• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

at what age should teenagers be considered adult ?

the age of consent

  • the ones under 18 should be considered child

    Votes: 20 37.7%

  • the ones under 14 should be considered child

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • the ones under 21 should be coınsidered child

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • the ones over 14 should be allowed to marry too

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • the ones under 14 or 15 shouldnt be allowed to have sex if they are child

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • they are not child if they have physical maturity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • they need both emotional and physical maturity to have sex

    Votes: 7 13.2%

  • it depends on individual differences

    Votes: 8 15.1%

  • l dont care

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • others

    Votes: 12 22.6%
  • Total voters
    53
Medusa said:
should a man age of 21 be charged with pedohilia and convicted of having sex with a child age of 14 15 0r 16 ?

when should a person be considered adult ?

my purpose in starting this thread is not to justify this action

l just wonder why a person has to be accused of being a pedohilie although he is not sexually interested in little children

many of the teenagers have the physical maturity to have sex and give birth although not all of them can be emotionally mature to marry and raise their babies.

if 3 or more adults over 18 can have sex together or marry if polygamy is legalized , why is a person considered pervert pedohilie only because he had sex with a girl who is mature enough to menstruate ?

if both of them are consent to have sex ,what is teh problem ?

they dont seem more disturbing than polygamic lovers
Click to expand...


We've kind of gotten behind the times in some ways on this issue.

A couple centuries ago, mostly due to dietary deficiencies, puberty might not kick in until 14, 15, 16yo.

Today, thanks to a rich diet and possibly hormones used in growing meat animals, many kids are starting puberty at 10 or 11, and most have become sexually-capable adolescents by age 12 or 13... 14 at the most.

At that point they are theoretically capable of reproduction and most have a biological sex drive... that is, when they see someone attractive they can easily become sexually aroused and experience the desire to have sex.

At that point, biologically speaking, they are no longer "children", but young adults or sexually-capable adolescents.

They are capable of wanting to have sex, therefore logically they are capable of consenting to sex.

I said LOGICALLY... not legally. Please take note. Legally, the issue is whether they can give "INFORMED consent".

Personally I think the assumption that someone under 16 is incapable of informed consent is an over-generalization, and the assumption that someone over 16 CAN give well-informed consent is also an over-generalization. Some people are well-informed and capable of intelligent decision making at 14... some are poorly informed and consistently make stupid decisions at 25 (and older, to be honest).

But we have to draw the line somewhere I suppose.

I support the "Romeo and Juliet" laws that make allowance for young persons close in age having consensual sex without it being a sex crime... a 16yo boy should not be tarred with "sex offender" for life for banging his willing 15yo girlfriend. As for other age differences, I really think it ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Me personally as a parent, I probably wouldn't allow a 15yo to go out with a 17yo... lotta diff in maturity levels there in most cases. It would depend on the kids, though.

It is very common for girls to date older boys and boys to date younger girls. A year diff is okay IMO, two years is pushing it until they're both over 16. (16 is the age of consent in my state).

But as far as someone older, say in their 20s, having consensual sex with a sexually mature adolescent... I think that while that is not OKAY, it is an ENTIRELY different matter from some pervert who wants to boink 10 year olds. Why? Because it involves an adolescent that is capable of WANTING sex and is sexually capable.

Now, OTOH...
Many studies say that our brains are not fully developed until age 21-24, particularly the impulse-control parts. On that basis it would seem logical to raise the age of consent to 21 or even 22.
HOWEVER... if we do that we're going to create a lot of convicted sex offenders! :doh

Surely most of us can remember being 16-20 years old, sloshing over with hormones and desires... while self-restraint during this period is admirable and preferable, we also have to "be real" and know that a lot of young people are NOT going to wait until they're 22 to have sex, and making them criminals for it is just ridiculous.

My personal opinion: we should be really harsh, I mean as in death penalty or life without parole, on anyone who sexually abuses any pre-adolescent child... but we need to recognize that once adolescence has been reached it is a very different thing and isn't really "pedophilia" anymore.
 
Gipper said:
Well let me ask you this - how many people your age do you know who married at 17/18 that are still together? My guess is probably very few, if any - unless she got knocked up.

It was common in my grandparents' days because back then, divorce was taboo and frowned upon so you stuck with the person you married, come hell or high water, even if they turned out to be a complete waste of oxygen.

You CAN get married at 18, just like you CAN get divorced at 20. Then you're on the market as 20 and divorced. Good luck finding someone new, especially if you got a kid out of that brief mistake.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:
 
Medusa said:
this thread is not about islam or a country.please stay on topic.....
Click to expand...

It may be about how different religions see this subject though..
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I did. When you realize what is going on. To assert that you were less of a "victim" or "perp" simply because of your age is insane. Even a six year old knows that beating someone or biting someone is wrong, if not then they should be locked up until such time as they do. I "draw the line" at the affect upon the victim; you are not less dead/raped because the perp was 16.
Click to expand...

Children are more susceptible to being manipulated, used and abused. Age of consent laws are in place to protect children from predatory adults.
 
Medusa said:
should a man age of 21 be charged with pedohilia and convicted of having sex with a child age of 14 15 0r 16 ?

when should a person be considered adult ?

my purpose in starting this thread is not to justify this action

l just wonder why a person has to be accused of being a pedohilie although he is not sexually interested in little children

many of the teenagers have the physical maturity to have sex and give birth although not all of them can be emotionally mature to marry and raise their babies.

if 3 or more adults over 18 can have sex together or marry if polygamy is legalized , why is a person considered pervert pedohilie only because he had sex with a girl who is mature enough to menstruate ?

if both of them are consent to have sex ,what is teh problem ?

they dont seem more disturbing than polygamic lovers
Click to expand...


Where I went to law school, teens having sex with one another was not considered illegal. Even if one turned 18, if they were close in age, charges were not pursued, although some parents waited with bated breath for that day. In the nether regions of that state the standards didn't seem to ever hold up. I recall reporting a 36 year old who had impregnated a 15 year old to Children's Services. The response from the work on the phone, 'yeah, so?'


If you are looking for distinctions, then understand that 'pedophilia' is a psychiatric diagnosis. The legal issue is 'rape of a child' or 'statutory rape' depending on the age of the child.
 
wolfie said:
It may be about how different religions see this subject though..
Click to expand...

turkey is not islamist nor l am very religious,please stay on topic thxx
 
ChrisL said:
This is about age of consent, not criminal rape or murder.
Click to expand...

Then it should be the difference in ages not the absolute ages of the parties involved. Can a 14 y/o not be both a vicitim and a perp?
 
I wouldn't make it illegal, but it is a little...I don't want to say pervy, but questionable.

If a 21 year old guy is looking at a 14 or 15 year old, he's thinking one thing. She's probably thinking something else.

Just have to wonder if their trains get off at the same stop.
 
Goshin said:
We've kind of gotten behind the times in some ways on this issue.

A couple centuries ago, mostly due to dietary deficiencies, puberty might not kick in until 14, 15, 16yo.

Today, thanks to a rich diet and possibly hormones used in growing meat animals, many kids are starting puberty at 10 or 11, and most have become sexually-capable adolescents by age 12 or 13... 14 at the most.

At that point they are theoretically capable of reproduction and most have a biological sex drive... that is, when they see someone attractive they can easily become sexually aroused and experience the desire to have sex.

At that point, biologically speaking, they are no longer "children", but young adults or sexually-capable adolescents.

They are capable of wanting to have sex, therefore logically they are capable of consenting to sex.

I said LOGICALLY... not legally. Please take note. Legally, the issue is whether they can give "INFORMED consent".

Personally I think the assumption that someone under 16 is incapable of informed consent is an over-generalization, and the assumption that someone over 16 CAN give well-informed consent is also an over-generalization. Some people are well-informed and capable of intelligent decision making at 14... some are poorly informed and consistently make stupid decisions at 25 (and older, to be honest).

But we have to draw the line somewhere I suppose.

I support the "Romeo and Juliet" laws that make allowance for young persons close in age having consensual sex without it being a sex crime... a 16yo boy should not be tarred with "sex offender" for life for banging his willing 15yo girlfriend. As for other age differences, I really think it ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Me personally as a parent, I probably wouldn't allow a 15yo to go out with a 17yo... lotta diff in maturity levels there in most cases. It would depend on the kids, though.

It is very common for girls to date older boys and boys to date younger girls. A year diff is okay IMO, two years is pushing it until they're both over 16. (16 is the age of consent in my state).

But as far as someone older, say in their 20s, having consensual sex with a sexually mature adolescent... I think that while that is not OKAY, it is an ENTIRELY different matter from some pervert who wants to boink 10 year olds. Why? Because it involves an adolescent that is capable of WANTING sex and is sexually capable.

Now, OTOH...
Many studies say that our brains are not fully developed until age 21-24, particularly the impulse-control parts. On that basis it would seem logical to raise the age of consent to 21 or even 22.
HOWEVER... if we do that we're going to create a lot of convicted sex offenders! :doh

Surely most of us can remember being 16-20 years old, sloshing over with hormones and desires... while self-restraint during this period is admirable and preferable, we also have to "be real" and know that a lot of young people are NOT going to wait until they're 22 to have sex, and making them criminals for it is just ridiculous.

My personal opinion: we should be really harsh, I mean as in death penalty or life without parole, on anyone who sexually abuses any pre-adolescent child... but we need to recognize that once adolescence has been reached it is a very different thing and isn't really "pedophilia" anymore.
Click to expand...

Again, age of consent laws are set up to protect children and minors from abusive adults. Did you know that cruelty against animals laws came out BEFORE cruelty against children. Children have been horribly used and abused throughout history by adults who think "it's no big deal."

The FACTS are that CHILDREN are not capable of informed consent. They don't have enough life experience to be able to be expected to make ANY kind of informed decision. I don't care HOW "mature" you might think they are or if they have boobies and bleed every month. I WAS a teenage girl who was impregnated by an older man (I was 16, he was 23). I KNOW what I'm talking about.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then it should be the difference in ages not the absolute ages of the parties involved. Can a 14 y/o not be both a vicitim and a perp?
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting going by age gap instead of age alone? Is that right?
 
ChrisL said:
Children are more susceptible to being manipulated, used and abused. Age of consent laws are in place to protect children from predatory adults.
Click to expand...

OK one is 13 and the other is 13 - are they both then "victims" or "perps"? What you are discribing is an age difference, rather than an absolute age. If one is 16 and the other is 13 then neither can consent, so which is the victim?
 
Medusa said:
turkey is not islamist nor l am very religious,please stay on topic thxx
Click to expand...

I am on topic..for instance you cannot get married here legally until you are sixteen..

But..Any age is fine and Muslims should know this since Allah gave instructions on how to divorce wives who have not yet reached puberty. You can't divorce them if you weren't married in the first place, right?

So I think my post is totally relevant to this thread...

This thread is called ''the age of consent'' isn't it??
 
ChrisL said:
So you are suggesting going by age gap instead of age alone? Is that right?
Click to expand...

Yes. And the mental ability as well. Some at age 25 are mentally equivalent to 12 (or less). Some can easliy be manipulated or tempted into nearly anything simply by a smarter person (or group).
 
wolfie said:
I am on topic..for instance you cannot get married here legally until you are sixteen..

But..Any age is fine and Muslims should know this since Allah gave instructions on how to divorce wives who have not yet reached puberty. You can't divorce them if you weren't married in the first place, right?

So I think my post is totally relevant to this thread...

This thread is called ''the age of consent'' isn't it??
Click to expand...

turkey is not governed by Allah's laws and you cant legally marry here either!!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. And the mental ability as well. Some at age 25 are mentally equivalent to 12 (or less). Some can easliy be manipulated or tempted into nearly anything simply by a smarter person (or group).
Click to expand...

Yes, but we don't have the ability or the resources to examine everyone's mental status who wants to be married. That is why we come up with a general age of consent, where we generally feel it is an acceptable age where someone has had time to complete an education (or somewhat of an education) and have some kind of life experiences.
 
Goshin said:
We've kind of gotten behind the times in some ways on this issue.

A couple centuries ago, mostly due to dietary deficiencies, puberty might not kick in until 14, 15, 16yo.

Today, thanks to a rich diet and possibly hormones used in growing meat animals, many kids are starting puberty at 10 or 11, and most have become sexually-capable adolescents by age 12 or 13... 14 at the most.

At that point they are theoretically capable of reproduction and most have a biological sex drive... that is, when they see someone attractive they can easily become sexually aroused and experience the desire to have sex.

At that point, biologically speaking, they are no longer "children", but young adults or sexually-capable adolescents.

They are capable of wanting to have sex, therefore logically they are capable of consenting to sex.

I said LOGICALLY... not legally. Please take note. Legally, the issue is whether they can give "INFORMED consent".

Personally I think the assumption that someone under 16 is incapable of informed consent is an over-generalization, and the assumption that someone over 16 CAN give well-informed consent is also an over-generalization. Some people are well-informed and capable of intelligent decision making at 14... some are poorly informed and consistently make stupid decisions at 25 (and older, to be honest).

But we have to draw the line somewhere I suppose.

I support the "Romeo and Juliet" laws that make allowance for young persons close in age having consensual sex without it being a sex crime... a 16yo boy should not be tarred with "sex offender" for life for banging his willing 15yo girlfriend. As for other age differences, I really think it ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Me personally as a parent, I probably wouldn't allow a 15yo to go out with a 17yo... lotta diff in maturity levels there in most cases. It would depend on the kids, though.

It is very common for girls to date older boys and boys to date younger girls. A year diff is okay IMO, two years is pushing it until they're both over 16. (16 is the age of consent in my state).

But as far as someone older, say in their 20s, having consensual sex with a sexually mature adolescent... I think that while that is not OKAY, it is an ENTIRELY different matter from some pervert who wants to boink 10 year olds. Why? Because it involves an adolescent that is capable of WANTING sex and is sexually capable.

Now, OTOH...
Many studies say that our brains are not fully developed until age 21-24, particularly the impulse-control parts. On that basis it would seem logical to raise the age of consent to 21 or even 22.
HOWEVER... if we do that we're going to create a lot of convicted sex offenders! :doh

Surely most of us can remember being 16-20 years old, sloshing over with hormones and desires... while self-restraint during this period is admirable and preferable, we also have to "be real" and know that a lot of young people are NOT going to wait until they're 22 to have sex, and making them criminals for it is just ridiculous.

My personal opinion: we should be really harsh, I mean as in death penalty or life without parole, on anyone who sexually abuses any pre-adolescent child... but we need to recognize that once adolescence has been reached it is a very different thing and isn't really "pedophilia" anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think back over a 25 year career in psych just now. I don't recall anyone much complaining of being victimized by choosing to be sexually active with others their own age who were not related to them. I do recall several women carrying an enormous load of guilt because their husbands, then boyfriends, wouldn't 'wait' until they were married. In cases of incest, most blamed themselves be they male or female. Most who considered themselves 'survivors' were abused as young children by strangers or someone known and trusted, or as adolescents by older family or friends who forced them through threats of killing a beloved parent or friend. It is all very subjective. But honestly I believe the laws we have regarding adolescents and sex are in place because adolescents just aren't able to get out there and support a child concived of an adolescent mother, not that those laws are actually working or anything.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK one is 13 and the other is 13 - are they both then "victims" or "perps"? What you are discribing is an age difference, rather than an absolute age. If one is 16 and the other is 13 then neither can consent, so which is the victim?
Click to expand...

No one is a victim in that case unless sex was forced by one upon the other. Because they are of the same age and experience level generally speaking.
 
ChrisL said:
Again, age of consent laws are set up to protect children and minors from abusive adults. Did you know that cruelty against animals laws came out BEFORE cruelty against children. Children have been horribly used and abused throughout history by adults who think "it's no big deal."

