• 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!

Should 13 y.o. boys be allowed to consent to hetero-sex w/adult women?

Should the age of consent be lowered to 13 y.o. when a boy wants sex with a woman?

  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
Goshin said:
Actually there is sense in the Romeo and Juliet laws. If a 13yo and a 14yo have sex, who do you charge with Statutory rape? They're both technically unable to 'consent'.
Click to expand...
Both, or neither. But then that should also be the case if the partner is a consensually chosen adult. Please note, the term consensual. Personally I think that 13 should be the age to legally consent for boys and girls.
 
reinoe said:
Which is why I specifically referenced it as boys having sex with adult women. Males are less likely to get an STD, and the boy certainly won't have to worry about pregnancy. The balls in her court, no pun intended.
Click to expand...



Males are less likely to get an STD? News to me, if true. I have my doubts.
 
Paschendale said:
Because adults have far more coercive power. Why can't a student have sex with their teacher? Because the teacher has control over their education and grades. Most kids obey adults as a general rule. They have to. They don't have control over anything themselves. They can't house themselves, clothe themselves, feed themselves. They are dependent on adults. And it is extreme naive to think that only parents exert that kind of control over kids. Every adult does. And allowing adults to use that power to leverage sex from minors... that makes room for far too much abuse.
Click to expand...
I agree with the idea that a teacher can be coersive, but so can the cheerleader or quarterback. Secondly, you don't seem to know any 13 year olds. By 13 they are WAAAAYYYY past being "obedient" in any way whatsoever. Lastly, I said consensual, not coerced.
 
Paschendale said:
Because adults have far more coercive power. Why can't a student have sex with their teacher? Because the teacher has control over their education and grades. Most kids obey adults as a general rule. They have to. They don't have control over anything themselves. They can't house themselves, clothe themselves, feed themselves. They are dependent on adults. And it is extreme naive to think that only parents exert that kind of control over kids. Every adult does. And allowing adults to use that power to leverage sex from minors... that makes room for far too much abuse.
Click to expand...
I'm all for teachers not having sex with students because of the nature of authority wielded. If some bored housewife wants to get with the neighbor kid more power to them.
 
MaggieD said:
Many states have very complicated age-related laws when it comes to pedophilia. A 13-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old is a very different kettle of fish than a 13-year-old having sex with a 40-year-old. I see the sense in that. You don't?
Click to expand...

asking for commonsense from SW is like pissing in the direction of here namesake.
 
Summerwind said:
Both, or neither. But then that should also be the case if the partner is a consensually chosen adult. Please note, the term consensual. Personally I think that 13 should be the age to legally consent for boys and girls.
Click to expand...


They're capable of wanting sex, yes... 'consenting' in a sense, yes... but not "informed consent". Most of them don't really understand what they're getting into, and what the possible consequences are, and are not mentally, emotionally, socially or fiscally ready to deal with those possible consequences.

Yes, the same could be said of a lot of 16-18yo's, and 16 is age-of-consent in many states like mine... but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Two 13yo's is one thing... NEITHER knows what they're getting into really, so charging either or both would be senseless... but when one partner is an adult, they DO know what they're doing, and they know they are crossing a line society frowns upon.
 
Summerwind said:
With her babysitting money, the bus or a bicycle. You'd be surprised how able 13 yo girls are at solving simple problems. The bigger question is how they managed to spend the night together without either parents finding out all the way through breakfast at IHOP.
Click to expand...

"I'll be at Suzzies" and IHOP/breakfast is all night long.
 
reinoe said:
Yes!!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




If someone had asked me this question 57 years ago when I was 13-years old I am sure that I would have said yes.

But now that I am 70-years old I see it fro a different point of view and my answer is a strong no.

Any adult female who has sexual intercourse with a 13-year old male child has committed rape.

I don't believe that U.S. law on this will change anytime soon.
 
Summerwind said:
I agree with the idea that a teacher can be coersive, but so can the cheerleader or quarterback. Secondly, you don't seem to know any 13 year olds. By 13 they are WAAAAYYYY past being "obedient" in any way whatsoever. Lastly, I said consensual, not coerced.
Click to expand...


being obedient to their parent is something different than still being dependent on authority figures, who are usually adults. At 13 I would fight with my parents a lot, but I still looked to "adults" people for direction in life
 
reinoe said:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/STDs-Women-042011.pdf
Click to expand...


Okay. STD's may be more serious for women in some significant ways... that is no comfort to a man who catches herpes, I'm sure. It's hardly an endorsement that a 13yo boy having sex is free from STD worries. It's more like saying that a gunshot wound is more likely to result in severe harm for a smaller person than a big person... still, nobody wants to get shot.
 
Goshin said:
They're capable of wanting sex, yes... 'consenting' in a sense, yes... but not "informed consent". Most of them don't really understand what they're getting into, and what the possible consequences are, and are not mentally, emotionally, socially or fiscally ready to deal with those possible consequences.

Yes, the same could be said of a lot of 16-18yo's, and 16 is age-of-consent in many states like mine... but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Two 13yo's is one thing... NEITHER knows what they're getting into really, so charging either or both would be senseless... but when one partner is an adult, they DO know what they're doing, and they know they are crossing a line society frowns upon.
Click to expand...
I get the roundabout way people come to these laws, I'm just saying it's goofy. If two teens decide to rob a liquor store, they are both guilty, so why not with underage sex? Our laws for consensual sex in this country (perhaps others, though I have no knowledge to say one way or another about other countries) are just bizarre and contrary to the realities of sexual development, imo.
 
Summerwind said:
No, either he/she can consent, or he/she can't consent. It doesn't make any sense that the ability to consent is determined by the person you consent with. Makes no sense at all, regardless of the laws' attempt to make it sensible.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. We're talking around the issue, though. Apples v Oranges. I say a 13-year-old cannot give sexual consent. I also say the crime committed by having sex with a 13-year-old depends on the age of the perp.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
being obedient to their parent is something different than still being dependent on authority figures, who are usually adults. At 13 I would fight with my parents a lot, but I still looked to "adults" people for direction in life
Click to expand...
Though I'd bet that you only looked to those adults that confirmed what you wanted to hear was the best direction, so not really.
 
Goshin said:
Okay. STD's may be more serious for women in some significant ways... that is no comfort to a man who catches herpes, I'm sure. It's hardly an endorsement that a 13yo boy having sex is free from STD worries. It's more like saying that a gunshot wound is more likely to result in severe harm for a smaller person than a big person... still, nobody wants to get shot.
Click to expand...

But there's risks no matter what. Even married couples (who cheat on each other) discover their spouse gave them STD's.
 
Summerwind said:
I get the roundabout way people come to these laws, I'm just saying it's goofy. If two teens decide to rob a liquor store, they are both guilty, so why not with underage sex? Our laws for consensual sex in this country (perhaps others, though I have no knowledge to say one way or another about other countries) are just bizarre and contrary to the realities of sexual development, imo.
Click to expand...

Because no parents want THEIR kids to have a juvenile rap sheet for having sex [with a like aged partner] prior to the law saying they are able to - and like it or not parents are all too aware that it could easily be their kid if such a law was in place.

This is a matter that should be addressed on the family level, and not criminally. When it comes to older people taking advantage.. then we have criminal issues.
 
Last edited:
Summerwind said:
With her babysitting money, the bus or a bicycle. You'd be surprised how able 13 yo girls are at solving simple problems. The bigger question is how they managed to spend the night together without either parents finding out all the way through breakfast at IHOP.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's not a big question. Lots of parents don't give a rat's ass.
 
Summerwind said:
Seems to me you'd be better off having a few discussions with your son if you want him to be informed instead of trying to police his acquaintances. .
Click to expand...

IMO a responsible parent needs to do both...all the time. It's 'inconvenient' for some, I realize.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't disagree. We're talking around the issue, though. Apples v Oranges. I say a 13-year-old cannot give sexual consent. I also say the crime committed by having sex with a 13-year-old depends on the age of the perp.
Click to expand...
With consensual sex, who is the perp? It is assumed to be the eldest person, but that isn't always the case, is it? Seems there have been situations where teen boys have been charged with forcible rape of adult women, so is is possible/probable that teen boys can also get consent from an adult woman if the law allowed?
 
reinoe said:
But there's risks no matter what. Even married couples (who cheat on each other) discover their spouse gave them STD's.
Click to expand...


Oh come now. Surely you aren't equating the STD risks of promiscuity at an early age with the STD risks of being married with an expectation of monogamy (and believe it or not, not everyone cheats).
 
Summerwind said:
Seems to me you'd be better off having a few discussions with your son if you want him to be informed instead of trying to police his acquaintances. But I do notice that parents seem to stupidly think that keeping their own children entirely ignorant is the best way to not need to trust them. Instead they're the ones who make normal choices with bad results.
Click to expand...


Huh, I missed this post somehow.

You're making assumptions. Bad ones.

My son and I ALWAYS talked about EVERYTHING. Still do, and he's 18.
 
Summerwind said:
Lastly, I said consensual, not coerced.
Click to expand...

And if someone cannot truly comprehend or account for all of the consequences of their actions, are they really consenting to it? Consent isn't really consent. Informed consent is. You are arguing that consent can come from a place of ignorance. There is no magical yardstick to know what someone is thinking to know if they truly consent to something. Minors, far more often than not, do know have the knowledge or understanding to make these decisions. Just like drunk people.

reinoe said:
Which is why I specifically referenced it as boys having sex with adult women. Males are less likely to get an STD, and the boy certainly won't have to worry about pregnancy. The balls in her court, no pun intended.
Click to expand...

Well, too bad. We're not talking about making different laws drastically curtailing behavior for one sex. We're talking about protecting children. You specifically chose to form the OP as you to play on the social stigmas, that he is victorious for conquering her, while if their sexes were swapped, she would exploited. That is the exact opposite of what I meant by "harsher". There is just as much room for abuse by an adult regardless of the gender pairings involved. But girls face harsher physical consequences. They should NOT face harsher social ones. All children need to be protected from sexual exploitation by adults.
 
Goshin said:
Oh come now. Surely you aren't equating the STD risks of promiscuity at an early age with the STD risks of being married with an expectation of monogamy (and believe it or not, not everyone cheats).
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that there's risks to sex no matter what context it's in with the married couple example hi-lighting such risk. I'm not sure where the passive-aggressive assumption comes from that I think everyone cheats.
 
Summerwind said:
Though I'd bet that you only looked to those adults that confirmed what you wanted to hear was the best direction, so not really.
Click to expand...

Your reply doesn't make any sense: My point was that *adults* still wield authority and influence over children even when they are rebellious, contrary to your previous claim. Children being selective in who they grant such status to (as you indicate above) doesn't change that.

So yes, really ...
 
Only if he is an emancipated minor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom