Straight Dope Message Board

[Whack-a-Mole]

I am not sure it is possible to have a frank and open discussion about this topic but that is my hope for this. I, personally, am not advocating a position although I will be expressing an opinion. Which is to say I am really looking to sort my notions about this and can be convinced one way or another.

This article is what prompted this post: Mom who seduced teen sentenced to 1 year in jail; DA calls sentence double standard

I get it that we are supposed to view an adult having sex with a teen as a bad thing regardless of whether it is a man or woman doing it.

Here's the part that is likely to trigger a lot of people here...

Is an adult woman having sex with a teen as bad as an adult man having sex with a teen (assume heterosexual relations for this just to keep it simple)?

Why or why not?

For my part, if I think back to my teenage years, I am certain I would have been pretty happy if a hot teacher or friend's mom decided to seduce me. Not kidding, I know it is a trope but it is a trope for a reason.

I do not think most teenage girls would be as psyched in the same situation...far from it.

I know society does not view women seducing underage men as harshly as the reverse...as the link above shows.

Is it really a double standard or are males and females to be judged the same when it comes to this?

[Dale Sams]

Yes its a double-standard. And its bad that men routinely get harsher sentences then women for the same crimes.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Dale Sams

Yes its a double-standard. And its bad that men routinely get harsher sentences then women for the same crimes.

So you would be just as bothered if a 30 year old woman seduced your 15 year old son as you would be if a 30 year old man seduced you 15 year old daughter?

Your outrage would be the same? Regardless of how either of the kids felt about what happened?

[Dale Sams]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

So you would be just as bothered if a 30 year old woman seduced your 15 year old son as you would be if a 30 year old man seduced you 15 year old daughter?

Your outrage would be the same? Regardless of how either of the kids felt about what happened?

Yes I would be just as outraged. A 30 year old woman sleeps with my 15 year old son? Thats disgusting.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Dale Sams

A 30 year old woman sleeps with my 15 year old son? Thats disgusting.

Why? (really asking)

For the sake of argument assume no power dynamic such as a teacher promising better grades...pretend it is a neighbor.

[Dale Sams]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Why? (really asking)

For the sake of argument assume no power dynamic such as a teacher promising better grades...pretend it is a neighbor.

Because for the purposes of this q, I'm aging my almost 14 year IRL son (my first born) to 15. I don't anticipate him being a lot different. And I'm 95% sure this hypothetical neighbor would be my son's first sexual experience. So my gangly, pimple-faced son, who not the most social creature ...doesn't fit in well at school...the first woman he sleeps with is the 30 year old neighbor???

How the fuck did that happen??? How is that NOT disgusting? What is wrong with this woman's brain that she felt she should seduce a 15 year old boy who can't even grow a beard?

[SamuelA]

This is frequently used as an example for why when women claim that men are "privileged" they neglect to mention a few things. Like massive disparities in criminal sentencing, drafts for wars, how charities treat them, that sort of thing.

As far as I know the main consistent way men get a "privilege" is they are more likely to be paid more and promoted at work. And also men tend to work more hours than women at work and don't have to take months off during their childbearing years so the amount of bias may be less than it appears on the surface.

[Dale Sams]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

This is frequently used as an example for why when women claim that men are "privileged" they neglect to mention a few things. Like massive disparities in criminal sentencing, drafts for wars, how charities treat them, that sort of thing.

As far as I know the main consistent way men get a "privilege" is they are more likely to be paid more and promoted at work. And also men tend to work more hours than women at work and don't have to take months off during their childbearing years so the amount of bias may be less than it appears on the surface.

Suicide rates, worse education and more dangerous jobs too.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

This is frequently used as an example for why when women claim that men are "privileged" they neglect to mention a few things. Like massive disparities in criminal sentencing, drafts for wars, how charities treat them, that sort of thing.

As far as I know the main consistent way men get a "privilege" is they are more likely to be paid more and promoted at work. And also men tend to work more hours than women at work and don't have to take months off during their childbearing years so the amount of bias may be less than it appears on the surface.

Getting paid more and getting promoted more isn't a "privilege". It's a privilege.

And compare the number of people who have a job with the number of people who commit a serious crime or get drafted into a war. The ratio of men who face a situation where being a man is an advantage to the ones where being a man is a disadvantage is probably over a hundred to one.

[Dale Sams]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Getting paid more and getting promoted more isn't a "privilege". It's a privilege.

And compare the number of people who have a job with the number of people who commit a serious crime or get drafted into a war. The ratio of men who face a situation where being a man is an advantage to the ones where being a man is a disadvantage is probably over a hundred to one.

I seriously doubt your figure takes into account suicide rates, homelessness, divorce court and workplace injuries..

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Dale Sams

I seriously doubt your figure takes into account suicide rates, homelessness, divorce court and workplace injuries..

I don't know how suicide rates and homelessness are factors in a discussion about people having jobs, committing crimes, or being drafted. Workplace injuries are an issue related to jobs (and committing crimes or getting drafted I suppose) but it doesn't seem to be a gender-related issue.

I know that divorce settlements are an issue that comes up a lot during discussions of how men are discriminated against. But I think it's more often a case that men feel they are being discriminated against rather than actually being discriminated against. If a man feels that all of the assets in the family belong to him then he's going to feel it's unfair when a judge gives some of his stuff to his ex-wife. Even when it's being designated for the care of their children. What I think a lot of men resent is not the loss of the assets so much as the loss of control that they held through the assets.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I don't know how suicide rates and homelessness are factors in a discussion about people having jobs, committing crimes, or being drafted. Workplace injuries are an issue related to jobs (and committing crimes or getting drafted I suppose) but it doesn't seem to be a gender-related issue.

I know that divorce settlements are an issue that comes up a lot during discussions of how men are discriminated against. But I think it's more often a case that men feel they are being discriminated against rather than actually being discriminated against. If a man feels that all of the assets in the family belong to him then he's going to feel it's unfair when a judge gives some of his stuff to his ex-wife. Even when it's being designated for the care of their children. What I think a lot of men resent is not the loss of the assets so much as the loss of control that they held through the assets.

I think thisnis true in many cases.
I support a 50/50 split of gain during the marriage.
If I own a house prior to the marriage and it's value goes up 20 percent during the marriage she's entitled to 10 percent of the value, not 50

If it goes down 20 percent well, oh well I guess it's still mine.

If we take a loan on it then she's entitled to 50 percent of the debt, unless the loan went into improvements, then If I'm keeping it I get the debt.

Much like any other form of partnership.

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I don't know how suicide rates and homelessness are factors in a discussion about people having jobs, committing crimes, or being drafted. Workplace injuries are an issue related to jobs (and committing crimes or getting drafted I suppose) but it doesn't seem to be a gender-related issue.

I know that divorce settlements are an issue that comes up a lot during discussions of how men are discriminated against. But I think it's more often a case that men feel they are being discriminated against rather than actually being discriminated against. If a man feels that all of the assets in the family belong to him then he's going to feel it's unfair when a judge gives some of his stuff to his ex-wife. Even when it's being designated for the care of their children. What I think a lot of men resent is not the loss of the assets so much as the loss of control that they held through the assets.

Nemo, first of all, what most men are complaining about is not that the wife gets some assets, it's that it's almost always a split in favor of the wife.

She gets the kids, therefore she gets the child support payments. And he made the money, so she gets alimony. And sometimes even the asset distribution is unfair - she gets the house, he gets some socks and has to move out to a shoddy apartment.

As for your statement about the draft : the draft was a threat to all males during both ww2, the korean war, and Vietnam. Fairly recent history, there. Hardly a "1 in 100" kind of threat. And an unfair divorce - since ~40% of marriages end in divorce, that means 40% of men will face unfair treatment in that respect.

As for receiving more pay and promotions at work : you totally missed the fact that men work longer hours than women and more dangerous jobs. Some attempts to correct for these imbalances indicate the gap is much smaller.

And some of the remaining gap may be, well, baked in. Men got a reproductive advantage for being powerful. Back in the tribal days, the alpha of the tribe likely had sex with multiple women...and likely got first pick of the newly sexual mature women in the tribe. So reflecting this ancient behavior, you would expect more men to want to become bosses and corporate executives, etc.

So even if we clean up discrimination completely (I am not saying there isn't any, just that it is less than it appears), you would expect there to always be more male corporate executives in a perfect meritocracy than female.

Also, the percentage of male adults who have to be worried about unequal treatment in the criminal justice system is about 40%...

[UltraVires]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I know that divorce settlements are an issue that comes up a lot during discussions of how men are discriminated against. But I think it's more often a case that men feel they are being discriminated against rather than actually being discriminated against. If a man feels that all of the assets in the family belong to him then he's going to feel it's unfair when a judge gives some of his stuff to his ex-wife. Even when it's being designated for the care of their children. What I think a lot of men resent is not the loss of the assets so much as the loss of control that they held through the assets.

I agree with this. As I try to explain to my clients, marriage is an economic partnership. What was built during the marriage by each party is marital property equally owned by both. You get a situation where the man makes $200k/yr and the wife either didn't work or worked a smaller paying job---so she could take time off and be with the kids.

So the man's salary goes to making the mortgage payments and filling up the 401k and now upon divorce he complains that she is taking "his" money. It's not "your" money, dude, it is both of your money.

You got to make that big salary because she was taking kids to soccer practice, you were coming home to a clean house, and your shirts were pressed for work every day. You both agreed to that arrangement and now that she has decided not to pursue a career because of the promise that you would be spending a life together does not mean she can now fend for herself.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

This is frequently used as an example for why when women claim that men are "privileged" they neglect to mention a few things. Like massive disparities in criminal sentencing, drafts for wars, how charities treat them, that sort of thing.

Bovine Excrement

I’m sure you have a cite for the power block of women that keeps them safe from criminal sentencing, the draft, and.....how charities treat them????

Those ‘advantages’ are imposed on them. They would trade them in a second to earn the same at work. Bet.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Bovine Excrement

I’m sure you have a cite for the power block of women that keeps them safe from criminal sentencing, the draft, and.....how charities treat them????

Those ‘advantages’ are imposed on them. They would trade them in a second to earn the same at work. Bet.

That's hilarious.
Since the pay gap is made up almost entirely of a few select industries.

[Sitnam]

nm....

[Sitnam]

nm....

[Chronos]

Yes, teenage boys are usually very easy to take advantage of. That's precisely why we have these laws.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yes, teenage boys are usually very easy to take advantage of. That's precisely why we have these laws.

Sure.

Do you think a teenage girl is equivalent to a teenage boy in this respect?

Put another way, do you think they are both harmed in the same way and to the same extent if this happens to them?

[DrDeth]

nm

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yes, teenage boys are usually very easy to take advantage of. That's precisely why we have these laws.

When I was a teenager, I probably would have given my right arm to have been 'taken advantage of'. But I agree, it's a double standard, and there are indeed reasons why we have these laws. Even if you don't necessarily agree that it 'damages' a male minor, I've always felt that these laws should exist out of respect for his parents, who have a right not to have their child corrupted.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by asahi

Even if you don't necessarily agree that it 'damages' a male minor, I've always felt that these laws should exist out of respect for his parents, who have a right not to have their child corrupted.

I absolutely and utterly disagree with this opinion. The teen isn't his parent's property. The only things that matters is whether he's harmed or not. The opinion of the parents about their pure baby being tainted is irrelevant. If the child is in an healthy and satisfying relationship, the parents can go fuck themselves if they're still unhappy about it, as far as I'm concerned. "Parents don't think their baby should have sex" is definitely not a reason to prosecute someone who otherwise has done good and no harm. Victim-less crimes shouldn't be prosecuted, let alone because a third party is offended, be it the parents.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Is an adult woman having sex with a teen as bad as an adult man having sex with a teen

Why wouldn't it be? Are there reasons it's bad for an adult man to have sex with a teenage girl, that wouldn't apply the other way around?

If it's because the teenager is too young and immature to consent—are teenage boys any more mature than teenage girls?

If it's because the teenage girl could end up pregnant—the teenage boy could end up a father.

If it's because the man would be taking the girl's virginity, sullying her virtue, and leaving her "damaged goods" and diminishing her value on the marriage market—do we still think that way in the 21st century?

