Should the age of consent be raised to 18

[mids2019]

I have never really thought deeply about consent laws in England until my daughter's reached their teenage years and to my (maybe old) mind 16 seems too young for consent. I know the age is probably chosen woman at arbitrarily to balance protection against the reality of teenagers and young people engaging in sexual contact but to my mind it seems strange that a 35 year old male would be quite rightly criminalized for having sex with a 15 year old but that protection suddenly stops at 16.

At 16 in the way of the law you are a child so what protections are offered for 16-18 year old girls in this regard. There are laws about sexual exploitation but are they sufficnet? To my mind the 16 figure is planting an idea of maturity in some young people that some simply don't have. I know children get plenty of sex education but it you still have the age of 16 for legal consent then does this give a kind of legitimacy for older men to hit on under 18 year olds?

Agreed, but as I have said, age gap laws would cover this.

I don't want to see two 16 year olds criminalised,and I am highly suspicious of anything that smacks of regressive neopuritanism under the guise of protection. We're already seeing this happening, we need to tread very carefully.

Oh I think we agree.
I was more responding to the question about evidence that older men having/wanting to have sex with 16 year olds was even a thing.

It is also a thing the other way around.

When he was just 17 one of ds's friends was propositioned by a woman in her thirties (who we later discovered was the mum of a different 15 year old friend). He turned her down but she was quite predatory. Ds's friend was quite vulnerable at the time.

Well yes, it's rarer but still not ok. That why making it illegal based on age is a better idea than making it illegal based on sex, or leaving it up to social expectations. It's also why arguments like "teenage girls aren't passive. They often want to be sexually active" are dumb. Teenagers, girls and boys, are on a hormonal rollercoaster. That's makes it worse not better when grown adults take advantage of that.

As a rule, female grooming is viewed much more seriously by other women than by men who tend to be more likely to dismiss it with a "lucky boy" kind of attitude. (South Park parodied this situation perfectly). Because many people in positions of authority are men though leaving it only up to "social pressure" doesn't work. What's interesting is that the only time grown men show concern about female grooming of teenage boys is when male predators are being discussed, but that's another conversation.

That's not to tar all men with the same brush. I am sure many do care. It's more arguments about whether teenage boys/girls are "far from passive" miss the point. I do think they come from the more male centric view of how they would have felt in the moment at that age rather than the long term harms.

I agree with you. Dh did view it as a lucky boy type scenario but I pointed out all the stuff going on in his young life which made him very vulnerable.

I also agree at basing it on age gap. For both sexes.

When I was at school in the 2000s, it was normal for girls to lose their virginity at 13 or 14.

I see what you mean about older adults, but tbh, I think a 35 year old having sex with an 18 year old is just as bad as a 16 year old.

I think it should be 21 or ages 15 - 20 with someone no more than two years older.

21? That's way too old! You think people are going to go through the entirety of university and not have a boyfriend/get laid?

The problem is the 35 year old and 16 year old relationship is perfectly legal unless there is proven coercion. I don't know how common it is in reality but to me it feels like making young girls a little more open to exploitation.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/gr/grooming/

How do we align grooming laws with an age of consent of 16. A 16 year old is a child and so any attempt at forming a relationship by an older man surely must be on dodgy legal ground. A 16 year old can legally consent but the law seems to suggest that any activity by an older make to obtain consent has to be looked on with suspision. I find it difficult to square the two things.

They can. Just not someone who is more than 2 years older or younger.

That’s very restrictive for a legal adult

Is it? I think it’s protective of young people. I think predators hide behind “she’s an adult”. I think it’s wildly creepy for men in their 30s to sleep with undergraduates. I think young people without good self esteem or a history of trauma are often the most vulnerable.

Yes, but there’s nothing wrong with an 18 year old sleeping with a 22 year old (for instance) - I know several marriages that wouldn’t have happened if your 2 year rule had been in place.

Once someone is an adult then it should be up to them, really.

