaching the age of consent, so lowering the official age would probably mean even more pregnant 13 year olds.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: on June 19, 2005, 11:03:53 am

Yes, it might lead children to experiment even earlier, which is not a good thing.  So Goldencup, is there a case for raising the age of consent to 17 or is it like the speed limit on motorways - everyone just ignores it and does as they please?

 

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: on June 19, 2005, 11:09:45 am

I think there are two issues in one here.  1.) Is it possible for someone to consent to sex below the age of 16?  2.) Assuming the answer to 1. is Yes, at what age is it right for sex to take place. 

It's been 16 for years for heteros, and yet people are clearly maturing more quickly, particularly in a physical sense.  If we lower it to 15 does it send the wrong message to young people or does it merely reflect modern sexuality?

I'm not a child psychologist or a biologist but what is it about 16? Does something significant happen on at 16, which doesn't happen at 15 and a half?

 

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: goldencup on June 19, 2005, 04:13:31 pm

I think 16 is about right.  It ties in with the school leaving age for one thing.  Babies and homework aren't a very good combination.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: on June 19, 2005, 04:44:34 pm

Ah that's interesting, you make it sound like pregnancy is an inevitable consequence of sex.  Indeed, it's though that many teenagers have not made the link between intercourse and childbirth.  Apalling but true.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: oldspice on June 21, 2005, 08:16:16 am

If you lower the age of consent you must not assume that those indulging will be teenagers. It would leave the door wide open for older women and men to prey on young girls and boys. You can see two 14/15 year olds experimenting, but how would you feel about an adult, say in their 30s, 40s or older playing around with a youngster quite legally?

 

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: chocolate chick on June 21, 2005, 05:35:00 pm

I think it should stay at 16. I was not ready at 15.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: loulou on June 22, 2005, 05:42:17 pm

Neither was I.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: robbie on June 22, 2005, 05:44:07 pm

Hi Lou.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: loulou on June 22, 2005, 06:28:48 pm

hi robbie

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: on June 22, 2005, 07:53:21 pm

Hi robbie

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: chocolate chick on June 22, 2005, 09:14:27 pm

hi robbie

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: on June 23, 2005, 07:51:54 am

Hi chocolate Chick

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: smurfboy on June 27, 2005, 12:03:15 pm

I think there needs to be more clarity and equality on these issues. Why are you ready to have sex and smoke at 16, and even get married (with parental permission) - but you can't toast your marriage or wet your baby's head until you are 18? Or drive to the ceremony because you're not 17 yet? Oh, but you could go on your motorbike of course.

I don't see why it can't be decided that you're an adult at 16 or 18, and that then becomes the age of consent for everything.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: loulou on June 28, 2005, 11:42:33 pm

Not everything. You still can't get in a Vegas casino until you are 21.

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: smurfboy on June 29, 2005, 01:10:45 pm

Would this be the Vegas in AMERICA?

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: chocolate chick on June 29, 2005, 02:46:58 pm

hi bounty 

Title: Subject for discussion
Post by: loulou on June 29, 2005, 06:14:34 pm

Smurfy that's the one. We still have over 21 nightclubs in Newcastle and sunderland.