Haiku Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'm just very concerned with how, as a society, we've elided the serious problem of adults preying sexually on prepubescent children who have no capacity to consent with what we seem to think is an equally serious problem of adults entering into consensual sexual relationships with post-pubescent teens. There are good reasons to not want our teens having sex, and good reasons to want them to have relationship with people their own age, but I just don't think this is something that should be a criminal matter. :iagree: I think that we, as a society, have created more problems than we have solved by insisting that 15, 16, and 17 year olds are still children and forcing them to accept childish roles. In many cases, even people with 18, 19, 20, or 21 year olds still don't accept that their children are adults and try to confine them to children's rules and standards. I have tried very hard to raise my now-17 year old to be mature and responsible (and in many respects she is), but I am frequently up against the cultural idea that expecting teenagers to behave in a mature manner and carry out responsibilities is unrealistic and unkind. We've created young adults with a sense of entitlement and then we whine when they behave in like manner or act appalled when they behave like adults. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I have to admit, I find that kind of demeaning to older teen girls. I was fully capable of consenting to sex at 16 and 17. I have friends who consented to sex at 14 and 15. Would it have been the wisest choice? No. But, it was a choice I was capable of making, and the idea that any guy over 18 who would have had sex with me was a predator who deserved to spend his life publicly labelled a sex offender alongside adults who molested and raped small children just appalls me. IMHO, a person is capable of handling a choice when they are capable of choosing the wisest option and then sticking to it. But YMMV. Seriously, my 7 year old is capable of making a choice concerning any question in the world. He's not capable of the Wisest choice, though, which is why he needs a parent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 In California the reasons are more economic. They have the most teen pregnancies of any state. Most of the dads are adults. Obviously, a LOT of teen girls are *not* capable of making good choices in this area. I was listening to a podcast recently (NPR Planet Money, I think) that had a segment about a more effective campaign for reducing teen STD transmission and pregnancy rates. Instead of telling teens to not have sex, the campaign focused on informing teen girls that older men are far more likely to infect them with STDs. The teen girls who chose to have sex anyway were more likely to have partners their own age AND they were more likely to insist on condom usage (thereby preventing STDs and pregnancy). One of the commentators pointed out that a teen with a teen has less of a power struggle than a teen with an adult. A teen girl can more easily insist that a teen boy use a condom than she can insist that a 30/40/50-year-old man do the same. I thought it was interesting and wondered if that had anything to do with the high percentage of adults fathering babies born to teen mothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 IMHO, a person is capable of handling a choice when they are capable of choosing the wisest option and then sticking to it. But YMMV. I think life in general shows us that this doesn't necessarily happen with regularity, even among "legal" adults. And sometimes, the "wisest" option isn't even the one that is the "right" option. Much depends on which factors are considered. The "wisest" option would have been not to adopt kids with medical issues ... if retirement savings, personal flexibility, and avoiding stigma were most important to me. The "wisest" option would have been to adopt kids with medical issues ... if believing that we know who our kids are when we meet them, sharing what we have with children in need, and telling stigma to stick it were most important to me. I complain a lot about how the medical system in this country has used and abused us. Anyone reading my posts about healthcare in America could easily conclude that not adopting my kids would have been the wisest choice for us. But that's merely basing it on one factor. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 In California the reasons are more economic. They have the most teen pregnancies of any state. Most of the dads are adults. Obviously, a LOT of teen girls are *not* capable of making good choices in this area. What is your source for these statistics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 A sixteen year old is not a little girl. Tara Right. My last sentence or two was more about the trend we have now to dress *little* girls in slutty outfits. I was not referring directly to this instance. I still think it's sick that a 51 year old cannot find a more mature woman. Clearly this is all about sex for him. I would be disturbed to know my husband was sexually attracted to teenagers (he very well may be, but I do not want to know about it). There are girls that grow into D cups by the age of 12 (my sister, for one) and knowing that adult men were lusting over them and wanting to have sex with them is just...wrong to me. Find a woman your own age (or at least within 10 years or so). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I have to admit, I find that kind of demeaning to older teen girls. I was fully capable of consenting to sex at 16 and 17. I have friends who consented to sex at 14 and 15. Would it have been the wisest choice? No. But, it was a choice I was capable of making, and the idea that any guy over 18 who would have had sex with me was a predator who deserved to spend his life publicly labelled a sex offender alongside adults who molested and raped small children just appalls me. I'm just very concerned with how, as a society, we've elided the serious problem of adults preying sexually on prepubescent children who have no capacity to consent with what we seem to think is an equally serious problem of adults entering into consensual sexual relationships with post-pubescent teens. There are good reasons to not want our teens having sex, and good reasons to want them to have relationship with people their own age, but I just don't think this is something that should be a criminal matter. There is not a 16 year old woman/girl alive who can, with full knowledge and consent, participate in mutual intimacy with a 51 year old. The power differential is inherent. It IS a crime whether it is legal or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 What is your source for these statistics? I can't link directly to the page, but I found it on the Stanislaus County DA's website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is not a 16 year old woman/girl alive who can, with full knowledge and consent, participate in mutual intimacy with a 51 year old. The power differential is inherent. It IS a crime whether it is legal or not. I disagree. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadbhoward Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 At the end of April, my 44 yo xh married a 20 year old he started dating in January. She is a student at the college where he teaches. How's that for role-modeling for my teenage boys? Our oldest is only a few years younger than his new stepmother. I don't know what's worse - the fact that xh can't have a relationship with an adult, or the fact that she married him. Ew. My husband's stepfather is 3 years younger than him. MIL started dating him when my husband was 20 and he was 17. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is not a 16 year old woman/girl alive who can, with full knowledge and consent, participate in mutual intimacy with a 51 year old. The power differential is inherent. It IS a crime whether it is legal or not. Can you say more about this? I'm finding it hard to agree, but I'm interested in your point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retired Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 They aren't breaking the law. Her parents seem to think it's acceptable and it is a lawful union which means the law of the land agrees. Some people value different things. I'm guessing her parents would happily accept a career in porn if that's what would make their daughter happy. They don't seem to have a problem with her using sex to sell herself. :shrug: Today, isn't that a "good thing?" They're supporting their daughter and her self-esteem, they're empowering her to use her body how SHE thinks is right to get fame and fortune. It sounds like a lot of parents. They accept their children finding their own path, and they believe that nothing is really wrong so all avenues are open. They support their children in going that route. At least they are not frigid fundamentalists that demand their children follow the rigid rules they believe in, since no one is ever really right. Maybe they're just wrong because they're mixing moral standings. The ideas of Christianity and Christian marraige don't seem to sit well next to expressed sexuality and a career based on soliciting lust. A sixteen-year-old who embraces her sexual powers and uses her feminity to succeed sounds like a very modern thing, nearly feminist really. The man that wants to support her, as long as he doesn't make her wear clothes, would be just as much a forward/modern thinker. He is accepting that she sells herself for a living, using her looks to provoke a particular reaction. Is it him "making an honest woman" of her what's wrong then? Is it that those two ideas are so different? As a Christian, I would have been very happy if they could have left that little tidbit out. I think that throwing out that he's a Christian after pointing out that he's been her manager and helping her to prostitute herself, because that's what she looks like in all those pictures, raises my hackles a bit. As a Christian I find the situation repugnant. Not because of the marraige, but because of the path they're leading her down in her career. The marraige seems like the absolute least of the problems. As an American ;), after the 'Slut Walk' I see now that we are supposed to accept that women who want to dress like sluts or empower themselves with slutiness. They are just modern women making their female way in the world! So, she's a modern feminist. He's supporting her. He should be the good guy, because he's her manager, he's helping her help herself. Now he also wants to be her husband and I guess that bothers people, but... eh. If we have to accept 'Slut Walk' then we have to accept younger pop stars slutting it up for money, then imo, a younger pop wannabe that actually marries someone at least seems like they're trying to have some sort of moral restraint. Although, in all reality, it's probably just a paycheck (getting Mom and Dad away from it) sort of thing. Iow, it seems like the modern outcry is really that they're giving in to the idea of marraige (chaining a powerful female down to some shmuck). I mean, the girl has been tramped out, but the problem is she is so young and married?!? :lol: Promiscuity is fine, sluttiness is fine, but MARRAIGE?!?! Oh dear, well now her future is ruined. Oh and sure we can blame it on the age difference, but seriously? That "little girl" hasn't looked like or lived like a little girl for a very long time. Would it have been okay if her husband was 16, 17, 18? :iagree: For me, marriage is forever. You get married, you stay married, and you grow old together. I wouldn't want to do that with a man 35 years older than I am because I know what it's like to help a disabled man bath and toilet, and I don't want to spend my 50s doing that. Though it happens, of course, even with couples close in age, and that's part of "better or worse, sickness or health." I think a lot of people don't think about it that way, though. Marriage doesn't seem to be "forever" in our culture to a huge number of people. To someone who thinks of marriage as a "for now" thing, maybe this isn't all bad. Maybe she wants to have a 7 - 10 year marriage. If that were the case (and I morally object, but that's just my position and the law provides for this) I could see how she might want this. She will get the legal benefits of marriage, his financial support, better "tea" than she would with a guy closer to her age, and the joy of being with a man who is close to his best. My DH is 51 and he is wealthier, nicer, better looking, smarter, more compassionate, funnier, and more sophisticated than he was at 25. Any woman in her right mind would rather have a five year marriage with my DH than someone close to this girl's age. Men are so much better with age:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 My husband's stepfather is 3 years younger than him. MIL started dating him when my husband was 20 and he was 17. :001_huh: Creepy. Really creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Men are so much better with age:D So true. And so are women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I think life in general shows us that this doesn't necessarily happen with regularity, even among "legal" adults. And sometimes, the "wisest" option isn't even the one that is the "right" option. Much depends on which factors are considered. The "wisest" option would have been not to adopt kids with medical issues ... if retirement savings, personal flexibility, and avoiding stigma were most important to me. The "wisest" option would have been to adopt kids with medical issues ... if believing that we know who our kids are when we meet them, sharing what we have with children in need, and telling stigma to stick it were most important to me. I complain a lot about how the medical system in this country has used and abused us. Anyone reading my posts about healthcare in America could easily conclude that not adopting my kids would have been the wisest choice for us. But that's merely basing it on one factor. Tara Apparently we have different definitions of wise. Wise includes morality. If you can give a kid with medical issues a loving and good home it can be a wise decision. Putting your retirement and personal freedom before helping a child in need does not mean someone is wise. It just means that they care about themselves more than others. Most people would choose themselves over others. That makes a person average, not wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Quote:Originally Posted by Joanne There is not a 16 year old woman/girl alive who can, with full knowledge and consent, participate in mutual intimacy with a 51 year old. The power differential is inherent. It IS a crime whether it is legal or not. Can you say more about this? I'm finding it hard to agree, but I'm interested in your point of view. I can try, but most of it is already in my short answer. 16 year olds are not kids, but they are not adults. Their brains are not fully developed, and developmentally, they are still in process. They do not have a mature mind in experience or in biology. They can't *think* like adults, not physiologically, not cognitively. A person, that much a senior, has a fully developed brain, and decades of life experience. That is where the inherent power comes in. They have more power; the teen less. All things combined, a 16 year old (none of them) is in a position of equality to say "yes" to a 51 year old. I'm not suggesting that she is there against her will. I fully believe this is her preference. I am simply stating that she can't have fully given consent because it's not an equal context. Further, I do think that there are serious problems with a 51 year old pursuing a relationship with a 16 year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 So true. And so are women. I agree about the men improving with age. But, many men wouldn't agree about the women. So, are these just two folks going after what they want? She wants a take-charge guy with money and influence in the entertainment industry. He wants a beautiful, young wife who depends on him. Joanne called it an imbalance of power. Okay. But, maybe they both want that? We wouldn't want that, maybe And I'm not convinced a 16 year-old is entirely unable to make decisions for herself. Based on the little I've seen of her public behavior, I think there are far worse decisions she could have made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree about the men improving with age. But, many men wouldn't agree about the women. So, are these just two folks going after what they want? She wants a take-charge guy with money and influence in the entertainment industry. He wants a beautiful, young wife who depends on him. Joanne called it an imbalance of power. Okay. But, maybe they both want that? We wouldn't want that, maybe And I'm not convinced a 16 year-old is entirely unable to make decisions for herself. Based on the little I've seen of her public behavior, I think there are far worse decisions she could have made. Will you think it's fine if one of your sons marries a woman in her 50's when he's 16? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Will you think it's fine if one of your sons marries a woman in her 50's when he's 16? No. I'd flip. I'd hit the roof. But, I wouldn't say he was a criminal or that it was necessarily abusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 No. I'd flip. I'd hit the roof. But, I wouldn't say he was a criminal or that it was necessarily abusive. But what if he wants a take charge woman and she wants a beautiful, young man who depends on her? Wouldn't they just be two folks going after what they want? Maybe they want an imbalance of power? Besides, there are far worse decisions he could make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 16 year olds are not kids, but they are not adults. Their brains are not fully developed, and developmentally, they are still in process. They do not have a mature mind in experience or in biology. They can't *think* like adults, not physiologically, not cognitively. I agree with you that this is true, in general. But people mature at different rates, and some 16 year olds are light years ahead of their peers. Most kids aren't developmentally ready for algebra until they're 13 or 14. But some will be ready several years earlier, and a handful of truly precocious kids will be ready far younger. Some won't ever get there. I don't know about her academic skills, but socially this girl isn't a typical 16 year old. There is not a 16 year old woman/girl alive who can, with full knowledge and consent, participate in mutual intimacy with a 51 year old. The power differential is inherent. It IS a crime whether it is legal or not. But the age is arbitrary. People are different. We have a legal age of consent because we have to draw the line somewhere, but people don't magically become adults at 18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Can you say more about this? I'm finding it hard to agree, but I'm interested in your point of view. I agree with you that this is true, in general. But people mature at different rates, and some 16 year olds are light years ahead of their peers. Most kids aren't developmentally ready for algebra until they're 13 or 14. But some will be ready several years earlier, and a handful of truly precocious kids will be ready far younger. Some won't ever get there. I don't know about her academic skills, but socially this girl isn't a typical 16 year old. But the age is arbitrary. People are different. We have a legal age of consent because we have to draw the line somewhere, but people don't magically become adults at 18. The nature of the age difference, in conjunction with the fact that she is a teen, and the number of years difference all add up to non-equal and non-consentual. (Again, I am not saying she is acting against her will; I don't believe that she is. I am saying that a 51 yo male pursuing a relationship with her is inherently unequal). I agree 18 is arbitrary. I agree that there is a wide gap in ability of teens and early adults. That is not what I am arguing against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) But what if he wants a take charge woman and she wants a beautiful, young man who depends on her? Wouldn't they just be two folks going after what they want? Maybe they want an imbalance of power? Besides, there are far worse decisions he could make. Yes. That. I'm not saying I'd like it. I wouldn't sign the consent. He'd have to wait until he was 18 to break my heart. (I see your point, but I'd also say it would be extremely unlikely that an old woman would want to marry a young man and vice versa.) Edited June 23, 2011 by msjones misread post I was responding to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The nature of the age difference, in conjunction with the fact that she is a teen, and the number of years difference all add up to non-equal and non-consentual. (Again, I am not saying she is acting against her will; I don't believe that she is. I am saying that a 51 yo male pursuing a relationship with her is inherently unequal). I agree 18 is arbitrary. I agree that there is a wide gap in ability of teens and early adults. That is not what I am arguing against. Okay. I agree that it's unequal. But, some people want unequal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Okay. I agree that it's unequal. But, some people want unequal. That's not consent. If it is unequal (and she's 16, he's 51), it's not authentically consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Apparently we have different definitions of wise. Wise includes morality. If you can give a kid with medical issues a loving and good home it can be a wise decision. Putting your retirement and personal freedom before helping a child in need does not mean someone is wise. It just means that they care about themselves more than others. Most people would choose themselves over others. That makes a person average, not wise. Not necessarily. I didn't say personal freedom. I said personal flexibility. Having kids with medical issues has tested me in many ways. It has decreased my flexibility in dealing with my other children and my spouse. We have created a situation where my kids live with stigma. We have created a situation where the present and future of our lives is tied to our kids' medical issues, emotionally and financially. This creates stress, which affects every aspect of our lives. I think you oversimplify if you say that there is one right answer. There is the feel-good, fluffy answer (giving a child a loving home), and there is the practical answer (more medical stress creates more life stress; is this worth it or wise?) Obviously, we chose our kids and have few regrets (I won't say no regrets). That does not mean that other concerns have no merit. Besides, mine was merely an example. There are many ways to look at various situations. Simply saying, "You're only capable of making a choice when you can make the wisest one" means little because there is often no single wisest choice. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) :iagree: I think it's an abuse of power, and not something I'd support. But there's nothing sick or perverted, sexually, about a grown man finding a post-pubescent teen girl attractive. For most of human history, you were a child, went through puberty, and then were an adult. Adolescence is a relatively modern invention, and I don't expect that human nature is going to change to accommodate that. There are certainly good reasons why we don't allow sexual relationships between adults and teens, but it is a whole different issue than adults being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. An adult male who finds post-pubescent teen girls sexually attractive is not a pedophile (or, I'd imagine, all that unusual). It is pathological to be sexually attracted to prepubescent children, but I think it would be incredibly difficult to argue that finding adolescents who are sexually mature attractive is pathological. my kid is 10 and she has her period. Would it be ok for a 45 year old to want to marry her? Is it ok because she has boobs at 10? (no I would not give permission, I would shoot him, with a gun) Edited June 23, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Not necessarily. I didn't say personal freedom. I said personal flexibility. Having kids with medical issues has tested me in many ways. It has decreased my flexibility in dealing with my other children and my spouse. We have created a situation where my kids live with stigma. We have created a situation where the present and future of our lives is tied to our kids' medical issues, emotionally and financially. This creates stress, which affects every aspect of our lives. I think you oversimplify if you say that there is one right answer. There is the feel-good, fluffy answer (giving a child a loving home), and there is the practical answer (more medical stress creates more life stress; is this worth it or wise?) Obviously, we chose our kids and have few regrets (I won't say no regrets). That does not mean that other concerns have no merit. Besides, mine was merely an example. There are many ways to look at various situations. Simply saying, "You're only capable of making a choice when you can make the wisest one" means little because there is often no single wisest choice. Tara I disagree probably because I'm Christian. God knows the best answer out of many. That said, if it causes more harm than it helps, it's probably not wise. But only you and God know the answer to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I disagree probably because I'm Christian. God knows the best answer out of many. That said, if it causes more harm than it helps, it's probably not wise. But only you and God know the answer to that. Fair enough. I'm not Christian so I don't see it that way, but I respect your opinion and have a better idea of where you are coming from. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Fair enough. I'm not Christian so I don't see it that way, but I respect your opinion and have a better idea of where you are coming from. Tara And I get where you're coming from. Humans don't know everything and can't see the future. That makes things a whole lot more fuzzy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is not a 16 year old woman/girl alive who can, with full knowledge and consent, participate in mutual intimacy with a 51 year old. The power differential is inherent. It IS a crime whether it is legal or not. There is a power differential in almost all relationships. Honestly, I think saying that 16-year-old can't consent to sex with an adult is like the argument that all heterosexual sex is rape. IMHO, a person is capable of handling a choice when they are capable of choosing the wisest option and then sticking to it. But YMMV. In that case, we'd probably want to say that anybody under about 26 isn't an adult who can consent to things, because we know from neuroscience that it isn't until then that decision-making mechanisms in the brain fully develop. And, even after that, we'd have to eliminate most adults from being capable of handling a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is a power differential in almost all relationships. Honestly, I think saying that 16-year-old can't consent to sex with an adult is like the argument that all heterosexual sex is rape. . I disagree about the power differential being present in all relationships. As for your other statement, I think it is a red herring and not worthy of response. By the way, I didn't say that any 16 year old can't authentically consent to sex with an adult. I am discussing *this* situation. I do not think that a 16 and 18 year old, or