To think the age of consent should be raised to 18 if there is a significant age gap?

[Waitingforthesunnydays]

Watched a documentary recently where a 16-year-old girl was preyed on by a 24-year-old man online. He was controlling and abusive and convinced her to move hundreds of miles away from her family with him. Obviously, being 16, she thought she was in love and didn’t see the abuse for what it was. Her mum and the police could do nothing about it cos she was 16. Made me think, AIBU to think the age of consent should be 18 if one of the people involved is more than 4 or 5 years older than the other? Makes sense to me. Lots of 16 year olds are so naive and inexperienced and have no idea how to spot abusive behaviour. Many have a romanised idea of love and think the behaviour is a sign of being in love rather than control & abuse

Veni, vidi, amavi 🙂

It is already the law where legal consent is restricted by authority until 18, so if one party has legally recognised authority, responsibility or in a position of trust over the other, then the other person cannot consent so there is already a step towards recognising 16 and 17 year olds are vulnerable (though people tend to forget that 16 and 17 year olds can be in that position of authority).

I'm not against the idea of adding in legal consent restricted by age difference for teenagers, there are plenty of places with those laws alongside legal consent with restriction by authority as we have and unrestricted legal consent though I'm not certain where to draw the line on it or convinced how much it would solve this type of issue beyond what current laws do.

You’ve got to draw the line somewhere though. 18 at least means you have two more years of being an “adult”. You’re not in school anymore, might have had a bit of experience of working, met a much bigger cross section of people, are more likely to have had at least one relationship. You couldn’t really make the age any older than 18

Except the school leaving age has been raised to 18 in England, and even before and beyond that, there are plenty of 18 year olds in schools. There have been issues raised around how safeguarding guidelines including KCSIE on paper leave out 18 year old students. More schools are catching up and ensuring it's in their safeguarding guidelines, and personally, I'd like those KCSIE to be changed to recognise and ensure protection of all pupils, including 18 year old Year 13s, are equally protected.

And if we're going on laws in other countries as examples for changing ours, there are examples where the unrestricted legal consent is above 18, largely brought in because of issues in schools and sports where predatory types were targeting 18 year olds still in school or junior sports. I've seen unrestricted legal consent as high as 21, working alongside legal consent restricted by age differences for those younger and legal consent restricted by authority. They're usually brought in when something really bad has happened that enough people want to prevent happening again.

You either believe you can consent, or not. You can’t really say you can consent at 16 to sex with another 16 year old, but not a 19 year old. And what would the line be? What is “okay”? 16 & 18 okay, 16 & 19 not okay?

The law already does that - a 16 or 17 year old cannot legally consent to a 19 year old - or even another 16 or 17 year old - who has legally recognised authority over them. This does happen - there are 16 and 17 year olds who are apprentice TAs who work at secondary schools and sixth forms and so have legally recognised authority over those pupils.

In England, we already have varying types of consent. We have literal consent at 13, legal consent restricted by authority at 16, and unrestricted legal consent at 18 currently in place in law, as well as varying laws that that have been previously which can still be invoked if the crime happened at a time those laws were in force. When we have long-term perpetrators, we can end up dealing with 2-3 sets of charges to cover the time span.

Any new changes that bring in legal consent by age differences would be added onto that, as they have in many places. What is legally determined is okay I think would take a long debate - and likely something seriously wrong happening that gets a lot of visible attention that makes brings public pressure to react, much like our current laws around legal consent restricted by authority. Or if public opinion really swung in that direction - I think there is some cultural push in this direction.

You'd have to prove they're having sex wouldnt you

How would you do that if the girl says they're not.

You'd have to if it went to court. But I imagine the police could have an advisory chat with the bloke in question whatever the girl says, which might make him think twice (or might not😥).

As I said upthread, it’s not about criminalising teenagers for having sex. Don’t think some posters, also @Thechaseison71 are reading my posts properly. I didn’t know anyone who was still a virgin by 18 either. I lost my virginity at 15, but it was with my 16 year old, equally clueless boyfriend. There was no power imbalance and I wasn’t being taken advantage of. The law would be designed to protect 16 & 17 year olds from much older men who prey on young girls, criminalising the adults, not the teenagers. These men are often abusive and controlling, that’s why they specifically look for young girls rather than women their own age, because they know they can get away with their behaviour because the girls are too young to know better. I’m sure they’d have no problem (would rather in some cases) date 14 & 15 year olds but don’t take the risk cos they know they could get in trouble with the law. If the age was raised to 18 with say, no more than a 6 year age difference then it would stop a lot of 16/17 year olds being preyed on by these losers. Not all, there’ll always be some men that don’t give a fuck & are willing to take the risk, but it will still make a significant difference I think. Loads of European countries have similar laws. And the whole “but where does it stop?” argument doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It has to stop somewhere, that’s the whole point of having an age of consent, and that age has to be an age at which the majority of people are considered old enough not just to consent, but to be able to emotionally handle a sexual relationship. Obviously that won’t include everyone, there are some very mature, switched-on 16 year olds but also many that have no experience of relationship dynamics or life outside school. You can only ever go with the majority. IMO an 18 yo dating a 27 yo is on a much more even playing field than a 16 year old dating a 25 year old. I know I’d be extremely uncomfortable if my DD was dating a 25 yo at 16. I wouldn’t love it if she was dating a 27 yo at 18 either but I’d feel a bit more reassured that she had a bit more life experience to be able to advocate for herself better

Tbh from what I know, the current law is not enforced as it could or should be. Especially since if the young person doesn’t want to cooperate with charges being brought against their older sexual partner.

Maybe we as a society should spend more time teaching our young people about healthy, equal relationships.

It wouldnt. They wouldnt be able to talk to him and have a 'chat'. On what basis if the girl makes no allegations? Whats the crime or chat about?

How would it go to court if there are no allegations and therefore no arrest or charges applicable?

I think the point that poster was making is whether you are mature enough at 16 to make significant decisions. No need to be so condescending.

Same as the dutch system i mentioned earlier then? I was replying to Pollyannas simple post saying they should raise consent to 18, nothing else

If you report a crime, the police can go and speak to the person about it. This it's not an arrest or even voluntary interview, it's a casual 'this is what we expect, if you do/ don't do this thing you'll likely get in trouble'.

'We understand you're in a relationship with x which is fine, but are you aware she's below the age of consent and therefore sex with her would be a crime? '

No criminal record obviously because no evidence of wrong doing.

They did this when I reported a guy who was harassing me and threatening me, but below the threshold to make an arrest. Similarly when I was younger and an ex bf was harassing me.

If someone is acting out of ignorance, it can stop them. If they know what they're doing but trying it on it can shock them out of it. If they continue and end up getting arrested, it doesn't look good that they've already been told to stop.

Obviously it wouldn't get as far as court if no allegations from the girl (I'm imaging parents have reported) but it might not need to.

You're comparing apples and oranges in terms of what the police would do

No police officer is going to speak to someone on the basis that someones mum says 'he's in a relationship with my daughter'

Firstly they want to hear from the potential victim. If that victim says nothing, nothing doing

Secondly, being in a relationship is not a crime and your version of the chat is akin to someone visiting to say 'you're in a relationship and thats fine, but just to make you aware that if you punch her in the face then thats a crime'

Police dont go round talking to people about theoretical things that they have no victim statement about.

You made a specific allegation or complaint about yourself which enabled them to do that

Age of consent does not equal age of no longer capable of bad ideas or unhealthy relationships. If you want it to be illegal to have sex unless all possibility of harm is eliminated then you just want it to illegal to have sex. Age of consent laws are about protecting children who are not yet developed enough to consent, not restrict young adults from making decisions about their own sexual wants.

A 16 year old is old enough to make decisions about their own body, including consenting to sex. Some of those teenagers may make decisions I wouldn't personally agree with, but there are 40 year olds making sexual decisions I don't agree with, but it is their questionable decisions to make.
If a 16 year old is in an abusive or exploitative relationship, that should be adressed by laws against domestic abuse, just like it should be if a 40 year old.

If you want to prevent harm, adress the harm and the people causing it, don't try and impose unreasonable restrictions on the rights of all young women to make their own choices (and from your comments its very clear that your motivation is focused around restricting young women, not young people in general).

True

I would raise the AoC to 18 and stop there. You can't police people forever, though no doubt many would feel 18 yo in a relationship with a 35 yo was equally repellant and want that legislated for too.

I've seen posters on MN arguing that an older man dating women in their 20s is morally repugnant because the human brain "isn't fully developed til they're 25" and women in their 20s "look like babies" to the posters.

We need to stop infantilising adults somewhere and I think 18 as a hard stop for state interference in consensual adult relationships is a good place.

I actually agreed but didn't see 24 as significant.
So the variation in what is considered significant can vary.
I also see 24yr olds that have been working several years v 24yr olds fresh out of uni and they are very different in life experience so it cant just be straight up age thing

Maybe. I do see the distinction you're making.

You say the police couldn't get involved unless the girl herself reported it - Im not sure this is true, from various cases Ive heard about with DV and coercive control its not always the victim that reports it. And the days of 'not pressing charges' where an abuse gets off because the victim can't cope with the legal process are thankfully long gone. The crown pursues the case, not the victim.

if the parents reported the guy, i don't see why the police couldn't speak to the girl, and then depending what she's said, speak to the bloke?

I do appreciate that you can't have 'soft laws' which are open to interpretation, or pre emptive police involvement. But isn't this how young women are being failed by the system - red flag situations are ignored because 'she consented'. I can't help thinking we must be able to do better, especially in the wake of the rape gangs horror.

My first husband was 8 years older than me. I met him as a teen. No grooming, no abuse, nothing like that. 🙄. We ran out of steam with the martiage, after 28 years, but that’s just life. 🤷‍♀️

So, in a couple of years, when your DD is 16, would you be happy if she had a boyfriend who was pushing 30? Would her dad be happy about it?

Either it’s the age of consent or it’s not regardless of an age gap. You can’t just change it around like that . Either someone is allowed to make a decision themselves or they are not .

You can't have a law that says you can consent to one person but not another based on their birth certificate.

Lots of places have (and enforce) Romeo and Juliet laws.

Age of consent should be 18; the one thing America actually has right.

Do they? How does it get enforced?

If people don’t want someone to be condescending then they should probably check their facts before posting something as “fact” (age of marriage being put up to 18 3 years ago) otherwise they’re sort of asking for it..

Yes, much of the US, Canada, Australia and Germany. Possibly more.

They’re enforced the usual way. Sorry, I’m probably being a bit thick, but I don’t really understand the question?

I guess if it works in other countries then there'd be no harm in it. I just felt it could complicate things legally but maybe not.