to think that at 16 your parents still do or should have a say in your life?

[extremepie]

I know that at the age of 16 you are legally allowed to have sex and theoretically become parents so I wouldnt neessarily say that a 16yr old is a child but I dont think they are an adult either.

This is inspired by a thread about letting a 16yr old dye their hair but there are many times this has come up on MN and I cant help thinking that actually at 16 most of us are not emotionally mature enough to make 100% of our own decisions independantly and without parental advice/supervision. Ok, they are too big for parents to really stop them doing anything but if nothing else isnt it a standard respect thing for the people who own the house you live in to have a say in where you go, what time you come back etc?

Its just that I have heard a lot of 'well they're 16 now, nothing you can do, they are grown up' etc and actually I dont think that's right. Most of us are still quite immature at that age and sometimes do need a bit of intervention to stop them making stupid decisions.

I know that at 16 my parents didnt exactly give me a curfew but I would do them the courtesy of letting them know roughly when to expect me back. Same as, they didn't forbid me to dye my hair but I knew my mum would be very upset if I did so I took her opinion into account and didnt dye my hair until I moved out.

So, AIBU to think that giving 16yr olds shouldnt be given a completely free rein to do whatever they want, especially if they still live at home?

I left home at 16 and lived alone from then until my late thirties, so it really depends on circumstances. It's certainly wrong to assume that no 16 yr olds are responsible, capable adults. Some are, some aren't.

smokepole

I find it 'unbelievable' that parents are moaning that kids have to be in some sort of education until 18.

Who on this thread is "moaning"? Nobody has said anything of the sort. Several, including me, have expressed polite disagreement with you and I have pointed out that in most of the UK 16 year olds are adult entitled to make decisions about their lives (as it irritates me to see statements of law which I know are wrong)

I think the extended school years can be a good thing for most 16 year olds. There is a % that it's not good for and those that aren't academic struggle with the two extra years.

There is a skewed thought on mumsnet that anyone can be a high earner and highly educated if they want to be, this isn't always the case. There are people out there not capable of achieving A levels or a degree and that's fine. The country needs people to do the so called lowly jobs and work in lower paid jobs.

Is it any coincidence that last years 16 yr olds had to stay in to 17 and this years unemployment figures show a record breaking low of 16-18 yr olds unemployed? Of course not all the 16-17 yr olds are still at college or school so not included in the figures.

The idea of continuing education and training for all 16-18yo looks good on paper.

However, sixform, FE collage and career service funding have all been cut in recent years.

This means that many DCs who haven't got the grades necessary to do their first choice of A levels, have a very hard time finding a corse/apprenticeship they actually want to do.

Heaven knows what Micky mouse course my DSIS grades would have got her on? As it was she worked for a year and because she was prepared to give up a full time job the collage were prepared to take her on a secretarial course she didn't have the grades for.

She did really well and hasn't been out of work in 28years

At 16 i had a good relationship with my parents.it was over a decade ago! Had to be back by 1045 in week and i couldn't stay over at my bf till i was 18 as i was an adult then.
Was always able to dye my hair and dress how i want. Parents didn't mind as i was working and going to college, though they hated my clothes!
Dad would not budge on facial piercings till i was 18 and again an adult.

Further / higher education will still be there if someone who has left school at 16 wants to access it later. I won't be entirely surprised if my DD decides to go to uni in 2 or 3 years time, but at the moment she is having a great time and learning a huge amount without being in education or on an official training scheme.

My parents always had contradictory rules but I think they found it hard to determine how to treat me once I turned 16. Sometimes I had a curfew if out with friends, if my parents felt like giving me a curfew that night. I was now allowed to sleep over at my boyfriend's house who was only a 5 minute walk away. Yet when I was 15 I wasn't allowed to sleep over at his house but I was allowed to sleep over with him at different relatives' houses, such as his sister and dad's partner. My parents were unaware we shared a room on these occasions. I've no idea why they thought one scenario was okay but not the other.

At 16, most of my friend's parents allowed them to do as they pleased. So it was quite embarrassing for me to always be the one who had to be picked up at 11pm or whenever it was. At 16, I went on a date to the cinema and had to be back by a certain time. The date asked me if I wanted to go to a friend's house after. I had to say no obviously and my dad came and picked me up from my date at the agreed time. It's no surprise I didn't get a second one!

Sometimes they would let me sleepover with friends, then the next time it would be a no and "because I said so". They didn't seem to know what their rules were or why. Things seemed to change when 6 months after turning 16, I got a job and earned money and found my own independence. They stopped telling me what time to be back and switching their rules all the time. Although my mum could be really set on me being back for dinner, even until I was 19. And again at 21 when I briefly moved back home. Which caused arguments. I quickly moved out!

They had a rule which was no piercings or tattoos until I was 18. The moment I turned 18, I got lots of big tattoos and facial piercings. I think I went a bit mad at finally being let loose.

16 doesn't represent maturity of any kind.

Physically, neurologically and emotionally they are immature.

Having the age of consent at 16 is I fear a convenient law that was established many years ago when all women were treated as children.

As Daisy said upthread, the age of consent should be raised to 18.

I think your username is extremely appropriate given you think the age of consent should be 18.

Is that at Daisy or me?

You. I can't see any justification for raising it to 18 and highly unlikely to be enforceable.

Sorry I don't get your issue with my username, perhaps I should explain it, it's a parody of the TV programmes called Real Housewives of New York or whichever city they are covering that season. And the parody bit is that they are very unreal, as is the term 'housewife'.

It's not the best username of all time but at least we have one thing in common, we both have names based on mythical characters.

I meant I don't think you are living in the real world if you think raising the age to 18 is a good idea.

And why would that be?

What do you think it will achieve other than criminalising large numbers of teenagers, making access to contraception more difficult, infantilising teenagers and encouraging some of the controlling attitudes on this and the hair colour thread.

I explained why I think it should be raised, and it is a largely scientific argument, that the human body is not physically mature it is still growing. The neurological changes that go on in the brain at that age make decision making very skewed and also messes with their emotional responses, as hormones do. Where hormones are largely settled by this age, the physical capability is there to bear children, a 16 year old is not mature.

If they are not mature enough to vote or drive why would we accept they are mature enough to bear children and take responsibility for them?

The reason we think they should be able to have sex and have babies is, I suggest, because these rules are designed by men to protect men. Don't kid yourself into thinking this has anything to do with liberty.

Not following that at all. Very few 16-18 year olds have babies; many of them will be having sex; some of them will be same sex relationships. Raising the age to 18 isn't going to stop the few who have babies

having babies.

If you are making choices with a mature brain and body then you are less likely to have children when you're not ready and less likely to get into sexual relationships that are unhealthy.

*It's a cultural thing I think. Not sure how it is in the rest of Europe, I come from a different continent. In my country at 16 you are still considered a child and your parents are most certainly still in charge.

It's one of the big cultural clashes I am suffering with being at expat here! I don't know how I am going to deal with it when my own DCs are teenagers ( DH is English so no chance of leaving either).*

One of the very first posts on the thread and I could have written it almost word for word.

Having gone on to read the rest of the thread has only made me feel my usually sense of bafflement and, honestly, deep unease at people's (or at least MNer's) attitudes to older teenagers. I cannot relate at all. It genuine unnerves me that my daughters may some day come home at 16, announce they are dropping out of education, moving in with an older man, and trying for a baby, and the popular attitude will be "meh, you can't do anything about it".

I just cannot relate. In my background this would never happen. I have no idea how I'd deal with it. I am utterly unequipped.

But I do want to say one thing which I think I can say with some authority! even if all the rest of this is so out of my own experience. It is not true, at all, that this is the natural, normal, long-standing state of affairs. Throughout the vast majority of the world, young people live at home with a great deal of deference to the preferences of their families. They leave when they are trained and educated and equipped to support households of their own - in their mid twenties or even later. Throughout history, it was the exact same story. Although many people would have been "working" at 16, they would have been doing so at the direction of their family while still under their control and their roof. If they left the family home to work as apprentices or domestic help, they were treated in their new homes the exact same way. - subject to strict controls on every aspect of their behaviour.

I'm not, of course, saying that this situation is in any way better than the situations described throughout the thread. In many ways it's controlling and unhealthy at best and seriously abusive at worst.

But it is way, way more common and normal than the post-war-boom-fuelled British practice of it suddenly being "normal" for a 16 year old to establish their own household. That is, by comparison with most of humanity, quite bizarre.