13 yr old daughter dating a 17yr old

thehappybutterfly

Running_On_Empty wrote: »

These are two teenagers doing what teenagers have done for millennia.
It's their hormones.
He isn't preying on a child, she's a willing participant.
The mother of the girl needs to inform her daughter exactly what will happen if she doesn't say no. And / or give her condoms.
The essential point here is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and anything else is irrelevant.
It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

No, it's about teaching right from wrong. It's about teaching self respect and morals. It's about learning self control. It's not about giving into your hormones/desires/wants regardless of the consequences. Because somebody will come along and fix it for us.

fedupnow

But she didn't have sex.

She has admitted to having told her step-sis that he touched her, she didn't like it, she asked him to stop and so he stopped.

He is denying it happened at all.


By all means, have a word, remind them of the law, STDs, unwanted pregnancies etc. But both of them.

thehappybutterfly

fedupnow wrote: »

But she didn't have sex.

She has admitted to having told her step-sis that he touched her, she didn't like it, she asked him to stop and so he stopped.

He is denying it happened at all.


By all means, have a word, remind them of the law, STDs, unwanted pregnancies etc. But both of them.

The debate's kind of gone beyond the OP's original post and gone into the hypothetical now.

lostinrates

Running_On_Empty wrote: »

These are two teenagers doing what teenagers have done for millennia.
.

It's certainly true that this has gone on for millennia, and that in years gone by or in some places she could not oly be sexually active but married and a mother by now.

Other things that have gone on and have been considered natural for many years include female oppression and circumcision, the 'natural' dominance of men in business and politics, things like badger baiting and ock fighting, a spare the rod spoilt the child approach to child rearing, a social respect of family boundries that mean domestic violence is nobody else's business, work houses, slavery, animal abuse etc etc etc

Surely, we strive to improve standards of society by realising that millennia of precident are not always excuse enough. Many people at times and in places have felt the other things I use as examples are 'only natural'.

fedupnow

Oh for heaven's sake.

THEY DID NOT HAVE SEX. Hypothetically or otherwise.

thehappybutterfly

fedupnow wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake.

THEY DID NOT HAVE SEX. Hypothetically or otherwise.

Yes, we have established that fact but we're still having a hypothetical debate. Is that ok?

Torry_Quine

poold wrote: »

Well no they are not "Children", they are Teenagers or young Adults. Also the law does change for Teenagers aged between the age of 13-15, whereas automatically any sexual conduct with an under 13 would be an offense, it is accepted that age ranges like the OP do happen and are fully consensual so are tried to reflect circumstances, so no need for scare words like "rape" and "peedo".

The Parents or Guardian need to instil boundaries in this Girl and encourage her to be comfortable enough to refuse and be safe. However seeing as the relationship has not included sex of any form this is just people getting worked up.

Someone of 13 is not a young adult but a teenager or older child!

People are not surprisingly worked up about the possibility of a child having under-age sex.

Torry_Quine

poold wrote: »

She isn't a "Child" .

The most recent study on this shows that a quarter of Women engage in sex under the age of 16. And 16 is quite a conservative age when you look at the rest of the world where they take maturity and circumstance into account.

I think you would have to be a pretty naive person to think that only people above the age of 16 engage in sexual activity and/or penetrative sex.

You are a child until at least the age of 16 and some would say 18

I'm totally in agreement that it would be naive to think that under 16 no-one has sex. I also think though that we don't have to just accept it though and we really need in this country to do something about it.

Torry_Quine

poold wrote: »

Would you see it fit to call a 15 year old a "Child" instead of a teenager or young Adult/person? Initialising Teenagers will not reduce sex under the age of consent. It is also extremely patronising.

Education is the key to empower young adults to make informed, safe decisions. Not calling them Children and expecting they will never engage in sexual activity.

Yes I would call a 15 year old a child. When was it decided that they weren't, note I did also say that they are teenagers.

Yes,education is the key and part of that is being honest about the stage of life that the child is at. Never have I said I don't expect that some of them, sadly, will have unlawful sex.:(

I hope you aren't sugesting that you become an adult when you have sex.

Nicki

For the record, I don't think a 13 year old should be having sex either, whether this is with another 13 year old, or a 17 year old boyfriend. To be honest, although it is legal, I also think 17 is a bit young to be having a sexual relationship too.

But this thread was about a 13 year old having a non sexual romantic relationship with a 17 year old, which involved one incident of "inappriopriate touching" which stopped immediately when the girl objected.

I personally think child sexual abuse is a very serious and real problem, and would be the first to leap to protect the girl, if she had been touched against her will by an adult male. But this wasn't the case here. These were two kids fooling around which went a little further than was wise, but stopped short of sex. We don't even know whether what was done was enought to consitute any form of offence.

I would have spoken to my daughter in OP's shoes and encouraged her to keep herself safe and not get into such a situation again until she was older. I might even have spoken to the boy or his parents depending on what happened. But I would not have jumped to the conclusion that the boy was a serial sexual abuser (as OP did) or equate what he did as being in any way as serious as the allegations currently in the press against Jimmy Saville (as OP also did). I think that diminishes the seriousness of the offences that genuine p-aedophiles commit and the trauma and devastation they leave behind, which does not do genuine victims any favours at all.

I would go further and say that if OP starts to feed this line to her daughter, the daughter will come to feel that she has been a victim, and that this may cause her distress and upset which she hadn't previously experienced and may colour her sexual experiences when she is old enough to have such relationships.