this is another debate that also comes up in class that i find interesting
Thoughts?

Here's an article from that debate website that i (L) so much
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=299

I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
I was only 17 when I met my now fiance, and he was 22. We had sex. If my parents had decided to hate him, I guess they could have thrown him in jail. That would have been really, really bad...especially since we were in love and he did nothing wrong.
So, if I were to speak from that end of things, I'd say yes...lower the consent age. (I'm not sure what it is in Ohio, I'm assuming 18 here).
On the other hand...there are plenty of times that younger adults or older teenagers, however you look at them/us...have sex with older men at parties, drunk, or when under immense pressure but are not actually 'forced' and therefor can not sometimes label it 'rape' or press charges. So I would want to say, no, leave the age whatever it is.
I'm just not sure. :dunno
I'm not educated enough on this topic to debate it, but, there's my point of view.

age of consent varies by state anyway. :shrug The only time it doesn't matter on the state level is when it is the military, they don't care if you aren't 18 you are a minor. So I am not sure what you mean by lowering the age of consent.

age of consent varies by state anyway. :shrug The only time it doesn't matter on the state level is when it is the military, they don't care if you aren't 18 you are a minor. So I am not sure what you mean by lowering the age of consent.

I guess i should clarify..age of consent (i know it varies from state to state) is usually (i believe correct if i'm wrong) but about 16 or greater than 3 years difference if the person is under 18. So if a 16 year old had sex with a 19 year old that would be considered rape. Or if a 14 year old had sex with a 16 year old the 16 year old could be in trouble cause legally the 14 year old under the consent laws could not legally consent...

so since many kids are being much more sexually active younger should we lower the age of consent?


IDK am i making it any clearer..? I might be making it more muddy it's late and i'm tired sorry..

I guess i should clarify..age of consent (i know it varies from state to state) is usually (i believe correct if i'm wrong) but about 16 or greater than 3 years difference if the person is under 18. So if a 16 year old had sex with a 19 year old that would be considered rape. Or if a 14 year old had sex with a 16 year old the 16 year old could be in trouble cause legally the 14 year old under the consent laws could not legally consent...

IDK am i making it any clearer..?
ok I get what you are saying.. and no it shouldn't be lowered. at those ages ( under 16 especially) that you are capable of making a decision like that. Hell even at 16 I don't think you can make that kind of choice. especially when it comes to sex.

I think by lowering the age of consent, we'd just be encouraging younger sexual activity even more. Just because it's happening more doesn't mean we should make it legal. I think other courses of action should be taken to help REDUCE underage sexual activity instead of just making it OK. That's side-stepping the issue instead of attempting to remedy it.

I think this would be a very touchy subject...
As someone who willfully had sex at 16 after thinking about it and discussing if for a long time (its 18 in wisc) with my boyfriend who was 18... i think that YES it should be lowered.

HOWEVER

As a future parent, I worry about other people who werent so knowledgeable about sex and knowing themselves as well as i did. I know that if my son or daughter had sex without really thinking about it (although i would hope i have taught them better) and then regretted it or had something bad come of it... i would have a problem

This is of course speaking in terms of COMPLETE consent. i say this because i worry that if the age of consent (i am only speaking in terms of wisconsin as it is 18 here) is lowered, people might forget our rules of consent beyond just age.
In wisconsin, if you are under the influence of alchohol you can NOT legally consent to sex. A lot of people already dont realize this resulting in complicated rape cases because the "rapist" didnt realize the "rapee" would feel raped. ('but they SAID yes' ... because of issues like that, they decided that you arent in a good mental state to understand what you are consenting to)
Yes, there are plenty of cases where the rapist PURPOSELY got them drunk (or spiked their drink with drugs) TO rape them, so i am not speaking about that.

I think in the long run i would feel better if the age of consent remains at 18. This way, minors dont need to worry about consent with alcohol and such.... because there will ALWAYS be parties and teenagers drinking too much... and i would hate for rape issues to get mixed into that.

as a side note, i believe that if both parties are under 18, they can BOTH be charged with statutory rape here in wisc. it all depends on the parents and how close to 18 they are... i dont exactly remember though.

I think by lowering the age of consent, we'd just be encouraging younger sexual activity even more. Just because it's happening more doesn't mean we should make it legal. I think other courses of action should be taken to help REDUCE underage sexual activity instead of just making it OK. That's side-stepping the issue instead of attempting to remedy it.

