You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Age of consent storm over BBC debate about making sex legal for girls under 16
2009-09-23
A BBC programme is to feature a call for the age of consent to be lowered.
"Younger than seven, next thing to heaven!"
Law professor John Spencer will argue that the current age of consent, fixed at 16, criminalises 'half the population'.
That'd be the half the population that's over the age of consent that wants to get into the drawers of the half of the population that's under age of consent? I hadn't realized the division was quite that 50-50.
His controversial views will be debated on the BBC Radio 4 programme Iconoclasts tomorrow evening.
Doesn't even matter if they're close relatives with birth control, does it?
In a preview of the live programme, BBC programme makers said that the Cambridge academic will argue that it should be 'legal for young teenagers to have sex.
"How young?"
"Well, we usually like to wait until they're outta diapers..."

He says the age of consent, fixed at 16 by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, makes criminals of half the population'.
Lotsa societies don't have an age of consent. They're the ones where everybody wants to live, aren't they?
Last night MPs said it was 'ludicrous' to consider lowering the age of consent at a time when teenage pregnancy rates are still soaring.
"It ain't the pregners whut bothers us! It's the jail time!"
The latest figures show that 42,900 under-18s and 8,200 under16s became pregnant in England and Wales in 2007, with most of the pregnancies ending in abortion. The Government's controversial teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010, but teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995.
Ending pregnancies doesn't cut the number of conceptions. Y'gotta look around for some cause that's related to the effect. Now, what could it be? Of course! If you just let more dirty old men diddle them whilst they're still maidens that'll surely cut the number of conceptions! Stands to reason!
Professor Spencer, who will set out his views before being challenged by a panel of experts, was unavailable last night.
Had a date with a hot 12-year-old?
But he has previously argued that the current laws surrounding the age of consent are 'deeply unsatisfactory'.
"Yasss. There's a 10-year-old lives on my block. She's a tasty lass, but in a year or two she'll be past her prime..."
He is expected to argue that laws are heavy-handed and unenforceable with severe penalties for 'minor offences'.
If she's a child she can't give consent. That makes it rape, if only statutory. Rape used to be a capital offense. A bit heavy-handed, I'll admit, but it did cause the lechers to wait until the girlies at least grew bosoms in most cases, and it thinned the herd of the ones that couldn't wait..
Tory MP David Davies said: 'It is vital that the law protects vulnerable young people from exploitation by adults.
You'd think that was what the law was all about unless you were a professor or a lawyer.
'There are already far too many young people having underage sex and we have a terrible record for teenage pregnancies.'
Perhaps we as a society should do something about it other than make it easier for olde farts to legally grope the little things?
Fellow Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said: 'The proposition that the age of consent should be lowered is absolutely appalling. The situation is bad enough at the moment with high rates of teenage pregnancies and sexual diseases.
"Yeah, but it's so much easier to get them into the bunk when they haven't heard it all before..."
'I don't detect a great deal of public support for this. If there was, I would argue that it should be debated. I can only assume the BBC is trying to create the debate.'
Only because the populace doesn't regularly descend on BBC offices with torches and pitchforks...
Senior police officers have also sparked controversy by calling for the age of consent to be reduced to as young as 13. Two years ago, Chief Superintendent Clive Murray argued that the law does not distinguish between sexual abuse and 'youthful natural instinct'.
Perhaps it should? How hard is it to conceive of a law that recognizes that young 'uns occasionally play doctor or even hide the baloney but that prescribes the gallows for Chester the Molester? Perhaps if there was a government worth the powder it'd take to blow it away it would? Guy Fawkes to the White Courtesy Phone!
In 2006 Terry Grange, former chief constable of Dyfed-Powys Police, claimed that men as old as 30 who have sex with underage girls should not necessarily be classed as paedophiles.
Sounds like the former Chief Constable was having a hard time with the concept of Look but Don't Touch as he walked his former beat.
European countries including Austria, Bulgaria and Croatia set the age of consent at 14. It is 13 in Spain.
And what higher goal could the Land of Hope and Glory aspire to than to be just like Bulgaria and Spain?
A BBC spokesman defended the decision to broadcast Professor Spencer's views and insisted the topic would be dealt with in a 'sensitive manner'.
"... so then I grabs her little bubbies an' I sez..."
He said: 'Iconoclasts is a live discussion programme, in which a controversial viewpoint from an individual who has professional credibility in his or her field is discussed, explored in detail and robustly challenged by panellists. 'The programme does not advocate the issue, but is a platform for an individual viewpoint and a starting point for serious debate.'
Then why's the live audience relieved of its rotted fruit and dog turds before being allowed to take its seats?
Posted by:Fred

