The age of consent should be lowered to 13.

It's stupid and pointless to lock someone up because they had sex with a teenager. It's stupid, teens have sex with teens and adults have sex with adults, so why can't adults have sex with teens? Hell I have several friends who could go to prison for having sex with their 13-17 year old girlfriends, just because they are 18-21 years old. Hell right now I'm interested in a woman who is 17, but we wouldn't legally be able to have sex because I'm 18. My last girlfriend was 13 years old, and that was when I was 18 also. It's just a really stupid rule. There are people who have gone to prison and are registered sex offenders because they had sex with the person who is currently their wife, but they weren't when they had sex. Technically it's not pedophilia if they are 13 or older, so it has nothing to do with pedophilia. In some US states you can get married at 13. It's just a pointless law that puts good people behind bars. At 13 they are a teenager and able to make their own decisions. Who else would like the age of consent to be lowered to 13?

 

Maybe because of the consequences of older men having sex with teenagers?

According to the conservative lobbying organization Family Research Council, studies in the US indicate that age discrepancy between the teenage girls and the men who impregnate them is an important contributing factor. Teenage girls in relationships with older boys, and in particular with adult men, are more likely to become pregnant than teenage girls in relationships with boys their own age. They are also more likely to carry the baby to term rather than have an abortion.

A review of California's 1990 vital statistics found that men older than high school age fathered 77 percent of all births to high school-aged girls (ages 16–18), and 51 percent of births to junior high school-aged girls (15 and younger). Men over age 25 fathered twice as many children of teenage mothers than boys under age 18, and men over age 20 fathered five times as many children of junior high school-aged girls as did junior high school-aged boys.

A 1992 Washington state study of 535 adolescent mothers found that 62 percent of the mothers had a history of being raped or sexual molested by men whose ages averaged 27 years. This study found that, compared with nonabused mothers, abused adolescent mothers initiated sex earlier, had sex with much older partners, and engaged in riskier, more frequent, and promiscuous sex. Studies by the Population Reference Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics found that about two-thirds of children born to teenage girls in the United States are fathered by adult men age 20 or older.

 

I can see your point, but at the same time if you lower the age then it is like we are condoning sex. One is not considered an adult until they are 18 years old, so this is why they have this in effect.

 

My point is: Do we really have a problem with teenagers having sex with each other or do we really have a problem with legal adult men over the age of 18 having sex with teenagers? How would lowering the age girls can consent to 13 prevent all these men from getting them pregnant?

 

An 18 and 17 yo? ok. Even early 20ies and a 17yo? Probably ok in many cases. But a 13 and 18 yo? I would think there ~should~ be enough emotional, psychological and physiological differences between those 2 ages to give serious pause.

Or maybe i just can't get over finding it incredibly creepy.

 

One of my friends is 17 and dating a 22 year old man.

 

I have the reverse situation for your consideration. My 14-year old son who is in 9th grade is dating an 18-year old senior right now. What would you do? We are watching this situation very closely.

 

Outside of the pregnancy aspect, I don't think it much matters which sex is the young 'un. I see most of the problem as a maturity (emotional and physical) thing. We have 13 yo boy girl twins and I wouldn't be thrilled with either of them wanting to date someone 18 when they are 14. Neither would probably be 'dating' an 18 year old to tell you the truth. Having the 18 yo over, maybe. Going over to the 18 yo house if we were comfortable with their parents, maybe again. Going somewhere alone with them, nope. I would certainly be watching it very closely.

We also have an 18 year old. But, he always dated within a year or two of his own age.

 

5 years difference at 17 is a whole lot different in my mind than a 5 year difference at 13. As is a 5 years difference at 20 or 30 or 40.

 

An 18 year old senior who would want to date a 14 year old has some problems. What could they possibly have in common? A 14 yo is a kid and we should want them to be kids. An 18 yo is legally an adult & should be pursuing adult interests, preparing to be out in the world not dating a kid just a year or two removed from having a babysitter and mom & dad chauffeuring them around.

 

My 14-year old is very mature for 14. His girlfriend is very immature for 18. They meet in the middle someplace that works for them both but having said that, we got to know her family very well immediately after we found out about the relationship. They are very nice people for the most part. I guess that we tend to think that these teenage relationships are going to end when the wind changes direction so we just stand at arm's length and watch for problems. The real problem is that she is in love with the idea of being in love and my son seems to be happy to go along for the ride. I certainly never read about this situation in the parenting manual. LOL!

 

Yeah, probably not in any manual as it is more of a common sense issue.
An adult messing with a kid just isn't right no matter how you try to justify it. I know how I would handle it if some 18 yo clown started paying that sort of attention to my 14 yo daughter!

 

Amen David.
I have no children so am not faced with this possibility but as a father you are.

Now if my non existent 14 yo daughter were working full time and had her own place I suppose I would have to deal with it as she'd be an "adult" after all. Child labor laws make that a bit difficult though don't they?
Key word here is CHILD.

My wife is a bit over 4 years older than me. I was 23 when we met though NOT 13.

 

Totaly out of Order Tom If you have a valid point then make it without trying to turn everything into a Republican Hate fest

 

You sir are one sick puppy

 

You're kidding me right? I hate republicans. That's my opinion. The right advocates the free market. They advocate that government should butt out of almost everything that restricts the free market. It should be for "the markets" to dictate. The OP suggests that 13 should be the age that dictates legal consent. I challenge that idea by proposing lower age consents. I get edited. I don't support lower age consents..just trying to show how ridiculous the OP's suggestion actually is by pushing the age restrictions to something people would realize is ludicrous. Suggesting 13 is ludicrous. So I say why not a lower age. A) I get edited for trying to demonstrate the idiocy that 13 is cool and people are actually debating about. B) The "free market" isn't actually free, exposing a fallacy. C) The Republican party actually supports what I proposed, which was edited (preventing anyone else other than a single individual from making that determination because it was removed from public display).
So...rather than debating the actual content of the OP, said content is selectively restricted, which leaves the casual forum reader to assume that something "really terrible" was rightly removed.
So far as "everything being a republican hate party", well, hey, if the shoe fits...Why don't we let the "free market" take its course?? The answer is, of course, the "free market" is whatever the selective and controlling entities, deem it to be. We squelch free thinking (unless of course, the profit margin can be cranked up substantially, in which case, profit overrides morality, which I suspect would be the reason used to edit this post in the first place).
Friggin' hypocrites, lemmings, and ball less people when it comes to morality, too afraid to make waves, because they're fearful of getting too close to the truth. Hence the republican party, hence 9/11, and hence our guaranteed continued demise as an individual society, too afraid to address the obvious....they'd rather dismiss anything "too close to honesty". Better to ignore, edit, or otherwise ridicule what makes us "uncomfortable".
To suggest "I'm sick", rather than look too closely at the core issue, for fear of guilt and responsibility. The easy way out. That is, America today, and that explains the degradation of society we are all about to be swallowed by today. Better to have orderly lemmings than thinking individuals. I hope one day, some of you geniuses don't pass on the same ignorant concepts you all seem to hold on to so fiercely, to your children and their children, for if you do, you relegate their future to the warped values you have adopted. Shhhhhh! Keep it quiet though. Edit it. It'll all go away if we just ignore or excuse it all. What an absolutely brilliant strategy. Enjoy.

 

Witness the inane ramblings of a madman. What's next, Tom? "Hey you kids, get off my lawn"?

 

Tom's an idiot. Dr Moen needs to have his head examined for allowing his child to be in the company of someone who is nothing more than a pedophile. Must be a liberal thing, huh?

 

Tom, do you really think the free market has anything to do with age of consent laws? I just don't see it as being even remotely related. You may be confusing free market economic policies with general libertarian views on social issues - but even most libertarians would not support a lower age of consent. Most libertarian views applies to dealing between adults not minors.

And, if anything, most Republicans are not going to support a lower age of consent for sex. Most probably don't want people to have sex until they are married do to the influence of the religious right.

 

Tom if you dont want to get edited then think before you post such things I have told you before but as usual you disregard anything except what you want to hear. Also the argument had nothing at all to do with the Republican party unless of course you can show us were they have stated as a matter of policy that such a act should be placed on the statute books?
Also I would like to point out to you that no were in my discourse did I accuse you of been sick Yet it suits you to say I have! I love your honesty LOL