amroth Share Posted August 3, 2006 those who voted "No" probably thingking of sex. you pesky pervets. what's wrong going out during that age. if it is for something good.. why not. :D Link to post Share on other sites
yizuman Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) The law here in my state, no 18 year old can have sex with a 16 or 17 year old. It's construed as statuary rape. I don't think it's not moral for a 16 year to have sex with a 13 year old. To me that's pedophilia. That's my opinion. Yiz Edited August 3, 2006 by yizuman Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy0 Share Posted August 3, 2006 IMO if it's just going out, then it's just borderlining on ok. But sex ... no. Link to post Share on other sites
Soham Share Posted August 3, 2006 for girl i would say- you get your parents to drive you around. for the guy- Aim higher, date older girls Link to post Share on other sites
Colin-uk Veteran Share Posted August 3, 2006 as long as they arnt breaking the law i think its acceptable i dated a 14y/o when i was 18, we didnt have sex though. Link to post Share on other sites
Shetland Share Posted August 3, 2006 too young. there is a HUGE difference between a 16 and a 13 year old in every way despite it being a few years. Link to post Share on other sites
Zelath Share Posted August 3, 2006 It is not like they are complete different age groups. Also, there are adults who are maybe 20 marrying a 40 year old, maybe even older, so if a 20 year difference is acceptable, why would a 3 year difference be any problem? Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy0 Share Posted August 3, 2006 It is not like they are complete different age groups. Also, there are adults who are maybe 20 marrying a 40 year old, maybe even older, so if a 20 year difference is acceptable, why would a 3 year difference be any problem? Because being 20 and 40 is a lot different to being 13 and 16. Link to post Share on other sites
KingDrew Share Posted August 3, 2006 I dated a 15 year-old when I was 17. No problems there, but seriously. wtf are you thinking? it's not going to matter in upcoming years and I doubt you will even care for her. Link to post Share on other sites
The Pink Panther Share Posted August 3, 2006 Of course it's acceptable if both parties have no problems. How ridiculous is it that the government feels the need to dictate what we do with our own bodies? Link to post Share on other sites
KingDrew Share Posted August 3, 2006 Because being 20 and 40 is a lot different to being 13 and 16. Agreed Link to post Share on other sites
Smigit Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) No it isnt. And girls mature faster than guys. Here its NORMAL for the girls to date 1 year above so 3 isnt totally unrealistic. three years isn't alot but at all really, especially when you consider the rate males and females develop durring their adolescence years. Is it the norm? No. Would the general public warm to it? No. Is it gross and innapropriate? I'd say no. Hell about the 40 - 20 year thing being ok and the 16 - 13 one not being. The only reason one is acceptable and the other isnt is because people in the 20 - 40 age range decided at some point that it was unacceptable. In essence its no more or no less acceptable, just society accepts one more than the other. I'd argue theres ALOT more issues with a 20 + age difference between partners, especially if they plan on having children. It's one of those things that society just blindly accepts because other people in society accepts it. Another example may be that it's not appropriate for women to walk around bare chested but a male can. Furthermore that rule ceases to apply if said women is on the beach where it's actually ok to be topless. Theres so, so many stupid standards like this floating around in society that makes no sense and the one that states kids shoulsnt date anyone outside 1 year difference is one of them. Yeah, a limit is good but 16 and 13 doesnt really seem innapropriate to me, with biological, maturity, mental factors ect factored in. It should be based on the childs maturity levels and thats where the parents and friends should be stepping in if a concensus is reached that that particular child isnt ready. Edited August 3, 2006 by Smigit Link to post Share on other sites
dagamer34 Share Posted August 3, 2006 No it isnt. And girls mature faster than guys. Here its NORMAL for the girls to date 1 year above so 3 isnt totally unrealistic. three years isn't alot but at all really, especially when you consider the rate males and females develop durring their adolescence years. Is it the norm? No. Would the general public warm to it? No. Is it gross and innapropriate? I'd say no. Hell about the 40 - 20 year thing being ok and the 16 - 13 one not being. The only reason one is acceptable and the other isnt is because people in the 20 - 40 age range decided at some point that it was unacceptable. In essence its no more or no less acceptable, just society accepts one more than the other. I'd argue theres ALOT more issues with a 20 + age difference between partners, especially if they plan on having children. It's one of those things that society just blindly accepts because other people in society accepts it. Another example may be that it's not appropriate for women to walk around bare chested but a male can. Furthermore that rule ceases to apply if said women is on the beach where it's actually ok to be topless. Theres so, so many stupid standards like this floating around in society that makes no sense and the one that states kids shoulsnt date anyone outside 1 year difference is one of them. Yeah, a limit is good but 16 and 13 hardly doesnt really seem innapropriate to me, with biological, maturity, mental factors ect factored in. Err... it's not the age difference that really matters. It's the fact that 13yr olds usually aren't able to handle 16yr olds around them. Personally, I'd just say that you shouldn't be dating if you've never been in high school, because at least then you're used to seeing older people and how they act. ;) Link to post Share on other sites
leesmithg Share Posted August 3, 2006 16 and above is seen as adult. Under 16 is seen as child. Never the twain shall meet. You have your whole adult lives ahead of you after 16, why get yourselves involved with a potentially dangerous situation or lumber yourself with a sexual disease or a baby? Get educated, get a career, find a partner, date/go out, enjoy meet the right person get married. Thats not so hard, if you're worried about peer pressure, you're a weak individual with no personality. Link to post Share on other sites
Angel Blue01 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I'm not sure. My best friend was 16 dating a 14 year old girl, then 17 dating a 14 year old girl, and now 18 dating a barly 16 year old girl (she was 15 when they started). It really does worry me. The past relationships really didnt work out, but that may be due to their personalities as much as their ages. The current relationship is really strong. they love each other, so I have no poblems, although its strange that my friend will be goign to college with me while datign a girl who's a junior in high school! Link to post Share on other sites
NightmarE D Share Posted August 3, 2006 Personally, I'd just say that you shouldn't be dating if you've never been in high school, because at least then you're used to seeing older people and how they act. Just because a person is 13 it doesn't mean they act like a child. I have 13 year old nieces and nephews that act more mature than my 20 something friends. And 13 and 16 isn't a big age difference. If they like each other and the guyisn't just wanting sex (that could go for the girl too), who cares? The only thing that would hurt them would be the oldest ones friends making fun of the other for dating someone younger. And if they have friends that feel the need to make fun of them, those aren't true friends. Link to post Share on other sites
simsie Share Posted August 3, 2006 It's one of those things that society just blindly accepts because other people in society accepts it. At my school when i went out with someone 1.5 yrs younger (14.5-13) everyone as a group had a right go at me because its what others were doing but 9/10 times when i asked them on their own they were fine with it. Err... it's not the age difference that really matters. It's the fact that 13yr olds usually aren't able to handle 16yr olds around them. Usually, but prehaps in this case not, so if its one of those exceptions then its ok, but if not then there may be an issue. Link to post Share on other sites
Smigit Share Posted August 3, 2006 Err... it's not the age difference that really matters. It's the fact that 13yr olds usually aren't able to handle 16yr olds around them. Which is why it should be depenndant on the individuals involved not a blanket "this is right and this is wrong" attitude to teen relationships. And making such "rules" for kids wont work anyway because it's a rule made by an older generation who probably did the exact same thing when they were kids with no real consequence. Link to post Share on other sites
devn00b Share Posted August 3, 2006 As long as the 13 year olds parents are alright with it, whats the issue. 3 years difference isnt alot, esp as you get older. Hell There are people out there dating peeps 10-30 years older/younger than them, Hello Anna Nichole Smith. My dad is 3 years younger than my mom, and they knew eachother since they where little kids. I agree you cant make a blanket statement on somthing like this. All 13 year olds are different as are 16 year olds. I suppose it comes down to the question "why" Why would a 16 year old want to date a 13 year old? Link to post Share on other sites
aleni Share Posted August 3, 2006 im reporting this paedophile thrread to the FBI! lol. btw, i dont think its necessary for having a relationship in such a young age. check back this thread after you reach 21 and earning your own money by doing some real life jobs, u will see some monkey love business thread here and you will chuckle. Link to post Share on other sites
Musashi22 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Unacceptable, for the fact at that age, even if they have a certain maturity level...put in the wrong situation with hormones and emotional development still going on. It wouldn't be wise. I mean its 13 and 16, haven't even reached adult hood yet....But anyway thats my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
Gavin001 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Hmmm this is a tuff one! I dnt really see a problem with say a 18 year old going with a 21 year old! But i dnt really think its right for a 16 year old to be going with a 13 year old gurl :no: Link to post Share on other sites
dan Share Posted August 3, 2006 You know there is a fail safe rule for working out the youngest person you can go out with. Take your age, divide that by 2, and then add 7 so 16/2=8+7=15 So yeah 13 is a bit young Link to post Share on other sites
dead.cell Share Posted August 3, 2006 You know there is a fail safe rule for working out the youngest person you can go out with. Take your age, divide that by 2, and then add 7 so 16/2=8+7=15 So yeah 13 is a bit young So that means the youngest age a 12 year old can date is a 13 year old? Your math is flawed. --When I started going out with my girlfriend, she was 14 and I was 16. Now that I'm 18, people say she's too young for me and whatnot being only 16. I mean, when she's 18, I'll be 20 so I really fail to see how this is in any way wrong. Hell, my parents were about 10-15 years apart from each other. Link to post Share on other sites
metalguy90 Share Posted August 3, 2006 personally, thats a bit young to be dating at all. ;) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts