Age of consent for sex should be 13, says barrister

I think her attitude and reasoning is appalling.

However, I think 16 is a little old, since many people are emotionally ready to have sex before this. I think 14, with an additional rule (although perhaps only prosecution guideline rather than statutory law) that until both parties are over 16, there cannot be an age difference of more than 2 years between the parties.

As a 22 year old I wouldn't feel comfortable having sex with a 14 year old. I don't feel comfortable with idea of having sex with a lot of 18 year olds because they're still so young.

Also at 14 people are naive, a lot of older people would take advantage of that law. In fact unless you're 14 I'd go as far as saying your statement is crazy.

I'm not really sure why you got so many negs for this, your reasoning actually seems fairly sound to me (the reality is that a significant number of people do experiment with sex before 16 and this would technically be illegal currently) and what you're suggesting is similar to what currently exists in a lot of Europe.

This would also solve the technical issue of sexual intercourse legally being classed as rape when one party is 16 and 1 day old and the other is 15 and 364 days old.

Edit:



Read what she actually wrote, as a 22 year old it would still be illegal for you to have sex with anyone under the age of 16. Under this system a 17 year old could have sex with a 15 year old and a 16 year old could have sex with a 14 year old - it would be illegal for anyone over 17 to have sex with anyone under 16. Furthermore if in the case (for example) of a 16 year old taking advantage of a particularly naive/vulnerable 14 year old the defendent could still be prosecuted for sexual assault if it was proven that the girl/boy lacked capacity to consent - in order to be able to legally have sex with someone you would still need to be confident that they were mature enough to consent to it.

Yeah my bad.

We should up the age to 18 I think.

For what reason? My personal view is that we need to safeguard children against abuse by adults and the current age limit exists for that purpose - but we certainly shouldn't criminalise teenagers experimenting sexually with other teenagers.

If we want to protect kids against the 'bad side' of sex then what we need to is work harder to debunk the myths, present them with a fairer picture of the positives and negatives and protect them from the sexualisation of the media. The reality is that most men/women will have started experimenting with themselves and have a pretty good idea about what sex is before they even hit their teens - it seems utterly unrealistic to assume that the majority of teenagers will resist their sexual desires or even simply their curiosity for at least 6 years.

She was clearly played with a little too aggressively as a child, but at its core there is nothing wrong with reducing the age of consent to something like that number, as long as you place a maximum age limit on who can have consensual sex with that individual.

In the Netherlands, the courts don't normally punish someone for having sex with someone 12 or older, as long as they aren't more than 4 years older.It's really weird for a 16 and 12 year old to interact that way, but it's doesn't seem outright criminal. Whereas a 40 year old and a 13 year old is very different.

This would also solve the technical issue of sexual intercourse legally being classed as rape when one party is 16 and 1 day old and the other is 15 and 364 days old.

I completely agree with you. We should always just have an honest approach, with sex, drugs, everything. I just don't think it needs to be encouraged. teens are gonna have sex regardless of the law but as the law says it's 16 I think a lot of people feel pressured to have had sex by 16. I'm not too sure really but 18 seems like a sensible number to me. not so much on the law side of things but more on the message we send to teens if you get what I mean.

Yeah, I do get precisely what you mean but I think the issue is more that kids think they should have done it because other kids claim to have done it - my experience at least has been that the law has very little to do with it. Changing the age at which kids feel they should become sexually active requires more of a fundamental cultural shift I think, particularly in the media.
However the bottom line is that we're saying to people 'hey, guess what?! There's this really super cool, amazing thing that we're all doing and enjoying and that seems to feature in just about every song/film/magazine/book/tv ad etc and you're more than physically capable of doing it and it will probably occupy a good proportion of your attention for the next few years due to the hormones rushing round your body - but here's the catch...Under abaolutely no circumstances may you do this until you are 18. To do so would not only be sticking two fingers up at all those adult authority figures you despise but will actually be breaking the law!'
There's something I heard once about forbidden fruit but I can't quite recall it...
I would also contend that at 16 you probably felt completely ready for sex, maybe you were, maybe you weren't, I certainly knew plenty of people that were. My point is that what makes me at 20 know better about what a 16 year old wants/is in their interests than they themselves do?

Posted from TSR Mobile

yeah I can see where you're coming from. I'm not sure a change to 18 would make much difference but I do think it's silly that an adult can have sex with a 16 year old. I've got friends with 16 year old bros/sisters and although some look 25 they certainly aren't and I think at 16 you can really be taken advantage off, although I guess you can at any age.

But I will say that at 20 you've been 16 so you know what was in your interest 4 years ago. I know that at 16 I still thought the age we should be promoting (because that's all the law does in most teens eyes) to have sex is 18.

A huge part of it is down to the media. I will say that I'm glad it's 18 in the US because if Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez were doing what they do now at 16 it would've look really perverse.

I think what she would be promoting is waiting until you personally feel you are ready/feel comfortable with the person you are with and not under pressure - for someone that might be 15, for someone else that might be 20. I agree with you that for the most part the law is perceived by teens as not being of any great significance but irrespective of what they think the bottom line is surely that we are still criminalising behaviour which really, really isn't criminal. Inadvisable perhaps but certainly not criminal.

Are you American then? It would be quite interesting to get an opinion on the issue from a different cultural context as most of Europe is actually more liberal with the age of consent than the UK (with the exception of Turkey which is 19 I think).

I couldn't agree more but it is entirely possible to prevent teenagers from being depicted sexually by the media whilst also making it legal for them to decide for themselves whether they want to have sex or not. The fact that it's illegal to feature under 18s in porn (and in reality it's very rare for any porn star to be under 21 even if they are described as being younger than that) is perhaps the most extreme example of that but it does demonstrate the point.

Celebrities are always going to be a complex issue though, I personally think we should move away from 'child stars' entirely because in so many cases early fame is completely destructive psychologically - but I can't see that happening.

Oh wow! Here the age of consent is 17 and I think that is low! I didn't lose mine until 20!!
13 is just sick... they're too young to even know about it properly!

Personally I think it should stay at 16 as I think 13 is way too young for sex but a barrister seems to think otherwise, I know this article is a nearly a week old but still...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

wonder if this barrister will be the next one in the jimmy saville scandal? why else would u suggest that at his age...........

wonder if this barrister will be the next one in the jimmy saville scandal? why else would u suggest that at his age...........

Personally I think it should stay at 16 as I think 13 is way too young for sex but a barrister seems to think otherwise, I know this article is a nearly a week old but still...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815