What do you all think of this story? Personally, I think the parents of that girl are even more to blame. They should never have let her get married at that age. 13 year olds are just not old enough to commit to a relationship to the rest of their life. If I were her parents, I would have been trying to get the guy charged with a crime not get my daughter married to him.
Despite that, I don't know that now Nebraska should be prosecuting him. He seems to have a reasonable belief that having sex with his wife was legal. It seems wrong to send someone to jail for that. Messed up situation all around. I sure wish the parents could be held responsible if they had willingly permitted their 13 year old daughter to date a 22 year old man.
[ July 26, 2005, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: theresa51282 ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmm... I had no idea my state allowed girls that young to get married.
I do know it is common in other cultures, but certainly not in ours.
quote:13 year olds are just not old enough to commit to a relationship to the rest of their life
Tell that to Jerry Lee Lewis!
Maybe they should have just stayed in Kansas.
Not that I'm endorsing this! I certainly wouldn't want my daughter married and pregnant at 13! I'm not going to even allow her to date until she's 25!
Farmgirl
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:13 year olds are just not old enough to commit to a relationship to the rest of their life.
They were able to for quite a long time.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:He seems to have a reasonable belief that having sex with his wife was legal.
They weren't married until after she got pregnant. So does the marriage erase the previous crime?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Juliette was 13
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Sure, I guess a few 13 year olds might be able to make that sort of commitment but I really don't think the vast majority of them have the experiences with life to make such an important decision. I think it works better in other cultures and in former times because 13 year olds have so many other responsibilities at that age. 13 year olds today really have little experience with large responsibilities with jobs, bills, and raising children.
Dkw, I don't know if it erases the previous crime. I guess it just doesn't make sense to me that she is old enough to get married but not old enough to consent to sex.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not sure that I agree with the parents consenting to the marriage. However, given the fact that they are married, what is the point of prosecuting him? Clearly, neither the parents nor the girl want to do so.
So the poor girl could end up with a baby to raise alone, and her husband in jail. Wonderful.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I wouldn’t want to see him in jail either. However, probation with someone checking up on how the wife and the baby are being treated would seem to me to be a good thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed. Is that within the bounds of what can be done legally in that state? Would it have to be a plea bargain, or can the state demand those terms?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:13 year olds are just not old enough to commit to a relationship to the rest of their life.
They were able to for quite a long time.
People's lives were significantly shorter in those days, though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, but because there was no Hatrack back then, they were way more productive.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Here's a version of that URL that won't screw up our screens:
If you would consider replacing your URL with that one, I think a lot of people would be grateful--I know I would be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:13 year olds are just not old enough to commit to a relationship to the rest of their life.
They were able to for quite a long time.
People's lives were significantly shorter in those days, though.
I'm sure I am not seeing what your point really is. Not dying in your forties does not retroactively make you less responsible in your teens.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Juliette was 13
And we all know how happily-ever-after her romance turned out.
(and I think she prefered to spell it "Juliet")
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, I don't know that I would be so quick to assume that, Porter. Haven't people been saying for years that we protract childhood in our society? If you know you only have thirty or forty years to live, as does everyone around you, and economic realities force you to assume the mantle of adulthood--in terms of working for a living, soldiering, etc., at a younger age, wouldn't you be an adult in spirit at that younger age as well?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good point.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think he should be prosecuted, because his crime occurred before he was married, and because it is important--because of the realities of OUR society, not necessarily intrinsically--that we as a society condemn sexual liasons between adults and children. I haven't seen a photograph of the girl, but when a 22-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old, I assume pedophilia is at root.
I would agree that some sort of probation that allows him to support his new family would be a reasonably outcome, though.
I think Kansas's marriage laws are pretty screwed up, though.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Wow. Interesting how this looks up next to the mom having 'consensual' sex with 5 teenage boys. They're not even going to charge her for that...(punwit, you were right.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you so much, theresa! Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
They're not charging her? The news tonight said she faced fifty years in prison or some such.
[Which prompted some outrage from me, not that I don't think she deserves jail time, but the previous story was about a man who shot a bully who had beaten up his son when the bully came around the house to threaten him some more, who was sentenced to twenty-five years. And again, I'm not entirely opposed to jail time for him, but the guy who beat his three-year-old to death (and routinely beat him long before the beating that led to his death) because he was afraid he would turn out to be gay only got about five years. And so I juxtapose a five-year-sentence for someone I regard as human refuse with a 25-year sentence for someone, misguidedly, perhaps, defending his family on his own property, and a threat of fifty years for having sex with freaking teenagers, and think something is seriously screwy about out sentencing.][/ramble]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Despite that, I don't know that now Nebraska should be prosecuting him."
Nebraska is prosecuting him for a crime that took place in Nebraska. They got married in Kansas, because Nebraska doesn't allow marriage below 17. Nebraska is being consistent.
It would be hypocritical if Kansas prosecuted him though.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
The problem is I am not sure what he did in Nebraska should be considered a crime. He had sex with someone legally considered to be his wife however misguided the Kansas law was on the matter. Nebraska has to recognize the marriage due to the full faith and credit clause. I think that it would make more sense for Kansas to charge him for the sex that occurred before they were married. I agree with everyone else however that putting him in jail probably just makes thing harder on the girl.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: They're not charging her? The news tonight said she faced fifty years in prison or some such.
[Which prompted some outrage from me, not that I don't think she deserves jail time, but the previous story was about a man who shot a bully who had beaten up his son when the bully came around the house to threaten him some more, who was sentenced to twenty-five years. And again, I'm not entirely opposed to jail time for him, but the guy who beat his three-year-old to death (and routinely beat him long before the beating that led to his death) because he was afraid he would turn out to be gay only got about five years. And so I juxtapose a five-year-sentence for someone I regard as human refuse with a 25-year sentence for someone, misguidedly, perhaps, defending his family on his own property, and a threat of fifty years for having sex with freaking teenagers, and think something is seriously screwy about out sentencing.][/ramble]
It's like Icarus read my mind... amazing!
Quoted for truth.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It doesn't really say if they are prosecuting for the sex that happened before or after the marriage. Since the girl and her family aren't pressing charges, and she can't be made to testify against him, her pregnancy is the only proof they had that a crime occured, which would make me think they're probably prosecuting for what happened before the marriage.
But even if they're not. . . yes, Nebraska has to recognize that they're legally married, and provide them with all the rights and benefits they're entitled to. Having sex with someone under the age of 17 is still illegal in NE, regardless of if you're married to them. Just because they have to recognize that they're married doesn't trump the fact that a law is being broken.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The idea that it could be illegal to have sex with your spouse is ludicrous.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, I agree in general, but I think underlying that is that thirteen/fourteen-year-olds should not be able to marry 22-year-olds. And in Nebraska, apparently, they cannot, but in Kansas they can. Maybe this is just Nebraska's way of getting around "full faith and credit"?
In any case, though, I think we are missing the point here. If I understand this correctly, he is not being prosecuted for having sex with his spouse. He is being prosecuted for having had sex with a thirteen-year-old girl to whom he was not married.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Even though he married her later.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That's what it looks like to me, yep.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
While I cannot imagine it ever being a good idea for a 13-year-old to get married in America today, for some reason I feel the need to defend the laws that make it legal. I have no idea why.
*has idea*
Maybe it's because my culture once upon a time ran afowl of American society because of our unconventional marriages.
But I don't think so.
MPH
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I don't see why marriage should change the laws on statutory rape...marriage doesn't change the laws on any sort of rape (at least in the USA). The point in the law is that under a certain age, there is not consent...and without consent, you cannot have sex whether you are married or not. Besides, as several people pointed out he had sex before he was married to her. The parents did not consent to the marriage until AFTER the 13 year old was pregnant.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: The parents did not consent to the marriage until AFTER the 13 year old was pregnant.
This line really resonated with me. And look at some of the other ways we've been talking about this -- her parents shouldn't have let her get married, since her parents are supporting the marriage they shouldn't prosecute, If I were her parents, I would have been trying to get him charged with a crime, not get her married to him. . .
So it's clear that we think most of the decision making responsibility (on her side) lies with her parents. Because, you know, she's too young to make that kind of decision, which is going to affect the rest of her life.
If that's the case, then she was also too young to be reasonably supposed to be able to give consent to have sex, and her husband should be prosecuted.
But my real problem is this: Until the marriage her parents were responsible for making her decisions for her. She's now married to a 22 year old man. Do you suppose they can have an equal partnership in their relationship, discussing important matters and coming to an agreement together, with both of their opinions having equal weight? When they disagree, can they fairly compromise? Or was a child just handed off from her parent's household into her husband's, where she will soon have a child to take care of and he will make all the decisions? If this is how their relationship starts out, does it have any hope of changing as she grows and matures?
And what about her education? Does getting married trump that? I can't imagine truancy officers showing up at her door. . .
It's a bad situation all around. I don't have any answers, any more than anyone else. . . but I'd like to see that Kansas law changed. I'm having a hard time coming up with any situation in our current society where I think a 13 year old should be getting married.
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Juliette was 13
Is this an argument for having sex with 13 yr olds? Juliette was also fictional.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
This girl is being talked about like she's still a little girl. Minor yes, but is she responsible for her actions or not? I'm really asking here, so don't think I'm trying to push an agenda. This is something I would like to hear discussed, though...
12 years old seems to be the traditional age of accountability regarding sin and salvation for people of many faiths. Isn't that true? Since rape has not been mentioned in this case, can she morally, if not legally, be said to have consented to sex with this man?
Is it possible for a 13 or 14 year old to make these sorts of decisions? Is it reasonable to assume that she won't have any decision making power in her marriage? Why would we think that? Simply because of her age?
I don't agree that they should have had sex. I hesitate to call him a pedophile, though, since I don't know all the circumstances beyond her age, although I know that technically he is. So even though I think the sex initially was wrong, now that they are married, I don't see this as something that should be overturned or ignored. I hope that she grows to be an equal partner in her marriage and that the couple is able to raise their baby together. In a few years, she will be 18 and the difference in their ages will not seem nearly so drastic. It is not an ideal situation for her, but it doesn't have to be the end of life for her.
I understand prosecuting people who have sex with underage people. It is important to protect other children from a predator. But nothing in this case gives me reason to believe that he is a threat to other underage girls. He seems to have made a committment to this girl when he could have run--even under the very real threat of prosecution.
Is it so far out of the realm of possibility that a 22 year old and a 13 year old could actually fall in love?
Okay... these are mostly questions... I'm not sure how I feel about it.. but I want to hear thoughts...
-Katarain
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
quote:I don't see why marriage should change the laws on statutory rape...marriage doesn't change the laws on any sort of rape (at least in the USA). The point in the law is that under a certain age, there is not consent...and without consent, you cannot have sex whether you are married or not.
Are you really saying that people could be adult enough not marry but not adult to consemate that marriage?
Or are you saying that if the marriage laws are so messed up, let's try to "fix" it by proposing something you don't believe (that they are mature enough to marry but not to copulate)?
MPH
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
WTFIWWYP? she's THIRTEEN. What is so hard about this, It's sick and wrong. When you fall in love at 13 you get a boyfriend, not a husband. If you're 22 and you have sex with a 13 yr old, you go to prison and the inmates kill you. That's the American way!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Or are you saying that if the marriage laws are so messed up, let's try to "fix" it by proposing something you don't believe (that they are mature enough to marry but not to copulate)?
Unless the law is worded in a way that makes an exception for married couples, it WOULD still be illegal to sleep with an underage spouse -- unless (and I don't know whether this is the case; I suspect that it is not, since I've seen successful prosecutions for rape against husbands) sexual relations are an assumed marital right. Right, Dag?
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
let's just send out a survey saying:
have you ever had sex with a child?
Then all we have to do is round up everyone who answered yes, and kill them!
Katarain, you should be ashamed of yourself
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You know what would be a totally radical idea, so crazy that it just might work? How about we limit marriage to a union between two consenting adults?
<I am now preparing to be pilloried for my radical espousals>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Some background:
1.) The common law definition of rape - one enacted into statute in most states until sometime in the last century - had a "with a woman other than his wife" clause built in. By definition, a man could not rape his wife.
2.) This is not the case any more, although some states consider rape of a spouse a lesser crime (something I disagree with), some states create something like a presumption of consent (which seems reasonable, but I haven't thought it through), and some states do not take marital status into account at all (although I'm sure juries do).
3.) Many statutory rape laws contained exceptions for spouses. Under English common law, the age of consent was 10, and once that age was reached, proving rape was almost impossible due to the evidentiary standards. At least some states still make an exception for spouses. Nebraska does not (as best I can tell).
4.) "Marital relations" are a recognized (indeed, essential) part of marriage law. I know of no case that would require a state to honor another state's marriage in this regard, though.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I asked questions. For that, I am not ashamed. The issue is not nearly as clear cut as you think it is, especially with laws being influenced by culture, religion, and society--all of which change. Look at other countries and time periods and you'll find vast differences in law and customs regarding marriage and the age of consent.
As I said, I am in favor of the age of consent being 18--however, I am able to at least conceive that there might be situations, few though they be, that allow for other outcomes. I do think it is possible for someone under 18 and someone over 18 to be genuinely in love, even with a large age difference. However, I still think they need to obey the laws for the sake of those under 18 who are not mature enough and mentally old enough for such decisions--and because it is difficult, if not impossible, to make the distinction between the two types. So for the good of the majority, the minority must wait until 18.
My gut tells me that 13 is ALWAYS too young, however, and this situation is really messed up. 16 and older is where more "gray" area comes in, for me, at least. But in other cultures, that age is even lower.
I still would like more reactions to my original post. I'm interested in what hatrackers think. I made it clear that these are my questions--I don't have firm answers in mind.
I am not in favor of people under 18 getting married, and certainly not to someone much older.
But, this couple is already married (under a law that while we might not agree still is a law), with a child on the way. Without knowing full details, I think it is in the best interest of the child on the way and the young mother that this family be allowed to stay together. As I said, in a few years, their age difference won't matter quite as much.
-Katarain
Edit: to clarify a line that looked contradictory, but wasn't as I intended.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Is it so far out of the realm of possibility that a 22 year old and a 13 year old could actually fall in love?
No, but I do think it is far out of the realm of possibility that said 13 year old could give valid consent to sex, and I have no hesitation in naming any sexual relations between the two of them rape.
Does love have to lead instantly to pre-marital sex? Even as a devout atheist and social liberal, I'd have to say a resounding no.
I used to date a man twelve years older than myself, and I used to spend significant amounts of time at an on-line community for age gap couples. We were regularly visited by teenage girls in love with older men, and the inevitable answer, regardless of who first responded to their posts, was a caution that love alone wasn't enough to build a relationship on and a suggestion that one of the best ways to test whether the connection between the two of them was real was to wait until they were 18 before pursuing anything sexual. That's advice I stand by, and also, incidently, advice I don't regret having followed in my own relationship.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Thank you for your reasoned response, ambyr.
I actually agree with everything you said. I have said the same thing to other teenage girls who were so "in love" with older men and meant it.
As I've mentioned plenty of times on this board, I don't believe in or condone premarital sex. I'm pretty conservative about it.
In the past, I have spoken out vehemently about ANY low-down dirty rotten man that would even think about being with a girl under 18. I have serious doubts that he's interested in anything but the fact that she's young and he's the corrupter. I still feel that way. Since then, though, the possibility that the relationship could be genuine has been introduced to me. Still, I would say, as you have, that waiting is the real test of love. Even that possibility is a real slight one, in my opinion.
I'm not condoning what they did--but I see no good result from prosecuting this man.
And for those who are religious...if a teenager can be held accountable by God for sexual sin, how does that relate in your mind to the age of consent? Did we choose 18 as the age of consent to protect the immature ones? Is it an arbitrary age? Is it possible that younger ones could be ready earlier? What sort of society do we live in that hyper-sexualizes our youth, but has a higher age of consent than many other countries?
-Katarain
Edit: I wrote age of accountability instead of age of consent.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
quote:What sort of society do we live in that hyper-sexualizes our youth, but has a higher age of consent than many other countries?
An inconsistent one, but that happens because we don't agree on which direction to go to fix it.
The same thing happens whenever anybody points out that marijuana, which some argue is less dangerous thatn tobacco and alchohol, is illegal while the other two don't. Some people want to legalize marijuana while others want to outlaw tobacco and/or alchohol.
There is a lot of disagreement in our country. Different people push different agendas. It's not surprising that we send out inconsistent messages -- we are inconsistent.
MPH
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I find it interesting that some people, and evidently the law, believe that someone has the power to consent to marriage before they are capable of consenting to sex. I'm not sure the laws on these matters reflect the reality of what people are and are not capable of doing. At the very least, I'd say anyone capable of consenting to marriage should be capable of consenting to sex, since the former implies the latter, in my view. Laws should reflect this, or contradictions like this case will arise.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
MPH=mr_porteiro_head??
I think what's happening here for me is that my respect for marriage is trumping my disgust of relationships between older men and girls under 18. It's a weird position to be in. What really influences me in this is the faith, perhaps undeserved, that the parents know this man and really thought that marriage to him would do less harm to their daughter than being an unwed mother and actually trusted him to do right by her and to love her. If they think it is the best thing for their daughter in this horrible situation, I am inclined to believe them--even though I know that there are parents who suck. (I just remembered that the father is absent--so replace parents with mother.)
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the law, believe that someone has the power to consent to marriage before they are capable of consenting to sex.
I don't think "the law" believes this. In states where one can marry young, one can have sex with the wife young.
But we have 50 sets of laws in this country. It would be more accurate to say "Two different jurisdictions disagree on how old someone can be to consent to marriage."
Now, some states do say that a married person of a certain age can consent to sex with her spouse, but a person of a certain age cannot consent to sex with someone not her spouse. But then, adultery is still technically illegal in many states.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
They should have stayed in Kansas. Duh.
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
quote:MPH=mr_porteiro_head??
Correct.
MPH
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
In this case, I think the marriage was a bad idea.
I do believe that 13 is too young to give informed consent to having sex. I also believe it's too young to give informed consent to being married.
Most laws regarding both sex and marriage recognise this.
If in this case, they are truly in love - I think it would have been better to let them wait. But wait without the legal binds of marriage on a THIRTEEN year old.
As to whether he should be prosecuted - I don't know.
I do know that the fact that the victim and her family don't want the charges to go ahead is not reason enough. That's up to the police and the DA (I presume - here it's the DPP) to decide.
And what if, it's not a case of true love? What if in a few years, he sleeps with (assaults) another teenage girl? Marriage doesn't mean someone who has shown deviant sexual behavior will stop that behavior.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You know, the guy's 22. I'm not sure why everyone is referring to him as a "man."
Added: I'm 24 and I still self-identify as a boy, given the choice between "boy" and "man."
Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
Notice the important word "self" in what you just said, twinky.
MPH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think that this particular male is very much a boy, especially given his actions. I'm interested by the frequent use of the term "older man" in this thread, which to me implies someone approaching or past fifty.
Note that I haven't said everyone else is wrong, merely that I'm somewhat surprised by (and interested in) the differences in labelling.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Be careful, twinky... You might be admonished for even suggesting thinking about another viewpoint...
-Katarain
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:I'm interested by the frequent use of the term "older man" in this thread, which to me implies someone approaching or past fifty.
It implies that he's older than his wife. Is there a way you would prefer to phrase it?
Since this is at least partially a legal discussion, I'm working with the legal definition of adulthood, which is 18.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Twinky, I think the "older man" is in context of the girl.
I mean, you as a 24 year old "boy" wouldn't sleep with a thirteen year old girl.
And in that context, if you did, you wouldn't be a "boy". You'd be a man, and an older man at that (than your victim), breaking the law.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree that he wasn’t acting like a “grown up.” But legally he is a grown-up and responsible for his actions. Adults also have, I believe, a responsibility to protect children. Not necessarily to go out of their way to help children, but certainly to control their own actions to avoid harming them. A 22 year old has that adult responsibility to a 13 year old, IMO.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah, that's what I figured the justification was. It makes sense, I just have a hard time applying that label to a 22-year-old (probably because of how I think of myself).
My life certainly has most of the properties of an adult's, minus debt and marriage (if those things are considered properties of an adult life; I don't think so but others might). Added: But all the same, I don't think of myself as an adult or a man.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
See, I at 23 think of myself as both a girl, a woman and an adult.
I am married, but I thought of myself as all three long before then.
And now we bought a house so I have the debt to go with it - I must be grown up. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I definitely think of myself exclusively as a "boy," or maybe a "young man" if I were to push it. I don't mean to say that I can't handle responsibility, but rather that I reserve the right to do irresponsible things (outside of work) when I see fit -- and I view being irresponsible as a privilege reserved for "boys." Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And "girls." Sexist.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Whoops. Good point. And girls! Definitely girls.
I like girls.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good to know.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I'm still irresponsible. It's just my husband gets to pick me up after a night of cocktails with the girls. Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
I think the real loser here is the state of Kansas.........13 yr olds getting married?............Anyone wanna play kick-a-hick?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
imogen: Then chances are I'd think of you as a "girl" rather than a "woman" or "adult." Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
Carefull Sticky, I think there are some Kansasians here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Now that I think about it, I think older children have a responsibility not to hurt younger children. If a thirteen-year old did something that would be likely to cause harm to a 4 year old that thirteen year old should be confronted by the appropriate authorities. Which in that case would be the parents. This 22 year old boy has graduated from his parents authority to the community authority, in the form of the law. So whether he’s a man or a boy is irrelevant, except in determining who is responsible for calling him to account.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But all the same, I don't think of myself as an adult or a man.
Wow. I've thought of myself as an adult since I was 14.
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
quote: Carefull Sticky, I think there are some Kansasians here.
Maybe they need to vote more and put and end to legal "sex with kids"!!!!!!
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
quote: Maybe they need to vote more and put and end to legal "sex with kids"!!!!!!
Maybe you should think thoroughly about the subject at hand instead of personally attacking people for things they have no control over.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Edit - to Twinky Fair enough.
In a social context, I'm still one of the girls. We have fun.
Less so since we've all started graduating and getting *real* jobs, leaving the uni lifestyle - but when we get together we have fun. My hens night was *great* fun.
In a work context, I'm a woman. I'm a great graduate, I have excellent grades and I expect to be employed as a professional woman.
In my home life, I'm an adult. I have a mortgage - with Tony. We provide for ourselves and we look after ourselves.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I find it interesting that some people, and evidently the law, believe that someone has the power to consent to marriage before they are capable of consenting to sex.
The law, even in Kansas, doesn't recognize that she has the power on her own to consent to marriage, though. She couldn't have gotten married in Kansas without parental consent.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
But she couldn't have got married without her own consent also, right?
And there is no law which allows sex if there is parental consent but would otherwise be illegal?
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
She had to agree to the marriage but I am not sure a pregnant thirteen year old is going to be very realistic in her conceptions of what a marriage entails. 13 is around 6th grade? That seems to me to be a stage where most relationships last a matter of days and love comes and goes as often as night and day.
I understand that there are trials to being a single teen mom but I don't really see how being married doesn't just open up a whole new can of worms. I have a really hard time imagining a normal balance of power in this relationship. She can't drive, is still in middle school, can't hold a job, and probably has little credibility in the adult world among his peers. Seems like a recipe for a failed marriage. I wonder if her mom simply didn't want to deal with a baby in the house and the ensuing scandal.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
13 is 8th or 9th grade.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was in 8th when I was 13.
*thinks back when she was 13* Wow... I had so many infatuations back then...and really, all throughout high school. The thought that I might've married any of them.... *shudder*
-Katarain
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Eighth grade...that was Grant. He was tall, blond, and could sing very well. I was so nervous around him, but he never noticed me at all. He was an older man - 15.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Heh.. none of my infatuations noticed me. I'm sure it was for the best, since they were so PERFECT in my mind.
-Katarain
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Really? Don't most people turn 18 in 12th, meaning 17 in 11th, 16 in 10th, 15 in 9th, 14 in 8th, 13 in 7th?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I didn't like boys in eighth grade. They were icky.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
At what point does a person become an adult (in your eyes) Twinky?
I don't know when I first started thinking of myself as an adult. I think it was around when my mother died. Probably when my mind got around the idea that no matter what I do (however small or large- such as going out and drinking) it influences those around me for good or bad. I suppose being an adult to me is accepting responsibility for your actions and shouldering responsibility without qualm. (PON, I think myself as a 'young adult' in the regard that I'm young, but an adult)
I find it surprising you don't think of yourself as an adult
*** And onto the -real- subject. I think, in this society, marriage at 13 is too young. I think this guy should have investigated into by the 'judge' who married them.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Juliette was 13
I think you may be mistaken - as far as I remember she was sixteen.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
If you turn 5 before September and start Kindergarten right after that, then you'll be 17 right before your senior year starts. You won't turn 18 until right before college.
If you turn 5 after September and start Kindergarten the next year, you'll turn 6 soon after starting. Then you'll turn 18 right after starting your senior year.
So, it varies. And some people skip grades or get held back.
-Katarain
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
A quick google search turns up this from Questia
The tender age of Juliet Capulet provides the focus of the initial conversation between Lord Capulet and Count Paris in Romeo and Juliet. She is still a child, says her father, "a straunger in the world" who "hath not seene the chaunge of fourteen yeares"; she should be at least 16, he says, before she will be ready for marriage.(1) In Shakespeare's primary source, a long narrative poem by Brooke, she is 16 (or nearly so), and in another English version he might have known, the translation of a novella by Bandello, she is almost 18, yet in both accounts she is still considered too young for marriage.(2) A very young Juliet, therefore, appears to have been Shakespeare's idea. Is it to emphasize the "charm of her girlish directness, the pathos of her passion," to amplify the drama of her progress from innocence to suicide, or merely to "apologize to the audience for the boy who played so difficult a part"?(3) As for Romeo's age, Shakespeare makes him merely a "yong" man (E3; 2.4.119), whereas Brooke describes him as so young his "tender chyn" sports no beard (54), thus perhaps 15-17, and Bandello gives his age as 20 or 21 (349).
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Even if this marriage was in the best interests of everyone involved, I would be most concerned about the precedent it sets for future relationships. It's basically saying that statutory rape is permissable if the couple plan on getting married sometime in the future, or it might force a child into a lifelong commitment of marriage regardless of whether or not the child is ready for such a commitment.
The fact that the parents approve the marriage means nothing, because there is no reason to believe that they are even decent parents.
Regarding the age of marriage in relation to examples throughout history, cultural priorities have changed drastically in the last several centuries. Just because people in a certain society hundreds of years ago got married at an early age, it doesn't mean that it's advisable in our society.
The man knew what he was doing, the consequences of his actions, and the harm that he could create. Thus, I have a hard time believing that he is genuinely concerned or in love with the girl. Subsequently, I wonder if marriage to this person would cause more benefits or more problems to the girl and the child in the future.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It seems I have a different conception of the boy/man and girl/woman distinction than most. I fully intend to avoid growing up -- that is, retain my "boy" or "young man" self-concept -- for as long as I possibly can. I don't see a conflict between being a responsible engineer in the workplace (and at home when I'm on call), being a responsible citizen (paying my taxes, casting considered votes), being a responsible planner (investing for my retirement, which I started to do five years ago; I'm financially independent and have no debt), and being irresponsible at heart. In essence, I want to retain the ability to do fun things on a whim.
Imogen, I'm more or less the same as you've described yourself, but I think of it differently. At work I'm an engineer (not a professional engineer, still need three years' experience for that). Of course, since I'm not married and live alone, my "home life" isn't exactly fraught with responsibility. As long as my monthly budget balances, I don't have much to worry about. While I can reconcile my grown-up work life with my non-grown-up real life, I think I'd have a much harder time of that if I had a family (particularly one or more children). But I presently have no interest in either of those things, so perhaps I'm safe for now.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:In essence, I want to retain the ability to do fun things on a whim.
I find the fact that you think adults can't do this sad.
Edit: Took me a minute to find this link: Being an adult Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It seems I have a different conception of the boy/man and girl/woman distinction than most
To me it's a matter of accountability as I will explain below.
quote: In essence, I want to retain the ability to do fun things on a whim.
quote:I find the fact that you think adults can't do this sad.
It's true that you can still do fun things as an adult with responsibilities, but you have, to a certain degree, less freedom when it comes to acting on a whim. Suddenly you are accountable to more than just yourself. You can't just take off and leave for the week, or pick up and move to a new town without thinking about how your family might be affected. You can't quit your job and start touring with a band without thinking about the wellfare of your family. To me, being a boy is about the carefree, independent attitude that you can't afford to have as an adult with dependents and responsibilities.
Of course, being and adult/man includes its own joys and rewards that cannot be experienced by a boy. Becoming a man isn't something that comes with age, it's something that a person enters into once his mind and heart are ready.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No boy I know has the freedom to just pick up and leave either. They're under the rule of their parents.
I don't think it's a difference between boy and adult... It's more of a difference between freedom and finances vs. responsibility and being too darn poor.
-Katarain
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
We don't know anything about the mental capacity of the 22-year-old or his life experience. I remember reading in Judith Levine's book Harmful to Minors that the majority of young adults who have sex with teens are extremely immature in comparison with people of their own age and are therefore better able to relate to someone much younger than they are. Assuming he's not a predator, then he's probably extremely immature. And if he is extremely immature, then they might well be equals, even if he can drive.
Of course, he might well be a predator, but we have nothing to base either conclusion on.
The mother presumably had more information and concluded that it was okay or at least preferable to her A) having an abortion or B) giving the baby up for adoption or C) raising the baby herself.
On the other subject, I'm twenty-five years old, and I'm sometimes amazed that the people around me don't seem to realize that I'm a kid who ought to be playing with beads in a kindergarten rather than doing filing, cashing checks, accepting payments, and so on. I'm simply appalled at the responsibilities I've been given, but it works out okay because it's like a game, and I'm good at it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Suddenly you are accountable to more than just yourself. You can't just take off and leave for the week, or pick up and move to a new town without thinking about how your family might be affected.
*raises eyebrow*
So a single person with no dependants is automatically non-adult in your eyes?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love being an adult. I love having not having to prove myself, which I think gives me the freedom to give other people room to be the star. I love that I can do any hobby I want, even the expensive ones, as long as I'm willing to sacrifice to pay for it. I love that there's nothing I have to wait until I'm older to know.
I like realizing that there is nothing I can't do given enough time, should the whimsy strike me. I can't do everything, but I can do anything. I love that I can choose my social circle, and that I can visit anyplace it is convenient and fun without worrying about making someone mad or dissapointed in me. I like all of those things, and they weren't true when I was still a kid.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
When I was, oh 21 or so, I was asked to give a guest lecture for a community college class. It was an evening class, and the college was about 3 hours away from where I lived, so the regular instructor, a Catholic priest in his late 40s, invited me to spend the night at the rectory. We got back around 9 that night, and ordered pizza. I’ll never forget the tone of glee in his voice as he said, “The best thing about being an adult is you get to order pizza whenever you want!
I count that among the great bits of spiritual wisdom I have received.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:We don't know anything about the mental capacity of the 22-year-old or his life experience. . . . Assuming he's not a predator, then he's probably extremely immature. And if he is extremely immature, then they might well be equals, even if he can drive.
But is this really an improvement? While coercion may be somewhat less of an issue, I wouldn't be particularly comfortable with the notion of two thirteen year olds having sex together, either -- and I know that at least in California, sex between two underaged individuals can be prosecuted.
If he has the maturity of a thirteen year old, that only makes me feel even more strongly that neither of the two is emotionally prepared for marriage.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Well, yes, if he's emotionally immature then he shouldn't be married, but it's not all that uncommon for people to be immature for marriage. I strongly suspect that I'm too immature for marriage, and I know that my younger brother who just turned sixteen is too immature for marriage.
And yet my younger brother is married because my father and the girl's parents decided that that was the best thing under the circumstances. I disapprove, personally, but my father is there and perhaps has more information than I do.
Or maybe he's just living in a completely different century than I am.
I'm mostly just saying that we don't automatically know that this 22-year-old is an average, normal, healthy 22-year-old.
We have good reason to suspect that he's not the socially norm, seeing as how he's involved with a 13-year-old.
But that may not mean he's a predator. His age is not the only decisive thing about him, and yet it's just about all the we know.
I'm saying that the girl may in fact be his equal in some ways, that he may not seem as if he's 22 if you met him, and it may not be so unequal a pairing however unadvised it most likely is that they be involved. I'm saying that the girl is likely immature, but she may not be so much more immature than he is, and may in fact be quite decisive that this is what she wants.
I'm just trying to propose alternate scenarios to the whole man-taking-advantage-of-girl-child scenario.
I mean for all I know it may in fact be that classic scenario, but it may not be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm just trying to propose alternate scenarios to the whole man-taking-advantage-of-girl-child scenario.
Why?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: Suddenly you are accountable to more than just yourself. You can't just take off and leave for the week, or pick up and move to a new town without thinking about how your family might be affected.
*raises eyebrow*
So a single person with no dependants is automatically non-adult in your eyes?
It's more the attitude than any specific requirements.
Not having dependents doesn't mean that you are automatically not an adult, and I didn't meant to imply that either. But having a family might suddenly change your perspective on life. I only mentioned family as an example of certain responsibilities that might influence a person's attitude.
Of course, each person is different and has different priorities and desires in life. A person can be an adult for the rest of their life, but yet be a child at heart. And at the same time, a person can feel like an adult while being a child in mind.
I guess I was only trying to say that terms like boy or man can vary in meaning depending on individual perspective.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Because it's not the only scenario I can think of, so it seems one-sided for most of us to condemn him and the girl's parents as though it were established fact that he's a predator. Plus I remembered reading in more than one place (not just the above referenced book) that guys who get involved with younger girls tend to be immature themselves.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
dkw, Katie:
quote:I love being an adult. [For the reasons enumerated.]
quote:The best thing about being an adult is you get to order pizza whenever you want!
To me, none of these things correlate with adulthood, but rather with age. In my worldview age and adulthood (actually, I use the term "grown-up" when I need to be gender-neutral in this context, not "adult," but I'll use "adult" in this post) do not have a causal relationship. I have the same freedoms and respect as you do, but that stuff doesn't affect my "boy" self-concept.
Clearly my definition of "adult" in this context differs significantly from yours. It's entirely possible that I will never think of myself as a "man," particularly if I never have children. At this point in my life I want to remain a "boy" indefinitely.
To put it more precisely, I might be an adult according to your terms, but I am certainly not a grown-up according to my terms.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Peter Pan Syndrome Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes! I meant to say, by the way, that you captured the essence of my meaning very well. Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
quote: Hmm... I had no idea my state allowed girls that young to get married.
Farmgirl
I ran into this as a principal in another place in Kansas. In this case it was a 25 year old male who married a 14 year old girl at the school I was principal in. SRS could not stop it, the school could do nothing, the parents were very approving.
The entire situation had a very "unwholesome" feel about it.
Nothing we could do. The girl had been living with this guy at the parents' home for a couple of years. They just wanted to make it legal, I guess.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Now that I think about it, I think older children have a responsibility not to hurt younger children. If a thirteen-year old did something that would be likely to cause harm to a 4 year old that thirteen year old should be confronted by the appropriate authorities. Which in that case would be the parents. This 22 year old boy has graduated from his parents authority to the community authority, in the form of the law. So whether he’s a man or a boy is irrelevant, except in determining who is responsible for calling him to account.
It might be good if we established that he is, in fact, harming her.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote:Originally posted by StickyWicket:
quote: Carefull Sticky, I think there are some Kansasians here.
Maybe they need to vote more and put and end to legal "sex with kids"!!!!!!
SW, where do you reside? Are you fully cognizant of every law in your state/province... what have you? Fess up about your location and we'll see if we can't find something about your region that begs disdain.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
The weird thing about statutory rape is that it is easier to nab the adult guys who stick around. Someone who impregnates a 13 year old and then runs off is nearly impossible to catch, and said 13 year old usually doesn't have the resources, the energy, or the wherewithal to catch him. The parents are often not much help because they are often the kind of people who allow their 13 year olds to get into situations where they could get pregnant by a much older man.
But if the guy shows up at the hospital and admits paternity, he is easy to find, you've got an admission, and often he gets arrested.
If I was the absolute monarch and had unlimited financial resources, I'd put in a system where guys who stuck around after getting a minor girl pregnant would be subject to harsh penalties, such as higher child support payments, probation that requires them to be employed, supervised visitation with the mother, and mandatory counselling before even discussing marriage. I would also have mandatory genetic testing on all infants born to minor mothers and a gene bank that was both accurate and comprehensive (and yet, magically, did not impinge on anyone's civil rights and was never used in an unlawful or unethical way) to ID the fathers so they could be prosecuted.
But... I'm getting carried away. I've seen quite a few young teen pregnancies. A lot of them were while I did legal clinics in California. This situation is sad, but it really isn't all that unique. Around where I live now, the teen pregnancy rate is 33% in some towns and many high schools provide nursery services. There is a teen parents' alternative high school in one of the cities, and much talk about building a middle school.
But it really isn't a problem confined to back woodsy states. I counseled several high schoolers who had toddlers and even small children in LA, and the fathers were all in their twenties when conception occurred.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Storm, the physical stress that sex and pregnancy puts on a 13 year old body counts as harm in my book. She and the baby are also at high risk for all sorts of complications. Even if they were in love, they could have waited until she was older to have sex.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I was not aware that there was abnormal stress associated with sex for 13 year olds such that it harmed them.
I knew about the pregnancy issues, but had forgotten. I think they pretty much go away by, what, 15? 16?
I certainly grant you that they should've waited until she was older to have sex.
I think OlavMah makes some good points.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I wonder... are there other crimes that when committed a subsequent act negates the first act as a crime?
Now, I do not know if it is in the best interest of the girl for the husband/father to remain with them. I couldn't get the link to come up and its unlikely we get a full picture anyway. The best interests have to be decided by someone who is actually there and can review all the information, not just the information the media hands out.
But that said, does anyone know the answer to my question? Are there other crimes that are negated by a subsequent act?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Well, with a lot of crimes you could do something later that makes the victim decide not to press charges, but I don't think that's really the situation you're looking for here.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Clearly my definition of "adult" in this context differs significantly from yours. It's entirely possible that I will never think of myself as a "man," particularly if I never have children. At this point in my life I want to remain a "boy" indefinitely.
Adult = A big kid who has successfully convinced himself or herself and/or others that he or she is not a big kid. (More or less)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)