to wonder if a conversation is needed about "staggering" the age of consent

[Servalan]

Apologies if there is already a thread dealing with this - I've looked but couldn't find anything.

I listened to Women's Hour earlier where "Alice" (the woman who was allegedly raped by Russell Brand at the age of 16) was being interviewed.

At the time, she was in a "relationship" with him - she was 16, he was 31. She was talking about the power imbalance, how she didn't have the tools to advocate for herself or really understand what was happening to her.

Now, obviously, forced oral sex is rape and is illegal.

What I'm wondering about is whether a consentual sexual relationship (which "Alice" thought she was in with Brand up until the rape) between a 31 and a 16 year old should be legal.

The ages of 16 and 17 are not seen as being an adult in the eyes of the law, yet the age of consent laws mean that a much older adult can have consentual sex with a 16 or 17 year old child.

Seeing conversations on here about age gap relationships where the youngest person is 16 or 17, there is disapproval and distaste expressed - so it's frowned upon but it's not illegal.

I come from a generation where at the age of 16, I had friends in relationships with adults in their late 20s and no one batted an eyelid, but I think it was (to use a cliche) "different times". Childline was founded when I was in my mid teens and before that, in my personal experience, people didn't really talk about child abuse much - it existed of course, but was swept under the carpet. Over the years I have seen a massive shift in how the nuances and power balances in this type of age gap relationship are discussed.

Now I have a 17 year old DD I see things VERY differently to how I did when I was younger. I think a lot of us do.

The reason I'm wondering about a "staggered" age of consent is that it is normal and healthy for 16 year olds to be having sexual relationships with people within their peer group - but wondering if there is a way to safeguard from predatory older people.

I’d just change it all to 18. To protect young people.

I think changing the age of consent to 18 would be good all round. It’s much easier to obey a binary - over 18 yes, under 18 no. A sliding scale will just get confusing and difficult to police. And maybe awareness training for teens about predators and age gaps.

I read in a previous thread that there's something like this in Germany. Don't know how it works. I agree it's worth consideration. I don't think criminalising a couple of 17 year olds should happen, but 16 year olds and 30 year olds... even 21 year olds is grim.

What would you do about all the 17yos having sex with each other?

It’s difficult. I’d sometimes be concerned about an 18 (or even 19 in some cases) yo who was in a relationship with someone much older than them, depending on the dynamic.

@Startstruck it’d be like 2 15 year olds now - rarely in anyone’s interest to make a fuss.

It would be same as all 15 year old having consensual sex with each other - the police wouldn’t be bothered. They’re only involved if they thought a vulnerable 15 year old was having sex with someone much older than them.

The police probably wouldn’t pursue it. Just like they don’t really do much about two 15yo having sex now. If they’re both similar age children they generally get away with it. The law is to protect them from older predators.

Big differences in power are more likely to lead to abuse and age is closely linked to power.

If AoC remains 16yrs plus age gap of <10 yrs until age 18. And even after that, age and power should be considered as aggravating factors in any prosecution for assault etc.

hopefully sarcasm

I think it should be, if the youngest party is under 18 then the other person may be no more than 3 years older than them.

I know it’s always a jokey thing to say but half your age plus 7 (is the youngest you can date) is a good rule to live by!
so creepy 80 year olds the youngest is 47
if you’re 30 it’s 22
and if you are 18 it’s 16

I think that's called a Romeo and Juliet clause. I think it sends a signal to teens and adults alike about what is appropriate.

My DD is 16 and we were talking about this today. I think in general it’s a good idea but hard to work out the details of what should be allowed, where the boundaries lie.

To clarify. I mean remains 16 (or even increase it to 17) and 16s upper limit is 19 and 17s is 20.

I would like that I was groomed, similar to Alice. But from age 14.

I think consent from 16 with anyone under the age of 20. So 16-19. People 20 and over can only have sex with 18 or older.

Just said the same to DP over dinner, OP. It's hard to see how even a mature 16 yo could have a healthy relationship with a man twice her age. So much scope for abuse, control.

I agree with this. It should be 18 .

@bootsvsshoes I agree with you, or just a simple one that if one person is 16 or 17, the other must be under 21.

The law in Germany on this is interesting. In addition to the age of consent of 14, Section 182 (Sexual abuse of youths) of the Penal Code says:

A person over twenty-one years of age who abuses a person under sixteen years of age, in that he:
commits sexual acts on the person or allows them to be committed on himself by the person; or
induces the person to commit sexual acts on a third person or to allow them to be committed on the person by a third person,
and thereby exploits the victim's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...] The act shall only be prosecuted upon complaint, unless the prosecuting authority considers ex officio that it is required to enter the case because of the special public interest therein.

As I understand it, this effectively means that, if a young person files a complaint, it only needs to be proven that sexual acts took place and not that there was a lack of consent (as is often the difficult bit in rape cases).

The specific ages of 14 and 16 seem a little low, but maybe similar rules could work in the UK with different ages. 16 and 18, perhaps?

I strongly disagree. Not all age difference couples are abusive. Abuse isn’t just caused by an age difference. I don’t think it would stop abuse but just drive it underground. How do you prove age difference couples are having sex anyway? Too many if buts and maybes. I’d rather young people be taught how to be vigilant and how to seek help if they do find themselves in an abusive relationships.

Changing it to 18 is just going to lead to more risky behaviour instead of the current system of stepping up of allowances I.e AOC 16, drive at 17, drink at 18. If you raise the AOC you have to seriously consider driving age and suddenly you go from being a child to an adult overnight. What about an age to post topless for money vs posting it on insta etc.

Abuse of power could also happen between a 18 year old and a 31 year old celebrity. That's before you consider things like S&M, games, public opinion, religious beliefs, morals, one night stands etc

It should be 18 years world wide, that way there's no confusion about whether it's legal or not.

I often read on here parents speaking about their 14+ drinking and having sex and being totally fine with it. There are also many posts where posters will say they had a child by 16 and their own home etc and turned out fine.

Curious why you refer to an 80 year old as creepy? Seems unnecessary.

You live by it all you like but quit imposing it on others, eh?

I think tbh raising it to 18 is a bit unrealistic given that so many young people are going to ignore that and have sex anyway. I think the key to this issue is really a lot more relationship work happening in schools/ churches/ children's services/ youth centres in a way young people can actually engage with it. There should be youth workers in schools doing this work as an ongoing process that gets more detailed and informative as the young people get older.

Ideally I'd love to see that idea of staggering the ages of consent put to young people to decide and vote on so it opens up the conversation around what is the difference between a 16 year old and a 31 year old and why are they not compatible. I think the problem with that is not all young people have the same capacity to safeguard themselves and you could have an 18 year old who's more vulnerable than a 16 year old in terms of being aware and informed about what they want and deserve in a relationship. This is a conversation that needs to be happening with and amongst young people in order to safeguard them, they need to be fully informed on the arguments.

When I worked in supported accommodation if we had someone in their 30s trying to visit an 18 year old and seduce them we would still have barred them from the building in order to safeguard vulnerable young people from grooming and abuse. Because while some were 18 they were still vulnerable and learning to live independently and older males did at times try to take advantage of that. I think having age brackets might help young people identify that there's a reasonable age limit to date within and after that they might need to ask themselves if this is safe. I would suggest 16-21 as per most Youth service provision and then 18 plus because I think you still can't get around the fact that they're an adult at 18. All you can really do is try to intercept grooming before it takes hold. An 18 year old and a 33 year old is no better in my eyes than a 16 and 31 year old tbh. The power imbalance is still huge at that stage.

Empowering young people to be more aware when they're just starting to get into relationships is key and schools/ youth groups etc only using services or promoting messages that advocate abstinence is just not enough.