Thread: Incest question

So, why would it make a difference whether the other person is experienced and 15 years older or of the same age and unexperienced? They're gonna fuck either way and if it's consensual, it's not the government's business.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Studies showed (many many many years ago) that a child has to hit specific milestones at very important times, sex and work are two of them.

I don't want to take credibility off of what you said, but I'm generally skeptic about psychomlogical/metrical research. So much of if is biased. Especially pre-2001 stuff.

I'd generally use the following rules:


above 16, anything
below 16, only if there is a maximun age difference of 8(?) years (and yeah, if both are below 16 it's all fine)

and of course exceptions could occur, in both ways.

so you're saying its okay for someone over the age of 18, to get a 14 year old, a 15 year old, a 16 year old, pregnant?

you give consent to teenagers, you leave them wide open to be victims. the law is there to protect them from much older adult predators. of which, many of the victims will later regret it WHEN THEY GROW UP.

teenagers are CHILDREN

of course they are going to have sex, but the law is there to deter ADULTS from taking advantage of youth

Originally Posted by juroara

so you're saying its okay for someone over the age of 18, to get a 14 year old, a 15 year old, a 16 year old, pregnant?

you give consent to teenagers, you leave them wide open to be victims. the law is there to protect them from much older adult predators. of which, many of the victims will later regret it WHEN THEY GROW UP.

teenagers are CHILDREN

of course they are going to have sex, but the law is there to deter ADULTS from taking advantage of youth

Juroara. First of all: yes. It's not the law's scope to tell people what to and what not to do.
Secondly, I'm in favour of abortion.
Thirdly, 8 years is not that large an agespan. No way we'll just set "no-one younger than 18 may have sex with one of age", and prevent a 19-17 couple from doing it. In fact, 13-18 relationships are fairly more common than it seems.
Fourthly, should their relationship lead to pregnancy, the law would enforce the father to assume responsibility for it, no matter what age he is.

I seriously just took 14 yo because it's an age I believe people to be, if not fully responsible, at least conscious of their actions ad what may result from them. It's not the law's scope to educate people against undesired pregancy.

Of course that I mean that all based in an ideal society. Under many instances, it's a matter of public health.

Nature says you're ready at puberty. Perhaps "not being ready" is a fabric of our society and the way we live our early lives.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Nature says you're ready at puberty. Perhaps "not being ready" is a fabric of our society and the way we live our early lives.

Lol nature says we're ready at puberty. Well that makes sense. I guess everyone is ready to have children at puberty...you know before they have even become adults themselves, or have a job...or education. lol.

Oh but we have condoms...I guess that changes it. Lol. Sex means different things to different people, and until your mature enough to assess what it means to other people (your partner) and yourself your not ready to engage in intercourse.

Chief said it pretty clearly on South Park though... he said something like..."seventeen" and a kid said what if I'm not ready at seventeen, and chief said..."seventeen."

Hell yes I'd allow it!

well.... to each their own...