[Jack_]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well you seemed to be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent while also saying the legal age for porn should match it

Not entirely, the age of consent is fine as it is, I'd say it should perhaps be slightly more lenient on those who break it (only in cases where both members are under 16), but then again...I don't believe it's that strict, and I hardly know of any cases where it's enforced. Not that it could really be anyway. But lowering it...no, but probably just for the simple reason that it's not really stuck to anyway, so there'd not be any point.

My problem is with those who are more concerned with those who disobey the age of consent law, rather than the educational programmes that should be implemented in order for all children to learn the ins, outs (no pun intended) and potential consequences of such actions, and of course how any problems are dealt with afterwards. My original point being that regardless of whether or not underage sex has occurred, if that person seeks medical help or advice, so long as they are of an age where they are able to comprehend what's happening, as they would be at 13, it is to be confidential information, and whether parents like it or not, it's none of their business unless the child chooses to involve them. I think indulging that sort of information to parents would put off children seeking such help - and of course that'd be detrimental to the problem.

Oh, and as for the porn thing...I still do think it's pretty stupid that 16 year olds can engage in sexual activity but not watch porn. While we all know how exaggerated it is, it still depicts sexual acts, and I don't see how a two year difference in the age that you are allowed to watch it is going to have any effect on those that do watch it. There's a small difference between 16 and 18, compared to the difference between 13 and 18.