Naebody touchin' this so far?

How many of us (including polis, judges, lawyers etc.) at fifteen or sixteen didn't, and if we didn't would have given our right arm (bad example perhaps!) to have been able to?

Agree totally with the age differential - 17 year old boy 15 year old girl - where's the criminality in that?

25 year old man 15 year old girl different matter altogether.

Bill, at 14, you may well have had the mental, and physical maturity,to make the decision to have sex. The question is, do the vast majority. I would say, from my own experience, no. I behaved at 14 according to my own whim and temper, and thought nothing of the consequences of my actions. I look back on my behaviour physical, mental and sexual of that age, and cringe!
I'd ask you to look long and hard at those asking for this reduction. If they are 14, by all means listen. But I'm willing to bet they are not..

Oh, and why is 8 years criminal in your eyes, if 14 is a legally responsible age? If it was a 25 year old woman and 15 year old man you'd probably applaud him ! But heaven forfend if it was vice versa..or a 25 year old man and a 15 year old boy..

Ryan

You missed my point completely.

Of course I wouldn't applaud a 25 year old woman taking advantage of a 15 year old boy, or your other example.

I wasn't saying I condoned any of it, but that it is a fact that it happens, and in cases of same or near same age youngsters being criminalised for doing what is essentially natural is wrong.

Our government has sent 17 year olds to Iraq, but want to ban smoking under 18, want to increase the school leaving age to 18, but allow people to marry at 16 and have children. Crazy!

Well they brought in sex education in the schools and it just went to improving their expertise. Now with the proposal to reduce the age of consent to fourteen, the wee lassies have now lost another level of protection. I will give it three days before the speil is "if you really loved me, you would let me do it, and its legal now". Where do they find those academics. It is OK that quite a few of them are clueless at running their University finances, but do you really want them give you advice on your kids.

Just because a minority group of teenagers may view a certain activity as normal does not justify making it legal: shoplifting, carrying guns, drinking, taking drugs. I hope that the man's comments have been taken out of context.

When I think about it, most girls are two or three years in front of the boys. I suppose it would reduce the odd case of blackmail. Still have not altered my mind about academics.

Personally I would up it to 18..That will not prevent all kids from partaking in the act of sex, but it will go a long way to reminding them that they are doing something illegally! Kids are experimenting younger these days and again it is our fault. When in your teens did you ever have access to the kinds of sexual content we do now? ADULTS created that content, not the kids. We therefore, need to be seen to do something like increasing the age of consent as opposed to giving in and lowering it...

21 , thank you. And 25 for alcohol.

NO. Definitely not! What is needed is a more sensible approach to the current situation. Sexual abuse is just that - the abuse of a child. If you have the "boyfriend/girlfriend" scenario of (say) a 17 year old boy and a 15 year old girl where does the "abuse" come in? One is as bad as the other. As the age differential comes in, the situation changes - a 25 year old man with a 15 year old girl wouldn't be on. I saw a case in the paper where an 18 year old had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend who became pregnant. He was charged, she had the baby and then they got married. What was the point in that? Start off your married life with a criminal record. I'm not sure if he was put on the sex offenders register. Where would he stand if he was and his child is a girl? Would he be considered a risk to her? Crazy!!

Medical opinion agrees that there are more health risks the earlier a girl has sex - what happens after they lower the age to 14? Consider that some are really mature 14 year olds - maybe we should lower it to 12?

the teenage pregnancy rate in the uk is already too high. most of those who at this age are sexually mature enougj to have sex still dont have the emotional,phsycological maturity to have children. spare the poor old tax payer for goodness sake

There must be quite a proliferation of teen mags on the shelves nowadays that allegedly inform the target readership in a "responsible" way of the pros and cons of engaging in sexual conduct below the age of enfranchisement without the editorial team overtly making it sound as if its members are necessarily endorsing or condemning anything in particular.

An editor of such a magazine would say something along the lines of "Our publication exists to inform youngsters about sex, not encourage them to have it (or discourage them from having it, for that matter). We like to think we are helping them to make informed decisions."

And yet I am sure that the editors of such publications must be aware that there must be plenty of immature youngsters around who will try their hand at anything no matter what notes of a cautionary nature are sounded.

I'm not saying that these magazines should not be on the shelves (who knows, they are probably used in schools as examples of media related to sex education), but this issue, even if it is just an academic making a suggestion about lowering the age of consent, might make into such a publication under a title such as "Legal sex at 14? The debate"

There are bound to be such wanna-try readers who care nothing for the debate but would use such an article as a pretext to engage in sexual activity at such a young age "because it says so" in the article - even if it may say absolutely nothing of the kind!

If anything, having sex at such a young age (which happens, whether or not it is legal in any particular country) ought to be labelled as being almost as dangerous as taking drugs, because the next thing you know, there'll be (more?) shock-horror stories of British high school kids infected with HIV or AIDS at the ages of 14 and 15.

The cautionary note, as always, is: Use your head before you use your body! Sexual behaviour and rampant hormones may come sooner

If you allow childern to have 'sex' then you allow the pedophilie to prey. how can it be different for a 16 year old and a 14 year old to be 'close', or a 40 year old and a 14 year old. NAMBA is just waiting for this, Scotland the new sex capital, forget southeast asia. Please rethink this, you have enough problems, you do not need this. MRD

Everyone I know started having sex at an early age. 13 was the average. I know my mother started early and had five of use by the time she was 22. In working class areas, it appears to be more prevalent. My wife and I both started at 13. I don't hide it, because it's true! My best freind was at it even earlier than me. And my gay cousin says he was 10 when he had first stirrings!

Don't know the answer to this. But I do think criminalising teens under the age of 18 is not the answer.

Look at what happened to the boy who had sex with the 11 year old who had the baby is a prime example. She got off with it (apart from having a baby who should have been aborted!) and he got put away. You can't tell me BOTH of them didn't know what they were doing. And they were both a little drunk.

Lowering the age isn't the answer .... but neither is prosecuting them if they're with a 5 year age range of each other.

But an adult over that age limit, say 25 and a 15 year old is DEFINITELY wrong and should be punished. It would also be wrong to up the aoc. There's no point in going backwards!

This tripe is society's nightmare.

So we are to allow kids to go off banging each other at 14, but they can't leave school till 16 (or 18 if Gordy Broon gets his way), can't drive till 17, can't vote till they're 18. What about fags? Oh that's 16 as well.

Lots of kids of 14 regard feral behaviour, smoking pot, drinking buckie on the streets and kicking sh!t out of each other as 'normal' behaviour but it doesn't mean to say that we, as responsible, mature and law abiding adults condone it and allow them to do it.

For the love of God get a grip and drop this liberalistic claptrap - rules are there for a reason and young people NEED them to live by.

Asking for the age of consent to be reduced is not new.

Paedophiles have been doing it for years.

I would strongly object to any more of my income tax paying for the bastard offsping that would result from these illicit liaisons. Not that anybody gives a toss just now anyway.

I wouldn't agree with lowering the age of consent, I would probably agree that for some kids 16 is still too young.

I do agree also though that perhaps more thought should be taken when labelling a 15 year old lad as a sex offender for having had consensual sex with a comparably aged girl. Both of them are equally responsible for what happens. Both of them are still children, and children by nature make mistakes from time to time.

I would agree it opens up very murky areas for certain sections of society to try to massage age differences for their own benefit.

Paedophiles will never give up. Get the age of consent down to 14, then 13 ....................

Actually, given the immaturity of so many modern adolescents, the age should probably be raised to at least 18.

Do that for smoking, driving and marriage too.

re my comment 20

I do not condone a lower age limit in case anyone reads that into my comment. Not now, not ever.

The age of consent should be raised to 18 for males and females. But what really needs to happen is much better sex education, not just at school, but parents educating their children as well.

Young people must be tuaght that there is more to life than shagging the best looking boy/girl in their class. thhey should get a life and go out and join a sports club, where they can work off all their excess hormones in a productive way.

As a parent it saddens me to see kids trying to grow up too quickly, and it saddens me more to see parents encouraging or condoning it. They're kids for such a short space of time.

Call me old fashioned but my girls and my lad always wore "childrens" clothing, not the mini versions of adult fashions seen worn out at the weekends.

# 19 and 24 alicia, I think your posts have spoken the most sense on this thread so far today, and as a parent, I agree with what you're saying.

