I've been following with interest the media coverage of the Russell Brand 'expose' with interest. I've no intention of saying anything at all about Mr Brand or what I think of his alleged behaviour. The place for that to be settled is in court, if the CPS can be persuaded that there is sufficient evidence. I'm not a fan or Brand, I've never really found him funny and haven't followed his post TV career.
I did meet one of the victims of his humour, Georgina Ballie at an Adam and the Ant's gig at the Scala shortly after the media furore. She struck me as a very vulnerable person, who in no way deserved to get the monstering she received from Brand and Jonathan Ross (who I had liked until then). She had clearly been startstruck and badly treated and I formed strong opinions then.
The more interesting aspect about the coverage, for me, is that one of the alleged victims was sixteen and there has been media talk of grooming, etc. I have to confess I never really thought about the age of consent until I had kids (when you have daughters, it does make you aware of the perils). The laws on age of consent were designed to protect vulnerable children from predatory adults. In the UK it is 16, and at this age, a person is deemed capable of deciding whether or not they want to give consent. They can have sex with anyone of any age legally at this point. The one exception is if the person is in a position of power over them, such as a teacher, where it is 18.
In the late 1990's, there was a proposal to lower the age to 14, but this was dropped when Labour got into power. To me, 14 seems far too young. Some people are late developers and do need protecting at such an age. The press have been talking about how a 16 year old was groomed. As the girl in question was legally above the age of consent, there is no legal impediment to her having sex and there is no legal concept of grooming for people above the age of consent. The objections are moral rather than legal.
The question must be whether or not the law is doing its job. In short, do girls of 16 need to be legally protected from dirty old men. We are not talking about where there is no consent (ie rape or sexual assault), we are talking about where a girl of sixteen decided she wants to participate in a sexual relationship with a much older man. It is worth noting that if there is cash involved, the age of consent raises to 18 (ie prostitution). Some have suggested that maybe for 16/17 year olds, there should be an upper limit of 21 for sexual relationships. I really don't know the answer. What I do know is that men generally are at there worst when they want to have sex with someone. When my daughters were younger I told them that when a man says he wants to buy you a drink, what he is really saying is that he wants to have sex with you and lower your inhibitions.I'd then say that if he is also drinking, he will be lowering his own at the same time. In otherwords, be very careful about who you let bu you a drink and be aware of their motives and that they are also drinking and their behaviour may change.
Working in the music industry for 44 years, I've seen plenty of terrible behaviour, but all was consensual. In the 1970's and 80's, girls would literally throw themselves at successful artists. Artists would make all manner of illict substances freely available to their entourages. I never saw anyone present who didn't want to be there and no compulsion on anyone to do anything, but I do understand that younger, more impressionable people (of both sexes) at times probably did things they didn't want to do, just to stay in with the in crowd. Consenting to something is a very different thing to enjoying it. My mother would say to us as kids "Don't do anything you'll regret later". I do wonder how many of the allegations come into this category, where people reluctantly consent, to be part of the crowd, only to bitterly regret it later. One thing that the Georgina Ballie case should have demonstrated was that narcissistic people have no regard for anyone, once they have ceased to be amused by their victims.
So in short, people can be beastly, horrible and uncaring but that doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't consent at the time. We could raise the age of consent, but then we'd have to deal with the reality that teenagers have sex withe ach other. We could make up all manner of arbitary time limits and rules. for when you can have sex with someone else. But ultimately, wherever you draw the line, it will not be perfect.
For me, the issue is whether there is consent, which can only be legally given once someone is sixteen. Parents and schools should make sure that everyone is properly educated about what exactly consent is. That it can be withdrawn before and during sex, but not after. If anyone continues to indulge in sexual activities, once consent has been withdrawn, that clearly is a legal matter, but where people get buyers regret after sex it isn't, whether they are 16 or 60.
I can see a time coming, where if we want to have sex with someone, both parties will have to register their consent on a government computer and de-register when they cease to want it anymore. I'm just glad I was born in 1962, when everything was more simple, although I am sure that many will take a very different view.
No comments:
Post a Comment