Lowering age of consett to 13 in Scotland?

[Lovelyricepudding]

The Scottish Government has produced guidelines to say schools and public officials should ignore 13, 14 and 15 year old children having sex, despite this being below the age at which it is agreed they are able to consent, if the professional assessing it thinks it is OK.

Reminds me of Rotherham - wasn't that the girls' fault they were groomed and repeatedly raped? Lots of professionals seemed to think that was OK?

(MN stipulates we mustn't question the motives of those pushing this)

They're fucking CHILDREN!

Is this lowering of the age of consent, or is it a restatement of the current situation that prosecution of two young teens is rarely in the public interest? That of course takes age propinquity into account - or is that what is being changed?

Children with under developed bodies and brains who may still be prepubescent or (girls) will be at risk of pregnancy. I wonder if the same professionals will decider if the child's parents (and grandparents to be) don't need to know about that either?

It's worrying for sure if things are left u to individual discretion. However there's a world of difference between two 15 year old having sex, and a 15 year old being raped by an adult. I know I've lost all confidence in the Scottish government to safeguard children though.

This gives me the absolute shivers. Why are authorities so loathe to intervene in the best interests of children? My DM got pregnant at 13 with her first child, then pregnant again four months after giving birth with me. Both were acts of ignorance and poor parenting. She was not mentally or emotionally fit to raise children and we subsequently had a childhood of misery and poverty and that was with a DF who was two years older who remained around. No one intervened. Children need to be saved from themselves. They lack experience and judgement at that age.

There’s a difference between two 15 year olds having sex and a 13 year old being raped by an adult though surely?

I actually think it would help teenagers get contraception etc if they weren’t worried about getting in trouble.

Lowering the age of consent doesn’t mean encouraging underage sex. I’m sure the Nederlands age is 13? And their education system is good so they don’t have the teen pregnancy issues we do.
We need good education and to teach our girls about their bodies and masturbation and pleasure. As I can bet my bottom dollar that sex between 2 13 year olds won’t be doing much for the girl on a pleasure basis. I was an intelligent girl yet I was sexually active at a similar age due to wanting to be loved and close to someone- he was a similar age so it wasn’t abusive. Just naive and I am so thankful I was smart enough to sort contraception (took MAP several times too) as it terrifies me that such young girls could have babies… I was young enough at 19!!
Prosecuting consensual sex between young teens is a waste of time and resources but mandatory counselling education and support should be suggested.
I’m not sure if the age of consent being lowered will have a caveat about gaps between ages of participants.

The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16. 13? Are you nuts?

My 13 year old niece is at the moment playing with Legos and drinking hot chocolate through a straw. Why are we in such an awful hurry to shorten childhood???

Oh and it is 18 if there is any indication of any type of emotional or physical force. So 20 year old with 17 year old, potentially illegal as well.

@Lovelyricepudding

The Scottish Government has produced guidelines to say schools and public officials should ignore 13, 14 and 15 year old children having sex, despite this being below the age at which it is agreed they are able to consent, if the professional assessing it thinks it is OK.

Reminds me of Rotherham - wasn't that the girls' fault they were groomed and repeatedly raped? Lots of professionals seemed to think that was OK?

(MN stipulates we mustn't question the motives of those pushing this)

This does not remind me of Rotherham. It's the Romeo and Juliette clause. Keeping the law of consent at 16 but recognising that two 15 year olds having sex is not the same as an adult male of 30 with a 15 year girl. That is abuse. While two consenting teenagers is not.

This does not remind me of Rotherham. It's the Romeo and Juliette clause. Keeping the law of consent at 16 but recognising that two 15 year olds having sex is not the same as an adult male of 30 with a 15 year girl. That is abuse. While two consenting teenagers is not.

I think that the age of consent laws do need reviewing, but it has to be done properly rather than just by reviewing guidelines. It seems unfair to criminalise pairs of 15 year olds while simultaneously permitting a 40 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. Some kind of close-in-age rule needs to be included to reflect how exploitative the latter is. In effect that would mean raising the AoC to 18 with exceptions for those within 2/3 years in age or something.

As for Rotherham, someone's head should have rolled over that. Claiming that the girls consented when they legally couldn't have done. It was precisely the sort of exploitation that the Victorians introduced the age of consent laws for.

I think that the age of consent should stay at 16. However, I also agree that teenagers between 13-15 having sex with each other should not be treated as a criminal matter. It may be a safeguarding or education matter but it shouldn’t be a crime. I think age gap should be a factor. So even a 16 yo and a 15 yo shouldn’t automatically be criminalised, I would be more bothered by a 16 yo and a 40yo.

I think it should be raised to 18.

I don’t want some porn obsessed guy being vile to my 16 year old.

Not in Scotland. But I worry this will become the normal. After all you cant claim kids can consent to medical pathways leading to infertility and potential disability as your bones crumble. Then claim they can't consent to sex.

I too think actually the age of consent should be raised. For the same reason as pp above. I dated a 26 year old when I was 16. Was way too much fir me to handle ( luckily I got my mum to dump him for me befire it got sexual) but I was in no way ready for that but it would be considered legal.

There already exists the ability to access contraception etc at a clinic and the drs fir underage kids. You don't need to lower thr age of consent fir that.

I liken it to Rotherham because it is about putting it on professionals to decide underage sex isn't a problem. And we know that that is what happened there to the detriment of thousands of girls. The objective standard was ignored and abusive situations became normal for those professionals so they saw no need to report it. It is about ignoring safeguards.

I would also contest that two 15 year old having sex is not a concern in an atmosphere of porn and pressure on girls. I would certainly say a 15 year old and a 13 year old was an issue. Girls are vulnerable to pressure and pregnancy.

You might want to tell the NHS to stop providing birth control, abortions and STD treatments to under 16's then and sending them to the police station instead.

I wouldnt blame scottish women and children (and men) leaving in droves, their country has turned barmy.

first the self I.D destroying sex as a characteristic in law now this, do they want to attract the Garry Glitters in this world or something?

Given they can do that already why does that mean the age if consent needs lowering.

Only reason to lower it is so adults can turn a blind eye to abuse

Or in fact participate in the abuse

@DisgustedofManchester

You might want to tell the NHS to stop providing birth control, abortions and STD treatments to under 16's then and sending them to the police station instead.

I do think that the NHS has a duty of care that when a girl comes for an abortion or pregnancy care they alert the authorities, yes.

Birth control is another matter as loads of girls take them for completely different reasons than having an active sex life. Which most female people know very well.

@DisgustedofManchester

You might want to tell the NHS to stop providing birth control, abortions and STD treatments to under 16's then and sending them to the police station instead.

If they are underage then they are victims, why are you suggesting victims of grooming, societal pressure etc should be denied medical care?

Not every person under the age of 16 who needs access to contraception, STD checks, abortions are victims though.

Although with the age of consent laws it’s unlikely two 15 years old having sex with each other will be prosecuted it still might scare some out of accessing services. You only have to read some of the threads on MN to see that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the consequences.

I do think 13 is too young, but I think there needs to be more emphasis (and funding!!!!) placed on support services and education

Lowering the age of consent merely pushes the problem.onto even younger kids. " barely legal" is a popular porn search 🤮 if 13 becomes legal then that thrill of abusing an underage girl would then be sought with 10 /11/12 year olds instead.

You don't solve child abuse by erasing the victims as actual victims by making it legal

@Whatwouldscullydo

Lowering the age of consent merely pushes the problem.onto even younger kids. " barely legal" is a popular porn search 🤮 if 13 becomes legal then that thrill of abusing an underage girl would then be sought with 10 /11/12 year olds instead.

You don't solve child abuse by erasing the victims as actual victims by making it legal

I don’t think there’s any suggestion the law would make it legal to produce “pornographic” images of 13 year olds (child abuse imagery rather than pornographic, of course).

If someone is searching for barely legal porn and finding 16 year olds they’re watching illegal porn