Should the age of sexual consent be raised to 21 because the drinking age is 21?

Because we are a richer society with higher intellectual / academic demands, childhood will be much longer than before. In this case, college students (especially boys) are still only adult children. Because their impulse is often very strong, they do not know how to think about the results and respect themselves. Unnecessary pregnancy due to addiction and irresponsible overnight sex can ruin the lives of all the people involved and lead to unnecessary abortion.

Education should be given to university students to abstain from respecting sex, potential effects, physical and emotional guidance, and hormonal decisions. . Finding children of college students engaged in sexual activity should be consulted and should face some form of intervention

Most people are not ready yet, I am not, thank God, I did not love. Girls are not so, but they are often under pressure. This is not about my religion or doctrine but mere common sense. It needs to change social attitude. Children should receive sex education and abstinence education so that this mystery can be eliminated.

Because the human brain has not fully developed until your age is 25 years old, the age of drinking should be raised from 18 to 21. In most cases, the brain does not fully develop even if considered as an 18 year old adult. Therefore, in the case of 21 years of age or older (25 years old), it is considered only as an adult.

Is there any benefit to raising drinking age to 21 years old? There are several. After legal drinking age grew to 21 years, state accidents in the state decreased by 15%. After 21 years old minimum drinking age in all provinces, people from 18 months to 20 years old drank last month from 59% in 1985 to 40% in 1991. Alcohol consumption of people aged 25 to 25 also decreased sharply from 70% in 1985 to 56% in 1991.

In the 1980s, the state decided to raise their drinking age to 21 years. Surprisingly, this is not due to safety, pressure from the public, or their own emotions. The main reason the country increases drinking age is that they risk losing 10% of federal highway funds to the National Minimum Drink Age Act (NMDAA). The Supreme Court called this a "relatively small" amount. Losing road funds may affect the state government, but this is not a real "loss" for our society. This is not state government but mere money from the federal government. Actual social net loss is 0. A better question is, if all states reduce their drinking age to 18 years, what is the actual economic cost? To my knowledge, no one is seriously studying this problem. There is data but you need to guess.