PDA

View Full Version : The age of consent


Hotcod
09-23-2009, 08:11 AM
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/call-for-age-of-sex-to-be-cut/story-e6frf00i-1225778209661

A BBC program is going to debate the idea that the age of consent in the UK should be lowered to 13, like it is in Spain. It's a really interesting subject that has some really tricky issues to be dealt with. The main arguments against a drop are 2 fold, firstly teenage pregnancy in the UK is still on the rise and secondly you have to protect young people from abuse by adults.

The first argument is an odd one, if the age of consent was a factor then rates would not be rising and if we raised the age to 18 they would drop. Which is frankly a bit of a silly naive idea. My mother worked at a high level on the governments program to reduce teenage pregnancy and the age of consent really isn't even something the kids who are getting pregnant care about. What ever the ages of consent it's simply not going to make a difference but it does stop criminalizing young people and might allows for better education on the subject in school and at home.

That said i don't really see the point, undera ge kids having sex with under age kids is not something that gets prosecute as far as i know and school are already teaching sex ed at a young age and underage people can get help and advice and free condoms if they want. I believe underage girls can be given the pill.

So why lowering the age would really do nothing to effect teenage pregnancy rates it would also change very little in terms of what is already being done to try and lower them. Given that it's mostly not a law that is enforced when it comes to under age kids having sex anyway then you have to look at the second argument.

Which is the protection of young people from abuse by adults. It's when older people have sex with under age ones that the law starts to have any useful effect and it's there that it's enforced and to me that makes sense. A 13 year old, to me, is far to vulnerable to manipulation by an older person. I don't see the point of 16 year old being done for sleeping with there 15 year old girl friend but when you have much older people there is a problem. If you are in your 20s and your dating a 15 year old you, as the older more mature person, have a responsibility to look after the younger. That the reason most people in the 20s would date some one 15 years old is counter to that is exactly why the age of consent need to be where it is.

I think the only thing that needs to happen is for a judge and police to have much grater discretion in enforcing the law. In that a 16 and 15 year old who have been going out for years who are found to be having sex could be let off but a 30 year old sleeping with a 15 year old will be able to be prosecuted to the fullest existent that can be managed.

The simple fact is that it's all relative and subjective and one hard and fast rule isn't that useful. Discretion in the use of a law whos main gaol is to protect young people not punish them is the key here. And i think 16 is the most useful place to set the boundaries.

What do you guys think? i know most sates in the US make it 18 which in my eyes is really stupid but the whole debate is an interesting one.

Ink Asylum
09-23-2009, 08:46 AM
I definitely think, when it comes to teens, that there needs to be a sliding scale. An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old should not be an offense.

Shieldmaiden
09-23-2009, 09:00 AM
As anyone with any experience with teenagers will tell you, our current laws regarding adults having sex with minors are hopelessly outdated. The vast majority of 14-15 year olds know exactly what they're doing when it comes to sex and a many of them will be sexually predatory. The current system places the blame squarely on the adult and this isn't always an accurate portrayal of the situation. There definitely needs to be a stronger discretionary element.

Crowe
09-23-2009, 09:01 AM
There definitely needs to be a scale. You should not be concerned with being prosecuted for having sex with someone 1 year younger, but a 22 or 23 year old with a 15 year old...that's messed up, I know some people might be ok with it, and there might even be some 15 years old's out there who look and act much older, I just haven't seen them.

Here in Victoria, Australia It is an offense to sexually penetrate a person under the age of 16. However it is a defense if the younger party was aged 10 years or older and the offender was not more than 2 years older than the younger party.

Ink Asylum
09-23-2009, 09:11 AM
Perhaps we should adopt the XKCD model:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dating_pools.png

18 and above anything goes, below that you use the scale to determine who that person can legally consent to. So a 20 year old could have sex with a 17 year old. An 18 year old could have sex with a 16 year old. A 16 year old could have sex with a 15 year old. It's not perfect, but it's more sensible than the system we have now.

Even then, the penalty shouldn't jump immediately from "no penalty" to "jail time and sex offender" if a 21 year old has sex with a 17 year old.

Crowe
09-23-2009, 09:17 AM
Perhaps we should adopt the XKCD model:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dating_pools.png

18 and above anything goes, below that you use the scale to determine who that person can legally consent to. So a 20 year old could have sex with a 17 year old. An 18 year old could have sex with a 16 year old. A 16 year old could have sex with a 15 year old. It's not perfect, but it's more sensible than the system we have now.

Even then, the penalty shouldn't jump immediately from "no penalty" to "jail time and sex offender" if a 21 year old has sex with a 17 year old.

I can't see too much wrong with that, it ensures young people can have sex without fear of prosecution, and it makes sure older people get punished for preying on the young. Even though there are a lot of young people who know what they are doing, there are many who do not.

To me it's about as perfect as it can get, is there even a perfect way to do this, I'm sure there people who would see all sex under 18 illegal as perfect.

Shieldmaiden
09-23-2009, 09:48 AM
but a 22 or 23 year old with a 15 year old...

Interestingly enough, Mrs Jonno is 7 years my senior.

Another point to consider. Everyone, especially the guys, think back to when they were 15. Would you have sex with a hot 22 year old? What would the reaction of your peers have been?

Crowe
09-23-2009, 09:56 AM
Interestingly enough, Mrs Jonno is 7 years my senior.

Another point to consider. Everyone, especially the guys, think back to when they were 15. Would you have sex with a hot 22 year old? What would the reaction of your peers have been?

Yeah no surprise, my gf parents are the same. Only opposite, 25 year old man with 18 year old female. And hell yeah I would have jumped at the chance.

I was thinking more from my perspective, a 15 year old girl at 22 just seemed so wrong. And I've always felt guys were able to seem a lot older physically, I had mates at 15 and 16 who had full on facial and chest hair.

Shieldmaiden
09-23-2009, 10:11 AM
I brought it up because people view things differently depending on whether the older partner was male or female. When it's a teenage lad with an older woman it's often seen as a vcitory for the young buck and is applauded, when reveresed, it's seen as the actions of a perverse, predatory man.

OldJadedGamer
09-23-2009, 11:53 AM
What I think is weird that if a 13 year old commits a horrible crime, then they are tried as an adult. But if a 17 year old has sex with an 18 year old, they are considered a child.

Ink Asylum
09-23-2009, 12:10 PM
Here is an interesting blog post about the rise in teenagers being labeled as sex offenders. (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/there-is-fury-and-and-sadness-inside.html) It's very emotional, and includes mugshots of teens who are charged with a crime for having sex with someone within a couple years of their own age.

It takes so little for this happen to a child. A girl in school has oral sex with a boy in school. She becomes a sex offender for the rest of her life. Streaking a school event, as a practical joke, becomes a sex crime in the new America. Two kids “moon” a passerby and are incarcerated in jail as sex offenders, where they may well learn a lesson or two about rape. A teenager, who takes a sexy of photo of him, or herself, is paraded around the community as a “child pornographer” for the rest of his or her life. Two kids in the back seat of a car have fumbling sex. The law says one is an offender because the other is a “victim.” One week later, a birthday passes, and it is no longer a crime. One week’s difference and a life is ruined. In other cases an act that is legal on Monday is illegal on Tuesday because the older of the two turned one year older. That becomes enough to qualify him, or her, as an offender.

It also includes this shocking graph:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_78ZrJuZ3q5g/SrB_pTkQIwI/AAAAAAAACaE/-71qOFLsTvU/s400/OffenderAges.jpg

Does anyone really believe that 14 year olds are more likely to be sexual offenders than 30 year olds?

I can't imagine what it must be like to be a teenager these days. Because of the internet you not only have greater access to porn to get you thinking about sex, but you also have social networks, IMs, and texting, which make connecting with fellow teenagers, flirting with them, and dating that much easier. At the same time you now have a much greater danger of having the hammer come down and prosecute you as a sex offender for something that is completely natural, even if it is frowned upon by adults and parents.

DoctorFinger
09-23-2009, 12:22 PM
I definitely think, when it comes to teens, that there needs to be a sliding scale. An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old should not be an offense.
Actually in most states there's a "Romeo & Juliet" law, which says that if the parties having sex are within 3 (or in some places 4) years of one another, it isn't a crime. But I also know that there have still been arrests and prosecutions when there shouldn't have been.