Y'know, as a rapist, I've had that exact thought. I think you should give the system a little bit more credit for what it's trying to do to stop us.Julianking93 said:
The age of consent ...(sex)
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Don't feel bad, I lost mine at 18 too, I had plenty of chances but something always went wrong that prevented the sex. I felt like I was cock blocked by fate for a while. But when I hear about girls who lose theirs at like 13 or 14 I can't help but be saddened.Ziadaine said:
I'm proud of my 18ness and girls love it when they hear that... It makes me 'safe' apparently. But yeah, they do take some convincing...
Yeah that's what I notice. As I said to Aqualung, I've stopped being interested in anyone under the age of 18 now because of the gap in relative maturity rather than just the gap in age. I really don't think most people under the age of 21 will actually realise that.cleverlymadeup said:
I find most 20 year old guys to still be too immature for my liking. But to a 16 year old girl they will appear to be really mature, especially if they have jobs and cars etc.
I find most girls tend to hit mental maturity at around 19, but there are always exceptions of course.
There's some very weird reasoning behind having the gay age of consent higher. I mean..It's not as if anybody's going to get pregnant.
I think it was a law left over from just after the time when it was actually illegal to have homosexual relations. It may have even been introduced before the age of consent was established. Does anyone know if that's true?samaritan.squirrel said:
I think the previous justification was that young males shouldn't experiment whilst they are young as they may just be confused. The possibility of them finding it pleasurable was just too much for the homophobic government at the time. I've been told the law has now been changed to match that of heterosexual relations.
Edit:
It may also have had something to do with the spread of aids and other std's.
There should be no age of consent, everyone should decide for themselves. Rape, however, should be punished severly.
Shakespearian days made young girls mothers. Some might wonder why the hell did they changed that idea. For one thing there are a lot of immature teenagers that are not ready for sex. If the age was changed lower it could make things very difficult. 16 is ok i guess. Though i prefer the idea of 18. Can't quite work out why...
Depends on viewers maturity, many viewers can distinguish between reality and fantasy. Also, your argument is very similar to the argument which follows that video games blur the lines between fantasy and reality, and therefore video games increase violence. You'll need to prove that viewing fantasy material (by that i mean video games or porn, or even reading novels say)blurs our perception of reality.ravens_nest said:
I don't think chav's, louts or whatever you want to call them are avid hardcore porn fans. Most of the sexual imagery people are exposed to is softcore, which you said before is a more appropaite outlet. Going along your line of reasoning, are you still sure about this?
Key word is in fact biological readiness. And physically? From about 14 onwards folks - male and female both can have sex and produce kids.ravens_nest said:
In ages past, life was harsh. By 14, most had experienced a death of a loved one and so, had to grow up fast. Couple that with the fact that from about 15 onwards you're getting pumped full of hormones that make you want to shag anything with a pulse (16 to 22 is the age of greatest fertility for females - all you ladies waiting until your mid-30s to have kids may want to reconsider about what's important in life) and yes, in ages past, have sex and/or falling pregnant at 16 or 17 wasn't really a problem - life would've drummed into you the emotional maturity necessary.
Not so these days! Our fertile adults (23+) are treated like adolescents (I know I friggin' am, all because I'm only 24 - oh what could I possibly know?!) and given that there is no real impetus to mature, most don't. So all of a sudden, having sex and/or falling pregnant becomes a highly risky activity.
tl;dr version: either leave it as it is, or raise it, but do it for the right reasons: Not to protect some patently ridiculous notion of morality or purity; but to ensure that those that do breed are up to the task of raising the result.
16 is pretty good by my reckoning. It gives a decent balance of permission and protection.
15 maybe would be okay, and I probably wouldn't move it higher.
I'd turn a blind eye to some underage sex, providing it was freely, responsibly and happily entered into. The problem in my view is that some individuals and social situations can be sufficiently coercive to push children into thinking they have to have sex when they are very unhappy about it. Younger people are often more negligent about contraception. Finally, I think children also need to be protected from predatory older people whose motives are less than respectful.
15 maybe would be okay, and I probably wouldn't move it higher.
I'd turn a blind eye to some underage sex, providing it was freely, responsibly and happily entered into. The problem in my view is that some individuals and social situations can be sufficiently coercive to push children into thinking they have to have sex when they are very unhappy about it. Younger people are often more negligent about contraception. Finally, I think children also need to be protected from predatory older people whose motives are less than respectful.
Uhh guys... the f**k.Julianking93 said:
I don't understand how you would find out you were sterile as a teenager. Are you sure you just haven't hit puberty yet? I don't even. I don't.
Who knows these things at that age? Julian you are only about 15 or so.
Feel free to send that as a PM if you don't want to say on here, but I am curious, because I'd have no idea if my guys are strong swimmers.
