Should it be illegal if you have sex with an underage girl you meet in an 18+ club

[JoJo]

I dunno lols. It's her fault. Minors should be charged for once. Not all paedophilian acts are cause by adults.

Charged for what exactly? The reason under-age sex is against the law is that minors don't have the maturity to consent, so charging them for it would nullify the point of the law existing in the first place.

That's a load of hogwash and you know it.

It depends entirely on the individual. I was perfectly aware of what sex entailed by the time I was 10. I made the informed choice not to have it until much later.

If a person sneeks into a club that they're too young to be in and then potentially screws up some poor sods life by sleeping with them. Why in the hell shouldn't they be punished?

Being under-age isn't a valid excuse as far as I'm concerned. I knew full well what I was doing at that age and so does every other shit who doesn't have a disability.

We coddle our children and let them get away with far too much. They made the choice, no predator coerced some innocent little flower into anything.

Pfffh, most people like to believe that when they were a child they were especially mature and responsible, the fact is that children are very easy to take advantage of and to persuade to do things that they don't have the maturity to properly consent to. There's a big difference between knowing what sex is and actually being able to partake in it. Study after study has shown the grave physical and psychological effects of child abuse, even when the children "consent" at the time.

Just to add, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, I have a 7 year old sister and I do voluntary work with kids aged 8 to 11.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I don't think it should be legal, but I also don't think it should be punishable unless it can be proved undoubtably that the accused party fully understood that the other party was underage...which it almost certainly can't.

People lie, ID is forgable, people don't necessarily "look their age" and the difference between 16-18 is often fairly arbitrary, maturity being more dependant on the individual than the number of rings in their stump...

I know we are desperate to make someone liable for everything that happens, but it's pretty childish to do so.

 

[JoJo]

Did I say that? No. I said the attraction itself is perfectly natural. If one is actually a pedophile then they should have the respect to not put their attraction into action through the knowledge that it would more than likely cause psychological harm to the kid.
That doesn't make the attraction itself a mental illness.

You didn't say that...but by saying the 'attraction is natural' seems like justification enough to me. Also 'more than likely cause harm' ?! No ya think?!

I'm a 33 year old gay man and in no way would i ever have a sexual attraction to children or teens, and don't tell me any different I know how I feel. Perhaps my brain is wired differently...perhaps I'm just strange or an alien.

It just makes me bristle with anger to see things like this get defended.

Christ. Why do people immediately jump to the conclusion that anyone who accepts that people who are attracted to children are no less "normal" than you or I (not that "normal" really exists anyway,) condone fucking children?!

I'm on your side here man.

it's the way your wording things. I know your trying to be logical but to some of us the thought of children being sexually wanted makes us want to protect them...I dunno I seem to get an automatic anger response to things like that.

Or it's perhaps because I've been through something like it...but I wont say any more.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I get that too, the idea of someone hurting a child makes me insanely angry, probably comes from having a much younger sister In Dodo's defence however it would probably be for the best if we recognised that there are always going to be some people attracted to children, so rather than stigmatising the condition we should make sure they have the support they need to reduce the chances of them abusing a child.

 

[JoJo]

I dunno lols. It's her fault. Minors should be charged for once. Not all paedophilian acts are cause by adults.

Charged for what exactly? The reason under-age sex is against the law is that minors don't have the maturity to consent, so charging them for it would nullify the point of the law existing in the first place.

That's a load of hogwash and you know it.

It depends entirely on the individual. I was perfectly aware of what sex entailed by the time I was 10. I made the informed choice not to have it until much later.

If a person sneeks into a club that they're too young to be in and then potentially screws up some poor sods life by sleeping with them. Why in the hell shouldn't they be punished?

Being under-age isn't a valid excuse as far as I'm concerned. I knew full well what I was doing at that age and so does every other shit who doesn't have a disability.

We coddle our children and let them get away with far too much. They made the choice, no predator coerced some innocent little flower into anything.

Pfffh, most people like to believe that when they were a child they were especially mature and responsible, the fact is that children are very easy to take advantage of and to persuade to do things that they don't have the maturity to properly consent to. There's a big difference between knowing what sex is and actually being able to partake in it. Study after study has shown the grave physical and psychological effects of child abuse, even when the children "consent" at the time.

Just to add, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, I have a 7 year old sister and I do voluntary work with kids aged 8 to 11.

Again, that means nothing to the individual.

Whether you believe it or not, I did understand what sex would entail and chose not to do it. I had opportunities but made the informed decision not to do anything.

And I'm not talking about abuse. I'm talking about the under age individual purposefully deceiving an older person to have sex with them.

That's not being abused. If anything, that's abusing somebody else.

And they should be punished for it. Not the unfortunate person who ended up making a mistake because they were unable to make a fully informed choice.

Like I said. We coddle our kids too much. We wrap them up in fucking marshmallows and absolve them of all responsibility. Children aren't stupid, a lot of them are just as aware as most adults and they will use your willingness to protect them against you.

I'm sorry but I cannot believe that, no 10 year old has the maturity to fully understand sex, regardless of what you may think. As for the deception thing, that depends on age. If they are less than two years under the age of consent, then the older person has somewhat of a defence if they weren't aware of that. On the other hand if the child is 13 or under then there's no way they could fool someone into thinking they were overage and the older partner deserves the full force of the law (unless they are of similar age). However in both these cases the underage partner is not to blame, as the whole point of the law is to protect them from being exploited.

As someone who has a lot of experience with children, they aren't stupid but they don't think the same way as adults do and should be protected from people who would take advantage of them.

 

[JoJo]

I dunno lols. It's her fault. Minors should be charged for once. Not all paedophilian acts are cause by adults.

Charged for what exactly? The reason under-age sex is against the law is that minors don't have the maturity to consent, so charging them for it would nullify the point of the law existing in the first place.

That's a load of hogwash and you know it.

It depends entirely on the individual. I was perfectly aware of what sex entailed by the time I was 10. I made the informed choice not to have it until much later.

If a person sneeks into a club that they're too young to be in and then potentially screws up some poor sods life by sleeping with them. Why in the hell shouldn't they be punished?

Being under-age isn't a valid excuse as far as I'm concerned. I knew full well what I was doing at that age and so does every other shit who doesn't have a disability.

We coddle our children and let them get away with far too much. They made the choice, no predator coerced some innocent little flower into anything.

Pfffh, most people like to believe that when they were a child they were especially mature and responsible, the fact is that children are very easy to take advantage of and to persuade to do things that they don't have the maturity to properly consent to. There's a big difference between knowing what sex is and actually being able to partake in it. Study after study has shown the grave physical and psychological effects of child abuse, even when the children "consent" at the time.

Just to add, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, I have a 7 year old sister and I do voluntary work with kids aged 8 to 11.

Again, that means nothing to the individual.

Whether you believe it or not, I did understand what sex would entail and chose not to do it. I had opportunities but made the informed decision not to do anything.

And I'm not talking about abuse. I'm talking about the under age individual purposefully deceiving an older person to have sex with them.

That's not being abused. If anything, that's abusing somebody else.

And they should be punished for it. Not the unfortunate person who ended up making a mistake because they were unable to make a fully informed choice.

Like I said. We coddle our kids too much. We wrap them up in fucking marshmallows and absolve them of all responsibility. Children aren't stupid, a lot of them are just as aware as most adults and they will use your willingness to protect them against you.

I'm sorry but I cannot believe that, no 10 year old has the maturity to fully understand sex, regardless of what you may think. As for the deception thing, that depends on age. If they are less than two years under the age of consent, then the older person has somewhat of a defence if they weren't aware of that. On the other hand if the child is 13 or under then there's no way they could fool someone into thinking they were overage and the older partner deserves the full force of the law (unless they are of similar age). However in both these cases the underage partner is not to blame, as the whole point of the law is to protect them from being exploited.

As someone who has a lot of experience with children, they aren't stupid but they don't think the same way as adults do and should be protected from people who would take advantage of them.

Believe it or not, it doesn't really make a difference to me.

My cousin gave me my first porno tape when I was 6. So I had a bit of a head start on the rest of my age group.

But back to the point. I think the OP is talking about a 15-16 year old, depending on the laws in your country.

And yes, they should be to blame. They chose to enter a club and potentially fuck up someone's life.

Hypothetically, we'll call them a 16 year old.

They certainly understand and should certainly be punished. The person who was deceived should not.

Technically what your cousin did was a sex offence under UK law (don't know about where you live) and is considered by most experts as a form of child abuse so I'm very sorry to hear that. All children deserve an innocent childhood.

A 16 year old is old enough to understand sex in my opinion and where I live thats legal, however if a country considers them under the age of consent, that's because that country considers them not mature enought to have sex. This therefore means they shouldn't be held responsible for it, since the law says they can't decide one way or another.

Edit: Just checked your profile, so you live in the UK too. So how old was your cousin was he did this?

