Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Age of consent lowered to 13?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-05-2013, 10:53
Cryolemon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 5,938
I'd be interested in what people would say to making the age of consent based on the age of the older person. For example if you were between 14 and 16 the age of consent would be 14, if you were between 16 and 18 it would be 15 and if you were above 18 it would be 16. It would complicate the law, yes.
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 09-05-2013, 10:56
AidanLunn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,405
yes there are she sounds like a pedo magnet they just know with there weird eye's
Love it how you automatically assume all paedophiles have wierd eyes.

"Ey up, 'es a pedo, 'coz 'e 'as weird eyes. Nowt to do wi' wether 'e fancies children or owt like that".

Your ignorance is amusing.
AidanLunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:02
Andrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brackley, UK
Posts: 12,355
I'd be interested in what people would say to making the age of consent based on the age of the older person. For example if you were between 14 and 16 the age of consent would be 14, if you were between 16 and 18 it would be 15 and if you were above 18 it would be 16. It would complicate the law, yes.
That's the way it works in some US states. They typically say that people over the age of 21 can't have sex with anyone under the age of 21. We do have a similar law here but it only applies if the older person is in a position of authority over the younger one (eg;their teacher). In that case the age limit is 18.

The biggest problem the law faces is that the sex drive is a basic human instinct. Ultimately the most important and basic instinct any species can have. Any attempt to legislate behaviour has to allow for the fact that when the opportunity arises millions of years of evolution are saying 'Do it! Do it! Do it!'. It's extremely naive and dangerous to think that just passing a law will curb sexual behaviour.
Andrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:04
AidanLunn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,405
SICK! And even if it did get brought in it WOULDN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!.
I am always amazed by the fact that people confuse 'LAW' and 'MORALITY' while something may be 'legal' it doesn't automatically make it 'morally acceptable' Abortion has been Legal in this country for years but I fing it morally repugnant to Kill an unborn child!
That's because morality is subjective, legality is not.
AidanLunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:09
Ruby_Sparkles
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 194
Why not go the whole hog and lower the age to 5 after all at 13 they are still children. Lets just give mucky old men and women the legal right to have their filthy way. If any person touched my child at that age and I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. I would question that any person who thinks its ok to have sex with a 13 year old has paedophile tendencies themselves
Ruby_Sparkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:09
Cryolemon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 5,938
That's the way it works in some US states. They typically say that people over the age of 21 can't have sex with anyone under the age of 21. We do have a similar law here but it only applies if the older person is in a position of authority over the younger one (eg;their teacher). In that case the age limit is 18.
Indeed. I don't personally agree with the law about people in positions of authority (I think it should be seen as unprofessional, and the person should be sacked, but it shouldn't be specifically illegal if both are over 16).

The main question is whether doing it like I suggested would help rather than simply complicating the law. My preferred idea though would be to lower the age of consent to 14, but enforce it to the letter, but I appreciate that isn't likely, so I mentioned the tiered idea as a compromise.
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:12
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 8,767
Just had a look at Barbara Hewson's Twitter! She seems completely bemused as to why she is getting so much flack! She also refers to the NSPCCs request that she remove or amend her article as odd!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:15
Cryolemon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 5,938
Just had a look at Barbara Hewson's Twitter! She seems completely bemused as to why she is getting so much flack! She also refers to the NSPCCs request that she remove or amend her article as odd!
I'd say not so much odd as attempted censorship. She has the right to say it, even if the NSPCC think she's wrong.
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:16
annette kurten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: dole office.
Posts: 24,957
Just had a look at Barbara Hewson's Twitter! She seems completely bemused as to why she is getting so much flack! She also refers to the NSPCCs request that she remove or amend her article as odd!
there`s nothing odd about expressing an opinion.
annette kurten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:20
Ruby_Sparkles
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 194
there`s nothing odd about expressing an opinion.
there is when its an odd ridiculous opinion
Ruby_Sparkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:20
fink
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cursed Earth
Posts: 2,183
Why not go the whole hog and lower the age to 5 after all at 13 they are still children. Lets just give mucky old men and women the legal right to have their filthy way. If any person touched my child at that age and I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. I would question that any person who thinks its ok to have sex with a 13 year old has paedophile tendencies themselves
Don't be ridiculous. Many people over the age of 16 are physically and emotionally underdeveloped to be having sex, many teenagers at 13 are just the opposite. It's not quite as straightforward as arbitrary cut-off ages would have you believe. Use your loaf.
fink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:25
jzee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,156
When did I say anything about left leaning ideas? I've always thought that political correctness is a menace, so the idea that I think the laws adopted in a "left-leaning" (whatever that means) country should somehow be considered more valid as a result is frankly nonsense.

