6/15 Why is sex between a 17 yo and a 15 yo acceptable but not between a
27 yo and a 15 yo? What exactly is the moral issue here?
\_ A 17 year old cannot take advantage of a girl the same way a 27
year old can. A 17 year old also isn't expected to necessarily
know better. Note how sex between a 17 year old and an 10 year old
is still a problem even though they are both minors. Why do you
think that is?
\_ What exactly do you mean when you say "take advantage of"?
A 10 year old is considered too young for any consent. And sex
is physically dangerous for most of them anyway. But is that
reasonable to apply to a 15 yo? 16?
\_ yes.
\_ 15 is considered too young for consent, too. Why would
10 not be okay and 15 be okay? They are both still
children.
\_ Not really they aren't. There are huge physiological
differences. Nobody considers 10 old enough but 14 is
accepted relatively commonly. It is legal in the US in
a couple states, but only within a certain age difference.
\_ With how young girls are reaching sexual maturity there
are *not* huge physiological differences, but it's
not the physiological differences that matter here.
\_ 10 and 15? huge differences, yes. I don't care
if you can find some 10 year old who is more
developed than some 15 year old. You motd people
love arguing irrelevant stuff like that.
\_ Well gee, maybe there is a difference between 2 years age difference
and 12.
\_ Maybe there is. And?
\_ And op wants to bang 17 year olds.
\_ not really, i'm just polemicising
\_ A 17 year old and a 15 year old are both high schoolers and it
is normal for two adolescents to date. It is considered exploitive
in our society for an adult to date an adolscent.
in our society for an adult to date an adolescent.
\_ Why should it be considered exploitative? Use age 16 if you
want. In reality people's experiences differ wildly and it's
not so uncommon for a 15 yo girl to be much more experienced
than a 22 yo man. An older man might also reasonably be expected
to be more responsible than a teenage boy.
\_ In many states, 16 is the age of consent for women. Go move
to Utah if you want to bang high schoolers. In Canada it is
14 and 13 in Spain.
\_ Studies sugget that cognitive development doesn't gel until
the ripe old age of 25. Anecdotally speaking, a mature 22yo
is still only mature for 22. Expecting a 22yo who is attracted
to a 15yo to be more responsible is already an exercise based
on faulty assumptions.
\_ Don't females mature faster than men in this respect?
At any rate the reality is that they have sex anyway. I'm
trying to get down to the specific issue with the age
difference. I knew a girl in HS who was dating some guy
in college and they ended up marrying. They were illegal.
At least a 20-something is legally responsible for more
than a teenage boy.
\_ Regardless of whether 15yo girls are more experienced
than 22yo guys, this changes nothing about it being
exploitive for a 22yo guy to have sex with a 15yo girl.
She's still a child, mentally and socially. He's an
adult. Any sexual relationship between them is by
default exploitive.
\_ Ok let's just use 16. Is it ok now? Where is the
harm? What exactly is he exploiting? Isn't she
exploiting him, if it's consensual? Or is it
impossible for them to have "love"? Should it be
illegal?
\_ Frankly, yes. And more to the point, a blanket
18 would be a much better idea. There are actual
chemical differences between children aged 16 and
people aged 18. For the purposes of fairness,
lower the drinking age to 18 while we're at it.
\_ You didn't answer the first part. What is the
harm that is being prevented? There are
chemical differences between everybody. That
is totally meaningless.
\_ In many states, 16 is the age of consent for women. Go move
to Utah if you want to bang high schoolers. In Canada it is
14 and 13 in Spain.
\_ This thread has gone on way too long so
I'll spell it out for you: A 16 year old,
ANY 16 year old is a child. A 22 year old
is an adult. Period. Get over it. You
are not going to convince anyone that your
fantasies of nailing your friend's very
little sister are ok. As a personal note,
I'm 37 and look at 22 year olds as children
in comparison to where I am now. The idea
of 16 year olds having sex with anyone at
all makes me physically ill. Go ahead and
make your final statement. My reply to
that will be removing this sickening thread.
\_ We should outlaw sex with 22 year olds
\_ No, you misread what I said about 22
year olds. Since the rest of what you
said is based on that misreading there
is nothing more to reply to here.
since you are sickened by it. Maybe you
have issues. Most of the world doesn't
seem to fit your views. You also aren't
mature enough to discuss something
without projecting things on me. Should
sodomy be illegal because it sickens
lots of people? 16 is not "very little"
by anyone's standards. Oh well, you're
not worth talking to anyway. You haven't
addressed the issue of what harm exactly
is suffered by these poor 16 year old
children if they have sex, and how that
varies with their partner's age.
_/
Posit: In order for sex to be consensual, it must occur between two
individuals who can demonstrate a cognizant recognition of the physical and
emotional consequences of the act. By definition, children lack the cognitive
ability and emotional maturity to fully comprehend said consequences. Although
_some_ 16yo may be able to prove, through emancipation, that they are mature
enough in the eyes of society to give consent and demonstrate that they
possess the above cognizant recognition, the majority do not. As such, it is
in the best interest of minors to be barred from giving consent. Exception:
Teenagers existing in close proximity to each other (as in school or
school-oriented social groupings), and possessed of/by the various and sundry
hormones of adolescence cannot, and should not, be expected to resist physical
intimacy with their peers solely on the basis of an arbitrary age limit; thus
teenagers can give consent to other teenagers within two years of their age
range. The difference in brain maturity and level of coercive ability
extendable and resistable varies greatly outside of the two-year age variance;
in other words, it's easier for a 22yo to convince a 16yo to have sex despite
the latter not yet fully grasping the consequences thereof.
