Are adult women having sex with teenagers equivalent to adult men having sex with teenagers?

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.

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?

Why do people interact with other people in such hard to fucking understand ways? Off with you then clown.

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

I am not going to weigh in on the legality aspect but just want to point out two things.

One, a teenage girl can get pregnant, and if she does not get an abortion, it will derail her whole life. Not something that happens to teenage boys. Two, a teenage girl faces both the gender power imbalance embedded in our culture AND the power imbalance inherent in a relationship between a minor and an adult.

For a teenage boy, the opposite happens; there is a certain evening up – the older woman has the power of an adult, while he has the power of being male.

Very well said. I always have a little trouble with this debate because I feel like that by weighing in I’m going to be taking a shit on my own ever so manly image ;). Because contrary to the OP and a sizeable number of guys who post in threads like these, I’m pretty sure sleeping with my 30 year old teacher when I was 15 would have fucked me up a bit.

I was always an amiable, fairly laid back kid who got along with most everyone and I believe I was rather more comfortable around adults than most kids my age due to some quirks in my upbringing. Almost to the point at times of inappropriately treating adults as actual peers. But when I was young I was very quietly a fretter and worrier - I rigidly kept my thoughts to myself, but I sweated a lot of trivial and not so trivial stuff. Having any kind of affair with a teacher I’m pretty sure would have tied me up in knots of doubt and worry. Never mind how fucked up that teacher would have had to have been to want to have an affair with me. Though in all fairness I had a mustache at 13 and my age was guessed at 32 when I was 17 - this hypothetical hot mess of a teacher would have had a fine defense in court if she hadn’t, y’know, actually been my teacher :p.

So is it identical? No. Is it equivalent? Yeah, IMHO it is.

I went to HS 78-82. Went to a magnet school that drew the best scored black students (50%) and best non-black (50%) in the city. So it was very liberal. There was a ‘smoke-hole’ for all the 14-18 year olds to smoke. Smoking on stage for theatre productions were allowed. 18 year olds dated and slept with 14 year olds regularly and no one blinked. Student-wise. I wasn’t privy to what their parents thought.

and given all that I still have to ask…WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY PUTTING IN THE WATER AT THE SEX MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL SOME OF YOU WENT TOO?? No one in my soccer team circle would have thumped their chests if someone said the neighbor seduced them at age 15. Thats a frigging sophomore. We wouldn’t have asked, “Did it fuck you up?” but we also wouldnt have given a Fonzie “Ayyyyeeeee”.

Sounds like you’re talking about a hypothetical here, and in the rearview mirror at that.

The answer to all three of the above is that a 30-year-old woman who has sex with a 15-year-old boy has psychologically manipulated the boy, even though he consented on the face of it. (This is why entrapment by police is not legal evidence–the person may have done something willingly that he would not have done except for enticement to do so provided police.) This is entirely different from a peer-to-peer encounter between two consenting teenagers. I am not a shrink but experiences at that age can have lasting effects on healthy maturation. This may affect how the boy sees sexual relationships later in life, or he may later feel shame, or who knows what. 30/15 is not a healthy sexual relationship.

As I mention above, there is not necessarily coercion in the sense that the boy felt forced to so something to avoid negative consequences, but certainly manipulation is involved.

This is the equivalent of dangling a piece of candy to get a kid to jump in your van. The kid was not forced, and what kid wouldn’t like a piece of candy? Something to brag about to friends the next day. But he doesn’t have the maturity to know it’s not a good idea.

Right but the legal tenet is that there is an assumed element of coercion. This is what makes it a crime as opposed to just morally reprehensible.

Legally two teens having sex can both be charged , it doesn’t happen much because it’s kind of hard to say they coerced each other.

At 16 I slept with my 20 year old girlfriend plenty. Totally illegal, anyone think she deserves prison time?
Legally she was no different than a 40 yr old.

While everyone makes good points about the moral aspects or views of the reprehensible nature , coercion is the legal foundation making such relations a criminal act .

Thus I’m basing the criminal aspect on the element of coercion.

All instances are the same crime but we are free to base sentencing and in some cases even whether we choose to pursue charges in the severity of that crime.

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.

Firstly I really don’t think it’s that simple. I think it’s easy to conceive of situations where the *boy *is coerced, or where the girl is not only willing, but even the initiator. Certainly I can remember when I was in my early 20s several situations where girls under 18 hit on me very directly / overtly (disclaimer again: not that that would make it OK, and I never hooked up with any girl on the wrong side of the line).
With all due respect, I think there is a failure of imagination of some here to just see these situations as a single scenario, with maybe a handwave about “rare exceptions”. I don’t think the exceptions either way are so rare.

Secondly, even if harm were just “doubtful”, as long as it’s non-zero it’s still a situation where an adult is entering into that relationship knowing full well she/he could be causing psychological harm to the minor, and negatively affecting their future relationships and life in general.

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.

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 imbalancesindicate 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%

Nothing is really that simple, which is why we leave it up to judges and prosecutors to determine specifics.
So we vote for judge’s that seem to share our views and trust them to make those determinations.

If the judge decides coercion was severe, they give a severe sentence. If not, they give a lighter sentence.

So far it seems the majority have decided it’s just not as severe in cases of woman on boy.

The alpha thing is flawed , but the attraction to authority i will say is definitely not flawed.
Doesn’t diminish your point but just FYI i guess. The alpha male is disproven concept taken in it’s entirety.

I’d say the treatment of male and female statutory rapists isn’t the same but it probably should be. No matter how we try to fancy up the romantic nature of an encounter between a 15 year old and and 30 year old (Call Me By Your Name), it’s still a crime for a reason. The punishment should be based on precedent, whatever the going rate is. I’m not saying that I didn’t fantasize as a teenager about certain adult women—hell, I had posters of Charlie’s Angels in my room—but I didn’t act on those impulses.

Snip. I think this is the correct answer. For all of the progress we have made, I still think that under the surface people tend to view the male as the “head” of a marriage or a relationship. It is not at all like it was in 1850, 1950, or even 1985, but the subtlety is still there.

I think this may be technically correct but I don’t agree with your conclusion. The thing that makes it illegal is the capability to give consent, and it is presumed that someone that young is not competent to give fully informed consent to a sex act and therefore is coerced, even if that person submits voluntarily. It is presumed that someone that age is not mature enough to understand the full ramifications of what they are ostensibly consenting to.

Just curious–how many conversations did you have with your 20-year-old girlfriend about what the two of you would do it she got pregnant? What would you have done if she got pregnant on purpose? The answer from most 16-year-olds would be, “Huh?” but these are life-changing events.

nm

This is an extremely important point. It highlights the differences inherent in the realities of teenage girls and teenage boys which make comparing them in terms of harm inflicted as victims of predatorial sexual crimes impossible to regard as purely equal. Similar, no doubt. But not mirror images. The question becomes to what extent do these gender differences mitigate the consequences for the perp? I should think a pretty small amount. After all, the crime is borne of the perpetrator’s actions, not of the victim’s consequences. But those consequences are relevant. I guess im saying idk shit. I could have saved a lot of time and just said that.

You know what they say, “You win almost everything, you lose one or two.” Or something like that.