BF2S Forums Sex; appropriate age of consent? Before or after marriage?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

mcminty wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

The youngest person I know who lost her virginity is my younger 13 year old cousin. In Switzerland you can have sex once you're 16 but you can do it with somebody 3 years younger than you max. So 13.

13 is a ridiculous age. Just.. ridiculous.

As many have said it depends on maturity. I can think of 3 retards who're 16 who are less mature than my 13 year old cousin. She can think for herself.

Age shouldn't really mater, but I guess you have to put an age limit, since you can rely on peoples' level of maturity. Which seems to lack a lot...

No. No she can not. While you may know three 16 year olds that appear less mature than your cousin, that does not mean your cousin is any more mature than the average 13 year old. That is the fallacy in your argument.

Does she understand the potential consequences of what she does? I'll bet only in the vaguest of terms..

mcminty wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

mcminty wrote:

13 is a ridiculous age. Just.. ridiculous.

As many have said it depends on maturity. I can think of 3 retards who're 16 who are less mature than my 13 year old cousin. She can think for herself.

Age shouldn't really mater, but I guess you have to put an age limit, since you can rely on peoples' level of maturity. Which seems to lack a lot...

No. No she can not. While you may know three 16 year olds that appear less mature than your cousin, that does not mean your cousin is any more mature than the average 13 year old. That is the fallacy in your argument.

Does she understand the potential consequences of what she does? I'll bet only in the vaguest of terms..

I know a 15 year old that is more "mature" than people in her age group. And shes dating a 26 year old. But seriously shifty, that is a huge fallacy in your argument.

Cybargs wrote:

mcminty wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

As many have said it depends on maturity. I can think of 3 retards who're 16 who are less mature than my 13 year old cousin. She can think for herself.

Age shouldn't really mater, but I guess you have to put an age limit, since you can rely on peoples' level of maturity. Which seems to lack a lot...

No. No she can not. While you may know three 16 year olds that appear less mature than your cousin, that does not mean your cousin is any more mature than the average 13 year old. That is the fallacy in your argument.

Does she understand the potential consequences of what she does? I'll bet only in the vaguest of terms..

I know a 15 year old that is more "mature" than people in her age group. And shes dating a 26 year old. But seriously shifty, that is a huge fallacy in your argument.

15 and 26. Wow. Mmm.. did you put quotation marks around mature because she infact isn't really more mature than the others?

Cybargs wrote:

mcminty wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

As many have said it depends on maturity. I can think of 3 retards who're 16 who are less mature than my 13 year old cousin. She can think for herself.

Age shouldn't really mater, but I guess you have to put an age limit, since you can rely on peoples' level of maturity. Which seems to lack a lot...

No. No she can not. While you may know three 16 year olds that appear less mature than your cousin, that does not mean your cousin is any more mature than the average 13 year old. That is the fallacy in your argument.

Does she understand the potential consequences of what she does? I'll bet only in the vaguest of terms..

I know a 15 year old that is more "mature" than people in her age group. And shes dating a 26 year old. But seriously shifty, that is a huge fallacy in your argument.

What fallacy? You're saying the exact same thing I said.

mcminty wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

mcminty wrote:

No. No she can not. While you may know three 16 year olds that appear less mature than your cousin, that does not mean your cousin is any more mature than the average 13 year old. That is the fallacy in your argument.

Does she understand the potential consequences of what she does? I'll bet only in the vaguest of terms..

I know a 15 year old that is more "mature" than people in her age group. And shes dating a 26 year old. But seriously shifty, that is a huge fallacy in your argument.

15 and 26. Wow. Mmm.. did you put quotation marks around mature because she infact isn't really more mature than the others?

Yes the quotations mark are on purpose.

Girls who start fucking at around 13 aren't as mature as people think they are. If they were mature, they would know to wait till they are older.

Shifty, by saying you know 3 retarded 16 year olds are less mature than your 13 year old cousin, it does not make her mature in any way. It just makes her more mature to those 3 16 year olds, not anymore mature than people in her age group in any way.

To answer everyones question. Kids are retarded until around the age of 21, then they mellow out. I don't care how mature any teenager thinks they are, they still have no real world experience.

TSI wrote:

Canada's 16 (18 for anal--wtf?)
France is 15, not that it matters, really.

I see 16 as a good age of consent. Of course, that would be with a max of a three-year gap between partners until they're both 18. Simply put, I know way too many 17/18 year-olds abusing 13/14/15s. Quite sad, really.

Then there's my 30-year old mate who screws 18 yea olds, but they're adults...meh.

Really? Why is 16 a good age of consent? If a 16 year old gets pregnant are they capable of caring for a child? No. The whole wait for marriage thing is one thing that the religious people got right. Their problem is they encased it as a moral instead of being able to explain it rationally.

What is this biggest guarantee of having a shitty life and living either on public assistance or poor? It's not being born stupid, or lazy, or anything else, it's having a child too early in life. Our modern society has disconnected the pleasures of sex from the fact that it is the form of procreation for humans and we're paying the repercussions now. There shouldn't be any such thing as 'casual sex', it's a fucking oxymoron. No birth control is 100% and the end result of sex is anything BUT casual.

Cybargs wrote:

Give out free condoms like the UK. Teen pregnancy is going to be a problem with consensual laws or not. Abstinence programs really don't work... There is pretty much nothing to stop horny boys from sticking their dicks into vaginas. At least give them proper education and give them fucking condoms, or let girls get birth control. Its better if its out in the open instead of keeping it a secret and then ending up with a kid. Sure its not going to be 100%, but at least its better to have 99% effectiveness than 10%. But abortions anyone?

I agree that kids these days are fucking way too young and I had a friend who knocked up a girl... If it wasn't for his parents he would've been in butt raping prison. Kids who have "casual sex" and fuck bitches randomly are nevertheless to say, retarded. If a young couple is in a committed relationship and have sex, with protection etc its all fine in my book.

I guess its the MTV culture that goes with it too... but this is just an observation from an outsider.

I'm not saying abstinence education works. Saying so in our culture is ludicrous. Kids are bombarded constantly by movies, tv shows,  their friends and society that the normal thing to do is have sex in high school. If you don't have sex in high school you're a dork, a loser or a religious nutjob. I was 16 when I started having sex myself and I wanted to start earlier to be 'cool' but my gf at the time made me wait. Could I have cared for and supported a kid when I was 16? No. Fucking. Way.

We've disconnected the consequences way too far from reality and it's jacked up.

JohnG@lt wrote:

To answer everyones question. Kids are retarded until around the age of 21, then they mellow out. I don't care how mature any teenager thinks they are, they still have no real world experience.

As a retarded 21 year old, I resent that remark!

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

There shouldn't be any such thing as 'casual sex', it's a fucking oxymoron. No birth control is 100% and the end result of sex is anything BUT casual.

Nothing wrong with casual sex.

And if you 'casually' knock a girl up, are you going to take care of the kid? If you don't think about the consequences are you prepared for them? No. You're far more likely to run away.

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Nothing wrong with casual sex.

And if you 'casually' knock a girl up, are you going to take care of the kid? If you don't think about the consequences are you prepared for them? No. You're far more likely to run away.

That's what contraception is for - or failing that, morning after pills.

You've just got a stupid puritanical view of sex.

Just as casual as that eh? My view is not puritanical in the slightest, it's completely rational. I am not advocating people wait for marriage or any other such nonsense. If I had waited for marriage I would've always wondered if the grass is greener somewhere else and regretted it. I've slept with more than my share of women and I know that basically all vaginas are the same and they all come with the same baggage. I'm now happy with the girl I have and I don't dream about running off and screwing everything in sight. I've already been there and done that.

Do I look back in horror at all the close calls I had in my past? Yes, and that's what I'm trying to get across here. When I was young and dumb there was no way in hell I could've taken care of a kid successfully while keeping my dreams for my own life intact. My entire point is that if you're going to have sex, you can't disconnect the consequences from the action itself. There is no such thing as casual sex because no birth control is entirely safe and not every girl will consent to taking the morning after pill or having an abortion.

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's what contraception is for - or failing that, morning after pills.

You've just got a stupid puritanical view of sex.

Just as casual as that eh? My view is not puritanical in the slightest, it's completely rational. I am not advocating people wait for marriage or any other such nonsense. If I had waited for marriage I would've always wondered if the grass is greener somewhere else and regretted it. I've slept with more than my share of women and I know that basically all vaginas are the same and they all come with the same baggage. I'm now happy with the girl I have and I don't dream about running off and screwing everything in sight. I've already been there and done that.

Do I look back in horror at all the close calls I had in my past? Yes, and that's what I'm trying to get across here. When I was young and dumb there was no way in hell I could've taken care of a kid successfully while keeping my dreams for my own life intact. My entire point is that if you're going to have sex, you can't disconnect the consequences from the action itself. There is no such thing as casual sex because no birth control is entirely safe and not every girl will consent to taking the morning after pill or having an abortion.

Your view is totally puritanical. Saying casual sex is an oxymoron is very puritanical.

Birth control doesn't need to be 100% - it's close enough as makes no odds. Anyone being remotely sensible about these things has nothing to worry about.

When there's ever been any doubt about things all the girls I've ever known have just gone for the quick morning after pill option, just to be on the safe side.

Well, if being 'enlightened' means being entirely flippant about the destruction of human life then I'm ok with the accusation of being a puritan. Frankly, I hope you never end up screwing a girl that doesn't share your views on abortion as birth control because with the way you talk, you'll just end up being another statistic of a deadbeat father.