Now, as for your other silliness: It is no great hardship for mature, rational
people to hold that consensual sex between adults of any gender or number is
perfectly acceptable while at the same time condemning as immoral and
unethical those acts which are skewed toward coercion and the exploitation of
those who cannot demonstrate the afore-mentioned recognition. Is it fair to
assign an arbitrary age? Perhaps not, but a society must needs think of the
welfare of society as a whole, and illegalizing statutory rape seems to be the
only way to get child-pluckers away from the borderline cases.
\_ Ok now this is a reasoned argument. However you've tried
to establish that they can't comprehend the consequences, yet they
are allowed to do it anyway with their peers. This doesn't follow
unless it's to the effect that "they'll do it anyway". But that
acknowledges that these "children" are naturally driven to do
this thing you claim they're not ready for. A 16yo is fully
aware of the decision to have sex, in general. Is it easier for
\_ Nonsense. Go look up teen pregnancy rates.
\_ What do those rates tell us about their awareness?
a 22yo to convince a 16yo? That's non-obvious. I don't see the
moral or practical reason to criminalize the 22yo but not
the 18yo. All the physical and emotional consequences are the
\_ 18 y/o is an adult under the law. Try again.
\_ No, in CA, you can have sex with someone who is
within four years of your age, hence 19 y.o. and
16 y.o. is legal, but 22 y.o. and 16 y.o. is not.
same or worse. And this assumes that sexual activity is inherently
damaging, which is the unspoken assumption behind your initial
argument: that these physical and/or emotional consequences are
negative. Arguably the consequences may be less when the male
\_ See teen pregnancy rates. I'd love to see you argue that
pregnancy at age 16 isn't a negative consequence.
\_ Ok great. I like that. Now what basis do you have to
argue that an older partner increases the risk of
unplanned pregnancy? Or even the incidence of sex?
It's quite likely to be the opposite. A teen boy
has less legal responsibility.
is more mature. How is a 19/16 pair sick? Yes the guy is more
mature than an 18 year old. So what? Anyway it seems most of the
world isn't as draconian as your argument.
Actually your argument seems like a case against mixed sex schools.
\_ In many states, 16 is the age of consent for women. Go move
to Utah if you want to bang high schoolers. In Canada it is
14 and 13 in Spain.
\_ I appreciate how you slyly changed your 27 y.o. man to a 22
y.o. There is a large body of psychological research that
indicates that sexual relationships where there is a massive
power difference and the relationship is of an exploitive
nature are damaging to the child. This is most extreme in
case of parent/child, priest/alter boy, parent/teacher, etc.
Do you think that these relationships should be legal as well?
\_ The Child Molesting Poster just wants justification for
nailing his friend's little sister. Nothing you can say will
change that. Well written but unfortunately wasted on CMP.
\_ They are legal though. Not children and boys of course but
it's not illegal for a boss to screw his employee and such.
The person might lose his job but it's not criminalized.
Parent/child? You're really reaching if you think that's a
similar issue. Simply being older doesn't confer any massive
power difference. Or any power at all arguably.
\_ No, they are not legal. In fact, statuatory rape can go
from a misomeanor to a felony if there is a trust and
power relationship between a child and the adusive adult.
Are you claiming that an adult boss can legally screw his 14
year old employees? You are really in never-never land now.
\_ DUH the power relationship is orthoganal to the age
issue. The power relationship is not criminalized except
for incest.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_of_trust
Not true, at least not in some states. I honestly
don't know about California.
\_ Please, a wiki page with "citations needed"?
Anyway, merely being older is not a position of
authority, for people who are not little kids.
There would have to be some other relationship.
\_ I'm saying that adult-on-child sex is not okay. I'm saying that
teen-on-teen sex is fraught with physical and emotional peril
but that's it's unreasonable to assume that teenagers will
have the restraint to refrain, and so the only reasonable
restriction is to limit the interaction to a two-year range;
I'm saying that children should play with children their own
age. I'm saying that a horny 22/27yo guy, no matter how
socially inept, has more tools available to coerce an immature
16yo into sex that the 16yo is not ready for than that 16yo's
peers. The moral reason to criminalize sex between adults and
children is to prevent exploitation and coercion. Your last
sentence is ludicrous and ignores what I've said.
\_ Not ludicrous. You're saying sex is fraught with all these
perils (what exactly? I never was imperilled... stds?) and
that teens can't stop themselves from banging their peers
so that sounds like an argument to segregate the sexes.
Why do you use the word "coerce"? Coercion == rape and is
already illegal. Why do you think 16yos are not ready for
sex? More of them have sex than don't these days.
\_ Well, I tried to reason with you and that didn't work.
Your issue is with the age at which children become
adults. Have fun fighting that fight.
\_ There's no law saying you have to be an adult to
have sex. So the issue is simply about the age
difference.
\_ This is precisely what age of consent accomplishes.
\_ Well that's the crux: whether it does accomplish
something useful, and what the details of it
should be; this stuff is not universally agreed
as the various laws even within the US prove.
People like you would like no "children" to have
sex. Age of consent does not solve that at all.
\_ Sigh. Why is reading so hard for you? People
like me, i.e., reasonable people, don't want
adults to have sex with children. People like
you should be chemically castrated.
\_ So the majority of the world where 16 is
legal are unreasonable and should be
castrated. Check. (wait, so you're fine
with children having sex with children?
why's that, when it cause so many
problems? they're getting damaged for
life)
castrated. Check. And you're fine with
kids having sex with other kids for some
reason.
\_ I think there is a distinction that
has not been made here between "what I
think" and "what I would legislate".
You're all blurring this line, muddying
the argument. -!pp
\_ Hey, it's your hero!
http://www.csua.org/u/iyt |
http://csua.com/feed/