Should Ireland lower it's age of consent?

pwd

They can be refused though. I think most teenagers would be embarrassed buying contraceptives already so that might provide an extra obstacle. Making contraceptives more easily available to them might give mixed messages about what age they should have sex at, but that's still better than mothers in their mid-teens

Age
There is no set minimum age in Ireland at which contraceptive advice and prescriptions may be provided. The age of consent to sexual activity is 17 and it may be a criminal offence to have sex with a person under the age of 17. This means that providers of contraceptive services are entitled to refuse to provide those services to people under 17. In general the age of consent for health services purposes is 16. There is no doubt that services may not be refused to adults - that is, anyone aged 18 or over.

http://www.dohc.ie/public/information/womens_health/family_planning_services.html

AARRRGH

pwd wrote: »

I think most teenagers would be embarrassed buying contraceptives already so that might provide an extra obstacle.

I agree. It would currently be a bit odd if a 12 year old walked into a chemist and asked for a pack of condoms.

The alternative is to buy them in a pub toilet, but that shouldn't really be the alternative option.

I'm not sure where else they could be provided - school?

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

The two are linked though - the younger the teenager the less likely she is to know about STDs and how important condoms are.

That's why I'm bringing up how vital a good sex education early on is.

I agree, but this topic makes no mention of lowering the age of consent AND improving sex education. It is simply "should we lower the age of consent?"

But the two are relevant to each other. And if the age of consent is lowered, the many young teens who are having sex will have better access to contraception, as well as being equipped with knowledge.

I'm not attacking you Dudess, please don't attack me in response!

I don't consider somebody disagreeing with me to be an attack.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

You are very pro-lower age of consent.

Why is this?

Why do you think it is?

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do you think it is?

How would I know? You haven't given your reason why you think it should be lowered.

brianthebard

I gave it earlier in the thread, you didn't respond to it.

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

I gave it earlier in the thread, you didn't respond to it.

Apologies Brian, I completely missed this:

brianthebard wrote: »

I definitely think it should be lowered, if it is accompanied by better sex ed. In developed countries there is a strong correlation between high teen pregnancy/birth rates and high age of consent. Bringing the age of consent down ( a mere formality really considering that teenagers will have sex if they want to anyways) means the government is forced to give more sex education it would seem to me at least.

I would agree (obviously) with the better sex education, but I disagree with lowering it for the reasons I mentioned earlier (in particular, adults wanting to have sex with young teenagers.)

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

Apologies Brian, I completely missed this:



I would agree (obviously) with the better sex education, but I disagree with lowering it for the reasons I mentioned earlier (in particular, adults wanting to have sex with young teenagers.)

Can you show that this is something we need to be concerned about? Is there a higher instance of 13 year old Spanish kids hooking up with 40,50+ adults than there is in Ireland? Perhaps if you had something solid to go on your argument would be stronger.

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you show that this is something we need to be concerned about? Is there a higher instance of 13 year old Spanish kids hooking up with 40,50+ adults than there is in Ireland? Perhaps if you had something solid to go on your argument would be stronger.

I can only go by anecdotal evidence, but when I was in France and Germany it was common to see older men (e.g. 28) having relationships with teenagers (e.g. 15 or 16).

Thinking about it logically, it makes sense that adults who like teenagers will take advantage of the lower age of consent. Certainly it's unlikely it will have the opposite effect, or no effect at all.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

I can only go by anecdotal evidence, but when I was in France and Germany it was common to see older men (e.g. 28) having relationships with teenagers (e.g. 15 or 16).

Thinking about it logically, it makes sense that adults who like teenagers will take advantage of the lower age of consent. Certainly it's unlikely it will have the opposite effect, or no effect at all.

You checked both individuals passports I assume? I've seen 18 year olds go out with older men too, (28), it proves nothing other than that laws should not be based on anecdotal evidence. It seems very likely to have no effect at all, and you've shown no reason to believe otherwise.

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

You checked both individuals passports I assume? I've seen 18 year olds go out with older men too, (28), it proves nothing other than that laws should not be based on anecdotal evidence. It seems very likely to have no effect at all, and you've shown no reason to believe otherwise.

You really think lowering the age of consent won't increase the number of adults having sex with younger teenagers? You really really hand on heart believe that...?

