I recently heard from a friend that the legal age for having sexual activities with one was 14. I had no idea there was even a legal sex age. If there is one, I'd like to discuss the different views on it, I for one think it's very strait-minded and a very traditionalized law.

DISCUSS.

In England the age is 16.
I think that it's good in some ways but goes againsts peoples rights.
It's the persons individual choice what they do with their body.

Individuals should choose but not before 16 (like in UK law).

It differs from states, most states are either 16 or 18, while others are low as 14.

Source: avert.org

It creaps me out that in some "poorer" countries children are having babies from the age of about 8. It's discusting to even think of somebody that hasn't even hit puberty yet even having sex, let alont getting pregnant.

16 is the lowest age it should go, that is what it is in the UK.

I agree because at that age most teens are coming to the end of puberty so it wont have a major affect on the body. Puberty is the time when the body becomes sexually mature so it is around that time that a persons body will accept sex. Generally.

Thats exactly what i said you don't have to repeat it just say i agree with that person.

I think the age of 14 is good, but obviously it has to be consensual, that should go unsaid.

As long as you are responsible enough to.

Honestly, I don't think there should be a legal age for sexual intercourse. There are laws that state in the US that we are free individuals and can do whatever with our bodies. :P I really have no arguement, though. Just my opinion. >.<

I'm not saying you should have sex when you're like 12. No no haha. But people have their own ideas!!

I think the age is 16, i don't really mind though

Actually the 'legal age' to have sex applies to minors only in the US and technically is the age that you can legally give consent to have sex. Any man over 18 who taps a girl underage is legally raping her even if she is of legal age to give consent.

But I don't care. If kids underage are going to have sex they probably won't care about the laws anyway.

In sweden the legal sex age is 15, but if both of them are under 15 it's legal.

I think having a law against it is stupid I mean laws were made to be broken. really it's an unnecesarry law cos almost no one follows it.

Here it is 14. However it doesn't matter what they put the age at. People will have sex when they want, and damn the law. So overall it seems somewhat pointless. I say somewhat since it does protect people.

I think the law means well when they impose an age of consent. However, I don't think it will help. Kids are going to have sex regardless what the law says.

This is a dicey topic, since depending on one's upbringing, your point of view can be quite different. To me it should be 18 to 20, since I view that as the point of time one becomes an adult. 14 years seems like one would be too emotionally unprepared for what could occur. We're all so hung up on whether or not we should go through with it that we miss the consequences of what could occur if we do act on that impulse. That's how STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and ruined families occur. An individual should take responsibility for their own actions, which includes their choices in regards to sex. If they are mature enough and responsible enough to accept whatever comes, then I have no problem. Most of the time, though, there are people in their 40's to 50's who are still immature in that regard. :P

And we can, for the most part. The age limit is there so that when consent is given for sex, the consent is informed (not really sure what the legal jargon is).

Here where I live, it's 18. It seems that it's higher than most places...... which, speaking impartially, is better, because like Drgnmastr_Alex says, older people are generally more emotionally prepared for sex and long-term commitment.

(Though I wouldn't mind in the least if the limit was lowered to 16, because then I could get laid. *cough*)

16 in Vermont.

*Pelvic thrusts*

16-17 years of age sound about right.

PEEDOHFEELEUH

I think its should be 16-18. This is a mature time for most and people around this age usually are mature and are able to make responsible choices.

I think it should be lowered (the age of consent, that is). Let the stupid teenagers face the consequences for their actions when they decide to have sex at 13 or 14. If they're dumb enough to not take control of what they're doing and think for a minute "Maybe I'm not ready for this", they should have to face what's coming.

It all depends on your culture. In some parts of the world, girls are expected to marry at age 14 or younger. As for the US, I would say 16. Definetly not any younger.

anything less for 16 can be dangerous for everyone. the guy, the chick, and the parents.

there is not much more need to be said

I think that what should matter is not the base age of the two, but their ability as parents.

Juliet was around the age of 14; in ancient Rome women married around the age of 13 or 14.

The man was normally a lot older. Thus, people thought it was acceptable since the man could provide for the girl materially and would be mature (usually) enough to make good decisions.

To me, having sex should mean that one is mature enough to care for a child. In this current world, I don't see many teens who are mature enough to be a parent. Thus I think that 18 should be a base legal age, but I would think that 21 would be better.

yes and no, during the time of juliet and romeo, the life expectence was quite short, thus, to procreate properly, they had to start at a much younger age.

Just a nitpick - Romeo and Juliet doesn't take place in ancient Rome. Not sure if that's what you intended to say, but your wording kind of melted the two together.

But yes, the marriage age was much lower because the average life expectancy for quite some time was only 30 or 40.

That said, I still think people are going to have sex at whatever age they want to regardless of what age it's "legal". It's like drugs - they're illegal, but people will still do them if they really want to.

