Underaged sex?

I recently found out one of my close friends had sex in the 6th grade, and he has had it many times since then.

 

sex doesnt mean you love someone and you dont have to love someone to have sex. sex can be a way of showing love, tho doesnt mean it always does.
and a 15 year old wouldnt know what love is.

and why are you talking about 16-17 year olds? the legal age is 16+ so this doesnt apply to them.

the only people that dont agree with the age limit is because they are under it. under 16 and your not mature enough to think for yourself, to know whats good for you. for an 18+ year old to jump on a 13, 14, 15 year old is rape. try justify it all you like but it is rape. there just kids for fuck sake.

kid, when you grow up, youl realise how wrong it is to have sex with a 15 or less year old. they are vunerable, easily manipulated and an easy target. if not i hope to see you in jail

 

i still think it should be peoples decision about when they want to have it. as long as both people want to so its not rape lol

 

IF they use protection when underaged its fine, Unless they want children.

 

i'm 16... but yes the love thing was a question not a statement, but what makes maturity? society? exactly...

 

a 15 year old brain isnt fully developed and thats where there lack of maturity comes from.

ok, your 16, would you ever think of having sex with a 12-13 year old? doesnt that seem wrong? its the same thing.

i dont know about you but i have morals, even if there was no age limit i couldnt have sex with a kid.

 

Sexual contact is no immoral thing. Why would it be?

 

There are plenty of 13-17 year olds that have sexualy molested children 8 and under, and when in trial showed no sign of remorse. It is definitly NOT the same thing.

 

So a four year old, and a 44 year old could have sex, and it be moral?

 

If the two are willing to have sex, then it should be allowed. It only comes under rape when one doesnt want it.

Otherwise, I'm all for 4year old and 44 year olds having sex.

But then, you'd have to factor in the mentality of the 4 year old and the way he/she has been brought up to believe in sex.

 

As long as it did not harm the child, I do not think that there would be any problem with it.

 

Now, what exactly is your definition of "underaged"?

I personally want to wait. Now, as a teenage boy, trust me, I still want to, but I think it'd be worth the wait.

I'll argue further when you answer my question.

 

What do you consider under aged? At any age, morally, sex before marriage blinds our view of love somewhat. I believe sex to be a high point in one's life that is enhanced by physical pleasure but it's more than that.

American society abuses sex and uses it as a physical symbol of love. Love and commitment to the one you love is truly the "deal" of life. If you love someone enough to have sex with them, you should love them enough to marry them. Marrying someone is a life-long commitment and should not be taken lightly based on looks. Although, your spouse should look good physically, mentally, and spiritually, in your eyes, so to speak.

Sex is used like drugs in a teenage state of life. They experiment but are not looking at consequences beyond what's happening "of the moment".

I consider underaged to be before marriage, although we now have "teeny-boppers" having sex. Middle schoolers etc. It's suddenly the cool thing to do.

~Words of wisdom =D,
Ethan

 

OMFG you did not just say that! if you think like that then you are a pedophile.

You think theres nothing wrong with a 44 year old having sex with a 4 year old? you are a very sick and twisted. What sort of consent can a 4 year old give towards sex? they wouldnt even know what sex is, and "not harm the child"? this kid will be mentally tramatised for the rest of her life.

Also a 44 year old penis wouldnt be able to fit, a 4 year old isnt developed for sex.

Na i dont want to talk about this shit, you are either mentally unstable or you are some sick pedophile

 

Replying to what porman said..

It mentally harms the child for life. When you say "scarred for life" they're literally being scarred for life.

That relation between man and child is irrational and unnatural. That's why it's a crime. It's inhumane in all possible ways.

That's also a purely sick and twisted view for anyone to look at a child like that. The idea of "age" is minimally relevant, the idea is that the child is undeveloped and is forced into the situation is completely relevant. They do not choose and they do not harbor the feelings for sex.

 

the fuck? your one sick fuck.

a 44 year old man and a 16 year old girl would still be pushing it...

 

I do not see why you say this.

If nobody is harmed, why is it an evil thing?

 

They are being harmed, physically, mentally, and spiritually.

Even if you didn't feel that way, why would harming someone be evil?

It's wrong both morally and politically. We or taught not to harm others, just as society tells us not to harm others, as long as we're on the positive end of society.

Therefore, it's wrong and being evil has to do with right and wrong. Not what you may perceive as wrong, but what IS WRONG.

I have answered your questions Moh and I refuse to see more speculation on this concept from you, as you are an ill-minded individual.

 

i think its up to the person just because he or she is 15 don't mean they don't know whats right and wrong who is to say a 18 year old can think more clearly then a 15 year old.

 

True. A little messy, but true.