Statutory Rape....your opinions?

AudreyHepburn

Firstly mods if this is in the wrong place apologies and please feel free to move!

Was just reading another thread and Statutory Rape was mentioned briefly which got me thinking about where people stand on it?

I for one think it's ridiculous. To be raped is to be forced to have sex against your will.

If an underage boy or girl decides, and is happy, to sleep with an adult man or woman that is it not in any way in my opnion rape. It doesn't make the older partner a sex offender. To equate this with molesting a child is awful to me.

What do people think?

Zulu

Are you serious? You've no issue with an adult having sex with a child?

It's wrong. Morally and (thankfully) legally wrong.

drkpower

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Firstly mods if this is in the wrong place apologies and please feel free to move!

Was just reading another thread and Statutory Rape was mentioned briefly which got me thinking about where people stand on it?

I for one think it's ridiculous. To be raped is to be forced to have sex against your will.

If an underage boy or girl decides, and is happy, to sleep with an adult man or woman that is it not in any way in my opnion rape. It doesn't make the older partner a sex offender. To equate this with molesting a child is awful to me.

What do people think?

You must be in the Whoopie Goldberg club: 'its not rape rape'....;)

There is a distinction between statutory rape and rape, no doubt about that, and I find the latter far more reprehensible. But statutory rape should be an offense, and a serious one at that - the problem is where the ages of the participants become closer and the act loses the predatory aspect. In other words, 30 year old sleeps with 15 year old - serious punishment deserved. 18 year old sleeps with 15 year old -im not so sure. Unfortunately, the criminal law is not set up to deal with such nuance, which is a problem.

Boxoffrogs

Adults having sex with children is molestation.

I agree, there is a slightly grey area when it is let's say two teenagers i.e. like the example given above, but a line has got to be drawn somewhere.

I'm a little horrified.

The Corinthian

Statutory Rape and the entire age of consent debate is tied to the belief that before a certain level of maturity a person cannot understand the full implications of sex and thus cannot consent. It's a bit like letting a six-year old decide what's for dinner; we would end up with junk food and sweets every day.

As for when this point of maturity occurs, society generally decides on the basis of age and sexual practice. This is why the age of consent of homosexual sex is often higher than heterosexual sex in many counties or sexual intercourse is higher than other practices (such as oral sex) in Ireland.

This is not to say that a 16 or 17-year old suddenly has the maturity to have sex, but you do have to draw the line at some point.

Eliot Rosewater

Zulu wrote: »

Are you serious? You've no issue with an adult having sex with a child?

He's not saying that. The OP merely objects to it being called "rape".

prinz

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

He's not saying that. The OP merely objects to it being called "rape".

The OP doesn't seem to view it as an offence either.

XtraFalcon

Many people might see this as having nothing to do with this thread but I think theres a too much of a big deal made out of " Rape " cases in Ireland perfect example .
28 year old has sex with a 16 year old ( her choice )
28 year old gets jailed for lets say 5 years for rape.
59 year old priest has sex with a 6 year old ( rape )
he gets a slap on the wrist
We just need a legal system with eyes in their heads and some brains to match

Nevyn

If a child can not properly consent due to lack of understanding then it is rape.

In the case of a 16 year old and a 28 year old if the 16 year old is a hostile witness and is uncooperative with the dept of public prosecution then it will in all likely hood not see the inside of a court room.

The Corinthian

diddledum wrote: »

Adults having sex with children is molestation.

It's rape actually - the moment intercourse takes place. Molestation is everything else.

I agree, there is a slightly grey area when it is let's say two teenagers i.e. like the example given above, but a line has got to be drawn somewhere.

That's more a legal mess than a gray area. Some of my favorite cases (country where it took place in parenthesis) include:

• An underage girl who photographs herself naked and sends the photo onto her underage boyfriend is charged for supplying child pornography (USA).
• An underage boy who has sex with his underage girlfriend was convicted of statutory rape once he becomes an adult, but she cannot be charged (Ireland).

muboop1

I think there should be various clauses made to it. But I wholly support it. Such clauses could be for example, if the people are a year or 2 apart then they cannot be done for statuary, obviously this is a very rough clause suggestion. Stupid to think a 17 yr old lad or girl could get done for sleeping with a person who might only be weeks younger then him.

There is also a problem whereby the law is biased against guys. However, different debate.

Offy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

He's not saying that. The OP merely objects to it being called "rape".

Its a fair point. Some years ago a man in Athlone was convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a girl he met in a nightclub. She was awaer she was underage but he wasnt. He served three years and I imagine he will suffer for the rest of his life. The girl went boasting in school about having sex with a grown man but when the court case came around she said she didnt want to have sex with him but she was drunk so she didnt know what she was doing. He souldnt have had sex with her but he did think she was old enough. She got of scott free and his life was ruined. Hardly seems like justice to me but at the same time children need to be protected. Its a very delicate issue. Perhaps the word rape shouldnt be used in such cases because rape does imply against someones will.

XtraFalcon

I remember seeing one of the most entertaining court cases in America it was like widely known.


A 15 year old girl ( being fair she looked about 20 ) went into almost every pub in an unnamed town and tried to get people to sleep with her.

She had a camera set up in her room and when she would get them back she would obviously have sex with them and then tell them she was really 15.

But in one of the videos and this was the one the court case was brought up about the guy actually said " Are you really 19 you look really young" - She said "I swear on my life I'm 19"

Long story short her father found them in bed and he ( father ) brought him ( guy ) to court for rape.The video was found of her telling him she was 19 and somehow she went home free as could be and he was jailed for 4 years for raping a minor.

I dunno about the rest of you but I really don't think that's fair at all.

Zulu

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

He's not saying that. The OP merely objects to it being called "rape".

The op stated "If an underage boy or girl decides, and is happy, to sleep with an adult man or woman that is it not in any way in my opinion rape. It doesn't make the older partner a sex offender. To equate this with molesting a child is awful to me."

An adult could very easily raise a child to believe that their is nothing wrong with having sex; a parent could very easily raise their 7 year old child to believe their is nothing wrong with having sex.
So according to the OP, a parent having "consensual" sex with their 7 year old child would rape, and the older person shouldn't be considered a "sex offender". According to the OP equating this to child molesting is "awful".

Now I understand the OP didn't mean an incestuous relationship, but remove the blood relationship, and the point stands.

To suggest that this behavior is somewhat acceptable is very worrying.

The Corinthian

Offy wrote: »

He souldnt have had sex with her but he did think she was old enough. She got of scott free and his life was ruined. Hardly seems like justice to me but at the same time children need to be protected. Its a very delicate issue. Perhaps the word rape shouldnt be used in such cases because rape does imply against someones will.

I wonder if her parents could be held accountable?

Exclamation Marc

It is an offence because he who is having sexing with the underage person is doing so with a person who is unable to make an informed decision having not yet reached the age of maturity (in the eyes of the law).

Your reasoning is a bit silly, it's like saying well sure if a 13 year old wants to drink and smoke and is happy to do so, he shouldn't be stopped doing it, or a shop shouldn't be punished for providing drink and cigs because the 13 year old was consciously aware and happy with what he was doing.

I agree there are grey/messy areas in terms of two teenagers, or even an 18 year old with a 17 year old, but considering you explicitly said an adult man (seeing as there is no common law rape offence for women) with an underage person, yes it is rape, there is no reason why a middle aged or older man should be having a sexual relationship with someone he couldn't even bring to a pub.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

FireballPitcher wrote: »

I agree there are grey/messy areas in terms of two teenagers, or even an 18 year old with a 17 year old

That's completely legal - as long as no one takes pictures (of the 17 year old).

Exclamation Marc

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's completely legal - as long as no one takes pictures (of the 17 year old).

True, sorry.
I think I meant to say 17 year old with a 16 year old when I was typing

magotch07

drkpower wrote: »

You must be in the Whoopie Goldberg club: 'its not rape rape'....;)

There is a distinction between statutory rape and rape, no doubt about that, and I find the latter far more reprehensible. But statutory rape should be an offense, and a serious one at that - the problem is where the ages of the participants become closer and the act loses the predatory aspect. In other words, 30 year old sleeps with 15 year old - serious punishment deserved. 18 year old sleeps with 15 year old -im not so sure. Unfortunately, the criminal law is not set up to deal with such nuance, which is a problem.

100% agree with this comment....where there is a substantial age gap there should judcial reprecussions....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

FireballPitcher wrote: »

True, sorry.
I think I meant to say 17 year old with a 16 year old when I was typing

Then it is perfectly legal as long as they don't have penetrative sex, when the 16-year old is female. If the 16-year old is male and the 17 year old female, then they can do what they want as only males may be charged with statutary rape.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was talking about Ireland, not the UK.

magotch07 wrote: »

100% agree with this comment....where there is a substantial age gap there should judcial reprecussions....

Some counties have reformed their law accordingly.

Boxoffrogs

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's rape actually - the moment intercourse takes place. Molestation is everything else.

That's more a legal mess than a gray area. Some of my favorite cases (country where it took place in parenthesis) include:

• An underage girl who photographs herself naked and sends the photo onto her underage boyfriend is charged for supplying child pornography (USA).
• An underage boy who has sex with his underage girlfriend was convicted of statutory rape once he becomes an adult, but she cannot be charged (Ireland).

I was aware of the Irish case and find it very sad actually. And more-so because the male involved will be added to a sex offenders register.
A large proportion of us are sexually active before the legal age of consent. I would like to think that a judge would be able to use his discretion to mitigate for cases where there are two young people involved and it was consensual.

An adult however is a different kettle of fish, this is where it's black and white for me. No matter if a child says yes, an adult should always come back with a no.

The Corinthian

diddledum wrote: »

I was aware of the Irish case and find it very sad actually. And more-so because the male involved will be added to a sex offenders register.
A large proportion of us are sexually active before the legal age of consent. I would like to think that a judge would be able to use his discretion to mitigate for cases where there are two young people involved and it was consensual.

Good luck finding that kind of sexual equality in Ireland.

My favorite bit of the story is:

RTE News wrote:

Section 5 only applies to sexual intercourse - thus the immunity only applied to the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. It is the one consequence of sexual activity that carries no risk for boys or men.

Tell any poor sod who has to pay maintenance for 18 - 23 years or gets an STI on the back of a one-night stand that there's no risk there for him and see what his response will be.

Chuchoter

I think if there is an age difference larger than 6 years and one party is underage you can call it rape. Like a 13 and a 19 year old is rape, but a 16 and a 17 year old is ok. Another thing I disagree with this whole thing where if a girl gets pregnant at like 15 with her boyfriend she can go calling rape. Thats not rape, you understood sex=babies, you're just an idiot.

Nevyn

crayolastereo wrote: »

Thats not rape, you understood sex=babies, you're just an idiot.

You would be surprised the amount of smart/intelligent teens and young adult who are woefully unaware and under educated when it comes to human reproduction. The myths about not getting preggers your first time, standing up ect ect are still alive and well.

AudreyHepburn

Zulu wrote: »

Are you serious? You've no issue with an adult having sex with a child?QUOTE]

That's not what I said at all. Please don't twist my words.

Morally yes it's wrong, I'm not denying that.

What I'm saying is that if the younger party willingly slept with adult, that is not rape nor child molestation because it was consentual.

The adult in my opinion shouldn't be put on a par with paedophiles. It's unfair that they should be classed that way.

And lets face teens today understand an awful lot more than we give them credit for.

The Corinthian

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What I'm saying is that if the younger party willingly slept with adult, that is not rape nor child molestation because it was consentual.

Ahh, but that's the thing - statuary rape is so named because a child cannot consent.

questionmark?

Heres one. why is it always blamed on the boys. Who says the girl wasn't the instigator. For example a 16 year girl a week off her 17th birthday has sex with a 15 year boy. She becomes pregnant he can be done for statutory rape??

clived2

The Corinthian

questionmark? wrote: »

Heres one. why is it always blamed on the boys. Who says the girl wasn't the instigator. For example a 16 year girl a week off her 17th birthday has sex with a 15 year boy. She becomes pregnant he can be done for statutory rape??

That would be because it is as a result of outdated chauvinistic laws that no one has looked at reforming because modern equality groups (often state funded) that normally are set up to deal with them only look to redress issues that effect one of the genders - which is not affected by the above scenario.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, but that's the thing - statuary rape is so named because a child cannot consent.

Im afriad that is simply an outdated understanding of consent, and the capacity to consent. Children can - and do - legally consent to many things, every day. Even in areas where the consequences are grave (ie. medical treatment), the approach now is to consider each child individually and determine, whether, in fact they have the capacity to consent, rather than applying an outdated one size fits all approach.

There are no doubt some difficulties with using this approach in the criminal context, but not so many that warrant leaving an arbitrary age bar in place where a system that better reflects reality would better be employed.

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

Im afriad that is simply an outdated understanding of consent, and the capacity to consent.

I never said it was correct; and in fact earlier questioned whether many people over the age of consent are any more competent.

