Talk:age of consent

age of consent
I think this term perhaps should be deleted. Obviously there is such a thing as a minimum legal age for sexual activity, and it is not the same thing as the age of majority (i.e. legal adulthood overall, signing contracts, etc.), but the term age of consent does not appear in government documents much, if it ever does. Malke2010 and Flyer22 attacked me for using the term on wikipedia, stating it was a "made up" term. It expresses a real concept, but it is not a term governments use, and it also is not precise, because it refers to sex, but does not have the term sex appear in it. Its kind of like how pro-life and pro-choice include words that have nothing specifically to do with abortion, to describe views on abortion law, the term consent can apply to sex, but it can also apply to a lot of other things, its not specific to that topic, so if we kept the term, I think it should be renamed "age of sexual consent", at least. I'm not saying it definitely should be deleted, I'm just making a suggestion. I actually did not create this entry. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It means the youngest legal age to be able to consent to having sex. Someone who is not familiar with the term might think it meant consent to marriage, or something to do with drinking alcohol or going to work. This shows that it is not SOP and deserves to be kept (as is). I have never heard of "age of sexual consent", and even if it exists, it would be SOP. —Stephen (Talk) 10:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably keep because it overwhelmingly (always?) refers to sex acts, which as Stephen says isn't self-evident. I searched for "age of consent for" (hoping to find alcohol, etc.) but only found sex-related phrases such as "age of consent for male homosexuals". Equinox ◑ 11:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, set phrase in the law. bd2412 T 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Malke2010 and Flyer22 stated that the term is never used in legislation, so I do not think it is a phrase "set in law". --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, per . DCDuring TALK 17:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Ok, then I guess Malke2010 and Flyer22 were wrong when they said it was a made up term. Also, now I remember Rhode Island uses the term, so although most governments do not use it, there is at least one that does. So I was right the first time, not this time. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think this request is agenda driven (see here, here, here, here, here). A search shows the term and included sense is obviously used in the context of sex, and is correct. I think attested usage should be added, and not . —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't agenda driven, Malke criticized me for using the term on wikipedia. I changed my mind though. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, see consent, there's no specific sense of sexual consent ergo this is not sum of parts. None of the individual words age, of and consent imply sexual activity. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course. It means more than the sum of its parts. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * RFD kept per unanimity: even nominator PaulBustion88 posted keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)