• 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

  • they are not child if they have physical maturity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    53
some people want to punish the others because of their own mistakes and in my opinion it is not healthy..........

not everybody has to experience bad things . we need to be rational.
 
Last edited:
Hell you say that for about 30% of the adults of the population.:lol:
But, the alternative to a set age (18 , 19.5, 21, 25 ) is a panel of judges to decide emotional maturity based on evidence....expensive, maybe this is path to use ?
 
I have nearly the same thought on this issue as I do abortion. There are too many extenuating circumstances that can happen to have it be dictated under broad terms.

I saw an argument earlier in here that said a 16 year old is considered a consenting adult whereas a 15 year old is not, but if they have sex...the 16 year old could be labeled a sexual predator for life which is asinine.

Now, under no circumstances is a post pubescent adult ever to have sex with a pre pubescent kid. So, I think these things should be taken on a case by case manner.
 
The age of consent in Oregon is 18. Here's a synopsis.



I totally agree with this, especially the 3 year close in age exception. To add some clarity as to the absolute limit (from another site):



How do you feel about this?

Of course, I already said I supported age-gap type laws.
 
I have nearly the same thought on this issue as I do abortion. There are too many extenuating circumstances that can happen to have it be dictated under broad terms.

I saw an argument earlier in here that said a 16 year old is considered a consenting adult whereas a 15 year old is not, but if they have sex...the 16 year old could be labeled a sexual predator for life which is asinine.

Now, under no circumstances is a post pubescent adult ever to have sex with a pre pubescent kid. So, I think these things should be taken on a case by case manner.

Who said this? Please quote that post.
 
Of course, I already said I supported age-gap type laws.

l was talking about it but you accused me of supporting pedophilia........................
 
Because it fails to take into account the real world. In the real world, a LOT of teens are sexually active by the time they are 16.

Not saying they should be... just saying it should not be the same crime as raping a 10yo.

There's nothing wrong with teens sexually experimenting with one another. I have no problem with that. My problem is when adults are wanting sexual relationships with teens. Most of the time, they DON'T want to marry them! LOL! They want them for ONE reason and one reason only. YOU know what that reason is I'm quite sure.

They are NOT the same penalties. I already said that. There are different penalties according to ages of victims and perpetrators. Here, I picked this one from Connecticut because it came up first when I googled. Here are the laws:

Connecticut Law About Statutory Rape
 
So you'd favor severe punishment for a 16yo girl having sex with a willing 15yo boy, since she's of legal age in my state and he isn't? She should be charged with statutory rape and be a "convicted sex offender" for life?

Here it is Chris
 
Here it is Chris

That is not a statement. That was a question. I didn't see anyone agree. If you can find someone who says yes I think 16 year olds should be labelled as sex offenders for having sex with 15 year olds, then you might have something.
 
That is not a statement. That was a question. I didn't see anyone agree. If you can find someone who says yes I think 16 year olds should be labelled as sex offenders for having sex with 15 year olds, then you might have something.

Ok, but I was simply making a point of my own.

Basically, I'm arguing my point that these things should be handled on a case-by-case manner...nothing more nothing less.

Painting with a broad brush will make the picture less detailed...that is all I am saying in this manner.
 
This is why I like that most jurisdictions have +/- exceptions to the hard age of consent laws. Teenagers should not be going to jail for having sex with each other, but adults should not be able to take advantage of teens, due to the imbalance of power in any such relationship.
 
I think sexual relations should ideally be just between people married to each other in an idealistic world where married actually means till death do us part. However realistically...

I support the idea that people should be at least graduated from high school. I also support the newer Jack and Jill compromise legislation where its not statutory rape if the couple is close in age; I think within 5 years of the same age is what I saw. A 40 year of and a 17 year of is sick. A 16 year old and a 19 year old isn't IMHO.

I also am more willing to allow for cougar relationships than I would be for sugar daddy relationships. I know few people would agree in today's PC world that says women are exactly the same as men, but I tend to see young girls in relationships with older men as victims being exploited but if a younger male is in a relationship with an older lady I tend to not see him as a victim being exploited. Just me I suppose.
 
There's nothing wrong with teens sexually experimenting with one another. I have no problem with that. My problem is when adults are wanting sexual relationships with teens. Most of the time, they DON'T want to marry them! LOL! They want them for ONE reason and one reason only. YOU know what that reason is I'm quite sure.

They are NOT the same penalties. I already said that. There are different penalties according to ages of victims and perpetrators. Here, I picked this one from Connecticut because it came up first when I googled. Here are the laws:

Connecticut Law About Statutory Rape

You said earlier that you didn't care if the penalties were the same, and have indicated that you consider them effectively the same thing, so what am I supposed to think you mean??

Again, adult->16yo w/consent is bad, but not remotely in the same class as adult raping 10yo.
 
I also am more willing to allow for cougar relationships than I would be for sugar daddy relationships. I know few people would agree in today's PC world that says women are exactly the same as men, but I tend to see young girls in relationships with older men as victims being exploited but if a younger male is in a relationship with an older lady I tend to not see him as a victim being exploited. Just me I suppose.


One word: Why.
 
You said earlier that you didn't care if the penalties were the same, and have indicated that you consider them effectively the same thing, so what am I supposed to think you mean??

Again, adult->16yo w/consent is bad, but not remotely in the same class as adult raping 10yo.

Yes, but I said that in response to this quote. The part I bolded was what I was thinking about when I said that. There was no "upper limit" age mentioned in this quote. I just automatically went to thinking of an older person.


Originally Posted by Goshin
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.
 
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

Your whole premise here is skewed. An individual is actually an adult when they reach a certain level of maturity. The problem is that that point covers a large range of age relatively speaking. There is simply no way to make a law that covers that range. So we select arbitrary age to put into the law. Since different grouping of people view where this "mature age" should be the legal age can vary from state to state (or the equivalent) and from country to country. Thus one area can say that a person is legally mature enough for sex at 16, and another sets the age at 21. The truth is that in both areas there are 16 year olds who are mature enough to have sex and 21 year olds who are not mature enough to have sex. In the end the law had nothing to do with the reality of an individual's maturity.

The other flaw in your premise is equating both pedophilia and poly marriage as both perversions. Almost all perversions are opinion based. There really isn't much basis other than ick factor. Pedophilia is as close as it comes to being a non-opinion based "perversion". With pedophilia (and I refer to it in the common parlance which would include the 21 yo with the 16 yo even though that is technically ephbophilia) the issue is really maturity and whether or not the individual is able to give an informed mature consent. However, we've gotten so entangled in the legal age, that we disregard the maturity of the individual and automatically call the 21yo a pervert.

Finally, there is a minor flaw in at least your post if not your premise as a whole and that is equating sex with marriage. You said:
if 3 or more adults over 18 can have sex together or marry if polygamy is legalized ,...
3 or more people can have sex together regardless of whether polygamy or polyandry or any other poly is legal or not, short of laws that make sex outside of marriage illegal. Sex and marriage are not dependent upon each other, even though they often occur together.
 
You said earlier that you didn't care if the penalties were the same, and have indicated that you consider them effectively the same thing, so what am I supposed to think you mean??

Again, adult->16yo w/consent is bad, but not remotely in the same class as adult raping 10yo.

Let me just reiterate again that I don't think any teens involved in a sexual relationship together should ever be prosecuted. Whenever I say that, I am always referring to an older person.

Also, when I said that I don't really care if they get the same punishment, I mean that since this is the current law, that is just how it is. If they willfully break it, then I can't feel sorry for them. Not saying that it is necessarily "fair" though, rather just don't do that and there won't be a problem type of thing.
 
I think 18 is a good age to consider someone an adult, but they should get the remainder of their rights at that age (i.e. lower the drinking age to 18).

I think it's dangerous to have a subjective adulthood age, because this leaves children open to manipulation and confinement by parents who might be a little bit "off."

I also think it's a good idea to have a tiered process of responsibility, which we do have, but I think we should have more of it. Children get several privileges at the age of 16. The one we all think of is driving, but in some states, there's another one that I think is even more important and should be universal: they, along with their parents, must consent in order for a medical procedure to be performed.

This recognizes that while they might still need the barrier of parental safety checking sometimes, they are developing the ability to make sound decisions based on reason, and they should be in agreement with things that are done to their body.

In terms of statutory rape laws, I think this needs to be dealt with individually. There are some really sad cases where an 18-year-old and a 15/16-year-old are dating and the older one gets charged or convicted of statutory rape. That's just crazy.

A 15/16 year old is not a child, and an 18-year-old is within their peer group. There might be slight differences between them, but someone 2 or 3 years older is certainly not an inherent intellectual or physical threat, the way it can be when a much older person has sex with a teen, or when an adult rapes a child.

On the other hand, figuring out exactly where the line is can be difficult, partly because people develop at different rates both mentally and physically, and partly because the feelings of the younger person are really the most pertinent issue.

These aren't cases where we can simply follow the letter of the law, because there's too much room for pinning perfectly decent people with a sex crime that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. These cases need to be handled on an individual basis.
 
Last edited:
Ok, but I was simply making a point of my own.

Basically, I'm arguing my point that these things should be handled on a case-by-case manner...nothing more nothing less.

Painting with a broad brush will make the picture less detailed...that is all I am saying in this manner.

How would you go about determining a person's maturity first of all, what they are emotionally and mentally ready to handle, especially a teenager of 16. How do you determine the coping skills of a 16-year-old girl for example? How would you go about determining whether she is emotionally and mentally "mature"? This is where it gets complicated. Who would make such determinations? Psychiatrists? Who and how?

Some men have also complained that the teen girl manipulates them. On other threads, I have read men complain about "false rape" accusations. Well, I wonder how many of these circumstances stem from the immaturity of teen girls? Perhaps they get angry at their older male "lover" and turn on him? Well, common sense would tell me that these girls are NOT emotionally mature enough for such relationships. That could be half the reason some of those kinds of things happen. Well, I'm sure people will say if there wasn't a law against it that it would also not happen, but that does not take away from the fact that the girl would do a thing like that to begin with because she is emotionally immature.

Of course, this is just an example. I am not saying that every or even most girls would do this, but it certainly does happen and is just something to think about in regards to emotional immaturity.
 
I think 18 is a good age to consider someone an adult, but they should get the remainder of their rights at that age (i.e. lower the drinking age to 18).

I think it's dangerous to have a subjective adulthood age, because this leaves children open to manipulation and confinement by parents who might be a little bit "off."

I also think it's a good idea to have a tiered process of responsibility, which we do have, but I think we should have more of it. Children get several privileges at the age of 16. The one we all think of is driving, but in some states, there's another one that I think is even more important and should be universal: they, along with their parents, must consent in order for a medical procedure to be performed.

This recognizes that while they might still need the barrier of parental safety checking sometimes, they are developing the ability to make sound decisions based on reason, and they should be in agreement with things that are done to their body.

In terms of statutory rape laws, I think this needs to be dealt with individually. There are some really sad cases where an 18-year-old and a 15/16-year-old are dating and the older one gets charged or convicted of statutory rape. That's just crazy.

A 15/16 year old is not a child, and an 18-year-old is within their peer group. There might be slight differences between them, but someone 2 or 3 years older is certainly not an inherent intellectual or physical threat, the way it can be when a much older person has sex with a teen, or when an adult rapes a child.

On the other hand, figuring out exactly where the line is can be difficult, partly because people develop at different rates both mentally and physically, and partly because the feelings of the younger person are really the most pertinent issue.

These aren't cases where we can simply follow the letter of the law, because there's too much room for pinning perfectly decent people with a sex crime that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. These cases need to be handled on an individual basis.

I can agree with that.
 
One word: Why.

A few reasons.

Although not always the case, at least my assumption is in sexual situations, the male is typically the aggressor. The simple physiology dictates males must be the agreesor or at a minimum aroused to become the aggressor.

Sexual activities have consequences on numerous levels, sometimes unwanted consequences. It is the female who is impacted more profoundly by these consequences than the male. Again, on numerous levels.

Due to the anatomical differences between males and females, sexual activity for young girls engaging in said activies for the first time involves some level of physical injury and pain. This however is not the case for males.

Depending on the age of the of girl, in some cases sexual injury can be so severe that it can leave her unable to convince children later in life. Again, not the case with boys. I happen to know a couple where the wife confided in me that she was involved with an older man as a child and the relationship left her unable to have children with the man who is now her husband.

Societal stigma. Girls who are sexually active are looked at differently than boys who are sexually active. When adding the adult partner to the equation and I just think his maturity should have caused him to be sensitive to that fact and caused him to want to protect his young victim from that.
 
A few reasons.

Although not always the case, at least my assumption is in sexual situations, the male is typically the aggressor. The simple physiology dictates males must the agreesor or at a minimum aroused to become the aggressor.

Sexual activities have consequences on numerous levels, sometimes unwanted consequences. It is the female who in impacted more profoundly by these consequences than the male. Again, on numerous levels.

Due to the anatomical differences between males and females, sexual activity for young girls engaging in said activies for the first time involves some level of physical injury and pain. This however is not the case for males.

Depending on the age of the of girl, in some cases sexual injury can be so severe that it can leave her unable to convince children later in life. Again, not the case with boys. I happen to know a couple where the wife confided in me that she was involved with an older man as a child and the relationship left her unable to have children with the man who is now her husband.

Societal stigma. Girls who are sexually active are looked at differently than boys who are sexually active. When adding the adult partner to the equation and I just think his maturity should have caused him to be sensitive to that fact and caused him to want to protect his young victim from that.


A lot of that just isn't true anymore. Girls in their teens are as likely to be sexually "aggressive" (interesting word choice that) as boys.

Girls may get pregnant yes... but THEY choose whether to abort or keep, and THEY choose whether to hold the male financially accountable for the next 18 years, so I think that kinda balances out.

Both boys and girls may get STDs, so no diff there.

Both boys and girls can be emotionally abused by more mature sex partners, so no diff there.


I think this is just left-over gender bias.... I thought we supposedly had this equality-of-the-sexes thing going on now right?
 
Back
Top Bottom