Lolita love affair scandalises Italy

[Shiemi]

This is such a delicate topic. I can't say if the girl is in love or not, but I can say that at the age of 13 I was still playing with toys and absorbed in lots of novels, but that is not the reality of many young girls these days. I know that many girls now get sexually active by 11, at least here in my homeland. I think the age of consent here is 15, but not sure.

I have a friend that got pregnant at 18 by a 38 year old man and married him. They have a very nice family with three kids now. The family was a bit shocked at first, but she was an adult by certain standards and knew what she wanted.

On the other hand, I know of a father that found his 12 year old daughter with a cell phone he hadn't given to her. At night, while she slept, he checked it. It was full of sent pictures of her naked to a friend of the family, a man in his thirties. Can't say if they were in love.

My mum's friend has a niece that got pregnant at 12 by her stepfather. Both the stepfather and mother were arrested. The mother was arrested because she had known what had been happening. She had been threatened with death by her husband and she had been intimate with her daughter at gun point. The stepfather admitted it was like watching porn and he enjoyed it. The biological father was called and he signed for his daughter to get an abortion because he didn't want to see his daughter's future destroyed (this is was what he said and not necessarily my opinion.) The girl had no say in whether she wanted to keep the baby or not. Sometimes I am curious about what she would have chosen, but as a minor, it was her father's decision and not hers.

Now, as a divorced mother of two preschool girls, I wonder how I would feel if they wanted to be with older men all of a sudden right after reaching puberty, especially if they end up growing up without a father figure. I also fear remarrying because intimacy between stepfathers and stepdaughters has become quite common here in my homeland and in many places. A boyfriend can say now that he will never touch my daughters in that way, but how about when the girls start blooming? Will he fall in love with one of them as many stepfathers here have claimed saying that they fell in love with their stepdaughters and vice versa? Yes, in many cases the girls have said they are in love with their stepfathers and in one case with pregnancy involved the girl never wanted to say who the father was because she said she loved him.

In this case, in this thread, it was a strange man with no bonds whatsoever with the 13 yr old girl, but for some reason, I still see it as similar in so many ways. Maybe it's just me because I am so paranoid and stepfathers do argue that biologically speaking, there are no bonds either, which is biologically true.

If we can't help who we fall in love with and we just leave it like that, then everything should be legal and the teacher that was arrested close to the school where I work for child pornography by the FBI last year should have been allowed to love his preschool students as he did?

Maybe sometimes we choose who to love wrongly or in wrong ways, but that is just me.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Shiemi

Maybe it's just me because I am so paranoid and stepfathers do argue that biologically speaking, there are no bonds either, which is biologically true.

Genetically speaking, they'd be right. Genetics are just one area of biology, however. Biologically speaking, they're taking on the role of a father, and there is a bond in that.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Moving on...

Sorry, Raikage ... lets examine,

I'm going to suggest you read up more on human neuroscience and brain behavior - especially regarding 'visions' before you casually reach for the "schizo" card. Richard Dawkins has quite a bit to say on normal people having visions in "The God Delusion" you might find interesting. It's also irrelevant in regard to her exhibition of adult behavior. Read her biography.

This isn't archeology. We can *read* what his writings and what people thought of him -- read his biography. How are you defining "emotional maturity"?

I wrote up this whole counterpost vaguely related to propaganda/how emotions interfere with logical thought processes/how much was his decision to fight vs how much it was influence and then realized it didn't make much sense, so I deleted it.

Or at least I thought I did -- guess a couple of sentences still made its way through. Never mind.

Haven't read GW's writings, but the chronicling of a 21-year old general is getting pretty far off from the original topic of a 13 year old who thinks she's in love.

I don't know a single great general (or any military tactician) who'll support that statement. At the least, Pawns don't have "morale" or "inspiration".

Granted -- but reading a battlefield is not necessarily indicative of maturity.
Being able to fight doesn't in and of itself make you an adult.

You're trying to move the target around
They were adult by the standards of any age based on what they accomplished, wrote, and said.

Ok, this is interesting but, a young adult brain is also "different" than an elderly adult brain. The frontal lobe develops throughout life and it is constantly rewiring itself. Its a continuous evolution, not a gear shift.
Puberty itself is about the only gear shift the brain experiences during its life (ignoring pre-natal period).
No, it hasn't changed (though nutrition has improved).... but "adult" and "teen" are labels that are used to understand two overlapping curves of descriptive data.

I haven't read any of their writings, so I'll be quiet about that.

"Adult" and "teen" do overlap, but not really all that much. A 16 year old and a 21 year old are noticeably different, and a 13 year old and a 16 year old are noticeably different.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Killing in self-defense isn't always illegal. They're not "pardoned". They're found not guilty of murder.


