**TRIGGER WARNING**
This one was just something that popped in to my head and got me thinking, was wondering what other people on here might have to say.
What do you think the legal age of consent should be?
Hope this isn't seen as rule-breaking, with LH beginning at 18 and all, I was just curious.
LH starts at 18 because in most countries 18 is classed as legally an adult. The legal age of consent varies from country to Country.
In the UK the legal age of consent is 16 years old and with parental permission can marry, join armed forces etc, have a child, work but still not classed as an adult able to Vote and drink alcohol and marry without parental permission till 18 years old. That's why young people eloped to Gretna Green in Scotland as you are allowed to marry without parental permission from 16 years old over the border.
Over the centuries, society has changed its age of adulthood from 21 to 18 although in earlier centuries young people could have been married at very early ages even in childhood.
There are a lot of changes physically and mentally from 16 to 18 and again from 18 to 25 when young people tend to mentally mature.
I don't think the age of legal consent should be lower than 16 because legislators have to generalize.
How about at puberty --- that's what nature says !
LMEK wrote:
How about at puberty --- that's what nature says !
I disagree,nature is just preparing your body to becomming an adult.
I'd have never been prepared to do anything sexual when my body started to develop and believe many would agree.
Discovering your body during puberty I'd agree with, full penetrative sex, absoutely not. A lot of my old schoolfriends regreted their first time, saying they were too young. I'm glad I waited until I felt right in my mind and body.
Back to the original question, it's a difficult one. Not sure if 16 is right and better to be 18. Girls tend to be more mature tha boys, but so many go against the law anyway. I'm on the fence with this.
I believe in the USA, age of consent is at 18 years old.
Age of consent should certainly be before the age to legally purchase / consume alcohol.
In NZ, its 16 which is also the same age as you can buy contraception over the counter yet interestingly in NZ, you can have sex at 16, but you can't go and buy adult products (toys, dvds etc from an "adult store") until 18. A bit of an anomaly.
Legal age shouldnt be confused with right age though. My own gut feel is that closer to 18 is about right, out of high school for sure, far too much peer pressure at that age and few are equipped to deal with it (boys or girls).
Once working or at University then all power to them, so long as they are safe.
As some hit puberty as young as 10 the age of consent needs to be much higher,plus hitting puberty isn`t a sign of mental maturity.I think it`s fine as it is.
I think people confuse age of consent with "age you should have sex". The latter is a personal age that really differs between people, some people are ready earlier than others, and there are a million different factors that can determine it. Age of consent, on the other hand, is a legal term meant to protect children from sexual predators.
So the real question is: at what age do you think a person is able to give consent to sexual activity and to fully understand what that means? I personally think that a person of the age of consent in UK is mature enough to be able to give or withhold consent on any sexual activity. Whether any given young person feels ready to have sex is another matter.
I also believe you should sell contraceptives to people of any age without constrictions. It doesn't encourage sexual activity, but it could prevent a teenage pregnancy or STD. Withholding them based on age is shortsighted and dangerous.
Agree 100% with Jezebella!
Agree with Jezebella and NatandTom
The arbitory number is of course the baseline, but just like in life really doesn't cover the true state of affairs. Take child minding as an example, some "Adults" well into their 20's are a poor choice to look after kids, but legally allowed to. A friend of mine raised his two siblings after his paernts dies, when he was just 13, and a damn good good of he did too.
Because they're old enough doesn't mean they should, and vice versa. As a number, the UK has it right in the main though I think.
There's a line in Barry MacGuire's song Eve of Destruction, " You're old enough to kill, but not for voting..."
What ages get put on things in civilization is an ECONOMIC DECISION, like they only stopped kids working down the mines at five to re-allocate jobs; since then the age of majority has gone from 14 to 21 to its current split levels of 16 / 17 / 18, according to who they want where, what, when.
How is this relevant? Not much of the law is about trying to protect us, so everyone must make their own decisions, and look out for naïve mates of any age. I know mature people of 12 --- and immature people of 50, who can't look out for their own interests in a r'ship. It's not possible to make a blanket statement about when folk are ready for this or that. It's all down to the individual.
Any gov't who conscripts people before they can vote is by definition manipulative, and all their age-related decisions are therefore questionable.
We need to remember that deprivation is also a form of abuse, and to disbar anyone from sex when they want it and are ready for it, at either end of the age spectrum, is cruel -- protectionism gone mad.
Anyone who wants to protect young adults from experience, needs to factor in that the young have a faster recovery rate --- best to get your mistakes over early. Much of Europe starts the age of consent at 13, and they simply do not have our problems with teenage pregnancy --- which really IS an issue ...
LMEK I find your post quite offensive. Just to comment on some of your points:
1. Teenage pregnancy rates has very little to do with the age of consent. People do have sex before the age of consent (most often with a partner that's also under the age of consent or just above). There's a lot of other factors that play a much bigger role. I just read an article which does state that early sexual activity is a risk factor for teen pregnancy, on the contrary to what you have just said. As a medical student, my personal opinion is that high quality sexual education, easy access to contraceptives and an open family climate is among the most important factors for lowering the teen pregnancy rates. I definitely don't believe that lowering the age of consent would lower the teen pregnancy rates.
2. Girls can start puberty from roughly 9-15. The age for starting puberty is also consistenly getting lower over time. A nine year old is in now way mature enough to consent to sexual activities. The age of consent protects people who are young enough to not be able to consent to any sexual activity. A kid that young simply doesn't know what they're consenting to even though they might "give their consent". Therefore they need to be protected from people who would want to take advantage of them.
3. I don't think I need to point out that the "young have a faster recovery rate" is an awful statement. So therefore we should stop trying to protect them from sexual trauma? Sexual trauma scars kids for life and everyone should do what they can to prevent kids from getting their childhood destroyed. In my opinion it isn't wrong if two teenagers just below the age of consent have sex with eachother, however it is a must that kids and teenagers are legally protected from older predators.
Good points, but black & white !
It can't be all wrong to **REMOVED BY MODERATOR** and 364/365, and then suddenly all right at
If one "Has to draw the line somewhere," I'd still question the agenda of the person drawing the line.
Age of consent should be moved up to 18 as it just complicates things. the emotional and physical damage that can be done to anyone who isn't quite ready can be devastating. At least at 18 you have some kind of life direction, and your a little more streetwise.
Anyone who wants to protect young adults from experience, needs to factor in that the young have a faster recovery rate --- best to get your mistakes over early.
Well at Lovehoney we say life starts at 18 and that is in simple terms for protection... Ours & our members. Please also remember that when commenting, especially when making a direct comment at underage sex.
So I don't agree with you (and on many other points) and that is my personal opinion coming out.
The agenda of the person drawing the line is once again a simple answer... Protection.
Just a note to all: Many of these comments do not directly break our rule (I have had to remove one) Please remember life at Lovehoney starts at 18, do respect that even if you don't feel protection is a requirement.
Sxlesaker & Leanne --- just to remove some words that I feel were put in my mouth, before I leave this thread ---- I was NOT saying that the young have a faster recovery rate from abuse. I had not mentioned abuse! I had mentioned mistakes. Young adults seem to bounce back more easily from their mistakes, and the type of thing I was thinking about when I wrote that was that if two young people go on a date to the cinema for instance, and the one who's done the inviting turns out to have "forgotten" all but the money except for their own ice cream, the other is more likely to get healthily mad at them and write it off, albeit with disappointment - and recover, after a bit of moping. Than a fifty-year-old in a similar restaurant scenario, who's been round the block and taken a few knocks, maybe got a couple of divorces under their belt, and might well have a depressive attack of 'What am I doing wrong?' and 'I don't understand people'.
An early healthy selfishness seems to change to excessive altruism that can make people vulnerable as young adults, along with phases of self-doubt, until it swings into a healthy balance around the thirties or forties; then the cycles seem to repeat. These mindsets do affect the sex side of things.
This is why I said it's important to look out for your mates of any age: anyone can be vulnerable.
I am going to quit this thread, as I've realized their is enough emotion in it to cause misinterpretation of what people say. Also I've realized that as Leanne says, on a site like this everything starts at 18, so maybe we would just mess up this site by even talking about different ages. I certainly do NOT want to do that, inadvertently! The subject is really one for a debating room, someplace else.
Just to leave this thread on a positive note, at least no-one's saying we should give sex up at an upper age limit -- retire, as it were -- although the idea of oldies at it used to be looked at askance. Thank goodness that's changed! And now I'm back off to the golden oldies' blog!
Best wishes to everybody on line.
LMEK wrote:
Sxlesaker & Leanne --- just to remove some words that I feel were put in my mouth, before I leave this thread ---- I was NOT saying that the young have a faster recovery rate from abuse. I had not mentioned abuse! I had mentioned mistakes. Young adults seem to bounce back more easily from their mistakes, and the type of thing I was thinking about when I wrote that was that if two young people go on a date to the cinema for instance, and the one who's done the inviting turns out to have "forgotten" all but the money except for their own ice cream, the other is more likely to get healthily mad at them and write it off, albeit with disappointment - and recover, after a bit of moping. Than a fifty-year-old in a similar restaurant scenario, who's been round the block and taken a few knocks, maybe got a couple of divorces under their belt, and might well have a depressive attack of 'What am I doing wrong?' and 'I don't understand people'.
Just to remove some words put in my mouth - I did not mention abuse.
I was simply advising (taken from a comment made directly at underage sex) at where the rules stand. I also said I hadn't agreed with you and once again nothing about abuse.
I believe it is yourself that has mentioned abuse:
We need to remember that deprivation is also a form of abuse,
My comments were towards protection, ours and our members. This could be from mistakes or media backlash - anything like that. I also answered a question you put forward.
Thanks for your comments and for explaining.