Age of consent/average age to loose virginity, feminist issue?

[misspontypine]

I don't venture over to the feminism topics often, please excuse me if I am asking an inapropriate question.

I have recently been reading a few threads on AIBU that talk about age of consent/average age for young people to have sex.

My mum brought me up in a feminist enviroment(sinle mother, no dresses, no barbie (or girls toys/boys toys), lots of positive talk about the power of having periods/fertility/babies me and my brother were allways treated exactly the same)

I was allowed to have my long term boyfriend sleep over in my bed when I was 13/14 years old. We decided to have sex a week before I turned 15. I feel like from a feminist perspective it was right to empower me to be able to make my own sexual decisions.

I was taught that my opinin was very important, no ment no, sexuality was not something to be ashamed off, as a woman you have huge power becuase you are ultimatly in controll of contraception and if any children are born (through unprotected sex or protected sex) you as a woman have autoatic right over those children (it was the 90s.)

Is it right to tell young women (or men) to wait untill they are 16 to have sex despite people reaching sexual maturity at all different ages?

Sorry, that was meant to be in bold. Don't know what happened there.

I live in Sweden.

Jeans are also impractical clothing, especially in wet weather.

WhatTheFox: just to clarify from your last point about boys waiting.

I also think boys having sex at 13,14,15 are also children playing at being adults.

And I think very few 16 year olds are mature enough to deal with the possible consequences of sex, whether it is a proper relationship, an unplanned pregnancy or an abortion.

When you have decades ahead of you to have sex, the haste to pretend you are grown up in your early and mid teens is ludicrous.

What's the rush?

'I now live in a country where the age limit for sex is 15, many young people stay over at their boyfriend/girlfriend's house. Strangely the teenage pregnancy rate is much lower than the UK.'

It isn't strange at all. The UK has a very high teen pregnancy rate. Most developed countries, whether they have a lower, higher or same age of consent as the UK have a lower teen pregnancy rate.

The average age of losing virginity is over 16 in Sweden, so you would still be exceptionally young by Swedish standards, and indeed the standards of every other developed nation. The British, on average, actually lose their virginity earlier than most other nations, including the developed ones.

You seem to still be buying into the idea that women have some kind of 'natural urge' as you put it for penetration which they should pursue at a young age, but presumably you feel they shouldn't follow the 'natural urge' to have a baby. That's convenient for men then.

I'm not sure what you want from this thread. You seem convinced that it is somehow feminist to not tell girls to wait until 16 to have sex, but you haven't given any actual benefit of not giving them that advice. Plenty of people have answered your question and explained why there are benefits to waiting and why most responsible adults give that advice.

I believe the age of consent in the Netherlands is 12, with similar range of age at first sex to the UK. And the Netherlands has very low rates of teen pregnancy, STIs, etc. So there's an argument that a lower age of consent might result in less furtiveness of teenagers around sex leading in turn to more active use of contraception, discussing relationships with parents, and generally more responsible sex.

I don't think it would though, unless the UK first got to a sexual culture more like the Netherlands, with open discussion of sex and sexual education and good relationship education from early ages, instead of education being mainly from rumours and the internet and the kids generally being drunk when they get it together.

There was also an argument for lowering the AOC when anyone (but in practice generally boys/young men having sex with slightly younger boyfriends) over the AOC got put on the Sex Offenders Register if their partner was below the AOC and authorities found out, usually dobbed in by upset parents - made sense when the same-sex AOC was 21, but not really appropriate now, especially with guidance not to prosecute consensual relationships with only a small age gap.

Is it really so weird to want sex at that age??? I was bloody gagging for it for at least a couple of years before I did it.

Sex only being ok at 16+ is purely a cultural specific norm. Its not because its objectively right or wrong

When I was 14 or thereabouts I thought I wanted to try alcohol, smoking, sex, driving a car, having a baby etc

All that grown up stuff

Doesn't make it right. And yes, there does have to be an "objective" line in the sand, to protect immature teenagers who think they know everything about the world but they really do not

16 is a decent line, IMO. It's an arbitrary one, for sure, but if it's going to be moved I would personally prefer up rather than down

We made sure our eldest son had condoms available and knew how to use them from around 14 - because he was starting to get very interested in girls. Not to encourage him to have sex, but to make sure that if he did he wasn't going to end up ruining his & another kids lives by getting her pregnant.

