Aggree or Dissagree

[hotsauce12]

Am I the only one who things having consensual sex with a minor should be considered something besides rape? I dont think it should be legal, but if both parties gave consent, isnt calling it rape anyways a bit extreme? Im not in this situation, I just want to know if anyone else feels the same way I do, or if I just have a messed up view point.

P.S. if this is in the wrong spot, I apologize.

[WaffleSingSong]

Am I the only one who things having consensual sex with a minor should be considered something besides rape? I dont think it should be legal, but if both parties gave consent, isnt calling it rape anyways a bit extreme? Im not in this situation, I just want to know if anyone else feels the same way I do, or if I just have a messed up view point.

P.S. if this is in the wrong spot, I apologize.

Well, Even though it is morally wrong in my opinion, I would not necessarily call it rape. But, you also have to kinda realize that some adults might brainwash children, but it is not for every case.

[Jonny Caselli]

Am I the only one who things having consensual sex with a minor should be considered something besides rape? I dont think it should be legal, but if both parties gave consent, isnt calling it rape anyways a bit extreme? Im not in this situation, I just want to know if anyone else feels the same way I do, or if I just have a messed up view point.

P.S. if this is in the wrong spot, I apologize.

I think most countries have laws regarding the age at which people can be held as responsible for giving consent to a variety of situataions.

For example marriage with/without parents consent.

To enter into contracts like purchase - finance etc or even employment.

at what age do you think a minor can consent to sex?

[huginnmuninn]

I think that below age 13 or so it should be called rape because the child is too young to understand what is truly going on. Above that age it shouldn't be called rape but should still be a criminal act but not one that will classify a person as a sex offender.

[Mortal Coil]

A minor isn't legally capable of making their own decisions right now, but assuming we moved that age down to something like 14, and only post-pubescent minors applied, then I would agree with you a little bit.

[Abigballofdust]

I think that below age 13 or so it should be called rape because the child is too young to understand what is truly going on. Above that age it shouldn't be called rape but should still be a criminal act but not one that will classify a person as a sex offender.

In my country everybody under the age of 13 is considered a child and therefore getting in a sexual contact with him would be considered pedophilia. The age of consent is 14, so having a sexual intercourse between 13 and 14 will be breach of age of consent, but not pedophilia. Everything above 14 is legal if there's consent.
I know that may be too low (when many other countries have their aoc's set on 15 or above) but I read somewhere that this is because of a big number of gypsies that get married at that age and stuff...

[Human]

yeah it isn't rape... if a 15 year old had consensual sex with a 17 year old it's only 2 years difference and then one gets on the sex offenders list haha

[hotsauce12]

yeah it isn't rape... if a 15 year old had consensual sex with a 17 year old it's only 2 years difference and then one gets on the sex offenders list haha

Exactly my point. Anyone in their teens having sex with someone else in their teens is just fine. Obviously I dont think 50 year olds should be able to go have sex with 5 year olds, thats rape, but what if say, a 12-13 year old (I dont agree with them having sex at that age, but it happens and its going to happen no matter what)has been dating say, a 15 year old. Should that automatically be considered rape just because of their age?

Or people of any age. While having sex with a minor SHOULD still be illegal, if the minor wasnt against it (didnt fight it, a.k.a consensual") It shouldnt always e considered rape anyways. Having sex with someone that young isnt for me, it isnt for a lot of people, but there ARE people out their who that turns them on. It shouldnt ALWAYS be considered rape. Their should be something else to call it that would always ruin your life.
Right now, there would be no difference if some 40 year old guy went and actually raped a 14 year old girl, or if he went through all the typical stages and they started dating and decided to have sex. The last one should still be illegal, but should it really be rape?

[ImCoolBeans]

Basically, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. In most places that line is 16, in other it may be 18 or even a little younger. But there needs to be a line. That line determines the age where you legally considered to be old enough to consent to sex. If you go out and have sex with a 25 year old when you are 15, as ready as you may be physically, you are not seen as capable enough to consent to it. If you are unable to consent to sex then it is rape. You guys aren't seeing the logic behind this making it the way it is. If somebody is unable to consent to sex then it is rape. It's not just the fact that they are older having sex with a minor - it's the fact that said minor cannot legally say with any weight to it "yes, I consent."

I don't think is something that will change, agree with it or not.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Should not be rape.

Well UNLESS they're under the age of 13. No sex before puberty.

[Iris]

That's the whole idea of the age of consent. At a certain age minors may have sex, because they have the ability to make a smart, informed decision to do so. Its basic biology really. The part of the brain involved in weighing factors and making wise decisions simply isn't as developed as when you're older, so even if you're absolutely sure you'd like to have sex, that decision is flawed.

You also have to factor in that when drawing any line, there will always be some deviation. By drawing a line at an age of consent of 16 or 17, for example, people will break the rule by going into the 15s, 14s, or even 13s, but usually stop there. If the age of consent is 14, people may deviate from that and go deeper into childhood.

And for the record, while having sex with a 14 year old is illegal, the authorities rarely (if ever) prosecute a 15 and a 14 year old having sex. It's technically illegal but it's overlooked. Who's to say who is "raping" who in that case anyway?

[FreeFall]

Most, I stress, not everyone, under typically 15 or 16 can handle having sex with one outside of their peer group.
A 20 year old's mind vastly differs from a 15 year old's, a 40 year old's mind is even greater in difference. Just because the 15 year old can say yes, doesn't mean that they can truly understand and grasp what they're actually doing, how this is going to affect them, and what will happen. Anyone under 15, say 10 or 12, most certainly has a wider gap and loss of connection. The mind's are so different, the emotions, the maturity and the body.
The line of age of consent is drawn to what the state/area recognizes as the ability to understand and accept what they will be doing by saying yes. We/some areas also have that year gap law, I think for us there can be a two year age difference so a 14 year old and a 16 year old are perfectly legal.

[hotsauce12]

Most, I stress, not everyone, under typically 15 or 16 can handle having sex with one outside of their peer group.
A 20 year old's mind vastly differs from a 15 year old's, a 40 year old's mind is even greater in difference. Just because the 15 year old can say yes, doesn't mean that they can truly understand and grasp what they're actually doing, how this is going to affect them, and what will happen. Anyone under 15, say 10 or 12, most certainly has a wider gap and loss of connection. The mind's are so different, the emotions, the maturity and the body.
The line of age of consent is drawn to what the state/area recognizes as the ability to understand and accept what they will be doing by saying yes. We/some areas also have that year gap law, I think for us there can be a two year age difference so a 14 year old and a 16 year old are perfectly legal.

I can see your point, and really it makes sense, as I have said before, im not condoning sex under 16, however if it DOES happen, and we know it does and we know it will, Their needs to be something to distinguish not rape. maybe not "consent" but some like, middle ground. Something to determine that it wasnt forced. I just think calling it rape if it wasnt forced is wrong.

[Telkanis]

I'd say no sex under 13 but if it's consensual do you charge both kids with rape? I'd say they'd both need a good sex ed class. After that I'd say as long as it was consensual and no more than 2 years apart it should be ok.

[FreeFall]

I can see your point, and really it makes sense, as I have said before, im not condoning sex under 16, however if it DOES happen, and we know it does and we know it will, Their needs to be something to distinguish not rape. maybe not "consent" but some like, middle ground. Something to determine that it wasnt forced. I just think calling it rape if it wasnt forced is wrong.
Statutory rape is all we're going to get for situations like that.
Rape doesn't always have to be forced, it can be through tricky and deceit, abuse of power, done while the other is not aware of anything such as if the victim's in a coma or fainted, bribery, there are many ways. An adult has power over minors, like I said a 15 year old with a 40 year old have very differing brains, emotions, and maturity. Now if for some reason the 40 year old has not matured and forever will have a 15 year old mentality, this makes it worse because of the child's brain in an adult body. The 15 year old can see the adult and think they're engaging with an adult but not understand that the mentality is of their level, and they may very well have been taken advantage of. Even if the brain's that of a typical 40 year old they can still take advantage of a 15 year old, even with consent.

All we have, if they're caught, is their word. If there's a tape of it, they'll be hit with possession of child porn too, I could be wrong. We don't know for sure if the 15 year old said yes, we don't know if the 15 year old's the one that even engaged it. We do know that an adult is an adult, supposed to know better, and lave the youngsters alone. If there is any claim of undying love, they should've used that power to wait for them to be of the consenting age. Most underage, again not every single on of them, do not understand that there's just more than a yes and don't fully grasp what they're doing, just that they're having sex. A 40 year old is fully aware.

[XxAssasiNxX]

if they dont want to have sex and the other person sexually harrases them even at the age of 13 i would call rape....and btw in my opinion deserve to die because they just destroyed everything in a persons self a stean and shit. you get my point though. im really tough on what should be done about crimminals. anywone that takes somewones life in my opinion deserves to die no matter what for taking somewones life.

[Alliegator]

I think it should still be illegal, but rape isnt a good name for it. Rape is when it's not consensual, so they should come up with a different name.

[Mob Boss]

Am I the only one who things having consensual sex with a minor should be considered something besides rape? I dont think it should be legal, but if both parties gave consent, isnt calling it rape anyways a bit extreme? Im not in this situation, I just want to know if anyone else feels the same way I do, or if I just have a messed up view point.

P.S. if this is in the wrong spot, I apologize.

The phrase does seem a bit harsh, but knowingly having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent is the price you must be willing to pay. Even if both consented, the older one should be held responsible for their actions because they are supposed to be more developed both mentally and physically than the younger partner, and therefore should be able to make somewhat adult/ more mature decisions.

[level_up]

I feel the same way actually, because rape implies that you are having sex with someone against their will. So calling having sex with a minor "statutory rape" is kind of misleading, in a colloquial sense anyway. They should change it to something else.

As far as those laws themselves go, I think that as long as sex is consensual should not be that big a deal, but you have to be a certain age to really give consent...idk what that age should be, probably lower than 18 though.

[root]

Am I the only one who things having consensual sex with a minor should be considered something besides rape? I dont think it should be legal, but if both parties gave consent, isnt calling it rape anyways a bit extreme? Im not in this situation, I just want to know if anyone else feels the same way I do, or if I just have a messed up view point.

P.S. if this is in the wrong spot, I apologize.

Personally, I think society makes way to much of a big deal out of sex. I mean, it's just something you do with another person. (like playing tennis...) People make it seem like it's completely immoral to have sex. So, yeah, calling it rape is a bit extreme. People should practice moderation XD

[anymasy]

Disagree.