UK Barrister - "Age of Consent Should Be 13 - To End The Persecution Of Old Men"

One doesn't often see somebody press the self destruct button on their career quite as spectacularly as this...

Originally posted by theMediator
My first time ever was with a 13 year old girl...when I was 15!

13 is just too young for a grown man, I agree some do have womanly curves at 13 but it's far from the norm.
I think 16 is still a bit young in some case but the majority can consent and understand the implications of their actions.

I still wouldn't qualify it like pedophilia because 13 is nothing like 9-10 years old.

Maybe a new term is needed for the teenager age range.

No what you done was bother morally and legally wrong, if I had my way you would have been prosecuted for having sex whilst underage. The age-gap of 13 to 15 is much bigger than say 26-28 and at 15 you know that, I know I did.

And while yes technically if you interpret the word paedophile as being anyone under the age of the onset of puberty then yes it is not paedophilia however for me personally, if you have sex with anyone under the age of 16 you qualify as a paedophile and should be punished, harshly

While they may have the physical capability to have sex they don’t have the sexual maturity and we need to draw the line in the sand somewhere and for me that age is 18, legally it is 16. Anyone who has inappropriate sexual relations with anyone under that age should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as a paedophile because that is what they are. It is sick and disgusting and totally indefensible.

I found this barrister's attitude very concerning for many reasons.

The age of consent should not be an arbitrary age at which someone has decided that full physical development has taken place but the age at which a person can take full responsibility for the consequences of a sexual relationship, so in a heterosexual relationship, would be able to support a child if they had to without the need to be a parasite on the rest of society by demanding a medical termination or state support.

Now that may appear extreme, but it is a rule we have had in our house for our children so that they automatically understood, even if they did not always follow the rule, that Sex HAS consequences.

The problem with this 'barrister' is she considers sex a game with no consequences.

There are ALWAYS consequences to every act and to actually minimize the consequences, emotionally, phsically and mentally of an older man interfering with any young girl is beyond comprehension.
She minimizes sexual assault as if it is a mere trip on the stairs instead of the potentially catastrophic destruction of a soul.

It would appear that she can only see 'the problem' as a 'quick grope' instead of the objectifying and hence dehumanising of another human being, be it a boy or a girl and hence she should perhaps consider whether 'the law' is an appropriate job for a person with such a basic lack of empathy.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


O.K. .. So maybe I was a little harsh to call her a Pedophile and for that I apologize, However, there is Absolutely No Conscionable reasoning for someone to suggest such a thing. Unless of course they are sick with pedophilia as well. Or are in league with those who are.

In addition How dare her to declare that the destruction of a Childs innocents is lesser than that of Gang Rape or Murder. I have Not lost touch with reality. I have witness first hand the devastating effects of Child Molestation and Rape. I am sure almost everyone knows a child that has been violated.

And maybe she is Not a policy maker but probably has influence on those who do.

P.S. .. in todays world there are ALLOT more females being convicted of such things.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Fair enough I agree with you what you are saying, its actually quite a interesting topic of jurisprudence the debate about the sexual age of consent but I personally believe that the only argument that has any merit is to raise the age of consent.

I think most would agree

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

I don't know if you are in the UK or US but in the UK rape and sexual assault are not taken very seriously by the police or the judiciary, or at least it would appear so. Sentences are very lenient and we have far too many being let off for rape simply by saying they were 'asleep' at the time and don't remember it, and 'slap on the wrist' sentences.
It can make you start to wonder about the people who work in the law and some who might want to change the law for their own benefit.

A bit like someone who commits treason in high office and then, just to cover their back, makes sure that treason is no longer a capitol offence.

We have to know who are making our laws and what their 'leanings' are otherwise we are all going to hell in a handbag............and pretty sharpish!

reply to post by Elliot


I am in the U.S., but, that should NOT matter either way. No matter where you are on the planet should have no bearing on this subject. I put right up there with Human Trafficking. It is deplorable and despicable at a minimum.

Unfortunately you are right. Law makers do what they can to cover their backs.

13 is too young. I think AoC should be around 15. 18 is too high, because many teens have the mental capacity to consent before this time, and law should be biased towards innocence.

The main justification for age of consent laws is power difference between an adult and a child. Most of issues with unjust age of consent laws could be solved by establishing sufficient near-age exceptions. Age of consent is secondary, IMHO.

She said that "touching a 17-year-old's breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt" are not crimes comparable to gang rapes and murders and "anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality".

But I agree with this. Not because those crimes are not serious, but gang rape or god forbid, murder is considerably worse.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

The age of consent in Spain is 13, the lowest in Europe. Vatican City, Austria, Italy and several other European countries have set the age at 14, which you seem to be suggesting.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

The age of consent in Spain is 13, the lowest in Europe. Vatican City, Austria, Italy and several other European countries have set the age at 14, which you seem to be suggesting.
en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for the info and the correction the error was mine.

Regardless of what it may be in other European countries I think it should be 18 everywhere

But that is purely a matter of opinion and I have stated my reasoning behind my opinion.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Teenagers need time to develop emotionally and letting them get into relationships with people who have a few years on them could be irresponsible to say the least. A 20 year old drug dealer could be grooming someone for the life of prostitution. Offer the teen some heroin - They trust you so they take it, suddenly thei

The above statement is full of hypotheticals.. maybe they will get married and live happply ever after.. who knows. The end of the day.. a lot of this is a modern day witch hunt.. There have been many cultures in the past where the age has been lower.. Have you any proof it was detrimental to those societies..

A lot of views in this thread stems from sexual suppression and control.. Have you looked at where your values come from and what they are based on. We live in an oversexualised yet sexually suppresed society where you can open a newspaper and and see a half naked women. Yet is illegal to post a mother breastfeeding on facebook... Really it is messed up...

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

There is no child mentally capable of making that kind decision for consent.

Do you not make any differentiation between a child and teenager. As a teenager did you consider yourself a child..?

reply to post by purplemer


Hate to seem Hypocritial, But, .. We are not talking about me we are talking about OUR Children.

And, At 13, that is an "Experimental" age. I am talking about 2 - 13 year olds ( a boy and a girl ) go out behind the shed to experiment and "Discover" things, NOT a 45 year doing terrible sexual things to a 13 year old girl who consented because he enticed her with something.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Kids cant even do that now.
Not to many years ago, kids at or near the same age that got caught "playing doctor" might get a little talking to by a parent or maybe just ignored and let them explore.
Now days, its not called playing doctor, its called molestation, everyone goes into panic mode, tells them how bad they are and sends them to a counselor, hell the police might even get involved.
Which scenario is more healthy for the kids?

I also think 13 is probably to low but I dont think 15 is or maybe a "step" system, where at 15, the partner can not be older than say 25 for example.. idk
Everytime I read about some 20 yr old dude that goes away for 10 years because he had sex with his 15 yr old girlfriend, I just think what a shame it is.
Then all the idiots start yelling pedophile and "cut his b*lls off etc... brainwashed.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Look into history and see what you'll find

Greeks used to have sex with younger boys to exchange teachings with them. If you were a young male and wanted to be a politician you would give yourself to government politicians.

Also they believed that having sex with women was only for making children.

The age of consent for all 'adult activities' should be brought into line ... there is a

different age for

# Driving

# Drinking

# Smoking

# Voting

# A tattoo

# Age of consent for sex .... And they can go to the Dr. for the contraception pill

or the morning after pill at 16 yrs but are not considered old enough to sign for an

anesthetic or an operation for themselves!!


They get sex education around 12/13yrs in 'great detail' and practice using condoms on

bananas and cucumbers. Now call me old fashioned but it is my opinion that sex is not

one dimensional and there is an emotional aspect to sex which is left out completely. They

are not taught 'respect' 'self control' or 'consideration of another persons feelings, or that

there are consequences to all actions. Along with the sex education they should know

that no means no and that they can and will be prosecuted for under age sex....

But they are fully aware that the 'law has no teeth'


ATS members from the UK may have seen the adverts on TV of the teen boy forcing

himself on to the girl (it makes my hairs stand on end) but it seems to be water off a ducks

back to those it is aimed at!!!


Around 50yrs ago when my daughters were under 16 years blossoming and looking older

than they were, young boys/men referred to them as 'jail bait' because they knew that

they would have been prosecuted!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by theMediator


You might say you love(d) her or whatever and that might even be true but I still think what you done was wrong and I stated my reasons for believing as much.

If you find it offense for someone to tell you that its wrong for a 15 year old to have sex with a 13 year old then that’s just tough, that’s my view and I am sticking to it.

Now I don’t think you will find any post on this site that could lead to me being prosecuted for any crime.

And my views on conspiracies are not the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by theMediator
My first time ever was with a 13 year old girl...when I was 15!

13 is just too young for a grown man, I agree some do have womanly curves at 13 but it's far from the norm.
I think 16 is still a bit young in some case but the majority can consent and understand the implications of their actions.

I still wouldn't qualify it like pedophilia because 13 is nothing like 9-10 years old.

Maybe a new term is needed for the teenager age range.

There is a term, there's hebephilia, then there's ephebophilia..

en.wikipedia.org...

As for the thread, this is disgusting, I can't believe she's pushing this, isn't there outrage in the media about this? There should be..

The point that you all seem to have missed is that she is speaking as a lawyer not as a person. That means that she is saying that our legal system needs fewer court cases which have to do with "less serious" crimes. I put that in quotes because there has to be a scale which society keeps to place punishments on serious crimes and place other lesser punishments on lesser crimes.

We have too many people in prison - agreed? So.. we need to raise the bar of what we send people to prison for and find other ways to 'educate' them into ways which are more society-friendly. THAT is why she is saying this, NOT because she thinks it is right for old men to go after kids.

You are all so ready to jump up and down because you think your morals are the correct ones, but morals are connected strongly to culture and educational systems and these differ depending on what country and what culture you come from - and as has been stated previously, with the norms of the day.

It is all about being appropriate. Laws need to be appropriate to the country, culture, and educational system and CAPACITY of the prisons of the country.

You could argue that the media has responsibility for steering societies in the direction it wants, so go after those who influence society, not those who are trying to provide practical and necessary solutions to our society's challenges. If you think you can do better, then become a judge or politician and make the laws yourself.

Most of us delegate responsibility to others and then moan like F... when we dont like what they have decided. So that is our situation at the moment - cant you see why we are all sheeple in some ways, because we give our power and decision-making abilities to others and dont take personal responsibility for the society we live in.