If people typically start having sex at 14~ why is it illegal

>>17744389
>why is it illegal to have sex with someone who is 14

here in england the legal age was 13, and the state changed it to 16 with a view to deter awfully young women from prostituting themselves. now a days its probably to stop older people from taking advantage of younger, and the state probably believes it discourages people of 14 from having sex.

>Teenagers are both considered childrens and adults at the same time.

theyre considered children. nice mental gymnastics though child predator

File: 1380011711763.jpg (21KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x342px

>>17744389

>If people typically start having sex at 14

People don't typically start having sex at 14. That is.... not accurate.

>why is it illegal to have sex with someone who is 14~?

Because having sex is not an act that someone with a 14 year old mind has the proper mental faculty to make.

Its the same reason you're not allowed to drive until you're 16, you're not allowed to drink until you're 21, you're not allowed to rent a car until 25 or buy cigarettes until you're 18. There are certain ages that the general psychiatric and developmental science world has decided is old enough to properly make an informed decision and 14, unequivocally, is not old enough to to make that decisions about who they have sex with or their reproductive health.

We don't give credit cards to 12 years olds because they aren't ready. They don't understand the consequences. This is the same thing.

Teenagers, also, are not considered adults. They're children. Nice try, though.

>>17744460
also just because some DO have sex at that ages does not mean they should be having sex or are mentally prepared for it. christ, people like you try to justify it by saying you're SUPPOSED to be attracted to hips and tits (you would also fuck a 4 month old baby with pubes and tits), or that there's a world of a difference between pedophilia and "hebephilia" or the myth that 14 once was an age of PEAK FERTILITY and the prime age for marriage (however half of all children died, people living to around 70, everyone was malnourished which would not ensure conception especially in early age, and in arranged marriages the bridegroom was also a child) when all it does it make your pedophilic tendencies all the more apparent.

>>17744389
>how is two 14 year olds banging each other different from a 30 year old neckbeard preying on a 14 year old

>>17744497
Do you really think all of these laws are based on science and reason? You must be joking nigga.

>>17744389

Because the people having sex as teenagers are having sex with other teenagers, not you ya 40 year old fuckin' neckbeard.

So if people aren't mentally capable to have sex as a teenager, why do so many do it then?

>>17744389
Op, you're kinda hot. Too bad you're into fucking little girls.

>>17744725
Because teenagers are idiots. How is this a question?

But really, it's not that people aren't considered "mentally capable of having sex" in their teens, teenagers can consent to sex with each other -- the worry is that, having less developmental maturity and life experience than adults, sexual relationships between teens and adults render the teens very vulnerable to being exploited in some way. It's not "teens are incapable of consent," it's "teens are incapable of consent WITH ADULTS -- just too risky."

>>17744747

But if a teenager can find another teenager to have sex with, but another person goes into there twenties without having sex, wouldn't the teenager then be more mature?

So how can a teenager be immature, but mature enough to have sex?

Teenagers, physically, are capable of having sex. Biologically, that's around when they should be.

The reason it's both illegal and immoral is because it's very, VERY easy to manipulate young teens into performing sexual acts. They're eager to please, want to be taken seriously as adults, and are just beginning to scratch the surface of what sexuality is. It's unethical to take advantage of someone's naivete for something as base as getting your rocks off. The impressions that these kids get during the next few years will shape who they become as full-fledged adults, and weird sexual relationships fuck a lot of people up for life. Even older, sexually matured people.

So if my girlfriend lost her virginity at 16
And I lost it at 21

Should I break up with her because she is immature?

>>17744770
Stop trying to make it about something as subjective as maturity. Beyond physical maturity (which 14 year olds more or less are), it shouldn't be part of the conversation.

It's immoral for an adult to have sex with an underage person of any gender. That's the bottom line.

>>17744778

Why though?

Age of consent ranges place to place. The age you can smoke a cigarette or buy alcohol ranges.

It is all laws that were voted on. It's like gay marriage or marijuana legislation. How can we say one thing is okay and another is not?

>>17744784
Because it is so. If you really, truly, down in your heart had a problem with this, you'd go out and make a petition to get the laws changed. Go and do that, and see how far you get. But we both know you won't.

>>17744784
I just fucking said it, here >>17744764

It's the same reason why you can't just say "legalize pot? Let's just make heroin shops, too!". It's apples and oranges, doofus.

The age of consent ranges because many places have different opinions on when someone should be able to take responsibility for their body and for their actions. The last person who's opinion should be taken into consideration in this matter are older men without daughters.

>>17744764
>it's very, VERY easy to manipulate young teens into performing sexual acts.
nigga please, just because you were completely brain-dead in your teens (and perhaps still are) doesn't mean all of humanity is as slow to develop cognitive functions as you were.

also, have you ever TRIED?
If no, saying something is
>very, VERY easy
when you've never even attempted it seems kinda dishonest.
If yes, tell us how it went, and how VERY easy it was.

>>17744756
We're talking averages here, dude. Obviously there are some people who reach their early 20s or even later without developing the maturity to give truly informed consent, and there's a handful of exceptionally mature teens out there who arguably develop that maturity early, but since it's not remotely practical to determine the age of consent on a case-by-case basis, there's not much else we can do besides pick an age that seems reasonable and draw the line for everybody there.

So no, you're not exposing any kind of massive hypocrisy in our age-of-consent laws. Nobody's under the impression that it's a perfect system, but it's better than no system at all. You still can't have sex with teens. Sorry.

>>17744825
>doesn't mean all of humanity is as slow to develop cognitive functions as you were.

Actually the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision making and all that jazz, doesn't fully develop until you are the age of 25.

>>17744845
>doesn't fully develop until you are the age of 25.
what's the age of consent, again?
You seriously don't see some massive hypocrisy in this?

>>17744854
I refer back to my comment here: >>17744795

In case you find it difficult to find that post, I'll copy/paste what I said:

>Because it is so. If you really, truly, down in your heart had a problem with this, you'd go out and make a petition to get the laws changed. Go and do that, and see how far you get. But we both know you won't.

>>17744520
>>17744515
jesus hivemind batman fucking christ
>implying 14 y/o girls dont pursue 30 y/o rich guys
>"b-but thats different"
>except for when you go to jail for it


>>17744497
>People don't typically start having sex at 14. That is.... not accurate.
you shouldnt talk about real world stuff if youve never left your basement

>>17744513
>>17744513
>mentally prepared for it.
LOL what the fuck does this even mean? you literally sound like the conservadoofusfuckheads that say they like tv thats "wholesome". you either have the mentality to engage in an activity safely or you dont. newsflash a fuckton of kiddos are fully ready at age 14. this barrier to sex has been obliterated years ago. get back to your line tardlord

>>17744747
>It's not "teens are incapable of consent," it's "teens are incapable of consent WITH ADULTS -- just too risky."
weird because this same logic doesnt apply to the legal working age (which is below 18). experienced adults pursuing inexperienced youth for economic benefits. interestingly enough economic exploitation is almost universally considered borderline slavery, which interestingly enough again, is universally considered 'bad' as opposed to consensual sex, which no one seems to have a problem with, unless there are certain age groups involved

>>17744867
If you really, truly, down in your heart had a problem with this, you'd go out and make a petition to get the laws changed. Go and do that, and see how far you get. But we both know you won't.

This is the first generation of teenagers that actually AGREES that they are all idiots and children.

Its amazing how fall society has fallen.

Teenagers have less experience and knowledge sure, but they were always idealists and rebels and the ones striving for a better, brighter future.

Now its like "nope, I'm a child and an idiot I can't make my own decisions."

>>17744871
i dont really need to. liberalism will undo christian-conservatard hypocracy/bullshit for me. im not really attracted to 14 y/o either way

>>17744888
Hah so we've reached the end of this spiel. Have a nice life, tripsmaster.

>>17744892
>>17744892
>Hah so we've reached the end of this spiel.
says more about you and your argument than me. you do know people actually read this stuff right?

>>17744838
>it's all very fuzzy, but dammit, we need SOME sort of established rule! that's why this established rule is infallible!

>>17744861
>appeal to authority
Also,
>If you really believe you're not a witch, you should argue that to the crowd.
Yeah, real good advice.

>>17744867
>weird because this same logic doesnt apply to the legal working age (which is below 18)
Yes it does, you absolute idiot. Working is actually a decent analogy here, because teens are allowed to work, just like they're allowed to have sex, but we impose vigorous limits on both activities. Minors can't legally work as many hours as adults can, their hours are even more limited on weekdays (when they have school), they're banned outright from certain professions (e.g. dangerous or particularly exhausting ones), and so on. In other words, for their own protection, we deem teens unable to consent to certain jobs, and then gradually relax the restrictions as they approach the age of consent, just as we do with sex. Or were you unaware child labor laws were a thing?

You know you're wrong, man. Just cop to it already.

okay, we're getting off on a tangent here.

What does this say about me that I didn't lose my virginity until I was 21?

Am I more mature or less mature?

>>17744918
are you a boy or a girl?

>>17744897
>it's all very fuzzy, but dammit, we need SOME sort of established rule! that's why this established rule is infallible!
Although you meant it to be sarcastic, the first sentence is perfectly accurate and reasonable. Congratulations.

The second sentence is barely coherent. Try again and restate it more clearly, and consider whether anybody's claimed anything to be "infallible" here.

>>17744914
>impose vigorous limits on both activities
false. preteen sex amongst preteens in largely ignored whereas child labor in any form is an offense thats taken seriously to a large degree. you point stands on paper only.

>>17744825
Lol, ok. You for sure won't believe me, but here it goes.

I work in a restaurant with a high turnover rate of young girls. Most of them have taking a shining to me at one time or another, to different intensities. I'm handsome (enough) and charming (enough), along with being one of the only dudes in my mid-late 20s there. I'll glaze over a few of them, and give you the details about the worst one.

Girl #1 was 16 when I started working there, she's 20 now. She's had a crush on me since. How do I know? It probably had something to do with the picture of her pussy she sent me on her 18th birthday, along with the fact that thirsty teenagers are NOT subtle.

Girl #2 was a friend of hers. She laid it on pretty hard, and I think she quit because I turned her down and she was embarrassed.

Girl #3 works there now, and she keeps it pretty tame. That doesn't stop her from bending at the waist in front of me every time she needs something, or from holding my hand when I pass her something.

But Girl #4, whoo boy. Literally begging me to put my cock in her mouth at one point. She wanted to do anything for my approval. I mean /anything/. That seems hot, until you really can appreciate what a young, impressionable girl is willing to do for a little love. And god knows I can't take a relationship with someone 10 years my junior seriously. Sure, I could take advantage of it, tell her I love her and get my dick wet in any way I wanted. To be honest, once you're there, it kinda makes you feel shitty.

She's the reason I believe in consent laws.

>>17744927
>>17744795
so self-righteous that you can't see the brittleness of your own arguments.
You even admit that it's different from person to person in >>17744838
and yet, with the line
>there's not much else we can do besides pick an age that seems reasonable and draw the line for everybody there.
you come to a conclusion that "we have to all do the same thing because..." because why? it's "not remotely practical"?
maybe if you'd do some critical thinking instead of just blindly following dogma, you'd realize that there ARE ways to make it practical, like a license system similar to what we have in the US with guns.
Also,
>Nobody's under the impression that it's a perfect system, but it's better than no system at all.
>the only alternative to the current system is absolute lawlessness! You wouldn't want THAT, now would you??
>black-or-white

>>17744914
>>17744933
actually, too keep going, you even helped my point. since child labor laws exist to protect inexperienced youth from exploitation (from experienced predatory adults), then as they increase in age and supposed maturity, the laws lax. the same should format should apply to sexual acts. simply put kids have sex at 14 these days, yet at the same time there's no laws empowering them to engage in sexual acts they consent of with adults 'essentially' until they turn 18. the 'laxing' of laws that 'protect' them are massively disproportionate to the labor laws that protect them from an arguably worse form of exploitation

>>17744955
So... you did nothing to attempt to manipulate them into performing sexual acts for you, they all just wanted to have sex with you of their own free will?

And this shows young teens are manipulable into performing sexual acts against their will how?

File: hymen divider.jpg (90KB, 422x594px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 422x594px

>>17744867
>newsflash a fuckton of kiddos are fully ready at age 14
how would you know this

>>17744962
Yes there are. You really need to stop writing about this, you clearly know next to nothing about it. In many jurisdictions there are specific "close in age exemptions" (sometimes they're called Romeo and Juliet laws) specifically legalizing sex between young partners who are close in age, and they're often graded so that the allowed age range widens the older they get -- e.g. a 13-year-old can consent to sex with a 15-year-old, a 15-yo can consent with a 19-year-old, a 16-yo can consent with a 23-yo, and so on (the actual numbers obviously differing by jurisdiction). Just the way teens are allowed to work more hours at more challenging/hazardous jobs the closer they get to 18.

As for your claim that we take underage sex less seriously than child labor, I really doubt you can substantiate that in any way, but wait -- don't bother. I'm not interested in reading a paragraph full of inarticulate anecdotes and logical leaps, not when it's completely irrelevant, which it is. I never claimed that there was a 1-to-1 correspondence in our attitudes towards underage labor & sex, just that, despite your claims to the contrary, they're roughly analogous. Seriously -- in this thread you've made so many factual errors, been corrected, and then backpedaled without trying to look like you're backpedaling, I don't blame the other posters for bowing out.

Which I'm about ready to do myself -- there's only so much time I'm willing to spend arguing with somebody who can't see any problems with implementing a "license system" for who is and isn't allowed to have sex.

Look, we have age of consent laws for sensible reasons. You aren't getting those reasons because you're not very smart, it's obvious from the way you write, but fortunately you don't have to understand them, you just have to obey them. Break them if you want, but you do so at your own risk. Either way it's no skin off my nose.

>>17744922

boy

>>17744974
...Because if they're so eager to prove something, and they lack the emotional depth and knowledge to engage in those activities in a responsible way, then /that is taking advantage of them/.

You're being purposefully obtuse if you are going to sit there and pretend that you don't see how someone in my position could take advantage of someone in her position. What if I were a teacher? God forbid, a therapist or something?

These laws are in place because teenagers are not equipped to engage in relationships the same way adults are. Kids having sex with each other is not a huge deal. Adults having sex with kids is a huge deal, because kids are not equipped to recognize malicious or manipulative behavior.

>>17745012
>It is the way it is because reasons, stop trying to say or think otherwise! Anyone that doesn't agree with me is stupid!
really now, Mr. I'm-smarter-than-you-so-shut-up?

How about discussing what's wrong with a license system that allow minors to prove they have agency?

>>17744867
Ad Homenim: The Post

>>17745012
listen kiddo. the lower parameter was set in the op
>~14
its literally illegal for child to be on a companies payroll under the age of 16, period. however, they can legally have sex WITH OTHER 14 years olds. this shows that at the age of 14, you're at an age where you're 'allowed' to have sex. HOWEVER, to 'protect' the child from 'predators' special laws are in place to punish adults from having sex with teenagers aged 14-16, when they've clearly been deemed to be mature to handle the topic maturely.