 

[trigger1992]

Reasonable belief that theyre 16 or over = not guilty (in the uk at least)

 

[Uber Waddles]

Should it be illegal? Yes - She is still underage. Its still considered statutory rape in a lot of countries and cases. Mostly if the parents decide to sue, which probably isnt likely.

Would you make a shit-ton of money if you got convicted for sueing said nightclub - You bet your sweet ass.

If I got convicted, I would sue the nightclub. Make bank off of it.

 

[JoJo]

I see where you're coming from. You're treating the law as if it's an absolute. Laws are often unfair and wrong. I never take into account a countries laws when I want to discuss whether or not something should be okay or not. The law does not decide when an individual is mature enough to fully consider such things. It may think it can, but it's a gross over simplification. Some people probably aren't mentally prepared for sex when they're in their 20's. Whilst some are probably mature enough by the age of 16. Or younger if I'm honest. But I'd rather they not change the age of consent.

As far as I'm concerned. When a child turns 13 they should be held accountable for their actions though. Again I'm not suggesting we lower the age of consent, I think 16 is young enough really. I do however think at 13 you understand what you're doing, and if you do something that screws up someone else's life, you should be prepared to face the consequences. Getting out of it because you're not the right age has always seemed like a cheap clause to me.

Also, don't feel sorry for me. My cousin is also only, I think, 2-3 years older than me. I couldn't tell you where he got the tape.

Like I said, children aren't as fragile as you seem to think. It didn't screw me up any. Now I wouldn't advise people to go give their kids porno's. But if they get ahold of one, trust me, it's not the end of the world.

Children can handle the concept of sex just fine, if you'd be more honest with them about it. And then perhaps, we wouldn't have a generation of overly coddled man babies who seem to think they shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

Get a girl pregnant? Well shit, I never thought that would happen to me.

Wait, I've got an STD? I thought they only happened in films.

Generally, the more honest and open you are with your children, the more responsible and well adjusted they're likely to turn out in later life. If you're not making incredibly hyperbolic statements about the consequences of things such as drugs and sex. And you simply explain to them the actual ramifications. They're not going to be as likely to do stupid things out of simple rebellion.

If our society has one fundamental flaw, it's that we try to protect our children from the world.

To an extent, yes we should. There are things that children aren't prepared to know about. But being totally honest about situations that they're likely to face will prepare them invaluably.

Had I not seen those tapes, and then found out more about it in later life. I'd likely have made a mistake and done something stupid when one of the 'opportunities' I mentioned came about. As it stood, I knew what was in store and had researched the possible ramifications. So I dodged an early bullet.

Personally, I don't have much of an issue with a 14 or 15 year old having sex, but I don't think they should be held responsible as the law doesn't consider them responsible for that and if you're older and you get your hands in it, well then that's your fault for not having self control.

As for the tape, I would be concerned about that, as a common method that child abusers use to groom their victims is to give them pornography to teach them about sex. Someone must have given that tape to your cousin and I hope for his sake it wasn't someone with darker intentions. "Children see, children do" takes on a much more scary (and sadly true) meaning in this case.

Children can have some understanding without going into too much detail (my seven year old sister knows how the basics of how sex works though for her it's just how mummy makes babies), I stand my convictions that below 11 or 12 is too young to be directly exposed to sexual content. Children are fragile and while they won't explode into a puff of smoke if they are exposed to such things, they may well suffer later in life because of early experiences. I don't know you personally so I can't make any judgements on your case but you may well have been negatively emotionally affected in ways you don't realise.

You should be honest with your kids, but there's certain things they shouldn't learn until they are ready for it. You wouldn't try to teach a 4 year old secondary school physics, so why teach a 6 year old about sex?

 

[JoJo]

I see where you're coming from. You're treating the law as if it's an absolute. Laws are often unfair and wrong. I never take into account a countries laws when I want to discuss whether or not something should be okay or not. The law does not decide when an individual is mature enough to fully consider such things. It may think it can, but it's a gross over simplification. Some people probably aren't mentally prepared for sex when they're in their 20's. Whilst some are probably mature enough by the age of 16. Or younger if I'm honest. But I'd rather they not change the age of consent.

As far as I'm concerned. When a child turns 13 they should be held accountable for their actions though. Again I'm not suggesting we lower the age of consent, I think 16 is young enough really. I do however think at 13 you understand what you're doing, and if you do something that screws up someone else's life, you should be prepared to face the consequences. Getting out of it because you're not the right age has always seemed like a cheap clause to me.

Also, don't feel sorry for me. My cousin is also only, I think, 2-3 years older than me. I couldn't tell you where he got the tape.

Like I said, children aren't as fragile as you seem to think. It didn't screw me up any. Now I wouldn't advise people to go give their kids porno's. But if they get ahold of one, trust me, it's not the end of the world.

Children can handle the concept of sex just fine, if you'd be more honest with them about it. And then perhaps, we wouldn't have a generation of overly coddled man babies who seem to think they shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

Get a girl pregnant? Well shit, I never thought that would happen to me.

Wait, I've got an STD? I thought they only happened in films.

Generally, the more honest and open you are with your children, the more responsible and well adjusted they're likely to turn out in later life. If you're not making incredibly hyperbolic statements about the consequences of things such as drugs and sex. And you simply explain to them the actual ramifications. They're not going to be as likely to do stupid things out of simple rebellion.

If our society has one fundamental flaw, it's that we try to protect our children from the world.

To an extent, yes we should. There are things that children aren't prepared to know about. But being totally honest about situations that they're likely to face will prepare them invaluably.

Had I not seen those tapes, and then found out more about it in later life. I'd likely have made a mistake and done something stupid when one of the 'opportunities' I mentioned came about. As it stood, I knew what was in store and had researched the possible ramifications. So I dodged an early bullet.

Personally, I don't have much of an issue with a 14 or 15 year old having sex, but I don't think they should be held responsible as the law doesn't consider them responsible for that and if you're older and you get your hands in it, well then that's your fault for not having self control.

As for the tape, I would be concerned about that, as a common method that child abusers use to groom their victims is to give them pornography to teach them about sex. Someone must have given that tape to your cousin and I hope for his sake it wasn't someone with darker intentions. "Children see, children do" takes on a much more scary (and sadly true) meaning in this case.

Children can have some understanding without going into too much detail (my seven year old sister knows how the basics of how sex works though for her it's just how mummy makes babies), I stand my convictions that below 11 or 12 is too young to be directly exposed to sexual content. Children are fragile and while they won't explode into a puff of smoke if they are exposed to such things, they may well suffer later in life because of early experiences. I don't know you personally so I can't make any judgements on your case but you may well have been negatively emotionally affected in ways you don't realise.

You should be honest with your kids, but there's certain things they shouldn't learn until they are ready for it. You wouldn't try to teach a 4 year old secondary school physics, so why teach a 6 year old about sex?

But in the OP it wasn't an issue of self control, but of being deceived. Which is why I think the younger part should certainly be punished.

I think in all likelyhood. He got it from a friend. At his school people sold porno tapes that they stole from their dads. It's not that shocking of an event really. More kids than you'd like to think get them really. Maybe not at the age of six. But I think that's just because my cousin didn't give a shit.

I think you're just to entrenched in this silly notion that kids are made of glass. I certainly don't think that everyone at the age of six should be given their first porno. But I can safely say it hasn't negatively effected my life in any possible way. (Aside from maybe a slight fetish or two. No crazy shit, just a bit of spice you know.) I was already sneeking into my dads 'media room' and pilfering his horror VHS's at that point. I was pretty much desensitised from the get go. Certainly not all children are or should be like I was. But having parents who don't treat subjects like sex and drugs as hot button topics that they quash before explaining, is really a good idea.

The situation with your sister sounds ideal in all honesty.

I see way to many people sheltering their kids from everything. And all that does is create sheltered people. That's not a good thing. I think aslong as you're open and honest with kids. They're going to be off to a good start. And will likely to be able to make informed decisions about issues such as sex before you give them the credit really.

The issue here though is that there is a difference between being honest with your kids, and exposing them to things they shouldn't see. Parents who refuse to tell thir kids anything about sex or mature topics are being irresponisble, however so are people who tell them everything. It's good for a 7 year old to know how mummy and daddy make babies, not so good for them to learn what a BJ is. I hope your cousin wasn't being abused but it still seems fishy to me that he'd have that, guess it's too late now though.

As for the underage sex thing, what you're claiming simply doesn't make sense. By punishing them, you would be accepting that they had the maturity to make the decision to have sex or not, which by law they don't have. If we're talking about morality rather than law here, then there is only two possibilites for each case:

1) The minor was mature enough to make the decision, so no-one should be punished
2) The minor wasn't mature enough to make the decision, so the older partner should be punished for taking advantage of them

You can't punish someone for making a decision they are too immature to make, that would be like arresting a 5 year old girl for hate speech because her parents taught her to shout "fuck off niggers" at any black people she saw. Rather than being punished, they should be taught why what they were doing was wrong.