If it's because you think you would have been happy being seduced by an adult woman when you were a teen—would it make it okay if a teenage girl was "happy" about being seduced? And in either case, does being "happy" about it really mean it wouldn't have caused any harm?

(assume heterosexual relations for this just to keep it simple)?

Although considering homosexual relations too might help us think about why/whether the sex of the parties involved matters.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Why wouldn't it be? Are there reasons it's bad for an adult man to have sex with a teenage girl, that wouldn't apply the other way around?

Yeah.

Men and women are not the same when it come to sexual relations.

To pretend otherwise denies the obvious differences that exist.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Yeah.

Men and women are not the same when it come to sexual relations.

This strikes me as a non-answer unless you go on to specify how they are different and how those differences are relevant.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

This strikes me as a non-answer unless you go on to specify how they are different and how those differences are relevant.

Men are encouraged to have sexual conquests. The more women they have sex with they higher they are regarded socially. They are a "stud"

The more partners a woman has sex with the less well she is thought of. She is a "slut".

Surely you are aware of this. It may not be fair but it is a reality.

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Men are encouraged to have sexual conquests. The more women they have sex with they higher they are regarded socially. They are a "stud"

The more partners a woman has sex with the less well she is thought of. She is a "slut".

Surely you are aware of this. It may not be fair but it is a reality.

Ok, but you haven't explained why we should give the male far more punishment than the female will get for lowering a female's social value a little bit. Causing a person to generally known as a slut is not something that sounds like something we should be incarcerating people for.

Instead the theory is about a "power dynamic" and thus it was "impossible for a teenager to consent except when they can consent with their peers or consent to commit a crime that will get them charged as an adult". I am not quite sure how this argument holds water. Like, ok, we would consider guard's in a woman's prison to be committing rape because they literally hold the power of life and death ("shot while attempting to escape") or at least the power to make things very difficult for a prisoner in a concrete way, such as witholding food.

What sort of power does a high school teacher or church leader really have in concrete terms over their teenage charges?

I mean, in this case, we are throwing this female teacher into the pokey because she "forced" a red blooded young male to have sex with her. Because what? Did she drug him? Pull a gun on him? Threaten to get him expelled from school if he didn't have sex with her?

Instead the idea is at 15, we can't trust him to give into his instincts. But, umm, adults who hook up at the bar or nightclub...have you met them or seen reality TV? Nightclub goers use approximately the intelligence of a small child in their quest for sex...

[Mijin]

I think in some sense it's a loaded question.
Because if we are asking whether, in general, girl-man and boy-woman relationships are the same, I would lean somewhat on "no": there are indeed differences in male and female sexuality on average. It's nothing like as crude as the popular tropes of "men want sex, women want relationships" or "men value beauty, women value status", but yeah I think there is a difference nonetheless.

However, that doesn't mean there's no overlap, and every girl-man relationship is worse than every boy-woman: the individual details matter a lot. I can imagine cases of the latter that are terrible and the former that are benign.
And likewise for boy-man and girl-woman: it's all wrong, but the harm caused depends on how they hooked up, what the relationship was like, whether they felt free to walk away.

So from a legal point of view, what do you do?
Personally I am OK with equal sentencing even if I suspect one flavor of the crime to usually result is less harmful outcomes than others. Because how we treat offences is (or should be) based on intent. From the point of view of an adult woman choosing to engage in this kind of relationship, she is potentially betraying the same trust and causing the same harm as an adult man: if it happens to be in many cases that she doesn't cause the same level of harm then that's great, but that should not be a significant factor in sentencing.
I will say though that I am not 100% committed to this position, happy to have the debate

[don't mind me]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Men are encouraged to have sexual conquests. The more women they have sex with they higher they are regarded socially. They are a "stud"

I don't find this a compelling argument because that social attitude is not healthy. That status, especially when driven higher by having an adult partner, gives a boy a false sense of manhood and affects his relationships with women for life. And if a boy does have negative feelings about the encounter, it makes it that much harder to admit it. That's one reason I'm skeptical about self-reports by former victims.

Since a criminal complaint was lodged in the case cited, it's not at all clear that the boy or his parents considered the harm negligible.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Although considering homosexual relations too might help us think about why/whether the sex of the parties involved matters.

