Rigth Or Wrong ?

[youngmafbog]

Legalize sex at 14? Personally I consider it a bad thing. Lowering the age then makes younger ( < 14) people think it will be ok as they are 'nearly 14'

Campaigners claim they are not able to discuss birth control etc, but what tosh.

As for legalizing nudity, Seems ok to me so long as there is a law against ugly sights on display (yep, including me!)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4738306/teenagers-should-be-able-to-have-sex-at-14.html

[LeMarchand]

Can't read link without being naughty (Sun site banned at work - I'm on a break), but from your description wrong for the same reason. Also wrong because (despite what they think and what those of us who are older now thought at the time) most 16 year olds don't know what the hell they are doing, let alone 14 year olds. Why can't birth control be discussed? Do we not discuss elections and politics with those under 18?

I know there will always be teenagers having sex, but I don't think it's a good idea to encourage it.

Not sure what the nudity part refers to, but against the idea of being allowed to show nude photos of youngsters, too.

[atalanta]

When the "age of consent" was first brought in, it was to prevent child prostitution. If we lower the age to 14, there will be 14 year old prostitutes on the streets, and the law will be unable to do anything about them. Or for them.
Think of the recent grooming scandals.

[shoota]

Nudity itself is not illegal.
You can't be charged with being nude but people who do wander round naked are proceeded against under public order offences (assuming there is no 'sexual/indecent' aspect of the incident) often unsuccessfully.

[shoota]

This from the BBC news magazine:

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 it is not an offence to be naked in public in England and Wales. It becomes an offence if it can be proved the person stripped off with the intention to cause distress, alarm or outrage.

Then they run the risk of three possible offences, says a spokesman for law firm Kingsley Napley. These are:

• Indecent exposure - an offence under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

• Intentional harassment, alarm or distress under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986

• "Outraging public decency" under common law

If a case did get to court the onus would be on the prosecution to prove this intention to upset. If found guilty, the offender would face anything from a fine to several years in prison.

In Scottish law there is no statutory offence, just the common law offence of offending public decency - a strand of the breach of the peace. The test is essentially the same as in English law - that a member of the public has been put in a state of fear or alarm.

[shoota]

Europe has widely differing views on the age of consent, 14 is not uncommon:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

[LeMarchand]

"The test is essentially the same as in English law - that a member of the public has been put in a state of fear or alarm. "

I'm amazed that religious nutters haven't brought private prosecutions against people who don't match their distorted versions of decency!

[shoota]

They do LeMarchand, (although they don't have to be religious) often people in private secluded gardens are reported by peeking neighbours for doing nothing other than lying on a sunlounger naked.
There was a case recently where a middle aged female naturist was reported to the Police for sunbathing naked, on investigation the Police found that she could only be seen by hanging out of a window and using a mirror - the neighbour was done for harassment :-)

[Zeuhl]

I believe nudity is legal in public places in Spain (beaches being an obvious example) though, as in Greece, common sense has led to it being more usual on some beaches more than others.

Of course the Germans have a much more tolerant, less repressed attitude to the body particularly in the appropriate context such as bathing, sun bathing and saunas.

[shoota]

Prudish victorian morals do seem to still linger in the UK. Or are our esteemed politicians frightened of alienating a portion of the populace?

[Old_Geezer]

I guess they just don't wish to give kids a criminal record simply because they experimented before they were old enough to deal with the consequences, which is a reasonable aim. But one has to draw a line somewhere, one doesn't wish to appear to give tacit approval, and have all kids assume they've been given a green light. And especially not to older folk who have desires to prey on the young. 16 seems fine to me as long as judges can make rational decisions taking circumstances into consideration.

As fo nudity, well I tend to think we are brought up to be far too prudish in this country. I don't want your nudist desires pushed in my face, but be good, don't sit on my bicycle saddle, and as far as I am concerned you can wander about as naked as you wish, regardless whether you are beautiful or ugly.

[Mick-Talbot]

Definitely Worng !

[ummmm]

Two 14 year olds having sex won't get a criminal record. A 25 year old having sex with a 14 year old might.

[ummmm]

I think it should be left at 16. Even at 16 many don't seem mature enough to be having sex.

[PiedPiper13]

16 year olds are children.

[ummmm]

Not all.

[PiedPiper13]

Wisdom and a sense of responsibility are born out of years of experience.

A child of 16 has yet to develop either.

[ummmm]

So what age would you suggest?

[Zeuhl]

Are /Wisdom and a sense of responsibility / essential prerequisites for enjoying sex?

I'm sure I enjoyed quite a bit of sex before I acquired either - assuming I ever did.

Indeed, experiencing sexual relationships was probably a significant part of developing whatever wisdom and responsibility I have.

[PiedPiper13]

It would be almost impossible to prevent juveniles from experimenting with sexual contact

I have no answer regarding age of consent, maybe 16 is the best age of consent.

Perhaps best left to parental guidance and advice.

[hc4361]

Sex at 14 isn't even going to be considered, let alone legalised.

Another non-story making headlines.