A blurb in a British magazine quotes a lawyer and floats the idea out there about lowering the age of consent laws to as low as 13. As odd as it sounds to us Westerners, the age of consent is 13-15 for a majority of the world's population (thanks to East Asia/South America). The weirdest reason, and the main reason, the concept is being reported is that there is a desire to spare old men the agony of persecution. I'll give the British media credit for reacting with disgust at the female lawyers stupidity in suggesting the way to deal with the problem is to just lower the age of consent. This smells of the media protecting one of their own as well as a bit of a sop to the gays out there.
This seems to be inspired by the Jimmy Saville case and a couple of others involving celebs. Quickly: Saville is accused of molesting and raping girls and boys for decades. Let's replace Saville with random Catholic priest or straight male figure in a non-media industry. How fast does the media dig up his body and set it on fire? This media outlet is protecting one of their own and trying to distract readers from the initial savage outrage. The laws are set to protect the young, who may be aware of the sexual desirability but absolutely out of touch with mental maturity or outright dumb, from the old who have a lifetime of practice in manipulation. This is a sop to gays as it is amazing how gay men only make up 4-5% of all men yet make up a much larger percent of total child molesters. In their defense, many of their cases do track along the ephebophilia road. That is of course called disgusting for hetero men to feel (recall the straight guys like shaved porn stars because they are really pedos media argument) but swept under the rug for the gays.
In the defense of this lawyer, what if they do have a point but unintentionally? This lawyer and these advocates are viewing this from the idea of "just" a little petting or a kiss not destroying an adult. They are avoiding the hypersexualization of children, especially girls today. While I mention gays, straight men dwarf gays by millions and there are millions of straight girls. These girls are bombarded with sexual imagery, talk, school instruction, internet information and messaging in their music. Lawyers must realize that a 15 year old today is far different from a 15 year old 60 years ago. Rather than go back on the liberal 'progress' the west has made hypersexualizing its daughters, they would just change the laws to give men (and gay women) a pass when dealing with them. God forbid the west preach modesty and enforce some standard of behavior to create an environment that minimizes such contact.
That might be overthinking this. This feels more like a friendly media cover job to soften the blow that an entertainment media figure was molesting and raping hundreds of teens (including 8 year olds). I won't hold my breath waiting for the media to excuse away the priests who had sex with 16 year old boys like they are with this article. Since its publication, other news outlets have done the "this is a bad idea" but they have discussed the lawyer's idea. It puts the idea in play and makes it part of the public discussion. By every newspaper in England covering the smaller publication's article, it gives a voice to the rather loony idea instead of letting it die out of the spotlight. It seems even dumber in light of the Muslim grooming gang rape cases in England. Lefties never think their policy tweaks through. Look around at a mall in the west these days and tell me if you can differentiate a 15 year old and a 22 year old? This article talks about protecting old men. Is it really protecting their reputations or is it protecting them from the immature, sex crazed teens we have everywhere? While this is just a suggestion from an idiot lefty lawyer, as the West continues to import people from countries with low consent ages, this might become a more mainstream topic.