Society's View of Age
Notifications OFF
Hello all,
I don't post often, but read the forum daily for the support it provides.
I've noticed a number of posts where the communication is with children of 13,14,15 & 16. When I was young (admittedly a long time ago now and society has changed a lot!), I certainly did not think of myself as a child at 14 onwards - in fact at 14 I did, for a short period, go out with a 23 year old! I was engaged at 17 (to a different person who is still with me and who I never want to lose).
For my parents generation, it was common to leave school at 14 to start work and be regarded as old enough to take responsibility for themselves. In fact my husband left school at 15 to start work.
I suppose what I am trying to say in a roundabout way, is that society has changed so much as it now regards anyone under 18 as a child, when they really are not - they may be somewhat immature but they are not really children. There are very contadictory views in modern society as 16 year olds in Wales and Scotland can vote in local elections and for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies - but they are not considered old enough to have a relationship with someone over 18 - online at least!
Just because someone over 18 has an attraction to someone of 14, 15, 16 or 17 does not make them 'attracted to children' and deserving of the 'p' label.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there shouldn't be protection for young people against unwanted attention, but the automatic view that anyone over 18 chatting on-line with a 14 year old is doing something wrong surely can be questioned?
Over to you for discussion!!
I don't post often, but read the forum daily for the support it provides.
I've noticed a number of posts where the communication is with children of 13,14,15 & 16. When I was young (admittedly a long time ago now and society has changed a lot!), I certainly did not think of myself as a child at 14 onwards - in fact at 14 I did, for a short period, go out with a 23 year old! I was engaged at 17 (to a different person who is still with me and who I never want to lose).
For my parents generation, it was common to leave school at 14 to start work and be regarded as old enough to take responsibility for themselves. In fact my husband left school at 15 to start work.
I suppose what I am trying to say in a roundabout way, is that society has changed so much as it now regards anyone under 18 as a child, when they really are not - they may be somewhat immature but they are not really children. There are very contadictory views in modern society as 16 year olds in Wales and Scotland can vote in local elections and for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies - but they are not considered old enough to have a relationship with someone over 18 - online at least!
Just because someone over 18 has an attraction to someone of 14, 15, 16 or 17 does not make them 'attracted to children' and deserving of the 'p' label.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there shouldn't be protection for young people against unwanted attention, but the automatic view that anyone over 18 chatting on-line with a 14 year old is doing something wrong surely can be questioned?
Over to you for discussion!!
Post deleted
Post deleted
I think the age bracket of 16-18 is a very tricky area!!
A child of 16 can consent to sex. But by law that's exactly what they are - children.
An 18yr old and a 17yr old who were born in the same year are in dangerous water because one has turned 18.. yet they are the same peer group.
You cant buy cigarettes until you're 18, but until recently with a parents consent you can get married at 16..!? A child bride quite literally. (I think this is 18 now).
It's a very grey area and navigating it as a parent to support your children in the first place is extremely hard - of course we people here have an added extra to contend with... *eye roll*
A child of 16 can consent to sex. But by law that's exactly what they are - children.
An 18yr old and a 17yr old who were born in the same year are in dangerous water because one has turned 18.. yet they are the same peer group.
You cant buy cigarettes until you're 18, but until recently with a parents consent you can get married at 16..!? A child bride quite literally. (I think this is 18 now).
It's a very grey area and navigating it as a parent to support your children in the first place is extremely hard - of course we people here have an added extra to contend with... *eye roll*
As a mom of teenagers I can see both sides of this. I'd be horrified if anyone more than 10 years older than them spoke to them in the same way that my partner spoke to someone he believed to be 14. I've tried to teach them how to keep themselves safe online from a young age and since the knock we've had discussions around porn and also being mindful that if they are sent indecent pictures by peers as they cross that border of being 18 they could be charged with viewing or making iioc.
For me personally the fact that at 16 you can legally have a sexual relationship but images cover anyone under 18 creates a grey area.
I take on board that all teenagers are different but I think we have a sensible cut off point in terms of the age of consent for having sex and I believe images should have the same age. I also think if you have a 19 year old who has a conversation with a 15 year old this should never get to court because they are still peers. Images are harder for me to pass comment on unless the teenager has taken it themselves. The circumstances that teenagers find themselves in at times are incredibly dangerous because they can sometimes lack the understanding to make good choices, this combined with drugs and alcohol makes for some very vulnerable young people.
For me personally the fact that at 16 you can legally have a sexual relationship but images cover anyone under 18 creates a grey area.
I take on board that all teenagers are different but I think we have a sensible cut off point in terms of the age of consent for having sex and I believe images should have the same age. I also think if you have a 19 year old who has a conversation with a 15 year old this should never get to court because they are still peers. Images are harder for me to pass comment on unless the teenager has taken it themselves. The circumstances that teenagers find themselves in at times are incredibly dangerous because they can sometimes lack the understanding to make good choices, this combined with drugs and alcohol makes for some very vulnerable young people.
There is so much I could say but I wont but back in the day a long while it was very different
Lee1969 what you said about the way they class and portray in the media is so wrong
Again it is not to take away what my son has done but they used and described so much that was not illegal and the judge told the prosecution they had no evidence to support some of the claims and she told them this will not be taken in to account but used and twisted to unimaginable proportion x
Lee1969 what you said about the way they class and portray in the media is so wrong
Again it is not to take away what my son has done but they used and described so much that was not illegal and the judge told the prosecution they had no evidence to support some of the claims and she told them this will not be taken in to account but used and twisted to unimaginable proportion x
Post deleted
Hi Daffodil
That is interesting what yout GP said. As I was only recently reminded that young people on the autistic spectrum are on average about 1/3 of their age behind their peers in their social development/skills. Based on this information the 3-4 years age gap would be even lower when looking at social development and should make the case of not pursuing a conviction even stronger.
That is interesting what yout GP said. As I was only recently reminded that young people on the autistic spectrum are on average about 1/3 of their age behind their peers in their social development/skills. Based on this information the 3-4 years age gap would be even lower when looking at social development and should make the case of not pursuing a conviction even stronger.
I know we have talked about different cultures. But one charity advert always gets to me - about how girls are forced to marry men much older than themselves and have babies as children. Are all the men P's then?
Please excuse me if I speak out of turn.....
Please excuse me if I speak out of turn.....
Post deleted
Post deleted
For me I want to ensure the most precious and vulnerable aspects of community as in our children are protected. If we can't achieve that what have we become?!
I want boys and girls to be educated about how to behave in a relationship. What is right, what isn't.
And what to do, and what support they should ask and get if things don't go to plan.
what touches are normal, what isn't. What behaviour is normal, what isn't. And for the judicial system to protect the most vulnerable.
And to ensure that sanctions are correct. No age limits, but ultimately, children are the most precious beings their well being is priority. If we can't achieve that, we are not a society, and that fills me with despair
I want boys and girls to be educated about how to behave in a relationship. What is right, what isn't.
And what to do, and what support they should ask and get if things don't go to plan.
what touches are normal, what isn't. What behaviour is normal, what isn't. And for the judicial system to protect the most vulnerable.
And to ensure that sanctions are correct. No age limits, but ultimately, children are the most precious beings their well being is priority. If we can't achieve that, we are not a society, and that fills me with despair
This is one of the reasons I kinda avoid coming here...
As someone who was abused and groomed from the ages of 6 all the way to 13-14, yes, they are kids. A 23 year old going out with a 14 year old is beyond innapropiate because the maturity of a 23 year old gives the him tools to manipulate a 14 year old easier, as immature as that 23 year old might appear to be.
Although it pains me what my loved one has done, I agree with the law and in a way I think is rather lenient at times. 18 should be the benchmark, I see no point on this grey area between 16 to 18 here in the UK.
As someone who was abused and groomed from the ages of 6 all the way to 13-14, yes, they are kids. A 23 year old going out with a 14 year old is beyond innapropiate because the maturity of a 23 year old gives the him tools to manipulate a 14 year old easier, as immature as that 23 year old might appear to be.
Although it pains me what my loved one has done, I agree with the law and in a way I think is rather lenient at times. 18 should be the benchmark, I see no point on this grey area between 16 to 18 here in the UK.
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user
Hello everyone,
Thank you to you all for posting on the forum and for the support you are providing to each other.