I'm sorry, but I think you're being very naive. A LOT of men have boners for teenagers. Look how popular "teen" porn is.

Btw, I can identify a child, and I can identify someone my own age. Ask anyone who has lived in France/Germany do they know of old guys going out with young girls, and they'll confirm it is common.

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

Ask anyone who has lived in France/Germany do they know of old guys going out with young girls, and they'll confirm it is common.

If they're going out with those girls, then the girls have a say in it too. If they want to, it's their choice.

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

If they're going out with those girls, then the girls have a say in it too. If they want to, it's their choice.

They're children though.

You think a 16 year old is mentally ready for a 28 year old...?

DublinWriter

Interesting factoid...

During the Victorian Era, the age of consent was 12 and the average age at which a young woman started to menstruate was 16.

These days in the UK, the age of consent is 16 and the average age at which girls begin to menstruate is 12.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

You really think lowering the age of consent won't increase the number of adults having sex with younger teenagers? You really really hand on heart believe that...?

I'm sorry, but I think you're being very naive. A LOT of men have boners for teenagers. Look how popular "teen" porn is.

Btw, I can identify a child, and I can identify someone my own age. Ask anyone who has lived in France/Germany do they know of old guys going out with young girls, and they'll confirm it is common.

how do you know men have boners for teenagers? You are basically suggesting that the ranks of paedophiles will swell and that the only thing stopping them presently is the law-well we all know that's not true.

I'm very happy that you think you can identify a child and a person your own age. But many people would think I'm your age or older and I'm not yet 23. How does that fit into your anecdotal evidence?

AARRRGH

DublinWriter wrote: »

Interesting factoid...

During the Victorian Era, the age of consent was 12 and the average age at which a young woman started to menstruate was 16.

These days in the UK, the age of consent is 16 and the average age at which girls begin to menstruate is 12.

I think that has more to do with today's diet than the age of consent though.

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

They're children though.

You think a 16 year old is mentally ready for a 28 year old...?

They're not children though. There was a time when they were very much adults, and biology hasn't changed. Some 16-year-olds are ridiculously mature. I don't think it's ideal really that a person that young has a partner that much older than them, but fup it, if they're happy they're happy.

That said, I'd have a problem if the guy had no respect for her and just saw her as something to show off and to boast about to his mates. But if he genuinely respects her, then good luck to them...

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

They're not children though. There was a time when they were very much adults, and biology hasn't changed. Some 16-year-olds are ridiculously mature. I don't think it's ideal really that a person that young has a partner that much older than them, but fup it, if they're happy they're happy.

That said, I'd have a problem if the guy had no respect for her and just saw her as something to show off and to boast about to his mates. But if he genuinely respects her, then good luck to them...

16 year olds are children - or at least, "minors". They are not adults.

Most 16 year olds are incredibly naive, whereas most 28 year old men are not. There is a huge mental difference between a 16 year old girl and a 28 year old man. The man is only with her for one thing - her young body.

EDIT: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." So yes, 16 year olds are children.

DublinWriter

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I think you're being very naive. A LOT of men have boners for teenagers. Look how popular "teen" porn is.

...and just for balance, here is a list of recent cases of female adults molesting male children in the USA.

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

how do you know men have boners for teenagers? You are basically suggesting that the ranks of paedophiles will swell and that the only thing stopping them presently is the law-well we all know that's not true.

I used to run porn sites. Teen porn is BY FAR the most popular porn there is.

Also, it is generally known that a lot of men like young girls.

You are correct - the age of consent is stopping a lot of men having sex with 16 year olds. The reason? They don't want to go to jail for rape.

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm very happy that you think you can identify a child and a person your own age. But many people would think I'm your age or older and I'm not yet 23. How does that fit into your anecdotal evidence?

Right, are you just disagreeing for the sake of it?

You think it is impossible for someone to guess someone's age?

I am 100% positive I could tell the difference between a 23 year old and a 28 year old.

I'm guessing by what you wrote though that you think it's ok for a 23 year old to be with a 16 year old...?

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

16 year olds are children.

