What should it be? The reason I ask is because various states and nations differ in this number. We also have extenuating circumstances that can effectively alter what the age of consent is. For example, many states allow for something known as an "emancipated minor." This is a situation where a minor can choose to be recognized as an adult legally after signing the right documents. This doesn't change drinking laws or things of that nature, but it can have an effect on the age of consent for these individuals. To give some examples of the variety of ages just in the U.S., the age in North Carolina is 16, while it's 18 in California. In South Carolina, it used to be 14, but (if I'm not mistaken) it has been raised to 16. There are also sliding scales that apply to some states, where the age of the other person determines the age of consent of the minor. For example, in NC, the age of consent for an 18 year old is 14, whereas it's 15 for a 19 year old, and so on. The previously mentioned 16 for NC applies to anyone 20 or older. Variances in the age of consent are even wider when looking at countries across the world. In South Korea, it's 14, while in some Islamic states, consent can only be given after marriage. Premarital sex is actually illegal in many of those countries. Any thoughts?
None of us have to climb very far up the ol' family tree to find forebears successfully starting families at 14. A man won the Medal of Honor at Antietam at age 14. A bar mitzvah declares a 13-year-old to be a man. If their education has been demonstrably completed (passing standardized tests), people should become adults as early as 14. If they cannot demonstrate that they are educated they wait til 18.
18. Standard and immovable. This is not a subject that needs to be discussed at any great length. Common sense has found a suitable resting point, and there is no need to adjust it. I think most people's intentions are typically pretentious and/or nefarious in trying to alter this.
I don't think it's so easy to say that considering things like what Taxcutter posted. In fact, the whole concept of adolescence is very modern.
It's easier than people want to make it. The average objection is very self-serving. Whether for gratification of ego or libido.
17, but I'm cool with 18. You know how many chicks are banging 30 year olds when they're 15 or 16? Go to a local high school. it's gross.
Alrighty then. Well, keep in mind that plenty of 16 and 17 year olds fought in WW2. The 16 year olds did it illegally, but they seemed to do alright.
"...plenty of 16 and 17 year olds fought in WW2." Taxcutter says: The Roman Legions (very formidable units) had 16 and 17 year-olds in the rank-and-file. They took in recruits at 13 or 14 but didn't put them into heavy battle til they were ready. Once in rank-and-file only experience counted. There were no shortage of 18 year old centurions. The analogy is apt. War-fighting (for men) and child-bearing (for women) are young people's games.
