Re: Sexual Offences Act 2003, UK

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:19:00 +0000, Alan
Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Ann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:39:04 +0000:
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:33 +1100, "Rarin Horse"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"Ann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> At last the new UK Act comes into force.
>
>>>> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm
>
>>>> Ann
>
>>>Why do you say 'at last'?
>
>> It's been coming for ages.  I've been following its path through the
>> parliamentary system seemingly for years.
>
>>>And do you agree with all of it?
>
>> I haven't read it all yet to see what changes have been made since the
>> last time I read it but generally I think it's good.  I particularly
>> like the way the rape of prepubescent children is taken more seriously
>> than before.  I like that it is assumed that prepubescents can't give
>> meaningful consent and any sex with them is called rape.
>
>I dislike that fact that any and all sexual activity (like touching-up
>behind the bike sheds) between under 16s is a criminal offence regardless
>of consent.

No no no... I'm talking about the sections about sex with under 13s.
That is age 12 and under which are usually assumed to be prepubscent.
To be fair I did say that in my little bit above.

I did also say that I thought that the age of consent should and would
eventually be lowered.

>(Section 13, modifying sections 9 to 12).  This is monstrous,
>and might well bring Britain before Human Rights courts (as these bits of
>the law violate the kids' right to respect for their private lives.)
>
>> The Act has been brought up to date in many respects particularly in
>> the area of gender.  The penalty for a woman who forces a man to have
>> sex with her is the same as a man forcing a woman.  This is new.  The
>> laws to do with prostitution have been altered to include men and
>> women too.
>
>There are some sexual assymetries left.  It would seem to me to be lawful
>for a doctor to obtain contraceptives for a girl, but not for a boy
>(there is nothing corresponding to section 14(3)c along the lines
>"preventing the child from impregnating a person").

You've looked at it in depth quicker than me.  I'll keep this in mind
when I look at it tomorrow.

>> One bit I've seen and would question is why they deem it necessary to
>> make it illegal for adult relatives to have sex.  I don't know what
>> the rationale behind this is.  I can't see why two consenting adults
>> should have any limits put on their sexual activities.  People do
>> break the law in this regard and I don't see what harm it does.
>
>Conceiving an incestuous baby is harmful.  Otherwise, I have to agree.

Why is it?  Who is it harmful to... and every time?

Ann

>> I'm also wondering if the age of consent is too high and I think it
>> will be lowered gradually over the coming years but I think it will
>> take time.
>
>> Now we just have to see how the courts will act and what sentences they
>> give.  I don't imagine much will change there and I will disagree with
>> the sentences given.  We can give them the Act but we can't force them
>> to use it properly.
>
>> Ann