I am sitting here stunned as I just heard on the news that the age of consent in Canada is 14.
Am I wrong in thinking that's a little young.
If you have to be 19 to vote and drink and 16 to drive a car why only 14 to be sexually active?
I am speechless and outraged about this.
There was a Bill before Parliament that would have raised the age to 16 but it got defeated and it was all men that voted it down and the one reason this man gave was "

it would also criminalize so-called "puppy love."

Does anyone else find that remark stupid?
Oh no wonder babies are having babies.
I am so outraged I am going to write my MP.
PF

Yes PurpleFan, I find that remark extremely stupid! Where are these men's brains? (Don't answer, I know where they are.)
The age of consent here is 16 which I think is still a little young but it's a heck of a lot better than 14.

The age of consent here for girls is also 16 but surprisingly there is no minimum age for boys except for homosexual acts.

As for puppy love as they called it, I think discretion is used when the ages of the two are close, I have only ever seen prosecutions when the man is several (or many) years older than the under-aged girl.

If nothing else, raising the age would make it a criminal offence for an older man to have sex with a child of 14 - and really a girl of that age is a child whether they like to think of themselves as such or not.

Here you cannot purchase cigarettes until you are 16, you cannot get married until 16, you cannot purchase alcohol until you are 18 nor vote until that age. You cannot view an X rated movie until you are 18.

So what is the minimum age for getting married in Canada?

I'm shocked - I've lived here all my life and always thought the age of consent was 16.

That is pretty disgusting, PF. Of course, many of today's 14 year old girls look 25, but that's the parents' fault, not the child's.

Here in the states, South Carolina, Hawaii and Idaho have the age of consent at 14. Virginia, Connecticut and Colorado have it at 15. The other states range from 16 to 18.

I fail to see how a 14 or 15 year old has the maturity level and the life experience to make an informed decision that will affect the rest of their life.

These are some pretty surprising responses so far: Disgust, amazement, shock, outrage. Makes me think all the very cosmopolitan folks here never realized that anyone under the age of 18 had any reason or the maturity to consent to sex. Legalities (and stupidity) aside, there is/was some actual reasoning for establishing a minimum age, within a particular community. It's whether or not the current laws reflect the current state of mind of those communities is what's really at the heart of this particular issue. Like most issues that are ignored or assumed, it’s the revelation that some statutes are still on the books that takes people by surprise. This is generally cured by active involvement in one's government, beyond party line affiliation.

Take a peek at the world wide ages of consent, then the ages by state, and if you’re still outraged, go do something about it.

World wide ages of consent:
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

State wide ages of consent:
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

State wide ages of consent with sex differentiation.
http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

I'm going to do my simplistic thing here - what exactly is the age of consent? Consent to do what? OK, I know the answer. But if a 40-year old has sex with a mid teenager it is called statutory rape in these parts. And I, personally, think it should be called that. It doesn't matter if a man or woman does it. If you can't drive my car then you can't fornicate in the back seat of it. Sure, I know if you really want to do that somewhere else you/they will. But legalizing it? In my mind, it is advocating a can of worms. And we wonder about pedophiliacs!

No matter what the age of consent is, people will always be sexually active before reaching that age. I don't think changing the official age of consent will have much influence on that. Although I do agree that 14 is a bit young.

Over here you have to be 16 to drink beer, 18 to drink anything stronger than that, and 18 as well to drive and vote. No idea about the age of consent, but I think it's 16. Statutory rape is a non-issue here and if it weren't for American TV shows I'd have never heard about it. I don't think much would change here if the age of consent was lowered to 14 or lower.

I think the outrage is interesting, actually. And I think that 14 would only be a shocker in the last, say, 80 years. There's got to be SOME common sense involvement, though. I mean, yes, 14 is too young to consent to sexual acts with an adult, and any adult who is having sex with a 14 year old should be prosecuted.

But, and I'm not saying I advocate it or anything, a couple of 13 year olds fooling around should not face criminal charges, or a 13 year old and a 14 year old, or EVEN a 13 year old and a 15 year old. I wouldn't say I thought they were old enough to have "the maturity level and the life experience to make an informed decision that will affect the rest of their life." but they're certainly old enough to BE sexual active, according to their bodies.

In industrialized countries, human adolescence is being extended. It does no good to be shocked by a low age of consent in non-industrialized countries, it doesn't work the same there, and it won't until it IS an industrialized country, so it also does no good to say it SHOULD work the same there. Anyway, I think it's an interesting phenomenon, because suddenly in these countries that have become industrialized over the last hundred years or so, customs involving "children" have changed considerably and the age at which people are no longer considered "children" is getting later and later.

Hmmmmm, my mother was married at fifteen, to a man of 24. She had three children by the time she was 20. Teen runaround? No. Victim of a pedophile? No, I don't think so, she never mentioned it.
In 1930's Saskatchewan, life was pretty tough. The local school only went up to Grade 8, my grandparents couldn't have afforded to send her to the city to finish high school, and wouldn't have sent a young girl that far from home alone anyway. My mother went to stay with her older married sister, who had several babies, and met my father, a decent young farmer from up the road. They got married, and she assumed her job of farm wife, which I am sure, from what I know of her, she carried out very satisfactorally. This was not at all unusual among her friends and family.
All this to say that I agree with Lothruin - we artifically extend adolescence in our society. I'm all for teens waiting until they are mature enough for sex, but don't really think laws have much to do with it.

I wrote my Member of Parliament last night and told him I hoped he wasn't one of those who voted against raising the age. If he had been one who voted for it I won't be voting for him come next election time.
Haven't heard anything back but it will be interesting to see if he does reply.

Although the age of consent is so diverse around the world I think it is interesting that men vote to keep it at 14.

I was chatting to a friend and I asked her how she would feel about it if her only daughter had become sexually active at 14.
She said she wasn't sure but had taught her to be responsible for her own safety. Her daughter is now 21 and in college.

I have three great Nieces one is 10 and the other two are 8 and I hope they will see the day when the age is 16.

Maybe I sound prudish and I don't mean to be but the idea of some creepy old man or some slick teenage boy seducing a 14yr old into having consensual sex makes my skin crawl.

Thank you all for sharing your opinion's.I am finding them interesting and informative.
PF

I think Lothruin succinctly expressed my opinion. Teenagers experimenting together is not the same thing as an adult having sex with a 14 year old. The age should have been raised for that reason alone.

Well, the idea of anyone manipulating someone of ANY age into agreeing to have sex makes my skin crawl. But I also know that all the teenage girls that have sex aren't doing it because "some slick teenage boy" seduced them. First of all I don't think it's at all fair to blame boys, men, male gender at all, and second of all I don't think a lot of what happens among teenagers necessarily involves peer pressure. I know we hear a lot about it, but the reality of MY teenage years didn't involve a lot of leering boys telling me they'd break up with me if I didn't sleep with them. Eh, maybe I just chose my boyfriends better, I don't know.

I don't think it's prudish, really, I just think that maybe if we don't want our 14 year olds to have consentual sex we should be doing something about that ourselves rather than depending on our government to enforce it.

Well ok it isn't always the man's fault given the rash of Female Teachers having sex with their underage male students. Ick!

Gee School sure wasn't like that when I went but then again I went back in the days of Dinosaur's.LOL LOL
I agree with you Lothruin that we should be doing something about it.

I wonder how many people know or care what the age of consent is.

I wrote my MP and I hope someone will yell loud enough that they will listen to the voice of the people and change it.

PF

My grandfather, after losing his wife in a massive flood in West Virginia (she was trying to save the horses and went down ill after the effort) married or whatever a fifteen year old girl because he had 4 kids to raise. Together, they had 7 more. They stuck together through thick and thin - and no one told them it was OK. That's vastly differently seen now. I repeat myself: we all know that teenagers are bound to have sexual curiousity and will explore it together. That's built in. The legislative aspect of it makes me quite edgy. A 15 year old girl comes home and tells Mom and Dad "I'm pregnant!" But legally I'm allowed to be? That sounds all wrong to me.

As per the Houghton Mifflin Encyclopedia, 'age of consent' is defind as:

Age of consent: the age at which, according to the law, persons are bound by their words and acts. There are different ages at which one acquires legal capacity to consent to marriage, to choose a guardian, to conclude a contract, and the like. For marriage, the age may be higher for males than for females if the jurisdiction does not guarantee equal rights to men and women. Age of consent also means the age below which consent of the female to sexual intercourse is not a defense to a charge of rape. Under common law this age was 10; state statutes in the United States generally set it between 13 and 18.

It involves more than just the age for consensual sex and what constitutues rape.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From our local newspaper today, name has been removed by me to avoid any possible problems.

Quote:

---

A teenager who had unlawful sex with a 13 year old girl has been sentenced to a year in youth detention.

