Banjo: "You say the use of contraception is OK at 14 and you mentioned being realistic. Then you say that their sex lives are their own business.

Can we deduce from that you would agree to the lowering of the age of consent to 14 for both sexes?"

No. You can deduce from that that I think the age of consent is arbitrary. People will not be ready the day they hit sixteen. Some will be earlier, others later. We cannot legislate human relationships. We can only teach our children to value themselves highly, and to understand that sex changes things, and it is serious. And that, until they are adults, they *can* come to us, but not that they *must*. Usual Suspect put it beautifully — parents do not own their children, they have sexual thoughts and feelings and activities that are, quite properly, not their parents' business.

It's not that I don't think fourteen is not very young to have sex. It is. It's not that I wouldn't be devastated if it were my daughter. I would. But, ultimately, while it may make me uncomfortable, I think it's not an unreasonable age for someone to being having an independent relationship with their doctor, and making decisions about their sexuality.

As others have pointed out, your FGM analogy doesn't hold water.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I just want to say again that Today Tonight was the real culprit in terms of violating privacy.

Seeker, lovely post.

Antiseptic,
Sheeze, don't you, at least, scan threads before commenting?

Quite early, I pointed out that the privacy laws related to both genders and gave example of a boy having a, forbidden, body piercing that had become infected. He is using this law to avoid being in big trouble with his parents.

However, most posters wanted to stick to the scenerio of the TV segment that was about a girl seeking 'the pill'. That is OK by me as my gripe is with the privacy laws that allows kids to say to medicos that their parents not be informed.

FGM was given as an example of government hypocracy. They claim the privacy laws are for the childs best interests but take no action to uphold other laws supposedly there to prevent young girls from gross abuse and mutilation. If you cannot see the difference between parents having the say in medical treatment for their child and outright parental abuse you need help.

Furthermore no one here has made any suggestion that girls are 'sluts' as you crudely put it. Everyone has recognized that children of this age have intense sexual feelings because of hormonal changes and both the parents and the children often struggle to deal with that. If some parents take steps to curtail their kids sexual activities, for various reasons, until they reach 18, that should be their right.

Country Gal
I am surprized that you say some girls have trouble talking with their mums about menstruation. Is that not a basic part of sex education and body awareness that is taught in schools.

Seeker,
You will find that the laws are State laws and Kevin has nothing to do with them.

yvonne,
My view is that parents should take an interest in their kids sexual actiities, if for no other reason than health. Would you not be concerned if your child had an active and unprotected sex life?

Banjo: "I am surprized that you say some girls have trouble talking with their mums about menstruation..."

Sorry to butt in to this exchange, but I also didn't tell my mum when I got my period. She had already told what would happen and bought me supplies, so I knew what to do, in fact I was looking forward to it. Begin a woman and all. But I didn't expect the shame and embarrassment.

For all she knows I never got it! In reality, I expect she indulged in some detective work, but she was tactful enough never to ask. I appreciate that. Now, of course, I can talk to her about anything.

As I said earlier, you can't legislate human relationships. I'm wasn't alone — many of my friends didn't tell their mums when they got their periods. Whether they learned it in school or not is irrelevant.

Adolescence is the process of detaching oneself from one's comforting, suffocating parents, and venturing into the adult world. (Why I love Bill Henson so much, he imagines the adult world as twisted tress in twilight, dark, dangerous, seductive... but let's not go there...) It's hard for the kids and it's hard for the parents, but good parents have given their kids a good moral/ethical/practical/intellectual compass to navigate their way around.

Banjo: "My view is that parents should take an interest in their kids sexual actiities, if for no other reason than health..."

I'm butting in here too, but you have misread Yvonne's post. Of course parents should take an interest! However, this issue is about whether their right to know about their child overrides their child's right to privacy. And at what age? And for what issues?

Banjo: "FGM was given as an example of government hypocracy..."
I see what you mean now, and I appreciate that, if police really are ignoring incidents of FGM, then that's indeed hypocritical.

Personally I reckon Australia should remove the parental right to circumcise girls AND boys. Unless there is compelling case for it. And religion is NOT a compelling case.

Veronika,
Just a quicky. FGM is against the law in all states, but no one has ever been charged.

You want some hypocrisy take !@#$ing look in the mirror. You sexists only care about human rights as it applies to women. Hundreds of thousands of male children are being mutilated every year and you people just don't give a damn. It's disgusting

Take chill pill Steel.

1. The discussion is about oral contraception that was prescribed for a teenage girl. At this point in time there is no oral contraception for males.

2. Do you not read people's posts?

Check the last line in Veronika's last post:

>>>Personally I reckon Australia should remove the parental right to circumcise girls AND boys.<<<

Just because boys haven't been mentioned in this thread as often as girls is no reason to get your knickers in a twist.