Well I certainly support your right to continue the debate and present your own views.

In fact-that is one of the problems about this whole subject-only one side is presented-the one that suits the media or politicians who use it as a platform-or the many social moralisers-even the self appointed ones ( and there are plenty who do teriffic work).

Now that sex isn't a very important part of my life I am more fascinated than ever..not obsessed by it-but intrigued by the changing beliefs in society.

For instance: the incredible mis-use of the word "peadophile" and how it has been hi-jacked to be used by the media ( and others) to describe anyone who can do dreadful things to children-or some who may be slightly outside the law ie: a 19 year old and a 15 year old who mentally, could well be the equivalent and who have a committed relationship with each other that includes sex.

Should the 19 year old be busted-he/she will surely be classified as a "peadophile" with all the public recriminations that come with the word when factually it isn't true. He isn't a peadophile ( medically) but will have broken the law.

Obviously-one should always strive to obey the law-but with young people it's often expecting too much. Their thinking processes-scientifically proven (and used to great effect in the USA by psychologists to prevent those under 18 from being executed for capital crimes)- just isn't developed, yet we adults forget this, probably because we are no longer young and have forgotten how we were.

Even then, we still don't know a whole lot about the "thought " process. For instance-it's only just been realised by studies in the past 5 years that children under the age of around 10/11 do not have periphery vision-they literally can only see what is in front of them !

So our exhortations to "look left and right crossing the road" are even more important than we ever thought.

And that other great conundrum-now that the Age of Consent has been equalised-overnight a group of 19 years olds (or older) having it off with 17 year olds went from peadophiles to normal people !

as I said-it's all a mystery to me

Good points Veritas.

I think that morality is dictated by what is legal, and therefore superficial. A few years ago I read in one paper about a 60 yr old man marrying his fiance on her 16th birthday. The paper wished them a happy future. There was no mass moral outcry because the girl was of legal age. But I wondered what the response would have been if the paper had reported one day earlier about a 60 yr old having a relationship with a 15yr old. The man would have been hounded to the point of suicide - or beyond.

Nobody bats an eyelid when a 17 yr old gets pregnant, because she is legal age. However, before the change in law, her partner would have faced public disgrace.

If the age of consent was lowered to 14, which it once was, and the move has been considered by some politicians, then sex with 14 yr olds would be morally acceptable - because it would be legal.

As recent as the 1920s girls could marry at age 12, and boys at age 14. I think 12 is a bit low, but one of my great great great grandmothers was 13 when she had her baby - and I'm descended from that relationship. I don't feel weird about that because it was legal age at the time.

And yes, the word 'paedophile' has been mis-used. Take the teacher who had sex with a 15 yr old pupil. He went on to marry her and they raised a family. He simply fell in love with an individual who happened to be under the legal age. He did not target her because of her age, and he has not gone after other under-age girls. He is classed as a paedophile, but obviously is not one. If he was he would have deserted her for someone younger long ago.

People who think the world is black and white are very close to being blind.

However, re the claim that children under 10 can only see what's in front of them. I definately recall being able to see things out the corner of my eye before that age. So I must question the findings of those 'studies'.

No, morals are not inextricably linked to law, at least not with me they aren't.

I enjoy many things that the law consider that i should not have access to, my morals are set by my personal beliefs and opinions and if i get caught for doing something that i think is ok but the law thinks isn't I am aware that i will be punished.

On this basis I am curious as to whether some posters truly believe that the age of consent should be lowered below 16. You state that you think 12 'is a bit low' so what age do you believe should be used?

I think 16 is about right. I'm aware that some aged 14 are well capable of making adult decisions, while some aged over 20 are not, but we cannot have a staggered age of consent so a line has to be drawn.

There might be an argument for taking into consideration 'actual consent' even when there is no legal consent. To have sex with a willing partner who is a month under age is far different to having sex with an unwilling partner who is several years under age. I can't imagine anyone not being able to see that difference. It has long been written into British legal procedures that where common law and equity clash, equity must prevail. In other words, the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. Common sense and humanity must be a part of any judgement. So .. a 17yr old having sex with a 15 yr old breaks the law, but can be dealt with leniantly. By the letter of the law it is statutary rape, but no reaonable person would see it as being actual rape. On the other hand, a 40yr old man forcing himself on a preteen girl is committing actual rape and can expect no sympathy - also if he forces himself onto a grown woman. Both must pay some kind of penalty, but to classify the 17yr old and the 40yr old as equally bad is madness and totally against the spirit of the law.

Out of interest Godiver, how do you feel about the 60yr old who married the 15yr old? Is it different to how you'd feel about a 59yr old and a 15yr old? If so, why?

The age of consent should reflect the ability to think for oneself. In this regard once a child has reached the age of consent the difference in age between them and any partner is irrelevant.

Godiver wrote:
The age of consent should reflect the ability to think for oneself. In this regard once a child has reached the age of consent the difference in age between them and any partner is irrelevant.
How do we determine the ability to think for oneself?

With all that is going on in the world today, a life of abstinence, alone in a small croft is starting to look very tempting. Possibly may stay out of trouble that way.

All human contact is so scrutinised and moderated these days that the only way forward seems to be to avoid eye contact, distant professionalism at all times and keep a safe distance from any and all people. You would not believe the scrutiny teachers are placed under and I now make an effort not to even return a child's smile or kick their ball back.

RT

I'm actually quite baffled by your response, Godiver.

First off-I don't know the answer !!

However, why do we think Britain knows any better than Germany where the Age of Consent is 14 ?

Or Japan-a culture eons older than western society where the age is 13 ?

what studies have been done to show what effects the Age of Consent actually have on society ( none I expect)Do we really know if the legal age has a derogatory , helpful or indiferent effect upon people ?

I haven't heard of any greater outrages in Germany , Italy, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, France, Poland , Iceland etc etc which all have lower ages than the UK. Have you ?

The actual age is set more on the shifting values of society. Indeed-the Age of Consent for heterosexuals in Britain at the beginning of the 20th Century was 13.

However one of the first British media barons in Manchester suddenly seized upon the idea of using sex to sell newspapers. The man went on to do an endless series of 'exposes' of the so-called sordid dens of iniquity that had (supposedly) flooded parts of London where children could be bought and sold.(and being years ahead of his time,he was prone to great exagerations)

Readers had never seen anything like it-indeed his newspaper was considered in itself to be sheer pornography by most parliamentarians. But then the great moralisers of the time got on board.He was basically responsible for the law being changed.

And of course-the famous trial of Oscar Wilde wasn't just a chance happening due to an outraged Lord Queensberry but an establishment plot to find a high profile offendor to set the agenda for 60 years of repressing homosexuals. An example had to be found and Lord Queensberry provided one, killing 2 birds with one stone, so to speak.