Therefore, why set a legal age so high? That's just an a**holish way to charge people with rape, even if both parties consented. (I watch waaaay too much Law & Order: SVU)

Still, the average age of puberty was higher, too, meaning sixteen year-olds might still not have approached puberty. So a twelve year-old would be pretty much prepubescent. I'm not that sure about this, but didn't Gaius Julius Caesar delay consumnating his marriage with his first wife until they were both older?

Yeah, but making it illegal is a great deterrent for most people-- I wouldn't be thinking of smoking weed anytime soon, as I might have if it wasn't illegal in my country.

Yeah, I agree. about this bit. The 'rape' label seems a little harsh to me.

Honestly, I'm libertarian. And people should be able to do whatever the (excuse my language) hell they like wand want, as long as they're not infringing on others rights. If the two people are consenting and are aware of the possible consequences, that is there decision. Are they harming anyone else? If they take the proper precautions, no. And then that brings my to the point that someone will likely bring up of, "they don't know what they're doing, they'll have a child, the child will be miserable." Well, yes... I do agree somewhat there, however this is something that happens all the time. Do we throw adults into prison for having a child when they cannot care for it? No. And we shouldn't throw kids in jail for this either. My stance is simple. Governments should not control what the hell we do. As long as we're not infringing on anyone else's rights, we can do whatever we like. And no government is going to tell us otherwise. No matter what, because we the people own whatever government is over our heads. Not the other way around.

Are you sure? Considering it's very rare for a girl to start her periods before 13, which is what you need to have a baby.

Maybe they're having sex at 8, but I highly doubt alot aren't getting pregnant untill later on - But either way, it's still wrong.



I grew up in the UK, so I stand by what I've known which is 16 or over is legal. I'd never go with anyone under that age.

Should people REALLY do whatever they want? The law is the only thing that keeps adult perverts from fiddling with kids. Even if the child is consenting, we mustn't forget that their easily taken for granted.

For instance, should it be okay for a 13 year old with a 30 year old? It sounds disgusting to me whether or not they are consenting. The 13 year old simply doesn't know what their getting in too and something like this can ruien their lives later on.

Whenever the person is ready.

Well, that's getting back into governments stepping into peoples own lives. If someone doesn't want to have sex, they don't want to. People should be able to decide for themselves. These governments shouldn't be telling us what's right, what's wrong, what to do with our bodies, what's disgusting, what isn't, who to vote for, etcetera. These are our own lives. These governments shouldn't be telling us how to run it.

Oh, so basically, we should have no laws at all? Thats what your concept means, you can't just say; "Oh, lets obide by SOME laws."

So, all in all, you're saying everyone should be allowed to do what they want?

So, what if someone want's to kill someone, is that okay? What if someone wants to steal something, is that all good because it's what they want?

Laws stated by the goverment are there to keep us in line and not cause this world to go in to chaos [even though it's enough chaos as it is.] The law is there to protect us - including these "Children" who you think should be prohibited to have sex with adults, how is that justice? It isn't, does a 12 year old really know what their getting in too? I mean, honestly...

The law is the only thing there from adults taking advantage of young children.

Actually girls can have their period like at 11, I know. Just trust me on this.
Even if they are having sex at the age of 8 you can't get pregnant since you don't have any eggs and the sperm won't find it, and thus die. it will just come out in the urine.

Being able to have sex at 16 isn't very good. What if the girl is pregnant? Are you sure you will be able to deal with it? Maybe the girl will but lets face it, most guys at that time are still pretty stupid and just think/do stupid things.

Well, 11, 13, close enough. I know it was around those age ranges.

And we can't hold people back from having sex forever; we put out all the needed protection to stop them having kids [such as condoms and the pill].

And, in my judgement by the time you're 16 you've left school, can get your own place, so you SHOULD have the sense to have safe sex. I'm not saying every 16 year old does have this sense, but then again if they go ahead and have sex without protection, then there out their own risk.

Besides, just because you have sex doesn't mean you're definately going to get pregnant. I'm all for people at the legal age of 16 having sex, as long as they're not stupid and use protection, of which they should have the sense too by then.

No. I'm saying that the government shouldn't make un-needed laws and try to run our lives. See, I'm libertarian. And I believe that governments have the right, or rather obligation to make laws that prevent people from infringing on others rights. I believe people should be free to do whatever they like, as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights. So when it comes to the legal sex age, if both are consenting and are willing to face the consequences; and are using protection, who's rights are they infringing on? No one's. At least not on purpose. So why should there be a law stating when you can have sex? Get what I'm saying?

All in all, there's a set limit on the age of a "minor." So i believe that's it's best to keep sex engaging at that age (18 in the US.) This way, they can at least get their high school education. What they do after that is totally up to them.

Would the parents not know what's best for their own child? The parents should decide. Not the government. The government is there to protect citizens rights and privacy. Not to enforce what they think is right.

I know. Romeo and Juliet took place in Italy, but different time period and different city. I'm just stating that people started young but they were able to take care of their children.

I know people are still going to do it even if the age of consent went higher. What I think is that the law shouldn't see it as rape if it was done under consent. But I think the two who had sex should be forced to take a parenting class. I don't think that that would be too a**holish, right?