Age of consent

[fudger]

The age of consent for sex for hetrosexual and homosexual people in the UK is set at 16 but there is now a call to drop this to 14 or 13 by certain experts and human rights groups.
what age do you think is right for consenting sex???
here is an Email I received from peterTatchell (Gay and Human rights activist)

It should be legal for children to have sex

BBC Radio 4:
Tonight, Wednesday, 23 Sep 2009 at 8pm
Repeated on Saturday 26 Sep 2009 at 10.15pm

Or, if you miss the prograame, you can listen online on demand via this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mrd9g

Edward Stourton chairs a live discussion on whether we should reduce the age of sexual consent – which is currently 16.
Professor John Spencer, a Cambridge lawyer, is an outspoken critic of the law that prohibits a young person of 13, 14 or 15 from engaging in any sexual activity with a person of similar age. He says it makes criminals of nearly half the population.
He is supported by Peter Tatchell, gay activist and human rights campaigner, and opposed by Sarah Nelson, researcher in child sexual abuse at Edinburgh University. The third panel-member is Dr Trevor Stammers, GP and lecturer in Medical Ethics.
Peter Tatchell will argue in favour of a reduction of the age of consent. He explains his reasons as follows:

I think it is usually best for young people under 16 to delay their first sexual experience but those who ignore this advice should not be liable to prosecution and imprisonment.

Many parents may not want their children to have sex at an early age, but if their children do have under-age sex most parents would equally not want their child to be dragged to court, given a criminal conviction and put on the sex offender’s register, alongside child sex abusers - which is what happens under the present law.

Whether we like it or not, more than half of all teenagers have their first sexual
experience by the age of 14. They should not be branded criminals and
paedophiles.

Sexual rights are human rights, and they are not the exclusive perogative of adults.

This debate is not about child sex abuse or about encouraging young people to have sex. It concerns consenting sex between young people under 16 of similar ages, and how to respond to it. I believe the appropriate response is to remove criminalisation and instead focus on earlier, better quality sex educationt, to encourage wise, responsible and safe sexual behaviour.

If we want to protect young people, and I do, the way to do it is not by threatenbing them with arrest, but by giving them frank, good quality sex and relationship education – including empowering them with the skills, knowledge and confidence to say no to unwanted sexual advances and to
report sex abusers. This is a more effective way to protect young people from peer pressure and paedophiles.

Criminalisation inhibits young people from seeking safer sex advice and condoms. It makes some afraid to report abusive relationships. They fear getting into trouble because they have broken the law.

Sex can be dangerous and harmful to young people, but it is not always. At puberty, as hormones kick in, youngsters develop sexual feelings. It’s perfectly natural and healthy. Some of them quite innocently and spontaneously explore and experiment at an early age. It most cases this causes them no harm at all.

Early sex is mostly consenting, safe and fun. It does not result in any damage. If there is harm caused, it is usually not as a result of the sex per se, but because of emotional abuse within relationships, and unsafe sex that causes sexual infections and gets young girls pregnant when they are not ready for motherhood.

Providing it is safe and with consent, sex is good - not dirty or shameful. It is a natural joy, immensely pleasurable and a profound human bond. Sex involves intense shared fulfilment and human happiness. It should not be stigmatised, not for young people, not for adults, not for anyone.

Finally, if we want to review the age of consent law, we might consider the following modification:

Is there a case for having a stepped age of consent? This could involve having an age of consent of 14 or 16, but a policy that consensual sex involving people under this age would not be prosecuted if there is no more than two or three years difference in the partner’s ages. It is an idea worth considering.

Here is a link to the age of consent around the world http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

[fredv3b]

Thanks fudger for a most interesting post. I will listen to the broadcast.

A couple of thoughts before I listen to it.

Sexual rights are human rights, and they are not the exclusive perogative of adults.

Yes, but children are not allowed to excersise many 'human rights' themselves, these rights are exercised by adults on their behalf. For example, rights to property and legal redress.

If we want to protect young people, and I do, the way to do it is not by threatenbing them with arrest, but by giving them frank, good quality sex and relationship education – including empowering them with the skills, knowledge and confidence to say no to unwanted sexual advances and to report sex abusers. This is a more effective way to protect young people from peer pressure and paedophiles.

The evidence for the effectiveness of sex education is frankly lacking.

Criminalisation inhibits young people from seeking safer sex advice and condoms. It makes some afraid to report abusive relationships. They fear getting into trouble because they have broken the law.

Fair point.

Finally, if we want to review the age of consent law, we might consider the following modification:

Is there a case for having a stepped age of consent? This could involve having an age of consent of 14 or 16, but a policy that consensual sex involving people under this age would not be prosecuted if there is no more than two or three years difference in the partner’s ages. It is an idea worth considering.

If an under-16-year-old is mentally and legally capable of consenting to sex with another under-16-year-old why should we believe that they are not also capable of consenting to sex with a 20-year-old? Do we believe that no relationship between under-16-year-olds is abusive but all between an under-16-year-old and a 20-year-old is?

[fudger]

My appologies for anyone who cannot follow the link to the radio show pod cast. The BBC sometimes restrict their content to the UK only.

[marshlander]

I listened to the discussion last evening and, much as I admire Peter Tatchell, he did not present his arguments convincingly. On the other hand, Professor Spencer presented a strong case. I also found myself having some sympathy for the opposition case presented by Sarah Nelson.

Fred picked up most of the significant points that were raised in the discussion. The case for the "stepped age of consent" was not convincing in the light of the amount of abuse that young people are quite capable of heaping upon each other. At least, at present, an under sixteen year old could offer the excuse that they didn't want to because it was against the law rather than they didn't want to because they didn't want to, although I wonder how many, if any, use the law argument for declining unwanted attention ...?

I can't help thinking that this may be one discussion from which Peter Tatchell might be wise to make a tactical withdrawal. In the public's perception he is irrevocably linked with campaigns for gay rights. His involvement in this campaign risks blurring the distinction we all too often have to confront when some people confuse homosexuality with paedophilia.

As to the "right" age of consent, many countries in Europe have a lower age while Ireland's age is seventeen. Few of any of these countries seem to have the rate of transmission of STIs or underage pregnancies that we have in the UK. They probably have less prevalence of family breakdown too. Maybe this factor has more influence. The Netherlands was cited as a country where families seem not only seem to be stronger, but also where open discussion between parents and children on sexual matters was of higher frequency and quality than here in the UK.

[fudger]

I completely agree marshlander, even though alot of other european countries have lower ages of consent the UK seems to have a completely different outlook on many aspects of life which is probably why we have a higher teenage pregnancy rate than most of the world and a well reported drink and drugs problem in our youngsters thats higher than anyone else in europe.

I remember a friend of mine who was told by her mother that she should get herself pregnant so she could get on the welfare system but to make sure the man she picked had good prospects or a good job so she would get a good amount of child support, we were only 15 at the time. Her mother had also been a teen mum. If this is the mentality of people back in the 1980's/90's what hope have the next generation got of leading a normal childhood now that this is becoming more and more common and at younger ages?
I must admit I got two girlfriends pregnant (before I came out) one at 15 and one at 17. neither babies were born as one was aborted and the other miscarried. This was due to lack of sexual education about protection I guess.
I'm just glad that back then it wasn't considered an offence in the same way it is now as i was 17 when I got the 15 yearold girl pregnant. these days I would automaticaly go on a sex offenders register where as at the time you just got a telling off.
It's a hard one to answer when both people are young, maybe under 18's should be different?

[fredv3b]

Just listened to the show on-line. Very interesting. One point about the law or a change in the law 'sending a signal' was repeatedly raised. Its something that causes me to tear my hair out, the law should send the signal that x is legal but y is illegal, if politicians want to send a signal then they should go on TV.

One point that wasn't raised was determining the lack of consent. There are two ways that sex can be non-consensual, first is that consent was refused, the second that the person concerned was unable to give valid legal consent. In a court of criminal law both are problematic to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Many adult rape cases come down to he claims she said, "yes" but she claims she said, "no" which is difficult enough to prosecute. However consider prosecution trying to prove that a man failed to take reasonable care to ensure that his under-age girlfriend had the mental maturity to validly say yes to sex, particularly considering that by the time of the trial she will be considerably older and wiser anyway.

[spirito_gab]

I really have no opinion on this topic because realistically, the law is too black and white its terrible sometimes.. but really interesting comments so far!

[peterinmalaga]

I had penetrative sex with a girl when I was 11. I doubt very much if that is a record. To some extent it was a question of experimentation as far as I was concerned and actually it was discussed beforehand, because there was an older boy of 13 present (who I fancied more than the girl) and we decided that it would be unlikely to make the girl pregnant if I did the deed. The girl was party to the discussion and was certainly up for it. I didn’t give the law any consideration whatsoever, none of us did. I did not have sex with the boy: this would probably have been even more serious in those days but that was not the reason for abstaining: we abstained, I think, because you didn’t even talk about gay sex in those days.
The law never figures in children’s thoughts about sex and this is right. The law cannot change that fact, so what is the point of making children criminals? It will not affect their choices in matters of sexual exploration. There is enough guilt associated with sex in the minds of the English. Surely it would be harmful to add to these feelings of shame. The problem is also that, if it is illegal for a child to have sex, it is presumably illegal for them to buy condoms. Another problem might arise when it came to sentencing. Do you punish young “offenders” or do you educate them? I think it is pitiful that our society does virtually nothing by way of sex education for children. I also believe that the education of children in schools in the UK on issues relating to morality and the law is quite inadequate.
I did not hear the broadcast, as I live in Spain.

[fredv3b]

The law never figures in children’s thoughts about sex and this is right. The law cannot change that fact, so what is the point of making children criminals? It will not affect their choices in matters of sexual exploration.

Consider the possibility of sex between a twenty-something year-old and a fifteen year-old, the law may well deter the twenty-something year-old. By simple logic if the fifteen year-old was a willing party to sex (a crime), given that they he/she is above the age of criminal responsibility, then he/she must also be a criminal, along with the twenty-something year-old. That does not necessarily mean that the fifteen year-old must or should be prosecuted.

The problem is also that, if it is illegal for a child to have sex, it is presumably illegal for them to buy condoms.

No, English law is funny like that.

Another problem might arise when it came to sentencing. Do you punish young “offenders” or do you educate them?

What do you educate them about?

I also believe that the education of children in schools in the UK on issues relating to morality and the law is quite inadequate.

The trouble with teaching morality is whose morality? But I entirely agree about teaching about the law.

The more I think about the issue the more I am convinced the current law is wrong and the less idea I have about the 'right law'.

[libertylove4]

In the U.S.A. the age of consent thing is different. It is left up to the states so that different states have different ages, but they usually range from Ages 16-18. In the state I live in (Michigan) its 16, but in California its 18. In Michigan if someone who is over the age of 18 has sex with someone under the age of 16 they are automatically but on the State Sex Offender Registry and charged with 3rd or 4th degree criminal sexual conduct. I'm not sure about the laws in other states, but the Michigan law is especially harsh. If anyone is curious you can read the state law at the link below.
Michigan Legislature - Act 295 of 1994