age of consent

OGIONIK wrote:

16 year old girl , 17 year old male, male is in jail because the girl gave him head.

that is stupid.

it might sound pretty horrible but alot of 13-14 year old girls i know date men that are like 21+

And the truth is they seem pretty happy, and what i thought was really weird was alot of them would ask me about sex and stuff, and why their boyfriends didnt want to do it with them. I grew up around alot of females, and to me they are worse than guys when it comes to wanting to get laid.

I think older guys should date younger girls, im 22 and i would date a 16-17 year old and feel comfortable with it. Other people think anything outside of 1 year apart is bad.

well it depends actually, everything in moderation. But i have to agree most girls are capable of handling themselves, and if they arent they shouldnt be out of your sight in the first place.

In the UK, the legal age of consent is 16, so your case scenario wouldn't cause a problem here. The line has to be drawn somewhere, regarding the age at which society determines sufficient mental maturity for informed consent. Personally, I think that 16 is about right. There is a massive difference between the maturity of a sixteen year old, compared to a child of thirteen. Thirteen year olds are very impressionable and can normally accept rules and codes of behaviour as set down by their parents. In essence, they demonstrate on a daily basis that they are still children.
A sixteen year old however, will usually buck against parental interference and demonstrate (on a regular basis) their desire for independence. A sure sign that they have all but grown up (mentally), in my opinion.

Why is it, do you think, that sixteen year olds will not willingly hang around with thirteen year olds, considering it totally uncool to do so?
It's because they are usually worlds apart in behaviour and attitudes.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, wouldn't you agree?

0 Replies

yep.

0 Replies

Wow, OGIONIK doesn't think I'm sick! How rare.

Doowop wrote:

Agrote, you're still looking at this arse about face. It seems to me that you think the problem in question is brought about by an unreasonable society, rather than recognising your particular sexual feelings as being the root of it all.
It's a bit like an arsonist complaining that society won't allow him to get his gratification by starting a fire wherever or whenever he chooses, as long as he made sure that no lives were in danger.

By comparing underage sex to arson, you seem to be assuming that underage sex is harmful/dangerous (like arson). I don't know if you remember, but I don't believe that. I'm yet to be persuaded.

Assuming (as I do) that underage sex is harmless, your analogy is no good. Underage sex would be nothing like arson if it was just a a bit of harmless mutual fun. A better comparison would be homosexuality. Homosexuality was only decriminalised 40 years ago in this country. Before then, would it not have been reasonable for homosexuals to complain that society would not allow them to get their gratification to have homosexual sex whenever they chose, even if they made sure that no lives were in danger?

Our point of disagreement is on whether underage sex is harmful, so if you want to resolve the disagreement then you need to focus on that issue.

Quote:

Laws were brought in by society to safeguard society, and have been fine tuned over the ages based on many hundreds of years of knowledge, experience and evidence as to what is, or is not, acceptable to the vast majority.

This fine tuning is an ongoing process. In my opinion, they just haven't got there yet with underage/intergenerational sex. Fairly recently (40 years), they've made the right decisions about homosexuality, but just because what I want to do is illegal that does not mean that it should or will always be.

Quote:

You have to face up to the fact that the vast majority of society would deem your desires and possible future actions as totally unnacceptable and that this viewpoint will never change.

If it turns out that I am right, then it is plausible that this viewpoint will change, just as viewpoints about homosexuality have changed due to the fact that safe homosexual sex is actually harmless. If I am wrong, then you're probably right that the viewpoint will never change, and anyway I wouldn't want it to change.

Quote:

Can all those millions of people who make up that vast majority be wrong?
I think you know the answer.

I do know the answer: yes.

There are millions of Christians and other theists in the world. They're all wrong. Millions of people thought that homosexuality was some sort of illness. They were wrong. It is common for millions of people to believe something that is not true. One should believe things based on what the evidence actually is, rather than on what popular opinion is; a concensus amongst a large number of non-experts tells you absolutely nothing.

0 Replies

Doowop wrote:

In the UK, the legal age of consent is 16, so your case scenario wouldn't cause a problem here. The line has to be drawn somewhere, regarding the age at which society determines sufficient mental maturity for informed consent. Personally, I think that 16 is about right. There is a massive difference between the maturity of a sixteen year old, compared to a child of thirteen. Thirteen year olds are very impressionable and can normally accept rules and codes of behaviour as set down by their parents. In essence, they demonstrate on a daily basis that they are still children.
A sixteen year old however, will usually buck against parental interference and demonstrate (on a regular basis) their desire for independence. A sure sign that they have all but grown up (mentally), in my opinion.

Why is it, do you think, that sixteen year olds will not willingly hang around with thirteen year olds, considering it totally uncool to do so?
It's because they are usually worlds apart in behaviour and attitudes.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, wouldn't you agree?

I disagree. Different people develop at different ages, so wherever you draw the line is going to be fairly arbitrary. Ideally, I think that whether someone is ready for sex should be determined on a case-by-case basis... somehow.

And I've seen signs of independence in younger girls than 16. Just the other day I saw a girl who must have been about 12 or 13, and she was dressed like a goth, out with her mother who was wearing very normal clothing. Is that the sort of flair of independence you meant? It seems to me that soem girls of that age are mature enough not to accept everything that their parents tell them.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Wow, OGIONIK doesn't think I'm sick! How rare.

Doowop wrote:
Agrote, you're still looking at this arse about face. It seems to me that you think the problem in question is brought about by an unreasonable society, rather than recognising your particular sexual feelings as being the root of it all.
It's a bit like an arsonist complaining that society won't allow him to get his gratification by starting a fire wherever or whenever he chooses, as long as he made sure that no lives were in danger.

By comparing underage sex to arson, you seem to be assuming that underage sex is harmful/dangerous (like arson). I don't know if you remember, but I don't believe that. I'm yet to be persuaded.

My analogy was to try to explain why various laws come into being. Unacceptable behaviour must be safeguarded against. A law prohibiting that behaviour will bring forth actions against any person who behaves in a way that society deems as unacceptable. What is deemed as unnaceptable by society can vary country by country, but is normally defined by the society of that country, given that the society in question is democratic. The acceptable/unacceptable boundaries may change slightly over the years as things within that society changes, and the laws may be varied accordingly (and usually are) to fit in with the times.
However, those laws are based on many years of experience and evidence within that society and will normally be tailored accordingly.

If you live in a society that is virtually unanimous in their opinion that informed consent cannot reasonably be expected from a thirteen year old, chances are that there will be a law stating that case. And lo and behold, there is.
If you think that this opinion is wrong, then there is a very good chance that there will be at least 99% of your fellow adult countrymen that would argue with you.

The problem lies with you, not with the forty odd million of us, I'm afraid.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Acting on my desires is arguably immoral, but my desires themselves are accidental and so I am not doing anything 'wrong' merely holding those desires and not acting on them.

It does appear, however, that you're going to extremes to justfiy doing exactly what you know is legally and morally wrong. You're trying to convince yourself that if you have the child's consent--it's okay. You go even further, and try to convince yourself--well, even if you don't have the child's consent--you're not harming her because she'll somehow find it enjoyable. You're grooming yourself to be a pedophile.

0 Replies

Im just saying that young girls should be with older men. i cant remember the beginning of this thread, and i dont know how old you are so i could still call you sick Razz

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Doowop wrote:
In the UK, the legal age of consent is 16, so your case scenario wouldn't cause a problem here. The line has to be drawn somewhere, regarding the age at which society determines sufficient mental maturity for informed consent. Personally, I think that 16 is about right. There is a massive difference between the maturity of a sixteen year old, compared to a child of thirteen. Thirteen year olds are very impressionable and can normally accept rules and codes of behaviour as set down by their parents. In essence, they demonstrate on a daily basis that they are still children.
A sixteen year old however, will usually buck against parental interference and demonstrate (on a regular basis) their desire for independence. A sure sign that they have all but grown up (mentally), in my opinion.

Why is it, do you think, that sixteen year olds will not willingly hang around with thirteen year olds, considering it totally uncool to do so?
It's because they are usually worlds apart in behaviour and attitudes.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, wouldn't you agree?

I disagree. Different people develop at different ages, so wherever you draw the line is going to be fairly arbitrary. Ideally, I think that whether someone is ready for sex should be determined on a case-by-case basis... somehow.

And I've seen signs of independence in younger girls than 16. Just the other day I saw a girl who must have been about 12 or 13, and she was dressed like a goth, out with her mother who was wearing very normal clothing. Is that the sort of flair of independence you meant? It seems to me that soem girls of that age are mature enough not to accept everything that their parents tell them.

