• 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 .
Force doesn't matter.

An under-age child can't consent to sex with an adult. That defense won't stand up in court.

Under current law we assume that all teenagers can not consent to sex, but it's obvious that conclusion is incorrect.
 
Isn't the question more accurately can they consent? I believe they can, so of course, I think it should be allowed that they are permitted.



In a sense, they can "consent".... expressing desire and willingness, that is.

The question is whether it is "fully informed consent"... or I'd say, even "adequately informed consent". Do they understand what they're getting into, the implications, the risks.

Sure, lots of 16-18yos (legal age in most states) do not really have fully informed capacity... but we have to draw the line somewhere, and since 13yo's are not REMOTELY ready to deal with STD's, pregnancy, child support, and so on...
 
In a sense, they can "consent".

The question is whether it is "fully informed consent"... or I'd say, even "adequately informed consent". Do they understand what they're getting into, the implications, the risks.

Sure, lots of 16-18yos (legal age in most states) do not really have fully informed capacity... but we have to draw the line somewhere, and since 13yo's are not REMOTELY ready to deal with STD's, pregnancy, child support, and so on...

I'm not sure what consenting to risks or understanding those risks has to do with the act of consenting to sex itself. Since the adult in the situation is charged with rape it seems to me all that would matter is consenting to sex.
 
I'm not sure what consenting to risks or understanding those risks has to do with the act of consenting to sex itself. Since the adult in the situation is charged with rape it seems to me all that would matter is consenting to sex.


Which is why I've said, in my PERSONAL view I don't think it is "rape" per se.

But I still think it should be illegal, with some kind of penalty, because 12-15yo's lack the mental, emotional, social and fiscal responsibility to deal with sex and its possible consequences, and the adult should know that and back off.
 
Which is why I've said, in my PERSONAL view I don't think it is "rape" per se.

But I still think it should be illegal, with some kind of penalty, because 12-15yo's lack the mental, emotional, social and fiscal responsibility to deal with sex and its possible consequences, and the adult should know that and back off.
However, logically that adult would also be equipped with knowledges the 13yo doesn't have regarding safe sex. So the adult (man or woman) turns down the 13yo (boy or girl) and who conversely convinces a 12yo to have sex with him/her instead and now there's a baby on the way, though I guess you might be right that the probability of an STD would go down IF both teens were still virginal. Doesn't really make any better sense when looked at in the long run of possible consequences.
 
However, logically that adult would also be equipped with knowledges the 13yo doesn't have regarding safe sex. So the adult (man or woman) turns down the 13yo (boy or girl) and who conversely convinces a 12yo to have sex with him/her instead and now there's a baby on the way, though I guess you might be right that the probability of an STD would go down IF both teens were still virginal. Doesn't really make any better sense when looked at in the long run of possible consequences.



Too much "what if".
 
So I'm chicken for not wanting my 13yo son to hook up with a 16yo girl who might have taken him off into the bushes for something he wasn't ready for?

Dude, seriously... what could go wrong? Well there is:

STD's
Unwanted pregnancy
A wide variety of issues that can arise from becoming sexualized too young...


I'd of been a bad father if I hadn't stepped in and stopped that.
Some psychological studies have tied in intimacy issues and sexual addictions to early sexualization of youths. IOW, a kid exposed to porn at an early age, or not taught a few basics and experiments at a very young age, sexual abuse by an adult, etc. leads to future problems not only in sex addiction, but forming healthy relationships.

Some other studies have suggested that drug abuse can stem from early regrets in sexual encounters by adolescents and many porn models have claimed early sexual abuse when they were younger. It's not as simple as just the act, that's for sure, while it wouldn't be "as bad" if the age were somewhat close, I am certain that a large age gap and an adolescent can lead to many problems, one of which would be later trust issues.
 
A 13-year-old's brain is soft-boiled. It's not fully cooked. Sex between an adult and a 13-year-old child isn't merely demonized. It's pedophilia.
I'm talking to a great girl right now who has a daughter. I've spoken with her about the future, if I were to adopt the little girl later on down the road and pretty much I would raise her the way I would raise my own child, dating would be addressed solidly and there are certain rules that would have to be followed, I would want to set the little girl up for a successful dating life and that includes not dating an older person(+say, 3 years) until she is an adult and capable of better decisions, I want her to understand the consequences of dating, sex, and everything that comes with it, and most of all to DEMAND respect from whoever she goes out with.

If I ever have a son, he won't get a pass. He would be expected to be a gentleman at all times, give respect and demand it, and make the right decisions where sex is concerned, not push for it, and definitely not treat it like a game.
 
I wonder what the definition of an "adult woman" is?

17,18,21,25 etc..

17 is a goofy age considering that is the age of consent (at least here in Illinois) so in practice a 17-year-old could screw a 14-year-old, then turn around and screw a 65-year-old pervert and it would all be legal.

As far as the topic with 14-year-old boys.... I don't think too many fathers (at least) would get upset if their 14-year-old got a little older tail just as long as it wasn't some woman in her late 30's+.

When I was 14 I had a few encounters with "older chicks" (meaning 17,18,19 lol)....My parents really didn't care... I suppose my mom did a little, but my dad was just like "who gives a **** hes a young man."

I will say there is a double standard here for girls tho....

No parent wants their 14-year-old daughter screwing around with anyone - let alone a guy who could be considered an adult but still a teen.

I usually stick to the 5-year rule (well now it's 7 years now that I'm a bit older) so 26 is the "youngest Ill go for (yeah that rule is broken often) and 40 is the oldest (yeah that rule has been broken too lol)....

IDK...
 
Last edited:
Only if it is also for girls since we all know that girls at that age are actually more mature. The only difference sexually is the social reaction to them having sex. For a boy, he's a stud, for a girl, she's a worthless slut. Lower the age for both and quit demonizing consensual sex.

It is also that the girl brings home the baby and the boy doesn't.
 
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?
It's a complicated issue. Within the teenage years there is quite a gap in development between a 13y.o. and an 18y.o.

Someone over age of majority has a bit more experience in life and can better(IMO) handle things like sex whereas a teenager who is still chock full of hormones without any kind of life experience to balance it out is more prone to bad decisions where sex is concerned and the consequences are likely to be worse. Age gaps after 18 are IMO more natural, like a 25 year old dating a 20 year old, at least in that respect there is more of a "peer group" to that age(like a college sophomore dating a graduate student for example).
 
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.
Agreed. In fact, just about every university writes into educator behavioral codes that it is against policy to date underclassmen, the reason being that the professor has stature on campus and can affect grades, the professor doesn't even have to have that person as a student, the argument is that they could influence peers through "professional courtesy" to unduly influence grades or other educational factors like group membership, awards, etc.
 
Which is why I've said, in my PERSONAL view I don't think it is "rape" per se.

But I still think it should be illegal, with some kind of penalty, because 12-15yo's lack the mental, emotional, social and fiscal responsibility to deal with sex and its possible consequences, and the adult should know that and back off.

There doesn't appear to be any sort of harm inflicted then. All that is left of your argument is a social agenda with not much behind it.
 
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.



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.

To be fair does anybody understand al of the consequences of any of their actions?
 
It is also that the girl brings home the baby and the boy doesn't.
Only for those girls whose parents fail to educate and arm their daughters about such. My daughter kept a condom in her wallet in her teens just as my son did. Not that it's foolproof. Otherwise, I would say that a teen pregnancy being only the responsibility of the girl and her parents a dubious position, however accurate.
 
It is also that the girl brings home the baby and the boy doesn't.


The boy brings home a court order to pay child support.
 
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.
It all depends on the STD. Gonorrhea can cause infertility in either sex as well as severe mental impairment, as can Syphillis, HPV can cause cancer in either gender but more likely cervical in women, HIV is an equal opportunity disease.
 
There doesn't appear to be any sort of harm inflicted then. All that is left of your argument is a social agenda with not much behind it.



No harm? Seriously? Dude, read a bit.
 
I see people using this thread to ask for acceptance of childish irresponsibility...
 
The boy brings home a court order to pay child support.

If we are talking about younger teens what is the chance of that happening?

I mean if the parents are absent enough for a 13 year old to be having sex, how involved will that parent be in the court system to go after the boy?
 
If we are talking about younger teens what is the chance of that happening?

I mean if the parents are absent enough for a 13 year old to be having sex, how involved will that parent be in the court system to go after the boy?


I dunno, I kept my son from having sex in his early teens, so I didn't worry about it. :)


(and have been criticized by some for that in this thread... )
 
It might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me and a lot of other people.

I fail to understand how it wouldn't be obvious to everyone. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom