Double Standard for Age Of Consent?
0
Black Jesus JC wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
I'm sure we can rely on those results, as even to psychological professionals, no guy is going to feel comfortable negatively commenting on sex they got from an older girl. I just don't think - even with a psychiatrist - males would feel comfortable saying that. I doubt the 5% carries the weight they think it does.
Granted, it's printed and an actual study, I just think it has little to no actual value. How many studies have been done on how many people lie on stuff on anonymous surveys anyhow? Household income? No one's going to see that, and yet studies show people always push the numbers up a couple of categories. I'm sure something more embarrassing - how you felt about a sexual relationship with a woman - would garner the same kind of changes. Not saying it's 50% negative, but I sincerely doubt it's 5.
Considering the fact that males are pretty much meant to reproduce by 13 I think it is pretty accurate. Remember when you were 13,14, and 15 fantasizing about older women? Though results are different when it's with a person in a position of authority or so I heard.
I think its worth pointing out the study even though most men viewed it as positive,they still had elevated levels of psychological distress. Which perhaps means this is more complicated than simply loving it or hating it.
Yes, but slightly elevated levels, like with 13-15 year old females in the reverse situation. Probably has to do with the fact that people are still developing sexual before 16. Hence why I said that adults fucking that age group should be a misdemeanor.
Also the study did note societal standards may make young boys unable to admit to negative repercussions from it.
Yeah, I can see that with boys 12 and under. Reaction among females were mixed(positive, neutral, and negative) so I highly doubt 50% of males were of negative reaction.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
I'm sure we can rely on those results, as even to psychological professionals, no guy is going to feel comfortable negatively commenting on sex they got from an older girl. I just don't think - even with a psychiatrist - males would feel comfortable saying that. I doubt the 5% carries the weight they think it does.
Granted, it's printed and an actual study, I just think it has little to no actual value. How many studies have been done on how many people lie on stuff on anonymous surveys anyhow? Household income? No one's going to see that, and yet studies show people always push the numbers up a couple of categories. I'm sure something more embarrassing - how you felt about a sexual relationship with a woman - would garner the same kind of changes. Not saying it's 50% negative, but I sincerely doubt it's 5.
Considering the fact that males are pretty much meant to reproduce by 13 I think it is pretty accurate. Remember when you were 13,14, and 15 fantasizing about older women? Though results are different when it's with a person in a position of authority or so I heard.
"Meant to reproduce by 13"? I think you MAY mean "capable of". And there's a LONG SHOT between "capable of" and "mentally and emotionally ready for".
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
"Meant to reproduce by 13"? I think you MAY mean "capable of". And there's a LONG SHOT between "capable of" and "mentally and emotionally ready for".
Not justifying sexual activity at 13. But Its pretty obvious that is what evolution is telling our bodies at 13 to do when we start ejaculating and having high sex drives.
1
Holoofyoistu
The Messenger
i think there should be flxability on the age limit if the sex was consensual and if there isnt to big an age differance, like if hes 17 and shes 19 NO ONE WILL GIVE A FLYING FUCK. Now if hes like, 13 and a teacher has sex with him, thats a little fucked up, and should probably be taken care of. Just go by the situation.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
"Meant to reproduce by 13"? I think you MAY mean "capable of". And there's a LONG SHOT between "capable of" and "mentally and emotionally ready for".
Not justifying sexual activity at 13. But Its pretty obvious that is what evolution is telling our bodies at 13 to do when we start ejaculating and having high sex drives.
Right. Obviously society at large believes, as I do, that the body being ready and the person being ready are two very different things.
But you're right. Wet dreams and sexual urges are totally the sign that we're ready for a sexual relationship. Our body says so! Pfft.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
"Meant to reproduce by 13"? I think you MAY mean "capable of". And there's a LONG SHOT between "capable of" and "mentally and emotionally ready for".
Not justifying sexual activity at 13. But Its pretty obvious that is what evolution is telling our bodies at 13 to do when we start ejaculating and having high sex drives.
Right. Obviously society at large believes, as I do, that the body being ready and the person being ready are two very different things.
But you're right. Wet dreams and sexual urges are totally the sign that we're ready for a sexual relationship. Our body says so! Pfft.
I sure it was pretty common to have children by that time back in the day. Again, not justifying sexual activity at 13.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
"Meant to reproduce by 13"? I think you MAY mean "capable of". And there's a LONG SHOT between "capable of" and "mentally and emotionally ready for".
Not justifying sexual activity at 13. But Its pretty obvious that is what evolution is telling our bodies at 13 to do when we start ejaculating and having high sex drives.
Right. Obviously society at large believes, as I do, that the body being ready and the person being ready are two very different things.
But you're right. Wet dreams and sexual urges are totally the sign that we're ready for a sexual relationship. Our body says so! Pfft.
I sure it was pretty common to have children by that time back in the day. Again, not justifying sexual activity at 13.
Pretty common for people to die well before 40, too. You know, back in the day.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
"Meant to reproduce by 13"? I think you MAY mean "capable of". And there's a LONG SHOT between "capable of" and "mentally and emotionally ready for".
Not justifying sexual activity at 13. But Its pretty obvious that is what evolution is telling our bodies at 13 to do when we start ejaculating and having high sex drives.
Right. Obviously society at large believes, as I do, that the body being ready and the person being ready are two very different things.
But you're right. Wet dreams and sexual urges are totally the sign that we're ready for a sexual relationship. Our body says so! Pfft.
I sure it was pretty common to have children by that time back in the day. Again, not justifying sexual activity at 13.
Pretty common for people to die well before 40, too. You know, back in the day.
Where did you hear that from and why is that relevant?
Btw, don't we already have gender bias laws like censorship of female breast? I found it strange that double standard exists but not one regarding statutory rape seeing as male teens are far less vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation and less likely to regret the sex than teen girls.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
"Meant to reproduce by 13"? I think you MAY mean "capable of". And there's a LONG SHOT between "capable of" and "mentally and emotionally ready for".
Not justifying sexual activity at 13. But Its pretty obvious that is what evolution is telling our bodies at 13 to do when we start ejaculating and having high sex drives.
Right. Obviously society at large believes, as I do, that the body being ready and the person being ready are two very different things.
But you're right. Wet dreams and sexual urges are totally the sign that we're ready for a sexual relationship. Our body says so! Pfft.
I sure it was pretty common to have children by that time back in the day. Again, not justifying sexual activity at 13.
Pretty common for people to die well before 40, too. You know, back in the day.
Where did you hear that from and why is that relevant?
Btw, don't we already have gender bias laws like censorship of female breast? I found it strange that double standard exists but not one regarding statutory rape seeing as male teens are far less vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation and less likely to regret the sex than teen girls.
Less likely does not equate not likely at all. But I get it. Screw the people who it may effect, make it legal for the boys that are ready for it. Those other boys, they aren't really men anyhow.
Nice. I personally think we should be watching out the minority that would regret such actions, since the adults who go after young children - of either sex - are nothing better than predators anyhow. But stand up for the predator, why don't you?
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Less likely does not equate not likely at all. But I get it. Screw the people who it may effect, make it legal for the boys that are ready for it. Those other boys, they aren't really men anyhow.
Nice. I personally think we should be watching out the minority that would regret such actions, since the adults who go after young children - of either sex - are nothing better than predators anyhow. But stand up for the predator, why don't you?
Oh I'm against sex with biological children(someone who has not reached puberty) but 13-15 is usually not a child but a sexual being. I wouldn't consider people of either gender who goes for that age group to be predators unless its of an manipulative nature. And most of these women who are involved with teen boys are not predators seeing as how 83% of their relationships is just causal sex.
However, there were also some key differences between the two types of relationships. For example, adolescent males were more likely to view the relationship as casual (83% v. 38%), and be considerably younger than the adult (51% of adolescent males, in comparison to 36% of adolescent females, report an age gap of 5 or more years)
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV150.pdf#page14 (page 6)
We're talking about a 5% negative reaction from males vs a 81% negative reaction from females. We already have irrational gender double standards in the law. Why not have a rational one like having the age of consent at 13 for males and 16 for females(misdemeanor if she is 13-15)?
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Less likely does not equate not likely at all. But I get it. Screw the people who it may effect, make it legal for the boys that are ready for it. Those other boys, they aren't really men anyhow.
Nice. I personally think we should be watching out the minority that would regret such actions, since the adults who go after young children - of either sex - are nothing better than predators anyhow. But stand up for the predator, why don't you?
Oh I'm against sex with biological children(someone who has not reached puberty) but 13-15 is usually not a child but a sexual being. I wouldn't consider people of either gender who goes for that age group to be predators unless its of an manipulative nature. And most of these women who are involved with teen boys are not predators seeing as how 83% of their relationships is just causal sex.
However, there were also some key differences between the two types of relationships. For example, adolescent males were more likely to view the relationship as casual (83% v. 38%), and be considerably younger than the adult (51% of adolescent males, in comparison to 36% of adolescent females, report an age gap of 5 or more years)
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV150.pdf#page14 (page 6)
We're talking about a 5% negative reaction from males vs a 81% negative reaction from females. We already have irrational gender double standards in the law. Why not have a rational one where the age of consent is 13 for boys and 16 for girls(misdemeanor if she is 13-15)?
In regards to your first point, about a person 13-15 "not being a child but being a sexual being"... well, if that were the case, I doubt the entire world would have laws against sex with a "sexual being" of that age.
And again, your point is that the 5% aren't worth saving? Really? I am super happy you are not in a position to change laws. I see the 5% as being worth keeping a law that protects them from psychological trauma, and you see them as a ROADBLOCK to the ones who can handle it getting it on with older woman. Very classy.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
In regards to your first point, about a person 13-15 "not being a child but being a sexual being"... well, if that were the case, I doubt the entire world would have laws against sex with a "sexual being" of that age.
And again, your point is that the 5% aren't worth saving? Really? I am super happy you are not in a position to change laws. I see the 5% as being worth keeping a law that protects them from psychological trauma, and you see them as a ROADBLOCK to the ones who can handle it getting it on with older woman. Very classy.
The age of consent is 13-15 in some places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg
Having negative reaction does not unnecessarily mean psychological trauma and it's most likely males ages 11 or 12 like with females. If you take age group out of the picture that 5% would probably be much lower. As I posted earlier before females ages 13-15 was only associated only with truancy. You seriously think it would be worse for males of the same age group?
I just don't see why the Age of Consent shouldn't be lower for males. Evidence suggests that women having sex with teenage boy is nigh-universally not a problem. It seems rather arbitrary to have equality on this subject. There are is already gender inequality in law regarding females going topless like in the story I point. You know if that was a father and son doing that nothing would have been done about it.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
In regards to your first point, about a person 13-15 "not being a child but being a sexual being"... well, if that were the case, I doubt the entire world would have laws against sex with a "sexual being" of that age.
And again, your point is that the 5% aren't worth saving? Really? I am super happy you are not in a position to change laws. I see the 5% as being worth keeping a law that protects them from psychological trauma, and you see them as a ROADBLOCK to the ones who can handle it getting it on with older woman. Very classy.
The age of consent is 13-15 in some places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg
Having negative reaction does not unnecessarily mean psychological trauma and it's most likely males ages 11 or 12 like with females. If you take age group out of the picture that 5% would probably be much lower. As I posted earlier before females ages 13-15 was only associated only with truancy. You seriously think it would be worse for males of the same age group?
I just don't see why the Age of Consent shouldn't be lower for males. Evidence suggests that women having sex with teenage boy is nigh-universally not a problem. It seems rather arbitrary to have equality on this subject. There are is already gender inequality in law regarding females going topless like in the story I point. You know if that was a father and son doing that nothing would have been done about it.
Again, even if it's 1%, your answer is screw the 1%? I like how your excuse is that the survey you gave lists truancy as the only problem in that age group. Yes, again, the survey is not going to show everything for everyone. I think it behooves the teenage boys who can handle it to go about it in secret - or suck it up and wait or - heaven forbid! - find someone their own age! - as opposed to screwing over the people that it would affect poorly. You tend to not think that way, and I suppose you can continue doing so, I just think it a bit heartless.
And public toplessness between females and males has so little to do with age of consent that I will ignore it, as you're obviously just tossing it out there to put something where the sexes are uneven, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just because not everything is even between the sexes doesn't mean that protecting our children shouldn't be one area THAT IT IS.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Again, even if it's 1%, your answer is screw the 1%? I like how your excuse is that the survey you gave lists truancy as the only problem in that age group. Yes, again, the survey is not going to show everything for everyone. I think it behooves the teenage boys who can handle it to go about it in secret - or suck it up and wait or - heaven forbid! - find someone their own age! - as opposed to screwing over the people that it would affect poorly. You tend to not think that way, and I suppose you can continue doing so, I just think it a bit heartless.
And public toplessness between females and males has so little to do with age of consent that I will ignore it, as you're obviously just tossing it out there to put something where the sexes are uneven, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just because not everything is even between the sexes doesn't mean that protecting our children shouldn't be one area THAT IT IS.
Well, as I pointed out the age of consent is 13-15 in a lot places and our bodies are telling us to have sex around that it. It makes sense that sex by itself has very little negative emotional outcomes at that age group. I think it's very accurate.
I don't think 1%(it's probably lower) is significant enough to punish all women in these cases and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be protected as I believe there should be an age of consent, just lower for boys. Tbh, sexual manipulation can happen at any age and gender, but there needs to be a cut off somewhere and teenaged males are indeed insignificantly less vulnerable than teenaged girls in these relationships, that's just fact. It seems rational to have different cut offs like the AOC being 13 for males and 16 for females as they approach sex so differently. Though I think older males with females should 13-15 should only be a misdemeanor ranging from fines, probation, community service, short jail term, or part-time imprisonment, served on the weekends, with no Megan's law involved.
I brought up the topless story to point out how weird the system is. There pretty much isn't any legitimate reason to have that double standard at all but nobody seems to be fight against it. But people complain about the fact that women who have sex with underaged teenaged boys far less seriously and screaming inequality when it actually has some merit.
0
I find age of consent laws very confusing and contradictory. Like if a 15 year old has sex with another 15 year old they both raped each other. I think that's silly.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Again, even if it's 1%, your answer is screw the 1%? I like how your excuse is that the survey you gave lists truancy as the only problem in that age group. Yes, again, the survey is not going to show everything for everyone. I think it behooves the teenage boys who can handle it to go about it in secret - or suck it up and wait or - heaven forbid! - find someone their own age! - as opposed to screwing over the people that it would affect poorly. You tend to not think that way, and I suppose you can continue doing so, I just think it a bit heartless.
And public toplessness between females and males has so little to do with age of consent that I will ignore it, as you're obviously just tossing it out there to put something where the sexes are uneven, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just because not everything is even between the sexes doesn't mean that protecting our children shouldn't be one area THAT IT IS.
Well, as I pointed out the age of consent is 13-15 in a lot places and our bodies are telling us to have sex around that it. It makes sense that sex by itself has very little negative emotional outcomes at that age group. I think it's very accurate.
I don't think 1%(it's probably lower) is significant enough to punish all women in these cases and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be protected as I believe there should be an age of consent, just lower for boys. Tbh, sexual manipulation can happen at any age and gender, but there needs to be a cut off somewhere and teenaged males are indeed insignificantly less vulnerable than teenaged girls in these relationships, that's just fact. It seems rational to have different cut offs like the AOC being 13 for males and 16 for females as they approach sex so differently. Though I think older males with females should 13-15 should only be a misdemeanor ranging from fines, probation, community service, short jail term, or part-time imprisonment, served on the weekends, with no Megan's law involved.
I brought up the topless story to point out how weird the system is. There pretty much isn't any legitimate reason to have that double standard at all but nobody seems to be fight against it. But people complain about the fact that women who have sex with underaged teenaged boys far less seriously and screaming inequality when it actually has some merit.
There's a very distinguishable notice between men and women when it comes to toplessness, whereas how much more vulnerable women are than men in these relationships cannot be so easily defined. It's clear as day vs. obscure as mud.
And the males in question should go find a girl their own age as opposed to an older woman. This allows the current situation to stay in place and doesn't put any youths in danger. Regardless of what you think the percentage is, not ALL boys are immune to mental and emotional issues that can come of sexual relationships with older women, and we should look at the issue in protecting people, not protecting those who can't find people their own age.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
There's also a very distinguishable notice between men and women when it comes to toplessness,
Oh like this? There is a vey distinguishable notice between overweight people and non-overweight people when it comes to toplessness. Seems like a pretty weak reason.
whereas how much more vulnerable women are than men in these relationships cannot be so easily defined. It's clear as day vs. obscure as mud.
And the males in question should go find a girl their own age as opposed to an older woman. This allows the current situation to stay in place and doesn't put any youths in danger. Regardless of what you think the percentage is, not ALL boys are immune to mental and emotional issues that can come of sexual relationships with older women, and we should look at the issue in protecting people, not protecting those who can't find people their own age.
And the males in question should go find a girl their own age as opposed to an older woman. This allows the current situation to stay in place and doesn't put any youths in danger. Regardless of what you think the percentage is, not ALL boys are immune to mental and emotional issues that can come of sexual relationships with older women, and we should look at the issue in protecting people, not protecting those who can't find people their own age.
Like I said that can happen at any age but there needs to be cut off somewhere. That probably happens to a percentage of 18 year olds with older people. Male and female sexuality is so different, like one of the most common sexual regrets among is not being more sexually adventurous in their youth. It just seems irrational for the cutoffs to be equal.
0
I'm just going to respond to OP that is 4 years old but I don't think there is much of a difference between man and woman perse but more about each individual human being. I might've been ready at 13 while some other guy might not have, so you really have to take that with a pinch of salt. Then again, if he consented, which I just assume he didn't, then in my opinion she shouldn't have been reported anyway.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
There's also a very distinguishable notice between men and women when it comes to toplessness,
Oh like this? There is a vey distinguishable notice between overweight people and non-overweight people when it comes to toplessness. Seems like a pretty weak reason.
whereas how much more vulnerable women are than men in these relationships cannot be so easily defined. It's clear as day vs. obscure as mud.
And the males in question should go find a girl their own age as opposed to an older woman. This allows the current situation to stay in place and doesn't put any youths in danger. Regardless of what you think the percentage is, not ALL boys are immune to mental and emotional issues that can come of sexual relationships with older women, and we should look at the issue in protecting people, not protecting those who can't find people their own age.
And the males in question should go find a girl their own age as opposed to an older woman. This allows the current situation to stay in place and doesn't put any youths in danger. Regardless of what you think the percentage is, not ALL boys are immune to mental and emotional issues that can come of sexual relationships with older women, and we should look at the issue in protecting people, not protecting those who can't find people their own age.
Like I said that can happen at any age but there needs to be cut off somewhere.
And it is. End of story. The cutoffs can (and should be) equal. There is also a workaround for people who want to be in sexual relationships at a younger age - FIND SOMEONE YOUR OWN AGE. It's legal, it makes it less likely predatory action can happen, and it's just a lot less fucking creepy.
You may not like it, but hey - they can still do it, it should just be illegal. It is in the country I am from, but not enough is done about it in Japan, where I live.