To think this is exploitative more than it is shocking?

[lastnerve]

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2171070/Britains-youngest-mother-Amy-Crowhurst-insists-getting-pregnant-aged-12-smartest-thing-I-did.html]

A teen mother who was 12 when she had her first is saying how its the best thing she ever did because now she can go clubbing and wear size 6 clothes.

I'm wondering if she know going in how negatively she was going to be portrayed??

I actually feel a bit sorry for her.

It means that two children are having sex when they re both unprepared and far too young.

This is what gets me why are children having sex so young this is what i dont understand maybe I am just burying my head in the sand about this, it just really makes me sad that a 12 year old boy or girl thinks they are ready for sex

The boy, regardless of whether he had LD, raped her. Because that is what the law says. If I was raped by someone with LDs that person raped me, regardless of whether he knew that was what he was doing. FWIW, I worked for a long time with people with LDs and they are frequently very well informed about consent when living independently because of the risks.

Whether or not it was a rape is not affected by what the offender thinks it was. She was 12, it was rape.

I am not saying we should prosecute. I am not saying he should go on the sex offenders register. But, we have to set the age limit for consent somewhere.

I can see what people are saying that legally she cannot consent,

but the 15 year old boy did not force her against will to have sex.

So I can understand why some people are saying it wasn't rape.

I think to take it upon ourselves to decide for her what she makes of her encounter with the father of her children is pretentious at best and at worst trying to start a rape bun fight where it doesn't belong.

I think we should let her decide. She's an adult now.

When does that not become problematic lastnerve? At 10, 8, 6? I worked with people who had LDs and we worrried a lot about consent. If someone doesn't understand sex and relationships and what consent means they haven't consented. If the father was 35 would we still be happy that she could decide it was consensual.

I'm not saying its not bad, and disturbing. But surely we should respect how she views her own experience.

Theres a huge difference between a 15/35 year old

plus girls do mature quicker than boys so a 12 g and a 15 b may have been on the same mental level.

you can't can't really compare that to being groomed by a man in his 30's.

One of the reasons for the law regarding consent was to make it easier to prosecute grown men who have sex with under age girls, it wasn't so people can shout rape at under age boys having sex with under age girls.

Actually if you had sex with a man with LDs YOU are the one who could be convicted of rape MrsTerry.

Your are confusing two issues.

'If I was raped by a man with LDs it would still be rape'
with
'If she had sex with a boy with LDs it would still be rape'

Plenty of people with LDs CAN consent to sexual relationships so no, it would not necessarily be rape if I had sex with a man with LD. If a person with LDs forced me to have sex, I would still have been raped. The fact that the person would not be prosecuted and did not know that what they were doing was rape does not make it any less rape.

What age would you legally set consent then? Or would you do it on a case by case basis (as it is done with people with LDs)? Because it needs to be set somehow.

I didnt say you would I said you COULD.
If a man with LDS forced you to have sex he would be raping you regardless of cognitive ability.

Also a man having sex with a woman with LDs even if she consented could still be charged with rape if the courts decided she was unable to give consent. She might shout loud and clear that she wanted to do it but, particularly if the man was in a position of power, the case could still go ahead.

This child had sex with another child. It should not have happened.
It is wrong to assert that the boy involved is a sexual criminal.

We have to protect young girls and boys. Absolutely NO argument from me there.

If young girls having sex is wrong and harmful it is also wrong and harmful for young boys.

I wouldnt want the age of consent lowered. I think older men already get away with far too much because of a girl of 14/15 been seen as 'nearly legal'

There is far to much blaming of young girls for leading men on to sex. Responsiblity is removed from adult men and handed to vulnerable girls.

The line is far more blurred when we are talking about children having sex.

The age of consent is set at 16 for boys AND girls. That is not taken on a case by case basis but the decision to prosecute is.

In cases of very young children having sexual relationships we have to take many factors into consideration.

Coercion, cognitive ability, power, vulnerablity etc.

There was a recent case where the alleged father was 12ish and the mother was about 14. There was very little talk of rape in those circumstances.

He was only 12! But it wasnt really seen as a abuse issue. Why is it so different?

We have to protect all of our kids.

Agree with Mrs De Vere - assuming we know the facts, this situation was not rape and would not be treated as such in the eyes of the law. I also think that there is a fine line between genuine concern and self righteous condemnation of a young girl who has not had the same opportunities that perhaps many of us have had. Who's to say, given the same set of circumstances, I would have ended up any different from her?