by GrownMidget 61 Replies latest jw experiences
Really, a lot of this is hypothetical and just stating no brainers.
If a girl is under 16 then of course something is wrong but not necessarily criminally so. If 16 or over then the degree to which it's wrong may depend on personal opinion and depends so much on the people involved.
A very immature 17 year old is different to a very mature 17 year old. Joan of Arc was given command of the entire French army at 17.
Joan of Arc was given command of the entire French army at 17.
Exactly.
Joan of Arc was given command of the entire French army at 17.
Yea but it was only the French army. LOL
This is a fascinating, if at times uncomfortable, subject of discussion. I come at it from the position of being a retired cop who dealt with more than enough abuse cases and as the father of a daughter who was raped at 17.
Legislation is confused and contradictory. In some Middle East countries, child marriage is acceptable. But even in more 'civiliised' countries there are huge issues. My understanding is that the minimum age for marriage in NH, USA is 13 but the federal age for buying alcohol is 21.
Here in UK, the age of consent (and marriage with parental/court consent - except in Scotland where that consent is not required) is 16 - unless the 'other party' is a teacher or some other person in authority in which case the age of consent is 18. Yet in the recent Independence referendum, 16 year olds were given the vote, and there is a move to lower the voting age to 16.. You can't drive a car until you're 17.
The age of consent varies across Europe. This summer I was in Andorra, which straddles the Pyrenees between France and Spain. The border is largely unmarked. If I was camping, a few yards either side of the border may have made the difference between legality and paedophilia.
And it gets more crazy. Suppose there is a British soldier serving overseas. He is 19. His wife (17) sends him a nude photo of herself by email to cheer him up. Legally, she is guilty of making and distributing an indecent image of a child (legal definition 18) and he is guilty of possessing it. Or, a 17 year old boy and girl exchange images of themselves legally having sex. Both could be guilty of making/sharing/possessing indecent images of children - even if they are married.
Thinking further. What about a married couple, both 17, (and their baby) choose to holiday somewhere where the age of consent is 18?
No rational or reasonable person would seek to condone child abuse or exploitation. But just thinking this issue through could cause the brain to explode - especially given (as I understand it) that highest hormone/fertility levels tend to be at a lower age than most societies accept.
A minefield, I think.
Joan of Arc was given command of the entire French army at 17.
Yea but it was only the French army. LOL
No rational or reasonable person would seek to condone child abuse or exploitation. But just thinking this issue through could cause the brain to explode - especially given (as I understand it) that highest hormone/fertility levels tend to be at a lower age than most societies accept.
I agree, I don't think the notion that a 16/17/18 year old's proper relationship is any way comparable to child abuse. If your definition drags in many obviously innocent people then you are casting the net too wide and it's not really helpful.
What is needed is thoughtful legislation - the example of the age of consent having a clause for people in authority over the child is an example of someone doing a good job to balance protection and freedoms.
When couples private correspondence classes them as violating child porn laws when they clearly haven't then it's a sign that the laws didn't think everything through - as well as focusing on who you want a law to apply to you need to consider who you don't want it to apply to and draft it accordingly.
Often, teenage couples engage in sexual conduct as part of an intimate relationship. (According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the year 2007, 35% of US high school students were currently sexually active and 47.8% of US high school students reported having had sexual intercourse.[1])This may occur before either participant has reached the age of consent, or after one has but the other has not. In the latter case, in most jurisdictions, the person who has reached the age of consent is guilty of statutory rape. In some jurisdictions (such as California), if two minors have sex with each other, they are both guilty of engaging in unlawful sex with the other person.[13][14] The act itself is prima facieevidence of guilt when one participant is incapable of legally consenting.
Some jurisdictions have passed so-called "Romeo and Juliet laws," which serve to reduce or eliminate the penalty of the crime in cases where the couple's age difference is minor and the sexual contact would not have been rape if both partners were legally able to give consent. Such laws vary, but can include:
Such laws generally apply to a couple whose ages differ by less than a specified number of years. They are, however, generally unavailable in any case where the older participant has an authoritative position over the younger regardless of relative age, such as a teacher/student, coach/player or guardian/ward relationship, or if any physical force was used or serious physical injury resulted. This is normally accomplished by making acts involving these circumstances separate crimes to which the "Romeo and Juliet" defense does not apply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet_laws#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws
Simon Excellent post, absolutely spot on and think this sounds very much like the situation you describe and pretty typical behaviour for socially inept young JW kids
Vivian, orphan crow etc AGE BOY 20 GIRL 16 for gods sake this pretty open, honest, vulnerable guy is reading your crap, perhaps just perhaps is it POSSIBle you are over reacting just a teensy bit???
He is now happily married to an OLDER women, does that clue you up a bit?
"it's a sign that the laws didn't think everything through - as well as focusing on who you want a law to apply to you need to consider who you don't want it to apply to and draft it accordingly"
And therein lies the problem. The law is a clumsy thing. That;s why almost any statute law is amended and defined by years of case law (i.e. courts' definitions). Statute law is made by parliamentarians, sometimes in response to events and often with a view to populist reaction and possible re-election. Sadly, IME, laws are often ill-conceived and not thought through.
I don't know what the answer is - I just raise the problems.
I remember conversations I had with my son when he was 18ish and heading out for a night on the town. Clubs door control should, of course, have ensured that all patrons were 18 (haha!). I explained to him that in theory if he met a girl celebrating her 16th birthday the course of his life could be altered depending on what took place before, and what took place after, midnight.
Bringing this back to JWs - would a 21 yearold MS/elder be considered to be in a 'position of authority' over a naieve 17 yearold 'sister', I wonder? Arguments for and against, I suppose.
Just out of interest most of the youngsters I know are sexually active for the first time between 14 and 17. Quite a few of my friends daughters went on the pill at 14 or 15, with parental consent sensibly BEFORE first contact.
They are all, to a women, childless unmarried in their mid twenties ex university graduates in professional jobs very very balanced with good relationships with their parents and either happily single or in good relationships. We messed up repressed religious older generation had kids too young, messed up going to college because of it, have lots of issues including drink bad relationships etc and very poor or non existent relationships with our parents. No contest who are the most balanced and happy generation.
