Who's going to stop them from having sex anyway? The government can't monitor people in their homes.

I say that at 13 anything should go. It will then be up to the parents to protect their own children. I don't believe in a nanny state where the government has to do the parenting work for everyone. People need more personal responsibility.

Besides, it was only 7 years ago when I was this age. I remember vividly knowing right from wrong, how to conduct myself, and the potential consequences of sex. There's no reason why other kids can't be educated the same way I was: by parents who took the time to explain it.

i think that it should be, partly because you know that most teenagers are going to have sex at a young age and when they are together, the boy might be a year older then the girl or vice versa and either party could get in trouble, so i really do think that would be best.

Yes, right away my parents dont allow it and im bloody anoyed, ive gt a girfreind and want to do it now, its been longer enough and were gettin anoyed that we cant!!!

The way I see it, people will naturally want to have sex as soon as they are physically capable of having it. I think 15 should be the minimum age, as that is the time when most teenagers become sexually capable. The greater concern should be promoting the use of prophylactics, not preventing something that is, by nature, irresistible.

I have been with the same guy for almost 8 months, next year i will be 18 and he will be 16. He is very mature for his age because of some things he has been through in his life. It's ridiculous for the age to be 18, im still in high school. I think it should be 15.

yes so know i can bed this sexy 3 year old that i have been seeing for three years

This is a tricky one, how is a person supposed to know that someone is underage or not. There has been cases where teenagers that look older than they are get into nightclubs where you would expect everyone to be above 18 where I am from and 21 in America I think. If a person is to take one of these people home and has sex with them they are guilty of statutory rape, which is a bit unfair.

i mean you could say yes and you could say no at the same time. yes it should be lowered because even though there is a certain age that's legal for someone to have sex the majority of the youth in this century are having sex any way. Teen pregnancies have been raising higher and higher each year ccausing some teens to even drop out and get nowhere unless they really work hard for it which rarely happens. Ans the no bc if the age was lowered the number of teen preganacies would more than likely double and plus the spread of disease and poor choices younger kids make we'd be looking at a complete mess. So you could say no and you could say yes

Does it really make a difference? Teens are gonna have sex whenever they feel like it regardless of the law. So yes, lower it already.

Yes because people who are ready and know about the advantages and disadvantages of having sex without a condom, should be able to, if they know what it takes to be a mum. People who use condoms should be allowed because they won't become a mum or dad, but it shouldnt be lowered very much, u could have 2 year old mums.

umm yea they do it anyways get over it asshole governers just because its a law doesnt mean kids would follow it. What are you going to do next? install cameras in our bedrooms and cars?

Teens are more promiscuous today and the abstinence pledge is not working, so, the age of consent should be lowered.

No age of consent laws should exist, or at least make it the onset of puberty. The focus should be on accepting sexuality as normal (because it is). Spreading STD's should be criminalized and victims should get financial compensation from the person responsible.

even if the age is not lowered, people will still have underage sex. so, by lowering it, they wont be having underage sex!