Your views on a 20yr male sexting a 16yr old girl.

Say I was sexting a 16 year old (im 20), didn't send any sexually explicit photos, maybe the odd topless one but generally just explicit messages, would you say it's okay, im not aware of the law regarding this.

That's the question I'm asking lol. There appears to be a lot of grey areas. And it will depend on intent and solicitation I guess.

Although it's illegal, do you think it's morally wrong. ? What if they're actually dating ?

what's the problem???

I did leave 'sexting' up to interpretation, but if there's nudes involved then it becomes illegal. But what about if there is no sexually explicit images involved and just messages.

you are quite correct... but PC Plod is the forces of law and order are more interested in busting people for rude pictures than rude epigrams.

Its absolutely disgusting and the fact that some people get away with it is even worse. If you're a minor and you're taking advantage of someone who may be vulnerable is unacceptable.

What's wrong with sexting someone who can legally actually have real non-text-based sex?

Age of consent is 16 yes, however I'm sure it's illegal to sext under 18s

Okay let's say you're 22/23, and you're graduated and maybe even have a job. A girl who just turned 16 is doing her GCSE's, what do you have in common? You're treating the girl like a booty call when she's at the age where she's probably started getting attention from boys, it's exciting and she'll probably fall for the guy when the guy may not feel the same way. She's more vulnerable to doing something she regrets/ sending nudes. Okay I know I'm generalising and there are exceptions e.g. the girl may feel ready to have sex/ want to sext and may be in relationship etc. So yes the legal age may be 16 but they may not be mentally prepared/ rushed into something they may not want to do.

So THAT is what is wrong.

Although it's illegal, do you think it's morally wrong. ? What if they're actually dating ?

I thought you were saying it's always disgusting, which seemed kind of ridiculous to me. It's clear when someone's taking advantage in a harmful manner (knowing all the facts ofc), but otherwise, there's not enough there to have such a strong view against it. Also I might be a little high and so probably not making full sense.

I just think that it's wrong to prey on young girls and ask for nudes. Okay I can kinda get the fact that if two 16 year olds want to sext or whatever but there's a bit of a age gap between 16 and 20. Sometimes guys may send "dick pics" to a girl who's young and they may feel like they have to return the favour. Why is it such a big deal to wait a couple of years where both parties know what they're getting themselves into. You were not at the same maturity at 16 as you are now, heck, even my maturity has changed a lot over the past few years.

I'm not talking about nudes, btw. As a guy I'll admit they're nearly always a gesture of wanting something in return, and doing that with a 16 yr old is most definitely wrong.

I think there's a big problem with the law here tbh. If it is illegal for a 16-17.999 year old to sexualise their bodies i.e. By taking and sending nudes, irrelevant of how old the recipient is, then it should be illegal to sexualise their body by actually having sex.

If people believe this law is fair then I would be surprised if you don't support raising age of consent to 18, since that's apparently when you're adult enough to make decisions about what to do with your own body.

At 16, admittedly, I was ready to do neither and thus did neither (probably cause I had a Nokia 3210 as well). But if I had a choice about whether to have sex or send a nude at 16, in terms of the least effect on me mentally/emotionally if I wasn't ready, I would choose the latter. Hence why I believe the law is clearly quite inconsistent.