This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Royal Holloway applicant hub
- Why does people on reddit always criticizes a 21-23 year old dating someone 18/19?
- what kind of questions to expect in mpharm interview
- Do I need to have a bf before I have sex ?
- 14 Year old's consenting to 13 year old's in Germany and it being illegal.
- 18 year old having sex with a 56 year old?
- What can I do once I am 16?
- Can a student date an older man?
- 2 year age gap
- Less painful losing your virginity as an older female?
- Was I abused as I child or am I looking into it to deeply?
- Participants needed!!
- GCSE sittings -if I sit GCSEs in 2 blocks will universities offer place?
- Feeling a bit guilty
- Catfished by 16 year old
- Your Perfect Country
- LNAT Practice
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Struggling to cope with my little sister growing up
Would you be in favour of a universal age of consent?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Trinculo
Not sure I'm in favour, but I were, I'd put it at 17 with some kind of Romeo & Juliet law for sex down to 15.
yeah ok but I still don't think anyone should be having sex at 15, plenty of time in the future to deal with all that shiz. enjoy being a child first because you never get that chance the second time around
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Trinculo
One of those strange things about the EU - there were never moves to harmonize age of consent across Europe. It's much lower than you might think across Europe anyhow - at lot of EU states have 14.
OT - how would you feel about harmonizing the age of majority for all things:
Sex, voting, driving, drinking, smoking, contractual obligations, criminal offences, marriage etc. There are always these arguments "why can I drive/have sex, but not vote?"
Not sure I'm in favour, but I were, I'd put it at 17 with some kind of Romeo & Juliet law for sex down to 15.
OT - how would you feel about harmonizing the age of majority for all things:
Sex, voting, driving, drinking, smoking, contractual obligations, criminal offences, marriage etc. There are always these arguments "why can I drive/have sex, but not vote?"
Not sure I'm in favour, but I were, I'd put it at 17 with some kind of Romeo & Juliet law for sex down to 15.
No waaaay was I responsible enough at 16 to take on these responsibilities. Even at 18, still a big ask. I think that more needs to be done to teach young people how to look after themselves. The world is a scary place, and young people really need to know the facts so they're prepared to face whatever life throws at them!
15 = 12% ....... wow, just wow.
That being said, I dont really think an age of consent is a wise idea at all. We should instead implement a maximum age difference of 2 years for underage pupils. I dont like the idea of an 18 year old having sex with a 14 y.o.
That being said, I dont really think an age of consent is a wise idea at all. We should instead implement a maximum age difference of 2 years for underage pupils. I dont like the idea of an 18 year old having sex with a 14 y.o.
Spoiler
(edited 7 years ago)
Age of consent maybe, but not all things.
Original post by Trinculo
OT - how would you feel about harmonizing the age of majority for all things:
Sex, voting, driving, drinking, smoking, contractual obligations, criminal offences, marriage etc. There are always these arguments "why can I drive/have sex, but not vote?"
OT - how would you feel about harmonizing the age of majority for all things:
Sex, voting, driving, drinking, smoking, contractual obligations, criminal offences, marriage etc. There are always these arguments "why can I drive/have sex, but not vote?"
I don't think so.
Driving - it takes a while to learn, so being able to learn at 17 means most can pass at around age 18. I wouldn't want that raised at all, and there's maybe even a case for lowering it a bit.
For criminal offences, young teenagers need to be held responsible for crimes they comitt. So I wouldn't want that raised.
Sex should be kept at 16, not raised or lowered.
Voting and drinking should both be kept where they are.
etc.
Basically, if you tried to harmonise all these, you'd have some that were too low and/or some that were too high - you could end up lowering the drinking age to keep it in line with the age of sexual consent, or increasing the driving age and inconveniencing loads of young people just so it could be the same as something else. There are good reasons why minimum ages are different for different things.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
I don't think so.
Driving - it takes a while to learn, so being able to learn at 17 means most can pass at around age 18. I wouldn't want that raised at all, and there's maybe even a case for lowering it a bit.
For criminal offences, young teenagers need to be held responsible for crimes they comitt. So I wouldn't want that raised.
Sex should be kept at 16, not raised or lowered.
Voting and drinking should both be kept where they are.
etc.
Basically, if you tried to harmonise all these, you'd have some that were too low and/or some that were too high - you could end up lowering the drinking age to keep it in line with the age of sexual consent, or increasing the driving age and inconveniencing loads of young people just so it could be the same as something else. There are good reasons why minimum ages are different for different things.
Driving - it takes a while to learn, so being able to learn at 17 means most can pass at around age 18. I wouldn't want that raised at all, and there's maybe even a case for lowering it a bit.
For criminal offences, young teenagers need to be held responsible for crimes they comitt. So I wouldn't want that raised.
Sex should be kept at 16, not raised or lowered.
Voting and drinking should both be kept where they are.
etc.
Basically, if you tried to harmonise all these, you'd have some that were too low and/or some that were too high - you could end up lowering the drinking age to keep it in line with the age of sexual consent, or increasing the driving age and inconveniencing loads of young people just so it could be the same as something else. There are good reasons why minimum ages are different for different things.
Consider though that people mature differently and one 16 year old isn't the same as another - so isn't there a case for harmonising just for clarity and certainty - "it's 17 for everything"? It also gets past the questions like: "why can you have sex at 16 but not watch sex on film until 18?" why can you put a penis inside yourself at 16 but not alcohol?"
I said 16.
There is no difference between16,17,18 really in maturity levels usually.
Dislike it when when people say 16/17 havn't lived , don't know anything about the world Ect so should have the right to vote but I could say the same for some 30/40 year olds 😊😊😊
Oh and bring the ages of buying knives and scissors down to 16 since the can legally move out when they are 16 but can't actually buy their own cutlery 😂
There is no difference between16,17,18 really in maturity levels usually.
Dislike it when when people say 16/17 havn't lived , don't know anything about the world Ect so should have the right to vote but I could say the same for some 30/40 year olds 😊😊😊
Oh and bring the ages of buying knives and scissors down to 16 since the can legally move out when they are 16 but can't actually buy their own cutlery 😂
This is an interesting topic because it brings in the knowledge and wisdom we have learned from universally acceptable behaviour. Age of consent is particularly of interest to me because there is no universal view of it. Every culture differs on the subject and its approach towards it, making any law a law that is based on your own convenience.
What I can give you is an opinion based on biology and what we have learnt from our own bodies. Puberty naturally occurs around 11 to 12 years, and puberty is your body's way of telling you that you're physically ready for sexual intercourse. This is the fairest approach to age of consent because your judging someone based on whether they're physically ready or not.
Now, the counter-arguments against a puberty-law would be that the child isn't 'emotionally ready'. This is especially important because the likelihood is that abortion and STD figures will go on the increase (both of which I'm against). One's natural response would be to say that we should increase sex education in public schooling, however, the number of abortions and STDs actually went up ever since sex-ed was introduced. If the introduction to sex in public schools is making kids irresponsible, then what do we do? That is a question that must first be answered before we can even talk about age of consent.
What I can give you is an opinion based on biology and what we have learnt from our own bodies. Puberty naturally occurs around 11 to 12 years, and puberty is your body's way of telling you that you're physically ready for sexual intercourse. This is the fairest approach to age of consent because your judging someone based on whether they're physically ready or not.
Now, the counter-arguments against a puberty-law would be that the child isn't 'emotionally ready'. This is especially important because the likelihood is that abortion and STD figures will go on the increase (both of which I'm against). One's natural response would be to say that we should increase sex education in public schooling, however, the number of abortions and STDs actually went up ever since sex-ed was introduced. If the introduction to sex in public schools is making kids irresponsible, then what do we do? That is a question that must first be answered before we can even talk about age of consent.
Original post by Joel 96
This is an interesting topic because it brings in the knowledge and wisdom we have learned from universally acceptable behaviour. Age of consent is particularly of interest to me because there is no universal view of it. Every culture differs on the subject and its approach towards it, making any law a law that is based on your own convenience.
What I can give you is an opinion based on biology and what we have learnt from our own bodies. Puberty naturally occurs around 11 to 12 years, and puberty is your body's way of telling you that you're physically ready for sexual intercourse. This is the fairest approach to age of consent because your judging someone based on whether they're physically ready or not.
Now, the counter-arguments against a puberty-law would be that the child isn't 'emotionally ready'. This is especially important because the likelihood is that abortion and STD figures will go on the increase (both of which I'm against). One's natural response would be to say that we should increase sex education in public schooling, however, the number of abortions and STDs actually went up ever since sex-ed was introduced. If the introduction to sex in public schools is making kids irresponsible, then what do we do? That is a question that must first be answered before we can even talk about age of consent.
