Sex With Children

For or against? And Why?

Against. Children don't know what sex is until a certain age.

what age? 9 is old enough.

This issue along with abortion goes to my no-comment bin. It's just too much to say yes or no. In this case we have not enough experience from it. Most children react negatively to sexual abuse, yes, but that's sexual ABUSE. Almost all modern data we have got on this subject is from rape cases, other abuse and very questionable practices. Ancient Greeks and other cultures of past seemed to have got it working, but who knows really?

When I was a kid I knew other kids that wanted it. I knew a girl, say 10 years old, that wanted to suck her dad's cock. She would rub her clit when talking about it. He Dad never knew about it. He was a decent guy. I don't think she was unique.

Girls? After first period they are fair game. Old enuff to bleed old enuff to butcher. HARHARHAR HEEHEEHEE HAHAHAHAHAAA!

>>2
I think that includes adults too.

To assume that once you've passed 18 you suddenly know more about sex than at age 17 is rediculous. everyone develops at a differnt rate, mentally and sexually, especially girls, and to set ANY sort of limit is faulty. I personally think anything after puberty starts is fair game. goes this means they're ready? maybe not. but they know enough by then to say yes or no. it's not it's men forcing themselves upon pubecent girls and claiming child brides.

Environment is also very important. why are some ages of concent lower in some countries but higher in others? It's because in general, the environment in which these kids develope are more open about sexuality than others. Again, a 16 y/o girl in a country where the age of consent is 14 will not always know better than a 13 year old girl in a country where the age of consent is 14.

How are we to judge whether or not any one at any age 'knows' what sex is? There are many adults who can't wrap their heads around child birth, let alone how it happens. i have many friends who lost their virginity in middle school, and knew perfectly well what they were doing. i knew three time as much as my friends knew about sex while i was in elementry school, and that's even after they had their little sex-ed video (thank you TV and an older brother).

Ages of concent and any limit that keeps a pubecent young person from enjoying sex on their own free will is wrong and misguided. It all widdles down to personbal responsibility and education. setting limits only inforces not only a faux sence of morality, but often causes a forbidden fruit effect, having sex for the sake of doing it before the limit line. in a way, ages of concent encourage irrisponsible sexual behavior. cause we all know how well prohibition turned out.

>>8


Try writting a nice clean, clear, and good law covering all of the points you mentioned.

You can't, it's that simple.

The law isn't like that because we all decided that 18 is the magical day that you suddenly know what sex is and can responsably handle it.

The law is like that because there HAS to be A law being clear, coherent and plainly dealing with the situation.

Sure you might think that 17 might be a better age or 16 or some of you even 9.  But it isn't legally like that way and if you really have an issue with it you have to deal with it.

Nobody really has that huge of an issue on the moral standpoint of fucking someone thats 17 years and 364 days old, but you still broke a law that was written more to be clear and consice rather than being the absolute peak of morality.  I am sure you could petition various changes with very little changes. 

If you wanted to drop the legal age of consent for a young male and an older woman down to 16 or even 15 I am pretty sure the nation would just shrug.  Doing it with the legal age of younger females would be a more difficult issue to pass, but you would still have to deal with it if you wanted to change it.  I would suggest by dropping the legal age for males and than call it sexest the next year to get it dropped for females too.  It just might work.

>>9
then there should BE no law. drivers licences have age limits, because the mishandeling of a vehicle effects more than yuorself. but with sex, it's your choice, your body, and your risk to yourself.

What are age of concent laws really protecting? not children. the majority of suicides in this country are due to depressed caused by sexual frustration and stress, our society hammers in the idea that sex is bad, that you're too stupid to know how to enjoy sex, and that anyone older than you by so many years is an evil person who should be locked up, reguardless of how they are as a person.

"If you wanted to drop the legal age of consent for a young male and an older woman down to 16 or even 15 I am pretty sure the nation would just shrug.  Doing it with the legal age of younger females would be a more difficult issue to pass, but you would still have to deal with it if you wanted to change it."

the country as a whole has a major problem if they think it's more acceptable for an underage male to have sex than an underage female. sorry, but women dont need your guiding hand of morality when it comes to their own body just as much as males dont.

Now i'm not saying we should go around fucking babies, but there really is no way to regulate sexual maturity, and there shouldn't be. Education and environment is what you should improve if you want kids making educated choices about sex, not putting up an age limit and treating sex like it was cooties.

>>9
Duh, it's already 16 in most states. You been in a barrel or something?

At age 12 it is near certain that you do not have the maturity to make decisions concerning sex.

At age 18 it is near certain that you have the maturity to make decisions concerning sex.

To reduce sexual co-ercion and rape, the age of consent should be set at 18 making special laws which prohibit sex with people with mental illness or psychological trauma. Anyone who wishes to change this law wishes to increase the instances of rape to increase the quality of their life which is evil.

The real question is whether you are evil or not.

>>12
It's not black and white issue. You know I lost my virginity at age of 12 and I have no regrets of it. Infact often I want to return to those happy times. Many are traumatised, but not all. It's really hard to came into rational conclusion. Like somebody said, there is just not enough data. Probably cause subject is too taboo nowadays and back when it wasn't taboo there wasn't much such studies and sex generally was a taboo.

>>12

rape has nothing to do with age. you'll be as likey to be raped at 15 as you are at 40. it's an issue of control and frustration, not sex, at least not purley sex. rapists are rapists, it doesn't matter if the rapist goes after a grown woman or a pubecent child.

Things arent nearly as clean cut as you wish them to be. There's no guarentee that the age limits now are what contribute to the number of rapes of children underage. we've found that the amount of porn available has a connection to the number of violent sexual crimes, so it's possible that the availability of girls of a younger age would stop the motive of rapists to try to forcably have what they can't.

I might agree with the mental illness and psychological trauma bit. because that is an instance where it's even more unlikely the person will even know what's happening, even at very much older ages, than even a pubecent child would. But i think oyu have to be specific. A person with down syndrome or something that effects their overall judgement would be a better candidate for banning sex, rather than something like autism.

ultimately, the real quesion is how well can we raise responsible children, and not just in the relm of sex. This has nothing to do with any personal concepts of good or evil.

I hate the whole "underagers sexxing each other is fine but if you're over 18, it's zomg rape!"

>>15


exactly. how can a couple, both under 17, have sexual intercouse with eachother, but as soon as the guy turns 18 it's statitory rape? it's all BS if you ask me. and what about if the girl turns 18 first, is it still rape? and what about a 17 y/o doin it with a 13 y/o? is there also an age gap limit for those under 18?

an 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old irks me far less than an 18 year old doing it with a 50 or 60 something year old, but i dont think either is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_age_of_consent_laws

Make sense... Even political writer and surgeon general, Judith Levine agrees with that.

My problem with the Age of Consent law is that it only concern age range that is lower than the age of consent more willingly than the other side of that age range. Isn't this age discrimitory that is sort of against modern democratic laws around the world? In fact, I and other people have seen that Age of Consent law unconstitutional like the military conscript laws in every country.

We have age of consent laws because fathers tended to shoot people who had sex with their children. If you do away with the laws buy stock in Winchester.

If everything is consentual..

A good approximation would be that men should only have sex with women older than half their age + 7 or women can only have sex with men younger than double their age -14.

Ma = Man's age
Wa = Woman's age
Wa>Ma/2+7
Ma<2Wa-14

Couples outside this range are allowed to have loving relationships, but not allowed to exchange bodily fluids or see each other naked.

I think pre-pubes are hot. They want it too. I know they do!

It's just WRONG.

What is the big deal? How often does this actually come up that there is an over 18 and a younger than 18? If you truly love him/her, either wait or just have sex, if you both want to you have roughly 0% of ever getting "caught". Getting rid of age of consent would solve that tiny issue while creating many, much larger issues like pedophiles or older men forcing a 13 year old and making sure she will always say it is consensual.

many 12 year olds- especially boys- like to seduce older men.

>>23
please post photos

>>19
 there's a flaw in your system.

"women can only have sex with men younger than double their age -14."

this means a 20 yar old woman can have sex with (20 x 2 = 40 - 14 = 26) any man ages 26 and UNDER.

While a 20 yar old man can only have sex with (20 / 2 = 10 + 7) ny woman 17 years and upwards.

the flaw is you've given women permission to be pediphiles, but not men. this is awsome for every coming of age man, but not so much for younger girls seeking old men.

>>20

pre-pubes nothing, highschools are are full of horomones. i'm surprised dances dont turn into full fledged orgies. oh man that would have been awsome in highschool...

>>21

Yeah? says who? and why? sorry, we do not except 'just because' as a valid answer.

How about young boys seeking older men?

>>20-26
Oh all right then. I will make it universal.

Oa = Age of oldest person in couple
Ya = Age of youngest person in couple
Ya>Oa/2+7
Oa<2Ya-14

So...
14 > (14 year old) > 14
14.5 > (15 year old) > 16
15 > (16 year old) > 18
15.5 > (17 year old) > 20
16 > (18 year old) > 22

you reversed your inequality symbols.

right now it reads, if i'm 18, i can only date those 16 and younger, and those 22 and older. if it were in the right direction, it would say  cannot date those under 16, but then again, i cannot date those older than 22. the formula is terribly flawed, if not at the very least horribly complicated.

this is how it should be:

Ya=Oa/2+7 (whereas Ya < Oa)
Oa=2Ya-14 (whereas Oa > Ya)

so:
Oa = 20
ya = (20/2)+7
ya = 10+7
ya = 17

17<20 correct!

Ya=17
Oa=(17x2)-14
Oa=34-14
Oa=20
Oa>Ya  correct!

both equations even out at 14 being the lowest possible age for both parties to be able to date eachother.

so the age rates go as such (repalce < with the 'equal or greater than' symbol:

you - partner
14 < 14
15 < 16
16 < 18
17 < 20
18 < 22

this is still very strange. although a good idea, it doesn't work at giving us a good range mthimaticlaly of who we can and cannot date. also it doesn't even try to take into account why each bracket is as such. I'm still for no limits above puberty, though it's possible to go below that line depending.

>>30
Fucking stupid. I want to get pounded hard by fat hairy old men. Are you saying I have no right?

>>31

i said no such thing. i'm just fiddling around with that equation. it doesn't work realistically anyways.

Lets face reality. A 7 year old boy or girl sucking cock, and swallowing, is very close to heaven! Anyone that disagrees is a fucked-up liar.

>>33
I agree, although I'd want to be that boy or girl.

>>33
Spoiler: There are consequences to your actions.

Seen any news lately? Now the gov't registers sex offenders as young as 6-7 year old kids in a growing numbers according to the news. The law has gone too far.

Even the Rind et al. studies was opposed by the Congress without any supporting evidences.

Sorry America and United Kingdom, you are all fucked up.

>>36
If the law has gone too far, it should not be repealed, it should be reset to declaring that only 16+ year olds can be sex offenders and not 6-7 year olds.

>>37
Becuse anyone below 16 don't have the potential to sex offend again? That's all that the sex offender registry is for. To keep track of people who might sex offend.

>>38
Well what age do you think it should be?

Who cares about sex offenders. That deviates from the topic. The question is should one have sex with a fucking little brat.

>>40
Bigotry is commonly used to dehumanise your victims. You are using bigotry against children, you also want to direct the topic away from sex offenders.

>>41
the topic isn't ON sex offenders.

>>42

Yeah, it's about raping small children and then saying they consented, even if they didn't.

>>43

yeah, no, not really. get lost troll.

>>43
You could make better arguments than just using profanity. Are you a trash by birth?

Sex offenders are the reason why there is age of consent. A discussion on sex offenders is relevant to a discussion of age of consent.

>>46

"Sex Offenders are offenders who have been sentenced for committing a sexual offense, have a past conviction for an offense involving sexually deviant behavior, have displayed sexually deviant behavior in the commission of any offense, or have admitted committing sexually deviant behavior. Sex offenders require a higher degree of supervision than other offenders do."


So by that, what you said would be reversed. people are sometimes deemed sex offenders because they participate in an illegal sexual act, or sex with a minor. if there werent ages of consent, there'd be no reason to lable them as sex offenders. The thing is, a lot of these men who trick these children into doing these sexual acts is because the children dont know any better. this isn't to say that is because they're just natrually stupid, it's because they havn't been properly informed about sex. if our society was more open about sex and the education thereof, children would understand what it is, how it works, and know how to say no, or even yes.

12 is lunch for my boyzzz