The FACTS are that CHILDREN are not capable of informed consent. They don't have enough life experience to be able to be expected to make ANY kind of informed decision. I don't care HOW "mature" you might think they are or if they have boobies and bleed every month. I WAS a teenage girl who was impregnated by an older man (I was 16, he was 23). I KNOW what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


You mistake me, but I knew that was going to happen.

I didn't say it was wise to have sex at 16, let alone with an older man.

However I did say that once a person is post-adolescent, they are no longer a child strictly speaking... and I stand by that. There is a WORLD of difference between a 10yo and a 15yo in terms of sexuality. I don't think making someone a "Sexual predator" for life for having sex with a willing 15yo that is sexually mature is reasonable. Contrariwise I think any adult that abuses a pre-adolescent should be executed.

There is no "magic number" in terms of age where we suddenly become capable of making good decisions about sex... people in their 20s and 30s (and yes even older) pretty regularly make bad decisions about sex.

WE have to draw the line somewhere I suppose... but we ought to consider that since maturity is a gradual process, maybe there ought to be some graduated levels of legal maturity as well. In a sense we already do this.... you can marry and contract at 18, but you can't drink or buy a handgun until you're 21, for instance.

I'm just suggesting putting some thought into this instead of knee-jerk reactions. The idea of an extended childhood lasting until one is 18 or 21 is a relatively recent societal phenomenon... in ancient times a 14yo was considered an adult in many ways, albeit generally under the guidance and mentoring of a mature adult (parent, master-apprentice, or military officers, etc) until he was considerably older.

In a lot of ways I think our children are still "children" at 18 because we don't require them to be more responsible and mature, because we LET them continue to be dependent children and act irresponsibly well past the point where they should be operating in a more-or-less adult fashion.
 
Goshin said:
You mistake me, but I knew that was going to happen.

I didn't say it was wise to have sex at 16, let alone with an older man.

However I did say that once a person is post-adolescent, they are no longer a child strictly speaking... and I stand by that. There is a WORLD of difference between a 10yo and a 15yo in terms of sexuality. I don't think making someone a "Sexual predator" for life for having sex with a willing 15yo that is sexually mature is reasonable. Contrariwise I think any adult that abuses a pre-adolescent should be executed.

There is no "magic number" in terms of age where we suddenly become capable of making good decisions about sex... people in their 20s and 30s (and yes even older) pretty regularly make bad decisions about sex.

WE have to draw the line somewhere I suppose... but we ought to consider that since maturity is a gradual process, maybe there ought to be some graduated levels of legal maturity as well. In a sense we already do this.... you can marry and contract at 18, but you can't drink or buy a handgun until you're 21, for instance.

I'm just suggesting putting some thought into this instead of knee-jerk reactions. The idea of an extended childhood lasting until one is 18 or 21 is a relatively recent societal phenomenon... in ancient times a 14yo was considered an adult in many ways, albeit generally under the guidance and mentoring of a mature adult (parent, master-apprentice, or military officers, etc) until he was considerably older.

In a lot of ways I think our children are still "children" at 18 because we don't require them to be more responsible and mature, because we LET them continue to be dependent children and act irresponsibly well past the point where they should be operating in a more-or-less adult fashion.
Click to expand...

People who get married young tend to not complete their educations. That is just another good reason for having the age of consent across the board as 18 years old. In countries where child marriage is prevalent, marriage under the age of 18, poverty is rampant. Also, women are extremely oppressed in such societies.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, but we don't have the ability or the resources to examine everyone's mental status who wants to be married. That is why we come up with a general age of consent, where we generally feel it is an acceptable age where someone has had time to complete an education (or somewhat of an education) and have some kind of life experiences.
Click to expand...

Or require parental consent. Many statutory rape laws express an age difference, not simply an absolute age.

Statutory Rape Laws by State
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Or require parental consent. Many statutory rape laws express an age difference, not simply an absolute age.

Statutory Rape Laws by State
Click to expand...

I can agree with you about going by age differences but not parental consent. There are some really crappy parents out there. I don't agree with giving them the authority to say it is okay for their child to be married.

That could have other unintended consequences such as arranged marriages, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom