Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
14 year olds want to do a lot of stuff they shouldn't. That's why they are considered MINORS. They are not mature enough to make sound decisions.
|
That's why you don't let them sign binding contracts without parental consent, don't let them join the army, etc.
Sex, however, is a different matter. 14 is a perfectly normal age to start experimenting with it. 16.4 or something like that is the average age at which people lose their virginity, and about a third of people have their first sexual contact before age 16.
Criminalizing normal sexual behavior is utterly and completely insane, not to mention completely ineffective.
As long as it's safe and both parties consent, sex isn't a bad thing. 14 is a fairly young age to start with it, but it is an age at which a fair number of teens are both physically and psychologically ready to start trying it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Looks shouldn't matter. So Brad Pitt can't possibly be a rapist ever? Justice is supposed to be blind. The middle teacher is not attractive so she is a rapist and the others aren't because there is no way those boys WILLINGLY fucked her?
|
Looks shouldn't matter when people pick sexual partners? Try going on a forum for teens and telling them that. Tell me what their answer was.
Sure, Brad Pitt could be a rapist. However, if you only knew he had sex with a 15 year old girl, would your initial guess be that she was coerced or forced, or that she voluntarily did it?
In the case of the attractive 28 year old teacher, it is possible that she actually coerced or forced the boy. If that is the case, she should definitely go to prison. However, it is rather more likely that he wasn't forced in any way, and that the only "rape" here was statutory. In which case the sex probably wasn't harmful to him at all, while the current legal actions probably are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
but if if you had a 14 year old daughter and she had a teacher that looked like Brad Pitt it wouldn't matter to you if she was willing or the fact he was attractive, you'd want him in jail. At least most of society would. Some how a 14 year old girl is traumatized by sex, but boys aren't even though it's a proven fact that girls are more mature than boys. So either neither are traumatized adn grown-up should be able to have sex wit 14 year olds. Or they both are and it should be illegal. So which is it. A or B?
|
Actually, neither should be illegal because of age alone. The teacher bit should lead to firings, though.
But gender actually does make a difference, whether you like it or not. Just compare sexual attitudes among teen boys to those among teen girls. Also, compare the number of (actual) rape by males to the number of (actual) rape by females.
So, while neither should be illegal because of age alone, it is nevertheless more likely that teen boys decided to have sex out of their own free will than teen girls.
If I had a 14 year old daughter who had sex with a Brad Pitt-lookalike in his twenties, and she made it clear to me that it was her decision, no, I would not want to see him in jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Also if this involved gay sex, attractiveness wouldn't mater to you either. You are being so hypocritical.
|
Attractiveness would matter in the case of gay sex, too. Obviously. However, given the rather lower incidence of homosexuality than that of heterosexuality, it would, once again, be more likely that force or coercion played a role.
But, again, if the sex was safe, and the teen made it clear that it was his own choice, the decision should be left to the teen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Sorry the first one should. Sorry a 28 year old should NOT find a 14 year old sexual arousing. Male, female doesn't matter.
|
Sorry, but most adults do find certain early-developing teens attractive. Hell, some 14 year olds look just as old as most 18 year olds.