Age of Consent Laws

[Horatio Nelson]

(Didn't know where else to put this)


This is something I have never quite understood. Where I live the age of consent is 18. So does that mean if two consenting 17 year olds had sex, it would be illegal?

Am I getting this completely wrong? Does it mean something completely different?

Thanks.

[James Dean]

It is the age to where you are legally allowed to have sex, and the other person must be the same or older than that age. For example, the age of consent is sixteen, then a person can only have sex if they are sixteen and older, and only with a person who is sixteen and older.

If this is violated, it is considered rape. Whether it was allowed or wasn't.

So yes if two people are having sex and they are under the age of consent, that's considered statutory rape if someone decides to press charges. But I understand people experiment and stuff, and people do get away with it a lot, not to say that people still don't violate it, but legally speaking, it isn't allowed.

[CosmicNoodle]

Just going to say, I hate the fact that the government can put an age limit on my own sexual wants and needs, fuck them, if I want to I will, just another case of the government owning your body (and the media owning your mind)

Anyway, like CELT said, technically it is rape, in some places, but that has never stopped anyone, I mean sure, be careful about it, but don't listen to that law, it's fucking stupid.

[Uranus]

(Didn't know where else to put this)


This is something I have never quite understood. Where I live the age of consent is 18. So does that mean if two consenting 17 year olds had sex, it would be illegal?

Am I getting this completely wrong? Does it mean something completely different?

Thanks.


If I remember correctly you're not exactly right. We all know if you're 18 you can have sex with anyone of the same age or older and so on.
The reason there's such law is because we know if a minor bangs an adult it's illegal..but what about two minors together?

Here's where it starts.

Basically the age of consent in the major majority of the U.S. is 16. Meaning if you're 16, and your partner is under 16 then its bad.(statutory rape...not going to jail you a long time, fortunately). But if you are 16 and so's your partner, then its totally fine, even if you're 16 and they could be 25, its fine, because you're at the age of consent, or higher. But it will not be legal if it's with someone of authority like a teacher. Then you must be 18.

In your case you will both(whoever you're with) have to be 18. Otherwise face punishment if caught.

[Emerald Dream]

This is probably better off here -

TWPR :arrow: ROTW

[Vlerchan]

... but don't listen to that law, it's fucking stupid.
You do realise that this law is in place to stop paedophilia right?

[Gigablue]

It depends on where you live and how the law is written. In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions for minors who are close in age. In other words, if two seventeen year olds had sex, it would be legal, but if a seventeen year old and a thirty year old has sex, it would be illegal. Some jurisdictions, however, don't have any exceptions. In practice, however, people are rarely charged if or having consensual sex, even if both partners are under the age of consent.

[CosmicNoodle]

You do realise that this law is in place to stop paedophilia right?

Poor wording, I mean the fact that two people of the same age having sex is still technically illegal, however I'm all for restrictions against older people grooming children and so on.

[phuckphace]

Just going to say, I hate the fact that the government can put an age limit on my own sexual wants and needs, fuck them, if I want to I will, just another case of the government owning your body (and the media owning your mind)

Anyway, like CELT said, technically it is rape, in some places, but that has never stopped anyone, I mean sure, be careful about it, but don't listen to that law, it's fucking stupid.

people like you are the precise reason those laws exist. if you actually have to unironically ask what harm there is letting people stick their dicks into anything that moves, it follows that your understanding of sexual behavior and possible negative externalities is severely limited. I'm not going to explain in depth because this is elementary stuff that everyone's supposed to know.

also lollin hard at "but my sexual wants and needs!!!" that almost sounds like a parody of social liberals by yours truly.

[CosmicNoodle]

people like you are the precise reason those laws exist. if you actually have to unironically ask what harm there is letting people stick their dicks into anything that moves, it follows that your understanding of sexual behavior and possible negative externalities is severely limited. I'm not going to explain in depth because this is elementary stuff that everyone's supposed to know. Look at the reply I have to (name forgoten), it explains things better, I worded it poorly. What I wanted to say was that it's stupid for it to be illegal for people of a similar age, but I'm in full support of laws against grooming. Hope that clears that up.

also lollin hard at "but my sexual wants and needs!!!" that almost sounds like a parody of social liberals by yours truly. Admittedly that is a funny way of wording it :P But honestly, as far as I'm concerned as soon as you have desires, you should be able to act upon them, with people of a similar age, obviously)

Does that clear things up?

[Whiskers]

Just going to say, I hate the fact that the government can put an age limit on my own sexual wants and needs, fuck them, if I want to I will, just another case of the government owning your body (and the media owning your mind)

But obviously if there both young people not a paedophile and a teenager

[CosmicNoodle]

But obviously if there both young people not a paedophile and a teenager

Yes, that's what I said a second ago to PhuckPhace, provided they are the same age, or within a year or two then I don't think it should be illegal. I mean come on, why is it illegal for someone to act upon desires and wants just because they are under 18? The want to is no less real then if you 18, 24, even 50. I'm not saying a 50 year old should be able to fuck a 13 year old, that'd be creepy, but if your the same age, or within a year, it should be legal.

[Vlerchan]

The want to is no less real then if you 18, 24, even 50.
Do you think people's mental capacity is the same at all ages? I'm speaking with particular respect to individuals under 18 here.

[CosmicNoodle]

Do you think people's mental capacity is the same at all ages? I'm speaking with particular respect to individuals under 18 here.

I'm 17, I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I want to do with my body, but you do raise an interesting point, should it be changed to the ideas I was putting fourth or simply lowered to a point at which you are sure the mental capacity of the person is up to being able to make such a big life choice. It cant really be put down to mental capacity because everyone is different, there are people younger than both of us out there who are more intelligent. But then again that's mute when making other laws.
Perhaps I'm bias because I myself am under 18, but I really don't think it's the governments place to decide what a person does with there body at whatever age, regardless of mental capacity. Doing so just brings us one step closer to a dystopian future. Provided you don't view the current world as so, anyway, rambling.

But I do agree, your point is interesting, but in my opinion mute, it's not taken into account when making other laws. Why should it be different with this one?

[SethfromMI]

Just going to say, I hate the fact that the government can put an age limit on my own sexual wants and needs, fuck them, if I want to I will, just another case of the government owning your body (and the media owning your mind)

Anyway, like CELT said, technically it is rape, in some places, but that has never stopped anyone, I mean sure, be careful about it, but don't listen to that law, it's fucking stupid.

I agree...to an extent. do you really want a 40 year old guy having sex with a 14 year old girl because she thinks/says she wants to and he wants to. I mean, if the government should but a limit, should that be acceptable? (I am not trying to argue with you, I am just merely posing a question, I would like to know what you would say)

[CosmicNoodle]

I agree...to an extent. do you really want a 40 year old guy having sex with a 14 year old girl because she thinks/says she wants to and he wants to. I mean, if the government should but a limit, should that be acceptable? (I am not trying to argue with you, I am just merely posing a question, I would like to know what you would say)

Hey :)
Ye, thats what I forgot to put in, look at what people have quoted of me and my response, it sums oit up a lot better than I orgigionally put it.
Provided they are the same age, or within a year or two then I don't think it should be illegal. I mean come on, why is it illegal for someone to act upon desires and wants just because they are under 18? The want to is no less real then if you 18, 24, even 50. I'm not saying a 50 year old should be able to fuck a 13 year old, that'd be creepy, but if your the same age, or within a year, it should be legal. Just my opinion.

I hate the government controlling peoples bodys, and this is just another example.

[Vlerchan]

But then again that's mute when making other laws.
You mean like when it comes to:

purchasing and consuming alcohol;
purchasing and using cigarettes;
purchasing firearms;
driving a car;
gambling;
leaving school;
engaging in paid labour;
Etc. (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/children_s_rights_and_policy/children_and_rights_in_ireland.html)
It doesn't seem so to me.

Perhaps I'm bias because I myself am under 18.
Yes. You are.

but I really don't think it's the governments place to decide what a person does with there body at whatever age, regardless of mental capacity.
You said above you were against peadophilia.