#10  Did anyone notice that those arguing *against* pedophilia were doing so because of the "pregnancy rate", *not* because it was wrong and evil?

I think that is the problem with the Tories in a nutshell. They think of government first, instead of the people first.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-09-23 19:12  

#9  I suspect that a mid-teen age of consent is primarily a recent (last 100 years or so) western more. It was only in the past few years that Hawai'i raised it's legal age of consent up to 16 (from 14, I think). It was vigorously fought because it was contrary to the customs of a large part of the population, including native Hawai'ians and those of asian descent.

Still have a similar cultural dissonance problem with cockfighting (yes this is a totally different subject, not a variation on the first).
Posted by: Mercutio   2009-09-23 17:16  

#8  I think the real thrust of this debate (excuse the bad pun) is that the Moslem faith seems to condone sex with minors that borders on pedophilia.

I agree with Mr. Carville: let's not overlook the influence of the "asian" constituency that punches way above its weight class in UK politics.
Posted by: xbalanke   2009-09-23 11:58  

#7  I think the real thrust of this debate (excuse the bad pun) is that the Moslem faith seems to condone sex with minors that borders on pedophilia.

I get the feeling that the BBC is advocating legalizing pedophilia and other assorted sexual abuse and exploitation of the young.
Posted by: James Carville   2009-09-23 11:50  

#6  The dirty little secret that no one talks about is that virgins aren't very good at it. Good sex is an aquired skill. Chastity before marriage made perfect sense when marriage meant something, but it's hard in a modern secular society to make a strong case for holding back on our sexual impulses. That leaves us with no clear guidelines to give to and to enforce with our teenage budding adults. At what age or under what criteria should a person be held accountable for their sexual activity? It's easy to give a shallow answer but very difficult to for an answer with depth. I don't know, but I am uncomfortable with the way things stand now. Now, someone can have consensual sex with virtually anyone within their age bracket, but a great crime has been committed if they stray even one day outside their allowed sexual age window. The law hates ambiguity, but life is naturally ambigious. I'd like to see some sort of gradient of responsibility for our youth that parallels their growth and development in maturity in other aspects of their lives. Alas, it wont happen. Ambiguity is just too threatening a concept for our institutions to permit.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2009-09-23 10:11  

#5  Sounds like some crazy-ass Jack Chick comic... you know the one where Satanists take over America and try to turn it into Sodom and Gomorrah or some such.
Posted by: 11A5S   2009-09-23 08:19  

#4  There's a deep hatred and contempt bred into the left & academics for the bourgeois, i.e. the middle class, with its stable social manners and lifestyle. They much prefer the decadence of the aristocrats and the poverty and lack of social and economic roots of an underclass.

For it is the middle class that stands in the way of their power and control. Marx saw that clearly, which is why his ideology and strategies focused on destroying the middle class.

You can do that by violent revolution but, as Gramsces noted, you can do it more slowly by eroding in every way the pillars of social stability: religion, family structures, economic self-responsibility etc.

Above all it is necessary to destroy, ridicule and undercut common sense. Once people rely on common sense instead of nominalized ideological cant, it's much harder to overthrow them. Most civilizations fall due to rot within ... external aggression is merely the final push.
Posted by: lotp   2009-09-23 07:50  

#3  It sounds like the police just don't want to enforce the law on the lower classes, when they could be more profitably going after good citizens defending themselves against burglars.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-09-23 06:44  

#2  I believe the old social remedies work best. A beating, tar and feathers and a rail out of town plane to Riyadh.
Posted by: ed   2009-09-23 06:35  

#1  What did Bill Clinton do now?
Posted by: whatadeal   2009-09-23 04:21  

00:00