UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Assuming that this forum meets the last definition
The prime minister has rejected a call from a leading expert on public health to lower the age of consent to 15.
Faculty of Public Health president Prof John Ashton said society had to accept that about a third of all boys and girls were having sex at 14 or 15.
He said the move would make it easier for 15-year-olds to get sexual health advice from the NHS. He also said that society needs "open discussions in a sensible environment"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
- discuss!quote:Does he not think there is already a line in the sand? Surely there will be another call in a few years to lower it to 14, and 13 will be the line in the sand.
Prof Ashton said lowering the age by a year could "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 or younger.
quote:might well be the true reason for his position.
(Prof Ashton) said: "We need a debate here.
quote:I agree with this. I think that many teens regard "almost 16" as the age of consent, and if it were reduced to 15, then it would be "almost 15."
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:Does he not think there is already a line in the sand? Surely there will be another call in a few years to lower it to 14, and 13 will be the line in the sand.
Prof Ashton said lowering the age by a year could "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 or younger.
I'll bet this man has no daughters.
quote:The problem is that the age of consent law ought to define the point at which it is no longer a criminal offence to have sex with someone of that age, but is instead generally seen as the age at which having sex has become completely normal and unobjectionable. And that's probably unavoidable, at least in the UK, because most of our age limit laws don't have that distinction - it is normal, as well as legal, to drive at 17, and it is normal, as well as legal, to drink in pubs at 18. So the age of consent (or a little under) is likely to be seen as the normal age for sex, and not as the age at which it stops being a crime, but is still not a good idea.
Originally posted by TonyK:
I have to say that this old codger cannot see any practical benefit in reducing the AoC - but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
quote:I think it's just one of the contradictory bits. The common-law age of consent for girls was generally taken to be 12 until 1875, when it was raised to 13 (after a lengthy campaign by Josephine Butler et al). However in premodern England children could be legally married at much younger ages - in canon law the age of consent was 7 (which is probably where the age-of-criminal-responsibility comes from; that's much lower than the age of consent). If you were married to the person who was having sex with you, it was legal even if you were underage.
Have I missed something, or is that just one of those helpfully contradictory bits of English legislation?
quote:This is also standard throughout most of the US. In my state the age of consent is 16, with a 4-year age gap exception for teens 13-15.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I agree with L'organist; it would be much more logical to have a close-in-age exemption, like Canada. That would discourage the sexual predators and still give underage girls a way of resisting peer pressure, whilst addressing the problem of teenage boys being labelled as paedophiles and going on the sex offenders' register for having sex with girls who are about the same age as them. Which would appear to be the problem Prof Ashton is really concerned about.
quote:If two people who are both aged 14 have sex with each other, surely they are both guilty of violating the age of consent laws? Should we then charge both of them with the same crime? Does it make a difference if one is 13 and one is 15? Should we automatically assume the boy talked the girl into it, or vice versa? (I imagine the judge's head would explode under the strain, if asked to allocate blame in a homosexual relationship). Should we be talking about blame at all, or just prescribing bromine for them both?
I can't see the point of age-gap laws. If a person is not mature enough to consent to sex at 14 (or whenever), then they are just as wronged if their seducer is 15 or 50.
quote:I assume the law in England was the same as that in Scotland where, according to William Hay, lecturer at Aberdeen University, c1500.
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
That's quite startling, Jane R - because as far as I was aware the ages of legal marriage set down by Hardwicke's Act of 17thingy (and thus of implied sexual consent, I thought) were in force until 1928 - and they were 12 & 14. I can never remember which sex was which...
Have I missed something, or is that just one of those helpfully contradictory bits of English legislation?
AG
quote:In places with age gap laws, the laws are actually different.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can't see the point of age-gap laws. If a person is not mature enough to consent to sex at 14 (or whenever), then they are just as wronged if their seducer is 15 or 50.
quote:Sexual predation on young boys is just as serious as it is for young girls. However, the vast majority of the abuse we hear about is perpetrated by older men on young girls. It's nothing to do with owning my daughters' virginity. It's about recognising there is a much higher risk for them than there is for my sons. I would be equally distraught if any of them were to fall prey to abusers.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Slightly concerned by the focus on whether this man has daughters or not - are sons not also at risk of risky sexual behaviours? Is the concern because female sexuality is still seen as having to be 'owned' by the father or husband? Why is female virginity precious while boys can do what they like?
quote:The vast majority of abuse *we hear about* being the key words there. Most sexual abuse happens within the family unit and changing the age of consent wouldn't make much difference there. We hear about older men preying on younger girls because it makes good headlines, not because it's the most common form. I do understand your concern (or as far as a non-parent can) but you can surely see why (where church cultures promote virginity much more for women than for men) it can seem a bit sexist. Not saying it is, just that the 'protect our daughters' attitude is what led to feminists having to start Slut Walks and the like. It is the perpetrator's behaviour alone that needs commenting on.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:Sexual predation on young boys is just as serious as it is for young girls. However, the vast majority of the abuse we hear about is perpetrated by older men on young girls. It's nothing to do with owning my daughters' virginity. It's about recognising there is a much higher risk for them than there is for my sons. I would be equally distraught if any of them were to fall prey to abusers.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Slightly concerned by the focus on whether this man has daughters or not - are sons not also at risk of risky sexual behaviours? Is the concern because female sexuality is still seen as having to be 'owned' by the father or husband? Why is female virginity precious while boys can do what they like?
quote:According to William Hay (very early C16th) "For the age of marriage is not determined for its own sake, but also in relation to capacity for intercourse, the use of reason and ability to fulfil the duties of marriage, all of which usually develop at that age, and the law always provides for what usually happens."
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I gather from reading the biography of Margaret Beaufort (15th century, married at 12 to the person holding her wardship and marriage consummated soon after) that although marriage at 12 was common it was not considered socially acceptable to consummate it for another year or 2 and that apparently others at court were shocked at Margaret being pregnant at 13.
quote:Well I can see two reasons:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can't see the point of age-gap laws. If a person is not mature enough to consent to sex at 14 (or whenever), then they are just as wronged if their seducer is 15 or 50. I concede that the 50 year old violator is more creepy, but I thought the point of age of consent was child protection, not to outlaw creepiness)
quote:In a fashion, it is truth, not legal fiction. The teenage brain does not function as an adult brain does. It is more prone to ignore risk, to evaluate differently. This suggest raising the age of consent, not lowering.
Originally posted by pererin:
I don't think that specifying a cut-off age is particularly sensible or helpful. It leaves the courts in a position where they have to rule according to a legal fiction that people of under a certain age have absolutely no legal capacity, regardless of their mental faculties.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:This is unarguable, but what I was getting at was that I think Prof Ashton (as a father of sons) may be focusing more on the consequences of the current law for boys. Is it sexist to say I suspect someone else of being sexist? Because if so, you have just been sexist too; you accused me and several other people of being sexist.
It is the perpetrator's behaviour alone that needs commenting on.
quote:You are assuming that teenagers feel totally comfortable asking their doctor to help them do something which they know to be against the law.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Changing the law is not going to have any effect on access to NHS services; they are already available to teenagers under the age of consent, with or without their parents' knowledge.
quote:The double standard cuts both ways, though. A woman who offers unwanted sexual advances is more likely to be seen as slutty or desperate, while a man is seen as sleazy or predatory.
I'll stop worrying about the double standard when people start calling sexually active men whores.
quote:Is it not also the case that older teen boy dating younger teen girl is much more common than the reverse? How much of that is a reflection of patriarchy and how much is a reflection of the fact that many girls have developed breasts and hips while their male coaevals are still short and pimply, I'll let you argue about.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And however much you may wish to deny it, and however deplorable it might be, the sexual double standard is alive and kicking. Yes, I want to protect my daughter from underage pregnancy, life-threatening STDs and being labelled a slut by her classmates. Who wouldn't?
quote:I don't think teenagers are comfortable about telling their doctors about anything to do with their genitals, but I wouldn't have thought lowering the age of consent is going to magically transform all these sexually active 15-year-olds into people who are happy to go and consult their doctor if they need emergency contraception or suspect they have an STD.
