the gay age of consent in the uk is 16, what would you set it at?

Question

for two males to have sex with each other they both must be 16 as it is with straight people. i think we need a rethink on the age of consent(ideally make it lower) as we need laws that protect individuals against sex crimes and not laws that criminalise sexually activity between consent people.

Answer 1

I'd leave it as is. Although I would caveat it by not prosecuting two minors for enjoying each other sexually.

Answer 2

I think that if you start changing the laws just so that people won't fall foul of them, you have your priorities wrong.

It's fair to have the same limit for all forms of sexual activity, and 16 seems like the lowest age you could consider most people giving informed consent. However, I would have an exemption that the ages of the parties had to be more than (say) 2 years apart for a sexual act to be a crime on the basis of age. There's a world of difference between a 15 year old sleeping with a 17 year old and one sleeping with a 27 year old.

Answer 3

it is 16 for hetro's and gay men BUT not for lesbians...there is NO legal age for that unless a woman over 21 has sex with someone under 16 then it is classed as rape just like guys too!

No, I wouldn't change the age of consent as it gives a good benchmark for the protection of young people against others that would violate them. Sex is great but the emotional ramifications can't be understood by many under 16 although I am 31 and STILL don't get always deal well with the emotions of it and I am a pretty sorted kinda gal!

Answer 4

Well In Canada, the age of consent for anal sex is 18, while for sex in general, it's 14. There is a huge controversy of raising the age of consent to 16 right now because federal MP Vic Toews (pronounced TAZE) is trying to introduce a bill right now, and is one of the most fervently anti-gay politicians in Canada short of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Those approving of the bill say that it will protect children from pedophiles. Those opposing it say that it's only there to criminalize sexual activity and that it will prevent teens from getting proper birth control and discovering their own sexuality. In other words, it's just a law that will be there to keep teens from having sex. The age of consent for anal sex won't be lowered to 16 to balance things out, so gay sex will be further stigmatized. I see only bad things coming out of this. Cases of STI's and HIV will only rise and so will teen pregnancies as anyone under 16 won't be legally able to get proper birth control and protection.

And get this: Vic Toews also wants the lower the age that children can be criminally charged from 12 to 10. In his logic (if you can even call it that), kids and teens don't have the smarts to make responsible decisions about their own sexuality and shouldn't, but we'll put them in jail if they're found guilty.

Answer 5

some countries have lower ages of consent than 16. but in the uk, 16 is the legal age for both gay and heteros, which is fair. people can enlist into the army and die for their country at 16. 14 is too young. by the way, all those dudes making stoopid remarks about the gay fraternity ...culd actually be in denial.

Answer 6

Keep it at 16.

In Michigan homosexual consent isn't even allowed, so be happy you have that.

We still have sex anyway, but still it's pretty crazy.

16 is a good age because if i had sex at 15 I wouldn't have been fully aware and prepared for the world of sex I am now.

Answer 7

Why make it lower? It is 16 at the moment for gay and straight couples but we turn a blind eye and the police wont prosecute at 14, even if one is much older. If we lower it to 14 for example does that mean we turn a blind eye to 12 year olds?

We are talking about an older male being legally able to bugger a 14 year old boy? Man that is sick and we are quite right to criminalise it. At 14 you are still a child and need protecting, not getting it up the ar5e by some Peado.

Answer 8

if most gays were to have it their way, the age of consent would be five...

in all seriousness though, it's hardly something that can be regulated, so why try? i don't have this sort of attitude to most things, but if you'd give kids the proper education there'd be a lot less teen pregnacies etc. re-evaluate how children are taught about sex....not just 'if you put that in there this will happen and you may get AIDS'...adopt an approach similar to holland's, and don't give parent's a say in the matter....for a start, too many teens treat sex lightly....i remember when i was a teen all we were taught was that whilst there could be repercussions it did feel good....the general attitude was that sex, especially oral was not intimate in the slightest....where's the logic in this?

should come down to 14, we'd have to change how young people perceive sex though

Answer 9

I think 16 is fine. There is already a lot of pressure on kids to have sex at a young age and if the legal age is lower then I think it could lead to lots of problems especially when older people are having sex with people a lot younger than them.

Answer 10

Well if they consent, it should be fine. However, maybe if there's a significant age difference (say 10 years?) between the partners then the youngest should be 16 or so.

Answer 11

Why should it change at all, I was pleased when it was 18, and just as happy that it was lowered to the age for hetrosexual of 16. Any younger and there would be more trouble than we could imagine.

Anyone who thinks it should be lower, need to keep their thoughts to themselves. You may get yourself into trouble.

There is just no need for it to be lower. They are still children!!!!!!