posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:14 PM
i posted this on the other thread but....
In the Vatican the age of consent is 12…..
I would argue that there are two key components to establishing the age of sexual consent, firstly I think it should be based on the age of the full
development of sexual organs, that is to say when girls have their period and boys, well balls drops. So we average out what ever age that is and
that should be factored in to establishing the age of consent, right now that might put it at 14 ( I don’t know the exact stats). In other words the
age at which a individual is able to take part in the act of sex and conceive a child should be a factor in establishing the age of consent.
Now before you all start calling me a monster I would point out that there is perhaps even more important factor and that is the mental ability to
comprehend the act itself and have the sexual maturity to understand the act. I Don’t think that 14 year olds have that maturity and I don’t even
think that 16 year olds have it either, I know I didn’t. As such I believe the age of consent should be 18, but even that is pushing it, this factor
creates quite a interesting argument.
So what do I think of what this barrister has to say about lowering the age of consent to 13, quite frankly I think she should be stripped of her
right to practice law for such stupidity. You will note above I have stressed the importance of sexual maturity but more so than that we need to
enforce a higher age of consent to protect children from dangerous individuals. Any attempt to lower the age of sexual consent should be challenged
in the strongest possible way.
We need to keep our kids safe from these old men this barrister is protecting!
I think we need make the laws against those who seek to harm our kids even harsher, I would not be opposed to chemical castration and forced hard
labour for anyone who harms a child.