• Downing Street rejects call to lower the age of consent to 15
    48 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929[/url] [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. Downing Street said the current age of 16 was in place to protect children and there were "no plans to change it". Official figures suggest up to a third of teenagers have sex before the age of consent.[/quote]
I really dont fucking know what to say about this.
[quote]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[/quote] Yeah, with [I]other[/I] 14 and 15 year olds.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42892276]Yeah, with [I]other[/I] 14 and 15 year olds.[/QUOTE] "He said the move would make it easier for 15-year-olds to get sexual health advice from the NHS." What, cant they get the advice at that age?
I don't get it. Can kids get in trouble for fucking like rabbits underage with other kids that are underage? Do they charge both of them or something?
Dammit
[QUOTE=tr00per7;42892316]"He said the move would make it easier for 15-year-olds to get sexual health advice from the NHS." What, cant they get the advice at that age?[/QUOTE] The nurse/consultant would probably give you a bollocking.
[QUOTE=himlok;42892360]The nurse/consultant would probably give you a bollocking.[/QUOTE] nope they even give out free condoms to under 16's
[QUOTE=himlok;42892360]The nurse/consultant would probably give you a bollocking.[/QUOTE] That is beyond retarded. Over here (Netherlands) you can ask the GP/Nurse for advice and they'll give it regardless of whether you're above the age of consent or not. What's the point in not allowing them to get advice before they are legally allowed to have sex? Why even bother?
as far as this goes i think this is a classic case of "dont fix what aint broke"
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;42892389]as far as this goes i think this is a classic case of "dont fix what aint broke"[/QUOTE] Yep; the current AoC for intimacy is probably fine.
It's 16 in Michigan and we get along just fine.
[QUOTE=download;42892324]I don't get it. Can kids get in trouble for fucking like rabbits underage with other kids that are underage? Do they charge both of them or something?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BuffaloBill;42892387]That is beyond retarded. Over here (Netherlands) you can ask the GP/Nurse for advice and they'll give it regardless of whether you're above the age of consent or not. What's the point in not allowing them to get advice before they are legally allowed to have sex? Why even bother?[/QUOTE] Its all grey areas and a huge mess. If an under 16 goes to a doctor wanting birth control then its fine for the doctor to prescribe it, provided that there is no suspicion of abuse and they are clearly mature enough to be making the decision then they should be given confidentiality. Anyone under 13 = 100% nono no matter what Both under 16 = Technically illegal but rarely enforced unless its rape/abuse/etc One over 16 one under 16 = Illegal / statutory rape and likely pursued if any kind of authority gets wind of it Parents can also technically be prosecuted for knowing about their kids having underage sex and providing condoms or allowing it to happen in their house.
[QUOTE=download;42892324]I don't get it. Can kids get in trouble for fucking like rabbits underage with other kids that are underage? Do they charge both of them or something?[/QUOTE] it is statutory rape for both parties despite consent iirc there have been cases where angry mothers and fathers have taken the boyfriend of their daughter to court over it, but their offspring has been charged as well
You gotta wet your tallywacker in the UK early because its still the medievil period and we only live till about 30
[QUOTE=toxicpiano;42892465]it is statutory rape for both parties despite consent iirc there have been cases where angry mothers and fathers have taken the boyfriend of their daughter to court over it, but their offspring has been charged as well[/QUOTE] Someone I know of accidently got his girlfriend pregnant when they were both 14-15 and had been together for a few years, a few years later they break up and they want to stop him seeing the child - Her dad threatened to go to the police telling them that it was statutory rape and he got her pregnant. I looked it up and spoke to a youth worker who has dealt with that before - They can actually try and press charges against you for statutory rape based on the age of your child if it is taken forward, and has happened before.
i think the consent laws in the UK work just fine as they are. 16 unless it's with someone in a position of power over them or similar, 18 for no limit. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] what would the benefit of lowering the age to 15 be? next you'd have people wanting to lower it again to 14 for the same reasons
[QUOTE=toxicpiano;42892465]it is statutory rape for both parties despite consent iirc there have been cases where angry mothers and fathers have taken the boyfriend of their daughter to court over it, but their offspring has been charged as well[/QUOTE] How utterly retarded
[QUOTE=tr00per7;42892316]"He said the move would make it easier for 15-year-olds to get sexual health advice from the NHS." What, cant they get the advice at that age?[/QUOTE] As a healthcare professional if you believe that a teenager under 16 is sexually active, you are able to provide them with contraception if you believe that they're going to do it anyway. There's a particular law that allows it, though I'd have to go through my notes for the name of it. It does still leave it as kind of awkward to give them advice, though. There was an expansion on that particular law that made a child giving informed consent pretty interesting though, if you believe a child under 16 to be competent, they can theoretically accept a treatment at any age, and their parents can't stop them from having it if they are deemed capable of informed consent and it is a medically advisable treatment. [QUOTE=himlok;42892360]The nurse/consultant would probably give you a bollocking.[/QUOTE] Completely fucking wrong. They can explain that it's illegal, but not give you a bollocking. Hell, even doctors can't really give you a bollocking for it. Either way, I'm all for lowering it by one year for teenagers having sex with teenagers - they're doing it anyway, as the professor said, and having it be technically illegal is adding a layer of complication to teaching them about it. They are less likely to go to their GP or whatever if they suspect an STD if they know it's illegal. Lowering it by one year will not lead to everyone starting to fuck like rabbits, and 33% of them are already doing it. If the professor has supporting evidence then Downing Street refusing is yet another time they've ignored science and preferred feels. It's like the forbidden fruit aspect with alcohol and such. If 2 consenting teens want to fuck, chances are they are going to, and there's not much you can do about it. Best to ensure that you can provide them with rubbers and advice on safe sex.
Don't some countries have like a two-year gap thing where it's okay for say a 16 year old to do it with a 15 year old We should have that
They should just apply the "half your age plus 7 rule" for consent, although it might need to be changed slightly since a newborn boy would be allowed have sex with a 7 year old Math is weird
[QUOTE=cathal6606;42892673]They should just apply the "half your age plus 7 rule" for consent, although it might need to be changed slightly since a newborn boy would be allowed have sex with a 7 year old Math is weird[/QUOTE] half plus seven is used on the older party Half of seven floored is 3, 3 + 7 is 10, 10>7, so the seven year old can't tap anyone
It's basically decriminalized for underaged kids to fuck eachother. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted.
I say this in every aoc related thread and will continue on doing so hungary has it at 14 and there hasn't been one problem with it, parents can actually deal with older sickos courting their daughters, and 18 year olds can fuck 16 year olds without fear of going to the court for it it's a merry life, without bullshit ass backwards laws like these
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;42892493]what would the benefit of lowering the age to 15 be? next you'd have people wanting to lower it again to 14 for the same reasons[/QUOTE] Well what's the benefit of keeping it at 16?
[QUOTE=smurfy;42892576]Don't some countries have like a two-year gap thing where it's okay for say a 16 year old to do it with a 15 year old We should have that[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act. However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency The Criminal Code of Canada also provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions. For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence unless it occurs after they are married to each other (in accordance with the "solemnization" of marriage requirements that are established in each province and territory, governing how and when a marriage can be performed, including the minimum age at which someone may marry). There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.[/QUOTE] Canada has it pretty good.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42893088]Well what's the benefit of keeping it at 16?[/QUOTE] development by said age, and a lot of other rights are granted at the same age
[QUOTE=toxicpiano;42892465]it is statutory rape for both parties despite consent [/QUOTE] Who the hell could make this law and go "yeah, this makes sense"? Seriously, that law in itself is like a oxymoron.
Y'all should read up on the Romeo and Juliet laws which serve to get around the problem of lets say a 17 year old getting charged with statutory rape and being registered as a sex offender for having sex with a 15 year old. As long as the "victim" is at least 14, the accused isn't more than 3-4 years older, and the accused isn't being charged/hasn't been charged with other sexual crimes, then a good defense can be made in court. [url]http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/romeo-and-juliet-law/[/url]
[QUOTE=WoodenSpoon;42893166] As long as the "victim" is at least 14, the accused isn't more than 3-4 years older, and the accused isn't being charged/hasn't been charged with other sexual crimes, then a good defense can be made in court. [url]http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/romeo-and-juliet-law/[/url][/QUOTE] A 14 year old shouldn't need to have to provide a defence to having sex with a 15 year old in court, nor the other way around. What a joke of a system if people have to do that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.