14 year old dating an 18 year old. Please read.

[El_Guero]

David J

As a man in the family, you are taking a godly stand to make a possitive influence upon this girl.

No matter how others say it, they will not live with the results of their advice to you. You and your niece will live with the results of your advice. Don't give in and let the culture of this world destroy this girl. If she chooses to make a mistake on her own, then you have done what you can.

But, a 14 year old should not be dating a grown up. Over the last 20 years, the maturity level has dropped greatly. And if he is not mature enough to wait, and get a job, and mature into a man that deserves a godly lady, then he is not a good man.

I will continue to pray for you.

 

[Hope of Glory]

"Minor" is a completely relative and arbitrary term.

Not according to state laws.

If it's not arbitrary, then why do all the states vary wildly in defining "minor"?

 

[Scarlett O.]

By very definition, the word "arbitrary" mean "not fixed by the law". Well, age of consent IS fixed by the law. Laws do vary, I daresay not wildly. Most states have very close and similar laws about minor children.

Also by definition, "arbitrary" means "having no unique intrinsic value or standard". Children are definitely unique compared to adults and their measurable intrinsic value that makes them different from adults is what leads to minor child laws in the first place.

 

[Hope of Glory]

You are quite correct. These laws are set by the individual states, as almost all laws should be. My poor choice of words.

However, they vary from 12 to 18 for the age of consent, with some states setting a solid line at a particular age, with others making it an age scale, such as no more than four years difference.

Age of consent laws in most states apply only to sexual relations, which are immoral no matter the age.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

So, based on the law, a 13 year old is old enough to decide to have sex in one state, but in another state her 17 year old counterpart is not.

That does sound fairly arbitrary to me.

Which is morally correct to you folks?

Speaking strictly from a humanist point of view, should the 17 year old be condemned for have sex at her age in state X, which at that age is against the law, but the 13 year old should not be because she has sex in state Y, where it is perfectly legal?

Is state X more moral for having the age set at 17? Would state Z then be "morality incarnate" for setting the age at 25? or even outlawing premarital sex or married sex between those younger than 30?

Maybe the law should be that only folks who have been married at least 10 years and are older than 35 should be allowed to have sex. This would also help with starvation and over-population, would it not?

By whose standard of morality are we judging the 18 year old "redneck" in question? (btw, I take offense to the derogatory use of this term...it simply means someone who worsk outside in the sun. With that, most of my family would qualify as being redneck.) Anyway, the moral basis is certainly not according to the Bible, supposedly our sole rule of faith and practice.

I think most folks on here are jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst about this young man when nothing has been proven, or even suspected.

 

[rozy]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
So, based on the law, a 13 year old is old enough to decide to have sex in one state, but in another state her 17 year old counterpart is not.

That does sound fairly arbitrary to me.

Which is morally correct to you folks?

Speaking strictly from a humanist point of view, should the 17 year old be condemned for have sex at her age in state X, which at that age is against the law, but the 13 year old should not be because she has sex in state Y, where it is perfectly legal?

Is state X more moral for having the age set at 17? Would state Z then be "morality incarnate" for setting the age at 25? or even outlawing premarital sex or married sex between those younger than 30?

Maybe the law should be that only folks who have been married at least 10 years and are older than 35 should be allowed to have sex. This would also help with starvation and over-population, would it not?

By whose standard of morality are we judging the 18 year old "redneck" in question? (btw, I take offense to the derogatory use of this term...it simply means someone who worsk outside in the sun. With that, most of my family would qualify as being redneck.) Anyway, the moral basis is certainly not according to the Bible, supposedly our sole rule of faith and practice.

I think most folks on here are jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst about this young man when nothing has been proven, or even suspected.

 

[wwr 82]

I understand your concerns and I agree that the situation needs some immediate action. 18@14 is not that uncommon in our society. We look at it not from a wordly view though and we see a tremendous potential for problems. You need to be the "light" in her life, and keep praying for God's help and wisdom. You aren't helping with the Redneck stuff either.

 

[ronthedisciple]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the laws work against the older of the two when one engages in sexual conduct with a minor. I believe the legal term is "statutory rape" and it is the adult who is charged. The minor is the victim. Not that this is the case in particular, but it seems from another post that the thought was on condemnation of the minor. Sounded like that was backwards from the legal standpoint.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Paul wrote to Corinth:

"But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."

Whatever "the flower of her age" means, if a virgin has passed it, it is no sin for her father to let her marry.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Scarlett O.]

The father of the woman here is not mentioned nor is he relevant to this passage in my opinion.

Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7 that marriage has its place and singleness has its place.

He is emphasizing here a man who has chosen the life of celibacy and singleness and is in a platonic relationship with a woman whom he considers a devoted and loyal friend.

He is saying that if the man changes his mind about being single and if the woman wishes to be married and her celibate companionship with him is holding her back from marrying anyone else, then it is all right for the man to change his mind and marry the woman without either of them being disobedient to God.

He is making the point that once a life of singleness and celibacy has been decided upon that that decision can be revoked without sinning against God.

Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Scarlett,

A interesting interpretation which at first glance appearst to have some merit; but it will not fit the fact that Paul goes on to talk about the man "giving" the virgin in marriage.

But even if we accept your interpretation, it does not change the fact that Paul said that if she had "passed the flower of her age" then it was no sin for her to marry. So when you have determined what "flower of her age" means you will know how old a girl has to be before she can marry without sinning.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Benjamin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
OK, let me tell all you boys something.

A minor child may willingly participate in sex with a grown man, but let me assure you, she has absolutely NO idea what she is consenting to. Not before the act, not during the act, nor after the act.

Huh? "Minor" is a completely relative and arbitrary term.

I know many 13-17 year old girls who know exactly what they are consenting to. It is a testimony to the decadence of our society... but to say they don't know what they are consenting to is ridiculous.

She may know biologically what sex is and may have even participated in it beforehand, but the whole point of being labeled as a minor is that minors do NOT understand adult sexual relationships.

Labels don't demonstrate a lack of understanding... a lack of understanding does. </font>[/QUOTE]On the contrary they have no idea what they are consenting to other than giving in to the temptations.</font>[/QUOTE] How do you KNOW that?

These “minor” girls of that age are going through MAJOR physical and mental changes in their bodies; these changes are new to them and they do not yet have the maturity level to handle these physical draws and emotions in a responsible way

Again, how do you know? Some mature early some late. They don't just magically wake up on the day that their particular state declares them no longer a minor and become mature enough to handle a relationship.

For you to say these CHILDREN “know exactly what they are consenting to.” you are contributing to that “decadence” in spreading your ignorance of conflicting human and spiritual nature and analyses of their competence of decision making.

On the contrary, I am saying that they are morally responsible for actions that they can reasonably be expected to determine as right or wrong.

The proof is if you were to ask most any woman if they could take it back in later years what their answer would be.

No it isn't. That is no proof at all. Who here wouldn't take back a mistake they made some time in the very recent past?

A minor child isn’t a LABEL, it is a MINOR child,

"Minor" is a label... unless you can point to some objective reason for believing that a person who is not mature at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds all of a sudden becomes mature at the magical moment of midnight. Some may have the maturity to make choices at 15, others at 21, still others never show that maturity.

I personally know people who married at very young ages and were very successful together. My maternal grandmother would have been considered a minor when she married my grandfather. He was more than 10 years older than she was. They had 8 children together and were married for about 50 years.

and an understanding of sexual relationships doesn’t center on the immature capability of being able to consent to the act.

Right. It depends on moral responsibility. A child that cannot comprehend the moral implications of their behavior.

They are children and therefore "minor" and they need adult protection not exploitation of their abilities of consenting to classifying them as something else.

The classification is arbitrary.

Put away with disputing a child’s competency level as a label.

The label "minor" doesn't determine a person's competency level. Their competency level does.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"Minor" is a completely relative and arbitrary term.

Not according to state laws.</font>[/QUOTE] As was pointed out, the age of consent is different in various states... not to mention the variations world wide.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I know many 13-17 year old girls who know exactly what they are consenting to....to say they don't know what they are consenting to is ridiculous.

I don't know quite what to say to that.

But yours is a very widespread and common opinion...the belief that because some young girls look and act like grown women that they are,</font>[/QUOTE] So if they look and act like grown women... what precisely is the man supposed to go on? Especially since these young women are known to lie about their ages... and have for many years now.

completely and with adult capacity for emotional and intellectual reasoning, asking for it and their adult male partners are are just victims of wild teenage "bad girls".

These young women are moral beings. They are responsible before God... as are their "adult male partners".

I am not excusing sex acts with between any unmarried couple.

You seem to be laying the burden of not only the morality but also legality on the man. It is very conceiveable that a young woman at 15 is more responsible and mature than her 21 year old boyfriend... and that she has pursued him. Should she be charged with a crime? Why not? A more worldly person has taken advantage of an emotionally immature person.

You are in vast company with that opinion.

The opinion that "minor" girls dress in an intentionally provocative way and are fully aware of the moral issues and still pursue or even deceive older men? There is probably a good reason for the vast company.

Again, both parties are wrong morally. But to say that the girl has no understanding of what she is doing is in fact ridiculous. If it were a crime for two "minor" girls I mentioned before to deceive and seduce a 21 year old man... the guy I mentioned wouldn't have spent the last 7 years in prison. They plotted. They lied.... and knew exactly what they were doing.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Labels don't demonstrate a lack of understanding... a lack of understanding does.

You are on the right track here. It is NOT the label that demonstrates the lack of understanding.

It the lack of understanding that demonstrates the need for the label in the first place.

</font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that some 14 year old girls have more understanding than an 18 year old girl... or boy. This fact is illustrated by the various statitory rape laws. In some cases, charges are seldom brought because the laws are virtually unenforceable if the girl consents.

Someone may be able to correct me but I think the law in NC is something like this: The victim must be 12 or younger with an offender that is at least 4 years older and the victim must have not had previous carnal knowledge.

Other states obviously have stricter laws. That's why the label does not have an objective meaning.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
By very definition, the word "arbitrary" mean "not fixed by the law".

No. Arbitrary means: "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

Well, age of consent IS fixed by the law. Laws do vary, I daresay not wildly. Most states have very close and similar laws about minor children.

That's because those who created the laws made an arbitrary choice.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The problem is that some 14 year old girls have more understanding than an 18 year old girl...

Perhaps, but the fact is that no 14yo has the life experiences of an 18yo. Life experiences has an immense impact on maturity and the ability to make decisions. There's no reasonable justification for a marital relationship between a 14yo and 18yo in this day and age.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Originally posted by Scott J:
So if they look and act like grown women... what precisely is the man supposed to go on?

Aha! You have just proved my point! He should think with what is between his ears and not what is between his legs. SURELY you are not saying that a man can't help it...that he is just too stupid and blinded by physical sensations to make a judgement call.

I do NOT believe that about men. Sure, some of them make mistakes, but I, as a woman, do NOT believe that men in general cannot control themselves.

Let him try some NOVEL approaches such as the following:

</font>

• If her age is suspect, walk away.</font>
• If he is not sure how old she is, walk away.</font>
• If she MIGHT be under 21, walk away.</font>
• If she is in a bar with adults, but looks like a minor, walk away.</font>
• If she is flirting with him, but he cannot verify her age, walk away.</font>
• If she is behaving like a grown woman, but is wearing a school backpack, walk away.</font>
• If she says that she wants to have sex with him and she is dressed like Brittany Spears, walk away.</font>
• If she is a very attractive young woman, but is popping her bubble gum, walk away.</font>
• If there is any REMOTE possibility that this woman is, in fact, a girl, WALK AWAY!</font>

You seem to be laying the burden of not only the morality but also legality on the man.

Let me be as clear as I can. I am laying the burden of morality and legality on the adult, be they man or woman.

It doesn't matter if a minor child strips naked and says, "Please have sex with me", the adult in question should have the intestinal fortitude to walk away and not to put himself or herself in the company of this minor child again.

We are just not on the same page here.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
Let me be as clear as I can. I am laying the burden of morality and legality on the adult, be they man or woman.

It doesn't matter if a minor child strips naked and says, "Please have sex with me", the adult in question should have the intestinal fortitude to walk away and not to put himself or herself in the company of this minor child again.

I could not agree with you more. I'm in complete 100% agreement.

 

[RockRambler]

Scarlett:

Hammer...nail...hit squarely on the head!!!


You got it, the adult must be an adult in this situation, no matter what the child does or asks for.

In today's society, with the exposure that 18yr olds have to other 18yr olds, then there is no reason that an 18 yr old should be interested in a 14 yr old unless they are a LOSER!!!

That or they think its easier to talk the 14yr old into something.....or out of something.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
So if they look and act like grown women... what precisely is the man supposed to go on?

Aha! You have just proved my point! He should think with what is between his ears and not what is between his legs. SURELY you are not saying that a man can't help it...that he is just too stupid and blinded by physical sensations to make a judgement call.</font>[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. He is most definitely morally responsible whether he is pursuing a 19 year old or a 14 year old that looks 19.

I do NOT believe that about men. Sure, some of them make mistakes, but I, as a woman, do NOT believe that men in general cannot control themselves.

Never said that. In fact, I specifically said that both parties were morally responsible.

Let him try some NOVEL approaches such as the following:

</font>

• If her age is suspect, walk away</font>
• If he is not sure how old she is, walk away..

• He should walk away regardless of the age. But that isn't the point. The point is about the term "minor" and not specifically whether his behavior is immoral but rather illegal.
  
  I agree that it is immoral... but I disagree that 14 year olds who figure out how to get into clubs, pick out older men, seduce them, etc are innocents that don't understand what they are doing. Most girls at 13 or 14 are more worldly wise and sexually knowledgeable than their grandmothers ever were. They have been informed and are making moral judgments.
  

  </font>[*]If she MIGHT be under 21, walk away.

  When we first moved to a new church a few years back, my wife struck up a friendship with one of the members who had an attractive daughter.
  
  The daughter's facial features were mature. Her body was mature (and didn't develop any further the whole 6 or so years that we knew her). Her mannerisms were mature. Her interests were mature. She spoke and presented herself as mature. She easily could have passed for 19 or 20. Since we knew she hadn't graduated, we first assumed she was a senior or at least a junior.... She was 13!
  

  </font>[*]If she is in a bar with adults, but looks like a minor, walk away.

  That's the point. They don't look like a "minor".
  

  </font>[*]If she is flirting with him, but he cannot verify her age, walk away.

  You realistically expect young men to "card" women they meet in bars? I don't think they should be in that type of bar to start with but...
  

  </font>[*]If she is behaving like a grown woman, but is wearing a school backpack, walk away.

  
  Obviously.
  

  </font>[*]If she says that she wants to have sex with him and she is dressed like Brittany Spears, walk away.

  They should do that whether she's 17 or 18... but many men won't. But should it be illegal with a 17 year old but legal with an 18 year old.
  

  </font>[*]If there is any REMOTE possibility that this woman is, in fact, a girl, WALK AWAY!</font>

What makes a girl a woman? Does a girl magically become a "woman" at 18?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You seem to be laying the burden of not only the morality but also legality on the man.

Let me be as clear as I can. I am laying the burden of morality and legality on the adult, be they man or woman.</font>[/QUOTE] Tell me again how an 18 year old immature boy is an adult but a 15 year old mature girl is not...

It doesn't matter if a minor child strips naked and says, "Please have sex with me", the adult in question should have the intestinal fortitude to walk away and not to put himself or herself in the company of this minor child again.

Please define minor in a way that would be consistent in every place at every time.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by RockRambler:

In today's society, with the exposure that 18yr olds have to other 18yr olds, then there is no reason that an 18 yr old should be interested in a 14 yr old unless they are a LOSER!!!

That or they think its easier to talk the 14yr old into something.....or out of something.

You're close. That 14 year old girl and 18 year old boy may be at the same emotional, mental, and even physical maturity.

The term "minor" is still arbitrary as it divides such a couple. If the girl is in fact immature and the boy is just taking advantage then you have a different issue.