Underage sex

[simsfreq]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2 459775,00.html

And also an article on the Channel 4 news a few minutes ago are interesting me.

What do you think about sex between 15-year-olds? I don't think it should be particularly illegal. Obviously it's a problem if the kids are very young and uneducated, but for example if a 15 year old was to seduce someone over 16, is it their fault?

Any thoughts?

[lafrancaise]

Being an adult, i could well say there's plenty of time for the more serious things in life! Have your childhood, have the giggles, get out there and discover who you are with your mates before sex comes into it. However, I don't think it should be ILLEGAL to have sex with someone your own age, if all consent is there. I do get a bit tired of governments giving so many laws we're supposed to act like cabbages!
Bear in mind, the Virgin Mary was only 14/15 when she had Jesus.

[simsfreq]

I didn't know that. But something I read the other day on a website was that babies born to teenage mums are likely to be smaller than other babies, and the mother's growth will also be stunted as she hasn't finished developing herself yet and the baby sort of "steals" the energy it needs to grow, they have to share it, basically.

I don't remember ever learning this at school but it seems to be a valid point.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Personally, it seems obvious that there is a big difference between contemporaries having sex at 15 and an adult who has sex with 15 year olds.

It's unlikely that fifteen year olds having consensual sex would be prosecuted for it and the law already tacitly recognises that it is underage sex which is distinct from paedophilia. It is far more likely that if there is a disparity in the ages, that charges may (and should) ensue, particuarly if we're talking someone of say 20+ having sex with a fifteen year old. If it's a 14 year old, it's even more likely and 13 more still etc. - though of course this does depend on the adult knowing that they are sleeping with someone underage and this may be difficult to prove in court.

The age of consent exists to protect the weakest members of society. No one would attempt to argue that there is any significant difference between a child of fifteen years and 364 days and a child of sixteen, but there has to be a cut off somewhere. The law provides a recourse should it be required and also indicates the age at which society deems it acceptable for people to have sex.

[kev100]

if a 15 year old was to seduce someone over 16, is it their fault?

Girls under 16 are not allowed by law to consent to sex, so the 16 year old would be guilty of having illegal sex with a minor

[simsfreq]

But what if they were drunk and they secuded them?

In an ideal world of course, girls of 16 wouldn't be getting drunk and neither would whoever they were treying to seduce but I'm sure it must happen.

[jake-the-peg]

I think we all now that Kev, the question is whether the law as it stands is a good one or not.

The fact that cases are rarely prosecuted where both kids are quite young suggests that the law is not a good one.

Good laws stand on their own merits without requiring people to make value judgements to make them just.

Or are you suggesting that 2 15 year olds who have sex should be prosecuted?

[brionon]

To me the point is 'What is a Paedo'' I think he is a Man who wants sex with children,ie. pre pubescent girls or boys.
A girl who has pubic hair and breasts would not come within this definition.

[JudgeJ]

I don�t really have much to add to this debate but I must put kev100 right on a point of law. Girls under 16 can, in law, give consent to intercourse. If the male concerned is prosecuted (and provided consent had been given) it would be for unlawful sexual intercourse. Girls under 13 cannot give such consent and males concerned are charged with rape.

[jno]

brionon makes a fair point. I think the word paedophile should be reserved for those who have sex with real children - prepubescent ones. The law has to draw a line somewhere, and the age of consent seems fair enough, but in real life it is indeed a grey area, with some people growing up a lot quicker than others. I can't see the point of making criminals of two 15-year-olds.

I don't know where the claim about the age of the Virgin Mary comes from; but Juliet - Romeo's one - is definitely below the modern age of consent.

[NH]

It used to be a social norm to raise children during adolescence because life expectancy was only around 40-50 for most individuals, and also because adolescence was not recognised as a seperate stage of development. Hence nowadays the shift in attitudes.

Sex between 15-year olds is obviously has less of a yuk factor, but the law's almost certainly there for reasons of bodily development etc. Of course nowadays this becomes slightly more irrelevant with contraception divorcing the otherwise inevitable link between sex and reproduction; but then you start opening up debates about incest etc...

[samuel23]

Just a question ~ if the two 15 year olds were having consensual sex, but got caught, would they both be liable for prosecution, or would it just be the male?

[samuel23]

sorry ~ hadn't finished. I meant to press preview and missed lol.
I agree that there has to be an age limit and that it obviously has to start somewhere, and I think 16 is about right. I know that my sisters were all physically 'developed' by about 13/14 but I wouldn't have thought they were mentally prepared for serious sexual relationships. As for any man over the age of 18 that seriously thinks it is OK to have sex with an underage girl, think again! The agruement that girls develop faster than boys and that from 15 to 18 is only a 3 year gap has some serious flaws in it. At 18 you go go and fight a war for your country, would you expect the same from a 15 year old?

[Carakeel]

brionon, what on earth are you saying here? "A girl who has pubic hair and breasts would not come within this definition." What a load of rubbish! Young girls can indeed develop both breasts and pubic hair at well under 10 years of age. It may not be "the norm", but it is not that unusual either! These two criteria can NOT be used to define whether or not a man is a "paedophile" when he has sexually abused a child with these attributes. I was not quite 14 when I was raped by the adult perpetrator. This was not the only injury I sustained. I WAS a CHILD!!! HE most definately WAS a PAEDOPHILE!!! Did he get away with it? Yes, because I was too traumatised to tell anyone. In fact I didn't tell my mother until I was 38 years of age. I so wish I had found my voice a lot earlier.

[LeMarchand]

I don't think anyone is too worried about 15 year olds having sex with each other, but what the guy seems to be suggesting is a bit worrying. How do we define "pre pubescent"? Is a child pubescent when the first bits of hair show "down there"? Or is a girl pubescent when she first has her period, or when her breasts start budding? This can happen at 7 or 8 years old, if not earlier.

There needs to be a clearly defined distinction of when the law can step in to protect children from being taken advantage of. His idea seems to be to make it easier for older people to take advantage of impressionable youths.

[jno]

Carakeel, I'm sorry to hear your story, but I'm not sure you're right. If at that age you hadn't reached puberty, then he was a paedophile. But if you had, then I think he was a rapist. This isn't meant to make light of your ordeal, or to suggest he was any less wicked; but I don't think it's much help to use the same term for a man who rapes a 14-year-old and one who rapes a 14-month-old. I know not everyone will agree with me, but I was pretty much unconcerned by Jonathan King, and revolted by Gary Glitter.

[Rev Sermon]

As far as the actual law is concerned the main problem seems that there is no differentiation between a boy of sixteen having intercourse with his 15 year old girlfriend and a case of a 45 year old man seducing a 15 year old girl. Arguably both should be illegal but surely the latter case should be treated far differently?
R.S.