There are no universal age restrictions, because laws aren't universal. They're local in space and time. What you say about a 21st century American means little with regards to a 13th century Chinese.

My point being, if you can say "killing someone can be justified under this scenario" does it mean that laws against killing people should be abolished?

You can (almost) always find an exception to the rule. It doesn't mean you abandon the rule.

When I meant "universal" I wasn't referring to all of space/time... but rather that it applies unilaterally to all who live within the affected area at the affected time.

If you are in the United States and are below the age of 18, you cannot vote.
This holds true no matter where in the United States you live.
So, I would call it a universal restriction (within that particular country).

And are you sure about the 13th century Chinese? It may be that with advances in science and understanding over the past 800 years, we've learned more about ourselves and can make better informed decisions.

[Anh_Minh]

I agree with the substance of your point. Heck, I brought it up. Yes, laws are made for general cases and have to be upheld.

But I don't like the way you present it. Nobody's saying one exception justifies tossing out the whole law (Except maybe the "Love is the only thing that counts" crowd. I'm not sure about them. And WanderingKnight, but, in his defense, he conditions it with what's basically "Sex with young kids should be legal, once we've ensured nobody will ever want to do it."). At best, some argue it means changing it from "A is illegal" to "A is illegal, except when B".

[WanderingKnight]

And WanderingKnight, but, in his defense, he conditions it with what's basically "Sex with young kids should be legal, once we've ensured nobody will ever want to do it."

Well, no, change that to "Sex with young kids should be legal once we've ensured the things we want to protect them from with the current restrictions won't happen"

[FatPianoBoy]

Of course, by the same logic, walking down dark alleys should be illegal because there's a good chance you'll get mugged (and possibly worse).
If the age of consent were removed, the responsibility would fall entirely to parents to protect their children from such unsavory types, which it really should be their responsibility whether they like it or not. The law would not intervene so long as the child consented, which would highlight the importance of parents' jobs to protect and raise their children themselves and inform them of various things to watch out for.

[ale_NN]

dont bullshit me, sex with -14y girls means RAPE.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

If the age of consent were removed, the responsibility would fall entirely to parents to protect their children from such unsavory types, which it really should be their responsibility whether they like it or not. The law would not intervene so long as the child consented, which would highlight the importance of parents' jobs to protect and raise their children themselves and inform them of various things to watch out for.

I read this over and didn't like it, but I couldn't figure out exactly why. I don't have the reason fully formalized, but here it is:

The law exists to protect people. If you want to say that it's a duty of the parent to ensure that their child is raised with the proper values to ensure that they don't get involved in a shady relationship, you're correct - the law isn't responsible for educating people about relationships. But to say that the parent is responsible for protecting their child from unsavory types sounds to me like you expect a parent to be policing their child's every move and communication.

I say that because while it may be possible for a parent to educate their child about being wary of others and all, there are plenty of instances where children are taken advantage of. With the rise of the internet, pedophiles have become a big deal because they can more easily disguise themselves and take advantage of children who may not initially connect the person with the type of person that their parents warned them about. Even if a parent does sufficiently warn the child, would you still blame a parent if their child didn't heed the warnings?

No matter where you put the blame, the fact is that a child's life was altered (if not damaged) by an adult who probably knew what they were doing. The reason for the law is to guard against that. It doesn't make sense to me to say that a parent should be responsible for protecting their child against the lust of other adults. Society doesn't recognize relationships of that nature to be valid, and there are plenty of other aspects to worry about.

To say that it's valid because the child is consenting isn't necessarily valid in my mind, either. As I've mentioned before, children are much more impressionable and gullible than the average adult. A child could be led to believe that this is what they want and consent, only later to realize that they were misled or manipulated. I am not saying that all children are this way, or that every adult with pedophilic tendencies is an artful manipulator. I'm merely pointing out that it may be more likely than you'd think, and it worries me.

[Anh_Minh]

I agree with the above, but I'd like to add: what if the parents are neglectful? Why should that mean the kids get no protection at all?

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I agree with the above, but I'd like to add: what if the parents are neglectful? Why should that mean the kids get no protection at all?

Then they have no business raising children and the child should become a ward of the state?

If the kid did something they regret, I'd call it a learning experience. Most of the emotional harm comes from the stink made by the adults surrounding them; I know kids who have been "traumatized" when they fell asleep on the school bus and the driver didn't notice them and drove them back to the garage. The parents made a huge ordeal out of it and even pushed for the school to test the driver for drugs, and they even made the school counselor have regular sessions with the child. Granted, that is an extreme case.
Also, "preying" on adult women with their consent is just as easy (if not easier, since you don't have to circumvent parents) if you know how to pick a target and know what buttons to push. And it comes with a much lower risk.


