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

You are correct.

It's funny how you've got such faith in the law that you'll accept that 18 is adulthood but 16 shouldn't be age of consent which is also law.

Talk about picking and choosing the laws you like.

You come across as really illogical.

Yet again I reiterate my belief that there is not much difference between the ages of 16-18 from a sociological perspective these days.
Most don't leave home until after 18 so are still 'kids'.

And there certainly is not any difference in terms of sexual maturity between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old.
Not like there is 14 and 18.

So given this you should be campaigning for much higher, say 25.

At least there'd be some logic to your argument then. As of yet, there is none.

I think a law which is going to be routinely broken by normal teenagers engaging in normal behaviour and where you have to rely on CPS guidelines to prevent the majority of teenagers being criminalised for a sex offence is very bad law. Few people actually see two 17 year olds or an 18 year old and a 17 year old having sex as behaviour which should be criminal. In practice of course we don’t tend to criminalise sex between teenagers but a new law could be treated differently, particularly as 15 year olds would be a long way of the age of consent if it was 18. Plus if you introduce a law which no one takes seriously because the majority of people break it it may not have the desired affect of preventing 17 year olds from sleeping with older men either.

I’d also be worried about the impact on sex education in schools. Can a school really give comprehensive sex education if it’s technically illegal for almost every student in their school to have sex and where they would have to teach that technically sex is illegal until 18? It gives a message to older teenagers that there is something shameful/ wrong about sex. I actually think it’s quite healthy for teenagers to experiment with other teenagers and realistically if children start having sexual feelings at 12/13 they’re not all going to wait 6 years to have sex anyway.

I can see the benefit of a law which would prevent a much older man exploiting a child but don’t think you need to criminalise sex between sixth form students to get there.

Nobody on this thread has been arguing for sixth form students to be criminalised for having sex with each other

Do not understand your argument? No one is trying to prosecute teenagers/children. So what is your argument?

whatnet · Yesterday 00:16

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences

So, to look at prosecutions, the CPS will consider,

• The sexual and emotional maturity of the parties and any emotional or physical effects resulting from the conduct; and
• The likely impact of any prosecution on the parties.

Stop complicating the issue. It is worrying that this is so hard to grasp and exposes a wider societal problem that should be addressed immediately to protect our vulnerable children. Why is it not happening? Who controls the narrative? Who is in power? Who makes the decisions? Who protects our children? Why are we not all on the same page?

Circe7 · Today 19:46

I think a law which is going to be routinely broken by normal teenagers engaging in normal behaviour and where you have to rely on CPS guidelines to prevent the majority of teenagers being criminalised for a sex offence is very bad law. Few people actually see two 17 year olds or an 18 year old and a 17 year old having sex as behaviour which should be criminal. In practice of course we don’t tend to criminalise sex between teenagers but a new law could be treated differently, particularly as 15 year olds would be a long way of the age of consent if it was 18. Plus if you introduce a law which no one takes seriously because the majority of people break it it may not have the desired affect of preventing 17 year olds from sleeping with older men either.

I’d also be worried about the impact on sex education in schools. Can a school really give comprehensive sex education if it’s technically illegal for almost every student in their school to have sex and where they would have to teach that technically sex is illegal until 18? It gives a message to older teenagers that there is something shameful/ wrong about sex. I actually think it’s quite healthy for teenagers to experiment with other teenagers and realistically if children start having sexual feelings at 12/13 they’re not all going to wait 6 years to have sex anyway.

I can see the benefit of a law which would prevent a much older man exploiting a child but don’t think you need to criminalise sex between sixth form students to get there.

I am actually losing my patience now. Are you just thick? Look at the facts.

@Ilmecourtsurleharicot
But the behaviour would become criminal even if it wasn’t routinely prosecuted? I just think it’s bad practice to introduce a law which is much wider than the behaviour it intends to prevent and then rely on CPS guidelines so that it isn’t used in the majority of cases where the law is broken. Just write a law targeted at the behaviour you want to prevent.

@whatnet
I’m a lawyer. I’m interested in how law is made. You might rely on CPS guidelines not to prosecute where you have an offence where societal norms have changed such that there are instances where you no longer want to prosecute and the law itself hasn’t been changed. You don’t usually make new criminal law which would mostly apply to benign behaviour and then immediately introduce guidelines that your new law shouldn’t routinely be prosecuted.

Whether or not I’m thick, a blanket age 18 age of consent wouldn’t get through parliament because MPs would need to justify why the law was drafted to apply to two consenting 17 year olds if the intention of parliament was that it shouldn’t be applied in those circumstances.

That’s interesting! Thanks for the insight. How would this apply to any proposed R&J legislation?

It is 16 to marry in Scotland

"1980 The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (1980) legalised homosexual acts at age 21. The homosexual age of consent was then lowered to 18 in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and finally lowered to 16 in England & Wales and Scotland in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000."

Do you believe that people waited until they were 21 ?

Just one example from todays news: 33 year old pop star (female) was groomed by an adult teacher (male) in his 30s when she was 17. She is only now speaking of that trauma in her music and in a BBC interview. She says (rightly) that she was a child at the time. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66879351

Teachers clearly aren’t supposed to have sexual relationships with students given their professional position, but it’s not illegal for other older men without that professional link to have sex with 16, 17, 18 year old girls. That’s what posters on this thread are objecting to.

You also have to question WTF is going on in masculinity that this is acceptable to do among men but perhaps that is the subject for another thread.

Thick? The poster has given an extremely erudite and well thought out objection.
The only one being thick about this is you.

You've still not given an actual age cap on this.

Personally, I think you'd find it difficult to drum up support for the criminalisation of a 22-year-old man who has consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl - particularly if both work colleagues.

They are both young people.

For me, it gets morally dodgy when the girl is 16 and the guy is past 21.
17 and when the guy is 25.

But I'm not prepared to create a whole new class of criminal because of this.

There comes a point where a person has to take responsibility for any consensual sex they have and to me for the vast vast majority that starts at 16.

I see no point overhauling an entire system for a few outliers.

Moving the age by 2 years will not achieve anything to deter grooming by predatory adults who are much older. It could potentially increase difficulties in under 18s obtaining contraception.

l’m in my 40s with a professional job, and became sexually active (l hate the male created sexist term “lost virginity”, l didn’t lose anything!) around my 15th birthday. I can’t remember if l was 14 or 15 at the time. He was a similar age to me and it did not scar me for life.

It's part of the ongoing infantilisation of young adults by society. I see that "fully formed brain" myth has been going around this thread; if you listened to some people, you'd think that a 24 year old woman is practically a teenager.

@whatnet
is it to stop or prevent the age gap relationships ?

I hate when they trot out the "fully formed brain" thing. It's used as an excuse for any kind of poor behaviour, from family-directed violence to failure to launch.🙄

Fully formed brain is scientific reality. In mammal species, we don’t suddenly reach a specific age and then instantly become a fully functioning adult. We have to accrue knowledge and experience over the course of a lifetime.
Nobody has the same brain and life experience as a teenager as they do as an adult. That doesn’t mean most teenagers are incapable of sensible decisions. Just means most adults can make sensible decisions with the wisdom of their years a lot more easily.

Fully formed brain is scientific reality

That the brain continues to undergo changes into a person's mid twenties and beyond is a scientific reality. But there is no scientific consensus on what actual effect that has on decision-making, let alone concepts like morality, maturity, etc.

The 'fully formed brain' is just the latest in a line of popular misconceptions like "left brain/right brain" or "you only use 10% of your brain".

As you point out, decision-making relies on life experience and knowledge, not just brain development. But that is inconvenient for legislative purposes, because that would mean that a sheltered and uneducated 22 year old is more deserving of protection than an experienced and well-educated 17 year old. You can't just put a number on it, scientifically.

The 16 year old that had sex with russell brand said something interesting.

She thinks there should be staggered consent.

So 16 year olds should only be able to have sex with people aged up to 21 for example.

That way - 40 year old men can't prey on 16 year old girls.

Hont is correct, these statements are from scientific research taken so far out of context by lay people who have no concept of neurology or brain development.
Just because a 23 year old might still take some risks and short term decisions does not mean they are not fully mature biologically.

Really biology sats once you have periods you can have sex. It is society that has extended childhood to 18, not biology.

Also if we are going with not fully mature until 25 are we also saying loses cognitive capacity from 40 onwards? That is what the research shows so if we are taking things so far away from their meaning maybe 40+ are less capable of decision making?

So for me age of consent is a murky concept that should be about 18 months to 2 years after puberty. That would mean some girls can consent at 13 and some not until 19 depending on when they started their periods.

Boys obviously slightly later prob 15 to 19 based on biology only.

My dd went through puberty and started periods at 12. The thought of her sleeping with someone at 14😧 She still sucked her thumb. Never went out . She was a little girl.