Doing so just brings us one step closer to a dystopian future.
Like phuckphace is aware at this stage I don't take bleak predictions about the collapse of civilisation (ect.) as an argument.

[CosmicNoodle]

You mean like when it comes to:

purchasing and consuming alcohol;
purchasing and using cigarettes;
purchasing firearms;
driving a car;
gambling;
leaving school;
engaging in paid labour;
Etc. (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/children_s_rights_and_policy/children_and_rights_in_ireland.html)
It doesn't seem so to me.

You misunderstand, I mean its mute because mental capacity doesnt come into THOSE^ laws, so why should it come into this one? Doesn't make sense that it should, see what I mean?

Yes. You are.

Ohh, I'm glad you know more about how I feel than me, I was unsure

You said above you were against peadophilia.

Your being stupid, and not listening to my argument, I'm saying, people of similar age should be allowed to, not saying that 50 year olds should be able to fuck 15 year olds, try listening

Like phuckphace is aware at this stage I don't take bleak predictions about the collapse of civilisation (ect.) as an argument.

Well in my opinion that's just ignorant, why think about what could happen in the future when we can sit in ignorant bliss right?

.....

[Vlerchan]

You misunderstand, I mean its mute because mental capacity doesnt come into THOSE^ laws, so why should it come into this one?
Yes it does.

Ohh, I'm glad you know more about how I feel than me, I was unsure
I'm not commenting on how you feel about yourself.

I'm saying that your opinions on how you feel you should be treated are inherently biased.

Your being stupid, and not listening to my argument, I'm saying, people of similar age should be allowed to, not saying that 50 year olds should be able to fuck 15 year olds, try listening
You said this:

"I really don't think it's the governments place to decide what a person does with there body at whatever age, regardless of mental capacity."

It would seem that if you are continuing to stand by the above statement then it only makes sense to support allowing 50 year old men to have sexual relations with 15 year old girls.

But then you at the same time say that you don't support paedophilia. These positions obviously conflict.

Well in my opinion that's just ignorant, why think about what could happen in the future when we can sit in ignorant bliss right?
I never said that.

I said that making unverified (and unreasoned) predictions about humanities future in response to my argument is not itself an argument.

[Horatio Nelson]

I appreciate the responses, glad I finally understand.

Although I do agree that it is bullshit that consensual sex between two minors (depending on where you live) is illegal, technically. Even though countless people do it everyday.

[Luminous]

Hey :)
Ye, thats what I forgot to put in, look at what people have quoted of me and my response, it sums oit up a lot better than I orgigionally put it.
Provided they are the same age, or within a year or two then I don't think it should be illegal. I mean come on, why is it illegal for someone to act upon desires and wants just because they are under 18? The want to is no less real then if you 18, 24, even 50. I'm not saying a 50 year old should be able to fuck a 13 year old, that'd be creepy, but if your the same age, or within a year, it should be legal. Just my opinion.

I hate the government controlling peoples bodys, and this is just another example.

I appreciate the responses, glad I finally understand.

Although I do agree that it is bullshit that consensual sex between two minors (depending on where you live) is illegal, technically. Even though countless people do it everyday.

Not many 13 year olds actually understand sex and intimacy. They have sex because their peers are doing it and it's the 'cool' thing to do, same as drugs and alcohol. Often they're not actually using their brains and thinking it through, maybe they're not even wise enough to be able to do that. They're just doing what they think they should be doing.

Certainly, there are plenty of young teens that have the maturity to understand the meaning of sex and could likely make responsible choices, but not everyone. To make exceptions for those young teens would require a very specific and highly subjective law, such as "consensual sex between two minors of similar ages (two years between them at the most) is prohibited if the minors are not of high enough mental capacity."

For this law to work, it would require having testing on any and all teens that want to have sex. Let's be honest: how efficient would that be, do you think? I'm going to say not very. Teens will lie, won't get tested, etc.

In the end, the government really can't monitor teen's sex lives, and won't unless reported. Teens have sex, have always had sex, and will always have sex, and an often unenforcable law won't change that.

