What should the age of consent be?

Crossing boundries. Terrific observation.
It's mind boggling how an assemblage of original traitors to the King founded this country by crossing political, religious and social boundries, then decided to establish a bill of rights that dangled carrot like on an invisible stick, then to draft a constitution that excluded practically everyone, except an elete land owning cult of secret society members.

Now, an amazing amount of boundries are in flux that include a multitude of previous taboos guaranteed to get a person hung. I'm not even going to bother mentioning them. They are tabloid news fodder.

The idea of expanding the age of consent should be of primary concern to todays political leaders. Our government is being controlled (ruled) by the oldest serving members ever. There is no upper age limit for public offices, yet these antiquarians continue to control the youth of the country and do it without any consideration simply because the age of consent dosen't count for anything.

The attitude about sex is that people will have sex with minors as long as they don't get caught, which gets them hung.

Sorry..I ramble.

 

I hear ya! It's like we live in a blackmail-ocracy. The consent trap is but one part, but a critical one. Get it ingrained in the public mind that this age you dreamt up at which you're suddenly free to experience one of life's most basic needs with someone of experience who can teach, but prior you must hold back, is essential to "protecting children".

I get why the public buys into the argument. The proponents throw the terror of child rape into the mix as if that were what's at stake, when that's a separate issue from consent, as it is with adults. Mediocre minds don't parse the difference though.

I can't forget when I was young a case where a teacher was caught for having sex with a fifteen year old student. The teacher was being vilified for being abusive of his position and raping the girl, facing a near life sentence behind bars. The story I watched on TV included a brief interview with the girl in which she called it an injustice, said she wanted it and it was fun. That really made an impact on me. The young lady was truly distraught over her kind teacher being made out to be a monster and she being portrayed as some poor victim, which she made clear neither was the case.

I differ with you on the oldest members doing the ruling. I see them as just the actors being controlled by the rulers behind the scenes directing them on critical issues. The current speaker as much as admitted that when he did a 180 recently on issues he was adamantly against then reluctantly for, after letting it be known that he was given a "talking to".

I don't see the age of the officiants nearly as much as how long they've been in power. Term limits would keep fresh perspectives, and we've been pushing those for decades, but the very ones who benefit from remaining in their positions are the very ones who would have to vote them into place. Plus it's not in the interest of the elites who control the key figures because once they have them captured they'll do as they're told, and whenever a new body gets into a key position they have to spend time convincing he or she to get on board. Check out the "Atlantic counsel".

When the Constitution was written, there was a lot of land available for the taking. The people didn't even have to buy it, they could just settle it, live on it and work it, and it was theirs to defend. Nevertheless, nothing about the Constitution suggests owners of land are an ingredient. In fact the Constitution along with the bill of rights was established to limit the powers of government over the people. It's the government's stretching of the interpretation which slowly built today's massive bureaucracy, and their effective propaganda campaigns convincing the public that all these little infringements are for the public good, i.e., the "general welfare". Add to that the "Karens" (whiners) complaining about how somebody else's freedom is infringing on their rights to pursue happiness, and the result is so many rules and regulations such that no one person could read them all in one lifetime. And now these are used as ammunition to silence any persuasive attempts to topple any agendas they deem critical. And to put in line any citizens that seem to be stepping out of bounds.

The consent issue is just another government power play to keep people in line. Something that the people as a whole might be inclined to revisit and revise but since it has its place as a tool of control then bar something crazy happening it's going to be held fast.

 

Agreed that hidden powers control the public face of government. And even cheap Hollywood detective movies plot out the primary methodology. Follow the money. Greed has always been at the forefront. And I still contend the early founders were intent in keeping control of the illeterate masses. Ownership being essential to vote, to pay taxes and to increase american empire building. All men may have been created equal if you were a white land owning male..all others will be subjected to slavery, genocide, eminent domain and/or heavily taxed. I still see plenty of that.

 

The bright side is that we can afford a powerful enough military such that nobody can easily take us over. Of course they're trying to bring us down from the inside but at least that's a slow process. Yes greed is just another word for wanting to excel; it's all innate human instinct. The pursuit of power is one result and we establish a "pecking order" just like animals.

I'm not so sure that wasn't the best idea, for those who have skin in the game to vote. It sure would help motivate more people to do so.

I can't read the founders' minds but I feel like they wanted to create a citizenry where everybody had a chance to make the best of themselves. Notwithstanding how everyone viewed the negros in the day, which we came to recognize as abhorrent a century later. Just given what they had to work with when they were hashing it out. Did they take on the same legal age of consent as their prior English lords?

 

-

 

Based on all the stupid ridiculous decisions I've made until I was in my 30s - What should the age of consent be? 30s

Also based on many of the decisions I see other so called adults make - 30s or 40s

 

-

 

-

 

For teen couples, 15. For adult couples, 18.

 

:-0

 

???

 

Agree! ;-)

 

Ohh

 

This is a very touchy subject for sure. And really there is no right answer for everyone.

 

My apologies for sounding negative on this one but, 38 for most men. I have never run across so many self-centered egotistical dweeb men as those mostly between 24 & 38. Definitely most should not be having babies or anything that might produce them until the men themselves mature. As for the ladies, you seem to have your acts together much sooner. No idea on your age.

 

In my country we have two ages of consent. 14 and 16. The in-between of 14 and 16 is a gray area whereas a teen of that age is legally allowed to have sex with people under 21 however it's still a fellony for a full fledged adult to have sex of any kind with a minor of 14 or 15 and that's perfectly fine.

Grooming is an awful think and it can be do to any person regardless their age and gender. Nothing makes me want to puke more than a person abusing someone either pyhsically, mentally, or both and their shield themselves under the pretex of "she/he was legal, their ID says they're 20". That's not how sexual offending works.

On the other hand I can't stand the hard 18 year old or we call the FBI people. As if they want to pretend a human being discover sex exists when they turn 18. Let the teenarges explore and make love with one another, it's a beautiful stage of life and placing shame on sex only serves to give rise to a very traumatized and insecure adult who won't be able to enjoy an adult sex life. And that's sad.

 

At least 18 though when I was 12 I wanted it to be 12 because I had a crush on someone older than 18

 

I think a lot of people had puppy crushes on older people, whether it was a celebrity, or someone we sort of knew.

 

It's been just shy of two years when I made a post on this thread.
Looking at some old photos from my childhood, around the age of 12 or 13 . One of the group photos had a girl in it. It took me a while to remember who she was. I can picture the house that she lived in but not the name. But I remember her being over friendly witha few of the boys the same age that I was. To the extent of one of them telling us about their "game" no as a adult I realize the game was sexual intercourse. At the age of 11 or 12. Was it right ? As a adult now I will say definitely not. But back then it was shocking hearing what they were doing. Did I think it was wrong ? I don't think that , at the time that I did. Because I had no idea at the time of what sex was, and what it meant. There wasn't any education classes at that age. And looking back how does a 11-12 year old know what to do? This was way before cable TV or the internet. So the desire seemed to have been there. But the maturity definitely wasn't. And I think the age where mental maturity is there should be the deciding factor. And protection is needed . So I feel laws for it are necessary.

Anyway that's my take one the subject.

 

I grew up in the US and I remember schoolmates having sex with each other starting around 13. Some girls were very open about welcoming it and many weren't choosy, they would do various boys, anyone willing. It didn't seem odd to me at the time, that's just what they were doing. The girls' moms would start them on birth control pills when they got their first period, as a precautionary measure. For many, they took it as permission, and liked it. And condoms were not really a thing then, I heard about those later. I never heard of anyone getting an STD either. Or pregnant. By the time I was fifteen, half or more of the students were screwing each other. They weren't hiding it either. It happened in the bathrooms and on school grounds in bushy and wooded area and in cars where students parked. Nobody policed them or called them out though anybody who looked could see it happening. Some girls had to have a boyfriend though several I knew who'd come out to parties would say they're not interested in a boyfriend because it was too limiting. I was there when girls would invite a guy into the shadows then come back looking for another. Some would bag a handful a day. It's what they wanted. There wasn't any shame about it.

Now I don't know how it affected their lives later. Looking back it seems kinda crazy and out of control, but I guess that's due to societal norms changing. That happened with the big aids scare when suddenly no one trusted anyone else to be free of carrying it. It doesn't look like we ever fully recovered from that. Everything is under tight scrutiny and control now. I doubt many students are having sex at school anymore. And if they get caught, they probably are disciplined. I don't know if it's for the better or worse but that's how I've seen things change from the sixties - seventies. It seemed fine at the time.