Barrister says age of consent should be 13

[Chris_Sleeps]

People at 16 can't be trusted to use contraception, what makes you think a 13 year old would?

It was your hypothetical girl.

 

Why have you suddenly added in that she is going out to sleep with a chav, and taking a condom, but is now far too untrustworthy to actually use it? This is getting weirder.

 

I don't want any young girls having sex anyway. It's moot. The argument is at what point can their consent be valid? At what point do they fully comprehend what they are consenting to?

So you don't think there should be an age for connect at all?

I presume you mean 'Age of Consent', and I categorically wrote that I think 16 is reasonable.

[Bonzo77]

It was your hypothetical girl.

 

Why have you suddenly added in that she is going out to sleep with a chav, and taking a condom, but is now far too untrustworthy to actually use it? This is getting weirder.

 

I don't want any young girls having sex anyway. It's moot. The argument is at what point can their consent be valid? At what point do they fully comprehend what they are consenting to?

 

I presume you mean 'Age of Consent', and I categorically wrote that I think 16 is reasonable.

 

You presume correctly!

 

I think we are arguing about different things here. I'm coming from the angle of, what age a person should be having sex, rather than being old enough to know what they are consenting to.

 

Although I do think a 16 year old doesn't fully understand the consequences of being caught pregnant. Let alone a 13 year old child.

[Suffragette1]

This covers many issues that have been raised on this thread and others.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/05/not-persecution-old-men-prosecution-rapists-and-we-should-applaud-it

 

Times are changing, get used to it.

[Halibut]

This covers many issues that have been raised on this thread and others.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/05/not-persecution-old-men-prosecution-rapists-and-we-should-applaud-it

 

Times are changing, get used to it.

 

Yes, good piece. I'd love to hear Just Sarah's view.

[MrSmith]

That's not what you said. You said SEX has nothing to do with making babies.

Both have evolved to be sensitive to pleasure, obviously making a baby doesn’t’ need to be pleasurable, there human sex organs are for more than making babies, one can have sex without having intercourse which again demonstrates that sex isn’t about making babies, gay people have sex and have no possibility of making a baby, so sex again as nothing to do with making babies.

 

Read the entire sentence.

 

 

 

 

The simple act of sex is connected with making babies. We have a compulsion to breed, all animals do. It's nature. Whether you are attracted to males or females has nothing to do with it.

 

Yet I have only made two babies despite having sex more times than I can remember, and we can even make babies without sex theses days.

[mikem8634]

This covers many issues that have been raised on this thread and others.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/05/not-persecution-old-men-prosecution-rapists-and-we-should-applaud-it

 

Times are changing, get used to it.

 

Excellent piece.

[alchresearch]

Of cause it happens every day, so does death and birth, but they are once in a lifetime occurrences for an individual. Did you not understand what I meant by 'not an every day situation'??

 

So are you now saying that a child is abused just one time?

[Suffragette1]

So are you now saying that a child is abused just one time?

 

It is a daily living nightmare for some. Ask people who work in social services, the health profession and deal with child protection. Children with permanent internal injuries, STIs, some end up with colostomy bags. The media rarely report it as it's too grim. We seldom hear of the horrors other than in the high profile cases like Baby P.

[Bonzo77]

Read the entire sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet I have only made two babies despite having sex more times than I can remember, and we can even make babies without sex theses days.

 

You've had SEX????

 

No, seriously, I did read the sentence. It says something about gay people having sex, then says "so sex again as nothing to do with making babies", which is not true.

 

Sex is for making babies, turns out we enjoy it, so we invent contraception so we don't keep popping the little things out every 9-12 months.

 

If you are still going to argue against that, then you might as well argue that black is white and white is black; and I won't be listening (or reading).

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 17:14 ----------

 

so are you now saying that a child is abused just one time?

 

no...............

[Cyclone]

There is a good reason for a legal age of consent and if anything, it should be older than 16, not higher.

You accept that it is an arbitrary age decided on by someone quite some time ago then?

 

People have sex to reproduce, if a person is not in a position to look after their children (I mean physically and mentally, not financially) then they should not be old enough to have sex.

This is a spurious and logically unsupportable argument, adults are not automatically capable emotionally or physically of looking after a child.

 

Do you honestly think that a 13 year old single or couple) is mentally stable enough to look after a child, independently??

Sex and having children are no longer synonymous, have you heard of contraception?

 

We're not in the dark ages anymore where children were looked upon as young adults. Today's children have extended childhoods, they grow up slower and mature (mentally) at a much older age.

That depends on what you're comparing too. Compared to 100 years ago, slower possibly, compared to 50 years ago, much quicker.

Today's 13 year olds' are still learning and playing; not on their hands and knees in the cotton mills!

Learning yes, playing, possibly, having sex, probably.

 

Any of you on here who have children, particularly daughters; would you be happy to let her go out at 13, with a condom in her handbag, knowing that she was planning on shagging the chav down the road??

Would it make a difference to the answers if 13 were replaced with 16, or 19? No, so not a good argument.

 

And for those of you that are saying "what's the difference between sex at 16 and at 15 years old?"....Well, lets reduce the age to 13, then what would be the difference between having sex at 12 or 11??

So now you're seeing that it's arbitrary. In fact it should probably depend on the person in question and not be a fixed point, but the law doesn't deal well with shades of grey.

 

Come on people!! We are still children at the age of 16, never mind 13!!

Speak for yourself, which is all you can claim to be doing I suppose.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 18:56 ----------

 

In the context of PEOPLE who are raped its a tiny amount.

By the way i deleted your last comment again.

Reposting it wont get it answered.

I wont lower myself

 

If one tenth die or kill themselves due to the abuse, then by definition nine tenths are survivors.

You could be arguing that you can't be a survivor of being shot, because only one tenth of people who are shot actually die. The argument makes no sense, by definition if something doesn't kill you, then you have survived it.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 18:57 ----------

 

The only kind of rationale I can imagine for someone wanting to minimise the impact of rape is, well, that they don't think it's such a big deal and that people should just 'get over it'. Sound like anyone you know?

 

I find your unwillingness to empathise with the impact of rape on rape victims really very strange.

 

Or possibly they don't wish to be labelled as a survivor themselves because they don't want surviving something to be what defines them. I certainly wouldn't want to be defined by an experience like that.