The age of consent should be lowered to 13.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Alt__x
Yeah I developed into a bit of a dirty one 
Yeah, what's wrong with that? I never got a tummy bug past the age of six, because i exposed myself to so many germs at a young age
Yeah, what's wrong with that? I never got a tummy bug past the age of six, because i exposed myself to so many germs at a young age
There is nothing with wanting to eat worms,Alt_x.
I just was curious. Are they tasty or crunchy?
because a 13 year old pregnant girl would end in disaster. there's a reason the age of consent is 16/18...because we don't need pregnant teenagers everywhere who can't even take care of themselves let alone a kid! and no, teenagers are not always sensible, or capable of making their own decisions hving put enough thought into them about consequences etc, it should stay how it is, i mean, seriously, is it really that difficult to wait until you're 18!!!
also...18 year old with 13 year old!
also...18 year old with 13 year old!
Original post by Lewroll
Age of consent is 12 in the vatican city (pope, )
Its 13 in spain (catholics)
OP, I think everyone has figured out that you are a pervert (except for you of course). 13 year olds are children, man, thats sick!
Listen to the whole thing, it reminds me of you
)Its 13 in spain (catholics
)OP, I think everyone has figured out that you are a pervert (except for you of course). 13 year olds are children, man, thats sick!
Listen to the whole thing, it reminds me of you
In America 13 year olds aren't children. 12 and younger is though
Original post by SaturnVengeance
In America 13 year olds aren't children. 12 and younger is though
We arent talking about america though, are we. This thread is about changing the age of consent in the UK. And america is a poor example anyway as you have to be 18 to have sex there whereas 16 year olds can have sex in the uk.
I think most sane people would consider a 13 year old a child. Sometimes a year does make a difference. I can undersatand lowering the age of consent to 15, but 13 is just disgusting.
Original post by Alt__x
Worms? Crunchy? No, they're slimy
And how are you?
Original post by Bubbles0ox
when you were 18 you went out with 13 year old?
This. I believe there is a register you should be on
Original post by Rakas21
Thirteen is too young, however given that the average age of virginity loss in the UK is 15, despite the legal age being 16, i would support a lowering of the age to 14/15, however i do think that there should be some barriers set, such as nobody below the age of 16 being with nobody older than 19.
While thirteen is young, there are plenty of girls who like the 'older' lads, so it is something that should be looked at. It is also notable that 16 is at the higher end of the global scale, i believe the European legal age is 14 in the majority of countries, South America too.
While thirteen is young, there are plenty of girls who like the 'older' lads, so it is something that should be looked at. It is also notable that 16 is at the higher end of the global scale, i believe the European legal age is 14 in the majority of countries, South America too.
Maybe we should instigate some sort of half your age + 7 law.
Original post by infernalcradle
this...
most of them haven't even gone through puberty fully....
most of them haven't even gone through puberty fully....
Nor have most 16-year-olds.
Puberty in girls typically finishes at 16/17, and and at 18/19 for boys.
hah surprised there haven't been any thirteen year old girls in this thread yet like "~~i lost my v-card to my 20 yr old bf but im mature for my age lol!!!!~~" usually what happenz
also in a lot of states I thought the age of consent is sixteen anyway?
also in a lot of states I thought the age of consent is sixteen anyway?
Original post by SaturnVengeance
It's stupid and pointless to lock someone up because they had sex with a teenager. It's stupid, teens have sex with teens and adults have sex with adults, so why can't adults have sex with teens? Hell I have several friends who could go to prison for having sex with their 13-17 year old girlfriends, just because they are 18-21 years old. Hell right now I'm interested in a woman who is 17, but we wouldn't legally be able to have sex because I'm 18. My last girlfriend was 13 years old, and that was when I was 18 also. It's just a really stupid rule. There are people who have gone to prison and are registered sex offenders because they had sex with the person who is currently their wife, but they weren't when they had sex. Technically it's not pedophilia if they are 13 or older, so it has nothing to do with pedophilia. In some US states you can get married at 13. It's just a pointless law that puts good people behind bars. At 13 they are a teenager and able to make their own decisions. Who else would like the age of consent to be lowered to 13?