You are assuming that teenagers feel totally comfortable asking their doctor to help them do something which they know to be against the law.
quote:Of course, men are victims too
The double standard cuts both ways, though. A woman who offers unwanted sexual advances is more likely to be seen as slutty or desperate, while a man is seen as sleazy or predatory.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:You are assuming that teenagers feel totally comfortable asking their doctor to help them do something which they know to be against the law.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Changing the law is not going to have any effect on access to NHS services; they are already available to teenagers under the age of consent, with or without their parents' knowledge.
quote:Fair enough - I don't think that option was available when I was in school, or if it was they didn't advertise it.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
You are assuming that teenagers feel totally comfortable asking their doctor to help them do something which they know to be against the law.
They don't have to go to the GP. Most school nurses are able to distribute contraception and the morning after pill (my wife is a community school nurse). They can probably ask for it at the local pharmacy too. They have to give out far too many.
What's more patient confidentiality means that parents don't get to hear about it either.
[codefix]
quote:From what I recall from that far back, myself, and my sisters' reports from the physics classes they attended at the boys' grammar school, it's not so much the shortness and pimpliness, it's that boys one's own age are incapable of conversing intelligently about anything and are all about silly jokes and embarrassment. Two years older for boys feels right. Strangely, as a girl, one is not particularly aware of one's anatomical changes as having anything to do with it. Unless said idiotic boys bring the subject up. (This applies to girls who are likely to attend physics classes. Can't answer for others. I tend not to identify myself with my secondary sexual characteristics. It took me years to realise why the men who tried to pick me up seemed to have a completely erroneous interpretation of the sort of person I was. Didn't notice the direction of their gaze.)
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Is it not also the case that older teen boy dating younger teen girl is much more common than the reverse? How much of that is a reflection of patriarchy and how much is a reflection of the fact that many girls have developed breasts and hips while their male coaevals are still short and pimply, I'll let you argue about.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And however much you may wish to deny it, and however deplorable it might be, the sexual double standard is alive and kicking. Yes, I want to protect my daughter from underage pregnancy, life-threatening STDs and being labelled a slut by her classmates. Who wouldn't?
quote:Ummmmm no, it's not sexist to call others out on sexism, it's the opposite. And of course the sexual double-standard exists (I'm puzzled as to why you think I would deny that), but the answer is to engage with that and try to dismantle it, not encourage it. You can empower your daughter to make decisions about sex that are right for her, enjoy sex in a safe way without the risk of STIs or pregnancy, and know that enjoying sex is not a bad thing and 'slut' is a sexist gendered slur.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:quote:This is unarguable, but what I was getting at was that I think Prof Ashton (as a father of sons) may be focusing more on the consequences of the current law for boys. Is it sexist to say I suspect someone else of being sexist? Because if so, you have just been sexist too; you accused me and several other people of being sexist.
It is the perpetrator's behaviour alone that needs commenting on.
Changing the law is not going to have any effect on access to NHS services; they are already available to teenagers under the age of consent, with or without their parents' knowledge.
And however much you may wish to deny it, and however deplorable it might be, the sexual double standard is alive and kicking. Yes, I want to protect my daughter from underage pregnancy, life-threatening STDs and being labelled a slut by her classmates. Who wouldn't?
I'll stop worrying about the double standard when people start calling sexually active men whores.
quote:Well, quite. In fact, I thought this was so patently obvious that I'm struggling to see how someone who is employed by the government as an expert can say it and continue in that role. Or is that too harsh?
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:I agree with this. I think that many teens regard "almost 16" as the age of consent, and if it were reduced to 15, then it would be "almost 15."
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:Does he not think there is already a line in the sand? Surely there will be another call in a few years to lower it to 14, and 13 will be the line in the sand.
Prof Ashton said lowering the age by a year could "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 or younger.
