- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,024
- 2,190
I'm not saying that the scenario would be "good" either way, but it wouldn't be an adult taking advantage of a dumb girl. It would be a dumb boy and a dumb girl getting together. I was a 16 year old girl and I know what I'm talking about.
The traditional law against sex with minors was, as I understand it, to prevent older men from "taking advantage" of young girls and leaving them pregnant and.or "ruined".
Thus, the "Shotgun Wedding" in which the older man is forced to take responsibility and provide for his now family.
But NONE of that now applies.
Girls can get abortions. Girls aren't considered ruined if they are not virgins.
Hell, single motherhood is even acceptable now.
And the younger male, is just as likely (or not) to be predatory, and even more likely to impregnate the girl, with his higher fertility and sex drive.
Shotgun weddings are not right. You don't FORCE people into marriages.
About younger males, maybe so, but they are still more equal experience wise (or SHOULD be) than a 20-something year old or older with a 14 year old!!! Good grief! They guy must be a complete loser.
IN the past, when the alternative to shotgun weddings was likely to be extreme poverty and prostitution, they certainly would have been "right".
BUT, today that is not the case.
Today, in the context where sex with other "children" is socially acceptable, what is the special downside to the girl's sex partner being older?
I already explained this to you. Do you not know? Stay AWAY from kids. Got it?
NOt a problem for me, at this late date, happily married.
And really TOO OLD, for underage girls.
Hell, I'm invisible to women in the 20s, maybe in their 30s, at this point in time.
This is NOT a matter of personal significance.
It seems to me to be an anachronism of a time when women were seen as the weaker sex.
And I want to understand why it still survives.
Pregnancy makes women physically vulnerable.