I do think that some of you who are expecting your kids to wait 'till they're 16 "'cos its the law, innit" may well be unpleasantly surprised at some stage!!

And one other point - if you got 50 14 year old boys or girls in a room, they would be at all sorts of levels of physical and mental maturity. So to say that "no one wants sex at 14" is a tad naive, because some obviously do!

Indeed. 16 is entirely arbitrary. I would lower the age of consent to 14. Too many parents in the UK want to assume teenagers are non sexual beings.

Ugh

I would lower it too. I cannot see how on earth that would encourage paedophilia.

Paedophiles dont give a fuck about age of consent

I do not believe the government should have more rights over a girls body than she does.

Who is talking about paedophiles ?

Paedophiles are only interested in pre-pubertal children

How many times does that actually need saying ?

How many times does that actually need saying ?

Lots, because the mainstream media have perverted the meaning & it's generally used now to describe any adult having inappropriate sex with someone under the age of consent.

Rather than continually trying to point out peoples error it may just be best to read it in the context it's written.

I had a similar situation as you OP, although my bf did not stay for sleepovers, we had privacy in my room and could experiment sexually as I saw fit.

I did choose to have PIV sex at age 13 (almost 14). We had been experimenting with other sexual things for a few months, had been together for over a year. He was 16. He was totally willing to wait, and even reluctant to go ahead so soon. It was completely my decision and I felt totally in control.

It was a genuinely positive, valuable experience. I am very glad it was my first sexual experience.

Particularly as when I was 16 I had a 'relationship' with a 40yo sexual predator which was the exact opposite. It was very damaging, and I shudder to think what it would have been like if that had been my only sexual experience at that point.

As it was, I knew from what I had lived before that this was not right, that I was not in control nor choosing what was going on. This enabled me to get out and move on.

Oddly, my positive experience would have been illegal in the UK, my second not (different consent laws where I was).

The context is wrong , Dixon, and demonstrates ignorance

It should be called out every time it raises it's ugly head

Oxford Dictionary gives the definition of a Paedophile as -

noun
a person who is sexually attracted to children.

and for Child it says -

noun (plural children /?t??ldr(?)n/)
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority (italics mine)

The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.

Quite willing to be proven wrong, but the tools most people have to hand would disagree with you.

One can usually find any variety of online definition that fits a particular argument

here is mine

it took one click

back in the real world....

well no, it doesnt demonstrate ignorance. I know what paedophiles are and i know theres another term i cant remember for children above puberty but under the age of consent. You all knew what i meant in context, but if your correction made you feel better, then im happy for you.

I really dont think anybody should be having sex before theyre ready, or at any time they dont want to, but if they do want to, then i have no issue with it, even if theyre 13, 14 15 whatever. Not my body, not my business. There are lots of things that can mess with your head at any point in life, sex is only one thing, but it can also be, and for most people, if its really what they want to do, a wonderful experience, and not inherently dangerous

Lots of emphasis should be placed on childrens self esteem, and how to say no and stay safe.

Obviously there will never be a change in the law to anything like this extent, if at all, so this is purely my considered opnion on the matter,

well, bran, if you use "lowering the age of consent won't encourage paedophilia" as an argument, you need to be very sure of your terms

Christ, first thing they tell you at Uni is "never quote Wikipedia" - it's non-verified information, anyone can upload anything.

I think I'll take the Oxford Dictionary and the Sex Offenders Act as my points of reference if that's all right with you...

Back in the accurate world.....

Dixon, you conflated two separate definitions

That's a well known no-no

and yes, I attended "Uni" although that that has to do with it, I am at a loss to know

My DS is 14, I won't be ensuring he has condoms available to use. I've told him he needs to take responsibility for contraception and to not even think of penetrative sex until he's thought about and sorted out contraception. That means not relying on a girl to be on the pill, but also to use a condom every single time he has penetrative sex and to take responsibility for supplying that condom. He knows where he can get them for free (a place not far from his school) as and when the time comes and I've told him that if he doesn't feel able to organise the contraception, then he's almost definitely not ready to penetrate anyone else's body with his penis.

The rest is up to him. It's not my job to hand him condoms, penis-beakers or anything else to do with his sex life. My remit as his mother just doesn't go that far...