I'll bet this man has no daughters.
quote:In fact, that's precisely what happened here. The Tory government raised the previous age from 14 to 16, while garnering criticism for not harmonizing it for gay and straight teens. (This disparity - which strictly pertains to the type of intercourse but is perceived, for better or worse, to equate with orientation - has already been ruled of no effect in the two most populous provinces).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I also disagree. If anything, I think it should be raised, but I doubt this would receive any traction.
quote:No, no, I mean beyond 16. Should be 18, like the Age of Majority.
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:In fact, that's precisely what happened here. The Tory government raised the previous age from 14 to 16,
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I also disagree. If anything, I think it should be raised, but I doubt this would receive any traction.
quote:but from the FPA (Family Planning Association) the advice is:
from the BBC website
What happens if you have underage sex?
The law sees it as sexual assault - it's a criminal offence. This is because in the eyes of the law we are unable to give informed consent to sex when still a child.
- A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 (17 in NI) is breaking the law. Even if she agrees.
- If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years.
- If she is under 13 he could be sentenced to life imprisonment.
- A girl age 16 or over who has sex with a boy under 16 can be prosecuted for indecent assault.
quote:The Sexual Offences Act does not give any exceptions for two fifteen year olds involved in sexual intercourse by my understanding.
The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.
Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds.
quote:No, it doesn't - it is illegal for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other. In practice, of course, such cases are never prosecuted.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Sexual Offences Act does not give any exceptions for two fifteen year olds involved in sexual intercourse by my understanding.
quote:I can do all that (and am doing - thank you so much for the advice on parenting, but when I want advice I post in All Saints), but if I don't tell her about the sexual double standard how are we supposed to challenge it? Pay no attention to the elephant in the room...
You can empower your daughter to make decisions about sex that are right for her, enjoy sex in a safe way without the risk of STIs or pregnancy, and know that enjoying sex is not a bad thing and 'slut' is a sexist gendered slur.
quote:I can't see that as a proper function of the law.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The focus in age-gap jurisdictions is to prevent teens from having sex with adults, not to prevent them from having sex at all.
quote:It's usually a waste of time and energy to prosecute a teenager for shop-lifting a bar of chocolate, having a sheath knife in his school bag to show off, or getting drunk and shouting obscenities in the street, too. In 90% of cases of teenagers doing stuff that is wrong and stupid, simply getting caught and receiving a stern warning of future consequences will be more likely to lead to positive results than bringing in the full force of the law. But there are good reasons why those things are against the law, and should remain against the law. I wouldn't want to see anyone's life ruined for this sort of juvenile idiocy, and I wouldn't want to see that for underage sex, either, but that doesn't make it a good idea to decriminalise clearly wrong and harmful behaviour.
It is a waste of time and energy to pursue a case of a 14 year old with a 17 year old boyfriend who go to the same school as a crime. That's the reason for age-gap clauses.
quote:I don't think anyone is suggesting that sex between fifteen year olds is unproblematic, rather that criminalisation is not the best way to save them from themselves, especially when it's not actually enforced.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:But if they are not mature enough for that, and a restriction of freedom is justified, then how can it be sensible to abate that restriction for the population group most likely to have contact with them, and most likely to present a risk of sexual activity for which we accept they are too young? As well as being least likely to take precautions against infection and pregnancy and least likely to be able to support a child should one result. If teens need protection from sex with adults, they need it at least as much from sex with each other.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The focus in age-gap jurisdictions is to prevent teens from having sex with adults, not to prevent them from having sex at all.
quote:How do you reckon?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:No, it doesn't - it is illegal for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Sexual Offences Act does not give any exceptions for two fifteen year olds involved in sexual intercourse by my understanding.
quote:But conversely, if they are judged not to be mature enough to consent to sex, then how can it be sensible to abate that judgment if they do it anyway?
Originally posted by Eliab:
But if they are not mature enough for that, and a restriction of freedom is justified, then how can it be sensible to abate that restriction for the population group most likely to have contact with them, and most likely to present a risk of sexual activity for which we accept they are too young?
quote:This term isn't normally used in England and I hope it never becomes so. It's designed to up the ante about what is involved in under-age sex, but has the collateral and far more serious consequence of derogating the horror of real rape.
