What should the age of consent be? - General

Somewhere between 16-18. I got a neighbour who thinks it should be 10-12, but he's a not exactly all there. Drinking age is a whole other story, though.

I kind of don't understand at all why age of consent is a thing - it seems to me to be entirely a construct made from what I think is the fact that we've totally overblown what sex is. We have an age for drinking because drinking is dangerous and difficult to control. We have an age for driving because driving is dangerous and requires training. We have an age for voting because voting requires insight, education, thought and perhaps experience. Sex? Sure you can get STD's and you can get pregnant. But the solution to that is pretty straight forward. So, assuming that force, coercion, manipulation or other types of shady shit is not involved, I don't see why sex between anyone of any age difference would really mean much at all. Unless we lived in a society where we make sex out to be this huge stupid thing that means way more than it should, which we do. But I don't think we should. So basically, the age of consent is more or less okay as it is right now, considering the world we live in. But we need to change the world we live in, and by that I mean we need humanity to stop being retarded about sex. Because right now, I think sex is actually causing a lot of needless harm.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;42843066]I kind of don't understand at all why age of consent is a thing - it seems to me to be entirely a construct made from what I think is the fact that we've totally overblown what sex is. We have an age for drinking because drinking is dangerous and difficult to control. We have an age for driving because driving is dangerous and requires training. We have an age for voting because voting requires insight, education, thought and perhaps experience. Sex? Sure you can get STD's and you can get pregnant. But the solution to that is pretty straight forward. So, assuming that force, coercion, manipulation or other types of shady shit is not involved, I don't see why sex between anyone of any age difference would really mean much at all. Unless we lived in a society where we make sex out to be this huge stupid thing that means way more than it should, which we do. But I don't think we should. So basically, the age of consent is more or less okay as it is right now, considering the world we live in. But we need to change the world we live in, and by that I mean we need humanity to stop being retarded about sex. Because right now, I think sex is actually causing a lot of needless harm.[/QUOTE] I think you do raise an interesting point, attitudes need to change before any laws change and that in part is the point of this thread, to change attitudes. Though I would ask for one clarification, when you say "the age of consent is more or less okay as it is right now" do you mean the age of consent in Denmark (the country from which you post according to facepunch) which is 15 or do you mean that all other countries currently have the appropriate age of consent for their population. Because the latter implies that whatever the age of consent is the population grows used to and whatever age is set eventually becomes socially valid if legitimized by legislation. So perhaps if the law were to change first attitudes would swiftly follow. Though I think either way could work.

If the level of sexual education was raised, I don't see a reason why it couldn't be 12-14. That is the time when the body begins to develop for sexual maturity, and it would give the person time to find their own sexuality. With the usual age of consent being around 15, people have expectations of the sexual preferences and a sort of peer pressure (not sure if the correct kind of pressure, bear with me please), which leads to fumbling about and stuff. True, it's part of growing up, but then it could be over sooner. Ergh, I'm not really sure what I just wrote, I'm still feeling fuzzy from the fever. Alas, such is life, and I'm pretty sure I managed to keep my concentration for the first line or two which have the main point. Points. Ergh.

I recently found an interesting article pertaining to the topic of this thread, in which the Communist party of Great Britain officially advocates the complete abolition of the age of consent,though with extra alternative legislation to protect children from sexual abuse. It's an old article, form 2002, but so far as I can tell the party still maintains this view. [url]http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/461/effective-consent-or-moralism[/url]

[QUOTE=Japex;42572316]The age of consent should be twenty-five. Why? Because, the human brain doesn't finish developing until you turn twenty-five, which means that you aren't capable of consenting to sexual intercourse and if you had sex before the age of twenty-five, you were raped.[/QUOTE] Citation needed. And if you're talking about the pre-frontal lobe development then I hope you're joking because last time I checked the age was late teens early 20s. Just because you're not at 100% doesn't mean you aren't close enough to function. See things like: RC delay

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43022975]Citation needed. And if you're talking about the pre-frontal lobe development then I hope you're joking because last time I checked the age was late teens early 20s. Just because you're not at 100% doesn't mean you aren't close enough to function. See things like: RC delay[/QUOTE] I think he was being deliberately facetious to highlight the absurdity of basing the age of consent on mental development. There are two source in the OP which state that the early twenties is the point at which cognitive development ends. If the logic was followed that complete mental development is required to consent to sexual activity an age of consent of anywhere between 21-25 would be necessary. If a lesser degree of mental development was required then it could be argued that it should be anything from 10-20. The rate at which people develop cognitively varies enormously form person to person and since there are very few places, either right now or historically, that have set the age of consent above 20. I don't think this argument is actually taken seriously even by the people who espouse it, it is likely instead based on the misconception that mental development conveniently ends at whatever their state/nation has set as the age of consent.

[QUOTE=onebit;43025158]You don't eat a fruit until it's ripe. But I think it should be 16. At that age they usually begin maturing.[/QUOTE] It depends what you mean by ripe. Puberty starts at about 8-11 in western nations and usually takes about 5 years (sometimes less) to complete the physical changes. Whereas the mental changes don't finish until the early to mid twenties. So at what point ripeness is achieved has a different answer depending on how you define ripeness, and it's a minor point but some people eat unripened bell peppers for example as a delicacy. "Eating" in this metaphor is also not clearly defined, do you mean impregnation, or any kind of sexual relationship? and what of romantic relationships? Is it different for boys and girls who enter and end puberty at different ages on average? It's a nice metaphor but in reality you said very little and none of what you did say backed up 16 as an age of consent and if your flag is to be believed it's 15 where you live anyway. "At that age they usually begin maturing." Either physically or mentally this is incorrect, again puberty starts at around 8-11. [url]http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/puberty/Pages/introduction.aspx[/url]

It could be s/he meant maturing in the context of "have experienced enough of the world to form an opinion and make decisions."

[QUOTE=imadaman;43089670]It could be s/he meant maturing in the context of "have experienced enough of the world to form an opinion and make decisions."[/QUOTE] I've seen people make this argument before and initially it does seem logical, until you actually try and define what experiences are necessary and at what age they are guaranteed to have occurred. If the age of consent was to be based upon experience which experiences would they be and why? I can think of nothing that the majority of people will have experienced by 16 (or any other age) that would make them able to understand the consequences of sex other than sex itself. Just think how different the experiences of the daughter of a sugar cane farmer in Mozambique and the son of Canadian businessmen would be, how many common experiences would they have? How many experiences are common to all peoples in all times? There are some very broad experiences such as familial love or friendship but even these aren't universal and I don't see how they would impact on sexual consent. Experiences like eating and breathing are ubiquitous (though varied) but again I don't see what they have to do with sexual consent. If it is impossible to actually decide which experiences are necessary to consent to sex then it's not a valid basis for an age of consent law. I don't think most of the people who raise this argument actually believe it. If they did they would also argue that a worldly 13 year old should be able to consent but a naive 25 year old should not be able to. The point must also be made that many adults are very naive and just because someone is naive doesn't mean that a relationship with them has to be abusive. There's a chance that it could become abusive but there is always chance that any relationship could become abusive. A while ago I intended to update the OP with a section on the fallacy of life experience but the editor isn't working properly so this post will have to suffice.