I was so very shocked to find out that in Japan the age of consent for sex is only 13!!!!!!!

I find that most disturbing. I think that in this country the age of consent should be increased to at least 18..What do you think?

16/17 seems about the right age.

13 is very worrying. They have fetishes for school girls over there don't they?

Until the Victorian Fundamental Christians got hold of it in the late 19th century, the age of consent in this country was also 13.

Japan isn't a Christian country, therefore does not see sex as a bad or evil thing, therefore sees no need to raise the age of consent. Some people are ready at a younger age, but that doesn't mean that all Japanese people start having sex at 13. Shinto and Buddhism (the two religions of Japan) see sex as completely natural, and so see no need to make it forbidden.

this link puts things into perspective.


http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

somehow I don't think the age of consent is solely based upon religious belief

How do they protect a 13 year old from a potential peadophile? Can someone at the age of 40 have sex with a 13 year old with her consent and not be arrested?

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
How do they protect a 13 year old from a potential peadophile? Can someone at the age of 40 have sex with a 13 year old with her consent and not be arrested?

Unfortunately yes...ridiculous aint it?

At the risk of repeating myself (again)..
I think there's a big difference between knowing and understanding.

16/17 is about right IMHO

At 13 you know nothing.

I guess it's basically a controlling device ...

Tell the people that natural human activity (what we are naturally supposed to do) is bad / evil ... and that you need get to 'god' through them acting as a middle man ... to be forgiven for all that is natural in you ... and what do u have ...

Riki Tiki Tavi Mongoose at your door no more, no more . . .

Won't be comin' around for to kill'a your snakes no more my love . . .

No, of course it isnt based solely on religious belief.

Japan is a very traditional country, and throughout history - all over the world - until very recently, people have only had short life expectancies. This has meant that people have had to start reproducing at a younger age than is necessary for us in modern times, as otherwise the population would die out. This meant that young people sometimes as young as 11 or 12 would be having children.

In modern times in developed countries, this is no longer necessary, as we have good medical care, effective immunisations, and we eat and live better than we ever have before. However, seeing a person under the age of 16 as a child is a very modern phenomena, and one which the Japanese do not adhere to. They see no black and white distinction between child and adult, more a gradual progression.

Adulthood, and thus acceptance of sexual activity, for a lot of nations comes with puberty. We do not agree with that in this country for many reasons, including our longer life expectancy and the victorian laws.

Young people have always experimented with sex - this is not bad or wrong, merely nature taking over. It is when older people take advantage of the young peoples gradual sexual awakening through abuse etc that things go wrong. But consentual sex between young people has always existed, and always will.

Originally posted by LittleWitch
Japan isn't a Christian country, therefore does not see sex as a bad or evil thing.

Christianity doesn't see it is a bad or evil thing, you can't say that as a blanket remark. Outside of marriage it does yes, but the bible speaks openly about it within marriage.

Originally posted by Jonesy
Christianity doesn't see it is a bad or evil thing, you can't say that as a blanket remark. Outside of marriage it does yes, but the bible speaks openly about it within marriage.

But it is essentially a device to control people ... and IMHO ... it is a wholey unnatural and very harmful one.

It sickens me to the bone ... the underlying mechanics of it.

"sex is bad ... but if you get married ... only then is it good".

I cannot see it as anything other than the evil device of a mainstream religion to control people.

I think you're looking into it a little too deep. The theory is that it's something you save for someone that you see as your life partner and have made a long-term commitment to. THat's all, Whether or not you agree with that is obviously your prerogative, but when people start talking about some evil controlling mechanism, then that isn't really the point of it at all, far from it. It's nothing to do with being evil or exercising control for the sake of it. You could argue that any club or society in this country which has their own rules is trying to be some kind of evil maniupative controlling body over people, but that would be to look at it too deeply.

I don't think I am looking too deep ... I try and look 'under the hood' and see what's actually going on.

I am not saying it is bad or wrong to have only one "life partner" ... but that should be a freely made choice for an individual.

It could be argued that religion has trampled all over that freedom ... with constant messages that religion feeds us of "this is 'good'" ... and "that is 'bad'".

There is no room left for us to feel for ourselves and get inside ourselves and feel ... and then make up our own minds.

Religion has stolen that freedom from us.

It could also be argued that purpose of any group / organisation / religion ... is more about self perpetuation ... and less about the welfare of humanity.

But then again Jonesy ... things are as we see them ... so maybe there is something in what you say about me looking too deeply.

As for life partners ... I would love to have all that ... and to be truely truely loved and cherished and have someone who was also my friend and so much more ... but I feel so hurt and damaged by the constant barrage of messages we're fed by the media / mainstream religion etc ...

"this is good"
"this is bad"
"do this"
"don't do that"

*sighs*

Do people at the age of 13 really know nothing - or is it merely the social climate that dictates this?
A child regardless of whether it is right or wrong - can deal with a helluva lot from an early age and I am sure we know many 'children' who have grown up quick.
If a person is brought up in an environment that tells it that it is acceptable to have sex and children at a certain age then that person will adapt to suit what it is taught.

I dont' really want to argue the rights or wrongs on this as that isn't really my point - humans are capable of a great many things beyond the limits we impose on the age of the body.

Moon

A 13 year old has very little grasp of what sexual intercourse involves either physically or emotionally. A 13 year old isn't capable of effective fatherhood or motherhood.

Jamie I do know what you mean to be fair, because the media (and religion) could be seen to be meddling with people's lives and being very judgemental, don't do this, don't do that etc. I suppose it all depends whether you think it is possible to be religious yet maintain your free will. You obviously think that being christian for example removes that free will to an extent, which is true in a way because like you say there are rules and all that which mean you don't have a choice in certain matters, but then again, people know what the rules are before they commit themselves to it, so they are joining religion by virtue of their own free will and thus accept all that this entails, including rules about pre-marital relations etc......... it's a minefield out there :)

And when I said a 13 year old knows nothing, I was refering to the topic in hand.
A 13 year old has a lot to offer, I know my 13 year old has.

Wavey my point still stands. The human brain is capable of complrehending and dealing with ALOT. A child brought up to understand those concepts from a young age could well be able to deal with the emotional baggage that comes with it.

My point was merely that a society that prepared it's children properly would have no problem with a 13 year old age of consent....

Moon

Well.. difference of opinion then eh?

My original point still stands too.. iMHO 16-17 is old enough. It's too easy to decieve a child.

Holland has a similar age of consent, and the problems you might imagine, with STD's and pregnancy and increased abuse do not happen.
In fact they have a lower incidence of all those than here in the UK. The main difference that this is attributed too is effective education from a young age.

The problem of abuse is a vastly media overinflated one. The other two are simply problems of education.

There is also the point that the law will not stop experimenting teenagers, so it has no effect apart from making them feel guilty and hiding their behaviour. Nor will it stop a paedophile, as they are already criminalised... So it achieves nothing.

Jamie, you're talking a load of b*******. I'm a Christian, yet I don't necessarily disagree with sex before marriage.

Sid ... no I am not talkin ********.

I am speaking from the heart and saying what I feel and what I think about this issue ...

If you disagree ... please say which bit you don't agree with ... and maybe we can debate it.

The main point that I am trying to make is that it is harmful for the christian church to push the idea that sex (before marriage) is bad.

The way I see it Sid ...

The love that two people have for each other is between those 2 people alone ... and is nobody else's business.

What business does the church have in saying it can sanction (ie. thu marriage) the feelings and sexual intimacy that 2 people share !!?

The Anglican church does not push the idea.

If people cannot think for themselves it is their own problem, not the problem of their religion.

Originally posted by Sidla
The Anglican church does not push the idea.

I think it does.

All churches that do the marriage thing ... implicitly push the idea that sex before marriage is wrong.

Originally posted by Sidla
If people cannot think for themselves it is their own problem, not the problem of their religion.

Yes I agree.

People should realise that they are the only ones who can think for themselves and solve their own problems (religion cannot do this for them).

There was me thinking that the orthodox Christian position on sex before marriage is that it's fornication ( fab word, makes it sound so much more exciting than other terms) and that it was generally frowned upon by most mainstream churches, including the Anglican one. That's certainly been the position of various Anglican vicars and speakers whose sermons I've attended.

This is horribly off topic though as sex outside of marriage & the age of consent are two different issues.

I don't think any human being anywhere in the world is fully developed at the age of 13, so are very much still children. People who have sex with 13 year olds are paedophiles regardless of what the law states in that country because a 13 year old is still a kid. If they find under developed people attractive they are paedophiles, simple as, and laws should be in place to protect the children.

is your alter ego G W Bush T020?

What the hell gives us the right to impose our moral and social fabric, framework and feelings on another culture? Are you so sure that we are "correct"...

There is no right and wrong in cultural issues like this, you cannot unilaterly go around and impose your views on another people.

And you are concentrating solely on intercourse between people of a different age. These laws apply equally to people who are both of that age!

I heard on the radio yesterday that a 14 year old girl has been placed on the sex offenders register for indecently assaulting a 13 year old boy, does anyone know the full story?

Originally posted by t020
I don't think any human being anywhere in the world is fully developed at the age of 13, so are very much still children. People who have sex with 13 year olds are paedophiles regardless of what the law states in that country because a 13 year old is still a kid. If they find under developed people attractive they are paedophiles, simple as, and laws should be in place to protect the children.

By that thinking, anyone who has sex with a 16 year old is a paedophile because in America they consider a 16 year old a child, unlike here. Its all a matter of opinion, we believe that 13 year olds shouldn't have sex because we have grown up being told that.

No that's not what I said now, is it? No law can change the age at which a human being becomes developed. At 16, physical development is far beyond the stage it is at 13, so there is a gulf between the 2 ages.

Originally posted by Cyclone
is your alter ego G W Bush T020?

What the hell gives us the right to impose our moral and social fabric, framework and feelings on another culture? Are you so sure that we are "correct"...

There is no right and wrong in cultural issues like this, you cannot unilaterly go around and impose your views on another people.


A 13 year old is underdeveloped and as such is a child. Obviously any adult who found such a physical state sexually attractive would be defined as a paedophile. Are we correct in protecting under developed teens from predatory paedophiles? I think so.

That's specious reasoning, some 13 year olds have gone through pubity fully, some 16 year olds have yet to enter pubity. Its very hard to put an age on what is a child.

Its also a little cynical to automatically think of paedophiles just because 13 year olds can have sex in some cultures... laws don't stop paedophiles in any country.

Also, countries that have lower ages of consent often have laws to protect younger people which come under the likes of indecent assalt.

I don't think theres a very high percentage of people who have fully physically developed by 13. Probably around 0.00001%. Laws do help stop paedophiles. In countries where the age of consent is 13, 40 year old men can freely have sex with (under developed and possibly even pre-pubescent) 13 year old girls, without any fear of the law. How can that not be criticised?

It can be, much like Americans can criticise a British man of 40 having sex with a 16 year old.... i'm not saying its right, but you have to accept that different countries have different laws... and maybe don't always look on the sinister side of things. It can't be good for the soul.

And thats all i have to say about that. :)

The fundamental difference you seem to be overlooking here is that there is a vast gulf in terms of physical maturity between a 13 year old and a 16 year old. MOST 13 year olds are nowhere near physical maturity, some may still be pre-pubescent. On the other hand most 16 year olds are nearing physical maturity and certainly resemble an adult much more closely than a 13 year old does. Physical maturity doesn't vary with the age of consent laws of a country you know.

In the end, the age od consent, whilst it may be a law, is pretty much non-enforcable. If two 12 year olds want to have sex, then they can, and it's unlikely there will be any repurcussions(sp!).

It's basically a guideline - a warning if you will, to those who are bothered about breaking the law. I definitely don't think they should lower it, as (in my experience) there is a huge amount of pressure put onto teenagers by their peers to have sex, when maybe they aren't ready, and a lot of mistakes are made. I think 16 is about right, but I think that sex education should be much more in depth, and taught from an earlier age, so that there is no embarrassment on talking about the subject. People may say that sex on TV and sex ed. has brought about higher levels of teenage pregnancy and under-age sex in general, but I would say tht the reason for this is the fact that sex is still very much a taboo subject. Kids need to be talking about wiht their parents from a young age, in the same way that they would talk about what they're having for tea, because if parents don't know what their kids are up to, then they can't advise them on what to do/not to do.

Sex education in schools is (believe me!) gone about in ridiculous way. Usually dumped on a student teacher who gets embarrassed themself, the kids learn quickly that they shouldnt talk about the subject without whispering, giggling etc. There's no such thing as a 'question and answer session' with a nurse, somehting that I think would be incredibly beneficial in dispelling myths about the subject. instead, you watch a video with a family walkingarounf the house naked, and some stoic old chap doing the voiceover, or some kids in a swimming pool: "Jim and Terence are both 13, but they look quite different. Jim has hair in funny places..."

I think you get the picture :smile:

there is no evidence to indicate that increased and earlier sex education leads to more underage sex. There is plenty of evidence to show the opposite though.

noseyrosie - the age of consent law isn't really in place to stop two children having sex together. Even if the police did know about this it is unlikely that any charges would be made. The law is in place to protect children from predatory adults that find children attractive, and the age at which a child is deemed to be physically and emotionally developed enough for sex is 16 in this country. I can't see how any country could deem this age to be 13, since children develop at similar ages regardless of which country they live in. Very few 13 year olds are physically mature, and are therefore still children.

Just one question I would like to ask.

How old do you think a person should be before they are considered mature enough to conceive, carry and look after children independently?

This is what sex is all about as far as our genes are concerned.

Simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot fulfil the criteria above, you shouldn't be having sex, regardless of age.

T013 - I must suggest that you gather some facts to back up your specious arguments if you wish to continue in this discussion.

regards
a mature personality

Originally posted by Siân
There was me thinking that the orthodox Christian position on sex before marriage is that it's fornication ( fab word, makes it sound so much more exciting than other terms) and that it was generally frowned upon by most mainstream churches, including the Anglican one. That's certainly been the position of various Anglican vicars and speakers whose sermons I've attended.

This is horribly off topic though as sex outside of marriage & the age of consent are two different issues.
I've never known the issue be mentioned in any sermons I've ever heard. If you're trying to say that Christians believe that people who have sex outside of marriage will be condemned to hell and eternal damnation then you're mistaken.

Anyway, agreed, this is off-topic. Not even sure how we got on to this subject.

Originally posted by Cyclone
T013 - I must suggest that you gather some facts to back up your specious arguments if you wish to continue in this discussion.

regards
a mature personality


I'll continue this discussion as much as I like, thank you very much. Are you disputing the fact that the majority of 13 year olds are NOT physically developed adults?

Regards,
A non-patronising personality

Well, I'm going to break a forum taboo here and actually agree with t020 here..

Originally posted by t020
noseyrosie - the age of consent law isn't really in place to stop two children having sex together. Even if the police did know about this it is unlikely that any charges would be made. The law is in place to protect children from predatory adults that find children attractive, and the age at which a child is deemed to be physically and emotionally developed enough for sex is 16 in this country. I can't see how any country could deem this age to be 13, since children develop at similar ages regardless of which country they live in. Very few 13 year olds are physically mature, and are therefore still children.

I can't see anything at all wrong in that statement. Under-16s having consensual sex is generally not dealt with in the courts. Adults having sex with under-16's of course is, and should be, regarded as a serious criminal offence.

Adulthood and the rights it gives also implies responsibilities. And one of those responsibilities is to be able to say "no", even if the under-age party is the one initiating sexual contact.

There may of course be arguments that come into play in the case of an adult (by age) who falls well below the normal mental capacity for their age, which is where things do get a bit more complicated - and why there are such things as social care.

The age of consent system may be flawed in that way, but there HAS to be a set age.

The only other alternative is that one should apply for a licence to have sex, and this licence be granted after assessment of the individual's understanding of sex and relationships. But that of course would mean that the terms of this licence would be dictated by those holding a certain viewpoint, and basically would mean the government even controlled private relations between citizens - quite an unsavoury thought. Plus they'd probably charge for the licence, making it a "sex tax"

Silly? Maybe, but the only viable alternative I could see to the age-of-consent system we already have.

I agree that there has to be a limit set.

But to lambast another culture because they choose a different age to ourselves shows a lack of understanding of the issues and probably a desire to say "were better than them".

Originally posted by Cyclone
I agree that there has to be a limit set.

But to lambast another culture because they choose a different age to ourselves shows a lack of understanding of the issues and probably a desire to say "were better than them".

But it doesn't. Human beings develop at similar rates regardless of culture. A 13 year old is still a child regardless of what country they are in, so to have an age of consent of 13 is to condone paedophilia.

this child adult distinction you are so sure about is a load of rubbish.

What happens between 15 and 364 days and the next day? Nothing is what. So there is no visible practical or real change between someone who is allowed to be sexually active and someone who is not.
Not to mention that every person is different anyway, so no single age would be correct across the board if it were even possible to identify a clear child/adult, non-sexual/sexual boundary, which it is not.

There is nothing mystical about 16, it's a number we chose. Other cultures choose a different age, it's their choice.