Age differences in relationships.

Remove all ads!

I'm not so sure about the sixteen and fourteen year old...

While I know it is legal and not a huge difference in years...

For me, life as a sixteen year old was a WORLD away from life as a fourteen year old. If I was sixteen and one of my friends was having sex with a fourteen year old, I would definitely think it was a bit creepy and I guess...backward?...not sure of the word I am looking for...

 

A man aged 40 could perhaps love a girl in mid teens. Most likely, however, he simply lusts for young girls. If she reciprocates, she might genuinely love him, but most likely it's some shape of Electra syndrom. It's also possible to love a close relative "this way" without being an incest freak (if you haven't lived with a sibling, for instance, especially if it's a half one, let alone cousins), but it's not really likely. It's more or less safe to assume some sort of perversion in both cases. I would restrict it if only mutual sexual satisfaction would be the case, but it's hard to tell. However, when it somehow involves possible corruption (ie parental figures who aren't biological parents, clerics not sworn to chastity, teachers, bosses, older collateral relatives etc) and the case isn't some obvious romantic id... idyll, I would outlaw any sexual activity at all (though not necessarilly prevent them from meeting) until full legal age, not even mere age of consent.

 

I had a relationship with a 38 year old when I was 19 and it was amazing. I recommend all young men to go out with older women.

 

But where should the young men go to find these willing older women?

 

It is called statuatory rape. The person over 16 has convinced someone who is not in the position to make informed decisions about their life to have sex. Thus they did not give consent. Thus it is rape.

 

He might love her, she might lust for him. Is it fair to second guess how they feel and not do the same with other couples?
Shall we question every male who goes out with a female on the basis that he might just be lusting for females in general?
Or that every female who goes out with a male does that because she loves him and not because she might feel lust for men?

I know it's called statutory rape. I call it discrimination.
What makes you think it could not be the younger person who convinces the older person? Could we please have a reverse statutory rape for those seduced by younger persons?

Here are the Age of Consent limits for some selected countries (M/F, M/M and F/F sex respectively):
- France 15/15/15
- Italy 14/14/14
- Japan 13/13/13
- Spain 13/13/13
- Sweden 15/15/15
- UK 16/16/16

And some US states:
- California 18/18/18
- Texas 17/law invalidated/law invalidated
- New York 17/17/17
- Hawaii 14/no law/no law

What do you make of these? It would seem that in Japan a person can make an informed choice at 13 when on the other coast of the Pacific it takes five years longer for a person to develop that capacity. Reasonable?

 

It doesn't have to be the same for all countries. It's simply the law there. If you don't like the law of a country either try to change it via the legal methods, leave or put up with it.

 

Exactly.
In effect that's what we're doing here. Discussing whether we think the law (or the commonly dominant morality) is right or not.

 

That is smart and all, but not quite here. "In general" is not the same as between a minor and an adult. If they're adult, that's their problem. If they aren't adult, well... we need to take some steps. From a legal standpoint, it's rape when they have sex. Let's leave it at that, one shouldn't mess too much in the law or it will become too messy to fulfil its function. However, on a moral level, a relationship between an adult a not-quite-adult may actually not be altogether wrong, even if it's not really platonic (of course, sex is still on the verge of rape). That is if the relationship is based on love and the people just happen to find themselves in unfavourable circumstances concerning the age of one of them. However, paedophilia is a different story and should never be condoned, not even in form of benefit of doubt. For a young girl, a relationship with a paedophile will most probably be destructive. A relationship with a man that same ago but who isn't a paedophile but for some reason has fallen in genuine love with her (still, I find this very improbable, although a possibility exists) may not be destructive. Still, no excuse to make exception from age of consent for sex.

 

I thought that was one of the points of discussing it?

Statutory rape is not rape. If you mean statutory rape then you should use that term and not "rape".

Sex is a wonderful thing. Denying people from having sex based on age is discrimination. Pure and simple. That's my opinion.

 

I beg to remind you that the world isn't one big United States. The term statutory rape isn't a legal term elsewhere unless it refers to the US construction of statutory rape.

If one of the persons involved in sexual intercourse is below the age of consent, he or she cannot consent validly to that intercourse. As a result, he or she does not consent. Where there's no consent, there's rape. Hence: rape.

In penal codes in non-common-law countries, this is classified as sexual abuse of minors and tends to end up a paragraph or two before or after casual rape.

Of course it is discrimination, technically. However, just about every choice you make involves a kind of discrimination in the same sense.

It is reasonable to prevent adults from having sex with minors even if both want it. That is because sex is mere aerobic not yet for all people and minors are banned from it as they're unable to understand the implications of the fact and all possible ramifications of their decision.

This is not the same kind of discrimination as racism or paying female employers worse wages.

The world can't be a beautiful place for everyone and I see no reason why it should be so for paedophiles.

No old man will be touching my daughter (supposing I'll have one), period.

 

Kind of a sweeping generalization.
In some countries you supposedly understand the implications at the age of 18 while in others you understand them at 13.
That only makes sense once you understand that the main reason for these laws are not to protect "minors" but to protect the interest of anti-sex groups.

 

AFAIK, the age of consent for 'regular' intercourse in Australia is something like 16 now with the age of consent for homosexual intercourse being about the same after fairly recently being lowered from 18 or 21 or something.
Anyway, what I can't understand is that when it comes to Family Law, the courts say 'children' can make their own decisions at about 13 or 14 when it comes to who they live with if their parents are separated but the Age Of Consent is 16. What's the difference here?
Granted that's and risks diverting us all but I felt I needed to vent.

But to get back on topic. I personally would not like the idea of my boys or any future daughters I may have being in a relationship with a much older person without being assured of their complete willingness, and even then (ego-stroking aside) would likely still be uneasy, but that's because I can't see myself being comfortable if I were in that situation at a young age. Dating? Maybe. Intimacy? No way.

 

The law is all about sweeping generalisations. Establishing an equal age of consent for everyone is better than performing individualised examinations, don't you think? Complete laissez-fairism is out of question for most societies, thankfully.

It's first of all important to understand that your far-fetched suppositions are not facts and that there is nothing to understand there. That someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't necessarily make him not understand the facts from which you derive hunch-based conclusions.

There are various ages of consent, from 7 for most basic consenting, through 13 for pretty much advanced options to 18 for all of them, except where 21 is the last step (e.g. some US states alcohol age and in some countries the marrying age for males). Sex is somewhere between the more advanced options and full access. Where exactly it's placed depends on a given society.

That some societies have largely different ages of consent and that some people think it's undue discrimination because everyone should be allowed to do everything no matter the consequences, doesn't still make an excuse to place laws and legal age of consent out of this discussion.

 

I dislike generalizations, I believe that moral issues can only be decided on a case by case basis. If a minor and an adult both desire sexual relations with eachother, there is no reason why they cannot have them. However, the minor should be advised by parents, guardians or friends. I don't know.
Like I said, I dislike generalizations. I also belief in the power of choice, it's the one thing we truly have.
I have a Chinese friend who believes that it is horribly wrong for two teenagers to have a relationship even if the age difference is only 1-2 years, for instance a 15 year old with a 16 year old...
Once (recently) I dated a girl 2 years my senior and it was wonderful. She was technically an adult while I was still a minor, and she's off to college now, while I'm still in high school, but I don't regret it.

The law shouldn't be obeyed simply because it's the law. It should be obeyed because it's understood. I know there will always be laws that are illogical, but that's still what I believe. This doesn't mean that I think laws should be broken callously or for fun, but they shouldn't be obeyed simply out of fear.
As for morals, I believe that right and wrong are not absolutes, and can never be absolutes, thus there is no actual right and wrong. The morality of a relationship is decided by those involved, not by those who simply look at age.

 

No.
If someone is hurt by someone else you can use other laws.

What about sports?
You run a high risk of getting hurt in every sport I can think of. I'd say that the risk of getting hurt is much higher in sport than while having sex. Why not have a general ban on sport for all persons below 18?
Parents need to give permission? Well let that be the case for everything in that case.

