This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Age of consent for sex should be 13, says barrister

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

Reply 1

JackBandicoot

11

They wont even have hairs on their fanny at 13

Reply 2

BioIz

11

I'd like to know how indecently assaulting a nine year old is a 'low level misdemeanor.'
Sexual assault is sexual assault. It's pretty disgusting that she can trivialise it in that way.

Reply 3

ThatPerson

18

Original post by Rock Fan

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

I think 16 is fine and the age of consent should stay at is it. Plus an age of consent will create 12 and 11-year olds with the attitude, "well we're only 1-2 years younger.

Reply 4

Rarrgh

12

Well people will always have sex before the consent age, so it should be more of a matter of how not to have the older or the male get dicked over when the partner decides to shout rape when they fully consented to it or even initiated at the time. (of course if one is alot older then they should have known better but it still happens) Raising the consent age would probably not be as bad as some people would think but it would never happen and it would cause problems.

Reply 5

Katie_p

15

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.

Reply 6

Olie

20

So she wants to end the persecution of old paedophiles and instead make it easier for them and let them get away with sexually assaulting children :lolwut:

What a disgusting attitude she has, worrying that someone with such an attitude is in a prominent position in the legal profession. And why on earth would she want to end complainant anonymity, many of the people who actually find the courage to make the complaints, only do it cause they can be anonymous don't they? She must really hate children :s-smilie:

Reply 7

Xotol

14

Not sure how she can be taken seriously when she believes 'indecently assaulting girls, including a nine year old' is a 'low level misdemeanour' which 'ordinarily... would not be prosecuted'.

Original post by JackBandicoot

They wont even have hairs on their fanny at 13

Girls actually start puberty from 9-14 (earlier than boys on average), and some even start a lot earlier than that.

Reply 8

clonedmemories

16

I'm in two minds about it. I do agree with the people above in that lowering it may make it more open to abuse (which would be hebephilia as opposed to paedophilia!) as well as people younger than that age possibly thinking, "oh, I'm not far off that age! It's okay!"

However, on the other hand, people are having sex at that age anyway. I saw a documentary a while back and I remember there being somewhere in London - I have a feeling it was Peckham - where the average age for a girl to lose her virginity is 11/12.

Also, there are some countries in the world where the age of consent is 13. Spain, Argentina and Syria are just a few. Other countries, such as Bolivia, define the age of consent as simply "puberty", and even more have different ages for males and females - in Colombia, the age of consent is 12 for females and 14 for males. It's such an arbitrary figure, and even then, still cannot account for the maturity of the people involved.

Therefore, I would support the lowering of the age of consent, perhaps not to 13, but maybe 14/15, and with this should include laws regarding coercion and ability to consent, as well as a much better sex ed curriculum that actually informs people and gives them all the information they need so that they know what they're doing.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 9

username677182

18

Original post by Rock Fan

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

The thought of children as young as 13 legally being able to have sex seems very wrong to me.
I know that if they really want to, they could currently do it anyway, but it just seems so much worse if we're saying it's 'OK.' :erm:

In my opinion, a few of our laws make no sense whatsoever;

A 13 year old may soon be able to produce new born life.
Although they can't celebrate the birth of their child by having a pint down the pub for another 5 years.

A 16 year old can legally smoke a cigarette.
Although can't buy the cigarettes themselves until they are 18.

A 16 year old can (currently) have sexual intercourse.
Although they can't watch other people have sex for another 2 years.

Reply 10

Michaelj

10

In Spain it's legal but it's illegal for anyone over a certain age to get with these children. For example a 13 year old can get with a 13 year old and so on. Would you agree with these terms? But then wouldn't that cause pregnancies? Considering how immature children actually are? Even then, if people want to have sex, they will do. Laws won't stop them. Personally, I don't agree with it... The idea my little sister at the age of 13 being allowed to make babies kinda disgusts me.

Reply 11

Michaelj

10

Original post by clonedmemories

I'm in two minds about it. I do agree with the people above in that lowering it may make it more open to abuse (which would be hebephilia as opposed to paedophilia!) as well as people younger than that age possibly thinking, "oh, I'm not far off that age! It's okay!"

