Should We Lower the Age of Consent to Protect Teenagers? (Nov. 18 2013)

Slate ^ | Nov. 18 2013 | Amanda Hess

[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.”

[b4its2late]

Sure! That’ll do the trick! /s

[Sherman Logan]

Yup. Just pointing out that exceptions do exist.

[Lorianne]

This is red herring.
Most States and most countries have Age of Consent laws that except sex between like age minors (the age disparities range is usually 3 years). The lowest age of consent for minor-minor sex is, in most states, 12 or 13.

These laws DO NOT apply to adults having consensual sex with minors (except as noted above; 18 year olds with minors as young as 15, 19 year olds with minors as young as 16, 20 year olds with minors as old as 17).

Laws that aim to lower the age of consent without like-age provisions are NOT intended to protect children. They are intended for just the opposite.

[Lorianne]

It is actual law in most states.

[Clump]

How about we just eliminate the need for consent all together? I mean what a hateful thing for any person to deny sex to any person for any reason! Haters!

[null and void]

Thanks.

[Clump]

You are exactly right.
In TX the age of consent is 17.
However, if the two copulating people are within three years of age then the older person cannot be prosecuted based on the sole fact that the younger one was under 17.
The tough cases (as a defense attorney) are when they are 18 and 15 and their ages are three years and a few days apart.
But yes the arguments for lowering the age are red herrings. Significant evil is at work.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Erik Latranyi.

[GOPJ]

Jeffrey Epstein’s “orgy island” crew wants it consent lowered to four year olds...

[Cboldt]

Not at all tongue in cheek, we should lower the drinking age to protect teenages.

[tbw2]

I’m a female engineer and have been blasted by feminists as woman-hating for pointing out that women make just as much or more than men when they have the same degree, education and work schedule as guys - the difference today is life choices.
That I sat in some classes as the only woman and was the first female engineer hired by the first place I worked out of college or do science engineering for both my son’s and daughter’s troop is irrelevant. That I don’t toe the man-hating line today is more important to them.

[GeronL]

extremely disgusting

libertarians have gone nuts, or at least more openly nuts

[arthurus]

NAMBLA is working to lower the AoC to as close to zero as possible. And if we can ascribe rape to someone because the other party has second thoughts and imputes evil intent then why cannot we ascribe consent to a resisting child?

[Oztrich Boy]

There age of consent should remain 18

1. Its 16

[rbg81]

I guess it depends on the state.

[Erik Latranyi]

I fear for young boys who are “adopted” by gay male couples. In the current climate, even if the child comes forward, or the abuse is noticed by others, scare administrators will sweep the incident under the rug.

They will do what the Catholic Church did because it was afraid to admit it allowed thousands of homosexuals into the priesthood. So, it covered for them.

But when gov't covers for their crimes, there will be no outrage, like that shown against the Church.

[Erik Latranyi]

Here is the real rub:

Liberals used pedophilia to bash and tar the Catholic Church (and rightly so).

But now, liberals want to make the same actions legal.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks EL.