Age Of Consent - 13?

[Famine]

I think 13 is too young, the legal age of 16 is fine. Ultimately all this law change would do is allow older people to take advantage of kids, at an age when they are vulnerable to manipulation. There is no logical reason why the age should be lowered, not all kids are even sexually mature at that age.

Let's type that again, but from the perspective of an 18 country...

I think 16 is too young, the legal age of 18 is fine. Ultimately all this law change would do is allow older people to take advantage of kids, at an age when they are vulnerable to manipulation. There is no logical reason why the age should be lowered, not all kids are even sexually mature at that age.

If you're going to argue 16 is more logical than 13, you're going to need a rational argument for 16 being more logical than 18.

Remember, the age of sexual consent law exists only to provide for an "always a rape" offence to prosecute when someone has sex with someone under that age. It provides no deterrent for people who want to rape children, because they're already raping them and it is no deterrent for people who have feelings towards an individual child - it actually helps reinforce it through the whole romantic "forbidden love" thing.

According to Wikipedia, rape is defined as "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent." Therefore, is everyone that has sex with a mentally incapable person a rapist?

Everyone found guilty of the offence of rape is, whether the victim was a mentally incapable person or not.

Innocent until proven guilty. For an offence of rape to be committed, there must be evidence of sexual contact (generally penetrative) and evidence the individual did not or could not consent to it. If they have committed the offence - regardless of any reasonable defence (once an offence has been determined to have been committed, a reasonable defence for committing that offence may be offered) - then they are an offender. If the offence is rape, they're a rapist.

 

[Scaff]

Could a case not be made that you were raped by your partner, who you now have a particular disdain for? The "cheating" part was just added as a motive for claiming rape.

In answer to your question, yes that is obviously rape. But that's an extreme case; I'm arguing for the more ambiguous case. Is picking up girls from a bar/club essentially just a game of Russian roulette and something that should never be attempted unless you can be sure they're functioning mentally correct and are not drunk/high? CCTV will prove they left with you, as will numerous other things and feel free to lament my limited understanding of Biology, but can tests not be conducted to prove intercourse took place ?

UK law uses the following definition:

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on the 1st May 2004. The purpose of the Act was to strengthen and modernise the law on sexual offences, whilst improving preventative measures and the protection of individuals from sexual offenders. The Act extends the definition of rape to include the penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person. The 2003 Act also updates the law about consent and belief in consent.

The word 'consent' in the context of the offence of rape is now defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A person consents if she or he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The essence of this definition is the agreement by choice. The law does not require the victim to have physically resisted in order to prove a lack of consent. The question of whether the victim consented is a matter for the jury to decide, although the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) considers this issue very carefully throughout the life of a case.

To answer your first question (If you were drunk and you had sex with your partner, who you later discovered was cheating on you, what would you call it?), if both parties consented at the time, then no. Actions after the event would make no difference.

The key in your second set of questions would be if consent was given and if someone had the capacity to make the choice (i.e. how drunk they were), and yes it is potentially a difficult call. One thing I can tell you is that someone leaving a nightclub with you is not consent in any form at all, don;t ever take it as one (nor is them coming home with you, asking you into their home, etc).

 

[Famine]

As Ched Evans discovered.

And no, don't screw drunk girls. Doing something to someone who says it's okay because they're too stupid at the time to know what it even is is taking advantage of them. That's pretty much the core of the age of consent - don't bone kids because they're too stupid to know what it even is - so why it should be any different when the person is tripping off their tits escapes me.

 

[Exorcet]

Famine's pretty much covered it. Age isn't important. Maturity is. Maturity is hard to measure, so we use an arbitrary age. 13, 16, or 18, it shouldn't make much difference.

The thing is most parents don't want to imagine their baby doing the deed. Which is understandable

Why? Most kids are humans.

I don't think it's understandable, nor is the idea of "When you're older". That probably contributes more to the problem.

 

[Bigbazz]

Let's type that again, but from the perspective of an 18 country...If you're going to argue 16 is more logical than 13, you're going to need a rational argument for 16 being more logical than 18.

Remember, the age of sexual consent law exists only to provide for an "always a rape" offence to prosecute when someone has sex with someone under that age. It provides no deterrent for people who want to rape children, because they're already raping them and it is no deterrent for people who have feelings towards an individual child - it actually helps reinforce it through the whole romantic "forbidden love" thing.

