Planetarion Forums

roadrunner_0 · 6 Aug 2003, 12:04

apparently channel 4 are going to cause controvesy, again, by screening a programme that advocated the lowering the legal age limit for sex to 14 (britain) from 16.
Do you think this is a good idea? personally, i thinjk this is a good idea, but only if it is backed up with much better sexual health awareness programmes aimed at younger teenagers, and better availability of free contraceptive mothods, as i believe that htis will aid in the lowering of the teenage pregnancy reta in thisd country and also stem the growing tide of STD's that are being passed on as well.
what do you lot in your infinite wisdom think?

ChubbyChecker · 6 Aug 2003, 12:09

I think it's a bad idea.

Age of consent isn't about stopping kids having sex. Obviously there are 15 year olds who have sex, and while it is technically possible to lock up a 15 year old who has sex with another 15 year old (or maybe it's not possible, I'm not too sure on the law) it doesn't happen.

The law is there to protect kids from dirty pervs who want to prey on people who are under 16. That's why I think the age of consent shouldn't be reduced.

Dante Hicks · 6 Aug 2003, 12:10

As I've said elsewhere, there shouldn't be an "age of consent" per se. But if we are going to have one, 12-14 would seem sensible.

Any system which criminalises people for perfectly reasonable behaviour (e.g. two thirteen year olds having sex) is generally wrong.

As far as I know, the age of consent in other European counties is lower than in the UK, and they haven't collapsed into a sea of decadence yet.

MrBrick · 6 Aug 2003, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As I've said elsewhere, there shouldn't be an "age of consent" per se. But if we are going to have one, 12-14 would seem sensible.

Any system which criminalises people for perfectly reasonable behaviour (e.g. two thirteen year olds having sex) is generally wrong.

As far as I know, the age of consent in other European counties is lower than in the UK, and they haven't collapsed into a sea of decadence yet.

In France, the women have beards.

Dante Hicks · 6 Aug 2003, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
The law is there to protect kids from dirty pervs who want to prey on people who are under 16. That's why I think the age of consent shouldn't be reduced.

It would still be possible to prosecute someone for statutory rape irrespective of whether you had a fixed age of consent in place or not. Clearly it's immoral to have sex with a particularly retarded 17 year old, and so there will always be a need for general anti-abuse type laws.

If someone did wish to bring charges in a case of a 15 year old who had been "abused" by an older party, then that should be possible. I don't see why we need more stupid laws to try and diminish the perceived stupidity of the legal system.

Nusselt · 6 Aug 2003, 12:17

i dont really see the problem with the age of consent as it is. If you take (one point of view) that the age of consent should reflect the childs ability to raise a baby if she became pregnant then i personally think that 16 is a decent age, ie they've finished compulsary education. Yes i know that people get duffed up before then, im just trying to widen the presepective beyond 'are they ready for it/ do they want it'.

but hey, 14 year olds. How old is that one from harry potter again?

ChubbyChecker · 6 Aug 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
but hey, 14 year olds. How old is that one from harry potter again?

She's 13, so you're out of luck you dirty perv

Cmdr_Cyrax · 6 Aug 2003, 12:27

LEGALISE WHAT YOU CANT ENFORCE.

plasmas_arms · 6 Aug 2003, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
LEGALISE WHAT YOU CANT ENFORCE.

Quick someone tell Blair, imagine how quickly the (reported)crime figures would drop if they just legalised everything they couldnt enforce

)

Im surprised they haven't already tried that.

Cmdr_Cyrax · 6 Aug 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by plasmas_arms
Im surprised they haven't already tried that.

They have Canabis, internet porn now age of consent to 14 fs.

Marilyn Manson · 6 Aug 2003, 14:56

What are the benefits of lowering it? What effect would this have?

Personally, form a purely personal judgement, I think children are, on the whole, fairly immature, foolish and impetuous at 16, let alone 14 or whatever.

The principal purpose for me would be to have it at an age whereby people are sufficently astute to be able to understand and reconcile what they are doing with themselves. Although I am open if the evidence points to a positive social benefit elsewhere.

I'm personally ill at ease with directly instructing peope when or when not to have sex in their lives enforced and punishable if there is a violation, expect in cases where there is a direct and obvious abuse - such as a 34 year-old having sex with, say, a 10 yerar old - but we do need some sort of overarching 'guide' for people on when we think they should enter into sexual relations, and what should govern them, although this shouldn't be based on physical age, but mental maturity.