I simply stated the legal theory behind the concept and probably should have included other areas of statuary rape; such as the severely mentally handicapped, those in a coma and even (potentially) under the influence of substances that would impair judgment.

Of course, were the last one strictly enforced, half of Ireland would be incarcerated.

vonnie10

Statutory rape is a crime but the laws in place should protect males as well as females. It's not in any way just that a female teacher could have sexual intercourse with a teenage student and be considered some kind of cougar or Milf, while a male teacher is branded a sex offender. Both are equally wrong. Also it would be extremely unfair to convict a teenage boy of statutory rape in a case where the female is consenting and only a year or so younger, which has happened. However it is necessary for their to be laws in place to protect innocent naive girls who think they are all grown up but really haven't a clue. It reminds of when i was in school when there was a girl in my year who was seeing a 27 year old. We were 16 at the time and the girl in question thought she was so grown up with her 27 year old boyfriend who had a car and a job and bought her stuff all the time . At 16 she thought she was so worldly having a sexual relationship with an older guy. It was obvious the guy was taking advantage, like what would a 27 year old have in common with a 16 year old ? Despite what they think 16 year old girls are not as grown up as they like to think, i'm 21 myself and still not as grown up as i thought i was when i was 16. These girls may consent but at that age does that really mean anything ?? I don't think so , a lot of these girls are desperately trying to grow up before their time and in doing so are actually more immature , and so for this reason need protecting.

wonderfulname

vonnie10 wrote: »

...However it is necessary for their to be laws in place to protect innocent naive girls who think they are all grown up but really haven't a clue...These girls may consent but at that age does that really mean anything ?? I don't think so , a lot of these girls are desperately trying to grow up before their time and in doing so are actually more immature , and so for this reason need protecting.

Teenage boys are as bad if not worse for this kind of behavior, are you saying that whilst the girls are protected from it the boys should be punished?
It is naive to view this age group as "innocent children" to be protected from sex and sexuality, this is a legal stance which does more harm than good, teens will still have sex no matter what the law says. The expense of trials such as that of the 15year old who had, as many 15year olds do, mutual sexual relations with a girl his age, could be much better spent on sex education in secondary school. It makes far more sense to garnish young adults with information on sex and its importance within adult relationships than criminalizing what is a natural part of life.

As for when this point of maturity occurs, society generally decides on the basis of age and sexual practice. This is why the age of consent of homosexual sex is often higher than heterosexual sex..

I am surprised this point went uncommented, do you really believe homosexuals mature later in life?

The Corinthian

wonderfulname wrote: »

I am surprised this point went uncommented, do you really believe homosexuals mature later in life?

No one commented because it was a statement of fact, not of opinion.

Legal age of consent for homosexual sex is (or was) higher than heterosexual sex in a number of countries, although this has been equalized in most cases (where homosexuality is not criminalized) in recent years.

The only three opinions I've expressed in this thread are that :

• The Laws in question are largely biased against males, to the point of blatant gender discrimination and there is very little political pressure to change this;
• in reality a lot of people are probably too immature (or dumb) to 'consent' long after 18-years of age;
• the entire area is, mysandrist laws aside, still a legal mess in need of serious review.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

AudreyHepburn

vonnie10 wrote: »

However it is necessary for their to be laws in place to protect innocent naive girls who think they are all grown up but really haven't a clue. It reminds of when i was in school when there was a girl in my year who was seeing a 27 year old. We were 16 at the time and the girl in question thought she was so grown up with her 27 year old boyfriend who had a car and a job and bought her stuff all the time . At 16 she thought she was so worldly having a sexual relationship with an older guy. It was obvious the guy was taking advantage, like what would a 27 year old have in common with a 16 year old ? Despite what they think 16 year old girls are not as grown up as they like to think, i'm 21 myself and still not as grown up as i thought i was when i was 16. These girls may consent but at that age does that really mean anything ?? I don't think so , a lot of these girls are desperately trying to grow up before their time and in doing so are actually more immature , and so for this reason need protecting.

I have to disagree with this. Nowadays teenagers are an awful lot more savvy and streetwise than many people are willing to admit. They aren't just innocent children who need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

More and more teenagers are becoming sexually active at a young age so you can't just assume that if they are with an older boyfriend or girlfriend they are being taken advantage of.

This is my whole point here. Just because they're young doesn't mean they aren't able to give consent. Teens aren't naive you no and I'm sure most could easily so no if they wanted to.

Nevyn

Yes children esp girls are starting puberty earlier but while a they may have be comes sexual and able to reproduce that doesn't mean that they are aware of all the pit falls and there for can not given informed consent.

wonderfulname

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one commented because it was a statement of fact, not of opinion.

Legal age of consent for homosexual sex is (or was) higher than heterosexual sex in a number of countries, although this has been equalized in most cases (where homosexuality is not criminalized) in recent years.

The only three opinions I've expressed in this thread are that :

• The Laws in question are largely biased against males, to the point of blatant gender discrimination and there is very little political pressure to change this;
• in reality a lot of people are probably too immature (or dumb) to 'consent' long after 18-years of age;
• the entire area is, mysandrist laws aside, still a legal mess in need of serious review.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

It does thank you, sorry I'm aware its a fact i must have attributed a tone that wasn't there (Major flaw of mine on forums), with regards to your opinions expressed, they are pretty much my own, except that whilst some people are too immature to consent long after 18, some are also easily mature enough at much younger ages.

It is an area where I firmly believe education is the correct route towards giving young adults both an understanding of sex as something beyond a badge of honor and an ability to say no when they actually are put under some form of mental pressure.

drkpower

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes children esp girls are starting puberty earlier but while a they may have be comes sexual and able to reproduce that doesn't mean that they are aware of all the pit falls and there for can not given informed consent.

In fairness, I think most kids <16 are aware of most of the potential pitfalls of sex (ie. pregnancy, STDs, emotional issues), in the sense that they know these thinngs can happen. They certainly may downplay or pretend to themselves that these things wont happen to them, but that does not mean that they cannot consent to sex. Having the capacity to make a decision to do something does not require you to have engaged in any sort of extensively detailed analysis of the pros & cons; it simply requires that you understand the relevent information, and that you weigh up that information before making a choice.

Fighting Irish

Zulu wrote: »

Are you serious? You've no issue with an adult having sex with a child?

It's wrong. Morally and (thankfully) legally wrong.

19 year old with a 16 year old?

wonderfulname

drkpower wrote: »

In fairness, I think most kids <16 are aware of most of the potential pitfalls of sex (ie. pregnancy, STDs, emotional issues), in the sense that they know these thinngs can happen. They certainly may downplay or pretend to themselves that these things wont happen to them, but that does not mean that they cannot consent to sex. Having the capacity to make a decision to do something does not require you to have engaged in any sort of extensively detailed analysis of the pros & cons; it simply requires that you understand the relevent information, and that you weigh up that information before making a choice.

This is true in some but not all scenarios. Yes many teenagers are informed about STDs and pregnancy, but there are still some who do not receive any form of education in the area and believe things such as "I can't get an STD my first time".
The majority of teenagers do get sex education, but it is cold and clinical, it deals with issues they already know, or think they know, and as such is not of much help. Teenagers need a comfortable education in this area, one which boisters self confidence, to prevent them having sex because their boy/girlfriend wanted them too, their friends were all doing it, or for "experience". If this country were in a situation where it could be said teens were comfortable with sex and sexuality, and given the ability to express themselves freely with regards to it, statutory rape laws would not be required.

drkpower

wonderfulname wrote: »

This is true in some but not all scenarios. Yes many teenagers are informed about STDs and pregnancy, but there are still some who do not receive any form of education in the area and believe things such as "I can't get an STD my first time".
The majority of teenagers do get sex education, but it is cold and clinical, it deals with issues they already know, or think they know, and as such is not of much help. Teenagers need a comfortable education in this area, one which boisters self confidence, to prevent them having sex because their boy/girlfriend wanted them too, their friends were all doing it, or for "experience". If this country were in a situation where it could be said teens were comfortable with sex and sexuality, and given the ability to express themselves freely with regards to it, statutory rape laws would not be required.

Yes, i take your point on the 'quality' of sex education. But, legally, capacity to consent does not require that the relevent information is provided to someone in a 'comfortable' manner, simply that they possess, understand and balance the information.

wonderfulname

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, i take your point on the 'quality' of sex education. But, legally, capacity to consent does not require that the relevent information is provided to someone in a 'comfortable' manner, simply that they possess, understand and balance the information.

