The abolition of government regulation of sexual relationships would also mean there would be no need for minority sexualities to have to prove, as against the prejudice and sexual bigotry of the majority, that they may have consensual personal relationships that are none of anyone else’s business. [PeterHume]

Last post to you mate: "IF's" and "could be's" are an illusion PeterHume. Government legislation and protocol will NOT be changed in Australia regarding the age of consent [if anything; the legislation will be risen]. take off to another country where the laws differ in regard to childrens' age of consent. The majority of Australians [in particular parents] are satisfied that legislation is in place regarding the age of consent. You are a minority PeterHume. You wont change the majority of peoples' minds via your postings. So why bother flogging a dead horse over the issue in various threads. Government will not abolish legislation for a minority of Australians. And thank you God for that

Peter Hume, this thread is about marriage and commitment.
How did you manage to bring underage sex into the mix again?

You have mentioned these thoughts in other threads. What age do you think humans are ready for sex and marriage?

The current '150 year old laws' have been left unchallenged for a reason.

Although some children under the age of consent (under 16), are physically able to produce children, they are still way behind in the emotional capacity to deal with all that parenthood has to throw at them.

There are still some backward countries in the world who allow underage marriages (usually of the girls to older men).
Would you be more comfortable living there perhaps?

Suzieonline
"Peter Hume, this thread is about marriage and commitment.
How did you manage to bring underage sex into the mix again?"

Answering W.A.U.'s question which she posted in this thread?

“What age do you think humans are ready for sex and marriage?”

I think there are real issues with age as a criterion, because:
a) different people mature at different rates, so what is just for one person is unjust for another;
b) for a given individual maturation is on a continuum. It’s not the case that they completely lack maturity until a certain age and then switch over next day to being fully mature, as the age of consent laws treat them; and
c) *age* is always only ever a surrogate for an underlying state of development, physical or emotional. But when you ask, the defenders of age of consent laws are never able to say what that state of development is. Can you? A simple ‘no’ will suffice.

And as the average age at puberty has dropped by three years since the age of consent laws were passed, the effect is in that time to have raised the age of consent three years above the relevant stage of development. Yet the fact is many young people who reached puberty years ago, and are still under the age of consent, aren’t going to *wait* to start their sex lives for the sake of legislators in Macquarie Street 150 years ago who neither knew nor cared about the particular facts. The effect is more and more to criminalise normal *non-abusive* human behaviour for large numbers. Anyone questioning it is treated to argument which lumps in this category with the violent rape of little children and questioning of personal motives.

There is no issue that people who are immature would be abused by sex whether they consented or not and that it should be a criminal offence; and that people who are mature enough and for whom sex would not be necessarily abusive, are able to give meaningful consent, even though they are under the age of majority.

The question is, what is the relevant state of maturity? - which *no-one* is able to specify. That being so, I don’t see why the solution should be an aged-based one-size-fits-all imposed in the abstract; and therefore why the decision should be for the state rather than the parents and their offspring. Rape is already illegal at any age, and by law parents have the parental responsibility until 18.

"Although some children under the age of consent (under 16), are physically able to produce children, they are still way behind in the emotional capacity to deal with all that parenthood has to throw at them."

How do you know? Do you know them all do you? And presumably where the age of consent is 17 their emotional capacity lags behind for a further year? Nonsense.

"There are still some backward countries in the world who allow underage marriages (usually of the girls to older men). Would you be more comfortable living there perhaps?"

The ages of consent vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Does that mean everywhere is a "backward country" in relation to the country with the highest age of consent? Why not make it 21 just to be sure? If the interests of the sexually mature young person and their sexual partner in not being criminalised for consensual sex count for nothing, there is no reason.

Both your arguments are completely circular. Neither has given any reason to think that 16 is the age at which people become ready to have sex, nor even tried to come to terms with what the relevant stage of development is. W.A.U. tries to deal with the fact she is unable give any coherent reason by saying, in effect, “It is, because it is, because it is.” And Suzieonline by saying, if I don’t like it, why don’t I go somewhere else?

Your arguments makes no more sense than if I were to say “Well under-age sex just happens, so if you don’t like it, why don’t you move to another country!”

Mr Hume,

'Why should people who have deliberately avoided marriage because they don’t want and don’t accept its terms, find themselves involuntarily saddled with them, for the sake of those who don’t get married because “it’s just a piece of paper” and who, after the event, now expect all the rights of marriage without ever actually having gotten married? That is the immoral result of the de facto relationship laws. '

My sentiments exactly.

Suze,

'they are still way behind in the emotional capacity to deal with all that parenthood has to throw at them.'

But contraception is widely available. Just saying.

Mr Hume,

What do you think about the age of consent being based on first menstruation for girls and first wet dream for boys? Maybe then the age of any partner until the age of 18 can be legislated to be no more than 3 years older. So an 18yo girl or boy cannot have sex with anyone under 15. But, a 15yo boy or girl can have sex with a 12 yo boy or girl. Maybe you should at least limit it to 13. I think it's at least a bit more realistic than having 15yo's who are just doing what comes naturally being criminalised.

Of course, if consent laws reflected societal attitudes, the age of consent for girls would be 21 and for boys about 12.

Houllebecq
I think politically it would be a can of worms any way. The main thing is that young people should be sexually mature and the relation be not abusive on the one hand, but having admitted those limits, the deciding factors should not be the sexual morality of the officious meddlers, or sexual jealousy of the parents on the other.

In NSW they have variable age brackets like you mention. But often it doesn't work out like that, and the commonest thing in the world is for females to choose an older partner. I have known cases of young women aged 15 or even 13, with partners 19 or 21. A sexually mature young woman, say aged 15, isn't going to want to go out with a 15-year old boy - from her point of view it would be like going out with a child. As my wife explained, the reason why young women like that go out with young men so much older is because they *are* their peers.

"Of course, if consent laws reflected societal attitudes, the age of consent for girls would be 21 and for boys about 12."

LOL yeah. There was a case on TV a while ago about an adolescent boy who had been "sexually abused" supposedly in a consensual relationship with an older woman. You couldn't get the grin off his face with a pneumatic chisel.