Maybe. Just trying to keep it simple for starters by limiting the field.

If you want to go there feel free. You can go there even if I said I didn't want to.

[UCBearcats]

Female teachers normally dont get jail time for this offense.

[puzzlegal]

People differ. But I think that on average, it is less traumatic for a male youth to enter into a sexual relationship than for a female youth. And I think it's the sex of the kid that matters far more than the sex of the adult.

I'm only talking about teens who are sexually mature and who choose to have sex with an older person. So, depending on the law, I might be talking about statutory rape, but not about youths who are coerced into sex. And I'm certainly not talking about prepubescent boys or girls.

But yeah, the men whose stories I've read who had sex when they were teens (with an adult man or woman) were mostly happy about it, and the women whose stories I've read who had sex (with an adult man, I don't think I've read a young lesbian's may/december story) when they were teens mostly ended up feeling used.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by puzzlegal

And I'm certainly not talking about prepubescent boys or girls.

To be clear:

I very much mean this thread to be about post-pubescent people. I.E. Sexually mature people.

[puzzlegal]

Yeah, every single story I've read about an adult who had sexual experience as a pre-pubescent child (with an adult) felt damaged by the experience.

[Littleman]

This is one of those things that's definitely a double standard and I think pretending it should be equal is a farce.

Yep I would have been happy to sleep with a 30 year old woman at 15,16,17 or basically any age and I do not believe it would have had any different lasting effects than the fact that I was having sex with 15-20 year old girls at 15-16.

Same time I think treating it so harshly for men is a farce too.

It's why Ohio changed age of consent to 16 with a two year close in age exception. 16-17 your legal to be with 18-19 yr olds.

While it's pretty despicable/pathetic for a 30yr old of any sex to be with a 15 yr old of any sex in current society does it call for serious prison time?
Idk my wife's grandmother was 15 when she married her grandfather who was 25. I went to their 50th wedding anniversary.

That said I can't speak to whether most girls feel they would have had some lasting effect from a sexual relationship at 15-16 that would be different based on the guys age, assuming they were having it with guys closer to their age anyhow.

Anyhow, woman on boy.... Maybe some court ordered counseling i feel would be sufficient.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Yep I would have been happy to sleep with a 30 year old woman at 15,16,17 or basically any age and I do not believe it would have had any different lasting effects than the fact that I was having sex with 15-20 year old girls at 15-16.

Would you have been happy to have become a father? Would you be happy with 18 years of child support payments?

I rather suspect that at that age you would not have given either a second thought and such youthful immaturity is what young boys need to be protected against.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Would you have been happy to have become a father? Would you be happy with 18 years of child support payments?

I rather suspect that at that age you would not have given either a second thought and such youthful immaturity is what young boys need to be protected against.

Would it be different if the girl was 16?
Nope, and I was having sex at that age and I did use protection and I didn't become a father until age 26.

I didn't need protection from my 16,17,20 yr old girlfriends either.

[Littleman]

Parties at versace mansion at 16 ...that sort of thing.

[don't mind me]

All right, I'll take up the same-sex question. If a sixteen-year-old boy is sexually mature, fully aware that he's gay, eager to have sex, and does so with a thirty-year-old neighbor Bob, how is it different from a straight boy with neighbor Doris? I seriously don't see how it is. And an underage lesbian with an adult, if anything, seems less offensive than a girl with a man. (That's something I've just now realized, so I'm not ready to defend it.

[Littleman]

That's probably another determining factor here.
The girl is viewed as being more defenseless. No matter how she feels others think she may have felt like she had less choice.

A 16yr old boy is pretty physically able compared to most adults and probably stronger than a lot of 30 yr old women...much less likely to feel coerced.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Men and women are not the same when it come to sexual relations.

To pretend otherwise denies the obvious differences that exist.

A breath of rational thought amid a torrent of politically correct group-think.
Thank you, Whack-a-Mole.

And yet still Mr. Whack is questioned. One wants to ask the doubters which alien world they come from; weren't human physiology and human psychology taught before they made their space ride?

[Ambivalid]

There are real, undeniable and consequential differences in the physical body structures of men and women. No one can argue that. It seems like, by the logic on display in this thread, that fact would directly influence how harshly or lightly we should prosecute and shame cross-gender assault, depending on the direction of that assault

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

There are real, undeniable and consequential differences in the physical body structures of men and women. No one can argue that.

And yet if UPS paid their male and female drivers differently, they'd get called out on it.

Molesters should be treated the same regardless of their sex.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by kayaker

And yet if UPS paid their male and female drivers differently, they'd get called out on it.

Molesters should be treated the same regardless of their sex.

And yet....We are making the same freakin' point.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

And yet....We are making the same freakin' point.

And yet . . .yeah, *high five*.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by Littleman

That's probably another determining factor here.
The girl is viewed as being more defenseless. No matter how she feels others think she may have felt like she had less choice.

And girls need to be taught very early not to be cock-teases to all their future male teachers by dressing like little painted whores. Just common sense, nay?

Originally Posted by Littleman

I'm betting the reason complaint came to the table has more to do with his parents feeling inadequate because the boy was living at the other house to get away from them. Probably didn't want to come home when they finally wanted him back and they filed this as a vindictive move.

Your uninformed, and i gotta say kinda weird, opinion is duly noted for the record.

Originally Posted by DSeid

The fact that men and women are "different" is a non sequitur. How are they different in ways that matter for the ethics of consent?

Is one gender more emotionally and cognitively mature at that age than the other and thus more competent to give consent?

If anything girls' brains mature faster than boys' brains do. (A functional difference reflected in changes in brain structure in which girls are two years ahead.)

The ability to give consent is not a function of how physiologically horny someone is, or what wet dreams you had as a kid. It is based on having the individual having the cognitive and emotional maturity to be considered competent to give consent. Boys are slower to mature in those ways ergo if anything sex with an underage boy should be, if anything, a worse offense than sex with an underage girl.

This is why i always end up coming back. For the occasional moment of lucid thought and pushback against the eschewing of reason,when group-think would otherwise be leading the discussion down a wormhole.

Originally Posted by Littleman

In the case of the person below the age of consent.... Do they feel there was overt force or threat used? If so it's rape.
If not it's statutory rape., Corruption of a minor or whatever term the state actually uses.

I will type slower this time (I guess you're just gonna have to take my word-i am typing slower-just for you). Cite for the claims re rape laws? Notice i didnt say "please blather on as if I didnt ask you the question I did".

[Ludovic]

I'd say the majority of the time they are equivalent. The only exception is that when a boy has a one-on-one exclusive relationship with an older woman, since society still treats men as higher-status than women, all else being equal, the boy is not entering into as an unequal a relationship as the other possible gender combinations.

If the older person is cheating on an SO, or is just having a one night stand, I'd say they are equivalent, given the same level of enthusiasm in the teens. I'd be afraid for what the teen can catch from someone who likely enjoys a lot of casual sex.

[DSeid]

The fact that men and women are "different" is a non sequitur. How are they different in ways that matter for the ethics of consent?

Is one gender more emotionally and cognitively mature at that age than the other and thus more competent to give consent?

If anything girls' brains mature faster than boys' brains do. (A functional difference reflected in changes in brain structure in which girls are two years ahead.)

The ability to give consent is not a function of how physiologically horny someone is, or what wet dreams you had as a kid. It is based on having the individual having the cognitive and emotional maturity to be considered competent to give consent. Boys are slower to mature in those ways ergo if anything sex with an underage boy should be, if anything, a worse offense than sex with an underage girl.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by DSeid

The fact that men and women are "different" is a non sequitur. How are they different in ways that matter for the ethics of consent?

Is one gender more emotionally and cognitively mature at that age than the other and thus more competent to give consent?

If anything girls' brains mature faster than boys' brains do. (A functional difference reflected in changes in brain structure in which girls are two years ahead.)

The ability to give consent is not a function of how physiologically horny someone is, or what wet dreams you had as a kid. It is based on having the individual having the cognitive and emotional maturity to be considered competent to give consent. Boys are slower to mature in those ways ergo if anything sex with an underage boy should be, if anything, a worse offense than sex with an underage girl.

If we base it strictly on the ability to give consent then two 16 year olds have sex and we must send them both to prison.