Romantic Feelings for older people

Would I be opposed to seeing, say, a 17-year-old girl simply because she was too young? Depends on life experience. Can she cope with dealing with someone who does actually have a history and emotional baggage (that's me, incidentally)? If yes, then you never know. If no, then no thanks, come back when you've seen some life.

This is something a 16-year-old from church doesn't seem to get. She's a nice enough lass, but A) 6-year age gap at 16 and 22 and B) she's not quite seeing the magnitude of what a relationship can be. It's damn hard work sometimes, and she's got this idea of sweetness and light and everything being easy in her head. She's also in that teen angst mode. And C) I'm not actually interested (developments with someone from uni - who's ever so slightly older than me - and isn't married! Hurrah!).

Something suggested as a rule of thumb is half own age plus seven for younger (so for me 22/2 = 11, 11+7=18). Not actually a bad rule to follow.

 

Oh you'd be surprised about the crazy stuff in America. A 10 year old was put on the sex offenders list for distributing child porn. Another young girl same age sent him a sexy text. Bam. Teachers found out.

Me dating and even being with the 15 year old was breaking the law at eighteen. If anyone found out the sexy stuff we did. Child porn. Sex offender.

It's ridiculous really.

 

The rule is usually specifically that the woman should be half of the man's age plus seven (not sure how it works for gay and lesbian relationships). It certainly works in terms of the approximate age I am most attracted to, but it has the difficulties that a) it implies changing partner every two years, and b) changing partner every two years is only possible if there is an oversupply of younger women or an undersupply of older men, which there isn't. (By the time women's longer life expectancy kicks in, the men would have to be way over 100.)

 

I can understand "the sexy stuff" being illegal, but being with? Seriously?

 

Mhm

I'm a pedophile in that case because I am with a minor. And that doesn't just account for kids 6.

If you are an adult with a minor, no matter the age. If the law states you are a minor then you are considered a child. Thus I as the adult would be classified as a sex offender and/ a pedophile.

Mind you I knew the girl when I was seventeen it seemed entirely unfair to quit the relationship because I turned eighteen. At the time and of what I remember.

 

Is "with" a euphemism here? Or is it actually an offence where you are for an adult and a minor to be in the same place (unaccompanied, I assume)?

 

Where I use to live in America it was an offense. A legal offense.

 

The police usually dismiss cases like that when it's between teenagers. It's not anti-social and part of natural curiosity.

 

ahahahaa

They put a 10 year old on the sex offenders list. They have done some other funky things too. A 10 year old labeled for life as a sex offender because him and a 10 year old girl were exploring themselves.

I have seen some crazy things Lemex and have heard of some crazier things.

 

Even in this country a man was disqualified from becoming a teacher... because he had a conviction for having sex with an underage girl (15) when he was the same age!

 

That was maybe because he was in a separate position. Police officers - or at least the ones I know - don't care when it's in private between teenagers of 15 to 17. I've been told this anyway.

 

But notice 15 to17


Nowhere does that say 18.

 

That's not quote, you'll notice. I was paraphrasing what my friend in Northumbria Police told me once in a pub.

 

Well still I'm just saying from my experience. I'm really tired right now so my thoughts aren't all there. That and my memory is fuzzy on the subject to begin with. Things come to be in blocks fuzzy little blocks of information. That kind of make sense.

 

Notice that he was posting from England, where the age of consent is 16.

The UK guidelines for prosecutors specifically states "it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament." If the prosecutor doesn't take that into account then the prosecution can be thrown out by a judicial review.

That doesn't mean that children of similar age don't get prosecuted for consensual sexual activity, but it means they needed better lawyers.

 

...you're not a sex offender for being eighteen and dating a seventeen year old. You're just not. In all but a handful of states the age of consent (or the age where statutory rape becomes a misdemeanor) is below eighteen. I also don't think there's a state where you can legally have sex with a person (say, 17 and 15) but lose that right when you hit a certain age (18 and 16).

 

Well I was 18 with a 15 year old. Completely different case.

 

Just for the record, attraction to a "minor" does not make someone a pedophile. A pedophile is attracted to a pre-pubescent individual. People throw the term around to apply to a 19 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend, but it is not accurate at all. It wouldn't even apply to a 50 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend (assuming she isn't extremely late going through puberty). Pedophiles are attracted to individuals who have not gone through puberty and have not developed secondary sexual characteristics.

 

Then we are all pedophiles.

Cause a woman shaving her legs or shaving her vagina and her pits all express a pre-pubescent individual.

Just saying.

 

That's a pretty ridiculous comment. What about breasts? The figure and shape of the body that show a woman post-puberty?

 

No. It isn't a ridiculous statement. No hair symbolizes pre-prepubescents. But I am going to stop here. Because I am tired and don't want to get into another thing.

 

No. As Lemex points out, there is a big difference between this and attraction to a pre-pubescent individual.

 

I didn't see him pointing out a difference.

As I was stating hairlessness is a sign of prepubescents. Whether or not she has breast is not the point.

 

You pointed to one feature, removal of hair, as an argument that "we are all pedophiles." A silly argument. It ignores the other features entirely, as well as assuming that "all" males prefer one to the other.

I can't speak for you - if that sort of thing gives you visions of prepubescent girls, then so be it - but to my mind the mere removal of hair does nothing of the sort, and I do not believe that for most normal males removal of hair makes women a proxy for some kind of desire for a prepubescent child.

And with that, I'll move on.

 

I just need to quote myself:

These are differences, I'm sure you'll agree.