Originally posted by LQ:
... The whole theory behind statutory rape ...
quote:That's exactly why it was invented in the first place. As a weapon against child prostitution. So that when a man was accused of paying to have sex with a 13-year-old girl, courts could simply ignore the fact that she had in fact consented.
Originally posted by pererin:
I don't think that specifying a cut-off age is particularly sensible or helpful. It leaves the courts in a position where they have to rule according to a legal fiction that people of under a certain age have absolutely no legal capacity, regardless of their mental faculties.
quote:Sexual Offences Act 2003:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:How do you reckon?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
it is illegal for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other.
quote:Sections 9 to 12 are the offences of a person over 18 having sex with a person under 16, causing or inciting a person under 16 to have sex, having sex in the presence of a person under 16, or causing a person under 16 to watch a sexual act.
13 Child sex offences committed by children or young persons
(1)A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 9 to 12 if he were aged 18.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
quote:The language used in the Sexual Offences Act is "rape" when it talks about sex with a child under 13. In other words, the law does not even consider the question of consent when the victim is under 13.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:This term isn't normally used in England
Originally posted by LQ:
... The whole theory behind statutory rape ...
quote:So in jurisdictions that refer to statutory rape, is it then impossible for a fifteen-year-old to commit rape even if they use force against a non-consenting victim? That seems wrong to me. But the alternative, that a fifteen-year-old can voluntarily commit rape and be tried for it, but cannot voluntarily have consensual sex, seems equally bizarre.
Originally posted by LQ:
The whole theory behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age can't give meaningful consent to sex. If both partners are under that age, then what crime do you charge them with? You've just said they're not mature enough to consent meaningfully to the sex act, so you can't then turn around and charge them for something you've acknowledged they couldn't have freely chosen.
quote:Sorry, I didn't think it was a joke
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:quote:I can do all that (and am doing - thank you so much for the advice on parenting, but when I want advice I post in All Saints), but if I don't tell her about the sexual double standard how are we supposed to challenge it? Pay no attention to the elephant in the room...
You can empower your daughter to make decisions about sex that are right for her, enjoy sex in a safe way without the risk of STIs or pregnancy, and know that enjoying sex is not a bad thing and 'slut' is a sexist gendered slur.
This may come as a shock to you but the comment about sexism in my previous post was a JOKE. Obviously you did not get it.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
Tone is difficult over the internet. People say similar things on SoF in all seriousness.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
'You' was a general you, sorry for not making that clearer.
quote:If I steal your heroin, I am guilty of theft. That doesn't mean that it was legal for you to have the heroin in the first place.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
that a fifteen-year-old can voluntarily commit rape and be tried for it, but cannot voluntarily have consensual sex, seems equally bizarre.
quote:I don't follow.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:If I steal your heroin, I am guilty of theft. That doesn't mean that it was legal for you to have the heroin in the first place.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
that a fifteen-year-old can voluntarily commit rape and be tried for it, but cannot voluntarily have consensual sex, seems equally bizarre.
quote:So teenagers can meaningfully decide of their own free will to be controlling and violent by means of sex, but can't decide to be loving and respectful by means of sex?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rape uses sex, but rape isn't sex.
Rape is control and violence. Makes a bit more sense, then, yeah?
quote:I'm not seeing a problem here. There's no contradiction between the law saying, in effect:
Originally posted by LQ:
The whole theory behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age can't give meaningful consent to sex. If both partners are under that age, then what crime do you charge them with? You've just said they're not mature enough to consent meaningfully to the sex act, so you can't then turn around and charge them for something you've acknowledged they couldn't have freely chosen. The very nature of the offence is that children don't have the capacity to make a meaningful choice to have sex, so a key ingredient to any criminal offence (uncoerced intent) is already out of the equation. On the other hand, if you charge them, then you're conceding that they had the maturity to know what they were doing - and thus the law, which only precludes sex with someone lacking that maturity, hasn't been broken.
There's no such thing as "mutual rape": what are you going to do, charge both parties with assault and then release each them on the grounds of extenuating circumstances - since the "offenders" are survivors of sexual assault? ("Thou, O Child, both knave and victim ... !")
quote:I agree with the principle, but not the application. We don't, in fact, consistently enforce most juvenile laws, and it is right and wise not to do so. Putting a child through the legal process ought to me very much a last resort, used only in serious cases or when all other attempts to control behaviour have failed.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that sex between fifteen year olds is unproblematic, rather that criminalisation is not the best way to save them from themselves, especially when it's not actually enforced.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you have the mental capacity to decide whether or not to rape, you have the capacity to decide whether or not to have consensual sex.
quote:Biology works this way as well. We understand, and use, violence as a tool at a far younger age than sex.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you have the mental capacity to decide whether or not to rape, you have the capacity to decide whether or not to have consensual sex.
The law has never said that capacity to do one thing means capacity to do another.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm saying to treat underage sex by children the same way as we treat every other crime by children. Prosecute the most extreme, serious and hardened cases where nothing else will work and employ a more measured response to the other 99%.
quote:But there are lots of things we see as harmful but not criminal, such as overeating to the point of obesity, or self-harm.
But don't send the signal "this behaviour is OK, certainly not that serious" by decriminalising it, when as a society we have determined that underage sex is harmful, because that helps no one.
quote:Yes, but those are disparate and unrelated activities. I am describing two things, of which one is a severely perverted form of the other.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you have the mental capacity to decide whether or not to rape, you have the capacity to decide whether or not to have consensual sex.
The law has never said that capacity to do one thing means capacity to do another. If it did, the age for criminal responsibility, consensual sex, driving, drinking alcohol and voting would all be the same.
quote:Of course they can.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:So teenagers can meaningfully decide of their own free will to be controlling and violent by means of sex, but can't decide to be loving and respectful by means of sex?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rape uses sex, but rape isn't sex.
Rape is control and violence. Makes a bit more sense, then, yeah?
quote:It is not legal fiction. The teenage brain is different to the adult brain.
Originally posted by ken:
Of course they can.
But the law pretends they can't when it seems necessary to intervene on their behalf.
Its a legal fiction.
quote:I am saying they are different acts with different consequences and different processes leading to the decisions.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
lilBuddha - are you seriously suggesting adolescents are more inclined to rape than sex? (Well, obviously you're not, but I don't understand what you are saying.)
quote:Oy. Never said all. and never said unclear. Different is the word. And you may disagree with the studies, but physiology is where they are based.
Originally posted by ken:
The idea that there is some simple difference between "the teenage brain" and "the adult brain" that means that all adults can think clearly about sex and no teenagers can would be laughable if it wasn't such nonsense. Obviously untrue. Just a bit of pop psychology bollocks.
quote:Shouldn't it be before, and no than?
And girls mature after than boys biologically and by 16 most boys haven't caught up yet,16 year old boys are in many ways more on a level with 14 year old girls rather than girls of their own age.
quote:Pragmatically speaking, the cutoff should be 18.
Originally posted by ken:
The law isn't really about ability to choose, its about public policy, pragmatism, what works.
quote:I'd be betting that the intended word was faster and it got mixed up by a spell checker.
Originally posted by Penny S:
ken, is this what you meant to say?
quote:Shouldn't it be before, and no than?
And girls mature after than boys biologically and by 16 most boys haven't caught up yet,16 year old boys are in many ways more on a level with 14 year old girls rather than girls of their own age.
quote:Which comes back to what lilBuddha (I think) said earlier: that rape isn't actually about sexual pleasure.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Yes, but those are disparate and unrelated activities. I am describing two things, of which one is a severely perverted form of the other.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you have the mental capacity to decide whether or not to rape, you have the capacity to decide whether or not to have consensual sex.