Anyway going back to my original example, if you look at the current government of Sweden it's usually described as a "centre right coalition" fwiw.
Most people think of Sweden as being left leaning for most of the post war period, you also said most people considered it a more enlightened country, so how could they be classed as misogynist, my point was simply being left or libertarian leaning and being misogynist are not incompatible.

I omitted the other countries that have 16 (and the couple that have higher) because we are talking about lowering the age of consent with respect to the current UK levels.
You should have said that first really shouldn't you.

It is however an interesting table. How many UK residents would have said that the age of consent in Spain, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Iceland and France is lower than that in the UK, and in some cases by 3 years?
I think most people are aware of it.

I personally find it ludicrous that ages of consent are not consistent across Europe.
Many if not most laws across Europe are dissimilar.

I would much prefer a lower boundary, with the proviso that any partners they have should be within a certain age too. I see it very differently if two 14 yr olds are having sex, when compared to a 14 yr old and a 30 yr old!
That's already covered by existing law, it is not treated the same way.
jzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:30
Ruby_Sparkles
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 194
Don't be ridiculous. Many people over the age of 16 are physically and emotionally underdeveloped to be having sex, many teenagers at 13 are just the opposite. It's not quite as straightforward as arbitrary cut-off ages would have you believe. Use your loaf.
I think a lot of men would feel like you because they think with that thing that dangles between their legs. If I was a friend of yours that had a child of 13 and knew your views that its ok to abuse a child I wouldn't let you anywhere near my kid thats for sure. Its morally wrong and would just be giving consent to child abuse, I am absolutely furious and I feel very strongly about this and I know I am not alone judging by whats going on on twitter
Ruby_Sparkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:34
paperplanes_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 7,256
It's disgusting. 13 year olds are children and are not emotionally mature enough.


Regardless of what age you think you are "totes in luv" with your boyfriend or girlfriend, if you're under 18, you are a child. Children shouldn't have sex. This will only lead to a increase in teenage pregnancy and people getting houses off the state and unemployment.

I'm positive someone's going to have a go saying "oh but they'll use contraception etc,". How many of you at 13, honestly had an in depth knowledge of the different sorts of contraception. If your son, daughter, sister, brother, etc came to you at 13 and asked for some condoms, would you really be down with it?
paperplanes_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:34
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 8,767
I'd say not so much odd as attempted censorship. She has the right to say it, even if the NSPCC think she's wrong.
there`s nothing odd about expressing an opinion.
But is it odd that the NSPCC would ask her to amend or remove an article that advocates making it more difficult for charges to be brought against child sex offenders?

Which is my point and has nothing to do with censorship and freedom of opinion!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:36
annette kurten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: dole office.
Posts: 24,957
there is when its an odd ridiculous opinion
what a ridiculous attitude.

@pull, i misread you, sorry.
annette kurten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:37
klendathu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,000
I think the current age of consent should remain at 16 . Young girls age 13 are not mature enough to make decisions like this . We have enough problems with teenage pregnancies as it stands, never mind adding to it .

Local girl I know became a Grandmother at age 32
I kid you not
klendathu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:38
TRIPS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,630
Why not lower the age to drink and smoke to 13 as well, if the argument is they are mature enough to know what they are doing ? fact is children need protecting, i find it disgusting to suggest groping a 9-13 yr old girls breast or putting your hand up her skirt should be treated so casual, a misdemeanour. Why did he put his hand up her skirt? it wasn't to keep his hands warm.
It was against the law to sexually abuse children all those years ago, seems many moved in circles were it was acceptable,
They lost touch with reality and now have to pay for their crimes, the fact that many will be charged is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is did they sexually abuse a child, if the answer is yes, they should be prosecuted, that is not a witch hunt,
TRIPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:39
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 8,767

@pull, i misread you, sorry.
I should've been clearer!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:44
towers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 9,650
It's disgusting. 13 year olds are children and are not emotionally mature enough.


