|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Age of Consent - UK
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
News report on BBC website.
quote:
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"
Assuming that this forum meets the last definition ![[Smile]](smile.gif) - discuss!
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.
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I really don't agree with it. I've seen the damage that can be done by this early sexualisation - and young girls not really knowing what they are getting into. Not universally, but enough to not want to see younger girls being pressurised any more than they are now.
I am surprised he's positing that young people don't get medical support under 16 as a reason to lower the age of consent, as Gillick Competency allows a GP to prescribe contraceptives to under 16s, and there's no reason why not to treat under 16s for STIs. (Certainly I've seen medical treatment for 13 year olds who are pregnant without any reasons why not.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Prof Ashton said lowering the age by a year could "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 or younger.
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.
I'll bet this man has no daughters.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I also disagree. If anything, I think it should be raised, but I doubt this would receive any traction.
No reason to doubt the Prof's statement, but I think this statement
quote:
(Prof Ashton) said: "We need a debate here.
might well be the true reason for his position.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Prof Ashton said lowering the age by a year could "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 or younger.
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.
I'll bet this man has no daughters.
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."
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I am a tall woman and have been the same height since about 13/14 years old. The primary ammo I used against adult men who tried to get my attention was that I was underage. If the age of consent were lowered it would make it harder for 15 year olds to deter adults who want to have sex with them.
I see age of consent primarily as a tool for child protection so I cannot see any reason for lowering it.
Additionally as almost all 15 year olds are still in school and incapable of earning a living at that age, making the age of consent 15 means that we are opening the gates for 15 year olds to be getting pregnant or impregnating others. Of course this happens already but it doesn't need to be encouraged or normalized.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Age of Consent is of little interest, usually is little known, to those teens who have sex while yet to attain it. As rightly pointed out above, the AoC is primarily of use/interest in the field of child protection.
As to whether 16 is right, too old or not old enough: IMO what matters more is the age GAP between a sexually active teen and their partner. How so?
Well, if its paedophilia (and creepy, to boot) for a 40 year old to be having sex with a 15 year old it is equally creepy for that same 40 year old to have sex with the teen the next day when they are 16.
Surely, it would be better to set an age-gap limit for people under a certain age; you'd keep the AoC at 16 and the law would be maximum age gap of 5 years. This could be carried forward up to the age of 18, at which point it is deemed that people become adult.
While it wouldn't put a stop to all grooming by older "boyfriends" the age gap would make it fairly obvious while still allowing relationships between teens and the slightly older boy/girl friend.
tangent Some wondered if Professor Ashton had daughters: he lists 4 sons and 2 stepsons.
[ 18. November 2013, 08:29: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
The 'learned' gentleman has obviously never heard of Josephine Butler. The age of consent was only raised to 16 in 1885. Before that it was 13.
The original purpose of the age of consent laws was to 'draw a line in the sand' (as he so eloquently puts it) and make it harder for children to be sold into prostitution.
Oh, and what Seeking Sister and Curiosity Killed said.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
The problem with this idea is that it's setting out to solve problems that don't exist. Your GP won't refuse to see you because you're 15, nor will anyone refuse to sell you condoms. That isn't the problem. It may be that younger teenagers don't know that they can easily get contraceptives, or it may be that they're too embarrassed or misinformed to do so, in which case that is the problem. (Personally I'm not keen on under-16s getting it on, but it is going to happen whatever we do. The best damage control is making sure they know how to avoid pregnancy and STDs, how to stand up against peer pressure, and which things are just A Bad Idea and why.)
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
I also suspect that the majority of teens only really take notice of the age of consent if they want a reason not to have sex. Taking away a defence against peer pressure (or boy/girlfriend pressure) is a really bad idea.
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
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. The courts are already perfectly capable of assessing limited capacity in cases involving those with severe mental impairment, and should be allowed to apply the same principles to the exploitation (or otherwise) of teenagers.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I can see at argument for saying that sex with a 15 year old* is not so wicked that it deserves to be a criminal offence, but it is a bad idea, shouldn't be common, and society should still disapprove - but I don't think that changing the age of consent is a way to achieve that. I think it would merely make sex at 15 even more normal than it currently is.
