THE BBC caused outrage last night after it allowed a leading academic to demand the age of consent be lowered to 13.
Professor John Spencer, appearing on a BBC Radio Four programme to be broadcast tomorrow night, says ALL teenagers should be free to have sex.
And he argues the current age of consent of 16 has turned half the population into criminals who broke the law as youngsters.
Not like there isn't enough teenage sexual related problems out there...maybe we should just give everybody herpes so that isn't a problem anymore either.
Merely passing a law isn't going to stop teens from having sex. Seriously, it's a stupid ass idea. Education is the only answer.
Is he crazy? As an ER nurse I see 12 yrs come in with STD's because they had sex with the wrong person. It is horrifying. Making 13 the age of consent will do nothing but hurt the teen and may very well increase the pregnancy rate of teens.
Not to mention that young teens are very easily manipulized and I can see someonetaking advantage of their inexperience. I agree with education but also communication between the parents and the teens is essential.
So, what good does age of consent do anyways? Do you think if it were changed to 18, that teens would just stop having sex? The whole point is that age of consent laws are ridiculous and do nothing to curb the problem.
And putting the speed limit at 65 isn't gonna stop me from driving 75 on the freeway. So what? The purpose of the law is to allow judges and police to have the discretion to arrest and prosecute when it is an issue. Lower it to 13 and you'll have perverts seducing little kids. Keep it at 16 and you'll occasionally have a judge that hasta dismiss an idiotic case of a high school sophomore sleeping with his freshmen girlfriend.
he purpose of the law is to allow judges and police to have the discretion to arrest and prosecute when it is an issue. Lower it to 13 and you'll have perverts seducing little kids.
Agreed. It's my view that age of consent should apply only to minor + non minor sex, when there is a discernable age gap.
I never explicitly thought of an age gap formula that would shape a more comprehensive sex offense law. Yet a leeway based on age gap - 2 years for instance - makes all kinds of sense: I can hardly justify calling an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old a public menace, and cataloging him or her as a registered sex offender.
Yeah.. that was my reasoning. I seem to remember a state or two that actually has some provision currently like this.. but can't remember which one or what the provision specifically states.
The age of consent is fine at 16, doesn't mean teenagers are going to stick to it, but personally I think it should be up to the teenagers themselves when they are ready. The age of consent is more there to protect kids from paedophiles, if two 15 year olds have sex together and they both are ready then I don't see what the problem is, but I think the age of consent should remain at 16, lower it any and you open the door to older perverts who like younger girls.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |