Posted on 06/28/2015 4:54:39 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
In 16th-century England, the age of consent was set at 10 years old in an effort to protect young girls from sexual abuse by adult men. In 1875, parliament raised the age of consent to 13; in 1885, it upped it to 16. Now, a leading public health advocate has proposed that the United Kingdom bring the age down again in light of the high proportion of British adolescents who are having sex—with one another—before they’re legally capable of granting consent.
Lowering the age of consent to 15 (where it stands in Sweden) or 14 (where it’s set in Germany and Italy) would “take these enormous pressures off children and young people” who feel they need to hide their sexual activity, said John Ashton, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health. Concern over running afoul of the law prevents sexually active teenagers from seeking help from adults when they need it, Ashton said. The policy shift would better empower teachers and other supervising adults to provide sexual health education and contraception access to 14- and 15-year-old students. Said Ashton: "They are doing it, and we need to be able to support them and protect them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
If you can have sex at 13, why should you be a dependent on a parent’s health insurance at 26?
Is sex with pre-pubescent children a part of Sharia Law or just a social convention among the muslim invaders of once-great Britain?
This is about Rotherham, not ‘protecting children’.
I said, in a couple posts that, man/boy is next.
As well as your Constitutionally protected right to public sex. I know its not in the USC but neither is queer marriage.
If there is no God or absolutes than anything goes.
You have to think like they do. That is “what really offends Christian, hetrosexual, honest working, people’s sensibilities”. Celebrating pedophiles and homosexuals as heros.
At some point the “state” will take over the church. They will talk of love, equality, and unity but no God.
The so called elite do not care what happens outside their gates as long as they are safe and secure.
I should have qualified by saying “legal trouble”. Legal and moral are different animals.
From what I’ve personally observed, a lot of people lose their virginity by 16 (or claim to) and almost everyone has by 20. The vast majority of boys are eager to “lose it”. For me, it happened at 17, but would have done it earlier had the opportunity presented itself. Girls are another issue. Is that a sexist double standard? Absolutely, but the sexes are obviously different.
That being said, as an adult, I would never encourage anyone under 21 to go out and have sex. But it is stupid for a young man to be labeled a sex offender because he had relations with someone 2, 3 or even 4 years younger than he was.
If you can have sex at 13, why should you be a dependent on a parent’s health insurance at 26?
You are doing what many of us do. That is appling logic to an illogical situation. Actually, its beyond illogical they DO NOT CARE about the truth much less logic. PERIOD.
Its like saying, If the left cares about life why have they aborted millions of unborn babies?
Or,If they cared about blacks why did they put them in ghettos?
THEY (the chosen ones) DO NOT CARE!
I agree that treating teen fornication as a “sex offense” on the order of rape is unreasonable. However, a legal consequence comparable to that of a traffic violation would emphasize that the behavior is both wrong and socially destructive - just as speeding and drunk driving are - and could serve as a deterrent.
One reason Sharia endorses sex with children is because it has not changed since the 11th century.
Also, islam teaches men to impregnate the females of their enemies because those children are considered muslims.
It is a way of “spreading the faith”.
But you will rarely hear it justified on the basis of homosexuality.
Most of the "examples" used in public will be 19 years old honor student man and 16 year old honor student female. The young man is in jail with murderers, rapists and other criminals instead of attending college.
This will be played on the emotional value and Americans will support it by 60%-plus in polling.
You just know that when the first sentence in an article is oxymoronic, it isn't going anywhere useful.
“Conversely, having sex with a 12-year-old, when you’re 20, is scummy. But it doesn’t necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up” said the liberal.
Lower it to zero. Make all the Muslim men happy and protect the sheep at the same time.
Only because of higher infant mortality. Those who survived past childhood had about the same anticipated lifespan.
I think you may be confused about lifspans in Rome. Let's leave aside that a very high percentage of babies were intentionally killed, which would dramatically increase mortality. Here's an interesting table. Seems awfully precise for a period about which we have limited data, though.
http://www.richardcarrier.info/lifetbl.html
How would that protect teenagers? They have no intention of protecting teenagers. They want free unrestricted sex of all kinds. The goal is to destroy all ideas of right and wrong acquired from parents and church.
The word “teenager” is overly broad. It is based on a specific peculiarlity of English numbers. It includes 13 and 18 year olds. Due to rapid development, there is little similarity.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she though the age of consent should be 12!
12.
AFAIK, all the children abused in Rotherham were post-pubescent. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested in seeing it.
It may be relevant that girls today seem to be entering puberty much younger than in the past.
In my church decades ago there was a young lady who was stunningly beautiful and looked/acted 18 or 20.
She was 12.
“If you can have sex at 13, why should you be a dependent on a parent’s health insurance at 26?”
That is a very good question, the answer should be hilarious.
In America today, anyone with a male child has to be especially vigilant. Their futures and their very minds can be destroyed one, horrifying minute.
Explain the "monster coming out of the closet" to your sons, and tell them the monster is a liar. The boys need to feel confident they can tell you EVERYTHING no matter what the monster tries to do or tries to scare them with - even if that monster turns out to be their day care provider or public school teacher!
Decades ago? Ever hear the phrase: “It’s the exception that proves the rule”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.