Let's be more like IcelandThe island country of 330,000 nestled in the North Atlantic is making big waves. No one under the age of 21 will be indoctrinated into any religion, sect, or cult. Iceland’s parliament, the Alþingi, passed the National Minimum Religious Indoctrination Act (NMRIA) overwhelmingly. No parent or caretaker may expose a person under the age of 21 to religion by bringing them to church, temple, or mosque. And no religious fables (The Great Flood, Passover, Mohamed riding on a Buraq) can be fostered onto young and impressionable minds.The Logic Behind the National Minimum Religious Indoctrination ActTwo years ago Mothers Against Religion (MAR) started a grassroots campaign to raise the minimum age of religious consent to 21.
Anna Einarsson is the founder and leader of the group. She explains how she came to realize religion is too dangerous for young minds:I got sick and tired of turning on the news and seeing people commit horrible crimes in the name of faith. Jihadists are committing acts of terror. Catholic priests are preying on young children. Baptist televangelists are squeezing money out of their flock.
It sickened me then. It disgusts me now. And one day I realized if religion were a drug, then we’d keep children away from it, wouldn’t we? That’s when I started Mothers Against Religion and the movement to raise the age for religious consent to 21.Friends report Ms.
Einersson lost one of her son’s to Joel Osteen. He currently works for the televangelist and is addicted to Joel Osteen branded teeth whitening strips.Religious Groups Finally UnifiedAfter centuries of fighting between themselves, different religions are uniting to fight the NMRIA.
Here’s what the Icelandic leaders of the Abrahamic faiths had to say:“Children are the future of the one true church. How can Catholicism survive without unsupervised all-boy camping trips? No one is going to want to be a priest.” – Bishop Patrick Coughlan“A woman isn’t going to wear a burqa if we don’t slut-shame her from birth.” – Imam Malik“God wants his boys to have the tip of their wee-wees cut off. Those wee-wees must be pruned or we’ll all suffer.” – Rabbi Mike FineRegardless of what the faith-based community says, the law is in place and takes effect immediately.(satire).
Anonymous wrote:That's such a difficult thing to impose upon a large group of people. I wanted to have sex at 13. I had the libido of a college aged boy and was emotionally very mature for my age. But I waited until 16 because I bowed down to social pressures. That's a hard question to answer because everyone is so different. And like you pointed out, kids are socialized very differently these days.
Maybe they're more emotionally immature today. It's a thought provoking question though.I wanted to have sex at 10 but didnt until 18. I was in college so it was a get it out the way thing. Now I'm addicted to sex. I get major depression if I font get none for 3 months straight.
I was never molested or anything. I also grew boobs, had a nice but a big vagina and pubic hair at 10.I think 13-16 is reasonable. Age of consent. 13-15 should be parent approval FIRST. 16 women should get the right to fully consent. Wrote:If you think this never happens, think again.
The FBI estimates that U.S. Law enforcement agencies annually process some 15,000 statutory rape complaints.Well, clearly, in California, where the age of consent is 18, and where it's a felony if the age difference is greater than three years, you obviously have many situations where a college freshman age 17 is having sex with a college senior who is a little bit older for his class, and therefore more than three years older - and that's a FELONY.
But obviously, that FELONY is happening every hour, every day, all across California's college campuses. In any practical sense, it's happening so much it's a total joke. Perhaps it happens, but I've never heard of anybody jailing college students for having sex, nor have I ever heard of a fraternity checking ID's at a party to make sure none of the freshman girls are 'under age' in a state where the consent age is 18. The problem with having sex with underage girls (and to some extent, underage boys) is that they lack the legal capacity to deal with the consequences. In the olden days, girls reached puberty about the same time as they were permitted to marry and begin their lives as adults. Now, the average age of menarche is 12, but girls in our culture cannot marry until 18 in most states.
They have no capacity to deal with a pregnancy or STD on their own, and the older 'men' who impregnate them feel no societal or moral pressure whatsoever to marry them nor to shoulder financial or other responsibility for the consequences they have caused. It is so easy to take advantage of a young girl. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Unless there were to be a sea change in our culture, unfortunately there have to be criminal laws against this because of the magnitude of the potential harm to the child. Anonymous wrote:and the older 'men' who impregnate them feel no societal or moral pressure whatsoever to marry them nor to shoulder financial or other responsibility for the consequences they have caused. It is so easy to take advantage of a young girl. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Unless there were to be a sea change in our culture, unfortunately there have to be criminal laws against this because of the magnitude of the potential harm to the child.That's no different than the problem for women in their 20's and even 30's. The way society already deals with that is through required child support, enforced after a DNA test, even when the father is unwilling.