[CosmicNoodle]

Yes it does.


I'm not commenting on how you feel about yourself.

I'm saying that your opinions on how you feel you should be treated are inherently biased.

So your should also be treated as inherently bias because your over 18?

You said this:

"I really don't think it's the governments place to decide what a person does with there body at whatever age, regardless of mental capacity."

It would seem that if you are continuing to stand by the above statement then it only makes sense to support allowing 50 year old men to have sexual relations with 15 year old girls.

But then you at the same time say that you don't support paedophilia. These positions obviously conflict.

Well if that's not a case of putting words in my mouth I don't know what is. I'm not sure if you can comprehend this idea, so I'll use the smallest words possible. I, DO, NOT, SUPPORT, PAEDOPHILIA, but I do support people being able to make there own choices, you might be happy with the government regulating what you do with your body, but I'm not. Please show me the quote where I said I support paedophilia.
I never said that.

I said that making unverified (and unreasoned) predictions about humanities future in response to my argument is not itself an argument.

I think I and PhuckPhace can agree the arguments are reasoned. The society we live in is inherently self destructive, anyway, that's starting to get very off topic and I don't even remember how we got to this part of the conversation.


Not many 13 year olds actually understand sex and intimacy. They have sex because their peers are doing it and it's the 'cool' thing to do, same as drugs and alcohol. Often they're not actually using their brains and thinking it through, maybe they're not even wise enough to be able to do that. They're just doing what they think they should be doing.

Certainly, there are plenty of young teens that have the maturity to understand the meaning of sex and could likely make responsible choices, but not everyone. To make exceptions for those young teens would require a very specific and highly subjective law, such as "consensual sex between two minors of similar ages (two years between them at the most) is prohibited if the minors are not of high enough mental capacity."

For this law to work, it would require having testing on any and all teens that want to have sex. Let's be honest: how efficient would that be, do you think? I'm going to say not very. Teens will lie, won't get tested, etc.

In the end, the government really can't monitor teen's sex lives, and won't unless reported. Teens have sex, have always had sex, and will always have sex, and an often unenforcable law won't change that.

Good point, but what of the intelligent teens? Do they "suffer" because of the stupidity of other people? (The reason we cant really debate this properly is because I don't really believe in the system of laws we have now, you can't judge everyone based on the same merits, everyone is different (thank god). How can they all be judged on the same basis? Like having a 1 size fits all glove)

Ok, lets say, the age limit was 14, lowered, what would be your opinion of that? Allowing people time to mature slightly?

[Vlerchan]

So your should also be treated as inherently bias because your over 18?
No. I'm saying that people's feelings about themselves are inherently biased.

Well if that's not a case of putting words in my mouth I don't know what is[1]. I'm not sure if you can comprehend this idea, so I'll use the smallest words possible. I, DO, NOT, SUPPORT, PAEDOPHILIA, but I do support people being able to make there own choices[2], you might be happy with the government regulating what you do with your body, but I'm not.[3] Please show me the quote where I said I support paedophilia. I never said that.[4]
[1]: I quoted you exactly.

[2]: This is contradictory. You can't not support (legally) sexual relations between adults and children and then at the same time support (legally) people doing whatever they want with their own bodies. It's one or the other.

[3]: You'll find that I'm happy for individuals over 18 to have full body rights which extends from prostituting themselves to suicide to using hard drugs. I don't believe that individuals under eighteen generally have the mental capacity to make such decisions in regards to such though so I don't support individuals under eighteen having these same rights.

[4]: It's implied with your position. I quoted the relevant in my last post.

I think I and PhuckPhace can agree the arguments are reasoned
When you critique my position as "bringing us one step closer to a dystopian future" without defining what a dystopian future is or explaining how my position is going to cause us to arrive there then you are making an unreasoned argument. Feel free to do so though and then I might start taking this argument seriously.

[CosmicNoodle]

No. I'm saying that people's feelings about themselves are inherently biased.

Can't really argue with that.

[1]: I quoted you exactly.

[2]: This is contradictory. You can't not support (legally) sexual relations between adults and children and then at the same time support (legally) people doing whatever they want with their own bodies. It's one or the other.

Actually, as far as I'm concerned anyone shoudl be allowed to sleep with anyone, but obviously because humanity is a bit shit that can't happen, as it will obviously be abused. My position seems contradictory because I have to go against what I believe for the sake of logic, and for the sake of safety of children.

[3]: You'll find that I'm happy for individuals over 18 to have full body rights which extends from prostituting themselves to suicide to using hard drugs. I don't believe that individuals under eighteen generally have the mental capacity to make such decisions in regards to such though so I don't support individuals under eighteen having these same rights.

So there seems to be some magic epiphany at the age of 18 where you realise that suddenly everything makes sense? Your augments makes a lot of sense, I shall not deny that, I'm very close to agreeing with you, but like I said to Hannah I simply don't believe in the same laws governing everyone, but obviously they are needed for reason. So an individual under 18, despite how intelligent they may be, how comprehension there world view or understanding of a situation, they should be judged by laws designed to protect idiots? That's where you and I differ, the laws make sense, I just hate the fact that the laws are designed to cater to the lowest common denominator.

[4]: It's implied with your position. I quoted the relevant in my last post.


When you critique my position as "bringing us one step closer to a dystopian future" without defining what a dystopian future is or explaining how my position is going to cause us to arrive there then you are making an unreasoned argument.

The point I was making then was actually a separate, mostly unrelated point, what I was saying was that there are already far to many laws dictating what a person can do and can not do with there body. Aand disliked the fact that more and more are always being made, and refrenced the fact that too many laws of the such could easily lead us to a dystopian future in wich you don't control your own body, if that's not already the case in modern society, understand where that was going? Like I said that was a mostly unrelated ramble.

Feel free to do so though and then I might start taking this argument seriously.

You think I'm being serious? Why do conversations have to be serious? The tone I was going for was casual conversation.


....

[Vlerchan]

Actually, as far as I'm concerned anyone shoudl be allowed to sleep with anyone, but obviously because humanity is a bit shit that can't happen, as it will obviously be abused.
In other words you do then support restrictions on individuals body rights. Glad we got to the bottom of that.

So there seems to be some magic epiphany at the age of 18 where you realise that suddenly everything makes sense?
No. I just think that at 18 you can count on people generally being mature enough to be able to make their own decisions.

Your augments makes a lot of sense, I shall not deny that, I'm very close to agreeing with you, but like I said to Hannah I simply don't believe in the same laws governing everyone, but obviously they are needed for reason.
Well I don't see a polycentric legal system being workable [when it comes to criminal law].

And I see "one-size-fits-all" lawmaking as a lot more preferable to "no lawmaking".

That's where you and I differ, the laws make sense, I just hate the fact that the laws are designed to cater to the lowest common denominator.
It's the "majority" and not the "lowest common denominator" that these laws tend to cater to.

The tone I was going for was casual conversation.
I'm awful at picking up tones over text.

It's sort of why I go for the one I currently respond in - much less chance of coming across wrongly.

[CosmicNoodle]

In other words you do then support restrictions on individuals body rights. Glad we got to the bottom of that.

Sort off, I don't support it, but I see why it is needed, so I will agree with it. But I won't like it, like getting a jab at the doctor, you hate it, but it is needed.

No. I just think that at 18 you can count on people generally being mature enough to be able to make their own decisions.

TBH I know a lot of 18 year olds that are less mature than my 14 year other cousin, admittedly people are more likely to be mature, but that's not everyone, like I said, I don't like the idea of one size fits all laws. I think each person should be judged on there own merit. But obviously no matter what system you create that can never work :/

Well I don't see a polycentric legal system being workable [when it comes to criminal law].

I agree, it wont, but it's still the system of law I prefer to use, like capitalism, a beautiful idea, but unachievable

And I see "one-size-fits-all" lawmaking as a lot more preferable to "no lawmaking".

I'm not saying no law making (depending on my mood), laws are what allows us to thrive, order and sense are needed, but I think that often laws are blindly enforced with no account taken to the person,you already know my views on that.

It's the "majority" and not the "lowest common denominator" that these laws tend to cater to.

Fair enough, I may well have been wrong there, but think about it, if all laws suddenly vanished most people would still follow them, simply because for the most part, a law will just dictate common sense, don't kill, don't steal, don't do 100mph past a school. Most laws are just there to enforce common sense (hmm...interesting idea, might make a thread about that), most people in there day to day life will follow the law without thinking about it, because laws enforce the obvious, only stupid or uncaring people will break them often enough for it to be a problem. But then again, there are laws designed to fuck people over as well, so not all are logical, anyway, most of this has been a ramble, back on topic.

I'm awful at picking up tones over text.

Me too, unless people use emoticons like :P or :) or :( I find it hard to tell what tine they are using. Meaning I often start flame wars when I think people are being dicks... :/

It's sort of why I go for the one I currently respond in - much less chance of coming across wrongly.

Your tine now (and all the time), from the little I can gauge, seems to be "your wrong and this is why" which I suppose works. You always seem to pick apart arguments without offering any other substitute to improve on said idea. But I'm no better so who am I to say.


...........fkjshkAFHHJSWBFBVAVFVCS////NHSBAJADASCD]KDKGRYU4W2E

[DeadEyes]

I will just say that like many laws, this one is quite ridiculous.

[Luminous]

Good point, but what of the intelligent teens? Do they "suffer" because of the stupidity of other people?
From a legal standpoint, yes. But realistically, no - again, teens are having sex whether the law is in place or not.
(The reason we cant really debate this properly is because I don't really believe in the system of laws we have now, you can't judge everyone based on the same merits, everyone is different (thank god). How can they all be judged on the same basis? Like having a 1 size fits all glove)
I agree, you shouldn't, but sometimes you must. Like I said before, you can't be testing every teens' maturity to give them the go-ahead (or not) to have sex.
Ok, lets say, the age limit was 14, lowered, what would be your opinion of that? Allowing people time to mature slightly?
I don't particularly care what the age of consent is. I think 16 is probably fine. Nobody listens to it anyways. However, if that was, for example, a 14 year old could legally have sexual intercourse with a 19 year old, I'd be opposed to that. Too young, I think. But if it was, say, only with someone 2 years or less younger or older than you, I don't know that I'd have an issue with that.

[CosmicNoodle]

From a legal standpoint, yes. But realistically, no - again, teens are having sex whether the law is in place or not.

I agree, you shouldn't, but sometimes you must. Like I said before, you can't be testing every teens' maturity to give them the go-ahead (or not) to have sex.

I don't particularly care what the age of consent is. I think 16 is probably fine. Nobody listens to it anyways. However, if that was, for example, a 14 year old could legally have sexual intercourse with a 19 year old, I'd be opposed to that. Too young, I think. But if it was, say, only with someone 2 years or less younger or older than you, I don't know that I'd have an issue with that.

You and me seem to be on very similar wave lengths on this topic. But like you said, the hole thread and law is moot. No one pays attention, and to be honest, no judge with a scrap of decency would prosecute two teens for having sex.

[DeadEyes]

One of the most nonsensical point about this law, is that teens of a certain age are allowed to consent to have sex with another minor but not an adult.
If you should be allowed to consent, shouldn't it be with anybody you please?

[Vlerchan]

However, if that was, for example, a 14 year old could legally have sexual intercourse with a 19 year old, I'd be opposed to that.
I tend to see age of consent laws as indicating:

"At what age should people be allowed to have sex with adults at"

Because that's all it's mostly good for.

---

But obviously no matter what system you create that can never work.
You could just let social pressures decide stuff.

Though I think that's dangerous when it comes to issues to like peadophilia.

You always seem to pick apart arguments without offering any other substitute to improve on said idea.
Yes. I want people to shift to my position so helping them develop an alternative to that position is not something I'm eager to do.

---

If you should be allowed to consent, shouldn't it be with anybody you please?
I don't think children are competent enough to make decisions in regards to having sexual relations with adults and all that entails.