They're not, seeing as they're physically developing into adults... if not already developed into adults. And they are sexual beings with desires like you or I. They're young men and women - physically.
I agree, not emotionally, but that doesn't make them children. A child is someone who hasn't even started to develop an adult physicality, who's into toys, games, children's TV and books.
When people call men who have sex with developed teenagers paedophiles, they are wrong. Teen girls can be very womanly in shape. A guy who fancies a 15-year-old girl will not fancy a nine-year-old playing hopscotch.

Most 16 year olds are incredibly naive, whereas most 28 year old men are not.

Agreed.

The man is only with her for one thing - her young body.

Sure, in lots of cases... But how do you know there aren't cases where it's for her body AND her personality? How do you know there aren't cases where the guy doesn't feel comfortable about the age gap but can't help how he feels about her and decides to go for it - with her encouragement and reassurance. There are some extremely mature 16-year-olds, as I said.

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

I used to run porn sites. Teen porn is BY FAR the most popular porn there is.

Those girls are still over the age of consent.

I'm guessing by what you wrote though that you think it's ok for a 23 year old to be with a 16 year old...?

Well I certainly do depending on the circumstances.

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

They're not, seeing as they're physically developing into adults... if not already developed into adults. And they are sexual beings with desires like you or I. They're young men and women - physically.
I agree, not emotionally, but that doesn't make them children. A child is someone who hasn't even started to develop an adult physicality, who's into toys, games, children's TV and books.

Dudess, they are legally children.

Here, look at this for a legal definition of a child: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0024/sec0003.html#parti-sec3

“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;"

Can we accept a 16 year old is a child and move on?

Dudess wrote: »

When people call men who have sex with developed teenagers paedophiles, they are wrong. Teen girls can be very womanly in shape. A guy who fancies a 15-year-old girl will not fancy a nine-year-old playing hopscotch.

I don't think they are paedophiles, but I think they have issues.

Dudess wrote: »

Sure, in lots of cases... But how do you know there aren't cases where it's for her body AND her personality? How do you know there aren't cases where the guy doesn't feel comfortable about the age gap but can't help how he feels about her and decides to go for it - with her encouragement and reassurance. There are some extremely mature 16-year-olds, as I said.

Dudess, would you agree in general, it is not alright for a 16 year old to be in a relationship with a 28 year old?

Forget about exceptions where the girl is amazingly mature for her age, just in general, you agree it is wrong?

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

Those girls are still over the age of consent.

But they are dressed to look younger, and it implies men like "younger" girls. You disagree? The popularity of teen porn means nothing?

Macha

AARRRGH wrote: »

EDIT: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." So yes, 16 year olds are children.

I think an important point to make is that all of these age limitations, be they when an child becomes an adult, for voting, drinking, driving, consenting to sex, are legal necessities. We need these legal lines to be drawn up so that the laws put in place can function.

But we also need to recognise that they are little more than theoretical and convenient lines in the sand. The reality of an individual's mental, psychological and sexual development cannot be simplified down to the arrival at a particular birthday.

Therefore the laws that allow for this, such as the aforementioned Dutch laws seem to be more appropriate and realistic. There is a world of difference between a 50-year old having sex with a 16-year old and a 17-year old having sex with a 16-year old, however in the eyes of Irish law, both are equally illegal.

philologos

AARRRGH wrote: »

16 year olds are children - or at least, "minors". They are not adults.

Most 16 year olds are incredibly naive, whereas most 28 year old men are not. There is a huge mental difference between a 16 year old girl and a 28 year old man. The man is only with her for one thing - her young body.

EDIT: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." So yes, 16 year olds are children.

I agree with this totally. I apologise if I am taking anyone wrong here, however the argument being put forward by brianthebard, and Dudess in particular is one of a liberal policy towards sexual behaviour. I guess this is understandable. However what seems to be the main focus of the argument is a moral one.

Is it morally acceptable that a teenager should be even deemed to be of the age of sexual maturity though?

Is it morally acceptable that a teenager may be vulnerable to entering into a sexual relationship with a much older man?

The questions could go on and on. I think in relation to both of these questions, I would be arguing that they are immoral from a secular perspective rather than a religious one, as there is nothing clearly saying that this could not happen if we look at the Biblical record etc.

