The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Minors Who Have Sex Before The Age of Consent With Adults Should Face Legal Consequences

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,218 times Debate No: 26192
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




There are many things that we as a society have wisely judged as something that minors should not be allowed as they are not mature enough yet. These things include alcohol, tobacco, and sex. Yet only with the last one are minors given free reign to be free of prosecution when they freely indulge in these activities with an adult.

Minors who choose to do things they have been forbidden to do due to their lack of maturity should face consequences in order to deter them from this behavior and to send a clear message to them that this is not age appropriate.

Creating this new crime of "willful engagement in sexual relations underaged" will help send a clear message to the youth that the age of consent laws are not just for protecting them from perverts but also meant to mean that they are not mature enough for sex just the same as they are not mature enough for alcohol or cigarettes.

Minors that willingly have sex whether with another minor or an adult could just face a small fine and probation for a first time offense, and then juvenile hall for their second. They certainly shouldn't be placed on the sex offender registry. But they should at least face punishment.

Since it puts adults at risk who mean to follow the law minors that lie about their age to obtain sexual services should be considered to have committed an additional offense, both civil and criminal.

This obviously wouldn't apply to minors who are below the age of accountability or minors who are forced to have sex, just minors that willingly engage in it.

In some cases immunity could be granted to minors in order to get them to testify against statutory rapists. That would help increase prosecutions of statutory rapists.

Ways a person could get convicted:
1. Caught in the act or on a recording device.
2. As the result of evidence showing sexual relations under age must have happened. This would include STDs unless there is an explanation of how the person may have gotten the STD without engaging in any illegal activity, so another law should also be created, the crime of "being guilty of either having committed willful engagement in sexual relations underaged OR having engaged in illegal use of a drug or drug paraphrenalia", the lesser penalty would apply.
3. Other ways of proving "sexual engagement underaged" would include pregnancy or having an abortion or a miscarriage, or obtaining the morning after pill as a minor.

How to investigate and find them:
Minors should be allowed to buy contraceptives, but this should be held as evidence of intent to engage in sexual relations giving probable cause to the police to record the evidence, watch the person, talk to their friends and family, in order to collect enough evidence to lead to catching and arresting them. Cops undercover and hired "snitch students" could also be sent into high schools and even middle schools to find and bust minors who are willfully engaging in sex.


I accept.

My opponent's argument rests on the axiom that minors are not mature enough for sex. His only evidence for this claim, however, is that society has judged this. However, society can be wrong. Just because more people hold a certain view than the opposite view does not morally prove anything.

Everybody matures at a different rate. Saying that minors are not mature enough is wrong, because a minor can be much more mature than an adult.

In his description of the punishment that may be given to minors, he states that they should not be put on the sex offender registry. This is obvious, as no offense has been committed. This whole argument is like punishing people for committing suicide.

In terms of lying to the adult, the lying should only be used to acquit a statutory rape defendant. Not to convict a teen of something that shouldn't be a crime.

Next, my opponent says that minors under the age of accountability should not be held to these laws. This is absurd. My opponent's whole point is to protect young children from sex, but only wishes to punish the sexually mature children. While I hold that neither demographic should be punished, the thought of a sexually active 8 year old is much more disturbing than the thought of a sexually active 16 year old.

Now for the ways to get caught:
1. Obviously this would be considered evidence
2/3. My opponent wishes to use STDs, pregnancy, etc... as evidence. While this would happen, it would extremely cruel to punish teenagers after they have been through such things. STDs and unwanted pregnancies are punishment enough. Also, these consequences are a far more effective deterrent.

If my opponent's proposed law is to promote sexual responsibility, spying on kids for buying contraceptives is extremely counterproductive. All the problems caused by underage sex would increase, because no teen would buy contraception. The reason that a contraception law is a deterrent but an underage sex law is not is simple: sex is human nature, sexual responsibility is not.
Debate Round No. 1


Con says this is wrong because everybody matures at a different rate. By the same logic we should get rid of statutory rape laws, because sometimes the minor might have been mature enough to consent. We should also get rid of age limits on alcohol and cigarettes, because what if the minor is mature enough.

Minors that lie about their age to get sex are putting well-intending adults at risk. In most jurisdictions mistaking the age is not considered an excuse. It should, but it's not. So we need to penalize minors that lie about their age for purposes of getting sex. Minors that lie about their age to get alcohol or cigarettes are also punished. There's no good reason for an exception.

A sexually active 8 year old was almost certainly confused and pushed into having sex by the adult even if the adult had somehow gotten the 8 year old's active participation. Same principle as would apply in most alcohol or tobacco cases involving an 8 year old. The kid is unlikely to even know what these things are at that age or to have a very poor idea of it.

If a kid is buying contraceptives what reason would he be doing that unless he's going to have sex? Obviously that's very good evidence that he's about to engage in sex, so spying on them makes sense.

Sex may be human nature, but the same can be said of pleasure-seeking in general. We make minors wait to enjoy the pleasures of alcohol and cigarettes and even sex. The only difference with the last one is that only adults that help minors have sex get in trouble. This sends a message to the minor that they are not accountable for their actions. It also enables minors to lie about their age, and then blackmail the adult. If both were culpable that would deter that from happening.

Minors can masturbate. They don't need to be having sex.


Statutory rape laws should not exist, since nobody should be punished for consensual sex. Age limit laws do nothing to prevent minors taking alcohol and cigarettes. The only people who can determine someone's maturity level are themselves.

As for lying, lying would be unnecessary if these things were legal.

The comment about the 8 year old is a straw man. It doesn't matter how unlikely the situation is. It is possible. The policy if such a situation would occur must thus be in place, and logical.

Obviously a kid buying contraception is probably for sex. That doesn't mean they should be spied on.

In the current system, people who sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors are punished. I agree that it sends a message about accountability. It is for that reason that the law should not get involved, because it lowers the impact of direct consequences in favor of arbitrary consequences. Punishing minors for having sex does not deter lying about age, it encourages it. And punishing both parties for the sex is just silly. Punishing one at least pretends there is a victim, but punishing both clearly means that it was a victimless crime.

Adults can masturbate too. There is no difference. This argument is like saying people don't need to eat because they can just imagine food.
Debate Round No. 2


MasturDbtor forfeited this round.


Extend Arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


Minors are not developed or mature enough to consent to having sexual relationships. Masturbation is different. You don't risk STDs or unwanted pregnancies with masturbation.

The entire consensus of the American medical experts is that children are not mature enough to healthily engage in sexual activity. That is why it is and should remain illegal.


Preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not a reason for masturbation over sex, given my opponent's statements on contraception. If promoting sexual responsibility is what he wants, he should not discourage contraception.

I would very much like to see the study that says all medical experts agree with my opponent's claim.

Just because something is unhealthy does not mean it should be illegal. That is absurd.

My opponent has not responded to several of my claims. I will consider them conceded unless he responds in the final round.
Debate Round No. 4


MasturDbtor forfeited this round.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 5 years ago
If only I could accept this, I would destroy you (currently in debate with you so I can't).

I hate paedophilia more than any other sexual crime on Earth.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Fascist Alert!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Dat Meheecan Sci-Fi Director beat dat Master Debating Alien.