What should the age of consent be? - General

[b]What should the Age of Consent be?[/b] The age of consent is a topic that most people know very little about but often have very strong opinions on; I hope to show that this question is not as open and shut as it first appears by providing concise information on the subject. So rather than spending the first few pages of this thread providing the information spread throughout a number of posts I thought it would be best to provide some foundational information in the OP.[b] So I would suggest you read this post in its entirety before engaging in this debate[/b], I will try and be as brief as possible without missing any vital information. For the sake of clarity I have sub-divided this post into four sections; geography, history, psychology and common arguments against changing the age of consent. All of the figures in the following sections are what I can find online or in legal documents and as the age of consent can change some of it may be slightly out of date so if you have any more up to date information please post it. For clarification this thread is about the age of sexual consent, not driving age, marriageable age, drinking age etc. Though the difference between the age of sexual consent and other ages of consent do sometimes raise interesting points. For example the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10 whereas the age of sexual consent is 16. Which means a 10 year old could be tried as an adult for theft but a 15 year old is not legally able to give consent to any form of sexual activity even to someone his/her own age or younger. The implication being you could be mastermind criminal age 10 but not understand the consequences of sex at age 15. Another bizarre example of the interaction of differing ages of consent is that in the UK is that it is legal to have sex with a 16 year old but it is not legal to create pornography of anyone under 18 so you could have sex with a 16 year old and face no charges but if you photographed any of it you would be imprisoned for creating child pornography and be on the sex offenders register for the rest of your life. It would be funny if it wasn't true. [b]Geography[/b] Many people assume that their local age of consent is the only age of consent, when in reality there is enormous variation throughout the world. It’s entirely possible to cross invisible lines on the map and have the age of consent change by as much as 10 years. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/fI2AI5h.png?1[/IMG] The above image is slightly out of date and does not depict nations that have multiple ages of consent, like America and Japan. But it’s mostly accurate and is the most up to date map I could find. I didn't compile the image myself but it’s accuracy (other than the above mentioned problems) for individual nations can be checked through Google and checking it against indexed legal documents which are usually the source for Wikipedia articles on the age of consent. So as you can see the age of consent varies considerably ranging from no age of consent at all in Saudi Arabia and Oman to 20 in Tunisia. In 21 European nations, the age of consent is lower than 16, for example it’s, 15 in France and Poland, 14 in Germany, Austria, Portugal, and Italy and it’s 13 in Spain. There is no evidence that these lower ages of consent result in more teenage pregnancies, STDs or child sexual abuse. In some cases, though not all, there are some extra conditions surrounding the age of consent. For example, some places have different ages of consent for homosexual or heterosexual behaviour, in Britain the age of consent for homosexual sex was 21 up until 1997, meaning you could be charged with statutory rape for having sex with a 20 year old. Some places have regional variations, In Japan the age of consent is 12 in some prefectures and 18 in others, in America the age of consent is 16-18 depending on the state. Many places also have laws that prohibit any sexual contact between young people and those in positions of authority e.g. teachers, parents etc. Some nations have “Romeo and Juliet” Laws which allow people below the age of consent to engage in sex with each other but not with anyone above it. Some places like Yemen also require marriage before any sexual contact can legally take place. Bolivia technically has no age of consent but instead makes sex legal at the onset of puberty. [b]History.[/b] Similarly many people assume that the current age of consent has been the same throughout history, this is also not the case. Rather than discussing the Ancient Greeks or other ancient peoples I will instead refer to the changes in age of consent since 1880. This is partly for brevity but I also think showing how much things have changed throughout more recent history is more surprising and less well known. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/kGOrHjF.png?1[/IMG] [url=http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24]Source[/url] As you can see in 1880 the age of consent was usually around 10-12 but was as low as 7 in Delaware and as high as 20 in Chile. So I hope this has established that there is no consensus throughout time or space on what the age of consent should be and it is therefore a worthwhile debate. [b]Psychology.[/b] I can already hear you saying “Just because it was legal once or is legal elsewhere doesn’t mean it should be now, slavery was once legal etc.” So we must ask why an age of consent exists in some places, the answer is probably is to protect people from unwanted sexual advances, but what is the basis for the specific ages chosen? The reasoning behind picking specific ages is usually arbitrary or non-existent, in some case such as Bolivia the reasoning is arguably sound as it has a biological basis, but many people do not accept a biological argument as sufficient and instead look to psychological arguments ( As doing so would either involve setting the age of consent at the onset of puberty(9-11), or at the end of puberty (20+). It is often said that people beneath a certain age are insufficiently mature to consent to sex, usually the person saying this is only referring to people that have fallen below their arbitrary local age of consent. So the logical thing to do is to set the age of consent at the point at which the average person is fully mentally and emotionaly mature, leaving aside individual differences, this still causes one major problem. According to current scientific thinking ([url=http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/09/23/brain-wiring-continues-into-young-adulthood/29719.html]Source1[/url] [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110922134617.htm]Source2[/url]) the brain does not finish maturation, which affects decision making, behavioural inhibition etc. until the late 20s, so if we are to base the age of consent on this it would mean raising it to at least 25. I would think most people would not be in favour of this. We no longer live in an age in which all sex is taboo which raises a logical inconsistency in regards to policy surrounding adolescent sexuality. Masturbation amongst adolescents is now considered normal and healthy, when not done in excess. Rudimentary sex play between adolescents is now also considered normal and healthy. So if we concede that two 13 year olds engaging in sexual activity is not inherently harmful, why is it then that when an 18 year old and a 13 year old engage in sexual activity the younger supposedly suffers such extreme psychological trauma that it may take a lifetime of therapy to overcome it and the 18 year old is unironically considered to be worse than a murder. Ever since Bruce Rind’s 1998 meta-analysis and the various follow up studies ([url=http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/rind-tromovich-1998.pdf]Rind et. A.