Should the Age of Consent be changed?
Discussion
As it stands, today in the UK, the AoC is 16. That means at 16 you can legally have sex with anyone 16 or over.
Also as it stands today, if a 16 or 17 year old takes an indecent picture and sends it to another 16 or 17 year old, or any age for that matter, it is illegal - https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/se... and is classed as indecent images of a child. Yes yes, this covers under 16 as well, but this is DIRECTLY relating to the initial question. It also covers those 18 and over taking indecent pictures of those 16/17, for the pedants.
If a 16 or 17 year old is classed as a child for the purposes of the above, does that mean the age of consent should also change?
Does it need to be more nuanced like in some states in the US where it is fine for those around 16-18 to sleep with each other, but no older (although that gets in to other stupid territory where Americans honestly think a 17 year old and a just turned 19 year old who were dating should suddenly break up, or not date at all and that the 19 year old is now an 'adult' and is a paedophile etc) and then graduate from there? Should it be a more graduated approach, to avoid the American pitfall?
I don't know the answer, but this as been somewhat inspired by various topics over the months and a lot of different people frothing at the mouth over it. Particularly considering the Scott Mills thread and the AoC for homosexual sex was only relatively recently lowered to 16. My question covers both, lets just view that as 'sex', thanks.
I have no doubt that even asking this question will get some to point the finger and scream 'paedophile' but there are those who cannot have a civil discussion about some topics and lets try to do so please.
Also as it stands today, if a 16 or 17 year old takes an indecent picture and sends it to another 16 or 17 year old, or any age for that matter, it is illegal - https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/se... and is classed as indecent images of a child. Yes yes, this covers under 16 as well, but this is DIRECTLY relating to the initial question. It also covers those 18 and over taking indecent pictures of those 16/17, for the pedants.
If a 16 or 17 year old is classed as a child for the purposes of the above, does that mean the age of consent should also change?
Does it need to be more nuanced like in some states in the US where it is fine for those around 16-18 to sleep with each other, but no older (although that gets in to other stupid territory where Americans honestly think a 17 year old and a just turned 19 year old who were dating should suddenly break up, or not date at all and that the 19 year old is now an 'adult' and is a paedophile etc) and then graduate from there? Should it be a more graduated approach, to avoid the American pitfall?
I don't know the answer, but this as been somewhat inspired by various topics over the months and a lot of different people frothing at the mouth over it. Particularly considering the Scott Mills thread and the AoC for homosexual sex was only relatively recently lowered to 16. My question covers both, lets just view that as 'sex', thanks.
I have no doubt that even asking this question will get some to point the finger and scream 'paedophile' but there are those who cannot have a civil discussion about some topics and lets try to do so please.
there needs to be a sensible conversation on age. So much of it does no align with other parts.
You can be taxed from birth...
10, the age of criminal responsibility, age at which you can be arrested.
16 to drive a moped.
16 to vote.
16 to have sex
17 to drive a car
18 to smoke/vape (may rise by a year annually if a 2027 law is passed)
18 to be tried in court as an adult
18 to drink
18 to view other people having sex (or yourself and your partner, video yourself and your partner nude/doing sex U18 and its CSAM)
yet there is "challenge 25" on alcohol so you can be Id'd for it if you look 18 but not 25.
There is probably loads I have forgotten but you see my point, its all over the place.
No idea what the solution is but 16 is very young to be doing some of those things for some people but for others its too late.
A one size fits all approach is always going to have outliers.
You can be taxed from birth...
10, the age of criminal responsibility, age at which you can be arrested.
16 to drive a moped.
16 to vote.
16 to have sex
17 to drive a car
18 to smoke/vape (may rise by a year annually if a 2027 law is passed)
18 to be tried in court as an adult
18 to drink
18 to view other people having sex (or yourself and your partner, video yourself and your partner nude/doing sex U18 and its CSAM)
yet there is "challenge 25" on alcohol so you can be Id'd for it if you look 18 but not 25.
There is probably loads I have forgotten but you see my point, its all over the place.
No idea what the solution is but 16 is very young to be doing some of those things for some people but for others its too late.
A one size fits all approach is always going to have outliers.
Getragdogleg said:
there needs to be a sensible conversation on age. So much of it does no align with other parts.
You can be taxed from birth...
10, the age of criminal responsibility, age at which you can be arrested.
16 to drive a moped.
16 to vote.
16 to have sex
17 to drive a car
18 to smoke/vape (may rise by a year annually if a 2027 law is passed)
18 to be tried in court as an adult
18 to drink
18 to view other people having sex (or yourself and your partner, video yourself and your partner nude/doing sex U18 and its CSAM)
yet there is "challenge 25" on alcohol so you can be Id'd for it if you look 18 but not 25.
There is probably loads I have forgotten but you see my point, its all over the place.
No idea what the solution is but 16 is very young to be doing some of those things for some people but for others its too late.
A one size fits all approach is always going to have outliers.
16 to vote stands out like a knee taking pm.You can be taxed from birth...
10, the age of criminal responsibility, age at which you can be arrested.
16 to drive a moped.
16 to vote.
16 to have sex
17 to drive a car
18 to smoke/vape (may rise by a year annually if a 2027 law is passed)
18 to be tried in court as an adult
18 to drink
18 to view other people having sex (or yourself and your partner, video yourself and your partner nude/doing sex U18 and its CSAM)
yet there is "challenge 25" on alcohol so you can be Id'd for it if you look 18 but not 25.