This could be true. :yes But there are SO many kids out there that try things simply BECAUSE they are illegal to do. I.E. drinking, smoking pot, smoking cigarettes under 18..
Sometimes people who professionally debate these things use that as a point of view. (Example-the argument is up and about that lowering the drinking age would actually cause less teenagers to drink, because the thrill of secretly partying would be gone.)
KWIM?
I had sex at 15. I drank and smoked pot right afterwards. It is like it all came together...then I got raped. Everything is SO confusing and tied together...I really just don't think everything will really be right, no matter what the law says.

This could be true. :yes But there are SO many kids out there that try things simply BECAUSE they are illegal to do. I.E. drinking, smoking pot, smoking cigarettes under 18..
Sometimes people who professionally debate these things use that as a point of view. (Example-the argument is up and about that lowering the drinking age would actually cause less teenagers to drink, because the thrill of secretly partying would be gone.)
KWIM?
I had sex at 15. I drank and smoked pot right afterwards. It is like it all came together...then I got raped. Everything is SO confusing and tied together...I really just don't think everything will really be right, no matter what the law says.

I've heard that argument many many times. It could go both ways. The thrill could be gone, so less indulgences and rebellion would take place, OR the ones who were holding back in the first place BECAUSE of the law would suddenly start doing the things that we really don't want them doing to begin with. I think there's a trade-off there.

The point I'm trying to make is that instead of legalizing things just because it may take away the "thrill" or because so many kids are sexually active at a younger age....we should try to REMEDY the problem instead of side-stepping the major issue of WHY kids are becoming more sexually active at an increasingly younger age. Legalizing it and forgetting about it seems the "easy way out" to me...so that the government doesn't have to deal with educational and intervention programs for younger sexually active kids.

I think by lowering the age of consent, we'd just be encouraging younger sexual activity even more. Just because it's happening more doesn't mean we should make it legal. I think other courses of action should be taken to help REDUCE underage sexual activity instead of just making it OK. That's side-stepping the issue instead of attempting to remedy it.

I agree! Also, if it was like lowered to, say 14- Most 14 year olds I know are no where near capable of being mothers (or fathers!) I'm not saying none are (I hope I haven't offended anyone...) But if the age were to get lowered and more KIDS were having sex- that increases more teen pregnancies (Don't get me wrong, I was technically a teen pregnancy- I had DD right before I turned 20) It would just be to risky!!

I've heard that argument many many times. It could go both ways. The thrill could be gone, so less indulgences and rebellion would take place, OR the ones who were holding back in the first place BECAUSE of the law would suddenly start doing the things that we really don't want them doing to begin with. I think there's a trade-off there.

The point I'm trying to make is that instead of legalizing things just because it may take away the "thrill" or because so many kids are sexually active at a younger age....we should try to REMEDY the problem instead of side-stepping the major issue of WHY kids are becoming more sexually active at an increasingly younger age. Legalizing it and forgetting about it seems the "easy way out" to me...so that the government doesn't have to deal with educational and intervention programs for younger sexually active kids.
Yup. You're totally right. I think it's just a stage, again. You know...kids had tons of unprotected young sex in the 70's...it was SO common, then it went away for a while, now it's back...or maybe...the times it 'goes away', it's really just not spoken of as much. :dunno
You make total sense, though. And I agree.

Yup. You're totally right. I think it's just a stage, again. You know...kids had tons of unprotected young sex in the 70's...it was SO common, then it went away for a while, now it's back...or maybe...the times it 'goes away', it's really just not spoken of as much. :dunno
You make total sense, though. And I agree.

Yeah, it's definitely a tough situation.

There was plenty of unprotected sex and an influx of sex in the media in the 80s....and they say the 80s are making a comeback....:lol Maybe that's just in the fashion world :P

HA HA! No. They meant sex and drugs, too.
Pretty soon you'll see teachers passing blunts at foot ball games :P

HA HA! No. They meant sex and drugs, too.
Pretty soon you'll see teachers passing blunts at foot ball games :P

when I lost my virginity it was to my DH but I was 17, and he was 19(before we were married). I knew what that it was a huge choice and i knew i was ready and I surprised the hell out of him lol

I think(could be wrong) that in New Mexico if you are 19 that you are "allowed" to go 2 years younger than you , as long as there is no objections with the parents of the younger party. so there is that catch but i think that is fair.

Assuming that in most states the age of consent is 18 I do not think it should be lowered if something like the above is in place. because if the couple has been with each other before the older one turn 18 I don't think it's fair to say that he is commenting a crime the day after he/her 18th birthday if their bf/gf is say 17. does that make sense?

p.s. what is the law of consent in Virgina ? I want to know if we broke the law lol

when I lost my virginity it was to my DH but I was 17, and he was 19(before we were married). I knew what I was doing and I surprised the hell out of him lol

I think(could be wrong) that in New Mexico if you are 19 that you are "allowed" to go 2 years younger than you , as long as there is no objections with the parents of the younger party. so there is that catch but i think that is fair.

Assuming that in most states the age of consent is 18 I do not think it should be lowered if something like the above is in place. because if the couple has been with each other before the older one turn 18 I don't think it's fair to say that he is commenting a crime the day after he/her 18th birthday if their bf/gf is say 17. does that make sense?

p.s. what is the law of consent in Virgina ? I want to know if we broke the law lol

See, that's true...it really makes TONS of sense. But, when you say that it's okay 'if the younger party's parents have no issue'...that could be really bad sometimes.
I know plenty of dad's that would say, oh yeah, he's a great guy honey, go ahead and date him..and show no problem...but if they broke up and his little girl was heart-broken would snap, and take advantage of that rule and take the poor guy's ass to court. KWIM???
Like I said. It's all too complicated.

when I lost my virginity it was to my DH but I was 17, and he was 19(before we were married). I knew what that it was a huge choice and i knew i was ready and I surprised the hell out of him lol

I think(could be wrong) that in New Mexico if you are 19 that you are "allowed" to go 2 years younger than you , as long as there is no objections with the parents of the younger party. so there is that catch but i think that is fair.

Assuming that in most states the age of consent is 18 I do not think it should be lowered if something like the above is in place. because if the couple has been with each other before the older one turn 18 I don't think it's fair to say that he is commenting a crime the day after he/her 18th birthday if their bf/gf is say 17. does that make sense?

p.s. what is the law of consent in Virgina ? I want to know if we broke the law lol

A lot of states have a thing called the "Romeo and Juliet" law that makes it so if there's a 2 year (I think) age difference between a consenting minor (over age 16) and a non-minor, they won't prosecute for rape. I'm not positive on all of the workings of the leeway that is put in place, but it's something like that.

A lot of states have a thing called the "Romeo and Juliet" law that makes it so if there's a 2 year (I think) age difference between a consenting minor (over age 16) and a non-minor, they won't prosecute for rape. I'm not positive on all of the workings of the leeway that is put in place, but it's something like that.

ok if thats the case then i do not think that it should lowered:D

See, that's true...it really makes TONS of sense. But, when you say that it's okay 'if the younger party's parents have no issue'...that could be really bad sometimes.
I know plenty of dad's that would say, oh yeah, he's a great guy honey, go ahead and date him..and show no problem...but if they broke up and his little girl was heart-broken would snap, and take advantage of that rule and take the poor guy's ass to court. KWIM???
Like I said. It's all too complicated.

:puzz:thinking maybe thier could be a consent forum that has to be signed and is legal? so that way they can't go back on their word:dunno maybe there already is:dunno

A lot of states have a thing called the "Romeo and Juliet" law that makes it so if there's a 2 year (I think) age difference between a consenting minor (over age 16) and a non-minor, they won't prosecute for rape. I'm not positive on all of the workings of the leeway that is put in place, but it's something like that.

yup, in wisconsin its really hard to slap an 18 year old with statutory on a 16 year old and 19 with a 17 because of that law. The parent of the younger can press charges but if there is proof of a long term relationship and the 16/17 year old insists they werent pressured in any way.

hmmm they don't mention the law anywhere in my scanning of the article linked to this- they mention setting the consent based on the age between partners but they don't mention a law that already covers it.... like i said i just scanned though


anyways i'm off to bed but i will check this tomorrow :D good night

G'night!!!

Well IMO absolutely not.
BUT I think statutory rape laws need to be revamped.

Defenitely not. I think that it would just encourage teenagers to run over thier parents and push the boundaries even further. Thier excuse, "I am old enough to make that decision and there is nothing you can do about it." Right now if my son, who is 15, tried to do something, I could take action legally as his parent, same with my daughter. Not so much as punishment, but as protection.

In my opinion, no.

Absolutely not. I don't see what, if any, positive coming out of it.

I actually think it the age of consent should be higher than it is. Just because you are an "Adult" at 18 doesn't mean you actually are an adult. Most of the problems with this happen between people who are 16 and 18 or 17 and 19, etc. I think the maturity level of a 16 year old is almost the same as an 18 year old. So there should be some leeway. I don't think an 18 year old is old enough to understand the consequences of a rape charge either...

I don't know its a complicated issue, but either way I don't see punishing two immature kids for having sex as a positive thing. We should really be expecting our children to have sex, its going to happen eventually... humans and all animals are sexual beings. of course I don't think a 30 year old should be doing a 14 year old. But I can't say that its the same as an 18 year old and a 16 year old...

I just hate thinking that are kids that young having sex period!!! I mean when your like 13..do you really know what your doing anyways..I was busy having fun with friends i wasn't worried about having sex!