Quite frankly they don't, they cannot balance the information as there is too much else going on in their heads with regards to it, the information is over-ridden by the urge to be accepted. This needs to be corrected in order for them to be able to consent unpressurized and the best way to do this is to give them a place to air their concerns where it will be met with honest informed advice, i.e. a sex education class which has not been adapted to suit the schools ethos or the board of managements motherly concern, but is in fact designed with only the students in mind.

drkpower

wonderfulname wrote: »

Quite frankly they don't, they cannot balance the information as there is too much else going on in their heads with regards to it, the information is over-ridden by the urge to be accepted. This needs to be corrected in order for them to be able to consent unpressurized and the best way to do this is to give them a place to air their concerns where it will be met with honest informed advice, i.e. a sex education class which has not been adapted to suit the schools ethos or the board of managements motherly concern, but is in fact designed with only the students in mind.

We may be arguing at cross purposes; you sem to saying that they cannot consent/make the decision in the colloquial sense of the word, in that they are not capable of making the right decision or a good decision. I am saying that, legally, once they have the information and are able to balance that information (even badly, or with poor judgment), they have the legal capacity to consent. Legal capacity to consent does not require that a sensible decision be made.

But in any case, the legal issues surrounding <16s in Ireland are more complicated again, given constitutional protection for the family etc.

Boxoffrogs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to disagree with this. Nowadays teenagers are an awful lot more savvy and streetwise than many people are willing to admit. They aren't just innocent children who need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

More and more teenagers are becoming sexually active at a young age so you can't just assume that if they are with an older boyfriend or girlfriend they are being taken advantage of.

This is my whole point here. Just because they're young doesn't mean they aren't able to give consent. Teens aren't naive you no and I'm sure most could easily so no if they wanted to.

Can I ask what constitutes innocence to your mind? There is a world of difference between acting like you know it all and actually knowing it all.

And because they are young is precisely the reason why they cannot give consent. They also cannot legally buy drink/cigarettes nor vote, they are minors. Why would a grown-up want to have sex with them??

gooch2k9

I propose a new constitution! Balanced, fair and up to date!

wonderfulname

drkpower wrote: »

Legal capacity to consent does not require that a sensible decision be made.

That is not the argument i am making, apologies, perhaps i can make it clearer;

I am saying that the mental profile of a teenager who is dealing with the issues of peer and social pressure can not be viewed to be of sound mind (yes in the legal sense) to consent to any number of things, including sex. The fact that they are dealing with these issues impares their judgement, it is common to find teens who felt they were not ready for sex have sex anyway because of this.

Legislation is not the correct way to deal with this issue. It is simply ineffective. I believe what I have outlined above is a far better way to deal with it.

Fighting Irish

diddledum wrote: »

Can I ask what constitutes innocence to your mind? There is a world of difference between acting like you know it all and actually knowing it all.

And because they are young is precisely the reason why they cannot give consent. They also cannot legally buy drink/cigarettes nor vote, they are minors. Why would a grown-up want to have sex with them??

but the day you turn 18 you're mature enough to have sex?

drkpower

wonderfulname wrote: »

That is not the argument i am making, apologies, perhaps i can make it clearer;

I am saying that the mental profile of a teenager who is dealing with the issues of peer and social pressure can not be viewed to be of sound mind (yes in the legal sense) to consent to any number of things, including sex. The fact that they are dealing with these issues impares their judgement, it is common to find teens who felt they were not ready for sex have sex anyway because of this.

Legislation is not the correct way to deal with this issue. It is simply ineffective. I believe what I have outlined above is a far better way to deal with it.

I see what you are saying and agree with much of it; but the bit in bold is simply not legally correct. Being of unsound mind requires a far more grave affect on one's capacity that that which afffects a typical teenager. In the UK (where the constitutional protection of the family unit is not as strong as our own) children aged 12 have been held to hold the requisite capacity to make fairly grave decisions in the medical context.

wonderfulname

drkpower wrote: »

I see what you are saying and agree with much of it; but the bit in bold is simply not legally correct. Being of unsound mind requires a far more grave affect on one's capacity that that which afffects a typical teenager. In the UK (where the constitutional protection of the family unit is not as strong as our own) children aged 12 have been held to hold the requisite capacity to make fairly grave decisions in the medical context.

Well maybe of sound mind was a bit strong.. but it was the only phrase I could think of that summed up what I was trying to get across! The mental strain on a teenager is not the same as on an adult.

I have limited knowledge as to the system in the UK but from my recollection countries which which bestow children with such wonderful burdens first make a judgement as to the mental and emotional age of the child? I may be very wrong about that but if it is the case surely it doesn't apply or we'd need some sort of a licencing system... actually i quite like that idea..

the temptation to make a ridiculous pun is just so strong..