What I can give you is an opinion based on biology and what we have learnt from our own bodies. Puberty naturally occurs around 11 to 12 years, and puberty is your body's way of telling you that you're physically ready for sexual intercourse. This is the fairest approach to age of consent because your judging someone based on whether they're physically ready or not.
Now, the counter-arguments against a puberty-law would be that the child isn't 'emotionally ready'. This is especially important because the likelihood is that abortion and STD figures will go on the increase (both of which I'm against). One's natural response would be to say that we should increase sex education in public schooling, however, the number of abortions and STDs actually went up ever since sex-ed was introduced. If the introduction to sex in public schools is making kids irresponsible, then what do we do? That is a question that must first be answered before we can even talk about age of consent.
Isn't it better to base it on when puberty ends (i.e. when you're fully biologically ready) rather than when it starts?
Original post by 99_Problems
Isn't it better to base it on when puberty ends (i.e. when you're fully biologically ready) rather than when it starts?
You're biologically ready when puberty starts. If you're capable of reproduction then you're "biologically ready". What people are trying to determine is when someone is "emotionally ready", but then the whole mess just turns out to be subjective matter with no real universal agreement. This is what infuriates me.
Original post by Joel 96
You're biologically ready when puberty starts. If you're capable of reproduction then you're "biologically ready". What people are trying to determine is when someone is "emotionally ready", but then the whole mess just turns out to be subjective matter with no real universal agreement. This is what infuriates me.
The question is - should this have any bearing on when you can vote or drive?
The age of consent and adulthood should be 20. At 20, people should be allowed to vote, drink, have sex, buy property and participate in adult activities.
For me, it is
Child: 0 - 12 years
Teenage: 13 - 19 years
Adult: 20 years and above.
I know this will not be popular, but it is my opinion.
For me, it is
Child: 0 - 12 years
Teenage: 13 - 19 years
Adult: 20 years and above.
I know this will not be popular, but it is my opinion.
If you don't believe in/agree with sex before marriage, then 18. Because while you can still get married at 16, parental permission is required. In this case then, you effectively need parental permission to have sex, until the age of 18.
Original post by Wired_1800
The age of consent and adulthood should be 20. At 20, people should be allowed to vote, drink, have sex, buy property and participate in adult activities.
For me, it is
Child: 0 - 12 years
Teenage: 13 - 19 years
Adult: 20 years and above.
I know this will not be popular, but it is my opinion.
For me, it is
Child: 0 - 12 years
Teenage: 13 - 19 years
Adult: 20 years and above.
I know this will not be popular, but it is my opinion.
That's very high
Should there have to be an age of consent though? for some things, yes, other things, no.
Sex, for example, probably should have a minimum age. Why? because a pair of twelve year olds may not fully understand the consequences of their actions. At that age, they may not have been educated in that subject area or have poor knowledge.
Some may argue that if they don't fully understand everything, should they be having sex in the first place, but are they mentally mature enough to make that decision that they are unsure of the consequences of their actions.
However, should the legal age for sex be as high as 16? I know many students in my year group (y10) who have had sex and had no negative consequences due to understanding what the are doing. So should the age for sex be 13, 14, 15, 16? Honestly, I think it differs between child to child because a 13 year old may have the mental capacity to give consent while an immature 16 year old may not. Age for consent is a difficult buisness.
Additionally, if a 15 and 16 year old, who are both mature enough to understand what they are doing, have sex and get caught, the boy will go on the sex offenders list for statuary rape (i think) even if he is the underage one, even if they both gave consent,because the British justice system is sexist.
Also, you can get married at 16 (with parental consent) because that is the legal age you can have sex and therefore children. This law is made because of religion. Most religions would rather have a couple legally married before the baby is born otherwise the child would be a bastard because it was born out of wedlock. British government at the time the law was created was a catholic society and ruled by a catholic king, hence the rule was created. Does this now mean that the law for the age of marriage is now outdated? or should the age of marriage remain at the same age as the age of consent for sex?
As for voting, smoking, drinking, contracts and criminal offences and child vaccines (such as the cervical cancer vaccine and meningitis vaccine, given while at secondary school) Surely, if you can give consent for sex at 16 because the government think you can understand the consequences of your actions, then why not all of the above. Surely at 17 you would know that if you drink alcohol, you will get drunk and may do things you wouldn't when sober.To be honest you would probably know that at around 14 anyway.
