To think we should up the age of consent to 18?

[whatnet]

I just have this utterly sick feeling about the constant narrative pushed in the UK about a CHILD being ‘16’ and therefore, “what is your problem?”… “it’s ‘legal’” I am so sick of the exploitation of our girls in this country. Our CHILDREN. Our future. Who do not have a voice, because they are children. They need to be protected. I will pre empt some of your arguments. The UK government has classified the violence against Women and Girls as a “National Threat”

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/tackling-violence-against-women-and-girls-in-the-uk/

A 16 year old girl is a child and should be protected as a child, by law.

I agree it shouldbe raised to 18.

I'd like to know too on what basis 16 was chosen? Was it just picked randomly, maybe linked to school leaving age, or was it on the basis of solid research confirming that the majority of children are mentally ready....I think we all know the answer.

It feels like we've all been brainwashed (groomed?) into accepting a blurry 16 without there being any real basis for this.

If you get married in Scotland under 18 it's not recognised in England or Wales so that has absolutely no bearing unless they're going to continue living in Scotland and then they'll be under Scottish laws anyway.

Yeah, we’ve all been groomed about everything

Grooming grooming groomed

I think it should be a maximum age gap if one partner is under 18. For example 3 years.

If you say 16/17 is OK but once 1 partner is 18, it is not, you run the risk of criminalising people in consensual appropriate relationships once one person has their 18th birthday.

I have no idea why you're so worked up about this, OP.
Really I mean it.
16 is about right for the majority.
You cannot make laws to suit everyone. The age of consent is what it is because it seems about right for most of us and that's good enough.
No law is perfect.

You come across like a pearl clutcher.
I mean what is your agenda?

16/18 makes no real difference if someone is victim to a predator.

I see no real changes between 16-18 anyway really. I mean what major psychological changes happen during those two years? Unless in employment, not much really. Most at still at school or further education.

So why not go the whole hog and raise it to 30 and only for people born in the same year?
Put a 30-year-old man who has sex with a 29-year-old in jail.

I'm truly sorry if you've suffered some grooming experience but I mean this in a kind way but really the world does not revolve around you.

I mean it. You're idea is nuts.

(This is from someone who lost their virginity at 19 BTW.)

I hope your idea goes nowhere as frankly this sort of illogical emotional response gets on my nerves.
Wasting government time when there's real issues of abuse to tackle. Effing annoying.

What do you find 'concerning'?

Sorry that happened to you There's something seriously wrong with these men.

There isn’t yet a current Parliamentary petition I could see about the Romeo and Juliet laws and safeguarding issues. Parliament is the only way to change the law so there needs to be a way to highlight this issue to MPs

There’s one current petition calling for 18 to be the UK age of consent
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/644226

Personally I think it would make more sense to make a distinction between 16-17 year olds and actual children. They’re not the same thing are they.

If there were to be any change, it wouldn’t have to include R&J provisions of some kind. Although as someone pointed out above, 16 is about right for most people.

16 seems a good sensible age there's no need to change it imo. Upping it to 18 would just add an unnecessary layer of puritanical shame to sex. There is nothing wrong with 16 and 17 year olds having consensual sex with their peers. At 16 they are either finishing or have finished school and are moving onto a levels/college etc and becoming more independent. It seems ridiculous that a 17 year old would be able to legally drive a car but not have sex. What happened with Russel Brand is grim but this would be better handled through good sex education that teaches teenagers about consent in relationships and power dynamics. Imo needs to be a more open and honest conversation about sex and relationships and raising the age of consent sends out the opposite message.

This should have said ‘would’ have to… (or ought to)

Poptones · Yesterday 18:39

“I have no idea why you're so worked up about this, OP.
Really I mean it.
16 is about right for the majority.
You cannot make laws to suit everyone. The age of consent is what it is because it seems about right for most of us and that's good enough.
No law is perfect.

You come across like a pearl clutcher.
I mean what is your agenda?

16/18 makes no real difference if someone is victim to a predator.

I see no real changes between 16-18 anyway really. I mean what major psychological changes happen during those two years? Unless in employment, not much really. Most at still at school or further education.

So why not go the whole hog and raise it to 30 and only for people born in the same year?
Put a 30-year-old man who has sex with a 29-year-old in jail.

I'm truly sorry if you've suffered some grooming experience but I mean this in a kind way but really the world does not revolve around you.

I mean it. You're idea is nuts.

(This is from someone who lost their virginity at 19 BTW.)

I hope your idea goes nowhere as frankly this sort of illogical emotional response gets on my nerves.
Wasting government time when there's real issues of abuse to tackle. Effing annoying.”

You have no idea why I am so worked up about this? I assume you have no parental responsibility for teenage girls or interest in the health or well-being of teenage girls from that statement? The “pearl clutcher” dialogue has been used a few times on this thread. It is depressing. My argument is, 16 and 17 year olds are children, and should be protected by law as children. To safeguard them from predators. Again, no one is talking about prosecuting teen to teen consensual sex. I have already included CPS info on how they would view that anyway and would not be looking to prosecute. You come across as someone who is unable to see the bigger picture of protecting children against predators. I mean, what is your agenda? This is a “real” issue. Have you read the news recently?

ehupo7 · Today 13:56

“Personally I think it would make more sense to make a distinction between 16-17 year olds and actual children. They’re not the same thing are they.

If there were to be any change, it wouldn’t have to include R&J provisions of some kind. Although as someone pointed out above, 16 is about right for most people.”

Yip, 16 and 17 year olds are still children in my honest opinion, and they can experiment between themselves, which has always happened and will always happen. If anyone, as a fully functioning adult does not see them as children, and groom or knowingly pursue them sexually, then they are a Pedo. I think it’s pretty straightforward. Protect 16 and 17 year olds in law, as children. It actually extends much further to vulnerable children in care who are so easily exploited and manipulated and constantly let down because, “you are 16” or you look 16 🤢 😡. JS/HE/PS/RB, cases such as Rotherham also back up the point of needing to protect vulnerable CHILDREN. A whole other thread. 16 and 17 year olds are children, and should be protected by law. That is my point.

I understand your arguments for why you would like the age increased. Looking at the petition someone posted, they have written ‘children are anyone under 18, and therefore sex with children is legal’. The issue seems to be largely to do with the inconsistency in the legal definition. I just don’t think 16-17 year olds are ‘children’ in the same way 14-15 year olds are.

And someone over 18 having sex with a 16 or 17 year old does not make them a paedophile.

(Paedophilia is a sexual interest in pre-adolescent children.)

I have no agenda, you do. I think the age of consent is about right. Not perfect but nothing is.
That's that. I don't know why anybody would get so worked up about it.

I don't recall feeling much more grown up between 16 and 18 anyway so I think you've no real scientific basis for raising it by a couple of years anyway.

It's as if you've just thought two years and that's it. Like you've pulled the figure out of thin air. No reason for it on terms of sociological or biological differences.

Most people don't start employment until after 18 so you're argument really should be it is raised higher than that.
Because 16-18 is not much different really yet you are happy for people to be classed as adults at 18.

Doesnt make sense to me.

Most 16 year olds aren't having sex with people a decade or decades older than them anyway.

And the problem is with that not just 5 years or so. Or getting together with a man in his very early twenties.

Big fuss over nothing.

As a parent to teen daughters - I would like something that says a teens between 16-18 can't have a sexual relationship with anyone over the age of 20. That would mean the boys they are most likely to be experimenting with wouldn't be getting in trouble since they are pretty much as innocent as the girls at that point but they are all protected by older adults.

A teen fumble is very different to older adults deliberately seeking out teens. Boys and girls should be protected without making illegal those early relationships.

“I have no agenda, you do. I think the age of consent is about right. Not perfect but nothing is.
That's that. I don't know why anybody would get so worked up about it.

I don't recall feeling much more grown up between 16 and 18 anyway so I think you've no real scientific basis for raising it by a couple of years anyway.

It's as if you've just thought two years and that's it. Like you've pulled the figure out of thin air. No reason for it on terms of sociological or biological differences.

Most people don't start employment until after 18 so you're argument really should be it is raised higher than that.
Because 16-18 is not much different really yet you are happy for people to be classed as adults at 18.

Doesnt make sense to me.

Most 16 year olds aren't having sex with people a decade or decades older than them anyway.

And the problem is with that not just 5 years or so. Or getting together with a man in his very early twenties.

Big fuss over nothing.”

I do have an agenda, clearly. Raise the age of consent to 18. You clearly have an agenda too, do not raise the age of consent to 18.

“It's as if you've just thought two years and that's it. Like you've pulled the figure out of thin air. No reason for it on terms of sociological or biological differences.”

18 is a universally agreed age of ‘adulthood’ in many countries, even 21. As more and more scientific studies come out, it is even more widely accepted that ‘adulthood’ in a brain development/scientific sense, does not happen until much later than previously thought.

“Most people don't start employment until after 18 so you're argument really should be it is raised higher than that.
Because 16-18 is not much different really yet you are happy for people to be classed as adults at 18.”

With the current UK approach to justify their political worth, they are committed to keeping every under 18 in full time education, be that school, college or university, with a tiny percentage going into full time/part time employment or apprenticeship. So, most 18 and under will still very much view the world as ‘children’.

“Most 16 year olds aren't having sex with people a decade or decades older than them anyway.”

You are missing the point, again.

“And the problem is with that not just 5 years or so. Or getting together with a man in his very early twenties.”

Look up the profile of a Pedophile. Again, I am guessing you have no interest in protecting children.

“Big fuss over nothing.”

hmmm

*paedophile 🙃 I always get the spelling wrong 😑

I've experienced a very stressed parent of a 16yo boy worried I might get him in trouble for having a sexual relationship with my 15.5yr old daughter. They were both in the exact same year group at school. I'm not even sure they were exploring that at that point but his parents were really worried.

Tumbleweed101 · Today 18:24

I've experienced a very stressed parent of a 16yo boy worried I might get him in trouble for having a sexual relationship with my 15.5yr old daughter. They were both in the exact same year group at school. I'm not even sure they were exploring that at that point but his parents were really worried.

but of course you wouldn’t @Tumbleweed101 because that would be “batshit crazy” as other posters have mentioned and CPS wouldn’t be interested anyway. So, nothing to worry about. If it was a 21/30/40 year old on the other hand. Yes, yes, you all should have something to worry about. Hope that helps.

How dare you accuse me of not wanting to protect children.
Let me tell you this: there is little biological maturity between 16-18 so if a guy is a paedophile for being attracted to 16 year olds he is also logically a paedophile for being attracted to 18 year olds.
Your suggestion is nuts.

It would make more sense if you said 25 because at least then there's a discernible difference.

Loopy just loopy.

“I understand your arguments for why you would like the age increased. Looking at the petition someone posted, they have written ‘children are anyone under 18, and therefore sex with children is legal’. The issue seems to be largely to do with the inconsistency in the legal definition. I just don’t think 16-17 year olds are ‘children’ in the same way 14-15 year olds are.

And someone over 18 having sex with a 16 or 17 year old does not make them a paedophile.

(Paedophilia is a sexual interest in pre-adolescent children.)”

I have teenagers, I work with teenagers. 16 and 17 year olds are CHILDREN. For what ‘gain’ do you require for them not to be seen as ‘children’? For me, I want them all to be protected by law because I work with them day in and day out and see how vulnerable they are. And to me they are the best, most lovely souls, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances making their way into the world. It breaks my heart every time I know the “16” card has been played, and my support and legal fight ends there. If that was your daughter or son, do you just, ‘give up’, There is no ‘grey area’ 16 and 17 year olds are children, and we as a nation should protect our children. It shouldn’t be this hard. Why is it this hard? 🤔

Yet another way of infantilising our kids.

BIossomtoes · Today 19:18

Yet another way of infantilising our kids.

explain further please?

I don’t need to. It’s self explanatory.