You sir, are an idiot.
a) Being pregnant at 13 is incredibly dangerous. Hell, being pregnant at 16 is also dangerous.
b) Emotionally, no 13 year old is ready for sex, nor are many 18 year olds for that matter.
c) Just because you can make your own decision does not make it right.
And 13 year olds are totally mature, right? Hey, they're practically adults, right? So their parents shouldn't need to support them after they're 13, they can handle the world by themselves. Not like the darn yout' are too busy watching reality TV and all (not to generalise but hey, I just did).
Honestly, a few weeks ago I gave my boyfriend a peck on the lips and these kids who seemed a tad older than 13 all started singing how we're getting it on and I'm biting his ear (when I'm actually yelling into it, you try to talk like normal human beings when you're at the human-zoo... I mean on the bus with 30 or so kids).
I hate kids. I really do. But let kids be kids for a few years of their lives, they have many more years to be adults (provided I don't nuke 'em all for being annoying brats, errgghh).
Honestly, a few weeks ago I gave my boyfriend a peck on the lips and these kids who seemed a tad older than 13 all started singing how we're getting it on and I'm biting his ear (when I'm actually yelling into it, you try to talk like normal human beings when you're at the human-zoo... I mean on the bus with 30 or so kids).
I hate kids. I really do. But let kids be kids for a few years of their lives, they have many more years to be adults (provided I don't nuke 'em all for being annoying brats, errgghh).
It's interesting how many informed experts on the border between child and adult are on this forum tonight.
I'm glad they've managed to dismiss - without even considering! - the fact that the age of this line is socially constructed and changes over time. For those in doubt, I suggest looking up the age of Juliet when she banged Romeo. It's a good thing they're not merely moral sheep, baaing back the social prejudices of the age in an endless, bleating array of non sequiturs, thoughtless condemnations and irrelevant anecdotes.
I'm impressed at their informed references to the effect that lowering the age of consent would have on the teenage pregnancy rate - an alarming and rather important problem, indeed, given that this enlightened nation with the highest ages of consent in Western Europe also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate. It's a good thing that some bright souls, like CameraGirl, know that it's 16 for a reason. Unfortunately, the actual reason it was raised in 1885 was as a response to the hysterical tabloid campaign (the first of its kind) against the largely non-existent fantasy of 'white slavery'. Ah well -- at least we know now that they were absolutely right, and anyone below 16 is completely incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Above all, I'd like to applaud the restraint shown by many (such as Jimbo1234, who showed a staggering level of insight with 'Being pregnant at 13 is incredibly dangerous. Hell, being pregnant at 16 is also dangerous. Emotionally, no 13 year old is ready for sex, nor are many 18 year olds for that matter.' but failed to follow through on the reasoning) in not merely condemning differing opinions as 'just wrong'. They could have been taken in by the present tabloids' rather tedious obsession with 'paedophilies' (apparently they, not child abusers, are the real problem; just, I suppose, as people attracted to women, not rapists, are the real problem with rape), but instead they rationally took apart the opposing argument to show that at thirteen, no human could possibly be allowed to make any decision or mistake.
After all, Britain is the vanguard of progress and morality; soon enough, the rest of Europe must swing behind us and realise that their views are utterly and objectively wrong. God save our princesses.
I'm glad they've managed to dismiss - without even considering! - the fact that the age of this line is socially constructed and changes over time. For those in doubt, I suggest looking up the age of Juliet when she banged Romeo. It's a good thing they're not merely moral sheep, baaing back the social prejudices of the age in an endless, bleating array of non sequiturs, thoughtless condemnations and irrelevant anecdotes.
I'm impressed at their informed references to the effect that lowering the age of consent would have on the teenage pregnancy rate - an alarming and rather important problem, indeed, given that this enlightened nation with the highest ages of consent in Western Europe also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate. It's a good thing that some bright souls, like CameraGirl, know that it's 16 for a reason. Unfortunately, the actual reason it was raised in 1885 was as a response to the hysterical tabloid campaign (the first of its kind) against the largely non-existent fantasy of 'white slavery'. Ah well -- at least we know now that they were absolutely right, and anyone below 16 is completely incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Above all, I'd like to applaud the restraint shown by many (such as Jimbo1234, who showed a staggering level of insight with 'Being pregnant at 13 is incredibly dangerous. Hell, being pregnant at 16 is also dangerous. Emotionally, no 13 year old is ready for sex, nor are many 18 year olds for that matter.' but failed to follow through on the reasoning) in not merely condemning differing opinions as 'just wrong'. They could have been taken in by the present tabloids' rather tedious obsession with 'paedophilies' (apparently they, not child abusers, are the real problem; just, I suppose, as people attracted to women, not rapists, are the real problem with rape), but instead they rationally took apart the opposing argument to show that at thirteen, no human could possibly be allowed to make any decision or mistake.
