The way I see it, there needs to be a more stringent standard than just consent. People should not only have to engage in consensual acts, but those acts should occur where both parties have
good intent as well.
The law is fine as it is. AOC is 16 here in the Uk, and that’s low enough. Exceptions for Romeo and Juliet stuff exist so dumb teens do t get busted for shagging if one is sixteen and one is a month younger . Anyone over 18 going after anyone under 16 is a nonce and gets the woodchipper.
The law isn't consistent. It's sometimes 16, sometimes 18, some orgs pretend it's 19, and some people can't consent regardless of age. As of 2023,
if you're a sports coach or a religious leader of a faith group in England (or Scotland) then you can't have sex with under-18s in some very poorly documented circumstances. Some early proposals were going to include teachers, nurses, doctors and many other professional roles, with an over-18 stipulation. This resulted in organisations writing their own internal rules preventing relationships between people from occurring in the workplace if either party is under-19 just to be on the safe side, meaning in practice, many working professionals can't have sex with one another unless both parties are 19 or older. It's expected in 2024 that if you're a landlord, you might
not be able to have consensual sex with people who live in your house, as the law is being changed to criminalise that, despite a landlord raping their tenants already being very much illegal.
The government stated while making their most recent changes that "it is important to remember that our laws on sexual activity with under-16s are robust and clear. It is a crime for
anyone to engage in sexual activity with someone under the age of 16,
whether or not they consent to that activity". Yes, you read that right. The government openly admits that sexual consent laws have nothing to do with consent, and that there are no exceptions for pairs of underage teenagers in an otherwise healthy situation. Same-aged people who happen to be under-16 are criminals (and are technically distributors of "sexual abuse imagery") if they have the usual kinds of fun on a live video chat which folks tend to have at that age. But an 18 year old enjoying the town bike who wants pocket money to feed their drug addiction? The law effectively says "go right ahead, just make sure to use protection!" as if that's not exploitation.
The law really needs to change, and at this point I'm not quite sure how, because, just like our domestic violence laws (which are also targeted at curtailing abuse) these constant changes are creating liabilities for honest people, while barely moving the goalposts for genuinely nasty scum.
stop it