There is probably loads I have forgotten but you see my point, its all over the place.
No idea what the solution is but 16 is very young to be doing some of those things for some people but for others its too late.
A one size fits all approach is always going to have outliers.
DaveCWK said:
How do other cou tries deal with this? Particularly the delta between the age of consent & legal minimum age you can send nude photographs without being an offender as that's the obvious conflict
Wiki has a decent table on it & it’s quite surprising. ..I think a smaller age difference between “participants” makes things ok in some countries, described as Romeo & Juliet clause.
Our countries age 16 is quite liberal compared to others
(Ireland is 17)
Worth considering 16 is legal age for marriage in Scotland
IMO, the law regarding images of those under 18 is correct.
As I understand it, the age of consent is primarily to protect children and young people from exploitation and harm by adults.
In the UK, that means only individuals aged 16 or over can legally agree to take part in sexual activity.
In 99.99% of situations, don't think raising it to 18 would make any difference.
Most stuff goes on between young people of a similar age and will do so regardless of the law.
When I was in my mid-teens 3 decades ago, a few at my school were "experimenting" with others in the same year at the age of 13.
More were doing similar by 15-16 but many chose not to - all personal choice & likely similar with teenagers now.
If an individual is coerced or forced into activity against their will and makes a police report, then the other party should be charged with sexual assualt or r@pe no matter the age of either.
Correlating the law on images being 18 & the AoC being 16 is a tricky one, but provisions in current legislation make clear that any non-consensual act between people of any age constitutes a criminal offence.
It's a weird area - akin to the US where you can buy a gun or join the army/go to war at 18 but are prohibited from buying a beer till 21
As I understand it, the age of consent is primarily to protect children and young people from exploitation and harm by adults.
In the UK, that means only individuals aged 16 or over can legally agree to take part in sexual activity.
In 99.99% of situations, don't think raising it to 18 would make any difference.
Most stuff goes on between young people of a similar age and will do so regardless of the law.
When I was in my mid-teens 3 decades ago, a few at my school were "experimenting" with others in the same year at the age of 13.
More were doing similar by 15-16 but many chose not to - all personal choice & likely similar with teenagers now.
If an individual is coerced or forced into activity against their will and makes a police report, then the other party should be charged with sexual assualt or r@pe no matter the age of either.
Correlating the law on images being 18 & the AoC being 16 is a tricky one, but provisions in current legislation make clear that any non-consensual act between people of any age constitutes a criminal offence.
It's a weird area - akin to the US where you can buy a gun or join the army/go to war at 18 but are prohibited from buying a beer till 21
It must become more akin to age difference. If a 45 year old is in a relationship with an 18-year old it is likely that some measure of control is in force. Parents were concerned, but I know an instance where they are still happily married, after more than 10-years
I was once told a story about a social worker who was supervising someone who had been placed on the sex offenders register. He and his girlfriend were at it when he was 14 and she was late 12, parents were aware. When he was 17 and she was 15, they broke up. Out of spite, she reported him to the Police and he was found guilty.
An easy win for the Police, but it seems like a bit of a miscarriage of justice.
I was once told a story about a social worker who was supervising someone who had been placed on the sex offenders register. He and his girlfriend were at it when he was 14 and she was late 12, parents were aware. When he was 17 and she was 15, they broke up. Out of spite, she reported him to the Police and he was found guilty.
An easy win for the Police, but it seems like a bit of a miscarriage of justice.
I assume you can still join the forces at 16. I joined he RAF at 16 1/2, turned 17 just as I finished training and was then fixing jets alongside people double my age with signatures that carried a lot of responsibility.
I was trained to use a rifle and how to protect myself in Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.
Naafi staff served me even though they knew I was under age because I wasn't an obnoxious drunk.
My parents generation often left school at 14 or 15 and went into work, the generation before it could have been even younger. Are we molly coddling kids too much these days?
I was trained to use a rifle and how to protect myself in Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.
Naafi staff served me even though they knew I was under age because I wasn't an obnoxious drunk.
My parents generation often left school at 14 or 15 and went into work, the generation before it could have been even younger. Are we molly coddling kids too much these days?
The age for images was raised from 16 to 18 in the 2003 act. It was because the internet had become a thing and it was getting complicated with regards to international co-operation when images that were a serious offence in one country were perfectly legal to distribute from the UK.
OzzyR1 said:
Correlating the law on images being 18 & the AoC being 16 is a tricky one
Gareth79 said:
The age for images was raised from 16 to 18 in the 2003 act. It was because the internet had become a thing and it was getting complicated with regards to international co-operation when images that were a serious offence in one country were perfectly legal to distribute from the UK.
While I kind of get this, you are now in a situation that says 2 17 year olds can have sex, but cannot see each other naked. Or, a situation where a perfectly legal relationship between a 17 and 18 year old could end up with the 18 year old being prosecuted for CSAM. The problem here is telling them not to do it is going to do nothing, they still will. I would prefer to see consistency in things like this, even if that means raising the AoC to 18 or having it graduated with age ranges. It feels like a deliberate attempt to catch younger people out.
And, ultimately, if the country feels that seeing a 16-17 year old naked is not ok, then surely having sex with one isn't either?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff