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)

If they seek to act out in reality though they will be.

Porn influence is a massive problem. Its actually only been extremely recently that porn hub quit with unverified accounts to ensure there were no underagers.

School girls is another big search. The last thing we need is it being legal to sleep with a real one at 13

No absolutely not. The age of consent is in place to protect children from predatory men (and in some cases, women) I agree there is a big difference between this and 2 consenting 15 year olds and shouldn't be prosecuted

We are not talking about prosecution here though, we are talking about it not being considered a safeguarding concern, that it can be ignored, that no one needs to flag up a 13 year old having sex if they think it is OK. Remember this sits alongside a survey asking them how often they have anal sex and the people who wrote the survey didn't seem to consider the possibility that it might not be consensual. So what sort of sexual activity would they be turning a blind eye to?

We are also talking about a government who are pushing mixed sex toilets and changing rooms, where girls who don't want to strip off in front of boys are called hateful and may be arrested for hate crime.

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

Could you elaborate on this.I checked the rules but couldnt find a reference.I ask becasue I was going to post a comment but don't want to run afoul!

Sixteen is soon enough. When they convince us all that thirteen is ok, will they be pressing for eleven?

[quote DontLikeCrumpets]@Lovelyricepudding
"(MN stipulates we mustn't question the motives of those pushing this)"

Could you elaborate on this.I checked the rules but couldnt find a reference.I ask becasue I was going to post a comment but don't want to run afoul![/quote]
The previous thread deletion message stated it was deleted because it inpugned the motivations of those involved

Sixteen is soon enough. When they convince us all that thirteen is ok, will they be pressing for eleven?

10 will be the new 14 and " I.thought she was old enough officer "

@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

Sadly agree with this.

Also children themselves, more pressure if its legal at 13.

I'd already heard about this change and there's some wording that's been missed off here around 'if there is no evidence of abuse, coercion and if both participants are under 16' (massive paraphrase).

To be honest, I think the change reflects what's happening in real life - we work to Gillick competency in Scotland so a 14 yo asking for contraception will get contraception.

What I'd love is for this to start a conversation around the whole concept of age of consent, because it's fucking bobbins really and doesn't protect anyone. The 'she looked 16' defence comes in and sexual abuse is sexual abuse full stop. It doesn't suddenly become ok when the victim hits 16.

I'd also be far, far more worried about a 16 year old having sex with a 40 year old than I would be about two 15 year olds, but the first scenario is totally legal. We need to move the conversation on, I think.

*All caveated by the fact I'm talking about an ideal world, share pps scepticism about ScotGov's ability to protect children and agree that there's a creeping erasure of boundaries around sexual exploitation of young people in the country at the moment. I am talking about an ideal, grown-up world where protecting children is a priority.

This shows how much the legal age of consent varies. It is 14 in 7 European countries. In each of these there are caveats around age gaps and power imbalance. In at least 1 it is 18.

fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/mapping-minimum-age-requirement

Be interesting to look at teen pregnancy rates.

Can you share the source of this OP?

I'd already heard about this change and there's some wording that's been missed off here around 'if there is no evidence of abuse, coercion and if both participants are under 16' (massive paraphrase).

But that ignores the whole point: Are they able to consent? If not then it is abuse. We don't say 10 year old can buy alcohol and get a tattoo as long as they aren't coerced, or 13 years old can get married as long as they aren't coerced.

It also ignores the widespread coercion of teens - from culture, porn, peers, magazines, Internet, from school surveys asking how much anal sex they have had, to teachers and guidance telling them it is OK if it wasn't 'coerced'.

Personally I think it should stay at 16

However, 2 13 year olds having sex is a symptom of child neglect from the parents over rape.

Children sending photos to their partners or a 16 year old born in September having sex with her 15 year old boyfriends born in January is a different story.

It is so difficult to deal with children who send nudes to their boyfriends - would you put them on a sex offender register?
It is about to education and safe guarding but it's not just the the law also needs to reflect this it's the entire prosecuting system

@bjjgirl

Personally I think it should stay at 16

However, 2 13 year olds having sex is a symptom of child neglect from the parents over rape.

Children sending photos to their partners or a 16 year old born in September having sex with her 15 year old boyfriends born in January is a different story.

It is so difficult to deal with children who send nudes to their boyfriends - would you put them on a sex offender register?
It is about to education and safe guarding but it's not just the the law also needs to reflect this it's the entire prosecuting system

I take your point but I think that to all intents and purposes, 15 year olds can and do consent to sex with other 15 year olds. They are considered Gillick competent, they can be prescribed birth control, I wouldn't expect there to be any official follow-up or safeguarding concern around that.

Completely agree that two 13 yos is a different story. It's this nuance that means age of consent isn't perfect.

I do think though that if someone else was presenting this as a discussion point it would be possible to have a different type of debate about it. Because it's ScotGov, there's no trust and if anyone from Holyrood is reading this, you really, really should reflect on the fact that so many Scottish feminists don't trust your so-called feminist government as far as we could fling it.

Wrong quote, sorry! Meant to quote @Lovelyricepudding

@VikingVolva

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?

This seems vastly more likely

I think the age of consent needs reviewing and the whole of the UK having a sliding scale. So 14 and 15 ok, 14 and 17 not ok.

The law is slightly tricky on this as 13yr olds can consent to sex but technically it's still rape. It needs an overhaul.

Strict liability is for u13s

Propinquity is for 13-15 with a person u18

It can if course still be prosecuted if it is held to be in the public interest to do so, but that's not usually considered to be the case when it's two (possibly enthusiastically) consenting teens close in age.

Management of sexual offenders is a devolved issue, but I think the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies in all UK jurisdictions. Deciding what is in the public interest to prosecute is a matter for the CPS in E/W, the PPSNI in Nirthern Ireland and the Crown Office/Procurator Fiscal in Scotland

I think it should be raised to 18.

I agree with this.
But I also think we need a Romeo and Juliet clause. I can't really see the benefit in prosecuting two consenting 15 year olds having sex. I mean what would happen to them? They both go on the sex offenders register? I find it much more troubling the idea of a sixteen year old having sex with her 40 year old 'boyfriend' than the two 15 year olds.

I think it should be made an offence if someone over 21 has sex with someone under 18.

Not on topic entirely but my 17 year old told me today that’s it’s a real thing now for children to miss out the teen years so they go from child to adult and society and social media encourages this. I can sort of see what he is saying especially in relation to girls, their clothes etc.