No. 15 a week is hardly anything at all. I wouldn’t beat yourself up for being a normal young person either way.

Do you seriously think it’s good practice to arrest 20-year-old students for wanting a night out where they’re allowed to act like at least semi-adults and not be capped at Capri Sun?

When it comes to sex, I'm in favour of a staggered system, which would roughly be, not legal at all under 14 (decriminalised if BOTH are under 14 or close in age, but not legal) then 2 year age gap maximum under 18. So you can have sex at 16, but not with someone over 18.

At 18 then up to the individual (although in my personal opinion, over-25's hooking up with under-20's is questionable, but I don't think it should be illegal).

Basically, I think there should be a system that allows for teenagers hooking up (because frankly, it's just going to happen) BUT that doesn't allow for adults exploiting under-18's... whilst also avoiding daft situations like a 17 year old facing legal trouble for being with a 15 year old.

There'd also need to be some common sense at the top end but full adults (over 21) being with 16 and 17 year olds should just be a flat "no" and considered statutory rape. The system as it is now is wide open to exploitation with 30+ year old men (and older) shacking up with 16 year old girls (and boys for that matter, gay teens being exploited by older men is also a huge problem). It's gross.

We have such a young age at which young people can be criminalised when you look at other countries. Age of criminality is 10 here.

I wouldn't raise the age lower, there have been talks about raising it higher if anything.

A system in which allows for teenagers to hook up, but doesn't allow for CSE? Well, that's just wishful thinking and if you lower the age of legal sex it would cause even more problems.

Adults over 21 being with 16/17 year olds, well you say should be a flat out 'no' and considered rape. Of course this is your opinion because if they're both consenting then it's completely legal.

You say the system is well open to exploitation as it is at the minute...I'd ask why you would consider lowering the age of sex then? Not that I really feel it would make much of a difference.

I think what can make the difference, if anything, is education, resilience, boundaries, parenting, safe sex, sexual education, open and honest dialogue, good mental health, ...... vulnerability from low self, esteem, mental health issues, trauma is an opening for CSE.

In short, because younger teenagers are always going to experiment and there's nothing really wrong or unusual about that so long as it's with other teenagers and not with adults. In practice the system already more or less functions this way, it would be VERY unusual for anything to come of two underage people "breaking that law" and for the mostpart even, say, a 17 year old is highly unlikely to have criminal charges pursued against them for sexual activity with someone three months off their 16th birthday - even though it is technically statutory rape. Whereas, an 18+ year old is (quite rightly) likely to be facing some serious questions for sleeping with someone under 16.

As for 16/17 year olds with over 21's, I know it IS legal currently and I'm not saying we should just consider it statutory rape regardless of the law, I'm saying "if I was to write the law" there would be some mechanism that makes some activity under 18 legal with similarly-aged people, but the FULL age of adult consent 18 (rather than 16). SOME 16 year olds are more mature than others but the reality is, many 16 year olds are still very "young" and I have serious misgivings about any adult who would sleep with a 16 year old. Again I know it's not illegal, I'm just saying... if a full adult would sleep with a 16 year old, I'd be keeping a strong eye on them around any adolescent aged 13+.

I largely agree that the risk factors for grooming are individual circumstances rather than laws though; emotionally healthy 16 year old girls are not sleeping with 40 year old men and can only really have been successfully groomed to that extent if no one was paying attention. IMO.

However, I'd not be adverse to a law-change that would mean "groomers" (at the very least, adults over 30) could be charged for pursuing anyone under 18. Dodgy AF.

how did we get on to age appropriate relations and groomers in a smoking thread :fist:

Well you could argue that it's a thread about "legal ages"/age of understanding and consent more than specifically about smoking I guess... it's really all the same discussion - at what age do we accept that people become fully aware of and responsible for their bodies and health. And should that age be different for different things (and why).

To be fair I think it's a hard sell to say that 18 year olds can have a mortgage, join the army, drive, consume alcohol etc. but are too young to smoke until they're 21 :think:. Unless maybe there's some sort of research showing that there are additional health concerns under that age.