idle curiosity... why?
i get if you think that 14 year olds shouldn't have sex, period, but i don't understand the reasoning behind saying it's OK for a 14 year old to fuck a 14 year old, but not a 30 year old to fuck a 14 year old... it's sex either way, what difference does it make?
I dispute that. If one of my hot teachers had blown me in high school I can't imagine that being anything but an incredibly positive experience.
If there's a social prejudice, it's probably in our assumption that girls fucking older male teachers must be victims.
Obviously some of these cases involve older teachers manipulating underage students into sex in cases of non-consent or compromised consent. Which happens to fully grown adults too. But by the same token, some of them are perfectly consensual. Except that the state has arbitrarily decided to remove their ability to consent based on how many candles were on their last birthday cake.
I've read so many stories about underage boys having sex with their older teachers, she loses her job and goes to jail, he waits for her, she gets out and they continue their relationship. Seriously, what was the fucking point of jailing her?
I would go further and say that in the vast majority of cases (if it wasn't socially maligned), relationships between older and younger individuals are incredibly beneficial (not to mention likely the basis for human sexual selection). Older people have more experience, knowledge, resources and influence, like you said; younger people need all of these things in order to thrive, especially in a competitive society. These kinds of power imbalances are essential for the redistribution of resources, and both younger and older individuals have an incentive to enter into such a relationship.
Moreover, the fact that they 'do not yet understand' it is even more justification for teaching them. We don't let kids try to derive all of the laws of mathematics on their own in a misguided quest for self-development, after all. The hypocrisy in this area of mentorship and development is absolutely staggering, and people let it survive because they agree with it.
- - - Updated - - -
Because reasons and puritans and I was taught that it was wrong.
Unless you're looking to screw 14 years olds, why even care what the age of consent "should" be, besides what it is legally?
Says you. That's the age of consent in Germany, Austria, Italy, Albania, Hungary, Liechtenstein...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
Also until very recently, the age of consent was more like 10. This idea that you aren't ready for sex until your mid to late teens is a relatively new phenomenon and most age of consent laws in that region were progressively increased to that over the course of the 20th century. It's mostly due to the efforts of social reformers - the same people who began the Temperance League and kicked off the prohibition era.
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...rican-history/
- - - Updated - - -
Or if you are a 14 year old.
I had sex for the first time age 15, and I was by no means early. Most people in my peer group were sexually active by then. Yet the age of consent in my country is 16. Just seems silly to me.
here's what always confuses me about how people look at this issue - even if it is true, what difference does it make?Originally Posted by May90
it's totally legal for a 16 year old boy to lie, manipulate, pressure, and coerce a 16 year girl into having sex - with no legal limitation on what stories he can concoct to trick her into doing it or consequences for his actions if he gets her pregnant or gives her an STD.
so clearly, the laws don't exist to protect young people... so what's the difference if the act is done by a 16 year old or a 30 year old?
the only way it makes sense is if you look at the real truth behind it and the evolution of age of consent laws in the last 200 years.
parents think that children are their property, and that they have some moral right to dictate what they do and who gets to play with them.
and so, age of consent laws exist for the vengeance of parents to leverage against people for using their property without their permission.
- - - Updated - - -
for the same reason that i care about drug laws even though i don't do drugs: i think it is morally and socially unacceptable to punish people for something that is nobody else's business and that has no impact on anyone outside of the participating parties.
jesus christ, if you want to fuck a 14 year old, you're legitimately a pedophile.
most of the girls i went to school with didn't even have bumps for tits at that age and most still had babyish faces, i myself didn't get my boobs till up in the later half of 15. you people are seriously saying it's ok to fuck a literal child.
Just because people do it doesn't mean that it is right. Lots of people drink underage. Doesn't make it right. Or do you think it is right for children to have sex? The fifties way of handling sex for children isn't working. There needs to be more education for children at an earlier age. But if you violate a child, even if you are a child yourself, you get 50 years or death or something. It is not alright to have sex with a child. Ever.
no, children developing and discovering their selves WITH EACH OTHER is okish, i suppose. we all did it. it's part of growing up, learning.
but saying it's ok for an adult to fuck a kid in that range? fucking hell no. i personally think we should be experimenting on and picking apart the brains of convicted molesters so we can find a cure for this shit.
Well, I have to admit that there is, indeed, a large potential for abuse. However, I don't think we as a society should be willing to accept restriction of our freedoms just because of a small percentage of people who want to take advantage of these freedoms. Rather than outright banning everyone from having relationships and sex with a large age gap, I think we should instead try to prevent the potential abuse, while letting the general population do what they want in this relation.
I totally agree that relationships between people of different age gapes can be quite beneficial, I'd even say, for both sides.
This is interesting; I've never considered it from this angle. Indeed, how is a young boy abusing someone's trust better than an old man doing the same? The argument that the old man knows what he is doing, while the young boy doesn't, doesn't make much sense: they both display the same manipulativeness and foolishness.
In general, adults often act just as stupid as some kids. I'd even say that many people never grown up from being kids: they live in adult's body, but they don't know how to act responsibly and with respect to each other. But that is another discussion.
You failed to explain what is wrong with children having sex. The general argument people use is that children are irresponsible and don't know what they are doing. But what if the particular kid knows what they are doing? When I ask this, people usually just answer, "There is no way to know for sure, so it is safer to prohibit them from having sex". Well, not everyone agrees that "there is no way to know for sure" is a valid justification for restricting freedoms.
Last edited by May90; 2016-02-24 at 12:27 AM.
Never said I wanted to, in fact I stated in the OP that 14 year olds should only be able to have sex with people within their general age group (13-16).
- - - Updated - - -
I've never had real sex, unless you count oral, then I lost my virginity at around 12-ish, maybe 13.
No rigid age of consent, just post puberty. Provided both parties are physically capable and want to do it, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.