Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
Would adolescent be a better term then? Because I don't consider someone who is old enough to join the army (reserves) and has the expectations of a 16 year old to be put into the same category as someone who for all we know could be in grade 6. I mean if he was 17, he would still legally be a child, would that make it acceptable? What if she was 11?
Sorry I don't believe that someone who is 12 years old can be sexually mature and in the off chance that there is someone who could be considered psychologically sexually mature I think that there is something wrong with that from a societal standpoint.
16 year olds shouldn't be having sex with 12 year olds regardless as to implied maturity.
|
Obviously not. Seriously, can we all just agree that 16 year olds shouldn't be having sex with 12 year olds as a general rule. Would you be satisfied that nobody is arguing that if we had a poll? What do you expect the results would be? A 50/50 split? Of course not, it would be 100% against 16 year olds having sex with 12 year olds and 0% for it. We are discussing the finer details of the issue at this point.
My point is a 12 year old's body
may actually be ready for sex. Saying she was raped implies a visousness that was not here, and aims to bias everybody against the 16 year old unfairly.
Also calling him a young adult and her a child implies her body was not ready for sex and he violated her and her innocence. Nothing I've read on the story suggests this is true. First of all - and this is an objective fact - neither people are adults. They are both kids. You calling him and adult is deliberately misleading. He is older and yes that's relevant, but saying a young adult raped a child sounds 100x worse than what actually happened IMO.