1 edit
Sex is not just "fun". It seems that we are forgetting that having sex brings with it being responsible towards yourself, the other person involved and towards the eventual consequenses of having sex. In the first place of course the possibility in case of hetero-sex of the female becoming pregnant. The chance of getting a serious disease, not just AIDS, is another aspect of the responsibilities involved.
How do children deal with those responsibilities ? Are they capable of handling them ? As we know the physical age doesn't always run parallel to the emotional age. Children can become seriously damaged by having sex too early. Children have a right to be protected against the things that are damaging to their physical and emotional health. What is it that we want to teach our children ? Is it OK to use the other in order to have sexual pleasure, or should we treat the other person not as an end to a means but as an end in itself ?
Originally posted by stockenI agree, but maturity is hard to pin down. Some kids may even be very mature in some areas and less mature in others. It's a concept that is not easily defined nor easily identifiable. Age, as in the legal age of consent, is used merely as a proxy for this maturity because it is not only perfectly defined and identifiable, but it also has a significant correlation with maturity.
In a sense he makes a point though. This is a big problem. At what age is a person capable of making his/her own mind up about things that can be potentially damaging to his/her self? It's not at all about age if you think about it. It's about maturity.
I find it interesting that people are saying here that a child of 12 is capable of deciding for themselves. Would you people then also agree to lower the age of criminal responsibility down to 12 as well? Why not voting, while we're at it? And what would be wrong about child labour then?
It would be hypocritical to consider they are equipped to decide for themselves on actions for some things and not for others.
1 edit
Originally posted by CoconutCoconut: "Lowering the age to 12 may be a step in the right direction in protecting our children, but it won't help it "
Lowering the age to 12 may be a step in the right direction in protecting our children, but it won't help it. A 30 year old and a 16 year old, while legal, are still not socially acceptable, and the 16 year old will suffer the same trauma from the "You've been taken advantage of and done something wrong."
The day we start teaching kids and accepting that ...[text shortened]... abuse and coorcian will still happen, but it can happen now with a 16, 18, 20 year old too.
First of all I would like to draw the attention to the fact that you consider "lowering the age to 12" "a step" in the right direction.
In what direction exactly ? What should be the end situation in your thoughts, where no more "steps" would be necessary ?
Originally posted by Freddie2006some (unofficial?) leeway is already applied in the UK in this respect. eg. a 13 year old caught having sex with another 13 year old won't (ordinarily) be prosecuted whereas an 18 year old would be. I think a 30 year old would get it even harder. Where do you draw the lines though? exact same age? How about the 18 year old who took some photos of his 17 year old girlfriend (who he had been dating for 3 years and was only 3 months younger than him) topless while on holiday who got arrested for taking indecent pictures of a minor? Fortunatly this case got thrown out of court, but it shows the dangers of hard and fast lines. Should 1 year difference be allowed? Two? Twelve to Fourteen still seems a pretty creapy gap to me, whereas 14 to 16 seems as bit better... maybe a narrower age difference is needed as the child in question is younger?
Would it not be possible to have the legal age lowered, but only to make it legal for consenting minors of the same age to have sex without breaking the law. Bearing in mind the accepted view that teenagers mature at different ages, why should we be stopping them from doing what older children, in terms of chronological age, but perhaps not maturity, are ...[text shortened]... o much younger, it seems as though 14 is the age at which most teenagers start to consider sex.
Sorry, blathering now... but I think it shows that although such a move may be beneficial, it would be very difficult to work out, would cause problems if strictly adhered to, and woudl likely need room to take in individual factors case by case
Originally posted by belgianfreakYes, there does seem to be some unofficial leeway, although the law would require some standardisation otherwise people wouldn't know where they stand.
some (unofficial?) leeway is already applied in the UK in this respect. eg. a 13 year old caught having sex with another 13 year old won't (ordinarily) be prosecuted whereas an 18 year old would be. I think a 30 year old would get it even harder. Where do you draw the lines though? exact same age? How about the 18 year old who took some photos of his 17 ...[text shortened]... s if strictly adhered to, and woudl likely need room to take in individual factors case by case
Ideally it should be based on common sense, but in practice it doesn't work. There would always be some people who would rely on these leeways to get what they want all the time.
I think Freddie has the right idea where consent depends on the age of both groups relative to each other, although this could cause the laws to become too complex.
I very much doubt people in the heat of the moment would take the time to consult law books and work out equations based on their ages to see if it is legal (even if they were capable of basic mathematics. 😀 ).
Originally posted by ivanhoeSorry Ivanhoe but to me this is the classic sexual hang up argument and in my view, though I can't actually prove it, is the cause of much of the sexual violence and /or exploitation of women and children.
Sex is not just "fun". It seems that we are forgetting that having sex brings with it being responsible towards yourself, the other person involved and towards the eventual consequenses of having sex. In the first place of course the possibility in case of hetero-sex of the female becoming pregnant. The chance of getting a serious disease, not just AIDS, is ...[text shortened]... asure, or should we treat the other person not as an end to a means but as an end in itself ?
When you have sex you should guard against pregnancy and disease obviously but many adults don't do that either. When you go to the toilet you should wash your hands. When you cycle down the road you shouldn't pull out in front of a car etc etc. The solution to these problems is education, not banning because you're going to have to learn these things when you are old enough to do them anyway.
How can someone who wants to have sex be damaged by it as you mention in your post? If they don't want to have sex then I agree, they can be, but forcing or coercing someone into sex is already illegal whatever your age.
I can see no damage caused by having sex in a society where people treat sex as a natural, and generally enjoyable occupation.
Personally, I'm not that bothered by the age of consent thing because I am well past it and don't find young adults sexually attractive in the least but I am concerned about attitudes to sex. It's not some great, awe inspiring yet delicate gift from god. It's just sex.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI find this sentence interesting because presumably a 13 year old having sex with another 13 year old should mean that both get prosecuted.
some (unofficial?) leeway is already applied in the UK in this respect. eg. a 13 year old caught having sex with another 13 year old won't (ordinarily) be prosecuted whereas an 18 year old would be.
Originally posted by Wheelyyep, you'd think so. But I think the boy is likely to be held in the wrong. Like the old law that meant that is a man saw a women sunbathing nude in her garden he could be prosecuted, but if a woman saw a man sunbathing nude he could still be the one to be prosecuted.
I find this sentence interesting because presumably a 13 year old having sex with another 13 year old should mean that both get prosecuted.
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyWheely: "Sorry Ivanhoe but to me this is the classic sexual hang up argument and in my view, though I can't actually prove it, is the cause of much of the sexual violence and /or exploitation of women and children."
Sorry Ivanhoe but to me this is the classic sexual hang up argument and in my view, though I can't actually prove it, is the cause of much of the sexual violence and /or exploitation of women and children.
When you have sex you should guard against pregnancy and disease obviously but many adults don't do that either. When you go to the toilet you should w to sex. It's not some great, awe inspiring yet delicate gift from god. It's just sex.
I fail to see the link between the thoughts I expressed in my post and this comment of yours. In particular the last part of the above statement where you link my thoughts concerning being responsible regarding having sex and teaching children that the other is not a means to an end but an end in itself on one hand and the sexual violence and expoitation of women and children as a result of these notions on the other hand. This is not clear to me. Could you please elaborate ?
Wheely: " ... but I am concerned about attitudes to sex."
So am I, hence my previous post.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow can you gain license to do one thing by engaging in something completely different? Not a whole lot of people marry for sex. It's been like that since the dawn of time (or at least documented history). This is the very reason why adultary is part of the bible. People have always taken every chance at a good hump, married or not.
Marriage once was considered a "license" for having sex. However that changed over the years ......
No, a license for sex is clearly needed. Don't ask me how to pass the test though. 😛