Call to consider lowering age of consent for sex to 15. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Endo
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#21
Report 5 years ago
#21
As long as we enforce sterilisation via the contraceptive implant until they're 18 then fine.
0
Endo
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#22
Report 5 years ago
#22
(Original post by uktotalgamer)
Absolutely no proof of that whatsoever. The age of consent here is 16 but teenage pregnancies are still rampant. You can't try to enforce law on stupidity. Let the stupid girls get on with it. It's their lives.

Sure is!...
until at some point after the embryo is fertilised and has sufficiently gestated it becomes another human being, its own separate life. And, given in all likelihood the significant role the state will play in the upbringing of that child I think it should be given a bloody big say.
1
uktotalgamer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 5 years ago
#23
(Original post by Endo)
Sure is!...
until at some point after the embryo is fertilised and has sufficiently gestated it becomes another human being, its own separate life. And, given in all likelihood the significant role the state will play in the upbringing of that child I think it should be given a bloody big say.
Quit the science crap. You've completely missed the point. There is no evidence whatsoever that increasing the age of consent will lead to a reduction in teenage pregnancy. Absolutely none whatsoever. You can't change society overnight with a law.
0
Endo
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#24
Report 5 years ago
#24
(Original post by uktotalgamer)
Quit the science crap. You've completely missed the point. There is no evidence whatsoever that increasing the age of consent will lead to a reduction in teenage pregnancy. Absolutely none whatsoever. You can't change society overnight with a law.
Quite clearly didn't understand what I was saying, so maybe you should read it again.
0
MrsSheldonCooper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 5 years ago
#25
I don't think there are even that many 15-16 year olds that are even mature enough. 18's a better bet because we're more mature and officially adults,so therefore fine if we want to have sex
0
nic-nac
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 5 years ago
#26
I think it's strange that the ages for so many things considered 'adult' are different, and not always 18. So at 16 you could have a child, a moped licence, be working full time and paying taxes, but you can't drive to work in a car, have a mortgage, credit card, buy alcohol or vote on how your taxes are being used. Although I'm not sure if suddenly being able to do everything at once would be a good thing either.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 5 years ago
#27
(Original post by bluemax)
What the hell is wrong with Britain? Why can't people just wait a while before they start using their willies. Who knows, before we know it child prostitution might become legal too.
Most people wait at least a decade.

Its fun and the age of consent is an arbitrary number.

If god wanted us to wait until 16 she wouldn't have us all getting wet and having erections from 10.
0
Genocidal
Badges: 16
#28
Report 5 years ago
#28
An irrelevant debate to have.

If people want to have sex they'll have sex. Nobody considers the age of consent in a highly charged situation.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 5 years ago
#29
(Original post by Genocidal)
Nobody considers the age of consent in a highly charged situation.
Or uncharged situations where the chances of being 'caught' are minimal.
0
Scoobster
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 5 years ago
#30
TBH, people will have sex when they want to, being under the age of consent never put me off.

The only reason to alter it should be for legal reasons, and I think that lowering the age will only make more people vulnerable. Bad idea.
0
uktotalgamer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 5 years ago
#31
(Original post by Endo)
Quite clearly didn't understand what I was saying, so maybe you should read it again.
I fully understood what you said, but it bares no relevance to this thread whatsoever.
1
FelixTheKat
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 5 years ago
#32
The argument is not to encourage those under 16 to have sex, but rather to ensure that if they do, they feel they can ask for information about STIs, pregnancy etc, without the risk of prosecution
0
Scoobster
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 5 years ago
#33
(Original post by Hellz_Bellz!)
If you're too young to not know that sticking a penis into a vagina unprotected may result in (a) pregnancy and/or (b) STDs, then you shouldn't be having sex in the first place.
This... to be honest!

I think you should have to pass a test with the above questions to be certified to have sex to begin with
0
Brit_Miller
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#34
Report 5 years ago
#34
You could put the age of consent up to 21 and kids would still have sex at school - I think it's pretty irrelevant in that respect. It's obvious that the reason they want to lower the age is so that information can be passed out more freely around the age the school kids are thinking about having sex. It could well be a good thing as other countries with lower consensual ages have lower teenage pregnancy rates.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 5 years ago
#35
(Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
I don't think there are even that many 15-16 year olds that are even mature enough. 18's a better bet because we're more mature and officially adults,so therefore fine if we want to have sex
Just to double check, you're not 18 yet are you?

What do you mean by mature? ie how is their decision making different with regards first time sex?

Perhaps you might find many 18 year olds aren't mature enough and 25 would be a better bet as people are more mature.

I don't really see how 'maturity' (which is a relative concept anyway) in other matters helps with maturity with sex. Last week I had an awkward interaction with a sober woman of 32 who wanted sex but didn't know how without the aid of booze. Unlike a girl I had sex with well before the age of consent, she had a degree and well formed views on politics, lived by herself and didn't require parents to keep her pet cat alive. But she (the 32yo) was just as immature with sex even though she wasn't by any means a virgin, unlike her underage counterpart.

Basically I don't buy that age and sexual maturity are directly linked. A 14 yo virgin is as useless as the same 19yo, 24yo, 29yo...
0
Cucurbita
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 5 years ago
#36
(Original post by Hellcat12)
I Agree with what everyone has been saying above, the underage still have sex before hitting 16, law or no law but won't be pointless to consider it since according to the article getting health advice from NHS will be feasible.
However I shudder at the thought of child prostitution and pornography increasing.
How will child pornography increase? He's not advocating changing the age you can appear in pornography. Did you actually read the article?

On the other hand I prefer countries where sexual consent is agreeable from the age of 18 and onwards. Less chances of adolescents getting pregnant and ruining their lives. Underage sex seems very disgusting to me (no personal attack).
Did you know that countries with more relaxed ages of consent actually have LESS teenage pregnancies? Ignoring the problem and acting like it isn't happening will not solve anything. We need an open discussion. I support them lowering it to 15 because I believe in pragmatism over principles. Obviously it's not ideal that many immature 14/15 year olds are having sex, but we might as well try to engage with the problem instead of just shuddering and ignoring it.

Just because you're sexually repressed doesn't mean everyone else should be btw.
0
Genocidal
Badges: 16
#37
Report 5 years ago
#37
(Original post by Quady)
Or uncharged situations where the chances of being 'caught' are minimal.
Exactly. It's like the legal age for alcohol and smoking. Nobody really pays any attention to it.
0
Magnesium
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 5 years ago
#38
(Original post by Theflyingbarney)
The thing is, readiness for sex is a matter of maturity rather than just age. There are people that would be perfectly ready and emotionally mature enough for sex at age 14, and there are people that are still a bit too immature at 18 and beyond. Therefore any age-based line we set is going to appear arbitrary, but I'd prefer that it was higher to protect people below that age that aren't really ready, at the slight expense of stopping people who are ready below that age from having sex (although only in a legal sense - they're probably gonna do it anyway!). 16 is fine, IMO.
I completely agree. Why couldn't they just have left it at 16? Surely teenage pregnancies are becoming more of a problem if anything, and this just helps it escalate even further.
0
MJ1012
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#39
Report 5 years ago
#39
Don't think it will make any difference at all tbh.
0
Mankytoes
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#40
Report 5 years ago
#40
The big problem is that most people are pubescent earlier than sixteen, so will have sexual urges, but our society means we grow up slower and aren't really ready for sex then. But people obviously won't stop having sex before sixteen. Two fifteen year olds having sex won't be prosecuted anyway, so arguably this is just a case of law reflecting reality. I'd say it should be legal at fifteen, but until you're eighteen you should only be allowed to shag people two years older.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (104)
19.05%
The paper was reasonable (274)
50.18%
Not feeling great about that exam... (109)
19.96%
It was TERRIBLE (59)
10.81%

Watched Threads

View All