Underage Dominant

[drake7]

There were some posts in this section about editing due to underage sex, "Censorship on this SITE", and also in the personals section, "Cute 19 year old Asian Girl".

The references are all related to underage submissive females. I for one am quite opposed to underage sex, and even more so to true child pornography involving pre-pubescent children.

How do people feel about, what I suppose is less common, underage dominant males? The internet was not in place like it is now when I was under the age of 18 (the more or less accepted age of consent in the U.S.) but you can bet dollars for donuts if it was I would find this, and other sites, verrrry interesting.

And other than perhaps some chaffing on my penis and a few cramps in my hand I doubt it would have done me much harm. :)

-Drake.

[Kostly]

ALLOT of people would GREATLY disagree... Many would say that porno and sex corrupts children... that it leads to EVIL behavior... In fact, I think most people are of this view.

I personally feel that this is an incorrect view. Infact I could make an arguement to the contrary, saying that by alienating people away from their sexuality that you create disconfort and deviancy, which could lead to abuse or other discourse. of course the arguement would have to be made that by making these common sexual feelings forbidden, and hidden, that you infact create a alienated societty. An arguement that I feel would be easy to accomplish,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply, Knowledge is power and to limit your childrens knowledge of the world seems to be limiting their true potential.

Kostly

P.S. In many countries, including france, it is LEGAL to have sex with "Underage" children. And in swedon, hardcore porno is seen all day long on TV, yet they have 1/10th the teenage pregnancies:)

[Jemal]

Well I personally think it all depends on what your PERSONAL thoughts are on what is Too young.

I think that by the time they're 15 or so, most people (At least around here) are mature enough to be sexually active if THEY chose to, or to know about it. I'ld also say that by the time most teens are that age, they know more about sexuality than their parents knew when they had their first kid, anyways, and I don't think thats a bad thing.

[slavelucy]

...with you Kostly, Sweden, Holland etc also have really low crime (most notably violent crime) rates.

[Finding_Fantasy]

My personal opinion on the matter is that no one under the age of say 15 or 16 should be considered old enough to consent to sex. You can educate children about the protections against pregnancy and the consequences of their actions but that does not mean they are responsible enough or mature enough to truly understand what they may be getting themselves into.

For example, my nephew is going to be 7 years old in a few days and he is, and I am not be biased here, is probably a genius. He can read something and remember facts, tell you the scientific names of all the bugs he reads about, and reads at about a 4th or 5th grade level. He knows about the birds and the bees and hwere babies come from but that doesn't mean he is capable of making a well informed, rational, mature decision. It is my belief that untol the age where they are able to reason, to weight consequences are they truly able to make the right choices and able to deal with the choices they make if they happen to be the wrong ones.

That's my opinion on the subject. As for underage Dominants... well I don't think they really know what they want or have the dicipline to control thenmselves and not take it too far even if they do know what it is they want.

[drake7]

Your reply was quite interesting FF, but it does raise some questions, for you or anyone that wants to discuss it.

Finding Fantasy wrote:


My personal opinion on the matter is that no one under the age of say 15 or 16 should be considered old enough to consent to sex

The question is what if both partners are about 15 or 16 years of age? What should they be told or taught about sex? Should they be told to use a condom or other form of birth control? Or should they be told simply they sex at that age is wrong and taught only abstinence?

FF also wrote:


As for underage Dominants... well I don't think they really know what they want or have the dicipline to control thenmselves and not take it too far even if they do know what it is they want.

The very first "BDSM" experience I had was with the girl I lived next door to as a child. I was about 10 or 11, it was a really long time ago and I am not 100% sure of my age but I seem to recall being in 5th or 6th grade. I didn't know any of the terminology of what we were doing it just felt good. I pretended I was an astronaut who landed on a strange planet and captured an alien female who I then tied up and "examined." She played the alien, who strangely enough seemed to be just like a normal Earth female.

Our escapades were no more than a childish game of "playing doctor" with some harmless BDSM elements thrown in. A few times she even wanted to be the astronaut and tie me up, which at the time seemed only fair. I think that more dangerous than young children playing at these sorts of games, are adult "wanna-be" dominants who convince themselves and their partner that they know what they are doing and end up doing injury.

-Drake.

[Finding_Fantasy]

Well, I know that my daughter is a long ways from it, but when she is old enough to understand certain things, I will try my hardest to gaurd her from bad choices. I don't plan on restricting her against sex. Now don't get me wrong, I am not going to give her free licence tosleep with evey guy that can get it up, but I want her to know that if she really feels the need to have sex (granted she is about the afore mentioned age) I will help her stay safe wether it be with condoms or birth control.

Granted, yes we have to gauge each child on an individual basis.

As for underage dominants, well yeah I am sure we all played those little games but none of us took a paddle or flogger or cane to their 10 year old play mate. They never hung them from the cealing or what not. It was playing and was harmless fun.

However, I do agree with you about the wanna-bes who play that are dangerous. I will make no arguement there. Unfortunately, they are facts of life and the one that give us a bad name.

It's truly hard to explain how I feel about this. I tried my best. If it still leave you with questions, feel free to ask. :)

[slavelucy]

...i am not trying to be inflammatory here but when you say that you will talk to your daughter about sex to ensure that she is safe at 'about the aforementioned age' (sorry, i am technically useless and have no idea how to take bits from other messages to quote them!), what if when she decides she wants sex is in fact NOT at the aforementioned age that you (and indeed the majority) consider 'right'? Surely that is the point, that as adults we intend to do lots of things by the book but that in reality kids are increasingly aware of their sexuality and just won't toe the lines that adults set for them, henceforth our ideals regarding do's and don'ts of parenthood have to be re'looked at. Is this making any sense?

[BDSM_Tourguide]

... decides she wants to have sex and feels she is ready to make that decision, she's going to do it, no matter what you do to try and stop her. You cannot lock her away or send her to a convent.

Well, I guess you could send her to a convent, but...

What you can do is to make sure your children are prepared for it when the time to make the decision comes. Make sure they know the dangers and the risks and make sure they know how to protect themselves and be responsible. Because, if you don't do it, who is?

[slavelucy]

...with you TG, of course people should talk openly and frankly to their children about sex, i was just suggesting that sometimes kids don't always fit into to neat little boxes as in "when I am this age I will be 15/16 and ready to discuss sex with my parents", sadly we sometimes have to play it by ear and shift our moral code to some degree as we go and if that means discussing it at an earlier age, despite the fact that we don't think they are at quite the right age then surely so be it.

[MrStefens]

I am unclear as to what is being defined as sex. It sounds like from many of the posts this is meant to only include intercorse? I think that was our ex-presidents defintion. Sex and sexuality includes much more then that. I have a question about that then. If any of you are parents, what would you say to your 9 or 10 or 11 year old son or daughter if they revealed to you that he/she played touching games with a friend who he/she had a sleep over with. Isn't this rather common?
Would you tell her that this is wrong and she had to wait until she was 15 or 16? Or would you say this is natural and seek to give him/her a more comfortable feeling about the curiousity? In our culture, we keep expanding the age at which a young person may have full rights to their sexuality. Has this worked?
Sex between younger and older people is wrong for a variety of reasons, but thinking that sexuality starts at 15 or 16 or waits until 18 to be expressed is just not true. Many teenagers start expressing their sexuality before that age, with others around their same age. Maybe not intercorse, but certainly with other activities. Should they be told this is wrong and they must wait?

[pop_54]

Tricky subject this isn't it.

As for teaching sex education to the kids, early as you think they can understand what you're talking about is best to ensure full understanding when the time comes for them to experiment.

They will, with or without the education or parents consent, but the one's who know shit all about it will get pregnant or catch something nasty before the one's who've been told the pitfalls of sex activity.

As for what is the acceptable age, well, underage is difficult to quantify, in UK the legal age of consent for straight and gay is 16.
In other countries it's as low as 13.
In the US led internet land, it's 18, far too old to be considered a sensible age to learn about sex.
But controls are needed and a line has to be drawn somewhere I suppose.

pops........:D

[woodsman'sgame]

As far as teaching sex, my feeling is when the opportunity arises, take it. My kids were about 9 or 10. We were outside and the cows were busy. =) They asked what the cows were doing, and I explained. Do people do that too? Yes, but not that way. I explained. It was all very natural. I didn't look for a moment or sit them down. I had not expected to tell them that young, but they asked the question and I have always tried to answer their questions about the world honestly. I answered their questions matter-of-factly, as if they had asked where rain comes from. I only answered what they asked, no extra details. As time went on, they came back with more and more questions.

My views have changed since then on some things. I'm more open-minded. I wish I had done some things differently, but I think I did ok.

As far as touching and playing doctor, they start exploring as young as 6 or 7. I wouldn't encourage it, but I wouldn't make a big deal of it either. I would give them something else to do.

I agree with FF, sex brings with it a lot of responsibility. That is why it should be discouraged until a child is older, in my opinion. He/she has to be able to handle that responsibility. The age? It depends on the child. But around 15 and older is usually a good age. (For some kids younger) Kids will explore and have a real need for sex at this age for sure. I would encourage them to wait on intercourse, though, again because of the responsibility factor. If they are in love, petting, mutual masturbation, etc. might be enough for a while. I would hope it would be.

As far as underage dominants or submissives go, well I think most of us had our tendencies already pretty much defined by the time we reached our teen years. If that is what they like, then we would be hypocritical to not accept that just because they are young. For legal reasons, however, they should be kept out of websites such as this.

[TazDaddy]

it seem too me a lot of pipple forget or do not know what the law is, usa fed law say if you or 18 or over you can not have sex with any one under the age of 18 it statorey rape, as far as i am corsored we sould just go by the law and any one over 18 is ok, all so thar is sopce too be a intnowl(law for the hole world) net law too not expose underage kids too porn on the net..... but no one folws it becoes thar is no posmnet(no enfoment no jell time) too that law as of yet lest you go too meet some one in r/l but i would like too ask then way it say too jone the forms hear you have too be 13 years or older years old way so meen seem too be haveing a porbeling with posting fomr 19 year olds?? (ps too ones who run the sight that is way rong as far as the law go's)

now if both of you or under 18 in some states thats agost the law too have sex stall and the kids can even go too jell

as of storeys whar one is under age... the law is quesalbel but as long as the stroey is not abot some thing that happned in tru life

over all thow i have too say as of for my slafe you have too be over 18 too have sex the law is a good one and is smart even thow one as old as hell 12 tooday may know abot sex, knowing abot it and doing it or two drfonrt things you have too worder if thay or reedey in thar mined bottyes and sprits, i can not say for avrey one but speeking fomr what happne too be arond the time i was 12 , if i would of had sex at that time i fell i would be a lot more fucked up tooday then i am now, and thats all i have too say abot that

[woodsman'sgame]

PS

When I talked about teens having sexual experiences I meant with each other. I do not condone at all an adult male or female getting involved in a sexual relationship with a teenager under 18.

[MrStefens]

Originally posted by woodsman'sgame
PS

When I talked about teens having sexual experiences I meant with each other. I do not condone at all an adult male or female getting involved in a sexual relationship with a teenager under 18.

There is no USA (federal) law concerning the age of consent. That age is set by each individual state. And its not 18 in every state.
I also don't agree that all sexual contact between someone over 18 and somone under 18 is wrong. We are much much too quick to adopt this one size fits all attitude and add a bit of morality to stiffle any dissent.
While it is one thing to say an adult male (or female) in their 30s or older should not engage in sexual relations with a girl, lets say 13 or 14, it is quite another to say that a junior at college who is 21 can not and should not start a relationship, including a sexual realtionship with a 17 year old freshman, if both are consenting. And this is just one example. In many states the age at which someone can consent to marriage is quite a bit lower then 18. Its not against the law to have sex with your spouse in any state. So, a man 21 and a woman 16 could get married in many states, and have all the sex they want. But what if you are gay. Sorry, no such deal. And why did I pick those ages? Those are my parents ages when they met and married. Next year they will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversity. Funny, today they'd throw my father in jail and everyone would agree this was wrong and he is a pervert. Actually, just a young man who fell in love with a younger woman and got her to marry him. And there was nothing unusual about that in this country 20, 30, 40, 50s.
I have traveled many areas of this world, and it might suprise some of those whose social and sexual morals are made up of experiences from the West that what we consider as moral and legal truths in this country are not necessarily what is practiced or accepted as such in other parts of the world. Western culture has, since the 1940s, been ever lengthening the age at which we say our children are no longer kids. Many of our sexual laws are not practiced worldwide. Wasn't even practiced in this country 150 years ago. Wasn't even practiced in the southern US 50 years ago.
I mean no offense to anyone who holds a different opinion then I do. But I do feel like we would all be better served if we made more distinctions when we discuss this topic, and not just jump on the bandwagon of saying well...any one that is one day over 18 touching any one that is one day under 18 is a sin/crime/morally wrong. I believe in our effort to protect actual children from actual predatory men we have cast a very wide net and have in recent years criminalized both the adnormal and morally wrong behavior of sexually preying on innocent kids with what up until this point in most the world was considered quite normal and acceptable, that being the interaction between young males and older teenage women. Just my two cents worth.

[woodsman'sgame]

"I also don't agree that all sexual contact between someone over 18 and somone under 18 is wrong. We are much much too quick to adopt this one size fits all attitude and add a bit of morality to stiffle any dissent."

The problem with generalizations is that they always come back to bite you in the butt. I, of course, see that there will be exceptions. A freshman in college and a senior in college can have a good relationship. However, if there is a significant age difference 3 years or more, and you are talking about a high schooler vs. an adult, then we are dealing with issues of power not morality. The lack of experience of the high schooler and the lack of equality in the relationship makes it difficult and the older person usually has the upper hand. A high school senior and a college freshman in his second semester are very often quite different in levels of maturity, even though they are only a year apart. Kids do a lot of growing up their first year of college, or their first year in the real work world if they don't go to college.
Anyway, I apologize for the generalization. But I still believe that there is a big gap in maturity between most high schoolers and an adult out of high school. I don't claim to be an authority, but I have had some experience in this area. That's where I am speaking from.

[TazDaddy]

a fuw hear or all most saying ones 16 or so year know abot sex so becoes thay know it ok for them too have sex, i would like too ask if you know how yoo ues a knife do you cut off you hand? no way would you do that just becoes you know how too don't meen you do it becoes you know better,now hear is the kicker too it all thow, at 16 do you know better to not have sex tall you or truley reddey too, no how could you relley all you know is (he she) is looking good and would you know it pop no more hand

[BDSM_Tourguide]

The very simple fact of the matter is that it IS legal in many, many place to have sex when you're 17, 16 or even 14. There are places in the USA where you can legally get married, with your parents' permission, when you're 14.

The very simple fact of the matter is that 18 has nothing to do with the actual legality issue in most parts of the world. Eighteen is a number plucked up by the United States Senate as being legal age to view sexually explicit material. It is NOT that age of consent in many states. Don't believe me? Go to Utah, Louisiana or Texas and ask a local judge what the state law is about age of consent. You certainly won't get 18 as an answer.

The funny thing to me is that, even though these people are old enough to consent to have sex, they're still not old enough to look at porn and explicit stories on the internet.

I have said it once and I'll say it again. America's outdated views of morality and purity of age in their effort to "protect the children" is archaic and should be changed. There isn't much difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old, except what's written on a piece of paper somewhere. There's also not much difference between an 18 year old and a 21 year old, either, except for another excessively harsh and outdated law.

[TazDaddy]

no it is not leage too get marerd at 14 IN the usa it is in some sates thow. in 40 states you can not get marered tall you 16 in most of the rest it 17 and in a varey varey fuw it 14 not in all of the usa thow ps what marreg got too do with sex?

[Finding_Fantasy]

Originally posted by woodsman'sgame
"I also don't agree that all sexual contact between someone over 18 and somone under 18 is wrong. We are much much too quick to adopt this one size fits all attitude and add a bit of morality to stiffle any dissent."

I don't see a problem with people having sex with someone under the age of 18 if they themselves are over that age. If I did, then I myself would be a hypocrite. When I was 16 I dated a guy 21 and I have no regrets. While the guy was a selfish asshole I in no way see as the relationship as wrong even though I was below the age of 18.

Another example: My parents. My mother was 16 and my father was 19. You cannot tell me that they waited 2 years to have sex (I know my father too well) Besides, I know they didn't because my mother has told me as much.

Sex with anyone below 18 is not wrong...granted I might have a thing to say if a 45 year old and a 16 year old got together. I guess what I am trying to say, if there is a huge ahe difference then okay but a few years difference... i don't see it as a problem.

So baiscally, I'm in agreement with you. :)

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Well, you see, when two people that love each other very much get married, they want to show each other how much they love one another by having sex. Now, boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. The boy takes his penis and places it in the girl's vagina and it feels good. Also, that's how babies are made.

Did anyone not get this speech when you were eight?




Originally posted by TazDaddy
ps what marreg got too do with sex?

[TazDaddy]

once a long time aow you fall in love meet you mate get marered and have sex.... then along came money then pipple got mared for avrey thing but sex, all thow thay stall tack you for a ride, you just would not enjoy it, now adays you get mared becoes it convont not too have sex but if you one of the fuw who do get mared out of love and hold off too have sex tall then i guss i do not care what age you or if it relley true love,but in truth i have too ask if you 14 15 16 years old do you know what love is?(hell if you 18-80 years old do you know thow lol) wall once a log time agow i would say marge was for love more so then not is for avreything but love and i do know of it being leagel too marey if you that age what i was relly geting at is it not over all the usa just in some states for the most part you even if paronts say it ok have too be 17-18 year old it a varey fuw state under that age, and i have too ask if you say 18 or orlder way would you wont too wed one who is 16, and if you in love with some one that young i all so have too ask what is rong with you? as of for me the law of haveing sex once your 18 you old a nuff to do so if any is younger the 18 it too young and, some time 18 is too young

BTW did you know wall you can wed at 16 in some states you stall can not have sex tall you 18 even thow you or wed?(ps SOME states)

[MrStefens]

Originally posted by BDSM_Tourguide


I have said it once and I'll say it again. America's outdated views of morality and purity of age in their effort to "protect the children" is archaic and should be changed. There isn't much difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old, except what's written on a piece of paper somewhere. There's also not much difference between an 18 year old and a 21 year old, either, except for another excessively harsh and outdated law.

DDSM, I am in total agreement with you. And I might add that chronological age, after a certain point of course, has very little to do with maturity and ability to make healthy decisions about sexual matters. I think once again the US has taken a noble concept, protecting our children, and stretched it way out of proportion to the actual harm. I would guess if you took a poll of folks, male amd female, who had a relationship with a somewhat older man or woman when they were a teen, you'd be surprised how many would reflect back on that as a positive experience in their life.

[MrStefens]

Originally posted by MrStefens
DDSM, I am in total agreement with you. And I might add that chronological age, after a certain point of course, has very little to do with maturity and ability to make healthy decisions about sexual matters. I think once again the US has taken a noble concept, protecting our children, and stretched it way out of proportion to the actual harm. I would guess if you took a poll of folks, male amd female, who had a relationship with a somewhat older man or woman when they were a teen, you'd be surprised how many would reflect back on that as a positive experience in their life.

Sorry, that should have said BDSM_Tourguide. One day I am going to learn to type with more then a single digit!

[e.e. norcod]

Yes, we are actually discussing a rather wide range of issues here, age of consent to marry, the statutory definiton of consent, federally versus state mandated ages, and the point of the famous New Yorker cartoon "on the internet nobody knows that I am a dog". However what is probably closest to the orginal question has to do with "age gap" and state laws concerning, most particularly, sexual abuse of children.

In most states consensual sadomasochistic sexual relationships between two individuals older than 15 or 16 with a less than three year age gap between the two individuals will not usually bring the DA or States Attorney General down on the individuals. This is, of course assuming that no physical injury results and neither individual is bringing charges against the other (in which case we are looking at sexual assault or physical assault). This activity would be considered to be exploratory sexual activity between peers.

