angos Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 yet a 16 year old (one year older only) can? like has already been said, and they want to lower the voting age to 16 and so will be able to help choose who governs us Oo This is might be of interest. The Human Rights Law Centre Criminalising consensual sex between young people breaches their rights to privacy and dignity The Constitutional Court of South Africa has found that laws criminalising consensual sex between young people are unconstitutional. The Court held the laws unjustifiably violate the dignity and privacy of young people and are not in the best interests of the child. The criminal law in South Africa makes it a criminal offence for a young person (between 12 and 16 years) to engage in a consensual sexual act with another young person. The applicants relied on an expert report of a child psychiatrist which provided information on the sexual development of children and the potential impact of criminalising consensual sexual acts between young people. The report noted that the majority of adolescents between 12 and 16 engage in a variety of sexual behaviours; sexual experiences during adolescence are not only developmentally significant they are also developmentally normative. The expert report noted that criminal laws are likely to increase adolescents’ risk for negative experiences and outcomes by silencing and isolating adolescents, which makes unhealthy behaviour and poor developmental outcomes more likely. The Court appears to have accepted the expert report in totality and consequently held that it was beyond doubt that the criminalisation of consensual sex is a form of stigmatisation that is degrading and invasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladystiletto Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 yet a 16 year old (one year older only) can? like has already been said, and they want to lower the voting age to 16 and so will be able to help choose who governs us Oo and I disagree with that too! 16 is way too young for these kids to be having any kind of sexual relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 It seems clear to me that there does need to be AN age of consent, and of course a 15 year, 365 day old isn't going to go to bed and wake up a totally different, mature adult the next morning. But 16 seems to be about right. Yes, supposedly about a third of 14/15 year olds have had sex, but if that's true, then two thirds haven't. There's enough pressure on young people to have sex as it is, at least for those who don't feel ready, they have some moral backup. The law's hardly ever (to my knowledge) used in cases of teens having underage sex, but it's there if necessary. I'm just wondering what the current legislation denies to those kids who do have sex under 16? They can access contraception can't they? Is it that they think they'll get into trouble if they ask for advice? I'm also wondering if the lower ages of consent in Germany and other countries is the cause of the lower teen pregnancy rates, or merely a correlation and is due to better sex education? Maybe German teens have a bit more ambition - who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 It certainly shouldn't be lowered without provisos to ensure that young girls aren't abused by older men. Lower it by all means but for under 18s there should be a +/- of 2 years. My take on it is that the age of consent is quite low enough, already. I don't believe it needs lowering any further. Young people are already sexualised at too young an age, without any further encouragement. I am big enough and ugly enough to realise that, if a youngster is determined to have sex, then they will find the means to do so, whether it is legal or not, but at least with the law in place as it stands, there is some protection for those who are in danger of exploitation. ---------- Post added 18-11-2013 at 00:04 ---------- What is more worrying is that most people on here are referring to the young people as "CHILD". That says a lot! A 15 year old is a child. In which case should be no where near ready to perform an adult thing. I agree. If they are under the age of consent, then they are still a child. However, their raging hormones will be trying to convince them that they are old enough and mature enough, to be having sex, when they really aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 According to the law anyone under the age of. 18 is considered a minor/child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Many women later diagnosed with the often fatal cancer of the cervix started having sexual relations before 17 according to research done on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929 from yet another leading expert, why do governments seem to know better than their experts and advisers on a subject?? Experts don't decide policy, they exist in an advisory capacity. Also it is not a unanimous expert opinion, plenty of other experts and organisations in child welfare are against lowering it, including the NSPCC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Many women later diagnosed with the often fatal cancer of the cervix started having sexual relations before 17 according to research done on the subject Using a condom every time removes that additional risk. Its not the act of having sex at a young age that increases the risk, the risks of devolving cervical cancer increases because the earlier they start having sex and the more sexual partner they have, the more likely they are to pick up an infection with a high risk cancer causing human papilloma virus (HPV). And so then you are more at risk of developing cervical cancer. Encouraging young people to have safe sex is better than banning them from having sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 16 is low enough,preventing teenage pregnancy is all about education not just school but the parents have a big hand to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929 from yet another leading expert, why do governments seem to know better than their experts and advisers on a subject?? I thought it a pity that the PM chose to respond in a way that tried to stifle any debate on the subject. That's the last thing we need. There are opportunities to improve sexual knowledge and maturity in the young, but closing off debate doesn't allow this. An opportunity lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.