[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly, to suggest that they're capable of deciding to start sexual relations at this age and to predict what effect it will have on them is quite frankly ludicrous.

It is beyond any sensible comprehension to equate that because they may understand the biological 'theory' that they are ready for physical and emotional reparcussions. Ludicrious is precisely the correct term I'd say;.

[lostalex]

so many words, so little meaning...

[Ninastar]

I can't believe what I have read in this thread

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

I can't believe what I have read in this thread

Not every Young Girl wants a baby.

[Kizzy]

I also feel jack you are on very shaky ground, as you say the age of consent in other countries may be lower this does not make it right and can lead to the exploitation of children. Laws are in place to protect children from themselves as well as others, if children had free reign to do as they wished you my find 15yr olds getting boob jobs...or 11yr olds getting tattoos...
I do mot feel that whilst yes they at 13 have all the bits in the right place and in full working order, they are not mature enough to deal with the responsibility that comes with it.

[Beastie]

It's sign of the times. Yes 13 is a young age. Bet they have barely started their period then. They are still growing and having this contraceptive injected inside of you is kind of stopping you naturally going through all the hormones of what a teenager goes through to develop into a woman.

Anyway this is the last solution. If 13 year olds are having sex they best take this contraception. Better than getting pregnant!

Still need to educate girls to not have sex before they are 16 first. But year after year girls are doing it at an earlier age as well as boys.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I do happen to agree that our society have it right about which ages are considered children.

Really though? I don't think everything about our idea of childhood is right...

For example, you can join the army at 16, but can't play violent video games until you're 18. You can have sex at 16, but not watch porn until you're 18. You can get married (with your parents consent) at 16, but you can't have a drink to celebrate it until you're 18...not everything's perfect, some of the laws designed to supposedly 'protect' children pretty much contradict each other, it's quite stupid.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The point I'm making is, parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their children till they're 16/18 which makes it (imo and in how I personally practise my parental duties) our business because in most cases, we'll be the ones left picking up the pieces if it all goes pear shaped.

Again, I do want to stress, I really don't mean to sound patronising when I say I think it's hard for you to be objective about it when you are still a teenager but it is true that peoples opinions on this do change drastically in later years and when they look back.

But the point is - when it comes to medical advice and help, it should all be confidential. So long as you are of an age where you are able to comprehend what you are being told, then I don't see why anyone else should be able to pry into your personal business unless you wish them to. For example, six year olds wouldn't be able to understand things that their GP was telling them, and so they would need their parent or guardian present, but at age 13 I think most people are capable of understanding and seeking medical advice or help. You might not think they're ready for sex, or work, but I'm sure most have the ability to understand things that they're being told.

Don't forget, it can be quite embarrassing for some young people to discuss such personal issues with their parents. And so that is why all information shared with those who give them advice is strictly confidential - so that they feel safe and are able to open up more, they wouldn't do that if they thought their parents may find out...and that could have some very dangerous consequences. Surely that's better than children suppressing their feelings and concerns about their health?

Whilst you or others may not like it, or want it to happen, the fact of the matter is underage sex happens. And realistically it can't be prevented. If they want to do it, the chances are they're going to...at such young ages when their hormones are all over the place it's not as simple as just restraining from doing it. It might be for some, but not all. And it does happen...whether or not that's a good thing is of course a completely separate debate. It's about dealing with the issues at hand though; surely, if it happens (as it does), then it's better for those people to able to get help and advice, rather than be ignorant to it all and potentially cause them or others some serious harm?

Originally Posted by kizzy

I also feel jack you are on very shaky ground, as you say the age of consent in other countries may be lower this does not make it right and can lead to the exploitation of children. Laws are in place to protect children from themselves as well as others, if children had free reign to do as they wished you my find 15yr olds getting boob jobs...or 11yr olds getting tattoos...
I do mot feel that whilst yes they at 13 have all the bits in the right place and in full working order, they are not mature enough to deal with the responsibility that comes with it.

Of course it can, I'm not denying that, but there is of course the argument that children are overly protected in some instances in this country. For example...if a student falsely accuses a teacher of sexually assaulting them, the teacher is suspended with immediate effect, and when it's found out that the student was lying...the teacher's reinstated (with their reputation tarnished of course) and the student will most likely be given a warning...or at best excluded. How is that fair?

Underage people get tattoos now anyway, it's not a rare thing. And I'm not completely against that either...as for the boob jobs...well...again, that's another debate and my opinions on that would properly start this entire argument off again.

You are of course assuming that all children need overly protecting, and whilst they do, some things are taken too far. Every child is different, they're individuals...not a collective. There are varying degrees of maturity and intelligence, and so that's why it's difficult when it comes to setting rules, laws and boundaries to 'protect' children.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Really though? I don't think everything about our idea of childhood is right...

For example, you can join the army at 16, but can't play violent video games until you're 18. You can have sex at 16, but not watch porn until you're 18. You can get married (with your parents consent) at 16, but you can't have a drink to celebrate it until you're 18...not everything's perfect, some of the laws designed to supposedly 'protect' children pretty much contradict each other, it's quite stupid.

You can join the army as an apprentice at 16 (with the consent of your parents), but you will not be deployed on any kind of active service until you're 18.

If you think sex in a relationship and watching porn are the same thing, then I suspect you're watching too much porn.

You can get married at 18 without your parents' consent, and then have a drink to celebrate.

18 is the age of majority. One day, you will understand the sense in that. There is no rush... you only think there is.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

You can join the army as an apprentice at 16 (with the consent of your parents), but you will not be deployed on any kind of active service until you're 18.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by Livia

If you think sex in a relationship and watching porn are the same thing, then I suspect you're watching too much porn

I never said they are, in fact I argue against those who suggest they are the same. But regardless of how much porn may be exaggerated, the point is that it still depicts sexual acts. What difference is it going to make if someone watches porn at 18, compared to 16? The answer - no difference at all.

Not only that...but it'd mean you can't make a sex tape until you're 18. Or rather you can, but you can't watch it until you're that age. That seems pretty stupid to me.

Originally Posted by Livia

You can get married at 18 without your parents' consent, and then have a drink to celebrate.

That's not really answered my point to be honest. It doesn't matter if you can get married at 18 without your parents consent, what matters is you can get married at 16 (albeit with parents consent), yet you can't have a drink to celebrate it. Either don't allow people to get married at 16, or reduce the drinking age.

Originally Posted by Livia

18 is the age of majority. One day, you will understand the sense in that. There is no rush... you only think there is.

I've never said there's any rush at all. All I'm saying is that there are people who are younger than 18 that are much more physically and mentally mature, and more intelligent than some of those that are over 18. Sadly, people don't seem to consider this and just assume that until you have reached 18, you are incapable of doing certain things and must be protected from every sin the world has on offer.

[MTVN]

So by your logic Jack, 13/14 year olds should be allowed to participate in porn?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So by your logic Jack, 13/14 year olds should be allowed to participate in porn?

Obviously not...let's not over exaggerate the situation here. That'd clearly leave the door wide open for child pornography offences.

But by some people's definition in this thread, children shouldn't be having sex and 16 is an acceptable age. Therefore, if 16 year olds can have sex, and were allowed to record it, surely it couldn't be considered 'child porn'...as...well, children aren't allowed to have sex, no? That's how I've understood it.

I don't think people have fully understood what I've said in this thread. I admit I've stretched my point a bit too far on some of the issues on reflection, and for that I apologise, but my original point still stands - underage sex does happen, and will happen for years to come. The real issue is with dealing with the consequences, or preventing the potential consequences. By offering advice and medical treatment like reported in the original article - that's dealing with the issue. That seems far more important to me than trying to condemn those who engage in underage sex, as if you ask me, practically it's unpreventable.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Obviously not...let's not over exaggerate the situation here. That'd clearly leave the door wide open for child pornography offences.

But by some people's definition in this thread, children shouldn't be having sex and 16 is an acceptable age. Therefore, if 16 year olds can have sex, and were allowed to record it, surely it couldn't be considered 'child porn'...as...well, children aren't allowed to have sex, no? That's how I've understood it.

I don't think people have fully understood what I've said in this thread. I admit I've stretched my point a bit too far on some of the issues on reflection, and for that I apologise, but my original point still stands - underage sex does happen, and will happen for years to come. The real issue is with dealing with the consequences, or preventing the potential consequences. By offering advice and medical treatment like reported in the original article - that's dealing with the issue. That seems far more important to me than trying to condemn those who engage in underage sex, as if you ask me, practically it's unpreventable.

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

Anyway yes, you can't completely eradicate underage sex and measures should be taken to deal with it's consequences but there should also be a focus on trying to prevent such a situation occurring in the first place, or at least reducing it in any case.

[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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.

So basically what you are saying is parents support children until the children are of an age and have a job, but parents arent to be responsible for children should the child decide to have sex under the legal age of consent?

How about we also lower the age that children can start work and force them back up chimneys and into mills etc.

I would stick the present protections you currently have, rather than ask for more freedoms, when most children (and lets face it thats what 13 and 14 year olds really are) at the moment arent really mature enough emotionally or in some cases physically to rear children and have to rely on parents etc to support them. God forbid anything happen to the parents that do all the nannying for the teenage parents.

[arista]

Just debated on ITV1HD Daybreak
with Dr. Hilary

A Mother of a 14 year of Girl
Emailed them saying she wished they had the implant,
as her Child is 4 months pregnant
she is in Berks - not under this new implant zone.

Not every Girl can talk to there parents.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

Just debated on ITV1HD Daybreak
with Dr. Hilary

A Mother of a 14 year of Girl
Emailed them saying she wished they had the implant,
as her Child is 14 months pregnant
she is in Berks - not under this new implant zone.

Not every Girl can talk to there parents.

She's not 14 months pregnant, arista. Unless she's an elephant.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

She's not 14 months pregnant, arista. Unless she's an elephant.

corrected


should be 4 months

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

corrected


should be 4 months

Top man.

I didn't live a particularly sheltered life but I was kind of supervised when I was that young. Jesus, I have teeshirts older than her.

[Niamh.]

was just about to say Livia!

[Kizzy]

Shes lucky the only thing she caught is a baby... It just goes to show that the 13 to14's that are having sex cannot be trusted to use other forms of contraception such as condoms or the pill, therefore the girls are being advised in some areas to have these implants.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Shes lucky the only thing she caught is a baby... It just goes to show that the 13 to14's that are having sex cannot be trusted to use other forms of contraception such as condoms or the pill, therefore the girls are being advised in some areas to have these implants.

Spot on. A matter that Shasown raised very early in the thread. There's a lot more at stake than just an unwanted pregnancy (which can be aborted). Cervical cancer can be fatal, and all manner of STD's, some of which are there for life (and to be passed on) - but as long as they can have sex and not get pregnant - some blinkered folk think the implant is the way forward.

[Kizzy]

It is a cop out, the responsibility is on young womens shoulders, its young men that need educating that contraception is not just an issue affecting females. I also worry for the adolescents with these implants, what are the long term health implications?