>As for your claim that we take underage sex less seriously than child labor, I really doubt you can substantiate that in any way.

we literally do. there's literally countless couples of teenagers aged 14 fucking as we speak. how many kids in your classes from grades 8-10 were on a companies payroll? you can even google child labor violations in united states and you literally wont find anything. thats because when it happens its taken VERY seriously with extremely strict punishment, thus deterring others from attempting. yes, labor laws lax like you said, however the same doesnt happen on the scale that occurs with underaged sex and the punishments are extremely lopsided. if a 14 y/o can be assumed to be mature and responsible enough to consent perform oral on another 14 years old, then it follows that theyre mature enough to consent to performing with someone much older than 18. you people ALWAYS hide behind the assumption thats its a poor little girl getting preyed upon by a greasy neckbeard throwing any tactic he can to trick her into consent and never a young person pursuing someone older

> I don't blame the other posters for bowing out.
>Which I'm about ready to do myself -- there's only so much time I'm willing to spend arguing with somebody who can't see any problems with implementing a "license system" for who is and isn't allowed to have sex.

>>17745060
I'm not him, but this whole thread is like explaining to my buddy's 10 year old why money "can't just be free"

It's an incredibly easy concept to understand, everyone in the room understands it, except for you for like no reason.

>>17745012
>>17745079
2/2
> in this thread you've made so many factual errors, been corrected, and then backpedaled without trying to look like you're backpedaling
no such thing happened. you didnt refute any of my points. we're actually in the process of 'proving' our 'facts' as we speak, thus no backpedaling has been done. nice try though!

>2nd reply into the argument and you've conveniently defaulted to "wasting too much time" okay guy. if thats what helps your protect your ego when you arent winning

>>17745009
i call it socializing. i mean theres no way i could actually be related to people who have had sex at age 14 right?

>>17745074
if you squint really hard you actually find some points/refutations in there

>>17745079
You keep talking about teenagers having sex with teenagers, and we are not.

Stop arguing non-points. It's legal for teenagers to have sex with each other, it's illegal for adults to have sex with teenagers.

>you people ALWAYS hide behind the assumption thats its a poor little girl getting preyed upon by a greasy neckbeard
I use my own examples, that I posted already. I see you decided to ignore them after calling me out for 'not knowing what I'm talking about'.

also, a lot of you are completely ignoring the fact that the laws actually get reversed and underaged kids actually bait adults into violating the laws and theres even a fucking tv show about it.

>haha i can hide behind predatory laws but you cant

>>17745081
you literally called
>wasting time
>haha ur fakts are rong and mine r rite so take that haha
>loaded half your response with "omg its so obvious!" rhetoric
in your... SECOND fucking response to me. you arent even trying scrub

>>17745086
>You keep talking about teenagers having sex with teenagers, and we are not.
get the fuck out. i have milfs on my facebook with daughters this age that openly post about fucking all the time. youre fucking delusional

>>17745094
Listen dipshit. No one is saying teenagers don't fuck. Of course they do. The point of these laws is not to prevent teenage partners getting it on, but to prevent older people from exerting their power over younger people.

>>17745086
also,

>i dont do something, thus no one else does either.

puh fucking lease

>>17745094
...Ok? The fuck does that have to do with anything? If you're going to try and make a point, smoke a bowl afterwards.

Us, in this thread, are talking about why age of consent laws are in place. They are in place specifically to stop adults from taking advantage of young teenagers. They are not in place to stop teenagers from having sex with other teenagers.

At least half a dozen people in this thread, myself included, have told you exactly why this is the case. You are being deliberately ostentatious, and at this point your inability to understand what your own conversation is about is more your problem than mine.

>>17745052
True, someone in that position COULD take advantage of minors, just like a boss can take advantage of a subordinate eager to prove something.
Then again, you're assuming the dynamic is completely one-sided.
Maybe the subordinate is doing it to get an advantage among peers? Maybe the subordinate can actually gain control over the boss, and manipulate them for their personal gain at the expense of the boss? Who's the victim then? How about if the sexes are the reverse of what you're thinking? A female boss sleeping with a subordinate male who is taking advantage of her, does the social power imbalance really determine who's being taken advantage of?

Apply this back to the restaurant scenario, is a girl hungering after an older guy's cock really being taken advantage of? Or is she just using the older guy to satisfy her own urges? Does she gain any leverage among her peers for having sexual experience? Is she really being "manipulated"? Would she want to hump just any male older than herself, or is she specifically targeting certain individuals with certain traits? Does she have free will to choose who she wants to have sex with?

There's a lot more going on inside a minor's mind than you seem to think. They're not just mindless drones ready to do the bidding of any neckbeard with a few dollars to wave around.

>kids are not equipped to recognize malicious or manipulative behavior
again, you underestimate the agency that kids have. If they really couldn't recognize manipulative behavior from adults, we wouldn't have any disobedient kids. Strangely enough, getting a kid to do what you say is one of the most challenging parts of adulthood. They have a brain. They have their own free will. They're human, just like you.

File: 1445983131722.png (192KB, 501x445px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 501x445px

>>17745090
>underaged kids actually bait adults into violating the laws

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT

UNDERAGE KIDS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEX

ADULTS ARE

YOU FUCKING MORON

LMAO GUYS CALM DOWN I WAS ONLY TROLLING HOLY SHIT.

I'm a little upset that I never experience sex as a teenager, but I've had a lot of sex in my twenties. Still I feel a twinge of pain that I'll never know what awkward teenage sex was like. Experiencing something new together for the first time.

But holy shit my entire thread was hyperbole. CALM DOWN EVERYONE!!!

>>17745104
and those laws are retarded. and need to be scaled back. again you hide behind
>prevent older people from exerting their power over younger people.
like thats the ONLY context of teenagers under 14 having sex with older people. you do realize there's this thing where in less than 24 hours a girl can go from being on mommy and daddys leash to auditioning for her first gangbang porn shoot right? you do realize that some 14 year olds are actually the ones pursuing right? this isnt backpedaling, youre outright ignoring completely valid points while doing nothing but repeating yourself WHILE accusing someone else of being too dense to understand you. literally the best person to argue with

>>17745117

So how does this fit into the dichotomy of me not losing my virginity until 21?

Am I expected or not expected to know the consequences of my actions? or do I get to learn those consequences later?

Like am I free to be a player (date around, make girls fall for me, etc.) for longer?

>>17745113
This will be my last response, because I'm tired of repeating myself.

You are deconstructing bits and pieces of what we're saying so that you can refute them with imagined scenarios that are tangibly, but not wholly, accurate. If you tried to apply any of these things to the whole of what we are saying, they don't work and you know it.

Nobody is saying that secretaries don't blow their bosses of their own volition. Nobody is saying that every young girl who gets dicked is being taken advantage of.

But there ARE kids who DO get taken advantage of. And it's fucking easy to do. So there are laws to make it so you don't fucking do that.

>>17745117
>UNDERAGE KIDS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEX
then theres a blatant hypocrisy in the laws. 14 y/os should be having sex at all then. but they clearly are

>>17745108
you keep saying that over and over again. its obvious. i literally mentioned in the original post that started this argument up here >>17744867
> They are in place specifically to stop adults from taking advantage of young teenagers. They are not in place to stop teenagers from having sex with other teenagers.

THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM. ITS LITERALLY NOT THAT SIMPLE IN THE REAL WORLD.

>>17745136

But are the teenage boys they have sex with them not manipulating them too?

>>17745129
>implying no one has willingly walked into a situation where they are being taken advantage of.
Kids are dumb. Adults need to protect them especially from themselves

File: 2642778-3580304257-13447.png (21KB, 736x278px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 736x278px

>>17745125

>>17745138
No, see, it literally is that simple.

Is she 18? No? Are you? Yes? Then don't fuck.

>>17745139
Perhaps, but not on the same level that an adult would be able to. There are manipulative teenage boys, but they are equally as ill-equipped and susceptible to being taken advantage of. This isn't a boy-girl thing, stop trying to make it that.

There's a reason why laws exist to separate power structures and sex. Teenagers do not hold significant sway over each other. And if they do, that's their business. An adult is expected to understand the gravity of this, and even though lots of young girls are attracted to this power structure, the adult is still expected to protect the interests of the child. Just because they /want/ sex, doesn't mean that sex with an older man is in their best interest.

>>17745138
Also, fuck off with this "real world" shit. You're 21, you don't know jack fuck about anything yet, and in another 5 years you'll feel stupid for ever saying that.

>>17745136
>STOP FINDING WEAKNESSES IN MY ARGUMENTS! STOP IT!!
there are ADULTS who DO get taken advantage of. And it's fucking easy to do (seriously, there are some dumb cunts out there). So why aren't there laws to make it so you don't fucking do that, hm?

Oh, right, adults have something called free will that children don't. Is that it?
Children don't have free will? Then why won't my kids do as I say?

>>17745159
>So why aren't there laws to make it so you don't fucking do that, hm?
Except there fucking are

>>17745152
>A teen couple, 15 and 17, have sex
legal
>A year later, they are 17 and 19
illegal
>A year later, they are 18 and 20
legal

explain this

Look at this angry teen

File: boards.4chan.org 1471825804017.jpg (34KB, 461x439px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 461x439px

>>17745159
Remember when you asked me about my experience with young girls, and I told you?

This example that you keep trying to push me to accept, that you seem to think is some cornerstone of your argument, IS MY SITUATION.

Because I, as a nearly 30 year old male, am expected to know the potential effects that having a relationship with someone half my age. I can't be taken advantage of by this 16 year old girl, BECAUSE I KNOW BETTER.

She /wants/ to have sex. She /wants/ to be with me. But she doesn't have even the faintest clue of what that would entail, AND I DO. So yeah, even though it's what she wants, and she's pushing herself on me, I WOULD STILL BE THE ONE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HER BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT SHE'S DOING AND I DO.

Fuck, dude.

>>17745079
>its literally illegal for child to be on a companies payroll under the age of 16, period
It isn't. It absolutely isn't. You're straight up factually wrong. Almost all of your concrete claims have been factually wrong so far. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. It's beyond me why you'd try to argue about something you know nothing about. It just wastes my time, your time, and makes you look stupid.