The law has never said that capacity to do one thing means capacity to do another. If it did, the age for criminal responsibility, consensual sex, driving, drinking alcohol and voting would all be the same.
lilBuddha - are you seriously suggesting adolescents are more inclined to rape than sex? (Well, obviously you're not, but I don't understand what you are saying.)
quote:OK, I am afraid there is no way to respond to this claim without being unpleasantly graphic. If the assault is of a form that requires sexual arousal on the part of the attacker, as in an erect penis, then yes, by definition it is about sexual pleasure, however perverted and depraved.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Which comes back to what lilBuddha (I think) said earlier: that rape isn't actually about sexual pleasure.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but those are disparate and unrelated activities. I am describing two things, of which one is a severely perverted form of the other.
lilBuddha - are you seriously suggesting adolescents are more inclined to rape than sex? (Well, obviously you're not, but I don't understand what you are saying.)
quote:But it does not require a penis. Rape can be, and often is, accomplished with objects. The point is that there can be no arousal, but that violence, humiliation and control are the main mechanisms.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, I am afraid there is no way to respond to this claim without being unpleasantly graphic. If the assault is of a form that requires sexual arousal on the part of the attacker, as in an erect penis,
quote:It is not that teenagers cannot control their impulses, it is that they view consequences with different weight.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But let's back up a little and see what is actually being claimed here. AIUI (and feel free to call this out as a strawman), statutory rape assumes that when two minors have sex without any coercion, what's happening is that their sexual urges are too strong for their rational faculty - that is, they don't have the judgement and life experience to know that they ought to overrule their sexual impulses, and therefore haven't actually given informed consent. However, if one of the minors has sexual impulses that are horrific and violent and depraved and unhealthy, then that is something they ought to be able to control, and ought to be held fully responsible for.
quote:Firstly, in the UK context (which is what the OP is about) the phrase 'statutory rape' isn't used, and is unhelpful. Underage sex and rape are different things. Underage sex isn't implied rape, or deemed rape, or constructive rape. It is underage sex. Rape requires an actual and proven absence of consent. Underage sex doesn't. Consent is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But let's back up a little and see what is actually being claimed here. AIUI (and feel free to call this out as a strawman), statutory rape assumes that when two minors have sex without any coercion, what's happening is that their sexual urges are too strong for their rational faculty - that is, they don't have the judgement and life experience to know that they ought to overrule their sexual impulses, and therefore haven't actually given informed consent.
quote:Of course. Why is that even controversial?
However, if one of the minors has sexual impulses that are horrific and violent and depraved and unhealthy, then that is something they ought to be able to control, and ought to be held fully responsible for.
quote:Really? It doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me. It seems obvious. There are some moral questions and practical tasks that are beyond the capacity of most children. Then there are the easy ones that are not. My son isn't old enough to drive, but he knows enough about cars not to run out into a busy road. When he's 15, he may not be old enough to have a proper sexual relationship, but if he doesn't know enough to realise that rape is wrong, I'll have utterly failed as a parent.
This just seems so counter-intuitive that I think something more than bare assertion is needed to justify it.
quote:I think that example works. My daughter is six. Although as a doting father I think she is very smart indeed, I concede that she probably has very little contribution to make to the Tory/Labour debate. She just doesn't have the knowledge and experience needed for a meaningful view on whether this or that tax reform or welfare bill is likely to result in greater fairness or prosperity.
Orfeo referred to the legal voting age. If you will excuse what is potentially a triviialisation of the issue, it's like saying that teenagers can rationally vote for the National Front and be held accountable for it, but can't meaningfully debate the relative merits of Tories and Labour.
quote:Also, if we are going to go there, the other party's fear or non-consent may be part of the turn-on. I think it's much more than any of that though. Let's say you went to a shop next door and brought home a nice piece of cake. I could go where you went and get one myself if I want it. Instead I physically force you to accept my money and give me your cake. Even if I am truly very hungry for your cake, that doesn't mean that action wasn't about power.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:But it does not require a penis. Rape can be, and often is, accomplished with objects. The point is that there can be no arousal, but that violence, humiliation and control are the main mechanisms.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, I am afraid there is no way to respond to this claim without being unpleasantly graphic. If the assault is of a form that requires sexual arousal on the part of the attacker, as in an erect penis,
quote:But I think the one implies the other. If there is no circumstance in which a minor could rationally consent, and they consent nevertheless, the impulse to consent must have come from the irrational part, I.e. the hormones.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think think the theory of statutory rape implies they don't understand the consequences and implications of their behaviour both for themselves and others - not that they can't control themselves.
quote:But in reality that also applies to many adults having sex as well, and many teenagers below the official age of consent in conservative English-speaking countries would have a far better understanding of that.
Originally posted by Gwai:
No, they thought they could consent, but in actuality didn't know what they were getting into.
quote:Not sure that winning and losing is a healthy way to look at posting on a thread.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, I think I am kind of losing here ...
quote:That's nuts, and betrays a confusion about the purpose of age of consent laws. They are designed to prevent exploitation; they aren't just an analogue of, say, drinking age laws. I'm frankly stunned that there should be such a disparity within the common law, and I wonder when it arose. Presumably it became a part of the English legal corpus after the colonies were cut loose, or we'd have a similar provision. I'm not surprised that, as someone has commented, that potential application of the law is ignored.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If two 15-year olds get it on, each commits an offence under section 13 of the Act.
quote:There may be jurisdictions (presumably in the US) which refer to statutory rape as such in their laws. I have only ever known it as a colloquial term, indicating the notion (as Enoch explains) that a child under a certain age is "deemed" (i.e. by statute) not to have given consent even if s/he putatively does so. Of course, if actual coercion is exercised that's going to be illegal no matter what the ages involved.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:So in jurisdictions that refer to statutory rape, is it then impossible for a fifteen-year-old to commit rape even if they use force against a non-consenting victim?
Originally posted by LQ:
The whole theory behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age can't give meaningful consent to sex. If both partners are under that age, then what crime do you charge them with? You've just said they're not mature enough to consent meaningfully to the sex act, so you can't then turn around and charge them for something you've acknowledged they couldn't have freely chosen.
quote:Sure there is. The whole point of the first statement is that we don't expect them to understand what they're getting into. If a child "consents" to sexual activity, we disregard it, saying in effect that their consent doesn't "count." You may think you have thought this out and are ready to forge ahead, we tell them, but that's just because your young minds aren't equipped for the ramifications of such a decision. If a child is unable to grasp that they aren't in a position to be having sex owing to their age, do you think they're going to arrive at this insight more readily with respect to their peers? Kids aren't exactly famous for their empathy.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm not seeing a problem here. There's no contradiction between the law saying, in effect:
"You are not old enough for people to have sex with you" AND "but we do at least expect you to realise that your classmates aren't either".
quote:LQ, I think you're wrong there, and it's not 'nuts'. Whatever the position when laws were first introduced on this, or in other countries, in practice the position here is:-
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:That's nuts, and betrays a confusion about the purpose of age of consent laws. They are designed to prevent exploitation; they aren't just an analogue of, say, drinking age laws. I'm frankly stunned that there should be such a disparity within the common law, and I wonder when it arose. Presumably it became a part of the English legal corpus after the colonies were cut loose, or we'd have a similar provision. I'm not surprised that, as someone has commented, that potential application of the law is ignored.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If two 15-year olds get it on, each commits an offence under section 13 of the Act.
quote:There's a good example of the double standard.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Although it's almost unknown for teenage girls to be prosecuted for having sexual intercourse with under age boys, cases do arise of slightly older women doing so. There is a big difference of course. We all deplore adult men seducing young girls, but 'making it' with Miss X the young English teacher is every teenage boy's spotty fantasy. When it actually happens, though, it does seem to mess them up a bit.
quote:I tried to bear this in mind some years ago when I was running the youth club and had to haul a large, muscular and VERY keen 15 year-old girl off a small, weedy, barely pubescent not quite 14 year old boy.
posted by rolyn
I guess this is to do with the traditionally held view that the male is the predator, while the female is largely the prey which must be protected.
quote:In English law, sex with a child under 13 is automatically "rape". In other words, the law does not consider the question of whether the child consented - the presumption is that the child does not have the capacity for informed consent.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My point is that you are considered guilty of a crime if you were able to exercise free control over whether or not you did it. If you have the mental capacity to decide whether or not to rape, you have the capacity to decide whether or not to have consensual sex.