Should the age of consent be lowered?

[smellycat]

i think they should rise the age.and locked up till 21.

[streetsinger]

It's hard to believe that the age of consent has any relevance any more. With the constant sexual bombardment from popular music and the media, and sexual education not to abstain, but of how to do it safely, not to mention the pressure from the cosmetic and fashion industry that demands sexuality to be observed at ever decreasing ages. What chance do the young have, especially when many parents have sexually lost the plot themselves. Young people need role models, my grand daughter is sixteen and still a virgin, which in this day and age is unusual, but her mother who is estranged and her aunt are virtually celibate and Helen and I have been together for over forty years. I believe it's her respect for them and us that has influenced her. As a Christian family morality is an integrated part of our faith, and I believe this plays a major part.

[Lily]

Young people need role models, my grand daughter is sixteen and still a virgin, which in this day and age is unusual,

Thats quite shocking isn't it ? Not that you said it, it's just quite shocking that it's unusual.

[smellycat]

fantasy meets reality with a bang,pardon the pun.when young you think grown up stuff is fab,until you live next 16 years cleaning up doo,the partner usually well gone ,and you having a breakdown,and no life to have.

if you could drum into young people to think,would they take notice anyway.?

and to be honest young people want fun,which is sadly lacking today.they want you to work hard and turn you into a robot.!

[Lily]

Well to be honest Cat, I think the fat cats ( pardon my pun ) in the retail industry, regarding clothes, make up ect ect, have a lot to answer for.


We had a huge shop here in Cardiff called Tammys. They sold clothes for children from about the age of 3 to 16 ( I think I am correct with that age range ) and I went in oneday with a friend looking for a dress for her Daughter.
I was absolutely appauled by what I saw. A certain item of ladies underwear ( initially made to be worn under tight clothes ) being sold for children from the age of 5 !!!
At first I was absolutely speechless and when I'd regained the power of speech, I made a promise to write to this chain store. Never got a reply back

What on EARTH are they trying to do to our children ?? If this is not sending out a message that it's fine to look sexy at 5 what is ? I was absolutely appauled !

Then we have the Parents who must think this is acceptable, there wouldn't be a market for it if they didn't think it was acceptable and buy it surely ?

I was in a shop once and the woman in front of me was talking to the cashier about her 13yr old Daughter who was going out that same night ( to a night club on an under 16's night ) and she had bought her the clothes. The Daughter had apparently tried them on in the house with all the trimmings she was going to wear with it. Make up, the lot.
The woman said,,, " Oooooo you should have seen her, she looked about 18, dress showing her lovely long legs. I tell you mind, if anyone touches her, I'll kill em ! "

I calmly turned to her and said, " I sincerely pray to God no one does touch her because they have no right to but if they do, I hope you don't push the responsibility you should have had for this child aside, a responsibility you are neglecting by allowing and actively encouraging her to go out dressed like that ! "

Sheesh, I remember my Father once making me wash make up off my face before I went out and I was 21 ! Mind you, I did lay it on thick and thought I looked the bees knees at the time but looking back, I did rather look like Bette Davies on the set of " whatever happened to baby Jane "

Even at 21, I would never have dared challenge him or disobey him.

[streetsinger]

That's quite shocking isn't it ? Not that you said it, it's just quite shocking that it's unusual.

Actualy Lily, it's even more unusual, Helen informs me that Rachael is in fact 17, and you're right, it is shocking that the nations morals have deteriorated to such an extent. We have often debated the nation's decline in morals and believe it could well be linked to the 1st and 2nd world wars where so many young men lost their lives leaving women bereft. These lonely women took comfort where they could find it and many were condemned by their neighbours. In the sixties the so called sexual revolution put paid to the condemnation and made promiscuity the norm. That's the legacy my generation bequeathed to our children and the unscrupulous are using that revolution to push the boundaries even farther. This is why we need to spread the good news of the Kingdom and let others know that there is an escape from the moral decline.

[smellycat]

this is the war we are in,encouraging us to fail from the start.we come into this world blind.others set us to fail straight away ,to keep us from God.jesus said if blind we have no sin,so they give us limited knowledge of the current war,and hang us out to die.we suffer because of lack of knowledge,satans followers think he is the light and we are dark,and we must look so,unprepared,and very vulnerable.we are set to fall and look very bad.

[Lily]

I agree Trev. When I was growing up, unless I had a very sheltered life, I think the general trend leant to the norm and not the unusual.

it could well be linked to the 1st and 2nd world wars where so many young men lost their lives leaving women bereft.

Would I be correct in saying that around that time when war ended that the population consisted of more women than men ?

If thats correct, I wonder if it has something to do with women having a new sense of freedom. What I mean is, with many women finding themselves on their own, with children to feed and no benefits like there are today, I suppose they had to go out and find work themselves to be the bread winner and maybe this started this new sense of freedom in them ?

[streetsinger]

I agree Trev. When I was growing up, unless I had a very sheltered life, I think the general trend leant to the norm and not the unusual.



Would I be correct in saying that around that time when war ended that the population consisted of more women than men ?

If thats correct, I wonder if it has something to do with women having a new sense of freedom. What I mean is, with many women finding themselves on their own, with children to feed and no benefits like there are today, I suppose they had to go out and find work themselves to be the bread winner and maybe this started this new sense of freedom in them ?

No doubt Lily, in the first war women started nursing that gave them responsibility and in the second there were the land army, the munitions workers and the women who joined the services as drivers and the like. Many saw action and, over all, the role of women changed. After the war they retained their new identity and started to stand ground against what they saw as male domination. It had started after the first war but to a lesser extent. The women's movement started as a bid for equality but now, in many cases, it has become a bid for supremacy and we are now starting to see domesticated males and dominating females. Not that there were not dominating females in the past but it now appears to be more prevalent. We men are now on the back foot so I think you and canny aught to be more gentle with us.

[Lily]

We men are now on the back foot so I think you and canny aught to be more gentle with us.

Ach, away with ya

Little girlies like us ?