Im suprised this hasnt been brought up...

…

(from the times)

While I see the need for the de-criminalisation of young people having sex with young people below the age of consent, this is very much open to abuse. Most cildren of this age are too young to make a decision of this nature. Many are pessurised into doing things because they want to feel loved or respected. While Im not suggessting 16 year olds arent responsible, I think we lay too much of a responsibilty at their feet, particularily in our society where sex is a marketed product that pervades every area of one's life. 16 year olds are still children and should be protected.

These debates are always difficult, since any measure will have to be arbitrary. Any of the points raised by, for example, the Rape Crisis Network could easily be applied to 15, 17 or 18 year olds. Always troublesome.

Personally, I'd see sixteen as a reasonable age, but I'm having difficulty justifying that beyond personal experience and a gut (yes, the gut) feeling. I suppose that that's about the age where people start to have longer-term relationships (at least, relationships based on things outside of "s/he's hot"). I can't even say if that's a good benchmark of when one should start having sex.

Maybe that was just me and my group of friends though. I really can't say.

A point that will inevitably be raised is that teenagers are unlikely to pay much attention to the law. While that's an important factor, it's not in itself an argument to raise or lower the age.

(Anyone can read into the fact that this is Indyjoe's 666th post, if they want...)

__________________
Using P.ie again on a trial basis...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Nerdishness abounds!

"rape crisis network" doesnt want it? what a load of bs. id love to know what difference 16 makes as opposed to 17.

if the government implements the 16 age that will be an incredible embrassment

during the mr.A thing mcdowell said he wanted it at 16
then ff ministers kicked up because all the old fogies in the countryside didnt like th idea of the yoof havin a bit of hows your father - and made him change it to 17
and now the whole troup of them are going to u-turn again!!

I think an age of consent of 16 is fair enough for teenagers of similar age, however I think the age of consent should be 18 in cases where the partner/predator is 21 or older. Any thoughts? Am I misguided because I have a daughter???

Any choice of age is highly arbitrary...

Reminds me that Cameron in the UK was proposing formalising some sort of "coming of age" rite for adolescents. They could choose to sit it "early" & get some etxra privileges.

So how about having an "age of majority" rite ? Pass it & you can have sex, booze & vote ?

cYp

__________________
"Yawn , am I alive yet ?"

Catholic Marriage, you mean! :wink:

I can't say that I've thought about it much (completely open to correction), but surely once someone is having consenting sex, it doesn't really matter too much (from a legal point of view) if that person is 16, 21, or 40. What's the difference?

The only possible difference I can see is that an older person might be more manipulative, but I could be wrong.

__________________
Using P.ie again on a trial basis...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Nerdishness abounds!

There is an obvious difference in maturity of a 16 or 17 year old and a 21 year old. The proposal that I made (quoted above) would protect children (under 18) from predation by adults.

But not from other (supposed) children, it seems.