I think any discussion about the age of consent that doesn't look at the history of and reasons for an age of consent risks going off the rails.
Historically now, today in the developed world and much of the developing world there are greater protections for children as regards their sexual safety than ever at any point in history. There IS no 'downward spiral', it's never been so good.
Anyone suggesting that it is a downward spiral should question themselves as to whether their opinions in other areas are making them ignorant in others. You're entitled to your own beliefs, right enough, but not your own facts, not even if making your own facts up makes you feel safe and superior to everyone else...
... and that's probably as offensive to some people as people using the term 'murder' in discussing abortion is to me, so we're all even now, lovely...
People forget that if there was an age of consent in a country prior to the 19th Century is was normally 12, sometimes even lower (it was 10 in the USA, California being the first to change it to 14 in 1889).
Children were thought of as small adults. Once they became fertile or started puberty, they were treated as adults in almost all ways. Women were thought of as commodities. Education beyond the basics or even of the basics was very very rare. People started work early, sometimes even before their teens.
Boy and girls became 'men' and 'women', fathers and mothers even, at ages that to us are shocking. They died earlier too.
No one thought anyone was being abused as it was normal for the society at the time; and this is not some vast age ago, this is your great-great grandfather's time in Europe and America. Hell, in most US States the age of consent has only been raised from 14 in the past ten years! Right will always be right and wrong will always be wrong? Yeah, right...
Now we Westerners and many in the developing world see childhood in a completely different way. Now women are normally not seen as commodities. Education into the late teens or older is common. Work can normally only begin at 16, often later.
Nowadays adulthood is more seen as being capable of informed consent, rather than being capable of reproduction.
Whilst most people are capable of reproducing a few years before 16, informed consent is something that in some ways isn't even there yet at 16, at least not by our society's standards.
Sixteen is however seen by most countries as a good age for the age of consent - for one thing, in most of the developed world the average age of first intercourse is under 18, and it makes little sense in ignoring the facts of life, so to speak, and criminalising people for what they're going to do naturally by that age.
For another thing, in many countries people can marry and work at 16, even die in the army; putting sex into another catagory is nonsensical.
However, there is little point in 'putting children in jail'; some grow-up faster than others - I've only a little experience as a teacher, but I've taught classes of 13 year-olds where most were kids (like my daughter, who currently (thank goodness) finds the idea of sex revolting), but where there were individual's several years ahead emotionally let alone physically. 'One-size fits all' thinking often means 'one-size fits some badly'.
Recognising this, some countries have a lower limit (like 12 or 13), and there is no legal action taken if both parties to sex are between that age and 16, or if there is less than two or three years difference between them. Additonally in some countries parents can also complain if they are concerned for any reason. It's plain silly to treat an 17 year-old with a 14 year-old girlfriend the same way at a 48 year-old with a 14 year-old 'girl friend', or to arrest someone whose been having sex with his girlfriend for three years when he turns seventeen 'cause she is still 15 (I know a couple who this could have happened to, it's not rare).
Of course, some people will be concerened about teenagers screwing around; rightly so, disease, pregnancy, etc.. Despite some claims here the result is not automatically a tide of teenage pregnancy. It's not having sex that makes you pregnant, it being uneducated about sex that makes you pregnant.
Compare the UK and the US with Holland.
In the UK teachers can only teach the biological facts of life in science lessons. To teach sex education in anything like a real-world context requires parental permission. Too often this is withheld by parents who believes it's 'their responsibility', but who then don't do anything effective about it leaving their kids clueless about sex.
I get the impression that in the USA the frequently religiously-motivated opinion of school boards over what should be taught in sex education classes has a similar result; correct me if I'm wrong.
In Holland sex education starts early and is comprehensive and frank - and as far as I am aware, compulsory.
In the USA teenage pregnancy is eight times higher than in Holland, in the UK it is five times higher than in Holland.
I cannot think of a clearer case of people putting their own sensibilities, religious or otherwise, ahead of the welfare of their children.
And in case you're thinking 'ah-ha, those Dutch children have just been taught how to have sex and not get pregnant, you're encouraging them to have sex!', stop it now.
In both the USA and the UK the average first age of intercourse is LOWER than in Holland.
So, in essense, 16's a good age of consent, with under 16's and over 13's being free of prosecution if they have sex together, or with someone within a few years age. Punish those adults who have sex with under 16 year-olds in context with the offense, and those who have sex with those under the lower limit with exceeding harshness. Make sex education compulsory and comprehensive.
Stacey:
Euph why are you so focused on the right to have sex with young girls? You want me to pick an age? I picked one. At age 18 a man should go to jail for having sex with a younger girl. Simple as that. As far as I'm concerned sexual predators make me sick. I never said it was ok for a 17 year old to seduce a 14 year old girl, those are your words.
14 year old girls don't need sex from sexual predators of any age. It is way too young
Making thinly-veiled suggestions regarding someone's motivations (just because they disagree with you) lead me to suggest YOU are not mature enough to have sex or engage in adult conversation NOW.
Now, your first sexual encounter was with a girl (from what you said) when you were under the age of consent; were you the same ages? I hope you were over 14, as you're on record stating this age is too young. You say "At age 18 a man should go to jail for having sex with a younger girl" [in context I take it you mean 14]. Is it okay for an 18 year-old GIRL to have sex with a 14 year-old girl??
I'd say 'sorry for giving you a hard time and insinutaing things', but you seem to consider that acceptable behaviour when you do it...
