I think it should be raised to 18 as it is encouraging young people to have sex before they are ready.
They are still children in my eyes at 16.
What is your opinion?
2007-12-06 07:22:16 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ United Kingdom ➔ Other - United Kingdom
I totally agree with you.
I'm a virgin at 18, because i'm just not ready yet. I want to find a guy who actually loves me rather than someone who just wants to get into my pants.
And i'm seen as weird. Frigid. A prude. Which i'm not at all. I've fooled around, i'm just not ready for full sex yet.
But it's not 'normal' if you're past the age of 16 and still a virgin.
I get crap from all of my friends despite the majority of them regretting it (they were all 14-16 when they did).
I think if it was raised to 18, at least you wouldn't be expected to have lost it at 16. I think a lot of people get to that age and think 'i'm legal, i *should* be ready' and then do it, and regret it.
I have quite a few friends in America where the age of consent is 18, and it's not a big deal to be a virgin at 18 over there. People actually respect that.
I wish England was like that =/
2007-12-06 08:27:44 · answer #1 · answered by ... 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you have got it wrong here. The age at which sex is legal has nothing whatsoever to encourage young people to do it. If they are "ripe" enough bodily, then they will probably do it irrespective of whether it is legal or not.
If you want to make the ages legal so that the young people are "ready for it", then it would have to be 21/22 for a woman and 25/26 for a man. These are the ages at which the female and male are judged to be both physically and mentally mature.
I don't think that's going to work, do you?
2007-12-06 15:28:58 · answer #2 · answered by William Tells 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Up until 1968 in the southern states, one could get married without the permission of their parents at 14 and could get married with permission of their parents at 12 years old. What changed this the TV. Where the daughters and sons always stayed next to their parent and learned to take care of a home or learn the occupation of the male parent, TV stopped this. They were not learning.
With TVs and Computers out now, legal ages should be raised even higher to 26 or 28 or how ever old they are when they can be responsible.
2007-12-06 15:32:46 · answer #3 · answered by geessewereabove 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In terms of brain development, they're really children to 25 (good job, William). My grandmother was married with kids at 15, and that was normal for her generation. So there's really a tradeoff there. It just depends where you want to make the tradeoff. Children have been having thier own children for thousands of years.
The problem is not the age of consent, really, "encouraging" 16-year-olds to have sex. The problem is that parents have become uninvolved with parenting, and the children may feel perfectly comfortable making really dumb decisions. Poor training at home is the problem.
The law is really intended for something other than telling people to have sex. It's intended to put child molesters in jail with.
2007-12-06 15:32:36 · answer #4 · answered by Firebird 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It was INCREASED to 16 from 14, about a 100 years ago, when we had a much shorter life expectancy and started work at 14.
16 is fine.
Jesus H tapdancin Christ they want you to blow holes in the head of a terrorist at 16, but not vote or drink!!! At least sex is OK though.
Some 16 year olds are indeed children, we all mature at different rates.
2007-12-06 18:08:29 · answer #5 · answered by Paul H 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
16 is probably just about right. Remember you are also dealing with something you cannot legislate for. Human nature. Sex is a perfectly natural desire, and most people have those desires by the age of 16, due to natural reasons, so why suppress it?
2007-12-06 15:55:41 · answer #6 · answered by Phil McCracken 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It won't matter if the law decides to change the legal age, kids are going to do it anyway!!! The best thing to do is to instill morals into your children so that they make the right decion to wait to have sex.
2007-12-06 15:26:46 · answer #7 · answered by Roxanne 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I dont' think changing any law will prevent or encourage someone to have sex at a particular age. The impetus to abstain has to come from within the person themselves.
2007-12-06 15:25:09 · answer #8 · answered by Sugar Pie 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
you mean it's legal for adults to have sex with 16 yo's? Or 16 yo's amongst them selves? In the states it is something similiar...actually i didn't know there was a law for how old u have to be to have sex...just that adults can't have sex with kids under 18...I don't see a need for a law...it's biology.
2007-12-06 15:26:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because Europeans aren't afriad of being human, they understand that sex is a part of life for anyone that has reached puberty, and the idea of iron fisting people to act they way you want is proven again and again not to work. That is why Holland has lower adolescent abuse of marijuana, because its not illegal. Further, now in the US, states that have medical marijuana programs are showing less abuse as well. read up on social psychology, the obvious answers are not always best.
2007-12-06 15:26:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