Oh ffs I just read the thread, minigin I actually mean no offence (nothing personal at least) but the fact you're a virgin & brought up by very religious parents actually explains a lot. Sex is not the devil. Sex is perfectly natural, even for young people. Sex is not like the porn you see on the internet. Once you experience this fact a few times you might actually understand what we're on about.

Am literally not gonna argue about the ill effects of something you haven't actually experienced... for you it may seem like a big deal, for other people it's not.




Clearly an observation based upon experience...

& end up making threads for all you m8s to read about when your first relationship does go down in flames lol




21 or 22 I think

Native American Indians used to fuck in front of their kids btw, for them it wasn't a big deal. That's soooo wrong amirite? Could you imagine what could happen to kids that see sex!!!!!! I'd never do that to my kids, better go get them (insert ultra violent film here) to keep them away from this sort of human contact. Seriously though I have a close mate who still doesn't like watching ultra violent films because his parents literally wouldn't let him watch it when he was younger, however they had absolutely no dramas with him watch MA15+ sex scenes.... I actually asked his mum about it once, his mum said she seriously didn't give the sex scenes any thought.

redskins used to scalp white men too though you know

well yeah but the whitemen kinda had guns and were trying to take their shit...

My main argument is that sex is not inherently harmful, it's fucking natural for god sake. Minigin, who having not experience, is basing his arguments from "what his heard" and his beliefs about sex which is again literally retarded. Let's make policy based on beliefs... right. Furthermore in the vast majority of cases sex is totally natural and not harmful, including minors having sex with each other.

Minigins argument about "ok well then why can't a 20yo have sex with a 13yo" also comes down to partly personal beliefs. However more importantly objectively speaking it also comes down to the chance that abuse will happen in such situations. In those circumstances the chances of abuse happening tends to be a lot higher, this is an objective obvservation. It's not to say that sex is inherently harmful though. It's just to say that given these sorts of situations the chance of it harming someone is so much higher that the law is here is prepared to step in to avoid it. If you want the same thing for minors having sex with each other you need to show that the chance of harm occuring is also just as high...

Minigin the only way your argument works is when you start showing objectively that sex is in general harmful to minors. Seriously have fun trying m8.

clearly youve not read anything ive said, if you somehow think my stance on this is based on sex being the devil.

this is really the desperate ploy of someone who cant argue their point. the reason duty of care matters here is because of the age of the victims and those accused. the concepts of that and legal personhood i think really go hand in hand.

you also cant superimpose victorian or native indian views of sexuality on modern day society, because of the clearly obvious differences... like oh say... i dunno... the role of women in society.

the fact that you are all being misogynistic in this thread believe me... is not lost on me...




the rate of pregnancy of sexually active students is 5% which i would think is greater than the chance of them becoming addicted to or dependent on some sort of hard drug at that age. - im not sure what the rate of sti transmissions are but obviously the risk are higher in parties who have multiple sexual partners at a young age and arnt mature enough to use protection.

also your argument that a 14 yo is inherently going to experience more harm with a 20 yo is completely retarded and based on the fact that as a result of it being illegal the occasions you are referring to are brutal rapes with no consent. you ignore the fact that if a 14 yo can consent to a 16 yo and be significantly harmed, thats just tough luck, but if society accepts 20yos having sex with 14 yos and it is consenting... and less harm comes to the younger party by means of maturity and experience of the older party... that is more culpable than the other way around. where the 16 yo may even have the sufficent mens for recklessness, where his goal is to satisfy social pressures regardless of the effect to his or hers lives.


youve really just assumed and wrongly so that 20 yos will do more damage than 16 yos youve used no logic and no real statistics that arnt really based on social misconceptions and notions of acceptability.

id better go back to my yart now and watch my parents fuck so i can grow up like you guys though.

lets turn this into baby speak.


are there things you are too young to do?

what are they?

how old should you be to do them?

explain why?

It seems odd to me to punish someone on the off-chance that they might've possibly, maybe, caused future emotional damage to a person who willfully engaged them in sexual acts. I can only speak for myself, but even though I think it would have a positive effect on crime rates I'm not in favor of imprisoning random black men for unspecified muggings, burglaries or robberies they may or may not have committed in the past. I'm no lawyer, but from court shows and movies I get the impression that gaining a conviction on the basis that a possible crime, that may choose to make itself apparent in the future, may have been committed by the defendent, would be difficult. I'm all for throwing people in prison but with suspects getting aquitted after crimes have actually been committed it just seems like a waste of taxpayers money to prosecute before crimes are even on the books.

but ive already said to leave it at the discretion of the prosecution, and that it is already very loosely charged.


the point is the statement of it... to say that a childs consent to certain acts is not enough. and that if you are truly culpable you CAN be prosecuted.

You miss understand my point. It's not that the 14 yo is going to inherently experience more harm with the 20yo.

It's that the chance of the adult abusing the situation is vastly more then when you get two 15yo's. Yes, I conceded that doesn't mean sex is inherently wrong for the 20 & 14 yo. I honestly believe it can so happen that the 14yo could consent. But in our society, as we know it, given this sort of situation the likelyhood of the 20yo abusing the situation is so grossly high that society is prepared to say "no 20yo is allowed to have sex with a 14yo".

HOWEVER
The chances of 2 minors around the same age abusing the situation is so much lower that society is not prepared to say "lets ban all minors because some* may abuse the situation"

This is what I meant by proportionality. The law doesn't step in when the likelyhood of harm occurring is very low & that furthermore in the majority of cases when there is harm, that the harm isn't the end of the world either. (No, getting pregnant is not the end of the world)



umm to make a fair comparison you'd have to compare it to the rate of students that have used those hard drugs and then become addicted or something. The analogy is not a good one. And if anything all it means is that instead of banning sex we need more education...




Duty of care matters to the extent that a parent should look after their kid from harm. Sure. I concede that. SEX IS NOT INHERENTLY HARMFUL. In the vast vast vast majority of cases where minors have sex with each other THERE IS NO HARM. Therefore a parent does not have a duty to protect their child from sex.

THEY (and the law) does have a duty when it involves a 20yo and a 14yo because as argued above, the chances of harm occurring in that situation. This isn't an exact science, it can't be. But, basically, society looks at the situation where a vastly more mature 20yo is having sex with a 14yo and asks, what is the likelyhood of the 14yo being manipulated or abused in this situation? The answer to society is: Very likely. Thus, blanket ban.


On a side note: I like how you're calling me misogynistic even though you're the one basically assuming girls are the passive ones in this. You're assuming it's the male minors dominating the female minors. You do understand that in many instances it's girls who are looking for sex before the males. Shit, I thought your experience with that girl you broke up with over it would have shown you that.

It's not an off chance. The vast majority of cases involving an adult are of a nature that involves great manipulation of power and abuse. The power imbalances are almost always far too great.



edit: Minigin, finally the law is not in place to make mere statements. If it is going to be law then it is going to have a punishment of some sort associated with it. If you want to make it illegal for two 14yo to have sex then there are judicial processes or at least a bloody fine that is going to be associated with it, otherwise it's a pointless law.

The mere fact that some* 15 year olds are mature enough to have sex with each other is enough that there should NOT be a law against it. The ones that aren't ready should simply not have sex.

I remember being 15 and honestly most people that I knew had sex at that age did it with an actual partner, not a one night stand. For me one night stands tended to happen later on. I don't understand how you can say that it should be illegal for those two to have sex.

double edit: come on coms yo