Regardless of what age you think you are "totes in luv" with your boyfriend or girlfriend, if you're under 18, you are a child. Children shouldn't have sex. This will only lead to a increase in teenage pregnancy and people getting houses off the state and unemployment.

I'm positive someone's going to have a go saying "oh but they'll use contraception etc,". How many of you at 13, honestly had an in depth knowledge of the different sorts of contraception. If your son, daughter, sister, brother, etc came to you at 13 and asked for some condoms, would you really be down with it?
Many 17 year olds were living independent lives in the 60's and 70's - living away from home, full-time jobs etc - so I think classing 16-17 year olds as children is a modern thing and probably not accurate, immature adults would be a better word. You continue to learn and become more wise throughout your 20's and 30's but you're not a child at 16.
towers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:45
fink
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cursed Earth
Posts: 2,183
I think a lot of men would feel like you because they think with that thing that dangles between their legs. If I was a friend of yours that had a child of 13 and knew your views that its ok to abuse a child I wouldn't let you anywhere near my kid thats for sure. Its morally wrong and would just be giving consent to child abuse, I am absolutely furious and I feel very strongly about this and I know I am not alone judging by whats going on on twitter
BIB - you're having a laugh surely? Because I don't believe arbitrary cut-off limits are required for everybody my views are tantamount to condoning child abuse and thus I'm unsafe to be around teens?
fink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:49
paperplanes_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 7,256
Many 17 year olds were living independent lives in the 60's and 70's - living away from home, full-time jobs etc - so I think classing 16-17 year olds as children is a modern thing and probably not accurate, immature adults would be a better word. You continue to learn and become more wise throughout your 20's and 30's but you're not a child at 16.
I meant legally speaking, 18 is when people become adults. I can understand what you mean but I'm referring to this generation, I probably should have clarified that better in my original.
paperplanes_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:51
tellywatcher73
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,060
Many 17 year olds were living independent lives in the 60's and 70's - living away from home, full-time jobs etc - so I think classing 16-17 year olds as children is a modern thing and probably not accurate, immature adults would be a better word. You continue to learn and become more wise throughout your 20's and 30's but you're not a child at 16.
I would agree with you that 16 - 17 year olds are young adults. They may not be wise enough to always make the right decisions but are old enough to deal with the consequences of making the wrong ones. In my experience though, 13 year olds are still children and not emotionally mature enough to be having sex.
tellywatcher73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:53
cultureman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,465
Why not go the whole hog and lower the age to 5 after all at 13 they are still children. Lets just give mucky old men and women the legal right to have their filthy way. If any person touched my child at that age and I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. I would question that any person who thinks its ok to have sex with a 13 year old has paedophile tendencies themselves
Yet Britain had an age of consent of 12 for 600 years or so. At a time when the typical 12 year old would have "presented" as say a 9 year old today. For 100 of years this state of affairs was seemingly considered quite normal and uncontroversial by the masses and the "powers that be" (were).. The Established Church of course would have held great sway over this time.

What we consider "normal", "natural" and morally acceptable is far more socially conditioned than many feel comfortable to admit.

Remember that In some parts of the world it is considered morally unacceptable for a woman of any age to engage in any kind of sexual relations without the say-so of certain male figures. They regard for her to do so as essentially a sex crime leading to so-called "honour killings" as moral retribution. Equally in such societies for a woman to expose more than her eyes when out in public is for them unacceptable sexually licentious behaviour.
cultureman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:55
OhWhenTheSaints
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southampton
Posts: 11,456
I've wondered if 16 is the right age before, I've wondered about maybe lowing it to 15...But 13?! That's just stupid.
OhWhenTheSaints is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:02.