On the surface, the relevance of the age of consent in modern Britain barely makes a ripple. Our social conscious gets dictated by our hormonal urges so in the gasps of passion; surprisingly, many do not breathlessly exclaim: "No, we must stop, I must abide with the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885". However, I view the meagre communal relevance of underage sex in modern Britain, highly relevant when it comes to human trafficking and protection - which was vehement in the nineteenth century. Not that it has disappeared today, but the law has effectively protected a high proportion of youngsters from twenty first century human trafficking. I applaud the Christian groups who'd avidly campaigned against the odious understanding that when you reach the age of twelve, you've become an adult and therefore subjected to human trafficking, because in the eyes of the authorities you're a willing adult; pre 1885. Post 1885, the age of consent was set at sixteen for heterosexual activity and it hasn't changed since. Yet, you're not able to vote, drink alcohol, until you're eighteen. You're responsible enough to have children, yet cannot legally care for yourself. Logically, the age of consent must be aligning to what the law claims as being the end of childhood and therefore the start of adulthood. In Malta, Florida and Wisconsin, the age of consent is eighteen; this'll coincide with the rest of our laws.

In a perfect world, I'm not in favour of reigning in our liberties; but we don't live in a perfect world nor are we likely to, in the near future. I do wonder if common-sense got lost in the sexual discrimination text when it came to the concept of lowering the age of homosexuality activity in "modern Britain" in 2000. This should've been quashed on the basis of child protection; it gives the green light for sodomy. In the last decade, male rape cases have increased, and prosecutions has dropped substantially, due to lowering the age of consent. Such occurrences have happened in prisons which have been grossly ignored - It is seismic in the US. (Young, naive computer hacker: Gary McKinnon was more worried about being raped in an US jail, than the actual sentence) - Not that it didn't go on beforehand, but at least the judicial system protected kidults until they "come of age". Dropping the age of consent for homosexuality gives the thumbs-up for sexual deviation and experimentation on an unimaginable scale, which would have been a criminal offence in 1999. Sexual discrimination isn't part of the package when it comes to vestal youth protection in a court of law - and this is where the AoC and sexual discrimination have blurred beyond recognition into our ethical consciousness - Yet they're different entities rolled under the same umbrella. Most of us have socially disregarded the AoC anyhow, and rightly so; naturally, it depends on the individual, culture and their circumstances - although, who in their right mind would honestly say in adulthood, during their own hormonally charged adolescence, they knew when the time was right? I certainly didn't. If a scantily dressed Next Catalogue Model jumped off the page, Kelly LeBrock style, like in the film 'Weird Science' - my age would be the last thing on my mind. Nevertheless, physically I was able - but not emotionally. Indeed - a case of weird science.

Claiming any law in Britain as being "irrelevant" is dangerous. In this case the AoC was purely a child protection law that shouldn't be undermined or diluted by modern spin. I therefore believe it is irresponsible of an adult to claim a law as being irrelevant without researching the background first. Human-trafficking, Paedophilia, and child exploitation still exists - albeit, gone underground. By upping the AoC to eighteen, the distinction of who is deemed as a child is far less ambiguous than it is at sixteen - especially for kidults who're vulnerable for whatever reason. Protection is the crux, and the law semi aids the child protection premise - no safeguard law is irrelevant. Modern Britain requires the safeguard, partly because of the fragmentation of the extended family unit, which was intact during the 1950s - early 1970s. Youngsters had father figures and role models to aspire to socially. There was more emphasis on not shaming the family, and it acted as a deterrent. Communities were socially closer, the young socially matured faster if they had more family interaction while growing up. Sadly, in twenty first century Britain, it seems the governance has super prioritised receiving taxes, over providing a loving safe-haven for young inquiring minds. Who require the knowledge and the option to abstain from sex - peer groups are less likely to enroll in the banal alternative: Only in certain US states the Christian Church preaches to their parish to "abstain from sexual activity" for the good of the young's well-being and sexual health. The youngster's vaginal wall has fewer layers of cells at the age of sixteen, than the age of eighteen, so if frequent penetration took place - the youngster is therefore more prone to STD's (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) as she embarks into adulthood and encounters on a string of sexual liaisons over a period of time. Youngsters genuinely mix up the concept of love and sexual gratification, especially if their partner is sexually experienced, or older - and I applaud the AoC law in throwing the book at repulsive sexual predators - albeit, much has still to be done in this area.

What fills me with repulsion is the fact that Soham murderer, Ian Huntley had been accused of underage sex several times with girls, prior to murdering. Now, if the AoC was eighteen, he would've been prosecuted and inked onto an underage sex register - making it impossible for employment in ALL schools - that's the reality. Modern Britain systematically sends out inconsistent age restrictions, such as: Under-18s aren't able to work in or even entering a sex shop. No wonder they're confused.