Also at the age of 13/14 i was given the chance to have my meningitis vaccine but my mum or dad had to sign a consent form. My friend wanted the vaccine but her parents refused to give consent, so the school nurse could not give it to her. 4 months later she contracted meningitis.(shes alright now) at 14 you must be able to understand the importance/problems of vaccines and make an informed decision.
Sex, for example, probably should have a minimum age. Why? because a pair of twelve year olds may not fully understand the consequences of their actions. At that age, they may not have been educated in that subject area or have poor knowledge.
Some may argue that if they don't fully understand everything, should they be having sex in the first place, but are they mentally mature enough to make that decision that they are unsure of the consequences of their actions.
However, should the legal age for sex be as high as 16? I know many students in my year group (y10) who have had sex and had no negative consequences due to understanding what the are doing. So should the age for sex be 13, 14, 15, 16? Honestly, I think it differs between child to child because a 13 year old may have the mental capacity to give consent while an immature 16 year old may not. Age for consent is a difficult buisness.
Additionally, if a 15 and 16 year old, who are both mature enough to understand what they are doing, have sex and get caught, the boy will go on the sex offenders list for statuary rape (i think) even if he is the underage one, even if they both gave consent,because the British justice system is sexist.
Also, you can get married at 16 (with parental consent) because that is the legal age you can have sex and therefore children. This law is made because of religion. Most religions would rather have a couple legally married before the baby is born otherwise the child would be a bastard because it was born out of wedlock. British government at the time the law was created was a catholic society and ruled by a catholic king, hence the rule was created. Does this now mean that the law for the age of marriage is now outdated? or should the age of marriage remain at the same age as the age of consent for sex?
As for voting, smoking, drinking, contracts and criminal offences and child vaccines (such as the cervical cancer vaccine and meningitis vaccine, given while at secondary school) Surely, if you can give consent for sex at 16 because the government think you can understand the consequences of your actions, then why not all of the above. Surely at 17 you would know that if you drink alcohol, you will get drunk and may do things you wouldn't when sober.To be honest you would probably know that at around 14 anyway.
Also at the age of 13/14 i was given the chance to have my meningitis vaccine but my mum or dad had to sign a consent form. My friend wanted the vaccine but her parents refused to give consent, so the school nurse could not give it to her. 4 months later she contracted meningitis.(shes alright now) at 14 you must be able to understand the importance/problems of vaccines and make an informed decision.
How about an IQ test where you have to be of a certain intelligence level?
Original post by TorpidPhil
If one can prove manipulation then that could be a separate offence and I'm pretty sure it is atm. Oh wait, that's rape!
How do you prove manipulation? I feel like you're hilariously trying to take away one difficult-to-prove situation (rape) and trying to replace it completely with an even more difficult-to-prove situation (manipulation).
Although your disdain for rape laws seems to imply some kind of more personal grudge.
Original post by 04MR17
How about an IQ test where you have to be of a certain intelligence level?
That is one of the best suggestions, but some kids at age 12 can have a high iq but not the maturity, but put the iq level too high and some mature enough adults will never be able to reach it. Additionally, a correct iq test is difficult to be done. You can get free ones online but they all said i was in the 180's which i am clearly not that clever but probably clever enough to pass the limit as i have a higher iq than a majority of my class mates, but i am underage for everything. Plus the only reliable test is a stanford bennet test which have to be taken individually and can cost a lot and when would they be given? sit them at the same time as sitting sats? gcses? alevels? at a certain age? if that is the case then you are already setting a minimum age by giving them at a certain age but stopping the people with a lower intellegence that they cannot.
if some were to fail, they could retake later on but are expensive, so poorer people could not afford it. so in long shot, if youre thick and poor you cannot have children.
Related discussions
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Royal Holloway applicant hub
- Why does people on reddit always criticizes a 21-23 year old dating someone 18/19?
- what kind of questions to expect in mpharm interview
- Do I need to have a bf before I have sex ?
- 14 Year old's consenting to 13 year old's in Germany and it being illegal.
- 18 year old having sex with a 56 year old?
- What can I do once I am 16?
- Can a student date an older man?
- 2 year age gap
- Less painful losing your virginity as an older female?
- Was I abused as I child or am I looking into it to deeply?
- Participants needed!!
- GCSE sittings -if I sit GCSEs in 2 blocks will universities offer place?
- Feeling a bit guilty
- Catfished by 16 year old
- Your Perfect Country
- LNAT Practice
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Struggling to cope with my little sister growing up
Latest
Last reply 31 minutes ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 35 minutes ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 37 minutes ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 42 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 hour ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 1 hour ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