The discussion about the law and people’s ages is an important one and we wanted to share a few thoughts. The first is to acknowledge that it is not unusual for people to be a bit confused about the different age cut-off points in relation to the laws around sexual offences. For example, indecent images concern sexual images of under 18s, while the offences of grooming or sexual communication with a child related to under 16s. The law about indecent images was changed about 20 years ago, and it did previously relate to images of under 16s (and Page 3 models in The Sun were often aged 16 or 17), in order to make the law the same across different countries, in part presumably in response to the challenges of policing the internet. You can find more information about the law on our Stop It Now! website: https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/concerned-about-your-own-thoughts-or-behaviour/concerned-about-use-of-the-internet/get-the-facts/uk-law/
Secondly, the law is necessarily a blunt instrument and these age cut-off points can feel a bit arbitrary when applied to individual cases. This is why the authorities, like the police and CPS, use discretion and consider the context in which an alleged offence has taken place as well as the ages, maturity and capacity to consent of those involved. These are often delicate decisions given that the developmental path to maturity is not straight-forward and varies from person to person. It also extends beyond the age of 18, and our brains are not fully developed until we are in our early to mid-20s; even if, as a society, we have to draw the legal line somewhere. Likewise, social norms change over time (as does the law, albeit more slowly) which means that we need to judge individual situations within their current context and not by the benchmarks of the past.
The other really critical issue is that children express their vulnerability in different ways. Some young teenagers will engage in risky, provocative sexual behaviour, while others will be more withdrawn and isolated. However, regardless of how young people relate to their peers and adults, and how they come across, our view is that it is right that the law seeks to protect them, and to minimise the risk of others exploiting their vulnerability, whatever that looks like.
Thanks again to you all for reading and posting on this forum. If you would like to discuss this or gain further support, please do not hesitate to contact the Stop It Now! helpline on 0808 1000 900.
Take care.
Thank you to you all for posting on the forum and for the support you are providing to each other.
The discussion about the law and people’s ages is an important one and we wanted to share a few thoughts. The first is to acknowledge that it is not unusual for people to be a bit confused about the different age cut-off points in relation to the laws around sexual offences. For example, indecent images concern sexual images of under 18s, while the offences of grooming or sexual communication with a child related to under 16s. The law about indecent images was changed about 20 years ago, and it did previously relate to images of under 16s (and Page 3 models in The Sun were often aged 16 or 17), in order to make the law the same across different countries, in part presumably in response to the challenges of policing the internet. You can find more information about the law on our Stop It Now! website: https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/concerned-about-your-own-thoughts-or-behaviour/concerned-about-use-of-the-internet/get-the-facts/uk-law/
Secondly, the law is necessarily a blunt instrument and these age cut-off points can feel a bit arbitrary when applied to individual cases. This is why the authorities, like the police and CPS, use discretion and consider the context in which an alleged offence has taken place as well as the ages, maturity and capacity to consent of those involved. These are often delicate decisions given that the developmental path to maturity is not straight-forward and varies from person to person. It also extends beyond the age of 18, and our brains are not fully developed until we are in our early to mid-20s; even if, as a society, we have to draw the legal line somewhere. Likewise, social norms change over time (as does the law, albeit more slowly) which means that we need to judge individual situations within their current context and not by the benchmarks of the past.
The other really critical issue is that children express their vulnerability in different ways. Some young teenagers will engage in risky, provocative sexual behaviour, while others will be more withdrawn and isolated. However, regardless of how young people relate to their peers and adults, and how they come across, our view is that it is right that the law seeks to protect them, and to minimise the risk of others exploiting their vulnerability, whatever that looks like.
Thanks again to you all for reading and posting on this forum. If you would like to discuss this or gain further support, please do not hesitate to contact the Stop It Now! helpline on 0808 1000 900.
Take care.
I think the main issue with all of this is that the internet provides a shield to reality. I'm sure 90%+ of the men convicted of communication offences would never approach a teen in real life and have the same conversations or do anything. We are absolutely lacking in education around internet safety, we teach children to be careful and parents to be mindful but we are not teaching potential offenders. I'm referring mainly to cases where they are decoys and conversation is initiated by decoys because obviously there are offenders who purposely seek out minors. I don't think online offenders (until it blows up in their face) realise the trauma and harm they can do to minors so to me the answer is education in a lot of cases. All of the money spent prosecuting some of these cases on here would be better suited in campaigns.