(*Tangent - and I think the same considerations apply regardless of the perpetrator's age. 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).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Sandemaniac: quote:
Have I missed something, or is that just one of those helpfully contradictory bits of English legislation?
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.
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Eliab: quote:
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.
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?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
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
I assume the law in England was the same as that in Scotland where, according to William Hay, lecturer at Aberdeen University, c1500.
"The age for contracting marriage is fourteen years in the male and twelve years in the female. The reason why the Church laid down these times in such early youth was in order to avoid fornication, to which the young are very much inclined, and so easily incited to lust, and also because the carnal appetites usually awaken about that age."
(Aside - William Hay's Lectures on Marriage are fascinating. Apparently all sorts of dreadful things happen if a married man comes into contact with menstrual blood. The law on marriage was obviously drawn up by celibate clergy.)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Agreed with a close-in-age exemption rather than lowering the age of consent.
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?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
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.
In places with age gap laws, the laws are actually different.
So in my home state, the unrestricted age of consent is 16. The restricted age of consent is 13, with limitations placed on the age of the partner (no more than 4 years older).
In the UK my understanding is that the age of consent of 16 means that one cannot legally have sex under that age. That is very different from the way the laws are applied in the US and presumably Canada as well.
The focus in age-gap jurisdictions is to prevent teens from having sex with adults, not to prevent them from having sex at all.
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
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?
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.
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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."
So that sounds as though William Hay (who was an unmarried cleric) assumed that if a 12 year old girl married, the marriage would be consummated.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
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)
Well I can see two reasons:
- If there is a large age gap then the power differential between the two makes it prima facie more likely that the older has coerced or groomed the younger. If they are similar in age then there may still be coercion, of course, but I'd say it was less of a given.
- As far as I can tell, sex with a minor is de facto only prosecuted if there is an age gap. It seems to me that the law should reflect what people are charged for, otherwise you give off mixed signals. People are less likely to respect a law they know is only sporadically enforced.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
The suggestion to lower the AoC to 15 is at least not quite as barmy as the suggestion by a UK barrister to lower the AoC to 13 - BBC article here. Frankly, Ms Hewson's attitudes are almost enough to warrant a Hell call - Operation Yewtree "persecution of old men"? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Jade: quote:
It is the perpetrator's behaviour alone that needs commenting on.
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.
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
I'll stop worrying about the double standard when people start calling sexually active men whores.
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
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.
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.
Of course, men are victims too ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
More seriously... yes, men are victims of the double standard too. It would help if people like Nadine Dorries recognised that it takes two to tango...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
As always, it very much comes down to parenting: the unfortunate truth is that children from chaotic homes or with sporadic/no parenting are less likely to have had rounded sex education but are more likely to make the mistake of sex = love.
If they're lucky they'll have their first sexual experience with a teen of similar age from a more stable background and with a sense of responsiblity (and knowledge) about contraception.
But luck isn't always there (or runs out) and protection has to be there from the law.
Personally, I find the whole "16 for sex & 50cc mopeds, 17 for cars and 250cc bikes, 18 to drink or vote" confusion a nonsense.
There should be ONE age of majority for everything and 18 would seem to be the sensible age for it.
Under that, have an age - I'd say 16 - under which it is NO SEX but between 16 and 19th birthday no greater than the 4 year age gap between sexual partners.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I doubt if any political party will want to touch the age of consent for a very long time, either to put it downwards or upwards.
Don't two 15 year olds have a kind of protection under the law (England and Wales), as it seems very unlikely that they would be prosecuted, although of course older people probably would be?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
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.
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]
[ 18. November 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
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]
Fair enough - I don't think that option was available when I was in school, or if it was they didn't advertise it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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?
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.
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.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade: quote:
It is the perpetrator's behaviour alone that needs commenting on.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Prof Ashton said lowering the age by a year could "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 or younger.
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.
I'll bet this man has no daughters.
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."
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I also disagree. If anything, I think it should be raised, but I doubt this would receive any traction.
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).
At the time, seemingly everyone of any vaguely progressive stripe appeared to be falling over themselves to denounce the measure as an encroachment on youth rights (a straight friend from my Unitarian youth group even had his picture in the local gay rag lambasting it) and I felt very out of place, especially as a gay teen, actually agreeing with Stephen Harper for once, and wondering if 14 weren't a little young to throw open the floodgates to sexual activity with adult partners of any age. I didn't think it would be appropriate for me (at the tail end of my teens) to be sleeping with 14-year-olds, much less for a 40-year-old to do so, as they previously could with impunity.
Advocates of the then-status quo claimed, as seems to be the jist of the argument here, that teens would be deterred from seeking advice on safer sex if their sexual activity were "illegal." I confess this rather baffled me, since as Jane R points out - and pace Eliab - age of consent laws have nothing to say about sexual activity between partners who are both (all?) under the prescribed age. As one advice column I read at the time rather crudely put it, "Two twelve-year-olds can bang till they're blue." If an underage girl asks for the pill, what doctor is going to say, "Why are you asking me for that? You must be having sex with someone illegally older than you!" I will concede, though, that many of my peers were thoroughly mixed up about what the law said, which might be argued to have as much of a chilling effect as if it really did say that.
Others have already mentioned close-in-age exemptions. The Canadian amendment simultaneously widened this to five years. (It had previously been two, so that, say, a 15-year-old who slept with a 13-year-old committed no offence). Since I was exactly 19 at the time, this had the curious effect of lowering the minimum age of my (hypothetical, had I been sexually active) potential partners. Immediately following the new law's royal assent, I was only five years older than a 13-year-old, whereas the old exemption would have been of no effect to me since I was well over two years older than the hard cutoff.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I also disagree. If anything, I think it should be raised, but I doubt this would receive any traction.
In fact, that's precisely what happened here. The Tory government raised the previous age from 14 to 16,
No, no, I mean beyond 16. Should be 18, like the Age of Majority.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I get that, I'm just saying in principle revising the age in a direction other than downward needn't necessarily be political suicide. I'm not opining on the chances of any particular proposal in any particular political climate: you may well be right.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I suspect the reason that the discussion is proposed is that the legal situation in England and Wales means that the age of consent is 16 (for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships) full stop. For children under 13 the law says that they cannot consent to sexual activity and any sexual activity is illegal. And there are additional protections for young people up to the age of 18 where one of the partners is in a position of trust (teachers or family members).
Looking at a couple of advice websites the advice is not consistent:
quote:
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.
but from the FPA (Family Planning Association) the advice is:
quote:
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.
The Sexual Offences Act does not give any exceptions for two fifteen year olds involved in sexual intercourse by my understanding.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Jade: quote:
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.
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...
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I can't see that as a proper function of the law.
If people of age Y are, in general, mature enough to make decisions about sex without substantially greater risk of harm than others we think of as 'adults', then the thinking must be that the restriction on their freedom to choose to have sex is not justified by the prevention of harm. In which case, let them make their own decisions.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There are predatory teenage boys, of course - I've been reading about sexting in the papare today. And I recall an incident (I've posted it elsewhere I think) in which a girl at my school was coerced by peer pressure. In those cases, I don't think the age gap should be taken as mitigation.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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.
No, it doesn't - it is illegal for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other.
How do you reckon?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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?
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 ... !")
[ 19. November 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... The whole theory behind statutory rape ...
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.
If a person has consensual sex with a person under the age of consent, that is a criminal offence, typically described as underage sex, because the girl (usually) is not legally able to consent even though they might be doing so, and is being protected from being exploited and/or manipulated. That is what the law is designed to do.
If a person has non-consensual sex with an underage person, that is rape, just as it is whatever the age of the victim. When it comes to sentencing, it should result in the offender being put away for even longer than would be the case for raping a more mature person.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