a 16 and 22 year old are remotely similar in concern with the posted situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) There is a power differential in almost all relationships. Honestly, I think saying that 16-year-old can't consent to sex with an adult is like the argument that all heterosexual sex is rape. In that case, we'd probably want to say that anybody under about 26 isn't an adult who can consent to things, because we know from neuroscience that it isn't until then that decision-making mechanisms in the brain fully develop. And, even after that, we'd have to eliminate most adults from being capable of handling a choice. Well, I would certainly say that many, many adults are far too immature. I think that's a product of modern society. I have mentioned on this board that boys in the group I work with generally get married as teens and only after working for 2 years for the father of the girl he loves. Then they work from dawn to dusk in the fields 6 days a week to feed their babies. I would think that very, very few American boys would be capable of that. I love the show 16 and Pregnant, but the difference it highlights between the typical American teen moms and the teen moms I know here is, frankly, extremely frightening for me. What have we done to our kids? However, teens here still don't marry 50 year olds. That would be considered disgusting. Edited June 23, 2011 by Sputterduck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is a power differential in almost all relationships. Did you read the law in California? If the "adult" is over 21, then they are committing a felony in the state of California if they have intercourse with a 16 year old. That is *not* the case if 2 18 year olds have intercourse, that's perfectly legal. If a 16 year old has intercourse with an 18 year old, that's only a misdemeanor. The law recognizes a difference, psychologists recognize a difference. Did you read Vertiaserum's post? Did you see my post with statistics from the state of California? Those statistics back up what Joanne is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nono Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (I see your point, but I'd also say it would be extremely unlikely that an old woman would want to marry a young man and vice versa.) HEY HEY HEY! Easy with the term "old" and the age of 51. :tongue_smilie: And, I'm in my late 40s. Sign me up for a young man (I already have one in mind, and if my family is reading this they are hysterical laughing right now, because they always tease me about him). Though, he is in college now, and not 16. Anymore. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missiemick Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 If the title didn't say so, I would have assumed that she was the older one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Have you seen My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding? Very strange contrast. The girls dress like...er...prostitutes but are very religious and stay virgins until marriage (usually young). It takes all kinds. Yep. Like I said, as a Christian I want to scream and run away (sort of like those wedding pics you mention), but ya know what? It's not up to me :D I think him supporting her is very anti-Christian, I think the song on her site explains why very clearly. She enjoys being a stumbling block, basically, and he's helping her do that. But, like you said, it takes all kinds. Yes. But if we had laws against everything I (or many other people) thought were icky and inappropriate we'd live in a police state. I think porn, strippers, abortion, little girls dressing like tramps, body piercings, tattoos, drug use, sexual deviancy like S&M, whole body waxing, TV ministers, popular culture, public education, and a plethora of other things are icky and inappropriate - but I don't get to make decisions for other people. :iagree: My thought is, yucky yes (although not for all the same reasons as everyone else), legal and therefore deservant of tolerance (oooOOooo) well I suppose so ;) Interesting POV. To me, a Christian Husband should be protecting his wife from leering pervs. Not encouraging them. Especially if one of those leering pervs turns into a stalker/rapist. I need more coffee to get my thoughts straight on this one. :iagree: Like I said, as a Christian I wanted to scream, and I wish the mother would not have said that. As an American though... Hey, she looks like Barbie and if her Ken isn't my cup of tea, oh well. It is *barely* legal. I think the "Christian" bit is an act. He wanted to marry her before he had intercourse with her to cover himself legally. Again, if they weren't married, then it would be a felony. Accepting that adults have to make their own choices as a general rule for society is very, very different from *personally endorsing it* and it is very, very different from personally endorsing it where a *minor* is concerned. I accept that adults have to make their own choices. However, when it comes to my *personal circle* I encourage people against certain choices that I think are bad ideas, whether or not they are legal. As a *parent* I view it as my responsibility to protect my kids at least until they are legal adults. When they become adults, they might engage in behavior I didn't like. If they became an alcoholic, I would stage an intervention. If necessary, I would stop being around them until they decided to make a life change. I would do the same for other legal but bad decisions. I totally agree with you. I would not support my daughter in doing those things... but then I'm a rigid Fundie ;) I just think that the mind set in general society is that a parent that says this is right and this is wrong (especially if it does not correspond with the law of the land or is percieved as judging someone else's lifestyle choice) is hurting their child. In this case, the parents are supporting their daughter in her decision for the type of lifestyle shewants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Will you think it's fine if one of your sons marries a woman in her 50's when he's 16? I wouldn't, but again... rigid fundie. I wouldn't allow (yes, ALLOW) my son to model half naked or sing about screwing up people's relationships. I wouldn't allow my sons or my daughter to prostitute themselves for money like this girl, and I sure as heck wouldn't help them to advertise it or get them a manager. As a Christian, I think those parents are baaaaad. However, as a tolerant pc loving American, they seem like very supportive, open minded parents that show their daughter love and are willing to help her succeed at whatever career she chooses. The weirdest thing about the marraige is how traditional/old fashioned it is, especially next to the career they've helped their little girl try to get. Those supportive, loving, open-minded parents being fine with their little girl marrying a guy that's older than her step-dad is out of step with their previous decisions only in how traditional marraige itself is. Besides, it's not like a Vegas marraige contract would be hard to break. What would it take? A week? And then she'll have half of everything he has and she can further her career even faster, with his money. So, it took her selling of her body to the next level... what's that, a promotion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 My thought is, yucky yes, legal and therefore deservant of tolerance (oooOOooo) well I suppose so ;) .... I just think that the mind set in general society is that a parent that says this is right and this is wrong (especially if it does not correspond with the law of the land or is perceived as judging someone else's lifestyle choice) is hurting their child. In this case, the parents are supporting their daughter in her decision for the type of lifestyle she wants. You are awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 lionfamily is would seem that being a Christian with morally conservative values is incompatible with being a proper American.:lol: Actually, thinking about it.... I feel like that a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 lionfamily is would seem that being a Christian with morally conservative values is incompatible with being a proper American. I know you said that in jest, but I feel compelled to comment anyway. I think it's hunky-dory to hold morally conservative values. I have zero problem with that. The problem comes in when those with morally conservative values feel that the laws of the land should reflect that; in essence, decreeing that everyone should hold those same, morally conservative values. I think that laws should be fairly liberal ... it accomodates more people. Those who are more liberal aren't restricted by conservative laws, and those who are conservative aren't restricted by liberal laws ... they can still hold their beliefs and live by them, as can those who are more liberal. I'm not really a big fan of "You shouldn't be able to do that because I wouldn't." Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I know you said that in jest, but I feel compelled to comment anyway. I think it's hunky-dory to hold morally conservative values. I have zero problem with that. The problem comes in when those with morally conservative values feel that the laws of the land should reflect that; in essence, decreeing that everyone should hold those same, morally conservative values. I think that laws should be fairly liberal ... it accomodates more people. Those who are more liberal aren't restricted by conservative laws, and those who are conservative aren't restricted by liberal laws ... they can still hold their beliefs and live by them, as can those who are more liberal. I'm not really a big fan of "You shouldn't be able to do that because I wouldn't." Tara I think that the problem with this is that there is a lot of assuming going on. When someone does hold conservative views, it is automatically assumed by everyone else that they wish the law to reflect those views, and/or that they are prejudice or bigoted against people who don't hold those same views. In some cases that is true, in some it is not. In addition, as lionfamily pointed out, there have been cases of people saying that it is child abuse to raise your children with your own morally conservative values, or perhaps a bit milder, that the children at least need to have the liberal values taught to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I know you said that in jest, but I feel compelled to comment anyway. I think it's hunky-dory to hold morally conservative values. I have zero problem with that. The problem comes in when those with morally conservative values feel that the laws of the land should reflect that; in essence, decreeing that everyone should hold those same, morally conservative values. I think that laws should be fairly liberal ... it accomodates more people. Those who are more liberal aren't restricted by conservative laws, and those who are conservative aren't restricted by liberal laws ... they can still hold their beliefs and live by them, as can those who are more liberal. I'm not really a big fan of "You shouldn't be able to do that because I wouldn't." Tara I never mentioned laws. Really, if I'm anything I'm a Libertarian. But I know lots of people who think I should be perfectly fine in my heart with teenagers being sexually free, even though they aren't capable of handling the bad consequences, which do happen sometimes even if you are as cautious as possible. And we can't say that teens are known for their concern about safety and caution. There are a lot of people who think that we should smile and feel fuzzy and warm about *anything* as long as it makes a person temporarily happy. Honestly, people can do what ever they want to do and I'd appreciate it if I can do whatever I want to do. But I do think that God's standards mean something. I think they mean something far and above what our fleeting society's standards mean. Still, people can do whatever they want. But as an American some people think we ought to smile and be happy, because the people involved are, and to heck with long term consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I think that the problem with this is that there is a lot of assuming going on. When someone does hold conservative views, it is automatically assumed by everyone else that they wish the law to reflect those views, and/or that they are prejudice or bigoted against people who don't hold those same views. In some cases that is true, in some it is not. In addition, as lionfamily pointed out, there have been cases of people saying that it is child abuse to raise your children with your own morally conservative values, or perhaps a bit milder, that the children at least need to have the liberal values taught to them. Yep. It goes both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I never mentioned laws. Really, if I'm anything I'm a Libertarian. But I know lots of people who think I should be perfectly fine in my heart with teenagers being sexually free, even though they aren't capable of handling the bad consequences, which do happen sometimes even if you are as cautious as possible. And we can't say that teens are known for their concern about safety and caution. There are a lot of people who think that we should smile and feel fuzzy and warm about *anything* as long as it makes a person temporarily happy. Honestly, people can do what ever they want to do and I'd appreciate it if I can do whatever I want to do. But I do think that God's standards mean something. I think they mean something far and above what our fleeting society's standards mean. Still, people can do whatever they want. But as an American some people think we ought to smile and be happy, because the people involved are, and to heck with long term consequences. yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 You are awesome! :grouphug: lionfamily is would seem that being a Christian with morally conservative values is incompatible with being a proper American.:lol: Actually, thinking about it.... I feel like that a lot. And my point is understood :D Yes, I do think that being a fundie (I'm owning that word ;) ) is not compatable with being a modern, pc, open-minded American. This family is (in my opinion) the poster child for Modern America, the land of tolerance, acceptance, sophist morality, &tc. I'm surprised they haven't won a prize or something. Maybe if she would have married a 51-year-old woman? I do think that the icky factor being over the marraige is hi-lar-i-ous. They've been paying him to pimp their daughter and the problem is ... he wants to marry her?!? :lol: Okay then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Maybe my wording was wrong, but I didn't mean to imply that everyone with conservative values wants them made into law. But imo, as a liberal, a big part of the Republican platform is making or keeping laws (such as same-sex marriage) that restrict others' freedoms. But you are right ... there are certainly those with more liberal viewpoints who want to pass laws disallowing things those with more conservative values might choose to do (spanking comes to mind ... and note that I said "might" ... and it's merely an example that sprang to mind and not a declaration that conservatives spank and liberals do not). Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This family is (in my opinion) the poster child for Modern America, the land of tolerance, acceptance, sophist morality, &tc. I'm surprised they haven't won a prize or something. Maybe if she would have married a 51-year-old woman? :iagree:I am sticking to awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Maybe my wording was wrong, but I didn't mean to imply that everyone with conservative values wants them made into law. But imo, as a liberal, a big part of the Republican platform is making or keeping laws (such as same-sex marriage) that restrict others' freedoms. But you are right ... there are certainly those with more liberal viewpoints who want to pass laws disallowing things those with more conservative values might choose to do (spanking comes to mind ... and note that I said "might" ... and it's merely an example that sprang to mind and not a declaration that conservatives spank and liberals do not). Tara Okay, well... being in a very strict moral religion that remains politically neutral (not even allowed to vote or comment on, and definitely not siding with Republicans) that makes things get a little confusing for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 that makes things get a little confusing for me. That's fine. I think I'm not making sense. :D Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.