Ninteen year old ********** from Germany bought a half bottle of vodka for the young girl before having sex with her on the beach at first tower earlier this year.

---

For goodness sakes, getting this child drunk then having sex with her, that sounds more like rape to me.

The fact that a mood-altering substance like alcohol was used on the minor makes this rape.

If no alcohol was used, and the perpitrator can prove that the victim consented to the sex, then rape it's not.

Where I am, legally you have to be 16 to have sex and drive, and 18 to vote, drink, smoke and get married. This follows a fairly standard pattern in Western countries.

In terms of maturity, does this make sense? Does it require a higher level of maturity to smoke a cigarette than to drive a car? (Otherwise known as a potentially lethal metal projectile ) Should reaching the age at which you receive the privilege of drinking alcohol imply that you are mature enough to marry, or vote? This has turned out to have far too many questions in it, but I'd be interested to find out what people think about this

In the US, in most states you can marry at 18, you can die for your country at 18, but you can't drink alcohol until you're 21... I've always thought that was an odd one.

I'm tossing this out there, not to be controversial, just because (possibly just to toot my own horn). A while back I predicted that once gay-marriage was commonly accepted the next domino to fall would be age of consent laws. NAMBLA has been pushing hard to repeal these laws for years. It's the old frog in a kettle analogy and the frog is boiling.

I don't think gay marriage is commonly accepted, and I don't think NAMBLA is an organization which is representative of the opinions or agendas of those supporting gay marriage. Perhaps you didn't mean it to sound as though the two are linked issues. Perhaps you do think they are linked issues. In any case, if you do consider gay marriage to now be commonly accepted, and see the age of consent laws as now having begun to fall, I'd then be interested in knowing when you think gay marriage became acceptable and what else is included on your list of dominoes.

I'm not suggesting that all of those supporting gay marriage also support lowering or eliminating age of consent laws but I am saying the two issues are linked. One group pushes back one barrier and others are ready to knock down the next barrier. It's a product of social momentum, the proverbial slippery slope if you will.

Hmm. I guess I just never would have intuitively made the connectin that age of consent laws were the next barrier after gay marriage. I can see how NAMBLA might see the social acceptance of gay marriage as a step towards the fulfillment of their own agendas. However, I honestly do not think that the issues are closely enough linked that the general populous or even enough lawmakers, upon jumping the moral hurdle of gay marriage, see sex with minors just on the other side and quickly sweep past it as well. But then, maybe that is because I do not think homosexual relations are immoral, but I do think that pedophilia is. The one and the other are not linked in my mind, and every pedophile I have ever known of in my community was a heterosexual. I just don't think that the general public, even those members of it (like my heathen and sometimes heretic self) who can look without moral umbrage at homosexual relations, will easily discard the disgust we feel at pedophiles. So, I wouldn't have called gay marriage a part of the slippery slope to begin with.

I think age of consent laws are generally well-placed, though I do think that certain elements of those laws are sometimes badly thought out. It's important to remember that age of consent laws do not typically make it illegal for a minor to have sex, and nor should they, nor, I think, COULD they. Most of the time, they make it illegal for a minor to have sex with an adult, in an attempt to protect the minor. In other words, age of consent laws do not actually have anything to do with the social or moral implications of young people having sex.

Also I think it is interesting that in the case Purplefan brings up, there was no talk of removing age of consent laws. The only change to age of consent laws that had been proposed was a raising of the age, and while I have to disagree with the judges in that instance, the fact is that the age of consent law was not under attack, it is simply not good enough in some peoples' minds. However, that is not a new issue, I'm sure, and has nothing to do with gay marriage now being closer to acceptable.

I try to avoid getting involved in “controversial issues” like this, but I certainly don’t think you can make any legitimate connection between a person’s views on the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse and the same person’s views on homosexuality.

In the UK, the age of consent for females was raised from 13 to 16 in the 1880s, after a fierce battle in Parliament. At the same time, penalties for homosexual behaviour between males were made more severe, with very little opposition (Oscar Wilde fell foul of the law in the next decade). In other words, the men (Parliament was a male preserve in those days) who wanted a low age of consent for girls were vehemently opposed to any legal freedom for male homosexuals of any age whatever.

For my part, I wouldn’t object if UK law allowed two people of the same sex to marry (i.e. to enter into a civil contract of marriage, giving each party certain rights and obligations). But I don’t think I’d favour a lowering of the age of consent: I'm content to let our judges decide individual cases.