Olympian/former world champion Mark Jamieson admits to child sex charges

I think the fact he is a young guy is neither here nor there. The girl was 15 and he is in his 20s - let's not assume a 15 year old is mature enough to decide to shag a grown man, the guy made a dodgy choice.

Being a teacher, I can assure you that 15 year olds are very much children.

They look less like children when they're in a club trying to talk to you.

Controversial comments here, first of all, the guy is from Tasmania and it's probably "normal there".
A 25 year old with a 15 year old, or even a 16 year old is out of bounds, in Western culture and to my ethos any other culture.

you're old enough to shag whomever you please at 16 in this country, which is maybe where it's all gone wrong. Maybe if the legal age was 18, there wouldn't be so many 14 year olds getting pregnant.

I know I shouldn't react on this but will anyway, in some countries the legal age is 16, e.g. The Netherlands, they also have the lowest percentage teenage pregnancies in the world.

Nah, to a young 25 year old, an old 15 year old is indistinguishable from someone you're own age. By young and old I mean how you feel/present yourself.

Seldom Killer, I agree with what you say, but just having these charges brought against you can ruin your whole life, no matter what the courts eventually rule. I think there is a big difference between 'stupid' and 'peadophile sexual predator', such as the case of the American girl, now listed as a child sex offender who distributed child pornography because she foolishly SMS'd a naked picture of herself to her highschool boyfriend.

On the otherhand, they are idiots, so I don't know why I'm caring.

There will always be poor and inappropriate applications of the law as with the case with that girl. However, just because there is a difference between criminal and stupid, doesn't mean that you shouldn't suffer the consequences of your actions.

Take another criminal vs. stupid scenario. Most people wouldn't regard driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone necessarily homicidal or murderous although stupid would reasonably fit their perceptions. However, if they ended up killing someone whilst driving at that speed, they would have to live with the consequences for ever.

The thing is, in both instances, stupid as those actions may be considered, the potential consequences would be known ahead of time. This man didn't get into this situation not knowing that getting caught would potentially ruin his whole life. He always had a fair option not to have sex with these two teenagers.

I know I shouldn't react on this but will anyway, in some countries the legal age is 16, e.g. The Netherlands, they also have the lowest percentage teenage pregnancies in the world.

In Germany it's 14 (though if the partner is over 21, they may need to show they did not exploit someone below the age of 16). I don't believe they have the same rates of teenage pregnancy as here.

In my eyes it's more down to attitudes than age. The British are generally more resistant and uptight around these things, if every parent sat their kids down at 14 and gave them condoms and told them what they are for we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. You can't prevent kids having sex, but you can educate them, pretending they aren't doesn't help anyone.

Agreed. Which is in no way a justification of his actions.

Child sex is wrong because it is about people with power exploiting those without.

I have long felt that a 17 year old sleeping with a 15 year old is a lot less serious than - for example - a 45 year old man sleeping with a 19 year old girl.

I'd make a 12-24 month age gap legal in all cases - it might trigger social services getting involved but it should not be a crime.

At 16 you can sleep with someone 21, at 17, 23, at 18, 25, etc, and only at 21 are you 'free to all'.

Sorry but thats fucking ridiculous.

Does this mean parent consent forms will need to be signed in future?

could be a tricky conversation to have that one

^it's stupid to assume that the day before your 16th birthday your not mature enough and 2 days later you are...there shouldnt be a line as rigid as that. in portugal, if someone is underaged (-18) it's an offense if the sexual partner is more than 4 years older: a 13yo can have sex with a 16yo but a 16yo "can't" have sex with a 20yo. which I believe, makes sense...

You're right, it is stupid. I've met both men and women in their 20's who are ill equiped to cope with a relationship that involves sex and I have no doubt that there some children below the age of 16 who are more emotionally developed than this.

However, as a state there is a responsibility to ensure a degree of protection to children and a degree of freedom to adults. Ultimately a decision has to be made when people need to be protected and when they should be allowed to make their own mistakes. I think that in the UK, you will find it hard to determine a better age than 16.

You raise the issue of a close in age condition in legislation and I agree that its a worthwhile consideration, but whether the age of 13 is appropriate is a subject of some debate. Bear in mind that in the UK, there is an expectation that any child under the age of 16 will be in full time schooling. This means that they are regularly in an environment of near perpetual peer pressure. Is it wise to allow sex into that environment and if it were, would it be wise for the UK to make a sudden leap to that situation?

Sorry but thats fucking ridiculous.

Why so?

^+1

Because maybe, just maybe, life isnt that fucking black and white? Speaking personally as someone who has always had relationships with rather large age gaps, i see it as a non-sensical and backwards 'solution' to a problem. by that logic every relationship ive had since i was 16 would be illegal, and you know what, i wouldnt change any of them.

alas you cannot generalise about someones emotional maturity, and to try and legislate it is fucking ludicrous.

Just wondering what the reasons were.

I agree, when it comes to intangibles like emotions and maturity it is ludicrous to legislate. The flanking motion on this problem is that it is also necessary.

necessary to what? provide laws that criminalise the innocent?

Dandenong. She'd probably left her kids at home to go out.

necessary to what? provide laws that criminalise the innocent?

I was going with necessary to provide laws that protect the vulnerable.

I understand the need to protect the vulnerable, but the teenage years do throw up a huge grey area, and i suppose err on the liberal side due to my own experiences, but also because im well aware of how taken to extremes these types of legislation can go (it was not that long ago that laws against homosexual relations were still in place to protect the vulnerable)

but the teenage years do throw up a huge grey area,

Absolutely. This is why I generally favour the status quo. We have a fairly broad legislation with, as mentioned upthread, a range of judicial lattitude. A judge can apply a tailored degree of sensitivity to the case as set before them. I'd far rather a sliding scale placed at the judicial end of the law rather than the prosecutive. In the latter it has often proved to be inadequate and disasterous.

Then it seems we agree :) personally im all for better education from a younger age, and to be honest in a case such as this I personally think the case should be one of consent, rather than sex with a minor.

MrLemon - Possibly, except that minors by definition can't give consent and we're back into that spiral of when consent can be given and to whom and for what?

Personally, I think that if you really want to cut down on teen pregnancies, it should be mandatory for all parents to their children in agonising detail the act of intercourse through which they were conceived. I reckon that should do the trick.

They look less like children when they're in a club trying to talk to you.

I agree, perhaps not 15 but you can tell when a girl is young, and sure some look older than their years but you can still make a pretty solid judgement on someones age. I'm not suggesting the dude is a pedo rather he let his junk rule his common sense.

This is why when I was single I didn't hit it unless I saw a blue rinse and a zimmer.

This is why when I was single I didn't hit it unless I saw a blue rinse and a zimmer.

Rep.

the logical conclusion of that though is that there should be no age of consent.

That is not what i said.

i find it very hard to picture a large age gap where some exploitation is not going on. whether that is the older person exploiting the innocence of the younger one, or the younger one exploiting the money or emotional vulnerability of the older one might vary from case to case, but i honestly find t hard to believe that there isn't some exploitation there.

Really? If so then personally i think you need to grow up, an adult relationship is an adult relationship, regardless of when the participants were born. My partner is 33 years older than me, and neither of us has used the other for a second of our relationship. I know that society tends to find this hard to understand, but thats the truth.

MrLemon - Possibly, except that minors by definition can't give consent and we're back into that spiral of when consent can be given and to whom and for what?

Personally, I think that if you really want to cut down on teen pregnancies, it should be mandatory for all parents to their children in agonising detail the act of intercourse through which they were conceived. I reckon that should do the trick.

Indeed, the spiral of age of consent is an almost impossible one, and i cant say i have the answer for a second. I like your approach to tackling teenage pregnancy though :)

You said - "you cannot generalise about someones emotional maturity, and to try and legislate it is fucking ludicrous."

You did not say that there should not be an age of consent - I never said you did - what I did say was that it is the logical conclusion of it being 'fucking ludicrous' to try to legislate about emotional maturity.

apologies, what i meant was that i see it as ludicrous to try and legislate in such black and white terms as you stipulated in your post (with moving 5 year age cut offs as you get older) I do see the need for an age of consent, but as i said previously, it is a grey area, and i dont believe i have the answer.

I did not say that no relationships with large age gaps have no exploitation are possible, just that I find it hard to imagine them. Differences in coules is essential, but a shared background of experience is helpful IMHO, and that is that much harder with a large age gap. You then get onto other issues such as the fact that in an ideal world both parties can grow old together, have kids wwhen they are both the 'right age' etc etc and I am not convinced by large age gaps. I don't find it 'normal' - it's a little strange just like i find it strange if a beautiful rich woman is going out with an ugly brickie.

The above does not alter the fact that were I too meet you I would do my absolute best to judge you both as individuals, and make no judgements about your relationship other than those drawn from personal experience of how you interact. You have every right to be expect society to give you the benefit of the doubt and not judge your relationship - but you can't act surprised if people are a little taken aback and curious as to how and why the relationship works.

Please let me emphasize

cool, apologies for getting a bit shirty, but its something that i have to deal with on a daily basis, and thus is quite a raw nerve.

anyway, where were we, back on topic....erm....oh yeah, i dont have the answer :)

No worries dude, nothing like a bit of healthy moral debate on a rainy tuesday afternoon :)