#19 & 24 alicia
I agree - sexual activity between youngsters should be discouraged (and I also hate the way fashion makes wee girls look like cut down slappers - they should be looking like wee girls!!). It's quite straightforward when the teensagers involved are both under 16 - it's easy to be understanding then. What if the girl is 15 and the boy is 16 or 17 or 18? Do you charge him then? What if it is YOUR son? Do you want him on the sex offenders register at that age? No chance he could be a teacher/policeman/social worker/sports instructor after that.

I agree with Media1 - it should be made higher, not lower.

Apart from anything else there are serious health implications for girls having sex too young - and also for girls whose partner has had sex too young.

keep the law as it is.
do you really want more dirty old perverts to sleep with under age girls. A change in the law would defintely increase this, even if it was illegal for dirty perverts to sleep with under age girls.
I think anyone over 25 who sleeps with a sixteen years old is a bit perverted anyway even if it is legal and most folk with morals would agree. Teenagers need protecting from these dirty men

27 - it starts to get murkier legally when only one of the kids are under 16 and the other older. At present, the law understands it that a "child" (for I still consider them children until they are at least 18) is considered to be "old enough" legally to understand what they are doing so may well fall foul of the existing laws.

Again, it would have to be individual circumstances taken into consideration rather than a blanket law - what if the 16/17/18 year old has some learning difficulty and cannot be considered to have the same mental age as comparable kids. Would it be right to have them classed as a sex offender, or merely as a vulnerable adult who hasn't got the maturity to understand? What if the girl and boy have been girlfriend/boyfriend for a couple of years and fully intend to remain together? Is that right then? There are so many other issues involved, it would be hard to have a blanket law.

I don't think it's right that it should be an automatic inclusion on the sex offenders register because that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Some do need to be on the register because they will continue to pose a risk to kids.

Personally I would be happier if the age of consent was higher than it is, having teenagers myself I really cringe at the thought that they think they are mature enough at that age to be sexually active, and that the law agrees by saying go ahead and multiply. It's a difficult time, their bodies appear fully mature, but they still have the minds and emotional maturity (or immaturity) of kids. My age old comment of "bairns having bairns" ......

29 - I would agree. Only point I would make is that women have abused that position of trust also. It's not as tickety boo as the film Mrs Robinson makes out, it can have a lifelong devastating effect on teenage boys to be used that way too.

#20 I agree entirely.

So we lower the legal age limit. In ten years or so, when they are having sex two years before the legal limit, do we lower it to twelve? Where does it end?

When laws cannot be enforced, just take the easy way out and do away with them. How stupid is that?

When it became too hard to stob cannabis smoking, the laws were softened. Please lets allow them to be children. Children will always test the boundaries. I say the boundaries must be enforced. Blurring the boundaries, confuses the children.

I'm not in favour, although this system has worked quite well in other European countries. But what I do feel strongly about, is the way in which whenever an expert such as Dr Waites tries to discuss the issue rationally, they are rounded on and attacked in quite personal terms by self-appointed "child welfare campaigners". This does no one any good.

I think the position of Children 1st sounds sensible, though I have to say, they seem to have changed their tune quite dramatically, compared to what they were saying not so long ago.

#19 & #24 Alicia

I agree. It is nice to know that you and anyone else who thinks that children should be dressed like children and not mini adults. It is sad to see so many children looking like mini tarts. I can't understand the mentality of parents who dress them like this. Fashion designers are just out to screw the last penny out of folk and these parents let themselves be sucked in. It time for parents to show common sense and leave the tarty clothes hanging on the rails.

The paediophiles will be loving this eh! 14 and counting. Pretty soon it will be 10.

If we want to avoid a catastrophic breakdown in society we best up the age of consent to 18 effective immediately.

Good point #15 - readers should also check out the practuice of Vani.

O Lord, here I go agreeing with Media 1 again (in part). I think we already have a catastrophic breakdown in society.

Part of the reasoning of the Academic is that it is regarded as "normal behaviour", so it should be legalised. So, there are kids who regard drug abuse as "normal behaviour" - so legalise drugs. Joyriding inn cars - legalise it. etc, etc.

Here are some definitions of Academic (Adj):

"Hypothetical or theoretical and not expected to produce an immediate or practical result"

"Marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"

Why is it that when I read what some Academics write, common sense tell me to do the exact opposite?

"the law stigmatises much of what many teenagers regard as normal behaviour & fosters a climate of denial among parents & some professionals which prevents some teenagers from seeking information & assistance" Dr.Waites,said....WOW!! this guy is given way too much weight in this story!! do they write laws behind his theories? this is the ONLY time "parent" is used in this story.......how sad.....

