Should the age of consent be increased to 18?
Recently in the UK its been reduced to 16 (past few years) for gay sex - to bring in line with non-gay sex.
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
(edited 7 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
) adhere to it anywayOriginal post by FredOrJohn
Recently in the UK its been reduced to 16 (past few years) for gay sex - to bring in line with non-gay sex.
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
People are going to do it from ages 15 or 16 onwards, regardless of the law. There should of course be protections and laws to prosecute predators, as there are now, but raising the age of consent would only mean that 16 and 17 year olds wouldn't get access protection, and therefore there would be, if anything, increased teenage pregnancies and STDs. Raising the age of consent would only make things worse, though I definitely think it shouldn't be lower than 16.
Original post by doctorwhofan98
People are going to do it from ages 15 or 16 onwards, regardless of the law. There should of course be protections and laws to prosecute predators, as there are now, but raising the age of consent would only mean that 16 and 17 year olds wouldn't get access protection, and therefore there would be, if anything, increased teenage pregnancies and STDs. Raising the age of consent would only make things worse, though I definitely think it shouldn't be lower than 16.
It would mean that a teenager would not need to prove they had been sexually assaulted by an older man, all they would need to do is prove sex occurred. Thus it will be far far easier to catch sexual aggressive people.
I would say, it would cut down, drastically, the number of drunken sexual assaults.
Sex protection would not be sold like alcohol where you have to prove your age, it should be sold as it is now. That is a different issue entirely.
Original post by FredOrJohn
It would mean that a teenager would not need to prove they had been sexually assaulted by an older man, all they would need to do is prove sex occurred. Thus it will be far far easier to catch sexual aggressive people.
I would say, it would cut down, drastically, the number of drunken sexual assaults.
Sex protection would not be sold like alcohol where you have to prove your age, it should be sold as it is now. That is a different issue entirely.
I would say, it would cut down, drastically, the number of drunken sexual assaults.
Sex protection would not be sold like alcohol where you have to prove your age, it should be sold as it is now. That is a different issue entirely.
Fair point regarding sexual assault, but prosecutions aren't too difficult to achieve as is; there are improvements to be made, but extending that logic means raising the age of consent to 30, as that would make it easier to prosecute as well!
Raising the age of consent would only ruin a lot of lives unnecessarily. I know a couple who have been together for four years - they're both in year 13, and recently turned 18. There is literally no way they would've waited four years to have sex... so at least one of them would've likely been prosecuted under the legislation you're proposing. Their life would've been ruined after having consensual sex - 16 year olds are old enough to make their own decisions.
And regarding contraception, yes, it would be available without ID etc. etc. But right now, if a 16 year old is sexually active - and a lot will be - they can just go and get contraception. They can ask their parents for it if they really wanted to. If it was illegal (even if not enforced), they would be much, much less likely to go and get condoms, as they'd be more afraid of their parents' reaction. They'd therefore just risk it, and risk pregnancy and STDs. With the law as it is, contraception is a lot easier to get, making sex a lot safer... and changing the law wouldn't stop teenagers having sex - they'd do it anyway. Case in point: a friend of mine, wanting to avoid becoming pregnant, told her parents and they organised her having the implant. I don't recall if she was 18 or not when she got the implant, but the point is, she could get it. Now she won't get pregnant... but if the age of consent was higher, I can guarantee she wouldn't have asked her parents, and she would therefore perhaps not use protection at all. And similarly to the couple I previously mentioned, she's had a stable boyfriend for at least 2 or 3 years, and she - like literally any other teenager - wouldn't have been put off by a higher age of consent.
Original post by doctorwhofan98
Fair point regarding sexual assault, but prosecutions aren't too difficult to achieve as is; there are improvements to be made, but extending that logic means raising the age of consent to 30, as that would make it easier to prosecute as well!
Raising the age of consent would only ruin a lot of lives unnecessarily. I know a couple who have been together for four years - they're both in year 13, and recently turned 18. There is literally no way they would've waited four years to have sex... so at least one of them would've likely been prosecuted under the legislation you're proposing. Their life would've been ruined after having consensual sex - 16 year olds are old enough to make their own decisions.
And regarding contraception, yes, it would be available without ID etc. etc. But right now, if a 16 year old is sexually active - and a lot will be - they can just go and get contraception. They can ask their parents for it if they really wanted to. If it was illegal (even if not enforced), they would be much, much less likely to go and get condoms, as they'd be more afraid of their parents' reaction. They'd therefore just risk it, and risk pregnancy and STDs. With the law as it is, contraception is a lot easier to get, making sex a lot safer... and changing the law wouldn't stop teenagers having sex - they'd do it anyway. Case in point: a friend of mine, wanting to avoid becoming pregnant, told her parents and they organised her having the implant. I don't recall if she was 18 or not when she got the implant, but the point is, she could get it. Now she won't get pregnant... but if the age of consent was higher, I can guarantee she wouldn't have asked her parents, and she would therefore perhaps not use protection at all. And similarly to the couple I previously mentioned, she's had a stable boyfriend for at least 2 or 3 years, and she - like literally any other teenager - wouldn't have been put off by a higher age of consent.
