22 year old guy having sex with a 16 year old girl
 

Hi. Long time reader, first time poster.

I found this in a fitness forum.

A guy, 22, wants to have sex with a girl who's 16. I'm the dad of a 1 year old daughter. I am worried about her enough as it is, but I cant think of how much I'd worry about this if this was my daughter. I'm angry about this guy doing this, am I right to be angry? What would you do if your daughter was in this situation?

(to make things equal, you can read the 22 year old guys side on his blog, http://www.becomingapua.com/2007/09/...a-16-year-old/ )

If the guy is worried about his daughter, then he needs to raise her with some morals and some standards so that she doesn't go around hooking up with random older guys who hit on her at the mall.

Stealth marketer probably for the web site.

Take pictures.

-Rudey
--Post them.

Yeah... raise your daughter with some sense. Believe it or not, all girls don't automatically go boycrazy when they hit puberty. Those who have fathers who actually TALK to them (as opposed to "at them" or "down to them") might just grow up to be a good judge of character.

What is even scarier is that in California, it is not illegal for a 16 year old girl to have consensual sex with a 22 year old man. As I was sitting in my Child Abuse training yesterday, I was pretty astounded at the fact that anyone age 16 or over can have consensual sex with an adult of any age.

??? I thought it was 18 in CA :confused: humm..

why is that scary? just because you are a prude you want to force that on everybody?

Yeah! I mean, back in the Middle Ages, 30 year olds used to marry 14 year olds, and we all turned out OK, right?

Right on, man - no way that adults shouldn't be able to legally hook up with children as a general practice, rage against that machine.

Age of consent's different in every state. Personally, 16 sounds like a pretty good age to me. If you're old enough to handle a car, you're old enough to choose your sexual partners (if you choose to have any). They're both extremely dangerous.

JMO.

I agree with this in principle, but many age-of-consent laws actually have an age difference component built in, so 16 year olds can't get down with 45 year olds at their bequest.

The issue, to my mind, is that the "cutoff" for adulthood fluctuates wildly depending on the particular thing you're discussing - you have to draw the line somewhere, and while 16 might be a fine age to make sexual decisions, as a rule I'm not too concerned with the current state of the "window" age gap rules. There are obviously corner cases where a 16 year old might be in love with a 32 year old man, but those will likely sort themselves out - I think that as long as they're considered children, though, we have to allow the law to view them as such in as many ways as possible. That was really why I responded above like I did - change the law if you want to change the law, but don't act like we give 16 year olds free reign over their own lives as it is.

This is where the problems with trying as an adult stem from, also - it's arbitrary.

sarcasm?


anyway, by taking the absurd arguement to the extreme like you did, you actually make everyone look dumb. Which we are for posting in a marketing thread.

30 y/o and 14 would have an extreme case even for the middle ages 22 and 16 now a days when both age groups spend forever online a day and play video game ad nasuem. They can fall in love blowing up zombies. My [sort of, for the sake of making one] point is that you can't really judge things based just on age or frist impressions, and you def. should not get worked up over internet spam.

But hey, you like to talk smack, so talk smack.

Internet smack.

Read my above response, loaf - I actually agree that individual situations should be examined, but that means the law should probably be more concrete, not less.

Different sides/same coin.

PS - you're the one who called someone a "prude" and basically labeled them a fascist for following a law . . . so . . . yeah. Internet.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm



I acutally think the difference is a good way to go in this case, because at least IMO... a 17 and 18 year old is NOT the same as a 16 year old and a 37 year old.

I DO see MAJOR problems with the flucation of the adult "cutoff" for so many different things. I mean there's no way that you can go a get a license, or take a drink before you are the ages deemed appropriate for that action, but you can be tried as an adult when you should've "known better".
Not that I don't think that some criminals ABSOLUTELY know what was going on when they committed their crime, and perhaps deserve the full extent of the "adult" law, but it seems like a double standard. Especially since it is so arbitrary sometimes. == shrugs ==