It makes no sense to criminalize genuine love among young people simply because others their age end up pregnant with absent fathers. Not to mention the fact that, as we see in California where the age of consent is 18, do you think the teenage pregnancy rate there is any lower because of that high age of consent??? That ought to make you think twice about making laws that end up accomplishing NOTHING.
Hello there and thank you for your information – I've definitely picked up something new from right here.I did however expertise several technical points using this site, since I experienced to reload the website a lot of timesprevious to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your webhosting is OK?
Not that I'm complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will sometimes affectyour placement in google and can damage your quality score ifadvertising and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I'm adding thisRSS to my email and could look out for a lot more of yourrespective fascinating content. Make sure you update thisagain very soon. Well those are the things that happen when casual sex is the norm.
But all those reasons can be applied to young men the same age as the girl. If a 16 year old girl has sex with and gets pregnant by a 16 year old boy, marriage probably isn't going to be the result and the young man likely isn't going to shoulder any significant financial burden. In fact, it's more likely that an older man would help financially in a significant way and propose marriage. So that's not a valid argument unless you are proposing that a girl remain a virgin until she's married. I see some on here posted about younger children not understanding consequences so can’t consent to sex. Laws contradict all that.
If that is the case then no one under consent age should be charged with crimes or murder, yet there are kids as young as 6 that have been convicted of murder or severe crimes and and a 10 year old sent away to prison and originally death penalty. This is from a website, At the state level, 33 states set no minimum age of criminal responsibility. For federal crimes, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 11.
Also look at this from Wikipedia, kids as young as 6 in the USA convicted or murder or felonies.It is contradictIng. I am not saying right or wrong, just the law says a 10 year old can’t consent to sex cause can’t comprehend consequences for their choice, but then the law says a 10 year old can be convicted of a crime like above cause they knew what they were doing. That is contradicting.
Can’t have it both ways but the laws are screwed up and make no sense. Anonymous wrote:IIt is contradictIng. I am not saying right or wrong, just the law says a 10 year old can’t consent to sex cause can’t comprehend consequences for their choice, but then the law says a 10 year old can be convicted of a crime like above cause they knew what they were doing.
That is contradicting. Can’t have it both ways but the laws are screwed up and make no sense.Well, I sorta see your point. But you're actually not making any more sense than the laws you criticize. Because now matter what laws you make, you can fault them in some way or another for 'not making sense'.OK, so you change the age of consent. Will it ever make sense that a person is not old enough to give consent, yet at the stroke of midnight on their birthday, they SUDDENLY can give consent because maturity was reached that exact second? That will never make sense.And how much sense does it make that the age on consent in Germany and Italy is 14, while in California is 18?
Huge difference. How can that makes sense?Yet what you entirely glossed over is that your argument makes no sense at all either, because if you follow YOUR complaint to its conclusion, you end up saying that you can't hold a 13-year-old responsible for knifing a person to death, if you don't also let a 40-year-old man scot-free after he talked a 13-year-old girl into having sex with him?
You'd have to be a moron not to try to understand that you can rightfully expect a 13-year-old to have the sense not to knife another person to death, while at the same time it's a bit much for a 13-year-old to make a wise decision about whether or not they should let themselves be talked into having sex with a 40-year-old. The two levels of maturity expected to make a reasonable decision in those two cases is not the same.Hard to believe I'd have to explain this to anyone. The body matures LONG before the intellect and the emotional maturity of an adult develops. Duh.A 12 or 13 year old girl is not capable of living independently and supporting herself, let alone capable of raising a child. A 12 or 13 yearold is still emotionally andintellectually a child.In America we do not sell our daughters into marriage at 12 or younger like they do inIslamic countries, thank God.
That means we as parents have a harder time protecting our girls from their own immaturity until they are legal adults.Well, unless we want to be the primary caregiver of a fatherless grandchild and main financial supporter of a single-mom 7th-grade daughter.You creeps who sexualize kids and young teens are disgusting. Date girls your own age, or move to Islamistan and buy one of their 8 year olds as your wife; you get to buy three of them. I hope that if you do, you can never look at yourself in the mirror again without feeling the urge to vomit. Wrote:Well, unless we want to be the primary caregiver of a fatherless grandchild and main financial supporter of a single-mom 7th-grade daughter. You creeps who sexualize kids and young teensIt's not clear what you mean by 'sexualizing' here.