That last post was more of a thought experiment than an advocation, anyway.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

Then they have no business raising children and the child should become a ward of the state?

If the kid did something they regret, I'd call it a learning experience.

If a kid gets roped into marriage and having children at an early age, then that's something that they'll regret for the rest of their life and it's a learning experience that they can only pass on to others using themselves as martyrs.

Also, "preying" on adult women with their consent is just as easy (if not easier, since you don't have to circumvent parents) if you know how to pick a target and know what buttons to push. And it comes with a much lower risk.

I won't argue against it, but it is quite different. An adult woman in a situation where you don't need to get around her parents is likely (but not always) going to be an individual, capable of living life on her own. Sweeping her off her feet and making her think you're so cool or the best thing to happen to her is likely to be a bit more difficult than doing so with a child. The woman is more likely to be more experienced with people, and perhaps will have previous relationship experience.

Perhaps a more important distinction is that if you have a child with her and then try to skimp out, she'll very likely use the courts against you and force you to pay child support. I don't have any evidence to back me up on this next point, but I'd wager that a child will be less able or willing to do so. Instead, they'd go to their parents and get support from them. I say that based on examples I've seen and come across.

[Nightbat®]

Negative rep for my comment, fine
but please be man enough to leave a name so I can elaborate my POV
also: berating me for my skills of english language is even more childish, It's not my native language
and it's been 15 years since I had english in school

Thank you very much, now back to our usual programming

[mist2123]

Originally Posted by ale_NN

dont bullshit me, sex with -14y girls means RAPE.

you can't really say its rape if they weren't forced.

A young girl having sex with a middle aged man cant be called bad i mean if you look at the past 2000 year, there were younger people having sex like hell j/k

What is the problem with a young girl having sex with an old man??
Is it because society doesn't accept it or religion?? I would support the couple if they "love" and support each other but if its just for sex thats unacceptable. Why?? taking advantage of a inexperienced girl for sex is a No-no.

[Ziv]

Question:

Originally Posted by mist2123

What is the problem with a young girl having sex with an old man??

Answer:

taking advantage of a inexperienced girl for sex is a No-no.

The idea is that a child of that age is still developing mentally and emotionally and is not capable of handling a relationship of that sort. In addition, the man is in a position of power and authority just by being an adult, which is easy to exploit even if the girl doesn't realize it.

[esfir]

Originally Posted by Ziv

The idea is that a child of that age is still developing mentally and emotionally and is not capable of handling a relationship of that sort. In addition, the man is in a position of power and authority just by being an adult, which is easy to exploit even if the girl doesn't realize it.

thank you. i simply don't understand how it is that people believe that children can handle many or all of the complexities that come with being an adult. it's like people forgot what it was like to be young, as well as how difficult and confusing adolescence and puberty can be.


no matter how "progressive" people may like to be, if a 30 year-old man is in love--or thinks he is in love--with a 13 year-old girl, there is something wrong. if you are 16, it is like trying to have a deep and insightful relationship with someone who is 4; if you are 26, it is like trying to have that same kind of relationship with someone who is 9.

it's also selfish to say, "if they love each other, nothing and no one else matters." what about the families? what about any children that may be born from a relationship like this? can a 13 year-old girl really properly handle raising a baby, when she is only a child herself? and i am not a parent myself, but if i had a 13 year-old daughter who ran off with a 30 year-old man, i would be devastated. people should not be so dismissive of the people in their lives who love them or who they have come to love. i am not saying one should live entirely for ones family, but the feelings of your family should definitely be a factor when you are making a major life decision.

[Gemstar]

You know if one day this happens to you I hope you remember all the post you posted against the poor old man. I bet if he could read all of this he would hate you guys. I think what you people need to do is put yourselves in his shoes and try to see things from his point of view...

It's a pity really

[Amray]

I suppose he does have the upper hand in all this, having a young, clean youth as his Girl friend.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by Gemstar

You know if one day this happens to you I hope you remember all the post you posted against the poor old man. I bet if he could read all of this he would hate you guys. I think what you people need to do is put yourselves in his shoes and try to see things from his point of view...

It's a pity really

I disagree, though. In my point of view, there aren't many reasons for respecting adults beside their rationalities for making choices, and their responsibilities. Whether he thought doing it to that young girl was right or not, I see no reason for him to be not responsible enough to just wait awhile more. Of course, certain circumstances do arise and an article can't provide enough details, but judging from the discussion, he simply gave in to the young girl's seduction, which is also that girl's fault. Therefore, in my opinion, it's not about whether the act discussed in the article was right or not (since honestly, no one really knows), but it's all about his stance in it. In the end however, I don't see how the man should be the only one to blame; the young girl should take some of the blame as well, although it should be considerably less harsh.