The only other thing you wrote of substance:
>2nd reply into the argument and you've conveniently defaulted to "wasting too much time" okay guy. if thats what helps your protect your ego when you arent winning
God help me, I've made at least five (six?) posts in this thread, trying to explain this to you. This is an anonymous website -- you can't usually tell how many times somebody's replied to you. I know, it gets confusing sometimes.

There's a reason EVERYBODY'S DISAGREEING WITH YOU, and it's not because they're all sheeple and you're the Only Sane Man. It's because you're an obtuse fuck and the things you're arguing are stupid. And I'm out; trying to explain things to you is like talking to a brick wall. Like I said, age of consent laws are in place for good reasons, and however much you disagree with them, they're not going anywhere, so you'd better get used to them. Although do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with how they actually work, across the country and in your specific jurisdiction, because you're pretty obviously unclear on that front.

>>17745152
no you fucking idiot. the CONTEXT isn't simple. if a 14 y/o wants to have sex with a 14 y/o who pursue and was possibly manipulated by, they can. if they want to have sex have consensual sex with a 25 y/o that THEY pursued they cant. those are two completely different contexts. youre essentially imposing a prohibition on ALL sex between young people and old people because SOME creepers might take advantage of SOME young people. its literally like prohibiting ALL alcohol because a few drunk driving deaths and some beat up wives (and we know how well that ended, hmm i wonder how this is going to play with marijuana as well)

>>17745145
if youre claim is true all sex up to a certain age would be illegal, which isnt the case

>>17745168
It's not illegal, read your own thread you fucking moron. It's called Romeo and Juliet laws.

Seriously, you literally don't know what you're talking about. Go look up the laws you're bitching about.

>>17745163
I flirt with a woman, she comes back to my place, I fuck her and then dump her a week later
took advantage of her like a nubile young teen, and yet, perfectly legal

>>17745176
The laws are in place so the context DOES NOT MATTER.

It's beyond me how this isn't getting through to you.

>>17745178
read your own post
>Is she 18? No? Are you? Yes? Then don't fuck.
not so simple now, is it?

>>17745180
Because adults have the emotional experience to be able to make that decision with consequences in mind.

A young, nubile teen who has never been pumped and dumped by someone twice her age might not see it coming.

>>17745186
Holy fuck. I'm talking about you, specifically, you 21 year old mongoloid.

Please understand that YOU are the one fumbling around gasping for air, here. Not us. Literally everyone in this thread knows that they're talking about but you.

>>17745181
>The laws are in place so the context DOES NOT MATTER.

This is pretty much a summary of his entire argument.
>It's a law, so there!

>>17745188

And she doesn't see it when she is pumped and dumped by someone two years older than her.

Whats the difference?

I'm 26. I'm in a relation with a 23 year old. I'm having an affair with a 19 year old. Whats the difference?

>>17745188
>Because adults have the emotional experience to be able to make that decision with consequences in mind.
assumptions, assumptions.
Many, MANY adults are too stupid to make that decision with consequences in mind. Yet, we don't see fit to treat them like mindless animals.

>A young, nubile teen who has never been pumped and dumped by someone twice her age might not see it coming.
A 30 year old virgin woman who has never experienced dating might not see it coming either, but we don't ban people from trying to get into her panties.

>>17745191
lol I'm not that guy

>>17745194
That's precisely it. I don't know why you're saying it like it's a bad thing.

It's specifically so that instead of having to nitpick every detail involving the stretching of some teenagers puss by a 30 year old to tell if he /really/ broke the law or not, they can just lay down the blanket "hey don't fuck kids" laws, because fucking kids is pretty morally dark to begin with.

No, not EVERY SINGLE CASE of an older dude sleeping with a young girl is dripping with debauchery, but that's not the fucking point. You don't just make theft legal because some people get away with it.

>>17745200
>Whats the difference?
Everyone involved is a consenting adult.

>>17745203
>Many, MANY adults are too stupid to make that decision with consequences in mind

THAT'S
WHY
IT'S
AGAINST
THE
LAW

Just don't do it! That's all you have to do!

Anyway, relish this last (You). Everyone else already dipped and it's about time I did too.

>>17745181
the problem context does fucking matter. youve said no less than 5 times that laws preventing sex between young and old people is "TO PROTECT YOUNG PEOPLE FROM BEING PREYED UPON BY OLDER SHITBAGS BLAH BLAH BLHA". the fact that context isnt taken into consideration is fucking retarded.

>>17745175
>God help me, I've made at least five (six?) posts in this thread, trying to explain this to you. This is an anonymous website -- you can't usually tell how many times somebody's replied to you. I know, it gets confusing sometimes.
at the point you responded thats that it was literally the 2nd reply

>EVERYBODY'S DISAGREEING WITH YOU
actually i do understand it, enough to know ive been arguing with one person

>>its literally illegal for child to be on a companies payroll under the age of 16, period
It isn't. It absolutely isn't. You're straight up factually wrong. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

whatever you win, thats literally the only "concrete claim that has been factually wrong" though. however looking at

https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/childlabor101.pdf

they might as well be barred from any type of employment so my point essentially stands.

>>17744389

Because teenagers are stupid and can easily be taken advantage of. It's proven that at such a young age their brains are not fully developed yet and more often than not they don't think about long term consequences. Teenagers are stupid and if they want to fuck they should stick to fucking each other. Furthermore how can you even be attracted to 14 year olds as a grown man? I mean, from an evolutionary standpoint men prefer women with youthful features because it is a sign of good fertility, but most of the time they look waaaay too young. And even if you meet a teenager who is let's say 16 (the legal age in many places) I can't even bring myself to be attracted to them. Sure they might look attractive but the minute they open their mouths I just can't be around them for more than a minute. Teenagers are fucking immature and retarded. I was a dumb teenager once, I cringe just looking back sometimes. Wanting to be around/in a relationship with a young teen as grown man says a lot about your own mental state.

>>17745212
its not against the law to take advantage of an adult if they consented

>>17745215
Dude, I personally interviewed and put a 15 year old on our company's payroll TODAY

>>17745226

>So I can try to fuck them!

Jeff start the van, we have work to do.

>>17745228

>>17744955

>>17745216
Man, don't even bother.

>>17745206
>fucking kids is pretty morally dark to begin with.
See, here's where we've got two entirely different premises.
No one is arguing that the law isn't the law. What I'm questioning is WHY it's the law.
How is it morally dark, when the problem is free will and intelligence, not legal age?

>>17745212
bullshit, taking advantage of people is how entire families are made.
Or is it only to protect women from men?
Also, we're not the only ones here, you know.
There's at LEAST 3 active posters here.

>>17745226
do you read, i literally conceeded i didnt check my facts and your prohibited from almost any 'typical' high school job anyways

>>17745239
These questions have been answered by me and several others at least a handful of times each.

I know you're not genuinely interested in entertaining anyone else's opinion, but re-read your thread and meditate on it for a little while, maybe some of it will sink in. You're talking in circles, repeating yourself, and you probably don't even notice it.

>>17745252
>These questions have been answered by me and several others at least a handful of times each.
like in >>17745181 ?
Yeah, that's not really answering anything. Just saying "IT'S THE LAW!" doesn't answer any of my questions.

>I know you're not genuinely interested in entertaining anyone else's opinion, but re-read your thread and meditate on it for a little while, maybe some of it will sink in. You're talking in circles, repeating yourself, and you probably don't even notice it.
ohtheirony.jpg

>>17745216
>how dare you have sexual preferences different from mine!
as if adult females are any better

>>17745270

>Wahhh she's not a virgin she's had 2 boyfriends before and she's 25 she's a roastieeeee who will cheat on meeee REEEEE

You're an insecure, inexperienced manchild incapable of getting a woman your age and it shows.

>>17745261
What makes you think that I have any obligation to consider your opinion? You asked a question, I gave you the answer. You not liking the answer doesn't make it any less "the answer".

Furthermore, as far as I can tell I'm the oldest (or at least one of them) in this thread, and also the only one who's ever had first-hand experience with underage girls trying to fuck me. As far as you and I are concerned, I'm the only one who knows what he's talking about.

You're the one who asked. I'm the one with the experience. Sorry you don't like my answer, but you're wrong and that's really all there is to it. It's not a matter of debate, and if you're going to try and make it one, you should really do a lot more research into what you're talking about.

Fuck. This thread it's stupid.
Op is fucking stupid
Everyone in this thread is fucking stupid.
And I am the stupidest mother fucker of everyone for wasting time on it

>>17745216
As a neurobiologist, I'd just like to clarify that brains not being fully developed is a structural matter, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with perceived maturity of decision making faculties; especially with regard to such a specific class of decision.

I was a smart teenager once; I could quite easily have made an equivalent decision of consent to what I produce now. And, provided the connotations of pregnancy and disease are understood (not particularly difficult concepts), and the preventative measures one can take are known (which is the case most certainly for teenagers), I can see no weight to your argument.

General stupidity is irrelevant to one's capacity to consent to intercourse.

File: 938465.gif (25KB, 225x556px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 225x556px

>>17744389
>why is it illegal to have sex with someone who is 14~?

>>17746111

The part of the brain that's developing until 25 has to do with decision making. All research shows a link and people under 25 have been proven to have increasingly compromised abilities to make decisions and account for risks and potential manipulation.

>>17746154
Simple decisions are not the same as complex ones.

[Do you want to be pregnant?]
| |
y n
| |
have sex [Do you have contraception]
| |
y n
| |
have sex don't have sex

And by your rationale the legal age should be 25, and it should be illegal to have sex with people who've drank alcohol

>>17746533
well it lost my formatting, but you get the gist

File: trumptheprotector.jpg (95KB, 526x500px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 526x500px

>>17744389
Why do you have to stop your vehicle when some light hanging over the road turns red?

Why is it red and not orange? Or purple?

Laws are what they are because, in a republic, the majority of lawmakers say they are what they are.

Don't like it? Vote for Trump. Trump will abolish all minimum age laws and make it mandatory for hot 14-year old girls to fuck you whenever asked.

>>17746533
Making decisions about the partner you want to have sex with is not simple. Teens are vulnerable to people pleasing and look at older people as authority figures. This makes them prone to bad choices they wouldn't make as full adults. They are much less able to recognize unhealthy and abusive behaviors. An adult seeking a child for a sexual relationship is automatically unhealthy and abusive.

>>17746533
There's also a gradual increase in maturity so someone 22-25 is close to being fully developed. There is a reason there is a social stigma against dating 18 yr olds anyway, society recognizes that they're kids and vulnerable, even if the socially retarded NEETs looking for the easiest target don't.

Please just let this thread die.

Just because some of you want to ignore WHY consent laws exist, doesn't mean they don't exist for good reason.

>>17746594
>This makes them prone to bad choices they wouldn't make as full adults.
ha, like they ever stop making those same bad decisions over and over again after the age of 25.
Stupid teens become stupid adults, smart adults were smart as teens. It's not their age that makes them vulnerable, it's their lower intelligence. We should be banning sex with retarded people, not teens.

If they're smart enough to know what they're doing, they can consent. Teens are humans, too.

>>17746598
Why is the age of consent 18 and not 25?
Wouldn't that mean that we're letting people with undeveloped brains be taken advantage of?
Am I a bad person for fucking a 20 year old, because her brain isn't fully developed yet?

Dear actually fucking god, how is this thread still alive?

>>17746779
>laws are there because reasons
yeah, didn't work out too well with abolition

I'm trying to dig down to the root of that WHY, you're the one trying to shut down discussion of WHY consent laws exist.
If the WHY you're coming up with is weak and full of holes, maybe you don't have the correct WHY. Maybe the WHY doesn't really exist, and it's all just virtue-signaling by a bunch of stuck-ups who want to shame people with different sexual preferences. Maybe society is contradicting itself, and I'm just pointing it out.

>>17746895
>If the WHY you're coming up with is weak and full of holes
It isn't.
>Maybe society is contradicting itself,
It isn't.
>and I'm just pointing it out.
You're not.

You lost this one a long time ago, man, you're just refusing to accept it.

It's time to let this thread die.

>>17746923
you sound like my 3-year old niece.
>nuh-uh! nuh-uh! You're wrong! You're wrong!

You never answered my question from way back,
if teens are so vulnerable and manipulable, why does society at large find it so hard to make them act obediently? Aren't they extremely susceptible to coercion from anyone older than them? Why is it so difficult to make them do what you want and they don't?

>>17744389
I don't think they do sex ed that early everywhere. People need to know the risks involved with sex so that they can make an informed decision. I honestly don't think that it's super difficult for even a young teenager to grasp the concept of sex as well as the consequences like getting pregnant or getting an STD so there's not a good argument for waiting longer to teach kids about sex. If we did that then I don't think 14 would be an unreasonable age of consent.

>>17744389
cause its illegal? and are you stupid? you know why. 14 year olds arent fully capable of making adult decisions. its just wrong and weird to think about a 14 year old sleeping with a grown man. most of them arent fullt developed, neither is their brain. if youre that desperate to sleep with a child might as well fuck an aids infected prostitute. or youre going to prison and will never find a job.

>>17746881

No of course not. But 18-20 is very different than someone who is 14 and the part of the brain associated with decision making is more developed. Not fully, but more so than a teen going through puberty.

>>17746997
you know what else is just "wrong and weird"? consensual sodomy.
yet, somehow, society allows it. Two consenting people do whatever they want,
as long as it affects no one else, because no one is being forced into it.

File: 1399607317238.gif (2MB, 348x323px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 348x323px

>>17744389

ITT : aging neckbeards doing mental gymnastics to justify fucking kids.

File: 44301.jpg (23KB, 630x399px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 630x399px

I thought the age of consent in my country was 18 or sth
now I look it up and it turns out its 13

>>17747105

Are you seriously going to sit there and pretend like a 14 year old child is just as capable of giving informed consent as a grown man?

If you had a 13, 14 year old daughter who "consented" to have sex with the 40 year old gym coach you would just shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey, they both consented right?"

Is that what you're trying to say? Are you also seriously going to try to morally compare two adults playing with each other's butts with grown adults having sex with children?

Is your entire skull made of aspergers?

>Virtue signaling: The Thread

Because they are children and dumb as fuck. Some adults are dumb as fuck too. So maybe you have an argument? Dumb fucks fucking. That way we have more dependents on the welfare system...

>>17744389

For some reason I expected 4chan to take a much, much harder line on pedophilia. I'm honestly, a bit shocked to discover this many of you so cavalier about the idea of having sex with a 14 year old girl.

For some reason I kind of just naturally assumed most people would be disgusted by the idea of having sex with a child but I guess I was wrong.

>>17747131

Yeah, its society's fault for telling us sex with children is wrong and if you say its wrong its because you're "virtue signaling".

A man should be able to fuck children without society holding him down, you know? Its all societies fault. I also want to be able rape my neighbor's dog and set his dick on fire but societies "laws" say I can't and if you argue with me then I'm just gonna accuse you of being brainwashed by society.

Fight the power, dude. Have sex with children. Show everyone how enlightened you are.