However, on the other hand, people are having sex at that age anyway. I saw a documentary a while back and I remember there being somewhere in London - I have a feeling it was Peckham - where the average age for a girl to lose her virginity is 11/12.

Also, there are some countries in the world where the age of consent is 13. Spain, Argentina and Syria are just a few. Other countries, such as Bolivia, define the age of consent as simply "puberty", and even more have different ages for males and females - in Colombia, the age of consent is 12 for females and 14 for males. It's such an arbitrary figure, and even then, still cannot account for the maturity of the people involved.

Therefore, I would support the lowering of the age of consent, perhaps not to 13, but maybe 14/15, and with this should include laws regarding coercion and ability to consent, as well as a much better sex ed curriculum that actually informs people and gives them all the information they need so that they know what they're doing.

In those countries, it's still illegal for an adult to have sex with 13-whatever years old.

Reply 12

clonedmemories

16

Original post by Michaelj

In those countries, it's still illegal for an adult to have sex with 13-whatever years old.

It is, which is exactly why I later said that there should be laws regarding coercion. I think, though I can't say I know for sure, that those laws regarding adults and children are more to prevent them being manipulated into sex by someone significantly older than them. There is a difference between someone 13 having sex with a 15 year old than with a 30 year old, and I would wonder exactly how on earth the latter would have come about if it wasn't by some kind of coercion!

Reply 13

anarchism101

17

Original post by G8D

Isn't there already a crossover point where 13-16 (?) year olds can have sex without breaking the law? The idea of a 13 year old being legally allowed to bed someone of considerably higher age doesn't sit right with me. I'm not even sure 16 is the best idea.

However everyone knows that the law surrounding sexual intercourse is much less relevant to sexual conduct than, say, education and upbringing.

Afaik, 12-15 year olds having consensual sex is still technically against the law, but it's not really enforced.

But the point of age of consent laws isn't really to prosecute minors who have sex, but to prosecute adults who have sex with minors.

I think a good solution would be what Canada have; if you're 12 you can have sex with a partner aged 12-14, if you're 14 you can have sex with a partner aged 12-18, and when you're 16 you can have sex with any partner over the age of consent.

Reply 14

Snagprophet

17

Original post by Rock Fan

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

I bet he'd be happy with that.

Reply 15

WannabeCrypto

10

Original post by Snagprophet

I bet he'd be happy with that.

Barrister is a woman.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 16

Snagprophet

17

Original post by WannabeCrypto

Barrister is a woman.

Oh right, I clicked on the article and saw a bloke in the foreground of the image and assume that it was the barrister rather than some random.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 17

kunoichi

20

Original post by Michaelj

In Spain it's legal but it's illegal for anyone over a certain age to get with these children. For example a 13 year old can get with a 13 year old and so on. Would you agree with these terms? But then wouldn't that cause pregnancies? Considering how immature children actually are? Even then, if people want to have sex, they will do. Laws won't stop them. Personally, I don't agree with it... The idea my little sister at the age of 13 being allowed to make babies kinda disgusts me.

Its called contraception, which people are taught about in primary school.

However seeing as a hell of a lot of people at 16 dont know how to use it, i imagine it would be worse at 13.

Reply 18

Michaelj

10

Original post by kunoichi

Its called contraception, which people are taught about in primary school.

However seeing as a hell of a lot of people at 16 dont know how to use it, i imagine it would be worse at 13.

Hence what I mentioned about immaturity.

Reply 19

anarchism101

17

Original post by Michaelj

In Spain it's legal but it's illegal for anyone over a certain age to get with these children. For example a 13 year old can get with a 13 year old and so on. Would you agree with these terms? But then wouldn't that cause pregnancies? Considering how immature children actually are? Even then, if people want to have sex, they will do. Laws won't stop them. Personally, I don't agree with it... The idea my little sister at the age of 13 being allowed to make babies kinda disgusts me.

There's a problem of legal principle on this issue; if according to the law, you cannot consent to sex, then how can you be held culpable for it? For example, an adult having sex with a minor is a crime, but the only criminal is the adult. But if two minors have sex, who is the criminal?

Age of consent for sex should be 13, says barrister

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you