That's easy, at 16 you're 3 years more developed than at 13, you can keep it going all the way up to 35 if you want to turn this into sillyness, some 16 year old girls could easily pass off as in their 20's, some women in their 20s could easily pass off as a 16 year old girl.

If you're going to get into an arguement about some girls being less/more developed mentally/physically at whatever age then it just becomes and endless discussion with no conclusion.

As for your forbidden love thing, the age of consent regardless of where you put it has no effect either way in this case.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Edit: Nevermind.

 

[Famine]

That's easy, at 16 you're 3 years more developed than at 13, you can keep it going all the way up to 35 if you want to turn this into sillyness

Uhh... that's the point. Well done for shooting down your own argument that 16 is more logical than 13.

If you're going to get into an arguement about some girls being less/more developed mentally/physically at whatever age then it just becomes and endless discussion with no conclusion.

Actually it has two conclusions.

The first is "adulthood". All rights and responsibilities are yours all at once. No sex, no driving, no alcohol (not even in the home) until you're a grown-up. That'll work out just swell.
The second is "educated individual choice". But then we can't put an arbitrary age limit on that and make it a law, so that'll never be very popular.

These points have, of course, already been made in this not-very-long thread...

As for your forbidden love thing, the age of consent regardless of where you put it has no effect either way in this case.

Again, thanks for repeating a point I just made back to me.

 

[Bigbazz]

Uhh... that's the point. Well done for shooting down your own argument that 16 is more logical than 13.Actually it has two conclusions.

The first is "adulthood". All rights and responsibilities are yours all at once. No sex, no driving, no alcohol (not even in the home) until you're a grown-up. That'll work out just swell.
The second is "educated individual choice". But then we can't put an arbitrary age limit on that and make it a law, so that'll never be very popular.

These points have, of course, already been made in this not-very-long thread...Again, thanks for repeating a point I just made back to me.

It wasn't really an arguement though, but rather a viewpoint of what I believe is reasonable compromise.

 

[Famine]

You didn't explain at any point why it's reasonable. You just stated 13 is too young and 16 is fine. That's the same argument as "10 is too young , but 13 is fine", or "16 is too young, but 18 is fine" - and free from reason, it's just a belief. Laws don't work well if they're written irrationally on individual belief.

The right time to do something that has emotional and physical consequences, whatever it is, is when you are ready to do it, understanding those consequences. It's not a number and it's not okay to go ahead and do it when you aren't ready just because someone believes you've gone round the Sun enough times.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Innocent until proven guilty. For an offence of rape to be committed, there must be evidence of sexual contact (generally penetrative) and evidence the individual did not or could not consent to it. If they have committed the offence - regardless of any reasonable defence (once an offence has been determined to have been committed, a reasonable defence for committing that offence may be offered) - then they are an offender. If the offence is rape, they're a rapist.

Regardless of whether or not it was prosecuted, the offence took place. Thus, the person is a rapist, albeit not a convicted rapist.

UK law uses the following definition:

To answer your first question (If you were drunk and you had sex with your partner, who you later discovered was cheating on you, what would you call it?), if both parties consented at the time, then no. Actions after the event would make no difference.

What if the person in question was drunk (not wrecked), therefore they couldn't legally consent by definition. Yes, there would be difficulty in proving that they couldn't consent but they still couldn't consent.

The key in your second set of questions would be if consent was given and if someone had the capacity to make the choice (i.e. how drunk they were), and yes it is potentially a difficult call. One thing I can tell you is that someone leaving a nightclub with you is not consent in any form at all, don;t ever take it as one (nor is them coming home with you, asking you into their home, etc).

Proving consent for sex is practically impossible, but proving consent for returning to a home etc. isn't. Big Vern would have a hard time arguing that the latter was given.

How would anyone know whether the person had the capacity to make the choice? Yes, in some cases it is clear; if a person is struggling to stand up it's beyond reasonable doubt to suggest they are in a state capable of consent, but not every "drunk" person is in this state. There is no set value that when exceeded means the person is incapable of making the decision.

As Ched Evans discovered.

And no, don't screw drunk girls. Doing something to someone who says it's okay because they're too stupid at the time to know what it even is is taking advantage of them. That's pretty much the core of the age of consent - don't bone kids because they're too stupid to know what it even is - so why it should be any different when the person is tripping off their tits escapes me.

But it's possible to be drunk/high/mentally impaired and know what it is. Not everyone who has a tipple is completely smashed. There is no black and white answer in this case, which is what makes it different from age. You can be sort of drunk but you can't be sort of underage.

 

[Famine]

Regardless of whether or not it was prosecuted, the offence took place. Thus, the person is a rapist, albeit not a convicted rapist.

Nope.

An offence is committed when there is proof the offence is committed. In the case of something like a traffic light camera catching you, there's proof of the offence. You can escape a conviction with a reasonable defence - such as "there was an ambulance coming from behind on blues and there was nowhere to manouevre to except through the junction". That's proof of the offence - the offence has been committed - and a reasonable defence that avoids conviction. You're a red-light jumper, but not convicted as one.

But it's possible to be drunk/high/mentally impaired and know what it is. Not everyone who has a tipple is completely smashed. There is no black and white answer in this case, which is what makes it different from age. You can be sort of drunk but you can't be sort of underage.

I've no idea what angle you're even going at now. You've gone from having sex with the educational subnormal being a guaranteed rape conviction to cheating partners to "sort of drunk" sex.

Of course you can be slightly dumber than usual and still be in control of your faculties. After all, there's dumb people allowed to be adults in society already. You're now arguing for a minimum blood alcohol of consent and an IQ of consent to be set...

There's no difference from being not capable of judging the risks properly because you're low intelligence than being not capable of judging the risks properly because you're drunk then being not capable of judging the risks properly because your mind has not developed. It's not being capable of judging the risks through deficiencies in cognition. Yet we place a set, arbitrary limit on one, but not the others.


And in case anyone's in any doubt, "no" means "no". In fact everything except "yes" means "no". No answer means "no". "Yes" doesn't mean "And your mate and the two guys filming it". And "Stop" means "Stop NOW" not "In a few strokes' time".

 

[Scaff]

What if the person in question was drunk (not wrecked), therefore they couldn't legally consent by definition.

If they are drunk enough to not give consent then they haven't given consent.

Yes, there would be difficulty in proving that they couldn't consent but they still couldn't consent.

Which is why a court and jury would come to a verdict based on the evidence that was available. However lets be honest that's not a situation I would advise you put to the test.

Proving consent for sex is practically impossible, but proving consent for returning to a home etc. isn't. Big Vern would have a hard time arguing that the latter was given.

Consent to enter a home is just that and nothing more, and if true consent is given then its rarely an issue (and I speak from experience that given you age I suspect you may not yet have).

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Nope.

An offence is committed when there is proof the offence is committed. In the case of something like a traffic light camera catching you, there's proof of the offence. You can escape a conviction with a reasonable defence - such as "there was an ambulance coming from behind on blues and there was nowhere to manouevre to except through the junction". That's proof of the offence - the offence has been committed - and a reasonable defence that avoids conviction. You're a red-light jumper, but not convicted as one.

So if I was to kill someone and destroy enough evidence, I would not have committed any offence?* Also, m8 pls we're not talking about ambulances LOL.

I've no idea what angle you're even going at now. You've gone from having sex with the educational subnormal being a guaranteed rape conviction to cheating partners to "sort of drunk" sex.

You know exactly what I'm getting at, or were the examples too difficult to understand? As stated in my previous post, the "cheating" was just added as a motive for reporting a rape. No where did I state implicitly that it would lead to a rape conviction, just that it could under my understanding of the law. You have yet to refute this.

Also I don't see the problem with the "sort of drunk" comment. Would you prefer if I said, "intoxicated person with a BAC of ~0.06%"?

Of course you can be slightly dumber than usual and still be in control of your faculties. After all, there's dumb people allowed to be adults in society already. You're now arguing for a minimum blood alcohol of consent and an IQ of consent to be set...

Yes.

Doing something to someone who says it's okay because they're too stupid at the time to know what it even is is taking advantage of them. That's pretty much the core of the age of consent - don't bone kids because they're too stupid to know what it even is - so why it should be any different when the person is tripping off their tits escapes me

How can you not understand what I was referring to? You implied that "high(maybe drunk?)" meant that someone was "tripping off their tits", which I said is not always the case.

There's no difference from being not capable of judging the risks properly because you're low intelligence than being not capable of judging the risks properly because you're drunk then being not capable of judging the risks properly because your mind has not developed. It's not being capable of judging the risks through deficiencies in cognition. Yet we place a set, arbitrary limit on one, but not the others.

Why?