I suppose. a lot of this could down to how you define adult as you have to draw a line somewhere. 18 I think is a perfectly reasonable age. The 16 year old consent law is probably there for 2 reasons (i) to prevent consolidation of teenage partners (2l legacy from a time when life was brutal and short when early marriage was a benefit in having large families.

I just think it makes sense overall for consent to be fully awarded to adults i.e. over 18 . This is not being aliberal but being protective of girls giving them extra protection at 16 and acknowledging some girls at this age will be vulnerable and legislation would deter predators.

I was 18 and sleeping with a 23 year old. He's now my amazing husband of 13 years. Im 36 now. He is 41.
18 is an adult. I dont agree with policing the private life of adults.
I do agree that a 17yo who has sex with a 16 yo shouldn't be criminalised. I also believe teenagers largely want to have sex. There should be a protection in place for people aged 16/17 against predatory behaviour of people much older, absolutely

On the face of it: Yes. I think it probably should be raised from 16 to 18.
The issue that immediately springs to mind is that we live in a digital age, and the fact that you can legally have sex with a 16 or 17 year old, if that 16 or 17 year old were to send you an intimate image, you can then be prosecuted for possessing child pornography is crazy. And begs the question: “if a 16 year old is considered a child in that sense, why can you legally have sex with someone of that age?”
I think sensibly, it should be 18, even if just to remove the above issue from the equation….but 18 with some sort of “Romeo & Juliet” law in place where a 16 or 17 year old can engage in a sexual relationship with someone 2 years older than them.
My DH is American and in his home state, the age of consent is 18 but they have a R&J law where if a 16 year old in their 2nd year of high school is dating an 18 year old in their 4th year of high school and they have sex, the 18 year old isn’t going to be prosecuted for statutory rape.
So a 25 year old can’t be legally having sex with the 16 year old, but it also protects both teenagers if one of them happens to turn 18 during the course of the relationship.

Slightly O/T but 18 is a very funny age. Many 18yos are still basically school children. But they can also be homeowners, married, fight in wars, have highly responsible jobs etc.

It could definitely be a coercive relationship between a 22 year old professional and an 18yo just starting Yr13.
Or an 18&22yo could be on the same university course or work colleagues.

I

Nah that’s ridiculous. You think uni students are all going to be heading out with a placard with their age so no one gets confused and tries chatting them up because they’re 2 years and 1 month younger ? Between 16 and 18, I think the 2 year rule is fine, after 18 you’re a legal adult and should be allowed to make your own judgement.

It's also why arguments like "teenage girls aren't passive. They often want to be sexually active" are dumb.

Why is it dumb?
Teenage girls actively pursue boys, it's not all one way traffic.
When I was that age, 14 and 15yo friends were chasing 19 and 20 men all the time (and often got them).
Yet you frame it as "poor girls taken advantage of my groomers". The girls would actively approach these men in pubs. Girls could often get in pubs and get served at 15 or 16 whereas boys genereally could not.
A friend of mine was chatted up by a girl in a nightclub. I think they got as far as kissing. She asked his age - 26 - and replied "oh that makes you twice my age then". She was 13!
Of course, it's on these men to check. But they aren't all groomers and it's not all one way.

I think it would be good to include age gap legislation, so up until 18 no more than a 2 or 3 year age gap. I would keep the current age of consent at 16 though. I think it's in teens' nature to want to have sex - and in the right circumstances to do so safely and respectfully - well before 18 and we have to be pragmatic.

Im really against this. I think its a type of puritanism and infantilisation that is seeping over from American religious fundamentalism.
There is absolutely NO evidence that a higher age of consent protects women and girls. In fact statistics point to the exact opposite.

Definitely think the age of majority should go back to 21. 18 year olds are less mature than they used to be, when many had been working since 15. Voting at 16 is a terrible idea.
Age of consent is 17 I think in Scandinavia? 17 or 18 seems better to me than 16. I agree it’s far too young and leads to pressure and exploitation.

I think it should stay at 16.

IMO the issue isn't the actual age of consent, it's much older men perving over 16 year olds. While being technically legal, it's still sickening and wrong to most people.

Actually I have googled and Sweden is younger than us. Perhaps they have rules about age gaps ?