2655
Comments (145)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
8
Beat_to_Quarters 8 points ago +11 / -3

"Where both partners are aged 10 or over, but under 14, a consenting sexual act should not be an offense."

So the 49 year old can say the 10 year old consented to getting fucked? Theyre both aged 10 or older. Am I missing something? He said he was 10, officer!

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
4
Beat_to_Quarters 4 points ago +4 / -0

I read that as both being under 14 years old the way it is written. It's a weirdly phrased sentence.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
1
ItsAllSoTiresome 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yup people are overreacting a bit in here in my opinion. There is a big difference between 10 and 14 though...

Edit:

“Where both partners are aged 10 or over, but under 14, a consenting sexual act should not be an offence. As the age of consent is arbitrary, we propose an overlap of two years on either side of 14."

The second part I don't understand though. When they say a two year overlap does that mean they think it's okay a 10 year old and 16 year old have sex? That's someone in 5th grade and someone who can legally drive a car.

4
Toys 4 points ago +6 / -2

So a 50 year old can convince 2 10 year olds to fuck, while he watches, and hey.. they consented to fucking each other, right?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
7
BlinkinSun 7 points ago +8 / -1

Basically, they’re saying that 49-15 is okay. Sadly, you know that these POS elites go after <18 because of the power associated with getting away heinous crimes and the taboo factor. If they dropped the age of consent to 15, they’d just go after <15 instead.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1