[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al]Wikipedia summary[/url])it has been the accepted scientific consensus that intergenerational sexual contact is not inherently harmful and that society’s extremely negative reaction to it is the cause of any resultant trauma. Even leaving aside the evidence supporting this it is in many ways deductively obvious; imagine yourself as a young teenager that was in a relationship with an adult, you found this person attractive and loved them, you confided in them and trusted them, you had a source of unbiased information and unconditional love, and then you’re caught, leaving aside the embarrassment you would feel having your sexual relations discussed by policemen and the media, you would be told that the relationship you had, the love you felt the sex you enjoyed was evil and sick and that the person you loved was evil and worse than a murderer and you would never be allowed to speak to that person ever again, if you refused to discuss things with the police or a psychologist you would likely have to go through a humiliating physical exam to ascertain what sexual contact took place. Is it any wonder that going through all this you come out the other end psychology damaged. And yet all of the studies show in cases where you aren’t caught and allowed to love in private no psychological harm takes place. [b]Common arguments against changing the age of consent.[/b] [b]Informed consent.[/b] Yet still I’m sure some people will bring up “informed consent”. This is an interesting concept because it does not mean what you might assume it to mean; it does not mean that you require certain information before you can consent, if this where the case the information would simply be made widely available and this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s a legal concept based on this misnomer that at {insert local age of consent here} you are suddenly entirely mentally developed and ready to consent to anything. But as has been previously discussed you do not finish psychological development until the late 20s making it absurd to attempt to base the age of consent upon this concept. I would argue that you don’t need any information (other than the basic mechanical knowledge of sex) to enjoy and desire sexual contact. [b]Power imbalance and exploitation[/b] It is sometimes said that; “Any relationship involving an adult and someone under {insert your local age of consent here} is inherently exploitative.” The point is sometimes made that any relationship involving a teenager and an adult is exploitative due to the power imbalance inherit in the relationship. It is true that there is a potential for exploitation, however in reality there is potential for exploitation in almost every relationship. Relationships in which one partner is significantly more intelligent or educated than the other; relationships in which one partner earns much more money than the other, relationships in which one partner has a much higher social standing than the other, relationships in which one partner is significantly physically stronger than the other, relationships in which one partner is much more attractive than the other etc. all have the potential to be exploitative, so why is it that such relationships are considered acceptable when relationships with a significant age difference (with one partner being below the local age of consent) are illegal and sometimes considered the most evil thing a person can do. So rather than punishing people for being involved in potentially exploitative relationships why not just punish them when actual exploitation takes place? [b]“But they’ll regret it later in life”[/b] The argument is sometimes made that people beneath a certain age engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult will always regret it later in life. It’s true that they might regret such a relationship but it’s also true that they might regret a sexual relationship with someone roughly their own age later in life and it’s also true that they might regret a sexual relations they have no matter how old they are. In reality this is an argument against promiscuity not against people below {insert local age of consent here} having sex. [b]Pregnancy [/b] This is the most fatuous and obviously illogical argument put forward and I include it only for the sake of completeness. It is sometimes argued that sexual relations involving people below {insert your local age of consent here} should be illegal because of the risk of pregnancy before the body is physically ready. There are a number of obvious problems with this argument; contraceptives exist which eliminate the risk of pregnancy and there is no risk of pregnancy in oral sex, anal sex, intercrural sex, mutual masturbation, and any homosexual activity. It’s also true that the risk of pregnancy does not entirely dissipate when you pass the local age of consent. So this argument is only really effective at discouraging unprotected vaginal sex even though it is often brought up to argue against any form of sexual activity beneath the local age of consent. Bearing all this in mind; to answer my own question “What should the Age of Consent be?” I think it should be 13, partly because it marks the traditional beginning of adolescence and the end of childhood, that pubescence at this age is effectively guaranteed and the Spanish precedent would make any change to the law less radical. However any lowering of the age of consent would need to be accompanied by higher quality compulsory sex education in schools, beginning with age-appropriate teaching from the first year of primary school onwards. Then, from the age of 12, before they become sexually active, pupils should be given explicit advice on how to deal with unwanted sexual advances and the use of contraceptives. Under this system sex would lose the majority of it's taboo and the resultant secrecy which would equip young people with much great understanding and the ability to reject unwanted sexual advances which would likely reduce the amount of rape and coercive sex. I hope now that all of this information is here we can have a proper debate surrounding the facts and not have to waste time simply dispensing them.

I believe that this age could be as low as the age at which sexual contacts don't physically harm partners body, but only if a very good sex education is provided. I know people who's life changed from early sex contacts, and it's rarely a good change in traditional terms (by that I mean that they are rougly acting like a 'normal' citizen should, not many of them look up to creating a family, some don't think cheating on a love parter is any bad).

I believe in some sense, the age of consent should be as soon as they are able to be impregnated.. which is at a very young age. (9-14?) But obviously this view is quite controversial and I don't exactly sign it. But it's the way nature sees it.

Where as most people in a country where the age of consent is 18 would agree a year or so below wouldn't make much difference, as someone from a country where the age of consent is 15 I'd say the same. To be honest it's not like a lot of people follow it to begin with, especially of both involved parts ARE below the age. Frankly as long as it's consensual and doesn't harm anyone physically or mentally the age could be really low. And it's all very case-to-case basis, some people mature earlier than others.

It should scale depending on who is involved, so a 16 year old can have sex with a 15 year old and not be punished but a 40 year old shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a 16 year old since there is a pretty high chance that they are manipulating them in some way.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;42467706]It should scale depending on who is involved, so a 16 year old can have sex with a 15 year old and not be punished but a 40 year old shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a 16 year old since there is a pretty high chance that they are manipulating them in some way.[/QUOTE] I do address this point in the OP. There is potential for exploitation in all relationships, if the hypothetical 40 year old is exploiting his/her younger partner then he should be punished but equally the hypothetical 16 year old should also be punished for exploiting his younger partner if he/she does so. There's no reason why a 40 year old dating a 16 year old would always have to involve exploitation. It's absurd to punish someone just because there's a chance of exploitation.

[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;42467590]Where as most people in a country where the age of consent is 18 would agree a year or so below wouldn't make much difference, as someone from a country where the age of consent is 15 I'd say the same. To be honest it's not like a lot of people follow it to begin with, especially of both involved parts ARE below the age. Frankly as long as it's consensual and doesn't harm anyone physically or mentally the age could be really low. And it's all very case-to-case basis, some people mature earlier than others.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is case-to-case isn't the way you write a law. There has to be one sweeping age.

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;42468480]There has to be one sweeping age.[/QUOTE] Why an age?

[QUOTE=Jookia;42468527]Why an age?[/QUOTE] What would you make the law, a mindset?

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;42468551]What would you make the law, a mindset?[/QUOTE] As I wrote in the OP it could be set at the onset of puberty rather than at a specific age.

The onset of puberty, or the end of puberty?

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;42468661]The onset of puberty, or the end of puberty?[/QUOTE] If you're asking me, I wrote onset. The end of puberty would be totally unenforceable it doesn't technically end until the late teens or early twenties. The AOC had been this high before but it would just make most people criminals with no real benefits.