However, can we expect a teenager to be ready to engage in the adult world, and I think no matter how we attempt to liberalise the main argument, I think for most people that sexual behaviour is an act of expression to be shared between two consenting adults. However the problem lies in that we are attempting to legalise a relationship between minors and adults. Which is tricky territory.

Although people might say that this is only based on moral taboos, this is not an easy question to answer, and the consensus should come down to what us as the Irish people deem as acceptable, perhaps even by referendum if it was to be changed ever in the future. I personally think that since sexual relations is something that is commonly associated with adults, that it should be only be legally acceptable for adults.

To keep some norm of what is acceptable and unacceptable and to retain this is far more important than liberalising the law in my view.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

I used to run porn sites. Teen porn is BY FAR the most popular porn there is.

Also, it is generally known that a lot of men like young girls.

You are correct - the age of consent is stopping a lot of men having sex with 16 year olds. The reason? They don't want to go to jail for rape.




Right, are you just disagreeing for the sake of it?

You think it is impossible for someone to guess someone's age?

I am 100% positive I could tell the difference between a 23 year old and a 28 year old.

I'm guessing by what you wrote though that you think it's ok for a 23 year old to be with a 16 year old...?

I think that claiming because you guessed someone was a certain age that the age of consent shouldn't be lowered is a really, really poor argument.

I'm 100% positive that your guesswork is not what laws should be based on.

And finally, less insinuations please, they just make your argument even worse.

Show me the figures that say French teen are going out with French men (28 or older) at a higher percentage than here, and I'll agree you've an argument. Since you saw it so mcuh there must be something that can back up your statement.

AARRRGH

I agree taconnol, but we need those lines in the sand.

I have to say I am very surprised people seem to think a 28 year old having a relationship with a 16 year old is a non-issue.

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm 100% positive that your guesswork is not what laws should be based on.

Brian, it is DENIAL to think a lower age of consent will make no difference.

Think of it like this: if the age of consent in Ireland was 20, there would be less men having sex with 18 and 19 year olds. This is because most men do not want to go to jail for rape.

However, as the age of consent in Ireland is 17, we both know - although you'll probably disagree because I can't provide figures - that there are plenty of men having sex with 18 and 19 year olds.

The same thing will happen when if you make sex with 16 year olds legal. Yes, not all men have a thing for young girls, but a lot do. As stated previously, "teen porn" is the most popular type of porn. I can't provide figures for the ages of the men who look at teen porn, but I suspect quite a lot of them aren't teenagers.

brianthebard wrote: »

And finally, less insinuations please, they just make your argument even worse.

I was just commenting on what you wrote.

brianthebard wrote: »

Show me the figures that say French teen are going out with French men (28 or older) at a higher percentage than here, and I'll agree you've an argument. Since you saw it so mcuh there must be something that can back up your statement.

Can you provide figures showing the opposite of what I say?

Macha

AARRRGH wrote: »

Can you provide figures showing the opposite of what I say?

Ah now AARRRGH...that's just lazy debating!

AARRRGH wrote: »

I agree taconnol, but we need those lines in the sand.

Yes me too, but I'm saying we need laws that recognise the difference between a 50yr old having sex with a 16yr old and a 17yr old having sex with a 16yr old.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

I was just commenting on what you wrote.

You were making dangerous assumptions, that show your mindset in this debate and show why your "educated guesses" are not to be trusted.

Can you provide figures showing the opposite of what I say?

Its your argument, why should I have to prove or disprove it for you?

philologos

Just because there is no indication that it will cause older people to go out with younger people, that is only one aspect of what could be seen to be troublesome with lowering the age of consent, the other being merely is it right for teenagers to be doing something that really is an adult act in the first place? It's a questions of ethics rather than anything else.

brianthebard

But we already know they are doing it anyways Jakkass. Is it ethical to allow people who are capable of reproducing to be ignorant of that, and thus to become pregnant before they want to?

K4t

From browsing through this thread for no more than a minute I learnt from various posters that some had not recieved 'sex ed in school until 5th year' and some not at all. Add to this the people who happen to be absent on the one day the school is providing 'sed ed'.

In my opinion, before you can start to have a debate on lowering the age of consent, the topic of sexual education must be tackled first.

- I think that Sex Ed should be compulsory in all secondary schools in the country and to be given by a qualified person from the health service.

- I think it should be provided for students no later than 4th year and that 10 classes a year be provided. Have them instead of bloody religion class. This country might start to progress.

philologos

It's ethical to actively discourage sex before reaching adulthood, but unfortunately the Government is not going to take such a line. Just because something exists in society doesn't mean we can't take affirmative action in society to change it.

As for "allowing" people to become pregnant, that isn't what it's about. Other posters in this thread have already said that contraception is avaliable to all, although I wouldn't be highly supportive of encouraging teenagers to have sex, but raising it to 18 in law would at least set Ireland's ethical standard.

brianthebard

No its ethical according to your ethics, which are not universal, nor should they be.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

No its ethical according to your ethics, which are not universal, nor should they be.

It's certainly unethical to further blur the lines between what a child is and what an adult is by lowering the age of consent again. It's already hard enough for some adults apparently to tell the age between a 14 year old and a 17 year old (theres been court cases concerning such confusion in Ireland if I remember a case on RTÉ News I heard a year or two ago). Think of how much more difficult it will be to determine if someone is of a lower consent age.

I guess the difference is between a more conservative viewpoint that ensures certainty, and a more liberal viewpoint that allows for a lot of confusion.

As for it being ethical according to my ethics, are you telling me that the idea that sexual relations is something to be had between "two consenting adults" is not a widespread viewpoint in society?

I actually read that exact phrase being brought up when there was a thread on incest a few months ago here by more liberal posters.

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

It's certainly unethical to further blur the lines between what a child is and what an adult is by lowering the age of consent again. It's already hard enough for some adults apparently to tell the age between a 14 year old and a 17 year old (theres been court cases concerning such confusion in Ireland if I remember a case on RTÉ News I heard a year or two ago). Think of how much more difficult it will be to determine if someone is of a lower consent age.

I guess the difference is between a more conservative viewpoint that ensures certainty, and a more liberal viewpoint that allows for a lot of confusion.

As for it being ethical according to my ethics, are you telling me that the idea that sexual relations is something to be had between "two consenting adults" is not a widespread viewpoint in society?

I actually read that exact phrase being brought up when there was a thread on incest a few months ago here by more liberal posters.

I agree we shouldn't blur the lines-therefore, we should set an age of consent that acknowledges a person's ability to reproduce even if they aren't 18. The problem with your argument is you want to keep these children from having sex until they are adults, and probably until they are married. This sort of attitude is clearly not going to work. It clearly isn't working.
So unless you can come up with a comprehensive strategy that backs up your plan and guarantees total abstinence why do you persist with your position? You must realise that teens are having sex one way or the other, and by decriminialising that and making those teens educated before they are capable of reproducing, we have a better chance of teaching those teens that they can talk about sex openly, that sex without protection is a bad idea, that they should take seriously the idea that they should wait and not succumb to peer pressure. Because peer pressure only works when based on rumours and hidden in the shadows. Bring sex out of the shadows and you will hear less stories about teen mothers, less people losing their virginity because of peer pressure, etc, etc.

The only certainty about your viewpoint is that children as you see them will continue to get pregnant in greater numbers if you insist on treating them as incapable of thinking for themselves, than if they are treated with respect, tolerance and a capacity for reason.

Macha

Jakkass wrote: »

It's ethical to actively discourage sex before reaching adulthood, but unfortunately the Government is not going to take such a line. Just because something exists in society doesn't mean we can't take affirmative action in society to change it.

Given the government's limited resources, I'm not sure they have the money to launch what might ultimately prove to be a fruitless campaign.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "allowing" people to become pregnant, that isn't what it's about. Other posters in this thread have already said that contraception is avaliable to all, although I wouldn't be highly supportive of encouraging teenagers to have sex, but raising it to 18 in law would at least set Ireland's ethical standard.

Contraception may be available to all in the strict sense of the term but
-an expensive (to a child..) appointment with a GP is necessary to gain access to emergency contraception
-we have some of the most expensive and highly taxed contraception in the world (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/worlds-most-expensive-places-to-have-sex/1405)
-lack of education: we keep coming back to the lack of sex ed. Some people seem to have a warped view that teaching your kid about sex somehow encourages promiscuity. The same argument was trotted out agains the HPV vaccine - absolutely disgusting.

philologos

Just because someone is capable of reproducing before they are 18 does not mean that we should be encouraging for them to have sex before that stage. It seems that all you are interested in doing is legislating so that people can do whatever they want. That isn't the way life works. That kind of attitude would only serve to make teenage pregnancy more common, and more young teens being convinced that it is "time to have a baby". It's absurd. The Government shouldn't be encouraging that kind of nonsense, and I hope it never will.

I believe that at times teenagers can be very irrational on making decisions for themselves, that's why we have drawn a line between adolescence and adulthood.

As for it "not working", I'm fairly confident it would work better than liberalising it and telling teenagers it's okay to have kids.

I agree with you on lack of education. I think that a huge effort should be made in this area to promote all kinds of contraception, and to discuss other things such as abstinence, and to educate about what happens in abortions if they are to happen and so on.

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

Dudess, they are legally children.

Here, look at this for a legal definition of a child: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0024/sec0003.html#parti-sec3

“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;"

Can we accept a 16 year old is a child and move on?

No. Would you like to have been put in the same bracket as a 9-year-old when you were 17? That definition of a child can't be applied to every situation.

I don't think they are paedophiles, but I think they have issues.

For fancying a developed teenager? Or are you just referring to going out with her, not simply fancying her?

Dudess, would you agree in general, it is not alright for a 16 year old to be in a relationship with a 28 year old?

Forget about exceptions where the girl is amazingly mature for her age, just in general, you agree it is wrong?

Generally speaking, it ain't great. But I prefer to take things on a case-by-case basis rather than generalising. So I tend to bear in mind the variations between each case rather than applying a blanket to them all.

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it morally acceptable that a teenager should be even deemed to be of the age of sexual maturity though?

Biologically, teenagers are sexual beings. No getting away from it. Once upon a time, teenagers were living like adults - working, marrying, having children. It's only society that has changed the definition of adult.

Is it morally acceptable that a teenager may be vulnerable to entering into a sexual relationship with a much older man?

No, but that doesn't apply to all teenagers in relationships with much older people.
Believe me, the idea of 13 and 14-year-olds being promiscuous is absolutely horrendous to me. But it's happening whether we like it or not. I would also prefer a sex ed programme that places an emphasis on abstinence early on in a person's teens (but done in a positive way rather than a preachy way), and sex within a loving, respectful relationship. I am of the view that promiscuity isn't as much of an issue later in life when people have some sexual experience and can put themselves in charge of the situation... but I don't consider this appropriate for people who are in the early stages of their lives as sexual beings.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am 100% positive I could tell the difference between a 23 year old and a 28 year old.

How are you so sure? You can't predict the future so you don't know that there'll never be a time when you won't be able to tell that particular difference. And even if you could 100% of the time, that's just you - and I'm sure there are many others like you. However, we're all different, and plenty of people - I included - get ages wrong by huge margins.

Jakkass wrote: »

is it right for teenagers to be doing something that really is an adult act in the first place?

Again, biologically teenagers are adults.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because something exists in society doesn't mean we can't take affirmative action in society to change it.

I just can't see that happening - instead I could see "rebelling" occurring. Therefore, if the age of consent were lowered in accordance with what's happening already, sex education and contraception availability and programmes might be more accessible to reflect this - thus preventing gym-slip mums and STDs.

Macha

Actually this reminds me of the anti-smoking campaigns to get kids to stop. I remember reading about a study that proved that adults telling kids not to smoke didn't have the desired effect..I think it was in Gladwell's Tipping Point..

acorntoast

I'm looking for statistical analysis of early sexual intercourse.

Here are some statistics on the effects from Canada (age of consent is 14)

statcan

Similarly, early age at first intercourse also increased the risk. Those who had had sexual intercourse by age 13 were more than twice as likely to report an STD than were those who had waited until they were older.

Also, girls whose self-concept was weak at ages 12 or 13 were more likely than those with a strong self-concept to have had sexual intercourse by 14 or 15. The opposite was true for boys.

I'll post more as I dig it up.

philologos

The same argument is used for legalising substances. They already use drugs already so why not legalise it? Prostitution is rampant already why not legalise it? It's ridiculous. What is right and wrong is sometimes more important to uphold.

Macha

Jakkass wrote: »

What is right and wrong is sometimes more important to uphold.

This is where I would differ from you. I am more worried about the real-world consequences and impacts of different measures, rather than vainly holding onto ideas of "what is right and wrong".

And that goes for drugs, prostitution, age of consent, everything.

Dudess

By the way, Jakass, on these Boards I've been nicknamed "Prudess"
I'm not actually that liberal when it comes to trends in sexual behaviour. It's more me being a realist than anything else...

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because someone is capable of reproducing before they are 18 does not mean that we should be encouraging for them to have sex before that stage. It seems that all you are interested in doing is legislating so that people can do whatever they want. That isn't the way life works. That kind of attitude would only serve to make teenage pregnancy more common, and more young teens being convinced that it is "time to have a baby". It's absurd. The Government shouldn't be encouraging that kind of nonsense, and I hope it never will.

There's a distinct difference between acknowledging the capability of a 14 year old to procreate, and telling a 14 year old to procreate. One that you can't help but notice in my argument, unless of course you wish to ignore it.

I believe that at times teenagers can be very irrational on making decisions for themselves, that's why we have drawn a line between adolescence and adulthood.

As for it "not working", I'm fairly confident it would work better than liberalising it and telling teenagers it's okay to have kids.

I agree with you on lack of education. I think that a huge effort should be made in this area to promote all kinds of contraception, and to discuss other things such as abstinence, and to educate about what happens in abortions if they are to happen and so on.

I'm fairly confident that teen pregnancy figures are rising here and in the UK, despite our respective age of consent being higher than France, Germany and the Netherlands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4584175.stm

Low expectations of education and employment opportunities for some young people, ignorance about contraception, and mixed messages about sex from the adult world are all cited.

And yet people still think its ok if we just hang onto our higher age of consent and not tell kids what sex is, maybe they won't get curious? Dream on.

philologos

So taconol, do you not think that moral consistency is important to have within a society?

AARRRGH

taconnol wrote: »

Ah now AARRRGH...that's just lazy debating!

Asking for statistics on things you don't agree with or know can't be proved... that's lazy debating!

I was trying to point that out. :pac:

brianthebard wrote: »

You were making dangerous assumptions, that show your mindset in this debate and show why your "educated guesses" are not to be trusted.

None of us can conclusively prove anything we're saying, but it is more reasonable to think lowering the age of consent will cause more adults to have sex with legal-age teenagers. As stated numerous times, the threat of jail time stops a lot of people having sex with young teenagers.

Dudess wrote: »

No. Would you like to have been put in the same bracket as a 9-year-old when you were 17? That definition of a child can't be applied to every situation.

I already said I will accept "minor", but legally an under 18 is a child. It's a totally irrelevant issue anyway.

Dudess wrote: »

For fancying a developed teenager? Or are you just referring to going out with her, not simply fancying her?

I believe every man is capable of being attracted to a developed, pretty teenager, but I think only certain men are capable of acting on those urges, let alone forming a relationship with a young teenager. I would consider the men who act on the urges to have issues.

Dudess wrote: »

Generally speaking, it ain't great. But I prefer to take things on a case-by-case basis rather than generalising. So I tend to bear in mind the variations between each case rather than applying a blanket to them all.

The problem I have with taking everything down to a case-by-case basis is you can apply that to everything. It means you can say the Nazi's weren't "bad", because some of them individually were "good", etc.

We have to generalise somewhat when we talk!

Dudess wrote: »

How are you so sure? You can't predict the future so you don't know that there'll never be a time when you won't be able to tell that particular difference. And even if you could 100% of the time, that's just you - and I'm sure there are many others like you. However, we're all different, and plenty of people - I included - get ages wrong by huge margins.

This is all fairly irrelevant. The guys I saw (and I saw many of them) may have even been in their 30's. They were old guys. Most people, to some degree, can tell roughly what age most people are.

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

The same argument is used for legalising substances. They already use drugs already so why not legalise it? Prostitution is rampant already why not legalise it? It's ridiculous. What is right and wrong is sometimes more important to uphold.

Sounds like your position boils down to "where's the moral outrage??" Calm, clear consideration of the issues not enough? (yay alliteration).