It's counterintuitive, but the teenage pregnancy rate in Holland is much lower than in the USA, and one very notable difference there is that the majority of parents there ENCOURAGE teenagers to have sex in a safe and supportive environment (often the girl's home with the support of her parents), particularly if the young couple is in a relationship. This is in sharp contrast to the USA, where the vast majority of parents would permit their mid-teen daughters to have sex in their homes 'over their dead bodies'. The result, of course, is that this makes it tempting 'forbidden fruit' and a way to 'rebel' against your parents, and do it away from home, in the back seat of a car, with no contraceptives available, unplanned, etc. Which results in a much higher teenage pregnancy rate. That is to say, you end up 'sexualizing' something by making it 'forbidden'. What teenager isn't fascinated by what it strictly forbidden? In fact, when parents expect a teen to have sex, it strikes some teens as more 'boring' - like who wants to do it just because your parents expect you to?
Age Of Consent By State
In this article:CNN website:'Nordic Model key to beating exploitation of sex workers'By Mary Ann PetersUpdated 7:26 PM EDT, Mon April 18, 2016.The author states that the 'Holland model' has failed.There is a growing movement there to raise the age of consent because allowing little girls to have sex DOESNT BENEFIT the little girls!! It's exploitation of their immaturity, poor judgement and trust.How could anyone violate a child in that way!? How could any parent do that to their own little girl?!.Note: the article refers to Holland as a 'cesspool' of child exploitation; that sums it up well for me.Keep your hands and other body parts off little girls, you perverts.
Leave children alone. Date women your own age.
Age of consent is absolutely related the subject of this article, as is the sexual exploitation of children, teens, and adult women.If you actually read the CNN article it states unequivocally that low ages of 'legal consent' result in the sexual exploitation of young girls.And that is unconscionable.Readers note: the commenters who are arguing the hardest that there is NO problem with barely-pubescent little girls having sex, are the men who want to have sex with children (aka, pedophiles) and with very young teens (aka hebephiles, or whatever it's called. ).Are you going to support their creepy agenda?
I hope not.I hope the Feds are keeping track of this article and the commenters; I bet all of you have child and teen porn on your computers. Anonymous wrote:Age of consent is absolutely related the subject of this article, as is the sexual exploitation of children, teens, and adult women.Not really. Your reply was focused on Holland because that's the country I was talking about. And age of consent with regard to prostitution is NOT at all an issue in Holland. In fact, that issue is the least relevant to Holland, which not only has one of the highest ages of consent in Europe at 16 (Germany, Italy and others go as low as 14), but currently has a minimum legal age for prostitution at 18, which is slated to go to 21.
In other words, Holland is perhaps the LEAST relevant country relating to your point. Well, you're certainly dead wrong about your assumption that all commenters here are so-called pedophiles, since I'm a 25 year-old woman who had sex for the first time at the ripe ol' age of 14, with an older man. I come from an educated background, am neither riddled with STDs or an unwanted child, and am certainly not a victim of sex-trafficking or PTSD.
Just because some people, like me, believe there needs to be a more reasoned approach to this debate doesn't mean they are sexual predators. And the Nordic Model really hasn't anything to do with this discussion.
You want to protect females of all ages? Toughen up rape laws, criminal investigation processes, and SEX ED, which Americans are notoriously bad at. And while you're at it, work on a kinder, more sex-positive society that doesn't shame women for having sexual bodies, and whether they choose to use them or not.
Educate boys. Wrote:praising European countries like the Netherlands that (according to the commenter) actually encourage their little pre-teenNo, actually, not at all. Now, as usually, YOU'RE ENTIRELY MAKING UP THINGS AGAIN. Nobody said anybody was encouraging sex among pre-teens. But you apparently have an obsessional need to bring the conversation to be about sex with pre-teens when no such thing was discussed. Part of you sick agenda, apparently. Why do you keep doing that?
But, yes, encouraging teenagers in their mid-teens to have sex, yes that is encouraged in Holland. And the results appear to be a much lower teenage pregnancy rate. Because, you see, teenagers in the USA have just as much sex, but they do it outside of a supportive environment. That is why the teenage pregnancy rate in the USA is so much higher. Wrote:When I posted an article discussing Holland's failed experiment with allowing young teens to legallyconsent to sex, (the policy that has made Holland a hub of child prostitution and child pornography) I was attacked.You were not attacked; you were corrected.
As for their 'failed experiment', your grossly confused and failing to grasp even the simplest element of the discussion. Their approach to parental teaching of sex to teenage children is successful based on teenage pregnancy rates. You then brought the discussion to an entirely unrelated matter of prostitution, and linking that to the low age of consent in the Holland. But that's totally incorrect, because Holland has one of the highest ages of consent in Europe - two years higher than Germany, and prostitution requires an even older age of 18, which will soon be moved up to 21. You appear to be completely unable to maintain a coherent argument. I must be pinking a nerve, to elicit your continuing protests of 'innocence' when I point out the obvious: those who argue that very young teens benefit from having sex are the men who want very much to have sex with very young teens. The only point I want to make is: keep your filthy hands off young teens; you are adult men, go find an adult woman to have sex with you.
Leave kids alone, and leave young teens alone. If young teens want to fool around with each other, that's different. You 18 and older men, leave the youngsters alone. It's not your right or privilege to have sex with young teens or kids. You are sick and disgusting if you sexualize the vulnerability of young teens; it's their time to be innocent and trusting; it's not your time anymore.
Leave them alone. I entirely disagree.A 16 year old is NOT emotionally or intellectually mature enough to give consent for sex. The minimum age of consent should be 18 across all states and territories.If two 16 year olds are caught fooling around with each other, the Romeo and Juliette laws will protect them. But anyone three or more years older than the younger party should be investigated and possibly prosecuted. It's harmful for young teens to have sex, particularly when someone three or more years older pressures them into it.You're a 17 year old boy and you want to have sex? Go find an 18 year old 'adult' woman to have sex with you, leave the younger teens alone. End of discussion.Adult men: keep your hands and other body parts off young teenagers.Your 'teen time' is past; find another adult to have sex with.
Anonymous wrote:I entirely disagree.A 16 year old is NOT emotionally or intellectually mature enough to give consent for sex. The minimum age of consent should be 18 across all states and territories.As your opinion, I respect that you're entitled to it. But my opinion is that it's not practical. It would mean that sex by anybody in high school would be illegal. And sex for many college freshmen would also be illegal. If it were the law, it would simply be ignored on a massive scale, as is the case in California, where the law is as you want it - 18.
I think most people would laugh at the thought that nobody in California high schools are having sex, or that freshmen in the California college system are all refraining. A most hilarious thought indeed. As for maturity, it really does differ, and there are certainly many teens who are mature enough before 18. And your sleezy obsession with young teens is nauseating. Talk about 'snooze', all you wannabe teen molesters sound the same.
Your brains are mis-wired. Normal people look at a young teen and feel a tender protectiveness, but you look at a young teen or child and you think 'I want to fuck you.' That's just reprehensible. Stay away from young teens.
Stay away from kids. Stay away from minors. Teach your sons to freaking stay away from young teens; if your son wants so badly to have sex, find him an adult prostitute to have sex with him. Leave the young teens alone.
It is NOT beneficial and NOT harmless for minor teens to have sex. Stay away from them. And your sleezy obsession with young teens is nauseating. Talk about 'snooze', all you wannabe teen molesters sound the same.
Your brains are mis-wired. Normal people look at a young teen and feel a tender protectiveness, but you look at a young teen or child and you think 'I want to fuck you.' That's just reprehensible. Stay away from young teens. Stay away from kids.
Stay away from minors. Teach your sons to freaking stay away from young teens; if your son wants so badly to have sex, find him an adult prostitute to have sex with him.
Leave the young teens alone. It is NOT beneficial and NOT harmless for minor teens to have sex. Stay away from them. You are pushing for a lower age of consent because YOU want to have sex with young teens.
Or you are pushing for a lower age of consent so if your son has sex with a young teen he won't do jail time and be labeled a pedophile. But the issue is that young teens are NOT emotionally or intellectually mature enough to give legal consent. Their bodies may be ready for sex and reproduction but they don't have the level of responsibility or maturity to treat sex like a responsible adult, as meaningless as a game of tennis. Young teens are not ready to be parents, they don't comprehend that an STD can mess up their fertility or be permanent, and minor teens can't support themselves financially and complete their schooling and be a good parent and finish growing up all at the same time. It's not right and it's not fair to minor teens to put them in that situation. But you sleezewads just look at their bodies and don't care about them as people, so I say go screw yourselves; leave the young teens alone. Tell your sons to date adult women and leave the young teens alone.
None of that is necessarily true. Pushing a lower age of consent has little to do with adults dating young teens. But it has everything to do with teens have some RIGHTS. As a perfect example, there was a black boy, 17 years old and a promising football star who had a 15 year old girlfriend.
He turned 18 before she turned 16, and someone reported it. He got sentenced to ten YEARS, which some people dont get for anything except murder across the rest of the civilized world. Ruining an innocent life for nothing. Repressing teens only makes them miserable and that is why in the US, which drinking age is the highest, sexuality is repressed, prositution is illegal, and until recently, marijuana was illegal, there is the HIGHEST rate of teenage pregnancy, suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse. People take abuse/harm as de facto when its a 17 year old and 30 year old, but then ignore when the same kind of abuse they fear is done between a 28 and 30 year old.If its about the abuse, police that. If its not about the abuse, then its about something else strange and creepy, like infantilizing 16-17 year olds as if they have no capacity or responsibility for themselves.There's also a dunning-kruger effect here stating that all 30 year olds are massively capable of manipulative behavior because they're old enough to have learned to be that way, but thats a skill and if you dont practice that skill, you dont become that kind of person.People ignore this basic facet. Manipulation is a skill set.
Using it requires effort, and thus requires a person to already be someone who is bad who abuses others. Such a person isn't going to mind age of consent laws. People who are not like them would be unfairly prejudicially persecuted by such laws, when they arent committing manipulation. Hear that, readers?
George has announced that he is going after your 16 year old daughters.George sees nothing wrong with that.He doesn't care about your daughter, your little 16 year old girl, as a person.She is just an easy mark. It makes him feel manly to gay a young teen to have sex with him.Apparently 18 year olds are 'too old' for Georgie.So, warn your young teens to be on the lookout for a creepy old guy who might be calling himself 'George', and who probably has a handful of different STDs and nointention of taking anyresponsibility for getting you pregnant, or supporting your child of you have one by him.Thanks for the warning, George.
You just proved everything I've speculated about you: you are able to sexually exploit young teens and still sleep well afterward. That says it all, loser. Anonymous wrote:Are you still obsessed with this topic, give it a rest.Yes, he's still obsessed with it. But you have to give him a break because it's not uncommon for someone who's been abused to also then suffer from pedophilia himself. So this is a person who's probably experiencing a reaction formation - dealing with his own pedophilic desires by constantly striking out against others who he mistakenly thinks is experiencing the same thing.In fact, he's inadvertently revealed his mistaken perception of other men by telling a story elsewhere in this forum about a man who was so kind and in control of himself that he did not molest a young girl. Apparently, he entirely missed the fact that most men have no desire to do that. He thinks all men want to have sex with very young girls, and most don't only because they 'control themselves'.So you have to give Mr.
Anonymous A a break. Poor guy, feel sorry for him. His 'anger' at you is really redirected anger at his own pedo desires. The best bit about all of this is that there is exactly zero you can do to stop your 16 year old daughters getting railed (consentingly) by Chad from the nearby college. It'll probably even happen in your own bed, when you're at work.And it'll be exactly what you'll deserve.Ps. Generally it's those who clamour the loudest who have something to hide. The way you bang on about paedophilia and hebephilia suggests you've got a guilty conscience.
Perhaps your children have more to fear from their own parent?. Too much focus on age is dumb to me, age doesnt determine compatibility AT ALL. I'm against older guys dating 13 and under. But I know for a fact at around 14 MAAAAANY women start crushing on grown ass men. School teachers and all. So I dont understand why punish the man if it's what the lady wants.
Some of these girls be in love too. Older women come off as jealous sometimes. If u dont think u look good enough to compete with teens.
U better get that fixed or work on your feminine charm and personality. Stop being jealous. Feminist kill me so EXTREME. I was 10 and wanted to fuck my 15 year old crush. He use to rub on me and all.
So are they gone lock him up for 10 years for that, even though I came to him first. The law is toooooo damn biased.
Is There a Uniform Age of Consent for all 50 States in the United States?No, there is not a uniform age of consent. The “Age of Consent” is the minimum age at which a person may consent to participation in sexual intercourse. A person younger than the legal age of consent cannot legally consent to. The age of consent in the United States ranges from 16 to 18 years old depending on the state, meaning that a person 15 years of age or younger cannot legally consent to sexual contact. Each state enacts its owns laws which set the age of consent. If someone engages in sexual activity with a person younger than the age of consent in that state, the person could be charged with or other offenses depending on the nature of the contact.What follows is a map depicting the age of consent for all 50 states and a chart outlining the same.Note: This chart was current as of 2016, but could be subject to change over the years. Please do not rely on this chart to make any decisions that could impact your life.
Check your own state’s age of consent laws to make sure you are fully informed, because ignorance of the law will not be a defense for you if charged with a child sexual offense.