Shortly after the age at which extensive sexual education is given (in my fantasy world in which extensive sexual education is actually given)

The problem I have with most legislation regarding this issue is it assumes three things: A) that the older person is being manipulative - being more sexually appealing, having more resources (car, money etc) etc is "manipulative" B) Its slanted towards making girls into victims and men into aggressors C) that's teenagers are devoid of any personal responsibility or cannot make decisions for themselves At any rate, most of the first world has the AoC at 15/16, which is a pretty fair age. Its old enough that you can be expected to start taking responsibility for yourself, and its respectively old enough to be considered sexually mature. In the case of women, these days you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the average 16 year old and the average 21 year old. Its only America that really seems to be so ass backwards on these issues

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;42479601]In the case of women, these days you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the average 16 year old and the average 21 year old. [/QUOTE] I don't agree with this at all [editline]10th October 2013[/editline] Also how is America ass backwards? Illinois has the age at 17 with a five year age difference buffer period in which it's only a misdemeanor

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42479630]I don't agree with this at all [editline]10th October 2013[/editline] Also how is America ass backwards? Illinois has the age at 17 with a five year age difference buffer period in which it's only a misdemeanor[/QUOTE] The buffer periods or Romeo and Juliet laws,though they're well intentioned, seem just as arbitrary as normal age of consent laws. As you mention in Illionois for example it would be legal for a 21 year old to have a relationship with a 16 year old and If a 21 year old can do this why not a 25 year old or a 30 year old, they'd all be adults so what exactly would the difference be and why would it matter?

you don't notice it when you are 16 but there is a very large difference between a 16 year old and a 18 year old, and a even larger one between a 13 year old and a 18 year old, you can actually notice the difference in maturity from when you start high school and end high school, that's why people think "wow freshmen are so annoying" but they were exactly the same way when they were freshmen the age of consent should be 18 [editline]11th October 2013[/editline] not only that why do you need to have sex with a 13 year old if you really liked them without just wanting easy sex then why not wait until they are 18 it's not that hard unless you have no self control, it doesn't mean you can't just date them normally

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;42487390]you don't notice it when you are 16 but there is a very large difference between a 16 year old and a 18 year old, and a even larger one between a 13 year old and a 18 year old, you can actually notice the difference in maturity from when you start high school and end high school, that's why people think "wow freshmen are so annoying" but they were exactly the same way when they were freshmen the age of consent should be 18 [editline]11th October 2013[/editline] not only that why do you need to have sex with a 13 year old if you really liked them without just wanting easy sex then why not wait until they are 18 it's not that hard unless you have no self control, it doesn't mean you can't just date them normally[/QUOTE] So you're saying there's a huge difference between 13 year olds and 18 year olds and also saying that if you like a 13 year old you should just wait 5 years because they won't change? SO there's both a huge difference and no difference. Also why 18, why not 25 or higher? You don't notice it when you are 18 but there is a very large difference between a 18 year old and a 25 year old. Most 18 year olds are still in some form of education and some still live with their parents and probably aren't fully financially independent and as discussed in the OP on average they aren't either fully physically or mentally developed. Most 25 year old's are much more mature than the average 18 year old, you can actually notice the difference in maturity from when you start University and end University. Why do you need to be fully mature to have a sexual relationship? It's not complicated and could easily be taught to anyone who wanted to know. The only thing raising the the age of consent to 18 would achieve is the criminalisation of perfectly natural and normal human behavior for no real benefit.

by the time you are 18 you don't have a sentiment of love attached to sex as a 13 Y/O does, you need to be atleast mature enough to understand that, which is why 18 is a much better choice, by the time you're 25 you are definitely more mature than a 18 y/o but it's not relating to sexual relationships, it's more of just how you view the world, and a 18 y/o isn't as gullible as a 13y/o definitely, no matter how mature they claim to be, a 18 y/o will already have most of their views on how the world is already. if you just want to have a sexual relationship with 13 y/o's why not have sex with 18 y/o's instead? is it just because you want a less developed body? or is it because it's easier to convince a 13 y/o to have sex compared with a 18 y/o what's wrong with finding someone closer to your age that you need to go to someone who will believe most of what anyone older than them will tell them many 13 y/o's are incredibly easily influenced compared to an 18y/o because they won't know what to think, 5 years is a long time to accumulate experiences.

the reason is unlike the U.K. this country is plagued by insufficient sexual education and in some cases abstinence only teaching. There are likely 16 year olds here who don't even know about birth control.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;42488002]by the time you are 18 you don't have a sentiment of love attached to sex as a 13 Y/O does, you need to be atleast mature enough to understand that, which is why 18 is a much better choice, by the time you're 25 you are definitely more mature than a 18 y/o but it's not relating to sexual relationships, it's more of just how you view the world, and a 18 y/o isn't as gullible as a 13y/o definitely, no matter how mature they claim to be, a 18 y/o will already have most of their views on how the world is already. if you just want to have a sexual relationship with 13 y/o's why not have sex with 18 y/o's instead? is it just because you want a less developed body? or is it because it's easier to convince a 13 y/o to have sex compared with a 18 y/o what's wrong with finding someone closer to your age that you need to go to someone who will believe most of what anyone older than them will tell them many 13 y/o's are incredibly easily influenced compared to an 18y/o because they won't know what to think, 5 years is a long time to accumulate experiences.[/QUOTE] " by the time you're 25 you are definitely more mature than a 18 y/o but it's not relating to sexual relationships, it's more of just how you view the world, and a 18 y/o isn't as gullible as a 13y/o definitely, no matter how mature they claim to be, a 18 y/o will already have most of their views on how the world is already." I don't mean to be patronizing but this sounds like something an 18 year would say, you will almost definitely change your opinion on a lot of things as you get older and your attitudes towards sex will also probably change. Some teenagers are gullible, be they 13, 16 or 19, some adults are gullible be they 25, 40 or 80. Some people are gullible and can be coerced into sex, it's a terrible things that happens no matter how old the people involved are. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the crux of you're argument is that a 13 year old shouldn't be allowed to have sex because there is a chance they could be manipulated. The obvious response to that is everyone can be manipulated, there are a lot of very very foolish and gullible adults and teenagers. This was covered in the "exploitation" section of the OP but to reiterate, just because there's a chance of manipulation doesn't mean it always occurs. So really you're argument is actually against exploitative relationships and not relationships with a significant age gap you just seem to have conflated these two things. Not all relationships with a large age gap need to be exploitative. Just because one person is smarter or more mature than the other doesn't mean that exploitation has to take place, there's chance that it will but there's a chance that it will in almost all relationships.

I'd argue that while I agree that it's only natural for teenagers to have sex, society is no longer built around that notion. You can't very well settle down and start a family at age 15 anymore. The amount of education required for a good livelihood is getting higher and higher. Soon you won't be able to start a career without going to grad school. While anyone at any age can be manipulate, the consequences of it happening to a child are far far worse

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42488231]I'd argue that while I agree that it's only natural for teenagers to have sex, society is no longer built around that notion. You can't very well settle down and start a family at age 15 anymore. The amount of education required for a good livelihood is getting higher and higher. Soon you won't be able to start a career without going to grad school. While anyone at any age can be manipulate, the consequences of it happening to a child are far far worse[/QUOTE] Contraceptives exist as do many forms of sex that don't involve vaginal penetration or a risk of pregnancy and there's also homosexual sex. I agree you probably shouldn't get pregnant as a teenager but I think its fair to say that sex for recreational purposes is extremely common and therefore your argument is really against pregnancy at a young age and not against sex at a young age.

Read my above post about the state of sexual education in America

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42488296]Read my above post about the state of sexual education in America[/QUOTE] That's not a fundamental point and can be addressed. Sex education can and should be improved, in the OP I do say this would be a necessity before changing the age of consent.

Well then in that case I'd agree. But in our current state we can't guarantee people fully understand until a certain point and yes, age limits are arbitrary, but it's one of those things that's kind of impossible to make a sliding scale

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42488326]Well then in that case I'd agree. But in our current state we can't guarantee people fully understand until a certain point and yes, age limits are arbitrary, but it's one of those things that's kind of impossible to make a sliding scale[/QUOTE] Sex education isn't complicated the only thing standing in the way of comprehensive sex education is political will and in many ways this is mostly an academic point in western nations teenagers have access to the internet and therefore large repositories of information surrounding puberty and sex most of them probably don't need to be taught very much.

The age of consent would be chosen depending on the individual ideally. People dont mature at the same speed. But because this would be a nightmare to accomplish.

I think 15 would be good for legality. But if you're talking about morality, I don't really think it matters at all, as long as the person is mature enough it's fine.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;42467442]I believe in some sense, the age of consent should be as soon as they are able to be impregnated.. which is at a very young age. (9-14?)[/QUOTE] Whats so significant about early puberty? That doesn't exactly make you better at making rational decisions. In fact in probably does the opposite. It has nothing to do with maturity at all. [QUOTE]The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions. For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old. The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act. However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter) [url]http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html[/url] [/QUOTE] I enjoy think the Canadian system takes a good route. It allows teens to have sex with each other, prevents abuse and bans teenage prostitution.