On the other hand, in most states, a seventeen year old having a sadomasochistic sexual relationship with a twelve year old, would upon the matter being brought to the attention of the authorities, result in an investigation and the possibility of charges being brought by the state authorities under sexual abuse of children. Individuals who are legally children (e.g. generally under 18) can be prosecuted for sexual abuse of children. In most cases the critical "age gap" is three years. Again in most states, adults in a professional role or adults in significant positions of authority are required to inform the state child protective services when the possibile occurance of physical or sexual abuse of children exists.

In general, there is operationally the same three year "age gap" functioning between an 18 year old and a 17 year old whereas a 17 year old and a 21 year old breaches the 3 year rule.

Surprisingly, there is a significant amount of common sense in the enforcement of this. However, in Texas if a 18 year old male knocks up a 13 year old girl (which happens quite frequently) he may be looking at more than child support. It all depends on how the local prosecutor feels that week. An important principle is, the interest of the law enforcement authorities is usually directly proportionate to the severity of the injury inflicted and the publicity of the event. Make sure that experimentation does not cross the line over into assault. It is far too easy for what was consent last night to become force once the buises appear. Best to confine ones efforts to one your own age group and wait until one has reached their full legal majority before engaging in activities that might twitch the interest of the DA.

Fortunately, in works of fiction we are not so limited or Mr. Nabokov would have to confine his writing to butterflies.

[TazDaddy]

i know it ok in swerland too have sex if you or 17 even too the pont of thay can even sell thar bottey for money, as of the uk thay say 17-18 (by uk i do not just meen enlgand i meen all thow ones arond thar) russaes law is one i do not know but i hear it is 13 years old (13!!!!!) and in japan i beilve it 16 but you have too be 18 for r/l porn (but hentai, or art porn can be any age)

any ways thow or the big ones no one hear is saying thow thar or not palceing with no law at all when it come too age, some place you can come right out of the wome and it ok too have sex but too the pont of what is with usa have 18 when most the world is 17.......... i have no iday how thay relley came up with the nubber but as you your slafe say what one year? if you wont too have sex with some one 17 :confused: go some place you can as of for me 18 is 18 is 18!

as of usa being backwords with say you most be 18 i have too say the usa was the 1 too have any law like that so thats not what i would call backwords:rolleyes:

[pop_54]

Interesting that all threads concerned with minors versus sex acts and the viewing of same always drag up the age of consent worldwide thing. Many of us are quite ignorant of the true facts on this matter in other parts of the world to our own, I am one.

Well here in the UK the legal age of sexual consent and marriage is '16' for both straight and gay genders, yes they're allowing gay marriage as well now in places, and 16 yr old boys can legally be humped up the rear.
Lesbianism is still not classed as a sex act by the way and no legislation exists regarding same in truth, although it is now mentioned in some guidlines where it didn't used to be.

The age of maturity is another thing though, screw an over 13 yr old and you're looking at possible retribution depending on circumstances, under 13 and you're done no matter what.
Most societies it seems consider 13 to be the age of sexual maturity, that is the, kid is big enough, but not old enough to make sensible decisions on such things in his/her head.

The government here have recently dragged in a panic bit of legisalation giving courts power to prosecute adults, (over 18's) who have sex with a legal age 16 yr old, if someone makes a complaint, there is however no law to stop a 50 yr old marrying a 16 yr old with everyones including the parents consent, God knows how they go on about sex after they marry though having regard to law one.

The panic measure was brought in to pacify the few as usual. These few seem to think that stopping 19 yr old's having consentual sex with legal age 16 yr old's will stop paedophiles existing on the Earth. I was under the impression that paedo's picked on underage kids, not legal age young adults, but the few know best don't they.

On the subject of age difference between partners, my wife was 18 when we met, and I was 28, yes 10 yrs between us, doomed to failure wasn't it, that's probably why we've been happily married 25 yrs now and have three happy kids to show for it, when 50 pc of the folks we know who married same age partners are now divorced, some several times over.

pops.............
:D

[woodsman'sgame]

Nothing wrong with age differences. I have known many happy marriages where there was a big difference in the ages. Congratulations on your successful marriage.


I do want to reiterate that it is not age differences that is a problem when it comes to sex or relationships. Going back to the original theme of this thread, underage dominants (or submissives), the problem lies with the immaturity of most high schoolers. Some are very mature and responsible, but too many are not and are not truly ready to handle a sexual relationship, especially one which puts them on an unequal footing with an adult as a partner. I have dealt with youngsters this age all my life, thousands of them, so I speak from experience.
Keeping this lack of maturity in mind, as a rule, I would strongly discourage relationships between adults over 19 and teenagers under 18. (of course there will always be exceptions)

[alebeard42]

I t hink of a 35 year old man no matter how attractive having sex with a 12 year old girl and I think, that abuse, its harmful and predatory.
I think of an attractive 35 Year old woman having sex with a 12 year old boy and I think "Lucky little bastard!"
I know its sexist, but still, its true
Ale

[-angelstar-]

actually i didnt really grasp the like main topic you all are going on about.

but shouldnt we focus more on, who is having sex with who, and how old the parties are, rather then what the legal age to have sex is?

i mean, clearly it is more 'appropriate' if like two teens of say 17 have sex together, then like say a girl of 17 and a guy of say, 40. since in a common sensical way, you wouldnt be saying that the 17 year old guy is a predator as compared to the 40 year old guy..

but then. here's where numbers are arbitrary and paints a wrong picture.

because, it is very possible that the 17 year old is preying on the girl as well. he might not be a stupid immature kid, as what his age leads us to believe.

i dont know, but i think all this 'legal age' that different counties imposes just sets a vauge benchmark, to make the law less arbitrary. but it itself isnt of much use. i mean, see, if your country says that you cannot have sex with a minor and a minor is deemed to be one of 16 years and below.... consider the following scenarios.

1. you have sex when she's just 2 months short of her 16th birthday
2. you have sex when she's just 2 months pass her 16th birthday

it is highly probable that her mental state of mind, and her maturity level would be the same in both scenarios. however, you would only be prosecuted (even if sex was consensual on both occasions) for the first case.

so.... this isnt really deemed justice is it :p a minor in the eyes of the law, might not really be a minor actually.

[Curtis]

Okay, but even though the ages picked are arbitrary, what's the alternative? Should each judge be allowed to decide what's underage in his own court? And judges are busy, so what's to keep most of them picking their own arbitrary age to speed up court proceedings?

[-angelstar-]

Originally posted by Curtis
Okay, but even though the ages picked are arbitrary, what's the alternative? Should each judge be allowed to decide what's underage in his own court? And judges are busy, so what's to keep most of them picking their own arbitrary age to speed up court proceedings?

no alternative i guess?

i dunno.

but maybe it should be less of a strict liability kinda offence if you have sexual relations with a minor. i'm not exactly sure if you have this same law we have over here though.

cos like sometimes, girls lie about their age to the guy. and the stupid foolish guy, who believes that the girl is of legal age, ends up getting blackmailed by the girl....

and even though it was consensual sex, and the girl knew what she was doing, the law, still stands on her side. so this isnt really fair. but that's life again i guess :p

[pop_54]

Interesting that you should bring up about girls lying about their age angelstar. There was a case recently around here where an 18 yr old lad was charged with having sex with a 15 yr old girl.

The fact the girl was in a club for over 18's when he picked her up, and that she claimed to be 18 and that she looked 18 when dolled up with makeup and horny clothing made no difference to the case.

Also due to her underage status he was not allowed to even know, let alone use in his defence, the fact that she was already a single mother and had a 1 yr old baby placed in council care. This all came out after the case, but he can't use it in an appeal because it's still privledged information.

The law said he was guilty and he was sentenced to 2 yrs prison suspended for 2 yrs, so he didn't have to do any time, but he's now on the register of child sex offenders for life.

Fair???????? Not in that case I don't think it was, but the law is so inflexible.