Anxious58 wrote:I think it may partially be jealously. "I didn't get to have sex while i was a teen so I don't want anyone else to".
That's interesting. And probably very close to the truth (or at least part of the truth, as you rightly point out). I'd like to see some historical documentation regarding the debates that surrounded the creation of age of consent laws in various countries, to see what motives were being expressed. Of course, we have to take into account ulterior motives. I know from getting to the root of some female friends' opinions (women well into adulthood) that one reason they're uncomfortable with men looking at young pubescent girls is, ultimately, jealousy that they can't compete with them.
However, we shouldn't forget parental instinct. It's natural to want to preserve the chastity of your offspring for as long as possible, though in the case of boys it's often more like 'get out there and get some p***y, son'. That's mostly because male promiscuity is not frowned upon, and because the consequences of a female engaging in sexual activity can be life-changing (babies!).
Any other reasons why people might want to control adolescent sexuality? (Incidentally, controlling other people's behaviour is a strong factor in legal instruments.) I'd like to make a new thread about such reasons, but my intellectual side would then want to do some research into the aforementioned debates surrounding creation of age of consent laws in various countries.
Anxious58 wrote:But no moral standard should be forced on anyone. I have never heard an argument that is sound for why teen sex is wrong, teen-teen or teen-adult. So it is absolutely disgusting that a "moral" standard that I didn't want as a teen was forced upon me.
Haha. So you could argue you've been damaged by not
having sex as a young teen? Well, I guess a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and to be effective and viable it needs to be drawn at an age where all
individuals are considered sufficiently mature. Why that age should be 18 (e.g. most US states) is beyond me. 16 seems more reasonable to me (e.g. UK and much of Europe), and I wouldn't be against the 15 that it very nearly was in the UK. 14 (e.g. several countries in Europe) seems OK to me, particularly as in countries such as Germany they say that the age of consent is 16, but 14 and 15 are OK where there is no evidence whatsoever of coercion (i.e. the teenager more or less has to initiate everything). Spain's 13 is a little low in my opinion, much as I'd love to sleep with girls that age. I'd be particularly interested in the debates surrounding the creation of that particular age of consent, though much more interested to hear how the Vatican City crew settled on 12.
Still, the salient questions are:
1) Should a line be drawn?
2) If so, at what age?
3) Should we differentiate between the sexes?
4) Should we differentiate in terms of homosexual/heterosexual?
My answers would be:
1) Yes, to protect the vulnerable, even though this prevents individuals who may be genuinely ready from engaging in sexual activity.
2) Don't know. I don't think any authorities (legal, medical, etc.) really know either.
3) Tricky. Don't know.
4) Tricky. Don't know.