Victim Trauma

jasmin wrote:It's not the end of the world if two teenagers have sex together, the consent thing isn't black and white. It's inappropriate for an older man or woman to have sex with a teenager just like it would be wrong for them to take money from a teenager (I can't think of a better example), because they have much more life experience and they'd be able to deceive the teenager in ways the kid can't even think of because of their inexperience and age. It wouldn't be the same thing if a teen would lend some money to another kid their own age, though, because that kid probably doesn't have a lot of experience with conning someone out of their money. And being deceived or manipulated into sex is worse than having some money or anything else taken from you.

Not apples to apples comparison with the money. It's a double standard, just like the double standard in place if an adult female has sex with a 14 year old boy! You can try to bend, slant, or excuse it anyway you want, but when all the smoke clears, the bottom line is a double standard!!

jasmin wrote:It's not the end of the world if two teenagers have sex together

Nor is it any more or less the end of the world if an adult and a teenager have consensual sex together. If your premise is that she's not intellectually or emotionally mature enough to consent, then she can't consent to a teenage boy either.

jasmin wrote:they have much more life experience and they'd be able to deceive the teenager in ways the kid can't even think of because of their inexperience and age.

If you look at the wide variety of personalities, motives, and manipulative capabilities out there, it goes without saying that this is often not the case.

jasmin wrote:that kid probably doesn't have a lot of experience with conning someone out of their money.

And, conversely, all adults are well practices in the art of conning people out of their money? Too lazy to read through your posts to research who you are, but assuming you're an adult and following this logic, I'd have to assume that you're talented in conning people out of their money and manipulating them for sex.

jasmin wrote:And being deceived or manipulated into sex is worse than having some money or anything else taken from you.

Once again, we don't know that she was deceived or manipulated. If there's no victim, there's no perpetrator. In deciding if she's a victim, you have a couple of ways to look at this:

1) She has a brain, can think for herself, and can make her own rational decisions about her body.
2) She's too immature and at the whims of her emotions and hormones to make rational decisions.

Choose one - you can't have it both ways.

nightstrife wrote:

jasmin wrote:It's not the end of the world if two teenagers have sex together

Nor is it any more or less the end of the world if an adult and a teenager have consensual sex together. If your premise is that she's not intellectually or emotionally mature enough to consent, then she can't consent to a teenage boy either.

jasmin wrote:they have much more life experience and they'd be able to deceive the teenager in ways the kid can't even think of because of their inexperience and age.

If you look at the wide variety of personalities, motives, and manipulative capabilities out there, it goes without saying that this is often not the case.

jasmin wrote:that kid probably doesn't have a lot of experience with conning someone out of their money.

And, conversely, all adults are well practices in the art of conning people out of their money? Too lazy to read through your posts to research who you are, but assuming you're an adult and following this logic, I'd have to assume that you're talented in conning people out of their money and manipulating them for sex.

jasmin wrote:And being deceived or manipulated into sex is worse than having some money or anything else taken from you.

Once again, we don't know that she was deceived or manipulated. If there's no victim, there's no perpetrator. In deciding if she's a victim, you have a couple of ways to look at this:

1) She has a brain, can think for herself, and can make her own rational decisions about her body.
2) She's too immature and at the whims of her emotions and hormones to make rational decisions.

Choose one - you can't have it both ways.

Well said nightstrife.

In summation: Double Standard!

And may I ask at what age you two gentlemen think it's ok for a non adult to have sex with an adult? Because if you're saying that if a 14 year old girl can't consent to sex with a 35 year old man then she can't consent to sex with a 17 year old guy either, I might agree, but I'd like to hear what you really think about consent, and not just social double standards. You've been brave enough to share views that differ a bit from my own here and it's your right, so why not tell us exactly what your views about consent are?

Just so we're clear, kids always have the right to decide what happens to their body. That's the whole principle behind not being allowed to touch a child sexually.
Kids can experiment a bit with each other in a sexual way, like playing doctor or kissing or comparing body parts even. A 7 year old experimenting with a 7 year old is not the same thing as a 7 year old experimenting with an adult. Do you agree? It's the same idea with teens having sex with each other but not with adults.
Also, if you're going to reply with "if a teen can consent to sex with another teen, then a teen can consent to sex with an adult too", please tell me what you think about a 7 year old experimenting sexually with an adult as well.

It's not ok for a grown woman to have sex with a teenage boy, it's just another sick idea people have.

You asked, now I will answer. I'm 57 years old and have been 'born again' only the last 10 of those 57 years. Sex outside of marriage is not an option. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The world, for the most part, has abandoned God.

I was speaking strictly from a worldly, societal, perspective.

First off, your example of a 7 year old is, again, not comparing apples to apples. A 35 year old man having 'consensual' sex with a 14 year old female, is in a totally different ballpark, than a 7 year old being 'molested' by a 35 year old.

My concern is strictly double standards. Like my friend said, society can't have it both ways, but they are doing their level best to do so.

Scenario 1:

All I am saying is, under the current law, we are saying that a teenage girl is too young to make the decision to have sex with a 20 year old man, (In most every state, a 20 year old would be prosecuted the same as a 50 year old) however she isn't too young to make that same decision with a 17 year old.

Hence a foolish double standard.

Scenario 2:

A 35 year old man would be prosecuted much differently and more harshly for having sex with a 14 year old girl than a 35 year old woman would be, who had sex with a 14 year old boy.

Another, double standard.

It's not rocket science.

Any sex outside of marriage is wrong! Period!

You asked, and I answered.

Sex outside of marriage is not wrong, that's just your own decision. Sex outside of marriage hurts no one on its own.
Why is a 7 year old doing something with an adult molestation while a 14 year old doing something with an adult is consensual sex? What made you reach that decision? I guess people have realized that you become an adult (or as good as, even if you're not quite as mature) at a certain age and 14 isn't it.
I understand that people who have done or believed bad things in the past can and have the right to change.

jasmin wrote:Sex outside of marriage is not wrong, that's just your own decision. Sex outside of marriage hurts no one on its own.
Why is a 7 year old doing something with an adult molestation while a 14 year old doing something with an adult is consensual sex? What made you reach that decision? I guess people have realized that you become an adult (or as good as, even if you're not quite as mature) at a certain age and 14 isn't it.
I understand that people who have done or believed bad things in the past can and have the right to change.

As a Christian, I am called to respect your 'right' to believe whatever you want to, but we are not called to respect 'what' you believe if it isn't the truth. I think the age of discernment depends on the individual. However I am bright enough to see and realize a huge difference between a 7 year old and a 14 year old. Historians have determined Mary,who gave birth to Jesus was only about 13 or 14 when she did, and was engaged to Joseph at the time, which was common practice.

Now, don't reply with any foolishness saying that I have no right bringing up God or the Bible or that it is out of order. You asked me a question and I answered it. Jesus loves you jasmin and wants you in His family too!

Yah, I know that Mary was only 13 or 14 years old. But men are not the Christian God.
Many or most 13 or 14 year olds don't have bodies that are developed enough for giving birth. A lot of women died in childbirth in the old days.

jasmin wrote:Yah, I know that Mary was only 13 or 14 years old. But men are not the Christian God.
Many or most 13 or 14 year olds don't have bodies that are developed enough for giving birth. A lot of women died in childbirth in the old days.

And your reference for this fact comes from where?