And in case anyone's in any doubt, "no" means "no". In fact everything except "yes" means "no". No answer means "no". "Yes" doesn't mean "And your mate and the two guys filming it". And "Stop" means "Stop NOW" not "In a few strokes' time".

K.

If they are drunk enough to not give consent then they haven't given consent.

Exactly, how drunk is too drunk to give consent?

Which is why a court and jury would come to a verdict based on the evidence that was available. However lets be honest that's not a situation I would advise you put to the test.

I don't plan too...

Consent to enter a home is just that and nothing more, and if true consent is given then its rarely an issue (and I speak from experience that given you age I suspect you may not yet have).

No argument and yes, you're correct. Although currently it seems if I did, I run the risk of being a rapist, which isn't too high on my list of aspirations tbh.

*I don't plan on doing this either.

 

[Bigbazz]

You didn't explain at any point why it's reasonable. You just stated 13 is too young and 16 is fine. That's the same argument as "10 is too young , but 13 is fine", or "16 is too young, but 18 is fine" - and free from reason, it's just a belief. Laws don't work well if they're written irrationally on individual belief.

The right time to do something that has emotional and physical consequences, whatever it is, is when you are ready to do it, understanding those consequences. It's not a number and it's not okay to go ahead and do it when you aren't ready just because someone believes you've gone round the Sun enough times.

I don't need to explain, it isn't an arguement and I don't really care about explaining or proving my point, I honestly couldn't care less and was merely giving my 2pence on the subject of which I had a passing interest.

 

[Famine]

So if I was to kill someone and destroy enough evidence, I would not have committed any offence?

An offence would have been committed - the death of a human is always classed as an offence. Whether you committed it or not is for the courts.

Also, m8 pls we're not talking about ambulances LOL.

Nor motorways in Scotland.

You know exactly what I'm getting at, or were the examples too difficult to understand?

Ohhhhh dear.

As stated in my previous post, the "cheating" was just added as a motive for reporting a rape. No where did I state implicitly that it would lead to a rape conviction, just that it could under my understanding of the law. You have yet to refute this.

Why would I refute it when it's the case?

I have absolutely no idea of the relevance of it, but it absolutely could happen that someone claims rape - for whatever motivation - falsely after the fact and it leads to a conviction. And does.

Also I don't see the problem with the "sort of drunk" comment. Would you prefer if I said, "intoxicated person with a BAC of ~0.06%"?

Not really. I'm sure you've met some very lightweight drinkers who'd be on the floor at that - and some hardcore ones who wouldn't even blink. Since alcohol affects everyone's cognition differently.

Guh, imagine if everyone was different and an arbitrary limit enshrined in law didn't separate the "can" from the "cannot".

Yes.

Really? Amazing.

Exactly why do we need a law that says two adults with 80mg/ml alcohol (or whatever mindblowing arbitrary number you want to pick) can't have sex?

How can you not understand what I was referring to? You implied that "high(maybe drunk?)" meant that someone was "tripping off their tits", which I said is not always the case.

I don't recall implying anything of the kind and it's not relevant either way. If someone is not able to give consent through mental impairment - chemically or developmentally - they cannot give consent.

And that is black and white.

Why?

That'll be the question I posed originally...

Exactly, how drunk is too drunk to give consent?

That'll be "too drunk to consent".

Varies from person to person, you see. Like "intelligent enough to comprehend the risks and implications" varies from person to person and isn't magically bestowed after 16 orbits. For some it's earlier, for others much, much later.

The fun part? Sex takes two (or more). If the other person is too drunk/high/underdeveloped/stupid to understand whether consent has been given, it hasn't. If they think their partner is too drunk/high/underdeveloped/stupid to understand whether consent has been given, it hasn't. You see, part of having rights - like the right to have sex - is having responsibilities - like the responsibility not to stick it in because you think it's okay.


And that is one of the things you need to understand before you first have sex. Or drive. Or wield a gun. Or play sports. Or function in society. Or anything.

I don't need to explain, it isn't an arguement and I don't really care about explaining or proving my point, I honestly couldn't care less and was merely giving my 2pence on the subject of which I had a passing interest.

Which is odd as you said it was entirely reasonable. Yet have failed to give a single reason except that 16 is 3 more than 13 - while rejecting 18 being 2 more than 16 as reasonable. Hardly the basis for regulation.

 

[Bigbazz]

Which is odd as you said it was entirely reasonable. Yet have failed to give a single reason except that 16 is 3 more than 13

I don't see what is so odd about this, I think you're trying to make arguement for arguements sakes. Overthinking things and reading too much into what people write.

