Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dradeel
Yes, but does that mean we have to agree with it? Laws could/should be changed. That's all  |
The question is not whether we're to allow adults to have sex with children but on the other hand it's debatable whether a person under the age of majority at the age of 16 or 17 is a child ( certainly not anatomically or psychologically as they're very much sexually aware and most of them sexually active ). Still legally they're considered "children". The most hypocritical society on the planet - won't say which one that is -treats number 18 as a magical number where suddenly once a person passes that age everything becomes normal, but before everything is forbidden - as if you can flick a switch and suddenly become an adult with everything that can entail. But this is such a grey area when the age of consent ( even in that society ) is 16 and over. So what happens when you're between 16 and 18 years old? You're sexually considered an adult but legally you're not.
Nevertheless, I can't see how a party would advocate a case of people under the age of consent to have sex and treat it as a "right" for them when they're both unaccountable for their own actions and also under the age where experts think that a person can safely be in a sexual relationship ( not that it's not happening of course ). As
nath pointed out a child is unable to cope with the psychological burden of that as they're forming their own personality. That's why most people who end up becoming pornographic actors come from backgrounds where they were sexually abused in childhood. So it may be considered a right for the adult individual who engages in sexual acts with an underage person but it's certainly not a right for the underage person themselves.