[frantique]

The following scenerio is being muted in Oz right now. It is about dictating in law how people can live. Don't know much about the details, but one of our northern states is suggesting bringing into law that it be illegal for young people (I think mainly teenagers) to be in a relationship with anyone more than five years their senior. So in actual fact they are suggesting that it would be illegal for a 17 years old to be in a relationship with a 23 years old person!!! This is all a little scary to me.

[Advertisements]

I think that it more unnatural for a relationship to be stoped for being unnatrual relationship than any unnatrual relationship itself, meaning that if people are over the age of mutual concent and are not of the same family they the pure thing is to let them be regardless of how others may think. All my girlfriends when I was in my teens were about ten years older than me, the law they mention would have just built up resentment and loneliness in me I guess.

[fleamailman]

I think that it more unnatural for a relationship to be stoped for being unnatrual relationship than any unnatrual relationship itself, meaning that if people are over the age of mutual concent and are not of the same family they the pure thing is to let them be regardless of how others may think. All my girlfriends when I was in my teens were about ten years older than me, the law they mention would have just built up resentment and loneliness in me I guess.

[warriorscot]

AHH so flea we finally know you as a sugar momma hunter, lol. You should have went to casablanca appantly thats the best place for picking up rich older women.

Really what are they going to do, im fairly sure such a law would infringe human rights legislation there are limits to what laws can do especially if neither of the parties are regarded as vulnerable. If we had that law here i wouldnt even be born my dad is 6 years older than my mum but thats not a big deal and it wasnt when they were younger either. Having a relationship with someone older is fairly natural and it would be ridiculous and impractical to impose a restriction on it.

[fleamailman]

scot is right, but that was before I became a goblin and started falling for old'ish computers instead.

[MasterJ]

In today's society, with all the human's rights groups, there's really no way it could get passed. There would be too much outrage.

[frantique]

OK I've done some research - having started the topic based on stories being reported and then discussed extensively on radio national, locally (in regional NSW Australia). Turns out that the proposition is being put forward by lobbyists for a group who actively work against pedophilia and provide all kinds of support for victims of abuse. So, it's not being mooted as a proposed law, it is being suggested as a protective measure and as you have all said it surely would never get to a position of being considered or passed as law. I originally brought the subject up in the "getting fired for smoking" topic cause it seemed to me that both scenerios are similar in that any government intervention would be (I believe) a gross interference in people's basic rights. It just seems to me that we have become so incredibly regulated. I am of a vintage where there used to be nowhere near as much regulation and I guess I am concerned that the up-coming generation is so accepting of the degree of regulation because they do not have any experience of existence without it. If things continue the way they are (with the various laws continually being passed to so-called 'protect' people from terrorists, etc) I believe real freedom could become something a whole generation would have no concept of.
Hmmm, I seem to have a bit of a talent for changing the stream of a topic. Really just wanted to explain the basis of the subject and also my reasons for introducing it in the first place.

[dsenette]

it would be illegal for a 17 years old to be in a relationship with a 23 years old person

in the US it's illegal for anyone above the age of 18 to have a sexual relationship with anyone below the age of 18 even if it's consensual...it's called statutory rape...this law is to protect minors from being abused...because a minor (anyone under 18) cannot LEGALLY give consent to ANYTHING (i.e. they cannot sign a legally binding contract, they cannot enter into any verbal contract, they cannot sign consent for surgeries or medical procedures) this is done to protect emotional/mental/physical minors from themselves and adults...i don't see where this is a bad or infringing on those people's rights.....i can see where a government extending this type of law over to simple relationships (i.e. we are going to go out and be boyfriend/girlfriend but we won't have any sexual relationships untill the minor is a legal adult) could be a bit extreme...but in this day and age...how many relationships do you know of that don't become sexual....the government has decided an age at which someone is capable of accepting responsibility for themselves and their actions (usually 18) and they are usually correct (i don't know many people below the age of 18 who are actually mentally stable and responsible enough to handle the consequenses of these types of relationships)...so take into account this scenario:
you have a daughter...she's 16 and is (or at least thinks she is) absolutely in love with a 26 year old college student....they go out alot and eventually the relationship crosses the line...now she's equated (because of our wonderful media) sex with love...so if they are having sex he must love her as much as she loves him...he dumps her (as that's what his original plan was as all he wanted was a physical relationship) and she's heart broken to a point where she will probably never have a healthy relationship again (because now she wonder's what was wrong with her? was she not doing it right? is she not skinny enough? etc...)...sounds like a fun life doesn't it? if she had waited till she were mentally mature enough to handle a PROPER relationship and make PROPER decisions about when to and when not to enter a sexual relationship then she would have a much healthier mental state. wouldn't you want the guy to be punished for ruining the child's life?

[frantique]

you have a daughter...she's 16 and is (or at least thinks she is) absolutely in love with a 26 year old college student....they go out alot and eventually the relationship crosses the line...now she's equated (because of our wonderful media) sex with love...so if they are having sex he must love her as much as she loves him...he dumps her (as that's what his original plan was as all he wanted was a physical relationship) and she's heart broken to a point where she will probably never have a healthy relationship again (because now she wonder's what was wrong with her? was she not doing it right? is she not skinny enough? etc...)...sounds like a fun life doesn't it? if she had waited till she were mentally mature enough to handle a PROPER relationship and make PROPER decisions about when to and when not to enter a sexual relationship then she would have a much healthier mental state. wouldn't you want the guy to be punished for ruining the child's life?

Seems to me the above scenario you are suggesting entirely leaves out caring and loving parent/s who has been guiding this young woman for many years as well as being or providing role models for loving relationships. And sure, the above does and will continue to happen, however, I do not believe it is only to the young - you could say the same thing about a 25 yrs old woman who was having her very first significant relationship! Would she be

mentally mature enough to handle a PROPER relationship and make PROPER decisions

? Especially if she had not had any PROPER relationships in which to learn for herself about being in relationship.

Dsenette your interesting facts got me looking into some legals here in Australia. Minors must attend school between ages 5 years and 16 years. Cannot drink alcohol in licensed premises until 18. Cannot use or purchase tobacco until 18. Cannot purchase alcohol until 18. It is a crime to have sex with a minor who is under the age of 17 years. It is a defence if they believed on reasonable grounds that the minor was over 17 years. If a minor consents to sex and they were 15 or older and the other person was not more than 5 years older - that would be a defence. If the minor consented and was 12 years or older and the other person was not more than 3 years older that would also constitute a defence. It is illegal to drive a motor vehicle or motor bike without a license. You must be 16 years to get a learners permit (and must drive with a fully licensed driver present and alert and cannot exceed 80 k/hr in most states). You can get a provisional license at 17 years (and can then drive alone). A minor, 14 years and over can seek medical attention without parental consent if the Doctor believes the minor has a suitable level of understanding in relation to the situation and passes a test called a Gallick Test and also has a second opinion and agreement from another medical practitioner. Situations in which this can happen mainly involve contraception advice, STD's, termination of pregnancy, pregnancy related healthcare, substance addiction and mental healthcare. A young person who has reached "age of discretion" (14 years for boys and 16 years for girls) who has left home cannot be forced to return home against their wishes unless it can be proven that to be away from home puts them in specific danger.

I guess the main thing for those of us who are parents and those of us who will be one day is to keep the communication going and ensure our children are well armed with values which will serve them as well as the society in which they will become meaningful members. And a little (or a lot) of modelling doesn't go astray.

Gosh, just look around this site at the incredible number of people who are making amazing contributions daily to other people. Some pretty serious modelling is certainly going on here! And far as I can see it has absolutely zero to do with age.

[dsenette]

Seems to me the above scenario you are suggesting entirely leaves out caring and loving parent/s who has been guiding this young woman for many years as well as being or providing role models for loving relationships.

unfortunately MANY of our young (especially our young girls who are an asset to our planet) ARE living a live that entirely leaves out caring and loving parent/parent's who did/do not have the emotional/mental stability to teach the child of these types of issues (what is what isn't a healthy relationship)...there are an exponential amount of families that are continuing on the traditions of abuse and neglect (studies show that women who were sexually/mentally abused in early formative relationships, either with their parents or early boyfrieds, pass these traits on to their children..i.e. if a woman has had a series of abusive relationships that have formed her view of a healthy relationship into one that involves being sexually/mentally/physically exploited or abused as a prerequisite for feeling loved then statistics show that her daughter {and possibly son depending on the mother-son/father-son relationship ratio} will also {especially if the abuse is witnessed by the child}will also grow to have the same views on relationships. This statement alone can be related to all aspects of human life, from crime rates to devorce rates to infanticide as the relationships/actions/values we witness in our formative years are what shape our lives as adults.

And sure, the above does and will continue to happen, however, I do not believe it is only to the young - you could say the same thing about a 25 yrs old woman who was having her very first significant relationship! Would she be....

of course...a woman of 25 who is emotionally immature could indeed fall into the same scenario...but LEGALLY past a certain age (once again in the US that would be accepted at 18 when you become a legal adult) you are expected to have had enough experience to be concidered emotionally mature (some mature earlier than others, some later). so from a PURELY legal standpoint, these laws could not apply to those past the age of concent/legal adulthood. you also have to raise the question of why the person at a higher age has a retarded (held back..not mentally challenged) emotional maturity? is this solely because they haven't had any meaningfull relationshiops? is it because of their upbringing (too strick parenting?)? their environment? some unknown genetic/psychological link? it's hard to say as a general answer...but as said..after a certain age you're expected to be able to handle (mentally) the concequences of your actions (committing crimes, unplanned pregnancy, bad relationships, filling your taxes wrong, etc..). which is why the older (adult) party in these scenarios are required to bear the full brunt of the consequences when dealing with minors...because LEGALLY (and morally) they SHOULD know better than the child (minor).

? Especially if she had not had any PROPER relationships in which to learn for herself about being in relationship.

we form our views of what a "relationship" should require to be healthy from experience, observation, and parenting...as for the observation...that's easy..you watch and see what works...the parenting...well no one but the parent can control that (and as stated above...this step can and does go horribly wrong)..but for the experience...why on earth would a 16 year old REQUIRE the experience of datinng a 20 year old or above? what could they TRULEY have in common? one's in college one is in highschool...while it's debatable at what constitutes maturity...i know very few 16 year olds who are ready for the requirements involved with a relationship with such a age difference...not to say that these relationships couldn't work (i was 17 when i met my girlfriend who is 7 years older than me and we're still together)...but on the whole...it's asking for trouble...especially as the general age difference in these more dangerous relationships tends to place the two individuals at far differing levels in the formative spectrum...such as our 16 year old and let's say 22 year old...

the 16 year old has just figured out how to get through junior high and is learning how to interact socially with large groups..forming their beliefs and views about society in a HIGHLY restricted and controlled environment (school and family structure)...there are certain boundaries that they cannot cross and certain ones that they can bend...
our 22 year old however has already completed some years at college...probably has a job and is still learning how to interact with even larger groups...still forming the beliefs and views...the biggest difference here...is that with relation to the 16 year old...the 22 year old has ABSOLUTELY no restrictions or bounds on their environment...they can travel as they please..make any bad decisions that they wish and have no one to answer to but themselves....this leads to a MUCH different view of life and social interaction which the 16 year old (due to lack of experience) cannot comprehend there by leading to a false maturity on the part of the 16 year old ("me and jimmy went to a college party last week and i got blitzed!! it was sooooo cool ohmagosh!!) because they now have access to things that they weren't meant to be experiencing till a much later age..

I guess the main thing for those of us who are parents and those of us who will be one day is to keep the communication going and ensure our children are well armed with values which will serve them as well as the society in which they will become meaningful members. And a little (or a lot) of modelling doesn't go astray.

indeed...this is the key to all aspects of life...parenting...without proper parenting and education...no child will grow up to be stable...it's not possible

[warriorscot]

I have to say as an older brother that when my little sis gets to 16 and tries to date some 26 year old(it would be totally legal and above board in the UK sex, smoking and marriage all legal at 16 here) then that unlicky fellow would get a knock on the door one night and find out what i think of that. Mind you in principle i dont have anything wrong with it as long as its not my sister or sometime in the future my daughter im fine with that, i wouldnt have a problem dating someone in there 20s. All the fit birds at uni are older than me anyway(all this gap year lark is a foreign concept).

18 is quite old i think probably to old, considering that in most countries its 12-14 and at 16 i was more than capable to make such decsions. But they tend to err on the side of caution in the US, 21 to drink thats just weird totally would bug me to go on holiday and NOT be able to go to the pub for a beer its just wrong, you can have sex but not got drunk wierd i couldnt take it i like my beer to much.

While were on interesting age facts some UK ones, most everything except drinking is legal at 16, you can get a driving liscense at 17 for cars (provisional then you have a theory and practical test to get your full) there must be a fully qualified drive with at least 5 years of driving experience(might be 6) is you have a provisional no going out on your own thats just suicide. after that you have a couple years probation you can do what you want but keep it under 6 points or you lose it. You can seek confidiential medical treatment at any time and have it kept between you as long as your competent, usually at about 10 that starts but a 5 year old can technically go get an appointment. You can drink at 18 just in time for uni, a great blessing and can get a loan and take out credit against your name at 18 after that age wise no restrictions, you can also vote 18 although there are discussions to lower this to 16.

Although there seems to be a trend in liking older women here i see first the flea now the monkey. hey maybe its not you maybe the older chicks dig the geeks.

Edited by warriorscot, 12 April 2006 - 10:34 AM.

[Ryan]

in the US it's illegal for anyone above the age of 18 to have a sexual relationship with anyone below the age of 18 even if it's consensual...it's called statutory rape...

Simply put...NO. Each state gets to define their own age of consent...when dealing with sexual relations, its this age that matter, not the age of majority. Also, most states don't call it statutory rape, but sexual assault.

Here in Connecticut, from what I've read, that age is sixteen.

In part, Section 53a-71a of the CT General Statues states:

(a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and: (1) Such other person is thirteen years of age or older but under sixteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person

It also goes on to list sexual actions between coaches and players, school employees and students, doctors and patients, and other relationships are also illegal.

This information is not intended to substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. No person should act or rely on any information in this post without seeking the advice of an attorney.

[frantique]

Although there seems to be a trend in liking older women here i see first the flea now the monkey. hey maybe its not you maybe the older chicks dig the geeks.

Now don't get too carried away Scot, it's purely cerebral!!

Just realised though, when I was in my late teens/early 20's my boyfriends were all much older (even 12 years at one stage!) and then as I got much older my friends seemed to get younger - my closest girlfriend here where I live is 18 years my junior. Also, because I had a couple of children later in life (youngest at 41) it seems to have kept me thinking and being young (to stay in touch with where they're at!).

dsenette, just dug up some stats here in Australia which agree with what you have said as well as refute some points.

** One in three girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused in some way before the age of 18 years. (Australian Institute of Criminology’s Second Conference on Violence, June 1993.)

** There is widespread agreement in the literature that child sexual abuse spans all races, economic classes and ethnic groups.
(Finkelhor, 1993, 1994; Goldman & Padayachi 1997; Oates, 1990; O'Donnell & Craney, 1982; Peters, Wyatt

** Child sexual abuse could trigger the development of future violent behaviour resulting in criminal convictions psychosomatic responses, psychiatric disorders, long-lasting emotional problems; youth suicide, regression, sleeping and eating disorders, lack of self-esteem; nightmares, mutilation, self-hatred, promiscuous behaviour, aggression. A wide variety of later effects had been pointed out, including sexual difficulties, inability to form lasting relationships, a serious lack of self-confidence, marital problems and poor parenting skills.(Waters & Kelk, 1991). (Oates & Tong 1987); Australian Institute of Criminology Paper on Paedophilia – Effect on Victims& Finkelhor, 1986).

** Some 70% of psychiatric patients are known to have been sexually abused as children.
(Children’s Commission of Qld – Paedophilia in Qld Report – 5 August 1997)

** 80 to 85 per cent of women in Australian prisons have been victims of incest or other forms of abuse. (Volume 19(2) of the 1994 Alternative Law Journal cited in C’wealth Senator Andrew Murray Hansard 19 June 2002 Page 2061))

** 70% of all prisoners were abused as children.
(Children’s Commissions’ report into paedophilia August 5, 1997)

** On the basis of therapeutic experience Ross (1995) suggests that only approximately 5 percent of victims go on to become abusers.
(Managing Sex Offenders – NSW Child Protection Council)

** One in three child sexual offenders are adolescents.
(Bagley, C. (1995), Child sexual abuse and mental health in adolescents and adults.)

I realise we can always find some statistics to prove our point and I agree we absolutely need to have laws to protect those children who do not have someone looking out for them and to punish those who hurt children. Again I go back to my comments earlier regarding overregulation. One of the major problems as I see it is that young people will grow up with so much regulation to 'so called' protect them and at the same time are constantly being desensitized by the violence of crime on TV/movies that their innate and natural self survival instincts will no longer operate at an effective level to provide them protection. Perhaps my concern is unfounded because evolution is taking up the slack in other ways ie. maybe children born today are more psychic than previous generations. (If I may .. and I am .. I would like to make a little side diversion here ... for as long as someone has been checking babies have been born with their index finger being the strongest digit. Some years ago it was discovered that the majority of babies were born with their thumbs being the strongest digits - a follow on it seems from youngsters constantly playing gameboys, etc for many years - that's a documented example of evolution taking up the slack!).

Certainly from the statistics above it appears society is not doing enough to protect our future generations and certainly our governments and legal systems are not! (wont go into the stats for the legal side - they're really scarry!!).

It just struck me while rereading the above stats that if we as a society REALLY did protect our children and REALLY were successful in reducing or dare I say stamping out the abuse of them the impact on future generations would be incredible if you just look at the impact it would have on the above stats.

Edited by frantique, 12 April 2006 - 06:17 PM.

[dsenette]

If I may .. and I am .. I would like to make a little side diversion here ... for as long as someone has been checking babies have been born with their index finger being the strongest digit. Some years ago it was discovered that the majority of babies were born with their thumbs being the strongest digits - a follow on it seems from youngsters constantly playing gameboys, etc for many years - that's a documented example of evolution taking up the slack!).

darwanism at it's best man....can't think of a more usefull trait

Certainly from the statistics above it appears society is not doing enough to protect our future generations and certainly our governments and legal systems are not! (wont go into the stats for the legal side - they're really scarry!!).

It just struck me while rereading the above stats that if we as a society REALLY did protect our children and REALLY were successful in reducing or dare I say stamping out the abuse of them the impact on future generations would be incredible if you just look at the impact it would have on the above stats.

indeed...if we could fix just one of those scenarios (child abuse)...then look at how many aspects of our life would change?

and also...as to the "overregulation"....i always hate saying this but....things are only illegal if they're reported (cringes...)....so any laws against these "relationships" (5 years older or whatever)...would really mostly serve to give parents of the younger child an added method of controlling the child..(most parents that actually accept the relationship and like the older guy who treats their daughter properly would do anything they could to make sure the fuzz didn't find out....which would actually make the relationship stronger...as it would now be a relationship between the guy and the girl..and her whole family!)

[frantique]

Something jumped at me today regarding the above statistics. If 1 in three girls and 1 in 6 boys will be abused before they reach 18 does this roughly mean around 25% of children will be abused before they are 18? Could someone please confirm if this is correct. And if only 5% of victims go on to become abusers this equates to 5% of 25% of children will abuse. According to the stats roughly 1 in 3 (or 33.3%) of abusers are adolescents. So does this mean that 33% of the abusers of 25% of all children are themselves children, however only 5% ... phew, I'm getting very, very confused here although I can feel there is some point to be made. So in the interests of trying to understand what I am intuiting I have decided to give a totally completely fictitions number to the number of children involved. The math involved will be based on the statistics, however, the numbers I am proposing are totally made up. Hope you're still with me here!!!

So let's say that the total population in this country of children is 10,000 of which 6,000 are boys and 4,000 are girls.

Before these children reach 18 years of age 1,000 boys and 1,333 girls will have been abused. In total 2,333 children out of 10,000 children will have been abused. Assuming the numbers of children and the %'s abused remain constant and that they are not all being abused by the same person/people and in fact that each abused child is abused by a different person, then one could say that approximately 117 of the approx. 2,333 abusers were themselves victims of abuse. And as well 778 of these abusers are adolescents. So approximately 661 abusers of children are in fact other children (adolescents) who were never abused. Why the heck are all these children abusing. What is motivating or affecting/infecting them to cause them to abuse other young people. And if we assume that none of the 778 adolescents who abuse were themselves victims who went on to become abusers, then we could say that the 2,333 children who were abused were abused by 778 adolescents and 1,555 adults of which approx. 78 were themselves abused. Again why the heck are these 1,477 adults abusing these children. Where is their motivation coming from?

Now I realise you purist mathematicians are probably droning and shaking your heads because of all the variables, etc. etc (I'm not a mathematician so I really don't know exactly what I've left out), however, the exercise is really just to try and put some of the presented statistics into some kind of perspective.