Bloomers III · 6 Aug 2003, 14:58

Age of consent laws do bugger all stopping young teenagers having sex (oMg! it's ILleGAl! LEt'S noT hAVe seX!) but it is there to protect younger children from dirty old perverts like DM. If you're okay with a 35 year old having sex with a 14 year old then it should be lowered, but I'm not because it's irresponsible behaviour on the part of the adult.

education and free condoms are not really helping britain lower it's teenage pregnancy rate., the problem is pikeys who go around ****ing like rabbits, and then their pikey children **** like rabbits and so on. Perhaps the government should castrate pikeys? I'm all for that

Marilyn Manson · 6 Aug 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
There are things which are beyond leigislation. Age of Consent is only there for protection, it's shouldn't be some sort of social engineering thing regardless of your views on the intelligence of teenagers, or lack thereof.

We should not simply throw up our arms and say 'People do as people please', because that's a nonsense. People entering into usual sexual relations should be given some sort of guide and wisdom in when it is best to enter into sexual relations, but I don't believe in some sort of puritanical enforcement. Sexual relations should be legally restricted and enforced where there are clear paedophile-type problems, though, and there are clear abuses taking place between people who wish to exploit and people who are clearly being exploited for that persons' pleasure.

Incidcentally, what policies, economic or social, are not social engineering? I hate to quote Thatcher, but I will: "The facts? I have been elected to change the facts."

Nusselt · 6 Aug 2003, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloomers III

the problem is pikeys who go around ****ing like rabbits, and then their pikey children **** like rabbits and so on. Perhaps the government should castrate pikeys? I'm all for that

incidentally whats the difference between a pikey and a townie? ive looked on urbandictionary.com but the difference eludes me.

Marilyn Manson · 6 Aug 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
incidentally whats the difference between a pikey and a townie? ive looked on urbandictionary.com but the difference eludes me.

I think they're just regional differences that explain that same phenomena.

Marilyn Manson · 6 Aug 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloomers III
Perhaps the government should castrate pikeys? I'm all for that

Abolish the Thatcherite-created underclass, lessen the income gap, and improve education and these problems would disapear.

Dante Hicks · 6 Aug 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
What are the benefits of lowering it?

Less people would have their behaviour pointlessly criminalised?

It is exceedingly difficult to try and explain why breaking the law is a "bad thing" when the majority of the population find themselves as law breakers when they tape TV program for keeps, or enter into sexual relations before their 16 birthday, or grow a few plants in their home.

The fact these laws are rarely enforced is almost irrelevent - the fact they exist at all restrains policy in numerous areas. A timid fifteen year old worried about pregnancy may find it harder to report their behaviour since they are technically criminal behaviour.

Also on social engineering : making something illegal is really a rubbish way of stopping it from happening.

Marilyn Manson · 6 Aug 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I was reacting to your comment that teenagers were too immature to make such decision, but I reckon there a hell of a lot of peopel who jump intot bed with peopel without considering the consequences.

I was merely suggesting that teenagers are probably more immature than most in that respect.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I'm not condemning that practice, it's jsut what happens. Now in the case of paedophilia, that's very simple, you make paedophilia illegal, what that has to do with age of consent, is obvious, but it seems to me that 14 year olds could be considered beyond paedophilia. Whether there should be a law preventing over 18's having sex with 14 year olds is a different matter.

Just scrap that altogether, and merely phrase the law so that anyone who indulges in a relationship whereby there is a clear and obvious exploitation of a second party, who was not fully aware or able to comprehend the nature of sexuality, will be liable for prosecution. Much simpler. You avoid all the age nonsense, for starters.

And no, contrary to popular belief, the legal system is not full of divs, so it would not result in social meltdown with people being prosecuted for petty actions. Where there was clear paedophilia occuring, prosecutions would happen, and where two 15 year-olds where having sex, the law would not interfere.

As I said earlier, have a governmental non-statutory 'guide' for people in non-exploitative relationships to complement all that. So much easier.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
ou are expressing a subjective view about the capability of 14 year olds, you would prefer it if they didn't have sex,

No, I never said that. All I've said is that if they're not in a sufficently mature position to deal with sexuality, they shouldn't be entering into it. Their age is irrelevant.

Not that I want that as the statutory position, of course. That's just my opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
I don't even know what your Thatcher quote is trying to say.

You shouldn't just sit on your arse if there are clear social problems occuring, and a clearly poor social position in your eyes. Yes, that's a completely subjective judgment, but mostly, psychopaths aren't elected, so responses to social problems will usually have some good effect. In the case of Thatcher of course, she exacerbated and created more social problems than she solved.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Here are some facts. The age of consent is an infringement of 14 year olds basic rights to have love and have sexual reeations with who they please.

I agree.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Given these things I would question whether the law can ever hope to change this. There should be a lot more facilites an clinics for everyone, there should be more information about sex, the media really have to grow up about sex,

I agree.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
and the christian rights random views about promiscuity, abortion and commitment have to be moved onto the fringes,

They already are on the fringes. In Britain and most of Europe, at least. America is the only place in the west where they really still have that sort of problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
On a final point, in terms of censure I think parents and family should be the main protective agents in this case rather than invoking the government on every bloody issue.

I agree.

Dante Hicks · 6 Aug 2003, 15:48

Without wishing to get too philosophical is it also possible that these debates reflect some kind of underlying difference on opinions on the law and government?

I see people as basically being free. They can do what they want, except in situations x + y when obviously they can't. The situations when people cannot act freely is what I'd consider to be part of the law.

If you start from the other end, and consider what people should be allowed to do, then obviously you arrive at a different conclusions.

For me, the law should tell us what is wrong, not necessarily a guide on how to live.

Marilyn Manson · 6 Aug 2003, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
For me, the law should tell us what is wrong, not necessarily a guide on how to live.

I would agree, but I would add a further part: Law should tell us what is wrong, and government and it's related agencies should advise us on how to live.

So I would assume we are in agreement.

JonnyBGood · 6 Aug 2003, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I would agree, but I would add a further part: Law should tell us what is wrong, and government and it's related agencies should advise us on how to live.

So I would assume we are in agreement.

As a matter of interest what do you mean by "advise"?

Also I'd say that a lot of the differences here arise from the fact that nobody has ever really pinned down what a) sex really means (ie pure physical pleasure, an expression of love, a means of reproduction, a combination of the above equally, a combination in different ratios etc), and b) how to define an adult.

Marilyn Manson · 6 Aug 2003, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
As a matter of interest what do you mean by "advise"?

Non-binding advice on matters such as health, lifestyle, health and safety issues (Those would be statutory as well.), etc.

Government is also there for other purposes, of course, in terms of legislation, but on these more personal issues, government should try and restrict it's activities wherever that is viable.

Also, we shouldn't get too hung up over definitions of this item and that. As long as we can agree to general principles, etc, we are all in practical agreement, and I think we mostly can. We shouldn't get swept away on pointless philosophical tangents about uneccesary intricacies.

Vaio · 6 Aug 2003, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As I've said elsewhere, there shouldn't be an "age of consent" per se. But if we are going to have one, 12-14 would seem sensible.

You obviously dont have a 13 year old daughter.

The first unwashed Busted lookalike that comes anywhere near her gets to talk to Mr Bat my aluminium friend

Vaio

Deffeh · 6 Aug 2003, 19:52

you wont feel any different when shes 16.

shes your daughter, of course you dont want her to be having sex so young

Still, your mother probably thought the same for you, and im pretty sure it was the opposite of what you wanted.

In answer to the thread topic, i think its a fantastic idea. If only because ill feel less of a paed.

BesigedB · 6 Aug 2003, 20:25

Its a trick by the press to get people to watch it.

Its gonna be tame like every other "controversial" program.

seventh · 7 Aug 2003, 09:43

age of consent should be 16 but if it was dropped to 14 there would have to be some new laws protecting people. e.g under 16's cant have sex with someone over 3 years older or something (stops them getting abused by the "cool" 18 year olds etc..

plasmas_arms · 7 Aug 2003, 12:45

Laws and police forces do not solve or stop the problem of crime they simply suppress it (generally) after the fact.

Education on the other hand.....

roadrunner_0 · 7 Aug 2003, 12:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
you wont feel any different when shes 16.

shes your daughter, of course you dont want her to be having sex so young

Still, your mother probably thought the same for you, and im pretty sure it was the opposite of what you wanted.

In answer to the thread topic, i think its a fantastic idea. If only because ill feel less of a paed.

not going to happen, you will always be a paed deffeh

Nusselt · 7 Aug 2003, 13:06

on another note the age of consent is 16, so how come i cant find uk porn videos with 16 yr olds in them? why does everything start at 18?

Vaio · 7 Aug 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
you wont feel any different when shes 16.

shes your daughter, of course you dont want her to be having sex so young

Still, your mother probably thought the same for you, and im pretty sure it was the opposite of what you wanted.

In answer to the thread topic, i think its a fantastic idea. If only because ill feel less of a paed.

When she is 16 she is free to do whatever she wants, I wont like it but I will live with it, until then however it's 'say hello to my little friend'

Vaio

plasmas_arms · 7 Aug 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaio
When she is 16 she is free to do whatever she wants, I wont like it but I will live with it, until then however it's 'say hello to my little friend'

Vaio

Anyone got the number for social services?

Nusselt · 7 Aug 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaio
When she is 16 she is free to do whatever she wants, I wont like it but I will live with it, until then however it's 'say hello to my little friend'

Vaio

so just as a matter of interest. Is your daughter fit?

Nusselt · 7 Aug 2003, 13:10

i just realised its impossible for you to answer that question.

ChubbyChecker · 7 Aug 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
on another note the age of consent is 16, so how come i cant find uk porn videos with 16 yr olds in them? why does everything start at 18?

Because you're not allowed to appear in porn until you're 18. I think you're allowed to do topless shoots (e.g. page 3) but no more than that (EDIT: Between 16-17).

Incidentally you're not allowed to watch it until you're 18 either.

Nusselt · 7 Aug 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Because you're not allowed to appear in porn until you're 18. I think you're allowed to do topless shoots (e.g. page 3) but no more than that.

Incidentally you're not allowed to watch it until you're 18 either.

how the hell does that work then? you're allowed to have sex, but you cant portray or watch other people portraying it on tv? you're already doing it!

queball · 7 Aug 2003, 13:25

As I understand it,
Having sex with someone 13-15 is less of a serious crime than raping a preteen.
But if someone under 16 wants to have sex they can lie about their age, so it would seem the law is aimed at people who actively and knowingly choose underage partners and clear cases of abuse.

An ok system would be to have a green crystal inserted in everyone's palm at birth. At the age of 16 this turns red. Also, a parent can turn the crystal red earlier if they feel it is appropriate. It would be illegal to have sex with someone with a green crystal.

queball · 7 Aug 2003, 13:28

Nusselt, porn is not the same as sex.

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Because you're not allowed to appear in porn until you're 18. I think you're allowed to do topless shoots (e.g. page 3) but no more than that (EDIT: Between 16-17).

Incidentally you're not allowed to watch it until you're 18 either.

Porn gets rated 18, so you're not allowed to sell it to an under-18, but that's it as far as I know.

roadrunner_0 · 7 Aug 2003, 15:08

Quote:

Originally posted by queball

An ok system would be to have a green crystal inserted in everyone's palm at birth. At the age of 16 this turns red. Also, a parent can turn the crystal red earlier if they feel it is appropriate. It would be illegal to have sex with someone with a green crystal.

and then at 30 it turns black?
logans run! logans run!

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Aug 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
and then at 30 it turns black?
logans run! logans run!

You'd better be in Durham, I need a drink.

Dante Hicks · 7 Aug 2003, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaio
When she is 16 she is free to do whatever she wants, I wont like it but I will live with it, until then however it's 'say hello to my little friend'

So, if she brings home a sensible 18 year old lad when she's 15 then you'll bash his face in with a bat of some kind. But if she's 16 and tells you she's being gangbanged by eight guys just released from Feltham young offenders tonight, you'll reluctantly accept it?

roadrunner_0 · 7 Aug 2003, 15:15

sorry mate im stuck at work

i need a drink as well to be honest

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Aug 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
sorry mate im stuck at work i need a drink as well to be honest

Come to durham then!

roadrunner_0 · 7 Aug 2003, 15:23

i cant, i have to go to my new house, away from my ex GF, and finish unpacking

7 Aug 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloomers III
Perhaps the government should castrate pikeys? I'm all for that

Hear hear!, it's only the peasants without TV's who have nothing better to do! neutralise them.

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Aug 2003, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
i cant, i have to go to my new house, away from my ex GF, and finish unpacking

SOME PEOPLE.

roadrunner_0 · 7 Aug 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
SOME PEOPLE.

sorry mate, but after spending £170 on the new place, and losing my deposit on the old place, i dont actually have any money this month, so unpacking all my boxes of books/cd'c/etc is just a really good excuse for why i cant come through to durham :/

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Aug 2003, 16:19

Losing?

roadrunner_0 · 7 Aug 2003, 16:28

we left without giving the 4 weeks notice, so the landlady kept the bond

acropolis · 7 Aug 2003, 16:28

there shouldn't be a legal minimum for sex.

Vaio · 7 Aug 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So, if she brings home a sensible 18 year old lad when she's 15 then you'll bash his face in with a bat of some kind. But if she's 16 and tells you she's being gangbanged by eight guys just released from Feltham young offenders tonight, you'll reluctantly accept it?

Now you are just being silly and you know it

Vaio