I won't go on banging my head against your brick wall for too much longer, as I have quite a busy day scheduled (that's if the rain stops).

Your idea of a case by case test is seriously flawed, as demonstrated by you when you use the word "somehow". You obviously see (as we all do) that there is no absolute and definitive way to assess mental maturity.
The only thing that seems to work in all of this, is to look at what conclusions have been drawn by society in your particular country. In your case, your society has looked at all the evidence and listened to experts over the years, and has determined that there is a very good probability that mental maturity has been achieved by the age of sixteen. Before that age, your society has deemed that there is a very good probability that it has not.
A law is therefore in place, drawn up by various elected representatives of that society over the years, making the minimum age of consent as sixteen. This law exists to safeguard those who are regarded as mentally immature, from being regarded as "fair game" by the tiny minority of people who would wish to have full sex with them.
With that law in place, people with such a prediliction will, in most cases, think very long and hard about acting upon their desires, fearing the consequences of transgressing that law.
Without that law, such people would be much more likely to act on their desires.
For every 12 year old goth that you see, you will probably see many thousands of twelve year olds acting as they should be acting. Like the kids they are.

0 Replies

Doowop wrote:

If you live in a society that is virtually unanimous in their opinion that informed consent cannot reasonably be expected from a thirteen year old, chances are that there will be a law stating that case. And lo and behold, there is.

I understand that, but society was once virtually unanimous in its opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or that is a sickness. People's minds can be changed. Obviously it couldn't happen over night, but I think there's hope.

Quote:

The problem lies with you, not with the forty odd million of us, I'm afraid.

Not if I'm right. If I'm wrong, then yes it's my problem, and the forty odd million of you are in the right. But if I'm right, then it's you guys who need to change your minds.

0 Replies

Debra Law wrote:

It does appear, however, that you're going to extremes to justfiy doing exactly what you know is legally and morally wrong.

Please stop there. I don't believe that it is morally wrong. Isn't that obvious? I do not think that sex with minors is wrong, and I do not think that it should be illegal (I am of course aware that it is illegal).

Quote:

You're trying to convince yourself that if you have the child's consent--it's okay. You go even further, and try to convince yourself--well, even if you don't have the child's consent--you're not harming her because she'll somehow find it enjoyable. You're grooming yourself to be a pedophile.

You haven't listened to my argument. If somebody offers you a biscuit, they do something to you without your consent. You did not consent to being offered a biscuit. So lack of consent is not necessarily bad. Get it?

Harm is always bad. Focus on harm. If sex with minors harms them, then fine... sex with minors should not be allowed.

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

Im just saying that young girls should be with older men. i cant remember the beginning of this thread, and i dont know how old you are so i could still call you sick

Hehe. I'm 20.

0 Replies

Doowop wrote:

For every 12 year old goth that you see, you will probably see many thousands of twelve year olds acting as they should be acting. Like the kids they are.

I agreed with your entire post up until this point. I don't subscribe to the view that twelve year olds 'should' act like kids.

0 Replies

when i was 20 i met a sexy ass girl she was 17, i tried to get with her but it didnt work we just talked and stuff, her sister was 13 and over a period of about 2 months slowly started trying to seduce me.

i didnt realise it until one day shes talking about piercings, she brings up her nipple piercings, "im like thats cool, i couldnt do that to my nipples, how did you get your parents to let you?"

thens shes like "all the other guys ask to see them, your not like the other guys"

im like wtf? then she starts talkin about sex etc.. and im like slow down!
then she starts telling me shes a virgin, but she likes watchin porn and all this **** and she is $^$CKIN FINE AS HELL. When she started getting into what she wanted to do with her tongue i knew i had to cut myself off from her, she could have been a ******* actress or a model or someshit, green hazel eyes, c cups , but all i know is that if she would have physically started seducing me i doubt i would be able to say no. I know what beautiful is and this little girl was simply gorgeous. it was cute though her thinking she could get with me LOL i hope i didnt break her heart.

MORAL OF THE STORY: girls like sex as much as guys , sometimes they like it at a younger age than others.

And i think the chance of a girl being used for sex can decrease if the guy she is with is older. And that a younger girl with an older guy might be better than both the same age.
I know 3 couples where the guy is way older 27-18,20-13,22-14 and they all have some of the best relationships out of every couple ive known in my whole life.( the youngest 2 couples are virgins O_o)

if a girl is mature enough to want sex and not just to make a guy not leave her etc.. than she will be smart enough to keep it a secret.

but laws are laws mi amigo hehe.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Doowop wrote:
For every 12 year old goth that you see, you will probably see many thousands of twelve year olds acting as they should be acting. Like the kids they are.

I agreed with your entire post up until this point. I don't subscribe to the view that twelve year olds 'should' act like kids.

Well, maybe that's the main part of your problem. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Doowop wrote:
The problem lies with you, not with the forty odd million of us, I'm afraid.

Not if I'm right. If I'm wrong, then yes it's my problem, and the forty odd million of you are in the right. But if I'm right, then it's you guys who need to change your minds.

What will it take to get you to knock down that brick wall? If almost the entire adult population of the UK is dead against it, medical evidence is there in abundance, showing that the brain of a thirteen year old is not yet fully functioning, and any trick cyclist will tell you that there is a pile of dusty patient records showing that it is likely that it will cause a minor some form of psychiatric damage in the long run, what on earth makes you, who happens to be in the very, very small minority, think that you have a glimmer of hope that you can prove your case?

Apart from one other poster on this thread, everyone else thinks that you're bang out of order and are in need of some form of guidance or help, yet time after time you keep coming back with some form of illogical argument. You have obviously convinced yourself that you are right on this whole matter, and it's obvious that you won't change your stance.

I've wasted enough time and energy on you, and hope that you sort yourself out before you end up in the Sunday papers.

Finito.

0 Replies

Doowop, who are we to decide how 12 year olds should act? I mean that within reason... we should probably prevent 12 year olds from taking heroin or murdering schoolmates. But in what sense do you think that 12 year olds should act like 'kids'? Should they play with dolls and let their mummies dress them? If so, why? Why not let them act the age they want to act, and learn things for themselves, as long as they don't put themselves in danger?

OGIONIK, it's reassuring to hear about your friends. And I hope people don't ignore what you have to say... it sounds like you know of living proof that adults and minors can have helathy sexual/romantic relationships.

Interesting article: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/vanreekoin24_e.htm

Quote:

On symptoms of shame, guilt, depression, anxiety etc. experienced by 'victims' of paedophilia or ephebophilia...

Quote:

This essay seems to deal nicely with the issues of psychological harm. The issue of physical harm is still up in the air as far as this thread is concerned. Somebody mentioned a cancer risk, but also that the risk can be reduced with contraception.

What other physical harm could come from ephebophilic relationships?

0 Replies

Doowop wrote:

What will it take to get you to knock down that brick wall?

A clear and conclusive case for your belief that sex with minors is necessarily harmful.

Quote:

If almost the entire adult population of the UK is dead against it, medical evidence is there in abundance, showing that the brain of a thirteen year old is not yet fully functioning, and any trick cyclist will tell you that there is a pile of dusty patient records showing that it is likely that it will cause a minor some form of psychiatric damage in the long run, what on earth makes you, who happens to be in the very, very small minority, think that you have a glimmer of hope that you can prove your case?

I already knew that the frontal lobe does not fully develop until adulthood. But neither do your wisdom teeth. So what? You're going to have to explain exactly how the less-developed executive functioning of a young adolescent makes them unequipped for sexual contact. It's no good saying, "their brains are different!" You're going to have to show me that their brains are different in the relevant way. Are there brains different in a way which makes sex with them inappropriate? If so, can you explain this to me please? Their limited executive functioning doesn't make it inappropriate to allow them to watch TV or go to birthday parties, so why sex?

Quote:

You have obviously convinced yourself that you are right on this whole matter, and it's obvious that you won't change your stance.

I believe that I am right, yes. But so do you. But I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong (are you? I certainly hope so), and if the evidence or the argument for your position is out there somewhere, then my stance will change when I hear it. So far, the arguments I've seen do not seem to successfully refute my position, and the evidence I've seen is consistent with my position.

Quote:

I've wasted enough time and energy on you, and hope that you sort yourself out before you end up in the Sunday papers.

Look, I'm not a maniac. Okay? I just fancy young girls. I'm sure you are able to refrain from molesting the people that you are attracted to, and so am I. It's completely under control, and I do not intend to put myself in prison. Don't panic.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

cyphercat wrote:
It is the very event of being powerless to control what happens to you that is harmful, in and of itself.

The very event of being powerless to control what happens to you is harmful in and of itself?

So when you're walking to work and it's very windy, and your hair is blowing around, that's harmful? It's happening to you, and you're powerless to control it, so by your argument it must be harmful.

Excuse me, here is the full context of the one sentence you have chosen to respond to:

cyphercat wrote:

A girl's body being used in a way she did not choose IS the harm. It is not dependent on what the sex is like, do you get that? It is the very event of being powerless to control what happens to you that is harmful, in and of itself.

I think it is quite clear what I am saying there, but you ignore the context in order to continue in your chosen belief that as long as the sex is not harmful, the lack of consent would be unimportant.

Quote:

From what I've seen in this thread, it still seems perfectly possible that sex with minors is fairly harmless.

Even "fairly harmless" is not good enough-- and at this point I can't continue this discussion without lapsing into name-calling, so goodbye.

0 Replies

cyphercat wrote:

Excuse me, here is the full context of the one sentence you have chosen to respond to:

cyphercat wrote:
A girl's body being used in a way she did not choose IS the harm. It is not dependent on what the sex is like, do you get that? It is the very event of being powerless to control what happens to you that is harmful, in and of itself.

I think it is quite clear what I am saying there, but you ignore the context...

I wasn't ignoring the other sentences. I thought that the last sentence was a general comment which could be considered outside the specific context of sex with young girls. But it seems I misinterpreted you, so I'll try again.

I'm guessing, then, that you meant something specific, such as: 'It is the very event of being powerless to control how your body is used by other people that is the harm.' Is that about right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's a good interpretation of what you meant, then I can use a new analogy. You're rising the bus to work and it's very busy, and many of the passengers are standing, including you. The bus turns a corner and you lose your balance, and to prevent yourself from falling over you find yourself putting your hand on somebody's shoulder briefly. You apologise afterwards.

Is it not perfectly plausible that this person will just smile politely and say, "that's okay"? You would have used his/her body in a certain way, and he/she would have been powerless to control your behaviour. But would any harm be caused? I don't think so.

Quote:

...in order to continue in your chosen belief that as long as the sex is not harmful, the lack of consent would be unimportant.

That's not quite what I believe. As long as the whole situation is not harmful, the lack of consent is not important.

If the actual lack of consent is harmful, as you believe, then that's a real problem. I believe that consent is only an issue if what one is consenting to is harmful. But if a lack of consent for sex is itself harmful, then that lack of consent for sex would itself be a harmful thing to which consent would be required. And you can't really consent to a lack of consent for sex. So if a lack of consent for sex is harmful in and of itself, I lose.

But assuming (for the sake of the current argument) that the sex itself is entirely harmless, what is the difference between using someone for sex, and using someone for balance on a busy bus, that might make a lack of consent for the one more harmful than a lack of consent for the other?

Quote:

Even "fairly harmless" is not good enough

Really? What if, when you put your hand on the person's shoulder for balance, you actually harm him/her slightly. Maybe he/she has a slight bruise on the shoulder from playing American Football, and when you touch it, it causes a tiny amount of pain. Your action would only be fairly harmless, but should it really be forbidden?

Quote:

...and at this point I can't continue this discussion without lapsing into name-calling, so goodbye.

What names did you have in mind? Do you often get the urge to call people names just because they disagree with you? Because that is all this is... a disagreement. I respect you and your beliefs, I just disagree with them. Can't you hold the same attitude towards me?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
It does appear, however, that you're going to extremes to justfiy doing exactly what you know is legally and morally wrong.

Please stop there. I don't believe that it is morally wrong. Isn't that obvious? I do not think that sex with minors is wrong, and I do not think that it should be illegal (I am of course aware that it is illegal).

Quote:
You're trying to convince yourself that if you have the child's consent--it's okay. You go even further, and try to convince yourself--well, even if you don't have the child's consent--you're not harming her because she'll somehow find it enjoyable. You're grooming yourself to be a pedophile.

You haven't listened to my argument. If somebody offers you a biscuit, they do something to you without your consent. You did not consent to being offered a biscuit. So lack of consent is not necessarily bad. Get it?

Harm is always bad. Focus on harm. If sex with minors harms them, then fine... sex with minors should not be allowed.

Sex with a 12 year old is wrong. The fact that you don't think it's wrong is troubling. You have a predator mentality.

If you offer your particular brand of "biscuit" to a 12 year old, you are doing something wrong.

0 Replies

age of consent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know