Maggie Mellon, Dir.of Children 1st, said,(in referring to the gov'ts responsibility) "we want to see a lot more advice & info given to young people so that they are physically & emotionally ready to embark on healthy sexual relationships" OUCH!! & she is the Director of anything to do w/children???????

we have thousands of these "thinkers" in the US, & they wield way too much power over the parents.

parents everywhere.......WAKE UP & start being totally responsible for your children!!!

Where are the 14 year old voices that calling for this change to the law? I guarantee they are not 14 but dirty old men with their own agenda. Don't let them drag this country any further into the mire. The vultures are just waiting for it to happen.

In reference to another story about child violence and drinking. Adding another dimension to this mix can only make it worse. Surely, there is someone with some sense in one of those parliamentary buildings.

Most of you know by the many posts that several women have come forward and have made fun of my tiny willy. I must admit I have been embarrassed by all of this and wish they would not have done this. I have tried not to respond but now that photos of me with my Tiny Willy are posted all over the Internet I can no longer deny the fact I have a micro penis. I hope this will in no way effect the way you think of the way I debate.

Thank you,

Guga

I don't think this is a good Idea.

Thinking back to when I was 14, 15 I know, I wasn't ready for that sort of thing. And if it had been the legal age of consent back then I think I would have felt more presuresed by my peers.

16 is the best age for it.

#40--Guga--"what is mine is dear to me, as his own is dear to every man"....."Plautus"........

Picture the scene, 14year old girl who has been having sex with her 16 year old boyfiend or nearly twelve months, They split and she meets a 23 year old, after a couple of weeks - She says "if you do not have sex with me I will leave you."

I think the pessent system is OK thank you!

Teens need more sex, not less. Give 'em condoms and let them go to town. I'm middle-aged, and I just wish I had the stamina that I had when I was fourteen. My thirteen year old girlfriend and I would do it three times in a row. Last I heard, she had raised three great kids. Give kids more sex and they'd do less drugs. The boys would certainly do less crimes if they were, you know, occupied with better things. You all act as if sex were a filthy thing that teens need protecting from. Do you think puberty happens just to torture Mom and Dad? Sex is good, get used to it.

Something needs to be done to address present anomalies in UK law. Because at present, slammer time beckons to anyone unwise to become involved with almost any woman in the UK. But to specifically address teenage sex:
Example 1. Two 15-year-olds are sexually active; absolutely fine. Boy reaches age 16 several months before girl. Not fine; in fact statutory rape. Girl reaches 16, absolutely fine again. Law is an ass.
Example 2. Humping the brains out of a 16-year-old; absolutely fine. But photographing the event is not until both participants reach 18. Hmmm.
But it seems age differential is being made an issue here. When, "She's younger than that whisky you're drinking", how can it be illegal if she is over the age of consent? Morally reprehensible, no question. I honestly can't see the attraction of grotty teenagers, but have it on good authority that you can have it off with underage (by UK standards) Japanese schoolgirls for some Stg.200 a throw. Although your Japanese girlfriend will probably dress up in her old school uniform if you ask her nicely. Or as the joke going the rounds here has it, "Do you love children?" "I told you, they dropped charges." Sorry, but with Britain so paedophile crazy, this type of politically incorrect one-liner is inevitable.

Great Post 44,
I thought only Americans were so ignorant about this subject. Now I know it's worldwide. First, the word pedophile cannot be used to describe a person having sex with another person who is at least 13. That term is reserved for abnormal behavior; that is, having sex with a prepubscent person. Fourteen is a good age for consent, but there are still too many restrictions about the younger persons partner. You would be forcing the younger person to perhaps choose a younger fellow who may not be able to support her if she needed financial assistance or even have a drivers license so they could get around town. There is no good reason there should be a set age difference other than a personal prejudice. Don't make me use the Bible to make my point! It might freak you out if I said Joseph was a registered sex offender. For a good explanation of the absurdities of these age difference laws, gotto the link below.

http://forums.goupstate.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6961098265...

Would the usual hot heads please read the bleeding article before commenting? The proposal is only in relation to children aged from 14 and another young person where the age gap is no more than a year or two. Dr Waites never suggested this should apply to adults and a child aged as young as 14.