Is it morally wrong for a 18 year-old man to have sex with a 48-year-old woman
Hypothetically speaking if I a 18 year old man paid a 48 year old woman to have sex with me and I wear a condom and we both consented to it is that morally wrong or is it morally okay?
In my opinion I think it's morally okay if a 18 year old man pays a 48 year old woman to have sex with him as long as they are both consenting to it. Because what they're doing is completely harmless.
You are viewing a single comment
You might get differing answers due to the payment portion of the scenario, but here's my 2 cents.
No, there's nothing morally wrong here at any level to me. This is legally ok as far as the ages go, pretty much everywhere.
As long as there's no power dynamic being abused, and both sides are consenting, go for it.
But what if hypothetically speaking a 16 year man has sex with a 21 year old woman do you think that is morally wrong or is it morally okay?
In my opinion I think it's morally okay for a 16 year old man to have sex with a 21 year old woman as long as the 16-year-old man is consenting to it and the 21 year old woman is not an authority figure to him because what they're are doing is completely harmless.
I'd venture a guess that in most developed countries, a 16 yo is not considered a man by legal or social definition.
I also feel like you're now not asking questions in earnest, but rather with ulterior motive.
I would say that you're assuming wrong
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_by_country
16 is the norm for consent, 18 for paid sex
I never said anything about age of consent. That's all you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
Age of consent isn't a legal or social form of maturity in your eyes?
Btw you also gain a bunch of rights like signing contracts or being allowed to vote with 16 where i live
I only said that in most countries a 16 yo wouldn't be considered a man (adult). I linked you to what I was referring to, the age of majority. Take what I said at face value, there wasn't anything more meaningful to it.
If you think the genders matter in this hypothetical, that says a lot. No, age of consent exists for a reason.
One of your scenarios is legal the other is not, simple as that. A 16 year old cannot consent in most places, no consent = immoral.
I think it’s flawed to say that something is moral if it is legal and vice versa.
True which is why I personally don't get my morals from the law. I considered everything to be morally neutral to me unless I'm given a legitimate reason is to why a particular thing is morally wrong.
For example I believe pedophilia is morally wrong because a prepubescent child 13 and under does not know the long term social ramifications of having sex with someone. A prepubescent child that is 13 and under can not informly consent to having sex with someone.
But I do believe that most 16 years old do know the long term social ramifications of having sex with someone. They know that if they have unprotected sex they could get a std or get pregnant. Which is why it's morally okay in my opinion for a 16-year-old to have sex with a 21 year old as long as the 16-year-old is consenting to it and the 21 year old is not authority figure. Because what they're doing is completely harmless
The age of consent is 16 in most parts of the world is 16. So you are literally just wrong on that. In Canada a 16 year old can legally consent to having sex with whoever they want as long as the person they are having sex with isn't an authority figure.
A 14 year old can also legally consent to having sex with anyone who is 5 year older than them in Canada.
Legality does not imply morality.
While older laws concerning statutory rape criminalize sex with children by way of the idea that they cannot consent to sex, modern laws concerning sexual abuse of children usually don't reference the concept of consent. This allows for more severe penalties when there's actually no consent, as the offender can also be charged with sexual assault.
I'd recommended googling, "Why is there an age limit for consent". I'd put a link, but I do not want that search connected to me in any way. When it comes to these issues, it is good to do some research to see if there is already an established researched reason before asking for random people's opinion on it. Sometimes, people get stuck in "bad" echo chambers that try to justify certain behaviors. The best thing to do is look up some studies on the issue to form an educated opinion on it.
Obligatory: I am against any form of pedophilia and do not support it in any way.
Im strongly against pedophilia because a prepubescent Child 13 and under does not know the long term social ramifications of having sex with someone. They can not informly consent to have sex with an someone.
A 21 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old is not pedophilia and it is ephebophilia.
And I do not think ephebophilia is morally wrong as long the 16 year old is consenting to it and the 21 year old is not an authority figure to the 16-year-old because what they're doing is completely harmless.
And there we have it, folks.
Yeah… I should have gone with my gut and removed the post immediately.
A minor can't consent, period. Even if they say all the right words. That's what "statutory" means in statutory rape. It is the adult's responsibility to avoid and disengage from that contact, at all times.
Considering the power dynamic between someone who is legally a child and is restricted in some liberties, and an adult who has far greater liberties, trust, and power, I certainly wouldn't consider it ethical.
So would also say that it's morally wrong for a 18 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old woman who is legally considered a minor. Since you said that minors can't consent period.