The age of consent should be lowered to 13.

Scroll to see replies

also in a lot of states I thought the age of consent is sixteen anyway?

You're right: it's sixteen in most states, seventeen or eighteen in a few states.

Whoever said the age of marriage in some states is thirteen is also pretty much correct: in New Hampshire, the marriageable age is 14 for boys and 13 for girls with parental consent, court consent, and "special cause," which I assume means pregnancy. A couple other states allow marriage at 14 with parental and court consent, but for most states it's 16 with parental consent, 18 without.

Pedo alert

Original post by tazarooni89

There isn't "always the risk". What if it's gay sex? What if one of the partners is known to be infertile?

Ok, so always was the wrong word - the majority of cases there is the risk. And that wasn't my only point.

Reply 63

niall c

Original post by HereBeDragons

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.

Ha! Very good. Touché indeed.

The age analysis is good, although slightly missing my point. I wasn't suggesting that there's a correlation between the two; in fact, to see whether that were the case would require both bivariate analysis of all world countries, and a thorough checking of each country's teenage pregnancy data (both for underreporting and confounding factors such as the teenage abortion rate). I'm doubtful if causation one way or the other could ever be reliably established, either. Rather, I was suggesting that the assumption that if the age of consent went down, teenage pregnancies would go up is rather unfounded. If anything, this echos your point - although I won't deny I was insinuating possible correlation as well. Perhaps they're entirely independent of each other; perhaps they're cultural (although you'd expect the age of consent to factor in if so); perhaps the existence of universally-disregarded laws undermines their authority in certain countries.

Anyway, perhaps you could take the data you have for all of Europe (preferably the world), run them through excel and see what results? I think it has a graph tool that finds strength of correlation. It would prove nada, but would be a start.

The Shakespeare point is a nice touch but, again, is slightly irrelevant to the substance of my argument. In the first instance, as an aside, could you cite a couple of these commentators? What you say sounds plausible, but I'm slightly skeptical that the audience would see a 13yo Juliet as 'exotic' if they accepted as uncompromisingly as today that all sex below 16 is wrong. Does this not suggest a level of acceptance, or even envy? According to the wikipedia page on Juliet from which I presume you took this argument, by the way, 'In many cultures and time periods, women did and do marry and bear children at such a young age.'

Secondly, the age of consent in Britain was 13 for much of the last millennium. I presume you weren't so lazy as to have taken the 21 age from the wiki page, but where is the source for that claim? I have actually heard higher figures, but according to http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html, many of these records are incomplete and potentially skewed. Further to what the article claims, I imagine a bias towards wealthier families, whom may have a much higher (or much lower, given economic pressures) average age than the vast majority of Britain. In any case, the conflation of age of first marriage with age of first sex is slightly naive.

Above all, finally, even if it were true of Britain, it certainly has not been the case throughout much of human history. See the above link for a sketchy overview. To imply, thus, that your clever but periphery points show my argument to be 'wrong' is, itself, wrong. You quite rightly pull me up on the Shakespeare point, but thereby incorrectly imply that not only English, but also Italian (and presumably all), cultures have not had a different attitude towards age of consent. You rightly call me out over the teenage pregnancy rate, but again fail to address the actual argument itself. Still, good points, and thank you.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 64

WelshBluebird

Original post by SaturnVengeance

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.

Wrong.
The age of consent is 16. Thus you would be fine.

However, I do think the law needs to be changed, but not that law you are talking about and not for the reasons you are saying. I do think its crazy that I can legally have sex with my gf, but cannot have pictures of her.

Original post by SaturnVengeance

Not in America.

This is UK based site.

Only in America...

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.

Fourteen is still a very vulnerable age. It's completely illogical to say that because there are "plenty of girls who like the 'older' lads", it should be legal to have sex with a fourteen year old. If a 14-year-old can't marry, smoke, work, or buy a lottery ticket, why would they be considered able to make informed choices on who they have sex with? It would just leave room for abuse and it would be a paedophile's dream.

The Netherlands, which has a fantastic sex education system and one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, sets its age of consent at 16. If we want to take a step backwards in time then by all means let's lower our age of consent.

Some older men take advantage of young girls. I was accosted by a man in his twenties on the way home a few weeks ago, at about 8pm. He was trying to flirt with me and wouldn't leave me alone. He eventually asked me my age and I lied - I'm actually 16 - and said that I was 15. He said, "Oh God, I'm so sorry..." and walked off. If the age of consent was 14 or 15, God knows what would have happened, because I don't look younger than that.

Reply 67

Calian

Troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll

Reply 68

xnatalie01x

You should be on some kind of register.

13 is way too young to have sex...

Reply 69

lubus

13 is too young dude this aint africa

Reply 70

Sazzy890

People think they are ready when they are 13, but when they reach the age of consent, a lot of them still aren't emotionally ready to have sex. Not to mention, at 13, many people aren't physically ready - they've practically only just started puberty for goodness sake.

I know this is the point where people say 'yes you are ready at 13, thats how we are naturally designed!'. But I am talking from my own experience - back then I used to be like "yeaaaaah I wanna do it!" but I know if it came to it (1) it would hurt (2) I would have regretted it.

Reply 71

Meghaan

what would someone ever see in a 13 year old?!

Reply 72

Alexx53

Original post by SaturnVengeance

Technically it's not pedophilia if they are 13 or older, so it has nothing to do with pedophilia.

Paedophilia, not pedophilia.

Philia = a love of
Pedo = foot
Paedo = child

Paedophilia = a love of children
Pedophilia = a love of feet

Reply 73

Mega Nerd

Since when is a 13 year old an adult and able to make their own decisions. 13 year olds are probably the most immature and sit and giggle at 'rude words', so you're saying that these kids are allowed to be having sex.

You're sick.

Reply 74

username291885

Thirteen year olds aren't mature enough and don't have enough worldly experience to make decisions like this! Most fifteen and sixteen year olds aren't prepared so what makes you think thirteen year olds stand any better chance?

There are far too many unplanned teenage pregnancies and STDs are ripe amongst the young, we need to leave children to be children.

Reply 75

username291885

Plus where were this 13yo's parents when you were dating her? If I were her father I'd have beaten you black and blue for touching my child when she isn't old enough to know best.

Reply 76

Luminality

Original post by SaturnVengeance

I never said I ****ed her.

You would have eventually and the fact that you went out with her still qualifies the paedophilia. Either way, its not looking good.

Reply 77

tesha_al

I see mugshot and a registered sexoffender. not looking good OP

Reply 78

niall c

Original post by Luminality

You would have eventually and the fact that you went out with her still qualifies the paedophilia. Either way, its not looking good.

Hebephilia, as noted by another poster above. For its part, incidentally, paedophilia is presently defined as a psychiatric disorder, not a crime. You have thus conflated three things - hebephilia, paedophilia, and child abuse. I believe you would get on well with some of our Vatican-based friends, who wish to add homosexuality into this nonsense on stilts mixture (try Cardinal Bertone).

Have the military contacted you yet about putting your clairvoyance skills to good use?

EDIT: Re your original post: you're also aware that statutory rape applies to those below 13, right?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 79

tazarooni89