 

[Zenith]

You don't find making consent laws with a margin of error of 3 years to be odd?

There is such a thing as under thinking things. Use logic and scientific evidence to defend your design choices. Basic engineering.

 

[Bigbazz]

You don't find making consent laws with a margin of error of 3 years to be odd?

There is such a thing as under thinking things. Use logic and scientific evidence to defend your design choices. Basic engineering.

You on the other hand are not reading enough into what people have said and are a bit out of the loop here I think. You need to read the conversation in context of the whole thing.

And what on earth are you talking about scientific evidence and engineering? Are you even in the same thread?

Indeed.

 

[Zenith]

You on the other hand are not reading enough into what people have said and are a bit out of the loop here I think. You need to read the conversation in context of the whole thing.

And what on earth are you talking about scientific evidence and engineering? Are you even in the same thread?

Indeed.

Just because I haven't posted doesn't mean I haven't been reading. Reading more than one posts, funny idea that. I'm basically echoing Famine's questions about your age of consent ideas so maybe I'm a bit more "in the loop" than you're giving me credit for.

We're talking about making logical decisions and reasoning. This is the foundation of engineering and is very much related to the subject of law-making. You have yet to provide any reasoning for what you think should be the legal age of consent. Don't post if you are unable or unwilling to defend your ideas.

 

[Bigbazz]

Just because I haven't posted doesn't mean I haven't been reading. Reading more than one posts, funny idea that. I'm basically echoing Famine's questions about your age of consent ideas.

We're talking about making logical decisions and reasoning. This is very much related to engineering. You have yet to provide any reasoning for what you think should be the legal age of consent. Put the dunce hat back where it belongs or don't post if you are unable or unwilling to defend your ideas.

I don't need to provide any reason, it isn't about who is right or wrong, I could not care less. This has become more about people pushing other people around and creating arguements for arguements sakes, I don't want to discuss or argue about this subject past what I've already said.

You're quoting me with all your seriousness about something that I never said, that has nothing to do with what I really said, has nothing to do with engineering either. 16 is old enough, 13 is too young. If you want to think further into it that is your own choice but don't lob your expectations of explanation on me, I couldn't give a **** either way to be quite honest.

 

[Zenith]

I don't need to provide any reason, it isn't about who is right or wrong, I could not care less. This has become more about people pushing other people around and creating arguements for arguements sakes, I don't want to discuss or argue about this subject past what I've already said.

If you just want to state your opinion without question then write it on a note and throw it into the wind. Forums work best when we discuss.

You're quoting me with all your seriousness about something that I never said, that has nothing to do with what I really said, has nothing to do with engineering either.

*Sigh* Laws must be made using logic and data otherwise the opinion that the age of consent should 42 or 9 makes as much sense as yours.

16 is old enough, 13 is too young. If you want to think further into it that is your own choice but don't lob your expectations of explanation on me, I couldn't give a **** either way to be quite honest.

Why the heck would I want to think further into your completely unfounded ideas? Here's a good question for you: Why would we do it that way?

 

[Bigbazz]

If you just want to state your opinion without question then write it on a note and throw it into the wind. Forums work best when we discuss.



*Sigh* Laws must be made using logic and data otherwise the opinion that the age of consent should 42 or 9 makes as much sense as yours.



Why the heck would I want to think further into your completely unfounded ideas? Here's a good question for you: Why would we do it that way?

I'm not making laws, I'm making a passing comment of something I had a passing interest in on a computer games internet forum. Perspective.

 

[Zenith]

So I'll put you down for "unable" for the whole "unwilling/unable to defend viewpoints." Where'd that dunce hat go?

 

[Bigbazz]

So I'll put you down for "unable" for the whole "unwilling/unable to defend viewpoints." Where'd that dunce hat go?

Now with the insults to provoke a response! Why do I need to defend a viewpoint? you're just too funny. Like I said, people pushing other people around to create arguement for arguements sakes.


I dream for an internet when one can say something without having to go into a 6 page arguement full of 2000 word explanations for every topic of conversation. Sometimes it's nice to just say "I like cake, I had cake when I was 5" without having to go into the finer nuances of every detail.

Sometimes it's nice to just say something and then move on, I made that clear from the start and now I'm just sticking around to argue about arguing for arguement sake, as I said.

