Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 5th July 2008 Change Date

Life & Style - inside your Evening News every Thursday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Anger at plan to relax rules on teen sex



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

CONTROVERSIAL plans to "decriminalise" sex between 13 to 15-year-olds have been criticised by both parents and children's groups, it was reported today.
The recommendation, which critics claim could condone underage sex, was made in the Scottish Law Commission's draft legislation on rape and other sexual offences.

But scores of parents, churches and children's groups warned the move would send the wrong message and lead to increases in teen pregnancies, exploitation and sexually transmitted diseases.

However, organisations including Victim Support Scotland, Barnardo's and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA) support the proposals.

Under current law, the age of consent is 16 but if two 15-year-olds have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court.

The proposals are that it would be statutory rape to have sex with a boy or girl under 13 and concerns about consenting sex between vulnerable 13 to 15-year-olds could be referred to the SCRA.





The full article contains 169 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 May 2008 11:40 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 10/05/2008 13:03:17
> Under current law, the age of consent is 16 but if two 15-year-olds have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court.

This is obviously unfair.

The proposed plans seem realistic and sensible.
2

Rv2!,

11/05/2008 12:34:57
Yup, give the women equality.
They should be charged with any offence that a man can.

Make it not a "Paedo" offence, but still make it illegal through other means. There needs to be an age limit in modern society and that age is not 12. 16 is a good age.
3

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 12/05/2008 09:42:52
Two points:

1. Where are the feminists demanding that teenage girls be charged right along with the teenage boys? Surely this is required to gain 'parity' between the sexes. (I don't hold my breath on waiting to hear from the NAGS; National Association of GalS)

2. Leave the age as it is, but include the girls; or more logically, raise the Age of Consent to 18 and actively prosecute.

2a. A need to CEASE all subsidies for unwed pregnancies MUST be invoked, including any living allowances, stipends, etc., regardless of age, but most certainly for teens.

2b. A need to FORCE teen boys to become financially responsible for the new life they've sired, by getting a job, and being financially responsible for the child until 18 years of age: clothing, food, toys, educational needs, etc.

Were the above to be enacted, you would watch teenage pregnancies drop like the proverbial lead weight in a lake: sex actually have PERSONAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES?, why the Reality of it all just might make them abstain, or make darn sure they've got a really good condom and that they know how to use it!!!!

Cheers from the Rockies
4

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 12/05/2008 09:44:12
By the by, isn't the UN about to hammer Scotland for NOT doing anything to lower teen pregnancies during the last five years?

Hmmm?
5

whitepuddinsupper,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 11:27:49
Under 16s are still children in so many ways. Anybody that supports these plans doesnt have teenage children of their own. It is bleeding obvious to anyone who has been through parenting that a child under 16 has absolutely no chance of coping as a parent. Therefore any move that could be seen as condoning uderage sex is foolish and it will be the new born child that pays the cost in its life.
Kids will always want to grow up too fast, thats part of growing up but you cant always get what you want right, even as an adult.

6

Rv2!,

12/05/2008 14:36:12
Number 4: You start by claiming girls should also be responsible. Then a sentence or two later you state "A need to FORCE teen boys to become financially responsible for the new life"... I find it disgusting in this modern world that the man is always the responsible person. Women are screwing guys all around the country for money for a child. Even if the father is unemployed or on low income and the mother is working a well paid job. Time for equality. A child should be given a fair upbringing yes, and that upbringing should be calculated out of the earnings of both parents and taken as a percentage of their earnings. Why should the man pay the most? He may have got the girl pregnant, but it probably wasn't him who _decided to keep_ the child.
7

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 12/05/2008 22:28:08
Hello Alban,

I see. You're more worried about what the neighbors will think, than you are about the severe psychological, emotional, societal, and financial impact, it will have on the kids having sex.

Everyone wants money without necessarily having to work: should we then annul the bank robbery laws; and allow anyone who who wants money to just walk into a bank anytime they want and extract money?

Personal responsibility is the reason the age laws need to be increased: so that children are no longer having children.

Compare the unwed pregnancy rates of the 50's and 60's with those of today. Are you going to tell me that teens didn't want to have sex in the 50's and 60's, but they do today?

Personal responsibility and personal control of ones desires is the difference: parents, family, and yes community, demanded MORE of people, not less-as is the case today.

Hedonism has become the Secular Person's religion; and anyone taking people to task for their lack of personal responsibility and control, is considered a 'prude' or 'out of touch', or 'not realistic' in expectations.

It's precisely that, expectations, which need to be raised, rather than abandoned, because the Hedonistic Religion of you Secular types, have literally destroyed society and culture, and caused untold misery.

Cheers from the Rockies

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.