Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Altai

Having sex with 13 years olds

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, ?Impact said:

That is why we need to look not at the age of an individual, but the disparity between different ones.

But we mustn't fall into the trap of assuming that all older people who have sex with younger ones are doing so harmfully, any more than we can assume that all people of the same age are having sex harmlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Antares said:

Some 13-year-olds are childish; others are not. I don't think it's useful to use the same label for adults who have sex with them irrespective of their individual level of maturity. Your reference to rape seems to imply that 13-year-olds are incapable of giving consent, which I would disagree with.

While I agree that 13 is biologically mature, they are not emotionally mature in our society; that is why they are not capable of giving consent. It is society that distinguishes us from animals, and why biological maturity is not enough. Adults can manipulate children (youth if you prefer), and get them to agree to something that is not in their best interest. That is why we have to distinguish between biological and emotional maturity. This is especially difficult when so many members of our society also want to keep children intellectually ignorant, assuming that if they don't understand human sexuality then they will be "innocent". We need to educate our youth, but we also need to protect them from those who would abuse them. In my opinion, any adult (ie. 18+) having sex with a 13 year old should be considered rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

While I agree that 13 is biologically mature,

I have to disagree with this.  When sex with a 13 year old results in pregnancy,  their age makes it more dangerous for both mother and child  - in part because they are NOT fully biologically mature.

Quote

In 2005, the infant mortality rate for babies born to mothers under 20 was 10.28 deaths per 1,000 live births compared to the average of 6.86 deaths per 1,000 live births for all births. The statistics look even grimmer when the age of the teen mother is under 15. In 2006, babies born to teen mothers under 15 suffered an infant mortality rate of 16.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. That same year, the infant mortality rate for babies born to mothers of all ages was 6.8 per 1,000.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I have to disagree with this.  When sex with a 13 year old results in pregnancy,  their age makes it more dangerous for both mother and child  - in part because they are NOT fully biologically mature.

I agree that biological maturity is one issue, but the far bigger issue in looking at statistics like infant mortality are the social-economic ones. One also has to remember that older women have other biological issues like chromosomal abnormalities to deal with. I am in no way advocating teenage pregnancy - women should only have children between the ages of 20-25*.

*Yes, I am being facetious. My mother delivered at age 35&38, and my wife at age 31, 33 & 37.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Antares said:

This is a culture-dependent claim. In modern advanced societies we are keeping our offspring childish for longer than in historical or less-developed ones. I take it that by 'kid' you mean 'child' in the cultural sense, rather than in the biological sense, since most 13-year-olds are sexually mature (in the sense of biologically fertile). We advanced moderns have the luxury of being able to distinguish between these two senses, and I'm afraid people sometimes exploit that by glossing over the distinction.

Some 13-year-olds are childish; others are not. I don't think it's useful to use the same label for adults who have sex with them irrespective of their individual level of maturity. Your reference to rape seems to imply that 13-year-olds are incapable of giving consent, which I would disagree with.

No, but what would you say if someone claimed to be a non-pervert who'd had sex with a 13-year-old? My guess is that your concept of perversion is, as above, culture-specific: perversion is behaviour that is regarded as unacceptable by most people in your culture. But in the culture of, say, Anglo-Saxon England (which was one of the most advanced of its time in the world), it was perfectly normal for 13-year-old women (which is how they were regarded) to be married and pregnant. Indeed, in prehistoric times it was absolutely necessary for people to be procreating by that age. That's because life expectancy was too low for people to wait any longer if they wanted to raise their kids to adulthood before they died. And we haven't had time since then to evolve significantly different sexual natures, so having sex with the average 13-year-old is certainly not a perversion of nature.

I doubt that 13 year old girls are quite all that ready for sex just yet. So, you have no problem with your daughter, if you have one, to have sex with say a 40 year old, and if by chance she gets pregnant and has a baby at 14 years old, then what? It seems a little ridiculous for a 13 year old girl to be having a baby at 14. She is still a child herself. Having to bring up and look after a baby and prepare that baby for the world seems somewhat ridiculous for a 13 year old to have to be responsible for. Personally, unless raped they are not ready for sex. Just my opinion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, Goddess said:

When sex with a 13 year old results in pregnancy,  their age makes it more dangerous for both mother and child  - in part because they are NOT fully biologically mature.

Quote

In 2005, the infant mortality rate for babies born to mothers under 20 was 10.28 deaths per 1,000 live births compared to the average of 6.86 deaths per 1,000 live births for all births. The statistics look even grimmer when the age of the teen mother is under 15. In 2006, babies born to teen mothers under 15 suffered an infant mortality rate of 16.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. That same year, the infant mortality rate for babies born to mothers of all ages was 6.8 per 1,000.

 


Point taken, although you're using a slightly different sense of 'biologically mature' from the one I originally used. IMO, teenage pregnancy is, on the whole, a disaster.

It would be worthwhile to know more about the context of these statistics. For example, are there cultural factors that influence them alongside the biological age? Are all the mothers in question from the same society/culture? Do they have comparable living (and therefore, presumably, health) standards? And, in the expectation that the younger mothers are in their first pregnancy, how many of the older mothers have given birth before?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ?Impact said:

While I agree that 13 is biologically mature, they are not emotionally mature in our society; that is why they are not capable of giving consent.

But would you consider them capable of withholding consent? Or are they incapable either way, in which case society should consider denial of consent to be the default?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Antares said:

But would you consider them capable of withholding consent? Or are they incapable either way, in which case society should consider denial of consent to be the default?

Denial of consent should always be the default. First there is the important issue of informed consent, and at 13 it is highly questionable how informed they can be to the multitude of consequences. More important however is the emotional manipulation. It is like the door to door vacuum salesman, and the cooling off period consumer protection agencies provide. Someone with great experience in manipulation is taking advantage of another at a vulnerable time. If we find it necessary to provide protection for adults spending a few dollars, we had better provide protection for a 13 year old and the consequences of having sex.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Antares said:

Point taken, although you're using a slightly different sense of 'biologically mature' from the one I originally used. IMO, teenage pregnancy is, on the whole, a disaster.

Teenage pregnancy was the norm for most of the history of the human race. That teenagers are so much less emotionally mature than even a century ago is because children are coddled so much now.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Argus said:

Teenage pregnancy was the norm for most of the history of the human race. That teenagers are so much less emotionally mature than even a century ago is because children are coddled so much now.

I don't think it is coddling, it is changing attitudes in society. We no longer expect people to raise large families to take on the farm. With far differing expectations of society you cannot blame teenagers for the world they inherited. A century ago, changes where highly likely that we and our family knew the person we ended up marrying all our lives, that is far from the norm today. Yes, the emotional aspects of raising a family have changed dramatically but "coddling" is not the reason why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I don't think it is coddling, it is changing attitudes in society. We no longer expect people to raise large families to take on the farm. With far differing expectations of society you cannot blame teenagers for the world they inherited. A century ago, changes where highly likely that we and our family knew the person we ended up marrying all our lives, that is far from the norm today. Yes, the emotional aspects of raising a family have changed dramatically but "coddling" is not the reason why.

You can call it whatever you want but I doubt you'll say that a 15 year old today is anywhere near as emotionally mature as a 15 year old a century or two ago. Someone in a book I once read said the middle ages is the history of children. When your average lifespan is about 30 you better have your kids by 14 or you'll be dead before they're old enough to take care of themselves. A 15 year old was a husband, father and working man back then, and all the responsibility was on his shoulders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/01/2018 at 7:25 PM, ?Impact said:

Denial of consent should always be the default.

Always in what circumstances, and how far would you take this principle? If it applies to all situations in which a young person is vulnerable to an adult, that would include most parenting. For instance, wouldn't it make it wrong for a parent to take a child to a church service, send them to a school, or submit them to a medical operation?

On 19/01/2018 at 7:25 PM, ?Impact said:

More important however is the emotional manipulation. It is like the door to door vacuum salesman, and the cooling off period consumer protection agencies provide. Someone with great experience in manipulation is taking advantage of another at a vulnerable time.

Again, though, you seem to be assuming that all adults have sinister intentions towards young people, while young people have no such intentions towards each other. Is it really worth employing such a blanket generalization (adults are guilty until proven innocent; young people are innocent until proven guilty) for the convenience of not having to assess cases individually?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Antares said:

Always in what circumstances, and how far would you take this principle? If it applies to all situations in which a young person is vulnerable to an adult, that would include most parenting. For instance, wouldn't it make it wrong for a parent to take a child to a church service, send them to a school, or submit them to a medical operation?

Society recognizes parents (primary caregivers) have a responsibility to make some decisions for those under their care. That is not unconditional, and when they go beyond a certain point then the rest of society has to step in. If they sexually abuse their children, then the burden falls on the rest of society to remove those children from their care. Other forms of abuse also need to be considered as well, as in the case of the devout Pentecostal Christian scumbags David and Louise Turpin.

5 hours ago, Antares said:

Again, though, you seem to be assuming that all adults have sinister intentions towards young people, while young people have no such intentions towards each other. Is it really worth employing such a blanket generalization (adults are guilty until proven innocent; young people are innocent until proven guilty) for the convenience of not having to assess cases individually?

I am not sure how you draw that conclusion. I believe most people are generally good, but that does not mean there are not scumbags out there like I pointed out above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/01/2018 at 8:58 AM, Argus said:

You can call it whatever you want but I doubt you'll say that a 15 year old today is anywhere near as emotionally mature as a 15 year old a century or two ago. Someone in a book I once read said the middle ages is the history of children. When your average lifespan is about 30 you better have your kids by 14 or you'll be dead before they're old enough to take care of themselves. A 15 year old was a husband, father and working man back then, and all the responsibility was on his shoulders. 

I think it would have been unusual for a 15-year-old boy to be a father.  More likely he would be out learning a trade or working the family farm, or perhaps soldiering somewhere.  15-year-old girls, however, would have been married to already established men much older than themselves.

On the other hand, we could both be wrong.  This article says that both men and women tended to be in their 20s at marriage with little age disparity between them, at least in some parts of Europe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until 2008, the age of consent in Canada was 14. I recall a case in Winnipeg, where a man in his 50s was charged with child pornography in the 90s, but openly admitted to having sex with 15 year old girls, the same ones he took pics of. It was pretty disturbing.

Edited by J4L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...