Where should the age of consent be?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Probably 16, though more actual research should be done on this topic, if reasonably possible.

[Figueira]

Sixteen with some close in age exceptions.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

"half plus seven" or whatever

[dead0man]

Post pubescence, but if you're under, say, 17 (give or take a year) the ages should be close.  If you're 30 you can't bang someone that's 15, but an 18 year old could.  Punishing teenagers with the legal system for having sex (or sending each other nudie pics) is stupid.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I wonder who voted "no age of consent". It would be fun to watch them against antonio or intell or someone.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I wonder who voted "no age of consent". It would be fun to watch them against antonio or intell or someone.

Hmmm... TNF no longer posts here. Jaichind?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

17

[Enduro]

16, determined by individual states of course.

[Cory]

Sixteen with some close in age exceptions.

[dead0man]

I wonder who voted "no age of consent". It would be fun to watch them against antonio or intell or someone.

I did.  Can I get somebody good at it though and not either of those clowns?

[politicallefty]

I think it should be 16, but lines can be blurred to a certain extent. One of my biggest problems with current laws has to do with sexting. Despite what I said the age of consent should be, I don't believe a 17-year-old sexting a 15-year-old should be labelled a sex offender (or even a 14-year-old sexting his/her boyfriend/girlfriend of the same age). I think that makes a mockery of the entire system and diminishes actual sex crimes. That latter example could easily result in making both 14-year-olds sex offenders for life. I find that possibility far more offensive than anything they might have done in their personal lives.

[LLR]

17, that way it's

Drive -> AoC -> Vote -> Drink

[100% pro-life no matter what]

18, with a three or four-year close in age exception.

[Boston Bread]

16, with exceptions for partners of similar age.

[Person Man]

16. 14 if both partners are under 19.  That seems to be the normal "lay" of the land.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I wonder who voted "no age of consent". It would be fun to watch them against antonio or intell or someone.

I did.  Can I get somebody good at it though and not either of those clowns?

I'll do it. But first, we need to see why the other person thinks what they think. I (probably) support it because I don't think (though I will admit I don't have scientific evidence or anything like that) that most people under the age of 16 are mature enough to be able to make smart decisions about the topic (though in typing this I get more unsure of it). Now why do you oppose it?

[Kingpoleon]

21 with close in age exceptions(anyone 14+ if between 18 to 21, etc.).

[Grumpier Than Thou]

16-18. If it's 16 or 17, there should be a "within four years" rule.

[dead0man]

I wonder who voted "no age of consent". It would be fun to watch them against antonio or intell or someone.

I did.  Can I get somebody good at it though and not either of those clowns?

I'll do it. But first, we need to see why the other person thinks what they think. I (probably) support it because I don't think (though I will admit I don't have scientific evidence or anything like that) that most people under the age of 16 are mature enough to be able to make smart decisions about the topic (though in typing this I get more unsure of it). Now why do you oppose it?

Because some humans at 14 (or less) are ready for sex and I don't think the state should be able to stop them...from having sex with each other, not an adult of 25 or whatever.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

16, but like deadman said I don't want some 17 year old going to jail because his girlfriend is 15.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I wonder who voted "no age of consent". It would be fun to watch them against antonio or intell or someone.

I did.  Can I get somebody good at it though and not either of those clowns?

I'll do it. But first, we need to see why the other person thinks what they think. I (probably) support it because I don't think (though I will admit I don't have scientific evidence or anything like that) that most people under the age of 16 are mature enough to be able to make smart decisions about the topic (though in typing this I get more unsure of it). Now why do you oppose it?

Because some humans at 14 (or less) are ready for sex and I don't think the state should be able to stop them...from having sex with each other, not an adult of 25 or whatever.

Wait, do you support prosecuting people more then X years older then a minor who have sex with said minor?

[dead0man]

yes, but like a 14 year old, I'm flexible.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

yes, but like a 14 year old, I'm flexible.

That seems less like "no age of consent" and more like "protection for small differences in age".