If an Underage Girl Pursued an Older Male?

[Deleted]

If an underage girl pursued an older male and she initiated sex with him and they both consented, enjoyed it, and she was not traumatized by the experience, then is it still wrong, is anyone really hurt, or is there even a victim at all? The same for an underage male pursuing an older female?

Or..hear me out OP, she could just commit a really heinous crime and be tried as an adult. Than it's just free game.



./s

[Underverse]

While I agree that there is always some power imbalance in relationships, hopefully you can understand that the power imbalance in these cases generally is too large, especially because it involves a minor, a group of citizens who are legally defined by their inability to make good decisions?

Too large? I'm not so sure. There are very large power imbalances between mothers and babies, and these relations are cherished to the highest level. Why does the nature of a sexual relationship suddenly change everything? Mothers have great potential to abuse their babies, and some do. But we don't outlaw mothering.

[Elba]

I am really, really surprised at the sheer number of people who try to rationalize kid diddling ITT. Is this a NAMBLA board?

[Underverse]

The reasoning is completely sound since the adult is in a position of authority, and can abuse their position to influence the actions of a minor.

Abuse should be the target of law, then. Not interaction.

This is the same logic as outlawing all sex because some people rape. Or outlawing men from being fathers because some men beat their kids.

[Prothynyas]

it would be wrong , hence UNDER AGE!!!!

[Phookah]

Correction, I am subject to the laws if I get caught.

- - - Updated - - -



Fill those jail cells with bankers, CEO's, and the wealthy in that case.

That's an unnecessary specification, like saying "I'm only dead when I die".
In any case I can bet you'll be being watched after this thread.

[Underverse]

I am really, really surprised at the sheer number of people who try to rationalize kid diddling ITT. Is this a NAMBLA board?

Times change and people question their inborn beliefs. Does that surprise you?

Not so long ago Americans thought black people were subhuman. Something changed along the way, and it wasn't that people suddenly became moral.

[Huntermyth]

op if you continue on this path you will experience the prison love, not the underaged girl one.

i advice you to stop whatever you are doing / planning to do.

[Laerrus]

If an underage girl pursued an older male and she initiated sex with him and they both consented, enjoyed it, and she was not traumatized by the experience, then is it still wrong, is anyone really hurt, or is there even a victim at all? The same for an underage male pursuing an older female?

The law is still the law.

Besides if any adult decides to mess with my Daughters, regardless of who initiated the contact, they better invest in some soap on a rope. I'll make damn sure that fucker ends up behind bars.

[Sunseeker]

Yet many laws have changed over time as we've collectively gathered more information. What damage have the gays caused by marrying? What damage have women caused by being able to vote?

Law should never be an argument for morality. Morality should only ever be an argument for law. Derive in the latter direction.

I'm not going to engage in what damage may or may not be caused by any given situation. If someone feels the law is wrong and has evidence to support their viewpoint that the law is wrong on many occasions, on a wide scale, over the general population, then they need to bring that forward. The OP's argument seems to be founded on they don't like the government, therefore they don't have to follow the law.

[nanook12]

Apparently you can normalize pedophaelia

What a time to be alive.

[Underverse]

The law is still the law.

Besides if any adult decides to mess with my Daughters, regardless of who initiated the contact, they better invest in some soap on a rope. I'll make damn sure that fucker ends up behind bars.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the parallels with fathers who would say the same thing about a black man 'messing with their daughters' not too long ago are pretty overt.

I think it's generally safer to be vigilant against damage, instead of using prejudice to direct your actions under a broad range of circumstances. Damage is always bad, and you'll never be led astray by condemning it. Categories of actions are usually too broad to condemn.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not going to engage in what damage may or may not be caused by any given situation. If someone feels the law is wrong and has evidence to support their viewpoint that the law is wrong on many occasions, on a wide scale, over the general population, then they need to bring that forward. The OP's argument seems to be founded on they don't like the government, therefore they don't have to follow the law.

I agree with the process of changing laws that you state here.

[nanook12]

op if you continue on this path you will experience the prison love, not the underaged girl one.

i advice you to stop whatever you are doing / planning to do.

If I continue on the path of entertaining hypothetical scenarios, that occur with some common frequency in our society, in order to critically questions its laws and customs, then I will go to jail?

You know what happens when you assume too much right?

[Killadrix]

Abuse should be the target of law, then. Not interaction.

This is the same logic as outlawing all sex because some people rape. Or outlawing men from being fathers because some men beat their kids.

It's the interaction because because the "abuse" can be extremely difficult to prove out if the minor has been manipulated or does not fully understand the abuse that has taken place.

[nanook12]

That's an unnecessary specification, like saying "I'm only dead when I die".
In any case I can bet you'll be being watched after this thread.

Eh big deal. I am probably on a lot of watch lists already, but I have nothing to worry about because I just question laws and social norms I seldom break them.

[Phookah]

Yet many laws have changed over time as we've collectively gathered more information. What damage have the gays caused by marrying? What damage have women caused by being able to vote?

Law should never be an argument for morality. Morality should only ever be an argument for law. Derive in the latter direction.

The difference being the source of said arguments: Gay marriage wasn't legal due to religious dogma, and women not having the vote was due to sexist views of the past with not seeing them as equals intellectually or physically (also tied to religious dogma), ditto for the racist implications of the time.

Diddling kids isn't a matter of religious dogma, or some pent-up hatred of people who look different.
It's something considered morally not okay in the majority of the world.

"But why can't a 16 year old consent but a 17 year old can?!?!"

Because we have to draw a line in the sand at some point. That's how reasoning and laws and virtually everything else in the world works.

[Underverse]

It's the interaction because because the "abuse" can be extremely difficult to prove out if the minor has been manipulated or does not fully understand the abuse that has taken place.

If the minor has no other adult connections, then the potential for abuse increases (though is still very far from determinative). Fortunately, most minors have parents and relatives, as well as friends. And, in an open society where things like this are accepted, abuse is very unlikely to go undetected in these circumstances.

If minors are afforded more freedoms with whom they are able to associate, then they can also be more free to leave a relationship that they feel is abusive. And if they don't think it's abusive, then I'm not exactly sure why others should worry.

In some ways, our laws remove so much agency from minors that minors feel compelled to obey adults to a greater degree than they might otherwise, which opens up avenues for covert abuse. Except because those who are willing to break laws to satisfy their desires are generally unsavory types, you're actually compounding risk of abuse into something worse than it would be without the law.

[Killadrix]

If the minor has no other adult connections, then the potential for abuse increases (though is still very far from determinative). Fortunately, most minors have parents and relatives, as well as friends. And, in an open society where things like this are accepted, abuse is very unlikely to go undetected in these circumstances.

If minors are afforded more freedoms with whom they are able to associate, then they can also be more free to leave a relationship that they feel is abusive. And if they don't think it's abusive, then I'm not exactly sure why others should worry.

In some ways, our laws remove so much agency from minors that minors feel compelled to obey adults to a greater degree than they might otherwise, which opens up avenues for covert abuse. Except because those who are willing to break laws to satisfy their desires are generally unsavory types, you're actually compounding risk of abuse into something worse than it would be without the law.

The bolded part is exactly the problem. The minor is less able to judge that abuse is occurring because they have less understanding of what being in a relationship really means, as well as the fact that they are more easily manipulated by adults.

[Jotaux]

The older male is an adult and should be mature enough to say no.

[Underverse]

The difference being the source of said arguments: Gay marriage wasn't legal due to religious dogma, and women not having the vote was due to sexist views of the past with not seeing them as equals intellectually, ditto for the racist implications of the time.

Diddling kids isn't a matter of religious dogma, or some pent-up hatred of people who look different.
It's something considered morally not okay in the majority of the world.

"But why can't a 16 year old consent but a 17 year old can?!?!"

Because we have to draw a line in the sand at some point. That's how reasoning and laws and virtually everything else in the world works.

Actually, it's been acceptable in many societies throughout history, some of which are contemporary. Our views here are descended from relatively recent puritan-era religious mores. These views are not substantially different from our bigotry against women and sexual or ethnic minorities. It's become an ideological pariah. Something that everyone goes to when they want to string something up as raucously immoral.

But biology does not agree with us. Look at how we evolved. Look at how other apes act. Bonobos use sexual pleasure to calm their children. Are they scarred for life? No; it's a normal social interaction for them.