Raising the age of consent would only ruin a lot of lives unnecessarily. I know a couple who have been together for four years - they're both in year 13, and recently turned 18. There is literally no way they would've waited four years to have sex... so at least one of them would've likely been prosecuted under the legislation you're proposing. Their life would've been ruined after having consensual sex - 16 year olds are old enough to make their own decisions.
And regarding contraception, yes, it would be available without ID etc. etc. But right now, if a 16 year old is sexually active - and a lot will be - they can just go and get contraception. They can ask their parents for it if they really wanted to. If it was illegal (even if not enforced), they would be much, much less likely to go and get condoms, as they'd be more afraid of their parents' reaction. They'd therefore just risk it, and risk pregnancy and STDs. With the law as it is, contraception is a lot easier to get, making sex a lot safer... and changing the law wouldn't stop teenagers having sex - they'd do it anyway. Case in point: a friend of mine, wanting to avoid becoming pregnant, told her parents and they organised her having the implant. I don't recall if she was 18 or not when she got the implant, but the point is, she could get it. Now she won't get pregnant... but if the age of consent was higher, I can guarantee she wouldn't have asked her parents, and she would therefore perhaps not use protection at all. And similarly to the couple I previously mentioned, she's had a stable boyfriend for at least 2 or 3 years, and she - like literally any other teenager - wouldn't have been put off by a higher age of consent.
Can you honestly say living in California is worse than the UK.
I would expect, even knowing about the age of consent, most British teenagers would quite like to go to school in California.
For you to have a valid case you would need to prove Calfornia has a worse problem than the UK
http://theweek.com/articles/443335/big-problem-californias-new-sexual-consent-law
I'm thinking you're going down the path of "being afraid to make difficult decisions" so taking the easy route of acceptance of all and sundry.
(edited 7 years ago)
no, it's fine at sixteen. no difference between 16 and 18 mentally or physically.
Original post by calmingforzzzz
no, it's fine at sixteen. no difference between 16 and 18 mentally or physically.
....another person who does not like to rock the boat.
Of course there is a difference between two more years of school and not being at school
Original post by FredOrJohn
....another person who does not like to rock the boat.
Of course there is a difference between two more years of school and not being at school
Of course there is a difference between two more years of school and not being at school
just my opinion.....and based on a lot of proven research, and anecdotal. to suggest people radically change psychologically in two years is silly.
Original post by calmingforzzzz
just my opinion.....and based on a lot of proven research, and anecdotal. to suggest people radically change psychologically in two years is silly.
It is daft to suggest that going to the same school from age 11 is seeing enough of the world to be considered "grown up" enough to have babies.
At least have ONE year doing something different - even if its digging graves in a cemetery.
Proven research, my arse, if it was "proven" it would explain why the UK is so crap at stopping under age sex compared to California (legal age of consent 18).
(edited 7 years ago)
yes, since there is no evidence that teens are so different from 16 to 18. human psychology is subjective.
I've actually thought about this a lot, and I've even talked to that Dr Christian Jessen guy about it before, but I think it's where it should be right now. Any lower and it's irresponsible, but any higher and the law will just be broken over and over, even more so than it is now. At 16, there's a great opportunity to get sex education in early, and there's wide access to information, contraception and professional consultations. If it was higher, it would probably be more difficult to get this kind of help. Yes, 16 year olds aren't old enough to be parents, but neither are most 18 year olds. The thing is, 16 year olds should be able to consent, and say no, and they should be able to look after themselves in terms of getting/taking contraception and getting themselves checked. Rather than making the age of consent higher, it would make more sense to provide better education so they can make the best decisions.
Original post by calmingforzzzz
yes, since there is no evidence that teens are so different from 16 to 18. human psychology is subjective.
Disagree.
There is a debate in science between "genes" V "environment".
The vast majority say environment is more important.
Thus, in ages gone by, 16 was considered the youngest age you could experience a non-school "grown up" environment.
Nowadays, its 18.
This is a self evident truth.
You can get free contraception from the age of 13 so... Wouldn't make a difference? People will do what they want
Original post by FredOrJohn
Recently in the UK its been reduced to 16 (past few years) for gay sex - to bring in line with non-gay sex.
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
Having sex doesn't mean having a baby. That's like saying buying a crayon means creating a piece of art.
Live and let ****.
Original post by FredOrJohn
Recently in the UK its been reduced to 16 (past few years) for gay sex - to bring in line with non-gay sex.
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
haha what
it should be decreased to 9
definitely not you would have loads of horny "kids" shagging around. how is an arbitrary age barrier going to stop people. their not exactly going to be locked up for breaking it are they
Original post by FredOrJohn
Recently in the UK its been reduced to 16 (past few years) for gay sex - to bring in line with non-gay sex.
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
I was thinking this is retrogressive.
The most progressive place (west coast USA) thinks it more important to give total protection to boys and girls from predators (whether 18 year olds in same school or even 16 year olds in same class or even way older)..
If we're too young to be parents I would suggest we're too young to have legal sex.
A progressive society should protect young people from all pressures until they have at least all left school.
In the olden days it was common to leave at 16, now its far more common to leave school at 18 .
Should the law be changed to take into account the change in society?
16 isn't the right age..... It should be lowered and an age limit to have sex with people under 18 should be limited to 21
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
