From Slate, an interesting article on this issue starts as follows:
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.It makes quite a difference to realise the substantially lower age in some European countries hasn't caused their society to fall apart.
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.
Update: I would have thought that the most obvious necessary reform for this area would be the adoption of "Romeo and Juliet" style laws, which (as far as I can see from Wikipedia) has surprisingly been an innovation in some American states, including currently conservative ones.
1 comment:
Hi Steve,
I couldn't agree with you more on the introduction of 'Romeo and Juliet' legislation. On the flip side, a reduction in the age of consent may be sending a message to young people to have sex earlier. Perhaps we should abolish the limit altogether so as to not set a bench-mark that teenagers might judge themselves against. I'm intrigued by the philosophical implications of this political issue. I thought you'd like this debate I found which approaches the issue at its foundations. Here's a link: http://iai.tv/video/age-of-innocence Let me know what you think!
Emily
Post a Comment