Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I don't there is a contradiction there. The sex is assumed to be between two consenting teenagers and the contraception is available because we accept it's going to happen. The issue here isn't sex under the age of 16 but adults having sex with people under 16 which is exploitive and abusive.
I guess damage can still be done if both people are under 16 but the relationship wouldn't have the same exploitive dynamic if both parties are the same age.
|
If you're suggesting that sex between an 18-year-old (adult) and a 15-year-old (child) is routinely treated as criminal, then I politely suggest you're a bit batty.
Actually, I know you're not trying to draw a hard and fast line, but that's precisely the problem, isn't it? Where is the line?
Under-age teens are emotionally vulnerable and, for the girl, also physically undeveloped such that pregnancy carries heightened risks. That's why we have an age limit set by law. "We accept it's going to happen" is a serious, serious problem because it means the risks that led to the law are being over-ruled by the unquestionable rightness of post-1960s permissiveness.
When the law is thus undermined, it is not surprising that the arbitrary line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" underage sex is a blurred and shaky one.