This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Age of consent for sex should be 13, says barrister

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

username931319

I'd propose 14. But still, 16 is rather high.

Reply 21

ilex_noemi

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!

Reply 22

DannySmyth29

Original post by xXHolly_90Xx

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!

In the UK it's 16 for boys and girls

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

ilex_noemi

Original post by DannySmyth29

In the UK it's 16 for boys and girls

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh I was not aware that it had been lowered since I last lived here lol Northern Ireland used to be 17 not that long ago. 16 is worse! lol

Reply 24

Leonie_Kavanagh

"She said that "touching a 17-year-old's breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt" are not crimes comparable to gang rapes and murders and "anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality"."

Personally I think she's lost touch with reality. Stupid stupid woman.

Reply 25

SpottedZebra

I think the age of consent should definitely NOT be changed! There's lots of reasons why I think it would be really wrong - 13 is too young to deal with that kind of intimate relationship, it would increase teenage pregnancy rates which are already ridiculously high, as someone else said it would make 11 and 12 year olds think well we are only a bit too young and it would legalise a 13 year old having a sexual relationship with, say, a 25 year old man.

Reply 26

BI0

Oh my gosh. 13 years old is WAY too young; if you've seen how immature kids these ages can be then you'd agree.

Reply 27

justinawe

Original post by Vikki1805

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

it's kind of a redundant law anyway, nearly every 15/16 year old has broken it...

Reply 28

username1184337

No way. They may be physically developed at 13, but they are definitely not mentally developed. For some people, even 16 is too young.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 29

Domeface

The reasons she uses for this are appalling (she seems to want to protect paedophiles), but I have believed for a long time that the age of consent should be lowered or even scrapped altogether. The idea that two 15 year olds who want to have sex are told that they're "too young to know what they want" by the state is abhorrent and patronising. What is even more preposterous is that if two fifteen year olds do have sex, then one of them is a criminal (I won't go into the hideous injustice of making this the boy almost exclusively). Which suggests that they are "emotionally mature" enough to decide they want to commit a crime by having sex, but not emotionally mature enough to know that they want to have sex? This is ridiculous. Yes it is true that in cases like that the law is rarely enforced, but it can and does happen that people are convicted for having consensual underage sex; basically destroying somebody's life for absolutely no reason.

In an ideal world I'd scrap the age of consent entirely and state simply that sex with prepubescent children is illegal (since they are literally incapable of having sexual urges, and physically unprepared). However, this becomes muddy because it would be hard to determine whether or not the victim was pubescent at the time of the crime, and how exactly do you define puberty etc. a better solution would be to reduce the age of consent to 13; above 13, you are certainly emotionally mature enough to know what you want sexually, and at 12 or below most people are just starting puberty and are probably physically incapable of having sex or even having sexual desires.

I'd like to point out that such a change would not protect paedophiles or child rapists; above 13, the "victim" would still need to consent. The possibility of coercion would have to be taken into account, but unlike now it shouldn't just be automatically presumed. That said, it may be prudent to include some kind of "maximum age gap" clause (perhaps 3 years) until 16 to prevent much older partners who could more easily manipulate the would-be victim.

It's all very well for people to say "I don't think kids should be having sex before 16." but that's quite frankly irrelevant. If two people want to do something together that influences nobody else, then it is no place of anyone else to tell them they cannot.

TL;DR: 13/14/15 year olds are perfectly capable of deciding if they want to have sex. Preventing them from doing so is unjust and wrong.

Reply 30

beccagood95

When I was 13, I was still clueless about how to use a tampon, let alone make a decision to have sex.
The law is fine as it is.
I lost my virginity at age 15, with another 15 year old, and we wouldn't have gotten into any legal trouble for it, so what's the point of lowering it anyway?

Reply 31

ChemistBoy

I think this serves as a lesson that even in high level professions there are people that are simply completely out of touch with reality. I'm glad that this barrister has put her views on the record so that now we know she shouldn't be taken seriously on this topic ever again.

Reply 32

Shabalala

I do think the laws should be changed

Id say it should be lowered to 14 years old but they should only be allowed to have sex with someone born within 2 years of them (i.e upto 16) , at 15 that should be made 3 years and at 16 that should be upped to 4 years, 17 upped to 5 years and 18 you are then officially an adult and can have sex with whoever you want.

The reason I would do this is because while i'm still quite uneasy about 14/15 year olds having sex I know for a fact that they do when I was that age I knew quite a few people were having sex now if the boy happens to be 16 when he has sex with her and they get caught that means he will be put on the sex offenders register which is absoloutley ridiculous. I feel my proposal would cater to the reality of what's going on in the real world but still protect young people from older people taking advantage of them. I read about a father who caught his 15 year old daughter having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend so he called the police and reported it now that boy will be stuck on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life his chances of getting a job will go down infact it could ruin his whole life due to the stupidity and the rigidity of the law (and the father being a scumbag).

Reply 33

Olie

Original post by NotACat

Honestly, I agree with her. Society has an incredible neurosis and double standard when it comes to sex. I'm not going say much more because it's a really touchy issue and people are prone to get emotive about it. All I will say is I had sex when I was 9, and it was a wonderful experience.

I recommend those interested in actually objectively thinking about the issue instead of reverting to a knee-jerk, automatic response like everyone else does to have a look at these books:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/0816640068

http://www.amazon.com/The-Trauma-Myth-Children-Aftermath/product-reviews/0465022111/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one/182-3678584-2052947?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

Lol, I seriously doubt that's true and anyway why would making something ridiculous like that up help your argument (unless of course you mean masturbation, then that would be more believable) :rolleyes:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 34

medbh4805

I think 13/14 is fine, though perhaps with a sliding scale (they can go two years above, but above that is abusive) until the age of 18, with restrictions put on people on positions of authority (e.g. teachers, police officers etc).

Original post by xXHolly_90Xx

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!

The age of consent has been 16 in Northern Ireland for nearly 5 years :erm:

15 maybe but not 13.

Jesus Christ. Has anyone commenting on here actually read through the original article on Spiked? She doesn't even mention lowering the age of consent to 13 until the very last line of the article. Okay, I personally think 13 is way too young as an age of consent, I'll grant you. However, amid all the people here saying 'she's out of touch with reality', she actually makes very valid legal points in her article about the way in which sexual abuse is dealt with - the disregard for the presumption of innocence, the way in which a bit of groping (which is still very wrong) can be treated the same as gang rape, 'child-friendly' courts moving away from proving guilt to therapy. It is a problem for rule of law. 13, again, I think is too young (should be 18-21), but aside from that, I agree with everything she says in that article.

EDIT: http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13612/ also makes an interesting read on the matter.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 37

MancBoy

Original post by Katie_p

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.

Speak for yourself.

Reply 38

medbh4805

Original post by MancBoy

Speak for yourself.

Well that's the point, isn't it? :curious:

People mature at different ages. Some people are sexually precocious. They should not be criminalised for that. It's not like having the age of consent at 13 makes it compulsory to start having sex at 13 :nothing: