First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Post Reply Should there be or is there an age gap-limit for relationships?
2075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Toronto
Offline
Posted 3/22/13
I'm gonna make a promise to myself to not date anyone younger than me by more than 10 years.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 3/22/13
If youre under 18, dating shouldnt even really be on your radar so no, I dont think there should be an age gap limit on relationships. Teenage relationships arent even real relationships. Teenagers barely even know who the hell they are themselves, let alone know who the heck they claim theyre in a "relationship" with. When I was in my early 20's I dated a few women that ranged in age from 19 - 40. Never really saw that much of a disparity in maturity level but hey, thats just my experience.
4047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
not sharing my asl
Offline
Posted 3/22/13

ChinkyD wrote:

There's the famous "half plus seven" rule. For example, if someone is 30, he/she shouldn't date anyone older than 22 (30/2 + 7).


You mean younger than?


I for one know several female friends that are my age that I'd NEVER consider being in a relationship with because honestly they're boring people that want to stay at home every night and only want to go out to have a quick dinner at Applebee's They're good people, but their idea of fun would drive me insane.



But you're 99
16178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 3/22/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:


creightonja wrote:

First off, there is a lot of people trying to quote law here who have no idea what legal the actual legal precedent is. The laws vary by state, and if you are curious what they are for your area, look up "age of consent" on google for your state or region. It is as low as 14 (in Hawaii), it can have age ranges (16 year olds can date up to 24 in Florida), or be as rigid as 18 plus like it is in California. There are stipulations in the UCMJ for military members and exceptions are common for married minors.

Second, all laws are completely arbitrary number defined by social constructs which people attempt to define through delegations of rights and responsibilities. Physical and mental development are not linear, nor do they abide by artificial sets of rules such as the assumption that people are not legally capable of entering into contracts at age 18. I know people who are 30 who lack the competence of myself at age 15. Biologically speaking, both genders are capable of sexual intercourse after puberty, therefore the general issue that people raise is that younger individuals (especially women) are not capable of deciding their own sexual rights (i.e. statutory rape is considered rape because of the inability of minor to give consent). In my opinion, sex is not a legal contract, nor should we deem people incompetent for taking personal responsibility for their actions solely due to age. We already do this in society when we charge minors (as young as 15) with crimes in adult courts. Sex does carry consequences (pregnancy, STIs, psychological attachment), but I don't personally believe in building societies where we detach people from the consequences of their actions.

Historically speaking, daughters were married off with dowries at very young ages. Juliet was 13 when she was arranged to be married Paris who was 26 while Romeo was 16. Now, I do believe we baby teens and don't give them the opportunity to have good judgment by allowing them to make their own decisions, but that is a result of our society eliminating their personal choices. Our society currently is not in line with our natural development which does seek out sexual partners, even at early ages. Social norms only repress our natural tendencies which only act out the more you repress them.

In summary, it is my personal belief that this is a contextual discussion which can only be addressed when applied to specific circumstances. Laws only serve to remove our judgment to replace it with unnatural, socially constructed rules. This question deals with power structures, social mores, psychological manipulation, individual development, and personal responsibility. This all depends on the individuals who partaking in the actions and the contextual aspects of the situation. I do not judge those who seek out partners far outside their age cohort since I lack knowledge about their character and values. I know people who are competent enough to make sound relationship choices throughout all demographic groups, so I think this question is pointless without knowing specific situations/people.


The age of consent in Hawaii is 16. What you are referring to is the close in age exemption. And the statute in Florida is 94.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794.

So no a 24 year old would be breaking the law. I mentioned that there are exceptions as well. You say that laws are arbitrary numbers so would you have a problem with a 10 year old in a relationship with a 30 year old? Don't be so quick to judge that when we quote law that we do not understand legal precedence.


Wrong, Hawaii is 14 years old when having sex with someone within 5 years of their age.

You missed the point of my post I can tell. I was saying what should be emphasized is the physical and mental maturity of the people who are making the decisions. Age is a number, not an intellect or maturity level. You don't appear to be able to distinguish between the two as you are only concerned with legal dogma and Earth's revolutions around the sun. Your example is only meant to evoke an emotional response which conjures up negative associations with pedophiles without truly considering what someone's mental and physical maturity level may be. Nor are you concerned with why many young adults are stunted in their mental and emotional maturity.

I have dated a girl which I found to have the maturity of a an adolescent teenage girl in terms of her emotional development. She had a legal right to have sex as she pleases, yet a well-adjusted 16 year old girl who had consensual sex with a 16 year old boy in California could have statutory rape charges filed against both. Age and maturity are not necessarily linked, and I have found many cases where they are mutually exclusive. As such, I don't believe a number gives anyone the right to judge what is appropriate for other competent individuals. So please take your self-righteousness elsewhere.
6058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 3/22/13

creightonja wrote:


kamaitachi5587 wrote:


creightonja wrote:

First off, there is a lot of people trying to quote law here who have no idea what legal the actual legal precedent is. The laws vary by state, and if you are curious what they are for your area, look up "age of consent" on google for your state or region. It is as low as 14 (in Hawaii), it can have age ranges (16 year olds can date up to 24 in Florida), or be as rigid as 18 plus like it is in California. There are stipulations in the UCMJ for military members and exceptions are common for married minors.

Second, all laws are completely arbitrary number defined by social constructs which people attempt to define through delegations of rights and responsibilities. Physical and mental development are not linear, nor do they abide by artificial sets of rules such as the assumption that people are not legally capable of entering into contracts at age 18. I know people who are 30 who lack the competence of myself at age 15. Biologically speaking, both genders are capable of sexual intercourse after puberty, therefore the general issue that people raise is that younger individuals (especially women) are not capable of deciding their own sexual rights (i.e. statutory rape is considered rape because of the inability of minor to give consent). In my opinion, sex is not a legal contract, nor should we deem people incompetent for taking personal responsibility for their actions solely due to age. We already do this in society when we charge minors (as young as 15) with crimes in adult courts. Sex does carry consequences (pregnancy, STIs, psychological attachment), but I don't personally believe in building societies where we detach people from the consequences of their actions.

Historically speaking, daughters were married off with dowries at very young ages. Juliet was 13 when she was arranged to be married Paris who was 26 while Romeo was 16. Now, I do believe we baby teens and don't give them the opportunity to have good judgment by allowing them to make their own decisions, but that is a result of our society eliminating their personal choices. Our society currently is not in line with our natural development which does seek out sexual partners, even at early ages. Social norms only repress our natural tendencies which only act out the more you repress them.

In summary, it is my personal belief that this is a contextual discussion which can only be addressed when applied to specific circumstances. Laws only serve to remove our judgment to replace it with unnatural, socially constructed rules. This question deals with power structures, social mores, psychological manipulation, individual development, and personal responsibility. This all depends on the individuals who partaking in the actions and the contextual aspects of the situation. I do not judge those who seek out partners far outside their age cohort since I lack knowledge about their character and values. I know people who are competent enough to make sound relationship choices throughout all demographic groups, so I think this question is pointless without knowing specific situations/people.


The age of consent in Hawaii is 16. What you are referring to is the close in age exemption. And the statute in Florida is 94.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794.

So no a 24 year old would be breaking the law. I mentioned that there are exceptions as well. You say that laws are arbitrary numbers so would you have a problem with a 10 year old in a relationship with a 30 year old? Don't be so quick to judge that when we quote law that we do not understand legal precedence.


Wrong, Hawaii is 14 years old when having sex with someone within 5 years of their age.

You missed the point of my post I can tell. I was saying what should be emphasized is the physical and mental maturity of the people who are making the decisions. Age is a number, not an intellect or maturity level. You don't appear to be able to distinguish between the two as you are only concerned with legal dogma and Earth's revolutions around the sun. Your example is only meant to evoke an emotional response which conjures up negative associations with pedophiles without truly considering what someone's mental and physical maturity level may be. Nor are you concerned with why many young adults are stunted in their mental and emotional maturity.

I have dated a girl which I found to have the maturity of a an adolescent teenage girl in terms of her emotional development. She had a legal right to have sex as she pleases, yet a well-adjusted 16 year old girl who had consensual sex with a 16 year old boy in California could have statutory rape charges filed against both. Age and maturity are not necessarily linked, and I have found many cases where they are mutually exclusive. As such, I don't believe a number gives anyone the right to judge what is appropriate for other competent individuals. So please take your self-righteousness elsewhere.


Please take your ignorance elsewhere. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Hawaii State Statutes

§707-730 Sexual assault in the
first degree. (1) A person
commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree
if:

(a) The
person knowingly subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by
strong compulsion;

(b) The
person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with another person who is less
than fourteen years old; or

(c) The
person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with a person who is at least
fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old; provided that:

(i) The
person is not less than five years older than the minor; and

(ii) The
person is not legally married to the minor.

§707-732 Sexual assault in the
third degree. (1) A person
commits the offense of sexual assault in the third degree
if:

(a) The
person recklessly subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by
compulsion;

(b) The
person knowingly subjects to sexual contact another person who is less than
fourteen years old or causes such a person to have sexual contact with the
person;

(c) The
person knowingly engages in sexual contact with a person who is at least
fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old
or causes the minor to have
sexual contact with the person; provided that:

(i) The
person is not less than five years older than the minor; and

(ii) The
person is not legally married to the minor;

I must apologize though. I was wrong about the Close in age exemption. They Repealed that law. So the Age of Consent is indeed 16 so still right about that sorry.

You imply that age and maturity are large factors in making a decision to have intimate contact. I'll agree to that there are people that are not mature to handle that type of relationship. However it is not absolute. You seem to imply that a very mature child should be able to have a relationship with whoever they want. I don't care how mature the child is. An adult that has in interest in an adolescent needs help. If they act on it. They need to be incarcerated. You say "Your example is only meant to evoke an emotional response which conjures up negative associations with pedophiles without truly considering what someone's mental and physical maturity level may be.". Give me one, just one positive association of pedophilia. It can't be done. You're right my response was meant to evoke an emotional response. Anyone that abuses children is scum. On a side note state laws are public knowledge. You can find them on their states web-pages quit relying on Wikipedia for your legal information.
16178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 3/22/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:


creightonja wrote:


kamaitachi5587 wrote:


creightonja wrote:

First off, there is a lot of people trying to quote law here who have no idea what legal the actual legal precedent is. The laws vary by state, and if you are curious what they are for your area, look up "age of consent" on google for your state or region. It is as low as 14 (in Hawaii), it can have age ranges (16 year olds can date up to 24 in Florida), or be as rigid as 18 plus like it is in California. There are stipulations in the UCMJ for military members and exceptions are common for married minors.

Second, all laws are completely arbitrary number defined by social constructs which people attempt to define through delegations of rights and responsibilities. Physical and mental development are not linear, nor do they abide by artificial sets of rules such as the assumption that people are not legally capable of entering into contracts at age 18. I know people who are 30 who lack the competence of myself at age 15. Biologically speaking, both genders are capable of sexual intercourse after puberty, therefore the general issue that people raise is that younger individuals (especially women) are not capable of deciding their own sexual rights (i.e. statutory rape is considered rape because of the inability of minor to give consent). In my opinion, sex is not a legal contract, nor should we deem people incompetent for taking personal responsibility for their actions solely due to age. We already do this in society when we charge minors (as young as 15) with crimes in adult courts. Sex does carry consequences (pregnancy, STIs, psychological attachment), but I don't personally believe in building societies where we detach people from the consequences of their actions.

Historically speaking, daughters were married off with dowries at very young ages. Juliet was 13 when she was arranged to be married Paris who was 26 while Romeo was 16. Now, I do believe we baby teens and don't give them the opportunity to have good judgment by allowing them to make their own decisions, but that is a result of our society eliminating their personal choices. Our society currently is not in line with our natural development which does seek out sexual partners, even at early ages. Social norms only repress our natural tendencies which only act out the more you repress them.

In summary, it is my personal belief that this is a contextual discussion which can only be addressed when applied to specific circumstances. Laws only serve to remove our judgment to replace it with unnatural, socially constructed rules. This question deals with power structures, social mores, psychological manipulation, individual development, and personal responsibility. This all depends on the individuals who partaking in the actions and the contextual aspects of the situation. I do not judge those who seek out partners far outside their age cohort since I lack knowledge about their character and values. I know people who are competent enough to make sound relationship choices throughout all demographic groups, so I think this question is pointless without knowing specific situations/people.


The age of consent in Hawaii is 16. What you are referring to is the close in age exemption. And the statute in Florida is 94.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794.

So no a 24 year old would be breaking the law. I mentioned that there are exceptions as well. You say that laws are arbitrary numbers so would you have a problem with a 10 year old in a relationship with a 30 year old? Don't be so quick to judge that when we quote law that we do not understand legal precedence.


Wrong, Hawaii is 14 years old when having sex with someone within 5 years of their age.

You missed the point of my post I can tell. I was saying what should be emphasized is the physical and mental maturity of the people who are making the decisions. Age is a number, not an intellect or maturity level. You don't appear to be able to distinguish between the two as you are only concerned with legal dogma and Earth's revolutions around the sun. Your example is only meant to evoke an emotional response which conjures up negative associations with pedophiles without truly considering what someone's mental and physical maturity level may be. Nor are you concerned with why many young adults are stunted in their mental and emotional maturity.

I have dated a girl which I found to have the maturity of a an adolescent teenage girl in terms of her emotional development. She had a legal right to have sex as she pleases, yet a well-adjusted 16 year old girl who had consensual sex with a 16 year old boy in California could have statutory rape charges filed against both. Age and maturity are not necessarily linked, and I have found many cases where they are mutually exclusive. As such, I don't believe a number gives anyone the right to judge what is appropriate for other competent individuals. So please take your self-righteousness elsewhere.


Please take your ignorance elsewhere. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Hawaii State Statutes

§707-730 Sexual assault in the
first degree. (1) A person
commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree
if:

(a) The
person knowingly subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by
strong compulsion;

(b) The
person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with another person who is less
than fourteen years old; or

(c) The
person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with a person who is at least
fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old; provided that:

(i) The
person is not less than five years older than the minor; and

(ii) The
person is not legally married to the minor.

§707-732 Sexual assault in the
third degree. (1) A person
commits the offense of sexual assault in the third degree
if:

(a) The
person recklessly subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by
compulsion;

(b) The
person knowingly subjects to sexual contact another person who is less than
fourteen years old or causes such a person to have sexual contact with the
person;

(c) The
person knowingly engages in sexual contact with a person who is at least
fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old
or causes the minor to have
sexual contact with the person; provided that:

(i) The
person is not less than five years older than the minor; and

(ii) The
person is not legally married to the minor;

I must apologize though. I was wrong about the Close in age exemption. They Repealed that law. So the Age of Consent is indeed 16 so still right about that sorry.

You imply that age and maturity are large factors in making a decision to have intimate contact. I'll agree to that there are people that are not mature to handle that type of relationship. However it is not absolute. You seem to imply that a very mature child should be able to have a relationship with whoever they want. I don't care how mature the child is. An adult that has in interest in an adolescent needs help. If they act on it. They need to be incarcerated. You say "Your example is only meant to evoke an emotional response which conjures up negative associations with pedophiles without truly considering what someone's mental and physical maturity level may be.". Give me one, just one positive association of pedophilia. It can't be done. You're right my response was meant to evoke an emotional response. Anyone that abuses children is scum. On a side note state laws are public knowledge. You can find them on their states web-pages quit relying on Wikipedia for your legal information.


No where did I say a child should have sexual relationships. Now you are building straw man arguments which I did not make. In fact, if you read my post, I said people who are physically and mentally prepared should be able to make their own decisions. A child, by definition, is not someone who is either of those. Again, you are abhorring reason in favor of traditionalist dogma.

Also, my points that I made were never meant to be restricted solely to pedophilia, but that is apparently all you wish to talk about since you are transfixed on unconventional views towards maturity and sex. I assume this is due to your combative nature and lack of reasoning ability since you rely on emotional arguments as opposed to logic.

My topic was also meant to cover an 18 year old who has consensual sex with 100 year old. I could see situations where it would be acceptable and also situations where it might not be. But most of all, my point was not to rush to judgment on situations where you a.) lack information about the people making the decisions, and b.) have no business sticking your nose into other people's business.

As for sexual predators who compulsively molest children, I doubt you will find many people willing to defend them, and I was never one of them. Thanks for your absurd ad hominem attack. I don't feel compelled to justify my points to you any further. Kudos on looking up statutes unnecessarily.
34166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M / Tennessee
Offline
Posted 3/22/13
So I guess I'd better not date anyone younger than 57, huh?
Orbxck 
24054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Earth
Offline
Posted 3/22/13
Personaly I dont really care bout the age limit, I might get weirded in some cases but if they are in love then who am I to judge.
6058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 3/23/13

creightonja wrote:


kamaitachi5587 wrote:


creightonja wrote:


kamaitachi5587 wrote:


creightonja wrote:

First off, there is a lot of people trying to quote law here who have no idea what legal the actual legal precedent is. The laws vary by state, and if you are curious what they are for your area, look up "age of consent" on google for your state or region. It is as low as 14 (in Hawaii), it can have age ranges (16 year olds can date up to 24 in Florida), or be as rigid as 18 plus like it is in California. There are stipulations in the UCMJ for military members and exceptions are common for married minors.

Second, all laws are completely arbitrary number defined by social constructs which people attempt to define through delegations of rights and responsibilities. Physical and mental development are not linear, nor do they abide by artificial sets of rules such as the assumption that people are not legally capable of entering into contracts at age 18. I know people who are 30 who lack the competence of myself at age 15. Biologically speaking, both genders are capable of sexual intercourse after puberty, therefore the general issue that people raise is that younger individuals (especially women) are not capable of deciding their own sexual rights (i.e. statutory rape is considered rape because of the inability of minor to give consent). In my opinion, sex is not a legal contract, nor should we deem people incompetent for taking personal responsibility for their actions solely due to age. We already do this in society when we charge minors (as young as 15) with crimes in adult courts. Sex does carry consequences (pregnancy, STIs, psychological attachment), but I don't personally believe in building societies where we detach people from the consequences of their actions.

Historically speaking, daughters were married off with dowries at very young ages. Juliet was 13 when she was arranged to be married Paris who was 26 while Romeo was 16. Now, I do believe we baby teens and don't give them the opportunity to have good judgment by allowing them to make their own decisions, but that is a result of our society eliminating their personal choices. Our society currently is not in line with our natural development which does seek out sexual partners, even at early ages. Social norms only repress our natural tendencies which only act out the more you repress them.

In summary, it is my personal belief that this is a contextual discussion which can only be addressed when applied to specific circumstances. Laws only serve to remove our judgment to replace it with unnatural, socially constructed rules. This question deals with power structures, social mores, psychological manipulation, individual development, and personal responsibility. This all depends on the individuals who partaking in the actions and the contextual aspects of the situation. I do not judge those who seek out partners far outside their age cohort since I lack knowledge about their character and values. I know people who are competent enough to make sound relationship choices throughout all demographic groups, so I think this question is pointless without knowing specific situations/people.


The age of consent in Hawaii is 16. What you are referring to is the close in age exemption. And the statute in Florida is 94.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794.

So no a 24 year old would be breaking the law. I mentioned that there are exceptions as well. You say that laws are arbitrary numbers so would you have a problem with a 10 year old in a relationship with a 30 year old? Don't be so quick to judge that when we quote law that we do not understand legal precedence.


Wrong, Hawaii is 14 years old when having sex with someone within 5 years of their age.

You missed the point of my post I can tell. I was saying what should be emphasized is the physical and mental maturity of the people who are making the decisions. Age is a number, not an intellect or maturity level. You don't appear to be able to distinguish between the two as you are only concerned with legal dogma and Earth's revolutions around the sun. Your example is only meant to evoke an emotional response which conjures up negative associations with pedophiles without truly considering what someone's mental and physical maturity level may be. Nor are you concerned with why many young adults are stunted in their mental and emotional maturity.

I have dated a girl which I found to have the maturity of a an adolescent teenage girl in terms of her emotional development. She had a legal right to have sex as she pleases, yet a well-adjusted 16 year old girl who had consensual sex with a 16 year old boy in California could have statutory rape charges filed against both. Age and maturity are not necessarily linked, and I have found many cases where they are mutually exclusive. As such, I don't believe a number gives anyone the right to judge what is appropriate for other competent individuals. So please take your self-righteousness elsewhere.


Please take your ignorance elsewhere. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Hawaii State Statutes

§707-730 Sexual assault in the
first degree. (1) A person
commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree
if:

(a) The
person knowingly subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by
strong compulsion;

(b) The
person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with another person who is less
than fourteen years old; or

(c) The
person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with a person who is at least
fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old; provided that:

(i) The
person is not less than five years older than the minor; and

(ii) The
person is not legally married to the minor.

§707-732 Sexual assault in the
third degree. (1) A person
commits the offense of sexual assault in the third degree
if:

(a) The
person recklessly subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by
compulsion;

(b) The
person knowingly subjects to sexual contact another person who is less than
fourteen years old or causes such a person to have sexual contact with the
person;

(c) The
person knowingly engages in sexual contact with a person who is at least
fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old
or causes the minor to have
sexual contact with the person; provided that:

(i) The
person is not less than five years older than the minor; and

(ii) The
person is not legally married to the minor;

I must apologize though. I was wrong about the Close in age exemption. They Repealed that law. So the Age of Consent is indeed 16 so still right about that sorry.

You imply that age and maturity are large factors in making a decision to have intimate contact. I'll agree to that there are people that are not mature to handle that type of relationship. However it is not absolute. You seem to imply that a very mature child should be able to have a relationship with whoever they want. I don't care how mature the child is. An adult that has in interest in an adolescent needs help. If they act on it. They need to be incarcerated. You say "Your example is only meant to evoke an emotional response which conjures up negative associations with pedophiles without truly considering what someone's mental and physical maturity level may be.". Give me one, just one positive association of pedophilia. It can't be done. You're right my response was meant to evoke an emotional response. Anyone that abuses children is scum. On a side note state laws are public knowledge. You can find them on their states web-pages quit relying on Wikipedia for your legal information.


No where did I say a child should have sexual relationships. Now you are building straw man arguments which I did not make. In fact, if you read my post, I said people who are physically and mentally prepared should be able to make their own decisions. A child, by definition, is not someone who is either of those. Again, you are abhorring reason in favor of traditionalist dogma.

Also, my points that I made were never meant to be restricted solely to pedophilia, but that is apparently all you wish to talk about since you are transfixed on unconventional views towards maturity and sex. I assume this is due to your combative nature and lack of reasoning ability since you rely on emotional arguments as opposed to logic.

My topic was also meant to cover an 18 year old who has consensual sex with 100 year old. I could see situations where it would be acceptable and also situations where it might not be. But most of all, my point was not to rush to judgment on situations where you a.) lack information about the people making the decisions, and b.) have no business sticking your nose into other people's business.

As for sexual predators who compulsively molest children, I doubt you will find many people willing to defend them, and I was never one of them. Thanks for your absurd ad hominem attack. I don't feel compelled to justify my points to you any further. Kudos on looking up statutes unnecessarily.


I apologize if I misinterpreted your response. Your argument was not as clear as it could have been and was convoluted further with at best outdated statutes. When you open a post with an aggressive stance and continue to use force it is only natural that one reply in kind. Force deserves force after all. My issue arose with your vague phrasing that could have several implications. Your post was in response to my post that quoted basic statutes which was in response to an 18 year old user dating a 15 year old. I based my interpretation of your post following that logic. There were several points that I believe were the basis of the Misunderstanding
1) All laws are completely arbitrary number defined by social constructs. You say that all (a blanket term) laws are completely arbitrary. This would imply that the AOC is a meaningless number based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity. Extrapolated further there should be no legal AOC.
2)Biologically speaking, both genders are capable of sexual intercourse after puberty, therefore the general issue that people raise is that younger individuals (especially women) are not capable of deciding their own sexual rights. This was interpreted to mean that if they a biologically capable they should be able to decide their own sexual rights.
3) In my opinion, sex is not a legal contract, nor should we deem people incompetent for taking personal responsibility for their actions solely due to age. Again we should not judge if people are competent enough to take responsibility for the actions based on their age. How do we determine competency?
4) Now, I do believe we baby teens and don't give them the opportunity to have good judgment by allowing them to make their own decisions, but that is a result of our society eliminating their personal choices. Our society currently is not in line with our natural development which does seek out sexual partners, even at early ages. Social norms only repress our natural tendencies which only act out the more you repress them. Yes, I agree we do baby teens. This is because teens don’t for the most part have good judgment. There have been numerous studies that show teens make bad decisions. Their own decisions may not be in their best interest. You seemed to imply we should let them have Carte Blanche to make their own personal choices. Further while it is true that society is not in line with biology that is to be expected in a non-agrarian society. Early in evolution as well as in early civilization it was beneficial to have children as early as possible. Both for the survival of the species early on and later to have more hands to help raise crops. As infant mortality was high it was beneficial to start early and have many children so a few would survive. That is no longer required and so society had to change it seemed that you were defending biology over society.
5) Laws only serve to remove our judgment to replace it with unnatural, socially constructed rules….. I do not judge those who seek out partners far outside their age cohort since I lack knowledge about their character and values. I know people who are competent enough to make sound relationship choices throughout all demographic groups, so I think this question is pointless without knowing specific situations/people. Again it is up the judgment of the individual. You say they can make sound judgment through all demographics. Again a blanket statement. I don’t believe the specifics of the people and situation are relevant is consent cannot be legally be given.
6) Age and maturity are not necessarily linked, and I have found many cases where they are mutually exclusive. As such, I don't believe a number gives anyone the right to judge what is appropriate for other competent individuals. Once again maturity and age are not linked so we cannot judge what are appropriate for competent individuals. How can we determine competency.

You’re correct in that I have a combative nature. I have no problem meeting force with force. What instigated my hostile tone was yours. You open with an attack “First off, there is a lot of people trying to quote law here who have no idea what legal the actual legal precedent is” As I was the only quoting law it was an obvious attack against me. When I referred to an exemption In Hawaii Statutes you say “Wrong, Hawaii is 14 years old when having sex with someone within 5 years of their age. “ You say I’m wrong then quote the exemption I mentioned” Throughout all of your posts you are combative “You don't appear to be able to distinguish between the two as you are only concerned with legal dogma and Earth's revolutions around the sun.” Again a personal attack. So please take your self-righteousness elsewhere. I was defending the letter of the law. Nowhere in your posts did you mention an 18 year old with a 100 year old nowhere was that even implied. You protest my ad hominem attack however you made attacks of your own. I assume this is due to your combative nature and lack of reasoning ability. I do not believe that it was unnecessary to cite statutes. You attacked me in a public forum I was defending my argument by proving I was correct. I apologize for being combative I was responding to your hostilities. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted what you were attempting to convey.



18469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F
Offline
Posted 3/23/13
I don't really understand the OP's question. Is he implying that the government set restrictions on age gaps in relationships? Should they be in the business of regulating morality? Because when the government sets out to do one thing, the exact opposite usually happens.
Posted 3/23/13 , edited 3/23/13

trinkit wrote:

I don't really understand the OP's question. Is he implying that the government set restrictions on age gaps in relationships? Should they be in the business of regulating morality? Because when the government sets out to do one thing, the exact opposite usually happens.


you're right, most people just looooooove to be rebels, tragic story. the allure of the forbidden
15541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / England
Offline
Posted 3/23/13
As long as it's legal I don't see a problem with age gaps at all. As long as they are happy why should numbers matter?
18673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/23/13 , edited 3/23/13

hyjinx17 wrote:

I mean once your 18 I don't have a problem with any age gap, but I know if I have a daughter one day and she's 18 and brings home a 40 year old guy, I'm gonna be severely pissed at him


Be severely pissed at yourself for raising an 18 year old daughter that is attracted to 40 year old men!

As for age gap-limit topic...

The only age gap-limit is before puberty and after sterility! If you're in-between those, then nature says its A-OKAY!
5091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 3/23/13
You people quoting all these laws and age limits do realize that most of these laws get broken every single day which makes the whole matter irrelevant to the original post. There is no reason to even discuss laws in a matter of opinion when all of the laws that govern any body are always broken on the daily basis.
5091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 3/23/13

JoryWelch wrote:

You people quoting all these laws and age limits do realize that most of these laws get broken every single day which makes the whole matter irrelevant to the original post. There is no reason to even discuss laws in a matter of opinion when all of the laws that govern any body are always broken on the daily basis.


You simply could just say that you don't think dating a person under age limits by law is wrong and move on...lol
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.