Article Rec

[heidi]

There was a lot of discussion this summer about stories about people who are "underage" engaging in sexual activity, and some nasty words were thrown at those who write about people under the age of 18 engaging in sexual activity, even where said people live in countries where it is (a) legal to engage in sexual activity when under the age of 18, or (b) legal to marry when under the age of 18, and (c) definitely legal to write about or draw *fictional* people under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity.

But that's not what this post is about.

This post is about an article in Slate Magazine today on reasons as to why an age of consent exists, and reasons why it should be lowered, or at least the law should focus more on age disparity when all parties are over the age of 12, or over the age of 16.

Interesting food for thought, IMHO. I don't agree 100% with what the author is suggesting, but I think that there is definitely a need for the justice system to differentiate among situations where the parties are, say, 15 years apart, where there is a work- or school-generated power-imbalance, and where the parties are peers.

Comments

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

The age of consent here is 16 (for both hereto and homosexual sex (except in N. Ireland) and I think that’s about right. It’s an arbitrary age anyway and no two 16 year olds are the same. One 16 year old could be moreorless running the household and another may have incredibly protected from the world.

There’s only so much the law can expect ot be able to do. Choosing an age where people are usually at a stage to know what they’re doing and are physically and mentally able to cope with it is the right thing but not to go over the top. Don’t send two 15 years olds down the cop shop for sleeping together but if there’s a real imbalance of power, then yes.