[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Maybe, in terms of actual legality, but I reserve the right to state that anyone aged 25 or over pursuing 18 year olds is either dodgy or immature themselves, and anyone 30 or over pursuing 18 year olds is just a plain old nonce.

A bit irrel but I think this should apply no matter what the gender combination. It was no better when it was Caroline Flack and Harry Styles, and it's gross when boys abused by female teachers get called "lucky" and people "wish they had teachers like that" ...

But yeah, no matter how old-looking or "mature" the sixteen year old was, she was still a child, and anything else being considered, how could Brand actually be okay with sleeping with someone who got picked up from school?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

People under 18 can't vote, die for their country, smoke or drink, get married without parental permission, or even leave education now.

Adding another couple of years of protection from perves has no extra infantilisation or cost.

of course it does. Families get all sorts of payments for children, and that would be for an extra 2 years. The NHS and social services would have to treat the same as children for longer putting more pressure on nhs funding and social care. And the list goes on. Everything always boils down to money. Why do you think they are increasing retirement age over time? Money. No other reason

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

A bit irrel but I think this should apply no matter what the gender combination. It was no better when it was Caroline Flack and Harry Styles, and it's gross when boys abused by female teachers get called "lucky" and people "wish they had teachers like that" ...

But yeah, no matter how old-looking or "mature" the sixteen year old was, she was still a child, and anything else being considered, how could Brand actually be okay with sleeping with someone who got picked up from school?

No I agree, and generally the only real difference in the end is how long it takes for males to start feeling weird about it. (In general, and for societal reasons) girls will be upset and feel "used" as soon as the abuser inevitably breaks it off, boys will carry on feeling like they were a "top shagger" for many years, but generally once they reach 35+ they start realising they were used/abused as a naive teenager and do have very negative feelings about it.

A mate of mine had a 6 month long fling with a 48 year old woman when we were 17. He bragged about it for YEARS, but feels pretty gross about the whole thing now that he's nearing 40 himself. I think you start to look back, then look around and see how bloody young a 17 year old lad actually looks (you don't feel like that at the time), and realise that it's all a bit messed up.

She had a son just a year younger too . Messy stuff.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

People under 18 can't vote, die for their country, smoke or drink, get married without parental permission, or even leave education now.

Adding another couple of years of protection from perves has no extra infantilisation or cost.

Starmer is changing it
to 16 years old can vote.

He wants to stay in power
if he wins the General Election

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

No I agree, and generally the only real difference in the end is how long it takes for males to start feeling weird about it. (In general, and for societal reasons) girls will be upset and feel "used" as soon as the abuser inevitably breaks it off, boys will carry on feeling like they were a "top shagger" for many years, but generally once they reach 35+ they start realising they were used/abused as a naive teenager and do have very negative feelings about it.

A mate of mine had a 6 month long fling with a 48 year old woman when we were 17. He bragged about it for YEARS, but feels pretty gross about the whole thing now that he's nearing 40 himself. I think you start to look back, then look around and see how bloody young a 17 year old lad actually looks (you don't feel like that at the time), and realise that it's all a bit messed up.

She had a son just a year younger too . Messy stuff.

I think if you have a son you'd definitely view it the same no matter what sex is involved. I would certainly have been equally angry if a 31 year old started something with my son or my daughter when they were 17

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

of course it does. Families get all sorts of payments for children, and that would be for an extra 2 years. The NHS and social services would have to treat the same as children for longer putting more pressure on nhs funding and social care. And the list goes on. Everything always boils down to money. Why do you think they are increasing retirement age over time? Money. No other reason

Most family benefits etc. are already up to 18. There are some things in social care and the NHS that end/transition to adult services at 16 (mental health services, social work etc.) but... well... that's also shameful and leads to terrible outcomes for those kids - they SHOULD continue until 18. It's not even a money issue... ultimately it would end up costing less, as fewer kids abandoned at 16 means fewer adults needing ongoing mental health care. Making sure kids in care are set up at 18, even up to 21, would save the government a tonne of money in the long run.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think if you have a son you'd definitely view it the same no matter what sex is involved. I would certainly have been equally angry if a 31 year old started something with my son or my daughter when they were 17

Yeah he does have a son now too (he's 7 or 8) - I highly doubt my friend will be congratulating him and patting him on the back if he gets involved with a 50 year old when he's in his late teens.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Maybe, in terms of actual legality, but I reserve the right to state that anyone aged 25 or over pursuing 18 year olds is either dodgy or immature themselves, and anyone 30 or over pursuing 18 year olds is just a plain old nonce.

You have the right to state your own opinion. I think when we take a wider look at societies with creeping authoritarianism, then these are the kinds of issues that become really important. I know these are your longstanding views, and aren't dependant on what is currently happening in society, but I'm just relating them to what is happening around the world.

Women should be allowed to make their own choices as adults, and if those "relationships" are either predatory or coercive, then laws already exist to deal with them. If a person is already a predator, then an additional law isn't going to stop them. I completely disagree with your definition of a nonce.

You're fully aware that you have really conservative social values (your issue with porn is personally bizarre to me, but you get that it's a personal view), and you're also aware that they are your views alone, and even at times are too conservative to be classed as inside the conservative mainstream.

So in short, I disagree with you majorly on the points I've raised, but I think that 16-18 is valid, and we're just spit balling here because neither you or I have the power to do anything with our opinions.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

If those "relationships" are either predatory or coercive, then laws already exist to deal with them.

Sadly, this simply never happens. The laws may exist in theory ... but I'm not saying they "rarely work" - I'm saying it literally never happens. Above the age of consent, a predatory adult will never face any sort of legal consequences for entering into a manipulative/coercive relationship with a young adult over the age of 16. Very very sadly, but there's no point trying to work with anything but the reality.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

of course it does. Families get all sorts of payments for children, and that would be for an extra 2 years. The NHS and social services would have to treat the same as children for longer putting more pressure on nhs funding and social care. And the list goes on. Everything always boils down to money. Why do you think they are increasing retirement age over time? Money. No other reason

pretty sure all those payments carry on until 18 or beyond as long as they remain in education (not Uni) also the NHS cut off age for paediatrics is 18

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

pretty sure all those payments carry on until 18 or beyond as long as they remain in education (not Uni) also the NHS cut off age for paediatrics is 18

They definitely do in Ireland anyway, for Children's allowance you just need to get the school to sign to say that the child is still in full time education

[thesheriff443]

A padlock only keeps honest people out



The facts are some girls are attracted to older men

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Sadly, this simply never happens. The laws may exist in theory ... but I'm not saying they "rarely work" - I'm saying it literally never happens. Above the age of consent, a predatory adult will never face any sort of legal consequences for entering into a manipulative/coercive relationship with a young adult over the age of 16. Very very sadly, but there's no point trying to work with anything but the reality.

But proving those crimes with any age is also near impossible unless clear evidence exists. I think you have really good ideas around decriminalising 14yr olds being with each other, I just disagree with it when it gets really close to purity policing (I respect your personal views on the matter, and this is my personal view).

The only solution when it comes to implementing your views seems to be raising the age of consent to either 18 or 21, because staggered ages of consent seems pretty unworkable/unrealistic, and the more areas of uncertainty the law provides, the easier it is for predators to take advantage.

Just to be clear, I'd hate if a close family member of mine was 18 and entered into a relationship with a +30yr old, but I don't think my personal distatse is a reason to criminalise more people.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

But proving those crimes with any age is also near impossible unless clear evidence exists. I think you have really good ideas around decriminalising 14yr olds being with each other, I just disagree with it when it gets really close to purity policing (I respect your personal views on the matter, and this is my personal view).

The only solution when it comes to implementing your views seems to be raising the age of consent to either 18 or 21, because staggered ages of consent seems pretty unworkable/unrealistic, and the more areas of uncertainty the law provides, the easier it is for predators to take advantage.

Just to be clear, I'd hate if a close family member of mine was 18 and entered into a relationship with a +30yr old, but I don't think my personal distatse is a reason to criminalise more people.

Ultimately the simplest solution would be to raise the age of adult consent to 18 (which is in line with most other thinking on what constitutes an adult in law) whilst decriminalising sex close-in-age under 18 which is, in practice if not officially, pretty much how it currently works with under-16's.

I do still personally think 18 is on the young side, however there's a vast difference between an 18 year old and a 16 year old so I think it's a fairly sensible compromise: again, especially given that we currently mark "18 as adulthood" in general thinking anyway.

FWIW marriage at 16 is also bizarre in concept, especially as it's basically a contract, and you have to be 18 for most contracts to be properly binding . So I would raise the age for marriage to 18 as well.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Ultimately the simplest solution would be to raise the age of adult consent to 18 (which is in line with most other thinking on what constitutes an adult in law) whilst decriminalising sex close-in-age under 18 which is, in practice if not officially, pretty much how it currently works with under-16's.

I do still personally think 18 is on the young side, however there's a vast difference between an 18 year old and a 16 year old so I think it's a fairly sensible compromise: again, especially given that we currently mark "18 as adulthood" in general thinking anyway.

FWIW marriage at 16 is also bizarre in concept, especially as it's basically a contract, and you have to be 18 for most contracts to be properly binding . So I would raise the age for marriage to 18 as well.

It's already been raised in the UK I think (I don't think it was ever legal in Ireland under 18) the parental consent thing was weird as **** too, why is it OK if your parents say yes? 16 is either too young or it's not

The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, which gained Royal Assent in April last year, has come into force today (27 February). It means that 16 and 17 year olds will no longer be allowed to marry or enter a civil partnership, even if they have parental consent.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/l...ntal%20consent.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's already been raised in the UK I think (I don't think it was ever legal in Ireland under 18) the parental consent thing was weird as **** too, why is it OK if your parents say yes? 16 is either too young or it not

The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, which gained Royal Assent in April last year, has come into force today (27 February). It means that 16 and 17 year olds will no longer be allowed to marry or enter a civil partnership, even if they have parental consent.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/l...ntal%20consent.

Ahj I didn't know that - that's something at least.

I think an adult consent age of 18 is perhaps inevitable at this point then, as I suspect part of the reason it IS 16 is because the legal age for marriage was 16.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Ultimately the simplest solution would be to raise the age of adult consent to 18 (which is in line with most other thinking on what constitutes an adult in law) whilst decriminalising sex close-in-age under 18 which is, in practice if not officially, pretty much how it currently works with under-16's.

I do still personally think 18 is on the young side, however there's a vast difference between an 18 year old and a 16 year old so I think it's a fairly sensible compromise: again, especially given that we currently mark "18 as adulthood" in general thinking anyway.

FWIW marriage at 16 is also bizarre in concept, especially as it's basically a contract, and you have to be 18 for most contracts to be properly binding . So I would raise the age for marriage to 18 as well.

Raising the age to 18 seems completely ridiculous to me, and is creating a a solution in need of a problem, but I appreciate it's your opinion. I'm closer to you on marriage being raised, because that's supposed to be a lifetime contract. Experimenting sexually in our teens isn't a lifetime contract, and is a healthy part of growing up and finding out who we are.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

They definitely do in Ireland anyway, for Children's allowance you just need to get the school to sign to say that the child is still in full time education

Mrs BOTs has told him payments stopped years ago

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Mrs BOTs has told him payments stopped years ago

[bots]

[arista]

[Alf]

Remember when Julian Assange was suddenly accused of rape after he exposed the elites?

Assange is still being detained, not because of any rape, not because he lied against any government, but because he told the truth.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Raising the age to 18 seems completely ridiculous to me, and is creating a solution in need of a problem, but I appreciate it's your opinion. I'm closer to you on marriage being raised, because that's supposed to be a lifetime contract. Experimenting sexually in our teens isn't a lifetime contract, and is a healthy part of growing up and finding out who we are.

I'd say there's a fairly evident problem when adult men (and we're talking 40, 50 year old men here, not guys in their 20's) are openly and legally in sexual relationships with 16 year old girls ... it's only not a problem if you don't think there's much of a difference between a 16 yer old and an 18 year old when IMO there is a very clear difference, perhaps one of the biggest age differences in the shortest space of time of any age (excluding perhaps 3 - 5, and 11 - 13).

I do fully agree that teenage experimentation is normal and healthy but that experimentation, to BE normal and healthy, has to be with other young people ... not with full-grown adults with mortgages. In an ideal world that wouldn't have to be legislated for and responsible adults would simply understand that, but that's not the real world, and in the real world teenage girls are being exploited constantly. It's not even vaguely a "rare thing" and the people affected do not grow up with normal and healthy mindsets in the slightest, they usually end up in lifelong patterns of control and abuse.

[Alf]

Have you been duped by the mainstream again? I did try warning you. You just don't or won't listen.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Have you been duped by the mainstream again? I did try warning you. You just don't or won't listen.

If a man has sex with you without a condom when he tells you he's using one, that's classed as rape fyi and I'm shocked that woman is defending Russell there