 

@Alexander the Apostate:

But according to what criteria? Absolutes cannot be avoided altogether. Even if you judge the deed basing on your... I don't know... sense, hunch?, it's still absolute from the point of view of everyone else than you alone.

The minor is not a fully developed sexual object, so to say. Whatever sexual activity takes place, it's the adult that wants it and the minor at best consents to it because he or she knows that it will please the adult. That's hardly conscious and independent decision to involve in sexual activity. More like concession. Also, the minor is no more able to consent validly to sexual intercourse than to a, let's say, $10 million donation.

There are many things in nature over which we hold no power and yet they still affect us. Quite contrary, in many cases the elements have power over us and we can do nothing about that. Democracy is more or less a myth (you choose between candidates but you don't choose who's going to be a candidate, and you have no power over whom they will employ, how much they will pay and whatever else they will do once elected). Until a certain age, parents oversee you. Later, you have teachers, bosses, officers, politicians, superiors, the law, whatever. There's no such thing as perfect liberty in this world.

It is important as well to bear in mind that liberties of one person are equally as important as the rights of any other person. Following from this, liberties don't serve to allow people to perform activities harmful to others. In this particular case, the minor is too young to have sex, to make conscious decisions about the sexual side of the relationship and, further, the running of the family that is about to originate.

That's an extreme. However, small age differences override the minor/adult division. If in a country the age of consent is 15, you aren't going to jail for bedding a 14 year old if you're 16. Or even fully adult (18), at least not in this country. These laws are directed against paedophilia and where the age difference is small, paedophilia isn't the case.

I'm fairly positive that the percentage of people who agree with your Chinese friend is small. Contrary, I believe most people will find it somehow more natural for a boy aged 16 to date girls aged 14-15 than 16. And no one really would complain if she were 17.

Laws serve a purpose. Technically, it all comes down to rights of various subjects and rules that say what to do when these rights collide. A legal rule protects something that the society deems valuable and deserving protection. Law that exists simply to regulate makes little to no sense. Also, a law that favours minority interest or even personal interest isn't going to be accepted and obeyed by any given society except the ones that are used to obeying the letter of the law the most (a couple exist).

If there's no right or wrong, there's no need for any morals whatsoever. Technically, it's possible to have an ethical system reflecting the will of the majority in a given group, but that's hardly morals. It can be an ethical code and even a functional one. It may even have very positive outcome. However, it isn't morals and it's only as good as the ekhm... (morals?) principles that the majority chooses to follow.

 

That is misinformation. I would say that it's a lie, except that you might actually believe that it is the truth.

Even very young children can enjoy sexual stimulation. Masturbation is natural, it is a sexual activity and people normally engage in that activity well before reaching the age of consent.
Why is it that a "minor" can enjoy sex, but according to you can not enjoy sex with another person?

 

Earl Grey, I understand that for such people as you enjoyment is the chief concern in life, but that's not the case with a great number of people. There are also people who can be bothered by such things as general goodness, proper development or actually what's right and wrong.

Stop attributing your conclusions to me, please.

Which doesn't still make it right and commendable, but that's not the case.

There's a difference between masturbation and having a sexual relationship with someone who could be your parent. If you need more information, please refer to the beginning of this post.

I would rather you said nothing if you didn't have anything polite or at least sensible to say. That's an old rule, but always a good one.

 

*Looks at the list above and mutters "Geeze, they don't trust us in America, do they? What happened to 'Land of the Free' huh?" * You see, I am thirteen. Yah, but don't dwell on it. Just because most 13-25 year olds are stupid, doesn't mean the rest of us are!!! I'm an intelligent person and already know what I want to do with my life. I grew up around mom & dad. That means, if you know something about sex, I probably already know it. My last boyfriend was 19. (We met on the net, so it probably doesn't count to you, right?) Just because we're younger, doesn't mean we're dumb. I met a guy about 24 once, and I knew more about sex than he did, and he's had it!
I think if you're in love with an older/younger person, and you think you're ready for the "big step" (no, not marriage, dork), make sure you're in love with him/her. And if you're in love, really in love, and you want to do it, than do it!