Well, I can! Because he listened to her...and encouraged her painting...and then seduced her into thinking that she was worthy of having sex? Please, Karen. You are way out there now. Because your male friends and this young girl did not have a knife to their throat...does not make this a memorable experience. If none of them protest, they are still under age...the abuser is still over the age of 21...and if it's not pedophilia, it's statutory rape!!!
Legally in most states it would be statuatory rape, but not in all states. Does the moral nature of the act change if it happens in a state with a lower limit?
Leaving aside the law for a second, which is worse a consensual sexual relationship between a mature 17 year old and a 21 year old, or that same 21 year old seduceing a taking advantage of a stupid, immature, insecure 19 year old?
If its evil or horrible wrong for a 21 year old to have sex with someone who is 17 is it just as horribly wrong if they are both 17?
I think Karen has a good point, there is no magical difference that occurs when you turn 18, at least there was not for me. Of course the same thing is true about any age, and I'm not saying that some age of consent doesn't serve a good purpose but I think Karen was not saying that either. She only said some sexual encounters between teenagers and adults might not be harmful or even if they are harmful aren't really abusive. With younger teens or esp, pre-teens its more obvious abuse, but I'm not sure that a 17 year old girl is abused because she has sex, or why it is abuse if a man in his twenties has sex with her but not if her partner is a 16 year old boy.
However I can see reasons to consider such relationships inapropriate, and I can see that they are sometimes or even usually abusive, I would just say that they are not always abusive.
Tim |
