Graded Age of Consent Laws

Why not propose a scheme along these lines?  The first number is the age of one partner, and the range of numbers is the range of people of a certain age who can legally have sex with a person of first.  It goes for any combination or number of sexes.

14: 11-17
15: 12-18
16: 12-24
17: 12-25
18-21: 14-up
21: 15-up

The thing that really bugs society is the whole ADOLESCENCE/children question around the consent laws.  In theory, we have no immediate moral problem with a 25 year old fucking an 80 year old, since both of them have made the mystical transition into adulthood.  However, we say that a 40 year old and a ten year old is RIGHT OUT.  To quantify the ages so precisely around adolescence seems strange, as well.  To accomodate this, we could have less nasty non-jail sentences (seeing a shrink/community service) for, for example, an 18 year old tapping a 13 year-old), all the way up to whatever age is right-out.  Send a 25 year old who got with an 8 year old to jail.  The process of fixing the age cutoffs could be helped by the psychological establishment.

im 20, i live in holland, and i can tell you that almost every kid from age 12 and up fucks far before they reach your so called "adulthood".
and in retrospect i dont think its that bad that these teens fuck each other. go ahead, experiment whatever you want. good for your social skills with the ladies later on in life.
as to the op, i think its not that harmful if teens mess around with each other. its when someone who fully understands how it works "uses" a younger person, thats where it goes wrong.
how to be the judge of this? fuck if i know, i dont mess around with any girl under 16 because jesus fucking christ, try to conversate with a girl in puberty... you'd go crazy within 10 minutes.

Adulthood and maturity can be obtained at very different times. I'll use myself as an example. When I was 13 I had sex with a 12 year old, we were both educated on STDs and pregnancy but we were both virgins, had clean parents, and used protection. I've been going on 4chan since I was 12 --I am 15 now (lol underage b&)-- and I've been using the internet all the time since I was 10. I was exposed to a lot of stuff, sure I had a stage where I was emotionally troubled, but then I realized I was being dumb and got over it.

There'd be no reason for either of us to get in trouble, we both understood and conscented to the situation, hell, there's even a 20 year old who I have had sex with on a couple occasions. Sure, it may be illegal but I'm not some dumbass who is going to completely disregard the fact that I could get an STD or get someone pregnant.

Education and proper protection are what is really needed, not laws saying how horrible anyone is who has sex with a minor.

All I know is pre-teens are hot. I want a few for Christmas.

All I know is pre-teens are hot. I want a few for Christmas.

At least >>83 is honest with himself. GJ!

How do you know it's a he?

Because there are no womenz on the internets.

>>87
what about that one women's pedo organiztion? or the girl version of nambla lol``````````````````

nothin' quite like anal with a 9 year old.

>>72
Certainly doesn't explain the popularity of "barely legal" teen porn (dressed as sexually naive catholic or japanese schoolgirls) or hollywood's obsession with teen starlets and fasion (ambercrombie & fitch).

Not saying I'm disagreeing with your moral viewpoint, just that the "sexually immature" look (by way of physically immature adults) seems to be more popular than you take it. It's connected to the sexist "I claim this virgin land" thing, or simple sexual insecurity ("the younger she looks, the bigger a man I feel").

That, and many 12-16 year olds CAN pass for over 18 these days.

"Barely legal" are still at least 18 year-old women. They're decently developed, yo. I doubt most people would be interested in a real girl of 16, unless the person is younger than ~20. They're fat and skinny in the wrong places.

That, and many 12-16 year olds CAN pass for over 18 these days.

12 as 18? No way. One in a million.

16 as 18? Maybe 1 in 40, but those that do... bother me, because I like it. Unf. :(

I really do think that people bothered by an attractive 16 year old are truly fucked in the head and need to see a psychologist.

>>91
So you can tell the difference betwen a 16 and an 18 year old? Those two years make THAT much of a difference in physical developement!? Fuck, I can't tell the difference!

I'm sure maturity takes a little longer than that...

Some relevant tests:
http://www.zipperfish.net/free/quiz/likejailbait.php
And test #2:
http://www.zipperfish.net/free/quiz/jailbait2004.php

You'll be proud to know that I failed with flying colors...

>>92
I think people over 20 who want to fuck a 16 year old need to visit a psychologist. Oh no.

>>94
Passed both (1/5 and 2/5). So, it seems I can.

Of course, few of the 16 yo girls I've seen in the girls' schools near my house look that good. Showbiz uses lookers, so it's a biased sample.

Except for the anorexics, that is. Too fucking many of them.

Eh, sexual attraction to adolescents isn't something one can "grow out of" quickly and easily. A man in his 30's and older--with the attraction being a primary or exclusive one (thus a paraphilia)--is in rather poor taste. But a young man in his early-to-mid 20's, the memories of his high school days still fresh in his mind, may not be so psychologically unsound (especially since many adultolescents are still mentally immature and inexperienced) unless he is obsessed with it. This isn't a absolute, black and white debate. Human sexuallity is painted in shades of gray.

Hell, how many european countries have their AoC at 14/15?

>>91
You know that physically underdeveloped 18+ year olds exist, right? Not everyone is instantly an adult at 18 years, 0 days, 0 hours.

haha I fail hard at the test...
but 16 is legal here so boyah!

>>91
Nah, but the law says they are. It's arbitrary, but the line has to be set somewhere. Imagine the mess if everyone was a case-by-case basis.

"But sir, I thought she was mature! Honest!"

Make that >>98

There's nothing inherently wrong with an 80 year old doing it with a 12 year old. Your ingrained sensibilities might find it aesthetically unpleasant, and society will no doubt make trouble for the unconventional couple. But it's the gawkers that make it a problem, not the wrinkled dick going into a young pussy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an 80 year old doing it with a 12 year old.

I love unfounded assertions.

Here, can I make some wild claims too? It's okay, right?

>>103
What? This is morality we are talking about. So there is nothing inherently wrong in that nothing bad is going to happen unless you listen to some quacks. That is all.

>>104
Whoa, look, more unfounded assertions!

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so; support what you say.

>>105
how exactly is one supposed to support an assertion like that?  list off all the things that are inherently wrong, and if the list is empty, then success?

it can easily be disproven by listing even one thing that /is/ inherently wrong.

>>106
Well then, there's a little problem with that assertion, isn't there. If you can't support it, it's just fantasy.

I quit this board.

I believe there is something wrong with such large gaps in age.

With each year of our life we hit new problems and responsibilites. A 14 year old can not mentally, financially, or happily fill his or her half of a loving two-way relationship. The pressure exerted on a child expected to fuffil the responsibilities of someone much older usually leads to deap seeded psychological problems.

There is alot more to these relationships then just sexual consent. People who seek these relationships usually missed out on that aspect on their childhood. They see this innocence as secure, safe, and appealingly dangerous. If a older man has always had problems with woman his age or older, traumatic problems, he'll usually seek younger girls for mental security/dominance. This is a major problem, younger folk, their constantly changing in a hormonal process where in one year they can change from a silent pre-teen to an annoyingly noisey teenager. People who invest in mental security (this is manifest in their lives, espeacially their sexuality) with minors are in for a rude awakening. Nothing good can come of these relationships, fast-fowarding a child's innocence and reversing the adult's mental state. It attempts to find some medium but it's so large that it runs thin, and collapses.

The reason why pre-teen and teenage romance is frowned upon, even within appropriate age groups, is because they are not developed mentally to bring everything they could to a relationship. Children and Teenagers are usually prohibited to work, drink, drive and a dozen others because of similiar reasons. They just aren't ready, and don't mistake looking ready to actually being ready.

Societal norms have always taken cue from Biology, and the only situation where younger/older relationships was seen as anything less then a taboo were in situations of instense need (small villages, small birth rates, low survivablity).

>>108
Oh, we're really sorry! It won't happen again! Please come back!

We care about you! We really doooooo!!!

Everyone wilfully continues to miss the point and make unnecessary extrapolations.  The point is not that teenagers should enter into sexual relationships, or even to assume that they are can cope emotionally with everything that comes their way in a sexual relationship.  The point is that it's dumb that certain things are illegal.

I'm right.

>>110
The sad thing is that 108 and 110 are really the same person. :-)

Someone explain the "are the same person" meme to me. Without ID there's no way to know.

>>111
We come to this problem. There are no list of conditions for making something illegal. It is done on the whims of congressmen and the supreme court.

>>111

Your not right, because your not in charge. Welcome to human society and end of thread.

This thread wins.