 

[Zenith]

Once again, if you want to write down an argument without bothering to defend it or answer questions then write it on a note and throw it into the wind. Alternatives include note in a bottle and keeping a diary.

You know, or when people completely disprove your point or simply ask you for your reasoning, you can try to defend it and learn something.

But masturbatory posting for the sake of posting is always cool.

 

[Bigbazz]

Once again, if you want to write down an argument without bothering to defend it or answer questions then write it on a note and throw it into the wind. Alternatives include note in a bottle and keeping a diary.

You know, or when people completely disprove your point or simply ask you for your reasoning, you can try to defend it and learn something.

Like I said several posts ago, it wasn't an arguement, I wasn't replying to anyone, I was commenting on the news story.

But masturbatory posting for the sake of posting is always cool

You're one to talk.

 

[Zenith]

Like I said several posts ago, it wasn't an arguement, I wasn't replying to anyone, I was commenting on the news story.

I didn't respond to your initial post. I responded to the one where you replied to Famine (that's one of two!) with your argument (that's them both!).

You're one to talk.

Right. Better luck on your next attempt.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't want to discuss or argue about this subject past what I've already said.

A forum might not be for you then.

16 is old enough, 13 is too young

We'll start this over: Nobody really gives a crap about anything else you said.

What we're asking is on what basis you think 13 is too young, and 16 old enough. That's as simple as it gets. Would 14 be too young and 15 old enough? Or 12 too young and 15 old enough? What about 14 and 17? How many years is too much of a difference? And why would any of those differences be right or wrong?

It isn't too much to ask someone to explain their viewpoint, particularly if it appears to have no logical basis.

If I went into one of the politics threads and said something like "actually, communism does make quite a bit of sense" and then threw a hissy fit when people asked me to explain why I thought that, it would probably look a bit odd. And it wouldn't really be in the spirit of forum discussion, either.

 

[Bigbazz]

A forum might not be for you then.

Because I don't want to go into discussing a subject that I think has no logical conclusion, that only invites pointless arguements for arguements sakes, a subject with too many dynamics and too many points of view, philosophies and factors. A subject that while I'l happily comment on it in a casual manner I don't fancy getting into a big pointless internet debate about.

Because of that forums are not for me? I'l happily discuss/argue/ponder my nut off all night on the right topic of conversation, but age of consent is not one of them. And had I not been quoted I would not have returned to the thread again.

Ultimately all this law change would do is allow older people to take advantage of kids, at an age when they are vulnerable to manipulation. There is no logical reason why the age should be lowered, not all kids are even sexually mature at that age.

At 16 you're 3 years more developed than at 13, you can keep it going all the way up to 35 if you want to turn this into sillyness, some 16 year old girls could easily pass off as in their 20's, some women in their 20s could easily pass off as a 16 year old girl.

If you're going to get into an arguement about some girls being less/more developed mentally/physically at whatever age then it just becomes and endless discussion with no conclusion.

Surprised that the whole thread has gone away from the actual discussion and just focussed on the fact that I don't want add to what I've said. Anyway, what I said earlier if not for slight wording already answers your question.

 

[Famine]

I don't see what is so odd about this, I think you're trying to make arguement for arguements sakes. Overthinking things and reading too much into what people write.

You said 16 was "a reasonable compromise":

It wasn't really an arguement though, but rather a viewpoint of what I believe is reasonable compromise.

It should be easy to provide reasoning for something that is reasonable.

If you're unable to provide reasoning, it's not reasonable. If you're unwilling to provide reasoning...

I think you're trying to make arguement for arguements sakes.

So, after saying that there's no logical reason for the age of consent to be 13, you've yet to provide a logical reason for the age of consent to be 16.

Surely if you have an opinion that is strong enough that you have to express it, it's strong enough to stand up to scrutiny? It's surely got reasoning behind it that's so strong that your adult mind - the one that has the ability (and right - and responsibility) to elect representatives based on its reasoning - has determined it's the only reasonable position?

I dream for an internet when one can say something without having to go into a 6 page arguement full of 2000 word explanations for every topic of conversation. Sometimes it's nice to just say "I like cake, I had cake when I was 5" without having to go into the finer nuances of every detail.

Sometimes it's nice to just say something and then move on, I made that clear from the start and now I'm just sticking around to argue about arguing for arguement sake, as I said.

Then stick to the comments section on the BBC's website or Daily Mail online. They really like fire-and-forget unsupported strongly held opinion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny but is expressed anyway. This is a forum. For discussion.