After all, Britain is the vanguard of progress and morality; soon enough, the rest of Europe must swing behind us and realise that their views are utterly and objectively wrong. God save our princesses.
Original post by niall c
It's interesting how many informed experts on the border between child and adult are on this forum tonight.
I'm glad they've managed to dismiss - without even considering! - the fact that the age of this line is socially constructed and changes over time. For those in doubt, I suggest looking up the age of Juliet when she banged Romeo. It's a good thing they're not merely moral sheep, baaing back the social prejudices of the age in an endless, bleating array of non sequiturs, thoughtless condemnations and irrelevant anecdotes.
I'm impressed at their informed references to the effect that lowering the age of consent would have on the teenage pregnancy rate - an alarming and rather important problem, indeed, given that this enlightened nation with the highest ages of consent in Western Europe also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate. It's a good thing that some bright souls, like CameraGirl, know that it's 16 for a reason. Unfortunately, the actual reason it was raised in 1885 was as a response to the hysterical tabloid campaign (the first of its kind) against the largely non-existent fantasy of 'white slavery'. Ah well -- at least we know now that they were absolutely right, and anyone below 16 is completely incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Above all, I'd like to applaud the restraint shown by many (such as Jimbo1234, who showed a staggering level of insight with 'Being pregnant at 13 is incredibly dangerous. Hell, being pregnant at 16 is also dangerous. Emotionally, no 13 year old is ready for sex, nor are many 18 year olds for that matter.' but failed to follow through on the reasoning) in not merely condemning differing opinions as 'just wrong'. They could have been taken in by the present tabloids' rather tedious obsession with 'paedophilies' (apparently they, not child abusers, are the real problem; just, I suppose, as people attracted to women, not rapists, are the real problem with rape), but instead they rationally took apart the opposing argument to show that at thirteen, no human could possibly be allowed to make any decision or mistake.
After all, Britain is the vanguard of progress and morality; soon enough, the rest of Europe must swing behind us and realise that their views are utterly and objectively wrong. God save our princesses.
I'm glad they've managed to dismiss - without even considering! - the fact that the age of this line is socially constructed and changes over time. For those in doubt, I suggest looking up the age of Juliet when she banged Romeo. It's a good thing they're not merely moral sheep, baaing back the social prejudices of the age in an endless, bleating array of non sequiturs, thoughtless condemnations and irrelevant anecdotes.
I'm impressed at their informed references to the effect that lowering the age of consent would have on the teenage pregnancy rate - an alarming and rather important problem, indeed, given that this enlightened nation with the highest ages of consent in Western Europe also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate. It's a good thing that some bright souls, like CameraGirl, know that it's 16 for a reason. Unfortunately, the actual reason it was raised in 1885 was as a response to the hysterical tabloid campaign (the first of its kind) against the largely non-existent fantasy of 'white slavery'. Ah well -- at least we know now that they were absolutely right, and anyone below 16 is completely incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Above all, I'd like to applaud the restraint shown by many (such as Jimbo1234, who showed a staggering level of insight with 'Being pregnant at 13 is incredibly dangerous. Hell, being pregnant at 16 is also dangerous. Emotionally, no 13 year old is ready for sex, nor are many 18 year olds for that matter.' but failed to follow through on the reasoning) in not merely condemning differing opinions as 'just wrong'. They could have been taken in by the present tabloids' rather tedious obsession with 'paedophilies' (apparently they, not child abusers, are the real problem; just, I suppose, as people attracted to women, not rapists, are the real problem with rape), but instead they rationally took apart the opposing argument to show that at thirteen, no human could possibly be allowed to make any decision or mistake.
