[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.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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?

Well personally, I don't see how a parent could be responsible for their child having underage sex. Unless you render them completely housebound, then they will find a way in which to have sex if they want to. And how could that possibly be prevented, or your responsibility? You can't follow them around 24/7.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't support children if they do have underage sex, but the choice of 'support' should really be down to the child in question. If they believe they're receiving sufficient support from a separate entity, why would there be any need to tell or involve their parents? As I said earlier, enabling parents access to confidential information that their children might not want them to know is quite a dangerous game, and could worsen problems, not make them better.

Of course parents are going to be concerned, I understand that...but surely you'd rather them receive necessary advice/help than hide it all?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Well personally, I don't see how a parent could be responsible for their child having underage sex. Unless you render them completely housebound, then they will find a way in which to have sex if they want to. And how could that possibly be prevented, or your responsibility? You can't follow them around 24/7.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't support children if they do have underage sex, but the choice of 'support' should really be down to the child in question. If they believe they're receiving sufficient support from a separate entity, why would there be any need to tell or involve their parents? As I said earlier, enabling parents access to confidential information that their children might not want them to know is quite a dangerous game, and could worsen problems, not make them better.

Of course parents are going to be concerned, I understand that...but surely you'd rather them receive necessary advice/help than hide it all?

They sh0uld be informing their parents because their parents are legally responsible for the child until the child is old enough to be responsible for themselves.

But thats the problem with the modern playstation generation, fast food instant gratification, then when the going gets tough they hide behind the fact they are still children.

They want to be treat like adults have all the rights but none of the responsibilities. Sorry but life doesnt work like that, once you are out on your own in the real world you will understand, especially if you do one day become a parent, that may sound patronising, I apologise if it does, thats not my intent. Lots of youngsters think they know how life works, but believe me even at my age and experience some areas of life dont come easy.

Enjoy your childhood while you can, do childish things dont be in too much of a hurry to grow up and become an adult, sex will still be there when your body and emotions are capable of enjoyig it to its fullest extent with minimal risks.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Marc

I blame Bebo.. that's where all the scummy kids hung out

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

They sh0uld be informing their parents because their parents are legally responsible for the child until the child is old enough to be responsible for themselves.

But thats the problem with the modern playstation generation, fast food instant gratification, then when the going gets tough they hide behind the fact they are still children.

They want to be treat like adults have all the rights but none of the responsibilities. Sorry but life doesnt work like that, once you are out on your own in the real world you will understand, especially if you do one day become a parent, that may sound patronising, I apologise if it does, thats not my intent. Lots of youngsters think they know how life works, but believe me even at my age and experience some areas of life dont come easy.

Enjoy your childhood while you can, do childish things dont be in too much of a hurry to grow up and become an adult, sex will still be there when your body and emotions are capable of enjoyig it to its fullest extent with minimal risks.

That's actually an incredibly sensible advice. Too many children are far too keen on wanting to be seen as grown up, far too early. It's not till the time has passed that some will look back with regret I think.

It's called childhood for a very good reason.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Shasown

They sh0uld be informing their parents because their parents are legally responsible for the child until the child is old enough to be responsible for themselves.

But thats the problem with the modern playstation generation, fast food instant gratification, then when the going gets tough they hide behind the fact they are still children.

But when you include parents in such personal, private issues, many children find that they are scared or embarrassed to speak out, it's a well-known problem. That's why these services are set up, to allow them to go and talk to a stranger about their issues in complete confidence, in the knowledge that everything they discuss will remain confidential. If that's not available, then the only other choice for said children would be to remain quiet about it, and the consequences of that could be quite significant. What if there's a serious problem that needs to be addressed?

Originally Posted by Shasown

They want to be treat like adults have all the rights but none of the responsibilities.

But I absolutely agree with that, my example about children being overly protected when it comes to false accusations of sexual assault from teachers would've shown that I would've thought? I agree that children need to learn their responsibilities...everybody does. You can't have one or the other, you have to have both. I'm a firm believer in that. I suppose in some ways some of my points in this thread might not display that, but that is actually something that I believe in.

Originally Posted by Shasown

Sorry but life doesnt work like that, once you are out on your own in the real world you will understand, especially if you do one day become a parent, that may sound patronising, I apologise if it does, thats not my intent. Lots of youngsters think they know how life works, but believe me even at my age and experience some areas of life dont come easy.

Enjoy your childhood while you can, do childish things dont be in too much of a hurry to grow up and become an adult, sex will still be there when your body and emotions are capable of enjoyig it to its fullest extent with minimal risks.

Believe me, over the last year or so I've realised how much I don't want to grow up. That age old saying that I once laughed off, that your childhood are the best years of your life is actually starting to seem like it may be the case now. I'm in no hurry to grow up anymore, trust me

[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.

[Niamh.]

was just about to say Livia!

[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.

[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?