[CosmicNoodle]

I tend to see age of consent laws as indicating:

"At what age should people be allowed to have sex with adults at"

Because that's all it's mostly good for.

---


You could just let social pressures decide stuff.

Though I think that's dangerous when it comes to issues to like paedophilia.

Ye, that couldn't really work, young children or teens often see the words of an adult as "words of god", like fact, and see then as someone to be impressed. Meaning if 'twas left to social pressure it'd never work.

Yes. I want people to shift to my position so helping them develop an alternative to that position is not something I'm eager to do.

What's wrong with people having there own opinions? Even if they are stupid ones...(problem with having liberal views, you have to allow people an opinion even if they're stupid as fuck.

....

[DeadEyes]

I don't think children are competent enough to make decisions in regards to having sexual relations with adults and all that entails.

If you should be allowed to consent, if you are judged old enough to consent to have sex, shouldn't it be with anybody you please?

[Vlerchan]

What's wrong with people having there own opinions?
There's nothing wrong with people having other opinions.

I just arrogantly presume that mine are more correct. I'd as such rather that more people hold the same opinions as me so that when it comes to moulding social change it's into a shape that I prefer.

---

If you should be allowed to consent, if you are judged old enough to consent to have sex, shouldn't it be with anybody you please?
I think people over the age of 16 should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want - yes.

I think I misread your post as defending the idea of peadophilia so I'm probably being questioning of your stance for no reason here.

[CosmicNoodle]

There's nothing wrong with people having other opinions.

I just arrogantly presume that mine are more correct. I'd as such rather that more people hold the same opinions as me so that when it comes to moulding social change it's into a shape that I prefer.



I'm like that quite often "I'm correct and here's why" Really need to work on that.

[DeadEyes]

I think people over the age of 16 should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want - yes.

Should, could, would, but that's not what the law says, hence why I was pointing out the nonsense of it.
Now, all that would remain then, is to agree on what age teens are old enough to decide with whoever they could have sex with and that, is a never-ending debate.

[Zachary G]

(Didn't know where else to put this)


This is something I have never quite understood. Where I live the age of consent is 18. So does that mean if two consenting 17 year olds had sex, it would be illegal?

Am I getting this completely wrong? Does it mean something completely different?

Thanks.

every state has its own age of consent, where i live persons aged between 14 and 16 may consent to sex as long as the other partner is not more than 4 years older. Maryland's age of consent law applies differently if the older partner is in a position of trust or authority over the younger partner. however, every states default age of consent is 18 regardless of what the law states.

i think its despicable that the authorities can take it among themselves to press charges on someone who has consented to having sex with a person they wanted to - whether they be of the same age, or within 4 yrs of age. here, a person who is 18 can be charged with statutory rape for having sex with someone who is 17 yrs 9 months even though the law says within 4 yrs. the laws are confusing and make no sense at all and the whole system needs to be reformed.

thats just my 2 cents

[DeadEyes]

here, a person who is 18 can be charged with statutory rape for having sex with someone who is 17 yrs 9 months even though the law says within 4 yrs.

And that, is the most nonsensical point about this law, it's just laughable.

[Vlerchan]

Should, could, would, but that's not what the law says, hence why I was pointing out the nonsense of it.
Here's the relevant as far as Irish sex-offence laws are concerned. Once you're over the age of consent then you're legally allowed to have sex with anyone else over the age of consent.

[Defilement of child under the age of 17 years].

3.—(1) Any person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (3), be liable on conviction on indictment—

[...]

(9) No proceedings for an offence under this section against a child under the age of 17 years shall be brought except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(10) A person who—

(a) has been convicted of an offence under this section, and
(b) is not more than 24 months older than the child under the age of 17 years with whom he or she engaged or attempted to engage in a sexual act,

shall not be subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2001.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2006/a1506.pdf

It's also notable that you can have sex with someone who's underage as long as you are either (a) underage yourself (ss. 9) or (b) less than two years older than them (ss. 10).

I think this is all quite fair.

I'm like that quite often "I'm correct and here's why" Really need to work on that.
I don't see a problem with it?