After all, Britain is the vanguard of progress and morality; soon enough, the rest of Europe must swing behind us and realise that their views are utterly and objectively wrong. God save our princesses.
It sounds so educated. It is, unfortunately, wrong.
Firstly, yes, Juliet was almost 14 in the play. However, it is set in Italy, a country Shakespeare had never visited. Most commentaries suggest that Shakespeare made Juliet so young to make Italy seem exotic and wild to the audience, most of whom would also have never been to Italy. The average age of marriage in England at the time was 21.
Secondly, your point about the high age of consent in the UK having some correlation to rate of teenage pregnancy is poorly researched.
In the UK, age of consent=16, rate of teenage pregnancies=30.8 per 1000
European countries with an age of consent greater or equal to 16, and yet a teenage pregnancy rate lower than the UK:
Switzerland (age of consent=16, teenage pregnancies=5.5 per 1000, the lowest in Europe)
The Netherlands (age of consent=16, teenage pregnancies=6.2 per 1000)
Finland (age of consent=16, teenage pregnancies=9.2 per 1000)
Luxembourg (age of consent=16, teenage pregnancies=9.7 per 1000)
Belgium (age of consent=16, teenage pregnancies=9.9 per 1000)
Norway (age of consent=16, teenage pregnancies=12.4 per 1000)
Ireland (age of consent=17, teenage pregnancies=18.7 per 1000)
So, just because the UK has a slightly higher age of consent than the European average (15.2), and the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, does not mean that one causes the other, nor, indeed, if you look at the bigger picture, that there is even any correlation between the two.
Original post by d123
13 is too young. I can see the arguments for lowering it to 15, but feel that it should just be left as it is. 13 however - when you're 13 you really shouldn't be having sex. I know people who were at that age, but it just seems way too young. My baby brother is 13 in May, and he's nowhere near mature enough to have sex with anyone, and he's actually fairly mature for his age, most of the time. 13 is still a child. Lots of 13 year olds still haven't hit puberty and so aren't physically ready for sex, let alone the emotional aspect.
What do you mean by "nowhere near mature enough"? What kind of maturity do you think a person needs, before they should be allowed to have sex?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Doke
I disagree completely. I volunteer in a sexual health clinic at an upper school (I am currently part of the ajoining sixth form) and we accept children from all years in the cinic for free advice and contraception and tests for pregnancy and chlamydia. I see little kids come in and ask for condoms and I know that half the boys there are just going to fill them with water and throw it at a little kid. If it was legal for these children to consent to sex and bear children of their own, then I think that would be horrible - for the babies born and the young people who have to take care of them. There is no way that I would look at my fourteen year old sister and consider her to be fit to raise a child. You might say that there is a difference between having sex and having a baby, but there's always the risk. You people have sex anyway because there's no way of policing it, lowering the age of consent would do nothing to mae anything any better. I see no reason why people shouldn't wait until they are more mature, both physically and emotionally before they have sex, which has been given a value by society that will leave people will a lasting effect, especially if they are at a young, impressionable age. I think that the age of consent is about right - it is the age at which most people are becoming more mature and more responsible and, if they should have a baby, are responsible enough to take care of it in an appropriate way.
There isn't "always the risk". What if it's gay sex? What if one of the partners is known to be infertile?
So you think a forty year old with a beer belly should be allowed to **** a thirteen year old girl doggy style thats ****ed up. Also the age of consent is sixteen so you would be able to shag your seventeen year old girlfriend.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 14 Year old's consenting to 13 year old's in Germany and it being illegal.
- LNAT Practice
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Scared of going Gyno/period pain
- Why does people on reddit always criticizes a 21-23 year old dating someone 18/19?
- gay boy
- What can I do once I am 16?
- Do I need to have a bf before I have sex ?
- Royal Holloway applicant hub
- im a 17 year old female who is dating a 31 year old female
- Is it weird that I have a crush on any boy any age
- Relationships
- 2 year age gap
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- Feeling a bit guilty
- Possibilities of making it into the Undergrad Economics?
- The struggles of convincing my Family to let me go to Uni
- OCR GCSE Maths Paper 6 (Higher)
- Was this actual sexual assault or am I being dramatic?
- Catfished by 16 year old
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
